27 replies to this topic

[GoldenSilence33]

I live in Germany, and so this is an important topic for me, especially with the shootings in Norway, and I want to see if I have it right, as far as what is happening, what should be done, and what is being done.

Many Europeans feel threatened by the many forms of Muslim immigration. They feel their culture will not survive, unless some measures(for some, drastic measures) are taken. This can be partly contributed to the difference of family sizes between Middle-Eastern and European families, and the feeling that Europeans are slowly becoming minorities in their "own countries". It can also be contributed to the violent nature of some middle-eastern Muslims living in Europe, which is constantly pushed by the media.

In Belgium it's the large Moroccan population, in Germany the Turkish population, and in other countries, other populations that are feared and somewhat hated. It seems to be a vicious circle. The Muslim populations live in relatively secluded communities, refusing to learn the language at all, or if they do then "improperly". In short, the general perception is that they refuse to integrate into the native communities, as they "should", because they are foreigners in these countries, and thus it is not the Europeans that should "bend to the will of the Muslims", but rather the other way around.

Because the Europeans perceive the unwillingness of the Muslim "foreigners"(most are first or second generation official Europeans, but still of the ethnic backgrounds of various Middle-Eastern countries), they feel attacked, and helpless, due to the tolerant government policies that are in play. This mutual hatred is slowly escalating, as more ignorance and violence spreads, followed by an unwillingness to cooperate or learn from one another. Racial stereotypes are common, and fuels the hatred.

This is how I perceive things as happening in Europe today. To give you an example, I will relate two stories that stood out, told to me by native Germans, and native Belgians.
The German story is this: Turks in Germany are sometimes referred to as "Kanacken", as Americans referred to Germans as "Krauts" and French as "Frogs". There is a low German dialect originating from the Turkish communities reffered to as "Kanack". Well, in one school in a large Turkish/Muslim community(in Germany), German children were beat up by "minority" children, and forced to speak this low German dialect. This understandably evoked much anger in the German community.

Apparently in Antwerp, Belgium 90% of crimes are committed by Morroccans. When they take the city tram, they do not pay, but beat up the driver if the driver causes trouble, because they don't pay. The Morroccans immigrate to Belgium, then once there, their whole family(cousins, aunts, uncles, etc) also some how moves there. Many of them live off of social programs.

I am not saying this is how it is, I am saying this is how things are perceived to be, which is far more dangerous, and far more difficult to refute.

Personally, I think violence should be punished with violence, no matter the nationality or origin. It is not about a people, but rather about a large group of individuals causing trouble. The individuals should be punished, not the people. The problem with this, espescially in Germany, is the fear of being branded Nazis, of being called intolerant racists for acts against minorities. This fear is only making the conflict worse, and in the long run, will probably result in it becoming the truth. Instead of them being branded as such and it being false, they will be branded as such and it will be true.

Perhaps they should crack down more on immigration? I don't know. However, right now nothing is being done by politicians, which adds to the feeling of hopelessness.

As long as crime is punished, the bad apples removed from the barrel so to speak, I do feel they will integrate properly, even if it does take 50 years or longer.

There already are individuals that are "integrating", and doing it well. My German friends do have friends of Turkish descent, and they don't even care that they are Muslims, even though they seem to with the violent ones.

I apologize if this is a rant of sorts, but this is to give everyone the general idea of how things are playing out here, and my thoughts on what should be done. Please make your thoughts known, be they solutions, contradictions to my portrayal, whatever. We are all here to learn.

Thank you.

[Avila]

I disagree with your breezy assertion that they will integrate, "even if it takes 50 years". I wouldn't be so sure -- in 50 years, Muslims will likely be the majority, and they will call the shots.

Unless Europeans decide to have large families again, it's unlikely that Europe will survive as part of Western civilization -- it will change to something else.

[softwareNerd]

The best thing one can do is to repeal many statist laws.

Firstly, welfare laws should be repeal at least to the extent where almost nobody wants to be on welfare. This ought to apply to ethnic Germans just as much as it applies to ethnic Turks or Somalians. Even if only 0.5% of ethnic Germans mooch off the system while 10% of ethnic Somalians do, the law should deny both those sets the ability to mooch. In fact, a refugee is likely to be more deserving of charity for the first few months, as he looks for a job and so on (private charity, of course).

However, many refugees may not be able to find jobs because of other laws. So, drastically cutting back on welfare would not be enough. One would have to roll back minimum-wage laws, to allow refugees to earn their living and not be priced-out of the economy due to lower skills. However, things won't end here, because they might find that they cannot afford housing because the law stipulates rules for what is considered livable housing. So, one would have to roll back housing and rental laws.

As long as one has a huge welfare state, people will fear any class of poor. By definition, anyone who earns less than an average wage is likely the recipient of redistributed money. When a large percentage of people in some particular ethnic group -- Turk, or Somali, or Muslim, or black -- is poor, then people will see that group as a recipient of welfare funds, and the worst racist sentiments will be aroused.

The primary cause of most immigration is economic: people want to move to a place where they will have a better life in material terms. It is important that the system has the right incentives to induce them to stand on their own feet as soon as possible. The welfare state works in the opposite direction, retarding the poor from becoming self-sufficient, and encouraging those who are irresponsible.

[GoldenSilence33]

Well, I'm not sure the welfare state is the primary concern, more the "radical", violent nature of the Muslim minorities, or the perception that that is the way things are. I do think the welfare state contributes to the anger of the majority population, but the violence is a result of the will to protect internal labor markets to prevent competition between Germans and foreign workers, at least in the case of Germany. Maybe the minority Muslim groups feel oppressed to a certain extent by the natives, and find solace in their own communities.

This is all speculation on my part of course.

[TheEgoist]

According to Pew, by 2030, the Muslim population of Europe will have risen 2% given current trends.
http://www.pewforum....aspx?print=true

This is hardly cause for alarm, even if you take the false premise that every Muslim is a danger to freedom in Europe.

What needs to be done is not discrimination against Muslims in Europe, but the end of entitlements (as sN said already) and a strengthening of the line between church and state, which many European nations do not even recognize. End forced multiculturalism. The best way to maintain some semblance of freedom in Europe and the World is the roll back of state power, not the use of it. If you have a state that is firmly opposed to religious law, the radicals in the midst of Islam will have to look elsewhere to impose some form of Sharia.

This is not a crisis. As pointed out earlier, the Muslim population is estimated to rise by 2% in twenty years. Then just imagine how few of those are going to be out there, being activists for the end of secular government.

[volco]

Golden silence,

You don't need to sugarcoat it, you can say it right the way it is. Why isn't cheap labor coming from Russia instead of the Middle East. Likewise why was (is!) Turkey considered for admission into the EU instead of "reaching out" to Russia, towards an OECD community. True Turkey is nato while the russia state hates europe, but russians don't hate europe, they do anything to get a passport.

So we don't have to pretend there isn't an agenda. Maybe half of Breivik's "manifesto" is not too far from the current situation.

@TheEgoist. those incentives and statist benefits are there for a reason, not just because of the prevailing welfare state climate, but for a consciously designed agenda that no one officially denies to "spice up" the European population so they can somehow erase the stigma of Europeans brief moment in the sun (Oct 1492 to Apr 1945).

now with what happened in Norway it's the time to be strongest in refusing islam as much as we refuse statism, and move heaven and earth not to be confused with the terrorists and the "Knights Templar".

(specially in Europe) we are in the McCarthy era, only left is now right.

matter of time till this is blamed on Mr Wilders.

Edited by volco, 25 July 2011 - 06:01 PM.

[TheEgoist]

Wilders is not admirable, nor is fear mongering about Muslims. Most Muslims are no more evil than the majority of religious people in this world.

EDIT: I hadn't read this originally.

So we don't have to pretend there isn't an agenda. Maybe half of Breivik's "manifesto" is not too far from the current situation.

This is truly a disgusting and disturbing position.

Edited by TheEgoist, 25 July 2011 - 06:35 PM.

[volco]

Wilders is not admirable, nor is fear mongering about Muslims. Most Muslims are no more evil than the majority of religious people in this world.

EDIT: I hadn't read this originally.


This is truly a disgusting and disturbing position.

Individual Muslims are not more evil intrinsically, Islam just happens to be experimenting a fundamental reformation at the same time they spearhead the counter-colonialism movement going on since the last decades (islam is the only thing in common among the recently decolonized nations of africa and asia).

What Islam is doing in Europe it is also doing in India, and In Africa. now with some backlashes (like the newly Republic of South Sudan, the unpublished darfur)

I believe Breivik is disgusting just as the Southern Sudanese freedom fighters are disgusting, just as Ted Kaczinski was/is disgusting. But that doesn't mean they sometimes write truth albeit mixed with other essences.
Didn't Ayn Rand said that for a lie to be more efficient it had to be mixed with truth...

Please don't call my reading of the manifesto and recognizing its many parts of small truths among a lot of hate as a "position".

[volco]

btw, I didn't say Wilders was admirable I implied that it was only time for a non violent dissident to be blamed for this violence. When and to the extent that happens will mean the extent of free speech for the next years in Europe.

[Avila]

According to Pew, by 2030, the Muslim population of Europe will have risen 2% given current trends.
http://www.pewforum....aspx?print=true
This is hardly cause for alarm, even if you take the false premise that every Muslim is a danger to freedom in Europe.

That's Europe as a whole. Germany, which is where the OP is posting from, already has a Muslim population about 5%. Soem cities, such as Amsterdam and Marseilles, are expected to have Muslim majorities in 20-30 years. Brussels isn't too far behind them.Obviously not every Muslim is a danger to freedom, but enough of them are -- quite apart from the violent ones, European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.

[volco]

That's Europe as a whole. Germany, which is where the OP is posting from, already has a Muslim population about 5%. Soem cities, such as Amsterdam and Marseilles, are expected to have Muslim majorities in 20-30 years. Brussels isn't too far behind them.Obviously not every Muslim is a danger to freedom, but enough of them are -- quite apart from the violent ones, European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.

homogenization, the unwanted but seemingly unavoidable part of globalization. Europe would be just "too good" if it wasn't for reality. i don't really care to elaborate, i chose not to live there.

[TheEgoist]

That's Europe as a whole. Germany, which is where the OP is posting from, already has a Muslim population about 5%. Soem cities, such as Amsterdam and Marseilles, are expected to have Muslim majorities in 20-30 years. Brussels isn't too far behind them.Obviously not every Muslim is a danger to freedom, but enough of them are -- quite apart from the violent ones, European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.

Mind posting some sources?

[whYNOT]

According to Pew, by 2030, the Muslim population of Europe will have risen 2% given current trends.
http://www.pewforum....aspx?print=true

This is hardly cause for alarm, even if you take the false premise that every Muslim is a danger to freedom in Europe.

What needs to be done is not discrimination against Muslims in Europe, but the end of entitlements (as sN said already) and a strengthening of the line between church and state, which many European nations do not even recognize. End forced multiculturalism. The best way to maintain some semblance of freedom in Europe and the World is the roll back of state power, not the use of it. If you have a state that is firmly opposed to religious law, the radicals in the midst of Islam will have to look elsewhere to impose some form of Sharia.

This is not a crisis. As pointed out earlier, the Muslim population is estimated to rise by 2% in twenty years. Then just imagine how few of those are going to be out there, being activists for the end of secular government.

I think this is the most reasonable position, and the most rational.
The only thing to fear is fear itself - or at least, a major thing.
'Jihad by stealth' is worth keeping a wary eye on, but not getting alarmed about, and I'm also doubtful about guesstimates of Muslim numbers in the future.
Anyway, as people assimilate, so they become educated. Not that Europe has much to offer ideologically, but it is relatively more moral than shariah law.
Rolling back of Statism is the answer - but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The one bright aspect is that nations will probably be increasingly firm about separation of Church (or mosque) and State, as a result of this perceived threat.

[IchorFigure]

This is the Paleoconservative argument that cultures are at "war" with each with their birthrates. That Western culture is doomed to collapse because immigrant populations are reproducing faster than the civilian population of Western Christians. For a good example of that argument just take a look at the amazon page for Pat Robertson's book, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. For Paleoconservatives, "demographics are destiny".

The funny thing about this idea to me is how much it mirrors the idea on the left of Global Warming. Spurious data is collected and then used to claim that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will make the climate change so drastic that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed. Similarly Paleoconservatives argue that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will change the population's political disposition so drastically that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed.

As in Global Warming too, there's some truths to the surrounding facts, but the idea has major issues that don't bear out the conclusions. For one it is cherry-picking. Why focus only on incoming immigrants? There are plenty of native born leftists who do the lion's share of supporting and advocating for bad government policies that are just as harmful. Do they simply not count because they're native born? Or perhaps the argument is just a convenient way of justifying a person's latent xenophobic and racist feelings.

And secondly it's also deterministic. It assumes as a matter of due course that any children born to Islamic parents must accept Islam and proceed to throw their support behind Sharia law and overthrowing Western civilization. There's no room or expectation that newer generations of Muslims might somehow freely choose to prefer the ideals of the West over their religion.

Of course there is some truth to the matter that the wide spread of egalitarianism and multiculturalism enable the worst aspects of Islam and Sharia law to be potent. But that's no different than bad intellectual ideas of any type having their due effect. The answer is to advocate against those ideas and work to end their influence.

[whYNOT]

This is the Paleoconservative argument that cultures are at "war" with each with their birthrates. That Western culture is doomed to collapse because immigrant populations are reproducing faster than the civilian population of Western Christians. For a good example of that argument just take a look at the amazon page for Pat Robertson's book, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. For Paleoconservatives, "demographics are destiny".

The funny thing about this idea to me is how much it mirrors the idea on the left of Global Warming. Spurious data is collected and then used to claim that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will make the climate change so drastic that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed. Similarly Paleoconservatives argue that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will change the population's political disposition so drastically that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed.

As in Global Warming too, there's some truths to the surrounding facts, but the idea has major issues that don't bear out the conclusions. For one it is cherry-picking. Why focus only on incoming immigrants? There are plenty of native born leftists who do the lion's share of supporting and advocating for bad government policies that are just as harmful. Do they simply not count because they're native born? Or perhaps the argument is just a convenient way of justifying a person's latent xenophobic and racist feelings.

And secondly it's also deterministic. It assumes as a matter of due course that any children born to Islamic parents must accept Islam and proceed to throw their support behind Sharia law and overthrowing Western civilization. There's no room or expectation that newer generations of Muslims might somehow freely choose to prefer the ideals of the West over their religion.

Of course there is some truth to the matter that the wide spread of egalitarianism and multiculturalism enable the worst aspects of Islam and Sharia law to be potent. But that's no different than bad intellectual ideas of any type having their due effect. The answer is to advocate against those ideas and work to end their influence.

Good thoughts about Paleoconservatives, determinism, and so on. The analogy with Global Warming has occurred to me, too.

Who can say it better than PJ O'Rourke - who's words in a slightly different context, timeously popped up at the top of O.Online's page this second:

"Fretting about overpopulation is a perfect guilt-free - indeed sactimonious - way for 'progressives' to be racists."

[Avila]

Spurious data is collected and then used to claim that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will make the climate change so drastic that it will destroy civilization

So you honestly think that concerns about the nature of what will logically happen to Europe, based on birthrate data, is up there with nutty scientists who can't duplicate their computer models with actual data?

Mind posting some sources?

Well, it's a positive sign that you're actually interested in data. This is a welcome change from an earlier post of yours wherein you claimed that Timothy McVeigh was a conservative and a Republican, as well as a practicing Catholic. No data supported your claims.

But since you ask: http://islamineurope...an-cities.html. This blog references sources.

[Eiuol]

So you honestly think that concerns about the nature of what will logically happen to Europe, based on birthrate data, is up there with nutty scientists who can't duplicate their computer models with actual data?

It is collectivism to say that anything will *necessarily* happen because there are more Muslims somewhere. Nothing except maybe that there will be more mosques and religious symbols, anyway.

[TheEgoist]

Your link doesn't bring me anywhere, Avila.

[Avila]

It is collectivism to say that anything will *necessarily* happen because there are more Muslims somewhere. Nothing except maybe that there will be more mosques and religious symbols, anyway.

I did not say "necessarily" -- that's your term, not mine. I said "logically" -- that is, it is reasonable and rational to base future projections of what Muslims are likely to do, in majority status in Europe overall, based on their actions in European cities where they have reached majority status.

The introduction of sharia law is a stated goal of many Islamist movements. In European cities, muslim enclaves have sought to introduce sharia law to act in place of existing legal structures. Because of multiculturalism, many European cities attempt to accomodate them, in full or in part (for example, Britain's sharia courts -- read here: http://www.telegraph...tas-report.html )

Here's an interesting report: http://pajamasmedia....norways-future/

The political aim of Islamists is ultimately the formal establishment of Sharia law, with or without modern adaptations. You can claim that it is "collectivism" (what a strange use of that term...) to reason that it is likely that a Muslim majority would bring with it a reduction of personal freedom, but you don't have history on your side.

[Avila]

Your link doesn't bring me anywhere, Avila.

Sorry -- don't know why that happened. Try this instead: http://pewforum.org/...mpopulation.pdf

You have to scroll through several pages, but it does list the percentage by country. Note, by the way, that Pew is skeptical of the "Muslimization" of Europe. There are analysts who conclude quite differently: Philip Jenkins, Demographics, Religion, and the Future of Europe, Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 533, summer 2006 .
See also: http://www.brookings...spinar.aspx?p=1

Edited by Avila, 27 July 2011 - 11:51 AM.

[Eiuol]

Well, I take "logically will happen" to mean "necessarily will be true depending upon premise X." Multicultralism and tolerance as a virtue is the problem, not Muslims per se. That there is any increase in Muslims somewhere only means there are more Muslims and a higher probability of finding someone who supports sharia law, in the same way having more Christians somewhere only increases the probability that you'll find someone who thinks homosexuals are evil

[Avila]

Well, I take "logically will happen" to mean "necessarily will be true depending upon premise X

That's not what I meant by the term. "Logic" includes inductive reasoning -- that is, the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations. It is logical, then, for me to derive a reliable generalization of what Muslim actions might be in the future by observing what they've done in the past.

Multicultralism and tolerance as a virtue is the problem, not Muslims per se

We agree about the first part, but not about the second: individual Muslims may not be a problem, but their belief system is, as it is emphatically opposed to a number of freedoms that we maintain. For example, the separation of church and state; religious freedom (conversion from Islam is punishable by death); women's rights.

That there is any increase in Muslims somewhere only means there are more Muslims and a higher probability of finding someone who supports sharia law, in the same way having more Christians somewhere only increases the probability that you'll find someone who thinks homosexuals are evil

First, it is indeed a problem when a majority of the citizens of a European city decide that sharia law trumps the civil law. You do realize, don't you, that that is happening in Muslim enclaves in some European cities where Muslims are now the majority?

Secondly, you are ignorant of the Christian view of homosexuality. It is regarded as a disorder. The person who suffers from the disorder is not evil, but homosexual acts are considered sinful. I speak here of the Catholic and Orthodox view, which make up the vast majority of Christians. There might be some nutcase Protestant wierdos who think homosexuals are evil, but it is not a common or orthodox view. I might add, by the way, that homosexuality is punishable by death in Islam.

Edited by Avila, 27 July 2011 - 12:29 PM.

[samr]

The solution seems obvious - protecting individuals within muslim communities that deviate from the norm. And apostates. And protect the rights of the children to freedom of religion\lack of, and their freedom from censure of books. Don't give muslims as a group special rights, and the problem will be gone within a generation.

[CapitalistSwine]

European cities with large numbers of Muslims have had sharia law become the de facto law.

Which cities?

[volco]

Which cities?

Well London to begin with, but the list continues, Bruxelles, Barcelona, Malm'o -Rosegard.
Avila is exaggerating a bit but not lying, shari'a has become the de facto, not de lex, code of conduct in many of those cities neighborhoods. In some cases unless you're a tourtist or rich (the famous multiculi elite) you have no option but to live in those areas where women must be covered not to be considered prostitutes, and homosexuality and alcohol should only exists behind the closed doors of hypocrisy (urban muslims love getting drunk as much as any other urban Northern European folk).

Well I have the dubious honor of having finally read the almost 1600 page directory of Breivik's thoughts which he calls his manifesto. Having read brilliant Ted Kaczinski's manifesto and concise Mein Kampf, I have only three theories.
Brevik is mentally deficient or medically normal but dumb. Probably not likely given his recent "accomplishments".
Breivik actually believes in his cause which renders everything complex or abstract unnecessary in his world and his words.
This whole thing was planned, maybe to make everyone who utters the words "Cultural Marxism" a red flag.

Cap Swine, Europe is being demographically changed, there are no two ways about it. It may or may not be a good thing, that is another question, but Europe's demographics are changing specifically towards a preferred group of immigrants who profess a very inclusive philosophy, one that directs metaphysics, ethics, politics and even aesthetics (they are iconoclasts and love geometrical art / mosaics).

Maybe it's not a politically preferred group, maybe Muslims are the bulk of the Third World in Eurasiafrica.
Latin Americans might be to the United States and Canada what Afro Asians are to Europe and Australia, but Catholicism is a far cry from Islam.

It's true what Ayn Rand said that everyone needs a philosophy and that it's only a matter of choosing one or obtaining one by default. Europe doesn't have a philosophy other than pluralism which clearly states that they adhere to more that one philosophy at the same time. In that way I can see how 2000 years ago I might have despised Polytheists.

There is one valid point in Breivik's manifesto and video. Why are utterly Nationalist, anti immigration, states such as Taiwan, S Korea and Japan not vilified by western media and culture. Why is it generally tolerated that Taiwanese and even less Japanese don't accept foreign immigration but we make a big scandal if a European politician even implies going back to those policies...
And furthermore, why aren't Taiwanese and South Koreans sinking in poverty and sadism if that is what Nationalism inexorably brings about?