(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  [quote='Blunt' pid='1151373' dateline='1447717412']
Poland's new foreign minister:

Quote:Poland’s incoming foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, suggests offering military training to Syrian migrants with the aim of sending them back to Syria to fight the Islamic State group. (File photo: Bas Czerwinski/AFP/Getty Images)

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

The possibility of the EU training a migrant army is about 0%. The point of him saying it is not for policy but to expose the hypocrisy of the Western governments.

We are already ramping up to send young European and possibly American men to go over and shed their blood for a bunch of Arab metrosexuals who'd rather spend their day at the mall or the hookah bar.

(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 06:43 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Poland's new foreign minister:

Quote:Poland’s incoming foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, suggests offering military training to Syrian migrants with the aim of sending them back to Syria to fight the Islamic State group. (File photo: Bas Czerwinski/AFP/Getty Images)

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

Half of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria.

Syrian immigrants are the ones who choose to leave their country to the hands of brutal jihadists.

Let me repeat, some hairy allahu akbar guy will rape and kill his relatives and he will chase pussy in Europe.

If I, or any men I know turn out to be like this guys, I hope they die suffering.

(11-16-2015 07:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Threat identification is not an easy. There is a fine line between being paranoid and smelling rats, liars, and malicious intentions, combined with deep knowledge of political history.

If these users post, you should pay attention.

Something I've learnt in my life: if you try to forewarn anyone about obvious dangers and the inevitable outcome based upon a likely progression of events, the majority of people will not only immediately discount you, but they'll actively try to shout you down and then double down, seemingly trying to make that outcome happen, just to prove that they know better than you do.

It's just how most people are wired. As such, I'm much less altruistic at my age. People have to learn humility via the outcome of their arrogance.

Perhaps being able to read the signs is a skill purely for us and those within our protective sphere. Maybe our role isn't to shout the warning, but to be prepared to clean up the mess.

(11-16-2015 09:16 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 07:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Threat identification is not an easy. There is a fine line between being paranoid and smelling rats, liars, and malicious intentions, combined with deep knowledge of political history.

If these users post, you should pay attention.

Something I've learnt in my life: if you try to forewarn anyone about obvious dangers and the inevitable outcome based upon a likely progression of events, the majority of people will not only immediately discount you, but they'll actively try to shout you down and then double down, seemingly trying to make that outcome happen, just to prove that they know better than you do.

It's just how most people are wired. As such, I'm much less altruistic at my age. People have to learn humility via the outcome of their arrogance.

Perhaps being able to read the signs is a skill purely for us and those within our protective sphere. Maybe our role isn't to shout the warning, but to be prepared to clean up the mess.

You are absolutely correct and it is quite disheartening. I definitely lose the will to help dumb faggots who refuse to listen. It certainly feels like I am casting pearls before swine.

However, there are some groups of people I will talk to frankly and plainly. My close friends and relatives, powerful officials, and men on this forum.

My friends and family know me and have learned to trust my judgement, powerful officials can be swayed in private meetings so they can relay the message to the masses in a more palatable manner, and since this forum is only men it means there will still be a significant number of those who take heed and listen.

Anywhere else, and I totally agree talking realpolitik is a waste of time. But yes, it seems quite obvious that human tribes always have protectors within it who silently serve to guard and lead others. It's too bad sociology as science is so corrupted, because there are so many ways in which all of the members of a society contribute in vital yet totally different ways and do so without any instruction. For example, some women breed more than others, some women take care of infants more than others, some men create more jobs for others, some men fight and kill for others, some women provide sex to lots of frustrated men more than others, etc. etc. and all of these different roles keep the gears of society functioning smoothly.

It really makes one question just how much free will we have, considering at how smoothly all of these parts fit together.

(11-14-2015 10:24 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  A few ideas that, in the long term, would contribute to the resurgence of self-respect and a fighting spirit in Europe:

1. Dissolution of NATO and the forging of an independent European spirit. NATO is an American creation and it is clear now that the US uses NATO to keep Europeans in line rather than to "defend" them. NATO is holding back Europe, not helping it.

