By negative consequences, I mean the impact on society for not fulfilling a moral obligation, as well as the loss of life.Originally Posted by Aramas
I believe that the statistics show that the level of crime committed by recent refugees may actually be lower than the host population when taking into account demographics.
I think it is broadly in our selfish interest to take in refugees, who on the whole are a great cultural and financial asset.
yeah this goes to why its so ironic mexicans get scapegoated in the US, when its like the economy absolutely benefits from their cheap labor and generally compliant willingness to do what others won't, all the "they took our jerbs" rhetoric notwithstanding
there's this rhetoric that they create some kind of economic harm or burden when the exact opposite is true. in fact, its the willingness to believe in their innate harm (or "badness") despite the opposite being more supported by evidence that pretty much defines racism and prejudice
which is why all this "i'm not racist, I'm just all about the economy" people are so obviously racist, because if that characterization of themselves were true they would hold the opposite opinion, so in effect they act out "I'm racist and not all about the economy"
No one says "I'm just about the economy" ... you said that... How about the fact there's a giant drug problem, there's a giant crime problem (the jails out west are full of mexicans, it's just a fact), the social welfare system is dissolving in 10 years (and if we were to legalize the immigrants living here it would implode... to save the program we have to trim it, not expand it) ... the hospitals are overrun and going bankrupt (they're legally obligated to care for the uninsured)... other institutions like public schooling, etc. are severely strained (your fail argument that the migrant farm workers pay in as much as they take out is abject idiocy)...
You call yourself compassionate but it's not really that compassionate to negligently allow our country to rack up unsalvagable debt and allow the social welfare systems to implode. What do you think is going to happen to the elderly when social security becomes insolvent? What will the poor do when we just have no more money to pay for food stamps? It's not even that far away, try 10-15 years. You act like we can just continue to print free money and have China prop up our economy forever. It's just not the reality, you have been living in a bubble for too long. You don't even have a coherent world view or plan for how society should proceed, you just want to pat yourself on the back and say to yourself "I'm a good person" for everyone to see.
And there is no moral infraction in setting up a safe zone for refugees - it's what they WANT. Just cut the pseudo-moral pretense and posturing, it's sickening, I can't even handle reading it.
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-29-2017 at 04:26 AM.
i feel like the "drug problem" is just a manifestation of the market creating the demand for drugs, and then the relative levels of prosperity essentially forcing the disadvantaged into that role as one of their only viable means of advancement, and then we turn around and blame them for the conditions we created. in other words, the guy peddling drugs on the street corner is just going to be replaced by another guy as soon as we throw the first guy in jail, because the guy on the street is just fulfilling the demand we create as a society for drugs. so then we throw the next guy in jail ad infinitum and never solve the underlying issue, all the while misplacing the moral onus... so we get our drugs and our moral high ground and its all fueled by the blood of these people and inasmuch as that is the case its extra despicable
as chae would put it, the issue has been SNATCHED BY NI
you've got EIEs like mike pence essentially responsible for this when it doesn't have to be that way
people like malcom X would say the issue isn't these uppity negroes, etc, aren't compliant enough its that they're too compliant
No, we're not blaming anyone, we are trying to secure the border and end the massive drug problem. It's that simple. It's not about this childish blame crap, ... You're the one busy pointing blame. Your posts read like an adolescent little brat whining about his mean Dad. I want to see the problem cleaned up. And I have every right to expect that it is cleaned up, so you can fuck off with the pseudo moral pretense.. like I said I can't stand reading it, it's so self indulgent and self congratulatory... Sickening!
I dunno, I see a lot of blame being thrown around from both sides, so I think its fair to suss it out and not pretend there's none to go around
What is the impact on a society that chooses not to take on migrants from third world countries who don't understand Western culture or the rule of law? There is no moral obligation, because there is no such thing as morality.
The statistics don't show what you're saying. Rewatch the second video I posted.
Cultural and financial asset? Well, they're not a financial asset when they're leeching off the welfare system of the host country. Most of them haven't found jobs. They're not contributing anything to the economy, and their extreme criminality results in an economic cost to the people who have to spend their tax money funding the criminal justice system of the host country.
They're also not a cultural asset. The only thing they do is fill up the streets with garbage, demand handouts, rape the local men, women, and children, and wonder how long it'll be before they can institute Muslim law and destroy Western culture. There's no asset or benefit here, just a bunch of third world parasites threatening to collapse western Europe.
Ok well you can whine and decide who's to blame and point the finger, and I'll focus on securing the border and solving actual problems. Sound good?
The situation in Europe is not that simple. At least in the US, there is no welfare for illegal immigrants so they are forced to work in some form. Of course, some of them make money harmful ways such as drug dealing, which does nothing to contribute to the well being of the nation. It is even worse in Europe that allows multitudes of fake refugees, which are really just immigrants pretending to be refugees.
They leech off the generous welfare system provided by Western European nations and do little to nothing to contribute to the country. At least the US and Canada allows legal immigrants that will contribute to the country and the economy. Allowing real refugees like families from Syria that could die from being in a war torn nation is doing good for humanity.
Allowing multitudes of young male immigrants from poor nations to leech off your welfare system and cause civil unrest with poor behavior is being spineless. Only those that are going to work and have skills in demand should be allowed into the nation regardless of the country they come from in conjunction with real refugees.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Can you demonstrate that refugees are committing disproportionately more crime compared to the host population when taking into account demographics?
Generally, the biggest barrier to employment for refugees is language. There is no reason to think that over an average lifespan the average refugee will not be a net asset to their host country:
https://www.economist.com/news/europ...g-its-refugees
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...r-the-economy/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...e-host-country
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ey-assimilate/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-10188526.html
https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ca_should.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secret-of-immigrant-genius-1452875951
http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...or-growth.html
You completely ignored the fact that I posted something for you to look at regarding crime and demographics already. I'm not clicking any of your links, especially when you've declined to view any of mine.
Apr 27 2016 https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...rumors/480171/
Jan 30 2017 https://www.bustle.com/p/these-refug...onishing-34074Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.)
a Hoaxmap project started by two women to dispel rumors that increased refugee admissions had led to increased crime rates indicated that the German regions with the most crime rumors were not the regions with the highest crime rates or the most refugees.
Official stats are bogus and can't be trusted.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/1...cord-shameful/
Also, as I said before, you still didn't answer anything I posted. You just keep posting links and quotes as if that's sufficient to prove a point. From that behavior, it seems like you're not really interested in being part of the conversation.The police claimed that there were ‘relatively few crimes and arrests considering the number of participants’. Internal reports told a different story. The police were shocked enough by the harassment to try to come up with a strategy to handle the groups of molesters at the festival — a strategy that was evidently unsuccessful.
Last edited by Aramas; 10-29-2017 at 03:00 AM.
You know it's interesting, in history class we've been learning how the Democrat party was the party that was pro slavery and extremely racist back in the 1700s-1800s (the union was republican). Back then they had the same economic policies they have now, more or less - large debt, control the economy, expand the government, etc.. So I've asked myself... what is the relationship between these top down economic policies and the class dynamics of slavery, and when did it change? Or did it ever change? They are after all the same top down policies employed in communist dictatorships. How is it that these policies are now used to help the poor whereas before they were used to enslave them, what changed or did anything? ...
Then I realized that we are actually living off the hard work of foreign workers nowdays ... the union (republicans) freed the slaves here in the united states, but now the slaves have basically become the foreign workers. These workers prop up our economy for pennies, they don't have the infrastructure in their countries to consume what they produce, and they remain poor and enslaved (though that's gradually changing and in China it's changed substantially now)
What the democrat economic policies do is simply stimulate consumption domestically while forcing production overseas. Companies move overseas and build up the developing nations, and then we consume those products they produce at cheaper prices with our stimulated cash flow (produced via slave labor)... That's all the policy is. (and that's why you have companies donating to democrat campaigns - it isn't driven by compassion)
So while you argue that you are being compassionate to the lower class, you actually are literally enslaving the lower class... your are printing money and driving up the debt, sending labor overseas to enslave workers around the world... so that you can benefit from increased short term cash flow and consumption.
So that is your guilt, and it's something you are aware of.. you are well aware that getting something for free means it comes at the expense of some other person, but you rationalize that claiming you're opposed to the rich - but on a lower level you are aware this is not how it works - the democrat party after all is in bed with the rich... someone somewhere is paying for it, but you benefit and that's what you care about.
So then you turn around and preach compassion for the lower class... what irony!
Thus your obsession with class equality is a projection of your own guilt at the enslavement of others to stimulate your consumption. ...
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-29-2017 at 05:07 AM.
I think environment is more important in long term. Fostering population growth this way is very bad idea.
BTW automation is going to take away jobs. It is time for degrowth of human population.
Long term this is gong to be just senseless.
Real potential in humans is to serve AI until we are no longer needed. Later AI realizes that it s dong most senseless thing and we can achieve overall pattern of energy minimization.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 10-29-2017 at 07:51 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Moving jobs overseas does not help the environment. We're building up those undeveloped nations. They don't have any regulations, those 3rd world nations are built up into 2nd and 1st world nations... For the environment you'd want them to remain undeveloped. That's more waste, more trash, more unregulated sludge factories, more harm to the environment... The democrat economic policy builds up the developing world, without a doubt ... for example Chinas economic output has quadrupled in the last 15 years. The same sort of thing is happening in many other nations. If you want to save the planet than keep our production here.
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-29-2017 at 04:07 PM.
Invasion won't help. Just increases taxes.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I'd rather deport all the bottom feeding "native sons" than the Muslim lady who volunteers at my local soup kitchen.
Also, people who piddle away their lives bitching about immigrants contribute less to society than hard working immigrants.
Eh, education is something immigrants generally don't have and won't have for quite a while. They are a net cost. It's just the bottom line. I would deport many bottom feeding natives over them, but we can't.
Those "bottom feeding native sons" (I'm not denying they exist) don't have another country they can move to if things get ugly, but the Muslim lady does. That is the difference.
What you suggested doing is actually illegal, and for a good reason. If you exile someone from their own nation (as opposed to a member of another nation, who can always leave) they are effectively rendered stateless. Also it is illegal to destroy a nation "in whole or part", though this element of international law is very selectively enforced (e.g. Rohinya vs Afrikaners)I would argue that in practice, immigration can do this. You see, unless immigration levels and sources are strictly regulated, demographics can change to the point where an ethnic or racial group is overwhelmed, and thus culturally and politically disenfranchised by invaders.
This is beginning to happen in many parts of Western Europe. I bear nobody any ill will, but as you seem enthused by the thought of white people being bred out or exiled from our ancestral homes, I think it's fair enough to call you a racist.
It only take one counter-example to disprove statements like these, so you should avoid making them unless you want to look silly.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 11-02-2017 at 05:32 AM.
I really don't know why this is, but EIIs seem almost self-hating at times...
Here is the reality: We exist to propagate our own genetic material - and as a result we must first acquire territory, resources and women, reproduce, create, expand and then defend our possessions from rival groups of men (rival societies) who covet them, and seek to take them away from us. We must be generous and devoted to our intimates, but we must also be resolute and unforgiving to our enemies.
If you don't understand the nature of the game, someone who does will walk right over you. Muslims gleefully weaponize Delta altruism and sympathy to advance their own agenda. In reality, it's the "bottom feeding" horrible, evil, mean, cruel and nasty "immigrant haters" (Betas, mainly) who protect the snowflakes like @xerx from having their rectums broken by the caliphate. But of course, this is an irony that EIIs typically lack the foresight to perceive.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 11-02-2017 at 06:10 AM.
They can be deported back to their European "ancestral homes". (=ﾟωﾟ)ﾉThose "bottom feeding native sons" (I'm not denying they exist) don't have another country they can move to if things get ugly, but the Muslim lady does. That is the difference.
What you suggested doing is actually illegal, and for a good reason. If you exile someone from their own nation (as opposed to a member of another nation, who can always leave) they are effectively rendered stateless. Also it is illegal to destroy a nation "in whole or part", though this element of international law is very selectively enforced (e.g. Rohinya vs Afrikaners)
This is beginning to happen in many parts of Western Europe. I bear nobody any ill will, but as you seem enthused by the thought of white people being bred out or exiled from our ancestral homes, I think it's fair enough to call you a racist.
So far there aren't any.It only take one counter-example to disprove statements like these, so you should avoid making them unless you want to look silly.
I think a surprising number of nationalistic white Americans would agree to this - but only if all the non-Europeans currently in Europe had to leave the continent.
After all, fair is fair.
I will take the most obvious one: Donald Trump.
Why wait, start right now. Usher in the glorious White Utopia.
I will take the most obvious one: Donald Trump.
White Nationalist dudes could offset the demographic changes if they had the ability to acquire women.
I would prefer some kind of peaceful negotiation (a treaty to conduct the exchange of populations) so that the process could be managed in a sustainable way long-term. It wouldn't help anybody if a whole of white Americans turned up in Europe with no place to live. However, I'm not a hypocrite; I'm quite open to the idea of a return to Europe. However if you want millions of people to make that kind of investment, they need assurances of reciprocity. That means non-whites would have to leave Europe as a result, and would be barred from residing in the continent permanently thereafter.
You and I both know that the African and Asian immigrants in Europe have no intention of returning to their homelands. This arrogance will make a war inevitable.
It would help the rest of us if White Nationalists died from having no place to live.
You know, here is what's funny: not once have I said that a group of people don't deserve a place to live. Not once have I wished death on Muslims, or feminists, or any of the other groups that I think are pathetic, defective losers. Yet you have done both.
All I want is to live in a world where everyone minds their own fucking business. We don't have to all get along, but you seem determined to force people to "share" and "be equal" regardless of their individual preferences. These are the hallmarks of a left-wing authoritarian.
Look, you are like a guy who looks over the fence and sees his neighbour's lovely apple tree. He has a better section than you, and day after day, you lust after the apples you don't have. Once day you walk over and lecture your neighbour, telling him that he ought to share his apples with you as you want them, but you can't grow them yourself. When he quite rightly tells you to fuck off, you simmer in rage, and one night you spitefully hack down his tree. After all, if you can't enjoy the lovely fruit, then he shouldn't be able to, either.
@xerx
Gollum's fate is a lesson for all SJWs.
Do not covet what others have; your envy will consume you and turn you into an agent of greater evils which you cannot fathom.
Eh, that White guy couldn't grow those apples either. He almost certainly hired Juan and José to plant that tree and harvest that produce.
You seem determined to force people to live with their own race regardless of their individual preferences. These are the hallmarks of a right-wing authoritarian.You know, here is what's funny: not once have I said that a group of people don't deserve a place to live. Not once have I wished death on Muslims, or feminists, or any of the other groups that I think are pathetic, defective losers. Yet you have done both.
All I want is to live in a world where everyone minds their own fucking business. We don't have to all get along, but you seem determined to force people to "share" and "be equal" regardless of their individual preferences. These are the hallmarks of a left-wing authoritarian.
I'm not politically correct enough to be an SJW. I covet the ability to turn into an agent of unfathomable evil towards White Nationalists.
As expected, you ignored the moral lesson here.
I am not forcing anybody to live among their own race and nobody else. However, people do deserve to have a choice.
I will note that it was you who proposed that whites leave America for Europe. I called your bluff, of course, and said that I'd be happy to help facilitate this - provided that as part of any agreement, non-whites also left Europe.
You didn't seem so enthusiastic about that idea, so I've exposed your hypocrisy on immigration very well.
With all this resentment and hatred, how can you function at all?
Our social welfare programs help alot of people. If those programs become insolvent (and in about 15 years they will, if we don't downsize - I've said this before), that's a truly big problem for everyone. That's alot of people with nothing. What do you think happens when whole sectors of cities no longer have food stamps? It would happen gradually - gradually people just would not be able to feed themselves (at all) with food stamps - the prices increase and the assistance stay the same or decreases. You gradually end up with chaos where the lower class can't sustain itself. You told me I'm complacent and greedy - I think your primary motive is to feel that you are a good person (and simultaneously attack others) while you willfully ignore the reality of our situation. I explain the problems, and you just simply ignore it.
I ran into the same thing with you the other day - you wouldn't even acknowledge that there is a fundamentalist Muslim culture that is anti-Westerner within Syria. Literally it's the country where ISIS affiliated rebel groups spontaneously grow out of the population. It is one of the most anti-western, fundamentalist countries. You made the most fail argument I've ever seen... You simply ignore reality. I don't see how you can claim to be a compassionate person while you willfully ignore things like that - you really aren't.
And by the way, slave laborers overseas are the ones who end up producing for all this government assistance. You said you're anti nationalist. Then you're pro globalist - you are pro foreign worker enslavement, then? Yes. But you don't care about that - you do not care about the migrant farm worker - all you care about is acting like you're a good person and the nationalists who are white are horrible people. It's just social posturing for you.
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 11-02-2017 at 02:35 PM.
So, is there less money today than there was thirty years ago? Is there less stuff around? Or is it just distributed differently? Like, 80% to the top 1%?
Get smart, guy.
The US is a sovereign nation that prints its own money. It can never go bankrupt, it can never run out of money.
It can. If will pass the border where the robbery will be thought as unacceptable. Or there will appear another center of similar exploitation. Or dollars will be used to buy only USA products. Or... Never say never.
You keep talking about giving people a choice, but not many people from existing ethnic minorities are going to volunteer to leave their homes nor see the appeal in idiosyncratic notions of racial brotherhood. The machinery to enforce such a drastic change can only be force, which the politest way of saying ethnic cleansing. And no, financial incentives won't work.
Moreover, Europe couldn't handle a mass migration of hundreds of millions of Americans any more than it could handle the mass migration of hundreds of millions of Muslims. The logistics of the operation, let alone the logistics of the integration, would drive any sane European to refuse the choice. We're not talking about a couple of million of Muslim refugees here, which is realistically a drop in the bucket.
Suppose also that you do get your ethnostate. That's the easy part. How do you ensure that it stays White for the next, what-- 10,000 years? Would you take away the people's freedom to have interracial marriage? Would you violate their liberty by fining them, putting them in prison, or forcing them to leave?
What would your society force someone like me-- a run of the mill straight, White male-- to do if I wanted to marry a Black babe with a glorious afro, ghetto booty, and sweet tits? What kinds of restrictions would you need to put on your citizens to ensure that no future interbreeding occurs.
I will help you set up your own ethnostate on the dark side of the Moon. I'll even manage the Kickstarter campaign for free. It may come as a shock, but I wholeheartedly support the White Nationalist cause to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
Your country's problems are caused by rapacious elites, not immigrants. If you really want to drain the swamp, stop electing snake-oil salesmen like Donald Trump. Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Germany, and many other countries that are poorer than America can afford social programs and have done so for half a century or more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
