The Return of Common Sense to the West?

[T2K]

With recent votes in Switzerland to preserve their culture and French moves to do the same...is the West waking up?  I hope so.

Merkel:

"This approach has failed, totally," she said, adding that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany's culture and values.

"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101017/wl_afp/germanymuslimreligionimmigration

[Dr. Phil]

The German Chancellor is only voicing observations which have been identified for over a generation. She simply admits governments lied. Her admissions are designed to calm the rising tensions in Europe. Nothing more.

There will be no action, our EU bureaucrats have empowered those from without and enshrined laws which erode our individual national traditions and customs, restricting dissent, free speech even humour. They know best, whoever they are.

In UK we have low grade failures in a coalition government trying to impose a 5 year term of office and a witless PM who talks of "Big Society" which is coded language for an Open Door Immigration Policy and these exciting policies are greeted with a stony silence from the Tory faithful. He is, after all, a Blair wannabee.
Instead of reducing the number of grasping hands, he passes the bill to the middle class who will pay even higher taxes and he cuts essential services further; never addressing the problem and the gravy train rolls on.
We are now building two essential replacement aircraft carriers but cant afford the  aircraft for it!  

We have proposed the most expensive University fees on earth because New Labour wanted us all to feel good and go to University. University admission will henceforth require even higher fees or student loans. Why not go back to the way it was, let's base University admissions on ability?   This will limit admissions and cut costs - and the poorest will benefit, if they have the ability.. and bring back trade apprenticeships.

[T2K]

I realize this has all been happening in Europe (in a worsening way) for decades.  But, the ultra-PC environment generally kept politicians towing the line.

For a head of state to openly admit this is a good step forward.  A problem cannot be solved if it cannot be spoken of honestly.  And Islam and unchecked immigration in Europe is a problem, plain and simple.

[Dr. Phil]

I realize this has all been happening in Europe (in a worsening way) for decades.  But, the ultra-PC environment generally kept politicians towing the line.

For a head of state to openly admit this is a good step forward.  A problem cannot be solved if it cannot be spoken of honestly.  And Islam and unchecked immigration in Europe is a problem, plain and simple.

No, Islam is not a problem. It never was during the cold war when the iron curtain partitioned Europe and it is not today.
 
We live in a Christian country and Muslims understand this.

In Islamic countries we do not dare to demand equal status; we are responsible for creating the tensions in our country.

I have lived peacefully for many years in Islamic countries. I understood I would never gain citizenship or a vote or equal status, or healthcare, or a free home or income.... and I must respect Islam. This is common sense. I never expected these things.
And Muslims have only ever shown me, personally, respect and hospitality.

Our politicians are attacking Islam by threatening and eroding our own religion, culture etc at home. We offer them all immigrants and asylum seekers housing, welfare, healthcare etc. Who can blame them for taking it?

We attack Islamic countries and have destroyed 700k-1million innocent Iraqi civilians and have left Iraq in chaos. We are now doing the same in Afghanistan. Bush never wanted Al Qaeda, only oil. And we know where Osama is but we do not take him.

We have presided over a Palestinian holocaust for 50 years. Even today, the peace talks are a joke.

I suspect many Jews are more comfortable with global chaos. It gives them strength. When there is peace they are noticed. Their actions are understood and they become targets.

Lets not blame Islam.

[T2K]

You're off on several differnt tangents there. 

However, anything more than a loose and secular interpretation of Islam is not compatible with Western society.  I don't expect moslem societies to change for me, nor should we change for them.

My point here is that Merkel, in openly admitting and recognizing this problem (a first for a Western head of state?), seems to be opening the door for an honest look at the situation, with the potential for real corrective actions.

[Dr. Phil]

She did not make this admission with the intention of taking "corrective action".
She is a successful politician from the other side of the iron curtain and can be as deceptive and duplicitous as our own.  
She did it to "cool heels".  
The French are revolting.  

There will be no changes.

The coalition government in UK, led by tories who are strong on defence and family is dismantling our defence capability, effectively closing our Universities to our young generation, increasing the first wave of extra taxes on the "middle classes" which will force mums out of the home to work for an income further eroding family life and parental supervision of children.....

Its that simple. If you think anything else you are delusional.  

What can governments do? Many immigrants have children born and raised in our countries. We can't simply toss them out. They have the same rights as you and me and this is enshrined in the European Constitution, Volume 36 page 994. 

And there is a new EU tax which will also be added to nations across the EU.  
 

[so what]

Phil,

I fear you have never been more wrong.
Talk to any European and you will hear a totally different opinion.
Europe has been very open to many nationalities and religions, but its only the Muslim society that appears to have problems.

Your remark about Americans or Jews is a no-brainer, they do not live in Europe.
The biggest problem with Islam is that it is a political religion, whilst most European nations strive to strictly separate these two.

The countries in Europa finally come to see that they have a problem that cannot be solved easily. Many Muslims are not integrating into society simply because their religion doesnt allow them to. On top of that lives the fear for terrorism, practiced by members of followers of this religion.

Criminality, unemployment and low education score very high within the Islamic society, perhaps because Muslims find it difficult to integrate.

The left wing politicians are loosing ground in Europe, very fast.
Not only Switzerland and France are opposing the expansion of Islam, Belgium has done so for many years, The Netherlands now has a right wing government, and Germany is simply the next in line that acknowledges the failure of the multi-cultural society.
Without doubt the UK will follow soon.

There is no comparison between Muslims living in Europe, and you living in an Islamic country.
As you already have said, as a foreigner in an Islamic country you have no rights. This is different for foreigners living in Europe.
Thats why Islamic countries do not have the problem of a multi-cultural society...there is none!

Are you allowed to built a church in Iran? Or a cathedral in Marocco? I dont think so, you will most likely be killed.
Do you think you can freely practice Christianity in Egypt? Or perhaps you are at liberty to practice Buddhism in Saoudi Arabia?
You will pay for it with your life.

The Islamic political religious systems in those countries is a complete failure, and it is quite logical that bringing those Islamic values into a liberal European society will fail as well.

May the Islamic countries ever come to separate religion from politics, then and only then there will be a chance for peace.
But until that time it is not oil, Americans, British or Jews that bring misery to the Muslim world...it is Islam itself.

The Europeans are disappointed, scared and fed up.
For years they were not supposed to vent their frustration as left wing governments would take any form of critisism as possible discrimination. This has now changed and its a change that cannot be stopped.
The people do not want their governments to cuddle and babysit minorities, the message is now "integrate or go back".

You say "There will be no changes" and I wonder if you are in denial or blind.
There is a Swiss ban on minarets - thats a change.
There is a French ban on burqa's - thats a change.
There is a Belgium ban on burqa's - thats a change.
The Netherlands has told Islamic schools to straighten out or be closed - thats a change.

Many immigrants and their children have dual nationalities. This is a hot topic on the agenda of several European countries. This, in specific circumstances, opens the possibility to revoke the European nationality and toss out the person.
Not a bad idea, and I am pretty sure that if you would have misbehaved in any of the Islamic countries you have lived, you and your family would have been tossed out in a second...and nobody would care about it.

But all of the above should not really be cause to worry, in the end people will find a mutual agreeable solution to the problems.
Unless of course some Islamic bozo will react the way Islam has reacted so many times before...with violence.
I hope you are not on the plane, or in the train, or in the building when that happens.

[Dr. Phil]

PP, I have never been more correct.  

Along the Mediterranean coast, the seaborne invasion of Africans has been a huge poroblems for many years.
Today, in Italy there are whole towns with a majority of African "refugees" who claim welfare, housing benefits and deal openly in drugs and other crimes such as prostitution and trafficking. Its the same in France, Spain and Greece, even Portugal where the Africans were to be relocated outside mainland Europe on the Atlantic islands of Cape Verde or Canaries.
Many move north with assistance from these countries, into Germany, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland etc many hoping to get to UK.

Do you think Jews do not live in Europe?  
We have just voted for one of the two Miliband brothers as leader of the UK Opposition Party, perhaps soon a Prime Minister?
Many coalition cabinet members and former cabinet ministers are Jews.
In USA the outgoing WH Chief of Staff is Jewish and if you talk of a religion which is a nationality, this is it.
Judaism is political.

Islam is not; Muslims are even fighting Muslims today, thanks to Israel.
Jews destroy innocent women and children as we have seen and they are again blamed and condemned by the International Community but the holocaust continues....  

Yes we British have separated the Church and State.
We are a predominantly Protestant country and since the 17 Century we have legislation preventing a Catholic inheriting the throne; no Brit should ever kneel before Rome.  
History has, at least taught us this, and it has been the case since King James I (a Scottish King who first unified and invented "Great Britain").
But the Catholic religion is fundamentally no different from Protestant religion, both Christians, with the same God, but facing different directions.  
We have the same God as Muslims too, the story or detail (Jesus or Mohammed) differs....
However these two Christian empires have different "*** of directors".
And the Vatican has eyed Jerusalem lasciviously, and plotted for centuries.  

The countries in Europa have not "finally come to see that they have a problem that cannot be solved easily" ....... Politicians, for their own ideological reasons, have long ignored protests and warnings.
They have for some time, withdrawn all measures to protect borders (this is in UK not USA) and have encouraged immigration by removing controls, justifying this by saying our populations are getting older and we need young people, or peddling "multi-culturalism".
But unemployment is rising and there are no jobs for cheap labourers and today immigrants represent welfare cheques we can not afford, nothing more.
Muslims are a very small part of this problem.
Many Polish families who were on welfare in Britain, collect their child benefits from their homes in Poland!  

But I do agree Muslims are not integrating; why, and who cast the first stone? Haven't we created jihadists by our presence in their holy lands.

I do agree we should prohibit the burqa but this is also for common sense reasons. If I, for example, walked into a bank with a balaclava over my head, I guarantee I would not make it to the counter.  
The burqa is also a way of suppressing women.
If I say I believe a woman's place is in the home, it is to care for children and give them a family life. In reality most women work because prices have risen forcing them to earn an income.
Generally I favour women in professional positions in government and industry, they have no ego and more common sense.
But they must get there based on ability; we must ensure fair access to promotions rather than deny talented people in favour of positively discriminating in favour of women and minorities.

Criminality, unemployment and low education DO NOT score very high within the Islamic society.
They score high with African Caribbean communities however there are some high fliers...usually associated with the crack cocaine or gun-running sectors.
And Muslims, unlike Africans, never play the "race card" or demand positive discriminatory benefits.
 
You say, the left wing politicians are loosing ground in Europe, very fast.
Maybe, but when sensible politicians have to implement essential remedial programmes to pay down the debt, which cause pain, the left wing will experience a resurgence of popularity.
Most ordinary folk are interested in their own welfare above their nations, and why not, low grade politicians have ignored the common sense protests against an Open Door immigration policy for so long?

In Europe, there will not be any goose-stepping army against immigrants.
We caused this problem The blame rests with us. We allowed these people access and gave them benefits.
Ordinary people want their country and way of life back to what was "normal", however amongst our own people, there are deeper differences than with immigrants.

Anyway, the quickest way to get our country back, is to give all of our politicians a lobotomy.  

[JRG]

i see Bill O'Riley's fans or maybe cousins are here....

[$Pripps]

I realize this has all been happening in Europe (in a worsening way) for decades.  But, the ultra-PC environment generally kept politicians towing the line.

For a head of state to openly admit this is a good step forward.  A problem cannot be solved if it cannot be spoken of honestly.  And Islam and unchecked immigration in Europe is a problem, plain and simple.

I agree, it my own home country it seems the general method to handle that problem is to pretend there isn't a problem so her move is refreshing.

[Dr. Phil]

If Europe intends tackling the costs and social damage caused by uncontrolled immigration, then this will indeed be a positive step forwards.

But they will not.  

Europe and the political elite view immigrants exactly as a farmer views livestock; they think "Animal Farm" is a bed-time story; and they aren't dumb.

You will agree many countries have been living off debt for some time and this has raised a new generation many of whom have never seen their sole parent do a day's work. And yet they have enjoyed a standard of living and will view any reduction in this standard of living as an act of aggression, which they will take personally. How confusing?

And as our countries have raced to acquire "leverage" (I always thought that referred to enjoying a position of advantage) as they are now racing to the bottom of the currency table, our corporate booards of directors have progressively taken control of their companies and have ripped them apart and our banks have been gambling our savings away and its been a general free-for-all; and organised opposition can only come from groups of consumers or citizens who have something in common.  

We see harsh measures from our governments designed, ostensibly, to pay down our debts. But its the middle classes who will bite this bullet, not the immigrant communities or the streams of immigrants still entering Europe or the increasing majority of Brits who will roll over for a tickle.

These harsh fiscal measures are designed to cover the existing and burgeoning costs of welfare and to accommodate more of the same. Immigrants have a vote too!  

But we can't admit this. Our political masters rattle their sabers; a mocking gesture of aggression designed to appease the outraged middle England.
"We will do what is necessary". "Trust us".  

Now, a couple of million more immigrants each year and by 2015 and we will have destroyed everything that is English about England, everything which is German about the Germany, everything which is French about France.... and we are moving ever more inextricably closer to a European Federation.
Job Done.  
    

[Ginger Mo]

Dr Phil, at first glance, there's some rather alarming language/themes appearing in your posts.

But before I get all uppity and post something silly in reply that I may regret later, which is likely given the amount of beer I drank during a very entertaining game of rugby earlier, I'll take some time to re-read the entire thread. I may be some time.

To your good health sir.

[Dr. Phil]

Dr Phil, at first glance, there's some rather alarming language/themes appearing in your posts.

But before I get all uppity and post something silly in reply that I may regret later, which is likely given the amount of beer I drank during a very entertaining game of rugby earlier, I'll take some time to re-read the entire thread. I may be some time.

To your good health sir.

And yours too!   

[Dr. Phil]

Return to common sense?  

Now the Irish have declared that they have been indeed living the life of Riley, posturing as millionaires whilst sucking up EU benefits only claimed by the most impoverished of members.
Its a familiar story of land prices exploding and turning these troublesome peasants into "millionaire" swingers over night.
"Animal Farm" on poteen.

I said many years ago, the single currency is tantamount to a joint account and when you share it with traditionally poor peasants like the Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians....it will end in tears.

They spend what they do not have and principally Germany, UK and France have to foot the bill even though UK is not a Euro member. Who can blame them?
Directly or indirectly UK may have to pay in excess of 7 billion Euros.

But, how can they do this?
Quiet easily.
It starts by driving up property prices to unimagined heights, which creates paper millionaires, which facilitates equity loans and bankers' bonuses.
Even households squandered their children's future; and ours.
The rest is history.

And it has been announced that UK immigration will most likely not decrease. No surprise.
I hope when Cameroon measures the "happiness' factor in his Big Society, he asks me.

I will buy an electric cattle probe.  
  

[Vulcanl]

The below is an excellent piece that nicely summarizes the problem in the West in our time.  Singaporeans bemoan the lack of a 'safety net' but I have always disagreed with this notion.  Clearly bad things start to happen when you give people a handout.  These lazy f**ks in the West need to wake up - we have real competition on our hands - get back to doing real work and let's stop complaining already
 
Societal Breakdown: The Debtors' Web
ANTON WAHLMAN - THE STREET  JUL 01, 2011 1:45 PM
      
The path to a robust, free society is to restore law and order, abolish governmental subsidies, and limit the size of government.

There are some very dark and worrisome clouds of deeply troubling human behavior happening in Europe and the U.S. these days. Consider two of the most recent prime examples.
Greece: For decades, Greece has borrowed so much from abroad that its government debt came to exceed 100% of its gross domestic product. After decades of overspending, Greece can't even afford to pay interest on the debt, without selling assets. When confronted, Greeks who benefited from these loans take to the streets where they throw rocks, light cars and buildings on fire, and basically say, "we're not going to pay."

Wisconsin : For decades, pay and benefits for Wisconsin government employees skyrocketed to become higher than in the private economy. When asked to contribute something toward their own pensions and to work under similar regulations as their federal counterparts, these people occupy the state capitol and cause damage worth several millions of dollars.

These two examples in turn give rise to three hard existential questions that the Western economies have to answer very soon:

1. Why aren't the police, military and national guard striking down these violent and irrational protests?

2. Why do people who have been living increasingly generously at taxpayer expense become so violent when confronted with the necessity of not getting as much of a free lunch anymore?

3. What kind of free society can withstand these kinds of violent and irrational breakdowns?

Let's answer these three questions in turn.

Mob Violence

We have all seen the TV footage. Whether it's Greek anarchists or union thugs in Wisconsin, troublemakers are able to loot and destroy without meaningful resistance from law enforcement. The police force is attacked with rocks and clubs, but is hardly fighting back.
One really has to wonder about the sustainability of a civilization where people are being taught that a violent mob is able to get away with massive and senseless destruction of public and private property. Who will pay for refurbishing the marble in the Wisconsin statehouse? Who will pay for the rebuilding of McDonald's (MCD) restaurants in Athens?

In the days following the 1906 earthquake, the San Francisco mayor had a different idea. Following the quake and fire, looters moved through the city and attacked private property. In response, San Francisco Mayor Eugene Schmitz declared on April 18, 1906, "The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officers have been authorized by me to kill any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime."

It is estimated that over 500 destructive criminal elements were shot and killed on sight in the following days. What was the result with respect to law and order in San Francisco? For at least another two generations -- 50 years -- San Francisco enjoyed unprecedented law and order. Even during the 1930s Great Depression, with unemployment at 20%, property crime and other violent crime was at a minimum. People had learned that crime does not pay, and is simply morally indefensible even during extreme poverty. A great depiction of this great sense of moral justice, law and order, can be seen in Russell Crowe's superb movie "Cinderella Man" where his character Jim Braddock disciplines his son from stealing a piece of food from a store, even though they were almost starving.

If Western civilization is going to survive, deeply destructive and completely illegitimate public behavior must be met with a zero tolerance response by the justice system. The government's only legitimate role is to maintain law and order, including national security. The Greek government has no excuse for failing to stop the looting by the anarchists. One could argue an acceptable response would be for Greek police to shoot these violent and destructive forces on sight, just like the mayor of San Francisco ordered in April 1906. Respect for private property, law and order, must be restored at all cost. These are not legitimate complaints by the violent mobs. They are not protesting a dictatorship; they are protesting whether loans should be paid back. Essentially, the protesters are supporting theft -- borrowing money and not paying back. And burglars can be shot on sight.

Dependency on the State

A debtor or other kind of beneficiary of public largesse needs to be humble and contrite toward the people who lend the money and pay their bills. A creditor has the right to be paid back on time, according to the terms of the loan. Public employees serve at the pleasure of the taxpayer, and the arrangement starts to become highly suspect if the amount of public spending becomes a material portion of national income. If the taxpayers want to cut the salary, benefits or number of public employees, the ones who then have to return to the private economy should not protest, but rather say "thank you" to the taxpayers for the time they were able to live off the taxpayer's back. No throwing any stones, no occupying statehouses, no continued demands to live the high life for free. For any individual to live off the backs of their neighbors and taxpayers is only a brief and extraordinary moment in time; not a state of normalcy.

Starting in the 1930s, the U.S. entered into what has become a lethal death spiral when people have become accustomed to expect government checks for all sorts of things. Massive Ponzi schemes were set up to finance two million government bureaucrats and eventually well over 200 million people dependent on them. These instruments of dependency and societal financial ruin include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. Instead of people relying on voluntary contracts and the rugged individualist principle on which the United States of America was founded, people now feel entitled to have other people pay for their consumption. The environmental movement likes to talk about sustainability, but there is nothing as unsustainable as a society where people have come to expect government subsidies and checks in the mail. In the end, any society built upon people living like parasites on each other will collapse. In the 1920s, famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that "The Santa Claus Principle liquidates itself." In the 1980s, Lady Margaret Thatcher said that the reason socialism fails, is that "eventually you run out of other people's money." That's exactly what happened in The Soviet Union in the years leading up to Christmas Day 1991, and that is exactly what is starting to happen here in the U.S. today.

We have seen a tremendous symptom of societal debtor's disease in the last few years in conjunction with the housing collapse. People would buy $300,000 houses with as little as $15,000 down and then claim they were fooled. Fooled into what? What part of owing $285,000 could possibly have been unclear? People who don't understand the basics of what it means to take out a mortgage, and can calculate the basic terms and do the basic percentage math, should not be allowed to walk unsupervised in public. We tend to call them children, mostly under the age of 13. Yet these people now say they were duped, while the basic facts and principle is readily understood by almost every minor with even the most basic education.

Withstanding Societal Decay

Any society can be organized rationally or irrationally. An irrational government leads to an irrational society. Let me begin by describing the A-B-C attributes of an irrational society:

A. Politicians spend money on things other than defending private property. Problem: Government becomes too big.

B. Politicians borrow money. Problem: Giving politicians the power to borrow money is like giving whiskey and car keys to 15-year-old boys.

C. Politicians regulate. Problem: Government has no business telling people what to manufacture, trade, sell or buy, which violates freedom and discourages productive activity.
It follows from these A-B-C attributes of a decaying society that the government must not be allowed to spend money beyond basic national defense, police and a court system. It further follows that the government must not be allowed to borrow money. Finally, it follows that the government must not be allowed to interfere in voluntary contracts.

How much would a rationally sized federal government cost in the U.S., and how would it be financed most efficiently and fairly?

First, the size of the federal government: National defense today costs approximately $700 billion, and a federal judiciary costs less than $100 billion. By reducing many of our foreign entanglements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Germany and many other places, we could cut this to below $500 billion, perhaps as low as $300 billion. Let's call it $500 billion in total. That's approximately 3% of GDP, or where we were when President Calvin Coolidge left the White House in early 1929. I think it would be possible to trim it back to 2%, which is more like what the size of the U.S. federal government was under the Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley and Cleveland administrations, but for now going back to 3% of GDP is a solid first step. For comparison, the federal government is now at $3.7 trillion, or close to 25% of GDP.

Second, the method of financing a rationally sized federal government: How do we pay for most things in society? When we walk into grocery store and buy a loaf of bread, it's $1 or $2 or whatever, not a percentage of our income or spending. It's a fixed dollar amount, regardless of who the buyer is. Equality. Justice. Fairness.

The problems with all of these so-called "flat" taxes and sales taxes are twofold:

1. They aren't really "flat." A 10% flat tax still means that someone making more than someone else has to pay more.

2. People still have to spend time calculating and enforcing the basis for those taxes. Either individuals need to file income tax returns -- no matter how brief -- and/or corporations need to do the same for purposes of sales taxes. Both principles are unacceptable in a rational society.

The only rational tax is the simplest one where each person between voting age and retirement pays a flat per-person amount. The number of people in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 67 is not 200 million, but close enough to it for purposes of this calculation. If you divide $500 billion (in total Federal spending) by 200 million, you get $2,500. In a rational America, all Federal revenue would be 200 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 67 paying $2,500 per year, totaling $500 billion, to cover a debt-free operating budget.

In this rational system, there would be no corporate taxes, excise taxes such as on gasoline, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, interest income taxes, duties, tariffs or other methods to funnel money from the private economy to the Federal government. Only 200 million people
paying $2,500 per year to fund the Federal government's debt-free operating expenses.

If in addition to this the U.S. would also want to pay down the national debt -- which it should -- there are two ways to do it. The least preferable way is to add an amount to the $2,500 per year, say doubling it to $5,000 so as to pay off $500 billion per year. The more rational way to start the process is for the government to sell off its considerable assets, such as the significant double-digit percentage of the U.S. landmass that it owns.

Finally, to summarize, unless the Western societies restore law and order, abolish the ability for people to obtain money or other subsidies from the government, and limit the size of government to a rational entity financed in the fairest and most transparent fashion, the civilization that we came to know over decades and centuries, will most likely be lost within the next generation or two. The stakes couldn't be higher.