The crisis in conservatism

[Love Mountain]

yes it does. A few decades ago the USA was 85+% white, and now in a few decades it will be <50% white. That's unarguably a dramatic shift.

The last time USA was 85%+ White was in the 1960s, the same decade we got the Voting Rights Act. Whites will become a minority in 2045 according to projections. So no, this is gradual. Is it a relatively fast change? Yeah, but this isn't a case of the entire population changing in the blink of an eye. It is pretty comical to me though. According to my conservative friends, racism is over now, since over 50 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, but those same people are telling me about how the displacement of Whites is happening in a "blink of an eye".

some people certainly seem very welcome to the change.. regardless, it's happening wheter "planned" or not, and people react to that.

People "reacting" is not a very good metric of just how radical a change is happening. History tells us that people aren't very welcome of a lot of things, even if the thing they are protesting against, is the "right" thing. For example, Martin Luther King's mass demonstrations and his March on Washington, was actually deeply unpopular.

Gallup

The 1963 march, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech, was an iconic moment for the civil rights movement, having brought 250,000 supporters to the mall in Washington, D.C., in support of racial equality and justice. Less than a year after the march, Americans were even more convinced that mass demonstrations harmed the cause, with 74% saying they felt these actions were detrimental to achieving racial equality and just 16% saying they were helping it.

So no, I'm not particularly moved by lots of people being upset over immigration.

A common belief, but it's nonsense. immigration happens when people are let into a country, and there is never a shortage of people who want to enter richer countries. This is just what people say to demoralise people who want less immigration, as if immigration is inevitable and can't be stopped. It's literally one of the easiest things in the world a country can do. Look at hungary, how many immigrants get past them now? They cut it by like 95%. no.. immigration happens because the leaders allow it, not because it's some "natural" or inevitable force of nature.

Nonsense? You do realize that the whole idea of "borders" as a barrier is a modern concept right? We've never had technology to actively police it before. Nor can you even stop immigration completely. Your example of Hungary is a piss poor one. Pick Spain, or Greece, or Turkey, or Italy, or any of the other dozen countries who actually experience migrant flows. Picking Hungary, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by European countries is an unfair example. You might as well pick Greenland.

How would you know? It's never happened before, this kind of massive immigration the west is seeing today. There is literally not a single historical instance of immigration on this scale, in such a short time period, from such culturally distant places. It's something wholly new, wholly untried. why do people talk about it as if it was completely normal. NO ONE knows how this will work out, wheter good or bad. Here is the conervative instinct: maybe we shouldn't do a massive experiment on our societies, maybe it doesn't work, and then what? We can't very well reverse it.. it's permanent. Currently, we don't know for sure if quickly letting in tons of people from latin america will turn the USA into a latino country, with all the dysfunction that entails. Ditto for europe and middle east. WE DON'T KNOW, honestly no one knows. is it reasonable to gamble? I don't think so. I think it's lunacy, to be frank, utter LUNACY.

How would you know this is Lunacy if this never happened before? Second, Europe has never seen this level of migration in such short a time. Europe has actually absorbed far more people throughout its history than it does right now. Third, migration to Europe is now on a steady decline. The "worst" is over. So really, you're just fearmongering. This is also the case in US-Mexico migration, which has seen increases and decreases. In fact more Mexicans migrated back to Mexico than vice versa.

tell that to the nationalists who're on the rise in the west. It's definitely about immigration. and yes, demographic changes are happening quickly. sweden went from homogenous to like 20% foreign born in a few decades. that's quick. sweden gets more immigration per capita than USA did during the 19th century. Can you atleast acknowledge that the levels of immigration the west sees from thrid world today are historically unprecedented, and definitively not normal by any standard?

And somehow the Swedish economy grew, Swedish culture didn't collapse, and Sweden continues to be one of the world's wealthiest countries. In spite of *gasp* a drastic rise in the number of foreign-born over the last few decades.

[Aexodus]

Second, Europe has never seen this level of migration in such short a time. Europe has actually absorbed far more people throughout its history than it does right now.

If you go all the way back to the Bronze Age sure.

[NosPortatArma]

while it is true Conservatives don't tend to be fans of social change, they also want to preserve the institutional aspects of society. This is why, in the past Conservatives were seen as stuffy status quo men, not reactionaries that tear down institutions.

as I said there is a hierarchy of things to protect. It's not that conservatives are thrilled about Trump violating institutions, but it's a price worth paying if he can stabilise another front.. It's true that conservatives haven't talked much about demographic change per se historically, but the reason for this I'd argue, is because it was irrelevant because no such change was taking place. A problem which didn't exist doesn't need to be adressed. The kind of immigration seen today simply didn't happen before, which is distinct for three reason: 1) the sheer quantity 2) how quickly it happens 3) the great cultural differences of the immigrants. The conservative view is that civilization is not something to be taken for granted. We are always just a generation away from descending back into barbarity. It then follows that if people from "less civilized" countries move to our here, it's important that they don't come too many at once, too fast, so that we can't properly integrate them. As I've said, this kind of immigration is something new, so it hasn't been tried before. failure isn't certain, but neither is success, but we gamble with our country, and conservatives don't like such gambles. This is a conservative line of reasoning. which part is not?

Ok, so you think it is a race thing; proper citizenry is dependent on race rather than ideals.

race is a thing. That's not something I want, I just describe reality. It's not me who coined the terms african american, or white american. Indeed official figures in US still use race.. many black americans think there's a systemic racism against them, some white americans are worried about becomming a minority in the future, etc. Clearly many americans think in terms of race, people reflexively categorise people into races.. that's just how it is. Note that when I refer to "races" I don't care about genetics, merely how people look, because this is how people in normal life categorise people.

I don't get what you mean when you say "truly multiracial society"

I mean a society which different races get along, where they're all about equal in size and influence. The USA is not an example one can cite of a multiracial society, as it has always to this day, been primarily defined by its white majority. The other races live in the USA as minor actors. Again this is not something I want, i'm just describing reality.

We have had plenty of societies and national identities with little to with race in the past (plenty in the present as well), as well as plenty of examples of constituent, but distinct, culture groups merging their cultural identity.

no we don't. You can't compare the difference between hessians and saxons, to that between white americans and somalians. The are degrees of how different cultures can be from each other. You bring up germans, who're unified by similar languages, appearance, shared history. And indians, who have shared history, appearance and religion of hinduism (they have less in common than germans which explains why india is less cohesive). You may note that I included 'appearance'. I'm merely describing reality, appearance does matter. It helps assimilation immensly since you can't tell the difference by the 2nd generation once they adopt the customs and language. This is why european immigration to the USA (already dominated by whites) was mostly unproblematic, and why there exist such a thing as "white americans". It's also why the term "african american" exist. now, i'm not advocating a white america policy or anything like that, i'm just saying that appearance is something people note, and that it's harder to integrate groups of people who look different.

The last time USA was 85%+ White was in the 1960s, the same decade we got the Voting Rights Act. Whites will become a minority in 2045 according to projections. So no, this is gradual. Is it a relatively fast change? Yeah, but this isn't a case of the entire population changing in the blink of an eye. It is pretty comical to me though. According to my conservative friends, racism is over now, since over 50 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, but those same people are telling me about how the displacement of Whites is happening in a "blink of an eye".

I read somewhere it was in the 80's 85% white. Regardless, it can be percieved as fast by some, that's what matters. Yeah, I'm actually quite understanding of black americans being suspicious of the claim that "racism is over" in the USA.. 50 years isn't a long time I think. There's clearly some remnants of the kkk inlfuence left in the USA, it doesn't wash out that easily.

People "reacting" is not a very good metric of just how radical a change is happening. History tells us that people aren't very welcome of a lot of things, even if the thing they are protesting against, is the "right" thing. For example, Martin Luther King's mass demonstrations and his March on Washington, was actually deeply unpopular.

it's two very different kinds of situations. leading a genuinely oppressed group's struggle for equality is admirable, and the people who opposed it were wrong. But the sins of white america doesn't mean they can't feel worry about losing control of their country. yes, I said "theirs", and I think it's true as they have been the dominant group since it's founding. If not white americans, then who? Yes, they drove the indians off their lands, they enslaved the blacks, and they ran arguably one of the most racist states in history, but I still think each people have a right to their country, even if their history is far from flattering.

Nonsense? You do realize that the whole idea of "borders" as a barrier is a modern concept right? We've never had technology to actively police it before. Nor can you even stop immigration completely. Your example of Hungary is a piss poor one. Pick Spain, or Greece, or Turkey, or Italy, or any of the other dozen countries who actually experience migrant flows. Picking Hungary, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by European countries is an unfair example. You might as well pick Greenland.

