Post: #476

You acknowledge that the jihadist problem can easily be solved by the government doing something since they know who the perpetrators are and how to stop them in their tracks... yet just a few paragraphs later you claim that the government is totally helpless against the migrants pouring in from Libya, suddenly somehow unable to enforce borders, refuse welfare and jail traitors? What you just claimed amounts to a fictional Schroedinger's government - simultaneously able and helpless in the face of its problems. Sorry, not buying it!

A government that is capable of tracking and arresting terrorists is also automatically capable of controlling its borders, even more so because these tasks complement each other. Neither of these is especially difficult - as you said all it takes is a bit of determination.

Post: #477

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  I am black and I live in a nation where millions (...) support white supremacy and policies designed to further it (up to and including neo-Nazism).

I also live in a nation where the efforts of organized racialist groups (like the American Nazi Party) (...) have seen a small resurgence in the last handful of years and are actually growing pretty rapidly online where they are seen by millions).

   

So USA is basically Nazi Germany just waiting to happen... now I've really heard it all!

Post: #478

In all serious, Excelsior, the suggestion that there are millions in the US who support white supremacy is an extraordinary claim that I can't accept at face value.

You're right about online racism growing, although that is happening in no small part because the multicultural progressives have made it difficult-to-impossible to differentiate between white supremacists and people just trying to defend themselves against overt anti-White racism.

For an example from today: https:[email protected]/beware-...fe21b1fc5d

She got a test question about slavery wrong, and objected. When the progressive professor cited her source for the answer to the question, the student countered with this:

Quote:The sociologist she cites, Herbert Gutman, is a white man that died in 1985 and conducted his research in the 60s and 70s. It is not hard to recognize that racism and bias could play a large role in the “studies” conducted by sociologists during this time.

In other words: her source is wrong because he is white.

And of course, SJWs Always Lie:

Quote:This prompted discussion from my friends and family, who took issue with the numerous alternative facts that she continues to stand behind. It was alarming to me that my Professor believes that “Most slave families were kept intact with wife and husband present.” What does she think this was, Good Times? Most slaves were not getting married and most slaves were not raising their children.

The professor stated a fact that she believed, while the student imagined implications that weren't there and attacked those.

Long story short, the professor, being a card-carrying anti-racist progressive, had no idea how to respond to a racist SJW mobbing, had a meltdown and got fired.

Quote:So when Black people challenge white people to use their privilege or voice to do more for people of color, white people, often times, get defensive because they do not view themselves as part of the problem.

Does your "millions of white supremacists" include the people objecting to accusations of being "part of the problem" based on nothing more than the pure, unadulterated racism like that demonstrated by Kayla Renee Parker?

Post: #479

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Given by your definition, Excelsior, "Western fuckery" likely includes support for the existence of Israel, what proposal do you have that would allow the state of Israel to continue to exist?

No, not necessarily. Israel can persist.

In the long term, Israel is benefited by efforts to avoid destabilizing Middle Eastern nations and turning them into terrorist controlled banana-republics where the likes of ISIS can grow with impunity.
Israel also benefits from enhanced efforts within the west to quit coddling and start prosecuting known jihadis.

So, Iran, a country that does not appear a terrorist-controlled banana republic and whose leader has openly said he wants Israel wiped off the map, is a stable force in the Middle East - one that benefits Israel?

There were a number of Muslim majority nations who openly assaulted Israel well prior to the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Are you saying that wouldn't happen if the US pulled out of the Middle East?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #480

(06-08-2017 05:29 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  ..
Step 1. Quit fucking around with the Middle East.
..
Step 2. Find, prosecute, and eliminate extremists in the west.
..
Follow those two steps to the key, and you'll solve the problem. No "banning" necessary.

Excelsior, your two step solution completely ignores the true nature of Islam.

It makes no difference focusing on Western intervention as it is a microcosm in history, a small retaliation just like the Crusades were.

Islam has always been this way for almost 1400 years and we certainly weren't arbitrarily invading the Middle East then.

Whilst you're right to say that our current actions aren't helping things, it's merely throwing fuel onto an already raging fire - the fire has already existed for more than a millennia and will continue to burn for as long as their religion lives on.

Even if we were to get out of the Middle East tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference because it's just one of their reasons for killing us.

From “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” Dabiq ISIS magazine:

Quote:1. Because you are disbelievers
2. Because you are liberal
3. Because some of you are atheist
4. For your crimes against Islam
5. For your crimes against Muslims
6. For invading our lands

They are telling us directly, in plain words, why they kill us, but you're over here telling us it's not true.

You sound like a refugee activist saying "Not All Muslims!" as a truck of peace comes speeding towards you.

Post: #481

(06-08-2017 05:14 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  You acknowledge that the jihadist problem can easily be solved by the government doing something since they know who the perpetrators are and how to stop them in their tracks... yet just a few paragraphs later you claim that the government is totally helpless against the migrants pouring in from Libya,

That is not what I said.

I'll wait for you to go back to my post and point out to me the specific quote in which this claim of total helplessness is made.

Quote: suddenly somehow unable to enforce borders, refuse welfare and jail traitors? What you just claimed amounts to a fictional Schroedinger's government - simultaneously able and helpless in the face of its problems. Sorry, not buying it!

I claimed that there was a refugee crisis that has been enabled by the destabilization of Libya. I did not claim that there was absolutely nothing that could be done about it.
Dealing with the refugee crisis is a challenge and Europe has largely shown itself unprepared for it, but that does not imply that nothing can be done.

Quote:A government that is capable of tracking and arresting terrorists is also automatically capable of controlling its borders, even more so because these tasks complement each other. Neither of these is especially difficult - as you said all it takes is a bit of determination.

No, this is false equivocation.

First, what did I say about that determination and its presence? Did I claim that the authorities have that determination or no? Given what you know about the state of European politics and human rights law, how likely did you think a determined effort to effectively control the borders was to manifest itself?

Furthermore, this is about more than determination. It is about preparation. Would you argue that western europe in 2013 was at all well prepared to deal with a massive increase in the number of refugees in close proximity to its borders?

Finding jihadis who have quite literally presented themselves to you and have also quite literally been handed to you on a silver platter and are right in your backyard is one thing. Avoiding the promotion of hardliners (read: keeping them off your leading media networks) who have no credibility even in their own communities is one thing. Those are very easily done.

