Post: #26

(08-19-2015 05:47 PM)UncleSam Wrote:  I'm reading this thread and at this very moment a group of muslim "refugees" is running around the wonderful east-german city Suhl while screaming "allahu akbar". The riot started a few hours ago in an asylum seeker camp the news says. It started because of religious misunderstandings they say, whatever the fuck that means. Here is a video from a casual bystander:

https://www.facebook.com/614774168634601...839901666/

Coincidentally, today the german government stated that about 800.000 (!!!) "refugees" will have come to Germany until the end of the year ... presumably. I can't really believe what the fuck is happening right now. Other countries, like hungary, take extraordinary measures to get the problem under control and we do literally nothing. Besides letting all of them into the country and spreading them around of course.

For me it's very hard to feel sympathy with my own people right now because it seems the majority of Germans just goes along with it in fear of getting the Nazi label. I guess that happens when the leader of the government and the secretary of defense are both women?

In January the government talked about 250 000. This flood will never stop. It will increase next year and the year after.
But it seems like the Germans are the dumbest people in the world when it comes to politics. They simply believe anything what the "Tagesschau" tells them.

Post: #27

They should be commended for taking in ANY immigrants at all.

I'm sure Slovakia has more than enough problems and poor people of their own to take care of. What a bunch of generous motherfuckers to agree to help out hundreds of people who have nothing to do with them and will only be a strain on their already strained economy. Slovaks who already suffer from poverty are now sharing what little slice of the pie they have with strangers from a foreign land.

They should get an award.

Post: #28

(08-19-2015 01:21 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Every nation has the right to control who it lets in and out. That's their right. What else is there to be said on this issue?

Whatever conventions and treaties the country signed are obviously relevant.

I have no idea what Slovakia's status is regarding refugee treaties and what they agreed to.

But if they signed up to a treaty that they no longer intend to honor, that's worthy of discussion.

Personally I think the whole refugee system is chronically broken. It's a great time to review it from the ground up. They need to fix the fucked up incentives in place.

Post: #29

Can someone explain to me this whole migrants mess ?

I understand that these people arrive on EU soil and ask for asylum, stating war and...poverty !! as reasons ?

Why do EU countries HAVE to take them in ?

If that's how easy it is, then anyone can get here and say hey I'm poor, let me in, give me social welfare, food and shelter...

What happened to visas, border control and sending illegal residents away ?

I just don't get it.

Post: #30

(08-19-2015 08:10 PM)Edelweiss Wrote:  Can someone explain to me this whole migrants mess ?

I understand that these people arrive on EU soil and ask for asylum, stating war and...poverty !! as reasons ?

Why do EU countries HAVE to take them in ?

If that's how easy it is, then anyone can get here and say hey I'm poor, let me in, give me social welfare, food and shelter...

What happened to visas, border control and sending illegal residents away ?

I just don't get it.

In essence: the UN Refugee Convention of 1952 or so happened. One Leftie academic once described it as "The world's apology to the Jews".

Post: #31

Africa will double its population from 1 000 000 000 to 2 000 000 000 until 2050.
If Europe continues with its policy there wil be no Europe left.

Post: #32

Was reading more about this and found this gem. Apparently a German mayor said he may "seize privately owned but empty homes to house asylum seekers".

Good Germany, make it hurt as much as possible. That won't come back to bite you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...rants.html

Quote:Country will refuse entry to Muslims among quota of 200 migrants, on grounds that country has "no mosques", as German mayor threatens to seize private homes to house asylum seekers

Post: #33

A Christian country only wants Christian immigrants.
Makes sense.

They're probably gonna force them to take the Muslim immigrants anyway.
It's too bad that something like this can't be implemented: http://www.returnofkings.com/52970/a-pra...n-the-west

Post: #34

(08-19-2015 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:23 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  Europe integrates Christians relatively well, even from sub Sahara Africa. A different religion is tougher and integration is harder, plus in central and eastern Europe the memories of ottoman occupation is still fresh.

Completely agree. The idea that Muslims and Christians can live peacefully in the same country is contradicted by over a thousand years of experience.

Moreover, the New Testament explicitly says not to mix with non-Christians. St. Paul commanded it (in the Corinthians, I believe).

Personally, segregating a country by religion makes more sense than anything. More sense than by race or nationality. Religion is by far the most powerful factor in the long run.

What about the very obvious case of the USA? The amount of religious violence between American Muslims-Christians-Jews has been statistically tiny.
The Boston bombers and 9/11 were all foreigners, which raises a different question-- immigration.

There WAS that Army major psychiatrist who murdered over 10 other soldiers in the USA that was born here. That's tragic but nothing near what needs to be considered very relevant to policy on religion. Army recruitment and retention policy maybe. He was complaining about being harassed and may have asked to be released from military, but they are hesitant to do that when they pay for your medical training.

Since I think you are living in the USA, it's a little hard to hold forth on the argument it's an absolute shithole etc. despite the lack of internecine violence.

I'm if anything a Buddhist, which is certainly a small minority of mostly upper middle class whites, and I"m sure happy the Founders had the genius to in effect tell everyone, "Mind your own fucking business" in regard to religion.

There is a a growing percentage of people in First World nations at least largely without religion ( see US Census 1990 and 2000 for increase in "no religion" answers. Not "Other", that's different-- increasing people say "no religion". ) Post communist countries aren't going back despite publicized material (Czech republic is about 70% atheist from what I've read.)

Separation of church and state is one of the great innovations of post-enlightenment culture.

But some people are definitely more happy with religion and should use it. I advocate freedom of all religions as long as it is non-violent.

Others cannot see what the hell the religious people are on about.

If USA had been exclusively Christian we wouldn't have had some of the great innovators, including the Jew who invented the Polio vaccine, Salk.

Religionists representing all the brands ( C/J/M) all trumpet a return to their own "true" religion as a solution. It is impossible to listen to you all.

Post: #35

(08-19-2015 10:36 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  What about the very obvious case of the USA? The amount of religious violence between American Muslims-Christians-Jews has been statistically tiny.
The Boston bombers and 9/11 were all foreigners, which raises a different question-- immigration.

This is not really comparing apples with apples. For a start, population size is rather significant.

2,000 hardline, er, conservative Muslims dumped into a populace of 300-odd million, of which in 2010 roughly 78.3% identified as Christian probably are not going to make much of a dent. Especially when said country occupies the lion's share of a continent.

2,000 Muslims dumped into a populace of only 5.4 million (Slovakia's rough population) living together on a piece of Earth the rough size of a postage stamp in comparison -- that's a different story.

A better comparison is Sweden, or any of the other former Viking nations. We need not go into the societal problems they're having because they took on a laissez-faire view on immigration, and for whatever reason, be it cultural, socioeconomic, or religious, they're having enormous problems with one segment of the population being responsible for most of the crime.

According to Wikipedia, Slovakia's immigration policy is already one of the strictest in Europe. There's only 63,000 foreigners in the whole place, Muslim or otherwise, and the majority are not immigrants -- they're foreign students, traders, etc. I see this as just an expression of that policy. Similarly to Poland (which does have a different approach to the subject) I don't have a massive drama with a country that took the better part of centuries gaining its own independence taking a hardline stance on controlling its borders. I do like Milton Friedman's contention that discrimination -- positive or negative -- is its own punishment, but that's a decision for Slovakia's lawmakers to make for themselves. Not everyone can be the United States, and nor should everyone be.

Post: #36

r/Europe is pretty pleased with this. Great sign considering the subreddit was formerly left wing on immigration.

Also supportive of Sweden's new most popular party and similar news.

Comment from Czech guy on how they will deal with the migrant crisis: "Our tactic is maintain low standard of living compared to Germany."

But a thread about Germany taking hundreds of thousands of Asylum Seekers was derailed by self hating Germans. Fortunately they were largely thumbed down.

Post: #37

(08-19-2015 08:33 PM)captndonk Wrote:  Africa will double its population from 1 000 000 000 to 2 000 000 000 until 2050.
If Europe continues with its policy there wil be no Europe left.

Yes, this is just the start. There really is no limit on how many immigrants who can settle in Europe after passing several safe countries.

Germany received 800k this year - the original French settlers of Québec numbered 20k...

Post: #38

(08-19-2015 10:36 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:23 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  Europe integrates Christians relatively well, even from sub Sahara Africa. A different religion is tougher and integration is harder, plus in central and eastern Europe the memories of ottoman occupation is still fresh.

Completely agree. The idea that Muslims and Christians can live peacefully in the same country is contradicted by over a thousand years of experience.

Moreover, the New Testament explicitly says not to mix with non-Christians. St. Paul commanded it (in the Corinthians, I believe).

Personally, segregating a country by religion makes more sense than anything. More sense than by race or nationality. Religion is by far the most powerful factor in the long run.

What about the very obvious case of the USA? The amount of religious violence between American Muslims-Christians-Jews has been statistically tiny.
The Boston bombers and 9/11 were all foreigners, which raises a different question-- immigration.

There WAS that Army major psychiatrist who murdered over 10 other soldiers in the USA that was born here. That's tragic but nothing near what needs to be considered very relevant to policy on religion. Army recruitment and retention policy maybe. He was complaining about being harassed and may have asked to be released from military, but they are hesitant to do that when they pay for your medical training.

Since I think you are living in the USA, it's a little hard to hold forth on the argument it's an absolute shithole etc. despite the lack of internecine violence.

I'm if anything a Buddhist, which is certainly a small minority of mostly upper middle class whites, and I"m sure happy the Founders had the genius to in effect tell everyone, "Mind your own fucking business" in regard to religion.

There is a a growing percentage of people in First World nations at least largely without religion ( see US Census 1990 and 2000 for increase in "no religion" answers. Not "Other", that's different-- increasing people say "no religion". ) Post communist countries aren't going back despite publicized material (Czech republic is about 70% atheist from what I've read.)

Separation of church and state is one of the great innovations of post-enlightenment culture.

But some people are definitely more happy with religion and should use it. I advocate freedom of all religions as long as it is non-violent.

Others cannot see what the hell the religious people are on about.

If USA had been exclusively Christian we wouldn't have had some of the great innovators, including the Jew who invented the Polio vaccine, Salk.

Religionists representing all the brands ( C/J/M) all trumpet a return to their own "true" religion as a solution. It is impossible to listen to you all.

USA has been dominated by Christianity up until the last 30 years or so. It proves the point perfectly; there was very little religious diversity and there were never any religious wars as a result.

The freedom of religion laws, by the way, were not meant for Muslims in their original intent. They were meant for CHRISTIANS to be free to worship Christ as they saw fit, or not worship at all.

Jews always got by in the USA because most Americans had no idea of what Talmudic Jews believe (and most still don't) and Muslims would have never been allowed to immigrate by the original inhabitants, that I can assure you. Jefferson, a champion of religious freedom, actually waged war on Muslim pirates.

Post: #39

I think we are soon to witness an end of an era.
The Right wing is strongly on the rise everywhere in Europe.
Even in Sweden the most recent polls shows Sweden Democrats as the biggest party.

Also when I listen to people around me everybody seem to march towards the right and nobody are in favour for this mass immigration. Even the most liberal people.

I still see hope for Europe. I'm convinced we will see some sort of showdown within 20 years.
But unfortunately it has to start in Germany.

When Germany finally realizes to change it's course, the rest of Europe will follow.
Things can't continue in this direction.
Soon somebody has to put the foot down.

I'm pleased to see Slovakia showing an example.

Post: #40

(08-20-2015 12:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  USA has been dominated by Christianity up until the last 30 years or so. It proves the point perfectly; there was very little religious diversity and there were never any religious wars as a result.

Pirates are a faulty example, you're implying Jefferson would tolerate Christian pirates? You also presume to know what Jefferson would have thought about law-abiding Muslims, unless you have a source you can cite.

There's LOTS of religious diversity NOW, and there aren't any religious wars in the USA either. You speculate the reason there haven't been is a lack of diversity in the past, but you don't know.

As for now, people are generally minding their own fucking business in the area of religion as the Founders intended, and I hope it stays that way.

I welcome lawyers to chime in on the possibility of officially making the USA a Christian nation. It seems far, far harder to attach "....but only if the religion is Christian" to the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution than it has been to DETACH the "... well regulated militia.." part of the right to bear arms.

The Founders were geniuses-- far, far ahead of their time; as lovers of guns and Atheists both are happy about.

Religion means not having to mind your own business.

Let's go directly to what Jefferson said repeatedly. Conversely, can anyone find an assertion by Jefferson where he explicitly excludes Islam or Judaism or Zoroastrianism or Hindus?

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesart...asp?id=123

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
[/i]

In any event, retrograde appeals to return to sectarian fascism of the middle ages, according to repeated Supreme Court decisions, are thankfully doomed to failure, which I take as much joy in as gun nuts do in the impossibility of getting their guns from them.

Post: #41

Cuius regio, eius religio.

Post: #42

(08-19-2015 08:31 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In essence: the UN Refugee Convention of 1952 or so happened. One Leftie academic once described it as "The world's apology to the Jews".

Very minor correction: the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (you can read the Convention's text here) was signed in Geneva, Switzerland on 28 July 1951. But yes, the Convention is legally binding and it prohibits the expulsion or refoulement of refugees through its 33rd article. I should not the resettlement of refugees to countries where they are not at risk of persecution is permitted. The Aussies are experts on the matter.

1951 Convention Wrote:

Article 33.
PROHIBITION OF EXPULSION OR RETURN ('REFOULEMENT')

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

That's all fine and dandy until you realise many of those crossing the Mediterranean to get to Malta/Italy, jumping fences to get into Spain's plazas de soberanía (that is, Ceuta and Melilla, the two remaining Spanish cities on the African continent, along with other minor possessions) or running around much of the Middle East, Turkey, Greece and other Eastern European countries are not actually refugees; in reality, they are economic migrants. As we all know, 'I'm poor, you're sort of rich and I'm here so...' isn't a valid argument to be admitted into a foreign country; we are free to deport the Nigerians and Senegalese who aren't being persecuted in their homelands. Nevertheless, our authorities are unable/unwilling to properly identify and differentiate the economic migrants from the refugees. Hell, the supposed refugees who want to move to other countries simply refuse to have their pictures and fingerprints taken and the police don't insist. The government's response? Well, the Italian interior minister said: 'They don’t want to be identified here - otherwise, under the Dublin Accords, they would have to stay in our country. So when a police officer is in front of an Eritrean who is two metres tall who doesn’t want his fingerprints taken, he can’t break his fingers, but must respect his human rights'.


Dark green: parties to both the 1951 Convention and the subsequent New York Protocol which came into effect on 4 October 1967
Light green: only parties to the 1951 Convention
Yellow: only parties to the 1967 Protocol
Grey: n/a


http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9560...-of-italy/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32716735
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicde...5/graphics
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-deb...e24986226/

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #43

I met an Australian guy in the Philippines, he said they solved their boat people immigration problem by establishing a fleet of boats that intercepted smugglers as the left the territorial waters of Indonesia.

They would tow them back to the territorial limit, and leave them with enough gas to get BACK to Indonesia, but not enough to get to Australia.

He said it had stopped the illegal immigrants.

Post: #44

(08-20-2015 01:11 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Cuius regio, eius religio.

I looked this up and it said means the the religion of the ruler is the religion of his 'kingdom'.

I imagine many members of congress are actually atheists or agnostics, so that would make sense why people don't seem to have a lot of venom towards Americans of other religions.

Post: #45

^That's an invasion map.

Post: #46

(08-20-2015 01:23 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I met an Australian guy in the Philippines, he said they solved their boat people immigration problem by establishing a fleet of boats that intercepted smugglers as the left the territorial waters of Indonesia.

They would tow them back to the territorial limit, and leave them with enough gas to get BACK to Indonesia, but not enough to get to Australia.

He said it had stopped the illegal immigrants.

The Australian government is quite 'innovative' in this area. They employ a mixture of methods. Most importantly, they've made it clear that those who arrive by boat without a visa won't be able to make Australia their home. Instead they are sent to Papua New Guinea or Nauru to be processed. These measures have largely solved the problem but the Commonwealth Government still spends nearly A$3 billion dealing with asylum seekers.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #47

(08-20-2015 12:49 AM)Chaos Wrote:  I think we are soon to witness an end of an era.
The Right wing is strongly on the rise everywhere in Europe.
Even in Sweden the most recent polls shows Sweden Democrats as the biggest party.

Also when I listen to people around me everybody seem to march towards the right and nobody are in favour for this mass immigration. Even the most liberal people.

I still see hope for Europe. I'm convinced we will see some sort of showdown within 20 years.
But unfortunately it has to start in Germany.

When Germany finally realizes to change it's course, the rest of Europe will follow.
Things can't continue in this direction.
Soon somebody has to put the foot down.

I'm pleased to see Slovakia showing an example.

Since Bismarck united the German states after the Franco-Prussian War, the natural balance of power in Europe rests in Germany.

However, it has been Anglo-American policy since Bismarck to ensure that this power balance doesn't stay in Berlin. This is done by dividing a united Germany from Austria and Hungary and keeping it from any alliance with Russia.

It is for these reasons why I do not believe Germany will ever lead Europe against enforced multi-multiculturalism fueled by huge levels of immigration. Germany is not a sovereign country. It has not been sovereign since 1945. Its television and state school content needs to be cleared by Washington DC.

A general of the major occupying power in Germany, Wesley Clark boasted :

Let’s not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

Wesley Clark, U.S. general, ex-NATO Supreme Commander, talking about the NATO bombing of Serbia, 1999.


The US is creating many more Kosovos within Europe and mass-immigrants are to be their citizens.

I think France will lead the inevitable backlash.

It certainly won't be the UK which hid the mass rape of English girls in Rotherham to its shame.

Post: #48

I wonder if Slovakia is doing this just to see if they are true economic migrants. If they were truly that, and not ideologues, they'd simply lie and say they were Christian.

Post: #49

(08-20-2015 01:39 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 12:49 AM)Chaos Wrote:  I think we are soon to witness an end of an era.
The Right wing is strongly on the rise everywhere in Europe.
Even in Sweden the most recent polls shows Sweden Democrats as the biggest party.

Also when I listen to people around me everybody seem to march towards the right and nobody are in favour for this mass immigration. Even the most liberal people.

I still see hope for Europe. I'm convinced we will see some sort of showdown within 20 years.
But unfortunately it has to start in Germany.

When Germany finally realizes to change it's course, the rest of Europe will follow.
Things can't continue in this direction.
Soon somebody has to put the foot down.

I'm pleased to see Slovakia showing an example.

Since Bismarck united the German states after the Franco-Prussian War, the natural balance of power in Europe rests in Germany.

However, it has been Anglo-American policy since Bismarck to ensure that this power balance doesn't stay in Berlin. This is done by dividing a united Germany from Austria and Hungary and keeping it from any alliance with Russia.

I believe Bismarck said that the most important element of diplomacy is having a treaty with Russia.

I can definitely see why the Anglo world would not like that cooperation.

Post: #50

(08-20-2015 02:01 AM)262 Wrote:  I wonder if Slovakia is doing this just to see if they are true economic migrants. If they were truly that, and not ideologues, they'd simply lie and say they were Christian.

The fact that a lot of these "refugees" conceal their true identity is another huge pain in the ass. As far as I know most of them arrive in europe without any kind of identity card or other important documents that reveal who the fuck these people really are.

Claiming to be a syrian will level up their likelihood to stay here and they know that. Who knows how many fake Syrians are wandering around here.