European Refugee Crisis

[213374U]

 

The crux of the matter is that the Enlightenment didn't create a tradition (its incapable of it) that people could integrate around, in fact it fought (and still fights) against such ideas. And Europe without Christianity and nationalism is nothing.  Just a mass of atomized individuals united by nothing more than good living standards.

 

 

Quelle horreur!

 

Oh wait, no, I'm totally not seeing how that's a bad thing.

 

I don't think it's even a "thing" at all, given that it's an assessment which rests on, at best, a flawed understanding of Enlightened thought and what it brought.

 

Yes, Locke did not seek to establish a "tradition" to replace Catholicism, because he understood that such a thing was same dog, different collar. He realized the damage that these time honored traditions did and was acutely aware of the blood that had been spilt because of them. His intent was not to do away with tradition or wash away the cultural identity of his time, rather the opposite actually: he merely wanted a way of living in society without bloodshed while allowing for these identities and traditions to be preserved, instead of having a dominant paradigm annihilate all others and rule essentially by imposition. For this to be possible, the law of the land was to be administered by civil magistrates which could not get involved with religious disputes, and religious authorities were to deal exclusively with religious issues, while submitting to civil authorities in everything else. Civil authorities in turn were to enforce a legal framework that was deemed universal regardless of creed (natural law).

 

Those who sincerely suggest that Enlightened thought basically boils down to a sort of absolute moral relativism, simply don't know what they are talking about, if I may be so blunt. Anyone interested in this can refer to A Letter Concerning Toleration and go from there.

 

Of course, a society built on these premises requires that its members understand its foundations rather than simply recite a bunch of meaningless mantras, and to think, rather than follow, for it to work. A tradition is by definition the exact opposite. Great when it works for you, not so much when it doesn't.

 

The legacy of the Enlightenment is as much a part of contemporary Western identity as its Christian roots, and downplaying this is myopic and dangerous. Frankly it boggles the mind that defending these ideas would get one labeled a "cultural marxist". It's ironic and tremendously sad that the problems of today (and always) are blamed precisely on the philosophical current whose aim was to tackle them with as little fuss as possible...

Edited November 29, 2015 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The legacy of the Enlightenment is as much a part of contemporary Western identity as its Christian roots, and downplaying this is myopic and dangerous.

 

Yeah, exactly. Basically the first thought that jumped to my mind reading "Europe without christianity and nationalism is nothing" was "a version of Europe defined solely by christianity and nationalism is not a version of Europe I want to live in (moreover, it has little in common with the Europe of the last two centuries)".

[Malcador]

 

 

I am not suggesting Western superiority because I am some sort of Western zealot, the facts speak for themselves. Even Muslims from countries that supposedly dislike the West, like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria want to immigrate to the West

 

You should ask the various refugees why they consider Western culture preferable to living in the Middle East...blame them for creating this view '"that the West offers the quality of life "

 

Their countries won't be a mess if not because of the west...the west who messed up their countries. Such as in Afhanistan, USA who supply the Mujahidden to fight Russia and then let them loose, you give weapons to mad men, then these mad men rule, what do you expect? Below is Afghanistan before ad after USA using Mujahiddeen to fight Russian. If the west don't intervine, Afghans won't bother to migrate to the west....

 

 

Below is Iraq before and after USA topple Saddam Hussein

 

 

Western peoples are hypocrite...you claim you are better than anyone, it is just because you destroy everyone else

Iraq before western intervention

Following picture is disturbing and isn't material that should be shown to children

 

Picture shows victims of Saddam's chemical weapon attack against Kurds

 

Iraq after failed western intervention

Picture shows Sinjar which was destroyed by ISIS and efforts to drive ISIS away them. Picture is near of one of many Yazidi mass graves who were killed by ISIS.

 

War and tyrants never change.

 

Another even more disturbing picture of Saddam's victims

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moderators feel free to remove pictures in spoilers if they aren't suitable to this forum.

Meh, corpses on the ground isn't disturbing. But a failed Western intervention seems redundant, has there really been a successful one?

 

Hm, maybe Grenada

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

The crux of the matter is that the Enlightenment didn't create a tradition (its incapable of it) that people could integrate around, in fact it fought (and still fights) against such ideas. And Europe without Christianity and nationalism is nothing.  Just a mass of atomized individuals united by nothing more than good living standards.

 

 

Quelle horreur!

 

Oh wait, no, I'm totally not seeing how that's a bad thing.

 

I don't think it's even a "thing" at all, given that it's an assessment which rests on, at best, a flawed understanding of Enlightened thought and what it brought.

 

Yes, Locke did not seek to establish a "tradition" to replace Catholicism, because he understood that such a thing was same dog, different collar. He realized the damage that these time honored traditions did and was acutely aware of the blood that had been spilt because of them. His intent was not to do away with tradition or wash away the cultural identity of his time, rather the opposite actually: he merely wanted a way of living in society without bloodshed while allowing for these identities and traditions to be preserved, instead of having a dominant paradigm annihilate all others and rule essentially by imposition. For this to be possible, the law of the land was to be administered by civil magistrates which could not get involved with religious disputes, and religious authorities were to deal exclusively with religious issues, while submitting to civil authorities in everything else. Civil authorities in turn were to enforce a legal framework that was deemed universal regardless of creed (natural law).

 

Those who sincerely suggest that Enlightened thought basically boils down to a sort of absolute moral relativism, simply don't know what they are talking about, if I may be so blunt. Anyone interested in this can refer to A Letter Concerning Toleration and go from there.

 

Of course, a society built on these premises requires that its members understand its foundations rather than simply recite a bunch of meaningless mantras, and to think, rather than follow, for it to work. A tradition is by definition the exact opposite. Great when it works for you, not so much when it doesn't.

 

The legacy of the Enlightenment is as much a part of contemporary Western identity as its Christian roots, and downplaying this is myopic and dangerous. Frankly it boggles the mind that defending these ideas would get one labeled a "cultural marxist". It's ironic and tremendously sad that the problems of today (and always) are blamed precisely on the philosophical current whose aim was to tackle them with as little fuss as possible...

 

 

What it was originally intended to be doesn't have to correspond with what it actually is. Communism, an anti-authoritarian idea at its core led to a totalitarian state. Similarly, Enlightenment led (today, after a very long period) to a civilization without a compass or clear identity, that prides itself on its own moral relativism as its crowning achievement.

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

Anyway, you're from Spain. Explain this to me please: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/spain-socialist-mayor-remove-cross-symbol-for-lack-of-respect-for-atheists-and-muslims/

Edited November 29, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that reproductive success is the only valid metric by which one can measure a culture's worth.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that reproductive success is the only valid metric by which one can measure a culture's worth.

 

 

It certainly isn't the only valid metric, but it points to a massive systemic problem because it shouldn't exist in a society that has optimal conditions for raising children.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that reproductive success is the only valid metric by which one can measure a culture's worth.

 

 

It certainly isn't the only valid metric, but it points to a massive systemic problem because it shouldn't exist in a society that has optimal conditions for raising children.

 

 

Regardless, blaming "cultural marxism" and the erosion of christian values and nationalism seems like a weird intellectual leap to make.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

 

I disagree with the assertion that reproductive success is the only valid metric by which one can measure a culture's worth.

 

 

It certainly isn't the only valid metric, but it points to a massive systemic problem because it shouldn't exist in a society that has optimal conditions for raising children.

 

 

Regardless, blaming "cultural marxism" and the erosion of christian values and nationalism seems like a weird intellectual leap to make.

 

 

Its not that much of a leap. If you presume that the economy isn't a problem (or at least not an insurmountable one) that leads to the inevitable conclusion that its psychological/in the realm of ideas. Christianity, like Islam places an imperative on reproduction, as fundamentally a good thing (which is why most muslim families, even the fabulously rich and relatively well educated UAE elites have 5-10 children, utterly wrecking the liberal bias that level of education is inversely proportional to family size). Nationalism doesn't really deal with reproductive issues, but its logical that expanding the nation is implicitly a "good idea".

 

If you remove any sort of ideological imperative to reproduce, and not just reproduce - rather to live one's life in a certain way, with certain goals in mind (which Islamic societies have, but which Europe has forgotten) then you get a mass of scattered sheep with no sense of belonging.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess it's relevant to post this again : http://nationalinterest.org/article/spenglers-ominous-prophecy-7878?page=show Edit: never mind, it's behind a paywall now. It's still available here : http://www.douban.com/note/480407943/

 

I hope he was wrong, but I'm afraid he might have been right.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Ineth]

 

So... democracy gave Iraq a sepia tone effect?

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

I like this guy

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If you presume that the economy isn't a problem

 

If we do; give us your reasons why we should.

 

 

that leads to the inevitable conclusion that its psychological/in the realm of ideas.

 

With you so far.

 

Unsure the wrong ideas are related to your conception of "cultural marxism", though.

 

 

most muslim families, even the fabulously rich and relatively well educated UAE elites have 5-10 children, utterly wrecking the liberal bias that level of education is inversely proportional to family size

 

I'm not entirely convinced "bias" is the word you're looking for. Or that the idea is inherently "liberal".

 

Then again, I'm fairly sure "liberal bias" is one of those phrases, like "cultural marxism", that tend to be used as a shorthand for "the other" in certain circles.

 

 

If you remove any sort of ideological imperative to reproduce, and not just reproduce - rather to live one's life in a certain way, with certain goals in mind (which Islamic societies have, but which Europe has forgotten) then you get a mass of scattered sheep with no sense of belonging.

 

I also disagree with the assertion that there are no social pressures/consensus regarding the way one is supposed to live or goals one is supposed to have in Europe.

 

You may think these commonly held goals are not meaningful (I most certainly do!), but that's orthogonal to the point.

Edited November 29, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Namutree]

 

 

So... democracy gave Iraq a sepia tone effect?

 

 

Yes.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

If you presume that the economy isn't a problem

 

If we do; give us your reasons why we should.

 

 

that leads to the inevitable conclusion that its psychological/in the realm of ideas.

 

With you so far.

 

Unsure the wrong ideas are related to your conception of "cultural marxism", though.

 

 

most muslim families, even the fabulously rich and relatively well educated UAE elites have 5-10 children, utterly wrecking the liberal bias that level of education is inversely proportional to family size

 

I'm not entirely convinced "bias" is the word you're looking for. Or that the idea is inherently "liberal".

 

Then again, I'm fairly sure "liberal bias" is one of those phrases, like "cultural marxism", that tend to be used as a shorthand for "the other" in certain circles.

 

 

If you remove any sort of ideological imperative to reproduce, and not just reproduce - rather to live one's life in a certain way, with certain goals in mind (which Islamic societies have, but which Europe has forgotten) then you get a mass of scattered sheep with no sense of belonging.

 

I also disagree with the assertion that there are no social pressures/consensus regarding the way one is supposed to live or goals one is supposed to have in Europe.

 

You may think these commonly held goals are not meaningful (I most certainly do!), but that's orthogonal to the point.

 

 

Regarding the economy. The usual argument for low birth rates is that parents in Europe expect every single child to be able to enjoy the highest possible living standards, eventually go to university and move up the social ladder. Since this is economically unsustainable, people don't make many children.

 

On the surface the argument makes sense. However, when all is said and done, in most of the prosperous European societies there is enough money to go around to raise children. Certainly there should be no problem reaching at least the simple reproduction level of slightly more than two children per family. 

Yet there is.

 

On the flip side, the comparatively poor muslim world can afford five kids per family and none of them are starving, without clothes on their backs or a roof over their heads.  The point being: if the poor can do it, so can you - especially if your starting conditions are much better to begin with.

 

 

On top of this indoctrination with "living standards" there is an ideological pressure in western societies that a large family is a bad thing. I call it liberal bias but there may be better terms. The arguments used are commonly nonsensical: "conserving resources", that its "irrational" and that "only the poor, uneducated people do it". But the UAE arabs are mostly wealthy and educated in European universities and they still make large families. And show little concern for abstract notions of resources and rationality.

In fact, in that part of the world (and in many others), having a large family is seen as a sign of success and very desirable. Yet in Europe, both men and women scoff at it as though its something filthy - forgetting that their grandparents and their parents got through two world wars and untold misery on account of their expanding populations. 

 

 

Sure, there is some sort of societal pressure. But the society is fractured along many lines, and I'll venture that if you took five random people and asked them what's the best way to do things (from religion, to child rearing, to gender relations) you'd get sixteen different answers. In the muslim world there would be no point in asking the question in the first place because everyone more or less has the same cultural imperatives and expectations placed on them since a very young age.

There is a point after which a "hands off" policy regarding "private matters" becomes a liability instead of an expression of freedom.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

There is a point after which a "hands off" policy regarding "private matters" becomes a liability instead of an expression of freedom.

 

And people call me an authoritarian on these boards 

[Drowsy Emperor]

And they call me a fascist for saying the nation state is a good thing and that unchecked muslim immigration is a bad thing. 

 

In ten years they're all going to be saying it and I'm gonna be like

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Meshugger]

The last few pages has been fascinating. Nothing close to a solution(s) has even been attempted even the warning flags are there: rising national debt, failing demographics, centralization power and surveillance, lowered social trust, mass immigration, failing currencies, rise of right-wing parties and thought. Unless someone invents cheap and secure space travelling at lighting speed or fusion solves the energy problem, we will be heading towards an age of caesarism with preluding civil war, which will be quite bloody. 

 

Please don't prove Oswald Spengler right guys, i want a nice future for our children were they do not need to worry about paying the monetary debts of their forefathers, where they can walk without fear of getting raped or shot to death, where they can trust their neighbours and fellow man, where they do not have the need to lock their doors, where they can build their own families in peace. 

[213374U]

What it was originally intended to be doesn't have to correspond with what it actually is. Communism, an anti-authoritarian idea at its core led to a totalitarian state. Similarly, Enlightenment led (today, after a very long period) to a civilization without a compass or clear identity, that prides itself on its own moral relativism as its crowning achievement.

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

Anyway, you're from Spain. Explain this to me please: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/spain-socialist-mayor-remove-cross-symbol-for-lack-of-respect-for-atheists-and-muslims/

 

 

I don't think you will find any actual Western academics priding themselves on their moral relativism, but I may be wrong. Twitter is full of (nasty) surprises. What I don't accept is that Enlightenment ideals led to a complete breakdown of values, a dissolution of civic virtue, extreme individualism and hedonism, etc. You are making this connection, but haven't explained how it actually happened, so I can't very well examine it, let alone refute it. Similarly I could say it's the result of Judeo-Christian morality even though it very much means the exact opposite, because it's also in our past. I also don't need to point to the various strains of tyranny and oppression that nationalism and religion have been and are currently used to support. Going back to that is no solution.

 

I'm afraid we are simply going to have to disagree on the weight that economic factors have. You insist that they don't really matter while making deeply misleading statements such as "much of Europe is still quite prosperous", to shift the focus away from facts and to ideology. But the facts remain: economic factors have historically been a major bullet point when looking at the causes of the instability of societies, migrations and wars. I'm going to stand by this explanation until you explain how a lack of nationalism has led to people "not wanting to reproduce", as opposed to not being able to or realizing that their offspring will most certainly have to live in worse conditions than they did themselves. I think you'll have a hard time defending the idea that nationalism and Abrahamic religions are necessary for population growth when humanity had been growing before those were invented, and cultures without them seem to be doing fine demographically.

 

I don't know that current Western culture is "nihilist", but I'll concede that it's extremely individualistic and materialistic, while at the same time, millions are seeing their material ambitions go unfulfilled. Again, I fail to see how this is a consequence of Enlightenment beyond the suggestion that Enlightened ideas must necessarily lead to atheism. I guess it's hard to dispute the fact that the satisfaction rate of leading a spiritual life is close to 100% but that's only because people can only find it's a hoax after such life. The materialist/spiritual divide is a false dichotomy, though.

 

Regarding the Stations of the Cross story. The mayor is a moron, like most of the self-professed progressives here. Still, these milestones had been paid for with public funds that were earmarked for investment and services. Instead, the other morons (conservatives), decided that this project was more important than the payroll of municipal workers that are owed up to 24 months worth of pay. This is by law a nonconfessional country. Public powers have no business getting involved with religious matters, majority or not. Muslims (and atheists, and...) aren't exempt of taxes as far as I know, so public money cannot be spent on this stuff. The Catholic Church already enjoys important (and exclusive) tax exemptions. They want Stations of the Cross? They can pay for them.

[HoonDing]

Nothing wrong with muslim immigration as long as they leave their religion and culture at the border.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

i want a nice future for our children were they do not need to worry about paying the monetary debts of their forefathers, where they can walk without fear of getting raped or shot to death, where they can trust their neighbours and fellow man, where they do not have the need to lock their doors, where they can build their own families in peace. 

 

I think global climate change is going to make sure your children won't need to worry about any of those things.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

What it was originally intended to be doesn't have to correspond with what it actually is. Communism, an anti-authoritarian idea at its core led to a totalitarian state. Similarly, Enlightenment led (today, after a very long period) to a civilization without a compass or clear identity, that prides itself on its own moral relativism as its crowning achievement.

 

And yet, even with all this prosperity (and much of Europe is still quite prosperous) and freedom, "grand intellectual tradition" etc. the native population doesn't even want to reproduce. Not only that, but it refuses to acknowledge that this might be a problem and has resorted to importing foreigners to "quietly" solve it.

 

Economic excuses and blaming capitalist excess can only go so far, before one looks at the ugly truth - and that is that the current western (and eastern, as in eastern European) culture is nihilist and self destructive to its core.

 

Anyway, you're from Spain. Explain this to me please: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/spain-socialist-mayor-remove-cross-symbol-for-lack-of-respect-for-atheists-and-muslims/

 

 

I don't think you will find any actual Western academics priding themselves on their moral relativism, but I may be wrong. Twitter is full of (nasty) surprises. What I don't accept is that Enlightenment ideals led to a complete breakdown of values, a dissolution of civic virtue, extreme individualism and hedonism, etc. You are making this connection, but haven't explained how it actually happened, so I can't very well examine it, let alone refute it. Similarly I could say it's the result of Judeo-Christian morality even though it very much means the exact opposite, because it's also in our past. I also don't need to point to the various strains of tyranny and oppression that nationalism and religion have been and are currently used to support. Going back to that is no solution.

 

I'm afraid we are simply going to have to disagree on the weight that economic factors have. You insist that they don't really matter while making deeply misleading statements such as "much of Europe is still quite prosperous", to shift the focus away from facts and to ideology. But the facts remain: economic factors have historically been a major bullet point when looking at the causes of the instability of societies, migrations and wars. I'm going to stand by this explanation until you explain how a lack of nationalism has led to people "not wanting to reproduce", as opposed to not being able to or realizing that their offspring will most certainly have to live in worse conditions than they did themselves. I think you'll have a hard time defending the idea that nationalism and Abrahamic religions are necessary for population growth when humanity had been growing before those were invented, and cultures without them seem to be doing fine demographically.

 

I don't know that current Western culture is "nihilist", but I'll concede that it's extremely individualistic and materialistic, while at the same time, millions are seeing their material ambitions go unfulfilled. Again, I fail to see how this is a consequence of Enlightenment beyond the suggestion that Enlightened ideas must necessarily lead to atheism. I guess it's hard to dispute the fact that the satisfaction rate of leading a spiritual life is close to 100% but that's only because people can only find it's a hoax after such life. The materialist/spiritual divide is a false dichotomy, though.

 

Regarding the Stations of the Cross story. The mayor is a moron, like most of the self-professed progressives here. Still, these milestones had been paid for with public funds that were earmarked for investment and services. Instead, the other morons (conservatives), decided that this project was more important than the payroll of municipal workers that are owed up to 24 months worth of pay. This is by law a nonconfessional country. Public powers have no business getting involved with religious matters, majority or not. Muslims (and atheists, and...) aren't exempt of taxes as far as I know, so public money cannot be spent on this stuff. The Catholic Church already enjoys important (and exclusive) tax exemptions. They want Stations of the Cross? They can pay for them.

 

 

 

If you're going to talk economy, then I'd like to see some persuasive arguments why a European native middle class family in 2015. can't afford to have 2-3 children and why a muslim family, whose prospects can only be worse, still has no qualms about making five or so children.

 

I did not say a lack of nationalism has led people to not reproduce, rather the lack of a unifying idea. Christianity and nationalism aren't the only such ideas, but they were a strong integrative force. Without a cultural or religious imperative to reproduce, to have certain implied social responsibilities and a direct relationship between the individual and his state the connection between the individual and society gets so watered down that you get a situation in which everyone does as they please and that in turn leads nowhere. 

I don't think that everyone in the muslim world wants five kids. But everyone else is doing it and everyone else there thinks its good and therefore they do it. In Europe there is very little in the way of such pressure.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Meshugger]

 

i want a nice future for our children were they do not need to worry about paying the monetary debts of their forefathers, where they can walk without fear of getting raped or shot to death, where they can trust their neighbours and fellow man, where they do not have the need to lock their doors, where they can build their own families in peace. 

 

I think global climate change is going to make sure your children won't need to worry about any of those things.

 

 

Elaborate please. 

[Darkpriest]

The last few pages has been fascinating. Nothing close to a solution(s) has even been attempted even the warning flags are there: rising national debt, failing demographics, centralization power and surveillance, lowered social trust, mass immigration, failing currencies, rise of right-wing parties and thought. Unless someone invents cheap and secure space travelling at lighting speed or fusion solves the energy problem, we will be heading towards an age of caesarism with preluding civil war, which will be quite bloody. 

 

Please don't prove Oswald Spengler right guys, i want a nice future for our children were they do not need to worry about paying the monetary debts of their forefathers, where they can walk without fear of getting raped or shot to death, where they can trust their neighbours and fellow man, where they do not have the need to lock their doors, where they can build their own families in peace. 

 

Nah, All "empires rise and fall" such is the way, and each time everyone thinks that theirs is the best and will last forever....

 

We had a good run, 300-400 years? Not as long as Romans or some older civilizations, but we still have 2-3 generations before it will collapse. Some of us might see the start of another dark age, but i think most of us will die of old age by then.

 

We will see increasing crime rates, even more disparity between rich and poor, culutral clashes with some strong ideology driving "barbarians", while we will be trying to avoid conflic and try to throw money at it, same as Romans did, but as in their case it will also be ours where it will eventually ruin economies and then we will see civil wars.

 

On the plus side, we leave quite a heritage to build upon, "discovery of space" and probably after the dust will settle and new culture will start building civilication on what was left, they will be going into an age of space exploration, but first we will repeat the dark ages and it will be a move inwards, into spiritual exploration and worship of a deity/religion.

 

Unless some whackos will start using nukes/ then we might face return to the caves...

[Darkpriest]

Meanwhile, grateful refugees at old Tempelhof airport, started fights with security personel. Some escaped that refugee camp, some security personel injured.

[Meshugger]

Meanwhile, grateful refugees at old Tempelhof airport, started fights with security personel. Some escaped that refugee camp, some security personel injured.

 

Don't worry, the EU has a solution already, donating 3 billion to Turkey: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6162_en.htm

 

What is of course the most interesting is:

 

 

In addition, the European Union – the institutions and its Member States – also committed to increasing political engagement with Turkey, providing Turkey with significant financial support, accelerating the fulfilment of the visa liberalisation roadmap and re-energising the accession process with Turkey.

 

 

A country of 77 million, with a military supporting ISIS, with an islamist president playing dictator, which has a border nation with the whole middle east, is getting money, better Visa rules, and an accelerated process for joining the EU. I have seldom seen such incompetence, utter lack of backbone and rectitude.

 

Welp, time for some nice music for the sunset fellas.