The Transatlantic Conservative just sent us the following summary of the immigration mess in Germany, along with a batch of statistics:
I made a translation of some official German statistics for you. They stem from the German Ministry of “Integration”, and have been published by Stern, a Social Democrat German weekly. Certainly Stern does not use these figures to raise the alarm, but instead, in the traditional socialist manner, they ask for more money and more efforts to accommodate the wonderfully enriching (themselves!) guests of the German nation.
Let me add, just for perspective, that Germany has roughly 80 million inhabitants. The numbers concern all immigrants and their descendants since 1950, many of whom meanwhile have become naturalized German citizens.
Here goes:
- - - - - - - - -
| Immigrants in Germany | | 15.3 M
|
| Percentage of immigrant families | | 27%
|
Immigrant percentage of children under
2 years of age
| | 34%
|
immigrants without a profession
| | 44%
|
immigrants between
22 and 24 years of age
without a profession
| | 54%
|
| Turkish immigrants without a profession | | 72%
|
| jobless immigrants | | 29%
|
| low income immigrants | | 43.9%
|
| immigrants below “poverty level” | | 28.2%
|
| immigrant children below poverty level | | 36.2%
|
abused and heavily beaten
Turkish immigrant children
| | 44.5%
|
immigrant children in Berlin
lacking knowledge of the German language
| | 54.4%
|
immigrant percentage
at elementary school Eberhard-Klein
| | 100%
|
percentage of immigrants among
juvenile delinquents with more than
10 crimes on their rap sheet in Berlin | | 79%
|
Let me add one thing for clarification: the poverty level is defined, just as in the US, as family income below 70% or so of the average income of a German citizen.
41 comments:
I find this very sad. I know many Germans still suffer from a guilt complex from WW2, but this is deeply misplaced with regards to Muslims, and Turks in particular. Turks are guilty of more than one thousand years of persecution and genocide against various European peoples and are in no position to complain. Their main victims are to be found in the Balkans, but they threatened the entire European continent for centuries.
When reading about a topic unrelated to Islam recently, about the creation of the first mechanical clocks in late medieval and early modern Europe (this innovation took place only in Europe, out of all the civilizations of the world), I found out that the Germans paid "Turk money" in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries until they became strong enough to refuse. It is almost impossible to overestimate the prolonged impact Islamic Jihad has had on European history since the seventh century AD. The Mediterranean region and the southern half of Europe obviously suffered the most, but almost no region of the continent, with the possible exception of the extreme north, escaped the Islamic threat entirely. The Germans were never under Islamic rule, but even they had to pay tribute, or jizya, for a while. And the Turks did threaten Vienna several times. Now they are already inside Vienna and quietly taking over from the inside.
The Germans have been - and still are - among the most dynamic of all European peoples. They are under no obligation to surrender they country and their dignity to barbarian and inferior cultures, and have every right to expel intruders from their lands and refuse to accept unlimited mass immigration. Germany is the geographical and cultural heart of Europe. If smaller countries such as Sweden or Belgium cave, that's extremely sad. If Germany caves, European civilization is essentially dead. Right now, Germany may be sick, but other European countries, such as France and Britain, are arguably sicker. The Germans thus have a golden opportunity to redeem themselves and play a leading role as defenders of European civilization and freedom.
Since I'm already here: No, I haven't forgotten my promise about writing a history of beer and wine, and the history of medicine will be completed in late August and early September. I just decided to complete the Defeating Eurabia book before I do anything else. I already have a first draft ready for the history of beer, which will be more than twenty thousand words long.
One of the world's leading experts on beer was Michael Jackson, who sadly died last fall. No, I am not referring to the former pop star with the strange gloves and the questionable love for children. I am referring to the Jackson known as the "beer hunter," with published titles such as Michael Jackson's Great Beer Guide.
According to him, the world's oldest brewery is to be found in Germany. Here is what he has to say about the regions of Bohemia and Bavaria:
"Both have plentiful supplies of good water from snowy mountain ranges, and each has the soil and climate to grow excellent barley and hops. All they needed to achieve greatness was a more scientific approach to brewing. For that we have to thank St. Benedict (480-547 A.D.). Inspired by Jesus' time in the wilderness, St. Benedict fathered modern monasticism. His rules said that monks must support themselves. The early abbeys, in Italy, farmed, grew grapes and made wine for their tables. When the movement spread north across the Alps, the cooler climate favored barley and beer. As the church and the monasteries were the early seats of study and learning, so were they the birthplaces of brewing science. Munich, the Bavarian capital, is known in German as Munchen, which means ‘monks.’ Among today's Munich breweries, the names Augustiner, Franziskaner and Paulaner bear witness to monastic origins. Just to the north of the city, the former Benedictine monastery of Weihenstephan (‘Sacred Stephen’) accommodates what is claimed to be the world's oldest brewery, said to date from 1040, and the most famous university faculty of brewing. Half a dozen or so breweries in Bavaria are still owned by religious orders."
Fjordman,
Concerning the Muslim threat to northern Europe -- as I'm sure you know, Muslim raiders took slaves in Iceland.
Satisfyingly enough, the Vikings took Muslim slaves on the Barbary Coast. Tit for tat. :)
Fjordman:
There's war ahead. I think you know that. Europe will only be pushed so far before the pendulum swings back toward the middle. However, by the time the pendulum swings Europe may not be recognizable as we know it.
In fact, perhaps by that time Europe will be so unrecognizable none of us would want to live there. In which case, it will be our children's struggle to carry on. And we'll be wishing them well.
If Fjordman's analysis is correct, that Europe rises or falls with Germany, then they are likely sunk.
For the foreseeable future Germans are disqualified by world sentiment and internalized guilt for the sins of their fathers from taking any negative measures against a recognizable minority group such as the Turks no matter how merely bureaucratic.
The Left (and let's face it, even the LGF type of Right) would demonize them for anti-immigrant measures that are somewhat tolerated from the Danes or even the French. At least for the latter there are no immediate cries about a second European Holocaust.
If the only cure for Muslim invasion of Europe is resurgent German nationalism, then quite seriously, Europe and the rest of the western world will refuse to grasp that nettle and accept their dhimmitude and whatever follows after. The hijab will be like their hair shirt.
The Germans should have the same right as everybody else to protect their national integrity and ensure their cultural survival. Original sin is a Christian concept, and in Christianity, it applies equally to all peoples, not to any particular nation. Young Germans today bear no guilt for what happened generations before they were born. But they should know their history.
I cannot see any particular reason why the Germans should be considered the bad guys this time around. They are perhaps guilty of being a little bit too supportive of the EU, but I would still consider the EU to be primarily a French idea. As for Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, it has been mainly developed and spread from the English-speaking world.
The entire Western world without exception has been infected by the mental virus of PC. We are all sick, but some countries have stronger immune systems than others. There are differences in degree. Germany is sick, but I don't think you can say that Germany is any sicker than France, Britain or Spain.
The Germans will be weighed down by their history and thus prevented from taking an early leading role in Europe's struggle for survival, yes. The early phases will likely be led by the Italians and smaller countries such as Denmark and Switzerland. But I wouldn't count Germany out in the longer term.
If we let the Left dictate us, we can just drop dead right away. We should not debate with the radical Left, we should defeat the radical Left. They are the enemy within. But there are still elements among the moderate Left where we can find potential allies.
I feel a touch of defeatism, too, occasionally. But we are not dead yet, and declaring our death is premature. Sick, yes, but not dead. Not yet.
Baron: Yes, I am very much aware of the slave raids against Iceland. Even the medieval Norse colonies on Greenland have been suggested as victims, but to my knowledge this has never been proven. But in the Scandinavian Peninsula, we really didn't have much direct exposure to Muslims. We were the most geographically protected peoples in Europe.
What I am increasingly aware of is how much Islam isolated Europe from the rest of the world for the better part of a thousand years. Even in Greco-Roman times, especially during the principate, the mature period of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD, there were regular trade contacts between Mediterranean Europe and India via Egypt and the Red Sea. After the seventh century, this region was controlled by largely hostile Muslims, which made regular trade with the major Asian civilizations beyond the Middle East very difficult.
There were few Europeans travelling to the Far East before Marco Polo following the Mongol conquests. Not zero, but few. Europe was now surrounded to the south and east by Muslims, and to the north there was only ice. The only possibility Europeans had to escape the Islamic stranglehold was to go west, which is exactly what they eventually did. The discovery of America was to a large extent triggered by a desire to get away from the Muslim stranglehold on the continent.
Muslims thus kept us under siege and in a state of artificial isolation, they didn't "transfer knowledge" to us.
Germany may still turn things around, but you can count America out, the jig is up for us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washington/14census.html?hp
They've revised the numbers and now we'll be majority minority by 2042. Of course, cutely, whites include people of 'european, north african, and middle eastern descent.' So you can just take another ten years off that estimate and get the more realistic one. They also reported that people of child-bearing years will be majority minority by 2028. IE, the jig is up. There is not enough political time to make any more changes in adult opinion, who are very set in their ways and stubbornly incapable of going against the tidal wave of brainwashing and anti-racism they've been taught all their lives, or cultural time to educate the next generation of kids in a new pro-european stance. Indeed the next generation of kids are majority minority, so, that's out already.
Indeed, given how even the GoV crowd is more worried about anti-semitism and making sure that everyone is ideologically pure in this all-important issue of how they feel about a tiny country in the middle east, than the death of hundreds of millions of whites through loss of territory, birth rate depression, outright murder, and crippling media bias and political discrimination, I have a sort of schadenfreude going into our gotterdamarung.
"Before the gods destroy a man, they first make them mad." We have brought all of this upon ourselves and, in our moralistic carping about completely meaningless fluff, have pissed away the entire world and the future of our children forever. We have earned our fate.
Germany will be demonised either way.
Sometimes you have to get on and not care what others think.
given how even the GoV crowd is more worried about anti-semitism and making sure that everyone is ideologically pure in this all-important issue of how they feel about a tiny country in the middle east
Diamed, can we talk (as Joan Rivers would put it). How does anti-semitism and one's support or non-support of Israel relate to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of whites?
I understand your point, but it's actually a red herring. Many white people are afraid to be pro-white, because liberals, Jewish and non-Jewish, gaslight white people into assuming that anyone who doesn't love multiculturalism and integration is a hater, a nazi, wants to kill Jews, etc.
Can we get rid of this baggage? Yes, the Charles Johnsons among us are gaslighting us all, but why are you using the same tired old paradigm, as if the Jewish question actually had any bearing on whether white people have the right to their own territory?
Could it be possible that support for Israel is a legitimate and even pro-white position? Is it pro-white to support Arabs and Muslims in their quest to destroy Israel and kill Jews? Do the pro-Arab paleoconservatives really believe Arabs won't eat them next?
If many people on GoV are pro-Israel and object to anti-semitism, that may simply be their preference, and may not necessarily inhibit them from also taking a pro-white position.
It's crunch time, and allies on both sides of the Jewish question need to communicate honestly. If people are distracted by this issue, who does it serve? Not Jews, not anti-semites, but the greedy, apolitical elites who beat everyone over the head with it so we don't notice what they're up to.
@Diamed
Please don't let yourself be taken over by destructive emotions. Of course I understand your frustration, but I, for one, will not give up the struggle before I draw my last breath. And I don't think it is true what you said about the commenters on GoV as a whole, wasn't it just Conservative Swede who criticized you so harshly?
---------------
Unfortunately the demographic situation of Germany is really dramatic, and, in my opinion, just as bad as in France or the UK. What we lack in Islamization, we make up in general lack of children and reduction of quality. Germany has had merely 1.3 children per woman since the 70s, once the baby-boomer generation after the war will have died out, the ethnic German population will halve about every 35 years. 40% of all women with an academic degree remain childless throughout their lives, their aggregate fertility rate figure is supposed to be at 0.9 children per woman. The German population is "dumbing down" as this article put it. At the same time the better educated and more capable Germans are scrambling to emigrate.
Here is a collection of articles about the demographic disaster in Germany, and here is another article which might be of interest.
