by Tyler Cowen
on March 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm
in Current Affairs, History, Law, Political Science
Context here. NYT coverage here.
“Petry was married to a pastor named Sven, has four children, and lives in Tautenhain, Saxony.”
“[Merkel] has no children, but [her husband] Sauer has two adult sons from a previous marriage.”
Interesting and may well help explain Merkel’s xenophilia. . . .
Personally, I’ve rescheduled my summer vacation from Germany to Hungary/Slovakia. Should be much safer to walk around in the latter.
Of course, everybody knows it is much better to be assaulted by a non-Muslim 😉
I realize you’re being tongue in cheek but the risk of getting assaulted by a native-ethnic German is lower than the risk of getting assaulted by someone who comes from a culture that does not respect women.
Well maybe we could have an answer to that specific question if the academy was willing to study it, but they aren’t. But, not so fast, are you denying your precious poverty -> crime article of faith or your misogyny -> crimes against women article of faith or your masculinity -> crime article of faith?
‘by someone who comes from a culture that does not respect women’
Many German men do not respect women – at least according to many German women. Which is the eyes of such men have no opinion worth mentioning anyways, of course. German women who find the hypocrisy of so many German men decrying how Islam is anti-woman while not realizing just how anti-woman they are themselves just about typical for such sexists.
Oddly, I was talking to two students after class about Germany and sexism yesterday, in relation to the graduation post. (And because who can resist sharing – did you know that at Buckeye High School in Ohio, the kids are literally locked into windowless classrooms? That old joke about high school being jail is now literally true.)
First, they said that the AfD explicitly supports the goals of German women having at least 3 children, should stay at home, and if they work, should be paid explicitily less than men – no equal pay for equal work with the AfD. Some in the AfD have also advocated shooting children at the border, creating that fascinating mix of Ostalgia and a yearning for the purer days before the wrong form of socialism was in charge that is so attractive to many East Germans in relation to the AfD.
Second, one of them asked me if I had ever been to Oktoberfest, I answered no, and she said it was a horrible example of sexism. Well, I teach technical English, and it was after class, so I did not correct her vocabulary (though I did, after the third or fourth reference, to tell her that in English, women get pregnant, and have children), as she probably meant sexual harassment. Which just happens to be real common at Fasching too – in other words, what happened at Cologne (and Stuttgart, Hamburg, and Zurich) was unusual because it happened at the train station, and involved a profit motive, as at least as many robberies were committed as sexual assaults. During the period of Fasching itself in Cologne, the sexual harassments/assaults committed by drunken German men (and in all fairness, a few drunken German women) was probably an order of magnitude higher than what occurred New Year’s. Many German women will not attend things like Fasching or Oktoberfest due to such behavior from their countrymen.
Germany is not a place that respects women, and anyone who thinks that is likely either willfully blind, or a man – or both, of course.
And anyone who does not know what the AfD (not to mention both older and newer right wing groupings) represents is either willfully blind or someone with a nostalgia for the sort of patriotic fervor that Sailer feels is the only salvation for a nation. This is why when the reliably anti-Islamic voices in a party like the AfD talk about how German culture respects women, so many German women wonder how such people can be so blind. That many are self-righteousness hypocrites is easier to understand, obviously. But that some women, mainly older, go along is hard for them to understand. Much like how Germans born in the last 50 years don’t understand how so many people could have believed in what they did before the ‘hour zero.’ (A figure of speech representing Germany in sping 1945 – a completely destroyed society that had committed monstrously evil acts.)
Do you seriously want to compare the rates of crimes in portion with the respective populations?
Why not? We’re still looking at 99% of the population is innocent, and can discuss existing social issues without broadly tarring entire groups for the actions of a few. Islam is sexually repressive and teaches men that they cannot be expected to control themselves, with altogether too many Muslims putting the primary onus for rape avoidance on the female victims, not the perpetrators. This is a problem. However, the vast majority of Muslim men nevertheless are 100% capable of controlling themselves, and we should not pretend that this is not the reality.
As I put it to Muslims who seem pre-occupied with the evils of temptation, “You are THAT strong. You can control yourself.”
*you’ll still have your head on after the attack
You might take a look at homicide rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Germany is one of the safest countries in the world. Much safer than the US. And no that has not changed.
Homicides per 100,000:
The US is essentially to two different countries. Suburbs and metropolitan areas that are like Europe, and inner city blights that are more like South America.
In 2014, no US state had a homicide rate on a par or below that of Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate
Europe has ghettos too, Justin. There’s no way to argue that the US is not a pretty violent place for a rich nation. There is a gun culture here, that’s a simple fact.
looking at it per state doesn’t show Justin’s point, but if you look at it by race, white america has a homicide rate of about 2.5, vs 20 for blacks (google for some analysis, e.g. on 538 blog).
Germany is a law and order culture.
Until it is isn’t.
In France, 70% of the prison population is Muslim. It’s 50% in Belgium. In Sweden, the rate of rape is up to 9x the average of the OECD.
Unless you have evidence that the dynamics of Muslim migration will be unique in Germany, we will have to go with the empirical evidence.
“In Sweden, the rate of rape is up to 9x the average of the OECD”
Dear god, not this shit again…
In 2014 and 2015 together, there were about 1.6 million people who came to Germany as refugees. This is about 2% of the population. To make a noticeable difference, they would have to be worse by orders of magnitude. It is not enough to show that they are not on a par. You would have to show evidence for a factor of about 200, just to get to the US level.
Where is your evidence anything of this kind is going on?
No, I won’t change the topic.
Homicide is quite rare though, there are many bad things that can happen to you besides murder. And all of those are more likely in Europe.
@Cliff: Looking forward to your evidence.
I fear Germany was naive by inviting so many who will make many of it’s neighborhoods no-go areas in the same way so many German tourists to the US in the 1990s were naive by wandering into no-go areas and got themselves car-jacked and murdered.
Germans are great people and they have made themselves a great society. In contrast to living in America, Germans don’t really need to worry about where and when they can go because of breakdown of basic law and order making certain areas of the US risky for personal safety. Unfortunately a lot of Germans don’t realize that many other cultures aren’t as good hearted, respectful and tolerant as they are. They are in for a rude surprise by inviting people who may have gotten used to lawlessness and violence and require stern enforcement to keep them from behavior that violates German and European social norms.
It will be sad to see Germany lose its innocence when its high trust society is replaced with something else.
Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)
Yeah, great idea.
“Petry published a statement in early October in which she announced that she would separate from her husband, while also noting that “much more than just friendly feelings” had developed between her and fellow party member Marcus Pretzell.”
For the moment, it’s going here:
Americans need to understand that politics in Germany are quite different. A lot of positions by Angela Merkel are far-left by American standards. And during her reign she moved even further to the Left every year. She basically copied the positions of the Social Democrats and the Green Party one-to-one. Both parties are so far-left they don’t even play a role in American politics. Petry on the other hand might be called far-right in Germany but in America all of her positions can be found in the DP and the GOP easily. Not as extreme positions but as mainstream positions. That’s how crazy politics are in Germany.
It’s also interesting to notice that strong women are the leaders of right-wing parties so often. Thatcher. Le Pen. Petry. Even Merkel is (wrongly) counted as conservative in Europe. You can’t say the same thing about left-wing parties. Far-left people are talking about gender equality for decades now but their leaders are nearly always white men from rich families.
“That’s how crazy politics are in Germany.”… I dont think the germans are the crazies here …
That has always been your problem Klaus. You assume that you are thinking. The DP and the GOP do pretty much what the majority of the Americans want regarding immigration. It can look ugly at times but it needs to be done. And they do it.
Merkel on the other hand is basically center-left or worse. There are four parties in the German “Congress”. A party called “The Left” which are basically communists that want to have the GDR back because the GDR was so awesome. Then a Green Party which is just extremely crazy. Then a Social Democrats Party which is nothing more than Bernie Sanders multiplied in many ugly ways. Then a crazy Christian Party with its leader Angela Merkel, a person who is just copying the positions of the Social Democrats one-to-one since the last ten years – like minimum wages, rent control, the ban of nuclear power, the ban of GM technology, no free speech, a government-controlled media, working bans for immigrants and limitless dependence on welfare.
There’s a huge blank space at the center-right position in Germany. A real power vacuum. This is really dangerous for Germany, for Schengen, for the Euro, for the EU and for democracy as a whole.
‘There’s a huge blank space at the center-right position in Germany. A real power vacuum.’
Alfa is waiting. Wait, never heard of them? Well, they remain true to the original AfD. Want to guess what percent of the vote they will get?
Which media in Germany is government controlled?
Typically, it is difficult for Americans to grasp a distinction between ‘publicly funded’ and government controlled. Think CBC – government controlled or not? Germany has a number of regional broadcasters – generally the same broadcaster covers radio and TV, now having an Internet presence too (check out the pop music of SWR1 or SWR3 to get a feel for how the demographics work in music selection in Southwest Germany).
These regional broadcasters then feed into – and are supplied by – two national networks, ARD and ZDF. It is all paid for by a fee called the GEZ, and at this point, that fee can be considered a tax, as there are no longer any exceptions made (apart from not having to pay in certain circumstances – think blind, elderly, etc.) Oddly enough, the AfD is making a big billboard deal of reducing this fee, while at the same time demanding access to the public system for their message to be spread among the masses. Amusingly, the Greens never demanded such access, but then, the Greens have always had a public distaste for using the media to spread propaganda (particularly of the sort relying on a number of well proven techniques, at least in a German context). The AfD is all about n/Ostalgia these days – recent cartoon in the Stern depicted two school children listening to a caricature of a certain woman talking, with one kid saying to the other ‘In 10 minutes, she will be talking about the Final Solution. Wanna bet?’)
Since we never had a TV, we only paid the radio fee until the system was expanded in such a way that all classes and different fees have been removed from private individuals. That lack of TV was very occasionally checked by a person appearing at the front door, who was not let in, but who seemed to accept the idea that an American in 1999 or 2004 would not be interested in German TV. I’m not interested much in anyone’s TV, to be honest – but then, lots of people are not interested in riding a motorcycle. Though one can be confident that some commenters here would be able to explain, using the latest racist science and/or evolutionary psychology to pinpoint such distinctions as being genetically relevant, though it is a toss up whether riding a motorcycle or not, or watching TV or not, is an indicator of the pure alpha male, who does not let mass opinion stand in the way of expressing that alpha male will.
It is fascinating to see just how few commenters here seem in any way disturbed at the rise of a party which shows just how many people are still attracted to an ideological mix that last resulted in the total destruction of Germany. Patriotic fervor may be Sailer’s dream of saving a race (oops, ‘nation’ – sorry about the slip that Sailer is ever so careful never to make publicly) – Germans have a very different historical memory, most definitely one that includes killing millions as part of a triumphantly scientific goal to improve ‘racial hygiene’ – oops – the world.
Cbc is not government controlled. It is the other way around. They have become a secular priesthood attempting to enforce an orthodoxy. Anything that challenges the orthodoxy will either be studiously ignored and hidden, or vigorously attacked.
