Third World Immigration and its Effects on Western Societies - the great debate of our time

The Political Mudpit is always full of flamewars about this topic, in threads often related to terrorist incidents and other such tragedies. I'd like to have a frank discussion about this in which the arguments of both sides can be seriously addressed in an intelligent way (I know you can do it, TWC!), and we can discuss potential ways to address the polarisation and other problems which it causes in a more academic context, as opposed to in the repetitive knee-jerk way that has been done to death by now in the Mudpit. If the mods agree, perhaps posts which veer onto this debate in the Pit could be moved here in future, so that this thread could serve as a megathread of sorts to avoid the topic taking over so many other threads.

Let me first set out the facts (which I will hopefully update and add to as the thread progresses, according to feedback from people on both sides of the debate), and then after move on to my partisan arguments:


The Facts

- There are tens of millions of immigrants in Europe from third world countries, concentrated in heavily urbanised areas of Western Europe, and mostly absent from Eastern Europe plus rural/small-town Western Europe. Most are from South Asia, North Africa and Subsaharan Africa, with smaller amounts from South-East and East Asia, and way smaller amounts from Oceania and Latin America. Most are Muslim, with a sizeable minority of Christians and also Hindus, and small minorities of Sikhs and Buddhists.

- Most Muslims in the world derive from outside of the Middle East - they live in Indonesia and South Asia. However, most Muslims in Europe, outside of the UK, come from North and Subsaharan Africa, or from Turkey. Unlike most of the Muslim world, these latter areas are riven by civil war and have been haemorrhaging refugees.

- All Muslim countries are, by comparison to Western countries: conservative, impoverished and poorly educated. The same is true of non-Muslim countries in the third world such as India, Ghana, Jamaica, Colombia etc. There is huge variance in individual immigrants however, since many of those who arrive in the West are from educated and wealthy backgrounds and liberal regions. This is particularly true of Indians, Turks and Syrians, but less true of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Maghrebis.

- As such, many Maghrebi, Turkish, Bangladeshi and Pakistani populations are overrepresented in poverty, underachievement and criminal activity as compared to the general population in most countries. The same is true of Christian communities such as Afro-Caribbeans. The same is NOT true of all such communities: see the Hindu Indian and Ugandan Asian (mostly Muslim) communities in the UK, who perform better than the indigenous population. I believe you can also add many third world origin communities in North America and Australasia to that list. In the UK, the minority ethnic community taken as a whole outperforms the indigenous white working class community in education as well as in other areas such as obesity, alcoholism and drug addiction.

- Following current trends, the 'non-white' population of Western Europe will rise dramatically in the coming decades.

- Ethnic minorities tend at present to vote for progressive, left wing parties.


My position

I am in favour of managed immigration to my own country, subject to strict background and ID checks and a sensible work/study visa system (i.e. one which puts British workers first where it is reasonable to do so), because it is good for our economy. I am in favour of third world immigration according to the same guidelines, because I am against discrimination based on ethnic, religious or geographic origin. I see no reason to accept French or German or American immigrants over Indian or Japanese or Nigerian ones. I am against EU freedom of movement in principle, although I accept that it is necessary to get the benefits of EU membership.

I am in favour of complying with Britain's obligations to offer asylum, and process claims fairly, with the same conditions as for managed immigration (minus the work visa obviously, and allowing for documentation problems such as many refugees not having passports etc).

I believe that, although I disagree with the values and attitudes of many third world immigrants, this is a problem which should be solved through dialogue and positive-minded outreach. As such, I'm against faith schools, in favour of measures to dissuade 'ethnic ghettos' from forming, and heavily against any bigotry, be it government sanctioned or not, as I believe most of the problems which do exist in immigrant communities are caused by discrimination and racism towards non-white people.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Full disclosure: As some of you will know, I have ancestry from a third world country myself.

My questions are: | 1. Do you think there is a significant difference between your own values, and those of third world immigrants and their descendants? | 2. Do you think this applies to a majority, or a minority? Either way, is it ethical to enact policies which affect innocent people because of the actions of other individuals? | 3. Do you think there is a problem here, and if yes, what should we realistically do about this problem in concrete terms, keeping in mind your country's legal system and constitution (and may I remind you that if you are in the US or Western Europe, denying asylum applicants and mass deportations are out of the question, and increasing border protections is already happening wholesale).

