Europe submits voluntarily

[ZiprHead]

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?

According to Wikipedia, 69.1% of people in Greater London identify as either Christian or No Religion. Just 12.4% identify as Muslim. So regardless of what I, you, or anyone else 'thinks', the actual make up of his base must be predominantly Christian and/or atheist. 12.4% of the population is about a quarter of the numbers he needs to be elected, even if they voted as a bloc - which they don't.

Amazing how much these people have to exaggerate or outright lie to make their case. Maybe it's because if they told the truth there would be no case.

 

[Jokodo]

When the two become similar, that's a problem.
Note that Sadiq Khan had nothing against this Protein World ad ...

... but only this one.

But of course that inconsistency is inherent in both Islam and radical feminism, so it's difficult to tell what Khan is following here, if not both.

One of them effectively tells people that they should stay off the beach unless they look like the person depicted in the ad, the other one doesn't.

Maybe you should make sure not to make apples and oranges comparisons before whining about "inconsistency".

But London has a very significant - and rapidly growing - Muslim population. Most of them are followers of Labour because Labour is so islamophilic.

Many of them aren't allowed to vote. Many of those who are still don't - and the more extremist someone is, the more likely they are to abstain, given how certain brands of extremist religion consider the secular state a farce they don't intend to uphold. Many of those who vote vote for parties other than Labour. It would be suicidal for any Londonian Labour politician (whether he himself is Muslim or not) to push a controversial measure only the Muslim part of his base want.

 

[angelo]

Demanding that Muslims denounce various extreme forms of Islam is dumb. I know it's common among the racist community to demand this, and they seem to think it makes perfect sense. But just think about it. When was the last time you publicly denounced KKK, the Nazis, the Crusades, Jehovas Witnesses, the inquisition, Joseph Kony and so on.

While Muslims have a Muslim identity, they don't represent anybody but themselves. They have no reason to denounce any Muslim they disagree with. They might do it anyway. But to demand they do it on cue is rediculous. He refused to play those journalists game, and he did the exact right thing IMHO.

How about starting with the assumption that a random Muslim will very likely disaprove of any strain of extremism, from any side and in any way? Then ask yourself, do I think that there's a small sliver of a chance that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah? Since, that's a no. Then why bother demanding that he denounce them? If you think he does anyway, I'd call you delusional.

On that topic, mosques and various Islamic advocacy groups around the world regularly go out and denounce terrorism. All the major ones condemn every single one, each time any act of violence is committed in the name of Allah. Just to shut up people like you. That doesn't prevent this rediculous demand to keep cropping up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats

How about thinking before you type next time? Is that too much to ask?

This Muslim Mayor actually called these " moderate " muzzies, [ remember no less a figure than the Turkish PM/President/Caliph and whatever titles he bestows upon himself Erdogan is on record as saying there'
s no extreme, or moderate muslims. Islam is one! ] himself called these " moderates" as uncle Toms.

No, he didn't. It was perhaps not the smartest choice of words. But it's clear what he meant IMHO. You're so full of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0

How about focusing on what he's actually saying rather than possible alternative interpretations? We really don't need more snowflakes in the world.

I'm guessing you can't find the source to where he supports Hammas and Hezbollah?

And just to make it clear on the level of the outrage here. The thing that he got into most trouble for was saying that Hitler was a Zionist. Erm.... Hitler was certainly a supporter of the zionist movement. Which any thinking human would understand is what he meant. Getting upset about that is retarded IMHO.

I think Sadiq Khan, so far, looks like the whitest uncle Tom Muslim in history. The most castrated form of religion we'll ever get. I don't see the problem here?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/uk-p...an-on-hezbollah-terror-group/991002941013541/

 

[angelo]

https://www.quora.com/How-many-mayors-in-England-are-Muslim

How many will there be in say, 50 years! This just in the UK. The horse has truly already bolted, and even if all leftist politicians are eventually ousted, islam and with it sharia will dominate in 22 century Europe where Westerners will be a minority.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?

I hope this destroyed your illusions about seeing yourself as a reasonable person

 

[Derec]

One of them effectively tells people that they should stay off the beach unless they look like the person depicted in the ad, the other one doesn't.
Maybe you should make sure not to make apples and oranges comparisons before whining about "inconsistency".

Nonsense. The stated reason why the ad was banned was not the "Are you beach body ready?" slogan but the image of the fit-looking woman in a bikini. By the way that inconsistency and gender double standard is consistent with both how the feminist left treats so-called "sexist" ads in general (they care about sexualized women but not men) but it is also consistent with how Muslims view the uncovered human form.

Many of them aren't allowed to vote.

Other than new arrivals, most British Muslims are citizens, aren't they?

Many of those who are still don't - and the more extremist someone is, the more likely they are to abstain, given how certain brands of extremist religion consider the secular state a farce they don't intend to uphold.

[Citation needed]

Many of those who vote vote for parties other than Labour.

Do they? I would very much like to see the breakdown by party. I would guess at least 75% Labour since they are so islamophilic these days.

It would be suicidal for any Londonian Labour politician (whether he himself is Muslim or not) to push a controversial measure only the Muslim part of his base want.

Not really. Even non-Muslims in the Labour base tend to be islamophilic. The Labpur base has moved sharply to the regressive left, as can be seen from the election of Comrade Jezza, friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, as Labour leader and shadow PM.

- - - Updated - - -

[I hope this destroyed your illusions about seeing yourself as a reasonable person

Many parts of London are already Londonistan, by which I mean large unassimilated Muslim presence (women in burqas/niqabs or at least hijabs, men in pajamas and long beards and white hats) that make these neighborhoods look more like Islamabad or Kabul than London from a few decades ago.

 

[Derec]

According to Wikipedia, 69.1% of people in Greater London identify as either Christian or No Religion. Just 12.4% identify as Muslim. So regardless of what I, you, or anyone else 'thinks', the actual make up of his base must be predominantly Christian and/or atheist. 12.4% of the population is about a quarter of the numbers he needs to be elected, even if they voted as a bloc - which they don't.

Also, according to Wikipedia:
1. Muslim population of London went from 8.5% to 12.4% between 2001 and 2011. That means that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, ~50% in ten years, due both to mass migration and mass breeding. Now the Muslim population is most likely >15%.
2. Muslims are not evenly distributed in London and there are areas that are already majority Muslim.

 

[Trausti]

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?

Istanbul was once Constantinople

 

[repoman]

I don't get the cognitive dissonance of this often repeated cycle:

1.) "It's not happening"
2.) "It doesn't matter anyway" (or "why do you even care?!?") once it is shown that it is probably going to happen.

This happens for many topics such as global warming, this case it is concerning Islam.

There has to be a name for this bad faith argumentation.

 

[Jokodo]

Nonsense. The stated reason why the ad was banned was not the "Are you beach body ready?" slogan but the image of the fit-looking woman in a bikini. (...)

Citation needed.

Every source I saw (with any semblance of providing actual quotes by real people involved in the decision, stuff that went through 3+ cycles of being half-digested and regurgitated by biased third parties doesn't count) indicates that it was exactly the slogan that was seen as problematic. You can disagree with that assessment all you like, but if you have to twist reality to make your case, chances are you don't have one.

Other than new arrivals, most British Muslims are citizens, aren't they?

And in the very next post, you (yes, you, Derec) are claiming that the Muslim population is growing "rapidly" in part due to "mass migration". If that is true, the "new arrivals" should be a significant proportion of London's Muslims. And if they furthermore are engaging in, as you call it, "mass breeding", that too implies that a very high proportion (much higher than among the general population) is below voting age.

Your claims let us derive that the proportion of Muslims among potential voters should be half or less the proportion of Muslims among the general population. I'm not even claiming that the difference is that pronounced, but if you think there's none, you'll have to take it up with yourself first.

Many of those

who are still don't - and the more extremist someone is, the more likely they are to abstain, given how certain brands of extremist religion consider the secular state a farce they don't intend to uphold.

[Citation needed]

Seriously, you want a citation for people with minority background and/or poorer-than-average socio-economic standing to be less invested in politics? Next thing you'll want a citation for the sky being blue...

"Ethnic minorities are less likely to be included on the electoral register
than white British people. Academics Anthony Heath et al found that
non-registration was higher among ethnic minorities: 25% of first
generation and 20% of second generation ethnic minorities who were
eligible to register to vote had not done so, compared to 10% of the
white British population" -- http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7501/CBP-7501.pdf

Similarly in Germany:
"It is not the naked socio-economic data and situations that produce voter abstinence. Rather, in daily co-existence amongst unemployed and low-wage workers and immigrants and those who do not have the right to vote in city neighbourhoods with little public investment and neglected infrastructure, it arises from the way in which people in families, neighbourhoods, city areas, and milieus communicate with each other about these situations. The effect of co-habitation in such residential neighbourhoods doubles the social decoupling. Non-voting here is not individual behaviour but an at least implicitly collective activity" -- https://www.transform-network.net/e...ehaviour-and-the-weakness-of-left-approaches/

Although ethnicity is mostly just a proxy for low income here which is what really keeps people disengaged:
"The higher the educational level, income, or social status, the more likely voter participation becomes. In the 2013 Bundestag election, 39% of non-voters came from the lowest income quintile with another 23% located in the fourth quintile, which means 62% from the lowest two income quintiles. On the other hand, only 19% of non-voters were located in the upper two income quintiles." (same source as above)


Or do you want a citation for "extremists tend to reject the secular state"? Isn't that exactly what you've been claiming all along?

Many of those who vote vote for parties other than Labour.

Do they? I would very much like to see the breakdown by party. I would guess at least 75% Labour since they are so islamophilic these days.

"At the 2010 election, only 16% of ethnic minority voters supported the Conservatives. More than two thirds voted Labour. Not being white was the single best predictor that somebody would not vote Conservative", although on the other hand, only 35% of Muslims said they would never vote for the Conservatives, as did 32% of Christians (19% and 23% for Christians). -- https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/04/ethnic-minority-voters-and-the-conservative-party-2/

It would be suicidal for any Londonian Labour politician (whether he himself is Muslim or not) to push a controversial measure only the Muslim part of his base want.

Not really. Even non-Muslims in the Labour base tend to be islamophilic. The Labpur base has moved sharply to the regressive left, as can be seen from the election of Comrade Jezza, friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, as Labour leader and shadow PM.

More baseless assertions. What else is new?

 

[Jokodo]

I don't get the cognitive dissonance of this often repeated cycle:

1.) "It's not happening"
2.) "It doesn't matter anyway" (or "why do you even care?!?") once it is shown that it is probably going to happen.

It never has, that's the whole point.

In Austria, homosexuality was decriminalised in 1971, when there were 0.3% Muslims - but not without leaving some residual legal discrimination in place, such as having a higher age of consent for same-sex relations. That was only slashed from the books when there were over 4% Muslims, and we had to wait till there were over 7% Muslims before the ban against adoption by same-sex couples was lifted.

Or: When the number of Muslims was approaching 1%, marriage was (for the most part) redefined as a partnership between two equals (it had been anything but until then, including giving the husband the power to prohibit his wife from working), but only when the number had reached 2% was the legal discrimination of extra-marital children slashed and the last gender-exclusive public school( type)s were ended, and a little later, gender-exclusive school subjects were given up (such as "Werken" for Knaben vs. "Handarbeit" for Mädchen). And only when there were 4% Muslims was child-rearing defined as the shared responsibility of both parents.

You can also look at it spatially rather then temporally: The only state where all-day child care is widely available is the capital area of Vienna, with the highest number of Muslims by far. Elsewhere, many women are de facto forced to work part time despite what the law has been saying since 1975. On the other hand, the subnational territorial unit with the lowest percentage of Muslims, Carinthia, is known, among other things, for banning dance events on certain holidays (good Friday, and a few others), because apparently it hurts the fragile feelings of believers when other people are merry while they mourn. Similarly in Britain, where Northern Ireland has less than 1/10 the Muslims of England and more than 10 times the religiously motivated laws. Regressive mores and religion-based laws are, within Austria and Europe more broadly, indeed correlated with homogenous populations much more than with the number of Muslims.

(The historical numbers used above are from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Austria. They're almost certainly somewhat exaggerated, probably by counting everyone with a Muslim family background, thus essentially everyone with a Turkish or Bosnian surname, automatically as Muslim no matter what he or may not profess.)

 

[Jokodo]

According to Wikipedia, 69.1% of people in Greater London identify as either Christian or No Religion. Just 12.4% identify as Muslim. So regardless of what I, you, or anyone else 'thinks', the actual make up of his base must be predominantly Christian and/or atheist. 12.4% of the population is about a quarter of the numbers he needs to be elected, even if they voted as a bloc - which they don't.

Also, according to Wikipedia:
1. Muslim population of London went from 8.5% to 12.4% between 2001 and 2011. That means that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, ~50% in ten years, due both to mass migration and mass breeding. Now the Muslim population is most likely >15%.
2. Muslims are not evenly distributed in London and there are areas that are already majority Muslim.

There are also areas with Jewish majority.

Both of these are fairly random facts that do nothing to explain who controls London, Britain, or the world.

 

[Jokodo]

Here's another link re: "is it actually true that Muslim citizens of the UK are more likely to abstain from voting than the general population?"

"The problem for Labour is that the people most likely to support Labour are also the least likely to vote. Only 32 per cent of Muslims are 'absolutely certain' to vote, compared with 47 per cent of the population as a whole." -- https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/most-uk-muslims-will-vote-labour-1.562656 (This is from 2010, so of course not pertaining specifically to the mayoral elections but to then's general elections, but bad habits die hard.)

So to whoever claims that Sadiq Khan was elected by Muslims for Muslims. No, just nope. He had a 9% lead in the first round and an almost 14% lead in the second round, the only one that's really relevant. There may have been 14% Muslims in London at the time of the election (probably somewhat less), but a disproportionate number of those are non-citizens or minors, so among eligible voters, the number is probably around 10% or less. Turnout was low in general at 45%, but we have plenty of evidence that turnout among minorities, including Muslims, is consistently lower than among the population in general. Even if this effect was somewhat mitigated by the prospect of electing a Muslim, this means that Muslims were almost certainly only about 8-9% or less of actual voters, at the best of times. Of these, a clear majority but by no means all voted for Sadiq Khan.

A fair estimate would thus be that about 5-7% of votes cast where votes cast by Muslims for Sadiq Khan. He would have won with a very convenient margin without a single one of those. He cannot, on the other hand, afford to estrange even just a quarter of his non-Muslim voters if he wants to have a chance at re-election.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of them effectively tells people that they should stay off the beach unless they look like the person depicted in the ad, the other one doesn't.

Maybe you should make sure not to make apples and oranges comparisons before whining about "inconsistency".

Disagree. Both ads are saying "you should look like this when going to the beach".

 

[TSwizzle]

I guess he is leaving that to his boss Comrade Jezza.

New Labour;

A Labour MP suspended two years ago in a row over anti-Semitism has been made a shadow equalities minister. Naz Shah lost the parliamentary whip and was barred from party activity for three months in 2016 while an investigation was carried out. It followed social media messages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which she conceded were anti-Semitic. She admitted she was "ignorant" about discrimination against Jews and wanted to win back the community's trust.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn made the Bradford West MP shadow minister for women and equalities as he announced other appointments to fill vacancies or maternity cover in his frontbench team.

BBC

Who better to be the jew baiting Labour Party shadow equalities minister than a rabid anti-semite ?

 

[Jokodo]

One of them effectively tells people that they should stay off the beach unless they look like the person depicted in the ad, the other one doesn't.

Maybe you should make sure not to make apples and oranges comparisons before whining about "inconsistency".

Disagree. Both ads are saying "you should look like this when going to the beach".

To someone who can read, one of them is saying "See how good I look? You can look the same!", the other one is saying "See how good I look? You gotta look the same if you want to show yourself on the beach!"

 

[TSwizzle]

Europe or bust;

Migrants have threatened to kill the coast guard crews that rescued them if they take them back to Libya. The Italian coast guard ship - the Diciotti - carrying the migrants docked in Sicily earlier this week. But has since been refused permission to disembark its 67 passengers after two of them were accused of threatening their rescuers.

DailyMail

Danke Merkel !

 

[bilby]

According to Wikipedia, 69.1% of people in Greater London identify as either Christian or No Religion. Just 12.4% identify as Muslim. So regardless of what I, you, or anyone else 'thinks', the actual make up of his base must be predominantly Christian and/or atheist. 12.4% of the population is about a quarter of the numbers he needs to be elected, even if they voted as a bloc - which they don't.

Also, according to Wikipedia:
1. Muslim population of London went from 8.5% to 12.4% between 2001 and 2011. That means that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, ~50% in ten years, due both to mass migration and mass breeding. Now the Muslim population is most likely >15%.
2. Muslims are not evenly distributed in London and there are areas that are already majority Muslim.

I know this. I do not know why you think it is important or concerning in any way. If you divide any territory finely enough, you will find some subdivisions that have a majority of 'X', for any 'X' that exists in the population.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?

Istanbul was once Constantinople

That's nobody's business but the Turks'

 

[bilby]

I don't get the cognitive dissonance of this often repeated cycle:

1.) "It's not happening"
2.) "It doesn't matter anyway" (or "why do you even care?!?") once it is shown that it is probably going to happen.

This happens for many topics such as global warming, this case it is concerning Islam.

There has to be a name for this bad faith argumentation.

You are mistaken. The arguments with regard to this topic are:

1.) "It's not happening"
2.) "It wouldn't matter anyway" (or "why would you even care?!?") as it would be irrelevant to our lives even if it could happen, which it can't.

The UK was a de facto theocracy in the past; Then the public became steadily better educated until it reached a tipping point and became an almost entirely secular nation. This was not something that the established church embraced or desired; but despite starting with an overwhelming majority of support, their theocratic agenda could not be sustained. And now you are suggesting that trickling in a few percent of theocrats from elsewhere would be sufficient to change that? It's absurd. What actually happens is the opposite - the theists who move to western Europe become secularized, apart from a tiny handful of fundamentalists (you find these in the indigenous Christian population too) who become violently deranged by the secularisation of their peers.

At the end of the day, most English people describe themselves as 'Christian' but don't go to church, or pray, or even think about religion (apart perhaps from at Christmas, Easter, weddings and funerals). The small fraction of English people who instead describe themselves as 'Muslim' but don't go to mosque, or pray, or even think about religion (apart perhaps from at Ramadan and for weddings and funerals) have the exact same influence on the lives of the rest of their countrymen. There are ~60 million strangers who live in the country, sometimes vote in elections, write letters to the local paper, and do all the other things that strangers do. They don't care about you, and you needn't care about them. It changes your life not one iota if they shop at your supermarkets, drink in your pubs, or drive on your highways while calling themselves 'Muslims' rather than doing those same things while calling themselves 'Christians' or 'atheists'.

The number of immigrants coming into Western Europe is not particularly large, and is certainly not sufficiently large to force widespread and dramatic social change - or even any such change at a level or of a type that could be distinguished from that which was inevitable even without them. Your grandchildren will live in a world with very different culture and values from yours, and that will be true regardless of whether immigration occurs or not. It has been true since the beginning of recorded history, for every society ever.

It's not happening; And if it did, it could not be a problem that you could or should try to 'solve'. Other than fundamentalists, who are extremely rare in any and all populations, the details of how the strangers you share a nation with think of themselves are of little importance. And regardless, the VAST majority of them will continue to be the descendants of people who have lived in your nation for generations. That's not important, but it is true nonetheless.

So you are wrong to be worried; and even if you were right to be worried, you would be wrong to be worried. So you are doubly wrong to be worried. That's not 'bad faith argumentation', it's the simple and plain truth.

If you said "I'm worried that I might win the lottery and have to eat a million dollars worth of custard", it wouldn't be 'bad faith argumentation' to say "You are not going to win the lottery, so you needn't be worried; And even if you did, there would be no requirement to spend your winnings on custard and then eat all of it'. For you to say "If I'm not likely to win, then why the cognitive dissonance of addressing my worry about the custard?", is just poor reasoning.

Your fears do not become rational just because the sane people address them in detail.

 

[repoman]

Would you agree that with global warming this

1.) "It's not happening"
2.) "It doesn't matter anyway" (or "why do you even care?!?") once it is shown that it is probably going to happen.
(Note, other things like CO2 and warm weather making plants grow faster (a lie) are used as distraction for the same reasons)

Is used for argumentation by often cynical skeptics and paid shills?

The thing is that carbon dioxide in the environment does not "deconvert" and say "I am carbon dioxide, but I will stop absorbing infrared radiation because I have learned it is wrong" in the way the people can with Islam or Christianity.

Human society modeling is way more complex.