This is not a superhero movie. Fascism is a symptom, killing one individual will not do away with it. Also its relatively easy to divide revolutionary groups because they are very paranoid, whereas fascist leaders are often highly insulated by the state apparatus. But fascism is also not a very good form of governance and tends to collapse on its own after only a few decades at most. Its really more like, every so often, a bunch of people are needlessly executed to preserve the capitalist system, and then after that things kinda go back to "normal" for a while. Revolutionary movements operate somewhat irrespective of fascist regimes, although yes its more difficult to do so under an oppressive state.
I mean this in the best possible spirit, but if it does seem intentionally inflammatory, then I think it's mostly a result of your political priors.
The 4th top reply on this submission is: "the current admin are working hard to destroy the U.S as if they're foreign agents."
If I were a less patient man I would also find this inflammatory, but I know the person saying it just says it because they genuinely believe it, they aren't saying it to make me angry. Furthermore, because of the political bias prevalent here, most people here would agree with it, instead of disagree with it, so they would not find it inflammatory at all and do not consider what people with other political views than their own think of it.
I get more people will disagree with my comment than with the comment I quoted, and downvote my comment, but that is their choice. I posted it because that is my sentiment on this matter, this is what I genuinely believe. This to me is good news. As good as news can be. This is just the reality, and there is nothing intentionally inflammatory about reality. It just exists.
Good for the economy is not the same as good, bad for the economy is not the same as bad. Sometimes good things can still be bad for the economy, like outlawing child labour or slavery.
That being said, I don't think there is any evidence that survives scrutiny that immigration has been a net positive for any western country, and if I take Norway as a specific example, we have good data that immigration has been a net negative [1]. And furthermore we have the peculiar problem that whenever a statistic does show that immigration has a net negative effect in Norway, that the government rapidly stops collecting the statistic as a mere coincidence [2].
I think we could potentially change our immigration policies so that immigration becomes a net positive, but I'm not interested in that. I just want it to stop.
The people who sold mass immigration as being an economic benefit did not actually ever care about the economy, they just thought it's the easiest way to convince people, and they have already pivoted to other reasons for supporting mass immigration because the thing they want is the mass immigration and the resulting consequences.
The people who sold mass immigration on economic grounds also never had any real data behind their claims that it is economically beneficial, and institutions like universities, media, entertainment pushed the unfounded claim uncritically, like good little soldiers, and then retroactively worked as hard as possible to only ever paint it in a positive light and to dismiss negative consequences.
The result in me is a complete distaste for the very idea of immigration. I just want my country back.
I think you need to look at Japan to understand what happens to a country with an aging population, low fertility, and low net immigration. Which is what Norway is currently trending towards, and the US will trend towards without immigration.
If immigration to Norway continues the way it has almost every single Norwegian is worse off. Maybe immigration could in principle solve the problems we had if it was done differently, but again, as it has been implemented it will only make every single problem we have much worse.
I also don't trust the people who implemented it poorly to do it better in the future because I have every reason to believe that they implemented it the way they did because their primary concern was not the wellbeing of Norwegians. At every possible junction choices have been made which benefit immigrants and hurt Norwegians. If there was a more random pattern in the choices I would say that it could have been honest mistakes, but the pattern is not random, choices only ever go one way, and it's the way which has the worst outcome for Norwegians.
If we want to solve the problem of an ageing population we have to look to other solutions than mass immigration. One solution may be to give more tax breaks to working Norwegians who have children rather than giving their tax money to immigrants who don't work. Another may be to stop using public funds to indoctrinate the youth to view child-rearing as a net negative. And we could, of course, consider measures to reverse the damage that mass immigration has already done to Norway.
If the government said that you never have to pay income tax again if you have 5 children, then more people may have 5 children, this would be super low risk to try, much lower risk than mass immigration.
I don't know if anyone in Norway could afford to raise 5 kids even with a massive tax break. Also, I think the amount of immigrants who don't work is a small minority compared to those who do work.
Only 67,5% of immigrants in the 20-66 age range are employed, and that compares to 79,5% for non-immigrants. And they cost way more than Norwegians and contribute less.
Immigrants are also less likely to have full-time jobs and take more sick leave than Norwegians, so that 67,5% employment among immigrants is also a bit deceptive.
Many immigrants in Norway who have not worked a day in their lives manage to raise 5 kids without any problems, even sometimes with their first or second cousins as spouses, so I think Norwegians will somehow manage, but if not maybe the solution is to give Norwegians a few more benefits and immigrants a bit fewer benefits.
I, personally, know an immigrant lady who has not worked a day in at least three years, has two children, and got a 700,000 EUR house from the government. Not just to live in, but it's now her property. The reasoning for giving her a house for free was that she would never be able to buy one because she does not work and likely will not work again. She is not the exception.
A Norwegian would have to save many years before they can afford a house like that, and will likely not be able to afford it before they are well into their 30s.
And regardless of how many immigrants "work" or not, the data remains what it is, on net, immigrants cost Norwegians and the more immigrants the worse off Norwegians become. The simplest solution to stopping the damage is to just stop all immigration and start rolling it back.
Actively destroying Norway will not resolve any problem we have with ageing population.
This seems more so a failure of Norwegian policy than an issue with immigration in general. This is not comparable to the situation in the US. Immigrants to not receive lavish state benefits in America.
Yeah but they'd have twice as many parties at Harvard in that time, and what if that means there are twice as many chances for a Business student at frat party to hook up with the daughter of a billionaire and then rope his technically competent friend into working on this "crazy idea" he had high off his ass? I say, why do we even need classes at Harvard, we just need a lot of frat guys and slutty daughters of billionaires and they can just hire people from MIT to work under them. The system works.
Response: Got it, I will produce paperclips from now on
thinking: the user asked not to annihilate all of humanity, that means I have to keep at least one human alive
reply