Comments (3)
No. 1-3

i agree with that im in canada and i worry every day about a terrorist attack because the retard in charge of my beautiful country is bringing possible terrorists in, a little while ago i heard a story about some refugee who beat his wife with a hockey stick and trudeau claims to be a feminist if he was such a feminist he'd probably pull his head out of his ass and stop bringing them in.


Very well said. Islam must not be tolerated as it is now. Religious discrimination isn't immoral if its completely necessary.


Well, what we see in Europe is the logical conclusion to both the open borders and multiculturalism paradigm. You cannot maintain liberty if you import people that, on average, oppose liberty.

If the following conditions are true:

  • There exist in Europe one or multiple groups of people that oppose, on average, Western values or liberty, or their children or grand-children do.
  • These people have a higher birthrate than whichever group supports Western civilization.
  • They exist within a democracy.

Then it is a function of time, and only time, until Western civilization there completely ends. One of the fundamental problems with democracy is that it's fundamentally incompatible with liberty, because people can elect to remove liberties. We've seen this all throughout history, and recently in Turkey. But even if it weren't a democracy, even if it were any other form of government, the anti-liberty peoples (especially Arabic Muslims and Africans, obviously - not all, on average, yadda yadda) would eventually just create their own government, like the Muslims did in Iran, Irak, Egypt and Libya very recently.

There are only three solutions to this:

  • You integrate them properly, which is provably unworkable, because it's worse than ever and there isn't time before the next economic collapse.
  • You forcibly lower their birthrate, which sounds heinous even when typed.
  • You remove them entirely from Western civilization, whatever that entails.

Any other solution is no solution at all, since the problem would just repeat itself in time. (For example, importing other groups that do share those values doesn't do anything but stall if their birthrate is lower. Also, trying to boost the native birth rate only works until the country is full and maxed for resources. That still does nothing to change the central issue. Also, there is no way to get that high a birthrate among civilized societies and their peoples anymore, within the amount of time required - the economies don't support it, either.)

This is completely logically valid and sound, but it doesn't offer you much in the way of options, and reality often doesn't.

So, Europe will have to decide whether it wants liberty, safety and civilization, or if it wants unaffordable social systems and people who will destroy it, merely by being there and birthing new children who will want to destroy it.

It is a literal life-or-death decision, but it won't matter, because the breaking point will be reached long before any decision is made.

Come the next economic crisis, Europe will erupt in intracontinental civil war, one way or the other. I just hope civilization wins, the world doesn't entirely get blown up, and we never let this happen again afterwards.

But that doesn't quite save those tens of millions of lives it will potentially cost, which is generously assuming the war will stay within the confines of Europe.