No one will be able to stop people from immigrating. Take the problems Italy has with gipsy immigrants and their misbehavior. The Italian authorities have been trying to get every gipsy immigrant back to his home country but so far they failed. A new flood of immigrants is awaited so this country started a plan to do some flood damage repair before it's too late. Hope I'll never read about more crimes and thefts done by immigrants. I thought that we leave our country to find another one that will treat us better and respected in return...but things are not that peachy, are they?

Armor: Germany is the place where the Germans live. It hasn't moved much since 2000 years ago.

 

Incorrect. The Germanic tribes were of Scandinavian origin and were migrants, not unlike the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes. Moreover, the territory of modern Germany was already inhabited by Celtic, Uralic and Alpine tribes. Modern Germans are a fusion of Scandinavian, Celtic, West Slavic and Alpine stock.

 

Armor: So, you will find in France a ethnic variety that does not exist in Germany.

 

I disagree. The Basques are a separate issue as, like the Kurds, constitute a stateless nation that is transnational across the Franco-Spanish border.

 

Armor: People are very confused. You will hear many Alsatians claiming that they are French. I find that very annoying...In the South of France, if they have to do a carnival parade on a french theme, they will just put a small Eiffel tower on a carnival float. It is ridiculous. It is obvious they have been invaded by the French, just like Brittany and Alsace.

 

Nations and subraces, although closely related, are not identical. The former involves historical, linguistic and cultural (or perceived) solidarity, and the latter involves genetic lineage. States based upon phenotype were thought impossible due to nationalism and logistical impracticalities, however, modernity and the undermining of the concept of the nation has provided an opportunity to reshape the boundaries of Europe. Moreover, White Nationalism will no doubt supersede European ethnic nationalism eventually. 

 

Armor: There is still a french ethnic nation based around Paris in the Northern part of france, although it is in a sorry shape, due to third-world immigration. But there isn't a french nation fitting the territory known as france. When you speak to people in Paris, you will mainly notice if they are white or third-world. Everyone who is white and can speak french will be considered french. It is not what I called an ethnic identity.

 

Ethnic identities can be made and remade. Looks are forever.

 

Armor: Even now, there may be more racial homogeneousness among white Americans than among white people living in france.

 

33.3% of those classified as "White" in the United States have over 10% non-White ancestry. Moreover, White people in France are part of the same race: Caucasoid.

Freedom to worship is something that Europeans take for granted, and though many of us don't exercise that right, we should defend it vigorously.

Living in Indonesia, we can see up close the face of our enemies. Today's Jakarta Post tells how a Muslim dissident had his home burned to the ground by Islamist savages. That was in Jabung, East Java- his group's awful sins include not washing up for prayers and not bolging folk to vist graveyards.

The arson occurred while the dissenters were meeting local authorities and the ghastly MUI (state-sponsored Indonesian Clerics' Council) to discuss probelms, though it seems the local adminsitration had 'agreed' to close them down last week. Since the closure did not happen, the ignioramuses ran amok.

Freedom is a joke in this archipelago, so let Europe wake up to the menace and stop letting primitives settle in civilised countries. Check out Morfiny Books World Review bulletin for regular updates on what goes on here in theEast Indies..

The worst part of this EU invasion is the high birthrate of the new arrivals will over whelm the low EU birthrate. The EU birthrate does not replace the existing ethnic population. The Muslim arrivals have a birthrate that is about four times higher. In twenty years you will not be able to recognize the EU.

As the more intelligent ethnic population ages and retires, they need a population that will be able to pay for the pensions of the new retirees. Sadly they will have a new lower educated population that will pay in fewer taxes. Instead of paying taxes, they will be collecting more money in ‘social services’ at the expense of the vanishing ethnic taxpayers.

 

Most of the new arrivals live in ‘ethnic ghettos’ that police and tourists avoid. As the new arrivals keep even the police out, they have gained a form of control over their ‘adopted city.’ Tourists will be warned to avoid these ethnic ghettos. Soon more tourists will avoid visiting these cities. The lack of tourism will lead to more economic collapse.

 

Just look at Malmo Sweden and parts of Paris and you will see areas that are under the control of the Muslims. Malmo is nearly completely ‘occupied’ by the Muslim arrivals. The rate of rape and other crimes have gone through the roof.

 

The elected politicians are paralyzed by fear, thinking that they are sitting on a time bomb. They are too afraid to take any action against the Muslims.

 

They should stop allowing ‘chain immigration,’ allowing Muslim immigrants to move to the EU to join the early family members. Their problems would be fewer if they stopped giving citizenship to people from Muslim countries. They could deport anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime. If they deported the most radical imams, it would silence the worst of the remaining imams.

 

They need to show the Muslims that they can’t be paralyzed into inaction. Now the Muslims can smell the fear of the politicians.

@ Kapitein Andre

 

1) I guess I will never get you to concede that previous generations do not bequeath "welfare states".  They only bequeath a certain level of capital stock, and every generation anew decides how it developes the economy further and how it distributes the 'cake' of GDP. 

As I noted before, all goods (and services) have BOTH public and private aspects, but in different combinations.  For example, in the cases of potatoes and shoes, the public aspect is negligable, so that its production (and distribution) can only sensibly, i.e. efficiently, take place in (and allocated through) the private sector.  In the cases of (A) education and (B) health care, the externalities involved are considerable, so that the argument for government intervention of some kind is also considerable, because 'free markets' would lead to a sub-optimal production level (one that does not capture the positive 'externalities' of them) .  However, I would caution that these are not "pure" public goods, and the economic argument for EXCLUSIVE or sole public production (and distribution) of them is weak.  This is especially the case for health care, which is a very complicated subject.  I will focus (in a cursory manner) on your other 'public good', i.e. education. More specifically, I will focus on 'own contribution' and on the 'locus' (public or private) of education production.

The primary beneficiary of (formal) 'education' is the individual recipient of such education, and the detailed income data obtained from census data clearly confirm that.  At the same time, in a broad sense, society at large CAN benefit from an educated citizenry (depending on the nature of the 'education'), which provides an argument for SOME government intervention (at least in the form of subsidisation, not necessarily in the form of own government production).  Given that the main beneficiary is the recipient him- or herself, it should be obvious that not all 'education' should be totally free, from the society's perspective.  Moreover, given that 'serious education' is not like consuming potatoes or shoes, but rather requires individual effort, some individual financial contribution would seem necessary as an incentive for the individual (or rather parents) to take his own education seriously.  It can not be that government is simply warehousing a generation of students who are wasting their time, and society's resources.  In short, not all education should be 'free', and the smart argument should be about which parts of 'education' should be free (i.e. paid by government) and which parts should not.  An easy example, most 'higher' edcuation should NOT be free, because: (a) it tends to involve subsidisation of 'rich' people (over an individual's life-time) by generally poorer people, (b) the positive externalities involved are usually insignificant, and (c) even a lot of 'higher education' CAN have negative utility for society. 

As to the locus of production, i.e. private versus public sector, as always monopolies (and duopolies) should be avoided and competition is a good thing.  Unless there is considerable competition between different education 'systems', a society runs the danger of perpetuating 'orthodoxy'.  This is a big subject.  One hypothesis: the current immigration mess in Europe has a lot to do with past total state control of education systems and the resulting imposition of 'group think' which has saddled the education system (and thus subsequently journalism and the media) with a naive-left orthodoxy.

 

2) The only "principle" to which I have "admitted" to adhere in this context has been the need to preserve and foster "democratic" societies.  I do not think that that has "run afoul applied globally".  On the contrary, the state of affairs in nondemocratic societies (whatever their racial compositions) speaks for itself.  In making appropriate political 'accomodations' between the French 'nation' and the Breton one, that principle should be kept foremost in mind.  

While you are working up the last two milleniums, [...] is a fusion of peoples that occurred over centuries, which clearly does not extend to every inch of territory [...). [...] There never was a politically united territory looking like today's france until the end of the Middle Ages. [...]
Let's have a look into the near future: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/23/communities.population)
At least a dozen British towns and cities will have no single ethnic group in a majority within the next 30 years. Leicester will become the first 'super-diverse' city in 2020, then Birmingham in 2024, followed by Slough and Luton, according to a new study of population trends in the UK. Britain is becoming ever more plural; our diversity ever more diverse. This increased diversity is most evident in its cities, with plurality becoming commonplace. The immigrant and ethnic populations are no longer characterised by large, well organised Afro-Caribbean and South Asian communities. Instead, increasing numbers come from countries scattered across the globe - from Germany to Guyana, from Sweden to Singapore. It is going to become increasingly difficult to generalise about Britain's plurality because different cities are experiencing different levels and types of diversity. Population patterns in towns are not expected to become plural in the foreseeable future. Oldham, for example, will remain a town with an overwhelmingly white population. The town's second largest ethnic group after whites is Pakistani, but by 2021 there are likely to be as many Bangladeshis in Oldham as there are Pakistanis.

