Karnal
|
Mr Hammer wrote on May 6 th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Karnal wrote on May 6 th, 2016 at 4:05pm: Mr Hammer wrote on May 6 th, 2016 at 3:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 6 th, 2016 at 2:56pm: ... wrote on May 6 th, 2016 at 2:41pm: Which is only "good" if you're a globalist. Which I am not. But we will move on. Actually you are a globalist Honk, we all are. We have no choice - we literally couldn't exist in this society with our standard of living without being a globalist. And the point K made was that it is basically all propped up by immigration. The western world simply hasn't come up with a model for prosperity that doesn't rely so heavilly on mass immigration. And my point is that since muslim immigrants exist in just about every immigrant source nation, it is simply absurd to suggest they can be separated out and excluded entirely from the program. You'd have better luck focusing on specific nations - while at the same time acknowledging that some muslim nations like Indonesia and Malaysia are no problem whatsoever. Australia was moving along just fine as a monoculture. It even survived the great depression without mass immigration. Feel free to discuss pre-WWII Australian living standards, Homo. We'll do a bit of a compare and contrast. You might want to discuss GDP, wealth distribution, infant mortality, human life span, war, foreign and domestic security, income levels, unemployment, the poverty line, crime rates, savings rates, mortgage rates, inflation, nutrition, the consumer price index, terms of trade - you know, all those things that improved in the post-war period, some as a direct result of mass migration. The whole world was more primitive dear. Australia had railways, businesses, industry, cities etc etc etc. All done without Muslims. Oh, I know, Homo. We're discussing qualitative phenomena. Do you have the figures?
|