Refugees "flooding" Europe !NEW POLL!

[Leshma]

You pricks closed the borders, why are we still having this discussion?

[Oberyn]

You pricks closed the borders, why are we still having this discussion?

Because if you think this is over your perspective is even narrower and less informed than I thought possible, which wouldn't surprise me. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desire-migrate-permanently.aspx

[Leshma]

Don't think it is over but atm is hardly possible to reach EU through Greece-Macedonia-Serbia route because Hungary built fence with barb wire and Croatia closed border to Serbia. Dunno why they aren't trying through Romania, but there sure is a good reason for that.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Don't think it is over but atm is hardly possible to reach EU through Greece-Macedonia-Serbia route because Hungary built fence with barb wire and Croatia closed border to Serbia. Dunno why they aren't trying through Romania, but there sure is a good reason for that.

Vampires. Turkish warned them.

[Grytviken]

If some people are ready to admit their shitty countries can't handle the pressure, throw up their hands and give up (or 'surrender' if you will) their problems so that the rest of Europe takes the strain instead that's fine by me. It just makes the countries that do welcome refugees look better, and enforces national stereotypes about the type of country that give up easily.

Ikr, all that fucking white guilt man it's the only reason we take in migrants. Like all that white guilt that led us to allow Irish migration last century, and that white guilt that would've led us to take on Scottish migrants if they'd fucked up the whole independence thing. It's inconceivable to some blinkered nationalists that sometimes people take on migrants and refugees cos it's the right thing to do, or at the very least because public opinion is swinging that way.

If you need to justify right wing extremism by saying ''we're the only ones *man* enough to say what everyone's thinking but are too restricted by white guilt to say'', then that's just pure lol. Here's the flip-side; we're the only ones rational and humane enough to not guard our little patch of dirt like we're scared the tribe next door will steal all our cattle and take all our women if we let them in. Some retarded nationals seem to have the world all figured out: 'I have nice things now, and refugees have shit lives. That means if we give refugees nice things my life must become shit!', cos y'know, it's not possible for more than one person to have nice things.

Not sure why this discussion is even still happening though, the Daily Mail called it at least a week ago when 'Europe Collapsed'. Game over. All you nationals were right, Europe collapsed a few weeks ago and i for one feel that my life has taken a noticeable turn for the worse ever since, i guess you can all say 'i told you so'. Sure is a shame that Europe is gone... also RIP my national identity and culture, they both died suddenly last week too so y'know, that's a shame.

 These people were born into a 700 year old failed medieval social experiment and liberals are too naive to realize this, these people never had a chance, apostasy=death and minorities are brutally repressed and treated as second class citizens at best. This is why there will be no solution or logical remedies to the problems at hand except for making  a politically correct defensive stand of the exact same ideology that failed these people in the first place, and allowed all their brutal dictators and Kings to retain power.

 Liberals see this as an opportunity to get cheap labor and guaranteed votes because it's easy to politically control a special interest group that is already brainwashed and over-represented. Everyone wants to help the refugees but some don't want the leftist fruitcakes to abuse the situation to push their own agenda that in itself is a economic and security disaster waiting to happen. There is no cultural enrichment to gain from this, Islam is NOT compatible with the west and is nothing more than a failed political experiment gone horribly wrong.

And comparing Scottish migrants to this is lol, noone has to worry about crazy old uncle MacDonald blowing up a market because they didn't offer haggis. Sorry but I was sick of Islam after the first terrorist attack, now the attacks number in the 20,000's and their religion will forever be associated with terrorism and repression, just like the Catholic religion is forever associated with the crusades. I'd have the same detest for Christians if their religion wasn't reformed hundreds of years ago.

[Molly]

Lots of complaining but I have yet to see someone actually suggest a solution which checks in with reality.

[Grytviken]

Lots of complaining but I have yet to see someone actually suggest a solution which checks in with reality.

