Reconquista the Sequel, the de-islamification of Europe - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14837065
Okay first off this isn't a thread for discussing whether or not Islam still represents a threat to Europe. This is for discussing what can be done about it, assuming it is. If you want to defend Islam as religion of peas or whatever else then that belongs in another thread, go make it. This thread is just about tactics.

To my mind the terrorist atrocities, despite the damage they do, are not the main threat but are rather more of surface symptom of the real threat which is demographic displacement which inevitably will lead to democratic displacement. Democratic displacement will result in Islamic Law, Islamic governance and the final triumph of Islam over European culture.

The Islamists can't touch us militarily; not since the fall of the Ottoman Empire have the Muslims represented a credible military threat to Europe. The technological advantage is ours by a long way. However our open systems of governance: democracy, ideas on freedom of religion, permissive border control and permissive welfare provision represent an nexus of exploitable weaknesses for them where we essentially end up feeding our own defeat. This is the substance of the modern threat Islam poses to Europe.

In the past, for example in the original Reconquista, measures against Islam were taken by making harsh actions against all that was not Catholic, which in the Spanish context mostly drives against the Muslim invaders but incidently also spilled over onto others. This was probably a workable tactic then but our modern situation can't be so crude. A more fine grained approach is needed which targets Islam directly without spilling over onto others. So rather than the promotion of a narrow not-Islamic state religion we should allow freedom of religion but only specifically proscribe this one problematic religion which is Islam.

The French have made of few moves in the right direction by trying to target with legislation certain Islamic practices like the headscarf, but really this is far too weak.

What else might be done?
#14837117
Replace liberal politicians with those who wish to maintain heritage
They will then change the EU which is your biggest hurdle.
You can then control your borders.
The existing Muslims will either assimilate or leave.
The actual Muslims are not the largest part of the problem currently. Changing your politics is.
#14837140
Institute international socialism.
End all neo-colonial, neo-imperialist, and neo-liberal interventions in the developing world.
End global economic inequality.
Raise the standard of living for all immigrant populations in the west to the same as for white populations.
End global warming.

That should stop immigration and the gap in birth rates.
#14837142
Pants-of-dog wrote:Institute international socialism.
End all neo-colonial, neo-imperialist, and neo-liberal interventions in the developing world.
End global economic inequality.
Raise the standard of living for all immigrant populations in the west to the same as for white populations.
End global warming.

That should stop immigration and the gap in birth rates.


The afghanis tore your lot a new arsehole when they invaded and then raped it. I don' think there is any chance we will get any good advice from losers. Even the Chechens kick your arse still.

Image
#14837160
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, my solutions actually address the root causes of immigration and high birth rates.

Yours simply involve taking away freedom of religion.


If we were stupid enough to let you persuade us to fund them up they will just come in yet greater numbers and we will have a greater problem.

They don't care about your kooky beliefs because they have kooky beliefs of their own with a far more substantial heritage. You fund them they will not build marxian idols they'll just build mosques and spend their spare time beheading commies along with everyone else who is not a muslim. You can't use them.

Image
#14837167
It's basically a matter of immigration policy and border control. Add a common sense assimilation policy to immigration and border control, and in one or two generations we'd be well on our way to normality again. Nothing new, difficult or radical. It's basically what Americans have done after the massive immigration waves of the 1910s and 1920s.

Even if we tried to implement Pod's plan, it would take a few generations at least, with no guarantee of success. So we'd need the above anyway.
#14837193
SolarCross wrote:If we were stupid enough to let you persuade us to fund them up they will just come in yet greater numbers and we will have a greater problem.


No. This sounds paranoid and illigical. I think you're wrong.

But try to convince me with logic and evidence. Go ahead.

They don't care about your kooky beliefs because they have kooky beliefs of their own with a far more substantial heritage. You fund them they will not build marxian idols they'll just build mosques and spend their spare time beheading commies along with everyone else who is not a muslim. You can't use them.


Sure. I do not care if they believe me. My solutions will work any way.

Because they actually address the root causes of immigration and birt rate disparities.

Do your ideas do that?

Image


So images instead of arguments?

Are you going to post Pepe memes next?
#14837200
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It's basically a matter of immigration policy and border control.

Even if we tried to implement Pod's plan, it would take a few generations at least, with no guarantee of success. So we'd need the above anyway.

I agree that POD's plan is more liberal B.S. However, why didn't you just refer to the President Trump's immigration policy and border control plan with walls that the crazy liberal Democrat's are going crazy in opposing?

SolarCross wrote:What else might be done?

Ask for suggestions from Israel.
#14837213
Hindsite wrote:I agree that POD's plan is more liberal B.S. However, why didn't you just refer the President Trump's immigration policy and border control that the crazy liberal Democrat's are going crazy in opposing?

As far as I know, Trump is mostly concentrating on illegal immigration. While I agree that this ought to be the priority, here I'm talking about both legal and illegal immigration. From what I know about US (legal) immigration policy, it centres around family reunion which is not dissimilar to that of many European countries today (leaving aside internal EU migration). That said, the US has been and still is one of the most attractive destinations of the best and brightest around the world and hence your legacy migrant population - i.e. those who will bring their families to the US - is different to much of Europe's. The US also didn't have the large low-skilled migration waves that happened in Europe starting in the mid-1950s. At that time the US had already drastically reduced migration for three decades together with an Americanization policy, which from my reading today's social scientists regretfully call "successful".

I don't know whether Trump plans to reform US immigration policy and, perhaps more importantly, whether he will be successful in doing so, as this is surely something that will have to go through the congress. He wouldn't only have to fight the democrats on this but many of the republicans will likely oppose him just as much, although perhaps for different reasons.
#14837239
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It's basically a matter of immigration policy and border control. Add a common sense assimilation policy to immigration and border control, and in one or two generations we'd be well on our way to normality again. Nothing new, difficult or radical. It's basically what Americans have done after the massive immigration waves of the 1910s and 1920s.


This could work if there are no more "migration crises", but that would require an end to the ongoing military interventions in the Middle East, and some sort of system to deal with the increase in immigration that will result from global warming. Or at least something that kept the migration relatively stable and predictable. But if these crises are the new normal, I do not see how adding more obstacles at borders is going to help.

Even if we tried to implement Pod's plan, it would take a few generations at least, with no guarantee of success. So we'd need the above anyway.


My plan is both realistic and highly unrealistic. Realistic in that it addresses the causes of immigration, but unrealistic in that it would bever be allowed by the powers that be. Mind you, the very premises of this thread (i.e. that Europe will be majority Arab or Muslim within a generation or two) are fanciful, so I was not too worried about realism.
#14837251
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:As far as I know, Trump is mostly concentrating on illegal immigration. While I agree that this ought to be the priority, here I'm talking about both legal and illegal immigration. From what I know about US (legal) immigration policy, it centres around family reunion which is not dissimilar to that of many European countries today (leaving aside internal EU migration). That said, the US has been and still is one of the most attractive destinations of the best and brightest around the world and hence your legacy migrant population - i.e. those who will bring their families to the US - is different to much of Europe's. The US also didn't have the large low-skilled migration waves that happened in Europe starting in the mid-1950s. At that time the US had already drastically reduced migration for three decades together with an Americanization policy, which from my reading today's social scientists regretfully call "successful".

I don't know whether Trump plans to reform US immigration policy and, perhaps more importantly, whether he will be successful in doing so, as this is surely something that will have to go through the congress. He wouldn't only have to fight the democrats on this but many of the republicans will likely oppose him just as much, although perhaps for different reasons.

Yes, the Trump administration has proposed a change in the legal immigration too. It will require the Immigrants to prove they can support themselves and is said to be similar to the Australian immigration policy. But it will still have to go through Congress and the way the Congress is so divided and hostile to President Trump now, it is any persons guess if it will be adopted.
#14837269
Pants-of-dog wrote:Institute international socialism.
End all neo-colonial, neo-imperialist, and neo-liberal interventions in the developing world.
End global economic inequality.
Raise the standard of living for all immigrant populations in the west to the same as for white populations.
End global warming.

That should stop immigration and the gap in birth rates.

Does this mean one terror state spanning the whole world or a number of competing red terror states like last time? In the cold war one of the lefts slogans was "better red than dead". It was a call to surrender to the Communist terror machine, to accept slavery in return for life. Even this deal was a lie, because if the West had gone down, there would have been no peace, the Communist states would have just fought it out amongst themselves.
#14837313
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Rich

In my head, it means that all western countries adopt socialism. But they also give back any land owned by indigenous people.


Based on that reasoning, my ancestors owned ten thousand acres in the South that was taken from them in the Civil War. Should not that land be returned to me?
#14837316
One Degree wrote:Based on that reasoning, my ancestors owned ten thousand acres in the South that was taken from them in the Civil War. Should not that land be returned to me?


No. According to my reasoning, your ancestors never owned land in the southern US. They were squatting on land that was and is owned by indigenous people and was never ceded.

They were basically the bad type of immigrants who came and stole land from the rightful local community and imposed their own laws and morality. Kinda like what the OP is afraid of, but real.
#14837323
The first settlers of North America were Europeans (probably closest to the Basques of living populations), who by accident or design crossed the far north Atlantic during the last age. They were genocided by the later Siberian invaders. So called Native Americans go to considerable trouble to suppress this, seizing the corpses of our ancestors and destroying them in order to stop scientists from investigating.
#14837325
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Rich

In my head, it means that all western countries adopt socialism. But they also give back any land owned by indigenous people.



my parents lived in the biggest socialist country ever existed.

it was awful. socialism simply does not work and makes no sense

why would I give money to some losers who cant manage their finances?
#14837327
Zionist Nationalist wrote:my parents lived in the biggest socialist country ever existed.


That's nice. My parents worked in the most democratic socialist government that ever existed, taking land away from rich people and giving it to people who actually worked the land.

it was awful. socialism simply does not work and makes no sense

why would I give money to some losers who cant manage their finances?


Because it helps to stop the imaginary immigration problem in the OP.
#14837330
Because it helps to stop the imaginary immigration problem in the OP.


the most simple way to stop them is just to not allow any immigration (maybe expect skilled workers) from third world shitholes

That's nice. My parents worked in the most democratic socialist government that ever existed, taking land away from rich people and giving it to people who actually worked the land.


socialism creates a fake equality and destroys economies (everybody equal=everybody are poor)

The US need to be thankful that this douchebag sanders did not get electer or else the American economy would go down the drain

he wanted to set the minimum wage to 15$ thats just pure populism and makes no sense from economic perspective
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 70

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Sure, but they are too stupid to understand, Trum[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]