I notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

I talked to some of my friends yesterday at a party and guys and gals were all alike. They were saying back to me the very exact words we discuss here, but in the end their solution is always: I'm packing up and leaving this January, I'm not about to let those traitors government exploit me forever.

People know what is going on but their reaction to it is suboptimal. Can't really blame them for looking out for themselves, but then who will be left to defend Europe?

What warms my heart is that on this forum with mostly US people, Americans like Libertas show more concern for Europe than the Europeans themselves. Ironic but it's something to hold on to.

Anyone who thinks that any sort of serious problem can be solved at the voting boot at this point is living in his own delusion. All politicans already are or can be bought. The opinion of the masses is often wrong and usually disregarded.

The only way to make a dent is through
a) technologically-enabled separation from selected groups of people (this is goint to be big in the next decades)
b) ideological subversion (whatever cuckservatives, SJWs and cultural marxist do, they don't have and will never be able to sell a compelling case against self-determination for groups of people so this is one venue of rebellion)
c) civil disobedience through the lines of what was described in Charles Murray's latest book but probably with a significant violence component

The way you vote does not matter. In the past 3 elections in my country, I have made the point of voting for the most right-wing party that has a chance of making it above the 4% threshold for entering parliament. Yet I do not expect anything to be achieved. Because in a representative democracy, electoral outcomes have only a marginal significance. It is different in a direct democracy but we don't live in one.

Quote:50-150 mio. migrants are set to come to the EU and before the people get fed up sufficiently to vote for more radical measures.

I appreciate your contributions to this thread but I think you are way off with those numbers. Unless we are talking about 20-30 years timeframe.

I wish the elites were that stupid and would let 50-100 million imigrants in the space of 5-6 years because that would mean the total collapse of the EU, the liberal narrative and (probably) representative democracy in most of the continent.
However, they are not. As I already wrote previously in this thread, I expect that after the influx is stopped (because it will be stopped one way or another at some point in the following years) and when the necessary deportations take place (you can be sure they will be deportations at least to show that the politicians are doing something), Europe will end up with 10-12 million of them stuck here, probably 40% of them in Germany and 10% in Sweden.

Quote:accusing the entire Jewish people is just nuts

That may be true but when you have a jewish presence in your country you get people in positions of authority saying this:
The Case for Getting Rid of Borders

Quote:No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.

Top kek
I won't even go into the ridiculous theses this article promotes. The mere fact that someone is speaking of moral frameworks as something defensible on logical grounds is a giant case of useless mental masturbation.

So, although thinking all Jews are out there to get you may be insane, thinking you are better off with them out of your country is not.

Quote: notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

What's the point of staying when it is not only invaders that are against you but also your government and a significant minority (at least 20%) of your own people?
My family stayed in Bulgaria after the comminists took power in 1944 and what did it get them? Half a century of repression, being stuck to menial jobs (because they were descendents of 'enemies of the people' - the euphemism for ideological opponents to communism) and not being allowed to enter university and get an education.
There are battles that you fight and battles from which you withdraw - to smash your enemy later.

(10-11-2015 12:39 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

I talked to some of my friends yesterday at a party and guys and gals were all alike. They were saying back to me the very exact words we discuss here, but in the end their solution is always: I'm packing up and leaving this January, I'm not about to let those traitors government exploit me forever.

People know what is going on but their reaction to it is suboptimal. Can't really blame them for looking out for themselves, but then who will be left to defend Europe?

What warms my heart is that on this forum with mostly US people, Americans like Libertas show more concern for Europe than the Europeans themselves. Ironic but it's something to hold on to.

Where are they picking up and leaving to? The Anglosphere is Anti-White European and is following the same path as continental Europe.

Africa, large portions of Asia and South America (Brazil is basically the end product the elites want for Europe) are no-gos.

Are they heading for Japan? China? Russia? The far east and parts of Eastern Europe are the only plausible answers in my mind. Even then they are taking a hell of a pay cut (in EE) or they are going to have to learn some tough far eastern languages.

Also I believe European governments will start to crack down on emigration if a brain drain really gets moving. They can't have all those productive intelligent Europeans leaving. Who is going to pay all those taxes? Where will all the white women be to sedate the male immigrant masses?

I think your friends should go before the going gets tough, or else they might miss their chance and be stuck in an ever increasing "diverse" paradise, while footing the bills for it.

But really, where the hell they are goin to go?

(10-11-2015 12:39 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

I talked to some of my friends yesterday at a party and guys and gals were all alike. They were saying back to me the very exact words we discuss here, but in the end their solution is always: I'm packing up and leaving this January, I'm not about to let those traitors government exploit me forever.

People know what is going on but their reaction to it is suboptimal. Can't really blame them for looking out for themselves, but then who will be left to defend Europe?

What warms my heart is that on this forum with mostly US people, Americans like Libertas show more concern for Europe than the Europeans themselves. Ironic but it's something to hold on to.

To be fair. The French ran during WW2 also. They still can not come to terms that the Allies saved their ass back then.

50-150 Million is a conservative estimate. There is a demographic explosion currently occurring in Sub Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. That wave has it's sights clearly on Europe.

It depends on future border controls and immigration policies. But I have no doubt that by 2050, a half a billion people will try to enter Europe by any means possible. Maybe enough will fail for the permanent numbers only to be in the 50-150 million range. The failures in part cause by walls, shutting the borders down and violently defending them or blowing the ships out of the water.

The only way to discourage immigrants will be through aggressive means and actions. Economically, Europe will continue to be a draw, because even if living standards decrease dramatically in European nations it will still be far more affluent than the migrants home lands.

Although I can't see Europe ever become aggressive, or getting people into power that even have this mindset. So it goes...

blease, blease, no broblem... this ticket here... after forty minit finish! after forty minit!

There are many countries to go to which are economically on the upswing and will remain so for the next decades. China has been chosen by the global elite as the next superpower. Shanghai will be the new New York. The transition will become apparent in the next years - you will all see it happen.

Chinese troops will be the next global "police" pushing through the next steps on the agenda. Japan has been proven to be highly resistant towards many demands of the globalists. While the population was demoralized just like the rest it also remained traditional. They will also profit from the vicinity to China and form the fact that they haven't moved their industrial capability offshore. They are hit by the usual usury boom and bust game and by technological unemployment. Luckily they won't need the work-force and are resilient enough to even rebuild their economy after a strong financial collapse. When you retain a highly educated population and fully functioning high-tech industrial facilities, then you can rebuild a country from scratch like Germany after WW2. Only when elite traitors have shipped their factories to China, only then are you left with "service economy" odd-jobs and the few tech-positions.

Self-improvement is an individual undertaking - supporting Trump or Ron Paul, donating saviors like them or savior-parties your life-savings won't achieve anything. A man has to decide individually which battles to fight and which are futile and a waste of his time. I can assure you that the global elite knew exactly when to leave a country, pack their bags and set up shop elsewhere. That is how they retain their wealth over centuries. It is others who get crushed, find themselves in concentration camps or gulags or are left penniless because they underestimated the enemy. A friend's great-grandfather was an industrialist worth 300 mio. $ by current standards. If he had sold off his factory and possessions and left before the communists came, then his family would be still quite wealthy. Instead all they got is one humble house and a part in a town house.

I will continue to live in EE for a while, then move to Asia. I may vote for the decent right party in my home country, but it's just one vote among the sea of brainwashed people who don't even know who is ruling or how our economy really looks like. So why should they understand that this migrant crisis is tantamount to 9/11 with repercussions going into the next decades. 50-150 mio. will come of course within the next decade or 2. Currently we are looking at 5 to 10 million by the end of 2016. I estimate that 2 million were entering Europe even before 2014, so it's just a minor raise. Actually 50 million 35 years is very very optimistic. At 2 mio. per year it's 70 million already until 2050. At an increased rate of 5 mio. it's 175 mio. Since Europe is 550 mio. people, I feel "optimistic" that the elite can sell the Europeans 175 mio. "diverse" soulmates within 35 years. Hey - it will be just 35% of the population - what can go wrong?

They will probably stem the flow someday in years to come when the situation becomes unbearable to the local population. But as I said - I think that the time may come at 175 mio. incoming. By that time you have too keep in mind that the indigenous populations might have decreased by 50 million or more (cancer rates are rising). So it might be just 100-120 mio. net plus by 2050. It's not that far-stretched at net flows of 3-4 mio. per year.

(10-11-2015 01:08 PM)uncledick Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 12:39 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

I talked to some of my friends yesterday at a party and guys and gals were all alike. They were saying back to me the very exact words we discuss here, but in the end their solution is always: I'm packing up and leaving this January, I'm not about to let those traitors government exploit me forever.

People know what is going on but their reaction to it is suboptimal. Can't really blame them for looking out for themselves, but then who will be left to defend Europe?

What warms my heart is that on this forum with mostly US people, Americans like Libertas show more concern for Europe than the Europeans themselves. Ironic but it's something to hold on to.

Where are they picking up and leaving to? The Anglosphere is Anti-White European and is following the same path as continental Europe.

Africa, large portions of Asia and South America (Brazil is basically the end product the elites want for Europe) are no-gos.

Are they heading for Japan? China? Russia? The far east and parts of Eastern Europe are the only plausible answers in my mind. Even then they are taking a hell of a pay cut (in EE) or they are going to have to learn some tough far eastern languages.

Also I believe European governments will start to crack down on emigration if a brain drain really gets moving. They can't have all those productive intelligent Europeans leaving. Who is going to pay all those taxes? Where will all the white women be to sedate the male immigrant masses?

I think your friends should go before the going gets tough, or else they might miss their chance and be stuck in an ever increasing "diverse" paradise, while footing the bills for it.

But really, where the hell they are goin to go?

On this forum you have guys of a certain adventerous type, perhaps not first movers (that's actually usually ex-military, sailors and oil people), but still early adopters. That skews the predictions by some years.

I know several 'mainstream' people who left Europe. Two countries pop up with frequency: Switzerland and Australia. The first is for business people, the second for engineers and the like. I guess both are still better options than most in Europe.

It's an old TV report from 2012. The media has probably decided to not report anything much of that nature.

Back then they had one month in 2012 with 100 car fires just in Goteborg. Cops and firemen being attacked daily, people harassed and the local "youths" claiming that the cops had nothing to decide in their region.

One Muslim man clearly states what is the problem - it's not that the youth "feel excluded" (bullshit PC term that the cops have been coached to use). It's that they have brought their own problems, animosities, religious perceptions with them as they moved to Sweden. They don't feel like changing and adapting to Sweden. Sweden should become a shit-hole like the one they moved away from. But at least it will be sharia.

I think that the final number will be some 150 mio., because that is about the most that Europe can probably take before collapsing completely into a 3rd world country. Anyone idealistic can stay and ride it out like my friend's great-grandfather.

(10-11-2015 02:15 PM)Silvestroyer Wrote:  



blease, blease, no broblem... this ticket here... after forty minit finish! after forty minit!

The level of entitlement and disrespect is unbelievable. No matter how many times I see examples of this shameful attitude, it still shocks me that such people could be welcomed and fully supported by a country, then turn around and spit in the faces of the people who are paying for that very support.

Swedes are, let's not forget, arguably among the most mild and inoffensive people on the planet. Social dynamics there practically revolve around the objective of being generally pleasant, neutral and avoiding anything that could cause controversy (everything in Swedish culture is about being lagom, which means something like in the middle or non-extreme). If everyday Swedes are reacting like this, we can be quite sure that the tension isn't being instigated by Swedes, not one bit.

Also, why do so many immigrants constantly refuse to try to speak Swedish? It's one of the easiest European languages to learn, far easier than English...4-5 months in country and most people will be conversationally competent if they make a decent effort (I've met immigrants who're fluent no problem and get on well with Swedish society, so it's hardly an impossible task). Unless, of course, they don't care about (or actively dislike) Swedish culture, Swedish people or Sweden herself.

No country that possessed its sanity or even just a survival instinct would tolerate this lack of respect for an instant, yet European countries excuse it, and by doing nothing even encourage it.

(10-11-2015 07:19 PM)Saga Wrote:  ...

Also, why do so many immigrants constantly refuse to try to speak Swedish? It's one of the easiest European languages to learn, far easier than English...4-5 months in country and most people will be conversationally competent if they make a decent effort (I've met immigrants who're fluent no problem and get on well with Swedish society, so it's hardly an impossible task). Unless, of course, they don't care about (or actively dislike) Swedish culture, Swedish people or Sweden herself...

