Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
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.
eugenekop wrote:And how do you think immigration will cause genocide of your people?
eugenekop wrote:And what is so important in keeping your own people in a conserved state in the first place?
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.
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 wrote: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.
eugenekop wrote: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.
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.
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote:Think of yourself as a jew.
Kallinikos wrote: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?
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote:But what makes you so sure that nations will still share the world in centuries, or even decades? It's less than sure.
Kallinikos wrote: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 wrote: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.
Agreed, and I am not sure. I am open to the idea of greater integration with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Western Europe.
I am quite pragmatic. Your question is basically the question of politics, is it not?
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote: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.
Kallinikos wrote: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 )
In Belgium, the Catalans are pro EU, their hope is that the kingdom dissolves even more into the union so th
Of course it could be forced on others. Forty-four states here once prohibited miscegenation in law, and social opinion was overwhelmingly against it.
Not sure where you're going with this one
Kallinikos wrote:I'm really interested to know more about this, or if you have a link...
Kallinikos wrote: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?
Kallinikos wrote: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?
Zionism was never a religious movement basing i[…]
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1801949727069[…]
I submit this informed piece by the late John Pil[…]