#MoreThanARefugee salt - youtube has a message for all of us

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one except hardcore mouth breathing racists honestly believe that the bulk of refugees are terrorists. It's pretty obvious at even a really casual glance that most refugees are peaceful people trying to get away from explosions. That's really not anyones argument. The problem is that some refugees bring the explosions along with them, and that's a problem for everyone, citizen OR refugee, who doesn't want to be murdered by explosion.

If most car accidents were caused by a specific group of people deliberately side swiping strangers and forcing them into utility poles, society would consider it a big fucking problem and address it really quickly. They're called automotive accidents because most of us try to avoid them.
 
It doesn't matter if a bunch of refugees are awesome people. Of course there are awesome refugees, just like there are terrible ones - they are all human beings.

However, that doesn't change a main problem with this situation, which is that our government is incompetent and can't be trusted to accurately screen such a large amount of people.
 
Terrorist attacks are only commited by the 1 sociopathic rando or 2 devout kebab couple out of the literal thousands coming in and making a new, better life for themselves.
Even with all of those attacks combined, I HIGHLY doubt the amount of Aloha SnackBars match the amount of peaceful refugees.

No, not every refugee is a terrorist, however, the types of "refugee" they're bringing in today is importing a culture of terrorsim... and sometimes they are just literally terrorists. Which is exactly what's happening in Europe. Border agencies have been warning governments about this and they're still like "..eh".
Now, of course not every refugee is going to commit an act of terror. No, some - much like in Molenbeek, they may just be a worker bee in the hive of terrorist ideology. Some just are supporters. Some radicalise others.

Some just try and come to another country and then demand to know where their new cars and government paid houses are. Some are given iPads and refuge and then set their iPads and refuge on fire, demanding better and more. Maybe, I don't know, I'm not expert but maybe in all of that there's a peaceful, non retarded, genuine "refugee" out of this new batch of mostly extreme muslim "refugees"... who happen to all be war aged men.

If people were serious about refugees and if the refugees were serious about being refugees and this wasn't just an excuse to put retards into places they have no business being in, then why aren't we getting batches of women, children and actual minorities that are being decimated in war torn countries? Where are the Syrian Christians? Where are the Tibetans? Why do Sikhs and Hindus have to come to countries as skilled workers to escape Muslim terrorism? Why is Africa's main export healthy young men?

53e03fa8-64de-42a9-91e2-52ca5be3d1cc.jpg


Maybe one might answer to "peaceful refugee", but the others are content with doing shit like this.

Honestly, if chinks can rebuild from war why can't these people? It's almost as if some kind of assbackwards inbreeding, lack of IQ or ideology, that's anything but "peaceful" is holding them back and they should be minimised from coming in, in place of others...
 
Last edited:
Bright idea: how about we make their countries not shitty so they don't come here? Because building a wall won't stop them, if anything, it'll just skew the fit, young male to others ratio more.
Because they have enough oil money to fix the problems themselves if they so wished?
 
Because they have enough oil money to fix the problems themselves if they so wished?
Problem lies with their government. I'm not going to be stupid and say we should install a democracy, rather, do something a bit more subtle. Agents spreading dissent. Propaganda posters at midnight. Inciting riots. Destabilize the regime with no outward appearance at all. The instant someone less corrupt takes over grant them gifts and protection. The effect will be twofold.

1: This could, in time, place a West friendly leader in certain areas, for less U.S casualties, funds or resources and longer stability than before.

2: With numerous spies in said leadership, as well as military and economic aid, there would be a greater incentive to improve the lives of locals, eventually curbing the immigration problem.

The only problems are that: A, I don't consider the current government competent enough to succeed with this scheme, and B, it will take time.
 
I can get believing that most refugees are peaceful, but when you say more people are killed by (insert here) than by terrorist, you make it seem like it isn't a problem. Car accidents are one thing, being blown up at a concert by an extremist is another.
That still make banning every single one of them okay. Controlled immigration for sure, we just need officials competent enough to screen them properly.
Even then, find every terrorist, much like you won't find every serial killer in the US before they strike.

Even if we strengthen the system, terrorists will find more and more new ways to circumvent it.
News flash: Criminals can be smart.
It doesn't matter if a bunch of refugees are awesome people. Of course there are awesome refugees, just like there are terrible ones - they are all human beings.

However, that doesn't change a main problem with this situation, which is that our government is incompetent and can't be trusted to accurately screen such a large amount of people.
Agreed there.
No, not every refugee is a terrorist, however, the types of "refugee" they're bringing in today is importing a culture of terrorsim... and sometimes they are just literally terrorists. Which is exactly what's happening in Europe. Border agencies have been warning governments about this and they're still like "..eh".
Now, of course not every refugee is going to commit an act of terror. No, some - much like in Molenbeek, they may just be a worker bee in the hive of terrorist ideology. Some just are supporters. Some radicalise others.

Some just try and come to another country and then demand to know where their new cars and government paid houses are. Some are given iPads and refuge and then set their iPads and refuge on fire, demanding better and more. Maybe, I don't know, I'm not expert but maybe in all of that there's a peaceful, non exceptional, genuine "refugee" out of this new batch of mostly extreme muslim "refugees"... who happen to all be war aged men.

If people were serious about refugees and if the refugees were serious about being refugees and this wasn't just an excuse to put exceptional individuals into places they have no business being in, then why aren't we getting batches of women, children and actual minorities that are being decimated in war torn countries? Where are the Syrian Christians? Where are the Tibetans? Why do Sikhs and Hindus have to come to countries as skilled workers to escape Muslim terrorism? Why is Africa's main export healthy young men?

53e03fa8-64de-42a9-91e2-52ca5be3d1cc.jpg


Maybe one might answer to "peaceful refugee", but the others are content with doing shit like this.

Honestly, if chinks can rebuild from war why can't these people? It's almost as if some kind of assbackwards inbreeding, lack of IQ or ideology, that's anything but "peaceful" is holding them back and they should be minimised from coming in, in place of others...
Here we go again with the whole "Why are healthy young men leaving their countries instead of improving them, they're such leeches!" argument.
The answer is simply: It's way easier to be successful in the west. Better education, better standard of living, more job opportunities with better rights for workers, less corrupt governments, etc.

The reason why you don't see many women or children immigrating is because either
1: They're taking care of the children, because that's how their society is.
2: They can't afford to immigrate, so instead, their husbands/brothers/eldest sons go because migrating from 3rd to 1st world is fucking expensive, and they're the most physically able to work.

They work for a while and save up enough money to bring their family to the west.

The reason why "chinks can rebuild from war" is because they have the resources and first world support they need to rebuild.

Syrian Christians are there. The only reason no one notices them is because what draws attention and is the most reported on is one or two extremists blowing shit up.

Once again, no. Out of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who come to the west, at most, only 3.3% commit crimes. Less than natural born citizens.
 
Here we go again with the whole "Why are healthy young men leaving their countries instead of improving them, they're such leeches!" argument.
The answer is simply: It's way easier to be successful in the west. Better education, better standard of living, more job opportunities with better rights for workers, less corrupt governments, etc.

The reason why you don't see many women or children immigrating is because either
1: They're taking care of the children, because that's how their society is.
2: They can't afford to immigrate, so instead, their husbands/brothers/eldest sons go because migrating from 3rd to 1st world is fucking expensive, and they're the most physically able to work.

They work for a while and save up enough money to bring their family to the west.

Syrian Christians are there. The only reason no one notices them is because what draws attention and is the most reported on is one or two extremists blowing shit up.

Once again, no. Out of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who come to the west, at most, only 3.3% commit crimes. Less than natural born citizens.

:story:. The delusion to believe they're all nice guys just working hard to bring over their wives.

Where I live, there's actually a women's centre for Sudanese Refugees just down the road, which I've had to visit numerous times to do research for fluff pieces on. Do you know what a common theme is in their stories? They were married off extremely young, they had children, their husbands were abusive, other opposing tribes raped and murdered many women in the villages they lived in.
Christian based charities had plucked these women and children from the brink of death and moved them over to a first world nation on humanitarian grounds because - wait for it - their husbands had literally up and left in groups and fucked off to other countries.
Some had sadly lost their husbands whom were fighting in local wars, some were just plain escaping the violence with their kids because they, along with their kids were being raped often by village men.

The women sometimes have issues such as when relocating here, they'd run into men from their local area who have been bought over as refugees by other charities.
In one case I listened to, a lady moved here with her kids, husband had abandoned them, 2 years later a man she knew from her country was moved here as a refugee and because he was the cousin of a cousin or some shit, decided that she was to be his new wife, moved in uninvited, was abusive to her and eventually police were called because he beat her so badly one night she ended up in the hospital.

This isn't a case of being a"Why are healthy young men leaving their countries instead of improving them, they're such leeches!" argument. It's a case of being more selective in disallowing economic refugees who are war aged men coming from a society that literally says "Fuck you, were' taking over" and not having any care of the cultural impact it will have within their new communities or society at large. I know it makes tards feel all warm and fuzzy to be "But muh refugees" but it's just not realistic.

Aside from all that, no one has a right to just rock up and say "You guys have it better, I want some too, lemme in".

The reason why "chinks can rebuild from war" is because they have the resources and first world support they need to rebuild.

It's actually because they were productive societies to begin with and had enough brains - sorry "resources" to adapt to better societal systems after war times and sustain it long term.
Islamic societies and Africa don't want to adapt. They just want to take what's on offer and continue doing what they're doing.

Zimbabwe is a great example of being turned into a partly productive society, for people to then screech "BUT COLONIALISM", "reclaim" land "stolen" by white settlers (who were feeding the population with their produce) and turn it back into a shit hole with their old ways.

This isn't about hating refugees, nigs or muslims, it's about being realistic with the approach towards blanket importation of autistic cultures that do not wish to change and only turn their new home into the same mess they left.
 
I don't see why Youtube felt the need to get involved. They're a hosting service, all they need to do is shut up and let people upload in peace.

Then again they're not even good at that anymore.
 
Honestly, reactionaries are pretty safe from the refugees they're so afraid of considering they never leave the house.
Goes both ways, while obviously there are a handful of internet Nazis who are just "scared of the black man", the vast majority of internet activists crying "racism" would never actually invite a refugee into their house, but rather just post their support of refugees on the internet to feel good about themselves.
 
Goes both ways, while obviously there are a handful of internet Nazis who are just "scared of the black man", the vast majority of internet activists crying "racism" would never actually invite a refugee into their house, but rather just post their support of refugees on the internet to feel good about themselves.

The most aggressively pro-refugee people I know live in what amounts to whites only suburbs. It's easy to have an extreme opinion when you're not exposed to things.

Reality is a lot blurrier than activists would like to believe.
 
The most aggressively pro-refugee people I know live in what amounts to whites only suburbs. It's easy to have an extreme opinion when you're not exposed to things.

Reality is a lot blurrier than activists would like to believe.
True, they just imagine refugees as noble savages but lack any real life experience with what they're talking about. Likewise Democrats know that most racial minorities will vote for them, and the welfare system in America is set up to encourage perpetual dependence on the state rather than actually getting back on one's feet, as this allows the state to control impoverished minorities and keep them in their voter-base.
 
True, they just imagine refugees as noble savages but lack any real life experience with what they're talking about.

It goes both ways. I've met plenty of people that think everyone with brown skin is a terrorist about to blow them up, which is equally dumb in the opposite direction (especially when they're actually talking about someone who's clearly from India). At the end of the day the more extreme your opinion is, the more you should stop and ask yourself if you're being an asshole.

But for what it's worth, being 'woke' isn't as important of a goal as "not dying in a horrifying explosion"
 
The most aggressively pro-refugee people I know live in what amounts to whites only suburbs. It's easy to have an extreme opinion when you're not exposed to things.

It's very brave and selfless of them to be so generous with other people's neighborhoods.
 
I think America shouldn't take in any male refugees unless they can produce 5 ISIS scalps. If they produce 10 and denounce anything that doesn't allow drinking bourbon, motorboating giant tits and slapping asses, we give them $50k, an F-150, a decent house in a rural area and full citizenship, because America is a place for goddamed winners
 
sSeems unlikely. More likely is that crimes committed by refugees are less likely to be recorded or noticed by police
The stats people quote when they say shit like this, or that refugees do lots of work or are mostly women and children etc are measured over all time, pretending this current batch are the same as previous refugees.
 
Bright idea: how about we make their countries not shitty so they don't come here? Because building a wall won't stop them, if anything, it'll just skew the fit, young male to others ratio more.

How about they stop being shitty and their countries might stop being shitty along with them?

The only way to forcibly make the Middle East "not shitty" at this point is to completely wipe out the native population that is infected with their virulent strain of aggressive tribal Islam and resettle it with normal people.
 
I think America shouldn't take in any male refugees unless they can produce 5 ISIS scalps. If they produce 10 and denounce anything that doesn't allow drinking bourbon, motorboating giant tits and slapping asses, we give them $50k, an F-150, a decent house in a rural area and full citizenship, because America is a place for goddamed winners

Now I'd vote for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom