Open borders killing the west

[Yeravos]

I am not entirely sure how to start what I want to convey to you guys. I find it to be a difficult topic. Because from what I have seen, tends to bring out a lot of bad qualities in people. Also, it is difficult because there are so many factors involved. IQ, race, economics, philosophy, society, culture, religion etc etc etc...

 

Speaking about this scares me. It scares me, because I don't want to be called names. I don't want to fight with people I have considered to be brothers and sisters in philosophy. 

But alas, I communicate this, because what scares me the most, is the consequences of not talking about it.

There is a divide in the freedom community. In the FDR community. Most of us know this. The issue of immigration and borders.

For some time now, Stefan has been under fire from people who will say things like ''Stefan has abandoned principles'', ''Stefan is a statist'', ''Stefan is a racist'', ''Stefan has gone crazy''.

 

I will dedicate another post to what I feel about all these allegations towards Stefan. With this post, I want to help people understand where at least I come from on this issue, which I think mirrors Stefans stand on it quite well.

This will be a short explanation of how I have come to the conclusion that immigration and border control is an extremely important topic for us who want a free society. There is a lot more that could be added, but I believe what follows will give sufficiant reason for people to see the immigration from the middle east to the west as on of the biggest threats to our cause, a free peaceful society. Of course, by all means, correct me wherever I go astray if I do.

 

Deep breath, let's begin.

 

Open borders in a welfare society is a government program. It is about importing people, who are more likely than the domestic population to vote for a larger government. And why wouldn't they really, it is big government (i.e welfare state) that puts food on their tables. It is also big government that will make sure that immigrants already in the country will have family, friends or just people of the same religion (islam) to also immigrate to that country, who will also end up in general voting for bigger government.

Where does the welfare money come from? It comes from, in general, the people native to the country. People who are more likely to vote for smaller government and less welfare. These people work, and then have their money taken away from them, that is then given to people who do not work, and who will vote for more welfare, more government. 

 

This is already problematic with the people just coming in. But what makes it worse, is that they don't just come over and live off the stolen productive labor of the natives... They have children. Children, that will grow up in households, dependant on welfare. What will those children one day vote for do you think?

And what makes it EVEN WORSE... Is that these immigrants, not only have children... They have MANY  more children than the native people paying for them to have children!

 

I have hesitated to use this word before, but I believe it is approriate. It is genocide. Silent genocide. Take money from a group of people, who will be less likely to have children because of diminished resources, and give that money to another group of people who have done nothing to earn that money, who will then be able to have more children because of an increase in resources. That is genocide. At the point of a gun forcing a group of people to support another group of people having children, at their own repoductive expense.

 

But wait, there is more. These people, already burdening the native population with their own welfare dependancy and the future welfare dependancy of their children, are also much more likely to commit violent crimes against the native population! Not only is it letting in people, it is letting in more violent people. Letting in people more likely to rape and murder. Importing crime.

What does this all boil down to?

 

This is the FDR community. And most of us accept, that the road to a peaceful society, is through the peaceful parenting of children. It's the ONLY way.

 

And the migrant crisis, is threatening to set us back in the work that has been done so far. Letting in these immigrants is going to put children at a higher risk of violence. Of trauma. It is going to put their parents at a higher risk of trauma. It is going to result in children having to be around more of these, in general more violent immigrant children in schools, at playgrounds. The immigrant children will do worse in school, because of their lower IQ, and white people will be blamed, further traumatizing the children.

And of course, the people paying for the immigrants to have children, will themselves have fewer children. More violent parents breeding, less peaceful parents breeding.

 

Do you think it is difficult convincing society today of peaceful parenting? Well, it is only going to get worse when we import people with cultural backgrounds that treat their children even worse. Female genital mutilation. Wife beating. Stoning. A higher rate of male circumcision.

 

It is not only about defense (which I believe is justified) when it comes to talking about restricting borders in a statist society. But it is also about saving the future. Making sure we have time to educate people on peaceful parenting. Because if this is not done... then our children will have no future worthy of living in.

 

There is much more to this, but I feel confident that I have made a solid case for the position I hold. That supporting open borders in a statist welfare society, is not fighting for freedom, for a free society. It is working against a free society. It is being an acomplice in the destruction of the most peaceful civilization the world has ever seen.

It is dooming our children to lives in slavery.

 

[JanneW]

Hi Yeravos,

 

how are you doing? I hope you're well, at least apart from the issue at hand! I have 2 questions before maybe delving deeper into the details of what you said.

 

Do you have any idea as to why you are scared to talk about this in this forum? Is there evidence that people got attacked personally for holding this position, which after all seems to be very close to Stef's? I'm not sure why one should be scared to speak about it *here* - in the world at large it would be a different affair, of course. I'm just curious.

 

The other thing I'm unsure about is what you're aiming to achieve with your posting, which obviously took some effort, intellectually and emotionally? You didn't really specify what reaction you are after from your readers. Are you looking for a rational discussion of your position which might involve counter-arguments, or for support from people feeling the same as you, or do you want people to change their actions, or is it something else that you would want as a response? You gave some statements, but didn't ask for any kind of response, it seems to me. And it's not just you, I feel the same about some of Stef's podcasts on the topic: I'm given information, which could be discussed, but what is the intention in giving me this information, what ought I to do about it? If you have an answer to that, I'd be glad.

 

Take care,

Janne

[Yeravos]

Hi Janne, I am doing very well. I hope you are doing well too.

 

To your first question, I'd say I layed out in the beginning as to why I think I was scared to talk about it.

 

Speaking about this scares me. It scares me, because I don't want to be called names. I don't want to fight with people I have considered to be brothers and sisters in philosophy. 

But alas, I communicate this, because what scares me the most, is the consequences of not talking about it.

There is a divide in the freedom community. In the FDR community. Most of us know this. The issue of immigration and borders.

For some time now, Stefan has been under fire from people who will say things like ''Stefan has abandoned principles'', ''Stefan is a statist'', ''Stefan is a racist'', ''Stefan has gone crazy''.

 

But also, I think I was being scared of triggering an inner critic, telling me that indeed, Stefan is abandoning principles, is racist, and that I also am going that way by ''defending'' Stefan. I am not as scared now, I instead feel more assured that I am holding a logical and well argued position after I posted my thoughts on it.

 

On your second question, I believe that at least some of the people in FDR that do not agree with the arguments and conclusions Stefan has laid out about the issue. I thought perhaps me laying it out in a short summery kind of way might have it ''click'' for some of those people. Of course, I'd also like counterarguments of course, since they would perhaps show errors in my reasoning, or extra information that I might have missed. I'd like to be right, and not talk about things that are not true.

While the support is nice, it is not what I want with the post. What I want from my post is either have valid counterarguments laid out, or, have people either undecided or on ''the other side'' of the issue, see the arguments and logic as valid. So that they in turn can start to bring this up with other people.

 

The intention of giving out this information (ofc I can't speak for the reasons Stefan has, but I believe they are similar at least) is that it conveys urgency. Because if what I am arguing is true, then we need to start to act against what is happening in Europe. I know that at least for me, understanding the arguments and reasoning, is pushing me to start to gather courage to talk about these things. Because we really, really need to at least talk about these issues.

 

I hope I have answered your questions adequately, if not please let me know and I'll be happy to try again

 

Have a good one Janne

[Matthew Ed Moran]

My reaction to your post was that I need to be even better at confronting anti-white sentiment. I need to practice my arguments even more. I need to connect emotionally with the urgency of the topic at hand, but I need also not to become an ineffectual wrecking ball of frustration when I confront anti-white sentiment.

 

As a white, western-value loving man, I feel very angry about how my fellow people who might otherwise be very similar to me, once again have been hammered down upon by the fist of propaganda. It is true, that even libertarians fall for this propaganda in droves, and this makes me feel regret. It makes me realize that libertarians may not be my ally as I thought they were.

 

It makes me scared of the regret I will have in the future if I do not bring an important and powerful message where it needs to be, to depths uncharted beyond libertarianism, where I may have to encounter people who right now I'm not fully comfortable talking to. I am talking about religious people, I am talking about parents who spank, I am talking about pro-government conservatives.

 

I am scared to have to reach my hand out to new people, offering them my empathy because I think they deserve it compared to others, where I may be rejected or where I may feel ashamed of foregoing a topic like peaceful parenting. In situations it might mean I can spread vital information about a more urgent concern, which is the hollowing state of western society itself.

 

As soon as I thought I knew what was most important for me to know about and act on, I found a new more terrible concern.

 

First I was horrified by what the Federal Reserve does to the middle class. Then I was petrified of the invisible underworld of child abuse which reigns horror every day. Now, a new plight may be more urgent than any before, and I have not even considered myself prepared to speak out about the first two. 

 

One thing in life that has become apparent to me is that life doesn't give a fuck about your comfort. It doesn't waste time for you, it will move on whether you are prepared or not. I am terribly afraid of a life of regret, and so with life outpacing my ideals once again, I feel a new level of bravery I must reach to keep pace. I feel if I site idle any longer, the rubble of societal change will loosen, and an avalanche will be unleashed with me sitting in its wake. Then what? Then I am nothing but another pitiless victim of history, tumbling with blood, bodies, rubble, and broken dreams, where I could have anticipated the change and given others the chance to anticipate it, before it smothers the best of us.

 

I don't know what the future of western society is, but I know it will not wait for me to get ready for it. It will come like a bat out of hell, whether I am ready or not, so I better be ready to face it. The fight before me is for something even greater, which has allowed me all that I cherish today. That thing is nothing other than western society itself, and it is in danger right this very moment. So I will act as if it is.

[Yeravos]

My reaction to your post was that I need to be even better at confronting anti-white sentiment. I need to practice my arguments even more. I need to connect emotionally with the urgency of the topic at hand, but I need also not to become an ineffectual wrecking ball of frustration when I confront anti-white sentiment.

 

As a white, western-value loving man, I feel very angry about how my fellow people who might otherwise be very similar to me, once again have been hammered down upon by the fist of propaganda. It is true, that even libertarians fall for this propaganda in droves, and this makes me feel regret. It makes me realize that libertarians may not be my ally as I thought they were.

 

It makes me scared of the regret I will have in the future if I do not bring an important and powerful message where it needs to be, to depths uncharted beyond libertarianism, where I may have to encounter people who right now I'm not fully comfortable talking to. I am talking about religious people, I am talking about parents who spank, I am talking about pro-government conservatives.

 

I am scared to have to reach my hand out to new people, offering them my empathy because I think they deserve it compared to others, where I may be rejected or where I may feel ashamed of foregoing a topic like peaceful parenting. In situations it might mean I can spread vital information about a more urgent concern, which is the hollowing state of western society itself.

 

As soon as I thought I knew what was most important for me to know about and act on, I found a new more terrible concern.

 

First I was horrified by what the Federal Reserve does to the middle class. Then I was petrified of the invisible underworld of child abuse which reigns horror every day. Now, a new plight may be more urgent than any before, and I have not even considered myself prepared to speak out about the first two. 

 

One thing in life that has become apparent to me is that life doesn't give a fuck about your comfort. It doesn't waste time for you, it will move on whether you are prepared or not. I am terribly afraid of a life of regret, and so with life outpacing my ideals once again, I feel a new level of bravery I must reach to keep pace. I feel if I site idle any longer, the rubble of societal change will loosen, and an avalanche will be unleashed with me sitting in its wake. Then what? Then I am nothing but another pitiless victim of history, tumbling with blood, bodies, rubble, and broken dreams, where I could have anticipated the change and given others the chance to anticipate it, before it smothers the best of us.

