[Skybird]

Maybe we should dismantle our Western justice systems and law codes. If one thinks it to the end, they base on a fundament laid down by Roman law. And the Romans attacked and conquered as if there was no tomorrow. Heck, in the end we really should give up all our Wetsenr civilization. You, me, most Europeans and WASP-Americans - we are more Roman than anything else. By culture.

India today would be far worse off without the British occupation which still shows its heritage in India as it is today. The remains of the colonial ruling I saw still present, in remains, in Teheran myself. I met families of a middle class that we would call "Bildungsbürgertum" in Germany, whose education heavily owed to the cultural influence of the Brits that you can feel in parts until today. Even in Teheran. And believe me, Teheran is no beautiful city, its ugly.

I do not mean to excuse the many dark things in colonialism. But it is a fact that it also brought rule and order to places that were dirty dark holes of bloody barbarism and primitivity before, and that would still be that if some of the occupator'S rules and progress that came with them would not have been there. Also, there are differences in imperial tyranny as well. The barbery of a regime like Saddam'S,l and the British rule in India,. do not compare. In the end, beyond all their faults, the British still were the more civbilized ones. And that is the reason why Gandhi even survived the first day when he started to protest. A Saddam in ciontrol of India - and all those protesters at that salt mine would have been mowed down immedately.

Where would China be without the enforced opening by Western egoism? Japan? The opium wars started by the Brits, was a dirty thing. But imagine China would have been left untouched - its an image I see no pleasure in. China once had the most powerful and advanced trading and war fleet of the world - and then one man came to power, became emperor and ruled that China did not need thr world, and saw all ships were burned, all docks were dismantled, and all construciton plans were destroyed. that was before Britain became the ruling sea power. Japan was sealed off by the Shoguns. If the Americans wpuld not have kicked in the doior, which no doubt was neither nice nor legal, the country would have stayed locked in bitter poverty of most of the population, and a stagnatinf, slowly petrifying feudal elite. The shogunat has had its advantages, but what worked against it, was that it sought survival by self-imposed stagnation. India: until today the railway system, as eroded as it may be, laid out by the Brits, is the arteria of the country. British adminstration still is the blueprint by which Indian adminstraiton works: the oublic services, the executive, the jurisdiction. The terirble and ihumane caste system still is there. But that is not the Brit's fault, but the Indian's fault.

No matter where you look: the white man has left both bloody traces AND positive trails behind. The worst chapter in his relation to Africa, the slaves, he did not invent himself, but got talked into a deal for by those who saw enslaving of Africans as their business and source of profit: Muslim slave hunters.

Heck, in Africa there is even a small slowly growing minority of young intellectuals telling their people that colonialism is no excuse anymore to excuse that since the end of it the continent has seen so little progress only. These Africans tell their fellow Africans quite straight that apparently Africa does not have what it takes to compensate the absence of the psitive htings that also was brought by the whites, and that without advsory by them again Africa apparently is too incapable to get itself properly managed. There was a long essay on that in some german newspaper at the beginning of this year. South Africa forgvetting the heritage of Mandela.Zimbabwe. The hate and bloodshed in Rwanda, Congo, the ethnic cleansing across the continent - what have the Whites to do with it? It was there before they came, when they came they supressed it to signficant degrees, and when they left, it broke out again. Thats the grim truth about Africa, and thewir demographic madness will not make it any better (well, climate change will, completely unsentimentally). Its not always the white man. Mstly, the biggest evil haunting Africa is - the Africans themselves. Wowh, that qualifies for the political incorrectness of the day. All death threats to me, thank you.

For ourselves, we should ask what kind of migrants we need: for example qualified migrants with professions that are in much demand in Germany. Then we should search for such migrants, preferrably from cultural backgrounds that do not conflict with our own. I think of Indian IT experts, for example. Doctors from Poland. Engineers from Switzerland or Japan or South Korea or Israel. People we have no need for, that only could make a living at the cost of our social support systems and thus: get fed only, and that have no realistic chance to ever live fully self-sustaining in Germany, we should leave out. What to do with them? We have problems enough, and amyn of them mnean nothign but toruble. We have the right to discriminate between migration we need and shoud welcome, and migration we do not need or that means just troubles. This is our homes, and the foreigners have no claim for it. Period. Do you invite just every stranger from the street to your birthday party? Would you like to get flashmobbed?

The end of your post is an intentional provocation that distorts things beyond recognition, sorry. I think you know damn well what I was about, you just do not want to hear it for it puts your own vision into question and you hgave no realostic reply to that. I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with such exaggerations.

In the end, Australia gets it right. They let in those they need, and leave out those who neither are of use to them, nor have a chance to live without being maintained by the community. They do not try to be attractive, but they try to be very deterring and unwelcoming. The result: illegal migration into Australia is at a record low, has seen a dramatical cut. And they are right to do it like this, it is their right, the foreigners wanting to go there, only have a right to knock at their door and ask. When they get a "No", they have to accept that and move on.

And here is my pragmatic, totally non-ideological recipe to deal with migration quotas into germany:

1. discriminate all German households for this criterion: households that live on social wellfare and at cost of the state/the community, may it be in full or in parts; and households that are living by their own means and income, and have an outlook to not become dependant in the forseeable future.

2. Take the self-supporting households and give each of them the right to volunteer to take over the legally fully binding affidavit of support (Bürgschaft), with all responsibilities of legal and financial dimension, for one migrant of their choice. The rule is: one volunteering independent household - one migrant.

3. Make it clear that all financial costs for that migrant becoming criminal, failing to integrate, failing to become self-supporting, must be taken over by this household. Thats what a bail (Bürgschaft) is about, right: you are to be held fully accountable for the thing or person you guarantee for.

4. Count how many volunteers you get this way.

5. That is the number of migrants you allow into Germany. As many migrants as there are private, financially independent households willing to guarantee for them. And not one more.

This way, no commanding by the govenrment and no enforcement is needed. Its all voluntary. Show me a better method that works realistically and pragmatically and without abuse of power by the state against its people.

You see, many people are all fire and flame for doing what is considered to be "in", and when they stick a mike into your face and film it most people do not want to stand apart and say the wrong thing, and so they "agree". But when it gets to cleaning the kitchen after the party, paying for the costs, you will see the number of enthusiasts shrinks. NIMBY, you see. People need to get an understanding for that there are risks in blindly trusting strangers. Our parents have raised me, and hopefully also you, to be on our guard against strangers, and not to walk all alone in lonely places, and not to follow every man who offers us candy. And suddenly we forget all that? Trust is no right you can make a claim for. It must be deserved, it is an empirically proven quality, basing on past experiences that were satisfactory and justfy in the present this thrust. Many people today just fantasize again about the Noble Savage. And when it shows that he is not that noble at all, and bites, they are stunned and wonder what has happened. Many of the people coming today, are not like the refugees we take in after WW2 - these were people of cour cultural breed, of our belief and relgion, mostly of our language, our moral convicition. They were culturally compatible. The family of my father was one of them, in principle I am half a Sudentendeutscher. The flood of people coming now, are totally different, are foreign people, are alien. Africans, used to tribal social systems, other rites and habits, with different views of life, labour, women, discipline and priorities they set in their lives. Muslims, having a socialisation according to quranic cultural infleunce in their biography. It does not compare to the refugees after WW2, in no way it compares. Not even a tiny little bit.

Your problem is that you do not differ between moral prgamatism and moral absolutes. Your priority is the latter. And this brings you into conflict with reality as it is, a dissonance that you cannot solve and never will be able to solve. Because reality does not bow to ideology.