Theory The retardation of Anglo countries in restricting cumskin emigration doomed them to a brown future

[verzetn]

Anglo countries with the exception of the United States, which was founded on the principles made by erudites known as the founding fathers... were all retarded when it comes to immigration policies and that's what's making them giga BROWN today and its pretty much irreversible at this point

the anglo countries would be mostly, canada, australia, new zealand, and to a lesser extent perhaps south africa and rhodesia (zimbabwe).

what doomed them, with the exception of giga US is, unlike the US, those anglo countries resorted to Anglo-supremacy and never really accepted anything other than anglo and to a lesser extend scottish and also discriminated against the irish (which imo is justified since irish are almost white niggers, along with many scottish, too much white trash genes).

For example, the US has like over 50% of population being of German ancestry. with significant number of other europeans. the US did a great job of assimilating the other cumskins into anglo culture.

on the other hand, the anglo settlements, kept being Anglo-only, even well into the mid 20th century, therefore dooming them to a low cumskin population. which needless to say, spelt disaster for them.

Europe was still ravaged by war and occasionally over-populated time to time, which depressed the wages and caused outflow of immigrants. and anglos could have taken advantage of that but they hardly did. an example was that Australia opened up to european immigration post ww2 and lots of Greeks moved there. and New Zealand in the 1960s actually signed a deal with the Dutch, allowing Dutch to easily migrate to new zealand, and they indeed did. which shows even in post war 1960s, still plenty of Europeans were very willing to migrate outside.

so now, imagine if anglo countries actually allowed cumskin immigration in the very beginning, just like the US. modern australia, instead of only having like 25 million people, could easily have 100 million now.

it's possible imo, the extreme racism and exluciseness displayed by the anglo cumskins could be a result of the native European genes, especially the Celtic genes, which probably is overly-presented among anglo population, especially among lower classes. which end up in them shooting themselves at the foot.

coz by the late 20th century, the prevalent ideology wind has shifted. now, a country opening up no longer should just open to other cumskins, but to the whole world, coz now, racism baddddddd. not only that, Europe post-ww2 began to recover and by the 70s, 80s, and 90s, they no longer had strong desire to migrate outside of europe.

all this means, the new immigrations those anglo countries could get were ethnics which is why you see the immigration makeup of anglo countries like canada, australia, new zealand etc. are dominated by rice and curry as they happne to be have enough population "rich" enough to afford to go to anglo countries.

so bascially, the anglos in non-US, bascially CUCKED THEMSELVES to a brown future by rejecting non-anglo cumskin immigrants earlier in their history.

 

[Med Amine]

over for tl;drcels

 

[verzetn]

in retroaspect, US had some really giga big brain moves, like the laws that passed to give away free land to new settlers, and then more free-land-give-away laws such as the ones in Oregan, which set off the famous Oregan Trails which enocourged cumskin immigration to the Pacific Northwest.

one has to admit in history, the US lawmakers, especially the founding fathers, were giga big brain.

if rest of Anglo did the same, history would be very different, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, New zealand, even Kenya, all had lots of arable land to freely give away to settlers, but the British and the succession elites, never opened up their countries to non-Anglo cumskins until it was TOO LATE (in the mid to late 20th century, good luck with both US and Soviets and them influencing the entire world to opposing muuuuuh racism at that point).

 

[verzetn]

over for tl;drcels

tdlr was the last sentence in the original post

 

[WizardofSoda]

Good points. Something I was thinking about is they could still get a lot of white immigrants as long as they are willing to accept Eastern Europeans.

South Africa and Rhodesia really fucked up especially. They went for mass black immigration, and restricted immigration from non-Anglo/Dutch white countries.

 

[1337hikki]

Good points. Something I was thinking about is they could still get a lot of white immigrants as long as they are willing to accept Eastern Europeans.

South Africa and Rhodesia really fucked up especially. They went for mass black immigration, and restricted immigration from non-Anglo/Dutch white countries.