2. All traitor regimes in Europe (i.e., those permeated with cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, leftist rot) need to be replaced with genuinely native, nationalist regimes. Poisoners and rats should be arrested and put on trial.

3. The educational system is infected with the disease of SJWism. This needs to be purged ruthlessly. SJW pussies and wimps need to be forced to work with their hands and do public service in the military for at least 2 years. This will get rid of the arrogance and self-centeredness which is the breeding ground for SJWism.

4. There should be a resurgence of fraternal societies, guilds, and military orders that will promote the ideals of masculinity and virility. Look how many used to exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_order

5. The papacy needs to be reminded that he is an inheritor of the throne of the Caesars, and he has a fighting legacy to uphold. No more pussified talk about promoting degenerate lifestyles, and all that rot. He needs to get his balls back and stop being such a bloody wimp. No masculine man is going to be attracted to a religion that espouses SJW talking points.

6. The only language that nearly all European countries have in common (historically) is Latin. For centuries this was one of the symbols of European unity. It should be mandatory in the schools at least for a few years. Learning it will automatically transmit the Western heritage. Culture has to be passed down; it does not flow automatically.

Regarding point #3, I knew France used to have mandatory military service (albeit for 10 months), but did not know when service was stopped. So I looked it up. It turns out it was 1996, which puts those aged 38 (give or take) the first to not have compulsory military service.

More or less, the age cutoff for modern day SJWism is around 40 years. Yes you'll find libtards over the age of 40, but this type Marxism tends to fester in greater numbers of people less than 40. So I don't think its too much of a stretch that the end of military service in 1996, plus media induced self centeredness created a perfect storm for France that brought it where it is today.

Interestingly enough, according to this article 80% of French support a return of compulsory national service. Keep in mind, however,this poll came out right after Charlie Hebdo. Still, 60% agreed with service according to polls at different times not following terrorist attacks.

I think point 3 is the easiest and most likely of your points listed to elicit improvement in France. Its an investment in the future of for France, by preparing leaders for 10-15 years down the road, unlike the past 20 years when media indoctrination became the principle machine in molding the minds of young people.

All of my facebook friends are whining that two or three people have sent public emails and letters to governors asking them not to accept any refugees in light of the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. I guess they want to roll the dice and hope that all the nice shit we're going to be giving them with our tax dollars forces them to shed the butthurt veneer of Islamic and turn them into slightly browner versions of average Americans, instead of just transplanting a toxic ideology into the land of easy access to guns. Exporting Middle Eastern conflict into Mister Rogers neighborhood.

If this nonsense keeps up I'm going to have to move to Poland or Hungary where people are sane.

The only guy on my entire facebook wall feed who is taking a realistic stance against this nonsense is Paul Carter, the jacked as fuck dude from Lift-Run-Bang. Here he transcribes a video for his facebook followers.

Quote:Garbage status after garbage status I read.

All about moderate or peaceful Muslims. Do you know what they mean? Not a fucking thing.

From the video Rich posted........the transcript.......

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today - of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people.

The radicals are estimated to be 15-25 percent…...you are looking at 180-300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization…...It is the radicals that kill. It is the radicals that behead and massacre.

Why should we worry about the radicals?

When you look throughout history, most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda. As a result, 60 million people died, 6 million Jews.

The peaceful majority was irrelevant.

When you look at the Russians, most were peaceful, but the Russians were able to kill 20 million people.

The peaceful majority was irrelevant.

Most of the Chinese were peaceful, yet the Chinese were able to kill 70 million people.

The peaceful majority was irrelevant.

When you look at Japan prior to the war, most were peaceful, yet Japan was able to butcher its way across Southeast Asia, killing 12 million people, mostly killed with bayonets and shovels.

The peaceful majority was irrelevant.

On Sept. 11 in the United States, we had 2.3 million Arab Muslims living here…..it took 19 high jackers, 19 radicals to bring America down to its knees, destroy the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon and kill almost 3000 Americans that day.

The peaceful majority was irrelevant.

So, for all our powers of reason and talking about moderate and peaceful Muslims, I’m glad you were here, but where are the others speaking out?.......... It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs….."

Will some of you please........SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY when there are between 180-300 million radicals DRIVING THE AGENDA to kill, destroy, and end lives on a daily basis.

Seriously. Shut the fuck up.

(11-16-2015 08:34 PM)Yagibozan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 06:43 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Poland's new foreign minister:

Quote:Poland’s incoming foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, suggests offering military training to Syrian migrants with the aim of sending them back to Syria to fight the Islamic State group. (File photo: Bas Czerwinski/AFP/Getty Images)

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

Half of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria.

Syrian immigrants are the ones who choose to leave their country to the hands of brutal jihadists.

Let me repeat, some hairy allahu akbar guy will rape and kill his relatives and he will chase pussy in Europe.

If I, or any men I know turn out to be like this guys, I hope they die suffering.

Better to be alive and away from the brutal jihadists than dead.

Dying for a cause is retard behavior, even if the cause is just. There's no such thing as something worth dying for.

(11-16-2015 11:10 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 08:34 PM)Yagibozan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 06:43 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Poland's new foreign minister:

Quote:Poland’s incoming foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, suggests offering military training to Syrian migrants with the aim of sending them back to Syria to fight the Islamic State group. (File photo: Bas Czerwinski/AFP/Getty Images)

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

Half of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria.

Syrian immigrants are the ones who choose to leave their country to the hands of brutal jihadists.

Let me repeat, some hairy allahu akbar guy will rape and kill his relatives and he will chase pussy in Europe.

If I, or any men I know turn out to be like this guys, I hope they die suffering.

Better to be alive and away from the brutal jihadists than dead.

Dying for a cause is retard behavior, even if the cause is just. There's no such thing as something worth dying for.

What if someone is trying to kill you? Is defending yourself a cause worth dying for?

(11-16-2015 11:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:10 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 08:34 PM)Yagibozan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 06:43 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Poland's new foreign minister:

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

Half of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria.

Syrian immigrants are the ones who choose to leave their country to the hands of brutal jihadists.

Let me repeat, some hairy allahu akbar guy will rape and kill his relatives and he will chase pussy in Europe.

If I, or any men I know turn out to be like this guys, I hope they die suffering.

Better to be alive and away from the brutal jihadists than dead.

Dying for a cause is retard behavior, even if the cause is just. There's no such thing as something worth dying for.

What if someone is trying to kill you? Is defending yourself a cause worth dying for?

What if your ancestors were to read your post, Walker? Would they cry, or vomit? Both?

Hundreds of past generations have died to bring you science, wealth and civilization, and you, you have one think to say to them : "Fuck you very much, my ancestors, I'll enjoy the decline, I won't fight."

edit: delete

Some people have remarked on this forum amazement on how a bunch of people descended from primitive third-world hellholes could being doing so well in their fight against the west despite the west's superiority in almost every category from technology to being able to maintain maintain a civilization. People were asking how this could be. Well now we have an answer. It's cause the Muslim world is filled with people who are willing to die for their cause while the west is filled with people like Walker.

(11-16-2015 09:59 PM)Hades Wrote:  From the video Rich posted........the transcript.......

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today - of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people.

The radicals are estimated to be 15-25 percent…...you are looking at 180-300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization…...It is the radicals that kill. It is the radicals that behead and massacre.

Just using this data and putting in in perspective.

5.5% of all Muslims (using 1.2B) is the size of France's population (66M).
1.41% Netherlands (16.9M)
.93% Belgium (11.2M)
.81% Sweden (9.7M)

How many people do you need to wage war against soft targets?

(11-16-2015 01:31 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  John Oliver cucking as usual:







Best comment on the YT page:

Quote: what effect they have on the local population because they live far away on high hills behind high walls and they don't have to deal with the fallout.

These liberal limousines, they push for policies that they don't have to deal with the consequences:
“I will say, the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande. Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press, then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation.”




But, hey, why worry when the millions coming are being placed away from my gated community in Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Beverly Hills, and the only reason they want cheap labor is because instead of paying a maid 45K a year, they can pay Lupe 20K? (how diverse is John Oliver's neighborhood anyway?) I am immigrant in the USA myself, it makes me angry knowing I will have a harder time finding job in the USA than a guy who does not speak the language and is thousands miles away, and I hate when those so called "pro-immigration" liberals only mention immigrants on the context of "who is going to...." clean-- pick up--wash-- fix, your toilet-- food-- garden, let see if they say the same if TV producers, movie screenwriters, assistant directors, and actors were coming in the millions driving their big salaries from millions to below minimum wage, Disney replaced about 40% of its staff with "tech workers" using HB1, most of these tech workers are doing nothing more than customer service, and complain department, they are not coding the next Google or Youtube, but what about the management position? that stay the same thanks, the top stay right where they are in secure position........but remember they are average Joes just like you and me, as long as you know your place

(11-16-2015 05:29 PM)Neo Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 08:56 AM)Libertas Wrote:  ^^Indeed.

(11-16-2015 12:46 AM)N°6 Wrote:  I have always thought that reviving the ancient and medieval Christian orders would solve the problem of a feminised church and the hemorrhaging of male members - especially those of fighting age.e

I'm not even Catholic, so that doesn't bother me.

I was thinking the revival of military orders needs to be done outside Christianity anyway. Like I said, I don't think the Christian religion is the answer to our problems.

But seriously, this is an idea that we should explore very vigorously. I'm all for it. Maybe Quintus and Roosh, Mike Cernovich, etc. can help get the ball rolling?

At any rate, good news coming out of Alabama:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama...cid=SMSDHP

The governor is saying he will not accept any Syrian "refugees" in his state.

Something needs to be done. Yes, swearing off women for the church and the cause would be difficult but being a warrior and a scholar is something I would commit to. I also would commit to caring for the sick and the poor.

Many of us were forced to be players because of the liberal ideology that has taken over Western civilization. If I wasn't born in this day and age I highly doubt I'd have followed the player path, but I had to adapt.

We are at the point in history where our way of life is being threatened and we must protect it.

(11-16-2015 05:47 PM)Libertas Wrote:  There's nothing that says we need to swear off women or stop being a player.

In fact, from my point of view, it is a calling, because if we're talking about the future of our nations, we need to maintain those women as they are the bearers of the future. Learn game and approach or be a MGTOW faggot that would let the Sea Peoples come, and also surrender your women to the barbarians. Women have always been the spoils of war for good reason.

Game and seduction will always be part of our traditionalist/nationalist movement, and I would propose a sister organization comprised of those small number of patriots like Marine Le Pen.

At any rate, this is an idea that we should pursue and with vigor. A lot of guys seem to have had similar ideas and are interested: http://www.returnofkings.com/73729/europ...2362528371

Women were the early adopters of Christianity, men fallowed because the monogamy imposed by the Christian church worked as a big motivator for monogamy, the time when women were close to the church was the time when the church was strong and dominant (alpha), in moment like this women are very emotional and scared, looking for the church to fill that, is a good opportunity:

Good opportunities for the church sitting right here:






I have to say a true many already here know, women need fear to keep them in line, the church knew this, they are more feminine and caring when there a fear in them, just like women love tingles, fear and excitement from a alpha, it is being scientifically proven women get aroused during dangerous situations, how many empowered women were during the attack in Paris, where was FEMEN fighting the ISIS terrorists that oppress women everywhere it has control? running and crying in the most submissive and feminine way possible, the reason why wommen are allowed to be this way in the West is because men in the West allow it:

Quote:As much as some men here complain about some of the effects of feminism, the reality is that American women are doing only as much as they are allowed.
http://www.returnofkings.com/833/the-lim...n-feminism

Men in the West built a civilization so good and safe that women in the West now have to invent imaginary bogyman i.e fear and excitement, like manspreading, mansplaining, street sexual harassment, sexist Air/Conditioner, cyber bullying, to feel comfortable, like many have said for a long time, feminism itself is a massive shit test to see how far men allow it to happens.

Women have always been the biggest motivator for wars and work, the church by promoting marriage made men work beyond their need, and governments and tribes as a reward for fighting the enemy, this is why ISIS promises wives in their recruitment propaganda while many "refugees" arrive because they were promised European blonds women to empty their balls.

The church burned more women for witchcraft because women are more prone to bring to that stuff.

Quote:But seriously, this is an idea that we should explore very vigorously. I'm all for it. Maybe Quintus and Roosh, Mike Cernovich, etc. can help get the ball rolling?

So, it begins, the savor we need

(11-16-2015 11:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:10 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 08:34 PM)Yagibozan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 07:36 PM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 06:43 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Poland's new foreign minister:

Put guns in the hands of a bunch of migrants, give them training, then tell them "btw your lot in life is to go back to Syria and engage in lethal combat with ISIS"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Large scale bloodbath scenarios sound unlikely to me but if there's one way such a thing could happen it's this

Half of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria.

Syrian immigrants are the ones who choose to leave their country to the hands of brutal jihadists.

Let me repeat, some hairy allahu akbar guy will rape and kill his relatives and he will chase pussy in Europe.

If I, or any men I know turn out to be like this guys, I hope they die suffering.

Better to be alive and away from the brutal jihadists than dead.

Dying for a cause is retard behavior, even if the cause is just. There's no such thing as something worth dying for.

What if someone is trying to kill you? Is defending yourself a cause worth dying for?

No, if someone's trying to kill you, you maximize your chances of living, not your chances of dying.

Someone trying to kill you means you've been cornered by someone who has a grudge against you personally, or by an armed group who has physically surrounded and sieged your community. If there's a lot of violence going on in your homeland but the bad guys don't care about you specifically, then you don't grab a weapon and pick a fight with them and make them care about you. You get away from them while the getting's good.

It's not inconceivable for fight to be preferable to flight, it just means the one time to fight is when your back is against the wall, you have nowhere to run and no hope of negotiating.

Quote:So, for all our powers of reason and talking about moderate and peaceful Muslims, I’m glad you were here, but where are the others speaking out?.......... It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs….."

Will some of you please........SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY when there are between 180-300 million radicals DRIVING THE AGENDA to kill, destroy, and end lives on a daily basis.

I applaud the sentiment, but it goes deeper than that...because "moderate" Muslims who still promote Islamist politics aren't as moderate as they seem. Many of these "moderates" don't engage in violence themselves, but are perfectly happy to use the fear of terrorism as a way to get what they want. As Douglas Murray put it:

"The people with kalashnikovs don't have to be very large in number because behind them they have a whole group of people who find it very useful that they have people with kalashnikovs on their side."

(11-16-2015 11:55 PM)Walker Wrote:  ...

Why are you on this forum?

Do your family members trust you?

(11-16-2015 07:19 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  Samseau is one of those guys I argue mostly with in half or two thirds of the post but then he comes out with one of those out-of-the-park haymaker of an idea and it just sounds too far fetched. Some giant leaps of faith over there.

Before you were desensitised by the epic, Biblical proportions of this thread, how would you've reacted to someone predicting such a 'Camp of the Saints' situation?

I thought Camp of the Saints was prophetic when I read it in 2002 but the events since summer have still blown my mind.

It is quite obvious that there is an agenda to take Europe and the remnants of its national and tribal consciousness down. Despite the Paris attacks being conducted by an EU multicultural fifth column working with a migrant soulmate, the causes of the attacks are being increased, as if the élite is resolved to be not distracted from its agenda:

PUSH: Bomb the hell out of the Middle East, displacing civilians
PULL: Increase calls to bring illegal displaced, bombed migrants with understandable grievances into Europe
HOLD: Double down on the multicultural narrative and restrict further civil liberties that will affect Europeans the most.

There is not an EU capital that is beyond attack and the élite is responsible.

(11-16-2015 11:55 PM)Walker Wrote:  No, if someone's trying to kill you, you maximize your chances of living, not your chances of dying.

Someone trying to kill you means you've been cornered by someone who has a grudge against you personally, or by an armed group who has physically surrounded and sieged your community. If there's a lot of violence going on in your homeland but the bad guys don't care about you specifically, then you don't grab a weapon and pick a fight with them and make them care about you. You get away from them while the getting's good.

It's not inconceivable for fight to be preferable to flight, it just means the one time to fight is when your back is against the wall, you have nowhere to run and no hope of negotiating.

So if Isis for whatever reason mobilized a few homegrown Jihadis who didn't find anything good in theaters so they broke into your house and threatened to kill everybody who didn't consent to getting fucked in the ass at gunpoint and converted in the name of Allah, you'd go through with it?

Survive at all costs?

Edit: Just a hypothetical here, no different than that scene from South Park I can't find involving Mr. Garrison's dad asking everybody a question at the bar.

(11-16-2015 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Oh, look, we're going to be saved:

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

Quote:Paris attacks: France to call for effective suspension of Schengen open borders

Then you scroll down, and read the fine print:

Quote:Why is it under strain?
Terrorists and mass migration. Police checks have been brought in on the Italian border at the request of Bavaria, amid a wave of non-EU migrants attempting to reach Germany. Angela Merkel warns the system will be pulled apart unless countries share asylum seekers. And Belgium wants more ID checks on trains in the wake of the Thalys train terrorist attack

So basically, the EU schengen might be closed temporarily (but in practice indefinitely) and prevent European citizens from travelling freely but do nothing to stop the mass migration. Until I see them shoot away migrants, the migrants won't stop coming.

Borders have to or will exist somewhere. Either:

1. Around mainland and insular Greece and Eastern and Southern Europe;
2. Between the EU member-states;
3. At every public event, airport, train station, bus station, city centre in the form of check points, citizen searches, curfews, phone tapping, internet surveillance, this issuing and compulsory carrying of identity cards, travel permits and internal passports.

Guess which form of border control multicultural societies form to stop them falling apart? Which border poll will a demoralised citizenry accept?

I hope you all enjoy your exotic food you can get delivered during curfew hours because you can wave good bye to civil liberties.

(11-17-2015 12:27 AM)Hades Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:55 PM)Walker Wrote:  No, if someone's trying to kill you, you maximize your chances of living, not your chances of dying.

Someone trying to kill you means you've been cornered by someone who has a grudge against you personally, or by an armed group who has physically surrounded and sieged your community. If there's a lot of violence going on in your homeland but the bad guys don't care about you specifically, then you don't grab a weapon and pick a fight with them and make them care about you. You get away from them while the getting's good.

It's not inconceivable for fight to be preferable to flight, it just means the one time to fight is when your back is against the wall, you have nowhere to run and no hope of negotiating.

So if Isis for whatever reason mobilized a few homegrown Jihadis who didn't find anything good in theaters so they broke into your house and threatened to kill everybody who didn't consent to getting fucked in the ass at gunpoint and converted in the name of Allah, you'd go through with it?

Survive at all costs?

Yeah

(11-17-2015 12:32 AM)Walker Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 12:27 AM)Hades Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:55 PM)Walker Wrote:  No, if someone's trying to kill you, you maximize your chances of living, not your chances of dying.

Someone trying to kill you means you've been cornered by someone who has a grudge against you personally, or by an armed group who has physically surrounded and sieged your community. If there's a lot of violence going on in your homeland but the bad guys don't care about you specifically, then you don't grab a weapon and pick a fight with them and make them care about you. You get away from them while the getting's good.

It's not inconceivable for fight to be preferable to flight, it just means the one time to fight is when your back is against the wall, you have nowhere to run and no hope of negotiating.

So if Isis for whatever reason mobilized a few homegrown Jihadis who didn't find anything good in theaters so they broke into your house and threatened to kill everybody who didn't consent to getting fucked in the ass at gunpoint and converted in the name of Allah, you'd go through with it?

Survive at all costs?

Yeah

(11-16-2015 11:54 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 09:59 PM)Hades Wrote:  From the video Rich posted........the transcript.......

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today - of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people.

The radicals are estimated to be 15-25 percent…...you are looking at 180-300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization…...It is the radicals that kill. It is the radicals that behead and massacre.

Just using this data and putting in in perspective.

5.5% of all Muslims (using 1.2B) is the size of France's population (66M).
1.41% Netherlands (16.9M)
.93% Belgium (11.2M)
.81% Sweden (9.7M)

How many people do you need to wage war against soft targets?

Most people fighting ISIS/ Daesh on the ground would describe themselves as Muslim.

This contrasts to the source of much of Daesh's US' military support.

However if the 15-25% of Muslims are radicals, then that number is high enough to stop any further Muslim immigration to the West. A basic risk analyses would point to this (severity of hazard coming to pass x likelihood of it coming to pass in relation to the benefit of migrants if the severe events did not come to pass).

Pareto is what leads crowds especially if they have greater conviction than the 'moderate' 80%.

(11-17-2015 12:44 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:54 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 09:59 PM)Hades Wrote:  From the video Rich posted........the transcript.......

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today - of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people.

The radicals are estimated to be 15-25 percent…...you are looking at 180-300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization…...It is the radicals that kill. It is the radicals that behead and massacre.

Just using this data and putting in in perspective.

5.5% of all Muslims (using 1.2B) is the size of France's population (66M).
1.41% Netherlands (16.9M)
.93% Belgium (11.2M)
.81% Sweden (9.7M)

How many people do you need to wage war against soft targets?

Most people fighting ISIS/ Daesh on the ground would describe themselves as Muslim.

This contrasts to the source of much of Daesh's US' military support.

However if the 15-25% of Muslims are radicals, then that number is high enough to stop any further Muslim immigration to the West. A basic risk analyses would point to this (severity of hazard coming to pass x likelihood of it coming to pass in relation to the benefit of migrants if the severe events did not come to pass).

Pareto is what leads crowds especially if they have greater conviction than the 'moderate' 80%.

(11-17-2015 12:32 AM)Walker Wrote:  Yeah

You sound like a Cuck.

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

G

(11-17-2015 12:44 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:54 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 09:59 PM)Hades Wrote:  From the video Rich posted........the transcript.......

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today - of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people.

The radicals are estimated to be 15-25 percent…...you are looking at 180-300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization…...It is the radicals that kill. It is the radicals that behead and massacre.

Just using this data and putting in in perspective.

5.5% of all Muslims (using 1.2B) is the size of France's population (66M).
1.41% Netherlands (16.9M)
.93% Belgium (11.2M)
.81% Sweden (9.7M)

How many people do you need to wage war against soft targets?

Most people fighting ISIS/ Daesh on the ground would describe themselves as Muslim.

This contrasts to the source of much of Daesh's US' military support.

However if the 15-25% of Muslims are radicals, then that number is high enough to stop any further Muslim immigration to the West. A basic risk analyses would point to this (severity of hazard coming to pass x likelihood of it coming to pass in relation to the benefit of migrants if the severe events did not come to pass).

Pareto is what leads crowds especially if they have greater conviction than the 'moderate' 80%.

Somebody else posted on here a while back "If you had a box of chocolates and you knew that 1 in 10 were poisonous and would kill you. Would you still eat from the box of chocolates?"


But yeah, the 80% of "moderate" muslims are terrified of the extremists anyway. They are cucked themselves.