Right-Wing Discussion Thread VIII: McCarthy Was Right

[Gondolaulus]

Completely agree. Allowing mass immigration from third world countries in general is a bad idea.

Only the religious minorities and middle-class (at least) muslims should be allowed in. The rest is more of a liability than anything else.

Bollocks, refugees should be taken in according to national law. No need to cherry pick.

[Aelex]

Bollocks, refugees should be taken in according to national law. No need to cherry pick.

>Implying any immigrant is a """refugee"""
>Implying we should care about them being """refugee"""
Pls

[Sanctissima]

Only the religious minorities and middle-class (at least) muslims should be allowed in. The rest is more of a liability than anything else.

Bollocks, refugees should be taken in according to national law. No need to cherry pick.

You kind of do need to cherry pick when Salafis are in the mix. Extremists should not be allowed into a country under any circumstances.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

The more I read about North Africa, the more I'm convinced it would've been better off had the Italians won.

The whole world would've been better off had the Italians won.

How?

Also, please don't tell me you've gone Fascist.

[PaNTuXIa]

The whole world would've been better off had the Italians won.

How?

Also, please don't tell me you've gone Fascist.

I'm not, but I do admire some parts of fascism. Not many, but a few.

[Gondolaulus]

Bollocks, refugees should be taken in according to national law. No need to cherry pick.

You kind of do need to cherry pick when Salafis are in the mix. Extremists should not be allowed into a country under any circumstances.

Not all salafis are pro-jihadi, or counter-progressive.

Bollocks, refugees should be taken in according to national law. No need to cherry pick.

>Implying any immigrant is a """refugee"""
>Implying we should care about them being """refugee"""
Pls

Yes you should. There is a fine definition between a refugee and immigrant. You need to treat accordingly.

[Aelex]

Yes you should. There is a fine definition between a refugee and immigrant. You need to treat accordingly.

No. The All-Mighty State has no obligation to anyone who isn't one of Its citizens. It has no need nor reason to accept people who would weight on It.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

How?

Also, please don't tell me you've gone Fascist.

I'm not, but I do admire some parts of fascism. Not many, but a few.

Such as?

[Sanctissima]

You kind of do need to cherry pick when Salafis are in the mix. Extremists should not be allowed into a country under any circumstances.

Not all salafis are pro-jihadi, or counter-progressive.

Admittedly some are less fundamentalist than others, but when the bulk of your sect preaches that non-Salafis aren't real Muslims, that the West needs to be destroyed and if you disagree you're an infidel who must be crushed, I'm inclined to say they're the exception to the rule. If they want in, they can convert to a different sect. Otherwise, guilt by association.

[Gondolaulus]

Not all salafis are pro-jihadi, or counter-progressive.

Admittedly some are less fundamentalist than others, but when the bulk of your sect preaches that non-Salafis aren't real Muslims, that the West needs to be destroyed and if you disagree you're an infidel who must be crushed, I'm inclined to say they're the exception to the rule. If they want in, they can convert to a different sect. Otherwise, guilt by association.

In that case the law in most nations need to be changed, fair enough.

Yes you should. There is a fine definition between a refugee and immigrant. You need to treat accordingly.

No. The All-Mighty State has no obligation to anyone who isn't one of Its citizens. It has no need nor reason to accept people who would weight on It.

What do you mean with ''who would weight on it''?

[Aelex]

What do you mean with ''who would weight on it''?

Be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere or a threat to the State Itself.

[Conscentia]

How?
Also, please don't tell me you've gone Fascist.

I'm not, but I do admire some parts of fascism. Not many, but a few.

Which parts?

[Old Tyrannia]

The more I read about North Africa, the more I'm convinced it would've been better off had the Italians won.

The whole world would've been better off had the Italians won.

Given that would also have meant the Germans and the Japanese winning, I'd have to disagree.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

The whole world would've been better off had the Italians won.

Given that would also have meant the Germans and the Japanese winning, I'd have to disagree.

Not entirely averse to that.

[Gondolaulus]

What do you mean with ''who would weight on it''?

Be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere or a threat to the State Itself.

So you think blurring the definition between an immigrant and refugee is a good idea and closing the border to all?

[Aelex]

So you think blurring the definition between an immigrant and refugee is a good idea and closing the border to all?

Not all. Just those who don't meet the criterias needed to be productive member of society that can benefit the State. (In other words, poor muslims.) :^)

[Gondolaulus]

So you think blurring the definition between an immigrant and refugee is a good idea and closing the border to all?

Not all. Just those who don't meet the criterias needed to be productive member of society that can benefit the State. (In other words, poor muslims.) :^)

What would you see as a productive member?

[Aelex]

What would you see as a productive member?

Someone who 1) isn't a threat to the State and 2) doesn't cost more to It than he produce.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

Thoughts on producerism?

[Partido Liberal Constitucional]

No. The All-Mighty State has no obligation to anyone who isn't one of Its citizens. It has no need nor reason to accept people who would weight on It.

What do you mean with ''who would weight on it''?

Pension-takers and disabled people. They should all be deported.

[Aelex]

Pension-takers and disabled people. They should all be deported.

Seems like someone has troubles understanding the very simple concept that screening who're you letting in =/= deporting everyone who doesn't met the criteria.

[Old Tyrannia]

Given that would also have meant the Germans and the Japanese winning, I'd have to disagree.

Not entirely averse to that.

Mass murder, rape and human experimentation get your engine going, do they?

[Uxupox]

Not entirely averse to that.

Mass murder, rape and human experimentation get your engine going, do they?

He or she would have probably just been one of the many comfort persons that Japanese had.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

Not entirely averse to that.

Mass murder, rape and human experimentation get your engine going, do they?

As opposed to the Allies, whose actions resulted in the Bengal Famine, several puppet dictatorships, the Great Leap Forward, bombings, etc.

Japanese war crimes were horrendous, yet don't pretend they were special.

Mass murder, rape and human experimentation get your engine going, do they?

He or she would have probably just been one of the many comfort persons that Japanese had.

Do you really want to use that argument?

Because I can bring up Poland and Berlin.

[Sanctissima]

Mass murder, rape and human experimentation get your engine going, do they?

As opposed to the Allies, whose actions resulted in the Bengal Famine, several puppet dictatorships, the Great Leap Forward, bombings, etc.

Japanese war crimes were horrendous, yet don't pretend they were special.

Not to nitpick, but how were the Allies responsible for the Great Leap Forward?