Islamic Jihadists ISIS

[macdanger2]

Indeed, macdanger, so where do you stand on the issue.

Where do I stand on the established group in society having an unfounded fear of "them"? On the need to keep "them" out for fear that "our" way of life will be threatened? Suffice to say, I feel I would have more common ground with "them" that I would with fearmongers like Paisley and anyone of that opinion

[thejuice]

Why would any country become 50% Muslim? Muslims are the same as everyone else. They want jobs and education for their kids. Boulot metro dodo. Work metro sleep. Second generation start integrating and have fewer kids. Muslims are a convenient bogeyman. The real challenge is to drain the jihadi swamps.

Low Euro birth rates are a separate issue.

I was being somewhat provocative by suggesting Muslims since it is such a hot button issue at the moment. You could insert any other group into the question really. For instance Germany is embarking on a very risky experiment with its future by taking on so many refugees, whether you believe it was the morally right thing to do or not. If the figures I've read on demographic change in Germany is correct, the idea that so many people can be transformed by the state institutions into something even similar to what we know Germans traditionally to be; when same said Germans would be a dwindling cultural influence over those institutions, it is more likely that we will see a shift towards a more Turkic/Arabic society than a German one. What that then means for the future of Europe we will just have to see.

Muslims are the same as everyone else if we reduce everyone down to work/rest/play. I think there is a bit more to them than that and there is a bit more to us than that by the same token. The main reason I'm asking is to see people's attitudes to demographic change and how they see their place in the world. I think this will be the defining question in the west in the early 21st century. Do we go down the globalisation rabbit hole or does nationalism make a comeback.

It is a fascinating time to see this dynamic at play which is remoulding the old political left/right paradigm, even if it is a bit scary at times. I think boils down to this, does any nation on this earth have the right to lay claim to a territory that perhaps their ancestors held for generations of not centuries, have they that right to hold on to that land for their own prosperity and that of their descendants.Or does economics override that.

Sorry if that's a bit rambling, I don't like writing long posts on an iPhone.

[foxcommander]

Why would any country become 50% Muslim? Muslims are the same as everyone else. They want jobs and education for their kids. Boulot metro dodo. Work metro sleep. Second generation start integrating and have fewer kids. Muslims are a convenient bogeyman. The real challenge is to drain the jihadi swamps.

Low Euro birth rates are a separate issue.

I was being somewhat provocative by suggesting Muslims since it is such a hot button issue at the moment. You could insert any other group into the question really. For instance Germany is embarking on a very risky experiment with its future by taking on so many refugees, whether you believe it was the morally right thing to do or not. If the figures I've read on demographic change in Germany is correct, the idea that so many people can be transformed by the state institutions into something even similar to what we know Germans traditionally to be; when same said Germans would be a dwindling cultural influence over those institutions, it is more likely that we will see a shift towards a more Turkic/Arabic society than a German one. What that then means for the future of Europe we will just have to see.

Muslims are the same as everyone else if we reduce everyone down to work/rest/play. I think there is a bit more to them than that and there is a bit more to us than that by the same token. The main reason I'm asking is to see people's attitudes to demographic change and how they see their place in the world. I think this will be the defining question in the west in the early 21st century. Do we go down the globalisation rabbit hole or does nationalism make a comeback.

It is a fascinating time to see this dynamic at play which is remoulding the old political left/right paradigm, even if it is a bit scary at times. I think boils down to this, does any nation on this earth have the right to lay claim to a territory that perhaps their ancestors held for generations of not centuries, have they that right to hold on to that land for their own prosperity and that of their descendants.Or does economics override that.

Sorry if that's a bit rambling, I don't like writing long posts on an iPhone.

See how the native Red Squirrels got on when Grey squirrels were introduced into Ireland as a guideline.

[Tony Baloney]

Why would any country become 50% Muslim? Muslims are the same as everyone else. They want jobs and education for their kids. Boulot metro dodo. Work metro sleep. Second generation start integrating and have fewer kids. Muslims are a convenient bogeyman. The real challenge is to drain the jihadi swamps.

Low Euro birth rates are a separate issue.

