Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
Nastiness is coming to our home towns but it's impossible to predict the timeline here. Might not be in our lifetimes. The reason it is inevitable is because of the combination of Multiculturalism, Free Market and Democracy. All 3 together are unstable. Any two can work, but 3 can't. With 3 in place you get lots of ethnic violence playing out.
We're now multiple generations into Hispanic presence in America. They weren't subjected to Jim Crow. This is what we see:
An elderly white physician who retires from the workforce and is replaced by a Hispanic short order cook creates a taxation and support problem. It would make for an easier society if a Hispanic short order cook retired and was supported from the taxes of a white physician, but that Hispanic short order cook isn't going to generate enough in taxes to support the retired white physician.
The more prosperous and economically vital population is being replaced by a poorer and less economically dynamic population.
On top of this dynamic we have blacks and Muslims, both pulling us downward. The bright spot comes from Asian and South Asian populations, at least on the economic front, but they create their own problems - they create massive ethnic nepotism networks. I've seen university departments and even some corporate departments trend very heavily South Asian or Chinese because the people in power started favoring their own and it just builds on itself. That's very disruptive to good order in society.
Everywhere we see multiculturalism we see ethic loyalty placed above national loyalty. So, this being the case, best to take the pain that comes from reordering the decks and then build on that towards a better society.
I think a lot of the "open borders" liberals would just LOVE to see us become more multicultural until we have no national identity and no unity as a country. I think that is their ultimate goal. Watching what is happening in other countries, we definitely have to be more selective in who we are allowing into the country. If they aren't going to (or cannot due to lack of education or whatever) contribute to the economy, then they should not be allowed to become citizens, and we should purge the ones who are here now collecting services. We only need and want immigrants who are going to ADD to our country, not weaken it, IMO.
Your last sentence. It's sad to read that you feel that you have to add an IMO to close it off. What you wrote used to be the very basis for immigration policy for most nations. The selected immigrant has to ADD value to the host nation, not subtract value. Then liberals got a hold of immigration policy and flipped it, now the purpose of immigration is to uplift the lives of immigrants.
Look everywhere in the West and you see immigrants are massive users of social welfare. Sweden is taking in massive amounts of immigrants and most of them go on welfare for life. What are they adding to Swedish society? They're the equivalent of hanging an anchor around your neck and then going out for a swim. Here in the US we've been fighting a multigenerational war on poverty. The entire increase in poverty since 1990 has been due entirely to Hispanic citizens. If there had been no influx of Hispanics, the poverty situation would have improved drastically.
Another point in reaction to your last sentence. "Need and want" implies that we, society, get to pick and choose. Liberals have upended that too, now the choice rests with the illegal infiltrator and he imposes his presence on the US when he gets Amnesty, we don't get to pick and choose which immigrants to invite, the infiltrator has chosen and imposed. We get the people who couldn't make a go of it in Mexico, hence it's no surprise that they become net burdens on American society.
This leads to the problem with multiculturalism and democracy - parties eventually turn into racial blocs. It used to be the case that whites split evenly between Democrats and Republicans depending on how the various policies appealed to people. Now Democrats are slowly turning into the Party of Color and the Republicans are turning into the Party of Whites who are opposed to Democratic efforts to take wealth away from whites and distribute it to the people of color. This dynamic is toxic to civil order.
So back to my first point - at some point a critical juncture is reached, people simply reject the toxic society created and rebel and try to restore a more civil society. They reject a racialized political arena and want to restore politics to be about ideas and so they work to being about a racially homogeneous society in order to cut out the cancer of racial politics.
Great post! You raise some really interesting points to think about.
I feel like I've reached that point already where I am just sick and tired of this racially based nonsense constantly being thrown in my face. I want what's best for my country.
A fantastic book published by Harvard University Press -
Private Truths, Public Lies
The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification
Here's the key point:
A common effect of preference falsification is the preservation of widely disliked structures. Another is the conferment of an aura of stability on structures vulnerable to sudden collapse. When the support of a policy, tradition, or regime is largely contrived, a minor event may activate a bandwagon that generates massive yet unanticipated change.
You being sick of PC is a widely held view, people's private truths are very aligned with yours but what they say in public, the Public Lie, hides the truth and people have to lie because there are severe social consequences to telling the truth.
The Soviet Union collapsed very quickly because everyone was holding a pretty common private truth while uttering public lies and then suddenly most everyone realized that their private truth was very widely held and so they broke from the fear of social shaming and started uttering their private truths and boom, the script flipped in a matter of months.
