/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2564411]

So, my friend is loving this book and gushing about its atmosphere, writing, pacing etc., but isn't done with it so he can't talk about its meaning as a whole yet, but is raving about it to me and telling me I have to read it. I have a ton of books on my plate already, is it worth the time/ is it that good? Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.2564418]

Probably the best book by an Englishman last decade. I'd read it.

[Anonymous No.2564420]

I am a big fan of Ishiguro, but chances are, your friend is a hypist. I consider Never Let Me Go to be one of Ishiguro's worst. The story is very sappy. The ending is very existentialist. I would try The Remains of the Day or Artist of the Floating World first.

[Anonymous No.2564425]

Haven't read it myself, but a professor who I respected tremendously said that Ishiguro writes English characters better than the English do (She was talking about Remains of the Day).

Hearsay, but dependable.

[Anonymous No.2564432]

>>2564425
But Ishiguro IS English. He moved to Britain when he was 6 and he can't even speak Japanese.

[Anonymous No.2564459]

>>2564411
I've read his earlier work "Remains of the Day" and I'm about halfway through this, and I also saw the movie.

It depends on what you're into but I definitely enjoy the guy's work. He's great at subtly destroying people emotionally

[Anonymous No.2564467]

>>2564432
are you retarded? english means racially english which she clearly is not.

[Anonymous No.2564471]

>>2564411

Kathy then becomes Tommy's carer and begins a romantic relationship with him. For a time they are happy, but then think again about the possible deferral. Tommy selects pieces of his art to show to Madame, and, encouraged by Ruth's last wishes they go to Madame's address. Their goal is to see if they can defer Tommy's fourth donation (which is often the last one). Tommy has brought his art with him, as evidence of his personality, to back up his claims that he and Kathy are in love. Madame leads Kathy and Tommy inside, where they also meet Miss Emily, their old headmistress. They learn that Hailsham was a failed effort on their part to prove to society that clones had souls. They emphasized art as a means to make this point to the world. However, the experiment ultimately failed to achieve what they had wanted and they lost their funding and Hailsham had to be closed. Other clones were raised in much grimmer circumstances. Miss Emily dismisses the rumor that Hailsham students may defer their donations if they fall in love.

The pair learn that Hailsham was an experiment to improve the living conditions and alter societal attitudes toward clones. Until Hailsham, society had preferred to view clones merely as non-human sources of organs. Kathy and Tommy learn that Miss Emily actually was disgusted by the clones, and that Miss Lucy (another teacher at Hailsham) was dismissed for her dangerously open attitudes towards them. Tommy is upset and bewildered by the discovery of the purpose of Hailsham, whereas Kathy appears simply humbled, as if she has passively accepted her fate. The novel ends after Tommy's "completion" (i.e. death), on a note of resignation, as Kathy will now become a donor and eventually "complete".

There, I just saved ya 288 boobless pages.

[Anonymous No.2564473]

>>2564467

Tfw when English isn't a race.

[Anonymous No.2564475]

>>2564467
>getaloadofthisguy.jpg

[Anonymous No.2564476]

>>2564467

English is a nationality you boob.

[Anonymous No.2564477]

It's a pointless book because it's a really detailed account of something that could never happen. Shit SF by a literary writer who wants to be congratulated for even looking at the genre. Avoid, ignore.

[Libertarians to the Gas Chambers !!uPKdrNrz+AI No.2564478]

>>2564467
>>2564473
Usually by English, people are speaking of anglos..

[Anonymous No.2564479]

>>2564467
Don't be retarded. A person's race has fuck all to do with how they turn out when compared to how they grew up. A Japanese person who grew up in Britain is much more English in any meaningful way than an Englishman who grew up in Japan.

[Anonymous No.2564484]

>>2564476
what do you think "nationality" means? It means ethnicity.

>>2564479
You are fucking retarded.

If a white man was born and lived in japan, would he be japanese? Not in the fucking slightest.
Go be a traitor somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.2564489]

>>2564479
also that sort of "environment only" shit has been disproven for decades now.

[Anonymous No.2564491]

>>2564478

Well then say anglo or gtfo.

[Anonymous No.2564492]

4chan filter, Ima grip and sip.

[Anonymous No.2564493]

>>2564477
>this book is bad because is not real
>stupid book, talk about real
>no writing if is not real

[Anonymous No.2564496]

>>2564484
If a white man was born and raised in Japan and wrote his books in Japanese, then yes, I'd consider his work Japanese literature.

[Anonymous No.2564497]

>>2564476

No. No it does not you uneducated spider-monkey. "Nationality" refers to the nation from which one hails and identifies themselves with. Notice the root word "nation". "Ethnicity" refers to the ethnic group, or "race" one is a member of through genetics.

Consider your ass learned.

[Anonymous No.2564498]

>>2564484
you're a very confused little person.
or really fucking stupid.
not sure which.

[Anonymous No.2564500]

>>2564493

It has no emotional point of contact with anyone's real life. No real feels, no deal.

[Anonymous No.2564501]

>>2564497
>English is a nationality
>No. No it does not
Do you even read, stormfront?

[Anonymous No.2564504]

>>2564497

Meant to direct at
>>2564484

[Anonymous No.2564507]

>>2564497
>nation

Nation being a group of people, irregardless of geography or borders or countries.
Which is the same thing as ethnicity.

>>2564496
Well, luckily the japs will never let foreigners live in their country, that's because they have a sane view on immigration.

Much as we did before the traitors/marxists started running things.

[Anonymous No.2564510]

>>2564500
>no emotional point of contact
>can be read as a hyperbolic allegory of racism

[Anonymous No.2564512]

>>2564504
>Meant to direct at
See
>>2564501

[Anonymous No.2564517]

>>2564507
> irregardless

Haha, illiterate.
>>2564510

No it can't, the situation isn't comparable.

[Anonymous No.2564518]

>>2564507

Seriously beginning to consider you legally retarded.

A nation is not just a "group of people regardless of geographics boundaries". You are confusing it with race, which is predetermined by genetics. A nation is a community of people who more or less possess a government or territory.

"English" is not a race. "French" is not a race. In the same way that "American" is not a race.

[Anonymous No.2564520]

>>2564517
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

>>2564518
>A nation is a community of people who more or less possess a government or territory.

No you idiot. This is how its commonly MISUSED today, but that is not the meaning of the word.

A COUNTRY is the group, the NATION is a people.
The SERBIAN NATION includes serbs who live all over europe.
The ENGLISH NATION, does not include scotland or wales or all those subhuman immigrants.

[Anonymous No.2564521]

>regular people perceive themselves as superior
>are disgusted by clones
>don't get rid of clones because of the benefits
I guess you're right. I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.2564525]

>>2564520

Arguing semantics does not change the fact that "English" is not a fucking race you apeshit lunatic.

[Anonymous No.2564527]

>>2564525
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English.

[Anonymous No.2564528]

>>2564520
>all dem angry caps
You're mad as fuck.

[Anonymous No.2564530]

Ladies, please!
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.2564532]

>>2564528
not even close

[Anonymous No.2564535]

>>2564527
>wikipedia
>source
laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.2564537]

>>2564521

It doesn't remotely work. If that was the intention, the book is even more of a failure than I thought. On no level is racism comparable to how we might treat genetically cultivated spare-parts providers.

[Anonymous No.2564538]

>>2564532
That you responded says a lot.

[Anonymous No.2564540]

>>2564535
>wikipedia
>not a valid source for basic shit like this

[Anonymous No.2564541]

>>2564540
Yep.

[Anonymous No.2564542]

>>2564527

Oh cool, a wikipedia article. That proves you right. /sarcasm

Except that English is not an ethnic group and is largely made up of Anglos (which is an ethnic group).

Go back to school. And take your ridiculous immigration views there too. There's a reason why Japan is a country largely comprised of slowly dying old people.

[Anonymous No.2564544]

>>2564520

You don't get to use relativist sociolinguistics with me you fucking slave, your entire canon of values is authoritarian. It's not a word.

[Anonymous No.2564551]

>>2564542
>There's a reason why Japan is a country largely comprised of slowly dying old people.

At least their still japanese you fucking retard, and not being raped and murdered by millions of immigrants.

Notice how the english police completely ignore the grooming and rape of thousands of young girls?

You traitors should be killed.

[Anonymous No.2564558]

>>2564510
>Hyperbolic allegory for racism
Why the fuck would we need that? We have real stories of real racism that don't undermine themselves by having fucktarded grounds.
Also, this clone-discrimination niche pisses me off. Partially because they are always based around an organ donation program that is so inexplicably inefficient that it shatters any immersion. Plus that fact that clones are just genetically identical, like identical twins, and there is no fucking problem with those natural clones, so what is all this existential bullshit even coming from?

[Anonymous No.2564559]

>>2564527

I'm honestly still cracking up at someone seriously attempting to define English as an ethnic group and determining it as "people who live in England and speak English."

Lulz. Stay classy wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.2564562]

>>2564559
He's some retarded troll who spends hours here.

[Anonymous No.2564564]

>>2564558
>We have real stories of real racism that don't undermine themselves by having fucktarded grounds.

Such as Tyler Perry films, and Maya Angelou's niggerverse

[Anonymous No.2564565]

>>2564559
Do you lack reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.2564567]

>>2564551

Being "Japanese" doesn't amount for much when your nation is slowly consuming itself.

Try as you might, there is no logic behind racism. The more you try and fervently stack up reasoning behind it the more it turns on you and makes you look like a slack jawed idiot.

[Anonymous No.2564569]

>>2564565

Obviously not, seeing as I am comprehending everything here quite easily. Maybe you should check out your argument and realize it's a piece of shit instead of blaming your audience for "not getting it."

[Anonymous No.2564570]

>>2564558

This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.2564573]

>>2564567
>Try as you might, there is no logic behind racism.
There is no "logical" reason to do anything or think anything. There is no logical reason why you should continue living another minute.
You can't fucking "logic" your way to answers from nothing.

>>2564569
the english are an ethnic group who speak english and live in england, that's not the fucking definition of them.

[Anonymous No.2564575]

>>2564551
>At least their still japanese
>/Stormfront/ shit
>>>/pol/
And stay there. Fuck these neo-cons shitting up this place.

[Anonymous No.2564577]

>>2564573
What a jackass.

[Anonymous No.2564578]

>>2564573
>Oh shit they realized my argument has no logic to it.
>Wat do?
>Uh...well there isn't any logic to anything!!!

[Anonymous No.2564580]

>>2564573
>can't logic your way to answers

Except you totally can.

>The English are an ethnic group

No they are not. You clearly have learned nothing from this encounter. I already explained to you that the English are not an ethnic group, and what an ethnic group actually is, multiple times. Do I have to hold your hand?

I suppose knowing how to read is important here. Do you know how to read?

[Anonymous No.2564581]

I'm British. There's no such racial group as the English. We have Anglo-Saxons, the original Britons they conquered, Normans, and bits of lots of other nationalities. The Britons themselves originally hailed from Armorica and the north coast of Spain. Then there's the Celts.

[Anonymous No.2564583]

>>2564573
>There is no logic to anything ever, so my lack of logic is okay and should be the standard!

[Anonymous No.2564585]

>>2564581

This guy knows what an ethnic group is. You follow stormfag?

[Anonymous No.2564587]

>>2564580
Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm not a Stormfronter or anything, so please understand, this is honest confusion - but how is "English" not an ethnicity? It seems to me that if you're going to use a framework where you can talk about ethnic groups AT ALL then something like "English" would just about have to be one. Not a race obviously, but an ethnicity?

Unless you want further subdivisions or something? Please explain, I'm deeply curious.

[Anonymous No.2564588]

>>2564573

Hey, look here: you're using relativism at every turn. You wouldn't have that without homosexuals and Jews. There's nothing you can to to avoid the fact that in the kind of society you THINK you want, the kind of person you are would go through his whole life without ever expressing an opinion. You want to be a serf, and that's why you're so bad at arguing with free thinkers.

[Anonymous No.2564590]

>>2564578
Correct, there is no logic to anything.

If you do not value say, living in a prosperous country, not having sky high crime rates, not having your daughter kidnapped and raped by negros, not having drug addicts in the local schools, not hearing gunshots constantly at night, etc

Then naturally there would be no logical reason why you would oppose immigration from africa, nor why you would oppose forceful integration of the schools.

