Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

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.



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.

A minority group of 12% many of which aren't allowed to vote (the number cited is of residents, with no reference to citizenship), and of which most of the remainder didn't care to vote. The boroughs with the lowest participation are ones where Muslims are overrepresented relative to the city's average.

Number you don't understand. To school you go back.

 

[angelo]

You've proved that The name of this thread called " Europe submits voluntarily " is well named. The reason it is happening is because people are letting it happen as Douglas Murray explains in his very good book " The Strange Death of Europe............

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33584231-the-strange-death-of-europe

 

[Jokodo]

You've proved that The name of this thread called " Europe submits voluntarily " is well named.

Where's the logic in that? Some Australian sucks at math -> Europe submits voluntarily.

I believe some Australian sucks at logic too.

 

[TSwizzle]

Migrants storming the beach in Spain;

Dozens of migrants were filmed storming a beach in southern Spain on Friday as confused sunbathing nudists watched the remarkable scenes unfolding. The dramatic clip, taken on the beach at Tarifa, showed a group of more than 30 migrants landing in a dinghy before sprinting off into woodland surrounding the beach to evade the pursuing Spanish border guards. The news comes as the mayor of the nearby Spanish port of Algeciras warned that his town is at the centre of a 'new migrant crisis' after 1,000 arrivals flooded his town in the last week alone.

DailMail

 

[bilby]

Algeciras has a population of over 120,000.

A less than 1% increase is hardly a "flood". Or did they leave the taps running?

The Daily Mail is a pointless fucking rag, and every time you quote it as though it was a legitimate source of information, I discover to my surprise that it is still possible to think less of you.

 

[Derec]

Algeciras has a population of over 120,000.

A less than 1% increase is hardly a "flood".

What you do not realize that this is a cummulative problem. These 1000 are not the only ones. That's just the arrivals in one week to one city. But these mass migrants have been coming for years and keep coming. At the same time, it is very difficult to deport them. So, yes, it is a flood. For example, in Italy there are currently 600,000 mass migrants who have come over on these migrant boats. That is not counting all the ones who have left Italy for other European countries like France, Germoney and Sweden.

Europe must put a stop to this. If they refuse to take any boat migrants, boat migrants will stop coming

The Daily Mail is a pointless fucking rag,

That may well be, but they are still more reasonable than those sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the mass migration problem.

 

[Derec]

Where's the logic in that? Some Australian sucks at math -> Europe submits voluntarily.

Point some of the math errors. This forum supports LaTeX so you can use that if you like.

I believe some Australian sucks at logic too.

Bilby?

- - - Updated - - -

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?

We are talking about Muslims in Europe. There are not many hardcore Christians there, but very many hardcore Muslims that want to turn Europe into an Islamic continent.
Please stay on topic!

 

[Derec]

The women on the smart phone are watching porn.

We do not know what they are watching, but much more likely than porn is that they are googling IS propaganda. Or maybe the burqa shop in Oxford St. is having a sale.

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.

So you think Catholicism is very oppressive, but that fundamentalist Islam is fine? Weird.

 

[Derec]

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

Maybe they are all Terry Jones.

 

[Derec]

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

But they have only been allowed to invade the Home Islands in the last few decades. And no effort has been made to be selective and not allow Islamists to immigrate, which is why we have nonsense like this:

Most Lords are quite benign compared to that.

Well over 99.9% of the Muslims in the country think they're nuts.

[Citation needed]

Their number of supporters is probably in the same ballpark as the number of hereditary peers (750),4

You think there are only 750 supporters of radical Islam in the UK? What?

How about some actual numbers?
UK: What British Muslims Really Think

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

Almost a fourth or British Muslims wants Shariah Law. Unless there are only 3000 Muslims in the UK (There are in reality about 1000 times as many!), your numbers of radicals is way off.

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.

There are already many Muslim MPs. Are you sure none of them are fundys?

 

[Derec]

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".

Let me restate: what quality do you think he has that most Londoners might think him the best man for the job? Other than his religion.
I think this was the case of voting for the Muslim lest one is considered islamophobic. Which goes nicely with the theme of submitting voluntarily.

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).

How did the khan get the nomination anyway? Was there a primary or did the Labour politburo give him the nomination based on having the most diversity points?

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.

They have a funny way of showing that.

That's not evidence pertinent to the discussion we were having.

This is entirely pertinent to the subject of the discussion. This thread is about Islamization of Europe, and Muslims increasing in numbers rapidly through both mass migration and mass breeding is at the center of Islamization.

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.

You do not think Muslims taking positions of power is a sign of Islamization?

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

That there are so many islamophilic Londoners to elect the khan and the fact that the London Labor is so islamophilic as to nominate him in the first place is part of the problem.

 

[Trausti]

Celebrate diversity!

 

[Jokodo]

Let me restate: what quality do you think he has that most Londoners might think him the best man for the job? Other than his religion.

You're going to have to ask some Londoners if you want a qualified answer to that question. We know it's not his religion though. I have linked a poll showing 48% of Labour supporters are highly sceptical that Islam can be compatible with "British values". So it follows that a plurality of his voters voted for him despite him being a Muslim. Possibly having gained the impression that he keeps his religion and his politics cleanly separated is what allowed them to do it.

I think this was the case of voting for the Muslim lest one is considered islamophobic. Which goes nicely with the theme of submitting voluntarily.

You do know that elections are secret in Britain?

How did the khan get the nomination anyway? Was there a primary or did the Labour politburo give him the nomination based on having the most diversity points?

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.

They have a funny way of showing that.

Or maybe they found the other candidates even more unelectable, for whatever reasons.

That's not evidence pertinent to the discussion we were having.

This is entirely pertinent to the subject of the discussion. This thread is about Islamization of Europe, and Muslims increasing in numbers rapidly through both mass migration and mass breeding is at the center of Islamization.

This thread has gone onto many tangents. Right now, though, we're discussing what, if anything, Sadiq Khan's election shows about the current status of the "Islamization of Europe".

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.

You do not think Muslims taking positions of power is a sign of Islamization?

A person in a position of power promoting an Islamist agenda? Yes. A person in a position of power implementing mainstream Labour policies who also happens to be a Muslim -- no.

If it were, you might as well argue that Pakistan is a bastion of hyperfeminism ever since electing  Benazir_Bhutto to the head of government, as one of the first major countries to do so.

 

[Jokodo]

Point some of the math errors. This forum supports LaTeX so you can use that if you like.

I know about and have used the forum's LaTeX support when I needed it. But employing it to show angelo's wrong is like cracking nuts with a sledgehammer.

angelo keeps claiming (and you have yet to distance yourself from this absurd claim) that Sadiq Khan was elected essentially by the Muslim voters block against the wills of a majority of non-Muslim Londoners.

We know that he was elected with a 14% margin.

We know that there's only about 12-13% Muslim residents in London, a significant number of which are not citizens and/or under 18.

We know that almost universally across Europe, immigrants and poorer people are way more likely to stay home at elections, and all the available evidence suggests that this election was no exception. These two facts combined suggest that the number of Muslims among the actual voters is probably closer to 5% than 10% but certainly lower than 10%.

It follows that Sadiq Khan would have won even if no single Muslim were out on election day.

And when his innumeracy is pointed out, he exclaims "This proves the title of the thread is correct!"

So apparently, the fact that some Europeans are better at numbers than him proves that we're submitting to Islam. Perchance he thinks "We don't need no stinky Arab algebra! It's a Muslim Trojan horse they use to subvert our healthy non-numeric reasoning skills!"

 

[Jokodo]

But they have only been allowed to invade the Home Islands in the last few decades.

So not allowing your subjects to move freely within the dominion is a hallmark of a free society now?

Most Lords are quite benign compared to that.

"Most Lords" belong to class far aloof with interests very disparate from the overwhelming majority of British citizens and are more than willing to defend their class's particular interests with teeth and claws against the onslaught of the unwashed masses in the House of Commons. The fact that the high aristocracy has guaranteed representation in parliament 4 orders of magnitude out of sync to their actual numbers is a scandal if ever there was one.

[Citation needed]

Their number of supporters is probably in the same ballpark as the number of hereditary peers (750),4

You think there are only 750 supporters of radical Islam in the UK? What?

Of that brand? Yes.

How about some actual numbers?
UK: What British Muslims Really Think

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

Almost a fourth or British Muslims wants Shariah Law. Unless there are only 3000 Muslims in the UK (There are in reality about 1000 times as many!), your numbers of radicals is way off.

These numbers are literally useless without details about the methodology and questions asked. For many Muslims, "Sharia" just means something like "God's way" or God's law", but they don't know or care about specific commendation for punishment of specific transgressions. Indeed many interpret the term as a set of recommendations how the individual should lead their life, not intended to be enforcible.

I'm sure it would be trivial to formulate poll questions in such a way that more than 23% of US Christian would answer in the affirmative to a similar question about Biblical law. Interpreting this as meaning that a quarter of US Christians are willing to participate in the stoning of a neighbour who's eaten shrimp is just as ridiculous.

I will note though that, in absolute numbers, the 22% of non-Muslims who think homosexuality should be illegal are about ten times more people than the 52% of Muslims who apparently think the same. Homophobia is thus still 90% a homegrown problem even if we buy those numbers.

but unlike the hereditary peers, who have guaranteed representation of 90 seats in th'e Upper House of Parliament representing their particular interests, they are and always will be unable to elect even a single member of parliament.

There are already many Muslim MPs. Are you sure none of them are fundys?

Point out one who is!

 

[angelo]

Algeciras has a population of over 120,000.

A less than 1% increase is hardly a "flood". Or did they leave the taps running?

The Daily Mail is a pointless fucking rag, and every time you quote it as though it was a legitimate source of information, I discover to my surprise that it is still possible to think less of you.

Even a 1% increase per year accumulates into 100% over a century!

 

[angelo]

Point some of the math errors. This forum supports LaTeX so you can use that if you like.

I know about and have used the forum's LaTeX support when I needed it. But employing it to show angelo's wrong is like cracking nuts with a sledgehammer.

angelo keeps claiming (and you have yet to distance yourself from this absurd claim) that Sadiq Khan was elected essentially by the Muslim voters block against the wills of a majority of non-Muslim Londoners.

We know that he was elected with a 14% margin.

We know that there's only about 12-13% Muslim residents in London, a significant number of which are not citizens and/or under 18.

We know that almost universally across Europe, immigrants and poorer people are way more likely to stay home at elections, and all the available evidence suggests that this election was no exception. These two facts combined suggest that the number of Muslims among the actual voters is probably closer to 5% than 10% but certainly lower than 10%.

It follows that Sadiq Khan would have won even if no single Muslim were out on election day.

And when his innumeracy is pointed out, he exclaims "This proves the title of the thread is correct!"

So apparently, the fact that some Europeans are better at numbers than him proves that we're submitting to Islam. Perchance he thinks "We don't need no stinky Arab algebra! It's a Muslim Trojan horse they use to subvert our healthy non-numeric reasoning skills!"

Which proves beyond any doubt that Europe is submitting [meekly] voluntarily!

 

[Jokodo]

Point some of the math errors. This forum supports LaTeX so you can use that if you like.

I know about and have used the forum's LaTeX support when I needed it. But employing it to show angelo's wrong is like cracking nuts with a sledgehammer.

angelo keeps claiming (and you have yet to distance yourself from this absurd claim) that Sadiq Khan was elected essentially by the Muslim voters block against the wills of a majority of non-Muslim Londoners.

We know that he was elected with a 14% margin.

We know that there's only about 12-13% Muslim residents in London, a significant number of which are not citizens and/or under 18.

We know that almost universally across Europe, immigrants and poorer people are way more likely to stay home at elections, and all the available evidence suggests that this election was no exception. These two facts combined suggest that the number of Muslims among the actual voters is probably closer to 5% than 10% but certainly lower than 10%.

It follows that Sadiq Khan would have won even if no single Muslim were out on election day.

And when his innumeracy is pointed out, he exclaims "This proves the title of the thread is correct!"

So apparently, the fact that some Europeans are better at numbers than him proves that we're submitting to Islam. Perchance he thinks "We don't need no stinky Arab algebra! It's a Muslim Trojan horse they use to subvert our healthy non-numeric reasoning skills!"

Which proves beyond any doubt that Europe is submitting [meekly] voluntarily!

So you are saying that in order to resist teh Islam, we have to shed math?

 

[Underseer]

Not doing ethnic cleansing counts as submission. That sounds an awful lot like something a Nazi would say in defense of ethnic cleansing. Not that I'm judging. I'm sure many Nazis were very fine people.

 

[repoman]

Ethnic mongrelizing is a better solution and more final.