Sunday, May 04, 2008

Mourning the Disappearance of a Culture

Conservative Swede’s neglect of his blog has its advantages: while his own site languishes, he spends a lot of time over here leaving lengthy and thoughtful comments.

Last Thursday I re-posted one of his comments, and in the discussion that ensued he made yet another comment that is worth reproducing on its own.

Afonso Henriques asked:

The question is, Conservative Swede, do you favour little Havanas and Chinatowns in Sweden, or you think Sweden is better off?

If you answered positively to the first question, what would the amount of all the ethnic minorities be acceptable in Sweden? 0,5%; 1%; 2%; 10%; 50%?


Conservative Swede made this response (abridged, and edited slightly for clarity):

Swedish stampThere are many ways to answer such questions, many angles to look at it from. And the answers will depend on the country and its history, and of course on what you expect and hope the country to be in the future.

The only general rules I could think of would be that 50% is a disaster. And 10% with a doubling (or more) per generation is just a situation to get to the 50% very soon. But a stable 10% needn’t be a problem. Bulgaria is a little more than 10% Muslim, but it’s a stable historical population, not at all problematic such as the 5% in Britain or Sweden.

Regarding Sweden: I’m an alien here. I have denounced this country (the sinking ship). My relation to the indigenous people is the one of an anthropologist. I will stay a couple of years more for participant observations.

The Sweden that existed when I was young is already gone. It hasn’t become manifest yet, but it has already happened.

Let me give you an illustration of what I mean. Assume that you killed someone. You are in shock and horror, and you bury the corpse in your garden. It’s a highly tragic event, but the tragedy has not become manifest yet. Eventually things will come up to the surface — the corpse is bound to be found, you will go to jail, etc. But even though it has not become manifest yet, your life is already destroyed.

Or compare it to a giant meteor heading for our planet, so big that even modern technology can’t stop it. It’s ten years away, hasn’t hit us yet, but the end is already programmed.
- - - - - - - - -
This is why I search deeper in my roots for identification, e.g. Germanic and Roman roots. The history of Sweden is unique in the way it has been a cold corner of the world where nobody wanted to go. We have never been invaded, except for temporarily by fellow Scandinavians. Still 40 years ago the population was so astonishingly homogeneous that probably only Japan could be its match (if even that). This makes our culture fragile. The innocence of such a culture, that had been around a millennium and more, cannot survive a flood of mass immigration. For such a country 2% would have been a good roof figure.

But this Sweden is already gone. For the “new” Sweden, I do not know. I leave the question for the indigenous people here. We have already passed 10%. Depending on how you are counting, the figure could be 20%.

In the Sweden of 40 years ago, Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern people were seen as more or less equally strange. It was a culture of innocence created under a highly protected isolation. Dark and hairy people in general looked alien. Swedes were not used to it. Swedes can still have problems in seeing the difference between a Frenchman and an Iranian.

The protection and innocence facilitated by the historical context created a uniquely egalitarian culture. Women were more equal and free then anywhere else. Farmers were more equal and free then anywhere else. Of course, this could be said of Scandinavia as a whole. But Denmark is closer to the continent, less isolated, less innocent. Which makes the Scandinavian features become more balanced there; and Danish culture more sustainable, less vulnerable than the Swedish.

[…]

While I’m mourning that this culture had to disappear, it seems clear to me that Swedish culture was just as destined to disappear as the Inca culture. The Indians were weak for other reasons. Due to their long genetic isolation they were destined to die in masses by diseases, whoever found the way to their continent. It could have been the Chinese rather than the Europeans. It would have led to the same result. The demise, and how it would happen, was already encoded in their destiny.

Likewise with Sweden. Of course there will always be traces of Swedish culture here, quite as there are traces of Inca culture in South America. But it won’t be quite the same. The highly ironic thing is how this uniquely egalitarian culture, this culture of such equality and freedom for women, is being destroyed in the name of egalitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, etc. I see it as symbolic of how liberalism will ultimately always kill itself in its higher phases.

In search for a new and more stable identity I first looked to Europe. I’ve also tried out America, Christianity and Catholicism. But eventually I found each of them full of weaknesses too, some of them really scary. I was looking also for a unified civilization, a unified front against Islam. But I found a civilization that is weak because it’s so divided.

Christianity has always led to a lot of infighting, especially over the interpretation of the Trinity. Americans and Europeans distrust each other. People of different nationalities distrust each other. So I decided to lean towards localism instead (the only question was: where?).

I was right in looking backwards, because it made me learn about who we are. But I think the answer is actually found by looking forwards. Look at America. What is America? What does it mean? It’s the result of a mix of Europeans with a common experience. A common experience so thorough and defining that it abridged previous national identities, and something new was created.

But this is also what we have ahead of us in Europe: a common experience so thorough and defining that it will change our identities.

Of course, I’m not saying that Europe will become America; too many variables in this situation are different for that. Actually, some of the ideals used to create America will be reversed. But surely the concept of “we” will be morphed by the common experience we have ahead of us.

31 comments:

latté island said...

Afonso wrote: what would the amount of all the ethnic minorities be acceptable in Sweden? 0,5%; 1%; 2%; 10%; 50%?...

One important factor is the fertility of the minority group. If you import Mexicans, for instance, they'll outbreed the natives and take over. OTOH, other ethnic groups (Europeans,for instance) have a more stable population and are therefore less invasive.

Also, fertility and invasiveness are influenced by the host countries' welfare policies. In the U.S., we pay our dysfunctional immigrants to breed as fast as possible, as a cottage industry. Another country with less generous benefits might be able to influence immigrants to keep their population stable.

whiskey_199 said...

The Incas and Aztecs did not fall to the Spanish due to diseases. The Spanish Conquistadors had just as many losses, proportionally, to Yellow Fever as the natives had to small pox. Neither really understood the disease mechanism.

The native empires fell because they oppressed their neighbors with ritual human sacrifice and heavy taxation and slavery, which made them roundly hated. As bad as the Spanish could be, and they could be quite bad, they were not ripping out hearts of children to sacrifice to their gods. The Spanish found plenty of native allies helping them wipe out their hated oppressors.

Moreover the native empires had poor resource utilization. Outside Priestly and Warrior castes, their people were nothing. Illiterate, bound by birth to pre-determined roles, unable to form families in the stable, monogamous way that Christian Europe did, with free-holding or at least the ability to advance (often through War, like Cortez, who arrived in the Caribbean a veteran of wars against the Moriscos, Italians, Turks, Moors, and French). Even someone of low birth could rise in Spain. And the natives had no one like the most valuable member of Cortez's party:

Martin Lopez, the Shipwright. Who fabricated on the great lake of Mexico city a whole series of small boats that turned the giant moat and transport system (Tenochticlan was fed by canoes constant operating) into a giant prison. With cannon transported by small corvettes blasting away at the Aztecs during the final siege.

A man like Martin Lopez could not exist in Aztec Society. Which is why they lost.

As for Sweden, IMHO it is profoundly affected by the same factors hitting Japan (which also has a birth rate of 1.xx or so). That is modernization, which leads to atomization, disconnectedness and profound loneliness, alienation, lack of emotionally intimate human contact, improved status of women, birth control (pill and condom), and a very feminized society with women far more dominant than before.

Sweden has also been too wealthy, for too long, and not had to face struggles that develop a healthy nationalism. Too much wealth is as unhealthy for a culture as too much sustained poverty. Denmark has had since the 1860's the threat of an acquisitive Germany looking to take it's people and land. So it certainly cultivated a healthy nationalism.

Reversepsycology said...

There's something about this pseudo-Marxist/Islamic alliance that just doesn't ring true to me...

After watching the British governments central Marxist: (Julia Middleton/common purpose video
again, (the common purpose video is widely available on you tube) there's one over-riding question that's been playing on my mind.

If the Marxist left would go to all the trouble of creating a Soviet style Europe, that suppressed freedom of speech and democracy, then why would they willingly allow Islam and Muslims to readily ascend to power?

Short answer – They wouldn't!.

Other than rejecting all Nationalistic borders these ideologies have nothing else in common.

Lately Ive read that Gordon Brown is about to order a 14% rise in immigrant workforce into Britain, over the next two years, to plug some fantasy skills gap in the market.

Now lets think about that for a moment if we may.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with a skills gap; this is just a prolonged attempt to dismantle British/European Society, so that we no longer relate to borders, Nationalism, or indigenous pride.

Then and only then, will we be able to readily accept our lowly place as surfs in the all empowering E.U. super state.

Otherwise, British mentality being what it is, and always has been, we will never accept the E.U. in any way, shape or form. And of course Nu Liebour and their leftist friends have always known that.

The next obstacle in their way, would be a return of a Tory government to our shores. Easily solved if your Nu Liebour. Give away 80% of all rights of self government to your Marxist friends in Brussels and what can the Tories change then.
Its a poisoned chalice. They can't win, unless they cede ground.

This has been going on for years, and Europe wide, but we've just ignored it.

Political Correctness is the greatest evil of our time, as it has to all intense and purposes, stopped our questioning of leftist gerrymandering.

It is tyranny, but it isn't even a recent phenomenon. In the middle Ages the threat of being called a 'Heretic' stopped discussion and paralysed thought. So for leftist purposes, words such as 'Racist', 'Bigot', and 'Xenophobe', only serves to halt any argument and conversation that is opposed to their plans.

Are Muslims being set up as the stooges in this leftist plan, as referred too in the Common purpose video?

Like the Jews in 30s Europe perhaps?

Today Muslims are cow-towed too with monotonous regularity, leaving our populations speechless as to what is going on.

To me this doesn't sit right any sort of logical reality.

When the left seek to usurp power for once and for all, how better to do things than blame Islam for all of the Continents woes. Then they order a widespread crackdown, of anything Islamic, and take away everybody's freedoms in some kind of strict marshall law.