Gigantic migrant and refugee camps in the Middle-East with UN security, western education, LOTS of psychologists, medical aid, so they can rebuild their nation after the international community intervenes to clean up their mess for them. Only real refugees accepted asylum, not economic migrants.

[Tibe]

Above works fine imo. Helping fuckton of random people from god knows where relocate permanently wherever they like is not a permanent, good solution. Its a really shit, rash decision to avoid being talked badly about by the rest of the world and not stapled as a nazi.

The fact that we are helping fuckton of random people from random places relocate wherever they like, has also attracted a lot of economic migrants from even the furthest places of Africa.

[Kalam]

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that for the vast majority of Christians, Christianity is a belief in belief, while for a lot of Muslims, Islam is an actual belief. Hence the difference in how they treat and react to their respective holy texts.

Yes.

Why is that our problem? Why should it be? Fuck your neo-White Man's Burden.

A snapshot of French history paints a geographical zone in which a multitude of cultures, languages, and tribes flourished. Even now, it's home to at least ten languages, despite the efforts of the Revolution to homogenize the country and cause it's rural (and some urban) peoples to call it a nation. These cultural islands weren't fully incorporated until well into the 20th century.

The same can be said for Germany, and a number of other countries, all characterized by dozens if not hundreds of tribes that coalesced into a single peoples following a history of migration, emigration, and contact with other cultures- whether one beyond the next hill or across a sea.

Your world is a result of this, and you no doubt depend on it to read this text and enjoy your meals.

China, by contrast, was fairly unified by the 14th century, and even though they arguably led the world in technology, circumstances allowed a few despots to suppress that innovation. Note that it happened again during the cultural revolution. It's probable that a mix between disunity and unity is optimal for growth, and this balance requires constant competition and exposure to other cultures, facilitating an exchange of ideas. Sure, we have the internet, but that's not quite the same as living in a space supporting a multicultural melting pot.

My point is this: we all appreciate equality. individualism, competition, and liberty.

It serves our purposes to convince others to embrace these ideals, since we no longer live in a world that allows for direct colonialism and other obvious means of exploitation. You want neighbors you can reason with, after all, and it's easier to do that when there's an exchange that positively affects you.

 This isn't motivated by guilt; it's simple self promotion.

The more people speak English, the easier it is for me to sell them tickets to Batman movies. The more Muslims practice their religion like many Christians practice theirs in developed countries, the easier it is to predict, interact with, and profit from Muslims.

Also, can only men with lighter skin tones have 'white man's guilt'?

Molly: figure out how to screen potential refugees for adaptability and willingness to get assimilated. Give these subjects priority. Unfortunately, this discriminates based on class. All developed countries already do this through education requirements, though, so there you go. In the end, Xant was right about any nation's view of other citizens: they are not valued as much, and they couldn't afford it even if they did.

[Grytviken]

Above works fine imo. Helping fuckton of random people from god knows where relocate permanently wherever they like is not a permanent, good solution. Its a really shit, rash decision to avoid being talked badly about by the rest of the world and not stapled as a nazi.

The fact that we are helping fuckton of random people from random places relocate wherever they like, has also attracted a lot of economic migrants from even the furthest places of Africa.

Not likely to work unless Russia supports the removal of Assad as part of the bargain, which is unlikely to happen because they don't want oil to get to Europe, keeps the price of Russian oil high, increases their stranglehold on Ukraine.

[Oberyn]

Well I don't see any countries where "dark skin" is the majority where this allegedly beneficial and incredibly profitable scheme is underway, interestingly enough despite all the claims of some sort of "global" movement of cultural exchanges the only places where they seem promoted and encouraged by governments is in the West. You honestly think the chinese are sitting around thinking "hmmm, all those mongolian and manchu foreigners coming in and ruling despotically over China were so fantastic, so much cultural exchange and enrichment, we should immediately import millions of malaysians for another boost"? You think Han chinese don't have a stake in remaining the dominant ethnicity in such a "multicultural" country, one that become such because the Han ruled over these disparate ethnicities as overlords for centuries? You don't think they're trying to "homogenize" China as much as possible? What are happening to these ethnic enclaves, exactly? Aren't they being drowned in massive interor chinese migrations, a move similar to the russian resettlements of the 19th and 20th? You think China gives a flying shit about Tibet and Xinjiang minorities, much less some fucking africans on the other side of the world?
If you think selling McDonald's and Batman movies and crass consumerism is more than enough of a reason to literally sell out your people's past and most importantly their future, more power to you. I thought I was a cynical realist, but there you have it, the only purpose of our civilization is to sell stupid shit and dissapear in order to paradoxically spread itself, through some vague and unexplained mechanism, apparently mere exposure to our superior modern ways are enough, just cry equality, individualism, competition, and liberty enough and these self-evidently right ideals will spontaneously be adopted. Because that's exactly what history has shown.

[Oberyn]

I mean seriously, using China as a case example for a " fairly unified, homogenous" country, in the fucking 14th century, when it isn't even close to a reality today, despite intensive sinicization efforts all over minority enclaves in China. Just what. WHAT.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism

Han chauvinism (Chinese: s 大汉族主义, t 大漢族主義, p Dà Hànzú zhǔyì) is a term coined by Mao Zedong in 1956 to criticize ethnocentrism among the majority Han people of China. In his speech, titled Ten Major Relations, Mao stated that "on the relationship between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities.... we put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism."[1] This anti-chauvinistic idea is part of the People's Republic of China's zhonghua minzu conception of China as a multi-ethnic nation, both historically and in the present, which includes not only the Han but also 56 ethnic minorities. This is expressed in the constitution of the People's Republic of China, which states that China is a "unitary [multiethnic] state created jointly by the people of all its nationalities" and that "it is necessary to combat big [ethnic group] chauvinism, mainly Han chauvinism, and to combat local [ethnic] national[ist] chauvinism."[2]

The PRC's notions of Han chauvinism and China as a multicultural state have been subject to criticism. One critical view is that the Han Chinese "are less homogeneous than official policy recognizes."[2] Zhonghua minzu has been criticized as an invention of the 20th century, and was only adopted by the Communist Party to criticize the failures of the rival Kuomintang, which officially promoted zhonghua minzu as part of its nationalist ideology, but was unable to implement successful reforms that benefited minorities.[3]

IN 19 FUCKING 56.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet

The sinicization of Tibet is a term used by some critics of Chinese rule in Tibet to refer to the cultural assimilation that have occurred in Tibetan areas of China (including Tibet Autonomous Region and surrounding Tibetan-designated autonomous areas) which have made these areas more closely resemble mainstream Chinese society. They say that these changes have been most evident since the incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China in 1950/51 and have been facilitated by a broad range of active economic, social, cultural and political reforms introduced to Tibetan areas by the Chinese Government over the last six decades. Critics also point to the government-sponsored migration of large numbers of Han Chinese into the Tibet Autonomous Region as a major component of sinicization.

The government of Tibet in exile alleges that the consequence of Chinese policies is the disappearance of certain elements of Tibetan culture, which has sometimes been very controversially termed "cultural genocide".[1][2] It says that these policies intend to make Tibet an integral part of China in order to control any desire for Tibetan self-determination.

On the other hand, the Chinese government argues that its policies have been highly beneficial to Tibet and that any cultural and social changes are the inevitable consequences of modernization. It says that Tibet's economy has expanded and that improved basic services and infrastructure projects have led to significant improvement in quality of living among Tibetans, while the Tibetan language and culture have been protected.

Actual "cultural genocide", ongoing, and the exact same excuse european colonial countries used as a moral prop, that their exploitation and attempts at eradicating native culture were all for their own good. Please tell me more of China's "unified" past stretching back to the 14th century, in contrast to european countries's recent homogenization. Time has very little to do with it anyways, the printing press and mandatory public schooling is what built the homogenization, within a little less than a century, of europe's countries, not all out demographic replacement and absorption. Well that and a complete convinction that cultural homogeneity could only be a benefical thing for unified collectives as whole, no idea where they might have gotten that idea, obviously they were just dead old white racist shitlords, it being actively pursued by mostly every other culture on the planet, the lack of it the reason we say colonization fucked up the colonized so badly, all irrelevant, absolutely no benefits to it at all, just detriments.

[Casimir]

China =/= Europe so what is the point in any of this shit posting?

The EU is an experiment in homoginising, if you try to find a unity between all european nations you are going to end up encompassing almost every outlook and belief system that exist. Unless you can define what it is to be european, or even what it is to be of any specific european nationality you are destined to move towards an increasingly broad spectrum of ethnicity, morality, beliefs and desires.  I strongly believe that a united europe is the most beneficial outcome for all but i fear devisive and self-serving individuals will continue to destroy it because they are afraid.

[Oberyn]

We're not unifying european cultures and nations by importing hundreds of thousands, millions of people from places outside of europe, from places whose only historical relation to europe has been as enemy or as resentful occupied colony. I don't see how that is hard to understand. I was a fan of the EU, when the pretense was still that this was the idea. Quite clearly that is not the case.

[Kalam]

Well I don't see any countries where "dark skin" is the majority where this allegedly beneficial and incredibly profitable scheme is underway, interestingly enough despite all the claims of some sort of "global" movement of cultural exchanges the only places where they seem promoted and encouraged by governments is in the West. You honestly think the chinese are sitting around thinking "hmmm, all those mongolian and manchu foreigners coming in and ruling despotically over China were so fantastic, so much cultural exchange and enrichment, we should immediately import millions of malaysians for another boost"? You think Han chinese don't have a stake in remaining the dominant ethnicity in such a "multicultural" country, one that become such because the Han ruled over these disparate ethnicities as overlords for centuries? You don't think they're trying to "homogenize" China as much as possible? What are happening to these ethnic enclaves, exactly? Aren't they being drowned in massive interor chinese migrations, a move similar to the russian resettlements of the 19th and 20th? You think China gives a flying shit about Tibet and Xinjiang minorities, much less some fucking africans on the other side of the world?
If you think selling McDonald's and Batman movies and crass consumerism is more than enough of a reason to literally sell out your people's past and most importantly their future, more power to you. I thought I was a cynical realist, but there you have it, the only purpose of our civilization is to sell stupid shit and dissapear in order to paradoxically spread itself, through some vague and unexplained mechanism, apparently mere exposure to our superior modern ways are enough, just cry equality, individualism, competition, and liberty enough and these self-evidently right ideals will spontaneously be adopted. Because that's exactly what history has shown.

Misunderstanding is easy when your aim isn't to communicate.

This is my fault, I should've been clearer.

China was more unified in that period than most European equivalents, both under the Yuan and Ming dynasties in the sense that they had stronger bureaucracies able to more easily enforce policy. I'm not claiming an absolute; I'm saying that there was more unity. Neither am I claiming that there were no benefits to colonized peoples. Reality doesn't take sides.

 Of course they're trying to homogenize China as much as possible. And yes, I would sell out my people's past in a heartbeat. I don't believe in being held back by something as random as birth any more than I have to. There's a key difference between developed countries that have migrants who cluster into enclaves and countries that have migrants that are assimilated within a generation or two, and I believe the latter is incredibly useful for introducing a larger pool to draw from. Especially highly-skilled migrants.

 In a war of ideas, it's important to acknowledge that people tend to listen more to people they think are like themselves. If you're going to be a global power, why should your citizenry be limited to it's 'natives' when human history is full of peoples smashing against each other, blending, and reconstituting into new groups that give themselves mythologies that state they've always been one people?

 I don't see you complaining about all those Eastern Europeans, or the 400,000 British citizens. Is that part of the problem, or is intra-EU migration perfectly fine?