It's effectively the same thing. Immigration is invasion sponsored by governments hostile to their own peoples' interests.Originally Posted by Singu
It's effectively the same thing. Immigration is invasion sponsored by governments hostile to their own peoples' interests.
Borders are artificial constructs which prevent a man from going wherever he wants.
"Borders aren't real, externalities don't exi—" Adam Strange tells himself as he gets packraped by a gang of Somali migrants.
Have you ever met Somali immigrants?
I have. When I lived in another city, a good friend of mine was a Somalian refugee and poet who dedicated a great deal of his time to working with a Somalian youth program in that city. The Somalian community was, out of necessity, a real community in a way that most neighborhoods and subdivisions in wealthy countries are not. They were certainly not out raping anyone, especially because their status as refugees was precarious and they could not afford to commit even petty crimes.
It's interesting you ask this cuz I live in the city with the largest concentration of them and I encounter them all the time.
I haven't been posting in this thread cuz I haven't cared that much about this topic but I did go on a pro immigrant march with my friend cuz her bf is Iraqi and we went through a Somali neighborhood and were thanked (BTW my friends bfs uncle worked for a us company during the war and received death threats for that so was escaping to the us and then trump blocked him from coming haha isn't that fucked up? Shouldn't have helped us, I guess. That is 1 thing that makes trump a prick as far as im concerned. If anybody deserves to escape to the us it's someone who put their fucking life on the line for us lol)
Anyway, to be fair, out of the people I know who deal with them in this city most (otherwise liberal leaning!) ones hate them for one reason or another... what I know about is relatively petty compared to rape but pro Islam morality that's inconvenient like if they're cashiers they demand nobody with pork is allowed in their aisle and if they drive an uber they refuse to pick up people who have had alcohol, stuff like that. (Basically gangrape. Jk, but entitlement, sure)
The social worker I know complains that they always lie and cheat to get extra funds and whatnot. So that's something the political ppl mention besides rape and murder.
My small experiences:
*When my son was a baby I had a Somali professional driver take us to the dr who held the carseat over his head and ran and it freaked me out. Also he picked up a Somali chick so I had to move to the front seat so she didn't have to sit there per some kind of rule.
*Obnoxiousness on the city bus like loud teenage boys and fighting women... this could be anyone, but enough Somalis that they were singled out in my head in this regard.
*A super nice guy I went to college with who gave me cologne to celebrate his wedding and when I freaked out about it maybe being a bomb (right after 9-11) he could tell and told me it wasn't just based on my facial expression haha. There were lots of ghetto folks in that program but he was a really straight laced kinda guy and stood out for that.
One side of my family is Scotch-Irish-English-Welsh and the other side is Austria-Hungary-Czech and they all came to the States for primarily economic reasons (to escape poverty), although I was told that my grandfather came here not only to have a better economic situation, but also to avoid being drafted into his country’s crappy army. When he got to the States, he enlisted and was sent back to Europe to fight, which he expected. Being LIE, he just wanted to fight with better equipment.
People have interesting reactions to the idea of other people moving from one Socio-economic group to another. If they think that the world is a fixed-sum kind of place, then they are threatened by the idea that a new person might take some of what that think of as being rightfully theirs.
If they think that people are productive resources and can expand the collective pie by working hard, then they are more welcoming towards new people, because with additional human resources, everyone will get richer.
I have a brother-in-law who thinks the first way. He doesn’t have any kids, either. They’d have interfered with his collecting of his toys. Weirdly enough, he doesn’t work, either. He lives off of his wife’s income.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-10-2019 at 11:23 AM.
Suddenly reminded of this:
Cool story. I've never had a bad run-in with them either, FWIW. But I don't believe in relying on anecdotes.
I’ve met some Somali migrants in Minnesota. They seemed poor but decent.
I travel a lot. I’ve been to every state on the contiguous US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, England, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Turkey, Zimbabwe, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan. Everyone I met was very decent, but I did come close to being shot and killed by some good ol’ boys in a redneck bar in Montgomery, Alabama.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-10-2019 at 11:22 AM.
Yet statistically we know everyone isn't "decent", and we know exactly where the indecent ones tend to concentrate more and whom this tends to comprise.
shit_that_didn't_happen.txtbut I did come close to being shot and killed by some good ol’ boys in a redneck bar in Montgomery, Alabama.
But it's fine if the government espouses a policy that favors certain races, a la Nazism.
See, this is the kind of a double-standard. Why is it fine if the government favors a certain race, but not the other?
If a government sponsors a policy that favors a certain ethnicity over the other, and that is not a reaction to an invasion or colonialism, then yes, it is Nazism. But the Dalai Lama is not a government. I consider Dalai Lama as someone who is reacting to the (harsh) Chinese rule of Tibet.
Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.
Not a double-standard at all.
Nations exist for the benefit of their native ethnicities, else they are not nations. This remains well-understood in places like China, which aggressively promotes Han-1st policies—e.g. forced Sinicization of Tibet, repression of Uyghurs, etc.
You don't have to like it, but ethnocentrism wins over the longer-term: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Culture is a product of the people living there. Replace the people and the culture will necessarily be different. This is observably true of any neighborhood as it is a country.Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.
Are you claiming that culture is ingrained somewhere in the DNA? If that's so, then you'd have a lot of explaining to do.
Culture is the product of things being passed onto the next generation. The evolution of culture happens accidentally and randomly more often than not. It's not unlike the evolution of the DNA.
Biology & culture are coevolutionary. Explanations proffered upthread.
No, because culture evolves at a much, much faster rate than biology. Culture evolves in a timespan of decades, while it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years for DNA evolution.
Cultural evolution has already eclipsed biological evolution. There is more information in the brain than in the DNA. Food for thought.
No.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...70491501300114
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048999/
Which makes the Han ethnicity inclusive. The "Americanization" of immigrants, Black, and Mexican people is *precisely* the attitude that progressives want Americans to adopt.
Violent inclusivity doesn't make it better.
Besides, ethnics in America now make it clear that they either have no interest in assimilation, or that 'American' must be altered into a devoid abstraction divorced from history in order to accommodate them.
I have no idea what a program of Chinese-style forced Americanization would look like, but I imagine it wouldn't go over well.
Nah, it needn't be forced because minorities have every incentive to integrate and assimilate. I'm not sure what you mean by altering the term "American," but "nation of migrants" is perhaps one of the most relevant descriptors in reference to its historical character.
Not anymore.
That's a retcon adaptation borne from the 20th century, contemporaneous with the 1965 Immigration Act. Has little to do with what America's historical character had been 200-300 years prior.I'm not sure what you mean by altering the term "American," but "nation of migrants" is perhaps one of the most relevant descriptors in reference to its historical character.
"Ethnics in America"? Who are they? Sorry if it's already mentioned somewhere - there is too much racist drivel disguised as "too many immigrants" in this thread to read carefully.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote