MOD WARNING<<<Dismantle multiculturalism?

True - but their bloodline in European rulers was predominant for decades - and that did not slow down the the wars one bit.

 

Had nothing to do with WWII. First generation immigrants do not assimilate that well. They are no more willing to learn english than the "Make English the Official Language" people are willing to learn Spanish. Their Grandchildren and great grandchildren become "indistinguishable". It has to do with when they came.

 

How about that tacky plastic nude model that Trump married. When are you going to deport that thing?

 

German was rather alive in the US right before WWI started. And than they simply got persecuted and in some states even just got outlawed. Do note, the English never had any trouble in those days to do things to minorities. African Americans were 2nd class citizens till like the late 1960's when the US ended their apartheid laws. It has nothing to do with failing to integrate. It's just being utterly racist. Do you think a culture being centuries old, where racism was totally accepted, just got erased when the Jim Crow era ended? I doubt it,.. a person like Trump was well aware of how it was when it was normal, because he was there.

 

THIS!

 

No. Free trade, co-operation and specialisation benefits everyone. The Swedes can produce their furniture and trade it for oranges with the Spaniards, for example No one is advocating isolation or merchantilism. The Swat valley in Pakistan is inhabited by three ethnic groups. These all live in their homogenous communities, but will interact for trade as every group is specialised on things they all need. The Trobrianders are homogenous too, but will travel to other islands to trade shell-necklaces and whatnots with others to build relationships.

What we are saying is simply that every culture is equally unique and tnerefore has the same right to exist. Liberalism wants to force on their gross universalism on everyone and how anyone can consider that fair is beyond me.

If anything, it is Liberalism that is racist.

 

Voluntary apartheid. People are doing this right now anyways. Balkanisation is the future.

 

Voluntary apartheid? What a f**king joke. Humans will always break such bonds. What will you do with the ones who fall in love with someone outside your little incestuous enclave? Kill them? Banish them? Imprison them? Subject them to psychological experiments to see "what went wrong".

Humans have always migrated - not all, but enough. It's the mysteries of what lies outside the boundaries. It's what makes us sail unchartered oceans and fly to the sky. It's the imagination of creativity. It's putting aside fear to live in the moment - not in some imagined past.

Yours is the path of stagnation and fear of the different. It's the pathetic existence of the unimaginative.

In short order your utopia will find new reasons to hate the different. It may not be the color of skin, but it will be the color of their eyes, or the way they part their hair.

And your children, or their children will start to wonder what's out there, beyond your fences, and they will begin to hate you for keeping them from it. You will tell them they can't fall in love or they can't marry because "they" are different. And your children will disobey and you will lose them to your small minded hatred of the different.

A world of Montagues and Capulets. That is your dream. Pathetic.

 

A racially divers society is inevitably a divided society, there is no solidarity in such a society, because different groups have different interests.

How can you avoid this? Well, do not create diverse societies, and if you have a diverse society, just segregate it in a way, that any racial group has its own territory and is itself responsible for their well being.
In this case they cannot blame "the others", if they fail.

The word "racism" is just a fake term, a leftists invention.

You can apply this word to silence your perceived enemies.

Almost all of these "fighters against racism" support Zionism, and that speaks volumes!

 

Well, read Darwin for God's sake!
Humans are just one species of Hominim.
Most species of Hominim are extinct species.
Homo Sapiens is the only extant species.

If you are not a creationist, you have to acknowledge, that Homo Sapiens evolved from Hominids (Great Apes).

How did this work?
Well, if you study the basics of evolutionary process, you will find out, that segregation, separation and competitions for habitat and resources is the motor of any evolution, including the evolution of Homo Sapiens.

Any species and sub-species evolves in a way that it becomes more and more divided, more and more different groups evolve from one single group. These group compete for resources and territory. The differences of sub-species become bigger and bigger, and at some point the differences are so big, that sub-species cannot mix and create viable offspring.

At this point a new species is born!

The same process took place in the evolution of Homo Sapiens from Big Apes.

There were many different varieties of Big Apes, they occasionally intermixed, but the dominant tendency was to separate in more and more varieties, the differences between varieties of Apes became bigger and bigger, though they occasionally intermixed. At some point the differences were big enough, and no inter-mixture was possible any more, a new species, say Australopithecus, was born.

Most subspecies of Hominids are now extinct, but the extant subspecies Homo Sapiens have different varieties that have the tendency to segregation, separation, and any other natural tendencies that are the motor of evolution on our planet, and this process created the richness of living organisms.

It is agreed that we shall preserve the richness of living organisms on our planet, if say a frog with some distinct features is endangered, for example due to the genetic pollution with invasive frog species, the environmentalists are alarmed and take measures to prevent this process.

But in the case of different varieties of Homo Sapiens some crazy leftists try to destroy the richness, created by the Mother Nature, they want to mix different varieties into one grey mass.

But is this natural?
Do the laws of Evolution not work any more?
I think that the Homo Sapiens will inevitably split into different species, that is how evolution worked in the past, that is how Homo Sapiens appeared in the first place, and no leftist dogmatic can prevent the Nature from doing its work in the future.

Who believes that Evolution will stop, because Homo Sapiens already exists, and because any future evolution of Homo Sapiens would be "racist", lives in his own delusion, and his activism is unnatural and destructive.

 

People can travel all they want, but their home will always remain their home. What you are doing here is dishonest as you are accusing me of stuff I have not even said.

First of all, the "voluntary apartheid" is already happening today with phenomenons such as "white flight" and "arabisation" of neighbourhoods sucb as seen in France, for example. People prefer to live with people who remind them of themselves. The same applies to love, generally people will marry within their own group. Swedes, most of the time, marry Swedes and immigrants often marry immigrants. Even second generation immigrants tend to, often with pressure from parents, marry other second generation immigrants.

Secondly, as I have already explained in previous posts (with citations, mind you), homogenity does not result in hate, but rather is it the opposite. You cannot hate the "Other" if there is no "Other".

I will leave aside the topic of my utopia since that is not what this thread is about. All I can say is that you are wrong and are just - again - making stuff up with, completely out of the blue, accusations.

 

Make sure you post within the rules. Rule violators will be removed from the thread with warning or infraction.

 

Forcing everyone to conform to one culture has been tried many times before.

Freedom inevitably triumphs.

 

Tell that to a nazi

 

As I posed above, if you are so sure that ending multiculturalism is a good thing, then begin here:






Good bye to those of you who are supporters of all this.

 

Would you let your daughter or son marry a person of another race? If not, that's not "voluntary" is it?

 

Retaining ethnic traditions while here illegally and/or legally but not wanting to assimilate is what I call multiculturalism.

 

How so? Seems divisive to me but, what is your definition of multiculturalism?

 

Is a Mexican immigrant celebrating Cinco De Mayo really a threat to the United States of America? I mean Boston's St. Patrick Day's Parade is probably a bigger threat to civil order than that.

 

No problem unless such ethnic celebrations are used as a platform to politically undermine America. For instance, some Mexicans believe that Aztlan should be returned to Mexico. MEChA is a Hispanic organization doing anti-American activities.

"MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas," romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States"

"The MEChA Clubs on each of the Santa Barbara high school campuses are not the only ones. MEChA groups exist on 90 percent of the public high school, college and university campuses in the Southwestern United States."

http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

Some want to usurp part of the contiguous U.S. and set up their own nation and culture. That's what I mean when I use the term multiculturalism.

 

Because you are the one who thinks multiculturalism is "divisive" . Nothing seems to unite drunks from across the spectrum like Mardi Gras and St. Patty's

 

Meaning politically undermine the US, I assume (Mexico - & Canada, for that matter - are also part of N. America). & no, if you actually talk to or look @ surveys on Mexican-American attitudes towards making the US more like Mexico in political terms, I think most Mexican-Americans would reject that. If not born here in the US, they're here because of the economics & sometimes the politics of daily life in Mexico. Either way, if Mexico's political culture were to engulf the US (hard to imagine, I know, but that's the gist of the argument) then Mexican-Americans would wind up out the cold again, politically. The last thing they want would be recreation of the PRI in Mexico.

Aztlán was a place name, but it's exact location is iffy (it was the legendary homeland of the Aztecs, who conquered central México & established their capital in what's now México City). If Atzlán could be determined geographically, & it were in the US, disentangling the value of the property & Mexico somehow paying for it would be nothing short of a miracle. It's like the arguments about the old South seceding from the US, but this time paying for the federal improvements to infrastructure, military bases, TVA, national parks & forests & so on, & on & on. I don't see any real danger of that happening in the case of Atzlán, nor any need to worry about establishing a formula for payment either.

Yah, there were Mexican "lost Territories" to the US. But Mexico, like Spain before it, & ultimately the Pope, recognize territorial expansion by conquest. After all, the Pope certainly didn't bother to ask if the Native Peoples in the New World wanted to join Spain or Portugal, nor did the French, Netherlands, German nor anyone else. It was just a given of the real World.

As for the US culture - well, we eat a lot of corn & potato, tomatoes & chilies. Tacos & salsa, tortillas & on & on. Salsa outsold ketchup (another import, Indian by way of the Raj?) years ago. US popular culture is almost like Japanese popular culture - we pick up stuff that's shiny too.

 

You

 

Of course I would. I am an ethno-mix myself.

 

Alexander Hamilton warned us of the dangers of multiculturalism:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

“The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

"The survival of the American republic depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.”

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”