Democratic Presidential Debate

[Raver]

Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity". That's pretty much a lighter version of Nazism. I don't think most Germans particularly care about "retaining their German ethnicity", and I'm sure whomever that suggests that get called a Nazi.

Well, not just Germans, but French, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc...Is that a lighter version of Nazism to you?

[Singu]

Well, not just Germans, but French, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc...Is that a lighter version of Nazism to you?

Yes.

However, there might be a nationalist reaction to colonization, as in the case of say, Indian nationalism as an reaction to British colonialism. That might've been useful in winning the independence of India, it's not required any more after that.

So it's fine when Germany gets colonized, but not Ethiopia. Got it.

Well it's more that Germany is colonizing Europe.

[Raver]

I made the argument several posts ago, but this isn't necessarily the case: subpopulations can have major differences, so large in fact that they may share culturally-relevant traits more closely with distant populations.

Yes.

However, there might be a nationalist reaction to colonization, as in the case of say, Indian nationalism as an reaction to British colonialism. That might've been useful in winning the independence of India, it's not required any more after that.

What do you guys think of the Dalai Lama for saying this? Is he a Nazi or a Nazi lite for saying this and/or does he have extreme right wing views?

Despite his insistence on Europe assisting to rebuild the countries from where the refugees fled, the Dalai Lama also addressed those who might want to remain in Europe. "A limited number is OK. But the whole of Europe [will] eventually become Muslim country — impossible. Or African country, also impossible,” he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...lim-or-african

[xerx]

*snip*

I'd say that the fear of Europe becoming Muslim is the fever dream of xenophobic individuals. To put that into context, some 70% of Europe identifies as Christian and even they haven't been able to reverse the separation of church and state. If he means that the Muslim population will overtake Europe's White population through breeding, this is also quite ridiculous and flies in the face of the mathematics of demographic change.

But his other argument is something any reasonable person might advocate: that immigrants and refugees should be given access to education in order to return and rebuild their homelands. This is, in fact, the *only* permanent solution to illegal immigration from the third world. It's the right-wing that normally doesn't want to help others or pay for shit; migrant crises are the predictable result of that attitude.

[xerx]

So we're on agreement on his argument of helping third world refugees to rebuild their homelands via education.

Yes. In fact, this is the discussion we should be having.

As for his other argument, I am assuming that as long as we allow mass immigration from Muslims and Africans to occur into Europe at the current rate they are entering with their high birth rates with current European native birth rates then I think he makes a strong argument. Sure, current economic immigrants will eventually have lower birth rates that are roughly at the level of birth rates of European natives once they get established into their European country of choice after multiple generations have passed.

However, for that to occur, we'd eventually have to stop mass immigration because the first generation of economic immigrants into Europe will have high birth rates and eventually lower through several generations. So I don't think he's wrong in saying that Muslims and Africans will take over Europe as the majority making European natives a minority because he's probably assuming that mass immigration won't ever stop. Of course, we don't know what is going to happen in the future because if the mass immigration did stop eventually and became controlled immigration or even closed borders then I'd agree with you that their birth rates will eventually lower to the level of native Europeans.

I don't think it's a strong case, to be honest. Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and the Islamic Republic of Iran each have fertility rates of 1.7 children per woman, which is below replacement and comparable with the Netherlands. Turkey's is 2.0, which is lower than France's. Even Syria's is only 2.44 in spite of the recent civil war.

If there's something intrinsic about Muslim countries having higher birth rates, I don't see it. It's far more likely that higher birth rates are mostly the result of social breakdown and poor economic conditions.

[Raver]

Yes. :goodjob: In fact, this is the discussion we should be having.

Cool, yeah I'm all for helping those in 3rd world countries improve their living conditions in their countries.

I don't think it's a strong case, to be honest. Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and the Islamic Republic of Iran each have fertility rates of 1.7 children per woman, which is below replacement and comparable with the Netherlands. Turkey's is 2.0, which is lower than France's. Even Syria's is only 2.44 in spite of the recent civil war.

If there's something intrinsic about Muslim countries having higher birth rates, I don't see it. It's far more likely that higher birth rates are the result of poor economic conditions.

