"The Muslim Invasion of Europe 2017"

[rat200Turbo]

The European social welfare system is collapsing as we speak, and Europeans don't have the same size lower class we do... we have one of the larger lower classes in the modern world. For alot of reasons, not the least of which being the history of slavery.. you don't have that in Europe.

So, is there less money today than there was thirty years ago? Is there less stuff around? Or is it just distributed differently? Like, 80% to the top 1%?

Get smart, guy.

I've always supported increasing taxes on the upper class, and I still do, but your notion of taxing the corporations and the top 1% - it's a crowd pleasing notion and not a real solution, it causes production to become stagnant and leads to long term debt for the country. The corporations, the super rich - we do not own them, they are international. Do you know what happens when you try to take their money? They leave, and they go produce in other countries. This is why our production is stagnant. When production is stagnant you cannot grow your economy... you cannot climb out of debt. You have to print money to stimulate the economy... It leads to a debt spiral (which is what has happened). You are shipping our production overseas, you have been for years.

You can increase taxes on the upper class - I'm fine with that. Increase taxes on lets say the top 30% to the top 1%. Even with a substantial increase to that segment of the population, you do not cover the costs we have -and you don't begin to cover the costs of expanding the programs in the ways you're talking about.

And you still didn't say a word about how globalizing our production enslaves workers overseas.

The US is a sovereign nation that prints its own money. It can never go bankrupt, it can never run out of money.

No, ... I'm talking in terms real value on an international market. We don't produce what we consume, not even close. Don't you not know what hyperinflation is? It's happened in many sovereign nations. You can print toilet paper money but at a certain point it's better to use the printed money as kindling.. Hyperinflation has happened in Germany, Bosnia, Turkey, Russia, the Phillipines... all of those are sovereign nations. And the currency also loses value gradually ... The US economy is extremely entangled with the economies of developing nations, with places like China... We rely on their cheap labor. Over the last 15 years we've managed to print money and have them continue to provide for us, and the trade flow has been fairly stable, because the developing nations rely on our consumption of their products - because they do not consume what they produce, they don't have the infrastructure. But that is changing - China is developing, Chinas economy has quadrupled in output in the last 15 years. 15 years from now we will not be able to force China to work for us. When China can consume its own products it is no longer reliant on the U.S. for its consumption to maintain its economy. Our currency over time will have less buying power, it will downgrade in value, infact when our debt hits 24 trillion the dollar is projected to significantly downgrade in value. This is happening around the world, developing nations have been lifted out of poverty at a rate never before seen over the last decade. They are beginning to consume their own products. We are beginning to compete against them directly. So no, we cannot just continue to print our own money because the value of it degrades in relation to other emerging currencies and our buying power on the international market plummets.

[xerx]

Our social welfare programs help alot of people. If those programs become insolvent (and in about 15 years they will, if we don't downsize - I've said this before), that's a truly big problem for everyone. That's alot of people with nothing. What do you think happens when whole sectors of cities no longer have food stamps? It would happen gradually - gradually people just would not be able to feed themselves (at all) with food stamps - the prices increase and the assistance stay the same or decreases. You gradually end up with chaos where the lower class can't sustain itself. You told me I'm complacent and greedy - I think your primary motive is to feel that you are a good person (and simultaneously attack others) while you willfully ignore the reality of our situation. I explain the problems, and you just simply ignore it.

I ran into the same thing with you the other day - you wouldn't even acknowledge that there is a fundamentalist Muslim culture that is anti-Westerner within Syria. Literally it's the country where ISIS affiliated rebel groups spontaneously grow out of the population. It is one of the most anti-western, fundamentalist countries. You made the most fail argument I've ever seen... You simply ignore reality. I don't see how you can claim to be a compassionate person while you willfully ignore things like that - you really aren't.

And by the way, slave laborers overseas are the ones who end up producing for all this government assistance. You said you're anti nationalist. Then you're pro globalist - you are pro foreign worker enslavement, then? Yes. But you don't care about that - you do not care about the migrant farm worker - all you care about is acting like you're a good person and the nationalists who are white are horrible people. It's just social posturing for you.

Also, yes - you are a lazier person than the guy who plants your avocados.

[rat200Turbo]

Yes, and an even lazier person than the Chinese guy who built your Iphone for pennies... who you have enslaved with your globalist economic policies, willfully, to stimulate your own consumption - policies that you continue to promote even now, claiming to help the poor!

[Adam Strange]

It can. If will pass the border where the robbery will be thought as unacceptable. Or there will appear another center of similar exploitation. Or dollars will be used to buy only USA products. Or... Never say never.

Sovereign states have gotten into trouble before and printed money like crazy which caused inflation, but that was AFTER the future productivity of their economy had been destroyed. Zimbabwe, after Mugabe destroyed the farms, and Weimar Germany, after it lost the industrial and coal lands to the French and was saddled with war reparations which were impossible to repay. Otherwise, if a country either produces or brokers, and can be seen to be able to do that in the future, then its money will be accepted.

The US just printed over 800 billion dollars and gave it to the banks, and I don't see any inflation, because printing money does not inevitably lead to inflation.

Here's the thing, @Sol. There were two countries which decided that they would accept "a basket of currencies" for their products instead of the dollar. The two countries were Saddam's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya.

The US doesn't have the world's largest military budget because it likes parades.

The same thing that gives the US dollar value to US citizens (which is the fact that you can pay your taxes only in dollars, not in gold, or you will go to jail, so you need dollars), also gives the dollar value to states which might set an example of not accepting dollars. The threat of destruction.

This is why crypto-currencies are a joke. No army.

[rat200Turbo]

We hardly produce anything in this country, that's the point. You have driven away production.
No, you haven't seen much inflation because the value of the dollar has remained stable due to the emerging nations relying on us as consumers, they have basically been forced to feed us to build up their production.
Not only is China becoming now less reliant (and that trend only continues) but they are also becoming large consumers in Asian & East European markets (and that will also continue).
All of that undermines the value of the dollar and leads to increases in prices.
Our military is not going to scare China into supplying us with free goods and keeping the currency strong. Actually China has a substantial nuclear arsenal at this point, so does Russia, so do many places.
(It's interesting how you preach compassion for the lower class one second and the next advocate trampling other countries with your imperialist economic policies to prop up your ponzi scheme)
Interest rates have been kept artificially low to compensate but that won't last forever, and when they do finally raise them our economy is going to take a nosedive.

[Spermatozoa]

You keep talking about giving people a choice, but not many people from existing ethnic minorities are going to volunteer to leave their homes nor see the appeal in idiosyncratic notions of racial brotherhood. The machinery to enforce such a drastic change can only be force, which the politest way of saying ethnic cleansing. And no, financial incentives won't work.

Moreover, Europe couldn't handle a mass migration of hundreds of millions of Americans any more than it could handle the mass migration of hundreds of millions of Muslims. The logistics of the operation, let alone the logistics of the integration, would drive any sane European to refuse the choice. We're not talking about a couple of million of Muslim refugees here, which is realistically a drop in the bucket.

A couple of million migrants from Syria is a drop in the bucket, but this is a short-sighted way to look at the problem (again Ni ignoring).

Firstly, immigrant communities have higher birth rates than the natives, so even if immigration was stopped entirely the population replacement would still continue. Secondly, there is a population explosion in Africa which could mean that up to a billion people will seek a new home by 2100, and we both know where they want to go.

Suppose also that you do get your ethnostate. That's the easy part. How do you ensure that it stays White for the next, what-- 10,000 years? Would you take away the people's freedom to have interracial marriage? Would you violate their liberty by fining them, putting them in prison, or forcing them to leave?

What would your society force someone like me-- a run of the mill straight, White male-- to do if I wanted to marry a Black babe with a glorious afro, ghetto booty, and sweet tits? What kinds of restrictions would you need to put on your citizens to ensure that no future interbreeding occurs.

So long as immigration is controlled and non-whites cannot acquire permanent residency (the practical definition of an ethnostate), there would be no need to regulate marriage.

It was good to see you admit that allowing "hundreds of millions" of non-whites to settle in Europe (i.e. a majority-minority society) would make it impossible to govern the continent democratically. That is a start, at least.

[xerx]

A couple of million migrants from Syria is a drop in the bucket, but this is a short-sighted way to look at the problem (again Ni ignoring).

Firstly, immigrant communities have higher birth rates than the natives, so even if immigration was stopped entirely the population replacement would still continue. Secondly, there are a population explosion in Africa which could mean up to a billion people seek a new home, and we both know where they want to go.

In the real world, immigrant birth rates adjust to match the rest of the population.

** Also, please answer my question RE: uprooting existing minorities if they refuse to leave.

So long as immigration is controlled and non-whites cannot acquire permanent residency (the practical definition of an ethnostate), there would be no need to regulate marriage.

I presume this means that my mixed-race "non-white" children wouldn't be able to acquire citizenship and all the rights that entails. Their individual liberties and, by connexion, my individual liberties would be severely harmed under this arrangement.

You loose your mind when some teenage freshmen want to censor the use of racial slurs but are fully willing to curtail the basic rights of others on the basis of arbitrary physical features.

[xerx]

Yes, and an even lazier person than the Chinese guy who built your Iphone for pennies... who you have enslaved with your globalist economic policies, willfully, to stimulate your own consumption - policies that you continue to promote even now, claiming to help the poor!

In a fair world, you would have to trade places with that smart, hard working Chinese guy.

[rat200Turbo]

In a fair world, you would have to trade places with that smart, hard working Chinese guy.

You don't give a crap about the Chinese guy, if you did you wouldn't be advocating the globalist imperialist policies that enslaved him. I don't even know you, you little racist hypocritical creep... you can fuck off. Bye!

[xerx]

It's your economic policies that enslaved him, I'm advocating his liberation. I don't even know you, you little hypocritical creep, try pointing the finger at yourself for once - you're an American, how hard do you work?

I work 50 hours a week as an embedded software engineer.

[rat200Turbo]

Ok. Well I'm in college but I'm going into data analysis, working on big data. It'll be more $ than what you make! Lol!
Hey you should give some of that money to the lower class, since you care so much about them - maybe send some to the poor Chinese guy!

[Bertrand]

the point is to resolve problems on the level they're created, the "hurr unless you're giving all your money to the poor you have no leg to stand on" talking point is 1) completely stale and unoriginal, not to mention 2) wrong, because it fundamentally misunderstands the issue. its like saying unless you become a doctor you're a hypocrite if you advocate for more widespread access to healthcare

the one thing it does get right is that it says "well, I may be an asshole but at least I'm a consistent one" as to the first part, at least

[rat200Turbo]

If you were paying any attention you'd know that I am putting fourth government policies to resolve the Chinese mans problem - nationalist economic policies. But no, you should actually help at all levels - you should help the poor - you cannot simply delegate that responsibility to the government. It's very easy to sit back and preach compassion... anyone can do it, it requires no effort. People claim public admiration for helping the poor without moving from their computer chairs... Not good!

[Bertrand]

you didn't address what I said at all, instead you inferred that because I pointed out your idiotic logic that I had committed myself to not helping the poor, which is just more idiotic logic

also I like your little exclamation at the end there, really paints a picture of who I'm dealing with

well, you edited it to a more neutral stance of: "helping people is good." I agree.

you should help the poor - you cannot simply delegate that responsibility to the government

in a truly democratic society this is impossible because it entails a contradiction in terms [1], which is really the problem, you live under a corrupt tyranny where "socialism" is just pretense to exercise complete control over people and help only those in control. so of course you can't delegate helping the poor to the gov under those conditions


[1] or to state it differently: in a real democracy "delegating" the responsibility to the government entails a contribution from each citizen--that's precisely the point, it implicates a contribution on the scale equal to the problem. which, however you get there, is the only real solution

(inb4 the US is not a perfect democracy--I know)

[rat200Turbo]

Yeah the exclamation mark is a new technique... you put it at the end and it makes it sound like you're in a good mood, like you aren't doing nothing but bitching!

Bertrand, your rambling is barely coherent.
My point has not changed, I did not "edit it to a neutral stance"... it's the same point it has always been.
"In a real democracy" <- we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic. What are you even talking about?
"'You should help the poor - you can't delegate that to the government' - In a true democratic society this is impossible... blah blah blah". Well it isn't impossible, you simply give your money to a poor person. But we don't live in your imaginary utopia. This is reality I'm talking about.. (and our society does help the poor - we have vast social programs; and your criticism of the relationship between the government and the corporations is simplistic, we must have a competitive environment for investment). Next!
"It entails a contribution from each citizen" <- We already do pay taxes. ... we cannot expand the social programs when we are massively in debt and the programs are already strained... I've talked about this. You could heavily tax the top 30% and not have enough money to cover healthcare for all, which is just one of the programs you propose. And if you tax the super rich and corporations, like you propose, you drive away production. I am fine with raising taxes on the top 30% - I've said as much - but it isn't the cure-all you wish it was.
Socialism could perhaps work in some utopian society... it is not something we can realistically do with a massive debt bubble, giant lower class, super low interest rates, aging workforce, emerging international market competition, massive drug and immigration problem and all the other problems we are having.

Put simply: we have to pay taxes to support the social programs, and we have to help the poor out directly also.
I don't know what about that is difficult, or where you are hung up... but I have to go. Have a nice day!

[Bertrand]

its like you forgot there's an entire record of posts and your argument developed over time and you just said "water is wet" at the tail end, and are now baffled how people could somehow be against such a noble stance

[rat200Turbo]

In the post at the very top of this page I say clearly: "I've always supported increasing taxes on the upper class, and I still do.. (But not on corporations - it drives away production.)" Read Bertrand!

[Bertrand]

Its not that I don't sympathize, I also wish I could be known for my %1 good deeds and the other %99 repugnant shit could be overlooked. this is why we believe in a God of forgiveness and grace

[rat200Turbo]

You're delusional, my argument has been the same the entire time. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[xerx]

Ok. Well I'm in college but I'm going into data analysis, working on big data. It'll be more $ than what you make! Lol!
Hey you should give some of that money to the lower class, since you care so much about them - maybe send some to the poor Chinese guy!

I coded a big data analytics software package for a client (in a previous line of work). You might end up using my stuff at your new job.

[rat200Turbo]

Doesn't surprise me, big data is such a lucrative field at the moment - and it will continue to be for the next 20 years. From what I'm seeing I'll probably be getting 150-200k after I get experience. Entry level is 100k

[Aramas]

Talk about a prescient book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des Saints) is a 1973 French novel by author and explorer Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a setting wherein Third World mass immigration to France and the West leads to the destruction of Western civilization. Almost forty years after its initial publication, the novel returned to the bestseller list in 2011.

[Spermatozoa]

Talk about a prescient book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

What I find interesting is that the book's thesis was seriously discussed in the 1990s by academics. Clearly, diversity had not yet become a state religion, and many people could see the problems that might arise if (1.) East Asia continued to modernize and develop imperial ambitions while (2.) Africa's population exploded, it descended into poverty and civil war, and (3.) Europe did not work to raise native birth rates, but instead kept open immigration policies.

The scenario Raspail wrote about was foreseen, but people in government were simply too complacent to act.

Younger generations seem doomed to face the consequences of their elders' incompetence.

[Spermatozoa]

People generally want to improve their quality of life, and thus many will try to migrate if they sense that another country has something better to offer them. However, migrants will not always benefit the country they would like to move to. Immigration also obeys the law of diminishing returns: as the migrant population grows, the costs of allowing more people in will rise relative to the benefits. The dangers of a diverse society become clear once migrants start to organize politically and agitate for their own interests, as they are currently doing in the U.S. and many European countries. To get around these awkward social problems, activists will usually try to turn immigration into a moral issue. They say that "no human is illegal", but this statement implies that you have right to live wherever you want. Your house is now my house, too, so I am going to live with you - whether you like it, or not.

[FDG]

So long as immigration is controlled and non-whites cannot acquire permanent residency (the practical definition of an ethnostate), there would be no need to regulate marriage.

But many north africans and middle eastern are actually white.

[Singu]

This whole problem was caused by the constant military interventionism in the middle east. The "multi-cultural" countries like Australia and Canada are doing pretty well so far.

[Spermatozoa]

This whole problem was caused by the constant military interventionism in the middle east. The "multi-cultural" countries like Australia and Canada are doing pretty well so far.

I won't comment about Canada, a country which I've spent very little time in.

However I can say that Australia has to deal with many of the issues I described above. The situation is better there than in the U.S., but the same recipe for conflict (high ethnic diversity, political correctness, rising income inequality) exists and things are only going to get worse there, due to the political instability. High power prices are also making people there angry. Many wealthy, virtue-signalling Australians are trying to move to New Zealand now, but hopefully our government will refuse them entry.

