In the comments on yesterday’s post by Fjordman, the discussion turned — as it so often does — to Israeli settlements within “Palestinian” territory and whether such activities constitute an unlawful displacement of the rightful owners.
Commenter EileenOCnnr said:
There is NO Law of Nature that says that if a people live or lived in a certain territory that that territory is then theirs for the duration. Life, with a big “L”, just doesn’t work like that.
Humans, like most other animals, are territorial, that is obvious. And how it works is: Defend it or lose it. You don’t get to go claiming it back 20 or 200 or 2000 years later just ’cause your ancestors came from there.
Some of my ancestors lost the territory (parts of Ulster) that our people had lived in for who-knows-how-long. They lost it ’cause they weren’t as smart or capable or united as the invaders/settlers/planters/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. We screwed up. We didn’t manage. Even in modern times with the IRA and what not, we didn’t manage to get it back. We lost.
And that’s Life. We can’t go claiming it back 400 or so years later by using some rationalization that those were our ancestors’ lands or that (if it were true) our gods promised that land would always be ours.
This sort of calculus arises frequently in modern discussions about colonialism, at least as the word applies to Europeans. The concept of rightful territorial ownership is one of the ideological fruits of twentieth-century liberalism, especially the metastasized version known as Political Correctness. Prior to 1900, EileenOCnnr’s view was the dominant one: the land belonged to those who were strong enough to hold it, and there was no Universal Court of Human Rights to return land to any unfortunate victims who had been “unlawfully displaced”.
The Indians of North America certainly lived by the same ancient tenet. Our modern trope holds that the Evil White Man stole the land from the Noble Natives, but there is no evidence that the Indians themselves viewed the situation that way. They used violence and slaughter to take land from one another, and regarded the victor of such struggles as having rightful title to the territory thus obtained.
If we plan to take land away from the “usurpers” and return it to its rightful owners, then the Indians themselves will have to be sent back to Siberia, because they in their turn supplanted the earlier inhabitants. The first human settlers in North America were a genetically and culturally distinct group that arrived between 30,000 and 11,000 years ago, as represented by Clovis points and other archeological evidence unearthed in the Southwest. They are the rightful owners of North America; the Indians are parvenus.
Or, choosing another example at random, consider London. If the immigrants are strong enough to hold it, London will soon belong to them, for they have taken it from the Anglo-Saxons — or rather, the Anglo-Saxons have ceded it to them, and are gradually withdrawing. Within twenty years it will rightly belong to Pakistanis and the Jamaicans, and the two groups can then fight it out among themselves to determine who will become the new undisputed masters of the Thames Valley.
- - - - - - - - -
However, as we all know, the Anglo-Saxons in their turn stole London from the Britons, who are now more commonly known as the Welsh. But the Britons didn’t hold the original title — they were part of the wave of Iron Age Celts who arrived on the island sometime in the first millennium B.C. They supplanted one of the earlier Neolithic groups, which had displaced an even earlier group, and so on back through the dim mists of prehistory to the first group that crossed the land bridge to Albion after the ice sheets receded.
Returning all the world’s land to its “rightful” owners will be a difficult task. Even if we can determine who had first dibs — and that is a major task, given the ten or thirty or fifty millennia that have elapsed since the first humans arrived in any given place — most of those aboriginal groups are extinct or have been genetically and culturally absorbed into other populations. The Australian Aborigines, the Negritos of the Philippines, the inhabitants of some of the islands of the South Pacific, and possibly the Inuit: only a few surviving claimants to first ownership can reasonably be identified.
Human beings migrated out of Africa between sixty and one hundred millennia ago. By ten thousand years ago at the very latest, with the exception of Antarctica, homo sapiens had filled its modern habitat. Human beings at that point ranged from Baffin Island to Tierra del Fuego and from Kamchatka to Tasmania. Since then we have fought, invaded, exterminated, and supplanted each other, over and over, so that by now almost every hectare has changed hands innumerable times.
Virtually no place that is occupied by modern human beings actually “belongs” to them. All six billion usurpers should be forcibly repatriated to Antarctica or the asteroid belt, leaving the rest of the Earth’s surface to its rightful owners.
107 comments:
There is a big difference between the situation of Muslims in the West and conquest or colonialism in the past. The Muslims and other immigrants didn't conquer the land, they didn't colonize it as warriors: they were invited by treacherous governments, in order to displace and dispossess the former historical ethnic majorities of the countries.
So, the English people conquered parts of Ulster, white Europeans conquered and colonized the Americas. These territories should be now theirs. But what happened through open-borders policies in the West in the last decades is social engineering promoted by the elite to replace the natural owners of the territory.
The Western governments acted as Bolsheviks who dispossessed all the former property-owners by their earned or inherited properties.
Some people argue that, for example, the majority of Kosovars are already Muslims so the Serbs have to accept the idea that they cannot take back the land. Actually, in a natural, fair war, the Serbs would win and conquer back the territory. That's why they have to be hindered to win by the "international community" through all possible means, including bombing.
In a natural, fair competition for territory, the Brits would win against Muslims: it is not even necessary to shoot a fire, they would demolish all the existing mosques, refuse to produce halal food, ban the Quran and create a climate to make Muslims leave. But the Britisn government is interested to keep the competition unfair by establishing dishonest PC rules to frighten the majority.
A la guerre comme a la guerre is a rule of life. But our governments keep us handcuffed and scared, because otherwise we can use the swords (or guns). The fair competition was abolished by neo-Bolsheviks who force us to play by their unjust, artificial rules. The neo-Bolsheviks should be removed from power to let the rules of life reign again.
Great post!
spot on.
"Humans, like most other animals, are territorial, that is obvious. And how it works is: Defend it or lose it. You don’t get to go claiming it back 20 or 200 or 2000 years later just ’cause your ancestors came from there."
But that is exactly how it works in mahoundianism hence their eagerness to reclaim Al-Andalus. Thanks to our treacherous elites the followers of mahound now has staked out their territory on our lands. So the way they see it, "our land" is no longer ours but now belongs to allah. The choice we have now is to either accept islam or declare war against the followers of mahound. I preferably makes the latter choice.
Armance: You are correct. If we were allowed to fight properly we would have kicked these inferior peoples out of our countries years ago. What this really is about is high-IQ white transnational oligarchs, like Blair and Brown in Britain, waging a cultural and demographic war against their own people to build a global world order. This is NOT a conspiracy theory. In fact, Gordon Brown has repeatedly bragged about the need for a New World Order. From my Danish friends I hear rumors that Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, the well-connected former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Denmark, has called for the need for global governance. EU President Herman Van Rompuy has openly stated that the fraud of "global warming" should be used to achieve such a goal.
Representatives for the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have openly, in writing, admitted that they have a deliberate policy of flooding the country with Third World immigration with the intention of changing its demography forever. This implies dispossessing the natives of their land. As fellow writer Paul Weston has shown, such a policy is called "ethnic cleansing" according to international treatises signed by Western authorities. Put another way, British authorities have admitted in writing that they are pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing against the native population.
So why doesn't it trigger protests from others that a major Western NATO and EU country is committing ethnic cleansing? Wasn't that the excuse NATO used to bomb the Serbs in 1999? Should we bomb London now? The answer to this riddle is simple: Other Western nations do not protest against this policy because they follow the same policy themselves. Destroying and dispossessing the white majority population to facilitate the rise of global governance and transnational Socialism is the official policy of all - and I do mean ALL - Western nations without exception. What we are dealing with is a pan-Western civil war between Globalist oligarchs and people who are still committed to their Europeans roots. The problem is that the Globalists dominate Western media and academia and use Third World immigration to permanently destroy their opponents. They call this annihilation of their own people "tolerance," and they have gotten away with this so far.
That could change, though. They get away with this now because it is an undeclared war fought largely by stealth. As they become increasingly arrogant and open about their true goals they will meet increasingly angry and stubborn resistance. I think they severely underestimate the anger that is growing in whites globally.
I’ll repeat a comment that I made on a previous thread.
“Everything will eventually come to an end. Empires emerge and empires fall, and the same thing will happen to the USA and the EU at some stage. I don’t ever think that the third world immigrants of the western world are going to be repatriated back to their native lands, it’s a logistical nightmare and it would cause all sorts of horrible problems if such a policy were ever to be implemented.
I think the best option all things considered would be to create self governing areas within the borders of the current nation states. Large land areas could be purchased or allocated by western nations and designated as new nation states where those members of the indigenous population who wanted secession from the state could be given an opportunity to shape their own future on their own terms.
As time moves on and more and more ethnically different and foreign individuals flood into the west, the more tempting this idea will become. Even today residents in the west flock to gated communities to escape the crime and violence that are holding them hostage. Of course another option would be a violent armed struggle, but that would be a very bloody and traumatic affair.”
Cyril Falls wrote a history of the Ulster Plantation from a pro-Planter perspective (The Birth of Ulster, 1936). He compared the Ulster indigenous to the American Indians, his position being, in effect, that “you can’t make an omelette [the Plantation] without breaking eggs”.
Early this morning at about 12.30am on BBC Radio 4 News, they announced that about 50 global nations had written a letter to broadsheet newspaper in support of Browns policies and warning against David Cameron's proposal to cut National Insurance, saying it will damage the economy.Despite support from UK business. This is unprecedented and confirms the above.
However, the American policy throughout the XX century and much of the XIX has been anti-Colonialist.
We as Humans get it that the winner takes it all. But, we also regard usurpation in a bad light.
We don't like usurpers, as humans. We instinctively (and rationally) recognise that usurpation is not right or pleasent. Virtually all of Humanity dubbs "Usurpation" as something inherently bad.
That's why those who went on to de fact usurpate other lands have created systems that permitted them to negate that they were actually usurping:
The spread of the good faith by Christians and Muslims makes this two groups automatically non usurpers but "spreaders of good".
More so in the European case where Europeans have taken at heart the mission of Civilising the world. Which in a lesser extent can be applied to the muslims.
Then we have the Chinese that have historically considered different Nations as part of their Empire.
We feel repugnance towards usurpers (unless they have a great reason).
And with Israel it is no different: Or you accept their "great reason" as valid and you are already biased in favour of them or you feel a certain pitty of the poor Palestinians who became home-less and region-less.
But the Palestinians having turned to terrorism doesn't get them much sympathy around here, I guess. Unless you see them as "freedom fighters" and you're already biased in favour of them.
And yes, Kritik Borger comment does not make much sense to me either.
But maybe he lives in a State/Country that is truly multicultural, like 25% to 65% ethnic...
... probabily he's an American.
Robin Shadowes said..
“Absolutely not! They would never leave us alone anyway and always plot to take over our countries anyway aside from the constant jihad like anywhere else where mahoundians are. It is necessary to expell them all. It's not a logistic nightmare at all, just round them up and send them out. How hard is that?”
You are pretty naive if you really believe that the tens of millions of immigrants currently residing in Europe can somehow just be “rounded up” and sent back to their native lands and that it will be “business as usual” without any form of upheaval or armed resistance.
I hate to repeat myself, but I’ll do it one more time and repost a comment I made a couple of months ago when this exact scenario was discussed.
“Ok, so the west should start the forcible repatriation of Muslims from the western world. How do the governments, who for the most part hail from the left side of the political scale, go about implementing such a policy? How many Muslims are there in Europe at the moment, twenty, thirty, or perhaps even forty million?
These people aren’t just going to give up without a fight. No way, we’ve seen how easily they resort to violence when they don’t get their way. They will use any means, and by that I mean absolutely any means, to be able to remain here.
And it’s not just going to be Muslims vs non Muslims, it’s also going to be non Muslims vs non Muslims. A conflict on this scale would also lead to an influx of jihadists from every corner of the globe. Those who think that the violence after the invasion of Iraq was bad will be horrified to see an even more violent and bloody conflict take place in Europe. It’s also worth mentioning that this war could not be fought in a traditional military manner, as most of the fighting would take place in urban areas. In many ways it would resemble the war fought in Iraq against the insurgents, with huge losses of civilian lives.
It’s not even given that the various armies in Europe would manage to avoid serious infightings within its ranks, over such a controversial mission, let alone the different countries in Europe. Just because Denmark was willing to forcibly expel the Muslim from Denmark, doesn’t necessarily mean that France would allow them to do so. France could even decide to invade Denmark as a result of the Danish decision to go to this drastic step.
Is it really an option to risk the completely and utter destruction of Europe, in order to rid the continent of its Muslim population, and is it even a feasible task?
Nor would the decision makers in the west allow such a scenario to ever take place, and if it came down to it, they would do everything in their power to remain in power. This would of course also mean the use of very undemocratic methods.
I think a more plausible option is that the various Governments of Europe would introduce stricter laws regulating individual’s rights to spread extreme religious hatred and for practitioners to assemble and practice their religion. De-radicalization programs on a massive scale could also be an option if push really came to shove, along with forcible internment of radical Muslims, and in the form of a demographic destruction of Muslim ghettos in the big cities of Europe. Needless to say, a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the continent would have to be put in place.
Kritisk Borger,
you're not making any sense at all.
Back in the days, Jews were routinely expelled of every European country and no one made a big thing out of it.
After World War II (with much easier ways of moving people available, but not as easier as those we have available now), massive population movements occured in Eastern Europe and no one made a big thing out of it.
In the Soviet Union everyone was deported just because, and no one make a revolution because of it.
You seem to think in an alternative world that has no relation to reality (France invades Denmark, Great War between muslims and non muslims, and whathever else).
Which makes it even more difficult to me to understand how you cannot understand that such a step would only be taken if a complete paradigm shift had taken place previously.
And where I live, I don't see much ethnic cleanisng but I see some "economical cleansing".
It's just leting them build luxury buildings in a previously poor zone, or to allow a third world illegal neighbourhood to grow near a previously functioning one and you have most of the poor moved out in the first case and much of the wealthier ones moving out in the later one.
Ethnic cleansing is equally easy to accomplish, specially when there is one dominant group.
I'm pretty sure at the time Rome fell all of Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, oh and lets not forget even Israel were Roman and rome was a Christian country.
Thus they have to all move to Saudi Arabia and give it all back. Or they are full of crap and should shut up.
Or does it just work in their favour?
The Britons, so far as we know, did not however pay the Anglo-Saxons to take London.
Kritisk bolger, and others:
You likely are familiar with the postings of el ingles at this web site. Without attempting here to recapitulate his analysis exactly, my opinions below have been heavily influenced by el ingles’ writings. The opinions, however, are entirely my own; they may or may not reflect his current thinking.
Islam always and everywhere constitutes an aggressive totalitarian (theo-fascist) ideology and social/legal/political program. (My apologies for that cumbersome sentence, but I do not wish to take the time now to simplify it.) To my knowledge, there is not a single historical instance in which Muslims have not attempted to take over, by stealth or force, a society to which they had access. Within any given society, the population density at which Muslims generally transition from stealth and “civil rights” strategies to achieve dominance to open violence in pursuit of dominance seems to be about 20% to 25% of total population. In many European countries, including France and Great Britain, Muslims are likely to be at that threshold, by current immigration and birthrate scenarios, around or before the year 2030. In both those nations and in other areas of Europe, Muslims have already begun violent (terrorist) attacks and threats of more attacks. So the violence from Muslims to achieve the submission of kuffar is, today, a reality.
The non-Muslim peoples of Europe have this, and only this, alternative: fight or submit. Islam never has, does not now, and (I submit) never will coexist peacefully with any other ideology. Mohammed, the “perfect example,” did not permit his followers that option. (Muslims may, of course, enact temporary truce arrangements or engage in stealth and deceit – e.g. taqiyya – when at military disadvantage vis-à-vis the kuffar, but they are expressly forbidden to live without war, indefinitely, with non-Muslims.) I think you are already aware of the dar al Islam/dar al Harb situation I am describing.
So, the future of Europe – and probably America, Australia, Canada, and other nations in which Muslims have a subversive presence – is necessarily violent. That can no longer be avoided. The only questions are: When, exactly how, and what will the body counts be?
You wrote: “I think a more plausible option is that the various Governments of Europe would introduce stricter laws regulating individual’s rights to spread extreme religious hatred and for practitioners to assemble and practice their religion. De-radicalization programs on a massive scale…”
I submit, that will not solve the problem or avoid, or even mitigate, the violence. The various scenarios you envision in response to proposed massive deportation – introduction of foreign jihadis, refusal of national armed forces to enact the deportations, interference from other European countries or the EU as a whole – are just as likely to occur with vigorous methods of suppression and restriction.
For the record, I also do not think deportation on any significant scale is feasible. It would require massive force be applied to an uncooperative population, Muslims in Europe, and would itself lead to the breakdown of civil order. What I maintain here is that breakdown of civil order – what el ingles calls the appearance of “discontinuities” – is virtually inevitable. The ONLY alternative is the submission of non-Muslims to Islam and Sharia. Personally, I am much less disturbed by the prospect of “cleansing,” even genocide, than I am of the total loss of Western Civilization to the fascists of Islam.
Baron. I disagree with your posting. Of course, there is a moral component to land ownership. Of course, there is. Otherwise we would be pre-moral savages. The Old Testament provides us with the paradigm of how moral ownership works. Namely, God bequeaths a specific piece of land to a people, and they enter into a covenant with Him. What worked for the Hebrews should work for the indigenous Europeans. No need to re-write the Bible. It is enough to stake the land through a participatory symbolic act. Such ceremonies already exist in most mature societies. For example military pledges, etc...
@kritisk_borger --
I deleted Mr. Shadowes' comment, part of which you quoted.
I don't believe I've ever seen him talk about anything else but Muslims. Besides the fact that his "solutions" to the problem of massive immigration are inhumane, they wouldn't work. In fact, any attempt at implementation of his Johnny One-note idea would make a bad situation worse.
NOTE TO ROBIN SHADOWES: YOU ARE WELCOME TO COMMENT AT GATES OF VIENNA AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT DISCUSS MUSLIMS. NO MUSLIM TALK AT ALL AT ANY TIME ON THIS BLOG. THAT TOPIC IS NOW OFF LIMITS TO YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE RELENTLESSLY DRIVEN IT INTO THE GROUND. OUR EYES HAVE LONG SINCE GLAZED OVER.
YOU MAY CONSIDER MY USE OF CAPS AS YELLING. I DO NOT THINK A MODULATED VOICE WOULD GET PAST WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN OBSESSION ON YOUR PART SO I AM YELLING REALLY REALLY LOUDLY IN THE (PROBABLY VAIN) HOPE OF GETTING YOUR ATTENTION.
ALL GOD'S PROBLEMS AIN'T A MUSLIM, MR. SHADOWES. GET OVER IT OR MOVE ALONG.
/rant
@Félicie --
When the Hebrews moved into the Promised Land, they killed the then-occupants of Canaan. The Battle of Jericho, remember? And the fight for Gabaon was ugly too.
They didn't just walk across the river and settle in. It took about six bloody years before they were able to claim the area and divide it by lots for the various tribes.
I am not saying they didn't have a 'covenant'. I am saying the indigenes suffered for that.
For thousands of years, that's how land was acquired, right down to WWII and after.
To the victor go the spoils. So China has Tibet, though Tibet doesn't like it.
And the Brits have the Falkland Islands, and America has Guam, both of which are friendlier to the idea. And Australia or Canada would not have their 'dominion' by the UK any other way.
Once sovereignty has been established, by custom that land belongs to its "owners" and that ownership is, as you point out, a covenant. it is certainly far more than a contract to those who claim allegiance to a place.
Then, someone gets grandiose and before you know it, there's another "act of aggression" to take, or retake, or re-retake a place that belonged to the ancestors.
There are those who actively plan to take Israel's sliver of geography away from the Jews and give it to some Arabs. In fact, Syria just sent some SCUD missles to Lebanon for the use of Hezbollah (or is it Hamas? The Terrorist Twins, I forget) on the heart of Israel...it won't be long now...
Whenever I start getting angry all over again about the experience of having the trees on our back acres chopped down and sold by someone else (he eventually went to jail for other thieveries) I think of Israel. It makes me understand how having a place of one's own and wanting to live there without being invaded by thieves, how that feeling forms a substrate of what it means to 'belong', to have a sense of place.
[Note: for those who want to discuss Israel's 'taking' of land, I refer you to the UN's granting of that land sixty years ago. That argument is over for everyone but those who want Israel dead. Whatever else they acquired later was done because aggressors attacked first. Thus, Don't go there. I used Israel as an example of sovereignty. Do not attempt to send the thread sideways. Thank you.]
Félicie –
Baron. I disagree with your posting. Of course, there is a moral component to land ownership.
You miss my point. I wasn’t discussing the presence or absence of any given “moral component” to land ownership. My sole point is that any attempt to ground a right — moral or otherwise — to ownership based on prior occupancy is doomed to fail — almost no one on the planet can claim ownership based on that standard. We are all usurpers of some other group’s territory.
What worked for the Hebrews should work for the indigenous Europeans.
But the indigenous people of Europe took the land from previous inhabitants. The Celts took it from the Neolithic peoples, and the Germanic tribes took it from the Celts. The Huns took their territory from Germanic and Slavic tribes. Lombardy, if I remember correctly, was the creation of the Lombargi, a Germanic tribe that migrated to Italy from somewhere in Poland or Lithuania.
So who really “owns” any given square mile of European territory?
We can view ownership through one of three lenses:
(1) Prior claim. If we are required to give land back to the earliest settlers, the Aborigines would be given Australia and the Negritos the Philippines.
It’s possible (but not definite) that the Basques are the descendants of the first human settlers of Iberia. So we can give Europe to them. The Sami may be entitled to Finland and parts of Sweden and Russia.
The Tasmanians are extinct, so white people will simply have to vacate Tasmania and leave it to the marsupials.
Africa would be difficult, because many millennia of tribal warfare have obscured the geographical origins of most of the current tribal groups. Arabs, however, would have to go back across the Red Sea to the Arabian peninsula.
And so on. As you can see, adjudicating these rights of ownership would require a massive administrative apparatus (presumably under the auspices of the UN) with many thousands of anthropologists, linguists, archeologists, and geologists employed full-time to investigate who has a rightful claim to any given area of land.
Which leads us to:
(2) Who “deserves” it. Once again, the adjudication of who has the right to claim ownership, for whatever moral reason, would mandate the creation of an enormous UN bureaucracy — much bigger than anything required to regulate carbon dioxide — to determine ownership and resettle displaced peoples to their rightful homes.
Most of “us” — and by that I mean Caucasians from the European diaspora — would have to relocate to an area somewhere around the Black Sea, in what is now Ukraine, or perhaps in Anatolia. But even that might not be good enough, because “we” may have displaced an earlier tribe when migrating there from somewhere else.
Needless to say, the UN agency charged with this mission — call it the UN Commission for the Relocation of Populations to their Rightful Homelands, UNCRPRH for short — would require enforcement powers to do its job, backed by military units where necessary, since many people would not relocate willingly.
Which leads us to:
(3) Ownership of the land belongs to any group which is strong and determined enough to hold it. Ultimately, that’s what it all boils down to. None of the above high-minded self-righteous or divinely-mandated programs can be carried out without the backing of well-armed men ready to kill those who resist being evicted.
It always comes down to this, because people cling tenaciously to their territory. All the arguments about who rightfully owns the land have conveniently ignored the fact that brute force, and brute force alone, determines territorial ownership.
The rest is jaw-jaw.
if the falklands can be british then i think that jerusalem can be israeli.
Dymphna:"It makes me understand how having a place of one's own and wanting to live there without being invaded by thieves, how that feeling forms a substrate of what it means to 'belong', to have a sense of place."
Exactly. Belonging is territorial. It is not just intrahuman, but it is a special tie that connects a people to a territory. This is done partly through place-names. This is a symbolic act. The name of the people and the name of the land are the same, such as Germans/Germany.
The fact that God told Israelites to defeat the Canaan tribes does not contradict the moral aspect of land ownership - it confirms it. Gos commands the people to take possession of a certain piece of land. He tells them to take just this land - not more, nor less. Here is the ethical component for you. He explicitly intends to make room for various peoples in this world, not just one. He is not like the Mongolian diety who told them to go and conquer the world.
Baron:"But the indigenous people of Europe took the land from previous inhabitants. The Celts took it from the Neolithic peoples, and the Germanic tribes took it from the Celts. The Huns took their territory from Germanic and Slavic tribes. Lombardy, if I remember correctly, was the creation of the Lombargi, a Germanic tribe that migrated to Italy from somewhere in Poland or Lithuania."
Baron, but were the Ancient Slavs, Celts, Germanic people, Neolithic and Paleolithic people states in the modern sense? Did they realize themselves as states? Did they have national self-consciousness? Probably not. They did not have literacy and they did not codify their existence symbolically. I think we should deal with more modern cases.
Félicie --
I don't mind dealing with more modern cases. We can do Quebec, or the Sudetenland, or Tibet, or Chechnya.
The point is that no moral right exists without the ability and willingness of someone to violently defend their right to be there. That is a prerequisite for territorial ownership, moral or otherwise.
Fjordman says: "What this really is about is high-IQ white transnational oligarchs waging a cultural and demographic war against their own people to build a global world order."
I think he is right, but with the caveat that it's not about high IQs, but abysmal morals.
I don't know how my country sits in the IQ list, but I would prefer a million regular Italians to a specially selected allotment of a million high IQ Arabs, Nigerians or even Norwegians for that matter.
My family, my people, my country, the good, bad and the ugly, not because they are particularly fantastic, but because they are mine, my garden to cultivate and bring to fruition. Because we are connected: blood, history, families, etc.
This doesn't mean sealed borders, but a sense of measure, IOW thinking in terms of pictures and not systems, which by their very nature are extremist.
What happened in the Enlightenment was the blank page of freedom trumping morality. The reformers saw what was wrong (easy), but were sensationally wrong about what was right.
So what did they invent? In a nutshell, this: "there is no such thing as truth and everything is relative, (excluding - of course - the opinion that there is no truth and everything is relative) and consequently virtues can be substituted by "choice" - and choice is always good no matter what one chooses, unless entering in conflict with other choices whereupon only the state can arbitrate."
Such a theology was destined to rot as soon as the long established orginal virtues - no longer supported - withered.
Surely one can't help but notice that today's dumbest are the intellighentia. Why have the united brains of high IQ Norway gotten dumber than the low IQs of the poverty-stricken and crime-ridden quarters of Naples?
If you want stupidity go to UCLA and Harvard. They'll tell you why Folsom Street Fairs are good for society and the likes of a Brarak Obama can become the editor of the Law Review on the virtue of his smile. Even the gypsies living down the street from me would know how to choose a better lawyer!
Conclusion? High IQs empowering wrong values generate higher and more efficient degrees of suicidal stupidity. (More powerful computers in the hands of smarter hackers do more damage).
Everyone in the West is guilty of Enlightenment thinking because of its early (and much hyped) success stories, especially that of the American experiment. Who in his right mind didn't want to end racism, apartheid, Jim Crow? Who didn't want to open his mind, heart and zipper?
But on closer inspection we now see very nasty truths, the mere utterance of which have become criminal offenses: Rhodesia was better for Blacks than Zimbabwe, same goes for South Africa. American blacks were far more creative, cool and given to occasional artistic "renaissances" during the bad old days of white oppression than today.
Closer to the matter at hand, I think Baron's got it right; (3) Ownership of the land belongs to any group which is strong and determined enough to hold it. A high percentage of that determination can also be called love and attachment to ones ways.
The danger, what is looming and "really real" is the One World movement, a system that does away with all three of the Baron's points, leaving committees of expert fools to shape and organize according to any criteria at all regardless of previous claims, blood ties, tradition, race.
Many artificial countries were created by such committees, especially by Great Britian (and other Colonial / Imperial / World powers). Ex-Yugoslavia made no sense, nor does present-day Iraq or Sudan or Nigeria.
Today those strong enough and most determined are bent on doing away with any whatsoever right of ownership. They are the ones with the money and the starry-eyed youths. This is the new Utopian nightmare.
Ok, point taken. Which also makes it pointless to stay. Your blog, your rules. You probably think of me as a bigot, racist, nazi, right wing nut or something along that line. Think what you will about me. I couldn't care less. Buh-bye. (This time I mean it, I won't look back.)
Baron:"I don't mind dealing with more modern cases. We can do Quebec, or the Sudetenland, or Tibet, or Chechnya.
The point is that no moral right exists without the ability and willingness of someone to violently defend their right to be there. That is a prerequisite for territorial ownership, moral or otherwise."
This is my fourth and last comment on this thread. Chechnya was not a state. These were tribal people historically occupying the mountains, while Russians and other nationalities lived in the valleys. The Chechen situation was different from that of the Russian state, for instance, losing its sovereignty temporarily to the Mongols. I don't know enough about your other examples to make a definitive pronouncement.
What I have noticed, however, is that whenever there is a territorial conflict, one side is usually more right than the other. I've never see a case when both sides have a morally equivalent claim. To have a moral claim, however, you need to be a state and possess national self-consciousness. I don't think that Chechens have a moral claim on Russia and American Indians on the territory of the U.S. I have always thought that it was a mistake that the original settlers did not obliterate all Indian place-names. They have left themselves vulnerable.
I don't suggest, however, that there should be an international authority to adjudicate such conflicts and intervene militarily. Let both sides fight it out. I think that the historical justice will eventually prevail. People who feel wronged tend to keep the fire stoked over many generations. Eventually, I am sure, we will see that Armenians get back their Mount Ararat and Serbians - Kosovo.
Another thing which might happen as the standard of living takes a plunge in Europe is a large exodus of Europeans to different continents. In the past tens of millions of Europeans have immigrated to the new world and built new and prosperous nations. This was done because of poor living conditions in Europe at the time, religious and political persecution and the promise of landownership. It could very well happen again if push comes to shove. And this immigration might not necessarily only be to other western nations in the new world, it could also quite possibly be that these emigrants would head for specific locations in African or Asia, who knows?
I should also mention for those of you who are not that familiar with the current situation in Iceland that Icelanders are leaving the island in droves at the moment because of the financial mess the country is in, and most of them are heading for Norway. If I’m not completely mistaken more than ten thousand are expected to emigrate this year alone. That’s quite a substantial number considering the population is only 250 000 or thereabouts.
Afonso Henriques,
Please do not offend someone based on nationality. While Europe has created much good in the XVIII and XIX centuries the XX century was a disaster and while yankee leftists are dangerous european ones are a disaster.
Now you REALLY don't like people writting your name wrong so try to do the same with other people's names. Kritisk Borger post did make sense. But his conclusions are insane.
Kritisk Borger,
You have correct assumptions, that western goverments are agaisnt us, that repatriation of muslins it's a difficult task, etc but you have incorrect conclusions.
Now abadonment or deportation will need the same cultural shift. Almost the same effort and in the end will also end in violence.
Deportation is the best way but it need not to be "quick and dirty" it can be "slow and clean". It the end both are ILUSSIONS as the leftists will not let anything be done. As appeasment will not work the only thing that will work is force, and that will mean civil war. WE ARE SCREWED.
Rocha,
A full scale war in Europe could very well be the final outcome, and yes, it would have devastating consequences for us all.
Of course I get curious about that deleted comment of Robin Shadowes'. What else did he say except that eventually we'll need to remove the Muslims from our lands? He's absolutely right about that, as everybody knows who have basic knowledge about Islam. The other option (as suggested by others here) would be for us to run away from them -- but where should we run to?
And if Robin Shadowes is indeed all focused on the issue of Islam, and don't (like so many others) let himself get overly distracted by other issues, I find that commendable.
So I do not understand what is the problem here. And now Robin says he won't return. This is all a big mistake, right?
@ Mr. Shadowes:
You probably think of me as a bigot, racist, nazi, right wing nut or something along that line...
i have no idea whether or not you are these things. Lord knows I've been called a right wing nut by lots of folks.
However, I am no longer willing to have you continuously, monotonously repeating the same thing. We already know you believe that Muslims must be removed and returned...somewhere.
They're not going anywhere, as much as we might like that to be so.
Having said it now on this blog dozens of times, you have made your point -- i.e., that you think removal is a solution. I'm not sure you've ever made a comment that didn't include some notion about the problem of Muslims. As I said, it's one note out of one song and it is the only one you are willing to sing here.
@Conservative Swede:
o I do not understand what is the problem here.
Well, if you don't see the problem it is beyond my powers to explain it in a way that you would comprehend.
And now Robin says he won't return.
Yes, that does appear to be his choice. He has done thi sbefore, but perhaps he means it this time. Though he did say previously that he meant it also. So who knows?
This is all a big mistake, right?
Are you being disingenuous here? Is that a trick question?
I am weary of Mr. Shadowe's Chinese water torture "solutions" re Muslims. This particular post was about sovereignty in general, but sure as summer follows spring, Mr. Shadowes arrived dragging his manhoundian obsession behind him.
It was simply one manhoundian comment too far. If he would discuss anythin else, he'd be welcome here.
But.no.more.manhoundians.from.Mr. Shadowes.
Period.
End of discussion.
Kritisk bolger, I think yours is a counsel of despair. We can't possibly do anything because there would be a violent reaction from Muslims. So we should think of a special reserve where Europeans could go to set up their way of life like it was before. Everything they had should be abandoned and turned over to Muslims.
This is a terrible stance to take with regard to an inferior civilization.
We'd have a far better world situation if Muslims worried about violence from Westerners if they push us too far.
Which they have. As of of the first sirliner hijacking. And much earlier than that, come to think of it.
This is why I am amused by all the people clamoring all this rightful ownership of land and so on. Just the same with ethnic cleansing. I mean, we ethnically cleansed each other for thousands of years and in every place, but the white world, it's still an acceptable thing to do. Just read the whites in Africa stories and you will get my point. How communities can get to 10% of their original size in decades will be self-explainatory. As I said before, if we are to survive genetically and culturally, we better get back to the values we had 200-250 years ago. And I don't see all these things as morally evil - for example, my people apparently never waged a conquering war or occupied foreign land(well, until now, since we de facto have occupied zones in Afghanistan and Iraq :P). I don't get why people are proud of this and I see the Austro-Hungarian empire as not that bad for having Transylvania(it was and is majority Romanian).
kristisk, it's not a logistic nightmare. You can make people live by their own accord. You deny them welfare and employment and they leave. It's that easy. And since most people have roots to their own countries, like Turks with Turkey, they will go home. Just like you can strip non-ethnics of their citizenship. And in the same sense, their armed resistence will be more or less futile, considering that they are both inferior in logistics and men power. They use violence because we don't respond with violence. That's the only reason. If we shot every person who used violence like they do, they'd stop doing it. The war doesn't have to be urban. You can close up the cities and let the ethnics out, while cut utilities to the city and the only way the people in it can leave is back to their home countries. France won't invade Denmark, simply because I doubt the French ethnics have an interest in it - in case you didn't figure it out, them being denied their existence as people isn't something they're fond of. And yes, you're not making any sense at all. What you propose is a solution that will lead to huge wars in the future and stupid land divisions. I guess you didn't analyze the geopolitics and logistics of your idea. You just prefer a surrender that you see as righteous compared to actually solving the problem. People will always prefer to be ethnically cleansed then killed off, for example. If Muslims have only these two options, they will always choose the former. I mean, it won't be pretty, but I'd rather be poorer and have my descendants have a home country, than live in a place that isn't theirs and is invaded by other people.
Felicie, states are irrelevant. You are missing the point - what matters is nationality/a nation, not statehood. It's funny that you say that people have a moral claim to a land and yet the Americans should have obliterated the Amerindians. This just proves Baron right about the people with the biggest guns setting the rules - which was the norm and should be the norm. It's just how things work and the phoney nature of 'civilization' today will collapse back to that paradigm. For example, if I was China, as soon as the US' military is bankrupt due to the government debt, I would colonize Africa.
RV,
Sorry but *cough* silitra *cough* 1913 *cough* rings a bell?
The rest of your post is good...
RebelliousVanilla,
First of all your reply clearly shows that you haven’t read what I wrote properly. You’ve only seen in it what you wanted to see.
Here’s what I said;
“Large land areas could be purchased or allocated by western nations and designated as new nation states where those members of the indigenous population who wanted secession from the state could be given an opportunity to shape their own future on their own terms. “
I’ve never mentioned that westerners will end up as a minority and that they will somehow be placed in reservations by the marauding third world immigrants. I’ve simply stated that as our societies becomes more and more multicultural; those who can’t stand to see black people or who those who start frothing at the mouth when they see a woman in hijab pushing a pram or those who’re simply tired of increasing crime rates should be given the opportunity to resettle (If they wish to do so) in designated areas within their own nation states and in which third world immigrants are prohibited in relocating to. Kind of like Orangia in S.A. I see this as a natural progression from today’s gated/guarded communities.
Secondly, not all third world immigrants are well fare recipients. Many of them have actually got jobs and many of them are second and third generation immigrants born in the west. People will just have to face up to reality, non-western immigrants are here to stay. You’re free to believe that every other westerner shares your views on this issue, and that all of them would applaud their governments if they started a mass repatriation of all non-westerners, but this is not the case. I believe that most people would oppose such a solution, simply because most people are against ethnic cleansing. They kind of got the picture when Hitler tried it in WW2. I think you and people who share your views on this issue are in a minority here and not the other way around.
The majority of westerners might however accept that criminal immigrants and radical Islamists, which are a real threat to our way of life, should be sent packing, but that’s a different solution to the one you’re advocating. And if it ever came down to it, I don’t think most westerners would stand their ground and fight. I think that most people would flee in an attempt to save their own lives. That’s what it’s been like in any other major war and I don’t see why it should be different this time around. And when the civilian population in Western Europe starts fleeing, that’s the signal for the US to intervene.
And no, I don’t believe that Europe will ever become a Muslim Caliphate. And no, I don’t know how I would react if a war like scenario broke out, whether I would chicken out or whether I would be a one man army killing the enemy left right and centre, and neither do you. It’s one thing sitting in front of a computer and convince yourself that you would be the bravest person in the world if a war ever broke out. It’s a complete different situation when the bullets start flying.
While this article is a useful review of how futile most irredentism can be, it also represents a far more valuable object lesson regarding how Liberals use the Zero-Sum Equation to condemn all European colonialism; Even as they utterly ignore earlier waves of prehistoric or proto-civilizational immigration that totally contradict their usual anti-White position.
Much of this also goes to the root of Liberalism's love affair with The Noble Savage™. Living in harmony with the land and enjoying Edenic splendor as they eeked out their low technology subsistence whilst repulsing hostile invaders Hell bent on evicting them from whatever patch of scrub they had previously managed to wrest from some other hapless brutes.
Ah yes, the limitless joys of Living Close to Nature™. Such idyllic existence being completely rent asunder by the White Man's arrivial on what could only have been the most utopian ethnic paradise.
filthykafir: Personally, I am much less disturbed by the prospect of “cleansing,” even genocide, than I am of the total loss of Western Civilization to the fascists of Islam.
Considering that Islam's global ascendancy would see an even greater number of people perish than this world's entire Muslim population, however gruesome it may be, such a conclusion has a certain validity.
Armance said: "There is a big difference between the situation of Muslims in the West and conquest or colonialism in the past. The Muslims and other immigrants didn't conquer the land, they didn't colonize it as warriors: they were invited by treacherous governments, in order to displace and dispossess the former historical ethnic majorities of the countries."
There's not so big of a difference between the past and the present (there's not much new under the sun!). There were plenty of movements of populations in the past engineered by ruling elites that didn't have anything to do with colonization of new territories and that actually worked against the ordinary folk.
The Ottomans shuffled peoples around within their empire as a matter of course for the (almost) sole purpose of "dividing and conquering" the peoples they ruled over. They really perfected the system. Heck, they practically invented balkanization! Catherine the Great imported thousands of Germans into Russia; but, of course, the Russians weren't her people and the Germans were. She was a hostile elite who had no blood ties to the people she ruled over. This was also true, of course, of the Ottomans in many parts of their empire.
There are, however, some examples of hostile elites in the past working against their own people. Some Swedish kings imported Finns into western Sweden, a move which the local Swedes did not like. (Perhaps these Swedish kings were not actually Swedish, I don't know). The British elites, both Cromwellians and later the royalists, imported Jews to Britain even though there was widespread opposition to the idea. In fact, the Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753 was repealed the following year because the idea was so unpopular. Nevertheless, the elites persisted with the idea.
Nevertheless, Armance, you do have a very good point. We in The West have at the moment an extremely hostile elite which is actively importing strangers into our territories whether the people want it or not. A big difference today as opposed to the past is that we are operating in democracies and what the hostile elite are trying to do (in part) is to RIG those democracies by importing voters -- they are electing a new people, as Brimelow and Rubenstein put it. They are traitors and must be stopped.
Robin Shadowes said: "But that is exactly how it works in mahoundianism hence their eagerness to reclaim Al-Andalus."
Like nearly all humans, most Muslims also rationalize their actions with invented excuses which they use to try to fool others and even themselves. For some quirky evolutionary reason(s), most humans do not have the ability to reason, and by that I mean to reason logically with a big "R". Most humans act and THEN devise cute explanations for why they did such-and-such a thing; or, in the face of some impending action (like heading off to try to conquer some other peoples' territory) they come up with some excuse for why they are going to do so and why they should be allowed to do so ("the one and only true God selected us as his chosen people and promised us that this particular territory should be ours forever, it says so in this book right here!"), when really all they are doing is behaving like every other animal on the planet and trying to expand their territory if possible and to eliminate the competition if possible. Even better if you can do both at the same time.
kritisk_borger said: "I think the best option all things considered would be to create self governing areas within the borders of the current nation states."
What you're talking about is retreat and that is, of course, an option, but it should be one of the options of last resort since it would be a further step along the road of demise for European peoples. Of course everything comes to an end, including species and sub-species, but we shouldn't give up without a fight.
Alfonso Henriques said: "That's why those who went on to de fact usurpate other lands have created systems that permitted them to negate that they were actually usurping:
"The spread of the good faith by Christians and Muslims makes this two groups automatically non usurpers but 'spreaders of good'."
Exactly. Rationalizations.
kritisk_borger said: "You are pretty naive if you really believe that the tens of millions of immigrants currently residing in Europe can somehow just be 'rounded up' and sent back to their native lands and that it will be 'business as usual' without any form of upheaval or armed resistance."
Well, if sentiment shifts enough in Europe, which it seems to be doing as we type (look at the continuing successes of all the "right wing" parties across Europe), I think there might be support for mass scale exportation of recent immigrants to Europe. I think it definitely would become popular if there is a total economic collapse, which is not unlikely.
It would, though, be a logistical nightmare and extremely unpleasant. But large scale population transfers have happened in the recent past -- think India and Pakistan at the end of WWII -- 11 million people relocated. It was ugly, though -- something like a million people likely died.
Rounding up Muslims and expelling them is not necessary, though. All Europeans need to do, once the treacherous leftists governments are removed from office, is to make living in The West economically unpleasant for non-Westerners. First, close the borders to any new immigrants/asylum seekers. Second, offer repatriation packages to anyone who wants to voluntarily go home (i.e. pay them to leave). Third, impelement some "dhimmi" laws. We constantly berate the Muslims for all their dhimmi practices, but they are, biologically speaking, sound ones: you favor your own and you make life a little difficult for those who are not your own. Tax immigrants more heavily. Cut off the social welfare benefits for anyone who hasn't been a CITIZEN of a country for AT LEAST 25 years (for example). Oh, no more anchor babies. You DON'T automatically become a citizen of a country just by being born in it. Nor do you get the right to vote until you've been a CITIZEN of a country for AT LEAST 25 years. And make getting citizenship DIFFICULT (like the Saudis do).
Eliminate the immigration "pulls" and you'll pretty quickly start eliminating the immigrants.
Felicie said: "Of course, there is a moral component to land ownership. Of course, there is. Otherwise we would be pre-moral savages. The Old Testament provides us with the paradigm of how moral ownership works. Namely, God bequeaths a specific piece of land to a people, and they enter into a covenant with Him."
Rationalization. That's just your excuse to justify your people's taking of territory away from "pre-moral savages."
Dymphna said: "I am not saying they didn't have a 'covenant'."
They had a "covenant" because they said they had a "covenant". Another rationalization, I'm afraid.
Dymphna said: "...for those who want to discuss Israel's 'taking' of land, I refer you to the UN's granting of that land sixty years ago."
Why on EARTH should the UN be the final arbiter in this or any other matter?? Good Lord! They're some of the ones who want to see us replaced!!
Felicie said: "They did not have literacy and they did not codify their existence symbolically."
You're kidding, right?
I give you: Stonehenge.
One of a gazillion (possible exaggeration) examples of ancient peoples "codifying their existence symbolically." And marking their territory towit.
EileenOCnnr said...
“Rounding up Muslims and expelling them is not necessary, though. All Europeans need to do, once the treacherous leftists governments are removed from office, is to make living in The West economically unpleasant for non-Westerners.”
Europe is mostly leftist, which means that a majority of the voters prefer their type of politics. That makes it very difficult to get rid of them and replace them with right-wing parties. Like I mentioned in my reply to RV, I don’t believe that the majority in Europe would support mass expulsion of every single immigrant from the continent. Criminal immigrants and radical Islamists yes, but that’s not the same.
Making life harder for immigrants and introducing dhimmi-type laws would in my opinion only escalate tensions and could actually trigger armed conflicts. But as I pointed out above I don’t believe that there would be a consensus for such measures, so it would be impossible to implement.
kritisk_borger said: "Europe is mostly leftist...."
Well, like I said, if sentiment shifts enough ... and it is shifting at the moment.
"That makes it very difficult to get rid of them and replace them with right-wing parties."
Kristik, I am getting so damned mad with your faillure to effectively think outisde the box...
You are able to consider some fragments of your worldview that derive from another paradigm than the current one. But at the same time, you fail to do this reasonably and realistically. As if you claim that the world is possible in a different way but not much:
You seem to think that although you could have turned your car to the left - even though you turned it to the right - in the first bifurcation of the road, it would be impossible for you to have turned your car to the left in the second bifurcation *because* you turned your car to the right this second time as well.
That's nonesense. You have to improve your logic, man.
Our right wing parties are RUBBISH! RUBBISH!
Let me make a quick mental round up of the current right wing parties across the European Civilisation:
I would, but no.
I will just warn you that in the next 30 years or so you will witness the rising of "Revolutionary Right Wing" parties. That is, TRUE right wing parties that appeal to the young. The last time we had something like that it was the Nazis and the Fascists.
And do you really think they are demonised to having killed a bunch of Jews or for being totalitarian or what else? No.
They are demonised because the Marxists KNOW that there is something very powerfull in the people's attachment to one's genetic keen, to one's History, land, the depth of our Cultures and the love people would demonstrate for it. And of course, if we had a good dogma, our Religious strenght would put the fanatic muslims to shame.
And that's why the Fascists and the Nazis are demonised. When Europeans worldwide get poor, like in the Germany between wars, or in Republican Portugal, or in today's (or yesterday's?) Serbia, there will rise great men like Primo de Rivera or the Romanian guy whose name I cant't recall.
And when those people just happen to form an elite, do you think we'll be living under the same paradigm?
Keep this in mind: Traditionalist Ways can be appealing to young men. And when that happens in Europe (or America, which I doubt) the world will dramatically change.
Our actual right wing parties are a joke in their "right wingness" and are a joke as parties because they are seen as the bad guys and it is so unnatractive to be with them or support them: It's not moral, vitruous or fashinable to be in the right. Today, that is...
If only we had no America to tell us what to do, if we had no European Union to create the paradigm in which we today live, if we had not democracy that stupidifies the politicos and turns difficult the focusing on the development of one's society...
If all this did not combine to RADICALLY ALTER OUR CONCEPTS OF VIRTUE AND EVIL, SINCE EARLY AGE; IF WE WERE LOYAL TO THE IDEALS OF OUR CIVILISATION AND IF WE WERE HUMBLE ENOUGH TO RECOGNISE THE RIGHT OF OUR BETTERS TO FORM AN ELITE...
About trumping the leftist system... Just fricking do what the Marxist have done: Train, educate, infiltrate 5% of men aged 20 to 50 and assure them that they are right, that they don't need the aproval of today's decadent masses, that they will be acting in the sake of society and puf! You have created your little elite who can trump the leftists and rule the world...
"kritisk_borger said: "Europe is mostly leftist...."
Well, like I said, if sentiment shifts enough ... and it is shifting at the moment."
The population sentiment is irrelevant.
I live in the country of "brandos costumes" (soft ways) and it annoys me as hell to see a fricking Eastern European country that has been a Turkish colony for 500 hundred years, that was pratically saved by Western Europe, that has not produced a thing, that lives way beyond its capabilty...
it annoys me that every Portuguese will have to pay some 80€ to Greece when the Greeks *actually live better* than us, and are probabily one of the few countries in Europe which does not produce as much as we do. The Greek economy is based in European Revenues and being a fictional Western European country in that Eastern European region.
But still, people here say it is bad but will not do a think about it. The Greeks? The Greek cry for everything and nothing? They would never give us 80€ (or the full 780 millions of them) to us, not without shoving it on our face.
This being said, the will of the masses is irrelevant. The masses only "permit" or "allow" things to happen.
The masses do not act, at large.
Action is the realm of a few great men.
And if today Europe is mostly leftist, in ways so deep and so radically different from previous generations that I doubt Kristik can see it in all its depth, it is because "some great men" took actions, and the masses permitted. An exemple: The Irish referendum.
With the right it will be the same. However, a decent men will act much more prontly to defend his place than to save "the world". Will act much more prontly for personal beneffit instead of for altruistic anti-racism.
It's just a question of mindset. And I don't want to support egocentrism, or materialism, or arrogance. I just believe that it is very easy to follow "high ideals" without being destructive.
When great men decide to take action for the beneffit of "the right", and as the masses alow them to do so, they can play with the sentiments of the populace more easily and effectively erradicate opposition to them.
kritisk_borger:
Making life harder for immigrants and introducing dhimmi-type laws would in my opinion only escalate tensions and could actually trigger armed conflicts.
What is escalating tension in Europe TODAY? Aggressive challenges to European peoples. That you gloss over but cry about how awful a reaction to these challenges would be.
Europe already has conflict. The question is whether Europeans will forever allow conflict to occur at times and places that suit Muslims. The seeming central assumption of your arguments is that the present is locked in concrete and indigenous people are helpless. They can't do anything because there will be violence. Muslims can initiate violence but Europeans, no matter the provocation, cannot. And if they were to do so, it would be futile because there would only be more (irresistible) Muslim violence. When the Europeans are really whipped, they can move to enclaves with their tails between their legs. These would be like reservations maybe. Muslims could organize tours.
In one of his great novels George McDonald Fraser observed that the unflinching finger on the trigger of Tommy at critical moments in history made the British Empire possible. Here's a thought: Tommy's alive and well today. Soon enough there will be a leader (a la Afonso Henriques) whose call he will hear. (Ditto for Fritz, Henri, Sven, Francisco, and others. Some of their ancestors took on Roman legions, for gosh sakes.)
Muslims who deny that this will ever happen are fools.
Moreover, EileenOCnnr is exactly right. Measures far short of violence will reestablish the correct correlation of forces once a little clarity and determination creep into the otherwise spineless national leaderships. This last a hard concept to grasp just now, I grant you, but it's undeniably a theoretical possibility.
Afonso, I must say your logic really makes a lot of sense. You claim that the right wing parties of today are meek and ineffective in achieving their goals, yet in the next breath you assure us that we don’t have to worry about that because 20-30 years from now new “true” right wing parties will cease power and deal swiftly with anyone who dares to oppose them.
You’re making the same mistake as RV and many other commenters here on this site when you claim that all Europeans hate immigration and that they all share your views on this issue. Believe me that’s not the case. People with your extreme views are in a minority and always will be.
As to your reference to Greece and the financial aid it is given at the moment, and which you find so appalling, just remember that your own country Portugal has benefitted immensely from the EU’s enormous grants paid for by German, English, Dutch and French taxpayers. Portugal would not have enjoyed the same standard of living had it not been for the EU. Before Portugal joined the EU it was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe. But I guess “socialism” was ok in that particular case?
Col.B.Bunny
I’ve never said that armed conflicts in Europe wouldn’t break out. Read my first post again and you’ll see that. My point is that people who claim that immigrants can somehow be deported out of the continent by “peaceful” means by simply making life a lot harder for them are fooling themselves. I believe that such measures would lead to conflict. Another point that I’ve tried to get across is that people are making a mistake when they refer to “Europeans” as one unified political force, because that’s simply not the case. Just because some Europeans wants to repatriate all immigrants doesn’t necessarily mean that all Europeans wants this solution to be implemented.
kristisk, actually I understand what you're talking about and it's naive at best and stupid at worst. What you talk about actually leads to what I said - Europeans being in reservantions surrounded by immigrants. It's hilarious that you present a successful case from a country where people of European descent are targetted for genocide. The only real solution is to cut out the disease and reverse the multicultural crap.
It doesn't matter if not all third worlders are welfare people, they are a strain on the national economies, not a benefit overall. This is all that matters, actually, individuals don't. In the same sense, I don't care about second or third generation immigrants. And I don't care what other Westerners think - most Westerners don't mind being replaced in their homelands or Islam either, so your point is mute. If Europeans aren't to survive or be a people, I don't see a reason to have my descendants be European, especially since present day European men are fairly weak and stupid - I don't see why I should have the next generation of a group who cares more about social justice and other stuff like that than about itself. Actually, having the children of a white man is the worst evolutionary idea considering the way the world works right now. The fact that most westerners are worthless cowards isn't anything new and by the way - this is why we are here.
It's simple - a group that isn't willing to discriminate will cease to exist. A culture is tied to the people who created it, so fighting for 'Western civilization' is stupid, unless you fight for European people - and I don't see why I'd care what the future inhabitants of Europe will do, if they won't be my people. And I don't see why I'd care about a group that doesn't want to survive. If that will be the case as I will get older, I will simply be able to learn Chinese and marry someone over there. Ah, the benefits of being a woman. Or I can have the children of a Muslim, still better than that of the population being replaced.
EileenOcnnr knows what's up. The fact that now most Europeans don't support it, is irrelevant.
Oh, kristisk, you fail to realize that stopping the funds to people who replace us and are hostile to us would escalate conflicts. Actually, doing this would be the same as wanting to throw them out and once done, it would lead to arm conflict regardless. Armed conflict is pretty inevitable.
Afonso, that was hilarious. You are right about teaching the young people - actually, a minority of young men is all that is needed for this to happen, considering armed conflict is an inevitable outcome. That or surrender. It's funny that so many people get it, Col B Bunny being one of them.
kristisk, the right wing parties of today lose because they're not really right wing parties. Republicans, for example, are merely liberals in disguise. And what Europeans as a whole want is irrelevant - there will be a time when people will have to choose sides and the old will be irrelevant since they don't matter in armed conflict as much. Europeans will either be forced to side with the immigrants or their own. That will be the only decision that they can take. So yes, Europeans will more or less be a single political force when push will come to shove. Also, the peaceful ways are needed to move back those that won't be willing to fight among the others, for those who will get violent, we will have to reply with violence.
RebelliousVanilla said...
“It doesn't matter if not all third worlders are welfare people, they are a strain on the national economies, not a benefit overall.”
I guess the same thing could be said about Romania and Romanians. Maybe the EU should just stop its grants, and maybe all the Western European nations should repatriate all Romanian nationals who undercut our wages and make our jobs less secure? Yes it’s true some of them have jobs, but overall they’re just a drain on our economies. Send them packing and leave it to their own device to sort it out in their own country. Our overall concern must be to ensure that our nations are ethnically pure.
“I don't see a reason to have my descendants be European, especially since present day European men are fairly weak and stupid - I don't see why I should have the next generation of a group who cares more about social justice and other stuff like that than about itself. Actually, having the children of a white man is the worst evolutionary idea considering the way the world works right now”
Fine, then move to Mecca or some other Muslim hellhole and see if life is going to treat you better there. I’m sure you’ll be very happy to end up with a psychopathic thug who wants nothing more than to use you as a punching bag.
“kristisk, the right wing parties of today lose because they're not really right wing parties. Republicans, for example, are merely liberals in disguise. And what Europeans as a whole want is irrelevant”
I guess then you can’t wait until the next Hitler or Il duce comes along, or maybe even perhaps Ali the Infidel killer who will rule the continent with an iron fist and disregard the will of the people? I’ll tell you one thing though, don’t underestimate Europeans. They’re used to hardship and fighting. And in time they’ll overthrow any dictator or fascists pigs who tries to dictate their lives, whether their Muslim or right wing nutters or radical communists. I seriously thought that you as a Romanian would understand that dictators are just a temporary obstacle in the road, and that they eventually are overthrown, but I guess I was wrong.
Do you think my reply was too harsh? But then again isn’t that a quality you appreciate and respect?
Actually, I don't mind harsh answers since I don't take debates personally, but I would suggest you inform yourself so that you don't look like an ignorant fool. Romania paid more to the EU so far than we took(thanks to government incompetence, but that's irrelevant since the facts are that we paid more than we got). Also, I would be ok with people repatriating Romanians if their overall effect would be bad. I don't feel entitled to be allowed to move my sweet bum wherever I feel like it. And I stated before that I'm not really into ethnic purity, but liberals like you enjoy their straw men arguments.
And I don't have to move to Mecca, I can bring my Muslim husband in Europe. I don't see why you'd mind it since I'd basically be doing what you're telling me to. I know that the truth hurts, but this is the truth. There's no reason for a young woman from an evolutionary point of view to reproduce with Europeans since they will be 1.5% of the world population in 100 and something years, more than half of those being infertile people and invaded everywhere. I'd rather put my genetic makeup in a place where it has some odds of success, don't you think?
And I'm not a fan of Hitler, I'm not a socialist, so it's impossible for me to do it. Heck, not liking governmental healthcare makes me incompatible with Hitler. And I'm not advocating someone to rule with an iron fist, that's another straw man, I'm just saying that with the probable coming emotional shift among the young people, which are the only ones that matter in the case of a political and social breakdown, will lead to this. Who will overthrow someone with the support of the fighting men of those countries? And Europeans didn't overthrow anyone, especially not Western Europeans - Americans won the WW2, Europeans were mere cheerleaders. Especially other Europeans besides the British. I'd include the Russians, but they were under a tyrant who you say they would have overthrown. Also, Europe was full of monarchies until this last century and I'm not advocating dictatorships either, but it might really well lead to that due to the things you're for.
I want to clarify some points.
"“true” right wing parties will cease power and deal swiftly with anyone who dares to oppose them."
Those "true" right wing parties (call them organic, harsh and attractive instead of true) will simply come to exist and attract people. I am talking of parties like the BNP getting consistentny 10% of the votes - mainly young males - while the party line matures its ideology without giving space to leftist influences or "populist" influences (by populist I mean buying votes through senseless consessions). Could you imagine a Western country with such a segment in its society? And can you imagine that segment gaining power?
Can you imagine *idealistic people* in the right - people who pass by life following an ideal - acting with the same sense of self righteousness and "radicality" than those of the left?
And let's not forget that after 10 or 20 years of Putin and his followers in Russia, maybe the Russians will want change.
With their Communist past and seeing what leftism did to the West, what if their change is way more to the right?
A Nazi like or neo-Tzarist powerfull party in Russia in the comming years is an unlikely possibility, but it is more likely that we might believe.
"all Europeans hate immigration"
I don't hate it. But I'm aware that the current level of immigration or the State sponsored creation of conflict through the importation and premanence of ethnically different people or the creation of a new unorganically economic underclass is most likely to have damaging effects in the society, and even worst effects in the Nation. So, if we want to get things right we have to discard (mass) immigration.
And as it is such an important matter, those who do support immigration only show how deranged and useless they are to the Nation (in this particular aspect. Some would be great artisits, I think) and should not be granted any political relevance:
Immigration supporters should be dismissed as "morons", and should not have the power to influence things.
That's a "right wing" principle: to discard bad opinions and take only the good ones = discriminating. In this case you're making that point because you're thinking under the paradigm of "democracy":
As if "I" had to respect all opinions, as if those should be held in high esteem due to coming from a human being.
specially when those who indoctrinated the people, lets call it the Gramscian eltie, never respected the opinions that the people held when those who were a majority thought like me, even though they lived, claimed to live, and praised living under a democracy.
I have no moral reason to hold their views into consideration.
You maybe in favour of democracy. But what I say you shouldn't do is to be in a paradigm in which you take any non democratic vype as something that is unexistent or impossible.
"People with your extreme views are in a minority and always will be."
I know that, but another "right wing" percept is that a minority can be right and that we cannot use the quantity of people that agree with an issue to measure the rightness of the issue. And as such I will consider myself to be right for the sake of right and virtue and not because the majority presses me to accept their views. I am open to debate, but I will not lose a debate soley because I am one against many oponents.
"Portugal (...) I guess “socialism” was ok in that particular case?"
No, it wasn't.
I was against the entry of Slavs in the Union because the money flow would turn away from Southern Europe towards Eastern Europe. But that's one thing I am against because it "hurts" me but I accept the situation as somewhat "righteous" and reasonable as they need more than us.
But the comparison with Greece cannot be made in this way.
I'll tell you my version of this story. We had a big colonial empire and fascist leadership that made us work (in the logic of the empire) a lot and gave us little money. But the State could sustain the Nation. We still have the highest ratio of Gold per capita in Europe in our reserves, I believe.
Then it all came down and we got lost. We entered to the European Union 10 years after the Socialists (former Communists seduced by money) took power. They accepted the EU money and implemented Socialism but not produced much. We lived w/ the money of the E.U. what was deplorable but with that money we mannaged to improve significantly our infrastructure and to provide great social ascendency to all the Portuguese citizens during the 80s and 90s despite the massive diverted E.U. funds due to the Corrupt elite, who mannaged to harm also our enornous gold reserves from fascist times.
But, despite all that, we have produced if compared to Greece, and we mannaged to attain great levels of wealth but reccently our minimum wage was 400€ while the Greek one was almost 800€. The Greeks have lived even better than us.
And then we have to pay them? That's wrong.
Concerning the NW tax payers:
That's their problem. They pay because they want to, otherwise they would not have accepted us into the EU. And the Brits are rich so if they don't want to pay, get off the EU.
They're the ones who created the system and are the ones running it.
Afonso, you know the rules here.
RebelliousVanilla said..
“but I would suggest you inform yourself so that you don't look like an ignorant fool. Romania paid more to the EU so far than we took(thanks to government incompetence, but that's irrelevant since the facts are that we paid more than we got).”
If you seriously believe that Romania is a net contributor to the EU then you’re even more deluded than I thought. No, Romania is a NET RECEIVER of EU funds and not a NET CONTRIBUTOR. In Romania’s case the flow of money are only going one way, and that’s from the EU to Romania. The net contributors in this case are the original EU membership states + Sweden and Finland.
Yes, Romania has had a rapid economic growth, but that only because the EU took the country under its wing and granted it EU membership.
It’s funny to see how some people are “biting the hands” that feed them.
Maybe you should sit down and educate yourself before you make such ridiculous claims, because if you don’t you’ll only come across as an, and I’m going to use one of your own quotes here, “ignorant fool”
Afonso said..
“Those "true" right wing parties (call them organic, harsh and attractive instead of true) will simply come to exist and attract people. I am talking of parties like the BNP getting consistentny 10% of the votes - mainly young males - while the party line matures its ideology without giving space to leftist influences or "populist" influences (by populist I mean buying votes through senseless consessions).”
Yes the BNP has seen a dramatic rise in popularity and that’s good news for the brits. But the BNP hasn’t stated in its political manifesto that its overall goal is to deport all non ethnic English from Great Britain. Any political party that did so would commit political suicide.
There were actually a couple of extreme right wing/neo Nazi parties represented at the last general election in Norway and they received about 100 – 200 votes. Bigger political parties which are opposed to Muslim immigration like the FRP (progress Party) are however very popular among Norwegian voters and they did manage to receive 22 percent of the overall vote, but the FRP don’t intend to deport every single immigrant from the kingdom only the criminal ones and those who arrive in Norway as illegal immigrants disguised as asylum seekers.
But like I mentioned, extreme right wing parties which seeks to deport people based on strict race criteria will never get any political clout in Europe.
Oh, another thing, leftists used to be a minority and they aren't anymore. What's your point? Also, a minority of people supported the American revolution. Your point is? Majorities are irrelevant.
kristisk, I told you a fact. You just prefer to disregard factual statements. There is no such thing as a country only receiving funds, everybody pays into the EU bowl(I won't go into the technicalities since it's pointless) and then some people take on projects for infrastructure and other types of projects. The projects made by my government so far don't exceed the money paid into the bowl and that makes Romania a net contributor to the EU, even if on paper we would be supposed to take more money. My country paid about 3 billion to the EU since we got in it and got about 1.8 billion as a down payment from the structural funds on projects, but we didn't even spend that. Also, our economy grew simply because we had a credit bubble, GDP doesn't measure economic growth. If we had increased our productive capacity, we wouldn't have had so much problems funding ourselves now. But again, it's hilarious that you think you know more than me about my own country. Even if you include all the the money the EU spent on pre-admission and everything else, it doesn't even sum up to 10% of my country's GDP(which would come to 3 billion contributions plus about 6-7 billion the 10% GDP), which is about the growth we had before the crisis in an year so it's amusing to me that you'd think that we had an economic boom due to the EU. We had one because the socialists weren't in office and we had a credit bubble. Attributing the growth as an EU thing means you must attribute the crash too.
You miss on the fact that Romania being able to get 10 billion until now isn't equivalent to us really getting that money. We have a fund absorption rate of about 5% so it means that by 2013 we will get 500 million since we got in. lol
Oh, and about your reply to Afonso, you really don't understand how ideologies take over and how fast mindsets can change. I bet that people in 1920-1930 in Europe would have said it's impossible that Europe will import people from other countries too and the present would have been downright inimaginable. But merely 20-30 years later, Europe opened the flood gates. What today is unthinkable is the reality of tomorrow. Also, I don't seek to deport people - this is a logistic idiocy(unlike simply making people leave). You can make them leave and empower the ethnic people to rule their countries as they see fit without caring about how others might feel and exclude whoever they want.
Kristik, you still don't come out as a fan of logic in my eyes:
You imply we must not discriminate by the way you adress to Romanian Citizens, but then you discriminate against against muslims, not even giving a chance to the future father of RV's children... I bet there are numerous muslims who never beat their wives... just sayin'.
"Romania paid more to the EU so far than we took"
LOL! I think you're exagerating RV, but this is hilarious.
It is hilarious because it is nonesense - as I believe; or it is hilarious because you government is really the worst... can't even suck on those big, multiple E.U. brests. I want to see those numbers!
"And I don't have to move to Mecca, I can bring my Muslim husband in Europe. I don't see why you'd mind it since I'd basically be doing what you're telling me to."
INDEED!
"There's no reason for a young woman from an evolutionary point of view to reproduce with Europeans since they will..."
Like, I am getting sick of you always saying this. Yes, I am against miscegenation, yes especially against miscegenation of European women. However, for as bad as it is on theory, I *don't care* if you want to miscegenate yourself or not, you're really not that importat to me and there are millions of other European women... not to mention that you're free to do whatever you want and that you're to far away to cause impact on me or even my society, or continent... I mean, it would be bad, but it wouldn't be the end of the world to have another gigantic Albania somewhere faraway in the Balkans.