Here the social convention is held in place by the social consequences of being accused of racism. Once whites no longer fear the consequences and disable the punishment mechanism then the script is flipped. We see that a lot of people think like you by how they act, rather than by what they say. Whites vote overwhelming against Affirmative Action, whites congregate to the Republicans because the Republicans don't support race-based policies, whites seek to live in neighborhoods with schools that have low minority proportions, liberals flock to Vermont and Portland because these all-white locations have have levels of social capital and are places where liberals can let their freak fly and create their trendy,socialistic cultures. They're not flocking to multicultural heavens like Detroit and Birmingham.
Look for the thread about Robert Reich and his comments on Detroit. Obama is already making noises about taxing suburbs in order to send money to inner cities. Government won't allow whites to escape the social wreckage caused by minorities. This pressure to transfer wealth from whites to minorities is only going to increase as the voting power of minorities increases. This dynamic is going to make race relations worse. As time passes and more wealth gets transferred and more Affirmative Action programs sprout up to create equal outcomes in unfair ways, the pressure on the social fabric will increase. Something is going to snap. The Soviet Union's collapse caught many Soviet experts by surprise in that they really didn't see such a sudden event coming and didn't think it was even possible. The trick is to understand and pay attention to the very fundamental aspects in play and then the situation becomes clearer.
Multiculturalism in Europe is headed for a big crack-up. France has already experimented with paying immigrants to leave. Denmark is creating a two-tier benefits system. Norway suffered from the Breivik massacre, when he took out the kids at the socialist training camp, and now the party he belonged to is the 3rd largest in Norway and actually part of the government. Norway actually deported some refugees.
The problem for Western nations is that liberals block popular movements. In Sweden, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats came in 3rd place but the other parties won't work with them. Meanwhile Sweden is boosting the number of immigrants it takes in, following the UK Labour Party strategy, and US Democratic Party strategy, of importing a new voting class. When you give votes to the immigrants, they vote to give themselves benefits, vote to bring in more immigrants (their relatives) and won't vote to deport immigrants. Leftists push the issue right to the brink and want to create legal stalemates - the multicultural class becomes so large that the problem they create can't be resolved politically because they use their power to block reforms. Once a society gets to that point then it's primed to seek problems outside of the political arena, through revolution or coup.
Look at Norway:
A far wealthier social democracy than Sweden, Norway spends a greater share of gross domestic product on humanitarian assistance than any other country in the world. It also has the lowest unemployment in Europe and, like Sweden, several decades of experience with immigration.
Yet Norway is not encouraging asylum-seekers. When I recently asked one of the very few Syrians I met in Oslo why he had chosen Norway, he said, “I thought Oslo was in Sweden.” And while the Norwegian government has agreed to resettle 1,000 United Nations-selected Syrian refugees, this summer it rejected 123 of them because of medical conditions deemed too serious for local health services to manage.
This has put Sweden and Norway on opposite sides of an emerging debate: whether advanced welfare states designed for small and homogeneous societies in the mid-20th century are capable of absorbing large numbers of non-European foreigners.
In Sweden, a closely patrolled pro-immigration “consensus” has sustained extraordinarily liberal policies while placing a virtual taboo on questions about the social and economic costs. In Norway, a strong tradition of free speech and efficient administration has produced a hard-nosed approach about which refugees, and how many, to take in.
The Norwegian Foreign Ministry has calculated that because of all the social, health, housing and welfare benefits mandated by the state, supporting a single refugee in Norway costs $125,000 — enough to support some 26 Syrians in Jordan. And the Norwegian press has reported that following an alleged terrorist threat from abroad in July, Norway’s immigration authorities deported asylum seekers who raised security concerns.
The Norwegian Foreign Ministry has calculated that because of all the social, health, housing and welfare benefits mandated by the state, supporting a single refugee in Norway costs $125,000 — enough to support some 26 Syrians in Jordan. And the Norwegian press has reported that following an alleged terrorist threat from abroad in July, Norway’s immigration authorities deported asylum seekers who raised security concerns.
Norwegians have this quaint notion that Norway exists to make life pleasant for Norwegians. Sweden has the notion that Sweden exists for Swedes to make life pleasant for Muslims who come to Sweden. Time will tell which is the more stable model for society. Also look at the cost, $125,000 to support a Syrian in Norway. How is that good for Norway?
Bad times are coming and it's all due to traitorous liberals.