[Number 9 large]

its 2017, why do ppl still care about skin color

[nickelslick]

its 2017, why do ppl still care about skin color

Easy categorization. Makes really complex matters seem simple. Truth be damned.

[Aramas]

its 2017, why do ppl still care about skin color

It's about more than skin color. It's about race, ethnicity, heritage, social cohesion, culture, habit, economics, and a lot of other stuff. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that skin color by itself matters. People use skin color and tone as an indicator of race. But I don't think anyone really conflates the two except race denialists.

[xerx]

We need an ethnostate-sized safespace for all the White snowflakes.

[Glare]

Here's why we should all be cautious about opening up our doors to millions of migrants. Never before have we had to live with a column of people, unwilling to integrate into our culture.
The majority of the Muslim immigrants are young males, the women are back home. A lot of them are somewhat hostile with resentment of the West. I understand this but it's the stupid political leaders of the west like George Bush and Blair who voted for the Iraq invasion who should have to pay, not the people.

Bottom line: We need to screen people before they come into our country, it's plain common sense? I'm for welcoming genuine refugees, not the large numbers engulfing Europe today.

[Mr inappropriate]

People were living in Middle East under shitty conditions and strict dictatorship control 10-20 years ago. Now they are fleeing their homeland to live in shitty camps if lucky with some support money from government and blatsnt racism from lokals so that they wont get beheaded by sadictic blood thirtsy animals. Getting on a small ass boats to cross Med sea risking their lives, while you internet alpha are scared to talk in front of people or talk to girls.

Of course westers powers didnt have anything to do with this change of events. I wonder why they dont like western “civilization”.

[at sirac son of sirac]

If Muslim countries are 'invading' Europe, I can't say that I care. Like everyone else, they'll get assimilated, and mostly just eat burgers and watch movies like anyone else.

As for Islam as a threat to Christianity? I doubt this is too much of an issue. Christianity started out as persecuted, and survived, and still does, in many places in the world Christians go underground.

What could be said to be under threat is the way of living, and typical Western values have came from Christian values, but, how much really of Christian values are left? Not much. Assimilation as per 1st paragraph and change is the way of things, really all the worry is just that, to create worry and strife.

It's happening, and it'll be as OK as life tends to be - never really going smoothly all the time regardless of the conditions.

[End]

We need an ethnostate-sized safespace for all the White snowflakes.

Tragic thing is that's exactly the sentiment on both sides of this issue. They both think the other side wants them dead in the worst way. The only solution, therefore, is a "separate but equal" arrangement.

Given the latest farce of justice in commiefornia I can say with gusto that I'm in that camp. Wall of the Left Coast and let it become a part of Mexico. You can have that shithole all to yourselves without us working class white patriots paying for your gibs! Let's see how long your r-selected genes last without us K-selected nice guys being too nice for our own damn good!

[at sirac son of sirac]

Sovereign states have gotten into trouble before and printed money like crazy which caused inflation, but that was AFTER the future productivity of their economy had been destroyed. Zimbabwe, after Mugabe destroyed the farms, and Weimar Germany, after it lost the industrial and coal lands to the French and was saddled with war reparations which were impossible to repay. Otherwise, if a country either produces or brokers, and can be seen to be able to do that in the future, then its money will be accepted.

The US just printed over 800 billion dollars and gave it to the banks, and I don't see any inflation, because printing money does not inevitably lead to inflation.

Here's the thing, @Sol. There were two countries which decided that they would accept "a basket of currencies" for their products instead of the dollar. The two countries were Saddam's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya.

The US doesn't have the world's largest military budget because it likes parades.

The same thing that gives the US dollar value to US citizens (which is the fact that you can pay your taxes only in dollars, not in gold, or you will go to jail, so you need dollars), also gives the dollar value to states which might set an example of not accepting dollars. The threat of destruction.

This is why crypto-currencies are a joke. No army.

If every countries army is neutered due to the changes in play - increasingly countries have nuclear capability, and the fight is instead being taken to cyber level, I doubt this.

Crypto-currencies are the future.

[xerx]

Tragic thing is that's exactly the sentiment on both sides of this issue. They both think the other side wants them dead in the worst way. The only solution, therefore, is a "separate but equal" arrangement.

I don't envy the ability to get triggered by black guys with social security cards.

[Crispy]

https://youtu.be/85BKDj_1vVU

(I can never get a video to embed in a post without quoting someone who already did and changing URL to mine, what gives?)

[silke]

If Muslim countries are 'invading' Europe, I can't say that I care. Like everyone else, they'll get assimilated, and mostly just eat burgers and watch movies like anyone else.

Eating burgers and chilling out is not really what they've been up to. Sounds like they are after a Holocaust 2.0: https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/sta...37226652962817
Even the previous waves of immigrants are saying they are scared of the new waves incoming.

[marooned]

I've been wondering if this is happening but I recently became "political" again after years of not paying any attention so I don't know exactly what is happening outside of the information I've found, which wasn't the entire picture most likely. And I've probably been careless about who I've been listening to, especially on YouTube, but, I remember one person saying that Saudi Arabia now owns much of England, and Islam isn't integrating very well. Islam is now pocketed throughout Europe in every nation taking in refugees who also are not integrating. The native populations are falling while the Islamic populations are rising. Is not "breed them out" a strategy employed throughout history? Is there a reason to believe that by 2100 Europe will not be a continent ruled by Islam? I mean perhaps it doesn't matter because I personally will be dead by 2100, so that I don't want to submit to Sharia Law may well be irrelevant (I jumped ahead to the US in that thought, as I wouldn't be surprised if after Trump's "amazing" 4 years the US elects a radical leftist to counter his radical right).

But Islam and Christianity are long-time enemies and I am not sure the Holy War was ever considered over. I really had been seeing everything in this globalist, multi-cultural way, but now I don't know what I see. And it was ironically my awakening/indoctrination to the social justice movement and identity politics which asked me to actually have a socio-political and racial identity so as not to be color blind (AKA racist), that has caused me to now see everything differently. This made me wonder why so many have adopted this color blind vision (proven now to make everything worse) with little conscious intent, almost as though we were programmed by messaging, and now the programming is stripped at the right time by global upheaval. And how does Marxism fit into things? The radical left is seemingly rather Marxist. But Marxist-leaning nations (Eastern Europe?) seem to be against taking in the refugees. Is this a holy war between Christianity and Islam, between the West and Radical Islam, between Capitalism and Communism, Socialism and Communism, "whites" and POC? WTF is going on. I feel like what is happening now is about the past, about what has happened before. There is this ringing of vengeance hanging about the radical left. How can anyone figure out what "side" they are on in this disaster?

Also, I am sure the West is at fault for the mess in the Middle East. I was against the stupid war ever since 9/11 (another time revenge was ringing in my ears, but from the politicians who seemed to want vengeance first and to get accurate info later and embarked on a long "crusade" to destroy the entire Middle East as far as I can tell). So since the West is at fault, does that mean that taking in refugees is indeed an obligation? But is it an invasion? The easiest way to take down Europe is kill them softly at first. They'll just let the entire world in because the radical left says that to do otherwise is to be an evil Westerner and the world seems to be very angry at the West. I feel anger everywhere. Some YouTube commenters say this is payback.

Also this is the kind of thing I mean
https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...uslim-invasion

Why is it wrong for Belgium to maintain its cultural identity? Why is it wrong for a nation to say I don't want to invite people into the country who are going to drain the economy, and commit violence?

I can see that everything is shifting from nationalism to globalism and we are all expected to get along in a world with an ever increasing population (we can all suffer together in one massive ghetto, like Sweden that might become a third world country), and I can see that Westerners are not supposed to object because the Western world has so much more than other parts of the globe and has taken so much (more than its share)... But why is it wrong to be disturbed by this? If the end goal is for all people to be all-accommodating, I don't see how that's going to work without some people being violated. And will Islam be all-accommodating of women's rights, of freedom of speech and religion, of all the things that make up a supposed democratic and free nation?

I personally see Europe as an Islam-ruled ghetto by 2100 and I don't know what will become of the US. Maybe WWIII will happen first. I believe that other parts of the world will start doing quite well once Europe is sacked and China will become the next super power (which I'm oddly optimistic about).

My head is full of conspiracies.