I've come to the conclusion that it's neither immigration nor religion. Its socioeconomical. If you look to a pattern in common between islamic stabber-terrorists and mosque-shooters: we're looking at disenfranchised male millennials more often than not of lower economic strata and more often than not with lower education levels.
Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressedNew research from Queen Mary University of London has found youth, wealth, and being in full-time education to be risk factors associated with violent radicalisation. Contrary to popular views – religious practice, health and social inequalities, discrimination, and political engagement showed no links.The study found that recent immigrants in poor and violent neighbourhoods tend to be most averse to radicalisation, whereas those committed to radicalisation were from wealthy families, well-educated and well-integrated 3rd gen or more.
sympathy levels increased among those under 20, those in full time education rather than employment, those born in the UK, and high earners (£75,000 per year or more).
Interestingly, migrants and those speaking a language other than English at home, and those who reported having poor physical health, were all less likely to show sympathies for terrorist acts. In addition, those who reported suffering from anxiety and depression were no more likely to display sympathies, provoking some new research questions about the relationship between radicalisation and mental health.
Mahathir Mohamad is right, in that the West has become so divorced from the concept of belief that it no longer has the capacity for understanding those who do. The notion that a young person would succeed materially in the West yet see very little value in the material success must seem strange to those for whom all violence is a result of socioeconomic relations, and the concept of a person with their own ambitions and convictions sufficient to murder or launch a suicide attack is incomprehensible. This is why even a total hermetic blockade, or some bureaucratic filtration of actively radicalised persons, would fail to address why the West cannot provide a platform of belief appealing to those who should be her success stories: Well integrated, well-off and well-educated - yet determined to harm their neighbour for having different beliefs, or a lack thereof.
Yes, yes, you're a very hard man making hard decisions about bombing refugees that the soft-bellied liberals don't understand. However, the problem is actually religion, so bombing refugees will not stop anything. This can be demonstrated by how many people have been bombed already, and yet attacks continue.
If we stopped bombing other countries, there would be much less refugees from aforementioned bombs. Not saying you're arguing that, as I'm sure you already agree, just pointing out that Th4DwArfY1 is referencing how no matter how many times people bent on killing innocents for being different walk into Europe, no matter how many people believe closing the open door policy isn't a controversial opinion, our glorious overlords will nevertheless refuse to accept any link between heterogeneous religious communities and religious violence, unless the topic of news is Ireland and other post-colonial borders.
It's not so much the policy proving itself as reality proving policy. There are only two border policies: Records or No Records. There used to be a third policy called Being An Island but that's gone the way of the dodo in the modern world, unless you're literally in the abyss of the open Pacific. Countries that go in for all this emotive bullshit about Keeping Them Out or even Saving The Refugees are dancing around the reality that they don't actually have control over borders.
Countries can just ignore the Schengen Area agreement like the Visegrad bois and resume policing of their borders. The EU would throw a hissyfit as usual but who cares
Nobody in the "West" has the chutzpah to reach this level of violence on their domestic borders. So it's just not going to happen, simple as that. Any policy that would be accepted would be subverted in short order. Which means there's no point in even wasting words on it since it poisons politicians to admit they don't have this kind of control, and the discussion should be all about policies which incentivize compliance with record-keeping entry.
That's rather absurd, you can accomplish with naval patrols, a fence, land patrols and border checkpoints a satisfactory border control without blowing the legs off every pedestrian with a warzone minefield. People will still find ways through; yet the simple act of raising the difficulty of entry from "you can walk in" to "papers please" means the vast majority will have the joys of introducing themselves to bureaucracy or bust. Many of the EU countries have already shown they are capable of enforcing border control to the majority of transit goers due to the COVID-19 restrictions should they so choose to. Meanwhile countries that do enforce borders show that whether landlocked or seaborne, such as the UK or Hungary, an enforced border means you have a few hundred to a few thousand enter your country illegally instead of the millions countries like Germany and Sweden faced. Furthermore, as the UK shows,
on a year to year basis most of the 2,000 annual channel crossers get caught, processed and granted asylum status, having determined their authenticity or not.
I believe border control, for the reasons I've stated above, will not address the fundamental issue of why Christmas markets keep turning into slaughterhouses. Yet viewed independently of terrorism or cultural cohabitation, a policed borders confers many advantages over an open border.
Least secure border in the world is US-Mexico. Maybe there's competition for least secure, but more people cross that one than the rest. It's a farce. You think you'll manage a border harsher than Trump in a democratic system?
Harshness is not a necessary requirement to policing, European police do not tend to carry guns.
And while the right continues to push on trying to get people to acknowledge "the dirty fact" that they think they're correct on but doesn't even recognize the reality of border policies, the situation just continues as it has. It's not even about achieving an actual material goal, it's just about getting people to say immigrants are bad. Getting caught up in "immigrants good/immigrants bad" discussions paralyzed the US for around 50 years now, ultimately ending with deciding immigrants were good. Real immigration management is pretty much exactly where it started but we have computer databases and secret police now. I don't recommend going down that kind of path.
That's good, because I am not seeking to create a dichotomy between native born and immigrant, especially since I have repeatedly posted evidence that it is the well-integrated scions of Muslim migrants who pose more trouble than Muslim migrants.
Of course, one global ecosocialist revolution coming right up.
I'll settle for everyone gaining a collective level of reason. No one gets murdered for their beliefs, we purge our elite strata of pedophiles, slavers and traffickers, we stop pointless wars around the world, we stop revolving all of our society around the acquisition of meaningless status and wealth. The world would improve drastically for people, plants and animals
A border =/= A blockade
Might as well be for this purpose. One thing Kissinger was right about is that you can't get something for nothing in geopolitics. On top of humans flowing like intelligent water and thus subverting the barriers put in front of us, a nation is not going to accept otherwise normal relations with a "and your people aren't allowed to ever visit us, filth" tacked on the end. Those days are over. One of the two will give - you will lose your access to the precious resource deposit mined by orphans for pennies on the yuan or you'll change your visa policy. Then someone comes over on that visa and decides they're the sword of God, we have this argument about practical policymaking, and the cycle starts anew. Then the ecocide kills everyone.
It is not helpful to imagine only extremes are possible, when working alternatives already exist. I don't want my country to export financial services in exchange for importing militants. I feel there is an equitable trade that can occur; the UK ceases support for terrorist funding states like Saudi Arabia, and in return the UK military-industrial complex loses some money. Win win
France doesn't fuck around when it comes to religion. Once you've gone and oppressed your own majority religion a couple times it's really burned into the collective unconsciousness. As long as Le Pen stays out I expect the whole thing to end in something like banning religious schools, that's been proposed before by some French politicians I think.
It is easier for a liberal nation to oppress its own religion than to oppress another's religion, a consequence of post-colonial remorse, trauma and revanchism.
Corbyn's not necessarily dead in the water, as he's still fighting the decision to suspend him. Not saying a sequel's likely but he may survive the ides of covid
Liberalism is, of course, inherently doomed to collapse. But I suspect that it shall only end with Corbyn alone amongst the ash of what once was Britain.
Upon a field of ashen Greggs and hollow Spoons, the ruined wreckage of the British Isles that devilish druids from Norf FC successfully plane-shifted into the Sun lies silent but for the trembling steps of the wandering Jezza. Betrayed by his own clan, his back adorned with a thousand swords, he wanders - his rose red blood dripping with each step. He has wandered the land for so long, a small hammer held gently in a weak and frail arm, so emaciated by the entropy of time that his veins have turned black and his skin turned a vitruvian white.
Beneath the shadow of a tall tower, a testament to the hubris of the Stock Mages and Exchange Warlocks, the bones and skulls of the indentured souls labour eternally for a competitive London living wage. Part of the tower, part of the company.
Jezza raises his hammer meekly, igniting what remains of his humanity. The skies darken and the screams of the damned turn silent as the Dark Lord steps down from his throne of lies.
"FOOOL. YOU SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED YOUR DEATH, OUR LORD IS MONEY MADE MANIFEST, NO ONE CAN DEFEAT HIM," bellowed Nick Clegg the Betrayer, ensorceled with Z'Uck Er'Berg's energy. The Dark Lord silenced the Betrayer with a flick of his commanding hand.
"I will deal with this pitiful relic," said Tony Blair, raising his maul.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 987241 times)