French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

Dyr

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a thread about France, Le Front National is strongly associated with neo nazi groups

Front National? Might want come up to speed there.

Dyr

micosoft wrote: »

I pretty familiar with the history of the Native Americans.

Which is why you're trying to dance around the obvious point, espousing the benefits of immigration for the US only works if you ignore its indigenous people

Akrasia

Bambi wrote: »

Front National? Might want come up to speed there.

It’s the same party

DerekC16

"European culture is definitely not under attack"

Meanwhile, The Swedes look set to become a minority in their own homeland by 2065.

TomTomTim

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When was the last time you were attacked by a Muslim? When was the last time you were beheaded? You're doing awful well for someone with no head.

In the meantime the families of those babies are looking for answers but as usual the RCC cover up their own atrocities that happened in the last few decades.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Pretty much the way Europeans were for the last couple of centuries? But hey that was in the past right? They should forget that and just go home to their own countries :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What are you doing to help stop this? Are you also outraged at the Jewish communities allowing circumcision to continue on young boys?

Are you incapable of dealing with a problem as is? Every one of your posts is deflection of the worst kind. Most of your posting can be summarized as: we were once backward so we should tolerate some backwardness. How do you iron that out in your head exactly? Shouldn't a "progressive" society be shunning all backwardness, and not tolerating it?

Timberrrrrrrr

TomTomTim wrote: »

Are you incapable of dealing with a problem as is? Every one of your posts is deflection of the worst kind. Most of your posting can be summarized as: we were once backward so we should tolerate some backwardness. How do you iron that out in your head exactly? Shouldn't a "progressive" society be shunning all backwardness, and not tolerating it?

I agree, let's start with circumcision, what time will you be at the Israeli embassy protesting?

Akrasia

DerekC16 wrote: »

"European culture is definitely not under attack"

Meanwhile, The Swedes look set to become a minority in their own homeland by 2065.

This is a perpetual lie spread by racists for decades
In reality

Statistics Sweden also makes forecasts or "projections" of Sweden's future population. Making forecasts for migration is difficult, as both immigration and emigration can be greatly affected by unpredictable events in the world. Therefore, Statistics Sweden also incorporates a certain random factor in its projections.

In its latest major report, the authority estimates that Sweden's population during the period up to 2070 (as far as there is a forecast for at present) will consist of at most 26 percent foreign-born, a proportion that is expected to decrease towards the end of the period. The category “foreign background” is not forecasted by Statistics Sweden.[\quote] https://expo.se/2019/06/nej-svenskar-riskerar-inte-att-bli-i-minoritet

DerekC16

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a perpetual lie spread by racists for decades
In reality

Statistics Sweden also makes forecasts or "projections" of Sweden's future population. Making forecasts for migration is difficult, as both immigration and emigration can be greatly affected by unpredictable events in the world. Therefore, Statistics Sweden also incorporates a certain random factor in its projections.

In its latest major report, the authority estimates that Sweden's population during the period up to 2070 (as far as there is a forecast for at present) will consist of at most 26 percent foreign-born, a proportion that is expected to decrease towards the end of the period. The category “foreign background” is not forecasted by Statistics Sweden.[\quote] https://expo.se/2019/06/nej-svenskar-riskerar-inte-att-bli-i-minoritet

Source : Communist, anti racist magazine lol

Timberrrrrrrr

DerekC16 wrote: »

.

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a perpetual lie spread by racists for decades
In reality


Source : Communist, anti racist magazine lol

Where's your source for your claim?

DerekC16 wrote: »

"European culture is definitely not under attack"

Meanwhile, The Swedes look set to become a minority in their own homeland by 2065.

Wibbs

Akrasia wrote: »

In its latest major report, the authority estimates that Sweden's population during the period up to 2070 (as far as there is a forecast for at present) will consist of at most 26 percent foreign-born, a proportion that is expected to decrease towards the end of the period. The category “foreign background” is not forecasted by Statistics Sweden.

Hang on a quarter of people in Sweden could be foreign born by 2070? Never mind that foreign born doesn't include those who are not native Swedes, but who were born there to foreign born parents or grandparents. Reading the article itself it states that today 25% of people in Sweden are already either foreign born or born to parents who are. No matter how one slices that pie that's about the biggest demographic shift in Sweden's history.

