Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

MARTIN PLS
STOP
You keep posting statistics out of your arse with "estimates" from "it is thoughts" and it lowers the quality of discussion TO BELOW FACEBOOK

If you'd please calm down.
Apologies for forgetting to post the link to my arse the newspaper article.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/europol-minstens-10-duizend-vluchtelingenkinderen-vermist~a4235548/

In the center of the Swedish capital of Stockholm today, several dozens to a hundred masked men dressed in black have hunted and attacked children with North-African looks.
https://youtu.be/EHscx3iWyFw
Four people have been arrested, the number of victims is as of yet unknown. A witness told the Swedish newspaper that he saw 3 people being beaten up by the group.

A removed video, an unnamed witness, an unnamed Swedish newspaper - the same ilk that has been covering up immigrant crime and doctoring evidence to make it look like it's done by Swedes? I don't know, because unnamed newspaper, unnamed group and unknown victims with no actual sources. You're asking me to take the word of a Dutch progressive media reporting on the Guardian reporting on unnamed Swedish newspapers reporting on the Swedish Migration Board trying to downplay a Swede being stabbed to death at a refugee centre?

The video wasn't removed when I posted it. I'm sure quite a few people watched it before it vanished. It showed a group of men in black running through a shopping area, I couldn't spot any real violence when watching it.

Witnesses should be unnamed. That's why our laws protect journalist's from revealing their sources.

Apologies for forgetting to type the Swedish newspaper's name, which I usually don't forget if you've read any of my posts. If you'd followed the link to the dutch newspaper though, you could have easily spotted the link to it.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22176513.ab

[Dorsidwarf]

If you'd please calm down.
Apologies for forgetting to post the link to my arse the newspaper article.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/europol-minstens-10-duizend-vluchtelingenkinderen-vermist~a4235548/

You cannot calm down the loud whisperer.

[Rolepgeek]

Responding with "cheeki breeki" is really no better, Loud Whisper, than making up statistics. Nor is deciding the media is in a conspiracy to ruin Europe. >.> I mean, they might be idiots who end up doing that, but well-organized conspiracies with actually good public images are few and far between.

And in the analogy we were using, neither of those things are true. Europeans still far outnumber immigrants. Whether or not that will remain the case is a different matter, and order of magnitude can be discussed (because other than 'Germany's population is still majority Germans, not immigrants', I don't have hard numbers). No one is being kicked out of their house, and the scale of the atrocities are not on the level to where analogy-people are getting raped. If they were, then you might as well say that the other people who live in the house with you are taking it upon themselves to beat the shit out of the people who you had legitimately wanted to invite, as well as the freeloaders, in the name of defending their friends. It's well and good and not meant to be awful and all, just like letting in whoever wants to come, but that doesn't make it okay.

Also the 'toleran and progressiv' is getting a bit old. Unless you genuinely believe tolerance is a bad thing, then I think you should just say what you mean. Otherwise it at least looks a bit like the people saying 'homosexual agenda' unironically.

Basically: if someone wants to implement Sharia law through democratic means, that is entirely their prerogative to attempt. If they want to implement it through force or coercion, that is when I take issue with it. Free speech means free. Which is why I get just as annoyed when people on the left do it, if not more so because we're supposed to be better than that, goddamnit.

Although really, I find the way European politics seem to be developing rather amusing, considering there was a game/setting where the EU basically split into Germany-side and France-side, with Germany sick of paying taxes to support foreign countries and welfare for people who didn't contribute, while France continued to feel that helping people in poverty and providing aid to those in need was important. Perhaps the backlash will lead us that way, but at the moment, well. Heh.

[Arx]

I love the way the Europol on this forum has turned into Father Martinuzz reading out newspaper articles at the breakfast table while the kids listen eagerly, because no-one else can be trusted with their sources.

[Helgoland]

Quick, everyone: If this thread was a family, who would be who?

[Loud Whispers]

Hehehehe... Forgot...

Again, why post volksrant? For one it speaks in progresiv speech and for seconds in Dutch so you've got two levels of getting lost in translation especially when it's the Dutch progresiv reporting on the English progresiv reporting on the English Observer reporting on the Belgian progresiv

There are a lot of redundant Chinese whisperers here

Brian Donald said 5,000 children had disappeared in Italy alone, while another 1,000 were unaccounted for in Sweden. He warned that a sophisticated pan-European “criminal infrastructure” was now targeting refugees. “It’s not unreasonable to say that we’re looking at 10,000-plus children. Not all of them will be criminally exploited; some might have been passed on to family members. We just don’t know where they are, what they’re doing or whom they are with.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees

Straight from the Brian's Mouth, or at least only a few Chinese Whisperers away from Brian's Mouth.

According to Save the Children, an estimated 26,000 unaccompanied children entered Europe last year. Europol, which has a 900-strong force of intelligence analysts and police liaison officers, believes 27% of the million arrivals in Europe last year were minors.

Save the Children accounts for 26k unaccompanied, and Europol says they reckon 270k children overall arrived. So 10% of immigrants are children, 1% unaccompanied children, though using Europol estimates so that's not saying much. We are talking about Europol "stats so shit" they recorded the total amount of immigrants arriving in Europe as less than the amount that were arriving in Germany alone

Responding with "cheeki breeki" is really no better, Loud Whisper, than making up statistics.

I want you to read what you just read and feel shame

No one takes cheeki breeki seriously, making up statistics is viler than lies, and is brazen villainy.
_{(Also I actually agreed quite much with the post)}

Nor is deciding the media is in a conspiracy to ruin Europe. >.> I mean, they might be idiots who end up doing that, but well-organized conspiracies with actually good public images are few and far between.

The fact that people are so stupid is why conspiracies succeed, and indeed why they are made. Consider this, a company can through the actions of so many individuals only loosely cooperating with each other, create a company ethos and an overarching strategy - even without any conscious strategy. You see this a lot when people study companies and their strategies, yet the company workers themselves never thought of themselves as executing the same plan being studied. In this same manner our progressive Councillors, policemen, politicians, MPs on so many local levels and national levels (and even Tony Blair on the supranational) working in small conspiracies to avoid looking racist by seeking as many immigrants as possible and covering up as many rape gangs as possible, did create a situation in which tens of thousands of English girls would be used as sex slaves by Pakistani migrants.
There was never a conscious strategy to induce this, yet the actions of so many toleran and progresiv individuals doing everything in their power to signal that they are the most progressive has turned into this Cologne, this Oslo, this Rotherham.

And in the analogy we were using, neither of those things are true. Europeans still far outnumber immigrants. Whether or not that will remain the case is a different matter, and order of magnitude can be discussed (because other than 'Germany's population is still majority Germans, not immigrants', I don't have hard numbers).

    Anyway, short version. There are 742 million total Europeans, vs 22 million total Syrians immigrants. Even if ALL the Syrians immigrants decided to move to Europe, you're only looking at a 3% increase in total European nation population.

No one in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe or Northern Europe is going to make a difference to the displacement Sweden and Germany has inflicted upon themselves. It is more like 80 million Germans and 9 million Swedes taking in mass immigration from the entire world. Swede statistics from 2011 show Swedes were already 85% and declining and that was before they had 4 years of immigration so hard even they panicked and tried to stop it. Germany will take longer, they do not know how many immigrants exactly they have taken and once all the old Germans have died they'll be moving down a lot from the 90% they were in 2010. Also even then, you will lose the cities first - all the Germans in the countryside will do nothing in the cities. Perhaps in that regard Sweden is most fucked because most of their country's Swedes live in the cities. But yeah it's by German statistics that it's risen to 1,500,000 yearly, still rising. The 10 million in 5 years thing is really quite conservative.

Follow the link in the quotes for the citation links, I have to keep manually typing them in because the old threads are locked and it bores me to do so manually. Likewise there are some things I had not considered then that I do now, in that Germany and Sweden's situation is far, far worse because of how old their Germans and Swedes are, how few German and Swedish young men there are, and how fewer German and Swedish men don't act toleran and progresiv. Once their OAPs are dead that's it, whether the immigrants bring their families with them or not Germans and Swedes are at a minimum being made minorities in every one of their major cities and a few areas of German countryside within a generation. Also when I wrote that I had gravely underestimated just how much immigration had increased to Germany. Still has, with the record being 1.5mil 2015, and despite Winter hitting Europe immigration rates still increased, with the only notable thing happening being "refugees" returning to Iraq from Finland because they didn't like the weather

(...)Skåne and Malmo with high immigration rates were very supportive of their populist anti-immigrant parties whilst the immigrant-free north was supporting of pro-immigration leftist parties. I cannot find statistics in the current year, as either the Swedish government does not want to publish them or they are incapable of recording them, but by 2012 Swedes were just 58%. After the recent waves of immigration that were even too much for Swedish politicians, I have little doubt that Swedes are already a minority in Malmo. If the Swedish gov had not stopped collecting this information on the national level we'd also be able to make conjecture there. I have found it cute that even Swedish anti-immigrant parties campaign on the basis that they are protecting progressive values; no one will doubt that Swedes weren't committed to their project until the end.

Then I think back on Merkel saying multiculturalism has failed, that the immigration has to stop, that Germany is losing its "social core", then immediately moving to paralyze any actual attempt at limiting let alone reversing immigration. I still wonder how much is incompetence and mismanagement, and how much is deliberate design. When all the old Europeans die, they're going to leave their children in an even more precarious position, even more marginalized, with the same weak minds and weak bodies and even less of them than there were their parents. Over the old body of Europe the strong will pick it apart, and I think this will be a battle between strong immigrant conservatives versus immigrant conservatives, not immigrants versus Swedes.

Consider the battle of identity politics. Immigrant ideologies are based around building up social units, family units, racial units; African, Arab, Turkish, Kurdish nationalism, South Asian and East Asian family networks (and even Asian solidarity between south and east, not sure if that's unique to England where south, southeast and east meet), Islamism and the one community e.t.c.
Compare this to the new Western philosophies that are by design meant to divide and conquer, trying to find ways value people via the progressive stack, so someone can always be attacked for who they are. Divide yourself up and distance yourself from being a man, being European, being strait, being cis, all to create a generation of weak dysfunctional Europeans who cannot resist any immigrant conservatives

I suspect it's already happened since the progressive governments have just plain outright refused to collect this information anymore, so no one can see the water boil lel

No one is being kicked out of their house, and the scale of the atrocities are not on the level to where analogy-people are getting raped. If they were, then you might as well say that the other people who live in the house with you are taking it upon themselves to beat the shit out of the people who you had legitimately wanted to invite, as well as the freeloaders, in the name of defending their friends. It's well and good and not meant to be awful and all, just like letting in whoever wants to come, but that doesn't make it okay.

People getting raped and sold into sex slavery is a good analogue for people getting raped

Also the 'toleran and progressiv' is getting a bit old. Unless you genuinely believe tolerance is a bad thing, then I think you should just say what you mean. Otherwise it at least looks a bit like the people saying 'homosexual agenda' unironically.

Our "tolerant and progressive" bunch are very fond of toting around tolerance and progressiveness for social signalling, I AM THE MOST TOLERANT, I AM THE MOST PROGRESSIVE! But they are usually not very tolerant, and their progressiveness is of the Swedish variety

Basically: if someone wants to implement Sharia law through democratic means, that is entirely their prerogative to attempt.

What if it's through subverted democracy, as with our corrupt councilors who channeled council tax funds towards Islamism?

Although really, I find the way European politics seem to be developing rather amusing, considering there was a game/setting where the EU basically split into Germany-side and France-side, with Germany sick of paying taxes to support foreign countries and welfare for people who didn't contribute, while France continued to feel that helping people in poverty and providing aid to those in need was important. Perhaps the backlash will lead us that way, but at the moment, well. Heh.

Everybody immigrate to Svalbard, nothing's ever broken in Svalbard


Oh yeah as well, remember how everyone said using immigration to solve a demographic timebomb is like trying to bury a WWII mine in C4 because you failed

Germany would need 470,000 immigrants, ready to join the pool of taxpayers, each year between now and then to offset the demographic decline, the report said. As the current number of refugees fleeing conflict in the Middle East and North Africa is not likely to be sustained year after year, Germany cannot rely on immigrants alone to solve the riddle posed by its ageing citizens and low amount of births, the report continued.

ya welcome

Quick, everyone: If this thread was a family, who would be who?

I swer on me be the Nan I'd be smackin the lot of you with me roller pins

[TheBiggerFish]

Quick, everyone: If this thread was a family, who would be who?

I'd be the next-door neighbor that pops in occasionally and just sort of stares at the shenanigans.

[TheDarkStar]

Quick, everyone: If this thread was a family, who would be who?

Toady would be the police.

[Arx]

Quick, everyone: If this thread was a family, who would be who?

I'd be the next-door neighbor that pops in occasionally and just sort of stares at the shenanigans.

I'm not sure I even live in the city.

[scriver]

Although really, I find the way European politics seem to be developing rather amusing, considering there was a game/setting where the EU basically split into Germany-side and France-side, with Germany sick of paying taxes to support foreign countries and welfare for people who didn't contribute, while France continued to feel that helping people in poverty and providing aid to those in need was important. Perhaps the backlash will lead us that way, but at the moment, well. Heh.

You have to understand that it is the countries that give the most and are the most open to helping people in poverty and providing aid that are the ones that are left worst off by the crisis. Sweden is already breaking down because it has such an extensive social system and can't support the huge numbers of immigrants it has seen.

[Rolepgeek]

Responding with "cheeki breeki" is really no better, Loud Whisper, than making up statistics.

I want you to read what you just read and feel shame

No one takes cheeki breeki seriously, making up statistics is viler than lies, and is brazen villainy.
_{(Also I actually agreed quite much with the post)}

Three types of lies, LW. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
On the other hand, you're not wrong. It's just that I, at least, am not familiar with it, and it just ends up looking like dismissal to me. You seem to use it for just about anything, so it's difficult to tell how you mean it. My apologies for misinterpreting you.

Nor is deciding the media is in a conspiracy to ruin Europe. >.> I mean, they might be idiots who end up doing that, but well-organized conspiracies with actually good public images are few and far between.

The fact that people are so stupid is why conspiracies succeed, and indeed why they are made. Consider this, a company can through the actions of so many individuals only loosely cooperating with each other, create a company ethos and an overarching strategy - even without any conscious strategy. You see this a lot when people study companies and their strategies, yet the company workers themselves never thought of themselves as executing the same plan being studied. In this same manner our progressive Councillors, policemen, politicians, MPs on so many local levels and national levels (and even Tony Blair on the supranational) working in small conspiracies to avoid looking racist by seeking as many immigrants as possible and covering up as many rape gangs as possible, did create a situation in which tens of thousands of English girls would be used as sex slaves by Pakistani migrants.
There was never a conscious strategy to induce this, yet the actions of so many toleran and progresiv individuals doing everything in their power to signal that they are the most progressive has turned into this Cologne, this Oslo, this Rotherham.

Oh, is that all you meant? I'll agree with that. I just don't consider it an agenda or a conspiracy, I think. Systematic results of individual actions. Markets and incentive structures. Yeah, I can agree with you there. My apologies for again misunderstanding you.
So yeah, signalling games are really fucking stupid, even if they are the reason we're intelligent.

    Anyway, short version. There are 742 million total Europeans, vs 22 million total Syrians immigrants. Even if ALL the Syrians immigrants decided to move to Europe, you're only looking at a 3% increase in total European nation population.

No one in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe or Northern Europe is going to make a difference to the displacement Sweden and Germany has inflicted upon themselves. It is more like 80 million Germans and 9 million Swedes taking in mass immigration from the entire world. Swede statistics from 2011 show Swedes were already 85% and declining and that was before they had 4 years of immigration so hard even they panicked and tried to stop it. Germany will take longer, they do not know how many immigrants exactly they have taken and once all the old Germans have died they'll be moving down a lot from the 90% they were in 2010. Also even then, you will lose the cities first - all the Germans in the countryside will do nothing in the cities. Perhaps in that regard Sweden is most fucked because most of their country's Swedes live in the cities. But yeah it's by German statistics that it's risen to 1,500,000 yearly, still rising. The 10 million in 5 years thing is really quite conservative.

Follow the link in the quotes for the citation links, I have to keep manually typing them in because the old threads are locked and it bores me to do so manually. Likewise there are some things I had not considered then that I do now, in that Germany and Sweden's situation is far, far worse because of how old their Germans and Swedes are, how few German and Swedish young men there are, and how fewer German and Swedish men don't act toleran and progresiv. Once their OAPs are dead that's it, whether the immigrants bring their families with them or not Germans and Swedes are at a minimum being made minorities in every one of their major cities and a few areas of German countryside within a generation. Also when I wrote that I had gravely underestimated just how much immigration had increased to Germany. Still has, with the record being 1.5mil 2015, and despite Winter hitting Europe immigration rates still increased, with the only notable thing happening being "refugees" returning to Iraq from Finland because they didn't like the weather

...within a generation? Really? If the current rate of immigration keeps up, then maybe. Maybe. But I don't believe that will happen, if only because it is unsustainable in terms of welfare state and German public goodwill. I'm not saying 'therefore don't worry about it'. I'm saying 'therefore it is not all-encompassing doom that will change the face of Europe forever and ever'. I mean, it'll probably change Europe quite a bit forever, I just don't think it's DOOM. A lot of what you're saying here sounds a lot like the people talking about white genocide, and while that's not actually an argument in itself, it stands to be aware of it. Considering the urbanization level of Germany(~75%), (CIA World Factbook as source, took me fifteen seconds to google) I really doubt the cities will end up as nothing but immigrants. 20-30 million people (half the urban pop.) don't disappear in a a single generation. I suppose on this subject, we just disagree about how the trends will go. I really do think that the backlash is going to hit hard in at most a year (I assign 70% probability), and it's going to be awful, and there'll be like five years or so of dealing with bullshit from everywhere afterwards, and then another twenty of vaguely reduced levels of bullshit, and then whatever.

No one is being kicked out of their house, and the scale of the atrocities are not on the level to where analogy-people are getting raped. If they were, then you might as well say that the other people who live in the house with you are taking it upon themselves to beat the shit out of the people who you had legitimately wanted to invite, as well as the freeloaders, in the name of defending their friends. It's well and good and not meant to be awful and all, just like letting in whoever wants to come, but that doesn't make it okay.

People getting raped and sold into sex slavery is a good analogue for people getting raped

Yeah, and there's a lot more than five or six people in a single country, as there might be in a house. The number and scale of the atrocities does not match up to saying that a fifth of the population is being sexually assaulted, rape, and sold into slavery by party-guests. I'm saying that the level of harm and damage done to the countries in the analogy is more on the level of vandalism, or date-rape by some dude at a massive party. Doesn't mean it's not bad, just that it doesn't need to be inflated into "The government and neighboring governments are getting raped".

Also the 'toleran and progressiv' is getting a bit old. Unless you genuinely believe tolerance is a bad thing, then I think you should just say what you mean. Otherwise it at least looks a bit like the people saying 'homosexual agenda' unironically.

Our "tolerant and progressive" bunch are very fond of toting around tolerance and progressiveness for social signalling, I AM THE MOST TOLERANT, I AM THE MOST PROGRESSIVE! But they are usually not very tolerant, and their progressiveness is of the Swedish variety

Basically: if someone wants to implement Sharia law through democratic means, that is entirely their prerogative to attempt.

What if it's through subverted democracy, as with our corrupt councilors who channeled council tax funds towards Islamism?

Supporting terrorism is wrong. But corruption happens all the time, anyway, what makes this particularly bad? I want corruption dealt with, but do you think backlash against the people voting for their values is the solution? Do you think those councilors actually personally want Shariah Law implemented?

Although really, I find the way European politics seem to be developing rather amusing, considering there was a game/setting where the EU basically split into Germany-side and France-side, with Germany sick of paying taxes to support foreign countries and welfare for people who didn't contribute, while France continued to feel that helping people in poverty and providing aid to those in need was important. Perhaps the backlash will lead us that way, but at the moment, well. Heh.

You have to understand that it is the countries that give the most and are the most open to helping people in poverty and providing aid that are the ones that are left worst off by the crisis. Sweden is already breaking down because it has such an extensive social system and can't support the huge numbers of immigrants it has seen.

...yeah? The groups who most implement a plan that affects them are usually the ones affected most.

[Sacasco]

What I think has been totally missed is the moral aspect of this. I find it impossible to argue that allowing refugees, or even other migrants, into Europe is going to decrease total human happiness in the world. For a start, the chance of them starving is vastly decreased, and we have no idea whether it's going to be a good or bad thing for "native" Europeans in the long run. If you disagree with me there, please say so.

Therefore, it seems to me that any argument against allowing them in is inherently racist, though I understand and accept that most people don't see it that way. The trouble is, of course, that the purpose of democracy is that everyone votes for their own benefit rather than that of others, so those without a vote, in this case foreigners, lose out.

The only feasible way I see to disagree with this, assuming you agree with my first statement, is to argue that each country should work for only its own citizens. Which works, but I feel that that equates to NIMBYism, which is something I vigorously oppose at least in principle, however complicated that is when it's you who's affected.

Arguing that Shariah law is a likely outcome seems to me to be somewhat overstating the impact these refugees will have, as well as probably the inclination of many of them.

[Loud Whispers]

Three types of lies, LW. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
On the other hand, you're not wrong. It's just that I, at least, am not familiar with it, and it just ends up looking like dismissal to me. You seem to use it for just about anything, so it's difficult to tell how you mean it. My apologies for misinterpreting you.

Quite so! And there is no insult done to me, I am sorry for being too cheeki breeki and not just giving a clear answer, it really is my fault for confusing you and not yours for being confused xD

Oh, is that all you meant? I'll agree with that. I just don't consider it an agenda or a conspiracy, I think. Systematic results of individual actions. Markets and incentive structures. Yeah, I can agree with you there. My apologies for again misunderstanding you.
So yeah, signalling games are really fucking stupid, even if they are the reason we're intelligent.

Pretty much. Politicians want to suck up to the media to show they are the most giving and the media want to attack any politicians that aren't the most giving, in this endless feedback loop of sucking up and covering up that leads everyone blind, dumb and ineffectual. It leads to this whole mentality where everyone from the USA, to Northern Europe, to Western Europe and so on are all calling each other racist barbarians who need more immigrants to be the most tolerant and the media accept this as good so the politicians accept this as good and the academia teach the next generation this is good and we all nod this is well good whilst our shitposts land us in prison or get us visits from German stazi. I wish I could still say that and say I was joking

...within a generation? Really? If the current rate of immigration keeps up, then maybe. Maybe.

Already happened in Malmo, and it happened in London 10 years ago with a much lower immigration rate. I'm not talking maybes, I'm talking it's a wait for either the old ones to die or the Swede/Kraut governments to actually collect the statistics they're too scared to collate.

But I don't believe that will happen, if only because it is unsustainable in terms of welfare state and German public goodwill.

Why? Do you think the Germans saying "go home" or the welfare state collapsing will change anything? The sheer quantity of people who are clearly not going home are not going home just because the Germans say please. What was it, 80,000 deported, whilst a million and a half arrived? I'm afraid they're using a bucket to scoop out the ocean.

I'm not saying 'therefore don't worry about it'. I'm saying 'therefore it is not all-encompassing doom that will change the face of Europe forever and ever'. I mean, it'll probably change Europe quite a bit forever, I just don't think it's DOOM.

If we're using the old definition of doom to be an unavoidable fate, then for Germany and Sweden then yeah it's pretty much all ogre now and there's nothing they can do about it, unless we're talking decades of repatriation efforts which will cost Germany loads and lose their progressive cred

A lot of what you're saying here sounds a lot like the people talking about white genocide, and while that's not actually an argument in itself, it stands to be aware of it. Considering the urbanization level of Germany(~75%), (CIA World Factbook as source, took me fifteen seconds to google) I really doubt the cities will end up as nothing but immigrants. 20-30 million people (half the urban pop.) don't disappear in a a single generation.

I live in the city where the English were very quickly made a minority by a left-wing government who literally conspired to permanently change the ethnic makeup of Britain in order to make "diversity"
That was their reason
As far as reasons go I've heard better lol, so something to keep in mind is that I don't give a shit about youtube copypastas about genocide of the fish. Over here all the media, news outlets, tv shows, comedians and public figures all laughed at the notion of just 1% or 2% of arrivals managing to displace the English, then when those percentages increased it was the multicultural experiment and then under Porky Prime Minister it was the failed multicultural experiment yet immigration continued unabated to the London of today, currently being colonized by rich globalists from New York to Riyadh and Moscow ;P
Basically they kept saying it was fine, the English wouldn't be displaced, then when they were they switched tag and just started attacking the English; bunch of gits really, they knew once they'd permanently changed London's ethnic makeup they could drop the working class like a poison potato and lose no power at all

Germany's taken in far more immigrants than England at a far faster rate, the way I see it is if the English on their island could not survive a mere decade of Labour enrichment there's no way Germans on their bridges to Turkey, Africa, Central Asia, Russia, South Asia and East Asia is going to survive a decade of Merkel enrichment

I suppose on this subject, we just disagree about how the trends will go. I really do think that the backlash is going to hit hard in at most a year (I assign 70% probability), and it's going to be awful, and there'll be like five years or so of dealing with bullshit from everywhere afterwards, and then another twenty of vaguely reduced levels of bullshit, and then whatever.

It'll most likely be a pathetic backlash that ends up with a few hundred, maybe a few thousand dead if things get really bad, but the trends won't stop because the spice must flow

Yeah, and there's a lot more than five or six people in a single country, as there might be in a house. The number and scale of the atrocities does not match up to saying that a fifth of the population is being sexually assaulted, rape, and sold into slavery by party-guests. I'm saying that the level of harm and damage done to the countries in the analogy is more on the level of vandalism, or date-rape by some dude at a massive party. Doesn't mean it's not bad, just that it doesn't need to be inflated into "The government and neighboring governments are getting raped".

Sweden - 80%-100% of adults sexually harassed
And then the Police show up to cover everything up
And the statistics are a whole mess with the Swedish government halting the collection of crimes by ethnicity altogether to be the most progressive police force around
In that same vein I wonder how many of the children the Europol log are just middle aged men using the fast-track asylum seeking process for children, it's one of the more common abuses of the laws in the UK, wouldn't be surprised if some knew to use it in the EU

Supporting terrorism is wrong. But corruption happens all the time, anyway, what makes this particularly bad? I want corruption dealt with, but do you think backlash against the people voting for their values is the solution? Do you think those councilors actually personally want Shariah Law implemented?

1. It is a powerful expansive ideology, and it is strong with no rival and protection by the progressive political machine. Bad enough that it has endorsement by the PP machine, because a generation of fucked up European boys with identity issues will quickly latch onto the strong horse that offers them immunity to PP criticism.
2. Yes
3. Yes, whether they are sincere believers or not, never forget the likes of Saudi Arabia buying out Italian MPs with Rolexes or building their mosques in Germany, religion and politics are very hard to separate

...yeah? The groups who most implement a plan that affects them are usually the ones affected most.

I kinda want to find the old posts in the progressive thread where people were saying the immigrant crisis would affect no one, but I just want to drink my tea and feel melancholy

What I think has been totally missed is the moral aspect of this. I find it impossible to argue that allowing refugees, or even other migrants, into Europe is going to decrease total human happiness in the world. For a start, the chance of them starving is vastly decreased, and we have no idea whether it's going to be a good or bad thing for "native" Europeans in the long run. If you disagree with me there, please say so.

I disagree, you are just making Europe ineffectual when it is already in decline whilst ensuring the most powerful humanitarian nations behind the USA are actually incapable of paying for humanitarian projects abroad whilst they struggle with their own newly-manufactured domestic problems at home.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This was the world population around 1900

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is the world population in the current century

The reason why the UK -> US path works is that the great influx of aid provides a cushion for drought/war induced famine and the evolution into foreign investment creates a self-sustaining, powerful and stable country that provides for its own people. They can turn their large population into power, to master their own destiny. The reason why the Merkel -> Cologne path does not work is because it's just turning Europe into Eurabia to... Well, I'm not sure who it helps really lol, the only countries immigration is making dents in are European ones, it's just a matter of numbers.
Because the illegal immigrants brought to Europe are not going home and their departure does not make a noticeable dent in their home countries' population, it doesn't help their home country. It doesn't help the immigrants themselves unless they like being stuck in a Europe with no money and too many men living under a foreign people's roof with a foreign people's religion and it certainly doesn't help Europeans of today or of tomorrow (but this is the future the Yuros of today chose, and I'm sure they'll be consoled by the levels of enrichment). I'm not even sure if this benefits anyone except German industrialists that much, as for most developed European economies the basis of their economies rely on skilled services workers, not unskilled labourers.

Any minute population reduction within West Africa, Nigeria, Central Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Southern Asia, China and Southeast Asia will be negligible and very quickly replaced by the billions of newborns. Quite frankly if you are not following the UK -> USA pathway all you are doing is guaranteeing that when resources finally dwindle to sufficient scarcity beyond the world population's needs, not only will you not be able to send relief abroad, but you will have condemned your own poor.
One need only look at the humanitarian missions being redirected from Africa to Greece to see how European nations are not immune to starvation or disease.

Therefore, it seems to me that any argument against allowing them in is inherently racist, though I understand and accept that most people don't see it that way.

So tolerant, so progresiv

The trouble is, of course, that the purpose of democracy is that everyone votes for their own benefit rather than that of others, so those without a vote, in this case foreigners, lose out. Arguing that Shariah law is a likely outcome seems to me to be somewhat overstating the impact these refugees will have, as well as probably the inclination of many of them.

Yeah why don't we abolish democracy Mr. Hitler, and while we're at it give votes to foreigners so they can vote for more foreigners to arrive. And then when they start voting for Islamists you can get cheeki breeki about how everything is the fault of them inherent racists :P

[scrdest]

Although really, I find the way European politics seem to be developing rather amusing, considering there was a game/setting where the EU basically split into Germany-side and France-side, with Germany sick of paying taxes to support foreign countries and welfare for people who didn't contribute, while France continued to feel that helping people in poverty and providing aid to those in need was important. Perhaps the backlash will lead us that way, but at the moment, well. Heh.

You have to understand that it is the countries that give the most and are the most open to helping people in poverty and providing aid that are the ones that are left worst off by the crisis. Sweden is already breaking down because it has such an extensive social system and can't support the huge numbers of immigrants it has seen.

And on the other hand, they might be taking them in precisely for the same reason - not even the MUH WELFARE-STEALIN IMMIGRUNTZ, they need to take in taxpayers to pay for the social system it had in the first place for the natives, considering the demographic situation.

What I think has been totally missed is the moral aspect of this. I find it impossible to argue that allowing refugees, or even other migrants, into Europe is going to decrease total human happiness in the world. For a start, the chance of them starving is vastly decreased, and we have no idea whether it's going to be a good or bad thing for "native" Europeans in the long run. If you disagree with me there, please say so.

Therefore, it seems to me that any argument against allowing them in is inherently racist, though I understand and accept that most people don't see it that way. The trouble is, of course, that the purpose of democracy is that everyone votes for their own benefit rather than that of others, so those without a vote, in this case foreigners, lose out.

The only feasible way I see to disagree with this, assuming you agree with my first statement, is to argue that each country should work for only its own citizens. Which works, but I feel that that equates to NIMBYism, which is something I vigorously oppose at least in principle, however complicated that is when it's you who's affected.

Arguing that Shariah law is a likely outcome seems to me to be somewhat overstating the impact these refugees will have, as well as probably the inclination of many of them.

That argument doesn't really work. First, you're basing it upon pure utilitarianism, which has its own issues;

Second, 'them starving' is not the only factor at work; if you're utilitarian, if you excuse the phrasing of the saying, shut up and multiply - couldn't the resources be better used elsewhere for maximizing happiness? couldn't the effects such as criminal issues or racial/cultural tensions, both of which happen to some degree at least already do decrease the total happiness than the alternative would? Etc. etc. I cannot even be bothered to come up with a full list for that kind of analysis, you got the point.

Third, yes, we have no idea if it's going to be a good or bad thing in the long run. So? Double-edged sword. We don't know if it's good or bad, so that's a net zero on for/against.

Fourth - racism card waaaaay premature. People who blanket-accuse who disagree with them of racism are literally Hitler. If anything, the majority of the arguments again is based upon the selfsame appeal to total happiness, the difference is in their analysis. How many people would, in fact,  otherwise likely starve (considering all the fake-Syrians slipping by in the mess)? To what degree the benefits outweigh the violence on both sides of the equation, and to what degree said violence is actually occurring and how much is either overblown or swept under the rug? So on, so forth.

[Loud Whispers]

What I think has been totally missed is the moral aspect of this. I find it impossible to argue that allowing refugees, or even other migrants, into Europe is going to decrease total human happiness in the world. For a start, the chance of them starving is vastly decreased, and we have no idea whether it's going to be a good or bad thing for "native" Europeans in the long run. If you disagree with me there, please say so.

Oh yeah, and I totally forgot to even address the moral aspect in regards to native Europeans, my cultural enrichment is showing:

Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Europe truly diverse would enrich it and bring 'significant cultural contributions', reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.
Advocates of multiculturalism argue that immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence, as well as the bonds of community. This is perfectly reasonable, but if this is the case, why not the same for natives too? If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable? (And if diversity 'enriches' and strengthens, why integrate, since that will only reduce diversity?) All the arguments for multiculturalism—that people feel safer, more comfortable among people of the same group, and that they need their own cultural identity—are arguments against immigration, since European people must also feel the same. If people categorised as "white European" are not afforded that indulgence because they are a majority, do they attain it when they become a minority?

Paraphrased from Wikipedia of all things lel

It's a bad thing for Euros if they stop existing, even worse so if their children are tossed or effed in various degrees literal and metaphorical, and I like the gits even if they're weird and highly prone to certain flavours of pathological altruism. The only good thing to come to Europeans out of this is that immigrant conservatives btfo progressive Europeans, I always enjoy the irony of my ideal UK essentially being a colonial Malaya where a foreign diaspora rule over wealthy cities powered by immigration that try to reduce their demographic impact on the countryside. It is no coincidence I think, that pretty much all the right-wing friends I have are either Semitic, Arab, Indian, southeast-Asian, Sri-Lankan or a Slav,  and I should hope our elite foreign diaspora win out the struggle against the altruist one or the totalitarian one. And God forbid, the totalitarian altruists.

Also this lol

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

IN BERLIN they speak of “Plan B”; in Brussels the fear is of the U-turn. Whatever the term, the prediction is the same: that Angela Merkel is on the brink of reversing the generous policy towards asylum-seekers that saw more than a million of them reach Germany last year. For now, Mrs Merkel sticks to her well-worn line: Wir schaffen das (“We will handle this”). Over the past six months she has slowly assembled a hard-headed, coherent migration strategy. But each of its elements is starting to give way.

First, numbers. The winter weather has dented the refugee flows to Greece from Turkey, but not as quickly as hoped. Over 1,600 a day have reached Greece this month, a higher rate than last July when the crisis was already in full swing. Border controls erected along the migratory route since then complicate the journey, but determined migrants still make it to Germany. Wrong-footed by the explosion in arrivals last autumn Mrs Merkel’s government tightened asylum rules, but few were put off. A growing number of Moroccans and Algerians, hailing from poor but peaceful countries, are coming to Germany, exploiting the trail blazed by Syrians and Afghans. Meanwhile the howls from regional officials who must house and feed the arrivals grow ever louder: last week a mayor bussed 31 Syrians to the federal chancellery in Berlin, saying his small town could no longer cope.

To cut the numbers reaching Europe, Mrs Merkel has turned to realpolitik. German officials aim to strike deals with countries in the Maghreb and Asia to make it easier to return failed asylum-seekers, and are prepared to use development aid as a weapon. Their main hopes, though, lie in an “action plan” the EU cooked up with Turkey in October, which promised money and other prizes in exchange for efforts to stem the migrant flows. Mrs Merkel believes that Turkey can help by disrupting people-smuggling networks and stepping up coastal patrols. But, despite the incentives, there is little sign of Turkish action so far. Without it, the refugee numbers will start to climb again once spring arrives.

To deal with the influx Mrs Merkel has backed an EU plan to register asylum-seekers arriving in Italy and Greece and to relocate them around the club, with national quotas calculated in Brussels. A million asylum-seekers should be no great burden for a union of 500m people. But the relocation scheme has flopped too: many countries want nothing to do with refugees, and refugees have no interest in most countries. So the Germans are changing tack, seeking allies willing to help them resettle hundreds of thousands of Syrians directly from Turkey. France is among the countries prepared to take in the same number of resettled refugees it agreed to take under the relocation scheme. But this will work only if the illegal flows fall dramatically, which means the Turkey deal must kick into gear.

In the meantime, Germany is beginning the difficult work of integrating hundreds of thousands of newcomers. The new-year horrors of Cologne, when hundreds of women were sexually assaulted by marauding groups of men, many of them Muslim asylum-seekers, focused minds on cultural differences. But bringing refugees into the workforce, the main engine of integration, represents at least as big a challenge. The assumption that Germany’s tight labour market was tailor-made for job-hungry migrants has given way to the grim realisation that most are an ill fit for an economy mainly seeking highly skilled workers. The head of one business group reckons almost 80% of refugees have next to no skills at all.

Mrs Merkel is racing against time. Her Christian Democratic Union and its coalition partners are increasingly restive. Cabinet ministers have openly challenged the chancellor’s position. The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party is notching up double-digit polling results for the first time. Refugees languish in supposedly temporary accommodation months after arriving in Germany. Mrs Merkel continues to insist that there can be no cap on the number of refugees Germany accepts, and the constitution agrees with her. But increasingly, reality does not.

Very well, alone

What if nothing works? Despite the pressure Mrs Merkel is unlikely to shut Germany’s borders, because she wants to preserve the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone. But other plans are being drawn up inside the chancellery, including a sealing of the Greece-Macedonia border across which most refugees travel to reach Germany. Once refugees see that Greece has become a dead end, says one German official, they will think twice about setting sail from Turkey. Other routes will no doubt emerge, perhaps across the Black Sea. But the plan might at least buy time.

Such schemes show how far Germany has travelled since its “welcome culture” lifted European liberals’ hearts last summer. Back then Mrs Merkel’s model presented an inspiring alternative to the small-minded xenophobia of leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban. Now, after the chaos and trauma of the past six months, Mr Orban feels vindicated and the chancellor looks increasingly isolated. Germany has tried to lead in Europe, but others will not follow. To Mrs Merkel’s immense frustration, other EU countries agree to policies like relocation and then ignore them. While German officials try to knit together the geopolitics of the crisis, from Iraq to Turkey and Russia, most other countries would prefer it simply to go away. As for the European Commission, which sometimes looks like the chancellor’s last ally, it has gamely advanced common policies but is too weak to enforce them. “The European dream is vanishing,” sighs one of its senior officials.

Mrs Merkel, to her credit, is desperate to keep it alive. But time is running out. Germany has perhaps two months to hope that the jigsaw pieces fall into place before the refugee flows pick up again, and each part of the job gets harder every day. Can Germany still handle this? We will continue to make the case, says a government official. “But nobody believes it.”

So Germany's using development aid as a bargaining tool whilst the UK gives more with less wealth for free and the Progressive media loves one and hates the other D:<

Also top kek at giving Turkish immigrants a fastrack in exchange for reduced asylum and then Erdogan just gives Germany Turkish immigrants and refugees
And poor Orban, even when he's right no one concedes to him he was right, BORBAN ORBAN