Re: The Near Future
Dan Goodman
> I am wondering what the world will be like when I retire. That would
> be in about 25 years.
>
> What can we expect?
>
> What of the following can we expect:
>
> 1. End to war
No.
> 2. End to poverty
There will probably always be people who are relatively poor. Assuming
that to be poverty by current US standards:
Malnourishment caused by difficulty in affording decent food will be
considerably lower.
Many people who have trouble affording food will have gadgets which
today would cost huge amounts of money.
> 3. Free trade between all nations
No.
> 4. India becoming an economic superpower
Not yet. In fifty years, yes -- along with the EU, Brazil, and
possibly China and Argentina.
> Anything else?
>
> Also recommend any SF about the near future.
>
> Regards,
>
> Al Lal
> www.olap.wetpaint.com
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Matthias Warkus
>> 4. India becoming an economic superpower
>
> Not yet. In fifty years, yes -- along with the EU, Brazil, and
> possibly China and Argentina.
Nominal GDP according to 2006 IMF data, all figures in trillion USD:
EU: 14.6
US: 13.2
China: 2.6
Brazil: 1.1
India: 0.9
Argentina: 0.2
2007 data, adjusted for purchasing power parity:
EU: 15.0
US: 13.5
China: 11.6
India: 4.7
Brazil: 2.0
Argentina: 0.7
Please explain how much further the EU will have to overtake the US in
order for you to call it an economic superpower, and how you came up
with the 50-year figure.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Wayne Throop
: Not yet. In fifty years, yes -- along with the EU, Brazil, and
: possibly China and Argentina.
When everyone's a superpower... no one will be.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Dan Goodman
Note that I did _not_ list the US as a superpower in 50 years.
Dan Goodman
> :: 4. India becoming an economic superpower
>
> : Not yet. In fifty years, yes -- along with the EU, Brazil, and
> : possibly China and Argentina.
>
> When everyone's a superpower... no one will be.
No. The many countries not listed were ones I don't expect to be
superpowers.
Matthias Warkus
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman schrieb:
>>>> 4. India becoming an economic superpower
>>> Not yet. In fifty years, yes -- along with the EU, Brazil, and
>>> possibly China and Argentina.
>> Nominal GDP according to 2006 IMF data, all figures in trillion USD:
>> EU: 14.6
>> US: 13.2
>> China: 2.6
>> Brazil: 1.1
>> India: 0.9
>> Argentina: 0.2
>>
>> 2007 data, adjusted for purchasing power parity:
>> EU: 15.0
>> US: 13.5
>> China: 11.6
>> India: 4.7
>> Brazil: 2.0
>> Argentina: 0.7
>>
>> Please explain how much further the EU will have to overtake the US
>> in order for you to call it an economic superpower, and how you came
>> up with the 50-year figure.
>
> Note that I did _not_ list the US as a superpower in 50 years.
Oopsie. I got your posting completely wrong. Sorry.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Wayne Throop
::: EU: 14.6
::: US: 13.2
::: China: 2.6
::: Brazil: 1.1
::: India: 0.9
::: Argentina: 0.2
:::
::: 2007 data, adjusted for purchasing power parity:
::: EU: 15.0
::: US: 13.5
::: China: 11.6
::: India: 4.7
::: Brazil: 2.0
::: Argentina: 0.7
:: Note that I did _not_ list the US as a superpower in 50 years.
: Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
: Oopsie. I got your posting completely wrong. Sorry.
Well, a reasonable misinterpretation, give that "becoming a superpower"
was the topic immediately upthread of an "in 50 years" list including the EU.
So *not* mentioning the US is not diagnostic between the two interpretations.
But I'm not sure the US will be as small as (say) half the size of the
leader in 50 years time. Not sure it won't, either, but still,
doesn't seem the most plausible possibility.
But still... that first list has EU and US the "only" current superpowers,
five times the trillions of dollars as the next on the list, while the
second has EU, US, and China the current superpowers, each by itself
more than twice the next on the list. But which is a farer standard
to judge superpowerfulness? That is, what "purchasing power" is being
compared in the second list?
Dan Goodman
> ::: Nominal GDP according to 2006 IMF data, all figures in trillion
> USD: ::: EU: 14.6
> ::: US: 13.2
> ::: China: 2.6
> ::: Brazil: 1.1
> ::: India: 0.9
> ::: Argentina: 0.2
> :::
> ::: 2007 data, adjusted for purchasing power parity:
> ::: EU: 15.0
> ::: US: 13.5
> ::: China: 11.6
> ::: India: 4.7
> ::: Brazil: 2.0
> ::: Argentina: 0.7
>
> :: Note that I did not list the US as a superpower in 50 years.
>
> : Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
> : Oopsie. I got your posting completely wrong. Sorry.
>
> Well, a reasonable misinterpretation, give that "becoming a
> superpower" was the topic immediately upthread of an "in 50 years"
> list including the EU. So not mentioning the US is not diagnostic
> between the two interpretations.
Yes, I should have made it rather clearer.
> But I'm not sure the US will be as small as (say) half the size of the
> leader in 50 years time. Not sure it won't, either, but still,
> doesn't seem the most plausible possibility.
>
> But still... that first list has EU and US the "only" current
> superpowers, five times the trillions of dollars as the next on the
> list, while the second has EU, US, and China the current superpowers,
> each by itself more than twice the next on the list. But which is a
> farer standard to judge superpowerfulness? That is, what "purchasing
> power" is being compared in the second list?
>
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
--
Keith Wetzel AKA Space Cadet
wrote:
I though I heard some CIA report, that they didn't expect the EU to
last pass 2020.
Also from what I've read the birth rate of the native population for
various EU states are in decline, but this offset by the influx of
immigrants, mostly Muslim, which are increasing. But not assimilating
into the local cultures.
Europe may very well still exist in 25 years, but it may well be very
unreconizable to the one we know today.
Also from what I gather, Japan population is declining too, but they
don't allow or have very restrictive immigration policy!
Just My $0.02
Keith W of St Louis AKA Space Cadet
William Black
"Keith Wetzel AKA Space Cadet" <kaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09e4fc7d-08db-4c46...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I though I heard some CIA report, that they didn't expect the EU to
> last pass 2020.
You probabl;y heard one that said the USSR wasn't going to collapse as well.
The CIA is not good at predictions...
> Also from what I've read the birth rate of the native population for
> various EU states are in decline, but this offset by the influx of
> immigrants, mostly Muslim, which are increasing. But not assimilating
> into the local cultures.
Not any more. The heyday of Muslim immigration into the EU was twenty years
ago.
These days we're busy integrating (and exploiting) the Eastern Europeans.
The major non European immigrants to the UK are now highly educated Hindus
from India, who seem not to have many problems when integrating into our
culture.
Something like four million have gone to the USA, nobody noticed...
> Also from what I gather, Japan population is declining too, but they
> don't allow or have very restrictive immigration policy!
The reason for massive immigration into the EU is to keep the economy afloat
when the aging population isn't working and wants their pension.
When this happens in Japan their economy will probably show some signs of
strain.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Matthias Warkus
>> Please explain how much further the EU will have to overtake the US in
>> order for you to call it an economic superpower, and how you came up
>> with the 50-year figure.
>>
>> mawa
>> --http://www.prellblog.de
>
> I though I heard some CIA report, that they didn't expect the EU to
> last pass 2020.
Uh ... yeah. People have been predicting its collapse every couple of
years since about 1973.
> Also from what I've read the birth rate of the native population for
> various EU states are in decline,
AFAIK, the rates are rising, but yes, they have been below the
replacement level for decades. But then, long-term population
predictions are really hard. Small changes in economic outlook or
taxation can make lots of families have another child, and whoops, the
point where you've predicted demographic doom will set in shifts another
ten years into the future. Of course, the opposite can happen, too.
> but this offset by the influx of
> immigrants, mostly Muslim, which are increasing. But not assimilating
> into the local cultures.
Actually, Europe has been pretty good at assimilating immigrants of all
kinds. People tend not to talk about the ones that integrated perfectly.
In Germany, there are 120,000 exiled Iranians. By popular perception,
they're nearly all doctors, artists, lawyers and engineers. Oh, and BTW,
they're nearly all Muslims, so what?
> Europe may very well still exist in 25 years, but it may well be very
> unreconizable to the one we know today.
25 years will not suffice, not even for the kind of worst-case scenario
Americans so fond of, where all Muslims are followers of some sinister,
centrally-planned agenda to make the brown hordes steamroller over the
Occident. Unless of course you live in some kind of alternate reality
like Mark Steyn's, where Muslim families all have an average of fifteen
children and religious fundamentalism is genetic.
It's true that in Germany, for example, Turkish women tend to have an
average of two children and a half, while the overall average is below
two. That will affect population dynamics somewhat, but it's not really
happening with dramatic speed. On the other hand, the Turks, on some
accounts, assimilate significantly better than the old Greek and Italian
immigrant populations.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Unless of course you live in some kind of alternate reality
> like Mark Steyn's, where Muslim families all have an average of fifteen
> children and religious fundamentalism is genetic.
Ah, yes: I found his plan of action amusing. Since, these days, one
wouldn't want to suggest anything racist, he proposes that the
democracies increase their birth rates by abolishing social-welfare
programs. This will turn the child-like people of the West into mature
adults, ready to handle adult responsibilities like having children.
If we abolished old-age pensions, I suppose we wouldn't need
immigrants to support them with taxes, and people would have children
to support them in their old age. It seems to be working for China.
But I doubt that this is what we want. In fact, it should be obvious
that the more unequal distribution of income is leading to more
families with both partners working, which leads to fewer children.
Return to the economic boom of the early 1960s, and the birthrate will
go up.
It should be noted, too, that a very small number of terrorists,
hiding among a much larger population of innocent people, can cause
terrible damage. Of course, terrorist acts have been committed by
people of many origins for many different causes, but that doesn't
mean that the Islamic world doesn't pose special problems.
Altogether too many of the world's one billion Muslims are growing up
in countries where legal inequality for non-Muslims is accepted and
taken for granted. In countries where political orthodoxy is enforced
by fear. In countries where conversion from Islam is liable to be
hazardous to one's health, even if the death penalty prescribed by
Shari'a is not officially on the books.
If participating in noisy anti-Israeli and anti-American
demonstrations is at the center of the bell curve, then the extreme
end which contains terrorist acts will be bigger as well.
Religious fundamentalism isn't "genetic", but it is the norm in the
Islamic world, and it's very difficult for people who want change to
do anything about that. But the problem isn't religious fundamentalism
_per se_; people have the right to believe what they want. Only when
it slides further over - into the *fanaticism* that dares to force
_others_ to believe as they do - is it a problem.
Muslims don't have a monopoly on religion as a form of social control,
or on religious intolerance. But the Islamic world by far presents the
greatest threat of this form to the Western world.
Mainland China's dictatorship is another very big threat. Would *we*
like it if foreigners invaded our country, and, say, gave people
electric shocks while immersed in water because they remained loyal
to, say, the Pope?
And after the great hopes for Russia joining the civilized world, we
find that the Russian government promotes xenophobic nationalism, and
pursues policies calculated to obstruct the United States of America,
such as presuming to dictate the foreign policies of sovereign nations
- that formerly suffered at Russian hands - such as Georgia and the
Ukraine.
John Savard
Matthias Warkus
> On Apr 5, 2:23 am, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
> wrote:
>> Unless of course you live in some kind of alternate reality
>> like Mark Steyn's, where Muslim families all have an average of fifteen
>> children and religious fundamentalism is genetic.
>
> Ah, yes: I found his plan of action amusing. Since, these days, one
> wouldn't want to suggest anything racist, he proposes that the
> democracies increase their birth rates by abolishing social-welfare
> programs. This will turn the child-like people of the West into mature
> adults, ready to handle adult responsibilities like having children.
>
> If we abolished old-age pensions, I suppose we wouldn't need
> immigrants to support them with taxes, and people would have children
> to support them in their old age. It seems to be working for China.
Huh? China's birth rate is sub-replacement, and they've started
implementing large-scale social security programmes.
> But I doubt that this is what we want. In fact, it should be obvious
> that the more unequal distribution of income is leading to more
> families with both partners working, which leads to fewer children.
This is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, no matter how often you repeat it.
The main reason for lower fertility in the West is *not* that people
remain childless because they can't stay at home; and the main reason
for couples where both partners work is not that they couldn't otherwise
make ends meet. Your chain of reasoning stays as flawed as it has always
been.
> Religious fundamentalism isn't "genetic", but it is the norm in the
> Islamic world,
Nonsense.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Quadibloc schrieb:
> > Religious fundamentalism isn't "genetic", but it is the norm in the
> > Islamic world,
>
> Nonsense.
Actually, it isn't nonsense, but you *could* still call it bigoted.
Religious fundamentalism, if one excludes countries with regimes that
actively suppress religion, such as China, is the norm in the *world*
world. India, Africa, Latin America. Wherever people are poor and
badly educated.
Even in rich countries that don't make enough of an effort to
distribute income and educate their people well, it is quite common,
unfortunately.
But as I go on to point out, fundamentalism, even by Muslims, isn't
the threat, just fanaticism. And the Shari'a is the element of Islam
that promotes dangerous fanaticism.
John Savard
Jaakko Raipala
> Keith Wetzel AKA Space Cadet schrieb:
>> Also from what I've read the birth rate of the native population for
>> various EU states are in decline,
Argh! That's once again confusing the rate of change of population (which
is in direct relation to the birth rate, but not the same) and the rate of
change of the rate of change of the population. The birth rates are low but
not declining in Europe, but they're massively declining in most Muslim
countries. Most of the near neighbourhood of Europe now has something close
to 2.5 child families as a norm and the decline shows no signs of halting.
Muslim populations will still grow a lot by aging (which is what most
European populations are still doing), since their populations tend to
be younger... but as their populations grow older, Muslim cultures will
also get more mellow and less chaotic. Some European countries are in
for a lot of trouble, but most of Europe isn't going to experience that.
Also note that European attitudes are going to change: as the immigrant
population grows, Europeans will grow less prejudiced and become more
informed on Third Worlders, which tends to turn attitudes against Third
World immigration. It will also make immigration a bigger political
issue, making people weigh it more heavily in their voting decisions and
it's already clear that all over Europe politicians are massively out of
touch with popular opinions on immigration.
And besides being out of touch with popular will, the pro-immigration
coalition on the left is unsustainable on its own: they can't possibly
hold together an identity coalition from homosexuals to people who want
to torture and kill homosexuals. They'll also face a choice between their
traditional working class base and the unintegrating minorities. We're
obviously headed for a realignment of the political coalitions.
