A much better idea at debunking the Far-Left/Multiculturalism.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

It's easy to stereotype the modern left as just being purpled haired twitter zombies who take marching orders from some shadowy group. And while that may be true within certain cases, I'm not at all convinced that the people supporting the demise of White society are dumb people.

I find it important to actually look at the sources of where their arguments came from, AND THEN, debate them on why they support an agenda of diversity and less White people.

For example, I pulled up this article where Forbes does give their reasoning behind diversity. But rather than feel scared or intimidated, it's actually very easy to look at these "pro-diversity" points, and flip them on their head.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2017/11/30/the-truth-about-diversity-and-why-it-matters/?sh=562ae36566e7

The data shows that those in positions of power still tend to be similar in terms of race and gender: About 72% of CEOs in top Fortune 500 companies are white males, while less than 1% are African American females.

This is a very common left-wing talking point. One of their reasoning comes down to "There is just too many White people". And while the numbers are obviously sourced, ask them "What's wrong with having so many White people in power"? Or "Why are White people the problem"? In a country like America, the country is clearly functioning. Having too many White people has never actually been an obstacle to success, especially considering the USA has always been the world leader in just about everything since its founding.

This argument also extends to Europe. Europe being majority White is not a source of weakness or failure. While Liberals would be correct that "more diversity could make Europe rich", an easy counter-reply is "Is Europe not already rich and powerful?".

It actually forces them into a corner where they have to admit, the only reason to shrink White demographics, is because they care more about increasing profits at the expense of an indigenous population. Hell, you could even use this argument on the decline of the Native Indians. By the Left's logic, the Native Indian population having suffered cultural genocide somehow made their people "more rich", even though many Native Indians are forced to live on reservations and generally feel ostracized for being a minority in land they once ruled.

There are many more rebuttals I can think of but I'm interested in hearing why do you approve or disapprove of this style?

Basically, I believe it's possible to get through to normies and convince them to stop white demographic shifts without making them feel like they're headed to join some "fringe group" or support radical ideas.

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

While Liberals would be correct that "more diversity could make Europe rich", an easy counter-reply is "Is Europe not already rich and powerful?".

To which the obvious response is "Yes, but it could be richer with mOaR dIvErSiTy! And who wouldn't want to be richer?". You cede the premise that "richer = better" and then immediately lose if the opponent can demonstrate that "dIvErSiTy = richer". Better to argue from the beginning that there is intrinsic value to ethnic homogeneity and/or that there are things that can't be bought with money but which people need (e.g. sense of community, meaningful life, etc.). See: Robert Putnam.

why do you approve or disapprove of this style?

I don't think it addresses the reason for their opposition. My read is that most leftists and people in general accept the leftist position on diversity because:

  1. They want to be nice, and turning away huddled masses and wretched refuse from your shining city on a hill feels mean. Or;

  2. They really believe in equality ("All human groups are statistically the same in every way except appearance"), and that therefore any observed disparity must be human-caused, and therefore can and must be rectififed by humans.

Neither of these two types will be swayed by your argument.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

To which the obvious response is "Yes, but it could be richer with mOaR dIvErSiTy! And who wouldn't want to be richer?". You cede the premise that "richer = better" and then immediately lose if the opponent can demonstrate that "dIvErSiTy = richer". Better to argue from the beginning that there is intrinsic value to ethnic homogeneity and/or that there are things that can't be bought with money but which people need (e.g. sense of community, meaningful life, etc.). See: Robert Putnam.

But they put themselves into a trap if they fail to define what "rich" really means. Like compare Switzerland with Germany. Technically, Switzerland has almost double the GDP per capita of Germany, yet does anyone seriously think Germans live in poverty? Or if the country is technologically backwards? It's actually proof of diminishing returns. The Richest Europeans don't actually outclass each other by that much. Meanwhile, there are many third world countries who would dream to even be at the same level as some of the underachieving White countries out there (i.e Poland).

I don't think it addresses the reason for their opposition. My read is that most leftists and people in general accept the leftist position on diversity because: They want to be nice, and turning away huddled masses and wretched refuse from your shining city on a hill feels mean. Or; They really believe in equality ("All human groups are statistically the same in every way except appearance"), and that therefore any observed disparity must be human-caused, and therefore can and must be rectififed by humans. Neither of these two types will be swayed by your argument.

Well the refugee thing is more of a humanitarian idea. If a 100 homeless white guys showed up at your door, you turning them away isn't because you hate white people. It's because you understand there's only so many homeless people you can take care of at a time. Use this same argument against Liberals. The problem with unlimited immigration is not out of race hatred, it's literally because resources in White countries are finite like everywhere else. 50 Somalis who have legit asylum claims can be taken care of and sent back home. But a million of them showing up at a single European country is too much to bear for any country. White or not.

As for equality, it would be nicer to tell them that equality can only exist, when every country can act independent and look after their own people. A good example is Japan. At the end of WW2, Japan was literally a nuclear wasteland that resembled a failed society. But they earned their equality by turning the country around and matching the USA in both wealth and standards of living.

The arguments of race and biology can be avoided by merely pointing out the world would be a better place if every nation was successful, instead of just a select few ironically.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

But they put themselves into a trap if they fail to define what "rich" really means.

Then define the terms before getting into the discussion.

50 Somalis who have legit asylum claims can be taken care of and sent back home.

Who's going to make sure they eventually go back? Liberals? Witness how the "Temporary" Protected Status for Haitians fleeing the 2010 earthquake there is still ongoing.

As for equality, it would be nicer to tell them that equality can only exist, when every country can act independent and look after their own people.

Speaking of defining terms, I was very clear about what I mean by the "equality" in which leftists believe. It has nothing to do with independence of countries and their ability to look after their peoples; it has everything to do with the observed difference in group outcomes.

At the end of WW2, Japan was literally a nuclear wasteland that resembled a failed society.

Overstating the case is bad argumentation.

The arguments of race and biology can be avoided by merely pointing out the world would be a better place if every nation was successful, instead of just a select few ironically.

The reason you think you can avoid talking about race by talking about how "the world would be a better place if every nation was successful" is because that pollyanna vision has nothing whatsoever to do with who should live where, which is the key question.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who's going to make sure they eventually go back? Liberals? Witness how the "Temporary" Protected Status for Haitians fleeing the 2010 earthquake there is still ongoing.

If they reach a point where even they acknowledge they can't look after the entirety of Somalia, then that's already huge progress on preserving a homogenous society. As for ensuring how do they eventually go back? When refugees realize they can't bring their extended families with them, they would have to make a choice of either abandoning their old lifestyle and assimilating, or going back and reuniting with their own people at home. This shouldn't even require liberal intervention, it should be the natural result of living in a foreign country that only offers temporary assistance.

Speaking of defining terms, I was very clear about what I mean by the "equality" in which leftists believe. It has nothing to do with independence of countries and their ability to look after their peoples; it has everything to do with the observed difference in group outcomes.

Then speaking broadly, inequality already exists everywhere. All you can do is point to the best examples within each group and have each race follow that instead. For example, it may not be apparent to us but even in Africa, a country like Botswana is considered years ahead of another African country like Liberia. Even those island Caribbean countries like Jamaica or Barbados have economies that are closer to the lower end of Europe than to nations that are caught up in Civil War (like Ukraine or Syria). Whether or not they match the standards of 1st world Europe is not your problem, but they don't also have to chase after the bottom either.

The reason you think you can avoid talking about race by talking about how "the world would be a better place if every nation was successful" is because that pollyanna vision has nothing whatsoever to do with who should live where, which is the key question.

Then we can refer to my other arguments in this thread that directly attacked the Liberal position of disenfranchising white people. For example, I referred to another user that I don't want to see White people massively unemployed because diversity literally requires giving up white spots so another race can fill them. It doesn't look good on the Left if they're forced to defend making all White people homeless or poor in order to satisfy an unrealistic goal of making all of society minority ran. It takes pragmatism, but overtime these multicultural arguments become less about being moral or scientific goals and instead, the only real incentives is about money only.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

If they reach a point where even they acknowledge they can't look after the entirety of Somalia, then that's already huge progress on preserving a homogenous society.

All well and good, if there's even a homogenous society to preserve at that point.

When refugees realize they can't bring their extended families with them

Who's going to disallow that? Liberals?

This shouldn't even require liberal intervention

It's not a question of liberal intervention. It's a question of what liberals will allow.

a foreign country that only offers temporary assistance

Again, who is going to make sure it is really "temporary"? Liberals? The bottom line here is that everything you say is perfectly reasonable from a pragmatic viewpoint, but liberals are not pragmatic when it comes to huddled masses and they're currently the ones running the show.

Then speaking broadly, inequality already exists everywhere. All you can do is point to the best examples within each group and have each race follow that instead. For example, it may not be apparent to us but even in Africa, a country like Botswana is considered years ahead of another African country like Liberia. Even those island Caribbean countries like Jamaica or Barbados have economies that are closer to the lower end of Europe than to nations that are caught up in Civil War (like Ukraine or Syria). Whether or not they match the standards of 1st world Europe is not your problem, but they don't also have to chase after the bottom either.

Exactly.

Then we can refer to my other arguments in this thread that directly attacked the Liberal position of disenfranchising white people.

Sure, I guess. I regard that as downstream from the question of who should live where, because there could be no mass disenfranchising of whites in a nearly all-white society. But anyway:

For example, I referred to another user that I don't want to see White people massively unemployed because diversity literally requires giving up white spots so another race can fill them.

I don't want that either. I think, though, you will find it difficult to actually argue this way in practice because your opponent will at some point ask you what the "proper" number of groups A, B, and C should be in whatever job. According to them, anything other than representation in line with their fractions of the overall population indicates "systemic racism" that must be purged. What would you say to get them to stop thinking that way?

It doesn't look good on the Left if they're forced to defend making all White people homeless or poor in order to satisfy an unrealistic goal of making all of society minority ran.

I don't think they would aim for all white people to end up that way.

It takes pragmatism, but overtime these multicultural arguments become less about being moral or scientific goals and instead, the only real incentives is about money only.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm sure some of the left are motivated by money, but white leftists in particular seem to me to be driven by basically religious zeal.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

All well and good, if there's even a homogenous society to preserve at that point.

Plenty of them still exist so we aren't at a dead end yet. That said, it certainly requires action and activism in this current timeline to stop it from getting worse. The best example I've seen so far was recently in England, where protestors are now going to airports and demanding an end to the "invasion". By even blocking the airstrips as well.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/dover-traffic-english-england-andrew-matthews-b937926.html

Obviously they're small, but that's how all movements start off. They just need to refuse to back down and keep the pressure going.

Who's going to disallow that? Liberals?

I would assume society and the courts. For example, sign into law actual refugee limits like what Japan does.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-japan-accepts-so-few-refugees-2018-4

Compassion still exists for those with real asylum claims, but attempts at transferring an entire nation's population into your borders (because of demographic replacement) would be regarded as a crime.

Again, who is going to make sure it is really "temporary"? Liberals? The bottom line here is that everything you say is perfectly reasonable from a pragmatic viewpoint, but liberals are not pragmatic when it comes to huddled masses and they're currently the ones running the show.

If you look at both Left & Right, there is a common theme when it comes to immigration. For example, I don't recall Republicans having an issue with the Cuban and Vietnamese boat people when they showed up at America's shores. This is because they aimed at using them for their own political gains (i.e supporting anti-communism). Similarly, the Left knows that mass migration from the third world is also their weapon to move ahead in politics, because non-white = oppressed to them and stuff.

So the real conclusion to stopping immigration is to point out the hypocrisy of it. And pushing for laws meant to stop chain migration of families while also trying to improve the lives of those living in foreign countries is the only way to stop turning immigrants into political pawns.

I don't want that either. I think, though, you will find it difficult to actually argue this way in practice because your opponent will at some point ask you what the "proper" number of groups A, B, and C should be in whatever job. According to them, anything other than representation in line with their fractions of the overall population indicates "systemic racism" that must be purged. What would you say to get them to stop thinking that way?

They can have representation, but they need to start making separate businesses and schools that cater to non-whites instead. Many people don't realize this but when Jim Crow ended, Black people were in control of many banks, movie theaters, restaurants etc. When diversity kicked in, White people moved to these neighborhoods and bought up all these businesses. So what the Left is arguing is they want non-whites to be in control of their own companies again, but they're doing it in reverse. Don't let a White own bank turn 100% black. Help Blacks to form a new bank instead. Same with Asians. They already have their own schools, neighborhoods, and even police officers. That's their representation.

Maybe the end goal of creating these racially distinct neighborhoods is they all reach the same conclusion and just become separate nations.

I don't think they would aim for all white people to end up that way.

The logical conclusion from mass immigration and diversity is that the majority group (Whites) are not going to get any affirmative action to help them. So they lose their jobs, but they also have to fight 2x as hard to get the same positions back. Or in other cases like California, they already have diversity laws that say stuff like "all businesses MUST have 50% Women in power". But Men are just going to stop applying to these places because they know the system doesn't favor seeing them advance or be in control.

So it's time to pressure Liberals on whether they actually believe in meritocracy or not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm sure some of the left are motivated by money, but white leftists in particular seem to me to be driven by basically religious zeal.

We live in a Capitalist society where increasing profits is always necessary for survival. This is true for both Left & Right. And while there may be those driven to white replacement because of religious zeal, the ones without much money are only forced to rant on internet blogs as opposed to doing any real damage.

Want a great example? Companies like Microsoft, Amazon & Walmart do a ton more damage than some random Communist group, because they actually push for policies that let them hoard millions of illegal immigrants while also not having to pay any taxes. They also use this money to buy off politicians that push this agenda and they can also threaten them by being banned from social media. You only have to look at Trump getting banned from Twitter this year to see that multibillion corporations hold more power over the President, and not vice versa.

It will surprise you but other countries have caught onto this paradox. The President of Nigeria had been censored by Twitter, so he responded by just booting Twitter from his country instead.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57368535

And that's an African country. The West needs to learn the same thing from them.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I would assume society and the courts.

Which first must not be comprised predominantly of liberals and those who go along with them.

Compassion still exists for those with real asylum claims, but attempts at transferring an entire nation's population into your borders (because of demographic replacement) would be regarded as a crime.

It is possible that nearly an entire country will have a "real" asylum claim due to civil war, failure of agriculture due to climate change, or some other widespread catastrophe. Leaving aside the question of what counts as a "real" claim, ultimately raw numbers are the problem so you may have to subordinate your compassion to pragmatism anyway.

So the real conclusion to stopping immigration is to point out the hypocrisy of it. And pushing for laws meant to stop chain migration of families while also trying to improve the lives of those living in foreign countries is the only way to stop turning immigrants into political pawns.

Pointing out this hypocrisy would change the minds of some people who are on the losing end of the situation. But since the left benefits from third-world immigration I don't see why a left-winger would give up an essentially secure victory just to avoid being called a hypocrite. We'll see - I encourage you to try arguing this way with an actual leftist.

They can have representation, but they need to start making separate businesses and schools that cater to non-whites instead. [...]

Yes, the parallel-society approach you describe would avoid a lot of problems. But your leftist opponent will be committed to a multiracial society and will ask you why you are not, given that it "should" be possible because all groups are equal. I don't see that you have an answer that he would accept.

So it's time to pressure Liberals on whether they actually believe in meritocracy or not.

They will say that they do, and that merit is equally distributed among all groups so the end result of your meritocracy should be the same as their system.

We live in a Capitalist society [...]

So corporations will use other people's zeal as a shield while they make bank and acquire power. I'm not sure what about this is supposed to be surprising. To fix this problem would require someone who can stand up to these corporations and will bring them to heel. Getting someone like that into a position to do it, through an electoral wall of sappy liberals, is quite the challenge.

The West needs to learn the same thing from them.

Damn straight.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Which first must not be comprised predominantly of liberals and those who go along with them.

Liberals exist in every country, just based on the fact humans are always divided on how we should move forward on certain topics, as opposed to staying the same. And hell, I already mentioned that 30 years Conservatives where using the exact same tactic when it came to absorbing anti-communist refugees and the Left-wing obviously opposing that.

So what changes today? Just enforce standards for both sides. Make it so immigration is no longer that hot button issue that both sides use to advance their agenda. Doing what Japan did and coming to an agreement that immigration/refugee levels need to be capped is the ideal solution, and if people try and overturn this, offer alternate solutions to helping these foreigners out. Again, Japan also sends massive amounts of foreign aid as compensation for not just importing these people. I would rather redirect resources that would pay normally pay for refugees to be housed somewhere better in their home countries instead.

It is possible that nearly an entire country will have a "real" asylum claim due to civil war, failure of agriculture due to climate change, or some other widespread catastrophe. Leaving aside the question of what counts as a "real" claim, ultimately raw numbers are the problem so you may have to subordinate your compassion to pragmatism anyway.

If an entire country is considered failure status than unfortunately, it probably requires foreign intervention/occupation. If we lived in a perfect world, this is exactly what the United Nations should have been used for but I guess the USA will have to do for now. But I still disagree that there is a moral argument for transferring an entire nation's population into the next one. Immediately, I would bring up housing shortages and unemployment as prime reasons why this can't be allowed, even under humanitarian pressure. Even in the richest countries, it's not like everyone actually lives in a Mansion. There are still many working class people forced to rent out a garage or hell, even live in their cars just to survive. Bringing millions of refugees who will just suffer in the same conditions as the poorest of the poor while competing against them for the same jobs is an untenable position.

Pointing out this hypocrisy would change the minds of some people who are on the losing end of the situation. But since the left benefits from third-world immigration I don't see why a left-winger would give up an essentially secure victory just to avoid being called a hypocrite. We'll see - I encourage you to try arguing this way with an actual leftist.

Since Leftists believe in climate change/environmentalism, I would actually prefer to shift the argument in that direction. After all, bringing millions of third world refugees to the 1st is actually terrible for the environment. They're going to end up driving cars or turning on heating to survive the winter. So it's true they benefit politically from bringing in huge waves of third world refugees, but it also contradicts their own eco-friendly agendas unless they find a way to substitute fossil fuels this century.

Ironically, there was a famous Eco-Activist who pointed this out long before I did. But just as expected, the Left are crazy enough to downplay his concerns because they care more about rising profits from immigration than the actual health of the planet. But time will prove them wrong eventually...

https://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/david-suzukis-immigration-stance-isnt-xenophobic-but-heres-why-its-wrong/

Yes, the parallel-society approach you describe would avoid a lot of problems. But your leftist opponent will be committed to a multiracial society and will ask you why you are not, given that it "should" be possible because all groups are equal. I don't see that you have an answer that he would accept.

The Left will always support segregation when its convenient. Like how they support "safe spaces" in schools, or giving only black people "reparations'" money. Compared to the Right, I would actually say they're ideologically closer to just creating these separate racial communities. But like you said, they're also fervent on trying to make everything multiracial at the same time. So what's the solution? Keep showing them studies and research that demonstrate racial separatism is much more healthy than actual diversity. Maybe even support the Left on their hypocritical projects that give non-whites their own "safe space". There is a little bit of a success story from this. If you look at Canada, Toronto and Vancouver basically act like a magnet for Chinese and Indian immigrants, leaving the rest of the country in the hands of actual White people. If the country where to ever split one day, it would be very easy to separate the whites and the non-whites just because the racial lines have already been drawn.

They will say that they do, and that merit is equally distributed among all groups so the end result of your meritocracy should be the same as their system.

I can see them running into great trouble explaining why do jobs like Garbage Collection sway heavily towards Men, or why does Nursing have a huge bias towards females. If after implementing affirmative action they still can't come up with a perfect gender balance, then eventually they'll be forced to admit that genetics might be a reason these jobs can't be equal.

Similarly, I would move the argument to sports. Explain to them how will they make basketball or football more diverse instead of being black dominated. If affirmative action also fails here, then perhaps now its time to explain that races have different "preferences" or cultures that cannot be filled using pure force.

So corporations will use other people's zeal as a shield while they make bank and acquire power. I'm not sure what about this is supposed to be surprising. To fix this problem would require someone who can stand up to these corporations and will bring them to heel. Getting someone like that into a position to do it, through an electoral wall of sappy liberals, is quite the challenge.

If immigration and diversity where never profitable, they would drop both subjects like a hot rock. It's sad but true. Capitalism was always built on the exploitation of others. You're correct that we do need someone in political power to stand up to them. But I'll also look at the bigger picture. These corporations are only powerful because we as a society let them flourish. If everybody on planet earth suddenly decided to boycott them, then these corporations would be rendered instantly worthless. Not even their money would be able to save them. Society could come together and ban them from doing business unless they changed their ways. That's what I think is needed in the future if we really wish to stop multiculturalism. It needs to be viewed as poison and toxic just like how developing nuclear weapons makes everyone in the world concerned and demand action.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And hell, I already mentioned that 30 years Conservatives where using the exact same tactic when it came to absorbing anti-communist refugees and the Left-wing obviously opposing that.

Just so you're not tempted to make too much of this fact, I'll point out that a) conservatives no longer do that, b) the pool of such immigrants is small compared to the third world in general, and c) obviously that policy did not itself create a demographic crisis.

Just enforce standards for both sides.

You know what I'm going to ask.

coming to an agreement that immigration/refugee levels need to be capped is the ideal solution

"All immigrants are just like us in every way, so any cap would be arbitrary and therefore wrong."

But I still disagree that there is a moral argument for transferring an entire nation's population into the next one.

See above.

Bringing millions of refugees who will just suffer in the same conditions as the poorest of the poor while competing against them for the same jobs is an untenable position.

After all, bringing millions of third world refugees to the 1st is actually terrible for the environment.

Funny how neither of these facts has gone very far in undermining support for immigration from the left.

Keep showing them studies and research that demonstrate racial separatism is much more healthy than actual diversity.

This is a great justification for free speech absolutism.

garbage collection, sports

These are good examples to make the point, but they're not the ones about which leftists really care. They're not brainpower jobs, you see.

If affirmative action also fails here, then perhaps now its time to explain that races have different "preferences" or cultures that cannot be filled using pure force.

Or genes.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Just so you're not tempted to make too much of this fact, I'll point out that a) conservatives no longer do that, b) the pool of such immigrants is small compared to the third world in general, and c) obviously that policy did not itself create a demographic crisis.

It's much harder to pull off today just because actual Communist states have fallen since the 90s but there are still rare examples. Like Boris Johnson wants to grant 3 million citizenship to people fleeing from Hong Kong to come to the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53246899

Though I want argue it wont create a demographic crisis, with maybe the exception of what President Reagan did to California with his amensty act.

"All immigrants are just like us in every way, so any cap would be arbitrary and therefore wrong."

Then it's probably time to start weighing out the actual costs of supporting an entire nation, and the fact they still live in sub-par conditions when brought to the West. For example, one survey done in Canada found that 40% of all Toronto homeless shelters were made up of asylum claimants.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/street-needs-assessment-2018-1.4925418

If they ask them to move them into proper housing, remind them there is also a major housing shortage. Funny story, I just saw this article posted today. The same Rich Millennials living in Toronto can't afford a home either, and they're force to live in a parking garage or locker.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/06/08/im-a-millennial-with-a-good-income-in-torontos-housing-market-all-i-can-afford-is-a-parking-space-or-storage-locker.html

As for the actual costs of supporting refugees, there's a good article published on Syrians that goes into great detail. Only 5 ~ 24% of all Syrian males are actually employed. 50% can't speak the official language. They get $200 a month from the government, and $3,000 a month from local churches.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-syrian-refugees-to-canada-have-fared-since-2015/

So while there are some hard working success stories, the majority of these guys take out more money than they actually give back to the country. The situation is made even worse with Covid. If these people end up sick, the government now has to pay for them and their entire family while they recover in a hospital. These same hospital rooms are now deprived from actual citizens of the country who now face the risk of dying in the hallway.

Funny how neither of these facts has gone very far in undermining support for immigration from the left.

True, but I think it shows the media is more afraid of letting this information out, rather than the fact there is substance to the idea that mass immigration = undermines the environment. David Suzuki wasn't afraid to point this out in 2013, even before cancel culture tried to silence anyone who spoke ill of diversity. It's now about presenting his facts to the mainstream, especially anytime climate initiatives are spoken by politicians. For example, if Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Cortex start harping on about how fast climate change is happening, explain to them how does importing more refugees actually aim at deaccelerating it?

These are good examples to make the point, but they're not the ones about which leftists really care. They're not brainpower jobs, you see.

Intelligence is the hardest thing to argue with the Left, because they assume it's all "made up" or "subjective". Otherwise, I would just bring up the SAT Score ranking by race to explain any brainpower gap. At least by saying "culture/preference" it's an insensitive way of saying we don't need equality for every job. If Asians don't wish to apply for basketball because sports is not their thing, then no one should get offended when we point that figure out. If there aren't a lot of Blacks applying for STEM jobs, then perhaps the majority just don't care for it either. If the Left wants to argue they want to STEM 100% black, they need to show some kind of mass participation rates in school.

Considering how many professions are out there, I actually think it's complete lunacy there is even an argument that every job needs representation. For example, just going off this U.S labor survey, there are jobs that don't even require much skill that still have more Blacks employed compared to Asians and Hispanics. Bus Drivers, Janitors, Cement mixers.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

By the way, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if more black people do want to become computer scientists or doctors. The Left just needs to be less dishonest by thinking EVERYONE wants to do those jobs instead of the fact, many people are already comfortable doing the thousands others that exist. It's the same with White people. Many of them are Scientists, but there are plenty of White roofers too. We don't need to get rid of Roofing jobs to satisfy making everyone a Scientist.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think it addresses the reason for their opposition. My read is that most leftists and people in general accept the leftist position on diversity because:

  1. They want to be nice, and turning away huddled masses and wretched refuse from your shining city on a hill feels mean. Or;

With this group, the best ways to convince them would probably be to:

a. Offer possible solutions that wouldn't involve replacing white people but still would solve their problem, such as suggesting that instead of wasting money on taking care of refugees/migrants within white nations we spend it on building cities with white living standards in their own region for them to live in.

Or suggesting we should take in as many migrants as our system could handle, but force every single one of them to get themselves sterilized at the border as a mandatory requirement for entry, so they wont be able to replace white people.

.

b. (Especially if the leftist is more bad-faith and/or hostile), do an appeal to their sense of guilt and their genuine hypocrisy and bring up all the suffering white people have undergone in their own countries due to the presence of non-white immigrants (if possible, while citing actual crime statistics), such as the paki grooming gangs in the UK, the pre-coordinated mass sexual assaults by rapefugees on new year's eve 2015-2016 in Germany, the murder, torture, robbery and intimidation of native whites by migrants in Sweden and moroccans in the Netherlands and Belgium, etc.

Then put this in contrast with how well these migrants get treated in the very same countries (path to citizenship, family reunification, priority over natives for the already scarce social housing, easier access to welfare than natives, a start allowance of €10 000 meant for decorating their new home which natives don't get, child benefits, etc.), to hopefully involke a sense of guilt and cognitive dissonance in them, and if not, at least make them look bad in front of other people.

.

  1. They really believe in equality ("All human groups are statistically the same in every way except appearance"), and that therefore any observed disparity must be human-caused, and therefore can and must be rectififed by humans.

These kind of leftists are probably trickier, because in order to support this position they'd have to be either extremely dumb/uninformed or just outright lying and hiding their true intentions (probably anti-white hatred).

One method is to scientifically explain to them how their claims are false and how everyone is actually genetically different, and how this actually (at least in part) explains the discrepancies between both indviduals within one race as well as the average discrepancies between different races. Preferably use actual scientific data, so you don't risk accidentally making false/inaccurate statements they can later use to gotcha you, and so it's less effective for them to do bad-faith demands for scientific sources as a gotcha (known by the left itself as "sealioning", probably a case of projection because they themselves are clearly far more often guilty of it).

Another method, best combined with the first one, would be to make them aware of the fact that the kind of people who propagate this blank slate/tabula rasa/equality nonsense usually don't genuinely believe it, but are actually just motivated by hatred against another group of people they accuse of being privileged and/or oppressors (usually whites, sometimes also Protestants and/or East-Asians), and just abuse the blank slate as a tool to justify their demonization/violence/oppression against their targeted "privileged"/"oppressor" group.

Bonus points would be to point out actual real-world historical examples of tabula rasa/blank slate/equality leading to atrocities after being deliberately used for that goal, such as the Kulak massacres of the Holodomor by the bolsheviks in Russia and Ukraine, the genocide of the white Rhodesian farmer minority by Robert Mugabe (rest in piss bozo, I hope your melanted skin also protects you against the flames of hell) and his black Zimbabwean supporters, the dismantling of Apartheid South Africa and the current murders, rapes, torture and borderline genocide against the white Dutch minority by the new majority of black bantu migrants.

.

.

A third group would be leftists who just straight out hate white people with a burning passion. You will often hear them say things along the lines of "immigration to white countries (and sometimes even the violent crimes comitted against white people by non-whites) is just karma for slavery/colonialism/apartheid/segregation/racism/etc." With these people, there isn't that much you can do, because they just want you dead (unless you're the type of white person who hates himself, doesn't act white and cucks to non-whites), and are rarely open to listen to reason at all.

But if this leftist is also white himself, and doesn't hate you on a personal level either, you can at least try the Socratic method with a bit of Socratic irony mixed in, in an attempt to identify his underlying rationale for hating white people and then try to deconstruct it. For example, if the leftist answers colonialism, slavery or other past atrocities comitted by whites against non-whites (which is almost always this leftist's argument, point out that all such atrocities have been carried out all throughout history by and against practically any race or ethnic group, and accuse the leftist of lacking any genuine compassion and purely focusing specifically on the white-on-nonwhite atrocities because he just fucking hates white people.

With practically any leftist who belongs to this last category, you just gotta accept from the very beginning that his mind will never be changed, at best he will be triggered because your arguments made him feel cognitive dissonance and/or because he's offended by your "disgusting racism", which alone is worth arguing with this leftist in my opinion. I know a couple of people in real life like this, and while I don't truly hate them (we still get along quite well), I just love to start talking about race whenever I see them and make inflammatory "racist" remarks, to stir things up a bit.

.

PS: Don't mind the sloppy writing style and formating, or potential typos. I'm extremely tired and I ended up writing this comment to be many times larger than I intended.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    For a full conversation to White Nationalism? No. But getting everyday people to re-adjust their expectations on race and diversity? Absolutely.

    There's an interview of Jared Taylor I can find where he did employ this exact tactics with a journalist. He respectfully listened to what the other person had to say, but he never backed down on the question of WHY is it so important to replace White people? I think it was some CNN guy who challenged him to a debate. But converting people is asking for the best case scenario. I rather go after the foundation of why so many people today believe the things they do. After all, imagine if you were taught Santa Claus as a kid, but never had anyone tell you he was fake? It's hard to fault these people that they fall into this trap of thinking diversity is perfect, because the only media they were exposed to said it was that way.

    I also share the same feelings when it comes to debunking Creationism. It's very popular to grow up in religions that demonize evolution theory and forbid contact from reading such material. But debunk some of the most common misconceptions used against evolution (i.e did we really come from monkeys?) and the rest should fall apart easily.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Yes, they are not dumb. They are just evil. The source of their argument is evil, hatred, jelousy, guilt etc. They are powered by all the negative emotions, which is why they get triggered so easily. They have carefully constructed a false reality to post rationalize themselves into thinking certain things in order to avoid their actual feelings. When their house of cards gets destroyed with cognitive dissonance or otherwise, they get put into a few different groups; those that have self insight and are then turned over to our side, those that are narcisists that double down to further protect their now hurt feelings, those that already knew that their logic is flawed and don't care.

    The typical purple haired twitter zombie is the narcisist.

    One of their reasoning comes down to "There is just too many White people". And while the numbers are obviously sourced, ask them "What's wrong with having so many White people in power"? Or "Why are White people the problem"

    You don't even understand their ideological framework if this is your take. Your take is fine to convert a normie listening, because you expose the leftist for what they believe in. It is not good to convince a leftist, because in their frame work it is a problem and white people ARE the problem. So pointing this out only makes it seem to them that you are uneducated or don't understand things; it makes you seem dumb in their eyes- remember they're the "smart" ones, in their own minds. And in a way they are. They have constructed a complex thought system that seemingly protect their evil feelings and they can disguise those feelings with words of good.

    Europe being majority White is not a source of weakness or failure.

    Of course it is. What are you even talking about? It is not beneficial to non whites that Europe is majority white, so yeah, it is a sign of weakness and failure. The less white people in Europe, the more power non whites gain in Europe. Of course it is a weakness. You're just not seeing it through the lense of intersectionality, through the lense of race and identity. Muslims would be far more powerful if they were the majority in Europe, so it is totally a failure of the European civilization that Europe is majority white.

    It actually forces them into a corner where they have to admit, the only reason to shrink White demographics, is because they care more about increasing profits at the expense of an indigenous population.

    It is not about fucking increasing profits, you moron. You don't increase profits by turning majority white countries into less white countries. You increase profits by increasing your white population in your country.

    Basically, I believe it's possible to get through to normies and convince them to stop white demographic shifts without making them feel like they're headed to join some "fringe group" or support radical ideas.

    It is very easy to convert normies. Why do you think we are censored from everywhere?

    The problem is getting a voice, not "how to debunk leftism"

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If all these people are evil, what would you say about kids who spout this same stuff? It's not their fault, they had to be taught to hate white people first, as opposed to just naturally learning it. I would say the article posted by Forbes wasn't crafted by someone looking to commit some kind of illegal or heinous act. Just regular people who work in an office who believe they found answers to support their side and collect a paycheck for it. But rather than reduce them to a cartoon character, we should deconstruct their articles in front of them. Otherwise, they'll just paint the same picture for Conservatives and claim they're "irredeemable" as well despite never talking to one.

    You don't even understand their ideological framework if this is your take. Your take is fine to convert a normie listening, because you expose the leftist for what they believe in. It is not good to convince a leftist, because in their frame work it is a problem and white people ARE the problem. So pointing this out only makes it seem to them that you are uneducated or don't understand things; it makes you seem dumb in their eyes- remember they're the "smart" ones, in their own minds. And in a way they are. They have constructed a complex thought system that seemingly protect their evil feelings and they can disguise those feelings with words of good.

    They never go the full mile and explain why white replacement is necessary. If they did have an explanation, then it would contradict why do they also cry their eyes out as Native Indians or Palestinians lost their land? It's very easy to see why they omit this part and thus makes it harder to justify diversity.

    Of course it is. What are you even talking about? It is not beneficial to non whites that Europe is majority white, so yeah, it is a sign of weakness and failure. The less white people in Europe, the more power non whites gain in Europe. Of course it is a weakness. You're just not seeing it through the lense of intersectionality, through the lense of race and identity. Muslims would be far more powerful if they were the majority in Europe, so it is totally a failure of the European civilization that Europe is majority white.

    So if the underlying agenda is to get more non-whites in power, explain to them where are white people suppose to go or what jobs can they fulfil? Because if every politician or every CEO needs to be black or Asian, then they're making the argument that white people need to be unemployed. That type of situation can never be realistic without causing economic pandemonium.

    It is not about fucking increasing profits, you moron. You don't increase profits by turning majority white countries into less white countries. You increase profits by increasing your white population in your country

    The Left will argue that lack of birth rates + mass immigration will turn greater profits instead of letting the GDP decline. They're not wrong when the numbers back that, but the idea is to convince them that unlimited capitalism has its own problems or it's not magic that will fix everything. Again, use the Germany and Switzerland example. The Swiss aren't driving flying cars despite making more money than the average German. We know what the level of "very rich" looks like and there's a ceiling when we can't improve our lifestyles anymore.

    It is very easy to convert normies. Why do you think we are censored from everywhere? The problem is getting a voice, not "how to debunk leftism"

    Many factors to be honest. The biggest one is just how many kids actually graduated school in 2010 after being taught critical race theory and entered journalism. It created a type of media imbalance where the pro-diversity guys control everything, but they still seek to defend their arguments with the stuff they learned in school. Again, when you look at these things from a logical point of view, it does make sense why this type of propaganda has gotten so successful. But deconstruct them and people are forced to back unscientific opinions.

    [–]peaceful✞ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    You have no access to the masses so you can't convert white normies. They still go back to their anti-white societal influences after speaking to you. If you get regular access to the masses then any number of different messages could succeed over time.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    But everyone is exposed to anti-white influences. Even you. But that has never been an obstacle towards changing minds. Otherwise, no one would ever believe or attempt anything if life was set in stone and predetermined.

    I also don't see this as a numbers game. Just talking to ordinary people on the streets and challenging their worldview is already a good achievement.

    [–]peaceful✞ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The media and popular culture determines mostly everything that people believe. Also, that which seems morally right, such as anti-racism.

    How do you expect any alt-right goals to occur without big numbers? An ethnostate, for example?

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The media and popular culture determines mostly everything that people believe.

    Actually I disagree. Evidence does.

    The media could start printing tomorrow that the Earth is flat. But if most people already educated on this subject know the Earth is round, why would they suddenly change their belief?

    It's why it's even possible to change an individual's belief. If you show someone irrefutable evidence of white demographic change, they can make up excuses for it or just pretend to shrug it off. But they can't actually dismiss facts for being fake.

    [–]peaceful✞ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The media is what educates and informs people. A flat earth is an extreme example, but the media can easily influence beliefs on things that are subjective like racial equality and multiracialism, or like politics, or like the safety of vaccines.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    And the media comes in many forms. Like Saidit is still considered media, and so is Breitbart. But at the end of the day, it's still most likely evidence that's responsible for what people believe in.

    It's why this thread exists. I acknowledge that the Left clearly has evidence or "arguments" that they insert into mass media platforms that defend diversity. But like all things in science, nothing is exempt from criticism or scrutiny. Especially as many things throughout history we thought was "true" were later considered outdated and thus discredited. Prior to 2006, anyone who considered Pluto a Planet wasn't necessarily an asshole. This was a widespread belief everywhere based on previous findings, until a new consensus was reached that decided "Pluto should be classified as something else".

    I guess the hard part is putting up with censorship that comes with a lot mass media platforms who will reject evidence even if it's proven to be true. But I don't consider this to be end, nor a unique example. In fact, I believe censorship has always existed, and yet human societies still manage to change and adapt to new evidence all the time.