Fuck that the west is done for I plan on moving to east Europe in the future

 

[verzetn]

Good points. Something I was thinking about is they could still get a lot of white immigrants as long as they are willing to accept Eastern Europeans.

South Africa and Rhodesia really fucked up especially. They went for mass black immigration, and restricted immigration from non-Anglo/Dutch white countries.

yeah, but like i said, it's just giga late at this point. no way for them to go back to something like the "white australian" policy the international political landscape has totally changed.

the UK kinda had that tbh, the low class workers had a huge influx of eastern europeans such as Poles but then they had brexit and now that stopped also

south africa actually wanted to confine the niggers to Bantu Homelands, a concept inspired from the Indian Reservations from the US the cumskin were busy fighting between each other though (the British vs. the Afrikaans (mostly dutch)) and that wasted a lot of resources, and also impeded them from cooperating with the British-descendent Rhodesia.

 

[counterboingo]

good

 

[WizardofSoda]

yeah, but like i said, it's just giga late at this point. no way for them to go back to something like the "white australian" policy the international political landscape has totally changed.

the UK kinda had that tbh, the low class workers had a huge influx of eastern europeans such as Poles but then they had brexit and now that stopped also

south africa actually wanted to confine the niggers to Bantu Homelands, a concept inspired from the Indian Reservations from the US the cumskin were busy fighting between each other though (the British vs. the Afrikaans (mostly dutch)) and that wasted a lot of resources, and also impeded them from cooperating with the British-descendent Rhodesia.

Ya people don't realize just how many white immigrants Britain took in, because they don't 'see' them. One thing a government could do is not officially bring in truckloads of white immigrants. But make it very easy for them to immigrate. And take opportunities like with the Ukraine war you can grab 1 million Ukrainians.

 

[NT Master]

What you fail to understand is that White unity is a New World concept, not a European concept. Europeans have been dividing each other and killing each other for millennia. Your average Briton doesn't feel any closer to Poles than they do to Chinese. During the early 20th Century, the UK being full of Italians and the UK being full of Indians were equally undesirable. Ethnic differences are not just based on race, it is also based on religion, language, and culture which are huge dividers in the past and presence. Hell, the most famously racist man of all time (Adolf Hitler) genocided millions of people who would all be considered White by USA standards. It is only after WW2 ended and the EU was created that a pan-European identity started to form. And even with that pan-European identity, the UK backed out of the EU and several European countries still refuse to join.

In the Western Hemisphere, things were different. Factors like language and religion were standardized and weren't huge dividers. Instead a racial caste system formed and all Europeans were an overclass (although there was discrimination against "lesser Whites" during the 1800s). That is why countries like the USA and Brazil were willing to take in million of European immigrants from various nations and why European colonies would do no such thing.

 

[ADHD_cel]

The 1924 immigration act was based, kek

 

[WizardofSoda]

British colonies in Africa. Like you said they could have had all of those countries at the south of Africa, and probably Kenya too, possibly even Sudan.

 

[verzetn]

View attachment 713868

British colonies in Africa. Like you said they could have had all of those countries at the south of Africa, and probably Kenya too, possibly even Sudan.

yep southern africa were relatively free of malaria and sleeping sickness disease and one of the most ideal places for cumskins. the climate is temperature. soil are good, as evident that both SA and rhodesia were agriculture powerhouse, rhodesia was nicked the breadbasket of Africa, before Zimbabwe ruined it all, of course.

kenya was argubly the 3rd most settled by the anglos in africa, probably due to ok climate, due to its elevation which makes the climate less hot, milder, and less of the deadly tropical diseases.

i say the brits got too greedy. they should have just let the Boers did their thing. but the discovery of gold and then diamond ruined everything and resulted in brits conquering the Boers, which ultimately and ironically doomed the Brits themselves on the continent.


the key here was, Africa back then, due to shitty tech level of the niggers, the african continent was qutie sparsely population, so cumskins actually had a chance to become at least a significant minority in a lot of places, e.g. southern africa.

the Boer's trek across SA is similar to how Americans took over the west from the indians.

but the cumskins were not perfect either. the Borer kept slavery and therefore kept black slaves, that planted the seed of eventual overthrew of their power as the blacks learned and adapted to cumskin culture and tech.

 

[verzetn]

What you fail to understand is that White unity is a New World concept, not a European concept. Europeans have been dividing each other and killing each other for millennia. Your average Briton doesn't feel any closer to Poles than they do to Chinese. During the early 20th Century, the UK being full of Italians and the UK being full of Indians were equally undesirable. Ethnic differences are not just based on race, it is also based on religion, language, and culture which are huge dividers in the past and presence. Hell, the most famously racist man of all time (Adolf Hitler) genocided millions of people who would all be considered White by USA standards. It is only after WW2 ended and the EU was created that a pan-European identity started to form. And even with that pan-European identity, the UK backed out of the EU and several European countries still refuse to join.

In the Western Hemisphere, things were different. Factors like language and religion were standardized and weren't huge dividers. Instead a racial caste system formed and all Europeans were an overclass (although there was discrimination against "lesser Whites" during the 1800s). That is why countries like the USA and Brazil were willing to take in million of European immigrants from various nations and why European colonies would do no such thing.

the cumskins in places like africa were already racializaed in terms of social structure. Boers for isntance were not just dutch, but also some protestant french, and germans.

so the issue is more likely to be Anglo-ethostate-ism, rather than euros rivalry against each other.

the anglo colonies, after US revolution, became much more relaxed in terms of overrule from the UK, coz the british feared another revolution. so the anglo dominion could have opened doors to other euros, but they chose not to, until its too late. and thats what makes me think its their paranoid, overly xenophobic psych, that doomed them to a brown future today.

 

[ethniccel1]

the cumskins in places like africa were already racializaed in terms of social structure. Boers for isntance were not just dutch, but also some protestant french, and germans.

so the issue is more likely to be Anglo-ethostate-ism, rather than euros rivalry against each other.

the anglo colonies, after US revolution, became much more relaxed in terms of overrule from the UK, coz the british feared another revolution. so the anglo dominion could have opened doors to other euros, but they chose not to, until its too late. and thats what makes me think its their paranoid, overly xenophobic psych, that doomed them to a brown future today.

yep pretty much you are spot on. In Rhodesia cumskin immigration was not allowed at all. Infact even lower class Brits were not welcome either. The land was for the Brit aristocracy . Alot of the land was given only to British high ranking military men as reward for fighting in Britains wars for example.

You have to understand the mindest of the time though. Example Hitler learnt his ingroup racism from the Brits, look up how Brits viewed themselves prior to WW1 and even a little after WW2. Phrases like thank God I am British, or British are the highest evolved race from evolution etc etc etc.
They never thought their rule would ever end AT ALL. The thing with history is we look at it from our current mindset and set of ideas of today. At the time the mindset was COMPLETELY different and the Brits thought their rule would NEVER end because they thought of themselves as the most supreme specimens of high culture and civilisation. Everything else to them was trash and shit.

Now they are a tiny little meaningless island, their economy is in free fall and living standards are plummeting after Brexit.
Today USA thinks she is supreme and shits on other countries but that too will come back to bite her in the ass if she is not careful and refuses to proceed with wisdom but rather with arrogance.

 

[bimmercel]

Anglo countries with the exception of the United States, which was founded on the principles made by erudites known as the founding fathers... were all retarded when it comes to immigration policies and that's what's making them giga BROWN today and its pretty much irreversible at this point

the anglo countries would be mostly, canada, australia, new zealand, and to a lesser extent perhaps south africa and rhodesia (zimbabwe).

what doomed them, with the exception of giga US is, unlike the US, those anglo countries resorted to Anglo-supremacy and never really accepted anything other than anglo and to a lesser extend scottish and also discriminated against the irish (which imo is justified since irish are almost white niggers, along with many scottish, too much white trash genes).

For example, the US has like over 50% of population being of German ancestry. with significant number of other europeans. the US did a great job of assimilating the other cumskins into anglo culture.

on the other hand, the anglo settlements, kept being Anglo-only, even well into the mid 20th century, therefore dooming them to a low cumskin population. which needless to say, spelt disaster for them.

Europe was still ravaged by war and occasionally over-populated time to time, which depressed the wages and caused outflow of immigrants. and anglos could have taken advantage of that but they hardly did. an example was that Australia opened up to european immigration post ww2 and lots of Greeks moved there. and New Zealand in the 1960s actually signed a deal with the Dutch, allowing Dutch to easily migrate to new zealand, and they indeed did. which shows even in post war 1960s, still plenty of Europeans were very willing to migrate outside.

so now, imagine if anglo countries actually allowed cumskin immigration in the very beginning, just like the US. modern australia, instead of only having like 25 million people, could easily have 100 million now.

it's possible imo, the extreme racism and exluciseness displayed by the anglo cumskins could be a result of the native European genes, especially the Celtic genes, which probably is overly-presented among anglo population, especially among lower classes. which end up in them shooting themselves at the foot.

coz by the late 20th century, the prevalent ideology wind has shifted. now, a country opening up no longer should just open to other cumskins, but to the whole world, coz now, racism baddddddd. not only that, Europe post-ww2 began to recover and by the 70s, 80s, and 90s, they no longer had strong desire to migrate outside of europe.

all this means, the new immigrations those anglo countries could get were ethnics which is why you see the immigration makeup of anglo countries like canada, australia, new zealand etc. are dominated by rice and curry as they happne to be have enough population "rich" enough to afford to go to anglo countries.

so bascially, the anglos in non-US, bascially CUCKED THEMSELVES to a brown future by rejecting non-anglo cumskin immigrants earlier in their history.

Have no time to read it

 

[_meh]

Most Anglo/white countries are developed and usually there's no need for them to move.

Hypothetically, why would someone from Norway a country that has good healthcare, education, and welfare person move to America (that lacks good healthcare, education, and welfare)? Unless if they got offered some big job in America.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Most Anglo/white countries are developed and usually there's no need for them to move.

Hypothetically, why would someone from Norway a country that has good healthcare, education, and welfare person move to America (that lacks good healthcare, education, and welfare)? Unless if they got offered some big job in America.

USA could easily have tons of white slavs, Argentinians, levant Arabs. if they wanted too. yes Nordics wouldn't leave more or less though

 

[Michael15651]

Me on Adderall tbh

 

[_meh]

USA could easily have tons of white slavs, Argentinians, levant Arabs. if they wanted too. yes Nordics wouldn't leave more or less though

Well many Slavs simply just moved to other neighboring European countries like Germany (after the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc). This is also kind of happening again in regards to Ukraine and there's a lot of depopulation going on all over Eastern Europe. For sometime, the UK actually got a lot of immigrants from Poland and Romania, but even then Brits still complained about Poles and Romanians stealing their jobs.

Argentinians of course mostly stay in Argentina. Yeah, some of them left the country because their economy is kinda whacked.

There was also the Syrian refugee crisis from the early 2010s to mid 2010s and a lot of European and Anglo countries (well mostly the locals) weren't too fond of Syrian refugees. Even though many Syrians and other Levant Arabs are white-passing white countries don't want them and don't really Syrians, and Levant Arabs to be a part of the white club. Still many Syrians were able to migrate (however mostly went to Turkey and even Turkish people don't want Syrian immigrants lol).

Yeah, the issue with Anglo countries is that they usually give out humanitarian visas (other Slav countries except for Ukraine can't easily obtain it. They mostly extract those from warzones). IIRC Canada and the US are planning to open up more to receive more migrants. They also use this strategy to do brain drains.

 

[_meh]

so now, imagine if anglo countries actually allowed cumskin immigration in the very beginning, just like the US. modern australia, instead of only having like 25 million people, could easily have 100 million now.

I can comment on this since I live in Australia.

Australia mostly wanted to receive immigrants from the British Isle. Obviously because of ethnic and cultural similarities. Then later on Australia became more accepting in receiving other European migrants. However, Australia was also competing with America, and obviously America is closer to Europe in terms of distance (also America being more established than Australia) made more Europeans to go to America.

For sometime, Australia did receive a lot of White South African immigrants.

 

[Michael15651]

The 1924 immigration act was based, kek

 

[_meh]

What you fail to understand is that White unity is a New World concept, not a European concept. Europeans have been dividing each other and killing each other for millennia. Your average Briton doesn't feel any closer to Poles than they do to Chinese. During the early 20th Century, the UK being full of Italians and the UK being full of Indians were equally undesirable. Ethnic differences are not just based on race, it is also based on religion, language, and culture which are huge dividers in the past and presence. Hell, the most famously racist man of all time (Adolf Hitler) genocided millions of people who would all be considered White by USA standards. It is only after WW2 ended and the EU was created that a pan-European identity started to form. And even with that pan-European identity, the UK backed out of the EU and several European countries still refuse to join.

In the Western Hemisphere, things were different. Factors like language and religion were standardized and weren't huge dividers. Instead a racial caste system formed and all Europeans were an overclass (although there was discrimination against "lesser Whites" during the 1800s). That is why countries like the USA and Brazil were willing to take in million of European immigrants from various nations and why European colonies would do no such thing.

Yes, this is also important to consider.

 

[Michael15651]

View attachment 713868

British colonies in Africa. Like you said they could have had all of those countries at the south of Africa, and probably Kenya too, possibly even Sudan.

Perhaps it has something t9 do with Kenya, or even sudan

 

[verzetn]

Most Anglo/white countries are developed and usually there's no need for them to move.

Hypothetically, why would someone from Norway a country that has good healthcare, education, and welfare person move to America (that lacks good healthcare, education, and welfare)? Unless if they got offered some big job in America.

you're talking modern world. while the post is about period 1780-1960

as i said in an example, in 1960s, new zealand government signed a deal with Netherland govenrments, allowing dutch to migrate, and lots of them did

was Netherland a shit hole in 1960s? absolutely not. they were ok, but back then europe was still POORER than countries like australia and new zealand. so they migrated.

and why did nz government sign a deal with netherland for that? coz typically its hard to migrate to nz without being British.

in other words, nz could have opened up its door to europeans much earlier and get way more people. but they didnt, and now they have to import curry and rice to fill the gap.

 

[_meh]

in other words, nz could have opened up its door to europeans much earlier and get way more people. but they didnt, and now they have to import curry and rice to fill the gap.

Bringing in more Europeans would entail that they would have to pay them more whilst non-Europeans are more cheaper (in terms of labor and among other things). Analogously, this is like asking why slave-owners in America didn't usually have white slaves? Why have white slaves? Means that you have to compensate them more meanwhile a black slave could do a lot of the stuff for free. The profit incentive or motive can be blamed for the lack of "European migration."

 

[verzetn]

Bringing in more Europeans would entail that they would have to pay them more whilst non-Europeans are more cheaper (in terms of labor and among other things). Analogously, this is like asking why slave-owners in America didn't usually have white slaves? Why have white slaves? Means that you have to compensate them more meanwhile a black slave could do a lot of the stuff for free. The profit incentive or motive can be blamed for the lack of "European migration."

this is not how it works at all

the nz government didnt pay shit. they just ALLOWED the dutch to go to nz, if they want

you dont know shit about this topic. thinking the govenrment has to "pay" them is a fundamental error in knowing what government do.

 

[_meh]

this is not how it works at all

the nz government didnt pay shit. they just ALLOWED the dutch to go to nz, if they want

you dont know shit about this topic. thinking the govenrment has to "pay" them is a fundamental error in knowing what government do.

Wtf? I didn't mention government paying them at all. I don't think you've understand what I've said or comprehended it properly. I thought this would be absolute common sense with the implication being set on slave and business owners.

I don't care if you're unsatisfied with what I've said, I was being objective and real.