There is no point in US history (or the colonial era that came first) without an import of a new underclass meant to work for LESS than the current underclass. Imported labor always serves one purpose: >to drive down wages The excuse given is ALWAYS the same: >we have a worker shortage! It's ALWAYS a lie, but generations come and go, and the dumb fucks here never figure out the con game being played with them. Let's review the history of scab labor in the US:
Brits send their religious zealots to go build farms instead of overthrowing the crown >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! Micks and Enland's prisoners are sent to cuck the poor tradesmen who came to settle the new promised land for Christ.. >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! They keep sending prisoners, this time mixed with niggers... >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! Send nigger slaves to replace the (temporary, uppity) indentured white slaves... >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! Having run out of English underclass to send (thanks Australia) they start importing Germans... >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! Fuck, what else is there? Let's find more Irish, there's always MORE IRISH... >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! FUCK! Ok, let's try using some of these chinks, we have a railroad to build... >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! SHIT! FUCK! Bring in the Mexicans... but douse them in Zyklon B first (they really did this) >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! MORE MEXICANS THEN! >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! VIETNAMESE REFUGEES! >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! SOMALIAN REFUGEES! >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! JUST OPEN THE BORDERS AND PRAY FOR GDP!!! >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! REPLACE ALL THE WORKERS WITH ROBOTS! >NOT ENOUGH LABOR! It never fucking ends, what makes it stop?
British shut down atlantic slave trade in the 1820s. No new slaves came to the US for 40 years. Slave owners opened up breeding farms for slaves. You had them BLEACH the passing nigresses and then play at genealogy with the rest. Wild
Angel Reed
The idea that the economy must always grow and that more must be produced at all times is an incredibly jewish thought, born out of pure greed. It's the people who essentially make a living by "scraping from the top", aka the ones collecting tax money or the company owners, they are the ones who want to see bigger flows of money so that their scrapings also get bigger. These people want us to believe that GDP is all that matters, more than quality of life does.
It's an incredibly foolish thought since money is such a fickle thing. Sure the average American earns a lot more money than the average Russian, but they still have a harder time trying to afford a house. Because there is less space, because there are more people vying for that space, and they all got a lot of money as well. Market correction is a bitch. Meanwhile, you got more murders per capita in big cities like Washington, Berlin and London than you have anywhere in India. So if all that money doesn't buy you comfort or safety, what's the point?
Leo Rivera
>Slave owners opened up breeding farms for slaves. Tariq Nasheed is that you?
>The idea that the economy must always grow Is really a mask for the reality that the currency is founded on ever increasing debt, that debt is the real currency, the cancer eating up all productive value from the economy, and must always be serviced. Interest is always growing, so the GDP must always grow to keep credit lines open.
The public is told that "growth" leads to their prosperity. In reality, their prosperity is being eaten by debt.
Asher Baker
That's just the result of the Jewish order winning the Second World War. Hitler humiliated the world by proving that Depressions and Recessions are fantasies that can be dissolved by exiling Jews from power. That's really why they had to burn his country to the ground and make him the ultimate villain of hhistory. It really is very sad, because the ecological health of Earth won't be able to survive this shit for much longer.
Connor Moore
>That's just the result of the Jewish order winning the Second World War. That was in the works for a lot longer than the second world war. Many believe the two world wars happened specifically to consolidate achievements in that direction at the turn of the 20th century. If that view is correct, then the second world war was the last attempt to defeat that system.
>Imported labor always serves one purpose: >>to drive down wages VJM said the same thing: vjmpublishing.nz/?p=31431
Ayden Gutierrez
Not into clicking links, tell me about VJM and i'll find it on my own
Landon Campbell
oh nvm i recognize this, interesting thanks user
Oliver Miller
Bankers, academics, and politicians lie about this throughout modern history (especially in the colonial era), but it used to be considered common sense in earlier times. It gets proven by data over and over (in the last few decades), but it remains a major racket. I'm surprised more brown nationalists haven't picked up on the fact that third world immigration is just the continuation of colonialism under a new name. Why are they not humiliayed by that, it must be because the gibs are too good to complain.
Democracy (or republics of you prefer) absolutely cannot exist in the presence of minorities. This probably applies to any form of government, bit the asiatic despotisms often try to make it work; the state has to periodically cull minority groups (uighirs in china) to prevent civil war. Arguably this is the same motive behind white replacement at present.
Aristotle distinguishes three main political regimes. The monarchy, first of all, corresponds to the government of one, and it deviates into tyranny if the monarch pursues only his own personal interest. The aristocracy, secondly, is to be understood in its etymological sense of "government of the best", that is to say the best endowed by nature, and it becomes an oligarchy if the latter divert power for the sole benefit of their group. The republic, finally, is the government of the many for the common good, and it degenerates into democracy if the majority commands irrational governance and oppresses minorities. Aristotle states in Politics that the deviation of good political regimes into their bad versions is due to various civil disturbances. These can be dissensions over justice, such as the denial of differences of merit in the republic or of certain equalities in the aristocracy. There can also be disruptions in the balance between social classes, if there are too many poor or too few notables. Political changes can still be caused by the unexpected effects of small measures, by immigration (which would jeopardize the homogeneity of the population), by geographical factors and by external causes, particularly those related to war
That's fascinating. I need to take a closer look at Aristotle's politics, it's been years and it bored me when I first read it. Your summary reminds me of Polybius' cycles. Add Aristotle's causes and it's a great key for explaining political transformation.
