why trump would be the worst us president to date

[Narushima]

HAhaha...you tried to pull this on PN about how Hazaras are persecuted in Afghanistan because he is the ethnic majority... You automaticly assumed we deny there is ethnic persecution in our countries and apply Western exceptionalism.

I know my country, my people, my history better than you. So refrain from using these 3 things -which i will always strive for their sake- against me.

Trust me I'm loling too - that reply was intentional trolling except I made it verbose just to annoy you since you complained about my typing too much before but if you want to debate then sure, I will be happy to entertain you.

You disclaim western exceptionalism and yet in that previous thread "German government admits: over half a million asylum seeker missing," you went on about how 'xenophobia' and 'racism' have made "Europe what it is today."

So tell me what is it, is tribalism and associated phenomena (e.g. xenophobia and racism) ubiquitous as you strangely also said in that thread, or is the west unique in being shaped by these things? I can't see how those two views are reconcilable, to be honest, but please explain.

And If you don't want me to talk about your history, which I never claimed to know more than yourself, then please stop talking about my history like you did in that thread.

I am not Iraqi.

I know you are Turkish; the point is that I don't see what there is to mock about that quote when there is due context.

Because my country is not perfect..?

When did i ever blamed Brits or whites or whatever collectively? There are good and bad in every race and no one needs a picture perfect history of their people for talking about human rights. If that would be the case, nobody's people has a clean past.

I am not my ancestors, neither i gave Hitler inspiration.

My ancestors were from Balkans and present day Armenia, fyi.

They will not have a complete control over their resources if they gain independence.
Do you know zlich about mid east?

But that is just the point after-all, isn't it?

Do you think the majority of the German people under Nazi rule just suddenly changed their moral outlook to life over-night and became evil incarnate?

How about that the Soviet Union was certainly not established via the will of the Russian people as a whole.

History is often made by determined, cooperative and aggressive minorities, and not atomized majorities who often have no clue as to what they want.

That is why ISIS isn't just a 'bunch of extremists.'

The Nazis and the Soviet Communists too started as 'a few radicals,' and yet established the most brutal and consequential empires of the last century.

Do you know what the origin of the word 'Hazara' is? The word actually means one thousand and is reputed to have referred to the unit of 1000 soldiered Mongol horde that decimated Afghanistan - pillaging, raping, destroying irrigation systems, and all the other typical activities associated with the expanding Mongols, when they invaded that country.

And yet not too long ago, the Hazara were the ones raped and enslaved in the masses by their neighbours.

Ebbs and flows, do you see what I mean now?

Such is the over-all pattern of human behaviour that results from the reality that resources are scarce, that humans live in groups, and that those groups compete over those resources in zero-sum games.

Ethnic nation states like Japan don't have this problem because there is just one relevant group in that country.

Even in the Muslim world, the most peaceful countries today are the ones that are the most homogeneous and have the least diversity. Kyrgyzstan might be a poor third world country but there is almost no tribal conflict there because the Kyrgyz people constitute an absolute majority. If I was a Syrian, Iraqi or whatever, I'd prefer to be poor and safe than live in the diverse tribal hell that is those nations as they are now.

Does that solve the problem of militant expansionism? No, but it does ameliorate a lot of civil strife.

I don't want to make this too long so I won't say anything on your remark about the prospects of control over resources but whatever you believe, do you really think independence in that regard is possible while Sunnis, Shia and Kurds are at each other's throats over who gets this or that share of oil wealth?

We call it terrorism because innocent people have been died because of them, they use underage soldiers, there is a massive amount of drug trafficking, they use suicide bombs as a mean to attack.

Oh how the millions of Kurds who live in İstanbul, İzmir, Adana would like to be free of Turks to live in Şırnak and Diyarbakır of everywhere.

Just to make it clear; i am not against seperation completely. I am against autonomy; i stand for either complete seperation of Kurdish and Turkish states or seeking a future in current borders.

That is the way of the asymmetric warfare of the relatively powerless.

The native African resistance to the various European colonial powers was far, far worse in respect to the things you described than the Kurdish resistance, and yet I doubt you would hold similar feelings for their cause. Ethnic resistance is terrorism only to the group at which it is directed.

And you would be very wise then in that view, suzerainty would probably exacerbate that problem. Kurds in Iraq live in many Arab cities but whenever a poll or referendum is issued that asks about independence, a vast majority of them say they would prefer independence.

My point in discussing all of this, however, is this: would you call those Iraqi Kurds 'racist' or 'xenophobic' because they are separatist? I am not even a separatist in the strict sense of that term, I simply want to preserve the demographics of Whites in Europe at the very least, but people always call me a racist because of that view.

I am not impressed by tokenization. I have seen what you wrote about many groups of people.

Because you are a racist.

Don't assume things was my point. I am not politically correct, I do not deny it. Though I treat any individual I interact with in the real world without regard for creed or ethnicity, I do not believe that cultures and peoples are equal.

I don't want Islam in my society, I could care less what Muslims do in their own lands but I do not want sharia trash where I live - if you think that is 'hateful' then so be it. On the other hand, I admire Chinese culture more than I do what has become of my own these days. So again, don't assume things.

Well, you need to learn a lot.


It does not mean people should strive for better. People, throughout history have developed many thing they did not use to have. People of different ethnicities can live peacefully, unless your relation with that Chinese lady is an outlier..?

People of different ethnicities can live together peacefully only when one ethnicity remains an absolute majority in that society, and when the minority is alien and is not separated from its kin by artificial borders.

Wherever there are diverse peoples in an artificial circumscribed border, there is recurring tribal strife and conflict. This holds true for the world over and is a theme of history.

Have you ever considered that all these moral platitudes about getting along does not matter in the face of that reality?

Nope, whites are majority, and they always held power in USA. Kurds did not hold most power in Turkey, even during Ottoman Empire they were equal to other anatolian Sunni Muslim folk. And Kurds' numbers are increasing higher rate than Turks. So in you fallacious scenario they should be the majority.

This is a false equivalency, whites in USA and Kurds in Turkey can not parallel.

That was not my point, I was not attempting to construe any parallels - merely suggesting that when Whites become a minority, they will become the vulnerable and the powerless, just like minorities everywhere else on this planet.

Whites made up over 90% of the US population less than a century ago and now they make up 60%. They will become a minority if current demographic trends continue.

From Al-Jazeera:

You must be registered for see links

"The nation’s demographics are on a clear trajectory: White people are dying faster than they are being born, which means they are on target to become a minority in the United States in 30 years.

For the third year in a row, deaths of non-Hispanic whites outnumbered births, according to detailed population estimates for states and counties released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

“This is without historical precedent,” said Kenneth Johnson, the senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy. “The minority population is growing, and the non-Hispanic white population is not.”

Whites currently account for 62 percent of the population but 78 percent of deaths, according to Johnson’s analysis."

When they become a minority in a country ruled by people who hold historical grudges against them, as many Blacks and Hispanics do for historical crimes perpetrated by the US, what do you think will be their fate there?

It will likely be worse than that of the Kurds in Turkey.

Try making better working anaoligies for your people then.



I did not call Kurdish people terrorists either.

Here is the difference between how can i say me "calling you out" and you "calling me out":

I did not accuse you of racism based on your ethnicity. You did so because of my ethnicity.

You assumed that since i was a Turk, i was responsible for the crimes of other Turks, i am racist as them and i ignore my country's problems within its past and present.

That is when all your supposed "gotcha" have fell down. I am a majority Turk, whose family has a Sunni background. Like i am the majority in my country and i heavily critisize out current government who panders into its mostly Sunni-Turk voterbase.

Expelling you down, wth? I have no relation with Britain nor my country has much of it.

There are no seperate ways. Humans can not ignore their past with its bad and its good. There are millions of Kurdish/Turkish mixed people. There are millions of Turks in East and Kurds in West. There are Armenians living in Istanbul. Neither your 2edgy4u neo-fascism or imaginary borders will change that; if they do there will be bigger pains along the way such as forced population exchanges almost no one wants.

PS: Your mindset was the thing that carried the Armenian genocide and persecuted the Kurds. These things happened because the "other" was threat and other must be held down. You should not use these people and their struggles for your own petty agenda.

For the purpose of writing better prose, I have always tried to minimize the amount I write these days but I see that conciseness makes it difficult for people to understand me.

I never claimed you called the Kurds terrorists, my argument in a nutshell is that I am no more 'racist' and 'hateful' than the Kurds who want to separate from their Arab, Persian and Turkish neighbours.

Nor did I accuse you of racism - though I suspect that deep down, you have something against White people. And you would be hardly special in that regard, most Blacks and Muslim derived folk don't like the west and its native peoples.

Sorry about the rhetoric, I meant that Trump and his supporters aren't going away. On the contrary, populism is on the rise in the west, and has reached unprecedented influence since the end of the second world war.

Trump and other populist political platforms like the National Front, UKIP, the Danish People's Party, Norwegian Progress Party etc and virtually every conservative party in Eastern Europe are a growing pattern. And they are here to stay.

You can believe that all you want but I'm telling you, the Europeans, like most other people out there in the world already believe in their living even if not in principle, are once again starting to realize that separation is the only lasting solution to the problem of human tribalism.

 

[Lightbringer]

Why must you go on page long tangents? Although, you might think so, they're not relevant replies. What does Paratise's background have to do with her view on Trump? Are you saying because Turkey has/is doing worse, she can't criticize the US candidates? Horrible logic. Okay, sure, the quote Trump posted was good regardless of who made it up. However, there is still a difference between eloquently saying something and retweeting something you think sounds cool.

From my experience with arguing with conservatives, the reason why it's so long and off tangent is because they don't have a relevant answer so they try to cover it up by making some long obscure points to make themselves look more credible.

That and because they're also wholeheartedly misinformed.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Trust me I'm loling too - that reply was intentional trolling except I made it verbose just to annoy you since you complained about my typing too much before but if you want to debate then sure, I will be happy to entertain you.

You disclaim western exceptionalism and yet in that previous thread "German government admits: over half a million asylum seeker missing," you went on about how 'xenophobia' and 'racism' have made "Europe what it is today."

So tell me what is it, is tribalism and associated phenomena (e.g. xenophobia and racism) ubiquitous as you strangely also said in that thread, or is the west unique in being shaped by these things? I can't see how those two views are reconcilable, to be honest, but please explain.


And If you don't want me to talk about your history, which I never claimed to know more than yourself, then please stop talking about my history like you did in that thread.





I know you are Turkish; the point is that I don't see what there is to mock about that quote when there is due context.




But that is just the point after-all, isn't it?

Do you think the majority of the German people under Nazi rule just suddenly changed their moral outlook to life over-night and became evil incarnate?

How about that the Soviet Union was certainly not established via the will of the Russian people as a whole.

History is often made by determined, cooperative and aggressive minorities, and not atomized majorities who often have no clue as to what they want.

That is why ISIS isn't just a 'bunch of extremists.'

The Nazis and the Soviet Communists too started as 'a few radicals,' and yet established the most brutal and consequential empires of the last century.

Do you know what the origin of the word 'Hazara' is? The word actually means one thousand and is reputed to have referred to the unit of 1000 soldiered Mongol horde that decimated Afghanistan - pillaging, raping, destroying irrigation systems, and all the other typical activities associated with the expanding Mongols, when they invaded that country.

And yet not too long ago, the Hazara were the ones raped and enslaved in the masses by their neighbours.

Ebbs and flows, do you see what I mean now?

Such is the over-all pattern of human behaviour that results from the reality that resources are scarce, that humans live in groups, and that those groups compete over those resources in zero-sum games.

Ethnic nation states like Japan don't have this problem because there is just one relevant group in that country.

Even in the Muslim world, the most peaceful countries today are the ones that are the most homogeneous and have the least diversity. Kyrgyzstan might be a poor third world country but there is almost no tribal conflict there because the Kyrgyz people constitute an absolute majority. If I was a Syrian, Iraqi or whatever, I'd prefer to be poor and safe than live in the diverse tribal hell that is those nations as they are now.

Does that solve the problem of militant expansionism? No, but it does ameliorate a lot of civil strife.

I don't want to make this too long so I won't say anything on your remark about the prospects of control over resources but whatever you believe, do you really think independence in that regard is possible while Sunnis, Shia and Kurds are at each other's throats over who gets this or that share of oil wealth?





That is the way of the asymmetric warfare of the relatively powerless.

The native African resistance to the various European colonial powers was far, far worse in respect to the things you described than the Kurdish resistance, and yet I doubt you would hold similar feelings for their cause. Ethnic resistance is terrorism only to the group at which it is directed.

And you would be very wise then in that view, suzerainty would probably exacerbate that problem. Kurds in Iraq live in many Arab cities but whenever a poll or referendum is issued that asks about independence, a vast majority of them say they would prefer independence.

My point in discussing all of this, however, is this: would you call those Iraqi Kurds 'racist' or 'xenophobic' because they are separatist? I am not even a separatist in the strict sense of that term, I simply want to preserve the demographics of Whites in Europe at the very least, but people always call me a racist because of that view.





Don't assume things was my point. I am not politically correct, I do not deny it. Though I treat any individual I interact with in the real world without regard for creed or ethnicity, I do not believe that cultures and peoples are equal.

I don't want Islam in my society, I could care less what Muslims do in their own lands but I do not want sharia trash where I live - if you think that is 'hateful' then so be it. On the other hand, I admire Chinese culture more than I do what has become of my own these days. So again, don't assume things.




People of different ethnicities can live together peacefully only when one ethnicity remains an absolute majority in that society, and when the minority is alien and is not separated from its kin by artificial borders.

Wherever there are diverse peoples in an artificial circumscribed border, there is recurring tribal strife and conflict. This holds true for the world over and is a theme of history.

Have you ever considered that all these moral platitudes about getting along does not matter in the face of that reality?





That was not my point, I was not attempting to construe any parallels - merely suggesting that when Whites become a minority, they will become the vulnerable and the powerless, just like minorities everywhere else on this planet.

Whites made up over 90% of the US population less than a century ago and now they make up 60%. They will become a minority if current demographic trends continue.

From Al-Jazeera:

You must be registered for see links

"The nation’s demographics are on a clear trajectory: White people are dying faster than they are being born, which means they are on target to become a minority in the United States in 30 years.

For the third year in a row, deaths of non-Hispanic whites outnumbered births, according to detailed population estimates for states and counties released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

“This is without historical precedent,” said Kenneth Johnson, the senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy. “The minority population is growing, and the non-Hispanic white population is not.”

Whites currently account for 62 percent of the population but 78 percent of deaths, according to Johnson’s analysis."

When they become a minority in a country ruled by people who hold historical grudges against them, as many Blacks and Hispanics do for historical crimes perpetrated by the US, what do you think will be their fate there?

It will likely be worse than that of the Kurds in Turkey.






For the purpose of writing better prose, I have always tried to minimize the amount I write these days but I see that conciseness makes it difficult for people to understand me.

I never claimed you called the Kurds terrorists, my argument in a nutshell is that I am no more 'racist' and 'hateful' than the Kurds who want to separate from their Arab, Persian and Turkish neighbours.

Nor did I accuse you of racism - though I suspect that deep down, you have something against White people. And you would be hardly special in that regard, most Blacks and Muslim derived folk don't like the west and its native peoples.

Sorry about the rhetoric, I meant that Trump and his supporters aren't going away. On the contrary, populism is on the rise in the west, and has reached unprecedented influence since the end of the second world war.

Trump and other populist political platforms like the National Front, UKIP, the Danish People's Party, Norwegian Progress Party etc and virtually every conservative party in Eastern Europe are a growing pattern. And they are here to stay.

You can believe that all you want but I'm telling you, the Europeans, like most other people out there in the world already believe in their living even if not in principle, are once again starting to realize that separation is the only lasting solution to the problem of human tribalism.

Ah, so you're in support of people living with their own race and Trump seems like he'll wake the racists up and help push for that. Didn't you say you're in love with a Chinese woman? That's funny.

The white population is shrinking? Yeah, so is the Japanese. It has to do with the fact whites and Japanese don't feel the need to have so many children if any at all, this is most likely because of education, and the lifestyle. Compared to most Middle Eastern cultures where having a family is encouraged. And then the fact that poorer families tend to be larger.

 

[Awkward Linguist]

Ah, so you're in support of people living with their own race and Trump seems like he'll wake the racists up and help push for that. Didn't you say you're in love with a Chinese woman? That's funny.

Him and Hawker are alts of Aim64C lol​

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Him and Hawker are alts of Aim64C lol​

Hawker isn't Aim.

 

[Marin]

Him and Hawker are alts of Aim64C lol​

Nah, idk about NaruShima but Hawker definitely aint Aim. xD

 

[JCW]

Look, any and all presidents are dumb puppets being worked to carry out the plans of the elite.

All that believe in government is part of the problem

 

[paratise]

You are really going of tangent, i want to just make certain things clear:

You disclaim western exceptionalism and yet in that previous thread "German government admits: over half a million asylum seeker missing," you went on about how 'xenophobia' and 'racism' have made "Europe what it is today."

So tell me what is it, is tribalism and associated phenomena (e.g. xenophobia and racism) ubiquitous as you strangely also said in that thread, or is the west unique in being shaped by these things? I can't see how those two views are reconcilable, to be honest, but please explain.

Because the topic was about Germany thus Europe as nazism effected its surroundings.

Why would i speak of other countries or continents in that context?

Do you think the majority of the German people under Nazi rule just suddenly changed their moral outlook to life over-night and became evil incarnate?

These happened because people had mindsets carried them to supporting these. Anti-semitism existed way beforeWWII in Europe, yes there is a minority who carries out the task but they can manage to do so due to people.

Even in the Muslim world, the most peaceful countries today are the ones that are the most homogeneous and have the least diversity. Kyrgyzstan might be a poor third world country but there is almost no tribal conflict there because the Kyrgyz people constitute an absolute majority. If I was a Syrian, Iraqi or whatever, I'd prefer to be poor and safe than live in the diverse tribal hell that is those nations as they are now.

There was an ethnic clash in Kyrgyzstan just recently, and with their close relatives Uzbeks (and the matter was economic, shocking). The ethnicites were not even that clear cut in these nations until Soviet era. Brazil has a strong sense of unity, although there are racial discrimination they are not widely on each others throats in like Iraq or Kyrgyzstan.

And you would be very wise then in that view, suzerainty would probably exacerbate that problem. Kurds in Iraq live in many Arab cities but whenever a poll or referendum is issued that asks about independence, a vast majority of them say they would prefer independence.

Here is the deal, Kurds who live in West Europe/North America have a lot more tendency to be seperatists who have nationalist views, and they never set a concious foot on what they call Kurdistan.
This amount lessens in Western Turkey, but still prevelant.
The South Eastern Kurds likely to have least amount of tendency to have -complete- independence. Their opinions linger between autonomy or not seperating. The more you go far away from South East Anatolia; the more you are likely to see these seperatist PKK supporters preach about their leader.
A vast majority in Sweden, Istanbul and Şırnak would have different outcomes. People who have seperatist views tendnecy to not live in the landmass they seperate, nor have much desire to live there.

I don't want to make this too long so I won't say anything on your remark about the prospects of control over resources but whatever you believe, do you really think independence in that regard is possible while Sunnis, Shia and Kurds are at each other's throats over who gets this or that share of oil wealth?

And what to say they will be on each other's throats forever?
A lot can change regarding to who will be the enemy and who will be the ally. Safavids And Ottomans were on each other's throats but now Azerbaijan and Turkey are allies; and people very well know that part of history. Western Europe were on colonial race now they share an union. In 1st Balkan wars Bulgaria was allies with Greece and Serbia against Ottoman Empire, a year later they were against Greece, Serbia and Ottoman Empire. If it means profit, even mutual with a former foe people will come down to it.

My point in discussing all of this, however, is this: would you call those Iraqi Kurds 'racist' or 'xenophobic' because they are separatist? I am not even a separatist in the strict sense of that term, I simply want to preserve the demographics of Whites in Europe at the very least, but people always call me a racist because of that view.

No, not necessatily.
See, "demographics of whites" was not even a thing several hundreds of years ago considering the ethnic power dynamics between many ethnic groups who are referred as collectively "white" recently. What happened to Balkans merely 2 decades ago? Surely Serb nationalists were not trying to preserve white Bosnians. You are in UK, yet speaking for whole continent.


...What point of "whiteness" in history of Europe you are going to preserve? Merely a hundred of years ago when there was a huge portion of Turks in Balkans? Hundreds of years ago when Huns were migrating in masses to the Europe? More than a thousand years ago when Moors were inhabiting around Italy and Andalusia? When Jews were migrating to Europe thousands of years ago? What is the ideal demographic and state of Europe which it have ever been in its whiteness ratio, what is this ideal white Europe that ever happened?

People of different ethnicities can live together peacefully only when one ethnicity remains an absolute majority in that society, and when the minority is alien and is not separated from its kin by artificial borders.

So there will be a no-border policy, or only minorities are allowed to pass through borders (only towards the land which holds their majority).

Wherever there are diverse peoples in an artificial circumscribed border, there is recurring tribal strife and conflict. This holds true for the world over and is a theme of history.

Have you ever considered that all these moral platitudes about getting along does not matter in the face of that reality?

There are also huge amount of people who are tolerant and getting along with each other within their borders.
At the current state of World people have tied in many different places away from their origins. Unless we will deport some amount of every recurring minority to build states with ideal amount of minorities they will continue to live on where they live.

Whites made up over 90% of the US population less than a century ago and now they make up 60%. They will become a minority if current demographic trends continue.

And they were 0% of US population about half millenium ago.
They held the power when they were a minority in continent.

Nor did I accuse you of racism - though I suspect that deep down, you have something against White people. And you would be hardly special in that regard, most Blacks and Muslim derived folk don't like the west and its native peoples.

Why would i hate white people though? I spent part of my summer in Greece, filled with our historic -white- enemies and experienced 0 case of racial prejiduce by its natives (i loved the West and native people there, and culture was very similar). I am partly a Balkan Turk i have that white Slavic blood running through me. My linage from father's side was in Russia before they came to Armenia i probably have Russian or maybe Armenian genes aswell. I am neither black or Muslim, and i think it is odd to classify Turkish people as white or non-white as we all look different.

You can believe that all you want but I'm telling you, the Europeans, like most other people out there in the world already believe in their living even if not in principle, are once again starting to realize that separation is the only lasting solution to the problem of human tribalism.

If that is the case people will find new ways to divide within each other. There will be disagreements based on other things, people will maybe create different ethnic names, they will have different idealogies and there is no end to seperation until 7 billions.

Ah, so you're in support of people living with their own race and Trump seems like he'll wake the racists up and help push for that. Didn't you say you're in love with a Chinese woman? That's funny.

The white population is shrinking? Yeah, so is the Japanese. It has to do with the fact whites and Japanese don't feel the need to have so many children if any at all, this is most likely because of education, and the lifestyle. Compared to most Middle Eastern cultures where having a family is encouraged. And then the fact that poorer families tend to be larger.

This exactly. It has to do with education, job, powerty.
Western Turks who have better education/work opportunities are also "shrinking" in comparasion to Kurds in South East; neither of these people are "white" in European sense it inherently and geneticly has nothing to do with white/poc/black etc.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Nah, idk about NaruShima but Hawker definitely aint Aim. xD

They are 3 different persons. I had the honor of interacting enough with them to distinguish. Aim is the most mature though.

Btw you and I were also accused of being the same person xd

 

[Marin]

They are 3 different persons. I had the honor of interacting enough with them to distinguish. Aim is the most mature though.

