Realcent.org

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc&ebc=ANyPxKofHdEeq1fWL41p_UQoRmV9HYsyM1N41xk5Cd01ELe107kpjMnj16f9-9M-BZW0oVkalKVJ&app=desktop

I'd like to see these hoards try to go to Russia or China. They don't mind being called racist.

If the US was located in Europe this would be our reality because of the collectivist dribble taught here.

Can you believe these bleeding heart, suicidal morons?

My Grandparents and Father fled Europe after WWII due to being forcibly uprooted by the violence of the war. My father would have been a multi-millionaire if he was able to keep the family lands. Hence I have sympathy for immigrants who are fleeing war destruction. However, these refugees are the poor pawns of the empire which are being used for more divide and conquer and so I do not wish for them to be brought here either. My point is our ire should be directed towards those setting the policy and creating more war/refugees and less on the victims of that policy.

One other thing, I really think the term "collectivist" is a really misleading term which serves to confuse more than enlighten. The US military is collectivist. "America" as a nation is collectivist. So why in your view is "collectivist" a pejorative term?

The video is terrifying; seeing it in action versus just hearing words adds a whole new dimension. The Islamist intrusion into Europe was already well underway and It was already bad (as evidenced by the Paris conclaves), with previous estimates suggesting Europe would be overtaken in 10-20 years, but this shows the end accelerating to within a year or two from now unless Europe lays down boundaries that they still don't seem to have the will to impose. This has become (as was noted) European suicide. Obama would allow the same thing to happen to us if there isn't an ocean in the way.

So if you are anti-collectivist are you supposed to hate nationalism too? Or is it just other forms of collectivism?

My answer should be viewed in the context of what is happening in the video

blackrabbit wrote: So why in your view is "collectivist" a pejorative term?

For the same reason everyone else who thinks collectivist is a pejorative.

Like it or not, there is "us" and "them". I didn't create this. It's the way of the world and always will be.
These disgusting hoards have no desire to become part of the societies they are invading (be collected or absorbed). But the MORONS throwing flowers at them are the collectivists who believe the human waste, that is about to destroy all they know, will love them for it. For some bizarre reason they ignore reality

If collectivism is a mandatory condition of entry (like the US used to be and the Military is) then great. But this is a utopian myth and will not happen.
The disgusting POS's in this video think this way: They will turn YOUR environment into a muslim hell or they kill you rape your women etc.

People who don't see this really don't care why those, who do, do.
Will my opinion change your mind? You are a smart guy and you already know the answer.

I would be chasing my tail to engage here. Maybe someone else will endeavor to open that can of worms.

Oh. The collectivist rebuttal to the above argument is that it is racist.

blackrabbit wrote:So if you are anti-collectivist are you supposed to hate nationalism too? Or is it just other forms of collectivism?

American Indians maybe should have killed every European they saw from day one.

I'm not anti-collectivist. The concept is just a myth.

That was my point!

Also, that video is a slick propaganda piece blending videos of migrants/refugees/ with all kinds of other disturbances and riots designed to manipulate you into an emotional response. It's that kind of stuff that incites the stupid to violence against innocent people. I am against the current refugees being resettled in Europe and America. However, I don't like the manipulation of language and video in the way it is being done which foments generalized hate towards the least powerful people while deflecting it from those more deserving, those who create and uphold the policy. In my view policy should be changed so they have a chance at a decent life in Syria and the rest of the mid-east. If anything Saudi Arabia and Turkey should take them in as those countries are the ones who have been funding/supplying ISIS.

I was thinking at first that wouldn't they want to find some other Arabic speaking country that they could assimilate into easily?
But then, if you think about it... what Arab country can afford to host them? Give them aid, freebies, food, shelter, education?
Other than maybe a hundred here or there... certainly not the numbers that they're talking about. Most of those fleeing are
just looking to escape violence and the threat of death, not spread it into the regions where they're resettling. But you will
always have fanaticism, and even those who are moderates, but just with an outsized sense of entitlement, give a black eye
to the lot of them.

Too bad all the bleeding heart liberals here didn't just live in one state where they could conduct a grand experiment of welcoming
all the refugees... and then see how well that went.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkxFT_hJCdQ

Here is an interesting propaganda video which has a lot of truth in it. The main truthful reference being the declassified documents that admit to assisting in creating ISIS as a divide and conquer strategy in the mid-east to take out Assad. That is the root of the refugee crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxM2cPk-pEk

beauanderos wrote:I was thinking at first that wouldn't they want to find some other Arabic speaking country that they could assimilate into easily?
But then, if you think about it... what Arab country can afford to host them? Give them aid, freebies, food, shelter, education?
Other than maybe a hundred here or there... certainly not the numbers that they're talking about. Most of those fleeing are
just looking to escape violence and the threat of death, not spread it into the regions where they're resettling. But you will
always have fanaticism, and even those who are moderates, but just with an outsized sense of entitlement, give a black eye
to the lot of them.

Too bad all the bleeding heart liberals here didn't just live in one state where they could conduct a grand experiment of welcoming
all the refugees... and then see how well that went.

I think the first sentence of your post is key. Historically, immigrants and refugees have come to the US and assimilate into the US culture. It does not seem to be true anymore. I am sure those who leave their country, for whatever reason, have a most difficult decision to make and I am certainly glad I am not in that position. However, my belief is that all parties are better off when the cultures merge. Now we have divisions everywhere. It is a shame.

Ok, about 3 min watch was enough. I took this from a post I make over at BS. My point doesn't really have to do with the Muslim threat to Europe but, we are just seeing the tip of the mass of millions that will be immigrants/refugees in the future. In short, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

A smoke and mirrors/diversion it is not. Sign of the times it is. And it's just the tip of the iceberg. Violence from civil war, politicide, and genocide, combined with economic (poverty) problems and what appears to be an increase of ecological problems seem to be the primary reasons we are seeing the mass migration of humans at this time (both in the recent past and predicted for the not to distant future.

Of major concern is cultural genocide associated with the mass migrations. For example this really cool story of a punk drummer Jason Hamacher making the first recordings of the world's oldest Christian music to preserve it for a dying culture in the middle east:

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/07/338586411 ... ian-chants

From Fresh Air with Terry Gross on NPR.

In my eyes, It is acts like this that show the best side of humanity.

Edited to add: I heard today that about 97% of the violence caused by Moslem terrorists is against . . . Moslems. So even here, we ain't seen nothing yet.

All of this seems to be planned to me. Western nations are at war with the nations these refugees are fleeing from. Yet our media wants us to think we are bad if we dont take them in, and maybe Im dead wrong but I cant think of any nation who let something like this happen historically. Mass immigration from areas our own polling suggests a solid portion of them want to hurt us and our culture. We are told its racist and bad to acknowledge this, but literal polling of them in their own words suggests rather high and dangerous levels of them do in fact support violence, and as new global caliphate etc. So I personally think the real reason it is being forced into the situation is so a canned response can be unearthed later. Like perhaps turn society much more draconian in response to the threat while justifying even further encroachments on islamic nations.

Engaging islam was one of the first things young US did internationally. "to the shores of tripoli"... They had caught an estimated 1-1.25 million europeans and sold them into slavery from the 16th-19th centuries. Until we showed up and jefferson refused to pay tribute as europe had always done. Weve been purposely engaging them ever since. Picking a fight really. in my reading of events. We were paying about 10% of our budget per year as a bribe before jefferson became prez. lol europe thought we were insane at the time to engage them, but in the end the US won, and later when the action sresumed I think it was a series of treaties that finally ended it. Less time has passed since we put that particular threat down then had passed with that threat existed severely hindering europes trade and taking its people.

Immigration is great for a culture, lack of assimilation is historically often a death sentence though. I think in our modern era we didnt just forget this, we are pretending to so other actions can become warranted later. The shape of how it is playing out so consistently in so many nations raises many red flags to my ways of thinking. neither russia nor china likes islam much either. Westerners are increasingly sick of dirty wars though, so to fully engage islam wed need some incentive. Lijke perhaps holy jihad on our own streets. Thats my guess anyway.

I'm not a fan of getting information from videos that show a new clip every second or even less than a second.

The complexity of ecological refugees is expressed here:
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technol ... nexcusable
Again, just the tip of the (melting) ice-berg.

On a completely different subject, today I heard 19% of the American people believed all or almost all the government does is good. That's got to be about > 1/2 of the people that voted in the last mid-term election. No wonder we vote under the illusion of choice.

johnbrickner wrote:The complexity of ecological refugees is expressed here:

but not the complexity of ecology. They didnt mention that if the IPCC is correct the ocean will be about 17 inches higher 100 years from now. Or that 80 plus percent of these same island chains have more land area not less in the last few decades despite rising ocean levels. Nor did they explain the rate of sea level rise has lowered the last decade back to levels present for most of the last few thousand years. Or that those islands have ALWAYS had issues with fresh water getting sea water in it. I can go on, and cite it all if I spent a few hours on it.

Instead I will leave you with this. The UN report from 2005 saying there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. (instead there was one attempted one for an issue that wont be pressing in his lifetime, perhaps his grandkids, some pointing to syria for climate refugees currently but they are not in a historically significant drought nor uncommon nor out of the range of normal in any way.)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... atechange1

The date was changed to 2020

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 26488.html

Paul elrich currently a major proponent of AGW was a proponent the world was set to freeze back in the 70s. In 1971 he said... ....

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”

Many others including some just as outlandish and unsupported by data of any sort from people still taken seriously in the field, but instead Ill stop with this quote from the UNs agenda 21 playbook.

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level"

or the club of rome from a book they made in the 70s still heralded by the more well read environmentalists as desirable somehow. Hard to fathom having read it.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

There ya go... I'll have to look that book up, but that certainly fits the pattern!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOLcMqdpls worth listening to

blackrabbit wrote: So why in your view is "collectivist" a pejorative term?

"Collectivism" is usually used as an excuse for murder, genocide, and theft of property, such as the family lands you no longer have.