Chatting with a American liberal in Germany Part 2

Back to Catalog

You are right to say that the right of the illiberal, non-pluralistic man would be infringed upon in my idealized society. Well so what? By your might makes right mindset, it doesn't matter anyway. My society has the power to do so.

[Most traditional (i.e. non-westernised, non-Americanised)  cultures are illiberal and non-pluralistic. In effect then the so-called pluralistic society is one in which only a liberal man can live in, a plurality of one. All genuine cultural and moral differences will be reduced to ethnic costumes that people put on for tourism.] Can't you see that you are using might though while saying it doesn't make right. The other groups don't believe that might makes right either. They use might because they think they are right. Are you really that different from each other?

Maybe not - I mean you are clearly arguing we are the same. My point is that within the confines of a pluralistic society there is a degree of acceptance for diversity not found in the ethnostate conception of a society. And that is a strength, not a weakness.

Yes, but there is more diversity between different ethnostates rather than a pluralistic society where nobody really gets to do what they want until one group eventually dominates the entire pluralistic culture into one giant new ethnostate [You are essentially pushing the clock of history backwards by re-introducing ethnic/cultural divisions that had been inter-bred out in the nation-state after centuries of conflict had resulted in current majorities].

That's not what happens in a pluralistic society. You think that's what happens because you have the framework of someone who is used to ethnostates. This is why things like the Constitution and the Charter on Human Rights matters a hell of a lot.

The Weimar republic had a constitution too. We Brits have one too, an unwritten constitution, which is as useful as your written constitution. The constitution is just a piece of paper, rights are just temporary priviledges contingent on real life group interests, not metaphysics.

You want to impose that whiteness model on ethnic minorities in America by asserting America is a nation for white people, by white people - why can't the Brits do the same?

We are a weak backwater in the American Empire, who cares what happens to us? Anyway I think the US should just leave the immigrants who are inside alone and not import anyone until the immigrants in the culture are Americanised enough.

Here in the UK, there are many Muslims who consider themselves Muslim first and British second. The order is wrong. I don't want the US to face similar issues, first it should digest the current cohort of immigrants until they have been Americanized enough by diluting their culture.

"Diluting culture" again with this - if they are Muslims first and British second but accept pluralism - who cares?

Because Sharia courts are not pluralistic (i.e. secular) but British courts are liberal. Whenever there is a contradiction between Islamic doctrine and British law, guess which side their Muslim preachers, and "community leaders" will take? 

It is one thing to accept pluralism just when it benefits your group and quite another to actually accept pluralism? Unfortunately the former is not rare.

Sharia law does not equal illiberalism. There are plenty of liberal and tolerant interpretations of Sharia law. Just as there are tolerant and liberal interpretations of the 10 Commandments. There is no requirement to cede these things to the fundamentalists.

[What he is suggesting, of course, is the total destruction of Islam until there is only left an empty shell, a skin which has been gutted out and stuffed with liberal wool, just like the left has done with Christianity. This is like killing a boy's pet dog, removing the dog's skin then stuffing the skin with wool and bringing it back to him saying, "Why don't you like it? Isn't this the dog you loved so much?"]

There is nothing to dilute - fish and fucking chips?

There is nothing left to dilute. Britain is basically a museum for American and Chinese tourists now. It's like when the Romans invaded Sparta, it was just a village at that point and thereafter. 

Most European States can't be bothered to pay for the minimum amount of military spending required to be part of NATO.[The United States are devolving in South American style shenanigans coincidentally as the ethnic makeup of the United States is starting to resemble that of South America - It's culture of course, but people do not leave culture at the border, they carry it with them and they can't help it because that is who we are]. And Europe is an old people's caring home with resentful foreign carers.[Why are they resentful? Envy and a sense of moral superiority to make up for material inferiority.]

Again - you may have a rational point. But your words are not inspiring and they will not make the world a better place.