As long as that gigantic Albania would be militarily and culturally "contained".
And you annoy me with this little cry every now and then because it does not make much sense:
You're European, even though you're a women. If you don't reproduce inside your group, you're the genetic loser!!! Genetically speaking, it is not the pure Europeans/Romanians/Whatevers - don't matter how many harships they go trough - that will lose because you divert from they and produce offspring that is 50% genetically "distant" from you, or "inferior" (as you so much times seem to imply). You annoy me because your argument does not make sense and your sense of self-entitlment. Are you a princess, or something?
It's like saying that Native American women are genetically the big winners in Brazil or Mexico. They clearly aren't;
I say, get over it. That argument does not make much sense.
In the same line:
"young people, which are the only ones that matter in the case of a political and social breakdown"
Not "young people". Fighting Age Males is the most current terms:
Anything with two testicles between the ages of 15 to 55 or something.
---------------------------------
Ah, and as RV responded so well, I would not adress this, but I'll do it only for the amusement of one eventual reader:
"I’ll tell you one thing though, don’t underestimate Europeans. They’re used to hardship and fighting. And in time they’ll overthrow any dictator or fascists pigs who tries to dictate their lives"
Hey! Baron! What have I done!???
Honestly, what have I done!!? I don't recall breaking any rule but the four comments per thread. And I believe it's not for that rule that you erased my comment.
Okay, it's true that since the time I wrote that comment and now I've been severely drunk but I truly DO NOT RECALL passing over the rules.
What was that, Baron?
P.S. - The verification word is dramat.
Here's a link just for you RV, clearly showing that Romania is a net receiver of funds from the EU. And let's not forget the 30 billion Euros that the EU pledged to give your country when Romania first joined the EU.
Get your facts right before you accuse others of lying.
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
Afonso, it’s called being sarcastic.
I was simply trying to draw some attention to RV’s enormous hypocrisy when she accuses third world immigrants of being a drain on our economies, but at the same time being blind to the fact that her own country Romania is also a big drain on the economies of Europe (Norway’s not an EU members, but we’re still a provider of funds for the EU). RV has apparently no qualms about Romania receiving funds, but she’s demonising third world immigrants for doing the same thing. To me that’s hypocrisy.
Afonso --
You used a common vulgar expression to describe a sexual act. You probably didn't even notice, because you were so intent on arguing with our resident Romanian pixie girl.
"It’s funny to see how some people are “biting the hands” that feed them."
This was said considering poor people like me and RV and their reltion to the European Union.
I once had a dog. It was a small dog and I don't even know if the dog had a race or not. The dog was never very amicable.
The dog got older and, as it seemed less amicable and madder.
My brother would feed this dog but would sometimes pull the dog's tail just for fun. The dog would rentlessly pursue his own tail for some seconds as if he wanted to kill its own tail.
The European Union, reminds me of my brother while feeding this dog.
And my brother didn't like to feed the dogs. He would just feed this one in order to pull its tail.
The dog was given to a hunter and passed his days happily hunting rabbits. He revealed himself to be a great hunter.
10 years later, maybe the dog is still alive, but I don't know.
--------------------------------
"But the BNP hasn’t stated in its political manifesto that its overall goal is to deport all non ethnic English from Great Britain."
Of course! They permit other there... like the Scottish and Welsh! Oh and if tomorrow Britain lose Northern Ireland, my bet is that the Irish would have their case way more complicated in the eyes of the BNP crowd.
And the BNP is the only right wing party I know off that explicitly only allows whites to the party. And the non British whites it allows are whites they deem to be "cultural and genetically assimilable".
And we all know that what the BNP wants is an ethnically "safe" Britain, there's no going around that. And I don't blame them.
"the FRP don’t intend to deport every single immigrant from the kingdom only the criminal ones and those who arrive in Norway as illegal immigrants disguised as asylum seekers."
Yes, that's why I believe Norway is overall in a very privileged situation: No European Union and a somewhat right wing party that is powerfull.
But, although those policies are good to my eyes, the question that I really find pertinent is: Is the FRP for a Norwegian Norway or are they in favour of mass immigration from the Third World? Are they for or against Norway?
Oh! And never say never, sir.
Okay Baron, I recall it now. It's fair.
And no Kristik. You implied that it was wrong to discriminate against Third Worlders because they at large harm our Nations. You argued that there exist people from Third World countries who do not harm our Nations.
And at the same time you implied that the muslims are not good husbands because they beat their wives, I say that there exist muslims who don't beat their wives. You thus implied that we should discriminate against muslims.
So should we discriminate or not?
I understand that it seems bad to discriminate someone because of their race but you have to understand that we must stand for ourselves. And to discriminate against them to protect "us" is not evil.
No Afonso I didn’t say that. You really need to read comments properly and not just peruse them and jump to conclusions. What I said about third world immigrants is that not all of them are welfare recipients; some of them have jobs and are paying taxes.
Here’s my quote.
“Secondly, not all third world immigrants are well fare recipients. Many of them have actually got jobs and many of them are second and third generation immigrants born in the west.”
Nor did I state that all Muslims males beat their wives, even though I admit that spousal abuse is probably more prevalent in Muslim countries. Again here’s what I actually said.
My quote.
“Fine, then move to Mecca or some other Muslim hellhole and see if life is going to treat you better there. I’m sure you’ll be very happy to end up with a psychopathic thug who wants nothing more than to use you as a punching bag.”
I was referring to RV’s claim that white men are undesirable because they’re meek and effeminate. I therefore suggested that she’d probably be happy with a person who doesn’t have any of these qualities, like for instance a psychopathic thug, which in this case happened to be Muslim. I didn’t label all Muslim men psychopathic thugs, because that simply isn’t the case.
As to my reference to ‘people who’re biting the hands that feed them’, I thought that was a very fitting comment in this case. I think it’s bad taste when an individual ‘slags off’ an organization who has contributed immensely to improve living standards in his own country by means of massive transfers of financial aid, which said individual have benefited immensely from.
Anyway I think I’ve said everything I have to say on this thread, and this will be my final comment.
kritisk_borger,
I think it’s bad taste when an individual ‘slags off’ an organization who has contributed immensely to improve living standards in his own country by means of massive transfers of financial aid, which said individual have benefited immensely from.
There's a German proverb that goes: "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing." Certainly Germany now finds it easier to buy influence through the EU than attempting to obtain it by force. However since the EU's ultimate aim is to dissolve the independence, justice systems and ancient liberties of the countries it swallows up I don't think any of us should sing the EU's song - no matter how much money they stuff down our throats. Should a pig thank a wolf for fattening it up before it eats it? No, definitely not.
That said, the financial largess that's doled out is quite effective in achieiving its political purpose. Seeing as it is in poor taste to accept billions of euros in bribe money and then refuse to ratify Treaty X or Y, most people will go along with it without making a fuss. Most ordinary people are so fair-minded that they feel they must honour even Faustian pacts. It doesn't move me at all. All this 'generosity' (including from the US to EU countries in the form of defense welfare) seems to lead to seething resentment all-around.
Afonso, we have an EU fund absorbtion rate of 5%, so yes, my government is full of incompetent fools(they have no interest in getting EU money since they can't pocket it as easily as tax money). Why do you think that we are a net foot importer when we could theoretically feed 60 million people if we ran our agriculture on all cylinders? Why do you think that we had built like 10km of highway in years and some roads simply look like you are in Kabul under mortar fire? Have a laugh at it! I think that kristisk should read it too
About miscegeneation, I wasn't describing myself, I was just making a point and that type of thinking is how women do things instinctually. Having the offspring of the victor and not of the weak people is the way we do business. I said before that European women will probably forgive their Muslim masters for beating them easier than European men for being weak and I really stand by that statement. At least on an instinctual level, this will be the case. And no, I'm not a genetic loser if I reproduce outside of my group. I'm a genetic loser if I reproduce within a conquered, infertile group. If I reproduce with a member of a conquering, fertile group, making my mtDNA more prevalent in the future generations, I'm a genetic winner. For example, Genghis Khan is the paternal ancestor of 10% of Asians and he didn't conceive only in his tribe. Actually, his mother was kidnapped by his father and she was from a different tribe, if I recall correctly, yet by giving birth to the son of the man keeping her captive and being his chief wife, it lead to her offspring being who he was. In the same way, Genghis Khan raped most of the women that had his children, probably, and I find that morally repugnant, yet this doesn't change the fact that he is a genetic victor. About the Amerindian women in Brazil, they are winners compared to their men. They actually passed down their mtDNA, unlike the men who didn't do much in terms of yDNA. You actually make my case about women submitting. Heck, this is how we evolved, we always got taken as slaves by the victors if our group lost. In the same way, miscegeneation annoys you because it's another group taking your women. Also, if you have two groups, one that does out of group altruism and one that doesn't, if you're a woman in the former group, having the children of men in the second group is the smart choice, since they will get altruism from both sides. By young people, I did mean men of fighting age.
kristisk, I guess you do fail to notice that there's a difference in between pledged funds and the funds that one benefits from. If I pledge to give you 20 billion if you will move in with Afonso, it doesn't mean that you have 20 billion. And you should check the link above and look for stats newer than 2007. If you want to look at big drains though, look at France - they spend way more than we do over what they pay in. Still, even if my country would get EU funds, I'd be against it. If I had the power, I would abolish all this funding system of the EU and all the EU policies and just have a free trade zone with no beaureaucracy. Still, I don't get what's your problem with countries leeching on you, you're a fan of universal healthcare, so you don't have problems with leeching. To be honest, I don't get why you don't support a worldwide universal healthcare system because you think that Europeans are the same as non-Europeans and we shouldn't discriminate and you like universal healthcare. Why not have a worldwide system then? Why shouldn't we tax rich countries and give tons of money to the poor ones? If you want to do welfare only within a country, then you are discriminating. But again, unprincipled exceptions are the only ways liberalism/leftism can survive as an ideology.
And you miss the point, by the way. I said before, it's irrelevant if not third worlders are welfare recipients or not, it matters if them as a group are or not. For example, there are probably a few honest, hard working Roma people, but as a group, they're criminals and lazy. Individuals are irrelevant. Also, the EU didn't improve living standards by that much. Most people live the same as they did three years ago, the EU actually made everything more expensive here. The economy grew for a lot of other reasons. Oh, and another thing, if you like the EU, you should take the responsibility for the decrease of living standards of the countries that the EU punishes for being outside of it with tarifs or the poor countries on which the EU dumps the excess food with the CAP.
EileenOCnnr said...
Dymphna said: "I am not saying they didn't have a 'covenant'."
They had a "covenant" because they said they had a "covenant". Another rationalization, I'm afraid...
I disagree with your use of the word "rationalization". It would appear that any deep commitment is thereby simply a rationalization...but the heart has its reasons that the reason knows not of.
You're blurring the lines between categories and reducing behavior to "feeling, then doing". I don't think it's that simple.
===============
Dymphna said: "...for those who want to discuss Israel's 'taking' of land, I refer you to the UN's granting of that land sixty years ago."
Why on EARTH should the UN be the final arbiter in this or any other matter?? Good Lord! They're some of the ones who want to see us replaced!!
Ms OCnnr, you need some context here. What I was doing was an attempt to prevent the thread going sideways by presenting the most obvious world ruling on Israel's legitimacy. I don't give two hoots about the UN...I wish they'd leave my country posthaste.
However, my point was simply to prevent a slide of the thread to off topic comments...for whatever reason, topics about Jews, Russians, and maybe race & IQ will send these threads all over the place.
Call my hasty addendum simply housekeeping.
===============
To Whomever made the comment about limiting to four comments per person per thread, that's been gone for a while. The Baron felt it was too limiting and since he's willing to monitor the threads, it's okay by me.
RV, ok here’s another link that shows the EU-27 budget for 2007-2013 in Euros (€). As you can see from the numbers Romania is a net receiver of funds, and no, contrary to what you claim France is not a net receiver, it’s a net contributor of funds, which means that French taxpayers are funding infrastructure and other beneficial projects in your own country that you and your compatriots are benefiting from.
You do understand the difference between net receiver and net contributor of funds?
And no, I don’t mind that the EU are spending money on less developed areas in Europe, because in the long run I think that we’ll all benefit from it. But I must say that I find it quite hilarious that you as an outspoken and staunch opponent of “subsidizing” “thirdworlders” and those that are too poor or unable to get “health insurance” in the US don’t have a problem with other people “subsidizing” you and your own country with billions of Euros in EU grants. Maybe you should have a look in the mirror?
And here’s a free advice for you, how about checking your “facts” next time before you post?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
kristisk, PLEDGED FUNDS ARE IRRELEVANT! What a country gets is different than what the EU pledged to give(if you are unable to realize this difference, you shouldn't debate finance or economics with anyone). And from what I saw, France is the biggest receiver of EU funds, while Germany is the biggest contributor. Maybe they're not a net receiver, but they still leech compared to Germany.
And I think you better pick up a book about reading comprehension because last time I checked, I said that I would abolish this system and I would have the EU as a simple free trade zone with no beaureaucracy, armonization of taxation and regulation and all that crap, including taxing Germans to give out to other people.
Oh, and I'd like to see that new infrastructure funded by the French because my government built like 20 km of highway in the last 3 years, if even that(I actually don't know of any new thing built in my country, but again, a foreigner knows better). lol
By the way on wiki you have the money pledged to a country from 2007 to 2013. So far my country got 5% of that money(for the 2007-2010 period) and if we keep this absorbtion rate, we will get 5% of those 30 something billion. Is this really that hard for you to get or you can't admit that you are wrong?
Oh, and you didn't answer me. Do you support a worldwide healthcare system in which the Europeans and Americans make equal health standards for Africans? Because you have to in order to not be a hypocrite.
To explain pledged funds to you. If I give you $200 and you pledge to give me $300 back, but you give me $100 back, you say that I gained from this affair since you gave me $300 for $200, yet you only actually paid me $100, even if you pledged to give me back $300.
RV, what on earth has Romania’s poor absorption rate of EU funds got to do with the fact that Romania is a net receiver of EU funds? Other EU countries are “subsidizing” Romania with billions of Euros. What on earth does it matter to them whether it takes ten years or twenty years for Romania to spend it? They still have to cough up the money.
And since you’re so interested in absorption rates, Romania received 8.4 billion Euros in the period between 2007-2009. And that’s more than the 7.2 billion that the country is supposed to pay to the EU in the EU budget for 2007-2013.
kristisk, you still have to produce a source. And the absorption rate matters because that's the money a country really took, not the money the EU pledged to give it to. Are you that dense?
Still, we settled this since I told you I'd do away with the money transfers, but you didn't answer me. Why not a worldwide healthcare system since you're a supporter of both universal medical care and think that discrimination is bad and also why shouldn't we tax about 70% of the GDP of the Europeans and Americans and build Africa up?
Yes, that’s really brilliant RV. I must say I’m really impressed with your logic and your racer sharp ability to draw concise conclusions.
Someone is giving you 32 billion Euros and all you have to do in return is to give them 7.2 billion Euros, and what is your conclusion? Yep, you claim that you’re doing the other person a great favour by giving him the 7.2 billion Euros.
He should really be grateful to you shouldn’t he RV?
With all the brains in Romania such as yours, I can really see why your country is such a prosperous nation.
Ohh, and by the way here’s your source
kristisk, it's funny that you don't make a difference in between pledged funds and actually paid funds. I guess this is why you're clueless on economics and finance, thing that you proved over at Mangan's. But again, you cite a source that says that my country absorbed 8.7 billion, which is 10% of the grants for her, yet that would mean that my country would get in the whole period 87 billion, not 32.
Here is how the EU funds work. The EU pledges a certain amount to a country for different sectors and then that country does project proposals, then the EU approves them, then the country contracts and fulfills those projects and then the country actually gets EU money, while when you pay the EU taxes, you don't pledge to pay, you actually do it. Also, for the whole duration, my country will pay 10.2 billion and it's yet to see if the incompetent idiots that there are in government will actually be able to do contracts to attact the 30ish billions. So far my country got about 3.5 billion.
Check this out. You have to imagine that this is actually in public debates here. Both the national bank governor and president bash the government and it's beaureaucracy for being unable to attact more funds than we pay. Some quotes for you if you are too lazy:
"Basescu said that from a total of nine billion euros put at the disposal of Romania by the Union, a total of 5.5 billion has not been used, covering the years 2007, 2008 and 2009."
"The problem of accessing the structural funds has been raised for many times by the National Bank Governor Mugur Isarescu. Almost a year ago, Isarescu said: Accessing European funds is the main problem of Romania. Our country pays to the EU more money than it receives, which reflects major macroeconomic imbalances."
Also, for example some documents got leaked that the government estimates that we will get about 1.05 billion euros this year from the EU, even if they ramble about how they'll be able to do 4.3 billion. Heck, even Matthias Kollatz-Ahnen moaned about it(VP of the EIB). The only country that is worse at attracting EU funds is Greece. We would get 30 billion if we spent 25 in the next 3 years and due to how incompetent my government is, I think we will end the period as a net payer(in 2013, the EU won't give the pledged money regardless anymore).
Still, as I said, I would abolish this EU taxing people and moving the money to who they like, since the market allocates resources a lot better. It's funny that you keep ignoring this, just like you keep ignoring my question about why not making a global universal healthcare and tax rich countries to give to the poor ones without any strings attached since you mind discrimination and you like welfare.
RV said: "Having the offspring of the victor and not of the weak people is the way we [i.e. women] do business."
Very insightful, RV.
Dymphna said: "I disagree with your use of the word 'rationalization'. It would appear that any deep commitment is thereby simply a rationalization...but the heart has its reasons that the reason knows not of.
"You're blurring the lines between categories and reducing behavior to 'feeling, then doing'. I don't think it's that simple."
It is that simple. In fact, it's even simpler than you have put it.
What I mean when I say humans "rationalize" their behavior is that most people don't truly understand why they do the things that they do.
For example, most people will say that they take care of their kids and give them the best/most that they can give them because they love their kids, which of course they do -- one of those reasons of the heart of which "reason" knows not.
But why do (most) people love their kids? Simply because that particular behavior has been selected for. People (and, indeed, all other animals) who have loved their children down through the ages and have, because they were driven by that love, given their kids the best care and the best of everything -- they are the ones that have managed to pass on their genes down through the ages. Thus "loving one's kids" has been selected for.
But most people "rationalize" (the way I am using the term here) that behavior -- or try to explain it -- in various ways: I just love my kids so I want the best for them; or God/Yahweh/Allah/Ahura Mazdā/etc. says I should "go forth and multiply" so I do so; etc., etc.
Most people do not grasp what Life is about or what they themselves are about (little biological creatures that are "machines for our genes") and so, because we happen to have evolved this cognizant brain, we go around rationalizing -- or giving explanations -- for our behavior.
And, my point earlier was: Muslims do this, too. Some of them are rationalizing why they want to "reclaim Al-Andalus" as RobinShadowes put it, when all they are in fact doing is behaving like any other living creature on Earth and trying to expand their territory and, if possible, eliminate the competition.
kritisk_borger said: "[E]xtreme right wing parties which seeks to deport people based on strict race criteria will never get any political clout in Europe."
You must tell us, kb, where you got that crystal ball that enables you to see sooo clearly and with such certainly what will happen in the future. I'd like to get me one so that I can play -- and win! -- the Lotto next week!
RV, RV, RV. You are really persistent little girl aren’t you? You’ve really got it in your head that you’re right even though you’re wrong and even though I’ve showed you sources that clearly tell you that Romania has managed to obtain an absorption rate of 10 percent. You simply just can’t accept it and you still refuse to face up to it just like a stubborn little child. Don’t you?
Well let’s have a look at the overall sum that Romania is scheduled to receive shall we? Now in the period 2007-2013 Romania is scheduled to receive a total sum of € 84.5 billion. These funds are separated into three categories, which are as follows;
54.4 billion € in Structural Funds,
18 billion € in Cohesion Funds
12.183 billion € in agricultural funds
Now if you add all these sums together you’ll find that it comes to € 84.5 billion, Now 10 percent of 84.5 billion is 8.4 billion, which, as you already know Romania received in 2007 -2009, just like the newspaper article said, but which you for some strange reason just won’t accept.
So now that I have explained it to you slowly and clearly I think that you will probably agree that I’m correct in saying that Romania receives more from the EU than it contributes, but then again knowing you, you’ll probably still refuse to face facts and try to convince the world that I’m wrong.
I think this stupid tantrum of yours has gone on for too long now, so this will be my last comment on this subject. Bye bye for now Little Rebel.
source
Afonso,
Sorry but you ARE wrong. The winner and the loser in the genetic run is about who survives not by the quality of the survivor. A living worm is a winner if he outlast a tiger. Now when amerindian women breeded with european men they done two things.
1) They pass on their DNA to their children saving the future of the defeated group.
2) They make their children (who aren't in the group of the father neither of the mother) more alike the conquerors in this way making her group stronger.
RV,
Tsc, tsc, tsc. Looks who are talking about warriors and breeders now... RV, despite your flaws what i love about you is your ability to tell people the truth, specially when it's an inconvenient truth. Now ther's just one flaw about your line of thinking here. Women are the bigger reason why europeans (in every continent) do not kill outsiders.
Eileen, people love their children because they are close to them genetically(50%). This is why people care more about people who are like themselves genetically inside as an ethnic group(or at least the sane people do). People also love their children because they're supposed to take care of them when they are old. Also, children are awesomely cute, me says. Actually, the only drive for altruism is genetic closeness(look at the haplodiploid females in bees who raise the offspring of the queen and they are infertile - they do so because they share 75% of the genetic makeup with the queen). This is why exclusion and discrimination exists and is natural - it's the way to preserve genetic continuity. In essence, what we are doing as a group(white people) is like a family raising the children of others and sharing the resources of our own children. This is why i said that the way to do things is to have the children of others so that you will benefit from the altruism of both groups.
Rocha, actually women aren't the problem in the way you're thinking, it's just that women were enabled to be the problem in the same time that the things that made the men weak developed. For example, in my country women have similar attitudes and outlooks to the men and you can look up voting data and notice that the difference is merely 0.5% usually. Women in my country exclude outsiders about as much as men, but again, here we laugh at most of the abherations that feminism comes up with(at least so far, I don't have much trust in the young people who seem utterly brainwashed, but again, they're just 10-12 so who knows?). I really don't get what women could do if men started to kill outsiders or do whatever. Complain even more? lol.
Mr. Shadowes arrived dragging his manhoundian obsession behind him
I thought that manhoundian obsession and it's affects was what this entire blog was about?
kristisk, I see that you still refuse to answer questions. Why shouldn't we tax the rich countries and fund a global healthcare system? Since you agree that discrimination is wrong and universal healthcare is good, if you wouldn't be hypocritical, you'd say that we should do it. And how much money my country gets is a non-issue, considering I disagree with the EU funding system and I would do what i said earlier(so I'm not really a hypocrite since if I was a MEP I'd vote against taxing British to give to Romanains and Bulgarians). check this out. This is for 2007 alone and as you can see, my country got about 700 million more than we paid for that year, including the border 350 million, money that was used just to comply with the EU border regulations, it didn't help in any way. Now, what's funny is that you quoted more sources and each have different figures - and also the last one is weird because if we got 8.7 billion, the funds can't represend just 1.4% of our GDP because 1.4% of our GDP is about 1 billion and in three years, it would mean 3 billion. Anyway, I went right to the source and checked the EU multi-annual budgets(the pdfs) and the situation is like this:
1)Structural and Cohesion:$19,667B(6B for 2007-2010)
2)Rural development:$8,125B(2,647B for 2007-2010)
3)Fisheries:$230,7M(67,5M for 2007-2010)
4)So far my country got about $700M from the EU Commission that isn't in the figures of the EU funds.
Also, as that page says, that's the maximum that a country can get, it's not what they actually get, which is a difference that you don't want to make for some obscure reason. The figures on that site are bogus, since even the people I know that work with EU funds that I asked said that there's no way Romania will get over 50B in structural funds(they know of 19,7B). What's funny is that the whole sum for structural and cohesion funds is $348B and you said that my country will get about $80B of them(which is over 100% of GDP for my country) which is quite funny if you think about it. So, with an absorbtion rate of 10%(which is too high since it was 5-6% in the fall of last year), my country got about $3 billion so far and we paid about the same. Obviously, if we will get our abrsorbtion rate to 100%, we would have got about $20 billion more than we paid. Now, could you be nice and answer my question? :)
RV said: "Eileen, people love their children because they are close to them genetically(50%)."
Absolutely.
I was just trying to get at how feelings/emotions (in my example, love towards children) evolved -- and that feelings/emotions drive us to action. And that most people don't understand such evolutionary or biological processes and, so, go on and on with usually nonsensical explanations for why they do the things that they do.
Ok here’s why I don’t think rich countries should pay for third world countries healthcare systems.
1.I’m not a communist.
2.I’ve never tried to dictate that the US, contrary to what you seem to believe, should introduce a Norwegian style healthcare system. I’ve simply expressed a personal opinion about the Norwegian system Vs. The American system and concluded that the Norwegian system is overall better for the average citizen as they can still get medical treatment if they haven’t got sufficient funds to pay for it.
3.The Norwegian taxpayers are paying for their own healthcare system through taxes as opposed to Americans who’re paying for their healthcare system through insurance premiums. If third world countries want a similar healthcare system they have to fund it themselves just like the Norwegian taxpayers do.
4.If people wish to improve their living standards they have to achieve this themselves.
Although I can accept that developed nations can lend some assistance to poorer nations who have shown that they have the will and talent to improve their own situations. But I’m not a supporter of today’s policy where western nation uncritically hands out humanitarian aid left right and centre.
kristisk, you see, I'd agree with you, but it's a discriminatory system based on citizenship. I would agree with you, but if you believe discrimination is morally evil, why make the difference in between Norwegians and Americans since they're the same anyway? I mean, why does it matter if a Somali moves to Norway or not, he is still a Somali? lol
Well I don’t agree with you on that, so whatever you might think about that issue then becomes completely irrelevant to me, wouldn’t you agree?
kritisk_borger said: "...the Norwegian system is overall better for the average citizen as they can still get medical treatment if they haven’t got sufficient funds to pay for it."
Well, if the Norwegian system is anything like other nationalized health care systems with which I am familiar (Canadian, British, Irish, German, Swedish), then although more people "can still get medical treatment", unfortunately they get a very crappy level of medical treatment. :-/
I mean, 5 months waiting time for an EKG (story from someone I know in Sweden)?? That's a verrrry basic test that should be able to be done in a doctor's office! Two years waiting time for surgery to remove a tumor (Canda) -- not good. Contrast this with when my mother was diagnosed with a tumor some years ago -- surgery -- next day (U.S. system).
And forget about getting an independent second opinion if you've got a nationalized health care system. Then you are just stuck in the one system -- there's no escape!
No thanks! (Repeal Obamacare!!)
Eileen, you do need healthcare reform, but not THIS healthcare reform. Here is some common sense reform though: this or this. Tort reform would help too.
It's funny but ObamaCare won't even come due since the US will go bankrupt by 2014, I think. Also, Medicare and Medicaid boost prices up for other people and they're also bankrupt. Oh, and ObamaCare won't be repealed - not only that the GOP would need a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, Obama would simply veto it. Or you think that the GOP would be able to override that veto? No, the solution is to fillibuster the raising of the debt ceiling and make the government unable to fund itself.
Well Eileen here’s what I actually said;
“I’ve simply expressed a personal opinion about the Norwegian system Vs. The American system and concluded that the Norwegian system is overall better for the average citizen as they can still get medical treatment if they haven’t got sufficient funds to pay for it.”
I can only speak from personal and family/friends experiences in the Norwegian healthcare system which has been excellent. I had a Tonsillectomy when I was 19. On that occasion I went down to my GP at noon because of pains in my throat. I was then referred to a specialist at the local hospital who I saw that same afternoon. After a quick examination he then had me admitted at the hospital that afternoon, and I had the operation on a Monday morning. I was out by Wednesday.
My dad also had heart problems when he was still alive and he was in and out of hospital for years. And he was very happy with the treatment that he received.
EileenOCnnr said...
“And forget about getting an independent second opinion if you've got a nationalized health care system. Then you are just stuck in the one system -- there's no escape!”
Well you know the healthcare system in Europe isn’t perfect but neither is the healthcare system in the US. Have a look at these links and see for yourself.
“In a statement to the media, Dr. Pronovost pointed out an average adult will receive recommended therapy only 53 percent of the time while hospitalized. This explains, at least partially, the approximately 100,000 patients who die each year in the United States because of hospital error.”
And regarding the quality of the healthcare in the US.
"The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries, says a report published last week.
The report shows improvements in some areas since the previous rating two years ago but found that other countries had improved more quickly. It analysed 37 measures, including access to care, quality of care, and health outcomes.
Overall, said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, the charity that developed the report, "the US scored far short of the best performance, either in other countries or within the best performing hospitals in the US."
Sorry but I messed up the links. Here is the correct link. to the first article.
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long – sometimes more than a year – to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favourably to those in other developed countries.
- M.D. Scott Atlas
kritisk, is the #19 position from the ranking of the WHO? If so, this is how the ranking is done:
Health level – 25%
Health distribution – 25%
Responsiveness – 12.5%
Responsiveness distribution – 12.5%
Financial fairness – 25%
Financial fairness has nothing to do with medical treatment - neither speediness nor quality, which are the only two things that matter. Since I'm too lazy to explain why these rankings are utterly flawed - go here.
Well RV, these claims are refuted by John Geyman, Professor Emeritus of Family Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
He describes this as a biased political op-ed which has cherry picked literature sources to achieve a certain result which fits in with the authors political views and does not reflect the reality. Read for yourself and see what Geyman, Professor Emeritus of Family Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine has to say about it
John Geyman
Professor Emeritus of Family Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine
"Facts" About American Health Care Revisited
A recent post on the National Center for Policy Analysis's (NCPA) web site by Dr. Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institute and Stanford University expounded on 10 "surprising facts" about our health care system. After an opening statement that U. S. health care has been denigrated compared to other developed countries around the world, Atlas proceeds to present ten under-recognized "facts" that we should consider before turning to a larger role of government in health care.
This piece comes across as cherry picking of the literature to make the political point that we already have a good health care system, mostly because of the private sector and our advanced medical technology. It fits in well with the NCPA's announced goals "as a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983, with the goal to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."
The NCPA is one of the well-funded right-wing think tanks that uses its sizable corporate funding base to influence public opinion through hard-news coverage, television, talk shows, Op-Ed's and guest editorials in major newspapers, and Congressional connections. In a 2005 article in the International Journal of Health Services, "Myths and memes about single-payer health insurance in the United States: A rebuttal to conservative claims," I rebutted 20 of the NCPA's conservative claims as disinformation and myths.
So now Atlas brings forward 10 more "facts" that will surprise us -- except they are distorted and wrong. They again fit in well with the NCPA's agenda (1):
Alleged Fact 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for
common cancers.
Alleged Fact 2: Americans have lower mortality rates than Canadians.
Alleged Fact 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases
than patients in other developed countries.
Alleged Fact 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening
than Canadians.
Alleged Fact 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable
Canadians.
Alleged Fact 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in
Canada and the U.K.
Alleged Fact 7: People in countries with more government control of health
care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
Alleged Fact 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than
Canadians.
Alleged Fact 9: Americans have much better access to important new
technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
Alleged Fact 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health
care innovations.
Cont..
Atlas concludes that "Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries."
So let's examine some of these claims, which are supported by 16 carefully selected references to the literature, to see whether they hold any water. Rather than deal with all 10, this will look at four in enough detail to see the trends. We will soon see this presumably authoritative document is just another opportunistic use of data disguised as scholarship.
"Fact 1" claims that Americans have much higher survival rates for cancer of the breast, prostate and colon than their counterparts in Germany, the U.K and Norway.
"Fact 2" claims that Americans have lower mortality from breast and colon cancer than Canadians. However, as described in some detail in my most recent book The Cancer Generation: Baby Boomers Facing a Perfect Storm, these conclusions are based on five-year survival rates, a flawed method of evaluating outcomes. Although the five-year survival rates for Americans are higher for all cancers in this country compared with both men and women in Europe, researchers tell us that these figures are deceptive and incorrect because of several kinds of bias. For example, the study used by Atlas has no information on clinical stage of cancers. For valid cross-national comparisons, patients have to be matched for stage, since advanced-stage cancers will obviously have worse outcomes than early-stage cancers. There are other technical but crucial kinds of bias which have to be accounted for before drawing conclusions that we do better than other countries. The NCPA's "facts" did not consider other sources of bias, such as how much screening was done in each country, and are biased to a political conclusion that fits with its agenda.
"Fact 3" claims, on the basis of one reference and a reported difference in use of statins for cholesterol reduction, that Americans have better access to care of chronic diseases than do our counterparts in other developed countries. But that conclusion disregards solid evidence to the contrary as shown by a 2007 report by the Commonwealth Fund of a study of health system performance in seven countries -- Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. That study asked a much broader question than the use of statins, asking respondents how often during the past year they did not see a doctor, did not get recommended care, or skipped doses/did not fill Rx because of cost? The results completely discredit "Fact 3"-- 42 percent of Americans answered "yes" to this question, three times the number of Canadians and almost five times the number people in the U.K. (2)
"Fact 7" alleges that Americans are more satisfied with our health care system than citizens in countries with more government involvement in health care. Atlas cites the above Commonwealth study to support a claim that "more than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their system needs 'fundamental change' or 'complete rebuilding.' That is true, but what Atlas doesn't tell us is that more Americans (82 percent) respond that way, more than respondents in any of the other countries. In fact, that study found that 34 percent of Americans believe that our system should be completely rebuilt, compared to only 12 and 15 percent in Canada and the U.K., respectively. (3)
cont..
As is well known, access, cost and quality of health care are interdependent and intertwined such that you can't evaluate one without the others. If many people cannot get past financial barriers to get access to needed care, they obviously have low quality of care. So it is cavalier and distortional for the NCPA paper to disregard our system's cost and access problems while claiming that our system compares favorably with other developed countries. Here are just a few objective cross-national comparisons among many that completely discredit any assertion of American superiority, or even equivalency in quality of health care compared with other developed countries:
• A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund found that the U.S. dropped from 15th in 2006 to last among 19 countries in 2008 on a measure of mortality that is amenable to medical care. (4)
• A 2007 report ranked the U.S. 42nd in the world for life expectancy, lower than most of Europe and Japan. (5)
• A 2006 study found that Americans in late middle age are less healthy than their counterparts in England for cancer and five other chronic diseases. (6)
• A 2007 study found that Canada has at least the quality of care as in the U.S., often with better outcomes, despite spending little more than one-half what we spend on health care. (7)
• An earlier study showed conclusively that poor women with cancer in Toronto have better outcomes than their counterparts in Detroit, even after accounting for race and standards of measuring poverty (for example, the Canadian women had survival rates more than 50 percent higher for lung, stomach and pancreatic cancer compared to American women in Detroit's poorest districts). (8)
• The U.S. has a weaker primary care system than other developed countries; it has been found to rank 11th among 11 countries on eleven performance criteria (9); our primary care base is in crisis with less than 10 percent of medical graduates now opting for careers as primary care physicians (10); moreover, patients living in parts of our country with larger number of specialists (and greater use of technology) are more likely to have late-stage colorectal cancer when first diagnosed. (11)
So much for the NCPA's latest surprising "facts", intended as they are to perpetuate the problems (and profits) of our unaccountable market-based system and protect private markets from health care reform. This kind of article by the NCPA does not advance the debate over how to fix our system, and instead is just another poorly disguised assault on the truth.
You mean more cherry picked than people taking 'fairness' into account when calculating the quality of care in a system? Also, I dislike the US system, by the way. I wouldn't organize a healthcare industry that way.
Oh, and I forgot to say that life expectancy doesn't have that much to do with the quality of a healthcare system. There are a lot more important issues that affect that than the healthcare system. Also, choosing Detroit and Toronto or any two parts of a sample is a bias. It's irrelevant what a part of a sample does.
And the cost is a problem - it's just that socialist crap isn't the way to go. Government regulation lead to the cost problem. Also, quality isn't affected by cost. Ferrari makes better cars than VW, even if they cost more.
And I'm curious on how many Europeans didn't bother to go to the doctor due to waiting lists and so on. I'd be one of them, for example. Or all those who got treatment in other countries or didn't use the public system. It's funny, but the bias in the study you cited is quite obvious. I always laugh when leftists complain about the right wing media, television and talk shows, considering most of them are leftist/liberal.
Also, the biggest answer to this is the way people vote with their wallet. There are more people traveling from Canada to get treatment in the US than vice versa. The rest is just political bias. When Americans will do the opposite, the Canadian system will be better, most likely.
RV said..
“Oh, and I forgot to say that life expectancy doesn't have that much to do with the quality of a healthcare system.”
I would say that it does. An HIV positive African who is not given the proper medication will die a lot quicker than his counterpart in the west who is given such medication. Likewise a person who just suffered a heart attack would have better odds of surviving if he was a native of Norway rather than a native of Papua New Guinea.
RV said...
“Also, choosing Detroit and Toronto or any two parts of a sample is a bias.”
No, the author was just comparing two poor neighbourhoods in both countries and showed that the quality of healthcare was better in Toronto. He did not upon the basis of this finding alone draw the conclusion that the Canadian system was superior to the American system; something which I might add was the overall conclusions of the author of the article you re-posted on this thread. Written by an author whose research methods have been publicly discredited and labelled dishonest by a professor of medicine.
RV said..
“And I'm curious on how many Europeans didn't bother to go to the doctor due to waiting lists and so on.”
And I wonder how many Americans died because they couldn’t afford proper medical treatment.
RV said..
“Also, the biggest answer to this is the way people vote with their wallet. There are more people traveling from Canada to get treatment in the US than vice versa.”
The myth of huge numbers of Canadian medical refugees traveling to the US for medical treatment unavailable in Canada has been labeled as incorrect by medical studies. Here’s a quote from one such study;
“Throughout the 1990s, opponents of the Canadian system gained considerable political traction in the United States by pointing to Canada’s methods of rationing, its facility shortages, and its waiting lists for certain services. These same opponents also argued that "refugees" of Canada’s single-payer system routinely came across the border seeking necessary medical care not available at home because of either lack of resources or prohibitively long queues.
cont..
This paper by Steven Katz and colleagues depicts this popular perception as more myth than reality, as the number of Canadians routinely coming across the border seeking health care appears to be relatively small, indeed infinitesimal when compared with the amount of care provided by their own system. Katz is an associate professor in the Departments of Medicine and Health Policy and Management at the University of Michigan. Karen Cardiff is a research associate at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. Also at the University of British Columbia are Morris Barer, professor and director at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, and Robert Evans, professor at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Economics. Marina Pascali is a Dallas-based health care consultant.”
But yes, there are some Canadians crossing the border for medical treatment, but there are many reasons for that, and I’ll mention a few here.
Many Canadians live close the US border, and sometimes it is more convenient for them to go to US hospitals because these are closer than the Canadian hospitals.
Tens of thousands of Canadians spend the winter months in the southern US states (especially Canadian retirees in Florida) and of course they go to the local hospitals if they need treatment. Not to mention all the Canadian citizens who reside in the US and who of course of the proximity use the US medical facilities there
But let’s not forget that more than 500 000 Americans go abroad each year to receive medical treatment. And let’s not forget all the Americans who move to Canada only to become eligible for Medicare (free healthcare in Canada) and let’s not forget all the Americans who get fake Medicare cards so that they can receive free medical treatment in Canada. And let’s not forget the 1 million Americans who have to file for bankruptcy each year because they can’t afford to pay for their medical treatment. And let’s not forget all the Americans who travel to Canada and Mexico to buy prescription drugs which are considerably cheaper there.
Another interesting fact is that Sarah Palin told a Canadian crowd that her own family traveled frequently to Canada when she was a child to get free medical treatment.
Morbidity and mortality aren't the same thing. Debating healthcare with people who don't understand it is pointless. Just like debating anything with people who appeal to authority is useless. lol
Your sources are just as pathetic as the ones with the EU funds, by the way, which according to the EU multi-annual budget itself were false. I just can't be bothered to show why you are wrong because you're not willing to reason anyway. Just keep believing that laws make people get better living standards and all that leftist sweet stuff. By the way, you advocate the healthcare system that Hitler liked. ;) Since you like comparing people to him.
Ok, you obviously know best RV, that’s plain for everyone to see.
Post a Comment