Very very small and specific criticism: China disallows immigration because of internal concerns. If they had lax immigration policy, they'd be a huge importer of immigrants from Africa, Southeast, and Centel Asia.
China isn't any richer than Russia or Mexico. Russia has a lax immigration policy, and its migrants are locals who travel by land. I doubt that China would get more African immigrants than Europe or America. You are right that China is restrictive in some senses, but it also invites in Europeans and Americans to work in specialized positions. 30% of Chinese students become American citizens: https://uscet.org/uscet-releases-three-decades-of-chinese-students-in-america-1991-2021/
That China is unable to assimilate highly skilled immigrants is evidence that China is a fragile and insecure system.
I just want maximum disassociation from libtards. In theory, National Divorce would be the best way to achieve this. But I agree that in practice, it's never going to happen, and if it somehow did, it would probably be chaotic and disastrous and very likely not worth it. I still want the maximum degree of libtard-separation that I can get, however. Trends like a "great sort" where libs all live in blue states would be nice ways to advance that goal.
As far as conservatives wanting to destroy America out of spite that it won't do what they want, I mean, that's not surprising nor is it irrational: https://persononline.substack.com/p/i-dont-care-about-the-status-quo. It might be hyperbolic, but the basic sentiment is that they feel like they're playing a rigged game, and so they want to flip the table. If you are actually playing a rigged game, finding some way to exit the game is perfectly rational. Leftists display the same mindset when talk about "burning it all down" with regards to Western institutions because they are irredeemably sexist and homophobic and whatever.
China is growing at a PPP rate far faster than Mexico or Russia. I specifically stated Africans/Central/Southeast Asians, not Europeans or Americans for a reason. The Japanese no longer immigrate to the US or EU, and even Brazil where they used to go in large numbers. There are very few emigrants percentage wise out of first world nations in general. addition, the percentage of Chinese students choosing to remain in America is declining.
There isn't really a gap between national divorce and open borders philosophically, but nationalism prevents us from getting there. Decentralization is the optimal goal for now
Curious to hear your manifesto on the benefits of centralism vis a vis quality of life.
My first pick would be education. Education attainment in places like Mississippi and New Mexico would get a whole lot better if the operations of the Dep't of Education weren't hampered by the existence of the states.
You are guilty of treason! I am using treason according to its dictionary definition. The fact that you take this as a hysterical appeal has to do more with your emotional state than mine. I don't deny that people have the right to request adjustments, and I do that all the time. You have the right to petition the state, not to divorce it. That is treason. You are conflating reform with treason to confuse and muddy the waters.
Very very small and specific criticism: China disallows immigration because of internal concerns. If they had lax immigration policy, they'd be a huge importer of immigrants from Africa, Southeast, and Centel Asia.
China isn't any richer than Russia or Mexico. Russia has a lax immigration policy, and its migrants are locals who travel by land. I doubt that China would get more African immigrants than Europe or America. You are right that China is restrictive in some senses, but it also invites in Europeans and Americans to work in specialized positions. 30% of Chinese students become American citizens: https://uscet.org/uscet-releases-three-decades-of-chinese-students-in-america-1991-2021/
That China is unable to assimilate highly skilled immigrants is evidence that China is a fragile and insecure system.
These reasons for national divorce seem petty or overblown.
Sure, you can argue that you don’t like transgenderism, but to destroy a nation over it. Is just dumb.
Also, wanting to leave a nation because you can’t use a slur, is just plain petty.
These are my thoughts
I just want maximum disassociation from libtards. In theory, National Divorce would be the best way to achieve this. But I agree that in practice, it's never going to happen, and if it somehow did, it would probably be chaotic and disastrous and very likely not worth it. I still want the maximum degree of libtard-separation that I can get, however. Trends like a "great sort" where libs all live in blue states would be nice ways to advance that goal.
As far as conservatives wanting to destroy America out of spite that it won't do what they want, I mean, that's not surprising nor is it irrational: https://persononline.substack.com/p/i-dont-care-about-the-status-quo. It might be hyperbolic, but the basic sentiment is that they feel like they're playing a rigged game, and so they want to flip the table. If you are actually playing a rigged game, finding some way to exit the game is perfectly rational. Leftists display the same mindset when talk about "burning it all down" with regards to Western institutions because they are irredeemably sexist and homophobic and whatever.
China is growing at a PPP rate far faster than Mexico or Russia. I specifically stated Africans/Central/Southeast Asians, not Europeans or Americans for a reason. The Japanese no longer immigrate to the US or EU, and even Brazil where they used to go in large numbers. There are very few emigrants percentage wise out of first world nations in general. addition, the percentage of Chinese students choosing to remain in America is declining.
I am not free to be homophobic. Look what happened to the Christian bakers who refused to deliver a cake to a gay wedding.
And I am forced to pay for the public school system and federal funding to internazi universities. This is not optional.
(I am not calling for a national divorce, however. Just federalism. )
You can be homophobic in this comment section. The Christian bakers won their case. "Internazi" Really?
There isn't really a gap between national divorce and open borders philosophically, but nationalism prevents us from getting there. Decentralization is the optimal goal for now
I am a centralist
Curious to hear your manifesto on the benefits of centralism vis a vis quality of life.
My first pick would be education. Education attainment in places like Mississippi and New Mexico would get a whole lot better if the operations of the Dep't of Education weren't hampered by the existence of the states.
You are guilty of treason! I am using treason according to its dictionary definition. The fact that you take this as a hysterical appeal has to do more with your emotional state than mine. I don't deny that people have the right to request adjustments, and I do that all the time. You have the right to petition the state, not to divorce it. That is treason. You are conflating reform with treason to confuse and muddy the waters.
noun: treason; the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
I guess crimethink is a legal concept in DLA-land.