The other issue with migrant populations is that they overwhelmingly settle in urban enclaves for good reasons like economics and the strong tendency in human nature to want to be around people and cultures most like you. This is more in play with groups who don't look like the locals, or have an obviously different culture. So while a demographic shift country wide might be say 10%, in cities that can be much higher a proportion. The part in the article were it notes that the percentage of Muslims is 8%, but people when asked put it much higher at 28% makes more sense in urban environments. Ask a Swedish farmer and he's more likely to say "what Muslims?".

Wibbs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, let's start with circumcision, what time will you be at the Israeli embassy protesting?

I'd ban it for non medical purposes in a heartbeat. It's a bronze age blood ritual that has no business in an enlightened society.

DerekC16 wrote: »

Source : Communist, anti racist magazine lol

There is spin on all sides. On one side it's: We're being colonised!!! On the other; Nothing to see here, all grand!!! The truth as usual is somewhere else.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Which is why you're trying to dance around the obvious point, espousing the benefits of immigration for the US only works if you ignore its indigenous people

Even without taking into account the effects on the indiginous population, it also seeks to ignore the stresses that have been placed on society over the decades. A melting pot of cultures, perspectives, attitudes, etc, all brewing over time, often causing friction between them, but culminating in what?

I could understand the openhanded approach to immigration if the signs weren't obvious that western modes of society are all struggling to effectively deal with the divisions that naturally occur. There is little effort to bring the various groups together. Nationalism is a bad thing apparently... but what are you left without it? A wide range of cultural groups holding fervently to their own identity, and expecting that identity to shape the future of the nation. Divided. Clashing against each other. Ultimately tearing society apart as different groups view each other with suspicion, and later perhaps, superiority or contempt.

Danzy

It can often be a positive experience and lead to growth and development.

Look at the experience in Israel, migrants from Europe, ironically returning the original culture developed a rich and free society. Arabic Berbers have integrated well, they still speak Arabic or Berber, but are also fluent in Hebrew.

They listen to Arabic and Jewish music.

Given their nomadic trader history. They are among the most able to take advantage of the economic opportunities presented. Entrepreneurship is built in to their history.

A success there does not mean it elsewhere, the chances reduce as the no of strands grow.

Danzy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, let's start with circumcision, what time will you be at the Israeli embassy protesting?

And he is back to the Jooooos.

Circumcision outside of medical reasons is wrong.

Not as greviously wrong as female circumcision which denies a woman any sexual pleasure in life and often is accompanied by life long chronic pain.

A man can still have a fulfilling sex life, pain free, after that cut.

It's only purpose in a woman is to deny that.

They are both culturally wrong but one is so sadistic and brutal that it needs to be eradicated from the world.

eleventh

Wibbs wrote: »

There is spin on all sides. On one side it's: We're being colonised!!! On the other; Nothing to see here, all grand!!! The truth as usual is somewhere else.

We are being colonised. It's not as clear or obvious as it was in the past. In part because it's not from a single source now but from all over.

Wibbs

Danzy wrote: »

It can often be a positive experience and lead to growth and development.

Look at the experience in Israel, migrants from Europe, ironically returning the original culture developed a rich and free society.

You're using Israel as a good example of the positives of mass migration? Really?

Regardless of one's standpoint as to why it should or why it should not exist(I fall into the former camp), it's a nation that was born in bloodshed, a plantation, a colony that replaced an imperial one and continued that way with the indigenous population who didn't fit being ever more squeezed into smaller and smaller areas. And there was little of the "original culture" going on. Israel is essentially a European-Jewish colony in the Middle East. Before modern Hebrew was decided as the lingua franca, both English and German were in the running. Needless to say the latter got the heave ho. It's a rich and free society if you're of that background, less so if you're not.

Would you have called the Plantations of Ireland a positive experience leading to growth and development and a rich and free society? I bloody doubt it. Man, I thought I'd seen it all, but that example takes the biscuit.

Wibbs

Danzy wrote: »

And he is back to the Jooooos.

Circumcision outside of medical reasons is wrong.

Not as greviously wrong as female circumcision which denies a woman any sexual pleasure in life and often is accompanied by life long chronic pain.

A man can still have a fulfilling sex life, pain free, after that cut.

It's only purpose in a woman is to deny that.

They are both culturally wrong but one is so sadistic and brutal that it needs to be eradicated from the world.

Actually male circumcision became popular in the western world in the 19th century because it was thought to reduce the frequency and pleasure of masturbation and reduce sexual impulses in general. Would you see the two as equal if exactly the same corresponding tissue was removed in girls as in boys? I doubt it and that's your bias talking.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

It can often be a positive experience and lead to growth and development.

Look at the experience in Israel, migrants from Europe, ironically returning the original culture developed a rich and free society. Arabic Berbers have integrated well, they still speak Arabic or Berber, but are also fluent in Hebrew.

They listen to Arabic and Jewish music.

Given their nomadic trader history. They are among the most able to take advantage of the economic opportunities presented. Entrepreneurship is built in to their history.

A success there does not mean it elsewhere, the chances reduce as the no of strands grow.

Sure, but Israel was founded with a core value running through it all. Judaism. A refuge for Jewish people, who may have come from many different nations, but who all saw themselves as Jewish. That matters.

As for those who were't Jewish, but managed to integrate, there is no allowance for other cultural groups gaining power/authority that the Jewish state doesn't give first, and that power/authority can be revoked at any stage. They haven't followed the European/American way of dealing with migration. They're retained a strong core national/cultural identity, and are fully capable of seeing foreigners as being direct threats to the survival of the Jewish people.

I certainly wouldn't place Israel as being a symbol of multiculturalism as practiced by Western nations. They manage multiculturalism in the same way the Arabs or the Chinese do. Superficial and retractable "rights" but ultimately the Jewish people are the only ones with real value.

Wibbs

eleventh wrote: »

We are being colonised. It's not as clear or obvious as it was in the past. In part because it's not from a single source now but from all over.

We, that is Europe is not being colonised. Certainly not from outside Europe. The numbers are too small and will likely remain so. Secondly, and this is usually missed in such arguments, The majority of the foreign born are other Europeans. Take Ireland as an example. Going by the last census there were twice as many Spaniards as there were Nigerians. Same for Italians, French and Germans. Twenty times more Poles and not far off that for British people.

Again, where people can perceive the numbers to be higher is in urban areas, where the vast majority of non native Europeans live and as I say people tend to congregate together in communities so it looks more concentrated. Another influence on this perception can be advertising and/or government missives where the percentages of non European faces is far higher than the real world percentages.

I'm long on record here as someone who thinks modern multiculturalism is a failed politic and social experiment and would personally curtail it in a big way, but realities are realities and colonisation is not one of them.

Timberrrrrrrr

Danzy wrote: »

And he is back to the Jooooos.

Circumcision outside of medical reasons is wrong.

Not as greviously wrong as female circumcision which denies a woman any sexual pleasure in life and often is accompanied by life long chronic pain.

A man can still have a fulfilling sex life, pain free, after that cut.

It's only purpose in a woman is to deny that.

They are both culturally wrong but one is so sadistic and brutal that it needs to be eradicated from the world.

I agree, nowhere have I EVER defended this barbaric practice and I would happily see the perpetrators of such a vile practice locked away for life.

My point is certain posters are on here day in day out on every thread about Muslims/Islam making points such as "FMG is a terrible and totally unnecessary religious rite" yet never comment on the same "terrible and totally unnecessary religious rite" performed by other religions.

They are not making anti FMG posts they are using FMG as yet another way to attack Islam/Muslims.

jackboy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

My point is certain posters are on here day in day out on every thread about Muslims/Islam making points such as "FMG is a terrible and totally unnecessary religious rite" yet never comment on the same "terrible and totally unnecessary religious rite" performed by other religions.

Are you trying to equate male circumcision to FGM. They are in no way the ‘same’ as you have suggested. One is far worse than the other. Doesn’t mean that male circumcision is not wrong but obviously one is truly worthy of far more outrage than the other.

Timberrrrrrrr

jackboy wrote: »

Are you trying to equate male circumcision to FGM. They are in no way the ‘same’ as you have suggested. One is far worse than the other. Doesn’t mean that male circumcision is not wrong but obviously one is truly worthy of far more outrage than the other.

No, I am equating one idiotic barbaric religious rite with another and pointing out that a certain cohort will be on every thread pertaining to Islam/Muslims talking about FMG but will never raise an eyebrow about circumcision. Circumcision may not be as bad as FMG but its still wrong to force that on a baby just because of your beliefs.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm long on record here as someone who thinks modern multiculturalism is a failed politic and social experiment and would personally curtail it in a big way, but realities are realities and colonisation is not one of them.

I'd be of a similar mindset. The colonialisation of Europe isn't likely. However, I do see the establishment of enclaves within Europe where non-European values/culture becomes superior, in application, than the laws/customs of the host nation.

My first taste of this was in Frankfurt when I was a teenager studying German, and seeing the enclave of Turkish, who had their own signs in their language, the language in the streets of the enclave wasn't German, and the customs followed in the streets wasn't German.

The alternative to that are Chinatown's throughout the world, where you will see a combination of Chinese/English, the signs will be both, and the customs are both. Which to my mind is more acceptable and less threatening, because there is no expectation for visitors (or locals) to conform to the rules of the Chinatown.

When we look at nations like France, in which, suburbs have been taken over by migrant groups, we can see the locals being pushed out. The customs and accepted behavior becomes that of the migrant group. French women are pressured to conform to the migrant culture, being harassed on French streets, or being followed by cars while they're out in public. That's the danger.

I wouldn't call it colonialism... but I do see it as a real danger because as populations increase, the areas that these enclaves represent will also increase in size, and I don't expect/want to find heavy handed Islamic culture becoming dominant in European cities or towns. I expect to find that in the M.East, and I accept it there, but not in Europe.

Danzy

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually male circumcision became popular in the western world in the 19th century because it was thought to reduce the frequency and pleasure of masturbation and reduce sexual impulses in general. Would you see the two as equal if exactly the same corresponding tissue was removed in girls as in boys? I doubt it and that's your bias talking.

I have no problem with male circumcision, outside of strict medical reasons, being banned. There is no reason it should be the norm anywhere.

Female circumcision is a savage denial of a basic human function, it's a life of pain.

There is no comparison between the 2, the female version is purely an act of sadism and torture.

Both are wrong but one must be routed out by any means from world.

If it was a piece of labia removed from the female it would be the same.

It's not a punishing mutilation,just an odd thing to do.

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

..The colonialisation of Europe isn't likely. However, I do see the establishment of enclaves within Europe where non-European values/culture becomes superior, in application, than the laws/customs of the host nation.

Colonisation in the sense of permanent settlements. They're not political units; they don't have to be.
Enclave, settlement, colony, I see them as similar terms. Where colony in the past pointed more to acquiring territory, territory is still acquired but more after the fact, over time, so it's less clear what is taking place.
It's not a natural migration of peoples; it's deliberate re-settlement.

Timberrrrrrrr

eleventh wrote: »

Colonisation in the sense of permanent settlements. They're not political units; they don't have to be.
Enclave, settlement, colony, I see them as similar terms. Where colony in the past pointed more to acquiring territory, territory is still acquired but more after the fact, over time, so it's less clear what is taking place.
It's not a natural migration of peoples; it's deliberate re-settlement.

By whom and for what reasons?

jackboy

I don’t think what the Generals were highlighting was aimed specifically at immigrants or immigration. It was aimed at a highly dangerous ideology which is sweeping through the west at the moment. They recognise that the ideology is highly likely to fail at some point, but if encouraged and promoted by those in power, the fall is likely to occur through violence which would be a disaster for French society.

Manic Moran

magicbastarder wrote: »

the OP said they're retired, so technically do they even have a rank?

anyway, nothing says 'finger on the pulse of culture' like hearing an opinion from a retired general. maybe i'm biased, the two senior retired army officers i've known were both dull blowhards with a massively overflated sense of their own opinion.

Yes. Retired does not mean resigned, so they are entitled the rank and to be addressed as such. I met such a French General two weeks ago.

Further, my understanding is that they are still on the paid rolls, similar to the half-pay system the British use (used?) and may be called back into full service if necessary.

Danzy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes. Retired does not mean resigned, so they are entitled the rank and to be addressed as such. I met such a French General two weeks ago.

Further, my understanding is that they are still on the paid rolls, similar to the half-pay system the British use (used?) and may be called back into full service if necessary.

They are considered not active more than retired, still in reserve, still having conditions to adhere to.

eleventh

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t think what the Generals were highlighting was aimed specifically at immigrants or immigration. It was aimed at a highly dangerous ideology which is sweeping through the west at the moment. They recognise that the ideology is highly likely to fail at some point, but if encouraged and promoted by those in power, the fall is likely to occur through violence which would be a disaster for French society.

It's not that obvious that it will fail. I don't see that at all. It's the west that is falling or failing.