[eugenekop]

I actually think most intelligent people in the United States are against intervention now, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Dave]

I don't understand what you are responding to?

[eugenekop]

My mistake.

Ignoring my personal feelings on the issue which are sadly in the minority among the intelligent, most of whom have chosen suicide (hence why I call it pathetic), strategically a policy of population replacement increases internal instability by generating ethnic conflict and reducing loyalty to the central state. I realize that there is the flip side of increased numbers increasing economic output (despite the lower productivity and employment rates of most immigrants and their descendants) so it isn't one-sided.

What did you mean by that? What solution exactly do you propose?

[Dave]

I meant that most Western nations have policies which facilitate race replacement immigration, resulting in multiculturalism and ultimately soft genocide.

My solution is immigration restriction and deportations.

Unfortunately most intelligent people have been hoodwinked into supporting soft genocide of their own people, so there is no resolution to this problem for now. However, it seems the tide has begun to turn so I am optimistic.

[eugenekop]

And how do you think immigration will cause genocide of your people? And what is so important in keeping your own people in a conserved state in the first place?

[Dave]

And how do you think immigration will cause genocide of your people?

Continued immigration, higher fertility among the immigrant groups, and low fertility in my group means that eventually they will come to dominate our societies. This is far off into the future in Europe, but only a generation away in my country.

And what is so important in keeping your own people in a conserved state in the first place?

Principally that it is mine, and I bond much better with them. Birds of a feather flock together. Probable reasons for this are shared culture and genetic similarity (kin selection and/or group selection).

If we want strategic rationales, we are more intelligent and productive than most (but not all) of the immigrants arriving to replace us, and cohesive, homogeneous societies tend to be more successful on a wide variety of indicators.

[eugenekop]

Continued immigration, higher fertility among the immigrant groups, and low fertility in my group means that eventually they will come to dominate our societies. This is far off into the future in Europe, but only a generation away in my country.

How will they dominate your society? By democratic elections? If that's your reasoning I agree with you. I am also in favor of restriction immigration of certain people. However my preferred solution is anarchy, in which others, at least theoretically, cannot dominate you using the state.

Principally that it is mine, and I bond much better with them. Birds of a feather flock together. Probable reasons for this are shared culture and genetic similarity (kin selection and/or group selection).

If we want strategic rationales, we are more intelligent and productive than most (but not all) of the immigrants arriving to replace us, and cohesive, homogeneous societies tend to be more successful on a wide variety of indicators.

Rest assured that those people who are economically successful today will be economically successful when the immigrants will form a large portion of the population. In fact they will be even more successful because immigrants are usually a cheap labor force and can be utilized by these successful people.

[Dave]

How will they dominate your society? By democratic elections? If that's your reasoning I agree with you. I am also in favor of restriction immigration of certain people. However my preferred solution is anarchy, in which others, at least theoretically, cannot dominate you using the state.

By mass. They will outnumber us and eventually take command. It is also not just about political power, but cultural space. I see more and more Spanish language advertising, business and government services, and telephone voice trees. I really, really resent this. If I wanted to live in a hispanic culture I'd move to Mexico. I want to live in America--an America for Americans.

Rest assured that those people who are economically successful today will be economically successful when the immigrants will form a large portion of the population. In fact they will be even more successful because immigrants are usually a cheap labor force and can be utilized by these successful people.

My motivations are not primarily economic, and in fact immigration benefits me personally as I am not in competition with immigrants. Dumb immigrants can't do my work at all, smart ones don't have my communications skills or charisma. Thus I benefit from lower-cost domestic services.

At the national level a country may benefit from an influx of cheap labor in the short to medium term (though with effects on the distribution of income harming unskilled workers), but in the long term per capita output suffers by lowering the productivity of the workforce over all.

Market-dominant minorities are also often blamed for their success and persecuted. See Jews everywhere, the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, or whites in Africa. I'm not terribly interested in being persecuted (more than we already are) in my own country by outgroups.

[Kallinikos]

If we want strategic rationales, we are more intelligent and productive than most (but not all) of the immigrants arriving to replace us, and cohesive, homogeneous societies tend to be more successful on a wide variety of indicators.

it's also true of cohesive groups. I expect the white to become a minority, but a successful one which will pull the strings- see Brazil. It seems that your struggle amounts to tilting at mills, may be you should shift your objectives : marry a woman of your group, raise your family among the people you feel close to. There will certainly be a core of "old-american" for eternity, so may be you should just try to be part of that group and help to shape it, improve it.

Think of yourself as a jew.

[Dave]

it's also true of cohesive groups. I expect the white to become a minority, but a successful one which will pull the strings- see Brazil. It seems that your struggle amounts to tilting at mills, may be you should shift your objectives : marry a woman of your group, raise your family among the people you feel close to. There will certainly be a core of "old-american" for eternity, so may be you should just try to be part of that group and help to shape it, improve it.

In which case we will never be a cohesive nation-state ever again. We'll be no different than any Latin American banana republic, and we whites will be forced into gated communities and compounds. Much of the country will be closed to us, inhabited by unfriendly faces. Brazil sucks compared to us.

Think of yourself as a jew.

[Kallinikos]

Brazil may be, but the lives of whites in there don't necessarily suck. To the contrary, really.
Shouldn't it be what matter the most to you?

I'm a greek orthodox from Syria, so you see how the situation you describe resonates with my own. I've always taught the jews to be an example, and the most successful group preserving its identity throughout history.

[Dave]

Brazil may be, but the lives of whites in there don't necessarily suck. To the contrary, really.
Shouldn't it be what matter the most to you?

In theory that is what should matter most to me, but it certainly isn't what's supposed to matter most to policy makers. See what I'm saying?

And I want more than material comforts. I want to be able to go anywhere in my own country and feel at home and welcome. This is already not the case in a lot of places and will only get worse. I also want prestige and greatness, the kind that only comes from collective achievements. Americans can look back at an incredible record of accomplishment, and we are not likely to continue that the way things are going.



Could Brazil pull that off?

I'm a greek orthodox from Syria, so you see how the situation you describe resonates with my own. I've always taught the jews to be an exemple, and the most successful group preserving its identity throughout history.

Look, if I wanted to be a market dominant minority I'd move to a Third World country. I'm very happy being part of a market dominant majority.

[Kallinikos]

Well, I'll seem I'm exhausting the jewish examples but their scientific achievements are also very impressive. The Appollo program, probably the most impressive feat in human histroy, is the culmination of scientific advance but in itself it's an engineering exploit mostly, the peak of our industrial civilization.

But what makes you so sure that nations will still share the world in centuries, or even decades? It's less than sure.
Regarding you being of a majority or minority, I think you ought to be pragmatic. How will you prevent all those who don't share your views to diverge from what you think is the correct path? Better concentrate on those who share them, don't you agree?

[eugenekop]

Dave, this way of thinking won't convince a lot of people, because you are not talking about justice or morality, you are talking about what you perceive to be your self interest. But there a lot of Americans who do not share this interest, they would either prefer to have cheap labor, or simply don't care about the greatness of America or the white American population in general. So I agree with Kalinikos, you are tilting at windmills. I also agree with his proposed solution. Just maintain connection to your community instead of using violence against other communities.

[Dave]

Well, I'll seem I'm exhausting the jewish examples but their scientific achievements are also very impressive. The Appollo program, probably the most impressive feat in human histroy, is the culmination of scientific advance but in itself it's an engineering exploit mostly, the peak of our industrial civilization.

Of course. We'll continue to achieve, but not on the same kind of scale.

But what makes you so sure that nations will still share the world in centuries, or even decades? It's less than sure.

Agreed, and I am not sure. I am open to the idea of greater integration with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Western Europe.

Regarding you being of a majority or minority, I think you ought to be pragmatic. How will you prevent all those who don't share your views to diverge from what you think is the correct path? Better concentrate on those who share them, don't you agree?

I am quite pragmatic. Your question is basically the question of politics, is it not?

Dave, this way of thinking won't convince a lot of people, because you are not talking about justice or morality, you are talking about what you perceive to be your self interest. But there a lot of Americans who do not share this interest, they would either prefer to have cheap labor, or simply don't care about the greatness of America or the white American population in general. So I agree with Kalinikos, you are tilting at windmills.

I think you will find that I am quite persuasive and convince a lot of people. Look at many posters on this board. Collective feeling and belonging are very important to people, and as night draws nearer you will find my brand of right-wing populism will grow stronger.

[Kallinikos]

Agreed, and I am not sure. I am open to the idea of greater integration with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Western Europe.

Look at the European Union. In Belgium, the Catalans are pro EU, their hope is that the kingdom dissolves even more into the union so that their aim at independence finally becomes fulfilled- that is, a way greater autonomy than they could ever achieve confined in the kingdom.
The same is true for the Flemish, the Scots and a host of other small nations...(Padania, Corsica, Bretagne,etc...)
I've even been shown a lesson in my university where the geography prof gave his (wild) opinion that, within such a fragmented Europe, the German speaking groups would be more powerful than ever (compared to French speaking groups) and the difference in influence would be much greater than what Germany could achieve vs France.

He was really thinking that a regionalized Europe would pave the way for a certain -peaceful- german imperialism, successful this time.

I am quite pragmatic. Your question is basically the question of politics, is it not?

It was quite prosaic. If you think that mixing with other ethnicities is so detrimental, and wish to retain european, or north european endogamy, there is no way this could be forced upon the others. Then will remain you and the like-minded.
Of course I certainly find dubious some of the rationale behind it, and your IQ narrative, because for example I'm aware how foreign slaves were sometimes (reluctantly) absorbed in greek city states, or massively in the Roman republic (right into the Italian peninsula). That happened in the most successful polity in european history.
Also other examples, the Syrians and Blacks sequences found among old british families (brought also by the romans), the integration of some famous mulattoes (Alexandre Dumas, Joseph Bologne de Saint-George, Pushkin! ...)the only thing is that that was being done on the society's terms, not the large scale immigration that some euros perceive as an invasion right now.

Anyway, the reasons don't matter, it's still workable for a group if it whishes to do so, be it indian-american (and some groups in Canada insist on their racial purity now) or the american "whites". The real motive isn't important, as I see the French practising catholics ("cathos-tradis") inter-marrying on the base of their faith- but really it's just the french old-stock mostly. As I look white, and if I were to become Catholic and make all their mores mine, I could probably marry some of their girls and be accepted by them (but I prefer to keep my identity)

You're right to say that in case of extended crisis your views would be heard more, and that's why I have a special interest for your posts and views. However, you're just human and as you can't be blamed for having surrendered to modern sexual mores, you wouldn't be blamed if indeed you become rich enough and one day flee with your assets where the grass is greener (exiled oligarch sitting in his Hong-Kong duplex, near Peak Victoria )

[Dave]

Look at the European Union. In Belgium, the Catalans are pro EU, their hope is that the kingdom dissolves even more into the union so that their aim at independence finally becomes fulfilled- that is, a way greater autonomy than they could ever achieve confined in the kingdom.
The same is true for the Flemish, the Scots and a host of other small nations...(Padania, Corsica, Bretagne,etc...)
I've even been shown a lesson in my university where the geography prof gave his (wild) opinion that, within such a fragmented Europe, the German speaking groups would be more powerful than ever (compared to French speaking groups) and the difference in influence would be much greater than what Germany could achieve vs France.

He was really thinking that a regionalized Europe would pave the way for a certain -peaceful- german imperialism, successful this time.

I agree with his thesis, though I do not see it as intentional. Germany seems to be very much on the ascendancy in Europe today. The French thought they'd hamstring Germany with the Euro, but what really happened is it forced everyone else to compete with the Germans on equal footing. Oops!

It was quite prosaic. If you think that mixing with other ethnicities is so detrimental, and wish to retain european, or north european endogamy, there is no way this could be forced upon the others. Then will remain you and the like-minded.

Of course it could be forced on others. Forty-four states here once prohibited miscegenation in law, and social opinion was overwhelmingly against it.

Of course I certainly find dubious some of the rationale behind it, and your IQ narrative, because for example I'm aware how foreign slaves were sometimes (reluctantly) absorbed in greek city states, or massively in the Roman republic (right into the Italian peninsula). That happened in the most successful polity in european history.
Also other examples, the Syrians and Blacks sequences found among old british families (brought also by the romans), the integration of some famous mulattoes (Alexandre Dumas, Joseph Bologne de Saint-George, Pushkin! ...)the only thing is that that was being done on the society's terms, not the large scale immigration that some euros perceive as an invasion right now.

I'm happy to see that you follow my posts, but I've never maintained that miscegenation is automatically harmful. While there are some compelling genetic reasons to oppose it, in general my reasons are social. When looking at an individual pair bond, the qualities of their respective population pools is relevant but much less important than their individual character. Blacks as a whole may be less intelligent than whites, but Neil deGrasse Tyson (mulatto physicist) is certainly far more intelligent than I am.

