Comments by "Hercules Koutalidis" (@herculeskoutalidis1369) on "A Federal Europe? The Party Trying to Unite Europe Further - TLDR News" video.

Right now, every nation in Europe rejects any distribution of immigrants, with the possible exceptions of Germany and France.
140
@Alexandru_Iacobescu but if you replace Romanians with Pakistanis, Romania will not die out (as Romania)? Very smart comment...
100
@giulianoferrara3159 we can also tax (heavily enough) the childless, so that people regain their motive to reproduce.
21
@nocomment00 how is it a threat to your/our identity exactly?
12
@oerthling 1) and because there has never been 0% immigration in the past, it follows it also cannot happen in the future? (no). 2) we can limit immigration to a very small amount, but then questions like what kind of immigr. and how much of it, arize. 3) if there is no replacement, then why is Germany inhabited by only 75% people of german genetics, and not nearly 100%, like it was until 1960? :) And why is London inhabited by only 40% people of British origins, and not nearly 100%, like it was until 1960? And why is the center of my city, Athens, inhabited by only 70% people of greek orgigins, and not 100%, like it was until 1990? :)
8
@unbearabletruth4310 ok, so how do you propose to solve the problem of under-fertility, which leads to ever decreasing population, which leads to a decrease in wealth per person (among others)?
5
Immigration from the south to the north must become forbidden (for the obvious to you reasons), and parties like Volt would make sure this never happens.
5
@tomendruweit9386 because if it remains legal (as it today is), it will (continue to) happen, which would be negative for the world, because it would slowly replace peoples of better quality, with peoples of less quality. When I say quality, I mean both biologically, and by means of (average) creativity.
5
@LoSpotItaliano of course they were. So? :)
4
@LoSpotItaliano I don't see how it is not fair, sorry. Perhaps you meant that it would be unfair, if I were an immigrant myself (and not just my ancestors). But even then I would say that what is correct for the world, is independent of what someone chooses for theirselves :) For instance, according to your reasoning, a smoker (or a descendant of smokers even worse!) should not suggest to other people not to smoke. (He should, obviously). So. Can you convince me that it would be optimal, if Italians were slowly replaced by Somalis and Nigerians? :)
4
@yalassa1 are you aware that France is in the course of becoming like the US, your cities separated in many ethnic neighborhoods, as a result of humans tending to socialize with persons of their clos(er) genetic type? Are you aware that after this, whites in France will become a minority, as a result of fertility rate being less than 2, and constant immigration from non white countries, ultimately becoming extinct in less than 100-200 years from now? Does this look like the kind of world you dream about?
4
@LoSpotItaliano is it that hard to understand, that were this process to happen, you would end up with a final population that is biologically (and otherwise) of less quality than the initial population? The more beautiful indigenous will die out (because they have stopped reproducing themselves), and they will be slowly replaced by darker peoples, less beautiful, for ever.
3
@oerthling how is it a silly argument. Can you provide a 3rd possibility?
3
@ZugloHUN I agree. The problem then is, that you need the whole of Africa (and Asia) to come to a comparable purchasing power level to that of Germany, in order for Africans (and Asians) (and Greeks, Hungarians etc.!) to lose their motive to immigrate. And I am not sure this is an environmentally viable solution for the Earth. Maybe if Africa and Asia had 1/1000 of their current populations it could be possible. But with (soon) 3 Billion Africans with a purchasing power of 70€ a year (in Germany), and 5 Billion Asians with a PP of 3000€ a year right on your doorstep, slow(?) population replacement in Europe and the West in general is a matter of time, if we do not act drastically quickly (that is, ban immigration from the south to the north as I said in the 1st comment).
3
Immigration from the south to the north must become forbidden (if the world wants to become better and not worse). Change me mind.
2
@joaopedrodamasio9833 exactly, but imagine that the idea behind the "redistribution"/ investment/help for the 3rd world, is that the smaller the gap between the 1st and the 3rd world, the smaller the immigrant flow from the latter to the former will be. It is obvious that in order to have Germans immigrating to Nigeria, you should have a reverse of roles, namely a Nigeria that is wealthier than Germany, or some other life quality related parameter.
