Conversions Out of Spite: Islam, Orthodoxy, or Emigrating Before 2030

Sarracin, Orthodoxy, or Emigrating Before 2030: The Voter's Surrender

A voter announces they are converting to Sarracin and will vote for 'Sanchismo'. There is no faith in the message. There is surrender. If the adversary is going to govern anyway, they reason, it's better to switch sides than to keep losing. The list of drawbacks is domestic — no ham, no alcohol, an uncomfortable prayer posture —; the list of advantages is pure anger: to put an end at once to what they describe as the gender agenda and official pogre. 'Better sooner than later,' they conclude.

From Political Anger to Religious Conversion

The shift is more about identity calculation than theology. Conversion functions here as a gesture: a way of saying that the political framework is considered lost and that, if the game board doesn't change, it's better to sit elsewhere. The same logic appears in another participant's response: since there will be many Latin Christians in Spain, they argue, ham and alcohol would still be available via Amazon, so the sacrifice would be less than it appears.

The underlying problem is not religion, it's the premise. Whoever assumes the adversary will govern has already stopped discussing platforms and started choosing a refuge.

Why Consider Emigrating Before 2030?

The second door of the debate is the suitcase. 'It's better to emigrate, you still have time, before 2030,' warns one of the messages, predicting 'very ugly things' for those who stay. The immediate response is the logical question: where to? What would have to happen to take that step? No one answered.

The date serves as a symbolic border. There is no concrete event behind it, but it sets a horizon: the moment when, according to this sentiment, the country will have ceased to be what it was. And it leaves a practical problem: without a destination and without a threshold, the threat remains just a phrase.

Orthodox Christianity vs. "Globalism"

The third path that appears is orthodoxy. A participant argues that the true enemy of the global order is not Sunni Sarracin — well-aligned, they say, with the Gulf monarchies — but Eastern Christianity: hence the attacks on Russia, Serbia, Armenia, or the Christian communities of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine. Facing this, the historical repertoire: the pentarchy, the bishop of Rome as one among five patriarchs, the Schism. And a suspicion: that orthodoxy is also an instrument of national policy.

Amidst the doctrinal crossfire, a less spiritual motive emerges: what society offers the environment each person seeks. Here the debate shifts towards comparisons between Muslim-majority countries that mix culture, customs, and even biologically unfounded arguments.

And so it ends: the only year with a firm date in the entire discussion is 2030. No one knows what happens that year, just as no one said which country to go to.