(09-05-2015 07:17 AM)Going strong Wrote:  [quote='Fast Eddie' pid='1104523' dateline='1441408910']
[quote='Going strong' pid='1104488' dateline='1441404700']

France became a dirty trash bin attracting all worldwide scums with its welfare system, glad that I left this country forever.

Interesting article showing all that is going on.

The funny part is that it shows how the US Washington Post still in 2002 published clearly plenty of truth. But now as the mood has shifted and many Muslims are invited into the West, then they cannot publish the same things.

The same goes for the Danish governments which had a massive rise in Muslim population between 1980-2000 with clear results:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080718105208.htm

Quote:The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

"Muslim immigrants.constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending." "Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark 's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes."

"Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population."

5% of the population, but over 50% of the welfare spending!
5% of the population, but well over 50% of the rapes in the country!

And that was back in 2002 in Denmark. The numbers from Sweden or Norway are way worse than that.

Quote:In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

Quote:In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshxj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech."

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark . The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

That is indeed amazing - several years ago a Danish minister and her family were attacked in her house by Islamists! No wonder Denmark has strict anti-immigration laws now.

And here the mentioned interview with the Islamic scholar in Arabic (he lives in Europe and sees the situation first hand):





the main points:

+ 80% of Muslims in Europe are on welfare! (not only immigrants, but also European citizens)
+ every European mosque suffers from theft. Due to the fact that the EU countries give funds to the mosques as a recognized religion the managers of the mosques almost always steal the funds doing various scams. For example he says that many Imams "employ" their wives as cleaning ladies while of course she does not do the work and they keep the difference.
+ he talks of other cons like fake Muslim divorces. When the fake ex-wife is given a new apartment as decreed by law they simply rent it out at great profit.
+ he said that as he visited Muslim prisoners in the EU and they demanded Halal meat from them. He answered those rapists and drug dealers that they have raped and sold drugs in the name of Mohammed and even pork meat is too good for them.
+ then he tells of Islamic study sessions he organizes with Muslim scholars that get invited to the EU. However often when they tell the scholars to schedule evening sessions since the students have other responsibilities during the day - many of the scholars decline, since the evenings are set for their prolific porn sessions. (that actually is confirmed by the big porn companies who say that some 50%+ of world porn is consumed by the Muslim world)

The guy clearly states that the Muslim world has at first to sort out their own problems and rise to the tenets of their faith before demanding anything from Westerners.

Nothing new, but the data is actually mind-boggling.

Lots of us here are comparing the fall of the West to the Fall of Rome, version 2.

Of course not to state the obvious, but on an intellectual level, could we argue that this is not a bad thing? Rome fell and from its ashes rise the new kingdoms that eventually become Europe today. Had the Empire not fall, would it been a good thing?

Of course, I don't see anything good coming out of the Fall of Europe as it is, but maybe the Romans at the time felt the same? Could history repeat itself and something good will come from the asses of SJW Europe?

That and I tend to agree with some posters here, Europe is way too far gone to be saved, better let it burn and reborn. I was walking through the old quarters of Paris with my girl the other day and marvel at how the Notre Dame de Paris still stand beautifully over 800 years. Now to think that it may well get destroyed by the foolishness of its very people...

The upper house of the Austrian parliament pushed through a constitutional change that will force local governments to take in a number of “refugees” equal to 1.5% of their population.

(09-28-2015 04:06 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Of course not to state the obvious, but on an intellectual level, could we argue that this is not a bad thing?

Yes we could but I would be arguing that the it would be possible that the continuation of Rome would bring even greater benefits to the people of Europe. Of course, I do not idolize the late stages of the Empire which pretty much was its own downfall, but they were a gret civilizational triumph that was not superseeded until recent times. The states that were created from the ashes of the Empire brought feudalism, which slowed the development considerably, and they also brought the schism in Christianity.

Of course this is all speculation, for all we know their downfall was inevitable as every success of a civilizational realm contains the seed of its downfall. But it is fun and good to theorize, because maybe one day there will be a generation that will break the cycle, and that will usher a New Age of Man. A man can dream.

That wasn't really an argument. And I'm not offended at all. I've noticed when people don't really have an argument they tend to call others a feminist/woman/liberal and hope it sticks. Well I'm none of those.

(09-27-2015 08:16 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  This is interesting, and I want to reply as well Eskhander, but the thread is in full derailment at the moment. It's time to end the solely religious discussion and move it back to immigration.

Lemoned Iscream:

You basically closed you comment with a feminist shaming tactic in attempt to close the debate. You seem offended, but instead show restraint and temper your emotions.

Are you guys really this baffled when conservatives or religious people speak up on atheism and most have something negative to say? I watch often as self identified atheists make poor assertions, some with malice, but look on with calmness. There's often clear evidence of unfamiliarity with Christianity, though it's also often the most denigrated religion of atheists in group settings. This does drive a wedge. I'm sure we are all aware that the internet isn't a game where we try to convince everyone else to agree with us.

(09-28-2015 04:06 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Lots of us here are comparing the fall of the West to the Fall of Rome, version 2.

Of course not to state the obvious, but on an intellectual level, could we argue that this is not a bad thing? Rome fell and from its ashes rise the new kingdoms that eventually become Europe today. Had the Empire not fall, would it been a good thing?

Of course, I don't see anything good coming out of the Fall of Europe as it is, but maybe the Romans at the time felt the same? Could history repeat itself and something good will come from the asses of SJW Europe?

That and I tend to agree with some posters here, Europe is way too far gone to be saved, better let it burn and reborn. I was walking through the old quarters of Paris with my girl the other day and marvel at how the Notre Dame de Paris still stand beautifully over 800 years. Now to think that it may well get destroyed by the foolishness of its very people...

That's a very weird logic. What if I told you that the complete destruction of Vietnam by an African invasion would somehow lead to the start of an African "golden age?" You'd probably rightly tell me to go fuck myself, as you couldn't care less about whether the Africans are in a golden age or not.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Romans don't really care whether the people who ended their civilization are enjoying themselves or not. The human race is a bullshit abstraction with no meaning. If my people/race are extinguished, the rest of humanity can go kick rocks for all I care.

(09-27-2015 04:44 PM)storm Wrote:  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

Most government spending is one giant ponzi scheme; requiring ever more people flooding the bottom of the pyramid to sustain the spending at the top.

GDP is also part of the problem. Rarely do we hear GDP/Capita, just the gross figure. More people = higher GDP = Trebles all round.

(09-27-2015 04:22 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  I'm sure this has been mentioned before but Germany now has the worlds lowest birthrates. They're even below Japan, which has been suffering with chronic financial problems due to increased ratio of elderly to young and deflation due to reduced demand.

If you're only having 8.2 children per 1000 people while Nigeria is having 50 per 1000, how would a matriarchy/feminist country solve the problem? The rest of Europe isn't doing much better with other countries having 9.3 - 12.7 per 1000. So importing people from other countries that are also depopulating (just slower) isn't a solution. You can't ask/convince/encourage women to have more children as it would go against your core feminist beliefs. Doing nothing would guarantee financial collapse as capitalism works properly with a growing population (and a small positive inflation rate). Given these constraints, what option do the European leaders/elite have other than to import anyone willing to relocate? While this will destroy the culture that has existed in Europe, it will also prolong the wealth of the leaders/elite of Europe. They will be mostly safe inside their gated communities. All countries in the West are experiencing falling birthrates and most of those countries are importing people to keep the party going a while longer.

There was an offshoot sect of the Quakers called the Shakers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Women had the leadership roles in the sect and they were all celibate. You can imagine what the result was.

Whichever group has more children that are successful (i.e. they also have successful children) wins. And they get to write history.

This sounds all fine on a very superficial level but falls short when you dig deeper.

For one thing, Europe currently is not suffering from a lack of young workers. Europe is suffering from a surplus of young workers. The youth unemployment rate in most European countries is at crisis levels. We can talk about population pyramids and demographic theory till we're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pudding. If Europe's native youth are unable to find employment, the idea that aggressive, illiterate (in European languages) third world invaders will find it is preposterous.

Secondly, low birth rates are not a problem. Low birth rates are a potential boon. The world has moved on from WWI. National survival in wartime is no longer decided by who has the most warm bodies to go "over the top" against entrenched machine gun positions. At any rate, Europeans have dwelled in Europe for untold millennia at far, far lower numbers, and have survived just fine. If you take today's European population and halve it, the resulting number will still be higher than what it was at the end of the 19th century, and the end of the 19th century saw Europe with the highest population we ever had until the 20th century. And so on. Europe is a crowded fucking place right now. Far more crowded than America. Crowding is a bad thing for quality of life. Most Americans would say California is crowded, but California's population density is far lower than Europe's.

