Search Box

Monday, September 7, 2015

Needed -- a new Berlin Wall

Except, instead of dividing Berlin, it should stretch across the Greek and Bulgarian borders with Turkey. It needn't be the eyesore that that old monolith was. They could model it on the barbed wire fences Israel has surrounding its territory, which seem quite effective.

The more one reads of the Muslims pouring into Europe from Syria, the more it seems that Syria's neighbors -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, and Iran -- should take them in. (Why aren't they?) Even Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are geographically closer than Germany and France:


After all, those are Muslim countries, so having more Muslims in them should, in theory, prove less disruptive.

In the absence of a wall, all the European host countries -- like Austria and Germany -- should say that they'll willingly take in refugees only when Israel, Syria's next door neighbor, accepts them as well.

And, in the absence of a wall, all of these non-Muslim countries should make every immigrant renounce Sharia law, clitoridectomy, terrorism, and jihad before they are allowed in. They should also swear an oath of support for education for girls, and equal rights for homosexuals.

If they don't agree to these things, they should be turned back at the border.

Otherwise, the melting pot just becomes a time bomb.

This would probably just result in a lot of liars being let in, but it would at least give these countries a good excuse to deport any immigrants who showed any inclination to violate those oaths.

But, frankly, the best solution would be simply to not let them in in the first place.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ha ha -- more like "Needed: Crusaders."

Taking the long view, Muslims/Eastern invaders have periodically tried to "take" Europe. They invaded Spain in the 8th century and were successful during the Ottoman Empire, famously coming as far as the "Gates of Vienna."

This is simply the latest incarnation. No less than Gaddafi pointed out that true military invasions are unnecessary thanks to demographics. And that was almost ten years ago.

At the rate we are going, Europe will be lost in our lifetime. Because not only are Europeans not repulsing the forces, they are welcoming them with open arms.

Remember what the Taliban did to those giant Buddhas in Afghanistan?

Now might be a good time to visit the castles and cathedrals of NW Europe if you haven't yet.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I don't want Crusaders who'll go down to the Middle East and convert the heathens to Christianity; I'm only asking for Europe to defend itself. (I realize you were joking.)

Your comparison of the Europe which eventually repulsed the Muslims back then to the Europe which is greeting its new conquerors with open arms highlights how sick the West has become. it is enveloped in self-hatred which is both masochistic and self-destructive. The propaganda from the Left has basically been Europe's HIV virus.

Mark Caplan said...

The European leadership is living up to its billing as the Greatest Degeneration.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha! Hadn't heard that one before.

Anonymous said...

The German population is divided when it comes to the mass immigration. On one side there are euphoric supporters of the whole thing that welcome the so called "refugees" with open arms. Some of these people are actually willing to drive people from Budapest to Germany with their own cars.

On the other side there is a big group of people that is very afraid. They rightfully feel that the whole mass immigration will ruin their life. If I talk to my coworkers most of them are worried but they also wouldn’t express their worries in a harsh way because no one wants to be called a Nazi (and lose their job).

What amazes me the most is, how rapid the whole thing is progressing. I work in a city with 250.000 citizens and within the last 6 months I could see more and more refugees in the streets. There are several places where they are either building new houses or recycling unused places for the refugees (which is a big business by the way, people with houses no one wants can lease them to the government and they will pay above the market price for it).
That the change is so rapid is good in my opinion because it makes it impossible to hide it. As soon as the real cost of immigration become more obvious. Many Germans feel that they were betrayed by their elite. They will understand that those invaders don’t come to work here and finance the pensions of the aging population (most politicians over here try to sell it to the people that way).

The financial costs are already gigantic and will sharply rise if this continues. An average refugee cost about 24.000 euro per year. This year alone this will put an additional 20 – 40 billion euro on the budget (and of course every following year). Some politicians already talk about raising taxes. Which is especially nice in a country where taxes for most working people are already over 50 % (I count the obligatory health insurance and social insurances as taxes).

With the millions that follow soon public spending will be seriously crippled. And a lot of the leftist luxuries we are having now (hundreds of gender professors at public universities for example) won’t be sustainable anymore. Another thing that has to be taken into account is that our old immigrants don’t like the new immigrants because they understand very well that it will destroy their benefits too (there are some nice cases where so called “Germans” (Turkish immigrants) attacked refugees).

- Sebastian

John Craig said...

Sebastian --
You've just outlined the economic case against immigrants perfectly. They'll be a huge burden, and all Germans, including the other slightly less recent immigrants -- as you point out -- will have to pay. And this, in a Continent which was already stretched to the brink because by the Greek debt crisis, and in a slow economy.

But the costs in social upheaval will be huge too. Look at the riots which have occurred on the outskirts of Paris. Look at the group rapes and prostituting of all those English girls in Rothertham, which the local authorities were afraid to speak out against because of fear of being accused of racism. Look at the honor killings which take place in the Muslim world. Look at the murder of that Dutch politician who dared to speak out against them.

Of all the countries in Europe, Germany is probably the most hamstrung by the prohibition against free speech because of its Nazi past. It's unfortunate, because that i effect makes it in a way the most helpless against the onslaught of these kinds of immigrants.

Even in American, where we theoretically have free speech (although true honestly can cause you to lose your job here too), there's been absolutely no one asking, why aren't these Muslim refugees going to other neighboring Muslim countries?

Mark Caplan said...

Even after all these decades, Germans still don't recognize when they are in the grip of yet another mass psychosis. German mass psychosis nearly destroyed Europe in the '30s and '40s. Then, like today, a few Germans kept their sanity and feared for their nation and themselves. But the vast majority of Germans got swept away by their delusions.

It wouldn't surprise me if German women rushed to clinics to get their genitals mutilated to render themselves less offensive to Muslims. For the same reason, gay German men will leap ecstatically from fifth-floor balconies. The German isn't into halfway measures.

https://goo.gl/Q7xQss

Anonymous said...

HI John,

That was me, Gardner, the first anonymous. I thought I had printed my name.

I agree that a continent full of fundamentalist Christians sounds awful.

I am an atheist, so it it is not my own personal religious agenda that I am promoting when I suggest it may be the Christians who rise. But we have to ask ourselves, why do people fight? For what?

A cause, a country, God, something.

Many, if not most people, in Europe are secular humanists: as John Lennon once sang, imagine no religion too. Fighting for your "race" is out of the question, for obvious reasons.

To maintain your "culture"? Perhaps this is something people can rally around. But this is a tough one. Can anyone join your "culture"? That is a giant loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through, as one of my favorite editors used to say.

As an atheist it pains me to say this, but the rejection of Christianity may be the key cornerstone of what dooms the West.

-Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
I actually thought that sounded like you, and I wondered if it was, and if you had forgotten to sign your name. I'm with you on the religion front, I fall somewhere between atheist and agnostic.

But why is fighting for one's race any worse than fighting for a country or a God? People fight for their race all over the world. Or, even more frequently, their ethnicity. The Cypriots vs. the Turks, the Turks vs. the Armenians, the Chechnyans vs. everybody, the Tamils vs. the Singhalese in Sri Lanka, etc, etc. Israel is a country founded as a home for a certain ethnicity, and all of its conflicts -- some of which it has cleverly gotten the US to fight for it -- are based on ethnic conflict. Even when the titular cause is religion, often when you look at it closely, it's really one ethnicity vs. another.

In this country, many of the major conflicts boil down to race, though that "war" is being fought in isolated individual incidents all over the country. And blacks and Hispanics are very vocal about what they are fighting about and for, it's only whites who called evil for talking straightforwardly about their interests as a race, even as their percentage of the population is rapidly shrinking. (I don't think you disagree with me about any of this.)

But I agree with your larger point, which is that given the inability of whites to speak out in their own interest, the only thing holding them together as a people was their religion, and as that religion's grip has weakened, so has their identity as a people. Still, though, what they need is not more supernatural religious mysticism but a sense of their history and their ethnic interests. Instead of being taught that they should be ashamed of who they are -- as if they're the only group who ever practiced warfare and colonialism and slavery -- they should be taught to be proud. It's that teaching that they should be ashamed that I referred to as Europe's HIV virus.

Anonymous said...

John I agree with you on the tremendous social cost mass immigration puts on Germany (and every other western nation). But these costs will change the social mood in the long run. Even the very radical left wing people don’t like get see their children get raped and their benefits cut (I know some people that advocated women quotas in the past but hate them now because some women got the jobs they wanted :-)).

What Mark explains is true, although I would disagree with him on the percentages. The majority is _not_ euphoric about mass immigration. They just don't see a way to change it without risking too much (very much like in most other western nations). There is also big group (maybe 5 %) of people that loves mass immigration and would happily commit national suicide with it. But that is nowhere the majority.

An important part of the German soul is to do stuff "right". Which often means to go to the extremes. This can be good when you want to organize something like an industry or even a country. But it can be destructive when you fight a war that was long years ago. Or when in our current case when you let millions of immigrants in.

Nonetheless when the social mood changes (I'm optimistic it will) then the reaction will most likely be extreme too. I have little trouble to imagine civil war like in Serbia for Germany (just better organized).

In that case our elite started their own downfall with their foolish politics.

-Sebastian

Quartermain said...

First a quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

You can make of this what you will, but I do believe that this mess and others are caused by corrupt or treasonous "elites".

John Craig said...

Allan --
All so true.

Steven said...

"After all, those are Muslim countries, so having more Muslims in them should, in theory, prove less disruptive."


You'd think so but I think there are so many sectarian and ethnic divisions in the middle east that that's not necessarily the case.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-04/why-don-t-gulf-states-accept-more-refugees-


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34173139

Anonymous said...

I agree with Quartermain's comment, appreciating the quote that was in the body of his comment - our country is being toppled from within, by corrupt, dishonest, greedy, conniving lawbreakers (traitors). My personal opinion (basing this on my Christian beliefs) is that what is occurring in our times is a result of spiritual forces at play. Negative changes are coming at a faster pace it seems. As a nation, it is our right to have boundaries that we enforce (immigration laws), keeping unwanted illegal immigrants out of our country. However, our country is being tanked because we have more liberal mindsets (versus conservative mindsets) at the top, implementing their agenda on our nation, wreaking havoc upon we the people.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, I'm familiar with the various conflicts within the Arab world. The entire ISIS fight so far has been Sunni vs. Shiite. But I think a lot of it also has to do with how hardheaded, vs. soft-hearted, the countries are. The northwestern European countries all tend to be bleeding hearts who feel it's their duty to take in refugees no matter what the effect on the host country is. Whereas the other Arab countries seem to be looking at the situation with a much more hardheaded, or, if you will, hard-hearted attitude.

The other thing that is striking about so many of these refugees is that they think they can move to the host country and not make the slightest changes in their own culture, in fact the host country should adapt to their (Muslim) culture. It's an incredibly self-indulgent attitude, one which rubs me very much the wrong way, hence the post above.

Shaun F said...

John - do you remember the movie Scarface with Al Pacino? How Cuba dumped a large portion of their criminals and deviants in the form of "refugees" into Miami in the late 1970s. Which greatly increased the amount of drug running and organized crime. This would be a government sound policy if the government could administer it. Two bad apples for every say eight legitimate refugees. In places like England, France and Germany back in 88, there was a fairly pronounced resentment towards certain undesirables from foreign countries.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
Yes, I remember both Scarface and the Marielista boat lift, Fidel's gift to us in 1980. He was kind enough to send us all of the incorrigible sociopaths from his jails. Yes, it's a sound policy if you're the one doing the deporting. Accepting these undesirables is a whole different matter, though. Another good reason not to accept "refugees."

Steven said...

The gulf states, the ones that are coming under criticism for not taking any Syrian refugees, are taking a hard headed attitude like you said.

A few of the Muslim countries near Syria have taken by far the most refugees.

Lebanon: 1.1 million (Lebanon's population is 4.5 million)
Jordan: says it has taken 1.4 million, UN counts 629,000. (Jordan pop: 6.4 million)
Turkey: 1.9 million Syrians. (pop: 74 million)

I suppose these countries didn't have a lot of choice, although I read that Jordan prides itself on taking refugees.

Not sure what the situation with Iran is...I guess they wont take Sunni refugees and aren't most Syrians Sunni?

150,000 Syrians have declared asylum in the EU, which has a population of 500 million. There will be more of course.

......

"The other thing that is striking about so many of these refugees is that they think they can move to the host country and not make the slightest changes in their own culture, in fact the host country should adapt to their (Muslim) culture."

They've been here a very short time and are probably not even settled yet...they have a culture of course...so what changes should they make to their culture? What evidence is there that they are demanding the host country adapts to their culture? What would that even be?


