French Love?

[sam i am]

The below article was written as an editorial :

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Sep-25-Sun-2005/opinion/3498534.html

This goes alonmg with our Socialist discussions, previously, to some degree.

We can argue all we want about how much better it would be under Socialism as compared to Capitalism, but the truth of the matter is that there are ALWAYS unintended consequences to social or capital engineering.

Arguments can be made that capitalism foists it's own foibles upon us, but at least under capitalism, there exists the MECHANISM to move up the social and monetary scale. Under true socialism, no such mechanism exists.

Like the French and Swedish, if they continue to embrace Socialism, THEY may not exist.... :eek:

[Ace42X]

Like the French and Swedish, if they continue to embrace Socialism, THEY may not exist.... :eek:

It is ridiculous in the extreme. It is good the population level is going down, and yes it means hard-ship because of over-sights of previous governments, but hell, the "baby boom" post-war was always going to have this problem. No matter how capitalist a society, this will be a problem. If anything this is just an argument for getting more economic migrants in.

[sam i am]

It is ridiculous in the extreme. It is good the population level is going down, and yes it means hard-ship because of over-sights of previous governments, but hell, the "baby boom" post-war was always going to have this problem. No matter how capitalist a society, this will be a problem. If anything this is just an argument for getting more economic migrants in.

Good. Keep adding Muslim "migrants" and watch the face of France keep changing. Much like the US with it's Hispanic and Latin immigrants, France may no longer be for the Gauls. Is this really what the majority of French people want?

I'm not arguing whether immigration or the changing face of a nation is good or bad, but it surely holds up my point that unintended consequences follow. I'm QUITE sure that no politician in France stood up and stated that he or she wanted to have "France for the Arabs!" Talk about the whole Algerian fiasco coming back to bite you in the ass!

[Ace42X]

Good. Keep adding Muslim "migrants" and watch the face of France keep changing.

Now that's borderline racist. Might as well say the asians in England aren't "English" even though they've lived here their whole lives.

Much like the US with it's Hispanic and Latin immigrants, France may no longer be for the Gauls. Is this really what the majority of French people want?

"No longer for the Gauls..." Last I checked France had no ethnic purity legislation, nor pursued any eugenic policies.

I'm QUITE sure that no politician in France stood up and stated that he or she wanted to have "France for the Arabs!" Talk about the whole Algerian fiasco coming back to bite you in the ass!

Again, if the "Arabs" immigrated to France, they would cease to be Arabian, and become "French."

Maybe coming from a multi-cultural society like I do, the idea of defining a nation in terms of racial purity is anathema to me.

[sam i am]

Now that's borderline racist. Might as well say the asians in England aren't "English" even though they've lived here their whole lives.



"No longer for the Gauls..." Last I checked France had no ethnic purity legislation, nor pursued any eugenic policies.



Again, if the "Arabs" immigrated to France, they would cease to be Arabian, and become "French."

Maybe coming from a multi-cultural society like I do, the idea of defining a nation in terms of racial purity is anathema to me.

I promise I was NOT making any racist statements. I was simply stating facts.

I'm a big believer in immigration and the lifting up of those who cannot find economic opportunities in their home countries. Immigration is good for both the receiving and the donating countries.

BUT, in France especially, and to a lesser extent in Britain, they've had such lax immigration policies, and those that espouse violence have been so welcomed in the past, that there is direct causal link between that most recent immigration and the attacks in London. Are those new groups truly assimilating into the British or French culture? Are Hispanics and Latins in the US? Those are the questions I'd like to ask.

Please understand, again, that I am NOT offering an opinion nor denigrating any ethnic group, just merely looking for what others think on these issues as sparked by that article I originally posted.

[Ace42X]

that there is direct causal link between that most recent immigration and the attacks in London.

Bullshit. The London bombers were home-grown. Even spoke with a Yorkshire accent.

[sam i am]

Bullshit. The London bombers were home-grown. Even spoke with a Yorkshire accent.

