Frau Merkel makes a Palestinian kid cry on national TV

[SNJ1985]

Well, feel free to move in a Christian African country, who still follow those principles.

Americans and Europeans rejected them. Too bad for you.

I know very well that the principles I advocate are not popular with many people in the modern West. That is not going to stop me from advocating what I believe is right and what I believe is best for the health and strength of Western civilization.

[traininthedistance]

Ultimately, it's not what the politicians think, it's what the people think. And if the people want a closed society, then the best tactic is not to try and force an open society upon them, but to work to change national consciousness.

I don't disagree.  Of course, the whole point of a story like this is precisely to try and actually change that national consciousness, by pointing out what the whole "whoops! no more room in the inn! gotta preserve national character!" stance actually leads to. Far as I'm concerned, this is a case where both the cold hard numbers and the sob-story heartstring stuff both indicate that pulling up the drawbridges is a bad policy, and thus I'm happy to use both techniques to make that case.  And, once again, it's not that Merkel should be making case-by-case exceptions to it, it's that the system should be more open so that folks don't need to be groveling for pardons like this.

Also, thanks for showing up Tender and Thomas.  Your contributions are... appreciated.

[eric82oslo]

Germany is a rich country with falling birthrates that not only could in fact handle a "flood" of immigrants, but needs that flood to stay on top.

It doesn't need a flood of (more) immigrants; it simply needs its native people to have more children.

Germany and other Western countries wouldn't have such low birth rates if they had never embraced secularism, contraception, abortion, and a loosening of sexual morals. Germans would be having more children if Germany were still a devout Christian country, adhered to traditional sexual morality (sex is only for a married man and woman, without contraception, and for the purpose of producing children), and celebrated the traditional family; as it and every other Western country should be and do.

The sexual revolution, which was entirely a product of the left, is chiefly to blame for the modern West's demographic crisis.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-only-way-to-beat-our-demographic-crisis-is-to-confront-the-sexual-revol

We have a demographic crisis, but it's the opposite of what you think. The world will eventually reach 10 billion people (perhaps as much as 12-13), which is 8 or 9 billion more than the globe can handle from an ecological view point. If God ever existed, I can assure you that he never said to us that we should all procreate to the point where we would all be responsible for destroying the very planet we're living on.

[dead0man]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

We actually ARE better at it.  Foreign born population of the US=12.8, UK=9.3....but, ironically, Germany is better than both (barely) at 12.9.  Only the ANZACS and the other two germanish countries do better.

cite

[eric82oslo]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

We actually ARE better at it.  Foreign born population of the US=12.8, UK=9.3....but, ironically, Germany is better than both (barely) at 12.9.  Only the ANZACS and the other two germanish countries do better.

cite

Here's a more up-to-date list with every country (and many territories) in the world: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/which-countries-have-the-most-immigrants/

The United Arab Emirate shines atop at 83.7% (!), while plenty of others also have nations built on a majority of foreigners. At the very end of the list there's a six-fold tie between China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Madagascar, Cuba and Lesotho, each standing at only one immigrant for each 1000 Citizens, or 0.1%. North Korea doesn't do much better at 0.2%.

[dead0man]

Weird, you'd think people would be flocking to Cuba for that great, free for all medical care! (more people are moving to N.Korea, Somalia and Eritrea)


Interesting to note that Germany has fallen below the UK and US.

[Helsinkian]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

Speaking as a citizen of a small Northern European country, Finland, I would say that the whole concept of a welfare state here is, in fact, to a large degree tied into the concept of nation: people are willing to accept high taxes to support public services because they view that as taking care of their own, seeing the society as an extended family. That is why even the Finnish right-wing populists are supporters of the welfare state.

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

[Mehmentum]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

Speaking as a citizen of a small Northern European country, Finland, I would say that the whole concept of a welfare state here is, in fact, to a large degree tied into the concept of nation: people are willing to accept high taxes to support public services because they view that as taking care of their own, seeing the society as an extended family. That is why even the Finnish right-wing populists are supporters of the welfare state.