2
@tomendruweit9386 yes. My brain tells me that blond people from northern Europe are more beautiful than Pakistanis and Somalis. The same for creativity. Does your brain tell you otherwise? :)
2
@mansonsacidtrip6862 I don't know man, I am an anti-Nazi. :)
2
@michamalina5530 are you aware that Germany is now 73% german, the rest being immigrants and their descendants from the south? are you aware that the same percentage is projected to be 50% by 2050? Would you like Warsaw be 50% turkish, afghan, nigerian, pakistan, algerian, moroccan, (spanish, italian, greek, portuguese, albanian, serbian, romanian), and then 0% polish, by the year 2200?
2
@milantoth6246 ''''' to corruption, tyranny, communism, the east, authoritarianism, and through the current government and/or its spiritual successors.''''' So let's see: 1. corruption : I believe V.Orban and his government has every reason to want to reduce corruption as much as possible. But even if there is some corruption, I believe Hungary is already currently ranked as one of the western world's least corrupt countries. So maybe you need to check if your measurement of corruption is a rational one. Namely, it is not wise to compare corruption in a state formed just in 1989 (like Hungary), with a state formed in 1707, like the UK, or Sweden, or Germany, or the NL, etc, and say, that 5% more corruption, is a failure of the government. Otherwise, as far as I know, corruption in Hungary should be the problem that least concerns one, right now. 2. Tyranny: how is your current government tyrannic? Tyrannic, means illiberal. Whom is your government iliberal to? Answer: not even one. I would be far less liberal than V.Orban, if I were the PM of Hungary, without being tyrannical at all. Your judgement is nonsensical at best, dishonest. 3. The east. What is wrong with the east? Is China or Russia buying serious parts of your economy? which ones? Explain. How does that compare to Germany and the US? Whose ideological influence is ultimately worse? My answer: the West's. (You must note here that the West's ideology used to be overall better than the East's. By 1989. Not anymore. Also note that Russia and China do not share the same ideology, and are also very different culturally, and obviously, genetically.) 4. Authoritarianism: authoritarianism is not fundamentally bad. Tyranny is. Go back to (2). Furthermore, our current parliamentarian systems do not allow for authoritarianism. Why? Because our governments are backed by our parliaments, who were elected by us. So if Orban wants to do A, he needs 51% of MPs to say '''''ok''''''. In which case he is obviously enough not authoritarian. In case he does not get 51% PMs to say '''''ok''''', then he CANNOT do A. In which case he is also obviously enough not authoritarian. So maybe what you in fact mean, that it is the majority of the hungarian PEOPLE, who in fact force some of their opinions to minority opinions (of 20% let's say), who want to not do A. In which case it is the legal system ITSELF that is authoritarian, and not the hungarian government, which is just following the law. I admit, that current parliamentarianism can leed to such inoptimal(?) situations, in which 51% of the public, CAN in fact, FORCE their opinion to any other minority. So this is not a perfect system maybe. But can you come up with a better one? :) PS. I am greek. For a peculiar reason, your small country has the best government, together with that of Poland and Russia, when measured by the quality of the prospective civilizational state of your country/the respective countries, in 100 years from now. You know what I am talking about :)
2
@ZugloHUN so Hungarians are leaving Hungary to Germany because they will be paid better there, but Syrians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Algerians, Tynisians, and the whole lot of Africa and Asia want to go to Germany just because of war (and not because they will also be paid better)? :) Who are you kidding, me or yourself? People do not need a war to become immigrants to Germany and the west in general. The motive is there anyways, as you very well know, and it is economic and cultural in nature, as described above (Germany and the West is a very wealthy and culturally beautiful land). But even if these peoples were fleeing from war, they could just stay in one of the dozens of countries they cross through, in their journey to Bavaria, or the "promised land" of their choice, for example Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Kazakstan, Pakistan, etc. So their motivation when entering Germany, is purely economic and oportunistic in general, just like that of thousands of Greeks, Italians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. immigrating to the West for a better life.
