4 ms·
> Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-
by internaut 10y ago
> Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border. If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU.
> The EU made a strategic mistake here, which is that they have been partially (together with the US) responsible for the destabilization of the region just outside of it. That this could lead to a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with.
I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible so there is no chance of a miscommunication.
Europeans don't want blacks and arabs in their countries. Nobody cares about being called a racist anymore. They want the blacks and arabs out.
In England and France there is a real threat of civil unrest if it continues. People have had it with their children being bullied in schools and the constant stories, real and unreal, of rapes and murders.
You have to ask yourself what a typical young European thinks of Anders Brevik. The ones I know think he was right on the money. As you probably know he wrote a manifesto which is a sort of prognosis/prediction rant. Since he disseminated that and killed the children on the island he has become very popular on the radical European right, a sort of terrorist version of Nostradamus.
To spell it out: it means they won't primarily be attacking blacks and arabs, they'll be attacking leftists open borders supporters and their fellow travelers. They don't hate the blacks and arabs per se, not in comparison to the contempt they have for the portion of the left which they see as traitorous and treasonous.
Attacking people for being different is a side effect in comparison to the urge to destroy your real competitors, people like you but competing for the same resources.
- xyzzyz 10y agoI'm quite certain you'll find a lot of Europeans sharing those sentiments, but if you think you speak for overwhelming majority of of them, you are mistaken.
- internaut 10y agoI used to be an open border supporter but then I changed my mind. The same thing is going to happen to a lot more people in the future. I'm liberal in comparison to most people I know. I feel like neither fish nor fowl because I can see the liberal and conservative positions, a bit like flipping back and forth between seeing a blue dress and a gold dress. I respect David Cameron for allowing the referendum to go ahead and I respect the Austrians for allowing a recount of their votes after potential fraud was spotted. Despite that I don't think good stewardship can prevent violence breaking out. Between social media and Islamic terror attacks there will be a reaction, probably starting in France.
- ionised 10y agoDon't presume to speak for me. > You have to ask yourself what a typical young European thinks of Anders Brevik. The ones I know think he was right on the money. As you probably know he wrote a manifesto which is a sort of prognosis/prediction rant. Since he disseminated that and killed the children on the island he has become very popular on the radical European right, a sort of terrorist version of Nostradamus. > the contempt they have for the portion of the left which they see as traitorous and treasonous. And the profound ignorance you have here of history would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad. I'd recommend picking up a history book and educate yourself on what happens when far-right exremists start picking out groups of people among their own countrymen to label as 'enemies' or 'traitors'. It's a diversionary tactic meant advance an agenda of those seeking power that is almost certainly not in your interest or mine. It was a tactic of the Nazis, of Stalin's Soviets, of the Khmer Rouge. Get a fucking grip.
- internaut 10y agoI'm aware history is repeating itself ionised. The question I want the answer to is why is the left pushing all the buttons that will produce conflict. This is not a rhetorical question, it is both a statement of fact and a real question. Let us not pretend inviting millions of foreigners to Europe is some kind of ancient policy of the left wing. This is one of the largest mass migrations in our history. This is a new thing. The response of the right is often reactionary. Classically their forms of terror are also reactionary. Which brings me to the question: So why is this happening? I understand very well why people from other countries wish to improve their circumstances, nothing could be more human. Like I already said, the main vitriol of the right is against their countrymen of the left persuasion, not the refugees/migrants. This is something not entirely comprehended by the media despite the terrorism of Anders Brevik and that ignorance is itself highly problematic because it underestimates the danger of reaction. To put it technically; xenophobia is a second order effect. I am asking you to explain the first order effect, the cause of allowing ancient borders to be superseded. Why is this happening? If my posts make you angry then I ask you to resist replying. If I present an opinion it is because I believe it to be so. Liberals often ask questions of authority e.g. the so-called truth to power. I am doing same thing to them and calling them to account for their actions. If this is too blasphemous or irksome we can just move onto other topics.