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

I never thought about it that way.  That's a very interesting insight into the difference between American and European politics.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Perhaps a compromise would be to hike up foreign aid, investment and reduce EU protectionist policies and subsidies, so there is less need for the destitute to seek economic advancement in Europe.

*crickets*

[ingemann]

Perhaps a compromise would be to hike up foreign aid, investment and reduce EU protectionist policies and subsidies, so there is less need for the destitute to seek economic advancement in Europe.

*crickets*

I have nothing against hiking up foreign aid, of course it doesn't work, but it serve well as a indulgence for our sins, and sometimes we need that. It should be said that disaster help tend to be very efficient and give a lot of bang for the buck.

Using it as investments tend to be more efficient, if it's used right.

Removing proctectionistic barriers and subsidies are very efficient, but we all know which countries in EU who will fight to the death to keep these.

[Beet]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

Speaking as a citizen of a small Northern European country, Finland, I would say that the whole concept of a welfare state here is, in fact, to a large degree tied into the concept of nation: people are willing to accept high taxes to support public services because they view that as taking care of their own, seeing the society as an extended family. That is why even the Finnish right-wing populists are supporters of the welfare state.

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

I never thought about it that way.  That's a very interesting insight into the difference between American and European politics.

lol not really

[DC Al Fine]

The reactions of some folks (both on Atlas and off) are why I tend to support Very Serious people despite my reservations about their policies. While Very Serious people have their problems, their opponents seem to range from unserious to completely childish. I mean c'mon, Merkel is supposed to change government policy based on a crying child? Get real.

Perhaps a compromise would be to hike up foreign aid, investment and reduce EU protectionist policies and subsidies, so there is less need for the destitute to seek economic advancement in Europe.

*crickets*

Not a bad idea, although we would have to do something about the many third world kleptocracies for it to work.

[Tender Branson]

This pretty much sums it up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/angela-merkel-weeping-refugee

The only thing that Merkel fumbled was her slightly awkward remark at the end of the video when she consoled the immigrant kid and told the reporter that she "wants to stroke her in this moment of sadness".

Maybe that stiff acting is due to Merkel not having kids herself, but there are way more clumsy/creepy politicians out there (just look at Biden or that guy who likes to pull the hair of little girls ...)

[Gunnar Larsson]

The reactions of some folks (both on Atlas and off) are why I tend to support Very Serious people despite my reservations about their policies. While Very Serious people have their problems, their opponents seem to range from unserious to completely childish. I mean c'mon, Merkel is supposed to change government policy based on a crying child? Get real.

Surely the argument is that her words/tears illustrate a shortcoming when it comes to politics (i.e. not everyone being given the same opportunities), not that it should be changed just because of her.

[Tender Branson]

And now the Palestinian kid speaks out for the first time after that interview and - surprisingly - she's a fan of Merkel and what she said/did during their meeting:

"She listened to me and told her opinion, which I like. I'm happy that the Chancellor was so honest with me. I like honest persons like Frau Merkel. I would have been aggrieved if she was not honest to me."

https://twitter.com/ardmoma/status/621910481805021184

[Silent Hunter]

and told the reporter that she "wants to stroke her in this moment of sadness".

I hope that doesn't sound as creepy in German as it does in English.

[dead0man]

and told the reporter that she "wants to stroke her in this moment of sadness".

I hope that doesn't sound as creepy in German as it does in English.

Even more so in English with a heavy German accent.

[Thunderbird is the word]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.

Speaking as a citizen of a small Northern European country, Finland, I would say that the whole concept of a welfare state here is, in fact, to a large degree tied into the concept of nation: people are willing to accept high taxes to support public services because they view that as taking care of their own, seeing the society as an extended family. That is why even the Finnish right-wing populists are supporters of the welfare state.

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

I never thought about it that way.  That's a very interesting insight into the difference between American and European politics.

lol not really

In some respects it shows how in an underlying way US and European politics, maybe politics all over the world are the same. The backlash against a welfare state in Europe could arguably be compared to the backlash against the great society due to the perception that it only benefited African Americans. Maybe in some respects its universal human nature that people are tribalist and only care about "me and mine."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The reactions of some folks (both on Atlas and off) are why I tend to support Very Serious people despite my reservations about their policies. While Very Serious people have their problems, their opponents seem to range from unserious to completely childish. I mean c'mon, Merkel is supposed to change government policy based on a crying child? Get real.

