i didn't say it's a conspiracy. in the same way, i don't think blacks are conspiring to fill up our prisons, and east asians aren't conspiring to fill up the tech industry. groups do what groups do.

yeah i know. yet at the same time these people intended for african and arab immigration. pick a lane.

B2: yes

you already know my answer. why do you keep reframing the same loaded question? if that was the current situation, i think it would be more desirable. would i support ANY measure to bring this into fruition? no. we have american indians and american blacks in this country. people with more and the same right to be here than/as us. an ethnically homogeneous america will never happen nor should it be desired.
the only way an ethnostate could occur is on a very small scale in an area already leaning in that direction. but even as people naturally drift this way, govt takes measures to ensure diversity.
compare these 2 articles for instance:
ny times speaks of "lack of diversity problem" in nh, vermont, and maine (3rd paragraph)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/u...udn0_w3yfISn0k
the 2nd link lists nh, vermont and maine as the safest states in america.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta.../public-safety

This includes whites. And it's all part of systems that have been constructed.

The white majority have made a number of decisions that have made life harder for minority groups. The past shows us that one of the reasons that blacks are overrepresented in prisons is due to economic decisions imposed on them by a white majority.

And while Asians may be overrepresented in tech (partially because of active recruiting strategies), the management ranks are still overrepresented by whites.

These demographics have more to do with socially constructed limitations, as opposed to strictly racial or genetic constructs.

@original position: or perhaps this study could at least partially explain falling birthrates in developed (and egalitarian) societies. "A study in Sweden has reported that gender role attitude was effective on understanding the costs and benefits of having children, and egalitarian women perceived the benefits of having children less than the women with traditional gender role attitudes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387654/
makes sense. societal pressures pushing women into college, and careers should naturally lower birthrates. and looks to be causing the decline in female happiness.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fema...hrome&ie=UTF-8

it seems like women were happier when they carried out their biological functions.

I'm peeling back the layers of your perspective one at a time. I am trying not to overstate your position.

Again, I've never once mentioned displacement. As far as I can tell, you're the only who keeps bringing it up, and you keep bringing it up as if you're trying to play the victim card of being misrepresented in some way.

Do you desire a homogeneous America? So far, you have explicitly stated that you object to Muslims being US citizens (not that you would act to remove their rights) and you object to blacks being US citizens (though you would not act to remove their rights).

Please tell me more about your narratives of how society works. You've been *so* on point so far.

People don't "naturally drift" one way or the other on the whole. Some places are racially stable and some are not, depending on what's happening economically. Diverse cities along the coasts are not government imposed melting pots. They are artifacts of a deep history of successful trade and the movement of people. Homogeneous states are historically not the result of government intervention, but living in places that are not as mobile.

What you actually see is the application of selective rule-making to *prevent* the movement of people that is actually the cause of homogeneity. One group of people don't like another group, and they make active decisions to keep them out. (And I'm talking about citizens with the US, not international movement.)

Redlining was a practice of keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. Not because of natural drifting tendencies, but because of active decisions being made to prevent it. White people move out of neighborhoods when they start diversifying (but surprisingly the rest of the racial groups don't seem to mind that it's diversifying).

There are deep racist histories at play here, and historically racist attitudes revealing themselves in the culture of whiteness. Many have started to move away from the overt ways in which that has manifested, even if there are still biases.

