1000 jews is a pretty small sample size to determine if 94% of all American Jews care about Israel. A lot only care about it due to Birthright, which is sort of a buying favor sort of deal. I would think it would be more like 60%. However American Jews tend to be very liberal (since they gave up religion for some culture tribal version of Judaism, with believe in Statism as the true belief). Israeli Jews had some religion although there is several different classes of this. And those different classes are at odds with each other. Especially the Haredi and the secular. But as a whole they tend to be more hawkish and conservative.

Mad props to the guy in the original article. Why?

Because he hustled the system. And I'd like to think that's what RVF and Red Pill is about.

You can't compare Mexican immigration into the U.S. with Muslims in Europe. Completely different scenario.

The entire Southwest belonged to Mexico just 150 years ago. That includes California and most of Texas, which are #1 and #2 largest GDP in the union. Something to think about before you complain about "them illegals coming over here stealing our jobs."

Okay, my taxes and your taxes and everyone's taxes contribute to their welfare, even if they don't pay into our social systems. Yawn. There are much, much, bigger fish to fry in the injustices of our political and legal system.

If you think there's a problem with them taking unskilled labor jobs then you're dead wrong. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs but today's millenials don't want them. Okay inflation has risen so minimum wage has not been adjusted in decades but you can't blame that on immigration. In fact, I would be willing to bet you that you could pay a living wage to strawberry pickers, nannies, and dishwashers, and you would still not find any white kids taking those jobs.

In any healthy economy you need unskilled labor and skilled labor. If you're a skilled laborer, it benefits you GREATLY to have the cheapest unskilled laborer possible. Any other model is simply outdated and it's time to adapt. The world is getting smaller by the day and if you can't figure out how to hustle the system then get the hell out of the gene pool.

Quote: (01-03-2014 12:55 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.

From a historical perspective, this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "protecting their identity", and those who have tried have failed. We can admire instances of nationalism with guys like Putin but it's a narrow-sighted anomaly.

What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that. Sicily is in Italy but you'd never know it by talking to the people there. They're Sicilian! Or so they think. It's false. They've been mixing with Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Greeks for centuries. You can go back thousands of years to the time of Phrygians and Babylonians. And who were they? Just another culture that came, went, mixed with others.

Every country is like this. There is no such thing as nationalism. Nationalism is something that dictators use to manipulate their population and it's a very powerful form of mind control, not to mention highly short-sighted.

Look at systems in nature. Nature is self-organizing. We're on a path of globalization and mixed races. We've got Filipinos in the middle east for fuck's sake. Languages are going to die at an increased rate, all of the world's cultures are going to be packed up in museums, global housing will become increasingly homogenized. We are, first and foremost, a species. In a few millennia or sooner, the entire Earth will resemble a beehive of humanity (if we don't kill ourselves off) and they'll read in history books about all the different cuisines the world used to have.

It's already happening.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:26 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

From a historical perspective, this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "protecting their identity", and those who have tried have failed. We can admire instances of nationalism with guys like Putin but it's a narrow-sighted anomaly.

What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that. Sicily is in Italy but you'd never know it by talking to the people there. They're Sicilian! Or so they think. It's false. They've been mixing with Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Greeks for centuries. You can go back thousands of years to the time of Phrygians and Babylonians. And who were they? Just another culture that came, went, mixed with others.

Every country is like this. There is no such thing as nationalism. Nationalism is something that dictators use to manipulate their population and it's a very powerful form of mind control, not to mention highly short-sighted.

Look at systems in nature. Nature is self-organizing. We're on a path of globalization and mixed races. We've got Filipinos in the middle east for fuck's sake. Languages are going to die at an increased rate, all of the world's cultures are going to be packed up in museums, global housing will become increasingly homogenized. We are, first and foremost, a species. In a few millennia or sooner, the entire Earth will resemble a beehive of humanity (if we don't kill ourselves off) and they'll read in history books about all the different cuisines the world used to have.

It's already happening.

You're a chef, so this is a good analogy. Assume you have the following:

• A jar of mayonnaise
• A bottle of chocolate syrup
• A banana
• A packet of chili powder
• A can of lard
• Ground coffee
  

You mix them all together in a blender.

Do you think what you've made is an improvement over the individual ingredients?

How is humanity best served by mixing all the races of the Earth into a single, mongrelized race? You realize you are advocating for genocide, right? It sounds all Kumbaya, but you're basically saying that you don't want black people, Asian people, Whites, Mestizos, etc.. to exist anymore. You just want a single shade of brown. Personally, I find that horrifying. I want black people, Asians, whites and all other races to continue to exist as unique groups. I want a diversity of races and cultures across the globe. What the hell is the point of traveling, otherwise? How could you honestly support a global racial monoculture? It's positively dystopian.

California and Texas were never really part of Mexico. They were the remains of a disintegrating Spanish Empire populated mostly by dwindling numbers of indigenous peoples.

There's more Mexicans living today in almost any podunk ag town in the central valley than there were in all that "conquered" terrritory ceded during the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

It's just Part II of the same economic and social factors that hit California during the dust bowl.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:26 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-03-2014 12:55 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.

From a historical perspective, this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "protecting their identity", and those who have tried have failed. We can admire instances of nationalism with guys like Putin but it's a narrow-sighted anomaly.

What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that. Sicily is in Italy but you'd never know it by talking to the people there. They're Sicilian! Or so they think. It's false. They've been mixing with Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Greeks for centuries. You can go back thousands of years to the time of Phrygians and Babylonians. And who were they? Just another culture that came, went, mixed with others.

Every country is like this. There is no such thing as nationalism. Nationalism is something that dictators use to manipulate their population and it's a very powerful form of mind control, not to mention highly short-sighted.

Look at systems in nature. Nature is self-organizing. We're on a path of globalization and mixed races. We've got Filipinos in the middle east for fuck's sake. Languages are going to die at an increased rate, all of the world's cultures are going to be packed up in museums, global housing will become increasingly homogenized. We are, first and foremost, a species. In a few millennia or sooner, the entire Earth will resemble a beehive of humanity (if we don't kill ourselves off) and they'll read in history books about all the different cuisines the world used to have.

It's already happening.

________________

True enough Dude...globalization is the big macro trend. But at the same time, tribalism seems to be growing concurrently with it. It's an interesting phenomenon to see globalization on one hand, but then this very strong resurgence of tribalism on the other hand. All over the world, ethnic and religious groups are acting to assert their identity. Look at the Balkans (Albanians, Slovenians, Bulgars, Macedonians, etc). Look at the Middle East (e.g., Kurds, Armenians, Caucasus peoples, etc.) I am not so sure that the future holds a totally homogeneous flavor to it.

The future might surprise all of us. The dearest thing to a man is his identity and his language. He won't let anyone take that from him, and will fight to the death for it.

Personally, I love the diversity of the world. I don't want to live in a world where everyone's the same, more or less.

While assimilation and mixing of peoples is part of history, it's also a matter of speed and degree. We all change over time, but can we really expect people to just sit still and let a tidal wave of humanity wash over them, and say, "isn't this great?"

All I'm saying is that immigration and assimilation should happen gradually, to allow time for different peoples to melt together. When immigration comes on too fast and too furious, it begins to look a lot like displacement or conquest.

If you look at some of the ancient peoples of the world, like Armenians, Basques, Japanese, Koreans, etc., they all had rituals, traditions, and habits that tended to safeguard their identity. Maybe it was a body of scriptures or a religion (Armenians, Hindus, and Hebrews, for example), maybe it was a specific territory or language (Basques, Koreans), or maybe it was a form of racial identity (e.g., Japanese). Whatever it was, it served a purpose: to preserve the identity of the group.

You're completely right: no group can ever remain unchanged over time, nor should they want to. That would mean stagnation. It's just that I personally think governments should at least try to take steps to preserve the customs, traditions, languages, and institutions of the people they govern.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:43 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

• A jar of mayonnaise
• A bottle of chocolate syrup
• A banana
• A packet of chili powder
• A can of lard
• Ground coffee
  
  You mix them all together in a blender

I bet Lindy West would eat it if you squeezed it into an oreo. Jus' sayin'.



   

Just a rhetorical point, but I can't find any hatred in my heart for people who run away from a less than stellar situation in the homeland and game the system to make rational economic choices to better their own personal situations.

Isn't that what we preach on this forum practically on a daily basis?

The problem with American immigration policy is that there isn't one. They are neither completely shunned nor embraced. They aren't held accountable to the laws of regular citizens and they also are barred from most citizen's privileges.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:09 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

If you think there's a problem with them taking unskilled labor jobs then you're dead wrong. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs but today's millenials don't want them.

