You'd be able to buy a car and a house with a retail job. Low skill jobs would pay more, and it wouldn't be because the government told those business owners they had to meet minimum plateaus. It would be because you'd have to pay more to attract workers.
Think back to the 50's and 60's. Was that all because the dollar was stronger? You had families built around working class / service jobs. You could work a trade job and not be a pariah to women.
Now.. we're almost at the threshold where this wont be an issue, automated everything. I don't really know how shit is gonna shake out. I am repulsed by the idea of 60-70% of the population being on government payroll to do nothing. Yet.. if there's so much less do to. It's not like you can force everyone to be entertaining or creative, or skilled labor. There's gonna be a lot of idle, angry people.
That's if we even get that far I suppose. 2030 agenda may be a part of 'their' solution. Owning nothing fits in line with preparing for a critical mass of unemployed. It'll be easier to rent / license them shit, every facet of society nickle and diming their weekly government gibs back to zero, on a global scale.
Having a lot of single, lonely, isolated men with nothing to look forward to in life is a death wish for any power system. The Agenda 2030 stuff I think is being adjusted so that these men can have some sort of purpose while still being slaves.
The mass migration is the problem though. Hell the origin of the problem is taking in very few of a select group of people who were all communists that hated Christian Whites and wanted to turn the US into the hellscape that was the Soviet Union (at the time, however after Lenin they were removed from power by others).
No culture is going to assimilate into another, unless it's done by force. They will adapt, and adapt to the absolute minimum they can get away with.
Melting pot is a myth. Every culture does this. They either escape into thier local enclaves in the cities(becoming a problem), or they escape into the wilderness where they don't bother anyone at all and leave them alone(good for them).
One of the reasons things were so good up until 1965 is because you either had enough land for people to go off and be ignored, or not assimilating would result in you being physically beaten when you wandered off your reservations.
Nowadays, people make excuses for sub-human trash and there are no places people can run to and be ignored.
I'd love for there to be a way out of this, but I'm worried there won't be.
Plenty of Mexicans will tell you they're Mexicans and they're proud of it. Obviously they aren't proud enough to try and clean up their own shithole of a country, but who can blame them when our own treacherous government makes it so damned easy?
Probably not too much, Woodrow Wilson was before the hart cellar act and that caused the slow integration of Blacks to go back decades helping in them being stuck on the Democrat plantation than as integrated as the Irish or even Chinese.
Immigration all together? That isn't the big reason why a lot of things went bad. Controversial opinion here, but the collapse of colonialism is why we are in the situation we are in now. A lot of countries benefited having a technological superpower being in charge, especially when in a lot of cases they could become part of it by showing loyalty and intellect. After the collapse, it turns out old rivalries surfaced (because in the past it was kept at bay afraid that they'd get crushed by the colonial masters) which led to a degradation and sliding back to the current day.
Hell, I can go back to the Romans and the same thing happened of when they left, the locals were left with no clue of how to maintain or use a lot of what was left. If America closed all Immigration to all but Europeans, you MIGHT be better in some respects, but the degradation of blacks was planned well in advance and then there's the LGBT indoctrination which, most of those 3rd world cultures cleanse themselves of immediately.
If America closed all Immigration to all but Europeans, you MIGHT be better in some respects
The Frankfurt school was comprised of Europeans. So were the Rothschilds (despite being ethnically Jewish), and people like Hegel and Marx. The most dangerous ideology in history originated in Europe. There is no guarantee that they would fit in.
Immigration all together? That isn't the big reason why a lot of things went bad.
Maybe not, but it is pouring napalm onto a bonfire. Our system, which is already strained normally, is collapsing under the weight of an entire city's population pouring over the border every few months.
The real reason America is in decline is because Americans nowadays are no longer interested in being American citizens but rather being American residents. They don't care what happens in the long term because they just move to wherever is economically appealing, and then proceed to leech off it. No settling down, no consideration of the future, no attempt to preserve the ways that led to prosperity.
Just look at people fleeing California and moving to Austin. They bring the same destructive policies to Texas that destroyed their home state and enjoy leeching off the prosperity of the new state. No thought is given to their actions, because to them the decline of California is due to politicians becoming corrupt and not due to the voters voting in those politicians. It's always someone else's fault with these people, and you can't break them out of that.
The real reason America is in decline is because Americans nowadays are no longer interested in being American citizens but rather being American residents. They don't care what happens in the long term because they just move to wherever is economically appealing, and then proceed to leech off it. No settling down, no consideration of the future, no attempt to preserve the ways that led to prosperity.
How do you get a population to invest in a place when there's nothing being done to defend it? We're being actively invaded and the government is assisting in that process so you can't safely set down roots anywhere because they'll just direct invaders to whatever settlement you carve out for yourself. It's fucking evil.
One thing I often consider is how much of history is an inevitable result of communication and globalization. (not necessarily "globalism") Yes there are malignant entities that push at certain vulnerabilities in our culture and try to take control through those, and they were largely responsible for the "nation of immigrants" meme, but how much of that was simply accelerating an inevitability that has been coming since our founding and interaction with the rest of the world?
