Europe submits voluntarily

[LordKiran]

What a load of hogwash. So what you're really saying is that million muslims Merkel allowed to enter Germany will in future really be 4-6 million?

Do you now dispute, on your own statement the figure of over 4- 6 million immigration in to Germany alone?

I don't at all see what that has to do with anything I wrote.

 

[angelo]

Do you now dispute, on your own statement the figure of over 4- 6 million immigration in to Germany alone?

I don't at all see what that has to do with anything I wrote.

What it has got to do with it is that your argument of why most so called refugees are fit and healthy males is using your argument, really means that for every million accepted into EU it really turns out to be 4-6, maybe many more millions flooding the continent with muslims thereby speeding up the process of Europe becoming islamic by far sooner than a century.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't at all see what that has to do with anything I wrote.

What it has got to do with it is that your argument of why most so called refugees are fit and healthy males is using your argument, really means that for every million accepted into EU it really turns out to be 4-6, maybe many more millions flooding the continent with muslims thereby speeding up the process of Europe becoming islamic by far sooner than a century.

All the alt-right posters in this thread are constantly ignoring the difference between migrants and refugees. I get the impression you're all doing it on purpose? It doesn't matter how many fake refugees pose as refugees. If they're not refugees, they won't get to stay. Loads of migrants came here together with genuine refugees. Which was a shame. But doesn't make the real refugees any less refugees.

 

[angelo]

You can almost bet on it that the vast majority of immigrants are not genuine refugees but economic migrants. Genuine refugees seek asylum in the first country of refuge, not shop around for which country has the best welfare.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You can almost bet on it that the vast majority of immigrants are not genuine refugees but economic migrants. Genuine refugees seek asylum in the first country of refuge, not shop around for which country has the best welfare.

So you think that's what they're doing, "shopping around for the best welfare"? If you think that's the reason why they trek to Sweden, you are a buffoon.

Here's the reason to the mess now. What the EU should be doing is, whenever refugees enter into an EU country they should be fairly divided up between the countries. But that's not what is happening. In 1997 the EU negotiated the Amsterdam treaty. Anybody with half a brain understands that the goal of the treaty was to let the Mediterranean countries deal with any refugees and let Germany, France, the UK and Sweden have it easy. Everybody realised back then that Africa and the Middle-East would be the source of any near future refugees. To nobody's surprise the Mediterranean countries are annoyed.

But Sweden and the UK love that it's hard for the refugees to get to their countries, because they'll mostly only get well educated and wealthy refugees who will be great for the economy. Those are the only one's who can afford to dodge the cops that whole way. The Mediterranean countries are of course annoyed they're stuck with the less valuable refugees. They're also annoyed about Sweden wearing a fucking gloria about being so "generous". The UK and Sweden have just been dicks and not respecting the spirit of the EU. Same goes for Germany. No, shit Hungary and Greece are resentful about how they're treated by the rest of Europe. And that's why they treat the refugees who get their so badly.

The refugees who make it to Sweden are here probably because they're the refugees who need welfare the least. They're the refugees most likely to make a good career and be a benefit to Sweden. Which explains why taking in refugees turned out to be such a massive boon during the Balkan wars.

Angelo... stop reading Infowars and Jihadwatch. It's fake news. The shit they're writing isn't reality.

 

[angelo]

Oh okay, and just read The Guardian and New York Times right? Perhaps The greatest PM of the century Winston Churchill warned the West about islam in 1899. The West ignores his warning at their own peril. A member of a political party Paul Weston was once arrested for quoting him. The West is letting itself be led voluntary to it's demise. Anyone can see the trouble when a minority of the followers of the pedophile live in a Western nation, imagine the problems when they reach say, 20- 25 %.of the population
Sharia, coming to a suburb near you, brought to you by the welcoming elites of most political parties.

 

[repoman]

Banks have too much debt and want more people to take it on. The current population can't have enough kids without being broke. Also construction folks want lots more immigrants to justify more buildings. They don't care where they are from.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh okay, and just read The Guardian and New York Times right? Perhaps The greatest PM of the century Winston Churchill warned the West about islam in 1899. The West ignores his warning at their own peril. A member of a political party Paul Weston was once arrested for quoting him. The West is letting itself be led voluntary to it's demise. Anyone can see the trouble when a minority of the followers of the pedophile live in a Western nation, imagine the problems when they reach say, 20- 25 %.of the population
Sharia, coming to a suburb near you, brought to you by the welcoming elites of most political parties.

Winston Churchill was about as racist as Adolph Hitler. His problem with Islam was that it was the religion of brown people who smelled funny

 

[angelo]

Oh okay, and just read The Guardian and New York Times right? Perhaps The greatest PM of the century Winston Churchill warned the West about islam in 1899. The West ignores his warning at their own peril. A member of a political party Paul Weston was once arrested for quoting him. The West is letting itself be led voluntary to it's demise. Anyone can see the trouble when a minority of the followers of the pedophile live in a Western nation, imagine the problems when they reach say, 20- 25 %.of the population
Sharia, coming to a suburb near you, brought to you by the welcoming elites of most political parties.

Winston Churchill was about as racist as Adolph Hitler. His problem with Islam was that it was the religion of brown people who smelled funny

Anyone who is a critic of islam and it's pedophile founder is labeled racist. In some communities it can also lead to death.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Winston Churchill was about as racist as Adolph Hitler. His problem with Islam was that it was the religion of brown people who smelled funny

Anyone who is a critic of islam and it's pedophile founder is labeled racist. In some communities it can also lead to death.

Did you bother to google this before responding? During WW2 there was a famine in India. Here was his published replies "If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?” and “Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.” Millions starved to death. Missmanagement by Churchill killed more people than Pol Pots regime did. How about that for comparison.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, when it was British, they would wipe out entire villages in retaliation for any of them killing whites. Churchill was a white supremacist, and joined in all this quite enthusiastically. Boasted about taking part of what was genocide.

The list of outrageously racist things that Churchill did (and said) is long.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-no-one-should-forget/?utm_term=.3a762d8f0a6e

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you bother to google this before responding? During WW2 there was a famine in India. Here was his published replies "If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?” and “Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.” Millions starved to death. Missmanagement by Churchill killed more people than Pol Pots regime did. How about that for comparison.

Unpleasant as it seems he's right. When the root problem is overbreeding the correct answer to famine is to let them starve. If you provide aid you increase the size of the problem until at some point the aid will no longer be provided--and now you have even more people starving.

You only address famine when it's due to crop failure or other short term disaster.

 

[bilby]

Did you bother to google this before responding? During WW2 there was a famine in India. Here was his published replies "If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?” and “Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.” Millions starved to death. Missmanagement by Churchill killed more people than Pol Pots regime did. How about that for comparison.

Unpleasant as it seems he's right. When the root problem is overbreeding the correct answer to famine is to let them starve. If you provide aid you increase the size of the problem until at some point the aid will no longer be provided--and now you have even more people starving.

You only address famine when it's due to crop failure or other short term disaster.

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

 

[LordKiran]

Unpleasant as it seems he's right. When the root problem is overbreeding the correct answer to famine is to let them starve. If you provide aid you increase the size of the problem until at some point the aid will no longer be provided--and now you have even more people starving.

You only address famine when it's due to crop failure or other short term disaster.

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

Famine is the result of a lack of access to food, not a lack of food in itself

Remember when a racist English pastor once said that the Irish Potato famine was a result of the Irish being too stupid and uneducated to regulate their own numbers and that the famine was just nature taking it's course, and further that any effort to alleviate the famine was defying the natural order?

What.

A.

Scumfuck.

Do you -really- want to be compared to that man, LP?

 

[angelo]

Whatever Churchill may be questioned about, some racism or whatever, on his statement about the death cult of Islam he was 100% spot on, and long before Islamic State was ever heard of! Besides, being proud of Western culture, science and democracy is not a crime, yet!

 

[whichphilosophy]

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

Famine is the result of a lack of access to food, not a lack of food in itself

Remember when a racist English pastor once said that the Irish Potato famine was a result of the Irish being too stupid and uneducated to regulate their own numbers and that the famine was just nature taking it's course, and further that any effort to alleviate the famine was defying the natural order?

What.

A.

Scumfuck.

Do you -really- want to be compared to that man, LP?

There was a lack of potatoes caused by Potato Blight which destroyed the crops. Famine a severe shortage of food, such as crop failure but can also be due to overpopulation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Did you bother to google this before responding? During WW2 there was a famine in India. Here was his published replies "If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?” and “Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.” Millions starved to death. Missmanagement by Churchill killed more people than Pol Pots regime did. How about that for comparison.

Unpleasant as it seems he's right. When the root problem is overbreeding the correct answer to famine is to let them starve. If you provide aid you increase the size of the problem until at some point the aid will no longer be provided--and now you have even more people starving.

You only address famine when it's due to crop failure or other short term disaster.

Hitler, is it you?

It was British mismanagement that led to the starvation to begin with. It was the Brits fault, and responsibility. You're like somebody who strips a lady naked in the streets, mid winter and claims it was her own fault freezing to death, because those old ladies should have known better than to go out in the winter naked.

I suggest you read more about British rule in India. Two words... horrendously racist. India was more industrialized in 1750 than in 1950. And that was the Brits fault.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Whatever Churchill may be questioned about, some racism or whatever, on his statement about the death cult of Islam he was 100% spot on, and long before Islamic State was ever heard of! Besides, being proud of Western culture, science and democracy is not a crime, yet!

He was proud of all that for the wrong reasons. What about "white supremacist" don't you understand? When I said he was about as racist as Hitler I wasn't being flippant. He really was. Which makes him worse because he ruled over a vast empire of brown people... who were horrendously mistreated... because of his racism.

 

[angelo]

Whatever Churchill may be questioned about, some racism or whatever, on his statement about the death cult of Islam he was 100% spot on, and long before Islamic State was ever heard of! Besides, being proud of Western culture, science and democracy is not a crime, yet!

He was proud of all that for the wrong reasons. What about "white supremacist" don't you understand? When I said he was about as racist as Hitler I wasn't being flippant. He really was. Which makes him worse because he ruled over a vast empire of brown people... who were horrendously mistreated... because of his racism.

Comparing Churchill to Hitler is like comparing the warlord, terrorist, paedophile founder of Islam to Jesus Christ!
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

 

[DrZoidberg]

He was proud of all that for the wrong reasons. What about "white supremacist" don't you understand? When I said he was about as racist as Hitler I wasn't being flippant. He really was. Which makes him worse because he ruled over a vast empire of brown people... who were horrendously mistreated... because of his racism.

Comparing Churchill to Hitler is like comparing the warlord, terrorist, paedophile founder of Islam to Jesus Christ!
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

Let's see... Hitler murderd 10 000 000 in concentration camps. Churchill let 3 000 000 starve to death in India. He was a journalist during the Boer war, but didn't think joining the British army would risk people thinking he was biased. As a journalist he sat in a Boer concentration camp, put there by mistake. He then escaped and defended the concentration camps. The camps didn't have enough sanitation, so were in effect death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Boers died in them. What more... he was involved in genocides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He bragged about murdering the natives. In India the British rulers, and Churchill did their best to create animosity between the Muslims and Hindus, to make it easier to rule. That damage is incalculable. Not to mention Africa. When the Brits took over they removed social structures that had evolved over hundreds of years and made them all dependent on a centralized government. Do you think Churchill did anything to help fix that policy? Nope, instead he helped making it even worse.

I'll give you that Hitler tried harder in murdering people. But Churchill was about as vile. At least he wasn't an antisemite. That's always something.

 

[LordKiran]

There has never once been a famine in modern history (ie the last 400 years) that was not caused by political or military interference. 'Overbreeding' has not ever once been the cause of a famine.

In the case of the 1943 Bengal Famine, Wikipedia says:

Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.

The region was densely populated, but it was perfectly capable of avoiding famine before and after, even when population had recovered back above the pre-famine level, with no significant changes in agricultural practices. It was prevented from doing so for political and military reasons - ie it was entirely the fault of the British, who set in place the conditions that caused it to occur, and who refused to take the necessary steps to mitigate those conditions once it became clear that people were starving.

The same is true of every famine - it is always blamed on 'overpopulation'; and a detailed look at the causes finds that population was far from the most important contributing factor, while a look at the aftermath usually finds future populations higher than those at the onset of famine, without any repeat of the disaster despite the only changes being political and military.

The sheer inhumanity of letting people die to bring the population down to a sustainable level would be vile even if it were effective - but in every case where famine has reduced populations, the population has recovered and then exceeded the previous level WITHOUT CAUSING FAMINE.

Famine was sadly common in the first half of the 20th Century; and rare but occasionally severe in the second half. Famine has basically ceased to exist in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, populations have massively increased in all of the areas where famine used to occur.

Every shred of actual data says that the hypothesis that famine is due to high population numbers, high population densities, or rapid population increases is WRONG. But it refuses to die, because it is an excellent excuse for not doing anything about the problem.

People who espouse this excuse are either too badly informed to have an opinion, and should refrain from expressing one; Or are vile scumbags who need a serious attitude adjustment; Or both.

Famine is the result of a lack of access to food, not a lack of food in itself

Remember when a racist English pastor once said that the Irish Potato famine was a result of the Irish being too stupid and uneducated to regulate their own numbers and that the famine was just nature taking it's course, and further that any effort to alleviate the famine was defying the natural order?

What.

A.

Scumfuck.

Do you -really- want to be compared to that man, LP?

There was a lack of potatoes caused by Potato Blight which destroyed the crops. Famine a severe shortage of food, such as crop failure but can also be due to overpopulation.

There was a lack of potatoes=/=There was a lack of food.

The British Empire had plenty of food, it also had plenty of money. They could have resolved the problem caused by crop failure but they didn't. They actively chose to let people (Their own subjects) suffer and die for no reason. So again, the food was there, just nobody wanted to offer it and the few who did were actively halted by the people who wanted the Irish to starve.

Evil. And the fact that you can't see that says much about you btw.