It wasn’t an argument. I was just trying to point out that these things have been issues current throughout the ages. You see, many of the FB mob contemplate the issue for 5 whole seconds and come up with a grandiose over arching conclusion. And to top it all off they play the ‘they’ve only perfected the mud hut’ card.

It was an attempt to create perspective, although apparently it failed. I admit, I’d never heard of Ranavalona before. Interesting reading.

There is no shred of evidence that nowadays there are any EU countries trying to recolonize Africa.

There are no large scale population movements from Europe to Africa – it is in the opposite direction.

Whenever large scale massacres occur in Africa the local inbred African politicians and military dictators reject all foreign aid as “interference” in their domestic affairs. They insist that they tackle the problem themselves, no matter how murderously and causing a mass exodus of refugees.

The present upheavals in Africa are not due to colonisation, past or present, by European countries. They erupted with great ferocity soon after these colonisers moved out and shed their “white man’s burden”.

Africans have every right to protect their culture if they are so inclined. But they cannot do that by fleeing Africa, forcing a clandestine entry into Europe and by demanding asylum there.

Stop it, you two. You don’t reply to a stupid argument with an even stupider one. Europe was “colonised” (your words, not mine) by Africans at many more points in history than the reverse. And the Africans were massacring their own people long before any Europeans set foot there. Indeed, some of these “European colonisations” actually saved entire nations. Read up on Queen Ranavalona.

May I pose these questions for your kind consideration?

Is there a saturation point at which an African colony must stop accepting illegal colonizers from inside Europe?

Will colonizers stop heading to Africa when they have exhausted all its resources?

What would Africa do if and when the problems created by white men killing the natives become extremely difficult to deal with and threaten to seriously destabilize social life?

Must one wait till many are massacred, as must happen, sooner or later, before righteousness prevails?

What measures will be taken if colonization continues in spite of over-saturation?

Will international law change in the face of a crisis?

What will be the result of mounting pressure from large voting majorities in European countries who favour tough measures against native reprisal from Africa?

Does colonization help to solve in any way whatsoever the economic, political and social problems of the European countries of origin?

May ordinary hard-working, peace-loving African citizens be victims of policies and laws (including international law) introduced because of colonization?

Do Africans have a right to protect what they consider to be their economic, political, social and cultural way of life that developed along the centuries?
————
Just to put into perspective what you are asking…

Hear Hear. It’s actually hilarious, the Italian fascists realized they weren’t exactly Aryan early on, so Mussolini had it amended to ‘Aryan and Mediterranean race’.

http://tinypic.com/r/2ecenbt/5

There’s your failed multiculturalism Chris. All of them contributed to the gene pool that makes you. While the first generation may find integration difficult, their children rarely do.

I think you’ll find that, on the contrary, diversity is welcomed everywhere, with the exception of some backwards places. So no, it’s not the same all over the world. Just in your sad demented one.

I’ve a better idea. Let’s clear out all the petty-minded bigots who think they’re white.

Is there a saturation point at which Malta and every country in Europe must stop accepting illegal immigrants from outside Europe?

Will illegal immigrants stop heading for Europe when this saturation point is reached?

What would Europe do if and when the problems created by illegal immigration become extremely difficult to deal with and threaten to seriously destabilize social life?

Must one wait till the inevitable saturation point is reached, as it must sooner or later, before illegal immigration is stopped?

What measures will be taken if illegal immigration continues in spite of over-saturation?

Will international law change in the face of a crisis?

What will be the result of mounting pressure from large voting majorities in European countries who favour tough measures against illegal immigration from Africa?

Does illegal immigration help to solve in any way whatsoever the economic, political and social problems of the African countries of origin?

Are there vested commercial and financial interests on the part of European businesses in not seriously confronting Mediterranean littoral States who close one or both eyes on illegal immigration being organized on their territories from where boats depart?

May ordinary hard-working, peace-loving European citizens be victims of policies and laws (including international law) on illegal immigration?

Do Europeans have a right to protect what they consider to be their economic, political, social and cultural way of life that developed along the centuries?

Did the integration of minorities hailing from outside Europe and with different cultural and religious traditions really succeed in any European country? Do such minorities feel an integral part of the general community? Can they present a threat?

If we keep going at this rate and do not start push backs Malta will eventually end up looking like Africa. Multiculturalism is a fairytale cooked up by NGO’s, Jesuits and do gooders and has failed in most countries.

Most Maltese do not want to integrate with immigrants just as most immigrants do not want to integrate with Maltese. This is the same all over the world. The are unwelcome and the sooner people like Malmstrom get this into their thick skulls the better.