Lana Lockteff, Takin` It To The Mattresses

[mecca]

Take Venezuela for example.

Venezuela arrests over 'uprising attempt'
Anyone hear about this?

 

[Lurker]

Venezuela arrests over 'uprising attempt'
Anyone hear about this?

I hear about Venezuela every time I'm supposed to feel better about being Murican.

 

[Karlysymon]

i am listening (reading).... go ahead and elaborate.

they never had the history of rebelling against kings,
rebelling against the church establishment, etc.
thats a uniquely white
european thing

Rebellion against or challenging authority isn't unique to the white race.

Another example:

The 'Tank man'. This happening the next day, after the Tiananmen massacre

 

[polymoog]

Rebellion against or challenging authority isn't unique to the white race.

Another example:

The 'Tank man'. This happening the next day, after the Tiananmen massacre

i remember it. but that protest went nowhere, and the people gained nothing. the white european countries accomplished things during their rebellions. little uprisings like the one at tiannmen square were as effective as occupy wall street.
when the chinese rise up and overthrow their communist government, let me know. the french did that, and the british did that. no big wonder they were coke and pepsi* for as long as they were.

rebellion against or challenging authority isn't unique to the white race, agreed. but only the white european nations have had rebellions which were successful in creating human rights for the people. again, name a country in africa (SA was a colony) or asia where the populace rose up and managed to overthrow their government and install a government where the average person could have a say.

again, my main theme here is that the western european countries had evolved to a higher level of government than the rest of the world. third world peoples cannot grasp this concept. its completely foreign to them. giving the average european person more rights and freedoms helped generate their economies, and this is why western europe prospered and developed past the stage of agricultural based economies into industrial economies, where they began to do the manufacturing at home and imported the raw materials from elsewhere, spurring on the colonial empires.
im getting off the point. migrants from 3rd world countries in africa and the middle east have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. this is the exact reason why muslim immigrants from somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about muhammed. they dont "get" free speech.

*thats for you-- i know you like sodas.

 

[rainerann]

i remember it. but that protest went nowhere, and the people gained nothing. the white european countries accomplished things during their rebellions. little uprisings like the one at tiannmen square were as effective as occupy wall street.
when the chinese rise up and overthrow their communist government, let me know. the french did that, and the british did that. no big wonder they were coke and pepsi* for as long as they were.

rebellion against or challenging authority isn't unique to the white race, agreed. but only the white european nations have had rebellions which were successful in creating human rights for the people. again, name a country in africa (SA was a colony) or asia where the populace rose up and managed to overthrow their government and install a government where the average person could have a say.

again, my main theme here is that the western european countries had evolved to a higher level of government than the rest of the world. third world peoples cannot grasp this concept. its completely foreign to them. giving the average european person more rights and freedoms helped generate their economies, and this is why western europe prospered and developed past the stage of agricultural based economies into industrial economies, where they began to do the manufacturing at home and imported the raw materials from elsewhere, spurring on the colonial empires.
im getting off the point. migrants from 3rd world countries in africa and the middle east have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. this is the exact reason why muslim immigrants from somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about muhammed. they dont "get" free speech.

*thats for you-- i know you like sodas.

I agree with what you are saying except for I don't see this is a reason in and of itself to prevent immigration. With that said, as established countries, we should be able to have some say over our immigration policy with the authority to abstain from allowing immigration in certain cases.

We are the only countries people are basically trying to get into. As a result, it is not logical to think that we are capable of fixing the problems taking place in the world by allowing everyone to move to our country.

There is a reason the same number of people aren't trying to move to China or Iran or anywhere else, which demonstrates your point at the same time. If the US and European countries provide benefits that make people want to immigrate to these places in greater number than anywhere in the world, why are people in these other countries not capable of accomplishing the same without attempting to immigrate.

The successful advance beyond a revolution does appear to be a western phenomenon. Being able to implement changes in government beyond these revolutions is what still make us the most likely place to choose to immigrate. It isn't the attempting that is unique, it is the success we have had.

Still, people complain about western countries all the time, but no one is stopping anyone from finding their own success in their own countries rather than attempting to immigrate as a solution to their problems in the present.

