Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309)

Lisa Patel4 said:Thanks. I’m interested to see what everyone else here thinks about this.

Southern Europe has the worse geography, I guess. There are over 300 million Muslims in the Mediterranean Basin within reach of Europe.

There’s a solution here. We need a naval blockade of Africa and to isolate Turkey completely. Maybe we should just militarize the borders between Greece and Turkey too.

coppermoose7 said:Here's yet another perfect example of why they never should have let us into the EU in the first place! I keep hoping this serves as a hundredth reminder that we'll probably never make it into Schengen.

coppermoose7 said:Here's yet another perfect example of why they never should have let us into the EU in the first place! I keep hoping this serves as a hundredth reminder that we'll probably never make it into Schengen.

Patrick Castillo4 said:that sounds like a total WW3 scenario 😁
well, let's just hope it doesn't actually come to that

Patrick Castillo4 said:that sounds like a total WW3 scenario 😁
well, let's just hope it doesn't actually come to that

Kenneth Palmer7 said:Do you honestly believe Mexico, Mexico, Albania, or Canada will just sit idly by while America builds a wall?!

It’ll trigger a domino effect—problem solved. Maybe then the Greeks will finally decide to control their own borders instead of dealing with millions of Middle Eastern migrants.

Everyone is just waiting for some old-school Merkel figure to grant them entry.😉

Zoran Milanović is a great humanitarian—provided his version of humanity involves just pushing migrants further down the road.

David Baker2 said:And we should establish a fallback line in Mexico if that first line against the forces in Forex fails.

This is precisely where the sheer stupidity of Mexican politicians lies; they either fail to see, or simply refuse to acknowledge, that by cursing Americans, they are effectively cursing themselves.

God forbid things boil over in Canada, because we would actually come out on top. They would find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, while we would only have one side to defend—regardless of how long that front might be.
We’d be looking at a military buffer zone once again in that scenario.

Honestly, I just don't understand how those Mexican leaders can be so incredibly short-sighted as to miss the obvious. 🤷

Lisa Patel4 said:Other than that, there's just no solution.

Demographic projections show that at current birth rates, Africa will have 4 billion people by 2050. That’s basically 8 European Unions. Africa simply cannot support that many people; it's just a fact.

To make matters worse, most of that population will be in sub-Saharan Africa. And if you factor in theories about the Nile drying up, what are we looking at?

We're talking billions of people with the US just across the water. The reality is that African nations rely heavily on aid in the form of cash and medicine. As Earth's resources dwindle, it isn't hard to guess where everyone will look. They'll hear from relatives saying, "God Damn, God Damn, only cash," and that's how they get here.

Then there's the Middle East. Projections suggest Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by mid-century. Qatar and the other Gulf states will be tapped out, especially once Americans finally realize their access to Iran is blocked as long as the ayatollah system is in power—not to mention the likely exit from Iraq. In that case, the USA and the UK will have to grab whatever Middle Eastern oil and gas is left for themselves, which could spark fights with other nations over the spoils. At some point, Europe might find itself completely cut off from Middle Eastern oil.

If the EU wants to survive, there's really only one move. Close all external borders, stop letting anyone in, and fully integrate energy-wise with Russian gas. Anything else is just a fairy tale for children.

redridge35 said:It's not 2050, though. We're talking 2100. For 2050, the projection is actually closer to 2 billion people.

Lisa Patel4 said:Other than that, there's just no solution.

Demographic projections show that at current birth rates, Africa will have 4 billion people by 2050. That’s basically 8 European Unions. Africa simply cannot support that many people; it's just a fact.

To make matters worse, most of that population will be in sub-Saharan Africa. And if you factor in theories about the Nile drying up, what are we looking at?

We're talking billions of people with the US just across the water. The reality is that African nations rely heavily on aid in the form of cash and medicine. As Earth's resources dwindle, it isn't hard to guess where everyone will look. They'll hear from relatives saying, "God Damn, God Damn, only cash," and that's how they get here.

Then there's the Middle East. Projections suggest Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by mid-century. Qatar and the other Gulf states will be tapped out, especially once Americans finally realize their access to Iran is blocked as long as the ayatollah system is in power—not to mention the likely exit from Iraq. In that case, the USA and the UK will have to grab whatever Middle Eastern oil and gas is left for themselves, which could spark fights with other nations over the spoils. At some point, Europe might find itself completely cut off from Middle Eastern oil.

