Thinking more about this, I think the intent behind my question was unclear. It’s not that ethnocentrism is synonymous with racism. It does fit some definitions, and in practice they often have the same effect. But they are distinct, and my argument is not, “ethnocentrism entail racism and racism is bad”.
Rather, even if they aren’t the same thing, ethnocentrism can be bad for the same reason that racism is bad. That’s why I asked why racism is bad.
From my perspective, it’s not the cruelty or the hatred that makes racism bad; those are independent wrongs. Racism is wrong in and of itself, even if it’s done with charity and love.
Rather, the specific wrong of racism is the denial of the individual: it’s wrong to treat individuals as mere avatars of a group. And in particular, it’s wrong to deny individuals full equality under the law.
And my concern is that the ethnocentrism you’re advocating does those things.
I’m more sympathetic to cultural arguments (that’s why I keep pointing out that Weidel’s partner is culturally Swiss). Culture is expressed in behaviors, so to say that an individual is a part of a specific culture is to describe in part how the individual behaves. But, as I’ve suggested throughout this thread, culture-based arguments are usually thinly veiled race-based arguments.
I’m also curious what you think of nepotism. I assume you oppose it (it seems inimical to Marxist communism), but it also seems similar to the problems I have with ethnocentrism.
So… does that mean that you hate the fact that the majority of progressive voters in general are women, who btw vehemently vote for more immigration and rape?
So nobody holds that position… except the entire progressive political aisle, the college students, the wokies and welll everyone else who holds that position, but thats them or smth?
This is a rather impressive statement in and of itself, even if we discounted the fact that europe is now having places like Luxemburg where immigrants are now 51% of the population, but every major country from Germany to Austria is now over 20%
For a position nobody argues for or wants, apparently the entire thing is going on just by itself.
I guess its magic, a force of nature, or something that ppl cannot do anything against since things like borders or border enforcement or laws no longer exist.
This is a great and wonderful red herring. Apparently countries, citizens and native populations no longer exist because you cant define caucasian to a 0.0001% genetic template.
Not only is this a picture example of the Sorites fallacy, its also as bad faith of a sophistic argument one could make in this topic. Please do not insult others with these kinds of arguments.
So in places where no borders, no protections, no laws exist in regards of migration, there is no mass migration because nobody takes note of it anyway.
Yeah… this is now borderline comedy…
Need i remind you that europe also came together as one nation to fight the Ottomans and eventually create a crusade with the support of just about every country that existed within europe?
But even if we ignored that, what precisely is your argument here?
Cause all you said is that “you all used to differentiate between eachother based on countries, nations and culture, and now that we have separate groups which are ALIEN TO ALL OF YOU, you all claim that they are alien to all of you”
You literally made the argument that there has always been distinction and now you ask why there would be distinction?
Lets put it this way: Its obvious that you are arguing from a position of faith and emotion and not one of rationality and logic, all of your posts are trying to JUSTIFY instead of explain. They are full of whataboutisms, deflections and fallacies.
The tl;dr remains the same:
Citizens of a country have all right to determine who they want to live with, who they want to tolerate within their own borders.
If you dont like it, if you want to take away their autonomy then feel free to start a war and as always throughout human history: Whoever is left will be right.
What you dont get to do is to insist that people have to accomodate your whims. Whether its ideologically or physically by you dragging your butt over there, demanding to be taken care of.
If I was to go to Mexico crossing the southern border right now and say there’s too Mexicans or brown people inside of Mexico City publicly I would be arrested by the Federales for being a hostile foreign agitator where afterwards I would immediately be deported if I wasn’t jailed first.
Yet, inside of western white European nations since 1965 that’s exactly what has happened or transpired by comparison.
“There’s too many white people in these nations, we need to diversify them and if anybody opposess that they’re racists. White European population majority areas is systemic racism. They shouldn’t be population majorities anywhere on earth.”
Indeed, what we have seen is that white European people are the only people where it is permitted to discriminate against openly because supposedly all white people are evil colonizing nazi trash. (As political liberals like to constantly remind everyone.)
Moreover, I am not even saying all non-whites should be kicked out of the nation or have less human rights under the rule of law.
No, I am not saying any of that nonsense as I believe all people of all different races or ethnicities should be treated with human dignity.
My nationalism is mostly civic with a few racial grievances but ultimately one where all different ethnicities and races of people get a long with each other in social cooperation. Where I differ from political liberals is that I believe white European people should be allowed to have their collective identity and cultural consciousness.
The liberal notion of saying white people aren’t real or that white identity is evil where white European collective consciousness concerning a shared historical legacy shouldn’t exist at all isn’t going to bring people together. This is a failed mental perspective on the part of political liberals and only divides people against each other.
If you want to bring people together in cooperation everybody should be allowed to maintain their cultural identities, white European people also included. There shouldn’t be the exclusion of anybody if you want to be fair to everyone.
Another constant conflict is a constant flow of immigration into one area, the ability to absorb people into a population is not unlimited. At some point you got to say that we have enough people living in a nation where we don’t need any more in addition. Immigration then needs to become more restrictive and lessened overtime.
I am even open to the idea of giving citizenship to some illegals not deporting them all, but my stance is overall the same, unlimited foreign mass immigration is not sustainable.
I am against nepotism, it’s one of the reasons we have an out of control billionaire class now and all of the bourgeois managerials running around exploiting workers. Many of those people have never had to work or struggle to acquire their positions. Instead they were given them outright and this largely creates a culture of narcissism.
Yes, as a liberal you look at everything under an individualist format.
As a communist and Marxist I am more about collectivism or the collective group.
Our conflict is that if I see a form of radical individualism threatening the overall collective group I believe it shouldn’t exist at all because ultimately my ideal society is majority over minority oriented. You will then protest and say that the rights of the individual is being trampled against even though my position is majority collective social harmony which for me I am willing to protect at all costs.
When I think of ethnocentrism I think of shared collective historical legacy or shared cultural consciousness in terms of living collective mental experience.
I don’t know if that is helpful to our conversation here or not.
I think where liberals get lost with things like ethnocentrism is that they assume all ethnocentric people are Social Darwinists under a racial or ethnic mental perception.
“Those people are inferiors, we should enslave, exploit, and terrorize them all as their superiors because we’re divine where they are simply not.”
For me that is a negative example of ethnocentrism where it absolutely should be opposed, but what I am arguing in this thread is that there are positive forms of ethnocentrism as well.
Unfortunately a lot of modern day political liberals view all of ethnocentrism as being bad or evil which I view as a mistake. Of course would be modern political liberals are either transhumanists or posthumanists wanting a global government in a world without national borders where this is where conservative traditionalism collides with progressive liberalism.
What model is this from, and what was the prompt? Can you share a link to the conversation?
It’s difficult to poll, but in the US, self-identified liberals were nearly evenly split (54-46) when asked if they “favor open borders”, versus 35-65 for moderates and 18-82 for conservatives. Data from the November 2025 Harvard Harris Poll. Annoyingly that question does not appear to have been included in any of their subsequent polls, but December 2025 (p. 90) and January (p.104) and February 2026 (p.106), they polled support for “closing the border with added security policies that discourage illegal immigration”, and found:
Poll
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
December 2025
51
68
84
January 2025
43
68
81
February 2025
48
65
81
This suggests we should be cautious inferring too much here. As I understand the terms, there is a middle ground between favoring ‘open borders’ and favoring ‘closed borders’, and it’s likely ‘permissive immigration with a path to citizenship’ can be compatible with either under the definitions respondents had in mind.
But I think it’s pretty clear that there’s no unanimity of opinion on the correct immigration policy on the left.
I’d also expect this is a high-water mark, since Trump’s wantonly cruel immigration policies have likely moved the left to be more likely to support immigration in poll responses. Compare:
That isn’t anything like what I said. Caucasion is a classification for humans that is not defined by genetics, which is true as a historical fact. Any genetic meaning is a modern retrofit.
And if Mr. A is using “European” to refer to the group of people onto which we’re retrofitting “Caucasian”, then his question is just, “Are X genetically X”, which is tautologically true for all X.
Like MistressOphelia, you laugh in disbelief but are unable to explain why.
Are you disagreeing with me with respect to the specific places I mentioned? Are people in rural Mississippi not much, much worse off on average than people in New York or LA or Boston? How many of them move as a result? How big a problem is this internal migration?
How does that fit your model?
A they’ve lived peacefully and committed zero genocides on each other since, right?
My argument is that today’s distinctions should not be fixed in law, they will dissolve the way that past distinctions have dissolved and we should welcome that.
Who are you quoting? Who is saying that?
I’m not. No significant portion of people who support immigration are saying that. It isn’t a necessary to believe that to support immigration, and it doesn’t follow from the support for immigration.
So we can agree, those are bad and false claims. That does not require me to change my position at all.
That isn’t true. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m totally in favor of celebrating actual cultures – and we do celebrate European cultures in the US all the fucking time. We’re taught European history in school, and read the great works of various European cultures. Traditions from European cultures are a huge part of our civic rituals.
American culture is disproportionately European: European influences collectively form a larger share of our civic identity than they do of our genetics.
Where you and I differ is that I reject the notion of a single unified European cultural identity. There are many European cultures, they are not fungible. My ancestors came from Europe, but I’m no more German than I am Chinese.
That’s a much weaker claim than a claim that a particular country has already surpassed our capacity for immigration. It’s totally consistent to say that 1) some specific rate of immigration can’t be sustained indefinitely, but 2) the actual current rate of immigration is not a problem.
Yeah, absolutely. Similarly, many people were given a liberal democracy outright and think they’re entitled to it, and entitled to deny it to others.
No, I think of it as wanting to give nice things to people you see yourself as connected to, and deny them to everyone else.
It’s like nepotism, but more inclusive.
As a liberal, I think that respecting individuals’ rights and freedoms best serves the collective good.
you press windows+shift+s draw a square around it, you go to google gemini and ctrl+v into the thing where you can directly ask whether or not its true/accurate.
Simple and does not need any conversations or anything else linked.
I dont understand what you want to be cautious about.
You literally listed the numbers yourself.
Who wants borders closed → ~51% of liberals, ~68% of moderates and ~84% conservatives
This aligns with what i said. The primary supporters of open borders are liberals.
Because you exclude the requirements for reviewing your premise.
How would there be an issue of mass immigration where mass immigration is completely ignored in the first place? There is no data collection on it, its not criminal, its not reviewed, listed or cared about.
Its like how many countries in europe claim that migration is not a major issue, while simultaneously refusing to record, keep or review any data that would distinguish migrants from the local population.
Mass migration is sure as sh-t not a problem when you outright lie about it’s impact. Thats what i referred to when i said that this argument is comedy.
And? Not only is this a red herring, it also makes no sense. If anything, it disproves your point.
They fought even among themselves, so why would they not fight a bunch of imported, completely incompatible culture individuals which were forced upon them without their input?
Correct. That is what the destruction of european culture and identity looks and sounds like.
“lets just let everyone in, we should not distinguish between illegals and citizens, and not give a fuck about what impact illegal criminals have on our citizens or on our nation”.
Something tells me that if your entire family got raped/murdered by some illegal bordercrossers you’d not be stating that we should just ignore the fact that none of this would have happened unless some psychopathic fuck politicians insisted on importing them and allowing them to stay.
All you have said here is that we should welcome europe becoming a third world shit pile, because if you pour piss into vine, it will eventually dissolve completely and you can no longer tell the vine and the piss apart.
Correct. Absolutely. And you will be left with an entire barrel of sewage.
You can approve of destroying your own nation and culture.
Ironically, this right is granted to you by the very nation and culture you want to “dissolve”.
Something tells me that in your newly dissolved reality, you wont be having these same rights, because god only knows they are very dangerous views to hold. They are a threat to the newly established status quo.
What you will find is a lot of white European political liberals love foreign immigration because in their mind its the poor low income white trash thats being swept away by foreign immigrants concerning intermediate economic changes.
They only care about foreign immigration when the Indians, Asians, and others come for their cushy white collar jobs. Only then do they rebel against it in mass.
They’re completely happy selling out lower income blue collar white European workers because it doesn’t affect them in the slightest. “Those lessers?! Good, sell them out and replace them with cheaper more cost effective foreign workers! They’re genetic inferiors anyways!”
(Until it eventually does overtime affect them as the wealthy cannot be insulated away forever from the consequences of their own making.)
Another example of economic capitalism playing a policy role on mass foreign immigration. It all comes down to money, finance, and simple economics in the most disgusting vulgar ways. This is how economic capitalism with political liberalism merges into this monstrosity of postmodern existential nihilism where nothing is sacred and nothing matters beyond the business status quo of profit seeking. The main tenet of political liberalism is that there is nothing special, sacred, profound, or unique about any kind of human beings around the world, all are expendable and interchangeable in the technological postmodern industrial machine. All are atomized individuals of mass consumerism, homo economicus.
So? If they don’t mind getting raped and murdered (and they do get raped and murdered) then fuck them. The fight will carry on without them. Not sure what you mean by a ‘progressive voter’. There are all kinds of policies to consider when voting. Most morons just say they vote for a ‘growing economy’ without even know what the fuck it means.
You should just own your mistake. You’re doubling down and making more mistakes in the process.
First, to recap, you said, “the entire progressive political aisle”. Do you agree that that’s false? Half is not the whole, right? These polls don’t even support the assertion that most liberals support open borders (support varies above and below 50% month over month).
Instead of acknowledging that, you’ve doubled down. But the poll you’ve doubled down into shows that the majority of people who support open borders are not liberal. While the percent of moderates and conservatives is lower than the percent of liberals, moderates and conservatives together make up a larger share of the population.