And of course the European populations will be so grateful that the E.U. powers have finally listened, and taken action over this cleverly invented, Islamic menace, that they will forget all about all of the freedoms they've lost in return for the removal of Islam from their very consciousness.

Perfect plan? Cunning reality?

Or perhaps just the grim reality that you can't trust any of these slimy left wing politicians......

And yes, I'm aware of the notion that unlike the Soviet Union, this time the Marxists would like to see a one size (fits all) religion, and as Islam is the most rigid, and uniformed in its structure, that would be the one they will choose.

But if we were all to become Islamic, wouldn't we all reject any man made Society, as is stated widely in the Koran?

This Left/Islamic pact, is, at best completely irrational.

ScottSA said...

Reversepsycology

That's an interesting thesis. The only problem i have with it is that I honestly don't think the left is capable of this type of aforethought. I think they follow a common thread of Platonic thought, and plunge blindly ahead until brought up short by unforeseen circumstance. I think we see it in every case, from the fall of the USSR to London bombings. I think their plan is no more complex than an attempt to atomize society by destroying cultural integrity, and hoping like hell that they'll be able to manage it.

There is every chance that if left long enough, a form of tighter control will ensue, and a backlash against not only Islam but anyone of a different hue and culture who happens to get caught in the way, but I don't think the left actually sees that in the future. I'm convinced that in their collective mind's eye they see a shining colourblind city on the hill; a New Athens of non-judgemental, tolerant, Stepford-like egalitarianism.

babs said...

"The question is, Conservative Swede, do you favour little Havanas and Chinatowns in Sweden, or you think Sweden is better off?"

I think Afonso misses the entire point. Having been raised in NYC environs, there is nothing wrong with "little Chinatowns." My observation has been that people that identify themselves with "Little Chinatowns" , etc, want to maintain their old world traditions but... totally buy into their new national identity and the governments of the countries to which they now call home. They love their new country for the freedom, opportunities, and hope for a better life for their children through better education, employment and healthcare opportunities than their old world countries could ever dream of supplying.
This mindset for immigrants has changed very rapidly over the last 20 years.
So, when you want to talk about some tipping point of immigrants as a percentage of the total population, I think you are approaching the problem in the wrong way. What I have always thought GoV, Brussels Journal, etc. have been talking about is what percentage of the non indiginous population is not willing to buy into the national identity and political structure of their host country and just wishes to parasidically feed off their host in order to persue their old world failed political and cultural traditions at the expense, culturally and monetarily, of their new host country. All the while politicians inflame through legislation and rhetoric this divisiveness and try to garner votes from a "disgruntled" minority of new comers. This, in turn, changes the indiginous population as they are told louder and stronger by the day that somehow the division in society is their fault and therefore, their rights and freedoms need to be curtailed to appease the new segment of society (voting block.)
This, in my mind, is the difference, not how many "Chinatowns" a country might have. You either buy into the host country's political system and identity or, you reject it and agitate against it all the while reaping the benefit of the economic and political security your new country offers you through the sweat of its indiginous population. Until the house of cards tumbles down and the indiginous population is no longer able to support by their production or aquiescence the newcomer's demands as it so infringes on their rights to persue a happy life in the country they once knew as theirs. This is where the friction is.
BTW, some of the most rabid pro Americans I have ever met were graduates of the FSU (former soviet republic!) Better Americans than those that have suffered under Soviet suppression (weeding the criminals from their ranks) are hard to find. THEY BUY INTO OUR CULTURE IN THE U.S. IN TOTALITY! Don't ever try to debate them on American identity, they will mop the floor with you! So please, if they lay their heads down in enclaves with those that shared a similar former experience, don't paint them as somehow denying their new country because it just isn't true. If they eat food and open up restaurants or attractions based on their heritage that makes them no less willing to buy into the economic or political structure of their new nations.
It is called assimilation Afonso, where you get to keep and celebrate your traditions (even make money off them) but you do not attempt to radically change the indiginous political, economic and overriding cultural structure of your new country because you think it better than from whence you came and thank God you are lucky enough to be a part of it. If you don't feel that way, you go back to the old country, unless of course, you are a parasite or have some other motive in mind...

babs said...

And BTW, by "old world traditions" I do not mean honor killings, burkas and polygamy. What I mean is food selection and celebration of old world holidays that do not infringe on the laws of your host country.

latté island said...

Babs, if only what you say about immigrants were true! I've lived for most of my life in Manhattan and now the SF Bay Area. I've interacted mucho with immigrants from seven galaxies. I've met many charming and pro-American Mexicans, Chinese, and others. But, I have to tell you... these people are exceptions. The majority are occupiers, colonizers. I was unaware of this until recently. Who wants to think badly of their neighbors?

But a critical mass has been reached. There are so many immigrants here, and they've hurt so many natives, and there's so much backlash, people aren't pretending any more. Didn't you see the Mexican flags in the May Day demonstrations? Some people carried American flags, because their leaders told them it would look better. But they had to be told. In the first big amnesty demonstration a few years ago, it was close to 100% Mexican flags. And Chinese scientists routinely steal our industrial secrets for China. No doubt, before they were caught, everyone thought they liked America.

There will always be the charming exceptions, and those people are my friends and allies. I'm not a fanatic. But, like the innocent lovebirds rescued by the little girl at the end of Hitchcock's The Birds, the few immigrants who are like us and on our side don't represent the majority.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

This thread is a perfect demonstration of why I visit GoV several times every - every - day.

I'm a nationalist and there is so much here today for a nationalist to ponder. The comment by Whiskey_199 is especially thought provoking.

This thread is copied and filed and it's going to give me weeks of thought. Gandalf of Up Pompeii is currently working on an essay covering exactly what's being discussed here - especially the bit about the deliberate - so it appears to us - destruction of that unique identity called "British" (French, Danish, Swedish, German etc - but being British our focus is on that). He asked for my thoughts on (Skype is wonderful) the topic and I've already sent him an essay to consider while he's putting his essay together. I'm about to recommend to him that he also get himself over to this thread for some more input.

Where would we all be if we still relied on the msm for our input? I wish there had been an internet when I was a young man.

latté island said...

It's not just the bad apples that are the problem, either. I'm reminded of an Alameda, CA City Council meeting I attended some years ago. I was there for some environmental issue or other, but the main event was discussion of whether the Chinese American Christian school could expand, which would inconvenience the neighbors. Almost the whole room was filled with Chinese, including children, and yet I'd never seen any of these people before, even though I'd attended City Council meetings regularly. When the Mayor introduced the former mayor, who was sitting in the audience, they didn't applaud. They didn't even know who he was.

I was a member of the Green Party then, and not just a member, an activist. This was before 9/11, and I was a liberal and I certainly would have argued with anyone who would have implied I was a racist, not that that would have even been possible, because I simply didn't think that way back then.

But seeing all those Chinese-Americans sitting together, successful people, an asset to the community, no doubt, but not really part of it...only showing up for their issue but not interested any other community issues ...it gave me pause. Now, I see it for what it is, even though when I was a liberal, it only gave me some vague discomfort.

Little Havana, too. I love Cubans, I spent some time in Miami, what great people. But they're Cubans, not Americans. Please, get real. When the commies die in the old country, the best Cuban-Americans will go home, we'll get stuck with the crooks.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Here's a large extract from the essay (large collection of notes, more than anything)that I sent Gandalf for consideration in the essay he's writing.

I'm thinking in terms of Britain (especially) and Europe in this part of it, but elsewhere I do talk about Britain's children (America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - the Anglosphere). And I really do think Britain is the key - just look at the history of the past 500 years.

Constructive criticism is more than welcome (but do remember - what I've written is a simplification, so it isn't precise to the last detail.


" For hundreds of years it’s been British State Foreign Policy to ensure that no European power, or alliance of powers, ever got powerful enough to overwhelm Britain (That’s ‘State’, not government – governments are transient, it’s the state that is permanent. Government policy is not necessarily State policy. It’s important to always keep this in mind). This was only possible due to there being a unique identity known as “British” that we all, regardless of station in life, subscribed to. Damn it all, I may only be a peasant and I have an awful life, and he’s a toff and he has a good life by exploiting my sweat, and I hate his guts, but we’re both British and we stand together against outsiders. My differences with him are between me and him and we’ll sort it out ourselves, but we don’t want foreigners telling us how we should sort it out.

First it was Spain. 4-500 years ago Spain held hegemony in Europe, it held the reins for the power of the Holy Roman Empire, and even had the Netherlands as a possession. We fought that to destruction, and in the process created the conditions that allowed, for example, the Netherlands to fight it’s way to freedom and independence. We fought them here (Armada), in Europe, at sea, in Latin America. We broke their power. We could do that because for all of our internal differences, we were “British” and stood together.

The Netherlands started becoming a problem though – hard working and industrious, they became rich and powerful with their independence and started bidding for a hegemonous position. They became strong enough to challenge us economically – a strong enough challenge to be a threat to us. They even sent fleets into British waters to attack us in our own lair. We eliminated their hegemony.

By the late 18th/early 19th centuries, France, with Napoleon, became the hegemony across Europe. We allied with Germany, and former enemies Netherlands and and Spain to destroy that hegemony.

Hundred years later and former ally Germany was developing into a European hegemony. We allied with former enemy France to destroy that hegemony – literally, by 1945. Our differences internally mattered not compared to that sense of being a unique entity called “British”, and “British” must not be at risk of being overwhelmed by outsiders. There has been no European hegemony since the Roman Empire that didn’t eventually break itself on the rock of “British”. Napoleon didn’t refer to us as ‘Perfidious Albion’ for nothing.

