Elitist Immigration Policy

These immigrants intermarry with native whites

The average white man, every time.

Just leave.

I'm trying to use my brain here.

Now either you have evidence in support of the idea that racemixing has universally dysgenic effects, in which case I'm excited to see it so I can rub it in skeptical liberal faces, OR you don't have said evidence and you're therefore holding that belief for no real reason. Can you own up to one or the other, please?

Chrissake, I've been on this train since July of 2015 yet every time I start a thread I'm swarmed with shill accusations. Demoralizing af

...

Average white man, because the race-mixed child will have identity and health issues. And it will be ugly.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

You fucking kike. This is the shit that pisses me off.

The most adverse affect of racemixing is that it destroys the white race. It destroys our heritage and breaks down our cultures. That is why any self respecting white person will never race mix.

You kikes should be able to understand this pretty well, seeing as how you have a fucking Jewish state all to yourselves, right? For the final time, fuck off and kill yourself.

No.

Actually secular Jews not living in Israel have abnormal rates of intermarriage but they are masters at transporting their identity.
Which is why shitbags like Tim Wise (who is only 1/4 Jewish on his paternal grandfathers side IIRC) embrace kikery and go full white genocide.

It's because they all follow the ideology of Judaism.

And dont forget to sage

...

Finally, EVIDENCE! Thank you for the good-faith contribution. That study seems solid, bookmarked for future citation

Surely you think that white nationalism breaks down and undermines European culture? I mean, what is an Italian or a Scot in America, really? Aren't they deracinated from their culture?

Besides, are modern Europeans all descended from the Europeans of tens of thousands of years ago? Or has there been a lot of disparate populations fucking each other over the centuries to produce the groups we see today? I can't recall where (hopefully another user can help), but I remember reading that the modern Europe population is descended from the rapebabies of farmers in Europe and the ferocious Aryan ice giants from the Caucusus, similar to what happened in India. Now, would the genetic stock of modern Europe be better off if that had never happened? I really doubt that.

So if the ancient Aryans proved their genetic worth by successfully conquering and impregnating the indigenous Europeans, would it not make sense to encourage racemixing for the purpose of introducing more adaptive traits to the modern genetic stock? I don't see how you can endorse one without endorsing the other.

They have to go back
books.google.com/books?id=hm0FAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA776&ots=qfRUjKNBiQ&dq=he United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.&pg=PA775#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think some peoples' objections will come from the issue of dominant/recessive genes. A good deal of the white genetic suite is recessive and becomes more or less lost in the sea of non-white DNA. You might get a mongrel here and there who by chance expresses a white phenotype more strongly but that doesn't mean he's not carrying with him a load of crap DNA ready for injection into the white pool.

The other objection is that this simply isn't the right time to consider such an initiative because what it does is weaken the necessarily hard ideological position necessary to mobilize normalfags to action. Nuance is the enemy of revolution.

Basically, get back to us in 50 years once Europeans have stabilized their populations within their own nations and they're in a position to accept outsiders on a basis of strict merit.

This should be stupid.

Then you're still introducing mud to the gene pool.
It may not be mud that reeks of shit and piss, or isn't FULL of parasites, but its still mud.

No, it really doesn't.
A. Slippery slope.
B. You're still robbing a native European person for the sake of some mudblood.

No, it doesn't, because you assume that suddenly ALL the attractive/valuable people will be pushed to the US, and that means you're STILL talking about millions upon millions of people, all mudfolk.
Very dumb.

WUH WUH WUUUUUUUUUUUH.
Congratulations, you have failed genetics.

Plenty of the most beautiful people produce absolute scum, even within the white race. The chances increase exponentially when you're talking about mudgenes.

No, I'm good thanks - the best of humanity is already in the form of Europeans.
We don't need to mix with mudfolk to improve ourselves.

You're an idiot.

Yes.
Because you're an idiot.

So we're going to put a bunch of coalburners as border security and pretend that's a policy? Immigration should slow to a trickle and the only ones allowed should be masters/phD/MD/JD types.

That's not nationalism nigger.

That's Hollywood's interpretation of Nazism.

Nationalism is not hatred for all other races, its love for ones own race.

how about we just don't let shitskins in. not everyone wants to fuck curry niggers or whatever your fetishist is.

Actually, that is racism. The classic definition of it.

Nationalism is love for ones own culture and homeland.

Fuck I took off my sage

What is the nation?

No, nigger, fucking no.

You make no sense m8. Nationalism as in "nation",refers to love for ones home country. With a home country comes culture, and those who call themselves nationalist should love that as well.

Racism as in "race" refers to love for ones own race and the heritage behind it. Obviously that blends with culture and ultimately nationalism, but racism specifically refers to love of ones own race.

European nationalism has always been tied to ethnicity.

Your interpretation of the nation is a contemporary American understanding. Historically this has not been the case. There's a reason the British referred to the rights of Englishmen and not the rights of British citizens, or potato niggers, or filthy bare-assed Scots.

checked

Operation Wetback supports what your saying.

Is race-mixing universally dysgenic?
No.
Is race-mixing dysgenic at a high enough rate to justify an absence of desire for race-mixing?
Yes.
There is plenty of evidence to this effect, and because of the nature of genetics and epigenetics, you cannot foresee, necessarily, traits which might be passed to your young, namely those which are in greater proportion amongst the mixing population, and/or which are more-likely to appear as a direct result of mixing disparate gene-lines.

There is no value in mixing with mudfolk, or at least, there is no statistically significant motivator in that regard, and much to motivate against.
You seem rather desperate to try to prove that there's some justification to race-mixing.
Quit being such a cuck.
Its not like your fucking pozzed up faggot father is going to be citing peer-reviewed literature at you - and if he is, he's a faggot.

Kill yourself, son of faggot.

I'm not disagreeing that they are tied. I'm saying that nationalism and racism are two different ideas that describe similar values.

Let's see.

Country is race, in the classical sense.

Nation is race.
Any nation which is not rooted in race is likely not a nation.

No, racism refers to distinction between races.

Racism as a concept has no mention of love of any kind.

Racism, in the 'classical sense', referred to discrimination and differentiation between races, which came to have a negative connotation as people bought into the claim that races were all equal, and thus only some sort of irrational motivator - hatred or fear, most commonly - could bring about such distinction or discrimination.

Nationalism refers to love of nation, which is love of race - the nation is the race, or it is nothing.
Ethnocentric nationalism is the only sort of nationalism that has any value or worth.
Civic nationalism, or any nationalism in the context of multicultural (and thereby multiethnic, in all meaningful contexts) societies, is pure cancer and fail.

And if that triggered your autism, well, you can go fuck yourself.

No it doesnt.
Thats because the definition you posted is the one co-opted by jews and leftists to mean something negative. In reality racism means preference of your own race.

Also
What is the magna carta?

What is the constitution?

Yes, it does.

No, the one co-opted by jews and leftists to mean something negative is the association of requirement for irrationality.
Racism refers to differentiation between the races.
Nationalism refers to love of race, race being nation - and if race is not nation, its likely not a nation, nor is it's 'nationalism' of any meaning or import.

You seem to be implying that nationalism has nothing to do with race - which isn't true. I figure you don't want to give that impression, but there you are.

The point is that it's perfectly reasonable for nationalists to consider race mixing outside of the scope of appropriate patriotic behavior. A Frenchman in the 1200s would understand quite well that his marriage to an English wife might ruffle some feathers in his community.

Something written in the context of the time, wherein there was no effort put forth to directly and explicitly differentiate between races, because it was assumed everyone knew the score.

Worthless.
What is the 1790 Naturalization Act?

Race mixing thread. Sage it.

But they don't want to fix their own countries as long as there are better ones within reach. It's locust mentality.

This makes sense I suppose.

Fucking kill yourself. I sincerely hope whatever shithole you hail from is overrun with mudslimes.

"In reach" implies you'll allow them in, and make it possible to hide within and survive, and don't deport them upon discovery.

If you don't allow them in, don't make it possible to hide within and survive and deport them upon discovery… You don't have that problem, do you?

No, ya don't.

The US Constitution is shit.
Deal with it faggot.
1790 Naturalization Act, approved by the same folks who oversaw the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (several of the signers, in fact), not vetoed by Washington, explicitly made the US a white country.

Deal with it you faggot.

Knew I had it somewhere.

Like I give a shit what some eurotrash thinks. You would love to have a document like the bill of rights but you dont.

Deal with your mudslime invasion, faggot. America wont be helping you.

I'm American and my ancestors arrived in the 1730s.
Deal. With. It. Faggot.

I'm more concerned with our spic invasion, faggot.

Oh, we will help the Europeans.
After we finish up here.
They have to go back.

I was just about to take it back, euros wouldnt say that. Only a kike would.

Kill yourself, kike.

Cry harder you worthless cuckold.

The Constitution is shit and the Founding Fathers were ethnocentrists.

Deal.
With.
It.

Words of a kike

Cry harder cuckold.

Also it's fucking hilarious how you think I have a problem with ethnocentrism. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Thank you kek for those dubs of truth

You sure seem to.

The Constitution is shit expressly because it lacks explicit ethnocentrism.

They had to add it in with the 1790 Naturalization Act.

And then they reaffirmed it in 1795.

It didn't change until 1890, when the Constitution was amended to give niggers citizenship.

The document was inherently flawed, on several fronts (no explicit ethnocentrism, too easily amended).

God you're pathetic.

Something to take away from this thread:

Any "American" who claims to hate the constitution is a kike. Just look at his posting style, and how hard he tries to fit in. Any mod worth his weight would ban him on the spot.

You've got nothing.

Pathetic.

We're not talking about undesirables though. I assume OP implied that we let the best and brightest foreigners in.

My point, at any rate, is that the argument "but they need their smart people" is rather weak because history has shown that those that can escape their own shithole countries will try to do so and NOT stick around to fix things.

Why?
So they can compete with your people?
What benefit is that?
Fuck that.
Let the best and brightest stay in their countries, and be the best and brightest there.

Not really.
History has also shown that, when NOT sticking around to fixing things isn't an option, fixing things is generally what those people aim to do.
Because they have no choice.
Ya know, like a top-quality European nation welcoming them because 'muh best n brightest'.

People take action when forced, and when there is an out, they will take it.
And when there isn't, they can't, so they don't.
That's what history shows us.

You're right. I've got nothing left to say to an unamerican kike traitor except: You will hang. There is no escaping the rope for traitors.

what if you had an extremely elitist immigration policy? What if you could only be naturalized an American if you were extremely smart or extremely attractive?
Maybe in USA, but not Europe.
If you want smart and good looking, breed for it amongst your own people and ensure you have the best possible education system.
Don't import, improve what you have.

its viable

however it undermines the society the emigrate to.
good luck having a nation where different subgroups have conflicting political interests

I don't want to live in a society of high iq poo in the loos the only race this would weed out would be niggers.

The average white guy you nigger

The point of nationalism is a love of my people not a love of high iq. My cousin is a fucking idiot I still love the guy. This sort of nigger tier behavior and willingness to betray your own for the approval of strangers is why the values that built the west are falling apart.

They'd probably stay in their countries if they could get rid of the corruption aka jewish tricks, out of their politics. They have a lot of problems but the jews are not making thing any easier and turn ruining these countries into a business that is a drain on us since it sends immigrants our way and aid to those countries in the first place.

Also, calling for race-mixing is disgusting.

Any sane person should be able to recognize that prosperous societies are stable societies.

civic nationalist cucks are not welcome here

were are ethno-nationalists aka white nationalists

non-whites are subhuman scum who shouldn't be in white countries

Top Cuck

Issues:

1. You need to remember mean reversion. A 130 IQ Saharan will have, on average, sub-100 IQ children. Same for other traits. Normies never remember this when talking about traits of current immigrants.

2. Extreme intelligence/attractiveness are not the only good traits which a eugenic policy should target. There are other white traits that make white countries unique. Some of these traits may not even be clearly virtues of an "elite"… for example, love of liberty or respect for laws/rules/fairness might be something that makes communities prosper, but which don't benefit the most liberty-loving or law-abiding citizens more than the others. You don't want to ruin your country by importing people who are strong on one trait, terrible on others.

3a. If the native white American elite intermarries with the foreign elite, then you not only get fewer whites… you get a mongrel ruling class which is distinct in appearance and psychology from the people it rules over. The more effective the selection, the more different the new mongrel elite will be from the people it rules over… pic related. The only way to avoid this…

3b. …would be to ensure that the elite stays white and becomes more white over time. Technically the condition for this is that white men should have more children than the average woman, and male immigrants should have fewer children than female immigrants. Or more bluntly, you need some form of polygamy, formal or informal. Does this seem likely to you?