Managing a flow of many millions of migrants who have suddenly popped up in a failed state right next door that you cannot control is another thing entirely. That is an order of magnitude more challenging than arresting an extremist who is right in front of you.

(06-08-2017 05:40 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  I am black and I live in a nation where millions (...) support white supremacy and policies designed to further it (up to and including neo-Nazism).

I also live in a nation where the efforts of organized racialist groups (like the American Nazi Party) (...) have seen a small resurgence in the last handful of years and are actually growing pretty rapidly online where they are seen by millions).

So USA is basically Nazi Germany just waiting to happen... now I've really heard it all!

To answer your meme: what you are reading are statements of fact.

To answer the bolded: That is not what I said.

Post: #482

(06-08-2017 06:08 PM)Blaster Wrote:  In all serious, Excelsior, the suggestion that there are millions in the US who support white supremacy is an extraordinary claim that I can't accept at face value.

It is extraordinary to anyone with their heads in the sand, yes. It's common sense to anyone who has to deal with it. There is nothing at all strange about claiming that there are millions of people who support or believe in white supremacy in a country of over 300 million people.

The very existence and success of mediums like the Daily Stormer, Amren, and a host of other fora affiliated with the growing Alt-Right and White Nationalist spheres make the statement of fact abundantly clear.

Quote:You're right about online racism growing, although that is happening in no small part because the multicultural progressives have made it difficult-to-impossible to differentiate between white supremacists and people just trying to defend themselves against overt anti-White racism.

I'm referring to people who believe blacks and other non-whites are inferior to white people. I maintain that there are millions of those people in the United States. That is obvious.

(06-08-2017 06:30 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Given by your definition, Excelsior, "Western fuckery" likely includes support for the existence of Israel, what proposal do you have that would allow the state of Israel to continue to exist?

No, not necessarily. Israel can persist.

In the long term, Israel is benefited by efforts to avoid destabilizing Middle Eastern nations and turning them into terrorist controlled banana-republics where the likes of ISIS can grow with impunity.
Israel also benefits from enhanced efforts within the west to quit coddling and start prosecuting known jihadis.

So, Iran, a country that does not appear a terrorist-controlled banana republic and whose leader has openly said he wants Israel wiped off the map, is a stable force in the Middle East - one that benefits Israel?

Is it beneficial? No, there's obviously open hostility there. It is certainly more beneficial to Israel than a banana Republic effectively run by ISIS, however. More broadly, more stable nations in the region are more helpful than destabilized failed states. Israel and the entire region are better off in a region with Hussein, Assad, and Gaddafi around than they are in a region without them.

Quote:There were a number of Muslim majority nations who openly assaulted Israel well prior to the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Are you saying that wouldn't happen if the US pulled out of the Middle East?

The US does not need to completely pull out of the middle east, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting maintaining a presence in the region without engaging in regime change in instances where it is neither justified nor beneficial. That would mean remaining in the middle east, but not blowing Libya and Syria to bits and not going into Iraq under false pretenses.

There's a middle ground between "hands off the middle east completely" and "regime change whenever possible". I am asking the west to find that middle ground, because doing so will be essential to ending the problems we're contemplating here.

Post: #483

(06-08-2017 07:17 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 05:29 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  ..
Step 1. Quit fucking around with the Middle East.
..
Step 2. Find, prosecute, and eliminate extremists in the west.
..
Follow those two steps to the key, and you'll solve the problem. No "banning" necessary.

Excelsior, your two step solution completely ignores the true nature of Islam.

It makes no difference focusing on Western intervention as it is a microcosm in history, a small retaliation just like the Crusades were.

Islam has always been this way for almost 1400 years and we certainly weren't arbitrarily invading the Middle East then.

Whilst you're right to say that our current actions aren't helping things, it's merely throwing fuel onto an already raging fire - the fire has already existed for more than a millennia and will continue to burn for as long as their religion lives on.

This is just another nonsensical attempt to try and ignore and downplay clear, obvious, practical, and rational solutions and dismiss all western agency in directing these affairs in favor of more irrational hate.

My proposals have nothing to do with the crusades. These problems have nothing to do with the crusades. The crusades are not the actual or proximate cause of the migrant crisis or the attack on which this thread is based.

The actual and proximate cause of the migrant crisis is the destabilization of Libya and several other nations in the near east. That is the fact of the matter. The biggest weapon you have against a massive and continuous flow of migrants is a stable Libya and an end to a foreign policy focused on unjustified, gratuitous regime change for the hell of it. That is the reality. The crusades have nothing to do with this.

The migrant crisis is not an "already raging fire". It is a recent phenomenon that blew up about 4 years ago. It's actual and proximate causes are recent. It's solutions are present. It can be dealt with right now. That is common sense.

Quote:Even if we were to get out of the Middle East tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference because it's just one of their reasons for killing us.

This is a completely nonsensical statement.

ISIS is a product of western foreign policy enacted in recent years.
The migrant crisis is a product of recent western foreign policy.

Alterations in that foreign policy would make quite literally ALL of the difference in the current state of affairs, because said alterations would be going to the acual and proximate causes of said state of affairs.

The migrants, regardless of what you think their intent is, would not even be here in the numbers they are absent a flawed western foreign policy. An alteration of foreign policy would, therefore, make ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE. The people you are complaining about are only in the country because of it.

This london bridge attack would not have occurred were it not for a lackadaisical, half-assed approach by authorities who quite literally had the perpetrators in their sights and willfully ignored them. A change in that lazy, weak approach would make ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE because the perpetrators of said attack were only able to succeed because of it.

What you are talking about is nonsensical and completely divorced from any rational understanding of cause and effect.

Quote:They are telling us directly, in plain words, why they kill us, but you're over here telling us it's not true.

You sound like a refugee activist saying "Not All Muslims!" as a truck of peace comes speeding towards you.

You guys like snarky shaming language, don't you?

I thought that was an SJW thing.

Live and learn, I guess. Perhaps people are just more alike than they think.

Post: #484

(06-08-2017 06:08 PM)Blaster Wrote:  In all serious, Excelsior, the suggestion that there are millions in the US who support white supremacy is an extraordinary claim that I can't accept at face value.

You're right about online racism growing, although that is happening in no small part because the multicultural progressives have made it difficult-to-impossible to differentiate between white supremacists and people just trying to defend themselves against overt anti-White racism.

Blaster, you don't need to respond to any accusations (implied or explicit) of "white supremacy" being common in the US anymore than you need to respond if I asked you "have you stopped beating your wife?"

As it is, there is too little white awareness and sense of solidarity--not too much. It's not because of Neo-Nazis I try not to walk home from the gym when it's dark (currently, I live in a "vibrant" area)... it's not Neo-Nazis gang-raping women in the streets of Europe or using trucks to... demonstrate some Mass * Velcoity = Momentum properties.

I would prefer no one need to consider themselves along "racial" or male/female lines, but it's an issue of some groups of people taking advantage of the benevolence of others.

It's just simple game theory. If U.S. blacks, latinos, and Muslims (and European Africans and Muslims) keep mashing the "defect" button, Whites need to stop hitting "cooperate" and cucking themselves, with negative consequences for everyone.

It is an analogous situation with women in the States. Women press for outcomes that benefit themselves (even aided by some men!), and men cluelessly accept. Hence why health insurance companies can't charge women higher premia, but car insurances companies can charge men higher premia.

In many ways, feminism is less of a threat than Islam and/or dysgenic immigration (illegal or legal).

We can always deal with feminism later. If we don't deal with Islam and dysgenic immigration now or in the near future, we may never have a chance at all to deal with feminism nor immigration.

Post: #485

(06-08-2017 09:12 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:30 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 04:30 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Given by your definition, Excelsior, "Western fuckery" likely includes support for the existence of Israel, what proposal do you have that would allow the state of Israel to continue to exist?

No, not necessarily. Israel can persist.

In the long term, Israel is benefited by efforts to avoid destabilizing Middle Eastern nations and turning them into terrorist controlled banana-republics where the likes of ISIS can grow with impunity.
Israel also benefits from enhanced efforts within the west to quit coddling and start prosecuting known jihadis.

So, Iran, a country that does not appear a terrorist-controlled banana republic and whose leader has openly said he wants Israel wiped off the map, is a stable force in the Middle East - one that benefits Israel?

Is it beneficial? No, there's obviously open hostility there. It is certainly more beneficial to Israel than a banana Republic effectively run by ISIS, however. More broadly, more stable nations in the region are more helpful than destabilized failed states. Israel and the entire region are better off in a region with Hussein, Assad, and Gaddafi around than they are in a region without them.

You do remember who was lobbing Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War, right? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't US forces or the Sauds.

Or that Gaddafi had -- in an amusing irony of fate -- had openly called for a popular revolution against Israel, saying "the time of popular revolutions is here"?

Or put it another way, do you remember which banana Republics effectively run by ISIS participated in the Six Day War against Israel?

I'd say organised "stable" Muslim nations are actually a shitload greater threat to Israel's existence than ISIS or Al-Qaeda by virtue of the fact they're organised and stable. Especially those that are nuclear-armed, as Iran is pushing for.

Quote:

Quote:There were a number of Muslim majority nations who openly assaulted Israel well prior to the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Are you saying that wouldn't happen if the US pulled out of the Middle East?

The US does not need to completely pull out of the middle east, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting maintaining a presence in the region without engaging in regime change in instances where it is neither justified nor beneficial. That would mean remaining in the middle east, but not blowing Libya and Syria to bits and not going into Iraq under false pretenses.

There's a middle ground between "hands off the middle east completely" and "regime change whenever possible". I am asking the west to find that middle ground, because doing so will be essential to ending the problems we're contemplating here.

The problem being that whether the regime change is seen as "justified" or not, it won't be seen as justified to whoever supports that regime. You will generate terrorism and civil war in there no matter when you intervene, unless you can point to such an instance of that occurring in the past without some jihad-ish endeavours against Israel and/or the US and its allies.

This is the problem with the Middle East: because it follows a blood-soaked ideology for the most part, almost anything can be taken as an insult to the relgion/the Prophet/the Caliphate/Muslims and ground the commencement of endless civil war. There isn't really a middle ground to be had anymore: especially not after 80 years of Israel being in there.

I notice you say "this isn't about the Crusades." For Muslims, it is. That's why Westerners are invariably called Crusaders over there, because that's how they see the West without exception. Terror attacks and hostility to the US will not stop until every trace of US military presence in the Middle East is gone and all US support for Israel ends.

That point having passed, the only rational thing now is to treat Islam in the West the way Christianity is treated in the Middle East: heavily regulated if not outright forbidden. That is the only language that Islam understands.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #486

When Latinos move to the US, they have a much greater problem with racism from blacks than whites.

When SE or east Asians move to the US, they have a much greater problem with racism from blacks than whites.

When people from India move to the US, they have a much greater problem with racism from blacks than whites.

That indicates everyone is finding an issue with the racist behaviour of the black community.

Whites who venture to the US who have no legacy of its past racial issues, such as British commonwealth countries or eastern Europe, are under life threatening risk by walking into the 'wrong' black neighbourhoods.

People from Africa do not suffer as anywhere near the same risk by walking into the wrong white neighbourhood, and not even not Daily Stormer or Amren readers.

BLM maims white people in 2017.

White attitudes are not hate, they're indifference. They don't want to kill blacks, they want to abandon them, and until the black community apologises for its behaviour, its rational for than abandonment sentiment to prevail.

Post: #487

(06-08-2017 06:30 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  There were a number of Muslim majority nations who openly assaulted Israel well prior to the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Are you saying that wouldn't happen if the US pulled out of the Middle East?

- Please name a legitimate threat that Israel has faced since 1967.

- Small point but Ahmadinejad's "wiping Israel off the map" comment turned out to be Israeli propaganda.

- If a threat to Israel's existence truly remains, tell us why everyday Americans should give one flying fuck.

But aside from that, we don't even need to know what Arab nations are up to in regards to Israel. We have a direct statement from Israel's very own former Defense Minister, Moshe Ya'alon:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.725408

Quote:At this time and in the foreseeable future, there is not existential threat to Israel. It is the strongest state in the region and there is an enormous gap with every country and organization stationed around it. Therefore, it is appropriate for the leadership in Israel to cease scaring the citizens and to stop telling them that we are on the verge of a second Holocaust."

