Refute this Sup Forums

Western way of life is pretty cozy. Perhaps the reason why multiculturalism and mass immigration is pushed is not about white guilt at all, but instead securing a big enough workforce to uphold the aging society so that the cozy western life with many freedoms can continue, and this is something of larger practical value than preserving a "race" or "ethnicity"?

Is this an argument for killing african americans?

Also short term political gains, helps fudge up those statistics nicely that the neoliberals like to push (here at least). During our election he was bleeting numbers that they inflated during their cabinet, this also includes migrants for pension restructuring among others.

>so that the cozy western life with many freedoms can continue
it won't be a cozy western life anymore with muslim immigrants and niggers everywhere

argument refuted

Economic research claims that immigration may be good for a countries' economy as a whole, the lower class loses out on it because there's a larger supply of labour.

AKA jews win working class loses.

What should happen;
>western countries maintain replacement level birthrates
>globalisation/internationalism leads to developing countries doing the same
>quality of life improves across the world
>every race is allowed to preserve their way of life

What is happening;
>western country birthrates plunge below replacement levels
>globalisation leads to people from developing countries migrating to developed countries
>quality of life improves across the world disproportionately
>every race gets mixed together in one some vague multicultural utopia where everyone is unhappy

the whole society loses when the immigrants start voting for sharia

Would it kill them to incentivize the native population to reproduce?

Making westerners reproduce would be 100x easier, cheaper and have more added benefits.

Otherwise explain how bringing millions of 70 IQ sand niggers is better than having more 1000 ish IQ kids.

I am just thinking that we have never in our history have more comfortable lives that we have right now in the west. Practically every person in the west doesn't have to starve, has a roof above their heads, has access to education, is protected by free speech, can summon police or fire department in case of emergency and has access to clean water and healthcare.

We have never had such things before in our history. Maybe politicians are just desperate to preserve such things for people and think this outweights to dangers of multiculturalism?

>Making westerners reproduce
How does one achieve this effectively? Right now, economy is disincentivising to having children, or maybe perhaps, people who live in safe and comfy environments have no evolutionary need to have lots of children, since infancy deaths are not a thing and there are little life-threatening accidents that can occur within one's lifetime.

immigrants fine by me IF they work$pay taxes, don't get to vote, they live on designated immigrant areas and use a seperate public transport, stores ect.
that would be pretty cool imo

>Perhaps the reason why multiculturalism and mass immigration is pushed is not about white guilt at all, but instead securing a big enough workforce to uphold the aging society
Isn't that obvious? Of course that's the reason. That's how it is communicated as well.
The argument is just pretty dumb because we're about to experience a huge wave of automatisation and we already have enough half-retarded sandniggers in our countries that will cost us instead of contributing.

>and this is something of larger practical value than preserving a "race" or "ethnicity"
As if anybody here cared about the latter two.

Did Hitler manage to solve this in Germany during his time, the low birth rate problem? I wonder what incentives did he provide.

>The argument is just pretty dumb because we're about to experience a huge wave of automatisation and we already have enough half-retarded sandniggers in our countries that will cost us instead of contributing.
This is a good argument.

By the way I am already against multiculturalism and full redpilled, just playing devil's advocate to find arguments against multiculturalism that are as normie-friendly as possible. I think I might end up in right-wing politics one day and I might need many normie-friendly arguments to counter Pro-EU shill arguments.

How about stop it with the gibs me dat and reduce taxes so it's more afordable to have kids. Push comes to shove force them to under the threat of fines.

If it is imposible(yet nations like Denmark proved that wrong) import a non borderline retard population. There are other groups you could take besides inbred mudshits.

Also another spanner in your retard theory is automation. We will soon require less workers for the same ammount of work. Another problem is that youth unemploynent in Europe is sky high, meaning we already have more than enough people for the jobs we have.

tpbp

You have to just not, have an open borders policy, it hurts everyone.
Shilling aside, Trump had a great idea at, steering clear of as many foreign Conflicts that don't necessitate US interaction and also, not facilitating an increase of migrants for what these countries do to themselves.
We will/should not get involved, but the libs all want what the libs all want. Create and destroy is the only chance

>steering clear of as many foreign Conflicts that don't necessitate US interaction
he just bombed two places in the middle east my friend

You are right.

How exactly do you plan the western world control their birthrate?
Wouldn't this just be like china's 2 baby law? How is this avoidable in a plan for future democracy? The idea of culture is here, clearly you have neo-nazis, prenthesis, on every corner. How do we now, project a common ground?

