[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

Even the first German immigration measures were strange - back then it would have been easy to further invite Italians or Spanish countries to come and work in Germany. But for some mysterious reason they chose Turkey despite knowing that many of them would not integrate - it was done almost deliberately.

Of course it's deliberate.

Racial and religious purity, or at least a willingness to remain homogeneous in both of those domains, was central to the nationalistic European identity before WW2. Replacing the population with Turks, even though they're less "foreign" than Moroccans or the Sudanese, still accomplishes the goal of eliminating both racial and religious homogeneity.

Watching the Europeans suffer in a heap of smoldering rubble after the war wasn't enough; European tribe and tradition are to be destroyed, as the Jews believe it was taken from them during the Holocaust. "Revenge" is the most fitting word to describe it, and what better way than watching the blonde Aryan bred out of existence by third-world barbarians in his own homeland.

Sounds melodramatic, but it's impossible to look at the motives, the evidence, and the results without coming to the same sad conclusion. There are demographic issues in every developed country, and maintaining a high standard of living in Europe and the U.S. will always require a fresh influx of foreigners to keep the boat floating. But don't fool yourselves into believing that the type of people coming into Europe, destroying the culture and traditions of native Europeans, is a sheer coincidence.

"The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon" by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

[speakeasy]

(04-20-2015 10:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 08:49 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

..
Now keep in mind the process of gaining a work visa and residency permit in Germany as a Westerner. I must earn 2.0x the average national salary, contribute taxes with no ability to collect on Rentenversicherung (German Social Security), no ability to bring family, I must be Bachelor Degree educated, speak the language fluently, etc.

In other words, it's a fucking joke. Immigration isn't about improving the economy or bringing skilled workers into the country - any American, Canadian, or Australian who's waited in line at the Ausländerbehörde can tell you that. It's not about "multiculturalism" or having multiple cultures live side by side - there's only the German culture, and a competing Islamic culture.
..

Even the first German immigration measures were strange - back then it would have been easy to further invite Italians or Spanish countries to come and work in Germany. But for some mysterious reason they chose Turkey despite knowing that many of them would not integrate - it was done almost deliberately.

Also when looking at US or Canadian immigration - they don't want Poles, Germans or Russians there - you have an easier time immigrating into the US by getting a dark tan and crossing the US border illegally through Texas than to apply via the official channels. The policies in the US & Canada are clearly designed to have an inflow of a very DIFFERENT POPULATION than the indigenous one - just as the honest lady put it - the US just as the EU MUST BOW TO MULTICULTURALISM and accept it. Of course everyone voted on it - heh.

I think you're right, but for the wrong reason. It's not because they are darker hued. It's because those darker hued people come from poorer countries and are easier to pay lower wages and exploit. A Westerner going to another Western country is already used to the idea of fair wages and unions and health care benefits. They are more likely to be demanding in exchange for their labor than people from 3rd world countries. I guarantee you if Canadian were willing to work for cheaper than Mexicans we'd be bringing in Canadians instead.

I basically agree with everyone that says immigration is primarily about benefiting the wealthy and taking away any leverage from workers. High unemployment rates are a great thing for employers and the powers that be will never allow the unemployment rate to fall too low. If they do, just open the immigration flood gate.

[Lizard King]

(04-20-2015 11:07 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

To be fair, multiculturalism can't all be blamed on one group. There are demographic issues in every developed country, and maintaining a high standard of living in Europe and the U.S. will always require a fresh influx of foreigners to keep the boat floating. But don't fool yourselves into believing that the typeof people coming into Europe, destroying the culture and traditions of native Europeans, is a sheer coincidence.

Excellent post BM, but I would like to clarify the last part.

"Multi-culturalism" is not the fault of those migrating. The governments are entirely responsible for it.

It might seem obvious, but many people forget or are unaware.

[Phoenix]

The libertarian theories of 'immigration is good' are woefully oversimplified and naive - and I otherwise agree with 95% of their ideas. They simply brush off the entire concept of nations and states as superfluous. To them a government simply 'should' be a certain thing, and if you 'should' it hard enough, it will just magically become like that. They don't understand that its formation stems from the natural law of mankind, just like everything else. That video also doesn't recognize that immigration into a welfare state is not the same thing as immigration into a laissez faire state.

On the attitude that Europe has had to immigration: it is simply so insane, that ever since I came to understand what they were doing (back when I was 18), I have yet to comprehend why any group of people on the planet would deliberately behave in such a self-destructive manner. I see Europe as a man stabbing himself with a knife, whilst wearing a big grin on his face. I can't imagine what that place is going to be like in 30 years or so. Probably a complete bloodbath.

It simply makes no sense. There is no stable mode of human existence that entails doing what the Europeans are doing. The nature of men will eventually correct it (perhaps not in the Europeans favour), but who caused it, why, and why did they succeed?

[speakeasy]

(04-20-2015 11:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

The libertarian theories of 'immigration is good' are woefully oversimplified and naive - and I otherwise agree with 95% of their ideas. They simply brush off the entire concept of nations and states as superfluous. To them a government simply 'should' be a certain thing, and if you 'should' it hard enough, it will just magically become like that. They don't understand that its formation stems from the natural law of mankind, just like everything else. That video also doesn't recognize that immigration into a welfare state is not the same thing as immigration into a laissez faire state.

Very good point. And there are many other things that aren't called "welfare" but are still nonetheless a transfer of wealth from citizens such as having kids and those kids being able to enroll in school at a cost of $10,000 a year to tax payers. This isn't necessarily problematic if you're talking about only a tiny number, but when it becomes millions, you start to see entire school districts failing and perpetual budget shortfalls. If there were no public education, no public hospitals, no section 8, no TANF, then it would be truly sink or swim. Many would sink though. And we'd have a massive rise in poverty. We'd have the type of hillside slums you see in Brazil and Venezuela and the accompanying crime and mayhem problems. I think having some form of welfare state to prevent a situation like that is probably the lessor of two evils.

Quote:

On the attitude that Europe has had to immigration: it is simply so insane, that ever since I came to understand what they were doing (back when I was 18), I have yet to comprehend why any group of people on the planet would deliberately behave in such a self-destructive manner. I see Europe as a man stabbing himself with a knife, whilst wearing a big grin on his face. I can't imagine what that place is going to be like in 30 years or so. Probably a complete bloodbath.

It simply makes no sense. There is no stable mode of human existence that entails doing what the Europeans are doing. The nature of men will eventually correct it (perhaps not in the Europeans favour), but who caused it, why, and why did they succeed?

What's particularly odd here is that in the case of both America and Europe, the majority of the population does not actually want this. Any poll of citizens in any country on earth shows that most people want immigration limited(often extremely so) and most certainly don't want to be displaced by a foreign culture. So the conundrum is how can you have a majority sentiment like this in a democratic society, yet it not manifest itself in actual policy? Why are citizens of countries with freedom of speech, relative low corruption levels and free and open elections unable to do anything meaningful on the issue? I really don't understand where the bottleneck is. Only thing I can guess is that what benefits the wealthy becomes law and there's not a damn thing anyone else can do about it. If you don't like it, then tough shit they would say.

[zayfran]

(04-20-2015 03:31 AM)Magnesium Chloride Wrote:  

Thank you for some much needed balance in this thread.

Some of the rubbish being posted here by pseudo western-supremacists is so ridiculous and inaccurate that I'm certain Tarantino would've loved to incorporate it into Django Unchained.

A globalized multi-polar world where in divisions among the first / third world will become somewhat void is coming. Till we achieve this equilibrium the 'West' will have a decline in living standards. This is not because of Christian supremacy or whatever , it is simply because for the last 500 years we had created a bubble with the White race enslaving and raping the Blacks , colonizing countries to create false markets and breaking the back-bone of the #1 and #2 civilizations at that time China and India.

All the doomsday crap about an upcoming dystopia is just that. Crap spouted from fools like Krauser. There will be teething problems for sure but ultimately it will be better for human civilization.

Couldn't even be arsed to go into the economic benefits of immigration.

[WalterBlack]

The reason why a lot of people try to get to Italy is because Italy a soft touch when it comes to immigration. Italy rarely deports anybody. The island of Lampedusa is Italian territory, and it’s very close to North Africa.

I know guys from India, who went to Italy illegally over 10 years ago, and are now permanent residents. They said that if the cops catch you, they note your name down and let you go. They do not deport you. Once every 2 years you can register with the local police station and they give you papers which are in essence legal work permits. Once you have those you can work just about anywhere. The people I know who entered Italy illegally are now legal permanent residents and they have even been on holiday to UK!

I haven’t been to Italy in over 10 years, but when I was there I noticed that the guys who sell all the bottled water and souvenirs in Vatican City were Muslim Bangladeshis.

From Ludhiana to Latina

Quote:

Immigrant Sikh labour is changing the face of the countryside in Italy, but for many of them it has not been an easy journey

The low-lying hills that punctuate the countryside of Latina in central Italy reverberated with the screams of Harbhajan Singh’s chainsaw. The 41-year-old Sikh attacked the trees that carpeted the hillside like a demon, cutting great bloodless gashes into the trunks. Originally from a village near Kapurthala in Punjab, Harbhajan has spent over 10 years felling trees in the Italian countryside for Trulli Vittorio, a timber company.

....

Quote:

Harbhajan was one of Italy’s immigrant worker elite. Not only had he secured a kosher Italian residence permit during one of the periodic legalisation initiatives Rome undertook every few years, but also had a permanent work contract with his company.

He was paid €65 [USD $70] for an eight-hour day “We’re cheaper than most other immigrants,” he boasted. Even the Romanians and Armenians wanted at least €80 [USD $86]for a day’s work. The illegals amongst the Indians often worked for as little as €3 or 4 [USD$3 to $4]an hour.

Harbhajan and his co-workers, all of whom have lived in Italy for at least a decade, spoke of their work with pride. “Italians don’t like to work too much,” said Sartaj Singh, a clean-shaven Sikh who was working alongside Harbhajan on the day. “They keep going on holiday and make life difficult for the bosses.”

“Before we (Punjabis) got here, the fields were barren,” chipped in Harbhajan. “There was no one to work in the fields. Today if there is agriculture in Latina, it’s all because of us,” he beamed.

This is not an empty boast. Punjabi agricultural immigrants in Italy constitute the second largest Indian diaspora in Europe, after the U.K. Official Italian government figures put the total number of workers from India in Italy at around 121,000. But given the high number of illegals, the real figure is probably closer to 200,000 according to Marco Omizzolo, an Italian sociologist at the University of Florence, who studies the community.

In the Lazio region, an area that includes Latina and the city of Rome, government estimates put the number of Indians at 14,500, but in regions like Lombardia in Italy’s Northwest, this number rises to 46,372. The vast majority of the Indians in the country are Punjabi Sikhs who have immigrated over the last 20 years, and most of them work on vegetable and dairy farms.

Tucked away in the remote Italian countryside, their presence has gone largely unnoticed in Italian society and is only rarely reported in the media. But it is, nonetheless, said by those in the know that were the Indians to go on strike, the country’s production of cheeses like Parmesan and Grana Padano would shut down.

The First Secretary in charge of information at the Indian embassy in Rome claims that Indians are seen as “reliable, enterprising and quite docile”. “They work hard and don’t demand things like some of these others…,” the official leaves the rest of the sentence dangling complicity between us.

Indeed, their “docility” and willingness to work hard while staying out of sight has meant that Italian authorities usually turn a blind eye to the illegal status of many of these workers. Deportations are extremely rare, but the journey into Europe remains fraught with danger.

Gurtej Singh, a hulking 40-year-old dressed in a white turban and gold-rimmed dark glasses, told me about the fraught, overland journey he had made from Punjab to Europe after paying an “agent” in India Rs. 3 lakh. The agent had convinced Gurtej and seven others from his village that the trip would be a cinch. They’d be taken from Delhi to Moscow by plane, before being whisked off straight to Germany in a taxi, they were assured.

The reality proved starkly different. The first leg of the trip was indeed by plane to Moscow, but once in Russia they were kept isolated in a windowless room for over a week with little food and no information. Eventually they were joined by small groups of illegals from Vietnam, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

They were then taken on foot through the Ukraine and Czech Republic. “Madam, it was winter and there was so much snow, sometimes upto our knees,” Gurtej told me, his voice flat and eyes invisible behind his dark glasses. “There was a man in our group who got frostbite and he collapsed. He couldn’t walk anymore. The agent just left him there to die.”

A bit about the change in immigration law - this article is from 2008 so I'm sure things have changed.

Punjab villagers sad at Italy’s stricter immigration rules

Quote:

CHANDIGARH: The residents of Bathan Kallan village, 60 km from here, were saddened when the Italian government declared a nationwide state of emergency last Friday, giving authorities additional powers to tackle the influx and combat “persistent and exceptional” arrival of illegal immigrants. In the last 20 years, over 40 families from Bathan Kallan have migrated to Italy.

“Those who go to Italy illegally have a very tough life, they travel by ships for months and then live hidden lives. If the law becomes more strict, it will become difficult for youngsters to go there,” says 46-year-old Karalta Singh, who migrated to Italy 14 years ago.

Explaining why Punjabis have been migrating to Italy, Karalta Singh said: “It is a lucrative option. The size of landholdings has become very small and no good jobs are available here. That’s why many young boys spent as much as Rs.12 lakh to reach Italy illegally. Once they reach, they look towards fellow Punjabis for shelter as they don’t have any legal documents.”

An agent who organises such illegal migrations said Italy was the safest place because people were not deported easily. “Italy used to give two weeks to an illegal immigrant to leave the country or appeal against it. During this time, they would slip underground. Now they are being ordered to leave within five days during which they would be in Italian custody. The state of emergency, earlier only in the southern provinces of Sicily, Puglia and Calabria, has been extended to the entire country.”

Harcharan Kaur, whose husband had migrated illegally, recalled the difficulties he faced. Initially he had to slog a lot. He recalls the times when he and his friends did not see the sun for four months while hiding from the authorities. They were dependent on some kind-hearted Punjabis who gave them food. Later he started working as a farm worker. Before 1998, the Italian government used to hold amnesties for illegal immigrants; they could apply for Italian citizenship and not get punished for having been there illegally and many people from the village had benefited from these amnesties. “Between 1986 and 1998, the Italian government held four amnesties and granted citizenship to about 700,000 people. That’s when I and my family got citizenship,” says 39-year-old Gurmeet Kaur, who lives in Italy with her husband and four children.

The amnesties attracted more migrants. Consequently the policy was changed and stricter rules enforced.

[speakeasy]

(04-20-2015 12:50 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

The reason why a lot of people try to get to Italy is because Italy a soft touch when it comes to immigration. Italy rarely deports anybody. The island of Lampedusa is Italian territory, and it’s very close to North Africa.

I know guys from India, who went to Italy illegally over 10 years ago, and are now permanent residents. They said that if the cops catch you, they note your name down and let you go. They do not deport you. Once every 2 years you can register with the local police station and they give you papers which are in essence legal work permits. Once you have those you can work just about anywhere. The people I know who entered Italy illegally are now legal permanent residents and they have even been on holiday to UK!

If I decide to jump ship and move to the EU, I may have to consider going this route. I'm totally serious. Seems a hell of a lot easier than applying for residency legally.

[TigerMandingo]

(04-20-2015 05:36 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I'm reading The Culture of Critique. It's obvious bullshit.

You have already stated that you have an affinity for Jews and have a personal connection to them, so I am not surprised that you would say that. There are many shabbos goys out there (the Clinton family probably being the extreme example).

On the topic of Italy not deporting, is that for real?! Fuck sitting on my ass in New England when I can be checking out Medieval cathedrals in 70 degree weather. We need a datasheet on this.

[Sp5]

On the issue of Turkish migration to Germany raised by Blick Mang, it wasn't cultural engineering:

1. 1960 was a year when West German economic growth was outpacing the supply of labor and external labor began to be sought. A comparison of GDP per capita shows $9842 for West Germany, and $7,286 for Italy. Not that great a difference, considering ease of living and working, weather, disparity between north and south Italy. Not enough to motivate enough workers to move from sunny Calabria to cold and dark Nordrhein-Westfalen.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/lm-ppp60+.htm

Turkish GDP per capita in 1960 was less than $600.

2. Germany and Turkey had strong connections going back to the Ottoman Empire. German generals commanded corps and divisions in the Ottoman Army in WW I, and the Germans built the railways in the Ottoman Empire (Basrah to Berlin).

3. It was impossible to import labor from Eastern Europe because of the Iron Curtain.

4. This Wikipedia article says the USA pressured Germany to accept Turks for political/NATO reasons. I doubt this was a big factor, but if it was, it was fair. The Turkish Army did scare the USSR to some extent and might have deterred them from rolling to the Rhine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter

There was no cultural engineering going on - it was all economics and geopolitics.

Before the current troubles with and within Islam, Muslims weren't seen as especially sinister or even that different, at least over the 200 years before 2001. The Germans backed the Ottomans against the British and Russians for decades. Even some former Civil War generals from both sides became generals in the Egyptian Army in the late 19th century.

(04-20-2015 01:12 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 05:36 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I'm reading The Culture of Critique. It's obvious bullshit.

You have already stated that you have an affinity for Jews and have a personal connection to them, so I am not surprised that you would say that. There are many shabbos goys out there (the Clinton family probably being the extreme example).

Do you have any facts to bring to the argument?

The reason why the book is obvious bullshit is because MacDonald ignores the role of the Enlightenment/Universalist ideology principally propagated by the American Founders and Abolitionists, including Jefferson, Lincoln, Monroe, Madison and the Adamses.

That is what is breaking down ethnic affinity and solidarity, in the USA and worldwide. The Jews not only had little to do with it, they are also being assimilated into it. For example, exogamy among American Jews is very high, around 50% and varying up to 71% among non-Orthodox Jews.

It's also comic the way MacDonald cites Jews like Michael Medved and Ben Stein in support of his own arguments, while not mentioning they are Jews, while every contrary argument is attributed to Jews.

[WalterBlack]

(04-20-2015 04:15 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

Everywhere, in movies, in advertisements, they couple a white woman with a black man even though those couplings are rare to find. The way more common white man with Asian girl, however, is not used. Instead, story after story frames it as creepy losers going to Thailand to pay for poor, Third World girls.

Not true. Black male white female couples are very common in UK/Europe. Nobody bats an eyelid over there when they see an interracial couple. White man/Asian woman is very common in American TV and adverts.

Regarding the comments about Jews being in power – well how about the fact that they tend to live in areas where there’s a lot of finance/medical/government/entertainment roles? Is the average Jewish person to supposed to walk away from these lucrative careers?

Most of the immigrants that the people in the UK do not want coming in are white. They don’t want Polish, Romanians etc. UK is a crowded island.

One of my brothers has been living in London for over a decade and him and his wife bought a small apartment. They’re got a son and would like to buy a house, but real estate is very expensive and they can’t afford to buy one right now. One of his son’s classmates is a white Romanian girl. Her parents came to the UK a couple of years ago and got put into an apartment with the rent paid by the govt. Now they’ve been put in a house! So they’re now doing better than my brother, who’s never claimed a penny of welfare in his life. The thing about government housing in London… is that it can be in some very nice areas. Housing projects are not in some shithole part of the city like the US.

THIS is what’s pissing off a lot of British people. It can be quite galling to see people from Eastern Europe get off the plane and end up in better accommodation than people born and raised in UK who have worked their arses off.

UK is seen as a soft touch on welfare. One has to ask why people from other countries come across Europe to get to UK. If they really wanted safety and security then there’s plenty of other countries in Europe that they can go to.

As the child of Indian immigrants who came to the UK legally, I think that multiculturalism doesn’t work. All immigrants have to buy in to the culture of the host country. My father told me I’m British, UK is my home, and to fit in.

(04-20-2015 01:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 12:50 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

The reason why a lot of people try to get to Italy is because Italy a soft touch when it comes to immigration. Italy rarely deports anybody. The island of Lampedusa is Italian territory, and it’s very close to North Africa.

I know guys from India, who went to Italy illegally over 10 years ago, and are now permanent residents. They said that if the cops catch you, they note your name down and let you go. They do not deport you. Once every 2 years you can register with the local police station and they give you papers which are in essence legal work permits. Once you have those you can work just about anywhere. The people I know who entered Italy illegally are now legal permanent residents and they have even been on holiday to UK!

If I decide to jump ship and move to the EU, I may have to consider going this route. I'm totally serious. Seems a hell of a lot easier than applying for residency legally.

You could always go to Pakistan and get married there:

Jailed: International sham marriage gang which sent Czech women to Pakistan to wed immigrants bound for the UK

Quote:

A father-of-five who ran a massive international sham marriage operation from his suburban family home has been jailed for six years.

