How do Muslims explain man made law made such well-developed and stable societies in the West, while god's law produced shitholes?
>>987464
*Redpill me on how Muslims explain how man made law produces stable and well-developed societies and F*d's law produces shitholes.
Fixed4uOP
They pretend they didn't hear you.
>>987464
The same way any religion explains away bad things happening to good people and good things happening to bad people.
The bad things happened because we didn't believe enough or those other guys had the strength of [Insert Religion's Devil Here] backing them up and ruined it for us. But don't you worry God has a plan and we'll get rewarded eventually.
The good things happened because we didn't believe enough or those other guys made a vile deal with [Insert Religion's Devil Here]. But don't you worry God remembers and they'll get just punishment eventually.
>>987482
Exactly, like Republicans are the devil for futurologists and practitioners of scientism.
>>987489
Yeah in this context its applying to religion but really its common for any human to find some bullshit excuse of the other side cheated in some way and that's how they got ahead or they sabotaged me and that's why I'm behind and I'm going to stick to my current beliefs instead of considering I may be wrong.
>>987482
This. Religion is more or less similar to the plot of Elf
>>987464
Why would they need to explain it? They just have to point of how immoral Western society is and say that this is the fruit of their works.
>>988120
The West's has issues like people eating too much and making some really shitty movies.
The Arab states have problems such as murdering people that hold different opinions on woman's fashion.
>>987464
Why do you assume allah is God, when it's fairly obvious allah is the devil?
>>987464
They blame the jews. Seriously, Osama Bin Laden thought the US was run by a jewish cabal. He'd be a 9/11 truther if it didn't discredit his major claim to fame.
they blame anyone other than themselves
read Antoine St Exupery talking about Muslims he met in the Sahara
these were guys who were so ludicrously arrogant that they thought the only thing stopping them from defeating the french army was the fact that camels couldnt walk on water
>>987464
Muslims believe that our "well-developed" societies are corrupt (and they are). They believe that Gods law is better because it it's Gods. They see our societies as proof of this.
I don't know man on the one hand the west is really nice on the other white people are literally being wiped off the face of the earth as we speak
>>987464
If you've been taught that something is wrong and sinful, it doesn't matter if it works. Viewpoints, really.
>>987464
Most of us either believe the success to be worldly or that the Western law is the true Sharia with exceptions
>>987464
I put this question to a Kazakh I knew in college. He was very active in the Muslim student's association, and prayed 5 times a day. He told me Muslim society dysfunction was the result of Satan being more active in Muslim societies. He said Satan doesn't bother with kaffir nations because they're already lost and debauched, and not worth the trouble.
>>988412
moderate muslim
If you have met anyone from the Levant (ie less tardier muslims) you'd know they are well aware of their problems and have some very very heavy, depressed complex and hard reconciliation issues in their mentality and intracultural talk.
The rest either makes it up with money from oil, or with going with muh honour.
>>987464
m-m-m-muh true islam
Im guessing they'd say imperialism is the source of our wealth and succes, along with it being proof of our immorality.
I wouldnt know for sure though.
There are no Muslims here. Only circlejerking westerners.
Most people including Muslims know that the reason Arabia is such a mess is due to western 'intervention'.
>>988257
>white people are literally being wiped off the face of the earth as we speak
>>987464
What you claim only takes last few decades into account.
After the reorganization in 1850s Ottoman Empire was pretty much any European constitutional monarch. And in some aspects (although certainly not modern) on par with some world powers. What was different from Europe was that all the Ottoman regions became puppet states of Western powers. And we're still watching the chaos ensued afterwards.
Like a lot of complex dynamics in the region it does not have much to do with religion at all. For example ex-Soviet Union countries in Central Asia were ruled with man made law but they're still not so well developed. It shouldn't be a religion thing.
Anyway I think I have a better question, why didn't you open this thread in /pol/? You would've gotten more responses in a shorter amount of time.
>>988133
the west has problem making babies largely due to secular influences like contraceptives and careerist feminism they are insulated from.
>>988700
As a proportion of the global population this is true. They have gone from around 33% of the global population to around 8% in only a few centuries.
>>989194
it was their fault for bringing enough for the rest of the class.
>>989194
>They have gone from around 33% of the global population to around 8% in only a few centuries.
And where did you get this info from?
>implying Muslim governments all follow the same interpretation of Sharia and that they don't simply misinterpret it to further their own goals
>>989215
I pieced it together, mostly from sugar packets and Snapple caps.
>>989194
>in only a few centuries.
In "only a few" few centuries ago there weren't even a billion people on Earth. You're being disingenuous. Stop fearmongering and go back to /pol/.
>>989237
>how do percentages work?
>>989239
>other people besides white people learned how to stop dying
>this means white people are dying out
>>989194
Yeah but it's not so much conquest as white people industrialized first and then subsequently decided to never have babies. Still white peoples fault
>>989235
it is rather homogenous and monocultural, Islam has no use for pluralism except to shoehorn itself
>>987464
They don't. It causes massive cognitive dissonance. It causes suicide bombers.
>>989246
Oh, boy
See me after class
>>989250
show me a muslim country with gay bars. Even Israel has a few and their pious population ONLY stabs them, doesn't try to abide by muhamad edict to knock them from great heights.
>>989245
Never said it wasn't their fault
>>989244
As humanity inevitably mixes together over the next several centuries, European peoples, their genetics, and their cultures will be a tinier and tinier percentage of the overall mixture, and will therefore be subsumed by the genetic and cultural influences of other, larger groups. This has nothing to do with /pol/. I never even said I give a shit, but it is what will happen. It's just numbers.
In an oversimplified hypothetical example, if 90% of the planet was Han Chinese, and 10% of the planet was European, and both groups mixed together over the course of, say, 500 years, the Han would be certain to maintain more of their population genetics than the Europeans, and would likely retain more of their culture as well. It wouldn't be strictly correct to say that anyone was "wiped out" though, but you can get lost in the mix so to speak to the point that its hard to identify your own contribution to it.
>>989264
I honestly could not care less about how many gay bars there are in the Muslim world. Persecuting them is bad, I guess, but that's not what I meant in my original post. Plus, it doesn't prove your point that they are homogenous and monocultural
>>987464
What they disapprove of, they call degeneracy.
>>989273
They all have the same fundamental immutable form of social organzation, do you even huntingdon?
>>989264
>show me a muslim country with gay bars
Afghanistan probably has pederasty dry bars. Does that count?
Turks drink booze.
>>989284
>conflating homosex and pedophilia
I'm telling on you
>>989284
>conflating homosex and pedophilia
I'm telling on you wrongthinker
>>989194
Doesn't mean white people "are being a wiped out" you moron. The global population is rising disproportionately in Africa and Asia. Percentages aren't that fucking hard.
>>987489
> futurologists and practitioners of scientism
Daww, look at the widdle theist making up words again.
>>989264
Show me a muslim man who has never raped a boy.
Protip: you can't.
>>989315
i mean they're likely poppied up so it would included
>>989269
yeah but the joos get to be infinitesimal and insulated, maybe you could take notes?
>>989361
white people could never act like jews do because the international community would deem them to be Nazis 2.0 and genocide them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism
>>989307
>>989351
And if you don't believe it, tell me what the status of the Manchu people in China is atm. The Manchu were a distinct ethnic and linguistic group with different genetic origins to the Han. The Manchu ruled the whole of China for centuries, and now the Manchu have been virtually entirely assimilated into the general Han Chinese population, and lost their language, and any real sense of being a distinct people from the Han. In fact, most Manchu now are so mixed that they simply identify as Han. Manchu are effectively wiped out. This happened though they were ostensibly a ruling elite, not a beleaguered underclass minority. The same will happen to Europeans relative to the coming global civilization.
>>989337
I never did so fuck you faggot
>>988768
>After the reorganization in 1850s Ottoman Empire was pretty much any European constitutional monarch
No, it was still the sick man of Europe, no question about that
>>989399
whites deserve it for being racist
>>989273
That's like saying that europe has a monoculture while we all know that its bullshit.
>>989246
>it is rather homogenous and monocultural
>islam
wow its almost like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about
>>989399
Would like to point out that the history of Europe is a history of assimilation and dilution. Invaders all across the continent were assimilated by the conquered and both cultures melded into something new...and not just the cultures, there is no such thing as ethnic purity anywhere. Get over it.
>>989503
I never said there was such a thing as ethnic purity. In fact, I explicitly stated that future human civilization WILL be further mixtures of human cultures and ethnic groups. I have nothing to get over. I simply pointed out that whatever that mixture will be, the relative proportional contributions of different cultures will result in certain groups changing more or less than others, and contributing more or less lasting influences than others.
>get over it
This just seems self-evident to me. It's as if you think merely stating population trends in a matter-of-fact way is ideological in and of itself. I wonder why you would think someone who notices these things would automatically be resentful of it. That implicit association you seem to have is interesting. Maybe it says something about what YOU think of these trends.
>>988417
>moderate muslim
>>>/r/eddit
>>989503
Oh, so suddenly the argument goes from:
>No no no, nothing is happening. It's paranoid and irrational to even talk about peoples changing or being "diluted, assimilated, conquered, and melding into something new".
and changes to:
>Well, yeah, OF COURSE you're getting diluted, assimilated, conquerd and changed, but it's totally normal, so shut up about it and accept it.
>>989399
That's not really the same situation though, is it? The Manchus were a political elite in a kingdom that was united by northern tribes migrating south to rule over the Han minority. So it's applicable to, say, South Africa and Rhodesia. But that hardly works the same way on a global scale where there is no global Han nation where other cultures only exist as niche minorities.
>>989503
>get over having your culture supplanted by an inferior one
ok
>>987464
>>987482
Muslim fundamentalists and Muslim liberals usually agree with the West that the Islamic world is backwards and needs to modernize but attempt to show that Islam and modernism, science and progressive ideals are compatible
The Muslim traditionalists argued either that the Muslim world was just fine without adopting anything from the West or that if Muslims took anything from the West, it should be in a slow and careful manner so as not to upset the stability they believed already existed in Islamic society and had existed for centuries. If the West had anything useful to offer, the Muslims could take it, but it was unlikely that the West could offer too much that the Muslims didn't already have or couldn't produce for themselves in a better fashion. Even if the West created a "stable" society and I use the word stable here lightly the "stability" may have been suitable for the Christians of the West, but was not necessarily taken as suitable for the Muslims of the East who had to work within their own framework. As a result, appropriation of Western science and technology by the Muslim East was a slow process, if it was a process at all. Plus, there was a common perception of the West, or Franjistan as it was called, for many years that was little more than a land of warring barbarians whom the Ottomans would probably just conquer anyway. It wasn't until the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt that the Muslims realized how far it had allowed itself to lag behind and this when you begin to see movements like Wahhabism and secularism.
One main reason the Muslim world fell behind was mostly because of negligence, as the Muslims failed to take quicker notice of the developments happening in the West due to old prejudices and traditional, mostly Sunni Muslim authorities even downplaying the threat of the West in order to reassure the Sunni society that the Ottoman sultan was still top dog in the world when it was becoming more evident that he wasn't.
>>989631
The example was meant to show how disproportionate populations will eventually cause the smaller population it be consumed by the larger one, even if the smaller population is a ruling one. In the case of the future global scale, you're right, it will be multiple groups, but still only a few racial groups, which are more proximate cousin relationships than higher levels of human association, and what people tend to default to when ethnicity becomes difficult to determine (see social trends among ethnically diverse, but racially similar immigrant groups in other countries). South Africa is a good example actually--eventually "white solidarity" became more immediately important for maintaining power than remembering that the English tried to genocide the Boers. The point is simply that social construct or not, people form associations based on race even when they differ ethnically.
So, considering UNICEF projects that Africa will have 4 billion people by 2100, (I doubt the number will be quite so high for reasons of sustainability and mortality), while the native European populations, are declining, I think it's reasonable to assume these population disparities, combined with known realities of tendencies towards forming associations based on racial similarities, will have effects on a global scale so long as we have a global civilization with relatively free movement of people.
I think these dynamics are real, and interesting, and I can't help but notice how discussions of this topic always seem to devolve into dismissive denialism (I'm not necessarily talking about you specifically), or sort of proxy arguments for unrelated internal political debates that currently exist in western countries.
>>989488
People of different ethnicity can participate in Arab chauvinism this somehow means that it can't be true.
>>989681
cont'd
The Shi'a world, that is Iran and parts of India and Central Asia under Shi'a control, didn't seem to have as much antipathy for the West, but were noted by Europeans as being more interested in the intellectual sciences, mathematics and philosophy and law than say, engineering. Europeans noted that the Iranians had a great passion for mathematics and astronomy, but when it came to technology from the West, except when it came to a few guns. They also tended to be very isolated, with not much interest in what was going on outside Iran or India. But some Shi'a in India before British colonialism hit the fan, seemed to have had a healthy respect for the British parliamentary system.
The Sunnis, who were closest to the West and controlled the most territory, were a lot more reluctant to adopt anything new and admit the West's power. Part of this is due to a common perception among the Sunnis that the proof of Islam lies in its being triumphant in terms of power and wealth over all other faiths, something which may have felt true in the Abbassid period, but was becoming less and less self-evident as the Ottoman period carried on. For the Shi'a, there was never any pretension that the Shi'a were bigger and stronger than anyone else, as their entire identity was characterized by the self-awareness they were an oppressed minority, which was one cause of their isolationist tendencies motivated by a desire to defend their religion from Sunni outsiders. The Shi'a were more concerned for a longer time with the potential threat of the Ottomans and other Sunni powers taking their lands than they probably should have been about the West and Russia and in the beginning both the Ottomans and the Safavids pursued alliances with the Western nations against one another.
>>988674
Well, only a weak society gets intervened on or colonized. The question still stands.
Because Muslim countries have Muslims, not Islam. Big difference
>>989759
Seems pretty relative though when you put it that way. I think we have a very idealized sense of the stability of the West since the modern era, especially since you have the European wars of religion, Napoleonic Wars, World War 1, World War 2 and so, not to mention all the revolutions of Europe which only really occur in a society that is unstable and unhappy. If anything, you could make an argument that the West despite being "stronger" militarily is also far less "stable" because it has behaved so much according to rules like might makes right which create bloody struggles for power which are made even worse by modern military tech and also rules like white man's burden which basically wastes the wealth of countries in maintaining expensive and resistant colonial territories which has negative effects at home. The instability of Muslim societies also is partly a result of the Western aggression against them which has left deep political and psychological wounds for many Muslims who remember French people slicing off the ears of Algerians or British soldiers slaughtering villages of Pashtuns or French people propping up Christian minorities over the Muslim majority of Lebanon and things like that and the arbitrary division of former provinces under larger Muslim empires followed by the introduction of the concept of the nation-state in a part of the world where it hasn't really existed before the last century.
>>989413
not yet
>>988420
This is very true.
>>988674
But wouldn't Allah protect them from defeat?
>>989815
Yeah this is pretty weak apologism.
Why is /his/ such a muslim loving shithole?
>>989889
babby's first time trying to cope with a dissenting world view
>>989704
>The example was meant to show how disproportionate populations will eventually cause the smaller population it be consumed by the larger one, even if the smaller population is a ruling one.
But again, while true for minorities within countries, it's not a model that works when it comes to a continental or global scale. The Han overtook the Manchus, but they didn't overtake the Japanese or Koreans, nor the Indonesians, nor the Australians. Cultural and demographic trends don't scale up beyond the regional or national level. So even though the proportion of people of European heritage has shrunk, that does not translate into European culture becoming subsumed and assimilated the way Manchu culture was. The numbers game is only a small part of demographic shifts and assimilation, for the same reason the rise in European population in the first place did not mean the disappearance of well-established cultures in the Old World. The only exception was North America, and that coincided with an apocalyptic and collapse of the native population followed by several centuries of aggressive expansion and suppression.
>>989908
>So even though the proportion of people of European heritage has shrunk, that does not translate into European culture becoming subsumed and assimilated the way Manchu culture was
It does if humanity is moving to a trans-global civilization in which human capital moves freely between borders at the speed of modern transportation. That hasn't been the case since the migration period, and never at this speed of course.
Sure, China, India, Japan, Korea, and others may or may not embrace this, but at the moment, at least Western Europe, and North America seem to be moving in that direction. Considering the movement of peoples is pretty one way with regard to those societies, comparative fertility, and population growth (Africa was mentioned earlier) they will be subsumed by other larger populations eventually if the trend continues indefinitely. It doesn't even matter if it one larger group, or a dozen groups. The European elements of those societies will shrink as a percentage and lose genetic, cultural, and even linguistic influence of anyplace where those massive population shifts happen. As people said, these things have happened to other societies in the past through war, conquest, and mass migrations, and they'll happen again--now aided by modern intercontinental transportation.
>>989908
>The Han overtook the Manchus, but they didn't overtake (...) the Australians.
But that's happening as we speak
>>989908
To spell it out:
>We are becoming one global society
>White European ethnicities are a global minority
>Therefore whites will be a minority in this new, trans-national, border-less global society
>Global populations will travel freely within global society
>Whites will be subsumed like any minority
National borders will no longer divide human populations, at the very least not in the west. The jury is still out on Asia.
>>987517
I don't think we saw the same Elf.
>>989886
I don't know if you're directing that at me or what I was responding to, but apologism or not, if the argument is that the West is "more stable", there are some problems with this assertion
1. There are plenty of examples we can use to show that the West has not been very stable. I don't know anyone who says that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation are periods of European stability, or that the French Revolution is an example of a stable period. And certainly WW1 & WW2 are more recent examples of an extreme breakdown in stability that is unprecedented in history. If you're going to argue that the West has been more stable, when and where does this stability begin
2. The argument that the Muslim countries are unstable due to their own inherent flaws unrelated to the West's involvement seems like real dindu nuffinism. The effects of the breakdown of major Islamic empires, the colonization of Islamic countries by the West and the resulting cutting up of borders and the rapid introduction of new ideas and technology into the Islamic world from the West deeply shook the traditional foundations of Muslim society which had previously been a key to their relative stability. Rapid urbanization, new forms of communication, new ideologies and the fall of traditional institutions in favor of new ones based usually on Western models all play a role in the stability or lack thereof. Most importantly too, the West was nothing like those who had conquered that region before before. The Mongols and Turks came as nomadic peoples and embraced Islam to justify their power and authority to the Muslims they conquered while also importing their own cultural ideas into the Islamic world. The Europeans were a more developed people who came to rule over those they generally saw as primitive and had no intention of converting to Islam and instead began a process of setting up new schools and funding missionaries to indoctrinate them to Western ideas.
>>987470
sauce?
>>990371
>islam is the victim kafir
even Marx knew what was up
>Islam ostracizes the nation of the unbelievers and creates a state of permanent enemyship between the moslems and the unbelievers
>>987464
>How do Muslims explain man made law made such well-developed and stable societies in the West
If they're so stable why do they have such shit demographics and need minorities to come in to fix it? Why was one of their leading nations so short sighted and incompetently led in the immigration department that they're now the rape capital of Europe?
The West isn't stable, it's currently getting tied to the table to be raped while going on about how pretty its hair is. We're going to fuck you in the ass and blow our load all over your back
>>990432
>THE WEST WAS GOOD BOYZ, THEY DINDU NUFFIN, MAH CHURCH NEED MO MONEY FO' DEM MISSIONARIES
>>990440
>imply a bunch of goat headers and ISIS shitheads could ever take over US
>>990512
Modern western nations have been the most egalitarian and fair nations in history. Especially when compared to such bastions of morality, tolerance and diversity as Thailand, Korea, China or any nation in Africa or the Middle East.
>>990512
>the ummah don't have agency
>>990528
Why would we want Latin America's sloppy seconds?
>>990546
>implying egalitarianism isn't one of the root causes of instability
Yes, that's right, you got it. Good job buddy.
>>990539
Yeah, a continent that struggles providing clean water for it's own people surely has the capacity to take on the United States military. Most of the smaller nations are in our pocket, so is AIDS ridden Brazil the Latin savior?
>>990563
>take on the United States military
No one is even going to bother you dumbasses. We're going to just move there and take over your military. Hell you're already letting women into combat, it won't be long now before your soldiers would rather fight themselves over who gets vagina than anyone else.
>>990559
>I was just pretending to be retarded
>>990572
>doesn't know how to use
>implying
>gets all pissy about it
>>990581
>>doesn't know how to use
>>implying
>implying
>>990586
Yes, I was implying exactly that. Good job.
>>990588
Two for two, newfag's on a roll.
>>990546
>implying you are not trying to use egalitarianism as a cudgel to gain advantage and influence in societies that have the narrative.
>>990571
>We're going to just move there and take over your military
So you're going to accomplish what the communists failed to do after 50 years of trying? lolk.
>>990600
>12 million illegals and growing
>>990605
jfgi
>>990600
>what the communists failed to do
it's not like they haven't been gaining ground anon.
>>990611
>implying I used implying wrong
>implying you weren't suggesting that egalitarianism was a merit in the West's favor, to which I implied through my pointing out what you were implying that it wasn't
>implying you're not just trying to save face
>implying you're not new
>>990606
>implying large amount of illegals are allowed to join the military
>implying the poor men who left your shithole nation and granted opportunity by ours can be motivated to stage yolo Viva La Revolución
>>990632
Yes anon, YES, you got them all right! Awesome job!
>>990640
>allowed to join the military
They just need to vote for the people that control it not become its generals.
>>990642
Three for three.
Damn.
>>990623
Can you please talk about Nepal or Turkey instead of a Right Social Democrat who has to scapegoating billionaires because he's afraid of alienating millionaires.
>>990648
>thinking a few Senate seats can control the military
>thinking the Feds wouldn't catch the first whiff of a coup
>grasping at straws this bad.
>>990677
>a coup
Why would you need to have a coup? All you need is an American Merkel up in White House, if it's not one election it's four years later.
>>990686
So your best plan for Viva La Revolución is just changing our voter demographics? They'll still be Americans. Many if not most immigrants I know are more patriotic than a gun store owner, so good luck convincing them to cater to our future Brazilian overlords.
>>990712
>is just changing our voter demographics?
The plan is turning you into Brazil.
>>990712
Venezuelans are patriotic too, their country is still shitty. We're looking at the long game anon. You will become Brazil, you will become Bolivia. There will not be a climatic battle, there will not be a long war. You will simply be colonised and your people replaced by the same people you hate, the same people that did what they did south of you but they will do it there, in your home, where they will wave the American flag from the great favelas of Washington DC.
>>990440
The fact that letting in Muslims is undermining stability and prosperity just proves the point of the OP again
>>987470
pls the source
>>987470
sauce
>>990756
The fact that it's your governments that let us in and rolled out the red carpet and are still doing it only proves how inept you all really were. Good or bad we do what we do, you're the ones that opened the door.
>>990432
>even Marx knew what was up
The irony here is that Marx said this in a newspaper article published the day after the start of the Crimean War, about the Russians, British, and the French all trying to force the Ottomans by gunboat diplomacy or invasion to surrender its traditional control over its Christian citizens and churches, thereby proving >>990371's point.
>>987470
I need the source please
>>990743
Good luck, considering we're just being speculative at this point
>replaced by the same people you hate
I'll make a rare admission on 4chan. I don't hate anyone <3
>>990793
So? Yeah, westerners are making dumb decisions but the point that the followers of the allegedly true religion are a pretty shitty bunch of people overall still stands and you seem to agree with it yourself as you're suggesting that it would have been smart to avoid their influx
>>990869
I agree that our cultures are incompatible, whether something is "shitty" or not is a matter of perspective and largely opinion. It's my opinion that a nation that kills itself by letting in a more potent culture couldn't have been all that great to begin with. It's my opinion that a culture that can't control it's women, that has men that actively seeks the endangerment of their women, isn't really even worth defending.
By that metric, really how great is western culture?
>>990900
I don't think it's exceptional in any way other than the positive influence of sustained wealth.
>>990913
Sustained is a little over 100 years. The common man in 1885 France could hardly be considered wealthy. The roots of modern western culture are indeed very shallow.
>>989964
>It does if humanity is moving to a trans-global civilization in which human capital moves freely between borders at the speed of modern transportation.
It doesn't when said advances in transportation of human capital and work can be done without the more expensive transplantation of humans themselves.
>>990014
>>We are becoming one global society
Absolutely not. The globalized, interconnected world we're moving towards has no similarity with ancien regime demographic models.
>>991019
So do you think the double digit % demographic changes that have taken place in western countries over the last 50 years are going to magically stop at some pre-ordained proportion? That is a HUGE population transfer in a historical blink of an eye. There is an infinite supply of human capital to move into these societies, and the new populations have significantly higher fertility than the indigenous populations. So you can see the change happening in real time living memory, and you're telling me teleconferencing and EMAIL is going to arrest this process, and make Africans and West Asians stop moving to western societies!?
This is not rocket science, nor is it scare mongering propaganda. And when people stop denying it, they immediately shift to excoriating people to simple accent it. Everyone knows this is happening at least to Western European derived societies. And the process isn't just going to suddenly stop in its tracks for reasons.
>>992449
>and the new populations have significantly higher fertility than the indigenous populations.
no they dont, the first generation might have, but how much people breed is always a question of culture, so they breed at higher rates if they maintain the exact culture they came from, which they dont, its impossible, and in a couple of generations their demography comes down to local birth rates
in fact a lot of them wouldnt even breed at all if it wasnt for welfare child support
the problem is not how much such imported populations breed or not, the problem is that local populations in many developed nations have sub replacement birth rates for decads now, othervise the whole issue woul not exist at all
even if you close the borders tomorow shit wouldnt get better, not untill you get a average of 3 kids per couple, and not even the higher birthrates of first and second generation imigrants cant help fix those statistics, populations are decreasing and aging rapidly, its as absurd as it is fucked
>>992698
A moratorium almost always helps wages . it can be resurrected, they were still fascists but they understood natality policy.
>>992698
>in fact a lot of them wouldnt even breed at all if it wasnt for welfare child support
Indeed. Also, I was also speaking to the fertility of the source societies for these migrant populations being higher, which is what makes them an essentially infinite supply, so assuming nothing changes in the west, they will always be there to feed the attempt to address demographics that you rightly point out is doomed either way. However, the way course they have chosen has the added detriment of inter-ethnic tensions.
Money and imperialism is what developed and stabilized the West, not its laws
God's law was around at the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" as well as Europe's so-called "Dark Ages," and now when the situations are reversed. Money was the only thing that exchanged hands, not the correct implementation of God's rules
What are you even asking