I ll chip in as a non-western person who lives in turkey but spent a great deal of time studying in europe(thanks to my english from total war games and twc debates :P )


First of all, i identify with left, in fact far left during my earlier years. I accept that most problems in the world are inherently systemic, and that the world is a hugely unfair place and that the misery in non-west is somewhat(degree is debatable) related to colonial past and current global power imbalances.

That being said, too much time had went by and the idea of getting stuck in this excuse is losing its argumentative power.


So, I d say, global inequalities are somewhat systemically inherent, and therefore immigration as a form of "wage diffusion" as a reply to brutal impacts of west-enforced neoliberalism would have been justified... in a theoretical world.

The pragmatic side of me however is aware of the political environment that had been bred in the last decade. The left took a dogmatic turn along with right. And immigration is undeniably causing many legitimate concerns.


Is there a cultural incompatability? Hell yes. Is it hurting west? Yes, it hurts the social cohesion in a unique way.
Not necessarily due to immigration itself, but due to speed and density of it.
On top of that, the failure of democracy to penetrate into non-west countries is having a major impact on the ideological content carried from here to west.

I personally have no problems living in a western society. And I am personally annoyed by non-westerners often when i come across them. In london, and in sweden, I ve been to neighbourhoods which creeped me out. And I say this as a person coming from the middle east.

I believe the stance on immigration and islam has to change in western left. And i must say that islamists strategically exploited the hell out of western left with pure hypocrisy. And the left in europe still stubbornly resists this idea.

I dont think european far- right wing is much different in their horrible ignorance than hordes of uneducated inmigrants pouring into west.

The problem is that when these two groups start to become abundant within west, both of them degenerate the western socities. Both of them have a dialectical, self-reinforcing toxic impact to western democracies. At least far right within europe could have been supressed by the progressive nature of the western democracies and institutions. But the islamic immigration is fueling the cause of the ignorance due to teir partially correct assesments meeting well with daily life concerns of many people.

And purely out of strategic reasons, to retain a liberal, pro-human, in fact, even though contradictibg logically, to keep a tolerant overall mentality(so that people s patience do not run out) ,to keep the democratic order that is well entrenched in west...inmigration has to be curbed.

The failures of west have a logarithmic effect. As the west is declining, the rest of the world also plunge more rapidly into anti-democratic means as west stops being the standard goal. The eu s power to enforce liberal rules in trkey for instance is completely gone today. Erdoğan regime presents the west as a failure while nurturing a more hostile and xenophobic islamic identity which in turn directly makes muslims in europe even more incompatible. It also makes sure the pro-west crowds in non-west are left alone to be supressed, often by violance.

Social networks online have huge impact on the rapid polarization and shattering of societies today.
And this much islam is too much.
Not because they are evil inferior monsters. But because of thr forces at play as a consequence of the uncertainty that is created.
The words "preserving our way of life" becomes a real issue as opposed to scaremongering.
Both due to urban transformation from immigration and local defensive/conserving reflexes becoming harsher...

It doesnt take a futurist to see that it will only get worse from here. Especially as the relative economic power of west declines along with its ability to absorb discontent(whether native or immigrant caused).



Bonus: I also think islam itself is inherently problematic. But as a cultural phenomena, I believe it could have been curbed. Today, the momentum is different and islamic cultures are becoming only more hostile due to circumstances. Thats a whole other debate. But I really do think islam on its own is becoming an ideological threat to peace in world.

Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

I don't mean to be rude but it all depends on how you treat people
If you treat them as your own and be nice its okay but if you make them feel left out and let them live in seperate neighborhoods you could create problems.
there is nothing wrong with immigration however i think they should by all means renouce their allegiance to their previous country/goverment In my country currently a lot of turks live here wich still feel an oath of allegiance to Erdogan wich in my opnion shouldn't be the case when living in another country. Besides that i also feel like islam is not a problem as long as they aren't taking it too serious I do not aprove of racism but i also do not aprove of treating women like trash. i used to work in a marrcan sisha lounge where this happend and did not dare open my mouth for some time. as a mather of fact a while ago in france a bunch of immigrants commited anti semite actions. a French mosque responded by saying get them off the street and let us teach them the right islam wich isn't in any way anti semite. again the issue is being extremist whater they are western right or eastern right if the right dies we could all go along some day i gues

The main existential threat facing the West today is Islam. Leftists who believe that most Muslims in the world want peace and liberty are hopelessly deluded. They legitimately believe that conservatives' concerns about Islam can safely be ignored, and that eventually they'll die off and everyone will live together in some sort of utopia. They're going to find out the hard way that impotent name-calling won't stop the bullets.

