It seems obvious that North and West Europeans made America great just from comparing USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, North and West Europe, with the rest of the world.
Second wave, was when everything started to go wrong:
The second wave of European Americans arrived from the mid-1890s to the 1920s, mainly from Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Ireland. This wave included Irish, Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles and other Slavs. With large numbers of immigrants from Mexico, Spanish Caribbean, and South and Central America, White Hispanics have increased to 8% of the US population, and Texas, California, New York, and Florida are important centers for them.
Here we see immigrants like we see immigrants today, people from sh-thole countries mainly coming to take advantage of what North and West Europeans has created. Similar to what we see in North and West Europe today, with millions of immigrants from Eastern Europe. Even though their countries have been getting economic aid, since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.
Before 1881, the vast majority of immigrants, almost 86% of the total, arrived from northwest Europe, principally Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. The years between 1881 and 1893 the pattern shifted, in the sources of U.S. “New immigration”. Between 1894 and 1914, immigrants from southern, central, and eastern Europe accounted for 69% of the total. Prior to 1960, the overwhelming majority came from Europe or of European descent from Canada. The shift in European immigration has been in decline since the mid-20th century, with 75.0% of the total foreign-born population born in Europe compared to 12.1% recorded in the 2010 census.
They tried to prevent it from happening!
Prior to 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration. The civil rights movement led to the replacement of these ethnic quotas with per-country limits. Since then, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled.
Countries like Spain, Poland and Romania has more votes than Netherlands.
Greece, Portugal, Czech Rep. and Hungary has more votes than Sweden and Austria.
Bulgaria has more votes than Denmark.
Why do these freeloaders have more influence than those who contribute the most?
The voting system of the Council as defined in the Treaty of Nice entered into force on 1 February 2003. The voting weights of the member states according to this treaty are shown in the table on the right. The voting system was replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon, effective 1 November 2014.
After the accession of Croatia, on 1 July 2013, at least 260 votes out of a total of 352 by at least 15 member states were required for legislation to be adopted by qualified majority. Croatia had 7 votes (the same as Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Finland).
From 1 July 2013, the pass condition translated into:
- At least 15 (or 18, if proposal was not made by the Commission) countries,
- At least 260 of the total 352 voting weights,
- At least 313.6 million people represented by the states that vote in favour.
Read more here at Wikipedia
As you know, one accident rarely comes alone. The Coronavirus has triggered a huge bill, especially in countries already plagued by poor public administration and government debt. Therefore, the countries of the Euro zone, led by the governments of France, Spain and Italy, have convinced Germany to go along with the idea of borrowing €750 billion and provide them directly to the sectors, regions and industries in the euro zone most affectedisla by the crisis.
Who should administer the multibillion ‘recovery instrument’? Correct, that is the job of the geniuses in the European Commission. In Denmark, the idea has been promoted by the left, which since March has been pushing to get the Social Democratic government to agree to joint debt with the euro zone countries to show what they call ‘solidarity’.
Two questions arise. One is pecuniary: should the Danes really jeopardize their relatively good creditworthiness for German carmakers, the French oil industry, the Italian and Spanish tourism industries or all sorts of other sectors here and there, which are naturally affected by draconian shutdowns and their governments’ lack of health emergency systems? Are we to be held accountable for what Emmanuel Macron’s government did or what the Socialist government in Spain didn’t do? It seems a bizarre rationale.
Read more here from Mikael Jalving at Nexit Denktank
Denmark is one of the four countries nicknamed the ‘Frugal Four’ – along with Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands – which had opposed grants as opposed to loans under the recovery fund, and also insisted on a seven-year EU budget not exceeding 1.0 percent of the blocs gross national income.
Source: EU Observer
WHAT IS THE MFF?
The MFF sets the limits for EU spending over seven years, as a whole and for different areas of activity.
It is spent on a raft of areas ranging from farm subsidies and regional development, to security projects, Erasmus student exchanges, research, fighting climate change, managing migration, security and defence.
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO AGREE?
Poorer countries always argue that richer net contributors to the budget should pay more, and there is inevitably an acrimonious stand-off. A failure to agree by the start of 2021 risks a spending freeze on many critical projects.
The 2021-27 MFF is even harder because Britain’s exit from the EU means there is less money in the pot: the departure of the EU’s second-biggest net payer will leave a 75 billion euro hole in the seven-year budget.
The first nut to crack is just how big the budget should be.
European Council President Charles Michel has proposed a figure of 1.094 trillion euros, equivalent to 1.074% of the 27 countries’ gross national income (GNI). The European Commission has sought a bigger budget equivalent to 1.11% of GNI.
Net beneficiaries – mostly southern and eastern states that get more from the MFF than they put in thanks to cohesion funds and support for their farmers – like the Commission number. They stick together in a group called “The Friends of Cohesion”.
Net contributors frown even on Michel’s lower number, and an alliance known as “The Frugal Four” – Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden – insist the budget must not exceed 1.0%.
Germany, the MFF’s biggest net contributor, is sometimes clubbed with these four but is expected to be more flexible.
France, the number two contributor, wants to safeguard CAP funding for its farmers but is uneasy about the fiscal impact of a budget at the upper end of the range.
Net contributors are also fighting to keep a system of “rebates”, reductions to their contributions based on a complicated corrections system. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pioneered the rebate in the 1980s, but net beneficiaries say it must now be scrapped.
Why You Should Root for the “Frugal Four”
Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Austria need not only to keep up their opposition, but to gather additional support for the status quo. It is thoroughly irresponsible to condition southern European nations to continuous bailouts from the north in every crisis, while failing to pressure for any significant reforms in the absence of crises.
The “Frugal Four” are a blessing in this time of great irresponsibility.
Source: Austrian Center
Germania (pronounced [ɡɛʁˈmaːni̯a]) was the projected renewal of the German capital Berlin, part of Adolf Hitler‘s vision for the future of Germany after the planned victory in World War II. Albert Speer, the “first architect of the Third Reich“, produced many of the plans for the rebuilt city in his capacity as overseer of the project, only a small portion of which was realized between the years 1938 and 1943 when construction took place.
Some of the projects were completed, such as the creation of a great East–West city axis, which included broadening Charlottenburger Chaussee (today Straße des 17. Juni) and placing the Berlin victory column in the centre, far away from the Reichstag, where it originally stood. Others, however, such as the creation of the Grosse Halle (Great Hall), had to be shelved owing to the beginning of war. A great number of the old buildings in many of the planned construction areas were, however, demolished before the war, and eventually defeat stopped the plans.
It was Adolf Hitler who conceived of rebuilding Berlin to be the capital of the new world he would be instrumental in creating, and who provided the new name for it, ‘Germania’. According to records of Hitler’s “table talk” of 8 June 1942, Hitler’s purpose in the renaming was in order to give a Greater Germanic world empire of the New Order a clear central point:
Just as the Bavarians and the Prussians had to be impressed by Bismarck of the German idea, so too must the Germanic peoples of Continental Europe be programmatically steered towards the Germanic concept. He [Hitler] even considers it good that by renaming the Reich capital Berlin into ‘Germania’, we’ll have given considerable driving force to this task. The name Germania for the Reich capital would be very appropriate, for in spite of how far removed those belonging to the Germanic racial core will be, this capital will instill a sense of unity.
Doubts persisted at the time as to whether the marshy Berlin ground could have taken the load of the proposed projects, leading to the construction of an exploration building (Schwerbelastungskörper, literal translation: heavy load-bearing body), which still exists near the site where the Arch of Triumph would have been built. It is basically an extremely heavy block of concrete used by the architects to test how much weight the ground was able to carry. Instruments monitored how far the block sank into the ground. The Schwerbelastungskörper sank 18 cm (7 1⁄8 in) in the three years it was to be used for testing, compared to a maximum allowable settlement of 6 cm (2 3⁄8 in). Using the evidence gathered by these gargantuan devices, it is unlikely the soil could have supported such structures without further preparation. The plan was to cover the Schwerbelastungskörper by building a bridge over it. The arch would have been near by, but problems with the axis running through infrastructure would have made it difficult to establish any convenient location.
Read more here at Wikepedia
The Volkshalle (“People’s Hall”), also called Große Halle (“Great Hall”) or Ruhmeshalle (“Hall of Glory”), was a huge domed monumental building planned by Adolf Hitler and his architect Albert Speer for Germania in Berlin. The project was never realized.
The word Volk had a particular resonance in National Socialist thinking. The term völkisch movement, which can be translated to English as “the people’s movement” or “the folkish movement”, derives from Volk but also implies a particularly racial undertone. Before the First World War, völkisch thought had developed an attitude to the arts as the German Volk; that is, from an organically linked Aryan or Nordic community (Volksgemeinschaft), racially unpolluted and with its roots in the German soil of the Heimat (homeland).
Read more here at Wikepedia
An Unequal Share
Dannebrog holds the world record of being the oldest continuously used national flag.