Post: #451

I don't want all Jews in Israel genocided. What I want is

1. Them to stop leeching off the West and fend for themselves.
2. Them to stop interfering in the running of Western nations and encouraging us to do things which are contrary to our interests for the benefit of Israel.

As far as I'm concerned whatever debt we may or may not have had to the Jews after WW2 has been paid many times over. They wanted a state in the location where it is; they got what they wanted. Now let them fend for themselves. And any Jew who thinks the West is still antisemitic should take themselves over to Israel and stay there.

Post: #452

(06-08-2017 07:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So are we then to derive from this that muslims are people that are close to you and pretty much "fuck everyone else"?

Not at all lol. My background is Armenian/Russian. If anything I should hate Muslims due to our history, and I know many Armenians who do.

Post: #453

We never owed the Jews anything.

WE saved THEIR asses. Debts to be settled with the axis forces.

Why in the hell would the allied forces owe the Jews a damn thing?

Post: #454

L, he's referring to making up for the Holocaust (although of course everyone who ever had anything to do with it is long dead, so there's nothing to make up for there - like he said).

Post: #455

(06-08-2017 07:51 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So are we then to derive from this that muslims are people that are close to you and pretty much "fuck everyone else"?

Not at all lol. My background is Armenian/Russian. If anything I should hate Muslims due to our history, and I know many Armenians who do.

So why is it that Mr "I don't give a shit about stuff that doesn't affect me" is cucking for muslims but gives zero fucks about common Israeli Jews being genocided?

Post: #456

(06-08-2017 07:54 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  L, he's referring to making up for the Holocaust (although of course everyone who ever had anything to do with it is long dead, so there's nothing to make up for there - like he said).

Why would "we" (non-Germans) have to make up for something we never committed? If anything the Jews owe US. We saved their asses.

That it seems to be embedded in our collective psyche that "we" victimised the Jews when in fact "we" are the only reason they still exist is a testament to the levels of propaganda we've been exposed to.

Post: #457

Oh I know - it's just collective insanity inflicted on the brainwashed nations of America and Europe.

Post: #458

(06-08-2017 07:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So why is Mr "I don't give a shit about stuff that doesn't affect me" is cucking for muslims but gives zero fucks about common Israeli Jews being genocided?

I guess I could answer that but let's "agree to disagree" (hate that expression btw haha). Today's leg day and I'm about to hit the gym.

No hard feelings, my man. I hope to grab a Foster's with you whenever I make it to Oz.

Post: #459

(06-08-2017 07:56 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:54 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  L, he's referring to making up for the Holocaust (although of course everyone who ever had anything to do with it is long dead, so there's nothing to make up for there - like he said).

Why would "we" (non-Germans) have to make up for something we never committed? If anything the Jews owe US. We saved their asses.

That it seems to be embedded in our collective psyche that "we" victimised the Jews when in fact "we" are the only reason they still exist is a testament to the levels of propaganda we've been exposed to.

I'm not saying we owe them anything. I'm saying they have already had much more in the way of compensation than most people in their position ever get but they seem to think they're entitled to ever more in perpetuity. The "we" referred to Western nations, which would include Germany.

Post: #460

(06-08-2017 08:04 AM)Diogenes Wrote:  ...
I'm not saying we owe them anything. I'm saying they have already had much more in the way of compensation than most people in their position ever get but they seem to think they're entitled to ever more in perpetuity. The "we" referred to Western nations, which would include Germany.

I get what you're saying, but it's one of those demons we need to slay.

We need to be firm with the Jews. If they have an issue with what happened then they can take it up with the progeny of the Nazis but we owe them jack diddly squat, and if they try to shame us over the holocaust the stern response should be "I guess that's the gratitude we get for saving you from the fucking Nazis."

Post: #461

(06-08-2017 07:51 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So are we then to derive from this that muslims are people that are close to you and pretty much "fuck everyone else"?

