Atavistic persistence of Freudian thinking patterns in contemporary European political discourse. A response to Josep Ramoneda
By Igor Slamoff
Ramoneda writes irresponsible rubbish. I will here address only two of the issues broached in his article. e.g.:
- Restrictions on [sub-Saharan] African migration to Europe, and
- The Mohammedan issue in Europe.
1. Restrictions on [sub-Saharan] African migration to Europe
Ramoneda criticises Europe implicitly for restricting immigration from Africa. I looked into the issue of African demographic trends some years ago, and received the distinct impression that Africans are reproducing at an excessive rate, thereby placing a heightened burthen on their eco systems and welfare and infrastructure systems. African societies are unwilling to invest in these areas, instead devoting their biological energies to producing more children. Consequently there is a spontaneous emigration toward other continents, where the needs of the excess African population can be satisfied. That means Europe.
Since African countries are unwilling to restrict their excessive birth rate, it is inevitable that other countries will seek to restrict African immigration.
The alternative would be for Europe to intervene actively in African reproductive matters. This however would constitute an infringement of African sovereignty.
Massive African immigration to Europe would pose a great strain on European economy, since it would have to feed and house immigrants with low skill levels, and who consequently will earn much less in wages than the money the European government must spend to assure them a European standard of living, eventual integration, etc. Studies in Holland have demonstrated that letting untrained immigrants into Holland caused huge welfare losses to the country.
Consequently the Africans have nobody but themselves to blame.
2. The Mohammedan issue in Europe
When discussing the population of Europe that has non-European roots it is no longer sufficient to use the term “immigrant” “Immigrant” is an unacceptably vague term. Above all, the term “immigrant” serves as a method of avoiding discussing the issue of Mohammedanism in Europe. Mohammedans pose a special case, both from the standpoint of social policy in general, cultural integration, crime, and terrorism hazard.
There is a specific Mohammedan issue that is separate from any immigration issue.
Ramoneda exploits the “immigrant” red herring because “immigrant” is vague enough that it is roughly synonymous with “the other”. On the basis of this vagueness, Ramoneda thereupon starts making general und unverifiable psychological statements about “the Other”, “fear of the Other”, collective guilt, scapegoats, etc. In this manner, the discussion is raised to an abstruse level of collective psychology, where it remains indefinitely and is never solved because empirical evidence is not useful in deciding such abstract philosophical issues.
I propose instead that the discussion be conducted at the level of concrete socio-economic trends that are measurable in the statistics and accordingly offer a perspective of being resolved someday.
When discussing the issue of Mohammedans in Europe, we must never forget the fear that prevails in certain quarters that Mohammedans may overrun Europe thus Islamising it. The often ridiculed belief that Islamisation constitutes a threat to Europe, is nonetheless amply warranted by massive amounts of easily accessible historical evidence. E.g.
- Islam is a unique phenomenon in world history, in that Islam freely chose at its inception to be expansionistic, violent, aggressive, militaristic and domineering. Moreover all of these traits persist in varying degrees in contemporary Islam. I know of no other religion that can be described in these terms.
- For centuries moslems expanded to predominate in areas that had previously been under European influence. That tendency has not abated.
- In most countries and regions where Mohammedans make up a majority of the population, the Mohammedans systematically exploit, humiliate, oppress and exterminate non-moslems. (see appendix for exceptions) This trend is perfectly observable in European areas where Moslems have recently become a majority.
- Consequently, even if our fears of Islamisation prove to be exaggerated or unfounded, they are reasonable fears based on a large number of specific historical observations. Reasonable fears of this sort cannot be dismissed as mere gossip and speculation. Instead they must be addressed directly. If you deny that Islamisation is a realistic threat, you must prove it.
- Specifically, prima facie terrorism in Europe seems currently to be a predominantly Moslem phenomenon. Accordingly it is misleading to jump directly from the citizen’s fear of the unknown to the reckless scapegoating of “immigrants”.
List of predominantly moslem countries that do not persecute non-moslems
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Any predominantly Moslem country not on this list is almost certain to persecute non'=Moslems. For a handful of small countries no reliable data can be obtained.
From various fairly reliable sources.