To be fair, millenials dont want them because they pay shitty wages. I know they get a lot of hate on this forum and elsewhere for picking useless degrees and whatnot, but if you drop thousands on a college education only to wind up with minimum wage prospects....well, I'd be pissed too.

Quote: (01-02-2014 10:04 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:42 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:29 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

I think you may be confusing investors with economists. I'd be willing to wager that the 2008 crisis didn't take any actual economists by surprise. The stupidity that tipped of the tidal wave of economic recession has been well documented by economics as stupid behaviour for a long time now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/20...yre-lying/

Are you serious? Most economists are morons. Why? Because most economists are Keynesians, which means that they are the equivalent of witch doctors as compared to medical doctors.

Not only did most "economists" not predict the financial crisis, but some of them actually urged the Fed to create a housing bubble (which created the crisis). One of them was that idiot "economist" Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times and who won the Nobel Prize for economics -- which once again goes to prove that the Nobel Prize is all but worthless today. The actual words of the idiot:

Quote:Quote:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinio...ble&st=cse

I would trust a used car dealer or a drug dealer more than I would trust a Keynesian economist -- and they are now running the U.S. economy.

Most economists are not Keynesians, they are disciples of Milton Friedman's monetarist theories, out of the school of Chicago.

Alan Greenspan is a devout monetarist.

Krugman is a Modern Monetary Theorirst (MMT-new name for chartalists)

Keynesians haven't had any policy impact in the western world after 1979.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:26 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

[quote='scorpion' pid='618984' dateline='1388728507']


What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that.

You don't really mean this, do you?

Quote: (01-03-2014 02:33 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Most economists are not Keynesians, they are disciples of Milton Friedman's monetarist theories, out of the school of Chicago.

Alan Greenspan is a devout monetarist.

Krugman is a Modern Monetary Theorirst (MMT-new name for chartalists)

Keynesians haven't had any policy impact in the western world after 1979

I used the word "Keynesians" in a broad context, because Keynesians and monetarists both believe in increasing the money supply in the economy, i.e., Keynesian economists by using fiscal government stimulus while monetarists increase the supply of money through the Fed. The economists in Washington have obviously done both over the past forty years.

When you replace "government spending" with "government spending via increasing money supply" instead of borrowing then the Keynesian doctrine is identical to the Monetarist one.

http://euronomist.blogspot.com/2013/04/a...-same.html


You are wrong about Krugman. He is a self-professed Keynesian.

Quote:Quote:

It’s been a bit funny on the academic front being a Keynesian during a Keynesian crisis.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11...y-wonkish/


Keynesians [broad context] have not only had an impact, but have brought about every financial crisis over the past forty years -- with out-of-control government spending and debasement of the currency.

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:42 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:29 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

Apples and oranges. Illegal immigration has existed and been studied for much longer than the recent housing crisis.

Also, why has no one cited data when making claims about the economic and social impact of illegal immigrants? I'm just supposed to take your word?

Personally, I have zero problems with illegal immigrants. I rarely come across any in my day to day life. They aren't a factor at my job or in my community.

Don't you live in DC? You are not at the forefront of the problem. Try living in L.A. for a few years and put a couple kids in the public school there and you might start change your tune. It is probably THE most explosive issue in California by far. People aren't against immigration per se, but think it has to be done the right way and that this way we've been doing it is fucked up.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:43 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

How is humanity best served by mixing all the races of the Earth into a single, mongrelized race? You realize you are advocating for genocide, right? It sounds all Kumbaya, but you're basically saying that you don't want black people, Asian people, Whites, Mestizos, etc.. to exist anymore. You just want a single shade of brown. Personally, I find that horrifying. I want black people, Asians, whites and all other races to continue to exist as unique groups. I want a diversity of races and cultures across the globe. What the hell is the point of traveling, otherwise? How could you honestly support a global racial monoculture? It's positively dystopian.

I think we should realize that a completely monoracial world is fairly unlikely. Yeah, it might happen at some point in the extremely distant future, but there were always be groups of people made unique by either physical or cultural characteristics.