Anyway, the reasons don't matter, it's still workable for a group if it whishes to do so, be it indian-american (and some groups in Canada insist on their racial purity now) or the american "whites". The real motive isn't important, as I see the French practising catholics ("cathos-tradis") inter-marrying on the base of their faith- but really it's just the french old-stock mostly. As I look white, and if I were to become Catholic and make all their mores mine, I could probably marry some of their girls and be accepted by them (but I prefer to keep my identity)

You're right to say that in case of extended crisis your views would be heard more, and that's why I have a special interest for your posts and views. However, you're just human and as you can't be blamed for having surrendered to modern sexual mores, you wouldn't be blamed if indeed you become rich enough and one day flee with your assets where the grass is greener (exiled oligarch sitting in his Hong-Kong duplex, near Peak Victoria )

Not sure where you're going with this one, but suffice to say I am greatly looking forward to such wealth. I may be moving to Japan next year to live a degenerate expat lifestyle for a bit.

[Kallinikos]

In Belgium, the Catalans are pro EU, their hope is that the kingdom dissolves even more into the union so th

** just correcting, I was of course meaning Spain, not Belgium**

Of course it could be forced on others. Forty-four states here once prohibited miscegenation in law, and social opinion was overwhelmingly against it.

I'm really interested to know more about this, or if you have a link...
Between promoting voluntary endogamy and prohibited miscegneation, which one does look more realistic? Even if you create different scenarii for the evolution of the US, like the CIA does, I fail to see how you would find any opportunity to implement such thing. Or are you of those who want to see the world burning?

Not sure where you're going with this one

If you were a traditional american, you may have had many relationships but not the desire to tell so much people about them. The reason why you do si is because it's now fashionable to brag about it, so in a way you have surrendered to the general mood, sexual liberation narrative. Don't you think?

[Dave]

I'm really interested to know more about this, or if you have a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Between promoting voluntary endogamy and prohibited miscegneation, which one does look more realistic? Even if you create different scenarii for the evolution of the US, like the CIA does, I fail to see how you would find any opportunity to implement such thing. Or are you of those who want to see the world burning?

I am a gradualist. One would begin with promoting voluntary endogamy and in-group pride, while slowly moving to the goal of exclusionary policies codified in law. Just as social and legal prohibitions against miscegenation were gradually eliminated, so they can be gradually restored.

If you were a traditional american, you may have had many relationships but not the desire to tell so much people about them. The reason why you do si is because it's now fashionable to brag about it, so in a way you have surrendered to the general mood, sexual liberation narrative. Don't you think?

Ahhh, you really do follow me. What I do personally is not necessarily optimal socially.

[Kallinikos]

Yes I do.
I'm must say you're much more eloquent and coherent than what is to be found on stormfront, skadi which I monitor.
I'm also monitoring french far right websites...which is painful considering how much stupid and uninformed opinions I find in it, but I'm checking what has chances to become the political future here.
I don't say they are stupid out of thin air, for exemple recently there was a topic where someone brought the fact that when France was 50 millions, the birthrate was around 2 children per woman and so the population shouldn't reach 65 millions today (so there must be 15 millions aliens, QED )

4-5 other posters repeated the same idea with the same reasoning, hundreds posted in between and many more viewed it (it's now the first french political blog). And not a single one corrected the stupid misconception (why China is still growing, huh?....).
----

Still, about what you said on miscegenation : my examples weren't all of equal importance. The most significant one was about the roman empire, where we have records of massive arrival of slaves, from Greece but also in great quantity from more oriental and southern populations. We know that their integration wasn't so hard despite all the cruelty they may have suffered : frequently after a generation or even sometimes during their life they would become normal Romans.
Also there's the question of Roman emperors of non european origins.

So the roman society is one where miscgeneation occurred on a long-term basis(well before its decline, in fact centuries before its peak). Every single European powers afterwards constantly compared itself to its might, as we know. A good work about that. If we are to link miscegenation to Roman decline, our best culprit should be the germans then, but it's not an opinion that seem reasonable to me.

I see and understand that you reasons are mainly social, and so is the example of Rome interesting mostly in this regard. Racial hygiene is aweak replacement of cultural domination, in my view. Those who promote it probably already have failed.