Eurozone crisis live: Unemployment rate hits new high of 11.1%

[Hasbara Buster]

In the long-term, the collapse of the imperialist EU might actually be good for the rest of the world. We might see a more just world order. People in Africa, the Middle East, South America and all of Asia deserve to live in peace and dignity as well. Wealth must be shared by humanity.

 

[HÖLDERLIN]

In the long-term, the collapse of the imperialist EU might actually be good for the rest of the world. We might see a more just world order. People in Africa, the Middle East, South America and all of Asia deserve to live in peace and dignity as well. Wealth must be shared by humanity.

So which factors exactly would become effective and help the so called Third World to blossom if the E.U. would collapse?

 

[Hello_10]

ECB's Coeure warns against betting on euro collapse

British Media lives in a 'Fantasy' that Euro will survive somehow, a day dream. and if someone says otherwise, they then start writing that soon Aliens will come and start eating Human. means, they just can't accept the truths/ a blindness they have right now to ignore the facts. and Reuters is one of those British/Australian Media.......

Euro is set to collapse within 3 months to 5 years time.....

 

[Hello_10]

So which factors exactly would become effective and help the so called Third World to blossom if the E.U. would collapse?

you couldn't get answer from others so I thought I would again answer you, as below

sir, a total fall of US's/EU's economy will result in enormous benefits to developing countries. i remember during recession early 2009, i asked my one friend of Venezuela, "is there any profit to sell oil for the price $27/barrel?" as it was that time? he was working with me as projects engineer that time, Loice Riera, and he answered, "even $27/barrel is a price which includes profit on the top of production cost." we clearly meant that $50/barrel is a quite reasonable price of oil and anything above it is a gift. but we also discussed that its mainly because of OECD countries who sell products for a very high price due to their high labor cost, so the oil rich nations also need higher price for oil/gas to buy those products from OECD economies. and the final result is, first oil/gas/metal is expansive this way and at the same time products of US/EU is also very expansive, and it all come from the pocket of developing nations, keeping them poor forever

in fact, US produce around 50% of oil it consume and Britain produce around 70% of oil it consume and any fall of their economies US$/Ponds will make them in the position of almost no oil import, after a free fall of their economies, as below.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...me=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=5#ch

its all because, the cheapest coffee on the streets of Australia is sold for around $3.5, the minimum, and the same can be bought for hardly Rs20 in India, a pretty good coffee. while the petrol price is $1.3 in Australia and Rs80 in India? its cheap to drive to a suburb than buying a ticket of bus in Australia and hence, people have more cars in Australia than total population there. less people in the busses, very few in case of Perth I saw. but if the AU$ fall by 400%, say, then people there will be willing to be in busses more than driving cars, obviously?

for example of Indian trade relation with other countries, total oil import bill of India last financial year was around $140bil at the average oil price of $110/barrel last year. and excluding export of refined oil, they consumed oil worth around $120bn and this way there was a loss of around $60bn to $80bn due to the oil price over $50/barrel. and also, until US/EU economies fall, they will have to keep paying over $100bn for import of their products which would cost hardly around $25bn to $30bn if the US$ and Euro suddenly fall, as it will then make their products cheap in terms of exchange rate and also it will then be hard for them to import too much oil/gas/metal, bringing the oil prices well below even $40/barrel for a long period of time. you will then have saving of at least $20bn on the side of import from China also as they will then have cheap energy/metal to manufacture the products, they export to India.......

this way I may say, a sudden fall of US$/Euro will result in around $150bn to $200bn saving for India on the import side and at the same time India may lose upto $150bn on the export side of combine merchandise/service export, no more than that. this way, you will lose jobs of maximum $150bn export but it will result in minimum saving of $150bn on import side. and then we may invest that $150bn in infrastructure to first generate jobs of $150bn in India and also to have new infrastructure. this way, until India wants to keep jobs of $150bn export, they will have to keep paying price of it on the side of import. while from my side I may say, India is not as much dependent on export as China+ASEAN+OECD and any loss on the export side may be fulfilled by increase in domestic consumption on long term. but after that, being more capable to import high tech products at low price from OECD nations, will finally help them have a better shape of Industries, which they can't right now as they simply can't import high tech products so 'freely', also. as, they are too expansive in the current exchange rate terms of US$/Euro.........

fall of US/EU economies will bring huge benefits to developing nations which can't be stated in one post...........

