The U.S. will never be a white country again

[Gaidin]

It's a relatively new phenomenon, give it time.

Dude it's been happening in America since America became America. Get over yourself.

[conon394]

It's a relatively new phenomenon, give it time.

What Indians (from India) in America? Again the point is your link is not credibly referenced and has little to no front line survey data to back up its claims. Quora is not a source. "CTO of Cisco, possibly a successor..."err except for the bit where the Indian guy reorganized out.

[Basil II the B.S]

Dude it's been happening in America since America became America. Get over yourself.

Yes, America is founded on tribalism. Everyone did it, nothing wrong with it. Unless tribal lines overalp and the nation fragments.

[Ludicus]

...Give it time, Basil, and there will be neither East or West, border, nor breed, nor birth when we transcend biology. This is slight misquotation of a line from Kipling's poem,
"...There will be neither East or West, border, nor breed, nor birth,
when two strong men stand face to face,
tho's they come from the ends of the earth!"

[Basil II the B.S]

Nah, tribalism is inescapable.

Groups and Tribes

There’s a famous series of experiments in social psychology called the minimal group paradigm, pioneered by Polish psychologist Henri Tajfel, who served in the French Army during World War II and became a prisoner of war in Germany. Profoundly affected by his experiences as a Jew during that period in Europe, including having his entire family in Poland murdered by the Nazis, Tajfel wanted to understand the conditions under which people would discriminate against members of an outgroup. So in the 1960s he conducted a series of experiments, each of which began by dividing people into two groups based on trivial and arbitrary criteria, such as flipping a coin. For example, in one study, each person first estimated the number of dots on a page. Irrespective of their estimations, half were told that they had overestimated the number of dots and were put into a group of “overestimators.” The other half were sent to the “underestimators” group. Next, subjects were asked to distribute points or money to all the other subjects, who were identified only by their group membership. Tajfel found that no matter how trivial or “minimal” he made the distinctions between the groups, people tended to distribute whatever was offered in favor of their in-group members.²⁶Later studies have used a variety of techniques to reach the same conclusion.²⁷ Neuroscientist David Eagleman used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the brains of people who were watching videos of other people’s hands getting pricked by a needle or touched by a Q-tip. When the hand being pricked by a needle was labeled with the participant’s own religion, the area of the participant’s brain that handles pain showed a larger spike of activity than when the hand was labeled with a different religion. When arbitrary groups were created (such as by flipping a coin) immediately before the subject entered the MRI machine, and the hand being pricked was labeled as belonging to the same arbitrary group as the participant, even though the group hadn’t even existed just moments earlier, the participant’s brain still showed a larger spike.²⁸ We just don’t feel as much empathy for those we see as “other.”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Instead of trying to achieve an arbitrary perfect humanity, let's try to work with human limitations. Even if you eliminate East and West, mankind will find a way to divide itself into red and blue flags. Want to remove tribalism? Remove human choice. I'm not interested in living in that world.

[Ludicus]

Even if you eliminate East and West...

...and now the best line in Casablanca "may be not today, may be not tomorrow, but some day..."
Look ,Basil, some would say (eg. Desmond Morris) that tribalism is football's most distinctive aspect, an intimate part of the game, but you see, extreme tribalism kills the game. Moderate tribalism in politics is a fact of life, in itself is not bad.After all we are all humans...my point is, let's avoid at all costs extreme devaluations of the other. For instance, Reactive Devaluation of an "Israeli" vs. "Palestinian" Peace Proposal Maoz, 2002. Israeli participants supported an actual Israeli-based peace proposal until they were told the proposal came from Palestinians. And so on...
---
Regarding the East vs West "conflict"-I highly recommend a monumental work. From my bookshelf- "Why the West Rules-For Now".It's about the patterns of history. It's about how geography influences imbalances between the West and the East. This is a picture of what's going on, in the end is not a racial conflict between Whites and Blacks, Muslims and the "Yellow Peril".
You said in your reply, "Want to remove tribalism?..I'm not interested in living in that world". That's ok. But I'm not interested in living in a soccer field where the teams are racially based.

[Diocle]

...Give it time, Basil, and there will be neither East or West, border, nor breed, nor birth when we transcend biology. This is slight misquotation of a line from Kipling's poem,

...and now the best line in Casablanca "may be not today, may be not tomorrow, but some day..."
..

Verily, verily I say unto thee that I won't ever forgive you for the absolute, staggering, killing banality of those two citations (only watching the last thirty minutes of 'Transformers, Dark Of The Moon' I saved my night!) , but I appreciated that, at least, you avoided quoting "Imagine" by John Lennon! It would have been too much for me ..

[Bob69Joe]

Abstract: (1) immigrants must maintain culture as though they cherish their uniqueness (2) the original inhabitants who built the place must conform to the immigration and alter their culture to be tolerant of different cultures that arrive.

One might be thinking here at this point, long pause, voters , that the original inhabitants who created their nation will be gone, having moved and/or retreated, and the new status quo of culture must then be challenged yet again by more incoming waves of immigrants.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html
Tradition -> Oligarchy -> Democracy -> Tyranny -> ???

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Nah, tribalism is inescapable.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Instead of trying to achieve an arbitrary perfect humanity, let's try to work with human limitations. Even if you eliminate East and West, mankind will find a way to divide itself into red and blue flags. Want to remove tribalism? Remove human choice. I'm not interested in living in that world.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yes you are correct, human beings will never escape tribalism. It is built into our nature and evolution has caused us to empathize with those who share our identity while we show some distain for the "other".

Notice that the identities provided were socially constructed though. And notice that the identities that people affiliate with have changed over time and have changed in importance. Before the age of nationalism, your identity was your profession or your village or your religion or whatever empowered you in society. Once the state system was created, we created definitions of ethnicity and people groups to justify the right of self rule of people that they perceived as similar as them. A post nationalist movement will see identity revolve around something entirely different.

With that being said, we should not assume that we can divide the world into as many nation states and provide self rule for everyone. Not only can we not define everyone as being part of a specific nationality or culture, but it wouldn't even create peace anyways.

Human beings are self interested and create groups to empower themselves. If the red flag people made a country and only half of the red flag people seemed to be in power in that society, eventually some of the other red flag people will band together and form a darker shade of the red flag people. Over time, they will develop that identity and culture(which will only reach a perception that the group is totally coherent), which will empower themselves as a collective to either break away or fight for more power in the current government. If one group feels particularly threatened or disproportionately unempowered, they typically pursue the most effective tool to alleviating that issue. Usually the most effective tool that they can use is violence if they don't see any other way. Sometimes, it can be participating in an election (if they think they have a chance). Sometimes it can be through influencing other people's culture. Sometimes, it can be through pushing for decentralization. It is up to us to understand how we can provide avenues of empowerment for people who seek it while also ensuring that it doesn't destroy the people who already hold power. That is the topic that needs to be explored.

[Basil II the B.S]

...and now the best line in Casablanca "may be not today, may be not tomorrow, but some day..."
Look ,Basil, some would say (eg. Desmond Morris) that tribalism is football's most distinctive aspect, an intimate part of the game, but you see, extreme tribalism kills the game. Moderate tribalism in politics is a fact of life, in itself is not bad.After all we are all humans...my point is, let's avoid at all costs extreme devaluations of the other. For instance, Reactive Devaluation of an "Israeli" vs. "Palestinian" Peace Proposal Maoz, 2002. Israeli participants supported an actual Israeli-based peace proposal until they were told the proposal came from Palestinians. And so on...

But that's what I was saying. Clearly excessive tribalism results in war. Human history is filled with examples. There's a fair difference between saying: ''let's try to mitigate tribalism so that at best it results in people discussing over football'' and ''let's get rid of tribalism altogether''.

---
Regarding the East vs West "conflict"-I highly recommend a monumental work. From my bookshelf- "Why the West Rules-For Now".It's about the patterns of history. It's about how geography influences imbalances between the West and the East. This is a picture of what's going on, in the end is not a racial conflict between Whites and Blacks, Muslims and the "Yellow Peril".
You said in your reply, "Want to remove tribalism?..I'm not interested in living in that world". That's ok. But I'm not interested in living in a soccer field where the teams are racially based.

Don't misquote me. I said I'm not interested in living in a world where freedom of choice is restricted so that we can move past tribalism. It's not an adequate sacrifice and historically it ends worse than it already is.

Yes you are correct, human beings will never escape tribalism. It is built into our nature and evolution has caused us to empathize with those who share our identity while we show some distain for the "other".

Notice that the identities provided were socially constructed though. And notice that the identities that people affiliate with have changed over time and have changed in importance. Before the age of nationalism, your identity was your profession or your village or your religion or whatever empowered you in society. Once the state system was created, we created definitions of ethnicity and people groups to justify the right of self rule of people that they perceived as similar as them. A post nationalist movement will see identity revolve around something entirely different.

With that being said, we should not assume that we can divide the world into as many nation states and provide self rule for everyone. Not only can we not define everyone as being part of a specific nationality or culture, but it wouldn't even create peace anyways.

Human beings are self interested and create groups to empower themselves. If the red flag people made a country and only half of the red flag people seemed to be in power in that society, eventually some of the other red flag people will band together and form a darker shade of the red flag people. Over time, they will develop that identity and culture(which will only reach a perception that the group is totally coherent), which will empower themselves as a collective to either break away or fight for more power in the current government. If one group feels particularly threatened or disproportionately unempowered, they typically pursue the most effective tool to alleviating that issue. Usually the most effective tool that they can use is violence if they don't see any other way. Sometimes, it can be participating in an election (if they think they have a chance). Sometimes it can be through influencing other people's culture. Sometimes, it can be through pushing for decentralization. It is up to us to understand how we can provide avenues of empowerment for people who seek it while also ensuring that it doesn't destroy the people who already hold power. That is the topic that needs to be explored.

Which is exactly why I don't believe in ''common humanity'' tribalism arguments. The tribe must be small enough for people to express their particular identity, the larger it becomes, the more it risks group secessions. Look at religions for example: they more they spread, the more heretic groups pop up.

The one thing that worked in the West was that for the most part, laws treat you individually, while in the private sphere you can make your own tribe. This allows a balance between individual identity and group identity. What's destroying the balance is identity politics, that is attempts to treat people according to their group, rather than individuals, outside the private sphere. It's an argument I was making with Vanoi earlier. If you start doing that, then group identities start overlapping instead of merging.

[Pontifex Maximus]

"The US will never be a white country again"

Who cares. I will be grilling burgers and hot-dogs and giving away my own home brewed beer tomorrow for free. If the majority of my neighbors join me in this celebration, and I am sure they will and I'm very excited for it, I am sure we will have a great celebration. Being an American is a state of your state of mind. If you adhere to a certain state of mind and morals, you may very well be an American. My jurisdiction is inherently a white minority area, but I have no qualms that tomorrow my commuinity's 4th of July will be patriotic. Over half our population is Indian but many of them are like me - proud to be American and willing to celebrate that fact.

[Altzek]

Nothing of value would be lost, to be honest.
As conservatives, white Americans brought multiple native nations to near-extinction. As progressivists they're carrying out the largest operation of social engineering in history.
As either thing they've based their existence on being at war against the entire world for most of the country's existence.

The moment America stops being white majority is the day when the country will receive some sense. Kudos if it splinters, countries as large as the US can't be democratic, with or without the electoral college.

[Gaidin]

The labels of "Conservative" and "Liberal" and any political leaning are god damn useless anyway and mostly come about from people trying to stick pegs into certain shaped holes. People will go a certain direction on a certain topic based on their life experience. They may go another direction in another subject. You either care about race like Bob and Basil do. Or you don't. Nice to pin down those that fear though.

[Bob69Joe]

"Control needs time in which to exercise control. Because control also needs opposition or acquiescence; otherwise, it ceases to be control. I control a hypnotized subject (at least partially); I control a slave, a dog, a worker; but if I establish complete control somehow, as by implanting electrodes in the brain, then my subject is little more than a tape recorder, a camera, a robot. You don’t control a tape recorder – you use it. Consider the distinction, and the impasse implicit here. All control systems try to make control as tight as possible, but at the same time, if they succeeded completely there would be nothing left to control. Suppose for example a control system installed electrodes in the brains of all prospective workers at birth. Control is now complete. Even the thought of rebellion is neurologically impossible. No police force is necessary. No psychological control is necessary, other than pressing buttons to achieve certain activations and operations.

When there is no more opposition, control becomes a meaningless proposition. It is highly questionable whether a human organism could survive complete control. There would be nothing there. No persons there. Life is will (motivation) and the workers would no longer be alive, perhaps literally. The concept of suggestion as a complete technique presupposes that control is partial and not complete. You do not have to give suggestions to your tape recorder nor subject it to pain and coercion or persuasion."

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/control_by_william_burrou.php?utm_source=amerika.org

"Nice to know who to [put on the list]."

Accepting genetic inequalities that give rise to numerable differences, even among one's own ethnicity, makes some people "racist," but "racism" has about four or five definitions, not all of which can be applicable to one person at one time.

There is nothing simpler in the world, really, than belonging to a group, sharing customs, religion or faith, economic cooperation, and having a heritage that dates back through parallel branches of family trees that unite your people into a nation. Egalitarian ideology will never accept a hierarchy and social order that promotes the best above the bad and average. What do people fear most? Is it loss, of what kind, for surely people aren't losing themselves anytime soon, unless they are demoted by the democratic mob, but that is a social construct, our perception and validations of eachother which are only stressed because Europeans have slipped away from tradition and into the egalitarian pluralism that fragments individuals, and for whose benefit? Personal freedoms? Well, enjoy them, but tradition offers me the best and right options, things that succeeded with the few of us that could see them, and the rest followed, but we scorned them not. Enjoy the next riot, revolution, massacre, and holocaust. Diversity is our strength, whether the class warfare, or the racial equality, take your pick of social construct, and doom yourself.

The opposite of Love is not hate, but it is Fear. - GHANDI

[conon394]

Egalitarian ideology will never accept a hierarchy and social order that promotes the best above the bad and average.

Does it or does simply reject the proposition that an elite get to be self perpetuating by the simple fact of being elite?

because Europeans have slipped away from tradition and into the egalitarian pluralism

Which ones are you missing enslaving darkies, women as property, debt bondage, deference to Aristocrats just because of the womb they dropped out of, a hard class system, religious intolerance, debtors prison, brutal capital punishment, state religions, burning witches, for the US separate but equal, laws against mix race marriage...

[Aexodus]

Hierarchies aren’t inherently bad, in terms of pay for example. It makes sense some jobs pay more than others. However as Conon said it’s important they aren’t ‘self-perpetuating’.

We should learn to tolerate hierarchy as a fact of life, while making our societies as socially mobile as possible. We won’t reach full social mobility because there are genetic factors, but we can reduce the environmental factors as much as is practical.

However, we live in the most socially mobile societies we ever had, about 3/4 of the very richest billionaires are self made. My own family have gone from tenant farmers to architects in a single generation. Applying a 19th century lens to the class structure of the 21st century is I feel anachronistic and not particularly helpful. We don’t have the same kind of aristocracy and landed gentry anymore, not to say it’s completely gone either.

Edit: I think what bob is either mistaking or strawmanning is egalitarianism as equity, not equality. To me egalitarianism means that people have equal opportunity, not that they’ll get the same result especially financially in life. This gets more ah, controversial when we get into the racial and sexual aspects of egalitarianism, as well as when those of a socialist persuasion hijack it for an equity agenda.

Edit edit: Why do I get the feeling you’ve been listening to J Peterson? Not that he’s a bad guy or anything. These seem like repeated but slightly altered arguments.

[Bob69Joe]

I shouldn't post further, but all I can say is a fat NO.

To whatever was addressed to me, whatever. You all need to understand your roots. Kings arose in the land for a very good reason and only then were peasants sought out for.

[conon394]

Sorry I'll opt for the Demos of Athens or Rhodes (or the Dutch republic or medieval Iceland or Switzerland or the US government - post slavery blood letting) over Louis XVI any day

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Louis XIV Debts in 1661, when he starts ruling by himself:

700 Millions livres

At his death 1715:

2 billions livres

185 % more debts

https://6b867533-a-fa80700c-s-sites....attredirects=0

A real superior genius of statemanship, the Trump of his time.

But if some would like to live to work for the rebuilt of my summer palace Schloss Monrepos...

[Bob69Joe]

"Y'all need to understand your roots."

Instead, I get asked about King Louis. France at the time was swiftly becoming overpopulated.

No one is equal. There are deviations of ability and moral character at every necessary strata of society that have their functions in commanding those who are steadily("stabley") below them until we get to the people who simply need to be removed for being evil or parasitic to everyone else's achievements. Civilization has a culture before any "governments" or "states." Those are modern and based in the egalitarian revolutions.

It's so ironic to notice these things. If not kings, then capitalists. If not capitalists, then racists. Where next to conquer? Suicide from overpopulation. Square one of our revolution.