In other words, slavery, the civil war and its results, mass immigration, feminism, and the Kalergi Plan all had negative effects on world culture, but we would have faced these at some point as the world got smaller. If the United States and European countries were still 90% White, you'd still have subversive forces combined with well meaning do-gooders pushing a neo-Liberal philosophy and globalist agenda and pushing for more immigration, and we'd have to deal with the problem at one point or another. It's part of the growing pains of everyone living on one planet with nowhere to escape. Maybe it's better that we are experiencing and documenting these negative effects now for posterity. Our great-great-great grandchildren might actually have the resolve to fix things.
(Sorry about the tangent. Other comments gave better direct answers.)
Could you be more specific about which time? I just drove through Inverness Florida, and I am certain the town got the name during a Scottish low point.
The Hart Cellar act hasn't actually done all that much because as much immigration as there has been, it's only had a significant effect from the 90's onward.
But let's go further. Let's say there was almost no immigration past the Revolutionary War? What would we look like?
Honestly: we'd be far more Leftist than we already are.
I realized something looking at Trump's poll numbers. He's actually stuck at the amount of white voter support that he has. In fact, he can't move at all on getting more white voters that aren't midwestern working class whites. One of the single worst demographics he does with: New England white Anglos. They are rabidly Leftwing.
Most of the Baizou, the White Left, are the socialist youngsters who are propagandized, but also the uniquely Leftist Anglos. Martha's Vineyard is a great example. Despite the fact that they won't tolerate illegal immigration on their doorstep, they advocate it everywhere else. Wealthy white anglos litter the neo-liberal political and upper-class establishment. The plantation class of the south and the liberal elite of the North East are all Leftist or Controlled Opposition of Right, even the Texas oil tycoons are all neo-con Bushites. But of course, the Bushes didn't come from Texas, they too, came from New England.
What about the rest of the Anglosphere? Same problem. Rabid Leftists. Biden is an Anti-Anglo Lefitst Irish Nationalist supporting Neo-Lib from Delaware. Shin Fein and the IRA are actively leading the charge to demographically replace the Irish with Pakistanis. The Scottish Nationalists are National Socialists, actively leading the charge against Scotts in Scotland. The Welsh are captured by Leftist insanity, and are trying not to imprison themselves with unlimited migrants and 20 mph speed limits on roads. Canada is cucked as always. Australia is a genuine prison colony. New Zealand is a Fascist state that serves only Globalists elites.
I don't know what it is within the Anglosphere that makes our countries particularly so susceptible to leftist nonsense. I haven't sussed that out yet.
It's not Liberalism. France is a hive of bad Liberal ideas, but has far more Frenchmen that are prepared to speak out, and occasionally revolt.
While the Anglos have the Protestant Work Ethic which is the cornerstone of Anglo civilization, it has some sort of horrific weakness in it's character... and I can't figure out what that is.
Honestly: we'd be far more Leftist than we already are.
Would you be so kind as to entertain me with your hamstering about how non-whites are saving us from leftism by voting to the left of whites consistently for decades, with no end in sight? The left also disagrees with that assertion since they support mass immigration, just like you do.
but also the innately Leftist Anglos
Innately huh? Gizortnik has no problem attributing negative politics to people's race and ethnicity as long as they are white. Funny how that works. If I said this about Jews, I'd get R16'd, but I bet Dom won't do shit to you.
Martha's Vineyard is a great example. Despite the fact that they won't tolerate illegal immigration on their doorstep, they advocate it everywhere else.
Is there anyone else you can think of that opposes immigration for their territory but supports it for others? They've been in the news a lot lately!
The Scottish "Nationalists" are lead by Humza Yousaf, very Scottish sounding name. You forgot to include that pertinent information. You're employing tranny logic that gives primacy to labels over reality. It's also really strange for you to condemn these "nationalist" parties for supporting mass immigration while you are speaking in support of immigration. I thought replacing the innately leftist, defective white people was necessary to prevent "muh leftism."
What on earth makes Biden in anyway an Irish Nationalist Socialist? He does jack shit in the pretext of his Irish ancestry while deploying multiple aircraft carriers to defend Israel. It would be far more appropriate to call him a Jewish National Socialist if you insist on an NS label for him. In your tirade against Anglos, you forgot to mention that there are no WASP in Biden's entire cabinet. There are tons of the group that gets special protection here, though.
Innately huh? Gizortnik has no problem attributing negative politics to people's race and ethnicity as long as they are white. Funny how that works. If I said this about Jews, I'd get R16'd, but I bet Dom won't do shit to you.
This is why he makes assertions like this, he know that any argument against him will just be deleted by the mods. We're fighting on enemy occupied terrain.
I went ahead and did the reports just to prove it, but we know how that will turn out.
Would you be so kind as to entertain me with your hamstering about how non-whites are saving us from leftism by voting to the left of whites consistently for decades, with no end in sight?
