Is mass immigration the single...

>it's natural
Opinion discarded

If anything what happened to the First Nations should teach you of the dangers of long-term isolation. As for the Romans, well, they were already fucked by the time the Goths and Vandals got there. Hell, most of them were invited there as mercenaries (foederati) a generation befere

When the native population is being displaced, they will vote to protect their interests by aligning with groups that promise to do so. Established right wing parties pander to anti-immigration sentiment and new parties pander to the conservative element of established parties in order to woo support.

You can view that through a left/right lens if you like, but it seems it's just the polemic used in order to frame the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.

Its also a filter between the useless, weak cuckolds and the people that actually want to take action too

>nature doesnt exist
fuck off blank-slate nigger

>the dangers of long-term isolation
I do agree that isolation is detrimental. An economy based on autarky is less efficient than one that engages in itnernational commerce. Another danger of isolation is that scientific and technical development doesn't spread to your nation.

But mass migration is a very specific phenomenon. You can have commerce, agreements and scientific collaboration without mass migration.

>genocide
is a modern thing
> slavery
is also a relatively modern thing
By "relatively modern" I mean after the agricultural revolution.

They weren't isolated. The first nations were exactly that. Plural. Competing with each other. They were simply unable to contend with extra players in their game. Especially as those new competitors were significantly more organized and culturally developed.

A severe distinction to the displacement of North American natives and the current migration patterns is that the new competitors are not more sophisticated or technologically advanced. Quite the opposite. They are not productive settlers for the vast majority, instead a dependent class that will extract resources while offering nothing valuable in return.

>You can have commerce, agreements and scientific collaboration without mass migration.
Not unless you have a post-scarcity society. People tend to travel to where the grass is greener, and as capitalism requires that there be a third world to provide cheap labour and resources, the people from said third world will always want to share in the wealth created by their exploitation through migrating to first-world countries.

>culturally developed.
Not by a long shot. Technologically, yes. Culturally hell no. It's why the first puritan settlements had walls. Not to keep the indians out, but to keep the europeans in.

Genocide is ancient. Homo sapiens is the only exogenous species of our clade. Our competitors did not 'wander off,' we removed them.

>capitalism requires that there be a third world to provide cheap labour and resources
Capitalism greatly benefits from that but it doesn't "require" it. If poor living conditions can be improved worldwide, even if capitalism loses some efficiency, the result may be an improvement for everyone: the poor don't need to migrate and the first world doesn't suffer from multiculturalism adaptation

Technology is an expression of culture. As are logistics and modes of social cohesion such as religion. Catholics and Protestants may hate each other, but they have more cultural development and ties than competing native tribes. That cultural cohesion is why native tribes aligned against each other and with more developed cultures such as the British, Spanish and French, even in the face of existential threat.

Mass immigration, election fuckery, and freedom of speech pushed me to the right.

t. former Dem

>mass migrations
Try mass invasions

sounds like you're a nazi now

>capitalism requires the third world
Third world is from the perspective of Cold War geopolitics. Unaligned nations after the West/Communist split. What you're talking about is 3rd and 4th world.

Capitalism does not require an external other. Liberalism, however, does need to export 'misery' in order to preserve the level of comfort liberal democracies have become accustomed to.

>rise in rightwing parties worlwide
centrist

It's funny because if they turned off the flow for 5 years they would own the west. Hubris.

Yes, but also complicated yes.

The west died because industrial society rendered our "Winter societies" (Northern Hemisphere patriarchal culture) and Church social institutions irrelevant. Jews played a significant role here as well, but that's another post entirely tied into the assault on Hellenism and its central position as the guiding ethos of European civilization.

Mass-migration resonates because people still recognize it for what it is: Erasure. The praising of the other and the denigration of the familiar. Thankfully, there are still (barely) enough people not yet completely demoralized and reprogrammed able to resist this.

People would rather be poor than have nowhere they belong.

Yes

And it is the one issue that all globalist sellout politicians and rich people want

t. shite shill of the Green Party.

Attached: 2TJUT.png (400x647, 264K)

>sounds like you're a nazi now
Pretty much. Thanks a bunch pol.

Attached: 1501606332303.jpg (960x893, 59K)

Kys, you retarded faggot

Think logically, do you exploit a lesser people and give your own citizens a good life or do you exploit your citizens AND the lesser people and give everyone a shit life. Capitalism isn't perfect but it is sufficient enough on a nation level scale. The problem with you commies don't think practically and default to your fantasies about a world which cannot be sustained.

Mass migration is the flaw in a crony capitalism systems, with excessive greed cheap labor is desired within the actual state. 3rd worlders are imported in but at the cost of social order. This is essentially a ponzy scheme that will eventually leave the host nation in ruin. If these 3rd worlders can't even maintain their own civilization what makes you think they can contribute to your own?

If you import the third world you become the third world. What's stopping them from generating wealth themselves? Africa is one of the most rich biological places on the earth with tons of natural resources. The thing is these people are unable to integrate into our society because they have genetics that predispose them to have a low IQ and high levels of aggression. You're risking the civil rights of women and lgbt individuals, personal freedoms, not to mention the chance at a pseudo-democratic process by letting people into a country that don't belong.

welcome brother

Attached: maninhighcastle.webm (1280x720, 2.46M)

The inability to efficiently chuck rocks at small game is what killed our "competitors" (after we fucked around a bunch).
Without the cheap labour and resources capitalists would be forced to treating the citizens of their own countries like shit to keep profits up and that would backfire immensely, leading to riots and ultimately socialist revolution.

Yes it is the main factor but it's not like other factors can be decoupled from it. Economics, crime, all sorts of issues are massively linked to immigration.

Yeah except the migration you're talking about here has always been invasion and has always been extremely violent and full of all sorts of things you faggots claim you're against. It's no different today but because you're poisoned against whitey somehow it's ok.

>Catholics and Protestants may hate each other, but they have more cultural development and ties than competing native tribes
You clearly don't know history. What a waste of digits, you frogfucking kekistani faggot.

>The west died because industrial society rendered our "Winter societies" (Northern Hemisphere patriarchal culture) and Church social institutions irrelevant

I agree with this. The Industrial Revolution brought the rise of capitalism (bourgeoisie according to Marxist theory) which made the ancient regime (which was born with the Agricultural Revolution) obsolete.

However, this doesn't make it desirable.
Communists will argue that a good aspect of the modern world is that we left old forms of dominance behind (church, patriarchy) and bad aspects are that capitalists created a new form of dominance (work exploitation and theft of surplus-value from laborers).
The right will find good aspects (freedom of choice implied in market transaction and production, decrease in authoritarian powers) and bad aspects (degeneracy, lose of traditional values).

The problem here is that mass migration can be exploited by capitalists seeking to lower average income in the first world, and also by lefties seeking to create a globalized world without borders.
In any case, mass-migration went crazy high the last decades and now first world natives are reacting with isolation politics. Thus Euroscepticism, nationalism, Trump, etc. rises.

So yes, the "west" died, and so did the east, the south and everywhere else as we approach this huge mix called globalization. But something like the EU could have been a great project (it prevents war, improves living standards) yet people lose faith in it when external people started incoming.

The primary reason for the collapse of amerindians wasn't cultural or technological superiorty, it was disease. The first Spanish explorer in the Mississippi Valley recounted how he saw great walled towns dotting the river. He left without conquering anything because it was too densely settled. The French got there 100 years after and those same towns were deserted. Same story in New England, the Pacific NW, etc.

It was both and also the fact that they were mostly hunter-gatherers with low carry capacity. The retards who tell you whitey killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS!!!!! of them are so illiterate in this topic that they actually believe hunter-gatherers were able to sustain a population of 200 million on a continent where we didn't even surpass that number in US+Canada combined until the second half or so of the 20th century, with our much greater capacity to grow enough food to feed a big population.

Communism treats it citizens like shit no matter the circumstance, this is because you are equal to the lowest citizen in any communist society. A doctor is equal to the passed out drunk bum living under a bridge and are treated as such.

It's largely just because communism is a jewish system designed to have jews rule over enslaved goyim. Even Mao had a bunch of jews behind him.

why do masses of goyim volunteerly support communism?

because majority of people are retarded with no foresight into practicality or consequences

but didn't we have times where ppl were more aware of what is happening, and rejecting communism?

>The inability to efficiently chuck rocks at small game is what killed our "competitors" (after we fucked around a bunch).
There is evidence competing hominids went to war with each other. You can claim it does not fit your definition of genocide, but the fact remains we are here, they are not.
What you define as culture? Art? Architecture? Technology? Law? You claim native Americans were culturally superior, but you don't say how. Enlighten me.
>great walled towns
In comparison to what? A great walled town from where and in what period of European history?

It's the only path (for now) we natives have, vote nationalism, here PNR. Or we will be outnumbered in the land of our ancestors.
reconquista 2.0, when? but this time not only aginst the muslims

Attached: reconquista_euro1v685-11.png (1476x298, 34K)

A number of things changed, firstly WW2 was a giant brain drain. The smartest of all sides were killed in nearly all nations involved. Secondly the opposition to socialism was artificially constructed. What i mean by this is that blind followers have always existed and intelligent nationalists at that time managed to sway the masses to their side through propaganda. Now the leftists managed to do the same just towards communism.

So honestly it's irrelevant how many people you have in any cause, only thing that matters is how many intelligent and capable people you have. They're the ones who can sway the easily manipulated masses.

>A number of things changed, firstly WW2 was a giant brain drain. The smartest of all sides were killed in nearly all nations involved.
No Swedes died in WW2, and look where they are today.
Overall I agree with you, the thing is, what can be done?

The truth needs to prevail and if their attempts at complete internet censorship succeed then we're pretty fucked.

No, it's the destruction of the traditional American culture.

Mass immigration is a huge driving factor, don't get me wrong but the number one thing that is the driving force of the Right is the complete insanity and degeneracy of the left.

The Left can never be happy with what they have, you give them Gay Rights/Marriage and before it's even legally finalized they are already screaming about Transexual rights. You start to legalize Marijuana and before the bill is passed people are already trying to legalize other recreational drugs.

Liberals are like a kid in the grocery store, they scream and cry until their parents buy them a candy bar and instead of being happy with it they immediately say they want a soda and ice cream to go with it.

Attached: 1527393195270.jpg (584x558, 54K)

>The truth needs to prevail and if their attempts at complete internet censorship succeed then we're pretty fucked.
I doubt many are interested in the truth, what ppl are interested in is bonking, football, beer and cars. The censorship will prevail in the end, they will not let another Trump phenomenon happen, the risk a real alternative could become popular one day is too high. In Europe, alternative media plays no big role anyway.

Fair point about Sweden, i think their problem lies within that fact that swedes never really had to fight after the viking age which let the weak survive and pacify their society since conformity is generally desirable in a peaceful civilization.

A solution to this problem seems almost impossible. Many have thought about it and simply ended up exploiting it rather than fixing it. In truth the only solution to have any impact would be to modify the population through artificial means. You want a population composed of capable not decedents of conformist serfs. Unfortunately there is no practical way to accomplish this. The silver lining with this though is that the weak and conformist are willingly removing themselves from the gene pool at exponential rates. Either though homosexuality, race mixing, or dying prematurely due to lack of awareness(relaxing around minorities).

To add, the ultimate deciding factor is if there will be enough capable people to oppose the onslaught of 3rd worlders in the end. My intuition says no, which is a real shame.

Jewish propaganda by monoplies or near monopolies over the means of disseminating information is the biggest part.

Sweden was a modern age power in the Baltics, and even fought in the Napoleonic Wars.
A depressing vision, but then yes, the future will hold more fights as the pool of gibsmedats which can be handed out narrows while the number of recepients rises.

it plays a role, but it is not only Jewish propaganda, it is propaganda of the servile goyim elites as well. The amount of influential Jews is rather low in Europe.

I'm aware, but that was a fraction of their population that served in the military. Even with the downfall of the Swedish empire during the great norther war they didn't really face invasion or hardships.

The sooner a collapse comes the better. I may not want to live through one but i realize that it's basically a necessity at this point.

They had centuries of hardship, like their neighouring country Norway, which was known to be Europe's leper colony.
contagions.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/leprosy-in-medieval-scandinavia/

Their wealth is a very recent thing.
I am not sure what collapse you're talking about? Another 2008? Will happen in about 2020, so what? There won't be a Soviet-like crash as production and supply of basic necessities and food can be maintained under any condition these days. I rather wish there would be a real crash, but what we will see is a tanking economy and a slow but steady decline without fundamental changes in the political landscape..

Attached: 1533657009182.jpg (564x381, 21K)

It doesn't have to be high when they own all of means of disseminating information. Yes, there are traitors too, but who owns all of the media?

>It doesn't have to be high when they own all of means of disseminating information. Yes, there are traitors too, but who owns all of the media?
That's what I tried to explain to you. The big media here in Germany is not owned by Jews.
Apart from state media, the biggest media are Bertelsmann, Springer, Burda, Holtzbrinck, Funke and others, which are all old German bigwigs.

I'm not saying a collapse will happen, i'm saying a collapse is necessary at this point. This degenerate society can still maintain itself and will eventually settle at a brown, low IQ underclass slaving away for the elite. If there is any hope in preventing this the system needs to collapse before all the capable people who oppose this are gone.

The rise in immigration is due to the rise in inequality which is due to (((them))).

Rehearse your history starting with the 1929 crisis leading to the 30-40s fascists.

Attached: milkies4.jpg (640x640, 61K)

alright, yes, the scenario a guy rather jokingly drew actually more and more looks realistic, the remaining Germans will live in gated communities, reservations for infidels, the brown hordes will be dominant in numbers but kept in check so they won't start too much unrest.

Attached: Deutschland Karte.jpg (644x882, 77K)