Immigration Muslim Migration

You can't categorize them all as extremists though; only a tiny percentage of them are legitimate extremists; your depressed neighbor next door could be even more dangerous if he has a weapon nearby lol; many are simply very good and humble individuals, if you look them in the eyes and read some form of emotion during a discussion you could even build a normal relationship with them; Arabs and Muslims have been savagely de-humanized ever since 9/11; but I do see your point that there are angry, dangerous radicals among these western world Muslims as well.
 
"Arab" isn't really a precise ethnic group , take the North African Maghrebi Arabs and Syrians or Lebanese for example, what does Arab even mean considering not all Arab populations originated on the Arabian peninsula.
 
Sure; it will end in violence because of the intolerance perpetrated by people like you! xD. I think most humans have evolved beyond those crusader days when violence caused by religion was common place; yes there are still many conflicts in the Middle East due to religion but it seems those Muslims that migrate to the western world, for the most part, are more than capable of adapting to their host's societies.

Its not intolerance, it is basic self-preservation to be against replacing your culture and population with another one.
 
You make a valid point I suppose.
 
You make a valid point I suppose.

I think so and Japanese, Saudis etc. agree with that also.
US, Canada and other ex colonies can do what they want but there is zero reason to do that in Europe.
 
You can't categorize them all as extremists though; only a tiny percentage of them are legitimate extremists; your depressed neighbor next door could be even more dangerous if he has a weapon nearby lol; many are simply very good and humble individuals, if you look them in the eyes and read some form of emotion during a discussion you could even build a normal relationship with them; Arabs and Muslims have been savagely de-humanized ever since 9/11; but I do see your point that there are angry, dangerous radicals among these western world Muslims as well.

I agree, but it does not take more than a small group to effect changes, and if they gain acceptance or popularity, or even a blind eye then it is perfectly doable. I remember there was a survey conducted among Muslims in the UK recently, and as a proportion, an Islamic party supporting the introduction of Sharia Law would be as popular as any of the main parties in the UK at the moment, although for now they are still numerically weak, but growing rapidly. The problem is that we are headed for massive economic collapse - similar to the scale of the death-throes of the Weimar republic from a financial perspective. In that case (although the circumstances were different, we would likely have our equivalents). The political extremes rose as people needed a way out of the trouble, and it could have gone either way to the Communists or National Socialists. Here, the same thing could happen between Fascist parties and fundamental Islamic parties. Every year that there is increasing Islamic immigration, the strength of these ideas grows. We are pretty much setting ourselves up for a similar situation all over again, it's just a matter of time. We will have a massive economic collapse, but we don't necessarily have to have other (religious or ethnic) problems on a big scale if we act soon. It is both the logical and the good hearted thing to act now and lessen conflict later while we still can. I also do not see the need for significant immigration from anywhere while we have a workforce surplus an significant unemployment, and it's only going to get worse - especially when the economic collapse comes.

To me it seems cruel to not act, and not cut down immigration (including from Islamic countries, as everywhere else) and to prepare for the future economically. People seem to go head over heels to worship newcomers and forget about the people who are already here, and forget that the country in which they have grown up rests on the backs of generations of their hardworking ancestors, who are now being cast aside and increasingly maligned.

One doesn't need to be Nostradamus to see obvious consequences and obvious problems of the future.
 
I think so and Japanese, Saudis etc. agree with that also.
US, Canada and other ex colonies can do what they want but there is zero reason to do that in Europe.

Yep.

For example i would oppose mass immigration from the Western World to Islamic countries also, as it might damage their culture. Their house, their rules. That's already happening somewhat with globalization, so i can understand why many in Islamic countries do not have a kind view (especially of America) even before we consider the wars. Likewise, i would rather reduce globalisation in my own country, and also seek to preserve our culture and heritage from harm. A small amount of influence will let it naturally progress as it does through the majority of a certain period, although i think we are in a transitional period at the moment - Like any previous change, say Neolithic to Bronze Age or pre-industrial to post-industrial, but very quickly.

We'll there's an excellent example of the sort of problems that this can have in my own country, and i'm writing in the language. Almost complete cultural and linguistic replacement, and major changes (50% or more) in ethnic makeup. And yet we call it an invasion rather than a 'peaceful' immigration. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can be achieved by force of arms, but they also can be achieved through largely peaceful means. Simply having a superior status and higher rates of offspring survival. If you like squirrels, you can see the same thing in the squirrel world in Britain. Red squirrels largely replaced by grey squirrels, and now grey squirrels are under threat from black squirrels. I haven't seen much evidence for pitched battles between squirrels though.
 
Yep.

For example i would oppose mass immigration from the Western World to Islamic countries also, as it might damage their culture. Their house, their rules. That's already happening somewhat with globalization, so i can understand why many in Islamic countries do not have a kind view (especially of America) even before we consider the wars. Likewise, i would rather reduce globalisation in my own country, and also seek to preserve our culture and heritage from harm. A small amount of influence will let it naturally progress as it does through the majority of a certain period, although i think we are in a transitional period at the moment - Like any previous change, say Neolithic to Bronze Age or pre-industrial to post-industrial, but very quickly.

We'll there's an excellent example of the sort of problems that this can have in my own country, and i'm writing in the language. Almost complete cultural and linguistic replacement, and major changes (50% or more) in ethnic makeup. And yet we call it an invasion rather than a 'peaceful' immigration. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can be achieved by force of arms, but they also can be achieved through largely peaceful means. Simply having a superior status and higher rates of offspring survival. If you like squirrels, you can see the same thing in the squirrel world in Britain. Red squirrels largely replaced by grey squirrels, and now grey squirrels are under threat from black squirrels. I haven't seen much evidence for pitched battles between squirrels though.

Thanks, I like the British humor. :LOL:
 
I think so and Japanese, Saudis etc. agree with that also.
US, Canada and other ex colonies can do what they want but there is zero reason to do that in Europe.

Especially considering the high unemployment rates facing European countries today. I wish they'd make deportation laws more strict. If you commit any serious crime, you get beat up (yes it is necessary) and then deported.
 
Many people around the world are increasingly concerned by the elevating levels of Muslim migration to countries which are traditionally Christian. The main reason for this, unfortunately, is the upsurge in Muslim extremism accompanied by violence such as suicide bombing and car bombs. The attack on the USA on what has become known simply as 9/11 ranks near the top in the annals on infamy. In many, if not most countries, the Muslim immigrants do not assimilate into the broader community, preferring instead to form their own nationalistic enclaves. This does not help the other inhabitants to understand Islam or be more tolerant towards the Muslim people. It has been shown time and again, that first generation young Muslim men, in many instances, gravitate towards a gang culture which only exacerbates the suspicion of all Muslims.

cant speak on Muslims in Europe but in America, at least where I live, Muslims are not different than any other typical everyday person. The ones I have known in my life are just normal people with families who got to work, come home and dont cause anyone any problems at all.

Here, they dont live in "Nationalistic" enclaves. Some live in mixed neighborhoods and some live in places next to other Muslims.
They DO have more things in common with other muslims (naturally) and they like things that they're used to from their own culture, such as the food they eat, etc....(which is good, btw)

Most of the ones I have known personally are normal, decent people who came to America, in part, to get away from the Islamic terrorists in their own countries, whose majority of victims are overwhelmingly fellow Muslims, not westerners.

As for criminal-gang behavior there is only one federally recognized Muslim street gang in the entire U.S. and it's a Kurdish gang, that is located where I live since my city has the largest Kurdish population in America. But most other Muslims here keep separated from Kurds and vice versa due to prejudice toward each other.

Anyway, a typical African American or White American is more inclined to join a street gang or get involved with degenerate criminal behavior than most Muslims are because from what I have seen family honor is VERY important to them and sometimes a Muslim father will disown his son if he is involved with behavior like that, I have seen it first hand, here.

I have seen a Muslim father even threaten to disown his son just for making bad grades in college, here.
Family honor is very ingrained into their culture. And they would be shamed if their close kin were some kind of degenerate criminal.

When is the last time anyone in America ever saw an Arab-American on the street corner selling crack or heard of some Arab-American criminal organization going around robbing banks or some other general criminal behavior?
Doesnt usually happen, not in America anyway.

As for Muslims terrorists, the Muslims I have known in America all have family members who at one time or another have been killed by some terrorist group back in the Middle East in the past.
In my experience, Muslims in America HATE Islamic terrorists.
They usually hate them if for no other reason than the fact their religion is important to them and they see Muslim terrorists as corrupting the Islamic beliefs.

Just a few days ago, Al'Quada made a terrorist attack in Lebanon killing nearly 20 people in a huge explosion and injuring countless others.
They were killed for being Shi'ite, as last month was a holy month in Islam especially for Shi'ite Muslims. That is why many Muslims come to America in the first place, to get away from that shit.
And, in my experience most of them come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds, not some poor immigrant background, with Kurds being a possible exception, at least where I live.

They arent like some other immigrants who come to America, like say from Mexico, who really are creating a larger gang problem and drug problem among other things.
 
What has changed in 1000 years? Large scale immigration is invasion, you can call it multiculti but when you are replacing a population with other it is practically same as committing genocide.

It is genetically wise to resist invasions and keep your own genes alive, sometimes life is cold but that is the situation.
It was committed few times in history of Finland. Today's Finland is an amalgamation of Sami, Uralic and Indo-European emigrants. Do you want to purifie Finland off Swedish minorities for example?
 
I dont really care, im a pagan myself, dont like any of those religions. Maybe Judaism, they are not pushing it to others.
I can see that you are as tolerant as Muslims, or any other religious people. I have no idea why you would feel superior because of your pagan beliefs.
 
Its not intolerance, it is basic self-preservation to be against replacing your culture and population with another one.
It is intolerance in your edition, plus self-preservation has nothing to do with culture. People of all cultures can flourish, procreate and be happy. It doesn't mean that when you change your culture you and your kids will die.
Should we mention that you replaced religion of your fathers and mothers with pagan one? How is this for preserving a culture?
You only speak similar language to your ancestors of hundreds years ago, all the rest of their culture is already gone. I'm sure if your grandfather (500 years ago) resurrected he would have been very unhappy of you and your culture of today; your beliefs, your weird cloths, funny accent, haircut, music, food, gays, divorces, drugs, etc. To the point that he would probably proclaimed that "it wasn't worth dying for...".
And if we go 2,000 years ago, you wouldn't even understand "your" people, and you wouldn't really like to live like them, would you?
The only status quo of a culture is that it is everchanging.
 
It was committed few times in history of Finland. Today's Finland is an amalgamation of Sami, Uralic and Indo-European emigrants. Do you want to purifie Finland off Swedish minorities for example?

I'm sure you could find some Finns who would think that was an excellent idea. Generally, multi-cultural societies have more social conflict, sometimes in the form of violence but other times just in the sense of different groups not liking one another or not socializing with one another. When I was living in Ottawa, I heard some Anglophones say they'd like to send the French back to France, notwithstanding the fact that they were here before we were. I had to remind them that the real definition of "pur laine" is a Francophone who's half Irish and half Algonquin (although the Frenchies hated that joke). And I know a lot of the Native folk would like to deport all people of post-Columbian descent.
 
I agree, but it does not take more than a small group to effect changes, and if they gain acceptance or popularity, or even a blind eye then it is perfectly doable. I remember there was a survey conducted among Muslims in the UK recently, and as a proportion, an Islamic party supporting the introduction of Sharia Law would be as popular as any of the main parties in the UK at the moment, although for now they are still numerically weak, but growing rapidly. The problem is that we are headed for massive economic collapse - similar to the scale of the death-throes of the Weimar republic from a financial perspective. In that case (although the circumstances were different, we would likely have our equivalents). The political extremes rose as people needed a way out of the trouble, and it could have gone either way to the Communists or National Socialists. Here, the same thing could happen between Fascist parties and fundamental Islamic parties. Every year that there is increasing Islamic immigration, the strength of these ideas grows. We are pretty much setting ourselves up for a similar situation all over again, it's just a matter of time. We will have a massive economic collapse, but we don't necessarily have to have other (religious or ethnic) problems on a big scale if we act soon. It is both the logical and the good hearted thing to act now and lessen conflict later while we still can. I also do not see the need for significant immigration from anywhere while we have a workforce surplus an significant unemployment, and it's only going to get worse - especially when the economic collapse comes.

To me it seems cruel to not act, and not cut down immigration (including from Islamic countries, as everywhere else) and to prepare for the future economically. People seem to go head over heels to worship newcomers and forget about the people who are already here, and forget that the country in which they have grown up rests on the backs of generations of their hardworking ancestors, who are now being cast aside and increasingly maligned.

One doesn't need to be Nostradamus to see obvious consequences and obvious problems of the future.
Valid points. Immigration if needed should be adequate to needs of economy, in numbers, education and tolerance. I'm against of importing religious zealots of any kind to open and tolerant countries. This really can effect freedoms that we so cherish in our western world. I have no idea why would emigration officer let a man with a wife dressed in burka to emigrate to GB or Canada.
 
Especially considering the high unemployment rates facing European countries today. I wish they'd make deportation laws more strict. If you commit any serious crime, you get beat up (yes it is necessary) and then deported.
Is the beating reserved only for emigrants, or you wouldn't mind to be beaten when you brake the law too?
 
I'm sure you could find some Finns who would think that was an excellent idea. Generally, multi-cultural societies have more social conflict, sometimes in the form of violence but other times just in the sense of different groups not liking one another or not socializing with one another.
Surely it is a problem of mixed cultures. However do we have a choice in ever smaller global village of today and even smaller in the future? We just need to find a way to be more tolerant and inclusive to live together. Otherwise we are going to keep killing each other forever. Separation, building walls, segregation, embargoes, etc is not an option today, is it?
Check how accommodative to its citizens Roman Empire had to be to keep peace in its borders. Many admire Alexander the Great for being a tolerant tyrant, lol.

When I was living in Ottawa, I heard some Anglophones say they'd like to send the French back to France, notwithstanding the fact that they were here before we were. I had to remind them that the real definition of "pur laine" is a Francophone who's half Irish and half Algonquin (although the Frenchies hated that joke). And I know a lot of the Native folk would like to deport all people of post-Columbian descent.
Not sure what are the examples for, to show how difficult multiculturalism is?
And yet US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are ones of most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world. Most successful European country GB is of very mixed assent. Heck, you don't find a single country in europe of homogeneous cultural, religious, lingual, genetical past. It is all mix, mixtures and constant mixing, and it will never stop.
 
It was committed few times in history of Finland. Today's Finland is an amalgamation of Sami, Uralic and Indo-European emigrants. Do you want to purifie Finland off Swedish minorities for example?

Well considering it happened 2000-3000yrs ago and the makeup has not changed since that, I would not call it an everyday affair.

I have nothing against Swedish speakers, they are Finns, at least the ones that want that identity and most do.

I have nothing against natural immigration, that is based on marriage, work and business.
What we have is social immigration instituted by socialists and liberals with an agenda to destroy European nation states, funny thing is that they think this will end wars based on ethnic division. :rolleyes:
 
I can see that you are as tolerant as Muslims, or any other religious people. I have no idea why you would feel superior because of your pagan beliefs.

Finnish paganism is more about harmony with nature and remembering forefathers than religious dogma and organized religion, atheistic sprituality basically. :rolleyes:

Being against Islamic and Christian monotheistic religions that dont accept other religions and are or have been violently expansive in destroying cultures/beliefs is intolerant? :LOL:
 
It is intolerance in your edition, plus self-preservation has nothing to do with culture. People of all cultures can flourish, procreate and be happy. It doesn't mean that when you change your culture you and your kids will die.
Should we mention that you replaced religion of your fathers and mothers with pagan one? How is this for preserving a culture?
You only speak similar language to your ancestors of hundreds years ago, all the rest of their culture is already gone. I'm sure if your grandfather (500 years ago) resurrected he would have been very unhappy of you and your culture of today; your beliefs, your weird cloths, funny accent, haircut, music, food, gays, divorces, drugs, etc. To the point that he would probably proclaimed that "it wasn't worth dying for...".
And if we go 2,000 years ago, you wouldn't even understand "your" people, and you wouldn't really like to live like them, would you?
The only status quo of a culture is that it is everchanging.


Culture is the frame within your own heritage lives on, preserving your genes does not matter if they are lost to a foreign culture.

Finns have kept a lot of their paganism to this date with priests trying to stop it since 13 century, I would say it fits well in Finnish culture.
Many Finns are not very Christian but still very spiritual and feel connected to the nature and forefathers, pagan beliefs are common.
Considering you dont know Finnish culture or people very much you make big statements, so I will respond by saying that be it 500 or 2000yrs back, I would still have a lot more common to the people than to a present day immigrant from Somalia for example.
 

This thread has been viewed 1609 times.

Back
Top