[Anonymous No.2564598]

>>2564587

Dude. I'm going to explain this to you slowly.

An "ethnic group" is a group of people who share the same heritage and genetics. That doesn't change no matter where they went. If two Anglos were born to the same mother, and one went to live in Indonesia, and one went to live in Brazil, they would both still be Anglos.

"English" is not an ethnic group. It is a word used to describe people who hailed from the same part of the world, not a construct of genetics. The English people are made up of Anglos and other ethnic groups.

The main thing here is, if a Zulu was born IN England and raised as an Englishman, he would be English. He would never be an Anglo. Likewise if an Anglo was born in Africa and raised as an African, he would be an African. He would never be a Zulu however. He would always be an Anglo.

[Anonymous No.2564600]

>>2564587

Because the people who live in what's now England were already racially mixed by the time the concept of 'England' came about. The Angles were just one tribe, and not necessarily the most numerous.

[Anonymous No.2564602]

>>2564588
>You want to be a serf
Not sure where you got that.

[Anonymous No.2564603]

>>2564590
>Spout racist shit with no foundation
>Doesn't know the slightest bit about causes of crime/poverty
>Tries and fails to make a coherent connection to the non-existence of logic

You aren't helping yourself, buddy.

[Anonymous No.2564605]

>>2564598

^ This.

[Anonymous No.2564606]

>>2564411
Hey OP, I've read the book it's well written. The story is meaningful and interesting. I'd reccomend it.

[Anonymous No.2564607]

>>2564602

From your avowed beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2564610]

>>2564603
>Spout racist shit with no foundation
lern 2 human nature.

>Doesn't know the slightest bit about causes of crime/poverty
More like you don't. IQ and genetics are the primary causes of these things.

>Tries and fails to make a coherent connection to the non-existence of logic
Did not say this, i said you can't "logic" your way to how you should think or behave from nothing, you have to have assumptions and values.

>>2564607
valuing freedom means i want to be a serf?

[Anonymous No.2564612]

>>2564610

Racism is dead bro. Get over it and move on before I see you on TV getting put away because you stabbed a black guy who "looked at you funny".

[Anonymous No.2564614]

>>2564610
>lern 2 human nature.
>More like you don't.
More bullshit and NO U arguments from stormfront.

>Did not say this
You didn't say anything, you *showed that you have no idea what you're doing.

1/10, move along.

[Anonymous No.2564617]

>>2564610

You don't value freedom if you want it to be taken away from other people. You're fantasizing about a world where you're kept from having to look at non-whites. That's not freedom you're after, that's a police state.

[Anonymous No.2564619]

The idea of a racially "pure" Earth is impossible at this point anyway. Might as well give up on your feeble ideas and move on.

[Anonymous No.2564620]

Take for example, the Russian Blue cat.
It's a pure breed, but not initially through artificial selection. Russian Blues originated by natural selection because they lived and bred in a place for an extended period of time. You can take a Russian Blue out of Russia, but it will still have the pedigree of a Russian Blue cat.

Apply that to the "English" phenotype. Genetics have sloshed around that happy old island, and there are many phenotypes to be observed amongst the English people, yet you can often times find a genetic characteristic common to an exorbitant amount of English. This would be a characteristic of the "English" breed.

English do indeed have a general phenotype.

[Anonymous No.2564623]

>>2564610
You have no idea what freedom is. This is utterly tragic. Honestly, it is.

[Anonymous No.2564624]

>>2564617
It's not a "freedom" for the non-whites to be able to come into our countries, and its not "freedom" for them to be able to buy houses/move into our neighborhoods.

>>2564614
Too much to go into how "racism" is natural and normal behavior.

>>2564623
More like i don't believe in commie bullshit like "positive freedoms".

[Anonymous No.2564628]

>>2564598
okay it is a question of terminology then. it seemed to me that you were denying that there was an ethnic group composed of the people who historically lived in england. i can see now that this was a misperception on my part. it still seems strange to assign "anglo" to the ethnic group, but that's life i guess.