 

I don't know what the future of western society is, but I know it will not wait for me to get ready for it. It will come like a bat out of hell, whether I am ready or not, so I better be ready to face it. The fight before me is for something even greater, which has allowed me all that I cherish today. That thing is nothing other than western society itself, and it is in danger right this very moment. So I will act as if it is.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and passion Matthew. I was moved by your response.

 

More people like you are needed in this world.

[DaveR]

Im not personally won over yet on the IQ arguments. My reservations are far more simple. In a democracy, individuals do not matter, groups do. 

 

Its groups in the form of voting blocs that guarantee power. Its why identity politics will never go away, and even if people get along on an personal level, will, at voting time, due to the ceaseless identity politics propaganda, vote for 'their' group. 

 

I think its better to campaign for a post-democratic age than occupy the mind with individual policies within the governmental sphere. 

[square4]

What I want from my post is either have valid counterarguments laid out

 

 

The counter argument is very simple: It is never justified to attack the innocent. Although some immigrants are criminals, not all are. Also, state borders do not even remotely correspond to valid borders of private property. So with closed borders, it means that innocents will be attacked. If you disagree, please explain how your proposal will avoid initiating force against peaceful people. Also please explain who you would want to employ for this (government agents?), and how you propose to finance it (through taxation/theft?).

 

I know about how the government in my country (a country in Europe) has horribly mistreated immigrants. I strongly oppose such practice.

[Yeravos]

The counter argument is very simple: It is never justified to attack the innocent. Although some immigrants are criminals, not all are. Also, state borders do not even remotely correspond to valid borders of private property. So with closed borders, it means that innocents will be attacked. If you disagree, please explain how your proposal will avoid initiating force against peaceful people. Also please explain who you would want to employ for this (government agents?), and how you propose to finance it (through taxation/theft?).

Innocents are already attacked. The people having to pay for the immigrants and their children are being taxed. 

Of course all immigrants are not criminals. They are more likely to commit crime however.

 

Open borders in a welfare state, is not the same as open borders in a free voluntary society.

 

I know about how the government in my country (a country in Europe) has horribly mistreated immigrants. I strongly oppose such practice.

How is this relevant?

[JanneW]

Ok then, I'll give my thoughts. When discussing these issues I first try to lay aside any high-powered emotions I might be feeling. Fear and urgency only cloud the mind when thinking is called for. The state will constantly create emergencies to make people run to it. Some of those emergencies are real, yet the philosopher has to dig for their root.

 

I'm still not sure what kind of action is being talked about here. Let's say it's political action - voting or influencing others who then vote.

 

We know they never let you vote about the central structures that prop up the state. There'll never be a vote to abolish taxes, to dissolve the police - or to end state welfare. The welfare state is the devious invention that allows farms of tax slaves to be operated at low cost, since the slaves may think they and the masters are joined in doing good.

 

With that in mind, politics will present you with two options to vote about to your heart's content: inviting the migrants and swelling the welfare state or "securing the borders" and swelling the police state. Going directly towards fascism or having a short detour through socialism, the wealth will soon be spent anyway. The voluntary option of letting people move freely without shoving stolen money at them is never on the menu.

 

Voting can't make anyone free. Every vote cast is ever a vote to accept slavery, as participation in politics is taken as support for the state in some form. There's a theory that voluntaryism will win on the day 10% of the population believe in peaceful solutions. If I vote, I'm showing the world that I don't believe this, I act to make that day recede into the future.

 

Those are my thoughts. I want nothing to do with state power, I won't side with the slave masters. Democracy is not my culture, why should I fight for it? Voluntaryism is my culture, and it's a small but growing web of individuals spread over the globe. We need to get ever better at creating more thinkers, anarchists. What happens to our home countries is nothing we can affect, what can we gain by entering politics, by ceasing to act as anarchists?

 

I hope I'm not completely beside the track here. I hear your emotions, and I'm scared too. Destruction might come through the migrants or some other way - hasn't Stef predicted for 10 years that it will come? I plan to watch and listen to what will unfold in the world, and move places, if I have to. In the meantime I'm going to think and grow and love life, and I want the same for you who are reading here.  

