Thread: Why are only the white countries taking in so many immigrants?

In the last several decades there has been unprecedented levels of global immigration. Most of that immigration has been into the white (caucasian) countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe. Could there be some type of conspiracy to flood the white countries with non-white peoples? To permanently mix the descendants of europeans out of existence?

Traditionally white nations all across the world are being told it is racist if they do not allow in high levels of immigrants. That more "diversity" is good, and even "inevitable". So why is it almost only the white countries that this is happening in?

Even in the Eastern European countries, NATO and the EU seem to be trying to rapidly expand their influence, and the Russian Federation is continuously made out as a "totalitarian regime" by the American/western media. Is it because Russia is not going along with the plan? If what I suspect is true, the former communist countries will soon see massive waves of immigration from non-white countries, despite the high levels of unemployment already present in these countries.

Could this be the reason?

In the world at this period of time, there are unprecedented levels of immigration, and most of this immigration is into the economically and militarily influential Western countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.

Nationalism is one of the strongest hindrances to one-world government. It led to the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Destroying the concept of national identity cannot be done within a single lifetime. But the socialist/communist idealists envission a future beyond their lifetimes. This was clear under the Soviet Union, where communism was in some ways like a religion. The actions of the individual in support of the state were to achieve a paradise- not for the individual himself, but for future generations in the world.

If the national identities of the influential Western nations are destroyed, these nations can fall under a single government, and the rest of the world will fall under its influence also. The great irony is that the Russian Federation, formerly the center of the Soviet Union, now stands in opposition to this unification. This is likely one of the reasons that the Russian government is the target of so much criticism from the Western media. Russia is only a shadow of its former power and world dominance, but it is the only nation left of any significant influence capable of standing in opposition. We have seen how much effort the USA has made to form allies with the other former Soviet Republics surrounding Russia. Special trade privilleges are granted, and unusual efforts are made to more closely integrate their economies with that of the USA. Human rights and democracy are apparently only secondary considerations. Most of these former Soviet Republics have much more repressive governments than Russia, yet the Russian Federation itself is the main target of Western criticism. The West aims to weaken the economic influence of Russia, by building oil and natural gas pipelines to bring gas out of the former central asian republics, bypassing the pipelines already in place that go through Russia. The importance of natural gas will soon increase to great importance, much like that of oil today. Already, many vehicles are beginning to run on natural gas. Russia has vast stores of natural gas laying under its Siberian tundra, more than any other nation.

Throughout Europe and North America immigration is under discussion, be it Mexicans crossing the border illegally into the US, immigration 'amnesties' or the fears that Britain and other Western European nations will be flooded with people looking for work from the Eastern European countries about to be absorbed into the European Union and thus allowed free movement across former borders.

The debate, as usual, and by design, has been polarised into a Left-Right slanging match. If you challenge the level of immigration you are branded a racist, for example. But this is not about what is good or otherwise for a country or the immigrants themselves.

This appears to be a long-term plan to destroy the nation state. Whether people support the nation state structure or not is another debate.
The nation state structure, and the history, culture and sense of uniqueness that goes with it, are road blocks to the absorption of nations into a single centralised world state, under the same government, army and economic system.

To break down resistance to this global state, the sense of unique national identity and culture would first need to be destroyed. The concept of 'nation' would eventually be lost throught the creation of 'multicultural' societies. That does not necessarily mean that 'multicultural' societies are wrong - not at all - only that there is an another parallel agenda.

The expansion of the European Union is, in part, designed to do this.

The danger is that a single governing body could potentially be granted dictatorial powers on the pretext of world peace and global equality. This would threaten freedom and personal liberties.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

In the last several decades there has been unprecedented levels of global immigration. Most of that immigration has been into the white (caucasian) countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe. Could there be some type of conspiracy to flood the white countries with non-white peoples? To permanently mix the descendants of europeans out of existence?

No. A lot of these countries, like Australia, have depreciating levels of population growth so immigration is the only means it is increasing. Furthermore, immigration often occurs with traveling between the countries you are actually talking about.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Traditionally white nations all across the world are being told it is racist if they do not allow in high levels of immigrants.

Who said that? "traditionally"? wtf are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

That more "diversity" is good, and even "inevitable". So why is it almost only the white countries that this is happening in?

Where did you get that idea? Well the countries you list are often the most capable of taking in people - that's the major reason.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Even in the Eastern European countries, NATO and the EU seem to be trying to rapidly expand their influence, and the Russian Federation is continuously made out as a "totalitarian regime" by the American/western media.

That's because it increasingly is.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Is it because Russia is not going along with the plan?

They are one of the biggest takers of immigrants. Oh and guess what their population growth is increasingly one of the lowest. Cause and effect much?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

If what I suspect is true, the former communist countries will soon see massive waves of immigration from non-white countries, despite the high levels of unemployment already present in these countries.

See above. Your racist view of the world is funny, but totally dead(*)(*)(*)(*).

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Could this be the reason?

In the world at this period of time, there are unprecedented levels of immigration, and most of this immigration is into the economically and militarily influential Western countries: the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.

Nationalism is one of the strongest hindrances to one-world government. It led to the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It was also one of the main things that created those countries, but anyway.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Destroying the concept of national identity cannot be done within a single lifetime. But the socialist/communist idealists

Who are they exactly?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

envission a future beyond their lifetimes. This was clear under the Soviet Union, where communism was in some ways like a religion. The actions of the individual in support of the state were to achieve a paradise- not for the individual himself, but for future generations in the world.
If the national identities of the influential Western nations are destroyed, these nations can fall under a single government, and the rest of the world will fall under its influence also. The great irony is that the Russian Federation, formerly the center of the Soviet Union, now stands in opposition to this unification. This is likely one of the reasons that the Russian government is the target of so much criticism from the Western media. Russia is only a shadow of its former power and world dominance, but it is the only nation left of any significant influence capable of standing in opposition. We have seen how much effort the USA has made to form allies with the other former Soviet Republics surrounding Russia. Special trade privilleges are granted, and unusual efforts are made to more closely integrate their economies with that of the USA. Human rights and democracy are apparently only secondary considerations. Most of these former Soviet Republics have much more repressive governments than Russia, yet the Russian Federation itself is the main target of Western criticism. The West aims to weaken the economic influence of Russia, by building oil and natural gas pipelines to bring gas out of the former central asian republics, bypassing the pipelines already in place that go through Russia. The importance of natural gas will soon increase to great importance, much like that of oil today. Already, many vehicles are beginning to run on natural gas. Russia has vast stores of natural gas laying under its Siberian tundra, more than any other nation.

If people want to create international governments, let them. Whether it is socialist or not is another question entirely.

a good question,and the answer is hard for some to see,even though the evidence is right in front of you.....They openly admit it,they lobby for mass immigration,the push for open borders,they consider the white middle class their greatest enemy.

You say it is ironic that Russia now opposes this idea,which is true,but it is not ironic. It is just that the Russians and Putin know their history....Bolshevism,communis m didnt come from from Russia,but from Jewry....Putin is bring back Orthodox Christianity,which Jews despise,they murdered the Christian czar,and 10's of millions of Christians in the most barbaric methods imaginable....The Armenian genocide,was by Jews,Spanish Civil War,Christians slaughtered by Jews. So it would make sense that groups like the SPLC,ACLU,ADL which constantly attack Christianity,are indeed Jewish founded and funded groups.

Jews are the ones who lead the fight for open borders here and in Europe. A small organized group will rise to the top of unorganized masses fighting with each other.

Jewess admits they are responsible for white destruction.




and the walls came tumbling down,how the Jews opened our borders.


list of Jewish politicians responsible for immigration legislation
http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-...luence-USA.php

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

They are one of the biggest takers of immigrants. Oh and guess what their population growth is increasingly one of the lowest

Only around 8 percent of Russia's population are immigrants, and most of these come from former Soviet Republics. In many ways Russia treats the former Soviet Republics in its spere of influence like they are still part of the Soviet Union. So from one perspective, most of these people are not really immigrants. If Ukrainians move to the Russian Federation, they are immigrants only by technicality, not socially. The Ukraine and Belarus are often considered "little russias". The reason there has not been population growth in Russia is because so many Russians leave the country.

You cannot compare people moving back and forth between the Ukraine and Russian Federation to immigration in the West. The two are completely different. Because of the fragmentation of the former USSR, Russia is in a unique political situation, so the technical immigration statistics are not applicable, not unless one takes the trouble to interrpret them. It would be like combining immigration between different states in the USA into the country's official immigration statistics- completely meaningless.

So you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Only around 8 percent of Russia's population are immigrants, and most of these come from former Soviet Republics. In many ways Russia treats the former Soviet Republics in its spere of influence like they are still part of the Soviet Union. So from one perspective, most of these people are not really immigrants. If Ukrainians move to the Russian Federation, they are immigrants only by technicality, not socially. The Ukraine and Belarus are often considered "little russias". The reason there has not been population growth in Russia is because so many Russians leave the country.

Regardless, Russia's low population growth undoubtedly is a core reason behind what you perceive as an altruistic immigration policy.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

You cannot compare people moving back and forth between the Ukraine and Russian Federation to immigration in the West. The two are completely different.

Not at all. In both cases low population growth is often a big factor.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Because of the fragmentation of the former USSR, Russia is in a unique political situation,

What "unique political situation" is that?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

so the technical immigration statistics are not applicable, not unless one takes the trouble to interrpret them. It would be like combining immigration between different states in the USA into the country's official immigration statistics- completely meaningless.
So you are wrong.

You have not shown how I am wrong, only how you are incoherent in making an argument.

The fact remains that Russia (at least the European side, as opposed to Siberia) has not experienced anywhere near the immigration levels of non-white peoples as the Western countries have.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The fact remains that Russia (at least the European side, as opposed to Siberia) has not experienced anywhere near the immigration levels of non-white peoples as the Western countries have.

So what?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The fact remains that Russia (at least the European side, as opposed to Siberia) has not experienced anywhere near the immigration levels of non-white peoples as the Western countries have.

Why go somewhere when you are treated like poison in the good times , and as things to boot and smash when times get difficult ?