2
@ZugloHUN I agree, some notes though. It is impossible for Europe (the West generally) to economically "help" the 3rd world, because of their respective (economic) sizes. The 3rd world accounts for some 70% of the world's economy. You have something like 1 person with an income of 3000€, and 1000 persons with an income of 10€ each. What kind of "help" ( = wealth redistribution) can you do? 3000/1000 = 3, so everyone would have an income of 13€ (instead of 1 having 3000€, and 1000 having 10€). This is why donating money to the 3rd world is a drop in the ocean, and all it does is make the West poorer. Investment in the 3rd world is another thing, but could very well be environmentally non-viable, just imagine every African driving a BMW, we would run out of oil and have 1000x more CO2 emmissions. Unviable. Not to mention the result of economic activity on the environment. The only solution I see, is 3rd world depopulation, and concentration of the human population in northern Europe and North America. There is no bombing in Northern African countries where 50% of immirants are coming from by the way.
2
Don't be so sure, your country will soon have enough brown people to make (parties like) Volt government. :)
1
@DaDunge the point is, that immigration from the south to the north must become forbidden (for the obvious reasons), and parties like Volt will make sure this never happens.
1
Immigration from the south to the north must become forbidden (if the world wants to become better and not worse). Change me mind.
1
@Minecraftzocker135 there are no (significant) records of south to north immigration before the 1960s. You were therefore wrong even in that. But even if something used to be the case in the past, it obviously does not mean it has to continue. Examples. Malaria, bubonic plague, tons of diseases, lack of technology. All these were the case 1000 years ago. Should we maintain them, just because they were a reality before? Please do not waste other peoples' (and your) time with nonsensic takes like this above.
1
@Minecraftzocker135 I believe the Slavs came from the north to the south, not from the south to the north. From the area of modern day Russia, to central Europe and the Balkans to be precise. But "north" and "south" are arbitrarily defined terms, what matters is the profile of the immigrant population, not where they are coming from. If they are better than the indigenous, the immigration is a good one. If they are worse, it is a bad one.
1
I would be the last to support them (for not obvious reasons), but were you aware that the ruling party of Greece, New Democracy, is in favor of european integration? :)
1
@nocomment00 I believe you confuse the concepts of ''''the EU''''', '''''''the left'''''', and the '''''''EPP''''''' (european peoples party). The EU, is not left wing. The EU, is not right wing. The EU does not want anything at all. It does not want to preserve the nation-state. it does not want to disolve the nation-state. It does not want to replace the dutch people with non-dutch people. It does not want to preserve the dutch people. It does not want anything at all. The EU is a political organization, that is governed by: 1. The (EU) Commission. 2. The (EU) Council. 3. The (EU) parliament. (4. other EU institutions) 1,2 and 3, are elected, or somehow determined by the peoples living (voting) in the EU. The peoples of the EU, have elected the parties called EPP, SD, RE to rule over these 3 major institutions. It is these 3 parties that are responsible for the ''''''phenomena''''' and actions, that you describe as ''''''left wing''''' in your comment. To put it clearly, it is not the fault of the EU, that your country, the Netherlands (or Belgium) is losing its cultural identity, and that the Dutch people are slowly being replaced by other peoples inside the Netherlands. It is the fault of the Dutch people, because they systematically vote for parties like VVD, D66, PvdA, Volt, etc, etc, who want to undertake these policies. I repeat. The (negative) phenomena that you describe, must be debited to the peoples of Europe. Not the EU. One last example: Hungary, is inside the EU. Hungary is almost 100% hungarian, 100% white, and its people systematically vote against their slo replacement. And as a result, Hungary remains 100% hungarian today. But it is an EU member nonetheless. So again, blame the Dutch people (who vote accordingly). Not the EU. :)
1
@Eli-tj3ve while I believe such ideas are indeed needed, I do not believe they will suffice. Nowadays people seem to value purchasing power, or even ''''financial security''''' over children. They would namely prefer to have 200€/month more, than make a child. In countries like Germany, where you do not really need the measures you suggested, because people are already wealthy enough to afford good housing (and much much more), people still make no children. So maybe you must make the childless poorer, so that people cannot become wealthier, by not reproducing.
1
@saikoujikan on a lose and for now arbitrary (I must admit) metric of my senses. You can start by noticing, that in Europe, the more north you go, the more beautiful the average person becomes. A similar pattern is true for the whole world map as well. North = more beautiful people. South = less beautiful people.
1
@Tenebraeification competition?
1
@tomendruweit9386 do you find the males of this type of skin more (socially) attractive than their light colored counterparts? :)
1
@yalassa1 may I ask where you are from.
1
@saikoujikan beauty and creativity are correlated. The not so pretty people (like Einstein) you mention, are outliers. Look closer. Beautiful people tend to be smarter, and more creative. It also makes sense from the evolutionary point of view. Beauty is not subjective. On average, English people are indeed more beautiful than French people, especially from the south of France. The Scottish are a different story (and an outlier in my theory of beauty- and latitude correlation).
1
@saikoujikan I am not excluding all evidence. I am excluding a handful of people, as compared to the total population (of the Earth, that has ever lived) that I keep in my dataset. What is the percentage of european scientists, artists, etc? And what is the respective percentage for Africa, for Asia, and South and Central America? Why is it considerably higher in Europe and N.America, than it is in all other places south of them? And even inside Europe, average creativity increases northwards, as the most developed nations are these mostly located in northern Europe, and not in S. Europe. I am not saying that creativity is determined by 100% by some metric of beauty. Latitude, and in fact climate, is what it seems to control it. Cooler, colder, and darker places of the Earth, seem to have a positive impact on creativity. I must repeat, that beauty is not subjective (or at least that subjective as you describe it to be). Fatness could have been a sign of some positive attribute in the past, but has never been considered an attribute of beauty. May I ask where you are from.
1
@saikoujikan I am aware of the achievements you mention, but I believe my point has been misunderstood. I never claimed that southerners are incapable of creating civilization. I said that this ability increases, as one moves northwards, and that this happens mostly because of the climate, and also geology (and geography). That means that for each nigerian, or central African achievement you can think of, I can sort of think of 10x more achievements developed in the area of the Mediterranean, and for every ancient greek, or roman achievement, I can find 10x as many achievements developed or invented in central and northern Europe. The dozens of patents we use in daily life, were by 99% developed in countries with moderate temperate and oceanic climates, or as I call them for simplicity, northern countries. Europe, N.America, China, Japan, Australia &NZ. Again, I must remind you, that contrary to what you said above, central Africa is nonetheless a devastated piece of land, uncultured compared and uncivilized, compared to "the north" of the Earth. Also, I see noone speaking any African language in America, but English and Spanish and French. I do not know where you come from, but from your subtle tone of guilt, I would say you sound like someone from the West, maybe western Europe. You sound quite English or British to me to be honest.
1
May I ask what your ethnic background is.
1
@LoSpotItaliano his ethnic background is mamal, pretty sure. nothing else matters. (So you can peacefully live with a bear. What, no? :) ) Have you ever lived in a neighborhood where you are the only white person? I bet not.
1
@R.-. so how are you going to ''''fix'''' the ''''''failed''''' states, so that there are no ''''''asylum seekers''''' to Luxembourg?
1
@milantoth6246 you make 0 common sense man.
1
@R.-. but will this alone stop people from coming into wealthy countries, in hope of better prospects? I believe not. More drastic policies must be implemented, I believe.
1
Immigration from the south to the north must become forbidden (and obviously, parties like Volt would make sure this never happens). Change me mind. :)
1
@ZugloHUN so why are Hungarians and Greeks moving to Germany then? is there a war in Hungary and Greece right now? :) The reason immigrants come to the EU, is because their lives would almost instantly be improved, as a result of a better economy, and a better culture. (better houses, better cities, better climate, better clothing, better countryside, and obviously, better purchasing power).
1