 

Janne

[Magenta]

I'm with you, OP. Donated, volunteering, and voting for Donald Trump.

[square4]

Of course all immigrants are not criminals. They are more likely to commit crime however.

 

There are lots of groups that are more likely to commit a crime statistically. For example, those in poor neighborhoods. And they are also more likely to claim government welfare. So should we support locking down poor neighborhoods with fences? Of course not.

 

Open borders in a welfare state, is not the same as open borders in a free voluntary society.

 

A peaceful immigrant is not responsible at all for the existence of a welfare state. So to evaluate the morality of interacting with the immigrant, it is irrelevant if there is a welfare state.

Edited February 10, 2016 by square4

[Three]

Great post!

Also, I can understand the anxiety! It's a hot issue. I feel it too when I talk about it. I recently made a post of my own on this forum. I even made it a medium article. 

https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18#.m83sksd29

[LovePrevails]

 

I am not entirely sure how to start what I want to convey to you guys. I find it to be a difficult topic. Because from what I have seen, tends to bring out a lot of bad qualities in people. Also, it is difficult because there are so many factors involved. IQ, race, economics, philosophy, society, culture, religion etc etc etc...

 

Speaking about this scares me. It scares me, because I don't want to be called names. I don't want to fight with people I have considered to be brothers and sisters in philosophy. 

But alas, I communicate this, because what scares me the most, is the consequences of not talking about it.

 

 

See, the funny thing is - I feel scared posting challenging Stef's views - even though i am not altogether in disagreement with him - on this issue

I feel there is sometimes hostility in this community (not from everyone!) towards positions dissenting from Stef's

even making that statement I am afraid of being banned or ostracised

I admire you posting your own views and opinions on this topic, because you feel scared of doing so and are powering through your fear to honest expression - and I think the points that you raise are legitimate.

That said - I don't think the views that you have expressed are actually controversial  within this community - they certainly are controversial outside of it

which is maybe where the fear is projected from? I don't know just a possibility

Let me know what you think

[littlepieceofcheese]

I have just ordered my 2ft by 4 ft Free Domain poster to put in my window near a bus stop in Gillingham, Kent, England.

 

I stood at my sink and thought 'what can I do?'.

 

I have never had the illusion of free speech that the 'rabbits' around me have, or should I say 'had'.  I have always, even as a small child, known I have to go to school because of the force of the state and I have always been aware of my genetic preference for my own race.  I have never been discriminatory to other races and have never ever felt 'white guilt'.  I am white and working class - my ancestors were shovelling out the manure from the stables or working the land and dying at age 30 when this supposed guilt accrued.   

 

As I go about my daily business here in the South of England we are all aware of impending doom but noone is brave enough to acknowledge it.  In quiet corners of pubs, or very very close friends homes many, but not all, people discuss how scared they are then get up for work the next day and get on with their lives.  What else can we do?  All we have left is to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic and pray for a miracle.  So this thread strengthens my optimism that there are a lot of other isolated 'K's out there.  If we can get together on FDR maybe we will be able to work together after the collapse.

 

Meanwhile lets see how quickly the thought police take to order me to remove my poster.  

 

Stefan, his honesty and his truth has made me a little braver.  Maybe I can help another frightened person find a little piece of sanctuary.  If only online.

 

Anyway thanks Yeravos and Matthew M  I applaud your braveness and your hearts.

[JanneW]

Hey MMD,

 

do you think this is the best way to reply to this? Do you think LovePrevails is being manipulative? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know. If someone has feelings of fear and thoughts of being banned or ostracised, how ought he to say it?

 

@LovePrevails: I don't recall anybody having been banned simply for stating a position, thus you might want to check your fears if they're justified by the reality on the forum or if they might stem from elsewhere.

 

Janne

Whenever I'm posting about this topic, I tend to feel intense agitation, bordering on anxiety. I wonder why, and here's my theory. The topic of migration has "us-vs-them" built into it almost unavoidably. Stef gives good arguments on how statistically the group of migrants differs from the group of the host population. Important information, but sadly now we're talking about collectives as if they were a thing. And what's more, one of the collectives is supposed to include myself and the other doesn't. Us vs them. I'm not claiming anything about this is factually wrong, one just needs to be careful about the emotional reactions this may provoke in a lot of us. (In me, for sure.)

 

We're talking us vs them and now one of "us" brings up the idea that another one of "us" might be wrong about some detail of the situation. Being philosophers we normally would welcome differences of viewpoint, which of course need to be supported by good arguments. But, emotionally, part of our simian brains is screaming "my god, our group is already under attack from the outside and now there's dissent from within?! danger, danger!"

 

Could there be some truth to that? If true, what can be done to facilitate rational debate on the topic?

[LovePrevails]

Well do you have any good arguments or not? Suggesting you'd be banned for disagreeing with a position is far more offensive than making an actual argument.

I don't at the moment but I might in the future. I might have to have some Devils advocate debates on

Why is it offensive to say I have those fears? I never asserted that they were well founded or otherwise I have had various experiences in my life that lead me to having certain triggers like anyone else

And also when is being offended anything to do with philosophy? I'm offended isn't an argument either.

Well do you have any good arguments or not? Suggesting you'd be banned for disagreeing with a position is far more offensive than making an actual argument.

I don't at the moment but I might have in the future. I might have to have a few Devils advocate conversations to clarify my own views and come to conclusions before entering the debate on either side. I am unclear where I stand at the moment.

 

Why is it offensive to say I get scared? I never said that you were the kind of people who would actually do that just stated my own experience. I have my own triggers based on my own past and transference like everyone else and one of those is fear of being ostracised for dissenting opinions. It's not voluntary it just gets triggered sometimes.

 

Finally, what has being offended to do with philosophy? That is not an argument either

Being offended is a subjective state - there is not something in the world that is 'offensive' but you can find things offensive if you perceive them as an insult. I don't think I deliberately insulted anyone by mentioning my experience.

 

I look forward to your clarifying these three points.

[JanneW]

Thanks for the explanation, MMD.

[Guest Gee]

In a weird way I can think of few things I want more than to disagree with Stefan. I think it would be a fantastic opportunity to learn something about myself and grow. 

 

Like when you go for a massage and the masseuse finds a knot its going to hurt a like hell but that is where you need to be doing work right?

 

Any ways, great post Yeravos.

[JanneW]

Posting about this topic, I feel intense agitation, bordering on anxiety. I wonder why, and here's my theory. The topic of migration has "us-vs-them" built into it almost unavoidably. Stef gives good arguments on how statistically the group of migrants differs from the group of the host population. Important information, but sadly now we're talking about collectives as if they were a thing. And what's more, one of the collectives is supposed to include myself and the other doesn't. Us vs them. I'm not claiming anything about this is factually wrong, one just needs to be careful about the emotional reactions this may provoke in a lot of us. (In me, for sure.)

 

We're talking us vs them and now one of "us" brings up the idea that another one of "us" might be wrong about some detail of the situation. Being philosophers we normally would welcome differences of viewpoint, which of course need to be supported by good arguments. But, emotionally, part of our simian brains is screaming "my god, our group is already under attack from the outside and now there's dissent from within?! danger, danger!"

 

Could there be some truth to that? If true, what can be done to facilitate rational debate on the topic? 

 

Thanks to Yeravos for starting this thread. It may seem like a sidetrack to be talking about emotions that might exist in the community, but I'd say it's really not. The facts, such as there are, do not seem to be in dispute. Still, multiple people on this thread talk of anxiety when discussing the topic. Exploring these emotions seems to me to be the way to make sure we can even have a discussion.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and passion Matthew. I was moved by your response.

 

More people like you are needed in this world.

Thank you. I didn't even write it that consciously (I got stuck on a few parts which is always an interesting sign) but I felt this desire to want to put a part of my spirit into this thread, if that makes any sense to you. I grew up in an r selected environment, so I am somewhat battling my epigenetics when I try and sympathize with Ks. But I grew up with many K traits in spite of my environment, and those are values that I have always cherished in myself and are the reason I have  personality at all. I see people around me who are kind of in a living hell that they don't even notice, and that is chilling to me. Having witnessed far more than my fair share of an r environment, I feel a strong preference and a stirring courage that wants to stand up for K values to please at least try and put an end to this madness of single motherhood welfare recipient monster child breeeding hypocrites

 

So thank you for your post and the seriousness for which you take this issue, it was a very compelling and well argued post.

[Cesco]

I know about how the government in my country (a country in Europe) has horribly mistreated immigrants.

 

If you welcome immigrants and put their rights above the rights of natives you can do so in YOUR backyard presuming YOU PAY for all expenses and you take reponsibility for all their crimes. But your deal of "you get the feelgood feeling" and the others pay up for expenses and are victimized by crimes is a NOGO. You cant force others to pay up for your dopamine hit. You cant force others to live with the people you want to import. I dont give a shit about your feelz, i care about my daughters not getting raped.

 

You understand this? 

[luxfelix]

A video that touches upon this topic as well as some others discussed in this forum: 

[adamNJ]

A video that touches upon this topic as well as some others discussed in this forum: 

 

That video is depressing, yet I watched it fully, sometimes i question why i watch things that i dont need to know.

[labmath2]

I read all the arguments about immigration and it still only produces one conclusion, the welfare state is the initiation of force and its morally and practically bad. The confusion stems from those who are drawing conclusions like lets close the border. Let me be the first to ask (though i think others jave asked), how exactly do you intend to accomplish that? Lets assume your plan did work, how long will we keep the borders closed? Would we stop interfering in other people's (outside our borders) affairs (this includes walking away from the middle east)? Doez his really bring us closer to freedom (feeling free inside a safe house is not reassuring)?

[Sima]

 because of parasites coming into western countries, we will dissapear,

because taxes are so huge , its difficult to have children,

 

and I dont want whites to be standing in the museums after 200 years like dinosaurs or neadhartelians,

with the reason on the white  board: extinct because of lack of self defence and problems with mathematics.

[luxfelix]

That video is depressing, yet I watched it fully, sometimes i question why i watch things that i dont need to know.

 

Because you care to know? 

[kauni]

My dad put me to work as a counselor in his day camp in L.A. in the 60s. I so enjoyed teaching children and have now done so for 55years. I will never retire. Now I get SS from the govt..that they SAY I paid into. Yes..it's all spent...on the States stupid programs...but dammit I WORKED!! Women are fulfilled thru RIGHT work...not just having kids. Those kids grow up and are gone...but I always have my work..until I pass on. Muslim or other women who decide to take free money from the state will never feel as good as I feel...and they will eventually be alone.. Don't blame all women for the immigrant mess...look to the criminal state and the slacker, cowardly women....

[ObserveandReport]

I'd like raw data showing that immigrants commit higher rates of crime/violent crime than their native counterparts. Mind you, FBI crime statistics are not rates of committed crime, merely prosecution and conviction, so I would look elsewhere (National Crime Victimization Survey). For drug offenses, all races use drugs at about an equal rate, yet prison populations tell a different story. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/arianna-huffington/arianna-huffington-calls-drug-imprisonment-rates-b/ 

 

I would not be surprised if similar disproportions were present in violent crimes and non drug related crimes. If anyone has Stefan's videos which particularly look at these questions, before responding look at the sources for his statistics. Are they arrest and convictions rather than victimization reports? Could these be similarly affected by biases of law enforcement and motivations of prosecutors to pad conviction records? Further, how might this tie in with the fact that the more money you have, the better legal representation you can afford? Then look at how "crime" disproportion aligns with poverty disproportion: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/ 

Is there a connection? or is it IQ and race and culture?