[MitzaLizalor]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

Now from what I hear, very frequently shouted and displayed on banners, the occident is the domain of satan. Satans, more particularly, with one country labelled the great satan. What terrible places these must be. No risk would be too great to escape from such tyranny, no eager hope more sweet than the hope to live in a land where one's most cherished beliefs prevailed as the law and government of the land. And we can see on that woman's face this hope that soon she will be free.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

And we can see on that woman's face this hope that soon she will be free.

That was wonderfully poetic of you, sister. Best of all, it's on topic. I was expecting the thread to get derailed as people debate why she's wearing a pair of men's boxer-briefs on her head.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

If the sincerest form of flattery is imitation, then near-plagiarism is even more so:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...perialism.html

I hear that a lot of people want to migrate to...Finland. I'm pretty sure it's not because they like Finland's climate, or scenery. I don't think it's got anything to do with the physical geography of Finland. I think that they want to move to Finland because they like Finland's political, legal, and social institutions, and all the good things those institutions bring. They want to live somewhere that is ruled by Finns.

There are two ways to satisfy that desire.

1. We can move the people who want to live there to the country they want to live in.

2. We can move the country they want to live in to the people who want to live there.

If nobody cared about physical geography, those two solutions would be exactly the same. But if people do care about physical geography, and want to move to Finland despite not liking its climate, the second solution would be better.

Letting people migrate across borders is not enough; we need to let land migrate across borders too.

So instead of moving the people across the borders, we should move the borders across the people. What people are really voting for, when they vote with their feet, is imperialism. They want to be ruled by foreigners.

I can't complain, it's written far better than the original. The author sure isn't "butchering the classics".

Imperialism has a bad name only because, in the past, countries moved to places where the people living there didn't want to be ruled by foreigners.

Yeah, Ghandi and company were a bunch of xenophobic racist pricks. But they had a point, empires tended to be exploitative, because the empires were monopolies and all monopolies are exploitative.

But what if the empires competed against each other, with elections? So Nigerians could vote for "The China Party" to have Chinese rulers, or the "The Sweden Party", or of course the regular Nigerian parties, let's call them the "Getheadsawnoffbybokoharamicrats" and the "everybodygetsAIDSipublicans".

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

Donald Trump copied this post too, right down to talking about the weather:

"I mean they're gonna learn German, they're gonna learn all these different languages. It's ridiculous. The weather — a friend of mine lives in Minnesota. And he calls me, he says 'Can you imagine? It's 130 degrees in Syria and now they want to send some up to Minnesota where its 30 degrees.' Well, these people are gonna be very, very unhappy. It's cold and beautiful, but it's cold."

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

A bit late for April Fools day, oh well:

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: More immigration? Why not just bring back Imperialism?

Come to think of it, why not have an immigration policy that ONLY allows women in?

...I'm sure that even life-long fans of policy wonkage have never heard of the idea crossing anyone's minds, even as a joke.

This is the closest I've found:

The feminists in Europe have notably been in favor of this mass migration of young men, and conspicuously unconcerned with sexual violence perpetrated by Muslims in Europe. I am not surprised by this at all, because I don't take feminists or feminism at face value. I am sure that they would be up in arms if the migration consisted mainly of cute Japanese girls.

The whole article is good, it says that feminists import foreign men to drive down male bargaining power. This is why I can't get on board Trumps Muslim ban. For a guy called the God-emperor, he thinks way too small.

Let's weaponize our immigration policy, and allow unlimited young women from the worst Muslim countries to immigrate.

Let's make it such an attractive option that the worst Muslim countries turn into continent-spanning sausage parties, and they have to fight civil wars over who gets sloppy seconds on the last camel that can still stand up.

And just think of what will happen when every American man is given a choice between being divorced by a fat purple-haired feminist bitch, or growing old with three meek, submissive, doe-eyed wives in the kitchen.

Both the Islamists and the Feminists, killed with the same stone! What's not to love?