Do you think there will be a global crusade or ethnic purge within the next 50 years?

[cybertoaster]

I can see certain risks in getting into a relatively flimsy autonomous vehicle that hangs out above everything else and advertises that there are rich people inside.

They aren't shooting down helicopters now, wont shoot these either.

 

[melty]

Probably. I was reading Klaus Schwab's great reset book and he references a economic study that basically concluded nationalism is inevitable with high immigration. Not only inevitable, but as described by WEF, "rational".

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Probably. I was reading Klaus Schwab's great reset book and he references a economic study that basically concluded nationalism is inevitable with high immigration. Not only inevitable, but as described by WEF, "rational".

There comes a point where it is no longer rational, but obsolete. The way an oxygen tank is obsolete when you're stuck in the mariana trench. Too little, too late.

 

[whogoesthere]

I strongly doubt it. The USA will just distance itself from the 3rd world and go back to splendid isolationism, and Europe's need for non-assimilating immigrants to prop up their economies will override any complaints from the natives. They're more used to non-democratic norms anyways, their government ignoring the demands of the proles is par for the course.

Relentless American copium. Keep telling yourselves everywhere else is bad but you will be fine, being a vassel state for Israel, with your massively depleating white population.

 

[Betonhaus]

There comes a point where it is no longer rational, but obsolete. The way an oxygen tank is obsolete when you're stuck in the mariana trench. Too little, too late.

That's when you start getting crusades that forcefully impose a standardized culture on the people. The Vatican doesn't have a standing army, but they might be able to hold a call to arms and alliances with the Orthodox sects.the Vatican would have to purge its woke members first though, and come to terms with their double-standard on homosexuality as you can't have that in an information age.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

That's when you start getting crusades that forcefully impose a standardized culture on the people.

The crusades were famously ineffective on the whole. Reconquista would be a better metaphor.

But even the Reconquista got its strength from multiple christian states seeing the value of a military reconquest. It didn't just come from inside Spain itself. Tell me, what foreign nations/powers are going to conquer western countries to rid them from trannies?

 

[Betonhaus]

The crusades were famously ineffective on the whole. Reconquista would be a better metaphor.

But even the Reconquista got its strength from multiple christian states seeing the value of a military reconquest. It didn't just come from inside Spain itself. Tell me, what foreign nations/powers are going to conquer western countries to rid them from trannies?

Texas and Mexico? Quebec may still be Catholic enough to join in.

 

[Stan]

Currently woke ideologies focus on importing massive amounts of immigrants from impoverished societies, then basically ignoring them and not even trying to integrate them into society. And i got to be honest, a LOT of places are turning into shitholes. Eventually everyone will clue into how incredibly bad things are getting, and the lessons learned from the holocaust and historical events will begin to pale compared to the reasons why those events happened in the first place. i do believe there will be a push for uniformity, and with violence slowly becoming normalized it won't be a stretch to assume that people will eventually become amicable to the idea of widespread genocide. We're already at the point where a large number of liberal voters are okay with calling for the deaths of conservative white people

Beto, you assume the reasons for immigration are cultural ("woke") and not economical. The truth is that wealthy nations would be unable to sustain their present rate of economic growth if they didn't have a supply of FOBs; because wealthy nations have lower birth rates (some below replacement, let alone growth.)

Immigration is a push and a pull: the push is from the shithole country our immigrant (let's call him Rob, from Haiti) comes from, where economic opportunities are scant, he can't get a decent job, and maybe can't even get a decent standard of living. So this motivates Rob to move to the USA, where he could be paid comparatively a lot more doing low-skilled labor.

The pull is that the better-off people who live in the target country don't really want to be in low-skill labor jobs; they may have gone into student debt and now be overqualified for such work. So it isn't just that they don't want to work at Staples, it's that they can't make ends meet doing that because they have student debt to service and can't make rent living in the town their job is in without living in tenement housing.

Rob doesn't have that debt, he doesn't mind living in a shitty apartment, he doesn't have high lifestyle expectations, so he can afford to work these low-end jobs and hopefully have a little money left over to send home (where the buying power of the currency is way higher, and his fam can enjoy a better standard of living.) Furthermore, Rob's also able to take advantage of certain programs (e.g. SNAP, food bank, free English classes and job training) that our native college grad either makes too much money to qualify for, or doesn't need. This pads Rob's bottom line.

So that's why immigrants leave poor countries and come to work in rich ones. The alternative is what we see in Japan: a "grey wave" of old people who consume less, can't work, and fewer younger people to start families and make up this gap. (Japanese work culture is especially unhelpful here because it discourages female labor participation.) Japan is strict about immigration so people like Rob aren't going to go there to be cashiers, so the price of labor rises, and with it, the economy contracts. I hope you understand.

Where are you getting information that "We're already at the point where a large number of liberal voters are okay with calling for the deaths of conservative white people"? Because I haven't seen any liberal politician say anything like that, and I read the New York Times every day. And why you think this would all end in an ethnic cleansing is just questionable logic.

No. If anything migration will slow because of greater economic development in the countries that currently have large numbers of emigrants. People prefer to live among their own culture and language...every time conditions in the home country improve, emigration drops. That's why there's no significant immigration from Europe to the United States anymore, especially compared to the huge numbers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It's also why the net migration from Mexico has turned negative in recent years and the total number of immigrants has dropped. Basically all illegal immigrants today are from much poorer and more unstable countries in Central America, as well as Haiti.

What happens from there is without more new migrants, the existing population gradually assimilates into the local culture. I've seen this first hand with a local Mexican restaurant now on its third generation of ownership.

You've got the idea.

When a purge takes place, with modern information control, most people will deny it is happening. Case in point, there are two purges taking place in the whole broader western world and most people are oblivious to it.

Though only one of these has some ethnic component to it.

The OP expecting some divine counterpurge is just wishing for miracles.

What purges? The only ones I know of are happening in shithole countries like Sudan. White people aren't being bussed to the gas chambers in Norway, and if they were, it would be fucking impossible to keep it under wraps like the Nazis did. We have satellite imagery, we have signals intelligence... People leave too much of a footprint today to just get spirited away by the hundreds of thousands.

If by "purge" however, you mean "declining birth rate", (or interracial marriage) then you're right, but choosing to have fewer kids when raising them is increasingly expensive and intensive is not a "purge" but an economic decision.

Industrialization is a one-time economic boon; all the laborers with huge families enter the work force, the economy roars, but the second generation and third have fewer kids. Recent examples of this could be found in Japan, Korea, China, Brazil, Mexico. This is because having kids is now safer (you have better medical care, so they are more likely to survive) and like I mentioned before, the expense and intensiveness of education increases with standard of living. It's easy to put 12 kids through primary school and then send them to work in a factory; it's much harder to send 12 kids to college, or even to a trade school. People start making these decisions about saving money for their progeny before they are even born, and the career cycle gives women a series of bad options when it comes to having kids: get penalized for doing it early, or have a dicey time pulling it off later. So all of these factors contribute to the declining birth rate (or population growth rate); and since so many aspects of the economy are relatively fixed by population growth (eg an ordinary person can really only eat so much food or wear so many clothes, no matter how aggressively you market to them) you see legacy populations getting eclipsed by immigrant ones (eg Turks in Germany.)

There has to be some breaking point when black savagery boils over and we can't deal with it anymore. At the very least, I hope we'll deport all blacks who can't participate in civilization (AKA niggers) to Africa to be with their fellow primitives.

Are you like this in real life?

 

[Betonhaus]

Beto, you assume the reasons for immigration are cultural ("woke") and not economical. The truth is that wealthy nations would be unable to sustain their present rate of economic growth if they didn't have a supply of FOBs; because wealthy nations have lower birth rates (some below replacement, let alone growth.)

Immigration is a push and a pull: the push is from the shithole country our immigrant (let's call him Rob, from Haiti) comes from, where economic opportunities are scant, he can't get a decent job, and maybe can't even get a decent standard of living. So this motivates Rob to move to the USA, where he could be paid comparatively a lot more doing low-skilled labor.

The pull is that the better-off people who live in the target country don't really want to be in low-skill labor jobs; they may have gone into student debt and now be overqualified for such work. So it isn't just that they don't want to work at Staples, it's that they can't make ends meet doing that because they have student debt to service and can't make rent living in the town their job is in without living in tenement housing.

There's two problems with this:

1. A lot of the places importing mass amounts of immigrants are often giving them carte blanche welfare, so they don't always become constructive to society.

2. Assuming that low-skill labor jobs are inconsequential is actually a major failing. When the lockdowns hit people working at grocery stores and warehouses were called essential workers and still had to work, but they're treated like slaves that should be overworked and paid pennies. This is unsustainable, and a major source of the population decline. Instead of importing a serf class that will do anything for a dollar, we need to be doing a better job of raising the quality of life of these workers, so they can have a job they are respected in and can do properly, but still have a take-home pay that allows them to get married, buy a house, and raise children. Our grandparents could raise a family being a waitress or a stocker at a convenience store, but we can no longer do that. We need to take that back, and the only way to do that is to give these kinds of roles more respect and pay - which likely means slowing down the rate of economic growth. The more immigrants we import the more that correction gets prevented.

