Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Here is just a straight up failure to integrate. It's not even magic dirt, it's magic passport.
But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
fanned by Jewish interests
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
who are the genetic natives to disagree
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
That's just not true. No recent arrival is "more" of a citizen than a citizen.
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
You're adding needless complexity to the issue. Importing Muslims from any time period is wrong.
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
Yeah, and a lot of those leftists are Jews, like the ones advising MLK Jr., or Tim Wise, or HIAS. The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is. The Irish are a genetically distinct group of people who should be considered native to Ireland today, regardless of the exact time in antiquity they were established. The Japanese should likewise be considered native to Japan. The Irish and the Japanese should maintain supermajorities in Ireland and Japan. Therefore, genetic natives exist and are not just helpful, but necessary to consider.
The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
Racial division (as you are using it) is inherent in Leftism, but pre-dates it by millennia. "Laying the ground work" doesn't make sense. Just like "laying the groundwork for profiteering" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism is simply a tactic used occasionally by Leftists. Like all of their tactics, those aren't principled stands. If it were, they would tolerate monarchy in a monarchy. They don't.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
You can't make the same argument without doing the same thing to whites & Catholics. There's no real reason to play this game of "I found a few people on one side of a political issue or another, therefore the race is collectively guilty".
I have a problem with communists, not the chinese.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is.
It's not sophistry, it's recognizing that genetic racial determinists aren't speaking honestly, and aren't speaking sensibly. This is mostly because they are still operating almost entirely off of the late 18th century progressive racialism and Volkish concepts. These are concepts that even the Fascists actually learned to stop wasting their time with because it was nonsensical pseudo-science.
What you're actually alluding to is re-defining what a "genetic native" is, simply to be: "the genetics of the amalgamation of people that are here given this specific moment in time".
This is why that whole framework is useless. You're emphasizing genetics when you should be emphasizing integration and assimilation into culture, but you're sticking yourself into a corner and emphasizing one arbitrary genetic admixture over another, and then claiming that culture evolves from that. You don't seem to realize that communists that have the same admixture as you are still more dangerous than someone with different genetics who agrees with you. You should be just focusing on cultural integration. If you are still, somehow, worried about your preferred admixture, you won't have to if foreign populations have been assimilated properly. Again, they would be fully integrated into the genetic admixture anyway to the point of very little relevancy, and no real effect anywhere else.
Racial division (as you are using it) is inherent in Leftism, but pre-dates it by millennia. "Laying the ground work" doesn't make sense. Just like "laying the groundwork for profiteering" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism is simply a tactic used occasionally by Leftists. Like all of their tactics, those aren't principled stands. If it were, they would tolerate monarchy in a monarchy. They don't.
OK, I'll restate. "These concepts and institutions are the foundation of racial grievance and social engineering through the 20th and 21st centuries." I think that's important enough.
You can't make the same argument without doing the same thing to whites & Catholics. There's no real reason to play this game of "I found a few people on one side of a political issue or another, therefore the race is collectively guilty".
85% of whites and Catholics support the left wing platform? Is 85% "a few"? How many right-wing whites can you find who said, "I don't give a good damn about the browning of America"?
Moreover, Jews are directly and openly responsible for making themselves the closest thing we have to a genetically exalted class of people with the Holocaust grievance industry and the ridiculous special treatment of the state of Israel.
What you're actually alluding to is re-defining what a "genetic native" is, simply to be: "the genetics of the amalgamation of people that are here given this specific moment in time".
It's a bit more than that, but sure, let's go with that definition. That's fine. The Celtic Irish people should be a supermajority of Ireland and the Nipponese people should be a supermajority of Japan.
You don't seem to realize that communists that have the same admixture as you are still more dangerous than someone with different genetics who agrees with you.
I fully realize this (I'm not even fully white but let's assume I am), I'm just taking it one step further. Just because white communists exist doesn't mean it's OK for tons of non-white people to immigrate. They aren't a part of the solution, and in fact they just make the problem worse.
The cultural integration you speak of has miserably failed on a population level with almost every minority group voting Dem. I am not sure if it's ever worked with a non-white group, actually.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.
Here is just a straight up failure to integrate. It's not even magic dirt, it's magic passport.
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
That's just not true. No recent arrival is "more" of a citizen than a citizen.
You're adding needless complexity to the issue. Importing Muslims from any time period is wrong.
Yeah, and a lot of those leftists are Jews, like the ones advising MLK Jr., or Tim Wise, or HIAS. The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is. The Irish are a genetically distinct group of people who should be considered native to Ireland today, regardless of the exact time in antiquity they were established. The Japanese should likewise be considered native to Japan. The Irish and the Japanese should maintain supermajorities in Ireland and Japan. Therefore, genetic natives exist and are not just helpful, but necessary to consider.
Racial division (as you are using it) is inherent in Leftism, but pre-dates it by millennia. "Laying the ground work" doesn't make sense. Just like "laying the groundwork for profiteering" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism is simply a tactic used occasionally by Leftists. Like all of their tactics, those aren't principled stands. If it were, they would tolerate monarchy in a monarchy. They don't.
You can't make the same argument without doing the same thing to whites & Catholics. There's no real reason to play this game of "I found a few people on one side of a political issue or another, therefore the race is collectively guilty".
I have a problem with communists, not the chinese.
It's not sophistry, it's recognizing that genetic racial determinists aren't speaking honestly, and aren't speaking sensibly. This is mostly because they are still operating almost entirely off of the late 18th century progressive racialism and Volkish concepts. These are concepts that even the Fascists actually learned to stop wasting their time with because it was nonsensical pseudo-science.
What you're actually alluding to is re-defining what a "genetic native" is, simply to be: "the genetics of the amalgamation of people that are here given this specific moment in time".
This is why that whole framework is useless. You're emphasizing genetics when you should be emphasizing integration and assimilation into culture, but you're sticking yourself into a corner and emphasizing one arbitrary genetic admixture over another, and then claiming that culture evolves from that. You don't seem to realize that communists that have the same admixture as you are still more dangerous than someone with different genetics who agrees with you. You should be just focusing on cultural integration. If you are still, somehow, worried about your preferred admixture, you won't have to if foreign populations have been assimilated properly. Again, they would be fully integrated into the genetic admixture anyway to the point of very little relevancy, and no real effect anywhere else.
OK, I'll restate. "These concepts and institutions are the foundation of racial grievance and social engineering through the 20th and 21st centuries." I think that's important enough.
85% of whites and Catholics support the left wing platform? Is 85% "a few"? How many right-wing whites can you find who said, "I don't give a good damn about the browning of America"?
Moreover, Jews are directly and openly responsible for making themselves the closest thing we have to a genetically exalted class of people with the Holocaust grievance industry and the ridiculous special treatment of the state of Israel.
It's a bit more than that, but sure, let's go with that definition. That's fine. The Celtic Irish people should be a supermajority of Ireland and the Nipponese people should be a supermajority of Japan.
I fully realize this (I'm not even fully white but let's assume I am), I'm just taking it one step further. Just because white communists exist doesn't mean it's OK for tons of non-white people to immigrate. They aren't a part of the solution, and in fact they just make the problem worse.
The cultural integration you speak of has miserably failed on a population level with almost every minority group voting Dem. I am not sure if it's ever worked with a non-white group, actually.