Is it racism to be against immigration?

Post Reply New Topic

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making it up as you go along.
From the Wikipedia page on Panmixia: "To signify the importance of this, imagine several different finite populations of the same species ...isolated from each other by some physical characteristic of the environment (dense forest areas separating grazing lands). As time progresses, natural selection and genetic drift will slowly move the species toward either separate speciation events or extirpation.
However, if the separating factor is removed before this happens (a road is cut through the forest), and the individuals are allowed to move about freely, the individual populations will still be able to interbreed. As the species's populations interbreed over time, they become more uniform, with a decrease in genetic diversity, and thus a decrease in total biodiversity."


You're basically admitting you know what the issue is here, and you're falling back on that old tactic of asking "who cares?" Well, why should we care if distinct species disappear? Why should we care about life? Why should anyone care about you?


By claiming that you don't see how it is relevant you are either being dense or lying. Of course a person's racial background is relevant to the policies they support regarding race and demographics. This isn't a maths problem. Do you think my white British background is irrelevant to my views on this subject?




Sorry, but you're ridiculous.

1. The point is that the alleged economic growth of a territory is no consolation to a race of people who have lost control of that territory.

2. How can you make out that race doesn't matter ("who cares if distinct races disappear?") and then use words like "genocide"? If race doesn't matter, then what is genocide and what is so bad about it? Think about what you're saying for once. There are still several American Indians around. There are still several people with American Indian ancestry around. American Indians and whites often co-operated and intermarried. American Indians fought among themselves before the white people arrived. Nearly as many Indians as whites were killed in the American Indian wars, and the total number of people killed in those wars was dwarved by the number of whites killed (by other whites) in the American civil war. So what is your issue with what happened to the American Indians? The issue is that a continent that could have been dominated and chiefly populated by American Indians is now dominated and chiefly populated by other races instead. Which is exactly what will happen to the native Europeans in Europe if things carry on as they are. Now go back to point (1) and think, or keep on screeching "that's ridiculous" if you prefer.



There are multiple layers of idiocy and/or dishonesty in this paragraph.

1. It is not interracial marriage in itself that is analogous to what happened to the American Indians, but the elite-driven policy that is changing (and will continue to change) the racial composition of an entire continent - the inevitable intermarriage that follows from forcing different races together is just one part of that. Do keep up.

2. It is genotype that is the issue, not phenotype.

3. Even if phenotype were the issue (and it's not) your statement that "even if I have children with a black woman then it is unlikely that none of my grandchildren will be phenotypically white" is nothing but an assertion you have pulled from your ass. And who would your hypothetical "white-looking quadroon" marry? Another of the millions of non-whites you'd let into the country, that's who.



You've got to be shi**ing me. The NWO elites support mass immigration as a way of abolishing nation states and consolidating their international power, and - wow! - the universities and think tanks they fund produce studies "proving" that immigration is great.

People fleeing from poverty-stricken crime-ridden Third World countries generally reproduce the conditions of the countries they came, and everyone knows it.

Here's a link contradicting your assertions on the economic benefits of immigration: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/380

I could waste time swapping links with you, but I know from experience that "debate" for people like you is just a way of status signalling. I bet if we were living in the Soviet Union you'd be showing me studies and tables proving that we really were living in a workers' paradise, while you congratulated yourself on for being educated and being on the right side of history and all the rest of it. University students like you have got to be the easiest people in the world to indoctrinate with BS while making them feel superior.

Prescott Bush had also been involved with other fascist sympathizers who had wanted to back a coup to oust FDR, and install a right wing dictatorship. The problem is, they had chosen a retired marine corps general named Butler as their "man on a white horse," who after becoming exasperated with telling them that he wasn't interested, had reported their treasonous plot to the government. While hearings had been held, in which Bush and the others had denied everything, despite the overwhelming evidence against them, nothing was done.

