My part of East London collapsed years ago. The scale of White flight particularly out of London is massive. The Anglo-sphere center Right has been the driver of the Globalisation project and has completely failed to conserve ANYTHING from 1945. We have now moved beyond the old Left v Right paradigm to anti White v pro White. "Quick reminder that there is no upper limit to diversity. You'll just be endlessly told things are too White until you wake up one day to something between Mogadishu and Karachi". ~ Andrew Joyce
@@stephenmay2019 People being less closely related drives people to be more selfish since the wider population does not represent them. This causes the complex machinery of that society created by the large population to break down.
Higher diversity is significantly associated with lower trust in communities, so what you’re saying is true in that people become more individualistic, but the outcome is associated with higher crime rates and political corruption.
What seems to be implied is that in small heterogenous group, I will benefit X by doing something that benefits the group. However, with a large diverse group I will need to extract a benefit greater than X. I can't see any practical example of this - not one that can explained solely by group size and diversity. A variable called 'diversity' has to much variance to be practical.
The only context in which a multiracial society is possible is under a strong empire that keeps a lid on interracial strife (and that situation starts to break down when the empire starts playing racial favourites or starts playing off the racial groups against each other for temporary advantage). Ethnostates, the standard form of nation, are the only really viable form of large human grouping, because relative genetic closeness leads to easier communication, which is the foundation of trust, which is the foundation of the possibility of building a civilization across generations. Ethnostates are, one might say, the largest-feasible grouping based on genetic interrelatedness before genetic interrelatedness becomes too weak and vague to do any work. It's easy to see, if you think of the legendarily simpatico nature of monozygotic twins - extend that to normal twins, to families, to villages and towns, to regions and to nations. At each stage there's less and less of that simpatico nature due to genetic similarity; the nation is the last stage where it still exists to some diffuse extent, while at the same time the numbers advantage (for building civilization, for war, etc.) gives the group its power. That genetic interrelatedness is also the foundation of culture, in that, while ideas certainly have a lot of room to roam freely and follow their own logic, ultimately what "takes" for a large human group is set by the tether of shared genetics. The other aspect of genetic interrelatedness is that it forms a "meta" that gets over the Prisoner's Dilemma problem. Analogously to the code of Omerta in the original problem, to get a large group of people moving in some kind of harmony, you need some shared point of reference and commitment that can lift them out of mere rational individual behaviour, to work in ways that benefit the whole, not just themselves as individuals. With race, patriotism, nationalistic pride, you have a ready-made "meta" fit for just that purpose (the other classic one would be a shared religion, and of course nationalism and religion have always been closely related). Another important point is that with that simpatico vibe in the background, society doesn't need so many explicit rules, and less energy is wasted on trying to interface with others across racial and language barriers. Multiracial societies need to be quite draconian to function, and need to have a lot of laboriously spelled out rules. A nation proper doesn't need much of that, because people know "the right thing to do" instinctively, because it's similar to what their neighbours will think is the right thing to do. Shared ethnicity therefore results in a huge saving in energy, which is freed up to actually build the civilization. Conversely, in multiracial societies that energy is bound up in merely getting the groups functioning together at a basic level, so in the end the society stagnates and will eventually decline (as is happening now in the West). Multiracialism/multiculturalism is based on the liberal fantasy that there's a nice, White middle class liberal in every human being, struggling to get out. It's absurd, some peoples are so alien to each other in temperament and culture that the best you can hope for is cordial relations and trade. Sure, there are outliers, people who can get along with anyone, or appreciate others' cultures, etc., but the bulks of peoples are not mixable in that way.
America had a successful history of integrating immigrants until the Jews came. Then their ethnocentrism, ethnic nepotism, and exceptionalism became the standard other immigrant and minority groups immolated - and that led to the breakdown of social cohesion or a unified group identity. Even more so, the Jews worked to break down the majority White Christian American identity to serve their own minority power interests (usually disguised in the vein of "equality", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism"). You can't have a functioning society of fundamentally different (and antagonistic) identities. If these myriad of different groups had been forced to integrate and adopt a single National identity, adopt the existing culture, and leave all the baggage of their old identities behind (and had been the case for most gentile European immigrants), i'm convinced it could have worked out.
I can’t tell you how pleased I am people on the mainstream conservative right are starting to consider the issue of genetic difference as it relates to human cooperation. I think the Overton window is shifting
Skin color and genetics have little in common when every other inherited trait is considered. If European stock have an easier time assimilating than other geographic groups, then it should follow that the Latin-Americans (whose ancestors are Spanish) should assimilate easier than those who have no such ancestry. Besides, people get along with their biological children (with whom they share half of their genetic code) even if their spouse is black so I dont know why these old guys are so tenacious about this century old pseudoscientific racism. Their prejudices are the reason why assimilation into white culture remains so difficult for newcomers.
@@andrewkerbs5289 On average a mixed race child of a white and black couple has the same level of genetic relatedness to its grandparents that it would to a random stranger from each group. Obviously it depends on the groups in question but in broad strokes these calculations are possible to make. There have been numerous studies which suggest that genetic relatedness impacts the level of social solidarity. I dont see why these findings would surprise anyone. We are an evolved species that spread out all over the world. I am not claiming genetics is the only factor governing "integration" clearly history and culture matters, but it is a factor.
Planet Earth is multicultural in it's human population. Problems arise when trying to force cohabitation of vastly different cultures in equal representation within a confined space such as a country. Inevitably each culture equally represented will strive to be the dominant one over all others. That's how you get civil wars. Human history shows us a plethora of examples of such. Best possible scenario is to have one dominant culture in a country which everyone adheres to with small permittable exceptions in order to preserve some of the cultural uniqueness of people who have immigrated from foreign lands. Which is more or less what was the policy of Western countries and to a greater extent it was successful. In recent years though there has been a movement to make every Western country a mini U.N. based on some fantasy utopian idea that we'll all just magically get along despite our vast cultural differences. Overwhelmingly large number of immigrants coming to Western countries in a short period of time without a thought of whether they can or will or even should integrate and adopt the dominant culture of a host country. Well that's been proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Particularly a significant portion of these immigrants have no desire to integrate and merely want to take advantage of weak minded liberal policies as they establish their own partition of their new host country. The writing is on the wall and when humans find themselves pushed too far, when they feel threatened, they will retaliate. Perhaps WW3 will not be some superpower country fighting another but rather numerous small civil wars across the Western world.
The Irish were probably the most quarrelsome immigrants during the 1850s era… it’s was a major reason why out of every European immigrant group they had the longest process to assimilate to American culture. No one calls themselves a “German American” or a “Portuguese American” etc.., but the Irish stayed hyphenated for centuries while everyone else assimilated. I get now why that during Theodore Roosevelt the teddy lol, why he pushed in that period for Americanization of every immigrant group coming to America. Overtime ofcourse the “Irish Americans” basically assimilated. Ofcourse religious differences made it harder for them to assimilate to the broader Protestant culture of America but it happened and today very few people call themselves “Irish Americans” outside of recent immigrants probably. But these recent immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate and then you have people from entirely different civilizations who are probably incompatible in any western country. This is why diversity will eventually fail especially when you incorporate other civilizations and cultures which from the get go have historical grievances with you then that is a recipe for disaster.
The reason the USA was able to integrate forign nationals so well, is it went through cycles of no imigration. This meant the refreshing of old ideas from those nations ceased, and intigration occured. Then when the doors opened again, imigrants from that nation no longer found a pocket of their old society to move straight into, and instead found a half way house that encoraged integration.
Idk if the society is "doomed", but all our freedoms and rights are. No other race puts any value on 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, economic freedom, etc.
I think it's a question of whether the other groups are willing to integrate and become part of the dominant group that formed the culture of the country and adopt their language, customs, and social mores.
2:10 "In the early 2000s you could have made the argument that we were gonna pull it off." Yes. There was a while there in the early 2000s when it felt like things were clicking. This was agitated by 9-11. But the 90s and early 2000s might go down in history as being "peak America" time. Now it's all going to hell tho.
? maybe, I got it wrong, but from my perspective, the "black music & culture" in the USA is pretty much celebrating the status of being not-integrated into society ...
As with any culture Africans have their own unique musical/cultural expression and during the time of slavery in America there was little to no tolerance of African slaves expressing such. However over time African slaves learned to integrate their music and culture into Christian European culture and so were increasingly able to express themselves without the dominant culture feeling threatened. As slavery declined and African Americans found more freedom in their cultural/musical expression they were able to express not merely as a reaction to their life's hardships and injustices placed upon them but to do so in a broader space of their individuality, as human beings. So we have for example Jazz music, a majoritively Black American genre of music that has been embraced by numerous cultures across the world. Jazz music speaks from a place that supersedes the time of it's creation and developmental years when racism was still pervasive in American society. Though certainly we have Jazz music, songs, that speaks of racial injustice (Billie Holiday singing Strange Fruit for example) the bulk of this art form celebrates fully dynamic individual human expression. Which is why Jazz music is played in as diverse cultures found in countries such as Japan, Italy, Poland, etc. Jazz broke down cultural, ethnic, racial barriers because the art form was not limited by the prejudices of others.
Black colleges, black businesses, black dating apps, black TV networks, black churches - they are the most racist-segregated group, are entitled, and have no desire to assimilate.
You end up with everybody mixing together which isn’t going to happen here in America or you end up with 2 or more States in what used to be one homogenous one.
Rather than size of different minorities how about the rate of increase of minorities? Perhaps decades are too fast a measure, generations might be better.
Are we assuming single culture society is all too well adjusted?? It is a matter of perspective. Multi culture and multi racial society brings in positives a single culture society does not have. Many single culture societies are acutely aware of their lacking too. This single culture society too is made of individuals who think and feel differently, the big solace being no outsider has benefitting from your average/above average community institution, economic or social. These out siders few times do not have much of community institution in their place of origin. He may not feel the community institution has significant importance, yet he is manageable. In contrast, a few other outsiders have equivalent institutions in his place of origin. In conclusion, a local man is welcoming of other human from a different origin because he is a change agent, he offers more stability to the over all well being of the community, the community has been suffering or is in decline, the outsider has to get something too to stick around. He feels he is not fulfilled, he may return to the place of origin. What we mean to each other in terms of both social and economic well being defines the welcome or animosity.
This seems remarkably bearish when you look at hard indicators for how the country is doing. Maybe you can attribute part of the recent political turbulence to multiculturalism, but for the most part the US is more prosperous and powerful than ever. Perhaps this is discussed later or earlier in the podcast.
Such a blithe dismissal of the importance of wealth is only possible from people for whom the poverty of the past is only a romanticized abstraction. Yes, wealth does matter and is correlated with countless positive life outcomes. The people in my daily life are happy and doing well, the only places I hear that the country is falling apart are online spaces that thrive off negativity.
@@Retotion Wealth does matter. It's the reason for immigration- everybody wants a piece of that. Maybe they'll grab something for themselves. I understand them.
A big piece of this discourse, should be economics. I'm a Peter Zeihan fan, unfortunately he's scared of this topic. But his analysis is convincing, he explains how the US is about to experience, probably the greatest growth story in our history, as the era of globalization ends and the US reshores manufacturing. This geopolitical shift, will also involve establishing regional, local, stable supply chains. He mentions that, the extent to which Mexican Americans are now so numerous, and relatively assimilated, will be an advantage, because the most important economic relationship for the US will continue to be with Mexico, which will provide an important part of many labor and supply chains, and will increase various kinds of manufacturing. In addition, Zeihan discusses how US demographics are healthy, while the same does not hold true for most other countries. Although Gen Z is small, Millennials are a large generation, and guaranteed to continue to produce a large generation, which starts to enter the job market in the 2040's, as the growth story continues. So personally, it is into this picture of the US over the short/medium/long term, that I introduce the set of considerations discussed in this vid clip. Will the US be undermined as a cohesive nation, in this future context, simply because of the assimilation variable? Will the risk be existential? Will this take 10 yrs, 20, 30? I'm a Charles Murray fan, I'm a Centrist Liberal, and consider him to be a relatively moderate Conservative. But, I think this portend is too pessimistic, and perhaps fails to take into account the larger geopolitical context.
@@zamar2158 but malays, chinese and indians have much more different cultures from each other than europeans do. lots of things are possible when you have a non-democratic regime
@@lordsneed9418 non-democratic regimes work until they don't. vast multi-ethnic hereditary monarchies existed for centuries throughout history, and most usually disintegrated in blood, including Europe until WWI. Democracy has a big advantage of being self-correcting, whereas other systems simply implode.
Dubai needs time for the dust to settle but it seems to be a soulless society based on an underclass of slave labour. Singapore from what I understand is a society based on neo-serfdom. Having said that, all society has a trade off if they want to excel. People marvelled at the progress of Japan and South Korea but there is the expending doom of population collapse.
Not only were they European immigrants, but large numbers of them didn't integrate and actually left, so there was selection going on even with them.
A large fraction of HIspanic immigrants, especially Mexican ones, also returned after they had earned enough to secure a comfortable living back home.
Lebanon is a great example of how this fails.
My part of East London collapsed years ago. The scale of White flight particularly out of London is massive. The Anglo-sphere center Right has been the driver of the Globalisation project and has completely failed to conserve ANYTHING from 1945. We have now moved beyond the old Left v Right paradigm to anti White v pro White.
"Quick reminder that there is no upper limit to diversity. You'll just be endlessly told things are too White until you wake up one day to something between Mogadishu and Karachi".
~ Andrew Joyce
Integrate one type - europeans. But not the world. Even in the usa.
The larger and more diverse any group becomes, the more people need to benefit individually (money, status) to do things which benefit the group.
I don't understand. Could you provide a practical example, please?
@@stephenmay2019 People being less closely related drives people to be more selfish since the wider population does not represent them. This causes the complex machinery of that society created by the large population to break down.
Higher diversity is significantly associated with lower trust in communities, so what you’re saying is true in that people become more individualistic, but the outcome is associated with higher crime rates and political corruption.
@@stephenmay2019 rubbish on the streets
What seems to be implied is that in small heterogenous group, I will benefit X by doing something that benefits the group. However, with a large diverse group I will need to extract a benefit greater than X. I can't see any practical example of this - not one that can explained solely by group size and diversity. A variable called 'diversity' has to much variance to be practical.
The only context in which a multiracial society is possible is under a strong empire that keeps a lid on interracial strife (and that situation starts to break down when the empire starts playing racial favourites or starts playing off the racial groups against each other for temporary advantage).
Ethnostates, the standard form of nation, are the only really viable form of large human grouping, because relative genetic closeness leads to easier communication, which is the foundation of trust, which is the foundation of the possibility of building a civilization across generations. Ethnostates are, one might say, the largest-feasible grouping based on genetic interrelatedness before genetic interrelatedness becomes too weak and vague to do any work.
It's easy to see, if you think of the legendarily simpatico nature of monozygotic twins - extend that to normal twins, to families, to villages and towns, to regions and to nations. At each stage there's less and less of that simpatico nature due to genetic similarity; the nation is the last stage where it still exists to some diffuse extent, while at the same time the numbers advantage (for building civilization, for war, etc.) gives the group its power. That genetic interrelatedness is also the foundation of culture, in that, while ideas certainly have a lot of room to roam freely and follow their own logic, ultimately what "takes" for a large human group is set by the tether of shared genetics.
The other aspect of genetic interrelatedness is that it forms a "meta" that gets over the Prisoner's Dilemma problem. Analogously to the code of Omerta in the original problem, to get a large group of people moving in some kind of harmony, you need some shared point of reference and commitment that can lift them out of mere rational individual behaviour, to work in ways that benefit the whole, not just themselves as individuals. With race, patriotism, nationalistic pride, you have a ready-made "meta" fit for just that purpose (the other classic one would be a shared religion, and of course nationalism and religion have always been closely related).
Another important point is that with that simpatico vibe in the background, society doesn't need so many explicit rules, and less energy is wasted on trying to interface with others across racial and language barriers. Multiracial societies need to be quite draconian to function, and need to have a lot of laboriously spelled out rules. A nation proper doesn't need much of that, because people know "the right thing to do" instinctively, because it's similar to what their neighbours will think is the right thing to do. Shared ethnicity therefore results in a huge saving in energy, which is freed up to actually build the civilization. Conversely, in multiracial societies that energy is bound up in merely getting the groups functioning together at a basic level, so in the end the society stagnates and will eventually decline (as is happening now in the West).
Multiracialism/multiculturalism is based on the liberal fantasy that there's a nice, White middle class liberal in every human being, struggling to get out. It's absurd, some peoples are so alien to each other in temperament and culture that the best you can hope for is cordial relations and trade. Sure, there are outliers, people who can get along with anyone, or appreciate others' cultures, etc., but the bulks of peoples are not mixable in that way.
America had a successful history of integrating immigrants until the Jews came. Then their ethnocentrism, ethnic nepotism, and exceptionalism became the standard other immigrant and minority groups immolated - and that led to the breakdown of social cohesion or a unified group identity. Even more so, the Jews worked to break down the majority White Christian American identity to serve their own minority power interests (usually disguised in the vein of "equality", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism"). You can't have a functioning society of fundamentally different (and antagonistic) identities. If these myriad of different groups had been forced to integrate and adopt a single National identity, adopt the existing culture, and leave all the baggage of their old identities behind (and had been the case for most gentile European immigrants), i'm convinced it could have worked out.
Well should have had in the original constitution that only gold and silver can be legal tender. And usury is punishable by death.
Not doomed but always consigned to factionalism, racial politics, low trust, and conflict. They can still function - it's just much harder.
Thank you! It's conforting to hear at last common sense spoken from top intelectuals. It makes you feel less alone in the imposed chaos.
I can’t tell you how pleased I am people on the mainstream conservative right are starting to consider the issue of genetic difference as it relates to human cooperation. I think the Overton window is shifting
Too late to realistic matter in saving the USA. But maybe useful for what comes after the end of the UN and globalist project.
Skin color and genetics have little in common when every other inherited trait is considered. If European stock have an easier time assimilating than other geographic groups, then it should follow that the Latin-Americans (whose ancestors are Spanish) should assimilate easier than those who have no such ancestry. Besides, people get along with their biological children (with whom they share half of their genetic code) even if their spouse is black so I dont know why these old guys are so tenacious about this century old pseudoscientific racism. Their prejudices are the reason why assimilation into white culture remains so difficult for newcomers.
@@andrewkerbs5289 On average a mixed race child of a white and black couple has the same level of genetic relatedness to its grandparents that it would to a random stranger from each group. Obviously it depends on the groups in question but in broad strokes these calculations are possible to make. There have been numerous studies which suggest that genetic relatedness impacts the level of social solidarity. I dont see why these findings would surprise anyone. We are an evolved species that spread out all over the world. I am not claiming genetics is the only factor governing "integration" clearly history and culture matters, but it is a factor.
Planet Earth is multicultural in it's human population. Problems arise when trying to force cohabitation of vastly different cultures in equal representation within a confined space such as a country. Inevitably each culture equally represented will strive to be the dominant one over all others. That's how you get civil wars. Human history shows us a plethora of examples of such. Best possible scenario is to have one dominant culture in a country which everyone adheres to with small permittable exceptions in order to preserve some of the cultural uniqueness of people who have immigrated from foreign lands. Which is more or less what was the policy of Western countries and to a greater extent it was successful. In recent years though there has been a movement to make every Western country a mini U.N. based on some fantasy utopian idea that we'll all just magically get along despite our vast cultural differences. Overwhelmingly large number of immigrants coming to Western countries in a short period of time without a thought of whether they can or will or even should integrate and adopt the dominant culture of a host country. Well that's been proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Particularly a significant portion of these immigrants have no desire to integrate and merely want to take advantage of weak minded liberal policies as they establish their own partition of their new host country. The writing is on the wall and when humans find themselves pushed too far, when they feel threatened, they will retaliate. Perhaps WW3 will not be some superpower country fighting another but rather numerous small civil wars across the Western world.
The Irish were probably the most quarrelsome immigrants during the 1850s era… it’s was a major reason why out of every European immigrant group they had the longest process to assimilate to American culture. No one calls themselves a “German American” or a “Portuguese American” etc.., but the Irish stayed hyphenated for centuries while everyone else assimilated. I get now why that during Theodore Roosevelt the teddy lol, why he pushed in that period for Americanization of every immigrant group coming to America. Overtime ofcourse the “Irish Americans” basically assimilated. Ofcourse religious differences made it harder for them to assimilate to the broader Protestant culture of America but it happened and today very few people call themselves “Irish Americans” outside of recent immigrants probably. But these recent immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate and then you have people from entirely different civilizations who are probably incompatible in any western country. This is why diversity will eventually fail especially when you incorporate other civilizations and cultures which from the get go have historical grievances with you then that is a recipe for disaster.
It comes down to being K strategy or R strategy.
The two don’t mix well.
I just learned about that Life history strategy ,It makes sense ,too bad it's political suicide to bring it up
100% Correct
The reason the USA was able to integrate forign nationals so well, is it went through cycles of no imigration. This meant the refreshing of old ideas from those nations ceased, and intigration occured. Then when the doors opened again, imigrants from that nation no longer found a pocket of their old society to move straight into, and instead found a half way house that encoraged integration.
Idk if the society is "doomed", but all our freedoms and rights are. No other race puts any value on 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, economic freedom, etc.
I think it's a question of whether the other groups are willing to integrate and become part of the dominant group that formed the culture of the country and adopt their language, customs, and social mores.
"Multicultural society" is a contradiction in terms.
Answer: yes
Is it genetics, IQ or culture?
East Asians are genetically different, but integrate in the west far better than other groups.
indians also integrate with no problems
east asians are much more genetically similar to whites than blacks
It is genetics mostly
2:10 "In the early 2000s you could have made the argument that we were gonna pull it off."
Yes. There was a while there in the early 2000s when it felt like things were clicking. This was agitated by 9-11. But the 90s and early 2000s might go down in history as being "peak America" time. Now it's all going to hell tho.
Yes
? maybe, I got it wrong, but from my perspective, the "black music & culture" in the USA is pretty much celebrating the status of being not-integrated into society ...
Your comment made me think of the latest fad of trying to integrate "queer" people into the mainstream.
As with any culture Africans have their own unique musical/cultural expression and during the time of slavery in America there was little to no tolerance of African slaves expressing such. However over time African slaves learned to integrate their music and culture into Christian European culture and so were increasingly able to express themselves without the dominant culture feeling threatened. As slavery declined and African Americans found more freedom in their cultural/musical expression they were able to express not merely as a reaction to their life's hardships and injustices placed upon them but to do so in a broader space of their individuality, as human beings. So we have for example Jazz music, a majoritively Black American genre of music that has been embraced by numerous cultures across the world. Jazz music speaks from a place that supersedes the time of it's creation and developmental years when racism was still pervasive in American society. Though certainly we have Jazz music, songs, that speaks of racial injustice (Billie Holiday singing Strange Fruit for example) the bulk of this art form celebrates fully dynamic individual human expression. Which is why Jazz music is played in as diverse cultures found in countries such as Japan, Italy, Poland, etc. Jazz broke down cultural, ethnic, racial barriers because the art form was not limited by the prejudices of others.
Black colleges, black businesses, black dating apps, black TV networks, black churches - they are the most racist-segregated group, are entitled, and have no desire to assimilate.
You end up with everybody mixing together which isn’t going to happen here in America or you end up with 2 or more States in what used to be one homogenous one.
Rather than size of different minorities how about the rate of increase of minorities? Perhaps decades are too fast a measure, generations might be better.
US is dying and nobody can stop that.
It got captured by international finance and reduced to an economic zone open to the World.
Scotch??????
Russia is a great example of multiculturalism working.
Yes, but it takes sacrifice. Are Americans like Russians ? Are they ready to suffer for centuries ?
Are we assuming single culture society is all too well adjusted?? It is a matter of perspective. Multi culture and multi racial society brings in positives a single culture society does not have. Many single culture societies are acutely aware of their lacking too.
This single culture society too is made of individuals who think and feel differently, the big solace being no outsider has benefitting from your average/above average community institution, economic or social. These out siders few times do not have much of community institution in their place of origin. He may not feel the community institution has significant importance, yet he is manageable. In contrast, a few other outsiders have equivalent institutions in his place of origin.
In conclusion, a local man is welcoming of other human from a different origin because he is a change agent, he offers more stability to the over all well being of the community, the community has been suffering or is in decline, the outsider has to get something too to stick around. He feels he is not fulfilled, he may return to the place of origin. What we mean to each other in terms of both social and economic well being defines the welcome or animosity.
This seems remarkably bearish when you look at hard indicators for how the country is doing. Maybe you can attribute part of the recent political turbulence to multiculturalism, but for the most part the US is more prosperous and powerful than ever. Perhaps this is discussed later or earlier in the podcast.
True. People in USA now own more property and have less debt. Country is doing great.
Such a blithe dismissal of the importance of wealth is only possible from people for whom the poverty of the past is only a romanticized abstraction. Yes, wealth does matter and is correlated with countless positive life outcomes. The people in my daily life are happy and doing well, the only places I hear that the country is falling apart are online spaces that thrive off negativity.
@@Retotion Wealth does matter. It's the reason for immigration- everybody wants a piece of that. Maybe they'll grab something for themselves. I understand them.
A big piece of this discourse, should be economics. I'm a Peter Zeihan fan, unfortunately he's scared of this topic. But his analysis is convincing, he explains how the US is about to experience, probably the greatest growth story in our history, as the era of globalization ends and the US reshores manufacturing.
This geopolitical shift, will also involve establishing regional, local, stable supply chains. He mentions that, the extent to which Mexican Americans are now so numerous, and relatively assimilated, will be an advantage, because the most important economic relationship for the US will continue to be with Mexico, which will provide an important part of many labor and supply chains, and will increase various kinds of manufacturing.
In addition, Zeihan discusses how US demographics are healthy, while the same does not hold true for most other countries. Although Gen Z is small, Millennials are a large generation, and guaranteed to continue to produce a large generation, which starts to enter the job market in the 2040's, as the growth story continues.
So personally, it is into this picture of the US over the short/medium/long term, that I introduce the set of considerations discussed in this vid clip. Will the US be undermined as a cohesive nation, in this future context, simply because of the assimilation variable? Will the risk be existential? Will this take 10 yrs, 20, 30?
I'm a Charles Murray fan, I'm a Centrist Liberal, and consider him to be a relatively moderate Conservative. But, I think this portend is too pessimistic, and perhaps fails to take into account the larger geopolitical context.
*in a democracy. singapore and dubai show that it's possible to have a well-functioning society with no racial majority.
Dubai is a "tribal autocracy/monarchy". Singapore has a "benevolent dictatorship".
Singapore is multiethnic asians - Malay, chinese and tamils. Not the entire planet.
@@zamar2158 but malays, chinese and indians have much more different cultures from each other than europeans do. lots of things are possible when you have a non-democratic regime
@@lordsneed9418 non-democratic regimes work until they don't. vast multi-ethnic hereditary monarchies existed for centuries throughout history, and most usually disintegrated in blood, including Europe until WWI. Democracy has a big advantage of being self-correcting, whereas other systems simply implode.
Dubai needs time for the dust to settle but it seems to be a soulless society based on an underclass of slave labour. Singapore from what I understand is a society based on neo-serfdom. Having said that, all society has a trade off if they want to excel. People marvelled at the progress of Japan and South Korea but there is the expending doom of population collapse.