What happens when diversity wins and the minorities are the solid majority?

[Jack V Savage]

Fascism is very much western. It was created in Italy and refined in Germany.

Sure. It's Western because it's a reaction against values that became dominant in the West that we call "Western values." Buffon and De Pauw were other Westerners who argued against Western values--it's a long tradition.

Even if you talk about the USA only it was an extremely violent country founded by slave owning planters and was pretty much closed to non-white immigration until 1965, except if you consider slavery as a form of migration. Acceptance of all races and nationalities is a modern trend that might as well not last for long in the big picture.

The problem with that point is that people had generally thought of different nationalities as "races," and the same sorts of racial prejudices generally existed. Enlightenment thinkers who developed Western values never imagined that men would cease to have irrational prejudices, attachments, and beliefs; they just set about creating a civic culture that superseded them. People are free to associate with whoever they want and practice whatever crazy religious beliefs they want to, as long as they recognize that we need a secular gov't and that all citizens have equal rights.

And America is where we have the purest expression of Western values because there was no competition or existing regime to topple, no established aristocracy that rejected Enlightenment thinking.

Also you're delusional if you think these minorities care about the western values you talk about, which I assume to be liberalism. It's just that while you're a minority it's much better to live in a liberal place than an authoritarian one.

You're delusional if you think that values are transmitted through genetics. And, what's more, you're explicitly rejecting Western values when you approach the issue that way. The threat to Western values that we're facing now is the rise not just of irrationality (which is always with us) but a rejection of rationalism.

I read in another thread you talk about how most people that vote republican do so out of racism(and religiosity, gun nuttery and so on) and not because they really believe in conservatism, tax cuts, opposition to fight global warming...and I agree.

And there is the issue. Previously, political arguments were conducted primarily on rational grounds (again not to say that the thinking was equal or was necessarily *good* on any side). But we're now increasingly dispensing with that. In this thread, you have people saying, essentially, non-Western societies are tribalistic and not driven by rationality, and they're beating us in some vague way so we need to also reject Western values so we can win. We're descending into barbarism, and democracy is increasingly being rejected.

Now, 97% of black women vote for Hillary according to exit polls, do you really think that they care about LGBT rights, fighting global warming or what will happen to illegal mexicans?
Come on, you know they like the benefits.

Nah, that's dumb. When one party is making its case primarily on the basis of ethnonationalism, of course people who are not the beneficiaries of that are going to reject them in huge numbers.

Anyhow, the pandora box is now open, it's unlikely Le Pen or Farage will achieve much themselves because unlike Trump they don't have the backing of a big party but Farage got Brexit, Le Pen is influencing the Républicains who will probably win against the Socialists. OFP may very well win the Austrian presidency. Who knows what else will happen in 2017?

Yes, throughout the West, the Enlightenment is under attack, and the attack is not coming from minorities. If you're just saying that minorities in America believe that they are going to be the first victims of the fall of the West and so their defense of Western values is just self-interest on that ground, sure. But whatever the reason, they're overwhelmingly on the side fighting for American and Western values.

 

[dontsnitch]

demographers are predicting white people to become a minority by 2050

Racists on the Left literally applaud this fact.

Here is an audience filled with Progressives who cheer and applaud when Cenk states that whites will be a minority, proudly proclaiming their brainwashing and racism. Then they wonder why there is a rise in white nationalism.

Time stamp 43:35.

 

[Trotsky]

1. Yea, I'm a chemist. And no, social sciences aren't science. The reality is biology is simplified principles of chemistry. Chemistry is simplified principles of physics. But when you work your way down the hierarchy to psychology... ok, yeah some legitimacy is there. We can do repeatable studies, but its a little squirrely. But when you work your way down to sociology or god forbid gender studies... well these clowns don't have a leg to stand on. It's all an ink blot test for these folks.

Well, congratulations on your career choice. I was passable in chemistry, but couldn't gain traction in memorization-heavy biology courses. But, I think you will concede that, unless you're doing front line work with world-class skills or world-class funding, the principle applications of chemistry become increasingly finite with regard to solving social problems.

Also, your understanding of the logistics and importance of sociology are very, very stunted. The organization and formation of social groups and the study of human interaction with and influence on societal evolution is pretty damn important given that we are social creatures who have, in the matter of decades, variably conspired to reach beyond our solar system, to cure world epidemics, and to systematically murder millions based on ethnicity.

Literally, everything is physics bro.

While I am certainly surprised you are trained in hard science, and bravo again, your opinions here speech multitudes of how narrow intelligence (and perspective) can be tailored.

2. Ah, Sociology. That explains a lot.

I also went to a top 20 law school, so I like to think I'm at least semi-capable.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

You're delusional if you think that values are transmitted through genetics. And, what's more, you're explicitly rejecting Western values when you approach the issue that way. The threat to Western values that we're facing now is the rise not just of irrationality (which is always with us) but a rejection of rationalism.

I think it's pretty obvious I reject some western values, I have a Marion Le Pen av, not a Bertrand Russell.
I'm not one of these who believe anarcho capitalism is the true democracy or "democrats are the real racists" or other contradictory position.

That first point is actually a big topic among the right. I may be delusional but I actually believe it to some degree. In very extreme terms I think there is an "amish gene", that is through ages of inbreeding most of the Amish have a genotype that enjoy the kind of life they live and their conservatism, so even if they are exposed to the modern life they usually do not care.
They have their Rumspringa where they go out to see the world of the english and they mostly go back, which makes their gene lineage even more "amish" as they reproduce among other conservative minded people.
I believe it applies to other groups on a much lesser scale and it affects how they live in society. To a degree. It's not the only factor, nor I can quantify how important it is(maybe somebody can in the future).
Of course, I'm being simplistic here, I do not believe it's 1 gene.

Even if you think that's a load of bullshit values are certainly transmitted by the parents.
Children brought up by non-westerners(or evangelical fanatics, nazis and so on) will not just have another religion or speak another language at home, they may very well reject democracy just like the right wing and only support it as long as they need it to survive.
Of course the right is not concerned that these western values(democracy, secularism) will be lost because of immigrants in itself which would be contradictory.
What they are concerned about is that if democracy falls it may very well be a muslim or a black nationalist in charge instead of one of their own.
There are other reasons too. Like some believe if the situation got critical like in a war many migrants would act as a fifth column.

And there is the issue. Previously, political arguments were conducted primarily on rational grounds (again not to say that the thinking was equal or was necessarily *good* on any side). But we're now increasingly dispensing with that. In this thread, you have people saying, essentially, non-Western societies are tribalistic and not driven by rationality, and they're beating us in some vague way so we need to also reject Western values so we can win. We're descending into barbarism, and democracy is increasingly being rejected.

I do not believe most western societies are beating the west at all, certainly not Latin America, India, Africa or the muslim world.
A case could be made about the Chinese(China,Taiwan, Singapore) and South Korea. These countries I mentioned, after some reforms where they did implement western policies but not most western social values, have achieved enormous economical growth and have many indicators above the western world(China is gigantic so it will take a long time until it reaches a decent level of per capita improvements but it seems on the way). These countries in many ways(ROK being more american influenced do this to a lesser degree) reject (unskilled) immigration, egalitarianism, freedom of religion and association. And look, they have less crime, better youth education(excluding the still rural areas of china) and more GDP growth.

I know some of the ethnonationalist are simply going from the irrational perspective that "my group is better because it's mine" but I do believe there are rational advantages(less crime for one, more funding going to science instead of welfare*) of restricting mass non-skilled migration.
If anything a big advantage of restricting migration is that you do not end up with angry right wingers trying to take the government down.
There is rationality in recognizing the irrationality of humans and their tribalism and trying to use it for an advantage instead of trying to erase it.

*Debatable, immigrant advocates will say immigration boosts GDP and overall funding even if a percentage is used on social services.

Nah, that's dumb. When one party is making its case primarily on the basis of ethnonationalism, of course people who are not the beneficiaries of that are going to reject them in huge numbers.

Yes, throughout the West, the Enlightenment is under attack, and the attack is not coming from minorities. If you're just saying that minorities in America believe that they are going to be the first victims of the fall of the West and so their defense of Western values is just self-interest on that ground, sure. But whatever the reason, they're overwhelmingly on the side fighting for American and Western values.

I think the problem with that is that if they're just doing it out of self-interest they might very well change to another side under certain circumstances. If they're large enough to be the authoritarians they might as well be.

I couldn't even touch on 10% of the points I wanted to and the post is already too long, lol

 

[Blackened]

Double.

Delete.

 

[Blackened]

Well, congratulations on your career choice. I was passable in chemistry, but couldn't gain traction in memorization-heavy biology courses. But, I think you will concede that, unless you're doing front line work with world-class skills or world-class funding, the principle applications of chemistry become increasingly finite with regard to solving social problems.

Also, your understanding of the logistics and importance of sociology are very, very stunted. The organization and formation of social groups and the study of human interaction with and influence on societal evolution is pretty damn important given that we are social creatures who have, in the matter of decades, variably conspired to reach beyond our solar system, to cure world epidemics, and to systematically murder millions based on ethnicity.



While I am certainly surprised you are trained in hard science, and bravo again, your opinions here speech multitudes of how narrow intelligence (and perspective) can be tailored.



I also went to a top 20 law school, so I like to think I'm at least semi-capable.

I think it comes down to, do you believe in subjectivity or truth? Do you believe in relativism or absolutism?

I don't think my understanding of sociology is stunted. I've read some journals, and honestly they make me laugh. They take a set of data (which is often largely not quantifiable, i.e. not science), use some kind of statistical analysis and draw some kind of conclusion which is essentially an ink blot of their own perspectives going into the study.

Let's examine this. https://www.universityofcalifornia....ng-name-conjures-larger-more-dangerous-person

Not science. Want to know why?

They are trying to quantify "black sounding names"

Spoiler

LOL!

And I'm not opposed to social science. It's developing, but it will be hundreds of years before it's developed into anything useful and will probably be done with computers as the math used would be so complex only a handful of mathematicians would be able to understand it. Any type of study that tries to understand human behavior that doesn't take into account the genetics of the organism or group of organisms is inherently flawed and will lead to bad science. In time, this will be proven to be true, and we will look back on the social sciences as primitive, a phrenology. Psychology is on the right track with disciplines like neuroscience, neurobiology and psychopharmacology.


Congrats on law school though. With the recent push of socialism and communism on our youth, I'm thinking about abandoning science and going down that path. Isn't that memorization heavy?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think it's pretty obvious I reject some western values, I have a Marion Le Pen av, not a Bertrand Russell.

Sure, but the dispute here is what the threat to Western values is. I'm saying that a lot of people in this thread (and others who share their views) are the threat, rather than minorities. If you think that Western values are bad and *should* be replaced, that's a separate discussion.

That first point is actually a big topic among the right. I may be delusional but I actually believe it to some degree. In very extreme terms I think there is an "amish gene", that is through ages of inbreeding most of the Amish have a genotype that enjoy the kind of life they live and their conservatism, so even if they are exposed to the modern life they usually do not care.
They have their Rumspringa where they go out to see the world of the english and they mostly go back, which makes their gene lineage even more "amish" as they reproduce among other conservative minded people.

I think that this is basically equivalent to Buffon's Degeneration Theory. People stretching to use ideas adjacent to the science of the day to justify irrational or pre-rational beliefs. And it will sound as silly to future generations as Buffon's stuff does to us. Rather than engage it on its own grounds, as Jefferson did, I'd just say that it's mostly irrelevant, as Madison did (mostly--also helped Jefferson a little). Institutions are still primary in determining the path and character of a nation, and we still undoubtedly have *more* to fear from an erosion of Western institutions.

Even if you think that's a load of bullshit values are certainly transmitted by the parents.
Children brought up by non-westerners(or evangelical fanatics, nazis and so on) will not just have another religion or speak another language at home, they may very well reject democracy just like the right wing and only support it as long as they need it to survive.

