Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

For those who have eyes, use them.................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/black-slaves-muslim-masters

 

[repoman]

For those who have eyes, use them.................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/black-slaves-muslim-masters

Meh, slavery is gonna come back with a vengeance when fossil fuels run out. All religious persuasions will do it. Atheists too.

The use of coal and then petroleum did more for ending slavery than anything else. Now we are just shitting up the planet with more human hell spawn on this algal bloom of gasoline.

Islam sucks, but you are looking for too many reasons it is terrible. People actually tune it out when presented with too many reasons. 3 reasons is ideal.

1. Outdated and stuck in the mud
2. Separationist
3. potential domination threat on a global scale.

Done.

No one gives a fuck about Sudan.

 

[Jayjay]

For those who have eyes, use them.................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/black-slaves-muslim-masters

Meh, slavery is gonna come back with a vengeance when fossil fuels run out. All religious persuasions will do it. Atheists too.

The use of coal and then petroleum did more for ending slavery than anything else. Now we are just shitting up the planet with more human hell spawn on this algal bloom of gasoline.

How many miles per slave can I get on a slavemobile, compared to a hybrid that uses electricity to motivate the slaves?

Slavery isn't coming back. We have other technologies besides fossil fuels to keep us going. Worst case scenario, we have to make our own synthetic fuels from forests or coal or spare slaves.

 

[angelo]

You'll have to push your own Volkswagen, unless you buy a couple of slaves from Somalia or Sudan on the quite! Libya is a good source as well.

 

[Derec]

Meh, slavery is gonna come back with a vengeance when fossil fuels run out. All religious persuasions will do it. Atheists too.

I doubt it, unless there is also a civilization collapse. There is technology to switch to non-fossil fuel energy economy.

The use of coal and then petroleum did more for ending slavery than anything else.

That is true, but it does not mean that these energy sources are the only ones viable.

 

[Derec]

Don't you love how Europeans are "submitting voluntarily" because they aren't building Muslim concentration camps,

Nobody is advocating "concentration camps". But maybe stop importing all these Muslims who do not desire to integrate but instead seek to establish parallel societies.

but America isn't "submitting voluntarily" to Russia?

I do not see Russians coming by the millions to US shores, demanding that business hire Russian-speakers (like Mexicans do with Spanish) or establishing parallel societies.

Their views and even basic definitions of words are[ent]hellip[/ent] awfully flexible, aren't they?

Especially if your name is Underseer. Then they barely have any meaning at all.

 

[Derec]

If the fact that people who actually live in London and experience first hand that which you only get to know through three cycles of regurgitation don't share your insane fears proves anything, it proves that your fears are insane.

 

[Derec]

Indeed, this picture is worrying. We all now how disastrous one-way plastic bags are for the environment,

I am more concerned with the bag that woman has to wear on her head.

They have, however, apparently well adapted to the British tradition of wearing whatever the fuck they want in blatant disregard of every style manual on the planet.

That you can see this photo and think these Muslims are well integrated rather than basically colonizing London by establishing a parallel Islamic society is quite amazing.

 

[Juma]

If the fact that people who actually live in London and experience first hand that which you only get to know through three cycles of regurgitation don't share your insane fears proves anything, it proves that your fears are insane.

And as educated know people well know frogs dont stay to be boiled..

 

[Derec]

Yup. Which is why I am baffled that people seem to imagine that a simplistic idea like 'let's not let in the (Muslims/Mexicans/immigrants/refugees)*' is somehow likely to have beneficial consequences.

It's not about not letting anybody in from these groups. It's about being selective to allow only those people who immigrate who actually want to become part of your society and not establish a parallel one. When you, like Merkel foolishly did in 2015, let in a million people with no vetting whatsoever, you will get many undesirables.
UK also hasn't done a good job in vetting immigrants, which is why there are many radical Islamists now living in UK and even having citizenship.
These Islamists are getting bolder and bolder, demanding "Sharia for UK".

People like to imagine that they share a common culture and perspective with others in their country, religion, or 'race'; but not with those from other countries, religions or 'races'. But that's simplistic nonsense. People barely share a common culture and perspective with their extended families - the stereotype of the heated disagreements that erupt if religion or politics are so much as mentioned at the Thanksgiving dinner is well founded - so all we have in common with other people is that we are frequently in violent disagreement with them.

People in the West share broad cultural strokes and do not share even those with Islamists in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Somalia. Now, there are people from those countries who share our values (for example Ayan Hirsi Ali) but if you indiscriminately let in people from these countries vast majority (97% for Afghanistan!) will be incompatible with Western values.

Dividing people between 'us' and 'them' on racial, religious or nationalistic grounds is fundamentally stupid, pointless and wrong. Our differences are much closer to home than that, and our similarities are much more widely dispersed than that.

Bullshit. There are real differences between cultures and this idea that we should have open borders and just let in everybody who wants to come in no matter how many or who they are is idiotic as well. If Australia were to take your desired policy on immigration, in 20 years there would be no recognizable Australia any more.

 

[Derec]

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.

So why have an immigration policy based on allowing people who want to change it back to a theocracy (this time Islamic)? That's suicidal idiocy!

And now you are suggesting that trickling in a few percent of theocrats from elsewhere would be sufficient to change that? It's absurd.

It's not absurd. It's not a few percent and done, it is a continuous flow of mass migrants from Islamic countries, many of them with high levels of beliefs in Sharia Law and theocracy like Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. So the percent add up and keep increasing. Add to that that these Muslim mass migrants have significantly more children than native Europeans.

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.

You do not see that at all when it comes to Muslims. If anything, they become more radicalized.

The number of immigrants coming into Western Europe is not particularly large,

It's actually huge!

and is certainly not sufficiently large to force widespread and dramatic social change

What are you talking about? Even politicians pushing for this mass migration have acknowledged that it will lead to fundamental changes in European societies. For examople, former head of Swedish Social Democrats said that Swedes have to integrate into "New Sweden" because the old, pre-Islamic, Sweden is not coming back.

- 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.

Yes, in both cases the society will change but the direction of that change will be very different with Muslim mass migration and without it.

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,

Fundamentalist Muslims are very common in the countries that send all these mass migrants into Europe. Like Afganistan, where 99% support Sharia Law. And Pakistan is not far behind.

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.

It is not plain truth. It's logical pretzels you have to twist yourself in to justify your opinion about opening borders to mass Muslim migration.

This is the message by these so-called "refugees" for Europe:

Peace-loving Muslims:
Let us in or we kill you!

 

[Derec]

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.

Theoretically true, but we see whole splotches of dark green, not isolated dots.
There are large areas of London that are Londonistan already. And at 50% increase in Islamic population of London per decade, these dark green splotches will only grow and spread in the future.

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.

And it's worrying that the Labour base has views consistent with Islamic views regarding scantly clad females.

That's nobody's business but the Turks'

Constantinople only became Istanbul because the Turks invaded and stole it from the Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire). Had Europe united against the Islamic threat from the East in the 14th century they might have prevented Islamic invasion into Europe (when Turks were at the gates of Vienna at one point) with them occupying Constantinople and part of Europe to this day. In the 21st century Europe again is facing the Islamic threat again and it seems it will fail it even more spectacularly than it did in 14th century.

 

[Derec]

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!"

I don't see it. And in any case, the Khan of London did not order Protein World to remove the "beach-body ready" text, he ordered them to remove the picture of the woman in a bikini.

 

[Derec]

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.)

Note that this link supports what I said about Muslims being most likely to support Labour.

So to whoever claims that Sadiq Khan was elected by Muslims for Muslims. No, just nope.

I actually agree with you on that. There are still not enough Muslims in London to elect the Khan by themselves - they needed the useful idiots from the Islamophilic Left. But at 50% growth rate per decade, it's only a matter of time until Muslims are a majority in London. And if Islamists can get elected mayor already, at 12%, it's going to get worse as percentage of Muslims inevitably increases.

 

[Derec]

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.

If it was only the slogan that was the issue, it would be easy just to remove the slogan and keep the pretty lady in the yellow bikini. But good-looking women in bikinis is what offends both Islamists and sex-negative feminists, which is why these two groups are increasingly allies in culture wars.

This BBC article talks about the ads being banned for promoting certain body images. Not a single word about slogans. The Khan is also quoted as saying this:

As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.

The bolded part is why the hunky half-naked guy is ok to be on the ads in the tube, but a woman in a bikini is not.

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.

I do not think UK or Europe is islamicized now, although there are already red flags. I am particularly concerned about what happens 20 or 30 years from now. Current mass migrants will become citizens by then, an children they are having now will become adults. 50% increase per decade means 27% Muslim population in London in 20 years and 40% in 30 years. That is worrying.

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...

It might take money and good socio-economic standing to realistically stand for election, but not to vote. Voting is free and easy.
And if Muslims were less interested in voting in general, I do not why they would not be more motivated to vote when one of their own is on the ballot.

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?

I am. Which is why you'd think they'd want to vote for like-minded candidates. Like voting for Hamas in "Palestine" or Erdogan in Turkey.

More baseless assertions. What else is new?

Which part do you think that is baseless assertion?
That Comrade Jezza sees himself as friend of Hamas and Hezbollah? Those were his words.
Or that Labour has been unduly friendly to Islam in recent times?

 

[Jokodo]

If it was only the slogan that was the issue, it would be easy just to remove the slogan and keep the pretty lady in the yellow bikini. But good-looking women in bikinis is what offends both Islamists and sex-negative feminists, which is why these two groups are increasingly allies in culture wars.

This BBC article talks about the ads being banned for promoting certain body images. Not a single word about slogans. The Khan is also quoted as saying this:

The bolded part is why the hunky half-naked guy is ok to be on the ads in the tube, but a woman in a bikini is not.

Read and learn:  Body_image.

No one in the world other than Derec uses "body image" to refer to a purely physical picture of a human body. The slogan has more effect on what-other-people-understand-by-the-term than the photo. And at any rate, the picture of the guy was from another campaign two years earlier, so Khan couldn't have "banned" it (which he actually didn't anyway) even if he wanted, for the simple reason that he wasn't in office.

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.

I do not think UK or Europe is islamicized now, although there are already red flags. I am particularly concerned about what happens 20 or 30 years from now. Current mass migrants will become citizens by then, an children they are having now will become adults. 50% increase per decade means 27% Muslim population in London in 20 years and 40% in 30 years. That is worrying.

You're trying to change the topic. We were talking about your insinuation that 12% Muslims among the populace == 12% Muslims among voters. In a country where minors and foreigners can't vote, if a significant proportion of Muslims are relatively recent arrivals and Muslims are on average younger than the general population, this cannot be so. Can you at least admit that you didn't think that through?

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...

It might take money and good socio-economic standing to realistically stand for election, but not to vote. Voting is free and easy.

It may be free and easy, but it's still only worthwhile if you think you can make a difference. And whatever the motivations, we know that poorer people and immigrants are less likely to participate, so analysing why this is so isn't even necessary at this point.

And if Muslims were less interested in voting in general, I do not why they would not be more motivated to vote when one of their own is on the ballot.

"I don't see why" is no evidence. They may be more motivated but not enough to actually vote. They may not consider him "one of their own" for any number of reason (because religion isn't actually that high up on the list of things by which they identify, because he's the wrong brand of Islam, ...). They may not like his accent.

Possibly all of these reasons and then some apply to a subset of London's Muslims. It doesn't matter though. What we do know is that by borough turnout is negatively correlated with numbers of Muslims.

 

[Jokodo]

This is the message by these so-called "refugees" for Europe:

Peace-loving Muslims:
Let us in or we kill you!

There's a threat alright - a threat to commit suicide.

 

[angelo]

Europe is committing suicide as we speak. The traitor of western culture and freedom of speech, democracy and the values our forefathers fought and died for are all for nothing because of slogans such as " we can do it" by the traitors Merkel and her ilk! The fact that Jokodo and other leftists bury their heads in the sand has seen to that!

 

[Derec]

Read and learn:  Body_image.

No one in the world other than Derec uses "body image" to refer to a purely physical picture of a human body. The slogan has more effect on what-other-people-understand-by-the-term than the photo.

Not purely pictures, but primarily so. I do not think the wiki article contradicts that, since it is all about "perception of the aesthetics or sexual attractiveness of their own body".
And yet, there is nothing in any of the articles about the bikinigate that I have read that indicated the slogan was what the Khan and his supporters found offensive. Or can you find me any article that claims that Khan and the feminists would have been ok if Protein World simply removed the words and kept the woman?

And at any rate, the picture of the guy was from another campaign two years earlier, so Khan couldn't have "banned" it (which he actually didn't anyway) even if he wanted, for the simple reason that he wasn't in office.

I did not know about the timing, but note that the feminazis who complained about the bikini-clad woman were there two years earlier, and yet they had no problem with the bare-chested chiseled guy. Only with a bikini-clad woman. Note also that the Khan himself said that he "particularly" focuses on depictions of women. He expressed that double standard verbatim.
Note also that the double standards regarding sexuality in advertising is the norm.
An example from the UK.
That kind of double standard fits both feminism and Islamism.

You're trying to change the topic. We were talking about your insinuation that 12% Muslims among the populace == 12% Muslims among voters. In a country where minors and foreigners can't vote, if a significant proportion of Muslims are relatively recent arrivals and Muslims are on average younger than the general population, this cannot be so. Can you at least admit that you didn't think that through?

If you look at my contributions throughout this thread you will find I worry very much about what present trends mean for the future. 12% Muslim population in London now may not mean 12% eligible voters yet but will definitely mean that in not too distant future. And the trend is also that this percentage increases by 50% per decade.

It may be free and easy, but it's still only worthwhile if you think you can make a difference. And whatever the motivations, we know that poorer people and immigrants are less likely to participate, so analysing why this is so isn't even necessary at this point.

And yet even so they managed to put one of their own in the position of power. Even now. Imagine what London electorate will look in 10 or 20 years from now. Never again will somebody as haram as Boris Johnson be electable.

"I don't see why" is no evidence. They may be more motivated but not enough to actually vote. They may not consider him "one of their own" for any number of reason (because religion isn't actually that high up on the list of things by which they identify, because he's the wrong brand of Islam, ...). They may not like his accent.

Khan is Sunni like most Muslims. He is also Pakistani, which is a very common ethnic group (probably most common single one) for Muslims invading UK.

Possibly all of these reasons and then some apply to a subset of London's Muslims. It doesn't matter though. What we do know is that by borough turnout is negatively correlated with numbers of Muslims.

If that is true, that is great of course. Doesn't really save London/UK/Europe given long-term mass-migration and mass-breeding trends of Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a threat alright - a threat to commit suicide.

That's not what "open or die means". It means "open of you die".

 

[Derec]

And mass Muslim migrants are still coming. The Balkan route for mass migration is still open.
The Latest: Macedonian police find 44 migrants inside truck

Police said Friday they had pursued the vehicle late Wednesday until the driver stopped the van near a highway tunnel. The 44 migrants — 10 Syrians, 20 Pakistanis, 12 Afghans and two Indian — were found inside the vehicle, while the driver fled and evaded arrest.
[..]Authorities say migrant smuggling has increased in a recent months.

Less than 1/4 are Syrians and almost half are Pakistani (like the Khan of London himself). They are all probably Muslim.
This one truck got stopped, but how many managed to pass undetected?

From the Mediterranean front:

Mongi Slim told The Associated Press Friday that the migrants have been stranded at sea for at least nine days and "the sanitary and psychological situation is very bad."

The migrants include nationals from Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal and Egypt.

All economic migrants, not "refugees" or "asylum seekers". Hell, a million Rohyingya fled to Bangladesh to safety, but apparently it's not safe enough for these migrants. Bullshit! They just want benefits in Germoney.

Back to the supposedly closed Balkan route, some of these welfare tourists are trying to enter EU through Bosnia.
Refugees on new Balkan route stuck in limbo
Note the inaccurate use of the word "refugee" in the headline.

When it rains, the camp gets particularly bad: wet tents and mud everywhere. "This is not a refugee camp," Kasim from Pakistan said. "It was good in Serbia. We had food and received clothing and good tents there. Here, we have nothing."

Yet another Pakistani.

World's tiniest violin playing just for him and his fellow fakefugees aka welfare tourists complaining they are not given free lodging.

Six months ago Kasim left his home for Europe, crossing through Iran, Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia. Now, in Bosnia, he's waiting for a chance to continue. A truck driver in Pakistan, he explains in good English that he left because he feared for his life. He says the Taliban are still very active in the border region where he's from; violence is a part of daily life there.

If Taliban are active in the border region and he really feared for his life because of that, he could have just moved to a different part of Pakistan. There is no safety reason to travel 4,000 miles - only an economic one. And if he really had to leave Pakistan, why not stop in the fellow Muslim countries like Iran or Turkey? Let me guess: Germany and Sweden have more generous benefits.

Right now, most refugees arriving in Bosnia and Herzegovina come from Pakistan, according to the Bosnian Security Minister Dragan Mektic. In his opinion, however, most of them have left their country for economic reasons, not so much because they are threatened.

Exactly. Note that DW is not dropping the "refugee" moniker.

To him, the [border police] officers are worse than the fighters of the so-called Islamic State (IS).

Just goes to show that these welfare tourists who are supposedly running for their lives have had zero exposure to IS.

Local politicians are particularly concerned that it's hardly possible to establish the identity of the refugees, as they often no longer have any documents or may provide false information during registration.

They throw away their documents so they can lie about how they are.

Zaman from Morocco
The man with the friendly laugh has already lived in Athens for four years - without papers. "Police there are really racist, though," he says. That's why he has joined the refugees. Even though there's no war raging in his home country, he wants to cross the border to Serbia close to the Macedonian village of Tabanovce. "I hope to find an honest job and an honest life in Germany," he says.

Maybe they are not so much racist but dislike people coming to and living in their country illegally and being a burden on already overtaxed migrant system. Especially by somebody from Morocco which is at peace.

Ahmad from Iraq
"Our country has a big problem with the 'Islamic State.' The terrorists slaughter everyone they can get their hands on," the 17-year-old says calmly.

And yet the Croatian border guards are worse. Maybe Ahmad should go back ...

He has traveled through Bulgaria, where he says police beat and robbed him. In Belgrade, he is now sleeping in the open, waiting for a bus heading north. "We want to go to Germany. You can lead a safe life there," he says.

All of them want to go to Germoney. Danke Merkel! Horst for Bundeskanzler!

Falat from Afghanistan
The 25-year-old describes his situation at home in simple words: "Bad situation, every day war." He's also waiting for his trafficker in Subotica. The entire trip will cost him about 5,000 euros ($5,740). The Hungarian border fence? No problem. "We will go to Germany for sure. That is a good country that accepts refugees," Falat says.

See? Germoney again.