NationStates Jolt Archive

The Rape of Europe
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25 20:57

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609

You think "Eurabia" is a possibility or just fear mongering?

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

Right, because allowing Muslim immigrants will KILL EVERY1!!!! ZOMG

"Islam" means submission to God, not to EVIL MUSLIM TERRISTS.

It's equivalent to the phrase "God-fearing" when used to refer to Christianity.

So, more stupid fear-mongering, of the sort that you wet your pants about, NN.

Ironically, Prewar Germany was also all about fearing an evil, parasitic religion. But now I guess at least this author has gotten with the times: yesteryear it was Jew-hating, now it's Muslim-hating.

Fear Mongering.

Islam is the latest gravy-train for authors, right anything critical of it, or some tinfoil hat muslim occupation force conspiracy theory and presto, best seller. I mean this is a classic demonization tactic; exaggerating group X's influence.....

Fear Mongering.

Islam is the latest gravy-train for authors, right anything critical of it and presto, best seller.

The irony is, if what is said about Islam was said about Judaism, it wouldn't even be legal in Germany to say - and anywhere else, it would get slammed down as bigoted, racist, anti-semitic nazi trash.

It is considered politically correct to hate on Muslims because apparently, Judaism is a "race" (hey it says so in the Bible, they're the Chosen Ones descended from Abraham right? must be TRUUUE!) whereas Muslims are 'only' a religious group.

Fuck that. Hypocracy. What Europe needs to "wake up" to is the threat of their own history of religious persecution and fascism.

The irony is, if what is said about Islam was said about Judaism, it wouldn't even be legal in Germany to say - and anywhere else, it would get slammed down as bigoted, racist, anti-semitic nazi trash.

It is considered politically correct to hate on Muslims because apparently, Judaism is a "race" (hey it says so in the Bible, they're the Chosen Ones descended from Abraham right? must be TRUUUE!) whereas Muslims are 'only' a religious group.

Fuck that. Hypocracy. What Europe needs to "wake up" to is the threat of their own history of religious persecution and fascism.

I wonder...

If one were to re-release Mein Kampf with all Jewish references replaced with Islam references, how well would it sell before everyone figured it out?

It is considered politically correct to hate on Muslims because apparently, Judaism is a "race" (hey it says so in the Bible, they're the Chosen Ones descended from Abraham right? must be TRUUUE!) whereas Muslims are 'only' a religious group.

Worse than that, its politically incorrect to be positive of muslims or Islam. Imagine a movie with a character named Abu Rashid, who plays a postive supportive role of the main protaganist. There would be a societal outcry, the film would instantly be labelled PC/multiculturalism/muslim propaganda, no, its only proper to depict muslims in media holding a koran in one hand and firing an AK-47 into a maturnity ward with the other.

Oh noes! :eek:

They can't flee to Australia because we too are being overrun by the dreaded muslim hordes. :rolleyes:

Islamistic extremists are just as seldom as christian ones. They're just making more headlines these days.

Seeing that most immigrant families in Germany have 3 to 4 kids, and most German couples decide if they have one kid or none at all, immigrants may surely outgrow us. On the other hand, I know third generation Turkish-Germans. They're typically just as muslim as I am christian. I think this trend will also continue in the future.

Isn't "pessimistic" and "German" redundant?

*ducks*

sorry, couldn't resist.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609

You think "Eurabia" is a possibility or just fear mongering?

Fear Mongering.

*offers you a taco* Taco?

sorry, couldn't resist.
Don't appologise. It's true!

I've read Broder's stuff for some time now, and he's certainly got a point at times. He used to be a satirist, now he turned a bit more serious.

He's also Jewish, which may explain the particularly negative view he has of Islam and Muslims in general. Because in recent times he has at times said quite extreme things - he's a proponent of this "clash of cultures"/"WWIII" idea, which I don't share.

To come back to the OP: Eurabia...depends on what you want to read into it, doesn't it.

I mean, Islamic parties and groups are certainly going to get political eventually. And once they get votes, they'll start to influence government policy. No way around it.
The demographics tell us though that it will be another century before we can expect a real Islamic people's party that would actually hold a solid majority in a European parliament, and a lot of things can and will happen until then.

I haven't given up on the idea that a few good government policies can change the face of immigration in Europe. It just needs to be done, and if the Europe created after the French Revolution fades from existence, it's our current politicians and the right-wing "we're against it all" nutcases that make a serious and honest discussion so impossible.

Of course, I'll be quite old and rich by then, so I don't really care. Business is business, regardless of which religion we're talking about. :D

If you have a problem with this supposed Islamisation of Europe, take it out on Islam, not on Muslim people.

Muslim immigrants just want to make a better life for themselves, its unfair that they would be descriminated against in immigrating into Europe just because European citizens are afraid of demographics. Instead you could join some sort of anti-Islam group, and leaflet outside the masjidat on fridays or knocking on the doors of Muslim households to discourage them from following Islam, you are free to do so in a free society. There is a growing ex-Muslim community in Europe.

Or don't. Just don't whine about the inevitability of European civilisation's collapse, because from where I'm sitting it doesn't look inevitable, and it doesn't look like Islam will cause it in mine, or anyone else's lifetime.

this islamophobia is getting a bit out of hand. no one is going to just going to wake up and turn muslim. anyone who wants be a muslim can. it doesnt matter. relax buds.

Right... Germans emmigrating out of fear. :rolleyes:
I'm a German immigrant myself, we emmigrate to find jobs. Fear of unemployment is the big motivator, not fear of Muslims.

Eurabia is inevitable. Europe is fucked. And I don't intend on being drafted into any army to fight their war.

Right... Germans emmigrating out of fear. :rolleyes:
I'm a German immigrant myself, we emmigrate to find jobs. Fear of unemployment is the big motivator, not fear of Muslims.

ah cool didnt realise you where german.

Eurabia is inevitable. Europe is fucked. And I don't intend on being drafted into any army to fight their war.
Hehe, you wouldn't actually be eligible for armed service in a European military, except maybe the Foreign Legion.

Hehe, you wouldn't actually be eligible for armed service in a European military, except maybe the Foreign Legion.

I assume the Australian army would draft me to fight in the European theatre.

You think "Eurabia" is a possibility or just fear mongering?

Utter fear mongering. Give all muslims the time to integrate in european society and they all will be quite happy of living in a secular country. Look at Turkey for example, that's a secular country with a huge muslim majority. There is a difference between being a muslim and being a fundamentalist.

I wonder...

If one were to re-release Mein Kampf with all Jewish references replaced with Islam references, how well would it sell before everyone figured it out?

I'll write that. We can call it "Unser Kampf" (bad German).

Eurabia is inevitable. Europe is fucked. And I don't intend on being drafted into any army to fight their war.

Australia is drafting people???

Utter fear mongering. Give all muslims the time to integrate in european society and they all will be quite happy of living in a secular country. Look at Turkey for example, that's a secular country with a huge muslim majority. There is a difference between being a muslim and being a fundamentalist.

Well, it's secular in its government and administration. The population, especially in rural parts, still has a long way to go, but then again that's true for Sicilly as well.

I assume the Australian army would draft me to fight in the European theatre.
Hey, you could dodge and go to Canada. :D

Australia is drafting people???

They will.

Well, it's secular in its government and administration. The population, especially in rural parts, still has a long way to go, but then again that's true for Sicilly as well.
Although something is wrong when death threats come from Turkish guys any time a woman suggests that headscarves shouldn't be compulsory.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445757,00.html

It's probably not helpful to just pretend it doesn't happen, not the least because those guys tend to have girls or women locked up in their apartments as well.

They will.

What will the next set of Euromillions numbers be?




What do you mean you can't see into the future?

Although something is wrong when death threats come from Turkish guys any time a woman suggests that headscarves shouldn't be compulsory.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445757,00.html

It's probably not helpful to just pretend it doesn't happen, not the least because those guys tend to have girls or women locked up in their apartments as well.

That's what I meant by "the population still has a long way to go".

Eurabia is inevitable. Europe is fucked. And I don't intend on being drafted into any army to fight their war.

Maybe you miss the fact that ALL constitutions of EU countries prevent the rise of theocracies (maybe UK is a bit different because the head of state is also the state religion's leader, but that's just a pro forma).

And, assuming you're not european, why should you be drafted to fight any "Europe's" war?
If you're from the USA, don't bother answering "hey, we did fight your war in WW2" because that's false. USA entered WW2 because they were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour. USA didn't anything when:
Italy invaded Albania
USSR invaded Finnland
Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands
Germany and USSR invaded Poland
Germany and Italy invaded France, Greece and Jugoslavia
Germany bombed Britain
Germany, Italy and Hungary invaded USSR
And about the same goes for WW1 when the western powers lost the support of Russia and the italian army was routed at Caporetto.
So I would assume you're quite safe from being drafted to fight in Europe, unless someone attacks the US directly and the US government thinks that Europe is an important theatre of war. Remember, usually any country fights only to defend its own national interest.

Well, it's secular in its government and administration. The population, especially in rural parts, still has a long way to go, but then again that's true for Sicilly as well.


Yep. And most of southern Italy, too. And I guess there's no big difference between being ruled by a fundamentalist theocracy and being ruled by a mafioso.:(
Ahimè, serva Italia, di dolore ostello!
Alas, slave Italy, house of pain!

And, assuming you're not european, why should you be drafted to fight any "Europe's" war?
If you're from the USA, don't bother answering "hey, we did fight your war in WW2" because that's false.

I'm from Australia. Which means when the UK goes down, they'll drag us down with them.

If you're from the USA, don't bother answering "hey, we did fight your war in WW2" because that's false. USA entered WW2 because they were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour.

some may say they had a different reason. they had a gain to it.

I'm from Australia. Which means when the UK goes down, they'll drag us down with them.

We're much more closely tied to the USA these days, so maybe not.

Isn't "pessimistic" and "German" redundant?

*ducks*

sorry, couldn't resist.
That's the first thought that crossed my mind: "A German paints a pessimistic picture of the future." Huh. Now that's something new, different, and really surprising. Bah.

Hell, if you'd ask me about ze future I might turn Sex Pistol on you.

Besides, the guy is known for his provocations.

We're much more closely tied to the USA these days, so maybe not.

They did it in Gallipoli. Why wouldn't they do it here?

They did it in Gallipoli. Why wouldn't they do it here?

Wait...

You're using a century-old military campaign to justify your 'fears' that Britain might drag Australia down...somewhere?

Well, hell, in that case, I fear that France will drag us down. We fought them for several hundred years...

They did it in Gallipoli. Why wouldn't they do it here?

Because that was 90 years ago, we had much stronger ties with Britain then. Australia had been an independent nation for only 13 years, and many people thought of themselves as British, not Australian. Very few Australians these days think of themselves as British. We still have close ties to Britain, but to nowhere near the same extent as in 1914.

I'm from Australia. Which means when the UK goes down, they'll drag us down with them.

No way... the British Empire is no more. Australia is totally independent de facto, if not de forma. You don't have to die for the Queen anymore, so don't you be afraid, old chap.:D

I blame the EU.

I blame the EU.

We know.
My cat dragged a dead rotten bird into my neighbour's house yesterday. No doubt the EU's fault.

Because that was 90 years ago, we had much stronger ties with Britain then. Australia had been an independent nation for only 13 years, and many people thought of themselves as British, not Australian. Very few Australians these days think of themselves as British. We still have close ties to Britain, but to nowhere near the same extent as in 1914.

Got an idea: why Australia, New Zealand and Canada don't apply for EU membership as sovereign countries? If Turkey, an asian country, can, why not the more "british" parts of the former British Empire, even if they're in America and Oceania. That would be cool... EU would have ALL the best rugby teams of the world (ok, except the Springboks...)

some may say they had a different reason. they had a gain to it.

Just as I hinted in the post you're quoting...

Are we saying that? Mmmhh, at the risk of sounding anti-american, I would...;)

Got an idea: why Australia, New Zealand and Canada don't apply for EU membership as sovereign countries? If Turkey, an asian country, can, why not the more "british" parts of the former British Empire, even if they're in America and Oceania. That would be cool... EU would have ALL the best rugby teams of the world (ok, except the Springboks...)

That'd be cool, then we could live in Europe too. I very much like the idea of that. The Euro's a good, strong currency too, better than the AUD.

If I understand the first post, you mean that Jewish people are not the next target for WW3.
It sounds equitable.
How do you spell shoa in Arabic?

The irony is, if what is said about Islam was said about Judaism, it wouldn't even be legal in Germany to say - and anywhere else, it would get slammed down as bigoted, racist, anti-semitic nazi trash.

It is considered politically correct to hate on Muslims because apparently, Judaism is a "race" (hey it says so in the Bible, they're the Chosen Ones descended from Abraham right? must be TRUUUE!) whereas Muslims are 'only' a religious group.

Fuck that. Hypocracy. What Europe needs to "wake up" to is the threat of their own history of religious persecution and fascism.

Muslims are a religious group, and Jeudasim is a religious group also

Criticism of Israel and Jeudaism as a religion is not illegal in Europe. What is ilegal is denial of the holocaust, simply due to the barbarism that is asscoiated with it.

Israel is very widely critised in Europe, something that I myself do not asscioate with but it is definetly there.

That'd be cool, then we could live in Europe too. I very much like the idea of that. The Euro's a good, strong currency too, better than the AUD.

And we could have euro-coins with kiwis and kangaroos on the verso... supercool!

I'll make a thread about possible australian, canadian and NZian Euro-coin verso.

Utter fear mongering. Give all muslims the time to integrate in european society and they all will be quite happy of living in a secular country. Look at Turkey for example, that's a secular country with a huge muslim majority. There is a difference between being a muslim and being a fundamentalist.

And they are a shining example of human rights, well/equal treatment of women, technological development, etc....:rolleyes:
Most of the regular muslims are still backwards when it comes to Western standarts.

I'll sum up this thread real quick for anyone who doesn't feel like this becoming twenty pages of reposted crap:


NN: Islam! Holy shit!
Leftists: Stfu. Taco?
Rightists: Holy shit, Islam!
NN: Yes taco, but wtf Islam zomg!
Leftists: Stfu. Racism/Hitler/Paranoia/Propaganda.
Rightists: Typical. Islam omg!
NN: *absent*
Leftists: Racism/Hitler/Paranoia/Propaganda.


Thread dies.

*bows*

And they are a shining example of human rights, well/equal treatment of women, technological development, etc....
Most of the regular muslims are still backwards when it comes to Western standarts.

So the sensible approach is to leave them to their backwardness, as that will of course never result in any problems for us, the shining example of perfection. We should not dirty our hands in an effort to integrate them into our various societies, and make them feel like respected human beings. Not even the women.

I'll sum up this thread real quick for anyone who doesn't feel like this becoming twenty pages of reposted crap:


NN: Islam! Holy shit!
Leftists: Stfu. Taco?
Rightists: Holy shit, Islam!
NN: Yes taco, but wtf Islam zomg!
Leftists: Stfu. Racism/Hitler/Paranoia/Propaganda.
Rightists: Typical. Islam omg!
NN: *absent*
Leftists: Racism/Hitler/Paranoia/Propaganda.


Thread dies.

*bows*


*applauds*

So the sensible approach is to leave them to their backwardness, as that will of course never result in any problems for us, the shining example of perfection. We should not dirty our hands in an effort to integrate them into our various societies, and make them feel like respected human beings. Not even the women.

The sensible thing would be to NOT import their backwardness into our continent by importing muslims with cultural baggage. Even their economical help is questionable and that was the reason why they were imported:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1514123.ece

You know it, I know it. From death threats in the link NL provided, to dont-send-my-daughter-to-swimming, to a islamic religous leader in Denmark saying rapes are justified, to higher crime and rape rates, to their much higher than avg birthrate, the whole veil issue, the whole homophobic feeling, etc...they are a growing problem. And considering you still cant integrate 3rd generation muslims mean people like you failed. And I'm not even talking about fundementals and terrorists yet.

I'm not as pessimistic about mr german about the future though.

What is ilegal is denial of the holocaust, simply due to the barbarism that is asscoiated with it.

not every european country. some of us embrace freedom oof speach. even for morons.

The sensible thing would be to NOT import their backwardness into our continent by importing muslims with cultural baggage. Even their economical help is questionable and that was the reason why they were imported:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1514123.ece

You know it, I know it. From death threats in the link NL provided, to dont-send-my-daughter-to-swimming, to a islamic religous leader in Denmark saying rapes are justified, to higher crime and rape rates, to their much higher than avg birthrate, the whole veil issue, the whole homophobic feeling, etc...they are a growing problem. And considering you still cant integrate 3rd generation muslims mean people like you failed. And I'm not even talking about fundementals and terrorists yet.

I'm not as pessimistic about mr german about the future though.


Yep. Lock them out. They'll be no further threat then. :rolleyes:

Yep. Lock them out. They'll be no further threat then. :rolleyes:

Yeah, basically.

Australia is drafting people???

nah..

by the time europe is muslim, australia with be budhist or hindu. So they'll be quite peaceful

I think the Potato Factory and NN and Myrmidonisa should have a three-way.

not every european country. some of us embrace freedom oof speach. even for morons.
Very true.
Not such Law in the Holy See.
Vatican Authorities are wise.

Isn't "pessimistic" and "German" redundant?

*ducks*

sorry, couldn't resist.
Yes, it is :D:D:D

<--- German

Got an idea: why Australia, New Zealand and Canada don't apply for EU membership as sovereign countries? If Turkey, an asian country, can, why not the more "british" parts of the former British Empire, even if they're in America and Oceania.
A part of Turkey is in Europe. Anyway, the EU was and is mostly a trade commonwealth. It's not an exclusive country club open only to those select few whose soil is on the European continent. There are also some countries in the NATO that have no access to the atlantic ocean...

Eurabia is inevitable. Europe is fucked. And I don't intend on being drafted into any army to fight their war.
*sigh-ety-sigh-ety-sigh*

A part of Turkey is in Europe. Anyway, the EU was and is mostly a trade commonwealth. It's not an exclusive country club open only to those select few whose soil is on the European continent. There are also some countries in the NATO that have no access to the atlantic ocean...

Except for the fact that it allows member's populations to go anywhere it pleases; if Turkey got into the EU tomorrow, Europe would be completely islamic by 2010.

if Turkey got into the EU tomorrow, Europe would be completely islamic by 2010.

Interesting prediction. Where'd you get the statistic for the apparent conversion rate? (It's OK if you can't specify which part of your asshole it came from.)

Interesting prediction. Where'd you get the statistic for the apparent conversion rate? (It's OK if you can't specify which part of your asshole it came from.)

The part which involves your face.

The part which involves your face.

I accept your concession.

Except for the fact that it allows member's populations to go anywhere it pleases;

yeah.... ask the average pole if that's true.

if Turkey got into the EU tomorrow, Europe would be completely islamic by 2010.

If turkey joined the EU tomorrow and could convert 450.000.000 people in under 4 years. I'd think europe should become eurabia.

Just curious here. If through immigration, breeding, and conversion Islam does get to be the majority in the EU nations do they have some kind of constitution to prevent the new majority from enacting sharia law and executing gays and "promiscuous" women?

Maybe you miss the fact that ALL constitutions of EU countries prevent the rise of theocracies (maybe UK is a bit different because the head of state is also the state religion's leader, but that's just a pro forma).

And, assuming you're not european, why should you be drafted to fight any "Europe's" war?
If you're from the USA, don't bother answering "hey, we did fight your war in WW2" because that's false. USA entered WW2 because they were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour. USA didn't anything when:
Italy invaded Albania
USSR invaded Finnland
Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands
Germany and USSR invaded Poland
Germany and Italy invaded France, Greece and Jugoslavia
Germany bombed Britain
Germany, Italy and Hungary invaded USSR
And about the same goes for WW1 when the western powers lost the support of Russia and the italian army was routed at Caporetto.
So I would assume you're quite safe from being drafted to fight in Europe, unless someone attacks the US directly and the US government thinks that Europe is an important theatre of war. Remember, usually any country fights only to defend its own national interest.

He's from Australia. I know you love to go on anti American rants, but it's misplaced this time. BTW - Your country would have been sunk if it weren't for the East Texas Oilfield. Just because the US didn't send troops doesn't mean we sat on our asses. So do you want us to get involved in other people's messes or not?

Just curious here. If through immigration, breeding, and conversion Islam does get to be the majority in the EU nations do they have some kind of constitution to prevent the new majority from enacting sharia law and executing gays and "promiscuous" women?

Wouldn't that fly in the face of democracy though? If those things are the will of the majority then surely they should be law?

Wouldn't that fly in the face of democracy though? If those things are the will of the majority then surely they should be law?

Democracy is a shitty form of government. It's mob rule and oppression of minorities. After 9/11 I'm sure most Americans would have backed a law to deport or imprison all Muslims, but it would have been unconstitutional, so the minority was protected.

Democracy is a shitty form of government. It's mob rule and oppression of minorities. After 9/11 I'm sure most Americans would have backed a law to deport or imprison all Muslims, but it would have been unconstitutional, so the minority was protected.

Constitutions can be changed and I think it's very unwise to rely on them to provide safety. As you say democracy is a shitty form of government but I also seems to be the best on we can come up with so what do you do?

Constitutions can be changed and I think it's very unwise to rely on them to provide safety. As you say democracy is a shitty form of government but I also seems to be the best on we can come up with so what do you do?

The US constitution doesn't change all that often. It requires a two-thirds majority, so minorities have some level of protection. Pure democracy is lousy, but democracy coupled with basic protections of civil rights works pretty well.

Besides, if you don't have something like a constitution to guarantee protection for minorities I can see why some Europeans faced with the prospect of becoming a minority in their own homelands would push for limits on Muslim immigration. I'm surprised they're not rioting and burning down Muslim neighborhoods.

Constitutions can be changed and I think it's very unwise to rely on them to provide safety. As you say democracy is a shitty form of government but I also seems to be the best on we can come up with so what do you do?

I think DCD's point is that a representative republic is a more stable form of government than a true democracy. But you're right. Imma gonna be unpopular, but I think the worst thing that can happen to Europe is for thre to continue to be a massive influx of immigration from the Muslim world. Once you start to get majority Muslim governments I don't see any reason why they wouldn't begin to look remarkably like majority Muslim governments.

I think DCD's point is that a representative republic is a more stable form of government than a true democracy. But you're right. Imma gonna be unpopular, but I think the worst thing that can happen to Europe is for thre to continue to be a massive influx of immigration from the Muslim world. Once you start to get majority Muslim governments I don't see any reason why they wouldn't begin to look remarkably like majority Muslim governments.

I'm sorry, I should be clearer, when I say democracy I always mean a representative democracy. If I mean any other kind I'll say so but a representative system is the one most people understand to be 'democracy' in conversation so I don't disinguish.

If there is a continuing influx of Muslims into Europe then there probably will be problems in the future with governments being formed by Muslim parties and as far as I'm concerned this is the risk you take to have a voice in the forming of your government.

I'm sorry, I should be clearer, when I say democracy I always mean a representative democracy. If I mean any other kind I'll say so but a representative system is the one most people understand to be 'democracy' in conversation so I don't disinguish.

If there is a continuing influx of Muslims into Europe then there probably will be problems in the future with governments being formed by Muslim parties and as far as I'm concerned this is the risk you take to have a voice in the forming of your government.

It's kind of a strange conundrum, but people are so willing to jump up and defend a people's right to bring their culture and heritage with them when they immigrate to a Western country. That's usually not true in reverse, but I digress. I don't see as much fervor in defending Europe's right to defend it's culture and it's heritage - things like freedom of expression, for example, or Shakspear. While I realize that the insults to Europe's traditions are small so far, I doubt they will survive the election of an Imam to the German Chancellor's office. I think at that point, putting on a play that features the beheading of Muhammed, along with the beheading of Christ, Buddah, etc..., will be as against the law now as denying the Holocaust. Only denying the Holocaust will probably no longer be illegal.

Besides, if you don't have something like a constitution to guarantee protection for minorities I can see why some Europeans faced with the prospect of becoming a minority in their own homelands would push for limits on Muslim immigration. I'm surprised they're not rioting and burning down Muslim neighborhoods.

Even with the protection a constitution provides, I can see why Europeans would not be impressed with the prospect of becoming a minority in their homelands, particularly if the potential new majority would be an Islamic one. I think the (post-?)modern Western values of tolerance and acceptance of different cultures are, for better or worse, starting to show signs of stress.

While I doubt the rioting and burning is realistic at this point, I don't find it hard to imagine a hard swing toward anti-immigration in Europe first and then in other Western nations. That sort of attitude has been gaining popularity for a while in Europe, it seems, and even here in Australia the first rumblings are being heard recently.

I think that, for all talk of "only a tiny minority" and "just the extremists", there is a growing perception in the West that "we" are at war with an Islamic "them." Whether it has been true or not in the past, if you have an enough "clash of civilisations" in people's minds, it will become a reality. With this growing perception that we are essentially fighting Islam, people are having trouble reconciling this with their governments basically letting the enemy through the gates.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but people's collective tolerance has limits and once they decide to part ways with it, all sorts of bad things can happen.

Wouldn't that fly in the face of democracy though? If those things are the will of the majority then surely they should be law?

Somebody said democracy/rule of majority?


According to most polls, over 60 percent of European citizens think that “there are now enough foreigners” within the Union.


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7657

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609

You think "Eurabia" is a possibility or just fear mongering?Considering that the author is well known for his pessimistic outlook on life...

I think DCD's point is that a representative republic is a more stable form of government than a true democracy. But you're right. Imma gonna be unpopular, but I think the worst thing that can happen to Europe is for thre to continue to be a massive influx of immigration from the Muslim world. Once you start to get majority Muslim governments I don't see any reason why they wouldn't begin to look remarkably like majority Muslim governments.

Thank you! You are one of the few here who can establish that connection. (no sarcasm)

Just curious here. If through immigration, breeding, and conversion Islam does get to be the majority in the EU nations do they have some kind of constitution to prevent the new majority from enacting sharia law and executing gays and "promiscuous" women?
Wanna know something scary?

Check out Article 146 (http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasis/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law.html__nnn=true#doc48090bodyText15).

EDIT: Also, an article about Islam in Turkey (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446163,00.html). Love the bathing costumes.

Somebody said democracy/rule of majority?



http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7657

And how many people were polled? You DO know that a poll or suvery is NOT a vote, yes?

Bah, what's the use. You hate foreigners. You fear them. There's no getting around it for you.

And how many people were polled? You DO know that a poll or suvery is NOT a vote, yes?

Bah, what's the use. You hate foreigners. You fear them. There's no getting around it for you.

It's a pretty good article. You should read it before criticizing. It's Yale University - not known for their racist bent.

Home Affairs and Justice European Commissioner Franco Frattini rightly concluded in October 2005 that “the walls of the European fortress are crumbling” and warned that “Europe cannot any more oppose barbed wire to desperation.” But the continent can't throw open its doors to all comers. Immigration, long the pet subject of far-right organizations, has become in most European countries a “bread-and-butter issue,” in the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Immigration stirs social tensions generated by high unemployment and weak economies, fear of the social impact of globalization and EU enlargement, failure of integration policies and debates on multiculturalism and – since the Madrid and London bombings – threats of Islamist terrorism. According to most polls, over 60 percent of European citizens think that “there are now enough foreigners” within the Union.

It's Yale University - not known for their racist bent.

I didn't know an institution could be racist in their academia. People maybe, but an entire institution....?

It's a pretty good article. You should read it before criticizing. It's Yale University - not known for their racist bent.

I did. And it doesn't bother citing how many were polled in "most polls," and it doesn't change the fact that a poll is not a vote so can't be used to declare what the "majority" in a democracy truly wishes. We don't get to see the actual poll either.

Just curious here. If through immigration, breeding, and conversion Islam does get to be the majority in the EU nations do they have some kind of constitution to prevent the new majority from enacting sharia law and executing gays and "promiscuous" women?

I should think so, "majority rules, minority rights" comes to mind. I am fairly sure Europe has a failsafe to keep it from becoming a Theocracy.

I did. And it doesn't bother citing how many were polled in "most polls," and it doesn't change the fact that a poll is not a vote so can't be used to declare what the "majority" in a democracy truly wishes. We don't get to see the actual poll either.

That's true. They're probably lying. Yale has long had an obvious and well documented antiEuropean immigration bent. ;)

I didn't know an institution could be racist in their academia. People maybe, but an entire institution....?

That was my point. My sarcasm is sometimes to subtle for the internet.

That's true. They're probably lying. Yale has long had an obvious and well documented antiEuropean immigration bent. ;)

Nice strawman. ;)

Nice strawman. ;)

I'm curious if you even know what that means? Tell me exactly what argument I was attacking and how I set up a fake argument, knocked it down and then claimed to have defeated the original argument? A strawman is more like attacking someone's argument that Europeans are growingly upset about illegal immigration by saying that an article that supports his assertion from an institution with an impeccable reputation didn't publish the exact polls that they sited in one paragraph and then claiming that you defeated the argument that there is growing unrest in Europe with regards to illegal immigration. If someone did that, that would be a strawman.

I should think so, "majority rules, minority rights" comes to mind. I am fairly sure Europe has a failsafe to keep it from becoming a Theocracy.

Sure, but when the people in control of that failsafe want a theocracy then you no longer have a failsafe.

ex:

An old one:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5924/immigrationgz3.jpg

Newer:


Conducted between 1997 and 2003 and involving 25,000 people living in EU's 25 member states, the study shows a growing resistance among Europeans toward integrating immigrants. Although the majority of EU citizens are happy to live in a multiethnic society, nearly half of the population opposes granting legal immigrants full civil rights. One in five would prefer no immigrants at all.

Of Europeans living in the 15 initial EU countries, 60 percent want limits to the rise of multicultural societies. The percentage drops to 42 percent in the 10 new EU states. However, 52 percent of respondents across Europe see "a collective ethnic threat from immigration," believing that immigrants threaten jobs and the country's culture, bring crime and generally make a country a worse place to live.


http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7aa7d7e591f5746d4373ec296f938a2a


Newer, from UK:


Only the bnp is making a big push based on immigration concerns: according to one recent poll, 59% of Britons support the bnp position that all further immigration should be halted, though when it was explicitly identified as a bnp stance that number dropped to 48%


http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060508-1189187,00.html

I'm curious if you even know what that means? Tell me exactly what argument I was attacking and how I set up a fake argument, knocked it down and then claimed to have defeated the original argument?

First, when I questioned the point I was responding to (namely that "majority rules" can be defined by results of "polls"), you said,

"It's Yale University - not known for their racist bent."

I never once said or implied that it had a racist bent.

Then, when I reiterated my point in the context it was made, you replied,

"That's true. They're probably lying."

So here we have two false arguments you 'defeated,' namely with irrelevant sarcastic assertions that Yale University is racist and/or lying.

A strawman is more like attacking someone's argument that Europeans are growingly upset about illegal immigration by saying that an article that supports his assertion from an institution with an impeccable reputation didn't publish the exact polls that they sited in one paragraph and then claiming that you defeated the argument that there is growing unrest in Europe with regards to illegal immigration. If someone did that, that would be a strawman.

Once again, you rephrase what I said so that it becomes an argument, and then you knock it down. I never made a point that Europeans are NOT growing upset about immigration. I made a point that (again, in the context you apparently missed entirely) while NN says "majority rules/Democracy" and cites a poll to support his particular racist bent, a poll does not constitute a "majority" when we're talking about Democracy.

I hate when I have to recap the entire last few posts just because someone is playing dumb.

That's true. They're probably lying. Yale has long had an obvious and well documented antiEuropean immigration bent. ;)

Psst! Remember, it's a private article:

The articles published in YaleGlobal express the views of the authors and do not reflect the view of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization or Yale University.

ex:

An old one:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5924/immigrationgz3.jpg


Huh. So a majority out of 1,000 people from each EU member now constitutes a democratic majority of all Europe?

Huh. So a majority out of 1,000 people from each EU member now constitutes a democratic majority of all Europe?

Somebody with a kindergarden teacher patience needs to explain you the concept of polling, surveys, etc...

First, when I questioned the point I was responding to (namely that "majority rules" can be defined by results of "polls"), you said,

"It's Yale University - not known for their racist bent."

I never once said or implied that it had a racist bent.

Then, when I reiterated my point in the context it was made, you replied,

"That's true. They're probably lying."

So here we have two false arguments you 'defeated,' namely with irrelevant sarcastic assertions that Yale University is racist and/or lying.



Once again, you rephrase what I said so that it becomes an argument, and then you knock it down. I never made a point that Europeans are NOT growing upset about immigration. I made a point that (again, in the context you apparently missed entirely) while NN says "majority rules/Democracy" and cites a poll to support his particular racist bent, a poll does not constitute a "majority" when we're talking about Democracy.

I hate when I have to recap the entire last few posts just because someone is playing dumb.

Okay, sorry. I guess I misread your point in the first post you made on the article. I thought you were attacking the integrity of the article. That apparent misperception was bolstered by the fact that you pointed out that they did not site the source of the polls the used for it. I guess the point now is that your point is irrelevent. The whole point to posting the article was to support the contention that Europe is becoming increasingly alarmed about it's immigration problems and that that alarm is now possibly present in a majority of Europeans. The fact that a poll says nothing about the concept of democracy is pointless to the discussion. Having said that, I will conceed that you are right. A poll cannot redefine democracy.

This might've been mentioned already, I dunno, I've only read the first page.

Sure, Germany and the Netherlands(I'm actually not sure about the Netherlands, but let's assume Broder is right) are becoming countries of net emigration, but did he bother to look at who is emigrating? Or where they are emigrating to? The Economist has a story about this in their current issue, and http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/ has done a couple of blogs on this over the past few months. Going from these two sources, and looking at the numbers from http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_bevoelk.htm, the idea of an "Islamic majority" becomes pretty silly. For Germany, at least, probably only a 1/2 - 2/3 of the emigrants are actually "ethnic" Germans, and the rest are minorities most likely returning to their country of origin. Basically, there's a lot of German Turks moving back to Turkey, probably because of silly-heads like Paul Belien(Yes, I know he's Flemish) and whoever else(Does Germany have Le Pen equivalent?). Now, if you look at just the "ethnic" Germans who emigrate, you'll see most of them are staying in Europe. They're mainly going to Austria and the Scandinavian countries. So, if anything, this trend of migration just shows that Europeans are becoming more economically mobile. Maybe it's a sign that Eddie Izzard's dream of Europe being a giant Manhattan is finally coming true. I doubt it, but it would still be pretty cool.

Also, this article should probably be completely dismissed simply because of the fact it has Paul Belien's name attached to it.

Does Germany have Le Pen equivalent?
'fraid so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany)

Okay, sorry. I guess I misread your point in the first post you made on the article. I thought you were attacking the integrity of the article.

No, but I certainly do question polling in general as a means to extrapolate what everyone thinks. It may work on paper using statistics, but that will never convince me that for example, my voice and opinion, and that of 280 million people, can be "calculated" based on the answers some 800 people gave. (A usual kind of ratio given in news media polls.)

If it (democracy) was as easy as calculation, there'd be no need for voting and the specific counts of votes wouldn't matter to anyone in an election because it could be chalked up to "margin of error" and dismissed.

I guess the point now is that your point is irrelevent. The whole point to posting the article was to support the contention that Europe is becoming increasingly alarmed about it's immigration problems and that that alarm is now possibly present in a majority of Europeans.

Well, NN posted it in response to a comment about Democracy, and as an example of Democracy supporting his fears. I contend that the results of a poll is not Democracy, that's all.

The fact that a poll says nothing about the concept of democracy is pointless to the discussion.

One might think so...

Having said that, I will conceed that you are right. A poll cannot redefine democracy.

Yayz. :)

That said, I don't contest whether a good number of Europeans fear and/or hate immigrants. Back to the original topic however, my point is that no matter how many people possess a particular fear, that is not a rational justification.


Somebody with a kindergarden teacher patience needs to explain you the concept of polling, surveys, etc...

Sure thing sweetheart, just as soon as someone explains to you the concepts of morality, ethics, decency, etc...

Wanna know something scary?

Check out Article 146 (http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasis/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law.html__nnn=true#doc48090bodyText15).

EDIT: Also, an article about Islam in Turkey (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446163,00.html). Love the bathing costumes.

ROFLMAO!!! Pathetic...


Recently, the ministry of education itself was outraged over the fact that several publishing companies had, on their own initiative, rewritten children's books that the ministry had recommended for classroom use. In the edited versions, Pinocchio, Heidi and Tom Sawyer live in an Islamic world where inhabitants wish each other a "blessed morning" or ask for food "in Allah's name." Aramis, one of the Three Musketeers, even converts to Islam.

Right, I know about the NPD, but I was just wondering if there's somebody who has the same amount of support as Le Pen. In other words someone who is able to get > 5% of the vote in a national election.

Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
If atheists have nothing but this life, surely they would be more willing to fight? The Soviets didn't submit to invaders.

The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already.
Submission to God, which, as many people have forgotten, is also what Christianity is about.

Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.
This is ridiculous. How can an atheist be a Muslim, for example?

They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit.
Muslim immigration in Europe is rather different to Muslim attacks on Israel.


Fuck that. Hypocracy. What Europe needs to "wake up" to is the threat of their own history of religious persecution and fascism.
As you can see I disagree with this German old man, but I also see no danger of any mass violence and discrimination against Muslims in Europe.

Huh. So a majority out of 1,000 people from each EU member now constitutes a democratic majority of all Europe?
Do you consider all surveys to be invalid? It is actually a science. There is a calculated margin of error; the chances of getting a significantly biased group in a poll of 1,000, are very small.

Do you consider all surveys to be invalid?

Invalid?

Or inherently inaccurate?

"Lies, damned lies and statistics". ;)

Don't let those Europeans immigrate! Immigrants are dangerous and only raise crime rates and they sponge off of hard working citizens. Make them deal with their own problems in theirown country. ;)

I wonder...

If one were to re-release Mein Kampf with all Jewish references replaced with Islam references, how well would it sell before everyone figured it out?

Have you ever read that thing? Me either. I fell asleep a few pages in. It only sold well when people bought it to prove that they were Nazis so they wouldn't be arrested, it's not very well-written or easily digestible by the common man.

As far as the people on here talking about "Tin Hats", maybe it should be pointed out that those car-burning riots in France last year never actually stopped. Police are pelted with rocks whenever they go into Muslim neighborhoods, so much so that the police are having to travel in military APCs to avoid harm, and on average one Policeman per day is seriously injured in France.

The reason the situation is so bad in France is because it has the largest Muslim population percentage in Europe, 10% or 6 Million out of 60 Million. My guess, is that once the other big and rich European Nations gain a similar percentage of Muslims, they will have the same problem.

This article is, if not entirely realistic, at least very close. I would estimate 50 years, rather than 20, personally. Of course, some countries like Holland and Sweden have far-right wing parties rising to the challenge (Holland's party taking 20% of the vote nation-wide this last election), but this also brings problems, because who knows what the far-righters will do other than combat the Islamic threat?

Right, I know about the NPD, but I was just wondering if there's somebody who has the same amount of support as Le Pen. In other words someone who is able to get > 5% of the vote in a national election.
Well, in that case, no. The NPD and its allies win significant votes in rural East Germany, but much less in cities and almost none in the West.

So while it's enough to get a few seats in state parliaments in the east, they've never been able to break the 5% hurdle on a national level.

Have you ever read that thing? Me either. I fell asleep a few pages in. It only sold well when people bought it to prove that they were Nazis so they wouldn't be arrested, it's not very well-written or easily digestible by the common man.

As far as the people on here talking about "Tin Hats", maybe it should be pointed out that those car-burning riots in France last year never actually stopped. Police are pelted with rocks whenever they go into Muslim neighborhoods, so much so that the police are having to travel in military APCs to avoid harm, and on average one Policeman per day is seriously injured in France.

The reason the situation is so bad in France is because it has the largest Muslim population percentage in Europe, 10% or 6 Million out of 60 Million. My guess, is that once the other big and rich European Nations gain a similar percentage of Muslims, they will have the same problem.

This article is, if not entirely realistic, at least very close. I would estimate 50 years, rather than 20, personally. Of course, some countries like Holland and Sweden have far-right wing parties rising to the challenge (Holland's party taking 20% of the vote nation-wide this last election), but this also brings problems, because who knows what the far-righters will do other than combat the Islamic threat?

Well, there's a major problem with your argument: the rioters in France aren't rioting because they're Muslim, but in fact because they don't have jobs, if they do have jobs they get paid much less than a "native" French person, and they feel like French society is "ignoring" them, which, to be honest, is probably true. And the Muslims aren't the only ones who are angry. Poor Christian(At least nominally Christian) Greeks, "Blacks", Spanish, Italians, and French also took part in the riots. There were a few instances when some tried to add an Islamic slant to the riots, but that was the exception; which people like Le Pen and Anglo news outlets jumped on for varying reasons. Le Pen did it as way to say "OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE TEH SUX WE SHOULD KI…I MEAN EXPEAL THEM!1!!" the Anglos did it so they can say "Our way of handling minorities is waaaay superior to the French." Remember only something like 1% of French people can be considered practicing Muslims. The other 5-7%(France is, at the most, 8% Muslim) are about as Muslim as the average Frenchmen is Catholic. And, honestly, the French riots could've been worse. They were nothing like the race riots of America's recent past. The "Muslims" didn't go yanking people out of their cars and beat them to death, now did they?

Also, how many police officers in the USA do you think are attacked each day? I'm sure this number is much higher than "1 per day."

Also, how many police officers in the USA do you think are attacked each day? I'm sure this number is much higher than "1 per day."

Indeed I am sure we get at least triple that in L.A. alone.

*snip*Remember only something like 1% of French people can be considered practicing Muslims. The other 5-7%(France is, at the most, 8% Muslim) are about as Muslim as the average Frenchmen is Catholic.Can you back this up? That would make me feel so much better about the situation there.



And, honestly, the French riots could've been worse. They were nothing like the race riots of America's recent past. The "Muslims" didn't go yanking people out of their cars and beat them to death, now did they?Theye didn't do that here, either. They yanked one guy out, Reginald Denny, and he's alive and well, though they did try to kill him. The riots in France were more intense and went on much longer and the areas they occured in don't have cops driving around in armored vehicles.

Also, how many police officers in the USA do you think are attacked each day? I'm sure this number is much higher than "1 per day."

Across the entire population of 300,000,000, probably. I think France is about the size of CA, though, and contrary to what Pytor says we do not have a cop a day being attacked unless you want to consider something like resisting arrest an attack. We don't have mods of people attacking cops and neighborhoods where cops just get attacked any time they drive through.

As you can see I disagree with this German old man, but I also see no danger of any mass violence and discrimination against Muslims in Europe.

No danger whatsoever? I would hope so, but I'm too skeptical to agree.

Do you consider all surveys to be invalid? It is actually a science. There is a calculated margin of error; the chances of getting a significantly biased group in a poll of 1,000, are very small.

I consider a survey I don't take, to be invalid regarding getting my opinion. Humans are not a statistic, and if it was all truly so efficient at getting those opinions, no one would bother with popular votes or elections and instead just 'extrapolate' based on statistics.

Can you back this up? That would make me feel so much better about the situation there.

http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=50. Scroll down some, it's in the middle of the page. It's a quote by an immigration research director. This was just the quickest link I was able to find, but I have read that same number in other places(The Economist, BBC, Times, etc). 10% of Muslims = 1% of the total population, if you go with the high number of 10%. It's more likely that less than 1% of the overall population practices Islam.


Theye didn't do that here, either. They yanked one guy out, Reginald Denny, and he's alive and well, though they did try to kill him. The riots in France were more intense and went on much longer and the areas they occured in don't have cops driving around in armored vehicles.

Right, Denny or Lopez didn't die, but around 50 other people did die in the LA riots. And the fact that they didn't die doesn't really matter; the fact that they WANTED to kill Denny and Lopez is what matters. If they had their way, Lopez and Denny would've been dead. During the French riots, the rioters did not actively go after anyone other than the cops. And how many cops died?

Across the entire population of 300,000,000, probably. I think France is about the size of CA, though, and contrary to what Pytor says we do not have a cop a day being attacked unless you want to consider something like resisting arrest an attack. We don't have mods of people attacking cops and neighborhoods where cops just get attacked any time they drive through.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/assaulted.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/feloniouslykilled.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_re_eu/france_suburban_violence

57,000 American police officers were assaulted in 2005. 4,200 French police officers were assaulted in 2005. The USA has 5 times the population, but over 10 times the assaults. And what do you mean the USA doesn't have mobs of people atacking cops? Every country does. They're called "gangs." And I dare you to drive a police car through East LA, Camden NJ, or basically any part of downtown Detroit.

Jitia for your information.

if you argue using valid information, backed up with good links the bigots generally stop posting, and all the fun goes out of these threads.

give out the information in small doses, that way its more fun

This might've been mentioned already, I dunno, I've only read the first page.

Sure, Germany and the Netherlands(I'm actually not sure about the Netherlands, but let's assume Broder is right) are becoming countries of net emigration, but did he bother to look at who is emigrating? Or where they are emigrating to? The Economist has a story about this in their current issue, and http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/ has done a couple of blogs on this over the past few months. Going from these two sources, and looking at the numbers from http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_bevoelk.htm, the idea of an "Islamic majority" becomes pretty silly. For Germany, at least, probably only a 1/2 - 2/3 of the emigrants are actually "ethnic" Germans, and the rest are minorities most likely returning to their country of origin. Basically, there's a lot of German Turks moving back to Turkey, probably because of silly-heads like Paul Belien(Yes, I know he's Flemish) and whoever else(Does Germany have Le Pen equivalent?). Now, if you look at just the "ethnic" Germans who emigrate, you'll see most of them are staying in Europe. They're mainly going to Austria and the Scandinavian countries. So, if anything, this trend of migration just shows that Europeans are becoming more economically mobile. Maybe it's a sign that Eddie Izzard's dream of Europe being a giant Manhattan is finally coming true. I doubt it, but it would still be pretty cool.

Also, this article should probably be completely dismissed simply because of the fact it has Paul Belien's name attached to it.


Well...At the moment there are 15 and 20 million Muslims in Europe. The National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025. That means they will double their population in less than 20 years.
Source (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html)

It should be a common knowledge that native European populations are either stagnant or declining. That means, at some point in future, muslims will become majority, simple math....

Of course, the german author is exagurating by saying it'll happen in 20 years, but it'll definately happen within this century, IF trends dont change.

As for the Netherlands, interesting article:




February 27, 2005

AMSTERDAM - Paul Hiltemann had already noticed a darkening mood in the Netherlands. He runs an agency for people wanting to emigrate and his client list had surged.

But he was still taken aback in November when a Dutch filmmaker was shot and his throat was slit, execution style, on an Amsterdam street.

In the weeks that followed, Mr. Hiltemann was inundated by e-mail messages and telephone calls. "There was a big panic," he said, "a flood of people saying they wanted to leave the country."

Leave this stable and prosperous corner of Europe? Leave this land with its generous social benefits and ample salaries, a place of fine schools, museums, sports grounds and bicycle paths, all set in a lively democracy?

The answer, increasingly, is yes. This small nation is a magnet for immigrants, but statistics suggest there is a quickening flight of the white middle class. Dutch people pulling up roots said they felt a general pessimism about their small and crowded country and about the social tensions that had grown along with the waves of newcomers, most of them Muslims."The Dutch are living in a kind of pressure cooker atmosphere," Mr. Hiltemann said.

There is more than the concern about the rising complications of absorbing newcomers, now one-tenth of the population, many of them from largely Muslim countries. Many Dutch also seem bewildered that their country, run for decades on a cozy, political consensus, now seems so tense and prickly and bent on confrontation. Those leaving have been mostly lured by large English-speaking nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they say they hope to feel less constricted.

In interviews, emigrants rarely cited a fear of militant Islam as their main reason for packing their bags. But the killing of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a fierce critic of fundamentalist Muslims, seems to have been a catalyst.

"Our Web site got 13,000 hits in the weeks after the van Gogh killing," said Frans Buysse, who runs an agency that handles paperwork for departing Dutch. "That's four times the normal rate."

Mr. van Gogh's killing is the only one the police have attributed to an Islamic militant, but since then they have reported finding death lists by local Islamic militants with the names of six prominent politicians. The effects still reverberate. In a recent opinion poll, 35 percent of the native Dutch questioned had negative views about Islam.

There are no precise figures on the numbers now leaving. But Canadian, Australian and New Zealand diplomats here said that while immigration papers were processed in their home capitals, embassy officials here had been swamped by inquiries in recent months.

Many who settle abroad may not appear in migration statistics, like the growing contingent of retirees who flock to warmer places. But official statistics show a trend. In 1999, nearly 30,000 native Dutch moved elsewhere, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. For 2004, the provisional figure is close to 40,000. "It's definitely been picking up in the past five years," said Cor Kooijmans, a demographer at the bureau.

Ruud Konings, an accountant, has just sold his comfortable home in the small town of Hilvarenbeek. In March, after a year's worth of paperwork, the family will leave for Australia. The couple said the main reason was their fear for the welfare and security of their two teenage children.

"When I grew up, this place was spontaneous and free, but my kids cannot safely cycle home at night," said Mr. Konings, 49. "My son just had his fifth bicycle stolen." At school, his children and their friends feel uneasy, he added. "They're afraid of being roughed up by the gangs of foreign kids."

Sandy Sangen has applied to move to Norway with her husband and two school-age children. They want to buy a farm in what she calls "a safer, more peaceful place."

Like the Sangens and Koningses, others who are moving speak of their yearning for the open spaces, the clean air, the easygoing civility they feel they have lost. Complaints include overcrowding, endless traffic jams, overregulation. Some cite a rise in antisocial behavior and a worrying new toughness and aggression both in political debates and on the streets.

Until the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a populist anti-immigration politician, in 2002 and the more recent slaying of a teacher by a student, this generation of Dutch people could not conceive of such violence in their peaceful country.

After Mr. van Gogh's killing, angry demonstrations and fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools took place. In revenge, some Christian churches were attacked. Mr. Konings said he and many of his friends sensed more confrontation in the making, perhaps more violence.

"I'm a great optimist, but we're now caught in a downward spiral, economically and socially," he said. "We feel we can give our children a better start somewhere else."

Marianne and Rene Aukens, from the rural town of Brunssum, had successful careers, he as director of a local bank, she as a personnel manager. But after much thought they have applied to go to New Zealand. "In my lifetime, all the villages around here have merged, almost all the green spaces have been paved over," said Mr. Aukens, 41. "Nature is finished. There's no more silence; you hear traffic everywhere."

The saying that the Netherlands is "full up" has become a national mantra. It was used cautiously at first, because it had an overtone of being anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim. But many of those interviewed now state it flatly, like Peter Bles. He makes a long commute to a banking job in Amsterdam, but he and his wife are preparing to move to Australia.

"We found people are more polite, less stressed, less aggressive there," Mr. Bles said. "Perhaps stress has a lot to do with the lack of living space. Here we are full up."

Space is indeed at a premium here in Europe's most densely populated nation, where 16.3 million people live in an area roughly the size of Maryland. Denmark, which is slightly larger, has 5.5 million people. Dutch demographers say their country has undergone one of Europe's fastest and most far-reaching demographic shifts, with about 10 percent of the population now foreign born, a majority of them Muslims.

Blaming immigrants for many ills has become commonplace. Conservative Moroccans and Turks from rural areas are accused of disdaining the liberal Dutch ways and of making little effort to adapt. Immigrant youths now make up half the prison population. More than 40 percent of immigrants receive some form of government assistance, a source of resentment among native Dutch. Immigrants say, though, that they are widely discriminated against.

Ms. Konings said the Dutch themselves brought on some of the social frictions. The Dutch "thought that we had to adapt to the immigrants and that we had to give them handouts," she said. "We've been too lenient; now it's difficult to turn the tide."

To Mr. Hiltemann, the emigration consultant, what is remarkable is not only the surge of interest among the Dutch in leaving, but also the type of people involved. "They are successful people, I mean, urban professionals, managers, physiotherapists, computer specialists," he said. Five years ago, he said, most of his clients were farmers looking for more land.

Mr. Buysse, who employs a staff of eight to process visas, concurred. He said farmers were still emigrating as Europe cut agricultural subsidies. '"What is new," he said, "is that Dutch people who are rich or at least very comfortable are now wanting to leave the country."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mmore.htm

Well...At the moment there are 15 and 20 million Muslims in Europe. The National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025. That means they will double their population in less than 20 years.
Source (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html)

It should be a common knowledge that native European populations are either stagnant or declining. That means, at some point in future, muslims will become majority, simple math....

Of course, the german author is exagurating by saying it'll happen in 20 years, but it'll definately happen within this century, IF trends dont change.

As for the Netherlands, interesting article:




http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mmore.htm

There's a major problem with saying "OMG, this ethnic group will become majority in a hundred years" and that problem is the fact that demographic trends aren't static. They're always changing. Muslims will only become the majority if: A) You assume the "native" population continues to decrease, B) You assume the Muslim birth rate remains high, and C) European countries only pull their immigrants from Muslim countries. As France has shown, A) is not a given. The birth rate can be reversed, not easily or cheaply, but it can be reversed. With B) I'm not sure why people assume Muslim = high fertility rate. It's not really true. Go look at the total fertility rates of Iran, Turkey, Algeria, or Tunisia. Within Europe it appears as if the birth rates of the Muslims are moving in the same direction as the native birth rates. The Muslims who have been in Europe since the 70-early 80s, with the possible exception of Bengalese and Pakistanis in Britain, have birth rates nearly as low as the natives. Some of the newer groups have high birth rates, but I'm willing to bet they'll start moving downwards over the next 10 years or so. C) Most European countries have really cracked down on immigration from the Middle-East. For continual Europe the largest group seems to be South Americans via Spain, and Britain has historical pulled only slightly less Hindus than Muslims, and in recent years Caribbean immigration has jumped. The idea of a Muslim majority in Europe is just silly fear-mongering that has no basis in reality.

And when it comes to the Netherlands, it's a very densely populated country. They've always had high levels of emigration. This is not a new trend. If I remember correctly, right after WW2 up until the late 70s, the government of the Netherlands actually paid people to move to Britain, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, USA, and Australia.

There's a major problem with saying "OMG, this ethnic group will become majority in a hundred years" and that problem is the fact that demographic trends aren't static. They're always changing. Muslims will only become the majority if: A) You assume the "native" population continues to decrease, B) You assume the Muslim birth rate remains high, and C) European countries only pull their immigrants from Muslim countries. As France has shown, A) is not a given. The birth rate can be reversed, not easily or cheaply, but it can be reversed. With B) I'm not sure why people assume Muslim = high fertility rate. It's not really true. Go look at the total fertility rates of Iran, Turkey, Algeria, or Tunisia. Within Europe it appears as if the birth rates of the Muslims are moving in the same direction as the native birth rates. The Muslims who have been in Europe since the 70-early 80s, with the possible exception of Bengalese and Pakistanis in Britain, have birth rates nearly as low as the natives. Some of the newer groups have high birth rates, but I'm willing to bet they'll start moving downwards over the next 10 years or so. C) Most European countries have really cracked down on immigration from the Middle-East. For continual Europe the largest group seems to be South Americans via Spain, and Britain has historical pulled only slightly less Hindus than Muslims, and in recent years Caribbean immigration has jumped. The idea of a Muslim majority in Europe is just silly fear-mongering that has no basis in reality.

And when it comes to the Netherlands, it's a very densely populated country. They've always had high levels of emigration. This is not a new trend. If I remember correctly, right after WW2 up until the late 70s, the government of the Netherlands actually paid people to move to Britain, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, USA, and Australia.


I know demographic trends arent static. That's why I finished my prediction as "IF trends dont change."

However trends dont change magically. They need to be discussed on. People should say "hey our population is declining, it'll be really bad if trends dont change, so let's give more incentives to working mothers".

That's why analyzing trends is important. We do the same thing on global warming. Trends might change there too but we are warning people to make a difference and it's not called "ZOMG!! MOTHA NATURA!!11" Similarly demographic trends needs to be discussed on.

a) It's been decreasing for decades, after 1960s...
b)Yeah and there are those like Egypt.
And even IF after awhile their birthrate decreases, there are still newer muslims arriving with high birthrates. When newer muslims birthrate decreases in time, there'll be even newer muslims with higher birthrate again.
c)Yes but not enough. The muslims will double their population within less than 20 years despite this.

If you think that Eurabia is fear mongering, that's a sad reflection of your mathematical skills.

About NL, the new trend is that white mid class moving, rather than poor people. And the emigration is correlated with muslim immigration. That's new.

If you think that Eurabia is fear mongering, that's a sad reflection of your mathematical skills.:D

<snip>


USA is more violent than Europe so it's not a good comparison. Compare Finland and France. And:


Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union

By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent
(Filed: 05/10/2006)

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml

I know demographic trends arent static. That's why I finished my prediction as "IF trends dont change."

However trends dont change magically. They need to be discussed on. People should say "hey our population is declining, it'll be really bad if trends dont change, so let's give more incentives to working mothers".

Right, and some countries have done this. Mainly France, but Scandinavia is making some headway in that area.

a) It's been decreasing for decades, after 1960s...

Okay, maybe I didn't make it clear enough. In the past 5 years, not back in the 60s, France has been able to reverse the population decline among the entire population.

b)Yeah and there are those like Egypt.
And even IF after awhile their birthrate decreases, there are still newer muslims arriving with high birthrates. When newer muslims birthrate decreases in time, there'll be even newer muslims with higher birthrate again.

How many Egyptians actually migrate to Europe? Not that many. And Egypt's fertility rate is decreasing: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=eg&v=31, maybe not as quickly as the others, but it is still decreasing.

And, as I said in my last post, European countries aren't bringing in as many Muslims as they once were. They're getting immigrants from other sources.

c)Yes but not enough. The muslims will double their population within less than 20 years despite this.

Omg, in 20 years there'll be 40 million Muslims in the EUs population of 440 million(This number is taking into account population decline). How terrible, they'll make up 10%! You know, Poland before WW2 was about 10% Jewish with some areas being over 25% Jewish. I’m pretty sure Hitler didn't invade Poland to save them from Halakha.

If you think that Eurabia is fear mongering, that's a sad reflection of your mathematical skills.

My mathematical skills are fine, thanks. I don't exagerate statistics for the sake of demogogery.

About NL, the new trend is that white mid class moving, rather than poor people. And the emigration is correlated with muslim immigration. That's new

First off, there really aren’t that many people emigrating, and it's probably not a permanent trend. A lot of the increase has to do with older workers retiring to Spain or some other warm place. And the Netherlands, like other European countries, only draws a fraction of its immigration from Muslim nations. The majority of the newer immigrants are, again, South Americans.

*gasp* 95% of Dutch Muslims consider themselves moderates. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3809802

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wmuslims05.xml

As I've said before: This has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're Muslims. Just because one small police union called it a "permanent infitada" does change that fact.

And you quoted an article from The Daily Telegraph...of course it's going to be slanted against Muslims.

http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=50. Scroll down some, it's in the middle of the page. It's a quote by an immigration research director. This was just the quickest link I was able to find, but I have read that same number in other places(The Economist, BBC, Times, etc). 10% of Muslims = 1% of the total population, if you go with the high number of 10%. It's more likely that less than 1% of the overall population practices Islam.I know Pew well and they aree a good source. Problem is that what the article you posted says is not what you are saying.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/50-7.gif

Looks to me like most Muslims in Europe consider themselves Muslims first and citizens second. This is a sign of devout religious practice. France may have it better than other countries with about a 50/50 split, but that's still not 1% of thier population being devout, that's 5%. That's one in twenty.




Right, Denny or Lopez didn't die, but around 50 other people did die in the LA riots. And the fact that they didn't die doesn't really matter; the fact that they WANTED to kill Denny and Lopez is what matters. If they had their way, Lopez and Denny would've been dead. During the French riots, the rioters did not actively go after anyone other than the cops. And how many cops died?



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/assaulted.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/feloniouslykilled.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_re_eu/france_suburban_violence

57,000 American police officers were assaulted in 2005. 4,200 French police officers were assaulted in 2005. The USA has 5 times the population, but over 10 times the assaults. And what do you mean the USA doesn't have mobs of people atacking cops? Every country does. They're called "gangs." And I dare you to drive a police car through East LA, Camden NJ, or basically any part of downtown Detroit.

Born and raised in Loas Angeles. Lived here for 35 of my 37 years. First, when ZhaZha Gabor hit that officer in the shoulder she was prosecuted and went to jail for assault on an officer of the law. From what I've read yu have to hit an officer in France with a brick to get busted for assault on an officer. As for driving through east LA, I do it all the time and I see cops there all the time - sitting outside at little taco stands eating, out of their cars talking to residents, pulling over suspected gang members in broad daylight. Never once have I seen the cops patrolling East LA in an armored personel carrier. Trust me. LA looks a lot worse on TV and in mythology than it actually is when you live here. As a matter in fact, I grew up in Pacoima - one of the worst areas in LA - and I've never even been shot! :eek:

I know Pew well and they aree a good source. Problem is that what the article you posted says is not what you are saying.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/50-7.gif

Looks to me like most Muslims in Europe consider themselves Muslims first and citizens second. This is a sign of devout religious practice. France may have it better than other countries with about a 50/50 split, but that's still not 1% of thier population being devout, that's 5%. That's one in twenty.
But isn't it amazing that France has more French-feeling muslims than muslim countries has nationalisitc feelers? Take into account that muslim governments have strong religious ties, while France for exemple has a law restricting religious scarves

But isn't it amazing that France has more French-feeling muslims than muslim countries has nationalisitc feelers? Take into account that muslim governments have strong religious ties, while France for exemple has a law restricting religious scarves

That doesn't change the overall schematic. Europe is facing a rapidly growing population of people who don't consider themselves and don't want to be considered European.

Most of the Europeans don't consider themselves as European either.

Most of the Europeans don't consider themselves as European either.

Yes they do. Euros are notoriously proud of their respective nationalities. Just watch their sporting events.

I know Pew well and they aree a good source. Problem is that what the article you posted says is not what you are saying.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/obdeck/50-7.gif

Looks to me like most Muslims in Europe consider themselves Muslims first and citizens second. This is a sign of devout religious practice. France may have it better than other countries with about a 50/50 split, but that's still not 1% of thier population being devout, that's 5%. That's one in twenty.

From that article: "Most Muslims in France feel very French -- but they feel that the French don't see them that way, because they may look Arab or black…. Surveys suggest that Muslims are generally more conservative for example on issues such as sexuality and marriage... [But] the fraction of Muslims actively practicing their religion in France is only 10 percent, which is very similar to that of practicing Catholics." - Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, immigration specialist and research director, Center for International Studies and Research, Paris

The fact that the majority consider themselves Muslim first is just a typical immigrant reaction, and is expected. They want keep the tradition of their culture. In coming generations you'll see this number decrease dramatically. This basically means they celebrate Ramadan over Christmas and make an attempt to avoid pork. Most Italians and Irish probably considered themselves Catholic first and American second until the baby-boomer generation.

Born and raised in Loas Angeles. Lived here for 35 of my 37 years. First, when ZhaZha Gabor hit that officer in the shoulder she was prosecuted and went to jail for assault on an officer of the law. From what I've read yu have to hit an officer in France with a brick to get busted for assault on an officer. As for driving through east LA, I do it all the time and I see cops there all the time - sitting outside at little taco stands eating, out of their cars talking to residents, pulling over suspected gang members in broad daylight. Never once have I seen the cops patrolling East LA in an armored personel carrier. Trust me. LA looks a lot worse on TV and in mythology than it actually is when you live here. As a matter in fact, I grew up in Pacoima - one of the worst areas in LA - and I've never even been shot! :eek:

Well, I was just assuming LA had areas as bad as Fresno. I know someone in the Fresno police department, and in certain parts of the city people will randomly toss bricks at the police cars. There's even the occasional shot in the direction of the police officers. And, from personal experience, there's parts of basically every major city in the South Eastern(Atlanta, Memphis, Montgomery, etc) USA that police won't go near after dark.

If someone hits a police officer, doesn't matter which Western country it is, they're going to be charged with assault.

Yes they do. Euros are notoriously proud of their respective nationalities. Just watch their sporting events.

yes... but "European" is not a nationality. That was that HAken Rider was getting at, I think. Europeans think of themselves as French, or German, or Italian, or whatever. It's similar to how Canadians think of themselves as Canadians, and not North Americans.

The reason the situation is so bad in France is because it has the largest Muslim population percentage in Europe, 10% or 6 Million out of 60 Million. My guess, is that once the other big and rich European Nations gain a similar percentage of Muslims, they will have the same problem.

I'm from an industrial centre in western Germany, 10% of the people in my town are Turkish immigrants, or their parents or grandparents were. They're mostly muslim. There are no problems. Care to explain?

From that article: "Most Muslims in France feel very French -- but they feel that the French don't see them that way, because they may look Arab or black…. Surveys suggest that Muslims are generally more conservative for example on issues such as sexuality and marriage... [But] the fraction of Muslims actively practicing their religion in France is only 10 percent, which is very similar to that of practicing Catholics." - Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, immigration specialist and research director, Center for International Studies and Research, Paris

The fact that the majority consider themselves Muslim first is just a typical immigrant reaction, and is expected. They want keep the tradition of their culture. In coming generations you'll see this number decrease dramatically. This basically means they celebrate Ramadan over Christmas and make an attempt to avoid pork. Most Italians and Irish probably considered themselves Catholic first and American second until the baby-boomer generation.Well, I can't speak with any authority on the matter because I've never been there and, frankly, I read from respectable sources disagreeing accounts on what is happening over there/ Suffice it to say that I hope you're right, but it just doesn't seem that way. In any case, I think much of the Islamist movement has become almost more of a nationalistic movement than a religious one in which case piety becomes irrelevant.



Well, I was just assuming LA had areas as bad as Fresno. I know someone in the Fresno police department, and in certain parts of the city people will randomly toss bricks at the police cars. There's even the occasional shot in the direction of the police officers. And, from personal experience, there's parts of basically every major city in the South Eastern(Atlanta, Memphis, Montgomery, etc) USA that police won't go near after dark.Of course there are bad areas of LA. Bad areas, however, are often made to look a lot worse than they actually are in the news and in movies and TV shows. I certainly wouldn't walk around in Watts at night, but I'll walk around there during the day and the cops don't have any "no go" zones in LA and they certainly don't have neighborhoods where the second they try to detain a suspect they get attcked by gangs of criminals - if that were true we'd have dead cops all over the place considering ho saturated areas like Watts are with guns.

If someone hits a police officer, doesn't matter which Western country it is, they're going to be charged with assault.

I'll need to see that. If the article Nord or whatever posted is ture then there are all kinds of people getting away with serious attacks on cops in France. Nothing like what is being described in that article is happening anywhere in the US.

yes... but "European" is not a nationality. That was that HAken Rider was getting at, I think. Europeans think of themselves as French, or German, or Italian, or whatever. It's similar to how Canadians think of themselves as Canadians, and not North Americans.

That's exactly what I meant and he knows it. I was reffering to a graph that showed whether Muslims in various European countires feel that they are citizens of that respective country first or Muslims first. Rather than go down the entire list I said "Europeans." It was a perfectly undesrtandable way to use the word in the context of what my point was, namely:

Muslims in various European countries overwhelmingly see themselves as Muslims over citizens of the country they currently reside in.

Muslims in various European countries overwhelmingly see themselves as Muslims over citizens of the country they currently reside in.

And this is bad because it's not nationalistic enough? I see myself as "male" over "citizen of the US," whats the problem?

Yes they do. Euros are notoriously proud of their respective nationalities. Just watch their sporting events.

Pfff, depends. Not really a reliable connection. Plus you're mixing European with European nations, as Greater Trostia said.

edit: That's exactly what I meant and he knows it.
No, I don't. You're the one insinuating a clash between the general European civilization and Islam.

But more on-topic:

Bad: world population is too big and resources are running scarse.
Good: Birth rate in Europe decreasing (as a result of a prosperous society).

Bad: European population getting too grey. Labourers getting scarse.
Good: young immigrants coming over.

Now those immigrants are for a big part muslims. Is this bad? No.
Don't they bring Shariah laws with them? Nope, they learn from the European way, not the other way around.
Don't many of them cause trouble? Not the real muslims.

Utter fear mongering. Give all muslims the time to integrate in european society and they all will be quite happy of living in a secular country. Look at Turkey for example, that's a secular country with a huge muslim majority. There is a difference between being a muslim and being a fundamentalist.

Thats why my cousin was killed by the government for changing his religion? Turkey is about as secular as the vatican

And this is bad because it's not nationalistic enough? I see myself as "male" over "citizen of the US," whats the problem?

Nothing if you strip the phenomenon from teh context of the argument. There is no culture clash between males and Americans at the moment.

:eek:

Just wait, one day--when you're all peacefully minding your own business--they will drop a Muslimification bomb on you and turn everyone into--GASP!--Muslims. Korans will appear in your pockets and AK-47's on your walls.

Run while you still can.

Across the entire population of 300,000,000, probably. I think France is about the size of CA, though, and contrary to what Pytor says we do not have a cop a day being attacked unless you want to consider something like resisting arrest an attack. We don't have mods of people attacking cops and neighborhoods where cops just get attacked any time they drive through.
France has twice the population of California.

Nothing if you strip the phenomenon from teh context of the argument. There is no culture clash between males and Americans at the moment.

Oh very well, I'm an atheist before I'm an American. And plenty of people are God Fearin' Christians before being American. There's certainly a cultural clash between secularism and fundamentalist Christianity in the US political scene. So, shall we adopt NN's solution and deport one of the "cultures" that is so rudely interrupting my state of mind?

Pfff, depends. Not really a reliable connection. Plus you're mixing European with European nations, as Greater Trostia said.No I'm not. I figured yo'd be able to read between teh lines and realize that I was trying to make a point without having to list every country in question. I d understand the difference between Spain and Portugal and France and Germany, etc...

But more on-topic:

Bad: world population is too big and resources are running scarse.
Good: Birth rate in Europe decreasing (as a result of a prosperous society).Agreed. The root of most of mankinds problems, in my opinion.

Bad: European population getting too grey. Labourers getting scarse.
Good: young immigrants coming over.If they fulfill the promise of their immigration. If they come over and smuggle drugs, run prostitutes or recruit jihadists than it most definately is not good.

Now those immigrants are for a big part muslims. Is this bad? No.
Don't they bring Shariah laws with them? Nope, they learn from the European way, not the other way around.Some do. There is a lot of evidence in madrid and London in te form of dead people and blown up stuff that they all don't. It's naive to make an absolute statement like that.
Don't many of them cause trouble? Not the real muslims.
The real muslims are not defined by people outside their religion. People who identify themselves as real Muslims may be just the ones who do cause trouble.

Oh very well, I'm an atheist before I'm an American. And plenty of people are God Fearin' Christians before being American.If you are referring to the religious right I think you have it wrong. They consider themselves God fearing Christian Americans in a single context. They have no conflict with their country and are, in fact, fiercly patriotic.

There's certainly a cultural clash between secularism and fundamentalist Christianity in the US political scene. So, shall we adopt NN's solution and deport one of the "cultures" that is so rudely interrupting my state of mind?

First, I never advocated deporting anyone. I'm simply saying that Europe has to start looking at setting some limits on immigration and start looking at a controlled solution that will allow immigration to happen in an orderly and planned fashion. The same kind of thing I'm advocating for here in the US. Second, neither the fundies nor the non religious here in America are at odds over whether they are American. I think both groups are happy to be here and live here and identify themselves overwhelmingly as Americans. They certainly have different visions for our country but they for the most part settle their differences in public debate and at the ballot box. There may be some parallels with illegal immigrants here because there is a "reconquista" element that exists within the illegal immigrant community, but the people illegally immigrating into the US have much more in common with the people wo live here in terms of culture than Muslims do with Europeans. Mexicans like the bikinis at the beach, too, and they love soap operas and pop music.

No I'm not. I figured yo'd be able to read between teh lines and realize that I was trying to make a point without having to list every country in question. I d understand the difference between Spain and Portugal and France and Germany, etc...
You're the one insinuating a clash between the general European civilization and Islam. I rather take you litterary than being accused of spinning your words around.

If they fulfill the promise of their immigration. If they come over and smuggle drugs, run prostitutes or recruit jihadists than it most definately is not good.
That's a minority of a minority. Don't blame all immigrants for it. It are for a part such generalizations that hold up integration.

Some do. There is a lot of evidence in madrid and London in te form of dead people and blown up stuff that they all don't. It's naive to make an absolute statement like that.
And some of the Basks are members of ETA...

The real muslims are not defined by people outside their religion. People who identify themselves as real Muslims may be just the ones who do cause trouble.
Like the bad banlieu kids? Those that never have seen the inside of a mosquee? Wear jeans and drink alcohol? Besides they are for a large part Christian Africans.

That's a minority of a minority. Don't blame all immigrants for it. It are for a part such generalizations that hold up integration.I didn't blame all immigrants for it. I blame an unregulated and unchecked system of immigration for it.


And some of the Basks are members of ETA...How is this relevant to the discussion? Some black people here in LA are members of the Crips. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to the fact that Mara Salvatrucha, a gang comprised mostly of illegal Salvadorean immigrants, are running drugs and commiting violent crimes on our streets?


Like the bad banlieu kids? Those that never have seen the inside of a mosquee? Wear jeans and drink alcohol? Besides they are for a large part Christian Africans.

I don't even know who those people are or how that relates to the discussion.

I didn't blame all immigrants for it. I blame an unregulated and unchecked system of immigration for it.
More immigrants, more problems. That's how it goes. The more people, who lived in poverty, we can help, the better.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Some black people here in LA are members of the Crips. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to the fact that Mara Salvatrucha, a gang comprised mostly of illegal Salvadorean immigrants, are running drugs and commiting violent crimes on our streets?
Relevant, because you were dishing out the train-attack like it was a "typical result of muslim immigration".

I don't even know who those people are or how that relates to the discussion.
Remember the "dangerous parts in France were police gets molested"-discussion? Yeah... banlieus.

More immigrants, more problems. That's how it goes. The more people, who lived in poverty, we can help, the better.Not if the result is the disintegration of the society that seeks to help them. I'm not advocating an end to immigration or any kind of deportation plan. What I am advocating is a practical solution that fulfills the need for immigrant labor, takes into account the predicaments of those that wish to immigrate and takes into account the full, real impact of immigration on the host country. What is needed in Europe, and here in the US, in my opinion is a practical, controlled solution to immigration. The open the doors for all comers approach ignores the fact that all benefits have a cost. These costs need to be examined in light of the practical reality in which they exist free of jingoistic political ideologies and they need to be weighed against humanitarian motivations and economic and social costs. For example, it is estimated that 90% of all women in Ethiopia have been genitally mutilated. Now, they don't call it that there but here in the west we consider it a barbaric practice. With that many women having had it done you're going to be pretty hard put to convince me that it isn't a pervasive social practice. Anyhoo, Ethiopia is also a humanitarian nightmare as I'm sure you're aware. Well what should Europe do, then? Should they just open the doors wide or should they controll immigration from Ethiopia so they can screen for criminal records and also make any immigrants aware that genital mutilation will not be tolerated in France, for example? Why not have a middle of the road approach like that? Why not screen for possible training in terror camps when accepting immigrants from Pakistan? Why not screen for criminal drug related backgrounds when accepting immigrants from Afghanistan? All I'm saying is that cultural and social realities need to be considered and clashes between European culture and the wave of immigration from Africa is just a plain, hard fact of reality. It's just happening whether you like it or not and it's not good for the immigrant and it's not god for the host.


Relevant, because you were dishing out the train-attack like it was a "typical result of muslim immigration".Rather than put the quotes around that phrase and attribute it to me why not just actually quote me where I said that?


Remember the "dangerous parts in France were police gets molested"-discussion? Yeah... banlieus.

Just because one group of people are dangerous doesn't mean you shoudl ignore that another group are also dangerous. Seems like all you did here is point out that there is more than one dangerous group of people immigrating from Africa. More of a reason to control that immigration.

Not if the result is the disintegration of the society that seeks to help them. I'm not advocating an end to immigration or any kind of deportation plan. What I am advocating is a practical solution that fulfills the need for immigrant labor, takes into account the predicaments of those that wish to immigrate and takes into account the full, real impact of immigration on the host country. What is needed in Europe, and here in the US, in my opinion is a practical, controlled solution to immigration. The open the doors for all comers approach ignores the fact that all benefits have a cost. These costs need to be examined in light of the practical reality in which they exist free of jingoistic political ideologies and they need to be weighed against humanitarian motivations and economic and social costs. For example, it is estimated that 90% of all women in Ethiopia have been genitally mutilated. Now, they don't call it that there but here in the west we consider it a barbaric practice. With that many women having had it done you're going to be pretty hard put to convince me that it isn't a pervasive social practice. Anyhoo, Ethiopia is also a humanitarian nightmare as I'm sure you're aware. Well what should Europe do, then? Should they just open the doors wide or should they controll immigration from Ethiopia so they can screen for criminal records and also make any immigrants aware that genital mutilation will not be tolerated in France, for example? Why not have a middle of the road approach like that? Why not screen for possible training in terror camps when accepting immigrants from Pakistan? Why not screen for criminal drug related backgrounds when accepting immigrants from Afghanistan? All I'm saying is that cultural and social realities need to be considered and clashes between European culture and the wave of immigration from Africa is just a plain, hard fact of reality. It's just happening whether you like it or not and it's not good for the immigrant and it's not god for the host.
You make it look like Western nations have open borders. Are you familiar with the wall in Mexico? Ever heard of Fortress Europe (post-world war 2)? Frankly I haven't seen much justification for these exagerated negative views towoards immigrants. They come here, work hard and often speak the language better than the locals. And no, we don't tolerate practices we view as barbaric here, unless you have sources that tell otherwise.
To immigrate from you native country is a hard decision and the road is often long and dangerous. When they arrive in their new nation, it will take a long and difficult time to adjust to the complete altered values. Yet when are starting to get integrated, they can't find a job, because they have the wrong color of skin. His wife is being looked down upon because she follows her religious beliefs and his children are dragged from school to send them back to their old country, because after a year or so of investigation, their request to be allowed to stay, is denied. I think we have, in general, a pretty strict immigration policy and it's unrealistic to expect a fast, cheap method of thourougly screen all those newcomers. Basing it on stereotypes isn't the humane way to go either. Besides, everyone deserves a second chance.
And we do try a golden middle road: we take in immigrants, while in the mean time we try to improve the situation in their native country.
Cultural clashes do indeed happen, it comes with immigration, how limited it might be. Don't be a coward and face the music. If you don't get used to it, your children eventually will, or their children... And you don't need to give up your culture when an extra one comes along.

Rather than put the quotes around that phrase and attribute it to me why not just actually quote me where I said that?
I said: Don't they bring Shariah laws with them? Nope, they learn from the European way, not the other way around.
You said: Some do. There is a lot of evidence in madrid and London in te form of dead people and blown up stuff that they all don't. It's naive to make an absolute statement like that.

I can only see that as a "blowing stuff up is un-European". Perhaps you want to rephrase yourself to make it crystal clear to me?

Just because one group of people are dangerous doesn't mean you shoudl ignore that another group are also dangerous. Seems like all you did here is point out that there is more than one dangerous group of people immigrating from Africa. More of a reason to control that immigration.
Good, this is the first step! You've just broadened a narrow-minded view that many have. Next step: not all criminals come from Africa. Followed by the last step: Europe has home-bred criminals itself.

Right, and some countries have done this. Mainly France, but Scandinavia is making some headway in that area.


Yeah and that's happening because of the discussion about future trends.



Okay, maybe I didn't make it clear enough. In the past 5 years, not back in the 60s, France has been able to reverse the population decline among the entire population.


France have a long history of pro-natal policies so "5 years" is such a understatement. Besides to reverse decline or stagnating you need decades because population gets old after prolonged time at sub-replacement birth rate.


How many Egyptians actually migrate to Europe? Not that many. And Egypt's fertility rate is decreasing: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=eg&v=31, maybe not as quickly as the others, but it is still decreasing.

And, as I said in my last post, European countries aren't bringing in as many Muslims as they once were. They're getting immigrants from other sources.


Omg, in 20 years there'll be 40 million Muslims in the EUs population of 440 million(This number is taking into account population decline). How terrible, they'll make up 10%! You know, Poland before WW2 was about 10% Jewish with some areas being over 25% Jewish. I’m pretty sure Hitler didn't invade Poland to save them from Halakha.


Ok lets calculate, assuming they double their population within 20 years. Actually it's less, IF trends continue.

2025: 40 M
2045: 80 M
2065: 160 M
2085: 320 M

That's almost majority, if native european population declines. Def majority in 2105, earlier IF Turkey joins EU.

And that's not an impossible scenario. Muslims were in hundreds of thousands after WW2 and within 60 years, they are 20 M.

Also, if muslims reach significant %, their electoral power should be considered. You dont expect them voting for the anti-immigrant parties, do you? They'll probably go with pro-immigrant parties which might increase EVEN the current immigration rate.



My mathematical skills are fine, thanks. I don't exagerate statistics for the sake of demogogery.


If you think this is demogogey, then your maths skills are debatable.


First off, there really aren’t that many people emigrating, and it's probably not a permanent trend. A lot of the increase has to do with older workers retiring to Spain or some other warm place. And the Netherlands, like other European countries, only draws a fraction of its immigration from Muslim nations. The majority of the newer immigrants are, again, South Americans.


Linky?


*gasp* 95% of Dutch Muslims consider themselves moderates. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3809802


"Moderate" is debatable. It's not just not supporting terrorism.



As I've said before: This has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're Muslims. Just because one small police union called it a "permanent infitada" does change that fact.

And you quoted an article from The Daily Telegraph...of course it's going to be slanted against Muslims.

Of course it does, cultural differeces play a huge role why they are discriminated at workforce.

Yeah and that's happening because of the discussion about future trends.
See, the reason that nothing has happened for so long is because people like you monopolised the debate.
Nothing reasonable can ever come from right-wing nutcases and xenophobes yelling and screaming, even if they have a point. No one can, nor should they, listen to them.

What is needed is a proper debate about the issue in the mainstream. I'm glad to see that it's finally happening now, not because of said xenophobes, but probably because of 9/11 raising the awareness of Muslims in general.

If you want to blame someone for the fact that nothing's been done for decades, look at people of your political persuasion who had no better idea than to get together in skinhead gangs to bash foreigners and torch asylum homes.

That's almost majority, if native european population declines. Def majority in 2105, earlier IF Turkey joins EU.
You're aware that you'll probably be dead by then, right?

If you think this is demogogey, then your maths skills are debatable.
You know, considering that I've finished three courses in inferential statistics and econometrics, maybe the both of you would lay off with the maths comments.

What you're doing is quoting random numbers - that's not statistics. But you still give the discipline a bad name!

See, the reason that nothing has happened for so long is because people like you monopolised the debate.
Nothing reasonable can ever come from right-wing nutcases and xenophobes yelling and screaming, even if they have a point. No one can, nor should they, listen to them.


The dogmatic thinking here is retarded.


What is needed is a proper debate about the issue in the mainstream. I'm glad to see that it's finally happening now, not because of said xenophobes, but probably because of 9/11 raising the awareness of Muslims in general.


It's already happening. "right-wing nutcase" opinions are becoming more mainstream because the more muslims the more exposure. And yes, 9/11 broked some of this "lets cover this up" logic from your side of discussion.



If you want to blame someone for the fact that nothing's been done for decades, look at people of your political persuasion who had no better idea than to get together in skinhead gangs to bash foreigners and torch asylum homes.


Again, moronic, if you think that all violence is of right wing origin.


You're aware that you'll probably be dead by then, right?


I'm not atheist like you are.



You know, considering that I've finished three courses in inferential statistics and econometrics, maybe the both of you would lay off with the maths comments.


Pftt. Arent you economist or something? I'm in architecture.


What you're doing is quoting random numbers - that's not statistics. But you still give the discipline a bad name!

Population doubling is really an easy concept, actually.

I'm not atheist like you are.So? That doesn't mean you'll be reincarnated.

So? That doesn't mean you'll be reincarnated.

I believe in reincarnation.

If you are referring to the religious right I think you have it wrong. They consider themselves God fearing Christian Americans in a single context. They have no conflict with their country and are, in fact, fiercly patriotic.


Ha! yes they do have a conflict with the country, and more to the point with the culture. The culture of liberalism, neo-liberalism, Democrats, abortion, gay marriage, etc etc. You can't deny there's a cultural rift in the US, and whether they are "fiercely patriotic" seems to depend very much on who is in power at the time.

I'm simply saying that Europe has to start looking at setting some limits on immigration and start looking at a controlled solution that will allow immigration to happen in an orderly and planned fashion.

Then I agree. But you are different from the scared nutjobs, not to name names (hint: o.p) who seek to gain control BY deportation and other less than savory angles of approach.

Second, neither the fundies nor the non religious here in America are at odds over whether they are American. I think both groups are happy to be here and live here and identify themselves overwhelmingly as Americans. They certainly have different visions for our country but they for the most part settle their differences in public debate and at the ballot box.

Each group will be the first to tell you that the other group is at odds with being American. And the issues don't get settled by debate (Bush lost his with Kerry, after all) and voting just shifts the balance of power around.

There is no reason to expect anyone to put their nation over their religion. And given the choice between betraying their nation, and betraying their God, what do you think most Christians, Jews or Muslims would do?

One leads to some guilt and political persecution... the other leads to eternal damnation. Seems a fairly simple choice.

The dogmatic thinking here is retarded.
Yeah, because afterall, every opinion always needs to be respected. Like that Sharia law should govern people's rights for example.

Again, moronic, if you think that all violence is of right wing origin.
All race-based and anti-foreigner violence is.

I'm not atheist like you are.
Which is irrelevant, seeing as to how you will be dead and gone, regardless of what you choose to believe during your lifetime.

Population doubling is really an easy concept, actually.
Not quiet as easy as trend prediction and inferential statistics though. Which is, I suppose, why those two seem to be totally disregarded by everyone. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because afterall, every opinion always needs to be respected. Like that Sharia law should govern people's rights for example.

Like the opinion you espouse? :rolleyes:

Well, there's a major problem with your argument: the rioters in France aren't rioting because they're Muslim, but in fact because they don't have jobs, if they do have jobs they get paid much less than a "native" French person, and they feel like French society is "ignoring" them, which, to be honest, is probably true. And the Muslims aren't the only ones who are angry. Poor Christian(At least nominally Christian) Greeks, "Blacks", Spanish, Italians, and French also took part in the riots. There were a few instances when some tried to add an Islamic slant to the riots, but that was the exception;


"The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada."" I think you should read this (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061013-083614-1432r) United Press article, my source.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," Thooris told journalists. Sarkozy, the leading center-right candidate for next year's presidential election, responded by dispatching cops in body armor, equipped with automatic weapons and rubber bullets, stun and teargas grenades into several Paris suburbs with orders to "restore control" from "organized crime." In one recent clash 250 cops dispersed a 100-strong Muslim gang armed with baseball bats.

So, yeah, I gues that answers that.

which people like Le Pen and Anglo news outlets jumped on for varying reasons. Le Pen did it as way to say "OMG IMMIGRANTS ARE TEH SUX WE SHOULD KI…I MEAN EXPEAL THEM!1!!"

Actually, according to the article Le pen, (evidently suffering from Chronic Stupidity) has decided to ally with the Muslims against the Jews, splitting his party and ruining his chances at power.

the Anglos did it so they can say "Our way of handling minorities is waaaay superior to the French." Remember only something like 1% of French people can be considered practicing Muslims. The other 5-7%(France is, at the most, 8% Muslim) are about as Muslim as the average Frenchmen is Catholic.

My stats say that France has the highest percentage Muslim population, 10%.


And, honestly, the French riots could've been worse. They were nothing like the race riots of America's recent past. The "Muslims" didn't go yanking people out of their cars and beat them to death, now did they?

Actually, does this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226102,00.html) count?

Also, how many police officers in the USA do you think are attacked each day? I'm sure this number is much higher than "1 per day."

Here I must truly, sincerely apologize for my wrongness. It's actually 14 a day, read here (http:///www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml). Mind you, that is only in clashes with "Youths" (read - Muslims), not total injuries nationwide.

I believe in reincarnation.
So what if you reincarnate as the child of arabian immigrants? :D

We must protect ourselves from anyone who might be remotely different from ourselves! RUN! ARM YOURSELVES!!!!

I believe in reincarnation.

one second your be-moaning asian cultures and such, the next you say you follow one of the tenents of many asia faiths.

Ok lets calculate, assuming they double their population within 20 years. Actually it's less, IF trends continue.

2025: 40 M
2045: 80 M
2065: 160 M
2085: 320 M

That's almost majority, if native european population declines. Def majority in 2105, earlier IF Turkey joins EU.

And that's not an impossible scenario. Muslims were in hundreds of thousands after WW2 and within 60 years, they are 20 M.

Also, if muslims reach significant %, their electoral power should be considered. You dont expect them voting for the anti-immigrant parties, do you? They'll probably go with pro-immigrant parties which might increase EVEN the current immigration rate.


Funny the same sort of thing used to be said in the UK about west-indian immigrants in the 60s. Now a majority of the descendents have 1 or 2 children like the native population and complain about the immigrant problem.

At the moment christians make up the largest religious group in all but a few european countries, yet many non-christian laws such as abortion exist.
Would the same not happen with future muslim generations?

This is what it all boils down to, really:

"Some statistics vaguely point to a Muslim majority sometime within the next century or so - maybe more than a hundred years. And then something might happen!"

I don't think you can get anything more vague...

one second your be-moaning asian cultures and such, the next you say you follow one of the tenents of many asia faiths.

You think I should follow christianity, which were founded upon the shores of denmark?

Funny the same sort of thing used to be said in the UK about west-indian immigrants in the 60s. Now a majority of the descendents have 1 or 2 children like the native population and complain about the immigrant problem.

At the moment christians make up the largest religious group in all but a few european countries, yet many non-christian laws such as abortion exist.
Would the same not happen with future muslim generations?

Funny, muslim pop. increased something like 10 times in 60 years. Funny, they used to say nuclear war would destroy the world, but since that didnt happen, we should produce more and more, since it's perfectly ok. :rolleyes:

This is what it all boils down to, really:

"Some statistics vaguely point to a Muslim majority sometime within the next century or so - maybe more than a hundred years. And then something might happen!"

I don't think you can get anything more vague...

This sounds like an argument from nutjobs about Global Warming. Vague vague!!

"The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada."" I think you should read this (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061013-083614-1432r) United Press article, my source.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," Thooris told journalists. Sarkozy, the leading center-right candidate for next year's presidential election, responded by dispatching cops in body armor, equipped with automatic weapons and rubber bullets, stun and teargas grenades into several Paris suburbs with orders to "restore control" from "organized crime." In one recent clash 250 cops dispersed a 100-strong Muslim gang armed with baseball bats.

So, yeah, I gues that answers that.



Actually, according to the article Le pen, (evidently suffering from Chronic Stupidity) has decided to ally with the Muslims against the Jews, splitting his party and ruining his chances at power.



My stats say that France has the highest percentage Muslim population, 10%.




Actually, does this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226102,00.html) count?



Here I must truly, sincerely apologize for my wrongness. It's actually 14 a day, read here (http:///www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml). Mind you, that is only in clashes with "Youths" (read - Muslims), not total injuries nationwide.

Nobody had anything to say about this? Hmm...

Funny, muslim pop. increased something like 10 times in 60 years.

OHNOES. They are OUTBREEDING good WHITE PEOPLE. Save me, NN.

Funny, they used to say nuclear war would destroy the world, but since that didnt happen, we should produce more and more, since it's perfectly ok. :rolleyes:

Well that was tangential.

OHNOES. They are OUTBREEDING good WHITE PEOPLE. Save me, NN.



Well that was tangential.

White people used to make up 35% of the worlds population, as of the 1930s. Between non-white pop growth, population loss from WW2 and white peoples insistence on reproducing below replacement levels for 30-50 years, we are now 8% of the worlds population. So, yeah they are outbreeding us. There are a Billion Feminism hating, Gay bashing, anti-Liberal Muslims out there, and less than a billion whites.

So, have fun living under Islamic Theocracy. And if you don't like the beheading of rape-victims and being stoned for eating on Ramadan, well, at least you have all the benefits of diversity, right? ....right..?

White people used to make up 35% of the worlds population, as of the 1930s. Between non-white pop growth, population loss from WW2 and white peoples insistence on reproducing below replacement levels for 30-50 years, we are now 8% of the worlds population. So, yeah they are outbreeding us. There are a Billion Feminism hating, Gay bashing, anti-Liberal Muslims out there, and less than a billion whites.

Well, eat a baby and spank my ass. Less than a billion? Shit, that's not even one sixth of the world population? What ever shall I do? Being a minority is so unacceptable! Minorities might as well just kill themselves, that's how horrible their measly, non-majority existence is!

So, have fun living under Islamic Theocracy.

Fuck your white supremacism. Given the choice between nazi assholes like you and Islam, I'd choose Islam. At least they HAVE a moral code other than "ZOMG WHITE POWER!"


And if you don't like the beheading of rape-victims and being stoned for eating on Ramadan, well, at least you have all the benefits of diversity, right? ....right..?

Ooh, a Class B "anti-liberal" rant. Taking a page out of Ann Coulter's book, I see. Well-done! you GO girl!

White people used to make up 35% of the worlds population, as of the 1930s. Between non-white pop growth, population loss from WW2 and white peoples insistence on reproducing below replacement levels for 30-50 years, we are now 8% of the worlds population. So, yeah they are outbreeding us. There are a Billion Feminism hating, Gay bashing, anti-Liberal Muslims out there, and less than a billion whites.

So, have fun living under Islamic Theocracy. And if you don't like the beheading of rape-victims and being stoned for eating on Ramadan, well, at least you have all the benefits of diversity, right? ....right..?

He's actually black so maybe he does like whites being continually decreasing.

He's actually black so maybe he does like whites being continually decreasing.

Still on with the "OMG UR BLACK!" conspiracy, I see. No matter how many times I say I'm white, you believe I'm black.

I guess it's easier for you, to assume I'm an untermensch, rather than a race traitor right?

Still on with the "OMG UR BLACK!" conspiracy, I see. No matter how many times I say I'm white, you believe I'm black.

I guess it's easier for you, to assume I'm an untermensch, rather than a race traitor right?

Let's let him decide...


Oh, so you think Heikoku and I have the same mental capacity?

Well, I'll have you know I'm black, and Heikoku sounds Asian to me. Since you've posted numerous links to studies that show how much more intelligent Asians (or whites) compared to blacks, I think you are now disagreeing mostly with yourself, mein herr. Clearly Heikoku's got far more mental capacity than me

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11274985&postcount=275



Oh you are black huh? Why did you claim to be white in previous threads?

I dunno, why do you keep claiming not to be a bigoted xenophobe?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11275030&postcount=285

You are white but you call other whites as “white boy”. I find that highly suspicious.


………….
You thumb your nose at the altar of AMERICA, white boy.
………..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10904055&postcount=887


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11830617&postcount=207

Yeah and that's happening because of the discussion about future trends.




France have a long history of pro-natal policies so "5 years" is such a understatement. Besides to reverse decline or stagnating you need decades because population gets old after prolonged time at sub-replacement birth rate.

I know. But these policies really haven't done anything until recently.

Ok lets calculate, assuming they double their population within 20 years. Actually it's less, IF trends continue.

2025: 40 M
2045: 80 M
2065: 160 M
2085: 320 M

That's almost majority, if native european population declines. Def majority in 2105, earlier IF Turkey joins EU.

And that's not an impossible scenario. Muslims were in hundreds of thousands after WW2 and within 60 years, they are 20 M.

...that's stupid. Populations do not continuously grow at exponential rates. The Muslims populations will eventually plateau and then grow at the same rate as the rest of the population. I do not think the Muslim population will ever break the 20% mark.

Also, if muslims reach significant %, their electoral power should be considered. You dont expect them voting for the anti-immigrant parties, do you? They'll probably go with pro-immigrant parties which might increase EVEN the current immigration rate.

Silly. Immigrants aren't just one huge collective society. They have individual opinions, just like the natives.


If you think this is demogogey, then your maths skills are debatable.

Well, what else can it be? It's obviously not based on facts.

You know, considering that I've finished three courses in inferential statistics and econometrics, maybe the both of you would lay off with the maths comments.

What you're doing is quoting random numbers - that's not statistics. But you still give the discipline a bad name

I agree with you, actually. I know I'm just quoting numbers(I don't agree with you on the random part, though).

Linky?

Okay, majority is probably an exaggeration, but they're beginning to make a fairly large portion of immigration to Europe.

Here's an example for the Netherlands:

http://emmering.blogspot.com/2005/03/graphs-r-us.html

"Moderate" is debatable. It's not just not supporting terrorism.

Well, if they don't support terrorism, how can we have this mythical Clash of Civilizations?

Of course it does, cultural differeces play a huge role why they are discriminated at workforce.

But that's not really because of their religion. It has more to do with their skin color and last name. Religion is just secondary. And the discrimination is coming from the French, so, y'know, if they didn't act this way towards the "Muslims", maybe the Muslims wouldn't be so angry? Just a thought.

Let's let him decide...


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11274985&postcount=275


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11275030&postcount=285

I see, so I am automatically lying when I say I'm white, but automatically telling the truth if I say I'm black?

Oh you confused little poodle. You're cute though, when you go on your racist witch-hunt, SO concerned about the ethnicities of other posters....

You are white but you call other whites as “white boy”. I find that highly suspicious.

Hey how about that, I am white, AND I call other people white!

That proves I'm black!

Amusing.

I guess maybe you believe the phrase "white boy" is patented by those low-IQ blacks, yes? Or maybe I should be calling you white GIRL. Because you are clearly not a MAN yet. You know, like when I call you nazi BOY.

Get over your stupid bigotry.

"The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada."" I think you should read this (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061013-083614-1432r) United Press article, my source.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," Thooris told journalists. Sarkozy, the leading center-right candidate for next year's presidential election, responded by dispatching cops in body armor, equipped with automatic weapons and rubber bullets, stun and teargas grenades into several Paris suburbs with orders to "restore control" from "organized crime." In one recent clash 250 cops dispersed a 100-strong Muslim gang armed with baseball bats.

So, yeah, I gues that answers that.

Thooris belongs to this Police Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Police_CFTC and he supports this political party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_pour_la_France. He has a lot to gain by making asshat statements about a "civil war." Can you please find something from a news source that isn't as silly as the United Press?


Actually, according to the article Le pen, (evidently suffering from Chronic Stupidity) has decided to ally with the Muslims against the Jews, splitting his party and ruining his chances at power.

Didn't know that. I try to ignore Le Pen.

My stats say that France has the highest percentage Muslim population, 10%.

Your stats are wrong. There's about 4 million Muslims in France. Pretty sure 4 million is not 10% of 60 million.

Here's some interesting stuff on Muslims in France: http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html

Actually, does this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226102,00.html) count?



Here I must truly, sincerely apologize for my wrongness. It's actually 14 a day, read here (http:///www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml). Mind you, that is only in clashes with "Youths" (read - Muslims), not total injuries nationwide.

No, I don't think it does. I don't think they meant to burn her. They probably didn't go out of their to avoid burning her, but I don't think they made a point to burn someone.

That's only 14 per day in areas outside Paris populated by poor people.

I never really said France doesn't have a problem with crime. Ever country does. My point is: A) It's not as bad as some countries and B) It has nothing to do with religion.

i'm all for eurabia

i'm just imagining myself having 3 wives :D

that stuff of "no pork or booze" pisses me off though

ok, so lets say its the year 2030 and europe has just become 60% muslim. Mosques go up everywhere and blast prayer 5 times aday over loudspeakers, and the euro features "AllahuAckbah" on ever paper note.

So what? If the nations of europe become mostly islamic, who cares if they have islamic culture? Most people should be happy about it, if it was by democratic process that it became so.

Let me chang ethe context. Lets say in fifty years time USA becomes completely faithless and has a 70% atheist majority. Most of the churches nationwide are sod and developed into carparks, people are allowed to marry whoever they want, and all other such ungodliness. Why bother about it now. If everyone will be happy then, and you are happy now then be happy now, and let them be happy then.

Thooris belongs to this Police Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Police_CFTC and he supports this political party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_pour_la_France. He has a lot to gain by making asshat statements about a "civil war." Can you please find something from a news source that isn't as silly as the United Press?

I'll take the word of a Police Chief over yours any day of the week.




Didn't know that. I try to ignore Le Pen.

Well, I am uneasy about any far-righter, because I don't agree with everything they say socially or economically, but I had hopes he would ride the wave of public sentiment caused by the '05 riots and deal with the Muslim issue in a positive way for Europe. Now it looks like he's gonna do a big fat load of nothing.



Your stats are wrong. There's about 4 million Muslims in France. Pretty sure 4 million is not 10% of 60 million.

The CIA says 5-10%. So, :pHere is the CIA Factbook. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html)

Here's some interesting stuff on Muslims in France: http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/408410.html



No, I don't think it does. I don't think they meant to burn her. They probably didn't go out of their to avoid burning her, but I don't think they made a point to burn someone.

That's only 14 per day in areas outside Paris populated by poor people.

I never really said France doesn't have a problem with crime. Ever country does. My point is: A) It's not as bad as some countries and B) It has nothing to do with religion.

That's not total woundings from crime, though, that is only in clashes with Muslim Insurgents who are rioting in the streets.


You're nothing but an apologist. If white supremacist neo-nazis were wounding 14 police officers a day, you'd be baying for blood. Since it's your brethren in the ultra-violent "Religion of Peace" (I love how the Arab world erupted into violence, murdering Nuns, fire-bombing churches and the traditional pastime of burning flags, in protest of the Pope calling them violent :D ) you think it's normal, nothing to worry about, once racists are properly cleansed from society everything will be fine. Well it doesn't work that way.

Well, eat a baby and spank my ass. Less than a billion? Shit, that's not even one sixth of the world population? What ever shall I do? Being a minority is so unacceptable! Minorities might as well just kill themselves, that's how horrible their measly, non-majority existence is!

You are intentionally missing the point. It was made to counter someone who said whites are not in danger of dying out; it clearly contradicts, to a degree, that statement, by showing that we have shrunk exponentially.



[quuote]Fuck your white supremacism. Given the choice between nazi assholes like you and Islam, I'd choose Islam. At least they HAVE a moral code other than "ZOMG WHITE POWER!"[/quote]

That's nice, unfortunately A) I am not a Nazi, and B) most Islamic countries are Totalitarian to the point of Nazi-like situations (The term "Islamo-Fascist", despite coming out of the mouth of an idiot at a podium, is not misused). The Taliban Afghanistan was not the only extremist state in the Mid-East, in fact America's good friend Saudi-Arabia is one of the places where they behead rape victims to regain the family's honour.



Ooh, a Class B "anti-liberal" rant. Taking a page out of Ann Coulter's book, I see. Well-done! you GO girl!

I am anti-Liberal, but don't mistake me for a Republican. I have never read an Ann Coulter book, I came up with what you reference on my own.

You are intentionally missing the point. It was made to counter someone who said whites are not in danger of dying out; it clearly contradicts, to a degree, that statement, by showing that we have shrunk exponentially.



So because "whites" (as you count them) shift population downwards, that's an indication of iminent extinction?

And I get your larger point(s) here too - that this is an inherently bad thing, cuz the Evil Muslims will takeover without the White Man in sufficient numbers to Defend us.

That's nice, unfortunately A) I am not a Nazi,

Cuz what, you have Jewish friends?

and B) most Islamic countries are Totalitarian to the point of Nazi-like situations (The term "Islamo-Fascist", despite coming out of the mouth of an idiot at a podium, is not misused). The Taliban Afghanistan was not the only extremist state in the Mid-East, in fact America's good friend Saudi-Arabia is one of the places where they behead rape victims to regain the family's honour.

I see. And if enough immigrants from a place come to a new place, that new place will become exactly like the old. Kind of like how the US became New Africa due to all the Africans. Here we sit in third-world squalor...

I am anti-Liberal, but don't mistake me for a Republican. I have never read an Ann Coulter book, I came up with what you reference on my own.

When I say "anti-liberal" I mean you mostly like to rant about "liberals," not that it actually means anything other than a handy buzzword to rally against while still coming off as quasi-erudite. Liberal itself being a fairly meaningless word, all the more so by its use by self-proclaimed pundits.

I'll take the word of a Police Chief over yours any day of the week.

Even a Police Chief with an agenda? I would only believe France is "in a civil war" or "in a permanent state of intifada" if it was said by a Police Chief who is actually relevant.


Well, I am uneasy about any far-righter, because I don't agree with everything they say socially or economically, but I had hopes he would ride the wave of public sentiment caused by the '05 riots and deal with the Muslim issue in a positive way for Europe. Now it looks like he's gonna do a big fat load of nothing.

The fact that you thought Le Pen might've been able to help in a "positive way" pretty much voids your right to ever speak on this issue.


The CIA says 5-10%. So, :pHere is the CIA Factbook. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2122.html)

So, of course, you go with the highest number.

That's not total woundings from crime, though, that is only in clashes with Muslim Insurgents who are rioting in the streets.

It's clashes with street gangs in poor suburbs.

You're nothing but an apologist. If white supremacist neo-nazis were wounding 14 police officers a day, you'd be baying for blood. Since it's your brethren in the ultra-violent "Religion of Peace" (I love how the Arab world erupted into violence, murdering Nuns, fire-bombing churches and the traditional pastime of burning flags, in protest of the Pope calling them violent :D ) you think it's normal, nothing to worry about, once racists are properly cleansed from society everything will be fine. Well it doesn't work that way.

I don't like the fact that 14 police officers are being attacked per day. But calling it a "clash of civilizations" is just absurd and not the right way to deal with the issue.

So because "whites" (as you count them) shift population downwards, that's an indication of iminent extinction?

And I get your larger point(s) here too - that this is an inherently bad thing, cuz the Evil Muslims will takeover without the White Man in sufficient numbers to Defend us.

I simply believe white people have shown themselves throughout history to have accomplished the most, so it would be bad for humanity for us to die out. And from a religious standpoint, I wouldn't want us to go extinct either.



Cuz what, you have Jewish friends?

No, I'm not terribly fond of jews, though I don't dislike them out of hand. I am not a Nazi because I find the Political Ideology of Fascism in general and National Socialism in particular to be abhorrent. I don't approve of what I see as authoritarianism, or police states, and I believe in free speach and private firearms ownership(Unlike Fascist or NS).

As for the Nazis, they ruined Germany, and the German Monarchy, so I am very unhappy with them for this. I don't really approve of ethnic cleansing either, or enforced secularization.

I consider myself a Jeffersonian Monarchist.



I see. And if enough immigrants from a place come to a new place, that new place will become exactly like the old. Kind of like how the US became New Africa due to all the Africans. Here we sit in third-world squalor...


The parts of America with the most blacks are third world, almost. Detroit, DC, Atlanta the list goes on. But, in the past the immigration waves were much smaller, andright after every immigration wave a clamp down on immigration was enacted to give the wave time to integrate.

In Europe and America today, expecting immigrants to enter legally, love their new country and integrate into our society is considered racist, and they are coming in a constant stream.

The total number of foreign born in the states today is greater than the numbers of foreign born in America from the 1600s to the 1960s (including the initial Pilgrims and such) - Added up!

The point is, these third world people are coming in to fast to be brought up to the third world, they don't want to integrate and they have no respect for or love of their new country. They are here to leach off of a dying empire, not to contribute to a civilization.

So, yes. They are coming in so fast that they will turn large parts of the European-Descended first world, into the third world. It's already happening in France and the American Southwest, particularly California.

When I say "anti-liberal" I mean you mostly like to rant about "liberals," not that it actually means anything other than a handy buzzword to rally against while still coming off as quasi-erudite. Liberal itself being a fairly meaningless word, all the more so by its use by self-proclaimed pundits.


Well, yes it is true that the term is largely devoid of meaning, or rather means different things to different people. In Europe Liberal means Economic Conservative, for instance. Most people know that it's common meaning is Leftist, Socially and often Economically.

Socially Leftist positions include, Pandering to Minorities (Gays, Non-Whites, Women (who aren't really a minority but are classed as such)), which includes enforcing political correctness in public and at the work place by allowing anyone who is offended by what you say to sue, or in Europe more drastically imprisoning those guilty of political incorrectness, enforcing racial and genderal quotas in the workplace and encouraging non-White immigration, restricting private ownership of firearms, stuff like that.

Economically leftist positions include, belief in the welfare state, raising taxes to pay for this welfare, taxing the upper-middle class heavily, and enforcing stupid socialist policy like estate taxes.

Over-all, the Leftist ideology can be summed up in one core belief: that the State knows best. The state knows better than the individual how to use that individual's money, so it should. The state knows better than the individual how to defend the citizens, so they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. The state knows better than the individual what is moral, what is right, and what is bigoted, so the states philosophy should be enforced on the masses.

Fascism, ironically can best be described as Right-Wing Leftism. Both Leftism and Fascism believe in the Father Knows Best philosophy. The citizen can't make decisions by himself, he needs the government to help him. The flaw in this master plan, is that the government consists of citizens!

as i would agree that white are more and more becoming the minority of the world. but the only way we can do anything about it is to have more children, not trying to go to war with other races.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609

You think "Eurabia" is a possibility or just fear mongering?

There wouldn't be any of these problems if we just outlawed all religions. Nothing but trouble, they are.

The parts of America with the most blacks are third world, almost. Detroit, DC, Atlanta the list goes on. But, in the past the immigration waves were much smaller, andright after every immigration wave a clamp down on immigration was enacted to give the wave time to integrate.

Detroit is certainly not in the 3rd world, much of is extremely nice, some of it is somewhat ghetto-like, but you get that in every city. Also, how do you know blacks are to blame for the economic troubles? Sounds like correlation implying causation to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation

I blame Detroit's economic flaundering on the collapse of american manufactoring, namely the automotive manufactoring sector but this is for another debate.

There wouldn't be any of these problems if we just outlawed all religions. Nothing but trouble, they are.

could be a good idea.

Unless Europe decides to purge itself of this infestation and reclaim its cultural heritage, it's more than a possibility.

Better conjure the ghost of Charles Martel, if not Vlad Tepes, and do it in a hurry.

Unless Europe decides to purge itself of this infestation and reclaim its cultural heritage, it's more than a possibility.

Better conjure the ghost of Charles Martel, if not Vlad Tepes, and do it in a hurry.

Ah there goes New Mitanni, wanking to the imgage of shoving wooden spikes into Muslim anuses.

People like YOU are an infestation. And an embarassment to the human race.

Ah there goes New Mitanni, wanking to the imgage of shoving wooden spikes into Muslim anuses.

People like YOU are an infestation. And an embarassment to the human race.

brilliant response.

I simply believe white people have shown themselves throughout history to have accomplished the most

I simply believe you're a racist twat.


No, I'm not terribly fond of jews, though I don't dislike them out of hand. I am not a Nazi because I find the Political Ideology of Fascism in general and National Socialism in particular to be abhorrent. I don't approve of what I see as authoritarianism, or police states, and I believe in free speach and private firearms ownership(Unlike Fascist or NS).

As for the Nazis, they ruined Germany, and the German Monarchy, so I am very unhappy with them for this. I don't really approve of ethnic cleansing either, or enforced secularization.

I consider myself a Jeffersonian Monarchist.

Hmm, Kievan-Prussia, I presume?



The parts of America with the most blacks are third world, almost. Detroit, DC, Atlanta the list goes on.

Bullshit.


In Europe and America today, expecting immigrants to enter legally, love their new country and integrate into our society is considered racist, and they are coming in a constant stream.

Damn, the anti-racist conspiracy, always getting in the way of everything. Can't even let you praise the white man and blame the black man anymore! Terrible!


The point is, these third world people are coming in to fast to be brought up to the third world, they don't want to integrate and they have no respect for or love of their new country. They are here to leach off of a dying empire, not to contribute to a civilization.

And you say this because of your extensive knowledge through personal interviews, I'm sure.

So, yes. They are coming in so fast that they will turn large parts of the European-Descended first world, into the third world. It's already happening in France and the American Southwest, particularly California.

I live in California, and I'm calling you on your bullshit. This isn't the third world. Just because there are a lot of Hispanics might confuse someone like you, however, if you define third world by "lotsa non-whites."

Ah there goes New Mitanni, wanking to the imgage of shoving wooden spikes into Muslim anuses.

People like YOU are an infestation. And an embarassment to the human race.

What did you expect from someone who emulates the likes of Vlad the Impaler or Caligula? Revolting.

What did you expect from someone who emulates the likes of Vlad the Impaler or Caligula? Revolting.

Who, New Mitanni? He just posts crap on forums. To emulate those too you'd have to be in a position of power.

Who, New Mitanni? He just posts crap on forums. To emulate those too you'd have to be in a position of power.

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/emulate

Strive to being the operative word, lucky for us.

I simply believe white people have shown themselves throughout history to have accomplished the most, so it would be bad for humanity for us to die out. And from a religious standpoint, I wouldn't want us to go extinct either.

They didn't "accomplish the most" simply because they were white. There's much more to it than that.



No, I'm not terribly fond of jews, though I don't dislike them out of hand. I am not a Nazi because I find the Political Ideology of Fascism in general and National Socialism in particular to be abhorrent. I don't approve of what I see as authoritarianism, or police states, and I believe in free speach and private firearms ownership(Unlike Fascist or NS).

As for the Nazis, they ruined Germany, and the German Monarchy, so I am very unhappy with them for this. I don't really approve of ethnic cleansing either, or enforced secularization.

Ehh...the Nazi really didn't revoke guns rights. Unless, of course, you were Jewish.

You really don't know histroy, do you? The Hohenzollerns were gone waaaay before the Nazi took power.



I consider myself a Jeffersonian Monarchist.

So, basically, the United States but with a King instead of a President, right? Or would you prefer the Russian Federation with a King instead of a President?


The parts of America with the most blacks are third world, almost. Detroit, DC, Atlanta.

Well, I've never been to Detroit, but I have been to DC and Atlanta, and I can honestly say: you're full of shit. Sure, Atlanta does have a few bad areas, but most of the city isn't that bad. Well...okay, the people aren't that bad...the city blows, but that's mainly because whoever designed the city didn't know what they hell they were doing. But there are lots of rich suburbs populated almost entirely by blacks. In general, the blacks in Atlanta are pretty well off.

DC is slightly worse. They have more "Bad" areas and the bad areas are actually pretty bad. But I've been to a couple upper-middle class suburbs that are about 60% black. And in the downtown area, I saw just as many homeless white people as black.

Have you ever been to these cities? Have you ever been to third world country? I think you should do that before you go around making stupid comments.


The rest isn’t really worth commenting on.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Your 186 posts late.

Hmm, Kievan-Prussia, I presume?K-P a Jeffersonian Monarchist? I doubt it.

ok, so lets say its the year 2030 and europe has just become 60% muslim. Mosques go up everywhere and blast prayer 5 times aday over loudspeakers, and the euro features "AllahuAckbah" on ever paper note.

So what? If the nations of europe become mostly islamic, who cares if they have islamic culture? Most people should be happy about it, if it was by democratic process that it became so.

Let me chang ethe context. Lets say in fifty years time USA becomes completely faithless and has a 70% atheist majority. Most of the churches nationwide are sod and developed into carparks, people are allowed to marry whoever they want, and all other such ungodliness. Why bother about it now. If everyone will be happy then, and you are happy now then be happy now, and let them be happy then.


Ok, so if most Europeans think now that there are enough foreigners (which is the case, according to polls), immigration should be stopped at once.
If most Europeans think Islam is uncompatible in Europe (which is the case in NL), then all muslims should be deported. Right?

K-P a Jeffersonian Monarchist? I doubt it.

I'm an imperialist, and I'm not sure what Jeffersonian is.

Ok, so if most Europeans think now that there are enough foreigners (which is the case, according to polls), immigration should be stopped at once.
If most Europeans think Islam is uncompatible in Europe (which is the case in NL), then all muslims should be deported. Right?

Wrong,most Europeans stand for freedom of speech and freedom to live where you like,so would be hypocritical to do things suggested.

Didn't MTAE make a topic about Islamization like this?

Didn't MTAE make a topic about Islamization like this?

Probably,MTAE makes most Islamization posts.

Probably,MTAE makes most Islamization posts.

Nordland still beats MTAE by a stretch in the "OMG tEh MOoslems!!!1!" category

I know. But these policies really haven't done anything until recently.


And that was my point. Such policies take a long time to make a difference.



...that's stupid. Populations do not continuously grow at exponential rates. The Muslims populations will eventually plateau and then grow at the same rate as the rest of the population. I do not think the Muslim population will ever break the 20% mark.


What part of this you dont understand? If muslims keep immigrating, the newer immigrants will have higher than avg growth rates. Once their growth rate decreases, there'll be newer muslims with high growth rates again and so on. And muslim immigration is still a significant part of overall immigration.

And if Turkey enters the EU, the 20% mark might become a reality before 2020s.

And populations grow at exponential rates for hundreds of years. In muslims case, they only need this century.

Get it now?



Silly. Immigrants aren't just one huge collective society. They have individual opinions, just like the natives.


Havent you read that most muslims consider themselves *muslim* first? You seem to have a problem with simple reasoning.



Well, what else can it be? It's obviously not based on facts.


Back to comments about your maths. Clearly your interpretation of the facts is the problem here.



I agree with you, actually. I know I'm just quoting numbers(I don't agree with you on the random part, though).

Okay, majority is probably an exaggeration, but they're beginning to make a fairly large portion of immigration to Europe.

Here's an example for the Netherlands:

http://emmering.blogspot.com/2005/03/graphs-r-us.html


Pfft. So muslim population in NL will double in around 50 years despite strict Dutch immigration measures. That's not good news for other countries.


Well, if they don't support terrorism, how can we have this mythical Clash of Civilizations?


They might want to teach little children in full veils, among million other things.


But that's not really because of their religion. It has more to do with their skin color and last name. Religion is just secondary. And the discrimination is coming from the French, so, y'know, if they didn't act this way towards the "Muslims", maybe the Muslims wouldn't be so angry? Just a thought.

Sure, for some people it's race. But for some it's cultural, their attitudes towards women, gays, etc...They also seem to be too violent. British Police Force discriminates against whites but we dont see them rebelling in UK.

Nordland still beats MTAE by a stretch in the "OMG tEh MOoslems!!!1!" category

True,but the most Islamophobic person still has to be TPF,non?

What I'm worried about is that when turkey gets into the EU, they'll be the second most powerful country there. Forget the UK, forget Italy, forget France, turkey will have more power than all of them.

What I'm worried about is that when turkey gets into the EU, they'll be the second most powerful country there. Forget the UK, forget Italy, forget France, turkey will have more power than all of them.

..How?

..How?

LOL. No wonder islamophiles are usually the ignorant ones...

True,but the most Islamophobic person still has to be TPF,non?

New Mittani Pwns him in that category is well, as he has repeatedly expressed his desire to impale muslims on posts and erect them as a warning to all the other "darkies"

TPF is quite tame actually, MTAE, Mittani, and Nordland can get really ugly.

..How?

By virtue of their population, they'll have the second most representatives in the EU.

New Mittani Pwns him in that category is well, as he has repeatedly expressed his desire to impale muslims on posts and erect them as a warning to all the other "darkies"

TPF is quite tame actually, MTAE, Mittani, and Nordland can get really ugly.

Corrected.
But TPF does be believe he is the Messiah.Scary,eh?

LOL. No wonder islamophiles are usually the ignorant ones...

...:confused:

LOL. No wonder islamophiles are usually the ignorant ones...

Assuming of course, that anyone who doesn't fear and hate Muslims is an "islamophile."

I guess that's no more an absurd assumption than - Jocabia is Jewish because the word resembles "Jacob," and I'm black, and Muslims are committing "genocide" against whites, and fetuses are "babies...."

Assuming of course, that anyone who doesn't fear and hate Muslims is an "islamophile."

I guess that's no more an absurd assumption than - Jocabia is Jewish because the word resembles "Jacob," and I'm black, and Muslims are committing "genocide" against whites, and fetuses are "babies...."

Appreciated :) :fluffle:

I simply believe you're a racist twat.

Are you denying that persons of European descent have contributed more to Western Civilization than any others? OR that Western Civilization is now and has been for three hundred years the dominant Civ in the world?



Hmm, Kievan-Prussia, I presume?

???




Bullshit.

I have personal experiance with the ghetto, as I have lived in Atlanta, I can safely say that the Ghe-toooo (as it is properly called) is practically the third world. Right now it's in an odd transition, as reverse white-flight is occuring, black-flight I suppose. The ghetto is being bought up, the blacks are thrown out and then it's developed into condos and whites are moving in, so the blacks are moving out to the newly abandoned suburbs and turning them into hellholes.

In no small part because they can't afford to maintain their houses and such I will admit, though as a Capitalist, I believe their lack of money to be their own damn fault. If less blacks were on welfare we wouldn't need mexicans as much (which there are also a lot of in Atlanta).



Damn, the anti-racist conspiracy, always getting in the way of everything. Can't even let you praise the white man and blame the black man anymore! Terrible!

What is with the PC Left that causes you to always accuse those who disagree with you of believing in a conspiracy? Perhaps it is a conspiracy, though use of the term implies that the thing to which it refers is not credible. The practical fact is, a Politician or any other person in the public eye will get in trouble for saying anything even remotely considered "Racist" (a very nebulous term), employees can be fired on accusations of racism or sexism and employers can be sued on accusation of racism or sexism.

In Europe it's even worse, there you can be jailed for it.



And you say this because of your extensive knowledge through personal interviews, I'm sure.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/Mexiflag.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/moremexicansthanyoucanshakeastickat.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/af63294f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/conquestofaztlan.jpg

Boy, you were right, they sure are integrated!


I live in California, and I'm calling you on your bullshit. This isn't the third world. Just because there are a lot of Hispanics might confuse someone like you, however, if you define third world by "lotsa non-whites."


You lost power throughout the entire state, recently, your education system is in the crapper because you can't afford to educate all these Mexicans and your rotten teachers shot down Arnie's anti-Tenure bill, you have trouble getting water, huge un-employment, over-population, miserable mexican ghettoes covering the southern half of the state, drug-lords growng pot in public parks in northern cali, gang-violence everywhere the mexican sets foot, the list goes on.

I said it's already happening, not it's already happened. Your state is well on it's way to third-world status, unless you get more Brian Bilbrays and Duncan Hunters, you will be a third world country.

LOL. No wonder islamophiles are usually the ignorant ones...

I think you misspelled a word...

???

He thinks you're me.

He thinks you're me.

:eek: But no one can mistake the Messiah!
*worships*

Are you denying that persons of European descent have contributed more to Western Civilization than any others?

I am denying that their "descent" matters not at all concerning whatever "contributions" they make. But then hey, I'm not a racist twat, so I may as well be speaking gibberish to you.

OR that Western Civilization is now and has been for three hundred years the dominant Civ in the world?

I like Civ 2. Civ 3 was buggy and I never bothered with Civ 4.

I have personal experiance with the ghetto, as I have lived in Atlanta, I can safely say that the Ghe-toooo (as it is properly called) is practically the third world.

Have you lived in the third world?

Right now it's in an odd transition, as reverse white-flight is occuring, black-flight I suppose. The ghetto is being bought up, the blacks are thrown out and then it's developed into condos and whites are moving in, so the blacks are moving out to the newly abandoned suburbs and turning them into hellholes.

Oh noes, the blacks. Will the whites save us in time? Stay tuned for next week on, "Whites Are Good and Superior But That's Not Racism!"

If less blacks were on welfare we wouldn't need mexicans as much (which there are also a lot of in Atlanta).

Oh noes, the mexicans! It's the evil Non White Conspiracy!

What is with the PC Left that causes you to always accuse those who disagree with you of believing in a conspiracy? Perhaps it is a conspiracy

Why ask a question and then answer it?

Leaves me with nothing to do except laugh and, to a small degree, pity you.

Yes of course, it's the PC Left/Mexican/Black Conspiracy. It's good you're so smart, I don't have to explain how we're in control of the world. But at least you haven't figured out our secret handshake. Phew.


The practical fact is, a Politician or any other person in the public eye will get in trouble for saying anything even remotely considered "Racist" (a very nebulous term), employees can be fired on accusations of racism or sexism and employers can be sued on accusation of racism or sexism.

Didn't you just say you were a capitalist? Now you're complaining because businesses can fire employees for X or Y reason? I guess you're not all that much of a capitalist.



[IMGhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/moremexicansthanyoucanshakeastickat.jpg



[IMGhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/KrisV86/conquestofaztlan.jpg

Boy, you were right, they sure are integrated!

I find it incredibly amusing that one of those apparently objectionable pictures shows a motto "We are America." And then you cite an "Aztlan" bullshit which, I guess, is supposed to rile White America up into "waking up" to the "threat" posed by each and every immigrant. Because you know, a photobucket account proves that not only do Mexicans NEVER "integrate," but that "not integrating" is a crime second only to Hitler not being able to kill off all the Jews.

Keep trying ya weaselly little rat.

You lost power throughout the entire state,

I did? funny, I had power on the whole time. I must not be Californian.

recently, your education system is in the crapper

I went to public education systems and came out just fine. And currently still am going to both public and private. I just must be too "non white" to see the crap, eh?

because you can't afford to educate all these Mexicans

Oh, of course. It's the Mexicans again.

and your rotten teachers shot down Arnie's anti-Tenure bill

The Teachers, they are part of the PC Liberal Muslim Mexican Black Conspiracy. What can you expect?

, you have trouble getting water

That's not what my working tap says.

I mean, uh, OH SHIT! You're RIGHT! That water came with more than 0% effort and money, therefore... it's the APOCALYPSE! Run, white people, and hide, because the Mexicans are coming to steal your women, your jobs AND your precious bodily fluids!

;)

, huge un-employment,

Which is of course a problem you ascribe to... let me guess... Mexicans.

over-population

Where's that Final Solution when you need one?

And why is it you say it's over-population when it's Mexicans, but under-population when it's White People In Europe?

I guess because for you, there can never BE enough white people, and the only good Non White person is a dead one.

miserable mexican ghettoes covering the southern half of the state

I live in the southern half of the state. I haven't seen anything that remotely resembles the third world.

But hey, what's one minor falsity in a sea of lies and slander?

, drug-lords growng pot in public parks in northern cali

REEFER! Yes, it's the REEFER problem, tied intimately with EVIL MEXICANS and BLACKS. Because you know, pot makes black people rape white women, is it not so?

, gang-violence everywhere the mexican sets foot

That's odd, I went to class the other (where there are PLENTY of people of Hispanic "descent") and walked ALL OVER where their feet went. No gang violence. But hey, I must be the hallucinating, irrational one.

the list goes on.

I'm sure it does. You haven't even GOTTEN to the Jews yet.

I said it's already happening, not it's already happened. Your state is well on it's way to third-world status, unless you get more Brian Bilbrays and Duncan Hunters, you will be a third world country.

My fat hairy Californian ass. The only thing you've shown is that you're a xenophobic, racist little twat. Not terribly impressive.

I am denying that their "descent" matters not at all concerning whatever "contributions" they make. But then hey, I'm not a racist twat, so I may as well be speaking gibberish to you.

If more significant contributions come out of Europe than anywhere else, I'd say there's a correlation there.

Yeah, I've done Further Maths statistics.

If more significant contributions come out of Europe than anywhere else, I'd say there's a correlation there.


I'm sure you would.

Do also note that correlation is not causation. Unless of course you're a racist twat.

I'm sure you would.

Do also note that correlation is not causation. Unless of course you're a racist twat.

What about East Asia? Large number of significant contributions out of there too. I see TWO correlations.

They didn't "accomplish the most" simply because they were white. There's much more to it than that.


I din't say they did. The fact remains, however that Europeans have contributed more to Human Civilization, and continue to do so, than any other race. Is it because they are white? Maybe. It is undenyable that we have created our civilization, and if others were capable of it, why havent they?



Ehh...the Nazi really didn't revoke guns rights. Unless, of course, you were Jewish.

"Firearms ownership was restricted to, "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit"

This is gun control, and our Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on this act of the nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weapons_Law


You really don't know histroy, do you? The Hohenzollerns were gone waaaay before the Nazi took power.

Ah, the sweet stench of Condescension. Wilhelm and his son had abdicated by 1919, and the Weimar republic was ushered in because an idiot socialist ran to the balcony of the Reichstang and Screamed "We are a Republic" before the interim Chancelor could get Prince Max of Bavaria on the phone to be the new Kaiser.

In essence, that liberal Socialist caused the holocaust, because a strong Monarch would've united the people, destroying the situation in which Hitler rose to power.

My reference was to the fact that the Nazis destroyed Germany, and what they caused would make it impossible for the Hohenzollerns to return.

Heil Krohnprinzen Georg Friedrich!!!





So, basically, the United States but with a King instead of a President, right? Or would you prefer the Russian Federation with a King instead of a President?

I have given it much thought, actually, and I would like to see a semi-Parliamentary system. An un-amendable bill of rights, and State-Constitutions that are ammendable, as long as they don't contradict the national constitution.

Less centralization, more emphasis on a Citizens militia as a counter-balance to government power, optional taxes, levied from the community level, by donation, all the way up to the national. All other revenue would come from tariffs. No gun-control, at all, you can walk into the mall with a shotgun over your shoulder if you want. I would like to see the citizens police themselves more, to reduce the chance of a police state developing.

Semi-aristocratic system for the major offices, absolute Male Primogeniture enforced, and like the romans an official could name his replacement, rather than being bound by heredity (though the new official must be ratified by his peers, and up to two other candidates can be named). The Emperor would be elected by the state-rulers from amongst their ranks, and would maintain leadership of his state (Just like the Elector Counts in the HRE).

States would not be required to go to offensive war, but would be required to defend the Nation. States would have independant armies with a maximum size-cap. The Emperor would have command of his army and also command of the National army, which would be equal to the two largest state armies combined. This way, the Emperor can bully three or four states, but if a majority opposes him, he has to restrain himself.

The standing proffesional armies would be small, to be reinforced by volunteers from the citizens militia. Police would be limited to Detectives, and one Riot/SWAT squad(ten men or less) per state. If more is needed county-administrators have the right to call the militia (every armed man over the age of 16) up into deputy squads to take care of it.


That was probably a longer answer than anyone wanted.




Well, I've never been to Detroit, but I have been to DC and Atlanta, and I can honestly say: you're full of shit. Sure, Atlanta does have a few bad areas, but most of the city isn't that bad. Well...okay, the people aren't that bad...the city blows, but that's mainly because whoever designed the city didn't know what they hell they were doing. But there are lots of rich suburbs populated almost entirely by blacks. In general, the blacks in Atlanta are pretty well off.

Puhleeze. I have seen ONE "rich" black neighborhood, and that's because there's so many blacks that there can be a rich neighborhood and still be hordes of the unwashed unemployed masses. A few blocks from where I used to live is what my brothers call "Jibooni Land", the absolute, homeless-person filled ghetto. I have seen the ghetto that surrounds the south of atl like a crescent, it's not a pretty sight.

It is not quite third-world, but very close, which is what I said.

DC is slightly worse. They have more "Bad" areas and the bad areas are actually pretty bad. But I've been to a couple upper-middle class suburbs that are about 60% black. And in the downtown area, I saw just as many homeless white people as black.

Ironically, I have lived there as well, and New Orleans, so you will forgive me if I haven't exactly seen blacks at their best, but in all those places, there was the semi-Third World, which you tolerated when you walked or drove through it, and then there were the neighborhoods you don't go to unless you wanna get robbed or shot. Homeless people and druggies where of course chronic problems, and the overall appearance of the bad neighborhoods was that of the third world, almost.

Have you ever been to these cities? Have you ever been to third world country? I think you should do that before you go around making stupid comments.

See above. I have never been out of the US, but like I say, it is not quite the third world, they aren't living in corrugated metal shacks without paved roads, but it is still bad.

What about East Asia? Large number of significant contributions out of there too. I see TWO correlations.

Wow! That so totally changes the fact that correlation is not causation!

Why don't you go back to whining about how German women were raped by Russians. Whining seems to be what you do best.

No danger whatsoever? I would hope so, but I'm too skeptical to agree.
There will, unfortunately, always be a small number of skinheads and the like who will attack Muslims. But I don't see what would motivate the majority of Europeans to turn against all Muslims. We did learn something from the Germans and their Holocaust.

What makes you think that a wave of anti-Muslim pogroms is imminent? Consider that I actually live in Europe too.

I consider a survey I don't take, to be invalid regarding getting my opinion. Humans are not a statistic, and if it was all truly so efficient at getting those opinions, no one would bother with popular votes or elections and instead just 'extrapolate' based on statistics.
The majority isn't always going to agree with you. It is necessary to have everyone vote in elections because you can't afford to have a margin of error there. Polls give a representation, but not an exact one, on what populations think on various issues.

Invalid?

Or inherently inaccurate?

"Lies, damned lies and statistics". ;)
I'm fairly sure that polls are conducted more accurately now than in the 19th century.

A Mark Twain joke does not constitute an argument.

Wow! That so totally changes the fact that correlation is not causation!

Why don't you go back to whining about how German women were raped by Russians. Whining seems to be what you do best.

Oh, so you're a dick. I get it now.

There will, unfortunately, always be a small number of skinheads and the like who will attack Muslims. But I don't see what would motivate the majority of Europeans to turn against all Muslims. We did learn something from the Germans and their Holocaust.

What makes you think that a wave of anti-Muslim pogroms is imminent?

Did the Holocaust need a "majority of Europeans" to turn against the Jews? Or did it only require an authoritarianism, and a general lack of sympathy for Jews that allowed most to sit back and not have to 'turn' or do anything at all?

I don't say that a wave is "iminent," but as for what could motivate Europeans against Muslim? Again, well, Ny Nordland here will be the first to tell you about "polls" and such which oppose 1) immigration and feel that 2) Muslims are not good Europeans.

So all that would really be needed is some sort of catastrophe to act as a catalyst. Like 9/11, but against Europe.

The majority isn't always going to agree with you. It is necessary to have everyone vote in elections because you can't afford to have a margin of error there. Polls give a representation, but not an exact one, on what populations think on various issues.

As I said, I disagree. I disagree that elections don't need a margin of error, but polls - which people, and the media, take to be God's Truth about What People Think - can afford one.

I also disagree that polling 800 people gives you any representation of hundreds of millions of people. And yet that sort of thing is done all the time. It might work on paper, it might work on statistics, but it doesn't satisfy me. Never will.

And I get your larger point(s) here too - that this is an inherently bad thing, cuz the Evil Muslims will takeover without the White Man in sufficient numbers to Defend us.

Why have you ignored his point that most Muslims (remember they're not a race) are more conservative than secular Europeans, and that they oppose feminism and civil rights? Do you not see a problem with opposing civil rights?

Unless Europe decides to purge itself of this infestation and reclaim its cultural heritage, it's more than a possibility.

WTF? Why not revive Stalin and Hitler to purge?

Did the Holocaust need a "majority of Europeans" to turn against the Jews? Or did it only require an authoritarianism, and a general lack of sympathy for Jews that allowed most to sit back and not have to 'turn' or do anything at all?.
No, it just required the majority of the population of a superpower (Germany).

I don't say that a wave is "imminent," but as for what could motivate Europeans against Muslim? Again, well, Ny Nordland here will be the first to tell you about "polls" and such which oppose 1) immigration and feel that 2) Muslims are not good Europeans.
Then people will vote to stop more immigrants entering of in an unlikely case, vote to deport people. But you may not understand how deeply against killing people en masse for political reasons Europeans are. After all, we are the continent that experienced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin.

So all that would really be needed is some sort of catastrophe to act as a catalyst. Like 9/11, but against Europe.
We have already had a number of Islamist attacks but still no pogroms. America had such an attack and no pogroms there either. I imagine that Americans are on average slightly more Islamophobic than Europeans.

As I said, I disagree. I disagree that elections don't need a margin of error, but polls - which people, and the media, take to be God's Truth about What People Think - can afford one.
Taking them to be God's Truth about What People Think is silly because there are many people who change their minds very quickly.

I also disagree that polling 800 people gives you any representation of hundreds of millions of people. And yet that sort of thing is done all the time. It might work on paper, it might work on statistics, but it doesn't satisfy me. Never will.
Of course, but the alternative is to say "I disagree because most people I know think x and y" which is even less reliable.

Why have you ignored his point that most Muslims (remember they're not a race) are more conservative than secular Europeans, and that they oppose feminism and civil rights? Do you not see a problem with opposing civil rights?

I don't see a political viewpoint allegedly held by a majority of a religion as cause for deportation or any of the other things the anti-immigrants on this thread are arguing for.

No, it just required the majority of the population of a superpower (Germany).

I think that ignores the very real fact that a majority was not needed to actually DO anything against the minorities the nazis singled out. For that matter, a majority was not needed to be nazis, in order for it to work either.

And Germany's population then was not significantly different from how it is today, so thats not a real issue.

Then people will vote to stop more immigrants entering of in an unlikely case, vote to deport people.

I have it from Europa Maxima (another European on this board) who says that the plan was always to deport the Jews (by the Nazis), but that economic hardships meant killing them instead was required. I don't buy that as an excuse, but I can certainly see that prior to the Holocaust, no one thought it likely that they would be accomplices by inaction or action to mass murder.

But you may not understand how deeply against killing people en masse for political reasons Europeans are. After all, we are the continent that experienced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin.

I always figured Stalin to be asian, continent-wise.

Anyway, how about killing people en masse for religious or cultural reasons? Or just deporting people to places where someone ELSE will kill them?


We have already had a number of Islamist attacks but still no pogroms. America had such an attack and no pogroms there either.

We did however have a good number of people talking about nuking the entire Middle East, after 9/11. And while most people don't call me a terrorist traitor for disagreeing now, many people here still hold a resentment against Muslims which could be turned into a flame.

The same could be said of Europe. You've had minor attacks that don't amount to anything. I can't even think of an equivalent. But let's say an Islamic terrorist manages to detonate a nuclear weapon in Paris. Can you assure me then that mass discrimination, forced deportation, yes even violence (politically or otherwise) against Muslims would be impossible? I don't think you could.

I imagine that Americans are on average slightly more Islamophobic than Europeans.

Heh, sometimes, reading this forum, I'm not sure. You could be right. But that could easily change with time.

Taking them to be God's Truth about What People Think is silly because there are many people who change their minds very quickly.

I agree, but also because let's face it, who answers telephone polls? I don't. Who has the time, and who wants to share their opinions with some equivalent of a political-telemarketer? So there's always the question of, is it representative of the nation, or just of the kinds of losers who always answer questions asked them by anonymous people calling them up during dinner.

Of course, but the alternative is to say "I disagree because most people I know think x and y" which is even less reliable.

Reliable as a measure of national consensus? Yes, but then media pollmongerers never, or rarely use mundane personal anecdotes.

But at least with personal experience, what I know I've heard, I know, and from whom. It has more bearing on my reality than some suspicious statistic that an internet debater is intent on bashing me on the head with to prove some "should."

I'm an imperialist, and I'm not sure what Jeffersonian is.Someone that follows TJ. Prussische isn't have your style, and I was pointing that out.

they can join me in conquering half the world then...

Right, because allowing Muslim immigrants will KILL EVERY1!!!! ZOMG

"Islam" means submission to God, not to EVIL MUSLIM TERRISTS.

It's equivalent to the phrase "God-fearing" when used to refer to Christianity.

So, more stupid fear-mongering, of the sort that you wet your pants about, NN.

Ironically, Prewar Germany was also all about fearing an evil, parasitic religion. But now I guess at least this author has gotten with the times: yesteryear it was Jew-hating, now it's Muslim-hating.

Holy christ, we agree on something

I am denying that their "descent" matters not at all concerning whatever "contributions" they make. But then hey, I'm not a racist twat, so I may as well be speaking gibberish to you.


You only make your argument look bad by constantly swearing and name-calling. The fact is Europeans created European civilization. If not because they were white, then why? If race didn't factor into the equation, why is the third world suspiciously located outside of Europe and the colonies with the largest European populations?



I like Civ 2. Civ 3 was buggy and I never bothered with Civ 4.

I liked them all, although Civ 4 could have used a better system for combat. I think warlords fixed it, but with Medieval 2 on the horizon I'm not going to bother.



Have you lived in the third world?



Has anyone at NASA lived on Mars? And yet they stand around all day talking about it, how can they speak with any authority about a place they've never been, let alone lived?



Oh noes, the blacks. Will the whites save us in time? Stay tuned for next week on, "Whites Are Good and Superior But That's Not Racism!"

I don't recall denying Racism, merely pointing out that you and yours use it to brow-beat any who oppose you. If racism implies wishing everyone outside of your race ill, than no, I am not. If it means having concern for one's own race, and recognizing differences between races, than I am.



Oh noes, the mexicans! It's the evil Non White Conspiracy!

Again with this conspiracy nonsense. It's not a conspiracy. There is a massive and growing fifth column in America, and Europe, consisting of people who identify with their racial fellows and their nation of origin more than with their new country.

Did they come in meaning to usurp the new country? No. Are they susceptible to being riled up by a vocal minority that does want to usurp the new nation? Yes. Does their refusal to integrate make this more likely to occur? Yes. Does the greatness of their numbers, and their entrance in a constant stream rather than in more easily integratable waves make this more likely to occur? Yes.



Why ask a question and then answer it?

Leaves me with nothing to do except laugh and, to a small degree, pity you.

Yes of course, it's the PC Left/Mexican/Black Conspiracy. It's good you're so smart, I don't have to explain how we're in control of the world. But at least you haven't figured out our secret handshake. Phew.

Oh, for the love of God, you are the conspiracy theorist! The implication was that I don't really think it is a Conspiracy, not as the term is understood. Certainly, since the sixties various leftist groups have had agendas, and they have achieved many of them, but I don't think this really fits the idea of Conspiracy.




Didn't you just say you were a capitalist? Now you're complaining because businesses can fire employees for X or Y reason? I guess you're not all that much of a capitalist.

I am complaining because Governments can tell businesses to fire X for Y reason. I think any business should hire and fire whomever they want, period, without lawsuit and without government interference.

That means if an evil racist cracker can't stand the damn Polacks and he fires Jakob Crzanzkinskywicz because of it, that's his prerogative. And if a good-hearted, angelic, tragically discriminated against black business owner wants to fire his new white employee because he is sure he saw that employee laugh at him once, and it must have been a racist joke, fine.


I find it incredibly amusing that one of those apparently objectionable pictures shows a motto "We are America."

Underneath a Mexican Banner tied to a red socialist Banner, I might add.

And then you cite an "Aztlan" bullshit which, I guess, is supposed to rile White America up into "waking up" to the "threat" posed by each and every immigrant.

Those are census Bureau statistics, compiled into a handy colour-coded map for the digestion of people to lazy to look at lists of numbers.

Because you know, a photobucket account proves that not only do Mexicans NEVER "integrate," but that "not integrating" is a crime second only to Hitler not being able to kill off all the Jews.

A photobucket account doesn't take pictures, those pics didn't materialize out of nowhere. Not integrating is wrong, and we should not have to let people into our collective house if they are going to refuse to cooperate.

Keep trying ya weaselly little rat.

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/14.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/07.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/03.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/10.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/05.mp3

Here, right out of the horse's mouth, as it were.


I did? funny, I had power on the whole time. I must not be Californian.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/california/timeline.html
http://www.ucan.org/press/Advise7-25-06.html
http://www.cap-s.org/facts/population.html

I went to public education systems and came out just fine. And currently still am going to both public and private. I just must be too "non white" to see the crap, eh? Oh, of course. It's the Mexicans again.


Are you saying that since you came out of public schools fine, there must be no problem with the education system so we should cut school-funding? Your experience, and the education you took from ONE public school do not now, nor have they ever, proved that an education system was succeeding, nor do they prove that illegals who don't pay taxes are somehow not a burden on the state.



The Teachers, they are part of the PC Liberal Muslim Mexican Black Conspiracy. What can you expect?

So, making someone unfireable encourages peak performance? In what way?



That's not what my working tap says.

I mean, uh, OH SHIT! You're RIGHT! That water came with more than 0% effort and money, therefore... it's the APOCALYPSE! Run, white people, and hide, because the Mexicans are coming to steal your women, your jobs AND your precious bodily fluids!;)


The entire southwest is having problems getting enough water out there, and overpopulation is a contributing factor, and illegal immigrants are a contributing factor to overpopulation.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/cadiz/hydroeconpr.htm
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-03/2005-03-19-voa5.cfm

Which is of course a problem you ascribe to... let me guess... Mexicans.

Because it is the Mexicans who are unemployed.



Where's that Final Solution when you need one?

The final solution is a cut-off on all immigration until we can integrate the ones we already have, and if that means a fence and more Border Patrol agents, so be it.

It also means deporting all criminals who originate in another country, and frankly I think we should have immigration law word for word like the Mexican Government's constitution. Any foreign born can be deported without reason, can't hold office, and is susceptible to citizens arrest without cause.

If it's good enough for the glorious Mexicans you so adore, it should be good enough for us, right? You're not a racist, are you?

And why is it you say it's over-population when it's Mexicans, but under-population when it's White People In Europe?

Because Mexicans reproduce well above replacement-levels, and all white countries reproduce well below replacement levels, including America.

I guess because for you, there can never BE enough white people, and the only good Non White person is a dead one.


Whites made up one third of the worlds population in the Thirties, that's how much we should make up now.



I live in the southern half of the state. I haven't seen anything that remotely resembles the third world.

You haven't looked very hard then. People here are mentioning correlation and causation, how about the irrelevance of personal experience?


But hey, what's one minor falsity in a sea of lies and slander?

I think that applies more to you than to me.



REEFER! Yes, it's the REEFER problem, tied intimately with EVIL MEXICANS and BLACKS. Because you know, pot makes black people rape white women, is it not so?


I am for legalization of not just marijuana, but all drugs. I think it would knock the legs out from under the Gangs, we would be able to tax it, and we would be able to hold it to FDA standards and develop safer. less potent versions of these drugs.

I am against para-military Mexican drug cartells, shooting across the border into Laredo Texas, beheading hundreds and buying American DAs to get them immunity to testify against Border Patrol agents. I am against the Maras Salvatruchas and MS13 flooding into our country and prisons, miserably butchering anyone who opposes or speaks out against them.

The MS gangs are such a threat now, that they have their own FBI task force.



That's odd, I went to class the other (where there are PLENTY of people of Hispanic "descent") and walked ALL OVER where their feet went. No gang violence. But hey, I must be the hallucinating, irrational one.


Over the past months, beheaded corpses have been found all along the border, shots have been fired from Nuevo Laredo Mexico into Laredo Texas, three police-officers' heads were thrown into a restaurant as a warning, and various skirmishes between Mexican police and ex-Mexican Military gangs have spilled across the border.

Furthermore, if you are denying that places like LA have gang-violence problems, you need your head checked. I recently read that graffiti has been seen around LA calling for black solidarity, for the Crips and Bloods to unite against the Mexican gangs, because they are outnumbered.



I'm sure it does. You haven't even GOTTEN to the Jews yet.


I have already stated I don't care much about the jews one way or the other. I am against the Israel lobby, and people like Pehrl, Wolfowitz and company, and I think the issue of whether a Jew in power might have conflicts of interest when dealing with his religion's homeland of Israel (much like a Catholic in power might have dealing with the Pope) is worth considering. I also don't like the way they treat Germany, but overall, I have nothing against them, and feel no urge to support them.



My fat hairy Californian ass. The only thing you've shown is that you're a xenophobic, racist little twat. Not terribly impressive.

I will not debate that your ass is fat and hairy, though I must admit lack of personal experience on the matter, but I am afraid all you have shown is that you are fond of the word "Twat".

Pftt. Arent you economist or something? I'm in architecture.
I usually agree with most things you say, or am indifferent, but when it comes to Economics we are at cross-sections. You have no idea how much mathematics goes into Economics, otherwise you would never make a statement like that. Practically half my Economics course is Maths...

And for the purposes of analyzing statistics, an Economist will tend to be inherently superior by dint of his education than an architect. What most people consider to be an acceptable knowledge of Economics is pathetic compared to what you learn in the actual course.

"Firearms ownership was restricted to, "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit"

This is gun control, and our Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on this act of the nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weapons_Law
The Nazis actually freed up gun ownership from what it had been before under the Weimar Government.

As for "trustworthiness"...do you think you'll have an easy time in the States getting a gun if the FBI put you on a terrorist watchlist?

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html

You only make your argument look bad by constantly swearing and name-calling. The fact is Europeans created European civilization. If not because they were white, then why? If race didn't factor into the equation, why is the third world suspiciously located outside of Europe and the colonies with the largest European populations?Lack of necessary resources and a competitive political climate? Oh, did you ever bother asking that question?

I don't see a political viewpoint allegedly held by a majority of a religion as cause for deportation or any of the other things the anti-immigrants on this thread are arguing for.
Of course not. Unless they try to enforce it through the political system. People, especially in the Netherlands, are afraid that Muslims could vote away things like gay rights and women's right to leave home and such.

I think that ignores the very real fact that a majority was not needed to actually DO anything against the minorities the nazis singled out. For that matter, a majority was not needed to be nazis, in order for it to work either.
I think that the danger of a regime that would start the institutional killing of Muslims is also very unlikely.

I have it from Europa Maxima (another European on this board) who says that the plan was always to deport the Jews (by the Nazis), but that economic hardships meant killing them instead was required. I don't buy that as an excuse, but I can certainly see that prior to the Holocaust, no one thought it likely that they would be accomplices by inaction or action to mass murder.
Until after the war they weren't. It's not often mentioned that the final solution was a secret programme. Most Germans didn't know about it.

I always figured Stalin to be asian, continent-wise.
The majority of Russia's population has always been concentrated in its European part. Stalin did send many people to camps in north Asia, but most who he killed were from Europe.

Anyway, how about killing people en masse for religious or cultural reasons? Or just deporting people to places where someone ELSE will kill them?
I think most people who favour deporting Muslims want them to be sent to the Middle East, where they will not be killed.

We did however have a good number of people talking about nuking the entire Middle East, after 9/11. And while most people don't call me a terrorist traitor for disagreeing now, many people here still hold a resentment against Muslims which could be turned into a flame.
It could happen, yes, but what can we do to prevent it? Since the most likely instigator would be a major terrorist attack, we can't really control the situtation at all. I also feel that irrational screaming of "racist racist racist!" at people is not going to quell latent Islamophobia. Calm discussion is needed.

Can you ssure me then that mass discrimination, forced deportation, yes even violence (politically or otherwise) against Muslims would be impossible? I don't think you could.
No I couldn't. If there was such an attack, forced deportation of Muslims would be a good idea, both for security and to protect them from angry vigilantes.


I agree, but also because let's face it, who answers telephone polls?
I probably would.

Reliable as a measure of national consensus? Yes, but then media pollmongerers never, or rarely use mundane personal anecdotes.
Because polling is more accurate than anecdotes.

But at least with personal experience, what I know I've heard, I know, and from whom. It has more bearing on my reality than some suspicious statistic that an internet debater is intent on bashing me on the head with to prove some "should."
So how do you think we should ascertain how populations feel about issues. Random selection of a percentage of them is the only practical way.

Lack of necessary resources and a competitive political climate? Oh, did you ever bother asking that question?

Europe had one of the least competitive political climates around, absolutist monarchy. Furthermore, places like Africa are still today chock full of resources, and yet they go nowhere.

America shot forward because of all the resources, and yet for thousands of years the indians of north america went nowhere.

Europe had one of the least competitive political climates around, absolutist monarchy. Furthermore, places like Africa are still today chock full of resources, and yet they go nowhere.
Feudal monarchy wasn't though. It was highly competitive. And then there was also interregal competition between the monarchies... There was a lot of competition preceding the so-called "golden age" of Monarchy. Even then, there was competition between the European powers.

Europe had one of the least competitive political climates around, absolutist monarchy. Furthermore, places like Africa are still today chock full of resources, and yet they go nowhere.

America shot forward because of all the resources, and yet for thousands of years the indians of north america went nowhere.

First off, very few European countries had absolute monarchies. The biggest ones were France and Russia. The rest were either several small kingdoms (Germany, Italy) or a King who had to deal with a very strong parliament(England).

And even if every single European country was an absolute monarchy, it would've still had a more competitive political climate than, say, China. Europe would've had several absolute monarchies with 2-30 million citizens competing with each other, whereas China would've had one absolute monarch with a few hundred million citizens and no need to compete.

Native Americans, on average, never developed enough agricultural surplus to build and maintain cities. You really should read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It will end your racist ways, I promise.

Europe had one of the least competitive political climates around, absolutist monarchy.
Yeah, about 300 of them.

If you look at history, you see that for a long time the Europeans didn't go anywhere very fast. Greece developed the "European" way of thinking about philosophy, but other than that China and India had Europe licked.

Then there were the Middle Age during which one can confidently say that the Arabs did much better than "White people". As well as India and China of course.

It was the somewhat unique emancipation of the trading classes that started in the Renaissance which set everything in motion. If it hadn't been for the rise of trade-orientated city states like Venice and Genua, "White people" would have been stuck in the dark ages for another 500 years.

But it so happened that individualism broke free, which it didn't in China, India or the Arab lands. People travelled, invented, created all for their own personal benefit, not for their lord's or some bureaucratic behemoth (on the whole, anyways).

And a new class of powerful traders which eventually morphed into capitalists brought with it a revolution of philosophical and scientific thought, which was certainly helped by the reformation and the destruction of a lot of catholic dogma, thus allowing old Greek philosophy to re-emerge.

The rest, as they say, is history. Europe began amassing money and technology, and the competition between the little kingdoms there forced them to go out into the world to gain an economic advantage. Thanks to fanaticism and technology they pwned.

The reason that some "native" cultures never made it as big would be twofold:
One, in some areas it just didn't make sense. Australia for example is just not a very hospitable place. Even in the nice areas you will be required to move somewhere else once or twice a year - building a settled civilisation with proper buildings and all the rest is just pointless.
Similar things can be said for the Native Americans of the Steppes.

Secondly, these civilisations had much less contact with other cultures. Incas, Six Nations Iroqouis, some of the African kingdoms...they were developing quite advanced stuff at times (like the Incan knowledge of astronomy, the six nations constitution...which Franklin later used to create the US political system), but just much slower as they would have if they'd had access to the achievements of other cultures as the Europeans had, thanks to the silk road.

As you can see, you can put it down to hundreds of little things that happened...but ethnicity would be somewhere at the very bottom of the list.

The fact is Europeans created European civilization. If not because they were white, then why?

That you even ask that kind of question proves that you ARE a racist twat. I needn't answer it, because I know from proven experience that people like you will never accept any answer but the one you already "know" - everything is based on race for you.


I don't recall denying Racism, merely pointing out that you and yours use it to brow-beat any who oppose you.

Any who oppose me? Nah. Just the ones who are racists. A common mistake that racists like you tend to make - you think I just go around calling everyone a racist regardless of any other factor than "opposition."

Again with this conspiracy nonsense. It's not a conspiracy.

That's exactly the sort of thing people who believe 9/11 was created by the US government say. They too protest too much.

Did they come in meaning to usurp the new country? No. Are they susceptible to being riled up by a vocal minority that does want to usurp the new nation? Yes. Does their refusal to integrate make this more likely to occur? Yes. Does the greatness of their numbers, and their entrance in a constant stream rather than in more easily integratable waves make this more likely to occur? Yes.

Are you paranoid? Yes. Are you xenophobic? Yes. Is your opinion relevant to the facts? No.


Oh, for the love of God, you are the conspiracy theorist!

Hmm, which one of us is blabbering about the fifth column again?


I am complaining because Governments can tell businesses to fire X for Y reason. I think any business should hire and fire whomever they want, period, without lawsuit and without government interference.

Nah. You're complaining because the Government tells people to fire racists. As part of some agenda to perpetrate the destruction of the White Race by supporting the Fifth Column of Evil Alien Invaders. But okay, I'll grant you that you are now blabbing more capitalist-sounding rhetoric.


Underneath a Mexican Banner tied to a red socialist Banner, I might add.


Uh oh. Political freedom! Another tool of the agenda. Yeah, I'm quaking in my White Boots.


Those are census Bureau statistics, compiled into a handy colour-coded map for the digestion of people to lazy to look at lists of numbers.

Why yes, statistics that show percentages of population who are Hispanic.

But to say that the Census Bureau supports your us versus them bigoted racism because of that, you're off your rocker.

A photobucket account doesn't take pictures, those pics didn't materialize out of nowhere.

And a couple of pictures of a couple of people - nay even thousands of people - doesn't prove your generalizations. Sorry. :)

Not integrating is wrong, and we should not have to let people into our collective house if they are going to refuse to cooperate.

There you go, hinting at the collectivism we both know you believe in. Your rhetoric may be nationalistic, but your mentality is no better than a fucking communist. "Integrate." Ha.

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/14.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/07.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/03.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/10.mp3

http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/05.mp3

Here, right out of the horse's mouth, as it were.

Oh yes, they certainly do prove that Mexicans Are Evil Invaders. Where'd you find the links again, Stormfront?

Are you saying that since you came out of public schools fine, there must be no problem with the education system so we should cut school-funding?

Are you being intentionally stupid or does it come naturally?

I am saying that my experience - and that of everyone I know here in CA - conflicts with your assertions. Pretty much all of them.

But hey, maybe I'm on Mars and you're just NASA.

Your experience, and the education you took from ONE public school do not now, nor have they ever, proved that an education system was succeeding, nor do they prove that illegals who don't pay taxes are somehow not a burden on the state.

Oh ho, now you're talking about "illegals." Not Mexicans. Not even legal immigrants. Shift the goal posts so you can have at least one thing to respond to without looking like the asshole you are.

So, making someone unfireable encourages peak performance? In what way?

So, I'm told you like to build strawmen?


The final solution is a cut-off on all immigration until we can integrate the ones we already have, and if that means a fence and more Border Patrol agents, so be it.

And if that means mass deportation or execution, well hey, those Mexicans weren't "contributing to Western Civilization," and they weren't "white," and they are part of an evil "fifth column" right? Yeah. You can tell me you'd object to that, but we both know you wouldn't.


If it's good enough for the glorious Mexicans you so adore, it should be good enough for us, right? You're not a racist, are you?

OH! You're so cute! You probably that you'd turned the tables on me real good!

I get it - I'm not a racist, therefore I must "adore Mexicans" and thus, the Mexican government and every one of its policies.

You're so CUTE when you try. And even cuter when you fail.

Because Mexicans reproduce well above replacement-levels, and all white countries reproduce well below replacement levels, including America.

The USA is a "white country?" How simple life must be for you. Everything is black or white. More to the point, White or Non White. Pathetic.

Whites made up one third of the worlds population in the Thirties, that's how much we should make up now.

Jews could be executed by the millions in the Thirties. That's what it should be like now!

You haven't looked very hard then. People here are mentioning correlation and causation, how about the irrelevance of personal experience?

Apparently, personal experience is relevant to your argument about "Blacks" turning Atlanta into a "third world," but irrelevant when you talk knowingly about the "third world" status of California, where you obviously don't live since you compare it to fucking Mars.

I think that applies more to you than to me.

I know you are but what am I. Sure thing, Pee Wee.



Furthermore, if you are denying that places like LA have gang-violence problems, you need your head checked. I recently read that graffiti has been seen around LA calling for black solidarity, for the Crips and Bloods to unite against the Mexican gangs, because they are outnumbered.

Well you know, if someone else is a racist, that makes being a racist OK.

I have already stated I don't care much about the jews one way or the other. I am against the Israel lobby, and people like Pehrl, Wolfowitz and company, and I think the issue of whether a Jew in power might have conflicts of interest when dealing with his religion's homeland of Israel (much like a Catholic in power might have dealing with the Pope) is worth considering. I also don't like the way they treat Germany, but overall, I have nothing against them, and feel no urge to support them.

Well sure - to you, Mexicans, Blacks and other "Non Whites" are the New Jews. The old Jews already had their 'final solution' implemented, now it's time for the others! To restore the glorious Thirties!

but I am afraid all you have shown is that you are fond of the word "Twat".

I know you're afraid, but it's pretty clear to anyone reading your bullshit what you're afraid of. You fear for the "white race." You fear for yourself. You fear that one day, YOU might be a minority, and since you treat minorities like pond-shit you expect the same for yourself. Instead of arguing for kind treatment in general, you argue against the demographic trends of the entire "non white" world, which you then begin to demonize in an attempt to justify your growing bigotry and fear.

Either that or hey, maybe you just post this shit for attention. You wouldn't be the first, nor the last. I don't care either way.

Oh yes, they certainly do prove that Mexicans Are Evil Invaders. Where'd you find the links again, Stormfront?
Almost. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Coalition_for_Immigration_Reform

Of course not. Unless they try to enforce it through the political system. People, especially in the Netherlands, are afraid that Muslims could vote away things like gay rights and women's right to leave home and such.

Yes, and deportation of political opponents seems to be the favorite way of opposing them. I'm glad we don't have that shit in the US here yet, else you'd have about 150,000,000 US refugees who were expelled for being Democrats (or Republicans).


I think most people who favour deporting Muslims want them to be sent to the Middle East, where they will not be killed.

Wait, why wouldn't they be killed there? There's wars, oppressive dictatorships of all kinds. And if they're immigrating, they're probably immigrating to escape that.

It could happen, yes, but what can we do to prevent it? Since the most likely instigator would be a major terrorist attack, we can't really control the situtation at all. I also feel that irrational screaming of "racist racist racist!" at people is not going to quell latent Islamophobia. Calm discussion is needed.

Nothing will calm someone's fears. And I'm not here to hold racists and tell them everything will be alright. Nor is it irrational to call a racist, a racist.

No I couldn't. If there was such an attack, forced deportation of Muslims would be a good idea, both for security and to protect them from angry vigilantes.

It'd be the end of liberalization in Europe. You know, freedom. Then we're back in Prewar Germany. So maybe my fears aren't terribly unjustified and unlikely after all.

Because polling is more accurate than anecdotes.

Not at figuring out my opinion, when I am not polled. There is nothing you can say that will ever convince me you have gotten my opinion by asking some random assholes what they think. Maybe you think lowly of your mind, but I don't.

So how do you think we should ascertain how populations feel about issues.

There are elections, for example. Ya know, Democracy.

Then there were the Middle Age during which one can confidently say that the Arabs did much better than "White people". As well as India and China of course.
On India, antrhopologists class Indians as belonging to the same larger subgroup as Europeans -- the Caucasoid or Europid subgroup. They may not be "white", but the European branch and Indian branches of this group are linked. Some anthropologists consider certain Arabs as belong to the group too, but they bicker amongst themselves on this extension. Of course, it should be considered that during the Middle Ages the Byzantine Empire was doing pretty well for itself. So what we are referring to is a specific decay -- that of Western Europe, not "whites" nor Europe as a whole.

But it so happened that individualism broke free, which it didn't in China, India or the Arab lands. People travelled, invented, created all for their own personal benefit, not for their lord's or some bureaucratic behemoth (on the whole, anyways).
I agree with the overall analysis, but one thing to remember is that aristocratic (and sometimes monarchical) patronage of pioneers cannot be neglected. This transformed into capitalist patronage later down the line.

And even if every single European country was an absolute monarchy, it would've still had a more competitive political climate than, say, China. Europe would've had several absolute monarchies with 2-30 million citizens competing with each other, whereas China would've had one absolute monarch with a few hundred million citizens and no need to compete.
Indeed, too much stability proved to be a venom for China.

On India, antrhopologists class Indians as belonging to the same larger subgroup as Europeans -- the Caucasoid or Europid subgroup.
Is that old school anthropology (ie pre-WWII), or actual science? Indo-Europeans languages are one thing...ethnicity another.

Of course, it should be considered that during the Middle Ages the Byzantine Empire was doing pretty well for itself.
Though considering the sheer number of barbarians, mercenaries, nomads and raiders who ended up living within its borders, it would be quite a stretch to call the Byzantine Empire a purely "European" nation.

Is that old school anthropology (ie pre-WWII), or actual science? Indo-Europeans languages are one thing...ethnicity another.
Old school mostly, but an interest is being revived in the whole matter. For instance, books like this (http://www.amazon.com/Indo-European-Origins-Anthropological-John-Day/dp/0941694755) hint at the possible genetic connections between Europeans and Indians. The morphological similarities between Europeans and Indians are sometimes uncanny (even the similarities in certain colourations).

Though considering the sheer number of barbarians, mercenaries, nomads and raiders who ended up living within its borders, it would be quite a stretch to call the Byzantine Empire a purely "European" nation.
The Kingdom itself was one - the Empire at large is another story.

Funny, muslim pop. increased something like 10 times in 60 years. Funny, they used to say nuclear war would destroy the world, but since that didnt happen, we should produce more and more, since it's perfectly ok. :rolleyes:

What?

What that proves is that scaremongerers are generally idiots.

Nord, try not to make stupid comparisons they really don't help your case

Havent you read that most muslims consider themselves *muslim* first? You seem to have a problem with simple reasoning.



most norwegians consider themselves norwegian first don't they? do they all vote for the exact same political party? By your "reasoning" they must.

Personally I'm not for unrestrained immigration, especially from cultures that are overly religious (don't care which one).

I think the main problem at the moment is the clash of cultures. religious vs. secular.

I feel that most europeans are ..... embarassed about their religion to the point where most do not know how to deal with groups that they see as overly religious. This probably ties in with the differing routes that history has taken.
What i mean by this is that religion has been used to promote national interests in europe over the last few centuries (catholics vs. protestants) whereas islam has tried to be used as a unifying influence over all muslims regardless of national boundaries.

I'm hoping the new immigrants will intergrate better in the future (religion becoming secondary) but only time will tell.

intersting side note, an gentleman came into my office last friday looking for work. asked where is from, experience, etc...
After about 30mins of chatting, i find out that his father was an iraqi Kurd that moved to england 18 odd years ago (he's 22). He sees himself as english through and through.
Yes there are people that don't assimilate an are generally the most obvious and then there are the others that assimilate, like the same football teams, go to the same bars, etc...

<snip>
Oh noes, the blacks. Will the whites save us in time? Stay tuned for next week on, "Whites Are Good and Superior But That's Not Racism!"
<snip>


Will the whites save *you*?




<snip>
That's not what my working tap says.

I mean, uh, OH SHIT! You're RIGHT! That water came with more than 0% effort and money, therefore... it's the APOCALYPSE! Run, white people, and hide, because the Mexicans are coming to steal your women, your jobs AND your precious bodily fluids!
<snip>


If you are white why arent you saying "our women"?

Will the whites save *you*?

Is that a threat, nazi boy?


If you are white why arent you saying "our women"?

Man, you REALLY believe in this fucking witch-hunt. Everything I say, you think is some "proof" that OMG IM BLACK. (As if that's the newest way you can insult someone... call them black.)

You asked me in a telegram, I answered.

Now you don't like the answer. You see Evil Darkies everywhere. Out to get you.

So I'm gonna say this once - quit harassing me. I'm white, but - here's the gasping shock horror that a nazi like you will never understand - whether I am white or black DOESNT MATTER. Get it? Get it yet? Does it penetrate that thick skull of yours?

If you are white why arent you saying "our women"?If you were smart, you'd never say "our women" no matter what color skin you have :D

I usually agree with most things you say, or am indifferent, but when it comes to Economics we are at cross-sections. You have no idea how much mathematics goes into Economics, otherwise you would never make a statement like that. Practically half my Economics course is Maths...

And for the purposes of analyzing statistics, an Economist will tend to be inherently superior by dint of his education than an architect. What most people consider to be an acceptable knowledge of Economics is pathetic compared to what you learn in the actual course.

Do you learn Calculus?

If you were smart, you'd never say "our women" no matter what color skin you have :D

Maybe I like group sex ;)

most norwegians consider themselves norwegian first don't they? do they all vote for the exact same political party? By your "reasoning" they must.

However, most Norwegians will consider the welfare of Norwegians while voting. Or at least we will vote what we think is best for Norway.

By this reasoning, if muslims think they are muslim *first*, dont you think they'll vote for the welfare of muslims before the welfare of their country, since their nationality is secondary to them?

Lack of necessary resources and a competitive political climate? Oh, did you ever bother asking that question?

All necessary resources lack in Sub-Saharan Africa? If not, which ones? Compare it to Europe please.
And what's competitive Political climate? You mean Africans were competing with each other too much before Europeans colonized them?

What?

What that proves is that scaremongerers are generally idiots.

Nord, try not to make stupid comparisons they really don't help your case

Lets say x is similar to y. Just because x didnt happen doesnt mean we shouldnt worry about y. Make x nuclear holocaust, y nuclear arming. Make x west-indian immigrants in Uk, y Muslims.

Simple enough for you?