 

[Hello_10]

‘Fall of EU could help a new Hitler come to power’

The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself.*

Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.

Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”

RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?

Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.

As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.


RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment.

GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be. That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.

The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.

RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?

GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?

RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?

GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.

If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.

Stalin's USSR: The high price of becoming superpower

RT: In Russia there are two dimensionally different takes on [Joseph] Stalin. Some say he was a great guy who won WWII and actually gave the country an immense boost. Others say he actually undermined the economy which led to eventual collapse of the USSR. What is your take on that?

GR: When Stalin died Winston Churchill reportedly said “Stalin found Russia with the wooden plough and he left it with an atomic bomb.” I think that statement sums up Stalin’s achievement. That achievement was to modernize, urbanize and industrialize the Soviet Union, to build the foundations of a country that was able to withstand the German invasion in 1941 and go on to the victory over fascism and also the foundations to the post-war rise of the Soviet Union to a nuclear superpower.

If Russia is still a great country to play an important role in the world and with an enormous potential for the future it’s because of the foundations that were laid during Stalin’s time.

Having said that, of course, there could be lots of questions and discussions as to whether or not that modernization of Russia had to have been as brutal as it was. Because of course Stalin might modernize Russia and the Soviet Union…

RT: You mean the post-war Russia?

GR: No, the pre-war Russia as well. Stalin was also responsible for the deaths of the millions of people. Take another discussion about the cost, you can have a discussion about whether or not different courses in action of events would have been perhaps more effective than the ones Stalin pursued. But nevertheless in the end it is a historical fact that the Soviet Union was successfully modernized under Stalin, although on a very brutal basis.

RT: So the cause of the collapse [of the Soviet Union] should really be put on other leaders who came after Stalin?

GR: Of course the system that Stalin built and which persisted after his death, some of the most brutal aspects of the system disappeared after his death, such as the mass terror. Essentially, it was still Stalin’s system. But that system was very defective in many ways. Those defects in the end resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

RT: Was it also the mentality that Stalin tried to establish in the Soviet Union, the mentality that he left after his death was to blame for the collapse?

GR: It depends on what kind of mentality you’re talking about. Stalin was a Communist. He believed in Socialism. He believed in a Communist utopia. He believed in the Soviet system. He believed that the Soviet Union was a model for the whole world. One doesn’t have to agree with his beliefs or his vision, but one has to recognize the power of that vision. The power of that vision was very important in the historical development of the Soviet Union, both when Stalin was alive and then subsequently.

What happens is Gorbachev comes along and he questions and challenges that traditional Soviet image and he attempts to reform the system in quite a radical way. That resulted in the eventual collapse of the system.

RT: People in the West mostly see Stalin as the politician who led Russia to win WWII. In Russia there is no doubt we won the war. Without Russia the war would not be won. Are there doubts in the West about that?

GR: There are some people in the West who would want to deny. Not Russia – the Soviet Union won WWII – because that is an uncomfortable truth for them to face. That this authoritarian socialist regime, that this dictator Stalin was responsible for the defeat of Hitler. And in effect he was responsible.

RT: As opposed to Nazis?

GR: This kind of people also tends to have a view that there was no great difference between Nazism and Communism, Stalin and Hitler, which is as bad as each other. I don’t think that would be the most prevalent view. The most prevalent view would recognize the differences between the Nazism and Communism and the differences between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was a far more dangerous dictator for the world than Stalin ever was.

I think there is nowadays an increased recognition of the Soviet role in WWII. Of course there have always been people who want to present a different, distorted view of the events of WWII.

RT: You’re someone who knows a lot about that and you studied Stalin. You wouldn’t say that at this point in the West there is a deficit of knowledge about Stalin and Russia’s role in WWII?

GR: There is always a deficit of historic knowledge about the world, not just in the West but in Russia as well. I don’t think that this deficit is too great. As I said there is nowadays much greater recognition of the Soviet role in WWII… particularly since the end of the Cold War.

During the Cold War there existed an ideological struggle going on. Part of that ideological brawl was an effort by Western Cold Warriors to deny the reality of the Soviet role defeating the Nazis. Western Cold War era views still exist and are still making the same kind of arguments, but they are not as widespread and effective as they used to be.

‘Fall of EU could help a new Hitler come to power’ — RT

 

[Donatello]

....and Britain's GDP contracted by another 0.7%!

Kheh.

 

[Audio]

....and Britain's GDP contracted by another 0.7%!

Kheh.

They eat squirrel's in the UK too!

Euro is set to collapse within 3 months to 5 years time.....

I think in 5 years time you will still be writing that same old sentence...will be interesting when i call you on your bluff in 3 months (thats if i'll still remember-though looking at the threads you started and their chronology it seems there will be plenty of reminders).

 

[Hello_10]

I think in 5 years time you will still be writing that same old sentence...will be interesting when i call you on your bluff in 3 months (thats if i'll still remember-though looking at the threads you started and their chronology it seems there will be plenty of reminders).

sir, US and majority of European economies had already been collapsed in late 2008 but heavy bail-outs have kept them on a slow pace. otherwise if you check, then Debt/GDP ratio of Britain was 50% in early 2008 and it would be around 100% by end of this year, while its GDP is still 5% less than early 2008? Debt/GDP of US was 70% in early 2008 and right now its 105%. then the reason is, they are breaking Debt Ceilings and borrowing more to avoid any suddney fall, like how US borrowed so much in 2011 to pay its pensioners/welfare/medical etc.....

hence I said 3 months as, a country like Germany knows that they are giving debt to those who won't be able to return in future, very less likely. if someone borrow money for investments then they will do business of that money and return in future, but how the country like Spain/ Greece/ Britain etc will return the debt they are borrowing? therefore, it is possible that Germany may kick EU within 3 months and then we will see a clear collapse of Euro. but I said 5 years as, even if Germany wishes to stick with whole EU for next 5 years, till then the whole Euro zone will also get so much indebted that whole EU+Germany will altogether get collapsed, that would occur by next 5 years

its upto Germany, whether they want to go in a deep sea with other EU's friends or not, which may extend collapse of EU for upto 5 years

Debt/GDP ratio of Countries till end 2011

United Kingdom 85.7 2011 est.

United States 104.1 2011 est.

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Audio]

sir, US and majority of European economies had already been collapsed in late 2008 but heavy bail-outs have kept them on a slow pace. otherwise if you check, then Debt/GDP ratio of Britain was 50% in early 2008 and it would be around 100% by end of this year, while its GDP is still 5% less than early 2008? Debt/GDP of US was 70% in early 2008 and right now its 105%. then the reason is, they are breaking Debt Ceilings and borrowing more to avoid any suddney fall, like how US borrowed so much in 2011 to pay its pensioners/welfare/medical etc.....

hence I said 3 months as, a country like Germany knows that they are giving debt to those who won't be able to return in future, very less likely. if someone borrow money for investments then they will do business of that money and return in future, but how the country like Spain/ Greece/ Britain etc will return the debt they are borrowing? therefore, it is possible that Germany may kick EU within 3 months and then we will see a clear collapse of Euro. but I said 5 years as, even if Germany wishes to stick with whole EU for next 5 years, till then the whole Euro zone will also get so much indebted that whole EU+Germany will altogether get collapsed, that would occur by next 5 years

its upto Germany, whether they want to go in a deep sea with other EU's friends or not, which may extend collapse of EU for upto 5 years

Yes, yes all true, Germany made a good move of restructuring in the early 2000's, all of these structural reforms are in one way or another being implemented in the rest of the countries, in the most indebted ones too. Question here is only if the international money market will be willing to lend money until the results of these reforms start showing in real life like balancing budgets, geting back on track with growth (modest but growth nevertheless), increased productivity etc....
Media is faking brainwashing us every day with this...we must do this, we should have done that, we ought to do this to make that better and to ultimately pull through etc...every day on the news. People take less breaks now while on the job, that's for sure.

Interesting times ahead in any case...

 

[Domobran7]

‘Fall of EU could help a new Hitler come to power’

The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself.*

Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.

Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”

RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?

Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.

As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.


RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment.

GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be. That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.

The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.

RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?

GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?

RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?

GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.

If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.

