Europe submits voluntarily

[skepticalbip]

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful for European society. I have to wonder if they would be as welcoming if these immigrants were primarily staunch Papists.

 

[Trausti]

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful.

I think self-hate is trait unique to Western Europeans. It may be an adverse consequence of the Hajnal line.

 

[dystopian]

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful for European society. I have to wonder if they would be as welcoming if these immigrants were primarily staunch Papists.

It's rather strange that some people whom are presumably otherwise rational people, apparently can't distinguish between on the one hand people wanting to live in open societies with religious freedom and which don't desperately try to keep out all who are 'other', and on the other hand people who assert that a "surge" of islamic influence would be great.

The only people who are saying anything of the latter variety are the xenophobes as they construct strawmen arguments.

 

[maxparrish]

This thread is like a guest on the Jerry Springer show. The guest is in an abusive relationship and the crowd wonders aloud why she's still with him. But despite the battery, infidelity, and money sponging, she can't bring herself to acknowledge the obvious. She loves him Jerry. If only everyone else could understand him like she does, they'd quit criticizing. After all, he's really the victim not her. Blame society.

Good comparison. It should have a place in the DSM-V manual...a new kind of mental disorder. As such, here are the key stages of the illness:

THE FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED SWEDE/GERMAN SYNDROME

DENIAL

The Swede or German refuses to admit--even to themself--that they are being abused or that there is a "problem" in letting these strangers into their national house. They may call each experience of abuse as a "statistical anomaly" or "misunderstood by the haters". They offer excuses for their squatters mooching and violence, and each time they firmly believe it is unrelated to their squatters culture or origins.

GUILT

They now acknowledge there is a problem, but considers themselves responsible for it. They "deserve" to be abused because they were a former colonialist or NAZI, or simply because as a white European they have defects in their character and are not living up to their abusive squatters expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT

The Swede/German no longer assumes responsibility for the guest moochers abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be exploited and abused. They are still committed to their dysfunctional relationship, though, and refuse to boot them out hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY

Accepting the fact that the hordes will not, or can not, stop their behavior and mooching, nor keep the national home in shape; the battered Swede/German decides they will no longer submit to it and pays them to leave...or handcuffs them and ship them out.

So far, Swedes and Germans are mainly at the first or second stage.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful.

I think self-hate is trait unique to Western Europeans. It may be an adverse consequence of the Hajnal line.

But what we're dealing with isn't self-hate. It's the exact opposite -- it's self-congratulation coupled with hatred of "the other". "The other" in this case is all of us lower life forms in Western Civilization who haven't bought into the new religion our betters have decided our society must adopt. You quite reasonably perceive their attitude as self-hate because they're Westerners who always seem to blame the West; but what you aren't grasping is that in their minds they've already partitioned the West into two components. They perceive themselves as component 1; what they're always blaming is component 2.

 

[Jokodo]

I wish he had killed the mayor, better luck next time.

<video snipped>

Better dead than red. <snip>

Ignoring for the moment the rather alarming vileness of your comment, I'm almost tempted to love out loud at this plain demonstration of ignorance. The victim of the assassination attempt isn't a "red", she's an unaffiliated candidate supported by the Christian Democrats (centre-right), the FDP (centre-right), and the greens (centre-left). The Social Democrats, who previously held the office, had their own candidate, who was her most promising competitor and got 32% of the vote today, while "die LINKE" didn't stage a candidate of their own and called on supporters to vote blank.

If you want to stop the reds in Cologne today, killing the non-red candidate who looks like she might take away the office from the reds is likely the most stupid move possible.

Here's a link to the election results: http://wahlen.stadt-koeln.de/prod/O...rbuergermeisterwahl_Gemeinde_Stadt_Koeln.html

And here's one to the candidates: http://www.stadt-koeln.de/politik-u...ergermeister/die-kandidatinnen-und-kandidaten
If you knew a bit about German politics which you obviously don't, you would find that there are at least two candidates to the office of mayor fielded by factions advocating for harsher policies on immigration: A candidate by the "Republicans" (REP), a right-wing split from the conservatives dating back to the 1980s, and one by the "Alternative für Deutschland", a relatively new party founded around the idea of kicking Greece out of the Eurozone but which has shifted its focus on bellowing against immigration and Muslims over the last few months. So if you disagree with Reker's stance on immigrants and would also rather be dead than vote red, you can pick between those too. Fewer than one in twenty voters have done so: between them, they got 4.5%.

Resorting to violence to create fear and achieve a political goal you know you can't achieve by other means for lack of majority support is the very definition of terrorism.

TL;DR: Your a terrorist supporter. Are we supposed to deport you now?

 

[dystopian]

The numbers are from the article, by Ingrid Carlquvist at Gatestone. I linked to it earlier. Let's review the :

Yes. Numbers which I just demonstrated to be utter fabrications.

There is now talk of 180,000 asylum seekers coming to Sweden in 2015.

Most of the figures I'm seeing do not go anywhere near that high. However, it doesn't particularly matter, because it still means the 1000-1500 asylum seekers per day is a grossly overinflated number.

That number is more than twice as many as the year before. If half of them are granted asylum, and they each bring over three relatives, we are talking about 270,000 new immigrants to Sweden – within one year. Over 8000 people arrived just last week, 1,716 of whom were so-called “unaccompanied refugee children”.

That's a lot of ifs. You can not construct a believable argument on numbers that are completely invented.

I said that IF Sweden keeps going down the open borders path they are plausible.

They're not.

You say it is implausible under any circumstance. So, are you saying that:

a) There is no talk of up to 180,000 asylum seekers to Sweden in 2015? That compared to 2014, the numbers of seekers could not end up more than doubled?...or if not doubling this year than next year? Do you honestly think the wars and economic deprivation in the third world that drive these waves are going to end soon? Really?

Most of the figures I see suggest a 100.000 figure. Not 180.000. The figure thus far is around 86.000; you're suggesting that in just over 2 months, more than twice the number of asylum seekers will show up than in the preceding *ten* months. That's unlikely, but not entirely impossible. Either way however, it actually supports my argument rather than yours by demonstrating the problems inherent in looking at only a slice of the timeline and extrapolating from that. If one can have more than a doubling of the numbers in 2 months over the preceding 10 months, then the reverse is possible as well; in fact, it is inevitable as there aren't going to be enough people in this crisis to maintain these kind of numbers for years. Your numbers only work if you make the nonsensical assumption that these sort of people-displacing crisis situations will keep happening without pause. They won't.

b) So there is no chance that 1/2 the applications will be approved...a similar rate to the "non-crisis" prior year?

An irrelevant question since as already explained there is no way to maintain an influx of these sorts of numbers on a yearly basis without inventing shit out of thin air.

c) So Sweden does not permit "chain migration", wherein a foreigner can then bring his relations...such as three others?

A dishonest question, since whether or not they allow it does not demonstrate that they will all bring three others (or that they will average out to that).

That said: it is NOT the case that those granted asylum status are automatically entited to bring their families. Nice try. http://www.w2eu.info/sweden.en/articles/sweden-family.en.html

d) So you deny that Norway is much less tolerant and attractive than Sweden, and has a rate of application 1/5th to 1/10 of that of Sweden?

I don't see what relevance this has to whether or not the numbers are plausible. Just because you're a xenophobe and think the Norwegians are on your side, doesn't mean that perception has any bearing on anything.

e) So why are you in denial?

Denial of what? The utterly ridiculous projections you tell yourself are plausible?

 

[fromderinside]

This thread is like a guest on the Jerry Springer show. The guest is in an abusive relationship and the crowd wonders aloud why she's still with him. But despite the battery, infidelity, and money sponging, she can't bring herself to acknowledge the obvious. She loves him Jerry. If only everyone else could understand him like she does, they'd quit criticizing. After all, he's really the victim not her. Blame society.

Good comparison. It should have a place in the DSM-V manual...a new kind of mental disorder. As such, here are the key stages of the illness:

THE FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED SWEDE/GERMAN SYNDROME

DENIAL

The Swede or German refuses to admit--even to themself--that they are being abused or that there is a "problem" in letting these strangers into their national house. They may call each experience of abuse as a "statistical anomaly" or "misunderstood by the haters". They offer excuses for their squatters mooching and violence, and each time they firmly believe it is unrelated to their squatters culture or origins.

GUILT

They now acknowledge there is a problem, but considers themselves responsible for it. They "deserve" to be abused because they were a former colonialist or NAZI, or simply because as a white European they have defects in their character and are not living up to their abusive squatters expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT

The Swede/German no longer assumes responsibility for the guest moochers abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be exploited and abused. They are still committed to their dysfunctional relationship, though, and refuse to boot them out hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY

Accepting the fact that the hordes will not, or can not, stop their behavior and mooching, nor keep the national home in shape; the battered Swede/German decides they will no longer submit to it and pays them to leave...or handcuffs them and ship them out.

So far, Swedes and Germans are mainly at the first or second stage.

Good. You keep track. Be sure to and tell your friends the Russians to make their clients stop their Syrian self hatred when stage three is eminent. I'm pretty sure, like good little ethnic nationalists, Syrians will storm home in droves blowing up all your closed system models for Sweden and Germany.

That way everybody will be happy. Russian will still have a client. It will have been seen to do something good by the west permitting them, in turn, to lift most of their sanctions. We'll discuss repatriation Russians from Ukraine later.

All that remains is finding a way for you to look good in all this. Sorry. Not my responsibility.

 

[Jokodo]

I think self-hate is trait unique to Western Europeans. It may be an adverse consequence of the Hajnal line.

But what we're dealing with isn't self-hate. It's the exact opposite -- it's self-congratulation coupled with hatred of "the other". "The other" in this case is all of us lower life forms in Western Civilization who haven't bought into the new religion our betters have decided our society must adopt. You quite reasonably perceive their attitude as self-hate because they're Westerners who always seem to blame the West; but what you aren't grasping is that in their minds they've already partitioned the West into two components. They perceive themselves as component 1; what they're always blaming is component 2.

By "component 2", you mean the elements of Western society that are responsible for keeping abortion illegal in Ireland up to this day, and for putting future school teachers in Western Germany of the 1970s through ideology checks where they'd get into trouble if showing any signs of "communist sympathies", such as having been recorded at protests against Neonazis, or having lived in a "commune" (i.e., shared flat) at any point during their study years?

What a lovely bunch, that one.

 

[Bomb#20]

Apparently those who relish third world immigration to Europe can't actually show it to be of benefit to the historic European population, but they sniff out and express cherry-picked skepticism from an overwhelmingly negative picture.

Wut?

It's quite easy to show there's a benefit, actually. There's been numerous studies that show long term economic benefits to taking in immigrants; regardless of the immigrant's ethnicity. These studies have been referenced before in this thread, and I have not witnessed any valid refutations from the xenophobic camp. There is no need to rehash.

There *is* however, a need to mock stupid statements when they are made; or when people quote the stupid statements.

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful for European society. I have to wonder if they would be as welcoming if these immigrants were primarily staunch Papists.

It's rather strange that some people whom are presumably otherwise rational people, apparently can't distinguish between on the one hand people wanting to live in open societies with religious freedom and which don't desperately try to keep out all who are 'other', and on the other hand people who assert that a "surge" of islamic influence would be great.

The only people who are saying anything of the latter variety are the xenophobes as they construct strawmen arguments.

Consider yourself mocked.

It is demographically impossible for you to get a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence. So while the semantic distinction between those two sides of the same coin no doubt justifies in your own mind your feeling that you're calling one a benefit without calling the other a benefit, skepticalbip is perfectly justified in observing that they are in point of fact two labels for one and the same historical event, and observing that you claimed that event is beneficial. So take your trumped-up strawman accusation and shove it back down your throat.

 

[TSwizzle]

Merkel is lying through her teeth. The majority of these "refugees" are economic migrants.

So Aleppo is trash and the refuges are not political?

What say you?

I say Aleppo must have been one hell of a size of a city. Very cosmopolitan too judging by the diverse backgrounds of its citizens.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is rather strange that those who celebrate the fact that Europe has pretty much freed itself from the absurdities and shackles of the Christian religion and criticize the US for still having a significant Christian influence now assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful for European society. I have to wonder if they would be as welcoming if these immigrants were primarily staunch Papists.

It's rather strange that some people whom are presumably otherwise rational people, apparently can't distinguish between on the one hand people wanting to live in open societies with religious freedom and which don't desperately try to keep out all who are 'other', and on the other hand people who assert that a "surge" of islamic influence would be great.

The only people who are saying anything of the latter variety are the xenophobes as they construct strawmen arguments.

It isn't a strawman that European culture today will not be the European culture of 2115 any more than it is the European culture of 1915 - with or without the current immigration. Society is constantly undergoing change and strangely people of all ages and all countries predominately think they are living as the apex societal evolution. I personally don't give a shit if Europe or the US has a culture that embodies a great deal of Islamic thought in its customs and laws in 2115 because I won't be here. But the fact is that immigrants do have influence on the direction a culture takes especially if there are a lot of immigrants with the same cultural beliefs. The Culture of Europe and beliefs of Europeans is not fixed. They will continue to change. I think it is great that European culture has shirked off Christian control for a more more secular culture. But that is because I am living in 2015 but if I were living in 1900 then I would have likely thought it was a sign of the devil because that was the way culture conditioned people to think.

Those who are avidly opposed to the flood of immigrates understand that cultures change and want retain European culture. However, the most they would be able to do is try maintain the current culture longer and to steer the direction of change. Those who support the flood if immigrates seem to believe that European culture is now fixed and is immune to the influences of other cultures.

 

[Jokodo]

While he is technically correct; the argument doesn't really hold any water since there's absolutely zero reason to suspect there's anything other than socio-economic factors at play there. And they're statistically also victims more often.

The differences can mostly be explained by the fact that there's large numbers of dissatisfied youth of immigrant descent whose socio-economic position tends to be more fucked up than that of other Germans. Not that racists would accept this obvious bit of reality as explaining the difference when they could just blame it on the foreigners.

You've lost (or never had) the context of original exchange. I pointed out that perhaps people use examples of Muslim violence as a generalization because that group is statistically more violent. It does not matter if it is "ONLY" because they are also an underclass. Both are demographic realities the German Muslim population, and your rationalizations does not make it any less real.

Of course it matters - if you're actually interested in making the situation better, that is. If they're violent because that's "in their nature" as Muslims, keeping more from entering, deporting those already here were legally possible, and making life as hard as can be for those already here where that's prevented by their constitutional rights, hoping that as many as possible will leave by their own choice, might actually make things better. If they're violent because they're part of an underclass, further marginalising them will make things worse, and even to the extent that you succeed in reducing the number of Muslims, the main result will be that more non-Muslims drop into the underclass creating similar problems as long as you don't work on achieving a society that is less fractured along socio-economic lines.

 

[dystopian]

It isn't a strawman that European culture today will not be the European culture of 2115 any more than it is the European culture of 1915.

Which isn't the thing you said that was the strawman.

But that is because I am living in 2115

Give me stock tips.

but if I were living in 1900 then I would have likely thought it was a sign of the devil because that was the way culture conditioned people to think.

Those who are avidly opposed to the flood of immigrates understand that cultures change and want retain European culture. However, the most they would be able to do is try maintain the current culture longer and to steer the direction of change. Those who support the flood if immigrates seem to believe that European culture is now fixed and is immune to the influences of other cultures.

And again, you present a strawman. Not to mention engaging in more of the same type of poisoning of the well that we've seen throughout this thread (calling it a flood and all).

Nobody is "supporting" a "flood" of immigrants. Rather, we're opposing xenophobia and supporting open societies that help those in need. Furthermore, none of us are claiming that European culture is "fixed" and "immune" to outside influence. That is a strawman argument.

 

[Jokodo]

It's rather strange that some people whom are presumably otherwise rational people, apparently can't distinguish between on the one hand people wanting to live in open societies with religious freedom and which don't desperately try to keep out all who are 'other', and on the other hand people who assert that a "surge" of islamic influence would be great.

The only people who are saying anything of the latter variety are the xenophobes as they construct strawmen arguments.

It isn't a strawman that European culture today will not be the European culture of 2115 any more than it is the European culture of 1915 - with or without the current immigration. Society is constantly undergoing change and strangely people of all ages and all countries predominately think they are living as the apex societal evolution. I personally don't give a shit if Europe or the US has a culture that embodies a great deal of Islamic thought in its customs and laws in 2115 because I won't be here. But the fact is that immigrants do have influence on the direction a culture takes especially if there are a lot of immigrants with the same cultural beliefs. The Culture of Europe and beliefs of Europeans is not fixed. They will continue to change. I think it is great that European culture has shirked off Christian control for a more more secular culture. But that is because I am living in 2115 but if I were living in 1900 then I would have likely thought it was a sign of the devil because that was the way culture conditioned people to think.

Those who are avidly opposed to the flood of immigrates understand that cultures change and want retain European culture. However, the most they would be able to do is try maintain the current culture longer and to steer the direction of change. Those who support the flood if immigrates seem to believe that European culture is now fixed and is immune to the influences of other cultures.

I for one am glad that my Nazi great-grandfother didn't get to steer the direction of change of European culture over the last 80 years.

 

[Barbarian]

By "component 2", you mean the elements of Western society that are responsible for keeping abortion illegal in Ireland up to this day, and for putting future school teachers in Western Germany of the 1970s through ideology checks where they'd get into trouble if showing any signs of "communist sympathies", such as having been recorded at protests against Neonazis, or having lived in a "commune" (i.e., shared flat) at any point during their study years?

What a lovely bunch, that one.

The Mother of All Red Herrings has arrived. What the hell does Irish political Catholicism or - alleged - German radical anti-communism have to do with the leftist intelligentsia's obvious disdain for the plebs?

 

[dystopian]

Consider yourself mocked.

Oh no!

It is demographically impossible for you to get a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence. So while the semantic distinction between those two sides of the same coin no doubt justifies in your own mind your feeling that you're calling one a benefit without calling the other a benefit, skepticalbip is perfectly justified in observing that they are in point of fact two labels for one and the same historical event, and observing that you claimed that event is beneficial.

Wow. It's amazing you somehow think you've made a relevant and coherent argument.

Let's see.

1) I never said anything about getting to high levels of third world immigration; I merely stated that there are studies that show long-term benefits to immigration regardless of ethnicity. Where are you getting this notion from, that I want to get to a high level of third world immigration? Or that it is necessary for anything I said?

2) It actually is perfectly possible to get a high level of third world immigration without a surge of islamic influence. You might be aware of the fact that the third world consists of many countries including countries that are not islamic.

3) I have absolutely no idea why you think that the part in italics means anything. I realize it's a collection of english words that appear to be placed in a grammatically correct order... I just don't see what it's actually supposed to *mean* in the context of anything I said. It's like you're talking an alien language that just sounds like english. It's almost like you're responding to some sort of bizarre argument that I never made and can't even fathom. You know. Kind of like a strawman.

So take your trumped-up strawman accusation and shove it back down your throat.

I'm sorry you're angry. I was just typing words.

 

[Jokodo]

Strange that very little of this is actually a problem here in Sweden. Our problem is fearmongering facists/nazists.

Is it? Sounds like a good reason to cut back on the fearmongering fascist/nazist imports then. The trouble is, for some reason it seems to cripple a lot of people's ability to recognize a fearmongering fascist/nazist when they encounter one, if the guy happens to be from culture A instead of from culture B.

You mean like some people in this thread fail to recognise an attempted assassination of a politician as a terrorist attack because the perpetrator is from culture A instead of from culture B?

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't a strawman that European culture today will not be the European culture of 2115 any more than it is the European culture of 1915 - with or without the current immigration. Society is constantly undergoing change and strangely people of all ages and all countries predominately think they are living as the apex societal evolution. I personally don't give a shit if Europe or the US has a culture that embodies a great deal of Islamic thought in its customs and laws in 2115 because I won't be here. But the fact is that immigrants do have influence on the direction a culture takes especially if there are a lot of immigrants with the same cultural beliefs. The Culture of Europe and beliefs of Europeans is not fixed. They will continue to change. I think it is great that European culture has shirked off Christian control for a more more secular culture. But that is because I am living in 2115 but if I were living in 1900 then I would have likely thought it was a sign of the devil because that was the way culture conditioned people to think.

Those who are avidly opposed to the flood of immigrates understand that cultures change and want retain European culture. However, the most they would be able to do is try maintain the current culture longer and to steer the direction of change. Those who support the flood if immigrates seem to believe that European culture is now fixed and is immune to the influences of other cultures.

I for one am glad that my Nazi great-grandfother didn't get to steer the direction of change of European culture over the last 80 years.

Good for you. But you are apparently glad for those who did steer the direction of change.

 

[Bomb#20]

But what we're dealing with isn't self-hate. It's the exact opposite -- it's self-congratulation coupled with hatred of "the other". "The other" in this case is all of us lower life forms in Western Civilization who haven't bought into the new religion our betters have decided our society must adopt. You quite reasonably perceive their attitude as self-hate because they're Westerners who always seem to blame the West; but what you aren't grasping is that in their minds they've already partitioned the West into two components. They perceive themselves as component 1; what they're always blaming is component 2.

By "component 2", you mean the elements of Western society that are responsible for keeping abortion illegal in Ireland up to this day, and for putting future school teachers in Western Germany of the 1970s through ideology checks where they'd get into trouble if showing any signs of "communist sympathies", such as having been recorded at protests against Neonazis, or having lived in a "commune" (i.e., shared flat) at any point during their study years?

What a lovely bunch, that one.

So what fraction of the current wave of Muslim immigrants do you think are in favor of legal abortion?

And yet, in your head, a person who thinks it's a bad idea to reduce the fraction of the population who support a woman's right to choose abortion are the same "elements" that are responsible for keeping abortion illegal in Ireland up to this day? This is exactly the problem. There's a new religion in town. It kids itself that it's the historical culmination of liberalism even though it is in fact an utter betrayal of liberalism. And it responds to criticism from actual liberals by pretending to itself that they're paleoconservatives, or fascists, or Neonazis, as a way to give itself permission not to think about the criticism. It has an us-against-them mentality -- a mentality that's leading it to put women's right to choose abortion at risk, just so it can pat itself on the back about how much more enlightened it is than the undifferentiated mass of unbelievers it considers "them".