We need migrants to prevent inbreeding.

Actually in the UK it's immigrants who are doing the inbreeding,specifically British Asian Muslims marrying their cousins.

This has led to a massive increase in birth defects in certain parts of the country,including Bradford where 40% of Muslim marriages were between cousins.

A prominent professor and geneticist tried to raise this point.

Guess how that was received?

so you've studied trump's family tree then?

Inbreeding is not the most pressing need why immigrants are necessary. The reason immigration is not only important, but downright vital, is because birthrates are too low to sustain the populations. This is a side-effect from prosperity, education and gender equality. Education leads to many people postponing family planning until they get their careers going, ie. after they finish their education. And the later you start having children, the fewer of them you are going to have, or even want to have. Gender equality further accentuates this by giving women the choice to prioritize their careers first, and once they want to settle down and have children, they often settle for two, or even just the one.

Non-western immigrants tend to have more children, because they usually come from a situation of poverty, low education and gender inequality. Subsequent generations,however, growing up in the West, will have fewer children, assuming the same birth rates as the local population, and for the same reasons too. Because of this, the West is pretty much dependent on a steady influx of immigrants simply to sustain growth.

Some people actually think immigration is a bad thing, because "it's white genocide" or some such nonsense. Here's the thing: If you're white, and you have children by two women, one white and one black, then the child of the white mother will clearly be more white than the child of the black mother. But both children will still have just as much of your genetic material in them. The half-white child is half from you, but the all-white child is also no more than half of you. They both carry the exact same percentage of genes from you. In other words, having children with someone of a different ethnicity is no more "genocidal" than having children with someone of your own ethnicity. Your genes still live on.

Hey, you forgot to say "cuck".

Monkey see, monkey do.

I made no comment on the economy; the growth I referred to was population growth. A sudden drop in the population (from war, famine etc.) can be an excellent start for a growth spurt - in both the population and the economy alike (ashes are great for crops) - but a dwindling population is not really something we have much experience with historically. A sizeable elderly population without a proportionately larger younger population is not to be desired.

I also made no assumption that there will always be an economic imbalance in the world. If that utopian scenario ever happens (which I doubt we'll see in our lifetime), then there will be no cause for migration to escape poverty. If you add to that a scenario where no one has to escape from humanitarian crises as well, then immigration will be an insignificant factor, and all will struggle equally with their dwindling populations. I did not take this scenario into account because that scenario does not exist, nor is likely to exist for quite some time.



Religion is a clutch which brings great comfort to the poor. "Yes, we may be miserable in this life, but we will be rewarded in the next." We see that as people become more well off, have access to more and more luxuries, they dwell less and less on religion. If you don't want your children to walk on all fours because the floor is filthy and they'll get their hands dirty, teach them to walk and they won't touch the floor so much. Cutting off the hands is starting at the wrong end.



It isn't really the economy everybody is worried about - well, it's that, too, but only as a consequence of the primary worry, which is we end up with larger and still larger populations of elderly who will no longer contribute significantly to society, but who still use of the resources society has to offer. When this is not matched by an equally increasing younger population, this will start to break down on all levels. Not just economy but all aspects of value creation and logistics, as more of it is needed but less of it is produced. This will, of course, sort itself out as the population dwindles, but for one generation of elderly at least it is going to be catastrophic as this problem comes to a head.



We cannot continue to grow indefinitely. There is only so much space and only so many resources available. This has happened many times in the past and prehistory, but the solution has never been pretty. We are, if anything, overdue for a major conflict or pandemic which takes care of the surplus population. These are convenient because it allows factors beyond our control take care of the problem - the alternative is a society where we actively weed out the excess ourselves. As of yet, the population in the West is dwindling, but the population in third world countries is increasing. Until that situation changes, my point stands and the West is dependent on immigration to sustain itself.

Tell that to China, Lithuania, Pakistan, Somalia, Japan, Ecuador, Poland, Vietnam, etc. They consciously desire to keep things the way they want.

Immigration changes culture. And those were not inevitable in the West up until the 1970s. In the case of the globalist German, yes, he is an idiot who lambastes his own ancestry for the sake of a religion still stuck in the 10th century.