2005 November 06 Sunday
Steve Sailer Modestly Proposes: Pay Muslims To Leave Europe
The Europeans need not wait like deer caught in headlights and watch their societies deteriorate under the demographic weight of hostile Muslims. Steve Sailer offers a modest proposal: The Muslims should be paid to leave.
Which brings us to the unmentionable alternative solution that
Peter Brimelow has just pointed out in his
Why Not (Muslim) Emigration?: A more practical
approach than "fashioning a national identity that will connect” etc. etc would be to have the disaffected simply leave.
Start by deporting all the rioters who get caught by the police. I bet the rioting would calm down very rapidly as the news got around that rioting was a one-way ticket out of France.
A push-pull policy could be very effective in getting
Muslims to go away. European countries should
combine the push of a crackdown on
crime with the pull of a buy-out offer. Returning to the Old Country with a sizable nest egg would be alluring to many who haven't assimilated into the European middle class.
Steve proposes a buy-out program.
A buy-out program, paying Muslims who are legal residents
of European countries to emigrate, could be a huge
bargain compared to more rioting,
terrorism, crime, and
Offer Muslim residents, say, $25,000 each to go away. Permanently.
A family of five festering in the slums of Paris,
Rotterdam, and Birmingham could live in North Algeria, Pakistan, or Indonesia like local gentry if they had $125,000 in the bank.
The cost may seem high. But it is a lot cheaper than war and a lot cheaper than funding the welfare and prison and other costs of having large, growing, and hostile subpopulations eating at the foundations of your society. Also, the money paid would put an end to being-hit-on-the-head lessons.
I do not see why people who do not have permanent legal residency would need to get bought out. Illegals and temporary workers could just get rounded up and escorted to air flights. A bounty could be offered to legal citizens to pay them for turning in illegals. Even legal residents could get deported without payment if the governments in Europe wanted to get cheap about it. In the econo version the buy-outs payments could be offered only to Muslim citizens. Buy their citizenship back from them.
First the Europeans need to end all immigration from Muslim countries and to stop processing applications for asylum, legal residency, and citizenship from those countries. Also, births to people who are non-citizens should not automatically bestow citizenship on the babies. Then aggressively round up and deport all illegals. Then buy out the citizenship of anyone who will sell their citizenship. Then deport them.
Europeans, like Americans, need to look real hard into themselves and ask themselves how much they like or even love their own societies. If their love of their own societies burns strongly enough then they ought to take the needed steps to remove those who hate the very things they love.
Update: Fred Reed says politicians set immigration policy based on adolescent level theorizing about human nature and the result is disastrous.
The assiduously courted invasion usually rests on a curious idealism that I find hard to credit in adults. The notion is that we are all just people, brothers under the skin, that all we need is love and understanding, black and white together, kum bah ya; only a few reactionary forces need to be stilled to bring about universal bliss. This happy thought doesn’t surprise me among students in high school. Politicians aren’t.
Has no one noticed that diversity doesn’t work? Putting together peoples with little in common begs for trouble, usually with success. It is the chief source of the world’s bloodshed and enmity.
Look around you. Start with Canada, where the Brits and French detest each other. Drop down to the USA, where black, white, and brown wait uneasily for no one is sure what; the lid is held on by Washington, which acts as a sort of federal Tito. There are Hindus and Moslems in India, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, blacks and whites in South Africa, Moslems and Buddhists in Thailand, Turks and Germans in Germany, Vietnamese and Montagnards in Vietnam, Moslems and animists in the Sudan, Jews and Moslems in Israel, Cambodians and Vietnamese in Cambodia, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Indians and Mexicans in Chiapas, Basques and Spaniards in Spain, Indians and Fijians in Fiji.
But what have facts to do with foreign relations? It is much more entertaining to base policy on adolescent theories and see what happens.
Actually, adolescents are more realistic about human nature. You have to go off to college to get brainwashed by tenured fools with the really immature and stupid theories about human nature. Read Fred's whole essay.
Update II: Theodore Dalrymple says Western intellectuals have promoted assumptions that inevitably lead Muslims to conclude that their poorer performance in Western societies is the fault of the everyone but Muslims.
The evidence of Muslims’ own eyes and of their own lives, as well as that of statistics, is quite clear: Muslim immigrants and their descendants are more likely to be poor, to live in overcrowded conditions, to be unemployed, to have low levels of educational achievement, and above all to be imprisoned, than other South Asian immigrants and their descendants. The refusal to educate females to their full capacity is a terrible handicap in a society in which, perhaps regrettably, prosperity requires two household incomes. The idea that one is already in possession of the final revealed truth, leading to an inherently superior way of life, inhibits adaptation to a technically more advanced society. Even so, some British Muslims do succeed (the father of one of the London bombers owned two shops, two houses, and drove a new Mercedes)—a fact which their compatriots interpret exactly backward: not that Muslims can succeed, but that generally they can’t, because British society is inimical to Muslims.
In coming to this conclusion, young Muslims would only be adopting the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism don’t even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups themselves might account for differences in outcomes.
As long as Western intellectuals insist upon promoting false assumptions about human nature the West is going to continue to head down the road of cultural suicide. Reject the left liberal falsehoods about human nature. Reject the lies. Turn away from collective societal suicide. Our civilization is worth saving.
Given the magnitude of the welfare policies, including public education, an attractive sum could be offered that would pay for itself. This assumes however, that officials want problems to decrease, rather than increase. Appeasement elicits aggression, and this is the very stuff of power. If the class war cannot be conjured up, there is at least an excellent chance for a war of religion. Amongst officials and their scholars, so long as each can aggrandize the other, the thrust is always towards despotism. The moslems are appeased in their wish for microsovereignties to be carved out. Next the battles for these will be joined, with military forces bearing down on them.
Appeasing officials can grant the effective sovereignty of these, while maintaining a green line all around them. Such would be a national emergency, and a lasting one, and all manner of power flows from that. You would defame the leader in time of national crisis, they might say, and remind the citizen that censorship on such matters is already in their grasp. Once dictatorship is won, and well established, the citizenship and sovereignty of the enclaves can be formally granted, and the foreign elements squeezed out, back to their homelands, by succesive constriction of the blockades around them.
Q why waste money on forcing people who dont want to live there an incentive to leave ?
Simply minimise welfare and healthcare. All funds can instead be invested in enforcement and education
Welfare can be cut back to almost a skeleton in which the government simply provides subsidised food, and medicine.
France population will already be increasingly hostile to arab muslim population should do the rest. Unless they are able and willing to embrace the new western culture they simple cannot survive.
The buy-out plan is simply a non-starter, as the immigrant descended people are canny enough to know taht any "compensation" given for not having the pleasure of their company must be very, very substantial in order to make up for all the social goods receivable (by right) in Europe.I'm talking of *millions* of Euros per head here, not the piffling thousands.For example, a "French" Muslim who's never done a day's work in his life is "entitled" to kidney dialysis or heart transplantation, plus full aftercare, if he needs it, it's doubtful whether he'll get that at home.
Secondly, the whole thrust and tenor of the argument is anathema to the orthodoxy of the political elite who run Europe (purely for ideological reasons), plus it violates their sacred "human rights" and "refugee" laws which they have invested so much of their political capital and credibility in creating.
Kenelm is being right about this. This european identity is being tied up into human rights and welfare benefits. There is not escaping this fact. Have you been seeing the protests against much small reduction in welfare benefit in Germany? This can be overturning governments by europeans being addicted to benefits and "rights". europe is being the hoist on its pitard.
The Dutch have been doing this already with little success,as K. Digby points out,would YOU want to give up the life of a pampered welfare parasite for the "Old Country"?
And for most the old country is Algeria,where about a million people have died in a civil war.
Sailor's proposal is modest to the point of silliness.The only acceptable(at the moment) manner of ethnic cleansing(that is his modest proposal) is to:
1)isolate the slums
2)cut of water and power
3)arrest the most aggressive "youths"
4)announce that no public money will be spent to rebulid the burned out slums and those arrested during the riots and,what the hell,all those in prison will be deported,citizen or not.
5)those who don;t like this(including native lefties)can have a one way ticket out of France.
6)discreetly inform the arab states to get with the program or lose EU handouts.
Or wait a few years till it becomes politically acceptable to round them up at gunpoint and ship them off in boxcars.
The immigrants aren't going to politly solve this problem for the French (or us) by cleansing themselves in exchange for small bribes.
There is no neat,clean solution,Steve,it's amputation or death by gangrene,take your pick.
First of all, already more than 20 % of the infants in France, are Muslims whose families came from North Africa. We have to see this situation in perspective. It is very unlikely that native French speakers would permanently leave France, and give up their French citizenship in exchange for a financial incentive as little as $25,000 (they would negociate for nothing less than $2,500,000 per person.)
Apprently, an important part of the oil that France imports, comes from Algeria, and this is certainly one reason France has an interest in having good relations with Algeria... In any case,if there is a mass exodus of Muslims from France, even if this were done with financial incentives, the chances will be very high that the pro-West Algerian government will be overthrown.
Another solution has to be found.
It is interesting that everyone was theorizing in the year 2,000 that the world was going to become a very peaceful and wonderful place in this new century. But exactly the opposite is happening. The entire world is gradually getting more and more dangerous. Even the pro-American South America is becoming hostile to the United States... Imagine HOW much more hostile South America will become if the United States starts restricting illegal aliens. This will have very serious consequences for the United States, UNLESS the we start a certain raw materials independence program immediately.
Churchill: Madame, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Well, yes.
Churchill:Madame, would you sleep with me for 10 dollars?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Churchill: We've established what kind of woman you are. Now we are just haggling over the price.
I've probably totally screwed up the joke. But we are just haggling over money.
The worst thought I had reading Steve's article is that they would all go to Canada, and maybe the US.
The Euros are not ready to give up their welfare state. So an argument that they could save money by cutting back on the welfare state is the real non-starter.
As for whether any of the Muslims would leave if paid: Some people have very short time horizons. Offer them some substantial amount of money that they get immediately and they will jump at it.
Think about the example of a 5 person family. If they got $125,000.00 that'd be more than most of them have ever seen or ever expect to see at once. The thought of that much money would be intoxicating to many of them. Plus, they know that back in the old country they could live like kings and have very high status if they had that much money.
But few of the Muslims expect to need a heart transplant or kidney dialysis. Most are healthy. Most are young. They aren't going to see the medical benefits as worth anywhere near as much to them as cold hard cash.
The welfare state dictates which goods and services you shall receive. People want to make their own choices. A young guy is going to think of the women he can buy either as wives or prostitutes. He's not going to think about kidney transplants.
Two practical problems with Sailers Modest Proposal, even assuming (contra Randall) that the French elite were to exhibit both the desire and the will power to do something about the root causes of this unrest.
(1) These "youths" aren't Algerian or Moroccan (etc.). They were born in France and grew up in the cités. As far as sending them "back to where they came from," there is no there there. What are the practical reasons or moral obligations that would impel the elite or population of an African country to accept these uneducated, resentful, jihadist-leaning hooligans?
(2) As Sailer notes, a program that offers incentives to get rid of undesirables will, obviously, attract other, similar undesirables--"Hey, now pay me off, too! Or, at least gimme the apartment and welfare-state benefits that were just freed up by the last family to accept the buyout!" Policies that depend on a sovereign French nation can only work if France can behave like a sovereign nation. This would mean asserting control of its borders, and declaring that it had the right to decide which non-citizens it accepts as permanent residents. Not exactly the direction things have been moving.
Hmmm, I wonder if there are any nations on the North American continent that are governed by elites who display indifference to problems analogous to those confronting European countries.
A lump sum of cash looks more attractive than it really is, this would especially be so to uneducated parasites, half of who have an IQ of 85 or below.
The reason the Europeans were able to afford such a generous welfare state, was due to the fact that their economy was fairly productive, and even right now the growth is not too bad, since the quality of the new goods and services is increasing even though the official dollar value of their GDP is not growing fast. But it is obvious that the positive trade balance in France, UK, Germany, etc, is financed by the negative trade balance of the United States. IF the United States enters a recession and starts to slow down the trade deficit by means of a new political movement over here, then this would be a devastating event for the European welfare state. And as a result, the white Europeans will almost certainly attempt to cut the welfare benefits to their own non-white minorities for the purpose of getting the welfare benefits for themselves. This means FAR more trouble on the horizon.
It still doesnt solve the main problem- the failure of western europeans to replace themselves.
Holy hell, *I* could live like gentry, too, with 125 grand.
"The reason the Europeans were able to afford such a generous welfare state, was due to the fact that their economy was fairly productive, and even right now the growth is not too bad, since the quality of the new goods and services is increasing even though the official dollar value of their GDP is not growing fast. "
Another reason that the Europeans were able to afford such a generous welfare state is that the US has basically guaranteed their security for the last 60 years.
"It still doesnt solve the main problem- the failure of western europeans to replace themselves."
It's better to have a declining population than to try to stabilize the population by importing unproductive low IQ Muslims (or Hispanics for that matter). I don't see a large country of secular whites having a birth rate that is at or above replacement levels. Even the fairly religious white population of the US only has a birthrate around 1.80 per woman, about .3 children short.
I don't really believe the theory that the white US has a "fairly religious" white population. The ones who call themselves religious are mostly in search of some kind of identity that is of ethnic nature, in the sense that when they often use the word Christian as a synonym for White. I believe that if the other ethnic groups had not existed, the religious right would decline both in popularity and numerosity.
But of course, it is also probably true that if the military tension between East and West increases, then somehow the fear of being nuked might make every white member of the society very pious all of a sudden, and then as a byproduct there might be a movement to have more children.
Flinchum is exactly spot on correct. Under pax-am the europeans have spent their money on butter instead of guns. No need for guns, the contemptible yanks are watching over them. Trillions of dollars saved over the decades going to short work weeks, extended non-employment benefits, early retirement.
Mark, a declining population is inevitably replaced by an expanding one. Look at how the whites replaced the native americans. The whites were expanding like crazy from europe and in the colonies. The natives were close to equilibrium, which just won't cut it against a quickly expanding population. Now the whites in europe are shrinking and the ad goes to the expanding population. You might make the mistake of thinking superior IQ or technology might hold back the hordes. No. The hordes win. Europe is doomed.
Illegal aliens should not be paid to leave. They should just get deported. Once a legal alien has been paid to leave if they try to reenter they can get deported again or jailed for a while and then deported.
Paid deportations will work if combined with general immigration law enforcement.
Vigorous immigration law enforcement will reduce the number of people who have to get paid to leave. Any illegal aliens should get deported. Any legal alien who breaks any law should also immediately get deported. Get vigorous immigration law enforcement in place and change immigration laws to greatly reduce the number of people eligible to be immigrants. Then start paying people to leave.
And let's not forget price discrimination, make the exodus cheaper by staging it
0) Harrassment for petty crimes encourages people to leave, or at least not come in the first place. Change laws, if you've never worked, you get no entitlements, time spent in prisons or jails does not count towards residency. Children who don't have French parents aren't French.
1) Foriegn criminals (including illegals) are deported first
2) Cut welfare fast, people adjust to slow changes, some people will leave just for that.
3) Start repatriation payments at some amount and raise them slowly. Some people will hold out for the later higher payments, so sometimes lower the payments, while cutting welfare more. Uncertainty will make people leave.
It makes sense to simultaneously:
1) Start aggressively deporting illegals.
2) Revoke legal residence for anyone who breaks laws.
3) Stop granting citizenship.
4) Stop welfare payments to non-citizens.
5) Start offering air fare to leave.
Make the non-citizens go without welfare for a couple of years before offering money to leave. Cut off the welfare and offer airplane tickets and other travel expenses only. Then anyone who is still there a couple of years later could get offered money to leave.
In the case of France, the portion of Muslims who are already French citizens, is almost 10 %, but the Muslim infants are 20 % of the infants in France. This means that within 20 years, about 30 % of the voters will be Muslims in France. And by the year 2050, at least 60 % of France will be Muslim, which will be in our life times. Additionally, 10 % of Russia is Muslim, and the Muslim Russians don't have the disadvantage of drinking vodka like the Christian Russians over there... When the Muslim Russian population reaches 35 % in another 20 years, the scenarios will be
much more complicated. Al Qaeda will also gain ground both in Russia and Europe. One novelty here, is the fact that there will be a lot of White Muslims from Bosnia and Russia, who will join Al Qaeda in Europe, and because these people look very European, it will be very hard to catch them before they implement a commando mission to take over Europe and Russia...
The Serbs and Croats had no trouble identifying Ali Baba during the Bosnian conflict. Nor does an experienced police officer have trouble identifying gang members. Some small gesture or gait or speech pattern not visible to untrained eye or ear. Americans can very quickly indentify Blacks just by voice, even when the Black talks 'White'. Lebanon's Falange could spot a Muslim from miles away.
Jean Raspail maintains only a remnant is needed to retake France and Europe. 1,000 capable men could stop all Muslim rioting in about 48 hours. 10,000 could drive all the Muslims out of Europe. But no distinctions can be allowed between good and bad Muslims.
There is talk of sending in the military. Much better to send the Foreign Legion. When used during the bomb crisis of the 90s the Muslims settled down real fast. An expertly delivered beating by trained killers (if a percenage of FL recruits don't die during training the training is considered inadequate) works wonders.
But no, let's instead give the Muslims money to leave us alone.
While you are using short term cash payments to encourage all the muslims with low IQ and resentment against society to leave, it seems a good time to extend the program to all the low IQ/high resentment members of any other ethnic group. Make the payments open to all who will emigrate and renounce citizenship. Sure you'll get a few PhDs who were just offered Postdocs in Cambridge taking the money, but you'll also clean out the whole country of unemployable troublemakers.
And if some ethnic groups seem to participate in the program more than others... well those ethnic groups probably "deserve" the extra cash they are getting.
It's true. If they don't have to live in France anymore, they won't suffer from the horrible racism. And their suffering will be renumerated! It's a win win for all!
To be practical, such a program would have to include all those with usable connections to a foreign country. They would have to set the price at maximum level for a few months, then reduce it every year. Few would jump at first offer; they would have to see what others did, and whether it would work out well for them. The price would also have to be low enough to reduce the level of aggression in society, of net public subsidy, with each cohort of assisted emigration. There is a self sorting mechanism, in that those with the least to offer have the greatest incentive to grab abd run. The fact that this will not likely be enacted, even though a very aggressive net public subsidy would be avoided, more than sufficient to finance such a program, proves that the politician's goal is to do damage to civilization. That the professoriate would be most upset over such a program, indicates whose hopes of power would be dashed by a large emigration of imported welfare cases.
The problem with paying Muslims to leave is that we may end up living with paying them ad infinitum not to return or commit terrorist acts. What needs to happen is that the descendants of Abraham must form one homogeneous race and culture, as far as I can tell. This will insure both Peace (Shalom, Salaam) and Wealth (Tzedekkah, Sadiqa).
With depressing frequency (normally once every month or couple of months), you can be guaranteed that some seemingly august body such as the OECD, the UN or even the EU itself will issue a "report" or "study", claiming that Europe faces a looming "labor shortage" - and of course here's the big idea, - the recommended course ofaction is that the European nations as a whole, repeal all of their (very few) immigration restrictions and import as many Muslims, Indians , assorted 3rd Worlders as possible.
According to the "experts", this is the only way to "save" Europe.
Once the present trouble has died down, we can expect normal resumption of the publication of official propaganda.
How can we cope against this massive tide of perverse ppropaganda, when it carries the stamp of officialdom?
"I don't really believe the theory that the white US has a "fairly religious" white population. The ones who call themselves religious are mostly in search of some kind of identity that is of ethnic nature, in the sense that when they often use the word Christian as a synonym for White. I believe that if the other ethnic groups had not existed, the religious right would decline both in popularity and numerosity."
This is extremely silly. There is a great bifurcation amongst white people (childless liberals-prolific childbearing tradionalists), but in my experience, the more religious and pious one is, the more one overlooks race.
I do believe that a different ethnic group being present can make others act differently and adopt different economic views. It is my belief that, for a variety of reasons, each of which could be debated, the large black population here has kept America from achieving the degree of socialism that Europe has adopted.
That is what is clarifying about this sort of proposal; it puts such propaganda on the defensive. The official premisses, that Europe needs more refugees, not fewer; more diversity of parasitization, but not less, get turned altogether around. Immigrants are such a burden on Europe that it would clearly pay quite well to assist their emigration in the above manner. The fifth, or less, that are not on net public subsidy, would not be those who would take the money and run. Econojabberers give us this gibberish about human capital and human resources, which is distasteful in itself; while promoting the immigration of net consumers. A human 'mine' that is a net consumer of 'human resources'! Only gross dishonesty of deliberate evil, could give us nonsense like that.
It may be that the more religious, pious and spiritual one is, the more one overlooks material factors like race and freeloading. Europe is materialistic, but a War of Religion could be very easily unfolding. Government scholars spent over a century planning for the class war, when dystopia out of a bottled theory would be effortlessly planted. America is provincial in regard to deep intrigue, such as what depraved offcials and their intellectuals may be hatching just now. They took up race as the division which could trigger the war they crave; now religious divisions are thrown into the pot to boil. These advanced European thinkers and men of action may have hit upon the recipe for conflict which will propel them into their nirvana of power.
Dumbass proposals like these are only made on the Internet. I wonder why even someone bothers to spend their energy in utter fantasy of right wing extremists like Steve Sailor.
Is that the opinion of Sailer they gave you down at the mosque? Or did someone else give it to you? Have they given you any other opinions we uninformed kafrs need to know?
Ali-- What Steve said is called 'thinking outside the box'. We white Christians don't do enough of it. Muslims hardly do it at all.
"Dumbass proposals like these are only made on the Internet. I wonder why even someone bothers to spend their energy in utter fantasy of right wing extremists like Steve Sailor.
Posted by Aamir Ali at November 8, 2005 07:38 AM
Damn, does anyone even have time to name all the logical fallacies contained in those two short sentences?
I presume the "Modestly proposes" bit implies the peiec is satire - if not what can we say Steve but...oh dear....your proposal is exactly the same as extreme hitlerite neo-nazi parties making you ipso facto one of them or at least a fellow traveller. The ironic thing is that you right wing nut job always screech about how Muslims (you currently favourite minority to act; jews are so 20th century) must assimiliate and consider themselves French British etc before being Muslim but then want them to leave the country that is suppose to be their sole identity.
Guess you'll scream that I'm a liberal traitor but if it means opposing facistic idealogy which stirs up hatred of entire people (including Islamic fundamntalism) Im glad to be
I've always seen Europe's future as hinging on how rapidly the Muslims radicalize. If they radicalize more quickly and shift toward sustained use of techniques that kill people (e.g. improvised explosive devices which the NY Times reports as being used a small amount now) then this story will drown out the EU propaganda.
Only radical Muslims can wake Europeans from the propaganda.
What is Hitlerite about wanting to keep Muslims out of Europe? It is really really easy to slander other people by trying to associate them with Hitler. This is exactly why people like yourself do it. But this sort of slander always comes in place of reasoned argument against whatever policy prescriptions you oppose.
My currently favorite minority to act? Wait a minute. Are they rioting because we favor them to riot? Are they doing the rioting for our benefit at our request? Or when they blow up commuter trains in Spain or Britain are they doing this at our request?
Then there is your dubious comparison between the Muslims the Jews. Were the Jews rioting and blowing up trains and flying airplanes into skyscrapers in the 20th century? I do not recall that.
You try to draw a bunch of quick sloppy historical parallels that do not fit. You are intellectually lazy and wrong.
Us right wing nut jobs scream for their assimilation? I think you are confusing us with old style liberals and neoconservatives. I do not think they want to assimilate because I think their values clash with ours. I do not expect them to assimilate.
The Muslims read their Koran and find plenty of reasons to hate others without any goading on our part. If we keep them out of our societies we make it harder for them to translate that hatred into the oppression of us.
I'm surprised at the posters who say things like, "This can't be done because European opinion is not ready for it." Obviously, _any_ solution to the terrible crises facing our civilization is going to be outside what current liberal opinion would approve. This very discussion, about Sailer's proposal, is outside current liberal opinion. To have a discussion about ways to save the West assumes that the West is going to go beyond liberalism. If it doesn't, all is lost anyway.
There is a fallacy of appeal to authority, in implying that all such proposals must come from widely accepted or state-established authorities. There is also a fallacious shift of the burden of proof, when a dilemna is asserted, but no agument is given as to why one should believe that alternatives are limited to only two. Nazism is not the only alternative to the current collapse of civilization, which is itself not far from the essence of national socialism. A refugee and cohorts of them, can be on net balance an evil to us. Valuing human life cannot be indiscriminate; if it is too undiscriminating, this will result in valuing aggression and its increase. Those who increase the level of aggression on civilization, on human life in its more valuable form, must be evacuated as thoroughly as can reasonably be done. Always some will be taken and placed in prisons; but exile to the places outside civilization, such as the moslem reservations, is also worthwhile.