Not at all lol. My background is Armenian/Russian. If anything I should hate Muslims due to our history, and I know many Armenians who do.

Is it weird that I always thought that you were a big black guy?

Post: #462

Back to the London topic, our $$$great ally$$$ at it again......The head of ANTI-TERROR committee that USA just sold billions of arms to, REFUSE to observe a minute of silence for London attack victims today. Yep, Saudi Arabia played Australia in World Cup Qualifiers....and this is how these cunts acted at minute of silence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...mailonline

Quote:The Saudi Arabian soccer team failed to line up for a minute's silence for the London terror victims on Thursday night.
Fans were left outraged at the display ahead of a World Cup qualifier against Australia in Adelaide.
Pictures show the Australian team lined up at the halfway mark, with the Saudi players appearing to ignore the gesture as they get in formation to start the game.
It is also claimed Saudi players on the bench refused to stand for the minute's silence.

It's possible the Saudi team did not understand the concept or were not told what was going on, but pictures show only a few members of the team paying their respects.
Australian football fans on social media were furious however, and lashed out against the team.

'Minutes silence for London terror, Saudi players wandering around like they don't give a f***, Saudi fans shouting the whole time #AUSvKSA,' a man named Adam tweeted.
Others called for official measures to be taken against the team.

However, some Saudi fans claimed it was not within Islamic culture to take a moment of silence to respect the dead.
'They come from a different culture. They just don't understand the point of being silence for a minute to show sadness.. we never do it in KSA,' one fan wrote.'
The majority of the Saudi side are Muslim, and to honour the dead, it is understood they pray, give to charity and speak highly of the person, but rarely observe silence.
However, minutes of silence are a common occurrence in the Premier League, and Muslim players are not known to boycott the mark of respect.
The game added extra tension to an already important match, but Australia came out on top with a score of 3-2.
Saudi FA, FFA, FIFA and the AFC have been approached for comment.

Post: #463

We're not going to genocide the muslims, we're going to beat them so far into submission they give up their fight.

Then we're going to ban all mosques who are not Sufi, ban the scarf and then the good people on this forum are going to seduce all of their daughters and sisters. It's going to be pussy paradise.

Post: #464

Quote:Quit fucking around with the Middle East. Quit bombing, meddling, and otherwise endeavouring to destabilize the region. Support relatively secular strongmen like Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad who, while not without faults, know how to run a country with some efficiency and aren't prone to extremism.

Muslim terrorists were attacking the US before the invasion of Iraq and before the meddling in Syria and Libya. According to this page, there were 10 Islamist terrorist attacks between 1990 and 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. There were 7 incidents perpetrated by anti-abortion group "Army of God" although there were only 4 separate perpetrators. There were 2 incidents from White Racists (one of which was motivated by this religion).

Regardless, we can't go back in time and prevent Bush and Obama/Clinton from making those mistakes. Destabilization is a hell of a lot easier than stabilization when the population has a toxic mixture of gross inequality, low economic aptitude, and a religion preaching violent supremacy. Nobody voted for Bush to invade Iraq. That was sold to the public with deception and committed despite massive opposition. In 2008 a big part of Obama's platform involved condemning the Iraq war. So people voted for him to punish Bush for his mistakes, and Obama won. Yet Obama and Hillary turned around and did more of the same, they just tried and failed to be sneaky about it.

Another thing to consider is that both Bush and Obama seem to have operated on a naive optimism about Islam and population of North Africa and the Middle East. Bush followed Neocon ideology of spreading Liberal Democracy while Obama put too much faith in the virtue of Islam and the "moderate insurgents". Both appear to have legit believed that getting rid of the despots would be good for the region. Both mistakes could have been predicted with a more pessimistic view of Islam and the actual people in those countries. And yes, I realize that liberalization of the Middle East was not a political objective in a vacuum, but it was still present and appears to have been a part of whatever predictive model Bush and Obama were using when they decided on how to pursue their interests in the region.

Finally, no matter how ill-conceived "invade the world" is, "invade the world, invite the world" is next-level idiotic. It's one thing to expect citizens of a country to take some responsibility for their elected leaders' foreign policy decisions. It's quite another to use this tortured logic of guilt to justify suicidal capitulation to a counter-invasion.

Post: #465

(06-08-2017 06:49 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  What do you mean "continue to exist"? Israel has one of the world's most powerful armies, they'll do just fine in securing their existence. And if they don't survive, then I say even better. A world without Israel is a better place.

Excelsior is absolutely on point in this thread.

So I take that as meaning you don't have an issue with a potential Muslim pogrom and/or war against Jews, but you do have issues with a potential Western pogrom and/or war against Muslims? Are we saying there would be less innocent people caught in the crossfire, or are we saying the good Jew/bad Jew proportion is acceptably lower than the good Muslim/bad Muslim proportion, especially given current events?

When you get back to it, the original and abiding reason Muslims don't like Americans is not really Gaddafi, or Saddam. It's American support for Israel. The Palestinian, and ultimately, Muslim war against America did not begin with Iraq or the Gulf War. It began on 5 June 1968 when Sirhan Sirhan gunned down Robert F. Kennedy, and whose stated connection to Kennedy was "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians." And yes, I'm aware Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian. His focus was on the adjective and not the noun.

Israel is not recognised as having a right to exist by any of its Muslim majority neighbours, and I see no argument that Muslims are much more welcoming of Jewish beliefs than they are Christian in that part of the world (if not generally). You'd have to be thick as a plank to think that a Muslim army rolling towards Jerusalem would not be the first thing to happen five minutes after the US declares it's ending support for Israel. The problem being, of course, that Israel has nuclear weapons and is pretty prepared to use them. Iran, too (thanks Obama) will have them shortly as well. Does anyone think the UN would not be called on immediately to intervene were it to turn into a nation-on-nation war involving Israel? Does anyone think there would not be even more bloodshed in that part of the world, killing probably even more Muslims than a straight program of repatriation from the West would generate?

Not saying this is an easy nettle to grasp, but the old "Get out of the Middle East!" argument seems to me to lack about as much subtlety or reality as its proponents accuse the "Get the Muslims out of Europe!" proposal of having. People who think the fighting will stop in the Middle East or that it would be contained in the Middle East on a US pullout from the region really have not studied the 1400 year history of Islam.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #466

(06-08-2017 09:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Israel is not recognised as having a right to exist by any of its Muslim majority neighbours...... You'd have to be thick as a plank to think that a Muslim army rolling towards Jerusalem would not be the first thing to happen five minutes after the US declares it's ending support for Israel.

And this is my concern....how?

Post: #467

(06-08-2017 09:52 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Israel is not recognised as having a right to exist by any of its Muslim majority neighbours...... You'd have to be thick as a plank to think that a Muslim army rolling towards Jerusalem would not be the first thing to happen five minutes after the US declares it's ending support for Israel.

And this is my concern....how?

I'd have thought potential nuclear exchanges and millions of Muslims and/or Jews dying would move your care factor needle somewhat. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #468

I wonder with all this.

Excelsior - Are you a Muslim?

Because if you are and are not highly secular or a reformer, then I get your reasoning. Any critique we utter is instantly equated with - "My grandma and dad are not evil, so Islam must not be evil."

I am personally a born Catholic and would now call myself a secular spiritual seeker who follows more something resembling Rumi, Francis of Assisi, Epictetus or Milarepa in spiritual bent. But I try to assess all doctrines and ideas which shape mankind as detaches as possible.

On Islam I stand with Muslim reformers, secularists and Ex-Muslims:


Making me into some kind of Neonazi is not fair even I my ideas of how to deal with things are a bit different. But similar to Muslim reformers I agree with them that if you follow Islam exactly, then you get ISIS, if you follow it to 80%, then you get Saudi Arabia.

So again - are you a Muslim Excelsior?

Post: #469

More back to the topic - a few funny vids:





Sadiq "Islamist" Khan says that they have no resources to check on the potential terrorists, but they have a "hate crime division" that is number 900 officers. They made 25 arrests on anti-Muslim hate crime - probably most social media related or leaving bacon in front of a mosque. Because that is truly hurtful to Muslims.

Traitors are leading the country and it should teach people to ever elect Muslims for office.





And here a funny vid of how the BBC is found again cucking for Islam. 3 Muslim women attack a woman, cut her with knifes while screaming something about Allah. The BBC cuts the Allah statement of the witness and they get caught, but of course most people are only seeing the report.

No arrests have been made and 3 women in Niqab will be difficult to persecute.

That is how the entire establishment cucks for Islam - also Choudary is in prison now for quite some time and if he continues the way he did before, then he will be back to prison again - solitary confinement in addition to that.

Post: #470

(06-08-2017 09:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:52 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Israel is not recognised as having a right to exist by any of its Muslim majority neighbours...... You'd have to be thick as a plank to think that a Muslim army rolling towards Jerusalem would not be the first thing to happen five minutes after the US declares it's ending support for Israel.

And this is my concern....how?

I'd have thought potential nuclear exchanges and millions of Muslims and/or Jews dying would move your care factor needle somewhat. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I think TM like most reasonable people don't want to get involved in the Middle East at all. It's a trap, we shouldn't give two shits about the Middle East. Let Iran get some revenge on Muhammed's children. They're long overdue.

The only thing we should care about in the Mid East is reclaiming lost European lands: Constantinople, Levant, Egypt.

Post: #471

(06-08-2017 02:36 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:52 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...

...

...

...

The only thing we should care about in the Mid East is reclaiming lost European lands: Constantinople, Levant, Egypt.

Sure... however, we should prioritize reclaiming the lost European lands of Europe first--for example, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Sweden.

Post: #472

London Attack: Football fan yells "Fuck You, I'm Millwall and takes on terrorists with his fists

Post: #473

(06-08-2017 06:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 05:48 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 04:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  ...
You... you honestly don't see any problem with this???

...
On the contrary, I do. We just have different solutions to that problem.

Since you ignored my simple question and replied to it with moral preening let's try this another way.

-19% of British Muslims support the objective of creating an Islamic State. That's roughly 591,850 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

-3% of British Muslims support the way the Islamic State is going about establishing a caliphate. That's roughly 93,450 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

-18% of Muslims sympathize with those who engage in violence against those who mock the prophet. That's roughly 560,700 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

-21% of Muslims do not condemn stoning for adultery. That's roughly 654,150 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

-15% of British muslims do not condemn suicide bombing. That's roughly 420,000 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

-17% of British Muslims do not condemn terrorism as a form of political protest. That's roughly 529,550 muslims.
How specifically do you plan to handle these ones?

You do more than the nothing currently being done. Go back and read Step 2.

You don't actually need to find all 500,000 people who do not condemn terrorism as a form of political protest. You just need to find everyone who is turning that viewpoint into action, and crack down hard on them to a) limit the consequences of their action and b) discourage further action from anyone else. That begins with an effort to engage those who are actively working against you, who are not hard to identify.

There are an estimated 23,000 jihadists in the UK right now. There are 50,000 British downloaders of terrorist manuals.

The British police know where these people are. Theresa May as home secretary defunded police and allowed her security forces to totally ignored open, flagged hostile threats. The attacker in this particular instance (on London Bridge) was known to authorities. He was in British television documentaries, openly. Other muslims had called him in and reported him. There was nothing hidden here. These people are in plain sight, the British media and authorities simply refuse to see them.

People are in here going on and on about what a horrible security threat Islam is, how these attacks prove it, and all of that. What is conveniently ignored is the fact that security forces, media, and politicians in these countries are doing the equivalent of sweet fuck-all to actually counter the threat that is obvious to all of us. This attack we're talking about here was easily preventable - British authorities knew the perpetrators. They knew where the perpetrators were. They had the means to detain them. They did nothing. That is what needs to change.

The authorities must take a hard line against extremism and start using the resources available to them. Keep in mind that those resources also include millions of British muslims, who hate extremists and actively report them (as noted above, the attackers in this incident were reported by other muslims).

British authorities are doing next to nothing now.

Quote:These people are a problem right now. Pie-in-the-sky solutions about pulling out of the middle-east are not going to noticeably alter the figures above. Just read the numbers.

No, but an actual effort by authorities, media, and politicians to do more than NOTHING to counter extremists will alter those figures and will prevent attacks like the one that galvanized the creation of this thread. Right now, they're doing next to nothing. That is what needs to change.

Quote: Almost one in every five muslims on the bus to Kent supports the creation of an islamic state. Alternately if almost one in every five Christians on the bus to Kent supported the creation of a thousand year Reich, all of western civilisation would be losing it's fucking mind over the issue, YOU INCLUDED!

I'm dead fucking serious. I want you to imagine that you were a black man or a Jew living in a nation where 591,850 people polled that they supported the creation of a thousand year white supremacist state.

You would be shitting your pants. ALL moral preening about "reasons and rights" would be the furthest thing from your mind imaginable.

I am black and I live in a nation where millions of people openly support not only the marginalization and disenfranchisement of people like myself (who they relentless dog as low iq genetic inferiors lacking in history/civilization, and unfit for western society), but also support white supremacy and policies designed to further it (up to and including neo-Nazism). I live in a nation where I would not even be a citizen if tens of millions of folks had their way, and quite a few more would prefer I not even be in the country.

I also live in a nation where the efforts of organized racialist groups (like the American Nazi Party) are hampered by very aggressive, effective, and unyielding law-enforcement crack downs (which have harmed the profile of such groups in recent decades, though they've seen a small resurgence in the last handful of years and are actually growing pretty rapidly online where they are seen by millions). I can't really say that about extremist efforts in the UK, where many of my relatives still reside.

Post: #474

(06-08-2017 06:47 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Excelsior - you don't offer any solutions.

All you say is, that the globalists have to first stop meddling in the Middle East, withdraw completely and then everything will be fantastic.

You seem to forget the times of 700-1800 where Muslims invaded, killed and enslaved non-stop almost all without any fight back from the other major powers. Thier conquest also stopped not because of ethical reasoning, but because the West became overwhelmingly strong.

You offer zero solutions. There would still be millions of unemployed Muslim men sitting around and waiting for the Caliphate to appear. It does not even help if they get an education - the recent Paris hammer and knife attacker had a Master degree from Sweden. Still he decided to rather crack skulls.

Yes, I do offer solutions. You just haven't bothered to read them.

Your characterization of my argument above is inaccurate enough to tell me that you didn't even bother to look at it. I did not even come close to saying "withdraw completely and everything will be fantastic". Holding off on needless bombing campaigns in the like of Libya is not "withdraw completely". The second part of my argument (which I know you completely ignored) utterly negates your characterization of my argument as a simple, passive, one step solution.

If you're not going to even take the time to read and understand what I've said, I'm not going to keep engaging here. I am not going to repeat myself and go in circles. Again, that would be a waste of time.

(06-08-2017 06:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Given by your definition, Excelsior, "Western fuckery" likely includes support for the existence of Israel, what proposal do you have that would allow the state of Israel to continue to exist?

No, not necessarily. Israel can persist.

In the long term, Israel is benefited by efforts to avoid destabilizing Middle Eastern nations and turning them into terrorist controlled banana-republics where the likes of ISIS can grow with impunity.
Israel also benefits from enhanced efforts within the west to quit coddling and start prosecuting known jihadis.

(06-08-2017 06:50 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 05:29 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  This is the root of the problem - we can kill the whole refugee crisis at its core if efforts are made to a) stabilize the middle east and b) quite destabilizing the middle east.

This is incorrect. A vast majority of the refugees are NOT Syrian, even according to crooked official statistics that allow anyone to identify as Syrian no questions asked, and a large part are not even Arab. There's fewer Libyans arriving to Europe than Pakistanis, Gambians and Moroccans, for God's sake! What's the excuse for Moroccan "refugees"? How about Ivory Coast? What happened to the internationally agreed principle of first safe country?

No, it is quite correct. The refugee crisis is not just tied to the bombing of the nations in question and the migration of those citizens specifically from those nations. It is also tied to destabilization that eases transit for refugees.
Part of the reason we are seeing a massive increase in the number of refugees coming from nations like Gambia and Morocco is because Libya has become a much more feasible transit point now that it is a failed state with no strong state actor to moderate. The state apparatus was destroyed and lawlessness has spread easily. That is why Libya is now the gateway to Europe and the largest single transit point for migrants coming through Africa. The destruction of Libya dramatically increased the potential flow of refugees into Europe by creating a lawless zone that serves as a much readier jumping off point to Europe than an Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, or Gaddafi-era Libya ever could. It is why migration through Libya to Europe quadrupled in 2013, right after Gaddafi was knocked out. The power vacuum faciliated the migrant waves, and now folks had a lawless state to transit through that's closer geographically to Europe than most others. It is the perfect storm.

The same can be said of Syria, albeit to a slightly lesser extent (its destruction helped to fuel the drive of millions through Turkey or toward Greece for a couple of years).
If Syria and Libya (but ESPECIALLY Libya) are not totally destroyed and rendered lawless, you do not have a refugee crisis. It really is that simple.

Quote:This "but we're bombing them" excuse is delusional at best and dishonest at worst and you know it.

No, I don't know it, because you are incorrect. The "excuse" is quite literally the but-for, proximate cause of the migrant crisis. There's no objective way around that fact.

Quote:Heck, even if there weren't any North/West African immigrants coming to Europe to enjoy Free Shit ™, instead you'd simply get Albanians, Roma, Bangladeshi or even Latin Americans. The pool of people waiting to line up for Free Shit ™ is inexhaustible - there are a few billions of them compared to less than one billion in developed western countries!

Fuck, give me a guarantee that I'll get a free government apartment, free food and medical care, pocket money and a guaranteed cozy office job, and I'll also pack up and head to Germany right this second!

There is a reason why the migrant crisis blew up in 2013, and not 2010, 2009, etc. Yes, there are always migrants. What is unusual now is the number of migrants, the scale of the waves coming into Europe, and the ease with which they are jumping off to land in Europe. That is a product of western foreign policy, which creates two excellent transit points (Libya and Syria) that are not usually available absent the conflicts that have been launched.

Quote:Yes, obviously we should stop the stupid wars and regime changes, but illegal immigration into Europe has nothing to do with those. And even when we do accept some actual refugees, we have every right to screen them thoroughly and hold them to high standards of behavior instead of coddling them like now.

Illegal immigration to Europe has EVERYTHING to do with stupid conflicts and acts of regime change. The best weapon Europe had against a sudden and seemingly endless flow of migrants was a stable Libya. You will not solve the problem if you choose to keep ignoring that.

Post: #475

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Quote:Yes, obviously we should stop the stupid wars and regime changes, but illegal immigration into Europe has nothing to do with those. And even when we do accept some actual refugees, we have every right to screen them thoroughly and hold them to high standards of behavior instead of coddling them like now.

Illegal immigration to Europe has EVERYTHING to do with stupid conflicts and acts of regime change. The best weapon Europe had against a sudden and seemingly endless flow of migrants was a stable Libya. You will not solve the problem if you choose to keep ignoring that.

Agree.

Gaddafi even warned the world about what would happen if Libya became unstable.

A few quotes...

"There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy, and Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean,"

"Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European and even black as there are millions who want to come in,"

"We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions".