I give up
07 May 2012, 11:58 pm
I will not spend any more of my time thinking about that for which there is no hope. This will lead to nothing but radicalism.
A few last words on here before I leave the ppr forum and focus on more rewarding things-
I used to beleive that preserving varied aspects of European society such as human rights (a left wing cause) and the subtleties of regional cultures (a conservative cause) from the growth of islam and those who rule in Brussels and Washington could be acheived through an alliance of the brightest. Not any more, for the percentage of EU citizens who are motivated to save anything is miniscule and there is no good will among their politicians. What is their solution to increasing unemployment, poverty, and tensions? To bring the entire world here, regardless of the consequences for security, even if there is no employment left for them, and therefore to increase taxation, instead of just sending foreign aid to compensate for past misdeeds. No this is not the root of all problems, yet it still acheives nothing positive. Not to mention that poor assimilation + lack of space + increasing crime could transform the landscape of Europe beyond recognition, ruin tourism, and leave it in even worse disrepair. The socialist parties will not solve the economic armageddon either by taking 3/4 of the highest salaries. They will only aggravate it which will lead to other problems and more crime. One must wonder what will happen to the middle and working classes and everything they own when there is no wealth left to redistribute. At risk of propagating conspiracy theories, there is always a risk that the socialists care more about feeding the surveillance state and unscrupulous transnational hegemons than they do about supporting those who most need them.
It must also be stressed that immigration is a symptom of larger ailments, another reason why the future is bleak. There have always existed religious and regional divisions over there, even in countries with relatively stable histories, which current trends have not bridged and just worsened. Most likely these hostilities will be capitalized on by those who plan our demise. And the commission of such errors could only occur in places which have lost "soul" (so to speak) because of execessive universalism and marxist restrictions on individual and academic freedom, which have taken place for over a century. The western world has been the most likely to try new ideas and some have been less successful than others, to say the least. It would be inaccurate to blame this on all countries, yet even the most promising may wind up suffering from the failures of their neighbors. Also growing statism plus economic disparity leads to untrustworthy authorities who seek to supplant, vitiate, and balkanize everything which functions independently of them. American and European agencies began to follow this course more for 30+ years.
The only (mediocre and uninspiring) solution I could think of (please add better ones if they exist) for France and similar nations is to transition to neoliberalism, since demographic dysfunctions and their effect on democracy will make any economic centralization impossible. Assimilation should still be tried, even if it has proven ineffectual, so decentralization does not destabilize western europe.
Unlike North America and Australia, which are new and therefore more pliable and thus function better under liberalism, the rest of the world is founded on recurring civilizational patterns and themes shaped by concrete history. One could only hope that beginning western europe from scratch after all is lost will be peaceful. Hopefully, my relatives will come live with my family before everything collapses.
Please do not troll my thread. There have been rude comments on here lately.
09 May 2012, 7:43 am
On second thought, that picture might not be real. Can't confirm.
Why would anyone spend money to buy such a sign unless it was satire to promote restrictions on immigrants? Photoshop, IMO.
I hope it is, that's why I had second thoughts about it. There is no evidence that I can find that it is.
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
09 May 2012, 12:46 pm
A few last words on here before I leave the ppr forum and focus on more rewarding things-
I used to beleive that preserving varied aspects of European society such as human rights (a left wing cause) and the subtleties of regional cultures (a conservative cause) from the growth of islam and those who rule in Brussels and Washington could be acheived through an alliance of the brightest. Not any more, for the percentage of EU citizens who are motivated to save anything is miniscule and there is no good will among their politicians. What is their solution to increasing unemployment, poverty, and tensions? To bring the entire world here, regardless of the consequences for security, even if there is no employment left for them, and therefore to increase taxation, instead of just sending foreign aid to compensate for past misdeeds. No this is not the root of all problems, yet it still acheives nothing positive. Not to mention that poor assimilation + lack of space + increasing crime could transform the landscape of Europe beyond recognition, ruin tourism, and leave it in even worse disrepair. The socialist parties will not solve the economic armageddon either by taking 3/4 of the highest salaries. They will only aggravate it which will lead to other problems and more crime. One must wonder what will happen to the middle and working classes and everything they own when there is no wealth left to redistribute. At risk of propagating conspiracy theories, there is always a risk that the socialists care more about feeding the surveillance state and unscrupulous transnational hegemons than they do about supporting those who most need them.
It must also be stressed that immigration is a symptom of larger ailments, another reason why the future is bleak. There have always existed religious and regional divisions over there, even in countries with relatively stable histories, which current trends have not bridged and just worsened. Most likely these hostilities will be capitalized on by those who plan our demise. And the commission of such errors could only occur in places which have lost "soul" (so to speak) because of execessive universalism and marxist restrictions on individual and academic freedom, which have taken place for over a century. The western world has been the most likely to try new ideas and some have been less successful than others, to say the least. It would be inaccurate to blame this on all countries, yet even the most promising may wind up suffering from the failures of their neighbors. Also growing statism plus economic disparity leads to untrustworthy authorities who seek to supplant, vitiate, and balkanize everything which functions independently of them. American and European agencies began to follow this course more for 30+ years.
The only (mediocre and uninspiring) solution I could think of (please add better ones if they exist) for France and similar nations is to transition to neoliberalism, since demographic dysfunctions and their effect on democracy will make any economic centralization impossible. Assimilation should still be tried, even if it has proven ineffectual, so decentralization does not destabilize western europe.
Unlike North America and Australia, which are new and therefore more pliable and thus function better under liberalism, the rest of the world is founded on recurring civilizational patterns and themes shaped by concrete history. One could only hope that beginning western europe from scratch after all is lost will be peaceful. Hopefully, my relatives will come live with my family before everything collapses.
Please do not troll my thread. There have been rude comments on here lately.
There are only two ways in which an economy grows:
1) create new capacity by introducing efficiencies and converting excess capacity to other uses; and
2) increase population.
That's it. You either have to have the same number of people creating more value; or more people creating value. There's no other way to grow.
And so, in Europe you have two problems: an economic machine that is resistant to change, and impedes the introduction of efficiencies; and a natural fertility rate below replacement level. This is a recipe for economic contraction.
If your culture cannot survive in the face of a changing global economy, then the next question that has to be asked is, "is your culture worth saving?" You can certainly erect walls around your borders and keep the foreigners out. But as soon as you do so, you will simply invite a slower death by economic starvation. You cannot put this genie back in the bottle. You have to live and function in the world as it is--not as it was.
_________________
--James
09 May 2012, 11:06 pm
I am trying not to write anything else in here on the inevitable collapse, yet I find your response to be insultingly cavalier, possibly because you have never lived in Europe and you seem to think that the economy runs itself without being influenced by people and their motivations. As for "living in this world as it was", this response lacks nuance. Every civilization has adapted itself, yet this never amounted to the disappearance of morals and identity. In short, one could be recreative to avoid clinging to backwardness, yet without freedom from impending sharia rule + urban anarchy, this will be impossible for the country my family resides in. Also, those who ironically cling to "change" even when certain negative changes are being rejected, are themselves maladapted. Also, please ask yourself, when you insist that all change is good, who decides what changes?
10 May 2012, 11:50 am
You are wrong on both counts. I am British, and I was educated in Britain. I chose to avail myself of my Canadian citizenship in part because of antiquated European ideas that "Fortress Europe" could be sufficient answer to globalisation.
As for my view of the economy, I am well aware that it is influenced by people and their motivations. So much so that I--unlike you--consider both parties in a trading relationship. I doesn't matter how many goods and services Europe produces--if there is no one out there willing to buy them, then Europe has no export trade.
In short, one could be recreative to avoid clinging to backwardness, yet without freedom from impending sharia rule + urban anarchy, this will be impossible for the country my family resides in. Also, those who ironically cling to "change" even when certain negative changes are being rejected, are themselves maladapted. Also, please ask yourself, when you insist that all change is good, who decides what changes?
And again with the ridiculous sharia alarm. What percentage of voters in your country are muslims? How many of these muslim voters are primarily motivated by the entrenchment of sharia into public law? And who cares if two people choose to resolve a private dispute under whatever form of law they choose? We've certainly had civil courts give legal sanction to resolutions of disputes arbitrated by all manner of alternative forums, from secular family mediators to traditional Jewish Courts.
As for urban anarchy--Europeans were perfectly capable of creating all manner of urban anarchy long before ex-colonial immigrants started arriving. Terrorism in the 1970's didn't mean al qaeda--it meant the the PLO, to be sure, but it also meant the IRA, the Red Brigage and the Red Army Fraktion.
As for who decides what changes, that is the easiest question of them all: the body politic. Political parties and Parliament will generally move fastest to respond to the body politic, but on the more difficult matters, they will punt decision making to the Courts.
So take a good, long look at the real demographics in your country. There is no country in Europe in which the domestic population is anywhere close to losing its vast majority. The only European languages under threat are those like Basque that are being squeezed out by linguistic hegemony from within--not without. You are like Chicken Little running around crying, "The Sky is Falling!!" when it is doing nothing of the sort.
_________________
--James
10 May 2012, 1:02 pm
YAWN
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
10 May 2012, 9:33 pm
@Peebo
Why do people assume that their indifference to a certain issue means it is nonexistent?
Why do you think we have nothing to offer or sell to the rest of the world? A lot of people from East Asia have more appreciation for the West than our peers.
As long as the marital practices of the immigrants do not involve child marriage, justifying domestic abuse, and the like.
Last edited by petitesouris on 11 May 2012, 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
11 May 2012, 3:03 am
Why do people assume that their indifference to a certain issue means it is nonexistent?
the YAWN does not signify indifference. not at all. rather, abject boredom with the absurd claim that any western european nation is in any way threatened by sharia law. it's simply nonsensical. you refer to "impending sharia rule" as though it's inevitable, when it's not even a remote possibility. it reeks of bigotry. racism masquerading as concerns for your freedom. you think that a minority within a minority is going to effect such radical change as to completely replace large parts of the british legal system with religious dogma. it's the sort of nonsense that one would expect from knuckledraggers such as the edl or bnp, who use it as a ruse to justify their overt bigotry, and has no place in a reasoned, sensible or any way intelligent conversation.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
11 May 2012, 9:01 am
Why did I bother responding to you before. Did you even read anything I wrote in this thread or did you just scan my posts for snippets you could ridicule which did not even make the entirety of what I was trying to convey?
On "racism", I realize that those we invite have higher percentages of religious fanatics, even though I believe this is due to upbringing instead of biology. I consider objective secularism to be better than anything a large portion of immigrants would like to force on us. If I am a "bigot" for showing a cultural commitment to a place which is currently free of religious oppression, at least out of gratitude, and consequently holding that our country should be reserved for those from that culture, than you are the ignorant one.
Last edited by petitesouris on 11 May 2012, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
11 May 2012, 1:10 pm
Why did I bother responding to you before. Did you even read anything I wrote in this thread or did you just scan my posts for snippets you could ridicule which did not even make the entirety of what I was trying to convey?
That's how people discuss on these boards, that and by requiring sources for every single statement you make instead of going to google to see if its right or not first.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Is it odd I don't like it when people give me sympathy? |
03 Mar 2024, 1:58 pm |
| Can someone give up Lent for Lent? |
04 Apr 2024, 1:05 am |
