[clandestini] and the islamic increase in italy

As many of you know, Welshcakes has run quite a few posts on the clandestini problem in Italy, for example, here, here and here.

Now the MSM is opening up a little and covering it and not half badly either:

An infernal scene, it is played out daily on the vast concrete wharf that dominates the tiny Italian port of Lampedusa. There is no moaning, no wailing, just the deep drone of boat engines churning water, the shout of coast guards mooring, a seagull's cry. On land, safe and at last shaded from the vicious 40-plus-degree heat, the relief is palpable, if fleeting.

Between January and August, nearly 20,000 people made the perilous overland journey to the coasts of Libya or Tunisia, to cross the Mediterranean and land on Italy's southernmost territory, the islet of Lampedusa. Many have already spent weeks, months and even years on the road and once on the coast, must entrust what little money they have left to the local criminal syndicates that traffic in human beings, and smaller and ever more dangerous boats.

Infernal indeed when humans are reduced to flotsam and jetsam. No one denies the terrible waste in it as thousands die BUT there is another side to it too:

According to latest Italian official statistics, Muslims make up about 34% of the 2,400,000 foreign residents living in Italy as of January, 1, 2005. To these 820,000 foreign residents of Muslim heritage legally residing in Italy, another 100,000-150,000 should be added, as Muslims represent, according to annual estimates by the Italian association Caritas, about 40% of Italy's illegal immigrants.

Many of the clandestini landing in Italy are only using Italy as a gateway to other EU nations, due to the fact Italy offers fewer economic opportunities for them than Germany or France, and because among the clandestini Italian society has a reputaton of being more hostile to them.

For example:

Recent points of contention between native Italians and the Muslim immigrant population include the presence of crucifixes in public buildings including school classrooms, government offices, and hospital wards.

In Italy, Muslims are up against a hard nut. So they move on. Screeds have been written about the problems of Islam in Europe but an address by Frits Bolkestein of the Netherlands, put a neat analogy:

Alluding to the E.U.'s aspiration to become a multinational state, he drew listeners' attention to the fate of the most recent European power with that aspiration, the Austro-Hungarian empire just over a century ago. Austrians were culturally confident (Liszt, Richard Strauss, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner were working in Vienna). They were prosperous and proud.

The problem was that there were only 8 million of them, and expanding their country's frontiers brought them face to face with an energetic pan-Slavic movement. Once the Empire absorbed 20 million Slavs, it faced difficult compromises between allowing the new subjects to rule themselves and preserving its own culture. Rather like the E.U., the Empire was past the point of no return before it realized it was going anywhere in particular.

Commenting on Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept, one reviewer wrote:

Underneath its surface tolerance and secular welfarism, there lurks something very sinister in the Europe of today, something that the sanctimonious political correctness and anti-Americanism of the elites cannot cover up anymore.

There is nothing left of classical liberalism in Europe today - what is most disgraceful about the current European mindset is the phoney tolerance, for example the European view of unassimilated minorities as "colourful" but Europe's total refusal to meaningfully integrate these into society. European are happy to dole out welfare money but not prepared to give these people proper employment.

Fair enough comment but the other side is that of numbers. Sheer numbers:

Islam is widely considered Europe's fastest growing religion, with immigration and above average birth rates leading to a rapid increase in the Muslim population.

This has been debated now for some time of course. Against this is the point:

The UK has a long history of contact with Muslims, with links forged from the Middle Ages onwards. In the 19th Century Yemeni men came to work on ships, forming one of the country's first Muslim communities. In the 1960s, significant numbers of Muslims arrived as people in the former colonies took up offers of work.

To the anecdotal - there is a family of Pakistanis round the corner here, running a chippie. There has never been any "trouble" from that quarter, they don't try to stir the pot or convert people. They don't call for Muslim schools or Sharia law. They are not on the dole, sitting at home watching Coronation Street. They are the "old Muslims" in the area - more than one generation and they are British, from their accents to their manner. Yet they are nominally Muslim.

What of them? If a cultural backlash comes in a big way, will they be swept away in it? Also, as Norman Tebbit once observed - do they cheer for England in the Test or for their former homeland? Do they become politicized by stirrers in Mosques and politicians grandstanding for brownie points with the population and change from benign to dangerous?

Again, I have no answers and I'm sure they don't either.

[cryotherapy] crying indeed

Would you do this?

For two minutes, I will be subjected to minus 120 degrees; a whole Siberian winter colder than that nippy day at Vostok. This is clearly madness.

Not according to Dr Jan Potocky, who runs the Cryotherapy Centre at Aquacity in Poprad, Slovakia. He believes that being subjected to such an ordeal has tremendous therapeutic effects, and there is some science behind it.

In some ways, it's just an extreme version of applying an ice pack to an injury - the blood vessels contract and blood is sent rampaging towards the cold bits.

The Russians and most northern nations swear by the banya and sauna, followed by the cold roll in the snow or the dip in the cool pool. Cryotherapy goes just for the cold snap and appears to have some substance. Many in these nations believe in the cold dip in the river in the morning or the cold face wash as well.

[maternity leave] and the price-income nexus

In the UK, maternity leave works like this:

All pregnant employees are entitled to take 52 weeks' statutory maternity leave around the birth of their child. However, an employee must meet certain qualifying conditions to receive statutory maternity pay (SMP). You, as the employer, pay the SMP but you can reclaim all or most of it from the government.

It works this way:

* SMP - SAP - SPP
o if total gross NI contributions over the year are equal to or less than £45,000 100% plus 4.5% compensation can be reclaimed
o if total gross NI contributions over the year are greater than £45,000 only 92% can be reclaimed with no compensation percentage

* SSP
o if 13% of the gross NI paid in the tax month is less than than the SSP paid, the difference between the two can be reclaimed

It's even clearer here and here. The mother is also entitled to:

# Child Benefit
# Tax Credits
# Child Trust Funds

In Sweden, it comprises part government and part employer funding. In Australia, there is a proposal:

The paid maternity leave scheme recommended by NFAW to the Productivity Commission will put small business on an equal footing with large organisations. The proposed scheme provides all employees with 28 weeks paid parental leave and 4 weeks paid paternity leave paid through a fund made up of a government contribution and a pooled levy on all employers of less than 1 per cent of labour costs.

Small to medium enterprises are at a disadvantage compared to Governments and big businesses in recruiting staff in a tight labour market when it comes to the attractiveness of remuneration packages they are able to offer. This disadvantage will continue if the government introduces a scheme that requires employers to replace all, or part, of the income of women on paid maternity leave.

Naturally, women are fearful that employers will take a dim view of extended maternity leave and regulations are in place to prevent this.

Right, so back in the UK, a small business employer taking on female staff gains net 4.5% of the amount paid if she gets pregnant and has the child. Now to calculate costs to the business. Whilst it is reclaimable, it is not instantly payable and there is a net loss associated with it overall. This is why SME businesses are crying out loudly against it because the figures, whilst appearing to add up in the long run, in fact cause short term difficulties, not least in having to employ another staff member, who in turn has certain rights.

Personally, this blogger thinks there must be a sharing of the load between state, employer and the employed herself [with partner makes it easier]. Ellee's call for extended maternity was never in dispute here. However, one comment from a woman in the Australian workplace [but the principle is the same] put a different point of view:

Rebekah of Melbourne posted at 11:53am June 13, 2008

I am a 29yo female & would like to start a family in the next couple of years, however I do not believe that there should be paid maternity leave. It is my choice to have children & I do not expect my employer or the government to pay me whilst on leave. My partner & I have worked out that we can afford to live on his wage, however we are only able to do so because we bought a small older house in the outer suburbs & we don't have expensive cars. I also agree with the comments regarding potential discrimation against young female job seekers - I know that if I owned a small business I would avoid hiring young females if there was paid maternity leave.

Another commenter put this proposal:

Mel of WA Posted at 9:42am June 14, 2008

Employers should not be funding this scheme from their own pockets, and the taxpayer should not be expected to fund it either. What should happen is: either the employee makes arrangements to save up or live on their partner's wage so they can afford to have their child and take a year off work, or the employee works for four years at 80% pay, and then takes the fifth year off as maternity leave at 80% pay. That way the employer is not out of pocket by having to pay maternity leave as well as pay someone else to do the absent employee's job nor is the taxpayer is funding someone's decision to have kids.

Women in Britain would claim that because of the measly package offered at present, employees are very much contributing, in effect, even given the paternity provisions and this blogger agrees with that. But tripling is not only going to cripple business, it is going to make an employer increasingly steer clear of child-bearing age women or else implement pre-employment conditions to minimize huge payouts in any financial year.

May we stop and catch our breath?

Trace our society and see what has really happened in the past decades. In the early part of last century, the extended family was the basic societal unit. In the late 50s, the nuclear family was the basic societal unit. Today, singles abound in little boxes across the west.

If we stop to count the cost of this, in financial terms, it is obvious that it is unsustainable. Financial strictures force people into finding solutions and the obvious solution is the extended family, which is quite socialist in nature. From each according to ability and to each according to needs. We are heading back to this as the squeeze grips harder and harder.

Two things come under intense pressure - the government disbursement of tax money and roofs over people's heads - there are not enough flats and houses and what there are can't be afforded. When money derived from taxes is disbursed, every taxpayer has a right to a say in how it is disbursed. Maternity leave is given to people in work and the businesses giving it have the right to say how it should be disbursed.

Government policy is squeezing businesses through tax rates anyway, let alone through schemes like SMP and this most certainly snuffs out incentive - hence the flight of business offshore and overseas. Everyone, businesses included, are hurting because everything is ultimately interconnected. Government is only taxation anyway [plus autocratic legislation]. It all becomes us again in the end.

Those two commenters just quoted above bring out an alien concept in today's world - that the having of a child is a major financial burden which needs planning and financial preparation by the couple, utilizing all family resources possible before the event. Government needs to contribute somewhat, as do employers but the decision is the couple's in the end and that entails sacrifices and responsibilities.

Whose responsibility is having a child in the end?

Where it gets really complicated is a girl who wants to live in her own flat with a child she had and where the father has departed. This is sheer madness at the personal level because the figures for supporting it don't add up. I know two girls in this situation and the family has chipped in to support her as best they can. A girl going it totally alone, on the other hand, is in an invidious position and it is now rampant in society, the US figure being 30%.

In the United Kingdom, there are 1.9 million single parents as of 2005, with 3.1 million children.[6] About 1 out of 4 families with dependent children are single-parent families. According to a survey done by the United Kingdom, 9% of single parents in the UK are fathers,[7] [8][9][10] UK poverty figures show that 47% of single parent families are below the Government-defined poverty line (after housing costs).[11]

So the girl eventually is either forced back into the family fold if she has one or if she doesn't, why not? There might have been an abusive father or there might be the simple desire to be independent. That is then paid for by state and employer. In other words, the taxpayer foots the bill for all these unmarried mothers.

Again I say that the state should do this to a point, by default but where is that cut-off point? This could go on forever, this train of thought but it is all halted by one truth - the cost of living swamps any income in this day and age. The moment the banks created a situation where the price of major items like houses and cars reached an unpayable level, then the only solution was credit.

This, in turn, broke the nexus between price and income and enabled house prices, for example, to go through the stratosphere. This is precisely what is happening in Russia today. Once on that path, we get where we currently are.

The unit of income and the unit of cost must now be completely redefined and brought back to affordable levels.

Everybody is indicating this but it's not happening. Who has the power to change this? Governments do plus the people they are dependent on - the banks. It always comes back to the banks who should be just repositories protecting people's cash but in fact have become much, much more. Will they voluntarily crank back prices?

Not on their own they won't. So it needs steely resolve from government, responding to public opinion, to force prices back to affordable levels and the last leader I can recall trying anything of this nature was Andrew Jackson. In the crash which would inevitably follow this government move, the whole formula is redefined.

It won't happen though because the alternative, the nanny state, confers power on an upper echelon and this blogger does not see that echelon as altruistic or philanthropic in nature.

Calling for the tripling of maternity leave is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's relocating the hurt to another sector of society. There's a case for all to contribute - yes - but this is contributing to what is an out of kilter and unsustainable system in the first place.

Welshcakes is a champion of the single person being supported and she took umbrage at me putting such a person low on the list. The single person does have the burden of upkeeping a household, with all attendant costs and total costs, compared to a family, not that much less. She may also have a dependent - her pet and that needs paying for. Those who have not been in this situation cannot understand how a pet assumes a role of great importance in such a household and needs to be paid for. But it does need that and the owner gladly pays.

No one is asking for government and employer to pay for pets but the single is asking for a fairer redistribution overall. That was why I suggested 70% of the rate which the government pays families also going to singles. For this, I was called an ignorant fascist [see comments on the last maternity post].

That last maternity post called for a situation-based payout and why not? Should the state or employer pay for a person's voluntary decision to be be single or only for unavoidable singleness? One is a choice and the other a necessity.

Who determines this and for how much? Again I was called an ignorant fascist for suggesting that government [who delegates this to social security], essentially means a committee of men and women. You can't have it both ways. If the government pays out, then men and women within that government must decide how much. How is this fascist?

And one cannot ignore the macro-view - that the proliferation of single person households cannot be sustained in a society already groaning under the burden, let alone the population increases due to virtually free relocation within the EU, immigration and births.

What is fascist is the state's gathering of all into a nanny state where the cost of living is entirely unsustainable. That's where the real fascism is.

[remember zion] israel, albion or ethiopia

[maternity leave] needs to be situation-tested

Ellee thinks maternity leave should be tripled.

Well, to a point it should be increased but there is maternity and maternity:

1. the wife in a marriage having a child in the normal course of events;

2. the girl who goes with a bad boy [why do girls fall for them], who then scarpers or is too rottweiler to have about and then she needs family support;

3. the benefits mum who plays the system.

Hands up anyone who's never made an error of judgement? Conversely, hands up anyone who wouldn't dream of working and sees maternity as a good dodge? So rather than the increase being across the board and universal, surely it should be situation-and-attitude-tested in each case by a panel of men and women, in each borough, to determine true eligibility.

What it should not be is means-tested because that penalizes initiative. If a husband is supporting the wife during this time, then the extra would be very much needed if he were on a standard salary and should not be reduced because he happens to have the ability to pull down a good salary.

In fact, the whole thrust in public money distribution should be to support the married couple and dependents first, then pensioners, then, by reducing amounts, the single mum and then other single people [not at half the rate but at 70%, as these still have houses to upkeep].

One negative consequence of tripling maternity leave, of course, is that no business is going to employ a possibly pregnant girl/woman any more - it can't take the risk of such a huge payout. This would bring older women and the male back into favour for employment and that is something the feminists simply would not want to happen as it virtually unravels their conditioning of society to the concept of the career woman.

[political stance] linked to psychological outlook or not

At first this looks rubbish, occasioning the riposte: "The things that get funding to research these days!" but look at it anyway:

Scientists studying voters in the US say our political views may be an integral part of our physical makeup. Their research, published in the journal Science, indicates that people who are sensitive to fear or threat are likely to support a right wing agenda. Those who perceived less danger in a series of images and sounds were more inclined to support liberal policies. The authors believe their findings may help to explain why voters' minds are so hard to change.

Apart from the risible assumption that if you substitute the word "scientists" for "researchers", you get a weighty piece of gravitas, apart from the questionable methodology in itself, they still might have something there.

Left wingers I know do tend to have faith in being able to legitimately utilize the system [which in my case is not possible for reasons in a previous post] and speak of what one is entitled to.

Right wingers tend to assume the system is rubbish and that the only help is going to come from family, friends and one's own success or not.

I've definitely noticed a gloomy view of Brown's Britain whereas left wingers seem to be less concerned and have more faith that the system will protect them.

In general, this seems to be so although people have complex views and so I don't insist on the above.