But don't worry guys, Paracelsus heard on TV that Iran is evil. Forget about what a high-ranking official actually knows about the situation

Post: #488

(06-08-2017 10:23 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:30 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  There were a number of Muslim majority nations who openly assaulted Israel well prior to the rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Are you saying that wouldn't happen if the US pulled out of the Middle East?

- Please name a legitimate threat that Israel has faced since 1967.

See below.

Quote:- Small point but Ahmadinejad's "wiping Israel off the map" comment turned out to be Israeli propaganda.

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad hasn't exactly gone out of his way to say he was misquoted.

Indeed the very article you refer to makes that point and suggests a motive for that:

Quote:Mr. Majd, who once did a cameo as Mr. Ahmadinejad’s translator at the United Nations, also noted that in the original speech, the Iranian president had argued that while the end of Israeli rule over Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam, might seem impossible to imagine, the end of the Shah’s rule and the collapse of the Soviet Union both proved that change on that scale was possible.

The author, who recently spent time in Tehran, suggested that Mr. Ahmadinejad has perhaps made so little effort to explain that he was misquoted because he relishes his image as a sworn enemy of Israel, and would not want to be seen as stepping back from even threatening remarks he did not make.

Quote:- If a threat to Israel's existence truly remains, tell us why everyday Americans should give one flying fuck.

In brief, and as I said to you before: if you don't give a fuck about the possible touching-off of a nuclear exchange or likely UN involvement in a conventional conflict over there, I don't know what else there is to say.

Quote:But aside from that, we don't even need to know what Arab nations are up to in regards to Israel. We have a direct statement from Israel's very own former Defense Minister, Moshe Ya'alon:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.725408

Quote:At this time and in the foreseeable future, there is not existential threat to Israel. It is the strongest state in the region and there is an enormous gap with every country and organization stationed around it. Therefore, it is appropriate for the leadership in Israel to cease scaring the citizens and to stop telling them that we are on the verge of a second Holocaust."

But don't worry guys, Paracelsus heard on TV that Iran is evil. Forget about what a high-ranking official actually knows about the situation

I notice that the article indicates Ya'alon made the speech in the context of running for the Presidency. If you think Israeli politicians are any different to US politicians in terms of exaggerating or selling chutzpah to their constituents in order to get them elected, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

That aside, even Ya'alon does talk about the threat of Iran:

Quote:"The Iranian nuclear program, which was put on ice following the signed agreement, does not constitute an imminent existential threat to Israel, which is limited during the period of the agreement, and we have to prepare for future events," said Ya'alon.

i.e. the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is going to come right back the moment the agreement ends, and Israel has to be prepared for that. They are shit-scared of a nuclear Iran, and rightly so given the historical approach of Muslims to the Jewish religion at large.

And if we're going to go with the opinions of Israeli defence ministers, I notice the article you put that supposedly dissects the "wipe Israel off the map" comment quotes one as well:

Quote:In January, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, told a New York Times Magazine writer: “The Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map.”

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #489

(06-08-2017 09:12 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  I'm referring to people who believe blacks and other non-whites are inferior to white people. I maintain that there are millions of those people in the United States. That is obvious.

I do not draw the same conclusion from that data. First, whether the individual data points taken together represent a general belief of inferiority is your subjective interpretation. More importantly, the questions blatantly ask you to confess a stereotype. Confessing to a stereotype when asked point blank is not even close to the same thing as espousing a racial supremacist ideology.

(For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to address one question from the first link)

The question asks:

Quote:CASI stereotype: Blacks intelligent

Where would you rate blacks on this scale:

[1...7] 1 for intelligent, 7 for unintelligent

There is NO possible way to to answer this question without stereotyping. There is no factual answer to this question, because the question is not formed with sufficient detail. The question forces you to generalize intelligence over an entire race of people, which is never going to be correct, ever. Hence, it's asking you to confess a stereotype.

So, what is a stereotype?

The Accuracy of Stereotypes

Quote:A stereotype is a preliminary insight. A stereotype can be true, the first step in noticing differences. For conceptual economy, stereotypes encapsulate the characteristics most people have noticed. Not all heuristics are false.

In other words, confessing to a stereotype when you are asked about it point blank does not mean that you actively apply that stereotype in a discriminatory manner. Nor does it mean you believe such behavior is justified. It just means that it's a feeling, at the moment you are asked the question, based on your experiences and observations, about a phenomena that is too complex to assess rationally.

Even if you tried to answer the question rationally, you could not. I'm going to link some data. I am not asserting this data is correct, in fact I am going to assume it's wrong. However, it clearly demonstrates a possible scenario whereby an attempt at a logic-and-evidence based attempt to answer the question would fail:

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Black_vs...cores.html

If you look at that graph and believed it, you could conclude:

1. There are a lot of black people who are smarter than a lot of white people.

2. Black people can be just as smart as white people.

3. The average black person is smarter than a lot of white people.

However, you'd also conclude that the average white is more intelligent than the average black. How would that conclusion be expressed as a stereotype? Would it be factually correct to say that whites are more intelligent than blacks? No! That's not what the data says. But comparing averages feels close to what the question is asking. But the problem is still the question that forces you to generalize.

Furthermore, confessing to a racial stereotype does not mean that you think that the stereotype must be true forever. Maybe you believe "Blacks are Lazy." But maybe you also believe they're only lazy because Democrat policies have made them that way, and that solving for laziness is a matter of strong leadership and individual willpower and responsibility (those are all common conservative beliefs). That doesn't say anything about an ideological belief in racial supremacy or inferiority.

Post: #490

(06-08-2017 09:16 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:08 PM)Blaster Wrote:  In all serious, Excelsior, the suggestion that there are millions in the US who support white supremacy is an extraordinary claim that I can't accept at face value.

You're right about online racism growing, although that is happening in no small part because the multicultural progressives have made it difficult-to-impossible to differentiate between white supremacists and people just trying to defend themselves against overt anti-White racism.

Blaster, you don't need to respond to any accusations (implied or explicit) of "white supremacy" being common in the US anymore than you need to respond if I asked you "have you stopped beating your wife?"

As it is, there is too little white awareness and sense of solidarity--not too much. It's not because of Neo-Nazis I try not to walk home from the gym when it's dark (currently, I live in a "vibrant" area)... it's not Neo-Nazis gang-raping women in the streets of Europe or using trucks to... demonstrate some Mass * Velcoity = Momentum properties.

I would prefer no one need to consider themselves along "racial" or male/female lines, but it's an issue of some groups of people taking advantage of the benevolence of others.

It's just simple game theory. If U.S. blacks, latinos, and Muslims (and European Africans and Muslims) keep mashing the "defect" button, Whites need to stop hitting "cooperate" and cucking themselves, with negative consequences for everyone.

It is an analogous situation with women in the States. Women press for outcomes that benefit themselves (even aided by some men!), and men cluelessly accept. Hence why health insurance companies can't charge women higher premia, but car insurances companies can charge men higher premia.

In many ways, feminism is less of a threat than Islam and/or dysgenic immigration (illegal or legal).

We can always deal with feminism later. If we don't deal with Islam and dysgenic immigration now or in the near future, we may never have a chance at all to deal with feminism nor immigration.

Perfect. I was hoping we would get to this. There's been a lot of beating around the bush, but here we've gotten to the heart of the issue and found the driving force behind the movement of this community (and many others like it across the broader online landscape) ideologically in the last few years.

Back in the day, the enemy was feminism (not even feminism, really, in a general sense, but the modern 3rd wave regressive variety). All men were allies against the forces dedicated to halting their self improvement and stifling the expression of their masculinity.

Now, there is a new enemy. And those enemies are other men. The men who aren't the "right" kind of men. The "dysgenic" stock.

They are the threat that must be engaged, the problem that must be solved. And, slowly but surely, priorities shifted writ large in the broader community toward solutions and ideologies that showed the urgency that had been adopted in solving this newly realized problem.

And that's where we stand. The battle lines are drawn.

Some may consider that a shame and I take their point, but I consider it an inevitability.

For the record, I'm not here to demand anything from whites with regard to white supremacy. I did not bring it up for that purpose. I acknowledge it exists because it's not only obvious, but I can't really afford to ignore something that has such a significant impact on me and those like me. Hence, it exists and I say so.

I bring it up in a matter of fact manner. I don't ask for apologies. I don't expect sympathy. I don't request any action or, frankly, anything at all. None of that is required.
The thing simply is what it is. Res ipsa loquitor, as they say. It speaks for itself. I call it what it is. I see no reason not to. I live my life. White supremacy, whatever you may think of it, hasn't stopped me from succeeding so far in life. It certainly won't halt me going forward. I treat it as another inevitable obstacle to be overcome, and I overcome it (for the record, I think that approach could stand to be adopted by many more minorities). America is a nation founded on said supremacy - that doesn't mean I can't win.

So, while you may think I'm attempting to "guilt you" as part of some game theory strategy or what have you, I submit that this is not the case. I don't expect you to react or feel guilty at all. I don't expect any change. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to be hitting a "cooperate" button. Hell, they shouldn't - why hide? You can't actually change the feeling, so its best those who have it just be open with it. Anything else is just a meaningless facade that accomplishes nothing.

So I say have at it - cut the cucking (most of which is just virtue signaling BS born of useless historical guilt anyway). Quit cooperating. Let's quit beating around the bush and name the enemy. There is no middle ground here, clearly. I doubt there ever really was (though it was nice to pretend to the contrary back in the day).

Post: #491

(06-08-2017 10:06 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You do remember who was lobbing Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War, right? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't US forces or the Sauds.

Or that Gaddafi had -- in an amusing irony of fate -- had openly called for a popular revolution against Israel, saying "the time of popular revolutions is here"?

Or put it another way, do you remember which banana Republics effectively run by ISIS participated in the Six Day War against Israel?

I'd say organised "stable" Muslim nations are actually a shitload greater threat to Israel's existence than ISIS or Al-Qaeda by virtue of the fact they're organised and stable. Especially those that are nuclear-armed, as Iran is pushing for.

The Middle East is always going to have tension, there's no way around that. What I'm suggesting is the best possible outcome for EVERYBODY implicated, not just Israel.

Yes, I know of the Six Day War (among other conflicts). I also know of the date of that conflict. It was a very long time ago. No nation today is capable of waging anything resembling that kind of conventional war effort on Israel today. The Israeli military is, quite frankly, too powerful for that to work.
Even a relatively strong, stable Syria is not a meaningful threat to Israeli sovereignty. And the fact remains that a relatively stable Syria is better for the Syrians, the Middle East taken together, and the world at large. Same goes for Libya.

Obviously, one cannot allow nuclear arms to come into the equation. But there's a middle ground between creating completely dysfunctional banana republics and creating a nuclear-capable threat to Israeli sovereignty. I'm not convinced we can't find it. Israel, with continued western support, should be more than capable of steeling itself against any problem a relatively stable, non-nuclear Syria or Iran can create, especially if the west is having a hand in keeping said nations stable (by supporting the secular strongmen who are necessary for the effort). We don't need to burn every other country to the ground in order for Israel to exist and prosper.

Furthermore, not engaging in said burning benefits everyone else as well, for reasons I have already outlined.

Quote:The problem being that whether the regime change is seen as "justified" or not, it won't be seen as justified to whoever supports that regime. You will generate terrorism and civil war in there no matter when you intervene, unless you can point to such an instance of that occurring in the past without some jihad-ish endeavours against Israel and/or the US and its allies.

This is the problem with the Middle East: because it follows a blood-soaked ideology for the most part, almost anything can be taken as an insult to the relgion/the Prophet/the Caliphate/Muslims and ground the commencement of endless civil war. There isn't really a middle ground to be had anymore: especially not after 80 years of Israel being in there.

That's precisely why I'm suggesting that said acts of regime change be limited, severely. They are inherently frought with danger and have relatively little upside with tremendous downside. It should be extremely rare, if it ever happens at all. It doesn't work. The west should adopt a rebuttable presumption against intervention for that reason.

Quote:I notice you say "this isn't about the Crusades." For Muslims, it is. That's why Westerners are invariably called Crusaders over there, because that's how they see the West without exception.

That doesn't make it correct.

Quote:Terror attacks and hostility to the US will not stop until every trace of US military presence in the Middle East is gone and all US support for Israel ends.

That point having passed, the only rational thing now is to treat Islam in the West the way Christianity is treated in the Middle East: heavily regulated if not outright forbidden. That is the only language that Islam understands.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

(06-08-2017 11:20 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:12 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  I'm referring to people who believe blacks and other non-whites are inferior to white people. I maintain that there are millions of those people in the United States. That is obvious.

I do not draw the same conclusion from that data.

We'll need to agree to disagree, then. If we can't agree on that very fundamental point then we are coming from two points that are simply too disparate for reconciliation and we just have to let that be. I'm really not going to argue about this.

Whether or not you believe white supremacy even exists in the USA is also not really relevant. As noted above, I'm not expecting agreement on that topic and obtaining said agreement was not the point. There's likely nothing I could do to convince you of it, but fortunately there's no need to do so.

It is what it is. Deny it or don't. That's the best place to leave this.

Post: #492

Excelsior - I will refer to a few points you made:

1. There is no systematic racism in the US, there is no White Supremacy "holding down the black man" in the US. There is however the truth and the outcome dependence of IQ distribution in the US. If men like you were having 10 babies each and not the 78-IQ Ex-con Jamal who has 4 babies with 3 baby mamas before he is 24 - well then IQs would improve fast due to better k-selection. Unfortunately feminism and anti-family policies of the government have impacted the black community far stronger than any other one (if for example they made it necessary for social security recipients to have a married father in the house, then you would have families now among blacks more stable than with all other tribes).

2. There is racism across all groups - currently there is more anti-White sentiment among blacks and Latinos and among Whites funnily enough.

3. Yes - Neonazi groups and radical black groups need to be watched and most of them are. Especially Nazis are ridiculously under surveillance with sometimes 50% of all Nazi group members being undercover cops and FBI agents.

4. However Islam needs to be watched the same way - that religion is so evil, that every mosque needs multiple agents which begs the question why even allow it, if it is such an Arab supremacist cult.

5. The UK for example could certainly do more and funnily enough they recently admitted that they are foiling terror attacks on almost a daily level. Sure - they could scrap the anti-hate-speech unit that numbers into the 1000+ already and watches "hateful" social media comments and could start following up on that. But the truth is that the cops cannot move themselves, or they get their careers destroyed by being Islamophobes. The globalists are running a double strategy of both destroying the Islamic world, then claiming it is a religion of peace and pumping millions into the West. The least of the problems with Muslims is terrorism - they also lead the stats in rapes, gang rapes, assaults, murders - in some countries like Netherlands and Belgium they are already constituting the majority of heavy criminals!

I agree that the cops and establishment could do more, but the sheer number of 20.000+ potential Jihadists in the UK would necessitate detainment camps and pre-emptive arrests. They would have to arrest them for being extremists and ISIS supporters. And in truth they should make even supporting those things illegal. Otherwise the UK would need tens of thousands of cops just doing surveillance of Muslims.

I agree with some of your points regarding the globalist meddling and that they are certainly not doing enough due to the PC climate, but Islam is still an evil cult.

Also you have not answered. Are you a Muslim?

Post: #493

(06-09-2017 12:28 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  ...

For the record, I'm not here to demand anything from men with regard to male privilege. I did not bring it up for that purpose. I acknowledge it exists because it's not only obvious, but I can't really afford to ignore something that has such a significant impact on me and those like me. Hence, it exists and I say so.

I bring it up in a matter of fact manner. I don't ask for apologies. I don't expect sympathy. I don't request any action or, frankly, anything at all. None of that is required.
The thing simply is what it is. Res ipsa loquitor, as they say. It speaks for itself. I call it what it is. I see no reason not to. I live my life. Toxic masculinity, whatever you may think of it, hasn't stopped me from succeeding so far in life. It certainly won't halt me going forward. I treat it as another inevitable obstacle to be overcome, and I overcome it (for the record, I think that approach could stand to be adopted by many more women). America is a nation founded on said patriarchy - that doesn't mean I can't win.

So, while you may think I'm attempting to "guilt you" as part of some game theory strategy or what have you, I submit that this is not the case. I don't expect you to react or feel guilty at all. I don't expect any change. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to be hitting a "cooperate" button. Hell, they shouldn't - why hide? You can't actually change the feeling, so its best those who have it just be open with it. Anything else is just a meaningless facade that accomplishes nothing.

So I say have at it - cut the cucking (most of which is just virtue signaling BS born of useless historical guilt anyway). Quit cooperating. Let's quit beating around the bush and name the enemy. There is no middle ground here, clearly. I doubt there ever really was (though it was nice to pretend to the contrary back in the day).

This combination of victim-complex, self-adulation, histrionics, and fallacies sounded familiar, so I did a bit of find and replace to better explore why.

Post: #494

(06-08-2017 09:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Would you argue that western europe in 2013 was at all well prepared to deal with a massive increase in the number of refugees in close proximity to its borders?

This is a very important point as far as the migrant crisis is concerned, possibly the most critical one: it definitely wasn't prepared, although it should have been given the constant migrant flows during the last several decades - but preparing takes just few minor policy changes and is easily done on the scale of weeks, months at the latest.

Quote:Finding jihadis who have quite literally presented themselves to you and have also quite literally been handed to you on a silver platter and are right in your backyard is one thing. Avoiding the promotion of hardliners (read: keeping them off your leading media networks) who have no credibility even in their own communities is one thing. Those are very easily done.

Managing a flow of many millions of migrants who have suddenly popped up in a failed state right next door that you cannot control is another thing entirely. That is an order of magnitude more challenging than arresting an extremist who is right in front of you.

Dealing with illegal immigration is actually very, very easy, regardless of whether there are 1, 5 or 20 million people involved, and regardless of whether they travel on foot, by boat or a hang glider. Let's look at a few examples:

Hungary





1) Built a double-fence border wall with armed patrols.
2) Produced a campaign to dissuade migrants from coming.
3) Stressed the enforcement of current immigration laws.



Cost: $106 million (0,2% of GDP)
Time: 3 months

Result: 97% reduction in migrant arrivals

   

Conclusion: No more challenging than building 20 km of highways or a large skyscraper. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

But some of the migrants come across the sea, meaning that unless you want to shoot them on the spot it's harder to physically block their entry. Let's see how this country does it:

Australia



1) Instituted a firm policy of no welfare + lifetime entry ban for illegal arrivals.
2) Built a series of detention camps to hold the illegals in basic conditions until they can be deported.
3) Organized a fleet of patrol boats out of its existing Navy to turn away or detain illegals.

Cost: AUD 420 million (0,05% of GDP) (cost of entire multi-year program)
Time: 2 months

Result: 90% reduction in migrant arrivals



Conclusion: No more challenging than building a medium-sized gas power plant. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

Further points that apply to every country:

1) Unlike terrorists who begin from a position of innocence, illegal immigrants are obvious by nature. A person's motivation for looking up a Daesh magazine, buying a bag of fertilizer or travelling to Syria might not indicate any actual ties to terrorism, so every single person needs to be investigated thoroughly. In contrast, being in a border zone or working a job without documents leaves no doubts.
2) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are motivated by simple profit/loss calculations and are not devoted to their cause. They don't travel out of conviction.
3) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants usually do not provide violent resistance while being apprehended.
4) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are not armed, especially not with bombs or automatic weapons, and have no combat skills.
5) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are redeemable and many of them could be turned into useful legal immigrants if given proper motivation and channels.
Bonus point:
6) Proper border enforcement also vastly reduces the pool of potential terrorists that you have to deal with, leaving only the radicalized native population to track and subdue.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about immigration enforcement being "an order of magnitude more challenging"

Post: #495

^

Post: #496

Quote:But please, go ahead and tell me more about immigration enforcement being "an order of magnitude more challenging"

OK.

(06-09-2017 02:23 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  This is a very important point as far as the migrant crisis is concerned, possibly the most critical one: it definitely wasn't prepared, although it should have been given the constant migrant flows during the last several decades - but preparing takes just few minor policy changes and is easily done on the scale of weeks, months at the latest.

How easy and feasible are those policy changes in the political climate of western Europe today?

Quote:Dealing with illegal immigration is actually very, very easy, regardless of whether there are 1, 5 or 20 million people involved, and regardless of whether they travel on foot, by boat or a hang glider. Let's look at a few examples:

Hungary





1) Built a double-fence border wall with armed patrols.
2) Produced a campaign to dissuade migrants from coming.
3) Stressed the enforcement of current immigration laws.



Cost: $106 million (0,2% of GDP)
Time: 3 months

Result: 97% reduction in migrant arrivals



Conclusion: No more challenging than building 20 km of highways or a large skyscraper. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

This strikes me as a bit misleading.
For one thing, Hungary is not a real destination for migrants. The preferred locations are in the more developed western portions of Europe. Many migrants transit hungary, but most are doing so with the intent to ultimately settle in a more lucrative destination (the kind of place where you get the free things you mentioned earlier).

Not only does Hungary have the benefit of not really being a true destination for these migrants, it also has a very different political landscape relative to a nation like, say, Germany or Great Britain. Hardline measures like their go over a lot easier with the electorate in Budapest than they do in Birmingham.

Quote:But some of the migrants come across the sea, meaning that unless you want to shoot them on the spot it's harder to physically block their entry. Let's see how this country does it:

Australia



1) Instituted a firm policy of no welfare + lifetime entry ban for illegal arrivals.
2) Built a series of detention camps to hold the illegals in basic conditions until they can be deported.
3) Organized a fleet of patrol boats out of its existing Navy to turn away or detain illegals.

Cost: AUD 420 million (0,05% of GDP) (cost of entire multi-year program)
Time: 2 months

Result: 90% reduction in migrant arrivals

Conclusion: No more challenging than building a medium-sized gas power plant. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

I have to question the comparison here as well. For one thing, the European nations we are talking about would appear to be in closer proximity to a larger mass of migrants than Australia. In short, Australia strikes me as not only harder to get to, but generally not as frequent a destination for illegals as, say, Italy relative to a North Africa or Greece to a Syria.

And, again, you have the political question we've already touched on.

Quote:Further points that apply to every country:

1) Unlike terrorists who begin from a position of innocence, illegal immigrants are obvious by nature. A person's motivation for looking up a Daesh magazine, buying a bag of fertilizer or travelling to Syria might not indicate any actual ties to terrorism, so every single person needs to be investigated thoroughly. In contrast, being in a border zone or working a job without documents leaves no doubts.

We're just gonna have to disagree on this one. Known jihadis who number in the thousands and have been flagged/reported on multiple occasions are an easier target than millions of illegal migrants.

Quote:2) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are motivated by simple profit/loss calculations and are not devoted to their cause. They don't travel out of conviction.
3) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants usually do not provide violent resistance while being apprehended.
4) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are not armed, especially not with bombs or automatic weapons, and have no combat skills.
5) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are redeemable and many of them could be turned into useful legal immigrants if given proper motivation and channels.
Bonus point:
6) Proper border enforcement also vastly reduces the pool of potential terrorists that you have to deal with, leaving only the radicalized native population to track and subdue.

These points cut both ways. Illegal migrants are more sympathetic than terrorists, which adds to the political challenge.

(06-09-2017 02:16 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 12:28 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  ...

For the record, I'm not here to demand anything from men with regard to male privilege. I did not bring it up for that purpose. I acknowledge it exists because it's not only obvious, but I can't really afford to ignore something that has such a significant impact on me and those like me. Hence, it exists and I say so.

I bring it up in a matter of fact manner. I don't ask for apologies. I don't expect sympathy. I don't request any action or, frankly, anything at all. None of that is required.
The thing simply is what it is. Res ipsa loquitor, as they say. It speaks for itself. I call it what it is. I see no reason not to. I live my life. Toxic masculinity, whatever you may think of it, hasn't stopped me from succeeding so far in life. It certainly won't halt me going forward. I treat it as another inevitable obstacle to be overcome, and I overcome it (for the record, I think that approach could stand to be adopted by many more women). America is a nation founded on said patriarchy - that doesn't mean I can't win.

So, while you may think I'm attempting to "guilt you" as part of some game theory strategy or what have you, I submit that this is not the case. I don't expect you to react or feel guilty at all. I don't expect any change. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to be hitting a "cooperate" button. Hell, they shouldn't - why hide? You can't actually change the feeling, so its best those who have it just be open with it. Anything else is just a meaningless facade that accomplishes nothing.

So I say have at it - cut the cucking (most of which is just virtue signaling BS born of useless historical guilt anyway). Quit cooperating. Let's quit beating around the bush and name the enemy. There is no middle ground here, clearly. I doubt there ever really was (though it was nice to pretend to the contrary back in the day).

This combination of victim-complex, self-adulation, histrionics, and fallacies sounded familiar, so I did a bit of find and replace to better explore why.

So the best response you can offer is a form of the standard "you're a feminist/sjw" line?

I suppose I shouldn't have expected much, but I'm still a little disappointed. Oh well - live and learn.

Hope you find your safe space, mate.

Post: #497

Excelsior Wrote:How easy and feasible are those policy changes in the political climate of western Europe today?

Exactly as easy and feasible as enforcing anti-terrorism laws - all it takes is an iota of effort from a non-traitorous government.

Post: #498

(06-09-2017 03:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Excelsior Wrote:How easy and feasible are those policy changes in the political climate of western Europe today?

Exactly as easy and feasible as enforcing anti-terrorism laws - all it takes is an iota of effort from a non-traitorous government.

Sane immigration laws are as easy to be enforced as sane anti-terror laws.

IN fact Europe had lived with strict immigration laws in the past. IN Germany up until recently employers were fined huge amounts (6-7 years wages +) for one day of one illegal worker caught. In addition people were deported fast. Plus they had borders where at times the military patrolled and it was very tough to pass through.

Europe has abolished those borders essentially making it a free bonanza for all.

The same goes with terror. They had detainment centers once for potential IRA terrorists. With Islam however those would number in the tens of thousands, which makes it tougher to police than any other terrorist organization before.

Islam would have to be tackled with force head-on.

But nothing is being done - instead we get:

1. Middle East being destroyed and secular strongmen ousted
2. Devout Radical Muslims in the Middle East supported instead of fought
3. Islam being cucked and coddled 24/7 by media, entertainment, politics and law enforcement
4. Potential Muslim terrorists are being put on watch-lists numbering into the tens of thousands with only a few hundred under strict surveillance.

In addition to massive anti-terror actions I would also add mandatory lessons about Islam, reading of the Quran, the Hadiths and tell the fucking truth about Mohammed and Islam in school, media, academia and on TV in big documentaries. That will keep the ball rolling and people will find out what the true deal is about it.

But we won't get anything like that - the globalists in my opinion want war with Islam, but they want Islam and immigration to destroy the predominantly White countries first, because unified White countries are too dangerous to their plans. In the end the Muslim world is set to be destroyed likely in a massive blood-bath as they don't fit into the obedient worker-consumer citizen template.

Post: #499

(06-09-2017 12:36 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  Lots of stuff.

All right: I can respect that we've reached an impasse, but at least we've reached it semi-logically and I can leave the query at that.

Sadly (or not?), I cannot give you the coveted title of Sherman!Idiot, because that takes poorly-thought-out logic, 140-character posts, a few youtube videos, and unhesitating loyalty to the North Korean regime. I know this outcome will please TigerMandingo immensely

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #500

(06-09-2017 02:23 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Would you argue that western europe in 2013 was at all well prepared to deal with a massive increase in the number of refugees in close proximity to its borders?

This is a very important point as far as the migrant crisis is concerned, possibly the most critical one: it definitely wasn't prepared, although it should have been given the constant migrant flows during the last several decades - but preparing takes just few minor policy changes and is easily done on the scale of weeks, months at the latest.

Quote:Finding jihadis who have quite literally presented themselves to you and have also quite literally been handed to you on a silver platter and are right in your backyard is one thing. Avoiding the promotion of hardliners (read: keeping them off your leading media networks) who have no credibility even in their own communities is one thing. Those are very easily done.

Managing a flow of many millions of migrants who have suddenly popped up in a failed state right next door that you cannot control is another thing entirely. That is an order of magnitude more challenging than arresting an extremist who is right in front of you.

Dealing with illegal immigration is actually very, very easy, regardless of whether there are 1, 5 or 20 million people involved, and regardless of whether they travel on foot, by boat or a hang glider. Let's look at a few examples:

Hungary





1) Built a double-fence border wall with armed patrols.
2) Produced a campaign to dissuade migrants from coming.
3) Stressed the enforcement of current immigration laws.



Cost: $106 million (0,2% of GDP)
Time: 3 months

Result: 97% reduction in migrant arrivals



Conclusion: No more challenging than building 20 km of highways or a large skyscraper. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

But some of the migrants come across the sea, meaning that unless you want to shoot them on the spot it's harder to physically block their entry. Let's see how this country does it:

Australia



1) Instituted a firm policy of no welfare + lifetime entry ban for illegal arrivals.
2) Built a series of detention camps to hold the illegals in basic conditions until they can be deported.
3) Organized a fleet of patrol boats out of its existing Navy to turn away or detain illegals.

Cost: AUD 420 million (0,05% of GDP) (cost of entire multi-year program)
Time: 2 months

Result: 90% reduction in migrant arrivals



Conclusion: No more challenging than building a medium-sized gas power plant. Instant results. Extreme effectiveness.

Further points that apply to every country:

1) Unlike terrorists who begin from a position of innocence, illegal immigrants are obvious by nature. A person's motivation for looking up a Daesh magazine, buying a bag of fertilizer or travelling to Syria might not indicate any actual ties to terrorism, so every single person needs to be investigated thoroughly. In contrast, being in a border zone or working a job without documents leaves no doubts.
2) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are motivated by simple profit/loss calculations and are not devoted to their cause. They don't travel out of conviction.
3) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants usually do not provide violent resistance while being apprehended.
4) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are not armed, especially not with bombs or automatic weapons, and have no combat skills.
5) Unlike terrorists, illegal immigrants are redeemable and many of them could be turned into useful legal immigrants if given proper motivation and channels.
Bonus point:
6) Proper border enforcement also vastly reduces the pool of potential terrorists that you have to deal with, leaving only the radicalized native population to track and subdue.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about immigration enforcement being "an order of magnitude more challenging"

Great post.