https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uS34ykPgEoA?feature=share here is the video. One thing I don't understand is why, if a Christian becomes convinced that the Trinity is false, they feel the need to convert to Islam. There are many forms of non-Trinitarian Christianity available. What are your thoughts on this, Christians? (I identify as non-theistic.)

How come european leaders allow the muslim invasion to Europe?

I don't understand why European authorities have difficulty effectively addressing this issue. They could permit the use of lethal force if necessary to halt illegal immigration or prioritize mass arrests and deportations although these steps may be controversial. In recent years, many European countries have faced increasing pressure from public opinion regarding immigration, leading to a contentious debate about how to manage these flows. Some argue that allowing for stricter measures could deter illegal entry, while others advocate for more humane approaches. Alternatively, they might consider employing illegal migrants as cheap labor in regulated sectors where they can be monitored. This approach mirrors practices in Gulf states, where cheap laborers are kept separate from the main population in a highly controlled environment. Such a system allows these nations to meet labor demands without the complexities of integration. In Europe, acknowledging that human rights do not apply uniformly is controversial but brings to light the differing priorities of nations when it comes to immigration policies. Some argue that the rights of citizens should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, especially in contexts where public safety and social cohesion are perceived to be at risk. A more effective approach but extremely controversial for European states would be to distinguish between cheap laborers and unassimilated immigrants, separating them from the core population. This could involve placing these individuals in specific sectors, perhaps in industries that rely heavily on labor but are closely monitored, without granting the possibility of citizenship, as those in these categories may be less likely to assimilate. The focus should instead be on integrating educated and affluent immigrants, who are generally more likely to adapt to and embrace the culture of their new country. For instance, an immigrant engaged in academic or business pursuits often has the skills and background that align well with Western values and societal norms, making it easier for them to assimilate. This contrasts sharply with individuals performing manual labor, who may face barriers to integration due to language, education, or cultural differences.

The world screams for a "Free Palestine" yet conveniently ignores the four distinct times “Palestinian” leaders refused to free themselves. In 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008, the door to statehood was wide open. They slammed it shut. We are told that Israel is the obstacle to peace. We are told the land was stolen. However, the historical ledger shows a different reality. It shows a century of Israeli pragmatism colliding with “Palestinian” ideological purity. In 1937, the Peel Commission offered the Arabs a state on the vast majority of the land. The Jewish leadership accepted a tiny fraction of the territory because they prioritized sovereignty over size. The Arab leadership rejected it entirely. They wanted it all. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition. Again, the Jews accepted the compromise. Again, Arab leaders chose war over independence. This pattern repeated in 2000 and 2008. Israeli Prime Ministers offered statehood, including almost all of the West Bank and shared control of Jerusalem. These were not symbolic gestures. They were detailed, viable offers for independence. Each time, the answer was rejection, silence, or violence. As an Iranian, I recognize the architecture of this tragedy better than most. I see the fingerprints of the Islamic Republic in this strategy. The regime in Tehran treats the Palestinian people not as a nation to be built, but as a weapon to be wielded against the West. They need perpetual conflict to justify their own radical existence, so they ensure their proxies choose "resistance" over results every single time. There is a profound difference between being robbed and losing a bet. The tragedy of the “Palestinian” cause is not that they were stripped of their land. It is that their leaders, encouraged by foreign puppet masters, repeatedly gambled their children's future on a game of "all or nothing" and lost. You cannot reject the deed to a house on four separate occasions and then claim you are homeless because the locks were changed. That is not oppression. That is the consequence of a century of saying no.

We need to understand the Islamization agenda on all levels. It's a global agenda and has a distinct signature here on the African continent