• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. What we need on the Tube are 11 year old mentalities looking for places to put their penises because they saw no hair around the edges of a string bikini on scantily clad pubescent.

Well done Mayor.

Whether what you say is true in that in some cases some men may have thoughts about where to put their thingies but it is also censorship. Censorship in one aspect serves as a wedge to widen the scope. The Models are generally in their early 20s and now there are a lot in their 30s and 40s. Naomi Campbell is still going strong at 47.

There is a huge shortage of affordable housing in London which no previous Mayors and Khan have not addressed. Claiming this can be solved by using empty rooms in houses or empty houses will only address part of the problem.

London is hundreds of thousands of houses short with more an more people packing into each living space than we saw in the 1970s.
 
Last edited:
Again, so what? How is a muslim mayor a threat to your society at all? Do you even know what a mayor is or does?
Well his first order or business was to ban bikinis on ads in London tube. He also invited many more of his fellow Muslims to come to UK under the guise of "refugees welcome".

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?
 
Whether what you say is true in that in some cases some men may have thoughts about where to put their thingies but it is also censorship. Censorship in one aspect serves as a wedge to widen the scope. The Models are generally in their early 20s and now there are a lot in their 30s and 40s. Naomi Campbell is still going strong at 47.

For context, this is the ad that was deemed haram by the Muslim mayor.
maxresdefault.jpg


Now, the censorship apologists and Khan apologists will claim that it is not about female form and bikinis but about "body shaming". However, they find nothing wrong with similar ads featuring male models.


P.S.: Here is the halal version of the ad.
Ck0xNs5VAAAVsHO.jpg

100% Sadiq Khan approved.
CGHh_O5WEAEv8ro.jpg

The rest of us be like ...
giphy.gif


- - - Updated - - -

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

There are parts of London where muzzies are already in majority.
 
For context, this is the ad that was deemed haram by the Muslim mayor.
maxresdefault.jpg


Now, the censorship apologists and Khan apologists will claim that it is not about female form and bikinis but about "body shaming". However, they find nothing wrong with similar ads featuring male models.


P.S.: Here is the halal version of the ad.
Ck0xNs5VAAAVsHO.jpg

100% Sadiq Khan approved.
CGHh_O5WEAEv8ro.jpg

The rest of us be like ...
giphy.gif


- - - Updated - - -

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

There are parts of London where muzzies are already in majority.

Derec does your keyboard have epilepsy?
 
Well his first order or business was to ban bikinis on ads in London tube. He also invited many more of his fellow Muslims to come to UK under the guise of "refugees welcome".

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

No one ever bothered about bikini ads were on the London Tube and given the acute housing shortages and lack of NHS facilities in London increasing daily, a ban is bizarre to the point of asininity.
 
For context, this is the ad that was deemed haram by the Muslim mayor.
maxresdefault.jpg


Now, the censorship apologists and Khan apologists will claim that it is not about female form and bikinis but about "body shaming". However, they find nothing wrong with similar ads featuring male models.


P.S.: Here is the halal version of the ad.
Ck0xNs5VAAAVsHO.jpg

100% Sadiq Khan approved.
CGHh_O5WEAEv8ro.jpg

The rest of us be like ...
giphy.gif


- - - Updated - - -

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

There are parts of London where muzzies are already in majority.

With more interest in transgender the ban may be in place because it's harder to hide a penis inside a bikini than it is for the hijabkini. :)
 
Well his first order or business was to ban bikinis on ads in London tube. He also invited many more of his fellow Muslims to come to UK under the guise of "refugees welcome".

And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

In no small way, it's the beginning of the end of western culture. The end of what our forefathers fought and died for . Islamic culture is not compatible with Western democracy and freedom we all take for granted. By the time the pc brigades realise it , it will be too late . Our grand and great grandchildren will ask: "Why didn't this generation stop the islamication of Europe while they could!"
Perhaps then, unlike us, they will curse their forefathers.
 
And this is all supposed to be in support of some greater plan that all muslims have to take over London?

In no small way, it's the beginning of the end of western culture. The end of what our forefathers fought and died for . Islamic culture is not compatible with Western democracy and freedom we all take for granted. By the time the pc brigades realise it , it will be too late . Our grand and great grandchildren will ask: "Why didn't this generation stop the islamication of Europe while they could!"
Perhaps then, unlike us, they will curse their forefathers.

You really should seek professional help. This degree of paranoia is not healthy.

Oh, and by the way, your grandfather and great grandfather, if brought here in a time machine, would be completely horrified by much of the 'culture' that you take for granted as being correct and normal. We know this, because those old people who actually DID come from the early 20th century are constantly bemoaning the collapse of society; And because history tells us exactly how they lived and behaved.

The past was full of hyper-conservative racist pricks who treated women, children, blacks, Jews and anyone else who didn't toe the line as utterly worthless. They used violence thoughtlessly and casually, and were generally fucking awful to each other. And they were even nastier to anyone who was in the slightest way different from their dogmatic view of how things should be. This was what they called 'normal', and they would look at the culture of today as being disgraceful, anarchic, disrespectful and vile - but the reality is that their ideas are just out of date. The past is a different country. And not a very pleasant one, unless you happened to be part of the privileged few.

Fortunately, that 'culture' has largely gone; Unfortunately, vestiges of it remain, and today's conservatives look back at it as a golden age when their inferiors knew their place, and dared not step out of line.

Culture is constantly changing. The only way that multiculturalism could be stopped would be to severely curtail international travel and trade. That would be a disaster, all on its own, even if we were dumb enough to think that multiculturalism was a net 'bad' thing. But as it is in fact a net positive, it would not only be a disaster, it would be a fucking massive disaster.

Europe isn't being Islamified. It has been steadily secularizing for decades, and that trend continues.

You have made it abundantly clear on this thread that you have a massively distorted idea about what the current situation is; Every time you have posted figures, they have been shown to be factually incorrect. You don't have a fucking clue what is happening right now; so your predictions of the future are based on bullshit, and are of less than zero value. Your nostalgia for a time that never existed is leading you to a false belief that the future will be awful. But history tells us that things tend to get better over time; And there is absolutely no reason to think that that trend has slowed, or will reverse any time soon.

Totalitarianism was the ONLY way for thousands of years. It is still very popular. But it is on the wane. Sharia, like fascism and Stalinism, is a trivial minority opinion in the OECD, where extremists, like everyone else, have the right to publish their opinions. That fact alone indicates just how little chance Sharia has of becoming dominant in the OECD. Freedom entails the freedom to oppose freedom; But it creates a society in which such opposition is futile. Right now, the only threat posed by Islam to the west is same as the threat the Jews posed to 1920s Germany - they might provide a convenient scapegoat, who can be used to popularize totalitarian lawmaking, and as an excuse to dismantle the checks and balances intended to keep tyrants out of power.
 
Typically blinkers wearing remarks by Green/lefties.

Demeaning hatred of everything European and Demeaning your ancestors.
 
Did you read that in The Protocols of the Elders of the Caliphate?

Observe: Egypt.
Observe: Turkey.

I don't think those are applicable.

Egypt is almost entirely uneducated Islamist conservatives. They've never known democracy. I don't think they'd vote for moderates, Muslim or otherwise. Their moderates consist entirely of the middle class. I was in Kairo during their historic election. It was noticable that the only who had any money to conduct an election campaign was the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. In their political landscape the Muslim Brotherhood was the more liberal of the two. Our political landscape is completely different. We care more about what they're planning to do with the economy, rather than how many times a day our candidate prays.

Turkey I don't really know enough. I've had it explained to me by Turks. It's really complicated. But as I understand it's an Ottoman legacy. Oppressing somebody seems important to the Turkish national identity. All they've got left now is the Kurds. So they're clinging onto that oppression for dear life. Atatürk's Young Turks was the template for both the Italian Fascists and German Nazi party. They never "de-nazified". Atatürk is still a hero, on their money, and they've got statues everywhere of him. So they still have a lot of fascist-type ideology going on. And this is inbuilt. Now and again somebody plays for power and tries a coup. The generals will then do a counter-coup and re-instate democracy. The generals are seculars. The guy trying to coup is typically also a secular but will play on religious sentiment to gain popular support. This has been going on since 1960.

So the dichotomy is Fascist/secular on one side and Conservative Muslim on the other. Liberalism and progressiveness isn't really on their political map. The most liberal side they have is the fascist side. So not much. But Turkey does have an extremely liberal undercurrent. They've had, more or less, openly gay Hamams in Istanbul since forever. It's only now conservatives are reacting. The Ottoman Caliphate always had a more liberal elite ruling a more conservative population.

In both Egypt and Turkey Muslim candidates are by definition conservative and anti-democratic. Which would defeat the idea that Muslim moderates is a step towards conservative Islam. I think, in the eyes of the conservatives, that moderate Muslims might as well be flying the gay pride flag and walk around in chaps. They've joined the evil secular freedom loving side, and are beyond redemption.

Also, don't forget that conservative Muslims don't want to move to the west. They only come here because they're forced out by wars and conflict. The liberal Muslims, on the other hand, really want to move here. Well... they'd move in greater numbers if the weather was better. So we'll mostly get liberal Muslims to the west. Who are democracy safe.

But what liberal Muslims do have that might annoy us is different views on what is considered freedom. They value stuff like respect for religions and the right to not shake hands with the opposite gender. Stuff they think is really progressive, but which we think is conservative. For contrast I give you western progressive values of the 80'ies which we today don't consider progressive any more. For example, the freedom of hot women to show their tits and any given opportunity. But only the hot girls.

Nah, when Muslims have gone liberal they've joined the "dark"/secular side.
 
Last edited:
You really should seek professional help. This degree of paranoia is not healthy.
It's not paranoia. You are sticking your head in the sand. That is not healthy.

Culture is constantly changing.
Well yes. But that doesn't mean that change in any direction is equivalent. Changing toward a more Islamic culture would be regressive.

The only way that multiculturalism could be stopped would be to severely curtail international travel and trade.
That is not true. Japan participates in international travel and trade, but they are not subscribing to multiculturalism or allowing millions of Muslims to wash up on their shores.

That would be a disaster, all on its own, even if we were dumb enough to think that multiculturalism was a net 'bad' thing.
It is a net bad thing. At least if by multiculturalism you mean what it it normally means. I.e. not expecting immigrants to assimilate and become part of the host country's culture but having many parallel societies exist with their own values and often laws such as Sharia Law.

Europe isn't being Islamified.
Of course it is. It is inevitable when you have millions of Muslims, often from very conservative and religious countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Somalia, flooding into Europe. These migrants then have many children (for example that Afghan family that has 9 children, receives €5k/mo in benefits from Austria, and are demanding free IVF for their 10th child) which further increases Muslim percentage in Europe. And the more Muslims they are, the more politically powerful they will become, and their demands will become more and more brazen.
Already Muslim women in full veil are are common sight in many European cities. Already the Muslim invaders are very triumphalist about taking over Europe. You already have "Sharia Patrols" harassing people in Europe for doing things like drinking alcohol.

It has been steadily secularizing for decades, and that trend continues.
Europeans have been secularizing. But the migrants tend to be very religious Muslims, so they offset the secularization, making Europe overall more religious.

You have made it abundantly clear on this thread that you have a massively distorted idea about what the current situation is;
No, you have a massively distorted idea.

Every time you have posted figures, they have been shown to be factually incorrect.
Like what?

You don't have a fucking clue what is happening right now;
Muslims are flooding into Europe and having many children (subsidized by European taxpayers).

Totalitarianism was the ONLY way for thousands of years. It is still very popular. But it is on the wane.
It is still very popular in the Islamic word.