Btw you and I were also accused of being the same person xd

Lel I was accused of being an alt of so many people its ridiculous. xd Oh well my actions point to my special characteristics so most accusations get wrecked pretty fast.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Lel I was accused of being an alt of so many people its ridiculous. xd Oh well my actions point to my special characteristics so most accusations get wrecked pretty fast.

You still didn't tell me who you are

 

[Marin]

You still didn't tell me who you are

I'm Batman.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I'm Batman.

And I'm Scooby Doo, no sh*t Sherlock.

 

[Marin]

And I'm Scooby Doo, no sh*t Sherlock.

No no no. Not Sherlock. Batman.

Nice to meet you Scooby Doo.

 

[Scooby Doo]

No no no. Not Sherlock. Batman.

Nice to meet you Scooby Doo.

Well, we are both detectives

 

[Narushima]

Ah, so you're in support of people living with their own race and Trump seems like he'll wake the racists up and help push for that. Didn't you say you're in love with a Chinese woman? That's funny.

The white population is shrinking? Yeah, so is the Japanese. It has to do with the fact whites and Japanese don't feel the need to have so many children if any at all, this is most likely because of education, and the lifestyle. Compared to most Middle Eastern cultures where having a family is encouraged. And then the fact that poorer families tend to be larger.

I told you PN, how I interact with individuals around me and my opinions on the nature of history, politics, civilizations and whatnot are two different things.

It's kind of like how you as a Muslim are friendly with infidels around you but still subscribe to a religion that contemns and ridicules them, as well as believing that they are destined for eternal torture in hell.

Whether the US can be salvaged for White America at this point I am not too sure but the sooner White American start organizing ethnically, the better their condition will be when there is demographic reversal, and things start going down-hill for them there.

If possible I wouldn't mind if White Americans migrate back to their ancestral land in Europe.

The current European welfare states fund Salafist birth-rates (I commonly see Niqab-clad women walking around with several children here, somehow I doubt those women are working) and other garbage but we cannot even take back and help out the White farmers still stuck in Africa. Don't you think that is stupid?

You are correct in your assessment of the role of fertility in the demographic decline of the developed but that isn't the whole issue.

As you point out, Japan is experiencing even worse demographic decline than most western countries. Unlike us, however, they are not trying to 'solve' that problem with their own displacement - they are not opening their borders so that even completely foreign cultures that have no intention of assimilating to Japanese culture flood Japan to the point of setting demographic trends whereby the Japanese become set to become a minority in their own ancestral land.

And no one calls them 'racist' for that.

Yes European populations are shrinking but how on earth does it follow that it therefore makes sense for us to displace ourselves in our societies and lands?

How does it follow that we should import millions of Muslims that want nothing whatsoever to do with western values and culture?

Chinese and Hindu immigrants are orders of magnitude less problematic than Muslims. We don't need Muslim immigrants that do little more than burden the welfare system, elevate crime-rates, enmesh themselves in the cycle of poverty all the while popping out child after child, bring along retarded ideologies like Salafism/Wahhabism, blow themselves up every now and then on our public transport (when was the last time a Hindu did that?), etc etc.

Further even with Muslims there are nuanced approaches to immigration. Shias, for example, seem to have a far smaller penchant for blowing themselves up or promulgating and engaging in jihadist radicalism than are Sunnis - how many Islamic terrorists have been a Kurd or a Shia? Jihadists are disproportionately Sunni Arabs, the bulk of the 'refugees' now entering Europe.

So even if we must have some Muslim immigrants - we would be better off with Kurds and Shia, we don't need tribal Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq.

@paratise, I need to sleep now but I might reply to you later.

 

[Narushima]

You are really going of tangent, i want to just make certain things clear:


Because the topic was about Germany thus Europe as nazism effected its surroundings.

Why would i speak of other countries or continents in that context?

I understand that on platforms like NB people are used to direct one-liners but sometimes expositions on complex issues are not reducible to simple sentences.

And fine, I will give you the benefit of doubt.

These happened because people had mindsets carried them to supporting these. Anti-semitism existed way beforeWWII in Europe, yes there is a minority who carries out the task but they can manage to do so due to people.

You are correct, 'anti-Semitism' has a very long history in Europe (and in the Muslim world for that matter, but that is another topic).

However it is not as simple as the ADL narrative that it's this unique and inscrutable pathology completely ascribable to anything and everything but the behaviour of the Jewish community.

Ashkenazi Jews for most of their history in Europe occupied an economic niche in money-lending, tax farming and ethnic-network based commerce (basically Jewish merchants did their trading as a community, with significant advantage over most individual European traders).

They were the quintessential historical 'Middleman minority.'

Middleman minorities, which includes such other cases as the Chinese in South-East Asia, the Indians in Uganda and ironically the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at some point, have almost universally been the object of persecution, well into the 20th century.

We know what happened to the Armenians. The Indians were ethnically cleansed from Uganda and the overseas Chinese community in South-East Asia to this day are resented and were and are the victims of all forms of persecution.

You must be registered for see links

"Malaysia is fond of presenting itself as a beacon of multiculturalism, but intolerance and division are increasingly the hallmarks of this southeast Asian nation of just over 29 million.

Despite lauding itself as a democracy, Malaysia has been characterized by racial politics since 1971, when statutory privileges for the Bumiputra, or “sons of the soil” as the Malay and smaller indigenous minorities call themselves, were introduced in the wake of bloody race riots. Ethnic Malays make up roughly two-thirds of the population, but Malaysians of Chinese immigrant ancestry are generally wealthier and better educated. (According to Najib, they are 50% wealthier.)

On Sept. 14, statuary entitlements for secondary education, government-linked jobs, entrepreneurship and housing were increased for ethnic Malays at the expense of the Chinese and Indian population. “[The government is] insisting on a racist agenda at the expense of the country,” Anwar told TIME from the Court of Appeal in Kuala Lumpur. Najib, however, insists that the policy is fair. “We are doing what is right and we are doing what is equitable,” he said upon announcing the move."

There was an ethnic clash in Kyrgyzstan just recently, and with their close relatives Uzbeks (and the matter was economic, shocking). The ethnicites were not even that clear cut in these nations until Soviet era. Brazil has a strong sense of unity, although there are racial discrimination they are not widely on each others throats in like Iraq or Kyrgyzstan.

Occasionally but none of the former Soviet bloc Central Asian states come remotely close to the scale of civil strife endemic and chronic to Afghanistan and Pakistan, why is that?

Afghanistan and Pakistan are artificial nation states - the one was carved out in the great game between the British empire and Russia, and the other by the British (yes, we are partly to blame for those two failures) - and like much of the Middle Eastern states, are highly diverse societies comprised of several ethnic or religious groups.

The other Stans are a lot more natural, they are all states based on an ethnicity and are far less diverse, unfortunately though the Russians and Central Asians themselves did an incomplete job of partitioning the place into proper ethnic states with complete majorities after the dissolution of the USSR.

The most acute ethnic strife there, the hostility between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, is over the ethnically mixed areas of Uzbekistan that were historically Tajik land (e.g. Bukhara).

On Brazil:

You must be registered for see links

"Brazilian society is composed of different ethnic and racial groups that characterize, in cultural terms, as one of the richest in the world. However, its history is marked by inequality and discrimination, specifically against Blacks and Indigenous Peoples, impeding their full economic, political and social development."

Once again wherever there is diversity, these things abound.

Here is the deal, Kurds who live in West Europe/North America have a lot more tendency to be seperatists who have nationalist views, and they never set a concious foot on what they call Kurdistan.
This amount lessens in Western Turkey, but still prevelant.
The South Eastern Kurds likely to have least amount of tendency to have -complete- independence. Their opinions linger between autonomy or not seperating. The more you go far away from South East Anatolia; the more you are likely to see these seperatist PKK supporters preach about their leader.
A vast majority in Sweden, Istanbul and Şırnak would have different outcomes. People who have seperatist views tendnecy to not live in the landmass they seperate, nor have much desire to live there.

You must be registered for see links

"Despite paeans to national unity, Iraq has been disintegrating for decades. The Kurds spent much of the past century in armed revolt against successive Arab governments in Baghdad before securing autonomy in 1991. Outside the relatively cosmopolitan capital, large segments of the country’s Shia population were locked in armed confrontation with the government since Saddam Hussein consolidated his power in 1979 until he was toppled by the US in 2003.

Within weeks of the US invasion, a Sunni insurgency flared up against the Americans and then the Shia majority now dominating the country. “The sectarianism has been here for a long time; it’s not new,” says Ziad Ajeel, a political analyst. “The Kurds refused to be ruled by the Arabs. The Shia refused to be ruled by the Sunni. Now the Sunni don’t want to be ruled by the Shia. Iraq’s history confirms that you cannot achieve your rights without the use of weapons. And that is the problem with Iraq.”

Which is why this isn't surprising at all:

You must be registered for see links

"During the general elections in Kurdistan on 30 January 2005, Kurdistan Referendum Movement conducted an unofficial referendum asking Kurdistani voters to choose one of these two options:

- I want Kurdistan to stay as part of Iraq
- I want Kurdistan to be independent

The Higher Committee of Referendum Movement in Kurdistan announced the results of the referendum in a press conference at Sheraton Hotel in Hewler, on Saturday 5 February 2005.

The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.

- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.

Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence."

And what to say they will be on each other's throats forever? A lot can change regarding to who will be the enemy and who will be the ally. Safavids And Ottomans were on each other's throats but now Azerbaijan and Turkey are allies; and people very well know that part of history. Western Europe were on colonial race now they share an union. In 1st Balkan wars Bulgaria was allies with Greece and Serbia against Ottoman Empire, a year later they were against Greece, Serbia and Ottoman Empire. If it means profit, even mutual with a former foe people will come down to it.

You must be registered for see links

"Over the course of the 20th century, in the period following World War II, civil conflicts have been responsible for more than 16 million casualties worldwide, well surpassing the cumulative loss of human life associated with international conflicts. Nations plagued by civil conflict have experienced significant fatalities from violence, substantial loss of productive resources, and considerable declines in their standards of living. More than a quarter of all nations across the globe encountered the incidence of civil conflict for at least 10 years during the 1960–2013 time horizon, and although the number of countries experiencing conflict has declined from its peak of 54 in the early 1990s, as many as 35 nations have been afflicted by the prevalence of civil conflict since 2010."

Rapprochements between states and even within states between groups are not impossible, sure.

But as the foregoing paper points out, after the second world war, the death toll from civil wars now exceeds that of foreign wars.

The real issue is that reconciliation between groups within a state seldom last.

In the third world, they routinely flare into civil war. In the developed world, racial and ethnic tensions (between Whites and Blacks and others), if not conflict, remain chronic.

No, not necessatily.
See, "demographics of whites" was not even a thing several hundreds of years ago considering the ethnic power dynamics between many ethnic groups who are referred as collectively "white" recently. What happened to Balkans merely 2 decades ago? Surely Serb nationalists were not trying to preserve white Bosnians. You are in UK, yet speaking for whole continent.


...What point of "whiteness" in history of Europe you are going to preserve? Merely a hundred of years ago when there was a huge portion of Turks in Balkans? Hundreds of years ago when Huns were migrating in masses to the Europe? More than a thousand years ago when Moors were inhabiting around Italy and Andalusia? When Jews were migrating to Europe thousands of years ago? What is the ideal demographic and state of Europe which it have ever been in its whiteness ratio, what is this ideal white Europe that ever happened?

It has nothing to do with genetics. Even Northern Europeans have some small non-European admixture going back thousands of years - some of it is North-East Asian, others the legacy of the Neolithic Revolution where Near Eastern farmers migrated into the continent.

Nevertheless, diversity is a relative, not an absolute, thing, and ethnicity is a highly persistent social category.

Population genetic studies reveal that Ashkenazi Jews are not only a European and Middle Eastern hybrid ethnicity but that the hybridisation happened very early in their history in Europe. Yet as you yourself acknowledge there has been chronic historical tension with, and persecution suffered from, surrounding Europeans. To this day they identify as a unique ethnicity tied to a distinct culture.

And Ashkenazi Jews have always been an extraordinarily small minority in the west, nearly always less than 1% - all that historical strife and conflict inflicted on that small a minority, if that is not a 'proof in the pudding' that ethnic conflict is a serious curse of the human condition then I don't know what is.

Muslims make up nearly 10% of France now and already France is showing signs of politically polarizing along ethnic French and immigrant-derived lines - the National Front actually won the regional elections of late 2015. You can condemn France and the French all you want but the future does not bode well there.

That is what will happen to all of western Europe if we allow the gates to remain open, eventually the continent will turn into something resembling the Middle East - a hotbed of ethno-religious tribalism.

I want to avoid that happening at all costs. And the only way to do that is to preserve the ethnic demographics as they currently are, at the very least.

There are also huge amount of people who are tolerant and getting along with each other within their borders.
At the current state of World people have tied in many different places away from their origins. Unless we will deport some amount of every recurring minority to build states with ideal amount of minorities they will continue to live on where they live.
....
If that is the case people will find new ways to divide within each other. There will be disagreements based on other things, people will maybe create different ethnic names, they will have different idealogies and there is no end to seperation until 7 billions.

Here is another interesting Turkish scientist for you, Muzafer Sherif, who is responsible for a paradigmatic theory in the social psychology of group conflict.

You must be registered for see links

Sherif did a classic study where he studied two groups of children in a camp. They engineered social situations where the groups engaged in zero-sum competitions over resources, and the two artificial groups of kids in a camp spontaneously started demonstrating signs of typical tribal behaviour (inter-aggressiveness, establishing territory and even invading each other's).

In the real world, the same happens - people naturally divide in groups based on ethnicity and ideology (usually religion) and engage in real world zero-sum games over resources (political representation and power, economic resources, even forms of social capital like which ethnic groups language is dominant etc).

But this is also why ethnic-nation states fundamentally reduce civil strife. By constraining single ethno-religious groups in natural borders based on ancestral territory, you are circumscribing the domain of all their resources. Ethnic nation-states completely remove the possibility of competition over resources between ethno-religious groups within states.

Which is why I used the term 'artificial' to describe problematic states. The problem with nations like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan is that several sizeable ethnic groups have been thrown into the same social, economic and political arena and told to distribute it all fairly among themselves. Competition and exploitation inescapably follow.

The more diverse any state becomes - so much the more these ethnic and religious zero-sum competitions intensify. Those competitions tend to escalate into civil strife.