 

[Stan]

Hi Beto; Apologies I'm not direct-quoting you, I blame Josh's spaghetti code preventing me from using the quote function

1. A lot of the places importing mass amounts of immigrants are often giving them carte blanche welfare, so they don't always become constructive to society.

I disagree that "Rob" would become less productive if he's given access to welfare. I don't suppose you've heard of the Finnish UBI experiment; it's a randomized, controlled study where 2,000 randomly chosen and initially unemployed people recieved 560 Euros a month, no question asked, instead of unemployment benefits (which were about the same amount of money.) Even for those that also qualified for a housing allowance this is *way* below the median income of Finland. In some cases the people in the experimental UBI group actually got less money per month than those in the regular unemployment-benefit group (because they had child subsidy, or a working spouse, etc.)

The study found that the UBI led to a small increase in employment, as well as multiple measures of participants' well-being not observed in the unemployment-insurance control group. The increase is statistically significant and suggests that a welfare floor makes people feel more able to secure employment, instead of making them into bums. There was also a huge boost to well-being; which isn't going to directly translate into job productivity; but it stands to reason to me that someone who feels more secure, less depressed, and has greater satisfaction with their lives is going to get more done than a person with financial anxiety who feels pressured into a rat race just to get a portion of what he needs. Also, this isn't the most generous benefit: 560 Euros is ~613USD, which is below minimum wage and probably not enough to get by on if you only rely on that benefit.

2. Assuming that low-skill labor jobs are inconsequential is actually a major failing. When the lockdowns hit people working at grocery stores and warehouses were called essential workers and still had to work, but they're treated like slaves that should be overworked and paid pennies. This is unsustainable, and a major source of the population decline. Instead of importing a serf class that will do anything for a dollar, we need to be doing a better job of raising the quality of life of these workers, so they can have a job they are respected in and can do properly, but still have a take-home pay that allows them to get married, buy a house, and raise children. Our grandparents could raise a family being a waitress or a stocker at a convenience store, but we can no longer do that. We need to take that back, and the only way to do that is to give these kinds of roles more respect and pay - which likely means slowing down the rate of economic growth. The more immigrants we import the more that correction gets prevented.

I don't assume these jobs are inconsequential, I know they're untenable for most non-immigrants because they can't make the math work. By design, most of these jobs were really intended for people who only needed part-time employment, like high school kids working at McD's after school or SAHM parents who have a few hours to kill in the middle of the day.

People in need of full-time employment are not going to commute 20 miles into a wealthy town to work for $17 an hour at Staples. (Instead, they'll commute to a white-collar job requiring a university degree.) The unpaid commute time, implied cost of transportation, and the insult of being unable to afford to live or shop where they work conspire to make these jobs untenable for all but the FOB/serf class, or the handful of people who are just in this for pin money.

Also, who's the "we" who should be "raising the quality of life of these workers"? Who are these people and what should they do? This all sounds suspiciously like socialism (which I have no problem with, but most people in this community do from my experience.)

Ultimately I don't think you can go back in time and make these jobs tenable again. Automation and globalization make it impossible for us to return to an idealized, post-war economy; which as you describe was not made possible because employers were somehow nicer, but because of multifactorial reasons that have nothing to do with the cultural morals of the 1950s. For example: the American economy roared while the European economy was literally in ruins; oil exploration made energy ludicrously cheap, and economies that had been locked out of the global economy pre WWII were now able to participate (mostly Africa, South Asia and other former imperial holdings.) You can't just re-make that history happen.

 

[Betonhaus]

Who's the "we" who should be "raising the quality of life of these workers"? This all sounds suspiciously like socialism (which I have no problem with, but most people in this community do from my experience.)
I don't think you can raise the quality of life of workers without "slowing down the rate of economic growth", because that is recession. Recessions hurt the class you'd be trying to protect here: think layoffs, wage stagnation, hiring freezes: a rise in unemployment, not a decrease; less money to spend, not more. Fewer people able to afford home ownership and kids (I'm going to sidestep "afford to marry"; a marriage license costs like $65.)

Right now most economic models assume infinite growth, where a company is increasing it's YoY profits forever and ever. They're mostly succeeding that by reducing their costs as much as possible, such as threating their employees like shit and exporting as much work as possible to china or India where the minimum wage is less then a dollar. And if any employee protests that, well there's Saveed who just came off the boat and is desperate to do anything. If companies were unable to replace their employees with immigrant work they would be more vulnerable to general strikes and unions which force them to pay their employees a living wage. But doing so cuts into their profit margins

 

[Dyn]

A lot of the places importing mass amounts of immigrants are often giving them carte blanche welfare

Name one country that gives out "carte blanche welfare" in this day and age.

 

[Stan]

If companies were unable to replace their employees with immigrant work they would be more vulnerable to general strikes and unions which force them to pay their employees a living wage. But doing so cuts into their profit margins

But as we see in the case of Japan, driving up the cost of labor actually causes the economy to contract, which is bad for everyone and worst for those at the bottom. So short of all industries getting all Ben & Jerry's hippy-socialist (profit sharing, stock benefits etc.) or the government redistributing Jeff Bezos' wealth, what's to do?

Is that why you think this is going to end in genocide? Cause if it does I think it would be more like the Chinese Revolution than a war on black people; we'd be killing the landlords and eating the 1%.

 

[Dyn]

So short of all industries getting all Ben & Jerry's hippy-socialist (profit sharing, stock benefits etc.) or the government redistributing Jeff Bezos' wealth, what's to do?

Not dumping two trillion dollars a year into a military that hasn't won a war in 75 years might be an okay place to start.

 

[Betonhaus]

But as we see in the case of Japan, driving up the cost of labor actually causes the economy to contract, which is bad for everyone and worst for those at the bottom. So short of all industries getting all Ben & Jerry's hippy-socialist (profit sharing, stock benefits etc.) or the government redistributing Jeff Bezos' wealth, what's to do?

Is that why you think this is going to end in genocide? Cause if it does I think it would be more like the Chinese Revolution than a war on black people; we'd be killing the landlords and eating the 1%.

japan's work ethic is worth analyzing as part of that, as overworking seems to be a culturally enforced trend.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

. I don't suppose you've heard of the Finnish UBI experiment

Lmao, they've done ubi experiments in so many countries and almost all of them are bust. And there's this one in finland that showed a small positive effect. You can't take the result serious because the UBI proponents never talk about the 98% of studies where it didn't show a desired result.

What purges? The only ones I know of are happening in shithole countries like Sudan. White people aren't being bussed to the gas chambers in Norway, and if they were, it would be fucking impossible to keep it under wraps

Thank you for proving my point. Look at how long you instinctively wrote to try and prove me wrong. You wrote that much to try and deny any purges that might be taking place. People are primed to deny it and people are convinced that it is impossible to keep it under wraps for 90% of the population. Because even if this 90% hears it, they will deny it, no matter the evidence presented.

 

[Stan]

japan's work ethic is worth analyzing as part of that, as overworking seems to be a culturally enforced trend.

Japan both encourages men to overwork and discourages women from labor participation once they get married; both of these cultural features exacerbate the problem. But they wouldn't be the only example of a country contending with a "grey wave"; China, Europe, and America are all headed for this demographic problem where there are too many old people who don't work, don't consume much, and are (for the most part) hanging on to significant accrued wealth. People tend to be at their wealthiest at age 70; but they're hardly the most economically active. The most economically dynamic persons are younger; a family of four buys more stuff, works more hours, and typically has less savings than older, retired persons. So we import immigrants who are still able to have families like this, and then conservatives whisper that it's "white genocide" or "the great replacement"; when it's really just the tidings of industrialization and late-stage capitalism coming home to roost.

Lmao, they've done ubi experiments in so many countries and almost all of them are bust. And there's this one in finland that showed a small positive effect. You can't take the result serious because the UBI proponents never talk about the 98% of studies where it didn't show a desired result.

Like which ones are bust? Wanna show the class your work?

Thank you for proving my point. Look at how long you instinctively wrote to try and prove me wrong. You wrote that much to try and deny any purges that might be taking place. People are primed to deny it and people are convinced that it is impossible to keep it under wraps for 90% of the population. Because even if this 90% hears it, they will deny it, no matter the evidence presented.

If memory serves; I seem to recall you're a Holocaust denier who believes his country is being infiltrated by Muslims in a secret intifada to outbreed the Europeans and that this is "genocide". So I'm not really sure you know the meaning of the word "genocide".

 

[Male Idiot]

Christianity is a dying mulatto religion. El Taco is too lazy for crusades.

The only crusade I can see coming is a big ole' anti-tranny/jew Jihad from muslims, or a Chinese crackdown on jews and homos as they undermine everything, even the Party.

Dark horse: India needful crusade against toilets worldwide. All the planet will be DESIgnated.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

If memory serves; I seem to recall you're a Holocaust denier who believes his country is being infiltrated by Muslims in a secret intifada to outbreed the Europeans and that this is "genocide". So I'm not really sure you know the meaning of the word "genocide".

Margaret, please, you know better than try to go 20 rounds back and forth, where you mischaracterize the things I've said and written on this site.

 

[Stan]

Margaret, please, you know better than try to go 20 rounds back and forth, where you mischaracterize the things I've said and written on this site.

Dont make me dox your university email address!!!

PS you are a Holocaust denier and your postings in the Holocaust thread say exactly that.