[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Marulus

National preservationism cannot be founded on any "objective" criteria, I think. It is not possible to do so in any meaningful sense. The very being of a nation makes it worth preserving and not some superior IQ, inferior crime rate etc.

Once you accept such objective criteria, the road is open for many absuses.

I never said that preservationism could be founded upon crime rates. I suggested that they provide an argument that could prove to be of good use, as one argument against one particular policy. It is not to be understood as the cornerstone of anything much. You might want to call it the guerilla warfare of argumentation, but I think - or I hope - you will agree that these crime rates aren't irrelevant in the present situation.

And moreover, what I hinted when mentioning political correctness, was that in order to convince other people who can support the good cause, we need to adress them in a way that they can understand and relate to, for example by bringing up facts that cannot simply be discarded as just another point of view that could be wrong. Few are those hardcore deniers who will refuse to admit that rape is a problem. If everybody knew for a fact that Blacks commit say 70% of rapes, I think people would be less inclined to think of immigration as charity.

For as long as people think of immigrants in all fluffy terms though, most are not so inclined to attribute a lot of importance to the more fundamental principles of nationalism.