I was being somewhat provocative by suggesting Muslims since it is such a hot button issue at the moment. You could insert any other group into the question really. For instance Germany is embarking on a very risky experiment with its future by taking on so many refugees, whether you believe it was the morally right thing to do or not. If the figures I've read on demographic change in Germany is correct, the idea that so many people can be transformed by the state institutions into something even similar to what we know Germans traditionally to be; when same said Germans would be a dwindling cultural influence over those institutions, it is more likely that we will see a shift towards a more Turkic/Arabic society than a German one. What that then means for the future of Europe we will just have to see.

Muslims are the same as everyone else if we reduce everyone down to work/rest/play. I think there is a bit more to them than that and there is a bit more to us than that by the same token. The main reason I'm asking is to see people's attitudes to demographic change and how they see their place in the world. I think this will be the defining question in the west in the early 21st century. Do we go down the globalisation rabbit hole or does nationalism make a comeback.

It is a fascinating time to see this dynamic at play which is remoulding the old political left/right paradigm, even if it is a bit scary at times. I think boils down to this, does any nation on this earth have the right to lay claim to a territory that perhaps their ancestors held for generations of not centuries, have they that right to hold on to that land for their own prosperity and that of their descendants.Or does economics override that.

Sorry if that's a bit rambling, I don't like writing long posts on an iPhone.

So was this a short post or a long one?!

[thejuice]

Long enough.

[screenexile]

See how the native Red Squirrels got on when Grey squirrels were introduced into Ireland as a guideline.

Very insightful!! Yes let's compare religions to different species of squirrel. . . I thought you had better than that foxy!!

[thejuice]

A more interesting, and human, example actually was in Fiji. To put it simply, the native Polynesians were being displaced by the descendents of indentured Indians. It got to the point where the natives were demographically and therefore democratically out numbered. However one exception was in the military who then took control of the government and still do to this day. Were they wrong to do so? Should they have accepted their fate?

By the way that is a much condensed version of recent Fijian history, but you see the case in point.

[J70]

See how the native Red Squirrels got on when Grey squirrels were introduced into Ireland as a guideline.

Very insightful!! Yes let's compare religions to different species of squirrel. . . I thought you had better than that foxy!!

You did?

[J70]

A more interesting, and human, example actually was in Fiji. To put it simply, the native Polynesians were being displaced by the descendents of indentured Indians. It got to the point where the natives were demographically and therefore democratically out numbered. However one exception was in the military who then took control of the government and still do to this day. Were they wrong to do so? Should they have accepted their fate?

By the way that is a much condensed version of recent Fijian history, but you see the case in point.

Depends what that fate was.

Is and was Fiji a secular, democratic state?

[thejuice]

The fate would have meant that the native Fijians (correction: who are not Polynesian, but Melanesians) would have become an ethnic minority in their ancestral islands, ergo would have lost political control over their own destiny as a distinct people. By the way, all of which was a result of outside economic interests.

As far as I know Fiji is and was a secular nation.

It is no longer democratic. However it is a very peaceful place, despite military rule I hardly saw a soldier while I was there. The people there are without doubt the most friendly people I have ever met in my travels.

One family I spoke to said they don't miss democracy. It does not matter as we look out for each other because "we are all brothers". They were a military family by the way, make of that what you will. I'm sure if brotherhood extended to the Indians though. He never said.

The question becomes a matter of survival over principle. Do you stick to open liberal democracy even if it means you (you as a group, not just as an individual) lose out in the long run to other interests by sheer force of numbers (often propelled by outside economic/short term interests)

[J70]

Well, the US is undergoing a shift. Pew Research published data that predicts that whites will be a minority within 50 years. That is down from comprising more than 80% of the population fifty years ago. I don't see anyone outside of far right groups predicting anything negative or sinister about that development. But, immigrant groups generally assimilate in the US. Some traditionally achieve greater, faster success than other groups, but there is no real tradition of people not embracing American culture and democracy.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/

I know very little about Fiji, but a quick gander at wikipedia states that there is a lot of debate over the term "Fijian" and to whom it should apply, as apparently there are certain rights that are conferred based on that. Throw in the 2000 coup which overthrew the multi-racial government and an earlier consitutional guarantee of a native majority in government suggests that they've not handled the issue of a large ethnic minority presence too well at times.

[seafoid]

A more interesting, and human, example actually was in Fiji. To put it simply, the native Polynesians were being displaced by the descendents of indentured Indians. It got to the point where the natives were demographically and therefore democratically out numbered. However one exception was in the military who then took control of the government and still do to this day. Were they wrong to do so? Should they have accepted their fate?

