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 harassedAnd then the Police show up to cover everything upAnd 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.
This was the world population around 1900
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