My understanding is that the Soviet Union -- whose Chekist apparatus is still in place and continues to rule Russia, and is still actively fomenting all sorts of civil disorder in the West, including by promoting both far leftists and the populist right -- introduced this sort of suicidal leftism into the West in order to weaken it from within.

I actually have no fear of leftism or Islam ever winning. I'm more concerned that the coming backlash against them will be far too extreme. There is still time to save liberal democracy by removing the pressures on it peacefully, however. The Left can't demand unrestrained Islam anymore. The Left wants unrestrained Islam, the Right wants no Muslims. They'll have to meet halfway through. That means getting rid of as much of Islam as possible, even if not entirely. Banning all Muslim immigration, shutting down all remotely orthodox Islamic organizations and mosques, and deporting as many Muslims as possible, starting with tourists and foreign workers and other non-citizens, is probably a good moderate compromise and has widespread support among the population. If you don't stop Islamization the easy way, other people will step up to stop it the old-fashioned way. You can call them racists or bigots but they'll just slit your throat and keep walking.

Quote:

---

Mark Brittingham (aka WildMonk) has written an excellent essay on the roots of this doctrine in Rousseau and the post-Enlightenment Romantics. It has elsewhere been analyzed and labeled as transnational progressivism. The Soviets didn’t invent it, but they promoted it heavily in a deliberate — and appallingly successful — attempt to weaken the Lockean, individualist tradition that underlies classical liberalism and the U.S. Constitution. The reduction of Western politics to a bitter war for government favor between ascriptive identity groups is exactly the outcome the Soviets wanted and worked hard to arrange.

Call it what you will — various other commentators have favored ‘volk-Marxism’ or ‘postmodern leftism’. I’ve called it suicidalism. It was designed to paralyze the West against one enemy, but it’s now being used against us by another. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden so often sounds like he’s reading from back issues of Z magazine, and no accident that both constantly echo the hoariest old cliches of Soviet propaganda in the 1930s and ’40s.

Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE. In Stalin’s hands, even Marxism itself was hollowed out to serve as a memetic weapon — it became increasingly nihilist, hatred-focused and destructive. The postmodern left is now defined not by what it’s for but by what it’s against: classical-liberal individualism, free markets, dead white males, America, and the idea of objective reality itself.

The first step to recovery is understanding the problem. Knowing that suicidalist memes were launched at us as war weapons by the espionage apparatus of the most evil despotism in human history is in itself liberating. Liberating, too, it is to realize that the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Robert Fisks of the world (and their thousands of lesser imitators in faculty lounges everywhere) are not brave transgressive forward-thinkers but pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant.

Brittingham and other have worried that postmodern leftism may yet win. If so, the victory would be short-lived. One of the clearest lessons of recent times (exemplified not just by kaffiyeh-wearing western leftists but by Hamas’s recent clobbering of al-Fatah in the first Palestinian elections) is that po-mo leftism is weaker than liberal individualism in one important respect; it has only the weakest defenses against absolutist fervor. Brittingham tellingly notes po-mo philosopher Richard Rorty’s realization that when the babble of conflicting tribal narratives collapses in exhaustion, the only thing left is the will to power.

Again, this is by design. Lenin and Stalin wanted classical-liberal individualism replaced with something less able to resist totalitarianism, not more. Volk-Marxist fantasy and postmodern nihilism served their purposes; the emergence of an adhesive counter-ideology would not have. Thus, the Chomskys and Moores and Fisks are running a program carefully designed to dead-end at nothing.

Religions are good at filling that kind of nothing. Accordingly, if transnational progressivism actually succeeds in smothering liberal individualism, its reward will be to be put to the sword by some flavor of jihadi. Whether the eventual winners are Muslims or Mormons, the future is not going to look like the fuzzy multicultural ecotopia of modern left fantasy. The death of that dream is being written in European banlieus by angry Muslim youths under the light of burning cars.

