71 dead found in a truck abandoned in Austria

[Bagseed]

^ okay then where's your evidence that muslims will destroy society? because so far you presented none.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

^ okay then where's your evidence that muslims will destroy society? because so far you presented none.

Even if I laid out evidence you would never believe it anyway, not whilst you maintain a belief that there can never be a problem with Islam/refuse to accept confrontation may happen. Do you think if anyone laid out evidence to Germans about where their country was heading people would have listened? Sometimes its more a matter of refusing to see what's already there than it is about there being a lack of evidence according to the standard one demands. Open you mind first, then go looking with the question in mind 'Is there a problem with Islam'.

 

[Bagseed]

there is a problem with religous fundamentalism, but this isn't inherent to Islam. other belief systems have been used in the past to justify violence before, including christianity. and comparing Islam to the rise of the NSDAP in the 1930s is just ridiculous. islam isn't a single political party with a defined political agenda.

Sometimes its more a matter of refusing to see what's already there than it is about there being a lack of evidence according to the standard one demands.

what's there then? as PA said before, muslim extremists kill much more other muslims than westeners. there are so many muslims in this world, don't you think that if a big majority of them were extremists, things would be much more violent on this world? but most of them are just normal people living their lives.

again, you don't have any evidence to support your claims. you, what23 et al are just racist and xenophobic dicks who need some sort of scapegoat to help them make sense of this world. I am out of this discussion, enjoy staying irrationally fearful and pathetic.

 

[spacejunk]

paranoid_android: I recommend you watch the Oxford Union talk with the National Front leader Marine le Pen. Reminds me of Nigel Farage in a lot of respects

Hah - seriously?
Why would anybody waste their time watching that fool?
Makes sense to 'know your enemy' and all that, but i'm truly surprised that anyone here would take these sorts of people seriously.
Although, i guess it does go some way to explaining your insular, jackbooted worldview.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

Yes. Seriously. Instead of relying on other people or sources to feed you bite sizes pieces of 'information' about a person or their motives, watch and listen to the person themselves. Same thing happens with Nigel Farage, or even T. Robinson who was leader of the EDL. Both actually have insights worth hearing. But of course it's much easier to just blanket label them and not bother to listen to the person themselves, and feel smug in the righteous indignation.

 

[swilow]

Even if I laid out evidence you would never believe it anyway, not whilst you maintain a belief that there can never be a problem with Islam/refuse to accept confrontation may happen

So, you won't submit this evidence because it won't be believed? You are making a huge assumption, so I'll join in. I can see two possibilities here. 1, the evidence does not exist or, 2, the evidence is really weak. That's what I am lead to think when you won't even try to present some evidence. You are not helping your cause here SS, nor the cause of anti-islamists. When people are unwilling to provide substantiation for a claim they have made, I assume that its because they simply can't.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

Actually there is a third possibility but you can't see it. Not because you're not capable of doing do, but because you automatically exclude it out of bias. And the third possibility is that, yes, there is evidence and it requires a shift in perspective to see it properly. You'll never see it if you don't actually believe its possible. I know you say you can and are open minded, but actually that's not true. That's not how bias or mental gymnastics works. Again not because you or anyone else has some kind of mental deficit.. its more akin to hypnosis than anything. You think how so many ordinary people are fooled by the constructs of the modern world, politicians, TV, consumer culture.. this is absolutely no different. Hypnosis of the mind, blinding you to what is actually right in front of your face.

Just like predominantly white societies have their bullies, dominant and angry central core people, so too does the Muslim demographic. And just as with any other group or society, the majority of peaceful people tend to go along with what the dominant core proposes. Group behavior. With the demographic shifting.. more Muslims moving in and being born, and a decreasing birth rate in Western nations, a larger demographic means more potential power. This is no magic or far out thinking. It is simply humans doing what they always have done. The only question is, which group or central core would you rather have in power? I know which one I would choose. For all the failings we have with our current setup it is infinitely better than one centered around an Islamic mind state.

I'd rather have our law and justice, than Sharia law and religious justice. When it comes down to it they are always going to choose their faith when given the opportunity. All the "peaceful" Muslims would quite happily accept a more Islamic system if given the chance, regardless of what it actually implies or means. Their faith requires it, and the bullies will certainly see to it that it is implemented. It is no different to what we currently have where our bullies, the government, do things on our behalf and most "peaceful" people accept it. Again, which system would you rather have? One where there is at least the possibility of progression and elevation? Or one was is conscripted to a religious text that places great limits on what is achieveable.

 

[What 23]

Awesome post.

 

[tokezu]

Only two little points that caught my eye:

Actually there is a third possibility but you can't see it. Not because you're not capable of doing do, but because you automatically exclude it out of bias. And the third possibility is that, yes, there is evidence and it requires a shift in perspective to see it properly.

I would really like to break through this hypnosis you speak of. But don't you rob me and all the others of that chance by not submitting this evidence that you seem to have? Sure many people might not see it because they don't believe it to be possible (can you see the fnord?), but some people out there might just need a little push and then will be able to. Don't you owe it to them to at least try?

With the demographic shifting.. more Muslims moving in and being born, and a decreasing birth rate in Western nations, a larger demographic means more potential power.

I can only assume this also applies to the UK, but in Germany birthrates decrease so much that without immigration (whatever your stance on certain groups of immigrants is) we're simply doomed to become a society of senior citizens and nobody around to pay for their pensions. What alternative do you propose? Implementing a three-children-policy or maybe just criminalize contraceptives?

 

[swilow]

Actually there is a third possibility but you can't see it. Not because you're not capable of doing do, but because you automatically exclude it out of bias. And the third possibility is that, yes, there is evidence and it requires a shift in perspective to see it properly. .

Again, you are saying that you won't bother telling us because we won't believe. In point of fact, it is to non-believers that you should explicitly lay out evidence. So, what I continue to hear is that you will not provide evidence. If the validity of your proof is dependant on my perspective of it, it is not valid proof.

Its unfair in a way; because you are talking about things that haven't yet happened, there really is no way for you to provide evidence; but you've made your bed. You can only go on your feeling toward the issue. You claim the left has a bias? You hold to a position for which there is no evidence. That is a bias too.

 

[What 23]

Only two little points that caught my eye:



I would really like to break through this hypnosis you speak of. But don't you rob me and all the others of that chance by not submitting this evidence that you seem to have? Sure many people might not see it because they don't believe it to be possible (can you see the fnord?), but some people out there might just need a little push and then will be able to. Don't you owe it to them to at least try?



I can only assume this also applies to the UK, but in Germany birthrates decrease so much that without immigration (whatever your stance on certain groups of immigrants is) we're simply doomed to become a society of senior citizens and nobody around to pay for their pensions. What alternative do you propose? Implementing a three-children-policy or maybe just criminalize contraceptives?

lower birthrates in this world SHOULD be a good thing. our world can't put up with a high birth-rate all the time... more and more people added. what needs to change, although i don't know how, is the way we do things. having children should be incentivized to a certain number, for the local-native population. the solution isn't to replace the population because of something that is fake anyways (money). the world is really headed toward insanity, though. i'm not sure i should give a fuck about any of it anymore.

 

[SKL]

Apropos: Marine le Pen faces court on charge of inciting racial hatred.

And who stands for liberal values, free speech and the like, again? You can criticize the Church, the West, etc. Charlie Hebdo's grossly offensive content gets a Je suis Charlie protest, although of course this is in the context of terrorism, but yet they will persecute this woman for an honestly held political opinion. And look at the terminology in the article "far right," etc. Thought-terminating clichés all. Just because she and her ideological counterparts don't kowtow to the politically correct, radically leftist and anti-Western EU agenda, they are tarred and fethered by the media.

120,000 immigrants to the EU.
100,000 to the US.

How can mass immigration from such a vastly different cultural setting be assimilated? Do they even wish to assimilate? The answer will often be no, so you will be seeing ethnic enclaves which will be breeding grounds for multigenerational poverty, crime, and in a few cases, terrorism. If state welfare is the solution you can expect a massive reaction to this and further ethnic conflict and atomisation between groups. Nationalist reaction is already happening, can you imagine what it will be like when this influx comes in?

This is a potential Camp des Saints situation at best, a massive influx of economically unstable and a few potentially very dangerous persons, and demographically destabilizing to the host countries. This is cultural suicide. I cannot understand why people don't wake up to this. Eventually they will and I pray it will not be too late.

 

[spacejunk]

How do you define "liberal values"?

 

[SKL]

How do you define "liberal values"?

Well, in this particular context, I'm speaking about free speech and suchlike, "... I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now we are persecuting a leader of a political party for her politics. This is a slow, or not so slow, slide into totalitarian cultural Marxism.

 

[spacejunk]

Yeah, i dont subscribe to such values, personally.

 

[SKL]

Yeah, i dont subscribe to such values, personally.

Well, something we find in common. I am an avowed anti-liberal (in the strict poly-sci sense), from Burke and forward, although I suspect this isn't the values that you are trying to endorse. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are proposing is, to be flippant, circumscribing free speech in the case that it hurts people's feelings, or, to offer a more sober explanation, to close Overton window shutting out ideas about identity politics that disagree with you?

If you admit this openly, I can respect your opinion I suppose, although I wholly disagree with it at least in this specific sense.

I too am not an advocate of absolute free speech. I have a problem with pornography, for instance, or with certain types of political propaganda, or with the proliferation of dangerous cults (see: Scientology, not so much to ban it in the proper sense, but take the approach taken by Germany, for instance.)

If we're going to jump through some hoops, though, it's going to be difficult for me to get what you're getting at, so to speak.

 

[spacejunk]

I don't personally believe in the kind of liberalism that holds the virtues of "free speech" above those of decency, respect and human rights. Make of that what you will.

 

[SKL]

So, in other words, certain political opinions, i.e. the preservation of European/White culture, or, e.g., the criticism of certain malign Jewish influences on our political processes, or the problem of integrating Islam into our cultures, are beyond criticism? This is antithetical to democracy. If you're OK with that, so be it. But please absorb exactly what you're advocating. Not too far down that road lies a frankly Stalinistic sort of ideological tolitarianism. At the very least, we're talking about democratic centralism in which views which deviate from the aforementioned window are cast out and punished. So yes, be careful what you wish for. Remember, idealistic social projects have had a terrible track record in the lachrymose history of the 21st century, as far as ending in mass murder goes.

 

[spacejunk]

Discussion, certainly.
Public advocacy? No, i think some things need to be fought against.
What i am saying is more of a personal belief system than some set of rules enforced or defined by the state.
Thia is a major digression from the topic at hand, but i personally object to fascism in all its forms. My grandparents didn't fight against that shit for nothing.

 

[SKL]

Discussion is great, I like discussion, even with people with diametrically opposed political views. I understand what you mean by personal vs cultural opposition, but where does this end? Being opposed to public advocacy? Would you outright ban the Front National or the UKIP or the BNP or Jobbik or Chrysi Avgi, to take European examples? Or expression of any ideas that run contrary to your view of ethnic/cultural/race relations? Or should you and your ideological brethren just argue against them? Or should you take take "direct action" as the soi disant "antifa" leftist thugs take to disrupt political meetings, and so on, that are disagreeable to them? What do you really mean by "fighting against" public advocacy. Why are the Front national, the Chrysi Avgi, the UKIP, and similar organizations gaining in the polls? Is this not the voice of the people reacting to the excesses of the cultural Marxist agenda? What do you propose to do about this? Take legal action, which will do away with a venerable tradition of open political discourse, or actually listen to the complaints of the people, rather than the social engineering of the élites

BTW my grandparents also fought against "fascism." Sometimes I wonder if they were on the right side, but that's an entirely different historiographical discussion. If we're talking alternative history, fighting against the USSR, and then some kind of cold war against the Axis, might not have been an altogether worse alternative...the death toll on the Left certainly exceeds that on the Right...but we digress...