White European preservation policies

The only reason immigration to white countries can happen is that whites have been infected with a perverted mind-virus that makes them accept self-destructive things like immigration.

Whites could easily stop it if they wanted to, that’s all I’m saying.

In the past, VIOLENT CONQUESTS happened, I don’t think there is a single time in history where a peoples (such as whites now) established a high society and then just chose to let in hordes of inferior filth so that they can take over the society.

Like I said, whites have been infected with a very weird and perverted mind-virus.

They could also wipe out all diseases if they wanted to. But they don’t want to. So what do you expect?

In a nutshell, the U. S. allows immigration because immigrants have historically occupied the bottom rung of the economic scale. In large part, they still do. In a very large and young (and now, wealthy) country with a great many natural resources, you need people to clean toilets, pick crops, cut lawns and do the most dangerous work. I have said this many times before, but back when i used to winter in Southwest Florida, it became abundantly clear that in hospitality/food service, landscaping, golf course maintenance, highway construction,the low rungs of the construction industry (to name a few) immigrants (mostly from mexico and central america) were necessary for the economy to function.

In short, brown people were making white people wealthier. It is much the same now, only less so than when I was down there. This circumstance is extant all over the country.

Immigrants make those who are already here wealthier.

I don’t think this is true. Japan and, more recently, China and India have embraced western capitalism and lifted millions of non-Europeans out of poverty, without being turned into Europeans.

Except that immigration is an economic boon for the US. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy, they create more jobs than they take, and they’re less criminal than native born Americans.

Immigration isn’t “self-destructive” unless your conception of self includes an irrational prejudice on the basis of skin color. That prejudice may be destroyed by looking into the empirical evidence about immigration.

EDIT: basically what Faust said.

You seem to have no idea of what has happened and still happens in Europe, especially in Old-Europe. We are talking about Europeans and islamic people from Africa and West Asia. This has nothing to do with East Asians. Also, China and India are very, very, very young capitalistic countries. Your comparision is absurd.

Also and in this case, please quote my whole sentence or even, if necessary, the whole text and not only a part of a scentence. One of the main points of my above text again:

Africans and West Asians are not like East Asians. Here, in this thread, we are talking about “European preservation policies” (see the topic of this thread), and, when it comes to immigration, about islamic people from Africa and West Asia, not about East Asians.

I’m reading a heavily distorted view of history here. You have to go back to the early years after WW11. Europe was in shambles and simply didn’t have enough laborers to clean up the mess and re-vitalize their economies. They welcomed immigrants from everywhere. Most of this first wave of immigrants assimilated even though they occupied the lower rungs of the economic ladder. It is their children who are the loud voices. The European whites made the mistake of keeping the non-whites down economically making assimilation difficult if not impossible. The disillusioned youth turned to the mullahs and wannabe revolutionaries hoping for some sort of resolution. Both are wrong. The non-whites in Europe simply want to become the equal citizen in every country. At that point, assimilation is possible. To be sure, there are plenty of people on both sides who are trying their best to promote fear and hatred of the “others”, but it is a fools game being repeated again and again.

So you are saying that Europeans should be killed off by immigrants? Why? Why are you such an anti-white or anti-European racist? If you a North American citizen of European origin, then why do you not know any historical fact about Europeans?

So you are admitting that you are reading your own heavily distorted view of history here (see above).

He’s making a great argument for why immigration is very bad for European countries, but really, it doesn’t matter how nice you are or how nice you have been, they gonna find a reason to get what they want. In fact, the less nice you are the more they respect you.

They will say nation of immigrants also about Germany or the United Kingdom, or Sweden - Well duh, somebody has been moving to those places at times, sometimes as an invader sometimes as an actual immigrant, therefore no reason to oppose mass immigration of people of different racial stock and its derived different culture, lol.

As I’ve said before, the arguments really don’t matter.
Immigration is good, now (it wasn’t good under Clinton in the 90s but that’s a long time ago), that’s all you need to know.
All these arguments are rationalisations for the already established moral good, through the muh feelz and the muh economy angle.

It’s almost impossible to believe that you are incapable of seeing ironic satire. Apparently, it sailed right over your head. I’ll just leave it at that.

… a distorted new-age view. The White Europeans were doing what they had to do in order to make progress and that included keeping out less disciplined races and cultures. For their troubles, they became the envy of other less progressive cultures who sought and still seek means to infiltrate and take advantage of what they could not earn for themselves.

In the long run, it is still just a puppet show. The puppeteers use any excuse to sway the arms and hearts of the puppets. The rabble of Arabs didn’t gather together and decide to invade Germany on their own … nor the Blacks and Mexicans in the USA.

Wow. Talk about a distorted new-age view…

The whites were doing what they had to do to make progress? Yeah, if keeping wages deliberately low, a glass ceiling for education and advancement aimed at non-whites, etc.

Less disciplined races and cultures? Whaaaa?

Less progressive cultures?

Your assumptions are mind boggling.

My view is hardly new-age.
But how would you know one way or another?
I have experience involved in such things that I am certain that you do not have.

And in a similar way, why do you think that the Orientals kept out the Europeans and Semites?

Just look at your history. Anyone could have developed technology and tiny traces of it were found everywhere. But who actually brought it to fruition (whether good or bad)? Similar with civilization. The Chinese and Japanese properly considered the West to be animalistic barbarians and the Middle East, no more than insidious serpents destroying everything in sight.

Another condescending retort… How Jamesie of you.

Your experience is wrong but that is obvious to anyone but you.

The Asian closed societies have absolutely nothing to do with this thread - and if you don’t know that, perhaps you need more experience.

It’s too simple to say that whites blocked the assimilation of non-whites. There are lots of reasons why immigrants (or particular groups) do not assimilate and do not want to assimilate.

One of the complaints about immigrants is that they don’t assimilate.

If you believe in multiculturalism, then you believe that assimilation is not required or desirable.

phyllo - I think the issue of assimilation has been framed poorly by some - that is to say that assimilation has been presented as a problem per se and not because a lack of assimilation causes other problems. Put simply but awkwardly, a lack of assimilation is a problem if it’s a problem. I don’t find the lack of assimilation much of a problem in america, but if it is, it should be looked at in terms of a cost/benefit ratio. Not just literal monetary cost, but social costs.

I guess some Amish and similar communities haven’t assimilated as much as many other groups. What are the costs of that and what are the benefits?

One effect of assimilation that I have seen is that ethnic neighborhoods tend to disperse over time, especially outside of large cities. usually, I have felt a loss when that happens. The restaurants, markets and stores, the ethnic celebrations, the rich cultural landscapes tend to get watered down and often disappear. Places get homogenized. It’s kinda too bad, but stopping that from happening may cost more in money or personal freedom than what it is worth.

But there always seem to be new groups coming here to repeat the process. And it is a process. The new and 'foreign" groups of today tend to become the assimilated groups of tomorrow and are often groups that want to shut the door behind them.

What drives the opposition to new groups can often be boiled down to this - fear. That’s what i see in neo-nazis, in general. Unmitigated and embarrassing fear. Except that they are too craven and frightened to be embarrassed. Sometimes I am even embarrassed for them. Mostly, I feel sorry for them.

You’re right. One of the problems with on line discussion is that we try to condense complexity into two or three sentences. The result is that we paint with a broom instead of a three hair camel brush. We’re all guilty of this here and there, now and then. Still that doesn’t mean that whites didn’t suppress non-whites even though it is just one of the many reasons…

I don’t think that you can reduce multiculturism to either/or assimilation. Retaining old traditions is common and even desirable for a immigrant. It allows them to have a “past”. The key to assimilation is identifying as a citizen of their new home. If they aren’t welcomed into the new country, then assimilation takes much longer. There are many examples of white Europeans who came to this country and spent one or two generations in literally “ghettoized” communities because they weren’t welcomed by the general population.

Some fear is not misplaced. Let me give you an example from 2004 when there was a move to establish Sharia law tribunals in Ontario, Canada. Is the fear that this would undermine the established legal system not legitimate?

theguardian.com/news/blog/2 … nadaalmost

Interesting stuff, phyllo. An example of a failed social experiment. I’d be the first to want ANY religion the hell out of any government justice system. It’s worth noting that the U.S. is currently playing with a similar disasterous game. It’s called charter schools which in too many cases are nothing but thinly disguised religious propaganda mills aimed at our children. The fail of these so-called “schools” won’t be felt for years to come.

Betsy deserves to rot in her hell.

Yes, ban ALL propaganda and only believe what WE tell you.

Okay, but this is not due to the mere presence of immigrants. More due to the absence of common sense. I cannot really speak for any country save the U.S. but i don’t think this has been a threat in America. I would not suggest that any immigration law in any country is wise. But this is a disestablishment clause issue in the U.S. and not an immigration issue per se.