Another feature probably needed to make such a proposal effective, would be a great increase in imprisonments of aggressors. This way, the parents of likely criminals would see the risks as more equal,as between staying, or taking the payment to re-emigrate.
As recently as the year 2000, the then Prime Minister of France, M. Jean-Pierre Chevenment, loudly proclaimed that "Europe" needed no less than 75 million immigrants in the near future, and set in motion the policy changes to activate his proclamation.
How in God's name is the voice of sanity to be heard against the braying of the political donkeys?
Everyone got that? We're "nazis" if we want to keep our homes for ourselves. That's what a nation is, in the geographical sense, it's a home for a people. Nation is race, it comes from the Latin natio.
So, what are the Saudis then? They seem to be doing a good job at being "nazis." Their immigration policies are draconian, and rightly so.
Jackasses like Mr. Swift see nothing wrong with strolling in here and heaping opprobrium on us (to say nothing of wrestling with his pet strawmen) for simply CONTEMPLATING doing what the Saudis (and many other non-western nations, e.g., Mexico) do as policy day in, day out. I wonder how much trolling Mr. Swift does at Saudi sites?
Selfish Gene theory alone will undermine support for diversity. My curiosity is whether people of similar IQ levels and ideology/religion can get along together even if with different nationalities.
this is really an interesting conversation. First of all, I am will pay any of you 25,000 Dollars to give up your citizenship. I mean it. all you have to do is respond to this post and i will pay you to get out of.
I can say that you are a bunch of red nicks that never been out site your villages. It is you who killed one Mil Algerians, It is you who occupied moroco , tunissia, egypt and the rest of north africa and the middle east. It is you who stole the arabs resources and left them dry. It is you who stole palastine and gave it to the jaws and left a whole nation without a home or a country. Now you are coming and blaming muslims for being the problem. It is you who believe in a book that says the earth is flat, the sun and the moon do not move. You know, muslims laugh at you every day for you they know that your god is a man. in the 21st century and you still warship a man. That is why i do not expect much from all of you. but i still on my word to give pay any of you to get out.
One upon a time france colonised many african countries Killing millons of people, their leaders, nobles and Kings, and those who fought against these colonisers or looters were terrorists.
This is really interesting. I live in Norway, and our society is flooded over with muslims. Crime has escalated to previously unknown levels, and some people are even starting to get afraid of going out at night. If we wish to avoid a new genocide in Europe, we have to take action now before it's too late. I say we throw them all out!
The idea of making it known to muslims that we actually don't want them here and never did is a good one. I told a Pakistani in the street this fact one day and he seemed quite incredulous. He couldn't quite believe that I had told him I wanted him out of my country. It was clear to me that it had never occurred to the thick sod before that the natives of the country he was parastic upon actually didn't want his alien presence.
I frankly blame our two faced, middle class, I'm alright Jack (I have a second home abroad if the shit hits the fan) media luvvies who are forced to tow a certain line or lose their jobs.
The truth is that muslims apparently don't actually know ho much we don't want them in our countries. Frankly, if I were despised as much as they are around a continent to which I had never been invited by the inhabitants of that continent, I'd leave quick-style.
Some people just don't know when they have outstayed their welcome.
I reckon a few assassinations of a few European immigration ministers won't be too long coming in Europe. The treacherous employers who encourage and profit from illegals should be made to suffer for their betrayal. I'm sick of the Confederation of British Industry telling me how we 'need' immigration for economic growth. The per capita benefit is zero. They benefit from low wage immigrants and everyone else picks up the bill for their kids' education, healthcare, translation, and other social costs including the rapes and other crimes they commit. Oh yes Mr Fat Cat gets rich alright and the rest of us get screwed....sometimes quite literally.
All those who don't want to leave voluntarily introduce compulsory sterilisation for those who won'tleave.
In 50 years they will be the minority,at the same time solving world overpopulation and food shortage.
Why not just give them all a 1 way ticket to Mecca for the Hajj, then do not let them return.. Then you have accomplished 2 goals. 1 being that they fullfil their obligation of going for their
Pilgramage, the other, let Saudi Arabia deal with them... There is plenty of land there.
Why not just outlaw them? Put them outside the law. No right to sue in civil court, crimes against them not investigated or prosecuted. Let your soccer hooligans off their leashes. While you're at it strongly suggest that the politicians who invited them all in the first place leave with them.