The 75%-90% you speculate about is true for people of European descent. For MENAPT, it is the reverse or worse. For Indians and Africans it is definitely worse. For Gypsies, despite them having been in Europe for some 600 to 800 years, it is almost a 100% incompatibility with any European civilisation - by their own choice for that matter.
Also, you can either have /your/ nation and /your/ people, and then only if you make up 90% or more of the population total, or you can have (temporarily) a multiracial (or multicultural) morass where different groups fight over power until one group manages to out-maneuver the others and starts the process of ethnic cleansing, either fast-tracking it (like you-know-who planned to do in Eastern Europe a century ago) or doing it slow-burn the way Arabs and sundry are doing right now in Europe (or China for the most triumphant example of slow-burn ethnic cleansing - check the numbers for Han Chinese in the 1950s vs today).
Or you can have a leadership-caste and their Janissaries divorced from any kind of racial/ethnic, cultural and religious history and tradition, enforcing equal-opportunity oppression against any group challenging or dodging what the regime says is true (the ole' cosmopolitan ideal of the Homo Novus divorced from history dragging the proles and plebs kicking and screaming into the Brave New world based on reason and logic).
I know a lot of modern-day Westerners dreams about some kind of ideal solution where we all live side by side and sing kumbaya, while still being Indians and Swedes and Yorkshire-men, solving any conflicts amicably and friendly.
It's pure fantasy, naive fantasy at that. No idea that goes against human nature can have anything than disastrous and tragic results.
Cherry-picking the upper percentiles from other races will always work - and will make sure said races remain where they are, since all their potential leaders will just leave. It's the same as cherry-picking via scholarships which boys and girls of the common people will get higher education, which is how it was done in the 19th century - which made sure the home-villages of said boys and girls lost their best and brightest for the big cities.
And a cat will not a horse become from being born in a stable - consider the Jews. If they had practiced anything but the most severe forms of racial preference (in-group) and racial discrimination (out-group), would they even exist today?
No, they wouldn't. They would be one more extinct people, like the original Egyptians or the Cilicians or many many other once-distinct and unique racial/cultural groups that disappeared via inter-marriage and other factors.
In other words, only racist groups of people get to remain as distinct such.
PS: Do take into account that the Danish figures are quite heavily massaged to not look too dire. The truth is a lot worse.
That's such a depressing and bleak picture Rikard. I'd like to believe it's not true and that you're just making shit up, but I fear that you may actually be correct.
As for the cherry-picking, I'm all in favour of it - whilst accepting your point that it may not be in the best interests of their home countries. I'm more about acting in the best interest of my own country. Easy to say, not quite so easy to figure out what 'best' actually means, though. With 2nd and 3rd order consequences down the line what, initially, seems to be 'best' might in the fulness of time turn out not to be.
As for those Danish figures being massaged - well now you're just heaping depression on depression. They're bloody awful enough even with a spot of massaging.
I almost feel compelled to be flippant to lighten the mood, or to apologise for being a Doom-sayer, but I won't. Believe it or not, I am a lot more optimistic than my rants may lead one to think.
I'll share one insight I had long ago: not wanting insert-racial-group in your nation doesn't mean you hate them. It just means you prefer yours and want what's yours to remain yours, allowing for autonomous and spontaneous developments rather than top-down ideologically motivated and dictated dogma and creed.
I got it from looking into the history of feminism (the benefits of a wife with a background in Gender Studies, you know) realising that if it had all stopped in the 1970s, and the resurgence in the 1990s had been stymied and stopped, we'd have fair and equitable equality of achievement. Not equal numbers, not counting penises and vaginas in the workforce, none of the trans-schizoidisms - but actual deeds-based equality.
Incidentally, it is the same with the race-issue, and I've gotten a lot out of making risible remarks to believers in multi-culturalism by asking if they oppose keeping invasive species of plants and animals out of various biomes/biotopes.
Being logically consistent is a right pain, admittedly.
By claiming asylum, they bypass the desirability hoops. They remain on grounds of our compassionate duty, because they can’t be sent back to cruel regimes that have poor quality health care, or chicken nuggets, rather than their value to our community. Why aren’t these ridiculous laws and agreements changed?
I probably should have emphasized that I was mostly talking about *legal* immigration - although illegal immigration is also a problem. There *are* genuine refugees amongst the scam artists and opportunists - we're just not very good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff - and that applies to both legal and illegal immigration.
I understand that many arrive here legally, on a study visa for example, but when it expires they suddenly find that their homeland has become too dangerous, or they are now gay, or they have acquired a child, or a cat, and play the asylum card. I totally agree with you on the legal migration stuff, but it’s too easy for them to suddenly flip to the asylum route. Unless they were originally from a civilised country in the first place, which may be the problem. Visas only from civilised countries!
One issue is that anyone who stands up for such sensible and non suicidal policies, will be targeted by the establishment / media / injustice system and potentially murdered by raging, rabid, leftists.
It's really weird how we've gone from pretty much everyone thinking that defence of our borders was a good thing (even those on the left thought this) to the 'left' freaking out if you mention *any* form of border control or removal of people who do not have the right to be here.
Some variation of your outlined approach has been repeatedly argued in the states for years. I have not heard a rational argument against it, yet the direction of the culture has continued in the opposite direction. (Until Trump).
That many continue to demand the indiscriminate importing of those who offer no value to there host, implies that there is something else at work, and that they are simply not amenable to an approach that is rationally self interested.
This is EXACTLY the point I keep making. When something doesn't make sense to a rational intelligent mind, it is because we do not have all the information. We are being deliberately kept in the dark. Why? What is the bigger plan?
Your guess is as good as mine Bettina - it's really bizarre. There is no rational case for the kind of immigration we've been subjected to - and yet here we are. There's definitely something else going on.
Yeah - it's not like I'm coming up with anything radically new
I agree with you - there are definitely other agendas at play here, because it's so very hard to see how the importation of swathes of people who are a net-negative (on the economy, on society, etc) benefits anyone.
Common sense and fairness have absolutely nothing to do with it.
My Canadian cousin who moved to a job in London, had British grandparents (and could have got a passport if he'd bothered to get his act together in time) had to pay the UK government £10k as a surety for possible health care costs before he was allowed to live and WORK here.
As I said, Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.
The Uniparty keeps The System going. The majority of people keep voting for it (apparently ........🤔)
Yes and funnily enough my daughter today mentioned someone else this happened to - an Indonesian-Dutch girlfriend of an English guy (friend of my daughter). He was moaning to his brother's mother-in-law (a big Brexiteer) about Brexit stopping him from getting his girlfriend over unless she paid £10k for a visa. Essentially its the surety for healthcare. So of course everyone is telling her to just catch a dinghy from Calais. So I hadn't misremembered it. Happened to my cousin last year.
Your preferred immigration policies used to be the sane, measured centrist position that all the mainstream political parties agreed upon. Today, such moderate views are now deemed to be “far right” by much of the cultural and political establishment.
The 75%-90% you speculate about is true for people of European descent. For MENAPT, it is the reverse or worse. For Indians and Africans it is definitely worse. For Gypsies, despite them having been in Europe for some 600 to 800 years, it is almost a 100% incompatibility with any European civilisation - by their own choice for that matter.
Also, you can either have /your/ nation and /your/ people, and then only if you make up 90% or more of the population total, or you can have (temporarily) a multiracial (or multicultural) morass where different groups fight over power until one group manages to out-maneuver the others and starts the process of ethnic cleansing, either fast-tracking it (like you-know-who planned to do in Eastern Europe a century ago) or doing it slow-burn the way Arabs and sundry are doing right now in Europe (or China for the most triumphant example of slow-burn ethnic cleansing - check the numbers for Han Chinese in the 1950s vs today).
Or you can have a leadership-caste and their Janissaries divorced from any kind of racial/ethnic, cultural and religious history and tradition, enforcing equal-opportunity oppression against any group challenging or dodging what the regime says is true (the ole' cosmopolitan ideal of the Homo Novus divorced from history dragging the proles and plebs kicking and screaming into the Brave New world based on reason and logic).
I know a lot of modern-day Westerners dreams about some kind of ideal solution where we all live side by side and sing kumbaya, while still being Indians and Swedes and Yorkshire-men, solving any conflicts amicably and friendly.
It's pure fantasy, naive fantasy at that. No idea that goes against human nature can have anything than disastrous and tragic results.
Cherry-picking the upper percentiles from other races will always work - and will make sure said races remain where they are, since all their potential leaders will just leave. It's the same as cherry-picking via scholarships which boys and girls of the common people will get higher education, which is how it was done in the 19th century - which made sure the home-villages of said boys and girls lost their best and brightest for the big cities.
And a cat will not a horse become from being born in a stable - consider the Jews. If they had practiced anything but the most severe forms of racial preference (in-group) and racial discrimination (out-group), would they even exist today?
No, they wouldn't. They would be one more extinct people, like the original Egyptians or the Cilicians or many many other once-distinct and unique racial/cultural groups that disappeared via inter-marriage and other factors.
In other words, only racist groups of people get to remain as distinct such.
PS: Do take into account that the Danish figures are quite heavily massaged to not look too dire. The truth is a lot worse.
That's such a depressing and bleak picture Rikard. I'd like to believe it's not true and that you're just making shit up, but I fear that you may actually be correct.
As for the cherry-picking, I'm all in favour of it - whilst accepting your point that it may not be in the best interests of their home countries. I'm more about acting in the best interest of my own country. Easy to say, not quite so easy to figure out what 'best' actually means, though. With 2nd and 3rd order consequences down the line what, initially, seems to be 'best' might in the fulness of time turn out not to be.
