I must declare an interest: if I have grandchildren, the likelihood is they will be half Japanese. Given that we find it hard to deport even the vilest Bomalian criminals, my concerns are probably academic. Nonetheless, I would be interested to know why, if I’ve understood rightly, you take the view that mixed-race citizens should, in principle, be remigrated even if they are 50% native (this will be particularly fraught if other countries adopt the same policy).
Since the white race is dwindling in our homelands, we need to put policies in place to ensure that whites who do reproduce don’t do so with other races, further compounding our demographic decline.
Excellent article thank you! I agree with every point you raised! Remigration must happen for us to have a future, for generations to come need this from us; it is our duty to push for remigration.
One question — why? Western societies are not reproducing themselves demographically. Moreover, if migrants are selected based on cultural alignment, language proficiency, education, and skills, they represent the most valuable human capital. Another country has already paid for their education, yet they are ready to pay taxes in yours. I write about human capital in detail in my article, and I would be very interested to know your opinion: https://substack.com/home/post/p-198965253
If these foreigners are such valuable Human Capital, they should be making their own countries better. I say this with no ill will, but we just want to live with OUR people. Anything else is simply torture, and a result of the ziobankster subversion of The West. We instinctively recognize this on a visceral level. Why do you think people react so strongly to old photos of 'The Before Times'?
Removing all nons from our countries will result in a huge sigh of relief, followed by raucous cheering and childbearing.
Poles are perfectly nice people. But it would have been better for England to pay more for plumbing and strawberries to maintain their ethnic integrity.
You don't get it. It's not about whether they are nice people or not. Everyone needs to stay home and sort themselves out. This is how true growth, happiness and innovation occur.
For every Freddie Mercury we get 6,000,000 Muhammad the Rapists on Welfare. Not worth it by any metric. They can all stay home, and Freddie can be Sri Lanka's brightest son.
I'm tired of people thinking they have a right to access my homeland. We're busy, we're full, and we're simply uninterested in the company of foreigners. No alleged 'economic benefit' will change this, by the way. People have woken up and seen that benefits only go to corporations. It's a lose-lose for the natives.
So you only offer short-term visas for foreigners, regardless of their background and wealth? Or a ban on work and long-term rentals for foreigners?What exactly should an ideal country look like?
We are full. They compete for housing, education and other private goods or get slotted into yet another job that will shortly be automated away and they can stay home and make their own countries great again. Or, there are plenty of problems to solve in the Global South and they can go try and solve them there.
The problem is that economic development requires an influx of labor. If you're willing to pay 4,000 ft for a carer for your grandmother and 1.5 times for vegetables from the store, you can do it. The problem is that mass voters often want an absence of migrants, a cheap nurse for their grandmother, and products that are no more expensive than Spanish ones.
All I'm saying is that if the state needs migrants, then it can at least select them so that these migrants become worthy members of society, and not a burden.
We don't need their labor. Farmwork is a scant 1% of U.S labor. We can send them home every summer and winter which is what we used to do, or just keeping inventing automated farm equipment. We've already run the experiment of importing a cheaper browner helot class to do work we considered beneath our teenagers. It's not ending well. By the way, houses were actually affordable before employers decided they needed one million immigrants a year. The immigrant rich economies of Canada and Britain have simply stopped growing.
Theoretically we could cherry pick from the nine percent of the global population with IQs exceeding 120 but the end result is to impoverish their homelands and make those countries our problem.
I don't think that the problems of failing states will increase if smart people are taken away from there. It is often thanks to them (see the economic bloc in Russia) that these states are stable despite their idiotic policies. As it is, dropping out based on IQ or its equivalent is exactly what I'm talking about.
Seasonal migration (Hungary does this, for example, by not allowing migrants into the city at all) This is also a good option against the background of a shortage of young people.
Worthy members of society…like those Indian CEO’s and business owners that then end up practicing extreme ethnic nepotism when it comes to hiring? Or perhaps an elite non-white that climbs to political office and then inevitably ends up advocating for more immigration which leads to further ethnic displacement? Many such cases.
Yes, economic depression is preferable to ethnic errasure. The former is infinitely easier to solve than the latter.
The US has been at least 25 percent of global GDP since 1889. The US was 40 percent of global GDP in 1960. Both with 5 percent of global population. We dont need any immigrants for 50 years at least.
Grandma's helper and Pacho the roofer are from, at best, mediocre countries with matching economic and racial performance. They are not an asset.
I can't attach links to the response. In my last article, you will find a study that Ugandan Asians and their children, who fled to the UK in 1972, match the income and education level of the local population, and in some aspects surpass it. Will it work? I I just compare the Pakistani and Ugandan migrations, showing that the situation is very different.
What if, for example, the IT industry is developing in London and businesses need a lot of highly qualified programmers? So in your concept, a business should invest in education in order to get programmers from the British in 5-10 years?
If there are about 10% of migrants and they are civilized, they usually disappear into society. The problem now is that there are many migrants and they come from the same place, which means they create their own parallel institutions and do not assimilate.
I must declare an interest: if I have grandchildren, the likelihood is they will be half Japanese. Given that we find it hard to deport even the vilest Bomalian criminals, my concerns are probably academic. Nonetheless, I would be interested to know why, if I’ve understood rightly, you take the view that mixed-race citizens should, in principle, be remigrated even if they are 50% native (this will be particularly fraught if other countries adopt the same policy).