> Actually, Europe has been pretty good at assimilating immigrants of all
> kinds. People tend not to talk about the ones that integrated perfectly.
Yes, for example, a lot of countries have been extremely successful at
integrating the gypsy migrants. Oops, no. We still haven't integrated
them after 500 years of trying everything from present ultraliberalism
to levels of repression that would've filled the Nazis' hearts with joy.
There is no guarantee whatsoever that an immigrant population large and
willing enough to maintain a parallel society will integrate. With the
gypsies this isn't a major issue, as their customs aren't ones likely to
create more than minor conflict with the majority, but this is obviously
not true with the Muslims.
> In Germany, there are 120,000 exiled Iranians. By popular perception,
> they're nearly all doctors, artists, lawyers and engineers. Oh, and BTW,
> they're nearly all Muslims, so what?
Are you sure of that? AFAIK most of the Iranians we have here are really
minority refugees of the Islamic revolution, usually Bahai. It isn't that
surprising if they're different from most groups from Muslim countries -
and not even if they're Muslims expelled by the revolution (since they're
likely to be relatively liberal Muslims).
> 25 years will not suffice, not even for the kind of worst-case scenario
> Americans so fond of, where all Muslims are followers of some sinister,
> centrally-planned agenda to make the brown hordes steamroller over the
> Occident. Unless of course you live in some kind of alternate reality
> like Mark Steyn's, where Muslim families all have an average of fifteen
> children and religious fundamentalism is genetic.
The problem is not religious as such: the problem groups are constantly
seen around drinking, ignoring pork taboos and doing a lot of un-Islamic
things. The problem is that the vast majority of these immigrants come
from extremely patriarchal cultures that are utterly intolerant of other
peoples (non-Muslims and often other Muslim ethnicities as well) and *that
this attitude isn't really going away for many of the migrants, even if
their pious religiosity goes away*. In fact, the trouble tends to come
up with the second generation: growing in a secular society, they don't
have the behavioural restraints of pious Islam, but they've still kept
the nasty misogynistic and intolerant attitudes of their fathers.
This is the ideal cultural basis for permanent ghettoization. The key
ingredients are disinterest or even pride in being punished for crimes
by the surrounding society and the opportunity to derive pride and a
feeling of self-worth over simple domination of someone, allowing the
young male population a nasty alternative route to pride. The extreme
patriarchal attitudes from many Muslim countries give them the latter
(even if you fail to achieve any power, you can still feel pride about
being the domestic tyrant or a rapist, dominant at least over women);
the ultraliberal punishments that have near-zero deterrent influence on
people used to punishments like amputation of limbs give the former.
This is exactly where much of Europe is going and we're really not doing
anything about it, to the contrary, a lot of people are actually eager to
encourage this development. It's trivially easy to Google examples from
any country, here's eg. a German one:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474629,00.html
So, according to a German court, it's a Muslim man's "right" enforce
his dominance over women by violence. This is a particularily outrageous
case, so it created enough noise to actually reach the press, but the
lesser stuff happens without appearing on the news. We hear this often
from immigrants and their apologists, many of whom hold actual power like
the judge in the article: everything from mere thieving to outrageous
violence against women or minorities are now not to be punished, if
they're deriving from the "culture" of some minority. Instead of being
soundly condemned and ostracized as disgusting extremists, such people
are considered well-meaning - just a little overly eager to accommodate.
Where is this going to take us? Wherever it is, it's not going to be
pretty. The popular reaction to the extreme multicultural nuttiness is
likely to be pretty bad, should the traditional parties not handle the
issue carefully and with a smarter plan than merely painting opponents
of their policies as racists and I really don't see that happening.
Jaakko Raipala
> The reason for massive immigration into the EU is to keep the economy afloat
> when the aging population isn't working and wants their pension.
First of all, that only moves the pension problem a generation ahead by
importing an immigrant population that the next generation will have to
deal with. Obviously, a lot of younger people find this plan vicious. So
what will happen when the boomers start dropping out of power?
Second of all, the plan would only work if we imported migrants who do
not become dependants. No one has ever managed to figure out a way to
predict which immigrants fit in and which don't.... except... well... of
course there's a simple way that would actually work very well: just don't
allow in many people of certain religions and ethnicities.
Politics will probably look rather different, if the generations that
experienced the radical left period in their youth start dropping from
power and especially if there's economic trouble - the level of PC in a
society is a simple function of the affordability of nonsensical policy.
> When this happens in Japan their economy will probably show some signs of
> strain.
Maybe so, but it will be less than whatever will be felt by those
European countries that decided to import extra dependants.
Ivan
"Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:slrn4fvf87h....@heavy.it.helsinki.fi...
How refreshing to hear someone talk so much sense, if only our politicians
were capable of doing likewise.
William Black
"Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:slrn4fvf87h....@heavy.it.helsinki.fi...
>
>> The reason for massive immigration into the EU is to keep the economy
>> afloat
>> when the aging population isn't working and wants their pension.
>
> First of all, that only moves the pension problem a generation ahead by
> importing an immigrant population that the next generation will have to
> deal with. Obviously, a lot of younger people find this plan vicious. So
> what will happen when the boomers start dropping out of power?
>
> Second of all, the plan would only work if we imported migrants who do
> not become dependants. No one has ever managed to figure out a way to
> predict which immigrants fit in and which don't.... except... well... of
> course there's a simple way that would actually work very well: just don't
> allow in many people of certain religions and ethnicities.
Doesn't work.
What might work is an examination proving familiarity with the local
language coupled with a points based system that excludes the unskilled
The UK has just introduced such a system, I await the results with some
interest...
What certainly doesn't work is excluding people by ethnicity. You exclude
all those highly skilled and educated high earners that you want.
> Politics will probably look rather different, if the generations that
> experienced the radical left period in their youth start dropping from
> power and especially if there's economic trouble - the level of PC in a
> society is a simple function of the affordability of nonsensical policy.
The use of the term 'PC' seems to be confined to the extreme right wing
these days.
Your dialectic is faulty comrade...
>> When this happens in Japan their economy will probably show some signs of
>> strain.
>
> Maybe so, but it will be less than whatever will be felt by those
> European countries that decided to import extra dependants.
You have some proof?
The Japanese economy has done one crash and burn in the past few years,
what makes you think it's any more resilient than the European economies?
Ivan
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ft8atb$b5m$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of immigration".
<http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
William Black
"Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65ppj4F...@mid.individual.net...
> "An inquiry by the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee
> said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of immigration".
>
> <http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
>
Been rejected by HMG as 'just plain wrong'.
Ivan
>
> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65ppj4F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> "An inquiry by the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee
>> said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of
>> immigration".
>>
>> <http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
>>
>
> Been rejected by HMG as 'just plain wrong'.
>
Personally I'd rather take the word of the cross-party House of Lords
Economic Affairs Committee, who have obviously done an extensive study of
the situation than the personal opinion of Gordon and a few of his cohorts.
It's a bit like Frank Field being told to 'think the unthinkable' and when
he did his findings were also rejected as being 'just plain wrong' by Blair
in just the same way, BTW he's still adamant that by weaselling out of doing
what desperately needed (still needs) to be done the country is storing up
some really major economic and social problems for the future.
Quadibloc
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ft8i1a$ip1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> > "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:65ppj4F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> "An inquiry by the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee
> >> said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of
> >> immigration".
>
> >> <http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
>
> > Been rejected by HMG as 'just plain wrong'.
>
> Personally I'd rather take the word of the cross-party House of Lords
> Economic Affairs Committee, who have obviously done an extensive study of
> the situation than the personal opinion of Gordon and a few of his cohorts.
> It's a bit like Frank Field being told to 'think the unthinkable' and when
> he did his findings were also rejected as being 'just plain wrong' by Blair
> in just the same way, BTW he's still adamant that by weaselling out of doing
> what desperately needed (still needs) to be done the country is storing up
> some really major economic and social problems for the future.
Immigration clearly and obviously doesn't benefit the ordinary working
man, because it increases competition for jobs and drives down wages,
and it also drives up rents.
It benefits some people, but at the expense of others - and its not in
the interests of politicians for the people it doesn't benefit to know
who they are.
John Savard
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ft8i1a$ip1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:65ppj4F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> "An inquiry by the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee
>>> said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of
>>> immigration".
>>>
>>> <http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
>>>
>>
>> Been rejected by HMG as 'just plain wrong'.
>>
>
> Personally I'd rather take the word of the cross-party House of Lords
I wouldn't.
Well maybe on the quality of the brandy and the price of a peerage...
Ivan
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:e5bcfee7-8874-4f14...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John I hope I'm wrong, but believe me all this is going to culminate in big
big tears on a worldwide scale, one can now switch through a plethora of
news and business channels to hear men in suits proclaiming 'growth',
'growth', 'growth', and even more economic growth in the decades to come,
but not even a whisper of whether it's at all sustainable in the world of
mushrooming population growth, expanding expectations, so and finite
resources.
My own view is that those of us who have lived in the "Never had it so good"
days of the postwar era are the very lucky ones and with the best will in
the world I don't think that it's going to be replicated for our
grandchildren.
> John Savard
Ivan
>
> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65q1f9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ft8i1a$ip1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:65ppj4F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> "An inquiry by the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs
>>>> Committee
>>>> said the Government had "overstated the economic benefits of
>>>> immigration".
>>>>
>>>> <http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1311306,00.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Been rejected by HMG as 'just plain wrong'.
>>>
>>
>> Personally I'd rather take the word of the cross-party House of Lords
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> Well maybe on the quality of the brandy and the price of a peerage...
>
Well with even Brown today talking about really major world cash problems
then maybe when his government finds those oh so productive immigrants
turning into millions of jobless people all expecting paychecks, then we'll
really see them show their true socialists colours inasmuch as how
benevolent and philanthropic they can be.
Quadibloc
> My own view is that those of us who have lived in the "Never had it so good"
> days of the postwar era are the very lucky ones and with the best will in
> the world I don't think that it's going to be replicated for our
> grandchildren.
I think that there is basically no real excuse for it not to be.
Many resources are limited, but some are being limited artificially.
Energy doesn't have to be a problem - in the short run, we have
thorium breeder reactors as an option where other sources of energy
are not an option. For automobiles, methyl alcohol reduces the
conflict between biofuel and food - but I suspect it will not
eliminate it, since the demand for automobile fuel is too large. So we
will also need more widespread use of trolley buses.
Population growth is something that can't be easily turned off with a
policy switch, and food production does not admit of being expanded
indefinitely; multi-storey farms with artificial lighting are grossly
uneconomic. So there are some real difficulties as well. But if we
start building space colonies with lunar materials, we can end up
farming the Kuiper Belt, which contains many bodies with volatiles
including methane and ammonia (the latter being a source of _fixed_
nitrogen) in due course.
John Savard
William Black
>
> Well with even Brown today talking about really major world cash problems
> then maybe when his government finds those oh so productive immigrants
> turning into millions of jobless people all expecting paychecks, then
> we'll really see them show their true socialists colours inasmuch as how
> benevolent and philanthropic they can be.
They're not entitled to anything except medical treatment until they've got
two year's National Insurance contributions paid in.
After that most of them become permanent residents.
of course we're only talking about people from outside the EC here.
The EC thing is what has made a mess of everything.
But I understand that as things are getting worse the Poles are going home.
Matthias Warkus
[snip]
OK, I'll leave the conservative bickering alone and comment just on a
couple of points...
>> In Germany, there are 120,000 exiled Iranians. By popular perception,
>> they're nearly all doctors, artists, lawyers and engineers. Oh, and BTW,
>> they're nearly all Muslims, so what?
>
> Are you sure of that?
Yes.
>> 25 years will not suffice, not even for the kind of worst-case scenario
>> Americans so fond of, where all Muslims are followers of some sinister,
>> centrally-planned agenda to make the brown hordes steamroller over the
>> Occident. Unless of course you live in some kind of alternate reality
>> like Mark Steyn's, where Muslim families all have an average of fifteen
>> children and religious fundamentalism is genetic.
>
> The problem is not religious as such: the problem groups are constantly
> seen around drinking, ignoring pork taboos and doing a lot of un-Islamic
> things. The problem is that the vast majority of these immigrants come
> from extremely patriarchal cultures that are utterly intolerant of other
> peoples (non-Muslims and often other Muslim ethnicities as well) and *that
> this attitude isn't really going away for many of the migrants, even if
> their pious religiosity goes away*.
You are describing something akin to the sentiment US critics of
immigration had towards Catholics, Eastern Jews and many other groups of
immigrants in the 19th century, BTW.
> This is exactly where much of Europe is going and we're really not doing
> anything about it, to the contrary, a lot of people are actually eager to
> encourage this development. It's trivially easy to Google examples from
> any country, here's eg. a German one:
>
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474629,00.html
>
> So, according to a German court, it's a Muslim man's "right" enforce
> his dominance over women by violence.
Um, no. Not at all. The ruling was very unfortunate, but it has been
massively misreported. What the judge argued was not that the man had a
right to beat his wife due to his religion, but rather that the wife
should have known by his religion that he could be expected to beat her.
Judges disparaging Islam in that way is basically every wingnut's wet
dream. It's the wrong people being outraged.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Ivan
> On Apr 5, 3:15 pm, "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> My own view is that those of us who have lived in the "Never had it so
>> good"
>> days of the postwar era are the very lucky ones and with the best will in
>> the world I don't think that it's going to be replicated for our
>> grandchildren.
>
> I think that there is basically no real excuse for it not to be.
>
> Many resources are limited, but some are being limited artificially.
> Energy doesn't have to be a problem - in the short run, we have
> thorium breeder reactors as an option where other sources of energy
> are not an option. For automobiles, methyl alcohol reduces the
> conflict between biofuel and food - but I suspect it will not
> eliminate it, since the demand for automobile fuel is too large. So we
> will also need more widespread use of trolley buses.
>
> Population growth is something that can't be easily turned off with a
> policy switch, and food production does not admit of being expanded
> indefinitely; multi-storey farms with artificial lighting are grossly
> uneconomic. So there are some real difficulties as well. But if we
> farming the Kuiper Belt, which contains many bodies with volatiles
> including methane and ammonia (the latter being a source of _fixed_
> nitrogen) in due course.
>
IMO there is now a confusion between the 'quantity' and 'quality' of life,
personally I'd plump for 'quality' anytime.
I'd say that the happiest time of my life was about 30 years ago, bringing
up a young family in a semi rural environment which has now been swamped by
all of the accouterments of what modern day people have come to expect, huge
supermarket sheds, traffic clogged roads.. more often than not used at night
by boy racers in their souped up motors and blaring sound systems.. police
stations that were open 24/7, instead of office hours.
I could probably fill up this page with 101 other moans but those'll do for
now, maybe it's because I'm getting older and I'm more intolerant of what's
going on around me, but certainly from my point of view I'd jump at the
chance of putting the clock back 30 or so years to a less consumer
orientated more laid back era.
I'd just like to add that I don't think I would exactly be alone in my
views, as recent studies have shown that both here and in the United States
people were in general happier 50 years ago than they are now, despite all
of our rampant consumerism.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm>
> John Savard
Wayne Throop
: What the judge argued was not that the man had a
: should have known by his religion that he could be expected to beat her.
OK, that's what was argued. She should have expected it. What conclusion
was reached as a result of this argument? She should have expected it, and
therefore ... ? It's OK for a person who should have expected it to
be beaten? Or, it's not OK, but such a person is nevertheless due
no damages? Or... what, exactly?
Jaakko Raipala
> "Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> Second of all, the plan would only work if we imported migrants who do
>> not become dependants. No one has ever managed to figure out a way to
>> predict which immigrants fit in and which don't.... except... well... of
>> course there's a simple way that would actually work very well: just don't
>> allow in many people of certain religions and ethnicities.
>
> Doesn't work.
It doesn't? I have a little experiment to try, then. I call it "the
Chinese, the Russians and the Somalis" experiment. That's the groups in
alphabetical order. Now, I bet you know nothing at all about Finland, so
you probably don't know how well those groups are doing... right? Well,
I'll describe them to you, in a randomized order:
A: This group has an *employment* rate of 8 %. Read that again: their
*employment* rate is a ridiculous 8 %. Considering that a lot of those
"employed" are translators and religious leaders paid by the Finnish
taxpayer, they are practically unemployed. The whole group. In crime
statistics, they're massively overrepresented in pretty much every
kind of crime - and as an especially hot political issue, they're
massively overrepresented in violent crime, pedophilia and rapes.
Despite their very small numbers, they alone are responsible for a
staggering proportion of the street crime in Helsinki.
B: This group has an unemployment rate fluctuation around 2-3 that of
the native population. They are massively overrepresented in minor
crimes such as theft and traffic offenses, but their rates of violent
crime are hardly higher than the Finnish rates and their rate of sex
crimes is almost exactly the same.
C: This group consistently has an employment rate that's actually the
same or *higher* than the native one. They're less prone to almost
all types of crime than the Finnish population. They alone make the
the idea that "prejudice" and arriving from a poorer country somehow
excuse immigrant crime and non-fitting ridiculous. They're a success
almost everywhere they've gone.
Now, which ones of those groups are the Chinese, the Russians and the
Somalis? Hardly anyone who knows how these immigrant groups have
managed to fit in the past in Western countries has any trouble seeing
the answers, since the same patterns are getting repeated over and over
again. The cultural background of an immigrant group is a predictor of
success that almost never fails (for a group).
In some countries, they physically punish women for being gang raped.
Why do we bring people from such cultures into the most liberal
countries in the world and then act surprised when we the rates of rape
start going up? In some countries, it's perfectly normal to believe that
the Jews drink the blood of righteous children and so on. Why do we
bring people from such cultures into countries that only recently got
rid of their own massive anti-Semitism and then wonder why anti-Semitic
violence starts going up? And so on.
> What might work is an examination proving familiarity with the local
> language coupled with a points based system that excludes the unskilled
Demanding advance knowledge of the language won't really work for anyone
except English-speaking nations and perhaps to some extent for countries
with former colonial possessions (but then, most of those have already
tried importing illiterate masses from their former colonies and that has
worked really well, hasn't it?).
> The UK has just introduced such a system, I await the results with some
> interest...
Well, good luck to you. Our Minister of Migration has refused to even
discuss the system. Talking to the multiculturalists on it gets you
categorized as a far right wing bigot (I mean, to suggest excluding
people! discriminating based on skills!) and if you point out that eg.
Canada has been running a system like that for a while, they change
their opinion on Canada (a notoriously racist nation, apparently), not
on the system.
> What certainly doesn't work is excluding people by ethnicity. You exclude
> all those highly skilled and educated high earners that you want.
Do you want those? A while ago they made a big news story about those
British bomb plotters being doctors. Medicine is about the most desired
skill an immigrant could have and *still* it doesn't stop you from
turning violent.
It's no surprise to those of us who have been following the world news,
of course: anti-Western terrorists, despite the fantasies of
anti-Western leftists, do not usually come from poor, oppressed
backgrounds. Just the opposite. Starting from Osama himself, they tend
to be wealthy and educated and in many cases not even that religious or
eager to follow Muslim taboos. Skills do not seem to be any sort of a
shield against extremism, even if they prevent ghettoization. The one
thing that does predict proneness to terrorism, of course, is cultural
background.
There just seems to be no way around that. To me, the only rational
solution appears to be to figure out some objective measurement of the
cultural advancement of a nation - like, say, how many of them marry
their cousins (most of "them" for many cases of "them") or whether
homosexuals are getting executed in the country (of course, I'd happily
grant asylum to homosexuals from those places if there were some way to
prove a claim to be gay) - and limit immigration from the worst places
into a tiny trickle.
> The use of the term 'PC' seems to be confined to the extreme right wing
> these days.
And mirroring that, the term "extreme right wing" tends to get applied to
everyone right of Tony Blair, these days.
In fact, there's a very simple test to predict whether a politician is
going to get considered "far right": is he popular?
>>> When this happens in Japan their economy will probably show some signs of
>>> strain.
>>
>> Maybe so, but it will be less than whatever will be felt by those
>> European countries that decided to import extra dependants.
>
> You have some proof?
Employment rates for groups of immigrants range from the same as the
native population to 8 % - de facto non-employment for an entire group.
It's easy to compare countries. Some countries, like Sweden, have far
higher proportions of dependant migrants than most and some, such as
the United States, have far lower than most. If it's hard to compare
such different countries, you can compare eg. Finland and Sweden, two
countries that have done basically everything the same way over the
past few decades *except* for the massive amount of "humanitarian" ie.
non-integrating immigration to Sweden. Over that period, Finland has
finally caught up with Sweden and even went past on many measurements,
even though Sweden has been historically the much wealthier place.
The Swedish welfare state has no chance of surviving if they don't
change their path while the Finnish welfare state has a pretty good
chance of surviving if we don't change our path. A mass of immigrants
on welfare isn't going to save the Swedes from the pension bomb, just
the opposite.
> The Japanese economy has done one crash and burn in the past few years,
> what makes you think it's any more resilient than the European economies?
Well, for one thing, they don't have masses of immigrants on welfare and
they don't have to pay for extra policing for the explosion of crime
that naturally follows an immigrant population that can't be deported or
properly punished no matter their crime.
Of course, this isn't really a fault of the immigrants: the dumb one
isn't the one who pays for nothing and the dumb ones are the ones who
keep importing criminals and neither punishing or deporting them. It's
actually perfectly possible to accept large-scale immigration and not
give them endless welfare benefits that are often better than working
and to not refuse to deport people for heinous crimes. For example, the
Americans have been doing that for a long time and they have survived
levels of immigration that would simply tear apart any European country.
Naturally, we can't do what the Americans do, since, you know, their
ideas actually work and we all know that ideas that actually work are
only for the extreme right wing. And Americans. Who are soo right wing.
Oh well, at least Europe makes the tabloids hilarious:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1002_scroungers.shtml
Unfortunately, watching Britain self-destruct is much less entertaining
when you know that our political establishment is eagerly trying to follow
the lead.
Jaakko Raipala
> OK, I'll leave the conservative bickering alone and comment just on a
> couple of points...
Can you name me the points where I presented political opinions rather
than predictions?
I'm in fact a radical liberal: I want to let homosexual couples adopt,
I want to make brothels legal, I want to legalize pot, I want to be free
to mock religious barbarism (which, to me, includes pretty much anything
religious, actually, but some barbarisms are worse than others), I want
to allow women the freedom to have sex with whoever they want to... I
consider the liberal attitudes of Europe the highest achievement of the
West. I don't want to piss them away just because some violent fanatic
might stick a knife in me for supporting such things and I sure the hell
don't want the regressive right to end up the only critic of immigration
(since then *a lot of people* will vote for the regressive right).
I don't vote for conservatives. I would want to vote for a Pim Fortuyn.
> You are describing something akin to the sentiment US critics of
> immigration had towards Catholics, Eastern Jews and many other groups of
> immigrants in the 19th century, BTW.
Yes, because those Catholics were destroying skyscrapers and bombing
trains, because some Catholic minority of a few percent alone was
responsible for most of the rapes in the United States, including such
nasty cases indicative of their nasty misogyny as gang raping women with
scissors right after getting off the plane as "asylum seekers", and
because those Catholics were given eternal welfare and cultural training
to avoid assimilation thanks to the popularity of multiculturalism and
socialism in 19th century America...
Yes, because we all know that all immigrant groups eventually integrate,
like, for example, the gypsies, who finally integrated yesterday in
Finland after 500 years of maintaining a parallel society. There is no
potential problem even with importing enough minorities to turn the
majority into a minority, since all groups eventually fit together fine.
Next tiresome old non-analogy, please!
But, of course, I was hardly interested in *presenting my political
opinions* on immigration, rather, I'm interested in *predicting the
future*. For one thing, as much as you like to imagine otherwise, the
future will still have us scary far right wingers, even those who know
how to find a spare Kalashikov should this multicultural nuttiness go
that far, and you should factor in whatever we're planning to do into a
prediction of how this is going to work out. If you pretend that we
don't exist, you will certainly end up with ridiculous predictions.
You're seemingly the one who's uninterested in discussing anything
beyond "it's all just conservative bickering and everything is going
to be fine" - your own political ideology. Wishful thinking is hardly
likely to be the most accurate road to prediction.
>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474629,00.html
>>
>> So, according to a German court, it's a Muslim man's "right" enforce
>> his dominance over women by violence.
>
> Um, no. Not at all. The ruling was very unfortunate, but it has been
> massively misreported. What the judge argued was not that the man had a
> right to beat his wife due to his religion, but rather that the wife
> should have known by his religion that he could be expected to beat her.
Oh, I see. How stupid of her. Yes, that will make everything fine. As
Europeans fail to even expect Muslims to behave better, it will surely
encourage integration more than ideologically excusing the behaviour.
PS. If you ask me, it seems rather obvious that those Catholics and
others have indeed been a bad influence on the United States.
Homogeneous countries tend to be much more liberal, because they feel
that they can afford it when some behaviours can be just expected. I
like sexual liberalism, religious liberalism (ie. no obligatory
"respect" for silly superstitions as in the US and as in Europe when
Muslims are there to intimidate) and intoxication liberalism - and
they all seem to contradict with liberalism on "diversity". If that's
the choice, then I would choose to avoid diversity.
These are the issues closest to my heart and I think it is important
to avoid having Europe turn as conservative as the United States - and
one reason for that is that it's simply impossible to assimilate
immigrants as well as the United States does with liberal recipes. We
would have to become much, much more conservative to do it. Except,
of course, for the few better things that the US has, like free speech,
but then, even supporting that is a far right wing thing these days.
(And yes, perhaps those Muslims might change one day. In fact, I even
predicted that they would at least mellow out with aging populations.
If so, then I'll support opening up immigration... but not before that.
They have to have their social revolutions in their own countries, it
doesn't seem to work in an already liberal country. But... perhaps the
gap to Turks does not seem impossible to bridge in a generation or two,
but much of rest of the Muslim world is so far behind civilization that
immigration shouldn't be opened done during my lifetime.)
Jaakko Raipala
> It benefits some people, but at the expense of others - and its not in
> the interests of politicians for the people it doesn't benefit to know
> who they are.
Note also that putting hurting other groups often counts as a *benefit*
when we're discussing politics. How often can you hear well-educated
and wealthy left-wingers disparagingly remarking about how it's the poor
and the uneducated in the native population who oppose immigration? And
those are the same people who insist that they're for the working man.
Much of minority politics is, in fact, status warfare inside the native
or majority population. Being "for" the brown poor makes you more of a
saint than being "for" the poor (not to mention just working class) of
your own tribe. Now some of the liberals who've switched for higher
saintliness are forgetting that they're supposed to get votes from the
native poor and thus they forget to hide their loathing of poor people.
Something like this has already happened in the US: the coastal left has
become the champion of the non-white poor and is increasingly open about
its loathing of the white poor - and now they're terribly surprised when
people "vote against their interests" ie. for the party that doesn't
despise poor people while patronizingly knowing what's good for them.
I already predicted that something similar is happening in Europe, with
the increasing popularity of the so-called "far right": the traditional
left has begun to openly despise the concerns and values of the poor,
believing that it can take the vote for granted. This has little to do
with the "benefits" of immigration. In fact, it's the opposite: sticking
the negative effects of immigration on those who are too poor to move
out from "diverse" areas into the wealthy, not that "diverse" areas will
only increase the problems of the poor, making them ever more "far right"
and ever better targets for the liberals to despise. Then they, too, can
wonder why the poor aren't voting for liberals who despise poor people.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>PS. If you ask me, it seems rather obvious that those Catholics and
>others have indeed been a bad influence on the United States.
>Homogeneous countries tend to be much more liberal, because they feel
>that they can afford it when some behaviours can be just expected.
Are homogeneous states in the U.S. more liberal than hetrogeneous
states? Is North Korea homogeneous or hetrogeneous?
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>PS. If you ask me, it seems rather obvious that those Catholics and
>>others have indeed been a bad influence on the United States.
>>Homogeneous countries tend to be much more liberal, because they feel
>>that they can afford it when some behaviours can be just expected.
>
> Are homogeneous states in the U.S. more liberal than hetrogeneous
> states?
I don't know. Are they? You should compare states of an equal level
of urbanisation and you should consider whether they're actually
*liberal*. Just voting for the Democrats isn't being more liberal -
eg. the Democrats gather the African-American vote for other reasons
despite the much lesser social liberalism of African-Americans (ie.
they're more religious, more homophobic and so on).
In any case, the comparison gets tough, because you should really look
at units that restrict immigration. Eg. you can point out that cities
are more liberal and more diverse... but then, cities as a unit contain
neighbourhoods that are vastly different in levels of diversity. The
ones with high property values tend to have a majority population and
low diversity and they tend to be relatively social liberal (but often
economic right). They can afford it since their property values keep
out the undesirable diversity - no formal restrictions are needed.