Stalin's USSR: The high price of becoming superpower

RT: In Russia there are two dimensionally different takes on [Joseph] Stalin. Some say he was a great guy who won WWII and actually gave the country an immense boost. Others say he actually undermined the economy which led to eventual collapse of the USSR. What is your take on that?

GR: When Stalin died Winston Churchill reportedly said “Stalin found Russia with the wooden plough and he left it with an atomic bomb.” I think that statement sums up Stalin’s achievement. That achievement was to modernize, urbanize and industrialize the Soviet Union, to build the foundations of a country that was able to withstand the German invasion in 1941 and go on to the victory over fascism and also the foundations to the post-war rise of the Soviet Union to a nuclear superpower.

If Russia is still a great country to play an important role in the world and with an enormous potential for the future it’s because of the foundations that were laid during Stalin’s time.

Having said that, of course, there could be lots of questions and discussions as to whether or not that modernization of Russia had to have been as brutal as it was. Because of course Stalin might modernize Russia and the Soviet Union…

RT: You mean the post-war Russia?

GR: No, the pre-war Russia as well. Stalin was also responsible for the deaths of the millions of people. Take another discussion about the cost, you can have a discussion about whether or not different courses in action of events would have been perhaps more effective than the ones Stalin pursued. But nevertheless in the end it is a historical fact that the Soviet Union was successfully modernized under Stalin, although on a very brutal basis.

RT: So the cause of the collapse [of the Soviet Union] should really be put on other leaders who came after Stalin?

GR: Of course the system that Stalin built and which persisted after his death, some of the most brutal aspects of the system disappeared after his death, such as the mass terror. Essentially, it was still Stalin’s system. But that system was very defective in many ways. Those defects in the end resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

RT: Was it also the mentality that Stalin tried to establish in the Soviet Union, the mentality that he left after his death was to blame for the collapse?

GR: It depends on what kind of mentality you’re talking about. Stalin was a Communist. He believed in Socialism. He believed in a Communist utopia. He believed in the Soviet system. He believed that the Soviet Union was a model for the whole world. One doesn’t have to agree with his beliefs or his vision, but one has to recognize the power of that vision. The power of that vision was very important in the historical development of the Soviet Union, both when Stalin was alive and then subsequently.

What happens is Gorbachev comes along and he questions and challenges that traditional Soviet image and he attempts to reform the system in quite a radical way. That resulted in the eventual collapse of the system.

RT: People in the West mostly see Stalin as the politician who led Russia to win WWII. In Russia there is no doubt we won the war. Without Russia the war would not be won. Are there doubts in the West about that?

GR: There are some people in the West who would want to deny. Not Russia – the Soviet Union won WWII – because that is an uncomfortable truth for them to face. That this authoritarian socialist regime, that this dictator Stalin was responsible for the defeat of Hitler. And in effect he was responsible.

RT: As opposed to Nazis?

GR: This kind of people also tends to have a view that there was no great difference between Nazism and Communism, Stalin and Hitler, which is as bad as each other. I don’t think that would be the most prevalent view. The most prevalent view would recognize the differences between the Nazism and Communism and the differences between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was a far more dangerous dictator for the world than Stalin ever was.

I think there is nowadays an increased recognition of the Soviet role in WWII. Of course there have always been people who want to present a different, distorted view of the events of WWII.

RT: You’re someone who knows a lot about that and you studied Stalin. You wouldn’t say that at this point in the West there is a deficit of knowledge about Stalin and Russia’s role in WWII?

GR: There is always a deficit of historic knowledge about the world, not just in the West but in Russia as well. I don’t think that this deficit is too great. As I said there is nowadays much greater recognition of the Soviet role in WWII… particularly since the end of the Cold War.

During the Cold War there existed an ideological struggle going on. Part of that ideological brawl was an effort by Western Cold Warriors to deny the reality of the Soviet role defeating the Nazis. Western Cold War era views still exist and are still making the same kind of arguments, but they are not as widespread and effective as they used to be.

‘Fall of EU could help a new Hitler come to power’ — RT

EU itself and its imperialistic policies are one of causes of rise of nationalism.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

So which factors exactly would become effective and help the so called Third World to blossom if the E.U. would collapse?

Libya is a good example, they were doing very well but the West basically destroyed everything they had build for decades. If there are no (western) bullying powers, the "third world" will eventually rise in their own pace. Now they are merely exploited, and in some cases destroyed by the IMF, World Bank, NATO and other so-called "international" institutions. Actually, western media is a far bigger threat than all those combined.

 

[INDIC]

Libya is a good example, they were doing very well but the West basically destroyed everything they had build for decades. If there are no (western) bullying powers, the "third world" will eventually rise in their own pace. Now they are merely exploited, and in some cases destroyed by the IMF, World Bank, NATO and other so-called "international" institutions. Actually, western media is a far bigger threat than all those combined.

Do you really believe in Gadaffi's Green book. Libya survived Gadaffi's fantasies because they have oil.

 

[HÖLDERLIN]

Libya is a good example, they were doing very well but the West basically destroyed everything they had build for decades. Now they are merely exploited, and in some cases destroyed by the IMF, World Bank, NATO and other so-called "international" institutions. Actually, western media is a far bigger threat than all those combined.

Yes, the extremists are in reality allies with the West, they work for and serve the West. Al Qaeda finished the job in Libya and is now terrorizing Syria. Al Qaeda and the CIA are constantly talking and discussing with each other, while at the same time western media is showing the world how evil Al Qaeda is, and how they are the enemy of the West

My facts are straight, al Qaeda is a CIA creation. CIA is the biggest and most sophisticated terrorist organization in the world.

Because only non-Muslims are allowed to kill people.

I said the West has the worst record in human history when it comes to genocides and intolerance.

I have no reason to consider China a major threat to the Muslim world like the West.

Oldman or other American/western right-wing nutjobs won't do research, because they are not searching for the truth. They don't care about right and wrong.

Whenever I "come across" Indians on the net, they always support the West, westerrn aggression and everything the West says and does. They act like they are more western than westerners themselves and get extremely irritated when somebody criticizes the West, even if that person criticizing is a westerner!

Who benefits? Always the Zionist entity and the West.

How can we kiss more western and zionist ****?

All praise be to God, let's hope all those terrorists dressed as "soldiers" will meet the same fate.

It doesn't matter what the "world" thinks, what matters is the truth. The "world" thinks what western media tells them to think

Except the idiotic western music....

May I ask the reason you have to stay on the soil of a cultural sphere you so abysmally despise?

 

[Hasbara Buster]

May I ask the reason you have to stay on the soil of a cultural sphere you so abysmally despise?

Can you disprove anything I've said?

I don't despise any people, I despise what is injust and wrong.

I've learned the truth about western imperialism mostly from western scholars who live in the West.

Not that it's relevant or matters at all, but I'm actually going to return to my country of origin.

 

[HÖLDERLIN]

Can you disprove anything I've said?

Yes, I am sure I could "disprove" everything quoted, keeping in mind that some things just can't be fully disproven in the same way you disprove a mathematical equation, which is of course no evidence in favor of their validity. But I highly doubt it would be worth the effort. It's practically impossible to discuss with people who clinge on ideologies, as religion or ressentiment-based conspiracy theories. If you are talking to nationalsocialists, they alledge you to be infiltrated by "Jewish propaganda", marxists claim you are mislead by the "class enemy" and if you don't believe in god, you are in the clutches of the "devil" or just an "infidel". The list goes on and on, but there is always the imaginary bogeyman with this grande evil plan who wants to feast on your misery. In your case, it seems to be "the West", which inner entity I would love to learn about. Especially on the internet, where you can dwell on shady blogs by hobby novelists and rabble-rousers and cherry pick your "facts" while disregarding professional journalism as "propaganda", it is easy to get caught up in a cozy construct of right and wrong, black and white, west and east. Now this wouldn't be a matter of concern to me, if these people only weren't the ones who can so easily snap and turn violent. From Breivik radicalizing himself to the point where he is so convinced that there is a political plan behind immigration in Norway ("cultural marxism"), with the goal to destroy it's culture, to Salafi building bombs in their mother's basements in the believe to defend themselves against the kuffar. It's always the same pattern, with the underlying origins often so trivial as sexual frustration or identity crisis. It's a societal task to take care of these people by taking them serious and make them relearn critical thinking instead of feeding them more overgeneralizing bullshit about the nonexisting goals of highly heterogenous constructs as "the West".