Where did the idea of third world mass immigration come from? Seriously, before WW2 ,and a little bit after...

It's a way to drain money from the ethnic populace through taxes while saying it is for the greater good.

It came from closeted communists who can't win the argument, so they just replace the people they can't convince with those which they can.

Attached: Contaminated.jpg (858x354, 49.7K)

checked

Anything past France is the fault of Amerimutts selling out Europe to the barabarians in exchange for closer ties with their countries and their installed puppet regimes just nodding it off.

France went full left after Amerimutts sqashed any notion of nationalism.

TBQH, smart phones. None of this shit happened until Big Data. We had some illegals picking melons, but they stuck to camps and left when work was gone. Smash the phones.

Attached: Obi Wan Spliffnobi.jpg (400x333, 25.52K)

youtu.be/8ERmOpZrKtw
I know everyone has seen this by now. why do you still wonder about it ?

Economists, innit? It was utilitarian economic reasoning.

Well when you've been kicked out of every country in the world and the one your in is surrounded by a wall because your neighbors hate you. Ya gotta get creative. Maybe you flush out the unwashed masses from their native lands, then slip in undetected and take root? I dunno just spitballing here

You have Ronald Reagan in USA and Bush jr in Europe. Bot are responsible. Reagan gave amnesty. Bush invaded Iraq. Without those 2 morons it would be a lot less browns in both those places

We are in the end game right now. European people are in a fight for their very existence.

It was a conjunction of compassion and economics. There's a whole lot of suffering virtue in terrible countries on Earth. People didn't just notice that; humans have understood it in pretty much every country not totally fucked by xenophobic hatreds. The thing is, historically there was a great sense of "nothing to be done".

Well, economists came through and said, "Y'know, we'd be wealthier and they would be too, if we brought them in en masse. Even if they end up in terrible conditions, there will be a net gain in utility as long as the conditions are LESS terrible. Why should we make people suffer more terrible conditions in another country instead of letting them experience less terrible conditions in this country?"

Give me a J!
Give me a O!
Give me a O!

The 'left' see an opportunity to import voters / reinforcements for their bullshit vision of an unworkable egalitarian utopia. Can call opponents racist so hard to argue against.

The 'right' see it as a means to import cheap labour and more consumers for our ponzi scheme economic system.

Also a certain group see it as a chance to create their fantasy world of a borderless planet with all of their rivals destroyed and mixed into oblivion so they have no coherent competition.

>before WW2
exactly. shit did not start going sour until 1913

Filthy woman

From hook nosed morons like Angela (((Merkel))):

israaid.org/news/german-chancellor-angela-merkel-awards-israaid-integration-prize

this is an entry level redpill
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

It doesn’t matter where it came from how do we stop it?

not really, here they told young people in the 1950's to move to NZ, Australia, Canada, Usa etc.
immigrants came when the netherlands was already rebuild.

We fed mongrels in shitholes countries who couldn't support themselves for decades and now they're flooding our lands. Empathy and compassion is our greatest strength but also our greatest weakness. There's no hope. These animals will keep breeding more and more until there's no more room or food left. Our only hope is to reach the stars and leave every fucking one of them to rot.

Soros

For Europeans it was subhuman amerimutts starting wars in the middle east leaving us no choice but to accept the refugees. For amerimutts it's because they are retarded

The catch, of course, is containment. We opened up disease risks. We gave still more power to bitter leaders convinced the proles "do nothing". We caused crime rate elevations to befall people whose plans couldn't possibly have accounted for them. We even hauled in a not-insubstantial population of foreign authoritarians. The focus is on how nationalists are authoritarian - and they |are| - but it still does matter when we haul foreign authoritarians into the nation's memetic mixture.

The economist calculation failed to account for potential fragility and the advantages of regional egalitarianism.

It also ignored something else: those awful foreign countries get MORE AWFUL if we drain them of virtue. That means it isn't a direct utility transfer. The people who don't follow the migration flow suffer more, through no fault of their own, and migration pressures ratchet as the short-term utility transfer gets even more favorable.

It's a feedback loop.