They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. The same top is running huge marketing campaigns of blaming everything but them and as solution they offer authoritarianism and even more power concentration.
The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
which happened because we all were very relaxed for decades; most gave away all power because it was all going well so why fight instead of going to the beach? It is still too relaxed; people are still not actually doing anything to change it.
> The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
what country? in the countries in the EU I hang out in, people seem to all be on some perpetual vacation. They have busy social agenda's, but work not so much.
This fantasy of people not working just doesn't work. Who do you think stocks your supermarket, delivers your packages, bakes your bread, fixes your car? Are you saying it's bad that these people still manage have some social life and some fun? Should they be closed in their tiny increasingly overpriced flats so they don't polute the streets?
You have to be living in different tier of society but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago didn't even keep up with inflation. Only people i know that are doing well are over 45 who became landlords by buying flats when it was possible.
I'm not saying that at all mate. I'm saying that the people who sweep the streets, stock the supermarkets, sit in the banks etc here have a lot of fun and free days. 34 hour work weeks, many vacation days (bank holidays + free days which you can plan together for large stretches). I was not saying people should not have that ; they should. Not having to work at all is also fine. I was responding to you who said people are not relaxed. I don't see that, but then again, you didn't answer;
> but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago
Where? And it sure can be that I see other things than you see, it's gonna be different per country and region of the country. I know many people who whine how bad it is (which was part of my start point), but they go on vacation 4-6x / year; then it cannot be that bad right? But I'm not saying you are not seeing something different, I'm saying what I see around me, in, for instance, NL.
They are for sure tied to each other but i am not so sure it would be EU loosing that much more in case of a breakup.
A very large fraction of those work part time. We can see people work less and less over time, so when they said people work less that is just what the stats says.
https://timeanalyticssoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09...
Instead of framing it as “why does this migrant have more than others”, maybe it’s worth looking at the real issue: why is my job being outsourced to someone overseas?
Democracy took away that person's job and now those voters want someone authoritarian who will bring it back.
The current plan seems to be using the meddling in the middle east in the name of the greatest ally as an excuse to effectively replace the current population of europe.
One has to wonder if the "crazy people" from 10 years ago maybe had a point with the thing they said would happen, when they are being proven right again and again but that can't be because that would be [bad-ism] like the news told us.
We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen?
> why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible?
Who is "importing" anyone? We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless.
But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them. You want to skip onto that step or do you want to talk about other solutions?
People want to come to Europe for a better life because things aren't working where they were born. You can build the walls higher and higher but you're just building more and more resentment, a resentment that will inevitably lead to those walls being broken down, and violently so. It's a much wiser idea to think about how to improve the situation outside of Europe so that both the strain and the comfort can be spread out.
Or is sharing your good fortune and caring about your neighbours' lot in life is culturally incompatible with your European ideals?
Yes because that happened 1000 years ago and they didn't start it anyway.
>We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless
There is a monumental difference between giving temporary refuge to people around your country and permanently shipping people across oceans and country borders to richer countries the make them citizens to the detriment of the natives. Not to mention that most refugees are men, you would think if it was that bad women and children would come first.
>But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them
I don't understand how you can joke about this while advocating to bring in more people of a ethnicity and religion who in current year is openly hostile and violent towards them. Maybe you are the one with the solution but are just too ideologically comprised to realize.
I'm not sure how to read this. You were the one who brought up the situation 1000 years ago so I'm not sure how to respond to that without also looking at what was happening 1000 years ago.
> permanently shipping people across oceans and country borders to richer countries the make them citizens to the detriment of the natives.
Maybe it would be helpful to mention explicitly the kind of policies you're referring to here?
> Not to mention that most refugees are men, you would think if it was that bad women and children would come first.
No, the worse it is and the more dangerous the route out is the more I would expect to see only men taking the risk. Men are naturally less risk adverse and have social pressures to literally put themselves in front of their wives and children.
Your argument here is as logical as "if the war was really so bad we should expect to see more women and children on the frontline." It's just not how society works.
> I don't understand how you can joke about this while advocating to bring in more people
I'm not joking. And I'm not advocating for bringing anyone in. I'm advocating for an increase in aid on-site, a move away from destabilising practices and yes, long-term, the eradication for borders and their necessity.
> Maybe you are the one with the solution but are just too ideologically comprised to realize.
I have no idea what this means. Your previous response was also littered with dog whistles. If you want to engage further on this then please be explicit in what you're saying.
> Christian and Muslim states had been in conflict since the establishment of Islam in the 7th century. In the span of approximately 120 years after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632, Muslim forces conquered the Levant (including Jerusalem), as well as North Africa and most of the Iberian Peninsula, all of which had previously been under Christian rule. By the 11th century, Christians were through the Reconquista gradually reversing the 8th-century Muslim conquest of Iberia, but their ties to the Holy Land had deteriorated. Muslim authorities in the Levant often enforced harsh rules against any overt expressions of the Christian faith. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
You can't play the crusades card in this context.
I said there was instability in the region causing issues and the response was "but those issues were already there 1000 years ago." Your own link is about the conflict in the region at that time and your quote points to that conflict having already been quite entrenched for some time.
But even from a purely selfish POV helping to improve things outside of Europe is going to help to reduce to pressure on systems and cultures within Europe by reducing the likelihood of someone needing to emigrate.
"any democratic gov can sail a ship in calm sea"
As we see in europe and the usa, when democracy lasts too long, people get too relaxed and free and turn unhappy with random things that annoy them. They used to be at work too much to worry about them, but now they can stare at their neighbour and wonder why this 'migrant' has more than them etc. Or whatever happens to annoy them. And consequently start voting for ultimately authoritarian 'leaders', which will make everything worse for them and most others.