Shoresy

Migrants claim and build. Immigrants are forced to comply with assimilation or be deported by the original migrants.

Definitely not Mid-Wales. It's way too close to the Scottish white trash who taught American Negroes after the scottish trash invaded southern parts of the USA to speak like "dis" and "dem" and "axe" you a question, creating black trash all over the USA, whom even black africans shun. And the black Africans, being the lords of slavery, would know trash when they see it. In fact: historically, African warlords would ONLY sell to white trash. The best thing about Wales is that every road eventually leads out of it. Welsch are masters of sheep and rubbish; therefore: white trash. Welch is so bad their country's name became a verb for not paying your debts.

Which whites are supreme? Russians? Polish?

Definitely not Brits, Americans, or Canadians. Those whites are trash.

The enemy of an enemy is a friend. Just repeat till it makes sense.

The Siberian peninsula invaders could have used a Fauci jab.

If you leave your house, you are an immigrant.

USA has to deport them so they can be exploited from a distance and not up close.

So far, three Americans, Ruben Ray Martinez, Renee Nicole Good, and Alex Pretti paid with their lives.

USA doesn't have exclusive rights to Darwin Awards.

Do you feel safer, did it make your life any better, are there less drugs, less crime, fewer rapists?

I'm sure the cars feel safer.

I don't care about the mechanics. The spirit is broken.

Nah, last debate was some supreme bad faith BS. If winning a debate through strawmen is the measure, I'll bow out.

I'd like to think on a deep level, that intuitive freedom means an individual gets to choose how best to tackle natural entropy.

Cmon, necroposters need love too.

There is no functional difference between PURE Communism and PURE Democracy. It's exclusive rule through majority compliance.

lol, I saw msnow and thought M. Snow as in massive snow.

Lol, you called me everything but a liar.

And you now support the Save Act, noted.

Feel free to select a lie:

1) MAGA are too stupid to get an ID.

2) I want to oppose the Save Act because I love MAGA and want it to surge.

She was believable, unlike your post.

The only people that have been fooled by this lie are Trump's beloved "poorly educated".

Then you should support the SAVE Act, as it will quickly destroy MAGA when the poorly educated can't even use Google to get a voter ID instead of lying again to make fake friends. Or is your next big lie going to be that you have to stop the Save Act because you really love MAGA people?

you have chosen fascism over diversity.

Lol, diversity is straight-up Hitler fascism when one so-called skin-race is always excluded under the modern definition of diversity. Especially when there were fascist authoritarian laws before the Supreme Court struck down all the racist DEI authoritarian laws thanks to your 14th Amendment.

It's already illegal for foreigners to vote in American elections

The SAVE Act isn't writing a new law or overriding existing law. It's creating enforcement for an existing law.

 and engaging in voter suppression.

Illegal voters should be suppressed in a functioning democracy.

and it's been proven conclusively that there was no foreigner voting in the 2020 election,

If you are going to push propaganda, at least make it plausible.

https://www.facebook.com/ABCNews/photos/about-6600-people-in-new-jersey-who-said-they-were-not-us-citizens-had-been-inco/1475708247749384/

"It NEVER happened" ..."It's not happening now." "Okay, it's happening; but just barely." "Okay it's happening, and it's widespread, but here's why it's a good thing."

eep

"Open borders" is one of those obvious oxymorons overused to the point where it's as meaningless as Canada's borders. For example, A circle drawn on white paper in black ink can have a theoretically defined border, but if you shade the entire paper the same color black, it's meaningless in all ways that matter.

Elbows up assumes most people living in Canada identify as primarily Canadian. They do not. Canada 2026 is officially a global economic zone with no defined culture or border.

What's the downside of closing foreign bases?

"There is a reason that we are at our happiest when we feel we are part of something bigger, the effort we expend as part of a team is magnified, and the most satisfying goals we can accomplish are the common goals. We are at our best when we transcend the realm in which our own materiality is located and adopt a perspective that defines life as good in terms of the contribution made to others."

This begins with a moral assumption, not an argument. It assumes "transcending ego" is inherently superior. Superior by what standard? Happiness? Survival? Productivity? Liberty? What if that "feeling" is something out of a Fellini movie where you are actually surrendering your progeny's future, believing it was all "worthwhile"? You have already chosen a moral endpoint before presenting evidence. Blind contribution to others in the evolutionary biological sense usually boils down to one main thing: food for the fittest. If your Fellini reality contradicts this biological reality, then enjoy your fake steak in the matrix for as long as the fittest allow you to be plugged into the Fellini matrix.

"Flow of life"

Evolution has no "flow." It has mutation, selection, competition against the unfit, cooperation among the fittest, extinction, and adaptation.

Your pithy phrase turns a descriptive biological process into something resembling a spiritual force.

"...the same flow that single celled creatures aligned with to fuse into a greater being..."

This is the biggest leap of all.

Cells did not "align" toward a common purpose. Natural selection favored organisms whose traits happened to persist.

There was no conscious decision or universal tendency toward cooperation. The success of today's generation of surviving species was built on the bones of trillions of extinct species, not the inclusion of them. That's why we call it natural selection and not natural inclusion.

Many organisms never became multicellular and yet remain extraordinarily successful today.

"...We are participating in a continuing process..."

This is true only in the very real sense that we are a part of the cycle of history. Again, this implies that history has a natural destination.

History isn't a staircase. It's full of civilizations that rose and collapsed. Empires fragmented. Cultures disappeared. Progress is neither inevitable nor continuous, regardless of what one may "feel" during a collapse period inside a doomed society about the real future.

"...procaryotes, eukaryotes, metazoans, hives, hills, colonies, cultures, and civilizations."

And this is the crown jewel of all the fallacies.

You've mistaken an observable historical pattern for a universal moral law. Evolution does not strive toward larger or more inclusive forms of organization; it exclusively selects whatever arrangements improve survival under particular conditions. Sometimes that has meant larger cooperative systems. Sometimes it has meant specialization, competition, fragmentation, or exclusion. Human societies succeed not because they continually transcend the individual, but because they develop institutions that allow cooperation while preserving the incentives, knowledge, and constraints on which cooperation depends. You have converted one aspect of observed biology into a moral narrative without demonstrating that one ALWAYS follows from the other. In fact, the bones of much larger and more complex (overly complex) life can be regularly found in museums today.

I believe that when we transcend our own ego consciousness and extend our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our effort, what makes us happy is alignment with the flow of life.

Your philosophy implies that history and evolution have a final destination, a state in which the individual has fully transcended itself through ever-greater inclusion. Putting aside the obvious fallacy of inclusion in an exclusionary evolution framework: Let's assume that if that final destination were ever reached, then growth itself would cease. A process whose purpose is to transcend all boundaries, including evolution, and also transcending purpose! If transcendence is the ultimate goal, what happens when it is achieved? Either the process never reaches its destination, making the goal forever unattainable, or it does, in which case development itself comes to an end. Your philosophy seems to observe joy in the endless journey fighting natural entropy while simultaneously claiming there is the same joy when all purpose is transcended. Your own philosophy seems to eliminate the conditions that make progress meaningful.

I'll press X to doubt that idea.

The highest transcendence is self-defeating because, once achieved, there is nothing left to transcend. Forget the macro scale; you see this all the time presently with the tragedies of the lives of countless nepo-babies, who wrongly think there is nothing left to struggle over. How do you transcend the misery of transcendence itself? This is a paradox I think that deserves discussion.

Isolation (greed) is always an evolutionary dead end; and progress (altruism) is always a matter of participation in common goals.

Greed often recognizes the real mechanisms behind the survival of the fittest traits. Evolution. Is it greed when one Eaglet kills another nestmate, or simply an evolutionary survival of the one over survival of none? Greed is often a moral label applied to behaviors rooted in evolutionary competition. Evolution is indifferent to fairness and arbitrary morality. Nature is concerned with fitness, not virtues or signals.

Altruism is the surrender of those fit traits due to the idea that surrender to all things is a fit trait itself. The evolutionary opposite of greed is not charity but indiscriminate altruism. Evolution favors selective cooperation between two greedy people who want the same thing, not unconditional surrender. Even you have your own selective tribe on these forums; hence, no real altruism yourself.

True charity isn't altruism; it's mutual survival of tribes inclusive ONLY of the fittest with the fittest traits who do NOT blindly INCLUDE unfit traits (like socialism, communism, Islam...etc...)...Charity requires mutual civic duty to a local cause for the ultimate purpose of survival. Nobody in America has that emotional civic duty to their neighbor anymore. You guys all gave that duty and responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats, with no more feeling or emotion than an AI program.

Nonsense, evolutionary progress has always been a matter of reaching out beyond the individual’s boundaries to set a more inclusive boundary.

The statement assumes what it seeks to prove. You define 'progress' as expanding the boundary of inclusion and then conclude with a causation fallacy that evolution has progressed because boundaries expanded. But evolution has no moral direction and no altruism. And history provides no evidence that simply blindly becoming more inclusive is what made societies successful. The human immune system is a testament to your fallacy.

What historically and scientifically distinguished successful groups was not their willingness to include more people indiscriminately, but their ability to sustain cooperation through shared norms, incentives, and institutions. Groups that admitted members without regard to whether they contributed to the group's survival often disappeared, while groups that maintained effective rules and expectations endured. Look at the fall of Rome for why this is the general case.

The real relevant question is not whether a society expands or removes its boundaries, substituting local civic duty with the duty to include everyone, but whether those it includes strengthen or weaken the institutions upon which the society depends. Inclusion is not a virtue in itself; it is beneficial only insofar as it reinforces the conditions that make cooperation possible. Most Americans today identify as American secondarily, or not at all. It's on the path of "hyper-inclusive" Rome. AKA extinction.

The closed greedy clam evolves and endures.

The open clam's empathy..

is devoured by natural entropy.

You could care less about what humanity via greed is doing to our ecological systems that sustain the greedy, the less greedy, and those who would like to see a fair set of basic humans standards in place of all of humanity, cut the greed grass out of humanities future.

This is backwards thinking. Animals adapt to their environment. Extinct animals attempt to have the environment adapt to them.

Greed is evolution.

Surrender is extinction.

Because the language of the dead is full of lived experiences.

Latina sapientiam mortuorum servat.

This isn't about Housing or humans. It's about promoting government rights over individual rights.

Government rights justify force and violence against the individual. (AKA taxation, regulations, and the draft)

Individual rights mean the individual can use justified force against the government. (2nd Amendment)

Both of these are in your Constitution.

It's all lyrical parts for the same song.

In fact, your "human right" to cut your own grass is non-existent in many of the crap states.

This isn't just about housing. It's about transferring more authority and rights from individuals to the government.