England headed for A Caliphate

[DrZoidberg]

Before Christianity no laws governed kings. They did what they could get away with. Always. Might makes right. Christianity changed that. The powerful needed to behave

Too many examples through time of Christianity being used to justify atrocities for this to be true.

So your argument is, because Christianity didn't magically make all humans into perfect little saints, therefore it didn't change people's behaviour? Is that your argument?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no conspiracy, it's just the base directive of Islam. Anything not under Islamic control should be brought under Islamic control by force.

Oh, gosh, there are an estimated one million Muslims in New York City, where I live, and they have not even attempted to bring the city under Islamaic control by force or otherwise. We do have a Muslim mayor now, which is great, and he also has not tried to convert the city to Islam by force or otherwise.

What it comes down to is you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

You're being a good frog.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would thus expect an automated detection that he was prohibited.

Your expectations are not laws of nature, nor facts about reality.

Why would such a system exist for aircrew? Before this incident, what would have inspired the considerable expense and effort to bring aircrew (who travel internationally daily, often many times a day) into a system designed to manage passengers (who rarely travel internationally even weekly)?

Does that system even exist for passengers travelling to non-US destinations? You assume that everywhere has the same, or at least a very similar, approach to that taken by the US; And that aircrew face the same, or at least a very similar, approach to that taken for passengers. Both assumptions are highly implausible.

In the time since I wrote that we've seen I guessed correctly. Israel caught a prohibited pilot on another flight--the manifest wasn't sent until the plane was in the air. And people blame Israel because the plane had to dump fuel and turn around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Africa isn't the west. But even so, Islam in Africa typically surges in corrupt failed states. The same happened in Afghanistan.

It seems to provide something to the poorest in countries that don't care about poor people.

I don't think the success of Islam in those countries is because of violence. I think its the other way around. The fact that they have some popular support is how they can afford the violence.

Granted there are some special cases in Africa where these militias lost popular support, but kept going anyway. Like Boko Haram. But its generally true, I think.

No, some popular support is not enough to fund the violence. It's outside paymasters.

Look at Afghanistan. First it was the US funding them against Russia. Then it was Pakistan funding them as a way of dealing with internal discontent. Saudi Arabia used to do that, also.

So its not like they're spreading agressively. Its more like is a sticky one way membrane.

All the Iranian-backed insurgencies aren't aggressive spread?

They're mainly attacking other Muslims. How does that work in your theory?

The Muslim hatred of Israel seems purely to be that Israel was once Islamic and if Muslims ever called dibs it should Muslim for ever. Or something as inane as that.

The internal divide on Islam is as bad as what's directed outward.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These are not mariners in distress, these are people that intentionally marooned themselves at sea.

So you keep baselessly asserting.

Which do you see as plausible:

Assylum seekers attempt to cross the Channel with the intent of landing on the English coast, but due to incompetence, lack of preparation, and their use of unseaworthy vessels, they get into trouble and need rescuing; Or

Assylum seekers attempt to cross the Channel with the intent of sinking part-way, hoping to force the RNLI, who they hope will notice their distress and be able to act, to rescue them before they drown?

Do you really think it is reasonable to assume that people deliberately try to kill themselves in the hope that getting rescued will a) happen, and b) save them the effort of rowing the last few miles?

It's an absurd idea that arises only from your crazy belief that these people are evil incarnate.

Asylum seekers in vessels towed out to sea so they can claim to be in peril and rescued.

They are not intending to kill themselves, it's coordinated with the rescuers.

And I don't believe they are evil incarnate. Most are fine. The problem is when Islam and the west come into conflict they'll side with Islam.

I don't know how much you follow what's going on in the US, but consider the MAGAs. Same basic problem: most are not evil themselves, but will choose their tribe, not being willing to believe it to be doing evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All the Iranian-backed insurgencies aren't aggressive spread?

If they are, they are doing a shithouse job of it. How many other Islamic Republics have the Shiites managed to establish?

It's not whether they have official control.

Rather, it's like Lebanon. Hezbollah is powerful enough in Lebanon that the government will not take action against them.

 

[laughing dog]

There's no conspiracy, it's just the base directive of Islam. Anything not under Islamic control should be brought under Islamic control by force.

Oh, gosh, there are an estimated one million Muslims in New York City, where I live, and they have not even attempted to bring the city under Islamaic control by force or otherwise. We do have a Muslim mayor now, which is great, and he also has not tried to convert the city to Islam by force or otherwise.

What it comes down to is you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

You're being a good frog.

Wow. I've seen estimates that about 30% of Nevada's population are white christian nationalists. Are you being a good frog as well?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

79% think there's been too much unauthorized migration. Who'da thunk?

{{{raises hand}}}
Everybody needs to just sit down right where they are, and STFU.
Except billionaires. Billionaires can flit about, hither and yon, and nary an eyebrow is raised. As it should be. Just ask one.

Of course. Try doing a bit of international travel and you'll see how it works.

To get into a country they generally expect that:

1) You will not act hostile to their interests.
2) You will be of economic benefit, not of cost.

For most people #2 is the primary factor.

A billionaire will spend money. A refugee will cost money. Who do you think is more welcome?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A really old friend proposed to me that every few years, everyone randomly has to “switch wallets” - all worldly possessions.
Sounds absurd on the face of it, but thinking through the motivational sets it would encourage, it’s not a bad idea.
That guy is not a billionaire, but he has cars worth millions…

You mean motivating everyone who can to emigrate, and motivating everyone who can't emigrate to consume everything he produces before it's confiscated?

You forget - you might get Me-Lon’s trillions! Don’t wanna take your ticket out of the hat, do you?
No.
But that’s the least of it. Once you have the trillions, then what? Eat nonstop until you burst? No, the idea is that it forces the individual to work on their own inherent value, rather than to fritter away a lifetime in an attempt to pile up a fortress of toys to defend against any effort to make them have to do anything they don’t wanna do.
Redefining wealth as an internal thing, in a way.

So retirement isn't possible?

Your system basically enforces living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you do it that way but you shouldn't force everyone else to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quickly skimming a list of 500 popular surnames from 1991, I observe hardly any at all Muslim surnames other than the ones present in the top 10 here (and mentioned in the article). So, I strongly suspect that around 98% to 99% of the remaining popular top 500 surnames are traditional English.

I'm going to guess it's a matter of distribution. A culture which concentrates on fewer names will get those names ranked higher.

 

[Elixir]

Who do you think is more welcome?

Indeed. Thing is, that’s the wrong question. It’s shortsighted.
Who will have the better long term effect, is a better question.
Is an urgent need of the billionaire class to have plenty of people on the edge of starvation, desperate to serve them for a crust.

 

[Elixir]

A really old friend proposed to me that every few years, everyone randomly has to “switch wallets” - all worldly possessions.
Sounds absurd on the face of it, but thinking through the motivational sets it would encourage, it’s not a bad idea.
That guy is not a billionaire, but he has cars worth millions…

You mean motivating everyone who can to emigrate, and motivating everyone who can't emigrate to consume everything he produces before it's confiscated?

You forget - you might get Me-Lon’s trillions! Don’t wanna take your ticket out of the hat, do you?
No.
But that’s the least of it. Once you have the trillions, then what? Eat nonstop until you burst? No, the idea is that it forces the individual to work on their own inherent value, rather than to fritter away a lifetime in an attempt to pile up a fortress of toys to defend against any effort to make them have to do anything they don’t wanna do.
Redefining wealth as an internal thing, in a way.

So retirement isn't possible?

Your system basically enforces living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you do it that way but you shouldn't force everyone else to.

Nope. The total amount of wealth isn’t changing. A social safety net would still be possible. An eventual societal sea change could result in giving a fuck about the other guy.
There are many other interesting side effects one can ponder from this BLATANTLY, OBVIOUSLY, IMPOSSIBLE FANTASY proposition.

 

[Bomb#20]

So retirement isn't possible?

Your system basically enforces living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you do it that way but you shouldn't force everyone else to.

Nope. The total amount of wealth isn’t changing. A social safety net would still be possible. ...

When you eliminate the incentive to create wealth while turning the incentive to consume it up to eleven, the total amount of wealth isn’t changing. Right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When immigrants move to a new country they typically want to blend in. The fact that an immigrant parents don't pick names from the new countries culture is weird imho. Its a statement. We can discuss what statement that is. But its weird.

I have an Iranian friend who moved to Denmark as an adult. He changed his first name to an ethnic Danish one. Just to make his life easier. Both his kids have Danish names (born in Denmark. I don't understand why any immigrant wouldn't behave like this. He put lots of effort into learning Danish to speak fluently. Its just the smart thing to do.

I'm also an immigrant to Denmark. I've also put a lot of effort in being able to blend in. Its normal if you're an immigrant. Its super weird not to imho. Its just dumb

I see two distinct groupings amongst the immigrants I know.

One group has family that speaks their language. Of this group I know nobody who functions well in English. The other group has nobody in the household who speaks their language. Of this group all I know can function in English, although not always to a high degree.

 

[Elixir]

So retirement isn't possible?

Your system basically enforces living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you do it that way but you shouldn't force everyone else to.

Nope. The total amount of wealth isn’t changing. A social safety net would still be possible. ...

When you eliminate the incentive to create wealth while turning the incentive to consume it up to eleven, the total amount of wealth isn’t changing. Right.

Initial state only.
Obviously “things are gonna change” but not from a single binary choice of material incentives. Nor would any trend necessarily be terminal.
But if so it would be interesting to see the point at which it stabilized. Neolithic tribes? Total surviving human population at min sustainable levels? HSS extinction?
I don’t see how the experiment could set us back more than a couple hundred millennia*, even if rigorously enforced the whole time.

* not that there’s anything wrong with that

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You couldn't make it up

An Islamic terrorist who belonged to Al-Qaeda and later Isis has been spotted shopping at King Charles’ local Co-op. Mohammed Yaseen was free to walk the streets near Windsor Castle after he was allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds. Yaseen was part of the Al Qaeda group that beheaded Briton Ken Bigley before joining a unit in Isis that carried out stonings, beheadings and mass executions. He was released from prison last week after serving just six months of a two-year sentence for illegally entering the country on a small boat, following a near five-year prison term in Germany for his Isis membership. Despite a court hearing that he ‘posed a danger to the whole of the UK’, Yaseen cannot be deported because he has applied to stay in the country. The Foreign Office has raised concerns he could face ‘mistreatment’ if he were returned to Iraq because of his terrorist past. A source at the Ministry of Justice said he was taken back to prison as he had apparently breached his ‘good behaviour’ requirement at the bail hostel.

News

Yeah, we mess this up badly. Before refusing to deport someone because of fear of "mistreatment" consider why that came about. It's not automatically wrong to deport someone to a country that wants to punish them.

 

[Elixir]

Israel caught a prohibited pilot on another flight

Prohibited because he was Indonesian. Not profiled or any reason to think he was a danger, just prohibited by Israel’s xenophobic flight restrictions.
I don’t blame them. I’d never get on a plane if I knew the pilot was Indofuckingnesian.
How about you, Loren?

 

[Elixir]

You couldn't make it up

An Islamic terrorist who belonged to Al-Qaeda and later Isis has been spotted shopping at King Charles’ local Co-op. Mohammed Yaseen was free to walk the streets near Windsor Castle after he was allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds. Yaseen was part of the Al Qaeda group that beheaded Briton Ken Bigley before joining a unit in Isis that carried out stonings, beheadings and mass executions. He was released from prison last week after serving just six months of a two-year sentence for illegally entering the country on a small boat, following a near five-year prison term in Germany for his Isis membership. Despite a court hearing that he ‘posed a danger to the whole of the UK’, Yaseen cannot be deported because he has applied to stay in the country. The Foreign Office has raised concerns he could face ‘mistreatment’ if he were returned to Iraq because of his terrorist past. A source at the Ministry of Justice said he was taken back to prison as he had apparently breached his ‘good behaviour’ requirement at the bail hostel.

News

Yeah, we mess this up badly. Before refusing to deport someone because of fear of "mistreatment" consider why that came about. It's not automatically wrong to deport someone to a country that wants to punish them.

Ooooh I know someone who needs deported to Iraq!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're being a good frog.

Wow. I've seen estimates that about 30% of Nevada's population are white christian nationalists. Are you being a good frog as well?

No, I don't go along with them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who do you think is more welcome?

Indeed. Thing is, that’s the wrong question. It’s shortsighted.
Who will have the better long term effect, is a better question.
Is an urgent need of the billionaire class to have plenty of people on the edge of starvation, desperate to serve them for a crust.

That is not remotely the same question. While you could argue that the existence of billionaires is bad (to an extent it is, but prohibiting them is worse) but that has nothing to do with crossing borders.