Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

Eorl...

All well and good. But at least 95% of Australian aborigines prefer to live right up close and personal with the Modern Day European lifestyle that immigrant settlers have brought to this Australian continent.

No names, no pack drill. Here's a nice little piece I picked up at another site.

Quite illuminating.

Just take two words from the previous "quote"......."Upstepper Monkeys"

....and do an advanced google on them, See what you get.

You also have to be a registered member to "Find Posts" or "Find Topics started".

Result?.....at the very top of Googles results comes "Dogbomb - BNP"

Zieg Heil, Herberts.

Well, to be fair that's because it's from a thread on the Dogbomb site (an "adult humour site"), about the BNP. (Here it is). There's other opinions there too - Herberts just chose one of the worst ones.

So, wait a minute.

First, you yourself brandish an article from "the honourable Sir Andrew Green" noting what "all major studies" [..] have shown the economic benefit to the host community to be; specifying that "in Britain it would be about £25 per head per year".

And then, when someone quotes that back to you, you turn around and say that it's all bull ****? Suddenly all those major studies are no longer relevant?

You cherrypick whatever data suits you, ignore the rest ...

Herberts is a racist, Nimh, pure and simple...
Maybe the worst kind - just educated enough to obfuscate all his sicko bigotry with a buncha pseudo intellectual jargon.

I don't know why you humor the .... person.

Say, Snood . . . ain't you one a them darky immigrants? Don't your people come from Africa?

Just to lighten things up a bit...a Canadian looks at EU Day...

EUROPE DAY

Did you know there was a "Europe Day"? A day to celebrate the EU? Me neither. But May 9th is it. Here's some thoughts of mine on the poor doomed European Union:

Question: What do you get when you take two world wars, add the two most malign ideologies of the century, throw in genocide, the collapse of religious institutions, radical secularism, a political elite sealed off from opinions it finds distasteful, spiraling social costs, deathbed demographics and growing numbers of an unassimilated immigrant population?

Answer: You get Europe in the new millennium - mired in aggressive pacifism, moral nihilism, resurgent anti-semitism and reflex anti-Americanism. And, if you want to blame all that on Bush and Cheney, you have to shut your eyes and ears to a mountain of statistical evidence. To those on the American left who find Europe more "sophisticated", you're right: it's sophisticated in the sense that a belle époque Parisian boulevardier is sophisticated - outwardly dapper and worldly, inwardly eaten away by syphilis and gonorrhea. It's only a question of how many others the clapped-out bon vivant infects before his final collapse.

That's a harsh judgment but not an overstated one. There are many agreeable aspects of old Europe - old buildings, good food, foxy looking women who dress to show themselves off. But underneath the surface everything is collapsing. The differences between America and Europe in the 21st century are nothing to do with insensitive swaggering Texas cowboys. Indeed, they're nothing to do with Iraq, Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, or any other particular issue. They're not tactical differences, they're conceptual. They're about how each side of the Atlantic views the world. Most nations in Europe can never again be American allies - not because of anything America's done, but because of a huge number of profound changes, voluntary and not so, upon which the Continent is embarked:

1) It's changing in its formal structure, as its elites merge their countries into one pan-European political entity.

2) It's changing economically, as its people decline and age and its cradle-to-grave welfare systems become unsustainable.

3) It's changing demographically, with the importation of large unassimilated Muslim populations that make it all but impossible for political leaders to be seen supporting America or Israel.

4) It's changing in its political tempo, as populations hostile to European integration look for neo-nationalist parties to express their discontent.

Where will this end? Some European commentators got very irritated in 2003 when Denis Boyles of America's National Review appeared to dismiss the Continentals as "cockroaches". They were right to be ticked. The Europeans are not cockroaches. The cockroach is the one creature you can rely on to come crawling out of the rubble of the nuclear holocaust. Whereas the one thing that can be said with absolute confidence is that the Europeans will not emerge from under their own rubble.

In 2003, recalling the US-Soviet summits that helped "ease the tensions of the Cold War", The New York Times' Thomas Friedman proposed the scheduling of regular US-Franco-German summits. A complete waste of time. Whatever the problems they're not caused by a lack of personal contact: In the space of little over a week in 2004, George W Bush had the G8, US-EU summit and Nato back to back, bounced from Sea Island to Shannon to Istanbul for the privilege of shaking hands and getting nowhere with the same gaggle of duplicitous Europeans in three different time zones. But, implicit in Friedman's analysis is the assumption that France and perhaps other Continental countries now exist in a quasi-Cold War with America. If that's so, the trick is to manage the relationship until the Europeans, like the Soviets, collapse. Europe is dying, and it's only a question of whether it goes peacefully or through convulsions of violence.

On that point, I bet on form.

If you want the state of Europe in a nutshell, consider this news item from the south of France, 2005: a fellow in Marseilles was charged with fraud because he lived with the dead body of his mother for five years in order to continue receiving her pension of 700 euros a month.

She was 94 when she croaked, so she'd presumably been enjoying the old government check for a good three decades or so, but her son figured he might as well keep the money rolling in until her second century and, with her corpse tucked away under a pile of rubbish in the living room, the female telephone voice he put on for the benefit of the social services office was apparently convincing enough. As the Reuters headline put it:


Frenchman Lived With Dead Mother To Keep Pension.


That's the perfect summation of Europe: welfare addiction over demographic reality.

Think of the European Union as that flat in Marseilles, and the EUtopian political consensus as the stiff, and lavish government largesse as that French guy's dead mom's benefits. Europe is dying, demographically and economically. Take the onetime economic powerhouse of the Continent - Germany - and pick any of the usual indicators of a healthy advanced industrial democracy: Unemployment? The highest since the 1930s. House prices? Down. New car registration? Nearly 15 per cent lower in 2005 than in 1999. General nuttiness? A third of Germans under 30 think the United States government was responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

While the unemployment, real estate and car sales may be reversible, that last number suggests the German electorate isn't necessarily the group you'd want to pitch a rational argument to, especially about the urgent need either to give up the unsustainable welfare state or to produce a population capable of sustaining it - whether by immigration, transhuman science or the old-fashioned method of a box of chocolates, the lights down low and Johnny Mathis on the hi-fi. According to polls taken before the inconclusive German elections, 70 per cent of people want no further cuts in the welfare state and prefer increasing taxation on the very rich, and only 45 per cent of Germans agreed that competition is good for economic growth and employment. In other words, things are going to have to get a lot worse before European voters will seriously consider "necessary reforms" and "painful changes". And the longer European countries postpone the "painful" reforms, the more painful they're going to be.

It's because the state is Europe's default religion that Europeans do such a poor job trying to make sense of America. Take Will Hutton, former editor of The Observer, former Great Thinker to the pre-war Tony Blair, and one of the great gasbags of the new Europe. I hasten to add I say that not, as a cheap ad hominem insult - or anyway not merely as a cheap ad hominem insult, but because Mr Hutton is the master of the dead language of statism that differentiates the modern Europhile from Americans. This isn't an especially political point: outside the tenured redoubts of Ivy League Marxists, most of the American left - the electable left, at any rate - would steer clear of Mr Hutton's vocabulary.

In his book A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World (2004), the author is at pains to establish how much he loves the country: "I enjoy Sheryl Crow and Clint Eastwood alike, delight in Woody Allen…" I'd wager he's faking at least two of these enthusiasms, and the third, Mr Allen, is the man the French Government hired when they needed a beloved American celebrity. After anger at post-9/11 Gallic obstructionism began to have commercial implications, the French government decided to launch a promotional campaign intended to restore their nation's image in America. In the advertisement, Woody said he disliked the notion of renaming French fries "freedom fries". What next, he wondered. Freedom kissing? (If you don't like "French fry", there's a perfectly good British word: "chip". It conveniently covers both the menu item, and what the French have on their shoulder.) Only the French Government could think that an endorsement by Woody Allen would improve their standing with the American people.

Having brandished his credentials, Mr Hutton says that it's his "affection for the best of America that makes me so angry that it has fallen so far from the standards it expects of itself." Many Americans of left and right could write a book like that, but, as things transpire, the great Euro-thinker is not arguing that America is betraying the Founding Fathers, but that the Founding Fathers themselves got it hopelessly wrong. This becomes explicit when he compares the American Revolution with the French Revolution of 1789, and decides the latter was better because instead of the radical individualism (boo!) of the 13 colonies the French promoted "a new social contract" (hurrah!).

Well, you never know. It may be the defects of America's Founders that help explain why for the US has lagged so far behind France in technological innovation, economic growth, military performance, standard of living, etc. Certainly, many Europeans agree that the US system of government is fundamentally flawed. Questioning George W Bush's legitimacy because Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, the then Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin, said he hoped Americans would "draw the lessons in time for the next election".

What lessons would those be, M Jospin? Scrap the Electoral College? Move to a system of direct presidential election? Tear up the Constitution and rewrite it every generation, as the French do? Where are you up to now? Fifth Republic? Sixth Republic? Geez, get me an Al Gore lawyer: I need a manual recount of French constitutions.

It's true that no other G8 member runs its democracy according to a document from the quill pen era. On the Continent, you're hard pressed to find anything pre-Day-Glo Hi-Liter. The US Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian, Belgian and Spanish constitutions, it's older than all of them put together. In political terms, the "Old World" and "New World" labels are misapplied. Americans are brash noisy novelty junkies when it comes to going into Starbucks and ordering a decaf hazelnut-pepperoni-Eurasian-milfoil macchiato, but not when it comes to the organizing principles of the state. Europeans have some fetching oil cathedrals and cobbled streets, but when it comes to political order they're the novelty junkies with ADD.

Will Hutton insists that "all western democracies subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are liberal or leftist". Given that New Hampshire, for example, has been a continuous democracy for two centuries longer than Germany, this seems a doubtful proposition. It would be more accurate to say that almost all European nations subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are statist. Or, as Hutton has it, "the European tradition is much more mindful that men and women are social animals and that individual liberty is only one of a spectrum of values that generate a good society." Precisely. And it's the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to what Hutton calls "the primacy of society" that's blighted the Continent for over a century: Statism - or "the primacy of society" - is what Fascism, Nazism, Communism and European Union all have in common. The curse of the Continent is big ideas, each wacky notion a response to the last flop: the pre-war German middle classes put their hopes in Hitler as a bulwark against the Bolsheviks; likewise, the post-war German middle classes put their faith in European integration as a bulwark against a resurgence of Nazism.

In fairness, after Fascism and Communism, European Union seems comparatively benign - not a Blitzkrieg, just a Bitzkrieg, an accumulation of fluffy trivial pan-European directives that nevertheless takes for granted that the natural order is a world in which every itsy-bitsy activity is licensed and regulated and constitutionally defined by government. Europeans never feel obliged to defend their mystical belief in statism: though they claim to be post-Christian rationalists, it's mostly a matter of blind faith. That's why Will Hutton feels almost physically insecure when he's in one of the spots on the planet where the virtues of the state religion are questioned. "In a world that is wholly private," he says of America, "we lose our bearings; deprived of any public anchor, all we have are our individual subjective values to guide us." He deplores the First Amendment and misses government-regulated media, which in the EU ensures that all public expression is within approved parameters (ie, left to center-left). "Europe," he explains, "acts to ensure that television and radio conform to public interest criteria."

"Public interest criteria": keep that bland phrase in your head when you need to know everything that's wrong with Europe. It's code-speak for a kind of easy-listening tyranny. "Public interest criteria" doesn't mean criteria that the public decide is in their interest. It means that the elite - via various appointed bodies - decide what the public's interest is. As Will Hutton is a member of the elite, this suits him fine. But it's never going to catch on in America.

The real issue, though, is not whether you like Euro-statism or not. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's doomed to fail. The unAmerican activities in which Europe has invested its identity are deeply self-destructive. But it's precisely because its elite believe in the state religion as devotedly as Christians or Muslims or Hindus believe in their gods that it cannot be seriously challenged. America's religiosity, now unique in the Western world, is at least part of the reason it reproduces at replacement rate, also uniquely in the Western world. And, for all Martin Amis's droll comparison of the Lone Star State with Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, Texas doesn't seem as fundamentalist as the radical secularism of post-Christian Europe. And, in a dangerous age, once you lose the work ethic, what other ethics follow?

If ever there was an appropriate cause for some second thoughts on the European project, it should surely have been the rejection of the European Constitution by the French and Dutch electorates. The European Union is a 1970s solution to a 1940s problem. All it can do in the 21st century is perpetuate denial until it's too late. United they'll fall, but divided a handful might stand a chance. Not France, but perhaps some of the Mitteleuropean nations. Yet the EU's political leadership remains blissfully untouched by reality. One thinks of the T-shirt slogan popular among American feminists: "What part of No don't you understand?" Pretty much every part it seems. Jean-Claude Juncker, the rhetorically deranged Prime Minister of Luxembourg and so-called "President" of "Europe" at the time of the constitution debate, staggered around like a college date-rape defendant, insisting that all reasonable persons understand that "Non" really means "Oui". As he put it in his now famous dismissal of the will of the people: "If it's a Yes, we will say ?'on we go', and if it's a No we will say ?'we continue'."

And if it's a Neither of the Above, he will say "we move forward". You get the idea. Confronted by the voice of the people, "President" Juncker covers his ears and says, "Nya, nya, nya, can't hear you!"

There are several lessons worth learning from the French rejection of the constitution. The first is that the Junckers are a big part of the problem. Only in totalitarian dictatorships does the ballot come with a pre-ordained correct answer. Yet President Juncker distilled the great flaw at the heart of the EU constitution into one disarmingly straightforward sentence that cut through all the thickets of M Giscard's unreadable verbiage. The US constitution begins with the words "We the people…" The starting point for the EU constitution is "We know better than the people."

One of the most unattractive features of European politics is the way it insists that certain subjects are out of bounds, and beyond politics. That's the most obvious flaw in M Giscard's flaccid treaty: it's not a constitution, it's a perfectly fine party platform for a rather stodgy semi-obsolescent social democratic party. Its constitutional "rights" - the right to housing assistance, the right to preventive action on the environment - are not constitutional at all, but the sort of things parties ought to be arguing about at election time. Instead, Europe's "consensus" politics has ruled more and more topics unfit for discussion, leaving voters with a choice between Eurodee and Eurodum, a left-of-right-of-left-of-centre party and a right-of-left-of-right-of-left-of-centre party. None of these plodding technocratic parties seems eager to talk about any of the faintly unrespectable subjects on the minds of voters - Muslim immigration, increasing crime, Turkey, EU labour mobility. So voters, naturally, are turning elsewhere, and in five years' time the entire Continent could end up with the same flight from the centre as we've seen in Ulster.

As to whether Turkey is European, evidently it was a century and a half ago when Czar Nicholas I described it as "the sick man of Europe". Today the sick man of Europe is the European, the gilded princeling like Chirac or Juncker, gliding from one Eutopian planning session to the next, oblivious to the dreary parochial concerns of the people. Douglas Hurd, typically, missed the point in his analysis of the French referendum vote, arguing that Europe needed "new leaders". My Sunday Telegraph friends headlined it, "Two Men And A Woman Who Can Save Europe". No, no, no. Europe doesn't have a lack of leaders, it has a lack of followers.

I mentioned to a theatre chum the other day that the EU reminded me of Garth Drabinsky's Livent company. They were the big theatre producers in the Nineties: they revived Show Boat and produced Kiss Of The Spider Woman and Ragtime and Sweet Smell Of Success in Toronto and on Broadway and brought most of them to the West End. And they were all critically admired yet didn't seem to make any money. But Livent took the view that somehow if you produced a big enough range of flops they would add up to one smash hit.

They're gone now. But their spirit lives on in the EU, critically admired (at least by The Guardian and Le Monde) but not making any money, and clinging to the theory that if you merge enough weak economies they add up to one global superpower. The big story of the last three decades is that the more it's mired itself in the creation of a centralized pseudo-state the more "Europe" has fallen behind America in every important long-term indicator, from economic growth to demographics. "Europe" is an indulgence the real Europe can't afford. The followers recognize that, even if the leaders don't.

What's your source, The National Post?

And how was that supposed to lighten the mood? Good God man! That was horribly partisan.

Oopsie...sorry...the Canadian is Mark Steyn...

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=68

Funny from one that contends all of your problems are caused by Americans...

That's a load of crap--Wolf has never even remotely made a contention to the effect that all the problems of his homeland are caused by Americans.

Goodness, what is wrong with this man? He can't even keep his EU-jibes out of his articles that have nothing to do with the EU like that movie review of Serenity.

Never even remotely?



http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2006750#2006750

That remote enough for you?

The contention was that Wolf supposedly blames all the troubles of his homeland on the Americans. Your citation does not prove that case.

Therefore, as i said, the contention that Wolf blames all the problems of his homeland on Americans is not even remotely true.

More on that story..

And finally - no more doubt about the racist motive for these murders - he made it abundantly clear that he was going to kill foreigners.

The murderer is the nephew of a far-right MP.

He does, however, see the United States as the biggest threat to what's ailing his country. While he's certainly entitled to holding that opinion, I'm just curious if you agree with him.