Exactly my point. I was speaking of "recent immigration." Second generation, in this case. If that generation is not assimilating British culture, what hope is there for the next generation that grows up in that culture? Is religion more embedded than nationality? Where do the lines cross and blur? Where is the fealty of that individual : to their brethren in the country or to the religion they are inculcated in?

All important questions.

Also applicable to the US just as much. Are homegrown Christians (such as Timothy McVeigh portrayed himself to be) just as dangerous in the US? How about the millions of Mexican Catholics? Are their loyalties more to the Pope than to the US Constitution (notwithstanding JFK's assertions to the contrary?)?

I'm just asking the hard questions here....what are YOUR answers?

[Ace42X]

If that generation is not assimilating British culture, what hope is there for the next generation that grows up in that culture?

Where is the fealty of that individual : to their brethren in the country or to the religion they are inculcated in?

It was nothing about their religion, and everything about the disaffected feeling obliged to take action in the only way they can. Yes their target was innocent people, and that was wrong, but look what is going on in Iraq.

The "eye for an eye" mentality isn't the sole bastion of Islam. Look at the US and the death penalty. Your countrymen hunger for wild retribution more than anyone. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many many many innocent people have died because the US is totally incapable of getting revenge on the people that have attacked it. How is a young British Muslim doing the same a cultural or religious indictment?

[sam i am]

It was nothing about their religion, and everything about the disaffected feeling obliged to take action in the only way they can. Yes their target was innocent people, and that was wrong, but look what is going on in Iraq.

The "eye for an eye" mentality isn't the sole bastion of Islam. Look at the US and the death penalty. Your countrymen hunger for wild retribution more than anyone. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many many many innocent people have died because the US is totally incapable of getting revenge on the people that have attacked it. How is a young British Muslim doing the same a cultural or religious indictment?

It isn't. That's exactly why I pointed out the fanaticism that is CAPABLE in the US as well (again with Timothy McVeigh as a Christian nut in this case - remember Oklahoma City? - homegrown terrorism as well).

You must think, ace, that I am indicting a particular group or sect, but I am not. Examples abound throughout history and throughout the world currently of unassimilated groups that have emigrated to other countries, then had serious issues with adjusting to their new homelands. My question is a deeper psychological and sociological one : WHY do these groups, especially recently in history, it seems, NOT assimiliate and have their fealty go to their new home countries?

[Ace42X]

It isn't. That's exactly why I pointed out the fanaticism that is CAPABLE in the US as well.

But I was distinguishing state sanctioned "fanaticism" (IE the wars) rather than putting it down to the "madness of a few extremists."

My point being that having immigrants coming in is no different to having a bunch of ethnic-natives sabre-rattling.

WHY do these groups, especially recently in history, it seems, NOT assimiliate and have their fealty go to their new home countries?

Plenty do, it's a big assumption. There is plenty of conformity to national identity in ethnic communities. Take the "turban and kilt" scots-Asian stand-up who is currently on the TV a fair bit.

Take the ALF for an example, they are frequently acting militantly against their own country and species for their goals, despite not being part of the group (animals) they are supposedly "loyal" to.

Quite frankly, these "terrorists" do what they do because they think it is the right thing. "Fealty" doesn't come into it, other than people are more likely to think THEIR country, nation is "always in the right." due to nationalism.

I'd say the "non-conformists" are generally people who are refusing to let indoctrination water down their passions about the injustices they perceive as going on.

[sam i am]

I'd say the "non-conformists" are generally people who are refusing to let indoctrination water down their passions about the injustices they perceive as going on.

That is one of the most interesting quotes I've heard in a long while.

So, do you think that "non-conformism" is noble then? What about non-conformists that are in a setting like an urban school (non-religious, public) who insist on wearing religious symbols of one sort or another, whether on t-shirts or as idols or as headdresses, etc.? Does separation of church and state extend to the nobelization of non-conformists?

Also, as to "indoctrination" : where do you think the ideas and wherewithal to be non-conformist in a quite conformity-loving society come from originally? I mean, does the original thought to NOT act or be like others around you come into conciousness as a genetic response?

Or, is there some subconcious human thought-provoker that originates the original idea, so to speak?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Ace42X]

So, do you think that "non-conformism" is noble then?

It depends. Non-conformism generally requires a great deal of strength of character, and a lot of the worst tyrannies of mankind have been made possible solely through compliance and conformity (specific sociological terms, not just the casual meaning). Take Skinner or Zimbardo's work as proof positive.

I'd say that non-conforming of itself is noble. That says nothing about what someone then chooses to do with their sociological freedom.

Nietzsche posited that God was dead and that conventional morality was merely control by the state (or, equally, the church). He suggested that by eschewing conventional (I.E. by the conventions of men) morality, men could become "Zie Uber-Mensch" or "super-men." This does not mean they are necessarily *immoral* (although, in this sense, morality takes on a different meaning) - merely that they have the freedom to be moral or immoral based on their own system of morality instead of someone elses.

Of course, this is seperating it from his theorising on "natural" morality, I.E. Darwinism.

What about non-conformists that are in a setting like an urban school (non-religious, public) who insist on wearing religious symbols of one sort or another, whether on t-shirts or as idols or as headdresses, etc.? Does separation of church and state extend to the nobelization of non-conformists?

Non-conformity is often mistaken with a different form of conformity. Conforming to a sub-group is just as much conformity. Like Lisa Simpson points out when Bart gets his ear pieced "How individual! In a conformist kind of way..."

Where do you think the ideas and wherewithal to be non-conformist in a quite conformity-loving society come from originally? I mean, does the original thought to NOT act or be like others around you come into conciousness as a genetic response?

Being able to say "1 + 1 = 2" when everyone else around you is readily agreeing it is 3 is a valuable survival trait. Just as much as relying on other people is valuable to socialisation.

[sam i am]

I'd say that non-conforming of itself is noble. That says nothing about what someone then chooses to do with their sociological freedom.

Well said. (y)

Non-conformity is often mistaken with a different form of conformity. Conforming to a sub-group is just as much conformity. Like Lisa Simpson points out when Bart gets his ear pieced "How individual! In a conformist kind of way..."

Ok. But where does it end? Is it an endless feedback loop? Must a non-conformist continuously re-non-conform as he/she attracts followers or adherents? Doesn't your reasoning then delegitimize the nonconformity of some of the groups you upheld previously (i.e. - the first person who came up with the ALF ideal was the uber-non-conformist and all others who joined were then "conforming to a sub-group?")?



Being able to say "1 + 1 = 2" when everyone else around you is readily agreeing it is 3 is a valuable survival trait. Just as much as relying on other people is valuable to socialisation.

Why is it valuable? Is it inherently valuable? Wasn't the person who first came up with the notion that the world was flat wrong, yet noble in your estimation due to his non-conformity? Why is it a "valuable survival trait" as you say above? What if everyone around you kills you for your non-conformity (happened to the original Christians, for example)? Are you then a noble martyr? Or are you a crackpot? Who gets to make the judgement call in such noble martyrs/crackpots? History? Society? Historians? The bookwriters? The filmmakers? The teachers?

More points to ponder and discuss....

[Schmeltz]

Much like the US with it's Hispanic and Latin immigrants, France may no longer be for the Gauls.


Much like the US? Who's the US supposed to be "for," then? White people?


homegrown Christians (such as Timothy McVeigh portrayed himself to be) just as dangerous in the US?


Nah, your troops are only really dangerous to poor brown people in little postcolonial countries.

To get back to the original topic - birth rates have plummeted all around the world in the last couple of decades, not just in the West, and the trend has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or taxation. Women are simply choosing to have fewer children, as they now have greater opportunities for a more diverse participation in society than simply "wife and mother" - education and career paths are difficult things to maintain when one is constantly minding one's progeny. Declining birth rates are a sign of increased personal freedom and a higher standard of living as well as an eventual easing of the strain on natural and man-made resources.

The difficulty, of course, involves the workforce needed to take care of all the old people along with maintaining current levels of economic production. But immigration can more than take care of the latter if we let it - which might involve discarding archaic notions about our culture, but I'd say that's preferable to stagnation. Once all the old people actually die, both problems will take care of themselves. And if we keep having hurricanes and heat waves, we won't even have to worry about that!

[Ali]

Good. Keep adding Muslim "migrants" and watch the face of France keep changing. Much like the US with it's Hispanic and Latin immigrants, France may no longer be for the Gauls. Is this really what the majority of French people want?Xenophobe. Are you saying that Hispanic and Latin immigrants denegrate the US? What about all the other immigrants, all those years ago? The US is certainly no longer for the Native Americans, why should France be for the "Gauls"? Who are these Gauls, anyway? Asterix and Obelix? Is this some sort of Aryan breed that needs to be protected from pollution by Mud Races? The "face of France" is indeed changing - for the BETTER. Should the French expel every immigrant from every country, including the US, UK, Etc. and pass laws which ban immigration and marriages between races?

I'm not arguing whether immigration or the changing face of a nation is good or bad, but it surely holds up my point that unintended consequences follow.Sure sounds like it. What are these "unintended consequences"? Racial impurity? Cultural diversity? You make it very clear that you think that immigration is bad, why do you deny that you are?
I'm QUITE sure that no politician in France stood up and stated that he or she wanted to have "France for the Arabs!" A French Politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen) DID stand up and say that he wanted France for the French and the MAJORITY of FRENCH PEOPLE told him to go the fuck to hell.
Talk about the whole Algerian fiasco coming back to bite you in the ass!What? WTF are you bringing up Algeria for? France is full of Algerians, Moroccans, West Africans, etc. and there are no major problems here. Everybody gets along just fine and the French have adopted many of the customs from these countries, just as the immigrants have adopted French customs.

Sorry if I've been rude, sam, but I think you are out of line here. If you didn't mean to be xenophobic, then I apologise, but what you said struck me as so and I don't take kindly to it. It's a hot button :o

[sam i am]

Much like the US? Who's the US supposed to be "for," then? White people?

No. I was just touching upon the fact that massive immigration is also occurring in the US. I was NOT making any judgement on it. Some, not I, would argue that we should halt immigration and leave the US to the current population mix. There have been rumblings in the Black community, for instance, about the status of Blacks as the largest "minority" group not being valid any longer due to massive Hispanic and Latin immigration. This is changing the face of politics, job availability, etc. Again, I am NOT making a judgement call, merely pointing out the ongoing changes.


Nah, your troops are only really dangerous to poor brown people in little postcolonial countries.

Nice. Guess the British felt the same when we kicked them out during the Revolution. Or the Germans during WWI & WWII. Or the Japanese during WWII. Or the Russians when we won the Cold War. Etc., etc. Learn your history before making such broad derogatory comments, please schmeltz.

To get back to the original topic - birth rates have plummeted all around the world in the last couple of decades, not just in the West, and the trend has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or taxation. Women are simply choosing to have fewer children, as they now have greater opportunities for a more diverse participation in society than simply "wife and mother" - education and career paths are difficult things to maintain when one is constantly minding one's progeny. Declining birth rates are a sign of increased personal freedom and a higher standard of living as well as an eventual easing of the strain on natural and man-made resources.

Interesting. Let's take the example of Utah, for a moment. It's a state of the Union with an exceptionally high birthrate, one of the most well-educated women's populations in the country, and a very high standard of living. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh? Also, the US as a whole still has a much higher birthrate than Europe, and education levels for women here are very strong. So, are women in the US (and Utah especially) having LESS personal freedom and a LOWER standard of living? Evidence would say not. There is also very little evidence for your assertion that there has been a subsequent "easing of sthe strain on natural and man-made resources." See current consumption levels of high-demand commodities : water, oil, etc., et al.

The difficulty, of course, involves the workforce needed to take care of all the old people along with maintaining current levels of economic production. But immigration can more than take care of the latter if we let it - which might involve discarding archaic notions about our culture, but I'd say that's preferable to stagnation. Once all the old people actually die, both problems will take care of themselves. And if we keep having hurricanes and heat waves, we won't even have to worry about that!

I'm interested in hearing more on your take here. You seem to be asserting that death rates will outstrip birthrates, thus easing demand on those who come in later generations to take care of the older generations. Correct? You'll probably have others who can argue the point much better than I that this is counterintuitive and NOT borne out by current demographic and aging projections (especially with the Baby Boomer retirements being the huge cow in the anaconda of lifespans, so to speak).

[sam i am]

Xenophobe.

Not. I've made it VERY clear that I am not expressing my own views while bringing up some VERY controversial other views. Again, for the record, I am NOT against immigration. I am a PROPONENT of immigration. However, I should add that I am also a proponent of assimiliation (the whole "melting pot" theory).

Are you saying that Hispanic and Latin immigrants denegrate the US? What about all the other immigrants, all those years ago? The US is certainly no longer for the Native Americans, why should France be for the "Gauls"? Who are these Gauls, anyway? Asterix and Obelix? Is this some sort of Aryan breed that needs to be protected from pollution by Mud Races? The "face of France" is indeed changing - for the BETTER. Should the French expel every immigrant from every country, including the US, UK, Etc. and pass laws which ban immigration and marriages between races?

I am NOT saying that Hispanic and Latin immigration degenerate the US. I am not saying that Arab or African immigration to France or other Western European countries degenerates those countries. What I AM saying is that there seems to be a disconnect, especially within recent generations of immigrants to many countries, between thier fealty to their religions or ethnic clans versus a fealty to their newly adopted countries. There have been numerous recent examples : London, numerous arrests in France and Spain of "homegrown" terrorists. etc. I am NOT a proponent of any kind of mythological Aryan superrace or the theories behind "mud people" (your term, not mine).

As for the expulsion of immigrants, that is a wholly different issue. There are good arguments for the expulsion of SOME immigrants, as Britain and France have recently seen. Those who are unwilling or unable to renounce violence and are recent immigrants are certainly candidates for forcible extradition. I do not, however, condone any kind of wholesale expulsions.

Sure sounds like it. What are these "unintended consequences"? Racial impurity? Cultural diversity? You make it very clear that you think that immigration is bad, why do you deny that you are?
A French Politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen) DID stand up and say that he wanted France for the French and the MAJORITY of FRENCH PEOPLE told him to go the fuck to hell.
What? WTF are you bringing up Algeria for? France is full of Algerians, Moroccans, West Africans, etc. and there are no major problems here. Everybody gets along just fine and the French have adopted many of the customs from these countries, just as the immigrants have adopted French customs.

In speaking of unintended consequences, I was mostly touching upon sociological, marketplace, and terrorist-tendency trends. Again, my commentary was designed to SPARK conversation. Racial mixing and cultural diversity (again, your terms, not mine) are fine by me. I am very aware of Le Pen, and his ilk, and was introducing their stupidity for comment with you, ali, specifically in mind. I knew you would bring up the point much better than I, and I appreciate your post for that reason. I am of the opinion that rampant nationalism, with its propensity for prejudice and persecution, is much more likely to continue to rear its ugly head worldwide and I would like for all of us who would normally disagree on most items political to find common ground against such hate. I think we can.

As for Algeria, it was brought up on another thread by ace and I was curious what you would think about it. Notice I said that it was biting the French in the ass. The point I was making was that the French worked so hard for so long to keep Algeria as a colony, then when they let it go, Algerians become a large immigrant group to France. Unintended consequneces of a failed foreign policy : that's all I was stating.

I do find a bit to argue with you on the entirety of assimilation into France of newer immigrant groups. It's been all over the news recently here in the US about the contretemps over the wearing of Muslim scarves, etc. to French schools and the government's attempts to tamp down Muslim extremism. Maybe ytou can give some more insight, from your perspective, of what is actually happening "on the street," so to speak rather than us relying on our news sources solely?

Sorry if I've been rude, sam, but I think you are out of line here. If you didn't mean to be xenophobic, then I apologise, but what you said struck me as so and I don't take kindly to it. It's a hot button :o

I did not take even one of your statements as rude. (y) I was not intending to be rude to you either. I was definitely intending to spark conversation, so I did accomplish that one part of my mission. I had a strong suspicion that this would be a hot button thread for you.

Now, would you be so kind as to add a bit about your take on Socialism's impact on immigration policy and the assimiliation of immigrant groups into socities throughout the world?

[Schmeltz]

Nice. Guess the British felt the same blah blah masturbatory chest-thumping


I was referring to your troops nowadays. You know, the guys who submit pictures of dead Iraqi civilians to amateur porn sites in return for free access.


Also, the US as a whole still has a much higher birthrate than Europe, and education levels for women here are very strong.


Yes, but the birthrate in the US is lower than it was in times past. That was the entire point - some countries still have much higher birthrates than others (India's is even higher than your country's) but the general trend across the world is fewer children per family. The UN has performed a couple of surveys that bring this out, feel free to look them up. So no, your example of Utah blows nothing out of the water. If anything, it further reinforces what I was saying: birthrate is partially a function of culture. Women in Utah, though well-educated, choose to have more children as a result of cultural influences (like their crazy mixed-up religion). Conversely, women in France or Italy or Japan, just as well-educated, choose to have fewer children and instead embark on different career paths.


There is also very little evidence for your assertion that there has been a subsequent "easing of sthe strain on natural and man-made resources."


Will you please try to keep up? I said an eventual ease of our demand for natural resources. Lower birthrates notwithstanding, the world population is still increasing and hence the strain on the planet's resources will conceivably grow as well. But, if current trends continue (and who's to say if they will), global population is expected to peak at nine or ten billion within the next couple of decades, and then begin to decline - at which point our demand for resources would logically diminish.

I never used the word subsequent, I said eventual. You're very good at hearing what you want, as opposed to actually listening, aren't you?


You seem to be asserting that death rates will outstrip birthrates


They will, eventually, if current trends continue and the boomers start dying. In any case, I was referring to only one generation gap - that between the boomers and the rest of us. The difficulty, as I see it, lies in the fact that the rest of us are going to have to devote enormous amounts of time and resources to sustaining the bodies of boomers while their minds rot into oblivion. But the problem will take care of itself, in time. Maybe we can convince them all to off themelves, Kevorkian style.

[sam i am]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050928/pl_usatoday/studyimmigrationfallsfrom2000

Ironic considering our discussions here recently.

[sam i am]

I was referring to your troops nowadays. You know, the guys who submit pictures of dead Iraqi civilians to amateur porn sites in return for free access.

Could you please not change my quote to suit your own ends? That being said, I apologize if I misinterpreted your previous post to impugn earlier generations of US soldiers. Although there will always be bad apples in a bunch, I'm still unsure as to why you focus on those rather than the vast majority who do their jobs with dignity and honor everyday under extremely difficult circumstances.

Yes, but the birthrate in the US is lower than it was in times past. That was the entire point - some countries still have much higher birthrates than others (India's is even higher than your country's) but the general trend across the world is fewer children per family. The UN has performed a couple of surveys that bring this out, feel free to look them up. So no, your example of Utah blows nothing out of the water. If anything, it further reinforces what I was saying: birthrate is partially a function of culture. Women in Utah, though well-educated, choose to have more children as a result of cultural influences (like their crazy mixed-up religion). Conversely, women in France or Italy or Japan, just as well-educated, choose to have fewer children and instead embark on different career paths.

I would tend to disagree with you here still. I'd be curious to see if birthrates in the US have truly fallen as much as you say. It'd be an interesting exercise either way. You could be right about the overall birthrate, but there are certainly vast pockets within the US where the US birthrate is still inordinately high (and more than enough overall to replace and increase the existing population without immigration, which is NOT happening in most European nations).

Will you please try to keep up? I said an eventual ease of our demand for natural resources. Lower birthrates notwithstanding, the world population is still increasing and hence the strain on the planet's resources will conceivably grow as well. But, if current trends continue (and who's to say if they will), global population is expected to peak at nine or ten billion within the next couple of decades, and then begin to decline - at which point our demand for resources would logically diminish.

Depsite the backhanded slap, I'll say point taken. I did take your point incorrectly. I'll venture to argue that there is just as much probability that global population could continue to rise or could peak and diminsh sooner (unaccounted for natural disasters, large viral infections ala the Spanish flu of 1918, etc.). Therefore, the point is rather mute on the demand on natural resources because no one really knows what direction population will take in the future. Your point also doesn't take into account innovation, productivity increases or decreases, wars, famine, etc.

I never used the word subsequent, I said eventual. You're very good at hearing what you want, as opposed to actually listening, aren't you?

Again, despite the backhandedness of your correction, I'll just say point taken adn I'll do my utmost to pay better attention in the future. Fair enough?

They will, eventually, if current trends continue and the boomers start dying. In any case, I was referring to only one generation gap - that between the boomers and the rest of us. The difficulty, as I see it, lies in the fact that the rest of us are going to have to devote enormous amounts of time and resources to sustaining the bodies of boomers while their minds rot into oblivion. But the problem will take care of itself, in time. Maybe we can convince them all to off themelves, Kevorkian style.

I didn't originally realize you were only referring to the baby boomers. My take was that your point was more encompassing of both past and future generations as well. Otherwise, I heartily agree with your assessment of the needs and demands of the Baby Boomers. Working in the medical field, I see this everyday, along with the HUGE trend towards bariatrics and obesity.

[Ace42X]

Ok. But where does it end? Is it an endless feedback loop? Must a non-conformist continuously re-non-conform as he/she attracts followers or adherents?

A non-conformist is not conforming IF they are going along with everyone else for *totally independant* reasons. Thus redefinition is irrelevant.

Why is it valuable?

Being able to see the world for how it really is isn't innately beneficial? News to me.

Common sense should show its benefits. Everyone else throws themselves off a cliff for whatever fanciful notion, and one person says "Hang on, that will prove fatal" and doesn't - surely that non-lemming like response is beneficial?

Herding instincts are useful for survival (a meerkat who waits to see the hawk himself before he bolts is more likely to get eaten) - but so is independance.

In humans, over-riding the innate biological need to conform is difficult, and thus requires strength of character. That doesn't make the person *right* nor say anything about how valid their non-conformist action(s) are.

Nice. Guess the British felt the same when we kicked them out during the Revolution. Or the Germans during WWI & WWII. Or the Japanese during WWII. Or the Russians when we won the Cold War.

Or the vietnamese when a bunch of former farmers were going toe to toe with one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world?

And you didn't "win" the cold war anymore than a grand-master can claim a victory in a game of chess if his opponent brain-haemorrages halfway through. The efficacy of the US in the two world wars is debateable, what with you showing up late in both accounts.

I'm interested in hearing more on your take here. You seem to be asserting that death rates will outstrip birthrates, thus easing demand on those who come in later generations to take care of the older generations. Correct? You'll probably have others who can argue the point much better than I that this is counterintuitive and NOT borne out by current demographic and aging projections (especially with the Baby Boomer retirements being the huge cow in the anaconda of lifespans, so to speak).

Tummy-rot.

Post-war baby-boom means a vast number of people at retirement age. There are no forecasts of a "second" baby boom, thus it is ridiculous to suggest that the current number of retirees are indicative of the system as a whole, especially with declining birth-rates. It is quite frankly ridiculous to suggest that declining birth rates result in predictions of rampant population growth. I'd suggeest you take another look at these "projections."

There have been numerous recent examples : London, numerous arrests in France and Spain of "homegrown" terrorists.

And there have been for years from people who were not of different ethnicity or born from second generation immigrants, etc. Luddites, the UK civil war, the wars of the roses - UK history is littered with these events, and it is ridiculous to try and put civil unrest down to "a bunch of foreigners coming in." Five hundred years ago, they were blaming it on the Jews poisoning wells and eating babies.

[Ali]

The point I was making was that the French worked so hard for so long to keep Algeria as a colony, then when they let it go, Algerians become a large immigrant group to France. Unintended consequneces of a failed foreign policy : that's all I was stating.Algerian immigrants living in France do very well. My manager is Algerian, she studied here and has raised her kids here and has absolutely no problem either in France or at home. French people and French culture is better off for the "Unintended consequneces of a failed foreign policy". French and Algerians intermarry (there's still quite a bit of resistance from the Older generations, but the kids just go off and get married anyway, the parents eventually accept it!) (y) .

I do find a bit to argue with you on the entirety of assimilation into France of newer immigrant groups. It's been all over the news recently here in the US about the contretemps over the wearing of Muslim scarves, etc. to French schools and the government's attempts to tamp down Muslim extremism. Maybe ytou can give some more insight, from your perspective, of what is actually happening "on the street," so to speak rather than us relying on our news sources solely? There was a bit of resistance to it (from the Parents, again) and some protests, but the girls wore their headscarves up to the school gates and only had to take them off once inside the school... as did all other kids from all other denominations. It was fair and it seems to have curbed the problems caused by the display of religious symbols (crucifixes, yamulkas, etc.). It's not the kids that have the problems, it's the parents. They are the ones who encourage religious intolerance. At least if the kids get the chance to mix with other kids from other cultures in a neutral environment, without the interference of religious symbols and the prejudices taught by their parents, they'll realise that their parents are talking crap and will ignore their bluster about how evil Arabs or Jews are... maybe they'll even fall in love and get married, against the parents wishes!!! That is what the French Government is trying to do with the headscarf ban, dilute the prejudices and intolerances brought by the parent from the Homeland and allow the kids to become more integrated in French culture. I have Moroccan, Algerian, Cameroonian and French friends and colleagues, most of whom either were born and grew up here or studied here and there is no huge difference between them, nor any reluctance to integrate.
Now, would you be so kind as to add a bit about your take on Socialism's impact on immigration policy and the assimiliation of immigrant groups into socities throughout the world?I can't really comment on Socialism's impact, because France is not truly socialist. I can say that immigrants pay their taxes and social security and are entitled to the same things that the French are - proportional to how long they have lived here, of course. France is better off for immigration. Obviously, everything has to be moderated and the French don't just let anybody come and live here. There are special regulations for ex-colonies and French Territories and they have something like the Green Card system in the US and the Working Visa and Student Visa in the UK, where you can apply for citizenship after a while. Their immigration policies are not nearly as strict as South Africa, that I can tell you. NOBODY can go and work there unless they or their parents were born there, and even then, it's tough.

I think that the "older" countries, like France, Germany, UK, Spain, etc. have gotten over the immigration jitters that "newer" countries, like the US and SA (and Australia?) are experiencing. I'm sure that French people were once very afraid of immigrants and in some places, especially on the Eastern Borders and Mediterranean Coast, they still are - judging by the amount of support Le Pen has in the East and South-East. Eastern Europeans have been pouring over the borders and the imbalance has caused problems, especially with the Eastern European gangsters.

Immigration, like everything, is a matter of balance. Too little and your culture stagnates, too much and your social services and economy take a battering, just enough and everybody wins!

[SobaViolence]

i have gotten nothing but joy when i share my French Love with a female. and i share her with others, so i guess that's a form of socialism...

[Ali]

i have gotten nothing but joy when i share my French Love with a female. and i share her with others, so i guess that's a form of socialism...Grubby man.