Since the white race is dwindling in our homelands, we need to put policies in place to ensure that whites who do reproduce don’t do so with other races, further compounding our demographic decline.
Excellent article thank you! I agree with every point you raised! Remigration must happen for us to have a future, for generations to come need this from us; it is our duty to push for remigration.
Take away all the non aryans
Civil War is Inevitable
One question — why? Western societies are not reproducing themselves demographically. Moreover, if migrants are selected based on cultural alignment, language proficiency, education, and skills, they represent the most valuable human capital. Another country has already paid for their education, yet they are ready to pay taxes in yours. I write about human capital in detail in my article, and I would be very interested to know your opinion: https://substack.com/home/post/p-198965253
If these foreigners are such valuable Human Capital, they should be making their own countries better. I say this with no ill will, but we just want to live with OUR people. Anything else is simply torture, and a result of the ziobankster subversion of The West. We instinctively recognize this on a visceral level. Why do you think people react so strongly to old photos of 'The Before Times'?
Removing all nons from our countries will result in a huge sigh of relief, followed by raucous cheering and childbearing.
And the Poles who picked strawberries and repaired plumbing in England before Brexit didn't suit you either?
Poles are perfectly nice people. But it would have been better for England to pay more for plumbing and strawberries to maintain their ethnic integrity.
If the society is ready, then this would be a great option
You don't get it. It's not about whether they are nice people or not. Everyone needs to stay home and sort themselves out. This is how true growth, happiness and innovation occur.
So you're suggesting that no one is allowed in except on short-term visas? Even if it's a conditional Freddie Mercury?
For every Freddie Mercury we get 6,000,000 Muhammad the Rapists on Welfare. Not worth it by any metric. They can all stay home, and Freddie can be Sri Lanka's brightest son.
I'm tired of people thinking they have a right to access my homeland. We're busy, we're full, and we're simply uninterested in the company of foreigners. No alleged 'economic benefit' will change this, by the way. People have woken up and seen that benefits only go to corporations. It's a lose-lose for the natives.
So you only offer short-term visas for foreigners, regardless of their background and wealth? Or a ban on work and long-term rentals for foreigners?What exactly should an ideal country look like?
We are full. They compete for housing, education and other private goods or get slotted into yet another job that will shortly be automated away and they can stay home and make their own countries great again. Or, there are plenty of problems to solve in the Global South and they can go try and solve them there.
The problem is that economic development requires an influx of labor. If you're willing to pay 4,000 ft for a carer for your grandmother and 1.5 times for vegetables from the store, you can do it. The problem is that mass voters often want an absence of migrants, a cheap nurse for their grandmother, and products that are no more expensive than Spanish ones.
All I'm saying is that if the state needs migrants, then it can at least select them so that these migrants become worthy members of society, and not a burden.
We don't need their labor. Farmwork is a scant 1% of U.S labor. We can send them home every summer and winter which is what we used to do, or just keeping inventing automated farm equipment. We've already run the experiment of importing a cheaper browner helot class to do work we considered beneath our teenagers. It's not ending well. By the way, houses were actually affordable before employers decided they needed one million immigrants a year. The immigrant rich economies of Canada and Britain have simply stopped growing.
Theoretically we could cherry pick from the nine percent of the global population with IQs exceeding 120 but the end result is to impoverish their homelands and make those countries our problem.
I don't think that the problems of failing states will increase if smart people are taken away from there. It is often thanks to them (see the economic bloc in Russia) that these states are stable despite their idiotic policies. As it is, dropping out based on IQ or its equivalent is exactly what I'm talking about.
Seasonal migration (Hungary does this, for example, by not allowing migrants into the city at all) This is also a good option against the background of a shortage of young people.
Worthy members of society…like those Indian CEO’s and business owners that then end up practicing extreme ethnic nepotism when it comes to hiring? Or perhaps an elite non-white that climbs to political office and then inevitably ends up advocating for more immigration which leads to further ethnic displacement? Many such cases.
Yes, economic depression is preferable to ethnic errasure. The former is infinitely easier to solve than the latter.
The US has been at least 25 percent of global GDP since 1889. The US was 40 percent of global GDP in 1960. Both with 5 percent of global population. We dont need any immigrants for 50 years at least.
Grandma's helper and Pacho the roofer are from, at best, mediocre countries with matching economic and racial performance. They are not an asset.
I can't attach links to the response. In my last article, you will find a study that Ugandan Asians and their children, who fled to the UK in 1972, match the income and education level of the local population, and in some aspects surpass it. Will it work? I I just compare the Pakistani and Ugandan migrations, showing that the situation is very different.
Replacing your own people with good quality migrants is still replacing one’s own people. That’s simply undesirable.
The ethnic integrity of a society should be one of the constants of a political regime, not a variable to be changed for economic reasons.
What if, for example, the IT industry is developing in London and businesses need a lot of highly qualified programmers? So in your concept, a business should invest in education in order to get programmers from the British in 5-10 years?
If there are about 10% of migrants and they are civilized, they usually disappear into society. The problem now is that there are many migrants and they come from the same place, which means they create their own parallel institutions and do not assimilate.
IT work can be done anywhere. My webmaster lives in another country.