>Another problem is that youth unemploynent in Europe is sky high, meaning we already have more than enough people for the jobs we have.
I have observed their reasoning to be that "high-skilled immigration is good for economy" and that "many immigrants pay more taxes than receive taxpayer money" which is the case about polish immigrants in UK. Problem is that when culture is vastly different and population is functionally retarded like somalians coming to Sweden, they become a huge burden on the system if a form of extracting maternity leaves for their huge families and God knows what other sort of welfare payments you can claim in these welfare states.

There is absolutely no fucking excuse for foreign interventionism for a country with ability to wreck serious shit such as USA. I am still to this day baffled about what did G.W.Bush want to accomplish there? What in his mind did he wanted to improve in these regions? I mean, how does Saddam exactly threaten USA or Israel? And if they do threaten Israel, why not go for the sanctioning route that deep state absolutely loves for Russia's case?

And I completely agree with you, I'm trying to ascertain if we have any objective alternative.
It seems right when you look at it, but voting a neocon wasn't the right choice, just the best choice we had.
I sincerely hope we can portray the "right" correctly to show the correct path in front of us all

The abiquitous, muh oil, here.

Honestly, gw was the worst but, Obama was no better. It's lies on top of more lies, all we can hope to do is just recover ever little bit as we go. Influence as many people as you can. Knowing what we have simply seen, is far more valuable than simple things we have said, and just ignore.

The problem still remains, dumb libshit's fighting for economic refrain.
You can't have it one way, libs always get involved, you have to appeal to both sides

Btw, I believe in what you are saying, but, an open borders policy simply isn't feasible at this current time line in the US

Wait someone using common sense on /pol? Where am I?

I sincerely feel that this is necessitated by left wingers and right wingers colliding, this is just as significant as the Vietnam era protests.

so this is what a shill looks like

I am just trying find out what nuances about that argument Sup Forums can find to either debunk/approve or expand upon it. I didn't say I support mass immigration, sorry to disappoint.

When I have studied all the famous politicians that have risen to power democratically, I have found that one common feature is that they all have clear plans for the economy. Even Hitler was largely voted since he had a plan to improve german economy and revert the damage done by hyperinflation, because normies do not really care about jewish question or maintaining racial purity. Economy always comes first, all the other aspects about leading the country are side gigs that are more defined by people as collective, not by one single leader.

>left wingers and right wingers colliding
I could unironically see that happening with young Bernie and young Trump supporters, since they are both distrustful of establishment and are concerned about the crony banking. Hillary supporters though are a lost cause, these people I can only see co-operating with other establishment-supporting people no matter if conservative or liberal.

He started a war machine which put everyone to work. With job security and propaganda getting married was the easy part.

>>When I have studied all the famous politicians that have risen to power democratically, I have found that one common feature is that they all have clear plans for the economy. Even Hitler was largely voted since he had a plan to improve german economy and revert the damage done by hyperinflation, because normies do not really care about jewish question or maintaining racial purity. Economy always comes first, all the other aspects about leading the country are side gigs that are more defined by people as collective, not by one single leader.
The same can be said about all US constitions, we have created a life of economy. The thing threatening this, is the inability to accept the unfairness this creates.

>
>>left wingers and right wingers colliding
>I could unironically see that happening with young Bernie and young Trump supporters, since they are both distrustful of establishment and are concerned about the crony banking. Hillary supporters though are a lost cause, these people I can only see co-operating with other establishment-supporting people no matter if conservative or liberal.
So shouldn't people be pushing for their democracy, doesn't it just seem like it's all being taken away in a wash of medium grounds on all political beliefs?

Entry level argument if it wasn't for the cultural rot in our nation's the birth rate would be normalised but yolo swag your pussy only lives once rhetoric prevails. Whilst the cultural glue for so called fucking minorities still exists so they breed like fucking rabbit.

Well for USA I see that libertarian sort of economics is best solution, since USA is a very big country with many different people, and when you build too big of a government, there will be some regions that drag the rest down at the expense of others. I get that this is done to achieve some kind of "equality" but in practice, this will never be achieved. Soviet Union went to extreme with this and in soviet-era books for example, the price was printed on the hardcover of the book, since most prices had to remain a constant in the soviet economy. In practice what happened was just that people stopped trying to create high-quality products, since you get the same money from producing shitty products.

War machine was one thing, the other was that he had real results to show, such as being able to build an able military out of the scraps that Versailles treaty had left. He also had plans to unite all germans under one reich and he was actively working for this to happen, which increased people's faith in the central government, since it seemed as if the central government knows what it's doing and can produce tangiable results.

This isn't correct at all. There are not enough jobs to secure everyone. There are not enough opportunities for people with unskilled labor. The leftist arguments for labor don't hold water. In the end none of the immigration will offset the cost to provide welfare.

It's like companies who switch from a successful local, on-shore workforce to "virtualization", where there's people from all over running the company and customer service. Everything becomes shit, but the fat cats get more profit, so who cares?

Maybe 1st world feels that's the only way to get women back into the kitchen lel

Paying the Jizyah tax for being a heathen doesn't sound all to lucrative, I'm afraid.

The incentives were ideological and material:
You could take out a loan to start a family (a substantial sum) and when you had 4 kids you didn't have to repay the loan.
They also introduced the Mutterkreuz in analogy to the Iron Cross to distinguish women for the work they were doing.

That's maybe the most interesting part for a contemporary perspective. Having a family is as much work as it always was but we don't regard it as such. Instead we tell young girls that they should get a career at all costs. I don't think there is anything wrong with women in the workforce. When it makes them happy and it increases our economy, why not? But it's very damaging that we aren't recognizing the task of a mother as the thing it is: a time consuming stressful job that's of paramount importantce to society.

There is nothing cozy about a pack of niggers bashing in your skull for 5$ change.

This sheds some light on this, thanks.
At the same time, it sounds very gloomy to think about that why don't we value motherhood anymore as a society and only "women being in the workforce" is what's valued. It's almost as if the free market economy goes in direct conflict with the concept of a traditional family and disincentivises it. Now Estonia for example has had low taxes and free market policy for 15 years now, and this has benefitted our economy, but the problem is that the growth of economy falls into people's pockets that already have loads of money, and aren't necessarily all about creating new jobs here in Estonia (maybe because they are foreigners, or maybe because they run a multinational business).

I seriously admire the social policies of nazi germany, I think that if you quote 3/4 of the national socialist platform to a crowd of people and don't tell them it comes from natsoc, people would be thrilled to have them implemented.

Our experimental theatre group once actually ran a very big and crowded event in Estonia at 2010 where they reenacted some sort of fictional party with a "personality of cult" leader lots of show, dancers, music, fireworks and prophetic speakers. They interwened this with some semi-serious speakers who spoke emotional rhetorics about nationalism and protectionist economics that sounded almost interchangable with fascism (of course they never mentioned fascism or it's symbolics per se). Trick is that they told people that this party could become real if people were reacting positively, and guess what? This borderline-fascist party was met with thunderous support and many people begged them to enter politics, but then the actors spoke of it later that "it's a prank bro, we are actors not politicians, we couldn't into politics".

Just interesting how people can really, really love fascism if you don't tell them it's fascism. Pic related, highlight from the event I described above.

Trips of truth

practical? you call thousands of refugees flooding into Europe 'practical'?

>story
That's pretty cool. It always amazes me what even a country of 1 million can do.
And it's very interesting how much of namecalling actually works. Why aren't they just looking at the policies and then decide what they want but rather let themselves be told what it's called and decide on that label.

>At the same time, it sounds very gloomy to think about that why don't we value motherhood anymore as a society and only "women being in the workforce" is what's valued.
Yes, that's a serious problem.
The (second half of the) 20th century has been a very, very materialistic one. It was the fight between Communism and Capitalism; both are materialistic ideologies. This takes its toll now on our societies.
>inb4 liberalism
Liberalism has always had a Janus faced relation with the dichotomy of idealism and materialism. The classical liberalism has been on the backfoot and neoliberalism on the rise. Even the topics of the classical liberal thinkers are now deeply intervowen in materialistic issues: Faggot marriage is all about the tax reduction, freedom of speech is constrained most strongly by intelectual property rights.

>It's almost as if the free market economy goes in direct conflict with the concept of a traditional family and disincentivises it.
Maybe. You could make some argument about market-design on how to reunite these two sides again, but it goes against my idealistic veine to do so.

Work force for what? Jobs are disappearing all the time and if we want to have jobs for everyone in the future we should shorten work days.

Most of the refugees are on social welfare. For example in Germany only 2,8% refugees have a job out of 1,2 million. Not to mention a lot of them push this Sharia Law crap so that's not really helping the "cozy western life with many freedoms". That doesn't really sound practical if you ask me.

>That's pretty cool. It always amazes me what even a country of 1 million can do.
We have went through a big change somewhere in the second part of 19th century. Before that and during foreign occupation times, we were not-too-bright population of peasants. These days our average IQ is quite high so some interesting things to be found here in Estonia from time to time.

>Even the topics of the classical liberal thinkers are now deeply intervowen in materialistic issues: Faggot marriage is all about the tax reduction, freedom of speech is constrained most strongly by intelectual property rights.
This type of thinking is popular with Pro-EU politicians. I hear this hyperpragmatic attitude from them the most, and how insanely dedicated they are to short-term gains at the expense of long-term gains and increasing social cohesion. I personally think it's a dead end and this type of thinking will end with a huge economical/social crash, followed by a civil war. Even successful businessmen do not run businesses, focused on short-term gains, but somehow with running a country, this seems justified.

>I personally think it's a dead end and this type of thinking will end with a huge economical/social crash, followed by a civil war.
I can't see it end well either.

My question is: Why do so many topics play out differently east and west of the Iron Curtain, today?
After all, when both ideologies were materialistic then why are people looking differently at institutions like the nation state or at personal freedoms or at immigration.
Something happened to the western world that damaged it immensely while the eastern block crashed economically. I can't figure out why that is. It's such an enormeous and uniform difference, there must be a convincing explanation.

If the aging society loves its cozy western life so much, why does it insist on burdening other people's children with their social retirement costs?
If they care so much about western life and wanted social retirement, why didn't they have kids?
Multiculturalism and mass immigration are consequences of their greed. They couldn't produce their own kids so let's bring complete strangers of whom most will not contribute to our social retirement funds to this country and pretend that nothing is wrong and things will work out.
They tried to get a paycheck out of the younger generations. Civil war? Not their problem, they'll be too old or dead by then. Society fucked up the ass sideways? Doesn't matter, they lived the glory days of their parents.

I sympathise with the boomers who are well off and don't want that social retirement funding for they lack the need and would rather invest some more money, remaining active in society instead of sitting on their comfily padded backsides leaching off of the young.
This however is not the majority of boomers.
The majority of boomers fucked us royally by taking what the Greatest Generation left behind and spending it all on Babylon.

The amazing thing is that Western life is cozy despite them.

that is exaclty why they do it. Western social programs are ponzi schemes. They dont collect enough over your lifetime to eventually pay out your benefits so there is a need for a constantly growing tax base in order to pay for the next generation.

And I almost forgot

If the aging society cares so much about itself and its offspring...
Why does it outsource every single job abroad?
They are depriving the young of a chance to do well, and claim it's for the best. Fucking hypocrites.

Would have been a good jewish trick to convince people before the current year where all those manual labor jobs where we need Ahmed and Paco to put bubblewrap in a cardboard box over and over again are not being taken by automation and soon a robot will be driving trucks and looking after old people too.

this is bullshit. such studies always consider carefully controlled and limited immigration (where the people immigrating are people your country actually wants/needs). people then turn around and say
>look, immigration is good
instead of saying
>controlled immigration is good, however we should not use this fact to inform us on uncontrolled mass immigration

>Western way of life is pretty cozy.

What would you know about that, slav? You know about as much of western living as your average Chinese.

The biggest problem on that topic is the "economical growth" meme. It's a system which is simply not possible to maintain for more than only a couple of decades.
Just change the fucking economical system and your problem is solved. You don't have to import sandniggers, everybody who didn't have at least 2 children has no right to complain about him getting only enough to survive after retirement and you don't have to change the already not properly working system to be even more instable.

>Why do so many topics play out differently east and west of the Iron Curtain, today?
Shortest answer would be american influence. American pop culture probably had an effect from the west of iron curtain. Oh and mind you, soviet union was always socially conservative, for example homosexuality was a crime during the entire soviet union time, so that had an effect too.

That's it but it's not for good of the indigenous people of Europe are at least not for all them. It's the elite and the left parties (actually it is the same) that are pushing this massive immigration waves, and they do it because of one fucking reason: self-preservation. They won't be severly affected by the negative effects of this demographic shift ( they have the money and the power to counter the side-effects) , they profit from it. They are too lazy and too greedy to look for other possibilities (robots, make Europe more attractive for foreign intellectuals)