What do you think of these graphs from this source? Basically, the gist of the graphs show that the only way Muslim/Africans would eventually overtake European natives is dependent on current mass immigration rates. So if mass immigration eventually became controlled immigration or even zero immigration then you're right that the birth rates would eventually lower and reach levels on par with the European population. Or at the very least with lower or no immigration even with above replacement birth rates (2.6 Muslim vs. 1.6 native European), Muslims wouldn't be able to overtake the European population as a majority and eventually their birth rates would lower over time.









Source: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/...im-population/

[Singu]

What do you guys think of the Dalai Lama for saying this? Is he a Nazi or a Nazi lite for saying this and/or does he have extreme right wing views?

I don't see why I should care about what Dalai Lama says, but he likely have those nationalistic views because he wants Tibetan independence from Chinese rule.

So some people are conflating legitimate immigration with invasion, and that's simply disingenuous. Besides what he said was about refugees and not immigrants.

Do you honestly think that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants and beyond feel any different from the natives? Do you really think that the reason why you feel "Canadian" is because of your race? I really don't see why race and ethnicity should matter at all, unless there are certain ideologies that make them keep certain identities, such as religion.

There's simply no good reason to arbitrarily "keep" certain races and ethnicities, unless it was forced or there was an invasion. If the argument is that because different races and ethnicities don't get along and they cause trouble, and homogeneous societies are apparently more peaceful and conflict-free and they always agree on everything, then why even bother with a democratic electoral process at all? Maybe we should just skip with the whole process because people will agree on everything anyway.

But that's not actually what happens, even the most homogeneous societies have conflicts and disagreements, unless they're a highly authoritarian society that forces a certain view on the society from the above, like say North Korea. So the apparent harmony and concord of a homogeneous society has always been authoritarian propaganda, and nothing more.

[mfckrz]

some people are conflating legitimate immigration with invasion

It's effectively the same thing. Immigration is invasion sponsored by governments hostile to their own peoples' interests.

[Adam Strange]

It's effectively the same thing. Immigration is invasion sponsored by governments hostile to their own peoples' interests.

Borders are artificial constructs which prevent a man from going wherever he wants.

[mfckrz]

Borders are artificial constructs which prevent a man from going wherever he wants.

"Borders aren't real, externalities don't exi—" Adam Strange tells himself as he gets packraped by a gang of Somali migrants.

[Singu]

It's effectively the same thing. Immigration is invasion sponsored by governments hostile to their own peoples' interests.

But it's fine if the government espouses a policy that favors certain races, a la Nazism.

See, this is the kind of a double-standard. Why is it fine if the government favors a certain race, but not the other?

Do you consider the Dalai Lama a Nazi or Nazi lite though?

Also, since it's clear you are not interested in retaining ethnicities worldwide, what would be your ideal kind of Europe a few hundred years from now? As there are two main possible scenarios that will result from this in the long term with current mass immigration trends unless they control or stop immigration. Would it resemble Latin America, mixed race people with the same culture? Or would it resemble South Africa? Majority African/Muslim, minority European?

If a government sponsors a policy that favors a certain ethnicity over the other, and that is not a reaction to an invasion or colonialism, then yes, it is Nazism. But the Dalai Lama is not a government. I consider Dalai Lama as someone who is reacting to the (harsh) Chinese rule of Tibet.

Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.

[mfckrz]

But it's fine if the government espouses a policy that favors certain races, a la Nazism.

See, this is the kind of a double-standard. Why is it fine if the government favors a certain race, but not the other?

Not a double-standard at all.

Nations exist for the benefit of their native ethnicities, else they are not nations. This remains well-understood in places like China, which aggressively promotes Han-1st policies—e.g. forced Sinicization of Tibet, repression of Uyghurs, etc.

You don't have to like it, but ethnocentrism wins over the longer-term: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Why should I care about what happens ethnically to Europe? It's the culture that matters, not what race or ethnicity people are. And cultures don't stay the same, and people will pick the better culture.

Culture is a product of the people living there. Replace the people and the culture will necessarily be different. This is observably true of any neighborhood as it is a country.

[Raver]

I didn't catch these.

Even the high scenario of 14% isn't something catastrophic. 10-15% is the amount of Christians in Egypt.

You're right, 14% isn't catastrophic, but all these projections are considering is Muslims, which are a fraction of the non-native population of Europe, they aren't counting non-natives, which would be much higher than 14% by 2050. For example, it says right now Sweden's Muslim population is 8.1%, but its non-native population is 24.1% or even close to a third when you factor in half Swedes:

As of 2017, Statistics Sweden reported that around 2,439,007 or 24.1% of the inhabitants of Sweden were from a foreign background: that is, each such person either had been born abroad or had been born in Sweden to two parents who themselves had both been born abroad. Also taking into account people with only one parent born abroad, this number increases to almost a third in 2017.

So if Sweden's population is going to be 30.6% muslim in 2050, an increase from 8.1% Muslim today then that means it is safe to say that its foreign background population is going to be significantly higher than 30.6%, it will be well over 50% by then at current mass immigration rates. So 14% is a misnomer because it only counts Muslims, not all people of foreign backgrounds that aren't Muslim. This is assuming high immigration rates of course, if immigration is controlled or brought down to zero then the numbers would be more reasonable.

I don't see why I should care about what Dalai Lama says, but he likely have those nationalistic views because he wants Tibetan independence from Chinese rule.

So some people are conflating legitimate immigration with invasion, and that's simply disingenuous. Besides what he said was about refugees and not immigrants.

Do you honestly think that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants and beyond feel any different from the natives? Do you really think that the reason why you feel "Canadian" is because of your race? I really don't see why race and ethnicity should matter at all, unless there are certain ideologies that make them keep certain identities, such as religion.

There's simply no good reason to arbitrarily "keep" certain races and ethnicities, unless it was forced or there was an invasion. If the argument is that because different races and ethnicities don't get along and they cause trouble, and homogeneous societies are apparently more peaceful and conflict-free and they always agree on everything, then why even bother with a democratic electoral process at all? Maybe we should just skip with the whole process because people will agree on everything anyway.

But that's not actually what happens, even the most homogeneous societies have conflicts and disagreements, unless they're a highly authoritarian society that forces a certain view on the society from the above, like say North Korea. So the apparent harmony and concord of a homogeneous society has always been authoritarian propaganda, and nothing more.

Do you consider the Dalai Lama a Nazi or Nazi lite though?

Also, since it's clear you are not interested in retaining ethnicities worldwide, what would be your ideal kind of Europe a few hundred years from now? As there are two main possible scenarios that will result from this in the long term with current mass immigration trends unless they control or stop immigration. Would it resemble Latin America, mixed race people with the same culture? Or would it resemble South Africa? Majority African/Muslim, minority European?

[xerx]

You're right, 14% isn't catastrophic, but all these projections are considering is Muslims, which are a fraction of the non-native population of Europe, they aren't counting non-natives, which would be much higher than 14% by 2050. For example, it says right now Sweden's Muslim population is 8.1%, but its non-native population is 24.1% or even close to a third when you factor in half Swedes:

So if Sweden's population is going to be 30.6% muslim in 2050, an increase from 8.1% Muslim today then that means it is safe to say that its foreign background population is going to be significantly higher than 30.6%, it will be well over 50% by then at current mass immigration rates. So 14% is a misnomer because it only counts Muslims, not all people of foreign backgrounds that aren't Muslim. This is assuming high immigration rates of course, if immigration is controlled or brought down to zero then the numbers would be more reasonable.

What is your reasoning that Muslims will be a small fraction of the projected non-native immigrant population..?

[Raver]

What is your reasoning that Muslims will be a small fraction of the projected non-native immigrant population..?

Unless I am interpreting the statistics incorrectly. Close to a third of Swedes are currently half Swedish or less or 24.1% of Swedes if you want to only count those that are not Swedish at all. If 8.1% of Swedes are currently Muslim then that means non-Muslim non-native Swedes are 2 to 3 times larger than Muslim native Swedes.