By the way that is a much condensed version of recent Fijian history, but you see the case in point.

In Malaysia at independence the Chinese minority ran the economy . They didn't like the lie of the land so broke away and declared independence for Singapore 

White power in the US has a very violent history. I think the rise of the indigenous American continental Latino population is really ironic.

[omaghjoe]

Why would any country become 50% Muslim? Muslims are the same as everyone else. They want jobs and education for their kids. Boulot metro dodo. Work metro sleep. Second generation start integrating and have fewer kids. Muslims are a convenient bogeyman. The real challenge is to drain the jihadi swamps.

Low Euro birth rates are a separate issue.

I was being somewhat provocative by suggesting Muslims since it is such a hot button issue at the moment. You could insert any other group into the question really. For instance Germany is embarking on a very risky experiment with its future by taking on so many refugees, whether you believe it was the morally right thing to do or not. If the figures I've read on demographic change in Germany is correct, the idea that so many people can be transformed by the state institutions into something even similar to what we know Germans traditionally to be; when same said Germans would be a dwindling cultural influence over those institutions, it is more likely that we will see a shift towards a more Turkic/Arabic society than a German one. What that then means for the future of Europe we will just have to see.

Muslims are the same as everyone else if we reduce everyone down to work/rest/play. I think there is a bit more to them than that and there is a bit more to us than that by the same token. The main reason I'm asking is to see people's attitudes to demographic change and how they see their place in the world. I think this will be the defining question in the west in the early 21st century. Do we go down the globalisation rabbit hole or does nationalism make a comeback.

It is a fascinating time to see this dynamic at play which is remoulding the old political left/right paradigm, even if it is a bit scary at times. I think boils down to this, does any nation on this earth have the right to lay claim to a territory that perhaps their ancestors held for generations of not centuries, have they that right to hold on to that land for their own prosperity and that of their descendants.Or does economics override that.

Sorry if that's a bit rambling, I don't like writing long posts on an iPhone.

It is a paradox.....our economic system is based on continued growth of population whether that be birth rate or immigration, and as counties become wealthier the birth rate drops so immigration is required for the economy to grow.

Merkel recognises that Germany is facing a massive labour shortage so the refugee crisis happened it was her problem solved that was until Hungary went beserk and the social problems surfaced.

As far as assimilation goes i think I read somewhere that something like 75% of the population of France is descended from immigrants that came to France in the 20th century,Most of those you would have to say are assimilated.  When contrasting religion is brought into the equation tho it makes assimilation more difficult but not impossible.

Tho your original question is an interesting one. Perhaps we should look at why soverign nation states come to the fore as the predominant method of governance in the first place? You would have to say that in Europe at least it was to give a homeland for ethnicitys. And at the end of the day if you want to continue with that system then giving over a large section of the population over to a non ethnic group within a generation which would not be enough time to assimilate, would be contrary to the ideals of the nation state. And may even cause it to collapse as the original reason for its existence was lost. If on the other hand you want to use another type of governance say a federal europe or something that would be worth discussing but the question is are people ready for that? It doesnt look like Europe is ready to give up on Nationalism for a long while yet tho.

Moral of the story is... if you want the system to continue only one solution......keep breeding

[seafoid]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

[thejuice]

By the way sorry to drag this thread off topic by the way though I'm sure events as they happen will bring it back on course.

I wrote the following in response to J70:

Yes, though the far right seem to have grown in the USA lately as a result of those trends, this is before Donald Trump or Trayvon Martin happened. How big I don't know but as I said before this issue will likely get bigger as these trends continue. It might well just be whites adjusting to life as a minority, essentially becoming their own lobby group just as others do. With that in mind Seafood brought up Singapore, secessionist movements could even spring up. But you know the USA better than myself and the Internet can make things seem bigger than they actually are.

As for who can claim Fijian identity gets to the nub of this debate, it's pretty clear on the ground who is from the islands and who is from India, by physical appearance, by religion, lifestyle and where they live. The groups from the other Pacific islands is harder for the likes of myself to determine.

It's important to remember that Fiji is not like the USA, it's a small cluster of islands. It has a population of 800,000. If the native Fijians were to continue to lose out they could have effectively disappeared. The question is, and one I don't think you answered, had they the right to make such a stand?