Surely the argument is that her words/tears illustrate a shortcoming when it comes to politics (i.e. not everyone being given the same opportunities), not that it should be changed just because of her.

The girl's tears can be an call to work to deal with this, and can put a human face to these problems, but the practicalities in balancing competing needs are still difficult.

[ingemann]

The reactions of some folks (both on Atlas and off) are why I tend to support Very Serious people despite my reservations about their policies. While Very Serious people have their problems, their opponents seem to range from unserious to completely childish. I mean c'mon, Merkel is supposed to change government policy based on a crying child? Get real.

Surely the argument is that her words/tears illustrate a shortcoming when it comes to politics (i.e. not everyone being given the same opportunities), not that it should be changed just because of her.

The girl's tears can be an call to work to deal with this, and can put a human face to these problems, but the practicalities in balancing competing needs are still difficult.

Wrong face, yes she's very photogenic, but what will happen to her when she's send to Lebanon? The answer is nothing. To fall under the conventions, you need to either to be personal in danger or your life need to be in a general danger because your land of origin are in such chaos that just living there endanger your life. 

[traininthedistance]

And now the Palestinian kid speaks out for the first time after that interview and - surprisingly - she's a fan of Merkel and what she said/did during their meeting:

"She listened to me and told her opinion, which I like. I'm happy that the Chancellor was so honest with me. I like honest persons like Frau Merkel. I would have been aggrieved if she was not honest to me."

https://twitter.com/ardmoma/status/621910481805021184

So she's taking the high road.  Good for her.

The girl's tears can be an call to work to deal with this, and can put a human face to these problems, but the practicalities in balancing competing needs are still difficult.

That's the thing, it's not that we're specifically demanding a pardon or anything (but hey pardons are a thing that exist), it's that her plight is a symptom/public face of a problem rather than the underlying reason why policy should be changed– there are other good reasons already.

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

So, this is why we can't have nice things, basically. I would rather work towards a conception of society and humanity where we care about people who don't look or talk like us just as much.  I don't dispute that this is how a lot of people feel... but as a species, can't we learn to do better than that?

[ingemann]

That all changes, however, if the state becomes a truly multicultural society. People will cease to view the society as an extended family, as the society is no longer united by the same culture. As a result, people's willingness to accept high taxation will fall, as they will begin to ask why they have to pay into the services of persons with whom they have nothing in common. The welfare state will eventually cease to exist, as it loses its justification in a splintered society.

If the Left wants to transform the nation state into a multicultural society, they have to accept that that will, in the long term, also lead to the transformation of that state into a neoliberal society.

So, this is why we can't have nice things, basically. I would rather work towards a conception of society and humanity where we care about people who don't look or talk like us just as much.  I don't dispute that this is how a lot of people feel... but as a species, can't we learn to do better than that?

A welfare state is fundamental a insurance, it's a insurance we pay based on our income, and for most of us, we never get the money directly back (indirectly people receive a lot more back), at least not as much as we have paid. But it fuction because of the illusion of everybody contributing equally and getting back equally back. What a multi-ethnic country often do, is breaking that illusion. It make it obvious that some contribute more and some others take more back, the more obvious this get the less the people contribute are willing to keep doing that. This are not a problem if it's minority contributes more (the rich, the Jews, the Finland Swedes:p etc.), because we are all willing to votes for other people should be solidaric with us, it's the other way around people usual have a problem with it.

It's no surprise that the people the most hostile to the Scandinavian welfare states, are the people who support unlimited immigration the most (through they're not the only one). For them this immigration serve to weaken the support for the welfare state, increasing the unskilled labour force and at last increase population to force extra growth.

You could wish the world was different, but that's a wish for human nature being different.

[dead0man]

The 14 year old girl is now saying she wants an entire country to disappear.....you get one guess!

[Silent Hunter]

Source please?

[dead0man]

options