Now come to the modern day. A new hegemony has developed in Europe. It calls itself the European Union. Britain is ostensibly a part of it, but it knows that the British people, still thinking of themselves as “British”, are not psychologically a part of it, is still “British”, and the “British” being what “British” is and always will be, will sooner or later destroy this new European combination of powers that has become hegemonic – because that’s what “British” does, and historically has done. The only way to prevent this is to kill the very concept “British”. But how? It is counter-productive to directly attack the concept “British”, because the concept will fight back and, if history is anything to go by (and any psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that the best predictor for future behaviour is past behaviour), the British will win, and will destroy the European hegemony, whatever that hegemony consists of.

It also knows full well that there are other concepts throughout Europe that are still alive – the ones known as “Dutch”, “German” “ Danish” etc. - and these consist of large, very large, numbers of people. Currently they are disorganised and easily held under the hegemony’s control. Many of these people look to the “British” – they know their history too - and will follow British leadership if it is provided. The hegemonic power knows this. And it knows it can never be secure while the British people think of themselves as that unique identity “British”. The hegemony must destroy “British” if it’s to be secure or, sooner or later, “British” will get down to doing what “British” always does – it will destroy the hegemony, and will organise those continentals who are not part of the hegemony – and there are untold millions of them – to help it. And help it they will – there is a huge body of respect for “British” out there in Europe. Those untold millions will welcome this, and will yet again gladly accept “British” leading them to liberty and the resumption of their independence.

“British”, therefore, must be destroyed.

But how? Militarily? History says that can’t be done … and anyway, they have these contraptions that make big white bangs. Risky. So how? Do it the sneaky way. Set up organisations that burrow away into “British”, and diminish it, hopefully destroy it. One thinks of secretive organisations like Common Purpose – burrowing away into “British”, silently in the background. Introduce and enforce concepts like Diversity, Cultural Equivalence etc; bring in unassimilable alien peoples and cultures by the millions to Balkanise and weaken “British” and the people that comprise it. Tell “British” that there is no such thing as society. Use economics to convince “British” that it’s every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. Use those same methods to destroy the sense of ‘Noblesse Oblige’, create new elites based on nothing but money and the new Fabian ideologies. Given the chance, “British” will disrupt the hegemony, so the hegemony quietly, secretly even, gets in first and does all it can to disrupt “British”. “Do unto them as they would do unto you – but do it first”.

This has been bubbling away for a generation – Regional assemblies, destruction of the historic counties, breakup of the nation into its constituent parts, laws making it essentially illegal to exist as “British”. A bit here, a bit there, a piece at a time; no piece in isolation seems unreasonable, and nobody bothers to look at the whole. Bring the media on board – infiltrated by the hegemony, using its various agencies such as Common Purpose – change the education system – slowly ever so slowly a bit at a time – so that children leave school without this unique sense of “British”. “Give me the child and I’ll give you the man” says the hegemony – and every year the remains of “British” hands over a new cohort of children to be converted into non-“British”. Leftie sociologists in the past accurately said that the education system was merely a society’s way of reproducing itself – to change society one must do it gradually by changing the education system. This has been done and no one noticed it happening. So we have a generation’s-worth of yearly cohorts of children with a weakened sense of being uniquely “British”. Now move in for the kill – time to finally kill off “British”.

This brings us back to the above map – the Regionalisation of Europe. Just look at it! Where is there room in it for “British”, and then re-read the official spokesman’s explanation for it:

“ The stated “strategic objective” of the regions is to “support the emergence of a common space of citizenship, a sense of belonging to a cross-border area with a unique identity”.

That, as stated earlier, is just another way of killing off “British”. You psychologically link with people from mainland Europe within the same European-region, rather than fellow “British” 50 miles away across the regional border. A generation of that and “British” is dead. That’s the plan, and it is being implemented. The hegemony knows – kill “British” or “British” will kill it. The hegemony got its do unto others in first.

I look at the BNP – majority of members and supporter – people forties and over; not all, by any means, but most. Look at our anti-Jihad people – anyone like to bet that we’re mostly the same – people forties and over; people with a strong sense of national self: “British” here, “Dutch”, “German”, “Dane” there, etc. And note how the hegemony labels us all racist, islamophobe, far-right, nazi even … any dirty word it can think of – or at least, words that are dirty to those people who have gone through the hegemony’s new education systems. I say systems because it’s not just “British” they want to kill, but all of those unique identities. But “British” is the big one. “British” is the historic hegemony-killer. “British” leads the others who would destroy the hegemonic power.

So – ‘Kill “British” "

Sir Henry Morgan said...

And if you want to know WHY? what's happening across Europe and the Anglosphere is happening - go read about this speech by Gordon Brown

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-gordon-brown-really-went-down-in.html

So it's not by accident, and it's not through incompetence. The cat is now well and truly out of the bag. Like the Cylons "They have a plan".

The reason I declined the offer to be a part of the 910 Group in its early days is because I will not rule out the use of violence - it must always be available as an option. The more I learn, the more convinced I become that I am right.

Strange - not - how Brown never says anything like this to his own people. Indeed, to us he bangs on about "Britishness". Hmm, yes, but what does HE mean by British? According to this speech he thinks such a thing shouldn't exist, nor should "American" "Danish" "Dutch"
etc.

The essay I extracted from above was written a week ago - before I even knew of the existence of this speech. Our own msm has told us exactly nothing about it. So what may have appeared like the ravings of a paranoid look like being right on the button.

Queen said...

Also, fertility and invasiveness are influenced by the host countries' welfare policies. It isn't even really birth rates that are the real problem. They eventually go down, even among Muslims. Large families just aren't an asset in a First World economy. The real killer is family reunification -- aka chain migration. The native population just can't compete with that. In Britain the Muslims import 40,000 cousin-spouses per year --how can the native population compete with that? They can't. Family reunification is the worst evil of immigration. It more than anything else is responsible for the rapid transformation of communities and countries. Why should someone be able to import a whole village into a new country just because that single person has been awarded citizenship? It's madness. The Danes did the best they could to mitigate the horrors of family reunfication, but even they couldn't get rid of it altogether. Because it's mandated by the EU.

Queen said...

Sir Henry,

I've thought long and hard about the New World Order and what Blair-Brown did to Britain. And what I've concluded is that Blair' "Third Way" is a combination of classic corporate fascism and Cultural Marxism. The smartests of the Marxists knew after 1989 that their economic policies don't work, and so they shifted to cultural Marxism instead of actual Marxism.

Meanwhile, the global corporations just want to make money, and importing cheap labor and eager new consumer bases into the West was well in line with those goals. Even better if the cheap labor and eager new consumers are subsidized by the taxpayer-finance dole money of the natives.

Blair's "Third Way" and mass immigration project satisfied both camps handily. The global corps. were allowed to do what they wanted. The Cultural Marxists were also allowed to do what they wanted -- they got free rein over all their stupid, destructive social engineering schemes: race relations tyranny, multiculturalism, gay-friendly education five year olds, climate change nonsense, and on and on -- as well as plenty of taxpayer money to finance it all, and plenty of taxpayer-financed, cushy non-jobs like "diversity coordinators" -- the types of jobs that are the only jobs that cultural Marxists can actually get.

The "anti-racism" activists play their part as they scream "racism" at anyone who questioned the mass immigration that is so convenient for global corporate fascism and destructive cultural Marxism alike.

So that's what we are up against, not just Islam: global corporatism and Marxism working hand in hand.

PapaBear said...

Sir Henry Morgan stated what had been percolating in my head for a while. The objective is to eliminate the solidarity of community by eliminating the homogeneity of current Western societies. By turning us into isolated individuals, we may be more easily ruled

babs said...

Latte - I suppose I did not emphasize enough that the positive immigrants and their willingness to buy into a new national identity and governmental system were more the rule than the exception up until 20-30 years ago. The trend then changed and quite rapidly indeed. I did state that in my comment but perhaps you didn't notice it. I attribute a lot of the change in immigrant attitude to the Federal amnesty legislation passed in the 80's.
As to your example of Chinese showing up at the Alameda Council meeting; I have seen the same exact thing happen at my township meetings only the people that I never before saw show up at any type of civic meeting were my very own neighbors a few streets up! They all switched off their TV sets and stuffed themselves into cars to come to the Council meeting because a builder wanted to extend their road and build 11 new homes at the end of it. Were this issue not before them, were their own self interest not at stake, they wouldn't be caught dead attending any kind of civic meeting. So, in my experience, that is common to all population groups.

randian said...

.

spackle said...

In regards to Chinatown in NYC. Have any of you been there lately? It has spread so rapidly across Canal street that little Italy has been swallowed up. It is now miniscule Italy.

Diamed said...

I don't believe it's possible for a people to come from a completely different genetic/cultural background, plop down into a new country, become say 90% of the population, but still adhere to the ways and policies of the remaining 10%. That's about as reasonable as expecting Americans to adhere to their 'hosts' the native americans. The stronger group isn't going to tie itself to a dying, fading 'dust bin of history.' It's going to assume it was superior and impose its will on us, and they will probably be right.

The way I see it after a certain amount of numbers it's impossible for anyone to assimilate. The majority doesn't assimilate to the minority, the minority assimilates to the majority. Unrestricted immigration and unrestricted birth rates means sooner or later they'll be the majority, and at that time, all power switches to them due to the wonders of democracy, and you can kiss everything you knew and loved goodbye.

