Guys I’ve got some bad news. Apparently there’s been a mass sexual assault at a German music festival recently and the perpetrators are said to be Muslim asylum seekers . This is heartbreaking to read. These horrible racist women might encourage more hatred against these poor innocent migrants, just because they didn’t like being sexually assaulted by them. Don’t these women have a conscience? Don’t they understand that their safety and well-being doesn’t matter anymore? The only people whose lives matter anymore in Europe are young military aged brown and black men who are fleeing from civil wars that seem to happen in every single brown and black country in the world. Unfortunately, these racist German women haven’t gotten the message yet it seems.
Three men from Pakistan aged between 28 and 31 have been arrested and police are still searching for three men who may also have been involved.
This is absolutely shocking. Who would have ever expected that young men fleeing from the brutal civil war in Pakistan would behave in such a manner? It is especially shocking when we consider the well known fact that women are treated so much better in Islamic cultures, than they are in Western cultures. Surely this report is mistaken. It was probably indigenous white German men who did it, but the biased anti-refugee media and authorities are just trying to shift the blame to the Pakistani men, due to a hatred of their skin colour. It’s the only possible explanation.
The attacks are similar to those reported in Cologne and other cities on New Year’s Eve, when as many as 1,000 women were groped and robbed.
You aren’t supposed to mention that. That story was supposed to be memory holed so we can’t be bringing it up anymore.
Police said three women reported being groped at the Schlossgrabenfest music festival in Darmstadt on Saturdaym saying they had been encircled then sexually harassed by a group of men.
By Tuesday, 15 more women had made complaints of being sexually assaulted in a similar manner at the festival.
They brought it all on themselves. They shouldn’t have been out without their burqas and male chaperones. Don’t they realise that Germany is now an Islamic country, and they are obliged to follow the rules of their new Muslim masters and overlords?
The three men who have been arrested are asylum seekers from Pakistan. All have been charged with sexual assault charges.
We must of course reiterate that these men are just fleeing from the brutal civil war in Pakistan. Germany was the first safe country they could find in order to claim asylum. They are the real victims here, not those women they tried to culturally enrich with their vibrant sexual practices.
Police have said the number of complaints could rise and are hunting for between two and three more men.
Many of the perpetrators were allegedly of North African or Arab descent and the assaults sparked a backlash against refugees throughout Europe.
Protests by anti-refugee groups swept the country following the New Year’s Eve attacks and support for refugees in Europe fell.
This is all so terrible. We can’t be allowing a few trivial matters like 1000s of sexual assaults and rapes put us off taking in infinity third world migrants. We need them in Europe because they bring vast benefits, benefits which are so obvious and are so worthwhile despite the odd rape or terrorist attack here and there, that we never need to specify what they actually are.
So you’ve probably all heard that recent story about how a child fell into a gorilla enclosure and the zookeepers shot the gorilla dead in order to ensure that it didn’t harm the child. Well a bunch of black people on twitter are claiming that this was racist apparently. No, this isn’t some crude joke comparing black people to apes. They really thought this was racist apparently. Check out this video.
And just in case the video ever disappears, here are screenshots of the tweets these people made.
See how they all cry about how the gorilla was only shot because the child was white. They claim that if the child had been black, that it wouldn’t have been shot because supposedly, black people’s lives aren’t valued as much as white people’s. There’s just one big problem with their complaints.
See these idiots didn’t waste any time pushing their ridiculous victim complex. They never actually cared about what happened. They just heard a story and without bothering to investigate it themselves, decided to bitch and moan about non-existent problem so they could further promote the usual “hate on whitey” campaign. To these people, the truth doesn’t matter. Only the narrative does. And you can be sure that none of them will retract their statements or issue any apology. They’ll just stay quiet and wait for the next opportunity to attack whitey over trivial matters again.
This is just yet another example of the big lie propaganda technique in action. They just keep shamelessly lying about everything until eventually, people just assume it’s the truth. They cannot be allowed to keep lying like this. They must always be exposed and treated with the contempt and ridicule that their idiotic complaints deserve. Nothing less will be enough.
So apparently male grizzly bears have in recent times been venturing out of their native territories and been heading north to mate with female polar bears. Instead of celebrating the vibrant diversity, racist scientists are suggesting that this is a negative thing for the polar bear population.
BARROW, Alaska — Most Alaskans and Canadians have a bear story — tales of fearsome grizzlies, even polar bears. But a mix of the two?
They’re known as pizzlies or grolars, and they’re a fusion of the Arctic white bear and their brown cousins. It’s a blend that’s been turning up more and more in parts of Alaska and Western Canada.
Last week, a strange-looking bear was shot by a hunter in Nunavut, a remote territory that curves around Canada’s Hudson Bay. Its head was large, like a grizzly’s, but its fur was white. The bear’s genetics were not tested, but Arctic researchers seem unified in their analysis: It’s a polar-grizzly mix. A hybrid.
I don’t know how they could possibly tell, when differences are all just social constructs that were arbitrarily invented in order to justify discrimination against grizzly bears for absolutely no reason.
Textbooks say these two species aren’t supposed to inhabit the same environments. Polar bears are marine mammals; grizzlies are terrestrial. But as the Arctic warms, sea ice is shrinking and the tundra is expanding. And the bears’ disparate populations are meeting, mating and creating a new breed that’s capable of reproducing.
Diversity is the Arctic’s greatest strength.
Those grizzly bears are enriching polar bear culture.
Eventually, those grizzlies will integrate and will adopt polar bear behaviour as their own.
Bears sharing both species’ DNA have been recorded several times over the past decade. So why are these two species linking up?
It’s called flexible mate choice: The bears are mating with the best possible partners as opposed to not mating at all, and they’re mating because they share relatively close territories and the same branches of the same evolutionary tree.
Intraspecies mixing between the two happened thousands of years ago, thanks to the advance and retreat of glaciers, and of late, it has been boosted by climate change. Scientists say it’s also probably been assisted by policies that protect both bears from culling and hunting, affording further opportunities for mingling.
The crossbreeds found in Alaska and Canada are not genetic anomalies. Scientists have found the mix in the islands off Southeast Alaska, where bears resemble grizzlies but contain polar bear DNA. That indicates decades of sporadic interbreeding, said Steven Amstrup, chief scientist at Polar Bears International.
And that’s a good thing. Bear diversity is the best thing in the world for polar bears. And of course, we all know that the true definition of diversity means mixing polar bears out of existence.
The polar-grizzly cocktail is also far from the only recent animal hybrid. The coywolf — a coyote-dog-wolf amalgamation — and a lynx-bobcat mix have been popping up along the northern Atlantic coast. The more scientists analyze species’ genomes, the more they realize that animals we label as “pure breeds” actually share DNA — and that includes us.
Many humans carry traces of DNA from Neanderthals, which means we’re all hybrids. It also means there’s no such thing as genetic purity. The concept is a romantic construct, an anthropomorphized take on nature. And what may be most surprising about this, researchers say, is the role interbreeding plays in the futures of endangered species — or, as the case may be with polar bears, accelerating their end.
So they literally outright admitted it. That grizzly bears moving into polar bear territory and interbreeding with them, will inevitably end in the destruction of polar bears as a unique group. Sure, their genetics will be passed on to their hybrid descendants, but there will not be any more actual polar bears in the future if this keeps up.
Amstrup has studied bears in the Arctic since the 1970s and was instrumental in helping list the polar bear as a threatened species in 2008. He, like other experts, characterizes this “new” bear relationship as more beneficial to grizzlies than polar bears. That’s because there are more grizzlies than polar bears and because grizzly territory is expanding while polar bear territory is contracting. What that adds up to is a good chance grizzlies could essentially dilute the polar bear population until it doesn’t exist at all, they say.
Replace the words “polar ” with “white”, “bear” with “people”, and “grizzlies” with “non-white”, and you’ll get the point I’m trying to make by posting this article (just in case it wasn’t obvious already).
Polar bears are getting the short end of the stick in this relationship, not “gaining any genetic diversity,” said Geoff York, who led research on polar bears at the World Wildlife Fund for almost a decade before joining Amstrup at PBI.
Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological studies at the University of Alberta, has spent three decades studying bears throughout the Arctic. He, too, has a sobering view about where the hybridization is heading.
“I hate to say it, but from a genetic perspective, it’s quite likely grizzly bears will eat polar bears up, genetically,” he told me. And he says the changes are already at play.
Again, the polar bears will eventually cease to exist as a distinct bear because their genetic distinctiveness will be overwhelmed by grizzly DNA.
All hybrids that have been analyzed had grizzly fathers, because grizzly males roam to establish territory and come in contact with receptive female polar bears. Female grizzlies tend not to stray far from their home ranges, and male polar bears don’t usually creep into grizzly habitats.
Exactly like what is happening in Europe right now. Just as how its male grizzlies migrating to polar bear territory and mating with female polar bears, it is almost entirely young men who are migrating to Europe from Africa and the Middle East using this fake refugee crisis as an excuse to do so. And then the primary victims of their sexual crimes are white European girls and women, many of whom are actually welcoming these men into their countries with open arms.
Polar bears need the ice — that’s where the seals and walruses they eat live. They don’t hibernate, and they don’t travel south of the tundra. Grizzlies, historically, rarely ventured north of the treeline. Permafrost is too cold for their liking, and they sink into the snow easily. (Polar bears have padded paws that act as snowshoes). Hunting is more challenging in the north, where prey is scarce. They’re not really swimmers.
But shifts are afoot.
“What we’re starting to see in the Canadian Arctic is three-fourth grizzlies,” Derocher said, referring to the offspring of 50-50 hybrids that then mated with grizzlies. “How do they act? Probably more like grizzly bears, living on land. As climate change continues, terrestrial habitat is going to increase, and the likelihood is the habitat for grizzlies, a terrestrial bear, is going to get better. That means a longer warming period and greater food potential.”
Derocher said it will not be long before we start seeing female grizzlies bump into male polar bears, further straining the polar bear’s genetic variation. “I suspect at the same time that that’s occurring, we’ll start to see polar bears on their way out.”
Again I think the point needs to be emphasised. They’re saying exactly what the future holds for polar bears if this continues… their extinction. It’s exactly what is happening to us as a distinct racial group, except it’s not permitted to be spoken about because apparently, speaking out against our own demographic destruction is “racist” and “white supremacist”.
Now again, I just want to make it quite clear that I don’t believe that white people should have supremacy over any other racial group. Nor do I hold any hatred towards other races, just because they’re different. I simply believe that all races, all ethnic groups have a right to exist, and a right to preserve what makes them unique. I value true diversity, not this ridiculous fake diversity that inevitably results in breeding us out of existence in the lands that our ancestors built for us. I don’t see anything wrong or evil about speaking out against our own extinction any more than any other racial group doing the same thing.
When will that be? Impossible to say, but some experts think that as the Arctic continues warming, it may be only a few decades, perhaps a century. There are about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Circumpolar Arctic, and “an order of magnitude higher for grizzlies in that area” and other brown bears, Derocher said. “It shouldn’t be a big surprise that grizzlies are moving north — everything is.”
So there are essentially 10 times as many grizzlies as there are polar bears and it’s expected that this will result in the demographic replacement of polars with grizzlies over time. Lets look at the global population of humans by race (keeping in mind that most non-whites want to move to white countries, because they’re usually the best ones to live in).
Right now, polar bears are also threatened by polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and other toxic pollution — primarily from eating seals and other animals affected by these carcinogens — that has been linked to brain damage, even causing some bears’ baculums, or penis bones, to break off.
And those outcomes could affect polar-grizzly hybrids as badly as pure breeds. No matter what bear ends up as the Arctic’s future apex predator, scientists say, if the issues up north aren’t solved, it won’t matter what bears are there.
Hybrids are “a normal part of the evolutionary process,” Derocher said. But if the ice disappears, “we won’t have grizzlies or polar bears in this area. If you roll the clock ahead another number of decades or a century, quite clearly it’s going to be no bears eventually.”
Yeah and I’m sure there’ll be no humans eventually too if things continue down the path we’re going. Western civilisation has been at forefront of all human development, and western civilisation is inextricably linked with the the European people. If we go extinct, I just can’t see humanity continuing to develop.
But of course, that’s just racist to suggest, because we’re all 100% equal in every way, and it doesn’t matter if we cease to exist. -_-
Three-quarters of refugees who entered Germany in 2015 are males, two thirds younger than 33 years old, with low working experience, a new study by the German national immigration service says.
“Don’t worry everyone, they’ll be paying your pensions, and using their skills to raise your country’s living standards to the levels of the countries they came from in no time.”
Germany’s Federal Service for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has released a new study on nearly 1.1 million refugees who entered the country last year, offering a closer look at migrants from a social perspective. Based on survey data collected from asylum applicants, it gives the first closer look at migrants’ social status, education, age and occupations.
The study, called “Asylum applicants: Social structure, qualifications and employability,” says that most of refugees who came to Germany in 2015 are young men. Most males, seen by country, come from Pakistan, followed by Afghans, Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. Under-22s make up the biggest proportion among the Eritreans (over 46 percent), the Afghans (40 percent) and Iraqis (27 percent).
“They’re just trying to escape from the Syrian civil war, which has since spread to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Iraq. Also the fact that the majority are young, military aged men, rather than women, children, and elderly, is nothing to be concerned about. They definitely aren’t an invasion force attempting to conquer you in the name of their desert God.”
In total, nearly two-thirds of all refugees are 33 and under, with only a tiny proportion of people older than 52, the study says. Young people predominantly come from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria.
“Again, let me stress that this is nothing to be concerned about. I know you would expect that these young men would be the main demographic staying behind to fight to protect their homelands in the brutal civil wars that are currently happening in every single non-European country on the planet. But that just isn’t the case this time.”
“What? You want me to explain why?”
“Well…um… that’s racist and sexist, what you’ve just asked. I don’t need to justify that accusation. I automatically win the argument by calling you those names. Anyway, lets move on.”
The study also covered the migrants’ literacy and education. According to the research, 18 percent of asylum applicants hold a university degree, 20 percent have attended a high school, approximately one-third a secondary school and 22 percent a primary school. Seven percent of migrants have no formal education at all.
“They’ll be working in the high tech, fast paced, modern economy in no time.”
While Afghans, Eritreans, Pakistanis and people from the Western Balkans have lower educational attainment, Syrians and Iranians are often better educated. 27 percent of Syrians and 35 percent of Iranians have graduated from a university.
Wow, there are even survivors from the brutal civil war in Iran there too.
The research is also the first comprehensive attempt to understand how to tackle the remarkable number of refugees already in Germany, given their skill set and qualifications. Many in Germany do not believe migrants could successfully contribute to the society as qualified workers.
Those damn Nazis are at it again. How could they say such hurtful things about the skillsets of the survivors from the brutal civil wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Last October, the Federal Employment Agency said that that 81 percent of asylum seekers were “without formal qualifications,” claiming that due to the heavy refugee influx there will be at least 400,000 additional welfare recipients in 2016.
“But don’t worry. Even though these 400,000 extra people are a drain on the country’s resources, in the long run they’ll somehow end up paying back more than they take. We just haven’t figured out how yet.”
Most male and female refugees were either “self-employed” or did manual labor before coming to Germany, the BAMF study revealed. Considerable portion of migrants worked in agriculture and service sector, while only a few of them had experience in trade, commerce or education.
Over the past months, Germany has seen a new wave of Islamophobic and anti-migrant violence, as the refugee crisis is polarizing supporters and opponents of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy of welcoming refugees.
Strange how this Islamophobia and anti-migrant attitudes seems to increase with greater exposure to these people. Their apologists always seem to make the claim that people who hold attitudes like these are “ignorant”. Yet it’s the people with personal experience who hold these attitudes, and the ones who condemn them are the ones who are sheltered from it. If I didn’t know better I would say that they are the ones who are actually ignorant, and that they are just projecting their own ignorance onto those who are actually wise to the truth.
Troubled by rising popular anger at the government, Germany has introduced a new set of measures called “Asylum Package II.” It puts limits on the number of admitted asylum seekers and also includes an attempt to integrate those who have already reached Germany.
Doesn’t address the core problem at all. It’s still going to have the same effect longterm (the replacement and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous German population). All this does is slow down the inevitable because there was the risk of a backlash for over playing your hand too soon.
Refugees will have to take integration courses, costing €10 a month, and to learn German. Otherwise they will be forced to leave the country and/or have their asylum revoked.
So lets recap on how the whole migrant situation has gone so far. I won’t bother talking about the increases in crime and the strain on resources, which I’ve covered to death already. Just a summary of how the situation has come about, and is being dealt with.
Angela Merkel (the other Queen Bitch) offers to take in “no limit” of migrants. Essentially any who manage to reach Germany, gets to stay.
This invitation gets out to the entire third world and everyone decides to come, pretending they are fleeing the Syrian civil war, even though many aren’t even Syrian, and even those who are Syrian, have to pass through Turkey (a safe, war free country) on their way to Europe anyway.
Merkel then decides to renege on her invitation by closing Germany’s borders, in order to pressure other EU countries to help out, even though it was her own fault for inviting infinity migrants into Germany to begin with.
Merkel begins to realise that many of them aren’t legitimate refugees, and decides to do a deal with Turkey to send fake refugees back in exchange for “real” ones on a one to one basis (even though none are real seeing as already pointed out, they’re already safe from the war once they reach Turkey).
Ok so now that that is all covered, lets talk a bit more about this deal. The way it’s being presented to the public is that it will result in less migrants coming in to Europe, something which the public would of course welcome after all the trouble they have been seen to cause. This of course is completely false and the reason why is obvious. If the deal involves sending one person back to Turkey, and then getting another from Turkey in exchange, then obviously that means the exact same number of people are going to end up In Europe one way or another. However, when you also add in the fact that Turkey has a population of about 75 Million people (more than every EU country apart from Germany themselves), and is about to receive visa free travel to Europe, then obviously Europe will still be overrun with Muslims no matter what and if anything, it will happen even faster now. The deal also allows Turkey to pick and choose which “real refugees” they send to Europe and they’ve made it quite clear, that they’re only going to send the worst ones.
European officials are accusing Ankara of foul play within the EU-Turkey refugee deal, claiming that Ankara is not allowing qualified Syrian refugees to leave the country.
Who would have ever expected that our great ally Turkey would try and screw us over like this? I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear of something like this.
Top EU officials have expressed anger at Turkey’s selective approach to sending Syrian refugees – currently living in the country – to Europe, according to Spiegel magazine.
They insist that most refugees coming from Turkey under the “one in, one out” deal are people with “severe illnesses” and a “low educational background,” stressing that it is Turkish officials who are exclusively in charge of selecting candidates for leaving for the EU.
Wow, I’m sure these severely ill and uneducated people will be a great economic boost to Europe. They’ll definitely be able to fill important job roles , and will be paying our pensions in no time. They absolutely won’t end up living the rest of their lives on welfare.
The hasty deal between the EU and Turkey includes a controversial refugee exchange scheme. Under the plan, Syrian refugees on the Greek islands are being returned to Turkey, while EU countries are taking asylum seekers currently living in the country.
Those poor, helpless asylum seekers in Turkey clearly are in severe danger. They need to escape some horrible danger in Turkey which only seems to affect them, and not the Turkish citizens.
At an internal EU meeting, a representative of Luxembourg said that the list of departing refugees proposed by Turkey overwhelmingly“contained [people] with serious medical cases or refugees with very low education.” The same tendency was reported by German Deputy Interior Minister Ole Schröder to the corresponding committee of the Bundestag, the lower house of the parliament, according to Spiegel.
During the same meeting, representatives of Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg reportedly told the assembly that over the past weeks Turkish authorities have repeatedly been rejecting exit applications filed by Syrian well-trained engineers, doctors and other professionals, who could successfully integrate into European societies.
Because they want to keep the useful ones who might actually have some value, for themselves. Europe gets left with the worthless dregs that remain. I’d also bet good money that the sick and uneducated will be the least of our problems. I really believe that they’ll send any of the ones who are known to have criminal backgrounds too.
Under the controversial migrant deal, Brussels has given Ankara exclusive rights to select refugees permitted to leave the country and re-settle into the EU. Previously, the UNHCR, which was in charge of this procedure, has been “officially informed” by Turkish authorities that Syrian academics will “no longer be allowed to travel to Turkey,” Spiegel wrote.
So in other words, they aren’t technically violating the deal. They’re perfectly within their rights to choose who goes to Europe and who stays in Turkey. Merkel and company did such a piss poor job of negotiating, that they actually were handed this power.
UN officials and rights groups have criticized the deal pointing out that deporting migrants from Europe en masse contradicts international regulations. Serious concerns also arise from fear that it could leave Syrian refugees unprotected in Turkey, and at risk of being sent back to a war zone they have escaped from.
Turkey itself is subject to international criticism for systematic human rights violations, including the ongoing crackdown on Kurds and suppressing media freedoms, undermining Brussels’ assurances that it could be a safe haven for those deported from Europe.
So now they’re suggesting that Turkey itself isn’t safe or trustworthy, which brings up the question… why are we making deals with them, and why are we allowing them visa free travel to Europe, if we know we can’t trust them?
Amnesty International Europe’s director, John Dalhuisen, previously told The Guardian: “If it is applied in its absolute sense, then the number of refugees that Europe would take would depend on the number of refugees prepared to risk their lives through other means – and that is staring at a moral abyss.”
Meanwhile in Germany – which championed the Turkey pact and has taken in over 1.1 million refugees –56 percent of people described the deal as “rather bad,” compared to 39 percent rating it “rather good,” according to April’s poll by ARD Deutschlandtrend.
Those 39% are fucking morons.
Notably, only 17 percent said Turkey could be a trustworthy partner, while 79 percent said it could not. In the meantime, France, the UK, the US, Greece and Russia are trusted more, the poll data showed.
But of course much like all democracies, the views of the people don’t actually matter. Even though 83% don’t think they’re trustworthy to deal with, the German government is going to deal with them anyway.
Let’s face it: Britain has an ethnic problem. Its patchwork of peoples, once the envy of the world, has become frayed, its harmony devolving into anger and xenophobia. And, we should be honest, the problem is rooted in one ethnic group – one large but troubled people who are failing to integrate into modern postindustrial society.
Hmm, I wonder which group could be failing to integrate.
While some of its more ambitious members have found success in politics and business, this community is falling behind educationally and economically as a whole, self-segregating into ethnic enclaves, becoming increasingly prone to violence, rioting and substance abuse. More troubling, in recent years they have begun to vote for ethnic extremist parties that threaten to undermine basic British values.
Sounds like the above group alright.
Who are these people? The English. Once a tolerant, welcoming people who thrived in scholarship and commerce, they have become a drag on British society.
Wow so according to this guy, the English people are somehow wrong for pursuing their own ethnic interests in the land that they and their ancestors built, and which they are indigenous to. What kind of fucked up logic is that?
They have become Britain’s problem group. Government figures show that “white English” students are now outperformed in school results by British children of Bangladeshi, Ghanaian, Indian, Sierra Leonean, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese and Nigerian ancestry.
The link above just goes to an old Guardian article which states that these Ethnic groups are apparently outperforming British kids in school. The actual report isn’t shown, so I can neither confirm or deny how accurate this is.
This was not always the case: A decade ago, it seemed as if Britons with darker skin colours were trapped behind the English in education and income. But it’s all changed: In 2009, Bangladeshi-British kids soared ahead of the English; black African kids caught up with them in 2010 and Pakistani kids are on course to pass them this year.
Well extra help from private tutors definitely pays dividends.
Unlike the island’s other ethnic groups, low-income members of the English community seem determined to stay poor and uneducated. Britain’s Department of Education has published figures listing how many low-income children achieved passing grades in secondary school in 2012. Sixty per cent of black African and Bangladeshi students did, about half of Pakistanis and black Caribbean kids did, 40 per cent of Indians did – and only three in 10 “white British” (mainly English) kids did, putting them at the bottom of the list.
Again, he doesn’t actually link to the report itself, so we can’t confirm if those figures are accurate or not. Although I would like to point out that it’s interesting how he’s only comparing the poorest members of each ethnic group to each other. I wonder why he doesn’t compare each ethnic group as a whole to each other, to find out the percentages that pass then. It’s very misleading to write an article complaining about all English people, when he only talks about an alleged issue with the poorest of them.
On top of this – or perhaps because of it – the English are now self-segregating into isolated, and sometimes impoverished, uni-ethnic enclaves. Some 600,000 white English people moved out of the mixed-ethnicity districts of London between 2001 and 2011 for less integrated areas, while other ethnic groups moved into areas of higher diversity.
“HOW DARE THESE ENGLISH PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEMSELVES!!!”
If so many people are desperately fleeing diversity, then is that not a sign that it isn’t a good thing? You can be sure that this prick probably doesn’t live in a very diverse neighbourhood himself, all while he lectures others for trying to do the same.
The English are more prone than other groups to drop out of school early, to live on welfare benefits, to become unhealthy and to engage in crime. In measures of alcohol abuse, “trouble with police while drinking” and lawbreaking, they outrank any other ethnic group in Britain (except the Irish). Riots led by ethnic English youths tore the cities of England apart in the summer of 2011, while ethnic Turks, Bangladeshis and Africans guarded shops and became heroes for rescuing people from the riots. There is a constant sense that the poor English are about to break out in violence.
It might have something to do with sheer numbers. There are more people of English and Irish descent in Britain, than there are of Africans, Turks, Asians etc (at least for now) so it stands to reason that in “real numbers” they may very well riot more. However, if you were to compare on a “per capita” basis, I would bet that other groups commit far more trouble in proportion to their population sizes, especially when you bring in other serious crimes such as rapes, child molestation, and terrorism as well.
This was one thing when it was all kept inside the English community, but it is now beginning to affect Britain’s future. Growing numbers of the ethnic English are casting votes for the extremist UK Independence Party, which seeks to end immigration and pull Britain out of Europe. The party seems poised to capture a third of Britain’s seats in next year’s European Parliament elections.
UKIP are extremists now apparently -_-
They are unlikely to win seats in national elections – they tend to spoil the Tory vote – but their threat has caused the English community’s traditional party, the Conservatives, to become less moderate. Prime Minister David Cameron has recently taken a weird turn into anti-immigrant nastiness, denying benefits to newcomers (even though immigrants rarely claim unemployment benefits) and buying into an implausible media theory about Romanians and Bulgarians flooding the country, all to appease the ethnic English.
Why should newcomers be entitled to benefits, when they haven’t contributed anything to the pot? And if they really do so rarely claim benefits anyway, then why does it matter if they’re denied them? If they aren’t going to claim anyway, then they aren’t going to be affected by this decision. If they work for a while and then become unemployed later, they should be as entitled as anyone else to claim benefits, because they would have paid taxes through working at that point. Otherwise, fuck them. They don’t deserve anything just for showing up inside Britain’s borders.
These xenophobic attitudes are harming Britain’s economy. As the Economist recently wrote, the Prime Minister’s pledge to drive immigration below 100,000 a year has done serious damage – steep visa fees, quotas and restrictions have driven away foreign students, educated elites and investors, while many British companies are moving their operations overseas, where it’s easier to hire the best workers. And it is causing a fiscal crisis – according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, immigration rates will need to double if national debt is to be lowered to half its level (and UKIP’s immigration freeze would double public debt).
Britain needs more of these super geniuses in order to maintain their position in the world. Sure, the countries they come from are often miserable hellholes which they are seemingly unable to improve but somehow, they’re needed to make Britain great.
Don’t get me wrong about the English. I know quite a few English people who are rather decent (including my dear old Mum and Gran), and their culture is not without its charm. But they need help. Ethnic English numbers are growing, and if they’re allowed to gain any more influence in British society, they could be trouble.
And this is where it ends. It’s essentially satirising what people say about non-indigenous groups increasing in number and gaining influence, except it completely misses the point entirely as to why this is an issue. There is nothing wrong with Ethnic English growing in numbers in England, because England is their homeland, and they should be the ones to decide its path. England’s culture and values should be a representation of the Ethnic English people. If other, non-indigenous groups don’t like that, then they always have their own homelands, which they can return to quite freely if they choose. There is always a land where their cultures and values can be practiced and this isn’t under threat by the English people living in England. On the other hand, if Ethnic English people are surpassed in England by another ethnic group, who wish to impose their culture and values on England, then they have nowhere escape to. They have to submit to the will of the other group.
It always seems to be this prick. Every single time I hear about a leading Muslim in Ireland demanding something, it always seems to be him.
said Ireland was “almost unique” among EU countries in not having such laws which “would enable gardaí pursue hate-criminals with the fullest rigour and bring them to justice”.
Surely if someone commits an actual crime, the Gardaí can pursue them just fine under existing laws. Why do we need specific laws against “hate”? Is feeling the emotion of hatred somehow a crime in itself now?
He was speaking after a recent attack on Muslims in Dublin.
This goes back to my previous point. Assault is already illegal. Why should it matter that the victims were Muslims? Do Muslims occupy a higher position on the victimhood hierarchy, which means that a random assault on them is somehow worse than an assault on an indigenous Irish person? One minute, we’re all equal, but the next minute, we’re not all equal, and certain groups need special treatment.
Brothers Naqeeb Ahmadzai (18) and Fazalrahman Ahmadzai (20), along with their nephew Abdul (13), were punched, kicked and beaten unconscious by four men as they were cycling home from Marlay Park in Rathfarnham last week.
A crime which I fully condemn. I do feel sympathy for the victims. However it isn’t any more, or any less terrible, than if they had been three white Irish lads instead. In either case, it’s a group of innocent people being attacked by a bunch of scumbags. These scumbags don’t need a reason to cause trouble like this. They just do it. The end result and the suffering of the victims is the same, so the punishment for the crime should therefore be the same.
It is understood gardaí have detained two men in connection with the incident.
So the existing system works then?
Dr Selim said a Muslim man had recently been attacked in Dublin’s Thomas Street while a group of men had “brutally beaten” another Muslim man who was making a delivery in a Dublin suburb.
Again, I condemn these crimes, but if we’re going to play this game of cherry picking random crimes that fit our narrative, to talk about, then why don’t we look at the number of crimes that Muslims have committed against European people, weigh them up against the crimes that European people have committed against Muslims, adjust for population size, and find out which group is committing the most crimes against the other, proportionally speaking. I don’t have a complete set of data for this, but from looking at muslimstatistics.wordpress.com, the data I have seen  suggests that they commit far more crimes per capita than the indigenous populations do.
He was aware that the great majority of the Irish people were totally opposed to such attacks and praised gardaí for the speed with which they had dealt with the Rathfarnham incident.
Nothing to add here. Of course the majority of us are opposed to these attacks, as we would be opposed to attacks against ANY innocent people like this.
Fear and hatred
Speaking at a meeting of The Three Faiths Forum (which represents Jews, Christians, and Muslims) in Dublin’s Mansion House on Tuesday, he said there were some who stoked up fear and hatred towards Muslims in Ireland.
It might have something to do with seeing the effects that mass Muslim immigration is having on Europe, in terms of terrorism and sexual assaults. Pattern recognition is something quite natural, and when we notice a scary pattern, it is natural for us to develop a fear and hatred of things that we associate with that pattern. Instead of condemning us for our perfectly justifiable fears, why not make a more visible effort in condemning the Muslim terrorists, rapists, and other kinds of criminals, who are giving your religion a bad name? Maybe then, we might trust you more.
Referring in particular to those who acused Muslims “of not integrating and forming their own ghettos”, he said they were “stigmatising Irish people.”
He pointed out that “more than two thirds of the Muslim population in Ireland” were Irish “by birth or naturalistion”.
You may have Irish citizenship, but we Irish are a distinct and unique ethnic group, as distinct and unique as any other ethnic group on the planet. Inhabiting the island of Ireland does not make you Irish.
Look, I’m not saying that Muslims (or any other minority group for that matter) should be treated as inferior to Irish people in Ireland. I’m just making a point that ethnicity and geographical location, are not the same thing. In the USA for example, there are millions of people whose families have lived there for generations, but who still identify with, and take pride in their Irish ethnic background. These people feel a closer connection to Irish culture and history than non-Irish ethnic groups who are actually living in Ireland. Other ethnic groups in America such as Italians, Polish, Mexicans etc, are exactly the same. All over Europe, Jews throughout history have identified as a nation, with closer bonds to Jews in other countries, than with the majority group in their host nation. Ethnicity is important and citizenship is not the same thing.
Extremism was “not the exclusive practice of a certain group.
Stereotyping is a form of oppression,” he said, and that “to stigmatise every Muslim for a crime perpetrated by a Muslim is just like stigmatising every Christian for a crime perpetrated by a Christian. It is not fair and it is absurd.”
It’s funny because I don’t see the same complaints being made when every single German person is made to carry the guilt of the Holocaust, or when every single white person in America is blamed for enslaving the blacks (even though there were blackslave owners too). I do agree that it’s wrong to hold an entire group collectively responsible for the crimes of others within that group, but as I already pointed out above, there is a disproportionate amount of crimes committed by Muslims so there is more reason to fear them, than to fear other groups.
He emphasised that “the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination against Muslims after September 11th (2001 attacks in New York)…had no serious impact on Muslims living in Ireland.”
Irish people had “expressed their solidarity with Muslims in Ireland. Some visited the Islamic centre and handed over letters of solidarity.”
All “passed one message: ‘This is not you. We are with you.’ It is said a friend in need is a friend indeed. From our side, we were the first people in Ireland to condemn 9/11,” he said.
Well we are a very tolerant people. Too tolerant for our own good really. In fact we’re so tolerant, that I’m not sure what he’s even complaining about.
Remember folks, if Muslim terrorists launch any future attacks against America, the blame shouldn’t go to the terrorists themselves. It should instead go to Donald Trump, for saying mean things that hurt their feelings.
The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.
This sounds like a threat to me.
“We are from the religion of peace. We are a peaceful and moderate people. We are completely non-violent, and safe to be around. But if you don’t submit to our will, and give us what we want, we’ll kill innocent people in your country, and it will be entirely your fault.”
This is literally what he’s saying.
Trump recently praised Sadiq Khan for winning London’s mayoral race, and said he would be willing to create an exception in his policy restricting Muslim entry into the United States in order to allow Khan to visit.
But…but…but… the media led me to believe that Trump was a stubborn old fool, who only sees things in black and white terms, and would be incapable of compromising with foreign leaders on policy, for the sake of diplomacy. This makes no sense… IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!
So keeping Muslims out of America, will somehow result in America getting attacked more by Muslim terrorists. How exactly? If they aren’t in the country, then how are they supposed to make their attacks, when their attacks require them to be present to do so?
“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said.
Again, he’s literally saying that these “mainstream Muslims” have such little will of their own, that they’ll be driven into the arms of extremist recruiters, just because they’re offended by the idea of America putting the interests of its own people first and foremost. If they’re good people, they’re not going to kill no matter what. If they’re bad people, then no amount of appeasement is going to change that, as evident by the fact that Europe has been bending over backwards to welcome these people for decades, and they still keep attacking us, no matter how hard we try to accommodate them.
“Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”
Has it really?
Just because the indigenous British population have been gradually ethnically cleansed from their own capital city, and the new population have elected one of their own as its Mayor, does not prove anything. Is there even one Islamic majority country in the world with values similar to that of Western liberal ones? Is there even one Western liberal society which has a substantial Islamic minority of more than 2% of the population, where that minority isn’t causing trouble and is at odds with those values? Because I personally can’t think of even one.
While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete.
It will never be complete, because on the whole, they never ever assimilate. They just conquer. That has been the entire history of their existence, and there has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that this has changed. Again let me stress, that I’m not saying that moderate Muslims don’t exist at all. I’m just saying that a very significant amount of them aren’t moderate, and they never will be.
A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.
And with figures like that, can you really blame Trump for being against bringing them into America? If those figures are proportionally accurate, then of the 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, approximately 1.067 Billion would not report on terrorism, 800 Million believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and 320 Million support establishing Sharia law. However when you take into consideration that Muslims are allowed to lie about their true beliefs in certain circumstances, and that the UK are likely to have more moderates than in Muslim majority countries, then the true numbers might be even higher still.
Can anyone honestly explain why America needs these people so badly?
With the support for migrants slipping in Germany, following the vast number of sexual attacks these people have committed against indigenous German women, the evil Merkel led government is now turning to a new plan in order to keep up their quest to destroy the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of the German people. Their latest scheme is to try teaching the low IQ, highly sexually aggressive, drooling morons, that they’ve imported by the millions, how to obtain sex from German women through the art of seduction, rather than taking it by force.
Ultimately, they don’t really give a damn about what has happened to the victims of the sexual attacks, but they have to at least pretend they do, for fear of the backlash if it keeps on happening. This is because the ultimate goal of this mass immigration is to breed indigenouswhite Europeans out of existence altogether. They can’t have the migrants constantly raping European women, but they do want them to breed with them, and therefore need to encourage it somehow.
Of course, the taxpayer is the one who will be footing the bill for these classes. Just think about that for a second German men. You work hard, you pay your taxes, and those taxes are being wasted on helping a hostile invading force to outbreed you in your own country. This is cuckoldry on a national scale.
So lets take a look at the video itself.
I don’t know about any of you, but I really cringed throughout the entire thing. As always, the like to dislike ratio, and the comments on the video really tell a whole other story.
This really was painful to watch, but it’s at least refreshing to see that I’m not alone in my shock. More and more people are getting sick of seeing insanity like this, and that’s definitely a good thing.
Wow, these top EU officials are probably the greatest geniuses who have ever lived. They are literally threatening to fine countries, who choose not to destroy themselves by importing infinity inassimilable people from the third world to live on welfare, demographically replace their indigenous populations, and periodically riot and rape women and children. This will surely encourage Eurosceptic countries like Britain that it is in their best interests to remain within the bloc. What a brilliant idea this is.
Hmm, I wonder how much each “refugee” would cost to take in if you add up the cost of their welfare, as well as legal costs involved if they should happen to be one of the many who end up committing crimes? It might actually be more cost effective to just pay the fine than to actually take these people in. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I agree with the fine. Far from it, I think it’s a disgusting idea. I’m just saying that if you compare the costs of co-operating with Merkel’s insane policy (costs that are more than just simply financial), it’s probably a preferable choice to make.
The commission’s proposal will maintain the guiding principle of the current system that the country where migrants first step into the EU must deal with asylum applications.
And at which point they should be deported back to whichever safe country they came from (eg. Turkey) before setting foot in the EU. At least, that is what would happen if we lived in societies that based their decisions on common sense and logic, rather than virtue signalling and feelings.
But it proposes that when a country at the EU’s external border is overwhelmed, asylum seekers should be distributed across the continent.
Or maybe they should just take more proactive steps to defend their borders instead of allowing them to be breached by invaders so easily. But doing that would involve doing what was done constantly throughout history and nobody seems to have the stomach for that anymore. Again as I’ve pointed out time and time again, there is no civil war in many of the countries that these so called “refugees” are coming from. Then, in the case of Syria, where there actually is a war, that many of their neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates, have not taken in a single refugee from Syria, despite having the wealth to do so, and being racially, culturally, and religiously, closer to the Syrian people than Europeans are. Why should Europe take the brunt of this problem, when many of their fellow Muslim countries aren’t doing anything?
The commission has been trying to encourage reluctant countries, particularly in central and eastern Europe, to take part in the redistribution system.
“Encourage” is a funny way of saying “threaten”.
Slovakia and Hungary have already brought a court case to challenge an earlier EU decision to redistribute migrants based on a mandatory quota.
I wish other countries would follow their lead. Unfortunately, I reckon my own country of Ireland is too badly cucked to stand in solidarity with them. The majority here would probably follow Sweden’s example. I guess that comes from being so isolated from the problem and therefore, not seeing the truth. It’s funny how people would claim that “racists” (ie., anyone who rejects what is happening to Europe) are ignorant. If anything, it’s the opposite. Those who are rejecting it are doing so based on their first hand experience of dealing with these migrants, and the trouble they are causing. The ones who want to welcome them so badly, are the ones who have absolutely no experience with them at all. They’re the ones who are truly ignorant.
But commission officials say the outcome of the court’s decision will not affect their plans to overhaul the asylum system, known as the Dublin regulation.
Democracy isn’t about representing the will of the people. It is about enforcing a vague set of values whether the people and the legal system support it or not.
EU countries last year agreed to redistribute 160,000 asylum seekers across Europe in two years, but have so far actually redistributed only a small portion.
Central European politicians have been vocal about an earlier version of the proposal for mandatory redistribution that was released last month.
At the time, Czech European affairs minister Tomas Prouza tweeted: “Permanent quotas once again? How long will the EU commission keep riding this dead horse instead of working on things that really help?”
They’ll keep riding it until you accept it. They don’t want to negotiate or compromise. They just want to enforce their will on you.
Diplomats from eastern EU states have told this website that they are not “heartless people” and they are willing to help refugees in other ways, but they believe a redistribution system will simply lead to more immigrants arrive in the EU.
This of course is just common sense. The softer the EU appears, the more it will encourage people to keep on coming, whether they’re legit refugees or not. I mean seriously, is the EU supposed to just throw open their borders and let every single black and brown person on the planet, live here? Because if that’s the case, it’s a ridiculous idea, and will only cause us to destroy ourselves, rather than helping anyone else.
Turkey falling short
Along with the revised Dublin regulation, the commission is expected to recommend visa-free travel for people from Turkey and Kosovo on Wednesday, even if Ankara is not able to fulfil all the 72 benchmarks that the EU set as conditions.
Who cares about having a country meet certain standards before allowing them these privileges? Just because every other country in the EU met them, doesn’t mean Turkey should have to as well, before getting the same treatment. Turkey should get special treatment because they’re brown and Muslim, and not giving them special treatment would be racist and Islamophobic.
Sources suggest Turkey is falling short on a handful of the demands – for example issuing biometric passports, and granting visa-free travel to Turkey for EU countries including Cyprus, which Turkey does not recognise.
Other outstanding issues include data protection, fighting corruption, effective cooperation with Europol and state-level law enforcement agencies, and a revision of anti-terror laws so that they cannot be used against journalists or opposition figures.
Oh wait, they did mention journalists. My bad >_>
However, the commission will suggest visa-free travel with the condition that these criteria are met by the end of June, when Turkey is expecting visa requirements to be lifted.
Oh wow, I’m sure they can turn everything around in such a short time. And even if they don’t manage, sure who cares, right? We’ll just let them in anyway.