Migrant invasion of Europe

scotian

Crow
Gold Member
^”Admittedly, I didn't grow up in the "9-3".
Quoi quoi mec, qu’est-ce tu cherches mec?
Le neuf trois is a fucking dump that created a trash culture which spread all over France, when I was living in a second tier French city in the late 90s I had many run ins with those Sergio Tacchini wearing Maghreb racaille cunts while trying to buy hash.
The film La Haine portrayed it pretty well and a lot of good rap came out of St Denis but not much else.
 
Haha :) You could travel just fine with a passport at the END of the 20th century. I remember bouncing from one country to the next within Europe in the early 1990s and the average wait at the border was like 10 seconds - if that - I kid you not.
You're absolutely right and it wasn't a problem in the 90s either. Just check your passport, a cursory check: "Looks european, check, looks not criminal, check".
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Woodpecker
Gold Member
You're absolutely right and it wasn't a problem in the 90s either. Just check your passport, a cursory check: "Looks european, check, looks not criminal, check".
Didn't even need to be a European passport, I remember as a kid in the mid-late 90s driving across European borders, my dad held up our US passports and the guards would just wave us through without even taking them
 

balybary

Pelican
It would be a full time job to list all the daily murders & rapes by muslim invaders.

And Simeon is not here anymore do to the heavy lifting.

So on the news an islamophobic girl has decided to end her relationship with a migrant. Due to her lack of understanding of the climate change-migration, the migrant has to step up to fight her islamophobic agenda.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teenage-girl-beheaded-ex-boyfriend-22047241

Girl, 17, 'beheaded by ex-boyfriend who wrapped her head in aluminium foil'
WARNING - DISTRESSING DETAILS: Tishko Ahmed Shabaz, 23, is accused of decapitating 17-year-old Wilma Andersson in Sweden when she visited his flat to collect her belongings after ending their relationship
A teenage girl was beheaded by her ex-boyfriend when she returned to his flat to collect her belongings after she broke up with him, it has been claimed.

Wilma Andersson, 17, disappeared on November 14 last year before police found a 'body part' a fortnight later which turned out to be her head.

Her ex-boyfriend Tishko Ahmed Shabaz was arrested and has now been charged with her murder in a case that has shocked Sweden because it is deemed as one of the safest countries in the world, Expressen reports.

The rest of Wilma's body has yet to be found.

Police claim the 23-year-old decapitated Wilma before wrapping her head in foil and hiding it at his home.
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
You'll have to be more precise on that topic for me to formulate an acceptable answer.
I worked in labs where subspecies (of microorganisms) turned into other subspecies and back.
But I haven't seen a whale turn into a badger (yet), for sure ;)
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
You'll have to be more precise on that topic for me to formulate an acceptable answer.
I worked in labs where subspecies (of microorganisms) turned into other subspecies and back.
But I haven't seen a whale turn into a badger (yet), for sure ;)
First, the field of biology is, much like the rest of the scientific system, corrupt to the core, and one example of this is the changing around of requirements to declare what is a species, which for example says now that Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are different species, when until half the 20th century they were considered the same species, just different subspecies. The reason? Political of course - to corroborate darwinism. This way they can claim that one species evolved from another, when clearly it's the same one, just adapted to different environmental pressures (again, the pernicious mixing of two concepts, one valid - adaptation - and one invalid - mutation).

Second, there are no 'transitional' fossils - every single one of the ones claimed to be so are discovered to be fraudulent (like bones from contemporary donkeys being said to be our ancestor) or just wishful thinking (extrapolating from one tooth an entire transitional species).

Third, of course subspecies can ADAPT, the smaller the size the faster one can notice the adaptation, because they are still, fundamentally, the same species (unless, of course, through the type of fraudulent thinking found in academia, one uses purposefully manipulated definitions to prove the theory one wants to cling to). This is still not the mutation proposed by Darwin.

EDIT: for those interested in this topic, and especially for Christians still under the spell of this fraud who feel like they have to accept it because of muh scientific consensus, I recommend the book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And for an exposition on how any research which does not accept the evolutionary fraud gets chased out of academia and gets one's life ruined there's the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Because nothing shows as much confidence in one's scientific enterprise like making it impossible to question or put to the test.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Kingfisher
And just as an interesting addition, Aldous Huxley wrote in his memoirs why, despite the lack of evidence or even plausibility, he (and the modern world) still cling to evolutionism:

«I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons of this assumption.... For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom»

People really want to believe they descend from apes, because that way they don't have to behave like humans.
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
I don't see how mutation is an invalid concept, what do you mean by that exactly ?
Didn't you once said you had someone with down syndrome close to you ? Well, that's a mutation ..
Now what makes you think that these people would not have replaced us if it was a positive mutation instead of a negative one ?

Regarding species vs subspecies, it has been politicized of course, imho not to push darwinism but to push anti-racism.
For instance a long time ago inter-reproducibility was an important criteria to be declared part of the same species.
Then it was noticed that the huge majority of black women cannot naturally give birth to a half-white child, and that went against the narrative so it was "changed".

I mean, I agree that science was corrupted but that inevitably happens when you try to incorporate politics or religion into it.
Or when you try to get definitive answers from it - it simply does not work this way, and most people will never be able to understand that it seems.

Ok anecdote time regarding religion : when I was young I went on a summer camp where we dug fossils, carbon14 datation said they were million years old.
Not exactly compatible with what the bible says, so who is right ?
Well at home I have an old family bible, hand-written and hand-illuminated, it says 1140s (or 1160s ? I don't remember) on the inside.
I had it carbon-dated and it said mid 12th century - was that a sign of god telling me that carbon14 works and he did indeed put those dinosaurs on earth million years ago ?
Should one really ask himself these questions ?
Do I care .. ?

People need to think.
Your answer seems very black and white to me, like some were highly prejudiced against religion you seem too prejudiced for it.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I tend to like neither since it usually involves stopping the thinking and that's never good.

Also bonus question for the end I guess : which has been more corrupted in the last 100 years, science or religion ?
And why would be fighting to remove corruption good or bad depending on where you want to remove it from ?
Anyway, back to more productive things in the real world now .. :)
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Ask an evolutionist how many millions of years it would take a caterpillar to evolve the ability to cocoon itself and then morph into a butterfly. That's a lot of mutations.

Then ask what the mating payoff during those millions of years would have been and why such mutants would have been able to compete with a more streamlined creature in the meanwhile.

The irony of evolution is that it doesn't support diversity of creatures. Quite the opposite. It functions towards singularity of species. Were one to believe in it truly then they would see the act of killing other creatures for whatever reason we desire as the most noble expression of genetics.

If the polar bears posed even the slightest threat to me and I shot them all dead then I would not be a villain, I would simply be a winner.
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
That's not what mutation means in Darwin's theory: it means mutation from one species to another. Humans with down syndrome are still humans. Down syndrome people taking over would be an example of adaptation and natural selection, not mutation according to Darwin.

And science, specifically biology, was indeed politicized to prove Darwin's assertions - and in fact one of the ideas thrown out because of it was precisely the generation of offspring that wasn't sterile.

The fact is we have no idea what the six days mean. What we know is this: creation was instantaneous, God doesn't need a whole day to create anything, and in fact the existence of days as we understand it is one of the creations within those days. So the days in the Creation story have to be taken as meaning something beyond our current natural understanding. This is not a metaphorical reading, but a reading that goes beyond materialism - which seems almost impossible for moderns to do. So it is possible to read Genesis and not take the view that evangelicals take that the earth is necessarily this many years old versus that many - the problem with these guys is that they completely accept the frame of modernity. They actually believe in a literal reading of anything - but that really doesn't exist. Words are not things. Words describe things. No description can be literal. The truth is we have no idea how many years the earth is, but it has no bearing on the question of the origins of life or the implications of that origin.

I don't know what has been more corrupted, as a whole I think probably Christianity in the West, since unfortunately it did give birth to modern science. The whole scientific complex was corrupted from the start. Unlike some Christians I don't think it's a great achievement of our Christian ancestors to have allowed the birth of the materialist worldview which would kill morality and ultimately the idea of humanity itself.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Kingfisher
Ask an evolutionist how many millions of years it would take a caterpillar to evolve the ability to cocoon itself and then morph into a butterfly. That's a lot of mutations.

Then ask what the mating payoff during those millions of years would have been and why such mutants would have been able to compete with a more streamlined creature in the meanwhile.

The irony of evolution is that it doesn't support diversity of creatures. Quite the opposite. It functions towards singularity of species. Were one to believe in it truly then they would see the act of killing other creatures for whatever reason we desire as the most noble expression of genetics.

If the polar bears posed even the slightest threat to me and I shot them all dead then I would not be a villain, I would simply be a winner.
Ironically, serious and consistent darwinists do. That's why they support the use of violence for eugenic purposes.
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
That's not what mutation means in Darwin's theory: it means mutation from one species to another.
Thus the importance of how you define species.
And in fact if you open any serious phd thesis for instance it will begin with a list of definitions, so that its content is unambiguous.

So the days in the Creation story have to be taken as meaning something beyond our current natural understanding. This is not a metaphorical reading, but a reading that goes beyond materialism - which seems almost impossible for moderns to do.
This is where we disagree I think, you conflate science and materialism - I don't.
Science is not truth and certainties, it's doubt embodied into a method.
Most of what we see around us is "something beyond our current natural understanding", this is normal and science does not say the opposite.

I think you might have been in contact with too many "scientists" and not enough scientists (without the quotes) :)
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
Ask an evolutionist how many millions of years it would take a caterpillar to evolve the ability to cocoon itself and then morph into a butterfly. That's a lot of mutations.
I don't know how old butterflies are, but it seems we have fossils of some older than 30 million years.
I believe it is simply outside of people's ability to even begin to grasp how long that is.
 

ilostabet

Kingfisher
Thus the importance of how you define species.
And in fact if you open any serious phd thesis for instance it will begin with a list of definitions, so that its content is unambiguous.



This is where we disagree I think, you conflate science and materialism - I don't.
Science is not truth and certainties, it's doubt embodied into a method.
Most of what we see around us is "something beyond our current natural understanding", this is normal and science does not say the opposite.

I think you might have been in contact with too many "scientists" and not enough scientists (without the quotes) :)
What I meant by 'something beyond our natural understanding' is that God was creating nature, it didn't exist before. Our observations of its natural processes cannot reveal to us even a glimpse of what it was to create nature. By necessity, it is beyond observation. Not so with any current observation of it - it can reveal to us many things, it is not beyond natural understanding.

I agree with everything else you wrote - including the part about definitions, which as I stated and you stated, where purposefully and politically changed to agree with certain theories. This indeed is not science properly understood. It's a sham. Which was part of my point.

Science is indeed doubt embodied into a method - beautifully put. But this is not what I mean, nor what the majority of people (including most credentialed scientists) mean, or understand, or believe it to be - in fact, it's a cosmological view, which is only tangentially related to the method. And even the scientists who are proper ones, and do understand it this way, do not often act on it because of fear of repercussion. Some who do, like the ones who dare to question darwinism, get thrown out and their lives destroyed. So we're not dealing here with an idealistic notion of the scientific method as if this is really the same as the scientific establishment practices - we are dealing here with something akin to the military-industrial complex, it's a large system with fundamental dogmas which cannot be broken.

So you are right, but you are also wrong - or being evasive. Because obviously I am not talking about the method, but the system - which only in very nicely circumscribed areas applies the method, sometimes improperly if at all.
 
Then it was noticed that the huge majority of black women cannot naturally give birth to a half-white child, and that went against the narrative so it was "changed".
Slightly off topic, but what do you mean by this?

It's common knowledge that East and South East Asian women have difficulty giving natural birth to half-European babies because the babies' head is often to big to pass through the canal

Are you referring to something similar? Or am I interpreting this comment wrongly?
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
I don't know how old butterflies are, but it seems we have fossils of some older than 30 million years.
I believe it is simply outside of people's ability to even begin to grasp how long that is.
It doesn't matter if it was ten generations or ten million.

Uneconomical mutation + no mating advantage = dead genetic divergence.

This "30 million years is a long time" type thinking is every bit as religious as creationism. It leverages an unimaginable factor (millions of years) that humans can't comprehend and uses it to couch magical thinking.

Caterpillar
1000 years
Butterfly

"That's ridiculous."

Caterpillar
10,000,000 years
Butterfly

"I mean obviously anything is possible in that unimaginable time frame. Heck they could have started off as elephants over that time frame."
 

Oberrheiner

Kingfisher
So you are right, but you are also wrong - or being evasive. Because obviously I am not talking about the method, but the system - which only in very nicely circumscribed areas applies the method, sometimes improperly if at all.
Not being evasive but trying to answer quickly, basically :)
We already have a thread about technology/science, for which I reserve my arguments but I'm afraid it's going to take me a long time to write an answer.

To put is shortly there is a big difference between what science really is and what people perceive it to be.
I am an engineer working in companies putting out actual industrial products, so the world of academia is mostly bullshit to me, and the media world of experts I find borderline criminal with the lies they spread - and let's not even talk about non-hard sciences, they're a total joke.
What those people think and do I don't really care, I can't take them seriously plus it's not relevant to my work and to my life anyway.

I think the root of the problem is philosophy, which once was a respectable occupation helping to understand the implications of what we think and do.
But then at some point science just got too complicated for the philosophers to understand, and instead of saying ok we have lost, philosophy is over, instead continued as if nothing had happened and just made up new stuff to stay relevant.
And except the people actually involved in real science, well this is what people know of science today, the academia and the media experts ..

I don't know, to me it's as if people said religion is bullshit when all they know are the televangelists and what the media experts tell them.
Of course I would not blame them for believing it's bullshit, but it wouldn't detract me from trying to tell them they should maybe reconsider.
 
Top