If you had to pick one

>Abolish all welfare but open borders

or

>no immigration allowed at all, mass deportation, a wall, but Scandinavian-like welfare system

what would you pick?

The second one obviously

First one.

Second one is dysgenic.

>no immigration allowed at all, mass deportation, a wall, but Scandinavian-like welfare system

There is literally nothing wrong with this at all.

Um the second one wouldn't be bad at all..? We are anti immigrant not anti government.

>No immigration

How about no minorities, but seriously the first option.

Second one since open borders would just result in a huge spike in crime (robbery, rape, murder, etc..).

Speak for yourself, government can go fuck itself, they ruin everything Sept shooting blacks. But they're getting bad at that too.

THE FUCKING FIRST. only the fucking strong survive, fuck all yall

>We are anti immigrant not anti government.
You sound pretty un-American. The whole premise is that we selectively brain drain the entire world while importing unskilled labor only as needed and consistently slam our government's hand as it reaches for the cookie jar of rights.

Daily reminder that Sweden started out like the second option. Look at them now.

This. What do you cunts think draws all the leeches to America and Germany? It's those delicious handouts. Cut that and watch as they either become productive members of society or die

The first one would create a white utopia.

I was going to add that the immigration policy stands through time no matter what. It's an amendment that can't be repealed

Abolish all welfare. and I mean ALL welfare. No diversity quotas, no protected classes or hate-speech laws. No tax-dollar funded womens' clinics or anything like that. Pure meritocracy in every facet of society. The niggers, mentally ill, and low-IQ will slowly fade off on their own, unable to provide for themselves and their offspring. Women will be dependent on men again, just as nature intended, and they'll start acting right as a result.

This is entirely unrealistic. And even then, a socialist system is inherently dysgenic. The people in your welfare state would stop reproducing, embrace hedonism, and society would eventually collapse.

WTF YOU WILL JUST BECOME NIGGERS. YOU SHITS.

Yeah not the current government but the government of our ruling.

it's just a theoretical question mate. The original choice was completely unrealistic. It's not about that

LITERALLY ALL WHITE COUNTRIES BEFORE FUCKING JUDEN.

Feel like it's worth pointing out that the wall worked well enough until a traitor opened the door during a time of internal strife and invited the foreign horde in.
Not sure if that was the intended irony or accidental.

With no welffare, no immigrant. so the first one.

Could you imagine trump killing handouts in his next term?

>Abolish all welfare but open borders
Impossible. The new immigrants will vote the welfare back.

>no immigration allowed at all, mass deportation, a wall, but Scandinavian-like welfare system
Only if the new population works high paying jobs to contribute to the welfare system.
They obviously need to be intelligent to work high paying jobs (high IQ).

The first one
The second one breaks constitutional law and turns us into a leftist commie hellhole
The first one forces every single person that wants to live to get redpilled
Second amendment be ones just as important to leftists(or previously leftists since being murdered and raped in large numbers would only work on them for so long since American blood can only handle so much backwards ideology
Shit goes full Colorado and we end up where illegals just get shot on sight
Eventually nobody will come here illegally because they want to live

>Scandinavian-like welfare system
>Nothing wrong
Of course you wouldn't see anything wrong with it Worst Zealand, your country already is a socialist shithole with a Scandinavian-like welfare state

first

Second one, but only if the deportation includes all nonwhites, legal or not. Scandinavian-like welfare systems only work in homogeneous societies. If there's even more than like 5% nonwhites then I guess we'll have to make do with the first option and pray our country becomes so shitty no one will want to migrate here anymore.

Both options are shit.

Lol, anyone who chooses the first is delusional, say hello to being economically buttfucked by an army of asians, the only thing keeping them out is immigration laws.

Protip, whites and particularly white Americans arent the brightest, setting up for direct competition is going to have most living in squalor.

like someone else said, sweden.

i've seen all i ever care to see of that shithole country. may it burn forever. I wouldn't wish that outcome of beta faggots on my worst enemy.

abolish the welfare state + closed borders

so, Trump

99% of slant eyes don't have the ability or money or opportunity to make it here.

only the best and brightest would make it here, making us stronger. we practically operated this way for a long time, which is why, if you haven't noticed, we don't have giant border walls or remnants of border security anywhere.

But that's bullshit and we both know it. To say otherwise is libertarian delusion.

1st one
thats how America was until 1918 or something like that , only immigrants who worked hard wanted to come, natural filter

>No welfare allowed at all
>Open deportation
>Massive wall
>Abolish all Scandinavians

Did I get it right?

First one. The free market and natural selection will weed out untouchables.

option 2, duh

>The free market
What happens when the free market is done with you?
Either way it all requires society organizing itself.

Second, of course. That's what Nat Soc is.

> Second one turns us into a leftist commie hellhole
Yeah because Scandinavian countries are just so fucking terrible, having higher levels of health, happiness, and better distributed wealth than America.

Australia has a higher HDI and overall average quality of life than America does

Open borders for Sharia! :^)

You put too much faith in freedom. Free market is fine and dandy but sexual liberation didn't come out as well.

Second one. I don't want a bunch of thugs making America its playground.

Option 2.

>only the best and brightest would make it here, making us stronger.

Not true at all. Even the poor emigrate here.

Option 2, although desu even the current welfare states like in Scandinavian countries seem outdated and not optimal compared to what we could be doing.

IMO the best idea for a welfare state is a data-driven government system, so it provides schooling/training subsidies only for skills or occupational fields proven to have a very highly positive average return on investment, and does stuff like creating general unemployment funds for people whose jobs are displaced by technology which can only be used to acquire skills or training in a related field so that people can maintain their jobs and progressively skill up without having to worry about permanent workforce displacement. Also unemployment insurance and benefits should cut out after a short time, say 3-6 months.

I think immigration used to be only allowed from European countries back then. Could be wrong though

Come on, that's not even a fucking question, it's a statement.

Both suck, but probably number 1. My family has a lot of money, and I'd rather not see a 65% income tax. We'd just stock up on guns and personal defenses.

Sexual liberation is a goverment program.

Hot women tend to have bad personalities, and be, uh, crazy. But they can afford to because they are physically attractive. Women who don't have that attractive physical qualities can still get a provider (a man) if they become better people, if they have a nice personality.

The welfare state has removed the incentive, they get their resources very easy for the state, and they can afford to look like disgusting pigs, and they can also afford to be crazy feminists who are "sexually liberated", without losing resources from it.

>No immigration
>Scandinavia like welfare
Immigrants are the only reason our welfare doesn't work. A normal person can't get welfare if he's able to get a job anywhere in the country or they're in between jobs.

America basically functioned as an ethnostate then though, at least consciously, not without effort like Scandinavia or most of Europe at the time, but rights and the like were essentially only available to whites, and even then only subgroups of whites like the Germans, Danes, Scots, and English. A lot of the immigrants from Ireland and China that came in were harshly discriminated against and disenfranchised in many instances since they were seen as a threat to the Anglo-Germanic cultural foundation of the country, which they were/are.

Libertarians generally don't support open borders. Only anarchists (ancaps, ancoms, an-syndicalists, etc.) support it. Most libertarians recognize that protecting its borders is a power given to government along with maintaining a military for defense and enforcing laws to prevent people from hurting others.

You know that regardless of any of that there are still people desperate enough to support those whales.

And they are not victims but failures.

This, anybody who's been to Scandinavia or Germany doesn't realize just how perfectly well the system works in dealing specifically with the native populace only.

Sweden has had its social welfare system for a long time now, going all the way back to the 70s or even sooner, and it's only really very recently when non-Swedes (and non-Finns, non-Germans, etc. you get the point) are starting to become a much more substantial portion of the population that they're having any problems because of it.