I could've picked australia, if being landlocked somehow disqualifies Hungary.. Which it doesn't, since hungary was a transit country for literally hundred of thousands, but they stopped 99% of them. And australia has stopped most of the boat immigrants also. Point being, landlocked or otherwise, immigrants can definitely be stopped with enough resources. And no, it doesn't seem to be particularily expensive. Countries like greece, with their many island, will have a bit of a harder time, but spain and italy has it quite easy, comparable to australia in that most is open water. And turkey.. why they have also managed to stop immigrants from continuing toward europe, so I don't know what you're talking about.

how would you know this is Lunacy if this never happened before? Second, Europe has never seen this level of migration in such short a time. Europe has actually absorbed far more people throughout its history than it does right now. Third, migration to Europe is now on a steady decline. The "worst" is over. So really, you're just fearmongering. This is also the case in US-Mexico migration, which has seen increases and decreases. In fact more Mexicans migrated back to Mexico than vice versa.

it's lunacy because we don't know what will happen, but it's irreversible. So if it leads to bad things, we're screwed. That's why it's lunacy. It's lunacy and irresponsible to make such a dangerous gamble with your country.

europe has never abosroped as many people as it does now in such a short ime period.

I don't think the worst is over. What drives immigration is lack of economic opportunities and conflicts, I don't see any of those decreasing in the future. africa and middle east still have high birth rates, economy can't keep up, middle east is still in flames, africa too, and in addition we'll be dealing with climate refugees in the future too. The last crisis will probably pale in comparison to the comming ones.

And somehow the Swedish economy grew, Swedish culture didn't collapse, and Sweden continues to be one of the world's wealthiest countries. In spite of *gasp* a drastic rise in the number of foreign-born over the last few decades.

I've explained this to you in another thread (see link) and I'd be happy to continue that discussion, over there, since I would have to repeat a lot of things otherwise.
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...our-time/page3

[The spartan]

as I said there is a hierarchy of things to protect. It's not that conservatives are thrilled about Trump violating institutions, but it's a price worth paying if he can stabilise another front.. It's true that conservatives haven't talked much about demographic change per se historically, but the reason for this I'd argue, is because it was irrelevant because no such change was taking place. A problem which didn't exist doesn't need to be adressed. The kind of immigration seen today simply didn't happen before, which is distinct for three reason: 1) the sheer quantity 2) how quickly it happens 3) the great cultural differences of the immigrants. The conservative view is that civilization is not something to be taken for granted. We are always just a generation away from descending back into barbarity. It then follows that if people from "less civilized" countries move to our here, it's important that they don't come too many at once, too fast, so that we can't properly integrate them. As I've said, this kind of immigration is something new, so it hasn't been tried before. failure isn't certain, but neither is success, but we gamble with our country, and conservatives don't like such gambles. This is a conservative line of reasoning. which part is not?

No, I don't think Conservatives really have the option of sacrificing institutions to control social apparatuses. First, there is no guarantee you get those institutions or traditions back and I don't know why you made it seem like they can just casually be reinstated. But, more importantly, it defeats the whole point of being a Conservative. Revolutionaries destroy institutions to effect social change, not Conservatives. It isn't that complicated; if you want to pick and choose (the "hierarchy" as you call it) which institutions are convenient to follow at the time, you probably shouldn't claim to be a true Conservative. Just a Conservative when convenient.

race is a thing. That's not something I want, I just describe reality. It's not me who coined the terms african american, or white american. Indeed official figures in US still use race.. many black americans think there's a systemic racism against them, some white americans are worried about becomming a minority in the future, etc. Clearly many americans think in terms of race, people reflexively categorise people into races.. that's just how it is. Note that when I refer to "races" I don't care about genetics, merely how people look, because this is how people in normal life categorise people.

As you are using it? No, I don't think race is a thing in the way you, and plenty of others, think it is. Again, your use and the hypothetical membership of the group "White" easily demonstrates this flaw. The group membership changes in definition over time.

You trying to back away from the normative aspects of these statements is making this feel more weird to me. Obviously people "care" about race, to greatly varying extents, but you were specifically using it as a means to note "permanent" change a nation faces (different skin tones). Most people, at least in this day and age, I would wager do not think your skin color is particularly important or meaningful to your nationality. That is to say, ones "American-ness" has little to do with their skin color. Ethno nationalism isn't quite that popular, yet.

I mean a society which different races get along, where they're all about equal in size and influence. The USA is not an example one can cite of a multiracial society, as it has always to this day, been primarily defined by its white majority. The other races live in the USA as minor actors. Again this is not something I want, i'm just describing reality.

Any big historical civilization was multiracial, by necessity, with varying degrees of egalitarianism and importance on race. If you want to label them all as not truly multiracial because there was, again varying levels of, stratification across ethnic groups in the multiracial society, then that isn't really a fair depiction of ground level, racial engagement in those societies. It was obviously never perfect, but there were have been, and very well can be, different racial groups that live together and hold the same national identity.

no we don't. You can't compare the difference between hessians and saxons, to that between white americans and somalians. The are degrees of how different cultures can be from each other. You bring up germans, who're unified by similar languages, appearance, shared history. And indians, who have shared history, appearance and religion of hinduism (they have less in common than germans which explains why india is less cohesive). You may note that I included 'appearance'. I'm merely describing reality, appearance does matter. It helps assimilation imensely since you can't tell the difference by the 2nd generation once they adopt the customs and language. This is why european immigration to the USA (already dominated by whites) was mostly unproblematic, and why there exist such a thing as "white americans". It's also why the term "african american" exist. now, i'm not advocating a white america policy or anything like that, i'm just saying that appearance is something people note, and that it's harder to integrate groups of people who look different.

I wasn't comparing Americans to Somalians, and neither were you. You referred to skin color, not specific geographical location. And I agree, there are LOTS of traits individuals have that are important to social cohesion. Shared language can be fairly important. Shared cultural values, such as freedom, general Liberalism, disapproving of violence, etc. are important for long term stability. Ones skin color does not seem that important. Certain minorities might put great meaning on skin color itself, that is almost always a proxy for their ignorance about more pertinent characteristics. So, like, you would not hear racists say that a dark skinned person is less American by virtue of not having the proper skin tone range of an American, but that their dark skin indicates other attributes that would make them un-American (more prone to crime, don't support freedom, and so on).

And I am guessing you aren't that familiar with US history, but European immigration to the USA has frequently been problematic. And I have brought up, multiple times now, that "White" as a group has changed in the US over the decades, I would imagine it has been similar abroad. The Irish did not have an easy time immigrating to the US, nor were they considered "White" by Anglo-Americans, with frequent criticism leveled at the Irish sounding familiar to rhetoric used against immigrants today; their values were incompatible, they were prone to committing crime, they were never going to assimilate into American culture. Now we have a drunken knock-off of Saint Patrick's Day where everyone wears Irish Republican colors. Germans had a rough time immigrating here at times, facing waves of discrimination directed at them that waxed whenever there was an international reason to be angry at Germany. Ben Franklin even referred to them as distinctly "Swarthy", in addition to several other European groups that weren't sufficiently Anglo (or as Ben F would call it, "White"):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Speaking of which, Italians faced a lot of discrimination coming over here as well, and were certainly not considered "White" by most Americans when they first immigrated. I don't think the "rules" of how society determines race are as consistent as you do.

[Love Mountain]

I read somewhere it was in the 80's 85% white. Regardless, it can be percieved as fast by some, that's what matters. Yeah, I'm actually quite understanding of black americans being suspicious of the claim that "racism is over" in the USA.. 50 years isn't a long time I think. There's clearly some remnants of the kkk inlfuence left in the USA, it doesn't wash out that easily.

Look at the Census data. Series A 73-81. It's not about the KKK. Extremists always exist. It's about structural racism.

it's two very different kinds of situations. leading a genuinely oppressed group's struggle for equality is admirable, and the people who opposed it were wrong. But the sins of white america doesn't mean they can't feel worry about losing control of their country. yes, I said "theirs", and I think it's true as they have been the dominant group since it's founding. If not white americans, then who? Yes, they drove the indians off their lands, they enslaved the blacks, and they ran arguably one of the most racist states in history, but I still think each people have a right to their country, even if their history is far from flattering.

The people who opposed civil rights weren't extremists. It was the White Moderate. What you are arguing for is literally race-based rule. You are arguing that a specific social group should have political supremacy regardless of how minorities feel about it. It's not about what's "theirs" or "foreign". What you are arguing for is de-facto an ethno-state, the kind you see in Israel. At the very least, Jews faced an existential threat since the founding of Israel. No country in Europe currently faces such a conundrum.

I could've picked australia, if being landlocked somehow disqualifies Hungary.. Which it doesn't, since hungary was a transit country for literally hundred of thousands, but they stopped 99% of them. And australia has stopped most of the boat immigrants also. Point being, landlocked or otherwise, immigrants can definitely be stopped with enough resources. And no, it doesn't seem to be particularily expensive. Countries like greece, with their many island, will have a bit of a harder time, but spain and italy has it quite easy, comparable to australia in that most is open water. And turkey.. why they have also managed to stop immigrants from continuing toward europe, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Australia is surrounded completely by an Ocean, it's surrounded by mostly stable government, and I also don't see why anyone would want to treat migrants terribly just to "scare" them. So no, that's not a good example either. What happens is migrants simply go around Hungary because they follow the path of least resistance. Raising the barriers to entry won't stop it, it'll just divert the flows to another method. It's also hard to tell whether Turkey has stopped anything. The number of refugees has drastically decreased, and it's not because of harsher border policies.

it's lunacy because we don't know what will happen, but it's irreversible. So if it leads to bad things, we're screwed. That's why it's lunacy. It's lunacy and irresponsible to make such a dangerous gamble with your country.

Screwed is a strong word. I find it difficult to believe that a migrant flow will topple Europe. Sorry, but you're starting to sound hysterical.

europe has never abosroped as many people as it does now in such a short ime period.

Luckily that "short time period" is mostly over.

I don't think the worst is over. What drives immigration is lack of economic opportunities and conflicts, I don't see any of those decreasing in the future. africa and middle east still have high birth rates, economy can't keep up, middle east is still in flames, africa too, and in addition we'll be dealing with climate refugees in the future too. The last crisis will probably pale in comparison to the comming ones.

Data clearly shows that the migrant flows have drastically been reduced.

I've explained this to you in another thread (see link) and I'd be happy to continue that discussion, over there, since I would have to repeat a lot of things otherwise.
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...our-time/page3

These are two different arguments. So no. A higher number of foreign born does not lead to impoverishment or destruction of a country. As Sweden demonstrated throughout the decades.

[NosPortatArma]

No, I don't think Conservatives really have the option of sacrificing institutions to control social apparatuses. First, there is no guarantee you get those institutions or traditions back and I don't know why you made it seem like they can just casually be reinstated. But, more importantly, it defeats the whole point of being a Conservative. Revolutionaries destroy institutions to effect social change, not Conservatives. It isn't that complicated; if you want to pick and choose (the "hierarchy" as you call it) which institutions are convenient to follow at the time, you probably shouldn't claim to be a true Conservative. Just a Conservative when convenient.

as I said, they don't like tearing down institutions, but it's preferable to the alternative. The institutions does after arise from, and are supported by, the particular morals and norms of a people. so... if you let the morals decay, or simply replace the population (even partially) it has the same effect as tearing down the institutions yourself. there's a reason why you have american democracy, with all it entails, in the USA and not in other countries. it's due to the people. And as such, conservatives would want to "conserve" the people, as they in turn are what conserve the institutions. thus the importance of assimilation. as i've said, it's a hierarchy.

your use and the hypothetical membership of the group "White" easily demonstrates this flaw. The group membership changes in definition over time.

so what if it changes its definition over time? the group still exist. Just because there's not an exact definition, or exact boundaries can be drawn, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is fallacious reasoning, akin to claiming colours don't exist because they exist on a continuous spectrum.

You trying to back away from the normative aspects of these statements is making this feel more weird to me.

what does this mean?

Obviously people "care" about race, to greatly varying extents, but you were specifically using it as a means to note "permanent" change a nation faces (different skin tones). Most people, at least in this day and age, I would wager do not think your skin color is particularly important or meaningful to your nationality. That is to say, ones "American-ness" has little to do with their skin color. Ethno nationalism isn't quite that popular, yet.

What I'm saying is, that since the USA has been mostly defined by it's white population since its founding to the present day, it's unfounded to assume that what is true in the current US, will also be true in a US that no longer has a clearly dominant racial group. Because we have no such historical transformations to judge by. Maybe, and this is a genuine maybe, race relations in the USA are stabilised by one group being dominant. This is, in my view, just plain conservative caution. No one really knows what the effects are from changing a country's racial makeup.

Any big historical civilization was multiracial, by necessity, with varying degrees of egalitarianism and importance on race. If you want to label them all as not truly multiracial because there was, again varying levels of, stratification across ethnic groups in the multiracial society, then that isn't really a fair depiction of ground level, racial engagement in those societies. It was obviously never perfect, but there were have been, and very well can be, different racial groups that live together and hold the same national identity.

there's a huge difference between empires, which per definition is one group ruling over several foreign peoples, and democracies in which "the people" hold the vote. Unless you intend to transform the USA into an actual empire, it's rather irrelevant to compare it to historical empires. The dynamics of democracy entail other constraints than for empires. notably the tendency to polarise over any difference, which is why as far as democracies go "diversity is NOT a strength".

And I am guessing you aren't that familiar with US history, but European immigration to the USA has frequently been problematic.

i know, but the fact they were in appearance pretty much indistinguishable from other whites made is much easier than it would've been otherwise, that's the point.

What you are arguing for is literally race-based rule. You are arguing that a specific social group should have political supremacy regardless of how minorities feel about it. It's not about what's "theirs" or "foreign".

No, I didn't argue in favor of anything, I just described how it is. Unless you would argue that no people can "own" a country, then it's reasonable to say that white americans "own" the USA, since they've been the dominant group throughout its history and to this day. As I've said, if not them, then who? Do the blacks own the US? of course not, they were enslaved and oppressed. Do the indians? no, they were driven away and killed. clearly, it's one group who's been calling the shots, and it's the whites. The USA has historically been pretty much a "white country". granted, in the last half century the whites have voluntarily been ceding some of their power. but again, this is just describing reality.

Australia is surrounded completely by an Ocean, it's surrounded by mostly stable government, and I also don't see why anyone would want to treat migrants terribly just to "scare" them.

they recieved 20k per year until they stopped it. Italy and spain also have seas to protect them, it's comparable. Stop denying reality just because you want to believe immigration is unstoppable. australia easily stopped it.

Raising the barriers to entry won't stop it, it'll just divert the flows to another method.

are you serious?.. the barrier DID stop it through hungary, ergo the barriers worked. immigration can be stopped, stop denying this obvious fact.

Screwed is a strong word. I find it difficult to believe that a migrant flow will topple Europe. Sorry, but you're starting to sound hysterical.

by screwed I mean, "becomming more like the middle east and africa", which in my view is a distinct possibility if your take in lots of people from there..

[Love Mountain]

No, I didn't argue in favor of anything, I just described how it is. Unless you would argue that no people can "own" a country, then it's reasonable to say that white americans "own" the USA, since they've been the dominant group throughout its history and to this day. As I've said, if not them, then who? Do the blacks own the US? of course not, they were enslaved and oppressed. Do the indians? no, they were driven away and killed. clearly, it's one group who's been calling the shots, and it's the whites. The USA has historically been pretty much a "white country". granted, in the last half century the whites have voluntarily been ceding some of their power. but again, this is just describing reality.

Yeah, and the Nazis didn't argue for extermination of Jews. Just "national purity". Nobody "owns" a country, especially since the polity is determined by citizenship status, not by race or country of origin. The idea that you're separating people into "groups" is a clear allusion as to who should have a say in the future of the country and who shouldn't. "White have been voluntarily cedeing some of their power." The whole idea of a race, being magnanimous enough to give away their power, is simply a nod towards identity politics. White identity politics. Whites haven't "ceded" power because political power should not be a race-based contest. United States has made considerable efforts towards making civil rights equal among all groups, because we are trying not to determine political power based on what groups you belong to, but rather on being a citizen of the United States. Which is as it should be.

they recieved 20k per year until they stopped it. Italy and spain also have seas to protect them, it's comparable. Stop denying reality just because you want to believe immigration is unstoppable. australia easily stopped it.

First of all, you didn't stop it, nor can you stop it. Over a hundred thousand arrived in EU last year. Moreover, migrants flows are already reducing, independent of border controls. That's the reality, not "border control stops people". How many people is border control going to stop from overstaying their visas? Or is it only people who can't get a visa that we are concerned with? Namely people of specific national origin.

are you serious?.. the barrier DID stop it through hungary, ergo the barriers worked. immigration can be stopped, stop denying this obvious fact.

Immigration simply shifted. You see the same thing in United States. Border control builds walls, immigrants simply learn different routes.

by screwed I mean, "becomming more like the middle east and africa", which in my view is a distinct possibility if your take in lots of people from there..

Except you aren't. Economic growth didn't slow because of immigrants. So I don't really see your point here. If anything, Europe would benefit from more cheap labor. Not that labor is the reason behind high unemployment rates and slow economic growth. It has more to do with German stranglehold on the EU and the ECB, as well as the cowardice of national governments. In this case, Salvini is doing the right thing by indulging in deficit spending. However, he should still be engaging in dialogue and negotiation, as should all periphery countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.

[Aexodus]

First of all, you didn't stop it, nor can you stop it. Over a hundred thousand arrived in EU last year.

To be fair, any given level of immigration is not unstoppable. For example, the levels of immigration the UK saw since the late 90s is not because there was no other alternative, but because the government of the day chose to increase the migrant intake.

[Cope]

To be fair, any given level of immigration is not unstoppable. For example, the levels of immigration the UK saw since the late 90s is not because there was no other alternative, but because the government of the day chose to increase the migrant intake.

It's the lie of inevitability. Proponents of mass migration have always falsely claimed that migration was uncontrollable as an excuse for allowing mass migration.

[Love Mountain]

To be fair, any given level of immigration is not unstoppable. For example, the levels of immigration the UK saw since the late 90s is not because there was no other alternative, but because the government of the day chose to increase the migrant intake.

Of course not. I'm not claiming that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about immigration. In fact, there's quite a lot that can be done to mitigate population flows. My concern isn't that there are efforts to minimize or slow down migration, but the manner in which it is done.

It's the lie of inevitability. Proponents of mass migration have always falsely claimed that migration was uncontrollable as an excuse for allowing mass migration.

What proponents are you specifically referring to?

[Aexodus]

Of course not. I'm not claiming that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about immigration. In fact, there's quite a lot that can be done to mitigate population flows. My concern isn't that there are efforts to minimize or slow down migration, but the manner in which it is done.

What did you mean then by ‘nor can you stop it’?

Is the Hungarian fence a manner which you disagree with to minimize immigration? If so, that’s fine, but is there any alternatives they could try which would give them similar results.

[Love Mountain]

What did you mean then by ‘nor can you stop it’?

Is the Hungarian fence a manner which you disagree with to minimize immigration? If so, that’s fine, but is there any alternatives they could try which would give them similar results.

Even in a situation where your border control is 100% perfect, you will still have illegal immigration when people overstay their visas purposefully. In the real world, where no border control will ever approach that efficiency, if you are a destination of migrants, you won't be able to stop that flow. Barring instituting a shoot on sight policy I suppose. The Hungarian case, is one where Hungary is mainly a transit country. Increased border control likely diverted migrants to different routes. In regards to Greece, Italy, and Spain, I find it unlikely that they'll ever stop migrant flows.

I don't think that many other countries will achieve similar results because they are not under similar circumstances. Moreover, considering the slow down of the migrant crisis, I would reevaluate the panic over it. I think some nationalist on this Forum did argue that we could spend money to rebuild the countries these migrants are coming from and adopt a strict deportation policy. I would not go anywhere near that far, but there is merit towards working with the origin countries to educate the people there on how to migrate legally. I would also argue that Europe should take a more active role towards helping build a stable and prosperous future for North Africa. France in particular, can take a lead on this considering just how many French speaking countries there are in North Africa. Though they seem to be more focused on exploiting rather than helping the continent.

[Aexodus]

Then it looks like you were both talking past eachother. What he meant was that Australia was able to more or less stop the mass immigration by changing the laws, the controls, the rules or whatever. You know what I mean right?

He said Europeam countries could and should do the same as Australia and not allow people in if they so choose. You agree then, this is an option open to the European countries?

[The spartan]

as I said, they don't like tearing down institutions, but it's preferable to the alternative.

This is not the reasoning of Conservatives, no. "Breaking something to fix something else" is no where close to the mantra of Conservatives, especially when talking about political institutions. I don't know how you aren't getting this, Conservatives don't think you can destroy some institutions for the sake of others. For example; Conservatives in the South (United States) might have tried to protect the institutions of Jim Crow laws because they wanted to limit change. They lost, Jim Crow laws were abolished, but a modern Conservative would not want to tear down civil institutions (in this case, disregarding SCOTUS and Congress) so that they could re-implement Jim Crow laws. That is something a radical (Far-right) would do. A Conservative would be afraid of all of the fallout that could result from demolishing those institutions; the rule of law begins to unravel, in their view.

The institutions does after arise from, and are supported by, the particular morals and norms of a people. so... if you let the morals decay, or simply replace the population (even partially) it has the same effect as tearing down the institutions yourself. there's a reason why you have american democracy, with all it entails, in the USA and not in other countries. it's due to the people. And as such, conservatives would want to "conserve" the people, as they in turn are what conserve the institutions. thus the importance of assimilation. as i've said, it's a hierarchy.

You weren't talking about "particular morals and norms", you were specifically speaking to skin color. I agree that morals and cultural norms are important to our institutions, what does that have to do with skin color? American Ideals are a mindset, and I can just look at our list of Medal of Honor recipients and see individuals, true Americans, of all different skin colors. I can, also, see plenty of light skinned people harming our institutions. Or rather, let's put it this way, can you give me an example of an institution in the US that you think was destroyed by virtue of "non-whites" coming here?

Also, I don't know what literature you have been reading, but last time I checked, no citizens in the US have been replaced by immigrants. You do know what the word "replace" means, right? If I say, "I just replaced the light bulb in my lamp", you do know what that means?

so what if it changes its definition over time? the group still exist. Just because there's not an exact definition, or exact boundaries can be drawn, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is fallacious reasoning, akin to claiming colours don't exist because they exist on a continuous spectrum.

I never said the term was undefined, I said it isn't a "real", I guess I mean intrinsic, concept. "Whiteness" doesn't refer to an immutable category or standard, nor is it even a reference to overall skin color. There are many Asians who have a paler complexion than Western Europeans, but I doubt they would be referred to as "White".

The word "Minotaur" is also a defined word that people understand that doesn't refer to a real thing.

what does this mean?

That, given your previous posts and the deft move in this post to switch from "skin color" to "moral values", I am worried you are about to drop some "Race Realism" stuff on us. Do you think skin color has a noticeable causal link to one's morality or values?

What I'm saying is, that since the USA has been mostly defined by it's white population since its founding to the present day, it's unfounded to assume that what is true in the current US, will also be true in a US that no longer has a clearly dominant racial group. Because we have no such historical transformations to judge by. Maybe, and this is a genuine maybe, race relations in the USA are stabilised by one group being dominant. This is, in my view, just plain conservative caution. No one really knows what the effects are from changing a country's racial makeup.

No, the USA was not mostly defined by the "White" population, by your use of the group "White". It was mostly defined by Anglos, you know, Ben Frank's definition of "White" that doesn't count those German, Spanish, and Swedish leechers. The "Whites" you are referring to have little claim to our Nation if we are going by your importance of the racial group who founded the institutions of our Nations. Anglos only, plz.

Also, the whole "stabilized by one dominant racial group" comment is some super creepy Imperialist/Manifest Destiny . A fan of the concept of the White Man's Burden, are we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

there's a huge difference between empires, which per definition is one group ruling over several foreign peoples, and democracies in which "the people" hold the vote. Unless you intend to transform the USA into an actual empire, it's rather irrelevant to compare it to historical empires. The dynamics of democracy entail other constraints than for empires. notably the tendency to polarise over any difference, which is why as far as democracies go "diversity is NOT a strength".

You mean like the Roman Republic? Where Iberians, Gauls, Greeks, and North Africans were counted as citizens who could vote and have senators in Rome?

i know, but the fact they were in appearance pretty much indistinguishable from other whites made is much easier than it would've been otherwise, that's the point.

What? How could you possibly know that? The different ethnic groups were viewed very differently at the time, no amount of skin paleness was going to save an Irishman from the disdain of an Anglo.

[Love Mountain]

Then it looks like you were both talking past eachother. What he meant was that Australia was able to more or less stop the mass immigration by changing the laws, the controls, the rules or whatever. You know what I mean right?

We didn't talk past each other. I understand what he meant. I was pointing out that his examples are simply wrong. Australian migration numbers didn't vary due to the policies they chose to implement, but due to the global circumstances at the time. Similarly, Hungary was a transit country, not somewhere migrants tended to settle, and the migrant crisis itself is a result of geopolitical causes, not migration policies of the EU or individual states.

But certainly, migration policies can affect how many migrants these states receive, but they're not going to stop them, at least not in the short term.

He said Europeam countries could and should do the same as Australia and not allow people in if they so choose. You agree then, this is an option open to the European countries?

I already said, I don't think you want to emulate the inhumane treatment of migrants in Australia. I don't think it's a stretch to call the situation in American "concentration camps" for example, unacceptable by humanitarian Western humanitarian standards.