Post: #101

(05-09-2016 05:11 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  So I guess the best candidate/campaign won. Whats the problem here?

Yup, you said it. It must be true. It's all about merit. It has nothing to do with the quality/quantity of UK immigration for the past 60 years; nothing to do with with current London demographics, the tribal affiliations of nouveaue "English", or the cummulative effects of cultmarx ideologies shoved down the UKs inhabitants throats for several decades.

(05-09-2016 05:11 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  I hope he does a good job and doesnt bring religion/race into it.

Two days post-election and it's already too late for that (see his comment about too many whites employed on the London Transport)

(05-09-2016 05:11 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Khan, Patel and Javid are not all Muslims, one is, one is Hindu and one seems to have no religion. They are all South Asian. Their rising up is about South Asian success.

"South Asian success", if there's one, is directly due to politics and sociocultural policies of the past several decades.

(05-09-2016 05:11 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Once when I was playing poker in a casino, one white English guy started making table talk with me, casually referring to me as a Londoner. I noticed the he didnt talk much to the accented white European immigrants. And I think that's what it comes down to, where you are born and raised, how you speak etc. It seems alot of Europeans have a problem seeing British born South Asians/Africans accepted by white English people. I reckon some of those EE immigrants (coming from largely white countries) may have thought the white English would embrace them as kin only to find themselves well below British born Brown and Black people in the social heirarchy. It's all about how you speak.

You are referring to cultural affiliation, and is only there in times of peace and relative prosperity. Native-born and bred brown person, rather than freshly off the boat Eastern European might appear more similar to a native, white English. However, that is fickle because in times of crisis/war those things will crumble as a house of sand, since life and death allegiances are first made via blood, not culture.

The hierarchy of affiliation in time of crisis is always as follows:

1. Skin color
2. Ethnicity
3. Tribe

That's just how human animals roll, and if you don't believe that you may well be a cultmarxist.

(05-09-2016 05:11 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  I get the impression many off the posts in this thread are simply instances of thinly veiled base racism, which I am happy to challenge.

You wrote a ton, but didn't say anything. That's typical of those who lack substance.

Post: #102

(05-10-2016 03:25 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  And how balanced can we take your word, given that you ripped into the OP in this thread for having the gall to bring his brown arse to Poland?

Well done you looked through my posts to try find anything even remotely resembling racism and all you could come up with is that, I ripped it for being titled a datasheet when all it was was a giant story with no actual data. You dont have to take my word for it, just use Google, but w.e dude im just an evil racist right, loool.

Post: #103

The point to consider is Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace:

https://youtu.be/_ZiJehMXBpQ

https://youtu.be/4LBpmPXv1R4

Post: #104

(05-10-2016 08:16 AM)Daddy Chains Wrote:  You are referring to cultural affiliation, and is only there in times of peace and relative prosperity. Native-born and bred brown person, rather than freshly off the boat Eastern European might appear more similar to a native, white English. However, that is fickle because in times of crisis/war those things will crumble as a house of sand, since life and death allegiances are first made via blood, not culture.

The hierarchy of affiliation in time of crisis is always as follows:

1. Skin color
2. Ethnicity
3. Tribe

That's just how human animals roll, and if you don't believe that you may well be a cultmarxist.

You got any examples to back that up or is it just overly simplistic, wishful thinking on your end? People ally themselves in ways they feel are most advantageous to them. Just take WW1 or WW2. There were numerous races/colours on both sides. English and Germans are like ethnic cousins, yet they were the main players on either side, white fighting white, with other races/ethnities involved.

During the London riots I didnt see much of this skin colour segregation you mention. We all know who did what, but even if a few ethnicities may have been more involved than others, it was far from turning into a race thing. It was more a class thing.

Yeah, there will be instances when wars will have different ethnicities on different sides. The Persian invasion of Greece might be one such example. But even here, the Greek city states were allied by their notion of being Greeks, Hellens. The Persians were a different race and it's army consisted of many Iranians (Skythians, Bactrians, Medes etc) who were likely similar in skin tone, especially compared to the Allied Greeks. Yet nowhere do they mention this to be some type of race war, the Greeks simply saw themselves as defending Hellenic culture and freedom.

Look at Afghanistan, when the predominantly white forces invaded recently, they were backed by the Afghan Tajik forces, the ANP. So the Afghan Tajiks are allied with the Americans fighting the predominantly Afghan Pashto Taliban forces. Not exactly consistent with your statement.

In India when the Muslims invaded, and also when the Brits invaded, many tribes allied themselves with the invading forces due to domestic rivalries/histories. Much of the British occupational force consisted of Indians.

Your statement is not consistent with historical experience. I'm not saying ethnicity means nothing, but that people consider various factors when choosing allies in times of 'crisis', and ethnicity does not seem to trump them all.

Post: #105

(05-09-2016 08:11 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 07:19 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Srebrenica was revenge for Muslim atrocities committed against Serbs in the early 90s. The West has successfully portrayed the Serbs as the villains in that whole region.

That's besides the point. The reddit list is among other things claiming that Bosnia is some sort of constant war-torn, crime-infested shithole — like it supposes is the case with every other Muslim country.

But sure, we can't fact the inconvenient reality get in the way because you know, Muslims.

(05-08-2016 06:52 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  But I respectfully disagree with your stance concerning the local Muslims. They did suffer atrocities like Srebrenica, but they did cause a lot of war crimes as well. Right now, they behave like the Serbs did in 1991 - thanks to the US, for the most part.

What do you mean? I was in Bosnia last September — exactly where you were in fact — and didn't at all feel any threat to my person, unprovoked or otherwise. Nothing of the sort rose upon crossing the border from Croatia. This was from my time in Bosnia hitchhiking throughout the south of the country, I never had any cause to watch my back.
I've come under far more real physical danger in supposedly harmonious God-fearing nations - of the Christian kind.

Bosnia would be a dump without NATO's support and protection. Not only do they have no friends because of their appalling history, but as soon as NATO is gone that place will become a warzone in no time just like it happened when the USSR disappeared.

Post: #106

(05-06-2016 05:00 PM)Daddy Chains Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 04:50 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  a muslim actually got into power of a major western city is what's scary.

London is much more than a mere "major western city".

London is the most important city in Europe, and within top one or two or three cities in the western world, past or present.

Now THAT's what's up.

London is maybe part of the top 5 European cities and top 10 Western cities due to being a multi cultural financial center and due to its large population of 12 millions.

Post: #107

(05-09-2016 12:55 PM)Daddy Chains Wrote:  Well, that was fast:

"A Muslim charity is putting 'Allah is great' posters on buses to portray Islam in a positive light" (< yeah, right)

And even faster:

Post: #108

(05-10-2016 07:51 PM)Canopus Wrote:  And even faster:

WB whilst wearing hijab.

I'm sure "Nishaat Ismail" is a completely unbiased contributor with the highest of journalist integrity with no links or affinity towards identity politics or feels the need to prop up south asians and muslims over everyone else right?

So many morons in London. Let the chips fall where they may when the demographic warfare starts up.

Post: #109

(05-10-2016 07:51 PM)Canopus Wrote:  And even faster:

The signs on those buses might as well say "Time to move the fuck out of London!". It's crazy to think that in my lifetime I'll see London fall to an invading culture. I wonder how long before sharia law becomes enacted. I feel like there's no going back now but when sharia comes about is the final nail in the coffin and London truly belongs to Islam.

Post: #110

Good discussion about the bus adverts.

Post: #111

You'd have to be an absolute retard not to make the connections from the "charity" to the figureheads involved which included such esteemed folk like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Saudi Arabian petrodollars used to finance terrorism.

London is gone folks.

Sorry to say but it's true, it's a breakaway muslim province staffed by south asian "migrants" and various other foreigners with elites living in protected isolated communities.

Even on this forum a few guys keep pumping up how it's "not all bad" or even outright multiculturalist drivel but just look at it this way..how many rapes per capita happen in someplace like Dearborn Michigan (also muslim) vs London, England with their muslim population? Which one is actually more "integrated" into the host culture and why?

Just think about this without being assailed with politically correct bullshit or south asian or islamist identity politics propaganda.

Now the new "open minded" islamist mayor is going to push out local Brits from blue collar jobs and staff it with all his "people" ie south asian muslims with a few token black muslims in a drive for "multicultural inclusiveness." I guarantee you that's the end game with this.. If you're a londoner and of anglo-saxon British heritage you're a fucking cuck or completely stupid if you buy into this.

Post: #112

I will never visit London again. It was pretty bad in 2012, but now...

Post: #113

(05-10-2016 04:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bosnia would be a dump without NATO's support and protection. Not only do they have no friends because of their appalling history, but as soon as NATO is gone that place will become a warzone in no time just like it happened when the USSR disappeared.

Have you ever been to Bosnia?

Post: #114

(05-10-2016 07:56 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 07:51 PM)Canopus Wrote:  And even faster:

WB whilst wearing hijab.

I'm sure "Nishaat Ismail" is a completely unbiased contributor with the highest of journalist integrity with no links or affinity towards identity politics or feels the need to prop up south asians and muslims over everyone else right?

So many morons in London. Let the chips fall where they may when the demographic warfare starts up.

Would choke her with her hijab while pounding the fuck outta her.

Post: #115

(05-10-2016 04:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 08:11 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 07:19 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Srebrenica was revenge for Muslim atrocities committed against Serbs in the early 90s. The West has successfully portrayed the Serbs as the villains in that whole region.

That's besides the point. The reddit list is among other things claiming that Bosnia is some sort of constant war-torn, crime-infested shithole — like it supposes is the case with every other Muslim country.

But sure, we can't fact the inconvenient reality get in the way because you know, Muslims.

(05-08-2016 06:52 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  But I respectfully disagree with your stance concerning the local Muslims. They did suffer atrocities like Srebrenica, but they did cause a lot of war crimes as well. Right now, they behave like the Serbs did in 1991 - thanks to the US, for the most part.

What do you mean? I was in Bosnia last September — exactly where you were in fact — and didn't at all feel any threat to my person, unprovoked or otherwise. Nothing of the sort rose upon crossing the border from Croatia. This was from my time in Bosnia hitchhiking throughout the south of the country, I never had any cause to watch my back.
I've come under far more real physical danger in supposedly harmonious God-fearing nations - of the Christian kind.

Bosnia would be a dump without NATO's support and protection. Not only do they have no friends because of their appalling history, but as soon as NATO is gone that place will become a warzone in no time just like it happened when the USSR disappeared.

@Sam

Dude, what are you talking about?

Look, I also have no love much for that country (like 60%+ of the population), but things are not like you described.

The rather small NATO presence (and OHR) is destabilizing the country, rather than stabilizing it (it encourages rampart Muslim nationalism). If it (NATO) pulls out, it would be better long term. And again, that is why I want to see Trump as POTUS. Why? America will keep to itself, NATO would be probably disbanded, UN hopefully as well.... . In short, we normal people, all over the planet, would gain much, not just you Americans.

And, by the way, Bosnia it was never a part of the USSR, but Yugoslavia, which were two different states (they even were at odds in the early stages of Cold War).

Post: #116

Can someone link us to Sadiq's connections to Islamic militarism ?

As in people that are linked to terrorism, articles, organizations ?

Post: #117

Post: #118

(05-11-2016 11:11 AM)Irenicus Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 04:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 08:11 AM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 07:19 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Srebrenica was revenge for Muslim atrocities committed against Serbs in the early 90s. The West has successfully portrayed the Serbs as the villains in that whole region.

That's besides the point. The reddit list is among other things claiming that Bosnia is some sort of constant war-torn, crime-infested shithole — like it supposes is the case with every other Muslim country.

But sure, we can't fact the inconvenient reality get in the way because you know, Muslims.

(05-08-2016 06:52 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  But I respectfully disagree with your stance concerning the local Muslims. They did suffer atrocities like Srebrenica, but they did cause a lot of war crimes as well. Right now, they behave like the Serbs did in 1991 - thanks to the US, for the most part.

What do you mean? I was in Bosnia last September — exactly where you were in fact — and didn't at all feel any threat to my person, unprovoked or otherwise. Nothing of the sort rose upon crossing the border from Croatia. This was from my time in Bosnia hitchhiking throughout the south of the country, I never had any cause to watch my back.
I've come under far more real physical danger in supposedly harmonious God-fearing nations - of the Christian kind.

Bosnia would be a dump without NATO's support and protection. Not only do they have no friends because of their appalling history, but as soon as NATO is gone that place will become a warzone in no time just like it happened when the USSR disappeared.

@Sam

Dude, what are you talking about?

Look, I also have no love much for that country (like 60%+ of the population), but things are not like you described.

The rather small NATO presence (and OHR) is destabilizing the country, rather than stabilizing it (it encourages rampart Muslim nationalism).

Right, America is to blame for Islamic terrorism! It's not like Islamic supremacism hasn't been around for 1200 years before America even existed or anything.

If NATO did not intercede, Bosnia would be wiped out by the Serbs. The Croats would barely lift a finger to stop it either.

Quote: If it (NATO) pulls out, it would be better long term. And again, that is why I want to see Trump as POTUS. Why? America will keep to itself, NATO would be probably disbanded, UN hopefully as well.... . In short, we normal people, all over the planet, would gain much, not just you Americans.

And, by the way, Bosnia it was never a part of the USSR, but Yugoslavia, which were two different states (they even were at odds in the early stages of Cold War).

Yugo was a puppet state supported by the USSR, hence it died when the USSR died. Better question is what you are talking about? Without NATO interceding, the entire Balkans will return to the law of the jungle once again.

Post: #119

(05-11-2016 02:50 PM)pharao Wrote:  

A simple google search shows that 'poem' to come from Erdogan not Sadiq Khan.

Post: #120

(05-10-2016 05:19 AM)rotekz Wrote:  A couple of good articles:

Sadiq Khan’s victory has caused a Great Smug to settle over London

From the article:

Quote:I refer, obviously, to the election of Sadiq Khan as the first Muslim mayor of a major European capital. ‘Doesn’t it do us proud?’ one of my friends observed. A nice young colleague told us she had wept – wept – twice in the course of the weekend. ‘He took a bus to City Hall,’ she marvelled. ‘It was a victory over bigotry"

If by chance Europe comes out of this, they should consider not giving the vote back to women. In the very least you should own some property to be allowed to vote.

Post: #121

(05-12-2016 12:19 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:19 AM)rotekz Wrote:  A couple of good articles:

Sadiq Khan’s victory has caused a Great Smug to settle over London

From the article:

Quote:I refer, obviously, to the election of Sadiq Khan as the first Muslim mayor of a major European capital. ‘Doesn’t it do us proud?’ one of my friends observed. A nice young colleague told us she had wept – wept – twice in the course of the weekend. ‘He took a bus to City Hall,’ she marvelled. ‘It was a victory over bigotry"

If by chance Europe comes out of this, they should consider not giving the vote back to women. In the very least you should own some property to be allowed to vote.

Giving the right to vote to women is the downfall of society. Modern Western society is not the first to suffer this fate. The Spartans gave the right to vote to women and their once proud society collapsed in a few generations.

Women are not meant to lead/make societal decisions. This will not change in 2,000 years either. They are designed to have and raise children, which is VERY important to a society's life cycle. But giving the right to vote to women will ensure that they will team up with the weakest of men and override the strong/wise men and vote for feelings and emotions over logic and survival.

Post: #122

Quote:‘It was a victory over bigotry"

Definition

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

"intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself"

How many gay pride parades and women's months are carried out in Muslim dominated areas and countries?

Post: #123

Quote:Right, America is to blame for Islamic terrorism! It's not like Islamic supremacism hasn't been around for 1200 years before America even existed or anything.

If NATO did not intercede, Bosnia would be wiped out by the Serbs. The Croats would barely lift a finger to stop it either.

Look friend ,I am not saying that the US is sponsoring Islamism in the last 1600 years, OK?

But, in the Balkans (and in parts of the FSU), America (and the West), unfortunately, had a significant part helping Islamists.

Speaking of Bosnia, it was a civil war (think Lebanon, but on a smaller scale), not invasion. During that war, the US (and the West) helped the central government - which was led by Islamists under Alija Izetbegovic (may he rot in Hell). That guy was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood!

Quote: Bosnia would be a dump without NATO's support and protection. Not only do they have no friends because of their appalling history, but as soon as NATO is gone that place will become a warzone in no time just like it happened when the USSR disappeared.

If NATO pulls out, there would be probably unrest (like in 2014), but war - no. The new generations do not have military experience (in Yugo, military service was mandatory), guns (there were plenty in the 90ties, because the Yugoslav Army had loads of them. Nowadays, there are not that much, because most got destroyed after the war, or ended in Syria) and the chaos after communism fell in EE is not present.

Quote:Yugo was a puppet state supported by the USSR, hence it died when the USSR died. Better question is what you are talking about? Without NATO interceding, the entire Balkans will return to the law of the jungle once again.

First thing, it was not a puppet state. Take a look at these, for example:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_Split

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


You don't do that to your ally. Especially master.

After 1955 relations improved, yes, but there was still mistrust between the two.


Second thing, Yugoslavia had a strong cult of personality (Tito). When he died, nationalism, which was long suppressed, erupted. Add the fall of the Berlin Wall, and...the rest you know.

And finally, the Balkans in the 90ties was indeed a wild place, because it was very ethnically mixed (the communists only made it worse - so much about multiculturalism). In such situations, a war, no matter in which part of the world, is imminent.

Take a look at the EU, and the direction it is going to. It is not a Balkan thing.

NATO did not help...too much. We (Croats) won the war in Croatia by ourselves. In Bosnia, it did help during the war. But after the war...not at all.

And the UN was useless, as always.

I hope I made things (which are very complicated for someone who is not a local) a little more clear.



We can discuss more when I drop datasheets, OK (I have finals from last two courses). Let's not derail this thread.

Post: #124

Christian Britain ruled my country for more than a century and we turned out just fine.

Post: #125

Liberals retards say:

"If you ban Muslims for being violent,
it will make them more violent"

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme...iolent_it/