[Anonymous No.2564629]

>>2564610
>More like you don't. IQ and genetics are the primary causes of these things.
But that's wrong, you insolent retard. IQ and genetics are not nearly the factors of poverty and crime that economic and social policies in a government are. The average IQ may be higher in more affluent areas, but the gap between the wealthy and the urban areas is not as high as the former would have you believe at your KK-- I mean country club meetings.

[Anonymous No.2564630]

I thought it was so melodramatic, and the scifi plot device he uses isn't done in a very creative way. It feels like a Philip K Dick novel by way of Days of Our Loves.

I'm told Ishiguro has another novel about a butler that is better. I'll be reading that before I pass judgement on him

[Anonymous No.2564633]

>>2564629
>but the gap between the wealthy and the urban areas is not as high as the former would have you believe
30 points ain't high?

Funny how the "gap" has done nothing but grow since we left the gold standard and started all this socialist lunacy. But i wouldn't expect a liberal to ever learn.

Crime has no correlation with poverty.
The whole term "poverty" is basically meaningless since it is completely subjective.

[Anonymous No.2564638]

>>2564633
Also i like how you think government is literally everything, sure is mixing up correlation with causation.

[Anonymous No.2564639]

>>2564624

Yes, it is freedom.

[Anonymous No.2564640]

>>2564624
>More like i don't believe in commie bullshit like "positive freedoms".

Commie bullshit. Positive freedom is commie bullshit. Liberty, the proud possession of free Europeans throughout history - is now dismissed as "commie bullshit" and thrown away as a trifle without value. The Greeks debating in their cities - the Roman senators, the dictators, the lofty free men of the Roman Republic - the industrious and proud city-states which so jealously guarded their independence from emperors and princes - the counts and dukes who held their own against crowns to maintain their dignity and self-rule - the men of God who threw down kings and submitted them to their rule - all for nothing, now. Commie bullshit. God, it is to weep!

[Anonymous No.2564641]

>>2564624
>It's not a "freedom" for the non-whites to be able to come into our countries, and its not "freedom" for them to be able to buy houses/move into our neighborhoods.
>It is not freedom for people to live normally as they please.

>Too much to go into how "racism" is natural and normal behavior.
So is murder and rape and those things you push onto your scapegoats. Doesn't mean it is the logical thing to practice, or morally supportable in any sense.

[Anonymous No.2564642]

>>2564624
>Too much to go into how "racism" is natural and normal behavior.
More like you're full of shit and don't have anything that isn't right-wing nutjob sites and wikipedia to back you up.

[Anonymous No.2564643]

>>2564633

Again, you can't use relativism if you're advocating authoritarian measures.

[Anonymous No.2564644]

>>2564624
>It's not a "freedom" for the non-whites to be able to come into our countries, and its not "freedom" for them to be able to buy houses/move into our neighborhoods.

It actually totally is though...you're confusing "freedom" with "things that only I like and permit" which, believe it or not, is the exact opposite of freedom.

[Anonymous No.2564645]

>>2564628

You seem to have missed that part earlier on when I mentioned "arguing semantics".

[Anonymous No.2564646]

>>2564633

>Crime has no correlation with poverty.
>The whole term "poverty" is basically meaningless since it is completely subjective.
Really? So people that desperately steal and fight amongst one another for survival in a despotic hell-hole is not poverty-caused crime? Tell me more about how you can't add 2 and 2 together.

[Anonymous No.2564647]

>>2564645
i am not the same anon you are arguing with earlier, i saw your claims and was confused by them (and, although i did track back through the argument it was so confused & full of ad hominems that it didn't actually help much). thank you for clarifying.

[Anonymous No.2564648]

>>2564646

If we crammed a ton of white people into shitty living conditions they would go ape shit on each other too. People are the same. The situation is what holds the power.

The sooner you understand this the better.

[Anonymous No.2564651]

>>2564640
NONE OF THOSE FREE EUROPEANS OR GREEKS OR ROMANS WOULD EVER HAVE TOLERATED MASS IMMIGRATION!

Do you SERIOUSLY THINK any man of the past would look at the modern times and see something "good" ?

>>2564644
What is a country except the possession of those in it? When a small amount of leftists and jews push mass immigration against the will of the vast majority, is this "Freedom"?

Further: Do you think ANY of these non-white immigrants would accept mass immigration into their home countries?