It was called the "Business Plot" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_B ... iness_Plot ). I had briefly forgotten about that. Yes, U.S. Gen. Smedley Butler (who, at the time, was a rock-star military general like Eisenhower was later) played along with the coup plotters until he had enough evidence to go public with their plans. I am surprised that the coup plotters didn't assassinate him soon after the fact. Today, they would do so without a moment's deliberation.

This is not relevant. Human migration is not remotely high enough for something like "random mating" to arise, and it wouldn't be even with totally open global borders. There will still be localised genetic diversity.

Secondly, this assumings the selective pressures which caused racial differences to arise are still relevant today. I would argue that they generally aren't, so there would be no selective pressure.

I don't particularly care if species go extinct, because species (much like races) are fairly arbitrary constructions. I care about loss of ecosystem functions (and insurance against further loss), and I care about the deaths of individuals. I also care about the loss of iconic phenotypes which enrich our world so.

Races? Not comparable.


Well, white people will not "lose control" of Europe, or any "white" European country, in your lifetime, so your fear is completely ungrounded.

Now, the points in your second paragraph:
- Genocide is mass murder motivated by race. Mass murder is wrong, so genocide is wrong.
- "There are still American Indians around" - yep, sure. They weren't all killed. The population within the US was at 3% of its 1492 levels in 1900. Yes, a lot died from disease, probably a majority - but at least thousands were killed, possibly millions. Conservative estimates say that 10% of them the casualties were the result of violence. How many millions of Europeans have been killed by migrants?
- The issue is not that the Americas are dominated by black and white people rather than Native Americans, it is that in order to get to that stage, Native Americans were systematically killed, mistreated, sold as slaves, and forced into reservations. Meanwhile, in Europe, a small percentage of the population is descended from people who moved from an arbitrarily far distance to be considered a "different race". No murder, slavery, or reservations.

Changing the racial composition of an entire continent (which is highly disputable - only 4% of the EU population is non-European) via immigration is not comparable to the massacres and internments which occurred in the Americas.

I don't really see how genotype can be an issue, as you can't tell what someone's genotype is without running an expensive genetic test.

WTF is a "white-looking quadroon"?

I didn't pull that from my behind. My mixed-race children would probably marry other British people. A large majority of British people (about 9/10) are white. Therefore, my grandchildren would probably have three white grandparents.


Interesting link. We should not ignore the author's proud bias though, and this goes against the majority of the published literature. This is rather beyond my understanding though, so I cannot say whether it is ultimately right or wrong - it's just unlikely to be right.

No, we're the hardest. We're taught critical thinking, and we actually need to use it. If I started making unsupported statements in my essays, I'd fail; if I ever wrote a paper, it wouldn't be published. I can't just start blathering about the "NWO" and citing my random lies with "everyone knows". To get me to believe something, you've got to show me good evidence.

If you think our current system of acquiring knowledge - empiricism plus peer review - is comparable to the make-it-up-as-you-go Soviet method, then you don't understand it. If you make something up today, you get found out and you lose prestige.

Lay off the ad hominems, they don't enhance your argument and they're also against WrongPlanet's rules.

Strange to claim to know what coup plotters would do today. The closest analogue I can think of are the "birthers" who attempt to have Barack Obama impeached due to his race apparently making it unlikely he was born in the US. To my knowledge, they have not attempted to assassinate anyone who does not support their efforts.

It might not be much of an issue outside the United States, but the recently gained authority of U.S. presidents to assassinate U.S. citizens when they are living in other nations allowed the U.S. president to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki (a natural U.S. citizen born in New Mexico) on September 30, 2011 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death ) in Yemen. Considering that Al-Awlaki "was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks" ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al ... gon-months ), it would appear that, like Gen. Butler of the Business Plot, top Pentagon staffers wanted to include him Al-Awlaki their activities despite his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Two weeks after his death, the U.S. government murdered Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old U.S.-born son who was eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant, and had no known connection to terrorism.

As another, older, example of the U.S. government disposing of its assets, "[t]he newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted [U.S. Gen. George S.] Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives" ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -book.html ).

This is quite common. U.S. interests assassinate whoever it chooses.

Then you don't really care about life in its truest sense. Life is about more than the lifespan of each individual. It is about the replication of genetic information through time. All individuals die, but races and species and higher level groups can live on. But fine - you don't care. Plenty of people do care though, and they don't need to justify it to you.



Lol, almost every other post you make in this forum follows the same template:

"Immigration, crime, social decay? There's nothing to worry about!" Usually, but not always, this is followed by "now look at these numbers I've found!" (The implication being "you'd know this if you were as cool, educated and tolerant as me!")

Firstly, I am not concerned solely with my lifetime but also with the lives of those - particularly those who are like me - who will come after me. But as you have already demonstrated, you don't understand or care about this sort of thing.

Secondly, if it could be proven to you that white people will lose control of Europe or any white European country in my lifetime (or indeed that they already had), would you permit people to be concerned about that? No you wouldn't. You'd just say "who cares?" So the idea that the facts are relevant to your views are just a pretence.



No, according to the UN definition, genocide does not need to involve mass murder. And even if we accept your definition, you still can't explain why we need the word 'genocide' instead of just "mass murder" if race is so unimportant.



Like I say, American Indians killed whites too. According to wikipedia, the US Census Bureau of 1894 estimated that in the American-Indian wars Indians killed 19,000 whites and whites killed 30,000 to 50,000 Indians (not millions, note). So why don't you refer to Indians genociding whites, or indeed to whites genociding whites in the Civil war? And why do we hear so much more about the American Indians than the about far larger number of Europeans who have been killed throughout the ages by Mongols, Huns and Moors? Because from a historical perspective it is the ends that matter, not the means. Europeans recovered from the invasions of the Mongols, Huns and Moors. American Indians did not properly recover from the invasions of Europeans. Whether Europeans recover from the current invasion remains to be seen.

But we already know you don't care about any of this.



Yawn. The idea that "it's not comparable" is just your opinion.

It's obvious Europe's racial composition has changed dramatically in only a few decades. Elites celebrate this and call it diversity. What exactly, Mr Number Cruncher, would the numbers need to be for you to admit that Europe's racial composition is in the process of being changed? Even if you were forced to admit that it was happening you'd just follow it up with "who cares?"



Yeah, we've established by now that you don't really understand any of this. Healthy organisms seek to ensure that the genetic information they contain gets transmitted to future generations, whether they are conscious of it or not. Conscious beings like you apparently don't understand this even when it's explained to you - or alternatively you have been conditioned by other beings not to understand it.



I should have been clearer, but it would have helped if you'd looked up 'quadroon' in the dictionary.

1. A quadroon is a person who is one-quarter black. You are claiming that if you married a black person your grandchildren, who would all be at least one-quarter black (ie, quadroons) would look white. That is the claim I am saying you are pulling from your behind. Most quadroons I've seen don't look white to me.

2. I was not referring to whom your children would marry, but whom your quadroon grandchildren would marry, and the implications that would have for your great-grandchildrens' phenotypes (assuming that 'preservation of phenotypes' is even the issue , which I contend it is not). You think Britain will be 9/10 white two generations from now if things carry on as they are? (Rhetorical question - I'm not interested in your answer.)



Yeah, I've heard all about 'critical thinking' aka indoctrination dressed up in the sort of language that makes young people feel smart for coming to the approved conclusions. That's pretty much what I was talking about. I went to university myself you know.



Well, I'm not interested in getting you to believe anything. I am interested in showing up your agenda for the benefit of other people browsing this forum.

And what is your agenda? In summary, it's "Immigration, crime, social decay? Who cares? There's nothing to worry about, so man up and look at these numbers I've found." Rinse and repeat.

I think even some of those readers who disagree with me about everything else might be quite amused by your faith in the objectivity of academics, and especially academics in the humanities.



If this were a discussion about a math problem, then I would admit that the backgrounds and personal circumstances of the posters on this thread was irrelevant. But if you're saying that my references to and questions about your personal circumstances are irrelevant to a discussion concerning your support for immigration, then I disagree. I also disagree that I'm going against WrongPlanet rules, but since I'm not a moderator I suppose I don't get to decide.

Rollo-

Almost all of today's races and ethnic groups today are simply the results of prehistoric melting pots. The process of ethnic groups disappearing while interbreeding with others, that you are apparently so dead against, is just a process that has been going on since diversities first arose among humans.

Yeah, we are not even going to be human in the future if can evolve past it.

http://one.npr.org/i/418262038:418262039

I doubt that the situation is much better in any country.

I'll bet that no matter what your parents told you, if you have your genes sequenced you will discover that you are miscegenated.



You'll find that most EU member states speak of migration as a right.

In some cases, such as asylum seekers, it becomes a question of how many people you wish to condemn to death because you don't want the inconvenience.

Nobody claims that immigration doesn't come with a cost. The claim being made is that it comes with benefits as well.

If you live in the americas but have european lineage, you're the product of immigration. The virtue of having lived here before someone else lived here does not absolve you of the sin of replacing someone who lived here before.



It's normal for you to prefer your own vision of the future.

But that does not mean that someone else doesn't have an equal right to their vision of the future, even if it conflicts with yours.

It's normal, even moral, for someone to want their descendants to have a better life than they did. And that might involve them being born where you are.

And they have the same right to want that as you do.



Agreed that becoming 49% of the population still makes you probably the dominant population.

But people who don't look like you also have rights, and want things, and they will increasingly get what they want. Even if it conflicts with what you want.



You're being a bit disingenuous here.

The vast majority of the people who lived in the americas prior to the dominance of europeans were not killed by force.

They were killed by diseases introduced by europeans. Sometimes intentionally.



It's normal and moral, within limits of decency, for you to fight for the future of your genetic material.

And it's normal and moral for everyone else to do the same in whatever way they see fit.

If we think we live in a civilized society, those limits of decency are far more limiting than they would have been a few hundred years ago.

Rollo, your posts is just one great big naturalistic fallacy. "Is" does not imply "ought".

I don't think "life" has any intrinsic value. Consciousness does. This view is probably similar to the one you have, assuming you ever use soap or anything with anti-bacterial qualities. If all consciousness were wiped out, it would not matter to me one jot if all life were also wiped out.

Now, if we leave aside your naturalistic fallacy, you say "all healthy living things seek to pass on their genetic material". Leaving aside the inaccuracy of that statement (a very sizeable portion of healthy eukaryotes make no attempt to reproduce even if they live a full lifespan), that has no relevance to your concern about interracial marriage. Your genetic similarity to your partner makes no difference to the amount of your genetic material that is passed on. Indeed, breeding with a distantly-related individual may improve your fitness by preventing harmful recessive alleles being expressed.

I get that you're scared of change. That's natural. But again, is does not imply ought. Your fears are racist and they are wrong, both factually and morally. You are comparing the deliberate slaughter of millions (the 1894 census is generally regarded as being historically inaccurate, and leaves off those killed by "softer" methods like the Trail of Tears) to average skin tones where you live getting slightly darker. The problem here are the racist views, not the ordinary people with slightly darker skin. Yes, if you care about the average skin tone getting darker then there's no way around it, you are a racist.

Doesn't this statement violate the forum rules and terms of use?

*shrug* he used a conditional statement.

Would you say that the logic is incorrect?

I understand your concern.

Stating that holding racist beliefs makes one racist is not a personal attack. This is particularly true in a thread asking whether holding certain views makes one racist. It is especially true if the stater has already said that racist views are common, and most people are naturally inclined towards racism.

It's probably been stated enough already but no, being against immigration is not necessarily racist. That is too broad a statement and as usual it boils down to specifics.

If you are against immigration and it's racially motivated then sure you're racist.
If it's down to your economic belief that the country cannot sustain them, then it's not racist.
If you are saying "the country isn't in a state to support you **** (insert race/what you perceive to be a race or nation here)!" then this is likely a disingenuous statement made to make someone seem less racist but in fact it is still racially motivated and thus racist.

And so on and so on.