Armor: There was no nascent France at the time....Where is nascent France? There isn't one. It looks more like a nascent EU.

 

The French nation is a fusion of peoples that occurred over centuries, which clearly does not extend to every inch of territory currently ascribed to the French state. French is both cultural and ethnic. There are French of Mediterranean stock who could never pledge allegiance to Occitania and there are French of Germanic stock who could never do so to Germany, and so on and so forth. Additionally, there are those whose genetic lineage is so fused that their ethnicity could be nothing other than French.

Armor: Francia means nothing. It used to be in Germany and the Netherlands before it started moving West! In the end, the name was appropriated by a small kingdom around Paris even though the population around there had nothing to do with the Franks.

Neither Germany nor the Netherlands existed as such before Francia emerged as a kingdom in Christendom.

 

Armor: There never was a politically united territory looking like today's france until the end of the Middle Ages. The territory was expanded bit by bit over several centuries, using bribes, mercenaries, and cannons. There was no fusion of the different populations until the 20th century. In Bordeaux, Toulouse, and Montpellier, people are still Mediterraneans, although the whites are becoming a minority. To me, they look like Spaniards or Italians. The Alsacians are still Germans, although they have been ordered to speak french (and they are currently being replaced with Turks, Malians and Arabs). Current france is an artificial creation that has been maintained by force.

 

I am not disagreeing here. Nevertheless, tens of millions will consider themselves ethnically French irrespective of whether they occupy a core region around Paris or whether or not some or the majority of French territory is superfluous to their nation.

 

Armor: ...there has been a long effort by the bureaucracy to destroy every foreign identity: Occitan (=mediterranean), Basque, Catalan, German, Breton, Corsican, Flemish. Since 1789, we have been told that we had to disappear because france is built upon the concept that all men are equal.

 

The same is true in the British Isles or for Germany's Polabian and Sorb populations. Germany itself is home to Germanic, Celto-Germanic, Alpine and Slavic elements, and all combinations thereof. In fact, the presence of Germanic and Alpine elements in continental Europe are the main problems at hand here.

 

I understand your visceral dislike for the French state and its history of 'nation-building' and Frenchification, however, this does not alter the fact that a French nation does currently exist in the ethnic sense. Indeed, settler societies such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were all on their way to becoming ethnic nations until relatively recently. Furthermore, I fail to see why a Breton nation-state cannot co-exist with a French one.

marcfrans: Apart from the fact that it is doubtful that previous generations even wanted to "bequeath" free-handouts, it is simply impossible for them to do so even if they would have wanted to do so.  The Kapitein fundamentally misunderstands how intergenerational transfers work in economies.      

 

The welfare state generally comprises more than mere income transfers such as pensions, disability benefits or income assistance. It also tends to include major provision of public goods and services such as education and healthcare. Indeed, the allure of public education and healthcare cannot be overlooked in analysing immigration 'pull' factors. Though I would argue that a certain degree of income transfers is required, at least in the case of war veterans, my main concern when people argue to dismantle the welfare state is the loss of these two.
 

marcfrans: It is somewhat ironic to see the Kapitein and Armor, both defenders of 'white people' against immigrants, argue about which nation they are defending here.  The Kapitein obviously considers France a "nation", and Armor does not. For him the nation is the region of Britany (in France).  It would appear therefore, that both have to do some more serious thinking to do about what it is that they are defending.  It better be some clear principles, as opposed to muddled and/or 'racist' ideas.

 

Au contraire. The existence of a French nation does not preclude the existence of a Breton one also. Moreover, though weak in terms of electoral support and political clout, Occitan nationalism also exists. Lastly, the resurgence of formerly suppressed nations throughout the European Union indicates that the ethno-national landscape of Europe will continue to change, most likely towards further fragmentation. Therefore, opposition to non-White minorities does not mean that one must affiliate onself with European nation-states in their current form: given that the problem is for all intents and purposes international, so too must be its resolution. Indeed, there remains much work to be done in order to ensure European nations have self-determination. Though short-lived, Lotharingia comprised those regions where Teuton, Celt, Mediterranean and Alpine peoples collided, and countries such as Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium as well as Northern Italy remain situated on this ethno-cultural fault line. Thus, one cannot ignore the map redrawing that needs to be done regardless of immigration.