And they seem to love the sexual pecadillos. From children to beating the heck out of women.
Derek – i hear these myths about the CBC regularly on extreme right wing outlets, but when asked to point me to an article which demonstrates anything like this, I’ve never actually gotten any response other than insults against my stupidity.
Care to relieve of my ignorance? Post some links to CBC articles which demonstrate this? Or, perhaps, visit today’s CBC homepage and explain to us how one of today’s articles proves this?
I call bullshit.
Prior, are you saying that AfD is advocating massive military expansionism?
“it is difficult for Americans to grasp a distinction between ‘publicly funded’ and government controlled. ”
Is it like the people who have a difficult distinction between ‘Koch funded’ and ‘Koch controlled’?
JWatts – the analogy is informative, but I think would be more a propos in an authoritarian system. Most democratic governments are full of people of all stripes. Merkel herself is not funding anything, for example. When it comes from Koch, there are precisely two men deciding who gets funded, and they can fund or cut as they see fit in response to the outputs of the organizations they fund, and direct the research interests accordingly.
Yes we have so much to be jealous of: the wave of criminal, culturally unassailable migrants, mass assaults of women on the streets, negative interest rates with completely pathetic growth, sharing a currency and economic zone with a bunch of no growth, indebted economic basket-cases and a massive highly leveraged, essentially state owned bank w/ the biggest derivative book in the world trading with records CDS spreads. But don’t worry you got Draghi jawboning the market and real conditions get worse and worse.
Who is crazy again?
When the fantasy world of the Moreno’s of the world comes crashing down, they’ll be demanding bailouts with tears in their eyes. Sore winners and sore losers.
Bailouts, perhaps, like those given to wealthy American financiers and bankers, who walked off collectively with billions and billions in bonuses and fat severance packages, despite completely dropping the ball on risk management and leading to the implosion of the economy?
Oh, non right wingers are such hypocrites …
Nathan, I’m sure you’ll recall that such luminaries as Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein mocked anyone who suggested that we let the banks fail or we let GM fail. You are confused.
Nathan, a lot of cash went into Dem politicians pockets to facilitate exactly that.
TMC – Point well taken. However, I was thinking of traditional constituencies of left (working class, who did not benefit from bailouts) and right (corporations and shareholders, who DID benefit from bailouts), rather more so than the reality of corrupted American campaign financing. Perhaps I was off the mark in guessing which bailouts Thomas thought Moreno would support.
Well compared to politics in the US, it doesnt look crazy at all. And yes, even with a zillion muslims, Germany will probably still be much much safer than US.
‘but in America all of her positions can be found in the DP and the GOP easily’
Shooting children at the border, as advocated by Beatrix von Storch (though apparently, she either changed her mind, or actually meant shooting women, but not children)?
Women should stay home and have three children, and be paid less for equal work?
Reducing the GEZ? Ok, that was only relevant in Germany.
I believe that is taken out of context. Didn’t she simply say that German Law allows for the use of force against unruly border hoppers? Can you provide a link where she explicitly advocates for shooting of children or anyone on sight?
With regards to your post above, I believe you are being too critical of Germany. Whatever the faults of German culture towards women, it’s peanuts compared to what they are importing, and any equivalence between them and Islam is made in bad faith.
‘I believe that is taken out of context. Didn’t she simply say that German Law allows for the use of force against unruly border hoppers?’
Well, East German law certainly allowed it, unless one thinks the entire East German government was criminal, of course. Not to mention the East German government employing dogs and landmines to keeps its borders safe. West German law? Not so much – as the Verfassungsgericht made clear, it would be illegal for the German air force to shoot down a hijacked airliner. The German government is explicitly not allowed to kill the innocent as a matter of policy. That the AfD just might disagree with established German law concerning the ability of the state to kill people is not exactly a surprise.
‘Can you provide a link where she explicitly advocates for shooting of children or anyone on sight?’
Sure – German only though – ‘Die Berliner AfD-Chefin und stellvertretende Bundesvorsitzende Beatrix von Storch hat die Forderung nach einem Schusswaffeneinsatz gegen Flüchtlinge auf die Spitze getrieben. Von Storch will die deutsche Polizei an der Grenze auch auf Frauen und Kinder schießen lassen. „Wer das HALT an unserer Grenze nicht akzeptiert, der ist ein Angreifer“, schrieb sie am Samstag auf Facebook. „Und gegen Angriffe müssen wir uns verteidigen.“’ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/beatrix-von-storch-afd-vizechefin-will-polizei-sogar-auf-kinder-schiessen-lassen-14044186.html
Here is a link to where she clarifies she does not advocate shooting children, just women – ‘Die Vize-Chefin der AfD, Beatrix von Storch, hat mit einem erneuten Statement zu Schüssen auf Flüchtlinge für Empörung gesorgt. Gegen Frauen sei ein Gebrauch von Schusswaffen “innerhalb der gesetzlich engen Grenzen” zulässig, sagte die Juristin. Damit wollte sie offenbar eine frühere Äußerung auf Facebook entschärfen. Dort hatte sie auf die Frage eines Kommentators “Wollt Ihr etwa Frauen mit Kindern an der grünen Wiese (Anm. d. Red.: hier war wohl “grüne Grenze” gemeint) den Zutritt mit Waffengewalt verhindern?” mit “Ja” geantwortet. Später hieß es dann: “Gegen Kinder ist der Schusswaffeneinsatz richtigerweise nicht zulässig. Frauen sind anders als Kinder verständig.” http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/afd-von-storch-dementiert-nicht-auf-kinder-aber-auf-frauen-darf-man-schiessen-1.2843566
That’s right, a leading member of the AfD says that women and children are invaders, and should be shot as part of defending Germany against such external threats. That the police union vehemently disagrees with the idea that police should be shooting anyone at the German border just shows how deep German society needs to have the sort of patriotic fervor that Sailer apparently believes is the only route to national salvation in perilous times finally brought to the fore by the AfD – a triumph of the will, so to speak.
‘With regards to your post above, I believe you are being too critical of Germany. ‘
I live here, and if anything, I am being charitable.
‘Whatever the faults of German culture towards women, it’s peanuts compared to what they are importing’
As noted in a comment in the graduation rates, a few years ago, Germany was the only country unable to provide even a token female senior executive at a HP senior executive meeting. Even Turkey did better. Maybe if Germany could import some more Turkish corporate culture, they would at least be able to pretend to put women in responsible positions, as compared to their then current Armutszeugnis.
‘and any equivalence between them and Islam is made in bad faith’
You don’t know any ultra-conservative Catholics, do you? Bavaria has a good number of them, well represented in the CSU. At some point, measuring the depth of extremism becomes meaningless – those ultra-conservative Catholics are just as interested in using state power to enforce their interpretation of god’s will on everyone as any medieval Salafist. The main crossing point being in the term ‘mediaval’ along with the related concept of ‘theocracy.’ (Which, oddly, German does not have a good word for. Take that as you will.)
Thank you for the answer.
“Both parties are so far-left they don’t even play a role in American politics.”
Exactly how German parties would play a role in American politics? Maybe you mean their American counterparts don’t play a role in American politics? Well, it says more about America’s one-party regime than about the rest of the developed world. Until the people is fed up and gives you Sanders and Trump.
“Then a Green Party which is just extremely crazy. Then a Social Democrats Party which is nothing more than Bernie Sanders multiplied in many ugly ways.”
Yeah, those extremist Social Democrats…
Merkel has made what may be the most reckless political decision in Europe since the days of Hitler and Stalin. There’s not the least sign that she understands what she’s done.
Wow, wasn’t expecting a Godwin that fast.
Yea there is a lot of hysteria going around these days. Plus we will only really begin to know if it was reckless in about 10 – 15 years and we can look back.
Maybe Frau Merkel should have asked this guy?
Faulty logic. Judge decisions by how to weight the risks based on best available knowledge today. This is an econ blog, everyone here ought to know that. Decisions that turn out well can still be very accurately described as “reckless”
If you are generally of the opinion that the outcome of Merkel’s decision won’t be able to be properly evaluated for 10-15 years, then you have to credit her with an inhuman level of clairvoyance to consider her decision anything other than reckless. By that time, if your conclusion is that it was a disastrous one, it will also be completely, utterly irrevocable. What makes it especially reckless was that she made the decision almost entirely personally. There was no public deliberation while it was pending, no input from the either the bundestag or the polity at large. Such things are minimally tolerable in time-critical military matters (e.g. Cuban missile crisis), but otherwise her actions have zero democratic legitimacy. Merkel took a society-altering decision on her own personal volition, with input from at most a handful of close advisors, and based on her and the government’s public statements the basis of the decision seems to be pure, unadulterated moral vanity. If that is not “reckless” then please enlighten me as to what is.
Her recklessness is not limited to the direct effects of the refugee wave, but that by taking such a momentous decision without widespread discussion she has caused basic, foundational damage to the legitimacy of the government. The high level of trust between ordinary Germans and their institutions is one of the main reasons things work so efficiently there, and that’s now poisoned. 12 months ago, how many Germans would have believed a police force would collude with a newspaper to attempt to cover up sexual assaults committed in public? She has endangered not just her own government and constitutional order, but also those of others (Austria, Czech Rep, Hungary, Slovakia) who are “upstream” of Germany in the migrant wave and to the EU itself. It took 30 years to build the legitimacy to create open borders within the EU, another 10 to implement it, and it took less than 6 months for one person’e decision to undo it all.
There are always risks associated with helping large numbers of people who flee war. We should not be naive, but this should not stop us from treating them like humans, which they are.
They fled the war when they arrived in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. They are now moving to new countries because like all economic agents they are motivated by incentives.
And Merkel – perhaps because her East German background and lack of children never exposed her to the power of incentives – just dangled the world’s largest carrot before millions of people.
A liberal Europe will not survive a future dominated by Islam. And make no mistake, at this rate of migration and procreation their future will be Islamic.
This its not to say I have no empathy. I wish the West would carve out massive safe havens in Syria, and had not flowin out each and every American soldier from Iraq because a part-time law prof wanted to “end” a war.
But the world today is a special place because a few countries produce an inordinate amount of technology, science and liberal ideas.
And they are throwing it away.
Too bad the ones advocating for what you describe, a careful not naive way of dealing with a complicated issue got voted out last election in Canada.
Who knew, Nathan is a closet Conservative.
Derek – I suggest not taking political propaganda at face value. Conservatives had long been primarily obstructionists in the matter of refugees, and primarily intended to engage in fear mongering to win votes.
Fortunately, not so many Canadians are so easily cowed.
Like, what exactly did the Conservatives propose that would have been safer?
Canada has long experience in accepting and integrating refugees successfully, and while anyone who has lived in communities where larger numbers of these refugees settled is aware that SOME of them will bring troubles of war with them (e.g., somewhat higher violence among Lebanese refugees after the 1980s, somewhat higher violence among Somali refugees after the 1990s), I’ve never actually met anyone in person who observed that reality and then suggested it would be better if we had not taken some in.
