Muslims do not belong in the western world

[Fynn]

they don’t not belong anywhere else than under the ground

 

[Mansur]

Yeah? that is what I just said, you aren't addressing any of my points meaningfully, are you using AI to respond JFL
View attachment 5428408View attachment 5428407

Ive answered all your questions, Ive tried using the lowest effort possible because It seemed to me that you used AI since you wrote a whole essay.

What even is that site youre using are we in 2nd grade. Its not really possible to prove that smth is written in AI unless some unique words are beeing used where even then a human could use them

 

[Mansur]

Yeah? that is what I just said, you aren't addressing any of my points meaningfully, are you using AI to respond JFL
View attachment 5428408View attachment 5428407

despite many of your grammar mistakes you still have scored high, so this is just friendly fire

 

[Hess]

Ive answered all your questions, Ive tried using the lowest effort possible because It seemed to me that you used AI since you wrote a whole essay.

What even is that site youre using are we in 2nd grade. Its not really possible to prove that smth is written in AI unless some unique words are beeing used where even then a human could use them

Someone writing a paragraph does not mean its AI, and yeah it isnt fully accurate and high scores dont mean much but when you get extremely high scores like 100 percent then I am very skeptical of you typing this out and not just copying and pasting it in an Al, the reason I tested is because when you wrote out this,

The Gulf model works because those countries have a completely different structure: small citizen populations, huge wealth, and temporary migrant labour systems. It cannot simply be copied to large European states.

A country has the right to control immigration, citizenship, and integration. But the idea that democracy only works when one ethnicity remains the only political bloc is historically questionable. Societies have always had internal divisions (class, religion, region, ideology), and the solution is strong institutions, not assuming groups will always act as one.

it was just your other paragraph reworded which I explicitly talked about here and addressed which this reply does not talk abt or address whatsoever

Yeah I'm not gonna say it is a 1:1 comparison nor that europeans should adopt it exactly like that, we are big nation states with swathes of people, capital and resources and not a tiny collective of extremely rich groups, the point im making is that the system in which they limit voting to citizens only and clamping down on citizenship applications, promoting more temporary visa types instead and moving from mass migrations for low skilled jobs to limited migration to far more specialized jobs from neighbouring countries with similar cultures, values and ease of integration, a white european will have far more ease integrating as they are far more similar to each other in both culture, race and phenotypes

as well as the other part of your paragraph/reply in which I also talked abt democracy and addressed your points but you just repeated what you said before/circled back and didn't meaningfully address any of the actual content in the sections here, just a half assed reply

Sure im not saying its the only way to make it work and that there are no multi cultural democracies but a lot of modern democracies fall into this trap, ever since america has stopped being mostly WASP you have had multiple cases of different political parties lobbying immigration into states like california and turning said countries into more immigrant heavy that will vote for the groups that helped get them there (california used to be a historically red state until mass mexican immigration, in the future you will probably see texas going the same way), letting immigration be normalized in democratic countries like this introduces the very legitimate fear of politicians deciding to now import their voter base in and getting them to mostly vote for them due to lobbying to invite them into the country and get citizenship, this is a dangerous recipe for demographic change and one of the main reasons I find modern democracy and capitalism incredibly flawed in the first place

Its less about "liberal values" (I do not value them as much and find them to be a flaw of europe and whtie states) and more so about the nation, how it will survive and how it will manage going about securing the interests of the native european population, so far liberal democracies have been failing at this and have led europe to a global decline to the point they are now more so going alongside america's whims rather than deciding their own fate and securing white european interests, a massive diaspora of islamic peoples (arabs, pakistanis, iranians etc) invites even more division and extreme fragility of our nations while we are in this state of decline, but even christian immigrants like africans, or south americans offer this same division, its less about the actual religion about these people but about the security of the nation/native european people remaining the sole political bloc in their own countries and being able to fully utlize said systems to secure native european interests both globally and domestically, countries are not economic zones or places for people to move in and make it their own, they are entites made by and for the native peoples to serve their interests and their interests alone.


