|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2018-06-27 16:23:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Doubleplusgood duckspeak
(Via bgmt.)
Call for an International Panel on Migration and Asylum to guide European policies and global migration governance
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s
Unfortunately, I see here too many keywords in this text that require a translation from the extreme-left duckspeak and doublethink into plain English. Here's my translation.
Like climate change, migration is a global issue that needs to be addressed both locally and internationally.
You, the European citizens, will need to yield more power to international bureaucracies. Just as those bureaucracies have been entirely ineffective in addressing climate change, they will waste valuable time in addressing the migrant crisis, but no matter. The omnipotent government (OG) is on its way, so you better get prepared!
The European asylum crisis of 2015 revealed that, even in highly integrated and cooperative contexts such as the EU, unpreparedness, political confusion and misinformation generate inadequate and humanly costly policy responses.
Opening Europe to a couple million migrants was not enough, because people got confused about why the results aren't good, and started closing the borders, which imposes unacceptable human costs on migrants that are still willing to come. We (the OG) urgently need to get more migrants into Europe.
The recent inflow of Syrian asylum seekers in Europe forced upon EU leaders and public opinion a brutal awareness of a refugee crisis that has been mostly unfolding in the global south. ... The current European crisis is made of the confusion of short and long-term policy issues, of asylum and migration regulation, of debates around rights, politics and economics, which cannot be solely be addressed at the national level.
European citizens are directly responsible for any and all wars and conflicts, including the war in Syria (primarily driven by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran). Therefore, European citizens need to assume that any and all migrants wishing to come to Europe are "Syrian" "refugees" - even if they are 20-year-old single men from Sudan or Pakistan. If some European countries do not agree with this, they are "confused", and so the decision power should be taken away from these countries and given to the OG, that is to us - the unelected Euro-bureaucrats, accountable to no one.
Beyond Europe, the emergence or entrenchment of political crises around migration and asylum issues calls for urgent reaction of all stakeholders. Scientists, civil society organisations, activists, concerned citizens and policy makers must join forces to bring about a better understanding of migration, both forced and voluntary, of its determinants and consequences for host societies and countries of origin. By doing so, we will provide grounds for evidence-based policy making and sound practices beyond ideological constructions and discourses that tend to obfuscate debates in the media and political arena today.
The stakeholders in migration policy are not you, the European citizens, despite what you might think, and also not the foreign migrants. The stakeholders are the blabbering intellectuals, the people who are equally at home at any (sufficiently rich) country, who are not attached to any particular place, who are perfectly insulated from the consequences of any policy they advocate, and whose only interest is to appear on TV and tell others what to think and what opinions are correct. It is the blabbering intellectuals who call themselves "experts" (who are often wrong but never in doubt). They will tell you, the lowly European citizen, what policy is sound and what isn't. If at any time you feel that mass immigration is undesirable, we will explain why you are merely being confused or being unduly influenced by incorrect ideologies. To "obfuscate the debate" is, in our parlance, to contradict OG's opinions, which are by definition always correct.
This call for a change of approach has become urgent.
There was no urgency in 2015 and 2016 when millions of migrants entered Europe. There is urgency now because several European countries have taken measures against mass immigration, and even Germany is about to falter. It is urgent that we continue to force European citizens to accept mass immigration.
· * Migration and asylum policies in Europe and North America as well as other countries (Kenya, Saudi Arabia etc.) have created unprecedented attacks on individual human rights for mobile populations and on asylum rights.
"Unprecedented attacks" means that mass immigration is not allowed. Please, European citizens, forget that this used to be the norm in all your countries. Now, hear the correct opinion: the open borders are the norm, - that is, open to the entire world! Closed borders are an "attack on asylum rights".
The policy options adopted by OECD countries in the past decade - building walls, externalizing control at high political and financial costs- will neither prevent migration, nor will it impact the determinants of migration in the long run as often repeated by scientists and shown by recent experiences.
Countries that built walls or upheld their borders were successful in preventing mass migration. This is unacceptable - because it prevents mass migration. So, European citizens, please forget that borders can be effective and always believe that mass migration is an inevitable fact of life. The blabbering intellectuals masquerading as "scientists" have repeated this lie often enough, so you better start believing it.
The lack of understanding of the impact of migration in host and receiving societies generates enduring mismanagement. Ideology-driven and fear-mongering discourses prevail in European societies and infuse policy agendas. Scientific and expert knowledge on migration and asylum are not heard.
The impact of migration will be the destruction of the prevailing culture in the host society. You need to accept this as a fact, that your countries and traditions and values are about to be destroyed. You should stop saying that this is somehow bad - that would be "fear-mongering". Experts say this is good, and so you must repeat after them.
Scientific controversies on migration and asylum do exist, but some truths have long been established which remain unheard and useless in policy making:
Oldthinks unbellyfeel correct opinions; goodthinks bellyfeel them. Incorrect opinions should be always referred to as "controversial". We will now tell you what to think. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken, because what we say is the truth. ("The Marxist teaching is all-powerful because it is truly correct." -- Lenin.)
· Migration happens mostly within regions not between continents and migrants are mostly located in the global south, especially refugees
· 246 million migrants only represent 3.4% of the world’s population, far less than in the 19th century
No problem here! Just 3.4% of the world's population. If you think mass migration into your small country is a problem, you are ideologically biased. Go back to primary school and learn some arithmetic, you dummy!
· Visa restrictions increase the settlement of immigrants already present in host country: migrant workers stay instead of moving back and forth across countries. The absence of visa opportunities for asylum seekers in countries of origin and transit also increases criminal practices and smuggling.
If we restrict the number of visas, fewer migrants will come. This is unacceptable! So we should not restrict the number of visas, and better, abolish visas altogether. Resistance is futile; you (not the migrants) will be assimilated. You just need to accept a mass immigration into your country. In order to accept this more readily, you should think about all these migrants as "workers" (although most of them don't and can't actually work in your country), and you should think about them as people just like you, e.g. like a student who moves back and forth across Europe for vacations and occasional work (although migrants don't actually behave that way). You won't be able to go for vacations easily if you had to get visas everywhere, right? So for the same reason the immigrants shouldn't be required to have visas - they should be able easily to come and settle into your country permanently.
· Border closure not only restricts mobility but also exchanges and transfers of funds, know-how, ideas across borders.
The migration of people from low-average-IQ, economically underdeveloped countries lacking human capital into Europe is to be called "transfer of know-how and ideas" so that you don't focus on the net-negative effect of mass immigration from these countries. You should imagine that an uneducated 20-year-old African will be exactly as valuable a source of "know-how and ideas" in Germany as, say, a 20-year-old French exchange student.
· Rapid access to housing, education as well as the formal labour market increases the quality of incorporation of migrants and asylum seekers in host societies further reducing inequalities, disenfranchisement.
The only reason migrants from Sudan and Iraq behave in Europe exactly as they behave in Sudan and Iraq is not that their culture and tradition tell them to honor-kill women who are seen with other men, - it's because you didn't give them enough free housing, free transportation, free education, and free jobs. If you think it's your own effort that helps you get ahead in life - we don't think so. We, the OG, are the only ones who should decide what everyone deserves. And we have just decided that migrants from Africa and Asia are more equal than you, the EU citizens.
· The impact of migration on population trends is shortly lived as fertility behaviours rapidly catch up with demographic patterns in host countries. They have also shown the positive impact of immigration inflows in contexts such as Europe for labour markets in cases of labour shortages and economic growth through consumption.
Fertility behavior will catch up in a generation or two, and until then we will secure the migrants' votes and stay in power. Please forget that Europe does not have a labor shortage right now, and that economic growth comes from production and new business, not from new consumers who live 100% on welfare.
· Financing development can increase out emigration in poor countries, making the migration-development relations much more complex than what current policies present as grounds for action. The effect of immigrant inflows on labour market outcomes and national growth is neutral or positive overall, depending upon economic conditions and dynamics, upon workers’ mobility and labour market regulations.
The immigrant inflow actually has a net negative effect if it's from underdeveloped countries lacking adequate human and cultural capital. But you shouldn't think about that because you need to come to the desired conclusion that mass immigration from sub-Saharan Africa (mean IQ = 70), Syria (mean IQ = 83), and Iraq (mean IQ = 87) is good for everyone in Europe. If you disagree with this, you are not seeing the complex "migration-development-relations-market-o
Recent concern has been formulated about the lack or unreliable quality of migration data. Beyond data, we argue that robustness and clarity in the analytical premises of policy making is the key to sound and efficient regulation of population movement. One-size-fits-all and ideology-based policies do not work.
We will not give you migration data, because you might come to incorrect conclusions. Data is not important; correct philosophical opinions are important, and we will tell you what they are. If you disagree, you are ideology-based and oversimplifying things. You are especially ideologically driven if you disagree with us and insist on looking at the data. You must agree with our ideology.
We therefore urge to break up with short-term and inadequate political solutions that brought us to political and humanitarian crises.
The "humanitarian migrant crisis" actually consists of the fact that not all immigrants are permitted to enter Europe any more, due to recent policy changes in some countries. This is an "inadequate solution", because it prevents mass immigration into Europe.
We ask for a radical change of paradigm in dealing with international migration and asylum, based on rational, realistic, scientifically-informed and humanly driven approaches.
People have voted in various countries against mass migration and elected political parties opposed to open borders. This is unacceptable and needs to change. We, the OG, need to tell people what to think and how to vote according to our correct opinions. If democratically elected parties or national governments are opposed to our correct opinions, it means "democracy has failed" (i.e. the power is out of our hands) and we need urgent change now, so that power is back in our hands.
We call for an emergency meeting of scientists, experts, civil society representatives, policy makers and political leaders around migration and asylum.
People's votes are unimportant. The opinions of the blabbering intellectuals are the only important opinions that matter. We need you, the EU citizens, to give us (the blabbering intellectuals) more money so that we can blabber more about what opinions you should hold and what policies you should adopt. But, of course, we will remain unaccountable and fully insulated from the consequences of these policies.
(Via bgmt.)
Call for an International Panel on Migration and Asylum to guide European policies and global migration governance
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s
Unfortunately, I see here too many keywords in this text that require a translation from the extreme-left duckspeak and doublethink into plain English. Here's my translation.
Like climate change, migration is a global issue that needs to be addressed both locally and internationally.
You, the European citizens, will need to yield more power to international bureaucracies. Just as those bureaucracies have been entirely ineffective in addressing climate change, they will waste valuable time in addressing the migrant crisis, but no matter. The omnipotent government (OG) is on its way, so you better get prepared!
The European asylum crisis of 2015 revealed that, even in highly integrated and cooperative contexts such as the EU, unpreparedness, political confusion and misinformation generate inadequate and humanly costly policy responses.
Opening Europe to a couple million migrants was not enough, because people got confused about why the results aren't good, and started closing the borders, which imposes unacceptable human costs on migrants that are still willing to come. We (the OG) urgently need to get more migrants into Europe.
The recent inflow of Syrian asylum seekers in Europe forced upon EU leaders and public opinion a brutal awareness of a refugee crisis that has been mostly unfolding in the global south. ... The current European crisis is made of the confusion of short and long-term policy issues, of asylum and migration regulation, of debates around rights, politics and economics, which cannot be solely be addressed at the national level.
European citizens are directly responsible for any and all wars and conflicts, including the war in Syria (primarily driven by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran). Therefore, European citizens need to assume that any and all migrants wishing to come to Europe are "Syrian" "refugees" - even if they are 20-year-old single men from Sudan or Pakistan. If some European countries do not agree with this, they are "confused", and so the decision power should be taken away from these countries and given to the OG, that is to us - the unelected Euro-bureaucrats, accountable to no one.
Beyond Europe, the emergence or entrenchment of political crises around migration and asylum issues calls for urgent reaction of all stakeholders. Scientists, civil society organisations, activists, concerned citizens and policy makers must join forces to bring about a better understanding of migration, both forced and voluntary, of its determinants and consequences for host societies and countries of origin. By doing so, we will provide grounds for evidence-based policy making and sound practices beyond ideological constructions and discourses that tend to obfuscate debates in the media and political arena today.
The stakeholders in migration policy are not you, the European citizens, despite what you might think, and also not the foreign migrants. The stakeholders are the blabbering intellectuals, the people who are equally at home at any (sufficiently rich) country, who are not attached to any particular place, who are perfectly insulated from the consequences of any policy they advocate, and whose only interest is to appear on TV and tell others what to think and what opinions are correct. It is the blabbering intellectuals who call themselves "experts" (who are often wrong but never in doubt). They will tell you, the lowly European citizen, what policy is sound and what isn't. If at any time you feel that mass immigration is undesirable, we will explain why you are merely being confused or being unduly influenced by incorrect ideologies. To "obfuscate the debate" is, in our parlance, to contradict OG's opinions, which are by definition always correct.
This call for a change of approach has become urgent.
There was no urgency in 2015 and 2016 when millions of migrants entered Europe. There is urgency now because several European countries have taken measures against mass immigration, and even Germany is about to falter. It is urgent that we continue to force European citizens to accept mass immigration.
· * Migration and asylum policies in Europe and North America as well as other countries (Kenya, Saudi Arabia etc.) have created unprecedented attacks on individual human rights for mobile populations and on asylum rights.
"Unprecedented attacks" means that mass immigration is not allowed. Please, European citizens, forget that this used to be the norm in all your countries. Now, hear the correct opinion: the open borders are the norm, - that is, open to the entire world! Closed borders are an "attack on asylum rights".
The policy options adopted by OECD countries in the past decade - building walls, externalizing control at high political and financial costs- will neither prevent migration, nor will it impact the determinants of migration in the long run as often repeated by scientists and shown by recent experiences.
Countries that built walls or upheld their borders were successful in preventing mass migration. This is unacceptable - because it prevents mass migration. So, European citizens, please forget that borders can be effective and always believe that mass migration is an inevitable fact of life. The blabbering intellectuals masquerading as "scientists" have repeated this lie often enough, so you better start believing it.
The lack of understanding of the impact of migration in host and receiving societies generates enduring mismanagement. Ideology-driven and fear-mongering discourses prevail in European societies and infuse policy agendas. Scientific and expert knowledge on migration and asylum are not heard.
The impact of migration will be the destruction of the prevailing culture in the host society. You need to accept this as a fact, that your countries and traditions and values are about to be destroyed. You should stop saying that this is somehow bad - that would be "fear-mongering". Experts say this is good, and so you must repeat after them.
Scientific controversies on migration and asylum do exist, but some truths have long been established which remain unheard and useless in policy making:
Oldthinks unbellyfeel correct opinions; goodthinks bellyfeel them. Incorrect opinions should be always referred to as "controversial". We will now tell you what to think. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken, because what we say is the truth. ("The Marxist teaching is all-powerful because it is truly correct." -- Lenin.)
· Migration happens mostly within regions not between continents and migrants are mostly located in the global south, especially refugees
· 246 million migrants only represent 3.4% of the world’s population, far less than in the 19th century
No problem here! Just 3.4% of the world's population. If you think mass migration into your small country is a problem, you are ideologically biased. Go back to primary school and learn some arithmetic, you dummy!
· Visa restrictions increase the settlement of immigrants already present in host country: migrant workers stay instead of moving back and forth across countries. The absence of visa opportunities for asylum seekers in countries of origin and transit also increases criminal practices and smuggling.
If we restrict the number of visas, fewer migrants will come. This is unacceptable! So we should not restrict the number of visas, and better, abolish visas altogether. Resistance is futile; you (not the migrants) will be assimilated. You just need to accept a mass immigration into your country. In order to accept this more readily, you should think about all these migrants as "workers" (although most of them don't and can't actually work in your country), and you should think about them as people just like you, e.g. like a student who moves back and forth across Europe for vacations and occasional work (although migrants don't actually behave that way). You won't be able to go for vacations easily if you had to get visas everywhere, right? So for the same reason the immigrants shouldn't be required to have visas - they should be able easily to come and settle into your country permanently.
· Border closure not only restricts mobility but also exchanges and transfers of funds, know-how, ideas across borders.
The migration of people from low-average-IQ, economically underdeveloped countries lacking human capital into Europe is to be called "transfer of know-how and ideas" so that you don't focus on the net-negative effect of mass immigration from these countries. You should imagine that an uneducated 20-year-old African will be exactly as valuable a source of "know-how and ideas" in Germany as, say, a 20-year-old French exchange student.
· Rapid access to housing, education as well as the formal labour market increases the quality of incorporation of migrants and asylum seekers in host societies further reducing inequalities, disenfranchisement.
The only reason migrants from Sudan and Iraq behave in Europe exactly as they behave in Sudan and Iraq is not that their culture and tradition tell them to honor-kill women who are seen with other men, - it's because you didn't give them enough free housing, free transportation, free education, and free jobs. If you think it's your own effort that helps you get ahead in life - we don't think so. We, the OG, are the only ones who should decide what everyone deserves. And we have just decided that migrants from Africa and Asia are more equal than you, the EU citizens.
· The impact of migration on population trends is shortly lived as fertility behaviours rapidly catch up with demographic patterns in host countries. They have also shown the positive impact of immigration inflows in contexts such as Europe for labour markets in cases of labour shortages and economic growth through consumption.
Fertility behavior will catch up in a generation or two, and until then we will secure the migrants' votes and stay in power. Please forget that Europe does not have a labor shortage right now, and that economic growth comes from production and new business, not from new consumers who live 100% on welfare.
· Financing development can increase out emigration in poor countries, making the migration-development relations much more complex than what current policies present as grounds for action. The effect of immigrant inflows on labour market outcomes and national growth is neutral or positive overall, depending upon economic conditions and dynamics, upon workers’ mobility and labour market regulations.
The immigrant inflow actually has a net negative effect if it's from underdeveloped countries lacking adequate human and cultural capital. But you shouldn't think about that because you need to come to the desired conclusion that mass immigration from sub-Saharan Africa (mean IQ = 70), Syria (mean IQ = 83), and Iraq (mean IQ = 87) is good for everyone in Europe. If you disagree with this, you are not seeing the complex "migration-development-relations-market-o
Recent concern has been formulated about the lack or unreliable quality of migration data. Beyond data, we argue that robustness and clarity in the analytical premises of policy making is the key to sound and efficient regulation of population movement. One-size-fits-all and ideology-based policies do not work.
We will not give you migration data, because you might come to incorrect conclusions. Data is not important; correct philosophical opinions are important, and we will tell you what they are. If you disagree, you are ideology-based and oversimplifying things. You are especially ideologically driven if you disagree with us and insist on looking at the data. You must agree with our ideology.
We therefore urge to break up with short-term and inadequate political solutions that brought us to political and humanitarian crises.
The "humanitarian migrant crisis" actually consists of the fact that not all immigrants are permitted to enter Europe any more, due to recent policy changes in some countries. This is an "inadequate solution", because it prevents mass immigration into Europe.
We ask for a radical change of paradigm in dealing with international migration and asylum, based on rational, realistic, scientifically-informed and humanly driven approaches.
People have voted in various countries against mass migration and elected political parties opposed to open borders. This is unacceptable and needs to change. We, the OG, need to tell people what to think and how to vote according to our correct opinions. If democratically elected parties or national governments are opposed to our correct opinions, it means "democracy has failed" (i.e. the power is out of our hands) and we need urgent change now, so that power is back in our hands.
We call for an emergency meeting of scientists, experts, civil society representatives, policy makers and political leaders around migration and asylum.
People's votes are unimportant. The opinions of the blabbering intellectuals are the only important opinions that matter. We need you, the EU citizens, to give us (the blabbering intellectuals) more money so that we can blabber more about what opinions you should hold and what policies you should adopt. But, of course, we will remain unaccountable and fully insulated from the consequences of these policies.