 

[Karlysymon]

@polymoog
the events of 14th july 1789 are seen as a success in granting libe`rte, fraternite and egalite but it seems we have all forgotten that the elite engineered the revolution. Why and how could they be so generous? Why was this not possible during the medieval period, the serfs sure had grievances.
Tiananmen, imo, was alot more serious than Occupy (Soros, remember?), so its not a fair comparison.
iam starting (been in the works) a new thread where it will be explored in greater detail because it is alot factors responsible. This isn't a well-thought out reply, so pardon that.

*thats for you-- i know you like sodas.

Thanks, iam trying to quit...


@rainerann
I think that after a certain period of time, natives get concerned over an unmitigated migrant flow. There are, obviously, so many reasons why 'everyone' seems to be heading to Europe. But something interesting is happening, because a migration is taking place aswell north to south.
I will say that the reasons, for those aboard the May Flower, for leaving the Continent are still relevant to day.

If the US and European countries provide benefits that make people want to
immigrate to these places
in greater number than
anywhere in the world, why are people in these
other countries not capable of accomplishing the same without attempting to immigrate.

Because there is a concerted effort (Economic hitmen) to keep their economies underdeveloped or dependent on ,say, the IMF or WorldBank. Also, there is much to gain from a country by keeping it politically unstable. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, there were hardly any poppy fields and heroin addicts but everything hit the ceiling after the invasion.

 

[Kung Fu]

Because there is a concerted effort (Economic hitmen) to keep their economies underdeveloped or dependent on ,say, the IMF or WorldBank. Also, there is much to gain from a country by keeping it politically unstable. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, there were hardly any poppy fields and heroin addicts but everything hit the ceiling after the invasion.

You hear the Taliban get a really bad rep from Western media but a lot of the things that the West was saying about the Taliban was a complete lie. Yvonne Ridley, went there and witnessed for herself that the Taliban were not bad people and in fact were very modest people and trying to only do good. The Taliban within 2 years were able to rid the country of opium and got farmers to plant food rather than grow opium, stopped the child kidnappings, and much more. That all went down hill when the US came in and the production of opium went higher than it did prior to the Taliban taking over. By the way that's not a coincidence.

 

[Karlysymon]

You hear the Taliban get a really bad rep from Western media but a lot of the things that the West was saying about the Taliban was a complete lie. Yvonne Ridley, went there and witnessed for herself that the Taliban were not bad people and in fact were very modest people and trying to only do good. The Taliban within 2 years were able to rid the country of opium and got farmers to plant food rather than grow opium, stopped the child kidnappings, and much more. That all went down hill when the US came in and the production of opium went higher than it did prior to the Taliban taking over. By the way that's not a coincidence.

The Elite don't care about anyone except themselves. They've left behind a trail of destruction
“opium production increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 to 6100 tons in 2006. In 2007, Afghanistan provided approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin”

And the main destination...

The Consequences Of America’s Invasion Of Afghanistan: NYC Heroin Deaths Highest In A Decade
http://zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/consequences-america’s-invasion-afghanistan-nyc-heroin-deaths-highest-decade

Heart-breaking
The War in Afghanisan Has Turned a Generation of
Children Into Heroin Addicts
http://theantimedia.org/afghanistan-child-heroin-addicts/

 

[Kung Fu]

The Elite don't care about anyone except themselves. They've left behind a trail of destruction
“opium production increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 to 6100 tons in 2006. In 2007, Afghanistan provided approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin”

And the main destination...

The Consequences Of America’s Invasion Of Afghanistan: NYC Heroin Deaths Highest In A Decade
http://zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/consequences-america’s-invasion-afghanistan-nyc-heroin-deaths-highest-decade

Heart-breaking
The War in Afghanisan Has Turned a Generation of
Children Into Heroin Addicts
http://theantimedia.org/afghanistan-child-heroin-addicts/

They won't last much longer in Afghanistan. They're having an incredibly hard time holding onto it. They've lost trillions there and a lot of lives as well.

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann
I think that after a certain period of time, natives get concerned over an unmitigated migrant flow. There are, obviously, so many reasons why 'everyone' seems to be heading to Europe. But something interesting is happening, because a migration is taking place aswell north to south.
I will say that the reasons, for those aboard the May Flower, for leaving the Continent are still relevant to day.

Because there is a concerted effort (Economic hitmen) to keep their economies underdeveloped or dependent on ,say, the IMF or WorldBank. Also, there is much to gain from a country by keeping it politically unstable. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, there were hardly any poppy fields and heroin addicts but everything hit the ceiling after the invasion.[/QUOTE]

In theory, we could say that the IMF or the WorldBank is responsible for keeping their economies underdeveloped. However, there is no reason these economies are not able to collectively create a clear vision and purpose for creating money within their own economies to alleviate poverty and improve education.

The problem is that these places revert to fundamentalist ideals instead of creating solutions like this. Instead, they have created religious schools where they teach girls that they should not aspire to work or do anything but get married and have children. So there is something distinctly wrong with their ideology that is contributing to the problem and the west is not responsible for this.

The Elite don't care about anyone except themselves. They've left behind a trail of destruction
“opium production increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 to 6100 tons in 2006. In 2007, Afghanistan provided approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin”

And the main destination...

The Consequences Of America’s Invasion Of Afghanistan: NYC Heroin Deaths Highest In A Decade
http://zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/consequences-america’s-invasion-afghanistan-nyc-heroin-deaths-highest-decade

Heart-breaking
The War in Afghanisan Has Turned a Generation of
Children Into Heroin Addicts
http://theantimedia.org/afghanistan-child-heroin-addicts/

Essentially, what we can observe is happening by growing heroin in other countries in order to bring to the US, is that some entity is trying to destabilize the US. We are helping them destabilize our country when we are complaining about our country along with the rest of the world as though the people who work at my grocery store are responsible for these things.

We are the only real road block to a global dictatorship so if you find a way to bring heroin through a back door like this, you are really trying to destabilize the west. All the more reason to consider this recent wave of immigration as a means of destabilizing the west by global parties and we are not capable of fixing all of these problems by letting everyone move to our countries. Especially, when they do believe that reverting to severe forms of fundamentalism is going to be the solution to many of these problems in many cases.

We all have a responsibility to defend our own countries from what is ahead. I don't want people coming to my country who will argue that they should be able to have religious schools because of our precept of freedom of religion that don't include math and science. It is not anyone in the western world's fault that people in Afghanistan think this these sort of things are solutions to the problem. There are even organizations that do try to advocate for education in Afghanistan. It is not anyone in the western's world fault if people try to leave to enjoy the things these organizations work toward creating rather than staying and helping with their vision.

I think we are blamed way too often in the west for things that are not our fault and people often can't see that the true end game is to destabilize our countries when they are complaining about us. So while I don't agree with oppression or want to be a part of it, I also don't really see these other countries as victims anymore than I see a heroin addict as a victim of something. Sure they are addicted. I understand that this is a difficult thing to overcome, but no amount of my sympathy is going to fix the problem. The person has to make a decision to overcome this themselves. They have to be willing to take responsibility. I just don't see a lot of promising solutions being created in these other countries that are being taken away them by the presence of the west. Fundamentalism is not a solution to anything and this is only perpetuating the continuation of this phenomenon in place like Afghanistan.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

i remember it. but that protest went nowhere, and the people gained nothing. the white european countries accomplished things during their rebellions. little uprisings like the one at tiannmen square were as effective as occupy wall street.
when the chinese rise up and overthrow their communist government, let me know. the french did that, and the british did that. no big wonder they were coke and pepsi* for as long as they were.

rebellion against or challenging authority isn't unique to the white race, agreed. but only the white european nations have had rebellions which were successful in creating human rights for the people. again, name a country in africa (SA was a colony) or asia where the populace rose up and managed to overthrow their government and install a government where the average person could have a say.

again, my main theme here is that the western european countries had evolved to a higher level of government than the rest of the world. third world peoples cannot grasp this concept. its completely foreign to them. giving the average european person more rights and freedoms helped generate their economies, and this is why western europe prospered and developed past the stage of agricultural based economies into industrial economies, where they began to do the manufacturing at home and imported the raw materials from elsewhere, spurring on the colonial empires.
im getting off the point. migrants from 3rd world countries in africa and the middle east have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. this is the exact reason why muslim immigrants from somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about muhammed. they dont "get" free speech.

*thats for you-- i know you like sodas.

I surmise it ultimately comes down to the perception, Polymog. Please note my message is in good faith, and I'm reflecting on the ideas you've put forth.

You state “western European countries had evolved to a higher level of government than the rest of the world. Third world peoples cannot grasp this concept. It’s completely foreign to them.”

Well, according to Global Issues, 80% of population lives in poverty/Third World conditions, while some sites have the number at 97%. Needless to say, that’s quite a number of people. Is there a verifiable source that indicates what their political views are, and that they can’t grasp the concept? Perhaps they’re just hoping they and their family members will be alive the next day and their priorities are different than First World countries?

You state “Giving the average European person more rights and freedoms helped generate their economies, and this is why western Europe prospered and developed past the stage of agricultural based economies into industrial economies, where they began to do the manufacturing at home and imported the raw materials from elsewhere, spurring on the colonial empires”.

Yes, you’re right about that. However, it’s been at the expense of the people indigenous to the land as was indicated earlier:

“1992: Third world debtor nations, who had borrowed from the World Bank, pay 198 million dollars more to central banks of the developed nations for World Bank funded purposes than they receive from the World Bank. This only goes to increase their permanent debt in exchange for temporary relief from poverty which is caused by the payments of other loans, the repayments of which exceed the amount of new loans.

This year Africa’s debt had reached 290 billion dollars, which is two and half times greater than its level in 1980, which has resulted in deterioration of schools, deterioration of housing, sky-rocketing infant mortality rates, a drastic downturn of the general health of the people, and mass employment.” (source)​

Who owns the World Bank? The Rothschild’s, of course; therefore, it is all by design. The Real News also has a great snippet explaining the reason why Third World countries (which are mainly in Africa) are in the position they’re in:

“World trade organizations and trade agreements open up countries rich in natural resources to foreign exploitation. They prevent poor countries from developing their own value-added industries by keeping them dependent on the exportation of raw materials. Corrupt leaders are all too willing to enrich themselves by selling out their own countries with sweetheart deals to foreign corporations and countries.”(source)​

You state “Migrants from 3rd world countries in Africa and the Middle East have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. This is the exact reason why Muslim immigrants from Somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about Mohammed. They don’t "get" free speech.”

Again, where’s the evidence they don’t understand as it sounds like a sweeping generalization and stereotype of a lot of people. Personally, I’ve met and worked with individuals from both of the above-mentioned regions you mentioned, and they seem to have an acute understanding of what free speech and freedom of the press. I might say even more so because they’re coming from uninhabitable and repressed environments (compared to First World environments) so they seem to fully grasp what’s at stake when people aren’t allowed to voice an opinion of dissent.

As for saying anything negative about Mohammed, is it within a conversation between two people or groups that leads to some sense of understanding of where both sides are coming from, or is it accusations about him and stirring up the hornet’s nest? I have Muslim friends and have also worked with people of the Muslim faith, and the last thing on my mind when talking to or socializing with them is bringing up Mohammed, but that's just me.

It’s interesting you also mentioned Tienanmen Square wasn’t as effective as Occupy Wall Street. As @Karlysymon has pointed out, it was a Soros event, and I spoke with someone just a couple of weeks ago tell me they had a friend who was at the Square. They have difficult time talking about it and their eyes start to water because they saw people being shot and killed with arrows and bullets while running for cover. It may not have been as “effective” as OWS, but lives were literally at stake in China. Therefore, I don't know if a comparison between the two is justifiable.

 

[Serveto]

By the way that's not a coincidence.

Agreed. To a certain extent, as I see it, we are living in the new, or redux of the "Opium Wars," only, this time, the wars are not limited to China and the pushers and profiteers are wearing Armani suits, have diplomatic passports, and are operating, with practical immunity, out of D.C. and Brussels.

 

[polymoog]

You state “western European countries had evolved to a higher level of government than the rest of the world. Third world peoples cannot grasp this concept. It’s completely foreign to them.”

Well, according to Global Issues, 80% of population lives in poverty/Third World conditions, while some sites have the number at 97%. Needless to say, that’s quite a number of people. Is there a verifiable source that indicates what their political views are, and that they can’t grasp the concept? Perhaps they’re just hoping they and their family members will be alive the next day and their priorities are different than First World countries?

poverty sucks, yes, but i dont see where you are going with this point. if you are trying to say that these 3rd worlders are too focused on finding their next meal instead of conceiving free speech, then i say, "of course". but that doesnt change anything i wrote.



You state “Giving the average European person more rights and freedoms helped generate their economies, and this is why western Europe prospered and developed past the stage of agricultural based economies into industrial economies, where they began to do the manufacturing at home and imported the raw materials from elsewhere, spurring on the colonial empires”.

Yes, you’re right about that. However, it’s been at the expense of the people indigenous to the land as was indicated earlier:

i agree with you. again, that doesnt change the fact. i know about the world bank/confessions of an economic hit man john perkins, etc. thats all besides the point.


You state “Migrants from 3rd world countries in Africa and the Middle East have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. This is the exact reason why Muslim immigrants from Somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about Mohammed. They don’t "get" free speech.”

Again, where’s the evidence they don’t understand as it sounds like a sweeping generalization and stereotype of a lot of people. Personally, I’ve met and worked with individuals from both of the above-mentioned regions you mentioned, and they seem to have an acute understanding of what free speech and freedom of the press. I might say even more so because they’re coming from uninhabitable and repressed environments (compared to First World environments) so they seem to fully grasp what’s at stake when people aren’t allowed to voice an opinion of dissent.

take a random sample of the migrants coming into europe. go and ask them their feelings on free speech, freedom of the press, etc., and see how they respond. their look will be blanker than an american asked what year the US declared independence.
who you met was the exception to the rule.
FURTHER (and this is a response for rainerann as well), id argue that these enlightened migrants especially should not be in a first world country since THEIR country needs them more. they are creating a brain drain in their own country, and their country will continue to suffer until people like them stay there and build it up. they are the future leadership and new talent in all fields of their respective countries. they need to help their own rise to the next level.


As for saying anything negative about Mohammed, is it within a conversation between two people or groups that leads to some sense of understanding of where both sides are coming from, or is it accusations about him and stirring up the hornet’s nest? I have Muslim friends and have also worked with people of the Muslim faith, and the last thing on my mind when talking to or socializing with them is bringing up Mohammed, but that's just me.

i never advocated inciting religious attacks on any religion. i did say that muslims in their home countries of saudi arabia or afghanistan, for instance, are not used to people being able to say whats on their mind-- especially anything which is against something as unassailable as mohammed. i am sure you know that people are executed for blaspheming in those countries. in the west, we have the freedom to say what we want about who we want. that does not always sit well with muslim migrants.


It’s interesting you also mentioned Tienanmen Square wasn’t as effective as Occupy Wall Street. As @Karlysymon has pointed out, it was a Soros event, and I spoke with someone just a couple of weeks ago tell me they had a friend who was at the Square. They have difficult time talking about it and their eyes start to water because they saw people being shot and killed with arrows and bullets while running for cover. It may not have been as “effective” as OWS, but lives were literally at stake in China. Therefore, I don't know if a comparison between the two is justifiable.[/QUOTE]

recheck my post. i said that it WAS as effective as OWS (meaning it didnt accomplish anything).

 

[polymoog]

the events of 14th july 1789 are seen as a success in granting libe`rte, fraternite and egalite but it seems we have all forgotten that the elite engineered the revolution. Why and how could they be so generous? Why was this not possible during the medieval period, the serfs sure had grievances.
Tiananmen, imo, was alot more serious than Occupy (Soros, remember?), so its not a fair comparison.


there are a lot of theories surrounding the american revolutionary war and whether it was allowed to happen or not, or even if it was simply masonic theater. that aside, it DID create a new country which was split from the crown. this in and of itself was anti-globalist and decentralizing to the british crown (the NWO at the time), so it was a good thing. there were freedoms granted which were not in place before, and this revolution sparked others, including the french revolution up until modern day, with ho chi minhs campaign against the french. if it was engineered, id argue that it backfired.

as far as the medieval period is concerned, royalty and high nobility were already exactly where they wanted to be-- at the top of the food chain with the serfs and peasants below. id argue that the elites today want exactly that, but with modern day technological control. why engineer a revolution?

 

[polymoog]

I agree with what you are saying except for I don't see this is a reason in and of itself to prevent immigration.

would you agree that taking in one million refugees is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of refugees, starving people, people living below the poverty level, etc., throughout the world? orwell stated himself that the number is 80% of the world population (up to the possiblity of 97%). one million does absolutely nothing.

watch this quick video. ive posted it before, but it illustrates my point clearly.

 

[rainerann]

I didn't essentially disagree with creating controls on immigration. In fact, I think it is irrational to expect the western world to be the only place in the world that doesn't try to have some control of immigration in order to control the changes made to culture. We have the right to do this.

Like I said, I just don't think that this is reason in and of itself to prevent immigration. The reason should be more foundational than simply reactionary in response to the present circumstances.

 

[Karlysymon]

since THEIR country needs them more. they are creating a brain drain in their own country, and their country will continue to suffer until people like them stay there and build it up. they are the future leadership and new talent in all fields of their respective countries. they
need to help their own rise to the next level.

The economic crisis is reversing the migration between European and SouthAmerican countries, which have become one of the main destinations for young Europeans, according to a report from the International
Organisation for Migration
(IOM)

In the case of the Portuguese, the main destination is Brazil, while the Spanish head to
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
IOM also reveals that a large number of Portuguese have moved to Angola and Mozambique.
According to the report, which was financed by the European Union, between 2008 and 2009, more than 107,000 Europeans, including those with dual nationality, left their country of origin to live in
South America or the Caribbean.
Among the countries that recorded the highest number of people leaving were Spain (47,701), Germany (20, 926),
Holland (17,168) and Italy
(15,701).
On the other hand, the main receiving countries were Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico.

http://theportugalnews.com/news/crisis-reversing-migration-between-europe-and-south-america/26956

Call them Generation G: young, talented, Greek – and part of the biggest brain drain in an advanced western economy in
modern times.

“Greeks are going anywhere they can find work and that might be Asia, Africa, Australia, or the Middle East,” he averred. “And we are seeing a new phenomenon of non-degree holders who are also joining the flow.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/young-talented-greek-generation-g-worlds-biggest-brain-drain

as far as the medieval period is concerned, royalty and high nobility were already exactly where they wanted to be-- at the top of the food chain with the serfs and peasants below. id argue that the elites today want exactly that, but with modern day technological control. why engineer a revolution?

Engineering the French revolution, i would say, was a sacrifice the "elite du jour" made. Grant the commoner human rights while pushing secularism which would work in their (elite) favour in centuries to come.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

You stated: Poverty sucks, yes, but I don’t see where you are going with this point. If you are trying to say that these 3rd worlders are too focused on finding their next meal instead of conceiving free speech, then I say, "of course". But that doesn’t change anything I wrote.

My point is focusing on the SOURCE of the issue(s) and putting what is happening with the immigrants and their current situation into context rather than making patronizing statements. You appear to be addressing the result, not the cause.

You stated: I agree with you. Again, that doesn’t change the fact. I know about the world bank/confessions of an economic hit man John Perkins, etc. That’s all besides the point.

The extraction of natural resources began 50+ years prior to Perkins’ even being born. Cecil Rhodes, as stated earlier and Alfred Milner were at the onset in creating third world countries. Please feel free to elaborate on why it’s all beside the point.

You stated: Take a random sample of the migrants coming into Europe. Go and ask them their feelings on free speech, freedom of the press, etc., and see how they respond. Their look will be blanker than an American asked what year the US declared independence.
Who you met was the exception to the rule.

Has this random sampling been done? If so, where’s the quantitative data? I don’t live in Europe so it would be nice to see the research that makes the people I’ve met and spoke with outliers. Granted, I’ve taught and tutored some immigrants that are at the rudimentary level of speaking, writing and comprehending English here in Canada, which makes many of them having the appearance of being dumbfounded and gobsmacked when speaking to them. However, I’ve found over time, when speaking to and with them, they become more comfortable with discussing their views on issues as a level of trust has been established.

You stated: FURTHER (and this is a response for rainerann as well), id argue that these enlightened migrants especially should not be in a first world country since THEIR country needs them more. They are creating a brain drain in their own country, and their country will continue to suffer until people like them stay there and build it up. They are the future leadership and new talent in all fields of their respective countries. They need to help their own rise to the next level.

I wholeheartedly agree. A previous post has already addressed most of this issue so I don’t think I need to further expound on it.

You stated: I never advocated inciting religious attacks on any religion. I did say that Muslims in their home countries of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, for instance, are not used to people being able to say what’s on their mind-- especially anything which is against something as unassailable as Mohammed. I am sure you know that people are executed for blaspheming in those countries. In the west, we have the freedom to say what we want about who we want. That does not always sit well with Muslim migrants.

This is what you stated “This is the exact reason why Muslim immigrants from Somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about Mohammed. They don’t "get" free speech.” Thereby, you’re talking about people of the Muslim faith moving to other countries different than their own, correct? I confess I’m ignorant about the current theological atmosphere in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan but I, too, can make speculations that much of it is a "Chicken Little" technique for the masses to ensure they develop distrust and fear for people who are from countries who practice Islam. As I stated earlier, I haven’t met any Muslims to date who are as you’ve described and I live in a pretty diverse, yet, non-secular environment. But then again, I might just be encountering more outliers to the claims made.

You stated: Recheck my post. I said that it WAS as effective as OWS (meaning it didn’t accomplish anything).

I stand corrected.

 

[polymoog]

OM: My point is focusing on the SOURCE of the issue(s) and putting what is happening with the immigrants and their current situation into context rather than making patronizing statements. You appear to be addressing the result, not the cause.

thats right-- the cause of the migration is completely irrelevant to the discussion. the fact is, there IS a migration. feel free to expound on the causes. i will likely agree with most of them, but it doesnt change the fact that they are flooding into europe and north america. and australia.... any westernized country, all the while other countries (middle eastern countries) refuse to take them in. saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, kuwait: 0 syrian refugees were taken in. others have closed their borders recently (egypt).
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2016/01/list_of_13_countries_smart_enough_to_refuse_muslim.html


OM: The extraction of natural resources began 50+ years prior to Perkins’ even being born. Cecil Rhodes, as stated earlier and Alfred Milner were at the onset in creating third world countries. Please feel free to elaborate on why it’s all beside the point.

this is the same logic of giving reparations to blacks because their ancestors were slaves.
practical colonialism has been over since the sixties, and the remaining english colonies are islands, many of which desire the UK to maintain their government. if any country has a guilt trip about crimes committed during their occupation, they could help build their infrastructure, although in many cases, the infrastructure WAS greatly aided by the empire. india would have never had the postal system or the train system without british help until far later.
in any case, poor handling of colonial regions and the pillaging of natural resources does not mean that taking in millions of migrants is the answer.


OM: This is what you stated “This is the exact reason why Muslim immigrants from Somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about Mohammed. They don’t "get" free speech.” Thereby, you’re talking about people of the Muslim faith moving to other countries different than their own, correct? I confess I’m ignorant about the current theological atmosphere in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan but I, too, can make speculations that much of it is a "Chicken Little" technique for the masses to ensure they develop distrust and fear for people who are from countries who practice Islam. As I stated earlier, I haven’t met any Muslims to date who are as you’ve described and I live in a pretty diverse, yet, non-secular environment. But then again, I might just be encountering more outliers to the claims made.

no sense in telling you about it. go on youtube and look at the footage. see how they handle any criticism of allah or mohammed.
or better yet, ask salman rushdie.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

thats right-- the cause of the migration is completely irrelevant to the discussion. the fact is, there IS a migration. feel free to expound on the causes. i will likely agree with most of them, but it doesnt change the fact that they are flooding into europe and north america. and australia.... any westernized country, all the while other countries (middle eastern countries) refuse to take them in. saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, kuwait: 0 syrian refugees were taken in. others have closed their borders recently (egypt).

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2016/01/list_of_13_countries_smart_enough_to_refuse_muslim.html

Apparently, that’s not true. There are lots of refugees in the Gulf States; they’re just not called as such:

Gulf States Response to Syrian Refugee Crisis – A Myth Debunked

this is the same logic of giving reparations to blacks because their ancestors were slaves.

But I thought this was your main point: “Migrants from 3rd world countries in Africa and the Middle East have absolutely no business migrating to the first world country until they are mentally prepared for first world concepts, like free speech and freedom of the press. This is the exact reason why Muslim immigrants from Somalia, for example, cannot handle someone saying anything negative about Mohammed. They don’t "get" free speech.” I was providing information regarding the reasons as to why their countries are in the conditions they’re in and stated the immigrants probably do have the capability of understanding free speech and press. I’m not following the correlation between the migration to Europe and the reparations for black slavery, but if you can, then Bob’s your uncle.

in any case, poor handling of colonial regions and the pillaging of natural resources does not mean that taking in millions of migrants is the answer.

Didn't say it was.

no sense in telling you about it. go on youtube and look at the footage. see how they handle any criticism of allah or mohammed.
or better yet, ask salman rushdie.

I won’t be going to YT to get my understanding of Islam as I’m guessing there are a lot of posters with Internet bravery writing and staging things derived from MSM. I don’t have cable and have real-life experience to draw upon. As I stated earlier, I live in a diverse community so there’s really nothing to convince me of the hyperbolic fear being propagandized about the faith. I imagine the YTers are feeding into Albert Pike’s prediction of WW3 quite nicely.

In any event, thanks for the conversation.