Immigration Study shows that 31,5% of newborns in France in 2010 have non-european parents...

[MarkyMark]

It also doesn't help that almost half of the business's in Paris are owned by Arabs.

 

[Maciamo]

I think that one thing we've seen from the most detailed studies is that, although European Muslims often don't assimilate "totally," they tend to be a self-selected pro-Western group with more moderate views than their counterparts who stay home. Also, even partial assimilation means that much of French culture would get persisted even if there was a total genetic replacement (which obviously won't happen).

As a European you can certainly understand that I do not care much for cultural continuity without genetic continuity. It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage. Europeans are also very attached to the land of their ancestors (something that Americans may have more difficulty understanding, as they were "uprooted"). Just as it may be hard for a lot of people to accept the idea that strangers will live in their parental home, the house in which they spent all their childhood, it is all the more difficult to countenance the image of all one's ancestral land occupied by very different-looking foreigners. Our grand-parents and great-grand-parents fought WWI and WWII just because they couldn't stand the possibility of genetically and physically similar foreigners ruling their country (even if they would have let them live with them side by side). So how could one ever accept that all their ethnic group will go extinct because very distant foreigners migrated en masse to their country ? What the Africans are doing with Europe resembles more and more what Europeans (and Africans and Asians) did in the Americas. Are Europeans the next Amerindians ? That's all the more ironic since Europe is far more developed and advanced than Africa, but like pandas we just don't have enough children anymore and risk extinction just because of that.

So there are a few questions that need to be answered to justify the first leap in your logic. How common are mixed marriages? How likely are the products of mixed marriages to identify as "ethnically Berber/Arabic"? And what are the rates of religious conversion to Christianity or nonreligion among 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation Muslims?

I live in a city where Muslim immigrants make up 20 to 25% of the population. Brussels has exactly the same problems as big French cities. I know from living here that mixed marriages happen, but they are rare exceptions. Most Muslims marry their own kind because Islam prohibits marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if some younger people don't care of the rules of Islam, their parents, uncles or grand-parents will, and they won't have the choice but to comply with their values. Muslims here are Maghrebians, Turkish or Black African, but they hardly ever intermarry outside their linguistic and cultural group, even if they can all speak French. Generally speaking, the poorest and least educated people are, the more likely they are to stick to their own kind (and have marriages arranged by their families).

Your second leap is going to be more difficult to defend, because we know that Muslim immigrants to Europe are already less likely than their non-immigrant counterparts to support an Islamic state, and Islamic states in the Muslim world are contentious to begin with.

I don't know how you can possibly know that. According to my calculations based on other official reports, most of the Muslims in Belgium actively support and fund terrorist groups. They usually won't claim it to your face because they are not crazy and don't want to get arrested or even more discriminated, so their support of Islamic organisations is mostly quiet and underground. However I am not surprised because over 90% of the Maghrebians I have met are very very badly integrated - unlike Christian sub-Saharan Africans, who are generally well adapted, even though they came to Europe later and come from even poorer countries.

So suppose you get a France with a majority Muslim population, which we aren't even certain is going to happen. Less than 50% of the Muslims are likely to rally behind an Islamic state, so you end up with less than 50% of 50%. Not to mention that those who are most likely to support it among that population are the least likely to vote, or have any influence in government. Altogether, the threat seems close to zilch to me.

If the Muslim population reaches 50%, it is only a matter of time before it reaches 60%, then 70%, etc. We could try to guess what proportion will be the tipping point, or when exactly the clash of civilisations will happen. But as things are going we cannot doubt that it will happen. It's really just the question of when and how. I am very pessimistic about all this. Reading the statistics today gave me serious stomach ache from the nervousness, thinking about what will happen to the society I have known since my childhood, and whether it will still exist in 20 or 40 years. Is Europe going to experience a societal conflict worse than WWI and WWII ? It might very well degenerate into a war, except that it won't be national armies fighting it, but citizens against other citizens, in every street of every city. I may have a too vivid imagination, but that really looks like the end of the world.

