5 thoughts on “A Bulgarian View of the European Migration Crisis”

1. Well in theory Spain and Greece just made a bilateral agreement with Germany to take back refugees as per Dublin accord

   https://www.theglobepost.com/2018/06/29/merkel-greece-spain-migrant-accords/

   Funny pic. of the three in there, they seem to look alike somehow.

   This is the Spanish version

   https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/06/29/actualidad/1530275417_184646.html

   which emphasises that exact detail is not available. Either way it does nothing to resolve for those who do not register before reaching the north.

   While on Spain, another unusual article is of Podemos being given directorship of national TV and radio by Sanchez.

   https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/06/29/actualidad/1530254423_618243.html

   Rtve has generally been slightly monotonous mouthpiece of the right, or a bit more diverse under PSOE but still relatively reserved … am wondering what Podemos are going to get up to once directing…sure they won’t miss the opportunity to forward their agenda.

2. I think it was Saul Alinsky who said the way to bring down the “establishment” is to make it follow its own rules. It is logically impossible for a country or mega-country to have consistent laws, so it’s easy to get paralyzed.

   It turns out that representative government is on a thin, knife edge. It is more robust with a homogeneous population, but with a diverse population, it becomes paralyzed and unable to defend itself.

   The safety system constructed by western governments is becoming their Achilles heel. Any action to protect itself by a government can be sabotaged by a bureaucrat, or by any judge. The only way to be responsive is to institute some sort of dictator, which is what countries at war typically do. Dictators have a danger all their own, but at least can act decisively in the short run. Obama took on the trappings of a dictator in the short run, ignoring laws by executive order, but couldn’t maintain his momentum under the Constitution.

   Chances are, the countries with the large immigrant populations will have to solve their problems under some sort of dictatorial regime, which will be able to bypass the morass of rights, laws, and courts that will paralyze any real attempt to move off their present situation. Israel, with a representative, constitutional government, but a relatively homogeneous population with a self-identity, is a pioneer in solving the problem of alien immigrants.

   Israel first isolates them, gives them every opportunity to leave, and then, for those who have thrown away or otherwise hidden their country of origin, simply assumes them to be citizens of an African country Israel pays to accept them. You might need a military government in a European country to get it to override its morass of internal laws, and to ignore the many EU and “international” laws designed to dissolve national identity and security.

   • You might find this essay useful, RonaldB:

     https://www.city-journal.org/html/new-demo-pessimism-15991.html

     It concerns the conference held at the Alexis de Tocqueville chateau in Normandy, where his descendants still live.

     Some of the ideas put forth aren’t particularly ones that Americans would find congenial, but then this is a conference of Europeans about Europe’s future.

     • I don’t think the essay really resolves the question of representative government versus a government able to protect its nation. Simply holding elections doesn’t make a country or region democratic. Of course, by the term “democratic” we really mean that representative voting determines government decisions. The US was conceived of as a republic, rather than a democracy.

       The essay terms the EU as “democracy imposed from above”. That is decidedly not a democracy; nor is it a representative government. It’s totalitarianism by bureaucracy.

       El Ingles, in the GoV, illustrated graphically why in a sufficiently diverse society, it is literally impossible to govern by means of representative decision-making. As an example, where the population is split 50-50, one half wanting socialism and the other half wanting even a modified free-market, a government absolutely cannot make a decision. The most that can be hoped for is that the real government actions are hidden from public view and therefore, political pressures. Hence, you have the absolute refusal of the MSM to even name matters of race, nationality or religion.

       Can a tenured, secure, tax-funded, unaccountable bureaucracy be overcome by elected officials? It would be difficult in a homogeneous culture, impossible in a significantly diverse country.

       This is where we start to talk about non-proportional representation or a dictator. Lebanon for years gave majority power to Christians, although Muslims were the actual demographic majority. The Lebanese lost that great benefit when they stupidly allowed in the Palestinians as refugees, which should be as stark a warning against altruistic self-sacrifice as you’ll see anywhere in history.

       A dictatorship is like Russian roulette in a sense. It holds great powers for overcoming bureaucratic inertia, but once it goes wrong, there is almost no institutional mechanism to correct it. It’s like the “Hail Mary” play; you put everything you have into a grand rush, and you either win big or lose big. Most likely, the future of Europe will be in partition: the Muslims will be isolated in Muslim areas with strict travel and access control, like the Gaza strip with Israel and Egypt. The Europeans (and Americans and Canadians, etc, etc) will also have to recognize the necessity of instituting selection pressures to eliminate mutations and improve the genetic quality of the population. And I don’t think the government is the entity to do that.

       • Best way to improve genetic quality is to forbid consanguineity (marrying one’s first cousin), common in many Islamic cultures; who’s going to bite that bullet?

Comments are closed.