Multiculturalism and Holla Forums

Most of the jobs being taken in my country by "Romanians" (read gypsies who move into Romania then come to England) are taking the jobs nobody wants, a lot of the time, like Dominoes. Same for middle-eastern immigrants.

And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't affect average wages. Therefore it's fine.

I don't find my own country's women attractive anyway

Multiculturalism is a meme sold by porky to dress up the fact that they are importing cheap labor by the millions. The "liberal" ideal of people of different cultures coming together and exchanging ideas is total bullshit. Go to any major city and you'll see people always self segregate according to ethnicity and culture with little interaction between ethnicities beyond commerce.

multiculturalism stimulated by state is not good or important or desirable. i support freedom of movement though

harvard sociologist concludes that diversity hurts civic life
archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=1

b-b-but muh ethnic restaurants

multiculturalism as it exists in wester europe mostly

nxt lvl silly

but the working class doesnt like it

this is the answer i was expecting

this too

Read this
At least this:
The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

"Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging," says Page, author of "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies." "But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive."

In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the economy and of creative culture.

Page calls it the "diversity paradox." He thinks the contrasting positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities, but "there's got to be a limit." If civic engagement falls off too far, he says, it's easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity beginning to wane as well. "That's what's unsettling about his findings," Page says of Putnam's new work.

1. The working class is not a monolith. It has class interests and then each person has their own opinions

2. They're being fed misinformation by reactionaries and media. It's just a fact; there is no big economic issue with immigration. Hitler was successful because of his use of government budget, not because of gassing le jews

1.the working class isnt regarding immigration and multiculturalism in its interest so what is the justification for pushing it?
2.citation needed

And what exactly are you basing that on?

I'd like for some evidence that it's "cultural erosion" that created Isis and not decades of war and instability as Western powers carve up and exploit the region and its peoples.

it's like the authors of the bell curve said, liberal ideas are good for smart people but not for everyone else.
thanks for the summary.

lmao, so even if "diversity" completely erodes community feeling and civic cohesion, at least the porkies that own multinational corporations will get to squeeze a few more cents out from the resulting "innovation" and "productivity".

This is not a definition. Describe what you define as "multiculturalism" with a sentence that begins with "Multiculturalism is…", please.

The reason I'm asking for this is because a lot of people use that word in very different ways and with very different meanings. Can't really have a meaningful conversation if we don't agree on the definition.

1.Whether something is regarded, and whether it is, is another issue. I'm not going to agree to something just because "hey guys, this number of the working class think this."

Also, you're WRONG. The majority of the working class is A. okay with immigration.

2. Absolutely, it is needed, and here you go!

indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-rightwing-press-has-massively-overblown-the-effect-of-immigration-on-wages--Z1iuVUZong

:^)

And that doesn't even factor in that "the level of the minimum wage, the decline in trade union power, technological and industrial change" have most likely had a far bigger impact on wages.

promoting immigration from all over the world in order to achive a "tolerant and open society"

in germany the most swing voters for the anti immigration party where workers and you could argue brexit was mostly fueled by anti immigration

This

It's Brexit all over again, i.e. "creative class" Londoners scratching their heads as to why "fucking racist Poortherners hate Europe"

I said majority. Not all. Again, a class is not a monolith.

but its not a majority.If anything a majority wont really care but more will be against both

…I apologize, I thought you did that on purpose.

lol ok

Bad phrasing. I meant "cultures gradually erode in a multicultural (or simply globalist nowadays) environment. I supplied examples below.

Bad phrasing again, I apologize. The abandoning of Shariah and fundamental Islam led to the creation of the reactionary fundamentalist group Isis, simply because "If Islam never left Shariah due to western influences, there'd never be a group trying to bring it back by violent means." War was an immediate trigger.

Jesus, I thought Holla Forums would be the last place where I'd find mindless worship of muh economic growth

um, yeah, that's my point

You really are a retard, aren't you?

It was almost 100% about immigration. From Poland.

The EU say you have to give the same welfare to immigrants from inside the EU than to your citizens. Welfare in the UK is higher than wages in Poland and not every Polish have a job.

It meant 300 000 Polish entered the UK every year to live off welfare. The EU was close to any kind of negotiation on this issue. They had it coming.

every time. If you'd done social initially you'd have switched to economic

so why would you be supportive of immigration and multiculturalism if the working class(usually a majority depends on the country) is against it or at the very least more against then for?
if you arent acting in working class interest you should have a justification

What the working class wants is not necessarily both what is right and what is best for the working class or the country as a whole.

Yes.

"Working class interest" does not mean what the working class want. If it did, that would just mean communists would want whatever the media spoonfed workers.

In that particular case, "working class interest" mean the interest of the working class all over the world and "working class" alone mean the nationals who are part f the working class.

They are the ones who pay the bill of the "working class interest". Give them one reason to support that.

You're still making *the* classical pol mistake, after I've told you about 5 times, to model the working class as a monolith- it doesn't work to do that!

but immigration and multiculturalism (multiculturalism especially) isnt whats best for the working class in fact it seems to make very rich people richer

right but in this case it is what the working class wants even so immigration and multiculturalism shoudnt be accepted as the norm

Why are you on Holla Forums if you're just going to parrot research by economists (i.e. the high priests of capitalism)?

Also if "diversity" decreases social/civic cohesion, that's not a good thing for those trade unions whose decline the piece purportedly laments

What do you mean by "erosion."

Except that sort of fundamentalist Islam was already on its way out decades before ISIS, and in any event this flavor of fundamentalist Islam was produced and propagated by the Saudis, to say nothing of ISIS's manufacture and support by the American government.

money solves a lot of problems too. being poor leaves you fewer resources to figure out crosscultural communication or even patience for others' foibles. on the flip side i find that rich people are able to entertain any number of comforting delusions according to the scale of their net worth.

mixed feelings on this debate but my experience living in racially monolithic environments has been largely preferable, for the reasons delineated in the article.

"working class interest is interest of the working class everywhere"

nice work my dude, you just made a tautology.

"therefore the nationals"

see, this is classic sophistry. "worldwide means every nation, therefore you must support nationalism!".

Your definition is a tautology, and does not imply what you say.

LITERALLY RETARDED.

not that guy but why is diversity in quotes?
also are you for it or against i dont know

But it's not, as I have demonstrated. Who cares if it's "the norm"? This is again, sophistry.

"Normal = bad, immigrants = bad because they are not normal in a certain area"

You need to demonstrate why abnormal is bad in this context of being in a different part of the world. If you even mention the word "integration" or a synonym, I will laugh.

Nice straw man.

The interest of the worker who is in a first world nation is to get a strictly controlled immigration and the interest of the worker in the third world is to get unregulated immigration.

You will notice it is the opposite.

You made a claim I already refuted with my citation and explanation. It doesn't reduce wages, and does improve productivity.

