So obviously sacrificing humanity on the alter of slightly higher GDP would be a bad trade. I've never seen a more cringe anti-human screed then Vivek sayin the purpose of life is doing Kuman math drills all weekend.
But its worse!
All of Asia has dramatically lower GDP/capita than America (or even Europe) and are totally stagnant after catch up growth. They have a rock bottom TFRs and will be extinct in two generations, which Elon Musk says he cares about a lot.
So why would we think importing their “Elite Human Capital” culture would cause long term economic growth? It’s not empirically sound as a proposition, even if we wanted to trade human ennoblement for GDP.
I think all this comes down to is that Elon has worked with some Indians he likes and that’s his vibes. He hasn’t put more thought into it than that.
When I read his biography he seems perplexed why every single person who works with him has 0-1 TFR, as if the culture of grind he promotes doesn’t cause that. I guess he doesn’t understand that the fact that he can buy off the problems of modernity (big houses, multiple nannies, divorce settlements) doesn’t change the fact that the vastly larger UMC employees he has can’t do the same thing if both spouses are working 80 hour weeks.
It only gets worse when you consider that while Elon’s projects actually build meaningful things, most Asian grinds are just doing meaningless Red Queen paper pusher bullshit with no value add to society.
Elon isn’t for H1Bs because he likes the epic head shakes of an Indian person. Trump is most likely going to increase rejection rates to his previous high of 16%.
By the way, did you have AI write a post that uses almost every logical fallacy known to man? Jesus Christ, if not, I’m not even mad, I’m actually impressed.
The idea of 'logical fallacies' is a logical fallacy. Most 'logical fallacies' are the inappropriate application of formal logic to ordinary discourse.
Elon hasn't 'built' anything. Everything he does is a copy of an existing technology. None of this current crop of oligarchs could stand up to Henry Ford and certainly don't have the genius of a James Clerk Maxwell or the determination of a Thomas Edison or creativity of a Nicola Tesla.
The White world is in a creative slump. It's just where things are now. We're teaching people to either not think at all ('social learning') or we're teaching to not think beyond where we're thinking right now.
Today is not forever. But today is the ancestor of tomorrow.
Capitalists ceased to think 'down the road' almost a century ago. The last 'deep thinkers' in industry were Shewhart and Deming and Shannon.
Elon didn't create rocketry or even advanced rocketry. He's working in a well-established area of engineering. I will admit recapture of rocket components is pretty cool. But if I had to bet, that idea goes back to before NASA was even created.
So? My point wasn't the Musk didn't so something. My point is that what he's 'building' isn't new or innovative. People treat the guy like he's some kind of genius. He's not. He's just good at dropping his snout in the trough of government subsidies.
Mr Online - it occurs to me that many Americans of a more liberal persuasion resent having to share their country with people like you.
Your position, as I understand it, is that nobody deserves to live in a country unless literally every citizen is chill with it. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion would require you to deport yourself for the benefit of your liberal compatriots.
You've heard the term "national divorce" I assume (notice the implicit analogy to a marriage i.e. a family)? I've always been in favor of that for this exact reason. I don't want to share a nation with liberals either! Their values are alien enough that I'd rather they be off in their own nation instead.
You're assuming that there's some obligation not to kick liberals out. There isn't. Liberals want to throw their weight around as long as their opponents are suckers for 'good manners'. But, increasingly, those on the other side of the struggle no longer value your 'good will' or your opinions. So, when the time comes, don't think you can talk (or guilt-trip) your way out of the quandry your obstinancy has created.
I'm a White Nationalist. I have no need to solve the problems of any race other than Whites. As for White liberals, they need to get with the program or accept the consequences of endless race-mixing in the parts of the country they pretend to control.
Here we have two foreigners to be put in charge of an immigration-related issue like H1B, with all the consequences of seeing the US not as a country with a culture and composition of intangible value, but as an economic unit.
On another note, I have to think that Musk has, just as Trump, been bought in some way or another. He took a very interesting trip to Israel after going after the ADL and re-tweeting Keith Woods. Since then, his tune has changed.
On Ramaswamy, this guy is a pump-and-dump scammer. I suppose he has learnt from his co-ethnics. Imagine having more of these people in the US. Anyone watch Bald and Bankrupt’s video on India? These people will not maintain Anglo-Saxon standards of cleanliness and propriety.
I don’t believe they will be in charge of immigration. Their views have always been this and Trump has said he supports it too. The best we can hope for is an extreme restriction of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. The Overton window has been moved and will be nigh impossible to reverse at this point. Jews don’t have anything to do with it.
I didn’t say that they will be in charge of immigration, but that they are in charge of an issue related to immigration, namely the laxness with which H1B visas are granted with the ostensible purpose of making things more efficient as per the name of this proposed ‘new department’.
There will not be an extreme restriction of immigration. That wouldn’t serve the ends of ethnic replacement of the Anglo-Saxon stock of the US, which Trump’s handlers are currently after. H1B visas are just a sneakier way to screw Americans, especially the useful idiots who say they ‘don’t mind legal immigration’.
From AIPAC to the ADL to countless other Jewish-Israeli fronts and interests groups, ask yourself why neither Republicans nor Democrats is allowed to criticize Israel without committing political suicide. Why was the first question in the vice presidential debates this year about how much either candidate would support Israel (on the assumption that that is their only acceptable stance)? Why is it that the Lyndon B. Johnson administration allow Israeli fighter jets to kill and maim American soldiers on the USS Liberty? Why were the BLM anti-White protests allowed free rein and media support, while the anti-Israel protests immediately met stiff resistance from police and the same media?
Obama and others did a lot of criticizing I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t criticize them because I support them as I’m sure most Christian republicans do. Sure most secular ones are slobbering liberals but that doesn’t make a majority of them a secret cabal running the whole world.
If you support Israel as or because you’re a Christian, then you’re not a Christian. It’s as simple as that.
Israel routinely kills Christians within Palestine, turns a blind eye on Jews spitting at Christians in the streets, and desecrates Christian churches. Talmudic Judaism is explicitly anti-Christian. The Noahide Laws label Christians as idol-worshippers worthy of the death penalty, and the Talmud itself vehemently attacks Jesus.
If you were Christian, you would know that Talmudic Judaism is the Judaism as practiced by the Pharisees, whom Jesus himself was very critical of. For example, I’m sure you know about his condemnation of the Pharisees doing business in the temple. Well, that’s exactly what happens in Talmudic Judaism.
Christian (let’s be honest, Evangelical) support of Israel is the most insane and nonsensical stance to have. Please watch this to understand what I mean:
I don’t know you therefore your Joo hating opinions matter not one iota to me. Frankly I’ve met dozens just like you in the dark corners of twitter and none of you are fooling anyone with the subterfuge of being good people.
It is the snob posture of jews and their whores (christians, White liberals) that they're the 'smart' or 'compassionate' or 'moral' ones in every argument.
Your dogmatism indicates that you have already made up your mind, to which I say, good luck. Palestinians are just the latest people who had to deal with them. I heard a random Guatemalan village also had a run in with God’s Chosen people recently. Fascinating stuff ;)
Jews absolutely are involved in supporting mass immigration. In fact, Kushner's family made a tidy sum *selling* H visas to rich Chinese. So, yeah, jews are all over immigration. It's just that some jews have come to realize that pajeets and squatemalans don't give a crap about 'muh holocaust' or 'muh permanent victim', so they're trying to figure out a way to destroy White nations with the racial aliens they've *already* imported. If there's something anti-White in the White world, the jews are always - *always* - right in the thick of it stirring the pot.
No. It's because they are jews. The jews control the Left. They have for a long, long time. The jews were engaged in the destruction of White life for as long as the jews have been a part of White history. It has nothing to do with 'leftism'.
I'm a 'left-leaning' White Nationalist. I support the White working class and oppose the abuses of capitalism on the White working class. I'm in favor of pro-White 'investment' by government, what right-wingers typically call 'socialism'.
There are all kinds of 'left' positions that have nothing to do with jewish supremacist policies like anti-White demographic warfare via mass immigration, outsourcing, usury, 'civil rights' for minorities, etc.
These are jewish policies, not 'leftist' policies.
National identity is important, and unfortunately for you, America’s identity no longer looks like you. That pendulum swinging away from Wokeism didn’t really swing that much to the other side.
You gripe about liberals all day long, but you fail to realize the majority of the left, middle and right have very different views than you do. It is no longer a 50+1 problem you often complain about, your issues are so far in the minority, you need 50 other people. Democracy working as intended.
Congratulations, you are finally in the top 1% percentile on positions people actually support. No abortion. No immigration. No voting rights. Religious fanatics. You have more in common with El Salvador than the United States, start applying for citizenship buddy. Better yet, I think you can take a caravan down and claim asylum.
what does it look like then? When do you figure you and yours will change the constitution to benefit your cohort? I’m betting between 2 and 3 generations.
It has already changed, whether for the better or worse, that is up for you to decide. There is a reason why Trump won, he is a populist figure with tendencies to lean more towards what is good for Capitalism. Key word: Populist… that means the left too. That is why he is never going to embrace policies of the extreme right.
All of that nonsense isn’t going to matter. The important question is what are you going to do about it? Seems easier to just go with the flow. Otherwise, I hope you have a lot of bullets.
You still didn’t say what national identity looks like now. ‘Extreme right’ is just a bullshi* term used by those who frame everything within the Overton window that’s been moved so far to the left that any moderation seems conservative.
Didn’t mean to dodge the question, and it is a good question. Do you mean like skin color or political ideology?
Skin color, I would just look at our Olympic team. That is our national identity, a relative good mix of all races.
Political? We are definitely more progressive than most nations but we are more conservative now than before. It just isn’t going to reach the point where OP wants it to go.
You are right, extreme right is an overly simple way of labeling things. I can see the pros for more drastic measures but I’m afraid the cons will far outweigh the benefits.
So our national identity prior to that was what? Because in a span of 60 short years this country went from 93% to 60%. It just amazes me how the mantra of ‘diversity is our strength’ playing on a continuous loop has memory holed the reality of what this country was just a few decades ago. Once number parity is reached then a power struggle will ensue; it won’t be the kumbaya moment you are envisioning.
I’m resigned to the fact that the 60’s were the generation of treasonous bastards who changed the country that I ever knew and loved. Trump is a blip on the radar that is staving off the inevitable by a few years. The time for turning it back passed long ago. Demographics is destiny.
Bring what back? No matter what happens the country is irrevocably changed for the worse. Not enough of the past immigrants bought into the dominant culture and we are too soft to become Singapore.
> Well, I think they simply don’t make the connection that national identity is an extension of one’s family.
Because a nation isn't a family, and treating a nation as if it were is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, a nation needs a national identity, but that's a very different thing from being a family, and thinking about a national identity *qua* national identity gets one rather close to seeing the identity as a *gasp* proposition.
So your comment is that, rather than the nation functioning as a (very) expanded family circle bound via religious and ethnic ties, the nation should function as a "proposition?" Proposition of what, by who, to whom?
If we were to truly treat a nation as an extended family, then the logical endpoint would be some sort of communism. Families largely operate on the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", with radical shared ownership of basically everything. Scaling that up to entire societies has never worked.
Depends on the family, but to some extent people clearly do view their nation this way--why else would welfare programs and things like Social Security exist?
