[Saweeep]

(08-27-2015 04:09 AM)GregGodard Wrote:  

You shouldn't feel bad about being born in Europe, but didn't their ancestors die for THIS (this being Europe) place too? Seems like Western Europeans easily forget the interdependence that helped to sustain the wealth in Europe. I'm from Holland, and a lot of Dutch people forget that to rebuild Holland (Due to bombing by another European country) they needed (and forcefully acquired) resources from countries like Indonesia.

I presume these "resources" were paid for.

Besides, in the grand scheme of the whole WW2 conflict and rebuild I think there are a few countries higher up the Dutch gratitude scale than Indonesia!

Well, they should be anyway.

Ridiculous argument.

[Akula]

(08-27-2015 04:01 AM)GregGodard Wrote:  

Segregating a country based on a fairy tail like Christianity seems ludicrous in my opinion. Being careful about the type of culture you let into your country is a wise decision, but it should never be based on religion.

Disagree. Religious and cultural values are very interlaced, and Slovakia is only doing whats in its own self interest. There are plenty of horror stories in France, Belgium, the UK etc that show just how poorly many of these Muslims assimilate. No country in their right mind would want to imitate what's happened in France or the UK.

The fact that Europe pretty much threw out the baby with the bathwater re Christianity, a religion that most countries had practiced for hundreds of years and that had largely helped set up the rule of law, and at the same time imported millions upon millions of poor, uneducated but very religious Muslims (which is helping to completely destroy the social fabric of said nations) all the while promoting "Secular society" among the natives is something that needs to be seriously analyzed for its sheer stupidity. Yet still we have these feckless idiots in power, being cheered on by the even more corrupt and biased press, who seem to have many of the native population completely fooled.

These EU politicians (often unelected) need to be thrown out en masse. And the leftist blocs in most European countries need to be held accountable for their suicidal economic, cultural and social (& social engineering) policies (including in the UK). They would make Orwell proud the whole lot of them.

The fact that the EU had/has no idea and no response for this situation, even after decades of mass immigration, and are just now coming up with a "plan" shows how poorly run the whole political project is, despite trillions of euros being paid to all these bureaucrats.

[H1N1]

(08-27-2015 04:01 AM)GregGodard Wrote:  

Segregating a country based on a fairy tail like Christianity seems ludicrous in my opinion. Being careful about the type of culture you let into your country is a wise decision, but it should never be based on religion.

Christianity may be the modern iteration of ancient religion, and the idea of a big bearded Christian god may challenge the credulity, but the Christian mythos is an essential part of European identity that runs through and explains much of our Western history, including our historical conflict with Islam and those further afield.

Christianity is the pervading, identifying quality of the indigenous European people. You may not 'believe' (whatever that really means), but none-the-less, if you are an indigenous European then Christianity runs through much of your daily life. I do not personally believe in a Christian god, but I wouldn't begin to deny Christianity as the overriding unifier of the European peoples, myself included.

[Lizard King]

(08-27-2015 04:09 AM)GregGodard Wrote:  

I agree with you on the moronic policy regarding Assad, but you have to understand that EU is under pressure by powerful leftist lobby groups. Not taking a stand against Assad's regime would have been opening up the floodgate on critique from each and every human right organisation and newspapers.

Leftist isn't quite the right terminology.

Both the EU and the USA are experiencing previously unseen levels of immigration. It's a phenomenon that is completely OK with the respective governments. The immigration and subsequent population increase is of economic benefit in many ways. It is not beneficial to the average person who already lives in the country experiencing the immigration, as it increases competition for jobs and housing.

Supporters of immigration that I hear in the UK, say things about how the NHS would collapse without the immigrants and other sugar coated bullshit. The only people who benefit are those at the top of the financial pyramid. If there was really a chronic shortage of certain health care professionals then governments have the ability to create initiatives and schemes to fill those gaps. Immigration is a quick fix and involves zero investment, the ensuing social disruption it causes is of no concern to the governments(EU & US) that allow the immigration to continue.

An irony I notice among people who support immigration (usually middle class whites, who believe in fallacies such as "multi-culturalism") is they dislike corporations(but love their Macs and Iphones) and think immigration is great as it makes a country more interesting. The corporations they dislike are the main beneficiaries, there are no social benefits whatsoever. That's why it(immigration) isn't a Left wing policy, it's 100% right wing in my eyes. The Leftists like to be seen to support immigration because it demonstrates how inclusive they are.

This might seem obvious to some of you, but to me it seems to be a neglected aspect in discourse about immigration.

[H1N1]

(08-27-2015 11:26 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  

An irony I notice among people who support immigration (usually middle class whites, who believe in fallacies such as "multi-culturalism") is they dislike corporations(but love their Macs and Iphones) and think immigration is great as it makes a country more interesting. The corporations they dislike are the main beneficiaries, there are no social benefits whatsoever. That's why it(immigration) isn't a Left wing policy, it's 100% right wing in my eyes. The Leftists like to be seen to support immigration because it demonstrates how inclusive they are.

This might seem obvious to some of you, but to me it seems to be a neglected aspect in discourse about immigration.

I think this is an interesting point, and one that tends to take the wind out of the sails of all the bright leftists I know. That said, I think it also highlights why the Left/Right dichotomy isn't always a helpful distinction.

It is my firm belief that noone has done more to disenfranchise the common man in the UK than the political Left, for precisely the reasons you give above - the Left's policy of allowing open borders supports globalism, of which vast corporations (who pay very little tax) are the primary beneficiaries. As you suggest, it is essentially the left propping up capitalism (gross oversimplification) and many of the institutions that would be seen as typically preserves of the Right.

However, given that only the Left are so conceited, short sighted, and incapable of introspection as to allow such a situation to run and run (not to mention they tend to have trendy jobs with many of these types of corporations), I would have to respectfully disagree and say that although the outcome is certainly what you might call 'right-wing', only the Left could possibly so lacking in good sense to actually make it possible.

[lskdfjldsf]

Feature request: a "report" button where Scorpion is notified to enter the discussion and drop truth bombs.

[Geomann180]

(08-27-2015 11:41 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Feature request: a "report" button where Scorpion is notified to enter the discussion and drop truth bombs.

Ask and ye shall receive. Post this image and the Scorpion shall be notified forthwith.



G

[scorpion]

The fundamental issue at play here is nationalism versus internationalism. Put another way, the question is: do countries have complete sovereignty within their own borders? Or must they submit themselves to some (whether greater or lesser) degree of international supervision, even regarding domestic issues? We are living in the age of internationalism and have been since the Second World War settled the issue. Hitler's unabashed nationalism was rightfully viewed as a threat by the internationalists of the day, who saw it as incompatible with their plans for establishing a global order. Both Communists and Capitalists were (and are) united in their internationalist views - state sovereignty was for both of them something that stood in the way of their objectives. Capitalism and Communism are both united in their ultimate objective - a global system without borders ruled over by an enormously wealthy and powerful elite, while the common man is left just enough to get by and engage in some productive labor to enrich his betters. Only nationalism stands in opposition to these globalist ideologies and puts the welfare of its own citizens ahead of internationalist elites who have no regard for borders, culture, history, tradition, or religion, who view men merely as cogs in their machine, and who have no loyalty to anything except money and power.

This utter disregard for state sovereignty and the idea of nationalism (much of it having been sold to the public using the ghost of Hitler as a bogeyman) is responsible for much of the misery the West is currently experiencing. The idea that countries should be basing their laws on anything besides promoting the maximum benefit to their own citizens is obviously insane, and yet this is the thinking that has dominated the West in the post-war era. If Slovakia only wants to accept Christians into its borders, what is the problem? Do you, as a private individual, have an obligation to accept random people into your family? How would you feel if the government issued you a new brother? Or a new son? Or a wife? You wouldn't have any say, just a legal obligation. What kind of idiot would think something like that was acceptable? And yet this is the situation the West faces with immigration - its traitorous leaders have sold out their citizens and are complicit in flooding their countries with hordes of foreigners, foreigners who are hostile to European culture and values and seek to replace them with their own. Western leaders are literally facilitating the genocide of their people. They are doing this because they are controlled by internationalists and are working toward the creation of a one-world economic and political system. This is no conspiracy - it's right in front of your eyes. It's been going on for decades. They talk about it openly. They want to eventually erase borders and historic nations/peoples entirely, and rule over a global mass of deracinated mongrels who have no history or culture of their own, and who are thus easily controlled consumer drones.

It seems that many people are starting to wake up and realize what's going on. If this continues, and a critical mass of Western populations become cognizant of the crimes their own governments have been committing against them, then we will see a wave of right-wing reactionary movements pop up. This is already starting in Europe, and Trump's rapid rise in popularity in the U.S. is a manifestation of the same underlying reactionary sentiment. The question then becomes: how will the internationalists react to a wildfire of nationalistic fervor spreading through the West? Will they be caught unawares? Will they go quietly into the night as nationalists simply retake the reins and begin undoing all the harm of the past several decades? Of course not. Why do you think the Western governments have been building an enormous surveillance state? Why have they been militarizing the police while pushing to de-arm citizens? Why have they been rewriting laws to allow indefinite detention or even targeted assassination of citizens? They haven't been doing this to fight Islamic terrorists (who, by the way, would pose literally zero threat to any Western nation that had a sane immigration policy). They've been doing these things because they know the day is coming when their own populations will turn against them once their crimes have become impossible to conceal any longer. That day is coming quickly. We will live to see it. Civil war is coming to Europe. The day is too far gone, the crimes far too extensive, the betrayal far too bitter for this to end in anything but bloodshed. The only question is when and what the spark will be that ignites the massive powder keg Europe is sitting on.

[Samseau]

Scorp: Even if the people do not revolt, they still are the ones necessary to pay the taxes to enforce the globalist order. And internationalism does not produce enough wealth to keep things running smoothly. That's why both the EU and USA have record levels of debt. Eventually it goes bankrupt and the people will be left with nothing, forcing them to revolt or die penniless. No matter what, things are doomed to fail and order can only be restored with healthy national economies that aren't plundered senseless by rootless corporations.

[Phoenix]

(08-27-2015 06:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Put another way, the question is: do countries have complete sovereignty within their own borders?

The deeper question is: what is a country?

[LEMONed IScream]

Governments are those who plunder the population.

“A government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service.”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Looking at the State as a remedy and not as a disease is a dire mistake, sustained by centuries of history. Economy and the markets have improved the lives of the common folk to an extent States could not even dream of. And I need not refer the numbers of democide along the last century, I need not mention the millions and millions of people who served as "cannon fodder" for their "Vaterland". Statism is another form of religion. And regarding immigration I'll quote HHH:

“First, with the establishment of a state and territorially defined state borders, “immigration” takes on an entirely new meaning. In a natural order, immigration is a person’s migration from one neighborhood-community into a different one (micro-migration). In contrast, under statist conditions immigration is immigration by “foreigners” from across state borders, and the decision whom to exclude or include, and under what conditions, rests not with a multitude of independent private property owners or neighborhoods of owners but with a single central (and centralizing) state-government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and their properties (macro-migration). If a domestic resident-owner invites a person and arranges for his access onto the resident-owner’s property but the government excludes this person from the state territory, it is a case of forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist in a natural order). On the other hand, if the government admits a person while there is no domestic resident-owner who has invited this person onto his property, it is a case of forced integration (also nonexistent in a natural order, where all movement is invited).”
― Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Geomann180]

(08-27-2015 06:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

That day is coming quickly. We will live to see it. Civil war is coming to Europe. The day is too far gone, the crimes far too extensive, the betrayal far too bitter for this to end in anything but bloodshed. The only question is when and what the spark will be that ignites the massive powder keg Europe is sitting on.

The tweet and the man behind it; Ace.

G

[Eskhander]

I don't say this publicly, for obvious reasons, but if it ever gets to the point that far right fascistic parties rise in Europe then that is the way things should be. Because things will have to have gotten so bad at that point that the only other alternative is slow dispossession and extinction.

[Libertas]

To elaborate on Scorpion's point briefly, whenever you look at the policies and cultural movements in the media or what have you that the people on top constantly push, they always center around one of these two pillars:

1. The destruction of the family unit.
2. The destruction of the nation-state.

What is the common denominator between the two? Both are tempering influences that insulate people from monolithic control and entropic forces that want them to be freaks that only live for attention whoring and consumerism.

This isn't wearing a tinfoil hat or anything. It's reality, and they're succeeding wonderfully at both, though I do believe that they are nowhere near as powerful as even they think they are, and the backlash has already begun.

The tightrope we're walking now is how to turn this thing around without totally descending into dictatorship. Robert A. Heinlein almost predicted it perfectly in Starship Troopers 50 years ago.

[LeBeau]

(08-27-2015 04:09 AM)GregGodard Wrote:  

I agree with you on the moronic policy regarding Assad, but you have to understand that EU is under pressure by powerful leftist lobby groups. Not taking a stand against Assad's regime would have been opening up the floodgate on critique from each and every human right organisation and newspapers.

I understand the power of the media and progressives to shape narratives and ruin careers, however I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks of this whenever people supplicate to NGOs, charities, activists, etc:

[Paracelsus]

(08-27-2015 07:49 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

That day is coming quickly. We will live to see it. Civil war is coming to Europe. The day is too far gone, the crimes far too extensive, the betrayal far too bitter for this to end in anything but bloodshed. The only question is when and what the spark will be that ignites the massive powder keg Europe is sitting on.

The tweet and the man behind it; Ace.

G

That said, the difference this time round will be that the US will likely stay the fuck out of it.

People forget that the US as a nation had roughly zero fucks to give about Europe's issues ahead of both WW1 and WW2. If anything they were more isolationist ahead of WW2 in that they refused to put troops on the line until they were bombed into it.

The only reason the US put boots on the ground in Europe was because Hitler declared war on the United States at the same time as Japan. Admittedly FDR was already supplying a shitload of arms and materiel by that point -- Lend Lease was signed in March 1941 -- but until Pearl Harbor the US was still heavily isolationist, although it had been slowly moving from a stance of neutrality as people became used to the idea of arming others but not fighting themselves.

Let me underline I am not criticising the US in those instances. Being in a country that's an ally of the US and thus a beneficiary of the US's nuclear umbrella, I would certainly prefer the US to be around as the global policeman, mainly because
(a) one is needed and
(b) every other alternative to the US is
(1) basically the US anyway (see: NATO)
(2) corrupt (see: India) or
(3) fucking evil (see: China) as demonstrated by its actions against its own people and its support of an openly dictatorial and oppressive regime (see: North Korea).

But a country does also have a right to decide its stance on foreign policy, just as much as it has a right to control its borders. Were conservatives to take back over the White House, I think you would see the US go isolationist again, especially if Europe's constituent nations remain hellbent on socialist armaggeddon while the US swings right.

This time round it would not be a simple clash of nation against nation which would make it easier for the US to intervene. As ScorpMan points out, it'll be civil war within countries. The UN will be hamstrung because someone on the Security Council will veto intervention and/or because the UN still hasn't got its shit quite in order to give it power to fuck around within sovereign nations as yet. Not to mention that, as said, the UN hasn't got an army. Generally it asks the US to spill blood on its behalf.

Appeals to humanitarian concerns will not sway that position, either, anymore than humanitarian concerns in favour of the Jews got any nation off its ass to deal with Germany. ISIS has been committing acts on par with the most barbarous medieval regimes imaginable, on a par with if not beyond what Nazi Germany was doing, and I don't see any middle Eastern Overlord or Anvil to deal with them anytime soon -- absent vaporising any ISIS force that comes within five miles of Israel's border and/or a country that's hosting US bases.

Economic globalisation, with the argument that "Nobody will start a war because everybody loses out monetarily", won't stop it either. The periods ahead of WW1 and similar previous continent-spanning wars were also heavily interlocked economically; the post-WW2 era is not the first era of globalisation and economic cooperation the world has ever seen. I can see no compelling reason why it would stop another war given those concerns. But I do think the US is likely to sit this one out, when and if it happens -- absent Putin rolling tanks over the Polish border, in which case all fucking bets are off.

[storm]

I just hope the plan isn't American balkanization.

[porscheguy]

(08-28-2015 12:35 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

But a country does also have a right to decide its stance on foreign policy, just as much as it has a right to control its borders. Were conservatives to take back over the White House, I think you would see the US go isolationist again, especially if Europe's constituent nations remain hellbent on socialist armaggeddon while the US swings right.

I guess you weren't paying attention a few months ago when Netanyahu addressed congress? The entire Republican side of congress stood in line to suck his dick. And if Israel demands another middle east war, the US will happily deliver it.

[Paracelsus]

(08-28-2015 12:48 AM)storm Wrote:  

I just hope the plan isn't American balkanization.

I think some (reasonably independent) demographic chartists have predicted that America is likely to become more balkanised over time, but I think that's a consequence of its immigration problems more than anything else. If it happens I don't think you'll see the South Rise Again formally, but big parts of certain cities may become no-go areas for certain ethnicities (see: Bradford in the UK, sometimes referred to as Bradistan.)

[Paracelsus]

(08-28-2015 01:42 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 12:35 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

But a country does also have a right to decide its stance on foreign policy, just as much as it has a right to control its borders. Were conservatives to take back over the White House, I think you would see the US go isolationist again, especially if Europe's constituent nations remain hellbent on socialist armaggeddon while the US swings right.

I guess you weren't paying attention a few months ago when Netanyahu addressed congress? The entire Republican side of congress stood in line to suck his dick. And if Israel demands another middle east war, the US will happily deliver it.

Note what I said two paragraphs down from that: the US's involvement in Syria is probably going to remain hands-off unless some collection of fools in black balaclavas walk within 5 miles of Israel's border. And to outrightly declare myself a hypocrite, I really, really, really hope the US remains supportive of its allies, especially those who (unlike Israel) have contributed blood, intel, and lead to conflicts it's been in. Mainly because without the US, like it or not, Australia lasts maybe five minutes in a conventional war against a determined and large opponent.

EDIT: My main point being - despite the fact I'd like the US around as global policeman, a country has a right to decide who its allies will be and which conflicts it'll take a hand in. If the US wants to support Israel - that's a matter for the US people to sort out, not something they should be shamed into or compelled into by champagne instatwits in Europe or at the UN.

[Bey]

(08-19-2015 06:18 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

All countries that accept Muslim immigrants pay for it. It's beyond insane that Slovakia is even being requested to take in Muslim refugees instead of the numerous neighboring Arab nations.

There are over a million refugees from Syria in Lebanon, a country smaller than Wales. And there are plenty more in Jordan and Turkey. The asylum seekers being accepted into European countries are but a few grains of sand (no pun intended) in the grand scheme of things.

[Lizard King]

Scorpion and Libertas are on point regarding the larger picture of this topic. It's refreshing to be able to have a discussion like this, and for it not to descend in to a racial diatribe.


There are two sides to the "immigration is a racial issue" coin. The leading side is the widespread and dominant belief that disliking immigration makes you racist, the flip side is the minority belief that all immigrants are low-life scumbags, ready to rape your wife and steal your possessions, parallel to that is the lack of awareness that immigration is entirely mandated(indirectly) by our governments and leaders. It's a set of beliefs that is nurtured by governments with concepts like "diversity" and "multiculturalism"


Need more proof of this?:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...ugee-posts

Quote:

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas wants Facebook Inc. to remove racist posts targeting asylum seekers after several attacks on refugee camps in Germany over the past week.
Facebook should “urgently” review its practices when dealing with the posts, he told the company in an Aug. 26 letter obtained by Bloomberg News. Numerous users have complained to the ministry that Facebook didn’t remove xenophobic posts even after they were flagged and reviewed, arguing that the comments don’t violate its community standards. That didn’t go down well in Berlin.
It is incomprehensible that “photos of certain body parts are automatically deleted because of moral concerns, yet racist and xenophobic statements aren’t immediately removed,” Maas wrote in the letter, which was reported earlier by Tagesspiegel newspaper.

And some support for immigration from the leader of the UN:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...erbia.html

Quote:

Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, urged countries to show compassion and do “much more” to end the escalating crisis.
“Today there are more people displaced than at any time since World War II,” said Mr Ban, speaking in Paris.
“In Syria and elsewhere, millions of people flee violence and persecution. Others try to escape poverty and seek ways of living with dignity.
“By our intervention, we must save lives, fight against trafficking and discrimination, bring judicial solutions, examine the profound causes of problems and defend human rights.”

He's correct about large amounts of actual refugees in Syria, but the majority of people trying to enter Europe are economic migrants, transferring from poor countries with no healthcare, education or jobs. They simply want a better life which isn't unreasonable. The rest of his comments are intentionally misleading and dishonest. As a supra-national organisation, the UN is fully aware of the massive financial disparity that causes these people to want to migrate, and the shitty foreign policies that result in unnecessary proxy wars in weaker, smaller countries. It has a responsibility to address these problems, but its main role is to support the policies of the dominant members of its organisation.

The EU's dismantling and elimination of nationalism in Europe has been effective. Membership requires following EU law(accept the "refugees") and assimilating into the EU economic machine(make our leaders richer, lose your currency), and the false premise that national pride is the brother of Nazi-ism or extremism.

(08-28-2015 12:35 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

As ScorpMan points out, it'll be civil war within countries.

Regarding the potential for civil war, I believe there is almost zero chance of this, as very few countries are able to mobilise sufficient numbers to make any impact. It's naive of me, but I see the democratic process as the area where change could occur. As mentioned, we're already seeing the emergence of nationalist and/or anti-immigration political groups across Europe and in America too. Donald Trump is in some ways the US equivalent of Nigel Farage: ridiculed by the media, and championed by those who see the dilution of national identity for the benefit of a few. I do see the possibility of small, localised incidents of civil unrest that will quickly be controlled. A fortunate consequence of the immigration, both in the US and the EU, is it causes a lack of social cohesion, a lack of unity. I couldn't comment on how different ethnic groups feel about each other in the US, but in the UK there is very little mutual respect between the existing population and immigrants. They will not be rising up together anytime soon.

[FilipSRB]

The internationalists forces will not win. Their fall is inevitable. But there will be bloodshed that could have been avoided. It is that simple. Reconquista lasted 700 years. Serbian territories were under Ottoman rule for 500 years. We will prevail.

[Gopnik]

While I agree with the general sentiment of the thread (i.e mass immigration from countries with an alien culture is harmful) I still think we should make a distinction between refugees and immigrants. A reasonable policy would make sure that refugees do not stay in the host country after the conflict is over (outside of exceptional cases - finding a job, marrying a local etc) and wealthy countries should make an effort to help people fleeing from war. This being said, it shouldn't be down to the EU or even any government to force a refugee quota on their citizens. People from the EU should have the option to voluntarily host children and even entire refugee families in their homes if they so wish to do. Entrepreneur Martin Varsavsky explains it quite well in this fb post:

https://www.facebook.com/martinvarsavsky...8506641297

Quote:

With so many children dying trying to reach to Europe I had the following thoughts.
Syria is in a horrible civil war. And the choices are fleeing or dying. But for many years Syria was a peaceful country and hopefully it will be one again.
So my first idea is to take Syrian refugees in Europe until the conflict is over. Neighboring Lebanon had a horrible civil war as well in which 7% of the population died but after that it was mostly peaceful for decades. EU is partly doing this, especially Germany and Sweden. But people are still dying.
First we should focus on saving the most vulnerable, the children. I am sure there are many European families willing to take children temporarily in their homes. After seeing the photographs of young dead children who drowned in the Mediterranean other than holding my tears I thought of a simple idea. Why isn't there a web site in which families who are willing to take children say so and NGOs send them the kids. Yes, it's awful to separate children from parents. But hopefully the separation is temporary and children and parents will be reunited soon. Wars are like that, one day people kill each othe, and then there's peace. Think of the Balkans war and of going to Croatia on vacation today. The Balkans went from being a horrible war scene to a vacation destination in a few year. That's how drastic war and peace are. If you don't act during war those children will never make it.
Another plan is that there may be families, maybe retired people, who may be willing to take a whole family of refugees in their homes. Again, if over the internet we had a way to link refugees with these families authorities could admit them as guests of such and such a family and this would move more quickly. Everyone who has a home to stay at, is allowed in. And this communication can be facilitated by the NGOs that are on the ground or acting in places where refugees are. Including those already in refugee camps who would do so much better in people's homes.
We live in a world in which people don't like to wait for their governments to act. They want to take action. How many of these poor children have to die before we act?
After writing this I found this NGO, sounds very much like what I had in mind. Will research them.
http://www.refugees-welcome.net/

[Libertas]

The distinction between "refugees" and "immigrants" becomes less important when you realize that Europe loses with either of them and that the very soul and face of Europe is at stake. The distinction between "immigrants" and "refugees" is just more left wing bullshit when you realize this.

It sounds harsh but when you yourself are floundering you don't take on more weight. For all our immigration problems the U.S. is in a much better position to take in more people than Europe is, nevertheless we're tired of it and the result is the rise of Trump.

For people in Europe who have it much worse, the result could be a lot worse, and a series of very bad outcomes await if Europeans don't wake up and put a stop to this now.