The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[Grendel]

You really think it was all tea, rather than innovation in machines and investment in industry?

Anyone who acknowledges that Europe prospered from pillaging during the colonial era is also forced to see the question of how they managed to stay on top in the conquering game as long as they did.
If on one hand their imperiaist success was by unearned random chance, then morally it puts them in the same stratum as all the other non-western empires that tried to conquer as much as they could when they got the chance.
If, on the other hand, you say there was some exceptional property that granted them their unusually great success, Industrialization is the most obvious answer, which in turn raises a second-guess about how much they really stole, and how much they actually produced.


Outside of these two options, you can't really characterize the west as an exceptional evil without also invoking something like "European magic," which is poopy.

[xerx]

Among the most cited theories for the rise of Western Europe is that conquest and consolidation was difficult due to geography, meaning that power was decentralized and shared among a large array of independent states. It was impossible for a king or prince to block technological change when a thinker could pack his bags and travel to the next principality only a few kilometers away.

The situation in the Muslim world and Asia was significantly different, where a small number of large, stable empires could wield enormous power to crush dissent and innovation.

In Europe, the fierce competition over territory drove the creation of advanced military technology. In the rest of the world, war was an art; in Europe it was a science.

All of this was happening long before the industrial age kicked off in Britain.

[Raver]

I'm not convinced that the job losses caused by automation are going to be as dramatic as your scenario suggests; from what I've seen and read, even economists are divided or unclear about the possible effects.

As for current problems, solving these isn't optional. The biggest current burden is the continued retirement of old people and the consequent growth of the welfare system, which the millennial generation is going to have shoulder. You bring up the fact that immigrants are here to get freebies; the case, however, is quite the opposite: immigrants pay contributions to taxes that the welfare state needs to function.

Maybe it won't be as dramatic that most immigrants and natives become obsolete and jobless and start competing with eachother for a scarcity of jobs, but I think it is clear automation will have an impact on the job market and it is not as far in the future as you think.

At the very least, we should minimize immigration right now with the goal to maintain populations at the same level in most 1st world nations with the exception of a few because of the threat of automation instead of continuously striving for population growth.



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/aut...jobs-7-charts/

As for legal immigrants paying taxes, that may be true, but only of the legal ones that actually work. Legal immigrants that don't work or even worse illegal immigrants do nothing to contribute to the welfare state.

[xerx]

Because he likes to strawman and argue in bad faith? And because he himself is an ethnic with motivated reasoning?

I just saw this. You're a compulsive liar and factually illiterate. You latch on to facts in so far as they conform to your biases and have no business accusing other people of acting in bad faith. As for "ethnic," I'm not even sure what you classify as ethnic, but the fact that this is even on the table as a motivation is sufficient indicator of the sad, narrow prism of self-centeredness through which you judge your own and other people's actions.

[xerx]

Maybe it won't be as dramatic that most immigrants and natives become obsolete and jobless and start competing with eachother for a scarcity of jobs, but I think it is clear automation will have an impact and it is not as far in the future as you think.

At the very least, we should consider toning down and minimizing immigration right now to sustain birth rates rather than create population growth because of automation instead of continuously striving for population growth.



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/aut...jobs-7-charts/

As for legal immigrants paying taxes, that may be true, but only of the legal ones that actually work. Legal immigrants that don't work or even worse illegal immigrants do nothing to contribute to the welfare state.

RE: automation: sure, that's a possibility.
RE: immigrants working: countries typically try to attract highly educated immigrants who are willing to work in their chosen professions. That might change with enough job shortages that are difficult to automate (think of simple jobs related to elderly care).

[Raver]

RE: automation: sure, that's a possibility.
RE: immigrants working: countries typically try to attract highly educated immigrants who are willing to work in their chosen professions. That might change with enough job shortages that are difficult to automate (think of simple jobs related to elderly care).

That is true for most legal immigration into the US/Canada/Aus/NZ. As for the mass immigration situation in Europe, there is an awful lot of unskilled economic migrants that will drain the welfare system without contributing any taxes. If European nations only accepted refugees from Syria instead of mostly economic migrants then this wouldn't be an issue.

[mfckrz]

I just saw this. You're a compulsive liar and factually illiterate. You latch on to facts in so far as they conform to your biases and have no business accusing other people of acting in bad faith. As for "ethnic," I'm not even sure what you classify as ethnic, but the fact that this is even on the table as a motivation is sufficient indicator of the sad, narrow prism of self-centeredness through which you judge your own and other people's actions.

Ah, sounds like a nerve has been struck.

[xerx]

Ah, sounds like a nerve has been struck.

Yeah, well fuck you too, buddy.

[mfckrz]

Yeah, well fuck you too, buddy.

Lol, it's fine. I don't expect people to debate rationally about issues like this. So an honest disclosure of bias is constructive—and you have been most exemplary.

[xerx]

Lol, it's fine. I don't expect people to debate rationally about issues like this. So an honest disclosure of bias is constructive—and you have been most exemplary.

K. I think I made all the points I need to make.

[ooo]

That is true for most legal immigration into the US/Canada/Aus/NZ. As for the mass immigration situation in Europe, there is an awful lot of unskilled economic migrants that will drain the welfare system without contributing any taxes. If European nations only accepted refugees from Syria instead of mostly economic migrants then this wouldn't be an issue.

the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now... but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh

[Raver]

the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now... but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh

Some people that care about immigration are racists, but most aren't, this is a ridiculous overgeneralization you have made here. I mentioned Syria specifically because they have the highest amount of refugees in the world atm. Obviously, I meant all real refugees are welcome into Europe, not fake refugees though (economic migrants). Accepting real refugees from anywhere in the world into Europe and rejecting economic migrants is what I am stating.

[ooo]

I know no racist that would admit they're racist, obv. if immigration is an issue, it already talks about what you consider immigrants to be, not people, but issues (the poor ones, sure, because hey! rich world blond and perfumed immigrants are welcome!).

btw, I don't get why we should take war refugees only, as if the misery in which most African countries live were not our faults too, or as if we should divide people in class a and class b citizens, where people coming from poor countries to have a better life were class b and people coming from rich countries to have a better life were class a, lol. that's what racism is.

because hey, I hope you're not so naive to think that Americans and Europeans are not immigrants when they choose to go live abroad.

[mfckrz]

the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now... but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh

I don't want immigrants from any country. White, black, brown, don't care.

[Grendel]

the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now... but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh

I'm in favor of totally sealing off the country for outgoers, too! Right now, rotting old retired fucks from the USA are hopping like fleas into latin American countries like Belize and Dominica to deliberately exploit the inflated value of the US dollar there. Thus people who would've been average joes in their native land get to squat like little Lords in another culture's homeland, failing to integrate, living in sequestered little splinter towns while the rest of the country lives in poverty, and contributing no real labor to the land aside from the fake dollar bills they pump into the economy. I don't condone that, either. The fates of these countries should be determined by a consensus of their own general population, not who holds the money somewhere else. My country should probably regulate against this. Just like something needs to be done about the Chinese who are buying up swathes of North American land.

Nation states should have more power than markets and corporations.

I know no racist that would admit they're racist, obv. if immigration is an issue, it already talks about what you consider immigrants to be, not people, but issues (the poor ones, sure, because hey! rich world blond and perfumed immigrants are welcome!).

Politics is the science of managing people like issues, instead of "lIkE PeoPlE." Running a political system is as cold as running a machine.

Humanism is totally impractical when you scale it up to weighing the fates of thousands and millions.

btw, I don't get why we should take war refugees only, as if the misery in which most African countries live were not our faults too, or as if we should divide people in class a and class b citizens, where people coming from poor countries to have a better life were class b and people coming from rich countries to have a better life were class a, lol. that's what racism is.

There's also the fact that people are shaped by their environs, and people who came of age in a vastly different environment than one's own may behave vastly different than the natives when they're transported there. That doesn't even require heredity to work. You're not arguing against "racism," you're arguing against determinism entirely.

Also, I've mentioned this before, but if we're gonna be taking anyone in, then taking more muslim Uighurs from China would be useful. The Chinese government is an existential threat both to us and them, so their political proclivities and voting patterns might be useful for building better policies in our competition with China, not to mention purging potential Chinese foreign agents when they appear in the upper echelons.

because hey, I hope you're not so naive to think that Americans and Europeans are not immigrants when they choose to go live abroad.

This is why I never advocate increased deportations of anyone, btw. Once you do that, you're no longer protecting the pool of natural citizens from a potential hostile invader, you're attacking the people your nation-state exists to protect in the first place.

Also if you wanna talk removing caucasians from NA, that would also entail removing every other group from the continent but the few remaining amerindians to be consistent. And considering the ancestral countries of origin for most ethnic groups in the US are in worse conditions than the european countries to whence the caucasians would be returned.....none of us would want that to happen.

[ooo]

yey

[Raver]

I know no racist that would admit they're racist, obv. if immigration is an issue, it already talks about what you consider immigrants to be, not people, but issues (the poor ones, sure, because hey! rich world blond and perfumed immigrants are welcome!).

btw, I don't get why we should take war refugees only, as if the misery in which most African countries live were not our faults too, or as if we should divide people in class a and class b citizens, where people coming from poor countries to have a better life were class b and people coming from rich countries to have a better life were class a, lol. that's what racism is.

because hey, I hope you're not so naive to think that Americans and Europeans are not immigrants when they choose to go live abroad.

An immigrant is an immigrant last time I checked no matter where they come from. War refugees are coming because it is a life and death situation, economic migrants are coming to improve their life, it should be obvious which one has more importance in Europe.

Anyways, for my country of Canada where I live, I think we should take less immigrants no matter who they are and where they are from to avoid driving up the prices of housing and taking a toll on our infrastructure in our major cities.

[Memento Mori]

the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now... but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh

National sovereignty is exercised by all states with even moderately decent economies, there's nothing uniquely Western or "racist" about that. Affluent civilizations are selective about the median annual income levels of immigrants precisely so that, in the process of assisting people from other nations, their own nation does not itself become a place worth leaving. Canada admits countless immigrants into our nation every year. Plenty live in my own immediate neighborhood. The kind of Africans that have middle class cars and large families. It's an economic qualifier, not a racial one. Since you're making this about "racism", quantitatively speaking, far more non-white immigrants benefit from immigration than not - America fills up with Latinos, and Britain and many European nations fill up with Islamic populations. I suppose there's no appreciation for the millions of former third-world individuals now living safer lives in Western nations? If all nations were to remove any and all prerequisites for immigration, within a few generations nations worth moving to may themselves gradually descend into places worth leaving. This would be a policy of gradual, steady impoverishment, retail scarcity and inflation, among many other factors. Violent crime (particularly sexual assault) has skyrocketed in a variety of Nations as a direct consequence of accelerated immigration. Nations have a variety of rational reasons for their discretion. Nations attempt to strike a sustainable balance of influx so their own lands maintain a high standard of living. This shouldn't even need to be explained, and who does anyone think they are to question the sovereignty of nations, or demand they adopt policies that could harm them? That is the discretion of the Nation in question. "This is all just white people being racist" is a worthless, false, reductionist conjecture.

I don't hear people demanding South Koreans take in waves of disadvantaged immigrants, it's always the West that gets called racist. This is a senseless double-standard, particularly when combined with the fact that no other region of the world takes in, assists, or extends welfare and social aid to more people than the West. "Class A" citizens come from a variety of races and cultures and are taken in annually to nearly every Western nation. Considering Canada has one of the highest annual median incomes on the planet and enjoys high standards of living and security, of course it is sensible that Canadians are often successful in their applications for immigration. You keep putting the cart ahead of the horse when this is largely a financial matter; you're the one insisting this is racial when the simple fact of the matter is that an income requirement being met by a White or non-White individual is no different, but many people do not meet these basic requirements. Naturally, no appreciation is shown for the enormous Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, or African populations presently in Western nations. America is nearly a minority-white Nation. At what point has, in this case America, done its fair share for the world? It seems there's no pleasing some people, and thus they should not be pleased.

that's because you fuck yer mum, I appreciate the coherence.

Naturally, when people respond with consistent arguments, instead of response or consideration you stoop to this. Disgusting.

[ooo]

alright, @Raver, you wish for monoculturalism in the ex brit colonies and for uniethnicity in Europe and wherever else. just to give you a vague idea of how that makes no sense, I'll remind you that all these countries you're advocating some kind of racial unification for have built their history through mixed cultures and ethnicities.

what mono-culture mono-ethnicity mono-anything you're talking about? they're just naive ideals. in practice: impossible and damaging.

obviously immigration should respect the laws, but it shouldn't be restricted to anyone with the excuse to defend a chimerical identity, which exists just in virtue of all the compromises that different people from different traditions have achieved together. growth happens when different parties mingle and expand, why should we block this phenomenon?

immigration can be a great resource, especially now that EU countries are starting to face negative birth rates, so that the jobs of the youth won't cover for our parent's pensions and national debt. after all, economy has always been number one reason to emigrate anywhere, even within one's own country. to forbid these movements means to block any growth.


@Grendel, basically humanism is the soul of politics, it was invented in the first democracy that we know about, to grant the citizens rights and participation. and IDK what else to answer to your post, everything you said is unrelated to wtv I said, so yea, take all the chinese muslim you wish, and don't deport anyone, yeye.. I'm totally ok with that.

@Luminous Lynx, disgusting here is only your knowitall hysterical attitude. you project onto me and accuse me for claims I never made, and you're just talking to yourself, so acute... btw, I'm not expecting you get any of this since you can't even see that a "mfkcr" is someone who fcks their mom.

@Alonzo, I told you twice, the delusional hypocrite is you. now, what's stupid and pathetic is how you managed to misread a very corny joke. but I guess that's what happens when one's so used to shouting nasty insults like an angry 12 year old kid, maturity at the same level.

[FreelancePoliceman]

@ooo, come now. It’s a terrible thing for the Celtic-Briton-Roman-Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Scandinavian-Norman population of England to become diluted by other ethnicities. It’s not like they literally conquered a quarter of the world; why can’t those pesky immigrants just leave them alone to continue their entirely homogenous race?

By the way, arguably humanism had its origins in the Eastern Roman/“Byzantine” Empire. Which was not a democracy in any sense of the word in any way at all.

[ooo]

By the way, arguably humanism had its origins in the Eastern Roman/“Byzantine” Empire. Which was not a democracy in any sense of the word in any way at all.

what do you mean? I knew that humanism is a cultural current that developed in Italy during the XV century.. "man in the middle of the universe", it led to reinessence

[FreelancePoliceman]

what do you mean? I knew that humanism is a cultural current that developed in Italy during the XV century.. "man in the middle of the universe", it led to reinessence

So. Real simplified history. The renaissance was essentially a “rediscovery” of Greek (and to an extent Roman) culture. Why did this happen, you may ask? Why did the illiterate barbarians of Western Europe suddenly learn to read and create decent art and literature and architecture and civic planning and infrastructure again? Well —ignoring smaller Renaissances of a sort that happened throughout the Middle Ages, spawned variously through technological advancement, the Crusades, and the Reconquest in Iberia, which exposed the darkened, uneducated souls of Europe to Arabic culture and its preservation/translations of Greek texts — basically, in 1453 the nascent Ottoman Empire beat down the famed walls of Constantinople, using cannons for the first time in a large-scale siege, before quickly putting the remnants of the Βασιλεία ‘Ρωμαίων out of its protracted misery. Conquest always stirs people up, and so you had a ton of Greek speakers migrating to Italy (which is practically right next door). The Greeks sometimes brought interesting manuscripts/books with them, and so, one thing led to another and the Italians finally took interest in the charming handsome educated Greeks and also you know their history and culture and stuff and their beautiful accents, reminiscent of the sun-soaked waters of the Mediterranean.

But basically, the important bit is that humanism developed in the Byzantine Empire long before you really had an analogous movement in Italy or Western Europe. The development in sciences associated with the Renaissance was also really just a continuation of the developments and study that had been, and continued to be, pursued in the East.

[Memento Mori]

@Luminous Lynx, disgusting here is only your knowitall hysterical attitude. you project onto me and accuse me for claims I never made, and you're just talking to yourself, so acute... btw, I'm not expecting you get any of this since you can't even see that a "mfkcr" is someone who fcks their mom.

I don't think you understand the meaning of projection. In this context that would imply that I hold the very worldview I was addressing, which is absolutely not the case. Your response is considerably more irrelevant than my own, as I was addressing a broad array of context in order to substantiate why your original quoted remark was vapid and hollow. If you actually read my two paragraphs with the indication I was "hysterical" you're either willfully disingenuous for the sake of a convenient response, or you're not half as intelligent as your clearly think you are. The only projection between either of our posts is you calling me a "knowitall" when I've seen you embarrass yourself in response to others numerous times. I do in fact know a great deal, but that's hardly relevant to anything. I suppose you're too ignorant to bother reflecting on anything I actually contributed to the discussion, as you didn't address a single fucking point I made. When you tell people to "Educate" themselves I suppose you're not a "knowitall", and when you get utterly shown up you dismiss people. Yes, I'm aware of his username. You chose to respond to the very last sentence I left because you are either too lazy or lack the ability to address my actual argument. No matter. To be frank, I didn't make the post for you, I want this thread to get back on track and I want people to discuss ideas instead of bickering, so I'll take my own advice and bow out if this only serves to sap the thread of worthwhile discussion.

[gone]

It's easy to talk big about generosity and "being good" when you have no experience with the negative consequences of such attitudes taken to the extreme. I am, of course, talking from my perspective as a Swede with a working class background. The liberal middle class loves to talk about how great immigration is, yet they refuse to live in immigrant-packed areas for some reason.

[ooo]

@FreelancePoliceman the Greeks colonized Italy long before the Romans did, and the later Romans' culture was largely based on the Greek one. all through the middle ages (primacy of the Church) this influence continued, you can smell Plato (neo-platonism), Aristotle and the stoics in every work of religion, art, literature. the intellectual thinkers in the Roman empire have always spoken those "languages", and don't you dare saying that the middle ages had no enlightened artistic peaks.

btw, if the Greeks were the ones to promote what you define humanist values, we owe it to them for passing it along, not to the Ottomans. uh

[ooo]

@Luminous Lynx
I didn't reply to any of your "oh, so acute!" remarks because as I said, you projected stuff that YOU think I would think, just to take your shot at insulting me (as usual, lol) but it's stuff that I don't think, so... this is called projecting, just so you know.

hysterical is how you keep popping on my back to insult me and judge for stuff you know no shit about.

[Singu]

Affluent civilizations are selective about the median annual income levels of immigrants precisely so that, in the process of assisting people from other nations, their own nation does not itself become a place worth leaving.

Except when they need slave labors "economic migrants".

Since you're making this about "racism", quantitatively speaking, far more non-white immigrants benefit from immigration than not - America fills up with Latinos, and Britain and many European nations fill up with Islamic populations. I suppose there's no appreciation for the millions of former third-world individuals now living safer lives in Western nations?

That's good. You colonize a bunch of countries and bring in slaves, and you kick them out when it's inconvenient. These people must feel so thankful for your grace and your privilege of being allowed to live in your master Western nation.

And why do you think there are so many Islamic migrants and Syrian refugees in the first place? Because of US's "War on Terror"! If anything you should be blaming the US for their disastrous foreign policies.

Nations have a variety of rational reasons for their discretion. Nations attempt to strike a sustainable balance of influx so their own lands maintain a high standard of living. This shouldn't even need to be explained, and who does anyone think they are to question the sovereignty of nations, or demand they adopt policies that could harm them? That is the discretion of the Nation in question. "This is all just white people being racist" is a worthless, false, reductionist conjecture.

I don't hear people demanding South Koreans take in waves of disadvantaged immigrants, it's always the West that gets called racist. This is a senseless double-standard, particularly when combined with the fact that no other region of the world takes in, assists, or extends welfare and social aid to more people than the West. "Class A" citizens come from a variety of races and cultures and are taken in annually to nearly every Western nation. Considering Canada has one of the highest annual median incomes on the planet and enjoys high standards of living and security, of course it is sensible that Canadians are often successful in their applications for immigration. You keep putting the cart ahead of the horse when this is largely a financial matter; you're the one insisting this is racial when the simple fact of the matter is that an income requirement being met by a White or non-White individual is no different, but many people do not meet these basic requirements. Naturally, no appreciation is shown for the enormous Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, or African populations presently in Western nations. America is nearly a minority-white Nation. At what point has, in this case America, done its fair share for the world? It seems there's no pleasing some people, and thus they should not be pleased.

