Because France

[CarnelianClout]

The EU should have never let the refugees / immigrants into their countries.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, CarnelianClout said:

The French Military are not right-wing political extremists. You did not read what I was saying. 

You ever heard of a little organisation called Organisation armée secrète?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_armée_secrète

Ok, they arent now. But if that doestn illustrate the problems that occur when French Generals get involved in Politics, then nothing does.

Oh, here is another one.

Right Wing Extremism is not a solution for Left Wing Extremism or even Islamism. Or for that matter, Globalisation. If anyone thinks it is, they really need to take a look at the 1930's and see what happened last time it was tried.

No offence like.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, CarnelianClout said:

The EU should have never let the refugees / immigrants into their countries.

Short of gunning them down at sea, do you have any other solutions?

Greeks tried ignoring them, and 700 women and children drowned in a boat. Its not a problem that is going to go away, just because you dont want them.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Short of gunning them down at sea, do you have any other solutions?

Greeks tried ignoring them, and 700 women and children drowned in a boat. Its not a problem that is going to go away, just because you dont want them.

Let's say that we do, how many are likely to try after that? Of course it's not politically possible at the time, but that might change one day.

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Let's say that we do, how many are likely to try after that? Of course it's not politically possible at the time, but that might change one day.

Not that I would EVER advocate doing this, but purely as a thought experiment to illustrate why it wont work....

You have to publicise an 'atrocity', and make sure its well known enough in Africa for it to take hold. Ok, so communications in Africa are getting slowly better, but there is always going to be someone that doesnt get the word. Or more likely, people who choose not to believe it. We have already seen this on the American border, where people in South America were simply not believing the stories about Trump closing the border.

Lets look at it like this, the Native Americans killed no end of White Americans, because they were under the belief if they killed enough of them, they would stop coming. I guess it always worked better in theory than in practice....

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not that I would EVER advocate doing this, but purely as a thought experiment to illustrate why it wont work....

You have to publicise an 'atrocity', and make sure its well known enough in Africa for it to take hold. Ok, so communications in Africa are getting slowly better, but there is always going to be someone that doesnt get the word. Or more likely, people who choose not to believe it. We have already seen this on the American border, where people in South America were simply not believing the stories about Trump closing the border.

Lets look at it like this, the Native Americans killed no end of White Americans, because they were under the belief if they killed enough of them, they would stop coming. I guess it always worked better in theory than in practice....

Of course it would.

Closing the border is one thing. Ok, let's say they heard about it but didn't believe it. Did it mean that if Trump actually closed the border they would die? No, that would mean they wouldn't be able to cross the border.

Did you really compare the Europeans with Native Americans? The technologically advanced countries, one of the wealthiest areas in the world, belonging to the strongest military alliance in the history of mankind? That Europeans? American settlers had numbers, technology and modern organisation behind them, the Native Americans were... well, tribes. So who exactly is the Native American here?

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Of course it would.

Closing the border is one thing. Ok, let's say they heard about it but didn't believe it. Did it mean that if Trump actually closed the border they would die? No, that would mean they wouldn't be able to cross the border.

Did you really compare the Europeans with Native Americans? The technologically advanced countries, one of the wealthiest areas in the world, belonging to the strongest military alliance in the history of mankind? That Europeans? American settlers had numbers, technology and modern organisation behind them, the Native Americans were... well, tribes. So who exactly is the Native American here?

 

Im not saying closing the border wouldnt stop them crossing. It would sure cut them down. Im just saying, it wouldnt stop them coming. We are talking about millions, if not billions of people in the decades to come. Its a pipe dream we can press the right button and stop them coming. The only alternative I can see, is to turn Africa into Europe, and I suspect that economically nor environmentally we are willing to pay the price to do that.

Hey, im native American as well, dont step on my culture paleface.

America was very different then. It was not a technologically advanced society compared to the Europeans at the start of the 19th Century. But even if it was, there was an expectation among the Native Americans that resistance would stop a tidal wave of people. And it didnt. The only thing that did work was integration, and that only worked at specific times and specific places.

In fact, if you read about the early native American interactions with Europeans, they were pretty peaceful. My lot ended up integrating with them and fading out of existance as a recogniseable entity. Of course the numbers at that point were a hell of a lot less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canajoharie

 

[urbanoid]

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im not saying closing the border wouldnt stop them crossing. It would sure cut them down. Im just saying, it wouldnt stop them coming. We are talking about millions, if not billions of people in the decades to come. Its a pipe dream we can press the right button and stop them coming. The only alternative I can see, is to turn Africa into Europe, and I suspect that economically nor environmentally we are willing to pay the price to do that.

