Explain to me why in-group preference is rational, Cred Forums

Explain to me why in-group preference is rational, Cred Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/
youtube.com/watch?v=8PRuxMprSDQ
youtube.com/watch?v=9HQ90iSGpJM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No

because you can't

I don't know, man.

Why don't you ask literally every other species on the fucking planet. Except the Cane Toad.

So that others greater in number won't kill you and take your stuff.

in-group preference is rational because it's natural

now fuck off

shared values

something being natural doesn't make it morally correct though. Should we all just go around acting on our animalistic instincts to kill and rape and steal?

Groups with in-group preference survive. Others don't.

If you prefer survival of your group, it is the way to go. If you don't, then not.

Black man prefer own group. He give job to other black man. You no job. He has in-group preference.

White man want become fair and not racist. He give job to black man. You no job.

If white man prefer own group you have job.

>Should we all just go around acting on our animalistic instincts to kill and rape and steal?

No, we should all get together and decide what our group will allow and not allow.

it's not rational. doesnt mean we shouldnt do it.

t.shitskin just got rejected by a white girl.

also, the species is 'humans' lol

this is why we have laws

why can't the out-group> Values change over time and even within your in-group there are many values, many of which are conflicting.

I'm not defending this for any group

fucking kek

>I have no argument, better invent some bullshit

>in-group preference is a natural form of self-preservation.
Does that mean incest is the most redpilled form of reproduction?
There is no closer in-group than a family.

No wonder trump wants to build that wall.
Maga bitch,

The Jews do it. Whatever the Jews say, do the opposite. Whatever the Jews do, do it.

>in-group preference
>animalistic instincts to kill and rape and steal

That's quite the jump you faggot

Its rational because other tribes also have in group preference
You would be at a disadvantage having none

>something being natural doesn't make it morally correct though.
Morality is relative you fucking shit.

This is the only necessary answer. OP BTFO.

"Not an argument" - steban molymeme.

>Does that mean incest is the most redpilled form of reproduction?
No, you inbred beaner. Why would you conclude that?

The point I was making is that something being natural is automatically justification for it being correct.

>muh prisoner's dilemna
see:
We can communicate with other groups and arrange mutually beneficial arrangements where we take actions that benefits the largest number of people

Why don't you tell that to the Jews. Why don't you tell that to the COD. Why don't you tell that to the Buffalo.

You armchair scientists should either read a book or fuck off.

Here's how herds and groups work.
Those that grouped together reduced their predator-to-prey and environment-to-danger ratio by being in a group.

That means nothing. It only means that those that are here are those that are here.

Many species decouple themselves from groups and survive - Again! NOT because of anything they did, but because they were the ones who didn't die.

Your cognitive bias to make a story about how the world has to be - with stupid rules about survival and shit - blinds you to the exceptions that may or may not be the case later on.

It is not wise to tell yourselves stories that are not useful to be believed.

The more similar someone is, the fewer unknowns there are in attempting to understand them and how much you can trust them.

Stop trying to convince yourself that it's normal that your madre, tia and hermana are all the same person.

>wants an argument
>responds using 'muh'

not an argument

>We can communicate with other groups and arrange mutually beneficial arrangements where we take actions that benefits the largest number of people

That assumes people value other lives outside of their ingroup the same as in their ingroup

Which is really stupid biologically (since their ingroup shares the most genes with them)

And for the advancement of human race - since not every group is equal. That means "greatest number of people" is dysgenic

>We can communicate with other groups and arrange mutually beneficial arrangements where we take actions that benefits the largest number of people

We can try, but chances are they wont listen and only take advantage of us due to their own in-group preference

and this in-group preference evolved because it is a good strategy for survival, thus it is indeed rational to some degree

Think of the psychology of it. Group survival is ingrained on an evolutionary level, our unconcious mind rationalizes this and tries to make an actual reason for this. Not so much herd mentality as pack mentailty.

FAGS BTFO

Because I believe my ideas and persona traits are the best, and I want people similar to me to pass their genes on
Also, it's simply a great survival tactic
Saging is also a good tactic

similarity is based on a large number of factors. I can be similar to someone who grew up to someone who lives at the other side of world; I can be very dissimilar to someone who lives down the street from me. If the internet has taught you anything it should be this. Why is trusting someone because they look this you natural anyway?

Isn't that a strawman/red herring?

>everything natural is bad like raep and stuff

Kill yourself, libkike. It was in group preferences that got you here.

*rational, not natural

except fags don't harm anyone else simply by being a fag

They harm others by their faggotry. Stop fucking pretending, cunt.

saying i hate niggers doesnt harm anyone. guess thats moral too.

NIGGER LOVERS BTFO

There's no reason to give up your in group preference instincts as long as other groups are using it against yours.

You're right, expressing disdain for a group is okay. But if you say "I want to lynch some googles", that's immoral.

I did not say every natural is bad, of course it fucking isn't. I simply said something being natural doesn't automatically make it rational. Not a strawman, learn to read faggot

Never said it was moral or immoral. For the record, though, I don't think expressing an opinion is immoral

Because fuck the rest.

Unless you've got a huge ego, no one can honestly say that they're doing good for 7 billions individuals. You can sure wish them good but you can't do them good.
So the most rational thing to do is 1) to help as many people as you realisticaly can and 2) help those who are closest from you because as a french administrative saying goes "you can govern from afar but you can only administrate well from up close"

Good job. Really close.
Everything is a story. Even if you could be the world directly, you could still only know it as a story. Without the story, the world is indistingushable from a story of randomness.

We make up stories to tell ourselves our reality. But even our actions are stories. Again, if some other story telling entity that the world didn't give the same constraints in telling their story saw us, they would see randomness and noise. Without an intent to form the story around, and a story making process that dilineated narrative objects and perspectives, they could not see us.

The Meta-Narrative - the story of the story that admits everything is a story - says that our brains are sense organs that can sense themselves, and can sense themselves sensing themselves.
This sets up a recursion that, like the Ouroboros snake vomits itself and its universe into existence.

But that narrative process has a bias that persuades us through rhetoric and makes us think the world is our story. It creates both the Platonism that makes up a Metaphysics that cannot be seen or falsified but provides rules, laws and reasons, and a Sophistry that makes up counter stories which never happen but are "supposed" to happen against which we compare our stories.

Both make us think we can control our world, when in fact we are locked into a Matrix-of-bullshit of our own creation. Whether that is hardwired into our psychology, or chosen through our rationality, both are illusion created by the story.

You can cooperate better and share more cultural information with people with similar dispositions and values. In other words, people who think and feel and act like you. You can express your personality more and thereby fulfill more of your potential. That's why social gatherings tend to be way more segregated than artificially integrated spaces like work or school.

also success of your relatives' genes is almost as good as success of yours, which is the real reason underlying all of this

If you act with in group preference you will see some points where out group interaction is useful to your in group. You are taking the best results for yourself and those closest to you. When everyone acts this way many non zero sum exchanges can occur to the benefit of all. It's the only thing rational outside of a human in group preference which is currently socially unattainable and impractical.

