M
Mordoror
Guest
Several points that are controversial here
Immigrants doesn't mean automaticaly muslims. When you look the stats, 50% of EU migrants are european ones (either intra EU or from outside Schengen area). A tiny bit comes from latin america and Asia (10-15%). The rest comes from the ME and Africa. Of course, numbers vary countries by countries.
80-90% of the muslims that are perceived to be an issue are already working and behaving. The issue is the 10-20% Mofos (either 1st, 2nd or 3d generation). Alas, like in any fruit basket, you need only a rotten apple to spoil the whole content.
Issue is also the political pushes (fed from outside) coming from these communities. Nurtured by the MB, Far left and SJW, a minority is pushing for political gains that are going against our values. Problem is that this minority is the most vocal.
On the last 2 points, the problem is a political one.
We should cut foreign funding to communities, increase justice, LE and jail budgets. Ah, OOOps, gonna cost money so no no for the technocrats clamped on the 3% deficit issue. Then comes the appease policy. A bunch of these problem riddled communities are poor. A lot of laisser faire is a way to keep the lid on the boiler (for example, underground economy is what feed a lot of people in our banlieues). Cut off these funds and people will have nothing more to lose. And an empty stomach is something very dangerous for the stability of the State.
About integration, we have,as a sole country, integrated in a matter of months, 1.5 millions immigrants of SEA (boat people) in the 70s. It is possible. Or at least it was possible but you need a strong state policy and avoid meddling of foreign influence groups. It is not acceptable to have migrants hijacked by beardies as soon as they land here. It is not acceptable to have beardies distribute food and clothes (for PR points) to poors. They are winning if the State is resigning from some of its responsabilities, which is the case.
To conclude, i don't see an European civil war, nor a civil war at all except in case of exceptionnal event that will spark the clusterfuck (like an exceptionaly made terror operation). Even the Bataclan and Nice didn't triggered hunt for muslims. You'd need something bigger.
What i see is a slow erosion of fundamental rights (which is already the case) in the name of security, a turn toward a hard handed policy and in the end, some areas that will remain slumps and S**t holes while the rest of the population will carry on its life.
Much like you can see in USA with the gang riddled areas and in South America with the favelas and other no go zones that spill from time to time to richer areas.
Wait isn't it already the case ?
PS : i, unfortunately, knows pretty well the mechanisms to obtain a civil war. For that you need a top down lead of the things. As long as the politicians remain level headed and are not turning into community endorsing idiots, ethnicity pointing or praising stoopids, religious zealots the risk is below tiny. If the top leaders begins to feed hate/miscontent by playing communities against communities, well the risk turns real. See former YU for best (or worst) example. Yet, you needed 3 separate idiots head of state playing their game to achieve the disaster.
Last edited by a moderator:
