Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Dirius

Well-known member
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.


a) I have literally answered that, the reason I think I am right is because I'm basing my conclusion on evidence and logic, while you are not. That is exactly an answer to your question.


b) I did, by explaining the other issues you weren't considering, such as the lack of law enforcement, the massive amount of immigration, and the little qualifications the immigrants those countries were taking in - these 3 as examples to back my statement, which play a huge role in how an immigrant will adapt to a society.


I expect again you will not understand and ask me to answer you again? I can make some charts if you prefer, perhaps a drawing is more suited to your needs? Something with colors and pretty pictures maybe? :)
 

wan

Well-known member
a) I have literally answered that, the reason I think I am right is because I'm basing my conclusion on evidence and logic, while you are not. That is exactly an answer to your question.

You can't read. I have already told you, I am NOT asking you why you think you are right ON THIS ISSUE. I ask you why, IN GENERAL, you always think you are right. But of course, you will again not read, and come back with, "I am right on this immigration issue because of ___ and ____".

Do you know what "in general" means?

b) I did, by explaining the other issues you weren't considering, such as the lack of law enforcement, the massive amount of immigration, and the little qualifications the immigrants those countries were taking in - these 3 as examples to back my statement, which play a huge role in how an immigrant will adapt to a society.

This only tells me that you took certain factors into consideration. However, there is quite a bit of a leap from "I know there are certain factors", to "hence, I am right".

To give you an example, say I have a cold this morning when I wake up. I can say, maybe my cold is due to not having drunk enough fluids. Or maybe I exposed myself to the cold weather when I went out. Or maybe I was exposed to a sick person. All of these are "evidence-based", and they are all possible factors. However, I cannot say, "I know I am right", just because I could think up some factors.

I expect again you will not understand and ask me to answer you again? I can make some charts if you prefer, perhaps a drawing is more suited to your needs? Something with colors and pretty pictures maybe? :)

Please try to keep things civil.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
You can't read. I have already told you, I am NOT asking you why you think you are right ON THIS ISSUE. I ask you why, IN GENERAL, you always think you are right. But of course, you will again not read, and come back with, "I am right on this immigration issue because of ___ and ____".

Do you know what "in general" means?

Yes and if you apply the same answer from this issue to any "general" issue, using evidence to come to a conclusion, you end up with the same answer. I'll believe I'm right as long as the data backs it up. Thats how the scientific method works.

I'm happy to change my mind if you provide me evidence to the contrary, but you still haven't. And I've answered this already.
This only tells me that you took certain factors into consideration. However, there is quite a bit of a leap from "I know there are certain factors", to "hence, I am right".

To give you an example, say I have a cold this morning when I wake up. I can say, maybe my cold is due to not having drunk enough fluids. Or maybe I exposed myself to the cold weather when I went out. Or maybe I was exposed to a sick person. All of these are "evidence-based", and they are all possible factors. However, I cannot say, "I know I am right", just because I could think up some factors.

Well I didn't want to do a wall of text, so I provided a few examples.

If you compare the data from many minorities who emmigrate to different countries, you may notice similarities between the communities and how they develop.

Lets take some UK 3rd world immigrants: Indian sikhs and hindus. Most of the individuals who belong to this cultural groups have low crime rates, a high degree of integration, and usually fare better economically. They don't depend on welfare as much as other groups (such as pakistanis).

From one perspective, this is group who fills all the categories in your statement (from the 3rd world with culture largely different from Europe). Yet they seem to adapt themselves pretty well, and don't seem to cause much chaos. Interesting isn't it?
 
Last edited:

kalinka

Well-known member
A question from a german, who is irritated about the topic- when was Germany "great"? 1880? 1930?
"3rd worlders" aren't the problem. Just these unemployed xenophopias, which anxiety is that foreigners could take away their jobs they don't have or a non-christian church could be build in their valley, though they never had any real conflict with foreigners. I'm feeling very safe in my country. probably it comes off more dramatically for foreign countries.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
Yes and if you apply the same answer from this issue to any "general" issue, using evidence to come to a conclusion, you end up with the same answer. I'll believe I'm right as long as the data backs it up. Thats how the scientific method works.

I'm happy to change my mind if you provide me evidence to the contrary, but you still haven't. And I've answered this already.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that in general, you are always right, because you use evidence and the scientific method?

Well I didn't want to do a wall of text, so I provided a few examples.

If you compare the data from many minorities who emmigrate to different countries, you may notice similarities between the communities and how they develop.

Lets take some UK 3rd world immigrants: Indian sikhs and hindus. Most of the individuals who belong to this cultural groups have low crime rates, a high degree of integration, and usually fare better economically. They don't depend on welfare as much as other groups.

From one perspective, this is group who fills all the categories in your statement (from the 3rd world with culture largely different from Europe). Yet they seem to adapt themselves pretty well, and don't seem to cause much chaos. Interesting isn't it?

When I said "third-world", I meant in general. Of course there will be some groups that can and do adapt quite well. But this doesnt really mean anything, because the third-world is a huge group, and one is bound to encounter some success stories. The Sikhs and Hindus that you mentioned could very well be the exceptions. But in general, and yes I should have qualified the sweeping statement in my first post with this, third-worlders do more harm than good in host countries.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
A question from a german, who is irritated about the topic- when was Germany "great"? 1880? 1930?
"3rd worlders" aren't the problem. Just these unemployed xenophopias, which anxiety is that foreigners could take away their jobs they don't have or a non-christian church could be build in their valley, though they never had any real conflict with foreigners. I'm feeling very safe in my country. probably it comes off more dramatically for foreign countries.

Well crime has gone up in Europe since the recent massive immigration from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, so there clearly is a connection. And this is a fact. There is no denying immigration as its currently being performed in Europe is causing a severe crisis.

You may be safe, but what about the women raped and murdered? Do they need to agree with said point?
 

wan

Well-known member
Well crime has gone up in Europe since the recent massive immigration from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, so there clearly is a connection. And this is a fact. There is no denying immigration as its currently being performed in Europe is causing a severe crisis.

You may be safe, but what about the women raped and murdered? Do they need to agree with said point?
Omg! This is the first post of yours I agree with in this thread.
 

kalinka

Well-known member
Women are raped and murdered also from german men. There is just more media presence, especially from right-wing conservatives, when it happens through foreigners. The criminal rate of foreigners and german is quite the same.
 

wan

Well-known member
Women are raped and murdered also from german men. There is just more media presence, especially from right-wing conservatives, when it happens through foreigners. The criminal rate of foreigners and german is quite the same.

Why can't these foreigners stay in their home countries? Why did they have to come to Germany?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that in general, you are always right, because you use evidence and the scientific method?

Yes that is my answer wan, I base my responses on evidence which leads me to believe I am right. Sometimes I am wrong because the evidence I had was incomplete or just wrong, which at those times I have admited my mistaken and changed my mind.

But obviously while the evidence I'm using holds, I'm gonna believe I am right.

When I said "third-world", I meant in general. Of course there will be some groups that can and do adapt quite well. But this doesnt really mean anything, because the third-world is a huge group, and one is bound to encounter some success stories. The Sikhs and Hindus that you mentioned could very well be the exceptions. But in general, and yes I should have qualified the sweeping statement in my first post with this, third-worlders do more harm than good in host countries.

No they don't. Indians are actually the major "minority" foreign born group in the UK, so they are the rule not the exception, so they can't be doing more harm than good.

The reason why they can succeed in the UK and not cause trouble is because they at large are more qualified, more entrepeneural, have less children, and depend less on welfare.

The reason other groups, such as pakistanis, are responsible for the majority of crimes committed by minorities in the UK, is because most amount of pakistanis that migrate to the UK are usually low skilled workers that won't be able to succeed in the british economic market. The usual consequence is a separation from the rest of the population for employment issues, which creates this guettos, in which immigrants only interact with each other. We can also factor in:

- Government welfare, which allows them to have large families (one man, with 7 children) - something otherwise imposible to sustain for a low skilled worker
- Lack of enforcement of proper laws: the government being too afraid to properly use police to take care of this communities.

This eventually leads to a huge number of young unemployed males (either foreign born or british born) who get used to a lack of authority from the state, while at the same time enjoying its benefits. This leads to crime, rape and murder.

If you have evidence that disproves this, I'm happy to admit I am wrong. But what I have stated can be replicated to immigration situations from many countries during different periods of time.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Why can't these foreigners stay in their home countries? Why did they have to come to Germany?

Because Germany offers them free money, free health care, and does not enforce laws upon them (because it would be "racist").

To be plain, because Germany is a cuck nation offering free invitations to anyone willing to join the party, so they accept because its profitable.
 

kalinka

Well-known member
Why can't these foreigners stay in their home countries? Why did they have to come to Germany?

What's your fear? That other people with other ethnicity could opress your culture? Think about america... national borders are man-made walls.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Omg! This is the first post of yours I agree with in this thread.

Wan you and I are on the same camp ideologically.

I think mass immigration has devastated Europe.

What I object is that this is because of "culture" or "ethnicity" (not that you implied the latter, just mentioning it). Many people who are from the 3rd world emmigrate to other nations and become law abiding citizens who contribute greatly to the host nation, respect it, and love it as their own homeland.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Women are raped and murdered also from german men. There is just more media presence, especially from right-wing conservatives, when it happens through foreigners. The criminal rate of foreigners and german is quite the same.


The rate to which this occurs in relation to nationality is much higher for immigrants than it is for native born europeans.
 

wan

Well-known member
Yes that is my answer wan, I base my responses on evidence which leads me to believe I am right. Sometimes I am wrong because the evidence I had was incomplete or just wrong, which at those times I have admited my mistaken and changed my mind.

But obviously while the evidence I'm using holds, I'm gonna believe I am right.

What if the person you are disagreeing with also bases his response on evidence and also uses the scientific method, and yet the two of you still arrive at radically different conclusions? Are you still always right? Also, what if the debate you are having is not based on matters of fact, but rather, it is philosophical in nature, where facts and evidence are less important (if at all)? Will you still be always right?


No they don't. Indians are actually the major "minority" foreign born group in the UK, so they are the rule not the exception, so they can't be doing more harm than good.
I am not talking about immigrants in the UK. I am talking about the third-world immigrants as a group.

The reason why they can succeed in the UK and not cause trouble is because they at large are more qualified, more entrepeneural, have less children, and depend less on welfare.

You need to prove the causal relationship, which is what your post implies. You need to prove that the reason these groups succeed in the UK is because they are qualified, more entrepeneurial, have fewer children etc etc.

The reason other groups, such as pakistanis, are responsible for the majority of crimes committed by minorities in the UK, is because most amount of pakistanis that migrate to the UK are usually low skilled workers that won't be able to succeed in the british economic market. The usual consequence is a separation from the rest of the population for employment issues, which creates this guettos, in which immigrants only interact with each other. We can also factor in:

- Government welfare, which allows them to have large families (one man, with 7 children) - something otherwise imposible to sustain for a low skilled worker
- Lack of enforcement of proper laws: the government being too afraid to properly use police to take care of this communities.

This eventually leads to a huge number of young unemployed males (either foreign born or british born) who get used to a lack of authority from the state, while at the same time enjoying its benefits. This leads to crime, rape and murder.
Again, you need to prove the causal relationship. You need to prove that these things are caused by easy access to welfare and lack of law enforcement. Just because two things happen pretty closely, it does not mean one is caused by another.
 

wan

Well-known member
What's your fear?

Did I say I fear immigration? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Think about america... national borders are man-made walls.

Then your property and the house on it are also "man-made walls". I suppose if I invade your home and start living in your bedroom, you will have no problem at all?
 

kalinka

Well-known member
You are speaking about those, who represent a criminal danger. Not all immigrants want to take your money and rape your wife. And no- if they are an enrichment for my country, why I should have any problem with? It's about a risk group of foreigners and that for sure cannot be ignored. We have to distinguish between those who live acknowledged and those who have no perspective. While those with a perspective tend to commit crimes below average, people with no prospect of staying and jobs are frequently than average more criminal.
 
Top