Solve for the equilibrium don’t forget to check your email

In early October, the [German] district government informed Sumte’s mayor, Christian Fabel, by email that his village of 102 people just over the border in what was once Communist East Germany would take in 1,000 asylum seekers.

His wife, the mayor said, assured him it must be a hoax.

Here is the NYT article, you will note that Herr Holger Niemann is enthusiastic about the new development; he is the lone neo-Nazi on the local town council.  By the way, the town has no stores, they had to install more pumps in the sewer system, and if I understand the article correctly Sumte has no permanent police presence.

At lunch lately we have been arguing how many immigrants can be taken in without seeing political backlash and eventually immigration reduction.  We’ll soon be seeing more data.


Also from the New York Times:

A Mass Migration Crisis, and It May Yet Get Worse

... The most striking thing about the current migration crisis, however, is how much bigger it could still get.

Nor is it only the Middle East and North Africa that European leaders need to consider. The Gallup Poll, based on data compiled from more than 450,000 interviews in 151 nations from 2009 to 2011, found that in Nigeria, which already has double the population of Germany, 40 percent of people would emigrate to the West if they could. And the lesson of 2015 — for them and much of the world — is that they can.

Well, Americans lack world geography so may not know about a thing called the Sahara between Nigeria and Algeria, but even if it were a yellow brick road, they won't go unless as in Syria, their homes are being destroyed by three armies and the probability of death on the journey is less than the probability of death at home..

You're right it is savage of Merkel not to provide boats and planes for them all. Think of their human rights. No person should have to live in as terrible a country as Nigeria

And then the Mediterranean. It is all so impossible.

Wasn't war invented so Americans could learn geography?

ROTFL. Who are the campers at Calais? Are their homes destroyed?

An interesting question is whether anybody in positions of power and/or influence will ever apologize for their negligence.

Well, it's clearly ruined your life, but I don't need an apology for migration. People have been moving around this world for a long time, except for your ancestors.

except for your ancestors.

I thought his ancestors included 20th century immigrants from Switzerland?

Um, no, they have not. The major migration in historical time has been from Europe to sparsely populated areas in the Americas, Siberia, and the Antipodes.

You seem to be leaving out a major portion of "historical time," Art. Like pre-colonialism.

How many Russian speakers and other former Soviets live in Europe? You're not counting that? Is it because they're mostly white, because few of are Muslims? Because part of Russia is Europe and well let's just count them as basically Western European?

What about East Asians in Europe? I've seen a few. Probably fine.

The Turks who have been in Germany a while probably count, right? And the Jamaicans and Pakistanis and Indians in the UK? Eh.

I'm leaving them out because I'm critiquing the policy that put them where they are. I'm keeping track of your argument even if you aren't. Out of one side of your mouth you're insisting there is historical precedent for this from time immemorial. Out of the other, you're invoking failed post-war social policies as historical precedent for doubling-down by importing flash-mobs.

You've redefined "historical time," tried to divert this into a discussion on the effectiveness of post-war social policies, which are obviously in the eye of the beholder, and hilariously and incorrectly invoked the term flash mob.

Russians moved into conquered lands.

And yes there has been lots of people moving around. They have made their destination much like where they come from, moreso depending on the numbers. This little town will look more like the places where the thousands come from than what it looks like now.

Turks and Mongols to Eastern Europe, Middle East, South Asia?

And why does everyone keep talking about organized mass migration here? (an effect of Sailer and his commenters?) The sort of migration I thought Jan was referring to was individuals or small families picking up and deciding to move to a different kingdom. Until a couple of hundred years ago, such migration could not feasibly be stopped (no large standing armies to police the border, nor modern technology to build and monitor decent fences.) Forts and castles could prevent people from entering, but they usually enclosed very small areas. What deterred people from making such moves was (1) the overwhelming majority of people prefer to be within our own cultures, and (2) people weren't inclined to be very cooperative with those who looked, spoke, and attired, different from them. The cultural convergence of much of the developed world and the urban areas of the developing world means that such disincentives don't exist today. But countries have figured out how to guard their borders, and set up passport and visa rules that didn't exist until not too long ago.

Until a couple of hundred years ago, such migration could not feasibly be stopped

Of course it could. "Oh, you're new here? Here's an axe in the brain"


“Oh, you’re new here? Here’s an axe in the brain”

Probably true in some cannibalistic hunter gatherer societies that lost contact with the rest of world civilization long ago, but most connected parts of the world had (and still have) well-established protocols to handle guests and exhibit hospitality. Every "country" since the dawn of civilization has had colonies of merchants and scholars from "abroad"; they being under the protection of the local rulers.

As I explicitly said, open migration was deterred by the very real prospect of non-cooperation or ostracism by the host society (but that would have occurred only if the guest behaved like an a** and chose not to abide by local social norms.) That was probably a far bigger factor than the blow of an axe.

Well, yes, because they didn't want to stop them from coming, not because "they could not feasibly be stopped"

Aren't you ignoring the Bantu?

I'm sure we could find a rapist or two in your family tree not to mention a murderer. Does that mean someone should be allowed to murder you with impunity?

What percentage of migrants are murderers and rapists? No extrapolating.

Is it higher or lower than the proportion amongst the natives? Do the current circumstances promote more public order or less public order?

Completely irrelevant nonsense.

Did Arthur Garrity apologize? How 'bout Jerome Cavanaugh? Would Shira Sheindlin? Barack Obama and Eric Holder? "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made..." All over the West, you find these types, and they have the upper hand.

At lunch lately we have been arguing how many immigrants can be taken in without seeing political backlash and eventually immigration reduction.

You'll remark that the table talk at George Mason concerns the real threat - a hypothetical immigration reduction.

Translation: when do I get my monument.

Answer: Never.

I favor a more aggressive form of appreciation - a firing squad and ostracism of their kin.

Ain't going to happen. But have fun masturbating about your coming revolution.

Ain’t going to happen.

In your case, it would be a waste of decent lead, but not necessarily decent hemp.

Thanks for sharing.

"Ain’t going to happen."
I'm pretty sure a lot of people were telling Hitler the same when he was in prison. Yet somehow he managed to kill one gazillion (number depending on the latest publication publication) jews. But certainly the assertion of a person called ed on a forum is a sufficient condition for it not happening.

When you get third world immigration the residents of an area simply move out, protesting against Government policy is pointless:

Or sometimes they are coming from Alabama and Mississippi.

Jan you won't rest until there's no safe place left in the world. Probably believe violent criminals deserve second chances, everyone gets 10 free crimes as long as they apologize, then a stern slap on the wrist for all additional crimes, if that doesnt stop them well it was probably the victims fault anyways.

No I believe in pushing the mass incarceration model on the rest of the world. It fell out of favor for a while after Stalin, but there's still time to fix it. It's done wonders for us here in the US. Well, depending on your neighborhood. It's about freedom.

No I believe in pushing the mass incarceration model on the rest of the world. It fell out of favor for a while after Stalin,

You're bound an determined to persuade people you're a knucklehead of the intellectual kind or the moral kind.

How should we stop violence against innocent people Jan?

Art, Jan is a massive knucklehead on race, immigration, the Great Satan, and Russia. Probably economics, too.

This is a really interesting question - there was a huge internal migration northward starting in the 30s; I had a history professor who was fond of saying that the state of Mississippi moved to the city of Chicago. Were Detroit and Chicago better off in the long run? What about the migrants and their descendants? Interesting questions without obvious answers.

Do i have an article for you!

"The black underclass did not just spring into being over the past twenty years. Every aspect of the underclass culture in the ghettos is directly traceable to roots in the South -- and not the South of slavery but the South of a generation ago. In fact, there seems to be a strong correlation between underclass status in the North and a family background in the nascent underclass of the sharecropper South.

What happened to make the underclass grow so much in the seventies can best be understood by thinking less about welfare or unemployment than about demographics -- specifically, two mass migrations of black Americans.

The first was from the rural South to the urban North, and numbered in the millions during the forties, fifties, and sixties, before ending in the early 1970s. This migration brought the black class system to the North virtually intact, though the underclass became more pronounced in the cities. The second migration began in the late sixties -- a migration out of the ghettos by members of the black working and middle classes, who had been freed from housing discrimination by the civil-rights movement. Until then the strong leaders and institutions of the ghettos had promoted an ethic of assimilation (if not into white society, at least into a black middle class) for the underclass, which worked up to a point. Suddenly most of the leaders and institutions (except criminal ones) left, and the preaching of assimilation by both blacks and whites stopped. What followed was a kind of free fall into what sociologists call social disorganization. The result of the exodus from the ghettos is dramatic, both in the statistics and on the streets -- the ghettos have lost considerable population, and they look not just bad today but also empty. As the population of the ghettos has dropped, the indices of disorganization there (crime, illegitimate births) have risen. The underclass flourished when in the seventies it was completely disengaged from the rest of society -- when there were no brakes on it."

Why free migration from Africa and the Caribbean is a bad idea.

The underclass flourished when in the seventies it was completely disengaged from the rest of society — when there were no brakes on it.

It was accelerated by drugs and exacerbated by the war on drugs. If white cocaine users had gone to jail at the rate of black crack users...

Are you saying Alabama and Mississippi are third-world countries? Because they're not. They're about the same level of development as Europe, right?

Last time I checked median household income in the UK was lower than for Mississippi--the poorest state.

Mississippi as a whole, no. The Delta? Pretty close.

Per the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the personal income per capita in the 17 delta counties is about 74% of national means and about 2% below the Mississippi state mean. Not too different from Britain and better off than Italy.

What distinguishes Mississippi is that it has a homicide rate which exceeds just about any other state's even though 88% of the population is exurban, small town, and rural.

I thought homicide only happened in big welfare-queen cities like New York. /s

Is suburbanisation in the last 40 years unique to cities with immigration, or is it due to the same factors affecting every rich-world city?

The opportunity of cheap land met the incentive to create white school districts.

"No permanent police presence."

Bored unemployed males from a war torn country will police themselves. Stop worrying.

There is no police but Allah.

It's a tremendously stupid policy to send these refugees primarily to Eastern Germany, with all these Nazis and no jobs there, and to ban them from working. Yes there are lots of empty houses, yes they compete on the labor markets with the low skilled where labor markets exist. No wonder those NIMBYs want them there, as far away as possible from their beautiful Bavarian backyard. But Germany's literally at full employment, and low skilled jobs are desperately needed and will be needed for decades to come - for instance in elderly care. Perhaps young arab males may have to swallow a lot of pride before wiping grandma's bottoms, but if the alternative really is Siberia surely they will quickly accept?

These people are mental. They'll be outnumbered ten to one by male refugees from a war-torn area, with a chip on their shoulder and nothing to do, and their concern is that this may be feeding the right wing parties politically? Astounding! I don't want to be callous, but somebody has to be made a very public example of for people to wake up and smell the coffee, and places like Sumte are it.

So you're saying the refugees are 90% males, 18 - 30 years old, with no education and have a chip on their shoulder because Germany let them into their country?

The obsession with males reveals the Blut und Rassenkrieg tendency of the anti-migrant crowd.

This is an excellent point liberals never ever ever worry about the gender composition of groups. Why just the other day I read in the NYT about how naturally business schools will have more men than women so any feminist agitation over the issue was simply feminist obsession with males.

Are you one of those people who think people are fungible and that one should be as afraid on a dark street of an elderly woman as they would of a young man? That's before bringing alien cultures and underclasses into this.

They concurrently think that members of an underclass are less culpable for wrongdoing because they are simply reacting to an oppressive society, and that members of an underclass are no more likely to commit wrongdoing than anyone else.

It's bizarre.

There is this drive to accommodate the newcomers and their idiosyncrasies, foibles, passions, political ambitions on the world stage (the Palestinian cause) etc. But I rarely hear a politician saying stuff like "there is a significant anti-immigrant crowd in my country that is all Blut und Rassenkrieg, so maybe it isn't such a good idea to keep importing these new people and setting them off". Instead, a legitimate preference for societal cohesion is being brushed off as if it were illegitimate just because the sheltered elites are contemptuous of these attitudes. Shouldn't Blut und Rassenkrieg tip you off that this won't end well?

They are 70-80% young men. That you're still asking this question at this late date reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity about an issue you nevertheless comment on frequently.

Do you have any examples of a European country that's seen an improvement in crime and employment rates as the male Muslim population increases? Perhaps you can ask some Jews on their way out of Europe how the neighbourhoods have improved.

So it is 57% males over 18. And does anyone think some of these men might have families they will bring later, or maybe women (esp those with children) are just less enthusiastic about the journey because it kills so many people, as we see in the news daily? Does this resemble any US immigration patterns from the past? 1800 - 1950 Italian males to th US outnumbered women 4 to 1.

Immigration's goal is to reduce unemployment and improve crime stats? That would work if, say, there were a shortage of cops and the immigrants just walked into those jobs, but that would be weird.

And does anyone think some of these men might have families they will bring later,

We get it. You're not paying attention when people say 'chain migration'.

That's actually an argument to reduce immigration levels, perhaps by up to 80%. If we let in everyone until we can't take anymore, then there won't be any room for their families.

Of course, it would be much better to take them directly from the camps, and cheaper as well. That way we can select who's coming according to different criteria than are selected for by the crossing at the moment, which are not necessarily traits that are desirable. Such a thing is being done currently by the British government, though I think we can take far more than 4000 a year.

My proposal is to expand that program across Europe, and send anyone caught trying to sneak in back to the camps, taking down their details so they can be sent to the back of the queue. Of course, this runs into the problem of what to do with the people who aren't refugees...

I think, though, Britain can take ~30,000/year, provided they're spread around the country. That's only 0.05% annual population increase, ~0.5% after a decade. Provided the caps are enforced, we should be able to cope with that, and if the other European countries would do the same, that's 375,000/year. That's a lot of relief for little Lebanon.

Very interesting that the children are also skewed male. Of course age 18 is kinda arbitrary; I wonder what the age distribution of the under 18s is (ie, how many are 16 and 17).
And of course the numbers aren't exactly precise and unassailable, the UN thinks that 65% of the migrants are adult men.

The US immigrants were coming lawfully to settle a frontier and build a country from scratch and were not receiving handouts except on a one to one basis from civil society groups. Nevertheless, they had their own issues with crime rate and not integrating, until the US closed the tap on immigration and managed to digest the newcomers. And let's not forget a third of immigrants to the US actually went back home because they couldn't cut it. The current crop can't wait to bring elderly relatives or people with disabilities because of the huge shift in living standards they would, naturally, be afforded.

Jan holds concurrent beliefs that immigrants being overwhelmingly male will have no negative aspects and that males are more prone to criminality or oppressive behavior than women, hence our patriarchal society. Contradiction is first nature here.

I should have said mostly.

They have a chip on the shoulder because they have their own view of what was waiting for them in Europe and they get stuck in the ass-end of East Germany, in Sumte, a place with no schools, no mosques, no shops, no jobs and no fun. And winter is coming. Think of the ones in Finland or Sweden, how happy they must be out in the middle of nowhere. They were expecting houses, cars and jobs, straight off the bat. Plus an impressive "refugee salary". Now every one of them that comes leads to diminishing returns from being a refugee, both in resources and in welcome from the population, though the German wilkommenskultur will take more raped women and children before it is extinguished for good.

And, yes, most of them are male and young, as are the ones coming from Africa. Exactly the most likely demographic to rebel against authority and engage in antisocial behavior and which every society strives most to control and channel. They went ahead of others because they either have families waiting in Turkey for reunification or patrons desiring monetary restitution through criminal or legitimate means. As young men, they are the most qualified for arduous journeys, strenuous work and overcoming danger. They are also incentivized by polygamy in their own countries, which make gaining social status and respectability through marriage more difficult because of female scarcity, so they either seek out countries with more available (in more ways than one) women, or countries where they can improve their attractiveness towards their families of potential mates from their home country. A hereditary claim on German protection and monies will be very attractive to a girl from the Middle East and her family.

'They were expecting houses, cars and jobs, straight off the bat.'

No, their expectations are considerably lower than that, but as the 250 attacks on various asylum facilities this year in Germany show, the odds of getting firebombed while sleeping are certainly higher than expected. A disappointment that still looks better than staying any place Daesh can reach.

'the German wilkommenskultur will take more raped women and children before it is extinguished for good'

You do know that at least in Karlsruhe, which includes several major processing facilities, there has been no rise in rapes, right? That is, assuming you believe a police officer whose job involves dealing with sex crimes. And why should you? It is as if you don't even know where half of the asylum seekers come from (as of June 2015, 200,000 of 400,000). Hint - they aren't polygamous, and believe it or not, are Europeans themselves.

Yeah, firebombings. Right. Or mean words written.

70% males, 18-64 years old, most with poor education and with a chip on their shoulder because Deutschland let them in.

I think Siberia would be a great destination for these hardy young men.

You're just trying to keep them out of Nunavut.

I'd say put them at Jan's house but realistically how many people can fit in a dilapidated studio apartment on Skid Row.

A couple of them would still teach Jan a valuable lesson that he is unlikely to ever forget.

The most interesting statistic from the article is that there's a village in Germany with an elected mayor that has only 102 residents. Which seems to imply that locals there are just not breeding or young people leave as soon as they can. Will such a village even be around a generation from now?

Soon every country in the west can be just like South Africa, I know that's the society I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in.

You don't get to pick the society that your grandchildren grow up in.

No, it's been made very clear that the citizens of these so-called liberal democracies don't get to pick anything.

Or maybe loudmouth xenophobic internet assholes aren't as large a percentage of the populous as they like to think.

"Or maybe loudmouth xenophobic internet assholes aren’t as large a percentage of the populous as they like to think."
Don't worry, bozo, the more white people experience 'diversity', the more our ranks will swell. There is only so much demographic disposession cultural marxist like you can mask.

But but we get to garden it.

That's what we're doing when we teach our kids manners and values and literature and take them to church. Or when we care about pollution and where nuclear waste gets disposed of. Or when we have HOAs and zoning ordinances. It's to try to keep things the way we like them as best we can, knowing that the universe is a place of constant flux.

The Puritans, the Comanches, the Sumerians, the Celts, the Spartans, they all had the intention of passing down their societies and the values that went with them to further generations. Didn't happen.

@chuck martel:

I wrote that the universe is a place of constant flux. Things change. Nothing lasts forever. Gold star to you for figuring that out independently of me writing it (or maybe you peeked). But it doesn't change the fact that we humans generally try to keep good things going. We try to teach our kids things that we would want to learn if we had their time horizon. And we do all that because we care about what happens in the future even if we're not personally going to be there.

@chuck maybe the bad stuff from those societies got left out because better stuff emerged.

Growing up as an Afrikaner, that's what you "should" want your grandkids to grow up as! If your grandkids are black, even decaying South Africa is leagues above the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa for simply having been the demesne of Europeans for more than the two generations the rest of Africa experienced it.

@Horhe, do you still live in South Africa? I do, and it's true SA is more advanced than nearly every other African country, at least in terms of infrastructure and some functioning governance systems. But it's been declining for many years and most State enterprises are barely working. So I'm not sure what your point is?

You misunderstood my comment because it was poorly written. I've only visited South Africa, I'm Eastern European. The way the site places replies is a bit off. I was replying to XVO when he was sarcastically saying he wants his kids to live in a West just like South Africa. So I added the part about the Afrikaner whom XVO's kids embody in his comment, and mentioned how life in SA is still better for black africans than in most African countries, though not for long. I've read Into the Cannibal\s Pot by Ilana Mercer, I know what's happening there. So, yeah, things suck over there. Might as well not repeat those mistakes.

Of course you are eastern european. It must a paradise there and in russia with all racists in charge. Steve Sailer should move there.

and mentioned how life in SA is still better for black africans than in most African countries, though not for long.

If I'm not mistaken, the homicide rate is about 1/2 what it was 20-odd years ago. The economic performance has been under par, but it was more severely under par from 1930 to 1990.

South Africa has higher standards of living than the remainder of Africa, but levels of everyday disorder are worse in Southern Africa than they are in West Africa.

It must a paradise there and in russia with all racists in charge.

"racist" in vulgar leftspeak is someone who is (a) winning an argument with you or (b) standing up for his own constituents against haut bourgeois for whom those constituents are pairs of hands and nothing else.

So when are you moving to Hungary where there aren't so many vulgar leftists?

So when are you moving to Argentina, where there aren't so many rightists?

@ArtDeco: This book says the opposite. Crime might still be lower than a few years ago, but still higher than in pre-1994 days and still very high by our general standards. A few links I found quoting the author:

@ed: It's pretty nice, actually. The economy's a downer, but it's home, and a bit behind the curve when it comes to ruinous progressiveness and its adherents. It's a bit more balanced I would say, a spade still being called a spade. Fingers crossed we'll get to keep it.

How do you come up with that conclusion? The village could, in fact, be growing. An election in a pool of 102 voters might actually have some validity, since chances are most of them would have at least some knowledge of the qualifications of the candidates. Since there are residents whose families have lived in the village for over 400 years it seems likely that there'll still be a village a generation from now.

I suspect, in part based on the photo, that there is a lot of unoccupied communist era housing. Are residents asking the federal government to prop up a ghost town? Should that only be a local vote?

They said it was a debt collection company's offices. It was probably some sort of easy commutes for the former employees, and the buildings just remained there unoccupied.

Population ebbs and flows. If the Germans can resist being replaced with foreigners, depopulated places can be repopulated once again in the future, when the fertility pendulum swings the other way due to economics, religion, psychology etc. It's not like Germany was not German when it had just 20 million people.

If there are ghost towns and refugees in the short term, it seems a natural fit. Though the Vietnamese girl I know who was sent to South Dakota in 1979, for similar reasons, didn't like it.

Do polities ever willingly cede political power?

I'm just curious at how the German state is screening the immigrants to detect and deport any future Mussolini.

The Germans are too busy screening their own population for crimethink and, gasp, anti-migration tendencies. The refugees are all educated, vibrant people who will fit right in and enrich the German economy. No reason to concentrate security resources on them.

Eastern Germany, hasn't been this cucked since 1945-1949!

That's funny. You're right, 1950-1990 was summer camps and fun in the sun.

while I'm sure the soviet satellite era sucked, I think you're missing the importance of the word "cucked" there

+1 for the theory that no argument with the word 'cuck' in it is worth reading.

You might be a a cuck if...

A big win for East Germany, I think.

Yes, that is THE question isn't it: how many trespassers can be crammed down the hoi polloi's throats before open warfare breaks out?

Do y'all ever debate Caplan's Labadee, Haiti model, Tyler? The one with closed borders and a rigorously maintained oligopoly?

What do you think would happen if a Jewish settlement of 100 had to take in 1,000 Palestinians? Or a Palestinian village of 100 had to take in 1,000 Jewish settlers? Substitute Tibetans and Han Chinese if you find that triggering.

Corporations, academic departments, and households have a right to exist and set criteria for admission but nations do not. This intellectual fraud will be published and remembered.

The German state in its national form is distributing immigrants to specific locales according to its own criteria. The specific locale doesn't necessarily have any say in the matter. This is how nation/states operate. The central authority tells the lesser subdivisions what it's going to require or allow. If some bozos with federal power want you burning ethanol in your Taurus, a new school of Trident submarines or regulation of personal trainers that's how it's going to be. This is one of the principal failings of the democratic nation/state. It doesn't care how the real minorities feel about anything.

Problems of scale: Immigration is a local phenomenon that gets decided nationally.

I've never thought of it this way, but it's a really good point. Imagine a parallel universe in which immigration policies were decided at the local level (immigrants required to stay in the city that permits them). Is there any doubt total immigration would decrease?

How many immigrants would SF take per year?

Jewish settlement of 100 had to take in 1,000 Palestinians

From the department of equally preposterous straw men: what if 100 Norwegians had to accept 1,000 Swedes?

How is all this being paid for, by the way? Are trillion dollar bills already littering the sidewalks?

Reduced foreign aid. You know, the kind that keeps millions of refugees fed, clothed and sheltered in camps, instead of thousands in the high cost of living type cities.

This particular plan seems iffy to me, but I continue to be impressed by the decency of the German people. To me, that's the big story. When I was a kid, Germans were my least favorite people.

Don't encourage the moral posturing and the passing of the buck, please. They're starting to turn into MY least favorite people, for all their culture, beauty and industriousness.

'They’re starting to turn into MY least favorite people'

Thankfully, considering your comments here.

That was a very elegant reply, though I don't feel my comments are, in any way, against common sense or exhibiting bloodthirstiness towards the migrants.

I think immigration will, in the medium and long term, be the defining negative element in what tomorrow will look like and the kind of world we will have. And I think the Goodwhites in Germany are sorely mistaken in letting emotion cloud judgement, though I am still appreciative of their other qualities. It's just that pathological altruism is not a quality.

It is interesting that there could be a political backlash with such large amounts of migration, but what is more interesting is where, exactly, is the support coming from? This new push to allow mass migration is coming from somewhere, what is the impetus?

It is clearly the crypto-Jewish elements that remained behind in Germany.

Fuck. Another impersonator.

Since no one else is being "impersonated" are you sure that you don't have a personality disorder.

I'm pretty sure he has one, if being an asshole qualifies. Maybe not a DSM disorder, but still.

Misogyny, homophobia and racism, you've got the triple crown E. Harding. Truly a model immigrant.

If all immigrants to the U.S. were like me, America would be a much better, safer, more intelligent, more literate, and more understanding place. I'd want to live in the U.S. even more than I do now. Of course, the gender imbalance might be bad.

Tyler: if you don't want a Reich, don't tolerate Weimar.

They'll never learn this. Weimars are too much fun- you get to humiliate/ demoralize all those people who had girlfriends in high school.

So, to be clear, you guys are identifying with the enemies of Weimar here, yes?

Pan-Germanic national socialism was a discrete phenomenon. I'm way too libertarian and Anglo to pull it off. But I do agree that when the democratic State is unable to guarantee a functioning civil order, it should (will) be replaced by a more authoritarian model. So again, if you don't want a Reich, don't enable a Weimar--read that last sentence carefully.

Michel Houllebecq in Submission: "There is no Israel for me"

19 comments and counting. Maybe get a hobby other than obsessing about the racial purity of someone else's country?

You're the one who actually counted to make a point (though I'm an irregular poster as well). I don't know why you're harping on racial purity as if the last 30 years of legal immigration never happened. But it's not racial purity I'm arguing in favor of here, though that might be a side effect. It's about preserving cultures, quality of life and preventing the squandering of a nation's surplus and mental resources on a perpetually aggrieved underclass, instead of something that might advance humanity as a whole. I'm just as little in favor of Albanians, assorted Eastern Europeans etc moving en masse to Germany and mucking up the place overnight instead of gradually Germanizing and adopting the best traits of that people. Not to mention impoverishing their societies of origin when they lose their young and their brainy (a real problem around here). I hold high hopes for my region, but I'm not blind to its faults and the incompatibilities between the peoples here and high trust societies, which can only be smoothed over through total immersion of small numbers of people at a time. The world's successful societies (meaning more than economics) should try to stay that way or at least fail fairly, after a contest of skill in which they come up short. Their continued success brings benefits to the others as well (tech, markets, aid, cultural products, humanity's advancement etc) and provides something to strive for.

Ctrl-F counts for you.

RACHEL PLATTEN's "Fight Song" is not a song by PINK. I just realized that. But Platten does sample famous artists, hence the understandable confusion, let the record show. In fact, her "Fight Song" has more than a passing resemblance to Kelly Clarkson's "Heartbeat Song".

In turn, Clarkson's song contains chords from Jimmy Eat World, performing The Middle ((C) 2001)

The poor Germans in Sumte, they murdered all their cultured, educated, assimilated Jews and they get rewarded with first Communism and now this.

"without seeing political backlash"

Assumes the demographic sea change doesn't drown the former polity. No backlash likely because liberal Europe will be a memory, replaced by the ever-growing caliphate. By end of century there will be no christians left in Europe and western culture will largely be erased there.

What particular "western culture" do you mean? That of the classical Greeks, imperial Romans, medieval Franks and Victorian Britons disappeared long ago. Evidently the post-war Americanization of the continent is intended to last for eternity. It probably won't.

At lunch I'm sure you can all agree about the evils of the east germans, and how stupid they are not realising that the wars in the middleeast is actually helping the german econony in the long run by providing the much needed labour.

But do you ever talk about the future of the jews in Germany (and France, Sweden.....) and if you do, what is the conclusion?

Do you libertarians just consider it kind of collateral damage, that the jews might have to flee europe pretty soon? Or do you consider embarrasing that multiculturalism and the cult-of-immigration is going to finish the job that Hitlers couldn't; make Europe a jew-free continent?

I have to point out, the people here in favor of this are mostly not libertarians. They're leftists of various sorts.

The German politicians do this all the time. They want mass immigration but of course not in their backyard. They live in their rich neighborhoods in bubble worlds with no immigrants even close. Nevertheless it's wrong to say that Merkel went out of her mind. She never had a sane mind in the first place.

They're specifically dumping immigrants into the most economically depressed part of the country specifically to punish them for being anti-immigration. The East Germans will be looking at the rest of the former Eastern Bloc and realize reunification of Germany was a terrible mistake.

I don't think so. They do this for the reasons I mentioned. I'm at least upper German middle class myself. Not too many people in this class have real life contacts to immigrants. The people in power are at least upper middle class, too. A lot of those people are pro mass migration - as long as the new immigrants live far away from their own neighborhoods.

That's why they dump those people in East German villages. Villages with not much resistance and not too much voters. Villages with no jobs and no future. They want to dump thousands of immigrants in Eastern Europe, too. That's Merkel's glorious plan. I've been saying since 2005 that Merkel is mad. Since August 2015 people actually started believing me.

As you know, but perhaps only forgot to mention: there is a quota system for distributing asylum seekers to the German states (mostly according to population, but less for economically weaker states like in East Germany):

So all East German states have to take just 15.7% of asylum seekers. I wonder how this squares with your claim about "dump[ing] those people in East German villages."

This is not a rhetorical device - do you think that German authorities at local or state level are actively practicing beggar thy neighbour policies to ensure they get the most women and children out of the groups, as well as the least aggressive ethnicites (Yezidis or a smattering of Christians), and dumping the biggest risks in other locales? That would put the percentage of refugees that the East Germans take in in a different light, as well as Frankfurt's well behaved refugee population.

@ Horhe: Probably you could not read the Wikipedia entry that I linked to. This is a quota system on the federal level where asylum seekers are assigned to the states. I have no information that states have any choice in who they have to take in. For all I know it is not so. Nor do I have any information that there is a systematic bias to send the "worst" asylum seekers to East German states. I find that pretty improbable because it would mean a major scandal.

Where is your evidence?

What if it works out without any major problems? Would that prove that there is practically no limit to immigration?

You might want to read this article from a local newspaper which is quite positive:

Some of the claims in the NYT piece are false: there will be shops in the facility. Actually this will bring shops to the village. Obviously this is not a typical case when immigration this year runs at somewhat more than 1% of the German population although it is presented as typical for what is currently happening in Germany. If it did not work out, would it show more than that a ratio of 7.5 to 1 is too high? If so, then there would be a limit of 600 million immigrants to Germany per year, something that would not happen anyway.

I know the refugees are not ghetto Blacks from the US, but has the demographic transition in Ferguson and Baltimore raised or lowered their attractiveness for new businesses? Are 1000 refugees in Sumte a lower attraction for business than 1000 theoretical Germans moving in? Is the trade-off worth it? Sumte being Sumte, it can't become any more of a "food desert" than it already is, but I'd like to see someone with data on how many actual businesses and amenities there are in banlieues and other immigrant heavy areas as opposed to the native areas.

Germany has freedom of movement for its citizens. Anyone could move to Sumte for 25 years, but apparently hardly anyone did. It is not like the 750 (!) asylum seekers are crowding out Germans who wanted to move there. Asylum seekers are actually sheltered in an "office village" that was not in use.

I live in Frankfurt which has the most immigrants in Germany. I would suggest you take a walk here, there are thousands of businesses that have been started by immigrants. If you can't find them, I will show you a few hundred like the Vietnamese takeaway I got that excellent food from.

"Germany has freedom of movement for its citizens. Anyone could move to Sumte for 25 years, but apparently hardly anyone did."

So no one wants to live there but the immigrants should? This is just crazy talk. Shelter them in Frankfurt, you hypocrite. Shelter them in Berlin. Shelter them in Munich, Grünwald.

Ask the immigrants where they want to go. Sumte or Frankfurt? What will be the answer?

Maybe they also like Kronberg, Falkenstein, Königstein and Bad Homburg. The bankers of Frankfurt like those places a lot so I bet it's good enough for the asylum seekers, too.

Please explain how you could draw all those conclusions from the quote.

The city of Frankfurt is currently hosting 4,200 refugees in 140 locations:,24933504,32306350.html

And that's no problem, although the UK or the US are overwhelmed by similar numbers.

Asylum seekers are sheltered in Sumte as a makeshift while their applications for asylum or equivalent status are being processed. When they are recognized, they can move to any other location in Germany. I'd personally recommend Frankfurt. But I am maybe partial because it is the 7th best city in the work for quality of life according to Mercer:

Anecdotes are not statistics, but still

I'm not going to move in the middle of nowhere anytime soon either, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to maintain that possibility for myself, my fellow citizens and my posterity in the future. This is not "use it or lose it". Besides, show me one actual German who will want to move to Sumte now that it is being enriched. I thought white flight worked the other way. The existence of no-go areas for police, zones de non-droit etc, created as a result of avoidable policies in immigration are, themselves, an infringement on your freedom to move anywhere you please in your country. I wonder how people living in gated communities because of real danger feel about their freedom to move anywhere in their respective country.

Homicides per 100,000:

Germany: 0.8
Sweden: 0.7
US: 4.7

So where should I be scared?

@Hansjorg - you have no antibodies against what is about to hit you. There are three Americas, when you disaggregate those stats by race.

@ The Anti-Agnostic (for some reason I cannot reply directly to your comment):

Here are data from a slightly different source (average data for 2010-2012):

Germany 0.8,
Sweden 0.9,
US only whites: 2.5.

Does that make me scared to live in Germany? Well, no.


Well, you can't say he isn't asking for what's about to hit him

@ Careless: You seem to have some secret knowledge, please share.

Why do you expect homicide rates (as a proxy for violent crime) to jump to scary levels from the lowest levels in the world and in history when they have been steady for decades despite massive immigration?

Well, I don't know what you consider "scary levels"
I think it rather humorous that you'd consider flat homicide levels in recent years to suggest that nothing's wrong with your country (homicide rates should have drastically fallen over the past 25 years)

@The A-G:

+1, this is spot on.

@ Careless: Actually, they have been steady since the 1960s. The prediction was that immigration would lead to a major upswing or even a jump upwards. With 50 years of immigration it is not there. And it is not plausible why a minor shift in immigration would change that. We are talking about 1.2% immigration to Germany this year.

Why would they have to go down then? Because they went down for the US? If homicide rates in Germany are at a global and historical low, there is maybe not a lot you can do to go even lower. With a lot of variation in law enforcement, legislation, etc., practically all countries in Europe have such rates (exceptions are countries to the East with little immigration). I still don't get why I should be scared about living in a country that it is almost impossible to beat on that dimension. There are hardly any countries that come out better:

@ Careless: Fair question what I mean by "scary levels". Here's my approach:

I am 1 person, I have 10 people that are very close to me, I have 100 people who are close to me, and 1,000 people who I care about.

- A rate of 1 in 100,000 for homicides means, that one of the people I care about gets killed about every 100 years. Maybe I will never experience this, it is not really part of my life experience.
- A rate of 10 in 100,000 means that over my life I might experience it for people close to me, but maybe not, and I will see it about every ten years for people I care about, so a few times in my life. Still pretty remote, but now part of my life experience.
- A rate of 100 in 100,000 means that I might experience it in my life for someone very close to me, but maybe not, and I will see it a few times for people over my life close to me and I will see it on average once a year for someone who I care about.

1 = I feel pretty safe, there is not much room for making me feel even safer.
10 = I don't think I'd be scared, but feel somewhat uneasy because it is part of my wider experience.
100 = That would scare me.

So anyone who'd want to scare me would have to show me a good reason why I would have to expect homicide rates to suddenly jump by a factor of 120 or at least 12 to make me think about it.

Why would they have to go down then? Because they went down for the US?

They went down in every first world country. Seriously, if they haven't gone down a lot in Germany, you've had a disaster you didn't even notice.

@ Careless: Do I get you right that other countries fared even better with lots of immigration?

Sorry, I am still totally underwhelmed by arguments why one of the lowest rates globally and historically should scare me. Sure, you cannot lower it from something like 9 to 5 per 100,000 as in the US because you would have to go below zero.

@Hansjorg Walter:

Homicides should not be counted on as the main indicator of lawlessness, for the simple fact that they attract the most attention. In this refugee crisis, at least, sexual assaults and other criminal activities are better indicators, because they are easier to ignore than homicides.

This report is very interesting
"For example, according to the head of the association of criminal police (Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, BDK), André Schulz, up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics. Schultz also warned that, based on past experience, fully 10% of the migrant population will end up being involved in criminal activity, including theft, assault or drugs. This implies that with the massive influx of migrants in 2015, Germany is effectively importing 100,000 additional criminals into the country."

I also found a very interesting and evenhanded German blog that seems to be very well sourced

@ Horhe: Homicide rates are a good indicator because they have a rather objective definition that's comparable across legal system (although even for homicides it is not perfect, but much better than for other crimes). They are reported most of the time, so there is no big problem with what you cannot see and making inferences from observed data to data you cannot observe. And then they are simply the worst crimes around. If I have a six times lower risk to be killed in Germany than in the US (or at least three times lower for US whites), then that answers quite a bit of how scared I should be. And I won't quibble over minor differences for jay walking.

As you write yourself: many rapes go unreported (and that is so in all countries). But there are considerable differences in how many rapes are reported. So a comparison between countries can be very misleading if in one country rapes are simply more often reported, but maybe not committed. Then you have differences in what constitutes a rape in different legal systems which can distort comparisons as well. The definition can even change over time. Etc.

If you are a regular reader of the Gatestone "Institute" you are perhaps familiar with the bogus story about the "Swedish rape epidemic." Mostly it is that rape is more often reported in Sweden than elsewhere. Then they changed the definition to make it more expansive, and ran a campaign that victims should report rapes more than they used to. That worked, so you had like 50% more rapes that were reported. However, vicitimization studies show that there was no change at all. The whole thing is a pure artefact. But it is also a great opportunity to write lots of scare stories.

"...just over the border in what was once Communist East Germany"

Idea! They should build a wall and make all the minorities to stay on the East side of it.

Since Germany (and Sweden) have opened their borders (close enough for government work) the trillion dollar bills must be raining down from heaven!

Oh..... wait....

How will this effect open border advocates?



It's not like they have a plan B

Mr. Putin is sure getting a 2-fer by sending planes and troops to Syria. Support one ally and create political and economic turmoil in German and throughout the EU. Bonus.

There is a very simple rebuff: the European states can enforce their borders.

@Hansjörg Walther

" you are perhaps familiar with the bogus story about the “Swedish rape epidemic.”

I'm assuming you're referring to this...

Do you have any citations for your claim that it's bogus?

Getting to Germany, how are the numbers being thrown around work? How is one million arrivals (followed in due course by 4 to 8 family members each) sustainable?

The flow has yet to slow down and may be increasing. Where will they be housed? What will they do? How can this be paid for? I hear lots of "We can do this" from Merkel but no concretes besides trying to bully other countries into taking the arrivals (as if they would stay in placees like Romania or Portugal and not head right back for Germany and Sweden...)

Comments for this post are closed