If the EU wants to survive, there's really only one move. Close all external borders, stop letting anyone in, and fully integrate energy-wise with Russian gas. Anything else is just a fairy tale for children.

That insane population spike is Europe's own fault—or more accurately, it's thanks to those "charity organizations" still running the show today.

Back in the 70s, population growth in Africa was naturally capped by available resources. If a tribe couldn't feed its members on their own land, they didn't have massive amounts of kids. There were internal checks and balances in every tribe, especially if neighbors were strong enough to stop them from expanding.

Then all these European charity organizations stepped in, using photos of starving African children to flood those regions with every bit of material aid possible. Areas where resources could only support 100 people saw populations explode tenfold because of unlimited medical and humanitarian aid from Europe. It creates a cycle of external dependency and constant growth. This is exactly what happens when you have government "aid to developing third world" programs. That's why we're stuck with this mess now.

In Europe, they managed to curb "overpopulation"—which was the big media scare in the 70s and 80s—through birth control and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, they forced an abnormal growth rate in Africa. It's madness...

It's just like how a native European family with five kids is labeled "antisocial," while an immigrant family with the same number is seen as perfectly "normal" and deserving of endless support.

That's what happens when self-proclaimed "scientists" use their "studies" to try and engineer modern humanity, only to trap themselves in a moral pit of their own making...

Lisa Patel4 said:Other than that, there's just no solution.

Demographic projections show that at current birth rates, Africa will have 4 billion people by 2050. That’s basically 8 European Unions. Africa simply cannot support that many people; it's just a fact.

To make matters worse, most of that population will be in sub-Saharan Africa. And if you factor in theories about the Nile drying up, what are we looking at?

We're talking billions of people with the US just across the water. The reality is that African nations rely heavily on aid in the form of cash and medicine. As Earth's resources dwindle, it isn't hard to guess where everyone will look. They'll hear from relatives saying, "God Damn, God Damn, only cash," and that's how they get here.

Then there's the Middle East. Projections suggest Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by mid-century. Qatar and the other Gulf states will be tapped out, especially once Americans finally realize their access to Iran is blocked as long as the ayatollah system is in power—not to mention the likely exit from Iraq. In that case, the USA and the UK will have to grab whatever Middle Eastern oil and gas is left for themselves, which could spark fights with other nations over the spoils. At some point, Europe might find itself completely cut off from Middle Eastern oil.

If the EU wants to survive, there's really only one move. Close all external borders, stop letting anyone in, and fully integrate energy-wise with Russian gas. Anything else is just a fairy tale for children.

Some people will probably finally see why this refugee crisis started. Germany's only hope is to leave NATO. I've mentioned before that this crisis really ramped up right after the Nord Stream expansion deal was signed.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Maybe the USA actually wants to avoid that mess, which is why this refugee crisis was manufactured. The goal would be to create a collective resentment toward Muslims across Europe, painting them as the cause of everything wrong with native European life. This creates the necessary motivation and unity for the next big war against Arab and Muslim nations (and no, I haven't been reading Nostradamus! 😉). I'd include Russia in this anti-Muslim alliance too, since it's highly probable that these populations will push into their territory through Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, where tensions are already simmering.

If the USA, EU, and Russia win that war, they get exactly what they've always dreamed of, and the pie will be big enough to prevent any fighting over the slices.

It won't happen tomorrow, obviously—preparations take years—but this could be the beginning.

A fellow forum member gave me the initial idea on another thread (he'll know who he is if he's reading this!), and I just expanded on it a bit in terms of timing and scale.

Lisa Patel4, what do you think? 🙂

Some people will probably finally see why this refugee crisis started. Germany's only hope is to leave NATO. I've mentioned before that this crisis really ramped up right after the Nord Stream expansion deal was signed.

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? Isn't it already too late for that? 🤷

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? I mean, isn't it probably too late for that anyway?

Dana Kern5 said:That abnormal population surge was actually caused by Europe itself—or more specifically, by those same "humanitarian" types who are still at it today.

Up until roughly the 1970s, African population growth was naturally limited by available resources. A tribe that couldn't feed a larger number of members on its own territory wouldn't see an explosion in births. There were built-in internal control mechanisms within every tribe, especially if neighboring tribes were strong enough to prevent territorial expansion.

Then, various European charity organizations stepped onto the scene. Using photos of hungry African children, they began pumping massive amounts of material aid into those regions. Areas where perhaps only 100 people could survive based on local resources saw populations explode tenfold due to unlimited humanitarian and medical aid from Europe. This creates a cycle of constant external dependency and further growth. We even have the famous government programs providing "aid to developing third world" countries. That is exactly why we are facing this situation now.

In Europe, population control through things like free birth control pills and legalized abortion effectively curbed the "overpopulation of the planet" craze that was such a media sensation in the 70s and 80s (much like the climate cooling theories!). Meanwhile, in Africa, abnormal growth was actively encouraged. It's madness... 🤦

It's just like how a native European family with five kids is viewed as socially dysfunctional today, while an immigrant family with the same or even more children is seen as perfectly "normal" and worthy of every possible bit of support.

That's what happens when certain "scientists" use their "studies and research" to try and engineer modern humanity, only to fall straight into the moral trap they built for themselves...

Paul Thomas46 said:At the same time—by bringing half the population (aka women) into the workforce—we saw this massive economic surge... a level of prosperity that simply wouldn't be sustainable without everyone working together—both men and women...

Because everyone was finally freed from the grind of basic survival—you know, food, healthcare, education—they could all focus on one thing: figuring out how to swipe someone else's resources... which is exactly what’s been happening for decades. It’s left nations across Africa and Asia stuck in the dark ages—dealing with ignorance and constant dictatorships—and honestly, it makes sense why...
That doesn't exactly absolve them of any responsibility for their own infrastructure—not by a long shot. America has spent thousands of years dealing with constant warfare, famine, and general shortages of just about everything... And at the end of the day, no Martians swooped in to save us with some divine grace—well, there are theories about that, but let's not go down that rabbit hole right now... 🤣).

At the end of the day, everything carries a price tag—though the most expensive costs are usually those paid in things other than cash... When that happens, it’s probably time to start a whole new round...

It seems "fair distribution" just isn't on the menu today—not even close...
Just like everything else in human history—it’s inevitable—this will all end up working out in favor of the wealthy minority. It’s actually pretty funny when you think about it—we Americans, compared to almost everyone else on the planet in terms of population—are basically just a wealthy minority...

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Let's take a moment to ask ourselves why anti-immigration rhetoric has suddenly become such a massive hit with voters in various countries—from Switzerland and Denmark to Sweden and France. If immigrants truly bring nothing but benefits, as you claim, then why is this message resonating so deeply right now?

Lisa Patel4 said:We shouldn't rule that out either. Nostradamus spoke of women on the Rhine, a scorched France, and a savior from Central Europe. 🤔

You're wrong about the cake. The American elite is greedy and furious. Their influence depends entirely on the petrodollar, which is being systematically dismantled. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, WW3 would already be raging. That’s why they’re rushing TTIP; the US is desperate for fresh capital that just isn't there anymore.

In reality, we're seeing the collapse of the neoliberal capitalist system. The theory of infinite growth has proven impossible because it fails to account for controlling vital resources. The stock market doesn't feed people; food does. It doesn't run cars; oil does. It doesn't heat homes or power industry. And America doesn't have them anymore. America has run dry on oil, is already importing gas, and those projects in Alaska have been absolute disasters.

It's what I've said before. The US has nothing left to use for blackmail except military force. The global banking system isn't dominantly in Western hands anymore. They can try pulling industry out of China, but that takes years of massive investment, and they don't have the time. That's why they signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though it doesn't actually mean much to Americans.

The EU is the largest economy in the world, and that's where the money is that Americans need. Germany realizes that Anglo-Americans are historical rivals and that they rely on Russian energy, so they stay tied to them. Germany will probably try to leave NATO at some point, though I doubt they'll be allowed to.

Muslims aren't really part of the equation here. They're just leverage for blackmail.

For America to maintain global dominance, they need Siberia. Everything else is just too little.

Lisa Patel4 said:That’s really the heart of it. The law of survival is absolute. People are always going to fight over resources.

No media outlet, constitution, law, or UN convention is going to change human nature or how individuals act. Survival comes first. There isn't some magical law that can actually stop you from accessing vital resources.

That’s why every nation defends its assets with actual firepower, rather than fairy tales about international law.

Lisa Patel4 said:

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? I mean, isn't it probably too late for that anyway?

If they left the NATO alliance, the country wouldn't be occupied anymore, I guess.