TBF, those are 2 EU languages.

It will only get worse. All the research on “diversity” clearly shows that diversity is cleary associated with increased strife, struggle, conflict and war or abuses and atrocities. It’s a very clear signal in research.

Considering how the “diversity” is being brought about by abusively imposing it on people against their will or consent, tells me that nothing has changed to make the conflict not also happen this time.

But conflict only begets more spending and government contracts and profits on top of that, so the system and its apparatchiks will do as much as possible as long as possible to keep the abuses going until it all just snaps one day.

America even has “diversity” replacing line cooks and waitstaff at Trump resorts, while Americans are unemployed. That’s going to cause conflict at some point. It’s not rocket science.

All the research on "diversity" shows that it is clearly associated with particular media outlets as a primary talking point and wedge issue.

Outside readers rarely hear about diversity from other sources - the noise ratio from one side of the US aisle on the issue is staggering.

If ground.news and Manufacturing Consent have taught me anything, it's that "legacy" / traditional media regularly ignore valid stories.

Are you saying that Haitian immigrants to the US were actually eating cats in Ohio?

Please engage in good faith.

> It will only get worse. All the research on “diversity” clearly shows that diversity is cleary associated with increased strife, struggle, conflict and war or abuses and atrocities. It’s a very clear signal in research.

Interested in reading more. Sources?

There are no sources, this is completely made up.

Easterly and Levine (1997) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24091596_Africa's_G...

Alesina, Baqir and Easterly (1999) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24091676_Public_Goo...

War is good for business. There is not many places in middle east when you can wage war with profit anymore.

What are the other places where we could wage wars ? Places with very high standard of living, something like civil-wars?

Something something elite big (rhyme to „dose”) doing business?

At this point you have to be very ignorant to not see that or very stupid.

>War is good for business.

War is only good for business if your enemy can't do anything to you. WW2 was fucking devastation for everyone involved except the US, which came out saying it's good for business because it had two fucking oceans and nobody could do much beyond dropping a couple balloons.

Likewise with all the subsequent wars the US has been involved in, the homeland hasn't come under fire ever. The military industrial complex has had free reign to peddle agony and death across the planet without having to buy some ourselves.

Of fucking course this is good for business, but this is not the norm and we the people should do our fucking damnedest to prevent the country from engaging in any more wars because the fucking fire we've been playing with will fucking burn our fucking asses eventually.

You are saying that liberal immigration policy is driven by people who believe it will create enough civil unrest to start a civil war in which they can make money selling weapons?

I think they mean driving up the narrative against it is.

> And that's on top of french speaking people vs. english speaking people.

In the EU, of course, everyone is against anglophones.

being "anglophone" isn't the issue. Rather that we're ALL anglophones. But anglophones (or better native English speakers) are only anglophones.

Come again?

reason for why Europeans are "against anglophones" as parent claims is likely that native english speakers tend to be only that. (not speaking anything else while for the rest of us being "anglophone" barely registers as a "skill" ...)

Not really, the real "anglophones" are against everybody else, specifically Eastern Europe. So they got out of the EU thinking that would solve their problem.