Refugee Situation in Europe

[sebt3]

Warning: As a french guy living in Paris with one of my friend having lost his sister fridy night, i'll probably sound harsh and all...


My country have very long history of taking care of refugees (well over a century ; germany not so much). We host communities of people from all over the world. Fact is : there's somewhere at war on this planet since the begining of history. They all integrated pretty well in our country and most of them got the french cytizenship. I've friends who fled the massacres in Rwanda. I've a friend from Lybia etc etc. All these tried to integrate our society and respect our rules.


Syrians refugees, not so much. Get some informations about what's happening in Calais... Truck drivers are scared and for goods reasons : hijcked trucks, assaulted drivers, rocks thrown from bridges. Get a clue on what they are doing in Vintimille in Italia (hint, pretty much the same things). Do you know what they do with foods provided by humans organisations for them ? Destroy the food : not halal. Pretty much everywhere where they go, when they leave, they leave a true dump. Not even trying to tidy around them their own junk.


Then, on the vid I see on tv, I question myself : Why the f**k is there that much male. from the vids it looks like 70% males, the rests being a fews woman and very very few childs (if any). Where are the olds persons ? Where are the familly units ? I was expecting the population ISIS is threatening in Syria : non-muslim famillies. If you're not Muslim in the areas ISIS control, you've to pay a tax worthing over 75% of your income. You're free to convert yourself to evade the tax though... But then, why an utter majority of the refugees are muslim ?


And then, there the question of the numbers. As I said, France is used to host refugees. We even have infrastructures for this and the system have always up to now worked well... But the numbers of refugees is just *huge* and by far outnumber the places we have in our infrastructures to host them. The gouvernement have even freed many (as in thousands) unused places (I mean houses, flat...) to offer a roof to them. But this is still not enough. I dont have the numbers as I havent checked, but it seems like there is over 10 times more refugees from Syria then we had from the Rwanda yet the population of Syria is just twice as big as Rwanda's one.


So : "too many", "too many males", "too many muslim"... That's too many "oodities" from what we should have to not question what the f**k is going on...

 

[pmprog]

Warning: As a french guy living in Paris with one of my friend having lost his sister fridy night, i'll probably sound harsh and all...

Sorry to hear that, glad you're okay though

 

[Askarus]

Some first hand information here:


1: Most of the refugees are nice people.


2: Most I notice is this: They sit in nature with a Smartphone and Do nothing.


3: Beautiful nature is more dirty now. I some are throwing their garbage on the ground and leave it there (I watched them.)


So why do they have to get phones for free and are allowed to stay for free?


In Ingolstadt some do work as street cleaner. That's a good thing and I like that.


My opinion is: They may come but should not get everything for free. I do see them the whole day outside and do nothing. They CAN do easy work, I do see that as well.

 

[Neelix]

So, let me get this straight:


I start circulating the story that ED is stealing lollipops from toddlers here on the boards. This story just needs to circulate long enough in order for people calling that "bullshit" have to disproof something there was no proof for it from the get go ?

Not what I'm saying at all.   I'm saying that as soon as you start saying there is proof of something - anything - the burden is on you to provide the proof that you claim exists.


The thing to remember about propaganda is that the best lies are mostly made up of the truth.  The most effective propagandist takes a cherry-picked collection of true stories, and spins them so that they convey the message the propagandist wants them to convey.


Just because a particular story has been used to spread propaganda doesn't mean the story itself is false.   Maybe it is, but maybe it's not.  One should always expect that such a story as told by a propagandist may have been terribly skewed, (if it needed to be skewed) and I would definitely recommend taking such stories with a liberal dose of salt,  but it certainly doesn't mean that other similar stories (or even other sources telling the same story) can just be dismissed out of hand.


-Neelix

 

[ElPoco]

I haven't met any Syrian refugee, but I doubt you can lump together hundred of thousands of people and say they are "like this" and act "like this". 


From what I've seen first hand in Mauritania (not exactly the same situation, but some common grounds), I guess there will be a huge difference between the urban population and rural population and between the educated population and the uneducated population. The educated urban population can probably fit in without many problems. The educated rural population might be able to adjust, though it won't be easy. For the uneducated population it's another matter. 


But they're here now. We can say whatever we want about how we should/shouldn't have welcomed them, but it's in the past. Now is the question of what we'll do with them. We can let them die, we can let them survive, we can let them be on their own or we can try to solve the situation. I guess we don't just need to provide food and shelter, but also guidance and education. That's a hell of a challenge, and there will be mistakes, there will be trouble and there will be a cost. We probably can't save everyone and give a happy life to all. But we'd be wrong if we didn't do anything at all.


I'm also wary of the way some people point refugees as a source/cause of our current problems. In history, such hatred has always been a tool the people in power used to control the masses. I don't think the real problem is that we have hundred of thousands of refugees to provide for. I think the problem the real problem is that the resources that we could use for this are in the hands (or rather the off-shore bank accounts) of people who'd rather live luxury lives (and don't start talking about trickle down economics, it has been reliably shown that it just doesn't work). If our societies, wealthy as they are supposed to be, are unable to provide for everyone, it means there's a failure in the way the resources are handled.


As for people saying that bringing them in is what causes stuff like what we suffered in Paris on Friday, I ask: should we accept to have thousands of people dying in far away countries to prevent having hundreds dying in our countries? I'm not sure how to answer this one.

 

[j0e]

warning, controversial opinion below

Spoiler

i understand optimistic humanitarian viewpoints, but have a bit of common sense pls. i've heard so much "if you disagree with me ur a fascist/nazi/islamophobe/bigot" on my campus it's not even worth laughing at any more. i wonder how many of them even know what the word "fascist" means outside of a cheap insult...

my views are kinda heartless and pragmatic. it would be nice to give them all a home but it's just not practical when public services are already being stretched. why aren't people on campuses petitioning countries such as saudi arabia to open their gates? also I swear they pass through a whole load of safe countries on their way to western europe too. honest question to nice humanitarian people: so say we let all the refugees in... then what? how do you expect the countries to deal with the huge influx of people?

 

[Not_a_Nick]

As for people saying that bringing them in is what causes stuff like what we suffered in Paris on Friday, I ask: should we accept to have thousands of people dying in far away countries to prevent having hundreds dying in our countries? I'm not sure how to answer this one.

Sorry to say this mate, but even implying this is is the same as asking if terrorism is acceptable. So no, i rather not have a single one of my fellow citizens dying from terrorist actions. Just like in France we too have a long history dealing with ex-colonies immigrants and some african countries refugees and despite some problematic areas in the main cities, things are contained and they're quite integrated in the society being productive and so on for the most part. But if you ask me if potentially there is a threat incoming i say close borders before having one of us killed, because it can be someone of your family being killed.


The problem is that, correct me if i'm wrong, France muslim population is enormous, so the threat is inside already, closing borders won't do much, just allow to restrain previously marked targets from fleeing.

 

[sebt3]

France muslim population is enormous, so the threat is inside already, closing borders won't do much, just allow to restrain previously marked targets from fleeing.

Indeed, France muslim population is rather high (I think today, that's the most practiced religion in France).But they are not a threat.


The threat is the "islamo-fascists", the salafists. These are a realy, realy small minority, and I cant call them muslim either.


The salafism is a sect. And just like many sect, they brainwash their victims (using known methods used by... sects). They abuses women... just like any other sects. This is not a religion, and have nothing to do with being a muslim.

 

[fantomid]

Warning: As a french guy living in Paris with one of my friend having lost his sister fridy night, i'll probably sound harsh and all...

Attristé de l'apprendre. Toutes nos pensées ...

Indeed, France muslim population is rather high (I think today, that's the most practiced religion in France).But they are not a threat.


The threat is the "islamo-fascists", the salafists. These are a realy, realy small minority, and I cant call them muslim either.


The salafism is a sect. And just like many sect, they brainwash their victims (using known methods used by... sects). They abuses women... just like any other sects. This is not a religion, and have nothing to do with being a muslim.

From the South-west of France, I agree with sebt3 about this minority of people who tried to create conditions of hate between religions.


I think we need to solve problems regarding the youngs lost because they didn't know what to do to have a better life and the brainwash is easy when the education is not able to create the conditions to help the youngest. We have to work on ourself to find the better solutions to fight the salafism and stick together ...

 

[ElPoco]

The threat inside is not Muslims. The threat inside is people fucked up enough to be able to accept the idea that mass killing is a nice thing to do. There's a huge difference between the two.


We need to distance ourselves from bad people. If we're in the same group, we'll either call them insane or find something specific they belong to (political party, sport, leisure activity). That's why when a random white French kid killed someone, you'd have the newspaper blaming video games. It was a way to say "he's not a regular kid, he's a video-game playing psychopath." That's why, when a Christian white US student goes on a rampage at his school we talk about the acts of a lunatic. When a white French father/mother decides to kill his family or his employer, that's an unexplained act of madness.


But if that student/father/mother/employee is Muslim, we no longer need to distance ourselves from him. "Of course he's doing bad things, he's not the same as us.". And suddenly, he becomes a Muslim terrorist.

 

[levi]

So why do they have to get phones for free and are allowed to stay for free?


In Ingolstadt some do work as street cleaner. That's a good thing and I like that.


My opinion is: They may come but should not get everything for free. I do see them the whole day outside and do nothing. They CAN do easy work, I do see that as well.

I can't speak for Germany, but in the UK at least they're not allowed to get a job - no citizenship, no ID number (so you can be taxed appropriately), no job.  That's the mecanism of preventing them from finding work, but the reason is because we don't want people flooding the job market and pushing out existing low paid employees, who can't really do any better work for whatever reason.  Instead those that apply for asylum are found housing (often in crappy towns to be fair) and given a weekly allowance for food and stuff, while their case is processed - at the end either they get their papers, or they're put on a plane back to the country they came from.


Anyone who doesn't apply for asylum kind of slips through the net though.  Mostly those are turned back at Calais/Dover, but I guess if they look European and can get a fake Euro passport they can probably get through the green channel. Then they either live on the streets or with friends, and try to find work on the black market, which for the time being is still rather small in the UK (except for selling drugs, I guess, which is everywhere).


Edit: And @Klumpen, do you have any evidence as you why those supermarkets closed in those areas?  It may be because the sort of people they wanted to attract were moving out, and the types of people in the areas was changing.  Not necessarily because of increased thieving, just reduced turnover and static rents - perhaps.

 

[Not_a_Nick]

The threat inside is not Muslims. The threat inside is people fucked up enough to be able to accept the idea that mass killing is a nice thing to do. There's a huge difference between the two.


We need to distance ourselves from bad people. If we're in the same group, we'll either call them insane or find something specific they belong to (political party, sport, leisure activity). That's why when a random white French kid killed someone, you'd have the newspaper blaming video games. It was a way to say "he's not a regular kid, he's a video-game playing psychopath." That's why, when a Christian white US student goes on a rampage at his school we talk about the acts of a lunatic. When a white French father/mother decides to kill his family or his employer, that's an unexplained act of madness.


But if that student/father/mother/employee is Muslim, we no longer need to distance ourselves from him. "Of course he's doing bad things, he's not the same as us.". And suddenly, he becomes a Muslim terrorist.

Not really, i can give you numerous examples of white terrorism, all in recent history and present, ETA, IRA, Baader-Meinhof, FP-25, Brigate Rosse, between others, all of those had/have political agendas, such as do the islamic radical factions. Things are what they are, these are not isolated ''mere'' crimes, don't mix concepts, these are well planned and executed actions in a whole category of their own.

I can't speak for Germany, but in the UK at least they're not allowed to get a job - no citizenship, no ID number (so you can be taxed appropriately), no job.  That's the mecanism of preventing them from finding work, but the reason is because we don't want people flooding the job market and pushing out existing low paid employees, who can't really do any better work for whatever reason.  Instead those that apply for asylum are found housing (often in crappy towns to be fair) and given a weekly allowance for food and stuff, while their case is processed - at the end either they get their papers, or they're put on a plane back to the country they came from.


Anyone who doesn't apply for asylum kind of slips through the net though.  Mostly those are turned back at Calais/Dover, but I guess if they look European and can get a fake Euro passport they can probably get through the green channel. Then they either live on the streets or with friends, and try to find work on the black market, which for the time being is still rather small in the UK (except for selling drugs, I guess, which is everywhere).

Basically this is how it should work everywhere in my opinion, in my country unfortunately for political showoff the common citizen gets screwed.

 

[Klumpen]

The threat inside is not Muslims. The threat inside is people fucked up enough to be able to accept the idea that mass killing is a nice thing to do. There's a huge difference between the two.

In general you are right since no matter the religion, people who think that killing innocents is good are always already screwed up, but a cultural basis like this isn't helping at all, go check the Quran for:


"Sura 2, Āya 190-193"
"Sura 2, Āya 216-217"
"Sura 2, Āya 223"
"Sura 3, Āya 86-91"
"Sura 4, Āya 34"
"Sura 4, Āya 89"
"Sura 5, Āya 38"
"Sura 8, Āya 12"
"Sura 8, Āya 17"
"Sura 9, Āya 5"
"Sura 9, Āya 14"
"Sura 9, Āya 29"
"Sura 9, Āya 111"
"Sura 9, Āya 113"
"Sura 17, Āya 33"
"Sura 24, Āya 2"
"Sura 24, Āya 62"
"Sura 33, Āya 61"
"Sura 40, Āya 10"
"Sura 41, Āya 24"
"Sura 44, Āya 16"
"Sura 47, Āya 4"
"Sura 48, Āya 20"
"Sura 48, Āya 29"
"Sura 60, Āya 1"
"Sura 61, Āya 4"
"Sura 61, Āya 9"
"Sura 98, Āya 6"


Sorry for the nasty facts.


What we need, are more people like Maajid Nawaz that know what they are talking about if we want to have any chance of deradicalization and in the end reducing the danger of us or our loved ones being shot and blown to pieces, especcially if we are so unfortunate to live in a capital.


@Levi: As long as no journalist is willing/allowed to write about it, I can only advise to go and check for yourself, sorry. I've often seen mad stuff not making it into the papers and whole articles that were already made with weeks of investigative work in them having facts changed for political reasons, it's really not uncommon.


PS: The quotation system is really screwed atm.

 

[ElPoco]

@Klumpen: You'll see a whole lot of killings and God saying that the chosen people should by all means kill other people in the Bible. There's even a part where God is displeased because the attacker spared the women and children of the peaceful tribe they've attacked. And there's a long (and not so distant) history of nasty bloodsheds and killing of innocents in Europe. So you could say that the cultural basis doesn't help there as well.


I really think the problem is more about the lack of education and bad living conditions.

 

[Klumpen]

@Klumpen: You'll see a whole lot of killings and God saying that the chosen people should by all means kill other people in the Bible. There's even a part where God is displeased because the attacker spared the women and children of the peaceful tribe they've attacked. And there's a long (and not so distant) history of nasty bloodsheds and killing of innocents in Europe. So you could say that the cultural basis doesn't help there as well.

Yes and that's why the secularization of Europe in the last 50 years was a really good thing!


We can't expect the same to happen instantly with the majority of those people though, after a while maybe if it's a healthy dosis of migration, but not like this.


Imho, the borders should be shut down now immediately until the people that are already here are properly managed, mostly by dividing the huge numbers by more countries.


Nobody is gaining by the steady increase of people, not them (the conditions in the camps get worse by the minute) and certainly not us.


I've heard something about 30.000 refugees from Syria in France, is this right?


Well we've got 800.000 officially and about 1.5 Million unofficially, this is just insane if you think about the fact, that we only have 80million citizens and problems handling those already if you look at the wage gap between eastern and western Germany, how many working people in the eastern part have to get additional money from the state in order to be able to pay the absurd rents (although they are working already as I've mentioned) and how hard it is for young people in the north-east to simply get a place to stay if they don't have any support by their heritage/family. People that are able to travel all this way are seldomly the ones that are really bad off and the ones that were so bad off indeed naturally had to leave any scruples behind in order to get this far (resulting in stuff like I mentioned and way worse stuff inside of the camps).


All this badly needs to be decentralized because nothing good can come out of it like it is handled now.


In addition to this, the root of the problem where they come from has to be removed, as bad as this may sound.


Good politicians would need three things at the same time:


Idealism, pragmatics and empathy.


If you lack any of the three at any topic, you'll make bad decisions and the one that are neccessary afterwards will become even more unpopular than the ones you should have made.

 

[matzesu]

Hear in "Püttlingen" the Town i live, there all where "Refugees" in World War Twoo, because there where near the french border so they decided to move the peaple to north germany or to the "ruhr gebiet"..


Most peaple dosnt know the refuges personaly, they only beliefe the newspapers and TV, but nobody is going to pay a visit to the refugee places to look whats real in there..


There are assholes in every country in the world, but thats usual as they all humans..


You cant put all refugees in one trawer, they are humans like u and me, ..

 

[Klumpen]

Since stuff like this tragically always has to be mentioned to be allowed to have an opinion:


Please don't put me into some xenophopics drawer. I'm working with immigrants for years and had several colleagues from the middle east of which some have gone back and some stayed in Germany. My workshop is one of the most integrative places you can find around here which is only natural since our customers are just like the conceptual origins of our products from the middle east in many/most cases. We'd take a Syrian worker anytime, especcially if s/he knows a thing or two about folk instruments from the area but also if s/he just would like to work on stuff like this and is a decent person.


Most of the people we had from the area weren't very reliable (as in coming sometime on the day of the week one agreed upon, even if some hours later) and my Cuban colleague isn't reliable either, but it's still ok up to a point and we are managing to handle it. And it's often just nice to have contact to people from all around the world and seeing how similar we are in some ways.


We've helped a homeless guy off the streets (which was way more tedious and sometimes impossible paperwork than with the immigrants, sadly) and the ex of my boss has even given an Asian refugee refuge in her appartment for a while. It wasn't easy although the culture clash was way less intense as it is now, but it was a good thing.


You just have to be realistic in what you can and what you can't do and just opening floodgates without setting any limit is an awful idea.


I may have to migrate a second time in my life (I was a refugee too once after all) as soon as I can afford it anyway, so I just wish that you guys aren't getting the results I see coming.


It's affecting me atm, since in order to be able to afford another migration or at least a better life than in this 29m² sardine housing, I need affordable space for a well organized workshop of my own and affordable space is becoming an even bigger problem now although it was a big problem already before.


BTW: Since I've got some regular contact to Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Israelis, etc.... through work, today I've heard about posters made by Germany posted in Afghanistan saying (in Arabic) that they shouldn't come here, we wouldn't take anyone.
So Syrians are worth more than Afghans now? How come? Isn't this considered to be racist in some way?
If you're open to refugees, you may set a limit to what you can handle, but up to this point you should take people from anywhere since everything else seems unfair, doesn't it?


Makes me think of article three of the German basic law:

  (1) Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich.


  (2) Männer und Frauen sind gleichberechtigt. Der Staat fördert die tatsächliche Durchsetzung der Gleichberechtigung von Frauen und Männern und wirkt auf die Beseitigung bestehender Nachteile hin.


  (3) Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden. Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden.

Not saying that it ever wasn't hypocritical.

 

[Night]

• Why on earth would you think that ?
  
• Why should that change suddenly ?
  

You could call it a hunch, so i may or may not be wrong about this.


But i think that unless anyone here can actually confirm that on the most inner and intimate levels of the EU (where information is probably classified) no-one has jack of an idea about what to do - i don't think we can assume that we know all the details just by viewing the EU's public policy. Anyhow, i saw cases where less orgenaized and managed enteties managed to pull out from dire situations before. So something makes me doubt that the EU, as a union of an entire developed continent, has all it's cards on the table as of right now.

 

[Stellanatus]

I post a couple times a day trying to combat this "hatemongering". I feel what you are saying. I believe if I don't combat this then I would be enabling some really horrible things to happen.

To me this started all from the Arab Spring which saw many arab nations protest their outdated governments (after Egypt proved it was possible to demand change and win it). It was mostly a phase that didn't have much success. The worst was in Syria where protesting became outlawed (that didn't set very well). People protested anyway and the country quickly became a police state. The Assad (ruler of Syria) orderd the military to disperst protesters with lethal force; however this back fired as a part of the Syrian army defected (becoming the FSA or Free Syrian Army) to protect the protesters rather than fire upon them. This lead to a civil war.

Long story short:
> A power vacuum gave rise to Isis from civil war.
> United Nations & USA aid the FSA against Assad & Assad becomes a friend of Russia.
> Russia becomes more isolated from the world due to its recent invasions.
> Russia spins the attacks on the FSA pretending they are Isis.
> Syria people have given all hope as their revolution fails to the dictaitor, Jihadists gain power, and Russia bombs their safe homes.

But here is some good news. Isis is falling. Russian sanctions are beginning to work, Statistics show that more people care about the safety of refugees than wanting them gone. And FSA or Assad will gain control over the region eventually. Would be better for the FSA but with Assad they might pass some reforms with Russia watchful eye.

 

[comradekingu]

Indeed, France muslim population is rather high (I think today, that's the most practiced religion in France).But they are not a threat.


The threat is the "islamo-fascists", the salafists. These are a realy, realy small minority, and I cant call them muslim either.


The salafism is a sect. And just like many sect, they brainwash their victims (using known methods used by... sects). They abuses women... just like any other sects. This is not a religion, and have nothing to do with being a muslim.

How do you equate being truly orthodox with differing from what they adhere to? Judeo-Christian religions are a benchmark, they are undeniably a certain way, factor in interpretation and you still have answers. The root of something that proclaims itself to be canon is not irrelevant, even though it will in its decomposition produce new and even more falsifiable doctrines.


Judeo-christianity, at its root and historical offspring, bring society backwards, and will inherently target an ideal where society is stagnant, uniform and polar. They all abuse and downplay women, unlike some sects, and brainwash, like sects, even children, unlike some sects. But interestingly, all of which is unlike some other religions. Your frame of reference lacks cohesion. If you ask me a sect is I see it as a galapagos project, allowed to exist outside and within society. Apply the exact same criteria to the society as a whole, and you find it has been equally secterian. In the name of Judeo-Christianity. Over time the difference between being stuck in the 1300s and for example the 1700s wont matter. But when a society, a heritage, a culture that I am part of, is dragged down in this way, then it concerns me.


To question it as a cultural problem, where was there ever a non-problematic Judeo-Christian presence? And most importantly, what is or has happened to be the most problematic, more or less strict?


If we agree to call progress a differentiation upon existing concepts, where each succession is only possible as a improvement on the (scientific) method, backwards is less so. We can observe how this is done. Crudely seems like a fitting word.


You say a muslim population isn't a threat, but you fail to ask to whom that is. When you feel the need to point out that it in terms of a potential threat, is different, why is that? Does that say something about the current level of integration? Or is it the direction it is taking?


You operate with a concept of those people, they, as advesaries, and then perhaps a different group to whom that is a threat? Do you belong to said group?


If yes, then what makes you capable or dignified to decide who is a muslim? Is there a what if you are wrong-scenario?


Where was Judeo-christianity ever integrated? Where was it ever reformed peacefully. Are there not enough examples of implementation? Or are they now outdated? What is the timeframe where to those it has been extremely lethal, you can safely and convincingly say that it is now in the past?


With all the problems France 'doesn't have' I'd like to know how you make out the difference between what works and what doesn't. Is the solution inversely equal to the _is muslim_.


Implying your idea of an ideal society has people in it, that you make the distinction, and that these two are now co-existing, what is the working solution?


If you only look at the upside, you might as-well point out how some part of a boat that has keeled over is above the waterline. It too will rise as a balance is shifted.


And it does shift, and things do happen. Either to one side or the other, or a geographical division or excommunication.


My main question is whether any particular exponent of this group of similar religions has ever been integrated into a society in a manner you care to live under during the course of that happening? If the answer here is no, I'd like to know what makes it a good idea this time. What is different?


Meanwhile Jews, Christians and Muslims all seem to have the answers, each as a separate entity. Knowing this, as an open question, why does the current secularism have a seemingly convinced belief implementation, which seeks to steer around it, but, at-least to my knowing, doesn't, or know how. Answers, I wish I had more of them. What is the plan?


Edit:


Since Judeo-Christianity is a feedback-loop going back to its scripture, with inbuilt suicidal and correcting measures, I don't think its possible to out-mock it.


I would feel a lot more safe if it didn't have the potential to hamper people from getting genetically smarter. I almost wrote smarter genetically, and maybe that is it, maybe religion is an evolutionary trait found in its believers.


I wonder if annoying smart people is something it tries to do, or knows not to. Collecting data en-mass changes that premise somewhat.


What pleases me though, is that Judeo-Christian leaders are the same makeup as its constituency.


No ruling class has ever succeeded at being evolutionary incompatible, but I guess they'll keep trying.