European diversity

A commenter named Flavia posted a link, within her comment of my previous post, to a video of a Jewish woman Barbara Specter who claims that Europe must become “multicultural” in order to survive and that it cannot be the “monolithic” society it was in the last century.  The video is painful to watch, much as it is painful to watch a retarded person give a speech in front a large audience.  Specter’s ignorance is breathtaking* and it is difficult to know where to start.  Many would say that there is no use debating fools, but I did want to debunk a common misconception that Specter parrots:  That Europeans lacked diversity prior to the massive influx of non-Europeans.
One way to measure diversity, and by extension, “multiculturalism”, is by looking at dialects.  Here is a map of Italy showing dialects of Italian, some of them considered separate languages by some linguists:

The associated Wikipedia article states:

 The TV’s widespread adoption as a popular household appliance in Italy was the main factor in helping all Italians learn the common national language regardless of class or education level. At roughly the same time, many southerners moved to the north to find jobs. The powerful trade unions successfully campaigned against the use of dialects to maintain unity among the workers. This allowed the southerners, whose “dialects” were not mutually intelligible with the northerners’, to assimilate by using Standard Italian. The large number of mixed marriages, especially in large industrial cities such as Milan and Turin, resulted in a generation that could speak only Standard Italian, and usually only partly understand the “dialects” of their parents.
As a result of these phenomena, dialects in Italy remain in use mostly where less immigration occurred; that is, in the South, North-Eastern Italy, in rural areas (where there has been less ethnic blending and influence from trade unions), and among older speakers. Being unable to speak Standard Italian still carries a stigma as it presents a barrier to writing official documents, performing business, or carrying out any kind of legal transaction (all of which use Standard Italian as the dominant language). Even strongly pro-dialect political forces such as the Northern League rarely resort to anything else than Standard Italian to write or speak publicly.

Similar maps exist for the other political nations of Europe, most of which were very recently formed.  The fate of dialects outside of Italy is similar to that of Italian dialects.  Intermarriage and television have the same effect on regional dialects practically everywhere.  The mass immigration that Specter advocates will erase Europe’s traditional diversity and replace it with a much more dangerous diversity – based on race and religion.
With the exception of French, regional dialects have prevailed until very recent times.  Anybody who is familiar with European culture and history should realize that Europe is a very diverse place.  The rise of cities brought various regional cultures into contact with each other for centuries.  If this is not “multiculturalism”, it is hard to say what is.
What Specter claims is, strictly speaking, true.  If we were to erase regional differences within Europe, “Europe” as we know it would indeed cease to exist.  But this is not the type of “multicultural society” Specter is speaking of.  What she wants is for ethnic Europeans, in all their varieties, to become minorities in their own ancestral lands.  The “multicultural society” she envisions will be dominated by Africans and Asians.  If Europeans fought bloody wars over the relatively minor differences between them, we can expect even greater bloodshed in the future thanks to non-white immigration.  When the ethnic differences are more visible, then conflict is even more likely.
To hear Specter talk, we would think she is overly concerned with the long-term welfare of Europe.  Her claim is that the Jewish role in advancing “multiculturalism” (I.E. diluting the native populations with non-Europeans) is for Europe’s own good.  But what is the “Europe” of which she speaks?  If she is referring of the continent of Europe, it is difficult to see how a lack of immigration could cause it to dissolve into the sea.  Perhaps she is referring to the economic entity now known as “Europe”.  If so, we should ask her to explain how an economic unit can change hands and still be accurately described as belonging to the original owners.  If my bank account is taken over by another individual, would it be any comfort to me to know that “Jewamongyou’s account” still exists?  Would I rejoice if, under these circumstances, it is growing?  Would I take comfort in the fact that it is still called “Jewamongyou’s account” even though it is, by any measure, no longer mine?  She should certainly be asked what she means by “Europe”.  I am certain that we will never get a good answer.
It is clear to me that this women, and those who support her, do not have the best interests of Europe in mind; if the policies they favor were good for Europe, then they would  advocate the same policies for Israel.  Their fake good intentions should fool nobody.
* Here I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is, in fact, ignorant.

This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, immigration/ Hispanics, Jewish stuff and Israel, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to European diversity

  1. She thinks that in a multiracial Europe the minority populations will be safe. But a multiracial, multicultural Europe would merely be a stepping stone to a Europe where another majority takes over. Possibly an islamic majority. And in that case the fate of religious minorities would be in question.
    She shouldn’t have talked as though she is the spokesperson for jewish people because she is not a spokesperson for jewish people. Jewish people are an intellectually diverse people with different opinions on things.
    She also makes a huge mistake in talking about Europe as though it is a single nation. European countries are very different from each other each with their own histories of how they interact with various sorts of minority populations in their borders.

  2. Kiwiguy says:

    You can see the European genetic substructure here.

  3. Charles says:

    I don’t think we can assume that this Jewish woman would necessarily advocate different policies for Israel than she does for Europe. Why would we think she does?
    If she truly believes multi culturalism is a strength then she might also advocate it for Israel. How do we know she doesn’t do so? And if she doesn’t maybe its because she lives in Europe and not Israel, not because she has a double standard of any kind?
    I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, I despise her policies but I am going to assume she is sincere in her views and she believes this immigration is good for Europe on some level.
    There are Israelis who advocate for more immigration of black Jews from Ethiopia and more immigration of “Jews” from Burma and other third world locations. There are even some Israelis who advocate making citizenship easier for converts.
    There are some liberal Israelis who support giving amnesty and citizenship to completely non-Jewish workers from the Philipines and their children who were brought into Israel to take low paying labor positions, or to be childcare providers.
    The argument goes that these Filipino children were raised speaking Hebrew and Israel is now there home. I read an article about somewhere. It looks like the Filipino children are going to be deported now, but that does not negate the fact that there is also a large segment of the Israeli public that opposes the move to deport them.
    I don’t think that most American Jews support open borders, amnesty or multi culturalism in order to hurt America. They actually believe these horrible policies are good things which will make America a more enlightened and successful place. Of course they are dead wrong but that doesn’t mean their motives are necessarily evil.
    We don’t assume that non-Jewish white liberals secretly want to destroy America when they support open borders and amnesty, why should we assume so with Jews? I’m sure some white’s do want to destroy America but many are naive and dumb enough to believe that immigration is good for the country.
    The fact that American Jews have a 50% intermarriage rate might be a clue that clearly many Jews believe multi culturalism is just fine for themselves and they do practice what they preach.
    America has the second largest population of Jews outside of Israel. Would American Jews really want to destroy their own home as well?
    Jews who advocate for Arab immigration into Europe are extraordinarily short sighted. Eventually Muslims may become a majority in Europe and I can’t imagine how that will be good for Jews. I don’t believe these Jews are looking to ruin their own home, they have been indoctrinated into the cult of multi culturalism just as most whites have.

    • jewamongyou says:

      The fact that she chose to make aliyah to Israel suggests that she values a Jewish ethnic state. Yes, she might consider black “Jews” to be Jews, but I don’t see why she would move from one multi-cultural country (the U.S.) to another one (Israel).
      I doubt that, in her mind, Falashas are to Jews what Mideastern Muslims are to Europeans. Of course I can’t read her mind, and maybe I’m attributing too much intelligence to her, but how could she not understand the results of massive Muslim/African immigration to Europe?

    • We don’t assume that non-Jewish white liberals secretly want to destroy America when they support open borders and amnesty, why should we assume so with Jews? I’m sure some white’s do want to destroy America but many are naive and dumb enough to believe that immigration is good for the country.
      This is a very complex subject and I believe that, Jew and gentile alike, both the naivete and the thanatos can coëxist in the same person. When people support immigration they will say that it will bless America with foreign “help” (always much smarter and harder worker than the American, who is usually an impotent tweaker who lives in a single-wide). They also say America deserves it as just punishment for having stolen Aztlan from the Native American government of Mexico (all of whom are hard-working Mayans from Tenochtitlan where brain surgery, calendars, and the number zero were invented).
      Muddleheadedness on factual questions isn’t the same as muddleheadedness on moral questions, but the two go hand in hand. I’ll wager that the Spectre has some pretty interesting “history” to support her massive contempt for Eurowhite peoples. (Can anyone guess whether she thinks the Crusades happened before or after the Muslims invaded Spain?)

  4. Good map, Kiwiguy. I couldn’t find any Celts though.
    One thing that irks me about the constant critics of “Jewish hypocrisy” on the question of multikult-for-Israel is – how exactly would it help a damn thing for Israel to be let itself overrun with Philistines? Err, Palestinians or whatever they’re called.
    Jewish “hypocrisy” on multikult doesn’t matter. I.e., the fact they’re right when it comes to Israel isn’t an issue; it’s when they’re wrong that is. (Yes, when I use “they’re” I’m painting with too broad a brush. I know Jews differ on this matter; Chomsky seems about one teaspoon less anti-Israel than Hamas, but I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about the stereotypical Jewish hypocrite that the Jew-critical right is always on about.)
    What matters is that a big global alliance of Jewish and gentile lastmen are dead-set on insulting all the nations out of existence. The best they can do is shake their fingers and throw insults, and it works like a charm. Everyone who would fight to avenge an insult to his nation is already dead.
    I do believe that the Jew-critical right can largely be accommodated. They’re not all complete doofuses. The hakenkreuz set will have to be ignored until they grow up or die of old age. Someone like Svigor, on the other hand, not only condones Israel’s existence but favors monetary aid to it from the US! I’m not that pro-Israel, myself. (I’m a strict Ilana Mercerite when it comes to Is.)
    What is imperative is that the Jewish right write about a variety of topics (like J.A.Y.) and not overfocus on anti-semitism (like Sabril). I feel strongly enough about that recommendation that I risk being a little pushy about it.

  5. DFA says:

    Yeah, look at how badly East Asia is doing without multiculturalism. Oops! Whenever anybody plays the multicult card with me I always use the east asians as an example.
    Jew or gentile, most leftists mean well, but the leftist elite in politics are surrounded by people, Jew or gentile, who hate the west and want to destroy it.

  6. Manny says:

    If Arabs can get full Israeli citizenship (or something like it) why wouldn’t Phillipinos/Burmese Israelis be allowed to get the same thing? A kind of “Metic Citizenip” unless they decided to convert fully to Judaism–or is the idea of such a conversion a bit too “out there” for Israeli’s” racial preservationists?
    But this line of thought brings up something similar–who do the “beta male” and “Blue collar” types of Israel wind up with? It would seem like they’d have solid marriage material among the Thais and Burmese and Filipinas, right? But are there laws that prevent this from happening?
    My third and last question: what happens when a Jewish male has a relationship with an Arab female? This has bound to have happened at least a few times. Have any of these relationships managed to avoid “the honor killing” and if so what was the outcome? How are such mixtures treated among Israelis and Palestinians?

  7. spesbona cape says:

    When women open their mouths on such topics I begin to understand why they were not permitted the vote.
    OT, but what happened to the Guy White blog – its been made “private” how do I get access to it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *