[infowarrior1]

(02-08-2015 12:50 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 11:51 AM)DeWitt Wrote:  

You are correct in that mass-immigration in Sweden is a huge problem, perhaps the only issue worth discussing because the repercussions overshadows everything else.

But then you go off-ramp, from what I can read you are about as knowledgeable on Swedish politics as I am on the workings of Iowa. Your choice of linkage equals about the same level as the tumblr-garbage feminists love, a few indisputable truths, some distortions and everything topped of with smearing and obvious frauds. What is speaking out in thunderous silence is what's missing, any realistic inference. Yet you feel entitled to believe that your opinion should be respected and hold any weight.
...

You are missing the point here - basically THE MAIN POINT IS MUSLIM MASS IMMIGRATION to Sweden in the vicinity of one fucking 1% of the population a year coupled with the fact that they have children like rabbits, because they are financially supported by the country.

You might wonder why the 1-2 mio. Polish immigrants in the UK don't produce an equal amount of problems as those with a Pakistani descent?

I don't have to agree with everything to linking to something if it's fitting to the discussion at hand. I don't share this person's phobia of inter-racial relations, but I would not promote it - similar to homosexuality. Sweden is currently promoting that very thing for agenda-driven reasons.

What would happen to blonde Nordic women at this rate?

I do not want to see the scandiavians mixed out of existence.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

What would happen to blonde Nordic women at this rate?

I do not want to see the scandiavians mixed out of existence.
[/quote]

Most have children within their own race anyway. Plus genetic engineering will render preservation of the races easy to attain.

But if it continues at the current rate, then they might be in the minority in Sweden. However I don't think that the real movers and shakers want a Muslim Europe as some commentators have mistakenly claimed.

I think they want a global war, but we will see.

[infowarrior1]

(02-09-2015 02:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:16 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

What would happen to blonde Nordic women at this rate?

I do not want to see the scandiavians mixed out of existence.

Most have children within their own race anyway. Plus genetic engineering will render preservation of the races easy to attain.

But if it continues at the current rate, then they might be in the minority in Sweden. However I don't think that the real movers and shakers want a Muslim Europe as some commentators have mistakenly claimed.

I think they want a global war, but we will see.
[/quote]
Thanks for the reassurance

Except for the global war bit.

[Deluge]

(02-09-2015 02:16 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

What would happen to blonde Nordic women at this rate?

I do not want to see the scandiavians mixed out of existence.

Their mixed race children will inherit their genes for blonde hair and blue eyes, they probably wouldn't show up in their kids phenotype since those genes are recessive (unless they are mixed Indian or Asian where they could get green eyes) but their grandkids and beyond could easily also be blue-eyed blondes if they have kids with someone who also has those genes. I even know a half Chinese girl with a redhead father who has streaks of red and blonde in her otherwise dark brown hair.

[iknowexactly]

(02-06-2015 01:14 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

People need to stop comparing Muslim immigrants in Europe to Mexican immigrants.....someone did this in another thread, maybe mikado because it was someone trying to downplay Muslim problems and point the finger in other directions. Theres no comparison what so ever and if you actually lived in the US you would know that

Mexicans are really on the whole very nice. There are some criminals of course, but in general they live and let live.

They are also preventing a demographic crash in America so I will get my social security OK.

[Constitution45]

Relying on immigration to solve your own population's democratic winter is probably one of the most stupidest fucking ideas going out there. This obsession of constantly outsourcing fundamental things such as child care to strangers is now the expected norm, and now you have reproducing being outsourced to foreign countries.

There are many different ways in which you could increase Western European birth rates by methods such as tax incentives, maternity leave (If you really want to abide by the feminist narrative), subsisiding nuclear families so they become extended families. Israel has tried all of this and it population boosts have been engineered throughout history.

There is a lot of hype around ethnic minority communities being oppressed and poor but the majority actually do very well for themselves. Of course this doesn't fit into the social justice narrative, so they ignore it. The jews in North London have a pretty much self governing community, the money stays within and they have a mini functioning civil society; together this helps them as a group elevate themselves. Same can be said for Hindus, Chinese, Koreans and Sikhs.

In relation to the topic however there were thousands protesting outside Downing Street over the Charlie Hebdou magazine for publishing the Mohammad cartoons; saying that Free Speech went too far.

[mikado]

I will again add that there is a huge difference between Middle East/South Asia, and the rest of the world.

Why would you punish Muslim territories from Africa for what the Middle East does, even tough there is no other relation between them, except religion?

Why can't you guys just get over the fact that Muslims are of different cultures and kinds, and that their culture influences heavily the way they practice religion?

When I see some of you equating the behaviours of a Pakistani with those of an Black African guy just because they are both Muslim, I wonder whether they are really trying to be objective.

The only thing I see is that these grooming come from PAKISTANI gangs. The problem is obviously Pakistani Immigration in THIS CASE. And in related cases, it's mostly immigration from ARAB COUNTRIES, or ones infected by Al Qaida.
Those countries already had a pretty brutal and ruthless culture before Islam, and it hasn't stopped even after the Prophet came. Their culture is to blame. They are EQUALLY as violent towards non Muslims ,and other Muslims, but from another culture (especially African ones). This is a good indication that the religion is not their primary motive, but only serves as a tool to justify the doings of their cultures.

And yes, concealing these events just to please Muslims is an error.

[Que enspastic]

Jews prove that you can be hated and excluded and still do well. They have operated in many anti-Semitic societies (Germany, the Middle East, white Protestant United States) yet still rose to the top. The Chinese are the Jews of the Asian world.

Keys to reaching the top of society as a minority group :
- Be highly literate
- Be business savvy
- Be financially literate
- Nuclear families
- Show nepotism to your own kind
- Aim for political and financial power
- Be understated about it
- Assimilate but still keep together

Jews and Asians dominating the education rankings of their host nations is a very good start to rising up through the ranks. They do this in all countries in which they live, not just some countries. Being intelligent is not the most important thing (they have high innate intelligence) but having a deep appreciation and respect for education that is inculcated in each family and across their community more broadly ensures they set the bar much higher than whites in general.

This ensures they get into elite jobs : banking & finance, medicine, law, academia, politics. As the previous generation is already there, they give preferential treatment and mentoring to the next making it easier for them to break through. Jewish people never lack 'a contact' that can assist them with work experience that you need these days in order to secure a first job. Part of their dominance of Hollywood is due to nepotistic hiring (why hire a Gentile when you can hire a Jew). While this may seem natural for all ethnic groups, it doesn't work unless the person doing the hiring is from your own tribe. Whites tend to look after each other based on schooling / college membership.

Keeping financial assets pooled is also key. Contrast families who help their offspring obtain mortgages vs those that can but don't. Those who know how to make use of compound interest and ensure it keeps compounding for decades - even once the individual is gone the family lives on.

Muslims don't do well academically. I'm not sure the reason why but perhaps it isn't as highly valued in their community. Property prices in areas where Jews and Chinese want to buy tend to be expensive whereas the opposite is the case for Muslims. Property prices also tend to be high where highly educated, socially civic and ambitious people live and lower where people are poorly educated, partial to crime and unemployed.

The Australian approach is to tightly regulate the quality of immigrants which is why there is less anxiety towards immigrants there among the general populace (except for asylum seekers and the tiny number of Muslims there) vs the UK where no controls exist due to its membership of the EU.

The EU membership pillar of freedom of movement worked far better in its initial days when all members where largely homogenous Western European nations. It is a minefield in today's configuration.

[Constitution45]

Exactly, thats why I believe the majority of academic literature that advocates for "colonial, white male guilt" should be thrown out of the window. It is counter productive for anyone who digests that information. It reminds me of those who are constantly told about the class system in the U.K, the socialist intellectual types you see on question time love pulling this out there. Even before capitalism and liberalism were around, you have history littered with stories of poor, disadvantaged people being able to climb up to the ranks of power, wealth and influence.

As for muslims not doing well in the West its an interesting one. Chinese and Indians in inner city London, even if they do come from the estates; eventually manage to pull themselves out and start doing well for themselves, someone will have to do a study on that. It does have to be said that, in Birmingham, Muslims have a strong monopoly in their areas over business; the same "us versus them" mentality. On top of that they are able to appeal themselves to councils and the authorities, by saying that they are being discriminated against. These are mostly Pakistani muslims or Bengalis however.

[Samseau]

Quote:

The Australian approach is to tightly regulate the quality of immigrants which is why there is less anxiety towards immigrants there among the general populace (except for asylum seekers and the tiny number of Muslims there) vs the UK where no controls exist due to its membership of the EU.

This. If all immigration was restricted to "Quality over quantity," there would be zero ethnic tensions in 95% of developed countries and no one would ever give a shit about immigration.

[mikado]

(02-09-2015 04:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The Australian approach is to tightly regulate the quality of immigrants which is why there is less anxiety towards immigrants there among the general populace (except for asylum seekers and the tiny number of Muslims there) vs the UK where no controls exist due to its membership of the EU.

This. If all immigration was restricted to "Quality over quantity," there would be zero ethnic tensions in 95% of developed countries and no one would ever give a shit about immigration.

If you exclude the religion criteria, and we require everyone to abide by the law and contribute to the well-being of the host country, then I think we all agree on the terms of "quality" immigration.
If everyone priviledgies accomplishing his duties BEFORE complaining about his rights, then the conflict would be solved.

[TigerMandingo]

(02-09-2015 03:11 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Why can't you guys just get over the fact that Muslims are of different cultures and kinds, and that their culture influences heavily the way they practice religion?

Well, the Boston bombers were Chechens and the Charlie Hebdo guys were Algerian.

Two different continents and two different cultures and yet both engaged in acts of terrorism. So your argument that the problem lies with the Arabic interpretation of Islam does not hold much water.

[mikado]

Then why do Muslims raised in Subsaharian Africa are less prone to terrorism than those from Middle East and Eastern Europe? (if you exclude cases like Somalia or Nigeria, heavily influenced by Al Qaida)

Because the Subsaharian African culture does not make room for terrorist actions like that.
People are more prone there to live in peace with christians, muslims, and/or animists. Because our religious traditions from old ages still subsist to more or less strong degrees. And those traditions allowed for peace within the region (of course there were still wars, but not really religion wars). Which is why even today there is some folklore in Islam/Christianism in that region. Our interpretation of the religion (based on the African brotherhood, and sympathy towards everyone even those of a different religion) makes it nearly impossible to allow expansion of terrorism, outside any intervention of organizations like Al Qaida or ISIS.


Compare it to Middle Easterners and Maghrebians, who hate each other (Maroc vs Algeria for example) and hate Subsaharian Africans, who they often attack (like during the last ACN).
Whereas it's extremely rare to have Maghrebians ousted from a Subsaharian region.

It's obvious our cultures are different, and our practice of religion is different.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

Then why do Muslims raised in Subsaharian Africa are less prone to terrorism than those from Middle East and Eastern Europe? (if you exclude cases like Somalia or Nigeria, heavily influenced by Al Qaida)

That's the problem, you can't exclude Somalia or Nigeria when looking at a region. The most prominent attacks come from local branches of one umbrella organization (you mentioned Al Qaeda), which consist of local volunteers. Another reason is that many of those countries are fighting insurgencies against legitimate governments or civil wars against opposing ethnic groups, while in the Middle East, Islam is more solidified as an ideology in politics and government.

Ancestry and ethnicity don't matter nearly as much as the sect of Islam practiced. Research any terrorist attack (9-11, Boston, Madrid, London, Sydney, Ottawa, Paris) or large scale geopolitical atrocities by groups (Boko Haram, ISIS, Pakistani Taliban) and the one thing they all have in common is an adherence to Sunni Islam by the attackers.

I'm the first to admit that Shia Muslims are less prone to terrorism, so not all sects can be condemned on equal terms. The Iranians think and behave in alignment with geopolitical aims as a nation (namely, opposition to Israel and Saudi Arabia as regional powers) and their history is reflective of this. But anywhere there are Sunnis, either in the Middle East or in Europe, there are problems. It's not a matter of opinion at this point - our most basic scientific laws and theories were accepted with much less evidence.

[mikado]

Actually, when I defend Islam, I mostly defend the Islam of the region I grew up in : West-West Africa (Senegal, Mali, Guinea etc)
The Islam here is heavily influenced by the local culture (we have some celebrations that are not recognized by Maghrebians, or Saudi Arabia. Further, we are 95% Muslims, but Christians are truly our brothers: that's totally different in Iraq, for example)

I am the first to criticize the Wahabism, and most of the actual currents in Middle East, or Maghreb.

But Blick Mang, I will rebound on your point. In West Africa (excluding Nigeria), we don't have much fighting insurgencies against legitimate governments or civil wars against opposing ethnic groups. There is almost no Shia there, only Sunnis, and there are no "problems". However, the governments are pretty laic, and the colonial contribution (mainly from France) is recognized. This is why I feel so obliged to voice my opinion. Because we are quite close to western civilisation, at least we do not face the same conflict between colonialism and our cultural roots as much as can do Maghreb, for example.

Someone in this thread compared our Islam to soufism. While I do not totally agree, I think there are definitely similarities. And from what I have read on this forum, most of you don't have much problem with soufism. This is why I think that we can definitely understand each other. Because of the western values and history I was fed with, me and many of my comrades, since we were born.

And this is why I insist in asking you to take into account the differences in the Muslim world in terms of Sunni/chites, soufi/not soufi, etc.

[TigerMandingo]

Mikado, the problem is for every guy like you - who sees the subtleties and fine lines between different Islamic societies, and who wants to see Europeans and Muslims on friendlier terms - there are 100 imams who stand by and don't say a word when their fellow Muslims commit atrocities.

Ok, we see your point. However, the distinctions you bring up do not and will not matter to Europeans when they wake up and smell the 500-lb camel in the room, which of course is Islam.

[mikado]

Fair enough, Cunnilinguist.

However, what else do you want me to do?

If I can convince even one European about this, and make him understand these distinctions, then I consider it job done.

All of this happened because people (from either side) focused too much on their rights, and not their duties (or the rights of their neighbours).

And I feel quite irritated because of that. Maybe that's because I am too idealistic...

The idea of a war is really frustrating for me.

[Samseau]

(02-09-2015 06:36 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Fair enough, Cunnilinguist.

However, what else do you want me to do?

If I can convince even one European about this, and make him understand these distinctions, then I consider it job done.

All of this happened because people (from either side) focused too much on their rights, and not their duties (or the rights of their neighbours).

And I feel quite irritated because of that. Maybe that's because I am too idealistic...

The idea of a war is really frustrating for me.

You should do what Blick Mang said - point out that it's Sunni Islam. Ultimately, more Muslims must stand against the bad Muslims if you want the good Muslims to be spared.

[Saweeep]

It's a funny thing really; I know all about the differences between Sunni and Shia...most of the history and how it affects the geopolitical landscape.

Yet...I have never asked the muslims I know, work with or am friends with which sect they belong to. I wonder if some Muslims know?

That being said, it is a tough ask to insist that the populations of countries with these troubles seek to distinguish between various sects of a religion; nice idea but impossible to achieve.

One of the problems is though, that to an outsider, it would seem Muslim sects see their differences as being like two warring brothers; they are happy to hurt one another to kingdom come but will stick together when challenged by an infidel.

[Rutting Elephant]

(02-10-2015 03:39 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

It's a funny thing really; I know all about the differences between Sunni and Shia...most of the history and how it affects the geopolitical landscape.

Yet...I have never asked the muslims I know, work with or am friends with which sect they belong too. I wonder if some Muslims know?

I've met Indonesian Muslims who don't know, and I'd guess they're the majority. There have been a few coordinated attacks against Shia and Ahmadiya hamlets by extremist groups with police support, but these don't receive a ton of attention in the kind of media the average person consumes. Being in the Sunni majority, they just seem to register other kinds of Islam as "deviant teachings" (aliran sesat) which the authorities repress.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(02-09-2015 06:36 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Fair enough, Cunnilinguist.

However, what else do you want me to do?

If I can convince even one European about this, and make him understand these distinctions, then I consider it job done.

All of this happened because people (from either side) focused too much on their rights, and not their duties (or the rights of their neighbours).

Frankly I don't think that it is even enough to differentiate between the sects of Muslims. The reason itself is unfortunately based in the religion itself. The Koran is just too negative and many verses can be only viewed in a highly hate-filled and dominant way.

While to some degree the Old Testament is highly graphic too, the New Testament is not.

If a religion is made by a warlord it is fundamentally different from one created by a saint. Rumi and other Muslim saints went far away from the base of their religion - so far that it was similar to the Franciscan way of thinking. Essentially you would have to treat Islam in a highly secular way because of it. Otherwise if you try to impose the sharia alone in all areas of life, then all non-believers in a Muslim country would have their freedoms cut significantly even if they live "in peace" with their Muslim overlords. The Spanish threw out all Muslims after their supposed "Golden Age".

Christianity too had stifling tendencies as soon as the religion was mixed with power - that is just natural about human nature.

I don't think that moderate and secular Muslims can do much frankly. Yeah - condemn everything in their own vicinity and that's about it. But even countries with a strong Sufi side like Turkey have to continually fight to upkeep their secular state, because Islam is designed to be all-dominating. It's essentially a religion that is similar to living with a tiger in your living room - you can never relax with it too much despite years of petting and cuddling. And currently the powers that be in our world are prodding that tiger non-stop, so I don't expect peace, but more demonstrations of violence from the religion of peace.

[Maciano]

(02-09-2015 03:55 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

As for muslims not doing well in the West its an interesting one. Chinese and Indians in inner city London, even if they do come from the estates; eventually manage to pull themselves out and start doing well for themselves, someone will have to do a study on that. It does have to be said that, in Birmingham, Muslims have a strong monopoly in their areas over business; the same "us versus them" mentality. On top of that they are able to appeal themselves to councils and the authorities, by saying that they are being discriminated against. These are mostly Pakistani muslims or Bengalis however.

This phenomenon has been witnessed and researched in dozens of countries (all over Western Europe, North American, SE Asia, also East Africa) for dozens of years in dozens of contexts. Chinese & (esp high caste) Indians do extraordinarily well in any culture, but especially well in industrialized/Westernized cultures.

The interesting phenomenon is that these communities thrive even without education, start capital & local connections; even discrimination doesn't hold them back.

[Bushido]

I would say that it's much more to do with what 'type' of Indian they are, rather than there caste. Same with the Chinese.

For example, the Gujarati and Punjabi communities in the UK are both highly successful (I'm gujarati myself, I believe forum member bojanges is too). But you won't hear about the same level of success from Bengali Indians.

Many Indians from these two groups are professionals, business owners and entrepreneurs. Although you may find a slightly higher number of Punjabis in blue collar work. If you see an Indian business anywhere in the world, there's a good chance it will be a Gujarati owned business.

Here's the point though, Indians and Chinese are successful and affluent everywhere except their homelands. Social, cultural and opportunity based factors all come into play. But when you give these two broad 'ethno/cultural groups' 'equal opportunity' they thrive.

The economist Thomas Sowell classifies Indians and Chinese as 'over achiever' groups, along with the Germans I believe.

In the Uk, apart from some Gujarati muslim groups (knoja, bohra, Ishmaeli) who are for the most part highly educated, successful and cool people, the rest of the muslim groups leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. It's just problem after problem with them.

(02-10-2015 04:51 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 03:55 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

As for muslims not doing well in the West its an interesting one. Chinese and Indians in inner city London, even if they do come from the estates; eventually manage to pull themselves out and start doing well for themselves, someone will have to do a study on that. It does have to be said that, in Birmingham, Muslims have a strong monopoly in their areas over business; the same "us versus them" mentality. On top of that they are able to appeal themselves to councils and the authorities, by saying that they are being discriminated against. These are mostly Pakistani muslims or Bengalis however.

This phenomenon has been witnessed and researched in dozens of countries (all over Western Europe, North American, SE Asia, also East Africa) for dozens of years in dozens of contexts. Chinese & (esp high caste) Indians do extraordinarily well in any culture, but especially well in industrialized/Westernized cultures.

The interesting phenomenon is that these communities thrive even without education, start capital & local connections; even discrimination doesn't hold them back.

[Wutang]

^ I've met a few Begalis in the US and the one thing that stands about them especially when compared to other Indian types is how much more into partying and getting wild they are. They drink, hook up, attention whore constantly on social media - pretty much acting like white guidos/bros. This applies to both the girls and the guys. Funny thing is that most of them are practicing Muslims too and they'll talk about God and observe Ramadan but still get wasted on the weekends. I guess you could say they are the anti-IRT in a lot of ways.

[Teedub]

What do you guys think of this?

It was translated into French and got over a million views. I think he makes some good points, although I can't comment on his views in other areas, as I haven't looked into it.

TL/DR he thinks by 2050 at the maximum there will be a Syria-style civil war in Britain. I think, at this rate, he's being optimistic with that time frame. The globalists are going to have a lot of blood on their hands, as they have already.

P.S He's the chap who was arrested for 'religious and racial harassment' due to quoting directly from Churchill in London.