Chip – at this rate of migration, Syria will be empty in a few years. Your fears could hardly be more overblown.
Syria might be empty in a few years but Africa won’t be. If incentives remain aligned with mass migration as strongly as they are now, at some point the sheer number of people has to become an issue, correct? I don’t know what that number is, but surely there is a threshold beyond which effective short term integration is impossible. Saying that Chip’s “fears could hardly be more overblown” seems…. overblown. A little caution seems the most reasonable approach.
“Plus we will only really begin to know if it was reckless in about 10 – 15 years and we can look back.”
The EU subscribes to the “precautionary principle:”
It would seem reasonable to extend that to immigration policies that take 10 or 15 years to know whether they were reckless.
‘It would seem reasonable to extend that to immigration policies that take 10 or 15 years to know whether they were reckless.’
So, are the Balkan Wars and their resulting massive refugee flows from two decades ago considered relevant enough, including a large number of Muslims?
Or did you just happen to forget about the last time hundreds of thousands of people were fleeing across borders however they could to escape what was going on?
Or was it that the fact it worked out basically OK till now, including the integration of Muslim refugee families, demonstrate how easily you cherry pick your facts to support your already formed, ever so scientific and daringly non-PC framework?
The idea that we should commit any folly and defer judgement to 10-15 years in the future is madness. What about history, prior experience, priorities etc?
I hadn’t expected a witless reply that fast.
Well in a more factual manner, I’d say both the Suez crisis and De Gaulle’s decision on NATO were both worse than Merkel on immigration. However, her decision does seem remarkably foolish.
I think we should be more circumspect regarding whether what we think is important today will turn out to be important for our descendants, in hindsight. De Gaulle’s decision on NATO, in particular, while important in abstract, is already outside the bounds of what most people remember about history. The Suez, less so, but time will tell. I can tell you that of the XVth century we remember Columbus’ journey to not-yet-America, of the first Millennium we remember the barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome, and a lot of the second is remembered as the mass movement of peoples as well (mongol invasions, settlements, colonization, immigration). So, I give Merkel plenty of chances to go down in history as creating the future Germany.
Witless? Helping millions of refugees as comparable to mass murder and some of the most intensive political repression in the 20th century?
While there are legitimate reasons for concern, I’m sure with a little reflection you can accept that comparing refugee assistance to mass murders and draconian political repression is rather absurd.
I don’t see how Merkel can survive the refugee fiasco. As far as I can tell she has completely lost control of the situation, has no workable plan, and has lost all credibility. In a democracy, that generally means a politician is finished. Whether Petry has legs remains to be seen.
It’s true that after what she’s done she would be finished within weeks – if she was the leader of the US. But she isn’t. She’s the leader of Germany. The clocks in Germany are ticking quite differently.
Take the media as an example. Huge parts of the media are public broadcasting that is totally depending on the German government. Imagine CNN + ABC + NBC + CBS under direct government control. Then there is the so-called free media, imagine them as MSNBC only. There’s no Murdoch, there’s no talk radio, there’s no National Review, there’s no Tyler Cowen, there’s nothing like that at all.
The German media supports Merkel to 95%. Now you might understand why she will not fall. At least not until the media decides that she must fall. And there’s no sign that they are doing it. Why would they? They have no reason to drop her.
‘Imagine CNN + ABC + NBC + CBS under direct government control’
Much like the BBC, obviously. And imagine the media in Bavaria having been under the same direct government control since the founding of the Bundesrepublik – a government dominated by a political party that itself is dominated by conservative Catholics. No wonder BR (Bayerischer Rundfunk) is such a source of radical Green propaganda. Oh, wait …..
‘There’s no Murdoch, there’s no talk radio, there’s no National Review, there’s no Tyler Cowen’
You really are either very young, or very ignorant. Murdoch=Kirch, for one trivial example – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Kirch Or National Review=Junge Freiheit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit You would be right about talk radio – Germans used to prefer listing to AFN a couple of decades ago, but these days, they are stuck with something like DW.
And you are also right that Hans-Olaf Henkel is no Prof. Cowen. But then, Prof. Cowen was never a part of the AfD, either.
The media fails to promote Islamophobia (not the same as discussing rational concerns), ergo it must be under direct government control.
The same way the central banks get away with what they are doing: despite everyone shouting it from the rooftops about how the disastrous effects will unravel, there are no alternatives.
What’s with all the lady chemists in politics? First Thatcher, then Merkel, now Petry. Law of small numbers or is there something deeper going on?
(BTW, you Brits who call pharmacists “chemists”, what do you call people who do chemistry?)
Merkel is clearly counted as physicist in Germany. I know it says “physical chemist” in the Englisch version of wikipedia but for Germans she is clearly a physicist only. You should rather ask: Why are those women the head of so-called conservative movements? Where’s the left-wing Thatcher, Merkel, Petry, Le Pen? Not even Hillary is a sure bet. She could fail again – like she did so often before.
That’s truely an interesting question.
My First biased thought: within an European leftist party for every major politician that is an engineer by profession, there must be ten other leftist politicians that come from the arts, social sciences; that are teachers or “communication designers”.
But then my second even more biased thought: there are no engineers in leftist parties, so even those “huminities” fall short way behind the typical leftist politician’s profession: lawyers (without any free market experience of course) and civil cervants ( again, no free market experience here).
These Nichtsnutzen can’t accomplish or make anything useful or add value to our economy that is in demand in a real way, so they end up playing “Vanguard of the Revolution” and tell all us workers and taxpayers what to do and how to think.
In the Chinese case, the upper echelons of political power see engineering highly over-represented. In the case of the West, I find it hard to imagine why many engineers would want to submit themselves to what we put politicians through. For starters, their many brilliant and often practical ideas are likely to be scuttled by ideologists of all sorts across the spectrum.
Give it time. The upper echelons of business fell to engineers over the past generation or two. It would be surprising if that didn’t happen in politics as well.
“Why are those women the head of so-called conservative movements?”
Female conservative leaders these days tend to have a (relative for high achievers) lot of children and energetic romantic lives. Le Pen, for example, has 3 children and this lady has 4. Sarah Palin wasn’t quite up to the task, but her having 5 children was probably part of her appeal.
Whatever we think about Kanzlerin Merkel, I would welcome more physicists, chemists and other real scientists among our elected representatives… and fewer lawyers.
The AfD was started by a bunch of libertarian-but-Euroskeptic Germans (including economists), apparently seeing some space since the CDU and FDP were both such fans of the Euro and EU. That didn’t last super long, but Merkel’s stance on refugees made it pretty much inevitable that populists would take over the AfD to provide an alternative. If the populist takeover didn’t happen when it did, it would have happened in the last year.
Are they that different like night and day?
Perhaps a new government lead by the rising politician would have a different approach to immigrants. But, what about the rest of topics where a federal government gets involved? Will German education system change? Will nuclear reactors be put in operation again? Will German fed government approach to industry will change? Will Germany leave the EZ? Will Germans leave Gran Canaria?
There may be a change, but a significant change?
Frauke Petry expresses what most Germans want. They don’t want to be overwhelmed by Muslim migrants. She is pro- German, nationalist and anti Europe. The left and the media tries hard to silence these views and associates them with Nazism. It’s not working anymore
That is why she’s beating Merkel in the polls?
Isn’t she also behind not only Merkel, but also the more pro-immigrant Social Democratic Party?
Aren’t the other small parties like the Greens also pro-immigration?
Clearly, most Germans do not want something just because you want it.
It’s a little bit more complicated. When you vote, you consider a bunch of things. For some people the refugee crisis doesn’t play that important role. Other people just trust Angela Merkel more than Frauke Petry. And then there is the number one reason which party to vote for: the same one like last time.
It’s exactly as simple as outlined. Some ignorant people (no offence, they just don’t know much about Europe) assert that Germans want Moslemraus. As you say, most people don’t care.
What does Merkel want? Immigrants to Germany aren’t effective altruism (Singer), so if not simple immigrant numbers (a la American Democrat Party’s desire for a voter bank), then what?
‘What does Merkel want?’
Who knows, but she might even be motivated by her Christianity, which would not be too surprising, considering that she is the head of the Christian Democrats.
Prior – how naive. We all know she’s a closet Muslim who want to help introduce sharia law in Europe.
Merkel has already changed her tune on migrants acceptance due to public opinion pressure. If she wants to stay in power, she will have to keep moving to the right
“The left and the media tries hard to silence these views and associates them with Nazism. It’s not working anymore”
I see neonazis on the internet every day. They are openly antisemitic, racist and totalitarian, want homosexuality to be a crime, think slavery is a great idea, Hitler was a great guy (unironically), issue death threats, deny the holocaust ever happened (while implying it wouldn’t have been bad since the Jew deserves it anyway).
They vocally support AfD.
I personally was influenced in a libertarian direction by econlog, Overcoming Bias and MR, but am now forced to vote for the far-left party Die Linke, basically communists. It’s a process of elimination: You exclude everyone who has broken fundamental rules of decency and democracy while in power, and then you vote for what’s left (pun not intended). Dark times indeed.
Yes, there are definitely a lot of neo-Nazis online these days. They seem more outspoken than the average person, and spend lots of time in echo chambers where they convince each other that their thinking is normal, the majority, that all sensible people agree with them, etc. I recently had some asking for my home address, suggesting that they would like to generously send me a “Make America Great Again” hat.
Everyone you don’t like on the Internet is a neo-nazi!!
Category 1: People who I disagree with. Category 2: neo-Nazis. Category 2 is a subgroup is category 1.
I welcome a diversity of perspectives in discourse. Neo-Nazis are not among the perspectives I welcome, but am quite prepared to address their hateful propaganda.
Numerous times, however, I have been careful to distinguish between run of the mill racism and those who can be readily grouped together with neo-Nazis. So, your strawman claim is nonsense. For example, you and I have had essentially rational discussions about issues related to differences between race, but this has been interspersed with essentially hateful and offensive rhetoric by others who might be easy recruits for neo-Nazis – while your suspicions/opinions on these issues are certainly not hidden, I certainly would not group you together with those who hold irrational hate and superiority complexes, and who are therefore easy targets for the extremists. I’m not even sure that I would quite call you “racist” in any particularly troubling sense of the word, just that you are inclined to buy arguments or partial evidence which is also/alternatively conducive to white supremacist or neo-Nazi thinking.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … well, there’s a big difference between people who quack like ducks and those who also walk/act like ducks.
And anyways, I encourage you to call me on it if I am grouping people together incorrectly, but you seem to be bothered about opposition to neo-Nazi and white supremacist propaganda. Why does/should/would this bother you? Neo-Nazis are real, and I do not think anyone should refrain from discussing this, much as we should be careful not to over-Godwinize things in an inappropriate manner.
‘but am now forced to vote for the far-left party Die Linke, basically communists’
I assume you live in Sachsen-Anhalt then – because in Baden-Württemberg and Rheinland-Pfalz, that would not be a very logical conclusion.