Your articles on Germany are depressing, I somehow thought they were better off than the rest of us. But it's obvious they are in the same trap as the rest of us.
Of course, we aren't supposed to worry about dysgenics because eugenics, or, in other words, caring about the future of your children and your race, is another thought crime and no one can possibly discuss that either because it's some sort of un-pc hate category like everything else.
Nor are we allowed to controvert the individual right to not have kids by say, demanding women have at least two children each or rigorously enforcing marriage so that single parenthood and the abandonment of children ceases. Again this would violate all the gains of feminism in the last century and is hopelessly un-pc hate speech which only insane evil people can advocate.
Nor can we round up and deport/incarcerate/execute undesirables who are either supporting invasion or are in fact invaders because that's un-pc crimethink too.
Instead we must watch as the last 20 years of hope whittle away because we are in an ideological strait jacket. We are allowed to lament the death of hundreds of millions of people, but we're not allowed to do anything about it. No policy prescriptions are permissible, it is better we all die than step on anyone's toes.
Give me king of the world powers for five days and I could solve every problem on earth, the solutions are all sitting there in front of us, but no one has the willpower to take them. Either we become a harder people willing to do what it takes, or we die. This is what I mean by 'our moralistic carping about completely meaningless fluff.' For the sake of survival, we should be allowed to deport or genocide anyone we please, we should be able to suspend any freedom or human right, we should be allowed to institute any law, we should be allowed to change to any government system, in short we should do whatever it takes to survive. Anyone who prefers the status quo to getting their hands dirty is simply not serious and doesn't really care about what's happening.
Latte: I don't want to derail the topic to another discussion on antisemitism so I'll just post on your blog?
Err, that is, if I knew how to post on your blog. >.<.
Diamed, I don't have comments on my blog because I'd end up taking valium. I like many of your comments and wish you'd write more on your blog.
ok, I'll try and sum up all my thinking on jews, anti-semitism, anti-anti-semitism, and so on in one clear article there, good suggestion.
Sorry. I dont have much faith in Germany seeing the light anytime soon. It has been 150 years since the end of slavery and we are crippled by white guilt (both left and right) more then ever.
It has been what, 60 years since ww2? You do the math. Things would have to get really, really bad before Germany does anything serious. Even then I have my doubts. Thats just my opinion from the outside looking in.
Maybe we can someday strike a deal with Europe that allows any white American to immigrate to Europe instead of a Muslim, African, Asian, etc. We'll weaken the US, which is happening already anyway, and strengthen Europe. Maybe then we can save ourselves.
Don't forget what a previous poster mentioned a while back...once European Americans are the minority over in the USA, they will NOT be intervening or helping Europe in her troubles...Europe will be on her own.
I said this back in June of last year "They will seek tighter integration with Latin America while loosening the bonds we now have with Europe, trading the first world for the third."
Whole post is titled "Post America America" http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/2007/06/post-america-america.html
Pasta: Thanks for the interesting links and as Diamed says: quite depressing articles... But still maybe there is some hope for Germany, a beginning: In Cologne the anti-Islamization movement, Pro Köln is becoming very active and receiving ever more support and more threats.
They are smeared and threatened by Leftists and the usual clique of Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Greens and even the (ex DDR) PDS. This seems to be a package-deal everywhere, Islamists, Leftists & Social/Christian Bureaucrats.
This week there was an assault on the Pro Köln office in Cologne. Suspects: 'Anti' Fascists (extreme left).
The Left is unfit for any kind of democracy. And you cannot do a lot about the colonization by Islamists as long as there is the Leftist terror infantry tirelessly trying clear the path for them by undermining Western Society one way or the other. Funded by the taxpayer.
As Fjordman stated here: "We should not debate with the radical Left, we should defeat the radical Left. They are the enemy within."
,
Good news from Denmark (where else?): Fertility rate is rising. The average is now 1.85 children per woman. Still short of the 2.1 needed for a stable population, but much better than elsewhere.
Yes, they do single out women of immigrant background. Their birth rate has now plummeted to a modest 1.97 - which means that integration and assimilation will become much easier.
Our 24-year rule probably contributed significantly to this positive change.
Fertility rates have been rising in Sweden as well. From 1.5 in 1999 to 1.88 in 2007.
Fertility Rates in Sweden
And it's not just immigrants from the 3rd world. It has become a norm for white families to have 3 children. 10 years ago it was 2 children. The difference is very noticeable from observing families in the streets. I think that the reason the fertility rate is under 2 is because a lot of people don't have children and not because people who have children choose to have one or two. People should be encouraged to have more children through taxation. If you are not raising citizens who will take care of you when you are old and feeble, it means that other people are doing this job for you. This should be adequately reflected through taxes.
Here, I found another table from the Swedish Statistics Bureau. Interesting!
Swedish population
Starting from 2002, more people were born in Sweden than died.
From the main post: "Immigrants in Germany - 15.3 M"
I brought up the ongoing population replacement in Germany on my blog the other day in reaction to a news story I saw posted here on GoV (yay, GoV!) -- "Every fourth German family has migration background."
I dug around a bit more on the German Federal Statistical Office's website (having to answer some points raised by one skeptical commenter!) and found that of those 15.3M migrants, 8.0M of those are ethnic-Germans who migrated to Germany from Russia and other places.
The remaining 7.3M are people of other ethnic backgrounds.
Since 1950, though, 54% of immigrants have been non-German. (And I bet that since the 1970s-1980s that that percentage has been much higher.)
Henrik R. Clausen wrote:
"Their [immigrant] birth rate has now plummeted to a modest 1.97 - which means that integration and assimilation will become much easier."
Jesus Christ! Are we so demoralized as to casually reference our own genocide as "progress"?
Henrik, 'assimilation' means intermarriage means the death of the Danish people. So 'integrating' radically-alien stocks of people would mean that the typical "Dane" in two centuries would have brown-skin, black hair, black eyes. Really, who cares whether he speaks Danish and baptizes his child in the Church of Denmark? He is an alien, containing maybe a little of the blood of the present northGermanic Danish stock, but that blood subsumed by alien strains ("assimilated" in in the 21st century). The stock of people in Denmark, which has been more or less constant for many milennia, will be radically altered. The true death of a people.
So no, Henrik, 'assimilation' is not something to try to make "easier". Doing so is a catastrophe.
Jesus Christ! Are we so demoralized as to casually reference our own genocide as "progress"?
Thanks, Protestant, for saying so.
I feel exactly the same way.
No "assimilation", please!
(and no forced integration either).
Actually no it doesn't...
I'm English. I'm so ruddy english you could use my stiff upper lip as a diving board, but I know I have some african ancestry in me somewhere, spanish (via scotland, oddly enough) and various other things. I'm still english. The majority of my family have lived in the same triangle between Oldham, Stockport and Buxton so long we're practically walking around on the bones of our ancestors. There's Irish and Scottish and Spanish and Danish, celts of various stripes, a bit of french and quite possibly even german in there at various points in history but I'm still English. The English race certainly exists and it is in no dangerof disappearing just because a few people marrying into it aren't the same colour. Or are we subscribing to the one drop rule now?
A people can't remain genetically pure. Genetic isolation is a disaster for any population because eventually it will start to inbreed. You Danes are already a mix of frank and german and just a wee bit of the northern pre-german natives. Given your extensive trading past you probably have more "foreign" in you than you'd care to admit, but you're still danish. Still fundamentally danes. The aspects that make you danish remain dominant in the majority poulation.
The current non-native population you have now could easily disappear into your native population and for all intents and purposes be invisible within a few generations. That black african stock I mentioned before settled in northern england some 200 or 250 years ago yet if you examine the people around where they live, these africans might never have existed. They were a very large population in the area they settled but within a few generations they were completely gone, as far as looks were concerned. All that remains is a few peculiar genetic factors.
Your fearful scenario of danes becoming "undanes" will only come about if immigration isn't halted and the existing population assimilated or repatriated.
The confusion comes on the meaning of assimilation, I can tell. Assimilation means complete subsumation of the incoming population, not the host population. It means the assimilated incoming population essentially disappears, maybe strengthening the genetic diversity of the existing population but otherwise becoming invisible. What you fear isn't assimilation but annihilation, which I agree is what you'll get if immigration isn't halted. I don't argue with that but the idea that a dane isn't a dane because he has a couple of black ancestors is stupid, frankly.
A lot of Irish people have black hair from spanish ancestors who l anded in Ireland after the defeat of the Spanish Armada but, you wouldn't say they weren't Irish...
'Genetic isolation is a disaster for any population because eventually it will start to inbreed.'
This is a myth. A population of even a few thousand can have indefinitely healthy offspring until the end of time. In fact their genetic diversity will increase as their population swells and various mutations and genetic drifts occur. A population of 20 million worrying about inbreeding is just a lack of scientific understanding and pure fear-mongering. You could breed forever and never result in anything disadvantageous thereby.
The myth of 'inbreeding' occurring whenever you don't import bantus and aborigines into your country, or that 'exotic hybrids being genetically superior' is another liberal trick to disarm the populace. Go tell the japanese about how disastrous their inbreeding has been, their 110 average IQ and cultural achievements and wealth and crime rates are sure to prove your point.
(just arguing with that line, the rest of your post is no problem)
GD (Arch.): "are we subscribing to the one drop rule now?"
You have a huge non-white population living in England. It represents much more than one drop of foreign blood. The idea that they will marry with the locals and leave no visible trace as far as looks or intelligence are concerned is absurd. I wonder why you think that African genes are good in small quantity. Why not arsenic in homeopathic quantity? The result of African immigration to a white country is that you get an African underclass, unless you make racial mixing mandatory by law --which is almost what western governments are doing now.
"Your fearful scenario of danes becoming "undanes" will only come about if immigration isn't halted and the existing population assimilated or repatriated."
I am afraid that immigrants to Europe and the USA will not be repatriated. At least, if there was no "assimilation" and no intermarriage, blue-eyed blonde girls would be at no risk of disappearing.
I think Henrik R. Clausen does not approve of immigration, but is afraid of being too harsh with immigrants. He doesn't want to deport anyone. That is why he insists on assimilation.
Politicians often behave the same way. They will not demand a halt to immigration, and will never mention repatriation. This is not because they are afraid of causing disruption to the lives of immigrants and their descendants. But they are afraid of defying the media and their political hierarchy. So, what they say is that we should at least ask immigrants to learn the language, stop committing crime, and assimilate into European culture. And we are told that this is really tough language! Except that encouraging the "assimilation" of immigrants is much more destructive of our people and society than allowing them to create separate communities. We end up destroying our nations because we do not want to upset foreign individuals who could have perfectly acceptable lives in their home countries. That is why I agree with Protestant.
Archonix, what a bullshit!
Diamed, the Japanese as an example were a great one.
Archonix two tips:
There's a difference between a drop and a cup of tea.
Also, try to read something abut genetics. For the Irish, they do descend from us, Iberians. The primitive Celts, not the Armada ones...
I'll not comment the data because it's so depressing. The less than two years old are already more than 15% "ethnic" in Germany. I had data in which they were more than 25% in France, so yes, the Germans are better than the French. Concerning the polemical assimilation of Henrik, it would/will take centuries to be completed and I'd only support it if each of those cuples had one child per women what would not happen. That's why we're not talking of a drop but the de-Danization of Danes, who are of relativeley pure North Germanic stock, more than other Scandinavians I'dd say. Nothing to due with the French: Celt, Roman, Germanic...
Ohhhhhhh craaaaaa- um... darnit. I had a big reply down here that answered all the substantive points and I lost it. That's depressed me. It was really good... I'll try and re-write it this evening.
Graham Dawson's attempt to explain away this Elephant-in-the-Room [our racial annihilation by way of "assimilation"], and his curious attempt to "deconstruct" his own ethnicity, ultimately ring hollow (and I think he knows it).
But these are certainly the safe things to do. "More people will get on the anti-Islam bandwagon, if we just keep quiet about that pesky 'race issue'!"
That is technically true, but for God's sake think things through a little better! Would it be 'victory' to have a totally Islam-free Europe in 200 years, but while also having a Denmark (etc.) which resembles present-day Egypt in racial stock?
