Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party

[bloodyminded]

And since you haven't answered any of my questions I'll assume they make you uncomfortable, you don't like to think of them, and have no answers to give.

I answered one before you asked it...you cut it out of my quote.

[PIK]

((A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature.))

And how many of these christians are strapping TNT onto themselves?

[bloodyminded]

((A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature.))

And how many of these christians are strapping TNT onto themselves?

Exactly my point. There's no reason to believe that current behaviors by a few extremists will be the norm forever...much less get worse.

[Guest TrueMetis]

((A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature.))

And how many of these christians are strapping TNT onto themselves?

They generally prefer shooting people and not blowing themselves up with their bombs.

Eric Robert Rudolph

And see the Christian Identity Movement.

There are plenty of radical christians bombing abortion clinics and commiting other crimes.

[Oleg Bach]

Once we figure out that Islam is not religion but the oldest corporation on earth and the biggest- the better off we will be- the Vatican is a corporation and has little to do with Jesus the founder..in fact Jesus was tossed out and they stuck Peter the thrice rat in there.

[Michael Hardner]

That depends on the immigration rate and the extent to which the prevalent society encourages them to assimilate. Put immigration rates high enough and incentives to assimilate low enough, and they will not in fact melt in. For example, Europeans immigrating to North America did not "melt in" with the existing population. Rather, they supplanted the existing population and created a new society based on their own culture and values. This is because they immigrated in large numbers and stayed together in cohesive units rather than dispersing amongst the natives. This is but one example, there are many examples in history of migrating peoples overwhelming and replacing the cultures of other areas.

Now, Europe quite possibly faces the very same scenario. Except, unlike these previous examples, they have the power to do something about it, if they so choose.

Your example about Europeans coming to North America is true enough, but there will never be numbers like that involved in immigration. Even when hundreds of thousands of Europeans were coming over, there was a possibility of integration into a North American people ... and this was back then.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, in a report from an ex policeman named Tim Priest which, if I remember right, you said was too long for you to be bothered reading.

I read a good deal of it before I bailed - certainly enough to get the point. That type of writing is so mind-splittingly dull that you can't expect me to read more than a few pages. I also posted my problems with his article at that time.

[Michael Hardner]

((A sizeable portion of North America is made up of fundamentalist Christians who think Evolution is a hoax, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Government should be specifically Christian in nature.))

And how many of these christians are strapping TNT onto themselves?

Blowing up abortion clinics, government buildings... I dunno a handful. There are also people listening to heavy metal albums, or watching Jodie Foster movies over and over again. There are lots of crazy people out there threatening us. What's the threshold for crazy foreigners that make us not allow foreigners into the country ? What's the threshold of crazy domestics ?

[Bonam]

Your example about Europeans coming to North America is true enough, but there will never be numbers like that involved in immigration. Even when hundreds of thousands of Europeans were coming over, there was a possibility of integration into a North American people ... and this was back then.

Like I said, two factors: the rate of immigration, and the incentive to integrate. What possibility was there of integration into a North American people? Are you serious? The Europeans looked down upon the savage cultures that they saw and thought themselves much superior culturally and morally. For the most part they stayed in the colonies that they built, except when it came time to gain more land, or to gain profit through trade.

The numbers of people immigrating to Canada today are quite high. Isn't it something along the lines of 300,000 per year? Many of them also regard themselves as much superior culturally and morally, just as the Europeans that came here centuries before did. And, just like the natives back then, we are for the most part welcoming the newcomers with open arms, not realizing their intention to supplant and marginalize us, which, again just like the Europeans centuries before, they see simply as their inevitable god-given destiny. Just like the Europeans huddled together in their initial colonies until their numbers were great enough to expand outward, many Muslim immigrants cluster together in specific neighbourhoods, spreading to more areas as their numbers increase.

The situation is exactly analogous, except for just one difference. The natives of the 1600 and 1700s could do absolutely nothing about the influx of Europeans. Even if they had realized their civilizations stood on the brink of destruction and had risen up in united war against the newcomers they almost certainly would have lost, sooner or later. Meanwhile, all we have to do now to alter the situation is basically to write up and sign a piece of paper in parliament reducing the allowed rate of immigration from certain areas of the world.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Like I said, two factors: the rate of immigration, and the incentive to integrate. What possibility was there of integration into a North American people? Are you serious? The Europeans looked down upon the savage cultures that they saw and thought themselves much superior culturally and morally. For the most part they stayed in the colonies that they built, except when it came time to gain more land, or to gain profit through trade.

The numbers of people immigrating to Canada today are quite high. Isn't it something along the lines of 300,000 per year? Many of them also regard themselves as much superior culturally and morally, just as the Europeans that came here centuries before did. And, just like the natives back then, we are for the most part welcoming the newcomers with open arms, not realizing their intention to supplant and marginalize us, which, again just like the Europeans centuries before, they see simply as their inevitable god-given destiny. Just like the Europeans huddled together in their initial colonies until their numbers were great enough to expand outward, many Muslim immigrants cluster together in specific neighbourhoods, spreading to more areas as their numbers increase.

The situation is exactly analogous, except for just one difference. The natives of the 1600 and 1700s could do absolutely nothing about the influx of Europeans. Even if they had realized their civilizations stood on the brink of destruction and had risen up in united war against the newcomers they almost certainly would have lost, sooner or later. Meanwhile, all we have to do now to alter the situation is basically to write up and sign a piece of paper in parliament reducing the allowed rate of immigration from certain areas of the world.

There was intermarriage and trade early on, but an immigration rate much higher than the 1% you quoted for Canada. And the dynamic is totally different. Nobody is coming here thinking that this will be a Muslim nation anytime soon, or trying to buy land to make their own country. Muslims will integrate as all other religions have - why would it be different ?

[Bonam]

There was intermarriage and trade early on, but an immigration rate much higher than the 1% you quoted for Canada. And the dynamic is totally different. Nobody is coming here thinking that this will be a Muslim nation anytime soon, or trying to buy land to make their own country. Muslims will integrate as all other religions have - why would it be different ?

How much higher than 1%? Native populations are estimated to have been 10-20 million for North America. Immigration rates couldn't have been that much higher than 100,000-200,000 per year (that would be 1%). Native populations quickly dwindled, however, in the face of the immigrants which brought new diseases. But many Western countries (mostly in Europe) face dwindling populations as well, due to sub-replacement fertility rates.

[eyeball]

Even if they had realized their civilizations stood on the brink of destruction and had risen up in united war against the newcomers they almost certainly would have lost, sooner or later.

But many Western countries (mostly in Europe) face dwindling populations as well, due to sub-replacement fertility rates.

Things change - they never stay the same or last forever.

[ToadBrother]

Like I said, two factors: the rate of immigration, and the incentive to integrate. What possibility was there of integration into a North American people? Are you serious? The Europeans looked down upon the savage cultures that they saw and thought themselves much superior culturally and morally. For the most part they stayed in the colonies that they built, except when it came time to gain more land, or to gain profit through trade.

It's certainly more complex than that. The Spanish, with only a small number of men, managed to smash the indigenous civilizations from Mexico to Peru. Firearms and smallpox played an enormous role. Smallpox, in particular, raced across the Americas, sometimes years in advance of the Europeans.

The numbers of people immigrating to Canada today are quite high. Isn't it something along the lines of 300,000 per year? Many of them also regard themselves as much superior culturally and morally, just as the Europeans that came here centuries before did. And, just like the natives back then, we are for the most part welcoming the newcomers with open arms, not realizing their intention to supplant and marginalize us, which, again just like the Europeans centuries before, they see simply as their inevitable god-given destiny. Just like the Europeans huddled together in their initial colonies until their numbers were great enough to expand outward, many Muslim immigrants cluster together in specific neighbourhoods, spreading to more areas as their numbers increase.

"Clustering" has been a phenomenon of immigrants to the Americas. You have German and Welsh communities in South America that have persisted for generations. Major cities like New York and Montreal still have ethnic enclaves, and Vancouver has its vigorous and healthy Chinese community. My grandmother, who was from Ontario, could still remember Ukrainian and German communities. Heck, I was very good friends with a kid whose grandparents and dad and uncles were from Germany, and who socialized mainly with other Germans, as much due to his grandmother's English being extremely limited.

This works well enough when these "enclaves" still share some reasonable chunk of cultural values (though there will always be conflicts of one form or another, arranged marriages in Chinese and Sikh communities, though seemingly not a problem now, certainly were at one time). I would go so far as to say most Muslim immigrants don't come here to conquer. The problem in the Muslim community, as it was in the urban Italian communities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was that along with the Joe Averages, there comes an undesirable element, which has the effect of bleeding off a certain number of younger individuals and giving the wider community a very bad name.

I don't think Muslim immigration to Canada is high enough to threaten our way of life. Europe is somewhat different because it has been effective policy for many years to allow Africans and Middle Easterners in, just as the Americans do with Mexicans, to take over the lowest-tier jobs. There are also the complexities, in France, for instance, of the historical colonial ties it had with places like Algeria, which saw a major influx of French-speaking Muslims.

The situation is exactly analogous, except for just one difference. The natives of the 1600 and 1700s could do absolutely nothing about the influx of Europeans. Even if they had realized their civilizations stood on the brink of destruction and had risen up in united war against the newcomers they almost certainly would have lost, sooner or later. Meanwhile, all we have to do now to alter the situation is basically to write up and sign a piece of paper in parliament reducing the allowed rate of immigration from certain areas of the world.

Like I said, I honestly don't think Canada is facing the same kind of problems that Europe is. Europe will, I'm certain, move in precisely that direction, or at least will continue to harass the insular Muslim communities.

Edited March 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

Exactly my point. There's no reason to believe that current behaviors by a few extremists will be the norm forever...much less get worse.

Few? Define few. And who says what we're primarily concerned with is people strapping TNT onto their chests anyway? The subject of this topic relates to extremists infiltrating the system and, as their numbers grow, changing it to suit their own extreme views.

Or to put it bluntly, if 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia law, and their numbers continue to grow, how much stronger will their political pull get in future with regard to their desire for laws based upon an extremist view of society?

[Argus]

There was intermarriage and trade early on, but an immigration rate much higher than the 1% you quoted for Canada. And the dynamic is totally different. Nobody is coming here thinking that this will be a Muslim nation anytime soon, or trying to buy land to make their own country. Muslims will integrate as all other religions have - why would it be different ?

What other religions have integrated? Up until forty years ago almost all Canadians were Christians other than Jews who had, for the most part, lived among Christians for centurites. The other religions were barely represented in Canada at all prior to the seventies. Canada has never integrated a group of foreign religious types that I'm aware of.

Integrating a Polish guy or a Ukrainian girl are one thing. After a generation or so they don't really consider themselves so much Polish and Ukrainian as Canadian. But you're talking about a Muslim, and a Muslim is still a Muslim regardless of what country he's living in. You think the first or second or third generation of Mulims born to Canada are going to abandon their religion? Why would you?

Edited March 5, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

What other religions have integrated? Up until forty years ago almost all Canadians were Christians other than Jews who had, for the most part, lived among Christians for centurites. The other religions were barely represented in Canada at all prior to the seventies. Canada has never integrated a group of foreign religious types that I'm aware of.

In other words, Jews had learned after long centuries of Christian hostility to keep their heads down.

Integrating a Polish guy or a Ukrainian girl are one thing. After a generation or so they don't really consider themselves so much Polish and Ukrainian as Canadian. But you're talking about a Muslim, and a Muslim is still a Muslim regardless of what country he's living in. You think the first or second or third generation of Mulims born to Canada are going to abandon their religion? Why would you?

What exactly does that mean? There isn't one kind of Muslim. Not every Muslim is some bomb-wielding maniac. There are groups that have become insular, and these are the ones, in the West, that are the big problem.

[Bonam]

Like I said, I honestly don't think Canada is facing the same kind of problems that Europe is. Europe will, I'm certain, move in precisely that direction, or at least will continue to harass the insular Muslim communities.

I agree with you, the situation in Canada and America is not yet that dire nor irreversible. Europe is certainly much farther along the path in that direction. But, Europe got to where it was through immigration and declining birth rates, exactly the same things we have going on here now. We are perhaps a few decades behind Europe in terms of this trend, but we are following the exact same path. The problems Europe is experiencing now should educate us about what will happen if we continue down this path.

That is why I say we should do something about it now, stem the tide before it becomes a major problem, rather than having to take more drastic measures later or else seeing our civilization washed away.

[ToadBrother]

I agree with you, the situation in Canada and America is not yet that dire nor irreversible. Europe is certainly much farther along the path in that direction. But, Europe got to where it was through immigration and declining birth rates, exactly the same things we have going on here now. We are perhaps a few decades behind Europe in terms of this trend, but we are following the exact same path. The problems Europe is experiencing now should educate us about what will happen if we continue down this path.

That is why I say we should do something about it now, stem the tide before it becomes a major problem, rather than having to take more drastic measures later or else seeing our civilization washed away.

Then the surest way to do it is to promote greater birthrates. Stemming immigration without adequate population replacement to fuel growth means we'll just starve ourselves at the other end.

[eyeball]

Then the surest way to do it is to promote greater birthrates. Stemming immigration without adequate population replacement to fuel growth means we'll just starve ourselves at the other end.

Said one cancer cell to another...

What about the freakin' planet guys? The last thing it needs is more human beings growing on it.

[ToadBrother]

Said one cancer cell to another...

That tells me a considerable amount about you.

What about the freakin' planet guys? The last thing it needs is more human beings growing on it.

Human beings will breed. It's in our nature. Unfortunately, the side effect of a relatively prosperous society is reduced birthrates, and that's not even counting how we help those low rates along with advanced contraception. If we kill immigration and retain low birth rates, our economy will stutter and we'll end up vulnerable to the very cultures we fear do not share our values.

[Bonam]

Then the surest way to do it is to promote greater birthrates. Stemming immigration without adequate population replacement to fuel growth means we'll just starve ourselves at the other end.

I disagree, we can stem immigration as it is.

First, I do not take it as an axiom that we need a growing population to maintain a growing economy and increasing prosperity. Productivity and output will increase even if the population stays constant, simply due to the continuing development of and investment in technology, and increased automation. Canada and the US are not yet at the point where our birth rates are below replacement levels (like much of Europe) so we don't need to fear our cities turning into ghost towns without immigration.

Secondly, you are right, in the long term, if we need more population, then the surest way is indeed to promote greater birthrates. But in the meanwhile, it doesn't mean we need to be replacing our population with immigrants.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

I disagree, we can stem immigration as it is.

First, I do not take it as an axiom that we need a growing population to maintain a growing economy and increasing prosperity. Productivity and output will increase even if the population stays constant, simply due to the continuing development of and investment in technology, and increased automation. Canada and the US are not yet at the point where our birth rates are below replacement levels (like much of Europe) so we don't need to fear our cities turning into ghost towns without immigration.

Secondly, you are right, in the long term, if we need more population, then the surest way is indeed to promote greater birthrates. But in the meanwhile, it doesn't mean we need to be replacing our population with immigrants.

I was speaking more generally of the West. Our birthrates are better than Europe's, but still below many other parts of the world. But the US, for instance, is hardly invulnerable, Latino communities are growing, particularly Mexican-American communities in California, Texas, and all along the border states, and believe me, that has all the good God-fearing Protestant social conservatives freaking out, as they always have been by Catholic immigration and the higher birthrates of Catholic communities.

[Bonam]

Our birthrates may not be as high as some third world ratholes, but neither do we need to be tripling our population with every generation. A fertility rate of around 2.1 is all we need, and that's right about where we're at. And, like I said, and as you agree, if we do need more people, we should implement measures to incentivize higher birth rates. If you can see that even the US is indeed vulnerable than you should see the necessity for curbing immigration . Although, Latino immigrants are not the same as Muslims immigrants, I would put forth that on average they are probably easier to integrate, so we could probably handle a higher influx rate of them.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

How much higher than 1%? Native populations are estimated to have been 10-20 million for North America. Immigration rates couldn't have been that much higher than 100,000-200,000 per year (that would be 1%). Native populations quickly dwindled, however, in the face of the immigrants which brought new diseases. But many Western countries (mostly in Europe) face dwindling populations as well, due to sub-replacement fertility rates.

My Google search says more like 5 million over the whole continent, which means they were outnumbered in the east by the time of the first US Census, which tallied about 4 million citizens. There was a lot of resulting violence in the 18th century.

[Michael Hardner]

What other religions have integrated? Up until forty years ago almost all Canadians were Christians other than Jews who had, for the most part, lived among Christians for centurites. The other religions were barely represented in Canada at all prior to the seventies. Canada has never integrated a group of foreign religious types that I'm aware of.

Jews were certainly foreign religious types. They lived among Christians, yes, however in very difference circumstances. Jewish immigrants to America, even in the 19th century, had far more rights and fraternized with Christians much more than in their native Germany, or in Russia where they were persecuted.

Keep in mind, too, that Christianity is not a monolithic religion. There has been violence between Christian sects for a long time too.

Integrating a Polish guy or a Ukrainian girl are one thing. After a generation or so they don't really consider themselves so much Polish and Ukrainian as Canadian. But you're talking about a Muslim, and a Muslim is still a Muslim regardless of what country he's living in. You think the first or second or third generation of Mulims born to Canada are going to abandon their religion? Why would you?

For what reason, do you think, are Muslims different from every other religion on earth ? Is it genetic ? I'm interested in your theory.