Please explain

As long as it leads to a smaller white demographic and the destruction of the white ethnostate, Holla Forums supports it.

The destruction of the white race and white countries takes precedence over actual proletarian revolution.

Can the mods please ban this retard false flagger already?

Literally no one says this. Some liberals might think something like this because we're supposedly helping people escape poverty because muh social mobility meme, but you won't find any liberals on this board.

It should also be noted that no one here thinks the United States is particularly exploitative to its own people. What is exploitative is capitalism, which is a global phenomenon. And the third world nations that the migrants are fleeing from are much more brutally capitalist than the West.

In the US's case, immigrants from Latin American countries have become necessary to sustain the economy and are leaving some of the most violent, politically unstable places on Earth. So for Average Joe there is basically no difference whether they come here or not, because native citizens are very rarely, if ever willing to work the jobs they take.

Plus, Mexico is the most exploitative country in North America.

America has no health care and eats wood pulp instead of food and like half of the population is either unemployed or working a job making less than a liveable wage…

but ok, U-S-A! U-S-A!

They would be for the right price.

This is in comparison to third world countries.

I don't think that's true to be honest. Relatively speaking, even the poorest Americans often have living quarters that upper middle class people in Tokyo or Hong Kong would greatly envy. In comparison with America's rich, it certainly doesn't compare favorably, but on its own living space provided to the poor is not terribly small or lacking in amenities in a vast majority of cases.

Debatable, quality is quite good and it is accessible by everyone. What you may be opposed to is the oppressive regimes of insurance or hospital billing, which is a separate systemic and economic issue, but the care and access provided is certainly more than adequate, which is what you listed as a problem.

Debatable, certainly it's adequate to "live," nobody is dying on the street outside of some drug addicts that just couldn't help but to keep fucking up. Even the poorest often enjoy television, video games, ample food and water, heating and air conditioning. There are many who choose not to work and go on permanent "disability" due to the fact that this is already a decent life paired with the spare time of not working.

This is true. The quality of working class food is abhorrent.

It certainly provides an adequate quantity of education, though the quality of said institutions is woefully inadequate.

I don't know what this means unless you want to argue that culture, itself, is inherently a repressive body built on exploitation. Unless you are referring to capitalism, which is a separate concept from "America," though is incorporated by America.

Is throwing gasoline on a housefire better or worse than not putting it out?

...

You're making excuses for porkie. Capitalists want to maximize capital - an easy way to do that is by paying less.

And hell, a lot of these jobs would be done almost entirely by machines by now if labour wasn't so cheap - there are robots that can pick strawberries, and even have a camera so it knows whether or not it's ripe yet… And I'll bet you're starting to see mcdonalds ordering machines.

I don't think that increasing immigration solves any underlying issues. I don't think it's a means to any end or a worthy objective in itself.
I do think that a post-class world, if realized, would remove a large part of the material incentives for and against immigration for almost all parties.
I also believe that voluntary collective cultural self-determination is a right and that beltway politicians fervently denying this right is a result of class rule and bourgeois policy objectives, as argued here by one of the better alt-righters m.youtube.com/watch?v=BZJDTod_fXs

...

Top kek. It's as exploitative as any other capitalist entity.

You sound like Newt Gingrich.

Doesn't that make his point, in that there isn't anything in particular the US does that is more exploitive than the rest of the capitalist world?

I see it as: You either DON'T care about the immigration crisis itself as an isolated phenomenon because it's alien to you, or because you see it as subordinated to the pulses of global capital; or you care (or pretend to care) about immigration as a matter or maybe deep personal ethic and moral indignation, or a pretense of altruistic admonition which you feel obliged to solidarize towards in an act of virtue signaling.

It's so phony, and I am not interested in being sold a moral position, or a new set of virtues, my silent consent and my nodding of your ideas and your words against these evils, is irrelevant because the evils remain, and I also remain deatached from the situation -I have my own problems, solidarity be damned.- so what is the fucking point of jerking about how different and how on-the-right-side-of-history we are? a total pointless masturbatory exercise.

SI feel a lot of insincerity comming from people who argue about the refugees and the crisis and immigration and such, in a way that they reflect a humanitarian paradigm while doing it. First of all I do not appreciate the patronizing attitude towards third-worlders (as if we can do no wrong, or are somehow, less responsible for ourselves), and I don't appreciate the guiltripping towards the first and second world nations. Maybe it's because I'm from a third world shithole myself, who knows? but the point is that I terribly dislike this humanitarian discourse "oh we gotta help the poor people, we got to make attonements for our sins of the past towards them… had global capital not destroyed their country they wouldn't be in this terrible situation, we gotta do our part" that's not something I appreciate, firstly because I dislike emotional manipulation and blackmailing, and secondly: B ecause it doesn't adress the main problem and I think both left and right have failed to adress this Issue properly: We do not demand our so-called leaders "Look you gotta pull the fuck out now, you gotta end interventionism politics and we refuse to give our consent to destruction and proxy warfare on our behalf! we take immediate action to the streets demanding new, uncompromising measure". The right doesn't want to assume the consequences of interventionism -and honestly, why should any private citizen assume them?- And The left acknowledges that their nations are part of what's causing the suffering they are denouncing, but at the same time they refuse to take a true active stance in defusing the situation, and instead what we have is the problem of the crisis turned into a plataform for social-democratic reforms and policies in their own countries.

That is, they use the situation: "oh look at what inhumane capitalism is causing, the suffering and the injustice! it's time we gave capitalism a socialist make-over…" and it's all just a waste of everyone's time. Because the problem is not solved, the underlying causes are not tackled. Instead what we get is this positive feel-good bullshit, that the left is somehow attoning for the sins of Global Capital, by being tolerant and anti-racist and pro-immigration and denouncing the evils of interventionism… but without doing anything substantial? It seems to me now that the leaders of the global left depend on these problems to justify their existance and remain relevant, even at the cost of millions of lives they are supposedly interested in saving…

So I don't see any sort of consistency within the discourse of the Refugee crisis, at least not comming from the relevant left, but not just that, I also see a fairly disgusting interest in the continuation of this crisis, because it enables the left (specially the liberal left) to empower themselves through political plataforming "look what we are doing, we are so good, we are on the right side, please join us!". It allows antifa degenerates to go out and roleplay, pretend like they matter, it also allows these limp-wristed academia types to gain airtime on the TV and preach their humanist platitudes everyone knows, and people get to feel good about posting on facebook their little "refugees welcome" image.

Let's say there are two nations that are entirely identical except for this difference:

Which country would win in a war?

Not Germany, that's for sure :^)

says you? Not me. Don't know where you're drawing this from.

This must be a Holla Forums thing.

They keep losing world wars. You would think that they would learn.

You're the reason this board is shit.

Germany is going to lose the third world war soon as well.

You know, the one where Fuhrer Merkel tries to force a Holocaust of white people via mass Muslim immigration and Presidents Trump and Putin team up with PM Farage to wipe Germany off the map for good.

It doesn't "provide adequate housing" for anyone

So clearly the solution is "more people".

Clearly.

Clearly the solution is common ownershop of all land.

To be divided among existing people? Or for every single douchenozzle that meanders across our border?

They were fucked before he was born they will be fucked when he is dead. He is right, you are ignoring the subject at hand.

World revolution

k,

you could post here – a meaningless thread – or also join our music sharing boogalooza:

dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades

The only solution to the actual problem is to dismantle global capitalism. Anything else really is ignoring the problem.

I think you mean world enslavement. Good luck on liberating the Africans, Chinese, and Indians in any meaningful way.

I read somewhere that illegal immigration has allowed America to have the least mechanised agricultural industry in the developed world

See
The idea of "socialism in one country" is inherently self-defeating

There's plenty of room you dumb faggot. South Dakota is two-thirds the size of France and it has less than a million people in it.

Bullshit. You'd be calling for open borders as long as one of them wanted to come here, regardless of reason.

America? You mean that imperialist powerhouse, where almost nobody works and they consume and waste most of the world resources?
No! Fuck You. You don't deserve more, You deserve less.

Go back to either /r/maoism or Holla Forums.

I'm not a maoist, and i hate Holla Forums.
That's just true. I live in much poorer country, and even I'm aware that my countryman consume more that it is needed.
I'm for equality not for giving americans more stuff that they don't deserve and are already wasting.

Simple answer: migrants are fleeing even worse conditions. So allowing them in at least improves conditions for that one person and gives us another potential recruit.

Although, as others have said. The only real solution is overthrowing capitalism in a World Revolution.

Why do you see things in such a corporate-militaristic sense? Recruit… for what? Like a new hire? Not all new hires are good. Not all recruits are good. Maybe there should be some vetting done? Like an assessment test or boot camp or pass a physical or a background check?

Moreover, your coding the language in the sense of "recruit" is very shocking. I think the bigger implication, and really the bigger culprit is that the banks are looking to saddle more people with debts and mortgages and manipulate the money for further profit through these "people improving their condition". Give them an ID number and a credit card, and own them as slaves forever. Plus, when you introduce this cheap labor, you suppress wages for the existent natives, and Porky just keeps on winning.

This is the fundamental problem. You believe in a utopian struggle of people crossing national lines and uniting. And yet you already indicated that people are self-interested for improving their own conditions "for that one person".

Advocacy of global changes is now a globalist-capitalist slogan. Revolutions – real revolutions – will be localized and a matter of self-interest. And that means they will largely be racist revolutions.

I think the Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans are perfectly happy right now. You might have a point with Northern Mariana Islands.

Their chief domestic product is debt.

According to some leftys, that's the best thing ever. To other leftys it's the worst thing ever.

There's that word again. Thanks for being the moral voice on sharing the pie equally. But victors get the spoils, no matter what "deserve" says.

Do eurofags actually believe this? America is a fucking ant colony. They work like machines.

You're joking right?

You know damn well what. Revolution.

You're either totally clueless or only pretending to be left. No informed leftist could possibly think this way. There are no prerequisites for being part of a revolution, It's not a job. If you actually have any interest in the left at all you need to do some research.

No, it isn't. Keep grasping at those straws.

AKA Capitalism. We addressed this. Denying migrants entry does not help fight Capitalism. And their labor can still be exploited through outsourcing anyway.

Yes, because that's the only way you can win.

Capitalism is already global, as you admitted. You can't be a global power with local revolutions. It's like fighting a hydra. Every leftist revolution there has ever been failed because of this. Global capitalism easily crushes localized movements (or converts them). I can show you some literature that demonstrates this.

translation: scary niggers will kill you