* The problem of using Orwell as a user manual is that there will always be men outside control of the state. Unlike 1984. That was true even in the Soviet Union. Men are primally driven by status. Status is all in the sex and mate market, overlapping. Going all vibrantly Chechen simply raises the stakes for the average White man. No longer sufficient rock climbing, surfing, Xtreme anything, stakes get higher.
* Actually this pro-refugee hysteria a largely a bottom up rather than top down movement.
Just as the US working class is starting a left field populist revolt, we suddenly have the liberal European and Commonwealth middle-class badgering their political elites to let in lots of unwelcome refugees. Admittedly the elites aren’t putting up much resistance, but you can’t say they aren’t being pressured by SWPLs.
The Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand for example, wanted to keep Syrian refugee intakes to a minimum, but our SWPL community is outraged by their relatively conservative stance, and our centre right politicians lack the bottle to stand up to the sanctimonious wrath of the liberal masses.
The West can’t blame corporations on wealthy elites for this particular mess, it’s the fault of our own looney middle class liberals. It’s kind of like a 21st century version of 17th Century religious hysteria.
* I think you are confusing those who control the megaphone — the chattering class — with the mass of middle class and working class persons. Polls in all developed western countries consistently show a widespread desire that borders be controlled and immigration limited. This is reflected in rising percentages of votes for UKIP and similar parties and the widespread — and to the chattering class shocking — support for Trump in the USA.
* The consequences of what are often sold as small levels of Immigration, like “just” 0.5% of your population per year in immigration per year, are enormous.
Let 400,000 Third Worlders immigrate into Germany, a country of 80 million, each year. Germany has a stagnant population, so sans immigration the population in 25 years, roughly the length of a generation, would still be 80 million. But to that 80 million you’ve now added (25 x 400,000) immigrants – 10 million people. So now the population is 90 million, 11% of whom are immigrants.
But wait – that’s before accounting for the fact that the immigrants are far more likely to be of breeding age, while for the purposes of reproduction over half of Germany’s current population is effectively dead.
It’s before accounting for the fact that immigrant birthrates are probably twice those of native Germans.
The end result is that 25 years from now 20% or more of the German population will be comprised of Third Worlders who have arrived since 2015. Most Germans alive today will still be alive in 25 years. They might want to think about that, and not just in ways that make them feel all warm and fuzzy for 10 seconds or so.
* Inspired by Scott Adams’ postings on Donald Trump, here is some “re-branding” that might be favorable to the Forces of Sanity. It could be a good idea, whenever grammar and logic permit, to replace the phrase”Illegal Immigration” with the phrase “Importing War” (which I think I stole from F.P. Barbieri). Thus, “We must stop illegal immigration” becomes “We must stop importing war“, “Billionaires love illegal immigration” becomes “Billionaires love to import war“, etc. First of all, the latter is a more active phrase- illegality is an abstract concept, equally at home in some airy Platonic Third Realm as it is in the world of human activity. “To import”, though, is a verb, which naturally raises the question, “If war is being imported, who is doing the importing?” Taking the focus off of the migrants and onto the politicians who encourage lawbreaking puts attention back where it should be.
“Illegal”, despite the attempts of spin doctors to replace it with “undocumented”, also doesn’t create the strongest imagery, or “anchor”, in the mind. Lots of Americans have engaged in activity that is technically illegal- smoking grass, hosting a poker game, double-parking, etc. We associate the term with things that are somewhat unpleasant, but generally impossible to completely suppress, like the drug trade. “Immigrant” also doesn’t always paint a useful image in the mind. Most Americans are on friendly terms with at least a few immigrant co-workers. Say “immigrant”, and many people will think of their pal Vladimir from IT, not the Tsarnaev brothers. “War” is a far more vivid word, calling to mind artillery-shattered cityscapes and hospitals full of bleeding, screaming patients.
* Was the United States a horrible place in 1950 when there were ‘only’ 157 million of us. 1960 when, in the midst of the baby boom we had grown to 182 million? California had just under 8 million people in 1940. You could drive the speed limit all the way to Santa Rosa or San Jose from San Francisco and San Francisco had everything it has today except some ugly glass towers and derelicts. When you look at population numbers in terms of quality of life ‘bigger is not better’ unless you are in real estate.
