I think I'm gonna call the conversation here. We've gone over quite a bit and I am satisfied with the process, even though we didn't come to a complete conclusion on any topic.
.
Once someone posts another political shitpost, I'll probably be there.

Unfortunately you are right about the cyclical nature of the situation. The infamous saying that weak men create bad times, and strong men create good times, and one feeds into another, is true.
When it comes down to the fight for survival, there are no principles, only power. But we are not in this situation, so sticking to these principles has to be a part of the process.
.
I can definitely see that your life experience has been more difficult than mine. And that you are empathetic towards others who are at the bottom.
However, you cannot compromise your principles in order to achieve your goals. Just like you cannot justify commiting a crime in a society that gives you a path out of poverty, you cannot justify stealing a vacation house from someone who has rightfully obtained it.
.
Society is not ideal, but you can work towards making it so. It just matters that you respect the values you hold.

Well, I would say that most people do not espouse unsavoury views either because they know they will be condemned, or because they would never put them into practice, even though they might on some level agree to the premise. And some people just do not realise that they are coming to the same conclusions as there "repulsive" views.
.
I can see some truth in what the alt-right talks about, but they are categorically wrong on most aspects, and any implementation of their ideas that would result in infringement on individual rights, I would oppose.

Basically my argument boils down to: I want to reduce immigration for multiple reason, but primarily it is to keep the culture and stability of the countries they come in intact. Is that an argument that you would agree with?

And I do want to split the concept into two parts. First, the irrational, which is the wish for the Western world to remain largely white. I will straight up acknowledge that I have no rational justification for this, but I want the ethnic makeup of the historically white countries to stay as it was for the past 100 or so years. But I am not willing to suppress individual rights in order to accomplish this.
.
Second, the rational part. I do consider the Western culture that values freedom and liberty to be supreme, and deserving of preservation and expansion. This means, that people who come into the country should integrate into the culture, adapting these values into their existing framework. So, in order to do so, the solution lines up with the former part. To curb immigration overall.

And besides, couple of things that make the situation now different. For one, I doubt that the previous immigration waves were that significantly culturally different. If anything, I suppose that one of their highest values was freedom, otherwise, why would they come. And second, the scale of immigration was also way less back then.

I actually did acknowledge that over time people do assimilate culturally into the country, and their descendants are more like the native population. That much is true, the problem is with the amount of first-generation immigrants.
The cultural integration can only occur when it is the only possible option. If people who are coming into the country from a similar culture do not want to adapt, and they most likely don't, they will create their own settlements within. This means they will not adapt and their children will take longer to integrate if they even will.
.
So for the purposes of our question, we can discard the second-generation and later immigrants. They are not the problem, they are the demonstration of how the process should normally work.

Yeah, I've seen the Gamer Joker meme before but never knew where it actually originated. but thanks for answering anyway, I will look up the rest myself.

ok, being serious for a moment, where does that quote come from? Just for general meme knowledge

If you want to call my approach to this social engineering, I guess you can. But I would pick a better term. Because you do need to make some distinction between that and deporting all non-whites, which is both inhumane, and counterproductive.

Now, onto the social engineering part. The problem that we are currently facing is twofold - the high birth rates of immigrants and low birth rates of the native population.
The high birth rates of immigrants can be addressed naturally, since as they integrate into society and culturally adapt, they lower to that of the native population, or slightly above it.
The low birth rates of the native population is the problem that is most difficult to address, because nobody knows how to, even ignoring the moral implications.
.
Social engineering by force is a moral wrong, however, what can be done is campaigns, government subsidies to incentivize marriage and having more than one child, etc. Now, I am not an expert on this, so my suggestions may be overlooking a lot, but this is the key direction.

So to tl;dr:
Best case scenario - small amount of immigration, cultural integration, small ethnic makeup shift that balances out over time, and little social tension.
Current scenario - large amounts of immigration, migrants forming cultural enclaves and not integrating, a consequence of which is a large shift of the ethnic makeup, and massive social tension.
.
Which means that the first order of business it to reduce immigration to appropriate levels, and deal with the social tension as best as possible.
This will solve half of the problem.

However, there are natural safeguards against the problem becoming that massive. For one, if the ethic makeup of the society is relatively stable, there is very little chance of a minority becoming a majority, as it would require an insane birth rate from the minority with a simultaneous and similarly large drop from the majority.
This is where the question of immigration comes in. Immigration destabilizes the ethnic and cultural makeup of a community, but as the system is elastic to an extent, the cultural aspect of the immigrants comes into fold, while the ethnic stays the same. If, however, the amount of immigration is too large, the cultural aspect remains unchanged, since the migrants create their own enclaves, and as such, their birth rates stay at the level of the countries they came from, forcing a long-term demographic shift.

Well, for one, this is not a cultural evolution if we are talking about ethnic groups. Culture does evolve all the time, and the apex that we have thus far is the liberal society that values personal freedom. The problem is, that the introduction of massive numbers of people from a different cultural background will cause them to not acclimatize and adapt to the new culture, but instead, create their own enclaves that destabilize the country from within.
.
Now, onto the meat of the question. Well for one, I do in fact oppose hardcore social engineering in the sense that you would use state power to enforce some sort of ethnic makeup. In the most dire of circumstances, perhaps, but definitely not in any other case.

And to clarify a bit more on my former point, you also cannot try to undo a single previous moral wrong, such as with the American colonization, because then you have no limiting principle, and have no argument against letting other people try to resolve other moral wrongs as well. Which means that if you try to undo colonization, prepare for everyone demanding reparations for slavery and every war that ever happened. It's easier to not open that buckey of worms at all.
.
Also, I'm not the one downvoting your comments, just fyi.

If the demographic shift came from within, and for some reason the birth rates of ethnic minorities outpaced the majority so much that it would be a problem, there would be a different solution, but it would still be concerning. But that situation is almost impossible in natural circumstances.
.
To answer your latter question, the demographic replacement, even legal, is still a moral wrong. There are multiple practical reasons to be against it, but first and foremost, it is non-violent colonization, and I still consider that to be a moral wrong.
As for the other reasons, introducing new people into the country on this scale puts a strain on social services, depresses low end wages, conflagrates social tensions, increases in crime, and in the American case, leads to election fraud.
If legal immigration for the European countries was not so massive, and illegal immigration in the US was not a problem, the demographic replacement would not be that much of a current threat.

Because when a minority that becomes a majority increases by physically coming into the country from outside, we call that an invasion.
And because these demographic shifts are displacing native populations that have been living there long before others came. Now, I know that the next thing you are going to bring up is colonization, and yes, that was a moral wrong. But it is still a moral wrong to do the same thing now. And the reason why you can't undo the impacts of colonization, is because for one, you can't, and secondly, if you go down the road of resolving every historical injustice ever, there won't be an end to it. Which is why once the first world realized that colonization was a moral wrong, they ceased it, and now we have a status quo that for the first world has not changed in a long time.
You can't justify demographic replacement because it is a moral wrong, and you cannot undo all previous moral wrongs because it is impossible to do so. Am I clear?

Actually I do see now that I misread your question. Well, if the white population becomes a minority, I will seriously consider joining the alt-right. They are annoying on some points, but at least they have the balls to address some problems that no one else will.