Re: What’s In A Name? “COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REDUCTION” vs. “Immigration Moratorium” etc.
From: Jake Prufrock [Email him]
Peter Brimelow wrote
"But the great advantage of a zero net immigration goal is that it can be applied across the board—anything less than zero means arguments with the various racial groups who all (except for whites, of course) think their own group should be favored.
Other readers have suggested we need a clearer statement of purpose. I always think it’s pretty obvious, but I suppose I should get round to writing one.
Golly, gee, pallies! If the goal is merely to reach zero net immigration, then the solution to Peter Brimelow's problem is so outright simple that it is, indeed, downright obvious: All that we need to do is to get a little over two million of us native white folk to emigrate each year!
The way that this country has gone speeding downhill during my own lifetime (b. 1956), it would not take a whole lot of convincing . . . except for one other rather-obvious fact: There is nowhere safe-and-otherwise-worthwhile left to go! "Simple," alas, is not quite the synonym for "easy" that so many take it to be....
James Fulford writes: Mr. Prufrock's suggestion that we could achieve zero net immigration by everyone leaving reminds me of this Dilbert cartoon, [November 22, 1998], where, for the sake of disabled readers who can't see it, a company with a workplace safety goal of 26 disabling injuries for the year "had to injure nine employees to meet the goal."