In the banlieus and elsewhere, Islamist pressure makes it certain that sooner or later the West is going to vomit Stalin’s memes out of its body politic. The worst way would be through a reflex development of Western absolutism — Christian chauvinism, nativism and militarism melding into something like Francoite fascism. The self-panicking leftists who think they see that in today’s Republicans are comically wrong (as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t being systematically jailed and executed), but it is quite a plausible future for the demographically-collapsing nations of Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

The main existential threat facing the West today is Islam. Leftists who believe that most Muslims in the world want peace and liberty are hopelessly deluded. They legitimately believe that conservatives' concerns about Islam can safely be ignored, and that eventually they'll die off and everyone will live together in some sort of utopia. They're going to find out the hard way that impotent name-calling won't stop the bullets.

My understanding is that the Soviet Union -- whose Chekist apparatus is still in place and continues to rule Russia, and is still actively fomenting all sorts of civil disorder in the West, including by promoting both far leftists and the populist right -- introduced this sort of suicidal leftism into the West in order to weaken it from within.

I actually have no fear of leftism or Islam ever winning. I'm more concerned that the coming backlash against them will be far too extreme. There is still time to save liberal democracy by removing the pressures on it peacefully, however. The Left can't demand unrestrained Islam anymore. The Left wants unrestrained Islam, the Right wants no Muslims. They'll have to meet halfway through. That means getting rid of as much of Islam as possible, even if not entirely. Banning all Muslim immigration, shutting down all remotely orthodox Islamic organizations and mosques, and deporting as many Muslims as possible, starting with tourists and foreign workers and other non-citizens, is probably a good moderate compromise and has widespread support among the population. If you don't stop Islamization the easy way, other people will step up to stop it the old-fashioned way. You can call them racists or bigots but they'll just slit your throat and keep walking.

---

More Enoch Powell crap based on a religous hatred of islam.

It's sad when ethnic cleansing is considered the moderate option. Sacrificing our own rights and freedoms while persecuting a group is not going to work. You play into the hands radicals that way and it only leads to more violence.

I very much believe in the words of Abraham Lincoln

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

1. Depends on the ethnic group in question. I do believe I have significant value differences with many immigrant groups from the Middle East and Africa, but I also believe that in terms of values I have more in common with many leftist Kurds than I have with my native countrymen.

It also depends on the value in question. In issues such as free speech, womens rights and freedom from religion I believe I have fundamental disagreements with large portions of the Muslim community as a whole, both in my country and in general. This is based both on the experiences I've heard from ex-muslim apostates and observed from the reactions Muslim communities and their spokespeople have to critique and even satire, but also on opinion polls. I've no way of knowing to what degree and sevirity these differences actually exist on level of peoples lives. I guess this isn't helped by the fact that as a former Christian, I have a deep mistrust of religious institutions and the way they communicate. They want to keep any problems "in house" and project a prettier picture to the outsiders than reality merits. This I've found to be true in all matters and almost without a fail.

2. I think the problems aren't very significat in my country (Finland) where the portion of third world immigrants tend to be low and few ethnic ghettos exist. However, this year there was discovered a grooming gang operation similiar to the ones that have plaqued certain areas within the UK, and the same predictable and tiresome talking points have been thrown around (on every side) ever since. I think a common pattern with third world immigration is that people who come from Western point of view "problematic" cultural backgrounds still integrate and assimilate well when they're dispersed accross the larger population and don't form cultural enclaves. Problems tend to arise when there's a large consentration of people from these cultures. Even then the degree varies and many communities don't develop significant problems at all. However the idea this trend will not continue, and that the conflicts this will create between immigrants and native population can be mitigated to a sustainable level is in my view based on little else than wishful thinking, especially given the extremely undpredictable economic future we're facing.

I don't think it's ethical or even really sustainable to enact laws that target or "punish" ethnic/religious groups. I think differences and conflicts should mainly be resolved with public discourse and when reosanble, asserting our customs/values. For example I'm against a ban onface veils, but I also think it's a bit rich to cry offense if people react to you reservedly when you walk around with your face concealed.

3. I think we have a growing problem, but I also think Western countries have an obligation to help people in third world countries, especially the ones whose societies have been subject to Western imperial games. I'm highly sceptical though, that shipping large numbers of them over to Europe is the best solution. They're gonna have some understandable resentments, and as a Finn who's opposed American, French and British conduct in these regions from day one, I don't feel like I should pay the price. I don't think the common working people of the respective countries should pay the price either. I'm sympathetic towards people who're sceptical about the imperialism argument pro-immigration people make, because usually the people who have gained the least from imperialism are the ones who'll pay the most in the fallout.

