Do not worry right now, despite what might suggest the title of this post, having nothing of a Hercules or a Robespierre, I have no intention of cutting heads this hydra-there, especially as they grow back anyway, no doubt. So I hope Ms. Bouchard and Bernard pardon the boldness and they take the time to answer me. I write this note because in response to the last notes of humor (it seems wrong there) written by Miss Bouchard on his blog (ie it and this one ) but also to the comments left by Mr. Bernard in response to my response on the blog in question. I have said more or less what I say here in comments of one of Miss Bouchard notes that I mentioned just now, but as the subject seems of utmost importance, I felt it useful to write a post summarizing my position clearly and explaining why I think the couple raised hell is wrong.
First, this story to evacuate immediately, I would say that, contrary to what seems to think Mr. Bernard (for whatever reason), I am not a thurifer State welfare and that in general, I support what the State is reduced to the functions of government, which incidentally does not mean a weak state. My disagreement with Mr. Bernard and Ms. Bouchard (I decided to continue calling "Bouchard," I hope she will not mind) does not consider the role of government in the absolute, but rather on the political strategy to be adopted in the present circumstances. At best, if you really find a substantive disagreement (I use this term despite the fact that I think the political issue is of considerable importance), it appears that Mr. Bernard (j do not know what it is exactly Miss Bouchard) overestimates the importance of the welfare state in the difficulties that the West is facing, but it is anecdotal in the light of our disagreement on the political issue.
Bernard and Miss Bouchard (at least that's what I imagine in the case of the latter) agree with me on the fact that mass immigration is a potentially mortal threat to France and Europe more generally. But then it seems to me that given the current situation, it must be fought primarily against mass immigration without trying to get back on the welfare state, they think it should instead focus on the question of the role of the state and try to convince the French to abandon the welfare state. Incidentally, it appears that Mr. Bernard and Ms. Bouchard think that we should not focus public attention on Islam, when, in fact I think we should use the feeling of rejection that causes this religion among Europeans to fight against immigration. I will now try to present more detail why I think we should adopt the strategy I recommend and why it seems to me that Mr. Bernard and Ms. Bouchard are both wrong.
The finding that governs my analysis is that, given the current low birth rate of France and Europe, as well as net migration large surplus of our continent, the peoples of Europe have been swamped by people from outside Europe and will become a minority by the end of the twenty-first century. But we've reached the point of no return long before people from outside the EU have become the majority in the population, namely the moment young people from outside Europe will become majority in the population under twenty-five years, according to demographic projections that can be expected to arrive around mid-century, after which the future (or lack the future) of Europe has been sealed and no hope will be permitted. I draw the conclusion that it is imperative to reverse the trend, ie to ensure that indigenous populations are growing faster than populations from outside Europe, before we reached this point no return.
I think Mr. Bernard and Ms. Bouchard have me followed so far, our disagreement is over the strategy to achieve this goal. It seems to me that the only realistic way to achieve this is to capture the state and to take necessary measures to fight against immigration, which means to reach to win the election leaves to give it to momentarily question the welfare state. Ending the demographic phenomenon of substitution is the main objective should be pursued simply because it is the condition sine qua non everything else. While there is a French people, regardless of the state of decadence in which it stands, there is a future for him. By cons, if it were to disappear as a result of immigration, then one could be sure there would be nothing to save. So all that we need to know: if the peoples of Europe are disappearing, no civilization Europe can not exist, no matter what form they would like it to have. As the people of Europe continue to exist, the continent's future is not mortgaged.
There will be time then back on the welfare state, but insofar as it seems inconceivable to muster a majority against the welfare state before we reached the point of no return, so that it seems instead quite realistic to muster a majority against immigration before that, I think it would be against-productive to the questioning of the welfare state in the center of the communication policy of a party with aims to put an end to the phenomenon of alternative demographic. The phenomenon of alternative demographic would be equally dangerous for Europe if it was Tibetans who poured millions of Muslims and not from Africa and the Middle East. The fact that it is African Muslims, whose religion and manners offend the barbaric customs of the natives is an incredible opportunity, so to speak, for us. In fact, if you lead the political struggle on the ground in the fight against the welfare state, you divide the natives and you will never get no majority, while on the contrary if you use the spontaneous release Islam in European populations, you collect and you're likely to get a majority term. If it can also be helpful electorally from its leftist speech to praise of the welfare state and secularism, then it should be, because again the fight against mass immigration is an issue survival that determines everything else. Politics is a matter of priorities: we must be flexible on the accessory and not move on the essentials. Paris is worth a Mass, said as the other.
Bernard thinks instead that the only way to stop the demographic phenomenon of substitution is back on the welfare state and he thinks we can achieve that by gradually secession to make it obsolete. (Apart from the comments I already mentioned above, I invite you to read his platform at Stag for details.) The choice of this strategy rests on the assumption that it is impossible to fight against the mass immigration in the context of a society that revolves around a welfare state. On the other hand, this response implies that it would be possible to destroy the welfare state in this way before we reached the point of no return, that is to say before middle of the twenty-first century. It seems to me that it is precisely these two points he is mistaken and that this invalidates his whole argument. I'll try to explain briefly why these assumptions are false and I hope that I will respond specifically to these points.
Regarding the first assumption, namely that it is impossible to fight against mass immigration in the context of a society that revolves around a welfare state, I indicated in blog comments of Miss Bouchard why it seems to me that the state, which is an extremely hierarchical and pyramidal structure, would be perfectly able to halt mass immigration if there was political will to fight against this phenomenon at the top of the state. I think that's true, but after all it is never that of theoretical reasoning, which I admit that it is perfectly possible, in principle, they are invalidated by empirical evidence. But there is a much safer way to show with certainty that this is wrong: just find a cons-example to this generalization. Indeed, if there is a welfare state that manages to fight against mass immigration, then it is not true that no welfare state can not fight against mass immigration. However, as I noted in the comments I left on the blog of Miss Bouchard and as was later recalled Flannigan, there are welfare states that have no problem to fight against immigration Mass, as Japan for example.
I emphasize that this is sufficient to demonstrate , without a doubt, it is not impossible to fight against mass immigration in a society that has a welfare state. Unless I am mistaken, the only response to this objection Mr. Bernard is to be noted that Japan is a country decadent, whose demography is particularly low. Suppose in fact that Japan is a country decadent, at least it will not disappear, while France and Europe more generally are directly endangered. A decadent country, as it continues to exist, may always hope for a turnaround, but this is obviously not the case of a country that ceased to exist, as will soon be the case of France at least we do not succeed in reversing the trend before we reached the point of no return. Which brings me to the second hypothesis of Mr. Bernard, that it would be possible to destroy the welfare state in implementing the strategy of secession he preaches before we reached this point of no return. Even if he is wrong when he says he is not a welfare state to fight against mass immigration, it might also be possible to achieve with its strategy moved, which would have the advantage of getting rid of the welfare state at the same time.
Obviously, it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that this strategy could never be concluded by mid-century, since the only way to ensure this is to try and observe result. However, it seems difficult to believe that this strategy could completed before it is too late, and frankly I can not imagine that Mr. Bernard himself to believe really. Even this would be a possibility, it seems even less doubt that the strategy I propose is far more likely to succeed. Therefore, when one tries to make rational choices, it seems to me that we should prefer my strategy and that Mr. Bernard and Ms. Bouchard is wrong. So I had to say about this issue, I hope my ramblings have bothered anyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment