(10-30-2015 08:20 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I can't wait until that old devil Soros dies, it will be a day of celebration. The bastard seems intent on destroying European civilization before he croaks.

Another 5 - 10 years tops. The old bastard will thankfully be gone before the real shit starts.

The downside, he won't see Europe crumble and his ideology with it.

Here's Soro's migrant plan straight from his website:

http://www.georgesoros.com/essays/rebuil...um-system/

He calls for the EU to accept at least one million migrants per year "for the foreseeable future".

I hope Soros' son is a dip shit.

Quote:"And now ... there is an even bigger threat that the quotas could become a permanent legal measure, with those arriving automatically distributed, and we do not accept that."

That's what other politicians have said also. You agree to 5% of 124.000, then you get 5% of 1 million until eternity. That's why every country has to vote far right.

___________________________

Here another former Muslim turned Christian who criticizes naive "integration romanticism":

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...al-an.html


No wonder her cousin wanted to marry her.

Quote:This woman takes on the German Islam head-on Her family threatened Sabatina James to death because they gave up Islam. In the book "Sharia in Germany," she settles - also with "naive optimism integration" policy. An encounter.

+ left her family and the religion as she was about to be married off to her cousin - I guess it did not appeal to her to have potentially retarded progeny and continue that idiotic custom

+ she needs bodyguards around her most of the time or lives in monasteries

Quote:It is important to address abuses in the real existing Islam, rather than to dream of a reformed Islam.

That is what is being sold by Merkel and the media - they claim that all newcomers will simply become secular Muslims and sharia itself is not problematic and is something extreme.

The media in the article is claiming that critics like her are generalizing things with Islam. She claims rather that it's the opposite - Western media and politicians are underestimating the dangers and think that only some kind of nebulous extremists are thinking like that. The truth of the matter is that it's an integral part of the belief. In my opinion many Muslims turn out to be great people despite Islam and not because of Islam.

+ She states clearly that German politics indulges in self-destructive consensus with Muslim organizations - for example with NGOs that let Turkey create the school curriculum in Germany in Muslim schools
+ She says that it's actually "shocking ignorance"
+ Turkey regularly discriminates Christianity, so why is that state given any freedom whatsoever to promote Islam in Germany?
+ Also she criticizes that the more extremist Muslim Brotherhood and their NGOs are treated as some kind of well-respected representatives in Germany speaking for all Muslims
+ Also she says clearly that if something failed with tens of thousands as with the Lebanese migrants in the 1990s who now control wide areas of German drug trade, then how shall this work with millions?
+ She also criticizes so-called Muslim "reformers" since they do not criticize Mohammed himself and the inherent violence in Islam/Quran. No reformer dares doing that, so there is no hope of any reform until this is addressed.
+ She is right claiming that Christian organizations and churches need more fighting spirit than compassion, because sharia is clearly anti-Christian and no romantic coffee-house-diplomacy will ever let them change their way

____


Oh - and here look at that Greek traitor claiming that he is proud of Merkel's refugee politics. I think he takes revenge on her, though he betrayed his people already, so who cares what he thinks?

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article148...Stolz.html

Just a reminder that some in power were predicting this for a long time.

British MP Enoch Powell's infamous Rivers of Blood speech from 1968 is a great example, the highlighted sections of which I believe are relevant to the theme of immigration today.

Quote:The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

(10-30-2015 11:20 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Utter and complete bullshit. Only some 20-30% of the Scandinavian rape statistics are inflated by the marital rape and "date rape" bullshit. Most of those are fake allegations of regret rape or various forms of marital conflict. Many times it was stated that close to 100% of real rapes perpetrated by strangers were done by men with African or Muslim background (with or without local citizenship).

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/201...y-muslims/

http://conservativepapers.com/news/2011/...re-muslim/

There was even the year of 2010 where every single rape in Norway was done by a Muslim. Just a coincidence?




How on Earth do the suckers think that telling the newcomers that rape is bad will work, when a good portion of those rapes were perpetrated by second generation men who speak perfect Norwegian and grew up in Norway? Don't they know that rape is frowned upon? And don't they know that rape of their own sisters and mothers is frowned upon too in their culture?

What has likely happened was that it became quite loud even in the mainstream media around 2010 to 2012 and many women changed their behavior. As Roosh stated in his satirical article on "legalizing rape", women can massively improve their personal safety if they are careful, don't go out into unsafe areas, go out with Swedes for protection and are a lot more distrustful of all Middle-Eastern looking men. That probably resulted in a drop of rapes, since it became much more difficult to do so.

So essentially what Sweden and Denmark has to do is to blast out the truth about what is going on. Obviously Austrian women are getting the picture and are arming themselves. But that would be Islamophobia/xenophobia/racism/hate speech, so we can't have that.

Norway by the way gets more balanced reports occasionally, not only on that issue but for example feminism and the gender crap.

(10-30-2015 10:58 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Here's Soro's migrant plan straight from his website:

http://www.georgesoros.com/essays/rebuil...um-system/

He calls for the EU to accept at least one million migrants per year "for the foreseeable future".

Conspiracy or cock-up?

CONSPIRACY.

http://www.dw.com/en/lying-press-germany...a-18816438

"Media outlets in Germany "are controlled from the top," and therefore spread "embellished and inaccurate reporting." Nearly half of the 1,000 German citizens recently polled by the Dortmund-based Forsa Institute agreed with these statements.

Currently, the refugee situation dominates media reports. But Germans are simultaneously experiencing the crisis first-hand in their own towns and cities - and often finding dramatic differences between their perceptions of these events and journalists' representations of them.

This discrepancy has been busying media experts since former Berlin Finance Minister Thilo Sarrazin began describing Germany's integration of immigrants as a failure in his 2010 book "Germany Is Abolishing Itself."

(10-30-2015 11:45 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Here another former Muslim turned Christian who criticizes naive "integration romanticism":

WRPIRW (Would Repeatedly Practice Integration Romance With)

I would just like to extend an apology to Veloce and anyone else I may have directed that large 'fuck you' to earlier in this thread.

Apparently writing 'Fuck You.' in a large font means you get banned for a week and asked to 'tone down the aggression'

Well FUC..

nah I'm only joking. There's not really any need for angry personal attacks at all here, and I was thinking of editing it when I saw I was banned.

I read the follow up comments and you were right, you were all just saying how good the coverage of this crisis has been in this thread, I agree and I was following it daily as well. I will have to rep posters like Zelcorpion for their contributions to this thread and opening up my eyes to many other things.

Another thing I've been thinking about is, if things have to get worse before they get better, then why should I be angry when things get worse OR better? It doesn't matter either way.

Then of course I come in this thread and see a picture of that 12 year old girl gangraped and the rapists let off and I forget all that and my blood starts boiling again.

I want to post that on Facebook to rub it in the faces of the people and members of my family who attacked me for sharing a report of the migrant rapes in Germany, and sharing a map of muslim populations and rape crisis centres. The idiots won't be able to ignore it if I regularly share what I see here.

I won't do it, but I'm tempted to, even though I know it will probably just bring me more grief.

I'm going to go back to focus more on myself and my own 'tribe' and not care so much about the destruction and rape of Europe. As I said this HAS to happen before things have any chance of improving.

(10-31-2015 06:22 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  I'm going to go back to focus more on myself and my own 'tribe' and not care so much about the destruction and rape of Europe. As I said this HAS to happen before things have any chance of improving.

That's a healthy approach. Detachment and Stoicism are perfect ways to deal with the stuff.
Personally I find the subject interesting and amusing. The horror to come is just in the early stages.

You remember the German officials claiming publicly that the migrant flow had not increased the crime rate?

Turns out that local TV stations in Germany don't get clamped down nearly as well as national ones:





4 rapes perpetrated by Middle Eastern/Southern looking individuals in the last 4 weeks alone.

The reason why this is important is, because it's a small town of 229.000 inhabitants and has a ridiculously low crime rate.

   

Now - if that small town is having 4 rapes in the last weeks, how many unreported are there all across Germany?

Also as a side comment - it seems that the last 19 year old girl walked around in the city center close to the university at 03:50 in the morning.
This could have been prevented if she were not as careless as that. Women should learn from Norwegian women:
+ don't walk around where you can be raped when there are no people around,
+ when you see a suspicious man - run
+ take pepper spray or a gun with you - and run afterwards - don't try to be Supergirl - it's possible that his friends are nearby.
This is not the Germany of several years ago. It is an enriched "Swedenized" Germany.

Nice report from Magdeburg - Germany by mdr - local TV station:





In it you see one cop reporting anonymously (no face, no voice) where he confirms that police has been instructed to never talk about problems with migrants and under-report crimes. Then they switch to the governor of the state who claims that everyone can speak freely . (Maybe he asked for that cop's badge number - heh?)


Angry Foreigner recut his old videos on how it feels like to live in Sweden:





Every country is destined to be Swedenized and enriched along the same lines.

That's what second or third gen Muslims think - real talk to a German:

Here is the translation word for word:

Quote:Now for real. Islam is going to come (up) in Germany whether you want or not. Your daughter is going to wear hijab. Your son will wear a beard. Ok? And your daughter is going to marry a bearded man. So. And we proliferate more and more. You Germans don’t have children. You have at most two kids. We have 7 or 8. الحَمْد لله Ok, my friend? And then we take four women, then we have 22 children. So. You have maybe one kid and one dog. And that’s it. My friend, that is not our fault, it’s your fault. Because you robbed our countries. Colonized them for you to drive a mercedes and to use your digital camera. So allah the almight god makes it so that we conquer you not with war in Germany but with birth rates, firstly, and secondly, we marry your daughters. Yes? And your daughter will wear a hijab. And now you can really go bezerk. One can see the hate in your eyes.

Again the same crap about - we will outbreed you, we marry your women, you will all bow down and have to convert to Islam wearing Hajib and beards.

Yeah - all of Europe will become Muslim. Muslims will become super-powerful, super-wealthy, they will take all essential infrastructure jobs, they will take over corporate positions and they will take over the entire military of all NATO countries except for the US.

Indeed - bub - if outbreeding worked alone overtaking a country, then it would also work to take Europe and the world while being armed with AK47s.

The truth is that you will be allowed to do your crap until a civil war comes down on you. The real elite will NEVER EVER GIVE YOU POLITICAL, MONETARY OR MILITARY POWER IN EUROPE!

Enjoy your great delusions moron while you take Hartz-IV social security just like most of your glorious super-breeders.

(10-30-2015 11:18 AM)Icepasian Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 08:57 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I think it's alarmist to think 95% or more cant acclimate when you see in USA they've done all right with a small amount of Muslims.

They haven't done alright in the USA. We took in the cream of the crop and thus they're intelligent enough not to commit petty crime, but they're still a big problem nonetheless.

Did the US have 9/11, Muslim shooting sprees, and marathon bombings in the 50s? No.

Did we have honor-killings? No.

Did we have Somalians destroying Minneapolis/St. Paul? No.

Did we have Muslims trying to force schools to recognize Ramadan and other Islamic holidays? No.

They're not integrating in the USA. The majority of them still want Shariah and marry their cousins. The only difference is that they're usually smart enough not to commit petty crimes.

I think you have some points, but the 9-11 guys were Saudis. I obviously agree they shouldn't have gotten in, but you're right since at least some had college degrees screening would have been hard.

I am in strong agreement that the us should be very selective but I agree with the Constitution that there should be freedom of religion. That does NOT mean allowing Sharia law, which restricts non-Muslims.

I'm part Italian, and some of us have done some shooting sprees, but there's also a lot of good Italian doctors. And rock guitarists for some reason. And directors. Every ethnic group has fuck-ups and murderers, if you selected the least violent you'd probably only have Asians left in the USA.

Timothy Mcveigh was an American Marine - maybe Scottish ancestry?. Couple hundred dead there.

You're right about the chechen(?) marathon bombers- not distinguished enough to let in.

I don't know much about honor killings, but a good statistical analysis of the murder rate among Muslims would be interesting. Might be lower than some other ethnic groups.

I actually saw first hand in the early 00s North Africans getting ss cards in Minneapolis. I was there with a hot immigrant gf and saw all these real poor-looking, dull Somalis(?) ( I didn't know what ethnic group they were) but I thought to my self "What the fuck are we bringing THOSE guys in for?!"

I was unaware they're wreaking havoc in twin cities.

So I agree we need to be real selective, but to really just get on board all Muslims are evil is simply not factually true. STUPID people are more violent than smart ones.

(10-31-2015 07:44 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't know much about honor killings, but a good statistical analysis of the murder rate among Muslims would be interesting. Might be lower than some other ethnic groups.

I actually saw first hand in the early 00s North Africans getting ss cards in Minneapolis. I was there with a hot immigrant gf and saw all these real poor-looking, dull Somalis(?) ( I didn't know what ethnic group they were) but I thought to my self "What the fuck are we bringing THOSE guys in for?!"

I was unaware they're wreaking havoc in twin cities.

So I agree we need to be real selective, but to really just get on board all Muslims are evil is simply not factually true. STUPID people are more violent than smart ones.

I think that you should study Islam better. You seem to use arguments that Merkel and Swedish politicians are making.

Take a good hard look at Islam and what the religion is about.

Of course you should not demonize Muslims, but the reason that most behave more civil is not because of Islam, but instead of it.

Back even 2 months ago I did not know how negative it is. Due to the migrant crisis I took it upon myself to study doctrine better since all I had was some general knowledge, Persian friends (all completely secular or converted as it turned out), one Afghani friend (also completely secular) and my knowledge of Rumi or Kahlil Gibran. Turns out that after taking a look at the Quran, reading about opinions even of Muslim clerics etc - that the religion is more a political doctrine designed for conquest in the Middle Ages.

It's impossible to reform unless all Muslims reject most of the precepts and even publicly ignore many parts of the Quran. ISIS and the Islamic State are living the perfect sharia law.

No one in his remotest mind should ever accept any Muslim immigrant in his country unless that person is a super-spiritual Sufi (who basically ignores most of the Quran) or utterly secular.

Furthermore - the religious doctrine is so negative and anti-civilization that I would advocate for a total ban of Islam and the Quran. Then after that peaceful cleansing you would realize how warm and great the people of the Middle East are. But with that mind poison constantly infesting their brains I see no future whatsoever. IKE - you are utterly romanticizing everything while obviously listening to the mainstream media too much.

And I am even a guy who states that many big terrorist attacks were false flags or were consciously allowed to happen by globalist powers. Still - that does not change my opinions on the matter.

(10-31-2015 07:59 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 07:44 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't know much about honor killings, but a good statistical analysis of the murder rate among Muslims would be interesting. Might be lower than some other ethnic groups.

I actually saw first hand in the early 00s North Africans getting ss cards in Minneapolis. I was there with a hot immigrant gf and saw all these real poor-looking, dull Somalis(?) ( I didn't know what ethnic group they were) but I thought to my self "What the fuck are we bringing THOSE guys in for?!"

I was unaware they're wreaking havoc in twin cities.

So I agree we need to be real selective, but to really just get on board all Muslims are evil is simply not factually true. STUPID people are more violent than smart ones.

I think that you should study Islam better. You seem to use arguments that Merkel and Swedish politicians are making.

Take a good hard look at Islam and what the religion is about.

Of course you should not demonize Muslims, but the reason that most behave more civil is not because of Islam, but instead of it.

Back even 2 months ago I did not know how negative it is. Due to the migrant crisis I took it upon myself to study doctrine better since all I had was some general knowledge, Persian friends (all completely secular or converted as it turned out), one Afghani friend (also completely secular) and my knowledge of Rumi or Kahlil Gibran. Turns out that after taking a look at the Quran, reading about opinions even of Muslim clerics etc - that the religion is more a political doctrine designed for conquest in the Middle Ages.

It's impossible to reform unless all Muslims reject most of the precepts and even publicly ignore many parts of the Quran. ISIS and the Islamic State are living the perfect sharia law.

No one in his remotest mind should ever accept any Muslim immigrant in his country unless that person is a super-spiritual Sufi (who basically ignores most of the Quran) or utterly secular.

Furthermore - the religious doctrine is so negative and anti-civilization that I would advocate for a total ban of Islam and the Quran. Then after that peaceful cleansing you would realize how warm and great the people of the Middle East are. But with that mind poison constantly infesting their brains I see no future whatsoever. IKE - you are utterly romanticizing everything while obviously listening to the mainstream media too much.

And I am even a guy who states that many big terrorist attacks were false flags or were consciously allowed to happen by globalist powers. Still - that does not change my opinions on the matter.

IKE brought a refreshingly rational dimension to this topic, which is worth exploring. It's easier to make up your mind and move away from that level when you get swayed by memes and stories of little blonde girls getting gangraped. The notion that moslems are inherently brainwashed savages and that moslem men are culturally predisposed to rape is not unlike that of the SJW dogmas that claim that all men are born rapists. You need to look at it rationally. I live in a Canadian metropole with a very large moslem population, (more moslems in fact than in NYC and LA combined), and this happens to be the safest large city in N. America for a young woman.

Broad statistical evidence just doesn't bear the prevailing narrative of this thread. For instance, countries like Syria (before the war) had some of the lowest rape rates in the world. In N. America, moslems are relatively well-integrated, with higher rates of post-secondary education. The problems with integration in Europe are mostly a result of their economic policies which favor structural unemployment (particularly in France), poor urban planning and cultural barriers.

Furthermore, immigrants (moslems included) are the population segment that is the most resistant to ongoing social engineering. In Canada for example, they have been at the forefront in opposing the Wynne-led pedo-homo sex ed indoctrination programs. Most anglo and franco-Canadians have already been more or less brainwashed, victims of a half century-old liberal genderfuck indoctrination programs. A lot of the values that immigrant families have are in fact quite similar to pre-cultural revolution American values (family, patriarchy, abstinence, mariage etc). It's kind of interesting how social agenda leftists in Ontario (and other places in Canada) have used the backwards image of moslems to advance their agendas (if you're against sex-ed for 6yr olds, well then you are in the same camp as culturally retarded moslem people...)

https://www.google.ca/search?q=anti+sex+...03&bih=605

The one intellectual that gets it right on this matter is France's Alain Soral, who IMHO is one of the brightest red pill thinkers of the moment. It's too bad that he is unknown in the anglosphere. He is also one of the most persecuted french dissidents. He started out as an outspoken masculine PUA, a Boxe Francaise adept and true French nationalist, and has denounced the use of race wars to divert the masses from their real economic and cultural dominators.

(10-31-2015 09:46 AM)MTLer Wrote:  IKE brought a refreshingly rational dimension to this topic, which is worth exploring. It's easier to make up your mind and move away from that level when you get swayed by memes and stories of little blonde girls getting gangraped. The notion that moslems are inherently brainwashed savages and that moslem men are culturally predisposed to rape is not unlike that of the SJW dogmas that claim that all men are born rapists. You need to look at it rationally. I live in a Canadian metropole with a very large moslem population, (more moslems in fact than in NYC and LA combined), and this happens to be the safest large city in N. America for a young woman.

I took a look at your comment history. You have been defending this immigration from the beginning claiming that all those men will be pulling their women to them and even stating that Japan has such a low purchasing power in comparison to some statistics vs the US - due to lack of immigration:

Quote:I'm surprised at how low Japan is, passed by Korea. Maybe it's a matter of having a low percentage of active population, but it is important to note that Japan is the industrialized nation with the most restrictive immigration policies, just saying...

Yeah - Japan would be much better off with 10 million wonderful beautifully integrating Muslims from the Middle East.

You bring no credible or logical arguments whatsoever. Of course will the Muslims resist SJW-talking points and feminism, but claiming that this is due to some enlightened state or akin to us here is just nuts.

You should go back to your Mutti Merkel and write comments at Huffingtonpost. There you can fight to sway the idiotic masses to be ever more tolerant and accomodating to the most glorious and peaceful religion on earth that has brought us such wonders as printing press in 1810, White slavery until 1950s, honor killings forever, sanctioned pedophelia (marriage age of both major sects is zero, consumption is just later), sanctioned rape of infidels - and let's not forget the Jihad and sharia which has to be implemented everywhere in the world according to the will of the most holy of holy men - Mohammed. Oh - and after you are done with that, then we can burn all books and ban all science, because in reality all you need is one book written in the Middle Ages, so that humanity may enjoy the wonders of Islam until forever.

Also took a look at that Soral fellow you are pushing - he is the biggest apologist of Islam, seems as if he converted himself - he is using practically the same arguments that Merkel is doing. Also I might add that he was a politician of the French Communist party. Even now he is the head of well-funded NGOs agitating for the same globalist crap while publicly saying that he is anti-globalist and anti-capitalist. The elite always controlled communism and being outwardly anti-capitalist is just part of the narrative. He is pushing the narrative like a good globalist activist placating the masses.

Of course are the Muslims and the migrants used by greater powers - I know that, but the elite are just using something that is already there. They don't have to create it.

Quote:I live in a Canadian metropole with a very large moslem population, (more moslems in fact than in NYC and LA combined), and this happens to be the safest large city in N. America for a young woman.

I'm sure that this fact has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that (when compared with Europe) Canadian immigration policy is (was?) giving preference to skills and degrees and not to sheer presence ("Hello, I am Mahmud and I would like some of your welfare.")
You can ask your new prime minister to import 1 million illiterate syrian 'soulmates' and report back in 2-3 years time.

The effects of unemployment and 'segregation' (as if willingly separating yourself from the invaders you have and wish to have nothing in common with is bad) on this are marginal at best.
I'll be waiting for your statistics proving otherwise that control for the quality of the immigrants entering the country. I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:For instance, countries like Syria (before the war) had some of the lowest rape rates in the world.

Reported rape rates in the world. Fixed that for you.

...

I think Japan should have taken in more young Korean northern Chinese immigrants, who could have stemmed some of their demography-related economic decline. It doesn't have the same problems that western countries have, but it has other major problems and is a country in relative decline, compared to its own history.

Quote:You should go back to your Mutti Merkel and write comments at Huffingtonpost. There you can fight to sway the idiotic masses to be ever more tolerant and accomodating to the most glorious and peaceful religion on earth that has brought us such wonders as printing press in 1810, White slavery until 1950s, honor killings forever, sanctioned pedophelia (marriage age of both major sects is zero, consumption is just later), sanctioned rape of infidels - and let's not forget the Jihad and sharia which has to be implemented everywhere in the world according to the will of the most holy of holy men - Mohammed. Oh - and after you are done with that, then we can burn all books and ban all science, because in reality all you need is one book written in the Middle Ages, so that humanity may enjoy the wonders of Islam until forever.

I have a great deal of respect for 90% of the stuff you (and many others on this board) post on here, it's not the same kind of blue pill stuff that is pushed on the Huffingtonsphere. I just see a blind spot here, and I hope my criticisms get addressed at a rational level as opposed to the kind of emotional response void of deeper thought that you would typically see with mind-controlled SJW types.

Once again, most of your positions here are not based on rational grounds. Take "sanctioned pedophilia", and compare your preconceptions with the actual legal ages of consents observed in many countries. Or as I've mentioned, "sanctioned rapes", and compare that with actual rape rates across countries. I live in a city with a pretty high proportion of moslems and an extremely low rape rate, so my observed, rational reality just doesn't corroborate the hype and alarmism I read on here on this subject.

As far as books and science are concerned, moslem cities like Baghdad used to have huge libraries with hundreds of thousands of manuspcripted books that actually rival modern 20th century libraries in the size and scope of their printed material.

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

How do you reconcile the "ban all science" with simple historical facts, like moslem scholars' invention of modern algebra? Our world today owes a great debt to islamic civilization, that have preserved and build upon Greek and other ancient knowledge while Europe was going through the dark ages. The Renaissance could not have happened without that contribution, it's not a coincidence that it first took place in southern Europe.

I haven't read the Koran, but I have learned history in some of the best schools in France and N. America, not two months ago on internet message boards. My high school history professor was one of the most renowned middle ages scholars in the world, he was actually a WW1 veteran and at the time a semi-retired university prof who thought it was important to spend part of his time teaching younger students about their history. He is the best teacher I have ever had, and that includes others who were Nobel Prize winners.

(10-31-2015 10:43 AM)MTLer Wrote:  I think Japan should have taken in more young Korean northern Chinese immigrants, who could have stemmed some of their demography-related economic decline. It doesn't have the same problems that western countries have, but it has other major problems and is a country in relative decline, compared to its own history.

Quote:You should go back to your Mutti Merkel and write comments at Huffingtonpost. There you can fight to sway the idiotic masses to be ever more tolerant and accomodating to the most glorious and peaceful religion on earth that has brought us such wonders as printing press in 1810, White slavery until 1950s, honor killings forever, sanctioned pedophelia (marriage age of both major sects is zero, consumption is just later), sanctioned rape of infidels - and let's not forget the Jihad and sharia which has to be implemented everywhere in the world according to the will of the most holy of holy men - Mohammed. Oh - and after you are done with that, then we can burn all books and ban all science, because in reality all you need is one book written in the Middle Ages, so that humanity may enjoy the wonders of Islam until forever.

I have a great deal of respect for 90% of the stuff you (and many others on this board) post on here, it's not the same kind of blue pill stuff that is pushed on the Huffingtonsphere. I just see a blind spot here, and I hope my criticisms get addressed at a rational level as opposed to the kind of emotional response void of deeper thought that you would typically see with mind-controlled SJW types.

Once again, most of your positions here are not based on rational grounds. Take "sanctioned pedophilia", and compare your preconceptions with the actual legal ages of consents observed in many countries. Or as I've mentioned, "sanctioned rapes", and compare that with actual rape rates across countries. I live in a city with a pretty high proportion of moslems and an extremely low rape rate, so my observed, rational reality just doesn't corroborate the hype and alarmism I read on here on this subject.

As far as books and science are concerned, moslem cities like Baghdad used to have huge libraries with hundreds of thousands of manuspcripted books that actually rival modern 20th century libraries in the size and scope of their printed material.

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

How do you reconcile the "ban all science" with simple historical facts, like moslem scholars' invention of modern algebra? Our world today owes a great debt to islamic civilization, that have preserved and build upon Greek and other ancient knowledge while Europe was going through the dark ages. The Renaissance could not have happened without that contribution, it's not a coincidence that it first took place in southern Europe.

I haven't read the Koran, but I have learned history in some of the best schools in France and N. America, not two months ago on internet message boards. My high school history professor was one of the most renowned middle ages scholars in the world, he was actually a WW1 veteran and at the time a semi-retired university prof who thought it was important to spend part of his time teaching younger students about their history. He is the best teacher I have ever had, and that includes others who were Nobel Prize winners.

"The total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year."

http://www.worldpress.org/mideast/663.cfm

(10-31-2015 10:49 AM)Akwesi Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

How do you reconcile the "ban all science" with simple historical facts, like moslem scholars' invention of modern algebra? Our world today owes a great debt to islamic civilization, that have preserved and build upon Greek and other ancient knowledge while Europe was going through the dark ages. The Renaissance could not have happened without that contribution, it's not a coincidence that it first took place in southern Europe.

....

"The total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year."

http://www.worldpress.org/mideast/663.cfm
[/quote]

As far as the height of Muslim science is concerned then I reconcile it with the fact that
+ Arabs piggy-backed on the more advanced Persian culture
+ between 800-1200 they were actually more secular with plenty of alcohol consumed (Rumi writes non-stop about drinking wine), scientists from all over the world being invited and funded, there were even poetry contests about making fun of Mohammed as in the court of a caliph
That however all ended somewhere around 1200-1300 and sharia came back in full force. Also a light is only as bright in comparison to others. The West between 800-1200 was in deep dark ages. The Caliphate were not "incubators". They were the biggest shit-lords who probably destroyed the classical civilizations around Constantinople and burned millions of books, taking millions of White slaves, waging non-stop war and terror up until their inevitable decline.

NAWALT arguments or NAMALT (not all Muslims are like that) are useless. Of course you have countless ones who are super-smart and super-ethical. Even if you put them into a highly negative doctrine like Islam, then even then will they become smart and ethical.

I repeat again: I have nothing against Muslims as a people. I have everything against Islam itself. If I were a super-powerful magician and could waive my wand, wiping away all traces of Muslim doctrine, disappearing the Quran everywhere and replacing it with something similar but really spiritual - for example poems by Rumi and Khalil Gibran. Then I can guarantee you that within days the happiness would rise 1000% in all Muslim countries and science, art and technology would begin to flourish like never before.

Islam is a poison of the mind - educated enclaves in Canada which were partly selected for skills and aptitude and NAMALT arguments don't prove anything.

You should better go and study your religion in detail and also take a good hard look at what is happening in those wonderful countries like Afghanistan (children regularly used as sex toys) or Saudi Arabia (30% drug addicted youth up to 18, ton of homosexual activity due to repressed normal human sexuality).

Your arguments are utterly illogical and not based on any objective observations. Go back the thread and read some of my links of Muslim critics of their own culture in Arabic. Try to refute them.

(10-31-2015 10:49 AM)Akwesi Wrote:  "The total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year."

Along the lines of the fact that there has been more written material produced the last few years than in the entire history of human civilization.

You're comparing a few thousand books from the most influential Greek scientists and philosophers vs. tens of thousands of stuff like romance novels, Crichton pulp and vampire teenlit and all the other books of commercial value sold in Spain. But I guess any stat would do when it comes to confirming your biases...

(10-31-2015 11:26 AM)MTLer Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 10:49 AM)Akwesi Wrote:  "The total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year."

Along the lines of the fact that there has been more written material produced the last few years than in the entire history of human civilization.

You're comparing a few thousand books from the most influential Greek scientists and philosophers vs. tens of thousands of stuff like romance novels, Crichton pulp and vampire teenlit and all the other books of commercial value sold in Spain. But I guess any stat would do when it comes to confirming your biases...

Wow. I can't take you seriously anymore. The fact is that one European country translates more books in a year than all of Arab civilization in one millennium, you can't get even wrap your head around it so you actually imagine that the QUALITY of books translated into Arabic is soooo much higher and that I'm the one with a bias. Cognitive dissonance and projection, and one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while. Do you think there is even ONE of these books by Greek philosophers that has not also been translated into Spanish, or for that matter English, French, and German? Or that there have not been dozens of sophisticated commentaries written on each of those texts in every major European language that far surpass anything produced by Muslims?

Read up on al-Ghazzali's "Incoherence of Philosophers" and its impact on the Muslim world.

I am suspecting MTLeris a woman. I have no seen this amount of horseshit from a man