>all non-white races have in-group preference
>whites do not

>whites become minorities in their own country
>whites become legally discriminated against because

>economy goes to shit and there is high unemployment
>no one hires you

>society collapses and there is civil war and racial groups splinter off
>non-whites are safe in their group
>you get killed because you have no group anymore

>having to ask this question

KYS my dude

>fucking kek

Humans are not rational. Nothing about our society or our daily behaviour is rational. We RATIONALISE what we do, but that doesn't mean that anything we do is rational.

Refute me. You cannot.

wtf I love in-group preference now

Fair point. National government are elected to represent their constituents and they should act in the best interest of their people so long as it doesn't adversely affect other peoples too greatly. This is practically reality of having a nation state model of affairs. I like that we have this model and I don't dispute what you've said. Doesn't contradict my point, though.

Obviously I value the lives of my family and people I personally know more than people I do not because of impact it would have on our experiences, but I don't see why I should value someone I don't know over another person I don't know simply because of where they live, or the number of degrees of separation between us genetically.

Why do you think that even if "greatest number of people" is automatically dysgenic? And even if it were, why is minimizing suffering worse than a eugenic strategy for the future.

This is not necessarily true with humans evolutionary. Many biologists think altruistic behaviors encouraged survival through tit-for-tat. Many groups in biology survive through symbiotic relationships and to me this seems like the most rational course of action for different human subpopulations

I'd go further and say we only think we make choices, but whatever choice we think we make, the world is always only the way it is, and what we think are choices are only because we compare it to stories of what could or should have been that we admit didn't happen.

This doesn't mean the world is determined - that is also a story. It only means it is not a choice that matters, but all our choices and nonchoices.

Explain how the in-group preference for your family is rational

I'm not defending in-group preference for any group. Just because it disadvantages you in certain ways like affirmative action doesn't mean it's good for whites to do the same. The solution is to stop other groups from doing this kind of bullshit.

Are you serious blaming the economic collapse on minorities and you think you're going to die in a race war? lol

If we sent out principles initially be can rationally derive conclusions from them. Our society has some of these: murder is bad, theft is bad, poverty is bad, starvation is bad. We believe these things to be bad for others because we believe them to be bad for ourselves We can then derive conclusions about what actions we should take in our lives in order to achieve that which is best bearing these starting principles in mind. Why believe that no course of action is rational and everything is a spook? This is literally more than a "yuo cannot no nuthin" kind of philosophical argument which isn't useful to the practically realities of everyday life.

It's not, but I value my family and care about them more for obvious reasons. But, at the end of day, if I'm faced with a trolley problem where the one person on the rails is my mother and 5 people are other peoples' mothers, I'd like to think I'd make the rational choice.

Here's a simple game-theoretic explanation: let's suppose you assume everyone else won't engage in, so you don't engage in it either. If you're right, you don't gain anything. If you're wrong, you're at a disadvantage. Now let's suppose you assume others might engage in it, so you engage in it yourself. If you're right, you have a better chance against the others. If you're wrong, you've just gained a major advantage. From a purely rational perspective (leaving moral considerations aside), it's the right decision.

>for obvious reasons.

I beseech you to articulate them.

>or the number of degrees of separation between us genetically.

Its because they have a higher chance of having your genes. Compared to other outgroups

Its just selfish gene theory

And yes any form of socialism is dysgenic, unless you castrate the people receiving it

Just the grim truth of it, subsidising anything you get more of it
And greatest number of people is automticly disgenic since the number of high IQ people is less than low IQ people by a huge margin

Im pretty sure people with IQ of 100 are like 10% of population(excluding china) and falling because of dysgenic programs meant to minimise suffering in the world

egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/

well i like my group better than the others and therefore i would like them to continue to exist!

Seems rational to me.

now why i like them? well you could say the same thing about family.

get back in the oven jew

Self-interest and survival is rational you cuck

>why is is rational not to drive off a cliff

kys my man

Also i have to say because people who didn't have in-group preference died or had less children compared to those who had in-group preference.

or what said.

>Explain to me why in-group preference is rational, Cred Forums

people aren't rational beings so it doesn't matter.

t. dilbert merchant

I have an emotional connection with my family because I've spent a great deal of time with them and they cared for and nurtured me and I have reciprocated this. Are you autistic, why did you want this spelled out?

As I said before, the optimum solution in prisoner's dilemma is for neither party to engage. I dispute the fact you won't gain anything in this situation because you can put far less effort into protection against out groups. Additionally, in the real world, groups are not clear-cut, monolithic entities, so it's difficult to even ascertain when this would be applicable.

Basically, stop bombing innocent people, kike

If my genes passed on to me were evolved and intended to allow me to continue passing them on at all costs, then perhaps they shouldn't have lead to an individual who would rationalise himself out of such action?

never responded to

If rationality doesn't matter, then why is rationality even a human concept in the first place?

because it would be very painful

>kys my man
stop shitting up this site with your crappy twitter memes.

I am consistent about this:
I did. I said:
Why can't the out-group also share those values? Values change over time and even within your in-group there are many values, many of which are conflicting.

>If my genes passed on to me were evolved and intended to allow me to continue passing them on at all costs, then perhaps they shouldn't have lead to an individual who would rationalise himself out of such action?

No it just means your rationalising out of that will get breed out in the long term (and it logically will)
You are the faulty one if you dont have in-group preference, you are the judas

>then why is rationality even a human concept in the first place?

most people don't rationally decide on a question. Something influences them to make up their mind on the issue, then they retroactively look for "rational" reasons to support their decision.

you dumb fuck no you didn't

the 'out' group is called just that - 'out group' because they don't share the same values. In-group preference acknowledges the desire to seek out those with common goals. I figured a kike like you would understand tribe loyalty?

Explain how out-group preference is rational then we can discuss the other

Thanks for this. This seems to be the best response to my post. I'm going to do more reading on this later and I'm willing to change my mind if I'm wrong.

What I'd be interested to know where the line is drawn in reality. Obviously, the tags in the model identify where the in-group begins and ends, but it really with genetics and variation and gradients between human subpopulations, that line is far harder to draw. What I'm also interested in is what would happen if two or more ethnocentric populations of different sizes interacted in the same environment. I'm going to do a play around with the code later.

Another thing is, what do we even decide as an in-group in the first place, and how do we determine value judgements regarding which takes precedence? I'm part of my family in-group, my extended family in-group, my genetic in-group, my cultural in-group, my national in-group, the human in-group etc.

Should this be the case, though?

So the in-group is determined purely by shared values then? So you can have two totally different individuals from totally different genetic pools in the same in-group, but different members of the same family in different in-groups?

It's not.

>the optimum solution in prisoner's dilemma is for neither party to engage.
It's clear that you don't understand the problem just from the terms you're using. It's isn't about finding an "optimal solution". It's about determining what the rational decision would be for each actor. From the perspective of each prisoner, there are two possibilities: either the other prisoner won't engage, in which case the rational decision would be to betray him and be set free, or the other prisoner will engage, in which case betraying him will still result in a shorter sentence.

>I dispute the fact you won't gain anything in this situation because you can put far less effort into protection against out groups

In-group preference doesn't have to involve defense against potential aggressors.

>Additionally, in the real world, groups are not clear-cut, monolithic entities, so it's difficult to even ascertain when this would be applicable.

It doesn't need to be perfect. People do it just fine in practice.

you stupid fucking piece of shit, asking me for the definition of a word you fucking started a thread about. how about you go look it up, then come back and answer your own fucking question

Because societies in which you don't have to deal with the issue of in-group / out-group interaction are more robust, ie. it's better if you only live with your in-group.

Because:

(1) You don't have to worry that the person you're interacting with doesn't have a set of interest that diverge from yours according to group belonging. (Don't have to worry about group betrayal.)

(2) Because presumably the people that are within your in-group are more similar to yourself and therefore the interaction, the expectation and the future behavior is better known.

>Thanks for this. This seems to be the best response to my post.

That's literally just a demonstration of the game-theoretic principle I was trying to explain to you in practice.

>why in-group preference is rational
Game theory.

Most of the mechanisms of in-group favoritism require that individuals can recognize and compare tags or group identity of the self and others. Self-inspection serves this purpose. Loss of self-inspection (ie, conditioning away group awareness/concern), would create a collapse of social identity frameworks.

By definition, in-group favoritism necessitates group structure of the population, may it be artificially introduced or natural. In human society, group structure is a norm rather than an exception. The fact that various social networks possess so-called community structure (i.e. community = group), whereby links connecting two individuals are more often within a community rather than across different communities, is consistent with this observation. Group structure may be induced by homophily, that is, love of the same “feather” in terms of, for example, sex, ethnicity, and social status (homophily occurs even at the level of individual genes). In a similar vein, homophily also leads to social segregation and polarization on the macroscopic level of groups.

Mathematical models show that an increase in the frequency of encountering similar others facilitates the evolution of homophily and also in-group favoritism. However, community structure and homophily are not merely the consequence or cause of in-group favoritism. Coevolutionary dynamics of homophily and cooperation in experimental social networks show that these two traits are often tightly linked and mutually reinforced.

>See: "Robber's Cave Experiment"

youtube.com/watch?v=8PRuxMprSDQ

>Billions of people did over millennia over tribalistic conflict
>People do it just fine in practice
Yeah, ok

Did you even watch the model? The humanitarian did better for the first 500 cycles, which was my initial assumption about the problem and my gripe with your post was that individual self-interest doesn't make things better for everyone in the long run. The fact this did not continue past this point is not a study I'd been aware of before because my impression from reading the literature was that tit for tat was the best strategy.

The point I was making was that your notion that implication that 'values' rather than genetics were the determining factor seem to undermine the 'cuckservative' narrative on Cred Forums.

Murder and rape isn't hard coded into human nature m80

>It's not
So why do we practice it (e.g. America pumping money into Israel, wealthy EU countries giving out charity to poor EU countries, European in-groups preferring refugees (the out group) over their own, etc.)? Seems a bit irrational indeed

>it's a guy in an upper class, 99% white neighborhood tells us why multiculturalism is great thread

>individual self-interest doesn't make things better for everyone in the long run
And that's what makes it such good advice for the goyim.

;^)

Ethnocentrists end up winning once they collide with humanitarians in virtue of the fact that the cooperation only goes one way.

See: our current predicament with Muslims and whites predicament with every other races.

no the point you're making is that you're a beady eyed kike and will always try to challenge common sense, encourage pathological altruism, and destroy the white race from within. fuck off you fucking JIDF shill piece of shit

No one harms anyone by having in-group preferences.
Homosexuals actually do spread the vast majority of HIV though.

Ethnic Identity is a human right, if it weren't then there would be no Genocide, only mass murder.

When did I mention any of these things? You people are fucking retarded. Go on assuming that everyone who disagrees with you about one thing disagrees with you about everything, I don't give a shit

and why is 'common sense' always correct?

So obviously the ideal situation is just to have all groups as humanitarian then

>Billions of people did over millennia over tribalistic conflict
Total non-sequitur. You said determining your in-groups is hard. Since you didn't offer any evidence that people have trouble with it, I called bullshit. How many people died as a result of tribalism is completely irrelevant to this.

>Did you even watch the model? The humanitarian did better for the first 500 cycles

You're either a liar or a retard. Ethnocentrism does the best constantly. Just look at the fucking bars... This is an inevitable consequence of the simple concept I've explained to you earlier.

(1) That doesn't follow.

(2) It seems hardly possible.

(3) The situation would be unstable.

the same reason 2+2=4 faggot
yess goy, trust everyone! we're all equal!

*sigh* Did I give you permission to reply to me? No? Then why the F**K did you just do it? Leave this thread, now! If you ever reply to me again, there will be consequences.

And how are you enforcing that, given that if any one was to switch to ethnocentrism they would out-compete the rest?

Hence why it's unstable.

It's easy to go from a universalist humanist regime to an ethno centric one but not the reverse.

It's biological.

>When did I mention any of these things
You mentioned in-group preference and its rationality, but without an out-group there can be no in-group. So I ask you about the out-group and why it is seen (by the West) as rational for it to be preferred over the in-group but not vice versa?

watch the first animation on the page

hahaha what? Conventional wisdom is often misguided and often wrong. 2 +2 is 4 because it follow logically not because it my gut tells me so or it just 'seems' true.

The difference between the model and real life is that we can communicate with other groups. We can warn a group that if they switch to ethnocentrism, then we can as well which would make them worse off in the long run. This is why nations have diplomatic relations with each other and many countries have nuclear weapons but haven't launched them at other parts of the world even though it may be in their short term self-interest to do so. Groups in the real world consist of elements with multiple strategies and can also change strategies over time.

>Explain to me why in-group preference is rational, Cred Forums

For the same reason preference for your immediate family over your distant cousins is rational. For the same reason preference for your distant cousins over unrelated members of same ethnic group is rational. For some reason preference for a fellow human being over warthog, or a grizzly bear, is rational.

>everything biological is rational
Should we stop trying to cure cancer then? I mean, it's biological.

I don't prefer the out group over the in-group, I think they should be treated the same rather than differently. That's the premise of this thread.

It's natural, but that doesn't make it rational.

ok

when was conventional wisdom ever misguided wrong

it is logical to associated with people who share your values and goals.

you don't deserve these dubs to trips. go ahead and treat pakis and africans the same as your countrymen see how far it gets you

>The difference between the model and real life is that we can communicate with other groups.

You're babbling. We said:

(1) Universal humanism is unstable in that it is easy to go from this state to ethno centricism but not the reverse. This can readily be seen by simply thinking about it. If various ethno centric group are competing with one another then the demand on the part of one of them that other turn into humanists is perfectly equivalent to the prisoner's dilemma situation, where the highest incentive is defection for all player.

Furthermore, as you say, there is a difference between the model and real life, but it doesn't actually help you. Group configuration and group attitude are not something that is susceptible to central command, so that while general ethnocentric sentiment within a group cannot be changed by fiat from the top and, in general, cannot be controlled.

Furthermore, there are groups which are completely defined by their ethnocentrism, so that a switch toward humanitarianism would correspond to the destruction of that group's identity.

See: Islam.

I don't exactly know what you are but you sound either like some minority, in which case whites don't have to listen to you, or some traitor white, in which case you have to be punished.

r/K selection theory.
if you do not have in-group preference, you don't care about helping anyone becoming great, just that they are.