They’ll probably fail the 5% here, but that actually increases the expected value of my vote, since they’re near the tipping point of getting into parliament. I’m hoping that another party outcompetes them for “least evil” status soon, but right now I don’t see the evidence, e.g. they were the only ones who defended freedom of religion and existential self-ownership when assisted suicide was banned last year. Think what a dismal cultural state you’re in when you have to support the communists for these fundamental libertarian ideals.
OK – the Linke have no chance in Baden-Württemberg. The joke that this Bundesland ‘thinks Green, votes Black’ turned out to be quite accurate, until they started not only thinking but also voting Green too. One of the few things that the Schwaben and Badeners can agree on is that anything too far left will kill the state’s economy – and the Linke are definitely, definitely, too far left. After all, the example of the Saarland is not all that far from here. Plus neither the SED nor Lafontaine never attracted any supporters – well, maybe a few in Heidelberg.
Perhaps you’re right. But it still beats doing nothing. Or perhaps I should take a knife and stab the greatest evil, instead of voting for the least evil. Though I’m sure that would have unintended consequences as well.
Politics, like human nature itself, is broken. There’s a reason I consider myself an evidence-based misanthrope. Unfortunately, that alone doesn’t tell us what to do.
‘Or perhaps I should take a knife and stab the greatest evil’
There is no single greatest evil – just a bunch of the same old ones.
Misanthropes tend to have evidence on their side, but it doesn’t change anything much. Neither do knives.
“Neither do knives.”
Tell that to Els Borst, who was stabbed to death by a Christian fanatic for defending existential self-ownership of Dutch citizens.
‘Tell that to Els Borst, who was stabbed to death by a Christian fanatic for defending existential self-ownership of Dutch citizens.’
My examples were going to be Lafontaine and Reker. Killing someone ends their life, of course – it doesn’t do much to change anything but the length of the stabbed person’s life when it comes to fighting evil, however.
Pym Fortuyn anyone? Killed by a Dutch person.
Women on the right generally seem to be more attractive than those on the left.
Unrelated, how is it possible I can’t find a single picture of Hillary Clinton’s natural brown eye-color?
To me, the Swedish political landscape seems to be a good guide.
Petry has that strong, handsome look of the Aryan race. Merkel, on the other hand, has that guilt-inflicting Jewish mother look.
If that was an attempt at a humorous troll, it’s a fail.
Election in 2017. 9But Angie is toast by her own hand.
“Where is Germany headed?”
Right back to where it was a couple of years ago would be my guess. Germany is a Democracy, Merkel will either attempt to reverse the ill effects of her immigration decision or she’ll be voted out and someone else will. Clearly, it was a poor decision and most of Europe seems to have reacted and stemmed the massive flow of migrants.
As long as the flow is reduced to a much lower level, the existing migrants will assimilate over time. I suspect that northern Europe will come to resemble the US to a greater extent. They will have to deal with some cultural differences and will on average be a little darker skinned, but I’m doubtful this one event significantly impact their society.
Agreed. There were always skin heads.
It will be amusing when Europe responds to diversity by creating a much more racist society than the USA has. After that happens, in which direction will you pray?
Europe does not have to respond that way, but the neo-Nazis are certainly doing their best to try to make it that way.
Isn’t the Nazi libel getting old? That and the fascist libel? Orwell felt it was getting old and losing meaning after WW2, let alone now. Let’s face it – the far right parties everybody is afraid of are run of the mill lefty parties, but against immigration. That’s it. One is lead by a woman and her niece, another is lead by a gay dude with flamboyant hear. If society corrects itself through these people, then the incredibly small Nazi subset will stay marginal. If it is not allowed to correct itself, via Trump, le Pen, Wilders and others, then people will become more and more radicalized until you will have produced what you were dreading, in a great enough fashion to become its own -ism. The alternative is to slowly perish.
I’m not labelling random people as Nazis. Europe has real neo-Nazis, notable proof of it being a site you recently linked to.
Should we self censor about such truths, or are we allowed to discuss them?
‘Orwell felt it was getting old and losing meaning after WW2’
Orwell was British. The Germans have a different perspective.
‘the far right parties everybody is afraid of are run of the mill lefty parties, but against immigration’
Again, the Germans seem to be able to understand – both supporters and opponents – exactly what the AfD represents today. People willing to talk about shooting women children to defend the Vaterland, and who only back down by saying shooting women is fine, but OK, maybe not children, the poor innocents are clearly believers in the sort of nightmare vision that a certain German ideology imposed on all of the world it could conquer.
‘If society corrects itself through these people, then the incredibly small Nazi subset will stay marginal.’
Yep, people talking about shooting children are just a correction, to keep the Nazi subset in check. The funny thing is, this idea could also be seen as an Austrian import. In Salzburg in the mid-90s, a bookstore was proudly displaying a tome that said Jörg Haider was the only way to save Austria from the real Nazis – https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider
A tome that ever so conveniently ignored what Haider was, of course.
I guess you don’t think women should be allowed in the military then?
@Nathan W: I wasn’t saying there weren’t, I was emphasizing how marginal they are and how they will stay that way if the current crisis of their societies will be adequately managed. Ignoring public fears, stoking mistrust, behaving in Orwellian fashion, censoring people and dismissing their concerns are not good ways to do it.
Ultimately, neo-Nazism is the corpse of a very specific ideology. I do believe that things can go pear-shaped in Europe and lead to violent expulsions and pogroms and so on, but that it would be a different -ism, possibly also in the range of the right. But not Nazism. Nazism is a spent force.
I’m curious. Which site were you referring to?
‘I guess you don’t think women should be allowed in the military then?’
Since when do women soldiers bring their children into a free fire zone? And since when do mothers fleeing a civil war voluntarily leave their children behind?
This is truly starting to get absurd, to be honest.
It should be obvious that anyone advocating shooting children and the women accompanying them – generally their mothers, I’m sure you can agree to in more rational moments – is outside of civilized bounds. And anyone who thinks that shooting only the mothers is somehow more civilized is probably likely to be voting for the AfD, regardless of whether the kids are included in the body count or not.
Horhe – “Ignoring public fears, stoking mistrust, behaving in Orwellian fashion, censoring people and dismissing their concerns are not good ways to do it.”
I absolutely agree, with some caveats. It is in this sense that I think the refugee crisis has been very poorly managed. However, I think this perspective is heavily overplayed by the extremists – in observing that the broader media does not engage in fearmongering, they conclude (sincerely?) that there must be some conspiracy. I tend to consider this as responsible journalism, although more space to voice legitimate concerns might have blunted such claims, even so little as to include an honest representation of a dissenting voice in the form of a quote or two in most/many articles. Similarly, when extremist outlets fail to report on any good news story relating to refugees, I do not conclude that there is a conspiracy, rather, that they are highlighting a different perspective (one which I often find offensive, to say the least), and also find it unfortunate that they do not give an accurate representation of the most legitimate counterarguments.
I was referring to this site: http://newobserveronline.com/. You’re not going to see a “ringer” in every article that suggests heavy “neo-Nazi” influences, but you will in quite a lot of them. Also, check some of the comments, and it becomes patently obvious that the site attracts a lot of neo-Nazis and white supremacists (the distinction between the two is not always clear to me, but there’s a lot of ideological overlap). In one article, for example, they took the observation that a large number of people went to a Hitler movie to promote the idea that, in fact, Hitler is very popular and respected in Germany.
If they’re Nazis, they are hiding it pretty well. Then again, I disagree with this damning by association, because they don’t apply your favorite policies for comment moderation. I don’t read comments on the articles, but I use the site as a source for information that does not pop up in the mainstream media. And they do the job very well, also with translations from the MSM or social media. I don’t know if you know the website gatesofvienna which has an amazing team of translators. That truly is the best source for interviews, reports, crimes from the non-English speaking world in this immigration restrictionist field. And they really don’t have any sort of bent, beyond wanting to preserve nation (they even have Hindus writing there, and Muslims). Example:
Ultimately, the key issue here is that, both for simple dissenters and for the lurking extremists (imaginary or not), atrocity propaganda has never been easier, no fiction necessary, because reality is supplying it in abundance. And I view most sources as legitimate (if they back it up), so long as their counterparts in the mainstream not only don’t present certain news (which is their right, given limited space), but also actively distort them.
Can’t help myself: You did a Straussian reading of the site, did you? 😀
Horhe – The day you linked to that site I found the following:
One article used approving language to discuss a violent attack on a refugee centre, in a manner which promoted such violence – that article was full of 100% identifiable neo-Nazi commenters, many of which expressed sadness that there were no deaths, and many others suggesting a more appropriate choice of guns which would be more likely to accomplish the objective of killing refugees.
Another article painted Hitler as someone that everyone can love.
In a run of the mill AGW denialism piece, one commenter who self identified with much of the same sort of stuff clearly took a long of time to completely debunk both the article and all the other nonsense anti-science stuff in the comment board. He clearly expressed his concern that they would be completely written off as anti-science whackjobs for the fact of AGW denial.
Many other articles which purported to defend Western culture, etc., had very revealing language which was suggestive of how patriotic and upstanding people would use violence against minorities and newcomers.
No Straussian reading is needed. You don’t even need to read between the lines in most articles, it’s up there plain as day if you just open your eyes.
No, I do not want to censor neo-Nazis. I would rather know exactly what they are thinking and more importantly why they think it. However, I defend the right of private business to censor as they see fit, including the right of certain right wing outlets to censor ME MYSELF and I, although I will definitely make much noise about their hypocrisy with regards to free speech if/when I show back up again.
JWatts March 10, 2016 at 3:42 pm
I suspect that northern Europe will come to resemble the US to a greater extent. They will have to deal with some cultural differences and will on average be a little darker skinned, but I’m doubtful this one event significantly impact their society.
I suspect that is what the Byzantine Emperor said when he invited the Turks into Europe. Germany is heading for extinction. The Merkel Youth are not. Both the US and Germany have this problem but it won’t be that Germany will be a little darker. It is that it will be a Muslim-majority country. No doubt the Establishment will continue to suppress people who object – thank you Facebook – until it is too late. But in the end, there is no good optimum point for immigration – either you accept none, or you accept a few and then have people lobby for more and more and more until you are another country.
After all, if stopping here is unacceptable to the German elites, why would stopping at some other point – 20%, 30%, 40% – be acceptable when there are now all those people voting to bring in their cousins and neighbors and fellow tribesmen?
Facebook is a free enterprise and has clearly determined that censoring neo-Nazis is a good business strategy.
No one is stopping anyone from opening up their very own Racistbook if they want to.
Free market, meet ethics. People prefer to do business with ethical businesses.
Btw, does it bother you that Facebook and Twitter are now closing many accounts of Islamic extremists? Or is this also an unacceptable intrusion into some purported obligation of private companies to help in the dissemination of speech which they deem threatening or otherwise undesirable?
Sometimes you seem so reasonable, and then you say something like this. Facebook should be regulated as a public utility. So should Google.
It’s your world. I’m just living in it.
Yes, let’s be Marxists. Heavy regulation of social media and search engines … can’t possibly see where that could lead (actually, I can, I live in China).
I imagine you wouldn’t mind if no one who openly criticized the government were to never see the light of day again?
Facebook and Google should face precisely the same laws as their competition, and should be increasingly persuaded to ensure that their platforms are not a venue for breaking existing laws. What more regulation would you suggest?
You wouldn’t be on the other side of this debate if Google, Facebook and Twitter were suppressing left-wing search results, shutting down left-wing groups and voices?
I would be, actually. But it’s an academic discussion, since the left won a long time ago and it’s been mopping up ever since.
The people I am referring to being censored now on Facebook are not breaking any laws. Neither are the Dutch people who are getting visits at home from detectives telling them to cool their heels about criticizing the placement of asylum centers. If you are advocating violence, then sure. But is Merkel as chummy with the other heads of social networks as she was with Zuckerberg? Why not? Because Facebook occupies a unique position. It should, at least, have an enforced neutrality. In a saner world, people would be leaving it in droves, but network effects and sunk commitment have made them tolerant towards Facebook’s abuses.
The question now is, would a law forbidding the criticizing of the government’s handling of the crisis or the migrants be a valid one? Could you get behind such a law as legitimate?
Cliff – Actually, I’ve been banned from some right wing outlets for broadening the spectrum of opinion (easily overcome because I can choose from many locations from my VPN and have several email addresses).
Well, I’m not left wing, as many would like to paint me on this outlet. However, if I felt that a private company was censoring certain perspectives, I would probably push the idea that this presents a profitable opportunity for alternative social media or search engines which are less restrictive. I think Facebook and Google are making these decisions for largely commercial reasons. No one is stopping anyone from opening a Nazigle or Racistbook. If I were strongly left wing and felt censored, I might try to band together some people and start a search engine named Progressoogle or a social media outlet named Ethicalbook.
These are private businesses, and no one has the right to demand that any private company facilitate the dissemination of perspectives that they deem offensive. However, in being banned from The Rebel, for example, I consider it as enormously hypocritical because they routinely make much noise about free speech but engage in censorship on their own site. Facebook and Google are unabashed in their censorship of certain perspectives, and while their policies could perhaps be a little more explicit, there is no hypocrisy here – they publicly and unabashedly project their views on the matter. Say, should Fox be required to allocate 2 hours daily to whatever coverage Democrats want to provide? Obviously not.
Consider this: you open up a news outlet or blog. You are inundated with letters and content that you feel offensive, dumb, or otherwise not worthy of dissemination. Would you support a law that REQUIRED you, as a private business, to publish things that you find offensive or misleading? If you operated a business which was a listing service for local businesses, would you support a law that REQUIRED you to publish events at mosques, or private business dealings of prostitutes or drug dealers? I highly doubt it.
The right to free speech does not include the right to hijack private businesses to promote your perspectives for you. That is on you.
But various governments have already hijacked Facebook to restrict content. By restricting one point of view, they are facilitating the dissemination of another, since people take cues from their peer groups at what positions to take. If it’s a stew of positions, then the noise can let people make up their own mind. But if it’s an endless drumbeat of progressive scheisse used for moral posturing towards people one knows, then it will spread. It’s like a stereotypical high school. Facebook is not acting on its own. It might have anyway, but the governmental interest gave it a push to expend the effort. Just like that photo of collusion between Merkel and Zuckerberg shows.
Horhe – Look, if anyone is using their social media presence to basically promote ideas like “hey, look at group X, here’s a bunch of reasons that it’s good and respectable to go kill them all”, then I 100% support removing these profiles and banning this content.
Want to discuss whether you’re better than me, or brown people better than white people, or left people better than right people? Fine, let’s discuss. But promoting violence against anyone for the fact of their group membership, something which they are essentially unable to choose of their own volition, is a vile and disgusting thing and it should not be protected in any forum whatsoever.
Protecting free speech and the right to discuss unpopular ideas is one thing. But when you stray from speech into the realm of action, promoting violence against individuals who are born to the “wrong” group or merely raised in the “wrong” religion, the only possible reason you could defend that is if you in fact sympathize with those who are promoting that violence.
Want to discuss the risks to European culture in accepting X number of migrants? Sounds legitimate, let’s discuss. Your perspectives are important. Want to promote violence against anyone of the wrong skin colour or religion who arrives? That is a clear and imminent danger to the public, and a stint in jail would not bother me in the least for such types.
You’re making my point. The people who are for discussion, not violence, are getting hammered as well.
“As long as the flow is reduced to a much lower level, the existing migrants will assimilate over time.”
Like they have in France? Or the UK?
You should look at the statistics on this, and you might think twice. Muslims are far more likely than others to marry within their ethnic/religious community, to seek out friends within their own community, etc. As a group, they do not assimilate easily, and the Koran specifically warns against mixing with infidels. 51% of Muslims in the UK believe it’s forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim. Only 7% of Muslims in Britain say that they are Britons first, the rest say that they are Muslims first, and Britons second.
These numbers are significantly worse than for other immigrant groups from different faiths. There is a specific problem with Islam and assimilation – probably because Islam sees itself as not just a religion, but an all-encompassing set of rules for organizing society. Which is also why a majority of British Muslims say disrespecting Islam should be a crime.
You make some good points. But that being said, assuming Germany stops the flow of new Islamic immigrants, won’t the resulting situation be similar to France’s long standing state of affairs?
Is France’s long standing state of affairs desirable for a nation?
I wasn’t saying it was desirable. Merkel made a colossal blunder and the effects will be felt for decades. But as long as the rampant migration is stopped reasonably soon, then it won’t destroy German society. Germany has a strong culture and society. It will withstand one blunder.
France never tried to integrate the Muslims who came from their colonies. We can learn from that mistake. Germany seems to be doing a better job of offering a good welcome, but it remains to be seen whether they will pursue policies which are conducive to better integration in the longer run.
‘but it remains to be seen whether they will pursue policies which are conducive to better integration in the longer run’
Germans in general are aware of this problem – whether they can solve it (see the AfD’s rise) is completely open. Though if it involved nothing but hard work (which it doesn’t), the Germans would likely do a fine job.
Sure it is the French fault… That is why in France other immigrant groups like Italians, Spanish, Portuguese could better integrate.
Germany also somehow couldn’t integrate the turks and kurds but Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russians,
Even socialist Scandinavian paradises couldn’t integrate their Arab migrants …
Of course Germany has less problems with Turkish immigrants than France has with maghrebi immigrants. But somehow the Dutch also have less problems with their Turkish immigrants than their maghrebi immigrants. And somehow Turkey has less problems with their Turkish citizens than Algeria has with their Algerian citizens…
I hope Nathan you can use your brain and see a pattern here.
Sorry – I read that again. Nope, no pattern apparent unless one thinks that Arabs are primitive camel herders. Which the Iranians, to pick one concrete example, certainly do.
I don’t mean to “blame” the French. The “moral” obligation to get on with the rules of your new home falls on the immigrant, not society at large. However, recognizing humans as they are, and also being practical people, we can observe how things went in other cases and do better – this involves specifically gearing policies towards making successful integration as easy and likely as possible.
And, duh, it’s easier for Spanish and Portuguese to integrate because their languages are very similar, while for Russians there are always been some who idolized the “European way” including certain former ideological sharing. Also, they’re white. Also, they’re broadly the same religion. Having observed that integration is easier for more similar people than for less similar people, we should not conclude that the ruin of Western civilization is on our doorsteps for the fact of adding, say, a few percent to the population from Islamic countries over the course of a decade.
Where did things “go better” when it comes to integrating large numbers of low IQ races? Can you find me a place where that actually worked well?
There is no roadmap because they are too different at the *genetic* level to integrate. Your “best case” scenario is is they stabilize around the population ratio and dysfunctional level/type of American blacks. I would hardly call this a success, given the complete destruction of large parts of American cities, permanent welfare dependence, riots, and political dysfunction. I think we all agree America would be a better place if the slave trade never happened.
Your worst case is that Germans keep having few children and immigrants keep coming and breeding till they are a majority of the citizenry. Given the math this isn’t some far flung possibility. What do you think a majority NAM future will look like for the west? What happens when these people stop being clients at the ballot box and start being masters? How can a European welfare state survive almost all its citizens being net tax liabilities?
What do these immigrants add to their host countries? They produce very few extraordinary people on a per capita basis. They destroy the social well being of everyplace they go. They put a strain on the states budget. And this shows no sign of changing. What motivation besides political correctness is there to accept these people?
Don’t tell me human compassion, all people agree human compassion has to be tempered by practical realities. The fundamental issue here is that there is no path to integration because there is a large *genetic* difference that can never be bridged by any effort towards assimilation. You deny this basic fact, in spite of overwhelming evidence, solely because *you don’t like it*, and not because there is anything wrong with the evidence. As a selfish person you will continue spouting your ignorance, because it gives you comfort and advantage at a personal level, and all of your countrymen and descendants will pay a terrible price for your own personal failures as a human being.
asdf – Well, things went pretty well with integrating “low IQ races” like Scots and Irish, who, it turns out, are not low IQ, contrary to earlier dogma.
Proposition: Let’s give standardized tests to people who suffered from poor nutrition in childhood and never had access to a good education, and then, upon observing their lower outcomes, conclude with 100% certainty that they are genetically inferior. Because we’re smart. OK.
Re: fears of immigrants outbreeding “natives”. 2nd and 3rd generation, there is reversion to mean.
I agree that I don’t like the idea that there are systematic differences between humans. However, nearly all research I’ve seen which points to such conclusions includes basic analytical failures that should be easy for even a first year stats student to find. As usual, I welcome links which purport to demonstrate the contrary. You are drawing strong conclusions from weak evidence, evidence which most often includes basic analytical flaws that should/would lead a first year stats student to earn a failing grade, but which somehow attracts credibility in certain circles.
‘Germany also somehow couldn’t integrate the turks and kurds but Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russians’
Including the Russians is hilarious, as the foreign language most likely to heard in this region is Russian – it beats out French considerably at a local pool, which considering that Alsace is less than 10 miles away is saying something (there are a lot more public pools in Germany than France – and for many French families, a Germany located pool is much closer than a French one).
Or to put it differently – in this region, the Turks are, based on a variety of stated opinions, considered to be a lot better integrated than the Russians. And better neighbors, in addition.
“Or to put it differently – in this region, the Turks are, based on a variety of stated opinions, considered to be a lot better integrated than the Russians. And better neighbors, in addition.”
Nope, you must know very weird people.
“Nope, no pattern apparent unless one thinks that Arabs are primitive camel herders.”
Wtf? You are weird, so no surprise that you know weird people.
“And, duh, it’s easier for Spanish and Portuguese to integrate because their languages are very similar, while for Russians there are always been some who idolized the “European way” including certain former ideological sharing. Also, they’re white. Also, they’re broadly the same religion.”
I actually agree with that… though give less weight to the language (in France a lot of 1st gen. algerian immigrants spoke french as it was tought in algeria), and add other factors which, though, would be perceived as “racist”: hostility against the western world, misogynistic society (consequence: “not very educated mothers” –> “not educated children”),…
“Having observed that integration is easier for more similar people than for less similar people, we should not conclude that the ruin of Western civilization is on our doorsteps for the fact of adding, say, a few percent to the population from Islamic countries over the course of a decade”
I don’t conclude that. But at the same time, I dont want banlieues like in France (or cities like Malmö), I dont want more crime, I dont want an increased risk or actual terrorist attacks (France, Belgium), I dont want 5000 to 7000 gang rapes a year (France), I dont want Rotherham, ,..
I know its probably a “a small increase in my risk”, but already know my girlfriend and I feel less safe and have had (or know people who have had) negative experiences with (recent) migrants!
I started working full-time two years ago and now 50% of my income goes to Germany (plus my investments and spending gets heavily taxed). Large sums of that money gets spent on migrants… please tell me why I should this transfer flow if Turkish & kurdish immigration to Germany has had a negative impact on my life and arab migration produced very bad results in France and Sweden…
And btw “adding, say, a few percent to the population from Islamic countries over the course of a decade” is just wishful thinking…
First part @prior_test2
Second part @Nathan W.
The French had the best means to integrate them and still they failed. It definitely tried. If, for you, integration means affirmative action, quotas and permanent transfers, then the French did not do enough.
‘The French had the best means to integrate them and still they failed.’
Building explicit ghettos is a path to failure. Essentially all Germans could tell you that. One of the students I’ve talked to recently is Vietnamese, who grew up in Germany. She was shocked in her only visit to the U.S. that there was a little Saigon in LA – she could not imagine that an entire group of people would so cut themselves off from the society they live in.
And she was shocked at how the U.S. clearly failed at this important task, by allowing such a thing to exist. Take that as you will, of course.
‘If, for you, integration means affirmative action, quotas and permanent transfers, then the French did not do enough.’
Nope, it means the sorts of things the U.S. did in the 20s and 30s, integrating a vast wave of WWI refugees.
So to be clear, you are arguing that people should not be allowed to live where they want to live and should be forced to live in integrated neighborhoods?
Isn’t the Singapore model of forced integration illiberal?
And the US did not enforce affirmative action in the 20s and 30s. People assimilated because prior similarities, cultural proximity and plain, old fashion incentives like fitting in, social mobility, peer groups etc.
‘So to be clear, you are arguing that people should not be allowed to live where they want to live and should be forced to live in integrated neighborhoods?’
Nope – I am simply repeating the observation of a German with Vietnamese parents, who was shocked to see how a Vietnamese ghetto had developed in LA. And her opinion that this was a failure on the part of both American society and the Vietnamese immigrants to avoid such a problem developing. But then, like most Germans, she has been taught a blood soaked version of history, and the importance of not repeating such mistakes in the future.
However, let us turn that question around – would I ever advocate that people should live in segregated neighborhoods, and not where they want to? No, being a Virginian of a certain age, and unlike Chief Justice Rehnquist, I am completely opposed to the very idea of a segregated neighborhood.
Hope that helps clarify your question.
‘And the US did not enforce affirmative action in the 20s and 30s.’
Of course not. I was talking about the apparently forgotten civics associations, the ones that taught English and American values to immigrants as part of ‘Americanization.’ This being a clearly proven American method to integrate immigrants from a different background and religion.
‘People assimilated because prior similarities, cultural proximity and plain, old fashion incentives like fitting in, social mobility, peer groups etc.’
I’m curious – who was the peer group of an Eastern European Jew refugee in 1919? And what was their cultural proximity? Because at the time, they were not considered a part of anything American. These days, we have a different perspective of how such genetically inferior members of humanity worked out in becoming Americans than the dire predictions of the 1920s. Even deciding that they actually can now be considered white, oddly enough, and that things like deeds forbidding the sale of property to Jews are no longer legally enforceable.
“But then, like most Germans, she has been taught a blood soaked version of history, …”
Well sure. Germans learn a lot about German history.
Good point, but you did cherry pick it. Then again, Jews are a case apart for their doggedness and success in pursuing education and professions that place them at the top of the social peak. Interestingly, I’ve read that the German Jews already in Europe (like Emma Lazarus’ family) were not too accommodating for the Eastern European Jews.
‘but you did cherry pick it’
How about Italians?
‘Even as the United States was entering World War I in 1917, there had been substantial concern about the “dumping” of dangerous and poor immigrant refugees from Europe. When the Immigration Act of 1917, which had instituted an immigrant literacy test, failed to keep hundreds of thousands of Europeans from immigrating after the war, support for an ethnic quota grew. For the first time, many within the business community supported such restrictive legislation, convinced that immigrants from Canada, Mexico, and the West Indies had significantly lessened the need for potentially radicalized European labor. In order to ensure that Bolsheviks, anarchists, Jews, and other “undesirables” were kept to a minimum, the Emergency Quota Act set the number of immigrants from each national origin group at 3 percent of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910, a period when immigration from England, Ireland, Scotland, and Scandinavia had been particularly high. The measure limited immigration to 357,800 annually from the Eastern Hemisphere, with more than half the number reserved for immigrants from northern and western Europe. The even more restrictive Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 made the quotas permanent, though at reduced levels. The measure established an overall annual quota of 153,700, allotted according to a formula based on 2 percent of the population of each nation of origin according to the census of 1890. Countries most favored according to this formula were Great Britain (43 percent), Germany (17 percent), and Ireland (12 percent). Countries whose immigration had increased dramatically after 1890—including Italy, Poland, Russia, and Greece—had their quotas drastically slashed.’ http://immigrationtous.net/318-world-war-i-and-immigration.html
I find the Singaporean example very interesting, but oppose its broad application on the basis of freedom despite its apparently better outcomes.
However, on the matter of public housing, I think it would not be unreasonable to dictate some such thing. No one is “forced” to live in public housing (although arguably there is often little choice due to economic reality). I think this is entirely different from paternalism which leads to issuing food stamps rather than cash – if the individual/household finds it so important to stay with their own cultural groups so as to avoid social housing, nothing would be stopping them from seeking accommodation in a different community.
For the present case of refugees, however, I’m not sure what it would mean in practical terms. Most likely, it would imply a preference for housing supports which spread them through the community rather than packing them into what might become enclaves. Of course, once they are able to stand on their own two feet, I revert to the preference for freedom to live where you want.
Sorry, I meant German Jews in the US in my comment above.
I find those numbers rather surprising as, having lived in Glasgow for many years, I’ve found the Muslim population to be very well integrated into society, especially compared to the Chinese who are of similar population. I have known a good number of Muslims who think of themselves as Scottish first, Pakistani second, Muslim third and British fourth.
” I suspect that northern Europe will come to resemble the US to a greater extent”
That’s a shame. There is something about success that makes people want to self-destroy. And then we’ll go on with the program to make the US and Western Europe more like the third world.
Are you so sure they’ll assimilate? Did the Turks assimilate properly?
And yet Germans gave themselves neither the means nor the time to assimilate these people before they imported a new batch.
Back in the real world, the vast majority of Germans vote for parties which support current levels of migration.
In virtually every European country, both the major center-right and center-left party are pro-EU. If you are a Euroskeptic voter, you have nowhere to turn to except for far-left and far-right parties.
Pro-EU policies are therefore almost certain to triumph: European voters don’t like to vote for extremist parties, and even if they do, it is notoriously difficult to get Communists and Fascists to work together, these groups hate each other with a deep and abiding passion.
Theoretically, there is a market opening in most European parties for a respectable Euroskeptic party: a lot of extremist parties like the UKIP or National Front are responding to this by trying to make themselves seem more acceptable, more modern, less like Hitler or Stalin. They seem to be mostly failing. The one that managed to get elected (in Greece), quickly sold out, to the glowing approval of neoliberal elites like Tyler.
The idea that UKIP is extremist is laughable. They’re pro-immigration market liberals who just oppose the EU. National Front’s immigration policies would make them left-wing by Japanese or Israeli standards.
Ukip as liberals, let alone pro-immigration, is the laughable idea.
There is no significant debated topic on which Ukip is liberal. When their target audience demands more NHS spending, they pander.
Merkel is very deeply entrenched, it seems unlikely she will be beaten by anyone, let alone AfD. I was disappointed to learn that Merkel was a member of the East German Stasi. It’s crazy to me that a Stasi person could succeed in becoming head of government for Germany.
She was not a member or informant of the Stasi – at least it has never been proven so far. She was a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for Agitation and Propaganda. Her father was such a huge fan of East Germany that he moved the family there in 1954. Merkel was allowed to go to College which was only possible for people that supported the regime of the GDR.
Being in the FDJ had nothing to do with being “part of the regime”. It was quite common, in fact. It was one of the few options to better the life’s of your children. Just like parents in the west always want their kids to attend college. And as with the ever growing college diploma numbers,the more inflated those FDJ attendee numbers became, the less quality they conveyed.
It had no meaning being in the FDJ. It had much money re meaning if you weren’t.
Personally I highly doubt that the AFD in general or Frauke Petry in specific will hold any significant government office any time soon. They have potential for 20% of the vote, yes. But (like with le pen) those huge sounding 20% will effectively turn into 80% for camp “anti AFD”.
So instead fearmongering their current rise as something disastrous by itself lingering just around the corner, like a Trump-Presidency, I would place more emphasis on two coinciding events that happened, and a potential third one, which would hand the AFD the chancellorship immediately:
Current event #1
The state-level election results which will be around 10-20%, which will make the AFD appear as a more legitimate vote (your vote isn’t lost… They could actually win…)
Current event #2
The government and the administration is viewed as being in such a chaotic state, that it’s loosing it’s legitimacy. “Since cologne” has already become a common expression in German.
I’d even go so far and say, Merkel’s only remaining USP is “You don’t want those AFD nut jobs taking over”
Possible event #3
Now what would happen with an Islamist terrorist attack happening, with events #1 and #2 still present and with not enough time until election day for the government to prove it could act?
Usually terrorist attacks result in a huge support for a sitting government. Not this time though. In this setting, an attack could prove very effective becuase it would actually topple the country’s leadership. So in all unfairness: the AFD and makes Germany an remarkably luring target for terrorists in 2017.
Where is the German Houellebecq? Submission is being staged in Germany as well as in France.
Of course the Centre Left and Right will unite in a Große Koalition against any populist right movement even if it means leaving a large segment of the population without a voice.
What I find to be a shame is that the New Right in Europe is all pro-Nationalist but anti-European. I could be more enthusiastic about them if they weren’t so demagogic against Europe. European values are real and worth cultivating and defending.
“What I find to be a shame is that the New Right in Europe is all pro-Nationalist but anti-European.”
“Continentalism” isn’t a thing at present, but maybe it should be.
The original idea behind what’s now the E.U. is that Europeans should discriminate in favor of their neighbors over other continents. But now that sounds like racism, so things like Merkel’s August decision is defended as “European values.”
‘“Continentalism” isn’t a thing at present, but maybe it should be.’
Well, as long as the wrong sort of people don’t indulge in letting the good times roll, right?
This is obviously correct. I wonder why you find it to be such a cutting sarcasm.
Context matters, and do note the absence of Sailer from this comment thread – ‘Sailer’s article on Hurricane Katrina was followed by accusations of racism from left-wing organizations Media Matters for America and the Southern Poverty Law Center. In reference to the New Orleans slogan “let the good times roll”, Sailer commented:
What you won’t hear, except from me, is that “Let the good times roll” is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
Conservative columnist John Podhoretz, responded in the National Review Online blog by calling Sailer’s statement “shockingly racist and paternalistic” as well as “disgusting”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer
When NRO feels the need to call someone a racist and disgusting, well, that is truly an accomplishment of the first order.
They are still discriminating in favour of their neighbours, but less so than before for the specific case of civilians who have fled war.
“things like Merkel’s August decision
That decision may be bad for Germany or the EU but for the goal of keeping her office, this was a very smart move by Merkel. She effectively declared herself to be the offical nominee for all parties that are not named “AFD”. With this she could secure her office into a time when this immigration-thingy has cooled down.
Where is the German Houellebecq? Well I dont know for sure, but I’d think a “once-intelligenzia cleared author turned-fallen-angel” like Houellebecq can only be created in a culture that has been exposed long enough to elitism-socialists like France, where terms like “socialism” and “liberty” have become such a standard reportoir of values that politicians had declare to have, that these terms effectively lost all meaning. Germany isn’t there yet. The most prolific German Houellebecq-like Authors are usually immigrants (naturalized or not) and very often (ex)-Muslims themselves.
The German Houellebecq could have been Thilo Sarrazin, but he didn’t push hard enough against his detractors. Nor was he associated with tragedy.
Well, his diet book was laughable.
That was a bit flippant – ‘Im Februar 2008 gab er Tipps, wie ALG-II-Empfänger sich für weniger als vier Euro pro Tag ernähren könnten. Kritik dazu kam vom Deutschen Caritasverband, dem Paritätischen Wohlfahrtsverband und der damaligen Berliner Sozialsenatorin Heidi Knake-Werner. Der CDU-Politiker und frühere Bundesminister für Jugend, Familie und Gesundheit, Heiner Geißler, stellte fest: „Die Fehler, Irreführungen und defizitären Argumente des Senators schreien zum Himmel und werfen ein schlechtes Licht auf die Berliner Finanzverwaltung.“ Man dürfe auch fragen, „ob ein Berliner Regierungsmitglied mit ‚Geiz ist geil‘-Parolen arme Leute folgenlos verhöhnen darf“. Wenn Massenarmut in Wut und Aggression umschlügen, trügen auch „politische Provokateure wie Sarrazin“ dafür die Verantwortung.’ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thilo_Sarrazin#Tipps_f.C3.BCr_Hartz-IV-Empf.C3.A4nger_und_Positionen_zur_Altersversorgung
He provided information on how those living on something under 400 euros a months (I don’t know the current or then Hartz IV rate, and am not interested enough to find out) could eat for 4 euros a day. It was considered embarassing that he tried to convince anyone that 4 euros a day for food should be considered somehow normal. Germans apparently have more pride in their society than Sarrazin. Or caution – such self-righteousness is considered a provocation to a mob of the poor, as noted in above.
We understand that. We also understand that you’ve had hideous fertility deficits for 40 years. Ta ta. Nice knowing ya losers….
The German commenters are right. There is a shift of public opinion, but the votes are just not there, because Hitler. Just as before, Germany, and Europe with it, will drudge as before. Keep the welfare State, dubious borders, and soft suppression of discontent. It’s worked for decades, why not a few more years? My opinion is that the next turn will not hinge on immigration, but on a possible economic recession. That’s where the true crazy is really at now.
“My opinion is that the next turn will not hinge on immigration, but on a possible economic recession. ”
Europe can’t afford another recession. The EU has barely recovered from the last one. Of course generous benefits for immigrants will become a highly politicized issue if EU states start having to broadly cut benefits.
I’d say all of this *could* end with more EU integration. Meaning more institutional stability and more money being paid by Germany to other EU countries. I’m not sure if this is good or bad for either EU or any nation state within it. But it would take less guts to choose this path than to actually end the Uninon.
Although I am not an expert on German politics, it does not appear to me that the AfD is a “far right” party which is a label generally reserved for actual neo-nazis. Its platform certainly wouldn’t be counted as “far right” anytime between 1945-2000. It would have been considered fairly typical center-right. The AfD’s history is nothing like that of the National Front, BNP, or other outright racist parties.
As the left wing version of Davos Man increased its control of elite institutions, it had a really bad habit of accusing anyone who dissented from its new orthodoxy as extremist. Vote against the Maastricht Treaty? Well, keep voting until you say yes. Don’t want to join the euro? Too bad, you have to. Euro destroyed your economy and created huge unemployment? Too bad, you can’t leave it. Don’t want reasonable restrictions on immigration? Too bad, you have to let the people in that the PM of Lebanon said contains ISIS terrorists.
The traditional center right parties foolishly acquiesced to this because they didn’t want the media to repeat those accusations. As a result, in every single country where the traditional center right parties shifted left on immigration and EU issues, a new right wing or center right party formed to fill the space left abandoned. Often the same parties were joined by voters who had traditionally voted LEFT on economic issues, but were turned off by the new cultural left direction that hijacked the traditional labor/social democrat parties.
For a long time, the left thought by accusing people of far right extremism, they could discredit their opponents. All they have actually done is begun legitimizing the actual far right. As people acknowledge the left’s criticisms are baseless as it applies to them, it is allowing the real far right to portray themselves as equally misunderstood. If you want to truly defuse the far right, you have to allow people to advocate reasonable restrictions on immigration as part of the normal political discourse.
If the AfD truly does get 20% of the vote, as one commenter suggested, it would achieve a result far above any other German party outside the big 2 of the CDU/CSU and SPD. At some point, you have to allow it into government, as many of the Scandinavian countries been forced to do the same to the new right parties.
‘Although I am not an expert on German politics, it does not appear to me that the AfD is a “far right” party which is a label generally reserved for actual neo-nazis.’
You didn’t actually notice the leadership putsch, did you?
‘Its platform certainly wouldn’t be counted as “far right” anytime between 1945-2000’
It would certainly would have, but a lot more people in 1975 remembered that stated policies like having women stay at home and have 3 children were not ‘far right,’ they were actually in a direct line from Nazi policy.
‘The AfD’s history is nothing like that of the National Front, BNP, or other outright racist parties.’
You are right – see above about the party leadership putsch. The maggots ate it out from the inside, as pretty much everyone not in the AfD predicted would happen when the party was founded and began attracting attention. This is also why there is now a party called Alfa, founded by Bernd Lucke.
‘If the AfD truly does get 20% of the vote, as one commenter suggested, it would achieve a result far above any other German party outside the big 2 of the CDU/CSU and SPD.’
Let me introduce you to the current party running Baden-Württemberg, the Greens. Further, let me introduce to the extremely likely winner of this weekend’s election in Baden-Württemberg – the Greens, with a total above the CDU, and probably around 35%. And to make your nightmarish fantasies complete, the odds are looking good that the Greens and CDU will probably form a coalition government to run Baden-Württemberg. Oh, did anyone mention to you that Kretschmann is not exactly, but kind of sort of to the right of Merkel when it comes to the concrete problems of handling refugees?
Oops – your nightmare is becoming reality. The SPD might just get enough votes so that the Green-Red government will continue – http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_77218036/gruen-rot-hat-ind-bawue-dank-winfried-kretschmann-wieder-eine-mehrheit.html
‘At some point, you have to allow it into government’
Just like the Republikaner, with their 10% in Pforzheim? Haven’t heard about that? Maybe because the ‘far right’ is really, really incompetent when it comes to government?
Leo Strauss, who keeps getting quoted here, wrote: “In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.”
The idea that, even closer to WW2, having pro-natal policies likens one to Hitler, is absolutely insane. Also, Communist Romania had very heavy handed pro-natal policies. Does that make it far right?
Quebec still has a baby bonus. I’m pretty sure a lot of other places do too, in addition to a vast number of other supports which help families with child rearing costs. Maternity benefits could also be portrayed as pro-natalist.
We can steer clear of the Hitler’s of the future at the same time as not being dumb by blindly avoiding any and everything he did. What, then, observe that Hitler charged taxes, and abolish taxes? That Hitler had a military and therefore disband the military?
‘The idea that, even closer to WW2, having pro-natal policies likens one to Hitler, is absolutely insane.’
Tell that to the people who invented the term ‘Karnickelorden’ (‘rabbit honors’) to describe those fortunate enough to be awarded the Mother’s Cross, 1st Class Order, Gold Cross: eligible mothers with eight or more children – https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutterkreuz
Germans, oddly enough, find your perspective to be a bit hard to understand. Maybe because they actually know something about Nazis?
Maybe their Nazi fixation is blinding them to reality, or at least monopolizing too much of their mental and spiritual resources.
But the rabbit honors thing is funny.
‘Maybe their Nazi fixation is blinding them to reality’
There is one country that undisputedly knows precisely what the Nazis were. A knowledge that leaves them deeply, deeply determined not to relive that nightmare. The same applies to the German fear of inflation, obviously.
But when it comes to what happened to Germany, fixation is probably not precisely the right word. Much like the japanese are not blinded by their fixation concerning nuclear weapons and what happens when they are used.
Germany’s character will be fundamentally and irreversibly changed, leading it directly to Marxist Islamic rule and sharia law within, perhaps, 20 years. Unless we open our eyes to truths spoken by neo-Nazis (not speaking of more moderate people who voice concerns), this will happen as a direct and certain causal result of levels of immigration which have occurred in other Western countries for decades but which have had no such effect.
Also, Merkel is a closet Muslim and Marxist, who secretly LOVES the prospect of a Marxist Islamic Eurabia where young males are allowed, no, encouraged, to rape young European virgins.
Also, present refugee flows will continue unabated until Syria has been completely emptied 20 times over. The pedophile rapists breed THAT fast, during war nonetheless.
They have foresight. We are dumb. No, not dumb, traitors. It is what we want.
You aren’t very good at this Nathan. How about you respond to the actual issue of the ultra conservative social values of third-world islamists? You would hate with a blinding fury any American conservative group which held the values at the statistical values of muslims, yet because muslims are brown and poor you aren’t willing to hold them to the same standards.
The left: Nathan W. Millian Anon Bill Barkley Rosser do not hold brown people to the same standards they hold white people because they are racists.
‘How about you respond to the actual issue of the ultra conservative social values of third-world islamists?’