The only real issue is the dependency ratio problem created by pay-as-you-go welfare states. The problem is basically this: there is a relatively small percentage of the overall population, Group A let's call them, that generates excess wealth which is then captured by the state in the form of taxes. This tax money is then distributed to 2 groups:


Group B: The people who pay taxes but use up more in social services than they put in. Ie, the family working a low paying job but raising 5 kids.

Group C: people who pay no taxes whatsoever but are a massive financial drain for the state, i.e. the pensioners and unemployed welfare smoochers.

The problem for Europe and the rich world in general is that with an aging population and inverted age pyramid, group A is getting smaller while group C,primarily in the form of pensioners, is getting ever larger. This is compounded further by the fact that the economic destruction wrought by free trade has seen the proportion or good jobs that can afford membership in group A shrink, and thus even among the working age population, the trend is for more people to be in Group B than in Group A.

So everyone depends on Group A. Until the massive baby boomer generation croaks and dies, the few remaining people in Group A will have to shoulder that entire clusterfuck load. So gee, why not make their job 1000X times harder by importing a bunch of third world peasants and jihadis, who will jump into Group C the moment they set foot on European soil! But no, I'm being pessimistic. These guys are all hard workers with strong family values! They'll just open up underground Kebab shops and pump out 5 kids each. Either way, very, very few of the new arrivals will bolster Group A of net tax payers, but the pool of tax leechers will swell.

The point is, the rich world is in for some financial pain by virtue of our welfare states. That much is inevitable. Mass immigration will not save us from that pain. Mass immigration will make that pain worse. Further, we will get to pay for that awesome benefit of making our financial situation worse by getting destroyed and turned in a third world clusterfuck. There is no benefit to mass immigration. Anyone who says otherwise is either just ignorant of the reality of the situation or playing for the other team.

Quote:w2eu.info is apparently run by Bernd Kasparek (bordermonitoring.eu)

And who's funding them? W2EU and Border Monitoring are both very secretive about their donors and owners, but judging by their affiliations such as http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/20...oundations , my bet is on this:

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
George Soros

FOUNDER / CHAIRMAN

Quote:George Soros is the founder and chairman of Open Society—a network of foundations, partners, and projects in more than 100 countries.

(09-28-2015 04:06 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Of course not to state the obvious, but on an intellectual level, could we argue that this is not a bad thing? Rome fell and from its ashes rise the new kingdoms that eventually become Europe today. Had the Empire not fall, would it been a good thing?

The only problem with this logic is that 1000 year stretch after the fall of Rome that we sometimes call "the middle ages." That wasn't a high point in western civilization.

Found it on twitter:

They are incapable of connecting the dots.

Muslims simply do not understand that Sharia and Islamic Theological societies result in the squalid cesspits they come from.

Whether it is due to a lack of intelligence, education or what, I'm not sure.

(09-27-2015 10:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 08:16 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  It's time to end the solely religious discussion and move it back to immigration.

Also no cares what atheists think, they have no families, kids, or future. See ya later would you mind stop shitting up threads on the way to your extinction, thanks.

Samseau never fails to charm.



I assure you I'm trying to impregnate as fast as I can!!

I also assure you I am against massive unchecked immigration by people unsuited to modern democracies. Those repressive assholes are going to be WAY meaner to Atheists than modern Christians.

Papa Nietzsche says: If you do battle with monsters, be careful you do not become a monster yourself.

(09-28-2015 07:39 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  They are incapable of connecting the dots.

Muslims simply do not understand that Sharia and Islamic Theological societies result in the squalid cesspits they come from.

Whether it is due to a lack of intelligence, education or what, I'm not sure.

There is a saying in the Muslim world going something like this:

"Most Muslims would vote for a Muslim sharia state, but ultimately prefer to live in a secular state."

The problem with most religions - Christianity also to a degree - is that they restrict science and freedom of life as a human being too much, if they are given enough reign. They are not perfect since they rely on the guidance of less-then-perfect individuals.

It is clear that men in the Middle East are sexually frustrated consuming massive amounts of porn, engaging in homosexual behavior (see Saudi Arabia), paedophelia (Afghanistan fuck boys) or even bestiality. Also if Islam had actually conquered the world, then we would be sitting at candlelight while most of us would be illiterate. Essentially we would live in the Middle Ages.
It's not that they are inherently bad primitive people, but that their system of strict adherence to Islam is just way too restrictive - not only in terms of science but also in terms of what constitutes a good life fitting for our technological development.

Sure - no one here wants women to be feminist carousel-riding sluts until 35, but we don't want them to be child-brides or grow fat under a sack of wool either. A healthy balance between some sexy fun and early traditional marriage should be possible - aka US 1950s. And yes - I do believe that if Muslim men were given a chance to live in a moderate somewhat traditional but still secular modern state, then the wide majority (over 90%) would prefer to live in that state. It's only that the permeating religion mentally forces many to adhere to a "strict Islam" - and even that is a scam since many of the lesser points are actually up for debate or are just modern inventions by a few extremists (see my post on the veil).

So essentially you are left with the realization that an Islamic Sharia State is just extremely inferior to a modern scientific one. That is what leaders like Kemal Ataturk understood - as well as many others like Gaddafi or Assad.

You simply have to balance the nature of Muslims to try "be good Muslims according to the Quran" and essentially force them to take the religion out of the government. And oh surprisingly - suddenly most like living there.

Now many have been sold the fake doctrine that if they convert all the world to sharia law, then there will be paradise on earth. No - the truth is that most would hate it and it would be a giant step back for humanity. But of course it's racist and islamophobic to say that. No - I claim it as truth and I even separate it from the Muslim people who are as anywhere else good and bad in equal measure when looked apart from the current cultural and mental influences. But those influences now shape them way too ill-fitting for a modern and liberal state as we have in the West.

^^

Yeah its a shame that muslims don't vote, they just take. And its also a shame how terrified the moderate, normal people are of the extremists and the guys running the show.
So even if the majority of muslims wanted to live in a secular state, it would never happen.

Islam is an all encompassing ideology that has its own legal, moral, social, military, financial as well as religions codes. It has cleverly been constructed in a way so that it can not be questioned or challenged.
It is quite genius actually.
Quran says the earth is flat... By god you better not say otherwise or else you will find yourself in Deera Square with a blind fold on.

(09-27-2015 05:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  For the record, I don't believe in God, but it doesn't follow that I therefore believe in Atheism. It's mutated into immoral-moral tribalism, and the highly-visible faces of the tribe are people I consider to be lacking strength, honour and integrity. You think this insufferable douche would have your back or truly care about the interests of a community above his own?

(09-27-2015 04:22 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  There was an offshoot sect of the Quakers called the Shakers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Women had the leadership roles in the sect and they were all celibate. You can imagine what the result was.

Again:



The Shakers were one of the many American Liberal Utopian Experiments of the 19th century, some Religious, some not: Fruitlands (Vegetarianism, Animal Rights), Oneida (Communal Marriage), The Rappites, New Harmony (celibacy), Brook Farm (Communism), Octagon City (Vegetarianism). All were abandoned from within - often within the first year or two - or failed to gain enough converts for sustainability. Hell, even a Capitalist Utopian vision like Pullman, for the employees of the Pullan company, didn't endure.

...

1. Shakers died out because they couldn't marry outside of their faith.

2. I love it when people talk about how all of the American, colonial experiments died out yet they forget about one, obvious survival and success. It turned into a fucking state...PENN-sylvania. The Quaker colony founded by William Penn was wildly successful. Quakers were successful businessmen and so politically influential that people converted to the Quaker faith so that they would have a better chance in elections. This success continued until the american revolution as many of the Quakers were loyalists and so were divided against each other. President Nixon was a quaker as well but since, multiple schisms in the religion have polarized it against itself with super SJW unprogrammed meetings and almost amish conservative meetings.

Relevant:

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." -Will Durant

(09-28-2015 10:35 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  1. Shakers died out because they couldn't marry outside of their faith.

Don't you think that them being celibate and that procreation (having kids) was prohibited had a small effect on why they died out?

(09-28-2015 09:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sure - no one here wants women to be feminist carousel-riding sluts until 35, but we don't want them to be child-brides or grow fat under a sack of wool either. A healthy balance between some sexy fun and early traditional marriage should be possible - aka US 1950s. And yes - I do believe that if Muslim men were given a chance to live in a moderate somewhat traditional but still secular modern state, then the wide majority (over 90%) would prefer to live in that state. It's only that the permeating religion mentally forces many to adhere to a "strict Islam" - and even that is a scam since many of the lesser points are actually up for debate or are just modern inventions by a few extremists (see my post on the veil).

So essentially you are left with the realization that an Islamic Sharia State is just extremely inferior to a modern scientific one. That is what leaders like Kemal Ataturk understood - as well as many others like Gaddafi or Assad.

You simply have to balance the nature of Muslims to try "be good Muslims according to the Quran" and essentially force them to take the religion out of the government. And oh surprisingly - suddenly most like living there.

Now many have been sold the fake doctrine that if they convert all the world to sharia law, then there will be paradise on earth. No - the truth is that most would hate it and it would be a giant step back for humanity. But of course it's racist and islamophobic to say that. No - I claim it as truth and I even separate it from the Muslim people who are as anywhere else good and bad in equal measure when looked apart from the current cultural and mental influences. But those influences now shape them way too ill-fitting for a modern and liberal state as we have in the West.

The bolded part of your post is why a lot of Muslim men, especially from Saudi Arabia, visit neighboring nations with less strict laws against alcohol, sex, etc. The thing is they don't want this for themselves. They want to be able to indulge in their vices outside their country in secret but not bring them back home with them.

In any case, Muslims do not belong in the West. It is absurd that Europe and America have to take in everyone from everywhere but no other places in the world do this because they're not stupid about basic realities that are deemed "racist' and "intolerant" to speak about in western nations.

If white people destroy themselves it'll be because of their self-hatred and self-loathing and everyone else will suffer for it because the world will return to its default state of unchecked barbarism. There will be no more wealthy safe havens for people to flee to. The Asians are not as stupid as white people are about ethnic conflict.

(09-28-2015 10:35 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  2. I love it when people talk about how all of the American, colonial experiments died out yet they forget about one, obvious survival and success. It turned into a fucking state...PENN-sylvania. The Quaker colony founded by William Penn was wildly successful. Quakers were successful businessmen and so politically influential that people converted to the Quaker faith so that they would have a better chance in elections. This success continued until the american revolution as many of the Quakers were loyalists and so were divided against each other. President Nixon was a quaker as well but since, multiple schisms in the religion have polarized it against itself with super SJW unprogrammed meetings and almost amish conservative meetings.

I don't know much about American history so I have to rely on the arguments that you guys are providing here, but based on the paragraph above I don't see how existing for 250 years before fading into oblivion counts as "successful".

(09-28-2015 11:02 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sure - no one here wants women to be feminist carousel-riding sluts until 35, but we don't want them to be child-brides or grow fat under a sack of wool either. A healthy balance between some sexy fun and early traditional marriage should be possible - aka US 1950s. And yes - I do believe that if Muslim men were given a chance to live in a moderate somewhat traditional but still secular modern state, then the wide majority (over 90%) would prefer to live in that state. It's only that the permeating religion mentally forces many to adhere to a "strict Islam" - and even that is a scam since many of the lesser points are actually up for debate or are just modern inventions by a few extremists (see my post on the veil).

So essentially you are left with the realization that an Islamic Sharia State is just extremely inferior to a modern scientific one. That is what leaders like Kemal Ataturk understood - as well as many others like Gaddafi or Assad.

You simply have to balance the nature of Muslims to try "be good Muslims according to the Quran" and essentially force them to take the religion out of the government. And oh surprisingly - suddenly most like living there.

Now many have been sold the fake doctrine that if they convert all the world to sharia law, then there will be paradise on earth. No - the truth is that most would hate it and it would be a giant step back for humanity. But of course it's racist and islamophobic to say that. No - I claim it as truth and I even separate it from the Muslim people who are as anywhere else good and bad in equal measure when looked apart from the current cultural and mental influences. But those influences now shape them way too ill-fitting for a modern and liberal state as we have in the West.

The bolded part of your post is why a lot of Muslim men, especially from Saudi Arabia, visit neighboring nations with less strict laws against alcohol, sex, etc. The thing is they don't want this for themselves. They want to be able to indulge in their vices outside their country in secret but not bring them back home with them.

This is why i've always found these people and their culture to be deeply repulsive. Gulf arabs who live off these circumstances are mostly shitstains who won the black gold lottery.

They are hypocrites who seek to impose populist theocratic ideology in their own countries on the "commoners" and those worldwide but in private they have a completely different and decadent lifestyle for the privileged elite (themselves) around the world. This where the arrogance comes from. They are mostly too dumb to see this hypocrisy but the more delusional believe they have a religious right to act as they will against infidels as stated in the Koran.

Keep in mind these people aren't different at all from the caliphates who controlled vast regions of the middle east during the Mongol era. There's also a good reason why these same caliphates were nearly wiped off the face of the earth. Their own arrogance blinded them to certain stark realities from individuals and external people who wouldn't be so easily yoked under this double standard of belief.

The Ukrainian TV report about migrants throwing away food and demanding money - this time with English subtitles:

^ That's Hungarian, I believe! ... Not that it matters much.

Here is a decent video explaining the long term effects.

Can these numbers be verified/sourced?