Curious to hear your sentiments, not on mass migration itself, but rather on the justifications it embodies in order to slip past the noses of most intelligent westerners.
The reason is that recently I've noticed that compared to pre-Arab spring conflict immigration, justification is often no longer presented coherently or at all as if the import of millions of sub-standard citizens (I use that label because of work ethic, cultural contributions, and intelligence/ innovative abilities of modern migrants) is an unquestionable constant in our society that has always existed, will not change our society, and will be a positive force, despite obvious evidence AND motivations of governing bodies to the contrary.
To muttify everyone so that labor can be made perfectly liquid like capital
Angel Barnes
>You're gonna miss him, here let me help >FUCK OFF DEATH YOU'RE NOT HELPING
Michael Powell
Pre-Arab spring, bouts of mass immigration were treated under the pretense of good people temporarily escaping from conflict, or persecution/ threat of death.
Now the need for justification is often abandoned and migration has become a population transfer, I've heard it described as an attempt to change the demographics of western nations for particular political goals, at multiples scales. For example, during a recent equity meeting I attended, the presenter mentioned that displacement efforts must continue until "white" populations no longer have a leading say in contentious or even important issues.
Am I seeing it wrong? It looks like the disguise is ripped off, mass migration is publicly exposing itself as population transfer for leftist agenda, however noone seems to see any problem with that and I'm worried its because I'm looking at it the wrong way.
Jack Rivera
I’ve noticed this is small rural towns, out of nowhere ethnic families are just ariving. These are towns where everyone knows everyone but NO ONE knows where these immigrants are coming are from...
Aaron Green
Brain drain is real. To truly help the developing world, we should band together to not only stop immigration, but the idea that people should just run away when things get hard. That's not what we are.
Aaron Parker
Yes and I considered that the union of races might create a single people who could work together with common goal and sentiment, however one problem with this is that the natural differences and positive traits of genetic populations are best emphasized independently, a true melange of human ethnicities would produce millions of stupid (or at least, not very bright people) without strong identity.
John Hill
The upper classes won't racemix, they don't care if the mutt drones are retarded
Easton Smith
Yes, but what can actually be done? I think most people on this website truly believe that our understanding of the situation justifies a lack of action, however its not hard to see that such a mindset is just a lie, cowardice, something that will eventually kill all of us while the bad guys win. Are there any options? One of the biggest immediate problems is the taboo on discussion and assembly regarding these issues, once a solution is established then actual actions for a positive cause can be determined.
Levi Turner
Shouldn't they care? What we're dealing with is the literal decay of the world, and although there are obvious opportunities to briefly capitalize, its ultimately going to end everything, or at least cut short the full potential of the human race.
Nicholas Fisher
Declining population. Economy. Social security. It's all a load of bullshit and I hate this world for this being possible. The only thing that could fix it is a mass death event. If only we could poison every idiot and dishonest person on earth.
Gabriel Gutierrez
They have really crazy ideas about the world they are creating. It's hard to believe people with such power could think so, childishly. They're idiots full of malice and hubris. Trump wasn't even supposed to happen. They have so much and yet so little control. They do not understand how tenuous their grasp on power is and they're lifting up new enemies that can fuck them at the worst possible point. Friends of opportunity are going to fuck them along with the entire human race.
Hunter Young
>I hate this world for this being possible. Me too. I cannot fathom the tragic idiocy of Western leaders deciding to destroy the west on purpose. Our elected leaders are removing their people from power and giving their future to strangers. They should all be publicly executed.
Isaac Morris
Indoctrination. You can get a lot of people to believe whatever the fuck you want them to if you simply repeat it to them once or twice a day from the cradle to the grave.
Xavier James
I understand that brainwashing/ constant bombardment of messages could do wonders, however what I'm seeing in the last couple years that is scaring me is that instead of misinformation or similar subversions taking place, its as if a large proportion of people just literally do not make even slight considerations of the things going on around them, just like how a child living in a rich family would often hardly concern itself with the family affairs, trusting full security to others despite the enormous implications on future security, financial and otherwise.
This is scary, and it seems to be new, I'm hoping that this has always been the case because if this is new, we are fucked.
Justin Bennett
A mass event seems to be the only solution yes. We need a new foundation for our society, we are currently living in the shadow of the second world war, and even an appropriated version at that, a twisted story that barely holds together about the downfalls of strength, loyalty, etc.
The best case scenario is an imminent collapse followed by reconstruction, imminent being necessary because the endpoint/ endgame of current global agendas is real and is certainly approaching
Christopher Sanders
> but whyyyy The Cabal bankers won WWII
Chase Phillips
kys collapse shill peaceful memes are more powerful
Nathaniel Murphy
The main impetus behind it right now, is it's bg business. Some people are getting very rich off government money, they get a set amount per person 'resettled" into a new country. It's happening in most G20 countries. In the US, they're called "volags" (voluntary organizations), and they're profiting massively over it. It's one of the more favorite ways for liberals to reward big donors, by putting them on the boards of the volags, for big salaries, and little to no work.
My deepest fantasy as a woman is to be taken by a large black man. I've never been brave enough to do it because I don't know if I can handle a deep, BBC pounding. There is a man at work I've always fantasized about because I could never betray my husband..
Easton Price
The migrants themselves want a higher standard of living. The politicians don't stop them from coming in because there is no incentive for them to stop the migrations. There is also no precedent for stopping them. In fact there is a precedent for letting them in because in the past small numbers of foreigner workers were allowed. A trickle becomes a flood.
The bottom line is that migrants help grow the economy and we modernists view everything in economic terms.
If we instead owned our countries (as a share of stock) at least there would be some incentive not to let migrants in as this would dilute people's shares.
The beaners spread out and hide in from the government while having children. My hometown near the Canadian border has been flooded with them and we barely have jobs.
Gavin King
This is a good explanation, I would go as far as saying, the elites are open with what they want - they want lots, they want mass immigration and they're completley justified in the current judeo-cultural-marxist environment to enforce those demands. Because otherwise you're a racist.
And thus, we see the 1,000,000 illegals into Germany a year or 2 ago, The 1,000,000 illegal immigrants into America in 2016
Parker Lewis
the ((((((((economy))))))))
Tyler Davis
That's the point. Shlomo isn't interested in mankind reaching the stars, he wants to jerk off on a pile of money and dead white people.
Xavier Jenkins
Your post ID has JDF in it but I'll treat the post like anyone elses'. The economic gain seems to have lessened to almost a negative impact though as the migration has changed to now include peoples from sub saharan Africa, rather tha so-called "useful" immigrants from India, China, Iran, etc. If one was to assume that the sub saharans were genetically identical, it would still be obvious that they are not societally progressed enough to function well in our own, they become dependants in their new countries, largely unemployed and to no use for the economy or inhabitants of the host nation. This is new but it should be obvious.
Camden Martinez
It's all connected to lowering wages for workers and creating artificial demand of various products/services. Corporations and "think tanks" buy politicians or offer them a job once they leave government, which is why you have all sorts of retarded worker visa plans in wealthy countries. Politically active academics are bought off in similar fashion too
Matthew Turner
I hear the basic justification that it’s helping poor people.
Tyler Reyes
>What's the official reason for mass migration? We can't have tacos and sushi without Mexicans, the Japa-... Africans, Indians, half of China and the entirety of the Middle East.
Logan Russell
There was a fun bit on NPR today, some dumb bitch talking about Edward Abbey and environmentalism. The host asked her how modern environmentalists dealt with Abbey's views on immigration and shitskins and her answer was basically that they ignore immigration because it's racist and Abbey's books would have required heavy editing to get published today (and that's a good thing).
Dylan Flores
The main reason is exactly what they say it is: population decline. More people are needed to increase consumption and keep land prices up and wages down. Obvious solution is to ban birth control again but it's not like that is going to happen.
Hunter Ramirez
The real question isn't why they are coming, its why we can't stop them. The way I see it our nations suffer from a tragedy of the commons. Our citizens do not "own" the legal entity of the nation and they do not view the nation as belonging to them. The nation simply exists as some object to be plundered or exploited.
Ideally even migrants should be opposed to more migrants.
Objectively it doesn't matter that they are non-white. In the case of Americans they didn't stop the Irish migrants, didn't stop the German migrants, didn't stop the Italian migrants, didn't stop the Jewish migrants, didn't stop the Mexican migrants, and won't stop the Central American migrants. There should have been some mechanism that incentivized against accepting Irish migrants to begin with.
I believe it to be an ownership problem. Historically European nations were "owned" by their kings but after the fall of monarchies the nations existed purely for exploitation by the merchant classes.
James Walker
Has there been a democratic country without this ownership problem? Israel?
Jonathan Martinez
>they become dependants in their new countries, largely unemployed and to no use for the economy or inhabitants of the host nation It doesn't matter if they are low wage workers, welfare dependents, or criminals. Either way they help grow the economy and growing the economy is important to both left and right wingers.
Plus the left wants new voters so that's a bonus for them. The right doesn't care whether it wins or loses in the future only that it serves its constituents in the present.
Jayden Ortiz
Nationalism did fill that void in some cases, which is how for example Hitler came in after the fall of the Monarchy and failure of the Weimar Republic to represent the people.
I think this is happening in France at the moment with the Yellow Vest movement.
People notice the government or the legal entity which is their nation, does not represent them.
And the people will make it so it does, at least in my opinion. If they don't then, the west becomes a playground for the third world, illegal immigrants and the like.
>>I believe it to be an ownership problem. Historically European nations were "owned" by their kings but after the fall of monarchies the nations existed purely for exploitation by the merchant classes. This is the main reason why we got this far. No one owns the state so it's just an instrument for wealth extraction to be fought over, which, by the logic of democracy, means riling up various groups to show up for the electoral headcount and then doing whatever you were going to do by buying off Congress anyway. Congresses, Parliaments, and other such assemblies are a sham.
Charles Morris
The currently existing governments are rightfully viewed as hostile occupying entities, given that they're literally inviting in foreigners to colonize the country.
Bentley Reed
>Abbey has also drawn criticism for what some regard as his racist and sexist views.[39] In an essay called "Immigration and Liberal Taboos", collected in his 1988 book One Life at a Time, Please, Abbey expressed his opposition to immigration ("legal or illegal, from any source") into the United States: "(I)t occurs to some of us that perhaps ever-continuing industrial and population growth is not the true road to human happiness, that simple gross quantitative increase of this kind creates only more pain, dislocation, confusion and misery. In which case it might be wise for us as American citizens to consider calling a halt to the mass influx of even more millions of hungry, ignorant, unskilled, and culturally-morally-generically impoverished people. At least until we have brought our own affairs into order. Especially when these uninvited millions bring with them an alien mode of life which—let us be honest about this—is not appealing to the majority of Americans. Why not? Because we prefer democratic government, for one thing; because we still hope for an open, spacious, uncrowded, and beautiful—yes, beautiful!—society, for another. The alternative, in the squalor, cruelty, and corruption of Latin America, is plain for all to see." wew, not bad.
Lucas Parker
I think most Israelis and Israeli elites (after the pograms and holocausts) believe that their nation belongs to them. Its not formal ownership but its definitely a start for them.
There are a few religious kooks and leftists but those are outliers.
Zachary Hernandez
Proof that it's an ownership problem: >globalists/leftists are fine with allowing migrants into their countries to live there >globalists/leftists are (mostly) not fine with allowing migrants into their homes to live there
Ideally you would want even leftists and globalists to be against migration.
David Evans
Bad corporate behavior is the other side of this. Can't prevent tech companies from working with China on AI for example despite them being your principal rival because it's so profitable. We of course can't admit that corporations rely on the State for their existence and thus regulate them, that would be tyranny.
Julian Jackson
This guy (and I can also very much recommend his book and his other content) sumed it up pretty nicely just yesterday:
About ten years ago, it was frequently said by politicians from all parties that
"They come to do the jobs that the English are too lazy to do."
This kind of casual racism is acceptable if it is against whites.
Levi Hill
they dont want the best for the human race. they want total control over 80iq mutt slaves
Nathan Collins
Capitalism demands expansion, the population must grow and the birthrate has fallen, if the population dwindles while the economy grows it would mean higher wages which would destroy a country's ability to compete on manufacture and export, population must inflate with the economy or one will hamper the other.
Another reason is political, to divide the population, a divided population of individualists are not likely or capable of making a united fist against the government, people are divided against each other in all possible categories, young vs old, ethnicity, religion, educated vs lowly educated, woman against man, sexuality, "identity", middle class vs lower class vs upper class, rural vs city dweller, family vs single, every possible category to distort social cohesion and prevent unity amongst the people. The government can do what it wants because the people are too divided to organize meaningful protests.
TL;DR sowing division and expansion.
Logan Young
>We of course can't admit that corporations rely on the State for their existence and thus regulate them While corporations rely on the state there is nothing to say that corporations wouldn't fortify themselves if governments stopped existing. I'm not a libertarian.
Christian James
Exactly. It doesn't matter if these people are garbage because the GDP will increase anyways. It's a pyramid scheme that depends upon growth and because we have stopped creating our own suckers we need to import new suckers.
FYI did you know that Ethiopia has a higher GDP than North Korea despite not being able to create nukes or rockets?
