Right at the top of that list: - using fossil fuels as cheap energy - assuming continued growth while earths resources are limited (yes tech is getting more efficient) - relying on respected and trusted media entities (opposed to outlets bought by corporations with clear interests or maybe(?) state controlled social media trolls
Change is happening, coming fast and is becoming harder to ignore but people don’t like change.
And before you call me a racist: mainstream media kept redefining the meaning of the word refugee for a while now. For example: refugees are expected to stop at the nearest safe haven and not traverse multiple countries to end up in the one with the biggest social benefits. Also, tonnes of young men arriving from war-torn regions with disproportionate ratio of women and children. News outlets advertising these groups as doctors and engineers which at this point is a meme.
Economical burden, elevated crime rates and social tensions caused by this are quite apparent. Just look at Sweden, France, Germany. UK has it lucky because it's an island and harder to get into. All that while everyone pointing at these topics as unresolved problems getting branded as racist or xenophobe. It's only natural people get angry and start leaning toward populist assholes who promise to "solve" these problems one way or another.
The pendulum is starting to sway back and that is not a good thing but also not unexpected the way things were going.
I'm not surprised by any of this, but I'm definitely not feeling easy about it.
The presence of all immigrants except refugees is contingent on their ability to support themselves. This is a legal requirement and it's verified at every step of the immigration process.
I can't just "walk into your home". I've been here 9 years, and I'm still waiting for the immigration office to confirm that yes, I'm still supporting myself (and quite a few German retirees), and that yes, I can live in this country for another few years.
From my perspective, I was raised, educated and trained by another country, then moved to Germany in my prime to pay taxes and support the local economy, and if all goes well, I'll retire elsewhere before I'm a strain on the healthcare or pension system. I can't vote, and my presence in this country is directly linked to my ability to pay taxes.
But sure, I'm getting all the new benefits.
Do you actually think immigrants don't need to work or pay for anything and just leech of society?
I call this auto-colonialism. Certainly in the West (if not globally since as we know our “owners and masters” just met in Davos) there is clearly a super-layer that went ‘transnational’ and has been extracting wealth from its own people. And speaking of “own people” this is precisely why they do not give a flying F about “cultural heritage” and anything whatsoever that ‘conditions mind’ (such as national myths) that is not under their narrative control.
If you study history, you will note that the elite have always used mind control means to lord it over the masses. Our current crop can not even claim ‘noble blood’ or anything remotely like that so their strategy of exploitive rule is to pyschologically confuse (and upset) the subject population.
I’ll give you an example. The memes around certain words that were/are directly targeting the sexual vulnerabilities of white(-ish) young men, coupled with pornographic content to reinforce these social and sexual vulnerabilities. I mean, if I wanted to create ultra right wing shock troops, that is what I would do.
We’re being played. We’re being fucked with. Because the elite know they can not tell us the full scope of their ‘progressive plans’ for controlling their cattle on Human plantation.
So they have us fighing each other. It works. [edit: see sibling comments. The discussion immediately turns into a polarization around secondary effects, such as ‘welfare benefits’, etc. Meanwhile they are laughing their way to the bank. Oh wait, they own the banks ..]
p.s. am imigrant myself. Even I am upset at what they are doing to my new Western homeland. After all, I came here precisely for the cultural heritage that the elite decided to destroy over the past 3 decades. Ever since USSR fell...
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-davos-consensus-is-finally-cr...
And the Titanic was an insurance job.
Apply just a little critical thinking. Please?
University of YouTube, maybe? Faculty of Facebook?
So no, I reject the premise that I benefit more than locals do. My life was 3x harder to get where I am.
The thing is, all of the above is just noise. It's not relevant to the problem at large. Even if they were all PhD educated doctors it would still leave the core of the issue to address - there's SO MANY people coming, and more will come in the next decade. All predictions on this point way up - be it do to instability in various regions, war, or things like actual literal depletion of fresh water sources and food, plus temperatures raising to the point where people are dying and crops can't grow in several African and middle eastern regions.
Getting into whether these people are men, children, skilled workers or uneducated farmers is pointless - the question is what are we going to do(as European Union) about 1M+ arriving here every year. We are trying to do the humane thing, and it's clearly resulting in a massive increase in populism and nationalism everywhere because the native populations don't like it - again, there is zero point in even getting into whether that's justified or not - the question is, where do we go from here. Because the way I see if, if something isn't done urgently we will end up in a situation where the people in power do what the louder and louder groups say we should - and that's a terrifying vision of the world.
If that were true, countries next to warzones would risk destabilization (moreso than they already do). The system's not set up like that, and never has been.
While you aren't wrong, I don't see how that's relevant when talking about immigration into Europe from Africa and Middle East - those migrants arrive either on foot or on crappy boats, at best they manage to catch a train or get trafficked inside a van. They aren't flying in.
Wages stagnated, inflation is eating up the last pennies of a more impoverished worker class, populism will always rise up from these conditions, and right wing populism will eventually lead to fascism.
It seems you are equating them just by virtue of authoritarianism, to me that's just one trait they share (and from which only Fascism has it necessarily in any instance it happens). I'd like to know what else you consider them to be so similar at to call "two sides of the same coin".
But there is more. Both began as support for the working class after World War I (in Germany). In fact, both the Communist Party and the Nazi movement fought for their influence on the workers and other disgruntled groups. They also used very similar methods like organizing strikes, providing support and shelter to the workers, using propaganda as the main method of communication, playing the nationalism card, nationalizing companies and seizing private assets for planned productions etc. Also their militaristic aggression as a means of expansion of their ideologies bears many similarities: Soviet in Afghanistan, Vietnam in Cambodia, China in Korea and beyond, etc... Even in terms of the will to genocide/mass kill the "enemies", they are not far from each other: Nazis and the concentration camps, Khmer Rouge and their killing fields, China and the Uighur prison camp/Cultural Revolution, Soviet Union and the Holodomor famine in Ukraine etc...
With enough power, both communism and fascism will tend to extremism and will not shy away from military aggression to spread their ideologies.
> The Strauss–Howe generational theory, devised by William Strauss and Neil Howe, describes a theorized recurring generation cycle in American history and Western history. According to the theory, historical events are associated with recurring generational personas (archetypes). Each generational persona unleashes a new era (called a turning) lasting around 20–25 years, in which a new social, political, and economic climate (mood) exists. They are part of a larger cyclical "saeculum" (a long human life, which usually spans between 80 and 100 years, although some saecula have lasted longer). The theory states that a crisis recurs in American history after every saeculum, which is followed by a recovery (high). During this recovery, institutions and communitarian values are strong. Ultimately, succeeding generational archetypes attack and weaken institutions in the name of autonomy and individualism, which eventually creates a tumultuous political environment that ripens conditions for another crisis.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
And the worst thing is, I don't really see how this could get better. Economic problems will continue to grow for at least several years, and one of the most contenious problems - immigration, legal or otherwise - is not going to slow down, fueled by conflicts around the globe and climate change pushing people out of previously habitable areas.