[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

(07-13-2014 07:50 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

You can't blame it on any one factor and I don't think anyone is. It's a perfect storm of variables all accumulating over time and compounding.

Im in a city that's had 80% of its industry close in move north or south, we have virtually no immigrants other than the Indian tech guys. Illegals didn't have any part of this decline, it was good ole corporate greed. And yet everyone complains about illegals but no one is moving here to this illegal free zone.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-13-2014 07:44 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

As somebody who's witnessing this American decline firsthand, I find it odd everyone is blaming this on the influx of illegal immigrants and not the exodus of well paying jobs to Mexico and Canada.

I don't know if anyone in this thread is blaming the entire collapse of the USA on illegal immigrant. Illegal immigration is only a piece of the collapse.

The basis of the collapse is liberal feminism. Destroy families, destroy men, destroy the middle class, make the people dependent upon govt. Offer these people some free handouts, trading their dignity and pride for some food stamps to buy shitty unhealthy food and live in crime riddled neighborhoods. This is why the once great USA is collapsing.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Our economic decline I feel has very little to do with the unavailability of labor (be it legal or illegal). It has more to do with monetary policy, regulations, an ever-growing national debt which is crowding out private sector funding, and a completely unstable political environment.

The influx of illegals will only create problems.

1. Diversity is not our strength. A house divided cannot stand. As we are already seeing, turning the political into the racial creates even more tension. Democrats are deemed the party of non-whites (along with r-type whites) and the Republicans are deemed the party of whites. It seems Democrats believe everything to the right of Bill Clinton is racist. Increasing this racial tension by making it political does not unify the country in any way.

2. More cheap labor. This influx will greatly depress wages. Many Americans are struggling and turning the lower wage bracket into a dog eat dog environment does not help our country. Wages are falling, cost of goods and services are rising. No bueno.

3. These third world peasants from Central America are poor by Central American standards. They are certainly poor by American standards. This will greatly increase the size of the welfare state. 47% of Americans already pay no income tax. This will push that number even higher putting America into death spiral mode where the takers outnumber the makers.

[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

(07-13-2014 08:18 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The basis of the collapse is liberal feminism. Destroy families, destroy men, destroy the middle class, make the people dependent upon govt. Offer these people some free handouts, trading their dignity and pride for some food stamps to buy shitty unhealthy food and live in crime riddled neighborhoods. This is why the once great USA is collapsing.

hmmmmm sign NAFTA ship middle class jobs to Canada and Mexico....destroy middle class

[El Chinito loco]

(07-13-2014 08:26 PM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

3. These third world peasants from Central America are poor by Central American standards. They are certainly poor by American standards. This will greatly increase the size of the welfare state. 47% of Americans already pay no income tax. This will push that number even higher putting America into death spiral mode where the takers outnumber the makers.

It's a permanent underclass that replenishes itself and also imports the worst of central America and is a prime recruiting ground for MS-13, Mexican mafia, cartels, etc..

This is why in CA you have entire families of criminals with illegal roots living in the same shitty crime infested barrios for generations. Social mobility is almost zero and "graduating" means a stint in jail where they might become a shot caller.

Just to go back to my prior example of America's future..Long Beach was finally overrun by latino gangs. Sheer numbers (fueled by illegals) won out. The blacks were driven out of the prime drug spots in the city and a big chunk of asians got the fuck out of the jungle to the civilized neighborhoods.

[Cobra]

I won't comment on the thread but related to race related threads ....

Emotion takes these threads at least a bit out of control and it gets tough for a member to sift through that.

Without emotional content and rants, we could discuss race issues a bit more intelligently but I don't see that happening anytime soon in any consistent manner.

I'm just glad the discussion is still far beyond any discussions I have with people in real life. Amen to that!

[R Smoov]

Tell that bitch to stop fucking sweating!

[Tytalus]

(07-13-2014 07:44 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

As somebody who's witnessing this American decline firsthand, I find it odd everyone is blaming this on the influx of illegal immigrants and not the exodus of well paying jobs to Mexico and Canada.

Excuse me, what well paying jobs in Canada? The only province that has well paying jobs is Alberta with their oil patch. We have had a huge controversy with the temporary foreign worker program our conservative government brought in.

Back to the OP.... Couldn't agree more with this woman. In canada the legal immigration is too much, let alone to talk about the illegal immigration.

[Feisbook Control]

(07-13-2014 07:40 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 07:35 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 07:10 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 07:04 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 06:08 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The USA will end up being one of two things...

#1) The first country to truly shake off the loser socialist liberal mentality and reclaim their greatness. A lesson to all other historians in the future as to how worthless and mentally deranged socialism is.

#2) A great study lesson in how liberalism does not work. How the USA, a country that...

- Beat the world's great empire in back to back wars, in founding this country.
- Survived a ungodly brutal civil war and restored the country.
- Was on the winning side of two World Wars and in the 2nd world war we got all the goods afterwards.
- Built a military with technology that could destroy all other militaries many times over.
- Had the greatest economic run ever.

Only to be taken down and destroyed by the virus that is liberalism. Forget nuclear weapons, forget a military of 100,000,000 well trained soldiers. You want to defeat your enemy, spread liberalism there and you will win in due time.

Whatever the outcome, I just hope I can get out of here before the inevitable happens. With this debt, it is only a matter of time.

Which wars would those be? Surely you're not talking about the War of 1812 in which both sides returned occupied territory to each other at the conclusion of the war (i.e. there were no territorial changes), the U.S. failed to conquer Canada, and the British burnt Washington, including both the White House and the Capitol.

I also think the claim of the greatest economic run ever could be disputed. Anyway, I'm just nitpicking. I agree with you in general.

The USA was but a baby of a country, and while we didn't take territory, we ran off the greatest army in the world to protect this country. It wasn't some great decisive win, but the USA was able to survive an invasion by the greatest army in the world. Call it a draw if you like, the fact the USA has been through all of this and not only survived but thrived is amazing. Even more amazing is that liberalism is such a terrible virus that even this once great country cannot survive it, IMO.

The economic run from 1946 through about 1999 was nearly unprecedented. We went from a country returning from war and recovering from the great depression to economic heights never imagined. But that is over now.

So having your capital burnt is a victory. Okay. You are also aware that the British were dealing with a little Corsican at the time, I gather.

I'm no economic historian, but I don't know that you can make that claim about economics. Just off the top of my head, the British economy in the 19th century was pretty impressive. Likewise, the Dutch economy in the late 16th century through to the late 17th century was pretty impressive also. In fact, I just looked this up, and in 1670, the Netherlands controlled 50% (!!!) of European shipping. I am sure there are other non-European examples, but I am not familiar with them.

If England's only goal was to come here and burn down our capitol and then leave without gaining any territory, then they won. I just don't believe that was the case.

There were other economic booms, to measure them would be interesting.

Regardless, the USA went through lots of real bad shit, and came out on top. But the one thing the USA will not survive is liberalism-feminism. All those obstacles and the USA came out on top. But liberalism-feminism is destructive even the USA cannot survive it.

Their goals were manifold, some of which (e.g. holding onto Canada) they won, and some of which (building Indian nations to check American expansion) they lost.

I'm from an unimportant country that will likely always be unimportant, so I don't have a dog in the race, and I can step back and see the common threads. All rising powers come to power under extraordinary and unlikely circumstances, always at the expense of someone else. It's worth noting that the Netherlands fought its own war of independence against the then superpower of their day. They then had their brief spot in the sun and then were eclipsed.

Every power at its peak has all sorts of foundation myths and myths about its own exceptionalism, yet they all decline for the same reasons: hubris, overreach, debasement of the currency and general economic sluggishness, loss of civic feeling, etc. The sun never set on the British Empire until it did. China was the Middle Kingdom to which all other nations kowtowed until the red haired barbarians arrived and inflicted a "century of shame", etc.

The very self-belief that allows a nation to rise is also that which causes it to become complacent and decadent. In this respect, the U.S. is pretty much no different from anyone else once the long view of history is taken. Ten years ago, Americans were mocking "Old Europe" for being washed up. Old Europe knew differently, precisely because it was washed up. Fifty years from now, Americans will be saying this to Chinese laughing at them for being washed up.

El Chinito: China has had some pretty incredible (and large and powerful) empires, comparable to Rome.

objectivist: Perhaps the one silver lining to this is that in some places, communities will actually strengthen as people come to rely upon one another once more and also develop a very significant black economy where money is kept within the community rather than either going to the government, corporations or overseas. They may then start making that leap of thinking in other areas of their lives, not directly related to economics.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-13-2014 09:45 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

El Chinito: China has had some pretty incredible (and large and powerful) empires, comparable to Rome.

True but from what I know of the dynasties the successful ones seemed to not last as long on average compared with Rome. They were also more prone to systematic changes by individual emperors who had much more control in the success or failure of the dynasty. The strength of Rome was that even with the worst emperors the state apparatus still survived for the most part or in some extreme cases purged the emperor. Chinese dynasties tended to falter (obliterating the existing bureaucracy) under a bad emperor's reign only to be reborn under a different emperor with the entire "state" reimagined to fit the new reigning emperor's vision.

The Han, Tang, and perhaps Ming dynasties were definitely the jewels of Chinese civilization though.

I just remembered this quote by McArtney the first British "diplomat" in China and what he said was surprisingly insightful and true of China's dynasties:

Quote:

The Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of able and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these hundred and fifty years past, and to overawe their neighbours merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have the command on deck, adieu to the discipline and safety of the ship. She may, perhaps, not sink outright; she may drift some time as a wreck, and will then be dashed to pieces on the shore; but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom

Of course he was seeing China already in terminal decline but what he said is true about how China's empires aren't really an unbroken lineage but a separate series of successful or unsuccessful states which is largely influenced by the emperor.

[speakeasy]

(07-13-2014 08:46 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 08:26 PM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

3. These third world peasants from Central America are poor by Central American standards. They are certainly poor by American standards. This will greatly increase the size of the welfare state. 47% of Americans already pay no income tax. This will push that number even higher putting America into death spiral mode where the takers outnumber the makers.

It's a permanent underclass that replenishes itself and also imports the worst of central America and is a prime recruiting ground for MS-13, Mexican mafia, cartels, etc..

This is why in CA you have entire families of criminals with illegal roots living in the same shitty crime infested barrios for generations. Social mobility is almost zero and "graduating" means a stint in jail where they might become a shot caller.

Just to go back to my prior example of America's future..Long Beach was finally overrun by latino gangs. Sheer numbers (fueled by illegals) won out. The blacks were driven out of the prime drug spots in the city and a big chunk of asians got the fuck out of the jungle to the civilized neighborhoods.

I think we reached the tipping point where there's pretty much nothing you can do. The reason we don't get a handle on immigration and deport illegal immigrants is because the two parties are trying to win the Latino vote. While not every Latino came in illegally, almost every Latino either has a family member or good friend that is here illegally, or maybe their parents came here that way. So they are always as a bloc going to be pro-amnesty and for de factor open borders. Plus many want to bring more family members up.

California with a 50% Latino population is for all intents and purposes a sanctuary state where local law enforcement has flat out refused to have anything to do with enforcement of immigration laws, where people illegally in the country can get drivers licenses, professional licenses, in-state college tuition, section 8, etc. Any politician that threatens to reverse this is unelectable in California. A governor that is pro-border enforcement stands no chance of winning in California because of the demographics. Within a few decades, the same dynamic will play out nationwide.