Sharia, like fascism and Stalinism, is a trivial minority opinion in the OECD, where extremists, like everyone else, have the right to publish their opinions.
Sharia is very popular in countries where most of the Muslim mass migrants come from. 99% of Afghans support Sharia for example. Yet, Europe is allowing millions of practically undeportable Afghans to flood into Europe.
gsi2-overview-1.png


That fact alone indicates just how little chance Sharia has of becoming dominant in the OECD. Freedom entails the freedom to oppose freedom; But it creates a society in which such opposition is futile. Right now, the only threat posed by Islam to the west is same as the threat the Jews posed to 1920s Germany - they might provide a convenient scapegoat, who can be used to popularize totalitarian lawmaking, and as an excuse to dismantle the checks and balances intended to keep tyrants out of power.
Nonsense. Jews in Europe lived there for centuries. German Jews were German, just with Jewish religion. They were not foreign invaders with incompatible world views like for example Sharia-loving Afghan, Somali or Pakistani mass migrants do. Jews in the 1920s also did not increase their population share rapidly both through mass migration and mass breeding). Neither did Jews demand everybody else change how they live their lives.
Muslim protestors demand restaurants and shops stop selling 'evil' alcohol warning them they face 40 lashes if they carry on
I also don't recall Jewish "Talmud patrols" harassing Germans in 1920s Germany.
_87137405_wuppershariapicap.jpg
 
Typically blinkers wearing remarks by Green/lefties.

Demeaning hatred of everything European and Demeaning your ancestors.

Our ancestors are just ordinary people, who didn't know as much as we do - so they made more mistakes. Why glorify them?

The past is a foreign (and underdeveloped, and poor, and ignorant) country. That's not demeaning; it's a very easily observable fact.

Nostalgia is bullshit.
 
What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.
 
What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

There's nothing about being an atheist that requires you to make an enemy of religion.

The Christian right is my enemy because they have goals that are mutually exclusive with mine in terms of social rights and the role of religion in society. You can say the same of Islamist Muslims too I guess, but they demographically make up such a small amount of American society that they aren't worth putting my energy to (Kinda like nazis, huh?:rolleyes:) The Christian right by comparison has the numbers and money needed to do some serious damage to the entire country, nevermind some district in whatever major city.

All clear now?
 
What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

Islam is a stinking pile of shit.

That does not in any way make it reasonable or just to deny migration to people who are at risk in their home countries, just because they happen to be Muslims.

Nobody is migrating to Europe in order to convert the continent to Islam - that's a complete fantasy. Refugees are humans first; if they also happen to be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or any other followers of stupid superstitious crap, that's a matter for robust debate, not a reason to let them die needlessly.

Muslims are not Islam. Christians are not Christianity. As an atheist, I could not care less what fucking stupid shit anyone chooses to believe, as long as he doesn't attempt to impose it on me. A religious person simply moving into my neighbourhood is not a religious impost on my life. And identifying as 'Christian' or 'Muslim' does not make a person a fanatical extremist - most self proclaimed Muslims and Christians are not interested in trying to force others to follow their beliefs (particularly in Europe, where talking about religion is considered slightly rude, and talking to a stranger about religion is a major social faux pas).

British Muslims, like British Christians, are difficult to identify - the only difference (for the vast majority) is that the Christians don't bother going to church on Sunday, while the Muslims don't bother going to mosque on Friday. Europe is, and will remain, secular. It is not under threat from any religion. It may be under threat from tabloid hysteria, but not from religion.
 
What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

{snip}

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

Yes but to be fair, it's not that many and they are not convincing.
 
Observe: Egypt.
Observe: Turkey.

I don't think those are applicable.

Egypt is almost entirely uneducated Islamist conservatives. They've never known democracy. I don't think they'd vote for moderates, Muslim or otherwise. Their moderates consist entirely of the middle class. I was in Kairo during their historic election. It was noticable that the only who had any money to conduct an election campaign was the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. In their political landscape the Muslim Brotherhood was the more liberal of the two. Our political landscape is completely different. We care more about what they're planning to do with the economy, rather than how many times a day our candidate prays.

They voted for someone who portrayed himself as moderate.

Turkey I don't really know enough.

Again, it's the same scenario. The top guy portrayed himself as a moderate and then showed his true stripes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom