"Germany well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050

[B~E]

German Population Plunge “Irreversible,” Federal Stats Office Admits

Germany has the lowest birthrate in Europe, with an average of 1.36 children per woman. Despite government incentives to encourage larger families, the population is dropping rapidly and that trend will continue, with an expected loss of as much as 12 million by 2050. That would mean about a 15 percent drop from the country’s current population of 82.4 million, the German news source Deutsche Welle reported today.

While immigrants are increasingly relied upon to compensate for low birth rates in European countries, Radermacher said even factoring in a projected annual influx of 100,000-200,000 migrants won’t prevent the population plunge.

“Even those people who are immigrants adopt after a couple years the lifestyle and the number of children per family. So the assumption that immigrants will stick to their habits is simply not true.”

The population losses faced by Germany reflect a trend occurring across Europe--The European Union’s statistics agency Eurostat has predicted an overall drop in Europe’s population of 7 million people by 2050.

The demographic decline coincides with a dramatic drop in Christian religious belief and a consequent rejection of Christian morality and emphasis on the benefits of family life and children.

Well, I, for one, am glad. This is the first non-biased official article that finaly admit that mass-immigration is a false solution to the decline of first-world populations.

But still, I'll just take comfort in the fact that muslims are known to abide by the institutions of multiculturalism, so they'll treat non-muslim europeans with equal consideration when they will become just another minority among others.

 

[Arxces]

Wait, the article says that the population in Germany will drop by as much as 12 million by 2050. In what way would this make Germany "well on the way to becomming a Muslim state"? According to Wikipedia: Islam in Germany, only 2.6 million (3.2%) of the population is Muslim. I don't think it's enough to make Germany a Muslim state, even if the population falls by 12 million.

Not trying to dispute... I just don't get it...

 

[Galatia]

But still, I'll just take comfort in the fact that muslims are known to abide by the institutions of multiculturalism[/I]

I think that muslims are known for quite the opposite, especially when it comes to women.

 

[B~E]

Its all in the sig baby.

Wait, the article says that the population in Germany will drop by as much as 12 million by 2050. In what way would this make Germany "well on the way to becomming a Muslim state"? According to Wikipedia: Islam in Germany, only 2.6 million (3.2%) of the population is Muslim. I don't think it's enough to make Germany a Muslim state, even if the population falls by 12 million.

Not trying to dispute... I just don't get it...

It means that the proportion of native, largely non-muslim germans will drop by 12 millions, while the proportion of muslim germans will increase due to immigration, higher birthrate and conversion. Such a trend as been underway for quite some time already in Europe, and if you project this trend 40 years in the future, the largest minority group in Germany will be the muslims, making effectively the country a muslim State. The rest of Europe is following pretty much the same demographic decline, although the rise of Islam is not common everywhere, mostly in northen and western Europe, and England.

As of now, the only reason why Europe is still growing demographicaly is because of immigration, because of the replacement of the native population by foreign ones. Yet, like this article, and common sense, argue, immigration is a false solution to the problem. So the question is, why is this demographic shift allowed to happen anyway? No nation-State has anything to gain from becoming a heterogenous cleft country. Immigration is a cultural and economical advantage, yes, but not an end in itself.

 

[Arxces]

Its all in the sig baby.

It means that the proportion of native, largely non-muslim germans will drop by 12 millions, while the proportion of muslim germans will increase due to immigration, higher birthrate and conversion. Such a trend as been underway for quite some time already in Europe, and if you project this trend 40 years in the future, the largest minority group in Germany will be the muslims, making effectively the country a muslim State. The rest of Europe is following pretty much the same demographic decline, although the rise of Islam is not common everywhere, mostly in northen and western Europe, and England.

As of now, the only reason why Europe is still growing demographicaly is because of immigration, because of the replacement of the native population by foreign ones. Yet, like this article, and common sense, argue, immigration is a false solution to the problem. So the question is, why is this demographic shift allowed to happen anyway? No nation-State has anything to gain from becoming a heterogenous cleft country. Immigration is a cultural and economical advantage, yes, but not an end in itself.

I understand now. However, I do not believe that Germany would become a Muslim state just because the Muslims are the largest minority. Remember, Christians of different minorities may still counteract a Muslim transformation of the state. Also remember Turkey, where the majority of the populace is Muslim, but the state itself is secular (e.g. the Govt bans headscarfs in all public offices, schools, etc...).

 

[B~E]

Each State is a special case. For exemple, the only reason Turkey is not an islamic State is because of the legitimacy inspired by Ataturk's nationalist legacy, which give an sécular alternative to an all-encompassing sharia rule, and the fact that the army is ready to ensure that this sécular alternative stays on the table at any cost. So without those two factors, the army and Ataturk, I really dont see on what model would Turkey's muslim population and its Tiny Minority of Extremists™ base its government. Why would it be any different from any other country where muslims are the majority?

Of course, Germany would be a different case, in no small part because, like you rightly pointed out, of the dynamics between the different minority groups, may they define themselves as religious, ethnic or ideological.

But if our contemporary world is any exemple, this dynamic is nothing to look forward too. Like I already said, no nation-State has anything to gain from becoming a heterogenous cleft country.
So the 100$ question is, can liberal Western institutions witstand the pressure of a muslim assertiveness that will increase along with a growing demographic presence?

Beats me, I dont know. I dont really care specificaly about Christianity or Islam, it doesn't seem necessary to discuss the article from the religious angle. To be honest, my take on it concerns the (in)validity of immigration as a solution to a very real demographic problem, the sterility of the debate surrounding said problem, and maybe, if I'm in the right mood, I could also jerk to the consequences of it all, such as the aches and afflictions of a society that fails to give a common sense to its populations living within it.

 

[Arxces]

Immigration, as you pointed out, is a convenient, yet ultimately temporary solution to economic problems. However, it is an 'addiction' that is difficult to overcome. Say all that you want on the long-term effects, but all your reasoning falls on deaf ears with the short-termism of some of the EU nations. I personally think it's tragic that nations depend on immigration for growth.

Yet ask yourself, what would they turn to if not for imigration. Remember, many of these nations, especially Germany, are at the forefront of technology, thus becomming more capital-intensive, and thus less labour-intensive, is a limited option. Also, more and more of the new immigrants are actually skilled labour. We're talking about researchers and engineers here. If not for immigration, the EU nations would be unable to generate the growth they do (as their growth, unlike say China's, is mostly dependent on scientific research, not on volume). In the short-term, where the supply of minds is depleted locally (due to their huge demand for skilled labour which the universities cannot cope with), they can only turn to migration. Ultimately however, if they want to avoid immigration, they must increase their own output of expertise.

As for being a heterogeneous cleft country, the multicultural model is still a work in progress. However, I think that it can be made to work. I believe that my country, Malaysia, is at the forefront of such developments. Here we have the aboriginal Malays, people of Chinese descent, Indian descent, and peoples of many cultures co-existing (mostly) peacefully. I'm not saying that there are no conflicts. However, against external threats the nation has been known to stand united. (Case in point: the resistance of the Japanese occupation in WWII). Sadly, we do have an immigration problem. It seems that our manufacturing sector is addicted to cheap unskilled labour from neighbouring Indonesia. With any luck (and experimentation) I think the multicultural model can be made to work in Europe. But, as you say, each nation is in its own special situation...

 

[Tipsy]

How does a heterogeneous culture harm a country? The United States has had diverse groups of people and cultures since its' birth. Even when it was nothing more than thirteen colonies there was a diverse culture. Beyond that, the concept of the United States being a 'melting pot', that the cultures are molded into one mainstream culture, is completely wrong. There are Americans whose families have been in the United States for generations, and they grow up learning foreign languages in their homes, there are people who wear native garments (not only Muslim clothing, but beyond that such as the traditional African clothing), and many groups still live in places where people of their ethnicity and culture live (Little Italy's, Chinatowns, etc).

Does this create problems? Sometimes. The Japanese-Americans put into camps during World War II are a great example. However, in time, these problems work out. A good example is religion. Americans are united by religion. You can say America is a Christian country, a Protestant country, or whatever because on the surface that is the majority religion. However, the one religious principle held by even more people is freedom of religion. Americans are united by religion in the belief of freedom of religion.

I can't exactly apply the situation in Germany directly to that of the United States because we are growing both through birth rates in America and immigration, however, beyond that there are enough similarities to show that a heterogeneous culture is not a bad thing.

 

[Arxces]

I agree with Tipsy. The US is another example of the heterogeneous culture model as a work in progress. However, I think B~E is being sceptical. Intercultural conflicts, if not resolved, can result in a weakening of the country. However, if there is mutual respect, then a nation can benefit from the strengths of all the various cultures. Germay can very well benefit more from the Muslims in 2040, when they will be able to assert themselves more on Germany.

 

[Iliaran]

Americans are united by religion in the belief of freedom of religion.

What about those who don't identity with any particular religion? Are they any less American?

In the united states, national identity generally takes precedence over ethnic and religious identity.

I believe that my country, Malaysia, is at the forefront of such developments.

In light of your argument, I'd like to point out Malaysia's on the verge of instituting a law to hand over 30% of all corporate equity to Malay hands.

Indeed, a myriad of recently introduced laws in Malaysia show a growing trend of minority suppression.

then a nation can benefit from the strengths of all the various cultures

Immigrants are expected to acculturate and assimilate. By 2050, the Muslim population in Germany will be dominated by 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants - people who will most likely have already embraced German culture.


Edit:
A bit more about Malaysia

 

[x42bn6]

What about those who don't identity with any particular religion? Are they any less American?

In the united states, national identity generally takes precedence over ethnic and religious identity.



In light of your argument, I'd like to point out Malaysia's on the verge of instituting a law to hand over 30% of all corporate equity to Malay hands.

Indeed, a myriad of recently introduced laws in Malaysia show a growing trend of minority suppression.


Immigrants are expected to acculturate and assimilate. By 2050, the Muslim population in Germany will be dominated by 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants - people who will most likely have already embraced German culture.


Edit:
A bit more about Malaysia

It stems from the general Malay culture of being laid-back - the most successful people in the country are the Chinese. Some call it suppression (Lee Kwan Yew does), but it is generally perceived as encouraging the Malays to contribute more.*

 

[B~E]

Damn, I've put more effort into this than I did for my 15 pages long report on a similar subject... I'm such a rotten student...

~Arxces:

Here, I'm not arguing against the importation of brains from the rest of the world. Immigration of carefully chosen skilled labours is easily defendable: the immigrants, if he his skilled enough, while easily find himself a purpose in his host society, and he will thus quickly assimilate. Then again, one could always argue that this "brain drain" is detrimental to poorer countries, which already need all the talent than they can get. This practice then contributes to the ill of those poor countries, which motivates their citizens to immigrate en masse to first-world countries. Which is the kind of immigration I am against?

Here, in your defence of the heterogeneous model of society, you are not really convincing. You're merely trying to downplay its downsides, without mentioning any positive aspects. Maybe it is because there are no real advantages to a cleft, multicultural country. The demographic shifts from a previously dominant social group toward what used to be a group of small minorities was never something done easily and peacefully, and more often than not, it resulted in a bloody mess. We just have to think of the Balkan here, and the frictions between the three religious groups.

My point is simply this: cultural diversity is not a good thing in itself. It’s getting increasingly difficult to find a common ground for all the different groups living under a single State, and as those groups are getting larger and more assertive, things are bound to get more complicated. And not only is this demographic change of a permanent nature, but it does not have any real positive side effect to justify itself, and it is disguised as a false solution to a very dangerous problem of demographic decline by an indigenous people.

Malaysia, and other countries in this region of the globe, such has Thailand and India, maybe they're pulling along relatively well with the divers cultural baggage they're carrying, but this does not mean that it is something to look forward too. Unless you have too. Which is not the case of Europe or North Ameria.


~Tipsy:

Culture is a lot like Van Gogh's Starry Night. When you look at it from a close point of view, it’s very diverse: all the little coloured dots, going is seemingly contradictory directions. But when you take a certain distance, a certain pattern begin to emerge. Those stupid, heterogeneous dots of color are actually forming certain homogenous shapes.

America may look divers. Its a nation of immigrants, with English, French, Dutch, Russians, German and Amerindian people. But from a certain distance, they're very homogenous. They're all of European decent, they speak all English, they're all Christian, they all believe in the same lax ideology of democracy, secularism, individualism and rule of law. And this becomes even truer when you compare this country with another one. It just depends of your perspective.

60 years ago, America's national identity was based on 5 pillars: european ethnicity, the white race, English language, Christian religious beliefs and Western cultural ideology and philosophy. As time went by, those pillars felt, one by one. Today, your average American can be of any color, race and religious belief. The only thing that matters is that he must believe in a certain cultural ideology of democracy and rule of law, and that he must speaks a certain language, English. And the country is working as fine as it did 60, or 120 years ago. Social stability is more difficult to maintain, but still, everything is working.

In Europe, we're witnessing the same phenomenon, but its all going much more rapidely. The demographic decline, the mass immigration brought in to compensate, its all more massive than in America. In Europe, the traditional conception of national identity is being severely challenged by mass immigration, to a deeper degree, within a shorter period of time and with deeper consequences at the end of the road, illustrated by the fact that traditional Europeans will be a minority in one generation and a half. Not only are they not prepared for this like North America is, but is it all being done in the name of a false solution to the demographic problem, and it is all being done too fast, too.

All in all, I'm not advocating a return to an old fashioned and subjective sense of national identity. I'm not talking about excluding foreigners from our societies, nor would I like us to become less inclusive. I'm merely highly sceptical of the tremendous changes ahead, and I'm questioning why they're happening, because I find the whole ordeal very strange. This demographic change, so suddent and with permanent and mainly negative consequences, seems to be happenening under our nose, without justification.

In my opinion, the phenomenon of demographic decline and the concept of mass immigration as a short terme solution are results of our current economical système, a système that has been around for a very short period of time. Doesn't it sounds wrong that nations are willing to let themselves be replaced because of the side effects of an economical system? The economy is meant to be a tool, yet it is now the tool, wield by an invisible hand, which is re-modeling societies.

But I'm pushing this way too far. I need you people to push me in the right direction, away from my insanities.

 

[Tipsy]

What about those who don't identity with any particular religion? Are they any less American?

The idea is that the principle of freedom of religion is the most prominent religious principle; this includes the freedom to not believe in any religion.

60 years ago, America's national identity was based on 5 pillars: european ethnicity, the white race, English language, Christian religious beliefs and Western cultural ideology and philosophy. As time went by, those pillars felt, one by one. Today, your average American can be of any color, race and religious belief. The only thing that matters is that he must believe in a certain cultural ideology of democracy and rule of law, and that he must speaks a certain language, English. And the country is working as fine as it did 60, or 120 years ago. Social stability is more difficult to maintain, but still, everything is working.

In Europe, we're witnessing the same phenomenon, but its all going much more rapidely. The demographic decline, the mass immigration brought in to compensate, its all more massive than in America. In Europe, the traditional conception of national identity is being severely challenged by mass immigration, to a deeper degree, within a shorter period of time and with deeper consequences at the end of the road, illustrated by the fact that traditional Europeans will be a minority in one generation and a half. Not only are they not prepared for this like North America is, but is it all being done in the name of a false solution to the demographic problem, and it is all being done too fast, too.

All in all, I'm not advocating a return to an old fashioned and subjective sense of national identity. I'm not talking about excluding foreigners from our societies, nor would I like us to become less inclusive. I'm merely highly sceptical of the tremendous changes ahead, and I'm questioning why they're happening, because I find the whole ordeal very strange. This demographic change, so suddent and with permanent and mainly negative consequences, seems to be happenening under our nose, without justification.

I'm not trying to say it's a great thing, I'm just trying to say it's not a bad thing. To use the United States as an example again, the change isn't always smooth. Take the civil rights movement. What is emphasized is the peaceful protests of Martin Luther King, his brilliant speeches, his ideal philosophy of racial equality, and so forth. However, beyond this there were still violent protests and sometimes even more violent counter protests. I would also argue, as shown by the will of many to push the civil rights movement forward and the others who wished it to go away, that social stability is probably not more difficult to maintain. I'd argue that it is somewhere around the same as it has been.

In my opinion, the phenomenon of demographic decline and the concept of mass immigration as a short terme solution are results of our current economical système, a système that has been around for a very short period of time. Doesn't it sounds wrong that nations are willing to let themselves be replaced because of the side effects of an economical system? The economy is meant to be a tool, yet it is now the tool, wield by an invisible hand, which is re-modeling societies.

It is the German culture rather than the ethnically German demographics which effects my opinion. However, with Iliaran's comments that "by 2050, the Muslim population in Germany will be dominated by 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants", I think that as long as Germans make an effort to actual integrate the immigrates into society the German culture will remain. If not, then the figurative Van Gogh's Starry Night is going to have some scorched edges.

As for the economic system, I'm pretty much against every single system used in Europe. That being said, I'm also thing that the one in Germany is inefficient and involves too much government intervention. I haven't exactly looked very much into why the mass immigration is going on, but my assumption is that since the birth rate in Germany is going down then it is creating more jobs in the market which in turn attracts more people to immigrate to Germany. The market is there to create unanimity without conformity - I don't look at it as a tool, simply an entity that needs to be free with view restrictions.

 

[B~E]

-In your example of America, you're talking about a small minority fighting for legitimate and authentic rights. And beside a few brilliant examples, it wasn't even pretty, because of the intransigence of the majority and the methods of the minority. There was not a single instance where the rise of a minority has been peaceful. Knowing this, in Europe, the extreme demographic turnaround, involving an indigenous nation losing its majority status to a religious and ethnic minority that has a quasi-unanimous record of being indigestible and hostile to its host country, is not something to look forward to, especially since there is arguably no justification for it.

-Of course, like you rightly pointed out, there's always the case of Europe's ability to integrate its Muslim minority. The construction of the famous European brand of Islam. Knowing that, in the name of multiculturalism and relativism, there's a cultural laissez-faire in Europe and practically no proactive governmental effort to integrate minorities, knowing that Europe already has its home-grown brand of Islamic terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, and in the light of the demographic changes taking place, I'm still sceptical of Europe's chances to reform Islam in order for it to conform with western cultural philosophy and institutions. The examples for this are many: the Cartoon Rage, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, grandson of the painter, the exile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc...

-Of course, its not an impossible challenge, Islam can be reformed to fit with western institutions. But where there's a problem is when Western culture and institutions are reshaped in accordance to a minority's liking, for this has never been a peaceful process, Europe as nothing to gain from diversifying its traditional national identity, and like the article I posted pointed out, its a process that doesn't have to take place either.

-In my opinion, concerning the role of the economy in this affaire, some of the demographic changes taking place are by-products of the current economical system, and economics are also acting as constrains on the possible social solutions. For example, as everyone knows, it isn't profitable to make children in our current post-industrial societies, and it is not profitable either to provide incentives to families for them to procreate and thus perpetuate society.

So, the only sustainable solutions left are to import people to help support the current crumbling demographic pyramid. Indeed, in our system, it is much more economically sound to import an engineer from India, than to breed one right here and wait until he is old enough to be a profitable asset for society, that is, if he doesn't become a drug-abusive dropout.

But this “brain drain” is not enough anymore. By 2025, according to a University of Montréal study, if my country is to preserve itself from the strains of an aging population, Canada’s immigration rate will have to climb from our current 200 000 immigrants per year to 3 millions. At this Rate, Canada will be a country of more or less 80 million people by 2050. It’s just not possible. We don’t have the institutional and physical and economical infrastructures to incorporate that many people. Yet, it is what the economical logic is dictating, and it is the current direction we are heading.

In my province, Quebec, we have a certain incentive to try and preserve a certain cultural homogeneity. In 1995, the PM of the nationalist Parti Québécois, Lucien Bouchard, publicly addressed the demographic problem, saying that it was pointless to fight to the independence of a nation that does not have a future, demographically speaking. Well, 3 days later, he had to publicly apologise for having raised the issue. The feminists and the cultural minority groups wanted to have his head. I personally don’t care much about my Quebecois national identity, but what fascinates me is that it has become very difficult to raise the issue and hold a public debate on the subject. At least, in Québec, it has become a matter of selfcensorship.

But my point is, this economical logic is causing a forced coexistence of first-world nations with imported groups from the third-world, with all the problems that this diversity is instigating, without addressing the original problem at all, that is, the demographic decline. It’s a false solution that will leave permanent cicatrices on first-world nations.

 

[Tipsy]

-In your example of America, you're talking about a small minority fighting for legitimate and authentic rights. And beside a few brilliant examples, it wasn't even pretty, because of the intransigence of the majority and the methods of the minority. There was not a single instance where the rise of a minority has been peaceful. Knowing this, in Europe, the extreme demographic turnaround, involving an indigenous nation losing its majority status to a religious and ethnic minority that has a quasi-unanimous record of being indigestible and hostile to its host country, is not something to look forward to, especially since there is arguably no justification for it.

-Of course, like you rightly pointed out, there's always the case of Europe's ability to integrate its Muslim minority. The construction of the famous European brand of Islam. Knowing that, in the name of multiculturalism and relativism, there's a cultural laissez-faire in Europe and practically no proactive governmental effort to integrate minorities, knowing that Europe already has its home-grown brand of Islamic terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, and in the light of the demographic changes taking place, I'm still sceptical of Europe's chances to reform Islam in order for it to conform with western cultural philosophy and institutions. The examples for this are many: the Cartoon Rage, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, grandson of the painter, the exile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc...

-Of course, its not an impossible challenge, Islam can be reformed to fit with western institutions. But where there's a problem is when Western culture and institutions are reshaped in accordance to a minority's liking, for this has never been a peaceful process, Europe as nothing to gain from diversifying its traditional national identity, and like the article I posted pointed out, its a process that doesn't have to take place either.

-In my opinion, concerning the role of the economy in this affaire, some of the demographic changes taking place are by-products of the current economical system, and economics are also acting as constrains on the possible social solutions. For example, as everyone knows, it isn't profitable to make children in our current post-industrial societies, and it is not profitable either to provide incentives to families for them to procreate and thus perpetuate society.

So, the only sustainable solutions left are to import people to help support the current crumbling demographic pyramid. Indeed, in our system, it is much more economically sound to import an engineer from India, than to breed one right here and wait until he is old enough to be a profitable asset for society, that is, if he doesn't become a drug-abusive dropout.

Perhaps from a monetary aspect there isn't much of an incentive to have children, however maybe the incentive they might be getting now is to preserve the German culture. If the German people truly care so little about preserving their culture as to continue to live their life of convenience through not having children then they should have to accept the consequences of their actions.

And I would disagree that there is no justification for the change. The option are that the German people will change their lifestyle, they won't and will have their country fall into economic chaos (if no immigrants replace the gap), or they won't and they will have immigrants fill the gap and change their culture. The justification would be that they don't want their country to fall into economic chaos and an easy short term lifestyle is more important than the preserving their culture. I happen to disagree, however I accept their justification in probably every sense though it is their choice to make. Also, the justification that personal choice and freedom of the German people, even if it will destroy their country, should be put above the national interest of Germany.

The point of the civil rights movement example was precisely that even with the most ideal goals, change is never easy. However, even with some negative aspects, it doesn't make the change inherently bad, it just makes it change. There will be change - that's undeniable, however I argue that this isn't necessarily bad change, it could be, but it can also not be. What if Germany becomes a Islamic State that has Islam transformed so much that it is a free as Germany is? On the other hand, what if it turns into a fanatical Islamic State that wages war upon Europe. I'm just saying it isn't inherently bad (or good).

In my province, Quebec, we have a certain incentive to try and preserve a certain cultural homogeneity. In 1995, the PM of the nationalist Parti Québécois, Lucien Bouchard, publicly addressed the demographic problem, saying that it was pointless to fight to the independence of a nation that does not have a future, demographically speaking. Well, 3 days later, he had to publicly apologise for having raised the issue. The feminists and the cultural minority groups wanted to have his head. I personally don’t care much about my Quebecois national identity, but what fascinates me is that it has become very difficult to raise the issue and hold a public debate on the subject. At least, in Québec, it has become a matter of selfcensorship.

Personally, I despise political correctness and support everyone expressing themselves freely.

 

[Tempest Storm]

But still, I'll just take comfort in the fact that muslims are known to abide by the institutions of multiculturalism, so they'll treat non-muslim europeans with equal consideration when they will become just another minority among others.

Like they are in France, or the Netherlands, or England? As bad as our problem with Mexican immigration is, they are nothing like some of the Muslim immigrants flowing into Europe.

 

[x42bn6]

But that's not a bad thing. The best food in London that I've had so far are prepared by Muslim restaurants.

Note that in Britain, the biggest threat actually comes from Polish workers stealing jobs.*

 

[B~E]

Tipsy:

- So there's an absurdly high demand by the aging population on the welfare system, and the government's solution is to bring in more taxe payers; foreigners en masse with their families. The longterm logical consequence of this is a lost of social identity, and all the social trauma caused by rapid demographic changes. A good case exemple would be Iliaran's Malaysia.

UPROAR is still raging in Malaysia over inflammatory speeches at the annual congress of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) in mid-November. One delegate talked of being ready to “bathe in blood” to defend the race and religion of the Malay Muslim majority against the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. The education minister, no less, brandished a keris (traditional dagger), only to be urged by another delegate to start using it.

[...]

Apart from some deadly riots in 1969, the country has so far done remarkably well in handling the awkward racial mix it inherited when the Malaysian peninsula gained independence from Britain in 1957 (Britain's colonies on Borneo joined the union later). The Chinese, now around a quarter of the population, arrived in colonial times to work the country's tin mines. The Indians, now around one-tenth, mainly came to work on plantations. Neither group intended to stay forever but many did. The Malays' fears of being marginalised in their own land grew as the Chinese came to dominate business and the Indians the professions

[...]

Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, the head of ISIS, a think-tank, says that Malays' desire for more overt expression of their Islamic faith, and Chinese and Indian parents' desire to educate their children separately, are “social forces, much more powerful than any government”. Passing laws may not be enough to stem the drifting apart of the races. But there are few other ideas on how to preserve social harmony and prosperity, two huge achievements of which any country turning 50 could be proud.

So what we have here is 1)a demographic collapse, 2) caused by a certain economical system, 3)which is promping socials changes in the forme of mass immigration, 4) in a multucultural, tolerant society no-less, 5) without even properly answering the original problem, 6)which is the conditions brought about by the economical system which are hostil to the traditional familly.

The question is, why would a nation put up with all the problems and uncertainties of diversity, and accept the lost of its identity, when the root problem still remain?

- You speak of the German nation as if it was a rational actor, somehow entitled to individual rights of self-determination. I happen to disagree. Nations aren't rational. They just follow the flow of history aimlessly, and this is even more true and obvious in a western society that has recently traded its common identity for unchecked individualism and where legitimacy is generated by economic considerations and technocrates, which are now superior to social considerations by a long shot. Nobody is going to make a choice to perpetuate german society, or to just give up on it, because nobody can legitimatly speak for everyone. How could you abide by a suicidal decision that nobody is entitled to make, where deat will be brought about by inertia?

To put the fear of economical sacrifices and hardships above the perennity of your nation isn't rational and justifiable, even if its a decision that is self-inflicted by the people. A social body should never be subordinated to economical conditions, it should be the other way around, especialy when the perpetuity of a nation is at stake. Historicaly speaking, the market was at the service of the social sphere, even at the height of the mercantilist system. The artificial supremacy of the "free market" is a new phenomenon, dating from the 70s.

My argument is that a nation, especialy a modern western one, isn't expected to make decisions concerning its perennity, because its not a rational entity, because your typical western nation is atomised and over-individualistic, and because it is artificially subordinated to economical interests. so your idea of just sitting back and accepting whatever happen "because this is what the people chosed" does not make sense to me.

- You can't tell if a social change is for the better or for worst? Dont you have any moral, historical and cultural landmarks to base your judgement on? I dont believe it. You're saying that a change might be for the best or for the worst. But considerig that this change isn't necessary and will cause serious and permanent consequences, perhapes there should be higher justifications for it than the well being of a market economy that was born yesterday.

Mason: I was kidding about the muslims.

And replies are becoming too long. Lets make them shorter please. ( ﾟдﾟ)

 

[B~E]

Why, lets hear it from the Pope himself.

If Europe Hate Itself

"Europe, precisely in this its hour of maximum success, seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed in a certain sense by a crisis in its circulatory system, a crisis that puts its life at risk, resorting, as it were, to transplants that cannot but eliminate its identity. To this interior failure of its fundamental spiritual powers corresponds the fact that, even ethnically, Europe appears to be on the way out. There is a strange lack of desire for a future. Children, who are the future, are seen as a threat for the present; the idea is that they take something away from our life. They are not felt as a hope, but rather as a limitation of the present."

[...]

"The second point in which the European identity appears is marriage and the family. Monogamous marriage, as the basic structure of the relationship between man and woman and, at the same time, as the cell of the formation of the state community, is derived from biblical faith. This has given Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe, its own particular face and its own particular humanity, precisely because the form of fidelity and self-denial set out here had always to be conquered, over and over again, with much effort and suffering. Europe would no longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its social structure were to disappear or be essentially changed."

Marriage derived from the Bible? is that true? And the familly unit as the building block of society, how important and unique was that for Europe?

 

[B~E]

Why look, another exemple of tolerance and harmony from multicultural Malaysia.

Old and new traditions clash in Malaysian Islamic city

KOTA BARU, Malaysia (Reuters) - Osman Bakar is a specialist in Malaysia's traditional art of shadow puppetry, but fears his craft is flickering out under curbs imposed by strict Islamist rulers in the country's northeastern state of Kelantan.

Wayang kulit is slowly fading out in the province following years of restrictions on this ancient form of puppetry, which dates back centuries before Islam spread to the region and whose origins are derived from Hinduism.

Two years ago, the Islamist party Parti Islam se Malaysia, which controls the mostly rural Kelantan province with a population of 1.5 million people, declared the capital Kota Baru an Islamic city.

The move was the latest in a series of changes PAS has ushered in since taking power there in 1990, as it seeks to discourage behavior it considers against the tenets of Islam.

It has shut down bars serving alcohol, which is forbidden under Islamic law, instituted separate checkout queues for men and women in supermarkets, and clamped down on traditional performing arts that it considers breaches Islamic law.

Although Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, half its population of about 26 million is non-Muslim and the national government, run by a coalition led by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), is secular.

CULTURE CLASH

Kelantan is steeped in traditional Malaysian culture which dates back to centuries before Islam reached the area over 800 years ago. When Islam did reach the relatively isolated region, south of the Thai border, it took hold in a more mystical form.

But PAS upholds a strict form of Islam that sometimes clashes with elements of Malaysian culture.

Authorities in Kota Baru stirred an outcry last month by announcing plans to fine non-Muslim women if they wore revealing clothes. They later backed down, saying the measures would apply to Muslims only.

"Now we see a lot more women in headscarves. There weren't so many earlier," said Azmi Noh, a cloth trader in Kota Baru's Siti Khadijah market, where his shop is surrounded by traders seated on platforms selling pyramids of vegetables and rows of chickens.

"They have been closing cinemas in the city for more than a year, eliminating illegal structures, and building more places for people to pray," he added.

Its really something to look forward to.