If you liek humanity, if you liek beauty, if you liek greatness, you'll find the steps of becoming dominant through tribalism. If we are an r world (vs a K world) humanity will develop slower and leave us susceptible to the psychopathy and degeneration out of spite for the condition we'd be born into. I refer to John B. Calhoun's "behavioral sink" as my pivot.

>I don't exactly know what you are but you sound either like some minority, in which case whites don't have to listen to you, or some traitor white, in which case you have to be punished.

this

Real life is obviously much more complex, and I guess an individual is potentially part of several groups at the same time (family, religion, country, etc.), and members of each group could potentially have more or less loyalty to these groups (like family members would almost always return a favor, while country and religious members could have lower favor-return rates).

But yeah, the basic idea of the simulation is simple and its an interesting concept to work on.

>Universe 25

My man.

NO! GO AWAY!

Because history overwhelmingly shows that it works and no alternative exists?

Comfort and trust

:^)

Oh dear fucking Jesus... No, you watch this animation, and pay attention to the bar that says "Ethnocetrism". There is no cycle in which being on the humanitarianism side is advantageous, since they're always about to get majorly BTFO by all the ethnocentrists, who might as well be a single big group like the bar implies, since they all gang up on the humanitarians. That other graph also reflects the fact that the best case scenario for the humanitarians is that they neither lose nor gain anything (when everyone is humanitarian and they're not owned by ethnocentrists).

>I don't prefer the out group over the in-group
No, of course, you are rational. But it doesn't really matter what you think of the 'out-group' since you don't seem to belong to an 'in-group' anyway. Just keep in mind that the out-group won't treat you equally even if you think that's irrational. It's like asking ISIS if they think their in-group preference is rational, they'll chop your fucking head off.

> moves from rational to moral
Wew

Noticed that as well.

Third cousin incest has the highest natural fertility of any pairing

>We can communicate with other groups and arrange mutually beneficial arrangements where we take actions that benefits the largest number of people
Holy shit you're so white

something being natural doesn't necessarily make it rational or moral. Obviously made a typo there though.

When am I going to encounter ISIS? They don't represent everyone in the out group and we should just wipe them out.

>They don't represent everyone in the out group and we should just wipe them out
So 'we' are the in-group and 'them' (ISIS) is the out-group, and we should wipe them out? Sounds like irrational in-group preference if you ask me

>Something being natural doesn't necessarily make it rational.

I disagree, especially in cases where it is not some 1 in a million aberration that won't survive. For something to survive in nature it needs to work - offer an advantage over other things. That which has survived in nature has done so through many generations - in other words it has gone through millennia of destructive testing and come out the other end intact.

Why switch from something that has been proven so definitively to be the best?

>When am I going to encounter ISIS? They don't represent everyone in the out group and we should just wipe them out.

It's very bad form, when someone tries to illustrate a point with an example, to nit pick the example instead of focusing on the point being illustrated.

In this case, the point was:

>the out-group may (will) not treat you the same way it treat its in-group no matter how irrational you think that may be

It's rational to make decisions that benefit everyone the most: this is not a group based decision.

Why, specifically, is that rational?

Well, because it seems to benefit us, and ultimately benefit our immediate descendants.

You suggest we can rationally co-operate with other groups so that we can do away with the need for in-group preference for the benefit of all. It seems like that's what we are trying to do - particularly in the liberal, white west. But if others don't give up their in-group preference, you're disadvantaging yourself.

Looking around the world, I don't see much evidence that other groups are giving up their in-group preference. It seems there's always some group that will try and take advantage if it can.

>It's rational to make decisions that benefit everyone the most: this is not a group based decision.

You're conflating "rational" with "good" and are declaring by fiat something with which pretty much everyone here disagree with.

At best you may say:

>all else being equal, if a decision X benefits more people than decision Y in such a way that X and Y are benefit neutral for me, then it is better (rational) to do X

But stated this way, your principle doesn't give you universal humanism.

You should fuck off.

>It's rational to make decisions that benefit everyone the most
'everyone' doesn't include ISIS and its supporters? Why? Who is 'everyone'?

to minimize suffering as a principle, I made the point in this post

If the group is obviously superior to alternatives, for one.

>to minimize suffering as a principle, I made the point in this post

wew

What happening when the happiness of one group is realized at the expense of that of another?

>muh utilitarianism

Define minimise.

Under that regime, if you can minimise suffering for your in group under ethnocentrism, or increase it for them under humanitarianism, would it not be more rational, if the reduction of suffering is the goal, for you to choose the former option?

Also, I should point out that appealing to "suffering" is an emotional argument, not a rational one.

fuck wrong post

Neither was yours

The root of your problem is that what you're really advocating is for everyone to act irrationally, and then claim that it's the rational thing to do because it leads to the best outcome for everyone. You want to discuss rational decision-making but you repeatedly reject the rules of the game: there is no joint decision. Every participant must make their own choice that leads to the best possible outcome for them regardless of the choices others might make.

it's a decent evolutionary strategy

It depends how they're taking advantage specifically, though, I guess.

Survival of what? A certain phenotype? Is anyone going to be dying if you don't pursue ethnocentrism.

That presupposes that identifying with "your group" isn't emotional.

Why is minimizing suffering rational? You can outline a rational way to achieve it, but the goal itself isn't rational. It's based on your empathy for others, which is emotional.

>That presupposes that identifying with "your group" isn't emotional.

Well it is an emotional response, emotions being an evolutionary adaptation that came about for a reason, but that is not to say there there is no rational basis.

That being that your group are hard coded to look out for their extended family for the purpose of maximising the chances of their shared genes propagating.

>why can't the out-group> Values change over time and even within your in-group there are many values, many of which are conflicting.


assimilation is through a consious effort of the new group to join in. Or laws to make order with groups that can't coexist. Or they should be slowly through many generations subverted into the in groups culture.


A better question is why would you want to. In-groups obviously work, what rationality is there to shoehorn an out-group?

Why are Whites the only group that feel the need to intellectually justify their own group's survival?

>looking for a rational case for morality
Get fucked

If people believe something to be good and have a rational method of achieving it, then does it not rational to carry out the actions of achieving good?

They shouldn't be, this was an open question. I never mentioned whites in the OP.

a) one of the few groups that are generally capable of entertaining the concept intellectually

b) our ethics are universalist, which was fine when physical barriers made contact with others a rare occurrence, but are now running face first into globalisation.

Because every other group besides educated whites practices it, and exploits the charity of our out-group cuckening. It would be great if nobody had in-group preference, but literally everyone in the world practices it unless you are conditioned from birth in a Western democracy.

Therefore for the west to survive the optimal strategy is to return to in-group preference.

>That being that your group are hard coded to look out for their extended family for the purpose of maximising the chances of their shared genes propagating.

Do you have anything to back that up? The concept of a unified white race is barely 100 years old. "In groups" are constantly changing.
Integrating into a culture is largely dependant on the material conditions of those people within the given city/nation. Living in poor material conditions will inhibit integration.

>whites are the only group of people who aren't racist
Is this what Cred Forums actually believes?

>What is the categorical imperative
You can't kno nuffin is 10 year old tier philosophical discussion.

Why shouldn't our rational actions be morally consistent? Why do think there is a dichotomy between the two in doing what is 'right'?

b) is why I think like this is an issue which is worth discussing and to be taken seriously

>Survival of what? A certain phenotype? Is anyone going to be dying if you don't pursue ethnocentrism.

Presumably it is the survival of a certain cultural expression as well as the phenotype. If we recognize that culture are a complex phenomena that is not designed but rather emerge and is transmitted within one group, then the survival of the group, on top of corresponding to the survival of a phenotype, corresponds to the survival of a certain way of life, of certain cultural traits which happen to be passed along a certain phenotype.

But more to the point, ethnocentric societies, and thus homogeneous societies, necessarily prevent the possibility of inter ethnic conflicts on top of ensuring more harmonious relations since race or ethnicity is never going to be an issue. This allows race to recede to the background and lose relevance, which leaves more place for individuality.

Moral of the story: it's not only about survival of the phenotype / genotype nor is it only about the survival of a certain mode of cultural expression, of a certain way of life.

Because they're the only one that are threatened and they're the only one who have institutionalized the exact reverse position so that a change in behavior requires an intellectual defense.

What is taken for granted and is automatic does not requires a intellectualization.

You got some issues if your natural human instinct is to rape kill and steal. Fucking pakis.

>Do you have anything to back that up? The concept of a unified white race is barely 100 years old. "In groups" are constantly changing.

The idea of the tribe is as old as we are. Older in fact. Ethnocentrism is a much more recent extension of it, but still based on it.

>Living in poor material conditions will inhibit integration.


How do you propose they get this material condition bump when they're poor yet also demand special rights?

Wealth distribution and kowtowing. No thanks. That onus should not be on the in-group.

Eg. case: election of a muslim mayor of London. 'Progressive' white voted with no in-group preference, while muslims voted their in-group preference.

Now you can't have bikini clad women on your advertisements.

It's the same argument as tolerance vs intolerance. One side wins by definition.

>Do you have anything to back that up? The concept of a unified white race is barely 100 years old. "In groups" are constantly changing.

Back when the European didn't feel threatened they had a tendency to divide themselves along national / linguistic / religious lines. This does not negate the existence of the wider group nor does it negate the existence of the particular dynamics of a multi ethnic society, which are conflictual.

>b) is why I think like this is an issue which is worth discussing and to be taken seriously


It is. We are our own worst enemies.

First part is a good response that I was struggling to put into words. The in-group you think you're protecting now is totally different to the in-group your ancestors thought they were and their ancestors and their ancestors and so on. Because of way population dynamics works I could easily have two descendants at either side of a given in-group/out-group divide.

If these behaviours are not natural behaviours among animals, including humans, then why do they continue to be exhibited? I've never done or will do any of these things nor have a ever felt a strong desire to do so.

If it's natural it probably ended up the way it did via natural selection and evolution. There's a paper on this where a simulation was run and found that ethnocentrism dominates populations as the most successful system, although I think the model they used was too simplistic.

Unfortunately, most people on Cred Forums are now complete fucking retard normies who can't think their way out of a paper bag and just dogpile whatever supports their preconceived opinions. See pretty much the first 50 posts in this thread. Absolutely pathetic. Am I on fucking facebook now?

>everyone in the world practices it, unless the material conditions you live in condition you to not practice it.

Doesn't this point to the cause of in group preferences being a result of material conditions, and not the cause of them?

>Presumably it is the survival of a certain cultural expression as well as the phenotype. If we recognize that culture are a complex phenomena that is not designed but rather emerge and is transmitted within one group, then the survival of the group, on top of corresponding to the survival of a phenotype, corresponds to the survival of a certain way of life, of certain cultural traits which happen to be passed along a certain phenotype.

That's false though. Where I live in Vancouver Persian Muslims who are born here(or even moved here a long time ago) integrate into Western culture just fine, even ones who just moved here usually don't have a hard time. The phenotype is completely unrelated to being able to adopt a certain type of values.

>
But more to the point, ethnocentric societies, and thus homogeneous societies, necessarily prevent the possibility of inter ethnic conflicts on top of ensuring more harmonious relations since race or ethnicity is never going to be an issue. This allows race to recede to the background and lose relevance, which leaves more place for individuality.

You're joking right? Whites have been killing each other just as much as any other race. Starting civil wars, fighting over religion etc. It doesn't prevent inner ethnic conflicts. As long as class persist conflicts will arise, because the root of the problem isn't ethnicity.

>it's old and natural that means we can't transcend it
I don't get this logic.

Collectivize the means of production.

This does negate the existence of a wider group if the people within said smaller groups don't identify with each other.

OK ... so if that's the case if I believe group preference is good, & can outline rational steps to take it, I'm being rational.

Are you of german ancestry?

>Collectivize the means of production.
lol

knew it you fucking commie

>It's irrational to prefer the people who created you, raised you, fed you, etc. to the Muslims who want to chop your head off

No, there's no reason for material conditions and in-group preferences to be aligned. You may argue that our surplus wealth and time has bred the environment for these lunatic cultural Marxist ideas to grow and become popular without a shred of moral or quantitative backing, but there is absolutely no reason wealth will arbitrarily lead to a self hating cosmopolitan streak in culture. It just happened to make good psychological conditions for the creators of the idea to spread it like a cancer.

in-group preference is emotional, but has a good evolutionary basis to to help people that share your genes so those genes get passed on
no point in expending resources so that people totally unrelated to you breed

and it's highly irrational to pretend this doesn't exist and act in a purely altruistic manner - the world won't change because you will it, you'll only get stabbed in the back

>I don't get this logic.


I didn't imply we can't transcend it. In fact humanitarianism is proof that we can intellectually overcome our base instincts.

I am simply stating that the tribe has reason behind it, and ethnocentrism is an extension of that same reasoning. Namely the propagation of our shared genetics vs others doing the same.

>You're joking right? Whites have been killing each other just as much as any other race

That's a straight up fallacy.

I'm saying that multi-ethnicity and diversity is a potential source of conflict, in this particular case I'm talking about racial diversity.

You're saying that there are others source of conflict, which is correct yet does not negate my point at all.

>That's false though.

First, I'm obviously talking about groups and trends and therefore evidence noticed at the individual level is illustrative at best. If we look at at broad evidence from the US, we see that Latinos have different political behavior and different attitude when it comes to government involvement as compared with whites, as well as different attitudes when it comes to things like gay marriage for instance. The same can be said for blacks.

If we look at Europe's Muslim, the case is even clearer. While it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there's gonna be individual who adopt the home culture more, this does not negate the broader trend, or the trends that may emerge as you look at groups.

Another very clear example, as you are in Vancouver, would be the fact that many Chinese still use Mandarin and Cantonese, the same way in Montreal many vermin still use Arabic, on top of being muzz.

So no, it's not false.

>This does negate the existence of a wider group if the people within said smaller groups don't identify with each other.

No. Group identification is multi faceted and while I may recognize that I'm white and that some other person is white it may very well still be that I believe that there is another, more substantial differences between us that set us apart. I may, for instance, care very much about some ideological division, or a difference in language or nationality.

So are you a minority trying to contaminate whites or are you just a traitor white?

Is this the paper you're referring to?
Anyway, I was disappointed with this thread until that got posted and then an actual discussion started. This board used to be better but it just became a big meme in the MSM the past two years and now it's full of newfags.

I literally just said I prefer my family, but I wouldn't sacrifice five lives to save one because that's consistent with my system of ethics. Not everyone who's not my family wants to chop my head off. Are you actually retarded?

>knew it you fucking commie
It's a way to eliminate class. Furthermore, socialism as an idea is fucking old. Epicurus was an advocate of communal ownership, as was Plato.

>No, there's no reason for material conditions and in-group preferences to be aligned. You may argue that our surplus wealth and time has bred the environment for these lunatic cultural Marxist ideas to grow and become popular without a shred of moral or quantitative backing, but there is absolutely no reason wealth will arbitrarily lead to a self hating cosmopolitan streak in culture. It just happened to make good psychological conditions for the creators of the idea to spread it like a cancer.

>le cultural marxist meme
Cultural Marxism doesn't exist retard. Adorno was a reactionary who loved European high culture. My point was you said most people practice ethno-centrism unless their raised in the Western world. That points to it being a result of western values, a result of the material conditions of the west.

I understand that is has "reason" behind it, but I don't think that reason is relevant. The way which primitive humans survived, is completely different from today.

> That's a straight up fallacy.
No it isn't. You said a homogenous society prevents the possibility of inner ethnic conflicts. I said that was false.

>Another very clear example, as you are in Vancouver, would be the fact that many Chinese still use Mandarin and Cantonese, the same way in Montreal many vermin still use Arabic, on top of being muzz.

A result of them just moving here, which is a result of our neoliberal government deciding to sell off Vancouver to the highest bidder. I know a lot of Koreans and Chinese who were born here and integrate just fine. My point is that the phenotype is not innately linked to cultural values. Pointing out that first generation immigrants don't integrate as well doesn't negate that.

>lol

We typically won't tolerate females. Get your shit together (I.e. Get funny or get on point w/ facts, there is no in between).

This ain't your dumb ass blog you fucken fag hag

>It's a way to eliminate class.
Wealth inequality but how does it make anglos and muslims any happier together. What is the shared values that makes them want to collectivize

>Furthermore, socialism as an idea is fucking old. Epicurus was an advocate of communal ownership, as was Plato.
Not an argument. They've remained that, ideas.

Practicing incest will imprint on both of you. She won't want to marry and you won't want to give her away.

This hampers alliances because daughters are the best asset in alliance negotiations.

For mother son it infantilizes the boy and his attachment will prevent him from becoming a truely masculine and independent.

Genetics-wise there is small chance of defect, but not much.

The main detracters are losa of bargaining chip and public stigma.

t. almost got psych degree once

I hope that when you're thinking about this, you do realize that genetics matter immensely to determine human potential. Not only physical but also mental traits are more a result of genes expressing themselves rather than upbringing. Your IQ, character traits, personality and even the fundamental way you experience reality are all majorly determined by genes. The science about this is solid fact but currently unpalatable for the social norms of the West and therefore this knowledge is suppressed. Geneticists and many in the medical profession are well aware of this though.

As an analogy, you can see the genes as a machine and the influence of the environment as how to use the machine. Some machines are just better than others at doing certain things but it sometimes happens that a superior machine has an incompetent operator (environment) and therefore even the best machines can see their potential wasted. Mostly that's not the case though.

The second thing is that, while there is a distribution of traits withing human races, there are large statistically significant differences between races. Of course when you look at the percentage DNA difference between races it seems almost irrelevant. Truth is that genetically speaking, these small differences in genes have huge differences on outcomes both at the individual level and that of society. It's really not a coincidence that after a millennium of extreme eugenic selection pressure in Europe the industrial revolution took of here and pretty much all science and technology was discovered or developed by Europeans.

Since people are innately more attracted and trusting of "similar" others, be that culturally or through the expression of genes, it's to be expected that ethnocentrism appears to be the rule in societies throughout history. The genetic factor is such a large influence that's unfortunately mostly ignored in today's western society.

You can argue the result all day, you ignored my point that any idea similar to out-group global cucking would have taken hold in those material conditions but it is irrelevant.

The question at hand is it good for the west to have out-group preference? I say no and that the dichotomy follows a prisoner's dilemma. The only party currently playing the cosmopolitan strategy is the European west every other country gains from this by exploiting out charity and empathy while not returning it much at all. If everyone played the strategy everyone would benefit, but instead the rational thing according to the rules of the game is for the west to return to ethnocentricism, it is unlikely other countries will ever bother deploying the cosmopolitan strategy when they are already unilaterally gaining.

>stumbling over his own words
>making strawman arguments
>"Are you actually retarded?"
You should feel humiliated. This thread should be a serious wake-up call. Your stupid, ignorant world view has been completely shattered right before your very eyes. You're probably having a panic attack IRL right now.

>I understand that is has "reason" behind it, but I don't think that reason is relevant. The way which primitive humans survived, is completely different from today.

Well first off if you dismiss reason entirely, don't chime in on a discussion on the rationality of a position...

Secondly, the conditions under which our genes survive past us has not changed at all. The game may now have more players, but that just makes it more complicated, not fundamentally different.

As it stands our "intellectual" strategy is being out-competed by those that reject it, and our best response is to ask politely that they maybe might consider changing - which they won't as to do so would put them at a disadvantage.

>it is not wise to tell yourself stories

Here's a story to tell yourself.

You think you're so great ...

...Well...

...You ain't.

...

Explain to me why it isn't. Fuck other peoples.

I said:

>homogeneous societies, necessarily prevent the possibility of inter ethnic conflicts

which is quite literally true as a matter of logic. In order to have INTER-ETHNIC conflicts you need MORE THAN ONE ETHNICITY.

Therefore, a society that is MONO ETHNIC cannot have INTER-ETHNIC conflicts by definition.

Therefore, mono ethnic societies eliminate ONE potential source of conflict.

>My point is that the phenotype is not innately linked to cultural values.

It has to correlate in some way although I will give you that it is not causative. So, for instance, I want in western Canada for a while and, of course, saw Asians. Some of them, while being born here, still knew how to spoke Cantonese. This, of course, wasn't cause by their phenotype but it is never the less correct to remark that it will be correlated with it simply because culture develop within cohesive group and will be transmitted along with the phenotype.

So some of the Chinese culture, no matter what it is, HAS to be transmitted to the kid along with the phenotype. It was also readily apparent that all the Asian I saw had different attitude toward marriage and commitment, although it's difficult to generalize.

There is also the obvious issue of culinary tradition, which is also transmitted along with the phenotype. This is not a matter of saying that the phenotype cause it but it will have to be correlated in some way.

Another characteristic of the Asians is that they gave their kid western names, whereas Latinos and other vermin Muzz have a tendency to maintain their ethnic names.

It's also important to note that all culture are unique and that some may mesh better than other with the home culture. When it comes to some Asian country, we have to admit that their development of the last 60 years make them more compatible with us than some other places. Their home country is usually rather materialistic and not particularly religious, which makes them a good fit for us.

fucking kek

I attribute some of the success of Europe to environmental factors such as domesticability of animals, crop yields, etc. which enabled us to develop agricultural societies more quickly as well as to genetic selection, but I think you're mostly right. However, it's important to bear in mind that while genetics do play a large role in the potential of a given individuals, and that there are generally speaking genetic differences across races, this cannot is not a sufficient reason to discriminate against an out-group entirely. It's a little difficult to explain concisely why, so here's a video I found about it which deals with these points:
youtube.com/watch?v=9HQ90iSGpJM
(Not MGTOW by the way, but respected the thoroughness of the uploader)

Yeah I need to re-read myself more since I literally can't write apparently.

>some of them [...] still knew how to speak
>of course, wasn't caused
>some elements of the Chinese culture [...] have to be transmitted
>had a different attitude
>some Asian countries

etc.

>Wealth inequality but how does it make anglos and muslims any happier together. What is the shared values that makes them want to collectivize

Islam is a shit religion, but as material conditions for the masses improve societies tend to become more secular. See: Afghanistan before shit got fucked.

Anyway, it doesn't eliminate wealth inequality because if you don't work in socialism you don't get paid. There will be wealth disparity, but it'll be based on how much you work. It eliminates class, those who own private property and those who don't.

I'm not saying to let everyone come to Europe. I think that we should be helping refugees in countries closer to their native country. "Ethno-centrism" implies kicking out people who've been living in these countries for decades, and often times centuries.

>Well first off if you dismiss reason entirely, don't chime in on a discussion on the rationality of a position...

I put "reason" in quotation marks FOR a reason. I mean it's an appeal to novelty

The invention of modern technology has changed everything. The previous advantages of tribes no longer apply. How many people do you know that hunt or grow their own food?

If you mean to take it that far, I suppose we should abandon everything Bismarck did for German Unification considering he united previously opposed ethnic groups. In fact, same thing goes for most modern nation-states.

If it isn't causative, it isn't relevant.
>pic related

I agree Islam is shit and Islamic countries are shit. I'm not arguing for importing more people, I'm arguing against what most ethno-nationalist wanting to expel people here who have integrated fine and have families that have lived here for generations.

>muslim vermin keep their native names
Why does someones name matter?
Race is not an effective way to classify HBD. Second generation niggers in Britain are already doing better in school than native anglos.

>this cannot is not a sufficient reason to discriminate against an out-group entirely

There is still no advantage to diversity proper though, which IS a good reason to discriminate against all the members of an out-group.

In fact, as I have stated in another post, multi ethnic societies are a necessary condition for the emergence of inter ethnic conflicts, which currently exist in the US, Europe, India, the Middle east, etc.

(Black / Latinos Vs. White, White European Vs Muzz, Hindu Vs. Muzz, Muzz Vs. their Christian minorities, etc.)

OK sell it to me.

How does a move away from subsistence farming and into city living mean that the rules have changed? Keep in mind that we live with today people that have maintained the rules and they are out-competing us, [current year] be damned.

OUTBREEDING DEPRESSION

It's tricky to try and use immigrant populations to make generalisations about their larger racial groups because immigrants are intrinsically self-selecting. That being said, I don't think the average difference in capability between racial groups is nearly as large as is often made out, but we cannot conclude it's non-existent either from the evidence available.

I don't think there's any large advantage to diversity (excluding the ability of poor people to emigrate and better their lot) but I don't think there are large disadvantages either so long as immigration is kept to controlled numbers which allow the ethnic groups to assimilate into society over time. While I don't deny the examples you've mentioned exist, and obviously they exist for a multitude of historical and cultural reasons, I don't think conflicts are solely motivated by ethnic division. Even within societies which are ethnically similar some kind of sectarianism always seems to evolve where creates conflicts.

>If you mean to take it that far, I suppose we should abandon everything Bismarck did for German Unification considering he united previously opposed ethnic groups. In fact, same thing goes for most modern nation-states.

I don't know enough about the history of that period to make a judgement on the basis of that example. I would guess, however, that the previous divisions that existed between these people may not have been cultural but rather political or, absent that, that there was a concerted push to destroy the minority cultures in order to bring the various populations in harmony with the dominant group.

This later situation is what happened in France when the government just decided to eliminate the various dialect that existed across the country.

In the end, the cultural unification of a people necessarily result in the destruction of the cultures that were there before, possibly of all of them if they all fuse together. Maybe that's what you advocate for although it doesn't seem to be the case as you speak of "well integrated people".

But you're probably aware that "assimilation" necessarily result in the elimination of the previous way of life of the people coming here.

>If it isn't causative, it isn't relevant.

If A and B are strongly correlated together because of a common cause C then in so far as I use the correlation A-B to speak of C then it's relevant. This is exactly what I'm doing in this case. The phenotype is passed along in the same way elements of the culture are: it's parental and is part of the historical chain of transmission of both cultural and genetic elements. This gets worse if ghettos get established.

>Why does someones name matter?

I'm illustrating the existence of cultural differences. The name may or may not matter depending on the degree to which it sends a signal that one wants to integrate in the host culture but it's not as if I had strong opinions about this.

>our best response is to ask politely that they maybe might consider changing - which they won't as to do so would put them at a disadvantage.
I don't think it's set in stone that the rest of world won't develop universalist principles. There's a reason we adopted them in the first place, so it's less about asking them to change for our sake than it is about convincing them that we are right and this is the way to do things. These principles became what they are in the West today because people argued for them against establishments which many doubted would even listen at all.

>(excluding the ability of poor people to emigrate and better their lot)

That's irrelevant to the country "welcoming" these people.

> but I don't think there are large disadvantages either

Well consider the fact that Muzzie are in principle bound to try and overthrow our form of government and consider the fact that immigration is currently the hottest topic of discussion in all western counties all the while minorities are ALL acting like a bunch of ethno centric cunts and I think the disadvantages are going to start to seem obvious.

If you look at the US, racial divisions between blacks and whites constantly lead to conflicts that cannot in principle be resolved, since their roots are historical (and thus cannot be modified) and demographic, in the sense that blacks resent being a minority, which also cannot be changed.

Add to that the fact that "blackness" is now an integral part of their identity, which necessarily exclude whites and has implications relating to our very ability to talk to one another and the way we see our identity and history, and then finally consider that these demographic situation are IRREVERSIBLE and I'm forced to say that diversity does nothing but bring problems which are both chronic and not fixable in principle.

How far these problems may degenerate I do not know, but the theoretical bottom is a shooting war. The more realistic option is the polarization of various ethnic group within political parties which then become nothing more than proxies for an inter-ethnic conflict which will paralyze the proper functioning of the nation forever. In my view, this what is happening in the US and is in part what happened in the UK with the rise of UKIP.

This does not even start to take into account the tremendous """benefit""" of diversity in the classroom, in the workplace, at the local level, in the media, etc.

Fuck. Diversity. With a chainsaw.

I'll check out the video. But I have to disagree with you when you say that there's no reason to discriminate against entire out-groups. Of course you have to define "discrimination". When it comes to the economy and jobs I do agree that the best and most competent should get the job. But things like migration are a totally different matter since this directly influences the genetic make-up of your county's gene-pool. Migration has the potential to undermine and even wipe out the uniqueness your own people's race.

From my perspective there is no reason to mix ethnicities into one country and because of overwhelming evidence I'm convinced that every country would be better of if it was ethnically homogeneous. The distinctions between people and races are valuable and interesting to me and are worth protecting, losing them is akin to losing irreplaceable natural species and biodiversity.

That's why I think it's moral to discriminate based on "race" when it comes to matters like migration and reproductive rights. Discrimination also doesn't necessarily imply awful treatment. A humane eugenics policy is possible to phase out foreign races in your county over time without marginalizing them or oppressing them in their daily lives. Of course (reproductive) rights will not be universal but that's not really a problem in of itself and can be compensated in various ways.

>There's a reason we adopted them in the first place

The west was the sole remaining super power in the world and was under the illusion that it has a monopoly on what it meant to be human.

>Migration has the potential to undermine and even wipe out the uniqueness your own people's race.

Even if your ethnic group doesn't account for the entire population of you country you can still choose to breed within them.

Did you miss my point about controlled numbers? I don't think Muslims are going to overthrow western governments any time soon and immigrants do adopt western values within a generation. I don't think the black situation in the US is "irreversible" either so long as both sides learn to stop shooting each other.

Because its more likely to be reciprocated.

We developed the compassionate, tolerant universalist principles in the West during a time we were still ethnically homogeneous and it made sense in that time and context because in the absence of foreign races and cultures we didn't have to fear for our own genetic and cultural survival. At this point in time our "liberal" values are a huge liability that we seemingly doubles down on. Liberal ideas and policies are really not here to stay though because they've become obsolete and dysfunctional. Case in point, the people who believe in liberal values are literally going extinct because they don't reproduce enough. If that isn't dysfunctional culture then I don't know what is.

Also consider that globalization has more or less reached its peak since the levels of economic growth we've had in the past are never coming back. Limits to growth, resource depletion and high quality energy dense fossil fuel supply that have been the real driver of economic growth are also depleting fast. The future will be local and with many hardships and challenges so the last thing we need in such a context is ethnic differences to fuel unrest or even civil wars.

Needless to say liberal values will not survive in such a future.

>Did you miss my point about controlled numbers?

(1) It's not really what we have now, (2) "controlled" doesn't tell us according to what principle things should be controlled nor (3) what we should control for, (4) it doesn't justify immigration or diversity in and of itself.

Presumably, you want to do everything you can to DIMINISH diversity, not increase it. While this may not be caused by an ethnocentric attitude, it would be done in the interest of diminishing the possibility of conflicts. That is, in so far as you actually want any immigration at all.

>I don't think Muslims are going to overthrow western governments any time soon

I don't care about their capacity to do it. It's what their religion calls for.

>I don't think the black situation in the US is "irreversible" either so long as both sides learn to stop shooting each other.

Demographic changes are irreversible save for deportation or genocide.

If a particular ethnic group develops an identity on the basis of its history, then in virtue of the fact that history cannot be changed (it being in the past), said identity cannot be modified and therefore must be destroyed if it happens to be conductive of conflictual relations with other ethnic groups. (In the US, the black identity is obviously in opposition to a perceived white identity.)

In other words, if people start to identify along ethnic lines and tend to perceive their interests to be different because of their group membership, you have to make a concerted effort to destroy their respective identities, which they will necessarily resent.

Furthermore, in a multi ethnic society, bad actors may profit from inter ethnic conflict and do everything in their power to create them. It's fairly clear that there are elements within society who do just that, chief among them being the media.

Why would anyone want the opportunity to deal with these situations is beyond me.

Homogeneity > diversity all day every day.

Didn't notice this post before now. If it there was less conflict when the boys co-operated on a common goal than before, then surely it's not inevitable that the existence of different in-groups is going to lead to conflict? Different groups could co-exist so long as they work together? Interesting to learn about this, though.

Thermodynamically it IS nearly guaranteed that the rest of world will not develop universalist principles, and also that these principles will die in the West as well.

>Explain to me why in-group preference is rational, Cred Forums
Explain to me why did your mother take care of you.

>fear for our own genetic and cultural survival
This is seriously overstating this. Europe is at least 80-85% native and that native population has never been higher. Just because the birth rate is lowering doesn't mean we're going extinct - we're not, we're so far away from being extinct it's fucking unbelievable. The birth rates all over the world are decreasing because of improved child mortality, improved healthcare, less arranged marriages. It's fine m8.

>identity cannot be modified
Yes it can. My ancestors came to this country 1000 years ago as Viking invaders and were considered as such when they settled here. My family doesn't still consider themselves Vikings and people here don't treat me as a Viking - of course identity can change over time.

>Why would anyone want the opportunity to deal with these situations is beyond me.
And this is somehow going to be easier than preventing anyone, ever moving to a different country if they're of the wrong ethnic group how exactly?

What?

>of course identity can change over time.

I said: in so far as identity is rooted in history it cannot change. The same way there are some fundamental elements of the Islamic identity which cannot change lest the identity be destroyed.

>And this is somehow going to be easier than preventing anyone, ever moving to a different country if they're of the wrong ethnic group how exactly?

What? You just shoot them or you deport them. You can do it on sight if they're from a different ethnic group. As soon as the signal is send that you're serious about treating unwanted people as if they were invader it stops the flow.

If you're 100% certain you're gonna get killed or put in a cage on your way to a country you don't even bother to try.

Again: are you a non white or a cuck white?

No, it isn't.

Natural and animalistic are not synonyms

>Europe is at least 80-85% native and that native population has never been higher.
It was nearly 100% for all of history when you consider the various European peoples as one race, which we should because Europeans are alle genetically very close. Also look at some demographic projections and weep. It's not because we're right now still 85% of the population this is in any way stable. There are a huge demographic changes happening that are fueled by the below replacement fertility level of Europeans and sky-high migrant birthrates and new influx. Just look at how heavilly many major European cites like Paris, Brussels, Berlin and London have been ethnically cleansed of natives. If nothing changes we really are on a path to extinction. It's simple demographics, as long as your birthrates stay below 2.1 children per woman then your population is shrinking and with levels around 1.4 children per woman in the West that is most definitely what's happening. Non-European migrants are a real and significant threat.

>What?
I should have explained more. Since liberal values are only tenable in prosperous societies that can afford to live with the (side-)effects of such policies this implies that once society falls to significantly lower levels of prosperity and standard of living, these values will be untenable and replaced.

I'm making the case that the future will be one of much poverty and economic decline based on the underlying changes and trends of the energystreams (thermodynamics) that power industrial society and made it possible in the first place. Fossil fuels are an energy-source like no other, they are incredibly energy-dense and take relatively little effort to obtain. It's these fuels that have allowed us to create and live in an industrial society with historically unprecedented standards of living. But fossil fuels are finite, unsustainable and degrading since the best stuff is extracted first. There is not other energy-source that can take the place of fossil fuel without incurring truly massive declines in standard of living and population levels.

But renewables you say? Renewables are manufactured in a fossil fuel powered industrial system and obtain huge energy-subsidies that way, even with that they barely produce more energy over their lifetimes to pay for the energy cost of their own manufacturing. As an energy source renewables are and illusion (except for hydro but that's inherently very limited).

But technology will save the day eventually you say? Technology in and of itself is NOT an energy-SOURCE, it's a way to utilize energy from real energy sources like fossil fuels, biomass, sunlight, uranium etc. The only energy source that is of enough quality and density that allows industrial society as we know it are fossil fuels. All other energy sources are too of too low energy density.

no build the wall taco