I think the best solution would be to close European outer borders but to small, managable number of refugees. But only on the condition a significant, long term effort is made to build and maintain humane living conditions for the refugees in relatively stable areas within North Africa, protected preferably by European peacekeepers. With even 80% of the money many European nations spend on integration and refugee programmes, we could offer many times larger portion of people in need education, sanitation, clean water and good nutrition. You could also offer education on European culture and set realistic expectations there on the ground, instead of a person arriving with the help of human traffickers who've lied to them about practically everything, and who then has to be told in a Swedish refugee center why raping your wife is wrong (not by any means the most common story, but an example of the sorts of problems we could avoid).

I'm not sure what to do on domestic level, but I think the above steps would go along way in containing the white nationalists and other racists, which in turn could ease the tensions of minorities and create some much needed public trust.

And this is mostly to do with people from North Africa/Middle East. I hink we can afford more lax policies with most other third world countries, Muslim or otherwise. Based on personal, anecdotal "evidence" I generally find that most people who come from even conservative Muslim cultures but have not been subject to the mayhem of the Middle East, tend to actually be eager to discuss cultural differences, mingle with the general population and gradually adapt to local customs. At least compared to Arabs whom I've found to be more reserved.

I agree with Dogukan that the problem isn't immigration itself, which I think is necessary and good when done correctly, but the system which allows hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come in very quickly without any sort of integration process. Immigration needs to be a gradual, sustainable process, because there are indeed different cultural values that do inevitably lead to clashes between immigrants and natives, which I think 'liberal' commentators tend to ignore. To remedy this culture clash, it's not only immigrants that need to do their part, but the natives and government too. It's often said that immigrants fail to integrate, but how are they supposed to integrate when there isn't really a system to help them do so? There should be significant outreach programmes that teach third-world immigrants the cultural values of their host country as well as making them feel welcome in the community. Absent such initiatives, it's hardly a surprise when immigrant 'enclaves' appear, especially if the natives are actively hostile to them. On the other hand, new immigrants who commit crimes should be deported. None of this standing up in a plane to prevent the deportation of an Afghan criminal stuff. If that gentleman was so fearful about returning to his home country he should've behaved himself better. We should extend a welcoming hand, but if that welcome is spurned we should not hesitate in withdrawing it.

In terms of providing solutions, I certainly think a more rigorous immigration/integration system is warranted, as well as a reduction in numbers coming in. There needs to be a sensible discussion about immigration without the partisan nonsense of either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

It's sad when ethnic cleansing is considered the moderate option.

---

This gets to the crux of the matter. Society is so polarised that, rather than rejecting fringe extremists, we've now somehow created a situation where fringe extremists are embraced by the relative moderates on their half of the divide. Most people on this forum are not Neo-Nazi Fascists. But they do seem to believe that people who are Neo-Nazi fascists are somehow 'on their side'. As a centrist, I tend to take the view that centrists (right and left) are on my side, and extremists (right and left) are my opponents. I can't quite understand the attitude which says 'well, some people on my side kill people, but they're just mentally ill.' How did you ever arrive at the belief that someone like that was in any way 'on your side' at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copperknickers II

This gets to the crux of the matter. Society is so polarised that, rather than rejecting fringe extremists, we've now somehow created a situation where fringe extremists are embraced by the relative moderates on their half of the divide. Most people on this forum are not Neo-Nazi Fascists. But they do seem to believe that people who are Neo-Nazi fascists are somehow 'on their side'. As a centrist, I tend to take the view that centrists (right and left) are on my side, and extremists (right and left) are my opponents. I can't quite understand the attitude which says 'well, some people on my side kill people, but they're just mentally ill.' How did you ever arrive at the belief that someone like that was in any way 'on your side' at all?

---

Demagogues rise to power by promising to address popular concerns that the establishment prefers to ignore. If extremists are the only people talking about one of the most important problems facing society, what does that say about the moderates? Just as capitalist societies implement social safety nets to rob Marxist revolutionaries of their cause, the European political establishment, both right- and left-wing, similarly needs to address the problem of demographic displacement in order to forestall a nativist backlash, because right or wrong, there's tens or even hundreds of millions of people who are extremely concerned about this issue. Is it reasonable to believe people will ignore this sort of thing forever? The liberal establishment has maybe a decade or so to fix the problem, before people will appoint illiberals to do the job they don't seem willing to do. If liberals continue to completely ignore the problem, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if Europe descends into dictatorship, genocide and civil war, again. Historians may look at the post-WW2 period as just a brief flash of liberty, amid thousands of years of tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

Demagogues rise to power by promising to address popular concerns that the establishment prefers to ignore. If extremists are the only people talking about one of the most important problems facing society, what does that say about the moderates? Just as capitalist societies implement social safety nets to rob Marxist revolutionaries of their cause, the European political establishment, both right- and left-wing, similarly needs to address the problem of demographic displacement in order to forestall a nativist backlash, because right or wrong, there's tens or even hundreds of millions of people who are extremely concerned about this issue.

---

The image you linked isn't working. There is no demographic displacement going on. The real "problem" is that the native population have low birth rates. You could stop all immigration to all Western countries immediately and for decades and the "native" population will still decrease because birth rates aren't rising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

Is it reasonable to believe people will ignore this sort of thing forever?

---

Random videos aren't a great source nor do they make a great argument but funny enough we live in societies with laws. They break the law they can end up in jail or be deported. Seems like an easy solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

The liberal establishment has maybe a decade or so to fix the problem, before people will appoint illiberals to do the job they don't seem willing to do. If liberals continue to completely ignore the problem, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if Europe descends into dictatorship, genocide and civil war, again. Historians may look at the post-WW2 period as just a brief flash of liberty, amid thousands of years of tyranny.

---

:laughter: This is hilarious at best. Not all of us see this problem that you see. Especially considering your own views on Muslims are very biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

The image you linked isn't working. There is no demographic displacement going on. The real "problem" is that the native population have low birth rates. You could stop all immigration to all Western countries immediately and for decades and the "native" population will still decrease because birth rates aren't rising.

---

I'm talking about as a proportion of the population. There's more Coptic Christians in Egypt today than in 300 AD, but that doesn't mean Copts aren't a minority.

Quote:

---

Random videos aren't a great source nor do they make a great argument but funny enough we live in societies with laws. They break the law they can end up in jail or be deported. Seems like an easy solution.

This is hilarious at best. Not all of us see this problem that you see. Especially considering your own views on Muslims are very biased.

---

Whether you see a problem or not isn't the issue. What matters is that a lot of people believe there's a problem, and if their concerns aren't addressed by the establishment, they'll look elsewhere for support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

Demagogues rise to power by promising to address popular concerns that the establishment prefers to ignore. If extremists are the only people talking about one of the most important problems facing society, what does that say about the moderates? Just as capitalist societies implement social safety nets to rob Marxist revolutionaries of their cause, the European political establishment, both right- and left-wing, similarly needs to address the problem of demographic displacement in order to forestall a nativist backlash, because right or wrong, there's tens or even hundreds of millions of people who are extremely concerned about this issue. Is it reasonable to believe people will ignore this sort of thing forever? The liberal establishment has maybe a decade or so to fix the problem, before people will appoint illiberals to do the job they don't seem willing to do. If liberals continue to completely ignore the problem, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if Europe descends into dictatorship, genocide and civil war, again. Historians may look at the post-WW2 period as just a brief flash of liberty, amid thousands of years of tyranny.

---

I'm going to agree with your point in regards to moderates - at this point "centrist" stance is mainly ignoring issues that concern growing numbers of population, which will cause powers that be their power and status in the foreseeable future.
However I do not think that in the event of "populists" winning would result in dictatorship, civil war or genocide. In fact, it is the current "status quo" which may lead to such outcomes by blatantly ignoring interests of majority of population in the name of imaginary ideological castles in the sky (which are usually painted to hide rather less glamorous interests of financial and political elites). After all champagne socialists and limousine liberals that infested Western political elites don't truly care about "minorities" or "refugees" - for them, they are only cheap labor and/or future welfare voters.
In the long run, being a "populist" means representing the majority - which is what democracy should be truly all about.
As for the immigration itself - the main question one should be asking (just like with any government policy) is how would that benefit citizens, who pay taxes? Do they gain anything from mass-importation of foreigners who do not integrate and establish parallel societies, often maintaining barbaric customs from their homeland (such as treatment of women in islam) and spreading crime and religious extremism? Or does such process only create liability for them? Then truly democratic government must end such policy, and try and reverse it (by cutting off welfare and promoting emigration of such demographic from Western countries).

I disagree that being centrist is ignoring issues. Rather I think it is being very aware but unconcerned at what those with more extreme opinions call issues.

For example, knowing that there is immigration from Muslim countries but being unconcerned because they see it as neither inherently positive or negative, but rather could become either if those with extreme positions in any direction start shouting.

As far as the rest of this thread goes... there doesn't seem to be a clear differentiation between 'third world' immigrants and Muslim immigrants. Does this debate also apply to a 3rd generation Muslim from Sydney, Australia moving to Paris? Does it apply to a Christian immigrant from Benin moving to Spain? There's so many things at play in this discussion that are all being thrown in together into a big unintellectual mashup. Kind of like how real world politicians discuss these issues.

The rest of this thread just seems to be a bunch of cognitive bias thrown about.

There is a lot of right wing bias "it's all the liberals fault!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

I'm going to agree with your point in regards to moderates - at this point "centrist" stance is mainly ignoring issues that concern growing numbers of population, which will cause powers that be their power and status in the foreseeable future.
However I do not think that in the event of "populists" winning would result in dictatorship, civil war or genocide. In fact, it is the current "status quo" which may lead to such outcomes by blatantly ignoring interests of majority of population in the name of imaginary ideological castles in the sky (which are usually painted to hide rather less glamorous interests of financial and political elites). After all champagne socialists and limousine liberals that infested Western political elites don't truly care about "minorities" or "refugees" - for them, they are only cheap labor and/or future welfare voters.
In the long run, being a "populist" means representing the majority - which is what democracy should be truly all about.
As for the immigration itself - the main question one should be asking (just like with any government policy) is how would that benefit citizens, who pay taxes? Do they gain anything from mass-importation of foreigners who do not integrate and establish parallel societies, often maintaining barbaric customs from their homeland (such as treatment of women in islam) and spreading crime and religious extremism? Or does such process only create liability for them? Then truly democratic government must end such policy, and try and reverse it (by cutting off welfare and promoting emigration of such demographic from Western countries).

---

When I talk about illiberals I don't mean the sorts of populists active in Europe today; they're tame compared to what's coming.

The Left wants to keep the liberal system in place without removing the pressures on it, like mass immigration and Islam; this is clearly unsustainable. Ironically, "populists" like e.g. Wilders are probably Europe's best guard against tyranny and genocide. They want to keep Europe's liberal system in place while removing the pressures on it. This is the best of both worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 95thrifleman

There is a lot of right wing bias "it's all the liberals fault!".

---

Thats because a lot of current problems in West were created in the name of liberalism, hence why it is rational to blame liberals for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodromos

When I talk about illiberals I don't mean the sorts of populists active in Europe today; they're tame compared to what's coming.

The Left wants to keep the liberal system in place without removing the pressures on it, like mass immigration and Islam; this is clearly unsustainable. Ironically, "populists" like e.g. Wilders are probably Europe's best guard against tyranny and genocide. They want to keep Europe's liberal system in place while removing the pressures on it. This is the best of both worlds.

---

I agree, having parties like FN, AfD and Wilders' party replace corresponding less competent governments that their countries have know seems like best possible outcome. But given how current governments reacted to Yellow Vest protests, I heavily doubt that creatures like Macron or May would give up power voluntarily even if they lose elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Thats because a lot of current problems in West were created in the name of liberalism, hence why it is rational to blame liberals for that.

---

Citation Needed.

Remember, just because you say things, doesn't make them true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

I agree, having parties like FN, AfD and Wilders' party replace corresponding less competent governments that their countries have know seems like best possible outcome. But given how current governments reacted to Yellow Vest protests, I heavily doubt that creatures like Macron or May would give up power voluntarily even if they lose elections.

---

So Britain and France are actually full-on dictatorships? Wow. I must have blinked and missed the imposition of totalitarian rule.

Dear Western countries: stop bombing developing countries, stop the unfair neo-liberal economic policies against developing countries and just maybe we won't need to migrate to your white-washed countries!

The future belongs to multiculturalism. The biggest and wealthiest cities in the world will attract people from all over the world. Global cities like London will have a chinese neiberhood, an Arab neiberhood, an African neiberhood etc. The big question is how to manage it in a way that no tentions would flare.