Immigrant Talib Hussain, 42, was the ring-leader of a gang that flew Eastern European women to Islamabad for bogus weddings with Pakistani men, who could then apply to live in the UK under European open borders laws.

The scam - which Hussain orchestrated with the help of his ex-wife from his home in Rotherham, South Yorkshire - 'struck at the heart of the British immigration system', said a judge, as she sentenced 17 members of the gang for a combined total of more than 27 years at Sheffield Crown Court.

..........

Judge Coe said: 'This was a very large, well organised, professional operation involving very many people.

'At the very hub of this conspiracy and running the operation was Talib Hussain and others.'

Seventeen members of the gang were jailed for a total of 27 years and eight months at Sheffield Crown Court including nine fake brides - four Czech, four British Asian and a Slovak.
.....
The court had heard how Eva Holubova, 19, flew to Pakistan with her boyfriend, also 19, to take part in fake marriage ceremonies and was 'married' three times in the space of four months.

She told police Pakistani men offered her £250 for photos to pretend they were married so they could get visas to go to the UK.

Her boyfriend Peter Pohodko, from Slovakia, also took part in the scam and was paid £300 for 'marrying' a 28-year-old Pakistani woman he claimed to have met on his wedding day.

The phoney weddings were staged in Pakistan with 'brides' posing with their 'grooms' for photographs suggesting that they had got married.

One woman returned to the UK with £1,000 in her bag while another who went through a sham marriage already had a husband in the UK.
....
As overseas nationals, the Pakistanis would have been granted leave to live in the UK as 'husbands' of their spouses who, as EU citizens had the right to live and work in the country.

The scam was discovered by staff at the British High Commission in Islamabad when they noticed the multiple documents supporting applications to marry and to settle in the UK were forged.

Immigration officers discovered the sham weddings took place in various private homes throughout the Mirpur district in the south-west of the Kashmir region. The ceremonies often married within hours or a few days of meeting one another.

[Foolsgo1d]

I don't know why people still bang on about white guilt over slavery. I really don't.

Every successful empire from start to finish had slaves. The sacking of cities under siege had tactics to round up women, children and assets. A lot of men were butchered with the rest sold off as slaves across the aggressors empire or a neighbouring one through trade.

Lets also not forget there were many people of the same race enslaving their own people or selling them off and this includes black Africans at the height of the British Empire.

I don't see why this thread descended into a slave discussion.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-20-2015 01:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

On the issue of Turkish migration to Germany raised by Blick Mang, it wasn't cultural engineering:

1. 1960 was a year when West German economic growth was outpacing the supply of labor and external labor began to be sought. A comparison of GDP per capita shows $9842 for West Germany, and $7,286 for Italy. Not that great a difference, considering ease of living and working, weather, disparity between north and south Italy. Not enough to motivate enough workers to move from sunny Calabria to cold and dark Nordrhein-Westfalen.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/lm-ppp60+.htm

Turkish GDP per capita in 1960 was less than $600.

The GDP numbers of Italy and Germany were irrelevant. Even in Austria you made 50% in net income vs Germany even in the 1970s. There were people who lived barefoot in caves in Southern Italy - no kidding!

Italy and Spain would have sufficed.

There is and always was social engineering going on at least going back centuries in Europe. Some countries were more independent like Germany under Bismarck who hated Freemasons and all other secret societies - he also opposed the major central banks, but still fell prey to their system.

The Disney World version of history crumbles and falls under the writings of historians of the CFR Carroll Quigley and Stanford professor Anton Sutton.

Forget the current books - they are bullshit covered with a sprinkle of con-job.

[amity]

(04-20-2015 01:38 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I don't know why people still bang on about white guilt over slavery. I really don't.

Every successful empire from start to finish had slaves. The sacking of cities under siege had tactics to round up women, children and assets. A lot of men were butchered with the rest sold off as slaves across the aggressors empire or a neighbouring one through trade.

Lets also not forget there were many people of the same race enslaving their own people or selling them off and this includes black Africans at the height of the British Empire.

I don't see why this thread descended into a slave discussion.

You know that, I know that and most of us here know that.
But I think there's a lot of people, particularly among liberals, who aren't fully aware of this, or conveniently ignore it to fit their narrative.
And it's the message that's peddled in much of mainstream media, advertising, tv and movies.
'White guilt' is the go to phrase but 'Colonial guilt' might be a more accurate term for this.

[Staffled]

(04-20-2015 06:29 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Extend this courtesy to others in your life, and you'll find that you'll be richer for it.

The above is just an euphemism for 'embrace pointless hedonism'. What about those of us who do not care about pointless hedonism but actually have a meaningful goal in life? Like - I don't know - ensuring that your genes (and the genes of the group of people clustered around you - your ethnicity) are not obliterated from the gene pool in several generations because you extend every possible courtesy to every member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

On a more meta- note, I literally cannot comprehend how anyone thinks this is going to end in a different way than a wide-scale series of civil wars throughout the Western world.

[Sp5]

(04-20-2015 02:15 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 01:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

On the issue of Turkish migration to Germany raised by Blick Mang, it wasn't cultural engineering:

1. 1960 was a year when West German economic growth was outpacing the supply of labor and external labor began to be sought. A comparison of GDP per capita shows $9842 for West Germany, and $7,286 for Italy. Not that great a difference, considering ease of living and working, weather, disparity between north and south Italy. Not enough to motivate enough workers to move from sunny Calabria to cold and dark Nordrhein-Westfalen.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/lm-ppp60+.htm

Turkish GDP per capita in 1960 was less than $600.

The GDP numbers of Italy and Germany were irrelevant. Even in Austria you made 50% in net income vs Germany even in the 1970s. There were people who lived barefoot in caves in Southern Italy - no kidding!

Italy and Spain would have sufficed.

Italy and Spain did not suffice. Those were the first two countries Germany recruited from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter

Quote:

During the 1950s and 1960s, West Germany signed bilateral recruitment agreements with Italy on 22 November 1955, Spain on 29 March 1960, Greece on 30 March 1960, Turkey on 30 October 1961, Morocco on 21 June 1963, Portugal on 17 March 1964, Tunisia on 18 October 1965, and Yugoslavia on 12 October 1968. These agreements allowed the recruitment of Gastarbeiter to work in the industrial sector for jobs that required few qualifications.

There were several reasons for signing those contracts. First of all, during the 1950s, Germany experienced a so-called Wirtschaftswunder or "economic miracle" and needed laborers. The labour shortage was made more acute by the creation of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, which reduced the large-scale flow of East German immigration virtually to zero overnight. Secondly, the Federal Republic saw it as a form of developmental aid. It was hoped that the Gastarbeiter would learn useful skills in Germany, which could help them build their own countries after returning home.

C'mon, on the one hand you say GDP per capita is irrelevant. On the other you claim Austrian GDP per capita was half of W. Germany's.

It was not; it was close to Italy's.

Here, you can compare the per capita GDPs of Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria and Turkey in 1970.

GDP per capita, or median income is absolutely relevant. Consider Italy in 1960. Per capita GDP was around 75% of German per capita GDP - not a huge disparity. But in many ways Italy was two countries - the north and the south. This is something still maintained by the Liga Nord with their call for the independence of "Padania."

But legally, Italy was still one country within its own borders, with one language and currency. The European Common Market had just been formed in 1957. There was no Maastricht Treaty allowing the free flow of people, that did not happen until 1992.

Italy itself was booming in 1960, but the jobs were in the north, in Turin and Milan. If you were a young guy from Calabria, would you rather work for Fiat in Turin or Volkswagen in Wolfsburg? The answer is obvious.

Spain also did not supply enough workers, I think because the Francoist autarky and social benefits provided enough for people to stay put.

[Foolsgo1d]

(04-20-2015 02:18 PM)amity Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 01:38 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I don't know why people still bang on about white guilt over slavery. I really don't.

Every successful empire from start to finish had slaves. The sacking of cities under siege had tactics to round up women, children and assets. A lot of men were butchered with the rest sold off as slaves across the aggressors empire or a neighbouring one through trade.

Lets also not forget there were many people of the same race enslaving their own people or selling them off and this includes black Africans at the height of the British Empire.

I don't see why this thread descended into a slave discussion.

You know that, I know that and most of us here know that.
But I think there's a lot of people, particularly among liberals, who aren't fully aware of this, or conveniently ignore it to fit their narrative.
And it's the message that's peddled in much of mainstream media, advertising, tv and movies.
'White guilt' is the go to phrase but 'Colonial guilt' might be a more accurate term for this.

I was referring to this thread and not the media or liberal policies. Just confuses me.

[amity]

@Foolsgo1d No worries bro, as you were.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-20-2015 04:00 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Italy itself was booming in 1960, but the jobs were in the north, in Turin and Milan. If you were a young guy from Calabria, would you rather work for Fiat in Turin or Volkswagen in Wolfsburg? The answer is obvious.

Spain also did not supply enough workers, I think because the Francoist autarky and social benefits provided enough for people to stay put.

Objection! Speculation and hearsay! Witnesses are to discount all comments made due to faulty manipulated historical data.

I did not say that GDP mattered not at all - just that it is often a bad guideline of real income and average wealth in certain countries.

There is a fundamental discrepancy in our perceptions - trying to explain everything through official accounts and explanations of history and the ridiculously manipulated MSM and academia is completely at odds with how I see the world.

But it would take too long here to make those views meet - I recommend books by Carroll Quigley and Antony Sutton. Nothing will be the same after reading through them. History makes so much more sense and all the things happening now don't surprise me either, because they are perfectly in line with the "predictions" of the real movers and shakers.

[Sp5]

(04-20-2015 04:37 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:00 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Italy itself was booming in 1960, but the jobs were in the north, in Turin and Milan. If you were a young guy from Calabria, would you rather work for Fiat in Turin or Volkswagen in Wolfsburg? The answer is obvious.

Spain also did not supply enough workers, I think because the Francoist autarky and social benefits provided enough for people to stay put.

Objection! Speculation and hearsay! Witnesses are to discount all comments made due to faulty manipulated historical data.

I did not say that GDP mattered not at all - just that it is often a bad guideline of real income and average wealth in certain countries.

There is a fundamental discrepancy in our perceptions - trying to explain everything through official accounts and explanations of history and the ridiculously manipulated MSM and academia is completely at odds with how I see the world.

