Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
12-05-2018, 19:23   #46
Sand
Registered User
 
Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancapailldorcha View Post
Fewer people wouldn't be a bad thing so long as it happens in a sustainable manner, an idea which seems like a fantasy today sadly.
I agree to the extent that Europe is a small minority of the worlds population (15%) and the vast majority of the growth is going to occur outside Europe. So a unilateral effort is not going to be effective. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in the idea that less children are good, but we must have more immigrants to keep up consumption. It adds up to more pollution no matter if its old Europeans or new Europeans doing the polluting.

Once it is accepted that Europe needs to re-evaluate how social welfare is implemented and funded, a declining European population is not actually a terrible thing. It frees up infrastructure which is creaking under the strain in many countries, brings good housing back into reach of more people as demand declines, and as automation reduces jobs it provides some relief if there is less people seeking them.

Quote:
I'm not so sure that it would. The US is... exceptional. Europeans on the other hand seem to have little to no problem for the most part with their elected officials managing things and involving themselves in various problems.
But the same problems are emerging in Europe, as Europe begins the same journey the US began back in the 1960s. If anything, its already worse. Armed soldiers patrol the streets of European capitals. Ethnic ghettos have emerged and continue to grow as indigenous Europeans flee the benefits of diversity: London was an English city for at least 1000 years, and now English people are a minority in their own capital in just 70 years. Every medium sized UK town seems to have it's own Pakistani rape gang who are racially targeting their victims. More British Muslims signed up to fight for ISIS 2,500 miles from "home" than were serving in the British Army at the same time. European cities have to invest in putting up vehicle barriers [aka Allahu Akbarriers] around public spaces because new Europeans ramming through a crowd in a truck is a thing now. We're already seeing the emergence of racial voting blocs. Suicide bombings are now a persistent threat to children attending pop concerts.

All the warning signs are flashing amber and red. There is no indication Europeans are any better equipped to handle the problems of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Quote:
Look, we both know that there have been some problems. Ultimately, I think that the EU or the nations of Europe need to come up with some sort of agreement on how to manage migration. I think some migration is a good thing but it needs to be managed. Immigrants could be encouraged to settle in areas suffering from high levels of emigration for example. They can also do jobs that local people might not be too keen on doing.

But it needs to be managed. Closed off, isolated and impoverished communities or ghettoes do noone any favours, not the government, not the state providers of services and not the residents of the affected areas either.
Well, we are getting, and will continue to get closed off and isolated communities. Because the indigenous people flee diversity, and the new arrivals are not so keen on it either. The each congregate around others of their own ethnicity, and ghettos develop. This is natural human behaviour and has emerged in every scenario where diversity occurs.

It's especially going to happen if we view immigrants as the people who are going to do the jobs we don't want to do. That implies a lower caste status right from the off.

I think I should stress, I've no issue with immigration as such. I am careful to reference mass immigration as the problem. Mass immigration creates rapid demographic change. Rapid demographic change causes strife, division and in the worst occurrences outright war. What Europe has been going through in the last few decades is not normal: it is abnormally high levels of mass migration, causing demographic changes, leading to strife and division. The UK has been importing hundreds of thousands of people every single year for the last 20 years. It is unprecedented. That sort of pressure on a society leads to revolutions like Brexit.

I cannot see why anyone would look at the evidence of the past 70 years and think more of the same is going to lead to a happy outcome for Europeans.
Sand is offline  
Advertisement
12-05-2018, 19:43   #47
Sand
Registered User
 
Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarBravo View Post
You ask a simplistic question as if it had a simplistic answer.

Sure, division and turmoil can follow from migration. But that leads in turn to a swathe of other questions: why do they follow? Is turmoil an inevitable and inherent aspect of migration, or is it an indirect consequence because of people's reaction to migration? If the latter, why must the answer be to restrict migration, rather than to persuade people not to react so negatively to it? And even if we accept that some people are physically incapable of not reacting negatively to migration, does that mean that we should just meekly accept those people's reaction, and not bother fully analysing the pros and cons of migration?
You're presenting a subjective view of the issue against my own objective view. It's a bad policy, so it shouldn't be enacted. Claiming its a bad policy only because people react negatively to a bad policy doesn't change that they do and it is. The first duty of any government is prudence. Europeans were handed down their countries by their forefathers, and they owe it to their children not to invite in unnecessary problems merely for the sake of an experiment or virtue signalling.

I could equally say inequality is not a bad outcome, its just people react badly to inequality. Should we meekly accept their reaction, or not both fully analysing the pros and cons of inequality?

Quote:
The answer to the second question - "what is to be gained?" - depends on your perspective. If your perspective is that of a migrant, the answer is an improved quality of life. If your perspective is that of an existing resident of Europe, well, it's pretty much the same answer - unless you define your quality of life by whether or not you're living in perfect cultural homogeneity.
Seeing as both indigenous Europeans and migrants do everything they can to separate from each other, cultural homogeneity is something they do seem to value over diversity.

I don't think you can say the indigenous Europeans have benefited from mass immigration. The English communities which used to exist in London and no longer do didn't. The Europeans who have to pay higher taxes to fund the social welfare for migrant communities who have persisting unemployment don't benefit. And I don't think the English girls who were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight if they didn't submit to gang rape benefited from diversity either.

On the plus side, there are some cultural and artistic treasures such as 'Mans not hot'. So swings and roundabouts.

Quote:
But the worst aspect of your question is the inherent false dichotomy it contains. The very phrasing of the question implies a simple choice: either we allow migration, which is bad, or we prevent migration, which is good. With all due respect, I reject your premise.
I didn't reference migration actually. I asked why you would want to recreate the racial strife and division in Europe.

As I mentioned in my last post I try to reference mass immigration as the problem, not immigration. Zero immigration is completely unrealistic given necessity for trade, study, diplomacy, marriage etc. But the last 50-70 years are not normal. It is unprecedented mass immigration, and it is clearly bad and we should prevent it.

Quote:
If you're concerned about migration causing division and turmoil, maybe you should be asking why some people are determined to respond to migration with division and turmoil?
As above, it doesn't matter *why* they are, any more than it matters why fire is hot. They are, it is. Mass immigration is a bad policy. Sticking your hand in fire is bad policy.
Sand is offline  
(2) thanks from:
12-05-2018, 19:48   #48
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,476
The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.
Mutant z is offline  
Thanks from:
12-05-2018, 19:51   #49
ancapailldorcha
Order! Order!
 
ancapailldorcha's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
I agree to the extent that Europe is a small minority of the worlds population (15%) and the vast majority of the growth is going to occur outside Europe. So a unilateral effort is not going to be effective. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in the idea that less children are good, but we must have more immigrants to keep up consumption. It adds up to more pollution no matter if its old Europeans or new Europeans doing the polluting.

Once it is accepted that Europe needs to re-evaluate how social welfare is implemented and funded, a declining European population is not actually a terrible thing. It frees up infrastructure which is creaking under the strain in many countries, brings good housing back into reach of more people as demand declines, and as automation reduces jobs it provides some relief if there is less people seeking them.
Older voters aren't going to tolerate any erosion of their benefits and, as I said we need a certain amount of healthy taxpayers to fund their pensions and other benefits. An overall population decline done in a sustainable manner could be a good thing but I don't see it happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
But the same problems are emerging in Europe, as Europe begins the same journey the US began back in the 1960s. If anything, its already worse. Armed soldiers patrol the streets of European capitals. Ethnic ghettos have emerged and continue to grow as indigenous Europeans flee the benefits of diversity: London was an English city for at least 1000 years, and now English people are a minority in their own capital in just 70 years. Every medium sized UK town seems to have it's own Pakistani rape gang who are racially targeting their victims. More British Muslims signed up to fight for ISIS 2,500 miles from "home" than were serving in the British Army at the same time. European cities have to invest in putting up vehicle barriers [aka Allahu Akbarriers] around public spaces because new Europeans ramming through a crowd in a truck is a thing now. We're already seeing the emergence of racial voting blocs. Suicide bombings are now a persistent threat to children attending pop concerts.

All the warning signs are flashing amber and red. There is no indication Europeans are any better equipped to handle the problems of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Where are the Europeans fleeing and to where do they seek refuge? I have been living in London for well over a year and a half now and haven't seen a single armed soldier. Not a one and I work in the centre of the city.

