Quote from: tabnloz on February 05, 2016, 12:38:52 AM

No one knows the correct balance or the amount of change that effectively tips the scales, but it seems likely that the current migration is too much, too fast and there is bound to be a massive amount of friction. The crux of my point is that this flood of people did not happen in isolation; it comes as a result of sustained, decades long, conflict in the region (physical, geopolitical and economic). Do you agree?

Quote

Yes, but it is not only due geo-political conflict but the root problem is socialism. I am all for the free movement of people without passports and borders, but not when the government will offer free welfare to every migrant (USA has this problem also, except luckily the Latinos are reasonably hard working).

Are you drawing a bow between socialism and saying it requires the need for continuous political, military and resource conquest? Haven't explored that, but If not I'd disagree.

edit: (additional thought) not that i don't agree too much free stuff is a bad thing - it is. i think there is a place for some level of welfare but when too many promises run into too much debt, as is happening now, unless the population take their medicine, things can get ugly.

Quote

I am all for the free movement of people without passports and borders, but not when the government will offer free welfare to every migrant (USA has this problem also, except luckily the Latinos are reasonably hard working).

If the migrants weren't coddled by the State, they wouldn't have the incentive to invade. If the people had the right to bear arms and privately funded security forces (not provided by the State), the migrants wouldn't misbehave.

This depends on perspective - I think that most people who migrate do so in search of opportunity, as seen with the Gold Rush, Australia's Ten Pound Poms, US Frontiersmen. I don't think they migrate with the sole purpose of sponging off the government. The opportunity of a better life is a great incentive, as is the responsibility of providing for a family. Obviously there are some that do sponge. What I see is that it is the children of migrants, ie second generation, that often struggle.

As for the right to bear arms / private armies, this point makes me think that if the population had private armies there would probably be no support for invading another country anyway, as Western invasion is usually, ironically, rationalised by saying we need to invade them because they are coming to get us. So logically, it would be much harder to instill fear of the bogeyman in the population - "The XYZ are coming to get us" ..."Well, so? They'll have to get through Bob x 20 first to get near me." Ergo, if there is no support for the West to invade under another false pretence, there will no flood of migrants fleeing war. The initial migrant incentive to migrate is probably opportunity but as things deteriorate it becomes getting the hell away from dictatorships, persecution and conflict ie safety. The longer these conditions exists in concert, the more the incentive exists. Examples being the ME where millions have fled to Lebanon & Turkey since 2012, hoping the conflicts would end either way, and it wasn't until 2015 that the flow became a torrent as camps overflowed, more people left and some in holding camps stopped waiting and went for Europe too.

Unfortunately the media and government put all these people in a similar basket for a narrative simplicity that enrages the gen pop: "illegals", "terrorists", "they aren't in danger", "they have money", "why don't they just go to the closest place (no matter if they are Sunni/Shia/Hazara/Yatzidi)". This generalisation encourages subconscious support of the wars that make people flee.

Quote

But it goes much deeper than that. Include the Western governments propping up puppet regimes in the Middle East which created all kinds of imbalances.

Agree, big part of it, if not the main reason. Sunni minority rule when removed equals chaos. Shia rule when undermined equals chaos. Proxy armies everywhere. Saudi, US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon etc etc

Quote

Note the position of (most of) the Middle East countries on this chart (the corrupt State powers-that-be have been propping up failure with winks and handshakes):

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 04, 2016, 02:00:49 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 03, 2016, 03:01:55 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 03, 2016, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on February 03, 2016, 01:45:37 PM

I think Hidalgo makes a pretty good job at clearing it out at least in my head the Info Matter Energy trinity interactions
if you havent watch his first talk do so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cXe8w62_ow

Excellent and I like how he speaks very quickly so I don't get bored. The chart at 20:20 is amazing. The Middle East and Australia need to tumble economically.

[...]

Readers make sure you view the aforementioned chart (in the video at 20:20, not the chart below), as it explains why India and China will rise after 2020 and lead the world. Hildago's academic research validates Martin Armstrong's long-standing prediction about this and MA's famous chart:

[...]

Sorry if this is formatted badly