If that were to happen, those of us who love American and Western values would have to shift alliances. Political alliances shift all the time, and it's not really a big deal. Just gotta keep your eyes on the prize (rationally driven democratic gov't with protection of rights, etc.).

Of course the right is not concerned that these western values(democracy, secularism) will be lost because of immigrants in itself which would be contradictory.
What they are concerned about is that if democracy falls it may very well be a muslim or a black nationalist in charge instead of one of their own.

That seems like an absurd fear in the West. And to the extent that it is the fear, the solution is the promotion of liberalism, not destroying the very thing you're trying to protect.

There are other reasons too. Like some believe if the situation got critical like in a war many migrants would act as a fifth column.

The Muslim world is fighting a massive civil war. We in the West get a little bit of collateral damage from it, but it's mostly not our fight and a minimal threat to us.

I do not believe most western societies are beating the west at all, certainly not Latin America, India, Africa or the muslim world.

So why adopt their values? Why try to degrade our own institutions?

A case could be made about the Chinese(China,Taiwan, Singapore) and South Korea. These countries I mentioned, after some reforms where they did implement western policies but not most western social values, have achieved enormous economical growth and have many indicators above the western world(China is gigantic so it will take a long time until it reaches a decent level of per capita improvements but it seems on the way). These countries in many ways(ROK being more american influenced do this to a lesser degree) reject (unskilled) immigration, egalitarianism, freedom of religion and association. And look, they have less crime, better youth education(excluding the still rural areas of china) and more GDP growth.

They have more GDP growth because they're way behind. In terms of standard of living, there's no comparison between China and any Western nation.

 

[ineverpost]

the liberals want a mass of government dependent poor people, and they will try to achieve this by convincing people they are all diverse regardless of the fact that they are all poor.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

threats not coming from minorities?

what in the literal fuck did I just read?

let me guess, people that say that have NEVER been to an Islamic controlled country

 

[Greoric]

I hope a shift happens and I think you got to be arrogant as hell to not think will change.

This is true but the reasoning is deeper.

According to some race experts there is a biological reason as to why northern Europeans are so prone to willful self destruction.

With regard to the underscored follow up comment you made, I don't think its very sound reasoning. The penultimate purpose for any biological system is to get its genome into successive generations, not to destroy itself.

 

[helltoupee]

I don't really know what you're referring to with evolution in the political sense, but biologically you have it the other way around. Speciation comes from isolation, not from two populations being miscible.

Humans are all the same species, so I don't see how what you are saying is relevant.

The core tenet of evolution is change. Burying your head in the sand with a homogenous society, is discounting variation WITHIN a species. Think peppered moths.

 

[Greoric]

Humans are all the same species, so I don't see how what you are saying is relevant.

The core tenet of evolution is change. Burying your head in the sand with a homogenous society, is discounting variation WITHIN a species. Think peppered moths.

Alright so change (diversity) results from evolution, which is the result of speciation, which results from isolated populations.

That says nothing about the the functionality or miscibility of human cultures in a given geographical area. The fact is that we're tribal animals, and the least tribal ethnicity are whites. If every other ethnicity was as tolerant to other cultures as northern European descendants are to others then it wouldn't be a problem... but they aren't. Every other ethnicity is more community based rather than individualistic, and have a higher in/out group preference. So if you want a diverse culture, you keep whites in the majority... and that means controlling borders.

 

[helltoupee]

Alright so change (diversity) results from evolution, which is the result of speciation, which results from isolated populations.

That says nothing about the the functionality or miscibility of human cultures in a given geographical area. The fact is that we're tribal animals, and the least tribal ethnicity are whites. If every other ethnicity was as tolerant to other cultures as northern European descendants are to others then it wouldn't be a problem... but they aren't. Every other ethnicity is more community based rather than individualistic, and have a higher in/out group preference. So if you want a diverse culture, you keep whites in the majority... and that means controlling borders.

I understand what you are saying, and you bring up some interesting points - however, it seems as if you are saying that if the world wants a peaceful co-existence among cultures that whites should be in charge. Unfortunately, history tells a different story. Europeans have conquered and oppressed much of the world at one time or another. Would other cultures/ethnicities do it if they had a chance? Probably. But I'm not advocating that whites are somehow superior in that respect.

I suspect the problem lies more with the species, rather than individual ethnic groups.

 

[Greoric]

I understand what you are saying, and you bring up some interesting points - however, it seems as if you are saying that if the world wants a peaceful co-existence among cultures that whites should be in charge. Unfortunately, history tells a different story. Europeans have conquered and oppressed much of the world at one time or another. Would other cultures/ethnicities do it if they had a chance? Probably. But I'm not advocating that whites are somehow superior in that respect.

I suspect the problem lies more with the species, rather than individual ethnic groups.

Obviously white cultures have fucked over a lot of different ethnicities, but they also don't have a monopoly over that violence either. In fact, the Middle Easterners had a larger slave trade than the Europeans by at least an order of magnitude.

I'm also not suggesting that whites be in charge of the world. That's silly, legitimately racist, and wouldn't work. I am saying however, that if you want a diverse nation state whites are the only ethnicity that's even historically marginally accepting of different cultures. The US and northern european countires today like, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany are the most tolerant societies on earth. Conveniently until recently they were also dominated by whites. That's not a coincidence. You have to look at the ecology, where the respective ethnicities adapted. Post african exodus northern European populations surviving in the ice age type environment 20K years ago had primarily a man on nature conflict. They didn't have the resources to engage in intergroup conflicts other environments of other ethnicities could support. Thus the relative lack of in/out group preference.

I'm not leading into an argument that whites are "superior". They're not. That's also racist by the correct definition of the word. But just like acknowledging the difference between men and women, you can say we're both equal. However, that's not saying we're the same. Those are two concepts that third wave feminists have conflated, and its metastasized over to the race discussion. The fact is that we don't just differ in the amount of melanin in the skin. We're wired differently too.

 

[helltoupee]

Obviously white cultures have fucked over a lot of different ethnicities, but they also don't have a monopoly over that violence either. In fact, the Middle Easterners had a larger slave trade than the Europeans by at least an order of magnitude.

I'm also not suggesting that whites be in charge of the world. That's silly, legitimately racist, and wouldn't work. I am saying however, that if you want a diverse nation state whites are the only ethnicity that's even historically marginally accepting of different cultures. The US and northern european countires today like, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany are the most tolerant societies on earth. Conveniently until recently they were also dominated by whites. That's not a coincidence. You have to look at the ecology, where the respective ethnicities adapted. Post african exodus northern European populations surviving in the ice age type environment 20K years ago had primarily a man on nature conflict. They didn't have the resources to engage in intergroup conflicts other environments of other ethnicities could support. Thus the relative lack of in/out group preference.

I'm not leading into an argument that whites are "superior". They're not. That's also racist by the correct definition of the word. But just like acknowledging the difference between men and women, you can say we're both equal. However, that's not saying we're the same. Those are two concepts that third wave feminists have conflated, and its metastasized over to the race discussion. The fact is that we don't just differ in the amount of melanin in the skin. We're wired differently too.

Good post, not much I can disagree with.

As far as whites being more tolerant of other cultures, and others not showing the same, I wonder how much that has to do with blowback, or a reaction to theft of resources, etc. - surely that creates resentment, don't you think? In a lot of ways Europeans can afford to be more hospitable when they (at least traditionally) were raping and plundering third world resources to enhance their standards of living at the cost of someone else's.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Well, seeing how none of use will be alive when that happens, this is question is better suited for our children or quite possibly, grandchildren.

 

[RockstarChris]

I can't wait until I am a white minority and get all those minority benefits, healthcare, and free tuition.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

I voted "something else" -- namely a combination of the other options. I think there will be a blending -- some of our values will be lost, and some of their values will be lost. And it will be some what good and some what bad.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

you guys thinking everyone will be black in the world one day should consider that, less than 100k years ago, everyone already was black.

besides that, we will probably wipe ourselves out in less than 1000 years.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

20 years in the future we'll have switched places:

"You're a fucking non-indigenous transgender person!"