States like New Hampshire and Maine recognize that long-term economic prosperity is more closely tied to successful integration and diversification than homogenization. So yes, they're taking active steps to try to fight back against the tides that push them away from their long-term economic goals. (And also push back against the historical racist attitudes that have created problems for so many other areas.) Do you fault them for that?

in the grand scheme? no. by an incomparable margin, far more slaves were sold by other africans than purchased by whites. whites ended slavery. yet slavery still exists in parts of africa.
i'm not defending what we did. i'm saying we, by far, had the smallest role in the history of slavery compared to africans and arab muslims.
american blacks today, are better off in the u.s. than they would be in africa. during colonialism in africa gave south american blacks the highest life expectancy in all of africa.

naturally, yes. asians tend to not go into leadership positions (not a lot of asian politicians). they have the highest iq's in terms of visual/spacial recognition, which lends itself to things like tech and engineering.
for sake of argument, let's say it's a social construct. ok. well is it a social construct that the black murder rate resembles the murder rate of africa? who cares? no matter how much we've tried to change these trends, nothing works.

america's poorest white town:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-poorest-towns

america's poorest white town's crime rate:

https://www.areavibes.com/beattyville-ky/crime/

evidence? and is this all anyone cares about anyway? white people do fine with nobody else present. if you're willing to degrade social trust, increase crime, etc for "muh economic goals", you're nothing but a slave.

Actually, that study was of women in Iran. Are you suggesting that women should prefer the inegalitarian gender norms of Iran? Anyway, there are many reasons why women have less children than they used to. More education is a major component as is higher participation by women in the labor market. The increasing cost of raising children plays a role. So does old age insurance policies. So does more freedom for women to decide when to marry. Of course, these are also all components in increasing economic growth as well. As you say, these are societal pressures pushing women into more economically productive career choices. This isn't a Jewish conspiracy, this is just countries prioritizing economic growth.

For instance, look at Japan. They have traditional gender roles that have led to men dominating in business, politics, military and women focusing on child-rearing (certainly more so than in the US and Europe, although not as much as Iran I guess). Furthermore, there are barely any Jews in Japan (estimates are between 300-2000) and they have almost no impact on their media. But yet the conservative PM of Japan has as one of his signature policies a push to increase the female labor participation rate. This is because of a concern that Japan's low GDP rate is causing it fall behind some of its competitors. Of course, this is also at the same time that Japan has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

So why are you focusing on a Jewish conspiracy causing lower birthrates instead? You are using a theory with no direct evidence to explain something already well explained by standard sociological and economic evidence.

Linking a google search is meaningless.

Clearly when people express prejudice towards out-groups or preferences towards the kind of traditional society autozone prefers they are expressing biologically determined aspects of human nature, and social pressures are irrelevant.

But when people express anti-racist social norms or when women prefer to pursue careers or make life choices other than having 4-5 children that's just oppressive social control.

Wat?

This is BS. You have claimed that Jews in the media are promoting ideas to combat the interests of other races. But yet you are making a specific claim about what this group in particular is doing, and your argument supporting this claim fails. That claim about what Jews are doing is what is false. Here is your argument:

1) Evolution benefits wealthier humans with more procreation.
2) Different racial groups interest in more procreation are in conflict.
3) Jews are overrepresented in the media.
4) Thus, Jews have used the media to cause other racial groups to have lower procreation.

(1) is false, as I pointed out. You have failed to respond to this or revise your view. (2) is false at the individual level since our kinship with racial groups is so small. You're also assuming that procreation is zero-sum, which is obviously contradicted by the facts. (3) is true in the US, but not in other countries that have low or even lower fertility than the US. (4) is your speculative theory to explain something that doesn't need explaining. Why is there low fertility in China? In Japan? In Korea? Poland? Almost literally every single country around the world sees a declining birthrate, regardless of their Jewish population.

Also, why is it that you don't include white people in your "groups do what groups do" social darwinist rubric? You claimed that everyone except white people are acting in their own interest. Huh? For instance, maybe the reason so many black people are in prison isn't just something about the nature of their own group, but rather white Americans acting in their own interest against black Americans? Wouldn't that be the more natural result of your thesis? Maybe one of the reasons Asian people are overrepresented in tech is because as a new industry the traditional barriers to entry of white American business society are lower? Insofar as this kind of racial conflict exists, it is a much more dynamic process than you suggest here, with your focus on how racial diversity only harms white people.

i didn't claim jews are responsible for white's declining birthrate. their's is probably declining too. does encouraging mass migration from the 2nd and 3rd world not reduce the white majority?

how are whites oppressing blacks? maybe name a single law that discriminates against blacks. maybe something as discriminatory as affirmative action.
do blacks not have an abnormally large violent crime rate? who's fault is this? gtfo
haiti has the most fertile soil in the world, yet they're eating dirt cookies.
detroit, chicago, d.c., etc. where they go in mass numbers, everyone else flees while they burn it to the ground.

whether it's hiring quotas, artificially raised sat scores, welfare, public housing, etc. what else should we be doing, to get the blacks to stop failing?
the best thing i can think of, is to cut off welfare, and end the 'war on poverty' est 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...mily_structure

Maybe in the short-run, but in the long-run, I'd guess not, or at least it isn't clear. Immigration also increases wealth and earnings from the country emigrated from. Since more wealth leads to a lower birthrate, that will lead to a lower birthrate in that country as well. Thus, worldwide rates of white people will be higher the faster that developing countries become richer. In the long run this could lead to an equilibrium state with a higher white population in the US.

Also, given low fertility among the native population, a high immigration rate is increasingly necessary to maintain economic growth for rich countries such as the US (eg for comparison, again look at Japan, which has low fertility and low immigration, leading to stagnant growth and relative economic decline over the last few decades). Over time, stagnant growth would likely lead to an exodus of the native population to places with more economic opportunity (such as you see in Eastern Europe).

dude, again, "muh economic growth". do you expect the japanese to care about the future of japan if they expect japan to be inhabited by non-japanese in the future?
are people going to want their future children living under the rule of a foreign majority? do you?
this whole civic nationalism concept is ludicrous. japan is not japan because of some abstract banner everyone joins under. japanese people make it japan. the type of govt does not define a nation. people define a nation. are the russian people different from those living in the soviet union, or under the czars?

Stop the war on drugs and ending the US's overly punitive criminal justice policies would be a great start. Perhaps a reparations program for descendants of black slaves. Also, black people are not failing. They aren't doing as well as white people in the US, which is not the same thing.

"Muh economic growth"? Don't be naive. You think a country that decides to stop competing economically with their neighbors won't be dominated by those same neighbors in the future? Look at the history of colonialism and war over the last few centuries. I would rather have my descendants be liberal Americans of whatever ethnicity than be dominated by eg Chinese communism. Other countries won't stop accumulating economic power and influence just because you decide to.

I think it's important to point out that you don't have to go back nearly as far as slavery to find de jure discrimination which could be subject to reparations. Federal housing policy throughout much of the 20th century is relevant, and people who were impacted are still alive.

The Case for Reparations makes this point well. See also The Color of Law, which provides a pretty thorough historical treatment.

There are still people alive who lived though Jim Crow.

Please cite something. Your precise claim here is unclear.

On US soil? In the sense that half of the country's white people forced the other half of the country's white people into it. Also, this was done primarily through government intervention.

Irrelevant, unless you're claiming that this means something to present tense American racial relationships. Or perhaps conflating present tense human trafficking issues with the historical Atlantic slave trade, which are very different sorts of things. I can't really tell.

So... are you saying that "you" did black Americans a favor? I don't really understand your point here.

Hmmmmm.... "Naturally" what?

Hold on... Are you suggesting that black murder rates are a consequence of non-social constructs? Like biological constructs? Why else would this be "for the sake of argument"?

are you saying you'd rather secure a future for people genealogically foreign that will (supposedly) maintain your abstract concepts over securing a future for your and your kin's posterity of whom don't share your abstract concepts? not sure if i read your post right. if so, you have successfully completed the course....

Did you even bother reading the links you cited?

You might disagree with their conclusions, but both businesses and government in the state of New Hampshire believe that their long-term economic prosperity is dependent upon adapting to changing demographics, and in particular attracting diversity rather than aspiring towards homogeneity.