That's the point: liberal places tend to be the ones that restrict the
inflow of diversity, whether it's by financial fiat or formality.
> Is North Korea homogeneous or hetrogeneous?
Hardly less homogeneous than South Korea. The difference is that South
Korea is free while North Korea has a left-wing dictatorship... funny
how every left-wing dictatorship in the world has left behind a rather
unprogressive nation, isn't it?
Progress works best with freedom - and that's one reason why Europe with
its aggressive left-wing authoritarianism on anything that has to do
with minority-majority relations will not be able to handle immigration
as well as the United States...
Matthias Warkus
Gene Ward Smith
> Something like this has already happened in the US: the
coastal left has
> become the champion of the non-white poor and is
increasingly open about
> its loathing of the white poor
Stick to Finland and don't bother trying to tell me about
California.
Joel Olson
The thinning out here of the middle class sort of puts a sinking lid on
upward mobility. This compresses the bottom layers, and we get conflict.
And bigotry and fundamental relgious types.
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
>> What might work is an examination proving familiarity with the local
>> language coupled with a points based system that excludes the unskilled
>
> Demanding advance knowledge of the language won't really work for anyone
> except English-speaking nations and perhaps to some extent for countries
> with former colonial possessions (but then, most of those have already
> tried importing illiterate masses from their former colonies and that has
> worked really well, hasn't it?).
Actually it seems to have worked reasonably well.
The current Muslim terrorist menace is a sight less of a problem than the
previous Irish terrorist menace...
>> The UK has just introduced such a system, I await the results with some
>> interest...
>
> Well, good luck to you. Our Minister of Migration has refused to even
> discuss the system. Talking to the multiculturalists on it gets you
> categorized as a far right wing bigot (I mean, to suggest excluding
> people! discriminating based on skills!) and if you point out that eg.
> Canada has been running a system like that for a while, they change
> their opinion on Canada (a notoriously racist nation, apparently), not
> on the system.
Sounds like you don't even have a perceived problem then. When you do get
one you'll find the politicians change their tune pretty quickly.
Mind you, that does rather depend on you living somewhere where the people
speak a language that is taught in schools outside their own border.
They don't tend to teach people the Finno-Ugric group of languages outside
the Baltic area...
The reason 3rd World immigrants want to go to the UK and USA is nothing to
do with conditions there, it's because there is work there AND (and this is
the really important bit ) they speak the language because they were taught
it in school...
>> What certainly doesn't work is excluding people by ethnicity. You
>> exclude
>> all those highly skilled and educated high earners that you want.
>
> Do you want those? A while ago they made a big news story about those
> British bomb plotters being doctors. Medicine is about the most desired
> skill an immigrant could have and *still* it doesn't stop you from
> turning violent.
All three of them?
You want to exclude about 100,000 doctors because three of them went bad?
I suggest you are over-reacting.
The one
> thing that does predict proneness to terrorism, of course, is cultural
> background.
Is this just Muslims?
Or are we also talking about the Irish Catholic and Protestant terrorists as
well?
While many of the Catholics were certainly middle class the Protestant
terrorists were undoubtedly working class.
> There just seems to be no way around that. To me, the only rational
> solution appears to be to figure out some objective measurement of the
> cultural advancement of a nation - like, say, how many of them marry
> their cousins (most of "them" for many cases of "them") or whether
> homosexuals are getting executed in the country (of course, I'd happily
> grant asylum to homosexuals from those places if there were some way to
> prove a claim to be gay) - and limit immigration from the worst places
> into a tiny trickle.
So India is ok, but China isn't?
>> The use of the term 'PC' seems to be confined to the extreme right wing
>> these days.
>
> And mirroring that, the term "extreme right wing" tends to get applied to
> everyone right of Tony Blair, these days.
>
> In fact, there's a very simple test to predict whether a politician is
> going to get considered "far right": is he popular?
And we're back at Tony Blair again...
> Unfortunately, watching Britain self-destruct is much less entertaining
> when you know that our political establishment is eagerly trying to follow
> the lead.
>
People have been telling me since Thatcher get the sack that the UK is going
down the pan and we'll all be living in 'Mad Max II' country real soon now..
So far so good...
Ivan
>
>
>> Unfortunately, watching Britain self-destruct is much less entertaining
>> when you know that our political establishment is eagerly trying to
>> follow
>> the lead.
>>
>
> People have been telling me since Thatcher get the sack that the UK is
> going down the pan and we'll all be living in 'Mad Max II' country real
> soon now..
>
> So far so good...
>
Well you carry on believing it..
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331882.stm>
John
"Matthias Warkus" <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote in message
news:fta6ep$24qo$1...@news.nnrp.de...
> Jaakko Raipala schrieb:
> [snip]
>
> OK, I'll leave the conservative bickering alone and comment just on a
> couple of points...
>
>>
>> The problem is not religious as such: the problem groups are constantly
>> seen around drinking, ignoring pork taboos and doing a lot of un-Islamic
>> things. The problem is that the vast majority of these immigrants come
>> from extremely patriarchal cultures that are utterly intolerant of other
>> peoples (non-Muslims and often other Muslim ethnicities as well) and
>> *that
>> this attitude isn't really going away for many of the migrants, even if
>> their pious religiosity goes away*.
>
> You are describing something akin to the sentiment US critics of
> immigration had towards Catholics, Eastern Jews and many other groups of
> immigrants in the 19th century, BTW.
>
Wasn't america founded by various flavours of religious zealot?
John
>
snip
>>
>
> John I hope I'm wrong, but believe me all this is going to culminate in
> big big tears on a worldwide scale, one can now switch through a plethora
> of news and business channels to hear men in suits proclaiming 'growth',
> 'growth', 'growth', and even more economic growth in the decades to come,
> but not even a whisper of whether it's at all sustainable in the world of
> mushrooming population growth, expanding expectations, so and finite
> resources.
> My own view is that those of us who have lived in the "Never had it so
> good" days of the postwar era are the very lucky ones and with the best
> will in the world I don't think that it's going to be replicated for our
> grandchildren.
>
I reached this conclusion a couple of years ago due to the housing shortage
in resulting price rises in my area. The generation that never had it so
good will be the last generation to EVER have it that good for the
forseeable future. I doubt there will be another generation in the next few
hundred years (barring extraordinary happenings) with such advantages in
housing, education, cost of medical care and general opportunity. Most of
this was bought with cheap oil just before the real population explosion.
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ftbg48$n93$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, watching Britain self-destruct is much less entertaining
>>> when you know that our political establishment is eagerly trying to
>>> follow
>>> the lead.
>>>
>>
>> People have been telling me since Thatcher get the sack that the UK is
>> going down the pan and we'll all be living in 'Mad Max II' country real
>> soon now..
>>
>> So far so good...
>>
>
> Well you carry on believing it..
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331882.stm>
And my reaction is exactly the same as everyone else's.
Judges are not noted for their exposure to the better parts of the
community.
They are exposed mainly to criminals, people in distress and lawyers.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Sounds like you don't even have a perceived problem then. When you do get
> one you'll find the politicians change their tune pretty quickly.
That depends on who is doing the perceiving.
John Savard
William Black
In the UK it's usually the gutter pres.
Everyone else is going on about how cheap Polish plumbers are and how good
Indian food is...
Jaakko Raipala
> The current Muslim terrorist menace is a sight less of a problem than the
> previous Irish terrorist menace...
Perhaps, but the Irish terrorist menace was simply all about a single
issue only relevant in the UK. The Muslim terrorist menace is not. I
used to think that it was all about Israel and America's silly wars in
the Middle East, but then you keep hearing of things like this:
http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/canada_terrorist_plot.htm
If Canadians, the notorious Zionists, are bad enough to be beheaded in
their own country, then surely vigorous fascists like the Swedes and
oppressive imperialists like the Swiss are not immune either. Strangely,
plots like this tend to get rather little attention in the press -
likely because the beheading of a Prime Minister of a rather peaceful
and obsessively multicultural country would raise a lot of questions.
> Sounds like you don't even have a perceived problem then. When you do get
> one you'll find the politicians change their tune pretty quickly.
Perhaps, but it would be nice to avoid the trouble, wouldn't it? Instead
we're just launching a state assault on immigration critical thought,
copied straight from Sweden. We're doing everything from having the
courts shut down immigration critical web sites on the net on some
charges of "racism" to censoring immigrant crime statistics. (We have
an obvious problem, so let's just cover it up! That will make the people
less paranoid about immigration.)
Things may look less worrying in the anglospheric world with its much
firmer traditions of liberty, especially in America with its miraculous
constitutional protections, but there is simply no freedom in most of
continental Europe. Of course, authoritarianism breeds authoritarianism
and the state assault on dissidents inevitably produces people like Le
Pen. When you've made immigration critical thinking a borderline crime,
you shouldn't be surprised to find borderline criminals the only people
willing to speak about the issue - which also happens to be a real vote
gainer for the politicians who actually dare speak about the issue.
That's the path much of Europe is on: we're letting the "it's all just
going to be fine and questioning anything makes you a nasty bigot" crowd
dominate and as that naivete leads us to the inevitable disaster, we're
finding the nasty bigots to cancel the disaster with another disaster.
>> Do you want those? A while ago they made a big news story about those
>> British bomb plotters being doctors. Medicine is about the most desired
>> skill an immigrant could have and *still* it doesn't stop you from
>> turning violent.
>
> I suggest you are over-reacting.
The point isn't the terrorism, the point is that immigrants with desired
skills do not automatically assume native attitudes. For anyone who
actually does go into terrorism, there are many more who are simply
"milder" extremists: they don't perhaps go out killing people, but they
feel that it would be a good thing. This is true regardless of the issue:
for every skinhead that goes out to beat up gypsies there are many more
people that would like to beat up gypsies but don't have the guts to face
the law and the shame. The fact that there *still* are skinheads who go
out to beat up gypsies (well, dunno about you, but we have), despite the
penalties and the social pressure against it, proves that the desire is
indeed common among a certain element of the population - and that there
is a strong attitude against gypsies in much of the population, even if
you forget the people who fantasize about beating up someone.
Violent extremists are the tail of the distribution. They would not
exist if the center of the distribution weren't in nasty territory.
A doctor, with his likely surroundings of well-educated majority
acquintances and supposedly well-integrated minorities, would have a
tremendous amount of social direction towards moderation, wealth to keep
him from alienation and a high education to shield him from radicalism -
yet some still become murderous extremists. How many more are there with
sympathies? How many are there with milder, less violent but still
bigoted views? Our experience with Muslims so far is that many even in
educated professions would feel offended by, for example, having a
female in authority over a male or having to deal with a homosexual.
How do we deal with this? How will the growing influence of patriarchal
immigrants influence women's rights and gay rights? It's definitely not
going to be an improvement. We'll likely become more like America -
things such as gay unions and abortion which we *thought* were simply
non-issues will have to be debated again - and might be lost.
In fact, focusing on the violent extremists in the *response* is just
the wrong thing to do: the problem isn't the extremists, it is the base
population that widely holds attitudes that produces terrorists in the
extreme. Their *center* is at the wrong place; the *extremes* just
follow that. Similarily the idea that we could stop the gang fights
between Finns and gypsies by simply focusing on those who do the
fighting is misguided, as the problem isn't just a few people who want
to fight, the problem is that the fighting stems from common attitudes
in the groups. To end it, we'd have to figure out a way to make Finns
and gypsies fit together. We've only been trying for a half millenium...
> Or are we also talking about the Irish Catholic and Protestant terrorists as
> well?
Your issue. Any Irish fellow that still feels like blowing up stuff
probably still isn't stupid enough to think that Finland is in the UK.
However, we have much reason to worry about anti-Western terrorism, as
I'm pretty sure many terrorists out there count us in the evil West.
(Actually, should the history gone a bit differently, Finns and Swedes
would probably have ended up in a similar mess and a Finnish background
would've been a good predictor of anti-Swedish terrorist attitudes then.
We got lucky with the Russians coming over and drawing the border.)
>> There just seems to be no way around that. To me, the only rational
>> solution appears to be to figure out some objective measurement of the
>> cultural advancement of a nation - like, say, how many of them marry
>> their cousins (most of "them" for many cases of "them") or whether
>
> So India is ok, but China isn't?
More the other way around. In fact, the Chinese diaspora seems to have
a rather special cultural toolkit for succeeding as a minority: in a lot
of places, the Chinese have managed better than the natives and Finland
is actually no exception. China is a nasty place, but once you take the
Chinese out of China they seem to adapt quickly. Even if they have some
not very Western attitudes, they keep them to themselves and do not bomb
stuff or fume about how the country must radically change to suit them.
India seems to be improving, though. One of the reasons is that India
has decided on a wide program to abolish much of the traditional
culture. Has any Muslim country been able to decide on cultural reform
as fundamental as abolition of the caste system? Well, there's Turkey
and... uhh... what was that saying about the exception that proves the
rule? Cultural reform is a dire necessity in most of the Muslim world.
Just look at this map:
http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence
Most Pakistanis are married to their cousins. To most Westerners that's
surprising and perhaps even shocking... but it makes perfect sense for a
tribal society that believes in arranged marriage: you can keep more of
your wealth in the tribe that way. This practice keeps the tribes close
knit and hard to break, the primary loyalty in these nations. (Islam is
actually a red herring: it's only relevant as far as it prevents cultural
reform. It's particularily good at that.) Tribal societies are hopeless
in the modern world, as they're prone to massive corruption and extreme
patriarchy that keeps half of the population from public life.
That map is pretty good at predicting how well immigrants fit in. The
Muslims that do manage to integrate come from the areas that aren't so
tribal - Western Turkey and the better areas of Iran and North Africa.
Here's another map, of Africa, that seems to be surprisingly good at
predicting relative success for African immigrants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fgm_map.gif
Is the reason that groups from the highest incidence areas do not tend
to fit in that female genital mutilation prevents integration? Partly,
yes, as it does make the mingling of females - half of the population -
with other groups more difficult, but fundamentally, the issue isn't
FGM, it's that it's indicative of a patriarchal, tribal culture that
contradicts extremely badly with the most liberal cultures of the world.
(How extremely badly? Well, one of the ways cultural diversity has
enriched us so far is the new phenomenon of mutilation-rapes. Nope, it
is not simply an issue for the immigrant community, it flows into the
native population as well. Needless to say, some places have gotten
pretty close to exploding in anti-African violence over the issue and
I think we'll get there eventually. It's a Finnish peculiarity - our
largest visibly identifiable new minority groups are East Africans.)
If I were king, I would just declare massive cousin-fucking and genital
mutilation indicators that a culture is hopelessly screwed up and admit
no immigrants from such places (other than perhaps females, gays and
others fleeing ultra-patriarchy). It's not racial, it's not religious,
it's merely discriminating against the utterly hopeless.
Gene Ward Smith
> Things may look less worrying in the anglospheric world
with its much
> firmer traditions of liberty, especially in America with
its miraculous
> constitutional protections, but there is simply no freedom
in most of
> continental Europe.
Hey, we Americans invented the idea of arresting people for
clicking on a hypertext link. Credit where credit is due.
William December Starr
Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
> Hey, we Americans invented the idea of arresting people for
> clicking on a hypertext link. Credit where credit is due.
Are you sure? Last I heard, it had only gone as far as being the
basis for search warrants. (This was in the kiddie-porn realm. If
you're talking about the War on Terror (ha ha) then even though
standards of sanity are lower I still question whether anyone's been
arrested (or kidnapped, as the case may be) _solely_ on the basis
of having visited the wrong websites.)
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Gene Ward Smith
news:ftdipd$dos$1...@panix3.panix.com:
>> Hey, we Americans invented the idea of arresting people
for
>> clicking on a hypertext link. Credit where credit is due.
>
> Are you sure? Last I heard, it had only gone as far as
being the
> basis for search warrants. (This was in the kiddie-porn
realm. If
> you're talking about the War on Terror (ha ha) then even
though
> standards of sanity are lower I still question whether
anyone's been
> arrested (or kidnapped, as the case may be) _solely_ on the
basis
> of having visited the wrong websites.)
The case I read about recently didn't have much evidence
aside from the click, but got a conviction anyway. Google
google...
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html
===
Vosburgh faced four charges: clicking on an illegal
hyperlink; knowingly destroying a hard drive and a thumb
drive by physically damaging them when the FBI agents were
outside his home; obstructing an FBI investigation by
destroying the devices; and possessing a hard drive with two
grainy thumbnail images of naked female minors (the youths
weren't having sex, but their genitalia were visible).
The judge threw out the third count and the jury found him
not guilty of the second. But Vosburgh was convicted of the
first and last counts, which included clicking on the FBI's
illicit hyperlink.
In a legal brief filed on March 6, his attorney argued that
the two thumbnails were in a hidden "thumbs.db" file
automatically created by the Windows operating system. The
brief said that there was no evidence that Vosburgh ever
viewed the full-size images--which were not found on his hard
drive--and the thumbnails could have been created by
receiving an e-mail message, copying files, or innocently
visiting a Web page.
So while one has a right to be suspicious, they didn't have a
real case. They had thumb images, not actual ones. And the
thumbs were of images that involved no sexual content. He was
charged and convicted of felonious clicking on a hypertext
link.
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
> Perhaps, but the Irish terrorist menace was simply all about a single
> issue only relevant in the UK. The Muslim terrorist menace is not.
As I live in the UK most of te time I tend to see things from that
perspective.
From here the Muslim terrorists look like just any other terrorist problem.
>>> Do you want those? A while ago they made a big news story about those
>>> British bomb plotters being doctors. Medicine is about the most desired
>>> skill an immigrant could have and *still* it doesn't stop you from
>>> turning violent.
>>
>> I suggest you are over-reacting.
>
> The point isn't the terrorism, the point is that immigrants with desired
> skills do not automatically assume native attitudes. For anyone who
> actually does go into terrorism, there are many more who are simply
> "milder" extremists: they don't perhaps go out killing people, but they
> feel that it would be a good thing. This is true regardless of the issue:
> for every skinhead that goes out to beat up gypsies there are many more
> people that would like to beat up gypsies but don't have the guts to face
> the law and the shame.
And the majority, who don't want to beat anyone up.
Our experience with Muslims so far is that many even in
> educated professions would feel offended by, for example, having a
> female in authority over a male or having to deal with a homosexual.
Then I suggest you widen that experience.
> How do we deal with this? How will the growing influence of patriarchal
> immigrants influence women's rights and gay rights?
In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority ethnic
groups marry outside that group.
People integrate more quickly than you think.
>>> There just seems to be no way around that. To me, the only rational
>>> solution appears to be to figure out some objective measurement of the
>>> cultural advancement of a nation - like, say, how many of them marry
>>> their cousins (most of "them" for many cases of "them") or whether
>>
>> So India is ok, but China isn't?
>
> More the other way around. In fact, the Chinese diaspora seems to have
> a rather special cultural toolkit for succeeding as a minority: in a lot
> of places, the Chinese have managed better than the natives and Finland
> is actually no exception. China is a nasty place, but once you take the
> Chinese out of China they seem to adapt quickly. Even if they have some
> not very Western attitudes, they keep them to themselves and do not bomb
> stuff or fume about how the country must radically change to suit them.
That wasn't what you said originally. The tyrants who run China are a bunch
of repressive thugs.
>
> India seems to be improving, though. One of the reasons is that India
> has decided on a wide program to abolish much of the traditional
> culture.
Not that I've noticed, and I spend most of the winter there...
The only major change was the abolition of caste as a legal barrier to the
higher professions and education about half a century ago.
> Most Pakistanis are married to their cousins.
No.
Some, from a specific area only.
> Is the reason that groups from the highest incidence areas do not tend
> to fit in that female genital mutilation prevents integration? Partly,
> yes, as it does make the mingling of females - half of the population -
> with other groups more difficult, but fundamentally, the issue isn't
> FGM, it's that it's indicative of a patriarchal, tribal culture that
> contradicts extremely badly with the most liberal cultures of the world.
But that is a very small minority in Pakistan, but Pakistan is the origin
of the problem...
Ivan
>
> "Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:slrn4fvkijc....@heavy.it.helsinki.fi...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
>
>
> In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority
> ethnic groups marry outside that group.
>
> People integrate more quickly than you think.
>
>
Just like in the Balkans then where there were plenty of interfaith
marriages, yet despite that it didn't take much for folk to turn in on one
another like mad dogs and start butchering members of their own families.
I don't know how many people on this thread outside of the UK have ever
heard of a politician called Enoch Powell, but despite having around as much
as an estimated 80% of public support in a poll taken at the time of his
speech on immigration, made around 40 years ago, he was vilified and sacked
by the then Tory party leader Edward Heath.
One of the things that he said about the UK's ever open door policy on
asylum and immigration, was that "It is like watching a nation busily
engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre" and over the last 40 years
William because of people like you it's carried on unabated, although I
happen to think that the pyre has now reached such a large proportion that
there are many people in the wings with incendiary devices eagerly awaiting
the opportunity to ignite it.
My own guess is that it will be some sort of meltdown of the global economy
which will be the catalyst which sets it ablaze, it's people of your myopic
take on life over the last 50 odd years who have been a major part of the
problem, instead of attempting to be part of the solution, IMO you certainly
ain't done my grandchildren any favours.
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ftdmfe$vn3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority
>> ethnic groups marry outside that group.
>>
>> People integrate more quickly than you think.
>>
>>
>
> Just like in the Balkans then where there were plenty of interfaith
> marriages, yet despite that it didn't take much for folk to turn in on one
> another like mad dogs and start butchering members of their own families.
Who said anything about religion?
> I don't know how many people on this thread outside of the UK have ever
> heard of a politician called Enoch Powell, but despite having around as
> much as an estimated 80% of public support in a poll taken at the time of
> his speech on immigration, made around 40 years ago, he was vilified and
> sacked by the then Tory party leader Edward Heath.
I'd love some sort of cite for that 80% figure.
> One of the things that he said about the UK's ever open door policy on
> asylum and immigration, was that "It is like watching a nation busily
> engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre" and over the last 40 years
> William because of people like you it's carried on unabated, although I
> happen to think that the pyre has now reached such a large proportion that
> there are many people in the wings with incendiary devices eagerly
> awaiting the opportunity to ignite it.
I just love the 'people like you'.
Who exactly are 'people like me'?
> My own guess is that it will be some sort of meltdown of the global
> economy which will be the catalyst which sets it ablaze, it's people of
> your myopic take on life over the last 50 odd years who have been a major
> part of the problem, instead of attempting to be part of the solution, IMO
> you certainly ain't done my grandchildren any favours.
As a general rule I don't do other people's grandchildren any favours.
That's not what I'm for...
The major problem with the movement of people around the globe is that you
can't stop it.
Lots of people have tried, nobody has yet succeeded.
Lots of people have said things like 'This is the end of our society'.
Society goes on much as before.
There are Daily Mail editorials from a hundred years ago attacking 'the
alien menace that stalks our streets'.
What they're attacking is the newly arrived fried fish sellers who were
driving the pie and mash men out of business.
These days it's 'as English as fish and chips', but the last time I was in
a fish and chip shop they sold curry sauce as well...
Societies change.
Ivan
Ivan
>
> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65vcitF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ftdmfe$vn3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>>> In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority
>>> ethnic groups marry outside that group.
>>>
>>> People integrate more quickly than you think.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just like in the Balkans then where there were plenty of interfaith
>> marriages, yet despite that it didn't take much for folk to turn in on
>> one another like mad dogs and start butchering members of their own
>> families.
>
> Who said anything about religion?
>
Well OK then leaving religion out of the equation, as the late Johnny
Speight said "If there weren't any blacks we would have to invent them".
>> I don't know how many people on this thread outside of the UK have ever
>> heard of a politician called Enoch Powell, but despite having around as
>> much as an estimated 80% of public support in a poll taken at the time of
>> his speech on immigration, made around 40 years ago, he was vilified and
>> sacked by the then Tory party leader Edward Heath.
>
> I'd love some sort of cite for that 80% figure.
>
I'm absolutely amazed that 'you' of all people didn't watch the BBC 'White'
series program on Enoch Powell.
>
>> One of the things that he said about the UK's ever open door policy on
>> asylum and immigration, was that "It is like watching a nation busily
>> engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre" and over the last 40 years
>> William because of people like you it's carried on unabated, although I
>> happen to think that the pyre has now reached such a large proportion
>> that there are many people in the wings with incendiary devices eagerly
>> awaiting the opportunity to ignite it.
>
> I just love the 'people like you'
>
>
>
> Who exactly are 'people like me'?
The usual suspect Guardian reading Leftie luvvie?
>
>> My own guess is that it will be some sort of meltdown of the global
>> economy which will be the catalyst which sets it ablaze, it's people of
>> your myopic take on life over the last 50 odd years who have been a major
>> part of the problem, instead of attempting to be part of the solution,
>> IMO you certainly ain't done my grandchildren any favours.
>
> As a general rule I don't do other people's grandchildren any favours.
>
> That's not what I'm for...
>
> The major problem with the movement of people around the globe is that you
> can't stop it.
>
> Lots of people have tried, nobody has yet succeeded.
>
> Lots of people have said things like 'This is the end of our society'.
>
> Society goes on much as before.
>
> There are Daily Mail editorials from a hundred years ago attacking 'the
> alien menace that stalks our streets'.
>
> What they're attacking is the newly arrived fried fish sellers who were
> driving the pie and mash men out of business.
>
> These days it's 'as English as fish and chips', but the last time I was
> in a fish and chip shop they sold curry sauce as well...
>
> Societies change.
>
But unfortunately it would appear not always for the better.
Dan Goodman
Only PARTLY. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were the ones
founded by religious groups from the British Isles. Rhode Island was
founded later, by people already in North America.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fte1al$1i5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Who said anything about religion?
>>
>
> Well OK then leaving religion out of the equation, as the late Johnny
> Speight said "If there weren't any blacks we would have to invent them".
If it wasn't them it would just be someone else.
The driving force of bigotry seems to be religion rather than ethnicity.
The Jews had a hard time, the Christian Anglo-Indians didn't, and they
came in much greater numbers, the Muslims are having a hard time, the
Hindus don't seem to be getting it in the neck so badly.
>>> I don't know how many people on this thread outside of the UK have ever
>>> heard of a politician called Enoch Powell, but despite having around as
>>> much as an estimated 80% of public support in a poll taken at the time
>>> of his speech on immigration, made around 40 years ago, he was vilified
>>> and sacked by the then Tory party leader Edward Heath.
>>
>> I'd love some sort of cite for that 80% figure.
>>
>
> I'm absolutely amazed that 'you' of all people didn't watch the BBC
> 'White' series program on Enoch Powell.
You're taking a popular TV programme as a source of statistics!
I have a bridge for sale...
>> I just love the 'people like you'
> >
>> Who exactly are 'people like me'?
>
>
> The usual suspect Guardian reading Leftie luvvie?
The Guardian!
A Liberal rag.
>>
>>> My own guess is that it will be some sort of meltdown of the global
>>> economy which will be the catalyst which sets it ablaze, it's people of
>>> your myopic take on life over the last 50 odd years who have been a
>>> major part of the problem, instead of attempting to be part of the
>>> solution, IMO you certainly ain't done my grandchildren any favours.
>>
>> As a general rule I don't do other people's grandchildren any favours.
>>
>> That's not what I'm for...
>>
>> The major problem with the movement of people around the globe is that
>> you can't stop it.
>>
>> Lots of people have tried, nobody has yet succeeded.
>>
>> Lots of people have said things like 'This is the end of our society'.
>>
>> Society goes on much as before.
>>
>> There are Daily Mail editorials from a hundred years ago attacking 'the
>> alien menace that stalks our streets'.
>>
>> What they're attacking is the newly arrived fried fish sellers who were
>> driving the pie and mash men out of business.
>>
>> These days it's 'as English as fish and chips', but the last time I was
>> in a fish and chip shop they sold curry sauce as well...
>>
>> Societies change.
>>
>
> But unfortunately it would appear not always for the better.
>
Someone is usually better off.
Life expectancy is going up, infant mortality is going down.
William Black
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:47faad2b$0$93283$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> John wrote:
>
>>
>> "Matthias Warkus" <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote in message
>> news:fta6ep$24qo$1...@news.nnrp.de...
>> > Jaakko Raipala schrieb:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > OK, I'll leave the conservative bickering alone and comment just on
>> > a couple of points...
>> >
>> snip
>> > >
>> > > The problem is not religious as such: the problem groups are
>> > > constantly seen around drinking, ignoring pork taboos and doing a
>> > > lot of un-Islamic things. The problem is that the vast majority
>> > > of these immigrants come from extremely patriarchal cultures that
>> > > are utterly intolerant of other peoples (non-Muslims and often
>> > > other Muslim ethnicities as well) and *that this attitude isn't
>> > > really going away for many of the migrants, even if their pious
>> > > religiosity goes away*.
>> >
>> > You are describing something akin to the sentiment US critics of
>> > immigration had towards Catholics, Eastern Jews and many other
>> > groups of immigrants in the 19th century, BTW.
>> >
>>
>> Wasn't america founded by various flavours of religious zealot?
>
> Only PARTLY. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were the ones
> founded by religious groups from the British Isles. Rhode Island was
> founded later, by people already in North America.
And the planters in Virginia were earlier anyway...
Quadibloc
wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:af4bd6a0-165d-49e4...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 6, 4:42 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Sounds like you don't even have a perceived problem then. When you do
> >> get
> >> one you'll find the politicians change their tune pretty quickly.
>
> > That depends on who is doing the perceiving.
>
> In the UK it's usually the gutter press.
>
> Everyone else is going on about how cheap Polish plumbers are and how good
> Indian food is...
What kind of newspapers are read by the people who work at the same
kinds of jobs that immigrants take? Seems to me that isn't a disproof
of my point.
John Savard
William Black
As a general rule the UK gutter press isn't taken terribly seriously, even
by people who read them every day.
They're treated as an entertainment rather than serious opinion formers.
Plus their circulation is miniscule in terms of the population.
The major opinion formers in the UK are the TV channels, and they're
uniformly 'liberal' in their outlook on immigration.
Quadibloc
> > What kind of newspapers are read by the people who work at the same
> > kinds of jobs that immigrants take? Seems to me that isn't a disproof
> > of my point.
>
> As a general rule the UK gutter press isn't taken terribly seriously, even
> by people who read them every day.
>
> They're treated as an entertainment rather than serious opinion formers.
>
> Plus their circulation is miniscule in terms of the population.
>
> The major opinion formers in the UK are the TV channels, and they're
> uniformly 'liberal' in their outlook on immigration.
TV channels, unlike newspapers, are closely regulated even in
democratic nations.
It would seem you are confusing the opinions that elites think it
desirable to form in the working class with the opinions the working
class actually has.
John Savard
William Black
No.
I'm saying that the UK gutter press isn't indicative of what anyone thinks,
including the journalists who write the stuff.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> I'm saying that the UK gutter press isn't indicative of what anyone thinks,
> including the journalists who write the stuff.
That may be true in some cases as well, but I can think of one group
of people, for example, that does not share the excitement of some
Britons about how cheaply Polish plumbers work.
British plumbers.
If you want to let immigrants into the country, make sure you only do
so when unemployment is at very low levels, and don't let enough in to
disturb that, and then you won't stimulate illiberal responses, and
instead you can peacefully foster the spread of enlightened attitudes
towards different peoples and cultures.
That people's economic self-interest looms large in their politics,
and all the opinion formers on television can't do much about it,
ought to be something so basic and obvious that you would not waste
your breath arguing against it.
John Savard
Jaakko Raipala
> They're treated as an entertainment rather than serious opinion formers.
Yes, of course, the duty of the press is to be an "opinion former". That
stuff about *reporting the news* is just old-fashioned nonsense. What's
really important is giving people the opinions they're supposed to have.
You're just betraying the obvious, yourself. Does someone take, for
example, BBC news seriously? You clearly don't: to you, the purpose of
the media is to be an "opinion former". Accurate or unbiased reporting
is irrelevant: the "serious" press is all about carefully guarding the
scary masses from dangerous facts and crafting their opinions to follow
the wishes of some seld-declared elite. Press that doesn't follow these
elite rules is considered to be "gutter".
What did I say about the left having started to despise the working
class? You're proving it better than I ever could've argued. You have
no interest at all in what the working class actually thinks; you just
assume that it follows the condescending lead of some "opinion forming"
elite media opinion (which just happens to agree with you). You may
imagine that the masses are too stupid to see through "opinion forming",
but that's hardly true and, what should really shake you up, they really
do understand what the likes of you really feel about them.
> The major opinion formers in the UK are the TV channels, and they're
> uniformly 'liberal' in their outlook on immigration.
And nobody takes them seriously. It's more or less the same everywhere.
Essentially nobody takes the Finnish Broadcating Company - a straight
copy from the BBC - seriously: everyone knows it's full of far leftists.
The leftists like to imagine that it is an "opinion former" whose main
purpose is to shield the feared massees from the wrong facts; the feared
masses well know they're being fed worse horseshit than the gutter press
could ever get away with. Nobody believes in it. The leftists know it's
their propaganda, the rightists know it's leftist propaganda.
That's why we're heading towards the American way. The Democrats have
finally been paying the predictable (and, if you ask me, fully deserved)
price for handing over so much power to a self-fashioned elite that
despises its supposed base in the not obscenely rich. They complain
cluelessly why their "opinion forming" media isn't working and why so
many people would rather listen to those right-wingers who actually
don't disrespect the voters with crass attempts to demand the popular
opinion to follow elite formulas as presented in "opinion forming" media.
The obvious prediction is that the European left, too, will begin to
lose votes in the large classes in the native population. They will of
course keep the Marxist professors on their side, but Marxist professors
cannot magically keep the working class by merely insisting that they
follow the condescending lead of their obvious intellectual superiors
even if they're now supporting policies that are detrimental to the
working class. All us rightists have to do is to follow the lead of the
Americans. (Personally, I think I'd make a good right-wing radio host.)
Actually, we can do something even better: the left is eagerly jumping
into an identity coalition with a massively violently homophobic,
anti-Semitic (hell, anti-everything-infidel) and misogynist religion, so
through charismatics with special political assets (like Fortuyn) we can
seize much of their identity base from them. Damn, I wish I was gay.
Jaakko Raipala
> I don't know how many people on this thread outside of the UK have ever
> heard of a politician called Enoch Powell, but despite having around as much
> as an estimated 80% of public support in a poll taken at the time of his
> speech on immigration, made around 40 years ago, he was vilified and sacked
> by the then Tory party leader Edward Heath.
Did you notice me saying that the surest way to predict whether a
politician will be branded "far right" is to check if he has obscenely
popular opinions? That's who I was thinking of.
It sounds like Powell was the most popular man in Britain, at least for
some time, really. Just like Fortuyn was the most popular man in the
Netherlands and... the massive gap between popular will and what we're
actually doing with immigration is something that can't possibly fail to
blow up in the politicians' face.
Unless, of course, we all just learn to get along. Yeah, that's really
likely to happen.
Jaakko Raipala
> "Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> The point isn't the terrorism, the point is that immigrants with desired
>> skills do not automatically assume native attitudes. For anyone who
>> actually does go into terrorism, there are many more who are simply
>> "milder" extremists: they don't perhaps go out killing people, but they
>> feel that it would be a good thing. This is true regardless of the issue:
>> for every skinhead that goes out to beat up gypsies there are many more
>> people that would like to beat up gypsies but don't have the guts to face
>> the law and the shame.
>
> And the majority, who don't want to beat anyone up.
No, there's the majority who generally believe that things would be much
better if we could just boot the gypsies back to where they came from. It
is the clear majority - and that's why there are people in the extremes
who go violently attempting to do something like that (after all, gypsies
have a well-known historical habit of leaving whenever attitudes turn too
violent against them, so the "civil activism" on the issue does have some
chance of success).
Most people wouldn't vote to boot the gypsies from the country (after a
half millenium, that would be a bit excessive and would be a bit of a hit
for the reputation of the country), but most people wouldn't really think
that it's a bad idea, if it could be done. That's the point. If the
*center* of attitudes of the population weren't in nasty territory, the
extremes wouldn't be nearly so nasty.
(Naturally, things wouldn't be this nasty if the gypsies didn't return
the "affection". It's not only the majority.)
> Our experience with Muslims so far is that many even in
>> educated professions would feel offended by, for example, having a
>> female in authority over a male or having to deal with a homosexual.
>
> Then I suggest you widen that experience.
You're getting it the wrong way. I didn't really think that Muslim
immigration would be an issue when the Muslims I had really spoken to
where the Turk who declared that taboos are a bunch of crap, the Tatar
who explained to me that the Arabs are hopeless primitives and the West
should just colonize Arabia and build a McDonald's in Mecca and...
I turned against mass Muslim immigration as I widened my experience.
> In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority ethnic
> groups marry outside that group.
And just what is included in that figure? What counts as a "minority
ethnic group"? Scots who marry Irish?
> People integrate more quickly than you think.
Once again, we've had loads of intermarriage with the gypsies, but it
hasn't helped integration at all. Historically, children from the mixed
marriages have just become either Finns or gypsies depending on choice
and the other community has become inaccessible. We're still two almost
entirely separate societies in the same country after 500 years.
And, once again, I don't really have much against the gypsies: they're
generally not into anything worse than scams and theft and whatever bad
traditions they have generally do not affect the majority population.
Neither of these is true with Muslims. It's just that the gypsies are a
very good example of a group that just doesn't integrate.
>> More the other way around. In fact, the Chinese diaspora seems to have
>> a rather special cultural toolkit for succeeding as a minority: in a lot
>> of places, the Chinese have managed better than the natives and Finland
>> is actually no exception. China is a nasty place, but once you take the
>> Chinese out of China they seem to adapt quickly. Even if they have some
>> not very Western attitudes, they keep them to themselves and do not bomb
>> stuff or fume about how the country must radically change to suit them.
>
> That wasn't what you said originally. The tyrants who run China are a bunch
> of repressive thugs.
You're (intentionally?) misrepresenting me: I never said I give a fuck
about who's ruling China. Politics of the home country is only relevant
in immigration if either the home country tends to shovel support for
bringing radicalism into the target countries (as the oil wealthy Arab
nations do - China doesn't seem likely to do that, especialy now that it
has abandoned belief in communism) or if it includes cultural practices
like executing gays that are popular among the population (then it's just
an indicator that immigrants from such places are not a good idea).
>> India seems to be improving, though. One of the reasons is that India
>> has decided on a wide program to abolish much of the traditional
>> culture.
>
> Not that I've noticed, and I spend most of the winter there...
Sure, they haven't actually managed it. Reforming a place like India
takes time. The difference to Muslims, though, is that they've actually
tried to do something even though India is rather democratic; Muslim
countries are hard to reform even for dictators who have absolute
powers. Some oil wealthy Muslim countries are in fact doing the exact
opposite: they're using the massive oil wealth to preserve an ancient
structure of society that's completely incompatible with modernity, to
get the goodies of modernity without actually accepting modernity.
>> Most Pakistanis are married to their cousins.
>
> No.
Uh, I gave you a link. According to the references, it seems like
they're getting their information from research institutes funded by
the Pakistan government. Are you now going to claim that Pakistan
itself trying to spread some right-wing propaganda about how screwed
up it is? I can probably dig up the articles from the university
library, but that's some effort. Want to make a bet? If there's money
in it, I can do it.
Note that this is also true in immigrant communities. For example, a
trivial Google brings a BBC take on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm
55 % of *British Pakistanis* are married to their cousins! (It's the
BBC, but hey, you can't claim that it's nasty right-wing propaganda.)
I can see how conductive that is to assimilation. They'll probably start
marrying British people at "over 50 %" rates real soon.
>> Is the reason that groups from the highest incidence areas do not tend
>> to fit in that female genital mutilation prevents integration? Partly,
>> yes, as it does make the mingling of females - half of the population -
>> with other groups more difficult, but fundamentally, the issue isn't
>> FGM, it's that it's indicative of a patriarchal, tribal culture that
>> contradicts extremely badly with the most liberal cultures of the world.
>
> But that is a very small minority in Pakistan, but Pakistan is the origin
> of the problem...
FGM? Yes, that's a very small minority in Pakistan - but it's not a
small minority in Eastern Africa. It's an over 90 % majority in many
countries in the region and a majority in many more areas in Africa
(generally Muslim, but not entirely so). Some of these countries have
more population than Britain and with the current rates of growth they
might soon rival all of Europe in population. Those places show no
signs of improving whatsoever, so there's an endless source of utterly
unintegrable refugees and immigrants.
If you want to receive them, go for it. You could take some of the ones
we're already stuck with, too...
William Black
As it happens I actually have a plumber in the house at the moment (we're
having a new kitchen fitted) and I walked through and asked him.
He tells me that the main difference for him is that he no longer works on
building sites as the Poles have reduced pay rates there to levels that are
unsustainable for people who wish to live in the UK in reasonable comfort.
However, he also said that there's no shortage of work on domestic premises,
and hasn't been for some years, as the Poles don't connect with the informal
network (my words, not his) that get small domestic jobs (like mine) done
in the UK. The main difference is that domestic jobs now pay only what the
building site jobs paid and the days of the £1,000 a week plumber have
gone...
That will have to change in time because if the Polish plumbers are going to
be anything but a temporary solution their wages are going to go up to a
level where they can afford housing and a family.
In time the problem should solve itself ...
Charlton Wilbur
JR> Yes, of course, the duty of the press is to be an "opinion
JR> former". That stuff about *reporting the news* is just
JR> old-fashioned nonsense. What's really important is giving
JR> people the opinions they're supposed to have.
[...]
JR> That's why we're heading towards the American way. The
JR> Democrats have finally been paying the predictable (and, if
JR> you ask me, fully deserved) price for handing over so much
JR> power to a self-fashioned elite that despises its supposed
JR> base in the not obscenely rich. They complain cluelessly why
JR> their "opinion forming" media isn't working and why so many
JR> people would rather listen to those right-wingers who actually
JR> don't disrespect the voters with crass attempts to demand the
JR> popular opinion to follow elite formulas as presented in
JR> "opinion forming" media.
That juxtaposition is just precious. You *really* think that Fox News
is presenting anything that could be reasonably described as "unbiased"?
Better that the press think of themselves as "opinion formers" *and
admit it* than that the press think of themselves as "opinion formers"
and conceal it behind the slogan "Fair and Balanced."
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
>
>> They're treated as an entertainment rather than serious opinion formers.
>
> Yes, of course, the duty of the press is to be an "opinion former". That
> stuff about *reporting the news* is just old-fashioned nonsense. What's
> really important is giving people the opinions they're supposed to have.
Have you read the British presss in recent years?
> You're just betraying the obvious, yourself. Does someone take, for
> example, BBC news seriously? You clearly don't: to you, the purpose of
> the media is to be an "opinion former". Accurate or unbiased reporting
> is irrelevant: the "serious" press is all about carefully guarding the
> scary masses from dangerous facts and crafting their opinions to follow
> the wishes of some seld-declared elite. Press that doesn't follow these
> elite rules is considered to be "gutter".
I think you take the power of the media a bit too seriously.
There is very little of the printed press in the UK that can be described as
'serious'.
All the newspapers have a 'point of view'.
> What did I say about the left having started to despise the working
> class? You're proving it better than I ever could've argued. You have
> no interest at all in what the working class actually thinks; you just
> assume that it follows the condescending lead of some "opinion forming"
> elite media opinion (which just happens to agree with you). You may
> imagine that the masses are too stupid to see through "opinion forming",
> but that's hardly true and, what should really shake you up, they really
> do understand what the likes of you really feel about them.
Who are 'the likes of me'?
I'm getting a little bit tired of being categorised as some sort of bleeding
heart liberal with no realistic understanding of the working class.
The reality is that I'm an apprentice trained craftsman who spent many years
working on a production line in a factory and bettered myself through
education, mainly in the evenings after a hard days work in manufacturing
industry.
So stop telling me that I know nothing of what the working classes know and
feel, my calluses aren't from playing the violin...
P. Taine
wrote:
Read "The Island at the Center of the World"
for the way New York developed under the Dutch. Even though Peter Stuyvesant
tried to be a religious zealot he was overruled by the powers that be back in
Amsterdam, and by the local population. The author's thesis is that New York
was the seed from which U.S. multi-culturalism grew. Even if it is an
exaggeration, it's a good story.
P. Taine
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
>
>> "Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>>> The point isn't the terrorism, the point is that immigrants with desired
>>> skills do not automatically assume native attitudes. For anyone who
>>> actually does go into terrorism, there are many more who are simply
>>> "milder" extremists: they don't perhaps go out killing people, but they
>>> feel that it would be a good thing. This is true regardless of the
>>> issue:
>>> for every skinhead that goes out to beat up gypsies there are many more
>>> people that would like to beat up gypsies but don't have the guts to
>>> face
>>> the law and the shame.
>>
>> And the majority, who don't want to beat anyone up.
>
> No, there's the majority who generally believe that things would be much
> better if we could just boot the gypsies back to where they came from.
Im my experience the majority don't give a damn about any form of
immigration as long as there's food on the table and something to watch on
TV and booze isn't too expensive.
As many people in the UH say 'If you want a decent couury you have to put up
with a decent curry chef'
>> In the UK something like 50% of British citizens within the minority
>> ethnic
>> groups marry outside that group.
>
> And just what is included in that figure? What counts as a "minority
> ethnic group"? Scots who marry Irish?
Nope.
They'd all count as 'White British'.
I think the government ethnic groupings are:
White British, Chinese, South Asian, Other Asian, African, White
Other, Other
>> People integrate more quickly than you think.
>
> Once again, we've had loads of intermarriage with the gypsies, but it
> hasn't helped integration at all. Historically, children from the mixed
> marriages have just become either Finns or gypsies depending on choice
> and the other community has become inaccessible. We're still two almost
> entirely separate societies in the same country after 500 years.
Then I suggest that you expand your horizons and enjoy the colourful gypsey
folk arts... :-)
Seriously, If you're still got a problem after 500 years your society has
serious issues.
After 500 years the French Protestants and Jews have just about disapeared.
After less than a century the Anglo_Indians have just about disapeared as
well.
The Hindu community has always been invisible, and they've been the biggest
non European influx into the UK for decades.
>>> India seems to be improving, though. One of the reasons is that India
>>> has decided on a wide program to abolish much of the traditional
>>> culture.
>>
>> Not that I've noticed, and I spend most of the winter there...
>
> Sure, they haven't actually managed it. Reforming a place like India
> takes time.
Apart from the caste thing what exactly have they tried to do?
Mike Schilling
>
> If you want to let immigrants into the country, make sure you only do
> so when unemployment is at very low levels, and don't let enough in to
> disturb that, and then you won't stimulate illiberal responses, and
> instead you can peacefully foster the spread of enlightened attitudes
> towards different peoples and cultures.
Immigrants suck. I mean, if they don't work, they go on welfare. If they
do unskilled jobs, they depress the value of native labor. If they have
skills, they take away good jobs. And since they don't eat, wear clothing,
shop, save, or invest, they produce nothing in return for this parasitism.
Jaakko Raipala
> Im my experience the majority don't give a damn about any form of
> immigration as long as there's food on the table and something to watch on
> TV and booze isn't too expensive.
By that measure, the majority doesn't give a damn about anything.
>> Once again, we've had loads of intermarriage with the gypsies, but it
>> hasn't helped integration at all. Historically, children from the mixed
>> marriages have just become either Finns or gypsies depending on choice
>> and the other community has become inaccessible. We're still two almost
>> entirely separate societies in the same country after 500 years.
>
> Then I suggest that you expand your horizons and enjoy the colourful gypsey
> folk arts... :-)
I would, perhaps, if they actually existed. Gypsies are one of the
groups that get consistently screwed by globalization and in fact things
have gotten *worse* with them ever since the wars. Back then, gypsies
did have places as horse breeders, traders, entertainers and such, but
the car, the electric guitar and the Chinese factory worker killed it all.
But not to worry, multiculturalism is here to save us. I've already seen
the heart-warming spectacle of Finnish skinheads and gypsies working side
by side to beat up Africans.
> Seriously, If you're still got a problem after 500 years your society has
> serious issues.
It's hardly different from the experience with gypsies that pretty much
every other country has. In fact, we have much less trouble than most of
Eastern Europe. There's perhaps some common element in this? Perhaps some
groups really don't integrate well?
No one has really managed to deal with a large number of gypsies - well,
except with the Holocaust thing, of course. Booting them out works, too.
We got the gypsies from the Swedes who just happened to decide to settle
them in Finnish areas (while they banned Jews from settling in Finnish
areas - one of the gazillions of "great" deals the Swedes gave us).
norrin
> William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> kirjoitti:
>
> > The current Muslim terrorist menace is a sight less of a problem than the
> > previous Irish terrorist menace...
>
> Perhaps, but the Irish terrorist menace was simply all about a single
> used to think that it was all about Israel and America's silly wars in
> the Middle East, but then you keep hearing of things like this:
>
> http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/canada_terrorist_plot.htm
>
> If Canadians, the notorious Zionists, are bad enough to be beheaded in
> their own country, then surely vigorous fascists like the Swedes and
> oppressive imperialists like the Swiss are not immune either. Strangely,
> plots like this tend to get rather little attention in the press -
> likely because the beheading of a Prime Minister of a rather peaceful
> and obsessively multicultural country would raise a lot of questions.
>
> > Sounds like you don't even have a perceived problem then. When you do get
> > one you'll find the politicians change their tune pretty quickly.
>
> we're just launching a state assault on immigration critical thought,
> copied straight from Sweden. We're doing everything from having the
> courts shut down immigration critical web sites on the net on some
> charges of "racism" to censoring immigrant crime statistics. (We have
> an obvious problem, so let's just cover it up! That will make the people
> less paranoid about immigration.)
>
> Things may look less worrying in the anglospheric world with its much
> firmer traditions of liberty, especially in America with its miraculous
> constitutional protections, but there is simply no freedom in most of
> continental Europe. Of course, authoritarianism breeds authoritarianism
> and the state assault on dissidents inevitably produces people like Le
> Pen. When you've made immigration critical thinking a borderline crime,
> you shouldn't be surprised to find borderline criminals the only people
> willing to speak about the issue - which also happens to be a real vote
> gainer for the politicians who actually dare speak about the issue.
You say you're a borderline criminal? Or maybe you shouldn't
be charged because you're a victim of your own borderline
personality disorder.
> That's the path much of Europe is on: we're letting the "it's all just
> going to be fine and questioning anything makes you a nasty bigot" crowd
> dominate and as that naivete leads us to the inevitable disaster, we're
> finding the nasty bigots to cancel the disaster with another disaster.
>
How do I know you're not a nasty bigot, or a dog?
Jaakko Raipala
> JR> That's why we're heading towards the American way. The
> JR> Democrats have finally been paying the predictable (and, if
> JR> you ask me, fully deserved) price for handing over so much
> JR> power to a self-fashioned elite that despises its supposed
> JR> base in the not obscenely rich. They complain cluelessly why
> JR> their "opinion forming" media isn't working and why so many
> JR> people would rather listen to those right-wingers who actually
> JR> don't disrespect the voters with crass attempts to demand the
> JR> popular opinion to follow elite formulas as presented in
> JR> "opinion forming" media.
>
> That juxtaposition is just precious. You *really* think that Fox News
> is presenting anything that could be reasonably described as "unbiased"?
Well from what I've seen we have nothing even close to being so fair and
balanced. A channel like Fox News would be probably banned here (I wish
Murdoch tried expanding to Europe - he'd have the resources to fight the
censorship or at least the capability to bring some major attention to it).
Like I said, things look much less worrying in English-speaking nations
and especially with American protections for free speech, but continental
Europe is just as authoritarian as it ever was - it's just that now we're
authoritarian in the name of anti-racism. That sounds good to many people,
but when the actual consequence is shutting down almost the entire debate
on an issue with extremely far-reaching consequences and vilifying even
benign opinions that are held by a majority of the population, it's just
clear that we're setting ourselves up for a fascist response. (Of course
once we swing to that direction, we'll similarily use the authoritarian
machinery to shut up liberal voices. Lack of freedom always amplifies the
nastiness of the political fashions, regardless of the fashions.)
> Better that the press think of themselves as "opinion formers" *and
> admit it* than that the press think of themselves as "opinion formers"
> and conceal it behind the slogan "Fair and Balanced."
Exactly who really buys the "fair and balanced" bit? If we had a good,
moral channel with the same high quality and ethical standards, I'd have a
lot of fun rubbing it in the face of the left who has been rubbing its
media domination in our faces for far too long. Perhaps Americans find it
just as delightful when the medicine man has to taste his own elixir.
Ivan
>>> Societies change.
>>>
>> But unfortunately it would appear not always for the better.
>>
> Someone is usually better off.
>
> Life expectancy is going up, infant mortality is going down.
>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7336336.stm>
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <raip...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> Pen. When you've made immigration critical thinking a borderline crime,
>> you shouldn't be surprised to find borderline criminals the only people
>> willing to speak about the issue - which also happens to be a real vote
>> gainer for the politicians who actually dare speak about the issue.
>
> You say you're a borderline criminal? Or maybe you shouldn't
Of course not. I'm not a politician.
> be charged because you're a victim of your own borderline
> personality disorder.
I admit to many personality disorders, but not the borderline one, sorry.
> How do I know you're not a nasty bigot, or a dog?
Unfortunately for you, I'm non-white, so I cannot be a bigot and you
wouldn't dare call me a dog (unless you also have non-white privileges,
of course).
William Black
> Unfortunately for you, I'm non-white, so I cannot be a bigot
Put the name Bal Thackeray in your search engine and learn all about a bigot
who is very 'non white'.
William Black
(I wish
> Murdoch tried expanding to Europe - he'd have the resources to fight the
> censorship or at least the capability to bring some major attention to
> it).
You mean you can't get Sky TV in Finland?
You may need a steerable dish but you should be able to pick it up.
Sky news is available on Freeview in the UK
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fteahq$gn7$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:65vk9sF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>
>
>>>> Societies change.
>>>>
>>> But unfortunately it would appear not always for the better.
>>>
>> Someone is usually better off.
>>
>> Life expectancy is going up, infant mortality is going down.
>>
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7336336.stm>
>
Gene Ward Smith
>> How do I know you're not a nasty bigot, or a dog?
>
> Unfortunately for you, I'm non-white, so I cannot be a bigot...
If you aren't white, why did you say you wished you were gay? Are you that
greedy for minority status?
Michael Stemper
>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:72fb17a4-7833-446a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> instead you can peacefully foster the spread of enlightened attitudes
>> towards different peoples and cultures.
>
>Immigrants suck. I mean, if they don't work, they go on welfare. If they
>do unskilled jobs, they depress the value of native labor. If they have
>skills, they take away good jobs. And since they don't eat, wear clothing,
>shop, save, or invest, they produce nothing in return for this parasitism.
Well said!
Too bad that's too long for a sig-quote.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in
>> become the champion of the non-white poor and is
>> increasingly open about its loathing of the white poor
>
> Stick to Finland and don't bother trying to tell me about
> California.
No way. If you guys get to have your language as the global lingua
franca, then you deserve to pay for it through the indignity of having
your society exposed for all the world to see. If I'm wrong on some
point, I would be really grateful if you could point it out to me,
seeing that you're obviously better positioned to be informed on facts
(although obviously less well positioned to ignore the taboos of your
own society).
The point I really like to make is that the domination of liberalism on
issues such as ethnicity/race and Third World immigration is a very new
thing and no one knows whether it will actually last. The one certainty
is that anyone who thinks that its continued dominance is either
inevitably doomed or inevitably fated to continue is clearly taking an
ideological stand, not a reasoned position. Unfortunately, for two
groups supposedly interested in the future and so full of smart people,
the posters here tend to be badly blinded by the Zeitgeist, unable to
even reflect on the question of whether liberalism is permanent (I hope
not, but it may still be; I'm not too ideological to assume that it's
doomed, although I'm certain that it will still be strongly challenged).
One of the questions to ask in this is just how genuine liberalism is.
These days, it's bad to be racist and good to show your non-racism with
support for immigration or whatever. That attracts people who are not
genuine liberals but simply like to use it to boost their status and
good, non-racist image, so obviously the actual level of support the
liberals can count on in a truly tight spot (that is, when people would
actually have to make real sacrifices) is not as great as the number of
people who publically espouse liberal values. How big is the difference?
One way to gauge is to look at what people are doing instead of saying.
Do those wealthy liberal whites in California who espouse "diversity"
actually live in areas with lots of Mexican immigrants, perhaps of even
questionable legality, or do you have those gated communities where the
obligatory diversity is made up of Asian immigrants and perhaps Mexicans
who are considered good enough to mow the lawns of wealthy whites but
are mostly not good enough to be allowed in after dark? I mean, I've
never been to California, so I don't know this at all, I'm just guessing
based on the groups that I know to exist around there. So how is it? Do
the liberals practice what they preach? Is all of liberalism genuine? Is
most of liberalism genuine? Is any of liberalism genuine?
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in
>>> How do I know you're not a nasty bigot, or a dog?
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, I'm non-white, so I cannot be a bigot...
>
> If you aren't white, why did you say you wished you were gay?
I want to be in a minority. This thread has had comments from at least
British, German and American people and the respectable race scientists
of all these nations classified us as Mongoloids. We've spent a century
lobbying to be considered white and what good did it do to us? When we
finally got there, it was no longer cool to be white. Actually, if you
happen to be white, you're personally fucked in most countries and even
if you stay in your own country you have to fight foreigners who insist
that your nation should self-destruct to prove itself not racist.
China will rule the world one day. I say we desert the white race and
join ranks with the winner. (Modern race scientists, BTW, are finding
the classification surprisingly accurate: most Finns indeed have Asian
paternal lineages. And I have about half of the fold in one eye.) It's
just a nice side effect that then we'd have an excuse to run the most
sensible immigration policy (ie. to accept mainly fellow North Asians -
we can't ruin the racial composition of the nation, you see).
> Are you that greedy for minority status?
Yes.
Jaakko Raipala
> "Jaakko Raipala" <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> (I wish
>> Murdoch tried expanding to Europe - he'd have the resources to fight the
>> censorship or at least the capability to bring some major attention to
>> it).
>
> You mean you can't get Sky TV in Finland?
Oh *me*? I gave up TV when they stopped showing free porn. I just wish
we'd have more "opinion forming" right-wing media.
> You may need a steerable dish but you should be able to pick it up.
I live in an apartment building and they're not going to install a
satellite dish just because I'd want to watch Fox News. (I'm not sure
whether even that would work very well - the satellites directed at the
UK miss Finland pretty badly. Back further in the north, we needed some
pretty ridiculous dishes to get even the ones aimed at Central Europe.)
Gene Ward Smith
> One way to gauge is to look at what people are doing instead of saying.
> Do those wealthy liberal whites in California who espouse "diversity"
> actually live in areas with lots of Mexican immigrants...
Who the hell do you think does their lawn? Who cleans their house? They don't
live where they live, they live where they work.
norrin
> norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti:
>
> > Jaakko Raipala <raip...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >> Pen. When you've made immigration critical thinking a borderline crime,
> >> you shouldn't be surprised to find borderline criminals the only people
> >> willing to speak about the issue - which also happens to be a real vote
> >> gainer for the politicians who actually dare speak about the issue.
>
> > You say you're a borderline criminal? Or maybe you shouldn't
>
> Of course not. I'm not a politician.
>
How is what you wrote not a political statement? Why do you think
all borderline criminals are politicians?
Gene Ward Smith
>> If you aren't white, why did you say you wished you were gay?
>
> I want to be in a minority. This thread has had comments from at least
> British, German and American people and the respectable race scientists
> of all these nations classified us as Mongoloids.
If you are an ethnic Finn, you are white, like other Finno-Ugric groups such as
Hungarians and Estonians.
Get a brain.
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in
>> One way to gauge is to look at what people are doing instead of saying.
>> Do those wealthy liberal whites in California who espouse "diversity"
>> actually live in areas with lots of Mexican immigrants...
>
> Who the hell do you think does their lawn? Who cleans their house? They don't
> live where they live, they live where they work.
I don't think even the poorest illegals are unable to commute to another
neighbourhood. Do you suppose, say, that wherever it is that those really
big Hollywood stars who keep telling all of us in the rest of the world
how wonderful diversity is live in neighbourhoods that accurately reflect
the diversity of California?
Yeah yeah, they probably have mansions big enough to have a few servants
actually living there, so perhaps they do have diversity technically
living in the neighbourhood. That's just an argument towards *my*
point: they'll like "diversity" as long as it only means the selected,
fireable maids and gardeners who they can order around, as long as the
rest of "diversity" is fenced out - that is, as long as diversity isn't
*really* diversity. Would they like diversity as much if they'd have to
accept immigrants without controls (ie. the job they can be fired from)
on how the immigrants act? That is, do they actually like diversity?
Of course not. They like those immigrants who obey and do what the boss
tells them to do, not immigrants who do their own thing and actually do
bring some diversity of habits into the places they move into.
Gene Ward Smith
* Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> kirjoitti:
*
don't
>> live where they live, they live where they work.
>
> I don't think even the poorest illegals are unable to commute to another
It would help if you bothered to read what you are replying to.
* Do you suppose, say, that wherever it is that those really
> big Hollywood stars who keep telling all of us in the rest of the world
> how wonderful diversity is live in neighbourhoods that accurately reflect
> the diversity of California?
It's probably more diverse than Finland. As for your immigrant problem,
California has a much higher percentage just of the illegal immigrants than
Finland does of immigrants of all kinds. It doesn't seem to have lead to
the apocalypse.
> Of course not. They like those immigrants who obey and do what the boss
> tells them to do, not immigrants who do their own thing and actually do
> bring some diversity of habits into the places they move into.
Excuuuuuse me, but people who do lawns and clean houses are working in a
small business area, doing their own thing. The boss most likely shares
their ethnicity.
Jaakko Raipala
>> I want to be in a minority. This thread has had comments from at least
>> British, German and American people and the respectable race scientists
>> of all these nations classified us as Mongoloids.
>
> If you are an ethnic Finn, you are white, like other Finno-Ugric groups such as
> Hungarians and Estonians.
So race isn't a social construct? I'm so disappointed. However, you're
rather misguided on the Finno-Ugrics. Here are some pictures of Selkups:
http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=157&cat=Selkup
...Khantys:
http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=154&cat=Khanty
and so on. All Finno-Ugric peoples except Hungarians look clearly like
Caucasoid-Mongoloid hybrids, with variety on which part looks greater.
(The Hungarian exception is not surprising as we know they are made up
of an elite imposition of a Finno-Ugric migrant culture on the European
locals.) Any ethnic Finn is at least partly Mongoloid. This is also
obvious from the genetic testing, eg. something simply Googlable (the
chart on the Volga looks like it's for the remaining Finnic groups there):
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF
We are most definitely not Western Europeans, or any typical Europeans
at all.
The N lineage in Europe appears only in the historically associated
Finnic and Turkic peoples and peoples who have assimilated significant
numbers of Finnic or Turkic peoples: Balts, Scandinavians, northern
Slavs... The particular sublineage that dominates Finland is actually
only found as a majority in some Finnic peoples and... drumroll... the
Yakuts. The N lineage itself links us mainly with Siberians and some
northern native Americans, not Europeans. On a more ancient level, the
closest branch to our lineage is now the dominant paternal lineage in
China, Korea and much of southeast Asia, unquestionably linking a major
part of our ancestry with a mutation event that happened somewhere near
what's now southeastern China.
So, yes, a very non-trivial part of our ancestry took the route around
the Himalayas, through India, Indochina and China and from there towards
Europe. Why remain with the whites when we have a clear connection with
the better race?
This, of course, is something interesting for the future of the whole
world: we are likely to find a lot of interesting things buried in the
genetics and that is likely to spark a lot of new thoughts in ethnicity
and race, just like the developments in archeology and linguistics were
partly responsible for sparking the nationalisms of the romantic era.
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> kirjoitti:
>> If you are an ethnic Finn, you are white, like other Finno-Ugric groups
such as
>> Hungarians and Estonians.
>
* So race isn't a social construct? I'm so disappointed.
It is, and if you come to California you will be socially constructed into
"white".
* However, you're
> rather misguided on the Finno-Ugrics. Here are some pictures of Selkups:
>
> http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=157&cat=Selkup
Looks like a bunch of white people from here.
> ...Khantys:
>
> http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=154&cat=Khanty
The blond, blue-eyed kid makes your case especially strongly. There's one
picture of someone who, if he were an American and told me he was 1/8th
American Indian, I'd believe him.
But in general, whiter than say southern Italy or Spain. Sorry if that bursts
your bubble.
> and so on. All Finno-Ugric peoples except Hungarians look clearly like
* Caucasoid-Mongoloid hybrids, with variety on which part looks greater.
Not to me. Just from appearance, I would say the "Mongoloid" portion wasn't
much. And what, exactly, was the genetic background of the Uralic people who
presumably carried these genes?
Jaakko Raipala
> Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote in
> * So race isn't a social construct? I'm so disappointed.
>
> It is, and if you come to California you will be socially constructed into
> "white".
If most Californian whites came to Finland, they would be considered
black or some other not at all white thing. Who gets to decide? Most
Finns? Most Californians? Why not me? (One of my most hilarious
experiences with this was with some French exchange students in my old
home town that had like 3 foreigners. A local multicultist leftie
started rapturously talking to them about how much she admires Nelson
Mandela and other anti-racist heroes of "your people". As likely 100 %
authentic Gauls or something, they got a little confused.)
> * However, you're
>> rather misguided on the Finno-Ugrics. Here are some pictures of Selkups:
>>
>> http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=157&cat=Selkup
>
> Looks like a bunch of white people from here.
I guess Mongolia is another white country to you, too (in fact, the
range of Finno-Ugric languages stops just short of Mongolia, so we're
practically neighbours).
>> ...Khantys:
>>
>> http://foto.ravna.no/shopdisplayproducts_thumb.asp?id=154&cat=Khanty
>
> The blond, blue-eyed kid makes your case especially strongly. There's one
> picture of someone who, if he were an American and told me he was 1/8th
> American Indian, I'd believe him.
I fail to see your point. Mongoloids are generally no darker than most
Caucasoids. The Caucasoid race, if defined by facial features and
skeletal structure, ranges from Ireland to approximately Bangladesh,
and it is on average much darker than the Mongoloid race. Oh and actual
Caucasians are clearly darker than actual Mongolians. Our paleness is
simply in line with our non-whiteness, as the Mongoloid race is paler
than the white race. In fact, Finns, the blondest of Mongoloids, are
blonder than any white group. The only white peoples that can rival our
blondeness are in fact the clearly Mongoloid-influenced Scandinavians,
northern Slavs and Balts (who all have much obvious Finnic admixture, so
it's not surprising if they are very blonde and a bit Mongoloid).
Including us in the whites on the assumption that the whites should have
the palest group is just circular reasoning.
Note, BTW, that many of the genes responsible for skin lightening (after
those of us who became Eurasians left Africa) have already been found and
there are different mutations for lightness in Mongoloids and Caucasoids,
except, of course, Finns: in us, *both* Asian and European lightness genes
are common. I'm not a biologist, but it seems like an obvious possibility
that some of the exceptional lightness in the Baltics could actually be a
consequence of Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixing and some subsequent selection for
lightness. (That's something that will certainly surprise some people who
aren't informed in genetics: the result of race mixing will not be a beige
people, it will be much greater diversity - and assortative mating will be
able to create all sorts of funny associations with position in society.)
> Not to me. Just from appearance, I would say the "Mongoloid" portion wasn't
> much. And what, exactly, was the genetic background of the Uralic people who
> presumably carried these genes?
Nobody knows for sure, but if you ask me, they were likely an in-between
population (as all Finno-Ugric groups except Hungarians clearly are). We
can't even agree on where they lived. The one thing we do know is that
they were in contact with the proto-Indo-European people and thus likely
looked similar, but then, no one knows what the proto-Indo-Europeans
looked like, either.
However, the proto-Uralic (and because of that also likely the proto-IE
people) clearly did have Asian admixture (it's just not known whether
they were "pure" Asians), as they clearly did have the paternal lineage
that is found in all Uralic-speaking peoples and links us all to some
population in southern China. But then, we don't really know what that
population looked like, either, as that linkage is tens of thousands of
years in the past and such ancient Asians might've not looked the same.
Thus I'm free to socially construct whatever I wish. Isn't that great?
Gene Ward Smith
> If most Californian whites came to Finland, they would be considered
> black or some other not at all white thing.
Lots of blonds in California, fella. I'm a typical white Californian, to the
rather small extent there is such a thing. Ancestry is half Swedish, and the
rest assorted other northern European. There are all kinds of different
cookies in this particular cookie jar.
Gene Ward Smith
> One of my most hilarious
> experiences with this was with some French exchange students in my old
> home town that had like 3 foreigners. A local multicultist leftie
> started rapturously talking to them about how much she admires Nelson
> Mandela and other anti-racist heroes of "your people". As likely 100 %
> authentic Gauls or something, they got a little confused.
By the way, this doesn't help to support your thesis about how non-white
Finns are.
Gene Ward Smith
> I fail to see your point. Mongoloids are generally no darker than most
> Caucasoids. The Caucasoid race, if defined by facial features and
> skeletal structure, ranges from Ireland to approximately Bangladesh,
> and it is on average much darker than the Mongoloid race.
Sez you. For some strange reason, actual scientists have given up on this
gibberish anyway. As you say, it is indeed a social construction.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
Immigrants do eat and wear clothing - so they send money off to China
for the clothing, another problem.
As you point out, immigrants are just people. Like everyone else, they
work if they can, and they spend the money they earn to live.
But the problem is that we don't need more people. We want to be able
to have our own children. When there is a job available, we don't want
people competing for it who are willing to work harder for less pay.
We want wages up and rents down. More people crowding in to the
country makes it the other way around.
If immigration were controlled to a reasonable level, so that there
would be no real effect on the economy, and the economy was doing well
with very low unemployment, then there would be no problem. But when
the government allows enough immigrants in to affect wages in some
lines of work, at a time when unemployment is not very, very low, it
is just asking to stir up racial bigotry. If they were sincere in
their wish to make racial bigotry only an ugly thing of the distant
past, they would know better than to follow such a counter-productive
policy.
But, no, they are really following policies that are of economic
advantage to the rich, and which let them then pat themselves on the
back at how much more enlightened they are than the people from whom
they are stealing the country to give it to cheaper labor to serve
them.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
>
> But the problem is that we don't need more people. We want to be able
> to have our own children. When there is a job available, we don't want
> people competing for it who are willing to work harder for less pay.
> We want wages up and rents down. More people crowding in to the
> country makes it the other way around.
Except for the ones that are helping to build houses, because that makes
rents go down. Oh, now I get it. The immigrants caused the sub-prime mess,
didn't they?
Christopher Adams
>
> But the problem is that we don't need more people. We want to be able
> to have our own children. When there is a job available, we don't want
> people competing for it who are willing to work harder for less pay.
> We want wages up and rents down. More people crowding in to the
> country makes it the other way around.
There is evidence that, in California, immigrants actually drive wages *up*
for native-born workers, who end up in supervisory or at least more senior
roles because, you know, they speak English like a native and probably
finished at least some high school.
I also think it's very interesting that people who oppose immigration
generally would also bitch and moan about higher prices for everything when
wages go up to compensate for the lack of workers willing to work for less.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
Christopher Adams
>
> China will rule the world one day. I say we desert the white race and
> join ranks with the winner.
How about you stop thinking about the world in terms of invented races, you
loser?
William December Starr
Jaakko Raipala <rai...@pcu.helsinki.fi> said:
> Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> kirjoitti:
>
>> Stick to Finland and don't bother trying to tell me about
>> California.
>
> No way. If you guys get to have your language as the global
> lingua franca,
Please tell me you did that on purpose.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>