Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

pabloes

Banned
A sensitive topic but do you see terrorism and the resulting xenophobia in Western and Northern Europe to ever decline? It's obvious that too much multicultural society has failed with France, Germany and Italy being the main ones but also Spain is almost falling apart. Meanwhile the culturally more homogenous South Korea, China and Japan are doing good. They even started attacking females in the tiny Dutch town I used to live in and felt safe!

The truth is the reason for increasing xenophobia are subconscious - the odd foreigner or tourist is a nice, exotic thing. But when they become too many we start to fear displacement. Hence the growing xenophobia in the West and ppl of Prague, Barcelona etc. being fed up with tourists. Tourist societies like Morocco and Portugal being exceptions as they know their economies are too bad so they need foreign tourism to make a living.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
The answer is no, if they keep importing third-worlders into their countries. The third world is what it is because of the people who live in it. This is the inconvenient truth. If people call it racist, well, I could care less. Do you want the truth, or not?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
The answer is no, if they keep importing third-worlders into their countries. The third world is what it is because of the people who live in it. This is the inconvenient truth. If people call it racist, well, I could care less. Do you want the truth, or not?

Its not because of the people, or the ethnicity, or religion, etc.

The first issue, is that Europe does not enforce tough laws on criminals that come from other cultures, and thus grants them free reign to disrespect the host nation. Pretty much you are giving them a place to stay, free money, and not doing anything when they break the law. The only result you'll have from such methods is total chaos.

The second issue is the type of migrant they are bringing in: young males with no education or skills, many with radical political ideas. They don't bring the "hard working educated mid 40's family man" who wants a better life for his family, but the adolecent man who comes from a ghetto from a small violent village in Africa - an individual who had no structure during his entire life, now placed on the most civilized continent on earth. Its like bringing a wild wolf to live with the sheep, expecting him to behave like a german shepard.

Combine those two, and you have widespread violence.

And the third issue is that all of this occurs on a massive scale for political reasons, while the native nation (europeans) are essentilly disarmed and abandoned by law enforcement, while they still afford the bill.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
I dont understand how you could just say no, it's not because of the people. You realize what you said is just a theory, right? It is only a theory, just like my post. So how can you be so confident that you must be right and I must be wrong?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I dont understand how you could just say no, it's not because of the people. You realize what you said is just a theory, right? It is only a theory, just like my post. So how can you be so confident that you must be right and I must be wrong?

Because your statement is rather shallow, and not backed by evidence.

Huge number of law abiding immigrants from the 3rd world enter Europe every year, causing no trouble, breaking no law.

Also, more than half of the "3rd world" is of european descent (such as Latin America), or has a culture similar to europe.

Thus the problem lies deeper. And it has to do with radical politics more than anything else, allowing unskilled workers enter Europe who have no chances of success in such society, but at the same time providing them with welfare benefits. This creates a purposeless tier of society with nothing to loose, who end up indulging in crime.

I'm not saying you have to be in favour of massive immigration (I'm not, and I actually agree europe should stop immigration), which is clearly a mistake and is destroying european society. But things aren't as simple as you've stated.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
I see that you just called my post "shallow". How would you feel if I called your theory shallow? We might have different views, but that doesn't mean you should start insulting my view.

Also, you still have not answered my question. Why are you so sure that you must be right and I must be wrong?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I see that you just called my post "shallow". How would you feel if I called your theory shallow? We might have different views, but that doesn't mean you should start insulting my view.

Also, you still have not answered my question. Why are you so sure that you must be right and I must be wrong?

I didn't mean to insult you, just pointed out it is a very narrow and simplified view of the situation to say such a thing.

I did answer your question. I provided an analysis of what is going on from my perspective. There are other conditions that come from Europe, like the lack of law enforcement. This can be verified by data from immigration accross most countries: in place were immigration occurs without police enforcement, chaos and crime are usually a consequence.

What makes your point wrong in my view is the fact that there are 3rd worlders from different cultures who immigrate to other countries and cause no trouble. What makes my point correct in my view is that data from worldwide immigration implies the causes to be related to the conditions regarding immigration (being massive, unrestricted, uncontrolled, etc.).
 

wan

Well-known member
You don't seem to comprehend what I am asking you. I did not ask you who between us has the correct theory. I asked you why you are so sure you must be right. I did not ask you whether you have done your analysis. I don't care about your analysis. I want to know why just because you have done some analysis, that means you must be right and I must be wrong, to the point where you immediately write off my theory by calling it "shallow".

So, no, you haven't answered my question. I will ask again, why are you so sure that you must be right? Is there a tiny amount of room in your mind for the possibility that you might be wrong and other people might be right?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
You don't seem to comprehend what I am asking you. I did not ask you who between us has the correct theory. I asked you why you are so sure you must be right. I did not ask you whether you have done your analysis. I don't care about your analysis. I want to know why just because you have done some analysis, that means you must be right and I must be wrong, to the point where you immediately write off my theory by calling it "shallow".

So, no, you haven't answered my question. I will ask again, why are you so sure that you must be right? Is there a tiny amount of room in your mind for the possibility that you might be wrong and other people might be right?


Because it is the obvious conclusion anyone using logic and data will arrive after looking at the whole evidence. That is why I know I'm right. That is why I know you are wrong. Your point avoids looking at various details and simplifies it by saying "all 3rd worlders". Its an empty assertion from your part which avoids looking at the larger issues of the why.
 
Last edited:

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
Every country which has supported ISIS is doomed because of the law of karma will occur. This is including the UK, it is doomed and rightfully so.
 

wan

Well-known member
Because it is the obvious conclusion anyone using logic and data will arrive after looking at the whole evidence. That is why I know I'm right. That is why I know you are wrong. Your point avoids looking at various details and simplifies it by saying "all 3rd worlders". Its an empty assertion from your part which avoids looking at the larger issues of the why.

Two items:

1. You did not answer my question. I will post it again: is it possible at all that you could be wrong? And I don't just mean in the context of this topic. I mean in general. Whenever you disagree with someone, do you always think that you must necessarily be right and the other person must necessarily be wrong?

2. Pertaining to this thread, prove that you are right.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Two items:

1. You did not answer my question. I will post it again: is it possible at all that you could be wrong? And I don't just mean in the context of this topic. I mean in general. Whenever you disagree with someone, do you always think that you must necessarily be right and the other person must necessarily be wrong?

2. Pertaining to this thread, prove that you are right.

I already have done both. You are pushing for a question I have answered you, and also provided justification for it.

What part of my answer you didn't understand? If you base your perspective on evidence you are going to arrive to correct conclusion. Ergo if you follow logic and evidence, I'm gonna believe I am right.

If you can present opposing evidence I would be happy to change my mind. Go ahead and do it, no one is stopping you.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
I already have done both. You are pushing for a question I have answered you, and also provided justification for it.

What part of my answer you didn't understand? If you base your perspective on evidence you are going to arrive to correct conclusion. Ergo if you follow logic and evidence, I'm gonna believe I am right.

If you can present opposing evidence I would be happy to change my mind. Go ahead and do it, no one is stopping you.

You haven't answered jack. And I am starting to think you have comprehension issues, because you keep thinking I am asking you to prove you are right on this immigration issue, when what I really ask is why you seem to think you are always right, in general.

Secondly, you haven't proven that you are right in regards to this topic. The only reason you feel that you are right is that "it's the obvious conclusion". Sorry to tell you but that doesn't fly. If I were to claim that Jews control important American institutions, I could not just say "it's obvious". I would need to provide rationale for why I thought I was right. Similarly, you need to provide your rationale for why you think you are right on the issue of third-world immigration in Europe. Simply saying "it's the obvious conclusion" does not cut it.

Lastly, you probably don't even know that your "I know I am right" is just based on a gut feeling. Haha.
 
Top