Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest

Probably the most ironic thing to have happened to me was getting redpilled (referring to the new right or the alt-right) while attending the IB, mostly because it's against most of what the IB stands for. Being skeptical of globalism, political correctness, multi-culturalism and simply being nationalistic is something that would nearly destroy the purpose of the IB. Just a note, you will not understand any of this if you didn't follow politics in 2016 on at least a moderate level.

 

My question is, how many of you in the IB share a similar story?
Perhaps nobody on this Forum? That's still fine, but if there is someone, just so they know they're not the only ones. It's been the first time in forever that young people have primarily occupied right wing politics, and moreover care about their own countries, people, and culture. From this point on, we're going to play a bigger role in politics, especially since most of our concerns are being tackled right now. Marine Le Pen, Trump, and many other politicians, while only populist, are essentially fighting a similar battle. If anyone wants to have a discussion about immigration, racial relations, identity politics, racialism, gender, and much more, I am open to discussion.

The new right and the reactosphere is not just another dumb, bigoted movement. It's a movement that uses facts and therefore attracts more intellectual-minded individuals. I am not saying I'm an intellectual by any means, but I have seen the movement catching these minds. We see and realize that there is no competition for ideas in our culture, education or politics when it comes to very crucial moral issues, and therefore we react and fight against that. Post-modernism is a big problem as well. However, just writing something as short as this is impossible to be able to describe everything, so it's more meant for those who identify with the new right.

A clip from Jordan Peterson, a professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto talking about post-modernism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkmXwByGmjc

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your openness and honesty. I do however, disagree with you. You seem like a reasonable person, so let's talk and please afford me some questions.

1. Please provide an instance and give concrete evidence of how Trump was deliberately mistreated/demonized by the "media" (the "media" being a reputable source such as the NY Times, BBC, etc.; if any error was corrected and/or the persons responsible for it were suspended, then that wouldn't prove your point, would it? It would actually disprove it.). You say you like facts, but you've done little to prove it.

2. Your use of a straw man argument of "saving refugees" is a logical fallacy. While certainly many who support the admission of refugees for it humanitarian and compassionate angle, there are also other reasons for the less pathos-inclined like you. You imply that you do not support the admission of refugees because of the long-term effects of such an action. You either fail to consider or purposefully omit the argument that the long-term effects of the admission of refugees is actually beneficial. It could be argued that it makes innocent people in unstable areas less likely to see welcoming countries as hostile, thus reducing the potential of resentment and thus terrorism. You also say that you have read a lot, but you don't seem to be aware of how extensive the UN's background check for refugees is.

In the U.S.A., the country which Donald Trump is the president of, no one has died as result of a terrorist attack by a refugee since the current system was put in place in 1980. You are almost double more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist in the U.S. as evidenced by this graphic from NBC News and carried out by the Global Terrorism Database and the CDC, two incredibly reputable organizations. Furthermore, in the infamous Paris attack, this BBC article illustrates how 16 out of 18 of the perpetrators were EU nationals. Thus, any change in the vetting of refugees would likely have had no effect on that attack nor many that have been carried out in Europe as many terrorists are EU nationals. In general, I suppose you'd be interested in this as a rational thinker, people overestimate the danger terrorism poses to them. People don't fear being struck by lightening like they do with terrorism here in the U.S.

Is it a giant media conspiracy orchestrated by the far-right to increases votes for Trump? No, and I wouldn't believe that at all because there's no evidence to support that. See how I'm not inventing conspiracies? The media is simply doing their job reporting on events. People are just objectively bad at processing information and understanding. The gory details of terrorism affect people in a different way than lightening.

P.s. You can be against "identity politics" and still not support Trump or the alt-right. You don't have to address this (it's kind of an ad-hominen argument), but I just thought I'd point it out so that maybe you see the absurdity of your position: As a result of your falling out with someone used "identity politics", you gravitated to support the complete idealogical gamut (You could have instead specifically disagreed with that unique point) of the side that is completely opposite of that person's identity. So are you a follower of identity politics? Perhaps subconsciously.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I read the final part of your response with a sort of an ironic smile, realizing I've once again badly articulated myself, so I'll be answering those misconceptions first. It's quite embarrassing to be implying I am "educated" on these issues and then to provide zero arguments. Your response is perfectly reasonable. I suppose I didn't want to make this about presenting my arguments as much as about connecting with other alt-righters in the IB and sharing experiences, but then again I was clearly thinking about the other audience as well and baited for a response to my claims. So, yes, I'm just saying this wasn't meant to be backed by evidence, and that I am aware I articulated this badly. At this point, this may as well become a lighter discussion.

 


I'll start with identity politics in your last paragraph. I mentioned "alt-lite" if you haven't noticed in the text. This is a term many alt-righters use to define those who fight for most of their ideals, but aren't involved in identity politics. Many of these in the online community can be classical liberals, centrists, populists, and so on. What sets the real alt-right apart is its emphasis on identity politics indeed. I suppose I didn't explain this, but I embrace identity politics. For instance, I've dramatically shifted my opinion about Black Lives Matter. As a "classical liberal", I considered BLM bad for causing collectivism and divisiveness. On top of that, I considered their reasons of outrage absolutely ridiculous from a statistical perspective. However, considering the alt-right is a separatist movement which is collectivist at its core, I realized that movements like Black Lives Matter are doing exactly what I strive to do. In Western society, we value individualism and condemn collectivism, which is precisely why many have a problem with identity politics. Obviously though, at some point I abandoned individualism. Why? I'll try to outline here:

1. Outside the Western world (semi-includes Japan and doesn't include Eastern Europe), culturally speaking, virtually no one else appreciates individualism. There has been a massive study done to investigate cultures and their level of individualism by Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist. Hofstede, of course, didn't only focus on individualism and collectivism considering he put forward a whole theory on cultural dimensions, but he investigated this among other things. I'll provide an example of a country which is often the origin of many migrants, particularly in Britain, Pakistan (https://geert-hofstede.com/pakistan.html). Here, individualism is defined simply as "the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members." I would recommend using the link to read more about this, but Pakistan scores 14 out of 100 points for individualism. The United Kingdom scores 89. Denmark scores 74, France scores 71, United States scores 91. Meanwhile, Egypt scores 25, Ghana scores 15, China scores 20, and even European countries like Serbia and Albania score below 30. You get my point, the West is incredibly rare with its values of individualism (which is indeed a cultural factor). This means that anybody who comes from outside the West, which includes Eastern Europe (where I essentially come from as well), will be a collectivist. And trust me when I say that individualism, on which classical liberalism and liberalism, in general, is based upon, cannot withhold being practiced without either defending itself or isolating itself from a culture dominated by collectivism. You can see it with minorities being incredibly collectivist and usually socialist, especially in recent years and younger generations. I would argue much of this also has to do with education.

2. The assumption that ethnic homogeneity is necessary to protect a population from being subject to change culturally. In other words, I believe it is impossible to have a stable society without making sure your demography stays the same (or changes very slowly, never rapidly like these days) and your culture isn't influenced by other cultures which are directly opposed to some of the values you cherish most. Now obviously, this is extremely controversial and furthermore not easily proven at this moment, which means it is highly hypothetical. Yet, I believe this assumption is completely rational (note, this is linked to skepticism of integration programs among other things). When we talk about integration specifically, it has been observed to be more-or-less successful when the minority stays the minority. Before 1965 when the United States enacted the Immigration Act, the US made sure that its ethnic composition wouldn't change too rapidly, hence they would limit migration from anywhere other than Northern Europe every few years. What we have been able to observe is the incredible change the US has experienced ever since the act. The demography has changed so much that there are more non-white babies born this year than white babies. To think that the United States would change from a 90% white country to less than 50% in only a few generations is staggering! So what about culture then? Well, you are, I'm sure, well aware that almost each racial group has their own subculture. The African Americans, the Asian Americans (know about Chinatowns? :D), Mexican Americans (just think of Cinco de Mayo and how they connect with their country), etc. This is so incredibly important because it means that the US is not one cultural entity anymore. It is in fact divided between white America and minority America, and as far as I can see, "minority" America (not a minority anymore, I guess) is not nearly as individualist. ;) So, not only are we having cultural and integration problems, but we also see that groups are identitarian and stay around their own nationalities and races, not to mention develop own subculture. This is in essence what kind of identitarian I am - simply one who admits he prefers his own group and acts like any other minority group in terms of the simplest of tribalism.

Take a look at this:
 Map.thumb.jpg.f070100bf378a6b48fe9aec6d952b126.jpg

Now don't tell me that this country can still politically function from this point onwards. PoC?
Source: http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ 


3. I believe individualism kills nationalism. I mean, nationalism is exactly what collectivism embodies, right? And why is nationalism important? Well, let's say all of a sudden a country is under attack. Without a certain amount of collective responsibility, people won't defend their country, they will instead care about their own interest. They are... not very unified, right? So what happens when you get a unified bunch which is directly opposed to this group of non-unified individuals? Even if they're (the unified bunch) in smaller numbers, they will easily be able to dominate the area whether it be culturally or politically. I personally believe it's very obvious just how much we are already divided on political issues, whether it be Brexit, Le Pen, Trump, or Wilders, we show a huge division in our society. Now, I do understand neoliberals believe immigration is the way forward economically, but I believe it is absolutely detrimental to our countries culturally and safety-wise. Refer to above map. People vote in favor of their own groups and as they make more of our population, they will want a bigger say in politics. Essentially they will want to consider themselves equals to the natives in terms of owning the place - and from that moment the term "Danish," "English," "German," and so on, absolutely lose their meaning as an identity. Unfortunately, my argument here might sound extremely confusing if you are not familiar with the predictions of demographic replacement, I'll address that later.

To sum up, I stopped believing in individualism because I see it as non-functioning in a multicultural society. That's without mentioning that I believe it reduces collective responsibility which in turn destroys a society from the inside, whether by fertility rates or simply the will to defend one's own territory in case of an attack. I am aware that nations are no longer capable of warring due to nuclear weapons, but a civil war is quite the possibility if tensions rise. 

I also personally started to feel attacked by progressivism. This probably awakened the ethnic nationalist in me. I started caring about my group collectively and therefore I embraced identity politics. I should note once again that I simply see identity politics as necessary at this point. I also understand how, for instance, black people feel about their history. You will see many conservatives or centrists blaming them for applying the past to the present, but I feel the exact same way when I think about my own countrymen being enslaved by Turks while the Ottomans attempted to conquer the Balkans. I think it's a natural reaction to refer to the past in order to function in the present. Moreover, I agree being a minority is bad, which is exactly why I don't want it to happen to us. And now comes the most important part.

 

The main reason why I embraced identity politics is that I believe the West will not continue being ethnically majority European in the following century.

I don't know, is that even really all that questionable, to begin with? I'll start with some statistics on fertility rates. Also, I hope you don't mind me using some Wikipedia articles, they are sourced very well.

Native Europeans have low fertility rates
The average number of children per woman in the European Union is 1.58. This means that the number of children per generation should go down by 20%-25%, subsequently losing almost half of its population in 2 generations. Obviously, the effects of this would be seen much later, once the older population died out, so we could safely bet on the estimation of this becoming a huge issue somewhere about the end of the century. This phenomenon is very well known and it's called the aging of Europe. And yes, I understand this is just the EU, but the rest of Europe follows almost an identical pattern when it comes to population decline.

Naturally, politicians are attempting to fill this population decline with immigration, but...
This is where I really have a problem with both refugees, illegal and legal immigrants. This is why I said these policies are short-sighted and not good long-term. The issue isn't as much economical as it is social. If we talk about the fertility rate of Muslims in general, as the largest non-European religious immigrant group, they have around 2.2 children born per woman. What this doesn't account for, however, is not only the fact that older Muslim populations in Europe have a much smaller fertility rate than the newer immigrants and therefore somewhat skew the data on the EU in particular (many are located in Russia and there are sizable populations in the Balkans), but also that it doesn't count for all the illegal immigration that's been happening lately more than ever (in fact, Génération Identitaire successfully funded their project to go to the Lybian coast and send the boats back instead of leaving them off in Europe). 

Even if we did talk about economics, due to the welfare state, in many countries they are a net minus. For example, the Danish Ministry of Finance published an analysis on the net contribution of all migrants in total, and conclude that they have cost around $4.4 billion in 2014 alone. Sweden will also lose $18.6 billion only on refugees in 2017, and Canada loses between $16.3 billion and $23.6 billion annually on immigrants. 

But what I think is just the biggest problem is the sole fact that the so-called minorities will require more and more say in politics as their numbers increase. If we make an estimate that by the end of the century 30% of Western Europe consists of non-Europeans (a low estimate, considering Muslims alone will constitute 8% of all European population by 2030), how do you expect these two populations will get along perfectly? I'm just skeptical when I remind myself of Lebanon. I don't think it's a good path to take. We can even estimate that some countries of Western Europe might as well become nearly 50% non-native for younger parts of the population in countries such as Sweden. The question then is, from that point on, how can you return the native population as the majority without some kind of civil war? If you simply keep the status quo, you reach a point where the native population might become a seriously powerless minority, and in that case, who is to say they will be treated as good as minorities are treated now? Or, if you attempt to control virtually the whole other half of the country, who is to say they will allow it? Furthermore, is this something really desirable anyway? Is risking so much for a multicultural utopia really worth it? We aren't even helping non-European countries anyway. I mean, just look at this:
Screenshot_59.thumb.png.ac3dc9bd2d9b1404658fca729cd8f660.png

Most of the world will be concentrated in Africa and Asia, and they will all have homogeneous countries to a much larger degree than we are. As Europeans (or whites), we are already going to represent maybe 5% of the world population, and even our countries will be multicultural. The few dozen million non-European immigrants we will have will represent almost nothing population-wise to their country of origin (Africa itself will gain that much population in 5-10 years), not to mention that we're taking the brighter minds out of there too. Literally helping no one. And really, where do we run? Where do we go if we lose our own countries at some point?
Source: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/ (it's interactive, have fun, and yes, you can still say these predictions are not too reliable)

Perhaps you don't believe the change will be so dramatic, and that's fine, but there are still articles like this which treat the fact that there are twice as many Muslim toddlers as a percentage of the population compared to the total implying they nearly double each generation as normal. :D Also, as I mentioned before, the US only needed half a century to completely transform its demography, and this year might have been the Republicans' final win. There are also interesting cases like California, which used to be a red state until a huge number of immigrants changed its demography and consequently turned it into a blue state. I quote, "California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration." It's only natural that they will vote for more and more of their own countrymen, which is what I fear will follow Europe as well, especially if we don't unify in political opinion soon enough.

 

 

Well, as for providing very concrete information about Trump being mistreated in the media, I will admit that I don't have too many examples. It's more like just the general feeling I've gotten from mainstream media (not BBC and NY Times as much as all of those left-leaning giants like CNN). Many of them were so shocked when Trump won as if it was some kind of nightmare. Then there were many Hollywood actors and pretty much everyone in the public scene more-or-less hating on him. These things just pushed me off. There was that ridiculous thing with Trump getting two scoops of ice cream too, not to mention the Russian conspiracies. But you can have your point, I was just annoyed at the fact that most of the media and popular culture was absolutely dominated by progressivism in one form or another. 

 

I'm not afraid of terrorism as much as you'd think. I'm perfectly aware of how insignificant they are statistically. But I will admit that I can't shake off the feeling they are slowly getting us used to it and tirelessly making the opposition against them just boring and cliché, almost as if there was no point in resisting Islam in the first place. Of course, I'm not going to pretend this is an argument, I believe I've put forward my thoughts on terrorism, Islam, and refugees. It's more about how populations act as an average... collectively, rather, instead of just being terrorists or #notall. I will say that I feel way safer at night in Croatia compared to Denmark, though. It's much safer without immigrants in Europe objectively speaking.

 

Sorry if this sounded perhaps incoherent or illogical or simply non-articulate. It took me quite some time to write it and I was constantly erasing and moving texts to make some sense out of it, now I could even say I'm pretty exhausted. It wasn't easy to sum up my entire worldview in one forum reply, which is why I avoided it in the first post, honestly. Thanks for reading this wall of text and looking forward to your reply. 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I just skimmed through your post (it's late here). 

1. Dude, chill out. You clearly are misunderstanding the framework of collectivism vs. individualism. It has nothing to do with liberalism—i.e. freedoms and tolerance. The collectivism vs. individualism framework in the study is described thus, "In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty." It is simply about obligations to others. You're letting your political schema, shall I say, wrongly affect your interpretation. One could equally (invalidly) conclude that under individualist cultures "classical liberalism" could never flourish because individuals would stamp out others viewpoints and dismiss them. At any rate, both are wrong. That's not what the study is analyzing. And refugees generally don't wish to impose some grand outside vision on society, they just want to work and survive like the rest of us. 

2. So what. Society can change. Society will change. With or without other groups. You stated you're not religious. How do you think that would have worked out for you 400 years ago?  That was a change that had no obvious, primary foreign influence just like lots of others. Who cares if society changes. I already stated how your argument from #1 was a massive misunderstanding. Also, America changed massively from 1925 to 1965. Much more so than it has from 1965 to now. But of course that doesn't fall in line with your racial narrative. People who aren't white are no more likely to be unjust. For somebody who doesn't like being characterized as racist, I'd suggest you try to think hard and think critically about your own ideas.

1 hour ago, Marsynthost said:

So what about culture then? Well, you are, I'm sure, well aware that almost each racial group has their own subculture. The African Americans, the Asian Americans (know about Chinatowns? :D), Mexican Americans (just think of Cinco de Mayo and how they connect with their country), etc. This is so incredibly important because it means that the US is not one cultural entity anymore. It is in fact divided between white America and minority America, and as far as I can see, "minority" America (not a minority anymore, I guess) is not nearly as individualist. ;) So, not only are we having cultural and integration problems, but we also see that groups are identitarian and stay around their own nationalities and races, not to mention develop own subculture.

That's absolute bull****. As someone who isn't relying on my imagination, but has actually lived in the U.S., I can tell you you are just making things up. At my high school in IB there were kids from all kinds of backgrounds. Everybody got along fine. Perhaps the only real common background we had was that we were mostly affluent, but classism just doesn't have the same jingoistic appeal, I guess. This is a line of argument that seems like it comes from a racist source. Also, Chinatowns see little influx of new arrivals these days and you once again prove your ignorance (surprising coming from someone so widely read) by citing Cinco de Mayo as a Mexican holiday. It's not.

Second, you have used your imagination once again to make false claims. Black Lives Matter is a group who advocates for fairer treatment of blacks in encounters with police and the justice system. You make a straw-man argument by sidetracking into a diatribe on culture. They just want to change policing procedures and reform the justice system dude, don't worry, no one is trying to make you listen to jazz or hip-hop. But even then, so what. You're still going to claim that Black Lives Matter, an organization that fights for human rights is antithetical to liberalism and—by extension—individualism? Do you understand the irony? Or do you just support racist viewpoints for fun?

Regarding the maps, your including them does not help your argument. Ok, so tribalism exists to some extent. That's no reason to endorse it or support it. Did you know that murder exists? I don't support it though just because it exists. What about you?

1 hour ago, Marsynthost said:

This is in essence what kind of identitarian I am - simply one who admits he prefers his own group and acts like any other minority group in terms of the simplest of tribalism.

Okay, well A+ for honesty. Maybe there is an inherent evolutionary preference for this. Maybe there's not. To roughly quote Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche though, "I'm always surprised when people justify misogynistic gender roles by citing apes, you know why, well, I don't know if you noticed, but we're not apes." This is the gift of the human race. We can reason and decide against evolutionary frivolities. There's no reason to be tribalistic—well, at least consciously. Bullying might have been evolutionary advantageous. Guess what though? You can probably figure out that nowadays it serves no purpose and makes life hell for others. So use those human empathy skills that evolved miraculously and decide not to do it. Same thing with tribalism. 

3. Again, you make the same basic mistake as #1, using pseudo-science so that you have something to support your narrative. Let me explain. You are extrapolating the individualism vs. collectivism to areas to which it does not pertain. The actual study area is pretty limited. It doesn't cover anything like military involvement or political engagement, as you claim. The study says the U.S. is a very individualistic country, yet the U.S. has the consensus strongest army in the world. And as someone who's lived here, not using my imagination, I can tell you that the defense and military are hugely important and supported by the general public. Moreso than other countries. So the argument that you created that seemed okay in the abstract, fails to stand up to reality.

I've tried to void any reason for your concerns. There rest of your post, meh. I've shown you why you shouldn't fear other minorities, worry for them, or favor your own group. Well-intentioned people can fall for nefarious ideals. You seem to underestimate how people integrate. I laughed at the, "30% of people living in Western Europe won't be European". So what does one have to be to be European? Low levels of melanin?" If they change the society they enter a small amount, so what? 

Also, please do not use the gratuitous first-person plural with me. In the words of Teju Cole, "We who?".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Well, as for providing very concrete information about Trump being mistreated in the media, I will admit that I don't have too many examples. It's more like just the general feeling I've gotten from mainstream media (not BBC and NY Times as much as all of those left-leaning giants like CNN). Many of them were so shocked when Trump won as if it was some kind of nightmare.

Why is CNN a "left-leaning giant"? Is it because you have any evidence? Or is it because it's Trump's favorite scapegoat. 

It makes sense they were surprised given most election polls predicted Trump having around a one in ten chance. Though the polls may have been flawed, there was no concerted effort through by polls to do this to hurt Trump's chances. To claim that, you'd need evidence, something that you seem to not provide a lot. 

As for them acting like it was a nightmare, no reputable site would publish a news article with an opinion. Op-eds (this would include CNN's well-known debate segments, which I can say, having watched them instead of using my imagination, always included a Trump surrogate to defend him) are a different matter. But any reputable news article opposing Trump is a figment of your imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Then there were many Hollywood actors and pretty much everyone in the public scene more-or-less hating on him.

Hmmm. I knew a misogynistic person in IB who threatened to lock up his opponent in a student government race, received predicted grades he didn't like and then repeatedly yelled how they were "fake grades", and mocked a special needs kid. Funny thing was, he wasn't popular either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

There was that ridiculous thing with Trump getting two scoops of ice cream too,

Articles about President's eating peculiarities are quite common, and have been around for a long time. I don't know what your criticism is, but I assure you having actually read the the CNN article you linked it does not body-shame Trump. As evidence that this is not unique to trump, I give you this article about Obama and how his eating habits almost started a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

not to mention the Russian conspiracies

Oh yes, you must be referring to that implausible thing that his son that Kushner, Manafort, and his son were involved in. Wasn't it the biased mainstream news that fabricated that? Oh wait, it seems like I'm wrong. His son was the one who revealed when he admitted to it on Twitter. It seems like you're a few weeks behind the news. Maybe if you read the biased mainstream media, we'd be able to keep up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

resisting Islam in the first place

Ah, I thought you were a well-read statistics genius. Did the white-supremecist terrorism statistic just go right over your head?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to personally get into the politics of this because I don't feel qualified to talk about U.S. attitudes and just generally the left-wing/right-wing divide but your point about fertility rates and an ageing population is super interesting for me because we just had a lecture on this about a week back! So, you've pointed out that, in general, Europe (and most developed countries) are ageing as they have a low fertility rate, which is 100% true. The average is generally around 1.5 to 2.0 children per family. However, this is basically just part of a natural trend that societies have been undergoing since we've had our technological outburst, and this is a trend that will occur with more 'deprived' countries as our lecturers have put it, though it may take more time.

demographic_transition.png

The graph above of the demographic transition is basically self-explanatory, but if we quickly go through the details we can see that:

  • stage 1: high death rate, high birthrate, the total population is low because everyone's dying so hey let's have more children, but oh crap our children our dying because disease
  • stage 2: technology is introduced! well, more accurately actually, we're getting a) improved sanitation and b) clean drinking water, but of course there are multiple factors involved. anyway, a major cause of death is solved, celebration, and the death rate goes down
  • stage 3: death rate's gone down but birth rate's still up but now our kids aren't dying and crap we can't actually afford to have all these kids, birth rate goes down and death rate continues to go down
  • stage 4: both death rate and birth rate are low, the population stabilises, the change in population is likely only due to immigration/emigration

Now, most European countries took a while to get through this stage, giving them time to adapt, which is excellent! However, that means that they are already at stage 4, whilst other countries who have only really been getting this technology in the past few decades are still in their stages 2/3, which means that birth rate is falling (and you can look at the statistics and see that - here's a site that has compiled current birth rates, and if you click through the countries and go to birth rate, birth rate by year you can see the changing trends!). Apart from Algeria. Algeria, you're screwing up my damn point. Anyway, you get my point. Birth rates are going down. Furthermore, in one of the very sources you mentioned, it stated that it is predicted that Muslim birth rates in Europe will decrease (though granted, it will remain slightly higher than non-Muslim Europeans).

