Usually in troubled areas, the men fight and the women and children flee, or they flee together as families. Yet the 'refugee' crisis of recent times was different. It was young men who were coming to the Western countries. Why is this?
Because this was never a legitimate refugee crisis. It was a planned migration with the intention of destabilising the host countries, destroying any sort of cohesive national identity and on enacting genocide the white majority.
That the genocide was to be across the spectrum, with enforced discrimination, brainwashing, quotas, and various other control mechanisms combined with anti white violence does not stop it being genocide.
because they are immigrants and not reffugees
weaponised immigrants
they do by mixing up the native already minority caucasians try to reach their main goal which is having half of the population having immigrant backgrounds to overtime be dominant to the natives who are proud on their culture and country because of respect to what their fathers and mothers build... so its a matter of 'can't care' vs 'i feel' and that request will come.. check it up when it comes from this day and make it history when it happens... only thing to understand is to look around in europe and try to find a native under 10 seconds.. thats hard nowadays.. no hate to people btw all become victim of this over time but racial genocide is what is going on
Invasion is the word I've been using since the 1990's. I've been treated like a bigot every time I use the term in this context.
It seems to me that about half the population is in such deep denial that they would have to be personally attacked for them to believe that we've been invaded and are being occupied by "diversity", oops sorry, I meant the white genocide advocates.
Anyone who loves the third world is welcome to go live there. Why do we need to invite over 6+ billion people, who hate us, to take a crap on our dinner table?
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance: Genocide
Our Purpose
Actually, no, I found 4 pretty good reasons by just googling that headline of yours:
Young men can handle a dangerous and risky trip like the one refugees are taking better than women and children. Women and children are often left in the refugee camps in neighboring countries while the men decide to leave the camps in order to take the risky and often deadly trip to Europe by boat. According to statistics, the split between men and women in refugee camps is almost fifty/fifty. The number of Syrian refugees is currently approaching 4 million, with UN data showing women and children make up over three-quarters of that total. In Lebanon, the majority in the refugee’s camps are actually women and children. The families then stay behind and wait until the men have made the trip to Europe, applied for asylum and then are able to have the rest of their families follow in a much safer way.
Another reason is that a lot of women and children die on their way to Europe. The majority of those who have died in the Mediterranean waves are women and children. Men are usually physically stronger and will live longer in the water than women and children. This theory can be supported by the gender division of the survivors during the disaster in Estonia. A study of 18 catastrophes over the past 300 years was carried out by Swedish researchers Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixon and shows that captains and their crew (men) are 18.7 per cent more likely to survive a shipwreck than their passengers. The research also showed that out of 15,000 people who died in 18 sinkings, only 17.8 per cent of woman survived compared with 34.5 per cent of men.
Families that travel together in a big group have a harder time with the logistics, simply because it’s hard to look after multiple people. Often the groups get stuck in countries on the way, don’t have enough energy for everyone to continue or decide to stay in the first place where they feel safe. It’s also easier for men travelling by themselves to get past border patrol or military than it would be if a whole family was travelling along.
Last but not least: No one would send their daughter to do this trip by herself. No one. The risks for a girl travelling by herself on a dangerous route such as from Syria to Europe, are too high. Along the coastline, criminal gangs are reportedly charging Syrian families tens of thousands of dollars to transport them to Greece. According to the UN, women and children are at an extremely high risk of sexual abuse, violence and exploitation on the route from a war zone to a safe zone. Much more so than men. Sending your young daughter instead of son is basically guaranteeing exploitation and abuse. No sane parent would do that.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/content/five-explanations-to-why-the-majority-of-refugees/
Denial much?
You didn't google the Coudenhove Kalergi plan by any change did you? Might learn more than copying arguments from a Soros aligned website.
There is a small amount of truth in each of these reasons but they are also true of many other refugee crises over the decades and yet only this one has such a huge gender imbalance. There is also a real question of why you would leave your women and children behind in a war zone.
Since when do MEN leave & ABANDON the women & children? That is all the proof you need you right there. Those such as @politikhos are DELUSIONAL.