Hell, most of the groups that we label "races" are the product of intense mixing. Filipinos are a mix of Negrito(the original inhabitants of Asia, the first migrants out of Africa), a variety of Asian ethnicites, some Indian and Arab(due to trade), and Spanish. Mexicans are the mixed result of several Nahua and Mayan tribes, African slaves, Spanish and French colonists, and possibly Lebanese/Arab immigrants. Arabs themselves are the result of years of intermarriage and wartime rape between the Ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Hittites, etc. African Americans are a mix of thousands of West African tribes, several European ethnicities, and many Native American tribes. And many members of "nonwhite" populations like the Polish and the Russians likely have heritage from the non-white Huns, Mongols, Kazakhs, and Tartars who constantly invaded their lands.

One point that we can gather from this is that race really is something of a social construct(I hate that word, but in this case it's true). Of course some populations are more homogenous and isolated than others--Werringi the full-blooded Aborigine would be less mixed than Farid the Pakistani--but the idea that there are concrete races, that there is such a thing as a "black race" and an "Asian race" and a "white race" at all is somewhat ridiculous. This is why I dislike all the hysteria about "racial preservation". I'm a Tamil Brahmin, originating from India, and I have no doubt that my ancestors from a few hundred years ago looked fairly different from me.

What does matter, however, is the preservation of culture. Despite the fact that my ancestors were probably of diverse origins--some were indigenous tribespeople, others were ethnic Tamils, others came from other parts of India, a few may have come from Iran or Arabia--they still upheld a culture and tradition that has changed little in the past thousand years. That is what is important. I don't care if my descendants have green skin and pink eyes. The genetics will be shuffled and reshuffled, as they always have been. What matters is that they preserve my culture--both of them, the Brahminical and the American--in some fashion.

TLDR: Race is nebulous and everchanging. Culture and tradition also change over time, but they tend to last longer, and, at least in my opinion, should be valued over racial integrity, a concept that doesn't really hold water in the first place.

Quote:Quote:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

First of all, he didn't say that. He just quoted Paul McCulley, whomever that is. Second, this was obviously meant in the "lesser evil" sense. Third, I can't speak for the USA, but he did predict the European crisis and its mechanisms perfectly. Things during the last 5 years are unfolding exactly as he described them.

Quote: (01-03-2014 03:29 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:42 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Quote: (01-02-2014 09:29 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Virtually all economists agree that immigrants - illegal and legal - benefit the US economy, and raise the income of most Americans. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, a net gain on the nation's balance sheet, by most findings.

Virtually all economists had no problem with subprime lending and even went so far as to mock and dismiss those who saw a housing bubble.

You're going to need a better authority than economists if you're going to appeal to authority.

Apples and oranges. Illegal immigration has existed and been studied for much longer than the recent housing crisis.

Also, why has no one cited data when making claims about the economic and social impact of illegal immigrants? I'm just supposed to take your word?

Personally, I have zero problems with illegal immigrants. I rarely come across any in my day to day life. They aren't a factor at my job or in my community.

Don't you live in DC? You are not at the forefront of the problem. Try living in L.A. for a few years and put a couple kids in the public school there and you might start change your tune. It is probably THE most explosive issue in California by far. People aren't against immigration per se, but think it has to be done the right way and that this way we've been doing it is fucked up.

Los Angeles is a latin city in my mind (the name alone). It's literally 2+ hours from the Mexican border. That's pretty much a Mexican city. Only behind DF and Monterrey in the number of Mexicans in the world. Of course that city is going to be a magnet for illegal immigrants. The infrastructure is already there to support illegal immigrants so of course many will wind up there, if not only for a short pit stop to gather their bearings. It's astonishing to me that the city only recently had it's first latino mayor since US rule I believe. Goes to show how marginalized the majority of the people have been. I think it would be a good idea to leave LA if you have an issue with the immigrants. That issue isn't going to change.

HC is trolling you guys so hard. Best thread this week. I think Texas is pretty much Latin too. We should just give it back to Mexico.

Quote: (01-03-2014 12:55 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

HC, you ignored the part of my post that said: "More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel."

No one gives a shit if Shlomo the Brooklyn Deli owner is ambivalent toward Israel. When 90+% of influential Jews in media and government all push the Zionist agenda, however, you can't pretend that's not happening.

But honestly, what's the point of continuing this? You're obviously anti-white. And you've labeled me a white nationalist. So this debate is going nowhere. We'll see what the future holds. Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.

I didn't respond to that because, like your other points, it's simply untrue. "90%" of wealthy Jews do not "support" Israel in unison. Israel is a democracy and has many different people with many different views. Who owns the NYT? Their editorial board is definitely not pro-Zionist. Ask Israelis themselves. They have a totally different take on American media, which many consider anti-Israel. I've been to Israel so I speak from personal knowledge. You speak out of pure ignorance. You literally get on google just to find something - anything - to have any sort of reply. You're arguing out of emotion, not knowledge. The Jews in America who argue against racial quotas in immigration are often the same people who have never been to Israel and don't have dual citizenship (the majority of American Jews). Therefore, your premise that there's some kind of hypocrisy is largely unfounded. Also, there are many people in Israel who are sympathetic to migrants. I have a friend in Tel Aviv that I skype with sometimes who is well-versed on these issues. If you go to pro-migrant rallies, you'll see all shades of Israelis protesting on their behalf. It's just that the ultra Orthodox Jews who are a small percentage of the population, but highly organized and influential (Orthodox rabbis have authority on laws regarding marriage, divorce, death, Jewish immigration, etc), have influence with government on the issue. But many Israelis push back against them. One example being now ultra-Orthodox Jews will be forced to serve in the Israeli military like everyone else, when they hadn't before. Constant push and pull, like any other democracy.

I'm an American. I'm not a racist. I'm not the one advocating for race-based laws. Of course you're a white nationalist. You've been bringing up white this, white that in all your posts, going as far as to suggest resurrecting an immigration law that only accepts legal immigrants from northern Europe. That's not an American speaking. Keep in mind this is a thread about "illegal immigration." Goes to show how extreme your thinking is.

My thinking is on the way out? Look at who the President is. Two terms. The US is becoming more diverse and more racially mixed by the day. All the trends point to that. Our military - the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country - is even more racially diverse than civilian society. The percentage of latinos in uniform is more than twice the percentage of their population in the civilian world. Same goes for blacks. It's been that way for a long time.

People like you who live in god knows where have no influence anymore. I'm not the one complaining (you are). Hence, YOUR way of thinking is not accepted.

Finally, I find it hilarious that you think hanging out on a democratic game forum where most people don't even agree with you is tantamount to "saving your people." No wonder "your people" are crying. No answers. You have zero efficacy in the real world. Typical keyboard jockey.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:09 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Mad props to the guy in the original article. Why?

Because he hustled the system. And I'd like to think that's what RVF and Red Pill is about.
ell out of the gene pool.

Couldn't have said it any better. For multi-generational Americans (black or white) who complain about illegal immigrants taking their jobs, I can assure you their problems don't end there. If your family has been here for generations and you can't do better than a low end job, you're just not cut out for America. Pure Darwinism.

This guy deserves props for finding a way to come up in spite of his illegal status. Clearly a smart, hard working man. Better than can be said for a lot of lazy Americans.

Quote: (01-03-2014 09:34 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

HC is trolling you guys so hard. Best thread this week. I think Texas is pretty much Latin too. We should just give it back to Mexico.

Texas is interesting in that the Mexicans who were there were hostile to the Mexican government and joined white colonists in achieving Texas' independence. Lone star state.

I love these illegal immigration threads since nothing is going to change and it is funny to see people get worked up over an issue that is not going to change. If the federal government couldn't get tough on illegal immigration back in the 1980s and 1990s (when there was an actual chance to curb it), then there is ZERO chance of it happening now. Zero. Zip. Ziltch. Nada. Nothing...and don't kid yourselves about it.

Even the Republicans are now thinking about amnesty: http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/...sbVObRbyP8

However, I do suspect that illegal immigration will decrease or even reverse when the American economy starts to slow down in the coming years as we slide into a much slower rate of growth (since there won't be as many jobs available anymore), so I guess the problem will solve itself.

Quote: (01-03-2014 10:21 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I love these illegal immigration threads since nothing is going to change and it is funny to see people get worked up over an issue that is not going to change. If the federal government couldn't get tough on illegal immigration back in the 1980s and 1990s (when there was an actual chance to curb it), then there is ZERO chance of it happening now. Zero. Zip. Ziltch. Nada. Nothing...and don't kid yourselves about it.

Even the Republicans are now thinking about amnesty: http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/...sbVObRbyP8

However, I do suspect that illegal immigration will decrease or even reverse when the American economy starts to slow down in the coming years as we slide into a much slower rate of growth (since there won't be as many jobs available anymore), so I guess the problem will solve itself.

I agree. It's pretty much beating a dead horse. Also, you're totally right about the economy. That's the historic reason most people come to the US, no matter the home country. Few people would choose to leave their families and their cultures for any other reason. That's why recent immigrants prefer their own ethnic enclaves. They love their culture . It's just they can't make any money where they come from. If you think the cards are stacked in America, it pales in comparison to what you find in the developing world. In many countries it's simply impossible to climb out of poverty, no matter your ability or intellect.

Quote: (01-03-2014 09:40 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

I didn't respond to that because, like your other points, it's simply untrue. "90%" of wealthy Jews do not "support" Israel in unison. Israel is a democracy and has many different people with many different views. Who owns the NYT? Their editorial board is definitely not pro-Zionist. Ask Israelis themselves. They have a totally different take on American media, which many consider anti-Israel. I've been to Israel so I speak from personal knowledge. You speak out of pure ignorance. You literally get on google just to find something - anything - to have any sort of reply. You're arguing out of emotion, not knowledge. The Jews in America who argue against racial quotas in immigration are often the same people who have never been to Israel and don't have dual citizenship (the majority of American Jews). Therefore, your premise that there's some kind of hypocrisy is largely unfounded. Also, there are many people in Israel who are sympathetic to migrants. I have a friend in Tel Aviv that I skype with sometimes who is well-versed on these issues. If you go to pro-migrant rallies, you'll see all shades of Israelis protesting on their behalf. It's just that the ultra Orthodox Jews who are a small percentage of the population, but highly organized and influential (Orthodox rabbis have authority on laws regarding marriage, divorce, death, Jewish immigration, etc), have influence with government on the issue. But many Israelis push back against them. One example being now ultra-Orthodox Jews will be forced to serve in the Israeli military like everyone else, when they hadn't before. Constant push and pull, like any other democracy.

I'm an American. I'm not a racist. I'm not the one advocating for race-based laws. Of course you're a white nationalist. You've been bringing up white this, white that in all your posts, going as far as to suggest resurrecting an immigration law that only accepts legal immigrants from northern Europe. That's not an American speaking. Keep in mind this is a thread about "illegal immigration." Goes to show how extreme your thinking is.

My thinking is on the way out? Look at who the President is. Two terms. The US is becoming more diverse and more racially mixed by the day. All the trends point to that. Our military - the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country - is even more racially diverse than civilian society. The percentage of latinos in uniform is more than twice the percentage of their population in the civilian world. Same goes for blacks. It's been that way for a long time.

People like you who live in god knows where have no influence anymore. I'm not the one complaining (you are). Hence, YOUR way of thinking is not accepted.

Finally, I find it hilarious that you think hanging out on a democratic game forum where most people don't even agree with you is tantamount to "saving your people." No wonder "your people" are crying. No answers. You have zero efficacy in the real world. Typical keyboard jockey.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who says the moon is made out of cheese when you continue to deny the massive influence of organized, pro-Israel Jewish groups in the United States. It is, quite simply, a fact that is plain to see for anyone with their eyes open (apparently not you). You continue to muddy the waters (your favorite debating tactic by a mile) talking about intra-Israeli politics, something I never mentioned. I explicitly stated that the vast majority of influential American Jews are Zionists, a fact you cannot refute because it is clearly true. Go ahead and keep talking about your friend in Tel Aviv, though.

And yes, I'm sorry to say but you are a racist. You are obviously heavily anti-white in your thinking, going so far as to earlier admit you wouldn't mind seeing the British people slowly genocided due to the "crimes" their ancestors committed during colonial times. And my thinking - which is simply a desire to preserve and protect existing racial and cultural groups, including the ones to which I do not belong - could only be considered "extreme" in today's multicultural, leftist insane asylum. It used to be called, "common sense". You call me a racist, yet I'm the one who's actually advocating to preserve the diversity of the world. You're the one turning a blind eye while certain racial groups are demographically disappearing in their own homelands.

And yes again, your type of thinking is on the way out. The left-wing, cosmopolitan multiculturalism you spout is a bankrupt philosophy. Look what it's done for the Western world over the past few decades. Socially, economically, morally and culturally we're a complete wreck. Social cohesion and trust are at all-time lows. Multiculturalism simply does not work. More and more, people are beginning to wake up to this fact, and realize that leftists like yourself have sold them a bill of goods.

Finally, this is not a "democratic" game forum. In fact, if you haven't noticed, most people here are pretty critical of leftists in general. The manosphere leans noticeably to the right. And the idea that most people here don't agree with my ideas is utterly laughable considering I probably have the highest ratio of likes to posts on the entire forum (go ahead, click my name). What you meant to say is that YOU don't agree with me, which is not surprising, since you are a blatant anti-white racist who cheers the demographic decline of whites in the West. You spout this anti-white nonsense in every race thread on the forum, and I'm simply one of the only posters in a position to call you out on it. Frankly, I bet most people here are tired of reading this shit from you, but don't want to risk getting banned for mixing it up with a senior member.

In fact, HC, if you really think I'm the one who is completely out of touch with the rest of the forum (as opposed to yourself), we could put it to the test. I would gladly submit to a vote/poll where the RVF can decide which of us they would rather have around and whose posts they find more valuable. Loser leaves town with a big fat ban. We'll see if your data sheets, anti-white racism and Obama cheerleading are more appreciated than my commentary and analysis. Are you in? Just say the word.

If you decline this public challenge, in addition to being a display of cowardice, it will be a tacit admission that you admit your thinking is more out of touch with the forum than mine. If you accept and I win, you will be banned and cast off to the NaughtyNomad forum with the rest of the exiles. If you accept and you win, I will be banned and cast into the wilderness myself. Since we are so diametrically at odds and cannot be reconciled, let the forum decide which of us they prefer.

Quote: (01-03-2014 01:43 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

You're a chef, so this is a good analogy. Assume you have the following:

• A jar of mayonnaise
• A bottle of chocolate syrup
• A banana
• A packet of chili powder
• A can of lard
• Ground coffee
  

You mix them all together in a blender.

Do you think what you've made is an improvement over the individual ingredients?

Actually a better analogy is the one we already have: Look at the cuisines of the world. There is no single greater testament to the virtues of multiculturalism than food. French food would be a disaster without the Italian influence. Italian food, which we know as being loaded up with tomatoes, didn't even SEE the tomato until merchants brought it back from the Peruvian Andes. Italian food wouldn't be what it is without the Greek influence, which wouldn't be anything without the Persian influence, and going on and on. Thai and Vietnamese cooking is heavily influenced by the Chinese. The original sushi was Chinese in origin, not Japanese. Korean food retains dishes original brought by the Mongols.

There's a human tendency to dwell on tradition, but it's a tradition that was never there. Innovation and novelty are the prevailing models in Nature.

Quote:Quote:

How is humanity best served by mixing all the races of the Earth into a single, mongrelized race? You realize you are advocating for genocide, right? It sounds all Kumbaya, but you're basically saying that you don't want black people, Asian people, Whites, Mestizos, etc.. to exist anymore. You just want a single shade of brown. Personally, I find that horrifying. I want black people, Asians, whites and all other races to continue to exist as unique groups. I want a diversity of races and cultures across the globe. What the hell is the point of traveling, otherwise? How could you honestly support a global racial monoculture? It's positively dystopian.

It wasn't meant to sound Kumbaya and I'll be the first to say it won't be pretty. It never has been. I'm not advocating genocide, but that will a regular occurrence, and maybe increase. Nowhere did I say that this is what I want, but what I think will happen. Just as there was a point on Earth when Neanderthals existed with homo sapiens, and were subsequently wiped out or assimilated, the same thing will happen with individual cultures. It's happened to many indigenous cultures and will continue to happen.

For thousands of years, humans have lived without rapid transit. It took months just to cross our own country. Now in less than a day you can be on the other side of the world. Think about that. The exchange of ideas and communication happens instantly now. Self organization. It may be dystopian, and it might not be a future that any of us want, but that's where I see things heading eventually. This is already the case in most continents: Northern Europe shares a large percentage of genetics, as does Southern Europe. South America is the same. You think there's such thing as French blood, Italian blood, Spanish blood, Greek blood? There is not. Genetics will continue to cluster based on sub-continents, then continents, then hemispheres, and on. [/quote]