Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

Population replacement, including if it's done by immigration, is textually genocide. Like literally part of the UN's definition.

There is an ongoing genocide everyone who isn't a CCP shill acknowledges going on in Tibet right now that's being done via migration of cultural Han Chinese into Tibet to replace native Tibetans, destroying their culture.

NIMBYs usually have policies like this. 'Just import more workers!' In the short term it's to their benefit, but it'll fuck basically everyone in the long term. It'll take longer to affect NIMBYs because they try very hard to exclude the very people they're importing, but it'll get there eventually.

Soli's probably hoping he'll be dead before the consequences catch up with him.
 
Au contraire, they are invaluable for multiple industries in border regions plus Silicon Valley. Without their labor, the US GDP would be a lot smaller and inflation a lot higher. The richest American right now is a first generation immigrant from South Africa.

If you want to get rid of welfare? Be my guest. But don't expect me to sympathize with 19th century socioeconomic theories.

Ah yes, muh GDP must go up! Never mind that 99% of the jobs that these people are being imported for are base-level jobs. 'But people are overqualified for those!' you'll say. Which is a darn funny way of saying 'We can't exploit you'.

Never mind that 'American don't want those kinds of jobs' carries the same flavor as "nobody cares about hobby X," or "nobody wants to see that."

It's used to try to make it seem like a perspective is universal, so that anyone who disagrees can just be laughed at, instead of actually engaging with their views. In reality, most Americans would be totally willing to do "those kinds of jobs" if it wasn't for "those kinds of paychecks" that accompany them.

My real concern is what happens if this isn't reversed. Not just in terms of replacement ethnic genocide. Its what the backlash will be. I'm betting on something that will make the Balkans look like a tea party.
 
Au contraire, they are invaluable for multiple industries in border regions plus Silicon Valley. Without their labor, the US GDP would be a lot smaller and inflation a lot higher. The richest American right now is a first generation immigrant from South Africa.

If you want to get rid of welfare? Be my guest. But don't expect me to sympathize with 19th century socioeconomic theories.
You're missing or intentionally ignoring the point.

While the illegal slave labor MAY help a local economy, it's a net drain on the nation and states.

I don't care what you sympathize with. Just don't expect me to give you any credit for embracing a shit economic policy.
 
Don't be melodramatic. All it will manage is prevent a Japan style decline as the labor force ages.
Suppose I do, what's wrong with having a strong economy? I don't give a crap about your race purity fetish.

What I want is a strong economy, a safe country, and a stable society.

At this point, racism is preferable to what our 'rulers' would allow to happen to not appear 'racist'. Look at Rotheram for an example. Because its what most US cities are becoming. Same will happen in Japan if the government will permit it.

Also, it's not going to help Japan. Because it would no longer be Japan if you flood it with immigrants from anywhere else. And Japan SHOULD BE for the native Japanese. Same for Europe, same for the United States, same for China and Africa.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, muh GDP must go up! Never mind that 99% of the jobs that these people are being imported for are base-level jobs. 'But people are overqualified for those!' you'll say. Which is a darn funny way of saying 'We can't exploit you'.
Someone clearly does not understand demand and supply. More workers in a segment will automatically reduce wages, which will increase profits, which will increase investments, which makes GDP go up.

And GDP going up is good for all of us. The better native workers can go get better blue collar jobs.
 
Suppose I do, what's wrong with having a strong economy? I don't give a crap about your race purity fetish.

What I want is a strong economy, a safe country, and a stable society.
you may have the first for a short while. it will be brittle and it won't last. because you won't have the second or the 3rd of those things from your policies.
 
Someone clearly does not understand demand and supply. More workers in a segment will automatically reduce wages, which will increase profits, which will increase investments, which makes GDP go up.

And GDP going up is good for all of us. The better native workers can go get better blue collar jobs.


You have got to be trolling, No one is this stupid.
 
Someone clearly does not understand demand and supply. More workers in a segment will automatically reduce wages, which will increase profits, which will increase investments, which makes GDP go up.

And GDP going up is good for all of us. The better native workers can go get better blue collar jobs.

And how come China isn't importing infinite Indians and Third-worlders then?
 
While the illegal slave labor MAY help a local economy, it's a net drain on the nation and states.
IIRC, the issue with slavery in macroeconomics isn't that it's a net negative, but that it squanders the economic potential of the enslaved population as they aren't allowed to optimize their job nor seek a more productive one. It's better to have the associated bounding factors spent on free persons with as valuable a job as they can find, but in principle forced labor isn't hard to be net-positive. Hence why most societies throughout history used it, it's very good low-hanging fruit when your economy is based primarily on raw man-hours.
 
Will you guys stop calling it slave labor?

Why should we deny the truth?

WtSlwP7.jpeg


CFDN9lU.jpeg


qlnnqRY.jpeg


PsNWcOo.jpeg


hsJKF0G.jpeg


BHkjgTb.jpeg


RWJlDYK.jpeg


3SceWMf.jpeg
 
Advocating for mass migration are also ignoring the specter of automation that is rapidly approaching us too. All those foreigners won't even be needed to keep labor cheap soon.

Do not get me started on that.

IIRC, the issue with slavery in macroeconomics isn't that it's a net negative, but that it squanders the economic potential of the enslaved population as they aren't allowed to optimize their job nor seek a more productive one. It's better to have the associated bounding factors spent on free persons with as valuable a job as they can find, but in principle forced labor isn't hard to be net-positive. Hence why most societies throughout history used it, it's very good low-hanging fruit when your economy is based primarily on raw man-hours.

It also is hard to compete against economically, because the slaves/indentured servants can be paid pennies on the dollar. Also, it means that the goods being made can be sold for the same amount if not cheaper then those produced otherwise and the producer makes equal or more money as a result. At least that is my understanding of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top