That's the one thing I won't blame them for (well, not the refusal, but the lack of ability) - unless they've spent years in the country, or been aided in joining language courses.

Being one among many expats I've known or heard about who has lived several years in another country without learning enough of the local language to handle much more than shopping, restaurants and transportation, I know that for many it will require signing up for language lessons to get anywhere with a new language (taking lessons is something I haven't done yet because I stubbornly believed, and still do at least in theory, that I could learn the language through books, local TV and occasional conversation with the locals - I say occasional because I don't work in a local company and my local friends and most girls I date are fluent in English, so it's been too easy never to make the effort to practice my Bulgarian with them.
Knowing 600-700 words is only good for constructing basic sentences and then more often than not being lost as soon as you get an answer where you don't understand 20-80% of the words.
I've been fluent in English for many years, but that took me 8+ years of - admittedly inefficient - school.)

(10-11-2015 07:35 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:19 PM)Saga Wrote:  ...

Also, why do so many immigrants constantly refuse to try to speak Swedish? It's one of the easiest European languages to learn, far easier than English...4-5 months in country and most people will be conversationally competent if they make a decent effort (I've met immigrants who're fluent no problem and get on well with Swedish society, so it's hardly an impossible task). Unless, of course, they don't care about (or actively dislike) Swedish culture, Swedish people or Sweden herself...

That's the one thing I won't blame them for (well, not the refusal, but the lack of ability) - unless they've spent years in the country, or been aided in joining language courses.

Being one among many expats I've known or heard about who has lived several years in another country without learning enough of the local language to handle much more than shopping, restaurants and transportation, I know that for many it will require signing up for language lessons to get anywhere with a new language (taking lessons is something I haven't done yet because I stubbornly believed, and still do at least in theory, that I could learn the language through books, local TV and occasional conversation with the locals - I say occasional because I don't work in a local company and my local friends and most girls I date are fluent in English, so it's been too easy never to make the effort to practice my Bulgarian with them.
Knowing 600-700 words is only good for constructing basic sentences and then more often than not being lost as soon as you get an answer where you don't understand 20-80% of the words.
I've been fluent in English for many years, but that took me 8+ years of - admittedly inefficient - school.)

I hear you, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges: Bulgarian has three grammatical cases, Swedish has none; Bulgarian verbs are complex even compared to other Slavic languages, Swedish verbs are very simple compared to other Germanic languages; Bulgarian has little relation to English, Swedish has many cognates and a very similar grammatical system (if most Anglophones hear "hej, jag kommer från Skottland", they'll probably be able to figure out each word and the grammatical structure because it's exactly the same); Bulgarian has three genders, Swedish has two and in Swedish about 80% of nouns belong to one category so it's quite easy to guess; Bulgarian is written in Cyrillic which is only used in Slavic countries, Swedish is written in a rather simple Latin alphabet which will be familiar to many around the world.

I've heard Bulgarian is especially difficult to learn so what you've gone through is perfectly understandable...but compared to that, at least in my opinion, Swedish is a breeze. It gets my vote for most learner-friendly language in the whole of Europe.

(10-11-2015 08:29 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:35 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:19 PM)Saga Wrote:  ...

Also, why do so many immigrants constantly refuse to try to speak Swedish? It's one of the easiest European languages to learn, far easier than English...4-5 months in country and most people will be conversationally competent if they make a decent effort (I've met immigrants who're fluent no problem and get on well with Swedish society, so it's hardly an impossible task). Unless, of course, they don't care about (or actively dislike) Swedish culture, Swedish people or Sweden herself...

That's the one thing I won't blame them for (well, not the refusal, but the lack of ability) - unless they've spent years in the country, or been aided in joining language courses.

Being one among many expats I've known or heard about who has lived several years in another country without learning enough of the local language to handle much more than shopping, restaurants and transportation, I know that for many it will require signing up for language lessons to get anywhere with a new language (taking lessons is something I haven't done yet because I stubbornly believed, and still do at least in theory, that I could learn the language through books, local TV and occasional conversation with the locals - I say occasional because I don't work in a local company and my local friends and most girls I date are fluent in English, so it's been too easy never to make the effort to practice my Bulgarian with them.
Knowing 600-700 words is only good for constructing basic sentences and then more often than not being lost as soon as you get an answer where you don't understand 20-80% of the words.
I've been fluent in English for many years, but that took me 8+ years of - admittedly inefficient - school.)

I hear you, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges: Bulgarian has three grammatical cases, Swedish has none; Bulgarian verbs are complex even compared to other Slavic languages, Swedish verbs are very simple compared to other Germanic languages; Bulgarian has little relation to English, Swedish has many cognates and a very similar grammatical system (if most Anglophones hear "hej, jag kommer från Skottland", they'll probably be able to figure out each word and the grammatical structure because it's exactly the same); Bulgarian has three genders, Swedish has two and in Swedish about 80% of nouns belong to one category so it's quite easy to guess; Bulgarian is written in Cyrillic which is only used in Slavic countries, Swedish is written in a rather simple Latin alphabet which will be familiar to many around the world.

I've heard Bulgarian is especially difficult to learn so what you've gone through is perfectly understandable...but compared to that, at least in my opinion, Swedish is a breeze. It gets my vote for most learner-friendly language in the whole of Europe.

I'm Danish so I'm quite familiar with Scandinavian languages. It's possible that Swedish is easier to learn than Danish (I obviously understand a lot of Swedish since the languages are so similar, but I've never had any formal education in it), but after two years with steady but very far from optimal Bulgarian studies on my own I'm inclined to say that I would consider Danish a more difficult language to learn.
While Bulgarian has some tricky verbs (pretty much the only part that's giving me real trouble - I'm further along with grammar than vocabulary, since my lousy memory for new words and the need for constant repetition is my biggest hurdle) it's for the most part extremely straight forward with regards to spelling and pronunciation, something that definitely doesn't apply to Danish (or English).

(10-11-2015 12:39 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  I notice a worrying trend of young smart Europeans instead of voting and staying and fight, they just say fuck this shit and pick up and leave.

I talked to some of my friends yesterday at a party and guys and gals were all alike. They were saying back to me the very exact words we discuss here, but in the end their solution is always: I'm packing up and leaving this January, I'm not about to let those traitors government exploit me forever.

People know what is going on but their reaction to it is suboptimal. Can't really blame them for looking out for themselves, but then who will be left to defend Europe?

What warms my heart is that on this forum with mostly US people, Americans like Libertas show more concern for Europe than the Europeans themselves. Ironic but it's something to hold on to.

And wherever they settle will be mysteriously orderly and prosperous, attracting more envious masses and starting the cycle all over again.

Tell them to stand. Nothing more you can do but someone has to.

(10-11-2015 02:30 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I will continue to live in EE for a while, then move to Asia. I may vote for the decent right party in my home country, but it's just one vote among the sea of brainwashed people who don't even know who is ruling or how our economy really looks like. So why should they understand that this migrant crisis is tantamount to 9/11 with repercussions going into the next decades. 50-150 mio. will come of course within the next decade or 2. Currently we are looking at 5 to 10 million by the end of 2016. I estimate that 2 million were entering Europe even before 2014, so it's just a minor raise. Actually 50 million 35 years is very very optimistic. At 2 mio. per year it's 70 million already until 2050. At an increased rate of 5 mio. it's 175 mio. Since Europe is 550 mio. people, I feel "optimistic" that the elite can sell the Europeans 175 mio. "diverse" soulmates within 35 years. Hey - it will be just 35% of the population - what can go wrong?

They will probably stem the flow someday in years to come when the situation becomes unbearable to the local population. But as I said - I think that the time may come at 175 mio. incoming. By that time you have too keep in mind that the indigenous populations might have decreased by 50 million or more (cancer rates are rising). So it might be just 100-120 mio. net plus by 2050. It's not that far-stretched at net flows of 3-4 mio. per year.

Japan isn't a bad choice. I would not go to China certainly.

But I am betting on the Anglosphere profiting the most from this.

Fasten your mental seat-belts - here comes an article that seems like click-bait by the Atlantic, but it is actually filled with globalist plans and lingo:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...ly/409501/

Quote:The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.

Quote:To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged.
Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the
nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both
economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth,
uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.