Now, you say English people are a minority. Do you mean white English people or is it that non-white English people are not actually English?

Regarding your claim of Muslims heading off to fight for IS, how many didn't? Considering that the UK has millions of Muslims, almost all of whom did not leave to fight for IS, I am not sure why you are citing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Well, we are getting, and will continue to get closed off and isolated communities. Because the indigenous people flee diversity, and the new arrivals are not so keen on it either. The each congregate around others of their own ethnicity, and ghettos develop. This is natural human behaviour and has emerged in every scenario where diversity occurs.

It's especially going to happen if we view immigrants as the people who are going to do the jobs we don't want to do. That implies a lower caste status right from the off.

I think I should stress, I've no issue with immigration as such. I am careful to reference mass immigration as the problem. Mass immigration creates rapid demographic change. Rapid demographic change causes strife, division and in the worst occurrences outright war. What Europe has been going through in the last few decades is not normal: it is abnormally high levels of mass migration, causing demographic changes, leading to strife and division. The UK has been importing hundreds of thousands of people every single year for the last 20 years. It is unprecedented. That sort of pressure on a society leads to revolutions like Brexit.

I cannot see why anyone would look at the evidence of the past 70 years and think more of the same is going to lead to a happy outcome for Europeans.
Again, you're looking at it entirely through the prism of immigration. On Brexit, there are swathes of people across the UK who grew up in households where their Dad worked while Mum stayed at home. Now, those people work zero-hour contracts and living in houseshares. Stagnant wages along with protectionist housing policies have done more to stoke resentment in my opinion not forgetting biting austerity and the slashing of local services begun by the coalition government of 2010-2015. As you say, the UK has been importing people for a long time. Why has Brexit only just happened when UKIP has existed since 1993? My answer is that it is a perfect storm of austerity, stagnant wages, economic inequality, a skewed jobs market awash with McJobs and zero hour contracts, a lack of security, and problems both real and perceived with immigration.
ancapailldorcha is online now  
12-05-2018, 19:53   #50
Sand
Registered User
 
Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyCheeses View Post
Fine, we'll just use your sources
Okay, glad we could move past this.

Quote:
Please don't associate pedophilia as a white people thing. That was the whole scandal around Roy Moore, he was accused of going after teenage girls.

Racially divided politics is nothing new in the US, it was even a strategy by the republican parties. White people trying to attract racist white voters, the minorities did nothing wrong except exist. I'm guess you are also against parties like UKIP, VVD, NF? Parties who aim to attract the natives against the minorities.
Uh, I never mentioned paedophilia. You referenced the defeat of Roy Moore as being a triumph for black people. I.E. racial politics.

Quote:
It's hard to seriously engage with the issue when if we assume there is an issue all I am met with is blank stares in how to deal with it.

I asked what the options were, you or nobody else answered.
You're asking what the solution is for the USA. I'm telling you, there is no solution in 2018 bar building a time machine and stopping the 1965 immigration act. Racial division is the present and the future of the USA. You cannot do anything to solve that.

What you're missing is I only referenced the US to show how demographics can rapidly shift in just two generations. The problem that can be solved is Europe. And the solution there is two fold: A) End mass immigration into Europe. B) Examine and address the causes of Europeans failing to have children.

Quote:
Muslims aren't here for economic reasons? I'm sure you are busy correcting anyone who uses the term "economic migrants".

There are twice as many Poles as Muslims in Ireland so I guess we're fine here.
Polish people can be assimilated. Lapsed Catholics who have issues with alcohol will fit in just fine in Ireland. Migration from within a region is much easier to handle than migration from outside a region.

White South Africans have been present in the cape for centuries, but they haven't been assimilated by the local Africans, and they never will be.
Sand is offline  
Advertisement
12-05-2018, 21:14   #51
Sand
Registered User
 
Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by sink View Post
It's an interesting conversation with good arguments on both sides, I just think it's not seeing the forest for the trees. There is a greater force at play here that is causing this rapid shift in demographics and culture. It is a force of nature which is irrepressible and makes trying conserve present day culture or ethnicity by way of government policy, a hopelessly futile task; one which will most likely lead to more harm than good.
Well, lets look at China. A country which in the early 20th century was the plaything of various imperialistic powers, both European and Asian. It is now plugged into the global economy and indeed a huge engine of the global economy. It remains 92% Han, down from 93% in the 1950s. Economic, political and even cultural change does not require demographic change.

Quote:
The rate of change in society for the past century has led to a situation today where a late 20 something person living in Dublin today has more culturally in common with a person from Shenzhen, China than they do with their own great grandparents at the same age. They both likely have completed second/third level education and work jobs in service or manufacturing sectors. Commuting to work everyday by car or public transport, shopping in a supermarket, internet dating, fiddling with the same smartphones, listening to similar pop music, watching the same/similar movies, playing the same video games. Contrast that to the differences between them and their own great grandparents less than a century ago.
I will disagree with you there. Your 20 something Dubliner would be able to converse with their great grandparent. If the same Dubliner was to bump into his cultural cousin in Shenzhen, for all their cultural similarity they would be reduced to pointing and drawing pictures to discuss their deep shared cultural heritage. And what shared culture would they be discussing anyway? Their shared love of the consumer products of Apple Corporation? On this rock they will build their church?

When we talk about culture, I think I can show you what shared culture is. Look at this video, "Becoming Men".

It's contemporary footage of young Dubliners today playing in the canals and rivers of Dublin. It is overlaid with an old man talking about the Dublin of his youth and how he and his friends played 50-60 years before. The beauty of the film is how the old man's account describes the activities of his grandchildren. That is a shared culture. It is not unchanged, but that man and his grandson could actually recognise each other as being connected in a way beyond simply customers of the same corporation.

Quote:
Social attitudes are also progressing globally along the same curve, with greater tolerances for religious, sexual, racial and gender equality pretty much universally with localised exceptions mainly due to conflicts (conflicts themselves are decreasing in quantity and severity). Even in countries like Saudi Arabia which are far behind, are still progressing albeit at a slower pace, but with great potential for rapid acceleration.
I think the hope for linear progression to a global convergence of morality and values is a bit naive. I cant recall the exact quote (I think it might be connected to Napoleon being in Egypt), but there was a famous Enlightenment philosopher who like yourself excitedly described the great awakening of progressive values in the Islamic world and predicted they would quickly join the Enlightenment. 220 years later ISIS is still cutting peoples heads off for insulting the Prophet.

Quote:
The rub is that the rate of change means that ethnicity and culture cannot be conserved or controlled so arguing about whether it's desirable is entirely academic. The best we can do is preserve records and artefacts so that future generations can understand us and where they came from.
As above, it can of course be controlled. China has controlled it whilst benefiting immensely from globalisation. Ethnicity has survived where monarchies, ideals and even states have fallen. Look at Poland. The state of Poland disappeared in the late 18th century, but the Polish people didn't and the state re-emerged. More recently, look at the Germans. Divided between idealogical camps, a front line in the cold war but East Germans felt a shared kinship with West Germans, over and beyond that shared with the ideological comrades in the USSR. Ethnicity has outlasted philosophies.

Why skate uphill?

Last edited by Sand; 12-05-2018 at 21:18.
Sand is offline  
(4) thanks from:
12-05-2018, 21:50   #52
fash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 677
I would just like to say that I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of posting and the mutual respect from everyone on the thread - perhaps I shouldn’t be.

Personally I think the jury is out on Sunni Muslim migration in particular - the problem is that they (surprisingly) actually believe in their religion, which seems to have been unexpected when they were brought in.
fash is offline  
12-05-2018, 22:08   #53
Sand
Registered User
 
Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancapailldorcha View Post
Where are the Europeans fleeing and to where do they seek refuge?
They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.

Quote:
I have been living in London for well over a year and a half now and haven't seen a single armed soldier. Not a one and I work in the centre of the city.
I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.

Quote:
Now, you say English people are a minority. Do you mean white English people or is it that non-white English people are not actually English?
That's a difficult question actually. You could discuss this for quite a while and never reach a simple answer. English is a nationality which has existed at least back to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. There are no English passports, and for all it matters there is no English state. But it still exists. It predates the UK and it will likely outlast the UK. UK/Britain is a state, it issues passports. The new inhabitants of London do hold them and are unarguably British citizens. So while London might arguably be just as British as it was in the time of Mary Poppins, I don't think you can say it is just as English.

