[N°6]

(08-20-2015 01:18 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Every time I go back to UK I feel like trolling the Border Security people and saying “you guys are still here? Have you stopped anyone coming in lately?!”

Fig.1 UK Border Force

[262]

(08-20-2015 01:18 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 10:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

If they can do this, I see no reason they can't restrict it further to the hot ones. "Your tits must be this big to take refuge here".

That discounts a lot of east Asian women!

He didn't say they had to be real. Hehe

[Akula]

(08-20-2015 09:10 AM)spalex Wrote:  

This article just popped up on my facebook news feed:


For the EU, July was historic. For the first time, over 100,000 migrants and asylum seekers entered into the EU, in just one month, 30,000 more than in June.

In the first half of 2015, the EU's border agency has registered 340,000 migrants. Almost 270,000 of those sailed unobstructed from North Africa, Libya and Turkey, and many were picked up by European vessels and transported across the Mediterranean.

160,000 migrants have this year been transported to Greece, 20,000 of them to the small Greek holiday island of Kos, where Pakistanis and Arabs recently clashed in front of cameras. In practice, Kos is disappearing as a European island, like Lampedusa has been absorbed by the human tide from African and Muslim countries.


More here: http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index...eberg.html

Honestly that's unbelievable. Kos? I thought it was a resort island? The Turks across the water in Bodrum must be laughing at their EU neighbors.

I really feel that the EU is a corrupt as hell corporatist PC / leftoid statist piece of shit right now. How anyone in any of the EU countries can defend the stuff going on there is beyond me but I guess much of the bureaucracy & government is pretty far-left and cultural Marxist so they are hell bent on destroying themselves due to perceived past transgressions.

They are literally committing crimes against humanity and genocide against their own native populations and need to be called out on it and for this to be documented so that in the future everyone knows what these "feel good fascists" did.

[Samseau]

(08-20-2015 01:12 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Quote:

If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding "no."

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

In a short span of 16 years (1775-1791), the nation was transformed from maintaining religious establishments in nine of 13 colonies to achieving disestablishment at the national level and in 10 new states (or 11, depending on how one views Vermont).

At the same time, the United States became the first nation in history to abolish religious disqualifications from officeholding and civic engagement. The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power.

If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still "no."

Many of the leading founders were theological liberals who approached religion from a rational perspective.

Even though we have come to appreciate that other founders held more conventional Christian beliefs, all of them, including many clergy of the day, perceived little conflict between their religious faith and Enlightenment natural rights.

By the time of the Revolution, ideas of providence and of America's millennial role had been modified, if not secularized, by Enlightenment rationalism.

If Benjamin Franklin, the only self-professed deist among the leading founders, could believe in God's general providential plan for the United States, then the ubiquitous references to God's interposing providence tell us little about the influence of distinctive religious thought on the founding generation.

If, finally, the meaning of the question is whether Christian impulses and rhetoric existed during the founding period and impacted the "great debate" about revolution and republican governance, then the answer is "yes" (although the question would then lose its distinctiveness at this level of abstraction).

Without question, non-Anglican clergy rallied to the patriot cause and justified the Revolution and new government on religious terms. Similarly, political leaders employed religious rhetoric to explain and legitimize their efforts.

However, the use of religious discourse at such a momentous time -- for distinguishing one's cause from the enemy during war and for rallying popular support for one's side -- is hardly surprising.

The majority of the founders also believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian.

But people should be cautious about reading too much into the religious rhetoric during the founding period.

From where did the idea of America's founding as a Christian nation arise? In a nutshell, it arose in the early 19th century as later generations of Americans sought to establish a national identity, one that distinguished and exemplified the founding by sanctifying the nation's origins.

This is the origin of the "Christian nation" myth.

Pretty amazing the article contradicts itself right at the end. Christian nation is a myth yet it was assumed Christianity was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and everyone assume it would remain Christian. That's why Islam was never seriously discussed in those times. Trust me, they wouldn't have liked it.

Quote:

Also see the Treaty of Tripoli

Quote:

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Quote:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

John Adams was being very generous and diplomatic because he was committed to strict neutrality in those days. Napoleonic Wars were raging and being seen as "too Christian" could mean possibly allying oneself with the Catholic Church would could inspire the hostility of Britain and France (both enemies of the Catholics).

But if you were to dig through Adam's letters you'd probably find statements that contradicts his lying language used in the treaty.

The simple fact of the matter was America was 99% Christian at the time, and none of the states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed it would be hostile to their faith in any way, so the founders went to great lengths to assure everyone no one would touch their faith to secure ratification.

[Chevalier De Seingalt]

(08-20-2015 09:10 AM)spalex Wrote:  

This article just popped up on my facebook news feed:


For the EU, July was historic. For the first time, over 100,000 migrants and asylum seekers entered into the EU, in just one month, 30,000 more than in June.

In the first half of 2015, the EU's border agency has registered 340,000 migrants. Almost 270,000 of those sailed unobstructed from North Africa, Libya and Turkey, and many were picked up by European vessels and transported across the Mediterranean.

160,000 migrants have this year been transported to Greece, 20,000 of them to the small Greek holiday island of Kos, where Pakistanis and Arabs recently clashed in front of cameras. In practice, Kos is disappearing as a European island, like Lampedusa has been absorbed by the human tide from African and Muslim countries.


More here: http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index...eberg.html

This is one of the more sobering things I have read in a long time. I've never been part of the pro-Putin cheer squad but this . . . if a Putin style leader is the only way of stopping this insanity, it makes me want to sign up.

[The Father]

(08-19-2015 01:21 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Note that it used to be a part of Czechoslovakia until the Czechs and Slovaks decided that they're too different and incompatible and that it's best for both parties to go their separate ways.

LOL no. Czechs are Slovaks are about as similar as Austrians and Germans; they are not "too different and incompatible". Their languages are basically dialects of the same language. The reason they are separate countries, as is the reason Germany and Austria are not joined, or East and West Germany were once separated, has nothing to do with being "different and incompatible" and everything to do with politics. In 1994, a tin-horn wanna-be slovak despot named Vladimir Meciar wanted a country to plunder. He lobbied for a referendum on a split. He exploited nationalist strains of the Slovaks. The Czechs, for their part, were all too happy to be rid of the poorer Slovakia, which had been a drain on the country since the decline of the Soviet Union (Slovakia had once been a leading manufacturer of soviet firearms and other weaponry; their economy spiraled when the CCCP fell in 1991). When they split, Meciar plundered Slovakia until late 1998, when western pressure got him kicked out (no Western diplomat would visit Slovakia in the Meciar years; they were outcasts in the same way North Korea is today. In this case, unlike No. Korea, the pressure worked).

I don't mean to be critical of your post - your basic premise is correct. I just happen to have seen what happened in Central Europe at that time.

[Fast Eddie]

(08-20-2015 04:49 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 01:21 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Note that it used to be a part of Czechoslovakia until the Czechs and Slovaks decided that they're too different and incompatible and that it's best for both parties to go their separate ways.

LOL no. Czechs are Slovaks are about as similar as Austrians and Germans; they are not "too different and incompatible". Their languages are basically dialects of the same language. The reason they are separate countries, as is the reason Germany and Austria are not joined, or East and West Germany were once separated, has nothing to do with being "different and incompatible" and everything to do with politics. In 1994, a tin-horn wanna-be slovak despot named Vladimir Meciar wanted a country to plunder. He lobbied for a referendum on a split. He exploited nationalist strains of the Slovaks. The Czechs, for their part, were all too happy to be rid of the poorer Slovakia, which had been a drain on the country since the decline of the Soviet Union (Slovakia had once been a leading manufacturer of soviet firearms and other weaponry; their economy spiraled when the CCCP fell in 1991). When they split, Meciar plundered Slovakia until late 1998, when western pressure got him kicked out (no Western diplomat would visit Slovakia in the Meciar years; they were outcasts in the same way North Korea is today. In this case, unlike No. Korea, the pressure worked).

I don't mean to be critical of your post - your basic premise is correct. I just happen to have seen what happened in Central Europe at that time.

Of course. I was being ironic. This is the relevant part of my post:

Quote:

Note that it used to be a part of Czechoslovakia until the Czechs and Slovaks decided that they're too different and incompatible and that it's best for both parties to go their separate ways. How brief was the Slovakian experiment in having their own country! Now instead of dealing with the troublesome Czechs, they will get to experience true diversity and welcome Africans and Middle Easterners.

I was highlighting how insane it is for Slovakia to accept Africans and Muslims when they couldn't/preferred not to live alongside the Czechs. The point was to emphasize that if small differences between people as closely related as Czechs and Slovaks can lead to tension, imagine how bad it will be when they have to deal with Africans and Arabs.

[The Father]

(08-20-2015 06:39 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

I was highlighting how insane it is for Slovakia to accept Africans and Muslims when they couldn't/preferred not to live alongside the Czechs. The point was to emphasize that if small differences between people as closely related as Czechs and Slovaks can lead to tension, imagine how bad it will be when they have to deal with Africans and Arabs.

You are completely correct.

[Eskhander]

The founding fathers are quoted saying unkind things about Islam. Their Koran copies, the ones that had them, were prefaced with how it was heresy or otherwise wrong.

[DarkTriad]

(08-20-2015 04:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 01:12 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Quote:

If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding "no."

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

In a short span of 16 years (1775-1791), the nation was transformed from maintaining religious establishments in nine of 13 colonies to achieving disestablishment at the national level and in 10 new states (or 11, depending on how one views Vermont).

At the same time, the United States became the first nation in history to abolish religious disqualifications from officeholding and civic engagement. The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power.

If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still "no."

Many of the leading founders were theological liberals who approached religion from a rational perspective.

Even though we have come to appreciate that other founders held more conventional Christian beliefs, all of them, including many clergy of the day, perceived little conflict between their religious faith and Enlightenment natural rights.

By the time of the Revolution, ideas of providence and of America's millennial role had been modified, if not secularized, by Enlightenment rationalism.

If Benjamin Franklin, the only self-professed deist among the leading founders, could believe in God's general providential plan for the United States, then the ubiquitous references to God's interposing providence tell us little about the influence of distinctive religious thought on the founding generation.

If, finally, the meaning of the question is whether Christian impulses and rhetoric existed during the founding period and impacted the "great debate" about revolution and republican governance, then the answer is "yes" (although the question would then lose its distinctiveness at this level of abstraction).

Without question, non-Anglican clergy rallied to the patriot cause and justified the Revolution and new government on religious terms. Similarly, political leaders employed religious rhetoric to explain and legitimize their efforts.

However, the use of religious discourse at such a momentous time -- for distinguishing one's cause from the enemy during war and for rallying popular support for one's side -- is hardly surprising.

The majority of the founders also believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian.

But people should be cautious about reading too much into the religious rhetoric during the founding period.

From where did the idea of America's founding as a Christian nation arise? In a nutshell, it arose in the early 19th century as later generations of Americans sought to establish a national identity, one that distinguished and exemplified the founding by sanctifying the nation's origins.

This is the origin of the "Christian nation" myth.

Pretty amazing the article contradicts itself right at the end. Christian nation is a myth yet it was assumed Christianity was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and everyone assume it would remain Christian. That's why Islam was never seriously discussed in those times. Trust me, they wouldn't have liked it.

Quote:

Also see the Treaty of Tripoli

Quote:

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Quote:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

John Adams was being very generous and diplomatic because he was committed to strict neutrality in those days. Napoleonic Wars were raging and being seen as "too Christian" could mean possibly allying oneself with the Catholic Church would could inspire the hostility of Britain and France (both enemies of the Catholics).

But if you were to dig through Adam's letters you'd probably find statements that contradicts his lying language used in the treaty.

The simple fact of the matter was America was 99% Christian at the time, and none of the states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed it would be hostile to their faith in any way, so the founders went to great lengths to assure everyone no one would touch their faith to secure ratification.

It was actually a little more specific than that. This was actually the "shores of Tripoli" stanza of the Marine Corp hymn. We had just gone to war with the Barbary Pirates and needed to assure them we weren't a Christian nation to help them save face and close the peace treaty.

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

(08-20-2015 10:08 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

I'm pretty sure that the fine print says that the refugees have the right to cross borders illegally - but only to flee the zone of persecution, if you will. It doesn't say they can keep going.

So, Syrian refugees can cross into Jordan or Turkey, etc. But going to Greece or Italy or somewhere else means crossing a ton of borders illegally, when they in fact had been safe from the war zone, etc. when they entered say, Turkey.

At the point they cross over to Italy it isn't about being refugees anymore, but illegal economic invaders.

Libertas, that would be entirely logical and reasonable. Unfortunately, the 1967 Protocol eliminated all temporal and geographic restrictions for refugees. Whilst some parties have objected to certain portions of the Protocol's text I'm not aware of any objection or denunciation of some sort concerning the first article made by sovereign within the European Union. To my knowledge, only four states have objected to article I: Botswana, Honduras and Swaziland. You can have a look here; maybe I've missed something.

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Wrote:

Article I
GENERAL PROVISION

1. The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the Convention to refugees as hereinafter defined.
2. For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term " refugee " shall, except as regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person within the definition of article 1 of the Convention as if the words 'As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and . . . and the words '... as a result of such events', in article 1 A (2) were omitted.
3. The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 1 B (1) (a) of the Convention, shall, unless extended under article 1 B (2) thereof, apply also under the present Protocol.

Source: Volume 606 of the UN Treaty Series (pp 268, 270) also known by its French-language name, Recueil des traités.

[spalex]

I just don't get it.

Can someone explain to me how, in any way, it would seem like a good idea to import such a high number of immigrants from such a different background all at the one time.

I seen some UKIP report about the UK has grown by 10 million people in the last 10 years. But they have not built any more schools, houses, roads, hospitals etc etc to accommodate and extra 10 million people.
Sweden is fucked
France is fucked
Everywhere else in western Europe is going to be fucked in no time.

What is the thinking behind these left wing politicians? It's blatantly obvious that what they can't afford to do what they are doing and that it is going to have terrible repercussions. There are many examples in history of how this has ended in war (Lebanon comes to mind). How hasn't this message gotten across yet?

[Fast Eddie]

(08-21-2015 01:40 AM)spalex Wrote:  

I just don't get it.

Can someone explain to me how, in any way, it would seem like a good idea to import such a high number of immigrants from such a different background all at the one time.

I seen some UKIP report about the UK has grown by 10 million people in the last 10 years. But they have not built any more schools, houses, roads, hospitals etc etc to accommodate and extra 10 million people.
Sweden is fucked
France is fucked
Everywhere else in western Europe is going to be fucked in no time.

What is the thinking behind these left wing politicians? It's blatantly obvious that what they can't afford to do what they are doing and that it is going to have terrible repercussions. There are many examples in history of how this has ended in war (Lebanon comes to mind). How hasn't this message gotten across yet?

Well look, like you said, this stuff is pretty obvious. Basically anyone with half a brain can see it. I first became aware of the concept of mass immigration when I was about 15 years old and I immediately knew the shit was whack. As much as I like to think highly of myself, I know I'm not that smart that at 15 years old I arrived at this ingenious conclusion that to this very day eludes our economic, cultural, and political elites. The shit really is that clear cut, so the behavior of the elites is down to simple malice.

[Phoenix]

(08-20-2015 03:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yeah, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The freedom of religion clause was made in the common assumption of the USA always being a Christian nation. No one even thought Islam was a possibility back then and therefore it wasn't considered. The only thing fresh in the minds of the founders were the wars of the Protestant Reformation.

They didn't fail to write down their assumptions elsewhere in the constitution though, they were quite rigorous in fact. For this reason, it must be read as it stands: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However as it says Congress, the states were still at liberty to treat religion however they wanted. Until the much maligned 14th amendment that is.

[UncleSam]

(08-20-2015 09:05 AM)Chaos Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:07 AM)spalex Wrote:  

And don't start with "ohh they are fleeing a war zone and trying to rescue their family" bullshit. Unless they are fleeing Syria, chances are that they are just economic migrants. And 90% of these migrants are males between 17 -30 years old.

If you had bombs dropping all over your neighborhood right now. Would you flee to the closes neighboring country where there is safety, OR would you say "Yeeah I might save up for a few months and go book a flight to Sweden"?
If shit was so bad that they had to run away, there are countries richer than Slovakia in the middle east... Qata, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran, UAE. Where they could get work and live a better life.
...But we all know that's not what they are after.

Well aint that the truth!

Right now I'm reading that Finland is preparing to take in 15000 extra boat refugees. It used to be 500!

This situation is pure madness and the beginning to something ugly.

"Ugly" is the keyword here. Meanwhile the macedonian police is trying to drive immigrants back with tear gas and flashbangs. The situation escalates quickly at the moment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/2...ML20150821

[amity]

(08-21-2015 01:40 AM)spalex Wrote:  

I just don't get it.

Can someone explain to me how, in any way, it would seem like a good idea to import such a high number of immigrants from such a different background all at the one time.

I seen some UKIP report about the UK has grown by 10 million people in the last 10 years. But they have not built any more schools, houses, roads, hospitals etc etc to accommodate and extra 10 million people.
Sweden is fucked
France is fucked
Everywhere else in western Europe is going to be fucked in no time.

What is the thinking behind these left wing politicians? It's blatantly obvious that what they can't afford to do what they are doing and that it is going to have terrible repercussions. There are many examples in history of how this has ended in war (Lebanon comes to mind). How hasn't this message gotten across yet?

Essentially, mass immigration benefits not just the Left(immigrants largely vote for the parties that keep generous welfare going(ie. the Left), but also mass immigration helps to keep wages low which big business types on the Right love, which is why you'll find few politicians really railing against it.
Also the danger of being called 'racist' by the press, tends to stifle debate.
Only people who genuinely couldn't give two fucks about the press(like the Donald) can safely come out and speak the truth about the negatives of mass immigration and illegal immigration.
Stefan Molyneux has some informative videos on this topic.

[iknowexactly]

(08-20-2015 03:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yeah, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The freedom of religion clause was made in the common assumption of the USA always being a Christian nation. No one even thought Islam was a possibility back then and therefore it wasn't considered. The only thing fresh in the minds of the founders were the wars of the Protestant Reformation.

I don't know what I'm talking about, yet I quote Jefferson, and you simply repeat yourself.

Got any quotes there? Besides from your own opinions? I'm always willing to learn from the great minds of the Founding Fathers.

Here is appears Jefferson's quoted as explicitly saying Islam should be included as an allowed religion, after a vote to change "Almighty God" into "Jesus Christ" failed.

This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...quran.html

--

All brands of "revealed" religions are based on shared delusions, and the Muslims are the leading murderers at this point in history it seems.

"Christians" didn't do too bad exterminating the Native Americans however, so they can't be considered total slouches.

"There's the pub that wrecks your body, and the Church all they want is your money..." -- Morrissey.

[DjembaDjemba]

Mass immigration filled up Australia and all of the Americas, for better or worse.

When people attack mass immigration, keep that in mind.

It's not comparable with the Europe refugee crisis, but neither is illegal USA immigration, or the heavily controlled points based Canadian and Australian system.

[LEMONed IScream]

Immigration should have certain "phases" so that you give population time to assimilate. Sudden massive immigration of several racial/cultural/ideological backgrounds can be a disaster.

[Mike5055]

There was an article where some Syrian guyx Mahmoud Bitar, was telling people not to come to Sweden.

It'd be nice to see a country with some balls tell those kind of people to leave. No one is forcing them to stay.

To those who live in Europe - are you seeing more illegals? Or is it mostly concentrated in certain areas?

[LEMONed IScream]

Quite frankly Mike, they normally go to the richer countries... UK, Sweden, France, Germany, mostly those. I am in Portugal and I have seen zero or VERY FEW illegals. We never really had problems with immigration because we're poor compared to these countries.

[Samseau]

(08-21-2015 07:59 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 03:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yeah, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The freedom of religion clause was made in the common assumption of the USA always being a Christian nation. No one even thought Islam was a possibility back then and therefore it wasn't considered. The only thing fresh in the minds of the founders were the wars of the Protestant Reformation.

I don't know what I'm talking about, yet I quote Jefferson, and you simply repeat yourself.

Got any quotes there? Besides from your own opinions? I'm always willing to learn from the great minds of the Founding Fathers.

Here is appears Jefferson's quoted as explicitly saying Islam should be included as an allowed religion, after a vote to change "Almighty God" into "Jesus Christ" failed.

This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...quran.html

--

All brands of "revealed" religions are based on shared delusions, and the Muslims are the leading murderers at this point in history it seems.

"Christians" didn't do too bad exterminating the Native Americans however, so they can't be considered total slouches.

"There's the pub that wrecks your body, and the Church all they want is your money..." -- Morrissey.

Jefferson was one man. His apostate views did not match 99% of America at the time. Also, by allowing Islam, he meant it insomuch as someone were to convert to Islam who was already in America. He was not referring to important live Muslims en masse when he said freedom of religion.

Quote:

Mass immigration filled up Australia and all of the Americas, for better or worse.

When people attack mass immigration, keep that in mind.

It's not comparable with the Europe refugee crisis, but neither is illegal USA immigration, or the heavily controlled points based Canadian and Australian system.

Mass immigration in the old days happened before any countries or borders existed.

The Indians themselves had no cohesion whatsoever and had no objection to the White man's arrival until it was far too late for them to do anything about it. The only way you could claim the White's arrival to the Americas and Australia was comparable is if they actively came as invaders.

Only South America matches that description, but it was really just the Spanish carrying over their learned Muslim behaviors after being brutally ruled for 600 years.

[WalterBlack]

(08-21-2015 11:37 AM)Mike5055 Wrote:  

There was an article where some Syrian guyx Mahmoud Bitar, was telling people not to come to Sweden.

It'd be nice to see a country with some balls tell those kind of people to leave. No one is forcing them to stay.

I work with an Algerian lady in Los Angeles. She's got a lot of family in France - I asked her why her father never moved to her France and she said that her father thinks that the Arabs in France are too religious and crazy. He came to the US get away from it. She's basically an atheist, she eats pork and drinks and has (almost certainly) fake big tits (I'm too scared to ask because I don't want to get fired).

(08-21-2015 11:39 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

Quite frankly Mike, they normally go to the richer countries... UK, Sweden, France, Germany, mostly those. I am in Portugal and I have seen zero or VERY FEW illegals. We never really had problems with immigration because we're poor compared to these countries.

There's definitely illegal Indians in Portugal, they are relatives of people I know in UK. These same people have been on vacation to Lisbon and met up with some of them. They go to Portugal because they know that there's almost zero chance of them getting deported. Same is true of Italy. However, I've heard there's not much work in Portugal so they may leave one day.

I was in UK a few weeks ago and I noticed that there's now a lot of Spanish nurses working in the hospitals. Spain must be in a bad state because nurses are not paid well in UK. There are Portuguese doing manual labour at farms in UK too.

I know Indians who entered Italy illegally over 10 years ago on boats from Turkey - in those days it was done clandestinely in the middle of the night and very few people did it. There wasn't thousands of them going there openly in broad daylight as the Arabs and Africans are doing now.

[DarkTriad]

(08-21-2015 01:52 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 01:40 AM)spalex Wrote:  

I just don't get it.

Can someone explain to me how, in any way, it would seem like a good idea to import such a high number of immigrants from such a different background all at the one time.

I seen some UKIP report about the UK has grown by 10 million people in the last 10 years. But they have not built any more schools, houses, roads, hospitals etc etc to accommodate and extra 10 million people.
Sweden is fucked
France is fucked
Everywhere else in western Europe is going to be fucked in no time.

What is the thinking behind these left wing politicians? It's blatantly obvious that what they can't afford to do what they are doing and that it is going to have terrible repercussions. There are many examples in history of how this has ended in war (Lebanon comes to mind). How hasn't this message gotten across yet?

Well look, like you said, this stuff is pretty obvious. Basically anyone with half a brain can see it. I first became aware of the concept of mass immigration when I was about 15 years old and I immediately knew the shit was whack. As much as I like to think highly of myself, I know I'm not that smart that at 15 years old I arrived at this ingenious conclusion that to this very day eludes our economic, cultural, and political elites. The shit really is that clear cut, so the behavior of the elites is down to simple malice.

The story is a thousand years old. It's called The Emperor Has No Clothes.

[LEMONed IScream]

Possibly, we have quite a few Indians, Bangladeshi, etc. However, they are not sources of criminality, they do not collect welfare. Most Indians I know in Portugal have normal jobs, at corner shops, restaurants, etc. I don't see them as any problem at all and their presence doesn't bother me in any way. The candidate to Prime-Minister of the major opposing party is Goan/Indian-Portuguese. The very few muslims we have in Portugal are normally from Guinea Bissau, or from Pakistan/India/Bangladesh. Zero problems. Of course, they're much less than in other countries. Around 50k is the current estimate. A good chunk of the muslims in Portugal are portuguese and have lived here for decades. There is no "Islamic problem" here. Portugal has a history of being an "intolerant inclusivist".

(08-21-2015 07:01 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 11:37 AM)Mike5055 Wrote:  

There was an article where some Syrian guyx Mahmoud Bitar, was telling people not to come to Sweden.

It'd be nice to see a country with some balls tell those kind of people to leave. No one is forcing them to stay.

I work with an Algerian lady in Los Angeles. She's got a lot of family in France - I asked her why her father never moved to her France and she said that her father thinks that the Arabs in France are too religious and crazy. He came to the US get away from it. She's basically an atheist, she eats pork and drinks and has (almost certainly) fake big tits (I'm too scared to ask because I don't want to get fired).

(08-21-2015 11:39 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

Quite frankly Mike, they normally go to the richer countries... UK, Sweden, France, Germany, mostly those. I am in Portugal and I have seen zero or VERY FEW illegals. We never really had problems with immigration because we're poor compared to these countries.

There's definitely illegal Indians in Portugal, they are relatives of people I know in UK. These same people have been on vacation to Lisbon and met up with some of them. They go to Portugal because they know that there's almost zero chance of them getting deported. Same is true of Italy. However, I've heard there's not much work in Portugal so they may leave one day.

I was in UK a few weeks ago and I noticed that there's now a lot of Spanish nurses working in the hospitals. Spain must be in a bad state because nurses are not paid well in UK. There are Portuguese doing manual labour at farms in UK too.

I know Indians who entered Italy illegally over 10 years ago on boats from Turkey - in those days it was done clandestinely in the middle of the night and very few people did it. There wasn't thousands of them going there openly in broad daylight as the Arabs and Africans are doing now.