Hey, im native American as well, dont step on my culture paleface.

America was very different then. It was not a technologically advanced society compared to the Europeans at the start of the 19th Century. But even if it was, there was an expectation among the Native Americans that resistance would stop a tidal wave of people. And it didnt. The only thing that did work was integration, and that only worked at specific times and specific places.

In fact, if you read about the early native American interactions with Europeans, they were pretty peaceful. My lot ended up integrating with them and fading out of existance as a recogniseable entity. Of course the numbers at that point were a hell of a lot less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canajoharie

 

It would cut them down to the point of them stopping to try to get here or to the point of them being no more - the former, most likely. They're coming for better life, if an attempt meant certain or near-certain death (in which case it would be deportation anyway).

We don't have to turn anything into anything else, we have to defend our borders, simple as. We don't do that because we believe in fairytales and are simply squeamish.

America WAS technologically and organisationally advanced compared to the Native Americans even at the beginning of the 19th century, just as we are against the third world invaders.

I want my country, culture and civilisation to be safe and prosperous. I don't care how many invaders have to be unalived to achieve that, the status of invaders pretty much excludes them from any considerations.

[Stuart Galbraith]

49 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

It would cut them down to the point of them stopping to try to get here or to the point of them being no more - the former, most likely. They're coming for better life, if an attempt meant certain or near-certain death (in which case it would be deportation anyway).

We don't have to turn anything into anything else, we have to defend our borders, simple as. We don't do that because we believe in fairytales and are simply squeamish.

America WAS technologically and organisationally advanced compared to the Native Americans even at the beginning of the 19th century, just as we are against the third world invaders.

I want my country, culture and civilisation to be safe and prosperous. I don't care how many invaders have to be unalived to achieve that, the status of invaders pretty much excludes them from any considerations.

Well I dont believe it would, and hasnt whereever it has been tried. My own people the Celts had a tuffle with the Romans, it didnt stop them. And had a tuffle with the Saxons, which went even less well. Then we had a tuffle with the vikings, they are still here. Then the Normans, the Burgundians, then German Migrants, then French Migrants, then Polish and Eastern European Migrants, and latterly Carribean and Indians. All have left a vivid imprint on this country, usually for the better. At each point someone stood up with a big sign saying 'Stop this kind of thing!' But Its never worked, and we had a water filled ditch around the country.

The lesson im getting from that is that you may reduce the numbers arriving, but you will never stop migration, because its human nature for people to better themselves. And Im far from certain, looking at the prospects for Africa in this century, whether we are even going to cut it down. But even assuming it was true, how do you close the borders of Europe? Giant fences? Minefields? Automatic machine guns? What kind of civilisation are we going to have, if we have ot turn into a bunch of psychopaths to keep it? Its like something out of 1984 (and yes, Orwell addressed dealing with migration with similar methods in that novel).

As far as technology, both sides were still getting around on horseback, so lets not get completely carried away here. One culture clearly had the ability to learn and transmit lessons, and that greatened the divide through the 1800's. But think about the people who landed on the coast of America in the 1600's. We were barely 100 years on from bow and arrows at that point. We had figured out how to cross oceans, barely. Then go and compare Native American culture that built some of the ancient structures that compare with anything built in Europe in prehistory, and reflect, were they really so pig ignorant and backward? Or was that the excuse that we imperialists always used when replacing one culture for another?

Probably warrants another thread to dig through that one. Its not an effort to belittle American civilisation in any case. Its just illustrating, one group of people were replaced by another group of people. One might not like it, one might complain about it. Ive yet to hear of a single solution except genocide that stops it happening.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well I dont believe it would, and hasnt whereever it has been tried. My own people the Celts had a tuffle with the Romans, it didnt stop them. And had a tuffle with the Saxons, which went even less well. Then we had a tuffle with the vikings, they are still here. Then the Normans, the Burgundians, then German Migrants, then French Migrants, then Polish and Eastern European Migrants, and latterly Carribean and Indians. All have left a vivid imprint on this country, usually for the better. At each point someone stood up with a big sign saying 'Stop this kind of thing!' But Its never worked, and we had a water filled ditch around the country.

