Re: Them and Us

den Otter (
Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:11:30 +0200

> From: John K Clark <>
> >**Yes** we do have a immigration problem. Thanks to the pinky

> >government policies the country is being *flooded* by poor
> >immigrants
> >from all corners of the world
> So what? The problem is not the immigrants but the welfare system they >
find when they get there.
I agree, the welfare system is the main cause, the (illegal) immigrants are
the symptom. I don't blame *them*, we'd probably do the same if we were in
their position. As usual, the blame lies with the politicians and (thus)
with the people who elected them (btw, I don't vote).

> If a country draws a line around its borders and says
> anyone who is inside that line gets all sorts of nifty financial benefits
> anyone outside that line does not, then free immigration can not be >
That's the way *rational* people would do it...Besides, many of the
immigrants are "illegal", but the government lacks the willpower and
the popular support to take some firm action.

> I think free immigration is a basic human right
Free immigration could only function in a world with a fairly (culturally,
economically etc.) homogenous population.
> and that's one of many > reasons
> I oppose welfare. Fortunately it's becoming increasingly difficult to
> people from going where they want to go or hearing what they want to >
> and that's why I'm optimistic the present system is breaking down.

It may very well be breaking down (slowly), but what will replace it?
Whatever it is, it's probably not much better, if not worse. You seem
to forget that most people aren't "rational libertarian entities", and will
be attracted to the more "extreme" solutions if the situation gets worse.
I think the last major war is a fine example of that...

> >especially Turks, Moroccans which will probably result in Islam

> >becoming the number one religion after the turn of the century
> So what? True, Islam is an idiotic religion, but no more so than the
> Christian religion, or the Jewish, or the Hindu, or the Druid, or the
> or the ...
No western country, and certainly not Holland, is ruled by theocrats.
State and society are pretty secular. Islam on the other hand is very much
alive and omnipresent in Islamic states. Go live in Iran, and feel the

> >*They* breed a lot faster than "we" do.
> Who is "we"? I'm not Dutch.
Are you sure? You're sounding like one of our socialists :)
"We" are the Caucasians (oh, it's that ugly word again) in general. Most
"western" countries have either stagnant or even deminishing populations
(-growth), which would be *great* if _all_ ethnic groups did this. As we
know, they don't (for cultural/religious reasons). Even this wouldn't be so
bad (just a little overpopulation and related problems), if they had a
system that would resemble our (19th century liberal) model, which values
things like freedom and progress (*no*, we're not perfect either, but
societies are generally a better place to live in than say the Arab
and if there *is* going to be a singularity, it will be a direct result of
Euro-American effort and the values that (however compromised) are
associated with these cultures). Try promoting the extropian principles
in the Middle East or Africa etc, and see how far you'll get...

> >I guess we all know what happens to tolerance, progress and
> >ideas in general when Islam takes over...)
> Things change, nothing is fixed in concrete. Historically Islam has been
> more tolerant of foreign ideas than Christianity, it's only in this
> that things changed. They can change again.
Yes, they can change either way. But the way it looks *now*, it's "bye,
bye singularity" when the Muslims take over.
Do you really care so little about your future and freedom?
The only reason why *some* none-western countries are "keeping up
appearances" when it comes to technological progress and human rights
etc. is because of massive western support/pressure. I really doubt it
whether civilization as we know it (let alone something more advanced)
would hold if Europe and the USA totally collapsed. What do you think?

> I must say, if you attach a vast significance to the trivial little
> differences in culture or physical appearance among various groups of
> today, then you will be as unprepared as most people for the phase change
> life of truly astronomical magnitude that will happen in less than a
I don't care about physical appearance, and the "trivial little differences

in culture" are the differences between life and death, extropy and
singularity or dark ages, freedom or slavery etc.

> BTW, I assume by "liberal" you're using the 19'th century meaning

I don't care what the others do, as long as they do it *after* I'm