Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/...growing-and-shifting-in-next-few-decades.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/...growing-and-shifting-in-next-few-decades.html

If you can't figure that one out you're an idiot. The west is wealthy and highly secularized. So the dominant religion of the west is dying. Islam is dominant in developing countries. Ie types of economies that are extremely competitive and which, frankly, suck to live in, so religion expands. Obviously they'll overtake Christianity soon. But then when the Muslim world is on par with the west economically, then of course Islam will start to die. I wouldn't be surprised if voodoo eventually overtakes all other religions in size. Africa seems to be the country that struggles the most financially

 

[TSwizzle]

1) The demographic gap becomes static. There's a rule in sociology that states that low income societies have high birth rates and high death rates. As death rates drop, so does birth rates.

Even if the muslim birthrate slows, it will always remain higher than the natives. Particularly so if you insist on importing millions of them.

2) It assumes that Islam won't liberalise and reform.

Teh islam won't reform. Some of its adherents may leave but teh islam is what it is.

3) It assumes that when Muslims from a poor country move to a rich country they will keep all their values and culture.

Take a walk around some of the more "diverse" European cities and see how well the integration is going.

4) The greatest impact on culture is the economy.

Plenty muslim majority countries have good economies. They love to build mosques in Western countries, hospitals, not so much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should have worded it differently perhaps but computer modeling would show the prediction will eventuate.

All those models assume loads of things:

1) The demographic gap becomes static. There's a rule in sociology that states that low income societies have high birth rates and high death rates. As death rates drop, so does birth rates. The Middle-East is in that transition now.

But that transition take a lifetime.

2) It assumes that Islam won't liberalise and reform. I'm sorry, but that's going on right now. WTF do you think ISIS and Al Qaeda is all about? It's the last desperate attempt by a dying breed to assert dominance. Same thing happened in the West regarding Christianity. First in the reformation and then again in the industrialization. Militant Christianity sprung up, and then died. Again... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why would Muslims be any different than Christians?

ISIS and Al Qaeda aren't due to a dying breed, but rather countries and rich individuals pouring money into promoting hardline Islam. Jihadist preachers have quite a following in the Middle East.

3) It assumes that when Muslims from a poor country move to a rich country they will keep all their values and culture. I'm sorry, but that has never happened in the history of mankind. Immigrants always adapt to the country they move to. Again, if Muslims are so fucking unique show some evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course Muslims in the west have and will continue to liberalise. Any other claim is ridiculous.

They aren't doing a very good job of assimilating. They have too many leaders trying to make a rift between them and the rest of the world.

4) The greatest impact on culture is the economy. These models makes assumptions about the future world economy that we do not have any basis for making. The world has never before been as dynamic and hard to predict as now. Transport and warehouse information technology has made retail extremely efficient, and that's a trend that is only going to continue. 3d printing, robotics, machine learning electric cars, solar and wind power... right now, there's just so much in the pipe that any prediction made will be as good as any other. Good luck modelling that.

Basically your whole argument amounts to that they aren't a problem because they'll change before their evil causes too much trouble.

 

[Bomb#20]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/...growing-and-shifting-in-next-few-decades.html

"Changes in this migrant “stock” data over the 2005 to 2010 period are used to estimate migrant “flows,”"
...
"a net inflow of 1 million Muslims is projected to occur in Europe between 2010 and 2015."

I.e., Pew made their projections by completely ignoring the effects of the refugee crisis.

 

[Derec]

If you can't figure that one out you're an idiot. The west is wealthy and highly secularized. So the dominant religion of the west is dying. Islam is dominant in developing countries. Ie types of economies that are extremely competitive and which, frankly, suck to live in, so religion expands. Obviously they'll overtake Christianity soon. But then when the Muslim world is on par with the west economically, then of course Islam will start to die. I wouldn't be surprised if voodoo eventually overtakes all other religions in size. Africa seems to be the country that struggles the most financially

I do not see Islam losing its fanaticism anytime soon.
And they have a huge number of children, which they are using as a demographic weapon to take over other countries. For example the so-called Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar - they are Bangladeshis who illegally settled in Rakhine state of Burma generations ago but whose numbers exploded because they have huge birth rates. Now they are numerous enough (20% in Rakhine State) that they demand their own, Muslim state and are willing to use violence to get it.
Or Albanian Muslims in Kosovo, which used to be Serbian heartland but has been overrun my Albanian Muslim invaders due to their high birth rates and participation in WWII atrocities when they were allied with Hitler. And Bill Clinton was foolish enough to play the air force for Muslim invaders. Which is why Albanians are building statues for both him and his wife. Burma does not want the same thing to happen to them, Muslim invaders slicing off part of their country for thelselves. If Hillary had become president, would she have bombed Burma by now, like her husband did with Serbia?

Palestinians also have huge birth rates, and Yasser Arafat explicitly said that Muslim birth rates are a demographic weapon.

The same thing is going to happen in Western Europe unless people there wake up quickly and smell the Arab-style coffee.

 

[Derec]

1) The demographic gap becomes static. There's a rule in sociology that states that low income societies have high birth rates and high death rates. As death rates drop, so does birth rates. The Middle-East is in that transition now.

That is not true. Take Palestinian areas for example. Some of thel lowest death rates in the entire world (3.50e-3/a for West Bank and 3.10e-3/a for Gaza Strip) but still have huge birth rates, 26.3e-3/a for West Bank and 31.4e-3/a for Gaza Strip. Yes, in Gaza Strip there are ten babies born for every one person who dies. Remember than next time some antisemite tries to convince you there is "genocide" in Gaza!

All predictions I've seen assume that Muslims, uniquely, keep up high birth rates, as if they lived in a high death society. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Put up or shut up.

There have been cases of Muslims using birth rates to overwhelm their neighbors demographically and take over their countries. Albanians in Kosovo just did it. Bengalis in Myanmar (so-called Rohingya) are attempting it as we speak, but the Burmese are fighting back. Palestinians are trying to make their population much greater than the population of Israel, even if it means hardship and poverty because of having to care for all those children.
Take this story for example:

Mohammed Abed is a 28-year-old taxi driver from the village of Qarara, near the town of Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip. He has no teeth.
Lack of medical care and proper dentistry work cost him all of his teeth, which rotted and decayed at a very young age. Yet, his dire financial needs prevented him from acquiring dentures. His community eventually pitched in, collecting the few hundred dollars needed for Mohammed to finally being able to eat.
Mohammed is not unemployed. He works ten hours, sometimes more, every single day. The old taxi he drives between Khan Younis and Gaza City is owned by someone else. Mohammed’s entire daily salary ranges from 20 to 25 shekels, about 6 dollars.
Raising a family with four children with such a meagre income made it impossible for Mohammed to think of such seemingly extraneous expenses, such as fixing his teeth or acquiring dentures.

Four children by 28. So probably 5-7 by the time he is done breeding. And if he had wrapped it up, he'd have had more money to visit a dentist at least once or twice per decade maybe.
Also: he had rotting teeth all his adult life pretty much and yet some woman agreed to have regular sex with him. Palestinian women have really low standards. Lucky bastard!

2) It assumes that Islam won't liberalise and reform.

Not anytime soon, if ever. And by then it will have taken over Europe given current migration and birth rate trends.

I'm sorry, but that's going on right now.

Bullshit. If anything, Islam is getting more extremist, more conservative. And it is certainly triumphalist over the prospects of Islamization of Europe.

WTF do you think ISIS and Al Qaeda is all about?

Islamic terrorism. It is hardly a dying breed, but ideology very attractive to many Muslims. And they have successfully infiltrated Europe with Millions of Muslims, whose population share will only increase. The first step to making Europe Islamic is to increase and keep increasing Muslim population share. Just like happened in Kosovo.

Why would Muslims be any different than Christians?

Because it's 21st century and the Muzzies are behaving like it's 7th. How many more centuries are you willing to grant them?

3) It assumes that when Muslims from a poor country move to a rich country they will keep all their values and culture. I'm sorry, but that has never happened in the history of mankind. Immigrants always adapt to the country they move to.

No they don't. If their numbers are small and they are willing to integrate, then yes. But if their numbers are large (like we have with Muslim mass migration - remember a million Muslims came to Germany alone in 2015 alone!) , and they are not willing to integrate (women wearing burqas, forming Sharia patrols etc.) then they do not adapt. In fact, if their numbers are large enough, they impose their culture onto the people of the land. Mass migration has always been disastrous for the host society. Briton culture did not, for the most part, survive the mass migration of Anglosaxon tribes for example. Why do you think Swedish culture will survive millions of Muslims coming into Sweden and having 5-6 chidlren each?

Again, if Muslims are so fucking unique show some evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course Muslims in the west have and will continue to liberalise. Any other claim is ridiculous.

Where is your evidence that Muslims in the West will liberalize? You only have to drive through Clarkston, GA or walk though the Kroger on N. Decatur and DeKalb Ind. to see how idiotic that hope is. The women wear burqas/niqabs. Men wear "nightgowns" and long beards. They are not adapting. They are not immigrating. They are colonizing. And all the while, they have 5-6 children each generation, in addition to all the new people coming in due to "refugee" resettlement etc.

4) The greatest impact on culture is the economy. These models makes assumptions about the future world economy that we do not have any basis for making. The world has never before been as dynamic and hard to predict as now. Transport and warehouse information technology has made retail extremely efficient, and that's a trend that is only going to continue. 3d printing, robotics, machine learning electric cars, solar and wind power... right now, there's just so much in the pipe that any prediction made will be as good as any other. Good luck modelling that.

I do not see how any of this will have any impact on Muslim expansionism and colonization/Islamization of the West?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even if the muslim birthrate slows, it will always remain higher than the natives. Particularly so if you insist on importing millions of them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All evidence is against you. How about trying to back up your arguments?

2) It assumes that Islam won't liberalise and reform.

Teh islam won't reform. Some of its adherents may leave but teh islam is what it is.

The west is full of gay mosques. If that isn't evidence of liberalisation, I don't know what is. Muslim identified atheists is common in the west. As well as alcohol drinking Muslims. You're so fucking obviously wrong on this it's laughable. You're like somebody standing in the rain maintaining that it's sunny.

3) It assumes that when Muslims from a poor country move to a rich country they will keep all their values and culture.

Take a walk around some of the more "diverse" European cities and see how well the integration is going.

Integration doesn't mean suppressing your own culture, and taking on the new culture. Immigrants typically exaggerate the culture they came from, through symbols and religious ritual. It's a way to feel a sense of security. But in practice they're adapting like hell. Just ask any of them which country they feel the most at home in. It doesn't take long for an immigrant to feel alien to their birth country. Cultural blending and adaption is fast, but never total.

I've managed plenty of cross cultural teams. Due to the fact that Scandinavia has a shortage of IT specialists we have to import them, just to keep our economy going. I've seen this process happen, time and time again.

You're confusing superficial cultural attributes with people's actual behaviour.

You've also time and time again, confused behaviors associated with low status and poverty with Muslim culture. Poor people cause a lot of trouble. This is not news.

4) The greatest impact on culture is the economy.

Plenty muslim majority countries have good economies. They love to build mosques in Western countries, hospitals, not so much.

"The economy" isn't just how much money they have. It's how they make that money. What incentives there are. If getting an education helps your chances on the jobs market, you're going to get an education. If joining the same mosque as the president of Aramco, you might skip an education and become a devout Muslim instead.

People like to hire and work with people they admire. We admire those who have high status. Whatever gets us high status is what people are going to do.

There's a reason the west has to import talent from abroad. In the west high status is being a musician or actor. Science has low status. In India its the other way around. No shit we have to import Indian engineers just to keep the economies afloat.

There's a pattern. You seem to be obsessed by surface impressions. You seem unable or unwilling to ask yourself why things are the way they are.

 

[angelo]

With all the evidence staring DrZ and others in the face they insist islam aint the problem, that " bring in illions more to Europe. What could possibly go wrong!"
Have any of you pc left groupies seen the evidence in Kosovo and now before your very blinkered eyes in Myanmar?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With all the evidence staring DrZ and others in the face they insist islam aint the problem, that " bring in illions more to Europe. What could possibly go wrong!"
Have any of you pc left groupies seen the evidence in Kosovo and now before your very blinkered eyes in Myanmar?

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

 

[bilby]

With all the evidence staring DrZ and others in the face they insist islam aint the problem, that " bring in illions more to Europe. What could possibly go wrong!"
Have any of you pc left groupies seen the evidence in Kosovo and now before your very blinkered eyes in Myanmar?

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

I think you will find that both 'poor people' and 'poorly educated people' are more commonly represented.

I strongly suspect that 'committed nationalists/patriots' are higher up the list than 'Muslims'.

And right at the top would be 'people who have a very strong sense of tribal identity'. Like angelo and Derec are displaying in this thread.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

I think you will find that both 'poor people' and 'poorly educated people' are more commonly represented.

I strongly suspect that 'committed nationalists/patriots' are higher up the list than 'Muslims'.

And right at the top would be 'people who have a very strong sense of tribal identity'. Like angelo and Derec are displaying in this thread.

It's not about race it's about mathematics. Pumping millions of migrants into European countries faster than we can built houses, schools and hospitals is sheer lunacy. While there are racist elements objecting, non-racists who know maths also object. It mainly benefits the smugglers, underground sweatshop operators and some migrants.

The race card is just a politically correct tool to try to censor any debate on this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

I think you will find that both 'poor people' and 'poorly educated people' are more commonly represented.

I strongly suspect that 'committed nationalists/patriots' are higher up the list than 'Muslims'.

And right at the top would be 'people who have a very strong sense of tribal identity'. Like angelo and Derec are displaying in this thread.

I do agree that poor and poorly educated will be overrepresented but that doesn't change the fact that almost all conflicts in the world these days have Islam on at least one side.

 

[angelo]

With all the evidence staring DrZ and others in the face they insist islam aint the problem, that " bring in illions more to Europe. What could possibly go wrong!"
Have any of you pc left groupies seen the evidence in Kosovo and now before your very blinkered eyes in Myanmar?

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

Just now reading in my morning newspaper about an islamic atrocity in Somalia. 189 dead and over 200 injured. A islamic terrorist group called al-Shabab has been blamed by the Somalian government.

 

[bilby]

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

Just now reading in my morning newspaper about an islamic atrocity in Somalia. 189 dead and over 200 injured. A islamic terrorist group called al-Shabab has been blamed by the Somalian government.

99.9% of the population of Somalia are Muslims; It it really not possible for an atrocity, or an act of kindness, or anything else, to be carried out in Somalia other than by Muslims. The victims of this atrocity are presumably Muslims too - there are only about 10,000 non-Muslims in all of Somalia, most of whom practice 'African traditional faiths'; there are also about 1,000 Christians in the entire country.

The Somalian government are Muslims.

Your 'atrocity' is not evidence that Muslims are cunts; It's just evidence that humans are cunts. The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why did your newspaper feel the need to highlight the religion of the attackers, and not that of their victims?'

Until you learn to ask such questions of your preferred news sources, you are always going to be at risk of being manipulated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Simple test. Look at the trouble spots in the world. What groups are involved? Virtually always you'll find Muslims. No other group is so represented.

I think you will find that both 'poor people' and 'poorly educated people' are more commonly represented.

I strongly suspect that 'committed nationalists/patriots' are higher up the list than 'Muslims'.

And right at the top would be 'people who have a very strong sense of tribal identity'. Like angelo and Derec are displaying in this thread.

I know that in Sweden, the main nationalist party, Sweden Democrats, it's representatives have a very high percentage of members with criminal convictions for various petty crimes. Most of the violence. Way way above that of Swedes in general. Muslims are only slightly above for certain crimes. All of which can be explained by a correlation to poverty. Bottom line, there is no evidence that Muslims are any more violent than people in general. I'm not talking about newspaper headlines. I'm talking about statistics.

People are being fed a lie by newspapers. Daily Mail are just lying scumbags.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just now reading in my morning newspaper about an islamic atrocity in Somalia. 189 dead and over 200 injured. A islamic terrorist group called al-Shabab has been blamed by the Somalian government.

99.9% of the population of Somalia are Muslims; It it really not possible for an atrocity, or an act of kindness, or anything else, to be carried out in Somalia other than by Muslims. The victims of this atrocity are presumably Muslims too - there are only about 10,000 non-Muslims in all of Somalia, most of whom practice 'African traditional faiths'; there are also about 1,000 Christians in the entire country.

The Somalian government are Muslims.

Your 'atrocity' is not evidence that Muslims are cunts; It's just evidence that humans are cunts. The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why did your newspaper feel the need to highlight the religion of the attackers, and not that of their victims?'

Until you learn to ask such questions of your preferred news sources, you are always going to be at risk of being manipulated.

Somalia has problems with warlords armed to the teeth, from back when the cold war was alive and kicking. After Russia stopped propping up communist guerrillas these devout atheists suddenly became devout Muslims. It's no coincidence that Somalia fell apart right after the cold war ended. Warlords took over. The Islamists and sharia courts moved into a country desperate for any kind of law and order.

The central government is now in the process of consolidating power and weeding out the warlords. Who basically are big maffia organisations. They've been making loads of cash on piracy. They've been able to afford loads of shiny new weaponry. The central government, on the other hand, has no money that isn't given to them through foreign aid. It's an extremely unstable situation.

Blaming it on Islam is just bizarre. The blame should go to USA and USSR. This is all their fault. Both together.

 

[DrZoidberg]

With all the evidence staring DrZ and others in the face they insist islam aint the problem, that " bring in illions more to Europe. What could possibly go wrong!"
Have any of you pc left groupies seen the evidence in Kosovo and now before your very blinkered eyes in Myanmar?

Then you shouldn't have a problem producing any evidence? This whole thread you've only spouted nonsense. So evidence seems hard to come by for you.

Ehe... Myanmar is ethnic cleansing... AGAINST the Muslim Rohingya. How fucking warped in the head do you need to be to manage to see the victims as perpetrators? There's Rohingya's who won't take it lying down, and are fighting back. These are used by the regime and nationalists to point to Islamic terrorism. It's not. It's just people defending themselves.

It's not the majority population fleeing their homes and living in refugee camps. It's all Rohingya. Have you never wondered why people who, in your head, are safe, should feel the need to flee their homes?

The Rohingya were brought to Myanmar by the British in colonial times. So they're seen as foreigners. This conflict is 100% ethnic. It's got nothing to do with religion.

Similar deal with Kosovo. The Balkans were ruled by the Ottoman empire for half a millennia. A lot of locals converted to Islam, and stayed when the Ottoman's closed shop. They were then often seen as traitors or foreigners. It is and has been a problem. The Yugoslav war was all about this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

99.9% of the population of Somalia are Muslims; It it really not possible for an atrocity, or an act of kindness, or anything else, to be carried out in Somalia other than by Muslims. The victims of this atrocity are presumably Muslims too - there are only about 10,000 non-Muslims in all of Somalia, most of whom practice 'African traditional faiths'; there are also about 1,000 Christians in the entire country.

The Somalian government are Muslims.

Your 'atrocity' is not evidence that Muslims are cunts; It's just evidence that humans are cunts. The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why did your newspaper feel the need to highlight the religion of the attackers, and not that of their victims?'

Until you learn to ask such questions of your preferred news sources, you are always going to be at risk of being manipulated.

Somalia has problems with warlords armed to the teeth, from back when the cold war was alive and kicking. After Russia stopped propping up communist guerrillas these devout atheists suddenly became devout Muslims. It's no coincidence that Somalia fell apart right after the cold war ended. Warlords took over. The Islamists and sharia courts moved into a country desperate for any kind of law and order.

The central government is now in the process of consolidating power and weeding out the warlords. Who basically are big maffia organisations. They've been making loads of cash on piracy. They've been able to afford loads of shiny new weaponry. The central government, on the other hand, has no money that isn't given to them through foreign aid. It's an extremely unstable situation.

Blaming it on Islam is just bizarre. The blame should go to USA and USSR. This is all their fault. Both together.

The USA and USSR simply provided the fire lighters and fireworks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Somalia has problems with warlords armed to the teeth, from back when the cold war was alive and kicking. After Russia stopped propping up communist guerrillas these devout atheists suddenly became devout Muslims. It's no coincidence that Somalia fell apart right after the cold war ended. Warlords took over. The Islamists and sharia courts moved into a country desperate for any kind of law and order.

The central government is now in the process of consolidating power and weeding out the warlords. Who basically are big maffia organisations. They've been making loads of cash on piracy. They've been able to afford loads of shiny new weaponry. The central government, on the other hand, has no money that isn't given to them through foreign aid. It's an extremely unstable situation.

Blaming it on Islam is just bizarre. The blame should go to USA and USSR. This is all their fault. Both together.

The USA and USSR simply provided the fire lighters and fireworks.

That's naive.

In every country there are bandits who'd like to set themselves up as dictators. In every country. The reason that doesn't happen in modern, western countries is because we have institutions to prevent it. If those institutions aren't strong you don't need a lot to destroy it. Both USA picked various groups of bandits and armed them. Neither were the "good guys". USA actively opposed democratisation, because they astutely understood that if poor people are given a vote, they tend to vote socialist. In poor countries almost everybody is poor.