Migrant Rape Fears Spread Across Europe

I hear the Valkyries cry.

I was handed a free gift certificate for an adult education class entitled "goosestepping - advanced maggot mashing techniques" which I'm sure you'd appreciate. I'll leave it at the desk.

 

And it is getting louder every day.

 

Germany and Sweden are at the centre pf the european migrant crisis. Yes, most refugees are still in the middle east. The truth is that only the most well off can afford going to europe. The worst off are left behind. Yet we are spending most of our resources helping the relatively few who come here, instead of the many who are still there. As I have said, if you really want to help people, you do not want to do it by immigration, because its ineffective. Most people are in the middle east and most will remain there. Most dont want to leave. We shouldnt give luxuries to migranta here when we can help people in the ME get basic needs met. Quite frankly, it is immoral to do what e.g. Sweden is doing now. It is outright immoral. We should help them where it helps the best, where it helps the cheapest. We should help those most in need. We should help them stay near their own countries and help them get back to their old homes. That is the opposite of what we are doing now. Immigration can never solve this. As you say, we only get 5% to europe and still everything went chaotic. We could not possible manage even 10%. Why not help the 95% instead of the 5%? And dont tell me we can do both. We do not have infinite resources and clearly no one is willing to give up everything to help. We have a set amount of money we are willing to give to help, and every krona spent helping someone in sweden means we chose not to help ten others in the middle east. It is immoral and reprehensible.

 

these middle eastern countries are already overwhelmed though, can we really expect them to take a double digit percentage increase in refugees?

I told you before that every country that doesn't help makes the burden that much bigger for the counters that do help. If European countries choose to take in no refugees they make the burden that much greater for middle eastern countries... however, I don't want to focus too much on European countries, because I believe it is the US in particular who should be playing a bigger role in this refugee crisis, having played a big part in destabilizing that region.

Back when there was a refugee crisis following the Vietnam war the US took in 800,000 out of 1.3 million south east Asian refugees

 

the middle eastern countries have 95% of the refugees, and most refugees are never even going to try to get to europe, and that is why we should spend our money on helping them there, and not here. yes, those countries are overwhelmed, which is exactly why they need our support.

There's some 20 million refugees in the world. No way in hell are any large percentage of them comming to the west. And any money spent on helping a tiny percentage that do come here, is money not spent on helping the majority who does not come here. Immigration is simply not a solution to this. it's probably the most ineffective, measuerd by how many people you help per money spent. And regardless of wheter the refugees are helped by it, western countries already have enough problems with immigration as it is. Even if all of europe openen itself up to refugees, that wouldn't be enough and it wouldn't be effective. here's the thing: 1. We are not willing to spend all our money on helping refugees. 2. Everyone moving here is not an option. 3. it's more effective to help them over there. 4. Therefore, we would help more if we help them over there, rather than brining them here. Why should we spend our limited resources ineffectively?

it's not really that I'm against having them here per se, it's that there is an opportunity cost with having them here. We could've helped many more people fulfil basic needs, instead of housing immigrants in our countries. I think its more important to make sure people have food and water, and basic safety and such.

 

You are trying to apply rational thinking at the place where it cannot be applied. European Values today are pretty extreme things like violent feminism, special rights for homosexuals are not normal for the society that is planning to survive.
If you have accepted those values with open heart, you have not right to complain about refuge crisis.

 

Essentially a world mobilization via the Red Cross, or other such benevolent organizations. Maybe a "world defense" army to defend the refugees against those perpetuating violence against innocent civilians. Similarly to the DMZ in the Koreas. I concur to the idea that giving them their homes, their safety and restoring peace to their land is a far better alternative than using limited resources that should go to one's own citizenry.

Sacrificing for others is "noble" but altrustic, and all too often leaves the sacrificed for dead whilst the one benefiting doesn't care for the sacrifices made.

 

So why are Sweden, Germany, etc., allowing all these sexual assaults to continue?

"The Western world is dominated by leaders who despise its history and its heritage and are determined to bring an end to its power. They wish to extinguish Western culture, and opening the borders is a hell of a good start."

https://twitter.com/ComradeArthur/status/688271809339244545

 

Yes. In this case, the louder the protest the weaker the argument.

But what can one expect when their position is predicated on fear, exclusion and hatred?

Nothing like trying to represent pride in one's accident of birth with hatred and rejection. Looks pretty damn shabby these days.

 

Yawn. Your tired old tropes of demoralization are less and less effective everyday as more and more people see through the multicultural nonsense.

The sound is getting louder as more and more people object to multiculturalism. They see that it is the multiculturalists who are the real haters, haters of White Christian Culture.

Just check out the election returns in Europe to see what I mean.

Google "Right Resurgence Europe" to get all the details.

Now, rather than repeat all those tired tropes, yet again, lets move the discussion along and tell me what you have against European culture.

Is Shakespeare too tiresome for you?

Does Beethoven leave you cold?

Are you appalled at the grotesqueness of Notre Dame?

Does Guernica seem trite?

Why would you wash all this away by importing inferior and alien cultures?

 

My tired old tropes about demoralization? You were the one that brought it up as a symptom of "others" infecting your white world.
You were the one complaining about euro demoralization as if it was an actual fact.

Yes the right wing crazies always do better when fear, xenophobia and bigotry elevate in the social consciousness. Nothing like a political ideology that REQUIRES such negative emotions to gain any traction whatsoever - must make you guys proud.

As to washing away euro culture, your gift isn't for hyperbole, since what you have so far displayed sounds so amazingly dumb.

For some reason, you think that inclusion of others into your culture is its death knell.

I have NOTHING against European culture. I admire the great minds of our species.
When you want to exclude "immigrants and muslims", these days does that also include the jews? Or are they part of the euroculture you so righteously and unnecessarily defend?

 

You do realize you are just getting nastier and nastier.

I am motivated by love. Love for Western Civilization. Home of about 90% of the great minds that have arisen in humanity. I would hate to see it diluted by the inundation of the uneducated, unwashed Muslims.

I am quite fond of the Jewish people who have made significant contributions to Western Culture. Einstein, Freud, Spinoza, Menuhin.

The Muslims are the ones who hate the Jews even more than they hate Christians.

Andy you want to invite them in. Go figure.

 

neither shakespeare nor beethoven were european, they were spiritually black. were they european they would have been killing and raping given their era.

- - - Updated - - -

so, you love yourself. did you know that pride comes before the fall? in other words, all of your vain glory is but reflection of a deep seed of insecurity. poor, poor you. WHAT WAS IT that you did soo bad??

 

Motivated by love! Who knew that one can hate so many when their true motivation is love.
You appear more motivated by fear and bigotry - nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, I do tend to get nastier as people continue to expose their bigotry, ignorance and xenophobia. For some reason, I find myself extremely intolerant of the intolerant.

 

I don't hate Muslims. I just don't want any around. I don't want to go to war with them, for instance. I am afraid that importing Muslims will cause irreparable harm to the West. Let them stay in the ME and kill each other. I don't hate Muslims, I just think their culture is inferior and ought not to be endorsed by Europeans.

Now, if you don't want to listen to my motivations which I explain to you, but prefer to believe I am motivated by fear and bigotry and nothing else, well then I will save my (metaphorical) breath and stop trying to explain myself to you. So much for dialog.

If you don't want to dialogue with someone whose opinions differ from your own, I wonder about your claims to tolerance.

I can't explain, either, why you are intolerant of the intolerant. Why should you be? I tolerate your intolerance just fine, for instance. But I have a curiosity about all types of human beliefs and philosophies. I am sure I have interacted amicably with a much more diverse sampling of humanity than you have, I have little doubt. Many of them are dangerous and inferior and ought to be kept at arm's length: outlaw bikers, for instance. I once found myself doing shots of Tequila with a couple of bikers, once. It was quite a jolly time, but when I sobered up, I decided to give them a wide berth in the future.

The funny thing is that you, no doubt, consider your "intolerance of intolerance" a mark of your moral superiority, whereas in fact it is an indication of your complete demoralization. You refuse to judge any culture superior to any other, and hate those who do.

You have no values. That is the trap of egalitarianism. One cannot acknowledge excellence, because excellence implies difference.

Now, that is fascinating to me. It is a crappy philosophy, of course, but I am willing to dialogue; if nothing else it will help to fight against that philosophy.

 

inferior, yet they are the majority and your white tribe has an ever decreasing demographic due to not having children due to no inter tribal love and the majority of the world loathing systemic white tribal brutality . seems like it is your chiefdom that is inferior.

 

Providing financial assistance will only help the conditions in the evacuation centers, but we cannot realistically expect these few middle eastern countries to house this many refugees for the years to come. We can't expect these people to live in these refugee centers for an extended period, and no doing so would not be more financially feasible. These people need to be given permanent residence somewhere, and asking these countries to take on a double digit population increase is not realistic

 

Which is why we should end the syrian war as soon as possible, so that they can return home. In the mean time, it's cheaper to let them stay where they are now. I believe Turkey, jordan and lebanon have said they are okay with helping refugees, but they want help from the west. The refugees are already there, it's already happened. we should send money to help maintain the camps, and talk with those countries about letting refugees work, so they have something meaningful to do, let them live more normal lives, and stuff like that. As far as the wellbeing of the refugees are concerned, its best to leave them where they are and support them there. most will stay there regardless. But there are other things to take into consideration. Europe already has enough immigrants as it is, and there is particular tension with the muslims. Neither socially or economically, do we have any need for refugee immigration. There is no economic argument at all. Asking europe to take all these refugees is what's unrealistic.

 

and part of helping with the refugee issue is providing a place for permanent residence, you're telling me it is unrealistic for 50 European countries to house these refugees while 95% of them are residing in 5 middle eastern countries. I also want to stress again that the US should be playing a bigger role, we're a big reason why there's a refugee crisis to begin with

 

yes, that's what I'm saying. 95% are there, and we should sent atleast 95% of our money there to help them. most will stay there, and most want to stay there. They can live just as happily over there as they could over here. The only difference is that we don't really want or need them here in Europe. The middle east, provided they get help from the west, will have much less trouble housing them. And yes, it is unrealistic that europe would take care of this. We are freaking out over 5%. no way would could solve this by moving them to europe. There'd be a civil war over it, there's just no way.

 

Keeping them within these 5 countries isn't feasible, you're talking about giving these countries a double digit percentage population increase. The reality of the situation is some of these refugees are going to have to be relocated. Not only is this what needs to be done, but this is what is what's actually being done... except too few countries are pledging to take in a number, so countries like Germany are having to take in more than they sould

 

Yes, you don't hate em, you just don't want em around. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the clothing.

he said presumptuously.

Yes, my intolerance of intolerance is a mark of my moral superiority over the intolerant. I happen to judge MY culture as superior to all others I have experienced because I choose to live in it. But then again, I believe in multiculturalism as practiced in MY country.

I do not hate those that believe their culture is the best. that in and of itself is not bigotry. The bigotry comes in the evaluations and measures applied to judging those other cultures.

I hear el Nino has done wonders the crack crop, but I wouldn't know.

Yes, flex those intellectual muscles and go beat up that strawman.

 

Taking them all to Europe or the west isn't feasible. That is not what is being done at all. only 5% have come, and Europe doesn't even want those. no way in hell even half could come here. A few countries like Germany and Sweden insists on being masochistic and harming themselves as much as possible, but it doesn't do much to help the overall situation with the refugees. only very few people have come, and only very few people can come. And even those few people are causing all kinds of trouble here. They need help in the middle east. its' more effective, that's where they already are, and it means less trouble for all of us.

 

what you're arguing with and what I said are two different things

"The reality of the situation is some of these refugees are going to have to be relocated"

and again as I expressed before, the reason why Germany and Sweden are having to take so many refugees is because other European countries are closing the gates.. it's not a matter of bringing more to Europe, it is a matter of divvying up the numbers between the countries in Europe. The refugee intake needs to be divided between more middle eastern countries for that matter. We simply can't have 95% of the refugees remaining in just 5 countries

The only country I have named specifically as needing to take in more refugees is the US, and I never said Europe as a whole needs to take in more refugees (not to mention all refugees) but that more European countries need to make a pledge. Every country that refuses to help makes it that much harder on the countries that are helping

Note that more refugees are already being sent to Europe.. and I'm not saying the number being sent there needs to be bigger.. but the fact of the matter is this relocation process is what's necessary

 

But why bother? it's not going to make things much better for the refugees, and it's going to mean much trouble for us. I still think my argument about efficiency applies here. There's is no inherent value to getting refugees here (one could argue there is value in not getting them here in fact). What matters is helping them. We are not willing to spend an infinite amount of money on helping refugees, so I'd rather have us try to help as many as possible, rather than ineffectively spending our resources by having them here. let's say you get europe and the US to accept some refugees evenly. What next? most will still be left in the middle east, and they'll still need help, but we will have wasted money by having them in our own countries. either we'd just have to say we've helped enough and just leave them without help, or we'd have to commit even more money to helping. either way, it's ineffective and costly. The cheapest and most effective way is to leave them in the middle east and support them there. yes, more middle eastern countries should take in refugees. spreading them more evenly across the middle east and helping them there, and eventually getting peace in syria, that is the best solution, not to take them to the west. We neither want them or need them, and we already have significant problems with immigrants and muslims in particular. our resources are limited, let's use them as best as possible.