[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

All across the world, people are willing to leave tropical paradises, crossing oceans on overcrowded, rickety boats, agreeing to be smuggled by criminals, suffering hardships and dangers I can't even imagine, all in the name of arriving at frozen wastelands.

Why?

Because brown people really, really want to be governed by white people.

"This might end with white people telling us what to do, so it's worth it".

They've got a point. Many economists say that we can double the world's production of wealth almost overnight by giving every brown person the opportunity to be governed by whites.

And yes, they do put it that bluntly:

I view Islam as inherently, and perhaps incorrigibly, intolerant and violent. But I nonetheless believe that the West and the world generally should be much more open to Muslim immigrants. Why? Because even Muslims shouldn’t have to live under Muslim rule.

The problem with their scheme is that it involves moving millions of people thousands of miles, just to cross an imaginary line on a map to get them closer to a couple of politicians.

A more efficient way would be to move the handful of politicians over that imaginary line, so nobody has to get on rickety rafts or trade tropical paradise for snow in April.

Liberals should love my plan - they like diverse cities over here, why should they deny diversity to the brown countries? Why are you hogging all the diversity to yourselves, liberals? Plus, imagine how much better eco-tourism will be when your next rainforest hike doesn't end with Boko Haram sawing someone's head off.

Now, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Also, my plan has been tried already, the last time we brought white government to brown people, we outlawed slavery (Benito Mussolini freed 2 million slaves, making him a greater emancipator than the Great Emancipator, it would make more sense to have Il Duce's face on the penny).

The other achievements of imperialism: discovering that the cure for ebola is to wash your friggin' hands every now and then, not sawing off people's heads for flying kites, not trying to cure AIDS by telling the infected to rape virgins, not blowing up churches because some schoolchild gave their teddy bear the wrong name, not mutilating the genetalia of little girls, well, you get the point. The millions of people who risk their lives for a shot at immigration certainly get the point.

[GOD=life]

That is a fantastic analysis, Brother! And it's not just mere opinion, it's backed by that little thing called... FACTS.

If (faux) Liberals were to ease up a little bit and become tolerant and open-minded like True Christians, then they would quickly realize that our MOST SUCCESSFUL export product could actually be the time-tested ability to GOVERN the heathens.

Sure, it may take a little tough love, but which former colony is actually better off after WOMAN (Wise Old Men And Nations) left.

Just make Saudi Arabia an American colony and then all the trouble with Islam and oil will be solved overnight. SIMPLE.

[WWJDnow]

My old view was that we should let in boat people, but only if they paddled across the ocean (no motorboaters!), because at least we know that the paddlers are willing to work. But now I see the superiority of your plan.

Plus, it's a proven model--look how much better life is now in Iraq and Afghanistan than it was before we liberated them. Now they stand as shining beacons of freedom.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

Because people really, really want to be governed by white people.

Amen to that brother! All countries led by black people should be liberated by replacing their leaders with white Christian republicans. Only then will they all enjoy true freedom. The freedom to worship Jesus Christ and earn access to Heaven for the very very low percentage of them that turn out to be worthy.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Christian rule has done wonders for Africa. Once the dark people have been educated in Sunday School for a couple generations we can even set them loose like the Dutch did in South Africa.

[Mrs. Elizabeth Johnson]

This would be a wonderful idea! We could also get cheaper labor, since we helped them, they would feel indebted to us! We can give them the priceless gift of God's message, while our houses and my kitchen can get cleaned!

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

"White men" - always a code word amongst the LIEbrals for Jesus and Capitalism. Yes, we tried to educate the savages and convert them to Christianity during colonialism, but they increasingly complained about being "exploited" and having their "wealth" stolen. At some point we got tired of it and simply packed up, went home, and left them to their own devices and false religions, and not to mention it was becoming increasingly expensive to send over the military to quell their periodic rebellions - even after the invention of the Maxim machine gun.

If they want Obama they can have Obama - at least he's half white.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Back to the "Open Borders" advocates, there are provoking some interesting debates among conservatives. A major conservative argument against immigration is that Rome fell because they let the barbarians immigrate. If we allow millions of say, Somalians into America, they will also destroy our government and replace it with Somalian chaos.

The libertarians reply that that's the whole point:

"If we take the long view, were the barbarian invasions really such a catastrophe?...Maybe the barbarian invasions benefited Rome.

Why? Because they relieved Western society of something that was encumbering it. They lifted a great weight. They put an end to Big Government, for worse and for better...In its place arose feudalism, a new and more contractually-based mode of governance...In short, the barbarian invasions were the beginning of a great rejuvenation."

[Alvin Moss]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

Back to the "Open Borders" advocates, there are provoking some interesting debates among conservatives. A major conservative argument against immigration is that Rome fell because they let the barbarians immigrate. If we allow millions of say, Somalians into America, they will also destroy our government and replace it with Somalian chaos.

The libertarians reply that that's the whole point:

"If we take the long view, were the barbarian invasions really such a catastrophe?...Maybe the barbarian invasions benefited Rome.

Why? Because they relieved Western society of something that was encumbering it. They lifted a great weight. They put an end to Big Government, for worse and for better...In its place arose feudalism, a new and more contractually-based mode of governance...In short, the barbarian invasions were the beginning of a great rejuvenation."

I've never considered the issue from that point of view before. Mayhaps they are right. We really wouldn't have to go all the way to Somalia for salvation, IMO. Canada is close by and filled with barbarians enough for any necessary disaster.

[Ocarina]

I truly understand this problem.
Sweden is an awful socialist country that tries to get as many muslim people in the country as possible. I with 20% of swedens population doesnt want that since they take our jobs, our women/men. Our religon (christianity is regarded as a minoriry) and mosques are building up faster than churches. This is wrong and totally against gods plan. I wish I wasnt with these hedens and with true christians that understand gods plan.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Seems we've narrowed down the debate to two policies:

1. Let the 3rd world immigrate into the west (cost: 6 billion plane tickets, plus house-sitters for the otherwise uninhabited 3/4ths of the world).
2. Bring the west to the rest (cost: a $3,000,000,000,000 donation to ISIS per nation, if Operation Iraqi Freedom teaches us anything.)

Here's a compromise: how about we conquer only useless, uninhabited parts of the the third world - deserts like what Las Vegas was before white government, swamps like what Hong Kong used to be, before white government. We allow anyone to immigrate into our uninhabited city-state.

Then we wait.

Then freedom does its thing.

[Talitha]

It's just like the Good ol' days only now they supply their own boats.

I'm organising Christian Outreach tents at all of the camps where we can hand out Bibles and give Sermons.
I'm sure that they all travel with the sole intention of receiving the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[MitzaLizalor]

Of course there is another category of boat person. Criminals. Convicts were shipped wholesale to Australia during the 18th & 19th centuries and believe me none of them were looking to be ruled by white persons (being white themselves). The result has been a volcano of debauchery even to the extent of banning gun ownership so that sodomites—to take just one category of heathen—might not be shot on sight. It remains illegal to shoot homosexuals in Australia even to this very day. Regardless of how the projectile is projected, by hand or bow or powder, this is a clear violation of Biblical standards.

Perhaps new arrivals should be isolated and examined for criminal intent prior to being welcomed?

[Prayers for Anders]

Excellent thread brothers(and sister), I also very much like the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ takes care of the terrorists and future terrorists on their way so that only harmless sand negros who can work hard step foot on the Christian lands and seek their salvation.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

It seems we've reached an agreement here - we have a long-term ideal of re-colonialism, and a short-term, pragmatic plan to limit immigration to people who are willing and able to row boats to get here.

I'd add another part: the women have to prove they are willing to crawl:

"I'm on my knees for you, white Christian rulers!"

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

Feminists will like that, for obvious reasons. Blacks will like it because they'll get access to non-black women. Business conservatives will like it because women are obedient workers who accept lower pay than men. Social conservatives will like it because women commit less crimes. True Christians will celebrate the return to polygamy, the TRUE Traditional Marriage.

It's such a simple win-win-win that 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.

(I googled "only let women immigrate" and "let more women immigrate" "stop male immigration", "female only immigration" and found nothing related.)

[MitzaLizalor]

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]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

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]

If the sincerest form of flattery is imitation, then near-plagiarism is even more so. Here's what I wrote on April 9th, followed by what someone else wrote on November 7th:

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

All across the world, people are willing to leave tropical paradises, crossing oceans on overcrowded, rickety boats, agreeing to be smuggled by criminals, suffering hardships and dangers I can't even imagine, all in the name of arriving at frozen wastelands.

Why?

Because brown people really, really want to be governed by white people...

The problem with their scheme is that it involves moving millions of people thousands of miles, just to cross an imaginary line on a map to get them closer to a couple of politicians.

A more efficient way would be to move the handful of politicians over that imaginary line, so nobody has to get on rickety rafts or trade tropical paradise for snow in April.

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 "rapingvirginscuresAIDSipublicans".

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

Here's a compromise: how about we conquer only useless, uninhabited parts of the the third world - deserts like what Las Vegas was before white government, swamps like what Hong Kong used to be, before white government. We allow anyone to immigrate into our uninhabited city-state.

Then we wait.

Then freedom does its thing.

I see you had a talk with Donald Trump, he's talking about your plan:

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

Instead, he would build a safe zone for refugees, who, Trump says, all want to go home after the crisis is over anyway.

"In Syria, take a big swatch of land, which believe me, you get for the right price, okay? You take a big swatch and you don't destroy all of Europe."

He expanded on the issues moments later, saying, "What I'd like is build a safe zone, it's here, build a big beautiful safe zone and you have whatever it is so people can live, and they'll be happier."

As Trump sees it, this happiness stems from the fact that they won't have to learn the languages of the places they'd move and wouldn't have to get used to new climates or weather patterns.

"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.]

A bit late for April Fools day, oh well: