Comments by "CaptainVanisher" (@captainvanisher988) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
69
-
55
-
36
-
35
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
25
-
24
-
22
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@nobody-y7i1r Social cohesion and social trust are two major ones.
Yes there were plenty of European countries that had 95% ethnic natives. Also just because a European country might have a few native ethnic groups, doesn't mean that they are not homogenous.
Let's start.
Albania is at 97% right now.
Greece is at 93% after mass migration from Albania in the 90s and then the middle east in the 2010s entered the country. It was around 98% prior to mass migration, with the 2% being the small Turkish minority and gypsies.
Poland right now is at 97% as well.
Portugal is at 95% even after mass migration came from North Africa. Prior to it, they were 99% ethnic Portuguese.
Finland is at 98% if you include Finland-Swedes.
Hungary right now is at 92.3%
Italy is at 91.7% and if you exclude non-European immigrants that mainly arrived in the 21st century, it shoots up to 98%.
Croatia is at 91.6% however the 8% of those non-ethnic Croats are Serbians, Albanians, Bosniansks, Italians. Meaning that without their neighbours, they reach 99% homogeneity.
Iceland is at 91%, but if we include European migrants it's at 99%.
I can go on and on.
We can allow migration from civilized European countries, but if we remove all the Africans and the Middle Eastern and islamic Europeans (Albanians and Bosniaks), most European countries would be fine. and all of them would have over 90% homogeneity and more than half would've over 95% homogeneity.
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tutatis96 First off it started in the 80s. Second off, feminism and materialism have been in place for a bunch of decades prior to the 80s.
Now your point of Italy having more actually religious people than Germany or France is null. The 2-3% deviation won't have any real mapping in the statistics of births. What matters is how the bulk of the population responds to having children.
We already have statistics on how religiosity does affect birth rates and the more religious one considers themselves the more likely he is to have many children.
Tradition and feminism do not coincide I've said this multiple times but I will spell it out for you too. If a country is feminist it has lower than replacement level birth rates. The countries that are feminist but also try to uphold some traditional values are hit even harder. Feminism cannot coexist with tradition. Japan is extremely feminist, they push women into the work force, women vote, divorce, abort, have sexual freedom free of consequence etc, they also try to uphold traditional values such as men refuse to marry women over 30. Women are supposed to cook and clean the house in a marriage etc.
Now we have three options: Traditional, Feminist and Progressive, Feminist and Traditional.
Only of the three options provides with healthy birth rates and we all know which one.
If you want actual analysis on the demographic problem world wide I suggest you to watch Kauserbauch, he analyses it very well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tiglishnobody8750 99% of people living in Albania, have Albanian as their 1st language. So let's say someone there is a Bulgarian or Serbian ethnically, they were brought up as Albanians.
Again I told you that European migrants as long as it's not from Albania or Bosnia are fine.
Now your comment was widely wrong because you claimed that "European countries were never homogenous", which is just plainly untrue.
Almost every single European country was over 95% homogenous (as in their native ethnicities) in most of 20th century.
The UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Serbia etc.
What you conflate here are similar ethnicities, like Swedes and Finish which was never a big issue when it came to social cohesion/social trust. The UK for example had 4 major ethnic groups, Welsh, English, Scotch and Irish. Belgium had the French Belgians and the Flemish. I consider those "homogenous" as in those groups are not "migrants" from vastly different cultures like most migrants today are.
3
-
@krashme997 "any laws that allows you to move to a country and work there are already, in essence, progressive."
Nope. Nothing progressive about that. People went for work to other nations all the time 100 years ago. It's just that now it's far easier due to transportation and a global economy.
"Then, every law and initiative that grants you any right at the same level or near the same level as the locals will also be a progressive one."
That is also not true. No law gives me the right to vote upon arriving in Japan. You're Swiss so I know you do not have the Japanese nationality. Maybe you have temporary citizenship unless you've lived there for long. You'd also know that recently Japanese sentiment has been shifting against tourism and migration. The politically active electorate is firmly against mass migration from the 3rd world the way Europe did.
"the idea of "cultural preservation" is such an odd concept, one that works almost as a buzzword to rile up any right-wing hardliner who couldn't even explain what it really means and how it would be applied."
Every descriptor can be called a "buzzword". Culture definitely evolves, the question is why and what and where does it evolve. If a country's culture evolves due to islamic migration then it evolves towards an islamic nation. What you described though is evolution due to technological advancement and Western influence. Western influence has arguably impeded Japanese society. The Japanese cultural revolution that came with Western materialism and neoliberalism has caused a decadent society with a dying population and high rates of loneliness.
Switzerland barely has cultural roots. It was never a homogenous society unlike Sweden for example. But you look at Sweden and you see incredibly high crime rates to the point where the military must be called to deal with it. I know a family friend that was from Sweden that came here to live and married a man and after they got divorced she decided to go back to Sweden. 30 years after she left. She came back running, couldn't believe how much Sweden has changed. She told us how unsafe it was and how the high trust society Sweden used to be has been overturned almost solely due to mass migration.
"think it to be weak enough to be "erased" by migrants with no money, no influence, and who barely speak the language" That's another ridiculous presupposition. The culture itself isn't weak. The ideology of tolerance is. Unless the culture holders become intolerant of cultural degradation then it definitely won't disappear by migrants as long as they're kept at a manageable level.
Let's see an example. The Netherlands used to be one of the most migrant friendly and tolerant countries in Europe. Somehow they just voted one of the most anti-Islam politicians in the history of Netherlands, not only by a plurality but the largest plurality from any recent Dutch elections. Sweden was by far the most migrant friendly country. It closed down their borders to middle eastern and african migrants and refugees. Is that a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that the crime in Sweden has gone so high up that they were forced to use the military inside the ghettos that the migrants created?
Now since you claim that migrants will only stay as long as they assimilate. That's 100% untrue. Anyone that lives near migrants from the arab world or Africa knows that it's untrue. The crime rates show that it's untrue, the statistics on being a net negative show it's untrue. Didn't Kurdish immigrants in Japan recently (which are very few btw) cause a massive riot where they burned down cars, destroyed public property and beat each other up?
You want more proof? How about the fact that Turks in Germany made the German football stadium red from Turkish flags when Germany was playing against Turkey? Imagine not only 1st generation, but 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants supporting the country they left when it's against THE COUNTRY THAT ALLOWED THEM IN. How about Lebanon? The country that had 70% Christian population that got destroyed by Palestinian migrants that were expelled from Kuwait and Jordan. They came inside the country, caused a civil war that ended in the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Christian Lebanese and now have installed a terrorist organisation as the main political power inside the country. A country that used to be the gem of the middle east destroyed by islamic migrants.
The EU supposedly is trying to do deals with Northern African countries due to hundreds of thousands of illegals crossing the sea and landing inside the EU. It has not succeeded yet and unless EU goes hard on it, it won't succeed. Only last month a boat with dozens of illegals landed on my home island and it came from Libya. Lempedusa had 20 thousand migrants land within a couple months, all coming from Libya.
Lastly, to solidify my point. If immigration wasn't such a big deal in Europe, why are far right and right wing parties seeing such a rise in popularity in almost every single EU country?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leovalde7z Well to be truly accepted. Just having a job is definitely not enough. If you want to become a permanent citizen in another country, you have to partake in their customs, learn the language, have positive productivity and if your own culture is incompatible with the culture of the host country, then you'd need to convert into that culture.
In cases where a migrant might not need to convert cultures and religions is if they have similar religion (i.e. Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox) and closely related cultures (India-Bangladesh-Pakistan or Germany-Austria-Switzerland-Luxemburg etc).
Now, as being quite anti-immigration myself, I have no issue if a person like yourself just wants to get a work visa, maybe work 10-15 years in a European country and then take their leave. I mean it's a quite tall task to convert culture and religion, so there is a middle ground ig.
As for RIGHT NOW, you are at luck but I don't know if it'll be for long enough or for the good of the people of Europe. But Europe has strayed away from its identity. It's no longer a Christian society, it's no longer culturally cohesive society. It has engaged in multiculturalism and liberal secularism. So as of now, you'll probably be just fine if you just pick up a few everyday customs, learn the language and work a job. In my opinion, it's not enough to be truly taken in, but that's how it is in most of Europe as of now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Liamg1999 Funny because I don't really trust the google definitions of many politically charged words and I am funnily enough right.
Here's Britannica's definition of nationalism:
Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
Here's Cambridge:
a nation's wish and attempt to be politically independenta
This is what wikipedia is saying:
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the Nation should be congruent with the state.[1][2] As a movement, it presupposes the existence[3] and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation,[4] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[5] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.[4][6] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[7][8] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[4] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.[
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexlloyd5354 The Us has heavy federal influence on the economy and its past economic history would be far better to be described as Capitalistic. Nowadays it's more corporatism or collusion between the federal government and big corporations. Even then, the aftermath of Capitalism still makes the Us the best country to live in.
Also no one is starving in the Us , stop the cap.
To see better examples of well enforced Capitalism ,you can go look at Iceland, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Cyprus, UAE and after all these maybe the Us.
But please can you give me a better system for the economy and an example encompassing its long term success?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joek600 He has 0 connection with ND in fact he never even voted for them besides these elections. He also doesn't work for any niche part of construction. He is a civil engineer so he works on literally everything. From houses, to hotels, to airports, to ports, to roads, to bridges etc. After he finished his 2 year job last year, he was given 4 offers of good paying jobs. But you can easily look at the construction projects that have started all around Greece. In Crete we have enormous projects like the new giant Herakleion airport, the extension of the US military base in Suda Bay, the dam in Tavronitis, the BOAK road is in future planning. Of course the Elliniko project which is an enormous project that will attract thousands of investors, the extension of Peiraias port, the extension of the Athens metro etc. The lack of laborers working even in construction crews like brick layers, electricians, machine operators, etc is huge. They even have a bunch of open jobs for unskilled laborers since I do work part time for a construction crew and so do many of my friends and yet they need more workers.
But even if we were to agree with your assumptions. Why has the GDP risen so much? And it's not just the recovery from COVID since it has far surpassed the GDP reduction during the COVID year. The unemployment rates are at 10-11% atm compared to the 16-17% when SYRIZA left the government. These are general statistics which cannot be refuted. Why is that if not for an economic boom?
You can dislike ND all you like, I do too. But saying they didn't excel economically during their administration is ridiculous. You could find 100 things they did wrong, but the economy is not one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1