 

[Maciamo]

Brilliant post, Maciamo. The worrying POLITICAL problems, not just cultural, are perhaps even more pressing. Not to mention the counter-politics that will result from Europeans who won't sit and take this.

The 21st century could turn out to be worse than the 20th for Europe, as hard as that is to imagine. Ethnic, racial, and religious warfare could become a new way of life across the continent. Without a peaceful, reasonable solution now, a radical solution will emerge from both sides.

The problem is that governments in Western European countries are doing very little to stop immigration from Africa. The USA already has a hard time preventing a few million Mexicans infiltrating its relatively small borders. Europe has a border at least 5 times as long with Africa across the Mediterranean (especially since southern Europe has such a long, ragged coastline where to land), and there are over one billion Africans (a bit more than Mexicans). Interestingly it should be easier to come by land from the Middle East or Russia, and many do (notably refugees from Afghanistan), but their numbers are tiny compared to Africans.

The main policy issue is that Western European countries will usually allow any relative of immigrants already living in Europe to migrate legally. There are so many Maghrebian in France already (about 5 million), that the influx of relatives keeps coming every year, and in all legality. It's hard to find a Moroccan who doesn't have relatives in Europe nowadays. So it's only a matter of time before the 32 million of them (+ the 48 million other Maghrebians) migrate over.

If governments don't do something to stop that, there will inevitably be some major conflicts in the future. The tensions are so high already (and palpable and a daily basis), that the glass is filling and the drop that will spill it is getting closer. So far, everybody is trying to ignore the other side as best they can (especially Europeans towards Muslims).

 

[ebAmerican]

Then it's time for the world to seriously make Africa a better place to live. Can you blame them for wanting to come over? You can't ignore the injustices of Africa and the Middle East. Something has to be done or your countries will be filled with them.

 

[ebAmerican]

"It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage." and we have seen what the consequence of that logic was; genocide and extinction. You will follow the way of the Indians, and their will be nobody to remember your name. We need diversity as a species to survive. My personal opinion, some of the most beautiful woman in the world are of mixed race. The ugliest woman are those "pure" ethnic individuals. We would not be where we are today with out Arab, Chinese, and European ingenuity. We are a global society so get use to it. We have to find a way to coexist.

 

[MarkyMark]

Don't be ignorant. Beauty has nothing to do with how mixed a person is. I know non mixed people who are beautiful and mixed people who are beautiful. Also, I don't see how we are supposed to co-exist with these people when the Quran preaches that Muslims shall take over the world, or the fact that there isn't more than one city in the world with an 80% African population with low crime rates. They need to learn to be more like Europeans. Civilized and Intelligent.

 

[ebAmerican]

My opinion MarkyMark. It was clearly stated. I have that right. So go ***** and be a racist somewhere else.

 

[ebAmerican]

Let me clarify (as not to offend you nationalists) some, but not all of the ugliest woman I have seen are from the so called pure ethnicity. I too have seen some not so attractive mixed race individuals. In general the most beautiful were mixed.

 

[sparkey]

As a European you can certainly understand that I do not care much for cultural continuity without genetic continuity.

Huh, I really don't think of things that way, and I didn't know that it was "European" to think about things that way. My main interest in genetic continuity of a population (including my own) is in how it relates to cultural and ethnic continuity, and perhaps in how it affects biodiversity (although even that's not something I concern myself too much with). I would be interested in a comparative study of the different attitudes toward cultural vs. genetic persistence in different European and American groups.

What the Africans are doing with Europe resembles more and more what Europeans (and Africans and Asians) did in the Americas. Are Europeans the next Amerindians ?

Are Africans establishing colonies in the Americas with backing from the world powers they come from, which immediately puts them on better diplomatic footing than the European tribes they're interacting with? Are the Africans spreading disease to a degree that Europeans are losing a huge percentage of their population? I really don't see many parallels.

I live in a city where Muslim immigrants make up 20 to 25% of the population. Brussels has exactly the same problems as big French cities. I know from living here that mixed marriages happen, but they are rare exceptions. Most Muslims marry their own kind because Islam prohibits marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if some younger people don't care of the rules of Islam, their parents, uncles or grand-parents will, and they won't have the choice but to comply with their values. Muslims here are Maghrebians, Turkish or Black African, but they hardly ever intermarry outside their linguistic and cultural group, even if they can all speak French. Generally speaking, the poorest and least educated people are, the more likely they are to stick to their own kind (and have marriages arranged by their families).

Yeah OK, I mean that I'm having trouble finding stats. I bet that integration increases significantly as you get further away from 1st generation immigrants toward 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. generation immigrants. I'd like a source showing one way or another to see how valid your points about ethnic replacement is.

I'm conceding the genetic replacement trends, at least to a point. I think one thing that isn't taken to account in extrapolations is the urban/rural divide. The mass influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe is heavily biased toward urban centers, not to rural areas, which have kept their old populations in many cases. That prevents the impact from being uniform, and from having Europeans become the "next Amerindians."

Either way, we're still many steps away from an Islamic takeover of Europe. How many Islamic parties are represented in any national legislative body? Even in the European countries with the highest Muslim population, they hold very little political influence. (Immigrant Muslims, that is... obviously Albanian Muslims hold a lot of power in Albania and Kosovo, and Turkish Muslims hold a lot of power in European Turkey). So Muslim political influence in Europe may trigger the "end of the world"? Show me how. Genetic shift isn't enough.

 

[Yetos]

I post a link I just read,

http://www.inews.gr/0/lathrometanastefsi-islam-kai-i-rizospastiki-aristera.htm

the main brief-summary are the numbers bellow

and I say this,
Greece
legal population about 10 000 000
original Greeks 7 000 000
mixed Greeks and long time immigrants (above 1 generation) 1 000 000 foreign workers via EU corporations include
minorities 150 000 according the internaional law for minorities
immigrants legal 1 500 000
immigrants illegal UNKNOWN
estimation 650 000 - 2 000 000 millions

bear >30 000 kids from 2004 from Illegal imigrants in Greece with charge of Greek public

economical numbers
these are number well known to IMF Troika ECB and FRONTEX
1)
february 2011 7 000 000 000 E cost the health care of Maaschtricht (however is written) of non legal immigration and return back

2)
12 000 000 000 E moved away to countries that have nothing to do with EU from 2004

3) 9 000 000 000 loss in Greek insurance from the avoid pay the stamps of Legal and illlegal immigrants from 2004

the same time Greece is in the worst economical position searching for 11 500 000 000 E to achive the miracle
the same time Greeks leave country to immigrate as leagal and WELL SKILLED workers and scientists in rest of world (EU USA CANADA AUSTRALIA RUSSIA)

the number speak, no need,
as a European I married and made 2 children due to my obligation to their future,
if I was an immigrant especially illegal I would NOT care a bit,
let the 'European rich' masters to take care of my kids,
I just spray the seed, who cares,
a European cares and loves his children and wants the best for them,
an immigrant leaves them to the state and to the preverdes to take care of them
sell a child is fortune for an immigrant,


PS
the number are Greek central bank and are in accordance of ECB
as you see extra taxation is done to provide the Greek economical balance due to the loss on the Health of Illegal immigrants
consider how many are spend to prohibit diseases transfered from other continents due to illegal immigration

just search in your country the numbers, and think if you had to work few hours less and spend less for illegal health, could have done 1 baby more?

PS 2
90 % of illegal immigrants in Greece are Muslim, is that a coincidence?

PS 3
Have you ever thought why the states-countries allow this slave market?

 

[MOESAN]

"It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage." and we have seen what the consequence of that logic was; genocide and extinction. You will follow the way of the Indians, and their will be nobody to remember your name. We need diversity as a species to survive. My personal opinion, some of the most beautiful woman in the world are of mixed race. The ugliest woman are those "pure" ethnic individuals. We would not be where we are today with out Arab, Chinese, and European ingenuity. We are a global society so get use to it. We have to find a way to coexist.

stop with these beautiful metisses: it is wrong all the way:
because for bones features, the most of the "pure" ethnic groups are yet crossed and it is why they present so much "ugly" persons (for mean artificial physical criteria) - some of the rare homogenous enough groups concerning skeletons are by the fact beautiful enough, more than the more mixed ones (these last = more numerous today) -
explanation: in within mixed groups akin one together, and close to us, we see every "unfitting" traits multiplied by crossings (and crossing-overs that magnify esthetical unfitness which has nothing to do with overliving fitness - yet in other big groups of populations we are not used to see everyday, we do not see so much differences about esthetics
- concerning crossings, we SAY CROSSING WHEN VERY DIFFERENT RACES cross one to another - AT THE FIRST GENERATION, the most of the time, babys are considered as "beautiful" (they are not, they are just "middle" or m"ean" what satisfies artificial mean esthetical criteria) - what we are forgetting is that after this first generation of crossing more genes RE-distribution tooks place, and then it is finished with "beautifulness" - do you find that the crossings 'caucasian/negroid-african/asiatic+..."
are more "beautiful" (men as women) than European or "pure" negroid Africans or...? have you looked at the women of some endogame african remote tribes: are they ugly??? non-sense!
I ADD THAT MEAN ESTHETICAL CRITERIA HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUE ATTRACTIVENESS OR CHARM, god be blessed!!!
sorry it was just a moment of mental distress...
the true problems are elsewhere : attachment to ethny and genetic heritage (legitim or not)or at the contrary extreme individualism giving way to dumping, diversity, political-cultural impact of overflowing immigration with a religious or simili-religious background (as Islam, even if I am not found of any other revealed religion); maybe I 'll try answer these questions, very difficult ones where according to what I red here, some different persons said some sensitive things even if not agreeing one another... but I am not sure my thoughts shall change something and I need time to put every concept in its right place

 

[MOESAN]

have you looked at Honduras and some other very crossed populations of South America? What is the percentage of esthetical beauties in these countries???

&: sorry: there is no logical link between "... way to dumping" (a part of the precedent proposition) and the following choices: "diversity , political cult-..." an error of sentance presentation

 

[JFWR]

As a European you can certainly understand that I do not care much for cultural continuity without genetic continuity. It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage. Europeans are also very attached to the land of their ancestors (something that Americans may have more difficulty understanding, as they were "uprooted"). Just as it may be hard for a lot of people to accept the idea that strangers will live in their parental home, the house in which they spent all their childhood, it is all the more difficult to countenance the image of all one's ancestral land occupied by very different-looking foreigners. Our grand-parents and great-grand-parents fought WWI and WWII just because they couldn't stand the possibility of genetically and physically similar foreigners ruling their country (even if they would have let them live with them side by side). So how could one ever accept that all their ethnic group will go extinct because very distant foreigners migrated en masse to their country ? What the Africans are doing with Europe resembles more and more what Europeans (and Africans and Asians) did in the Americas. Are Europeans the next Amerindians ? That's all the more ironic since Europe is far more developed and advanced than Africa, but like pandas we just don't have enough children anymore and risk extinction just because of that.




I live in a city where Muslim immigrants make up 20 to 25% of the population. Brussels has exactly the same problems as big French cities. I know from living here that mixed marriages happen, but they are rare exceptions. Most Muslims marry their own kind because Islam prohibits marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if some younger people don't care of the rules of Islam, their parents, uncles or grand-parents will, and they won't have the choice but to comply with their values. Muslims here are Maghrebians, Turkish or Black African, but they hardly ever intermarry outside their linguistic and cultural group, even if they can all speak French. Generally speaking, the poorest and least educated people are, the more likely they are to stick to their own kind (and have marriages arranged by their families).




I don't know how you can possibly know that. According to my calculations based on other official reports, most of the Muslims in Belgium actively support and fund terrorist groups. They usually won't claim it to your face because they are not crazy and don't want to get arrested or even more discriminated, so their support of Islamic organisations is mostly quiet and underground. However I am not surprised because over 90% of the Maghrebians I have met are very very badly integrated - unlike Christian sub-Saharan Africans, who are generally well adapted, even though they came to Europe later and come from even poorer countries.



If the Muslim population reaches 50%, it is only a matter of time before it reaches 60%, then 70%, etc. We could try to guess what proportion will be the tipping point, or when exactly the clash of civilisations will happen. But as things are going we cannot doubt that it will happen. It's really just the question of when and how. I am very pessimistic about all this. Reading the statistics today gave me serious stomach ache from the nervousness, thinking about what will happen to the society I have known since my childhood, and whether it will still exist in 20 or 40 years. Is Europe going to experience a societal conflict worse than WWI and WWII ? It might very well degenerate into a war, except that it won't be national armies fighting it, but citizens against other citizens, in every street of every city. I may have a too vivid imagination, but that really looks like the end of the world.

Maciamo, you frighten me because we are of the same mind about this. We both seem to realize well the serious, existential threat that unmitigated immigration is causing for the peoples of Europe.

Also, whereas it is harder for Americans to grasp how deeply Europeans feel about the land of their ancestors, the sentiment is actually found here, too. Americans tend to be very passionately attached to America. The problem is that Left-wingers tend to make it seem like nationalism = racism (as they do in Europe). It is thus politically incorrect for us to say that America ought to be for Americans, as we are often brow-beat to support "diversity", and other nonsense that robs our inherittance and culture from us.

The situation is worse in Europe as the stakes are much higher and the progress of the non-European immigrants is already so deep. As it stands now, it is not if but WHEN Europe will no longer be for ethnic Europeans, and with it, the civiliation of Europe -will- change. It must be stopped now while it is still possible, or else, as you say, there will be wars in the street. I really worry whether in thirty years there'll be on one side a Hitler-esque figure at the head of a violently nationalistic side v. the extreme Islam and non-white Mufti of Europe on the other.

It is perfectly legitimate to fight for the genetic identity of your people. In fact, it is the natural law, as you suggest, to do so.

 

[JFWR]

The problem is that governments in Western European countries are doing very little to stop immigration from Africa. The USA already has a hard time preventing a few million Mexicans infiltrating its relatively small borders. Europe has a border at least 5 times as long with Africa across the Mediterranean (especially since southern Europe has such a long, ragged coastline where to land), and there are over one billion Africans (a bit more than Mexicans). Interestingly it should be easier to come by land from the Middle East or Russia, and many do (notably refugees from Afghanistan), but their numbers are tiny compared to Africans.

I know all too well that what you say is true. The Pakistani immigration and others are also very, very trouble in Europe, as they, like the Black Moslems, are extremely belligerent, are ignored by the legal authorities, attack whites and non-Moslems, and support the most extreme forms of Islam.

The situation with Mexico pales in comparison, I agree, even though it is extremely destructive to American culture as well. Despite the very, very real threat of Mexican illegals bankrupting our schools, hospitals, and government services, raising crime tremendously, ruining our cultures, and undercutting the American working man, they are not political belligerents and radicals on the whole. They're criminals and ne'er do wells (and violence in Mexico WILL come to the US), but they don't want to overthrow the US government, or kick out all the whites, or pass ludicrous laws. They also are on track to not supplant the white population as quick, even though our birth rate in the US would be similar to the higher-birth rates in Europe (that is, slightly below replacement) were it not for immigration, and whites will be the largest minority by 2050.

Stopping Mexican illegals would be easy if we had the will, but neither party does, and it is sad because it is hurting us tremendously.

The main policy issue is that Western European countries will usually allow any relative of immigrants already living in Europe to migrate legally. There are so many Maghrebian in France already (about 5 million), that the influx of relatives keeps coming every year, and in all legality. It's hard to find a Moroccan who doesn't have relatives in Europe nowadays. So it's only a matter of time before the 32 million of them (+ the 48 million other Maghrebians) migrate over.

This is somewhat like our Mexican problem, but even more exacerbated by the fact that Europe is heavily social-welfare focused in a way the US is not (we're a Liberal not a Social Democracy). The fact that they are basically allowing anyone to come into Europe with any claim to being a relative is bringing the whole mess of them there to live on the government dole and to demand changes to European cultures to accomodate them.

If governments don't do something to stop that, there will inevitably be some major conflicts in the future. The tensions are so high already (and palpable and a daily basis), that the glass is filling and the drop that will spill it is getting closer. So far, everybody is trying to ignore the other side as best they can (especially Europeans towards Muslims).

The blind eye that governments take to Moslem injustices to Europeans is the most disturbing trend of all. The fact that if you're a Moslem you can get away with advocating the overthrow of the government, targetting whites for crimes, et cetera, is truly disastrous for European culture.

Sadly, as I said before, we also agree on the future prospects of blood in the streets over this. I can only hope that sanity will be restored before it reaches that point, as the consequences are truly dire. If it does get to that, though, it behooves all of us to prepare to defend Europe. I know that many Americans will not stand idly by while Europe is purged of its culture, especially those of us with strong sympathies for your plight.

 

[Maciamo]

"It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage." and we have seen what the consequence of that logic was; genocide and extinction. You will follow the way of the Indians, and their will be nobody to remember your name. We need diversity as a species to survive. My personal opinion, some of the most beautiful woman in the world are of mixed race. The ugliest woman are those "pure" ethnic individuals. We would not be where we are today with out Arab, Chinese, and European ingenuity. We are a global society so get use to it. We have to find a way to coexist.

You misunderstood me (completely). I meant passing on one's genes, not trying to create a clone army like in Star Wars ! We are only connected to the future through our offspring.

 

[JFWR]

You misunderstood me (completely). I meant passing on one's genes, not trying to create a clone army like in Star Wars !

Begun, these Clone Wars have.

 

[LeBrok]

European standards of living took 1,000 years to reach the standard set by Rome. Your contention that a thousand years of degression is somehow justified by the fact that the modern era followed 400 years after parity holds little water.

I also regret that Rome fell and we lost it's advances in science and technology.
You have to keep in mind that Rome wasn't without it's fault and with a steady decline through few hundreds of years. It finally fell during cold spells, failed crops, and related to this, hordes of 'barbarians" coming into Europe in mid millennium. It is worth noting that it fell shortly after embracing Christianity as a state religion.
Interesting fact is that in middle ages the whole western europe was lead by Germanic nations, plus center and east by Slavs. You can blame the pure stock of these conquerors that they ignored all the Rome knowledge and stuck to their traditions.

Let's take 3 power centers in Europe of last few hundred years.
Great Brittan, substratum of whatever there was before Celts, then Celts, Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans. After all that mixing they kick started industrial revolution.
Germany. Rose to a prime power in Europe after unification by Bismark of Prussia. A mixture of Germans and Prussians (Balts). The only cultural continuity was language and few prominent families.
One can only look at Y DNA to figure out how heavily all Germans were mixing anyway.
Russia, a Slavic expansion over many substrates. Till today, the biggest country in the world with vast array of cultures, still mixing and mixing.
Just because people mix, it doesn't mean it is going to be worse. It only means it might not be the way we like it. Similar to me not liking a big changes to Canadian way of life.

I would argue that ancient Roman culture is superior to modern Italian culture.

Actualy it would be nice to know how you argument your statement.
In modern Italy population density is much greater than in pick of Rome. It means that food production is way greater and mortality way smaller, compared to Rome. Also the know that modern Italians can enjoy more free choices, more goods, more variety of foods, more traveling, more vacations, more liberties, more democracy, and more pleasures in general. In short, standard of living is way better. Can we measure cultures in way of life of ordinary citizens, amount of pleasures and pains?

It's more "invasion and destruction" than "mixing and mingling". Few cultures willingly abandon hegemony over an area that other people may inherit their land. The result of those outside the new rulers are always negative, and a valuable cultural tradition is lost to history.

Well, be a man and honor your words. Pack you bags and leave America, cause as you said :"The result of those outside the new rulers are always negative, and a valuable cultural tradition is lost to history.", and return America to Natives. I'm sure not many will fallow you, but you will be a man of your words, you'll be like Gandhi to me.

There is no gain from diminishing oneself.

It will surely give you a new perspective, and maybe few insides.

So while simultaneously not caring about keeping the culture that produced those beliefs, you also want to eradicate the cultures that hold different ones?

Freedom, equality, inclusiveness, and tolerance are not beliefs. People that hold to these values can live and work peacefully, no matter how they look, dress or pray.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to let these people in, you must accept that they will inevitably change Canada by virtue of the fact that they are bringing with them a tradition that they hold valuable.

I don't care if they believe in Santa or not, or they walk around in turban, as long as they recognise principia of my country.

People do not willy-nilly dismiss what they have when they move to another country, and it is highly unlikely when immigration is motivated by political gain on both sides, that they care to give up what they believe for values which are highly culturally relative.

If they ignore our core values, we won't let them in. Simple like that.


I'm not naive to think that people are born clean slate. We are a genetic product of thousand years of evolution and mingling of many hominid species. We are different outside and we are different inside too, though science is still young to answer how different. I'm not talking about individuals, but statistical predispositions of races. One political system or economic system that works for some, might not be good for all the races on earth. Therefore I would advise against rampant and wide open immigration polices if most people like the way their country is at the moment, unless they don't care. The character of every country will definitively change giving open emigration policy. There is also a risk of economic collapse due to a big number of unsuitable emigrants.
Having said that, in many situations, it won't mean that country and its citizens will be worse off. In most instances, it will be just a bit different country.

 

[Maciamo]

Huh, I really don't think of things that way, and I didn't know that it was "European" to think about things that way. My main interest in genetic continuity of a population (including my own) is in how it relates to cultural and ethnic continuity, and perhaps in how it affects biodiversity (although even that's not something I concern myself too much with). I would be interested in a comparative study of the different attitudes toward cultural vs. genetic persistence in different European and American groups.

When I say genetic continuity, I do not mean genetic homogeneity. I just cannot imagine a Europe in 100 or 200 years that would have lost all its ethnic Europeans and been repopulated by Africans. I also don't think that culture can survive without the genes of the people who created it. Culture, values, languages and mindsets can be learned and copied by outsiders, but they always come into existence naturally as an expression of one's genome, or more precisely of a society's gene pool, and how it interact with the local environment. Culture could be seen as a form of extended phenotype (to use the expression coined by Richard Dawkins), just like a bird's nest is characteristic of one particular species.

This is why culture tends to evolve faster when genetically distinct immigrants are absorbed into a country or region's gene pool, even if these immigrants become perfectly integrated and lose their original language and culture. This is simply because the most fundamental things that define who we are, our character, sensitivities, type of intelligence, health, energy level, etc. are all determined by our genes, and all have an influence on our lifestyle, and the way cultures emerge and evolve.

It is now possible to verify with DNA tests whether the small differences in local cultures within a same country correspond to genetic differences between those regions, and so far it really seems to be the case. The genetic gap between northern and southern Italy is bigger than between northern and southern England (or even France), and so is the divergence in local cultures. South Italy is genetically closer to Greece, and shares a lot of cultural similarities, despite the two languages being totally different. Northern Spain, Brittany, Cornwall and Wales still share some cultural similarities from their common genetic heritage from the Megalithic and Atlantic Bronze Age cultures, in spite of the fact that they have belonged to separate countries for over 1500 years, and now speak four different languages (Spanish, French, English and Welsh).

Anyway, even if European cultures could be passed on intact through Africans, I wouldn't care much for it. If Europeans are replaced, be it violently by a genocide, by quietly by outbreeding, it would mean that my genes and those of my relatives will all have disappeared. How can anyone ever be at peace with that idea ? Since when is it ok to accept the genocide of your own kind ?

Are Africans establishing colonies in the Americas with backing from the world powers they come from, which immediately puts them on better diplomatic footing than the European tribes they're interacting with? Are the Africans spreading disease to a degree that Europeans are losing a huge percentage of their population? I really don't see many parallels.

The way of doing it is very different from that of the Europeans in the the Americas, but it is basically the same thing. They are not setting up colonies in the sense of founding new cities, but there are undeniably colonies of African immigrants (especially Moroccans and Algerians) inside or around major European cities. There are many suburbs of Paris that are already over 50% African. You can check the statistics. In Paris itself (historical centre), 41% of the children under 20 have at least one immigrant parent. In the Seine-Saint-Denis department, it is 56.7%, including 22% from the Maghreb and 16% from Black Africa. In at least 13 towns around Paris African immigrants have already become a majority. In Clichy-sous-Bois 77% of the population is foreign-born, mostly African, and that does not include the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrants.

Africans do not bring diseases that would wipe out the European population as happened with the Native Americans. The problem is much more stupid. African immigrants have huge families, while Europeans have less and less children. All the projections show that Black and Berber Africans will inevitably become the ethnic majorities within Europe. It is really stupid because it is the fault of European governments, who welcome those immigrants, bestow them all the money and healthcare they need to have lots of children, even grant them subsidies for having more children, and all this using the tax money that Europeans generate through the hard work that does not give enough time to make children. How terribly ironic is that ? I sometimes feel that Europeans want to punish themselves for the harms of colonisation and are ready to give away everything their ancestors built to those poor immigrants, and let them take over the country. So pathetic. I have never seen any ethnic group behave so irresponsibly towards themselves in all history.

Either way, we're still many steps away from an Islamic takeover of Europe. How many Islamic parties are represented in any national legislative body? Even in the European countries with the highest Muslim population, they hold very little political influence. (Immigrant Muslims, that is... obviously Albanian Muslims hold a lot of power in Albania and Kosovo, and Turkish Muslims hold a lot of power in European Turkey). So Muslim political influence in Europe may trigger the "end of the world"? Show me how. Genetic shift isn't enough.

Nowadays most Muslims either do not have the right to vote (because they haven't opted for naturalisation yet) or just don't care to vote. But this could change very quickly once the idea of a take-over is set into motion. Just look how quickly and unexpectedly the Arab Spring happened in Tunisia, Libya or Egypt. Social media and modern communications can really bring about revolutions just out of the blue when populations are ripe. We got a little preview of things to come in 2005, when bands of unorganised Maghrebian youths burned nearly 10,000 cars in three weeks in Paris, Toulouse and Lyon. The worst affected town was the Parisian suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois that I mentioned above. It is also where everything started. This is what happens when 3/4 of a French town's population becomes Muslim. Almost all of them were born in France though, which goes to show that integration of 2nd or 3rd generations is not happening for them.

 

[Dianatomia]

I think that some of the libaral values in the west in the post modern-era were in essence corrosive to European society. Globalisation, applied according to the standards of western Europe, had many economic advantages in the short run, but in the long run it may very well end up to be catastrophic. Either Europe as we know it will sease to exist, or there will be a civil war. I personally think the latter, because we are primates and when facing extinction we will do anything in our power to survive.

Generally in European society there are a lot of social forces which block any form of critique to these liberal values. But the last decade this is slowly changing. I assume that populism will be mainstream in a decade from now. Sumueal Huntington once claimed that there will be a clash of civilizations. I think that there will be a clash of values in Europe.

 

[Maciamo]

As a European you can certainly understand that I do not care much for cultural continuity without genetic continuity. It is pretty much the purpose of life to do everything one can to preserve one's genetic heritage.

I would like to rephrase myself to avoid all confusion. What I meant to say is:

In the context of African immigrants replacing the entire European population in the long term, as a European (the group that ends up extinct in the story), I don't care if European culture survives among the new immigrants after all the Europeans have died out, because there would be nothing left of my genes, or my relatives and ancestors' genes. Culture is much more ephemeral than genes. Culture evolves so quickly that a single individual can experience several noticeable changes in his/her culture in a lifetime (besides the fact that one can voluntarily adopt a foreign culture). Most genes stay for many centuries, millennia, and even million of years. Then culture is just an expression of genes, a side product. Therefore an individual's priority should always be to preserve his/her genes over his/her culture.