Unrestricted immigration is practically an article of faith among economists, like most of the professional class (who surprise, surprise, usually face limited competition from immigration as-is).

The more commonalities people share the easier it is to form genuine people's movements like trade unions etc. You're not going to build such movements out of atomised individuals whose only connection to each other is that they work the same job

this is a very simple thing you people seem unable to accept.

There are no effects of the current immigration rate on wages of workers, or on employment. See my last citation. Why are you even bothering to argue this point?

As for social policy, have you ever heard of an ageing population? Yes, that thing when you have too few births. That's what Japan is doing. Know what happens when you have an ageing population and no immigration? Infrastructure crumbles. Just like what is happening in Japan now.

I do not care, this is rhetoric. Make an argument.

you have demonstrated that it doesnt hurt the working class as much as the media tells them to but you havent demonstrated how immigration and multuculturalism are desariable or even good

im not saying abnormal is bad at all but the fact that a good portion(once again a lot of polls are inconclusive but its usually a majority especially with working class people) dont want immigration because it changes the demogaphics of the nation

Who do you believe actually promote immigration for the sake of achieving such a society? I've never heard a political party support this.

Were it true, however, It would be a bad idea. Heck, importing foreigners for the sake of liberal spooks is even likely to hurt those very foreigner first and foremost (mainly by giving them false prospects of an easy life in the West).

I suppose you do not accept facts.

you realise that fighting an aging population can be achived with increasing the birth rate?

you haven't demonstrated any possible economic reason as to how it could harm the working class.

I bet you're the same person who said economists are high priests of capitalism. What do you think jobs are for, numbskull?

you realise that Japan has been trying to raise its birth rate for a decade or so, and failing horribly?

also, I find it deplorable that you'd not just respect peoples' wishes to not want to give birth because

See

Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that immigration is beneficial for the working class

For whom? You sound like a trickle-down free-marketeer

You place group A and group B into a town. Group A culturally fucks children. Group B culturally mutilates their ears. Both groups are disgusted by the other's practices. Gradually, both practices fall into disuse. ~Cultural Erosion-tan.
I gave the most radical example to make the example clearer, it doesn't need to be something that extreme. To give a better, real life example, alrayanbank.co.uk/current-account/ .
Wanna bet on how long 'till this fades out of practice?

Err, agree to disagree. I could answer, but then we'd probably have an argument on whether or not Isis is a group that follows the Q'ran, etc etc. Kinda pointless stuff for something coming from an example.

lmao did you make this in microsoft word

Ho but it does. Offer stay the same and demand rise: what could possibly happen? If they came with their own jobs, this would not be an issue, but they come for our jobs.

Before we turn communist, immigration will not only lower wages but also social protection as their is more people to pay and not more money to pay for it.

countries that have adopted multiculturalism have been strugling with that too
also immigrants can either 1 have the same or lower birthrate then the natives in which case you havent solved the problem at all or 2 have a higher birth rate in which case you are replacing the original population

most people dont have more kids (at least in eastern europe) because they cant afford it and in japans its more of a cultural problem

Not at all true, not even in the least bit. Most people in Japan don't have the space to live with another apartment, let alone a baby. Wages in urban areas are very stringent, and most people cannot afford to support a baby.

There's nothing "cultural" about not wanting to have babies in Japan, else they might have faced this crisis much earlier.

i dont believe this at all.trudeau does though(among others)

*with another in an apartment

socwork.net/sws/article/view/110/399
ftp.iza.org/dp6128.pdf

right sorry about that i honestly dont know about why japan has the issue but how does immigration solve the birt rate issue any better (especially with the wage and houseing issues)

Just did.
More jobs = more services and productivity.

No, this is not the be all end all. But there are no demonstrable adverse effects.

Furthermore, does it really matter if it's "desirable" when autonomy should be the important thing? More autonomous choices are better.

Lastly, you obviously have no respect for the human conditions of the third worlders in this case.

Nice paper, meet practice. See above citation. Your claim has been debunked. Just doesn't happen in practice.

You don't adopt multiculturalism, you ideologue.
You are very ignorant of life. It's profitable to have a child when it comes to the second and third world.

Give it up sophists, your ideas are shit.

Yes, it is statistically insignificant. I guarantee that if I look into these, like I have done with every one so far, it fails a statistical significance test.

Japan has ~130 million people squeezed onto a string of middling-sized islands, do they really need more?

Surely there are alternatives to helping a greying population decline that aren't either a Logan's-Run-esque "mandatory death at 70", or the ponzi scheme of importing young, fertile immigrants who will eventually become the next Boomers

Immigration doesn't solve the issue of the birthrates, it solves the issue of vacant jobs following it. With more migrant workers coming into Japan, Japan can prevent economic collapse through mass unemployment once the country's population halves.

no not really.Having more kids in eastern europe means supporting more people and most cant afford it
as for the third world the last thing they need is more kids

"squeezed"

t. person who just said economists are the high priests of capitalism

Please do me a favour. I want you to look into your heart and ask yourself truly whether you are grasping at straws right now.

And why is this a good thing in a world that's facing shit like peak oil, climate change, etc caused by excessive consumption?

Or are you a lolbertarian cornucopian that can handwave all concern about that with "Well, humanity will think of something…and if it doesn't, eh, Mad Max is a pretty cool universe"

You made a claim from thin air and act like it is the word of God. You are going to need fact to back that citation.

For a group of people who talk about the middle east a lot, you don't know much about life there.

It means supporting more people in the short term, but in third world countries children often are put to work very quickly. It's well known. Look up any documentary on African village life.

You don't just "increase the birth rate". They tried promoting childbearing in Italy recently, and it backfired terribly. There simply is a point in overall development of a country when the fertility rate starts to decrease. You're not going to undo urbanization, secularism, birth control or pension systems.

Japan's fertility rate is spiraling down and the government's attempts at fixing this all have failed so far.

Hey stop stealing my original title idea of x and Holla Forums damn it!

No seriously though. Multiculturalism isn't important but liberals are pushing it to be. It could good or bad depending on the situation and your point of view. No ultimately it is not desirable as it prevents class conciseness. As the narrative shifts from workers to immigrants.

I don't even know what to answer to that. Is ten thousand enough then?

I literally cited an article and quoted it, and explained.

You really need to do a lot better than this.

This is what pol does every time. Back tracks to moral relativism. What a beauty.

Productivity is good *in the current system* because of a little thing called artificial scarcity and dead weight.

Please, read an economics text book.

Preferably this one:

pdf.steerweb.org/The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics - J. King (Elgar, 2003) WW.pdf

I didn't read it, because I've read many of your pol graphs and each one has turned out to be poorly cited, simply made up, or irrelevant.

If you want me to get what you say, instead of just dropping a graph you made in MS paint, cite an actual study and explain it *in detal*

but isnt the automization of jobs a serious issue already?
also guest workers programs exist so you dont need immigration to solve the vacant jobs necesarely

are you reading what im writing?
im not talking about the third world im talking about eastern europe

it worked decently in france and in sweden though and its working so far in denmark

Excuse me for not reading the entire thread before I post then.

I posted links to articles too. Are we both right?

I can say the same about yours then.

I'll need some citation on this.

It's not an issue unless you're a reformist. It's an issue for workers immediate interests, but in a world where resources are properly distributed and you don't live a 9-5 job it would be optimal.

Hence, why post-keynesianism is the solution. Don't assume I'll keep the economic system. I'm a commie, you know.

"Are you reading what I'm writing"

It applies the same, everywhere. I've yet to see you guys back up anything you say, why not try it for once?

You're excused.
And no you can't, because I explained it in detail, and the results of the study are *directly* what I am arguing.

I do not listen to people who simply graph drop. At least make an effort to argue.

cw39.com/2016/06/07/do-it-for-denmark-sex-campaign-proves-successful-denmark-having-baby-boom/

france has a high (native) birth rate (altough im not sure which programs they used) and so does sweden

France increased the paid maternity leave and all the social program for the families. They now have more than 2.1 baby per women.
But mass uncontrolled immigration is still needed because of reasons.

Oh for fuck's sake, read any book on the current state of the world's environment you fucking mong. "muh productivity" is not going to save us, unless we find some ass-pull technology to almost completely replace oil.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue. Either those activities serve some sort of social or productive or religious purpose, in which case they'll keep fucking kids or whatever, or those activities are no longer acceptable or useful and they'll abandon them. It's happening on the Isle of Man right now, where there are fewer and fewer Manx speakers every year. English is the dominant language, and Manx has minimal utility outside the IoM. It's sad, but that's how things go.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that loan link because the answer is the same. Capitalism doesn't care about culture or religion and it has been destroying both for centuries. The idea of a "white race" is even a symptom of it. A century or more ago the very thought that the German and the Frenchman being the same "race" would have been held as ridiculous. Even in the US it was this way even up until WW2.

So you want a real life example, just look at New York City. Dozens if not hundreds of different cultures are represented there and in some places you can still see the vestiges of cultural contributions by the various people that built the city. In the subways for instance, some of the station murals were done as mosaics by Polish immigrants.

Even in regions where the people were relatively culturally homogeneous like the Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, the Scandinavian settlers still abandoned much of their cultural baggage they brought with them because it wasn't useful any more.

It isn't "multiculturalism" that's the actor here, but the material circumstances brought about by capitalism, and even if you got your wish and segregated everyone along cultural or ethnic lines or whatever, nothing is going to stop their "cultural erosion," really just cultural evolution, even if you were to snap your fingers and make capitalism suddenly disappear. Culture changes frequently and often. It always has and always will.

And all that is just aside from it being a spook.

you debunked my by saying people in third world ountries arent having problems with the birth rate when i was saying immigration is a bad idea to solve it in first world countries and in eastern europe

t. man who said economists are the high priests of capitalism

"Productivity is not going to save us"

again,

The resources for renewable energy to replace oil are made ARTIFICIALLY SCARCE.

Can you get this through your skull?

don't blame the pension system, having kids has always been a useless way to ensure your wellbeing into old age. from what i've read japanese are facing the same problems americans are (recession, precarious jobs situation, high cost of living) and let's be honest tokyo is overcrowded enough already.

this is literally incoherent.

And with that, I'm going to pop off. Thank you Holla Forums, it's been a long while since I've had a good old socratic dialogue

I hope this has given you lots to think about.

You mean like the rare earth elements that most green-tech R&D/production requires?

And the economists I disagree with are the mainstream ones that are cornucopians that think we really can just shift to renewable energies without any decline in First World living standards or consumption rates

>socwork.net/sws/article/view/110/399
>ftp.iza.org/dp6128.pdf

My argument is that immigrants form Africa and the middle east live disproportionally on welfare and commit disproportionally more crimes. The numbers show that not only they don't contribute to paying for an ageing population but make the thing worse as they cost a lot of money to the state.

There is not a single reason to support uncontrolled immigration except for the purity of some political ideology.

Capitalists make wind and sun scarce now? Does they have super powers?

but im not pol at all friend

Yes, but how could I make money on the housing market if the population is not growing?
How can I get too much unskilled workers to choose from is the population is smaller every year?

No, I need… Err. I mean, We, the proletariat need to stand for the poor works all over the world. Borders should not exist.

this guy is right leftists are wrong on immigration. also, you can't have mass immigration and a welfare state, it just bankrupts the public coffers.

republicans suck but they're right that managing the border is the first step to shoring up the middle class.

Oh my God, I decided just to pop on again to look at your replies, and you make me so tempted to rip your eyes out. I convinced myself I wasn't going to get into it again, so I'm just going to ask one question

Have you heard of this thing called silicon? It's used to make solar panels.

Probably joined in the discussion half way through then, my apologies. You're still wrong though, if you think immigration is a major problem.

this is how you think it be, but it don't

It's bad in a capitalist society

But good/neutral in a communist one

redpill me christ-user

Ho noes! You mean… You mean all the social protection programs will have to close because it would never have the needed funds? We would have to stop paying for it?

By the Fed, who could have seen that coming?

Immigrants statistically give more back in taxes than they take in welfare. Also, define mass immigration, because I don't think anyone is proposing open borders under capitalism

Silicon is made with sand. I am sure the world reserve will last a few hundreds millenniums.

Nice to see that you are using facts to back up your claims.

Clearly, you don't know who is George Soros.

Opinion, the post.

You know what's bankrupting the fucking coffers? The rich taking all the money and not paying any fucking taxes, you fucking idiot.

Pick up some sand and make enough solar panels to finish all le white peoples' necessary energy m'man.

this is an argument about EU immigrants you buffoon. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Kekked

And what are YOU doing against this?

You are welcome. This is where all the studies that show immigration is good for the economy come from. Now read the other column.

...

Most economists are pro-immigration in general.

Read. What's your point? That immigration from non-eu denizens takes welfare? Yes, I know.

good on you, dear.

if it supports any narrative, it's not a legitimate source. You sound like a tumblrette.

Yes, most economists are pro-immigration because they know what they're talking about. No immigration is a fucking ridiculous idea.

just to add, do you know how little 100 billion is in the scheme of the economy?

Except when it came to the 2008 Financial Crisis, right?

I'm not complaining about immigrants on the internet for one thing.

my intention was to see what people though of multiculturalism
also still hasnt made a response to>>910953

Correction: Keynesian economists know what they're talking about.

And I'm not going to, because he did the very thing I just told him not to, that is dropping 2 big papers without a reference to any actual data in them.

I'm not trawling through the whole thing to confirm his biases.

Having an immigration is a thing. Burning laws because someone could be stopped at the border is a aberration.

I don't see why we can't just be reasonable. Zizek has some good ideas about this. Have immigration through secure channels and encourage assimilation as well as encourage immigrants to go to rich countries that are closer in terms of culture.

I don't think the economists you like to cite are Keynesians

alright i can respect that but you still havent said anything about immigration being a bad at solving low birthrates - immigrants can either 1 have the same or lower birthrate then the natives in which case you havent solved the problem at all or 2 have a higher birth rate in which case you are replacing the original population

...

At the scale of the UK, it is a non negligible deal. And it is growing with no end at sight.

Yes, just burn the city and kill the survivors, this can only be good for the economy. Look: after the crisis is over the economic grow have two digit.

they know more than neo-classicals. If their suggested policies were actually followed capitalism would probably be in a much better place.

this.

I've only cited data, not theory. Big difference, bucko.

Immigrants have a lot more kids than people in the first world in general. Do I really need to prove this?

Actually let me correct you, it's 2.2 necessary to sustain infrastructure. The UK I think is at about 2. Japan is at "we're fucked" levels.

read a book. Preferably this one:
pdf.steerweb.org/The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics - J. King (Elgar, 2003) WW.pdf

nice meme, stolen

No, it's still a negligible deal. Just because you say it isn't, doesn't make it true. Trident alone is 100 trillion.

Read a book. Preferably this one:
pdf.steerweb.org/The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics - J. King (Elgar, 2003) WW.pdf

You could have at least posted a nice meme.

Why?

Life is good when the population is slowly going down and there is more than enough people on that planet.

right but that is population replacement

Infrastructural issues, mostly. Population is going to be reducing a lot after 20 years or so, my guess is.

People just don't want to give birth these days and if you ask me that's a good thing

An American program that lasted decades. You are not comparing oranges to apples, are you?

Japan is at "we are going back to a sustainable population" level.

exept a increasingly smaller working class wont be capable of sustaining a increasingly larger aging population

Then why do you want to solve that thing?

so how are infrastrucural issues going to get solved with a smaller birth rate?

Right, but isn't that the point?

No, I'm not. Divide the cost by the years. That's the cost per year.

Because, infrastructural issues. You can't just up and have half the people not giving birth, as unfortunate it is.

They aren't, they're solved with higher immigration.

Old people are going to die. We will just have 1% of the GDP dedicated to the pensions instead of 5. No biggie.

So you're okay with replacing ethnic groups? Why don't communist invade Tibet again?

right but population replacemnt isnt in the interest of the original population and why would it ever be the point?

its never that simple why do you think every country with a very low immigration is freaking out?

That's a rhetorical question and a bad comparison, and you know it. If person from ethnic group X doesn't want to give birth, that's fine. If someone needs to take their place, and there's only one person and they happen to be from ethnic group Y, it's a matter of *necessity*.

I'm not advocating replacing ethnic groups. I'm advocating common sense solutions to the problem of peoples' autonomy.

most economists are neoliberal cucks who couldn't predict the great recession.

This is not like there is no babies any more, the population don't even loose a tenth of percent every year.

If immigration from third world shitholes is harmful to societies, why would you want to support it? Sure, nukes are harmful too, but why can't we oppose both?

Nope, the majority of all non-bourgeois people have always been against any immigration, particularly non-European immigration. If you don't believe me, just look up the polls taken throughout the last century and then ask yourself why any people would be in favour of it. Literally the only groups who overwhelmingly support it are members of the establishment classes and the immigrants (and their offspring) themselves.

Any economic ideas you may have, regardless of their merits, will come to naught so long as you continue your decadent universalist posturing. You won't cease that because your economic ideas are immaterial. What matters is the personal desire underpinning them: that lesser mortals observe your moral correctitude.

We've discussed this. The infrastructure of the system stagnates if the population falls too fast.

But this is not the case.

but why is immigration prefereble to attempting to increase the birth rate?

and not to mention immigrants having a baby boom would burden housing,welfare and education

I'm kind of hopping in mid-conversation, but… I'd just like to say that the claim that "immigrants depress wages" is not very sound. I'd agree that discussing shallow cultural issues like "diversity" at the expense of economics is a bad thing for the working class, but immigration in itself isn't.

The consensus is that impact on lower wages is tiny, and on medium and higher wages non-existent. I'm not even saying you shouldn't question how immigration might be used by capitalists to increase their profits, you should, it's always a possibility; I'm just saying that it's an error to focus on the issue when it comes to wage depression.

The Wall Street Journal | Does Immigration Suppress Wages? It’s Not So Simple
blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-immigration-suppress-wages-its-not-so-simple/

Forbes | Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs
forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#232831866b10

The Guardian | EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE
theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse

Newsweek | Do Immigrants Drive Down Wages?
europe.newsweek.com/do-immigrants-drive-down-wages-310100?rm=eu

Channel 4 | FactCheck: does immigration drive down wages?
blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-boris-johnson-alex-salmond-does-eu-immigration-drive-down-wages/23102

Brookings | Ten Economic Facts about Immigration
brookings.edu/research/ten-economic-facts-about-immigration/

The Independent | Immigration to Britain has not increased unemployment or reduced wages, study finds
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/immigration-to-britain-has-not-increased-unemployment-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html

You clearly are (severely) misunderestimating what a small difference in reproduction can cause. I suggest you take a supplementary course in geography.

Not justifying your non argument claim with an answer. Read the thread properly.

Yes, it is.

Because it doesn't work. See: Japan.
Also, I find it disgusting you'd try to indoctrinate people into giving birth.

Particularly when said immigrant groups are completely unproductive.

So instead of making sure that an ethnic group doesn't disappear, let's dump bunch of unassimilable immigrants in large numbers in because that's productive?
I don't understand how this helps that ethnic group from existing.

How that data is collected, defined, and presented is defined by theory, fuckface.

Economists are as susceptible to the same biases we all face, except they're delusional enough to believe that having a Masters from Oxbridge sets them apart from us, and that they're really just utterly-dispassionate observers of how the world is ("Just the facts, marm")

other countries have had a lot more sucess see-denmark sweden uk france

This poster is wise. Listen to him.

Doesn't happen in practice. Sorry. Theory is one thing, practice is another.

More rhetoric. I see you aren't going to give up this ridiculous notion that we are trying to wipe you out up.
We're not dumping anything, I'm not advocating open borders or arbitrary selection.

It should be meritocratic, whilst under a capitalist system, no?

Good work, not only have you shown yourself incapable of taking criticism, you're also an idiot.

UK? It's been very unsuccessful. You'll find that's a result of immigration.

Some countries had a decreasing population at some point of their history and they still exist. This is not some kind of doomsday end of the world.

No it is not.

Because it work: see: France.

The models economists use rest on assumptions that are derived from theory. Economics isn't as much of a science as economists like to believe it is.

Can I ask if you're an economist yourself? Economists get really touchy if you so much as imply that they're not right about everything, and might have a bit of bias in how they reach their conclusions

woops fucked up didnt mean to put up the uk sorry about that uk doesnt even have a significant problem to begin with

statisticians are not economists. You must realise this, surely.

