Comments by "lordsneed" (@lordsneed9418) on "The Pronatalist Immigration Position (and Why White Nationalism is Stupid)" video.

If your "ethnic diversity causes higher birth rates" model was correct then the many western European countries which have become far more ethnically diverse due to mass immigration over the last 30 years should have seen their indigenous population's fertility increase , but this has not happened. Indigenous Europeans still have the same low fertility they have had since the 90s and earlier, but now they have the additional problem of becoming a minority in their own homelands and importing a hostile, more cry min all foreign population that wants different things from the indigenous population and results in lower trust, lower charitable giving, higher cry m etc. Israel's fertility is not high due to ethnic diversity but due to judaism and jewish solidarity (jewish nationalism, in fact) , the sense of outside threat and the cultural history of the holocaust. Infact Israel is a country with explicit and very strong jewish nationalism and jewish ethnocentrism, strategies which you claim are silly and ineffective for gentiles of European descent . Becoming a minority due to mass migration also reduces the political possibilities for turning around the fertility problem. Korea will remain under the control of Koreans who might be able to implement political solutions to increase Korean birth rates in the future (for example a school in Australia found that teenage births increased 100% just by making highschoolers complete a course on baby care) , but Britain or France or Sweden or Germany, with 50% of the population from africa and the middle east and afghanistan will never under a democracy be able to launch any intervention to increase European birth rates. You are motivated reasoning. You have some lingering "progressive" disgust towards people of European descent pursuing their interests the way every other ethnic group pursues their interests.
43
Exactly. These people use Israel as an example when they try to convince people not to be ethnonationalist when that's exactly what israel is doing.
16
9:58 Would you apply the same reasoning to personal survival that you do for cultural survival? "well if my family end up getting killed then my family didn't deserve to survive, so I'll always leave my doors and windows open because if I can't survive in the presence of hostile intruders then I don't deserve to survive" Why not for example allow a member of a competing cultural group to become your country's prime minister and completely change your public education curriculum to teach that your cultural group is bad and needs to be erased for the good of the world. Your culture should be able to survive that much, right? So according to you, you should let it happen and not take any steps to prevent it happening or else you're just showing how weak you are. Total hogwash. Letting threats grow and endanger and destroy you doesn't make you strong. Strong groups destroy threats and even better nip them in the bud before they can grow. You guys are applying economic market reasoning, but when it comes to survival and conflict it's geopolitical realism that matters. "free markets" don't get you the nuke or hypersonic missiles.
15
5:32 "why would I care about a form of nationalism that goes extinct as soon as immigrant populations are around" Not "are around", try "become the majority" And that's the point: basically all cultures get destroyed as soon as they become a minority within their own homeland. So since you know that if that happens it will likely result in the destruction of your culture, if you value your culture then obviously you would want to prevent that happening. How many native American cultures still exist? What shape are they in? How's the indigenous Ainu culture of northern Japan doing? That's history. Basically any time a group of people becomes a minority in their homeland, they get assimilated and lose their identity. Meaning that basically all forms of nationalism go extinct as soon as they become minorities in their homeland. And yet nationalism is obviously a successful and effective strategy as shown by its ubiquitousness worldwide. if your group is united and your pursue your shared interests together then you will be more successful than a population of individuals who do not share any unity or in-group preference. Part of pursuing your interests means making the necessary decision to prevent outsiders taking control of your territory. This is what strong groups do to survive.
14
6:47 "and look at the Amish who are exploding" This completely refutes your point. What do the Amish do? They prevent outsiders living among them and polluting their social life and culture, they stick to their own kind. The only reason they don't do this on a country-wide level is because they don't have control of a country and they know demographically they won't for 150 years (assuming continuation of same exponential growth rate which won't continue because land constraints for their lifestyle will start limiting growth by 100 million or much sooner) So your argument is completely inconsistent. When Korea maintains homogeneity in their country, that's bad. When Amish maintain homogeneity in their settlements, that's good. It feels like you have some lingering "progressive" devotion to multiculturalism and aversion to groups (seemingly peoples of european descent in particular) pursuing their interests.
10
Yeah seems as though something like this is the case. I think they're smart enough to see that their arguments in this video are poor. IDK whether it's to get their critics off their back or because they still have the typical lib-prog psychological devotion to multiculturalism or belief that people of European descent having in-group preference and pursuing their interests is so distasteful that it is in the greater good to make dishonest criticisms of it.
9
@mrfab4383 It's not. It was trialled in 57 schools in perth and was designed to teach teenagers about baby care in order to try and discourage teenage pregnancy, but instead it increased the number of teen births by 100% . the paper is "Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy: a school-based cluster randomised controlled trial in Western Australia"
7
10:25 this is an argument for allowing emigration from your country, not an argument for allowing immigration into your country. Infact this argument serves as an argument to dis-allow immigration into your country. If you love your culture then why would you let people to immigrate into it when some of those immigrant groups might be those high-fertility groups who refuse to assimilate and end up taking over your country with birth rates which simone is talking about? Would Simone say "well if my culture gets wiped out then my culture didn't deserve to survive" ? That's just being a doormat.
6
@SimoneandMalcolm Don't Amish buy land and then the Amish leaders of that settlement only allow other amish to build on that land? So the Amish leaders are effectively acting as a government implementing a policy which creates social isolation through geographic isolation . It's a nebulous and arbitrary distinction to say that policies and interventions by community leaders to maintain homogeneity are good but policies and interventions by governments to maintain homogeneity are bad. South Korea has the highest population density of any country that isn't a tiny Island or city state besides Bangladesh and Rwanda. Their population could decrease by 100 times and still have a much higher population density than the likes of Iceland or Guyana or Suriname. In the time it takes for that to happen, as long as South Korea remains under the control of the South Korean people, they could implement policies to increase fertility . Their options and chances remain far more open and better than peoples which give up demographic control of their homeland to foreigners.
5
8:17 " catholic immigrants are now converting to protestant culture" yes but that will probably happen less as more latin americans become a larger and larger % of the US population and so the protestant part of the american population will exert less and less influence on them over time. just like how immigrant groups in general assimilate less and less as they form larger communities and form a larger % of the population.
2
4:30 "there's no point in protecting weak cultures that can't survive" This is meaningless. There's no way of knowing which cultures will prove to be "too weak to survive" until decisions and interventions have been made and the culture has still be wiped out. Whether ANY culture or population survives depends on what interventions and decisions people make . One of those interventions might be adopting a siege mindset towards threats and outsiders LIKE ISRAEL has done. Suppose a culture starts being gradually destroyed by some threat. Then you'd say "heh, they're too weak to survive, no point in doing anything to protect them" , but then if after you say that, an intervention happens that causes the culture to beat back the threat, then what do you say? "oh looks like they were strong enough all along" ? Come on.
2
@barnydino317 Could the chinese communist government or khmer rouge or equivalent have arisen in Iceland or among the Maasai? No, not very likely, the culture of those people influences the mindset of the population and it is from that population that people who run the regime get drawn. So chinese culture influences the mindsets of Mao and his revolutionaries and then their decisions influence the culture of the next generation of chinese from which the next regime or hierarchy gets drawn. I don't know how this "If this was the case wouldn't korea, japan, and china all be doing what israel is doing today" follows from what I said. Could you elaborate? Yes China is pushing nationalism . Nationalism alone is not enough to solve birth rates , but nationalism is a pre-condition for several other possibilities and interventions that might increase birth rates. For example , Australia ran a pilot program in highschools to try and reduce teenage pregnancies by making highschool students complete a course educating them about looking after babies, the result was that there was a 100% increase in highschool students giving birth. This or other schemes could be iterated on and rolled out , but without an insular, tribal, ethno-nationalist spirit, it would be a political impossibility because "why not just import immigrants?" "why do we want to preserve our culture? White culture bad" , "wanting to increase european birth rates is racist like the gnat zees "
2
They're eternal anglos, my people.
2
@Antiteshmis The Irish were the minority in Ireland? The Scottish were the minority in Scotland? The Welsh were the minority in Wales? The Basques were the minority in Basque country? That's news to me. The homelands of those people that you mention that I know about are the place where they have historically been the majority. Once the Scottish become the minority in Scotland then Scottish culture and Scottish identity is in trouble and very likely to disappear or be corroded and perverted the immigrants they import. The only conscious effort needed to subvert a culture is to import millions who hold a far different culture and ethnic identity and they will then start exerting their preferences on public life and altering the culture e.g. mouse slim of north-african and middle eastern origin in many neighbourhoods of France and Belgium and the Netherlands harassing indigenous women for not covering their hair and covering up their body causing indigenous women in those areas to start dressing like mouse slim women in order to avoid harassment.
2
@Antiteshmis Ireland isn't even part of the UK . Your initial claim was that the Scots etc. "were minorities in their homelands" . The homeland of the Scots is Scotland. It's not like the Scots used to populate the whole of Britain and then were driven out of England and Wales into Scotland or severely outnumbered in the rest of Britain. After I pointed this out you're now dismissing their homelands as mere "areas" and of lesser importance. You're all over the place and don't know what you're talking about One thing you are correct about is that if large foreign communities were subjugated or kept totally separate then the effect they have on the indigenous population could be slowed down , like in gulf Arab states however even then influence will gradually leak through and the chances of indigenous Emirati cultural primacy and sovereignty being maintained in the Emirates 100, 200 or a 1000 years in the future is reduced when Emiratis are only 10%-15% of your population.
2
@barnydino317 Where did I assume that infertility is a product of financial ills and not cultural values? The state can spontaneously i.e. immediately implement some cultural policies. It depends on the state and depends on the policy. I don't understand what you're saying in your final sentence. Could you elaborate your reasoning? Valuable to whom? In terms of what I value , I value homogeneity because it helps conserve my culture and prevent it from getting corroded by other cultures because I prefer my culture to say the culture of pakistan or afghanistan and so I don't want high fertility pakistanis coming to my country and causing my country's culture to be more similar to the culture of Pakistan..
2
@barnydino317 Sentimentality? If you want to call it that then all preferences are sentimental. You preferring and valuing your relatives and descendants over strangers ? sentimental
2
all that white nationalism basically means is that white people should have in-group preference , the way every other ethnicity and race of people does, and pursue their shared interests together, the way every other ethnicity and race of people does. In particular they should retain control of their homelands, the way every other group of people wants to retain control of their homeland. The goal of this is to pursue our interests i.e. the continued survival and flourishing of those who share close ancestry with us. I feel you must have been talking to leftists who told you that white nationalism means exterminating everyone who is not white or something like that. This is as hogwash as saying that liberalism means genocide .
1
@barnydino317 That's an arbitrary and nebulous distinction. What's special about a government? The government is formed from the group and the actions of the government influence the rest of the group. For example the Israel government made the decision to sponsor writers and newspapers to spread stories about anti-semitism rising in Europe in order to help reinforce that siege mindset in the population. The culture and identity and close-knitness and sense of threat and obligation for fertility is higher in Israel than it would be otherwise if the government were just laissez fair , minarchist, let-in-anyone-who-contributes wealth like Malcolm and Simone seem to advocate for. One of their only 2 examples goes against their point and they attribute high fertility to diversity and mass immigration when in reality it's ethno-nationalist policies and culture that have kept Israel surviving and flourishing.
1
@barnydino317 Hungary has managed to increase birthrates from iirc 1.25 in 2010 to 1.6 in 2022. The solution might not have been found or implemented nationwide yet but that is not good reason to believe that no solution exists except for mass immigration , which btw doesn't raise birthrates among the indigenous poopulation as western european nations over hte last 30 years have shown.
1
15:00 Immigration already is pretty easy for rich immigrants. But rich immigrants are only like 1/100 of the population. Most of mass immigration in Europe is of peasants from africa, the middle east and pakistan/afghanistan and these people make the countries they move to worse by increasing crime, , increasing terrorism, having lots of kids who inherit their hostility to Europeans, reducing trust, reducing order. Look at these videos of teens of african descent mass looting stores on oxford street copying other people of african descent doing the same thing in America. That never happened when Britain was almost entirely European. And yet you signal that it's problematic and distasteful to notice this because you still suffer to some degree from prog-brain.
1
This is something only someone with no aesthetic sense or foresight would believe. If you value diversity and consider it beautiful and pleasing to see different species and habitats, then obviously you shouldn't dump animals from every part of the world to every other part of the world because that will serve to homogenise the planet and make every ecosystem much more similar as things like rats , ants and cats and weeds wipe out local birds , crabs and flowering plants. In the exact same way that if you want to paint a beautiful picture then you don't take your palette of paints and scrape them all into a blender then start painting with the homogenous brown outcome. And if you value a particular habitat and don't want to see it radically changed and lose what makes it lovely then obviously you would protect it from invasions and other threats.
1
@barnydino317 What is sentimental? Relating to feelings and emotions, right? What is a preference? It's a feeling or emotion. "I prefer x to y" basically means x makes me feel better than y or I have more love or positive emotion for x more than y. If someone prefers to leave an abusive relationship then that's a matter of their sentiments towards that relationship and the conduct of their partner. So if you call it sentimental for someone to prefer their culture to other cultures then you might as well call it sentimental for someone to prefer their kids to the kids of strangers.
1
@shumbi11 They're a nation a people of shared birth (or at least they sincerely believe themselves to be ) . Jewishness is something passed on and inherited by blood, ancestry. Converts only make up a tiny, tiny, tiny, fraction of jews in a given generation and any mass conversions are secret in their history covered up or not really admitted to or discouraged from happening again. So the dynamics of jewishness are completely different from that of an evangelising, civic "religion" that just anyone can easily join. So it's would be similar to how if the Anglos were in the future to be marginalised in Britain and elsewhere then create a new state somewhere then Australian anglos, British Anglos, south african Anglos, American Anglos, Falkland Anglos, etc. would all have variations in culture and some variations in genotype with a bit of but could still be said to be one people or one nation, and if this new state they built was in the very constitution built to protect and preserve the Anglo people and prevent them from becoming a minority and chose policies to do that , as Israel does, then it would be an ethnostate. Ethnostates don't require citizens that are not of the official ethnicity to have no rights , they could just do policies to make sure it's mainly the official ethnicity that become citizens.
1