“And some, I assume, are good people”:
Thousands of Iraqi refugees who arrived in Finland last year have decided to cancel their asylum applications and to return home voluntarily, citing family issues and disappointment with life in the frosty Nordic country.
It tells you something about the unbearable “horrors” they were fleeing. All it took was a little cold weather and fewer freebies than they expected, and they’d rather head back to where they came from. It is also a good example of how an ice age would cull the populations of any r-strategists.
Migrants seeking ease and free resources are overwhelmingly r-strategists. However there may be some migrants who are K-strategists. In Finland, there may be a migrant or two who found work, could tolerate the harshness, and who will now bring a K-selected psychology to the country. I would bet those who choose to stay will not be gang rapists.
Conversely, you have Austria, which goes out of its way to see migrants are treated better than citizens:
An admission by Austrian health officials that asylum seekers have been given priority for hospital visits has been greeted by angry reaction…
The problem was highlighted last week when large numbers of people turned up at hospitals because of a flu epidemic, and had to wait to see doctors whilst asylum seekers were given priority treatment.
The nicer your country is, the harder you should make it on immigrants for the first few years, to weed out the r-strategists who just want ease. The last thing you should do is supply copious welfare, free housing, free food, safety and ease. That is a recipe for the destruction of your nation.
[…] By Anonymous Conservative […]
Comments on your Milo post are closed , otherwise I’d leave this there.
Have a look at this Rutgers speech, and specifically the ‘Trump Trump Trump’ chant that spontaneously rose up against the protest and overwhelmed it.
Further, today’s Breitbart article on ‘group therapy’ required for the poor rabbits.
Apocalypse comes.
I stuck a copy of it there.
So it would be OK if Finland was getting less homogenous, which also means less solidarity and more conflict-prone, if the migrants are “K-selected”?
If an Englishman, even a Swede immigrates to Australia, it will likely work out well. But if you take people from remote areas, especially from pre-industrial low IQ populations, and put them into industrial societies with a higher mean IQ (societies modeled after by geniuses), you will end up with a permanent underclass, less solidarity, and in the end: destruction.
We should look to Japan or South Korea instead: they don’t seem to be too keen on letting muslims or blacks — read: genetically very foreign low IQ populations — immigrate into their countries. And rightly so.
That is clearly the safest option for protecting society. However from a practical standpoint I would raise two issues. One, until we find a way to address the natural decrease in rearing urges and birthrates produced by societal success, it appears some immigration is useful to maintain societal function, and it is tough to find enough immigration exclusively composed of similar individuals. To that end, I think it is wiser to accept a K-strategist of any genetics than an r-strategist of similar genetics.
But I agree, no low IQ’s Muslims, or other factors prone to clash when resources snap back, though I think I could make a case even a K-strategist with low IQ is better than a smart r-strategist.
I read that before Roosevelt, when America had no welfare state, one in five immigrants went back because they just couldn’t handle our sink-or-swim mentality. Yet the people who found jobs, learned English, and stayed here were r-selected compared to earlier immigrants who had to carve settlements out of untamed wilderness and defend them from Indian attacks.