|
Post by vela on Jan 23, 2005 0:19:43 GMT -5
The trite "Rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" is simply false. Any statistic on global economy will show that the rich is getting richer, and the poor is also getting richer. So this is not the problem. Of course that’s just a cliché. You might be right. But if the poor are getting poorer or not, that’s not the point. The analogy of the pressure gradient and wind velocity is to illustrate that the widest the economic gap between two localities the more attractive migrating becomes from the less to the more abundant. Who’s denying or saying that this is a problem. Again. Who said that a country can’t close its borders. By the way, have you searched for immigration statistics for Japan? Again, Nock, who’s arguing about any advantages of multi-ethnicity?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 23, 2005 0:20:36 GMT -5
By the time the West makes the Third World a pleasant place to live in, it will be White no longer. Ohhhhh! So this is the real nightmare that torments you? If that really was happening to you as an individual then the answer is obvious, but if you’re trying to use this argument to rationalize your position regarding the issue we’re dealing in this thread then your logic is based in a false dilemma. I never hinted the word guilt. On the contrary, my observation could be construed as a recognition of the world leadership played by the rich countries. But the current world situation seems to indicate that the “World Leaders” are abdicating their leadership or has it always been only a hollywoodesque notion? Just partly correct.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 23, 2005 2:24:40 GMT -5
HOWEVER, birthplace and race have nothing to do with cultural solidarity. If you live in Sweden, and live, think, and act like a Swede, you are preserving that culture and deserve to live there. If you live in Sweden but live, think, and act like a Chinaman, please leave, now. It all comes down to loyalty: Are you proud of, and loyal to Sweden, or China? Which do you like better? If you truly want to immigrate and not just conquer another culture, you like your land of immigration better, and have loyalty to it. I'm Iranian, not Chinese. I've lived here since I was 3 and I've been raised like Swedes so culturally there's no difference between me and an ethnic Swede. However, that doesn't seem to be enough. There must be something beneficial with my living here. Perhaps every immigrant must be a Nobel prize winner before the natives find it okay for us to walk the same land as them.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 23, 2005 8:28:45 GMT -5
I am getting worried we actually agree on everything, which would made all this arguing a little weird. So, nobody says that immigration is or have to be beneficial to the receiving country, all agree that in many cases it is a problem, all agree that it is feasible and morally legitimate to seal the borders (if I got it wrong, tell me). Now, as sorting out the non harmful from the harmful immigrant is a cost, and as there is nothing to gain even from the non harmful ones, the most cost effective policy is to just seal the borders. This is of course an oversimplification; anyway seems to me the conclusion where we are heading ... Another empiric observation about the stick to your kind rule: many persons who never seemed to notice the different ethnicity of someone else, when really really angry and out of control come out with a racial slur. Ain't it true? I can imagine that living in Sweden it's easy to forget we still basically ARE cavemen; but the Swede has only a thicker layer of civilisation over his self, a layer that can well be removed by a situation of stress ... this told I insist: society shall be based on common ethnicity; otherwise, they just don't work well.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 23, 2005 10:20:39 GMT -5
Another empiric observation about the stick to your kind rule: many persons who never seemed to notice the different ethnicity of someone else, when really really angry and out of control come out with a racial slur. Ain't it true? Not for me. I've not been in many verbal fights, but when I've been told I am something it's usually been 'dumb', 'stupid' and a 'bitch', not 'you f*cking Iranian'. society shall be based on common ethnicity; otherwise, they just don't work well. But do you have any proof that a multi-ethnic, mono-cultural society doesn't work well? If you want to close borders then you must accept that your own nationality is not welcome to other countries. Swedes who don't want any immigrants here cannot expect to be allowed to move to another country. I personally think immigration should be allowed as long as immigrants assimilate. When it comes to welfare, one could have a rule that you must be able to provide for yourself and your family without any welfare for as long as it takes to gain citizenship. That way one could sort out the immigrants that come only for welfare benefits. I would like to be able to move to other countries if the opportunity came up. I want others to have the same opportunity. If Sweden closes its borders then it's no more than fair that Swedes all over the world get shipped home. If you don't welcome others, you're not welcome yourself.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jan 23, 2005 10:56:54 GMT -5
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there are no benefits with immigration (not from any group of people no matter how well adjusted they may be). If all borders are closed, where do we go from there? What to do with the immigrants that are already here, especially those who hold citizenships? Can citizenships be anulled just like that? Should people be shipped home? Their descendants (who may be mixed with the natives)? Grandchildren, great-grandchildren? Or only first generation immigrants? Should brute force be used if say my future grandchildren (who might be 1/4 Iranian and 3/4 Swedish; I'm mentioning this because I know how important race is to those who oppose immigration) don't want to be repatriated to Iran? What do you people propose?
