Shot 1: An office, somewhere in Europe. Well-dressed yet approachable EUROPEAN PEOPLE of diverse race and gender TALK SERIOUSLY.
Back in 2015 the organisation Européens Sans Frontières (Europeans Without Borders) sponsored a competition to make a short film to raise public awareness of the issue of migration in Europe. The European Commission was involved in financing it somehow, though I am not clear whether it was funding just this film or the Européens Sans Frontières organization as a whole.
Shot 2: A studio full of keen, passionate young EUROPEAN FILM STUDENTS, hipster but not too hipster, you know what I mean, are doing FILM THINGS.
The film that won the competition was called “Eurodame, Help!”
It’s the weirdest thing since Captain Euro, not the new ironic Captain Euro, the original “yes, they actually did think this was a good idea” Captain Euro.
Anyway, back to Eurodame. On April 26th the film appeared on YouTube.
Shot 3: a EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL PERSON clicks a mouse and sits back with a SIGH of SATISFACTION, conscious of a job well done.
Then the plot goes off the rails. Jack Montgomery of Breitbart London found the film on YouTube and posted about it today: Fairy Godmother’ Brings Migrants to Europe on a Flying Carpet in EU-Backed Cartoon. Oh dear. This is not going to end well.
Here it is direct from the creators: EURODAME, HELP!
As well as the French original, they also made versions in several languages, including Arabic.
Questions abound. Why is the entrance to Europe guarded by one rude man in short sleeves and a baseball cap? Why does the Euro-fairy need glasses? Who is the Obi-wan Kenobi bloke with the flying carpet? How is he different from the evil people-smuggler? How does the portrayal of Eastern Europeans contribute to intra-EU solidarity?
That really is an issue, you know. Here is an excerpt from the official script:
Shot 14:
The carpet arrives in an Eastern European country where they meet a hostile crowd.
The shopkeeper:
– There are refugees here, also seeking asylum.
The crowd:
– Immigrants!
The shopkeeper:
– But it’s their right!
The crowd shouting:
– No refugees here!Shot 15:
The carpet resumes its course to the compass and turns west (W).Shot 16:
The carpet arrives in a Western country. Eurodame is there to greet them.
Eurodame: – Welcome to our home!
The shopkeeper invites them to step down from the carpet. He smiles.
An eager crowd takes care of them, gives them food and clothing.Shot 17:
Eurodame shows them into a nice house.
Why are the comments still on?
Who was the audience meant to be?
What on earth were they trying to achieve?
In the spirit of objectivity:
“Who paid for this?”
As always; “FOLLOW THE MONEY!”
Sorry, but I don’t believe refugees have a “right” to move to other countries. The libertarian “right to free movement” is suicidal in the face of an explicit effort by Islam to take advantage of it. And a related link.
The same thing the acting profession tries to achieve through the various award programs.
They’re rewarding themselves with Warm Fuzzies for being so damned virtuous.
Their one about brexit, by contrast, is guaranteed to win over hearts and minds:
The Gloomy Aftermath of Brexit
“not the new ironic Captain Euro”
Looks like the same old “sclerotic bureaucracy and neo-imperialism are FUN!” bollocks to me.
Natalie : What on earth were they trying to achieve?
Robert Conquest : The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
I like the comment that says “They left out the part after dinner where the migrants raped the EU fairy and beheaded the host family”.
I think the Tories and/or UKIP could find it helpful to arrange screenings of this in the run-up to the election. (If the “versions in several languages” do not include English then the Arabic version with subtitles might do well enough.) Perhaps a short film with this, plus a bit from the original Captain Euro, interspersed with Junker explaining that as May was unreceptive to the idea of paying 60 billions the charge is now 100 billions.
We did, obviously. 🙂 (or do I mean 😡 ?)
If this is how effectively they spend our money on pro-EU propaganda, which presumably matters to them, how effectively do they spend the rest of our money – even on the rare task we might imagine was worth doing in the first place?
The African flood has not yet begun. When it does happen, Europe will become a black African state.
“Who was the audience meant to be?”
Obviously, the intended audience was Européens Sans Frontières, since they were the ones offering the prizes.
“What on earth were they trying to achieve?”
That all depends upon who is meant by “they”. If it’s Monsieur Giacomo Lezzerini (maker of this film), it was winning the prize money. He gave them what they wanted. If it’s Européens Sans Frontières, it was pandering to the members of their echo chamber, playing to their sense of self-importance. Clearly, neither could have reasonably expected that this film would have any effect on the ordinary European citizen. As with much “art” on the left, the “purpose” is to reinforce their own sense of moral superiority. It’s simple virtue signalling. The fact that it could be achieved by using other people’s money is just icing on the cake.
European Union propaganda costs a fortune (both from taxation and from certain “Big Business” groups – who love their subsidies and the regulations to crush competition) and it really is awful.
People who were unsure about the European Union before watching E.U. propaganda tend to become OPPOSED to the European Union after watching it. Which is astonishing for propaganda that costs so much.
And we must not forget the “New European” – a propaganda sheet written by leftists (and financed by certain wealthy interests – a classic example of an “Unholy Alliance”) which claims that Mrs May (who seems to love every government spending and regulation idea) is actually a free market “extremist”, and “far right” – yes like Anglican vicar’s daughters tend to be…… (note to non British people – I am being sarcastic).
Who is the pro European Union propaganda supposed to convince?
I do not know.
Not quite the 10:10 debacle, but similar degree of cluelessness.
The crowd “gives” them food and a nice house – translation, taxation TAKES money from people to give to the invaders.
And “Eurodame” the fairy “protects the borders of Europe” by inviting in (and subsidising) forces that have been attacking Europe for some 13 centuries.
Also a “nice” touch that the people in Eastern Europe are shown as hostile and the people in Western Europe are shown as friendly. I thought the point of the European Union was supposed to be alliance of the peoples of Europe – not saying that the people in the Eastern parts of the E.U. were morally inferior to the people the Western bits.
The whole thing is demented.
Wrong as usual. Any libertarian right to free movement does not come with a welfare state attached. And without a welfare state, immigrants, even Islamic immigrants assimilate. So please, enough with how libertarian it is to provide immigrants with an income and housing paid for by taxpayers. It ain’t. The problem is and always has been immigration + welfare, not immigration per se.
But surely, Perry, there’s nothing even slightly un-liberarian in choosing for your country to have a free at the point of delivery health system paid for by the inhabitants. providing there’s common consent And it’s hard to see what’s un-libertarian about restricting free inward movement across the frontier. Again by common consent. It’s just an extension of “my house, my rules”
How can you have a “libertarian right” to go to a country not your own? Further, how can you have any rights in a country not your own? The people there might choose to bestow certain privileges upon you, of their own volition. But that doesn’t imply rights. How have you earned them?
Perry, as so often, seems to be on the money.
The short version has been around for some time: “you can have free immigration or a welfare state, but not both”.
Traditionally, Britain has been very open and this causes cognitive dissonance on the part of people who think that the welfare state is an unalloyed good that can be superimposed onto the traditional value of openness to immigration.
Yeah no shit Sherlock 😆 Surely you did not mistake me for a supporter of the NHS??? All ‘libertarian’ rights are negative: the right not to have lots of things imposed on you at gunpoint. If I want to hire Abdul to work in my shop, I want my right to make that offer respected. But Abdul should have no right to a tax funded house and healthcare in my view… but then neither should John, Hamish and Sandra either ideally.
Nonsense. If that’s true, how did all those Islamic countries become Islamic in the first place, long before the invention of the welfare state? Islam didn’t assimilate, it conquered, whether by force of arms or not.
“Surely you did not mistake me for a supporter of the NHS???”
Why wouldn’t you be? In a perfect libertarian society something very much like the NHS would be the optimum solution to the society’s healthcare needs. Probably what the original proposers envisaged when it was set up. It doesn’t work because its operating in a profoundly un-libertarian society. Where users abuse it to the detriment of other users.
You must be joking. Seriously, a state run mandatory healthcare system is the optimum solution to the society’s healthcare needs? Because, er, state run agriculture, automotive manufacture, transport etc. have all proven so much better than a competitive market based approach?
So PapayaSF, immigration and a conquering army are totally the same thing? They were all places conquered by actual organised armies or can you name an Islamic country that became Islamic so in some other manner?
So… is there some organised Islamic army (not figuratively speaking but an actual army) at the gates of Vienna, or perhaps the gates of Cleethorpes, that the BBC has failed to report on?
What Islamic armies conquered Malaysia and Indonesia? And why do you think totalitarianism is only a threat if there are armies imposing it?
2¢:
I’ve “heard” on the Internet an awful lot of self-described “libertarians” dogmatically insistent that the very existence of borders is un-libertarian, an unjust restriction on people’s right to move freely from A to B for every set of two points on the globe, and so forth.
(Just as any attempt by a relatively “free” country to defend itself physically proves that the country is morally evil. Especially true for the Anglospheric countries, and especially especially for the U.S. and the U.K. See any number of “libertarian” idjits on this.)
(Just as voting itself is argued by some to be an illegitimate activity, since it is the voter’s attempt to force everybody else to accede to his preferences or wishes, like it or no.)
That sounds persuasive to “noobs”: “Where does a country get the right to restrict the movements of anybody else, just because they don’t live in that country?” is the question.
If the potential libertarian has a mind that can challenge what at first seems to be correct, he will probably grow past this stage. Eventually.
But in the meantime, he is out there.
.
As is, by the bye, the soi-disant “libertarian” who is all for a Basic Guaranteed Income of some sort. (The more I think about that, the weirder it gets.)
Perry de Havilland (London), at May 16, 2017 at 5:46 pm above you mock the idea that “immigration and a conquering army are totally the same thing”. At your convenience, I’d appreciate your take on the Visigoths who immigrated into the Roman Empire in the latter part of the 4th century, The Visigoths had a far better claim to be refugees than the majority of the current lot – the Huns were overrunning their homeland, killing or enslaving all who did not flee fast enough – and they were admitted as refugees. However their later activities have a lot in common with an invading army – and a lot to do with the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire.
Immigration or a welfare state – pick only one – is a necessary rule. Can there be situations of too-large numbers in too-short timescales where it is not a sufficient rule? Such welfare state as the Roman Empire had was not extended to the Visigoths – unless you count the sack of Rome in 410 as a welfare payment.
They had no welfare state then, but had a discriminatory tax levied on the non-muslims (jizya). Other discriminatory measures abounded regarding property, activity, official status and many other aspects.
Majapahit empire was indeed conquered by the Islamic Demak Sultanate.
PdeH:
All things being equal, wouldn’t a western state without restrictions on immigration but also without a welfare state still draw to it large numbers of people from non western states which similarly do not have welfare provision – simply because in the former wages are likely to be a lot higher than the latter? Or is it your view that the absence of welfare provision in the higher wage state will be enough to deter the potential migration to that state of anyone who does not have a job offer in that state or at least a very high chance of getting a job once he or she arrives? In such a scenario, people in non-western states who are not likely to secure a job in a western state or be supported by someone who has a job there are likely to end up in a slum in that western state if they go there (there’s bound to be a slum or two in any state with no welfare provision) and so would prefer to remain in their non-western home state even if it involves staying in a slum in that state. Better the slum you know than one you do not!
Seems correct to me but perhaps I have missed something?
As to the assimilation point – do you see the welfare state as being primarily responsible for the lack of assimilation of migrant populations in, say, Western Europe over the past few decades? Again, I would agree—immigrants who have relied least on welfare tend to assimilate far more successfully than those who have relied most (eg In Britain: Ugandan Indians vs Pakistanis). But I wonder whether that argument still holds up if you have mass migration of the kind we have seen post 2014? I expect you’ll say that such mass migration may not have occurred on the same scale had there been no welfare state at the destination?
That happened after they became Islamic, while the question was how did they become Islamic in the first place.
I note that anyone competing for the film prize was required to be a citizen of an E.U. country.
These discriminatory taxes under muslim rule were a huge incentive to become a muslim. Either you pay the jizya or your head is chopped off. When you are poor the choice is between life or death. Only wealthy christians and jews survived.
I know that, fcal – but you keep missing the context of the comment to which you were replying.
Is that true?
The view from Romania: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI3orXQPcSo&t=0s
Indeed it is not true, Patrick. What may well be true is that in a truly free society immigrants who do not assimilate may just leave, possibly even without any violence involved. But the absence of state welfare is by far not the single condition for a truly free society. This is the one major point in this ongoing discussion that Perry and others seem to be missing or ignoring.
Last line of the script: “Europe protects its borders and welcomes refugees.” From a group calling itself: “Europe without borders.” Is there ANYTHING these people won’t lie about?
This is nonsense. Muslims do not assimilate in that they become western people believing western things. What will happen where unrestricted immigration is permitted is that as soon as Muslims make up a sizeable minority they will start enacting the political agenda of Islam via democratic means. In case you didn’t know this is not a libertarian agenda.
Once they are a majority then you can expect sharia, jizya, rape gangs, and eventual genocide. Same as everywhere else dominated by Islam.
The political system of any geographical area is determined by the people living there. Zero welfare libertarianism would evaporate immediately in the face of massive 3rd world immigration from anywhere, let alone Islamic immigration with the Islamic political agenda it carries with it. Libertarianism can’t even exist in present day majority white western nations. Is is childish fantasy to make this kind of libertarian puritan argument and pretend that it relates in any way to reality.
Why are they sitting on the floor to have dinner? Did the invaders steal their chairs?
If it’s about ‘Europeans without Borders’, should not the movie portray Europeans flying into the Sudan or Libya to settle? Or, for greater accuracy, retitle it ‘Africans and Asians without Borders’, or ‘Europeans are not allowed Borders’? And, just call all assistance ‘jizya’ so your ‘visitors’ will feel more comfortable.