At the moment, we are getting lots of anti-socialist Hispanics. However, you've misframed your own question. It's not about non whites, it's about non Anglos. For the most part, it seems to be German and Eastern European immigrants and those communities; as well as pioneer communities (so not even ethnic) that have a far more conservative bent through American history.
Innately huh? Gizortnik has no problem attributing negative politics to people's race and ethnicity as long as they are white. Funny how that works. If I said this about Jews, I'd get R16'd, but I bet Dom won't do shit to you.
Relax, I'm not saying it's genetic. Remember, I don't even believe in genetic culture.
Honestly, if "innate" got you in a tizzy, I'll remove it and apologize for making you think I'm trying to 'racially' slur Anglos. I'm not.
What I'm saying is that there is something unique within Anglo culture that makes it vulnerable to Leftism. Anglo culture has unique benefit called "The Protestant Work Ethic" that makes it possible for them to be more likely to build a fully functional civilization.
That uniqueness is only specific to the Anglos within a certain time (England was not always Protestant). It's not genetic. It's social, and it can be lost. Culture is actually really important, and what I'm trying to figure out is what is the cultural vulnerability that makes the Anglos susceptible to Leftism.
To be honest, it might be care. The Anglos also have a fairly unique cultural sensitivity to dogs that many other societies found strange. That care focus might actually be a weapon by which Leftism can attack Anglo culture.
And again, Leftism isn't unique to one culture, it morphs to attack any vulnerability it sees. I think the issue is that since Leftism originated in France, Anglo culture has been exposed to it's attacks longer than most other cultures and societies (excluding France).
And again, I'm willing to accept I'm wrong on this. I'm still trying to square this whole thing away.
What on earth makes Biden in anyway an Irish Nationalist Socialist? He does jack shit in the pretext of his Irish ancestry while deploying multiple aircraft carriers to defend Israel.
I'm using it in a descriptive sense, not in the same way I would describe the NSDAP. Though in fairness, the SNP and Shin Fein did both try to side with them in the war against England.
Mostly it is his open antagonism with Britain. He's repeatedly sided against the UK in multiple trade deals, and done everything in his power to support the Irish globalist regime.
In your tirade against Anglos, you forgot to mention that there are no WASP in Biden's entire cabinet. There are tons of the group that gets special protection here, though.
This isn't a tirade against the Anglos. This is something about the Anglo culture that has some specific vulnerability to Leftism. So does Christianity.
Besides, I'm a Revolutionary Liberal. That is Anglo culture. It may be part of my own internal bias towards Anglo culture that I'm not seeing what the core problem is.
And you're crazy to think there's no WASP in any of Biden's cabinet.
Look, he asked the question, and I answered it. It is what it is.
The numbers for MAGA and America First are being boosted by Latino votes. The reason this can work in the US, and not so much in England or Ireland is because the US is a Civic Nation. Like it or not, we subscribe to a specific ideology that you can, luckily, get other people to buy into.
It's not about race, but we need more based mestizos of browness. OK. Trump lost the Hispanic vote.
As far as "vulnerability to leftism" goes, it's called liberalism. It's liberalism that does that, especially the rootless version that evolved in America, which appears to be, ironically, your favorite. That's to the extent any of this stuff is cultural in the first place. Really, the fate of the country gets decided in back room deals behind closed doors between bankers and politicians anyway.
I don't know WTF leftism is really supposed to mean to you anymore. The French rioted over increasing their retirement age recently. I would have expected you to consider that uber leftist. Now, they are less leftist than the Angloshpere for this conversation. Whatever.
No, you're telling me that scrapping our old immigration standards and throwing open the doors to the third world isn't a problem because you are anti-white.
What??? I never said anything like that, or even something similar to that.
I said that if we had NO IMMIGRATION since the Revolutionary War, we'd be predominantly American Anglo, and I suspect that would actually cause the US to be more Leftwing.
Hell, I even said that the Hart Celler Acts largest effects happened decades after it was past. Not that it isn't a problem.
I've said many times that our best policy would be watch the economy collapse (no inevitable), then super-strengthen border restrictions and watch most of these illegals mass deport themselves. Otherwise known as: "Quick! Lock the door!" strategy.
In the australian referendum the other week, all the people voting 'yes' were the lefty inner city liberals who had no contact with any actual aboriginies.
Highest no votes were people who live in places with them. There's an effect there.
Contact breeds conservativism. Contact with crime, contact with other cultures.
There's certainly an aspect of information feedback. People who don't get feedback of the consequences of bad decisions are prone to Leftism. So, being wealthy and isolated is a big avenue of attack for Leftism.
However, that doesn't explain some of the shit in New England. There were major Leftist political fights regarding "Forced Bussing" in Boston back in the 70's and 80's. Basically, a Leftist judge used desperate impact theory (not formally stated at the time), to justify mandatory busing of different race students to other school districts, regardless of geographic location.
NE kind of exploded into nasty allegations of racism and all sorts of other crazy shit. If you didn't support bussing you were a racist. If you did, you were a good person. A lot of Bostonians certainly had huge problems with that slander, and there were a lot of very public, very angry protests regarding bussing at the time. But it wasn't at all clear who would come out on top of the issue. The Progressive racial activists, or the working-class Bostonians.
Wikipedia actually calls it the "Desegregation Crisis" despite the fact that there was no segregation in Massachusetts. The situation devolved into violence and even riots multiple times. And yet, for nearly ten years, in a state as white and homogenous as Massachusetts, the pollical volatility continued. Most of Mass. is Anglo, but a large minority is also Irish. I get the very strong feeling that if we could study it, there would have been a ton of Leftist Anglos on the side of the Progressives who were probably pushing hard for the racialist laws.
While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
Ireland was so succesful, in short, that its population was very vulnerable to plagues and famines. The combination of being poor (relative to England), a large population, and the various revolts etc that led to the union with England, led to a tumultous century, when most of the Irish emigration to the US occurred.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
It wasn't meant as a dig against the Irish at all. Many highly civilized people were poor at some point, or those who were civilized at some point are poor now.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
I was hoping he'd address what he thinks about it, but it seems he'd rather yell about Reddit.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Obviously, culturally, the Irish are much closer to Anglo-Saxons than are the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. But if he does not like immigration from the third world, i.e. very poor countries, that would cover Ireland in the 19th century as well.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
Actually I guess from a different kind of perspective, Ireland was third world!
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia, really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY. I have a diary of a relative who grew up in Apalachia. Their house did not have running water or electricity in the 1950s; she wrote about waking up with a layer of snow on her bed that had blown in through the wooden siding, etc.
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
Wow, an oldtimer who still knows that! True enough, but in popular parlance, Third World refers to what dekachin calls "the poors". When we talk about First World Infrastructure, we don't mean infrastructure that's stamped "NATO", after all.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY.
Right, and that's after a century (your date) of Irish immigration.
To be clear: when I say poor, I don't mean bad. I find a lot of poor people to be rather virtuous, as opposed to some of the wealthy who wax rotten in idleness.
Wow, an oldtimer who still knows that! True enough, but in popular parlance, Third World refers to what dekachin calls "the poors". When we talk about First World Infrastructure, we don't mean infrastructure that's stamped "NATO", after all.
Or the new phrase beloved by douchebags everywhere, the "Global South."
For "world" knowledge, I can thank one of my social studies teachers who was a good teacher, a Russophile, and teaching my class during the exact moment that the Soviet Union was collapsing!
Or the new phrase beloved by douchebags everywhere, the "Global South."
It's just the euphemistic treadmill. They'll try to replace the Global South with something else once that gets negative connotations, as no doubt it will.
For "world" knowledge, I can thank one of my social studies teachers who was a good teacher, a Russophile, and teaching my class during the exact moment that the Soviet Union was collapsing!
Well, you had more good teachers than I did. I had to learn this from my parents.
It's got nothing to do with my 'worldview'. But Ireland was probably the worst third world country from which the US took immigrants, certainly more so than Mexico or Asian countries.
It's meant to address '3rd world' in your title. I don't know what Redditors or Americans say, nor do I care. But if you think immigration from the "third world" is bad, then the Irish were more poor and therefore more third worldy than anyone else in the 19th century.
You say you are addressing what I posted in the title but then you say that I think immigration from the third world is bad yet no where in the post did I say one way or the other how I felt or what I believed.
It makes sense that you would. It's eminently reasonable, after all. I've never had anyone openly call for more third world immigration.
My guess is you read the title, assumed I'm just your typical racist chud type.
Not at all. That would be quite strange, because one of the few political opinions I hold strongly is that we should have no immigration here in Europe. I'm certainly not going to call others wacist for not wanting immigration from the third world, which isn't even about race.
So then you make a quippy little comment about the Irish, knowing full well what is meant by the third world.
You meant non-western? That's legitimate too, as far as I'm concerned. You could just have said: "no, I did not mean poor countries, I meant non-western countries - because look at the results."
Manufacturing has died off because of extranational factors like chinese slave labor and government working for corps. Immigration didn't kill manufacturing, "global" corps and federal fuckery led to exporting it. A significant part of that can be laid at the lack of tariffs - our primary taxes used to be tariffs, income tax replaced them and removed the inherently protectionist element that tariffs had.
I'd be able to use the ATM without hitting 1 for english.
or on the phone
As safe as Japan.
Able to walk the streets at any time without being stabbed by a George Floyd.
They also have a stronger work ethic and people will hand in your lost wallet with the cash still there.
Republicans would still be in power in california without the anti-white genocide
Can confirm, happened to my father when we were there. Blew his mind that they would do that for a stranger, let alone a foreigner.
You'd be able to buy a car and a house with a retail job. Low skill jobs would pay more, and it wouldn't be because the government told those business owners they had to meet minimum plateaus. It would be because you'd have to pay more to attract workers.
Think back to the 50's and 60's. Was that all because the dollar was stronger? You had families built around working class / service jobs. You could work a trade job and not be a pariah to women.
Now.. we're almost at the threshold where this wont be an issue, automated everything. I don't really know how shit is gonna shake out. I am repulsed by the idea of 60-70% of the population being on government payroll to do nothing. Yet.. if there's so much less do to. It's not like you can force everyone to be entertaining or creative, or skilled labor. There's gonna be a lot of idle, angry people.
That's if we even get that far I suppose. 2030 agenda may be a part of 'their' solution. Owning nothing fits in line with preparing for a critical mass of unemployed. It'll be easier to rent / license them shit, every facet of society nickle and diming their weekly government gibs back to zero, on a global scale.
Having a lot of single, lonely, isolated men with nothing to look forward to in life is a death wish for any power system. The Agenda 2030 stuff I think is being adjusted so that these men can have some sort of purpose while still being slaves.
Oh look, war is popping up everywhere, I wonder why?
I'd imagine they'd do something, it just might not be great. It's almost too late for it to matter though with immigration and mega corps.
Realistically, we'll kneecap ourselves so the useless feel useful and we can import more consumers.
In a more ideal world, you'd get hobby stores everywhere.
The mass migration is the problem though. Hell the origin of the problem is taking in very few of a select group of people who were all communists that hated Christian Whites and wanted to turn the US into the hellscape that was the Soviet Union (at the time, however after Lenin they were removed from power by others).
No culture is going to assimilate into another, unless it's done by force. They will adapt, and adapt to the absolute minimum they can get away with.
Melting pot is a myth. Every culture does this. They either escape into thier local enclaves in the cities(becoming a problem), or they escape into the wilderness where they don't bother anyone at all and leave them alone(good for them).
One of the reasons things were so good up until 1965 is because you either had enough land for people to go off and be ignored, or not assimilating would result in you being physically beaten when you wandered off your reservations.
Nowadays, people make excuses for sub-human trash and there are no places people can run to and be ignored.
I'd love for there to be a way out of this, but I'm worried there won't be.
Some people just won't ever assimilate no matter what you do.
Plenty of Mexicans will tell you they're Mexicans and they're proud of it. Obviously they aren't proud enough to try and clean up their own shithole of a country, but who can blame them when our own treacherous government makes it so damned easy?
Probably not too much, Woodrow Wilson was before the hart cellar act and that caused the slow integration of Blacks to go back decades helping in them being stuck on the Democrat plantation than as integrated as the Irish or even Chinese.
Immigration all together? That isn't the big reason why a lot of things went bad. Controversial opinion here, but the collapse of colonialism is why we are in the situation we are in now. A lot of countries benefited having a technological superpower being in charge, especially when in a lot of cases they could become part of it by showing loyalty and intellect. After the collapse, it turns out old rivalries surfaced (because in the past it was kept at bay afraid that they'd get crushed by the colonial masters) which led to a degradation and sliding back to the current day.
Hell, I can go back to the Romans and the same thing happened of when they left, the locals were left with no clue of how to maintain or use a lot of what was left. If America closed all Immigration to all but Europeans, you MIGHT be better in some respects, but the degradation of blacks was planned well in advance and then there's the LGBT indoctrination which, most of those 3rd world cultures cleanse themselves of immediately.
The Frankfurt school was comprised of Europeans. So were the Rothschilds (despite being ethnically Jewish), and people like Hegel and Marx. The most dangerous ideology in history originated in Europe. There is no guarantee that they would fit in.
Maybe not, but it is pouring napalm onto a bonfire. Our system, which is already strained normally, is collapsing under the weight of an entire city's population pouring over the border every few months.
The real reason America is in decline is because Americans nowadays are no longer interested in being American citizens but rather being American residents. They don't care what happens in the long term because they just move to wherever is economically appealing, and then proceed to leech off it. No settling down, no consideration of the future, no attempt to preserve the ways that led to prosperity.
Just look at people fleeing California and moving to Austin. They bring the same destructive policies to Texas that destroyed their home state and enjoy leeching off the prosperity of the new state. No thought is given to their actions, because to them the decline of California is due to politicians becoming corrupt and not due to the voters voting in those politicians. It's always someone else's fault with these people, and you can't break them out of that.
How do you get a population to invest in a place when there's nothing being done to defend it? We're being actively invaded and the government is assisting in that process so you can't safely set down roots anywhere because they'll just direct invaders to whatever settlement you carve out for yourself. It's fucking evil.
One thing I often consider is how much of history is an inevitable result of communication and globalization. (not necessarily "globalism") Yes there are malignant entities that push at certain vulnerabilities in our culture and try to take control through those, and they were largely responsible for the "nation of immigrants" meme, but how much of that was simply accelerating an inevitability that has been coming since our founding and interaction with the rest of the world?
In other words, slavery, the civil war and its results, mass immigration, feminism, and the Kalergi Plan all had negative effects on world culture, but we would have faced these at some point as the world got smaller. If the United States and European countries were still 90% White, you'd still have subversive forces combined with well meaning do-gooders pushing a neo-Liberal philosophy and globalist agenda and pushing for more immigration, and we'd have to deal with the problem at one point or another. It's part of the growing pains of everyone living on one planet with nowhere to escape. Maybe it's better that we are experiencing and documenting these negative effects now for posterity. Our great-great-great grandchildren might actually have the resolve to fix things.
(Sorry about the tangent. Other comments gave better direct answers.)
I'll apply this question to Canada: I'd be able to go to the biggest theatre in the city without half the movies being in fucking Punjabi.
No, I'm not fucking kidding.
I really thought this was going to be about the GTA.
The fact that it's about Northern Ontario is sad but certainly fits demographic trends I've seen personally.
I'm more interested in what it can look like if we actively reverse mass immigration.
At this point I just want to forcibly eject all the foreigners in my country.
Youd have to go back further and stop slaves from being imported into the usa, but we also gotta stop giving women the right to vote.
Rome mixed with Alexandria but with robot spaceships and 99% white except for our imported penis-cleaning slaves
We would be colonizing Mars by now.
Rent and home prices would be drastically lower.
Could you be more specific about which time? I just drove through Inverness Florida, and I am certain the town got the name during a Scottish low point.
Do you just mean mass immigration of non-whites? As big of a faggot as Dom is, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be coy about that.
The Hart Cellar act hasn't actually done all that much because as much immigration as there has been, it's only had a significant effect from the 90's onward.
But let's go further. Let's say there was almost no immigration past the Revolutionary War? What would we look like?
Honestly: we'd be far more Leftist than we already are.
I realized something looking at Trump's poll numbers. He's actually stuck at the amount of white voter support that he has. In fact, he can't move at all on getting more white voters that aren't midwestern working class whites. One of the single worst demographics he does with: New England white Anglos. They are rabidly Leftwing.
Most of the Baizou, the White Left, are the socialist youngsters who are propagandized, but also the uniquely Leftist Anglos. Martha's Vineyard is a great example. Despite the fact that they won't tolerate illegal immigration on their doorstep, they advocate it everywhere else. Wealthy white anglos litter the neo-liberal political and upper-class establishment. The plantation class of the south and the liberal elite of the North East are all Leftist or Controlled Opposition of Right, even the Texas oil tycoons are all neo-con Bushites. But of course, the Bushes didn't come from Texas, they too, came from New England.
And what of their decedents? Well, one of them is Angela Davis, if that gives you a clue.
What about the rest of the Anglosphere? Same problem. Rabid Leftists. Biden is an Anti-Anglo Lefitst Irish Nationalist supporting Neo-Lib from Delaware. Shin Fein and the IRA are actively leading the charge to demographically replace the Irish with Pakistanis. The Scottish Nationalists are National Socialists, actively leading the charge against Scotts in Scotland. The Welsh are captured by Leftist insanity, and are trying not to imprison themselves with unlimited migrants and 20 mph speed limits on roads. Canada is cucked as always. Australia is a genuine prison colony. New Zealand is a Fascist state that serves only Globalists elites.
I don't know what it is within the Anglosphere that makes our countries particularly so susceptible to leftist nonsense. I haven't sussed that out yet.
It's not Liberalism. France is a hive of bad Liberal ideas, but has far more Frenchmen that are prepared to speak out, and occasionally revolt.
While the Anglos have the Protestant Work Ethic which is the cornerstone of Anglo civilization, it has some sort of horrific weakness in it's character... and I can't figure out what that is.
Would you be so kind as to entertain me with your hamstering about how non-whites are saving us from leftism by voting to the left of whites consistently for decades, with no end in sight? The left also disagrees with that assertion since they support mass immigration, just like you do.
Innately huh? Gizortnik has no problem attributing negative politics to people's race and ethnicity as long as they are white. Funny how that works. If I said this about Jews, I'd get R16'd, but I bet Dom won't do shit to you.
Is there anyone else you can think of that opposes immigration for their territory but supports it for others? They've been in the news a lot lately!
The Scottish "Nationalists" are lead by Humza Yousaf, very Scottish sounding name. You forgot to include that pertinent information. You're employing tranny logic that gives primacy to labels over reality. It's also really strange for you to condemn these "nationalist" parties for supporting mass immigration while you are speaking in support of immigration. I thought replacing the innately leftist, defective white people was necessary to prevent "muh leftism."
What on earth makes Biden in anyway an Irish Nationalist Socialist? He does jack shit in the pretext of his Irish ancestry while deploying multiple aircraft carriers to defend Israel. It would be far more appropriate to call him a Jewish National Socialist if you insist on an NS label for him. In your tirade against Anglos, you forgot to mention that there are no WASP in Biden's entire cabinet. There are tons of the group that gets special protection here, though.
This is why he makes assertions like this, he know that any argument against him will just be deleted by the mods. We're fighting on enemy occupied terrain.
I went ahead and did the reports just to prove it, but we know how that will turn out.
Making Dom work to keep the illusion up is funny if nothing else.
That all it is though.
At the moment, we are getting lots of anti-socialist Hispanics. However, you've misframed your own question. It's not about non whites, it's about non Anglos. For the most part, it seems to be German and Eastern European immigrants and those communities; as well as pioneer communities (so not even ethnic) that have a far more conservative bent through American history.
Relax, I'm not saying it's genetic. Remember, I don't even believe in genetic culture.
Honestly, if "innate" got you in a tizzy, I'll remove it and apologize for making you think I'm trying to 'racially' slur Anglos. I'm not.
What I'm saying is that there is something unique within Anglo culture that makes it vulnerable to Leftism. Anglo culture has unique benefit called "The Protestant Work Ethic" that makes it possible for them to be more likely to build a fully functional civilization.
That uniqueness is only specific to the Anglos within a certain time (England was not always Protestant). It's not genetic. It's social, and it can be lost. Culture is actually really important, and what I'm trying to figure out is what is the cultural vulnerability that makes the Anglos susceptible to Leftism.
To be honest, it might be care. The Anglos also have a fairly unique cultural sensitivity to dogs that many other societies found strange. That care focus might actually be a weapon by which Leftism can attack Anglo culture.
And again, Leftism isn't unique to one culture, it morphs to attack any vulnerability it sees. I think the issue is that since Leftism originated in France, Anglo culture has been exposed to it's attacks longer than most other cultures and societies (excluding France).
And again, I'm willing to accept I'm wrong on this. I'm still trying to square this whole thing away.
I'm using it in a descriptive sense, not in the same way I would describe the NSDAP. Though in fairness, the SNP and Shin Fein did both try to side with them in the war against England.
Mostly it is his open antagonism with Britain. He's repeatedly sided against the UK in multiple trade deals, and done everything in his power to support the Irish globalist regime.
This isn't a tirade against the Anglos. This is something about the Anglo culture that has some specific vulnerability to Leftism. So does Christianity.
Besides, I'm a Revolutionary Liberal. That is Anglo culture. It may be part of my own internal bias towards Anglo culture that I'm not seeing what the core problem is.
And you're crazy to think there's no WASP in any of Biden's cabinet.
Oh goody, more southlanders come to make the country less white. Surely more racial diversity will help to restore us to a high trust society.
Look, he asked the question, and I answered it. It is what it is.
The numbers for MAGA and America First are being boosted by Latino votes. The reason this can work in the US, and not so much in England or Ireland is because the US is a Civic Nation. Like it or not, we subscribe to a specific ideology that you can, luckily, get other people to buy into.
Assimilation can build trust.
No.
It literally is. Welcome to Liberal Universalism.
It's not about race, but we need more based mestizos of browness. OK. Trump lost the Hispanic vote.
As far as "vulnerability to leftism" goes, it's called liberalism. It's liberalism that does that, especially the rootless version that evolved in America, which appears to be, ironically, your favorite. That's to the extent any of this stuff is cultural in the first place. Really, the fate of the country gets decided in back room deals behind closed doors between bankers and politicians anyway.
I don't know WTF leftism is really supposed to mean to you anymore. The French rioted over increasing their retirement age recently. I would have expected you to consider that uber leftist. Now, they are less leftist than the Angloshpere for this conversation. Whatever.
A wall of words to defend bad actors and undermine the interests of white people.
How predictable.
Anti-white - check
Obsessed with vague ideological abstractions - check
Self-contradictory - check
Sophistry - check
Blame nationalism for the exact opposite of nationalism - check
Oh yeah, it's Gizortnik time.
I'm telling you that those wealthy, white, NE "liberal" anglos are anti-white.
No, you're telling me that scrapping our old immigration standards and throwing open the doors to the third world isn't a problem because you are anti-white.
What??? I never said anything like that, or even something similar to that.
I said that if we had NO IMMIGRATION since the Revolutionary War, we'd be predominantly American Anglo, and I suspect that would actually cause the US to be more Leftwing.
Hell, I even said that the Hart Celler Acts largest effects happened decades after it was past. Not that it isn't a problem.
I've said many times that our best policy would be watch the economy collapse (no inevitable), then super-strengthen border restrictions and watch most of these illegals mass deport themselves. Otherwise known as: "Quick! Lock the door!" strategy.
And yet I have spent decades watching my hometown turn from a nice white suburb into the tower of Babel.
You are verbose and dishonest at every turn.
The 90's were 3 decades ago.
I'm not even challenging your position.
Oy vey!
The same thought occured to me
In the australian referendum the other week, all the people voting 'yes' were the lefty inner city liberals who had no contact with any actual aboriginies.
Highest no votes were people who live in places with them. There's an effect there.
Contact breeds conservativism. Contact with crime, contact with other cultures.
There's certainly an aspect of information feedback. People who don't get feedback of the consequences of bad decisions are prone to Leftism. So, being wealthy and isolated is a big avenue of attack for Leftism.
However, that doesn't explain some of the shit in New England. There were major Leftist political fights regarding "Forced Bussing" in Boston back in the 70's and 80's. Basically, a Leftist judge used desperate impact theory (not formally stated at the time), to justify mandatory busing of different race students to other school districts, regardless of geographic location.
NE kind of exploded into nasty allegations of racism and all sorts of other crazy shit. If you didn't support bussing you were a racist. If you did, you were a good person. A lot of Bostonians certainly had huge problems with that slander, and there were a lot of very public, very angry protests regarding bussing at the time. But it wasn't at all clear who would come out on top of the issue. The Progressive racial activists, or the working-class Bostonians.
Wikipedia actually calls it the "Desegregation Crisis" despite the fact that there was no segregation in Massachusetts. The situation devolved into violence and even riots multiple times. And yet, for nearly ten years, in a state as white and homogenous as Massachusetts, the pollical volatility continued. Most of Mass. is Anglo, but a large minority is also Irish. I get the very strong feeling that if we could study it, there would have been a ton of Leftist Anglos on the side of the Progressives who were probably pushing hard for the racialist laws.
Why start there? Ireland was also 'third world'.
While admitting to a certain bias as some of my ancestors were poor Scots and Irish who came to the US at various times, while Ireland did have masses of people who were dirt poor, let's not forget that the Irish produced the Book of Kells, massive castles, and the monastic culture of Ireland helped lead the rest of Europe into re-learning Latin and Greek.
Ireland was so succesful, in short, that its population was very vulnerable to plagues and famines. The combination of being poor (relative to England), a large population, and the various revolts etc that led to the union with England, led to a tumultous century, when most of the Irish emigration to the US occurred.
I don't think it's remotely fair or accurate to compare the waves of Irish immigration with those from sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
It wasn't meant as a dig against the Irish at all. Many highly civilized people were poor at some point, or those who were civilized at some point are poor now.
It's just addressing that mention of 'third world' in the title. Irish peasants were even poorer than black slaves according to W.E. Dubois, and they had a life expectancy that was about half. This doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that Ireland was a bit of a third world country.
I was hoping he'd address what he thinks about it, but it seems he'd rather yell about Reddit.
Obviously, culturally, the Irish are much closer to Anglo-Saxons than are the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. But if he does not like immigration from the third world, i.e. very poor countries, that would cover Ireland in the 19th century as well.
Actually I guess from a different kind of perspective, Ireland was third world!
That would be the original meaning of the word as Europe/NATO/allies were "first world," Russia/Eastern Europe/Communist nations/allies were the "second world," and everyone else was third world. That would include Ireland. Not a particularly helpful usage of the term though.
And yes, the Appalachian poverty belt, even today, is highly Scots-Irish, from Georgia, really intensifying in North Carolina and Virginia, but stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and NY. I have a diary of a relative who grew up in Apalachia. Their house did not have running water or electricity in the 1950s; she wrote about waking up with a layer of snow on her bed that had blown in through the wooden siding, etc.
Crazy stuff.
Wow, an oldtimer who still knows that! True enough, but in popular parlance, Third World refers to what dekachin calls "the poors". When we talk about First World Infrastructure, we don't mean infrastructure that's stamped "NATO", after all.
Right, and that's after a century (your date) of Irish immigration.
To be clear: when I say poor, I don't mean bad. I find a lot of poor people to be rather virtuous, as opposed to some of the wealthy who wax rotten in idleness.
Or the new phrase beloved by douchebags everywhere, the "Global South."
For "world" knowledge, I can thank one of my social studies teachers who was a good teacher, a Russophile, and teaching my class during the exact moment that the Soviet Union was collapsing!
It's just the euphemistic treadmill. They'll try to replace the Global South with something else once that gets negative connotations, as no doubt it will.
Well, you had more good teachers than I did. I had to learn this from my parents.
It's got nothing to do with my 'worldview'. But Ireland was probably the worst third world country from which the US took immigrants, certainly more so than Mexico or Asian countries.
It's meant to address '3rd world' in your title. I don't know what Redditors or Americans say, nor do I care. But if you think immigration from the "third world" is bad, then the Irish were more poor and therefore more third worldy than anyone else in the 19th century.
It makes sense that you would. It's eminently reasonable, after all. I've never had anyone openly call for more third world immigration.
Not at all. That would be quite strange, because one of the few political opinions I hold strongly is that we should have no immigration here in Europe. I'm certainly not going to call others wacist for not wanting immigration from the third world, which isn't even about race.
You meant non-western? That's legitimate too, as far as I'm concerned. You could just have said: "no, I did not mean poor countries, I meant non-western countries - because look at the results."
110 plus million, per wikipedia.
1970 there were 178 million whites. 2020 there are 204 million whites.
1970 there were 25 million nonwhites. 2020 there are 141 million nonwhites.
At least a third of our country is invaders.
Manufacturing has died off because of extranational factors like chinese slave labor and government working for corps. Immigration didn't kill manufacturing, "global" corps and federal fuckery led to exporting it. A significant part of that can be laid at the lack of tariffs - our primary taxes used to be tariffs, income tax replaced them and removed the inherently protectionist element that tariffs had.
Other than that, a lot of your post was dead on.