Wrong. Your economic system doesn't require that you flood your country with 3rd world migrants.

Economics impacts demographics. We had low interest rates in 2006, creating a housing boom. Someone had to move into them, and the Hispanics were propped up by sub-prime mortgages. Look at when it first took off, 2005-2006. Now Muslims are attracted to UK free healthcare, Sweden's socialism and progressive tax code, and attracted to our medical welfare (medicare, obamacare, not paying in ERs). Things they couldn't get away with in their home countries.

Simply having strong border controls would solve these issues a lot easier than trying to shape your entire economy around not attracting migrants and just hoping they don't show up.

For Milena countries had no immigration policies, yet they remained ethnically distinct. This shit is bread by economics and most people are too ignorant of economics for it to even cross their mind.

Maybe, but this is irrelevant, there were other factors limiting mass migration (except in rare situations like the Turkic invasions of Anatolia), for example it was a lot harder and slower to move a large amount of people great distances without access modern transportation which would cut down the numbers significantly.

stop talking about melania that way bitch

Hitler's Germany did not have any undesirables, yet it too was funded with borrowed money that it couldn't pay back.

I'm sure it was totally the social programs and not The entirety of the Jewish controlled world, including the 3 largest world powers attacking them that caused them to collapse, nope it was because they had socialism in their name. Remember Germany went from a wartorn ruin to a world power in less than a decade because of the pro-German policies of the National Socialist government.

Even further back than that, Rome did not have niggers (sand or otherwise) on its welfare system. They were all "whites", or at least, Mediterranean Europeans. Still collapsed.

Rome's collapse was due to many Many reasons; mass influx of a foreign, alien culture (northern Europeans), a sprawling size that made management of distant territories with the available technology nearly impossible, the increased reliance on foreign auxiliaries in military who had more loyalty to their commanders than to the Roman State as a whole which ties into the insane amounts of political backstabbing, petty power plays, and civil wars. Claiming it was because of "socialism", when the Roman system didn't resemble modern/Post-Marx socialism at all is extremely short sighted. Also saying that an empire that lasted between 800 and well over 2000 years (depending on what you count as "Rome") collapsing means that it's economic system is faulty is incredibly dumb.

Whenever you allow a government to borrow money on behalf of a tax-paying people, they will do so, because it buys votes, and they will never be held accountable for the debt.

I don't see how that is relevant.

Reject all economic left. Communism, socialism, all of it. Anything that allows others to dictate how money is spent, is evil and unsustainable.

You've just described virtually every economic system ever implemented.

It seems like you're trying really hard to force this "Socialism bad" meme but the examples you picked show the exact opposite, Germany was elevated from a burning ruin to a world power, and Rome lasted for 2000 years before collapsing to unrelated reasons (but wasn't even really socialist in any modern sense of the word, unless you think anything less than Ancap is socialism).

National Socialism is what works. I thought Poal already knew that.