>>2564646
Are you talking about africa as if it relates to the west?

>>2564648
yes because japanese were rioting and murdering after that tsunami right?
Sure is blatant fucking lies.

[Anonymous No.2564652]

>>2564647

What? You do realize that you literally picked up the argument right where the other guy left off right?

And nothing wrong with ad hominem as long as it's a spice rather than the main dish.

[Anonymous No.2564656]

>>2564651

White people riot and murder as well. People are the same. Experiences are what makes them different, not appearance.

[Anonymous No.2564659]

>>2564651
My point is this: you have no concept of freedom. You do not understand what it is to be free, and associate it only with race - understand it only through the lens of race. For you, freedom is freedom from other races. This is both incredibly limited and limiting, and incredibly tragic, that freedom has become this.

Would those ancient peoples have been okay with migration? Well, the Romans were pretty adept at assimilating other peoples, so I imagine they were pretty okay with it. And Europe was such a patchwork of ethnicities that they more or less had to be okay with it. The point is: race has no connection to real freedom - and in seeing it through that lens, you're making a crucial mistake. Freedom is not harmed through mass immigration, so long as those immigrants can be politically assimilated. Which they can be.

[Anonymous No.2564660]

>>2564651
>immigration against the will of the majority

Except it's not. I don't know what shitty Texas town you live in, but most people are fine with letting people immigrate to their country.

[Anonymous No.2564663]

>>2564651

The vast majority don't have a problem with it. A country is a political entity. You wouldn't own it under a fascist government any more than you do now, in fact you'd have less of a stake in it.

[Anonymous No.2564668]

>>2564652
>What? You do realize that you literally picked up the argument right where the other guy left off right?

no. because, again, I couldn't really follow the track of it. i am not trying to defend the sanctity of the english race against the evil brown invaders. but it does seem to me that, if we are going to be okay with talking about ethnic groups and cultures, there is a thing as englishness and english culture. and it looked to me as though you were claiming that there was not. and that seemed strange to me. so i asked for clarification and i got it and i now understand the terminological confusion that led me to that quandary.

>And nothing wrong with ad hominem as long as it's a spice rather than the main dish.

unfortunately, in this case...

[Anonymous No.2564671]

In fact, Ancient Rome did tolerate mass immigration.

[Anonymous No.2564673]

>>2564668

You'd better go back to using capitalzation, as you did initially.

[Anonymous No.2564676]

>>2564668

In this case Ad Hominem is not the main dish. You'll notice how the logical argument for the most part continues. I get how you want to criticize the personal attacks but exaggerating their stake in the discussion isn't necessary.

[Anonymous No.2564679]

>>2564673
only my first post itt used caps

seriously, i'm not the same dude, i was confused over your terms

[Anonymous No.2564681]

>>2564659
>Well, the Romans were pretty adept at assimilating other peoples
After they had conquered them and installed their people in power. A little different then forfeiting their political power in their own country and hoping the invaders adopt their suicidal political/cultural values.

>Freedom is not harmed through mass immigration, so long as those immigrants can be politically assimilated.

You make this assumption that people are blank slates, that the immigrants will want to adopt our values which are suiciding themselves.
Why would anyone want to copy what we are doing when its going so wrong?

These immigrants hold drastically different views on many things, especially on "freedom".
It is incredibly egotistical of you to assume our way is the best/only way, and that the non-whites will worship us for showing them the light.

[Anonymous No.2564683]

>>2564679

No problem.

[Anonymous No.2564684]

>>2564679

>seriously, i'm not the same dude, i was confused over your terms

Yeah, we already got that.

[Anonymous No.2564685]

>>2564660
Wrong, vast majority are against illegal immigration. Though it does appear on current polls that only 45% are against legal immigration.

Of course most people get their "facts" from the liberal media and so won't have any idea how bad immigration really is.

>>2564671
Ya the german migrants were really good for the roman empire.

[Anonymous No.2564690]

>>2564685

The legal polls in which country? Just to make sure we're on the same page.

[Anonymous No.2564701]

>>2564681
>After they had conquered them and installed their people in power.

If you can't see the parallels between that and immigration to modern European nations, I don't know what to tell you, because in a huge number of cases, the people coming into European countries are coming from former colonies. Certainly this is overwhelmingly the case in UK and afaik in France and Germany as well.

> You make this assumption that people are blank slates, that the immigrants will want to adopt our values which are suiciding themselves. Why would anyone want to copy what we are doing when its going so wrong?

I... honestly I'm finding it difficult to process the level of absurdity, and circular reasoning, and insanity going on in this claim. Wow. Just to point out, as I read it, you seem to be arguing that (1) immigrants will not want to adopt our values, because they are absurd and (2) our values are absurd because they are leading to our destruction and (3) they are leading to our destruction because they allow immigration and immigrants won't adopt our values. Do you not see how that's a morass of unproven assertions that depend on each other for justification?

Your claims about "the best/only way" I don't want to get too in-depth on because it is such a complex question - but I should point out that I don't necessarily think our ways are the best possible ways. I do think they are quite good ways in many respects. Also, I should point out that this point of yours is incredibly inconsistent with all your other assertions and it's basically just bizarre for you to be arguing this.

[Anonymous No.2564704]

>>2564685

No, they're not against it, nor is that because they haven't read your phoney Stormfront research.

[Anonymous No.2564705]

>>2564690
America of course.

Also: I guarren-fucking-tee you the vast majority would not approve of immigration in THEIR neighborhood.
Most people live in de facto segregated, and "see no evil hear no evil".

>>2564659
Also: To address this again, the government stomps all over "freedom" to impose their anti-racist point of view.

Another point: we are a DEMOCRACY NOW, this is VASTLY DIFFERENT when compared to an empire or a monarchy.
The romans would remain roman no matter how many barbarians they annexed. It would still be run from rome and by a roman emperor.

[Anonymous No.2564708]

>ITT

>people saying immigrants instead of just calling them towelheads and niggers

[Anonymous No.2564710]

>>2564705

Roman citizens weren't of one ethnicity. Some of them were even Jewish.

[Anonymous No.2564711]

>>2564705
>Another point: we are a DEMOCRACY NOW, this is VASTLY DIFFERENT when compared to an empire or a monarchy. The romans would remain roman no matter how many barbarians they annexed. It would still be run from rome and by a roman emperor.

When Rome was run by a Roman emperor, it had already lost its freedom and become a despotism.

Again, you have no concept of what it is to be free, and it seems from this post that you would prefer rule by a tyrant over freedom, so long as the tyrant was a white American. I weep for America. Fucking tragic.

[Anonymous No.2564729]

>>2564701
>because in a huge number of cases, the people coming into European countries are coming from former colonies.
ok? How is this relevant? Are you saying the immigration is ok because they were once ruled over by europe?

Physically non-whites cannot be assimilated, they look nothing like us.

My point is, that none of these non-whites would approve of mass immigration to their home countries, and they can see that whites are being displaced and dispossessed in their own countries.
If you ask an indian, do you think he likes the fact whites have colonized these lands?

I don't even know what you meant by "politically assimilate" either.

>>2564711
So you think being able to vote means you are free?

[Anonymous No.2564736]

>>2564729
>So you think being able to vote means you are free?

No, I don't. I think it's a decent start, but not sufficient. But, yes, it is closer to being free than being ruled by someone of the same race. The race of the people in power has no connection to freedom.

[Anonymous No.2564742]

>>2564738
That would be a sham, and nothing approaching freedom. Of course.

[Anonymous No.2564738]

>>2564736
If they rounded up people, and forced them to vote, would this be pro-freedom or anti-freedom?

[Anonymous No.2564740]

>>2564729

This is it, your idea of 'values' actually comes down to appearance.

[Anonymous No.2564744]

>>2564738

This is such cretinous bullshit. Your argument has literally NOTHING going on.

[Anonymous No.2564748]

>>2564744
Freedom comes from self-sufficiency, not from particular forms of government.

Democracies are not in any way predisposed to being more free.
Nor is a democracy a prerequisite to freedom.

[Anonymous No.2564753]

>>2564748

This is more 'words mean what I want' crap.

[Anonymous No.2564755]

>>2564753
Like i said earlier, i do not believe in that positive freedom crap.