A L E X T A B A R R O K
O C T 1 0 , 2 0 1 5


{The face of the cuck.}

NASA / Reuters

10/12/2015 The Case for Getting Rid of Borders ­ The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...ly/409501/ 2/4
Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic
activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and
income created by these differences are magnified by governments that
suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender
discrimination, or other bigotry. Closed borders compound these
injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to
a life of penury.
[While it is true that bounties are distributed unevenly, they were not the reason why the Asians and Caucasians developed much faster than Africa, the Middle East or South America. Africa alone has massive natural resources and it's agriculture could literally feed not only 7 billion, but more likely 20 billion people - the land is really as fertile as that. The reasons for various developments are many - the governments are the minor problems there.]

The overwhelming majority of would-be immigrants want little more than
to make a better life for themselves and their families by moving to
economic opportunity and participating in peaceful, voluntary trade. But
lawmakers and heads of state quash these dreams with state-sanctioned
violence—forced repatriation, involuntary detention, or worse—often
while paying lip service to
“huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
[While true that most people would just love to be living the life of a US Rapper, that does not mean that they have the skills necessary. The modern economic systems are intricate machines with highly adapted, well-coordinated people who are all fulfilling certain functions in the system. Suddenly adding hostile uneducated people on the Forrest Gump scale of the IQ spectrum simply disrupts the equilibrium. In addition the mental frames formed by religion and backwards thinking are even worse to disband, since they do not view their new host countries as wonderful or superior - no they view the West as decadent and backwards. The Western people should bow in front of them and they certainly haven't crossed the sea to clean toilets or work their way up from the bottom.]

Wage differences are a revealing metric of border discrimination. When a
worker from a poorer country moves to a richer one, her wages might
double, triple, or rise even tenfold. These extreme wage differences reflect
restrictions as stifling as the laws that separated white and black South
Africans at the height of Apartheid.
[That's some serious economic hamster-talk - coming from an economist at that. Wage differences exist due to economic output differences AND generations of blood and sweat when workers and unions fought for living wages. I know that neo-classical economists now seem to forget things like the Battle of Blue Mountain and European workers dying for higher wages, joining in unions to force employers to give them living wages. But the fact remains that those things did not come via the invisible hand of the free market. They were won by great work. ]
Geographical differences in wages also
signal opportunity—for financially empowering the migrants, of course,
but also for increasing total world output. On the other side of
discrimination lies untapped potential.

Economists have estimated that a
world of open borders would double world GDP.
Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program
ever devised.
[NOW THIS IS THE WHAMMY! I have read about this in UN statements. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised! Yes - the UN is doing right that. Instead of raising the living standards in the 3rd world - that is poo-pooed now due to the Global Warming scam - the UN has decided to simply import 2 billion people to the West. In the process those 2 billion will have raised living standards and the billion or so Westerners will have lowered living standards (of course only the lower 80%). So essentially it's a global redistribution scheme. If guys like that are the mouthpieces of UN trillionaires, then my estimates of 150 million immigrants by 2050 are ridiculous. We might be looking at 500 million within 30-50 years. Maybe they count on Terminator combat robots to help them quell the hostile masses.]

Even relatively small increases in immigration flows can have enormous
benefits. If the developed world were to take in enough immigrants to
enlarge its labor force by a mere one percent, it is estimated that the
additional economic value created would be worth more to the migrants
than all of the world’s official foreign aid combined. Immigration is the
greatest anti-poverty program ever devised.
And while the benefits of cross-border movements are tremendous for the
immigrants, they are also significant for those born in destination
countries. Immigration unleashes economic forces that raise real wages
throughout an economy. New immigrants possess skills different from
those of their hosts, and these differences enable workers in both groups to
better exploit their special talents and leverage their comparative
advantages. The effect is to improve the welfare of newcomers and natives
alike. The immigrant who mows the lawn of the nuclear physicist
indirectly helps to unlock the secrets of the universe.
[This is so much bullshit - in the 1950s the local poor, young or less educated mowed the lawn. Also in our times the nuclear scientist is buying himself a robot which mows 95% of the lawn itself. The immigrants possess in reality NO SKILLS at all that cannot be found in the more advanced countries. The IQ distribution is still valid in the West. The main "skill" that the newcomers have is that some of them are willing to work for much much lower pay. But that is only relevant to some, since most European Muslim migrants now have no interest at being potato farmers for minimum pay.]

What moral theory justifies using wire, wall, and weapon to prevent people
from moving to opportunity? What moral theory justifies using tools of
exclusion to prevent people from exercising their right to vote with their
feet?
No standard moral framework, be it utilitarian, libertarian, egalitarian,
Rawlsian, Christian, or any other well-developed perspective, regards
people from foreign lands as less entitled to exercise their rights—or as
inherently possessing less moral worth—than people lucky to have been
born in the right place at the right time. Nationalism, of course, discounts
the rights, interests, and moral value of “the Other, but this disposition is
inconsistent with our fundamental moral teachings and beliefs.
[Indeed - NATIONALISM is the big evil that the global superpowers are after. They want one world - BRAVE NEW WORLD.]

The immigrant who mows the lawn ofthe nuclear
physicistindirectly helps to unlock the secrets of
the universe.
Freedom of movement is a basic human right. Thus the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights belies its name when it proclaims this right
only “within the borders of each state.”
[Keep that phrase in mind as the UN will demand Freedom of sex as a basic human right for children in the future. No one has the right to move to a different place where they or their ancestors did not work for the fruits of their labor. I will concede that humans may have the right for water and they may have the right for sufficient land for survival. But anything beyond that is up to them. You've got some fertile land, some water? Then go build a civilization - knowledge nowadays is easy to come by - most countries will help you out with that, the rest is up to you. If Japan did it, then so can you.]


Human rights do not stop at the
border.Today, we treat as pariahs those governments that refuse to let
their people exit. I look forward to the day when we treat as pariahs those
governments that refuse to let people enter.
Is there hope for the future? Closed borders are one of the world’s greatest
moral failings but the opening of borders is the world’s greatest economic
opportunity. The grandest moral revolutions in history—the abolition of
slavery, the securing of religious freedom, the recognition of the rights of
women—yielded a world in which virtually everyone was better off. They
also demonstrated that the fears that had perpetuated these injustices
were unfounded. Similarly, a planet unscarred by iron curtains is not only
a world of greater equality and justice. It is a world unafraid of itself.

Quote:Indeed - not letting in 4 billion hostile, low-IQ migrants into the West is a form of the Holocoust. That's some great mental twisting.

One of the pictures he used in his presentations. Of course I know that the world is owned by one group and they have their own ONE IDEA on how they want to rule it all.


Go fuck yourself - UN propaganda economist:

I thought about making a thread for this but it actually fits into the "globalist" dipshit agenda we're talking about in the bigger picture.

I don't remember this making much news in the U.S. and I don't think it was ever mentioned here but Austrlia paid Cambodia $40 million to resettle boat refugees from other countries. Guess where all that money went? Right into Hun Sen's pocket where i'm sure he was able to outfit a nice mansion somewhere in full James Bond Villain style.

Guess who got conned like a dumb fucking tourist? Australia.

This article dated June 2015 says only 4 refugees from Nauru have been resettled in Cambodia. Even third world refugees aren't stupid enough to take this deal.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-new...-australia


My point is this is a trend of things to come. Instead of developed nations sending refugees back home and making their home countries pay for the cost they are instead cutting deals with third party developing countries to export more refugees elsewhere with huge cash incentives to "host" countries.

It doesn't end here..Australia is trying to broker a similar deal with Philippines. Do people really think the Philippines needs more poor people living in squalor? The elites sure do. I wouldn't be surprised if this deal gets greenlit because politicians in the P.I. are openly and unashamedly corrupt as fuck and will take a huge cash payout any day of the week.

Yep - I posted Tabarrok's article above. As I already said, people like him are a perfect illustration why anti-semitism has been rampant throughout the history of the world. When you have absolutely no sense of loyalty, respect and belonging to the place you live in, then you usually end on the wrong side of the bat/knife/gun of those that do.

Also

Quote:The immigrant who mows the lawn of the nuclear physicist indirectly helps to unlock the secrets of the universe.

A significant part of libertarians today (Cato, the GMU asperger economists, part of the LessWrong crowd) have gone for full cultural marxism. I pity the fools. They actually think they can appeal to the left with concessions that are somehow in sync with their ideology (though I can assure you that in a fully libertarian world where there is complete freedom of association in the initial state, the end state will be anything but open borders).