You mean the ones that look surprisingly like the ultra conservative social values of a number of CSU members who still think Vatican II and the abandoning of laws forbidding unmarried men and women from sharing either an apartment or hotel room need to be reversed? The ones who still think an unmarried woman with a child needs to prove to the government that she be allowed to raise it? (In slightly less conservative Baden-Württemberg, laws that were only repealed in the early 21st century?)
Do not use Germany as your starting place to show how a Western country looks better in comparison to Islam. It won’t turn out well. Use France instead.
If you are not in favor of those CSU members and German sexism why do you love love love opportunistic Muslim migrants so much?
‘If you are not in favor of those CSU members and German sexism why do you love love love opportunistic Muslim migrants so much?’
I’m sorry, but what? Since when do I, in any sense ‘love opportunistic Muslim migrants’? I have been ever so politely mocked for talking about binary commenters here, but this purported equivalence is truly even beyond your past proven abilities.
What happened in Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, and Zurich were criminal acts, and I fully expect (and support) both the German and Swiss police in arresting those involved, and fully support the German and Swiss justice systems in jailing those found guilty of such disgusting crimes – of which I expect a fairly large number to be jailed, assuming they have not already successfully fled. Jailings which I remain confident will happen, even if it does not generate the same headlines.
Such people deserve to be punished for their acts. Why is this even considered to be open to discussion?
And why would anyone support theocrats of any stripe, regardless of whether their medieval outlook is Christian or Islamic?
I prefer to engage with Muslims than to tar them. Namely, promoting women’s equality and a genuine respect for religious freedom. In Canada, a great number of Muslims are very much on board with such an agenda (yes, there are some loudmouthed and disturbing exceptions).
Engagement works. Insulting people and defaming their culture and traditions does not.
Indeed. You must not show disrespect to the prophet.
Why would I show disrespect to the venerated figure of any religion, in particular when discussing things with people of that religion?
Want to insult Koumani or the Pope? That’s your business. But insulting Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Confucius? What value could that have for any purpose whatsoever, until you just want to stir up trouble for no good reason?
Yeah I mean it was clearly Charlie’s fault that they got murdered by vicious Islamists
Well, the only person to blame for a murder is the person who committed the murder, much like the only person to blame for a rape is the person who committed the rape.
But Charlie was wearing a very short skirt, and for no particularly good reason at all other than to sell some dirty mags. Let me say a million billion times over that the murderer is responsible for the murder before I append the final words that … Charlie was definitely asking for it, that was dumb, and did not contribute anything useful to any discourse whatsoever, as much as it clearly appealed to some people.
Oh yeah, and can I emphasize enough that I hold the murderers responsible for murder, not the people who were asking for it?
Like, we’re not talking about courageous journalists who stood up to Stalin or something. That was just dumb. The post-attack “tout est pardonne”, however, I have quite a lot of respect for.
> Why would I show disrespect to the venerated figure of any religion, in particular when discussing things with people of that religion?
For the same reason you should show disrespect to Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot … and Hitler.
Foreign Criminals Find Cover in Germany’s Migrant Tide
Boring. Nothing like AlphaGo’s victory, the biggest story of the year.
Fact: 800k illegal aliens entered Greece in 2015. 19 M foreign tourists entered Greece in 2015 (Greece has a population of 10M).
Do the math: 0.8/19 = 4%. Over twenty times ‘legal’ tourists are in Greece as illegal.
A non-story, immigration is.
Good heavens. You, sir, are a certifiable idiot.
+1. This was a startlingly idiotic comment. Do the math indeed.
Why is being skeptical of Chancellor Merkel’s snap decision “extremist” or “far” anything? It would seem in the abstract that Dr. Merkel choosing to suspend EU rules on refugees without public debate in late August was more extreme.
Perhaps it would be better if respectable Germans were allowed more freedom to nonconform politically?
‘Why is being skeptical of Chancellor Merkel’s snap decision “extremist” or “far” anything?’
It isn’t – Kretschmann certainly has practical objections, and has been politically straightforward in articulating them for months. But as one might guess from a member of Central Committee of German Catholics – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_German_Catholics and a coucil member of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Freiburg – he does not support the idea of shooting children at the border. He does not even support the idea of letting people drown at sea instead of rescuing them, hard as that might be to imagine.
‘Perhaps it would be better if respectable Germans were allowed more freedom to nonconform politically?’
Winfried Kretschmann is the Green Ministerpräsident of Baden-Württemberg, whose support was critical for the recent tightening of Germany’s refugee laws (what, no one comments about Asylpaket II here – such a surprise). He was able to ‘nonconform politically’ in part because no one confuses Kretschmann with a believer in whatever it is you call your ever so scientific and political beliefs – though even for you, the idea of lisping and homosexuality being genetically based was more than close to unconscious parody.
She didn’t suspend rules. She chose options which were less restrictive than required by the rules.
When I jaywalk, I am choosing options which are less restrictive than required by the rules.
And when your jaywalking involves saving boatloads of drowing refugees (yes, talk about mixing metaphorical images), do you consider that to be less restrictive than required by the rules too?
Almost as if many commenters here are wilfully ignoring the fact that Merkel heads the Christian Democrats. Although maybe that whole thing about Christianity saying it is about love and charity is just a 2000 year old smokescreen, right?
But her decision caused many people to die trying to get to Germany. Migrant crossings exploded afterwards. Her decision certainly makes her seem like a nice and sympathetic person but if reality matters then you have to consider all the positive and negative effects of your actions. Getting to feel good about yourself and how charitable you are should not be high on the list of considerations but often it is.
Considering the demonstrated bad faith above, I should ignore this.
‘But her decision caused many people to die trying to get to Germany’
Maybe – it is at least possible to discuss this point. Though when they were drowning last year (more 2014/15), the refugees were only interested in fleeing, and extremely unconcerned about their goal as long as it wasn’t where they came from.
‘Migrant crossings exploded afterwards.’
No – the crossings from North Africa, the ones leading to uncounted (literally – no one actually knows how many people drowned) deaths did not explode. Instead, safer and vastly more profitable routes were opened up, especially between Turkey and Greece. These safer routes were more attractive, particularly for the Turkish boat owners clearing tens of thousands of dollars for a couple of hours ferrying work, dropping off people in Greece, a country that the Turks have absolutely no love for.
‘Her decision certainly makes her seem like a nice and sympathetic person but if reality matters’
She is the daughter of a pastor, and heads the Christian Democrats. I was not aware that sincere Christians are supposed to weigh ‘reality’ when making moral decisions. Well, at least if one is familiar with what Jesus is purported to have said, but let us be honest – he was not very concerned with reality either. His interest seems to have been concentrated on morality, not reality.
‘Getting to feel good about yourself and how charitable you are should not be high on the list of considerations but often it is’
I am honestly wondering how Jesus would respond to that – take it as a statement of faith that he would mock it in a way guaranteed to be misunderstood by many of his followers in the following millenia, and yet remembered by those who understood what he taught. (Personal note – I respect those Christians who actually seem to understand the words of Jesus the way I read them (let us be honest – they aren’t hard words to understand), but I am not a Christian at this point – no belief in resurrection, no belief in hell, etc.)
“Migrant crossings exploded afterwards. Her decision certainly makes her seem like a nice and sympathetic person but if reality matters then you have to consider all the positive and negative effects of your actions.”
By the same (stupid) token, Castro is right: the USA welcoming Cuban fugitives is an incentive to people try to flee Cuba, risking drowing with their families. If only the USA were not so welcoming, people would learn to love Big Castro. People are not leaving Syria just because they like sightseeing.
The analogy is off base, because jaywalking is indeed breaking the rules. The analogy might be something more like waiting longer than needed – this might annoy some people, but is not against the rules.
There is no European rule which says “you MUST NOT accept refugee applications if they have transited from a third country”, however, there is a minimum standard where you MUST accept a claim of asylum if they have not transited a third county.
Dublin II is the only pan-European regulation that governs refugee policy. Merkel unilaterally decided to suspend Dublin II, a decision which turned her neighbors into giant rest stops for masses of migrants. After creating a massive problem, Merkel then sought to “Europeanize” the solution by forcing other EU countries to settle the migrants invited by her.
Whether you agree or not with Merkel’s moral justification of her decision, it is clear that her unpredictable and arrogant decision-making has been disastrous for intra-EU relations. She has even placed the EU in a position to be continuously blackmailed by Turkey. I can’t think of a bigger mistake by any postwar democratic leader.
GWB invasion if Iraq, which put this whole sequence of events in motion, strikes me as an obviously worse mistake, even if you’re strongly anti-immigrant.
GWB did not put this chain into effect. Syria collapsed internally as a result of the Arab Spring in a fashion quite similar to Libya. If anything, Saddam being in power would’ve made this whole situation worse.
“GWB invasion if Iraq, which put this whole sequence of events in motion,…”
What? That’s a stretch claim. So, it’s all Buuushesss fault, eh.
“The Syrian Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية السورية) is an ongoing multi-sided armed conflict with international interventions taking place in Syria. The unrest began in the early spring of 2011 within the context of the Arab Spring protests, with nationwide protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s government, whose forces responded with violent crackdowns.The conflict gradually morphed from mass protests to an armed rebellion after months of military sieges. A United Nations report released in December, 2012, stated that the conflict had “become overtly sectarian in nature”, between Alawite–dominated government forces, militias and other Shia groups fighting primarily against Sunni-dominated rebel groups; however both opposition and government forces denied that.”
Rules are contrary to freedom of expression under the first amendment, not to mention racist. Show me a rule that doesn’t have disparate impact.
Seriously, this discussion is about Germany (and in a broader sense, Europe), and you are talking about the American Constitution?
And you think that is relevant how? Please don’t answer – this comment section already has enough comedians of your sort.
“Unlike the 61-year-old chancellor, Ms. Petry sees 1990 as ‘a missed opportunity to really reunite.’
“‘Much that was successful in the East was simply swallowed by the West,’ she said in an interview. In the next 25 years, she argued, a view of Germany evolved that demeaned the country, with policies against families, against nuclear power and against German traditions.”
In other words, Petry’s AfD is an east German protest party appealing to former GDR citizens who never got over the shock of the Wall coming down.
There’ll probably be a market for this sort of thing for as long as anybody who grew up in the GDR remains politically active. But its rise has nothing to do with migrants. Petry would have trumped up some other excuse (no pun intended) to pinch market share from the Left.
‘Petry would have trumped up some other excuse (no pun intended) to pinch market share from the Left.’
Except that the actual Linke are the original, and still more popular, East German protest party. Though the terms right and left get very confused in an East German context – the left are nostalgic for a totalitarian system, as is the right. It is just who exactly oppressed who, when, that makes it all very hard to untangle.
What’s the point of this post? The leader of Alternative for Germany blew up her marriage ergo we must have OPEN BORDERS?
I’m struck by the massive amounts of autism shown by the comments here. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Thursday assorted links
Next post: Why is labor mobility in India so low?
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.