Having established that anything above 50% is end of the line, we then ask how many can give up their previous group identity and join the new one without forming a special interest group that tries it's best to aggrandize itself while hurting others. We know it's below 10%, because hispanics, blacks, and muslims are all incapable of assimilating into America or Europe and have instead formed separate camps of tribal interest groups. So 5%? And if you have multiple minorities each below 5%, I can imagine keeping them all assimilated, since they're unlikely to band together. But for things like this just looking at the world and its results is the best indicator, not theory, or what we'd like to be true. With Afonso I think you can have all the benefits of 'exoticism' without going past 5% of the population, and from there on the benefits reach a low marginal utility, while the costs start to skyrocket. Moreover, why risk it? If you're Ever wrong and they don't assimilate, you're talking about the extinction of your entire nation, you've genocided yourself for curry. . .That kind of thinking is far too short term. We should have identifiable dutch, germans, spanish, italians, etc for the next thousand years, just like we've had them for the last thousand years. Nothing should be done that could imperil our legacy, it's just not worth it.

Lombard1985 said...

If given the opportunity, not to mention the power, I would implement what I would call KEEA...Keep Europe European Act.

Or to put another way, the 96-98 or 4-2 Law.

The Key points (in a nut shell)...

Any European Country's demographic makeup must be made up of no less than 96% of the native ethnic group.

e.g. Germany must be 96% ethnic German at minimum.

Any European Country's demographic makeup cannot have more than 2% visable minorities.

e.x. 1: France can be 96% French, 1% Italian, 1% German, and 2% (sub-Saharan)African.

e.x. 2: France can be 96% French, 2% Polish, 2% (North) African.

e.x. 3: France CANNOT be 97% French, 3% Turkish.

This is all off the top of my head, and I'm stretched for time, so don't consider this to be anywhere near a complete answer.

PRCalDude said...

Moreover the native empires had poor resource utilization. Outside Priestly and Warrior castes, their people were nothing. Illiterate, bound by birth to pre-determined roles, unable to form families in the stable, monogamous way that Christian Europe did, with free-holding or at least the ability to advance (often through War, like Cortez, who arrived in the Caribbean a veteran of wars against the Moriscos, Italians, Turks, Moors, and French). Even someone of low birth could rise in Spain. And the natives had no one like the most valuable member of Cortez's party:

Looks like little has changed in Mexico and Meso America, except for the end of human sacrifice.

latté island said...

Babs, I partly agree with you about the City Council thing, of course most people don't attend boring meetings unless there's something in it for them, but what about the sheer numbers...that's what my last comment failed to convey.

This is what it's all about, and why pointing to the successful assimilation of any particular immigrant is part of the Big Lie that's destroying the West. My little town used to be all-American. It's changed beyond recognition only in the 20 years I've lived here, because of the numbers of foreigners. Many of these individuals are nice, but collectively they have destroyed my formerly American town. There's no there there, it's like Ellis Island with better weather.

When your neighbors attend a meeting, how many of them are there...20 or so at most? When Chinese show up, they take up the whole room.

We'll just have to disagree on this. All I can say is, who needs Chinatown, now my town is Chinatown. And Tijuana. And Nairobi. And Riyadh.

babs said...

Latte -

"My little town used to be all-American"

Taking the devils advocate, I guess I need to ask you Latte what "All American" means to you? Does it mean a certain ethnic group as in the founding of this country by basically WASP's? If that is what "All American" means than I am sure you are very distressed by your new fellow citizens. However, if it means that persons of all national origins are able to move to our country bringing along their skin type, national origin, and ethnic heritige (that does not conflict with our established laws and collective culture) then I wonder if you live in an area of high illegal residence or, if you just have a hard time understanding the American experience.
The American experience is that of a nation of immigrants. This is very much unlike the nations of Europe that were homogenious before the onslaught of Islamic immigration. In that respect, the U.S. vs. any other western nation are very much different.
The very fact that the Chinese were willing to show up at the Council meeting indicates to me that they buy into the American experience.
If I were in your shoes and if I were somewhat assured that this ethnic group were in the U.S. legally, I wouldn't like the situation you are in (after all, I too would like to live in a community of my same ethnic make up as would every one else on this planet.) However, we live in a rather dynamic country. In fact, the most dynamic country on the face of the earth and this is the price of our tremendous success.
If, however, you think the majority of the new ethnic group moving into your community is in our country illegally, you have an entirely different set of grievances. And they would be ones foisted upon you and your way of life by our Federal gov't.

Mikael said...

Half a century ago, a Danish local paper put up the headline: Negro Spotted on Main street, Smalville, or words to that effect.

Imagine that: The mere presence of a black man passing through was enough to make the local news. Talk about a homogeneous society!

Times sure has changed.

Makes you wonder what the headlines will be in another half-century: Last Gang of Indigenous Danes Surrenders to General Ali Muhammad Türkoman, Agrees to go Peacefully to the Reservation?

latté island said...

Babs, when I moved to Alameda 20 years ago, it was a Navy town. Young Americans from everywhere, many whites, blacks, Filipinos. The vibe was very American, very small town.

Now the vibe is third world immigrant. Some legal, some illegal, but the ration of native-born to immigrant has changed radically. It may be legal, but it's wrong and I oppose it.

This is a personal tragedy for me, because I loved Alameda the way it used to be and planned to retire here. Now, with the roving gangs of immigrant youth that we never had before, I must leave before I get old, or I won't be able to leave the house safely.

The death of towns like mine, and California, is a great tragedy. This place used to be paradise.

latté island said...

correction: "ratio"

babs said...

As I said in my former post, I took devil's advocate. Your troubles began when the BRAC Commission closed the Naval base at Alameda. This was a Federal action. Into the void came the worst pathologies of our society, I am willing to guess...
Just so you know, we moved our family out of Southern CA in 1997 at great expense because of the same pathologies you site. When I talk about "immigrannt assimilation" I am talking in an historical and now academic sense. I KNOW that living it on the ground when things are not going well is very tough and, those that can buy their way out do (like we did.) We now put up with ice storms, huge home heating bills in winter and bugs by the legions during summer but at least our safety and way of life isn't under immediate attack.
I do feel for you. No one wants to leave what they call their home. And, especially when they are forced to leave due to imminent violence to their property or their lives. Let alone a continued degradation of public services that they wish to utilize in favor of newcomer's demands (like libraries, parks, schools or hospitals in favor of newcomers demands on the indiginous tax dollar.)
We actually bought ourselves out of the struggle and moved to an area that literally had no one in the local tax district that was a non payer...
Ten years into our retreat from this national question it is now coming to our community. I find it sadly amusing to watch people in my community discover this issue. Soon, every American will have to make a decision on what to do about unbridled immigration into the U.S., mostly illegal... You, unfortunately, are still on the front line.

babs said...

If I told you that two years before we finally decided to leave SoCal home invasion robbery became vogue with certain gangs of immigrants, where they bust your door down and beat the sh!t out of everyone before they rob the place of anything they can get. Would it make you feel any better?
I adopted a pit bull out of the local pound... My dear doggie friend and buddie named Babs would have given her life for our family's safety long before any alarm company could have responded...
Sadly, Babs left us last summer. I still use her moniker.
So, when I tell you that I understand the dissolution of paradise I hope you believe me.

Ypp said...

It is the fantastic insight of ConSwede. Sweden is dying NOT because of media, Jews or capitalism, but because it was isolated, and did not develop immunity. There was no vaccination by small amounts of crazy ideas. All nations go through the process of rebirth, but for rebirth a new sperm is a must. Information and ideas are such sperm. And opposite to the widespread belief, it is not a source of death, but of rebirth. Death comes naturally and by itself, without any information.

Maybe it will make Swede a little better, but Swedes contributed to the birth of another country. It is Russia. Official Russian history starts 1000 years ago with Swedes capturing the city of Kiev, which then became the Russian capital. Later, in 18th century, Russia was modernized by Emperor Peter the First, who copied a lot from Swedes, who he defeated. So look, Swede, sometimes you make a bigger contribution to history not at home but in other countries and even losing.

And who knows, maybe Sweden will produce new ideas and survive in a new form. Isn't it the Conservative Swede who write the best essays in the conservative sites?

Conservative Swede said...

Ypp,

So why wasn't immunity developed? Japan is a similar case to Sweden of historical geographical isolation and ethnic homogeneity. And they have their immunity intact. They act "xenophobic" and all. Everytime they are called xenophobic you get reminded how morally superior, human and "pro-life" they are compared to the destructive and irresponsible Westerners; these ideological machines.

Why is there no immunity in Sweden? For the same reason that there is no immunity or protection anywhere in what we call the Western civilization. It's something that goes deep in our culture, something that resonates deeply in our cultural sounding-board. Sweden is just hit harder by it. That's the only difference.

Sweden serves as a pedagogic example for all of us, since many of the Western weaknesses are purified here. Sweden can serve as your crystal ball for the future of the rest of the liberal West. This is the purpose and meaning I see for my native country: that it will serve as the deterring example for the rest of the West. Then at least something good would have come out of it.

randian said...

Sweden has no immunity because multiculturalism and Gramscian Marxism, which Sweden has been practicing for decades, is designed to eliminate it. The purpose is to eliminate opposition to Marxism, eliminating opposition to Islam is an unintended side effect.

Ypp said...

Swede

Regarding far East - China and Korea has already become Western countries, because of Communism. Japan has already changed a lot, and it will change more.

You correctly noted that the West has some inherent weakness. But weakness, as one Russian said, is the necessary attribute of life. When the child is born, it is weak. I'll give you an example from the life of animal kingdom, which I observed myself in our backyard.

A duck made the nest in the bush at our backyard and laid eggs. But either a coyote, or a raccoon came and ate all eggs, and killed the duck. The duck could be perfectly safe swimming in the lake, instead of laying eggs. She would live a few years and die without having any children. Instead, she preferred to risk her life for the chance of having children.

Who knows, maybe the old West is now pregnant with the new West? And without being weak, it cannot give birth. Coyotes are running near by, so it is at risk. But without that risk, it will die and leave no offsprings, like many civilizations of the past.