As Darwin’s Finch said, give me numbers indicating that 50% of immigrants are on welfare or are a net drain on the US economy from unbiased, meaning, among other things, non-WN sources. If you’re going to go on anecdote alone, I assure you that I will be able to trump you.
Also, please differentiate among different kinds of immigrants. In the United States, there are both legal and illegal immigrants whose ways of life and whose effects on the economy are different. In addition, Sionnach has differentiated between immigrants from acceptable countries, apparently those in Western Europe, and unacceptable countries, apparently those in Central America. Also, please keep in mind that the term “immigrant” includes naturalize US citizens who are supposed to be no different from native born citizens except that a naturalized citizen cannot be elected president. Come to think of it, that last might be an unfair benefit.
I was responding to a claim that immigrants’ relatively high rate of starting businesses demonstrated that immigrants provided a net economic benfit. I merely pointed out that the argument was specious. I didn’t make any argument that needs to be supported.
Interesting perspective you have. You think that white nationalists need to prove themselves to be “peaceful” when the enemies of white autonomy employ violence on a prodigious scale. The violence of the state is used to impose non-white immigration on the white majority and to enforce the de jure inferiority of whites in a number of contexts.
Weber’s basic definition of the state: a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence over a specified territory.
cjhoworth, Darwin’s Finch: I suspect you are missing that Veritas has not actually put forth a specific position to defend. S/he noted that the fact that immigrants create many new businesses does not in and of itself establish that they are contributing positively to the economy.
Suppose for the sake of argumnet that 80% of all new small businesses were established by people who had immigrated within the past five years. Suppose for the sake of argument that 99% of them had failed within two years after sucking up lots of SMA money and tax write-offs and that the owners promptly went on welfare. The fact that 80% of all new businesses were created by immigrants would not show that immigrants were adding to the economy.
The point was simply an observation in logic regarding this statement
pointing out that the first sentence could be 100% true, but without further information (regarding the success of those businesses), the second sentence cannot be said to progress directly from it.
I think this is wrong, if 50% of immigrants start businesses, the jobs created would employ many of the other immigrants (and some of the native borns). The 50% that could be on wellfare could be doing anything. but since this is all random numbers, it doesn’t mean much to debate this one way or anohter. would someone with good google skills find out the rate of immigrants starting businesses?
Nice to see race mixing brought up, as a child growing up in a mixed race home. I also have dated outside my race more than in it. It must all be because of Jungle Fever. the races being unequal in intellegence keeps getting tore apart here, try looking in part one of this debate, or do searches on it.
Of course, Veritas, now you are wandering away from facts and logic:
I have not seen any evidence presented that immigration is being imposed on some nebulous white majority against their will. Straw polls may indicate that a majority of self-identified whites would like to see some changes in immigration laws, but those changes are also ill-defined. In addition, there has been no great upswelling of white voices clamoring for changes to immigration laws. There are a few very vocal people who want various (but not consistent) changes to immigration laws, but the majority of people have not bothered to voice any opinion to Congress.
(I’m sure we would also disagree on whether any whites have been genuinely rendered “inferior” in law, but that is a separate issue.)
As far as I know, a historical obsession with racial purity is unique to the Jewish group. It is certainly not a part of European/white racial history, except in occasional reactive anti-semitic episodes in which the Jewish emphasis on limpieza de sangre is mimicked. (See the periods of the Iberian inquisitions or Nazi Germany.) Under normal circumstances – i.e., when a population is autonomous – interbreeding with other populations may (or may not) strengthen the population. It’s better for a “new and improved” version of the race to survive than for the race to perish. These, however, are not normal circumstances.
We are in the midst of a concerted attempt to, at the least, subjugate and, at worst, to exterminate the white race. The successful encouragement of intermarriage is one way to accomplish that end, and in these times a person of conscience cannot ignore this fact.
As for the aggregate differences of the races in intelligence and other characteristics: yes, such differences exist. How could there be no such differences?
While I did address the specific claim perhaps erroneously, I think the point still stands: what could be is largely irrelevant. What matters is what is. Veritas’s hypothetical does nothing to support, or refute, the cjhoworth’s claim, either. Even if we accept that 50% of the immigrants are on welfare, that still does not disprove that there might be a net economic gain.
The one statement made by cjhoworth may not have directly followed from the first, but then Veritas succumbed to the same logical flaw in his response.
Polls are evidence, though imperfect. As for the lack of a clamor for changes in the immigration laws, I could offer a long disquisition, but I’d ask you to focus on this point: we already have immigration laws, and they are not enforced. I.e., if we accept the rather naive view that Congress responds to the will of the people, we would note that the will of the people has been expressed through Congress, and that the expressed will of the people is that roughly one million fewer immigrants per year should enter the US.
Gee, you’ve packed a lot of errors of fact into just a few lines.
Item: The concept of “racial purity” was pretty much invented by Europeans and European-descended North Americans in the nineteenth century.
Item: Jews have no concept of “racial purity” and never have. (They have, on three or four occasions, insisted on intra-religious marriage for the purpose of not allowing their beliefs to be diverted to other gods–a concept heartily embraced by most Christian denominations throughout history.) On the other hand, Jews accepted groups as diverse as the Turkic Khazars, the Beit Israel (Ethiopian Jews), Cochin Jews in India, and, probably the Kaifeng community of Jews in China–hardly a group that demands some odd notion of “racial purity.”
Item: There is no “concerted attempt” to “subjugate and, at worst, to exterminate the white race” (whatever is supposed to be meant by “white race”).
Addendum: If you are posting as a co-believer in the screeds of Sionnach or Halogen, perhaps you can do what each of them has refused (or been unable) to do: actually define and identify this mystical “white race”. It is clearly not the “white race” of the early ethnologists, since it is not equivalent to the Caucasian “race”–you appear to arbitrarily exclude Jews and some other groups without having a basis for identifying the line of exclusion. It does not seem to even be “Europeans” in that I have seen various European groups (acknowledged by everyone other than WN folks) to be “white”. So just who is in this vague construct that you wish to defend, even though the majority of its members see no reason to be defended?
Which I can accept. Then, you followed up with this:
Suppose the other 50% is on welfare: how does that disprove the initial statement? Even if a small percentage of immigrants form highly successful businesses, the various revenues could more than offset any welfare payouts to other immigrants, resulting in a net economic gain.
In other words, you infer that immigrant business start-ups may not necessarily translate to economic growth, but then, neither does a given percentage of immigrants on welfare necessarily infer the opposite. Your hypothetical example demonstrates nothing, either way.
And you will note that not one of them mentions the “killing of genes or a genus”, and all refer to the extermination, murder, or destruction of an entire group. Perhaps you can explain, then, how one might “exterminate” or “destroy”, or even “murder” without killing a single individual? Oh wait…you did say, “without the killing of a single individual”! Very clever…
Veritas, what truth is it that you have come to bring us? Until now you have only spread misinformation and lies mixed in with some irrelevant logic regarding the hypothetical occupation of immigrants. I dare say it’s a rather weak performance for such a bold username thus far.
Further, are you truly saying that you think that mass castration is an OK form of genocide, or did my screen jiggle the words in a funny way?