I mean in democracies in europe you have different political factions and I won't pretend that it is always perfect and not divisive but historically these factions always operated under the main assumption of serving the native european peoples (I don't support democratic insitutions though, I feel this decline towards the liberal democracies of today have proven most counter revolutionaries since the enlightment right about the inherent faults of these systems and that at some point a trajectory from this political structure is needed as it is not sustainable, though the monarchies of old were just as flawed, the ideal is mostly the party system in places like china)

I don't disagree but the effects of mass immigration like in europe have not been all that favourable and that immigration or restriction to only similiar countries is needed as integration with vastly different groups of peoples/races is mostly impossible, because even historically this level of immigration was extremely rare, the british empire at its peak never faced this level of mass immigration despite having power in almost every part of the world and being very well off financially

I don't care if you use AI to proofread or help you formulate an argument/line of thought that can meaningfully address my points but just copying and pasting what I said then not actually having it address any point at all is just so incredibly lazy and a sign that this conversation is a complete waste of time when it shows you will not actually put in any of the effort to think and formulate the arguments against my line of thought, if you don't want to waste your time writing up a paragraph or debating the issue then you don't have to engage in this conversation or debate in the first place

 

[Mansur]

hen you get extremely high scores like 100 percent

Ive simply avoided grammar mistakes when typing out the message, either way its useless to talk about this now

Someone writing a paragraph does not mean its AI, and yeah it isnt fully accurate and high scores dont mean much but when you get extremely high scores like 100 percent then I am very skeptical of you typing this out and not just copying and pasting it in an Al, the reason I tested is because when you wrote out this,

it was just your other paragraph reworded which I explicitly talked about here and addressed which this reply does not talk abt or address whatsoever

as well as the other part of your paragraph/reply in which I also talked abt democracy and addressed your points but you just repeated what you said before/circled back and didn't meaningfully address any of the actual content in the sections here, just a half assed reply


I don't care if you use AI to proofread or help you formulate an argument/line of thought that can meaningfully address my points but just copying and pasting what I said then not actually having it address any point at all is just so incredibly lazy and a sign that this conversation is a complete waste of time when it shows you will not actually put in any of the effort to think and formulate the arguments against my line of thought, if you don't want to waste your time writing up a paragraph or debating the issue then you don't have to engage in this conversation or debate in the first place

On the gulf point, I did circle back to an argument youd already clarified instead of addressing the narrower position you actually laid out. I should've responded to the specific points you were advocating rather than the broader comparison Ive just realized.

But with that said, I disagree that the entire conversation is pointless or that using AI has anything to do with it. Whether a reply is AI assisted or written from scratch doesn't matter if the arguments are actually addressed. So instead of debating how the reply was written, let's stick to the substance. Pick the strongest point you think I still haven't answered

 

[Jason5000]

trvke

 

[iblamechico]

“Yes every ethnic wanna come in” deadass got a brain of a cornball you think theyre coming fy? they don’t know u incel

Wtf are u even talking about dumbass?

Yes, non christians are allowed in churches, no one would drive them away.

Yes ethnics are coming in drove into western countries despite the west being, by his words, "filled with degenerates".

I didn't mention anything about myself you fucking low IQ troglodyte

Interesting, these people never mention their own people and have done 0 research

If youd actually know what the Quran teaches you wouldnt be posting this

Idk if its their discipline and obeying the almighty creator that doesnt make you comfortable or youre just the average joe who fell for the Jew propaganda

You prob still are convinced 9/11 was done by Muslims

Either way they put a thousand times more effort to their religion than what you do in christianity, if you even are one

Its so stupid because thats not even a physical trait which you could hate them for but just their personal believes

Idk why Im even responding to braindeas posts but here you go

Ur dumb asf assuming I'm christian lol. Post says "I dislike religions and religious people" what part of that sounds like OP is christian.

 

[Hess]

Ive simply avoided grammar mistakes when typing out the message, either way its useless to talk about this now

On the gulf point, I did circle back to an argument youd already clarified instead of addressing the narrower position you actually laid out. I should've responded to the specific points you were advocating rather than the broader comparison Ive just realized.

But with that said, I disagree that the entire conversation is pointless or that using AI has anything to do with it. Whether a reply is AI assisted or written from scratch doesn't matter if the arguments are actually addressed. So instead of debating how the reply was written, let's stick to the substance. Pick the strongest point you think I still haven't answered

My points are that I believe European nations should pursue far tighter immigration controls due to the widespread chaos politically encouraged mass migration has caused, and that when pursuing immigration policy it should keep citizenship/paths to citizenships to peoples that are capable of integrating and are already of similar cultures and race and that even in the case of actual migration it is more beneficial to keep the country how it has been historically with immigration, with very little migration that only ever made up to 1 or 2 percent difference in demographics, unlike now which has massively impacted demographics, my point about democracy is that although it is politically divisive, it is far more chaotic when you suddenly mix new different ethnic groups into the equation that all have vastly more different ethnic interests and for the most part will happily vote not for the interests of the nation/european people but for their people back home, opting for more immigration, supporting policies or interventions in ethnic conflicts like israel-palestine and voting solely for their ethnic diaspora communities interests in the country due to not being tied to the actual nation outside of a piece of paper

 

[Mansur]

Ur dumb asf assuming I'm christian lol. Post says "I dislike religions and religious people" what part of that sounds like OP is christian.

I dont think thats what the post says and Its mostly christians that hate muslims for whatever reason

 

[Nectar]

Normally I agree with your threads but this is just balls…

Mossad/zionist propaganda

(I’m not religious tho agnostc)

 

[Mansur]

My points are that I believe European nations should pursue far tighter immigration controls due to the widespread chaos politically encouraged mass migration has caused, and that when pursuing immigration policy it should keep citizenship/paths to citizenships to peoples that are capable of integrating and are already of similar cultures and race and that even in the case of actual migration it is more beneficial to keep the country how it has been historically with immigration, with very little migration that only ever made up to 1 or 2 percent difference in demographics, unlike now which has massively impacted demographics, my point about democracy is that although it is politically divisive, it is far more chaotic when you suddenly mix new different ethnic groups into the equation that all have vastly more different ethnic interests and for the most part will happily vote not for the interests of the nation/european people but for their people back home, opting for more immigration, supporting policies or interventions in ethnic conflicts like israel-palestine and voting solely for their ethnic diaspora communities interests in the country due to not being tied to the actual nation outside of a piece of paper

I think you're making a few assumptions that don't necessarily follow.

I agree every country has the right to control immigration, set citizenship standards, and prioritize integration. Where I disagree however is the idea that race is what determines whether someone can integrate or whether they'll act in the country's interests. Culture, language, values, and loyalty to the country are far more relevant than ancestry.

Your democracy argument also assumes immigrant groups will permanently vote as ethnic blocs for their homelands interests. Sometimes that happens, but it's not a universal rule. Political preferences shift across generations, and plenty of immigrant communities end up voting on the same issues as everyone else which is economy, taxes, housing, crime, healthcare and the list goes on, not just foreign policy or ethnicity.

You also haven't really shown that the solution is preserving one ethnic majority rather than having stricter integration, citizenship, and immigration policies. Those are different claims. You can argue for lower immigration and higher integration standards without concluding that only one ethnicity can be trusted to act in the nation's interest.

So I don't think the disagreement is really about whether Europe should have borders or tighter immigration, that's a legitimate policy debate. It's about whether ethnicity is the deciding factor in national loyalty, and I don't think you've demonstrated that.

 

[abzz!]

Who else high af rn?

my yart keeps getting stuck
or clogged

 

[12aff]

Genuinely enrages me that there's even a single muslim in the west. They piss me off more than niggers tbh.

I dislike religions and religious people, and above all of them, the loudest of them all, Muslims.

One teacher in France was beheaded by a muslim for showing a picture of Mohammad. Yet white people let these niggas do prayers in public in London lol. Voted a Muslim as Mayor of ZOO York City.

Non muslims can't step foot in mecca and some parts of Medina. Everyone is free to visit Vatican and Jerusalem.

USA should've bombed Iran to smithereens.

We're here to take over

 

[Hess]

I think you're making a few assumptions that don't necessarily follow.

I agree every country has the right to control immigration, set citizenship standards, and prioritize integration. Where I disagree however is the idea that race is what determines whether someone can integrate or whether they'll act in the country's interests. Culture, language, values, and loyalty to the country are far more relevant than ancestry.

Race has historically been the deciding factor of possibilities of integration, like it or not but from phenotypes alone someone from the middle east will never been seen as subconsciously english and we know what the english are and what they are not is some vague cultural identity, they are a real ethnic group with history spanning thousands of years, which are a mix of extremely similar ethnic groups that already are similar both genetically and culturally, (celts and anglo-saxons the ancestors of modern englishman already share multiple common ancestors through PIE cultures, their languages and mythologies are also incredibly similar and share the same source for the most part which made ethnogenesis even possible in the first place, but even then that was not some peaceful process but the result of violent conquests, rape and displacement), and lets not forget this was a process that took hundreds of years as well, pretending that someone for example with a vastly different phenotype which has very little similarities with the average englishman would be seen as an englishman is very doubtful, people generally know what physical and racial traits different races have, also culture, language, values and loyalty arent seperate from ancestry they are intertwined and to seperate the two is also silly, people place heavy value on their ancestry and they justify and take pride in their nation/country solely because they know that their ancestors did play a small part/were part of that collective, a 2nd generation immigrant from africa or the ME will never be able to share that or connect on that level with the actual ethnic people of that nation, not to mention that this level of mass migration is an extremely new modern phenomon as even in the heights of multiple european empires they never accepted more than 1 or 2 percent of migration like this

Your democracy argument also assumes immigrant groups will permanently vote as ethnic blocs for their homelands interests. Sometimes that happens, but it's not a universal rule. Political preferences shift across generations, and plenty of immigrant communities end up voting on the same issues as everyone else which is economy, taxes, housing, crime, healthcare and the list goes on, not just foreign policy or ethnicity.

Yeah this can mostly apply to 1st gen immigrants but it also heavily applies to 2nd gen and even at times 3rd gen immigrants as they are very conscious of their immigrant identity and know that they are arab, african or wherever they come from, sure it could die down but that would take multiple generations to the point that it is simply not worth the effort

You also haven't really shown that the solution is preserving one ethnic majority rather than having stricter integration, citizenship, and immigration policies. Those are different claims. You can argue for lower immigration and higher integration standards without concluding that only one ethnicity can be trusted to act in the nation's interest.

I never said that we should clamp down fully on immigration and put a stop to it, just to vet the nations that are coming in and accept only familiar european countries, its not a big issue if you have 1-2 percent foreign population but when you are approaching levels like 10-15 it is just simply not worth it

So I don't think the disagreement is really about whether Europe should have borders or tighter immigration, that's a legitimate policy debate. It's about whether ethnicity is the deciding factor in national loyalty, and I don't think you've demonstrated that.

I would say that I addressed this part mostly in the first section, ancestry is the one common thread that unites people in nations and is the biggest signifier of loyalty to a people, because then you are actually apart of that people and your interests are tied to that collective from birth, nations, ethnicities and things like a german or englishman is not something you can just choose to wear like a cloak they are a real ethnic group that people are apart of and that the nation has formed around and based itself on

 

[Mansur]

Race has historically been the deciding factor of possibilities of integration, like it or not but from phenotypes alone someone from the middle east will never been seen as subconsciously english and we know what the english are and what they are not is some vague cultural identity, they are a real ethnic group with history spanning thousands of years, which are a mix of extremely similar ethnic groups that already are similar both genetically and culturally, (celts and anglo-saxons the ancestors of modern englishman already share multiple common ancestors through PIE cultures, their languages and mythologies are also incredibly similar and share the same source for the most part which made ethnogenesis even possible in the first place, but even then that was not some peaceful process but the result of violent conquests, rape and displacement), and lets not forget this was a process that took hundreds of years as well, pretending that someone for example with a vastly different phenotype which has very little similarities with the average englishman would be seen as an englishman is very doubtful, people generally know what physical and racial traits different races have, also culture, language, values and loyalty arent seperate from ancestry they are intertwined and to seperate the two is also silly, people place heavy value on their ancestry and they justify and take pride in their nation/country solely because they know that their ancestors did play a small part/were part of that collective, a 2nd generation immigrant from africa or the ME will never be able to share that or connect on that level with the actual ethnic people of that nation, not to mention that this level of mass migration is an extremely new modern phenomon as even in the heights of multiple european empires they never accepted more than 1 or 2 percent of migration like this

Yeah this can mostly apply to 1st gen immigrants but it also heavily applies to 2nd gen and even at times 3rd gen immigrants as they are very conscious of their immigrant identity and know that they are arab, african or wherever they come from, sure it could die down but that would take multiple generations to the point that it is simply not worth the effort

I never said that we should clamp down fully on immigration and put a stop to it, just to vet the nations that are coming in and accept only familiar european countries, its not a big issue if you have 1-2 percent foreign population but when you are approaching levels like 10-15 it is just simply not worth it

I would say that I addressed this part mostly in the first section, ancestry is the one common thread that unites people in nations and is the biggest signifier of loyalty to a people, because then you are actually apart of that people and your interests are tied to that collective from birth, nations, ethnicities and things like a german or englishman is not something you can just choose to wear like a cloak they are a real ethnic group that people are apart of and that the nation has formed around and based itself on

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You're treating ancestry as the primary determinant of loyalty and integration, but you haven't shown that it is. You've argued that people identify with their ancestry, which is true, but that doesn't mean ancestry determines political loyalty more than culture, upbringing, or shared civic identity.

Your phenotype argument is also a leap. Being perceived as ethnically different isn't the same as being incapable of integrating or acting in the country's interests. Someone can be seen as ethnically Arab or African while still identifying primarily with Britain or Germany. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

You're also using history as a prescription. The fact that Europe historically had low immigration doesn't itself prove that higher immigration is inherently unsustainable. It only shows that it was historically uncommon.

So I agree that states can restrict immigration and prioritize integration if they think it's in their national interest. Where I disagree is the claim that ancestry is the defining factor of loyalty or that only ethnically native people can genuinely belong to the nation. I don't think you've actually established that but you're largely assuming it.

 

[Hess]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You're treating ancestry as the primary determinant of loyalty and integration, but you haven't shown that it is. You've argued that people identify with their ancestry, which is true, but that doesn't mean ancestry determines political loyalty more than culture, upbringing, or shared civic identity.

We are just going to go in circles as we have fundamentally different views on the value of ancestry yes, but my disagreement here is that you are attempting separate culture, civic identity and upbringing when all of these things have been linked together historically

Your phenotype argument is also a leap. Being perceived as ethnically different isn't the same as being incapable of integrating or acting in the country's interests. Someone can be seen as ethnically Arab or African while still identifying primarily with Britain or Germany. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Sure they can say they are british or german but that does not mean people do not recognize what their actual ethnicity is, if this were the actual case then I would be african because I was born in south africa, yet I share zero values, culture or any political loyalty to the country as it is fundamentally not mine and people will instantly clock me as an englishman that just lives in south africa and there are vast political debates over this topic even there, not to mention in this example people like me share far more cultural heritage, interests and loyalty to similar european groups like the germans in south west africa who have avidly only ever saw themselves as german despite even having lived in these countries for even more than 3-4 generations, identity and ethnicity is not something that just comes off like a hat

You're also using history as a prescription. The fact that Europe historically had low immigration doesn't itself prove that higher immigration is inherently unsustainable. It only shows that it was historically uncommon.

So I agree that states can restrict immigration and prioritize integration if they think it's in their national interest. Where I disagree is the claim that ancestry is the defining factor of loyalty or that only ethnically native people can genuinely belong to the nation. I don't think you've actually established that but you're largely assuming it.

I use history as an example here because although we are in a fairly unique age, the fact that even 19th and early 20th century empires did not have mass migrations like this yet still thrived financially shows that immigration is not some sort of inevibality that is a mandatory need for countries to survive or forgo the ties of nation state and ethnicity, another modern example of a state having an ethnic majority in its country that is around 94 percent while also having very small amounts of migration is china

 

[Mansur]

We are just going to go in circles as we have fundamentally different views on the value of ancestry yes, but my disagreement here is that you are attempting separate culture, civic identity and upbringing when all of these things have been linked together historically

Sure they can say they are british or german but that does not mean people do not recognize what their actual ethnicity is, if this were the actual case then I would be african because I was born in south africa, yet I share zero values, culture or any political loyalty to the country as it is fundamentally not mine and people will instantly clock me as an englishman that just lives in south africa and there are vast political debates over this topic even there, not to mention in this example people like me share far more cultural heritage, interests and loyalty to similar european groups like the germans in south west africa who have avidly only ever saw themselves as german despite even having lived in these countries for even more than 3-4 generations, identity and ethnicity is not something that just comes off like a hat

I use history as an example here because although we are in a fairly unique age, the fact that even 19th and early 20th century empires did not have mass migrations like this yet still thrived financially shows that immigration is not some sort of inevibality that is a mandatory need for countries to survive or forgo the ties of nation state and ethnicity, another modern example of a state having an ethnic majority in its country that is around 94 percent while also having very small amounts of migration is china

I think you're right that culture, ancestry, and identity have historically been closely linked. Where I disagree is that they're inseparable or that ancestry is what ultimately determines loyalty.

Your South Africa example actually illustrates that identity can be shaped by history and politics in different ways. It shows how you identify, it doesn't prove that everyone with a different ancestry will necessarily identify the same way or be unable to develop loyalty to the country they live in.

The same goes for the German communities There are also plenty of examples of immigrant groups that, over generations, have come to identify primarily with the country they live in. Pointing to one set of examples doesn't settle the question either way.

And with China, I'd say that's a policy choice rather than evidence that ethnic homogeneity is what makes a nation successful. China is successful because of a combination of geography, institutions, industrial policy, population size, and state capacity. You'd have to show that its ethnic composition is the key reason for that success rather than one factor among many.

So I think we've reached the core disagreement: you see ancestry as the foundation of nationhood, whereas I see it as one component among several. That's a philosophical difference more than something either of us can prove conclusively.

 

[Hess]

So I think we've reached the core disagreement: you see ancestry as the foundation of nationhood, whereas I see it as one component among several. That's a philosophical difference more than something either of us can prove conclusively.

Yeah this is just going in circles the whole day to an argument that neither of us can concisely prove despite convictions

Your South Africa example actually illustrates that identity can be shaped by history and politics in different ways. It shows how you identify, it doesn't prove that everyone with a different ancestry will necessarily identify the same way or be unable to develop loyalty to the country they live in.

The same goes for the German communities There are also plenty of examples of immigrant groups that, over generations, have come to identify primarily with the country they live in. Pointing to one set of examples doesn't settle the question either way.

This just isnt me either, I can show you plenty of people that otherwise share the same feeling, majority of whites in that country have immigrated back to countries they can actually integrate in due to similarities or already have ethnic ties to, even the white group with the most history the afrikaners in the country sees itself as extremely different to the native identity of most south africans and identifies far closer with their european ancestry to the point movements in the country actively fight for their own institutions and interests over the rest of the population to the point where they have set up white afrikaner only towns like orania and setting up afrikaans only universities in said town, south africa is a clear cut example of the failures of extreme diversity when only certain people actively identify with that country over their own ethnic people

And with China, I'd say that's a policy choice rather than evidence that ethnic homogeneity is what makes a nation successful. China is successful because of a combination of geography, institutions, industrial policy, population size, and state capacity. You'd have to show that its ethnic composition is the key reason for that success rather than one factor among many.

Yes it would be ridiculous for it to be the sole reason for its success but the fact that they are actively competitng with the west and beating them while not having mass levels of migration shows that it is not a need or must to be able to perform economically and successful as a nation and that we need to accept thousands of these migrants yearly

 

[Mansur]

Yeah this is just going in circles the whole day to an argument that neither of us can concisely prove despite convictions

This just isnt me either, I can show you plenty of people that otherwise share the same feeling, majority of whites in that country have immigrated back to countries they can actually integrate in due to similarities or already have ethnic ties to, even the white group with the most history the afrikaners in the country sees itself as extremely different to the native identity of most south africans and identifies far closer with their european ancestry to the point movements in the country actively fight for their own institutions and interests over the rest of the population to the point where they have set up white afrikaner only towns like orania and setting up afrikaans only universities in said town, south africa is a clear cut example of the failures of extreme diversity when only certain people actively identify with that country over their own ethnic people

Yes it would be ridiculous for it to be the sole reason for its success but the fact that they are actively competitng with the west and beating them while not having mass levels of migration shows that it is not a need or must to be able to perform economically and successful as a nation and that we need to accept thousands of these migrants yearly

I think South Africa is an interesting example, but I don't think it proves what you're concluding from it. It shows that managing a deeply divided society can be difficult, especially when groups have separate histories, languages, and political memories. But it doesn't prove that diversity itself is the cause of failure or that ancestry is the only foundation for loyalty.

The Afrikaner example actually shows how identity can persist through history, but it also shows that national identity is complicated. Many groups throughout history have maintained cultural identities while still participating in broader national identities. The existence of separate movements doesn't automatically mean integration is impossible; it can also reflect historical conflicts, inequality, or political circumstances.

On China, I agree that immigration is not the only way for a country to become economically successful. No serious argument says mass immigration is required for growth. The question is whether a country can benefit from controlled immigration while maintaining cohesion. Many countries have different models, and the debate is about finding the balance rather than assuming one factor determines success.

So I agree that states should consider social cohesion and integration when making immigration policy. Where we disagree is whether ancestry is the deciding factor or whether institutions, culture, and shared civic identity can create loyalty over time.

 

[childishkillah]

When in minority, Islam demands tolerance
When in majority they will fucking kill us

 

[mustizzs]

Wtf are u even talking about dumbass?

Yes, non christians are allowed in churches, no one would drive them away.

Yes ethnics are coming in drove into western countries despite the west being, by his words, "filled with degenerates".

I didn't mention anything about myself you fucking low IQ troglodyte



Ur dumb asf assuming I'm christian lol. Post says "I dislike religions and religious people" what part of that sounds like OP is christian.

You missed the point completely dumbass. You act like immigrants are moving just because they love Western culture or want to be around you. Yk that most people move because of jobs, safety, education, or to escape war and poverty. Acting like millions of people are crossing continents because they’re obsessed with the West is illogical af. And yes non Muslims visitors are allowed in mosques dumbass