Quote

Muslim women today have an average of 2.2 children compared to an estimated average of 1.5 children for non-Muslim women in Europe.[7] While the birth rate for Muslims in Europe is expected to decline over the next two decades, it will remain slightly higher than in the non-Muslim population,[7] except for Dutch-Turks, who have a lower birthrate (1.7) than the native Dutch population (1.8).[45][46]

It's 2am here and I have early morning lectures, so I'll check out your sources about population predictions later, but the thing is, every society thus far that has reached what we define as "developed" or "non-deprived" status has gone through the same pattern. It's literally the same thing, and it makes sense when you think about it logically. Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to population growth, but they also often have common ties, such as education, access to healthcare, country's wealth, and so forth, and these are all driven by technological advances that not only help that particular population that's being discussed, but all of us.

So, yeah, essentially this entire spiel is basically me saying that the only reason why less developed counties have higher birth rates is basically because that's how transitions work, and it'll get to about the same as developed countries' levels eventually.

~on a vaguely political note~

Perhaps this is because I'm an immigrant who was entirely raised in a Western country but I honestly don't see the downsides to multiculturalism. As a teenager (okay, still a teenager but a younger teenager) I went very in-between either being entirely into my birth country and entirely rejecting it. Now, I'm more balanced (in terms of its basic culture, at least. Still not politics and general social attitudes. Just can't accept any of that after living here my whole life). Anyway, yeah, I just... don't see the problem. Oh no, less people of x amount of melanin. Clearly they can no longer represent their culture and/or ethnicity, because it's not you can be of multiple ethnicities and celebrate all of them because they're part of your ancestry and chances are your own history too. It's a clear disaster. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'd like to encourage everyone not to debate the issues here because this isn't in the debate & discussion category, and nobody's opinion is going to be changed by a forum thread.
(But if you're willing to engage people on these issues, Marsynthost, you'd be a really valuable member of the community. Otherwise politics threads would simply be endless degrees of Trump bashing)

Anyway, I'm more interested in your change in beliefs (redpilling's not a term you want to use if you want a discussion instead of opposition...)
I don't understand why the sudden Trump support. Did seeing 'third-wave feminism' make you think all feminism was flawed or something? I just get the impression that you saw the extreme left then swung all the way to the right.
Could you define progressivism? Is it important enough to you that Trump's other qualities and policies don't matter?

So you think that immigrants won't integrate and will eventually overpower the majority, right? I only brought this up because it is incredibly misleading to show a map of US states and point at the sea of red/blue to prove a point. That means a small majority in each state is red/blue. A 'landslide' victory usually only means 60% of the vote.

Edited by Acamar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Sorry for the late reply, I was constantly postponing (F, sort of like my deadlines :D) answering to this.
>inserts cliché student joke here only to sound cringy instead of funny :^)

 

Reply to Nomenclature

Spoiler

 

Ahhh, Nomenclature, did I really sound that arrogant?

On 26/7/2017 at 0:13 PM, Nomenclature said:

Ah, I thought you were a well-read statistics genius.

What's up with all that "well-read" stuff? If you are still going on about that one part where I was talking about extensive topics, the point of that was to imply that arguing about those topics requires dedication which I wasn't willing to engage in (yet?). Otherwise, I would have no problem admitting that you probably know more than me about some or most of the things I brought up.

On 26/7/2017 at 0:13 PM, Nomenclature said:

Did the white-supremecist terrorism statistic just go right over your head?

Gee, sorry for expressing my opinion which I clearly stated was a "feeling" rather than an argument. :lc: Buuuuuuut, I caaaaaan argue for this as well. Why, just today I was watching Douglas Murray talk about this issue of getting used to Islam in the West (and he's a gay liberal :^)). He mentions how blasphemy debates, in particular, would sound absolutely ridiculous to European politicians even only 30 years ago. Then he continues on to say that we've slowly grown accustomed to this and now are told to accept terrorist attacks - which he admits we may have to but points out that the public still has the right to criticize the politicians for importing such a problem.

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

One could equally (invalidly) conclude that under individualist cultures "classical liberalism" could never flourish because individuals would stamp out others viewpoints and dismiss them.

 

You might be on to something here, I really might have confused collectivism and individualism with liberalism and conservatism. I'll be sure to tighten up my arguments here, especially because I suppose that whole part with trying to justify identity politics was kind of vague (it made some sense in my head, but I need to define it better)

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

2. So what. Society can change. Society will change. With or without other groups. You stated you're not religious. How do you think that would have worked out for you 400 years ago?  That was a change that had no obvious, primary foreign influence just like lots of others. Who cares if society changes. I already stated how your argument from #1 was a massive misunderstanding. Also, America changed massively from 1925 to 1965. Much more so than it has from 1965 to now. But of course that doesn't fall in line with your racial narrative. People who aren't white are no more likely to be unjust. For somebody who doesn't like being characterized as racist, I'd suggest you try to think hard and think critically about your own ideas.

Society will surely change, but the direction in which it will change may not be desirable, especially for the native population. This is probably my main argument, actually. It's pretty obvious that the demographic change also culturally hurt the majority population, and the anti-white rhetoric (linked you an example :P) is one of the symptoms of this change (at least in my opinion, and I know that there is also to consider the fact that the relationship between these groups has been bad in the past)

*Ahem, me bringing a religious discussion into this, better not read*

Spoiler

Oh yeah... atheism... well let's say I fetishize Christianity and European paganism at the moment (typical alt-righter). Certainly not the (Christian) denomination I was raised in, but rather the Catholic and the Orthodox church. I had my anti-theist phase, but these days I believe religion might be much more important for society than what the New Atheists want you to believe. Is all change, in this case, the rise of atheism, necessarily a good thing? I don't know. The point is that not ALL change is good. Certainly, atheism is currently giving rise to a toxic wave of nihilism in popular culture, and I despise nihilism. You know, they sometimes say ignorance is a bliss. :D This is another field in which I have conflicting views. I like scientific progress and this idea of going forward excites me, but I also don't know what exactly the end goal is. If happiness and survival are the biggest value, then it's possible simply becoming Amish may as well solve the problem. And I mean purposefully making society live in ignorance.

 

I'll look into your proposition that it changed more from 1925 to 1965, but I doubt it would cause problems for my argument. I was mostly talking about a demographic change unless of course, you are referring to some migration? I also disagree with European migration. Who really finished off Rome, right? 

 

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

and you once again prove your ignorance (surprising coming from someone so widely read) by citing Cinco de Mayo as a Mexican holiday. It's not.

 

Hahaha, calm down, I never said it was a Mexican holiday, I just said, and I quote, "just think of Cinco de Mayo and how they connect with their country." In other words, even if it may not be celebrated in Mexico, it's what Mexican-Americans care about and connect it with their actual nationality, kind of proving that they didn't let go of that part of their identity. Also, seriously, the thing about being well read is just dishonest. I'm a 17-year-old IB student with virtually no credibility.

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

That's absolute bull****. As someone who isn't relying on my imagination, but has actually lived in the U.S., I can tell you you are just making things up. At my high school in IB there were kids from all kinds of backgrounds. Everybody got along fine. Perhaps the only real common background we had was that we were mostly affluent, but classism just doesn't have the same jingoistic appeal, I guess. This is a line of argument that seems like it comes from a racist source.

Sure, my class is as multicultural as it can get in Denmark, probably just as much as yours was. But there are a few important differences.
IB students are not representative of the population as a whole just as much as your university white population is different from your average "redneck" (the favorite liberal scapegoat) population. Part of the reason is that the IB students are in the higher IQ percentile (extremely important), have no territorial and cultural connection (the school is a different environment from a neighborhood or state or country), and don't have enough people of the same nationality to form in-groups. Your average person, however, is different, especially if they are influenced by their in-groups. 

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

Second, you have used your imagination once again to make false claims. Black Lives Matter is a group who advocates for fairer treatment of blacks in encounters with police and the justice system. You make a straw-man argument by sidetracking into a diatribe on culture. They just want to change policing procedures and reform the justice system dude, don't worry, no one is trying to make you listen to jazz or hip-hop. But even then, so what. You're still going to claim that Black Lives Matter, an organization that fights for human rights is antithetical to liberalism and—by extension—individualism? Do you understand the irony? Or do you just support racist viewpoints for fun?

I wasn't making a case against BLM. If I did, though, their actions have clearly shown that they have a "negative effect" in society (conspiracy theories, tribalism, racism, etc) regardless of what they fight for and that these effects outweigh the effects of the things they fight against. Most of the "unarmed" civilians killed attempted to take the gun away from the cop, most blacks refuse to comply with the demands of officers, most refuse to testify, the statistical significance of being killed unarmed by a cop is extremely low (virtually none if you comply), and that's without mentioning how many cops are killed by black criminals (oh right, and the cops killed by BLM's conspiracy theories). But anyway, this is so irrelevant, the point was that I liked what they were causing. Any moderate should see the things they show in action (despite what they claim about themselves) and by feeling attacked slowly develop an idea they (the moderate) are being racially attacked by racism, ultimately leading to identitarian polarization. Here's a source to explore: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

To roughly quote Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche though, "I'm always surprised when people justify misogynistic gender roles by citing apes, you know why, well, I don't know if you noticed, but we're not apes." This is the gift of the human race. We can reason and decide against evolutionary frivolities.

1

Sigh, gender roles... maybe some other time. Regardless, however, one thing that's certain is that a combination of poverty and low intelligence will contribute to people acting exactly like they do as their natural selves. Therefore, you are really appealing here only to elitists - which is fine because I support elitism, but they aren't representative of the population as a whole. There is also this fallacy liberals usually have because they think they have the moral upper-ground, and that is that humanism and the Enlightenment's moral values are not only universal but also the pinnacle of meaning and morality in general. They usually try to make the rest of the world listen to this drivel and it usually doesn't work (rightfully so). What if progressivism is not the way forward? 

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

3. Again, you make the same basic mistake as #1, using pseudo-science so that you have something to support your narrative. Let me explain. You are extrapolating the individualism vs. collectivism to areas to which it does not pertain. The actual study area is pretty limited. It doesn't cover anything like military involvement or political engagement, as you claim. The study says the U.S. is a very individualistic country, yet the U.S. has the consensus strongest army in the world. And as someone who's lived here, not using my imagination, I can tell you that the defense and military are hugely important and supported by the general public. Moreso than other countries. So the argument that you created that seemed okay in the abstract, fails to stand up to reality.

 

I never related this to the study, I simply used individualism and collectivism as a state of society. What I really did was relate this to national and/or racial conscience and collective responsibility, but it doesn't make the argument any less valid at least in the abstract. As for your "doesn't work in reality" part, mentioning the military doesn't mean much. The army is there, but there are economic incentives to join, and it is a legacy of a past US - the US which was much more "collectivist" (had to use the word). The citizens support the army because it provides protection and a feeling of supremacy compared to other countries. The fact that the citizens are polarized and show a lot of mistrust between each other lays in the fact that there are constant attacks on welfare and socialism, especially by the conservative base. Also, I was talking about a conflict on a more local level, like civil conflicts.

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

I laughed at the, "30% of people living in Western Europe won't be European". So what does one have to be to be European? Low levels of melanin?" If they change the society they enter a small amount, so what? 

 

I will also address this in a reply to apoello.

On 26/7/2017 at 11:31 AM, Nomenclature said:

Also, please do not use the gratuitous first-person plural with me. In the words of Teju Cole, "We who?"

Whenever I use this, I usually mean Western society and more specifically (probably) Europeans or European-Americans. 

 
 


 

Reply to apoello

Spoiler

 

Yes, I was shown these four stages of civilization earlier this year by a Norwegian friend, thanks for contributing to the conversation with this because I wouldn't have mentioned it. I pretty much agree with you, except I have a few things to add. 

First of all, if we can agree that this is a unique phenomenon that has happened very recently,

22 hours ago, apoello said:

However, this is basically just part of a natural trend that societies have been undergoing since we've had our technological outburst

then we can agree that we have no idea what comes after the fourth stage nor that society can stay stable with such a progression. This is why I am wary of the current trends. If there is to come a point when something needs to be reversed, then I would like to consider myself part of that movement. Civilizations fall and rise, assuming that this may lead to a fall of a civilization is not all that crazy. 

I would like to point out another important factor is that poor people have more children than rich people. This isn't surprising by any means, and it's reasonable to expect for various reasons (intelligence, education, urbanization, etc). One thing that I think is very important to notice is that lower intelligence and poverty (therefore fertility rates as well) are correlated, and while you can't just say they have some cause and effect relationship, I believe it's reasonable to expect Western populations to slowly start getting less intelligent on average. In fact, they already are. This is a controversial area because there are many reasons as to why the IQ may be getting lower, but if I may quote the source, "As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average." In other words, my current concern with the population decline is, among other things, the loss of genetic quality (adapted to this civilizational model) as well. I would, therefore, suggest that we may as well be forced to implement some kind of (voluntary) eugenics program in the future if we are to keep society capable of dealing with an ever increasing need for intelligence (as we make physical jobs obsolete by the year). We talked about Bouchard et al (1990) in Psychology this year in the IB. The study concludes close to 70% of intelligence is inherited, and while the study has been criticized, I would suggest at least half is inherited. Or even better, I would view inherited intelligence as the potential and education as the tool to achieve the potential. Sometime in the future, I might also want to spark a discussion on how different populations of humans can, therefore, show different intelligence averages due to different genetic pools. Anyhow, I just thought you might find all this interesting.

22 hours ago, apoello said:

Perhaps this is because I'm an immigrant who was entirely raised in a Western country but I honestly don't see the downsides to multiculturalism. As a teenager (okay, still a teenager but a younger teenager) I went very in-between either being entirely into my birth country and entirely rejecting it. Now, I'm more balanced (in terms of its basic culture, at least. Still not politics and general social attitudes. Just can't accept any of that after living here my whole life). Anyway, yeah, I just... don't see the problem. Oh no, less people of x amount of melanin. Clearly they can no longer represent their culture and/or ethnicity, because it's not you can be of multiple ethnicities and celebrate all of them because they're part of your ancestry and chances are your own history too. It's a clear disaster. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1

Well, think of it like this: Can a person whose parents are immigrants truly feel like part of the in-group of the society they're in? I guess it depends, but they surely can't connect with its history completely (which in turn creates a problem with complete integration). Or even if they can, do they really swear allegiance to the country in which they reside in and would they vote in favor of its preservation if necessary even if it meant closing the borders? Likely not. Then also think about whether you would be more comfortable in a society where more people shared the exact same identity and history as you (being second generation immigrants and of the same identity) or just being completely surrounded by white kiwis. It would make total sense for you to not want to stand out completely, right? It's really on the natives to decide what they want their country's population to think like (which is usually correlated with where they're "really" from). The argument of preservation and nationalism is essentially an emotional argument, but it isn't any less valid than other emotional arguments such as human rights, for instance, because emotional arguments are, as you can notice, relative and appeal only to a certain group. In fact, we put such incredible focus and imperative on human rights while simultaneously often discarding national emotional arguments as invalid and "old and xenophobic." So, in that regard, I absolutely understand you, and I don't expect for my arguments to sound appealing to everyone. In the same sense, I don't find most global human rights and charity arguments appealing either, especially when talking about charity for communities outside my own. If society expects me to care, I'll pretend I do, but I sincerely feel little.

One thing that constantly draws me back is the fact not enough time has passed to know exactly how the current immigration policies will affect the population, but I also fear that by the time this becomes totally apparent, it might be too late to return back. If I'm wrong, we might get a multicultural society and some kind of a utopia sooner than otherwise (it would still eventually happen anyway but monoculturally), but if I'm right, my whole civilization and race are at a huge risk. Not to mention that immigration in general just might be a short-term novelty which will certainly cause unrest long-term to some degree, and most importantly, might as well be considered useless long-term. Unless you advocate for the annihilation of races and merging into one (therefore disliking diversity, which wouldn't get rid of people polarizing based on physical attributes, I believe), then you would probably support the idea that every ethnicity gets their own little country and then manages to preserve its uniqueness there. If the stages of civilization are to be applied to every country eventually, then who are we really helping by allowing economic migration? We take the smart brains out of developing countries, lose some money in the process (sources in my last reply), and then manage to virtue signal about how good we are. :D I mean, the amount of the population we're (Western world) taking out of each country is probably anywhere from 0.1%-1%, which in turn might end up being anywhere from 1% to like 10% of our population instead. And who's to say that multiculturalism is necessarily more comfortable than monoculturalism? It really isn't, all groups have to sacrifice something and compromise, yet monocultural societies need none of that. I also believe all other societies will stay monocultural except Western societies, and it's just a shame because they (we?) are going to be the only ones not able to say "I'm Danish" while implying the same as a Nigerian saying "I'm Nigerian".

It's also interesting that Japan and South Korea are undergoing the same fertility problems as the West, which I'm sure you already know, but invest in technology rather than cheap immigrant labor (like what we do in Europe). I personally believe East Asia will definitely take over the West's domination over the world which exists at the moment (this domination is perishing more and more every year, and that's also fine, I am anti-imperialist).

 

 

 

 

Reply to Acamar

22 hours ago, Acamar said:

First of all, I'd like to encourage everyone not to debate the issues here because this isn't in the debate & discussion category, and nobody's opinion is going to be changed by a forum thread.

Sorry, couldn't control myself for this reply, but hey, at least I've hidden both of the replies to make it look shorter :D.

22 hours ago, Acamar said:

(But if you're willing to engage people on these issues, Marsynthost, you'd be a really valuable member of the community. Otherwise politics threads would simply be endless degrees of Trump bashing)

I might open up some threads about specific things in the future, but I'm unsure about defending Trump. There's isn't much to defend when it comes to him personally, but I considered him more of a tool to achieve things he doesn't directly represent (I believe that there was a very clear reason he mostly appealed to "white" voters).

22 hours ago, Acamar said:

Anyway, I'm more interested in your change in beliefs (redpilling's not a term you want to use if you want a discussion instead of opposition...)
I don't understand why the sudden Trump support. Did seeing 'third-wave feminism' make you think all feminism was flawed or something? I just get the impression that you saw the extreme left then swung all the way to the right.
Could you define progressivism? Is it important enough to you that Trump's other qualities and policies don't matter?

I know... that's why I put it in Chat at first... redpilling was like the bait to attract anyone who is even only anti-SJW, let alone alt-right.

The thing about Trump is that he was isolationist (unfortunately he broke that by attacking Assad, which is why I lost my hopes for him), he was nationalist (I believe it was important for a presidential figure to take the "America first" attitude), he didn't talk about diversity (which you notice almost always just means fewer whites), and because he was anti-immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico (the absurdity is that now people think to deport illegal immigrants is racist). Even if people find comfortable pricing in the work of illegal Mexicans, that's still not a good way to go. You shouldn't risk so much to save a couple of bucks. Most importantly, however, Trump wasn't so much worse than Hillary, so in my opinion, the choice was clear.

As for feminism, these days I have no opinion on it, as long as there are no social justice feminists to annoy me. In fact, I should rather say that I don't particularly care. It's not something I would fight against and it's not something I would fight for (liberal feminism, at least).

Progressivism is just the current ideology of the extreme left. They dislike masculinity (while liking masculine traits, sigh), they dislike biological gender, and they dislike groups which are successful. You'd think this would mean they would attack East Asians and Jews, but it seems like whites usually end up being their target. All in all, they live in a delusional world in which they think group differences are based on some imaginary oppressive system we in the West have developed (and then happily support and apologetically defend Islam, dear god) and they attempt to provide complete equity (which is impossible). I like to call this Cultural Marxism, it's a common term in the alt-right, and this school of thought originates from the Frankfurt school. The thing is that when different groups exist in a society and one becomes more successful, whether due to genetics or culture, the other, more unsuccessful group will blame all their problems on that group and fail to admit any fault because it would create an inferiority complex. This is why borders matter anyway. 

On my path to right wing identitarianism, I also realized the political center has been pushed left for decades and decades. The opinions I have now would be considered absolutely normal only even 50 years ago. This is why I have no problem with being called an extremist. I know that these people have been raised (just like I was) in a culture which is dominated by the left, and which pushed the center into its sphere as well. 

22 hours ago, Acamar said:

So you think that immigrants won't integrate and will eventually overpower the majority, right? I only brought this up because it is incredibly misleading to show a map of US states and point at the sea of red/blue to prove a point. That means a small majority in each state is red/blue. A 'landslide' victory usually only means 60% of the vote.

Well, every single PoC group voted majority Hillary, and by a large margin. I can link this I guess, but any Google search would immediately suffice. The picture was more of a visual, honestly. If you want to see me elaborate more on this, check out the final 3 paragraphs I answered to apoello. 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Gee, sorry for expressing my opinion which I clearly stated was a "feeling" rather than an argument. :lc: Buuuuuuut, I caaaaaan argue for this as well. Why, just today I was watching Douglas talk about this issue of getting used to Islam in the West (and he's a gay liberal :^)). He mentions how blasphemy debates, in particular, would sound absolutely ridiculous to European politicians even only 30 years ago. Then he continues on to say that we've slowly grown accustomed to this and now are told to accept terrorist attacks - which he admits we may have to but points out that the public still has the right to criticize the politicians for importing such a problem.

Two glaring holes in your argument: extreme ignorance and a straw man argument. 

Blasphemy debates still sound ridiculous to me. You know why? They aren't happening. Outside of a few exceptions, you can say anything you want about religion in Europe. Some countries may still have laws on the books that are archaic prohibiting blasphemy, but they are never enforced/litgated and are a non-entity. Denmark just repealed a 334 year-old blasphemy law, but guess what? It hadn't been used in years. Nobody is supporting blasphemy laws. It's a convenient straw man argument. No wonder the cunning guy in the video talked about it; practically everybody is opposed to it. But it's not a real problem, it's imaginary just like like your feelings and prejudices. Two side notes: Your pointing out that he's a gay liberal does not make the argument more valid—or less valid. It's an amateur argumentation technique that's meaningless. A Jew could support the Nazi's, a black person could support a white supremacist group, etc. Biases can give clues to to why people make wrong arguments and such, but in actuality, only arguments flaws can disqualify the argument. Second, when you say, "Buuuuut, I caaaan argue for this as well", I rolled my eyes. You shouldn't be trying to argue for one side or the other. I you get something wrong, take a step back and reevaluate all your beliefs. Don't just then jump to some other piece that you want to use as evidence without thinking about it. Being able to reevaluate and change views is not at all embarrassing or a weakness, it's a strength.

I also laughed about the bit about terrorist attacks. You realize that they were common way before any refugees came over? That modern terrorism stems from anarchists in France? That you are blindly accepting this guy's arguments because he sounds and subliminally presents himself as a smart person, and even more importantly supports your side? The IRA and the UK used to terrorize one another cold-bloodedly. In Spain, with Catalonia and Basque separatists. Fascist organizations in Italy and the Red Brigade.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

You might be on to something here, I really might have confused collectivism and individualism with liberalism and conservatism. I'll be sure to tighten up my arguments here, especially because I suppose that whole part with trying to justify identity politics was kind of vague (it made some sense in my head, but I need to define it better)

You've clearly and invalidly appropriated the psychological study to something which it does not apply and thus a lot of your arguments don't make sense as I pointed out before. Going back to what I said above in the small text, don't just try to jump to the next line that might support your position. Reevaluate your position. There's no need to support nationalist, far-right politics.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Society will surely change, but the direction in which it will change may not be desirable, especially for the native population. This is probably my main argument, actually. It's pretty obvious that the demographic change also culturally hurt the majority population, and the anti-white rhetoric (linked you an example :P) is one of the symptoms of this change (at least in my opinion, and I know that there is also to consider the fact that the relationship between these groups has been bad in the past)

Okay, you say you didn't want to be called racist, and I don't think you're racist, but you are using a racist argument. Let me explain why it's wrong though.

First, you say that the demographic change has hurt the majority population, again with no evidence. This is once again, something that I believe is largely your imagination. I'm white, I'm from a (kind of) rich family, and guess what, I'm fine. This is a racist argument. Just because there are people of different ethnicities in our society doesn't mean I'm suffering.

Second, I've already heard of the situation at Evergreen. You want to know what I think of it? Do I instinctively jump to their defense? No. Frankly, the Evergreen thing was stupid. You're right. We found something we (kind of) agree on. But let me explain why this argument is also flawed. Evergreen is the most extreme case you'll find. Out of thousands of universities, Evergreen is one where I think students have gone too far. You can't just say, "Oh look, Evergreen" and then use that to justify supporting anti-migrant, nationalist, racist viewpoints. That's like finding some aspect of extreme communism untenable and then turning around and say you won't pay even basic taxes and that there should be no welfare. Or citing the most extreme example of morally bankrupt. laissez-faire capitalism and using to call for the state to consolidate all private property and shift to full scale communism. You're jumping from one extreme to the other.

Also, there's a lot of white students at Evergreen (I don't the exact statistics) who supported that. Your worldview of course prevents you from realizing that. 

Basically, you have no evidence that people of color's impact on society will be any worse than white people, a classically racist argument, so you just grasp for evidence and are in way above your head. I don't care if the U.S. makes Spanish an official language. I don't care that eventually white people won't constitute over 50% of the people in the country. You shouldn't either. But if you do, please then don't claim that it's because they'll negatively affect society with some illogical, racist assertions.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

I'll look into your proposition that it changed more from 1925 to 1965, but I doubt it would cause problems for my argument. I was mostly talking about a demographic change unless of course, you are referring to some migration? I also disagree with European migration. Who really finished off Rome, right? 

No, I was talking about how much society changes with a lack of migration. Post-war and technological advancements. The ironic thing being that the large influx of immigrants that came over pre-1925 during this period assimilated at a rapid rate. Many Italian-American no longer spoke Italian, the Catholic Irish, previously viewed a second-class citizens became normal and largely accepted. Eastern European Jews likewise. None of them ruined nor society, nor did they have any effect on it. Of course, at the time there was much talk about how all were incompatible with the contemporary society, Catholics and Jews would always look out for themselves, etc. Seem familiar?

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Hahaha, calm down, I never said it was a Mexican holiday, I just said, and I quote, "just think of Cinco de Mayo and how they connect with their country." In other words, even if it may not be celebrated in Mexico, it's what Mexican-Americans care about and connect it with their actual nationality, kind of proving that they didn't let go of that part of their identity.

Again, this just shows me that:

  • You talk about things and make assertions that you have no idea about
  • You have trouble admitting that you are wrong

Dude, I speak Spanish and live in an area with a tons of Mexican-Americans. You could not be more wrong. Let it go. LMAO at you saying that Mexican-Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo. They don't. All Cinco de Mayo is is an excuse for non-hispanic white people to go out and drink. If the white people are feeling really festive, they'll have a margarita.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Sure, my class is as multicultural as it can get in Denmark, probably just as much as yours was. But there are a few important differences.
IB students are not representative of the population as a whole just as much as your university white population is different from your average "redneck" (the favorite liberal scapegoat) population. Part of the reason is that the IB students are in the higher IQ percentile (extremely important), have no territorial and cultural connection (the school is a different environment from a neighborhood or state or country), and don't have enough people of the same nationality to form in-groups. Your average person, however, is different, especially if they are influenced by their in-groups. 

I guess Canada, being a successful multicultural country is just smarter than the U.S. That makes total sense. It's not like people would adjust, less tribalistic, or anything if society became more diverse. That could never explain it.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

I wasn't making a case against BLM. If I did, though, their actions have clearly shown that they have a "negative effect" in society (conspiracy theories, tribalism, racism, etc) regardless of what they fight for and that these effects outweigh the effects of the things they fight against. Most of the "unarmed" civilians killed attempted to take the gun away from the cop, most blacks refuse to comply with the demands of officers, most refuse to testify, the statistical significance of being killed unarmed by a cop is extremely low (virtually none if you comply), and that's without mentioning how many cops are killed by black criminals (oh right, and the cops killed by BLM's conspiracy theories). But anyway, this is so irrelevant, the point was that I liked what they were causing. Any moderate should see the things they show in action (despite what they claim about themselves) and by feeling attacked slowly develop an idea they (the moderate) are being racially attacked by racism, ultimately leading to identitarian polarization. Here's a source to explore: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

Haha. What a joke. At least you gave an actual link this time, and I've got to give you credit, the Washington Post is a great source. The only problem is, the link supports none of the false arguments you made. Seems like you made this stuff up or you're really gullible and fell for a racist site.

There's no statistics for cops being killed by "black criminals". Using the source that you provided and then knowing that 66 officers were shot in 2016 from this, ten civilians are shot for every officer shot in the line of duty. The comment is disgustingly racist. I don't even feel like I should address it, but just so that you know, officer deaths have been steadily falling since 1970 despite having more police than ever. There isn't direct proof, but the most plausible explanation is that this coincides with a large decline in the Mafia. And I hate to break it to you, but there weren't a lot of black guys in the Mafia.

As for your comment that being shot is statistically insignificant, that's also bull****. Rounding the death count up to 1000 and rounding down the U.S. population to 300,000,000 to make it easier for math, let's just assume that life-expectancy is 80, we see that the likelihood of a random person dying by a police officer is roughly .03%. That's huge. Given how big the country and how valuable a human life is, that's not at all insignificant. It might seems small, but if you actually understand the numbers that's massive. Also, the article that I quoted most recently above explains how blacks are shot disproportionately. Of course, you could have known that from the your source but either you didn't examine it at all or your racist narrative prevented you from realizing it.

You also revert to a common logical fallacy you've made a few times, the straw man argument. Virtually everybody involved with BLM condemned that horrible shooting of the cops. Shooting cops is not part of what BLM argues for or advocates for. I have not given you articles about how the KKK and Hitler was bad because that is not what you're supporting, so please show me the same respect. 

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Sigh, gender roles... maybe some other time. Regardless, however, one thing that's certain is that a combination of poverty and low intelligence will contribute to people acting exactly like they do as their natural selves. Therefore, you are really appealing here only to elitists - which is fine because I support elitism, but they aren't representative of the population as a whole. There is also this fallacy liberals usually have because they think they have the moral upper-ground, and that is that humanism and the Enlightenment's moral values are not only universal but also the pinnacle of meaning and morality in general. They usually try to make the rest of the world listen to this drivel and it usually doesn't work (rightfully so). What if progressivism is not the way forward? 

Fine. Get off IB Survival, go back to your cave, and murder some people (this was a joke and not a serious statement if you're wondering). You give no proof for your "certain" assertion so I have nothing to refute. Frankly, I don't believe it one bit.

You also did nothing to refute what I was saying. You simply changed the frame to objective vs. subjective morality, something we weren't arguing. I'm not trying to make anybody listen to me. I believe murder is wrong. I believe hurting somebody else because they have a different color of skin then you is wrong. That's not an elitist perspective, but nice try buddy. If anybody doesn't believe those things, then kindly **** off.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

I never related this to the study, I simply used individualism and collectivism as a state of society. What I really did was relate this to national and/or racial conscience and collective responsibility, but it doesn't make the argument any less valid at least in the abstract. As for your "doesn't work in reality" part, mentioning the military doesn't mean much. The army is there, but there are economic incentives to join, and it is a legacy of a past US - the US which was much more "collectivist" (had to use the word). The citizens support the army because it provides protection and a feeling of supremacy compared to other countries. The fact that the citizens are polarized and show a lot of mistrust between each other lays in the fact that there are constant attacks on welfare and socialism, especially by the conservative base. Also, I was talking about a conflict on a more local level, like civil conflicts.

I don't have the energy to debate pseudo-science anymore. I ****ing hated IB Psych, but please, for the love of God, take IB psych. 

 

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

What's up with all that "well-read" stuff?

I was late; I was tired; I was grumpy; I have a dry sense of humor. I apologize. Take that as you may.

7 hours ago, Marsynthost said:

Whenever I use this, I usually mean Western society and more specifically (probably) Europeans or European-Americans. 

Don't get defensive, don't be offended; don't be a snowflake. Think about what I'm going to tell you: You support a lot of racist arguments and things. I have tried to show what nonsense it is. Frankly though, I don't have the time to keep doing this so I wish you luck and really do hope you come to question yourself a little bit more. Remember, evil is banal.

Edited by Nomenclature
Non-essential formatting details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2017 at 8:39 AM, Croright said:

Society will surely change, but the direction in which it will change may not be desirable, especially for the native population. This is probably my main argument, actually. It's pretty obvious that the demographic change also culturally hurt the majority population, and the anti-white rhetoric (linked you an example :P) is one of the symptoms of this change (at least in my opinion, and I know that there is also to consider the fact that the relationship between these groups has been bad in the past)

I'm really not looking to engage you on all of these topics, as I am far too busy studying for exams to do so, but I just had to note that your example of "anti-white rhetoric" is really quite uninformed and misplaced. The source you linked limits the information provided about the "No White People Day," and heavily uses rhetorical language to angle the story, rather than just stating the facts of the situation - specifically, in these uses:

  • "Students interested in 'social justice'" (Paragraph 1)
    • Implying that social justice is a superficial or ridiculous concept, rather than letting readers draw their own conclusions on the topic.
  • "demanded a day withouThe conflict stems from the college’s Day of Absence, a tradition in which black people leave the campus to show what the place would be like without them. This year, organizers suggested the reverse: that white people who wanted to participate would leave while nonwhites stayed, and both groups would attend workshops to, as the email announcement put it, “explore issues of race, equity, allyship, inclusion and privilege.”t white people on campus" (Paragraph 1)
    • The term 'demand' implies force was used, which, if this article reported the entire story, it would be apparent that force wasn't used. But I'll get to that below.

I checked it out at the New York Times, which, though is considered to be a left-center-leaning source, is widely considered reputable in many of its reports.

Quote

The conflict stems from the college’s Day of Absence, a tradition in which black people leave the campus to show what the place would be like without them. This year, organizers suggested the reverse: that white people who wanted to participate would leave while nonwhites stayed, and both groups would attend workshops to, as the email announcement put it, “explore issues of race, equity, allyship, inclusion and privilege.”

The passage is taken from Paragraph 14 of the New York Times article. Some things mentioned here that your source missed out on:

  • It stems from a tradition of the college
  • It's a subversion of said tradition
  • It's entirely voluntary
  • Both white and POC students and faculty who chose to participate would be involved in educational workshops on racial topics

So no, it isn't an example of "anti white rhetoric," but because the source you used was limited by its right-leaning rhetoric and exclusion of the full story, it might've come across as that. It was simply a subversion of a tradition kept by the people at the college, which is done to acknowledge and increase awareness of race on campus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hey, ndghost, have you watched the videos of the students? Here you go, take a look and don't tell me they aren't anti-white. 

 

 

You want more examples, though, right? Fine.

1. Pelosi: My Grandson's Birthday Wish Was To Have Brown Skin, Brown Eyes; "Face Of The Future Of Our Country" (imagine this being said for a minority)

2. ‘Your DNA is an abomination’: University under fire for publishing anti-white article (imagine it, imagine the roles being reversed)

3. Feminist geographers encourage colleagues not to cite research of white men (link to the paper)

4. Top UK university to swap portraits of bearded white scholars with wall of diversity (reminds me how stupid affirmative action is)

5. Halifax music fest apologizes for 'overt racism' at concert (notice how the article praises this singer's actions)

6. 'Blazing Saddles,' a comedy about stupid white people, is on Netflix  (an older film, but you know how you get a "racism" warning before watching Tom and Jerry)

7. White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it (historical revisionism too)

8. ‘Dear White People’ Director Has Message For White Viewers: ‘Welcome To The Revolution’ (tribalism/exclusivity like this is always discouraged in white people; increases tribalism in minorities and decreases integration)

9. Beyond Pro-Choice: The Solution to White Supremacy is White Abortion (the sentiment that white people becoming a minority is good can be seen in various examples such as this, so, while saying it like this sounds bad, it is absolutely supported by the establishment)

10. Professor who tweeted, ‘All I want for Christmas is white genocide’ (there were plenty of people defending this position, the article itself chooses to focus on 'death threats' (as if every single person in the public sphere ever did not receive those), and the fact he literally got hired by New York University after resigning is amazing to me because I think of what kind of ****show would happen if you reversed the roles)

And that's just some of what I've gotten off the top of my head. I have yet to start collecting relevant articles for occasions like this, and I've seen too many. You might be tempted to say that these are just "isolated incidents", but the point is that:
1. They are not all that controversial.
2. They are happening in mainstream or academic institutions.
3. They are a sign of a sentiment (though these are very clear to anyone with enough experience).
4. They are ethnic or racial, indicating, in combination with sentiment, with how much ease one can sway such a demographic to go a step further.

It should be noted that the mainstream is much more favorable towards this type of sentiment and is in no way hiding favoritism for it compared to even the slightest embrace of European identity. And of course, there is always some kind of quasi-excuse for these articles and statements, but that's also just based on a twisted view of reality. How can you trust people who believe that cops and judges specifically target black people when it is whites who are least "racist" towards them compared to all other groups (evidence for this can be seen in attitudes of countries and what kind of taboos exist in white societies, while they do not exist in non-white societies) and then form an entire movement deluding themselves and reaching mainstream acceptance? You know you have a cult when reality is so taboo that you have to terminate AI's for supposedly being "racist and sexist". And that's exactly the kind of attitude people take towards the justice system anyway. There is no scenario in which a disparity is not explained by some kind of "subtle" racism when there is no explicit racism. If you lived in a truly racist society, you would NOT be able to complain about things like "subconscious" racism, or demand "racist" ads and get them taken down (regardless of how innocent they were).

 

And you know what else is happening? Heavy political polarization. And you know what polarization leads to? Bad relations.
Is this polarization ethnic? Yes, and I've shown that in the voting pattern picture earlier in the thread. Opinions in the US are so clearly tied to race and ethnicity. Therefore - political polarization will lead to bad ethnic relations. It's perfectly reasonable for me to consider my own ethnicity and put it in the equation.

Why would I not expect tribalistic minorities to eventually act like the South African government seizing land from their white population without compensation and allowing being a white farmer the most dangerous job in the country due to racially motivated murder and crime? It's great that Lauren Southern is making a documentary on this country. If this happened in any other country or if the roles were reversed, leftists couldn't stop talking about it.

Anyone who ignores the OBVIOUS reality of a defeating lack of tribalism in Europeans around the world compared to most other ethnic groups is either purposefully dishonest, naive, uninterested in politics, sheltered, or ignorant.

 

I am also busy with IB exams, by the way, which is why I won't be too active here either yet, and maybe not even at all (who knows).

 

Which brings me to "IBPlayboys".
You guys are right in a lot of things in terms of people not listening and it being a waste of time. It's been a year since I've started this thread and I've gotten much more confident in what I believe. Just seeing this thread makes me cringe looking at how insecure I sounded about things that are obvious. I lost the interest in doing a lot of writing on forums like this. Yes, debating does not lead to happiness or encouragement. It leads to frustration. It might not even be all that necessary to advance an idea. But I was thinking about how I needed to condense a lot of information and opinions I collected and motivate myself for the sake of posting to threads like this so I can use them to copy/paste in other places instead of writing it again and again. I think I might become a bit more active on here just because of that (and I've been encouraged to do that). A part of it is also to encourage like-minded individuals reading and equip them with some knowledge about things they already recognize and can't clearly articulate. There will also be the several observers which are truly neutral and will benefit from these discussions. This is generally how debates work. Also, people are not rational, but they are also resistant to blatant discrimination. The majority of white Americans believe they face discrimination

I am not the hedonistic type. Spiritual contentment is much more valuable to me. So, for instance, the only reason I would be interested in business would be so I could donate to and form organizations. You actually reminded me of how I should at least look into business a little bit because it would be very convenient in my current situation, and I've gotten some good literature on the topic. I might keep an eye on your website, despite it probably being of lower quality than what you can get with proper research (and you still haven't updated it, which is a bad sign for someone who made the website 2 months ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Croright we're busy, the blog is just a fun hobby but it doesn't help us significantly in any way so it's on hold. Still there is a small introduction there with some linked, important content everyone should read.

Re: we get your spiritual contentment but money is what will enable you to do whatever you may want, plus it's the 21th century equivalent of building empires so it's fun as hell and mandatory for your long-term satisfaction as a man.

 Note: Playing the "who has the bigger bank account' game is not what we suggest. Money is just the means for you as an individual to do everything you like. This is not limited to the usual "materialism" that is mostly a game for insecure sexless fat but rich men. It's neither hedonism with coke, yachts and models 24/7 which will bore the **** out of you in ~3 months. it's mainly FREEDOM for you to become a balanced individual in the fundamental aspects of life (and then some) so you work in them. Daily work is the fun part of life that almost nobody acknowledges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.