The odd thing is, British nationalists would likely disagree with me. Britain is a multi-national identity. English, Scottish, Welsh and to some extent at least Irish. Part of British nationalism (which is an oxymoron in my view) would insist anyone can be British, and everyone in the current territory was always British. They just didn't know it yet. This viewpoint feeds into the "global Britain" Brexit we're currently seeing.

Quote:
Regarding your claim of Muslims heading off to fight for IS, how many didn't? Considering that the UK has millions of Muslims, almost all of whom did not leave to fight for IS, I am not sure why you are citing this.
I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.

Quote:
Again, you're looking at it entirely through the prism of immigration. On Brexit, there are swathes of people across the UK who grew up in households where their Dad worked while Mum stayed at home. Now, those people work zero-hour contracts and living in houseshares. Stagnant wages along with protectionist housing policies have done more to stoke resentment in my opinion not forgetting biting austerity and the slashing of local services begun by the coalition government of 2010-2015. As you say, the UK has been importing people for a long time. Why has Brexit only just happened when UKIP has existed since 1993? My answer is that it is a perfect storm of austerity, stagnant wages, economic inequality, a skewed jobs market awash with McJobs and zero hour contracts, a lack of security, and problems both real and perceived with immigration.
Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.

Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.

The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.

Last edited by Sand; 12-05-2018 at 22:14.
Sand is offline  
12-05-2018, 23:47   #54
ancapailldorcha
Order! Order!
 
ancapailldorcha's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
They flee from diverse areas and seek refuge in homogeneous areas. The concept of white flight is well established. And its not one sided, the new arrivals congregate on areas where they will find their cultural kin.
Indeed it is but it only applies to some white people. Some move, some don't. If you're a foreigner moving abroad and you know of people of the same nationality then you're going to find it convenient to be near those people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
I visit London from time to time for work, specifically Canary Wharf and I notice the much tougher security and vehicle barriers in those areas than exists in similar institutions in Dublin.

In London there have been armed soldiers. In France, Opération Sentinelle is the single biggest task of the French Army and deploying 10,000 soldiers is hugely affecting what is a small army with an immense number of tasks and demands placed on it. You might not have seen them, but they are there.
Fair enough. It has been some time since the last terrorist attacks in London and Paris so maybe the military presence is more subtle now or it's being scaled down. I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
I'm citing it because it demonstrates the division: English people fight for the British army and British interests. The British army is built on working class English people. The idea that English people would be more attracted to travelling 2,500 miles to fight for a force that is hostile to England, over fighting for the British army? Its unthinkable. But the situation is reversed for the British Muslims. It seems more palatable to fight for a "foreign" force than to fight for the British Army.

That this is strange or odd of course presumes that British Muslims and English people are one and the same and interchangeable. I cite this because it demonstrates how different they are.
I don't think it does. This link from 2017 gives 850 as the total number of people who have joined ISIS. Given that there are millions of Muslims in the UK this is a very low number though I do have to admit that it is higher than the number of Muslims in the armed forces (480 according to this)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Not entirely. I think I've been clear that Europeans failing to have children is a sign of deep problems in the last 50-70 years of European policy. Those problems would exist with or without migration. There are huge pressures on Europeans and if anything immigration is cited as a solution, so its a response in many ways rather than the precursor.
Immigration needs to be managed with investment in services and the allocation of resources which is anathema to the decades of laissez-faire government that the British elecroate has consistently voted for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Brexit is clearly a result of deep problems but the English are uniquely obsessed with the EU and the perceived loss of their identity. Brexit was driven by the English and English identity over and beyond British identity. 'The Lure of Greatness' book cites surveys which demonstrates that the English are standouts in believing the EU holds far more power than it actually does: the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish align with the European norm. But for the English the EU is a terrible threat. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are largely exposed to the same media, so the undoubtedly toxic British media isnt a total explanation.

England is unduly exposed to the benefits of diversity and the strains on infrastructure, housing and so on. They are seeing their towns become non-English. They are seeing their capital become non-English. They are seeing their government become non-English. Whats more, the new immigrants are hostile to British heritage, which is denounced as racism, imperialism, colonialism.
Except that the areas which voted for Leave tended to exhibit the lowest levels of immigraiton. From The Economist:



This suggests that it wasn't a loss of English culture and identity which fuelled the Leave vote but a perceived loss of said culture and identity. I don't know exactly what is behind it. I've mentioned economics before. However, many bastions of collectivism have collapsed such as organised religion, trade unions, workers clubs (Saw one in Battle. Had no idea they even existed), etc. Today's people seem to be much more focused on the individual which is good in a liberal sense but bad in that these social outlets have largely disappeared. Social media and the internet are also likely to be playing a part in this.

You say that new immigrants are hostile to British heritage but I disagree. I'm not seeing much in the way of hostility from most immigrants. If anyone is hostile to British heritage, it's modern University students but that's a discussion for somewhere else methinks.

The English identity is evolving. The result of this is that some people will feel left behind. Traditional policies of leaving them to it have been proven to foment festering pits of resentment which have allowed for the rise of UKIP/Trump and put the UK in a position where its own politicians are undermining checks and balances on government power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
The Lure of Greatness presents a very convincing argument that a revolt against neoliberalism - the idea of competition in itself being a good thing - is underpinning Brexit and indeed Trump. The idea of competition as a good has been extended to demographics. You see traces of it here in some posters. If Americans lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. If English people lose out to new immigrants, they deserve to lose. There is a race to the bottom, to the zero hour contracts which English people must take or else new immigrants will be brought in to "do the jobs English people wont do".

I don't think you can divide the problem and put economic pressures in one bucket and immigration into the other bucket. It is the same pressure on the indigenous European population. Out-compete the third world, or the third world will come to Europe to do it for you.

Brexit is an ugly, wrong, stupid response. The problem is not the EU. If anything, the EU is protectionist. It is the British government which has endorsed this, and the British government which has driven a globalist stance at the EU. But the grievances behind Brexit are very real and very understandable. The absolute tragedy is that those grievances are being co-opted by slime like JRM to further the transition of the UK from a country to Airstrip One.
I'm old enough to remember the time when the right-wing tabloids had their sights trained firmly on the working and welfare classes. If you were poor, you were told to get a job. If it wasn't paying enough, you should go do a course at your own expense. Don't have the money? You should have made better life choices. Ditto for families living on the breadline, people claiming disability benefits, etc... When the Eastern nations acceded to the EU, newspaper editors realised that they could make more money by selling Xenophobia to the working classes instead of selling classism to the middle classes. Younger people are less likely to rely on traditional media for information so that market is already dry so there is no risk of alienating readers. If Brexit succeeds in cutting immigration levels and Mrs. May's hostile environment persuades the Muslims to leave then there's not a shread of doubt in my mind that they'll go back to bashing the lower classes once again. There needs to be a villain after all.

I might check out that book. Sounds like it might be interesting.
ancapailldorcha is online now  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-05-2018, 01:04   #55
oscarBravo
Custodiam ipsos custodes
 
oscarBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 26,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
You're presenting a subjective view of the issue against my own objective view. It's a bad policy, so it shouldn't be enacted.
If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.
oscarBravo is offline  
(3) thanks from:
13-05-2018, 01:11   #56
oscarBravo
Custodiam ipsos custodes
 
oscarBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 26,323
Speaking of it being impossible to have a rational conversation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant z View Post
The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.
You believe - without adducing any evidence (apparently you have a more reliable source than the national census, but you appear to have forgotten to cite it) - that it's an underestimate. You claim without evidence that it's growing rapidly. You claim without evidence that it's at the expense of the indigenous population. And you declare, based on this breathtaking lack of any objective facts whatsoever, that we're in for a rocky road ahead because of the existential threat posed by one percent of the population.

Give me strength.
oscarBravo is offline  
(3) thanks from:
13-05-2018, 04:21   #57
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Uh, I never mentioned paedophilia. You referenced the defeat of Roy Moore as being a triumph for black people. I.E. racial politics.
No I didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
You're asking what the solution is for the USA. I'm telling you, there is no solution in 2018 bar building a time machine and stopping the 1965 immigration act. Racial division is the present and the future of the USA. You cannot do anything to solve that.
That is nothing new. They had a war over keeping one group as property 100 years before the immigration act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
What you're missing is I only referenced the US to show how demographics can rapidly shift in just two generations.
And I was pointing out it was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
The problem that can be solved is Europe.
Nope, too late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splashuum View Post
Would like to get peoples opinions on this.
There seems to be many writers/figures that share a similar view while claiming similar stats.

“Mark Steyn aims to show in a video how Western Europe is apparently already in the death throes of “demographic suicide” because couples are no longer having enough children. He then shows how a thriving Muslim population in Western Europe is well on its way to filling all the empty space. “

“Steyn explained how given the divergent birth rate between Muslims and post-Christian secularists, it will take only two generations for the current Muslim population (sitting at about 10-percent) to have as many grandchildren as post-Christian secularists (who currently make up the other 90 percent). This is due, he said, to Muslims having on average 3.5 children per couple compared to post-Christian secularists who have only 1.3 children per couple”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mu...obody-knows-it
We're not even safe with our own secret Muslims!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant z View Post
The Muslim population of this country according to the census is about 63000 which i believe is an underestimate but in any case its growing and growing rapidly at the expense of the indigenous population we are in for a rocky road ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
And the solution there is two fold: A) End mass immigration into Europe. B) Examine and address the causes of Europeans failing to have children.
Great, the mass immigration buzzword I've been hearing for years. For some 1 is 1 too many and they are welcomed within the put a stop to mass immigration group.

B I would agree with but for some reason people tend to stick to yelling about A.

Wouldn't any political parties looking at both A and B come under racial politics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Polish people can be assimilated. Lapsed Catholics who have issues with alcohol will fit in just fine in Ireland. Migration from within a region is much easier to handle than migration from outside a region.
I wouldn't consider the Polish to be very lapsed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand View Post
White South Africans have been present in the cape for centuries, but they haven't been assimilated by the local Africans, and they never will be.
You mean the immigrants failed to assimilate into the local Africans as the Muslims are failing to assimilate in Europe right?


I'm still left wonder why I should be against my friends being here while supporting people who just hate them for existing. I have perfectly nice, friendly non-white friends, some are Muslims, some are Spanish. I have a nice time with them, come home and I log into boards.ie to see a thread where a car has a wheel on the curb and the comments from the same few people are always:

"It was Muslims, Muslims bad"
"This it the EU's fault. Thanks Merkel for killing us all!!!!"

And of course when it turns out it had nothing to do with Muslims they still complain about Muslims and am supposed to sit here and think that yeah, these people are right, it's time to kick out my Muslim and Spanish friends!

A good start would be for those who think the world is ending to calm down and stop being terrible people that I am ashamed to be associated with.

Last edited by BabyCheeses; 13-05-2018 at 04:58.
BabyCheeses is offline  
Thanks from:
13-05-2018, 04:45   #58
quintana76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 695
We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
Strange days indeed.
quintana76 is offline  
13-05-2018, 22:51   #59
Memnoch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by quintana76 View Post
We are being betrayed on the above issue by our establishments. Too much to gain on their part to consider the existential losses for the working class and it's long treasured cultural cohesion. They, in turn, have nowhere to turn as the far left (left in general) and the smoke salmon "socialists" all despise them with the move from class to identity politics. These groups seem more happy to excuse Islamic intolerance than stand up for the rights and desires of the people they were founded to make a better life for.
Strange days indeed.
I'm on the left and have no interest in excusing islamic intolerance. I have every sympathy for the working class. I just don't see any evidence of this so called Muslim takeover of Ireland or the EU. It seems little more than a fanciful conspiracy theory boosted ultimately by the underlying prejudice of its proponents.
Memnoch is offline  
14-05-2018, 13:41   #60
LuckyLloyd
The Voice of Reason
 
LuckyLloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarBravo View Post
If you're going to claim that the xenophobia you're espousing - and yes, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of xenophobia - is simply a statement of objective fact, there's no possibility of a rational discussion on the topic.
Meh, I'd say he's holding a very rational discussion on the topic. You refusing to respond to his rebuttal of your post can not be reasonably based on the above imo.
LuckyLloyd is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet