>I have a terrible suspicion that, a year from now, Britain will still find herself suffering under the strain of the so-called "metric system".
I recently visited London for the first time (yankee) and found it to be a very strange place. What's going on with Gucci niqabs? Why is every single advertisement in corporate Memphis style? How come no one takes cash and I have to use my demonic credit card for everything? It left me with much to consider.
>>10982
not taking cash is pretty common in yurop these days, unless you are somewhere retarded like germany, where I missed a train on thursday, because I had to run a kilometer to take cash out from a machine to settle my bar tab.
not taking cash is pretty common in yurop these days, unless you are somewhere retarded like germany, where I missed a train on thursday, because I had to run a kilometer to take cash out from a machine to settle my bar tab.
>>10986
in my travels, I've noticed that the euros are generally more digital/card friendly (seems to be a north-south divide) but I feel like I've not encountered a total cashless state until experiencing London. im not sure why I found it unnerving or strange, because if I'm being honest, Ive basically never used petty cash as my default monetary choice. if im being dramatic, it feels like throwing your lot in with modernity in a very reckless way, letting those above you have the financial reins. Im not /really/ one of those "cash is king, they are spying on your statements" people, because cash is as ethereal as a card if I think about it (why is my greenback worth anything? I don't know, but I need to buy bread so here I am). but using your card/phone as your daily system of exchanging money and goods feels wrong on a phenomenal level. plus all the card companies are American so I feel like its a leaky faucet for the economy (ie fees and support is lost to a different economy), but i guess if the UK doesnt care about that its not a problem.
also I'm kind of a currency autist but not in a serious manner, so its sad to lose that continuous link between time and space which hard currency provides. I find the euro to be so interesting because you end up with some other country's currency across the continent. it really feels like a human endeavor. so much effort goes into the design of a coin or a bill, and into how it reflects the spirit of a nation, and a Visa card just says CHASE BANK or whatever.
that being said, i basically choose the convenience of using a card 99% of the time.
in my travels, I've noticed that the euros are generally more digital/card friendly (seems to be a north-south divide) but I feel like I've not encountered a total cashless state until experiencing London. im not sure why I found it unnerving or strange, because if I'm being honest, Ive basically never used petty cash as my default monetary choice. if im being dramatic, it feels like throwing your lot in with modernity in a very reckless way, letting those above you have the financial reins. Im not /really/ one of those "cash is king, they are spying on your statements" people, because cash is as ethereal as a card if I think about it (why is my greenback worth anything? I don't know, but I need to buy bread so here I am). but using your card/phone as your daily system of exchanging money and goods feels wrong on a phenomenal level. plus all the card companies are American so I feel like its a leaky faucet for the economy (ie fees and support is lost to a different economy), but i guess if the UK doesnt care about that its not a problem.
also I'm kind of a currency autist but not in a serious manner, so its sad to lose that continuous link between time and space which hard currency provides. I find the euro to be so interesting because you end up with some other country's currency across the continent. it really feels like a human endeavor. so much effort goes into the design of a coin or a bill, and into how it reflects the spirit of a nation, and a Visa card just says CHASE BANK or whatever.
that being said, i basically choose the convenience of using a card 99% of the time.
No.11002
Anonymous
2026-07-21 09:00:03
>>10948 (OP)
>Doubtless the crowds imagine that something of consequence has occurred; they are perfectly entitled to their illusions. I recall similar scenes when Sir Anthony Blair first promised a new dawn, and we all know how that little pageant concluded.
>Doubtless the crowds imagine that something of consequence has occurred; they are perfectly entitled to their illusions. I recall similar scenes when Sir Anthony Blair first promised a new dawn, and we all know how that little pageant concluded.
>>10997
I basically agree with everything here. I'm not anti-cash, I even went through a phase of ostentatiously carrying it and using it when everyone else was just tapping their phones. I like that it exists and I would be upset if I couldn't use it in supermarkets, kebab shops, bars and the like.
But it seems frankly obstinate though for businesses not to accept cards in the present day. It's really not expensive for them and it's obviously useful for customers. The only good reason I can think of is tax dodging, but I tend to assume that Germans don't do that.
The good argument which I'm aware of and don't know how to properly rebut is that when there are no situations where cash can be used and cards can't then cash will basically die out. I'm not sure this is true though. I think a lot of people, even young people, still appreciate the opportunity to pay cash from time to time, even if it's not their usual way of doing things. And I think businesses find it useful to have petty cash behind the till. I'm not exactly advocating for full-scale tax avoidance but frankly I think it makes the gears of the economy turn smoother if a small amount of transacting can be done beyond the reach of the exchequer...
I basically agree with everything here. I'm not anti-cash, I even went through a phase of ostentatiously carrying it and using it when everyone else was just tapping their phones. I like that it exists and I would be upset if I couldn't use it in supermarkets, kebab shops, bars and the like.
But it seems frankly obstinate though for businesses not to accept cards in the present day. It's really not expensive for them and it's obviously useful for customers. The only good reason I can think of is tax dodging, but I tend to assume that Germans don't do that.
The good argument which I'm aware of and don't know how to properly rebut is that when there are no situations where cash can be used and cards can't then cash will basically die out. I'm not sure this is true though. I think a lot of people, even young people, still appreciate the opportunity to pay cash from time to time, even if it's not their usual way of doing things. And I think businesses find it useful to have petty cash behind the till. I'm not exactly advocating for full-scale tax avoidance but frankly I think it makes the gears of the economy turn smoother if a small amount of transacting can be done beyond the reach of the exchequer...
>>10982
Europe is a very patchwork continent of places that haven't seen paper & coin currency in years (London, Sweden is even worse) and places where you have to travel out of your way to find a bankomat/ATM (Germany, rural areas, the Balkans). Of course as a digital privacy zealot I hate cashless societies, and I'm not a huge fan of the Eurozone either. I hold out hope that The Big One - meaning, a large-scale cyberattack or shutdown - will curb this tendency as people realize paper doesn't stop working when the internet cuts out.
Europe is a very patchwork continent of places that haven't seen paper & coin currency in years (London, Sweden is even worse) and places where you have to travel out of your way to find a bankomat/ATM (Germany, rural areas, the Balkans). Of course as a digital privacy zealot I hate cashless societies, and I'm not a huge fan of the Eurozone either. I hold out hope that The Big One - meaning, a large-scale cyberattack or shutdown - will curb this tendency as people realize paper doesn't stop working when the internet cuts out.
>>11009
Can I ask why you dislike the Eurozone? I've never thought about it before, but as I go through Europe, it's struck me as a very unusual thing. It unites so many places under one currency, but seems to struggle under that same weight. I like it in concept, but truthfully don't know much about the thing. EU bureaucracy and surveillance state though does make me wary.
Can I ask why you dislike the Eurozone? I've never thought about it before, but as I go through Europe, it's struck me as a very unusual thing. It unites so many places under one currency, but seems to struggle under that same weight. I like it in concept, but truthfully don't know much about the thing. EU bureaucracy and surveillance state though does make me wary.
No.11011
Anonymous
2026-07-21 11:28:20
>>11008
Your example reminds me of "bad money pushes out good money" in a funny way. The users of money have strange ideas of what is the most convenient or best way of bartering for their things. I think tax dodging small businesses is better than succumbing to big card businesses/banks/etc getting to do all the dodging. Let the kebab man have a win.
When I was shocked to find London a cash-free zone, I looked this up and found very amusing threads of rabid Londoner redditors who despised the ideas of cash and were pleased that tax dodging businesses would be squashed out of existence. Maybe a better reason (for me) to prefer cash is that those who don't are annoying petite bourgeois snitches that desire convenience above all.
Your example reminds me of "bad money pushes out good money" in a funny way. The users of money have strange ideas of what is the most convenient or best way of bartering for their things. I think tax dodging small businesses is better than succumbing to big card businesses/banks/etc getting to do all the dodging. Let the kebab man have a win.
When I was shocked to find London a cash-free zone, I looked this up and found very amusing threads of rabid Londoner redditors who despised the ideas of cash and were pleased that tax dodging businesses would be squashed out of existence. Maybe a better reason (for me) to prefer cash is that those who don't are annoying petite bourgeois snitches that desire convenience above all.
>>11010
To clarify, I don't consider myself a "Euro-skeptic", as this term carries a lot of political and social baggage in Europe, especially in the East where Euro adoption is still undergoing or a present question, or in the UK obvs. I would describe my dislike of the Eurozone as more of a skepticism towards centralization of power and decision-making.
- The Euro makes sense for the "core" EU countries whose economies already had a tight degree of interdependence beforehand. There was already a monetary union of sorts between France and some neighboring states even before WWII. And many European currencies were pegged to bigger currencies, like the Deutsche Mark. In fact, the idea of a cross-country economic union isn't unique to the Euro. For example there are monetary unions in the Caribbean and Africa. There are also unofficial, de facto monetary unions like in North America, where the US dollar is valid legal tender in some surrounding countries, like Panama, the Pacific island compact states, and ironically the technically European Union territories of the Dutch Caribbean.
- The Euro, the European Union, and so on are descendants of post-World War II concerns about really figuring out this nation state stability thing, and progressing forward as a European continent. I believe we don't live in the same world that produced the relational conditions that led to the World Wars, and that preventing active conflict between European nations is not the dominant paradigm by which we should live under.
- The Euro was originally not just about integration and centralization, but was offered to the public as a *practical* improvement over their lives. In the 80s and 90s, digitalization had not taken course yet, and traveling between European countries meant carrying a mini-bank of currencies with you, planning ahead to visit currency exchanges, and the general headache and mathematics that comes along with juggling multiple currencies. Businesses had to deal with juggling multiple currencies as well. We don't live in that world anymore. I can swipe my card at any terminal and pay for whatever, and the thing is, I can do that even in a non-Euro country and the transaction is just the same. So this aspect of the Euro, which was very obvious and practical in its time, is obsolete.
- The economies of the core EU states and the rest of Europe are vastly different. A single currency, by design, isn't going to be flexible enough to cover a range of economies from the manufacturing powerhouse of Germany to peripheral, smaller, often much more rural places like Greece and Bulgaria. This came to a head in the 2010s for the former country, who suffered greatly in a debt crisis caused by domestic factors, but which was exasperated by rules set upon it by the Eurozone. I highly recommend watching a Yannis Varoufakis lecture on his time in office during that crisis, he's one of the very precious few leftist Euro critics out there.
- The other appeal of the European Union outside of economics and trade is the stability of centralized bureaucracy. A centralized power protects each member state and allows them to coordinate politically and militarily. As I said, this is an idea that started after World War II, but took on new character during the Cold War, the fall of communist governments, and now the dynamic between the US and Russia. With the economic details of Eurozone integration being opaque to the common man (and even to most in the bureaucracy, but they won't admit it), this east-west dynamic is the core understanding of the Eurozone and the central axis around which almost every discussion or argument about the Euro rotates around. This is the social baggage I mentioned in my disclaimer at the top of the comment. Being a "Euro-skeptic" is a good guarantor of other right wing sentiments, most of the time entirely unrelated to what from the outside seems like a kind of dry economic or practical question of a monetary union.
- In Eastern Europe, Euroskepticism is a good barometer for proximity to Russia and sympathetic views on Russia, its activities in the region, and Russian culture and its history in Eastern Europe in general. For Eastern countries which have not joined the Euro yet, but which have signed agreements to eventually such as Romania or Hungary, the Euro represents an active question of total allegiance to US-by-proxy interests regarding Russia. For the two Scandinavian EU states which did not adopt the Euro - Denmark given an exemption from the original Maastricht treaty and Sweden being unofficially but firmly resisting what is supposed to be, under the letter of the law, an eventual adoption - the question is again of anti-Russian sentiment, but sometimes framed in social discourse, paradoxically, as a bulwark against Trumpian instability. There have been whispers of the talk in Sweden, famously neutral, and all the Scandinavian states, who like to see themselves as marching to the beat of their own drum. But times have changed, people have changed.
- Having recently lived through the most recent Euro adoption (Bulgaria in the beginning of this year) there is indeed the vague sense that we have given up a part of ourselves to join the faceless bureaucracy, as well as exasperation with inflation and rising prices. The Lev was not just "ours" but a living link to the beginning of modern Bulgarian independence. I think most people feel this way here, but the aforementioned social dialectic (a not entirely organic one, to me) seems to push out reasonable disappointment in favor of full-on Euro attachment or the usual pro-Russia right wing nonsense. Every Eurozone country has hints of melancholic nostalgia for their previous currencies, even those that have been in the Eurozone for decades at this point. One example that comes to mind is the cult video game My Summer Car, which takes place in Finland, but proudly shows some longing for the past by making the in-game currency their old Markki along with older car models, brands and so on. I think this quiet nostalgia for "what was once ours" isn't going to weaken any time soon, especially as European stagnation continues.
I guess I should add, since you did ask me for my personal opinion on things. Like I said, I don't like centralization of authority or strong authoritarianism of any kind. I think the appeal of authority is misanthropic as it reduces human beings to numbers or particles that need to be controlled, and reinforces a cycle of helplessness and overall degradation. I don't oppose bureaucratic structure on principle - like I am not, in a serious fashion, against car registration or passports or whatnot - but it's safe to say that the giant behemoth of European bureaucracy is huge and pretty much out of control. It seems to exist only to beget itself, something that happens in any gigantic bureaucratic structure like in the US, but in Europe it's just that much more pointless. Beyond that, I don't have a partisan view on east-west relations, I don't think Russia is the new Great Satan, I can clearly tell the heavy and manic American influence in Europe, both politically, socially, and in the propaganda department, and stemming from that, participating in the American war machine by proxy is something I am firmly against. I don't buy into the narrative that global polarity is inevitable and smaller countries must rush to be under a bigger brother's umbrella lest we end up like Cuba; well, at least, I think that international relations must play out as such to allow smaller nation-states to thrive independently, and that so-called "realpolitik" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To clarify, I don't consider myself a "Euro-skeptic", as this term carries a lot of political and social baggage in Europe, especially in the East where Euro adoption is still undergoing or a present question, or in the UK obvs. I would describe my dislike of the Eurozone as more of a skepticism towards centralization of power and decision-making.
- The Euro makes sense for the "core" EU countries whose economies already had a tight degree of interdependence beforehand. There was already a monetary union of sorts between France and some neighboring states even before WWII. And many European currencies were pegged to bigger currencies, like the Deutsche Mark. In fact, the idea of a cross-country economic union isn't unique to the Euro. For example there are monetary unions in the Caribbean and Africa. There are also unofficial, de facto monetary unions like in North America, where the US dollar is valid legal tender in some surrounding countries, like Panama, the Pacific island compact states, and ironically the technically European Union territories of the Dutch Caribbean.
- The Euro, the European Union, and so on are descendants of post-World War II concerns about really figuring out this nation state stability thing, and progressing forward as a European continent. I believe we don't live in the same world that produced the relational conditions that led to the World Wars, and that preventing active conflict between European nations is not the dominant paradigm by which we should live under.
- The Euro was originally not just about integration and centralization, but was offered to the public as a *practical* improvement over their lives. In the 80s and 90s, digitalization had not taken course yet, and traveling between European countries meant carrying a mini-bank of currencies with you, planning ahead to visit currency exchanges, and the general headache and mathematics that comes along with juggling multiple currencies. Businesses had to deal with juggling multiple currencies as well. We don't live in that world anymore. I can swipe my card at any terminal and pay for whatever, and the thing is, I can do that even in a non-Euro country and the transaction is just the same. So this aspect of the Euro, which was very obvious and practical in its time, is obsolete.
- The economies of the core EU states and the rest of Europe are vastly different. A single currency, by design, isn't going to be flexible enough to cover a range of economies from the manufacturing powerhouse of Germany to peripheral, smaller, often much more rural places like Greece and Bulgaria. This came to a head in the 2010s for the former country, who suffered greatly in a debt crisis caused by domestic factors, but which was exasperated by rules set upon it by the Eurozone. I highly recommend watching a Yannis Varoufakis lecture on his time in office during that crisis, he's one of the very precious few leftist Euro critics out there.
- The other appeal of the European Union outside of economics and trade is the stability of centralized bureaucracy. A centralized power protects each member state and allows them to coordinate politically and militarily. As I said, this is an idea that started after World War II, but took on new character during the Cold War, the fall of communist governments, and now the dynamic between the US and Russia. With the economic details of Eurozone integration being opaque to the common man (and even to most in the bureaucracy, but they won't admit it), this east-west dynamic is the core understanding of the Eurozone and the central axis around which almost every discussion or argument about the Euro rotates around. This is the social baggage I mentioned in my disclaimer at the top of the comment. Being a "Euro-skeptic" is a good guarantor of other right wing sentiments, most of the time entirely unrelated to what from the outside seems like a kind of dry economic or practical question of a monetary union.
- In Eastern Europe, Euroskepticism is a good barometer for proximity to Russia and sympathetic views on Russia, its activities in the region, and Russian culture and its history in Eastern Europe in general. For Eastern countries which have not joined the Euro yet, but which have signed agreements to eventually such as Romania or Hungary, the Euro represents an active question of total allegiance to US-by-proxy interests regarding Russia. For the two Scandinavian EU states which did not adopt the Euro - Denmark given an exemption from the original Maastricht treaty and Sweden being unofficially but firmly resisting what is supposed to be, under the letter of the law, an eventual adoption - the question is again of anti-Russian sentiment, but sometimes framed in social discourse, paradoxically, as a bulwark against Trumpian instability. There have been whispers of the talk in Sweden, famously neutral, and all the Scandinavian states, who like to see themselves as marching to the beat of their own drum. But times have changed, people have changed.
- Having recently lived through the most recent Euro adoption (Bulgaria in the beginning of this year) there is indeed the vague sense that we have given up a part of ourselves to join the faceless bureaucracy, as well as exasperation with inflation and rising prices. The Lev was not just "ours" but a living link to the beginning of modern Bulgarian independence. I think most people feel this way here, but the aforementioned social dialectic (a not entirely organic one, to me) seems to push out reasonable disappointment in favor of full-on Euro attachment or the usual pro-Russia right wing nonsense. Every Eurozone country has hints of melancholic nostalgia for their previous currencies, even those that have been in the Eurozone for decades at this point. One example that comes to mind is the cult video game My Summer Car, which takes place in Finland, but proudly shows some longing for the past by making the in-game currency their old Markki along with older car models, brands and so on. I think this quiet nostalgia for "what was once ours" isn't going to weaken any time soon, especially as European stagnation continues.
I guess I should add, since you did ask me for my personal opinion on things. Like I said, I don't like centralization of authority or strong authoritarianism of any kind. I think the appeal of authority is misanthropic as it reduces human beings to numbers or particles that need to be controlled, and reinforces a cycle of helplessness and overall degradation. I don't oppose bureaucratic structure on principle - like I am not, in a serious fashion, against car registration or passports or whatnot - but it's safe to say that the giant behemoth of European bureaucracy is huge and pretty much out of control. It seems to exist only to beget itself, something that happens in any gigantic bureaucratic structure like in the US, but in Europe it's just that much more pointless. Beyond that, I don't have a partisan view on east-west relations, I don't think Russia is the new Great Satan, I can clearly tell the heavy and manic American influence in Europe, both politically, socially, and in the propaganda department, and stemming from that, participating in the American war machine by proxy is something I am firmly against. I don't buy into the narrative that global polarity is inevitable and smaller countries must rush to be under a bigger brother's umbrella lest we end up like Cuba; well, at least, I think that international relations must play out as such to allow smaller nation-states to thrive independently, and that so-called "realpolitik" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>11020
Not the guy you were responding to I just want to say that this was a very lucid and interesting post, thanks.
Not the guy you were responding to I just want to say that this was a very lucid and interesting post, thanks.
No.11025
Anonymous
2026-07-21 16:39:30
>>11022
Wanted to express the same sentiments. This kind of compelling and though invoking post really makes me appreciate these last bastions against the tide of drivel.
Wanted to express the same sentiments. This kind of compelling and though invoking post really makes me appreciate these last bastions against the tide of drivel.
No.11028
Anonymous
2026-07-21 18:38:58
the only unrealistic part of Children of Men was that it would require an apocalyptic event for the uk to look like that
>>11020
Do you think it's possible to separate a theoretical "Europeanism" from the reality of the bureaucratic EU which exists now?
Do you think it's possible to separate a theoretical "Europeanism" from the reality of the bureaucratic EU which exists now?
>>11090
MAGISTERIAL article by Big Perry ("Francis Rory Peregrine 'Perry' Anderson") in the LRB: lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n24/perry-anderson/the-european-coup
MAGISTERIAL article by Big Perry ("Francis Rory Peregrine 'Perry' Anderson") in the LRB: lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n24/perry-anderson/the-european-coup
No.11135
Anonymous
2026-07-28 10:43:44
>>11134
>Over a glass of wine, the Bildungslücke is easily remedied.
NEW LEFT REVIEW CHADS BACK
EUROCUCKS BTFO
>Over a glass of wine, the Bildungslücke is easily remedied.
NEW LEFT REVIEW CHADS BACK
EUROCUCKS BTFO
>>11134
can you give a summary of what this very long article is about please?
can you give a summary of what this very long article is about please?
No.11138
Anonymous
2026-07-28 11:16:18
>>11090
Sure, there's no reason it shouldn't be possible. That's the answer I'd give prima facie to such a question.
But it merits a bit more digging: What does "Europeanism" actually entail, and why do we want it? Does it mean agreements like Schengen which allow free travel between countries, Erasmus, Eurorail? Or is it more of a good vibes thing but without "official" integration? Is it just the European Union or is it all bureaucracies? Switzerland and Norway aren't in the EU, but they're in the EEA.
I don't think a bureaucratic conglomerate is an inevitability, and I don't even like hearing arguments explaining its existence as somehow essential to European character (and therefore indicative of either fatalistic pessimism or superiority in development). I think in the future it will be seen as a part of its time; essential to solving several problems on the continent as well as being a good alternative to the rule of the nation-state, a genuine belief, somewhere in that morass, of liberal values and progressing forward. I think we easy take for granted many details that have only come around thanks to a unified bureaucratic force, things that are so obvious that they aren't even brought up anymore as the product of integration, like all of us (almost) driving on the same side of the road, or using the same plug (sort of, but I won't give this comment up to Wikipedia autism now), or being on the same cell phone frequencies. These are genuinely good moves, and they don't happen with a light touch of bureaucracy. That's why I don't bother calling myself a "euro-skeptic", because I respect the idea behind it, and I always think it's worth pointing out. I just think its historical context is more important and beneficial than what it's giving us today.
I think what you are searching for with this question is a sense of goodwill among all the European peoples, a common respect, a little bit less of the infighting. Cultural and social rather than literal. That'll have to come from the bottom up, you simply can't force people to like each other. But that is putting the cart before the horse. The bedrock of contention between countries is differences in economy and labor. The West-East and North-South axes in Europe are so firmly entrenched that even young children pick up on it. Germany, France, and the UK are gigantic economies compared to the smaller countries with a magnitude more population in some cases. That doesn't mean being richer but being larger economies with significant export and manufacturing sectors. To paraphrase Varoufakis, speaking from the Greek perspective: the Germans sell us washing machines and cars and we sell them back... oranges. That's not the trading relationship of equal partners. The true role of the lesser states of the EU is as consumers, both for goods and for credit. "Europeanism" will never exist as long as gastarbeiters are a main cog in producing in the west and sending money back to the east.
Of course, not every sore point in the meeting of cultures comes from economic differences. I think that's reductionist and a watered-down millennials' understanding of Marxism. But being on equal footing has a way of massaging social differences, and makes people more amenable to those differences between them. In the absence of gaps in economy and labor, I don't think there are any significant social differences between any two countries in the European continent that would drive them to dislike each other anew. We are well into the secular era, so it's hard to imagine, say, a Norwegian Lutheran being so offended by the Papists to the south that he doesn't want to vacation there on holiday or buy Italian pasta or whatever. There were ethnic conflicts in Europe in the 90s, but they both had material bases - in Northern Ireland, the rule of power of the UK, and in the Balkans, the economic and political dominance of the Serbs. The religious character both of those conflicts had wasn't incidental, but it wasn't the foundation of the conflicts either. And while I think there will always be a portion of the population that tend to fixate on racial and ethnic differences, in our globalized world the scope of comparison has widened plenty, and only the most pedantic are left caring about whether Spaniards, Albanians, Finns, or Russians count as "European" or "white". You can see this play out in the UK, where once Poles were the main concern over immigration (here is that labor thing again), now they are benign, even tongue-in-cheek fondly remembered, with the mostly unsaid subtext of "at least they were white European Christians".
So we are back to the original question. Why do we want Europeanism? If it is to celebrate Europe in all its shades, that will come organically once we move on from consumer capitalism and the labor market. If it's to protect against "the barbarian hordes" from the global south, it's a hollow and temporary premise, not to mention bigoted. Personally, I don't think the kind of social Europeanism you bring up will happen in our lifetime, with or without the bureaucracy of the EU and associated structures. There was a push by liberal Europhile types to make pan-Europeanism a thing after the invasion of Ukraine, and politicians still hug each other over common defense, but that feels removed from the common person's experience of Europe; and besides, military is the original bureaucratic entity. I think what characterizes our era is countries searching for their identity, redefining themselves, like the process of decolonization in other continents, and this takes the place of a full-throated zeal for continental unity. The UK have been doing this since time immemorial, of course, swinging between being Euro blood, being "different", and thinking their island as if they were in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and not a literal human swimmable distance to "the continentals". The post-communist countries obviously still live in the shadow of that time. If you've ever talked to a Polish or Czech person who insists on making sure you agree that they are Central European and not Eastern European, they do it out of concern about their image to the rich west, not strict ideological disagreements with socialism-- and they make this distinction in spite of the objective similarities they have with the Easterners they hate so much, such as cultural and linguistic heritage. That's the situation each European country finds themselves in: looking inward to define the national character, redefining history and identity, closing the gates to preserve being eroded by modernism, consumerism, technology, globalisation, American pop culture, and migrants. In light of this, what's the hope of continental brotherhood?
Sure, there's no reason it shouldn't be possible. That's the answer I'd give prima facie to such a question.
But it merits a bit more digging: What does "Europeanism" actually entail, and why do we want it? Does it mean agreements like Schengen which allow free travel between countries, Erasmus, Eurorail? Or is it more of a good vibes thing but without "official" integration? Is it just the European Union or is it all bureaucracies? Switzerland and Norway aren't in the EU, but they're in the EEA.
I don't think a bureaucratic conglomerate is an inevitability, and I don't even like hearing arguments explaining its existence as somehow essential to European character (and therefore indicative of either fatalistic pessimism or superiority in development). I think in the future it will be seen as a part of its time; essential to solving several problems on the continent as well as being a good alternative to the rule of the nation-state, a genuine belief, somewhere in that morass, of liberal values and progressing forward. I think we easy take for granted many details that have only come around thanks to a unified bureaucratic force, things that are so obvious that they aren't even brought up anymore as the product of integration, like all of us (almost) driving on the same side of the road, or using the same plug (sort of, but I won't give this comment up to Wikipedia autism now), or being on the same cell phone frequencies. These are genuinely good moves, and they don't happen with a light touch of bureaucracy. That's why I don't bother calling myself a "euro-skeptic", because I respect the idea behind it, and I always think it's worth pointing out. I just think its historical context is more important and beneficial than what it's giving us today.
I think what you are searching for with this question is a sense of goodwill among all the European peoples, a common respect, a little bit less of the infighting. Cultural and social rather than literal. That'll have to come from the bottom up, you simply can't force people to like each other. But that is putting the cart before the horse. The bedrock of contention between countries is differences in economy and labor. The West-East and North-South axes in Europe are so firmly entrenched that even young children pick up on it. Germany, France, and the UK are gigantic economies compared to the smaller countries with a magnitude more population in some cases. That doesn't mean being richer but being larger economies with significant export and manufacturing sectors. To paraphrase Varoufakis, speaking from the Greek perspective: the Germans sell us washing machines and cars and we sell them back... oranges. That's not the trading relationship of equal partners. The true role of the lesser states of the EU is as consumers, both for goods and for credit. "Europeanism" will never exist as long as gastarbeiters are a main cog in producing in the west and sending money back to the east.
Of course, not every sore point in the meeting of cultures comes from economic differences. I think that's reductionist and a watered-down millennials' understanding of Marxism. But being on equal footing has a way of massaging social differences, and makes people more amenable to those differences between them. In the absence of gaps in economy and labor, I don't think there are any significant social differences between any two countries in the European continent that would drive them to dislike each other anew. We are well into the secular era, so it's hard to imagine, say, a Norwegian Lutheran being so offended by the Papists to the south that he doesn't want to vacation there on holiday or buy Italian pasta or whatever. There were ethnic conflicts in Europe in the 90s, but they both had material bases - in Northern Ireland, the rule of power of the UK, and in the Balkans, the economic and political dominance of the Serbs. The religious character both of those conflicts had wasn't incidental, but it wasn't the foundation of the conflicts either. And while I think there will always be a portion of the population that tend to fixate on racial and ethnic differences, in our globalized world the scope of comparison has widened plenty, and only the most pedantic are left caring about whether Spaniards, Albanians, Finns, or Russians count as "European" or "white". You can see this play out in the UK, where once Poles were the main concern over immigration (here is that labor thing again), now they are benign, even tongue-in-cheek fondly remembered, with the mostly unsaid subtext of "at least they were white European Christians".
So we are back to the original question. Why do we want Europeanism? If it is to celebrate Europe in all its shades, that will come organically once we move on from consumer capitalism and the labor market. If it's to protect against "the barbarian hordes" from the global south, it's a hollow and temporary premise, not to mention bigoted. Personally, I don't think the kind of social Europeanism you bring up will happen in our lifetime, with or without the bureaucracy of the EU and associated structures. There was a push by liberal Europhile types to make pan-Europeanism a thing after the invasion of Ukraine, and politicians still hug each other over common defense, but that feels removed from the common person's experience of Europe; and besides, military is the original bureaucratic entity. I think what characterizes our era is countries searching for their identity, redefining themselves, like the process of decolonization in other continents, and this takes the place of a full-throated zeal for continental unity. The UK have been doing this since time immemorial, of course, swinging between being Euro blood, being "different", and thinking their island as if they were in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and not a literal human swimmable distance to "the continentals". The post-communist countries obviously still live in the shadow of that time. If you've ever talked to a Polish or Czech person who insists on making sure you agree that they are Central European and not Eastern European, they do it out of concern about their image to the rich west, not strict ideological disagreements with socialism-- and they make this distinction in spite of the objective similarities they have with the Easterners they hate so much, such as cultural and linguistic heritage. That's the situation each European country finds themselves in: looking inward to define the national character, redefining history and identity, closing the gates to preserve being eroded by modernism, consumerism, technology, globalisation, American pop culture, and migrants. In light of this, what's the hope of continental brotherhood?
> You can see this play out in the UK, where once Poles were the main concern over immigration (here is that labor thing again), now they are benign, even tongue-in-cheek fondly remembered, with the mostly unsaid subtext of "at least they were white European Christians".
It's remarkable how quick this attitude shift has happened. As recently as 2015 you can find Nigel Farage saying that he preferred Indian immigrants to Eastern Europeans.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/22/nigel-farage-immigrants-india-australia-better-than-eastern-europeans
It goes without saying that this was in the context of the Brexit referendum. If my memory is correct, it was rather going out of fashion on the political right to complain about Poles, Bulgarians, and so on by 2015 - by this point in time the Syrian migrant had usurped the Polish plumber as the archetypal foreign invader.
Even so, the swing in attitudes is striking. I don't think you could find a single Reform voter in Britain today who would admit to preferring Indian immigrants to Polish ones, excepting those who are themselves Indian.
White nationalism is so much closer to the surface of the immigration debate these days, and essentially the entire political right is far happier to make common cause with Eastern Europeans than they are with 'thirdies', a pejorative essentially equivalent to 'browns'.
This is best exemplified in the Henry Nowak case. How strange it would seem to the Daily Mail reader of 2009 to suggest that in under 20 years an ethnically Polish boy would become a symbol of the flower of pure British youth, cut down by savage immigrants.
I don't see this tendency changing course any time soon. I think that it is impossible to conceive of a pan-Europeanism in the decades to come that is not implicitly or explicitly white nationalist. Even the rhetoric of liberal conservatives, NAFO types, and free market eurozone enthusiasts, is haunted by the spectre of that latter-day Saracen the 'thirdie'.
It's remarkable how quick this attitude shift has happened. As recently as 2015 you can find Nigel Farage saying that he preferred Indian immigrants to Eastern Europeans.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/22/nigel-farage-immigrants-india-australia-better-than-eastern-europeans
It goes without saying that this was in the context of the Brexit referendum. If my memory is correct, it was rather going out of fashion on the political right to complain about Poles, Bulgarians, and so on by 2015 - by this point in time the Syrian migrant had usurped the Polish plumber as the archetypal foreign invader.
Even so, the swing in attitudes is striking. I don't think you could find a single Reform voter in Britain today who would admit to preferring Indian immigrants to Polish ones, excepting those who are themselves Indian.
White nationalism is so much closer to the surface of the immigration debate these days, and essentially the entire political right is far happier to make common cause with Eastern Europeans than they are with 'thirdies', a pejorative essentially equivalent to 'browns'.
This is best exemplified in the Henry Nowak case. How strange it would seem to the Daily Mail reader of 2009 to suggest that in under 20 years an ethnically Polish boy would become a symbol of the flower of pure British youth, cut down by savage immigrants.
I don't see this tendency changing course any time soon. I think that it is impossible to conceive of a pan-Europeanism in the decades to come that is not implicitly or explicitly white nationalist. Even the rhetoric of liberal conservatives, NAFO types, and free market eurozone enthusiasts, is haunted by the spectre of that latter-day Saracen the 'thirdie'.
>>11139
Radically flip-flopping on racial identity issues is one of the great pony tricks the reactionary right has, but at some point you get desensitized to it. The Nazis had their "honorary Aryans". Gawking at the hypocrisy only ends up validating it, really. I think the extreme focus on whiteness in contrast with non-European foreigners might be more pronounced in the UK. I don't see the same thing in Germany or France or Sweden. The case of the UK is particular with its colonial history (thus explaining the Farage opinion - I wonder what he thinks of that line now ten years later) as well as its closer proximity and absorption of American identity politics. I think for the Brits in particular, pan-European white solidarity seems like an attractive idea in concept, but I see that they recognize that unassailable element of foreignness in us, our foods, our music and dances, our mannerisms and demeanor. Identity solely defined on a negative - they aren't thirdies - is hollow and will collapse like a house of cards the next day when the migrant crisis blows over and the rightoids decide we're not real whites anymore. I do wish the duller of my compatriots recognized that dynamic but they're too busy with their BMVs. And I think it's worth clarifying that the Poles have indeed made a great leap in relative economic worth, and what applies to south east Europe probably doesn't apply to them anymore.
Radically flip-flopping on racial identity issues is one of the great pony tricks the reactionary right has, but at some point you get desensitized to it. The Nazis had their "honorary Aryans". Gawking at the hypocrisy only ends up validating it, really. I think the extreme focus on whiteness in contrast with non-European foreigners might be more pronounced in the UK. I don't see the same thing in Germany or France or Sweden. The case of the UK is particular with its colonial history (thus explaining the Farage opinion - I wonder what he thinks of that line now ten years later) as well as its closer proximity and absorption of American identity politics. I think for the Brits in particular, pan-European white solidarity seems like an attractive idea in concept, but I see that they recognize that unassailable element of foreignness in us, our foods, our music and dances, our mannerisms and demeanor. Identity solely defined on a negative - they aren't thirdies - is hollow and will collapse like a house of cards the next day when the migrant crisis blows over and the rightoids decide we're not real whites anymore. I do wish the duller of my compatriots recognized that dynamic but they're too busy with their BMVs. And I think it's worth clarifying that the Poles have indeed made a great leap in relative economic worth, and what applies to south east Europe probably doesn't apply to them anymore.
No.11150
Anonymous
2026-07-28 13:37:40
not reading all that, but the word “europeanism” and phrases like “european character” are immediately giving fascist dogwhistle lmao
>>11165
Leave it up to the Americans to drag everyone else down to their basement retard level.
Leave it up to the Americans to drag everyone else down to their basement retard level.
>>11169
we literally saved you europeans in WW2. keep up the hateful rhetoric, and you’ll end up putting each other in camps again. i don’t think america will be there to save you a second time.
when europe falls, it will be because they refused to be saved. doctor who will be played by chris evans. the islamic call to prayer will sound in every speaker from lisbon to warsaw. we could have stopped it. you just wouldn’t let us.
we literally saved you europeans in WW2. keep up the hateful rhetoric, and you’ll end up putting each other in camps again. i don’t think america will be there to save you a second time.
when europe falls, it will be because they refused to be saved. doctor who will be played by chris evans. the islamic call to prayer will sound in every speaker from lisbon to warsaw. we could have stopped it. you just wouldn’t let us.
>>11146
farage infamously used to march around his school as a teen chanting national front slogans, there is no way he is at all allergic to white nationalism.... it must just have been political expediency that led him to express that bizarre 'opinion'
farage infamously used to march around his school as a teen chanting national front slogans, there is no way he is at all allergic to white nationalism.... it must just have been political expediency that led him to express that bizarre 'opinion'
No.11188
Anonymous
2026-07-29 09:51:53
>>11181
how do you prove anything that happened in a playground 40 years ago? I bet it's true, though.
how do you prove anything that happened in a playground 40 years ago? I bet it's true, though.
No.11189
Anonymous
2026-07-29 10:59:14
>>11008
You'd be surprised. At least in Berlin, there's a fair bit of money laundering among the Turkish community etc. Mostly through spätis and sushi places that nobody goes into.
You'd be surprised. At least in Berlin, there's a fair bit of money laundering among the Turkish community etc. Mostly through spätis and sushi places that nobody goes into.
>I asked the waitress for a cup of raw, unpasteurised milk. A simple request. No sooner did I ask was I to discover I must first decide whether I wished to consume a liquid, make a statement, or have a "movement".
>The kettle is one of the last rebels. It still performs its duty.
I can’t understand how leftists (like the ones ITT) are more worried about the European right than they are about Islamists. The UK in particular is unironically headed for disaster.
>>11352
what threat do you think Islamists constitute exactly ?
what threat do you think Islamists constitute exactly ?
>>11352
They say it's the devil you know...
"Islamism" in the UK and France are not true philosophical/theological re-awakenings but a reaction by immigrant groups to maintain social, economic and ethnic ties. I don't see it as an ideological threat because it is an in-group phenomenon that doesn't have a strong proselytizing presence - that is, converting people who were not Muslims beforehand, not ethnic immigrants who were already nominally Muslim when they immigrated. A handful of bullied gingers or whoever seems to be converting doesn't invalidate this. As a theological movement it is next to pointless against the all-consuming modern secular condition, against social media and globalized content, and against the power of assimilation. People are impatient and think that every immigrant is going to shed their root culture, their language and habits, the second they step off the plane. The Anglo countries (I think the situation in France is a little different) have an unassailable power to assimilate people into the fold in as little as two generations. People don't realize how remarkable that is because they already live with that as a given. Inasmuch as domestic-grown Islamism is a byproduct of immigration and ethnic relations, its time is limited as an ideological force. Since you are all males perhaps you can see yourself acclimating to joining Islam, even enjoying or benefiting from it, like you see the immigrants do-- but make no mistake, you will be hard pressed to find a second-generation immigrant girl who chose to re-don the veil or other head coverings. They exist, but that sort of action is almost always spurred by familial pressure and not a genuine desire to cover up. Love Island, Depop, Sephora, Get Ready With Me on Tiktok; it beats Ramadan for the vast majority of young ethnic girls seeing themselves at the crossroads between cultures.
Meanwhile, my ire is directed at rightoids because their dysfunction more often gets in the way of real progress. For example, for many years the right were against any discussion or approach towards the topic of the environment and climate change. If you are 25 or younger you probably don't remember that dynamic, but it took until at least the tail end of the millennial generation for rightoids to renege on the whole "environmental issues are for hippie loser degenerates" thing. Now that didn't happen because younger reactionaries all of a sudden became wiser, it changed because climate impacts are no longer debatable even for the most retarded. But they quickly changed their tune and remembered that actually nature is cool and based and trad and hey wasn't the phrase "blood and soil" anyway? And how much progress could we have made for the past 60 years if the rightoids weren't so obstinate about it? How can I be less mad at their obstinate hypocrisy and constant tantrums, I have to be mad at the immigrants instead, who by and large don't vote anyway, right that's one of the roots of the whole un-assimilated thing, is that they don't participate in civil institutions, they may flood empty marketplaces with kebab shops but they aren't flooding Parliament with elected officials.
I see in right-wingers a genuine concern about the declining state of society-- good! But they misplace it by focusing entirely on ethnic conflict, and occasionally when they get bored identity issues like gays and trannies. I dislike this not just because I think marginalized groups are worth defending, but because the real consequence is that it leads us nowhere, creates time-wasting infighting and strife when it's clear we don't have that luxury anymore.
They say it's the devil you know...
"Islamism" in the UK and France are not true philosophical/theological re-awakenings but a reaction by immigrant groups to maintain social, economic and ethnic ties. I don't see it as an ideological threat because it is an in-group phenomenon that doesn't have a strong proselytizing presence - that is, converting people who were not Muslims beforehand, not ethnic immigrants who were already nominally Muslim when they immigrated. A handful of bullied gingers or whoever seems to be converting doesn't invalidate this. As a theological movement it is next to pointless against the all-consuming modern secular condition, against social media and globalized content, and against the power of assimilation. People are impatient and think that every immigrant is going to shed their root culture, their language and habits, the second they step off the plane. The Anglo countries (I think the situation in France is a little different) have an unassailable power to assimilate people into the fold in as little as two generations. People don't realize how remarkable that is because they already live with that as a given. Inasmuch as domestic-grown Islamism is a byproduct of immigration and ethnic relations, its time is limited as an ideological force. Since you are all males perhaps you can see yourself acclimating to joining Islam, even enjoying or benefiting from it, like you see the immigrants do-- but make no mistake, you will be hard pressed to find a second-generation immigrant girl who chose to re-don the veil or other head coverings. They exist, but that sort of action is almost always spurred by familial pressure and not a genuine desire to cover up. Love Island, Depop, Sephora, Get Ready With Me on Tiktok; it beats Ramadan for the vast majority of young ethnic girls seeing themselves at the crossroads between cultures.
Meanwhile, my ire is directed at rightoids because their dysfunction more often gets in the way of real progress. For example, for many years the right were against any discussion or approach towards the topic of the environment and climate change. If you are 25 or younger you probably don't remember that dynamic, but it took until at least the tail end of the millennial generation for rightoids to renege on the whole "environmental issues are for hippie loser degenerates" thing. Now that didn't happen because younger reactionaries all of a sudden became wiser, it changed because climate impacts are no longer debatable even for the most retarded. But they quickly changed their tune and remembered that actually nature is cool and based and trad and hey wasn't the phrase "blood and soil" anyway? And how much progress could we have made for the past 60 years if the rightoids weren't so obstinate about it? How can I be less mad at their obstinate hypocrisy and constant tantrums, I have to be mad at the immigrants instead, who by and large don't vote anyway, right that's one of the roots of the whole un-assimilated thing, is that they don't participate in civil institutions, they may flood empty marketplaces with kebab shops but they aren't flooding Parliament with elected officials.
I see in right-wingers a genuine concern about the declining state of society-- good! But they misplace it by focusing entirely on ethnic conflict, and occasionally when they get bored identity issues like gays and trannies. I dislike this not just because I think marginalized groups are worth defending, but because the real consequence is that it leads us nowhere, creates time-wasting infighting and strife when it's clear we don't have that luxury anymore.
>>11358
A lot of this comment I agree with but I have to pull you up on this:
> How can I be less mad at their obstinate hypocrisy and constant tantrums, I have to be mad at the immigrants instead, who by and large don't vote anyway, right that's one of the roots of the whole un-assimilated thing, is that they don't participate in civil institutions, they may flood empty marketplaces with kebab shops but they aren't flooding Parliament with elected officials.
It's obvious that the Islamic vote is an important constituency in the UK and of ever increasing relevance. There are about half a dozen MPs now whose political position is basically 'political Islam', clearly this has been accelerated by the genocide in Gaza but it was probably going to happen at some point anyway. And a lot of Labour MPs are now in a situation where their seat is contingent on maintaining the Muslim vote. Obviously finding the most anti-Pakistani Pakistani in England in Shabhana Mahmood has been a stroke of political genius for Labour but even so it is undoubtable that their reliance on Muslim voters has made it substantially harder for them to be tough on parallel communities.
A lot of this comment I agree with but I have to pull you up on this:
> How can I be less mad at their obstinate hypocrisy and constant tantrums, I have to be mad at the immigrants instead, who by and large don't vote anyway, right that's one of the roots of the whole un-assimilated thing, is that they don't participate in civil institutions, they may flood empty marketplaces with kebab shops but they aren't flooding Parliament with elected officials.
It's obvious that the Islamic vote is an important constituency in the UK and of ever increasing relevance. There are about half a dozen MPs now whose political position is basically 'political Islam', clearly this has been accelerated by the genocide in Gaza but it was probably going to happen at some point anyway. And a lot of Labour MPs are now in a situation where their seat is contingent on maintaining the Muslim vote. Obviously finding the most anti-Pakistani Pakistani in England in Shabhana Mahmood has been a stroke of political genius for Labour but even so it is undoubtable that their reliance on Muslim voters has made it substantially harder for them to be tough on parallel communities.
>>11360
Thanks for clarifying, my lack of real knowledge about domestic British politics is apparent. I'm not from there but I try to keep up with British politics because I find it interesting. Ethnic minorities using their edge vote to take parties or issues hostage is nothing new and exists anywhere where there is a significant enough minority to do so. Now I could be wrong but my read on UK Islamists is that there's a purity race to the top to see who can be the most stringent worshiper and adhere to the rules most severely specifically as a purity test and a reaction against English and European secular society. It is as much a reaction against native Brits as it is against seeing their younger generation slip away from what they see as their own values. And that the British allowed them to step on their toes way more than they should have, having been lulled by liberal academic theory -- we could even call it a battle of theologies, really, one explicitly secular and one nominally. We are all in one way or another under the tent of "not-woke" so you won't see me defending the extremes of social justice ideology. I can easily acknowledge how it contributed to this situation.
Thanks for clarifying, my lack of real knowledge about domestic British politics is apparent. I'm not from there but I try to keep up with British politics because I find it interesting. Ethnic minorities using their edge vote to take parties or issues hostage is nothing new and exists anywhere where there is a significant enough minority to do so. Now I could be wrong but my read on UK Islamists is that there's a purity race to the top to see who can be the most stringent worshiper and adhere to the rules most severely specifically as a purity test and a reaction against English and European secular society. It is as much a reaction against native Brits as it is against seeing their younger generation slip away from what they see as their own values. And that the British allowed them to step on their toes way more than they should have, having been lulled by liberal academic theory -- we could even call it a battle of theologies, really, one explicitly secular and one nominally. We are all in one way or another under the tent of "not-woke" so you won't see me defending the extremes of social justice ideology. I can easily acknowledge how it contributed to this situation.
>>11361
Can you please talk a bit more about your theory that the inevitable arc of society is towards muslim communities becoming more integrated and more liberal. I would certainly like to believe it, having at many times expressed a belief the necessity for Islam in the west to become more like one of the established christian churches in its relationship to politics and society, but at the same time this goes against some of what we hear from the newspapers - namely, that second and third generation immigrants are potentially as conservative if not even more so than their parents.
I certainly agree that liberalism is likely to be popular with Muslim girls and young women, but it's not true that Islam has no defense - it's quite easy for them to paint white women as whores and barren hedonists in a way that I think could be quite compelling to someone raised in an Islamic context. And besides, the whole thing about a patriarchal society is that it doesn't really matter whether women like it or not, they don't get to choose one way or the other.
What also has to be considered is that even if there is a moderate flux towards more liberal attitudes in muslim communities, this can easily be completely outweighed by newly arrived immigrants with hardline views. A tight immigration policy, and arguably some political strategy for weakening or even breaking family and clan links between British Muslims and their relations in Kashmir and Bangladesh and so on, is almost certainly a prerequisite for the production of a more tolerant Church of England style Islam (Islam of England?).
Can you please talk a bit more about your theory that the inevitable arc of society is towards muslim communities becoming more integrated and more liberal. I would certainly like to believe it, having at many times expressed a belief the necessity for Islam in the west to become more like one of the established christian churches in its relationship to politics and society, but at the same time this goes against some of what we hear from the newspapers - namely, that second and third generation immigrants are potentially as conservative if not even more so than their parents.
I certainly agree that liberalism is likely to be popular with Muslim girls and young women, but it's not true that Islam has no defense - it's quite easy for them to paint white women as whores and barren hedonists in a way that I think could be quite compelling to someone raised in an Islamic context. And besides, the whole thing about a patriarchal society is that it doesn't really matter whether women like it or not, they don't get to choose one way or the other.
What also has to be considered is that even if there is a moderate flux towards more liberal attitudes in muslim communities, this can easily be completely outweighed by newly arrived immigrants with hardline views. A tight immigration policy, and arguably some political strategy for weakening or even breaking family and clan links between British Muslims and their relations in Kashmir and Bangladesh and so on, is almost certainly a prerequisite for the production of a more tolerant Church of England style Islam (Islam of England?).
No.11366
Anonymous
2026-08-04 10:58:41
>>11362
I would not characterize the process as either inevitable - nothing is inevitable and everything is subject to change - nor as towards those communities becoming more integrated and liberal. What I mean to express is that sooner or later Islam will lose its theological and ideological power. It may very well remain as an ethnic signifier far longer into the future, but only as that. We already see it is younger people who call themselves "Muslims", even vociferously-- but they have sex out of wedlock (or even homosexual relations), smoke weed and use other narcotics, and even drink, do not attend prayer five times a day, are much laxer about fasting during Ramadan, the women much more open with their clothing choices (how halal are skinny jeans and makeup?) and other such Muslim rules. That is not to get into the theological aspect of believing in god, in divinity and the concept of heaven and the primacy of holiness over science. It's already a cliche that the only thing they DO insist on following is not eating pork, and being real insistent on it. Well, that's their right of course. This is a hollowing out of the very theological grounds of Islam, just as happened to Christianity. It is inevitable, sooner or later.
Now, that does not mean that it won't remain as an ethnic or in-group signifier, but it will be just that, an ethnic thing, hollow to everyone but kept as a facade. And that does not mean that they will become liberal on traditionally liberal issues such as feminism, gay rights, and so on. But there is already an easy template for opposing those things from a secular basis. The white reactionaries would put us in headscarves too if they didn't see it as synonymous with foreign invaders.
>namely, that second and third generation immigrants are potentially as conservative if not even more so than their parents.
It's a reaction against cultural assimilation and an attempt to regain one's identity. I think it's a multifaceted reaction: the weakening of civil institutions and neoliberalism eradicating public life, declining localism and alienation from local and agricultural labor, the powerful influence of the internet and its ability to unmoor us from our immediate surroundings, and of course the typical economic marginalization that gets brought up by leftists at this point. I should also point out that conservatism has always been used as a tool to gain power over others generally, so it's not surprising that immigrants from more militant, patriarchal cultures found new wind in it.
This is a well-commented phenomenon from the other side of the looking glass too. Many a liberal Turk has complained about Erdogan's thriving support from Turkish communities in Germany, some as you point out, two or three generations deep. Their vote (and money) has a lot of sway in their home country, despite the obvious hypocrisy of not living there, or in some cases, not even speaking the language that well. Every diaspora community deals with this phenomenon to some effect or another, which is why I don't see this as some terminal illness specific to Muslims in the UK.
>it's quite easy for them to paint white women as whores and barren hedonists
This is something men are wont to do in every culture on Earth. Sexual tensions sit underneath ethnic/religious/cultural mores, not caused by them.
>And besides, the whole thing about a patriarchal society is that it doesn't really matter whether women like it or not, they don't get to choose one way or the other.
Britain is not a patriarchal society, at least not in the useful sense of that definition. To become a true patriarchal society, the society in question's *men* have to choose to disregard women's rights as an ideal over power. In a developed western country like Britain this would mean not just a sea change in culture but radical overhaul of existing legal and bureaucratic institutions. Is the Muslim takeover of Britain really close enough to fruition to overwrite 100+ years of post-suffrage legal precedent? Not so sure about that. This is another reason why I find it more fruitful to argue against right wingers over Islamists, as the latter have already made their choice, dictated to them by their theology, while the former aren't anchored to dogma and can be swayed one way or the other.
>this can easily be completely outweighed by newly arrived immigrants with hardline views.
I know Islam emphasizes its cross-ethnic brotherhood, but this ideal is something that has to be actively worked at, and not something that people are innately drawn towards. Europe also at one point had "Christendom", but it only took us so far. People will identify with their ethnic group first, and religious teaching - or civic and national integration - secondary. This "fallback" leaps out, seemingly out of nowhere, when economic, labor and intersocial conditions degrade. Multi-generation immigrants also frequently strive to differentiate themselves from newer immigrants. This goes back to the Polish comparison I made earlier - the more the newer crop of immigrants comes in, the more important it becomes, socially and economically, to be "one of the good ones", even going as far as self-hatred and erasure of ones' history. I see the Black population of the UK framing themselves this way: an authentic part of the Commonwealth, native English speakers, undeniable contributors to English culture such as music.
>the production of a more tolerant Church of England style Islam (Islam of England?).
I think Islam's theological basis makes it more resistant to overt liberalization and that we shouldn't hope for it to happen any time soon as sort of a natural evolution that all religions must take. It's not impossible for it to contain liberal facets, but those always seem to run out of steam. I think what's more likely is a watering down of Muslim ideology like what you see in Turkey, the Balkans, and peripheral stretches of Islam like in Africa and South East Asia, where the people identify as Muslim, but this takes on a much more regional, folsky and idiosyncratic character.
I would not characterize the process as either inevitable - nothing is inevitable and everything is subject to change - nor as towards those communities becoming more integrated and liberal. What I mean to express is that sooner or later Islam will lose its theological and ideological power. It may very well remain as an ethnic signifier far longer into the future, but only as that. We already see it is younger people who call themselves "Muslims", even vociferously-- but they have sex out of wedlock (or even homosexual relations), smoke weed and use other narcotics, and even drink, do not attend prayer five times a day, are much laxer about fasting during Ramadan, the women much more open with their clothing choices (how halal are skinny jeans and makeup?) and other such Muslim rules. That is not to get into the theological aspect of believing in god, in divinity and the concept of heaven and the primacy of holiness over science. It's already a cliche that the only thing they DO insist on following is not eating pork, and being real insistent on it. Well, that's their right of course. This is a hollowing out of the very theological grounds of Islam, just as happened to Christianity. It is inevitable, sooner or later.
Now, that does not mean that it won't remain as an ethnic or in-group signifier, but it will be just that, an ethnic thing, hollow to everyone but kept as a facade. And that does not mean that they will become liberal on traditionally liberal issues such as feminism, gay rights, and so on. But there is already an easy template for opposing those things from a secular basis. The white reactionaries would put us in headscarves too if they didn't see it as synonymous with foreign invaders.
>namely, that second and third generation immigrants are potentially as conservative if not even more so than their parents.
It's a reaction against cultural assimilation and an attempt to regain one's identity. I think it's a multifaceted reaction: the weakening of civil institutions and neoliberalism eradicating public life, declining localism and alienation from local and agricultural labor, the powerful influence of the internet and its ability to unmoor us from our immediate surroundings, and of course the typical economic marginalization that gets brought up by leftists at this point. I should also point out that conservatism has always been used as a tool to gain power over others generally, so it's not surprising that immigrants from more militant, patriarchal cultures found new wind in it.
This is a well-commented phenomenon from the other side of the looking glass too. Many a liberal Turk has complained about Erdogan's thriving support from Turkish communities in Germany, some as you point out, two or three generations deep. Their vote (and money) has a lot of sway in their home country, despite the obvious hypocrisy of not living there, or in some cases, not even speaking the language that well. Every diaspora community deals with this phenomenon to some effect or another, which is why I don't see this as some terminal illness specific to Muslims in the UK.
>it's quite easy for them to paint white women as whores and barren hedonists
This is something men are wont to do in every culture on Earth. Sexual tensions sit underneath ethnic/religious/cultural mores, not caused by them.
>And besides, the whole thing about a patriarchal society is that it doesn't really matter whether women like it or not, they don't get to choose one way or the other.
Britain is not a patriarchal society, at least not in the useful sense of that definition. To become a true patriarchal society, the society in question's *men* have to choose to disregard women's rights as an ideal over power. In a developed western country like Britain this would mean not just a sea change in culture but radical overhaul of existing legal and bureaucratic institutions. Is the Muslim takeover of Britain really close enough to fruition to overwrite 100+ years of post-suffrage legal precedent? Not so sure about that. This is another reason why I find it more fruitful to argue against right wingers over Islamists, as the latter have already made their choice, dictated to them by their theology, while the former aren't anchored to dogma and can be swayed one way or the other.
>this can easily be completely outweighed by newly arrived immigrants with hardline views.
I know Islam emphasizes its cross-ethnic brotherhood, but this ideal is something that has to be actively worked at, and not something that people are innately drawn towards. Europe also at one point had "Christendom", but it only took us so far. People will identify with their ethnic group first, and religious teaching - or civic and national integration - secondary. This "fallback" leaps out, seemingly out of nowhere, when economic, labor and intersocial conditions degrade. Multi-generation immigrants also frequently strive to differentiate themselves from newer immigrants. This goes back to the Polish comparison I made earlier - the more the newer crop of immigrants comes in, the more important it becomes, socially and economically, to be "one of the good ones", even going as far as self-hatred and erasure of ones' history. I see the Black population of the UK framing themselves this way: an authentic part of the Commonwealth, native English speakers, undeniable contributors to English culture such as music.
>the production of a more tolerant Church of England style Islam (Islam of England?).
I think Islam's theological basis makes it more resistant to overt liberalization and that we shouldn't hope for it to happen any time soon as sort of a natural evolution that all religions must take. It's not impossible for it to contain liberal facets, but those always seem to run out of steam. I think what's more likely is a watering down of Muslim ideology like what you see in Turkey, the Balkans, and peripheral stretches of Islam like in Africa and South East Asia, where the people identify as Muslim, but this takes on a much more regional, folsky and idiosyncratic character.
>11358
The one correct thing you posted was that the right’s attitude towards the ecological crisis was pathetic, and shows how hollowed out and broken by capitalists it has become.
>but make no mistake, you will be hard pressed to find a second-generation immigrant girl who chose to re-don the veil or other head coverings
This is just wrong. Second and third generation Muslims in Europe are far more extreme than their ancestors.
Muslim women in particular are the foundation of this. I admire them, truly. Our women are not remotely as committed to our civilization as they are to theirs. While Sarah enjoys her 20s, Salma has 2-4 kids, and imparts on them the importance of large families, conservatism, and Islam. How can we possibly compete with that? Not that Western women are solely to blame, the rot began with Western men. We have a lot to fix within ourselves before Western society can be fixed.
It may seem like I hate Islam but in reality I would characterize my position regarding them is as a sort of “student observer.” Islamic civilization is the only civilization today which is winning: growing population-wise, politically expanding in Africa, Europe, etc. while the West is stuck in a doom loop of decay. It is a reversal of the West and Islam’s positions in the 19th century. Humility is needed, if we can study what led to their success we can see how to repair our own civilization. (And this does not mean becoming religious lunatics ourselves, it means finding a way to make a demographically sustainable secular and unapologetically pro-Western society).
As for the red-green alliance, I think the left in the UK (and Europe at large) is headed for its own 1979 Iran moment, the Islamists will ally with them for as long as they need to and then afterwards the left and all it cherishes (secularism, feminism, economic socialism, LGBT rights) will be crushed. Perhaps you consider this to be delusional, but the Islamists have demographics on their side and other things once considered nativist alarmism have long since happened.
The one correct thing you posted was that the right’s attitude towards the ecological crisis was pathetic, and shows how hollowed out and broken by capitalists it has become.
>but make no mistake, you will be hard pressed to find a second-generation immigrant girl who chose to re-don the veil or other head coverings
This is just wrong. Second and third generation Muslims in Europe are far more extreme than their ancestors.
Muslim women in particular are the foundation of this. I admire them, truly. Our women are not remotely as committed to our civilization as they are to theirs. While Sarah enjoys her 20s, Salma has 2-4 kids, and imparts on them the importance of large families, conservatism, and Islam. How can we possibly compete with that? Not that Western women are solely to blame, the rot began with Western men. We have a lot to fix within ourselves before Western society can be fixed.
It may seem like I hate Islam but in reality I would characterize my position regarding them is as a sort of “student observer.” Islamic civilization is the only civilization today which is winning: growing population-wise, politically expanding in Africa, Europe, etc. while the West is stuck in a doom loop of decay. It is a reversal of the West and Islam’s positions in the 19th century. Humility is needed, if we can study what led to their success we can see how to repair our own civilization. (And this does not mean becoming religious lunatics ourselves, it means finding a way to make a demographically sustainable secular and unapologetically pro-Western society).
As for the red-green alliance, I think the left in the UK (and Europe at large) is headed for its own 1979 Iran moment, the Islamists will ally with them for as long as they need to and then afterwards the left and all it cherishes (secularism, feminism, economic socialism, LGBT rights) will be crushed. Perhaps you consider this to be delusional, but the Islamists have demographics on their side and other things once considered nativist alarmism have long since happened.
>>11372
Well that’s the rub isn’t it? You see the duty of family as a burden, whereas Muslim women see it as an honor. And so we decay while they grow.
Well that’s the rub isn’t it? You see the duty of family as a burden, whereas Muslim women see it as an honor. And so we decay while they grow.
You sure they see it "as an honor" or is that the trite noble savage thinking you've imposed on them to make your worldview tidy and uncomplicated
No.11376
Anonymous
2026-08-04 14:01:05
>>11374
*They are forced into marriage with their cousins and raped
*They are forced into marriage with their cousins and raped
No.11377
Anonymous
2026-08-04 14:05:16
No, the women internalize the cultural norms. No force is involved, if force is defined in the normal way.
It is perfectly possible to leave home and embrace a more "normal" life, which some do do, but most don't.
It is perfectly possible to leave home and embrace a more "normal" life, which some do do, but most don't.
You refuse to pontificate the complex situation women are placed into regarding reproduction because you don't consider them fully human. You dislike them and have never given them theory of mind. Whatever you say about them and their motives will be pointlessly simplified to the effect of negating any benefit to discussion. That's your goal, of course, as a reactionary, covering up his schoolboy-level fear of girls couched in modern day reactionary ethnic warfare.
No.11381
Anonymous
2026-08-04 14:20:29
>>11379
got his ass
got his ass
>>11375
They absolutely see it as a honor and duty, for which Islam rewards them with the title of “queen of the household.” I don’t see it as a “noble savage” thing, it’s a key to the success of their civilization. Muslim women might not see it in such strategic terms but Islam owes much of its current success to their commitment.
>>11379
I don’t dislike Muslim women, if anything I applaud them. My criticism is that Western women have abandoned that duty. Now certainly one can say Western men abandoned their duty first and that is largely true. In fact I think that is what needs to be fixed, no point in convincing women to take up their duties when we have abandoned ours.
They absolutely see it as a honor and duty, for which Islam rewards them with the title of “queen of the household.” I don’t see it as a “noble savage” thing, it’s a key to the success of their civilization. Muslim women might not see it in such strategic terms but Islam owes much of its current success to their commitment.
>>11379
I don’t dislike Muslim women, if anything I applaud them. My criticism is that Western women have abandoned that duty. Now certainly one can say Western men abandoned their duty first and that is largely true. In fact I think that is what needs to be fixed, no point in convincing women to take up their duties when we have abandoned ours.
>>11382
honor and duty or the fact that most human beings cannot stomach being disowned by their parents/community? which is what will happen if they don't marry and have kids
honor and duty or the fact that most human beings cannot stomach being disowned by their parents/community? which is what will happen if they don't marry and have kids
>>11379
If the word 'force' is used in the normal way, there is no 'force' involved for most of these women. If the definition of 'force' is different here, does that only apply in this case, or in other cases? Your definition is I think quite novel.
Men who commit honour killings (a practice which arrived in the UK only recently) are entangled in the same web of obligations, social mores, norms, and religious goo as are the women whose cause you have taken up. Nobody would ever consider that the men, in these cases, are somehow not fully responsible for their behaviour.
>>11383
If Michael Corleone had not 'stepped up' to take Vito's place, he would have been disowned. And so what? It'd be absurd to see him as a victim.
You talk as if there is some truly 'outside', external, satellitic view you have obtained. Has it ever occurred to you that your life, viewed from their perspective, would seem just as dismal as theirs do from yours?
If the word 'force' is used in the normal way, there is no 'force' involved for most of these women. If the definition of 'force' is different here, does that only apply in this case, or in other cases? Your definition is I think quite novel.
Men who commit honour killings (a practice which arrived in the UK only recently) are entangled in the same web of obligations, social mores, norms, and religious goo as are the women whose cause you have taken up. Nobody would ever consider that the men, in these cases, are somehow not fully responsible for their behaviour.
>>11383
If Michael Corleone had not 'stepped up' to take Vito's place, he would have been disowned. And so what? It'd be absurd to see him as a victim.
You talk as if there is some truly 'outside', external, satellitic view you have obtained. Has it ever occurred to you that your life, viewed from their perspective, would seem just as dismal as theirs do from yours?
No.11387
Anonymous
2026-08-04 16:15:36
>>11386
what are you taking about? vito initially didn't want michael to take over and even after Sonny's death when he realises michael would be the right person to take over he does not impose this fate on him. it's michael who wants to take over. Michael would've never been disowned
what are you taking about? vito initially didn't want michael to take over and even after Sonny's death when he realises michael would be the right person to take over he does not impose this fate on him. it's michael who wants to take over. Michael would've never been disowned
No.11399
Anonymous
2026-08-05 08:50:10
>>11357
yes, insofar as i'd like to hear your thoughts articulated at least
yes, insofar as i'd like to hear your thoughts articulated at least
American social media is promoting posts that make it seem like a paramilitary group has formed in Ireland and is using anti-migrant momentum to reclaim Northern Ireland from the UK. Is anything like that actually true? There is also the rumor that Zuckerberg had five Facebook groups going to astroturf the 40,000 migrants to converge on to Ceuta to instigate instability without a direct order. Is something similar occurring?
>>11467
>Social media says the race war has started, confirm my biases please? no I'm not able to read a book or find information other than what the algorithm has given me
>Social media says the race war has started, confirm my biases please? no I'm not able to read a book or find information other than what the algorithm has given me
No.11739
Anonymous
2026-08-22 13:17:24
Britain is in need of empire. It needs to close it's border tight, enforce conscription, scrap the insanity called democracy, and be ruled by a totalitarisn dictator who bows not to weakness, but openly conquers other countries, and expels the populations of those countries he conquered. Britain is running out of space, we need new land.
No.11881
Anonymous
2026-08-31 03:05:16
its*
>>11362
They are not going to liberalise. If anything, the Muslim immigrants in the West are assimilating into diffuse 'brown' culture of third worldism, grievances against the white 'coloniser' and economic populism. Even the girls who take off their hijabs and go to parties probably think the West and white people are the source of all their woes. Islamism is less of a religious movement now and more of an anti-Western ideological movement, much like tradcathism is a reaction against liberalism (mainly feminism) and not really related to religious experience.
>>11174
The obsession with supposed impending islamisation of Europe is so nakedly psychosexual. The effete European twinks are going to get CRUSHED by virile Islamist bulls any time soon!
The chud fixation on Muslim rapes in Europe is distastefully voyeuristic too. There's little concern for the victims in the obsessive sharing of graphic stories along with photos of the victimised woman to aid the reader's fantasising. The racial cuckoldry component and the violation of what right wing men see as their sexual property is what attracts them to the stories. In cases of intraracial rape, their concern dissipates and the victim becomes a lying bitch who asked for it. There should be a moratorium on immigration from countries whose emigrants have a higher-than-baseline rate of SA perpetration, but the real issue is that sexual assault is de facto legal (only 1% of rapes end in prosecution).
They are not going to liberalise. If anything, the Muslim immigrants in the West are assimilating into diffuse 'brown' culture of third worldism, grievances against the white 'coloniser' and economic populism. Even the girls who take off their hijabs and go to parties probably think the West and white people are the source of all their woes. Islamism is less of a religious movement now and more of an anti-Western ideological movement, much like tradcathism is a reaction against liberalism (mainly feminism) and not really related to religious experience.
>>11174
The obsession with supposed impending islamisation of Europe is so nakedly psychosexual. The effete European twinks are going to get CRUSHED by virile Islamist bulls any time soon!
The chud fixation on Muslim rapes in Europe is distastefully voyeuristic too. There's little concern for the victims in the obsessive sharing of graphic stories along with photos of the victimised woman to aid the reader's fantasising. The racial cuckoldry component and the violation of what right wing men see as their sexual property is what attracts them to the stories. In cases of intraracial rape, their concern dissipates and the victim becomes a lying bitch who asked for it. There should be a moratorium on immigration from countries whose emigrants have a higher-than-baseline rate of SA perpetration, but the real issue is that sexual assault is de facto legal (only 1% of rapes end in prosecution).
No.11883
Anonymous
2026-08-31 08:56:26
>>11879
T.
>>11882
This discussion of race and sex reminded me of Sayed Qutb's breakdown when he went to a church dance in, I think, Wisconsin, and had a chud meltdown at the mingling of the sexes. It's humorous to think about how what would have been a completely normal, unremarkable evening for Americans drove Qutb to the depths of frustration.
>The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs—and she shows all this and does not hide it.
Politics often has its roots in different types of psychosexual meltdown.
>The effete European twinks are going to get CRUSHED by virile Islamist bulls any time soon!
I don't think that European twinks have any sort of sexual interest in Arabs, who are largely not considered attractive within the gay world. Gay people are willing to be sexual racists. Men who worry about cuckholding and are interested in "raceplay" are, I am guessing, more AGP than gay.
>There should be a moratorium on immigration from countries whose emigrants have a higher-than-baseline rate of SA perpetration, but the real issue is that sexual assault is de facto legal (only 1% of rapes end in prosecution).
A remarkably silly sentence, and in stark contrast to the clever analysis of 'chud' sexual anxieties in the previous sentences. Very r/LabourUK-coded. The surveys used to work out the 'dark figure' of rape--the actual rate--a) have a very low response rate, which raises issues of bias, b) take the claims of the answerer at face value, where they may lie unintentionally (and normal survey methods used to detect this sort of error are [deliberately?] not used and c) use a novel definition of rape, which is often not defined anyway. They don't understand construct validity.
For example, it's not true under English law that all sex without consent is rape: if the accused had a 'genuine and reasonable belief' that the accuser had consented, that is a defence. Assuming a respondant were to answer these surveys with complete honesty and perfect recall of the experience they underwent (which is, inevitably, not always the case), it is still possible to have a situation where the survey records an experience as fitting 'rape'/'sexual abuse', even though the case in question would fit within one of the exceptions within the law. To the extent to which these cases are presented as cases which the police have in some way been derelict in not prosecuting, the complaint is that the police have enforced the law as it is, rather than as activists would like it to be.
T.
>>11882
This discussion of race and sex reminded me of Sayed Qutb's breakdown when he went to a church dance in, I think, Wisconsin, and had a chud meltdown at the mingling of the sexes. It's humorous to think about how what would have been a completely normal, unremarkable evening for Americans drove Qutb to the depths of frustration.
>The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs—and she shows all this and does not hide it.
Politics often has its roots in different types of psychosexual meltdown.
>The effete European twinks are going to get CRUSHED by virile Islamist bulls any time soon!
I don't think that European twinks have any sort of sexual interest in Arabs, who are largely not considered attractive within the gay world. Gay people are willing to be sexual racists. Men who worry about cuckholding and are interested in "raceplay" are, I am guessing, more AGP than gay.
>There should be a moratorium on immigration from countries whose emigrants have a higher-than-baseline rate of SA perpetration, but the real issue is that sexual assault is de facto legal (only 1% of rapes end in prosecution).
A remarkably silly sentence, and in stark contrast to the clever analysis of 'chud' sexual anxieties in the previous sentences. Very r/LabourUK-coded. The surveys used to work out the 'dark figure' of rape--the actual rate--a) have a very low response rate, which raises issues of bias, b) take the claims of the answerer at face value, where they may lie unintentionally (and normal survey methods used to detect this sort of error are [deliberately?] not used and c) use a novel definition of rape, which is often not defined anyway. They don't understand construct validity.
For example, it's not true under English law that all sex without consent is rape: if the accused had a 'genuine and reasonable belief' that the accuser had consented, that is a defence. Assuming a respondant were to answer these surveys with complete honesty and perfect recall of the experience they underwent (which is, inevitably, not always the case), it is still possible to have a situation where the survey records an experience as fitting 'rape'/'sexual abuse', even though the case in question would fit within one of the exceptions within the law. To the extent to which these cases are presented as cases which the police have in some way been derelict in not prosecuting, the complaint is that the police have enforced the law as it is, rather than as activists would like it to be.
No.11900
Anonymous
2026-09-01 05:19:51
>>11358
>People are impatient and think that every immigrant is going to shed their root culture, their language and habits, the second they step off the plane. The Anglo countries (I think the situation in France is a little different) have an unassailable power to assimilate people into the fold in as little as two generations.
Interesting recent study in this context:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605241311611
In Sweden, 63% of individuals convicted of rape between 2000 and 2020 were first- or second-generation immigrants. By comparison, people classified as having a foreign background accounted for 14.5% of the population in 2000 and 25.9% in 2020.
>People are impatient and think that every immigrant is going to shed their root culture, their language and habits, the second they step off the plane. The Anglo countries (I think the situation in France is a little different) have an unassailable power to assimilate people into the fold in as little as two generations.
Interesting recent study in this context:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605241311611
In Sweden, 63% of individuals convicted of rape between 2000 and 2020 were first- or second-generation immigrants. By comparison, people classified as having a foreign background accounted for 14.5% of the population in 2000 and 25.9% in 2020.
No.11901
Anonymous
2026-09-01 05:27:36
Not an Anglo country
No.11902
Anonymous
2026-09-01 05:31:56
You're just publishing a crime statistic and it has nothing to do with the finer cultural point I was making, of a country that is pointedly NOT an Anglo country, has never been an imperial country with colonial history, and arguably could be said to itself be a victim of Anglo-American cultural dominance. Are you a bot? If you just want to crimepost I can't stop you but don't reply to my comment and waltz up to me like you're just coming along for a friendly, inquisitive chat
No.11903
Anonymous
2026-09-01 05:33:30
Also you don't care about women so please stop using rape statistics as a cudgel.
No.11904
Anonymous
2026-09-01 05:59:14
Notice how they start crashing out like a glitching android when confronted with actual data lol.
>The effete European twinks are going to get CRUSHED by virile Islamist bulls any time soon!
Gay undertones aside this is literally what is happening, is it not? The decadent, self-critiquing West being overrun by a cruder, crueler but more fertile (birth rates) and more devoted civilization. Once upon a time it was the British who were the more virile people, conquering Egypt and India and Africa. Now they are the weak ones.
Gay undertones aside this is literally what is happening, is it not? The decadent, self-critiquing West being overrun by a cruder, crueler but more fertile (birth rates) and more devoted civilization. Once upon a time it was the British who were the more virile people, conquering Egypt and India and Africa. Now they are the weak ones.
>>11941
No, migrants from far-flung countries are generally not "virile", "crude" or really "cruel" either. The Brits have been over-affected by evangelical Christianity (viz Corelli Barnett's Audit of War) which means that they have been unable to do even basic things. Ironically Starmer started to push back on this, and the "regime" obviously wants Farage now, who will go further.
No, migrants from far-flung countries are generally not "virile", "crude" or really "cruel" either. The Brits have been over-affected by evangelical Christianity (viz Corelli Barnett's Audit of War) which means that they have been unable to do even basic things. Ironically Starmer started to push back on this, and the "regime" obviously wants Farage now, who will go further.
>>11944
> No, migrants from far-flung countries are generally not "virile", "crude" or really "cruel" either.
In the UK 30-40% of married couples of Pakistani origin are first cousins. Around 3-4% of UK births are to Pakistani-origin parents, but they are estimated to account for 30% of children born with severe autosomal-recessive disorders.
Or if you look at African countries, UNICEF reports that 99% of girls and women aged 15-49 in Somalia have undergone Female Genital Mutilation. 76% of women aged 15-49 in Somalia have been found to support the continuation of Female Genital Mutilation.
How's that assimilation project looking lol? Surely people of all cultures are all exactly equally crude on average and there are no systemic group differences.
> No, migrants from far-flung countries are generally not "virile", "crude" or really "cruel" either.
In the UK 30-40% of married couples of Pakistani origin are first cousins. Around 3-4% of UK births are to Pakistani-origin parents, but they are estimated to account for 30% of children born with severe autosomal-recessive disorders.
Or if you look at African countries, UNICEF reports that 99% of girls and women aged 15-49 in Somalia have undergone Female Genital Mutilation. 76% of women aged 15-49 in Somalia have been found to support the continuation of Female Genital Mutilation.
How's that assimilation project looking lol? Surely people of all cultures are all exactly equally crude on average and there are no systemic group differences.
No.11946
Anonymous
2026-09-02 07:46:19
It's the same damn topic every single day with you retards. It's even the same phrases! "How's that multiculturalism thing looking lol?" I can't be the only one who's sick of reading this over and over again. Jesus Christ
>>11945
Are you saying that the more inbred you are, the more virile? Did you know that children born of consanguineous marriages are massively more likely to be intersex? It seems like you are AN AI bot, slopping-out all over the place.
Are you saying that the more inbred you are, the more virile? Did you know that children born of consanguineous marriages are massively more likely to be intersex? It seems like you are AN AI bot, slopping-out all over the place.
>>11945
You can criticize Pakistani and Somali culture all you want but at the end of the day Pakistan and Somalia will exist 200 years from now, while Western British culture will be extinct. Things like FGM seem cruel to me, but at the end of the day Somali women are loyal to their culture and faith. Outside of a handful of exceptions (that one Somali ex-Muslim now Christian lady) you will not see the criticism of Somali culture from Somali women that Western women routinely lambast the West with. Obviously the Somalis and Pakistanis do something right, and the West messed up.
>>11948
Who has a higher birthrate, Pakistan or the UK? Which population is growing more dominant in British politics? You are looking at a winning culture and trying to cope. Yeah some Pakistani Muslim might have birth defects, sucks to be him. His people still benefit from his existence.
You can criticize Pakistani and Somali culture all you want but at the end of the day Pakistan and Somalia will exist 200 years from now, while Western British culture will be extinct. Things like FGM seem cruel to me, but at the end of the day Somali women are loyal to their culture and faith. Outside of a handful of exceptions (that one Somali ex-Muslim now Christian lady) you will not see the criticism of Somali culture from Somali women that Western women routinely lambast the West with. Obviously the Somalis and Pakistanis do something right, and the West messed up.
>>11948
Who has a higher birthrate, Pakistan or the UK? Which population is growing more dominant in British politics? You are looking at a winning culture and trying to cope. Yeah some Pakistani Muslim might have birth defects, sucks to be him. His people still benefit from his existence.
>>11952
Pakistani culture as it exists will continue to exist. The Pakistani people will continue to exist, and their Islamic norms will continue to rule Pakistan. Compare that to the UK or Europe at large. The liberal culture of the West is living on borrowed time, it is not demographically or economically sustainable. Immigration accelerates this timeline dramatically, as now a strong civilization (the Islamic one, in the UK) is now establishing itself there with no real ability on the part of the West to combat it.
Pakistani culture as it exists will continue to exist. The Pakistani people will continue to exist, and their Islamic norms will continue to rule Pakistan. Compare that to the UK or Europe at large. The liberal culture of the West is living on borrowed time, it is not demographically or economically sustainable. Immigration accelerates this timeline dramatically, as now a strong civilization (the Islamic one, in the UK) is now establishing itself there with no real ability on the part of the West to combat it.
>>11958
I note you didn't answer my question, because you are, in fact, some kind of Pakistani.
I note you didn't answer my question, because you are, in fact, some kind of Pakistani.
>>11960
He's right and you know it so you don't have anything else to say other than
>Y-y-you are a JEET!
He's right and you know it so you don't have anything else to say other than
>Y-y-you are a JEET!
No.12139
Anonymous
2026-09-08 14:08:21
>>12103
He's not correct. The issues with his assertions (consanguineous marriages and spastic kids = more virile culture) are transparently obvious. My pointing out that he is some sort of Pakistani isn't calling him a 'jeet', which wouldn't be an argument. My point is that only the most unsophisticated of Pakistani nationalists could think that the destruction of his own race with malformed, inbred offspring constitutes a win. When it comes to human capital, it's quality that matters: which explains why Britain is the way it is, and other countries, the way they are. I am sure that the Eton-educated elite of Pakistan are not celebrating their countrymen's love of marrying their cousins and everything that results from that.
He's not correct. The issues with his assertions (consanguineous marriages and spastic kids = more virile culture) are transparently obvious. My pointing out that he is some sort of Pakistani isn't calling him a 'jeet', which wouldn't be an argument. My point is that only the most unsophisticated of Pakistani nationalists could think that the destruction of his own race with malformed, inbred offspring constitutes a win. When it comes to human capital, it's quality that matters: which explains why Britain is the way it is, and other countries, the way they are. I am sure that the Eton-educated elite of Pakistan are not celebrating their countrymen's love of marrying their cousins and everything that results from that.