Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

I would say the battle for the UK is pretty much over;

A primary school has been blasted for encouraging pupils to walk around a field five times on the hottest day of the year - to show solidarity with refugees.
Lucy Boyle said: 'This was a walk was to show support to the refugees who have to make a longer and hotter walks to a safer place, as their home has been turned into a battle ground.

'I think it wonderful this walk still went ahead, it helps the kids truly understand what refugees have to go through.

DailyMail

They never stood a chance.

Yes, they are now a Muslim caliphate. Poor Great Britain, we hardly knew ya.

It may not yet be a " caliphate," at least most of the UK, but it's looking very promising to be one by 2100. Already many areas seem to be one including a muslim mayor of the UK's capital city.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's something to think about. Aboy the claims by many of the left and apologists of the many Muslim atrocities throughout the world. Source Jihadwatch. If the overwhelming majority of Muslims are “peaceful-loving” people and Islam is
a “peaceful” religion — why is there so much hate and violence throughout the
Muslim world perpetrated in the name of Islam against non-Muslims?

Why are little girls still being mutilated and still being sold to pedophiles in
the name of Islam?

Why are women still being treated like reproductive chattel and innocent women
still being stoned to death in the name of Islam?

Because a billion “moderate Muslims” can’t stop the “very small percentage of Muslims”
who are jihadists mentally ill?

Even "the moderates" when Pew completed a poll in 2015 showed that they too would prefer sharia
law and that their allegiance was to Allah first and above the US or our laws/customs/constitution.
51% of US Muslims want Sharia and 60% of young Muslims are more loyal to Islam than the US.
And that data is three years old and those numbers have undoubtedly increased exponentially,
just as the numbers of jihadists mentally ill have.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/...

And why should any non-Muslim believe “moderate” Islam exists when there is absolutely no
evidence of it?

And if that were true – why are “moderate Muslims” letting the “non-moderates” jihadists
mentally ill hijack their faith?

Why aren’t the “moderate Muslims” at the very least embarrassed that a "very small amount" of
jihadis mentally ill can speak for more than a billion Muslims?

And why aren’t they doing anything about it? And if there are close to a billion “moderate
Muslims” who are not jihadists mentally ill, and do not believe in shariah law, then why
does it still exist?

 

[fromderinside]

Check it out. Go to YouTube. Search for Italian Reunification. What one gets are a bunch of videos (lectures) by Indian professors. Attended a college math class lately. Indian grad students. IOW quit worrying about Muslimization and begin worrying about Hindi-ization.

 

[TSwizzle]

More migrant mayhem;

About 600 migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have reached Spain after storming a double border fence, with some throwing excrement or quicklime at security forces to force their way in. Police said that officers were assaulted with quicklime – which can cause mild irritation to full scale burning of the skin – when migrants charged border fences separating Spain's North African enclave of Ceuta from Morocco shortly before dawn today. They scrambled over 'all of a sudden, with much violence,' and some attacked police with quicklime they had in tubes and bottles. As a result, 'more than a dozen police' were injured with the substance, four of whom had to go to hospital for burns to their faces and arms. It comes as Spain becomes the number one destination for migrants crossing the Mediterranean by boat, surpassing Italy with 19,586 arrivals by sea to date. The International Organization for Migration says so far this year that more than 22,700 migrants have arrived in Spain – three times more than in the same period last year.

DailMail

 

[Derec]

Yes, they are now a Muslim caliphate. Poor Great Britain, we hardly knew ya.

You are deliberately missing the point. It's not about now, but what it says about the future.
In this case, children are being indoctrinated into being in favor of mass migrants (called "refugees", but 90% are nothing of the sort).

As far as I am concerned, Isalmization denialism is as myopic, and at least as damaging, as climate change denialism.

 

[Derec]

More migrant mayhem;

Of course, given the lefty government of Spain, these violent invaders will not be sent back, but allowed to stay.

More about mass migration.
The New Balkan Route
This is from Jacobin (far left rag), so the author thinks borders are "racist", but the article shows how porous even the Balkan route still is and the length these migrants go to in order to not register in Greece but in one of the richer countries with more generous benefits. Usually Germany.

 

[Derec]

And yet even so they managed to put one of their own in the position of power.

You know what's ironic? There actually is legitimate reason for concern that a small but influential, isolationist and supremacist and fairly homogeneous minority is punching way above their weight in British politics, but it's not Muslims you should be concerned about. Muslims are neither homogeneous nor influential, and while you're probably going to argue they're supremacist and isolationist, even you will have to admit that they're less so than the denizens of the  House_of_Lords.

House of Lords is part of British society. It's not a band of invaders who want to impose their religious strictures on the United Kingdom.

These are not House of Lords members. These are Muslims.

 

[fromderinside]

House of Lords = appendix

As you know the appendix is part of the body human, a part that has exactly no relevance beyond becoming a danger to the body when it acts.

 

[Derec]

Wrong again. He was elected with a very convenient margin Londoners who simply thought him to be the best man for the job.

You really think the Khan is the best man for the job? By what metric?

An overwhelming majority of those weren't Muslims, and he had almost certainly several times more voters who voted him despite being Muslim than those who voted him for being Muslim.

I doubt many voted for him despite him being Muslim.
In any case, you are completely ignoring my point about the rapid increase of Muslim population in London. The more Muslims there are, the less chance there is to elect a non-Muslim in the future.

I gave actual evidence.

Me too. For example for the 50% increase in a mere decade.

How's that supposed to be "great"? If a significant proportion of the citizenry is so dissatisfied and/or incredulous that they could actually ever have an impact that they all but withdraw from the political scene, that's reason for concern!

If their politics is repressive and theocratic, then yes. There is nothing positive about Sharia.

- - - Updated - - -

House of Lords = appendix

As you know the appendix is part of the body human, a part that has exactly no relevance beyond becoming a danger to the body when it acts.

But it only becomes dangerous if it is infected by bacteria that come from outside the body. Is that really an analogy you want to pursue further?

 

[scombrid]

And yet even so they managed to put one of their own in the position of power.

You know what's ironic? There actually is legitimate reason for concern that a small but influential, isolationist and supremacist and fairly homogeneous minority is punching way above their weight in British politics, but it's not Muslims you should be concerned about. Muslims are neither homogeneous nor influential, and while you're probably going to argue they're supremacist and isolationist, even you will have to admit that they're less so than the denizens of the  House_of_Lords.

House of Lords is part of British society. It's not a band of invaders who want to impose their religious strictures on the United Kingdom.

These are not House of Lords members. These are Muslims.

Is that Fred Phelps and his family? It looks like they stole the signs from the snake handlers that used to picket the VaTech drill field at the beginning of every fall semester.

 

[Derec]

Is that Fred Phelps and his family? It looks like they stole the signs from the snake handlers that used to picket the VaTech drill field at the beginning of every fall semester.

That church is what, 50 people. A lot more devout Muslims in UK and the rest of Europe.

Hell, even in the US there are many orders of magnitude more Muslim nuts than Westboro nuts.

And besides, not even Westboro Baptists put their women in a black bag. As far as I can tell, they are allowed to wear normal clothing. Unlike many Muslim women.

 

[scombrid]

Is that Fred Phelps and his family? It looks like they stole the signs from the snake handlers that used to picket the VaTech drill field at the beginning of every fall semester.

That church is what, 50 people. A lot more devout Muslims in UK and the rest of Europe.

Hell, even in the US there are many orders of magnitude more Muslim nuts than Westboro nuts.

And besides, not even Westboro Baptists put their women in a black bag. As far as I can tell, they are allowed to wear normal clothing. Unlike many Muslim women.

Snake handlers field a bigger showing at VaTech to greet the incoming freshmen and the signs are similar.

Hey, when are the good Republicans going to do something about the white nationalists and Christian Dominionists in their ranks?

 

[scombrid]

Is that Fred Phelps and his family? It looks like they stole the signs from the snake handlers that used to picket the VaTech drill field at the beginning of every fall semester.

That church is what, 50 people. A lot more devout Muslims in UK and the rest of Europe.

Hell, even in the US there are many orders of magnitude more Muslim nuts than Westboro nuts.

And besides, not even Westboro Baptists put their women in a black bag. As far as I can tell, they are allowed to wear normal clothing. Unlike many Muslim women.

The women on the smart phone are watching porn.

Plenty of the "mainstream" fundamentalist cults in this country have strict dress codes, just not the head covering but the control and "purity" aspect is the analogous. My Catholic school cheerleaders had short skirts. The YEC protestant schools that we played in sports had cheer leaders with ankle skirts and many of them prohibited the women from wearing pants. Only full length skirts or dresses were allowed.

 

[starwater]

Are you sure those are women in the black bags? They could be men behind all that fabric.

 

[Jokodo]

And yet even so they managed to put one of their own in the position of power.

You know what's ironic? There actually is legitimate reason for concern that a small but influential, isolationist and supremacist and fairly homogeneous minority is punching way above their weight in British politics, but it's not Muslims you should be concerned about. Muslims are neither homogeneous nor influential, and while you're probably going to argue they're supremacist and isolationist, even you will have to admit that they're less so than the denizens of the  House_of_Lords.

House of Lords is part of British society. It's not a band of invaders who want to impose their religious strictures on the United Kingdom.

There have been more Muslim subjects to the crown than hereditary peers ever since England started to have colonies in Asia.

These are not House of Lords members. These are Muslims.

And their influence? 0.0 exactly. They do not have the 26 guaranteed seats in the Upper House of the bishopry of the Church of England. Well over 99.9% of the Muslims in the country think they're nuts. Their number of supporters is probably in the same ballpark as the number of hereditary peers (750), but unlike the hereditary peers, who have guaranteed representation of 90 seats in the Upper House of Parliament representing their particular interests, they are and always will be unable to elect even a single member of parliament.

 

[Jokodo]

You really think the Khan is the best man for the job? By what metric?

I didn't talk about what I think, and it doesn't matter. I have spent a total of maybe 24 hours of my life in London, including, probably close to 14 in hours in Heathrow, adding up the little bits here and there. Did you even read what I wrote? "He was elected with a very convenient margin [by] Londoners who simply thought him to be the best man for the job". It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is that a convenient majority of Londoners who went out on election day felt he was better suited than the only viable alternative, the snobbish tory guy who they felt was giving them the nose, deliberately or not, on pretty much every occasion (or whatever else made them unelectable in their eyes -- not being a Muslim certainly wasn't it).

I doubt many voted for him despite him being Muslim.

Reality doesn't care what you do or do not doubt. In reality, a majority of Britons, including a plurality of Labour supporters, think Islam is incompatible with "the values of British" society and arguably would vote a non-Muslim over a Muslim anytime, all else equal.

a striking 55 per cent of British voters currently think “there is a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society”, compared with just 22 per cent – little over one in five – who say Islam and British values are “generally compatible” (...) roughly half of Labour supporters take the negative view (48 per cent “clash” versus 27 per cent “compatible”) -- https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/30/majority-voters-doubt-islam-compatible-british-val/

All else wasn't equal.

I gave actual evidence.

Me too. For example for the 50% increase in a mere decade.

That's not evidence pertinent to the discussion we were having. If you want to open a new topic for discussion, then do so explicitly and I may or may not chime in, but for now we're discussing whether the election of Sadiq Khan shows how far islamization has already gone. angelo explicitly, and you implicitly, said that "They" are already now in a position to elect "their" major. When bilby pointed out that only ~12% of Londoners are Muslims, and I that the number for voters is even lower, and that he was in fact elected neither by Muslims, nor because he's a Muslim, you doubted that claim.

Admit that we were right and you were wrong before moving on to a different topic, alright?

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, they are now a Muslim caliphate. Poor Great Britain, we hardly knew ya.

You are deliberately missing the point. It's not about now, but what it says about the future.
In this case, children are being indoctrinated into being in favor of mass migrants (called "refugees", but 90% are nothing of the sort).

As far as I am concerned, Isalmization denialism is as myopic, and at least as damaging, as climate change denialism.

As far as reality is concerned, you're wrong.

 

[angelo]

I didn't talk about what I think, and it doesn't matter. I have spent a total of maybe 24 hours of my life in London, including, probably close to 14 in hours in Heathrow, adding up the little bits here and there. Did you even read what I wrote? "He was elected with a very convenient margin [by] Londoners who simply thought him to be the best man for the job". It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is that a convenient majority of Londoners who went out on election day felt he was better suited than the only viable alternative, the snobbish tory guy who they felt was giving them the nose, deliberately or not, on pretty much every occasion (or whatever else made them unelectable in their eyes -- not being a Muslim certainly wasn't it).



Reality doesn't care what you do or do not doubt. In reality, a majority of Britons, including a plurality of Labour supporters, think Islam is incompatible with "the values of British" society and arguably would vote a non-Muslim over a Muslim anytime, all else equal.

a striking 55 per cent of British voters currently think “there is a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society”, compared with just 22 per cent – little over one in five – who say Islam and British values are “generally compatible” (...) roughly half of Labour supporters take the negative view (48 per cent “clash” versus 27 per cent “compatible”) -- https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/30/majority-voters-doubt-islam-compatible-british-val/

All else wasn't equal.

I gave actual evidence.

Me too. For example for the 50% increase in a mere decade.

That's not evidence pertinent to the discussion we were having. If you want to open a new topic for discussion, then do so explicitly and I may or may not chime in, but for now we're discussing whether the election of Sadiq Khan shows how far islamization has already gone. angelo explicitly, and you implicitly, said that "They" are already now in a position to elect "their" major. When bilby pointed out that only ~12% of Londoners are Muslims, and I that the number for voters is even lower, and that he was in fact elected neither by Muslims, nor because he's a Muslim, you doubted that claim.

Admit that we were right and you were wrong before moving on to a different topic, alright?

Labour voters are far more inclined to vote for a Muslim than a Tory. Likewise, most followers of the terrorist " profit" Mo are dyed in the wool Labour supporters.

 

[Jokodo]

Incidentally, among the 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, there is exactly one woman, barely over 1%. For comparison, the Consultative Assembly of Iran has 8% (6% for both chambers) women, the Syrian parliament 13%, the Moroccan one 20%*, the Iraqi one 25%*, and the Afghan one 28%*.

* Numbers such indicated are higher than the corresponding figure for the US.

 

[Jokodo]

Labour voters are far more inclined to vote for a Muslim than a Tory.

Let's hope it's true. It's Tories, not Muslims, who are plotting to take away their livelihood.
At any rate, it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Likewise, most followers of the terrorist " profit" Mo are dyed in the wool Labour supporters.

What if? How does this change anything about what I said? How does it make your inability to handle numbers anything but?

 

[angelo]

Labour voters are far more inclined to vote for a Muslim than a Tory.

Let's hope it's true. It's Tories, not Muslims, who are plotting to take away their livelihood.
At any rate, it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Likewise, most followers of the terrorist " profit" Mo are dyed in the wool Labour supporters.

What if? How does this change anything about what I said? How does it make your inability to handle numbers anything but?

The numbers are extremely important when voting is not compulsory in the UK. A region with a minority group of 12% who are supporters of the Khan can and did change an outcome. Never mind that the Tory candidate was on the nose.