Don't get me wrong, I have my own misgivings about the Muslim population of Europe becoming too large...mainly because of the terrorist threat and also I wouldn't want Europe to become Islamic (that would take a hell of a demographic change).

According to pew, in 2010, the number of Muslims in the EU was 19 million, 3.8%. Also according to pew's projections, the Muslim population of Europe will exceed 10% in 2050 (obviously take such projections with a pinch of salt).

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you, I hadn't realized that Jordan and Lebanon had taken in so man Syrians. And I guess Turkey, with its large common border with Syria, would not have had any choice. Just looked it up, you're right, Syrians are 74% Sunni, which I guess explains ISIS's strong presence there.

Look at the way other Muslims have behaved in Europe; have they acculturated at all? More Muslims in Britain have run off to join ISIS than have enlist in the British military? Doesn't that give some sense of where their true loyalties lie? Look at the assassination of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim after he he made a film about Pim Fortuyn. Look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Or the recent attempt by a Muslim to kill people on that train in France. We'll only see more of these types of incidents as more Muslims settle in Europe and tensions rise. The way they expect their host countries to adapt to their presence is by not criticizing them in any way and by accepting all of their practices whether or not they violate local laws. (for instance, against wearing burkhas in France, or animal sacrifices). They seem to be extremely thin skinned and will react violently to any criticism. And many of them have stated that their eventual goal is to take over Europe. In many cases they have a medieval mentality which condones the complete subjugation of women. They have agitated for acceptance of Sharia law rather than local laws in a few places when their numbers get high enough. And their numbers will only grow. And in the meantime, they will strain the resources of all of the local welfare agencies, draining resources in an already slow economy on the Continent. Trust me, they're going to be a cancer. This doesn't mean that every last Muslim will be trouble; in fat the majority will be (and have been) law-abiding. But their loyalty will always be to Islam, not their host country, and in the long run that will make them a cancer.

Steven said...

Thanks. You made a lot of a valid points there in the second paragraph. I just thought you were criticising the Syrian refugees specifically and I thought it was a bit unfair, but I pretty much agree with your general view of Muslims in Europe. Maybe I was taking it to literally as it seems I am sometimes inclined to do. Many are great people as individuals but as a group, they don't fit with liberal secular Europe, plus there is always the terrorist threat to consider, even if it comes from a small minority.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you. Sometimes I'm not clear. (Re-reading my last reply to you, I should also proof-read more.)

Steven said...

Having had some time to let this stuff marinate, i've got to say i've become irritated by the naive liberals who want to welcome every refugee and economic migrant as if everything will be fine when Europe becomes more and more Muslim. They've no intuitive understanding of the mathematics and no regard for their own cilivilisation or how culture matters. These limp liberals will be most shocked when they realise that Islamic civilisation doesn't respect any of their liberal values. Did you see those ungrateful, entitled, immature migrant men and boys snatch a bag of food off a German dogooder? Perhaps they are not typical (?). Anyway, I wanted to chin the cheeky little bag snatchers but at the same time it was almost satisfying to see that fool getting 'mugged by reality' (you know the saying 'conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality')... At least the Hungarians have got some balls.

in vino veritas I guess...that's been brewing for a while.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I couldn't agree with you more. Welcoming all of these new migrants who want to take advantage of their generous welfare systems and who have no intention of assimilating and who despise their hosts is the height of naiveté. it's sickening to behold, and it is the beginning of the end of Europe as we know it…..It IS grange how it's the formerly communist countries which are exhibiting the most sense here. And, frankly, so are the rich Muslim countries which won't accept any immigrants, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Steven said...

The Syrians do need to be helped somehow as they are fleeing a war zone. If Europe generally didn't allow much Muslim immigration, then we'd be able to take some Syrian refugees with confidence in the future of Europe. They could even be repatriated when the war in their homeland is over. As it is, there is quite a large influx from many Muslim countries and we don't know when is the end of it. This makes people more hostile to genuine refugees. They feel something uncontrolled and out of hand is happening.

I think a lot of the public, like me, has a conflict between sympathy and a humanitarian instict towards genuine refugees and a concern about the Muslim population of Europe becoming too large.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The rich Muslim countries need to take them in. (And why not israel, for that matter?) In the absence of that, I like Trump's idea for a "safe zone" inside Syria or somewhere nearby, a sort of refugee camp where they can be kept safely until the war is over, at which point they can return to their home and. As far as the Syrians' NEEDING to be helped, I find it highly suspicious that such a high percentage of them seem to be military age men who are swarming acres Europe. You'd think they'd be the ones least in need of help.

It's the humanitarian instinct of the Northwest Europeans which the Muslims are taking advantage of, and which eventually will result in Northwest Europe's destruction. These Muslim "refugee" are not interested in peaceful assimilation; they are interested in conquest. If you want to know how much humanitarian impulse THEY have, look at the behavior of their brethren in Syria or in ISIS, or their slightly more distant brethren in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait who will take none of them in.

Steven said...

"I find it highly suspicious that such a high percentage of them seem to be military age men who are swarming acres Europe."

A lot do look like young men, probably most, but I also see quite a lot of women and children. Plus you never know how representative snap shots are. I'd really like to see data on this.

"These Muslim "refugee" are not interested in peaceful assimilation; they are interested in conquest."

In some videos and in some reports they do seem irritatingly entitled and aggressive. But then in others they seem like weary travelers on a long journey. Its hard for me to get a sense from the selective snippets we see of what most of them are like or what their attitudes are. I have trouble with this. How do we really know if we have the measure of them?

I doubt they travel with conquest in mind rather than just improving their individual lives. They take their own culture with them as migrants always do. They will be willing to live peacefully but they will continue to follow and cherish their religion. This is normal for migrants but in this case it will reduce integration into European societies. It could even pose a threat to the socio-political order if their numbers get big enough. I doubt they are cognizant of this or concerned with it, apart from a minority of Islamists. For the most part, I don't think its a conscious agenda, but just how things will work out. Am I wrong?

Many of them are refugees (without hyphens). Syria is undoubtedly a dangerous place to be and the mass exodus is undoubtedly due to the war there.

"If you want to know how much humanitarian impulse THEY have, look at the behavior of their brethren in Syria or in ISIS, or their slightly more distant brethren in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait who will take none of them in."

Or Jordan and Lebanon who have very high numbers of Syrian refugees, which I mentioned before? Its worth remembering that Muslim countries are accommodating a majority of those who have left Syria.

Its also worth remembering that most of the Muslim migrants to Europe in the present crisis aren't Syrian and there is a bigger issue here.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I've heard that it's 70% young men who have come over. (I don't know how accurate that figure is, but i've seen a number of pictures, and that seems to be approximately the case in most of them. Also, keep in mind that they HAVE had a long journey and are undoubtedly tired; but at some point they will rest and recover their energy after they settle down in whatever European country they alight in.

The key to how well they will assimilate is to look at how well the other Muslims have assimilated in their new homelands. Have the Muslims in England and France assimilated well, or have they remained in separate enclaves and kept their old customs?

I'd say the fact that more Muslims in the UK have joined ISIS than enlisted in the British military is a very telling statistic.

True enough, Jordan and Lebanon have accepted refugees. But why have those other countries accepted none? Saudi Arabia and Qatar have extremely high per capita incomes, and could easily afford to do so.

Steven said...

In Saudi Arabia, immigrants already make up more than 30% of the population so perhaps they are reluctant to tip the balance any further. Or maybe they just don't care. I don't know. I read that gulf Arabs have given quite generous financial support to the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. I'd say they should set up a refugee camp but I don't know the logistics, what with it being a big desert and all.

"Have the Muslims in England and France assimilated well, or have they remained in separate enclaves and kept their old customs?"

This is an interesting question. First thing that comes to mind is that any immigrant group I can think of have their own neighbourhoods and populate certain towns. I think even different Muslim national populations stay separate and have their own mosques to some extent. People tend to flock with those they are familiar when moving to another country. An illuminating question might be whether they stay in these ghettos in the second and third generations more than other immigrant groups, such as Hindu Indians and Christian Africans.

There is then the question of values and social attitudes...this is where I'm more concerned because I think they do maintain Islamic values. I haven't seen any surveys for a while but I remember one or two showing quite alarming illiberal attitudes, whereas I'd expect Hindus or Chinese to adopt British values more easily.

The terrorist threat is the most immediate danger.