9 thoughts on “The Diversity Lottery”

1. Hey, George III was quite some time ago! Or do we have to go around apologising for our ancestors’ rulers for ever?

2. Interesting that the two South American/ Caribbean countries with the most numbers are those darlings of the left. Cuba and Venezuela.

   As to the entire list it is one Hell hole after the other with few exceptions. Besides most of the European countries I’ll take the Aussies, New Zealanders and the Ukranians. As for the rest? Good night and good luck.

3. Yokel —

   If you’ve hung around here for a while, you know that I’m somewhat of an Anglophile, and was even a limey myself for four years during my youth.

   IOW, I was joking.

   I tolerate the Brits at least as readily as I put up with the Swedes.

   The Irish are another matter entirely.

4. No Brits, however! We had enough of them after George III. But we’ll take people from Ulster; that’s different.

   The Northern Ireland exception was supposedly a reward from the U.S. to NI following the 1998 peace agreement. Actually it was due to lobbying from Kennedy and other ‘Irish’ American politicians.

5. What is this mania for “diversity” as an end in itself? There’s no empirical proof that building a Tower of Babel strengthens a nation (as in demonstrating that immigration continually improves a host nation’s productivity instead of being a net drain in costs). This is just another leftist unproven assumption. Since they’ve been wrong about everything else, what are the odds they get this one right?

   Remember, the crowd that worships diversity of appearance is the exact same crowd working hard at curtailing diversity of thought so how trustworthy are they? Leftist parties in all western countries push for immigration because immigrants tend to vote eternally for the ones who “brung ’em to the party”.

   Since it IS empirically proven that leftist policies impoverish nations both monetarily and spiritually (East Germany vs West Germany, North Korea vs South Korea, Soviet Union vs USA etc.) how is this a good idea?

   How good are screening procedures to separate desirable citizens from backwater countries from rats deserting a sinking ship who set about recreating the same conditions that did their home country in? And how ethical is it to poach the best and brightest if that’s what we’re doing from countries who are worse off?

   Why not try something else for a couple of decades and compare overall global benefits? Why doesn’t everyone except refugees in actual danger stay put and improve their home countries with the option of inviting emissaries from nations who are doing better to help them turn things around? Swamping successful countries with the unsuccessful is not going to work out well for anyone except the handful by world standards of lucky immigrants. They can be a net burden on the host countries and the majorities left in hellholes who depend on subsidies from successful countries for life itself in many cases end up suffering more.

   Countries dragged down to mediocrity by socialism don’t have the wherewithal or even motivation to help Africa for example.

   The Leftist version of equality (not just equality before the law and equality of opportunity but enforced sharing) ALWAYS ends up with an equal sharing of a lowered standard of living. Their loser formula will work no differently on a city, state, national and world scale. Socialism has the illusion of “working” only when a) there’s a homogeneous society like Sweden used to be with shared high work ethic or b) there’s someone to subsidize the socialists. For example, Quebec true to its French nature is the most socialist province in Canada but does not live within its means. Instead, billions are siphoned from the more productive provinces and handed to Quebec in a completely unethical federal “equalization” program. California is on the verge of bankruptcy because it chose to let all its government workers live high off the hog. Who thinks only Californians are going to pay for their unsustainable policies? Was it the unions and feckless management who paid for their greed bankrupting GM?

   Leftist policies do not make money. They merely redistribute money. Without access to and power over moneymakers, they crash economies reducing the vast majority to a much lower standard of living. This still works for leftist leaders who always erect palaces for themselves or at least dachas while steadily repressing the newly created serfs. There’s always enough money for the elite few as long as the uppity middle classes are reduced to being peasants again.

6. spackle,

   Besides most of the European countries I’ll take the Aussies, New Zealanders and the Ukranians.

   But now that all those countries are ‘diversified’ you wouldn’t necessarily be getting people of European or Australian stock. I read an anecdotal comment on a blog that said that African/Asian Muslim immigrants were coming to the US from Europe.

7. It’s a shame Brazil is not included… i can think of whole brazilian regions that could be depopulated in favor of USA. We could begin with Guaranhuns…

   Well to say the truth if you acaricans can’t reverse the 1965 immigration laws that’s the picture of NY in 2042.

   http://frankroman.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/african-slum1.jpg

   Good luck, and be sure that despite being atheist i do pray every night for the west, just in case there’s anything out there.

8. That’s Detroit isn’t it? 😉

9. A who’s who of jihad central, and I’m surely missing some:

   Algeria
   Egypt
   Morocco
   Nigeria
   Somalia
   Sudan (!!!)
   Iran
   Saudi Arabia (9/11 anybody?)
   Yemen

   I’d bet that very few of these residencies will be given to refugee Christians, Jews, and pagans fleeing from Muslim persecution. This is potentially thousands of jihadists every year entering the US. Given the fact that we don’t control the identity departments of these governments, generating fake IDs with clean backgrounds for jihadist insertion into the US would be trivial for these governments to accomplish.

Comments are closed.