That would be logical, if wrongheaded, but it’s not accurate. The Muslim and African “migrants” in France, Britain, and Germany are far from compliant and in fact are destructive.
Maybe it's easy to keep up a pretence when all your friends are doing it. One thing I notice about young progressives is that they seem to enjoy roleplaying. When they're in groups together they talk with little lilts of the voice and affected accents and name drops etc. Even the scene's straight men do it. It's as if they're all performing in a fashion documentary. It's what I imagine Andy Warhol's social group was like. I also notice that they HATE when you question their personas. Like if they give a lilting voice/name drop and you sort of raise your eyebrow at them then they get bitter and sour. I think the roleplay thing only works if everyone is doing it. If you question it then it's like farting at an orgy: ruins the mood. Basically young progressives have a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell culture. Except it's about the believability of their absurd fashion/drag personas rather than about being gay.
On a personal note I find it quite distressing to talk to people like this. It feels like talking to someone who's wearing a Halloween costume and who refuses to break character. It's unsettling.
Iceland is wonderful. My wife and I drove the Golden Circle by ourselves (no tour bus for us, thanks) a few years ago; for me, that drive even topped Big Sur. Iceland makes you feel like you’ve truly traveled.
As to the question - because if mass immigration is bad, their concept of human nature is false?
> The good thing about the tourists is that they go home. The immigrants, on the other hand, stay to throw a spanner in the works forever. <
Well done. You beat me to it, QV.
That's the key thing, tourists *go home*. And--if you have a competent bureaucracy--you can even set you taxes (visas, air tickets, hotels, etc.) to restrict the flow to what you find desirable and raise funds to offset the costs.
Immigrants on the other are--baring serious and unpleasant (but necessary) work--are forever. At best more or less compatible and simply taking space from your own people forever. But mostly for the West, not just disrupting social cohesion but creating crime, disorder and direct costs--i.e. tax eating--forever. They are a toxic pathogen, that you are never allowed to kick.
"Why is the global establishment so mentally unbalanced on the topic of immigration policy?"
They're not. They evaluate Icelandic phenomena in terms of the interests of the people who live in Iceland. They evaluate phenomena in other parts of the World -- UK, USA, Germany, France ... from the point of view of the people who intend to occupy those nations, robbing, raping and murdering their current inhabitants. It's called "War ", and we're losing.
> Why is the global establishment so mentally unbalanced on the topic of immigration policy? <
60 years of intense anti-white, anti-national propaganda flowing forth from the "American" media and academy, which has dominated the West since the War. And which dovetails perfectly with the needs of the super-state--and the interests of the super-state political parties. ("Diversity is the health of the state.")
All this intense propaganda has essentially created a bunch of people with a new religious ideology, that allows a whole bunch of people to feel virtuous--to know they are "good people"--simply by believing a whole set of--false and frankly ridiculous--ideas. For these people someone asserting that say Germany belongs to Germans and should be run in their interests--and worse that Germans are *better* than the immivaders--is spewing heresy, evil and committing the gravest mortal sin "racism".
Biggest mystery I’ve ever seen Steve. At least Trump just told the UN that the open borders experiment has failed and must end. NYT must be livid for all the irrational reasons possible.
Theoretically, immigrants are trying to integrate wholly into the host country and be one of them. In reality this is unlikely to happen, but that's why it's worse to criticize them in theory.
There's an interesting dovetail here with your previous post Steve.
If you ask the Amy X Wang types what they want to do, what makes their life exciting--while they are *not* marrying and having children with the incels they loathe for having the temerity to think critically about why they are frozen out--a top item will be "travel".
That means going to the "hot"/"exciting" places they--and everyone else--have heard about and taking pictures of themselves for their Instagram.
Of course, this isn't *just* young women, it's also old women, men, couples. "Travel" is more and more the filler for empty lives. Lives of people who do not have the previously normal passel of children and grandchildren filling up their lives.
~~
I confess, after each trip I've taken in the smartphone age, I'm less and less excited about travelling--especially to see X, Y or Z. More and more, for any travel I'd mostly just like to be able to briefly enjoy somewhere with mountains and lakes--away from the maddening crowds. And more and more just feel like a cold beer on the back deck, as I await the as-yet-nonexistent grandchildren.
"after each trip I've taken in the smartphone age"
Should this be read as a comment against smartphones or the technological parallel-reality ecosystem of such things as Instagram, and really the whole streamlining of much of what "travel" is in the Internet age? You dropped in the word "smartphone age" but didn't follow up on the idea (as you could've written "in the past ten years" or something, but chose "smartphone age")!
"In 2024, Iceland received about 2.3 million foreign overnight visitors, up from fewer than 500,000 in 2010."
We can assume this means "2.3 million unique-individual foreigners who spent at least one night in Iceland in calendar-year 2024." Most will surely have spent multiple days/nights in Iceland, not just a single overnight. Often something more like a week, I'd guess. Who would go to Iceland and leave the next day??
We can derive a "person-days" calculation by multiplying the 2.3m figure by the number of days/nights, to get a sense of scale of this problem, compared to Iceland's ballooning resident-foreigner population.
A google-search suggests the average for a tourist visiting Iceland may spent about 8 days, 7 nights there. With that multiplier, foreign visitors will have spent 18.5m person-days in the country. That's above 50,000 foreign-tourists present on any given day. And, if there is a high-peak season, I suppose it could be twice that, at times.)
Applying this to the wider demographics of the island, we get this picture of the number of people physically in Iceland an average day in 2024 (based in part on data in wikipedia "Demographics of Iceland" page):
.
[Icelanders]
- 255,000?: Citizens of Icelandic origin (assuming 15% of Icelanders are away (out of Iceland) at any given time, given a base of 300,000 citizens).
.
[Non-Icelanders]
(Note: there were 82,000 registered foreign residents in 2024, but many may not always be in Iceland physically all 365 days a year. I've applied some deflating multipliers, as I did with Icelandic-citizens, and divided them into categories of ethnocultural-closeness or "assimilability")
- 15,000?: Foreigners of basically-completely-assimilable stock, IF present in modest numbers (mostly Scandinavians; and others of NW-European origin);
- 25,000?: Foreigners of less-assimilable stock;
- 17,500?: Foreigners of definitely NON-assimilable stock (Asia, Mid-East, Africa);
- 50,000+: Tourists, i.e., foreign short-term visitors (18.5m person-days/365) (potentially 75,000+ at peak-periods, if applicable).
.
[TOTAL PRESENT IN ICELAND ON A GIVEN DAY, 2024]
- 362,500: All types (subject to the multipliers I've applied).
--- of which, Icelandic-origin citizens: 70%
--- of which, foreign residents of high/full assimilability: 4%
--- of which, foreign residents of mid-low practical assimilability: 7%
--- of which, definitely-unassimilable resident-element (e.g., Mid-East, India, Southeast Asians ,any Africans, etc.): 5%
--- of which, short-term foreign tourists: 14% (which, at peak-periods, could well exceed 20%)
.
The "mid-low assimilability" and "unassimilable" elements together probably exceed the short-term foreign-tourist element much of the time; they are definitely on the same order of magnitude. And, as other commenters here have noted, the resident-foreigners are a different species, by merit of not leaving (or of repeatedly coming back, to the extent they do either make home-visits or go elsewhere for any reason; many of the 22,500 Poles registered as resident-foreigners I assume are back in Poland for portions of the year).
The tourist argument about damage to a local culture. It's usually seen in places like, say, Bhutan or possibly Bali. It would seem Iceland is small-and-obscure enough that a White host-population gets the same sympathetic ear here. But maybe more relevantly, it's possibly here a way to indirectly point to the foreigner element.
As Steve says, the two are a very-similar kind of argument; and, as commenters say, the resident-foreigner element is worse (more challenging). There remains a taboo in the West against talking too directly about a core national-titular ethnocultural-stock needing to maintain primacy in its own country (except Israel/Palestine).
The "global establishment", including NYT writers, can see the cons as well as the pros of mass tourism because they don't want to deal with huge crowds of prole tourists when they visit Venice. The third world immigrants don't live by NYT journalists, but do live close enough to the blue collar whites they despise to make life miserable for them, which is of course the whole point of mass immigration !
Well, if you want a more compliant population, you'll have to import it. That's why certain people go insane at the idea of reducing immigration.
That would be logical, if wrongheaded, but it’s not accurate. The Muslim and African “migrants” in France, Britain, and Germany are far from compliant and in fact are destructive.
Well exactly
I suppose for journalists, admitting that immigration is excessive would be admitting that they've been wrong. That's hard to do!
Surely it's far harder to keep up the literally insane pretence
Maybe it's easy to keep up a pretence when all your friends are doing it. One thing I notice about young progressives is that they seem to enjoy roleplaying. When they're in groups together they talk with little lilts of the voice and affected accents and name drops etc. Even the scene's straight men do it. It's as if they're all performing in a fashion documentary. It's what I imagine Andy Warhol's social group was like. I also notice that they HATE when you question their personas. Like if they give a lilting voice/name drop and you sort of raise your eyebrow at them then they get bitter and sour. I think the roleplay thing only works if everyone is doing it. If you question it then it's like farting at an orgy: ruins the mood. Basically young progressives have a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell culture. Except it's about the believability of their absurd fashion/drag personas rather than about being gay.
On a personal note I find it quite distressing to talk to people like this. It feels like talking to someone who's wearing a Halloween costume and who refuses to break character. It's unsettling.
Everyone has a right to live near White people except White people.
But White people have a right to reject White visitors.
Iceland is wonderful. My wife and I drove the Golden Circle by ourselves (no tour bus for us, thanks) a few years ago; for me, that drive even topped Big Sur. Iceland makes you feel like you’ve truly traveled.
As to the question - because if mass immigration is bad, their concept of human nature is false?
The good thing about the tourists is that they go home. The immigrants, on the other hand, stay to throw a spanner in the works forever.
> The good thing about the tourists is that they go home. The immigrants, on the other hand, stay to throw a spanner in the works forever. <
Well done. You beat me to it, QV.
That's the key thing, tourists *go home*. And--if you have a competent bureaucracy--you can even set you taxes (visas, air tickets, hotels, etc.) to restrict the flow to what you find desirable and raise funds to offset the costs.
Immigrants on the other are--baring serious and unpleasant (but necessary) work--are forever. At best more or less compatible and simply taking space from your own people forever. But mostly for the West, not just disrupting social cohesion but creating crime, disorder and direct costs--i.e. tax eating--forever. They are a toxic pathogen, that you are never allowed to kick.
"Why is the global establishment so mentally unbalanced on the topic of immigration policy?"
They're not. They evaluate Icelandic phenomena in terms of the interests of the people who live in Iceland. They evaluate phenomena in other parts of the World -- UK, USA, Germany, France ... from the point of view of the people who intend to occupy those nations, robbing, raping and murdering their current inhabitants. It's called "War ", and we're losing.
How are they losing? The misery they've inflicted is incalculable
> Why is the global establishment so mentally unbalanced on the topic of immigration policy? <
60 years of intense anti-white, anti-national propaganda flowing forth from the "American" media and academy, which has dominated the West since the War. And which dovetails perfectly with the needs of the super-state--and the interests of the super-state political parties. ("Diversity is the health of the state.")
All this intense propaganda has essentially created a bunch of people with a new religious ideology, that allows a whole bunch of people to feel virtuous--to know they are "good people"--simply by believing a whole set of--false and frankly ridiculous--ideas. For these people someone asserting that say Germany belongs to Germans and should be run in their interests--and worse that Germans are *better* than the immivaders--is spewing heresy, evil and committing the gravest mortal sin "racism".
Biggest mystery I’ve ever seen Steve. At least Trump just told the UN that the open borders experiment has failed and must end. NYT must be livid for all the irrational reasons possible.
Trump 2.0 is scaring them. The BBC article on his UN speech was ominously titled:
"Six years ago Trump's UN audience laughed, this year they were silent"
As hapless boss Michael Scott says in The Office tv show: "I want people to laugh when they see me coming and applaud when I go away."
Theoretically, immigrants are trying to integrate wholly into the host country and be one of them. In reality this is unlikely to happen, but that's why it's worse to criticize them in theory.
There's an interesting dovetail here with your previous post Steve.
If you ask the Amy X Wang types what they want to do, what makes their life exciting--while they are *not* marrying and having children with the incels they loathe for having the temerity to think critically about why they are frozen out--a top item will be "travel".
That means going to the "hot"/"exciting" places they--and everyone else--have heard about and taking pictures of themselves for their Instagram.
Of course, this isn't *just* young women, it's also old women, men, couples. "Travel" is more and more the filler for empty lives. Lives of people who do not have the previously normal passel of children and grandchildren filling up their lives.
~~
I confess, after each trip I've taken in the smartphone age, I'm less and less excited about travelling--especially to see X, Y or Z. More and more, for any travel I'd mostly just like to be able to briefly enjoy somewhere with mountains and lakes--away from the maddening crowds. And more and more just feel like a cold beer on the back deck, as I await the as-yet-nonexistent grandchildren.
"after each trip I've taken in the smartphone age"
Should this be read as a comment against smartphones or the technological parallel-reality ecosystem of such things as Instagram, and really the whole streamlining of much of what "travel" is in the Internet age? You dropped in the word "smartphone age" but didn't follow up on the idea (as you could've written "in the past ten years" or something, but chose "smartphone age")!
"In 2024, Iceland received about 2.3 million foreign overnight visitors, up from fewer than 500,000 in 2010."
We can assume this means "2.3 million unique-individual foreigners who spent at least one night in Iceland in calendar-year 2024." Most will surely have spent multiple days/nights in Iceland, not just a single overnight. Often something more like a week, I'd guess. Who would go to Iceland and leave the next day??
We can derive a "person-days" calculation by multiplying the 2.3m figure by the number of days/nights, to get a sense of scale of this problem, compared to Iceland's ballooning resident-foreigner population.
A google-search suggests the average for a tourist visiting Iceland may spent about 8 days, 7 nights there. With that multiplier, foreign visitors will have spent 18.5m person-days in the country. That's above 50,000 foreign-tourists present on any given day. And, if there is a high-peak season, I suppose it could be twice that, at times.)
Applying this to the wider demographics of the island, we get this picture of the number of people physically in Iceland an average day in 2024 (based in part on data in wikipedia "Demographics of Iceland" page):
.
[Icelanders]
- 255,000?: Citizens of Icelandic origin (assuming 15% of Icelanders are away (out of Iceland) at any given time, given a base of 300,000 citizens).
.
[Non-Icelanders]
(Note: there were 82,000 registered foreign residents in 2024, but many may not always be in Iceland physically all 365 days a year. I've applied some deflating multipliers, as I did with Icelandic-citizens, and divided them into categories of ethnocultural-closeness or "assimilability")
- 15,000?: Foreigners of basically-completely-assimilable stock, IF present in modest numbers (mostly Scandinavians; and others of NW-European origin);
- 25,000?: Foreigners of less-assimilable stock;
- 17,500?: Foreigners of definitely NON-assimilable stock (Asia, Mid-East, Africa);
- 50,000+: Tourists, i.e., foreign short-term visitors (18.5m person-days/365) (potentially 75,000+ at peak-periods, if applicable).
.
[TOTAL PRESENT IN ICELAND ON A GIVEN DAY, 2024]
- 362,500: All types (subject to the multipliers I've applied).
--- of which, Icelandic-origin citizens: 70%
--- of which, foreign residents of high/full assimilability: 4%
--- of which, foreign residents of mid-low practical assimilability: 7%
--- of which, definitely-unassimilable resident-element (e.g., Mid-East, India, Southeast Asians ,any Africans, etc.): 5%
--- of which, short-term foreign tourists: 14% (which, at peak-periods, could well exceed 20%)
.
The "mid-low assimilability" and "unassimilable" elements together probably exceed the short-term foreign-tourist element much of the time; they are definitely on the same order of magnitude. And, as other commenters here have noted, the resident-foreigners are a different species, by merit of not leaving (or of repeatedly coming back, to the extent they do either make home-visits or go elsewhere for any reason; many of the 22,500 Poles registered as resident-foreigners I assume are back in Poland for portions of the year).
The tourist argument about damage to a local culture. It's usually seen in places like, say, Bhutan or possibly Bali. It would seem Iceland is small-and-obscure enough that a White host-population gets the same sympathetic ear here. But maybe more relevantly, it's possibly here a way to indirectly point to the foreigner element.
As Steve says, the two are a very-similar kind of argument; and, as commenters say, the resident-foreigner element is worse (more challenging). There remains a taboo in the West against talking too directly about a core national-titular ethnocultural-stock needing to maintain primacy in its own country (except Israel/Palestine).
I'd imagine 85% of Iceland's Tourists come in May thru September.
Not a lot of hours of daylight in December.
The "global establishment", including NYT writers, can see the cons as well as the pros of mass tourism because they don't want to deal with huge crowds of prole tourists when they visit Venice. The third world immigrants don't live by NYT journalists, but do live close enough to the blue collar whites they despise to make life miserable for them, which is of course the whole point of mass immigration !