The lesson im getting from that is that you may reduce the numbers arriving, but you will never stop migration, because its human nature for people to better themselves. And Im far from certain, looking at the prospects for Africa in this century, whether we are even going to cut it down. But even assuming it was true, how do you close the borders of Europe? Giant fences? Minefields? Automatic machine guns? What kind of civilisation are we going to have, if we have ot turn into a bunch of psychopaths to keep it? Its like something out of 1984 (and yes, Orwell addressed dealing with migration with similar methods in that novel).

As far as technology, both sides were still getting around on horseback, so lets not get completely carried away here. One culture clearly had the ability to learn and transmit lessons, and that greatened the divide through the 1800's. But think about the people who landed on the coast of America in the 1600's. We were barely 100 years on from bow and arrows at that point. We had figured out how to cross oceans, barely. Then go and compare Native American culture that built some of the ancient structures that compare with anything built in Europe in prehistory, and reflect, were they really so pig ignorant and backward? Or was that the excuse that we imperialists always used when replacing one culture for another?

Probably warrants another thread to dig through that one. Its not an effort to belittle American civilisation in any case. Its just illustrating, one group of people were replaced by another group of people. One might not like it, one might complain about it. Ive yet to hear of a single solution except genocide that stops it happening.

Yes, yes and yes. And more. Psychopaths? No, just people wanting to protect what is theirs and their identity. Nothing wrong with that, actually the absence of it is what's wrong. Yes, we and our wellbeing is more important because we are us. There are other arguments, but they are all unnecessary.

Native Americans are an interesting example for another reason. IF the West keeps being as retarded as it is, we'll end up like them - in reservations, as an amusement. The difference would be that the West wouldn't fall to superior numbers and technology, but to its own internal weakness and squeamishness. And what succeeds wouldn't be better in any way, quite the contrary.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Yes, yes and yes. And more. Psychopaths? No, just people wanting to protect what is theirs and their identity. Nothing wrong with that, actually the absence of it is what's wrong. Yes, we and our wellbeing is more important because we are us. There are other arguments, but they are all unnecessary.

Native Americans are an interesting example for another reason. IF the West keeps being as retarded as it is, we'll end up like them - in reservations, as an amusement. The difference would be that the West wouldn't fall to superior numbers and technology, but to its own internal weakness and squeamishness. And what succeeds wouldn't be better in any way, quite the contrary.

Follow the thought. How do you stop it? Im not AGAINST people stopping it through lawful means, its their right. Im against all the methods that have been proposed. Leaving people to starve by the fence, removing their children, watching them drown, shooting them. All have been tried at some point by many European societies. And we usually end up trying people for war crimes whom try the most extreme measures.

Ive no problem with preserving culture either The problem is these debates always turn into an argument primarily over ethnicity. Im a poligot made up of most of the peoples of Northwest Europe and a bit more besides, so I personally cant get worked up about African DNA ending up in our makeup, not least because we all came from Africa by the long route anyway.

There is nothing wrong with your arguments. You want to live in a country where you are all culturally homgenous. Fine, I can understand that, I even respect it. But if it didnt work that way in the 18th through 19th and 20th Century, Im sorry, im not buying its going to work now.  Not without behaving like Nazi's, and frankly, Id prefer not to.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[EchoFiveMike]

Control what you can:

First thing is to stop, absolutely, all "charity" going to the 3rd world.  You want to help someone?  Help your own people, stop the transnational flow of money.

Africa can support maybe 200-300 million people with domestic agriculture, probably far less due to their shit infrastructure and native behaviors; it's well over a billion, due solely to foreign meddling.  It's done nothing but create a biological bomb, which dumps forth shit upon the world.   

And yes, sink the ships.  All the ships.  S/F....Ken M

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In fact, if you read about the early native American interactions with Europeans, they were pretty peaceful. My lot ended up integrating with them and fading out of existance as a recogniseable entity. Of course the numbers at that point were a hell of a lot less.

Um, no.

1609 Orpax Massacre

1622 Jamestown Massacre

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Control what you can:

First thing is to stop, absolutely, all "charity" going to the 3rd world.  You want to help someone?  Help your own people, stop the transnational flow of money.

Africa can support maybe 200-300 million people with domestic agriculture, probably far less due to their shit infrastructure and native behaviors; it's well over a billion, due solely to foreign meddling.  It's done nothing but create a biological bomb, which dumps forth shit upon the world.   

And yes, sink the ships.  All the ships.  S/F....Ken M

In fact, the best way to STOP them coming is build economically successful societies. If they see the possiblity of change in their own country, they wont come here. And in fact that seems to be happening all around the pacific rim, which also used to be basket cases in their day. Italians, Germans, Norwegians, they all used to come to the US by the boatload. They dont now, because they have an alternative.

9 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Um, no.

1609 Orpax Massacre

1622 Jamestown Massacre

 

Point taken, but I feel sure you palefaced men started it somehow.

It does illustrate again though, violent means employed to stop migration. But did it work? Hell no. It didnt work for the Zulu's either, and they had rather better luck.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Roman Alymov]

7 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Control what you can:

First thing is to stop, absolutely, all "charity" going to the 3rd world.  You want to help someone?  Help your own people, stop the transnational flow of money.

Please excuse me for noting that current Western economic model is totally dependent on "transnational flow of money" - or, in older terms, ability to print/issue unlimited amounts of "money" (now called "liquidity") and exchange them on real products (both natural resources and human labor) from "jungle". Without this, Western countries will be mostly bankrupt within few years. 

[urbanoid]

17 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Control what you can:

First thing is to stop, absolutely, all "charity" going to the 3rd world.  You want to help someone?  Help your own people, stop the transnational flow of money.

Africa can support maybe 200-300 million people with domestic agriculture, probably far less due to their shit infrastructure and native behaviors; it's well over a billion, due solely to foreign meddling.  It's done nothing but create a biological bomb, which dumps forth shit upon the world.   

And yes, sink the ships.  All the ships.  S/F....Ken M

Absolutely this.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Please excuse me for noting that current Western economic model is totally dependent on "transnational flow of money" - or, in older terms, ability to print/issue unlimited amounts of "money" (now called "liquidity") and exchange them on real products (both natural resources and human labor) from "jungle". Without this, Western countries will be mostly bankrupt within few years. 

No, they will adapt to different economic model, because they are mostly still populated by functional people.

[urbanoid]

22 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Follow the thought. How do you stop it? Im not AGAINST people stopping it through lawful means, its their right. Im against all the methods that have been proposed. Leaving people to starve by the fence, removing their children, watching them drown, shooting them. All have been tried at some point by many European societies. And we usually end up trying people for war crimes whom try the most extreme measures.

Ive no problem with preserving culture either The problem is these debates always turn into an argument primarily over ethnicity. Im a poligot made up of most of the peoples of Northwest Europe and a bit more besides, so I personally cant get worked up about African DNA ending up in our makeup, not least because we all came from Africa by the long route anyway.

There is nothing wrong with your arguments. You want to live in a country where you are all culturally homgenous. Fine, I can understand that, I even respect it. But if it didnt work that way in the 18th through 19th and 20th Century, Im sorry, im not buying its going to work now.  Not without behaving like Nazi's, and frankly, Id prefer not to.

 

Number one law and imperative is survival. I don't know when were the Europeans trying to stop illegal migration by means you listed.

I want my country safe and prosperous and conserving its identity. I don't mind actual Europeans (or simply 'functional people', I don't mind the Vietnamese for example) coming to live there, but I don't want our murder rates to go up, I don't want some thirdworlder gangs raping girls and women like they did in Britain, don't want savages destroying and looting property like they do in France, I don't want them to suck the government's tit because that's not why I pay taxes. I'd rather have them pay for the bullets that will solve the problem.

And no, I don't believe that genocide would be necessary to stop that from happening, but if you're right then... genocide it is. And if no third-world immigration coupled with our current low birth rates means that we wither and slowly die as a nation, that's still preferable to the alternative. At least we'll die as something resembling us, like the Japanese, who are not welcoming dysfunctional thirdworlders despite their demographic crisis.

[sunday]

38 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Um, no.

1609 Orpax Massacre

1622 Jamestown Massacre

 

Better go 100 years before, with Cortés, Pizarro, and the like. Of course, the Spaniards did not massacre the local population, at least not willingly. Unless some idiot pretends there was biological warfare in the 16th. Century, of course. The ones that lived improved their standards of life. One could say it was not hard to get used a type of government that did not  have a state religion that espoused cannibalism.

Of course, those Spaniards just had expelled some invaders after a 800 year long struggle, the Reconquista.

The Franks managed to stop the invaders at Tours, it should be remembered, and the Austrians at the gates of Vienna.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

53 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Number one law and imperative is survival. I don't know when were the Europeans trying to stop illegal migration by means you listed.