Friends, the struggle that will define the present century [at least for our purposes] is the struggle for the survival of the European peoples across the world. Stopping Islam is but one branch of this titanic struggle. Things look extremely bleak at present towards this end, but the tide of history does have a tendency to change directions suddenly, from time to time.
Pointing out the realities of my ancestry is not "de-constructing" any d*mn thing and you know it. I'm English. I have a lot of varied ancestors. So what? The point I was trying to make is that people breed with people.
Limpet: Oddly enough arsenic in small amounts is beneficial for the human body. Chemists always say the poison is in the dose. Current immigration trends are like eating a few pounds of the stuff, when just a very few incomers would be beneficial - not necessary, but beneficial. Enough to inoculate us against the disease perhaps, if we're going to continue these metaphors.
Afonso: You lost be on your first line. Sorry.
Various: You see, the thing is, I tried to lay out what I thought would be the ideal situation. Repatriation is included in that. You all want that, the concept has been mentioned many times, yet when I include it in my argument you suddenly decided that oh, it's not going to happen... yes, and neither is the repatriation of everybody in that case, or the extermination some of you seem to be begging after, or the complete end of all immigration (which you may notice I also mentioned as necessary).
I think the problem is that you can't see past the fact that I'm not a race purist to the substance of my arguments. I want essentially what you want, the preservation of my nation, my people, the prevention of uncontrolled immigration and the restoration of our ancient freedoms. I just happen to think that you lot would also see my sister in law deported simply because she's brown and, frankly, if anyone came near my family to do that they would find me very unamused and possibly waving my sword collection under their noses.
I know that nobody reads this any more but I saved this on the "favourite bar".
Archonix: "I think the problem is that you can't see past the fact that I'm not a race purist"
Nobody here asked you to be a race purist. We (I) only ask you to distinguish between a drop and a cup of tea.
"I just happen to think that you lot would also see my sister in law deported simply because she's brown..."
You see, that is the difficult part. I will not say about what requesites should someone have to be deported, I only want you to think about the "race purist"/drop/cup of tea question.
One thing is to defend the right to every village to have a "brown person".
Another very different thing is to deffend the right of every family to have a "brown person".
Can you see the difference between a drop and a cup of tea?
Archonix is certainly right, and Protestant wrong. Intermarriage does not threaten European ethnicity. First of all since it does not happen, and never happened, on that mass scale as mass immigration (into isolated ghettos). And in addition to that intermarriage is true assimilation. However, have caution about the concept "assimilation" when used by politicians. We can expect it to become used more and more in a dishonest way, which will mean nothing else but more of the same.
However, in spite of being right, Archonix takes his argument to the tiresome and off-putting PC/multiculti level of singing the praise of how we need diversity. He simply does not stick to facts, but impose an ideological value upon the discussion, where he considers a racially mixed population superior to one that is not. This is nothing but the mindless mirror image of the racial purists. Why do people always have to be ideological? Both is OK of course. And both have existed and thrived during history.
A people can't remain genetically pure. Genetic isolation is a disaster for any population because eventually it will start to inbreed.
This is patently false. Take Iceland for example. Or Sweden and Norway as it used to be. Finland..
CS, I tried to address that issue in the infamously lost post. The basic stance I took was that I probably went a little hyperbolic on the idea of "necessary" interbreeding, having in mind the very isolated and very small populations of some places (Essex for example) where inbreeding has occurred. If I recall right it's been covered elsewhere since the this topic died and I was more than happy to accept that I was wrong in what I said at that point.
In itself I think thi can demonstrate how easy it is to fall into the trap of polarising positions. My reaction was based on a perceived need to defend my family from apparent threats. In that situation it's hard to remain level-headed.
Graham,
Fair enough. Nothing more to be said then. A very insightful and good answer, worthy of a big man, and now we completely agree.
My reaction was based on a perceived need to defend my family from apparent threats.
Protecting your Swedish wife from British purists...???
No, she can take care of herself. It's the paraguayan sister-in-law I was worried about.
Surely many good people react like you, but without reflecting over it.
What could be done...?
Post a Comment