The roommate analogy, like most household analogies when extended to a state, doesn't quite fit. Any large group of people cannot allow minorities to veto everything or the society will cease to function. There's many cases of anarchist groups who found housing communities where anyone can veto anything, using a colored card system. Trust me, it goes exactly as well as you expect. The USA is an involuntary association, but even as such some sort of national good should be sought after in policy making through the political process. Allowing a minority to veto anything is how the USA has ended up unable to build housing, infrastructure, and more. That all said, if we conceive of the USG as a for profit organization, which isn't that far from the truth, it's obvious that skilled immigration will increase revenue and decrease expenses while unskilled immigration does the opposite. It's to be expected there will be immense pressure for H1B, especially in light of the long term debt crisis the USG is in. As far as the homogeneity of racists and their neighborhoods, I seriously doubt H1B recipients are going to move in next door and bother them with the smell of curry.
You don't allow minorities to veto everything, but you certainly allow them to veto some things, depending on the particulars of the issue. Just like in a household! In the case of the roommates analogy, it is worth pointing out that there is typically an explicit contract in writing, commonly known as a "lease," which sides with the minority who wishes to veto the proposed squatter arrangement. With respect to the nation-state, the concept of citizenship itself serves a similar function, as I explained in the corresponding post--if you grant all meaningful rights of citizenship to foreigners as well, the foundational contract between citizen and state has been effectively nullified.
> it is worth pointing out that there is typically an explicit contract in writing, commonly known as a "lease," which sides with the minority who wishes to veto the proposed squatter arrangement.
Yes, and the analogous thing in America is called the Constitution and the laws dully passed under it, that includes our immigration laws.
The piece that makes the analogy break is violence. In the case of the one complaining roommate, he has a contract that's enforceable by the courts he can rely on to exercise force on his behalf. That's not the case for the states social contract. The social contract isn't a legal contract, but instead is one based on the element of force. Here I'm using an expansive definition of force to include things such as censorship of media, troll farming, and education. All these are under the control of the state because of its ability to exercise force over the citizenry. However this force is 2 way; citizens can revolt and riot; it can be cheaper for the state to hand out economic benefits or meet cultural desires such as restriction of immigration than to use more policing. Liberty is necessarily born out of the expenditure of the blood of patriots. In the case here of skilled immigration, the groups that are opposed don't have the resources to effectively force their will. They are in different parts of the country than the immigrants, lack media control, and aren't motivated enough to present an armed rebellion. Quite different than the case of unskilled immigrants who might move in next door and directly compete; in those cases, the disaffected can and have taken both peaceful and violent political action. That's why in some areas the same class might be able to exert authority while failing in others; it's about force.
It seems to me that these cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs should be able to pool their resources and 'innovation' and set themselves up their own country. Maybe purchase a bunch of tankers, link them together and keep them out in 'international waters' where they can do whatever they want (economically).
Instead, they keep trying to steal other people's countries and turn them into 'economic zones' where everyone is expendable (except themselves).
Cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs need White countries more than White countries need cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs.
> It seems to me that these cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs should be able to pool their resources and 'innovation' and set themselves up their own country.
Musk is all about #1, i.e. Elon Musk. You don't get to richest man on earth without a stratospheric commitment to oneself above all others.
So if it comes down to Elon Musk or Americans, Elon's always going to choose himself.
That's actually ok. He just proved he's a crappy politician, so he's not going to be our leader. Because he cares so much about himself, we simply have to use our leverage to give him an offer he can't refuse.
Hell, Elon takes a knee for Xi Jinping. We can make him grovel if he insists
So obviously sacrificing humanity on the alter of slightly higher GDP would be a bad trade. I've never seen a more cringe anti-human screed then Vivek sayin the purpose of life is doing Kuman math drills all weekend.
But its worse!
All of Asia has dramatically lower GDP/capita than America (or even Europe) and are totally stagnant after catch up growth. They have a rock bottom TFRs and will be extinct in two generations, which Elon Musk says he cares about a lot.
So why would we think importing their “Elite Human Capital” culture would cause long term economic growth? It’s not empirically sound as a proposition, even if we wanted to trade human ennoblement for GDP.
I think all this comes down to is that Elon has worked with some Indians he likes and that’s his vibes. He hasn’t put more thought into it than that.
When I read his biography he seems perplexed why every single person who works with him has 0-1 TFR, as if the culture of grind he promotes doesn’t cause that. I guess he doesn’t understand that the fact that he can buy off the problems of modernity (big houses, multiple nannies, divorce settlements) doesn’t change the fact that the vastly larger UMC employees he has can’t do the same thing if both spouses are working 80 hour weeks.
It only gets worse when you consider that while Elon’s projects actually build meaningful things, most Asian grinds are just doing meaningless Red Queen paper pusher bullshit with no value add to society.
Elon isn’t for H1Bs because he likes the epic head shakes of an Indian person. Trump is most likely going to increase rejection rates to his previous high of 16%.
By the way, did you have AI write a post that uses almost every logical fallacy known to man? Jesus Christ, if not, I’m not even mad, I’m actually impressed.
The idea of 'logical fallacies' is a logical fallacy. Most 'logical fallacies' are the inappropriate application of formal logic to ordinary discourse.
Your face is a logical fallacy.
Now you're just being goofy.
Elon hasn't 'built' anything. Everything he does is a copy of an existing technology. None of this current crop of oligarchs could stand up to Henry Ford and certainly don't have the genius of a James Clerk Maxwell or the determination of a Thomas Edison or creativity of a Nicola Tesla.
The White world is in a creative slump. It's just where things are now. We're teaching people to either not think at all ('social learning') or we're teaching to not think beyond where we're thinking right now.
Today is not forever. But today is the ancestor of tomorrow.
Capitalists ceased to think 'down the road' almost a century ago. The last 'deep thinkers' in industry were Shewhart and Deming and Shannon.
Elon didn't create rocketry or even advanced rocketry. He's working in a well-established area of engineering. I will admit recapture of rocket components is pretty cool. But if I had to bet, that idea goes back to before NASA was even created.
So? My point wasn't the Musk didn't so something. My point is that what he's 'building' isn't new or innovative. People treat the guy like he's some kind of genius. He's not. He's just good at dropping his snout in the trough of government subsidies.
Mr Online - it occurs to me that many Americans of a more liberal persuasion resent having to share their country with people like you.
Your position, as I understand it, is that nobody deserves to live in a country unless literally every citizen is chill with it. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion would require you to deport yourself for the benefit of your liberal compatriots.
You've heard the term "national divorce" I assume (notice the implicit analogy to a marriage i.e. a family)? I've always been in favor of that for this exact reason. I don't want to share a nation with liberals either! Their values are alien enough that I'd rather they be off in their own nation instead.
You're assuming that there's some obligation not to kick liberals out. There isn't. Liberals want to throw their weight around as long as their opponents are suckers for 'good manners'. But, increasingly, those on the other side of the struggle no longer value your 'good will' or your opinions. So, when the time comes, don't think you can talk (or guilt-trip) your way out of the quandry your obstinancy has created.
People like me will not let you.
You have to be punished for your arrogance.
> You're assuming that there's some obligation not to kick liberals out.
Aren't While liberals part of your 'family'?
Or are you admitting that this "nation as a family" things is BS and you also want to enforce a proposition?
I'm a White Nationalist. I have no need to solve the problems of any race other than Whites. As for White liberals, they need to get with the program or accept the consequences of endless race-mixing in the parts of the country they pretend to control.
Here we have two foreigners to be put in charge of an immigration-related issue like H1B, with all the consequences of seeing the US not as a country with a culture and composition of intangible value, but as an economic unit.
On another note, I have to think that Musk has, just as Trump, been bought in some way or another. He took a very interesting trip to Israel after going after the ADL and re-tweeting Keith Woods. Since then, his tune has changed.
On Ramaswamy, this guy is a pump-and-dump scammer. I suppose he has learnt from his co-ethnics. Imagine having more of these people in the US. Anyone watch Bald and Bankrupt’s video on India? These people will not maintain Anglo-Saxon standards of cleanliness and propriety.
I don’t believe they will be in charge of immigration. Their views have always been this and Trump has said he supports it too. The best we can hope for is an extreme restriction of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. The Overton window has been moved and will be nigh impossible to reverse at this point. Jews don’t have anything to do with it.
I didn’t say that they will be in charge of immigration, but that they are in charge of an issue related to immigration, namely the laxness with which H1B visas are granted with the ostensible purpose of making things more efficient as per the name of this proposed ‘new department’.
There will not be an extreme restriction of immigration. That wouldn’t serve the ends of ethnic replacement of the Anglo-Saxon stock of the US, which Trump’s handlers are currently after. H1B visas are just a sneakier way to screw Americans, especially the useful idiots who say they ‘don’t mind legal immigration’.
From AIPAC to the ADL to countless other Jewish-Israeli fronts and interests groups, ask yourself why neither Republicans nor Democrats is allowed to criticize Israel without committing political suicide. Why was the first question in the vice presidential debates this year about how much either candidate would support Israel (on the assumption that that is their only acceptable stance)? Why is it that the Lyndon B. Johnson administration allow Israeli fighter jets to kill and maim American soldiers on the USS Liberty? Why were the BLM anti-White protests allowed free rein and media support, while the anti-Israel protests immediately met stiff resistance from police and the same media?
Moreover, Trump is a sell-out: https://odysee.com/$/download/trumpandjews/c93f9f21f7dbdaed30a883842ca4c28681663ec6
Obama and others did a lot of criticizing I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t criticize them because I support them as I’m sure most Christian republicans do. Sure most secular ones are slobbering liberals but that doesn’t make a majority of them a secret cabal running the whole world.
If you support Israel as or because you’re a Christian, then you’re not a Christian. It’s as simple as that.
Israel routinely kills Christians within Palestine, turns a blind eye on Jews spitting at Christians in the streets, and desecrates Christian churches. Talmudic Judaism is explicitly anti-Christian. The Noahide Laws label Christians as idol-worshippers worthy of the death penalty, and the Talmud itself vehemently attacks Jesus.
If you were Christian, you would know that Talmudic Judaism is the Judaism as practiced by the Pharisees, whom Jesus himself was very critical of. For example, I’m sure you know about his condemnation of the Pharisees doing business in the temple. Well, that’s exactly what happens in Talmudic Judaism.
Christian (let’s be honest, Evangelical) support of Israel is the most insane and nonsensical stance to have. Please watch this to understand what I mean:
https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b/cuficon:e
I don’t know you therefore your Joo hating opinions matter not one iota to me. Frankly I’ve met dozens just like you in the dark corners of twitter and none of you are fooling anyone with the subterfuge of being good people.
It is the snob posture of jews and their whores (christians, White liberals) that they're the 'smart' or 'compassionate' or 'moral' ones in every argument.
But it's not true.
You're just snobs and anti-White.
Your dogmatism indicates that you have already made up your mind, to which I say, good luck. Palestinians are just the latest people who had to deal with them. I heard a random Guatemalan village also had a run in with God’s Chosen people recently. Fascinating stuff ;)
Jews absolutely are involved in supporting mass immigration. In fact, Kushner's family made a tidy sum *selling* H visas to rich Chinese. So, yeah, jews are all over immigration. It's just that some jews have come to realize that pajeets and squatemalans don't give a crap about 'muh holocaust' or 'muh permanent victim', so they're trying to figure out a way to destroy White nations with the racial aliens they've *already* imported. If there's something anti-White in the White world, the jews are always - *always* - right in the thick of it stirring the pot.
It’s because they are leftists not because they are Jews.
No. It's because they are jews. The jews control the Left. They have for a long, long time. The jews were engaged in the destruction of White life for as long as the jews have been a part of White history. It has nothing to do with 'leftism'.
I'm a 'left-leaning' White Nationalist. I support the White working class and oppose the abuses of capitalism on the White working class. I'm in favor of pro-White 'investment' by government, what right-wingers typically call 'socialism'.
There are all kinds of 'left' positions that have nothing to do with jewish supremacist policies like anti-White demographic warfare via mass immigration, outsourcing, usury, 'civil rights' for minorities, etc.
These are jewish policies, not 'leftist' policies.
National identity is important, and unfortunately for you, America’s identity no longer looks like you. That pendulum swinging away from Wokeism didn’t really swing that much to the other side.
You gripe about liberals all day long, but you fail to realize the majority of the left, middle and right have very different views than you do. It is no longer a 50+1 problem you often complain about, your issues are so far in the minority, you need 50 other people. Democracy working as intended.
Congratulations, you are finally in the top 1% percentile on positions people actually support. No abortion. No immigration. No voting rights. Religious fanatics. You have more in common with El Salvador than the United States, start applying for citizenship buddy. Better yet, I think you can take a caravan down and claim asylum.
what does it look like then? When do you figure you and yours will change the constitution to benefit your cohort? I’m betting between 2 and 3 generations.
It has already changed, whether for the better or worse, that is up for you to decide. There is a reason why Trump won, he is a populist figure with tendencies to lean more towards what is good for Capitalism. Key word: Populist… that means the left too. That is why he is never going to embrace policies of the extreme right.
All of that nonsense isn’t going to matter. The important question is what are you going to do about it? Seems easier to just go with the flow. Otherwise, I hope you have a lot of bullets.
You still didn’t say what national identity looks like now. ‘Extreme right’ is just a bullshi* term used by those who frame everything within the Overton window that’s been moved so far to the left that any moderation seems conservative.
Didn’t mean to dodge the question, and it is a good question. Do you mean like skin color or political ideology?
Skin color, I would just look at our Olympic team. That is our national identity, a relative good mix of all races.
Political? We are definitely more progressive than most nations but we are more conservative now than before. It just isn’t going to reach the point where OP wants it to go.
You are right, extreme right is an overly simple way of labeling things. I can see the pros for more drastic measures but I’m afraid the cons will far outweigh the benefits.
So our national identity prior to that was what? Because in a span of 60 short years this country went from 93% to 60%. It just amazes me how the mantra of ‘diversity is our strength’ playing on a continuous loop has memory holed the reality of what this country was just a few decades ago. Once number parity is reached then a power struggle will ensue; it won’t be the kumbaya moment you are envisioning.
It sounds like you are painting diversity as a bad thing, and I’m not convinced it is. What kind of struggle are you even talking about?
I’m resigned to the fact that the 60’s were the generation of treasonous bastards who changed the country that I ever knew and loved. Trump is a blip on the radar that is staving off the inevitable by a few years. The time for turning it back passed long ago. Demographics is destiny.
I sympathize and I agree that the boat has long sailed away. An absolute catastrophe might bring it back though.
Bring what back? No matter what happens the country is irrevocably changed for the worse. Not enough of the past immigrants bought into the dominant culture and we are too soft to become Singapore.
Is it for the worse? What are you basing this on?
I can try, and you can correct me if you think otherwise.
No Immigration, “Brown people are the problem” Crowd, No Abortion Whatsoever
What percentage are you talking about here? I think Trump had a 15-16% rejection rate at the peak of his term.
But, on face value, no. I don’t think it is extreme to want illegals deported. Downsizing H1Bs, it depends on your reason.
> Well, I think they simply don’t make the connection that national identity is an extension of one’s family.
Because a nation isn't a family, and treating a nation as if it were is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, a nation needs a national identity, but that's a very different thing from being a family, and thinking about a national identity *qua* national identity gets one rather close to seeing the identity as a *gasp* proposition.
"seeing the identity as a proposition"
What does this mean?
I'm referring to the recently maligned notion of a 'propositional nation'.
So your comment is that, rather than the nation functioning as a (very) expanded family circle bound via religious and ethnic ties, the nation should function as a "proposition?" Proposition of what, by who, to whom?
A religion is an example of a proposition.
Ok, if you're just saying nations should include religion in their identity, I don't disagree.
If we were to truly treat a nation as an extended family, then the logical endpoint would be some sort of communism. Families largely operate on the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", with radical shared ownership of basically everything. Scaling that up to entire societies has never worked.
Depends on the family, but to some extent people clearly do view their nation this way--why else would welfare programs and things like Social Security exist?
> why else would welfare programs and things like Social Security exist?
Yes, and Social Security is effectively a Ponzi scheme that's slowly bankrupting the country.
The roommate analogy, like most household analogies when extended to a state, doesn't quite fit. Any large group of people cannot allow minorities to veto everything or the society will cease to function. There's many cases of anarchist groups who found housing communities where anyone can veto anything, using a colored card system. Trust me, it goes exactly as well as you expect. The USA is an involuntary association, but even as such some sort of national good should be sought after in policy making through the political process. Allowing a minority to veto anything is how the USA has ended up unable to build housing, infrastructure, and more. That all said, if we conceive of the USG as a for profit organization, which isn't that far from the truth, it's obvious that skilled immigration will increase revenue and decrease expenses while unskilled immigration does the opposite. It's to be expected there will be immense pressure for H1B, especially in light of the long term debt crisis the USG is in. As far as the homogeneity of racists and their neighborhoods, I seriously doubt H1B recipients are going to move in next door and bother them with the smell of curry.
You don't allow minorities to veto everything, but you certainly allow them to veto some things, depending on the particulars of the issue. Just like in a household! In the case of the roommates analogy, it is worth pointing out that there is typically an explicit contract in writing, commonly known as a "lease," which sides with the minority who wishes to veto the proposed squatter arrangement. With respect to the nation-state, the concept of citizenship itself serves a similar function, as I explained in the corresponding post--if you grant all meaningful rights of citizenship to foreigners as well, the foundational contract between citizen and state has been effectively nullified.
> it is worth pointing out that there is typically an explicit contract in writing, commonly known as a "lease," which sides with the minority who wishes to veto the proposed squatter arrangement.
Yes, and the analogous thing in America is called the Constitution and the laws dully passed under it, that includes our immigration laws.
The piece that makes the analogy break is violence. In the case of the one complaining roommate, he has a contract that's enforceable by the courts he can rely on to exercise force on his behalf. That's not the case for the states social contract. The social contract isn't a legal contract, but instead is one based on the element of force. Here I'm using an expansive definition of force to include things such as censorship of media, troll farming, and education. All these are under the control of the state because of its ability to exercise force over the citizenry. However this force is 2 way; citizens can revolt and riot; it can be cheaper for the state to hand out economic benefits or meet cultural desires such as restriction of immigration than to use more policing. Liberty is necessarily born out of the expenditure of the blood of patriots. In the case here of skilled immigration, the groups that are opposed don't have the resources to effectively force their will. They are in different parts of the country than the immigrants, lack media control, and aren't motivated enough to present an armed rebellion. Quite different than the case of unskilled immigrants who might move in next door and directly compete; in those cases, the disaffected can and have taken both peaceful and violent political action. That's why in some areas the same class might be able to exert authority while failing in others; it's about force.
It seems to me that these cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs should be able to pool their resources and 'innovation' and set themselves up their own country. Maybe purchase a bunch of tankers, link them together and keep them out in 'international waters' where they can do whatever they want (economically).
Instead, they keep trying to steal other people's countries and turn them into 'economic zones' where everyone is expendable (except themselves).
Cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs need White countries more than White countries need cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs.
> It seems to me that these cosmopolitan globalist oligarchs should be able to pool their resources and 'innovation' and set themselves up their own country.
There are in fact projects to do just that.
https://chartercitiesinstitute.org/intro/
https://thenetworkstate.com/
https://www.seasteading.org/
Musk is all about #1, i.e. Elon Musk. You don't get to richest man on earth without a stratospheric commitment to oneself above all others.
So if it comes down to Elon Musk or Americans, Elon's always going to choose himself.
That's actually ok. He just proved he's a crappy politician, so he's not going to be our leader. Because he cares so much about himself, we simply have to use our leverage to give him an offer he can't refuse.
Hell, Elon takes a knee for Xi Jinping. We can make him grovel if he insists