Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

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.

Oh ffs, it appears there is no limit to you absurd comparisons. You hit rock bottom and then start digging, bravo, bravo.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Oh ffs, it appears there is no limit to you absurd comparisons. You hit rock bottom and then start digging, bravo, bravo.

People in this thread are saying essentially that we're betraying our great-grandchildren by integrating people who are not us and letting them have be part of where our society is going. Pointing out that my great-grandchildren might not actually like the direction in which I'd like to steer society (even though I of course hope they will) is a perfectly relevant discussion point in that context.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as "proper German culture".

There is just an every changing culture that now includes some good folks from the ME.

 

[TSwizzle]

People in this thread are saying essentially that we're betraying our great-grandchildren by integrating people who are not us and letting them have be part of where our society is going.

You are fooling no one with this claptrap.

 

[untermensche]

People in this thread are saying essentially that we're betraying our great-grandchildren by integrating people who are not us and letting them have be part of where our society is going.

You are fooling no one with this claptrap.

You are fooling nobody with your xenophobic stories aimed to frighten children.

 

[TSwizzle]

You are fooling no one with this claptrap.

You are fooling nobody with your xenophobic stories aimed to frighten children.

And that goes for you also with your random assertions of how it's all the West's fault.

 

[Jokodo]

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?

I don't know - do you? However, in a recent international poll where respondents in 23 different countries where asked whether they believe a woman should have a right to abortion under any circumstances, the ratio of "yes" answers was higher in Turkey (the only Muslim majority country polled) than in places like Canada, Germany, or the United States, and another study is cited by Wikipedia as finding 80% yes answers in Azerbaijan, with 2/3 of no respondents arguing for exceptions if e.g. the family can't afford children or the woman is unmarried.

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".

Strawman.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh ffs, it appears there is no limit to you absurd comparisons. You hit rock bottom and then start digging, bravo, bravo.

People in this thread are saying essentially that we're betraying our great-grandchildren by integrating people who are not us and letting them have be part of where our society is going. Pointing out that my great-grandchildren might not actually like the direction in which I'd like to steer society (even though I of course hope they will) is a perfectly relevant discussion point in that context.

You great-grandchildren, like people in general, will think they are living at the apex of societal evolution even if it is a less secular, more religious, and more intolerant society than today or if there is no religion and is more tolerant. So don't worry. It doesn't matter what society in 2115 is, your great-grandchildren will think it is almost perfect. They may be stoning infidels or they may be bombing pockets of religious nuts that condemn and attack them for not being religious.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>They may be stoning infidels or they may be bombing pockets of religious nuts that condemn and attack them for not being religious.

You must have a sad life if you think those are the only two options, or even plausible.

 

[skepticalbip]

<snip>They may be stoning infidels or they may be bombing pockets of religious nuts that condemn and attack them for not being religious.

You must have a sad life if you think those are the only two options, or even plausible.

Where the hell did I say those were the only two options. They are just possibilities that your great-grandchildren may think are perfectly acceptable. You can have no idea what their culture will find "normal". But no matter what society in 2115 is, the immigration of large numbers of people bringing their cultures and ideas into Europe will have some influence (maybe a significant influence) on how that society evolves.

 

[Jokodo]

You must have a sad life if you think those are the only two options, or even plausible.

Where the hell did I say those were the only two options. They are just possibilities that your great-grandchildren may think are perfectly acceptable. You can have no idea what their culture will find "normal". But no matter what society in 2115 is, the immigration of large numbers of people bringing their cultures and ideas into Europe will have some influence (maybe a significant influence) on how that society evolves.

Yes, letting large numbers of people from other places settle here in 2015 may well have an influence on what this place looks like in 2115.
Not confronting xenophobic Pied Pipers when they try, in 2015, to use people's insecurities for their own ends also will have an effect on what this place looks like in 2115, or even in 2030.

If the record of European history is anything to go by, the latter if far more dangerous.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Those numbers were a projection of possibilities given trends. Whatever the actual number it will be, those numbers demonstrate that at current rates of growth those are deep concern. Apparently the numbers "you see" are only the numbers you are willing to read.

Starting in May of 2015 the monthly number of asylum seekers increased to 5400, rising to 8100 in July. It continued upward, and in August it rose to 11,800 and in September to 24306. The total coming to 73,000 for the year. EVEN if the numbers level off to 25,000 per month for October, November and December that is another 75,000 which brings the total to 150,000 per year (and if, as you said, the current number is 86,000 as of mid-October, we are right on track).

If, on the hand, the upward trend continued arithmetically (say 35K for Oct, 45K for Nov, and 55K for December) then the total would be 210,000 for the year (much more than 180K). As the daily rate rate has already has been close to 1000 per day (25,000 divided by 30 days) the authors speculation is entirely plausible, as is 180K figure for the year.

THE ONLY way Sweden can have a total of 100,000 asylum for the year is if applications for Oct, Nov, and Dec plummets to 8000 per month. It could happen, but could just as easily go the other way...which is the authors concern.

AND next year? With many millions of displaced or economically challenged persons still seeking to get into Europe, many other nations refusing entry, then any bigger number is plausible...e.g. 30,000 (or more) per month is not out of the question. If so, that could mean 360,000 applications for Sweden in 2016.

So please cease the hand waving denial - the numbers and trend lines are well known and the news is not good.

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.

Yes, we get your continued denial and handwaving. But that is the point, those "ifs" have already happened - generous chain migration into Sweden is a reality. The prior years numbers are in the article.

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.

You need to review the numbers. The latest month of completed data is September at 24,000 or so applications for that month. Only if applications drop to 8K per month (or less) will the 100K figure be attained. Alternatively it could be double that.

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.

Yes, "anything is possible", but that was not your original objection. Your objection was the author suggesting that it is possible to have 180k in a year or 1000 to 1500 per month. If your backing off your absolutist claims then say so.

Moreover, not that this trend started in May (not the last two months).

As I have shown, as long as there is war and economic reasons the desire for the migration of millions to the most lucrative entitlement welfare states it will continue. Perhaps more, perhaps less, but relentlessly.

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.

Wrong. See above. The "pool" of those wishing to migrate has barely been touched.

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

My honest question did not get an honest answer. Either it is possible or usual that asylum seekers eventually bring their families or not. Telling us that "well, its not automatic" is a lame and weak acknowledgement that the author's estimates are based on a valid assumption.

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.

So you are out of intellectual ammunition are you? So you have nothing left but to confirm that Norway's refusal to be a doormat has reduced their door ringers (and kickers) to a 1/5th to 1/10th of that of Sweden? You're making progress.

e) So why are you in denial?

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

Staying in Stage One of Battered European Syndrome is no way to go through life.

Cease the Denial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where does this figure of 1000-1500 asylum seekers a day even come from? There's been about 86,000 asylum seekers to Sweden across all of 2015 thus far. If we take the government estimate of 100,000 total this year... that gives us an average figure of 274 asylum seekers a day. In other words, the idiot/dishonest bastard you quoted multiplied the base numbers by as much as 5,5 before he arbitrarily decided to extrapolate over a ridiculous period of time.

But by all means... keep pretending the sky is falling.

And the flow has been constant all year???

 

[maxparrish]

Where does this figure of 1000-1500 asylum seekers a day even come from? There's been about 86,000 asylum seekers to Sweden across all of 2015 thus far. If we take the government estimate of 100,000 total this year... that gives us an average figure of 274 asylum seekers a day. In other words, the idiot/dishonest bastard you quoted multiplied the base numbers by as much as 5,5 before he arbitrarily decided to extrapolate over a ridiculous period of time.

But by all means... keep pretending the sky is falling.

And the flow has been constant all year???

No, which was my prior point. In September the flow was closer to 800 or more a day. The October 10th issue of the Swedish publication DN.se reports that in the previous seven days, there has been 9000 applications. That is a rate of 1285 per day, or 38,500 per month.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/lansstyrelser-varnar-for-krislage-om-flyktingvagen-fortsatter/

Anyone parroting the government line of "don't worry, only 100,000 for the year" is either extraordinarily gullible or a willing dupe.

By the way, here is a handy Swedish report up to Oct 1. http://www.migrationsverket.se/down...5+-+Applications+for+asylum+received+2015.pdf

 

[bilby]

And the flow has been constant all year???

No, which was my prior point. In September the flow was closer to 800 or more a day. The October 10th issue of the Swedish publication DN.se reports that in the previous seven days, there has been 9000 applications. That is a rate of 1285 per day, or 38,500 per month.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/lansstyrelser-varnar-for-krislage-om-flyktingvagen-fortsatter/

Anyone parroting the government line of "don't worry, only 100,000 for the year" is either extraordinarily gullible or a willing dupe.

By the way, here is a handy Swedish report up to Oct 1. http://www.migrationsverket.se/down...5+-+Applications+for+asylum+received+2015.pdf

OK, so the rate was 800 a day in September; and increased by 485 per month to 1285 in October, a 60% increase in just one month. At this rate of increase, we can see that by October 2017 - just two years from now - the entire population of the world will have sought asylum in Sweden, and another 3.5 billion will arrive that month.

Assuming 80kg per person, the total mass of asylum seekers in Sweden will exceed the mass of the Earth in May of 2023, less than a decade from now. Never mind Sharia Law; these guys are going to fuck up Kepler's Laws too.

I just don't see how the Swedish system can cope with such an influx. Obviously this is a massive disaster in the making.

 

[Ford]

OK, so the rate was 800 a day in September; and increased by 485 per month to 1285 in October, a 60% increase in just one month. At this rate of increase, we can see that by October 2017 - just two years from now - the entire population of the world will have sought asylum in Sweden, and another 3.5 billion will arrive that month.

Well now you're just being ridiculous.

Remember, we're talking about the filthy brown Muzzies here. There's only a billion or so of those dastardly terrorists, so the idea that 3.5 billion will arrive in Sweden is a bit off base.

What Maxie is saying is that when the billion dirty murderous Muslims DO arrive on the continent, the Aryan nature of nations like Sweden will be compromised by competing ethnicity and subhuman culture. Furthermore, your statistical analysis clearly doesn't take into account the fact that long before all the "human gangrene" coalesces in Sweden, there will no doubt be a "final solution" to purge the non-Aryan invaders from pristine White Europe.


I don't know about you, but I'm calling my broker tomorrow morning and telling him to invest in boxcars and Zyklon B.

 

[Bomb#20]

Consider yourself mocked.

Oh no!

Hey man, you're the one who said stupid statements should be mocked. You made a stupid statement.

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?

So you were actually talking about the long-term benefits of low levels of immigration, which nobody has disputed here, and introduced it into a discussion of a specific high immigration situation because of your deep appreciation of the red herring as a form of performance art? If you hadn't intended to imply that the current spike will in the long run be beneficial then you'd have had no reason to write what you wrote.

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.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. "It is demographically impossible FOR YOU to get a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence." Obviously America can get a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence; we're getting Latin American influence. But the demographics of the people currently trying to get into Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. and having a substantial rate of success at getting in are different from the demographics of the people trying to get into other places; and there is no politically powerful demographic in Northern Europe in a position to enact policies preferentially admitting Christians or Hindus or Buddhists over Muslims. Hungary could probably pull off a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence. You can't.

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.

Then you're in need of a logic lesson.

It's almost like you're responding to some sort of bizarre argument that I never made and can't even fathom.

What you wrote that I'm responding to was not an argument. I was responding to your expression of your evident certainty that "assert that a surge of Islamic influence in Europe would be wonderful for European society" did not describe anything people in this thread had said. But anybody who's paying attention to the thread can recognize your own earlier post as a case in point. If you can't fathom that, that's your failing, not mine and not skepticalbip's.

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.

Yes, you were just typing libelous words. So keep trumping up those strawman accusations; keep advertising that you consider libeling your opponents an acceptable debating tactic.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

You talking about repoman? If so, what evidence do you have that he doesn't recognize it as a terrorist attack? And assuming for the sake of discussion that he doesn't, what evidence do you have that what culture the perp is from had the slightest thing to do with repoman's failure to recognize it?

 

[repoman]

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?

You talking about repoman? If so, what evidence do you have that he doesn't recognize it as a terrorist attack? And assuming for the sake of discussion that he doesn't, what evidence do you have that what culture the perp is from had the slightest thing to do with repoman's failure to recognize it?

Oh yes, it could be a terrorist attack if from a native who is against immigration and it would be well justified as well.

From the point of view of many Muslims the killing of Theo VanGogh was justified. And by the strict reading of Hadiths it probably was. Also it has cowed many europeans, so you can't say it was not effective.

This is a war and the gloves are off.

 

[angelo]

Some indeed are fleeing for their lives. But the vast majority of this muzzie invasion are single men who are economic migrants. If things are as bad as claimed by these freeloaders, why risk leaving their loved ones including their women and children behind to fend for themselves?

The good news is that it seems ISIS are now on the run. The bad news is guess where many are likely to end up.

I'm sure Merkel will make them welcome!