[Feisbook Control]

El Chinito: Was Rome at its beginning, the change to an empire, and then its end really the same entity though? Maybe we're splitting hairs with this. China rolls ever onwards though. It's a civilisation unto itself. I definitely think it's comparable to Rome. Sometimes it falls in a heap, yet it always seems to get back up. Furthermore, the size of its territory, and also the people who become more or less thoroughly Sinicised increases. The Chinese, perhaps more than anyone, know just how cyclical history is, just how much empires rise and fall. Perhaps because we've been all over the place in the West with many pretty distinct ethnolinguistic-political empires that we always end up thinking that this time will be different. Pretty much one thousand years from now, I think Chinese people will be speaking Chinese (which will have evolved, of course) and their culture will broadly look like it does today. I would have trouble predicting the equivalent for most of the West two hundred years ahead.

[CaP7]

I've now met 4-5 different people that were in car accidents and injured by illegal workers without insurance. There are literally no consequences for these immigrants, other than a wrecked car. Meanwhile, the insured American doesn't get properly compensated for his injuries.

In Mexico, if you are in a car accident and do not have Mexican insurance, the police hold you until fault is determined. Since you are a "wealthy American", fault is usually assigned to you and your insurance company.

Yet, California wants to give them a drivers' license.

I think that if you don't have insurance and you injure someone in a wreck, there should be a choice between fines and jail time.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-13-2014 10:25 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

California with a 50% Latino population is for all intents and purposes a sanctuary state where local law enforcement has flat out refused to have anything to do with enforcement of immigration laws, where people illegally in the country can get drivers licenses, professional licenses, in-state college tuition, section 8, etc. Any politician that threatens to reverse this is unelectable in California. A governor that is pro-border enforcement stands no chance of winning in California because of the demographics. Within a few decades, the same dynamic will play out nationwide.

Around 20 years ago in CA you could already see good middle class neighborhoods on the ethnic dividing line turning into shitholes. I think that's when the ethnic lines really started to shift hard due to the drug trade and associated gang violence.

Right now the only buffer is the economic one. Illegals and the multi-generation layabout criminal types can't afford to live in a lot of the decent neighborhoods so the only way to stop the cancer from spreading is to price them out. That's why a lot of of good middle class neighborhoods in CA are adamantly against public housing projects of any type or even multi residential units. The undesirables flood in fast and turn the neighborhood into a shitty barrio within a generation. It's happened to many cities around CA already.

You're right that the majority latino sentiment is against any kind of real debate on immigration. It really is too late and obvious to anyone who has lived in states that are full of illegals. The latino leaders have re-framed everything into race politics which means any practical debate about the problems will be shouted down immediately. The voting bloc is essentially used to extort the nation until their demands are met.

[CaP7]

When I was living in St. Louis, the evening news would always find the most incoherent, uneducated, heavily accented minority to get a quote from. It happens on the L.A. news too. It's almost like the news programs are trying to perpetuate stereotypes.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-13-2014 10:35 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

El Chinito: Was Rome at its beginning, the change to an empire, and then its end really the same entity though? Maybe we're splitting hairs with this. China rolls ever onwards though. It's a civilisation unto itself. I definitely think it's comparable to Rome. Sometimes it falls in a heap, yet it always seems to get back up. Furthermore, the size of its territory, and also the people who become more or less thoroughly Sinicised increases.

I'm no historian but i'd say that Rome's state lineage remained remarkably intact throughout the history of the empire. It was on the brink a few times but didn't completely fail until the end. You can point to the biggest shift in the beginning where it went from a Republic to an empire. Then you could say the latter few centuries of Rome were different when it was increasingly being ruled by emperors who based their allegiances elsewhere.

Keep in mind i'm talking about Rome as a state which is mostly the governing and military apparatus. The ethnic identity of "Rome" was a more convoluted thing. Since a lot of the patrician families in Rome were of what we know as italian heritage today but very few of them were actually in leadership positions starting from about mid-way in Rome's history. There were quite a few "foreign" emperors and families in powerful positions. I think Rome developed its own unique collective identity that was even different from the ethnicity of the people it was originally founded under. That's how powerful it was..the state mostly superseded everything and had a history of recovering from existential crisis.

[speakeasy]

(07-13-2014 10:37 PM)CaP7 Wrote:  

I've now met 4-5 different people that were in car accidents and injured by illegal workers without insurance. There are literally no consequences for these immigrants, other than a wrecked car. Meanwhile, the insured American doesn't get properly compensated for his injuries.

In Mexico, if you are in a car accident and do not have Mexican insurance, the police hold you until fault is determined. Since you are a "wealthy American", fault is usually assigned to you and your insurance company.

Yet, California wants to give them a drivers' license.

I think that if you don't have insurance and you injure someone in a wreck, there should be a choice between fines and jail time.

You as an American are subsidizing insurance for illegals. The large number of them driving in states like California without insurance just jacks up the risk pool and everyone with insurance pays for that extra risk. I'm sure that's in part why my car insurance premium was cut in half when I left California.

[speakeasy]

(07-13-2014 10:38 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 10:25 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

California with a 50% Latino population is for all intents and purposes a sanctuary state where local law enforcement has flat out refused to have anything to do with enforcement of immigration laws, where people illegally in the country can get drivers licenses, professional licenses, in-state college tuition, section 8, etc. Any politician that threatens to reverse this is unelectable in California. A governor that is pro-border enforcement stands no chance of winning in California because of the demographics. Within a few decades, the same dynamic will play out nationwide.

Around 20 years ago in CA you could already see good middle class neighborhoods on the ethnic dividing line turning into shitholes. I think that's when the ethnic lines really started to shift hard due to the drug trade and associated gang violence.

Right now the only buffer is the economic one. Illegals and the multi-generation layabout criminal types can't afford to live in a lot of the decent neighborhoods so the only way to stop the cancer from spreading is to price them out. That's why a lot of of good middle class neighborhoods in CA are adamantly against public housing projects of any type or even multi residential units. The undesirables flood in fast and turn the neighborhood into a shitty barrio within a generation. It's happened to many cities around CA already.

You're right that the majority latino sentiment is against any kind of real debate on immigration. It really is too late and obvious to anyone who has lived in states that are full of illegals. The latino leaders have re-framed everything into race politics which means any practical debate about the problems will be shouted down immediately. The voting bloc is essentially used to extort the nation until their demands are met.

Well stated. As far as California goes, they won that shit back. Reconquista is a done deal. Only thing they don't have is the money. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future that whites aren't holding the majority of the wealth, even when the nation becomes majority minority. That's how it already is in Latin America anyway. What will happen is that whites will become more libertarian and minorities will become increasingly socialistic. Every social program will be framed as a means of non-whites extracting wealth from whites. You saw people like Glenn Beck call Obamacare a form of reparations. It's only going to get worse.

[Switch]

Good gravy the US is going downhill.

Seriously stock up on guns and ammo because it's going to turn into a free-for-all within the next 50 years.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-14-2014 04:32 AM)Switch Wrote:  

Good gravy the US is going downhill.

Seriously stock up on guns and ammo because it's going to turn into a free-for-all within the next 50 years.

This is what scares me the most. If this invasion of illegal immigrants does push the US govt. to the left, then how long until they make gun laws so restrictive that the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void?

Once the US govt. is able to find a way to get our guns, it is only a matter of time before we become a complete socialist shithole where day to day life is a complete struggle for survive for 95% of the country.

[El Chinito loco]

(07-14-2014 12:06 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well stated. As far as California goes, they won that shit back. Reconquista is a done deal. Only thing they don't have is the money. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future that whites aren't holding the majority of the wealth, even when the nation becomes majority minority. That's how it already is in Latin America anyway. What will happen is that whites will become more libertarian and minorities will become increasingly socialistic. Every social program will be framed as a means of non-whites extracting wealth from whites. You saw people like Glenn Beck call Obamacare a form of reparations. It's only going to get worse.

You'll have a few ultra wealthy elites living behind tall gates guarded 24-7 by special forces. You have a diminishing middle class living in segregated neighborhoods just getting by. Then you have a very large urban underclass subsistence living in vast ghetto barrio/favela type conditions where crime and corruption is rampant. Politics then becomes a game of who can offer the most handouts to entice the poor people to vote for their corrupt candidate who promises the path to freedom but is basically looting the coffers. Yep, just like Latin America.

[Samseau]

(07-14-2014 06:50 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:06 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well stated. As far as California goes, they won that shit back. Reconquista is a done deal. Only thing they don't have is the money. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future that whites aren't holding the majority of the wealth, even when the nation becomes majority minority. That's how it already is in Latin America anyway. What will happen is that whites will become more libertarian and minorities will become increasingly socialistic. Every social program will be framed as a means of non-whites extracting wealth from whites. You saw people like Glenn Beck call Obamacare a form of reparations. It's only going to get worse.

You'll have a few ultra wealthy elites living behind tall gates guarded 24-7 by special forces. You have a diminishing middle class living in segregated neighborhoods just getting by. Then you have a very large urban underclass subsistence living in vast ghetto barrio/favela type conditions where crime and corruption is rampant. Politics then becomes a game of who can offer the most handouts to entice the poor people to vote for their corrupt candidate who promises the path to freedom but is basically looting the coffers. Yep, just like Latin America.

Most of the American South is just way too racist for this shit. Once DC goes bankrupt (just a matter of time), then the southern states and many midwestern states will use the opportunity (texas included, florida may split into two halves) to simply leave the union.

This could spark a Civil War or the Feds will just roll over and accept the loss of power.

[nomadicdude]

LOL, lots of race realists blaming everything on immigrants, and socialism. Also lots of separatists in this thread locking and loading for the upcoming civil war. LOL. Go America. First world country with third world natives.

[It_is_my_time]

(07-14-2014 10:01 AM)nomadicdude Wrote:  

LOL, lots of race realists blaming everything on immigrants, and socialism. Also lots of separatists in this thread locking and loading for the upcoming civil war. LOL. Go America. First world country with third world natives.

I don't understand the point of this post.

Socialism has failed in ever single country it has ever been attempted. Socialism is simply feminist economics. Steal from those who work hard, create, innovate, and give to those who do the least possible. Or in reality, men paying taxes to the govt. so the govt. can play sugar daddy to the women, because women are the largest voter block.

It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with limiting men's freedom and role in society so women can pretty much live without consequences.

[Dr. Howard]

(07-14-2014 09:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 06:50 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:06 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well stated. As far as California goes, they won that shit back. Reconquista is a done deal. Only thing they don't have is the money. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future that whites aren't holding the majority of the wealth, even when the nation becomes majority minority. That's how it already is in Latin America anyway. What will happen is that whites will become more libertarian and minorities will become increasingly socialistic. Every social program will be framed as a means of non-whites extracting wealth from whites. You saw people like Glenn Beck call Obamacare a form of reparations. It's only going to get worse.

You'll have a few ultra wealthy elites living behind tall gates guarded 24-7 by special forces. You have a diminishing middle class living in segregated neighborhoods just getting by. Then you have a very large urban underclass subsistence living in vast ghetto barrio/favela type conditions where crime and corruption is rampant. Politics then becomes a game of who can offer the most handouts to entice the poor people to vote for their corrupt candidate who promises the path to freedom but is basically looting the coffers. Yep, just like Latin America.

Most of the American South is just way too racist for this shit. Once DC goes bankrupt (just a matter of time), then the southern states and many midwestern states will use the opportunity (texas included, florida may split into two halves) to simply leave the union.

This could spark a Civil War or the Feds will just roll over and accept the loss of power.

That would be like turning back the clock. The southern confederacy would build up again and all of those of mexican descent could take back california, new mexico and most of texas creating a pre 1846 mexico again.

I wonder if it would happen or if there would be a military seizure of power before it all fell apart.