(It's easy to complain about immigration, but the clock cannot be turned back. I therefore find it more interesting to look into the future and try to figure out what should be done with the immigrants that are already here instead of whining about how perfect everything could have been had they not been allowed in the country in the first place.)
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 23, 2005 12:44:05 GMT -5
I am getting worried we actually agree on everything, which would made all this arguing a little weird. Do you really think so, or is it just a rhetoric question? It is obvious we’re not agreeing on everything. If someone doesn’t affirms something it should not be automatically assumed that he is denying it. You’re again trying to distort the points of view of others to fit your conclusions. This is not oversimplification. It is a conclusion based on the wrong premise. Seems like You are heading somewhere else…<br> What I see here is the same irreducible, dogmatic position you have put forward on all your posts, which is largely based on an emotional rather than on an intellectual process. As such, I concede that you can believe as you wish, but your arguments, although they might echo among the cavemen of your paragraph above, are not likely to persuade a thinking mind.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jan 23, 2005 13:02:24 GMT -5
Actually I never thougth as feasible or desirable to reimpatriate anybody or to annoull existing citizenship ... I don't even think anyone considers this issue seriously. Surely not any political party that I know of. Neither I think that borders should be as closed as to prevent someone who married a foreigner to live with his/her spouse. There's not a perfect answer about where the line should to be drawn, but I think it should be drawn in a way to preserve the great and absolute majority of one ethnic group, in order to allow the society to benefit the effects of the natural human tendency to prefer his own kind. That's all. As for the proof that multi ethnic, mono cultural society do not work ... I can't say I have proofs, but surely some hints as EIRE, Lebanon, the Basque, Ruwanda, Ukraine, the former Yugoslavia ... Would you say the Hutu and Tutsi have "different cultures"? And Serbs and Croats? They shared the same communist "culture". Nevertheless ...
|
|
|
Post by visigodo on Jan 23, 2005 13:47:57 GMT -5
These are great observations nock, and to further put this in perspective one must realize these ethnic groups have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. The difficulty with integration into one social group or nation as in the Basque people for example, and the nation state subjugating them to become Spanish is difficult if not nearly impossible.
The Dutch have a large community of Muslims, (Turks, Moroccans…etc) currently who they thought had integrated and become full Dutch citizens into their society. (The Dutch are known to be among the most tolerant and accepting of people) Instead they found out that this particular group of immigrants have isolated themselves and although Speak Dutch as their first language and understand Dutch laws, have not integrated into the native culture. The why is difficult to answer. Perhaps they find the tolerant Dutch’s laws on prostitution and drug use abhorrent. Perhaps the Dutch have been extremely racist to this group of people. Or perhaps they feel they are not Dutch nor want to be Dutch. (Note: let’s say for the sake of argument the Dutch have been extremely racist and as a result have marginalized this group into forming a society within a society) How then has Holland improved by having this great migration of people? How is Holland better off?
This nation has now found itself polarized, and divided with the Dutch in one end and the Muslim immigrants in the other. If this large migration never occurred then would we find ourselves discussing about a social division within Holland?
The evidence of growing social strife is prevalent everywhere. People throwing, bananas into football/ soccer stadiums to taunt African players or making monkey noises. The burning of Mosques, synagogues, growing neo-Nazi movements. This is what open boarders have brought to Europe. I see this as a negative effect in our society here.
So what are our choices? Continue the strife and social upheaval or reduce it, by limiting or stopping immigration?
|
|
|
Post by ulvesang on Jan 23, 2005 16:21:00 GMT -5
...hints as EIRE, Lebanon, the Basque, Ruwanda, Ukraine, the former Yugoslavia ... Would you say the Hutu and Tutsi have "different cultures"? And Serbs and Croats? They shared the same communist "culture". Nevertheless ... The Hutu and Tutsi DO have different cultures, as do the mutually "communist" Serbs and Croats. Any denial of such is pure ignorance. Get to know a Serb, and then get to know a Croat. While they have their similarities, here are differences. ( AWAR, please chime in at any time) We might as well say that Germans and French are the same... or Indians and Japanese are the same culture. What happened in Yugoslavia was the same thing that is happening throughout the world. Multiculturalism worked for a while, and then some tension brought out polarisation and quickly deteriorated into racial violence. The Czechs and Slovaks united temporarily to throw off Soviet control, and then peacefully separated into their own countries, because they PEACEFULLY agreed to be non-multiculturalist. That history is probably the perfect race relations on this Earth right now. I can imagine that living in Sweden it's easy to forget we still basically ARE cavemen; but the Swede has only a thicker layer of civilisation over his self, a layer that can well be removed by a situation of stress ... The Swedes are one of the most TRULY tolerant and colourblind cultures on earth. Once a Swede, always a Swede. There is even no easy word for "ethnicity" in Swedish... the closest is a word equating to "breed," and therefore people don't talk about it too much for fear of being considered a supremacist freak. However, the events in the Netherlands proves that dishonesty and abuse can turn even the most accepting into suspcious separatists themselves. Sweden is shifting towards the latter as well... The Dutch have a large community of Muslims, (Turks, Moroccans…etc) currently who they thought had integrated and become full Dutch citizens into their society. (The Dutch are known to be among the most tolerant and accepting of people) Instead they found out that this particular group of immigrants have isolated themselves and although Speak Dutch as their first language and understand Dutch laws, have not integrated into the native culture. The why is difficult to answer. Ultimately the xenophobic thought growing in Holland is entirely the fault of the "immigrants." For whatever reason, they decided to keep their loyalty away from Holland. The problem is that people are so dishonest that we can't ever discover if people are loyal or not... they will always find better ways of disguising their real loyalties for ulterior motives. So the only real answer to migration problems lies in the minds and hearts of every person who migrates. When I migrate, my whole being will be that of where I migrate to, and so I won't be causing ethnic tension. But if other migrants abuse people's tolerance and welcoming, then I suffer as well, because then I am grouped with the very people I hate. In essence, dishonesty, guile, and hidden loyalties are destroying BOTH sides. In this world, we can all be nice, or we can all be mean.... one side being mean and the other being nice doesn't work. But I'd rather live in a nice world; wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 23, 2005 21:02:13 GMT -5
(message truncated) …<br>…<br>So the only real answer to migration problems lies in the minds and hearts of every person who migrates. When I migrate, my whole being will be that of where I migrate to, and so I won't be causing ethnic tension. But if other migrants abuse people's tolerance and welcoming, then I suffer as well, because then I am grouped with the very people I hate. Ulvesang, You are right! I believe that you’re an individual capable of making your own rational choices about where to place your loyalty and avoid, as you say, causing ethnic tension within your newly adopted society. But surely, you’re not the only individual capable of such an action. There must be many others who like you refuse to be judged by the actions of others, even those of similar ethnicity to your own. The point here is that broad generalizations can never serve as the foundation to create or dictate fair social policies. Right again! Those voices that insist on presenting a dualistic perspective of the world and everything in it; the black-white, good-evil, god-satan duality, must be transcended in order to find a universal and sustainable equilibrium point that is truly liberating!
|
|
|
Post by ulvesang on Jan 23, 2005 21:14:07 GMT -5
Then this discussion comes to a close...
Borders shouldn't be closed, or opened either. We need to more successfully judge people as individuals instead of using broad general rules. Besides, in any country I'd rather have an "immigrant" who feels a greater connection and loyalty to my home as my countryman, rather than some bloke born there but acts like his own little country and doesn't give a hoot...
I know where my loyalties are... the trick in these troubled times is to convince government of those loyalties...
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 23, 2005 21:16:49 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is, is that the powers that be have kept the borders open, turning immigration and assimilation into invasion and dis-assimilation. The clock is ticking, towards the only solution - violence. The situation will soon go beyond the collective action abilities of national governments or supranational organizations. By the way, Annunaki, I realize your parents brought you to Sweden. But they're free-riders. Instead of going the distance (as obviously Europeans have done) to make Iran a better place, its intellectuals flee to western countries (esp. those with welfare states). Why not to Japan or South Korea? Hmm? Why Sweden?
I know you don't want Sweden flooded with Muslim immigrants because they'll tear down the social constructs you rely on. Your parents (or even yourself) are like border crossing Mexicans that once established in the USA, denounce OTHER Mexicans for crossing the border. It's a free rider issue, a classic prisoner's dilemma. And only collective action will solve it i.e. closing the borders, repatriation (forced if necessary).
Third World people collectively refuse to solve their issues, rather many flee to the west, dragging it down in the process. One day, when there is no 'First World' and no 'Whites' left to take as trophies or whatever, maybe then Iranians or Africans or whoever, will help themselves. Sadly, the first one's up to the task will be the casualties.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Jan 23, 2005 22:34:50 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is, is that the powers that be have kept the borders open, turning immigration and assimilation into invasion and dis-assimilation. I’m sincerely trying to understand your frustration and I think I do to a certain degree. I don’t like the way this world seems to be heading, either. We humans, as a species, in spite of all our great scientific and technological advances, in spite of all our finest cultural and artistic achievements, still remain our own worst enemies. Still, I refuse to be a fatalist. I would surely hope you’re mistaken. But reality shows you’re not. Even today, violence is a never absent element of daily news. But this violence is currently being carried out by a national government, against an openly declared supranational consensus. Is there a more destructive violence on earth than that of a superpower militarily invading another nation? I’ve usually liked your sharp wit before, I & R, but quite frankly don’t know what I feel now, if sorry for you or disgust at you. Where is all that bitterness and resentment coming from? Please don’t be offended, but where you a traumatized boy or did you suffer any kind of child abuse that you have no remorse in insulting a lady? Not that anunnaki can’t respond on her own, but do you really believe what you’re saying? People all over the world are doing what they can. The sad reality is that one third of the world population is scrounging to escape starvation while another third of the world population is busy buying the newest pill to combat their obesity.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 24, 2005 3:05:56 GMT -5
It's natural to have difficulty applying the free-rider scenario/prisoner's dilemma concept to issues such as immigration. After all, not all immigrants are bad. In fact, there are many that are decent and hardworking, and seek not to subvert their host nation-state but to contribute to it. Unfortunately, in examining this thread's issue, one must take a macro approach.
Third World immigration is not alleviating Third World overpopulation. The numbers are simply replaced, at Europe's expense. Logically, this can only continue until the various European ethnic groups are marginalized (comprising less than 50% of their respective nation-state), or disappear altogether through admixture, persecution, extinction, etc.
This issue is not only about phenotype, it is about culture, ideology, and religion. A 51% Muslim majority in Denmark for example, could impose Islamic Law. Europe can assimilate a FEW Third World immigrants, as it takes time and resources to teach them about their host nation's laws, culture, customs, etc. The more this system of assimilation is strained by overwhelming numbers, the more the quality of this citizenship process deteriorates, until you have a multiethnic/ multinational/ multiracial-type state.
The American melting pot based on crass materialism failed some time ago. Multiculturalism simply makes the majority (for the time being) feel marginalized, and convinces minorities that they do not have to adapt to the 'system.' This is untrue, as Turks in Germany and Afrocentrist African-Americans in the United States have discovered - it means economic marginalization.
So what will the future bring? A half-breed and brown population in Sweden that is neither truly White nor comfortable with its Third World heritage? That type of estrangement is felt by many Black-White mixes in the United States. Mixed groups tend to associate with their non-White heritage (unless of course it isn't visible, as CAN be the case with Whites of half Amerindian and Middle Eastern descent). If Iran looses its excess population on Sweden (with only 15 millions), then eventually Sweden will be brown and Iran will still be Iranian.
Even if I learned the language and culture and lived in Iran more than my Iranian friend, the Iranians would not consider me a true Iranian. And with good reason. I just don't look like one. Anymore than my Iranian friend really considers himself White. I have relatives of Polish descent that speak the language but have barely travelled to Poland. But if I came across a 20-year-old black from Poland of Somali parentage, I would not consider him Polish, no matter how well he spoke the language and knew the history. I would consider him a Polish national of African (in this case Somali) descent.
European ethnic groups have in common both culture and phenotype. Indeed, European academics believe that nation-states are centered on ethnic groups.
Having been born in Sweden, Annunaki barely poses a disturbance to Swedish culture. But to phenotype? Perhaps. Not nearly so much as an African or Chinese. And when children (including half-breeds) grow up, they tend to seek out their roots - and cannot discount their part Iranian, or African, or Asiatic heritage. Thus, they will imbue themselves with this foreign heritage and retroactively challenge their host nation's culture simply by maintaining this other connection.
This situation is out of control and is reawakening the old scars of chaos in the West. Unfortunately, there exists no front (as there would be in a conventional war). Thus, Europe is left with a situation similar to that which it faced in the 1600s - uneasy peace, with disparate factions intertwined. That was, until the 30 Years War. Hopefully, as the United States seems more advanced in that direction, it will be the battle groud, and Europe will be spared.
Third World overpopulation, in the words of military and economic historian Paul M. Kennedy, is 'chiefly the result of Western medicine.' Essentially it's the fault of do-gooders - liberals who open the borders, doctors who decrease mortality rates, scientists that developed biotech. agriculture, Whites that carry 'guilt' over colonialism, and the fifth column that is growing inside the borders of every nation with a White majority.
Kennedy furthers that despite supranational organizations e.g. the UN and mulinational conglomerates, the nation-state is still the most able actor to deal with today and tommorrow's collective action problems (immigration, security, the environment, etc.).
Thus, once Whites are minorities in every nation in the world, they will cease to control their own lives. Sure, the Bush's and Morgan's and Rockefeller's and those secret circles will continue to economically rule the Earth, but I was referring to the average White person.
|
|