Invasion of Castrato Europe

Invasion of Castrato Europe What Could Possibly Go Wrong?  Gad Saad Chats With:  Nicolai Sennels  Danish Psychologist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIfEHeHqwc&feature=youtu.be Best quote: "Progressives pray at the altar of self-flagellation" [Below are my notes, as I've understood video] Interview opens with discussion of different mindsets / psychology / cultural responses, traits, values etc, in terms of observations of immigrant criminality in Denmark.   Talk of freedom of speech as foundation for Western progress / evolution.  However: newspapers censoring selves artists censoring selves professionals censoring selves Either desire not to offend or not to attract violence. Contrast in societies/peoples -- immigrant vs. host: Absence of freedom of speech leads to -->  absence of competition of ideas leads to -->  absence of progress / evolution inhibition of anger /  v. expression of anger honour & shame culture / v. security victim mentality / question of:  locus of control locus of control -- inner versus outer factor experience of 'control' -- westerners, generally raised with inner locus of control -- immigrants, understanding life is created by outer factors -- everything viewed from 'if deity wills it' position -- plus, governed by male figures with completely fixed set of rules, laws, systems of behaviour etc -- thus little experience of inner locus of control or of experimenting with inner locus of control -- certain immigrant groups, it is contended, have outer locus of control -- which lends itself to a victim mentality -- it is question of how one sees cause and effect -- result:  moral individual agency removed -- immigrants = intolerance to out-group members -- West generally not religious but still looking for what is a 'good person' -- for West 'open & tolerant' is the idea of a 'good' person -- new way of defining of what is a 'good' person -- however, West, too open & too tolerant -- furthermore, the same does not apply to immigrants hosted -- minimal integration -- host populations bend to foreign populations -- give & take inapplicable for the West -- guests ought to expect to abide 100%; -- unwise for West to cede an inch -- cultural & religious pressure of in-group very intense -- beatings, being sent back to homeland etc, consequences dire -- if 'Westernised' (eg handling anger differently etc, insult  to culture/religion by showing weakness) Professor Tina Magaard, linguist content analysis religious texts Murderous passages take up large space; 'us & them' logic, in which infidels & apostates characterised as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical, and dangerous. It is also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and the sword. -- above conclusion drawn by academic after study of texts, that involved counting the occurrence of words Bill Warner -- has spent almost 15 years, doing analysis of religious texts (comparative) -- 'Sharia for the Non-Muslim' (book), highly recommended / authoritative Strong negative views in religious texts, influences the view of non co-religionists -- easier to harm others given mindset -- 'humanistic' view on non co-religionists destroyed by the religious indoctrination [comment:  'humanistic' view cannot be destroyed, if it never existed.  'Humanistic' view is not natural.  If it was not taught, it does not exist.  Personally, I would contend that the 'humanistic' view is completely unnatural and is dangerously maladaptive.] -- 'najis' = ritually unclean / impure according to religion eg.     -- dog, pig, semen, faeces, blood, urine, dead things, the infidel, alcohol [comment:  the PC whitewashed Wikipedia version of this entry has left out that the infidel (ie the non believer) is considered 'unclean'.   Wikipedia body of entries is therefore unreliable.] Interviewer mentions: -- Canada:   govt.  trying to speed up rate at which immigrants from Muslim countries enter -- for any culture, there is a limit from how many individuals one may take from different culture and absorb that different culture -- beyond that, you start to have different cultures clash -- West has reached a limit some years ago -- it is at the point of demographic and social experiment of an unprecedented scale -- we cannot afford it -- suggests an in situ assistance response in lieu of mass immigration -- Gulf countries would not accept co-religionist refugees (share culture, share language, share religion) -- by which moral compass is it incumbent upon a culture like Germany to completely alter its culture, while Saudi Arabia does nothing? -- intelligentsia driven by cultural and moral relativism -- Denmark repatriation program:  voluntary / immigrants get money to leave -- however, they then move back to Denmark again & are not expected to pay back the money given [Comment:  the West is doomed.  Any culture that is that stupid probably deserves to be swallowed whole.] Reform of scriptures discussed -- refer to 'illegal' acts (beating women, beheading, religiously taking over the world, eradicating Jews mentioned) -- therefore many parts would have to be removed to make it legal to practice in West -- Austria can only preach in German, in certified version of religious text -- cited as a good start -- a national authority to track sources of radical religion suggested -- However, interviewer not optimistic re scripture reformation (given it is seeking to alter the character or essence of the doctrine etc) Interviewer considers immigration open on basis that 100% Western values prevail -- end -- The Danish guy seems overly laid back and optimistic about Western Europe's capabilities to effect change to shape, or curb, the undesirable consequences of mass immigration.  If you look at how Denmark has handled failed voluntary repatriation, it's obvious that those at the top in Europe are completely ineffectual, either due to incompetence or intent. I'm more onboard with the interviewer's views, except that I don't think mass non-European immigration of any kind (whether ideologically onboard with the prevailing culture or not) is a rational choice.   Imagine filling Japan with Italians, Russians, Swedes, Germans and Englishmen, to the point where something like 15% or more of Japan is European.  Even if all these Europeans outwardly observed Japanese culture, they are *not* Japanese, will never be Japanese, and would inevitably alter the composition and character of Japan.  So how would this be a desirable outcome for the Japanese? It sounds like Europe is in dire straits and Canada is also voluntarily heading that way (irrespective of the mountain of evidence that supports heading in the opposite direction), as the Canadian government pursues a fast-track mass immigration policy.  The Canadian government is therefore grossly negligent. What I cannot comprehend is why.  Why would anybody wish to irreversibly alter the character of their societies, transforming their nations into something that is polarised, contentious, splintered, problematic and, ultimately, an existential threat to the host populations? Who wakes up and doesn't want Canada Canadian, Scotland Scottish, Denmark Danish, Sweden Swedish, Italy Italian or Germany German? That just doesn't make any sense to me.