Immigration and multiculturalism news

[DarthOne]

...Wow. I'm not even American, and this pisses even me off.

What a disrepectful disgrace.

It's also really not helping the racism problem the States has at the moment. This is just going to piss Whites off even more against Blacks.

I have genuinely wondered at time if (at least elements of) the Democrat party is doing this on purpose to hit the reset button on racism and take things back to the good old days.


EDIT Freedom Toons



Biden Reveals his Power Level

"You fool. You speak of money? Of 30 trillion? This country owes a debt, not of money, but of blood. We have angered God and the wage of that sin is the inevitable death that awaits us. And I have come to collect that debt. Not by my own hand, but by theirs- by encouraging them to continue to roll around in the filth of their own sin, to bring closer to their house the wrath of a God who is owed justice. Don't you see it? We have entire parties, whole movements dedicated to the promotion of pure evil. Do you think it's a coincidence that the abortionist, the pornographer and the groomer all find common cause and aggressively march to protect one another? Of course not- the creed of all three is the destruction of innocence, because they've debauched themselves past even mere callousness and into a disfigured spiritual state of pure burning hatred towards anything beautiful- anything that reminds them that there's something in the world aside from their own hideousness."

Sigma-INFJ.
This must be the most important part of Biden's speech. It's such a powerful message. I'm trying to figure out the deep meaning behind this. I think that the destruction of innocence and the hatred towards anything beautiful has to do with the fact that they have a guilty conscience, and that innocence and beauty reminds them of how wrong they are in their ways, of what they could be, but choose not to. This speech seems to be implying that we are worst than Sodom and Gomorrah.

@Sigma-INFJ. I think it's ultimately envy. Envy of beauty and strength and valor. Things they could never possess or display themselves. Their weak and weak ppl envy the strong. When the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, it's the weak cowards who run and hide. They chirp alot now but it's only because they are being allowed too. They don't have real courage. Envy has destroyed nations many times over in the past. When a civilization builds a culture that is strong and magnificent and produces art and innovation and makes the world better through its existence there are always those who envy that and want to tear it down.

 

[DarthOne]

The problem with his "shame" plan is that the problem group in question is incapable of feeling shame

The problem is most of us were "No one should do this" however we watched while a particular group of people had an exception carved out specifically for them to do it. And finally after watching for decades most of us have said "If they can do it, we can do it too."

There was never any true "colorblindness". It was always: one side gets to be "colorblind", the other gets to have affirmative action and other gibs.

Weird how the wedge was the person who said a mean word and not the person who stabbed someone to death.

It's not about whether or not YOU hate THEM.
The fact of the matter is they HATE you.
Doesn't matter if you don't want tribalism.
Tribalism is at your front door whether you'll have it or not.

"I would not risk tribalism!"

"Tribalism is here whether you would risk it or not"

 

[Jormungandr]

tl;dr: More Blacks murdering Whites.

More and more people are saying "Scott Adams was right". Anger is growing.

 

[DarthOne]

tl;dr: More Blacks murdering Whites.

More and more people are saying "Scott Adams was right". Anger is growing.

You know, they give us so much flak for all the terrible stuff we did in the past (justified or not- you have people simping for the Aztec) and yet they keep. Doing. Things. That. Anger. Us.

Are they so blind to think they'll be safe when the levee breaks? Or are they truly so arrogant to think that it won't? Personally, I think its a mixture of both.

 

[Jormungandr]

You know, they give us so much flak for all the terrible stuff we did in the past (justified or not- you have people simping for the Aztec) and yet they keep. Doing. Things. That. Anger. Us.

Are they so blind to think they'll be safe when the levee breaks? Or are they truly so arrogant to think that it won't? Personally, I think its a mixture of both.

"White Guilt" is supposedly on the decline, too. People aren't just giving a shit anymore outside of hardcore, self-hating Whites.

If times carry on the way they are, and I don't foresee them changing because the worst dregs of Black people in the West don't think they're ever going to face consequences for their outright rabid racism, things are going to go to shit very quickly.

 

[Doomsought]

Tribalism is human nature, like a river we cannot plug it, only redirect it. The best answer we have come up with so far is Nationalism. Unlike a racist, for a nationalist people can join your tribe by undergoing the appropriate rituals.

 

[DarthOne]

Tribalism is human nature, like a river we cannot plug it, only redirect it. The best answer we have come up with so far is Nationalism. Unlike a racist, for a nationalist people can join your tribe by undergoing the appropriate rituals.

But but Nationalism is baddddd! It caused WW1! And the NAZIS were nationalists! YOU AREN'T A NAZI, AREN'T YOU?!? /Sarcasm

 

[DarthOne]

In France, meat is sold on pavements without any respect for health and hygiene standards. If you import third world you become third world.

 

[Marduk]

Speaking of France...

 

[posh-goofiness]

Tribalism is human nature, like a river we cannot plug it, only redirect it. The best answer we have come up with so far is Nationalism. Unlike a racist, for a nationalist people can join your tribe by undergoing the appropriate rituals.

Also, religion. Catholics get a lot of shit from the... I guess, the white separatists? Apparently, allowing the mixing of races within the universal church is wrong. Somehow.

 

[Buba]

In France, meat is sold on pavements without any respect for health and hygiene standards. If you import third world you become third world.

[SHRUGS]
Normal across Europe up to at least WWII and later, maybe up 1960s or so, I'd say.
I imagine that 100 years ago such markets were commonplace in USA as well.
So ... RENACTORS!

 

[Captain X]

Speaking of France...

Multiculturalism in action, working as intended.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

America is the greatest (and most successful) experiment in multiculturalism. Let that sink in, and then look to see how multiculturism has worked and is working in the USA.

Then realize that it's far less successful everywhere else.

 

[DarthOne]

America is the greatest (and most successful) experiment in multiculturalism. Let that sink in, and then look to see how multiculturism has worked and is working in the USA.

Then realize that it's far less successful everywhere else.

Multiculturalism in action, working as intended.

Speaking of which




The Lie at the Heart of Multiculturalism

Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin)

(my hasty attempt at organizing a transcript)

we are told repeatedly that we are a multicultural society and that this is supposed to be able to work. but it's in fact a dangerous illusion that will cause the inevitable bulcanization of our countries into separate waring tribes.

the problem is the lie at the heart of the concept of multiculturalism, which prevents any such thing from actually coming into being and that is the idea that different and conflicting cultures can live harmoniously side by side and maintain their own cultural distinctiveness traditions and most importantly sense of justice in the face of an ethnically neutral leviathan which
rules over them all.

the liberal international order labors under the delusion that its rules are neutral universal and compatible with every
culture. however this is clearly not the case liberalism itself is as Michael Oakshot observed merely the abridgement of the English political tradition abstracted into a doctrine which then becomes a self-justifying ideology that can be applied in any place and at any time

any ideology is a set of ontological statements from which propositional political demands can be derived and these are rooted in the values of the people from which the ideology originates. when an ideology is repeated back to the people from which it originated it acts as a kind of reflecting mirror showing them the best of what they already believe to be true. they already possess the necessary beliefs and institutions to fulfill the demands of the ideology.

however when it is applied to foreign people it shows them idealized versions of things which are not true about themselves and demands that they ought to be.

this is often devastating and causes utter chaos and great bloodshed as the established classes and institutions of the foreign
society are rendered immoral and then liquidated by revolutionaries chasing the vision of what the reflecting mirror showed them. as with all ideology liberalism's ethnically particular origins are masked by its abstract nature and its claims to universality
and neutrality are in fact particular and value laden with a series of presuppositions that we the English-speaking world failed to
interrogate because we live within the political tradition that is being reflected back at us. the ideology tells us that we are indeed the fairest in the land and what we take for granted.

we then assume to be characteristic of the entire human race and this is simply not true. the liberal multiculturalist assumes that there is a set of values coincidentally their own values by which the entire human race could consent to live. and therefore sees
no contradiction in bringing all of the peoples of the world to live under the liberal Leviathan and assumes that they will do so in peace.

however as we have seen this doesn't seem to be the case and even some of the most arch liberal proponents of multiculturalism have admitted that the project has failed.

we can look at the concept of multiculturalism as a form of extreme cultural vanity in which a people have become so possessed of their own moral righteousness that they delude themselves into thinking that their way of life is the only way of life and even
just the mere exposure of it to foreign peoples will persuade them to become like us, instead of persisting in the false consciousness of their old ways.

again we can now see the folly of such self arrandisement, i think the issue stems fundamentally from the concept of justice. there are of course many competing conceptions of justice which I'm not going to explore here but for the purpose of this video I'm going to use Aristotle's definition which can be broadly summarized as people getting what they are
due.

justice to Aristotle is when a person's desserts morally align with the character of their actions and this is in my opinion the best definition of justice and how we can measure a just society. moreover I think it's the definition most people assume when they
consider what justice actually is or is not but we can already see how this presupposes a shared moral framework to come to the conclusion that people are receiving the consequences that they ought and therefore we conclude that our society itself is just.

if a group of people hold different moral foundations which leads them inevitably to moral conclusions which differ from our own then they can come to feel that the society in which they live is not just unpleasant but instead morally abominable to an extreme degree. and I think this is the fundamental root of terrorism and explains why for example Islamic extremists who hold to a strict Quranic reading suddenly decide that they have to strike out at Western society and with such brutality. not only is the society they are surrounded by unislamic but it is monstrous according to the moral code in which they believe and they are duty bound to try and destroy it.

and so we come to the crux of the lie of multiculturalism in that an assumed set of liberal universal values can be
applied to all people revolving around. the fulcrum of human rights this is a western prejudice. we have seen that many other groups simply do not believe in the liberal ontology regarding the individual and in fact derive a separate and contradictory set
of assumptions from entirely alien traditions which leads them to very different moral conclusions.

so what can the multicultural state do? What must they do?

If the Leviathan is to be non-particular about the people from which it has emerged and is composed of then it must begin with its conceit of universality and attempt not to play favorites. but in doing so it is compelled to reinforce the original doctrine that itself is the source of the problem and this itself undermines the premise upon which multiculturalism rests.

the liberal multiculturalist has no choice but to assert their universal doctrine of human rights in the face of these competing
moral frameworks and impose them upon the apparently equal groups in the multicultural society. and they have to
use the power of the Leviathan to do it. and they have to do it against the doctrines of the group from which the values conflict has arisen.

however in doing so they confess that their project can never really be multicultural at all; it is not possible to allow conflicting moral systems to persist without issue in the same polity. which is why they have to impose their ideology on the
foreign groups making them not equals but subject peoples to an ideology which itself springs from the dominant ethnic
group one culture must dominate over the others and impose its will in a classic imperial fashion or the entire project
ends in ruin. which itself destroys the fundamental conceit of multiculturalism. the only possible multicultural state is an empire.

it is also not unreasonable to think that the minority communities which are the prize jewels of our multicultural project and
used by its advocates against the majority ethnic community, will feel that they are not only in danger from the majority community but are also wards of a state that is currently constraining it. they are told that they may live lives authentic to the traditions from which they came whilst at the same time being hemmed in by the very same power that is encouraging them to be traditional.

this contradiction naturally leads to ethnic separatism in which they correctly realize that self-governance would be preferable because at least it would be on their own terms. only by having people from their own community and bursting the bonds of the liberal Leviathan can from their perspective the promise of multiculturalism be fulfilled. which destroys the unitary multicultural state and creates ethnic insurrections against the host country. anything else is from their perspective a state of
injustice which may be temporarily tolerated at best and openly revolted against at worst.

and dealing with ethnic revolts against the hegemonic power of the overgroup is historically just part and parcel of running an empire. the liberal state which intends to practice multiculturalism is forced to admit that its own origin and theory is in fact
parochial and committed to an ethnic ideological framework, which is just the reflected vanity of the moral righteousness of the people from whom it originated.

there is no such thing as human rights; there are only the rights of Englishmen applied to the whole human race; and much
of the human race don't want them. because they have ideas of their own.

From the comments:

I was learning German a few years ago. The teacher was praising Berlin for being so progressive and multicultural and i told her that i find multiculturalism abhorrent.

She asked why and i said "because i know history, and in history, when different cultures try to coexist in the same place there are only 2 results: the most intolerant and aggressive one becomes dominant and the other goes extinct, or, if they are about equally matched, they both disappear as they mix creating a new culture".

 

[The Whispering Monk]

He also literally said

welcome everyone to the church means inviting LGBTQP to the church.

Being open to everyone does not mean endorsing everyone, and regardless of one's theological opinions towards certain groups, what good is a Church that doesn't allow the lost to come in?

Yup, the Church should welcome everyone, no matter what they've done in the past or who they are. The Church is a representation of Jesus on Earth. As such, they should welcome everyone because we are all sinners, even the priests.

 

[Marduk]

There is a bit of sometimes ignorant and sometimes intentional for sake of activism confusion by what welcoming the alphabet soup people to the church means.
By traditional doctrine, their sexual practices and lifestyle are treated as a sin, and the usual applies, including the implication that despite their preferences and temptations they are expected to at very minimum honestly try to stop sinning.
OTOH the more progressive people and the activists of course imply that they should be welcomed together with the baggage of their lifestyle and practice of it, that they have no intention to change them, and that those shouldn't even be considered a sin if anything.

 

[mrttao]

Yup, the Church should welcome everyone, no matter what they've done in the past or who they are. The Church is a representation of Jesus on Earth. As such, they should welcome everyone because we are all sinners, even the priests.

I thought it was blatantly obvious that I am not talking about a repetentant homosexual who thinks he made a mistake.

I am talking about people who want to get into the church and continue their practice within the church.

By letting them in, you end up with "priests" who are openly lesbians and preaching that god loves LGBTQP

 

[Cherico]

You know, they give us so much flak for all the terrible stuff we did in the past (justified or not- you have people simping for the Aztec) and yet they keep. Doing. Things. That. Anger. Us.

Are they so blind to think they'll be safe when the levee breaks? Or are they truly so arrogant to think that it won't? Personally, I think its a mixture of both.

The black community will survive, the community is currently self destructing hard but their survivors.

My money is that the community very quickly finds jesus and supports the christian nationalist faction of the right in any break situation. You already see members of the community sliding in that direction if this faction wins which is pretty likely were probally going to get a.

Were all gods children so you better get along or else kind of thing.

 

[mrttao]

 

[DarthOne]

Okay. So what are they going to do to permanently stop the bastard?