So it is about what's economically beneficial to the country. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Immigrants are just as beneficial to the country as it is beneficial to the immigrants themselves. Yet at the same time you feel personally burdened, and feel that "it's not fair" that countries like South Korea are not taking their fair share of the burden.

Again, this is just "homogeneity envy", and countries like South Korea and Japan have plenty of social and economic problems of their own, which they will be facing more acutely later on when they have to face the reality of having an aging population with no immigrants. Basically, a slow and gradual death of their own nation and their own culture.

It's likely that countries like the US wouldn't have gotten to it's place now ("the most powerful country in the world"), and it wouldn't have been able to sustain its population without immigrants.

[Tallmo]

It's easy to talk big about generosity and "being good" when you have no experience with the negative consequences of such attitudes taken to the extreme. I am, of course, talking from my perspective as a Swede with a working class background. The liberal middle class loves to talk about how great immigration is, yet they refuse to live in immigrant-packed areas for some reason.

I've been watching Bert Karlsson on his YT channel. He is constantly complaining about these things. He also invited some politicians to come and live in Bergsjön for 2 weeks to experience multiculturalism first hand. He is a funny guy. Lots of projects going on. I type him LIE.

[ooo]

ITo be frank, I didn't make the post for you, I want this thread to get back on track and I want people to discuss ideas instead of bickering, so I'll take my own advice and bow out if this only serves to sap the thread of worthwhile discussion.

smarty pants starts bickering out of his own bs and complains the thread gets derailed in bickering. lol typical

[gone]

I've been watching Bert Karlsson on his YT channel. He is constantly complaining about these things. He also invited some politicians to come and live in Bergsjön for 2 weeks to experience multiculturalism first hand. He is a funny guy. Lots of projects going on. I type him LIE.

Haha, my mother has received a scolding from him over the phone. She worked at one of his asylum accommodations but accidentally ordered too much food. So he called her and was very angry about this, as it meant extra expenses for him and his company.

[Raver]

alright, @Raver, you wish for monoculturalism in the ex brit colonies and for uniethnicity in Europe and wherever else. just to give you a vague idea of how that makes no sense, I'll remind you that all these countries you're advocating some kind of racial unification for have built their history through mixed cultures and ethnicities.

what mono-culture mono-ethnicity mono-anything you're talking about? they're just naive ideals. in practice: impossible and damaging.

obviously immigration should respect the laws, but it shouldn't be restricted to anyone with the excuse to defend a chimerical identity, which exists just in virtue of all the compromises that different people from different traditions have achieved together. growth happens when different parties mingle and expand, why should we block this phenomenon?

immigration can be a great resource, especially now that EU countries are starting to face negative birth rates, so that the jobs of the youth won't cover for our parent's pensions and national debt. after all, economy has always been number one reason to emigrate anywhere, even within one's own country. to forbid these movements means to block any growth.

Realistically, I don't even expect Europe to be fully comprised of ethnostates. It is too late for that. At best, some European countries will remain ethnostates (Italy, Hungary, Poland and Australia) and most will become multiethnic/multicultural and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Asia and Africa are the only continents that will likely be comprised of ethnostates anyways.

[ooo]

Realistically, I don't even expect Europe to be fully comprised of ethnostates. It is too late for that. At best, some European countries will remain ethnostates (Italy, Hungary, Poland, Australia) and most will become multiethnic/multicultural and there is nothing that can stop it. Asia and Africa are the only continents that will likely be comprised of ethnostates anyways.

there's no thing as ethnostate in Europe, especially not in Italy. in Africa and Australia, I guess the very same. what you wish for is just racist pure and simple... luckily the world doesn't turn like that

[Raver]

there's no thing as ethnostate in Europe, especially not in Italy. in Africa and Australia, I guess the very same. what you wish for is just racist pure and simple... luckily the world doesn't turn like that

The world won't be comprised of ethnostates in the 1st world, it has already been decided. Ethnostates will likely remain only in the 3rd world, a few European countries, South Korea and Japan. I guess wanting Japan, China and other non-European countries to remain an ethnostate is racist despite having no ties to those countries. I look forward to seeing Japan prove how a 1st world ethnostate can work.

[ooo]

it was decided? by whom? ethnostates are practically impossible because people have always moved and sought for things further than their nose, the history of mankind. what you aim for is to prohibit to people to travel, fall in love, build a future out of their country, for them and their peers, with anyone who's not a far cousin and shares the same genetics? if this is not racist i dont know what is.

and China Japan and NK are not ethnostates.

[Raver]

it was decided? by whom? ethnostates are practically impossible because people have always moved and sought for things further than their nose, the history of mankind. what you aim for is to prohibit to people to travel, fall in love, build a future out of their country, for them and their peers, with anyone who's not a far cousin and shares the same genetics? if this is not racist i dont know what is.

and China Japan and NK are not ethnostates.

Like I told you already, I don't care about ethnostates because they won't happen in most of the 1st world, it has already been decided. All that can be done for most 1st world nations aside from the few that chose to remain ethnostates is reducing immigration as much as possible to encourage integration and keep infrastructure and welfare states from overloading. They are ethnostates including SK, they rarely accept immigrants and are homogeneous.

[ooo]

Like I told you already, I don't care about ethnostates because they won't happen in most of the 1st world, it has already been decided. All that can be done for most 1st world nations aside from the few that chose to remain ethnostates is reducing immigration as much as possible to encourage integration and keep infrastructure and welfare states from overloading. They are ethnostates including SK, they rarely accept immigrants and are homogeneous.

you don't care but that's what you wish for, and I wonder why?

China Japan and Korea might all be highly exclusive, but for one reason or another they're not mono-ethnic, and are starting to open up more and more... that's what you do when you want to grow.

[Raver]

you don't care but that's what you wish for, and I wonder why?

China Japan and Korea might all be highly exclusive, but for one reason or another they're not mono-ethnic, and are starting to open up more and more... that's what you do when you want to grow.

My true beliefs are revealed in what I want in my own country because I get to live in it and experience it in my life, which is multi-ethnic/mono-cultural with controlled immigration. Only time will tell if they do become inclusive or not. So far they are highly resistant to immigration. I understand ethnic is relative so you are defining it via tribal ethnicities means, which is not what I am talking about. I consider them mono-ethnic nations by my definition.

[ooo]

Only time will tell if they do or not. So far they are highly resistant to immigration. I understand ethnicity is relative so you are defining it via tribal ethnicities means, which is not what I am talking about. I consider them mono-ethnic nations by my definition.

I understand that ethnicity can be a vague term, and you could use it to refer to the over1.5 billions people living in the same country, but just like in any African, European, American etc country you don't actually have the same ethnic/cultural group span everywhere, for how small that country can be... it can be possible, but very unlikely. I get that you want to close all the borders, I just wonder why. from what I understand you're placing economical reasons before of any humanitarian ones.

[Raver]

I understand that ethnicity can be a vague term, and you could use it to refer to the over1.5 billions people living in the same country, but just like in any African, European, American etc country you don't actually have the same ethnic/cultural group span everywhere, for how small that country can be... it can be possible, but very unlikely. I get that you want to close all the borders, I just wonder why. from what I understand you're placing economical reasons before of any humanitarian ones.

Yes it is economical > humanitarian so 1st world nations remain 1st world nations and don't slowly de-evolve to 3rd world nations over time due to mass immigration/open borders. Humanitarianism is reserved for refugees that are in a life and death situation, not economic migrants looking for a better quality of life. The rest of immigration should be strictly controlled to allow highly skilled educated immigrants from all over the world to allow these nations to retain their 1st world nation status.

[ooo]

Yes it is economical > humanitarian so 1st world nations remain 1st world nations and don't slowly de-evolve to 3rd world nations over time due to mass immigration/open borders. Humanitarianism is reserved for refugees that are in a life and death situation, not economic migrants looking for a better quality of life. The rest of immigration should be strictly controlled to allow highly skilled educated immigrants from anywhere in the world to allow them to retain their 1st world nation status.

that looks more reasonable and I can agree with that policy, just not with the mono-cultural/mono-ethnic stance, which is a different premise and I don't want to repeat what it seems..