@LW: As you imply, theres still the problem of the replacement rate being below the replacement level, which is mainly due to the aging population (baby boomers) and other factors. So, really, you guys DO need some immigration, just not in that amount.
No we don't, what we need is for the baby boomers to die and for workers to enter work. The former will happen as an inevitable consequence of time. Consider how Germany was sold mass migration to prop up their aging population, so they would not have to go through the effort of having children of their own. Yet by not selecting for migrants they brought the old and dependent of others to their country, straining their dwindling tax base further, and brought people who do not speak German, care about Germans, Germany, or are even capable of taking up the technical or highly skilled services that German labour demands, serving only to depreciate unskilled labour wages and serving to place two demographic bombs on the German tax base and social infrastructure in addition to replacing the German children with a diaspora of the world's diasporas. I have long wondered why instead of facing the consequences of their actions, certain Europeans have rationalized this as preferable because it means their children will pay the price whilst they will be dead, having lived comfortable lives with pensions paid in full. Assuming of course, this was migration of skilled workers filling jobs of high demand, and not just competition between workers that benefited only wealthy industrialists. The logic alone makes no sense to me. Do you honestly believe that cutting pensions as the Greeks did is somehow not preferable to this? It's very simple common sense, if they were having demographic problems to do with fiscal deficits why did they think adding a 50B strain on that with more demographic bombs would help? Well, it's simple - that's not the point, merely the talking point.
As for the whole cultural thing, yeah it would be assimilation, but it sort of looks more like a battle of attrition at this early point because the migrants in general aren't assimilating into the cultures of the various countries for various reasons. It's also possible for elements of the other culture to seep into the main (NOT talking about sharia here), but that takes time and generations.
Did you see my post a while back when one of our East End MPs was caught channeling council tax funds into our mosque and rigging elections?
Do you recall how in the span of two generations Europe managed to create a generation of Salafists far stricter than anything their parents ever were?
The numbers are too big, the main cultures hated by their hosts, hated by those expected to adopt them and have weakened to little of note and nothing most politically affluent Europeans and for that matter many Europeans are even proud of holding, let alone want to hold. This is not attrition because their cultures are not getting any weaker and their homelands are unaffected, and again I would refrain from using any hostile terms like battle because they were invited and that's a detail that cannot be forgotten. It's the most important lesson to learn and to remember, all of this was by invitation. Where I am from particularly colours my view because my local Uni has produced more ISIS fighters than any Uni in all of England. Rather less extreme is just the simple matter of influence; my area of London for example has a minimal, minority English presence of old English, despite being the birthplace of the Cockneys. As they've gone there has not been an influencing of the main culture with a newly arrived one, it's just been replacement, Whitechapel now being one of the most Islamic areas of London. I cannot even say without confidence that Islamic morality has not influenced me as - well, let's put it this way. Last week I went out with two groups of my friends due to the tube being utterly fucked, leaving me trapped on the wrong side of the city after I left the first group. Of the 14 close friends I was out with, only 4 ordered alcoholic drinks. Alcohol is absolutely haram, and degenerates gonna degenerate.
What changed?
Well, the unique culture that was was lost, but you can't bring it back and there's harm in trying something impossible when the sacrifices that would have to be made would result in no return. That loss was replaced by new culture, new religion and new people, life has gone on even with the rough bumps, which is a rather polite way of saying the fucked up shit has not got in the way for most men.
The hit from having an aged population is temporary, but it's not something any country on Earth is going to be able to prevent. Only postpone. It's the inevitable result of the demographic transition. Flinching away from the blow now will only make it worse in the future, but it's already well established that very few people actually care about the future.
Dude YOLO lmao
LW, I'm just too depressed to respond to your posts. I personally thought Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech wasn't one of his best moments (he was right, sure, but I just don't think it was that great of a speech compared to some of his other moments, like his remarks to Thatcher on the Falklands), but hearing about him saying he wished he'd died in the war just hits me in the feels. I grew up with my parents remarking from time to time about Enoch Powell being right, and it's terribly sad that a man with whom three-quarters of the public agreed with, who inspired hundreds of dockers and others to march on Westminster in protest on his behalf, was able to be made a sacrificial lamb so blatantly in the public eye. We should have known then, I suppose, that we'd end up here.
Oh, it's only natural to be acquainted with failure. Don't be depressed over it, I learned from an English school led by a hardy South African this: that of geniuses, talents and Olympians there are many in the world, yet of those who can take failure with grit and grow with it, that is rare. Likewise consider how Enoch Powell spent 50 years a political pariah whose name was used as a curse by Labour, yet from his failure 50 years on we have lessons to learn from him, his mistakes and his vindications alike. Is it sad? Yes, but he has served his use far better than he would have by dying in the war, and I suspect much of his own depression stems from watching it fall apart over so many decades as his own physical and mental health deteriorated with age - a natural and unavoidable process, as we age and grow weaker. And if you want to save Britons, the people, the culture or the nation, you're going to need a lot more work towards it than Powell's generation would have needed. If this sounds all demoralizing and defeatist that is just a product of things being quite shit now, but consider how on the other side of the fence a hundred years ago it was the marxists who must've been experiencing the same dread as they watched their life's works end in failure and the great revolutions in the West failing to ever materialize. So they set to work and kept working for generations and generations until long after their founders died they achieved this level of great political accomplishment, and so one can only assume it will take generations and generations to build over all that has been lost. Consider how bringing back trade schools and grammar schools could simultaneously reinstall the lost work ethic of Britain's youth and the attitude that no job is too small or too challenging - this would greatly advance the cause of preserving the British everything because there would be something worth preserving and people capable of preserving it, and in the way most effective, by providing people with the skills they need to improve themselves, find a job and start their own family. Good for the economy, good for the people, good for your fight - constructive solutions like this which advance your cause, instead of the destructive solutions that our marxist friends have been offering. They've gone about things prioritizing ideological objective first and function second, when securing your ideological objectives whilst leaving dysfunction is inherently doomed to catastrophic collapse. Of course it's more complicated than that, given the power of ideological and social control our modern society and media allows, Sweden is a great example of that - but like Sweden, as soon as they stop being their little Shangri La it becomes a toss up between the strongest horse and the weakest horse, and there's plenty of opportunity amidst that too.
Point I'm trying to make is very similar to my criticisms with the EU, in that instead of seeking to prove itself by success it seeks to control others by fear. If you reject diversity we will make sure you do not know peace, whilst they should have been trying to prove accepting diversity makes you know peace. Seek success and it will fund itself in every literal and metaphorical sense of the word, just as long as you don't confuse it with commercial success and end up with everyone being too soft, like yoghurt.
He spoke about discrimination legislation being used to discriminate against the indigenous population, and 50 years later we have quotas, we have jobs openly advertised in places like Sweden saying 'No white males need apply'. How long until that's us?
That is us already, least in London anyways. I always tell everyone in London (especially white people) to specify when they're applying for higher education, training or careers to maximize their diversity points. So you're not white, you're a woman, you're a jew, you're gay e.t.c.
It does not make up for a lack of skill but it helps maximize your potential and your consideration
The reasons are simple, Covenant. White people are in power, and power is all the same. Or rather, white people in power, and the point of cultural diversity isn't diversity for the sake of diversity, it's diversity for the sake of giving power to those without it.
Hahahahahaha
That's the thing about simple statements like this, they let you get away with murder. Who are white people? What is power? And for sure, power is not the same lel, most importantly do these groupings have shared loyalty?
These questions are not rhetorical.
Too vague a statement without defined parameters to justify anything, so you can have a people who just had their country given away, are the lowest performing academically in their own country, are legally discriminated against in employment, are discriminated against by the police and are surrounded by a media which hates them and intellectual elite who find it distasteful to be associated with them. And it is especially problematic to be insinuating diversity is about giving away white people's power to minorities to wield over them whilst they get none of their home countries' power in return, unless you want Indonesian race riots or something. This is not a sustainable strategy unless you deliberately want to foster ethnic tensions, which conveniently was a practice the European colonials did when outnumbered by their subjects - merely make a minority incredibly powerful and give it mastery over the majority so they took all the flak. This thinking is untenable as soon as you think about it. Who decides who gains what military power? Who decides who gains what economic leverage? Who decides who gains what political positions, what technical jobs, what preferential Uni placements, what executive seats? Who is the arbiter?
These questions are rhetorical.
In other words, (some) people view the question of 'what about white culture' or the comments about self-hating whites (in all honesty of everything being said here those are the most disturbing, on both a personal level(they disagree with me, obviously they're just brainwashed/stupid(if a black person is a Republican, obviously they're just stupid/an internalized racist) and a political level) as being similar to when a kid asks their parents why there isn't a Children's Day, if there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day.
There is a difference between a progressive calling a black man or a hispanic man stupid race traitors because they voted for Trump because the progressives are fundamentally being racist by assuming all blacks and hispanics are illegal migrants and so to not show loyalty to illegal migrants is to be a traitor. Their actions do not align with the judgement. If you have however, white people trying to fake their ethnicity, shouting about how all white people should be killed, or how Thomas the Tank Engine is a colonial sexist racist straight white dictatorship that must be forcefully injected with diversity as written by a blond haired blue eyed straight white man whose heritage is so deep it's his surname who just *happens* to write about how white people are scum?
Purely coincidence then that one would come to the conclusion they are a self-hating white in their attempts to not be the anti-white matter that annihilates the white matter. One only has to see how much white people will attack each other over the fact that they are white, or that they invented the progressive stack for the purpose of marginalizing themselves. If you have trouble believing the shit exists outside of tumblr just walk into any Uni. I will never understand to this day how a room full of 20 white people can unironically call for violent uprising against white people, as if they are completely unaware of the fact that merely dying their hair purple does not unwhite their shit up. For some reason there seems to be no one on Earth who hates Europeans more than Europeans, and I want to understand this phenomena. Why does he want to kill the trains Mason?
Also because diversity doesn't mean 'oh, there's a dozen or so technically different ones now, we're good, all set for variety now'. It means as many perspectives as possible. It's like giving everyone a vote, except it's memetics and mindsets being given a chance to influence people or put forth their points of view. I think.
Yeah, that's why we put them through uniform ideological education, nothing speaks diverse perspectives like making difference contraband
Also tribal wars, tribal wars never help anything, I think that's why LW has shifted more and more towards sounding like a Reactionary. (Sorry bro, but you're only missing the use of the word Cathedral and discussions about genetic superiority of whites or something) Could be wrong.
I said it before, I don't give a shit what I sound like because I sound like something else to everyone. To you I sound like a Reactionary, to Covenant I sound like Tony Blair, to Sergarr I sound tinfoil and to Sheb I sound incomprehensible. I don't try to make my posts sound like something, as the style and prejudgements are entirely up to the reader.
Specifically on reactionary I don't know why you'd apologize unless you thought I found reactionary insulting, I don't call myself reactionary because I don't want to go back to the previous system or the previous status quo so I'm not. If I thought it could work I'd have no issue with it whatsoever, heck I'd still call myself progressive if the movement hadn't been hijacked by crazy marxists. Also genetics keeps coming up and I've just got this to say on where I stand with them; the Swedes had very good genetics, they made beautiful, diverse, strong and clever people - and today they are enamoured with the ugly, want to eradicate their differences, take pride in their weakness and act like gullible fools whose ambitions lie in suicide and childlessness.
This is why I question the sanity of ethnic nationalists who place their loyalty and their standards in the flesh and bone of information stored in proteins. Because it turns out even the highest of genetic bars is setting the bar, really, really low. Give me someone with weak genetics and I'll give you an Einstein or Hawking, give me someone with strong genetics and I'll give you a fuckup whose only achievements are dude weed lmao. One only has to look at the long line of talentless children born to legendary athletes or pathetic followups to shrewd statesmen (rip Jeb Bush) to see genetics are only half the story. I especially find it interesting how the Richard II's of the world are born with handicaps that force them to cultivate talent, ambition and personality to overcome those handicaps, on that deeper philosophical level - in the same manner that when Europe was in desperation it ruled the world, and in the same manner that when Europe was in luxury it sold the world.
Besides, good nutrition, physical and mental exercise is a much more manipulable and effective way to cultivate good physical and mental health attributes. I would like to continue preserving genetic diversity but there's no use wasting energy trying to get people who want to die or will bear no children to breed, that is a task more risky and much less rewarding than getting pandas to breed. Can you imagine the horror these chucklefucks would wreak if they decided en masse to produce as many children as their bits were able of churning out? From the ones who raised secular humanist children into Jihadis to the ones who demanded unquestioning obedience just because they liked Thomas the White Engine, or fucking hell all of Sweden's social experiments on their children... :
P
Yeah it wouldn't be worth it if such a drive
succeededBetter to just let country workers repopulate
But yeah, when you associate 'X' with the 'enemy', you don't want to accept that it might have good sides, ever. If 'Western culture' is being celebrated by the rights, then the lefts obviously have to boo it. If 'welfare' is being celebrated by the lefts, then the rights obviously have to fight it. It's stupid, but groupthink is real, and it screws things worse then they already are.
I don't see this in terms of left and right, especially given how the game was rigged so you had the choice between someone educated under Oxbridge marxists or someone educated under Oxbridge marxists. It's funny to see Ed Miliband attack the Bogolord only to have the Bogolord unveil the illusion that they were not the same stock. Right, left, they mean little, and I only use the term enemy for those who are actively seeking destruction, not merely for those who oppose lest the world become hostile as if through some magic trick :
D
Such thinking is not sustainable, it would be much too taxing to be Putin without Putin's support staff, trying to gauge others not off of sincerity but capability.
At any rate I refuse to deny myself good ideas simply because my enemies have them. That way Jewish Physics lies, and I would not have ever stopped calling myself Progressive if I did not explore my opponents' ideas. London is a battleground of free ideas (even if that was not the intent) and perhaps the reason why I sound like something to everyone is because I have taken something from everyone. Marxists, nationalists, liberals, jihadis, dinocommunists, progressives, fundamentalists, evangelical secularists, and a multitude of foreign attitudes and class attitudes. As the wise Josef Stalin once said, we would not give our enemies guns, why would we give them ideas? I find he is onto something, but onto it in the authoritarian manner he is fond of. I see more value in how our enemies would not deprive themselves of good ideas, so why would we?
Though... I do wonder whether you're right about the end result of homogeneity. Eventually, sure; perhaps that is the goal, in order to make selling to us and lying to us that much easier. But in the shorter term I can't help but wonder if it's an effort to divide us from those around us. Have you read the novel Battle Royale? It's better than the film adaptation, and it goes into more depth about the reasons behind the thing itself. Its depiction of societies made to fear each other, unable to trust and therefore unable to cooperate to rise up against its tyrants, seems like it could be a warning of our future - perhaps even our present. People aren't going to have time to pay attention to where their governments are embezzling all their taxes too if they're too busy being constantly pitted against the Somalian gang, the radical Muslims, the skinhead white British, the gypsies, whoever, in the next town over. Divide and conquer.
The two goals are not exclusive Cov, in the same way that American marxism pits black against white despite neither black nor white continuing any generic (not even distinct) african or european tradition or culture (beyond a petty consumerist St. Patrick's day way). Look at the great philosophies which underpin Western academic disciplines, that in turn teach most of the world's future leaders, their managers and those managers' workers. They teach all to see the world in terms of groups, that think and act alike and must have internal loyalty but cannot have tradition. These groups must attack those oppressing them, and the rest of the philosophies spend the rest of their time trying to create groups to aim at would be oppressors. Whilst the rest of the world teaches the importance of family these philosophies preach their destruction, leaving this fun in its place.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1104767 times)