Europe submits voluntarily

[The Sage of Main Street]

Delenda Est Arabia

Whatever. It's our turn now.

I guess you missed Iraq and Afghanistan? If we are taking turns, surely it is someone else's now...

Those lucrative adventures weren't part of the War on Islam. Iraq was punished for lowering Big Oil's profits and Afghanistan was occupied as an outpost against the Russian Federation. Seize Muzzie oil and the savages can take their next turn fighting us with sticks and stones, the only weapons they'll be able to afford.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Dishonestly Spinning the Alternative View to Make It Dizzy

Whatever. It's our turn now.

You think you can just pound them into submission? It doesn't work like that.

Making up what you think is my proposed strategy to destroy Islam so you can easily refute it doesn't work like that as a debating tactic.

 

[untermensche]

WTF? That is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the post you are pretending to be responding to. Of course this is typical of your disingenuous posting style. When you are shown to be full of shit, you ignore it and post something irrelevant to your first statement in hopes that no one notices.

My response that you are pretending to be addressing was in response to your:

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

It is a non sequitur because whether or not the reformation was necessary for the Enlightenment, which is what really begins to give Europe it's modern sensibilities is a huge can of worms. The divine right of kings was supported long after the reformation for example. In England the King became the head of the Church and took on more power as the reformation was starting.

Do you really find it too much of a mental feat trying to understand the meaning of "first step"?

It's an unsupported claim, nothing more.

You really have trouble understanding the difference between unsupported claims and actual facts.

But the idea that the problem with the Muslim world is that it didn't have this event that was mostly about indulgences is laughable.

Where the hell did I say anything about the Muslim world in that post?

That is the reason this diversion to the reformation took place.

People claimed the problem with the Muslim world was that it never had a reformation, whatever that could possibly mean.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Conformity Is Deformity

OLD SCHOOL: Manifest Destiny //// NEW AGE: Many Fuzzy Dust Bunnies


Who benefits if we don't push these unevolved, useless, obstructive, and predatory groups out of the way? Who turned them loose on us and inhibited our natural reaction?

I'll take that So, addressing your new points... Those groups are just as evolved as your own is -- evolution is able to multitask. Evaluation of a group as useless is a purely subjective matter. You have no use for them; well, they probably have no use for you either. And you appear to be arguing that your group's natural reaction to them is to obstruct them and practice predation upon them, which calls into question whether those groups actually are any more obstructive and predatory than your own. Finally, on what grounds do you regard the "Manifest Destiny" reaction as an iota more "natural" than the "Many Fuzzy Dust Bunnies" reaction? Both are the consequence of most people unthinkingly reacting to situations in whatever way their respective Lamarckian-evolved cultures have preadapted them to react.

You can go and live with them and live like them if you think their way of life is in tune with the march of time.

Racial equality is also a subjective opinion. You're claiming that the status quo ideas imposed on us by self-appointed mentors is objective. You have a desperate need to lazily hand your mind over to intellectual father figures, degenerate gurus who design their preaching to appeal to childish Kumbaya cartoon-watchers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ali Olov

Celebrate the vibrancy!

View attachment 4346

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330247/Sweden-flames-As-gangs-migrants-riot-nights-running--Utopian-boats-multicultural-success-story-turn-ashes.html#ixzz3nnwzwtjX

Lars Bystrom, a Stockholm police spokesman, said: ‘Such fires are mainly lit to lure the police to the scene, who are then attacked.’
He admitted officers have been forced to change their tactics, saying: ‘Now if there is a small fire that is not likely to spread, and there is no risk to life, we will send out a patrol and keep an eye on it from a distance.
‘But we are not going to bring in the fire brigade unless it’s really dangerous.’
The attacks on emergency service workers have led to private security companies telling employees to stay at home, as mobs have started attacking anyone wearing a uniform.
Several public transport routes have also been cancelled after rioters started hurling petrol bombs at buses.

What? You think this is still your country? Silly Swedes.

View attachment 4347

Because the Viking natives don't depose their transnationalist rulers, Sweden itself is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome

 

[angelo]

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Your tactics are very much like those of a climate change denialist or a creationist: when someone points out that your claim is bullshit, you abandon it (until the next thread) and make some other ridiculous claim.

Sheehan's article does not in any way corroborate your bullshit claim about refugees on welfare. Which means that your claim, which you got from Bolt, is still unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you could read the SONA report available from the Dept of Human Services, where you can get some actual FACTS about refugees instead of remaining wilfully ignorant and hateful.

Because at the moment, you have a twisted idea of who refugees are and what they do. And in the age of the internet you have no excuse for failing to look at anything beyond opinion columns and blogs.

You haven't read, or turn a blind eye to the article I've linked to by Paul Sheehan. He addresses the question of welfare. Who do I believe, an ideologist or a journalist is the question. But you can go check the dep of immigration settlement outcomes yourself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Our Fatal Leadership Has Been Exactly Like the Turkish General at Vienna on SEPTEMBER 11, 1683

Retaliation for what? We hadn't done anything that actually harmed Bin Laden's interests.

What happened is that he saw that we would stand in the way of his plans and thus he realized he had to drive us off first.

Nothing will justify 911 but the motivations of the people who did it are mainly the presence of the US in their homeland.

US bases in Saudi Arabia

To protect OPECkers' price-gouging, which Big Oil piggybacks off. The Wahhabis saw this as a sign of greed-induced weakness and a detour from our natural hostility, which had prevented the Global Caliphate for a millennium.

 

[angelo]

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-respo...cations/settlement-outcomes-of-new-arrivals

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Anti-Semitism Always Leaves a Yellow Stain

And that's why you're not bumping your head off the floor five times a day. What, you thought it was a coincidence that islamic aggression was at an ebb these past few centuries ? Sorry to inform you but normal service has been restored.

So-called Islamic aggression intensifies with the intrusion of Israel into the ME and with the meddling of foreign powers into the affairs of Middle Eastern countries .

Israel evicted a wildlife preserve, so talk to PETA about that.

The wolf is at the door, its fangs dripping with blood and oil. Cowardly weakling misfits want us to pet it and bring it inside.

 

[KeepTalking]

Angelo has posted the bullshit 85% figure before, and has been refuted before, but he insists on repeating the lie because fuck, who has time to learn things when you can just read Andrew Bolt's column and get your hateful bullshit in distilled form?

Angelo got the figure from Andrew Bolt. Bolt got the figure from Simon Benson writing for the Daily Telegraph. Benson flat out made the number up because it does not appear in the SONA report he referenced.

I've pointed this out to Angelo before but he doesn't actually care that the figure is a figment of some writer's imagination--it sounds outrageous and that's good enough.

It's just plain embarrassing that people are stupid enough to believe shitlords like Bolt and the other fuckwits at News Corp. Believing their rubbish is just as stupid as believing the crap written on climate change denier blogs or creationist blogs.

In fact Andrew Bolt is one of the many twits perpetuating the lie that there has been a 15+ year pause in global warming. Are you gullible enough, Angelo, to believe Bolt when he makes that claim?

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Apparently, neither can you, as your link is entirely devoid of them, and even a cursory glance at the url reveals what it actually is:
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

"Political-opinion", quite the opposite of fact, don't you think?

 

[Bomb#20]

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for with respect to the original dispute. Do you mean

1. The religious wars would have happened anyway, with or without the Reformation, because of the printing press,
2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,
3. Democracy and abolition and women's lib would have happened anyway, with or without the Enlightenment, because of the printing press,
4. ???

 

[Bomb#20]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to Palestine in the 1880s to the 1950s was good for the indigenous people.

The Palestinians of the 19'th century lived in abject poverty. It had a medieval technological level. They don't now. It's hard to make the case they're worse off now. There's also loads of Palestinians living inside Israel. They're doing fine. Way better than their grandparents.

That's how you want to defend your claim? Seriously? So when the all of it positive research you were referencing says immigration is always good, what it means is that in 2180 people are going to perceive the 2015 British as living in abject poverty with medieval technology, and they're going to perceive the descendants of the half of the native population who didn't flee or die during the intervening hundred years of communal violence as doing fine and way better than their grandparents? That's not an argument that immigration is always good. That's an argument that the overall advance of civilization will eventually repair the harm done by mass immigration. You might as well claim that WWII was on the whole beneficial, because look how much richer we are than people were in the 1930s.

 

[skepticalbip]

You might as well claim that WWII was on the whole beneficial, because look how much richer we are than people were in the 1930s.

Believe it or not but I have actually heard that argued. The argument went something like we wouldn't have had the rapid advance in technologies like aircraft design, radar, or nuclear physics if it hadn't been for that war. All true but the war certainly wasn't beneficial to humanity. If not for the war we could have easily waited another decade for technology to advance and saved a hell of a lot of lives and suffering.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

After 9/11, Infidelphia Pressed the Snooze Alarm

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

I'm not sure what you're arguing for with respect to the original dispute. Do you mean

1. The religious wars would have happened anyway, with or without the Reformation, because of the printing press,
2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,
3. Democracy and abolition and women's lib would have happened anyway, with or without the Enlightenment, because of the printing press,
4. ???

Despite the scribblings of histwhorian hermits isolated in academentia, the Renaissance actually started as a reaction to the Moslem conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was a wake-up call, "You're next!" Since the East wasn't that much different from Western Europe, people started questioning the basic foundations of their society. Fear was what brought freedom.

 

[jonatha]

From every $100 you or I pay in taxes, no more than 2c goes to welfare payments for asylum seekers.

I would happily pay your share; I can post you a cheque for this month's payment if you like, but I am prepared to bet that the stamp will have a higher face value than the cheque.

If you pay $10,000 in income tax per annum (which amount is consistent with a rather above median income), then the amount I owe you is about $2 for the year. If you want to come and pick it up, I am more than happy to hand it to you.

And of course, that's if we believe your completely fictitious 85% figure - a figure you have made no attempt to support with evidence.

Your great compassion in refusing to spend two bucks a year to help thousands of needy human beings is noted. Remind me not to rely on you if I ever find myself in need of any kind of assistance.

I think your math is bullshit.
Assuming EU population 500mil and number of refugees 1mil, that means 1 refugee per 500 people. Now let say one refugee costs $10,000 a year. That means $20 per person. So send me 20 bucks

Bilby and angelo are in Australia....

 

[whichphilosophy]

This Inman believes that Europe is taking in too many Muslims and Muslim countries are not taking in any or enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oImkFVDDoE

 

[dystopian]

Despite the scribblings of histwhorian hermits isolated in academentia, the Renaissance actually started as a reaction to the Moslem conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was a wake-up call, "You're next!" Since the East wasn't that much different from Western Europe, people started questioning the basic foundations of their society. Fear was what brought freedom.

 

[Jayjay]

It's not just about muslim countries not taking muslims. In Iraq, the southern part is not taking refugees from the north.

 

[arkirk]

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

This immigration we are seeing into Europe is largely the result of colonial exploitation of the source countries in the past, then abandonment leading to power vacuums filled by bought and paid for dictators. American and European corporations bought these dictators and supported them till they became so unpopular they could no longer sustain themselves even with American and European support. Past this point attempts at outside European and American hegemony over these countries has become a craps shoot with no winning combinations available. The error of our ways...we keep trying a strategy that became outdated a long time ago and we keep drawing blanks...and retribution. The answer is to give these people their own countries to operate and take care of ourselves. The more we mess with these countries with policies like "regime change" the more we simply open up new power vacuums that seem to be occupied by nastier and nastier forms of governance...eg ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, etc. etc. etc. These all base their recruitment on the need to stave off our assault on their sovereignty. These outfits are vaprous and cruel and have no real social policies. They will fall of their own shortcomings and do not require shock and awe to dispose of them. We need in America alternatives to reliance on sacrifice zone dependent energy policies. We have our work cut out for us and somehow we just keep ignoring the tasks confronting us and seeking some sort of glorious outcome from a totally inglorious conflict in the middle east.

The refugees you are seeing in Europe are as Juan Gonzalez called the latino refugees in the U.S. .....the harvest of empire. You need to cope with that harvest in the absolutely most humane manner you can and stop your denialism. Europe should not resist. Neither should we.

 

[bilby]

From every $100 you or I pay in taxes, no more than 2c goes to welfare payments for asylum seekers.

I would happily pay your share; I can post you a cheque for this month's payment if you like, but I am prepared to bet that the stamp will have a higher face value than the cheque.

If you pay $10,000 in income tax per annum (which amount is consistent with a rather above median income), then the amount I owe you is about $2 for the year. If you want to come and pick it up, I am more than happy to hand it to you.

And of course, that's if we believe your completely fictitious 85% figure - a figure you have made no attempt to support with evidence.

Your great compassion in refusing to spend two bucks a year to help thousands of needy human beings is noted. Remind me not to rely on you if I ever find myself in need of any kind of assistance.

I think your math is bullshit.
Assuming EU population 500mil and number of refugees 1mil, that means 1 refugee per 500 people. Now let say one refugee costs $10,000 a year. That means $20 per person. So send me 20 bucks

Angelo and I are in Australia. Our taxes do not go to refugees in Europe, except for the tiny percentage of the UNHCR funding that comes from Australia, a tiny percentage of which goes to their operations in the EU. That figure I have not even attempted to calculate, but I am prepared to bet that it is at least two orders of magnitude less than the direct payments to unemployed asylum seekers in Australia that I am talking about.