(Another way to illustrate the point: 100% of dudes who go by Carleas on ILP support open borders, but the vast majority of people who support open borders are not dudes who go by Carleas on ILP)
I don’t understand your points here, and I think maybe you don’t understand the point you’re responding to.
I’m talking about internal migration within the United States, from places with poor quality of life and poor life outcomes to places with high quality of life and better life outcomes. There is no restriction on movement between states in the US, and yet migration within the US does not cause the problems that it is alleged that free movement internationally would cause.
I’m saying that that’s a problem for you and Mr. A’s position: if open borders would be a problem, why aren’t they a problem in large geographic areas that already have open borders?
It seems like you have a problem with immigration being illegal, and one solution to that would just be to legalize immigration. Does this solve your problem?
No, obviously not. Say what you mean.
Why would I punish a class of people for the actions of one member of that class? If a lefty shot my mom I wouldn’t hold a vendetta against lefties.
The Germans took their mass extermination of or experimentation on whole groups of people ideas from the U.S. Mass extermination has gone global since then, and we don’t even protect babies born alive… we get rid of the evidence in incinerators that turn them into energy (“family planning“ and “Planned Parenthood”). Emergency use authorized triaging people to death with end of life drug cocktails for people put on ventilators that are too harsh for healing…was merely the beginning of “global public health policy“. We’re repeating Japanese internment camps with ICE detention centers. Everything the US courts do not strike down is going to go global. Are people going to care, or are their thoughts reflected in most of the social media comments I scroll past these days? Probably the thoughts the Germans were thinking rather than just playing ignorant as their towns were powdered with the ashes of people.
I asked, “Why would I punish a class of people for the actions of one member of that class?” I gave the example of ‘lefties’, who are an identifiable class of people but who it would seem weird to hate for the actions of any particular lefty.
I agree with the general point that an ideologically motivated action can implicate other followers of that ideology, but how is that relevant in the context of Nausemedu’s"bordercrossers"? Bordercrossing isn’t an ideology.
Another point relevant to this: immigration is a part of US culture. Our national myths frequently invoke our immigrant origins, and our national identity is as a safe haven for anyone seeking freedom and prosperity. Immigration is literally the first step in the ‘American Dream’.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Even in sharply polarized times, a strong majority in the US view immigration positively:
This reply makes not one lick of sense. You might as well have written your chairs are blue.
You are fighting ME over your OWN quote. You bought those stats, how tf is it ME who is doubling down on anything? You cited it, 80+% of conservatives are against open borders while about 50% of progressives are for them.
No. Im not gonna argue semantic bs with you. Progressives are the largest platform supporting open borders, and depending on the statistics where questioners are not trying to bs and weasel by mixing legal migration with illegal migration, the distance from other political and ideological groups is even larger.
So you can #notallprogressives all you like, its still THE platform that is running on this.
Not centrists, not communists, not the far right, not the conservatives.
Yes, you dont understand what im saying so its me who is not understanding you.
Thats just perfect.
You at least somewhat had a point while we assumed that you are on about illegal migration into a country, but now you are just talking about internal migration within the same country.
This just about has nothing to do with the entire topic on several, stacking layers, starting with how state and country borders are completely different, up to the fact that economic differences within states are nowhere as meaningful as between i.e. USA and the Congo.
There already is legal migration. You show your passport at the border and you follow the laws of the country you are entering.
No. Removing said laws and thus making all entry into the country legal is not a solution.
This is about as humorous of a fucking suggestion as resolving murder rates by making murder legal.
Cause that class of people was artificially and intentionally bought there.
Your example is not that a random leftie shot your mother. Your example is that the state placed a mentally ill leftist inside your home and then they killed one of your family members.
If you cant find blame there, then i feel sorry for your family and loved ones, but most people have enough intellectual capacity to not play lottery with the lives of their family members just because some psychopathic sick fuck in the parlament thought its virtuous to flood the country with unverified, potentially completely mentally ill and both culturally and intellectually incompatible individuals.
For the sole reason of “cheep labur gud”.
The question is one of responsibility, and each murder, each rape, each crime an illegal migrant has committed inside your borders, is one open border psychopaths carry a responsibility for.
Each of those crimes is a crime that would never have had happened had the borders been intact.
So those who opened the borders have blood on their hands.
This is such an obviously silly argument. Compare:
Each crime committed by a person who is born would never have happened if people stopped birthing children.
And this was absolutely foreseeable: 100% of crimes are committed by people who were born, so anyone who births a child or supports or encourages child birth knows exactly what they are doing.
It’s psychopathic. Parents have blood on their hands.
/s
See? Silly. Just obviously poor reasoning. You should feel bad about it.