I want my country safe and prosperous and conserving its identity. I don't mind actual Europeans (or simply 'functional people', I don't mind the Vietnamese for example) coming to live there, but I don't want our murder rates to go up, I don't want some thirdworlder gangs raping girls and women like they did in Britain, don't want savages destroying and looting property like they do in France, I don't want them to suck the government's tit because that's not why I pay taxes. I'd rather have them pay for the bullets that will solve the problem.

And no, I don't believe that genocide would be necessary to stop that from happening, but if you're right then... genocide it is. And if no third-world immigration coupled with our current low birth rates means that we wither and slowly die as a nation, that's still preferable to the alternative. At least we'll die as something resembling us, like the Japanese, who are not welcoming dysfunctional thirdworlders despite their demographic crisis.

How would you stop it happening? Because its not about whether its right or wrong, its primarily about whether its even possible to stop migration flows of the kind im expecting to start happening.

It is of course possible that PRC investment will suddenly turn Africa into a nice place to live, and they will start staying their building profitable societies. OTOH, looking at the history of Imperialism in Africa, and the PRC in general, my guess is that they will just rip the Africans off and the trend will just continue.

As always, happy to be proven wrong.

[Roman Alymov]

53 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

No, they will adapt to different economic model, because they are mostly still populated by functional people.

Here is  the fundamental problem: significant part of West population is no more "functional people" and combined with the fact that most of old West prosperity was based on industrial and infrastructure legacy of colonial empires time (that is now increasingly leveled by development of non-Western countries) - it is increasingly unlikely that West, if economically isolated for some reason, will create some sort of "new economy". More likely, "functional people" will pack up and leave to places where their function will be used in more productive way.  

    See Polish shipbuilders becoming London plumbers. see shipbuilders from old Soviet shipyards left in Ukraine migrating to Russian shipyards (despite of unfriendly climate conditions), see coal mining regions of UK, and so on. 

Even huge economical and human potential of USA is no more immune to this problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9o-68M0bCU

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How would you stop it happening? Because its not about whether its right or wrong, its primarily about whether its even possible to stop migration flows of the kind im expecting to start happening.

It is of course possible that PRC investment will suddenly turn Africa into a nice place to live, and they will start staying their building profitable societies. OTOH, looking at the history of Imperialism in Africa, and the PRC in general, my guess is that they will just rip the Africans off and the trend will just continue.

As always, happy to be proven wrong.

Brutally enough to scare the next waves. If the borders are being stormed, treat it as a military invasion and respond with military means. Bullets and artillery shells are cheap, if the flows are as big as you think they will be, you don't even need those shells to be guided. Do it a few times and the waves will stop, they'll decide that poverty and possible death in their shitholes is a better alternative than basically certain death on the Garden's border or, if they manage to cross it, inside the Garden itself, where they'll be hunted down. 

Well, there are already voices from Africa that what PRC does is basically neo-colonisation, sometimes worse than original. While I admit that the PRC-owned Africa would be a problem for the West simply due to certain resources there, at the same time such a prospect amuses me to no end. If they end up being China's bitches to 'show the white devils', it would be perfectly ironic.

[Roman Alymov]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How would you stop it happening? Because its not about whether its right or wrong, its primarily about whether its even possible to stop migration flows of the kind im expecting to start happening.

It is of course possible that PRC investment will suddenly turn Africa into a nice place to live, and they will start staying their building profitable societies. OTOH, looking at the history of Imperialism in Africa, and the PRC in general, my guess is that they will just rip the Africans off and the trend will just continue.

As always, happy to be proven wrong.

The only "Imperialism" known by Afrika untill very recently is Western one, and it is yet to be proven that China "imperialism" is going to follow the same principles. Afrikans themselves seems to notice the difference 

 

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Brutally enough to scare the next waves. If the borders are being stormed, treat it as a military invasion and respond with military means. Bullets and artillery shells are cheap, if the flows are as big as you think they will be, you don't even need those shells to be guided. Do it a few times and the waves will stop, they'll decide that poverty and possible death in their shitholes is a better alternative than basically certain death on the Garden's border or, if they manage to cross it, inside the Garden itself, where they'll be hunted down. 

Well, you make rumours of Polish borderguards killing migrants and throwing them into mass graves in forests sound plausable. 

[Murph]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Short of gunning them down at sea, do you have any other solutions?

Greeks tried ignoring them, and 700 women and children drowned in a boat. Its not a problem that is going to go away, just because you dont want them.

Yeah, tow them back to their countries and end of problem.