I'm not an economist, no. I just have spicy opinions and a healthy sense of self-worth.

I like the insinuation that my conduct has been anything other than stellar, which is has been, though.

Well, I was just specifically surprised at that one. And yes, UK doesn't really have a signficiant problem because its immigration is good.

Have you noticed a theme between it working for France, Sweden and Denmark? What do those countries all have high levels of?

So we're in agreement: for all of your anti establishment posturing, you actually support the establishment whole-heartedly on a fundamental issue that is highly contentious with most of the people whose interests you profess to have in mind.

You are no different from liberals. None of you. You're precisely as smug, as internationalist and as universalist.

denmark doesnt have that high immigration also the im talking about native birth rates in the case of france

No, I'm not talking about you or communist in general, just your policies that will pretty much destabilize the entire European continent. Borders must remain very much closed for various reasons, not just mass immigration.
also
Cmon man, don't you see how left's failure to tackle immigration has led to rise of right-wing parties across Europe? Mass, uncontrolled immigration is a mess that you can't simply solve by letting everyone go where ever they want.

das it mane

...

also denmarks campaign was a sucess

not an argument

not an argument

citation pls friendo

Not an argument

Citation pls

A lot of you have really dropped the act and gone full conspiracy nut.

Economics relies significantly on statistics, and how those statistics are derived and presented does depend on theory.

No you don't. There's nothing "spicy" at all, "immigration as unquestionably beneficent" is the reigning political/cultural/economic orthodoxy of every Western nation (see )

It's not 1920 m8. Being pro-immigration is as "spicy" an opinion as saying you believe all races should be treated as equals and that women should be able to vote

I'd say the rise of the right-wing is a result of the centre-left constantly betraying the working-class's interests and introducing auesterity; as well as the weakness of the far left.

Study: is immigration good?
Hypothesis: immigration is good.
Conclusion: immigration is good.
I will now congratulate myself a lot.

You probably don't want to use Sweden as an example here, they are doomed to fall as low as Libya. Denmark is not a good example too, they don't have many immigrants for outside the EU and they are xenophobic like the Hungarians.

Because indoctornation into degenerate behavior such as being a slut is much better for women?

what conspiracy?
cw39.com/2016/06/07/do-it-for-denmark-sex-campaign-proves-successful-denmark-having-baby-boom/

First of all, don't use "globalist" unironically. It makes you sound like an idiot.

Secondly, I've never claimed "multiculturalism" is great. I actually don't believe so.

Finally, I don't necessarily like these outlets or even read them frequently. But here they present compelling evidence that shows immigration doesn't depress wages, and that's what's relevant to the issue.

I don't expect much of you but that is some seriously retarded shit. I do agree that multiculturalism is bad for the workers because you stupid shits can't seem to stop screaming about it distracting them from caring about more important issues, exactly what these globalist illuminati patriarchy jews want.

not you, meant the ones I responded not a too.

This convo has gone in general very silly. I will look at that study later.

google.fr/#q=denmark population growth statistics

look, quints confirms. I'm a man of my word.

im a newfriend is this thread going to stay up for a couple of days or?

but this is just population, it doesn't say natives.

Ok this one's a secondary source, but at least it would mean natives. I'll definitely look at this one when I have the time.

also nice quints

ty my lad

No he doesn't. Canada's immigration laws are actually quite restrictive. The majority of people that get in are quite well educated or already have work lined up. The exception is refugees but that's a special case. Trudeau himself doesn't promote importing people from around the world for it's own sake, he promotes our current immigration policies because they have been largely effective of cucking the rest of the world out of their doctors, lawyers, and would be small business owners.

no but srs is the thread going to stay up for days or what?

first time posting here :3

It's because you're a neo-christian retard whose self image means more than objective reality.

Average one lasts 3 days, this one will prob stay up a bit longer

And Chinese billionaires. Canada is multiculturalism as seen on television. Germany is multiculturalism as is it done in Europe.

You lack self-awareness of your own stupidity. You look like a dog when you post in such sweaty desperation. It really is disgusting.

It's laughable how bourgeois these marxists are. They are in lock-step with the liberal establishment, but are too vainglorious and stupid to see it.

I don't really get what you are trying to say..

The mainstream let push for policies that hurt the national working class and they now are into austerity= no more social protection, all while ignoring what the corporations and the banking industry is doing.

Who should the worker vote for? The far right is a third choice but the two others are gone.

You're a joke, mate.

I mean he said he finds "indoctrination" disgusting but only when it suits his anti-natalist opinion. If there was an active campaing to stop women from giving birth, he would most likey support it lol.

Requesting the webm of Zizek making fun of the cultural marxism conspiracy theorists for

And the mask comes off to reveal nazi-scum… Turn down the fucking overbearing rhetoric and type like a reasonable human being if you want to make a coherent point.

My point being that the anti-immigration sentiment among the the working class is largely a false-conciousness. The centre-left establishment has failed and there is a lack of a far left alternative to bring any kind of class conciousness. It's no wonder they turn to race.

Call me when you hit 18 and can stop pretending to be adults on r9k

What even is "multiculturalism"? Everyone uses the word as if the definition is as simple as the root words it combines, yet contextual usage of the term is inconsistent and often contradictory.

It seems to me like its nebulousness is why people use it, so people can inject their own biases into it.

this poster is wise socrates man. Listen to him

Just 60 years ago, in almost all countries in the world, all the people had the same culture. Now, there is people who have different cultures.

It's intuitive, really.

Why should we force the working class to have more children when it is against their own economic interest? I bet you are also against welfare to help poor families with children…

Part of the reason the birth rate has declined so much is that there is not enough economic stability for poorer families to support a family. Would you rather we force a higher birthrate and have children be raised in a situation of constant economic desperation?

Why are declining birth rates in Europe a problem, exactly? Automation is poised to take a whole lot of jobs in the coming years.

Last time I went to the Canadian embassy, there was a hundred black mamas waiting in line for a visa. I think they would not be here if they know it was hopeless.

Come on comrade, haven't you heard the quote about idiocy? Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, and the audience can no longer tell who the idiot is.

Infrastructural problems. Which is why you need immigration.

I want my capital to generate interest and this is not going to happen without economic growth.

Please develop.

I am humouring them just for this point.
Maybe they will reflect on it and realise that their arguments are in bad faith.
I wont continue to engage if they want to continue being retarded.

PSA to not take the bait

It's not. It's just an excuse to take in more immigrants that are going to create more division and lead us to a potential civil war. Who knows what's going to happen, I expect more terrorism and crime tbh, I'm very pessimistic about this crisis.

a little bit late on that comrade

There's this thing called an ageing population, where the average age of a population increases. It basically means there are more old people than young people. It's a result of low birth rate.

Basically, less people supporting more and more people, and then when the population decreases sufficiently, there's a lot of infrastructure left unused which stagnates, and supply lines fuck up etc.

Immigration solves this by bringing younger people in who will give birth and raise larger families.

this is a funny meme.

Declining birthrates lead to an aging population. How are we meant to support those who are too old to work, as well as the rest of the population, when we have a weaker workforce.
You can see the problem arleady with increasing retirement ages, cut pensions and older workers being worse-off in general.

Calm down little cuck.
Ah yes, one of the wanky marxist soundbytes one will hear in every major university in the west, particularly as concerning feminism - but cultural marxism totally isn't an obvious and observable thing, right, little cuck? And you guys are totally anti-establishment, right, my maaaannnn?

wew lads

NAZI SCUM OF OUR STREETS!

Lefty/pol/ themed porn?

Yup, instead of having 3 working person per retired, we have 2. Nothing we can't deal with.

After the black plague, when Europe lost a third of its population life was just fine as no on had to work the less fertile lands and if their tools/houses were too old, they didn't had to build another, they just took the unused one.

If you want to pay for old people with immigrants, then you should take care to accept immigrants who are here to work, not the ones who are here for the social protection programs.

The obvious joke here is that all procreation is wrong

lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=lewd

How so?

...

Not under communism maybe, but we don't live under communism. "2 working person per retired" sounds great in theory, but you might want to look at where the majority of jobs go.

REALLY? I was just going to suggest we fling open up the fucking gates, let everyone in and beg Nyarlathotep to kill whitey.

friendly reminder that kim did nothing wrong

...

nigga what are you saying

Productivity raise faster the the population fall, so there is no need to panic here. By just giving the same % of the wealth generated by the working man, we can sustain a growing retired population.

That come with increasing life spawn.

Someone got to pay for immigration.

Multiculturalism is pure ideology. Consider this: 150 years ago, italians, slavs, poles etc immigrating to the US were not considered "white". Now you'd look like a fool if you denied their "whiteness". Race is a concept that changes based on society's views. Its something we create based on arbitrary characteristics.

fuck, is this the nigger Holla Forums hero-worships? does he normally post shit this stupid, or is he trolling?

Nice deflection, comrade. At this rate, crusty communists like us will never have to face up to the obvious contradictions in our supposedly anti-establishment narrative.

In the 50's there was less than 2% immigrants from outside Europe in most European countries. The Americas are the exception, not the rule.

They were still easier to integrate than Somalians tbh.

multiculturalism is not an ideology, it's something nationalists made up, and liberals bit.

Trolling.

Might want to check your history there, bucko.

it's actually funny, I think the only reason he's anti-natalist is because he won't have children himself
he's dying of cancer or something, good riddance tbh

And no one on earth was surprised….

You post this image quite a lot.
How ome "no pain" is +1, yet "no pleasure" is +0. I would think both would be 0.

Do you have brain damage? This shitty paint graph support procreation.

In the '50s Frenchmen hated on the Portuguese and the Armenians.

One century before that, Frenchmen hardly even spoke the same language.

Didnt mean to sage that. No h8.

Are you autistic, or just stupid?

because the utilitarian who made it is an idiot

Pic related

But I'm not a communist, and I sure ain't crusty.

Not on Holla Forums. And if you want some objective characteristics, have some racist science.

Tool.

very edgy

you're new here, aren't you

Lost of Portuguese came back then and a lot of French people could not find work in construction fields or in the factories because there was too much people to hire.

Back then, the syndicates and the left fought this initiative of the patronat to break the working class and the syndical culture. Things changes.

Never heard about French hating the Armenians. Where does that come from?

Also, I'm not a Christian.

I know you're not a christian you DUNCE, I am.

Just because they are objective doesn't mean they arent arbitrary.

Don't the Bible tell you to multiply?

he already said he was being ironic dumbass

I disagree with the meme, the thousands of years needed to create unique culture and races is an act of natural selection that is like a refiners fire, slowly purifying and specializing the people.

Higher specialization and unique separate complex parts are the defining factors of an evolved system.

Do you know the meanings of the words you use?

Yes. So now you know I really was "totez trollinnnn" as you put it. And I think you can argue it's less of a command and more of a rhetorical statement that it's fine to. You wouldn't argue anyone who can reproduce should, would you?

Some popes (all of them) would argue that.

Multiculturalism in the sense of ethnic diversity is irrelevant, but going out of your way to prevent it and enforce ethnically homogeneous societies is retarded idpol bullshit.

Cultural diversity is fine, but unethical cultural beliefs should be curtailed. Of course, in my opinion "unethical cultural beliefs" would include not just parts of Islam but also large sections of western culture. As a general rule, most human cultures are horrible.

And even then there are so many exceptions that there is practically no rule. The Catalans, the Basque, tons of Jewish minorities, and so on, and even within ethnic national groups, cultural differences frequently vary by geography. Modern Germany is basically two old nations combined into a single sovereign state, and Spain still has quite an iffy relationship with its own native minority groups.

The concept of natural monoculturalism is nothing but a fairytale, and a disrespectful one at that, even to whites. Culture changes and shifts over time. This is just history at work.

Let me just add "irony" to things polacks will never understand.

no they don't. theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/catholics-dont-have-to-breed-like-rabbits-says-pope-francis

The question is, do you?
We can pick out objective qualities to define races but that doesn't make them any less arbitrary.
Why do we pick those specific qualities to define race? Why not define a category using other equally arbitrary yet objective qualities?

Good work, comrade. Totally got him.
Just an aside: do you - like me - view all non-human species as being subdivided into observable sub-species, which maintain their own groupings (and thus, their unique environmentally adaptive characteristics) even when placed in close proximity to others; but deny the existence thereof among humans, contrary to all evidence?

Basically this, but conservatives like to pretend that the bad parts of Western culture aren't part of it at all, they're part of the Jewish infiltration or the evil scary Enlightenment, which isn't a Western cultural period for some reason, just because we say so.

I'm not saying the anti-Portuguese sentiment was random. I'm just bringing that up to counter the claim that, 50 years ago, everything was fine in Europe and all white people loved each other.

by "him" you mean "me" don't you user? If not, you mean it ideologically, since you're all the same.

Catalans being in Catalogne and Basques being in in the Basque country. Immigration of the masses is very recent.

But I am going to accept your point: not everyone in France was the same. They just happen to have a very close culture and genetic heritage when you compare it to India, Africa, China or Mongols.

If I drop a book will you not talk to me until you read it? Why should I read a graph if you're not going to explain what point it proves? Because his graphs prove little.

Germany pulled out of their great depression because the abolition of the usury of the central banking system and its debt based currency. Without the heavy taxation "interest" incurred when using a jewish controlled currency, an extreme amount of funds is redirected to the working man who created it..

There is only a one-ness, comrade. Other than those damned pigs! And the racists!

Here's the thing: even among non-human species, this is often hotly debated. Many scientists have been accused of superfluously declaring a new species or subspecies just so they can say they did in an encyclopedia.

It is not so much that humans are not different enough as much as these differences aren't clear and distinct. It just isn't possible to divide human groups into neat categories, which is also the case in non-human species. You are basing your argument off of a complete misconception about biology.

Yes, that's post-keynesian economics for you.

Don't know why you're all right wingers when post-keynesianism is what Hitler used to bring Germany to the forefront of economics

His graph demonstrates the (frankly obvious) differences between the races.

That one pope betray everything the others said and did.

Because if we can find objective qualities to discriminates the races, then we are not "all the same" and the races exists.

At this point the argument is going to devolve into contesting what "country" means. Every country is homogeneous if you define country differently from the term used in common parlance; it is irrelevant to politics.

I wouldn't go that far. People are a lot more complex than "racist", "sjw", "cultural marxist"

Is what I'd say. But then I remembered that you advocate treating Jews the same based on genetics.

what? skull size?

go home and read Augustine, child.

The red squirrels that were out-competed for food by the North American grey squirrels would like a word with you, comrade…

No one say that, do you even know what is a war? What we had 60 years ago is people living on the land of their ancestors.

Since modern states in Europe are forged by the idea of a nation and we spent two centuries making war to get the borders matching the ethnic limits, yes.

Are you seriously asking me to describe to you the physical differences between the people depicted on that graph? Are you honestly attempting to say that you can't see a clear fucking difference between members of different races?
Have you reached the zenith of liberal pretentiousness?

And skull form. That make two. Size, muscular composition, hormonal balance… Maybe every aspect of an human being differ from one race to another.

Just look at the olympic: the sprinters are one kind of Africans, the marathonians another, the swimmers are white…

It's nothing but cherry picking.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards

You're not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're clawing through it.

The question is, what races exist? The ones that you have cherry picked statistics to create? What is and is not "white". Historically, the definition of "white" has been changed to suit the status quo. If a group that would otherwise be considered "white" becomes a threat somehow, then the definition of "white" changes to make that group into an other.
An example of this historically is the irish. Most would consider irish people "white", but when they were a threat the the british status quo, they were discriminated against.

What do you mean? There is not a single visible difference between a black and a white.

Bullshit, every nation in Europe has ethnic minorities, especially at the edges. States are about politics and will take what power they can get.

Lorains and Alsaciens are relatively close to the other French if you compare them to Turks.

As usual, stormcucks can't argue without ridiculous straw men, spouting bizarre absolutes at anyone trying to form a comprehensive rebuttal.

So what? They are different, so they are different races.

...

Did my actual citations and evidence break your brain? Can you not mentally function outside of a hug box?

British saw them as not British but the rest of the world would not give a fuck? Yes, and what is your point?

There is no lines you can drawn on a rainbow to tell where a color stop and another start, yet I don't see you arguing that colors don't exist.

Seems to be some confusion to what multiculturalism is.
Multiculturalism is more than one culture sharing the same geographical territory/legal jurisdiction.
Multiculturalism is not the same as racial diversity. A person from one race can adapt and integrate into a new culture unless that culture has some inherently xenophobic traits keeping the person from doing this, or the person refuses or is unable to adapt to the new culture.
I'm no fan of multi-culture, but have no problems with people mixing up, or immigrants who successfully assimilate in to the host culture.

That particular mix of Celtic and German heritage is what make the French, and Alsaciens do share it.

I know man, I feel your pain. It's like these stormcucks have never read their Tim Wise or Noel Igantiev.

Now imagine there are literally tens of thousand of colors.

Would you rather judge the significance of each individual color or entertain the impossible task of trying to divide them neatly into four or five groups?

I don't get what you are getting at. Either differences matter or they don't. Yellow and blue make green, they do not remain yellow and blue.

Once again: can't argue without straw men. Literally no different from people who think vaccines cause autism.

wrong question, comrade!
the right question is: multiculturalism is here. how do we turn it against the capital?

The poet say there is an infinity of infinity of colors. The physician say there is R3 colors.

I would see the general colors like red or blue and agglomerate the similar colors with them at the cost of an aggregation. What is the problem?

that's not how evolution works

Wait….so you haven't read your Tim or Noel either…it's just you seem pretty clued up about this shit, and how the Irish used to be black because they weren't considered white.

Good luck telling the Africans about your white men ideology.

I never said "race doesn't exist", I said that what we define as "race" is completely arbitrary and changes in order to portray particular groups as threats.

Also the comparason to colours is not apt in my opinion. Our definitions of colours simply act as a convenience in langauge to allow us to talk about those specific colours. Society is not built around the classification of colours. You dont go on about the "purple invaders ruining our perfect blue culture".

But it is. It become hard to move from one part of the habited world to another and some genetical deviations happen. It become easy again to access any point of the habited world and it merge into one race again.

Cuba
Angola
Algeria
Naxalites
Syrian Kurds

Fuck your spooks.

I buy apples based on the length of the stem when I find them on the store shelf.

It's an objective quality. It's also completely arbitrary.

The problem is that the visual differences between colors are a horrible analogy for genetics to begin with. That's on him, too.

Well, if you were serious, they are also kind of stupid. Tim Wise once made a decent case against "black crime" hysteria but otherwise I would dismiss anything either of them have said.

Still, not nearly as stupid as when JP Rushton tried to apply r/K selection to human groups. It's amazing what you can get away with if you have tenure.

Cuba have a Spanish culture, you got the Kurds and their pro western views and the rest is socialist only by name.

that still would not result in all of humanity melding into some common shade of brown

They'll support it because they're retarded. And when I say 'support' I mean, they'll revel in the destruction it causes and the prospects of sating their immediate desires through rape and looting. They obviously won't be among the Kommisars. Not equal enough, see.

Che Guevara quote about niggers and the revolution relevant.

It's hard to deal with racial ideology in the West because visual differences reinforce biases. When it's purely tribal, a healthy dose of Marxist thought clears that shit right up. Worked for Sankara, anyway.

Are you arguing that we should stop using words that could hurt people? Now that is Orwelian.

Different colors exist and so does different people.

thanks.

top kek

What part of the world will not turn brown then? Nigger and their completely black genetic because they will only have emigration and close to no immigration?

Of course different people exist, the problem we have with the stormfag argument is that these differences aren't as profound and relevant as they think they are. It abuses language to back up an indefensible position.
Evolutionary differences really do exist between human groups–skin color and lactose tolerance are common examples. But the idea that African people are so different from us that they cannot be considered thinking, reasoning humans is plain and simply false:

unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-i/

kek

I swear to god i hate ethnic cultures and nationalism so fucking much i just want to burn it down

How did you go from what I said to this? Are you trying to fit my arguments into a box that you can categorically reject?

For the record, I am quite anti-word-policing. If you want a constructive discussion please refrain from arguing in bad faith like this.

...

That is the extremity of the race realism.
What is an unarguable fact is cranial volume, number of neurons and the IQ gap.

It would be stupid to say that the IQ gap come 100% form the nature, but it would be as stupid to say it come 100% from culture.

Speaking of culture, you don't want the Somalian one in your country, so if Somalians are going to live there, they must abandon their culture and get a better one.

Hey, you are the one who say words don't have clear limits so when it hurt people we should not use them.

Quote me on it faggot. I dare you. I said nothing like that.

really makes you think…

The working class hates multiculturalism, aren't you all traitors -to them at least- for doing as if it was a non-issue?

Why is the left so disconnected from its historical base, aka the proletariat?

...

Proletariat mean the third world worker now. First world workers are the new bourgeoisie.
The capitalists? Please ignore them, fight the bourgeoisie for the proletariat.

I-Is this satire?

If only

Holy shit, Reddit Obesity getting back the fuck out of by his own Holla Forums brothers.

Says the ibslamic gommie!

This is so rational, it might works.

Read the link and the followup parts at the end of each page. If Africans really are genetically predisposed to low IQ, current statistical evidence simply does not support this. Most biological evidence is also limited almost entirely to people living in the US, which is not the control group it is held to be.

This is not to say genes do not make a difference, but this is almost certainly a factor between individuals, not races.

Also, "culture" is a straw man of non-genetic theories meant to appeal to unwitting liberals. Factors like nutrition, disease and even pollution have been shown to have extremely detrimental effects on IQ.

The Somalians in my state are nicer people than a lot of the poor natives. They're rapist lumpens in Europe because Europe intentionally selects for them.

Fantastic, we can learn a lot from each other, it brings humanity closer and it is a must to achieve.

Not socialism if we don't achieve it.

Good obviously.

Highly desirable.

10/10 Reading comprehension m8.

ARRRG! I forgot me Jolly roger!

patrice lumumba
steven biko
cornel west
etc. etc. etc.

Holla Forumsacks usually present two lines of argument here
all of that tells me, that all Holla Forums baiters here feel inferior on a socialist board because deep inside they agree with everything, and are trying to shield it.
kek

African people are objectively less adept at thinking and reasoning. No need for the histrionics:

Marxism is more or less an entirely jewish ideology. And no: it can't be 'realised' (if one assumes a worker's utopia is its goal and purpose).

its shit and i hate it, just like religion it's done more harm than good.
stupid people will always fight for shit that don't exist.
for what ?
multiculturalism is the result of capitalism, it has no real purpose.
see first answer.
culture is a spook and idiots will fight you for it.
its a byproduct of capitalism, its not desirable and porkies are having problems with it.

...

Different name for Imperialism.

It could work, depends on the situation. Roman Empire and US would be the great example of this

Marx was raised as christian and later became an atheist. His father became christian before he was born. Marx wasn't jewish.

Another Holla Forumsack who has no idea what Marxism is.

Cut your ears and show them to your mother.

It is completely illogical to assume as much and you would have no issue acknowledging this were we talking about the subspecies of different animals, like wolves or dogs. Wholly different environments breed markedly different creatures. The harsher environments of the Northern hemisphere have necessitated a greater aptitude for mental resourcefulness and fore-planning from its human inhabitants.

another fucking minority complex. carry on.

Comparing human races to dog breeds is almost a perfect indicator of a poor understanding of biology. Not only are dog breeds so artificially selected as to be inbred, they are still all the same subspecies of animal, canis lupus familiaris.

Adaptive explanations for intelligence are absolute nonsense, both in practical terms (good luck actually proving this) and by its own metrics. Most of Africa is a very harsh environment to live in, while most of Europe has pretty mild climate. There is also the fact that IQ rapidly increases as the living conditions improve in a nation, despite the vastly reduced evolutionary pressure placed on individuals living in that nation.

And even if you could theoretically make a case for it, the links I provided still render it moot! It is not possible for such IQ scores in immigrants to exist if the people taking the test are genetically predisposed to low IQ.

Kill yourself you petit bourgeois cunt. You're literally brain-draining the Third World and bragging about it under some vague utilitarianism.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

i was expecting to see this video a lot more early in the thread?
is it true?

No.

not an argument

what are you even talking about?

irony

tripfaggots are the bane of every board

Gommunism works best when the society is homogenous. Prove me wrong.

protip: you cant

don't you dare take my Cuban subs away

Ultimately communism will lead into homogeneous society, as all bourgeois culture gets destroyed and world is centralized into single global workers socialist republic before de-centralization can take place.

...

So who the fuck are the third worlders exploiting to prop up their homogeneous societies? Ayyliens from the 10th world? I'm sorry to break it to you but first world countries can exist without cheap asian labor.

not an argument :^)

They aren't. They don't have any. Political instability abounds.

But they do exist.. "exploiting" the third world isn't a necessary requirement for a society to not be a shithole. Thirdworld countries are shit because they are filled with third worlders

America is filled with Americans but is a first world country. Point invalidated.

Multiculturalism as it exist in the west basically means bourgeois cultural hegemony with market assimiliation of all folk culture into the blob known as "pop culture". That is not to say the SJW idiots are correct about culture appropriation, as the problem is not the various cultures of the proletariat around the world mixing but these cultures being turned into a commodity that looks nothing like any folk culture.

Take Soviet Culture, at the end the people wanted western culture but before the fall were getting the cream that floated to the top of western culture since they were only exposed to western culture that leaked into the eastern bloc and they were still surrounded by Eastern European culture yet once the wall fell all the shit in western culture drowned Soviet culture along with the defunding of local arts. So the lesson is that there is nothing wrong with folk cultures inspiring each other but capitalism does not work that way, to capitalists culture is just another commodity and if they can inject their own culture into it they will.

...

I don't think he's advocating ethnopluralism

As a communist nothing gets me harder than the thought of millions of brown and black men coming into my country and indulging in what i have to offer
I frequently have black and muslim men fuck my gf and give half my wages to support migrants family's, karl marx couldn't be prouder

Destroy all cultures.

With increased globalization it is an inevitability that we will get a monoculture. However, "multi culturalism" is shit because it implies we purposefully keep multiple cultures separated in the same society, which leads to trouble, instead of integrating everything together.

Anyway, I won't make a constructive effort to force cultural migration, I would however enforce intergration of the cultures that exist within the same geographic area.

Multiculturalism in itself is a contradiction. How can one retain the individual cultures if everyone is the same homogenized mass. Those idiots in power are deliberately lying about multiculturalism to create a weakened society in the end, there will be no identity left and thus the masses will be too easy to control under the rule of those very same people you all oppose.

People honestly think it will overthrow the Bourgeoisie? No it just feeds into their plans for control and subjugation.

are you in xix century?

Are you denying there is a property owning class in current year?

everyone is a capitalist-property owner because of self-ownership

it's ok sometimes, not in others
not very important
mixed
mixed

...