(10-12-2015 04:45 AM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  Yep - I posted Tabarrok's article above. As I already said, people like him are a perfect illustration why anti-semitism has been rampant throughout the history of the world. When you have absolutely no sense of loyalty, respect and belonging to the place you live in, then you usually end on the wrong side of the bat/knife/gun of those that do.

Also

Quote:The immigrant who mows the lawn of the nuclear physicist indirectly helps to unlock the secrets of the universe.

REFUGEE CHARITY STOPS AID TO CALAIS BECAUSE 97% ARE MEN WITH ‘NO REAL REASON’ TO BE THERE

Quote:A Bradford based charity will now only be helping genuine refugees near Syria after they woke up to the fact that those in the Calais “Jungle” camp are almost exclusively fit young men, who are “happy” to be there and not fleeing danger.

The charity was tired of unwanted donations being left to spoil by the economic migrants.

The Human Relief Foundation (HRF) has been generously running a project to help the “refugees” based in Calais, previously claiming they were all “fleeing war and significant atrocities.”

However, on a recent visit HRF’s deputy chief executive Kassim Tokan and his team discovered unwanted clothing and food being “dumped and burnt” by the migrants.

“I thought they have valid reason, but most of them they haven’t any valid reason… they want to go [to the UK] to get money, a better economic situation,” Tokan told ITV News.

HRF will now refocus its efforts on help Syrians trapped in neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan.

He said migrants told him, bluntly, that they were quite happy to stay in the camp. “There is no point in staying here… Syrian people in Jordan have a much better life,” he suggested.Calais Jungle migrant camp

He said that 95 to 97 per cent of the people he observed in the camp were young, fit men – despite the BBC misleading the general public by featuring children in over 50 per of their pictures of the migrant crisis, as exposed by a Breitbart London analysis.

Tokan adding: “They have enough food, they have enough clothes and we have seen clothes everywhere thrown. I think we need to find other places. These people come from certain countries, which are safe, everything is there, they can work, but I don’t know why they came here.

The British public has been enthusiastically giving to the “refugees” in Calais since the story first entered the media, including 700 planning to ride there on bikes in single weekend.

However, tons good were being wasted and left in mud, and at the begging of September charities pleaded for people to stop sending goods as they were “overwhelmed,” asking for money and mobile phones instead.

Quote:Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised

If an Econ 101 student wrote something that fucking stupid, he would get an automatic F for the class. Yet this scumbag gets his own column and a professorship. Another case of credentials = worthless.

Scientist says researchers in immigrant-friendly nations can't use his software

Quote:A German scientist is revoking the license to his bioinformatics software for researchers working in eight European countries because he believes those countries allow too many immigrants to cross their borders. From 1 October, scientists in Germany, Austria, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark—"the countries that together host most of the non-European immigrants“—won't be allowed to use a program called Treefinder, informatician Gangolf Jobb wrote in a statement he posted on his website.

Small and just symbolic act of resistence. But resistence nonetheless.

Quote:And after reading Jobb's statement, "I would stop using [Treefinder] just on general principle, even if we had to resort to using pencil and paper.”

SJW moron detected
So, let's see - a scientist allows politics to influence her work. Indeed, she is willing to harm her work and hinder the advancement of science because of her politics.

(10-11-2015 02:15 PM)Silvestroyer Wrote:  



blease, blease, no broblem... this ticket here... after forty minit finish! after forty minit!

You can really see the stress on the driver's face. She probably has to deal with this bullshit all day, every day.

(10-12-2015 07:57 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Quote:Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised

If an Econ 101 student wrote something that fucking stupid, he would get an automatic F for the class.

I have an 'Economics of Poverty and Inequality' exam in two hours. I'll work that line in somewhere and report back.

I bet I make an A. I've only been to that class twice(the first day and the first exam) and I have an A right now just from writing bullshit about how immigrants need more money for dem programs.

(10-12-2015 07:18 AM)iop890 Wrote:  REFUGEE CHARITY STOPS AID TO CALAIS BECAUSE 97% ARE MEN WITH ‘NO REAL REASON’ TO BE THERE

When even the British wake up to the fact that they are being cucked, that's really saying something