Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

Some Buddhists were starving while surrounded by cattle. Again, religion poisons everything.

 

[Jokodo]

The common denominator is religion and culture. It is not ethnicity, language or Western oppression. Surely it's the inability of Islam to separate church and state, which means that it can't accept the necessary secular cultural values needed in a modern society as we have vin the Western world.
This is why they will never assimilate with Europeans, or any other Western democratic society.

Your hypothesis makes the wrong predictions for, among other places, Montenegro or Suriname.

Your hypothesis is thus empirically inadequate. The intellectually honest move is to drop it and come up with a better one.

Uncontrolled immigration to the West is signing the West's death certificate.

A prediction derived from a hypothesis we know to be empirically inadequate. ie., exactly like saying that you'll fall off the rim of the world if you keep moving west long enough.

 

[Juma]

Yup, I get what you're saying... Darkies. Let's keep Europe white. Wouldn't want to muddy our superior aryan gene-pool with impure blood, now would we?

That's right, I'm glad you're in agreement.

Because if we do , then give it a few decades and the whites will be the oppressed minority in their own country, what's so great about that?

What is the problem?

 

[Bar-Jesus]

The moral of the story is that conservatism is bad. And that being flexible and liberal is the road to success.

Yet you're still in favour of importing millions of conservative muslims to your liberal paradise, hmm, yep that sounds like a good move - kind of like inviting a busload of male gropers to the womens' peace camp, lol

 

[Bar-Jesus]

What is the problem?

What's the prob with the whites being a repressed minority in their own country, err gee you got me there, perhaps I'd best ask my white pals from Zimbabwe, see what they think....

 

[DrZoidberg]

The moral of the story is that conservatism is bad. And that being flexible and liberal is the road to success.

Yet you're still in favour of importing millions of conservative muslims to your liberal paradise, hmm, yep that sounds like a good move - kind of like inviting a busload of male gropers to the womens' peace camp, lol

The point is that it's a false dichotomy. It doesn't matter if they come here and are conservative. They'll lose in the market. Sweden has a free market. Those that get tired of always coming last in every competition will switch to liberalism. Conservatism is just based on an irrational fear of change.

That said. I think it's good that conservatives exist. A democratic system needs the conservatives to balance out the fringe loons. But even so. History teaches us that the conservatives will always lose in the end. They always do.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Except the US is mainly conservative as is the UK - so what are you on about?

 

[dystopian]

Yup, I get what you're saying... Darkies. Let's keep Europe white. Wouldn't want to muddy our superior aryan gene-pool with impure blood, now would we?

That's right, I'm glad you're in agreement.

Because if we do , then give it a few decades and the whites will be the oppressed minority in their own country, what's so great about that?

Ah, was wondering when someone would make the mistake of throwing that one out again. Some people looove to make the claim white people will be outbred by the muslims, but basic math shows this to be an absurd fear. Contrary to popular delusion, muslims and other descended-from-immigrant populations in Europe do *not* have much higher birthrates than do white Europeans. The gap is actually pretty narrow, and continuing to get narrower still. In addition, people like yourself routinely overestimate the number of muslims who are already here. Only 4% of the EU's population is muslim. Projections show that it'll only be 10.2% in 2050, and that's not taking into account the falling birthrate among muslims.

But even if we switch over from bitching about Islam to bitching about non-white people, math still doesn't support your absurd fears. The total percentage of non-indigenous people in Europe is only 4%; and among the Africans and Asians and Middle-Easteners, that includes a lot of white people from places like North-America, and other groups more commonly treated as part of the groups we're okay with in Europe like Jews. There is simply no way for your nonsense to come to pass in the next few decades (or really, ever).

And sure, the percentages vary when we look at individual countries instead of Europe as a whole... but even in the countries with the highest current percentages, the math simply doesn't allow for what you're claiming.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

funny then, how that the US is only 50% white, when not so long ago it was way more than that - how do you figure that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

funny then, how that the US is only 50% white, when not so long ago it was way more than that - how do you figure that?

And 35 000 years ago all humans were black. Fancy that.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

that's just more irrelevant drivel

 

[dystopian]

funny then, how that the US is only 50% white, when not so long ago it was way more than that - how do you figure that?

First of all, the US is NOT 'only 50% white'. White people make up 63.7% of the US population. 16.4% of the population is Hispanic (which is certainly white-adjacent at least). African-Americans make up 12.2% of the population, and Asians make up 4.7%. If you're going to be a racist, at least make sure you get your facts straight.

But let's assume for a moment you said 63.7% instead of 50%: You'd have easily been able to figure out the reasons yourself if you knew even the tiniest bit of history and contemporary world trends.

The first reason is that black people have been a much higher percentage of the US population than black people in Europe for *centuries*. Black people represented almost 20% of the US population as far back as 1790. Compare that to all the Black, Asians, Middle-Easteners, and Latin-Americans in Europe *combined* only adding up to 4% today. The percentage has shifted over the centuries of course, sometimes going up, sometimes going down (Especially as a result of European mass immigration); but has always been much higher than it is in Europe.

The second reason, of course, is that birth rates used to be much higher in general. Birth rates have drastically fallen in the past couple of decades, not just in the developed world but across the *entire planet*, even among the poorest countries and minorities. In fact, it has fallen so much that the total number of children in the world is no longer growing. This makes it *impossible* to argue that because X happened to demographics in the US in the past, that therefore the same will happen in Europe in the future. The gap in the birthrates between white and black Europeans isn't anywhere near the gap that existed in the past between black and white Americans.

Once again: the math simply doesn't support your insane fearmongering.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's right, I'm glad you're in agreement.

Because if we do , then give it a few decades and the whites will be the oppressed minority in their own country, what's so great about that?

Ah, was wondering when someone would make the mistake of throwing that one out again. Some people looove to make the claim white people will be outbred by the muslims, but basic math shows this to be an absurd fear. Contrary to popular delusion, muslims and other descended-from-immigrant populations in Europe do *not* have much higher birthrates than do white Europeans. The gap is actually pretty narrow, and continuing to get narrower still. In addition, people like yourself routinely overestimate the number of muslims who are already here. Only 4% of the EU's population is muslim. Projections show that it'll only be 10.2% in 2050, and that's not taking into account the falling birthrate among muslims.

But even if we switch over from bitching about Islam to bitching about non-white people, math still doesn't support your absurd fears. The total percentage of non-indigenous people in Europe is only 4%; and among the Africans and Asians and Middle-Easteners, that includes a lot of white people from places like North-America, and other groups more commonly treated as part of the groups we're okay with in Europe like Jews. There is simply no way for your nonsense to come to pass in the next few decades (or really, ever).

And sure, the percentages vary when we look at individual countries instead of Europe as a whole... but even in the countries with the highest current percentages, the math simply doesn't allow for what you're claiming.

A fair number of Muslims from Arabic countries such as Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and many from outside such as Iran look just like any European so it would be difficult at times to distinguish. Its irrelevant if people look darker or lighter. To me there is nothing wrong with black white or other people living together, but the main problem is mass movement from one place to another. There are a lot of brilliant Arab doctors, Engineers and traders who could benefit Europe but also their own countries need them. If we hadn't created wars in their countries this movement would be considerably less. Nonetheless we still need to put up our borders and question more those who slip into Turkey then Syria and come back again.

- - - Updated - - -

funny then, how that the US is only 50% white, when not so long ago it was way more than that - how do you figure that?

And 35 000 years ago all humans were black. Fancy that.

Shhh, they were whites with black skin.

 

[Bomb#20]

funny then, how that the US is only 50% white, when not so long ago it was way more than that - how do you figure that?

And 35 000 years ago all humans were black. Fancy that.

Cite? Light skin is an adaptation to living outside Africa in an ice age. That's been going on a lot longer than 35,000 years.

 

[repoman]

I think Zoidberg is right, and blue eyes are only about 6,000 years old.

Cool being one of the NKOTB

 

[DrZoidberg]

And 35 000 years ago all humans were black. Fancy that.

Cite? Light skin is an adaptation to living outside Africa in an ice age. That's been going on a lot longer than 35,000 years.

The truth is that we don't really know. All we know is that somewhere between the Himalayas, the Russian plains and Europe we turned pale. But according to the below Wikipedia article Homo Sapiens living in Europe 37 000 years ago were all black, albeit with all the other physical traits we associate with Caucasians. I guess that would be something looking like Pakistanis perhaps? Not to be racist or to offend Pakistanis or anything, but they've always looked like dark Europeans to me. The anatomy I mean. Straight noses, narrow faces and such. Anyhoo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Physical_anthropology

There's a theory that we inherited whiteness from Neanderthals. Neanderthals were all white. I don't know how much traction that has. But Caucasians have the most Neanderthal blood in us. Something like 3% on average. Africans have 0% Neanderthal DNA on average.

But early humans travelled like crazy. There's a sprinkling of African DNA all over Europe as well as European all over Africa in the most remotest places. Same goes for Asian DNA. The humans with the "purest" DNA are native Americans. Which explains how they were almost wiped out when Eurasian diseases were introduced to them in the fourteen hundreds. There's a very strong moral in that story supporting racial mixing.

But the way evolution works is that you get a stable period of plenty when variety explodes and becomes incredibly weird. It must have been during one of these periods that white humans emerged. Then we get some sort of calamity. Usually environmental where most life is pushed to the brink of extinction. Variety very rapidly drops off. Then the calamity retreats and it goes back to being a stable period of plenty. Now with loads of resources with little competition. The cycle repeats itself. And so on and so on. If after one such calamity the only surviving homo sapiens in Europe were white, then naturally they would come to completely dominate Europe. Even if they only started off with a single guy with a dominant trait for white skin, in a group of black Europeans. And this btw doesn't mean that we're a superior race and all that. There's a lot of random here.

We know for a fact that all Europeans with blue eyes is a direct descendent of a single person who lived 6000 years ago.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, was wondering when someone would make the mistake of throwing that one out again. Some people looove to make the claim white people will be outbred by the muslims, but basic math shows this to be an absurd fear. Contrary to popular delusion, muslims and other descended-from-immigrant populations in Europe do *not* have much higher birthrates than do white Europeans. The gap is actually pretty narrow, and continuing to get narrower still. In addition, people like yourself routinely overestimate the number of muslims who are already here. Only 4% of the EU's population is muslim. Projections show that it'll only be 10.2% in 2050, and that's not taking into account the falling birthrate among muslims.

Are those projections based on the assumption that henteekteskap ("retrieve marriage") will continue to be a common practice, or on the assumption that it won't be?

Three out of four Norwegian Pakistanis retrieves spouse in Pakistan

Almost eight out of ten Pakistani ancestry youngsters born and raised in Norway, retrieves the spouse in their parents' homeland.

UPDATED: 12.JAN. 2006 6:20 ISSUED: 12.JAN. 2006 6:20
NTB

Second-generation immigrants are more likely to enter into so-called arranged marriages than their parents were.
This is evident from the figures that the Foundation Human Rights Service (HRS) has ordered from Statistics Norway, Aftenposten writes​

(Source: Aftenbladet, via Google Translate)

It should be painfully obvious that when 3/4 of a population's children are put in arranged marriages to someone from the home country, and the government treats that as grounds to relax the requirements for that person to immigrate, the demographic consequences of a descended-from-immigrant population having a fertility rate of 2.0 children per couple is the same as a normal population that doesn't practice henteekteskap having a fertility rate of 3.5 children per couple.

 

[Bomb#20]

And 35 000 years ago all humans were black. Fancy that.

Cite? Light skin is an adaptation to living outside Africa in an ice age. That's been going on a lot longer than 35,000 years.

The truth is that we don't really know. All we know is that somewhere between the Himalayas, the Russian plains and Europe we turned pale. But according to the below Wikipedia article Homo Sapiens living in Europe 37 000 years ago were all black, albeit with all the other physical traits we associate with Caucasians. I guess that would be something looking like Pakistanis perhaps? Not to be racist or to offend Pakistanis or anything, but they've always looked like dark Europeans to me. The anatomy I mean. Straight noses, narrow faces and such. Anyhoo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Physical_anthropology

There's a theory that we inherited whiteness from Neanderthals. Neanderthals were all white. I don't know how much traction that has. But Caucasians have the most Neanderthal blood in us. Something like 3% on average. Africans have 0% Neanderthal DNA on average.

What you mean "we", white man? So what if your ancestors were a bunch of black Caucasoids banging a bunch of white Neanderthals 37,000 years ago? That's not an overwhelmingly good reason to suppose 40,000-year-ago Mongoloids had black skin.

But early humans travelled like crazy. There's a sprinkling of African DNA all over Europe as well as European all over Africa in the most remotest places. Same goes for Asian DNA.

Indeed so. Cavalli-Sforza's data makes it pretty obvious that the proto-Caucasoids were to a considerable extent the product of hybridization between proto-Negroids and proto-Mongoloids. Not exactly a surprise, given geography.

 

[dystopian]

Are those projections based on the assumption that henteekteskap ("retrieve marriage") will continue to be a common practice, or on the assumption that it won't be?

Just desperate for some reason to deny that the sky isn't falling, aren't you?

The quoted type of arrangements are obviously included in the immigration part of the projection calculations.

 

[repoman]

going on this derail for a little bit more...

The first person to have blue eyed genes wasn't even blue eyed.