Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Guest wrote:

John wrote:When I look at the world today, I see a world close to exploding into
World War III. I also see a kind of "race to the bottom" for which of
several possible events might trigger World War III. The following
are on my list:

• Border war between China versus Japan or South China Sea or India.
• North Korea vs South Korea.
• Israel vs Palestinians or Iran vs Saudi Arabia.
• Pakistan vs India.
• Global financial crisis.
• Global outbreak of disease.

The danger that a mother and her children might trigger World War III
by fleeing violence and "invading" another country isn't even on my
list.

I don't see WW3 in Europe or North America. What I see is implosion. The medical system in the UK has been overwhelmed and is imploding. The same thing is happening in Germany and Belgium. Belgium and French hospital wards are filled with African,Arab, and Pakistani babies. Many Pakistani babies suffer from genetic nirth defects because of the high rate of incest among Pakistanis. The ER is filled with Africans and Arabs suffering from stab and gunshot wounds. London and Paris are now littered with disease pockets of incurable TB and other diseases low ago eradicated from the West and now reappearing in every city. Europeans are being infected every day by medieval diseases.

What is see is mass unemployment coupled with out of control levels of rape, murder, and robbery. Europeans are not safe in their own homes. I didn't ask migrants to come to Europe and destroy Europeans.

What I see is the ruination of Europe. I do not fear WW3. I fear life after civilization has collapsed under the weight of these subhumans.

Je suis extrêmement triste ce soir
La France est morte

Guest:
Again we agree. The idiocy of global resettlement is more than just transfering poor, tired, huddled masses from one continent to another. Europe and America are proof positive that tribal and western cultures do not seamlessly blend. Europe is in ruins. Resources are not endless. Greece has been battling illegal intrusion since WWII. The EU is dying, and deservedly so.
America ceased to be the United States in the '60's. Making the world "safe for democracy" is the impossible dream. Australia has made the practical ideal decision: keep illegals out. Think about the dollars/pesos coyotes collect for delivering illegals over our borders. All those leftist symps who advocate for illegals in others' hoods should pool their resources, get on the buses and get south of the border to make lives better--especially since Mexico's O is "dedicated" to improving conditions. No sympathy cards accepted. Legal immigrants only.

John wrote:

Silent Guest 2 wrote: > Ah, ah, ah John. Mixing definitions. "Refugees" are NOT illegal
> invaders/occupiers. Legal American citizens are 2nd class,
> supporting and prey to the invaders. No one asked us--especially
> those trapped in sanctuary cities. I can assure you that every
> day life is not pleasant. Shafted by those in DC not living the
> full illegal invader experience. This matter is my earthly life's
> breath. This is NOT an intellectual exercise. Illegal invaders
> must go. They are NOT "refugees".

You're right that there's a distinction, but I was already making the
distinction. I wasn't talking about the invaders. I was talking
about the refugees. Like a mother (like yourself) who takes her kids
and flees to another country to escape being raped or having her
children killed.

Perhaps the US should purchase 10-fold (100-fold?) the amount of "embassy space" we now hold in EVERY country on the planet simultaneously, and use that "new US territory" to house refugees until their asylum claims can be adjudicated?

We can increase the number of judges who "judge that" by 200 times and get to work sucking the world DRY of their human capital!

If you've ever traveled ANYWHERE outside of major urban developments, you quickly come to realize just how truly empty this planet is of human beings.

We're not ready (as "humanity") to decentralize out of the cities as we "should be", but draining the intellectual capital of the world and spreading it around the "empty quarter" of the US (and Canada and, if they're smart, Russia and sparsely populated central eurasia) would be a very good thing, and probably speed up our capabilities to decentralize out of the cites.

..of course it would require being VERY very strict with lawlessness, and very clever in keeping people alive with "innovative" economic models.

Just a thought.

ah, Mr kanakadude, you and John are the only "corespondents" that keep me coming back to this website....keep it up!

shoshin wrote:ah, Mr kanakadude, you and John are the only "corespondents" that keep me coming back to this website....keep it up!

That's very nice of you (and I really need some "be nice to me" this week as I screwed up looking after someone's dogs such that they made quite the mess in their house for which I feel REALLY bad), but what's you're thinking on this not-overly-odd dichotomy between allowing "worthy" refugees into a country without "denaturing" said country of it's "native" character?

I, personally, have no solutions,.. but looking at these things from the bottom up and then top down, then iterating that process over and over until nausea happens does seem to point out of few possibilities.

Such as, what's a worthy refugee? How do you deal with "worthy" but "less-educable" refugees such that they ADD to national wealth without "screwing over" the natives? Etc etc etc...

..and what about the ROBOTS..!?


I'm kinda beginning to think that the ROBOTS might very well help us deal with this "worthy refugees" thing (as well as "homelessness"), because even the "natives" will start to see themselves as "refugees", and intelligent policy makers (!?) might be forced to find ways to make "the little people" (such as myself) meaningfully fit into society even if they're "less conventional" than the old-style "college grad corporate workaholic" type person.

More prosperity and less corruption would be a nice start, I suppose.

For "less corruption": much heavier hand in dealing with criminality.
For "prosperity": ...no clue. Well,.. maybe a LITTLE bit of a clue, but it's kinda unformed as yet.

..and that's all I got at the moment.

Aloha and mahaloz, and that teeny little ocean going boat I need to build to live on is sounding WAY more fun than being TOO "informed" by the 29 Hour News Cycle and the interwebz....

<shaka nui Dude!>

So many questions!I'd need to be as smart as John to have those answers, give me some time to think about it...

but I will deal with this lovely quote of yours: "allowing "worthy" refugees into a country without "denaturing" said country of it's "native" character?"

I assume you're quoting various trolls here (note that "worthy" is defined by those already here), and different strokes for different countries, but our "native character" was subsumed into a Constitution, wasn't it, wasn't that the idea? And it's an EVOLVING Constitution (amendments!), not some strict constructionist nonsense. Unless you're native american, we're all immigrants, and we gravitate to communities that share SOME of our ideas, but mixing is what makes us advance, innovate, and enjoy life. And I can state unequivocally that the economic future of this country is crucially dependent on increased immigration. If we stop immigration, we are doomed to be a second tier country (or 3rd tier, like Russia).

Bye for now.

Yay for Australia.

shoshin wrote:So many questions!I'd need to be as smart as John to have those answers, give me some time to think about it...

but I will deal with this lovely quote of yours: "allowing "worthy" refugees into a country without "denaturing" said country of it's "native" character?"

I assume you're quoting various trolls here (note that "worthy" is defined by those already here), and different strokes for different countries, but our "native character" was subsumed into a Constitution, wasn't it, wasn't that the idea?

I tend to put words in quotes when the word is being used in some unconventional, or ambiguous, way. Sorta like hanging a big red blinking arrow over a word signifying "open your mind a bit as to what the fnerk this means".

Anyway, I'm not really trolling anyone. I was alluding to what I'd like to see happen, which is that we (or they) could perfectly distinguish fully worthy refugees that would "clean up their own messes" (like any good guest/family member) and make their new country more beautiful and interesting.

And it's an EVOLVING Constitution (amendments!), not some strict constructionist nonsense. Unless you're native american, we're all immigrants, and we gravitate to communities that share SOME of our ideas, but mixing is what makes us advance, innovate, and enjoy life.

The "culture" of a people can't really be captured by a set of rules (a constitution).

BUT, a maximally comprehensive yet minimally restrictive "set of rules" is a very important part of a "culture".

The "owners" of culture within a country are the local-ish groups of people. Where a locality overlaps with it's neighbors (localities) in terms of culture, that expands the "culture territory" while diminishing the shared ITEMS of culture (otherwise they'd be the same culture).

This process eventually fills the country with common culture, while reducing the commonly agreed to cultural "items".

Once the country is "filled", it's "constitution" can be generalized and minimized (parred to it's essentials). Once the constitution is formed it carries a huge (Trumpian HUGE) amount of inertia, but should be allowed to be "improved" by addition of "overwhelmingly agreed to cultural items".

But unless a locality goes massively rogue and abrogates a large part of it's former "agreed to cultural items" that had overlapped with it's neighbors, it should be allowed to "own" it's culture without molestation.

Personally, I'm a localist when it comes to "psychologically important but practically trivial" items of culture, and a nationalist when it comes to "interpersonal voluntary trade" items, which essentially define "criminality".

Those who "came later" (immigrants) need to fit themselves into this structure, and if the immigrants can't convince any locality that they will be a benefit, then the national government needs to create a new "village" (because these people have ALREADY been classified as "worthy").

And I can state unequivocally that the economic future of this country is crucially dependent on increased immigration. If we stop immigration, we are doomed to be a second tier country (or 3rd tier, like Russia).

Bye for now.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct, and we need to be raiders of human capital from the rest of the planet, and not inbred degenerates motivated by xenophobic despair.

How do we do all these wonderful things? Good question, but getting more "smarter than me" people thinking about it would probably be a good idea.

..just some random thoughts. Aloha! <shaka!>

For those people considering fleeing to Australia to avoid migrants, think again. Australia has roving gangs of Sudanese and other 3rd world types everywhere. Crime is bad in Australia and Ozzie cities are becoming more like like UK every day with migrants raping an killing people. Save your money and buy a house somewhere else.

Guest wrote:For those people considering fleeing to Australia to avoid migrants, think again. Australia has roving gangs of Sudanese and other 3rd world types everywhere. Crime is bad in Australia and Ozzie cities are becoming more like like UK every day with migrants raping an killing people. Save your money and buy a house somewhere else.

..ah, you're just sayin' that to keep us wannabe Aussies (Ozzies?) from swarming your shrimp, barbie and blonde sheila encrusted beaches!

(( I probably used "sheila" incorrectly, didn't I? Sorry 'bout that. Corrections graciously welcomed. ))

Aloha mate! <shaka!>