Just curious, but if verification caused the loss of some percentage of your income - but stopped a non-zero level of child sexual abuse, at what marginal levels of income loss and reducing child abuse would this actually be worth it to you? If your answer is at no level whatsoever - I feel like that's a pretty sad fact and really shows me why child sexual abuse pervades online adult entertainment communities so much, fundamentally it is more about money than anything else I guess? It is a dirty question because we are a dirty species. The same applies to questions about environmentalism - at what marginal rate of benefit do we justify the razing of forests and the destruction of irreplaceable biodiversity for some economic end?

It is too easy to ask dirty questions at the expense of others. At any economic cost, it will affect the ends of those with the least economic strength the most. How about looking for solutions at your own expense the most? Even at your total expense, it will have a non-zero effect.

Yeah, but the actual marginal rate of cost you are willing to accept for some marginal rate of harm reduction is actually a discussion worth having. Virtually nobody believes in a world of minimum benefit at the cost of maximum harm - at least if you aren't a sociopath.

The marginal rate of cost that others should pay for harm reduction, and that you should pay for, are two separate discussions, but the latter always turns into the former somehow. It would be more productive if people talked about the cost they themselves should pay, not others.

Your view is very useful to the powerful and corporate power and I am sure they all endorse it too.

No, my view supports the small person, the sex worker trying to get into porn, whereas your view makes it harder for small businesses to start and benefits the existing large ones. Many powerful people at Harvard, Yale, the press, Cambridge, and Whitehall endorse your view.

I did not state my view at all here - I think you completely misunderstand what I am saying. I am asking what marginal cost is acceptable for the marginal benefit of reducing some non-zero level of child abuse.

Could you answer your own question because unless it was a rhetorical question, I am not quite sure what the point of the question is. I thought you were implying there was a quantifiable cost that she should have paid for reducing some non-zero level of child abuse

The most important point here is that child abuse exists in the adult entertainment industry and there appears to be reasonable marginal costs the industry can endure to actually reduce a non-zero level of it. And obviously doing so, is really important.

You are probably aware that de facto, those that will bear the costs will be those at the margins of it (i.e. newcomers and those who barely make a profit). It would be helpful to keep this "cost" in mind, that those who will not endure, will be those at the bottom.

Yeah sure, that's probably true - just as some of the biggest victims of colonialism were actually just factory workers who lived in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. So much is said about how people abroad were treated, but factory workers were just as abused.

That is true. The industrial revolution, just as the agricultural revolution was not a pretty thing though the latter was far worse. Working in a factory was still an improvement from being a peasant in the countryside though.

To each their own - in America, Lincoln said that wage labor was no different from slavery. I think he was right - without regulations you ultimately have a system that just abuses people/dehumanizes them because capitalism only sees people as objects.

British workers in factories did not die as often as slaves in cotton plantations, also they got paid and could leave back to working in the fields which paid less though, which is why they moved to the city. Was your president even around during the industrial revolution?

The Germans have done so well because of their fiscal responsibility, their government is not in debt or deficit because the last time that happened, Nazis happened.

The Swiss are far more tolerant because they can actually control the amount of immigration and you actually need to meet a standard to become Swiss whereas here in Britain there are plenty of British citizenship papers holders who can barely speak a word of English after ten yrs

The more British can mean something that's multi-cultural, the better.

Is it really a strength though? I mean compare the US and China, the less diverse one, or at any rate the one where one group (Han Chinese) rule seems to be more stable. Or compare Britain and Japan, two nations at the edge of a massive continent,or France and South Korea.

Yeah I really would - ethnostates tend to have camps of non-conformers, or fudge their numbers to make it seem like everything is great when it isn't.

Where is the camp in Japan then? The USA has a very diverse population and a less diverse though very large prison population. Let's face the reason Europe tried diversity was to be like you guys but now it doesn't look like such a good idea anymore to be like you.

Japan doesn't have camps but they have bigoted old people and a completely unwillingness to address their longstanding systemic issues. Also, they are literally going to lose tens of millions of people per decade because of the low fertility rates

Is it really a problem though? Why do we need an ever-increasing amount of people? Also because there are less foreigners there are less racist incidents than in multicultural USA because there are simply fewer opportunities for people to be racist. Housing prices might go down.

Not an ever increasing amount of people - you need a stable population that isn't crashing, which is what you get when you have a fertility rate of 1.2 or 1.3 for a few decades. It is a complete economic disaster and a road to ruin.

I mean Japan has been like that for almost two decades. It certainly doesn't seem much worse off than Europe which has also failed to grow despite all that immigration. At least the Japanese do not have all the ethnic tensions we have.

[The copium of the people is strong in this one. Where is that collapse in the Japanese economy the pro-immigration left keeps on talking about for over a decade now at least? Also, why did Britain need ten more million people from abroad in like just two decades? Having said all that the Japanese gov may cave in from the cancer of the left because that is what academia is, and necessarily those who come up with policy are academics. Also when there are no cheap foreign nurses to look after them in their old age, people will start to have children again.]

America can and will reduce its prison population size - we are about to federally legalize marijuana and a sane administration is in the wings, so things will improve.

Japan has banned marijuana but it still has a smaller prison population, why is that?

Because Japan is a very strict collectivist society - it is no mystery whatsoever if you have been there. Japanese people aren't allowed to live in a non-conformist way and they are trained from birth how to best fit in.

[The copium about Japan's way of dealing with immigration(i.e. terrorism, ethnic replacement "oh no there are going to be no Japanese in a hundred years my professor said so" and in this case drugs] Also, what is a non-comformist life-style? Most people here in Britain, Germany, even America, just study, get a job and go to work lol. We are secular and they are also secular. In their universities, they teach the same philosophical works as here.[Most of Europe was collectivist too till the 1950s at least. See, their justification for anything is the second world war and not what they say - that event ignoring everything else in history is what gives them their moral sustenance.]

I can't explain it easily but if you live in Asia for more than a year you will understand - it is collectivism. Your sense of purpose and being are tired to your status with your family/company on a level that's much deeper than it is in Western countries.

I am not white.

As the Germans say - natürlich. But really as a non-white Brit what you are saying strikes me really weirdly in general about the fate of this this white utopia for Europe.

Like the concept of defining a nation from the experience of an ethnic majority would totally discount experiences like yourself. In fact, there may be many ethnostate minded Brits who would make absurd claims like you aren't British if you aren't genetically European.

[It is not about me. What is in my personal interest may not be the same as what is Britain's interest. I am too selfish and cowardly to sacrifice myself for this country but even so, I am not going to pretend that our interest is the same. Whether something is advantageous to me has no bearing on whether it is true, or at least I try to not let my self-interest as a south Asian immigrant blind me as to what this country's interests. Also what the hell does "totally discount experiences like yourself" mean. It makes it sound like foreigners don't have experiences that natives can relate to or something, What a bunch of meaningless gaslighting.]

Cool well nice talking to you. We don't agree on everything, but I appreciated your thoughts. Take care, and good luck on your crazy island over there.

Gotta sleep even in this crazy little island of ours. One final thought, when it comes to Japan our opinions are reversed, I am saying all cultures are the same, they are basically like us, and you are saying they are too alien and dark we couldn't, and shouldn't be like them

Ya I am because I know Japanese people and I know the horrible psychological tole their society places on them. Their suicide rates ain’t no joke. I’d rather live in a country where individual liberty actually means something.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs. The risk of suicide is preferable to the risk of violence and political violence in Europe and the US. There is a reason there aren't that many terrorist attacks in Japan. By the way Europe is still the most suicidal in the world despite being the most individualistic. Europeans are far less racist than Americans but kill themselves more often. [The copium about Japan and East Asia dealing with drugs by banning them is strong in this one. Suddenly another culture is fundamentally different from ours and so we can't compare our policies to ours, except when it comes to enforcing western mores such as abortion abroad- then suddenly it is okay to make comparisons of policy.]

It [New Mexico] is one of the few states that actually provide a powerful counter force to the general narrative that America is a nation of only white people.

Well America was a nation of mainly white people, until the federal government decided that it should not be the case. The individual States or the people living in them had no choice on the matter.

Nah that's not how it went down my friend. It was non-white first - the whities came in and razed hell and gaslit the country into believing it was always white

Every nation is made out of conquest. Do you think that the Han Chinese or Japanese or the Turks always ruled their lands, of course not. At one point it was white and then it wasn't. Who decided that that change would occur? Was it at a local or federal level it was decided?[In retrospect it doesn't matter who decided it, people largely have the leaders which they deserve, if they were dumb enough to be deceived that immigration would not make Europeans a minority, then they deserved to be ethnically replaced. I mean when your own citizens show such disdain towards the efforts of creating your nation, then have you really even got citizens?]

Yeah and all of those genocidal nations of yesteryear were also in the wrong to do what they did. America is not the same because we have placed individualism at the top of our society - individuals come from different backgrounds and perspectives by definition.

[Why are those nations also not illegitimate too, then? Muh Murican Exceptionalism Can't Be This Cute by Idiotsuke Wankanata]

Also the non-white people who emigrated to the US by central government decree were not the same peoples who inhabited the US before European settlers made the US. So I don't see how importanting millions of migrants has anything to do with making amends for colonisation. 

It doesn't but the white people never had valid claims to the land in the first place. So it kind of changes the dynamic of your argument. Also, far more non-white people have legally migrated to the US, vs. illegally. It is hardly analogous to the migration crisis in Europe.

Does any group have any valid claims to land based on conquest? [Later on I was to find that it's okay with indians conquer and murder each other, that is legitimate but when the Europeans do the same it's not the same because Europeans are more technologically advanced. The fact that they were more technically advanced only meant that they were more powerful - and they could have been more powerful in any other way such  as asnumerically or physically - it doesn't matter how. The real reason the left says it is not legitimate is because it was the replacement of one race by another] Because if not then there really isn't that much land with valid claims. Yes, legally but by which authority? That is what my point is, it was by federal authority, not local authority not even a plebiscite! [Also there was no legal authority before the united states, so you can't say that European settlers were illegally settling in North America at least. I mean if we are going to use legalistic bullshit to justify mass migration. It's not the like European descendants who live in the land which yes was mostly empty with no legal authority when their descendants developed it can be blamed for what their ancestors did, though it seems they are keen on squandering all that.] 

I dunno - I spoke a lot about UK history and I will admit my ignorance there. I do not think you know as much about US history as you may think you do. :D Immigration has always been a mostly legal affair, right wing narratives to the contrary do not change facts.

It was legal, but my point is that such a monumental change to the nation's ethnic makeup was decided by the central government and not locally. Simply put the local authority does not have autonomy in important matters that affect it.

Individualism is a particular European perspective which you are forcing on everyone else. How is that not colonialism too? Think of the Turks who have been secularised by German secularism rather than say Japanese secularism.

Turks who have been secularized by Germany do so for pragmatic purposes - giving a handshake is part of the immigration process, if a Turkish man cannot do that to a female German immigration office, well they have no place in German society.

Why should they have no place in German society? Because they haven't been Germanized enough.  That is why. Can you not see that in effect at best you are leaving them with nothing more than their costumes lol?

If you can accept others for who they are and not plan on murdering every non-self individual in the society around you - well you have a place in that society. I think it is pretty straight forward and logical - no colonialism required.

Which is another way of saying that the minority should accept the ways of the majority. After all the majority is not the one which needs extra-legal violence to enforce its ways.

It is weird that you are ostensibly defending conservative illiberal Muslim immigrants right now, but I mean that's cool I guess - everyone needs a voice

Hey, at least I am not the colonialist trying to "civilise" them [literally taking on the white man's burden]. How is that liberal? I mean you are the one insisting that American values are superior and that everyone should be made to adopt them, or leave. Is the true liberalism the friends we made along the way?

I am just saying accept the precepts of a pluralistic society or leave - I am not saying to kill anyone. No colonialism necessary .

If you can accept others for who they are and not plan on murdering every non-self individual in the society around you - well you have a place in that society. I think it is pretty straight forward and logical - no colonialism required..

Colonialism would force this man's hand - but the reality is, he can just get on a plane and head straight back to the country of people who share his beliefs


[> implying that you are going to leave his country alone and not pressure them to adopt liberal policies such as abortion in his country too.] 

America is not Europe or Asia - it is a continent steeped in colonialism.

As for America, the different peoples who lived there also conquered and subjugated each other. Sri Lanka only just recently murdered its ethnic minority rebels to unite the nations. The same goes for Burma. These are all colonialism too.

I will always rest my hat with that contingent as long as I live. In this world might does not make right. Right makes right.

You say that but the only reason individualism had any appeal was because America is powerful. It kind of sounds like a fabulously rich man saying money is not the most important thing but morality is.

I say individualism is what made America powerful - it is the only way to unify a collection of diverse people from various backgrounds. The alternative is an ethnostate. And that never would have worked in America for obvious reasons.

They tried the ethnostate in the South - it was every bit as collectivist as Asia is now, and it failed miserably.

Why did it have to be either an ethno-state or whites being made just another minority in America? In 1950 the US was 90% white and not some failed state.

"Just another minority in America." That's some pretty bizarre logic right there - that's not how I see minorities in America and the quicker white people are not the majority the better.

That is what they are though. They can't fully have their culture in the open but they can negotiate to have a bit of their culture, like black history month. When white people are another minority they too will have to fight to have their bit of culture. This is multiculturism.

Han Chinese might be an ethnic identity with scientific merit - white people is literally the definition of a meaningless social construct designed to impose colonial ways of thinking.

White people, just means Europeans. People who come from European civilisation with its roots in ancient Rome, Greece, Christianity etc... What's meaningless about that? [Also the reason that White People have become a thing in the US, is because a. There are many other non-white ethnic groups which have effectively forced those of European descent to become one group and b. This was the result of the US government's efforts at erasing the cultures of individual European sub-groups for the sake of collective national unity, It is even more so with "Black people" whose connection to their ancestors and their link to their traditions were even more thoroughly broken than those of white people in America, which may go some way to explain why so many black people have no honour and engage in petty criminal activity just for material reasons.]  

Christianity? Are you kidding me? There are people who think all Catholics are non-white - Christianity is extremely broad and different sects hold different views and have been at war with each other for generations.

Yeah and Islam is at war with itself. Rome was at war with itself. Ancient Greece, and Japan were constantly at war with themselves. Doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Islamic, Greek, Roman or Japanese civilisation.

Yeah - but those civilizations at least have historical and ethnic justification for the most part. Whiteness really only has been a thing for 200 years.

How did you arrive at your 200 year figure? European civilisation has been around for quite a while... It's current iteration is almost as old as Christianity. I would date it to the fall of the Rome. Don't tell it's just cause 'Murica is about that old lol?

Europeans are as diverse a people as any other. Putting Spaniards under the same label as Northern Europeans is pretty silly - they have vastly different ethnic backgrounds. Saying they are the same is not scientific at all - they represent unique populations.

Yeah Europeans are as diverse a people as any other but they have far more in common with each other than with other groups. Individualist Americans are too similar to each other to notice it of course. For example a majority of the English vocabulary comes from Latin.

Ascribing homogeneity and ethnic purity is basically how you get genocides - because there will always be people without it. That's why I don't like doing it - we are individuals, not members of some group. Those groups are almost all just social constructions

[Basically, because nazis every group should just be destroyed. These liberals have no history which goes beyond the second world war. That is the focal point of their morality, on it every one of their inorganic social constructions stand, which is why they so hysterically silence anyone who dares question the events in that conflict even though the entities which fought in that conflict are mostly gone except for the US - the British Empire, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan are all gone. Only the US is really left with any sense of meaningful continuity but now that too might come to an end, bringing an end to what the Japanese refer to as the post-war era.]

Group identity is what collectivists do - I am not a collectivist so I do not care about what my supposed group identity thinks or values.

There are others who have the similar views and political goals as you, right? If so then as far as others with different interests are concerned, you are part of a group with interests which define your group identity.

The only group precept that means anything at all to me is the precept of pluralism.

Yeah but I am saying that in effect pluralism is your group dominating over other groups leading to their inevitable, decline, and absorption into your group for all intents and purpose. Red Indians still exist technically but they are inconsequential, reduced to their costumes. [To put it bluntly, this is no different than saying "Oh if only everyone was part of my group with my ideas and morality then we would all live in peace," because it calls itself pluralism, it is easy to miss that it pluralism is the very opposite of what its name means, a supremacist creed.]

That's incorrect - go to the Navajo Nation. Indigenous culture still lives in America.

[Yeah they exist in some kind of declawed, domesticated form with a weak continuity forcefully kept alive by the state for political goals. This is like saying that because the Holy Roman Empire existed then the Western Roman Empire collapsed only in the 19th century.]

My enemy are the illiberal, non-conforming people who do not believe in human rights and wish to dominate others. If it means banning nazi flags and people who want to stone gay people, I can live with it.

My point is that importing more and more people to dominate is not a good idea as they may dominate you in turn. Do you get what I mean? I like liberal democracy [because I am lazy and weak and would not survive without it], I am just worried it might break due to a lack of longterm pragmatism.

Pluralism isn't really a tribe - it is a belief. And a precept that defines a nation. A nation defined by pluralism is nothing if you get rid of it. It is the foundational principle of the social contract.

[Semantics. I could just as well say that fascism, Christianity, Islam etc... are beliefs and not tribes. This wouldn't change the fact that they are also factions. Also, even our weak modern nations are not designed by one precept, one failing point, but my many. Nor is pluralism the main principle of any social contract. Exclusivity, and not pluralism, is the foundational principle of the social contract. If anyone can have it, then it is worthless and devalued. If everyone is special then nobody is, and if anyone is British then nobody is, the Americans are not the exception to this rule,, no matter how exceptional they might think they are. Our nations existed far before the liberal ideal of pluralism infected our institutions from the inside out, in fact, many nations were formed by the expulsion of foreigners (or less powerful tribes which were also native, e.g. the Greeks evicted from Anatolia by the usurping Turks and the Greeks expelling their foreign Ottoman invaders from the Greek peninsula).]

We can form groups - but we do not let our belief in that group dominate others as they do in all illiberal, non-pluralistic societies.

It doesn't matter what you set out to, I am only speaking of the effects resulting. Basically, any genuinely different culture gets slowly diluted and dissolved. Do you think they think it is in their interest to disappear?

That's where your view is incoherent. Pluralism may not be perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than ethnostate + genocide and no pluralism whatsoever.

Japan today is not genocidal. It is an ethnostate. [Maybe the weebs were right about Japan all along, and the reason that we can't stand them is that they would look elsewhere other than America, which is supposedly the greatest civilisation ever that all cultures should copy and converge to on all important moral matters.]

Now it is but it was and it was a hell of a path getting to where it is today.

So what the multicultural US kills more people now[than the Japanese ethnostate], maybe even more than China.

Maybe but we are still fighting ideas about ethnostates ourselves - we are not there yet. A better model for a pluralistic society really is Europe.

Europe kind of works because we have independent States but it is very unstable as the recent secession of the UK from the EU shows. Imagine if American  States could just secede, America would not be a superpower.

Only cultures that are non-pluralistic and non-liberal get broken down. And yes they do. But so what? That's the course of human history it seems - to break down the non-conforming. At least my way has a class of people who are tolerated for their diversity.

lol no what I am saying is that you are creating a vacuum for God knows what to fill. Look at the former Soviet pluralistic nations which have all become too right wing. I am worried you are pushing tolerance too far leading to a push back against tolerance too far.

I truly believe that Asians are the most rational people on the planet - however, it doesn't mean their worldviews are inspiring. Who wants to move to China? Vs. who wants to move to a revitalized/tolerant and progressively oriented America?

Plenty of people would move but the Chinese government doesn't allow it. Many more would move to Japan, SK, and Taiwan but they are rational and realize this would lead to chaos. Why are Americans and Europeans hellbent on destabilizing the world for ideals lol?

Because pluralism and tolerance are better than genocide - they are complicated and destabilizing affairs. But to get to Asian levels of so called homogeneity would require death and destruction on a scale not acceptable to anyone.

 lol nobody is arguing for genocide. All I was arguing for is that 1.America and Europe would have been more stable without mass non-European migration and 2. That it would be better to stop the migration and wait a few decades for the groups to stabilize and socialise as they are.

That is why I said that you either have an empire or are part of one. It is very hard for a genuine small state like the UK, which is the size of Idaho, to be an independent state in any meaningful sense. How would a Scottish state be independent? It wouldn't.

Maybe economically - but individuals in America are not collectivists. I think the rational extension of individualism is actually localism. We reluctantly must form these globalized societies - but frankly I think we would all be much better focused on the local level.

The nation is more local than the federation. Small countries like Switzerland work better than large unions like the EU, US, or China. It is just easier to be selfless within your own group than between many groups.

Is it really a good thing for power to go into the hands of non-governmental organizations while the government only rules in name?

If you mean corporations that rule in an authoritarian manner - of course this is not a good thing. But it is why I favor democracy, because it is a way to at least average out the common opinion that might exist.

No, I was actually thinking about academics who educate those who will go on to work in high ranking positions in corporations and other influential organizations like the civil service.

Lol I don't think it works like that at all - academics are also singing a song. They are not some covert power center. There's no brainwashing going on

They are not brainwashing but their students work in the press and in policy making (politicians don't make policy). What is taught to children is also written by academics. Culture and morality flow down from Academia.

Academia are basically our priestly caste/class. For better and for worse.

Hahaha! Yeah maybe, that's one way to think about it. But fortunately you can go in there and duke it out with the other priests if you so wish. It is not written in stone what they proclaim.

Not if you are a heretic.

Nah you have to play the game but you can say whatever you want. Believe me - I know professors who think all manner of "Heretical ideas"

Give me some examples of heretical ideas? They better be heretical rather than fanatical. Fanatical ideas are the same as those accepted in academia(or any other priestly caste) just more extreme.
I think your vision lacks optimism, practicality, and pragmatism. It reeks of intolerance, fear, and moment based judgements and within that space there is no room for people to grow and be better humans - just "You are brown so get out."

I think your vision lacks longterm thinking. It smells of roses and shampoo, arrogance, and moralism. It substitutes the reality of power politics with short-term thinking, pragmatism. Within this space humans are easily prone to moral panic "Nazis are bad so be pro immigration."

You are proposing might makes right. I am proposing a value system based on shared common principles that are precepts of a pluralistic society.

I am proposing that at best you might end up showing those principles down everyone's throats and at worst you will create a vacuum for reactionary/revolutionary forces to make a pig's breakfast of society.

I enjoy people who have diverse perspectives - but yours is pretty much hatred of diversity, fear of the other, and cynical nihilism. Please prove me wrong - but I've really heard nothing to the contrary from you.

No offence meant but you don't sound like you enjoy hearing perspectives different from your own. Mine is one of thrift, free thought, in-group preference, jury trials, low inflation, secularism, property rights, swiss neutrality, local democracy, low immigration, non-aggression.

You are not powerless - none of us are. The world is completely mutable to humans changing it

Because of social media everyone overstimates the amount of power that they have. The truth is that unless it is a view supported by the establishment, you will not be astroturfed to the fore like say Greta Turnberg or whatever her name is.

I suspect the fact that PornHub exists in a semi-unregulated state is largely to do with the fact that American/Canadian governments have zero interest in the topic and find it anathema. It is apparently up to credit card companies and NYT reporters to make any real difference.

Or perhaps it is because credit card companies and NYT reporters in effect wield powers not too different than some of those that the official government does. Not too democratic.

It is, none of this is easy - life is hard. As I have always said. :D We fight this fight together as one species on one planet.

To me it looks more like we are fighting over scarce resources. Since we can't fight alone, we pick factions.

Yeah, but I think human rights matter more than power and winning. I'll die for that belief if I have to.

But you need power and winning to fight for human rights.[looks like a classic excuse to grab power lol]

Fighting intolerance and bigotry is just the project of liberalism. It is what must be done if we are to have it at all.

Right I am just worried that by inviting it from outside you are galvanising those that which is already inside. There are far right parties in European Parliaments which would not be there were it not for mass immigration. They were not there before the mass migration.

We do not live in a democracy, nor do we make desicions collectively. Take immigration in Britain. For many decades polls have shown that the majority do not want more but that is exactly what we got, and we were never asked.

I actually know you need to be illiberal to save liberalism - that's why believing in liberal precepts is a precondition for being welcomed into that society. It is a necessary principle - otherwise the whole project is doomed from the very first second.

But how can you make sure that everyone that enters is liberal? Moreover how often can you throw someone out that you have already invited? What if it is the children of those who you let in, as is often the case? At what point do you stop actually being liberal?

 Europe seems to have stopped growing and rather than fix those structural problems they kick the can by delaying necessary reforms through immigration.

They literally tried an ethno-state without human rights in Europe already.... it is called the Third Reich.

By an ethnostate I just mean somewhere like Japan or Poland, or England and France in 1945 after we had defeated the third reich. Was England or France after defeating a failed painter really that different in ethnic homogeneity than Japan today?

Look at the constantly changing definition of whiteness over time. It never meant Europeans until very recently, probably not even 50 years. That's nothing at all...

Does it really matter what the definition of whiteness is or isn't? The essential point is that it was easier for Europeans to abandon their group identities to become Americans. Anyway my point was that you can't really have local autonomy with a stronv centralised government.

You are just setting the clock back resulting in instability and conflict. Previosly these regions were fought over until an homogeneity was reached but now you are reintroducing conflict and strife by the reintroduction of division. You don't have a pluralistic society....

 There isn't a single large  Union which has been able to have localism and a central government. The EU can't control the nations of Europe, and the US federal government can overturn the wishes of the States.

Many nation States in Europe were made by totally destroying the culture and identity of small groups, the only way to make a multicultural nation work in the longrun is to totally destroy the culture of new groups, i.e. so-called integration.

Yeah but when the Swiss aren't an actual definable ethnic population, this kind of is a moot point. Having a Swiss passport makes you Swiss. Having a UK passport but being of Pakistani descent does not make you English.

Having a Swiss passport doesn't make you Italian, French or German either, like the majority of the population are.

In-group preference is also kinda yikes. Why is your group so great?

It's pure self-defense. Other groups have ingroup-interest. Otherwise they cease to exist. Why is it so great? Because it is liberal. The music, the English countryside, the literature, the history. I love it and I want a peace of land for it to be unmitigated from other groups.

Some people call it self-determination. I don't know if that's the correct term.

I think that's different - self-determination is more about the rights of individuals. Nation states should have self-determination, but that's an extrapolation from original meaning of the word, which comes from the individual.

When Sri Lanka got independence from Britain. In fact life after independence was less free. The Sri Lankans wanted a nation, a state of their own first, then individual liberty. That is what I meant by that word.

Of course there is no reason to discriminate based on race. But look at what happened when even that good idea is taken too far.