But it would take too long here to make those views meet - I recommend books by Carroll Quigley and Antony Sutton. Nothing will be the same after reading through them. History makes so much more sense and all the things happening now don't surprise me either, because they are perfectly in line with the "predictions" of the real movers and shakers.

You made me laugh, but if anything the Italian standard of living is higher than per capita GDP would indicate because of the large amount of off-the-books untaxed black market stuff.

Hey, I went to Italy in 1975, 76, 77, 79, and 83 and many times after up to my last visit in 2011, including Naples and Sicily. It was and is a pretty prosperous country.

I will look into those books, but I am not sure what your point is. Is it that Turks were brought into Germany specifically because they were Muslims and different culturally, to try to social engineer Germany? The express point in the Wikipedia article was that they wanted to social engineer Turkey; that succeeded to some degree based on the industrialization of Turkey and the number of small and medium businesses in Turkey capitalized by German wages.

[Magnesium Chloride]

(04-20-2015 12:15 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

The libertarian theories of 'immigration is good' are woefully oversimplified and naive - and I otherwise agree with 95% of their ideas. They simply brush off the entire concept of nations and states as superfluous. To them a government simply 'should' be a certain thing, and if you 'should' it hard enough, it will just magically become like that. They don't understand that its formation stems from the natural law of mankind, just like everything else. That video also doesn't recognize that immigration into a welfare state is not the same thing as immigration into a laissez faire state.[/b]

Very good point. And there are many other things that aren't called "welfare" but are still nonetheless a transfer of wealth from citizens such as having kids and those kids being able to enroll in school at a cost of $10,000 a year to tax payers.

Talking only about the welfare argument. Lets say people dont have a lot of control over government(which seems to be pretty true). Why do people think its easier to persuade government to stop immigration than to stop welfare for immigrants? Really both ideas are a wash in tems of how easy they are.

Also, when talking about "welfare", you can include all those other things you are talking about. Why not just stop funding immigrants rather than restricting it altogether? Both for moral and economic reasons. On that note throw in voting rights for immigrants.

Strictly speaking both for immigrants and natives, the system which allows but doesnt give to immigrants is a better one than one which doesnt allow them.

[Lizard King]

(04-20-2015 05:09 PM)Magnesium Chloride Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 12:15 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

The libertarian theories of 'immigration is good' are woefully oversimplified and naive - and I otherwise agree with 95% of their ideas. They simply brush off the entire concept of nations and states as superfluous. To them a government simply 'should' be a certain thing, and if you 'should' it hard enough, it will just magically become like that. They don't understand that its formation stems from the natural law of mankind, just like everything else. That video also doesn't recognize that immigration into a welfare state is not the same thing as immigration into a laissez faire state.[/b]

Very good point. And there are many other things that aren't called "welfare" but are still nonetheless a transfer of wealth from citizens such as having kids and those kids being able to enroll in school at a cost of $10,000 a year to tax payers.

Talking only about the welfare argument. Lets say people dont have a lot of control over government(which seems to be pretty true). Why do people think its easier to persuade government to stop immigration than to stop welfare for immigrants? Really both ideas are a wash in tems of how easy they are.

Also, when talking about "welfare", you can include all those other things you are talking about. Why not just stop funding immigrants rather than restricting it altogether? Both for moral and economic reasons. On that note throw in voting rights for immigrants.

Strictly speaking both for immigrants and natives, the system which allows but doesnt give to immigrants is a better one than one which doesnt allow them.

In the UK, the rate of unemployment among migrants is lower than UK born.

They work and pay taxes, even though some will be saving money to take away, they're still turning the cogs of the economy, no immigrants are being funded or receiving anything that national born people aren't.

If they have children they will get 'working tax credits' to help with childcare and subsidise a low wage, the amount is calculated on earnings(the more you earn, the less you get. it allows business to pay low wages). Plus free healthcare and education. The UK is the land of milk and honey for many.

There is a lot more to it than that. I don't know how people from outside the EU go about living in the EU.

In 2013, there was 20.4 million foreign population/immigrants(4.1 % of total) living in the EU. More info here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-...population

It's hard working reading, but interesting to see figures.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-20-2015 04:56 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I will look into those books, but I am not sure what your point is. Is it that Turks were brought into Germany specifically because they were Muslims and different culturally, to try to social engineer Germany? The express point in the Wikipedia article was that they wanted to social engineer Turkey; that succeeded to some degree based on the industrialization of Turkey and the number of small and medium businesses in Turkey capitalized by German wages.

Yes - among other measures that was one of the goals for sure. I read it also by some German historians back then who took a look at the numbers - they were not high enough to not be able to be recruited from Italy or even Austria.

There was a back-loop reaction in Turkey of course and I don't consider the Turkish immigrants so bad in Germany. The problem is just that most came from the most backward part of Turkey - many of them not even overly desired by the modern Turkish population. In a way they got rid of them.

Since back then both countries were well under control/guidance of the very same group those things are taken into account. And yes - accepting even part of the knowledge of books by Quigley or Sutton makes one hell of a difference. Some things just make a lot more sense or at least appear more logical why certain steps are undertaken against the total and complete will of the population - often against the interests of the lower 99%. Heck, even most of the top 1% don't agree with it - and they still do it. Thus we will have effectively the floodgates almost completely open from Africa to the EU as well as South America to the US & Canada.

Both predominantly white Western sectors have to become multi-cultural according to the global planners. This will happen unless something truly unforeseen happens - global Earth catastrophes, Alien invasion etc. - otherwise Europe in the current form will be gone in a few decades.

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Futu...1611450136

Quote:

A Brief History of the Future: A Brave and Controversial Look at the Twenty-First Century Paperback – July 1, 2011
by Jacques Attali

Here another meaningful book by someone who was a "consultant" within the EU - actually he was much more than that - his predictions will come true to a high degree - the timeline is the only thing that is more versatile as it reacts to real life events.

[Feisbook Control]

(04-20-2015 11:07 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 08:49 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

..
Now keep in mind the process of gaining a work visa and residency permit in Germany as a Westerner. I must earn 2.0x the average national salary, contribute taxes with no ability to collect on Rentenversicherung (German Social Security), no ability to bring family, I must be Bachelor Degree educated, speak the language fluently, etc.

In other words, it's a fucking joke. Immigration isn't about improving the economy or bringing skilled workers into the country - any American, Canadian, or Australian who's waited in line at the Ausländerbehörde can tell you that. It's not about "multiculturalism" or having multiple cultures live side by side - there's only the German culture, and a competing Islamic culture.
..

Even the first German immigration measures were strange - back then it would have been easy to further invite Italians or Spanish countries to come and work in Germany. But for some mysterious reason they chose Turkey despite knowing that many of them would not integrate - it was done almost deliberately.

Also when looking at US or Canadian immigration - they don't want Poles, Germans or Russians there - you have an easier time immigrating into the US by getting a dark tan and crossing the US border illegally through Texas than to apply via the official channels. The policies in the US & Canada are clearly designed to have an inflow of a very DIFFERENT POPULATION than the indigenous one - just as the honest lady put it - the US just as the EU MUST BOW TO MULTICULTURALISM and accept it. Of course everyone voted on it - heh.

I think you're right, but for the wrong reason. It's not because they are darker hued. It's because those darker hued people come from poorer countries and are easier to pay lower wages and exploit. A Westerner going to another Western country is already used to the idea of fair wages and unions and health care benefits. They are more likely to be demanding in exchange for their labor than people from 3rd world countries. I guarantee you if Canadian were willing to work for cheaper than Mexicans we'd be bringing in Canadians instead.

I basically agree with everyone that says immigration is primarily about benefiting the wealthy and taking away any leverage from workers. High unemployment rates are a great thing for employers and the powers that be will never allow the unemployment rate to fall too low. If they do, just open the immigration flood gate.

I think you're actually really close to seeing where we neoreactionaries are coming from, but you just can't quite take the next step. I suspect that this is because of the racial angles in the alternative right.

What I would say about your first paragraph above is that it isn't that Canadians and Mexicans could be interchangeable. It's not accidental. Without even getting into genetics, Canadians have a fundamentally different culture to Mexicans. The different cultures account for the different outcomes of the societies.

As for your comments in your other post about why all of this is happening in so-called democracies despite there being native opposition to it, this is where I think you're really close to the neoreactionary idea. Moldbug named it the Cathedral. Others have noticed it also. The real business of government is not conducted by politicians, but rather, by a slew of unelected bureaucrats, judges, academics and journalists who do the real job of running things and steering society. Some of those people have good intentions, but are misguided. Others do not have good intentions and are deliberately doing what they are doing out of hatred of the good and the beautiful.

To bring that back to my first paragraph, there is a culture in Canada, the US and the other Anglophone countries (as well as the Scandinavian countries) that is highly opposed to authoritarianism. It has three sets of roots. The two most obvious that everyone thinks about are the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman influences, but there is a third in the Germanic tribes of the middle ages, where the leaders required the consent of the governed. Its oldest extant form is the Icelandic Althing. The Norman invasion of 1066 brought a more authoritarian form of government to England. Ironically, it was the less authoritarian form of Anglo-Saxon government that did them in that year as King Harold Godwinson not only had to march his army across the country to fight another battle beforehand, but had to release many of his soldiers to return to their farms. Yet despite being conquered by the Normans, this aspect of the Anglo-Saxon culture percolated to the surface once more. It eventually led to such ideas as every man's home being his castle, or Napoleon's disparaging remark of England being a nation of shopkeepers. It also led to the most successful civilisation in history, not just for itself, but for humanity, the Anglo-American civilisation. Despite all of the ills of colonialism, it was the science, technology and governance of this civilisation that dragged people out of barbarism, disease, etc. A nation of people like Brunel did not emerge out of nowhere, and certainly not in such numbers.

The nations of free men, kings in their own little castles that they call homes and shops, must be broken in order to realise the vision of the authoritarian elite. Yet breaking these people will not be to the benefit of mankind as a whole. When the whole world resembles a third world basket case, how will that be a net gain?

[TigerMandingo]

(04-20-2015 01:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The reason why the book is obvious bullshit is because MacDonald ignores the role of the Enlightenment/Universalist ideology principally propagated by the American Founders and Abolitionists, including Jefferson, Lincoln, Monroe, Madison and the Adamses.

The book is about Jewish involvement in social/political movements. Why would he bring up the Enlightenment? Also, lol at comparing Jewish influence to that of some ragtag Irish or Armenian "lobby".

Brush up on your Walt and Mearsheimer.