As for those Danish figures being massaged - well now you're just heaping depression on depression. They're bloody awful enough even with a spot of massaging.
I almost feel compelled to be flippant to lighten the mood, or to apologise for being a Doom-sayer, but I won't. Believe it or not, I am a lot more optimistic than my rants may lead one to think.
I'll share one insight I had long ago: not wanting insert-racial-group in your nation doesn't mean you hate them. It just means you prefer yours and want what's yours to remain yours, allowing for autonomous and spontaneous developments rather than top-down ideologically motivated and dictated dogma and creed.
I got it from looking into the history of feminism (the benefits of a wife with a background in Gender Studies, you know) realising that if it had all stopped in the 1970s, and the resurgence in the 1990s had been stymied and stopped, we'd have fair and equitable equality of achievement. Not equal numbers, not counting penises and vaginas in the workforce, none of the trans-schizoidisms - but actual deeds-based equality.
Incidentally, it is the same with the race-issue, and I've gotten a lot out of making risible remarks to believers in multi-culturalism by asking if they oppose keeping invasive species of plants and animals out of various biomes/biotopes.
Being logically consistent is a right pain, admittedly.
In light of recent events in the scholastic community, I have my doubts about the intellectual capabilities of...the intellectuals...
And, precisely for whose benefit is the annual imported horde..?
Indeed - who the hell is benefitting from this?
Certainly not our economy, certainly not our women and girls, certainly not what little remains of our once relatively high-trust society.
Several commenters in Daily Sceptic Newsletter have a hoary old reponse to that...
It's deliberate...[Islamification]
By claiming asylum, they bypass the desirability hoops. They remain on grounds of our compassionate duty, because they can’t be sent back to cruel regimes that have poor quality health care, or chicken nuggets, rather than their value to our community. Why aren’t these ridiculous laws and agreements changed?
I probably should have emphasized that I was mostly talking about *legal* immigration - although illegal immigration is also a problem. There *are* genuine refugees amongst the scam artists and opportunists - we're just not very good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff - and that applies to both legal and illegal immigration.
I understand that many arrive here legally, on a study visa for example, but when it expires they suddenly find that their homeland has become too dangerous, or they are now gay, or they have acquired a child, or a cat, and play the asylum card. I totally agree with you on the legal migration stuff, but it’s too easy for them to suddenly flip to the asylum route. Unless they were originally from a civilised country in the first place, which may be the problem. Visas only from civilised countries!
Absolute..... sense.
One issue is that anyone who stands up for such sensible and non suicidal policies, will be targeted by the establishment / media / injustice system and potentially murdered by raging, rabid, leftists.
It's really weird how we've gone from pretty much everyone thinking that defence of our borders was a good thing (even those on the left thought this) to the 'left' freaking out if you mention *any* form of border control or removal of people who do not have the right to be here.
Some variation of your outlined approach has been repeatedly argued in the states for years. I have not heard a rational argument against it, yet the direction of the culture has continued in the opposite direction. (Until Trump).
That many continue to demand the indiscriminate importing of those who offer no value to there host, implies that there is something else at work, and that they are simply not amenable to an approach that is rationally self interested.
This is EXACTLY the point I keep making. When something doesn't make sense to a rational intelligent mind, it is because we do not have all the information. We are being deliberately kept in the dark. Why? What is the bigger plan?
Your guess is as good as mine Bettina - it's really bizarre. There is no rational case for the kind of immigration we've been subjected to - and yet here we are. There's definitely something else going on.
Yeah - it's not like I'm coming up with anything radically new
I agree with you - there are definitely other agendas at play here, because it's so very hard to see how the importation of swathes of people who are a net-negative (on the economy, on society, etc) benefits anyone.
POSIWID.
Common sense and fairness have absolutely nothing to do with it.
My Canadian cousin who moved to a job in London, had British grandparents (and could have got a passport if he'd bothered to get his act together in time) had to pay the UK government £10k as a surety for possible health care costs before he was allowed to live and WORK here.
As I said, Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.
The Uniparty keeps The System going. The majority of people keep voting for it (apparently ........🤔)
Interesting - I didn't know there was such a surety scheme. Is it still in operation?
Yes and funnily enough my daughter today mentioned someone else this happened to - an Indonesian-Dutch girlfriend of an English guy (friend of my daughter). He was moaning to his brother's mother-in-law (a big Brexiteer) about Brexit stopping him from getting his girlfriend over unless she paid £10k for a visa. Essentially its the surety for healthcare. So of course everyone is telling her to just catch a dinghy from Calais. So I hadn't misremembered it. Happened to my cousin last year.
note 2 hits the nail on the head
😂
Your preferred immigration policies used to be the sane, measured centrist position that all the mainstream political parties agreed upon. Today, such moderate views are now deemed to be “far right” by much of the cultural and political establishment.
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/08/11/open-borders-are-a-threat-to-integrated-ethnic-minority-citizens-too/