Comments by "lordsneed" (@lordsneed9418) on "Based Camp: Our Political Philosophy" video.

30:00 All of your reasoning here is backwards. If being pluralistic caused higher birthrates then conservatives, with the least pluralistic, most fascist, xenophobic mindset should have the lowest fertility in the USA, but actually they have the highest fertility. In particular Mormons and Amish both very insular, non-pluralist monocultures have the highest fertility among USA religious groups . And same in Israel. Who has the highest birthrates in israel? Is it the pluralistic cosmopolitans who are have friends from every background or is it the insular , outsider-distrusting, orthodox jews? Israel is infact an example of a state where amongst the jews , an ethnonationalist ethos is much stronger than among the majority ethnic groups of european nations , and this is a big part of why even secular jews have high birthrates, because of this identitarianism, this tribalism (sure different jewish groups have different subcultures e.g. mizrahi ashkenazi but they all share jewish identity) which you're trying to convince us actually depresses birth rates. You're even contradicting what you said elsewhere, because on the Aporia podcast, you said that you previously thought that religiousness was being selected for and protected against lower fertility, but then you realised that actually it was tribalism and distrust of outsiders and aversion to being influenced by outsiders that was being selected for and protected against low fertility. So what gives ? did you find that out after recording this episode or are you knowingly contradicting yourself?
2
@SimoneandMalcolm It sounded to me like at one point you were saying that the more diverse a country is , the more resistance the country has to the sterilisation meme. you gave israel and america as two pieces of evidence. Why would we believe that it's the presence of arabs in Israel that keeps jewish birthrates high? What makes that explanation more plausible than religion, cultural memory of the holocaust and the sense of threat the country lives under (the lions share of which comes from palestinian territories and other neighbouring countries) helping contribute to a tribalist, distrusting outgroups mindset (which you say is high-fertility). If diversity helped raise the fertility of the majority population then in europe, as countries have become more diverse through mass immigration we should expect the fertility of indigenous europeans to have increased , but it hasn't, European fertility has continued to drop. All that happens is that if you import people of a high fertility culture then they'll continue to be high fertility but then your country will eventually get taken over by those high fertility groups.
2
If social "progressivism " was about minimising in-the-moment pain then it would want to minimise in-the-moment pain for white people and straight people and men, but in reality it constantly bashes those groups and encourages their discomfort. It's clear that the far stronger driving force for social "progressivism" is resentment towards white people (and self-hatred and guilt from white people) , men and straight people, or as Eric Kaufmann puts it when he defines woke , the making-sacred of historically disadvantaged groups.
2
28:00 More ethnically heterogenous countries (and hence more culturally heterogenous nations) are more unstable , lower trust, lower charitable giving , lower community participation than more ethnically homogenous countries. Ethnically and culturally heterogenous nations are not better places to live. Is Sweden a better place to live now when it is the grenade attack capital of Europe and when 90% of assault rapes are committed by people of immigrant background, or in 1970 when it was a monoculture and there were 5 murders a year in the whole country? If you like your culture then of course you should want your culture to be in complete control of your territory and not have to make concessions to or be changed to be more similar to other cultures.
1
This video made me less of a "h8r" of you two. Tribalism is still a good thing. Carl Schmitt is right. Once enmity has been declared , you have to win and disempower your enemy until they are no longer a threat. The "progressives" have enmity for us , so I have enmity for them. And given that I and many in my group have enmity for them, "progressives" are now justified and rational in having enmity for my group and making sure they win.
1
30:00 You're contradicting what you said elsewhere, because on the Aporia podcast, you said that you previously thought that the declining birthrates were selecting for religiousness, but then you realised that actually it was tribalism and distrust of outsiders and aversion to being influenced by outsiders that was being selected for , i.e. that they were the ones who were continuing to have high birthrates. So what gives ?
1