 

Though I will take marcfrans' suggestion to adopt "clear principles" under advisement, I must caution him that the principles he admittedly believes in run afoul applied globally.

1) Kapitein Andre does not want the welfare state and free hand-outs dismantled in France, and his argument is that Europeans "should be enjoying their well-deserved benefits bequeathed by previous generations". This argument is false. 

Apart from the fact that it is doubtful that previous generations even wanted to "bequeath" free-handouts, it is simply impossible for them to do so even if they would have wanted to do so.  The Kapitein fundamentally misunderstands how intergenerational transfers work in economies.      

In any given time period (e.g. a year) an economy will produce a certain volume of output of goods and services (GDP), which will be equal to national income (ignoring depreciation for simplicity 's sake).  Every year that GDP gets re-created by the existing population (not by previous generations that are gone).  In short, it is the existing work force that is producing the income (that Government can partly tax away and hand out in free hand-outs) in any given time period.  Of course, to the extent that past generations have saved part of their incomes, and invested those parts, the capital stock in the economy will have grown.  This means that future labor forces wil be able to work with a larger capital stock, which will enable higher output creation and thus higher income levels in the economy (assuming they will maintain the same or similar levels of work effort).  So, it is possible for national income to grow over time, but this has nothing to do with anyone being "entitled" to free hand-outs on the basis of wishes from previous generations.   Any decision by government to take income away from some in order to give "free hand-outs" to others, is purely a decision that is taken by a contemporary government, not by "previous generations".   And that decision or a similar one,  has to be remade every time period (say annually).  One must also ask the question, how any "free hand-outs" could be "well-deserved".  How could anything taken away from others be "deserved"?  There may be good reasons for government to give some free-handouts to some (or many).  It could sometimes even be argued that these "benefits" are "deserving" (in some sense).  But how could they be "deserved" if they are 'free' to the recipient.  They are certainly not free to the tax payer (of today, not previous generations!!) who has to pay for them.  So, free hand-outs are neither "deserved" nor "free" to the economy. Somebody today is bearing the cost of them.    

Moreover, the Kapitein talks about "public provision of goods and services", which is not the same thing as "free hand-outs" at all, nor should it be confused with government "benefit payments".  Handouts and benefit payments are essentially INCOME TRANSFERS in an economy, i.e. government takes income away from some or many (tax payers), and then gives this to others.  This should not be confused with the production of PUBLIC GOODS and services, which often is undertaken by government for a variety of reasons.  This would require a lengthy explanation about the distinction between public and private goods.  In reality, all goods have some public and private aspects, but one or the other aspect dominates depending on the nature of the good and the type of market structure.

 

2) It is somewhat ironic to see the Kapitein and Armor, both defenders of 'white people' against immigrants, argue about which nation they are defending here.  The Kapitein obviously considers France a "nation", and Armor does not. For him the nation is the region of Britany (in France).  It would appear therefore, that both have to do some more serious thinking to do about what it is that they are defending.  It better be some clear principles, as opposed to muddled and/or 'racist' ideas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2526656920071226?feedType...

Another gift of diversity!!

"Then Rome was forced to reveal that Italy, a country even more poorly governed than France, which is saying a lot, now has 3.7 million immigrants (the official figure), that 700,000 new arrivals were recorded in 2006, and that 560,000 Gypsies have settled there. More than 100,000 of them arrived in the ten-month period after January 1, 2007."

Well, if people move from Romania to Italy they're not immigrants to the European Union, are they?
 

Lambert: On the other hand, in the countries of Eastern Europe, there are no immigrants. Why? Because these countries were subjected to communism and are therefore underdeveloped, with no welfare state or free hand-outs, housing, health care or schools.

Public provision of goods and services should not be dismantled merely on account of attracting immigrants, anymore than criminal penalties should be unreasonably severe to deter foreigners from committing crimes. This will unfairly penalize indigenous Western Europeans by prohibiting them from enjoying their well-deserved benefits bequeathed by prior generations. Given the failure of all policies and programmes, ranging from the assimilationist to the multicultural, to integrate non-White immigrants to Western Europe, only three options are available that ensure fairness to the indigenous populations in question (irrespective of border/immigration controls):

1. Segregation or apartheid
2. Explusion (partial or complete)
3. Civil War

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, all three will be attempted to different degrees at different times by different affected countries.

Lambert: Some say that one must not exaggerate. The great invasions from the 4th to 7th centuries eventually worked themselves out, didn't they? Great ignorance. We have to realize that these invasions had only a limited effect on the population of nascent France. As a matter of fact, in general, gangs of invaders and vandals, totaling only a few thousand individuals did not settle down in France, except for the Franks to the East. Furthermore, these barbarians quite rapidly converted to Christianity, more precisely to arianism.

Au contraire, the invasion of Teutonic tribes created the French people, by unifying Gallo-Roman, Celtic and Teutonic elements in a single state: Francia. Otherwise, Occitania or Aquitania and Gallia or Gaul would have drifted apart, especially as the former was composed of Mediterranean stock and had a matching outlook. Moreover, although the Franks converted to Catholicism at the behest of of the Gallo-Roman clergy, which was derived from formerly senatorial Roman families, they did so for pagan reasons i.e. victory in war, which the allure of Arius is indicative of.

Lambert: It is true that at the time the merovingian monarchy did not distribute to these barbarians welfare of all kinds, declaring: "You are a great opportunity for France. Come, all of you, and join us with your large and beautiful families." No. Back then, people still had common sense.

I suppose Lambert is now referring to the Vikings, as the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties were Frankish, as were the ranks of the nobility. However, these incursions resulted in Rollo acquiring Normandy, William the Conqueror and centuries of 'colourful' relations between England and France, among other lands.

Lambert: Italy wins the prize right now. For this to become known, a young Italian girl had to be raped and murdered by a Gypsy.

 

It is becoming painfully obvious that rape and murder are hallmarks of mass immigration of non-Whites (usually excepting certain East Asian ethnicities) to White societies, seemingly an extreme symptom of that which drives miscegenation and intermarriage: power over the Other's women. As regards the components of conquest, little has changed apparently from the bands of Central Asian horsemen centuries ago to the packs of Muslim youth stalking about the streets of Oslo or Stockholm. 

 

Lambert: More than 50% of the crime in Italy is due to these "Rumanians".

 

Well at least Italian fascism was defeated and the Wehrmacht is no longer 'stationed' on Italy's soil. One problem at a time I suppose...It will be interesting to watch Italian liberals, socialists and even 'conservatives' handle this one. Time to toss the Dr. Oetker popcorn in the microwave. 

 

 

Lambert: While I'm on the topic, I should note in passing that the town of Aulnay-sous-Bois, in Seine-Saint-Denis, has just experienced 4 days and nights of street fighting between gangs of "Afro-Maghrebins" and the police, according to the press itself. At Villiers-le-Bel, Val d'Oise, it is even more serious. The police, attacked with rifles, proved to be impotent. In order to quell these riots military units specializing in street fighting are now necessary, especially since stockpiles of war weapons from the Balkans are being stashed in the suburbs.

 

Perhaps the time has come to change its mandate and deploy the Foreign Legion on French soil. Not only are they already experienced in combating paramilitaries in Africa and the Middle East, but by their very nature they are not as soft as either the French police, gendarmerie or military.

 

Lambert: Norway discovered and recruited, as a government minister, a black woman from Martinique.

 

I am certain that this new Norwegian will act with all the objectivity of Oprah Winfrey.

Kappert , Trust me when I say that 560,000 Romanians are more than capable of of committing 90% of Italy's crime . They are not " people" as we know them but stone age primitives who have no social skills or morals . What sort of person drops their trousers in the street and  defecates on the sidewalk , I have seen many men and women do this , both in Romania and the U.K.

"Europe, which created the most beautiful civilization that humanity has ever produced, will disappear."

You're so right; even if we count the wrongs committed by some during the colonial period. Western science and art has made the world a better place for all humanity.

Not possibly written by a frog. The English is way too good.  I also question some of the numbers but the general direction of the essay I completely agree with.

More than 50% of the crime in Italy is due to these "Rumanians"

The 60 million Italians must be extremely law obeying, if 560.000 'Rumanians' commit more than 50% of all crimes.