22-Sep-10 News -- More on xenophobia in Europe

[John]

22-Sep-10 News -- More on xenophobia in Europe

All sides prepare for collapse of Mideast peace talks

** 22-Sep-10 News -- More on xenophobia in Europe
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 22#e100922

Contents:
"More on xenophobia in Europe"
"All sides prepare for collapse of Mideast peace talks"
"Additional links"
Unemployed over 50 may never work again
UK proposes that all paychecks go to the government first
Wealthy Chinese hire more bodyguards
Atheist Christopher Hitchens will skip 'pray for Hitchens' day
Divorce insurance pays off when you get divorced

[ridgel]

Regarding the UK proposal for employers to send checks to the Treasury, and the Treasury to disburse after tax payments to the workers.... It sounds shocking at first, until you realize that's basically what ADP and the other payroll companies do already.

Regarding xenophobia, I think we'll know it has come of age when a better word comes around to describe it. "Fear of the other" describes the left's caricature of those who are against immigration. When some smart spinmeister finds a word that means love-of-one's-own-country-without-feeling-a-strong-need-to-pack-it-full-of-third-worlders then we'll know it's really become a mass movement.

Regarding workers over 50 - I suspect some of the problem isn't the taint of age itself, because after all most 50-60 year olds are still fairly sharp, and technology doesn't change as fast as the media idiots would have you believe. I think at least part of it is that most people's experience of 50+ people is inflexible baby boomers who expect all sorts of work rules and don't really chip in or make the effort when the going gets tough. No wonder corporate America likes immigrants so much. If the WWII generation was 50-60 now, would they be having as much trouble finding work? I doubt it. I'd hire most of those guys in a second.

[boqueronman]

I also have trouble with the rather loose use of the word "xenophia." The word does, after all, have a meaning. While the meaning does involve suspicions of foreigners, the definition also contains words such as "unreasonable," deep-rooted," "irrational," and "hatred." Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that any of these words apply to the reaction over the murder of Theo Van Gogh, since many of the more visible spokepersons for the Muslim, aided of course by the multi-culti left, have preached rejection of Western values and assimilation in these terms. Who, then, is the "xenophobe?" The way I see it such a charge is an overwhelmingly appropriate designation for a significant portion of the Muslim immigrant community itself and its leadership. Yes, yes, there are many Muslims who will go along to get along, But again, those purporting to represent this immigrant community could hardly be any more publicly antagonistic toward their new countries.

Let's assume then you are a representative citizen, with family going back generations. You see that you have a small segment of the decision making elite who wish to support the rejectionist front of the immigrant leadership. After all it suits their purpose also to wipe away the last remnants of European culture and history and create a "progressive" utopia. Under these circumstances would a political party who wishes to reduce the antagonism among the residents of the country by legally and peacefully reforming immigration policies and laws, while addressing the assimilation issue, not receive significant support and even votes from the native population? No surprise to me. And does that make those who oppose nearly unlimited immigration using lawful and peaceful means xenophobes?" Please, stop making me laugh.

A suspicion of outsiders, strangers, foreigners, what have you, is the natural default position of human nature. If it wasn't there would be no evidence of inter-tribal warfare, of servitude and slavery, and, most especially, of national borders. A reduction of the numbers and nature of immigration into a country is not xenophobia; it is a natural and continuous issue of public policy. Many Europeans believe the present jointly sponsored multi-culti and Muslim campaign to increase, not just by differences in fertility rates, but by ever increasing inflows of immigrants, should be halted. You need to cite another instance of undirected (if these new parties had their "brown shirts out it was not reported) disturbances (although the death toll is still Muslims 1-EVERYBODY ELSE 0). One point does not make a trend. And the small minority political parties with immigration reform as part of their platforms is not evidence of hatred, irrationality, unreasonableness. Sorry, you're profoundly wrong on this one.

[John]

Here's the definition that I'm using:

> xen·o·pho·bi·a [zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-] –noun an unreasonable
> fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is
> foreign or strange.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobia

This definition carries exactly the meaning that I want.

It's quite possible to have a "reasonable" fear of foreigners or
strangers, and that happens all the time for various reasons.

But what I'm saying, as a separate matter, is that in the last ten
years, there's been a significant growth in "unreasonable" fear of
foreigners or strangers.

I would add that it goes in both directions. Just as Americans are
experiencing increasing xenophobia for Muslims and Latinos, and just
as Europeans are experiencing increasing xenophobia for Muslims and
Gypsies, we also see the growth of anti-Americanism around the world,
which is another form of xenophobia. This is what happens in
generational Crisis eras.

John

[Raynote]

boqueronman and ridgel (2nd paragraph): I couldn't agree more!

I'm sorry to say that John doesn't have a clue about the "unreasonable" growth of the muslim immigration in Europe over the past 20 years. We have had immigration before, for example in France: Polish people in the twenties, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian in the fifties ans sixties, people from Vietnam, Laos, and China in the seventies and eighties, Chinese still coming today. These people were never a problem to us although they were quite different from us French.
They were (or are) hard-working populations and they brought a lot to the country, unlike the whining, demanding, offensive and sometimes violent population that I mentionned before.
And they are still arriving by the hundreds of thousands every year. But you aren't allowed to say anything, you can't protest or you will be branded a racist. So the French people just shut up and bear it as well as they can... but for how long?

[John]

Dear Raymonde,

> boqueronman and ridgel (2nd paragraph): I couldn't agree more!

> I'm sorry to say that John doesn't have a clue about the
> "unreasonable" growth of the muslim immigration in Europe over the
> past 20 years. We have had immigration before, for example in
> France: Polish people in the twenties, Spanish, Portuguese and
> Italian in the fifties ans sixties, people from Vietnam, Laos, and
> China in the seventies and eighties, Chinese still coming
> today. These people were never a problem to us although they were
> quite different from us French.

> They were (or are) hard-working populations and they brought a lot
> to the country, unlike the whining, demanding, offensive and
> sometimes violent population that I mentionned before.

> And they are still arriving by the hundreds of thousands every
> year. But you aren't allowed to say anything, you can't protest or
> you will be branded a racist. So the French people just shut up
> and bear it as well as they can... but for how long?

You say that I'm wrong, but you don't say what I'm wrong about. I
agree with everything you say -- there is a lot of perfectly reasoable
anger at Muslims, for the reasons you state.

But the heart of xenophobia is that those attitudes extend to the
entire class.

I don't doubt for moment that a percentage, even a large percentage,
of the Muslims fit the "whining, demanding, offensive and sometimes
violent population" description that you've provided.

In fact, check out the following article:

** 5-Sep-10 News -- Thousands protest Gypsy expulsions from France
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 05#e100905

In that article, I quoted a number of people who say the same sorts of
things about Gypsies that you're saying about Muslims. So I'm not
disputing your characterization at all. In fact, it's clear that the
Muslims and Gypsies have even more extreme xenophobic and hate-filled
attitudes towards the Europeans than vice-versa. Everything I read
about them seethes with this hatred.

The problem is that not all Muslims and not all Gypsies fit that
description, and they're being treated the same way. And the problem
with that is that it creates a vicious circle. Contempt increases on
both sides, leading to continually increasing mutual xenophobia.

Let me just add one more thing, Raymonde: This is on the verge of
becoming a very explosive situation. All it will take is one trigger
on one side or the other to create real violence. We've already seen
a small example of that with the murder of Theo van Gogh.

Actually, come to think of it, we've already seen some major examples
of this in France. In 2005, young Muslims rioted in the Paris
suburbs, and then in 2006, young Frenchmen got revenge against the
Muslims by rioting in Paris.

** France's Nicolas Sarkozy says 'Let them eat cake!'
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 02#e051102

** France: Jacques Chirac caves in to street protests
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 11#e060411

Since 2006, xenophobia has been increasing on both sides. With the
right kind of trigger, those two separate rioting events could be
combined into a single mass riot, involving mutual killing. I'm sure
you're aware that such a thing would not be unheard of in French
history, and it's the MAJOR thing that European elders have been
trying to avoid with the Treaty of Rome and the European Union.

It's a very painful situation to watch. I don't want to blame either
side, but I'm just saying that it's happening.

John

[ridgel]

The problem is that not all Muslims and not all Gypsies fit that
description, and they're being treated the same way. And the problem
with that is that it creates a vicious circle. Contempt increases on
both sides, leading to continually increasing mutual xenophobia.

It's too bad there's not a way to limit immigration in the U.S. (and Western Europe I suppose if that's where you live) without the bad lumped in with the good. But every legitimate legal attempt over the last 20 years to limit immigration has been shut down by whatever means necessary by the elites - starting with the judicial shutdown of proposition 187 in California in 1994, and right up to the current judicial shutdown of the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law. When there's no justice people will turn to violence. And I agree with John that it's going to absolutely suck. But it's a direct result of the elites not listening to the citizens so that they can get their cheap labor and their socialist voters and their welfare state wards. If immigration had remained at a sensible rate, and of people who truly contributed to the nation, then the majority of citizens would continue to welcome it. So it's really not an increase in xenophobia, but an increase in anger at the elites who have shirked their duty of looking out for their respective countries, and have instead only looked out for themselves, whether it's in regards to immigration, or the stock market and banking or trade deficits or budget deficits or whatever. Instead of managing their herd for steady gain they've been slaughtering it, and no one should be surprised when there's a stampede.

[Raynote]

Hi John! Thank you for the long answer to my comment.

But I still think you're wrong when you use the term xenophobia to describe the attitude of Europeans, but you're right when you talk about anger.
We are angry not only with these populations who are ruining our country but also, and very much so, with the politicians who allowed this to happen without ever asking the ordinary citizen if he approved. And as ridgel put it very clearly:

"When there's no justice people will turn to violence. And I agree with John that it's going to absolutely suck. But it's a direct result of the elites not listening to the citizens so that they can get their cheap labor and their socialist voters and their welfare state wards. If immigration had remained at a sensible rate, and of people who truly contributed to the nation, then the majority of citizens would continue to welcome it. So it's really not an increase in xenophobia, but an increase in anger at the elites"

Moreover, when you say: "The problem is that not all Muslims fit that description, and they're being treated the same way", you don't seem to realize that all muslims everywhere stick together no matter what, and no "moderate" muslim in France or elsewhere ever condemned violence done by another muslim. Just one example: the case of the "Danish Cartoons" a few years ago which triggered outbursts of violence and death-threats towards the "offenders" in several places in Europe, well not one muslim voice in France (so-called moderate or otherwise) was heard to condemn that. So how are we supposed to take it?..

Another thing, a few months ago there were some clashes (but the mainstream media kept quiet about it) between the Chinese population of Paris and muslim "youths" because the former were fed up with agressions, theft, etc, by the latter and they (the Chinese) wanted to show that they weren't willing to bear it any longer. Was that "xenophobia" on their part? And, by the way, they didn' t find much support on the part of either the police forces or the french population: everyone is too scared of being branded a racist, a term that is strangely never applied to a muslim or an african who threatens or abuses a white person or a Chinese one!

Truly, things are very, very wrong here...

[ridgel]

There's a generational component of not-liking-foreigners that goes beyond just the get along ethic that John says the silent generation posesses. Most Boomers have never had to compete directly with foreigners in their own country, at least until very recently. Sure they may have lost manufacturing jobs to overseas, but they didn't have Abu coming over on a visa and taking their job. But anyone under 35 or so has had to compete with these people since college, especially since college because boomer faculty hire foreign grad studens in great number. So not only do today's college students have to compete with foreigners for academic positions and jobs, they have to sit through vast numbers of lectures with incompetent foreign "teaching assistants" who have bad english, different cultures, and don't give a heck about actually teaching since they're just there to get their visas. I've been through this, and have to say that on the whole foreigners are nice, they've pretty much ruined the academic experience for Americans. Diversity smirchity - these guys are cheap labor so tenured boomer professors can avoid teaching.