Rob wrote:It wasn't the universal human spirit that created this or that country.
It also wasn't
only the innate makeup of any particular culture that's put it where it is today, though nativists like to declare, for reasons which frankly remain unclear to me, that the former simply trumps every other factor out of hand, and thus the latter is by default not even worth discussing (and whoever brings it up is obviously a "globalist shill"). Hence "simplistic" and "self-serving".
A cursory look at that document tells me a couple of things:
1) The paper is is an exploratory study, not a policy recommendation, as it states right in its introduction;
2) Migration is offered here not as a deliberate effort to alter existing demographics for its own sake but as a potential, partial solution to keep a large-enough working-age population to support older citizens, alongside raising retirement ages and other factors ("well of course, that's just what you'd
expect them to say, to hide that they
really want white genocide!");
3) Contrary to the constant refrain of "they want to make
every country let
everybody in, consequences be damned", here's their closing statement:
While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions. Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin.;
4) Finally, when speaking specifically of the USA, they say this:
The official United States estimate of (documented) migrants into the United States from 1990 to 1996 is about 1.1 million per year. Thus, the past regular inflow into the United States is well above the number of migrants needed to prevent a decline in the total population or in the working-age population.
So even the Big Bad UN
isn't actually advocating an increase in immigration for the States, they're saying that
clamping down on it - and they're only talking about the
legal part - would be counterproductive to the country's needs. Boy, we're in real globalist radical territory here!
I can only speak for myself on this particular issue, as I'm not exactly on the same page as the mobs that break up speeches here, but personally the issue for me is when things cross over from "speech" to something else. Even there, existing law already draws lines: the old "'fire' in a crowded theater" thing is the best-known, though the law also prohibits "fighting words", i.e. inciting a riot, and when white supremacists and others don't just say "I don't like what culture xyz is doing" but "We're under attack, we need to physically defend ourselves, we need to be willing to do whatever it takes to get these people out of the country" things get dicey. That and the whole "can't have a rally without assault rifles" thing (but of course when the antifa types, who I'm not particularly on board with either, grab their own in response they're criticized as the ones inciting violence).
The problem is not "uncomfortable ideas", but an uncomfortable society with many unbridgeable divisions. A society where equality is expected but not possible (that uncomfortable idea).
I'm still not entirely sure we have the same definition of what it means to be a "multicultural" society; nobody with two brain cells to rub together thinks that means any and all divisions are forcibly suppressed, and nobody's allowed to criticize anybody else for anything, though that seems to be what the folks on edge about the "PC police" are afraid of. We both acknowledge, I think it's safe to say, that divisions among cultures, religions, etc. will always exist; where we diverge is whether or not we believe that these divisions completely supercede any and all common ground we share, to the point that by and large we can't exist in close proximity to each other (though as the world inevitably becomes more connected there are fewer and fewer places to hide anyway). Again, speaking only for myself, and even ignoring the purely pragmatic angle of "guess what, like it or not we're gonna hafta deal with each other eventually", I see enough evidence both in my own experience and elsewhere to believe such divisions don't need to occupy the forefront of people's lives by default, to the point, for example, that one can support a candidate/party they'd otherwise be repulsed by solely for this one issue.
As it happens, I read
this op-ed by a Muslim in the paper this morning, and just have a look at his opening paragraph, in which he basically agrees with your general position (though I'd still like to see some specifics laid out on your end) on American exceptionalism:
Muslims are attracted to America because of the way it is; they have no intention of changing or harming America. Muslims know that if they had settled here first, modern America would probably look like the Middle East, and would not be a welcoming beacon of freedom and innovation.
He goes on, if you keep reading. Suffice it to say, I can't get on board with the notion that most of the folks who put forth the effort to uproot themselves and come here are doing so with the intention, conscious or otherwise, of unmaking us, whoever you might consider "us" to be.
There should be no "side" in getting to the truth.
You know as well as I do that, even if two people acknowledge the same established facts (which is, unfortunately, an increasingly rare situation these days), they can interpret them different ways - there's never going to be 100 percent agreement on anything, there will always be "sides", and while nobody is required to completely align with one or the other, everyone
does have the responsibility to learn enough about an issue to know which broad "side" makes the most sense, and get into the nuances from there, instead of simply declaring themselves "above it all" from day 1.
And now forcing the race is/is not culture argument via the "what is an American" question?
That question is the very
core of the nativist mindset, its
reason for being -
they're the ones who brought it up. If a nativist - or the movement as a whole - doesn't have a good answer to that question, that's
their problem,
not that of whoever asked, and not even
remotely an excuse to stop demanding an answer because it might make someone "uncomfortable", let alone simultaneously impugn that the
askers are the ones in constant, pathetic need of "safe spaces" as soon as shit starts to get real.
that will also "end well".
Racial realism is only bound by a flimsy gauze. Pull the sword from the stone, BulletMagnet! We are all rooting for you! 
