|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:00 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
"The government" is an amorphous & large body of people with continuously shifting power.
Well I can't talk for every governments out there. But if we take the USA for example, voting republican or democrat didn't change anything to the recent wars, it only changed things at home like the obamacare. We all remember Obama's promise to end the war the day he got in office, yes? So I don't see the US government as amorphous and shifting in power as you do... only in home affairs, not international ones ( wars ).
Perhaps it is part of the whole illusion, yes? Toss a bone with home affairs so they can keep their focus on what they truly want, the war on Muslims?
And yes, ethnics already 18 years old and ready to work, another advantage to the list.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:19 PM |
|
|
Ok I read Bak's post. Well, what you say in the end is what we constantly hear from our beloved politicians: don't worry, everything is fine, everything will be fine. Well, it is not, the rumbling of the people reached deafening decibels, but certainly from Serbia is quite hard to hear (I am always amazed about the very far-away soothsayers, you have a crystal ball, Bak or what?).
My firm belief is that is not about Islam, not about religion and certainly not about capacity of Europeans to assimilate strangers. Those are only details on the top of the real problem. The problem are the north African type, the Negroids, as specified in the other thread.
Instead of constantly and simplistically reduce the problem at basic racism, everyone should meditate at the causes of the racism. Because for now, racism is the only instinctual possible answer to the real threat the sub-Saharan African immigration stirs up in Europe.
In France for example, immigrants from North Africa make up a very large proportion of the immigrant population. Their proportion is so large, and their difficulties with integrating into French society are so similar and so acute, that in a significant number of cases they are developing a North African or Islamist identity that is cohesive enough to form a rival pole of attraction. Instead of assimilating into a French identity, there is a tendency among some to assimilate into a permanent minority identity that could pose long term problems for the French state. The ethnic nationalism is a force that animates both socialist and conservative nationalist politics. One of the reasons the French Socialists fear the National Front so much is that many socialist voters support the party because they see socialist welfare policies and socialist opposition to "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" as a way to protect the interests of ordinary French people. And by ordinary French people they emphatically do not mean Roma immigrants from Bulgaria or Arab immigrants from North Africa.
I hear a lot of nonsense going up and down in forums, mainly uttered by naive youngsters whose video games are still bought by mom and dad. That Europe is deeply racist, that France discriminates immigrants, that France discriminates religions...
Boys, this is false. It is so false that it is even the preponderant cause which leads to racism today: the Negroids immigrants from North Africa benefit from way better life conditions than French people. Access to special houses with half price, free public transport, free health care without any taxing, ultra protective laws-do you know that today a contractor worst nightmare is having a negroid, and if Muslim is even worse, because he CAN'T fire him, even if valid reasons- and so on. All those issues finally steer a course between the Scylla of bigotry and the Charybdis of bland political correctness. From a 10% African population, prisons will contains a percentage of >70%, but revealing this fact is punishable by law. But if a solution must be find, what interests us the most are percentages, not speculations and cheap morals around racism.
Bad economic times intensify these tensions. Europe today is simultaneously creating depression-like conditions through the euro austerity drive, rekindling intra-European animosities as northern and Club Med countries squabble over whose fault the catastrophic euro situation really is, and, to throw gasoline on the fire, experiencing accelerated immigration from the east and south.
It is not at all clear that Europe’s leaders fully understand the risks they are running. Polls putting the National Front ahead in France should serve as a wakeup call: African mass immigration poses a serious danger to Europe’s social peace.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:22 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:23, 01 Feb 2014.
|
kayna said:
blizzardboy said:
"The government" is an amorphous & large body of people with continuously shifting power.
Well I can't talk for every governments out there. But if we take the USA for example, voting republican or democrat didn't change anything to the recent wars, it only changed things at home like the obamacare. We all remember Obama's promise to end the war the day he got in office, yes? So I don't see the US government as amorphous and shifting in power as you do... only in home affairs, not international ones ( wars ).
Perhaps it is part of the whole illusion, yes? Toss a bone with home affairs so they can keep their focus on what they truly want, the war on Muslims?
And yes, ethnics already 18 years old and ready to work, another advantage to the list.
You really believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of a "war on muslims?" >.>
American troops are getting out of Afghanistan right now (and i'm not sure it's a good thing, the Afghani authorities better be prepared for the inevitable Taliban re-insurgency) but you're right about democracy rarely resulting in any radical decisions. The democratic model results in a middle-ground.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:26 PM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
This is not true. If your family is devoid of hereditary faults breeding with your siblings will keep it pure. Mixing genes with others will bring in hereditary faults.
Too little genetic diversity can readily cause negative mutation. Breeding with a sibling is bad; breeding with a 1st cousin is slightly dangerous; but it's a moot point because if you've got a pool of around a couple hundred thousand (if that) there's easily enough diversity to make that obscure. You don't need to go around mating with people on the other side of the planet to avoid having a kid with testicles on his chin.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:45 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:47, 01 Feb 2014.
|
Salamandre said:
In France for example, immigrants from North Africa make up a very large proportion of the immigrant population. Their proportion is so large, and their difficulties with integrating into French society are so similar and so acute, that in a significant number of cases they are developing a North African or Islamist identity that is cohesive enough to form a rival pole of attraction. Instead of assimilating into a French identity, there is a tendency among some to assimilate into a permanent minority identity that could pose long term problems for the French state.
I don't like the separation between a French identity and a minority identity. Identities aren't static nor mutually exclusive. Is it that far-fetched to consider it likely that people could identify both with their heritage AND as French nationals? Sweden is also a multicultural country with lots of people coming from the Middle East. Yet I know very few people with that background who do not identify as Swedish. I guess French culture might be really, really exclusive though (I mean, you kinda have a cultural superiority complex). Is it?
Quote:
I hear a lot of nonsense going up and down in forums, mainly uttered by naive youngsters whose video games are still bought by mom and dad. That Europe is deeply racist, that France discriminates immigrants, that France discriminates religions...
Boys, this is false. It is so false that it is even the preponderant cause which leads to racism today: the Negroids immigrants from North Africa benefit from way better life conditions than French people. Access to special houses with half price, free public transport, free health care without any taxing, ultra protective laws-do you know that today a contractor worst nightmare is having a negroid, and if Muslim is even worse, because he CAN'T fire him, even if valid reasons- and so on.
If this is true then it is a problem. Immigrants should not be given more benefits than other citizens. That's a perfect recipe for creating antagonism between people. Equal rights are essential in a multicultural society. But why put the blame on immigrants instead of the politicians responsible for those policies?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:51 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
You really believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of a "war on muslims?" >.>
It is hard to answer. It is such a big subject after all. What if there was 5 good reasons and 5 bad ones to go to war, what would they feed us on the news?
Would they give us only 1 good reason?
Would they give us 3 good reasons?
Would they give us 4 good reasons and 1 bad, quickly followed up by a "greater" good excuse?
Would there be some genius with great knowledge of how the people think in that country that would decide which model they would feed us on the news?
Why did the US go to war in the middle east, followed up with dubiously timed "arab spring" all around... From who's perspective? The soldiers? The american citizens? The people taking the decision to go to war?
My political beliefs are that the people that took the decision are so obsessed with "winning" and "being on top of things" that in their heads, they think of the negative reasons to go to war before the positive ones. I also believe that feeling powerful makes them feel great. I believe, in that long list of immoral reasons, there are some like praticing the military to keep the shape, getting good oil deals, sucking oil from Arabs and rob them of power that way, disrupting Muslim countries around Iran without going at war with Iran because they are getting quite powerful technologically, reducing the growing number of Muslims, along with other guesses.
I don't bother talking about the good sides to it because the media already does it. Am I right? I dont know man. These are just political beliefs, and if Donald Rumsfeld called me on my phone to invite me to some meeting to discuss of future US intervention plans ( because I'm that important, of course! ), then I would attend it with lots of hidden recording devices lol.
There are plenty of aspects to Islam that I dislike just looking at, but we live in a society where it is, as they say, define or be defined. If you wonder what my opinion is, I just like to point the spot light back where it came from.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:09 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
But why put the blame on immigrants instead of the politicians responsible for those policies?
The blame is on no one. From my own "immigrant" perspective I can not blame others from dreaming to a better future. From my human perspective I can not blame politicians to play the only game still apt to make them re-elected. As I said, percentages is what interests me today: less than 10% immigrant population creates more than 70% of the criminal activity, which means both social and economic loss.
It is clear that we failed to assimilate those populations yet we allow 250000 new ones each year? For me it makes no sense: halt the immigration, concentrate on assimilation, and on top, stop the welfare paradise which is the source of the problem.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:09 PM |
|
Edited by kayna at 23:13, 01 Feb 2014.
|
xerox said:
If this is true then it is a problem. Immigrants should not be given more benefits than other citizens. That's a perfect recipe for creating antagonism between people.
Hey look at that, another bone tossed to the dog. It takes such a long time to eat a bone. What a surprise!
Such a law could be removed as quickly as it was created... but... You know what they say... it takes a lot of effort to do a small change... hmmm... now that I think about it, why is it that we say that? Where did that saying originate from?
HmmMMmmmMMmmmmmMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:10 PM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 23:14, 01 Feb 2014.
|
Totally off-topic here with this string but whatever.
blizzardboy said:
JoonasTo said:
This is not true. If your family is devoid of hereditary faults breeding with your siblings will keep it pure. Mixing genes with others will bring in hereditary faults.
Too little genetic diversity can readily cause negative mutation. Breeding with a sibling is bad; breeding with a 1st cousin is slightly dangerous; but it's a moot point because if you've got a pool of around a couple hundred thousand (if that) there's easily enough diversity to make that obscure. You don't need to go around mating with people on the other side of the planet to avoid having a kid with testicles on his chin.
Genetic diversity has nothing to do with mutation(except that mutation causes diversity). And there is no distinction between negative, irrelevant and positive mutation. They're all the same. The older the parents are, the more mutated genetic material they will pass on.
What the lack of genetic diversity causes is an increased possibility of hereditary traits to be passed on(these can or can not be mutations). These can also be negative, irrelevant and positive. Why did you think the selective breeding was done for all the horses and dogs and the like? To maximize amount of hereditary hip issues?
If both parents genetic material is pure of flaws, you don't want to introduce inferior material to the tree. That will only serve to bring those flaws, which didn't exist in it before, into the tree. (Of course if it wasn't pure you'll eventually end up with people who bleed to death from a papercut)
All of this requires extensive inbreeding in practise though, so don't go thinking that just because you are perfect(obviously) and your dad is almost as perfect, you will only have perfect kids together.
And if you absolutely must know, having kids when you're middle-aged, is worse in chances of them being born snowed up, than having kids with your sister. So there you go, now as a middle-aged man you can go procreate with your sister to maximize the odds of three eyed son. 
Though I feel the need to point out that the age of the mother is of much larger consequence than the father.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:28 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:31, 01 Feb 2014.
|
Salamandre said:
xerox said:
But why put the blame on immigrants instead of the politicians responsible for those policies?
It is clear that we failed to assimilate those populations yet we allow 250000 new ones each year? For me it makes no sense: halt the immigration, concentrate on assimilation, and on top, stop the welfare paradise which is the source of the problem.
According to Wikipedia (citing French research institute INED), the annual immigration from North Africa to France consists of about 50,000 people. I'm not even sure all of those get to stay. Either way, you have population of nearly 70 million. I'm having problem viewing it as a massive problem. To me, it's seems more likely the overrepresentation of those immigrants in the crime statistics are due to their increased likelyhood of being unemployed and generally feeling alienated from society. Reducing immigration won't help, you'd still have lots of "unassimiliated" French North Africans in your country, but reforming your welfare system, school, economy and labour market (so that it is more accessable to the unskilled) might.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:47 PM |
|
|
|
The laws in France are perfect to shroud the water gate immigration secret. The law makes a distinction between "immigré" and "étranger" (stranger). When they make the count, they include only the first group, which defines a stranger which legally resides in France, means he has a national card saying so. But since 10 years ago, an Algerian and many others from same area do not need anymore papers to reside in France, so here you have the trickery.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 03:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, it is not, the rumbling of the people reached deafening decibels, but certainly from Serbia is quite hard to hear (I am always amazed about the very far-away soothsayers, you have a crystal ball, Bak or what?).
No, because that would suggest being a gypsy, which would mean that I wouldn't be discussing this with you right now, but trying to break into western Europe in order to rape your family while the government goes "excusez-moi, monsieur, but I'd like to give you zis money I took from a white man zat earned it".
Lacking more mystic means of communication with the outside world, I have cousins in Paris who've lived there for 50 years or so and whom I stayed at while visiting the city myself several years ago. This is, of course, the only point in the development of your beliefs in which presumptuousness might have played a part in drawing rapid and erroneous conclusions.
Political carrion such as extreme leftists or extreme rightists have always thrived when the going gets rough. This is because of their uncanny ability to shift the attention of the masses to a scapegoat, carefully chosen so that only by selecting the said extreme option can this scapegoat be truly dealt with.
It's the rich who are to blame for the crisis; elect the socialists, and we'll tax their balls off! Sure, they'll just move away somewhere else and we'll lose all of their tax money plus their investments, but we'll show them.
Well, amazingly, that didn't help. We should've known, bloody communists, destroying not only our economy, but our national identity as well. You know what would help? A borderline racist and well-past-borderline xenophobic organization with a colour coded name which implies the Nation and something authoritarian (Front sounds perfect) at the same time. It's the negroids and gypsies that are to blame for social unrest and crime which was virtually unheard of during economically hard times among the lower classes in France earlier in history. They also get all these communist grants so they can take my job and ruin our economy... If I was in power, I'd kick them all out. The last thing we need is a culturally different minority that just waits to backstab us when we show weakness.
Meanwhile, the rumbling people's decibel levels keep going over 9000.
Of course immigration and welfare are an issue that needs consideration and reform. Of course. But those masses that seem to be rumbling right now would do well to understand that there is a distinct difference between addressing a social issue in a responsible manner and acting like they not only never read a single page of a history book, but don't know their head from their arse.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 04:08 AM |
|
Edited by kayna at 04:09, 02 Feb 2014.
|
Maybe a higher crime rate keeps the people preoccupied.
Maybe only farmers do support people on the welfare, since the concept of economy is a whole illusion. Well, within a country at least. It's only really useful when you trade with another poorer country. Or forge alliances by borrowing from each other. Stuff like that.
Maybe, just maybe... the people that governs Europe in general aren't as smart as the ones governing north America? Are you guys really, really selling your culture just so a few politicians can grease their pockets? Oh my.
Well, if we apply nature's law, the rule of the fittest ( smartest ), and we look at the American army, perhaps my assumptions are true. Perhaps Europe's politicians really are just petty, with no other purposes behind it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 04:20 AM |
|
|
How to be France, in two easy steps:
1. "Immigrants, instead of deporting you when you cross the border, we'll give you welfare instead."
2. "You're using welfare! How dare you! We want to go back to deporting you."
And the idea of no welfare and no deportations doesn't seem to occur to anyone.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 10:07 AM |
|
|
kayna said:
xerox said:
You really believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were part of a "war on muslims?" >.>
It is hard to answer. It is such a big subject after all. What if there was 5 good reasons and 5 bad ones to go to war, what would they feed us on the news?
Would they give us only 1 good reason?
Would they give us 3 good reasons?
Would they give us 4 good reasons and 1 bad, quickly followed up by a "greater" good excuse?
Would there be some genius with great knowledge of how the people think in that country that would decide which model they would feed us on the news?
Why did the US go to war in the middle east, followed up with dubiously timed "arab spring" all around... From who's perspective? The soldiers? The american citizens? The people taking the decision to go to war?
My political beliefs are that the people that took the decision are so obsessed with "winning" and "being on top of things" that in their heads, they think of the negative reasons to go to war before the positive ones. I also believe that feeling powerful makes them feel great. I believe, in that long list of immoral reasons, there are some like praticing the military to keep the shape, getting good oil deals, sucking oil from Arabs and rob them of power that way, disrupting Muslim countries around Iran without going at war with Iran because they are getting quite powerful technologically, reducing the growing number of Muslims, along with other guesses.
I don't bother talking about the good sides to it because the media already does it. Am I right? I dont know man. These are just political beliefs, and if Donald Rumsfeld called me on my phone to invite me to some meeting to discuss of future US intervention plans ( because I'm that important, of course! ), then I would attend it with lots of hidden recording devices lol.
There are plenty of aspects to Islam that I dislike just looking at, but we live in a society where it is, as they say, define or be defined. If you wonder what my opinion is, I just like to point the spot light back where it came from.
Wars are profitable (especially in the USA where corporations run the show) and a great political diversion from other problems... so, war it is
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 02:52 PM |
|
|
yeah the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were surely huge financial gains for the US... >.>
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 03:03 PM |
|
|
For the taxpayer? Of course not.
For the arms manufacturer?
D.C. politicians do a lot of fundraising from defense contractors and make a lot of money from inside trading related to military spending.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 03:08 PM |
|
|
If they really made money out of this, it's by capturing oil fields and sucking them dry. I'm not sure if they took enough of them to be worth it. Money is just money, you know, while whoever has the most money has the most power of influence, from a country s point of view, spending money means nothing if the people spends that same money back within it's own country and stash it in a bank of that same country.
It is my firm belief that the people running the show in the USA have some sort of twisted guilt since tossing two nuclear weapons back in world war 2 and now do not wish to lose their no 1 spot as a military super power out of a survival instinct. Going to war once in a while like going to the gym once in a while to keep your big muscles, so to speak.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
posted February 02, 2014 03:40 PM |
|
|
Que ?
1. What about the health care, what about the education system, what about yada yada yada ---- "Emm... war, we are at war fighting for our way of life, we'll deal with other issues at another time" - war as a political diversion 1on1 thats how re-elections happen
2. war profits...
Now, to those of you unaware of how things work, major corporations that make billions per year are the same players who give money to congressmen/women (so they can run) and those congressmen/women are in charge of legislation and decision making.... "puppet masters 1on1"
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 04:36 PM |
|
|
It's precisely why I said that big, important subjects often have many "good" and "bad" reasons why they happen. What you wrote doesn't contradict what I wrote, they re just both point of views of a broad and complex subject.
What you wrote is true, I was just focusing on a possible reason behind it rather than stopping at the "making money" part.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
