PDA

View Full Version : Why is it that only Northern Europeans have been programmed to make themselves into a minority?


Pages : [1] 2

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 05:56 AM
(For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia)

All Northern European descendants have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country. They are taught that Slavery was primarily an all white-affair, that Nazi-Germany is a natural result of white nationalism, and so on.

This is just bullshit. The slavery was going on for centuries by mainly Arab merchants, and it was the Northern Europeans who ended the slavery world wide. Whites even got to war to stop it. Same thing with Nazi Germany. Hundreds of thousands of Americans and Brits died to stop this mutant form of nationalism. And the reason why Americans and Brits volunteered to fight was a feeling of nationalism and solidarity with their own country. Virtues that are no proclaimed as being fascist.

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.

Smapti
07-18-2011, 06:45 AM
This is just bullshit.

I believe this might be the only accurate statement in the OP.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 06:49 AM
It's definitely not fair. Someone should do something.

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 06:52 AM
I doubt the OP has ever been to NE. This: "have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country" is the wrongest things I have read this week.

SanVito
07-18-2011, 07:03 AM
I doubt the OP has ever been to NE. This: "have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country" is the wrongest things I have read this week.

Quite. And I'm not quite sure what immigration has to do with anything.

Acid Lamp
07-18-2011, 07:37 AM
Can You clarify your Position a bit better OP? I don't really follow what you are getting at.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 07:46 AM
Can You clarify your Position a bit better OP? I don't really follow what you are getting at.

It's all cultural Marixsm to me.

bucketybuck
07-18-2011, 07:49 AM
(For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia)

All Northern European descendants have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country.

We have? We do?

I thought I liked my heritage, but apparently not. Oh well.

Who_me?
07-18-2011, 07:53 AM
We have? We do?

I thought I liked my heritage, but apparently not. Oh well.

Shame on you... err... for not being ashamed like the rest of us.

Bricker
07-18-2011, 07:53 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.

Polycarp
07-18-2011, 07:55 AM
We have? We do?

I thought I liked my heritage, but apparently not. Oh well.

No true Scotsman rejects his heritage. **checks OP definition of "Northern European"** Oh, wait....

:)

Giles
07-18-2011, 07:55 AM
Can You clarify your Position a bit better OP? I don't really follow what you are getting at.
What the OP is saying is that he, as a white person, is being repressed by all those people with darker skins. This is much the same way as, e.g., men get repressed by feminists, and and straight people get repressed by gays.

As a straight white male, I must say that I share his pain. It's been weeks since any of those darkies bowed to me and called me "Master"; my woman has stopped walking three paces behind me; and those lesbians won't have anything to do with me. I just hope that the OP can back to the 19th century where he belongs.

bucketybuck
07-18-2011, 08:01 AM
Shame on you... err... for not being ashamed like the rest of us.

Its not my fault though, we were all programmed. OP sez so.

levdrakon
07-18-2011, 08:02 AM
What the OP is saying is that he, as a white person, is being repressed by all those people with darker skins. This is much the same way as, e.g., men get repressed by feminists, and and straight people get repressed by gays.

As a straight white male, I must say that I share his pain. It's been weeks since any of those darkies bowed to me and called me "Master"; my woman has stopped walking three paces behind me; and those lesbians won't have anything to do with me. I just hope that the OP can back to the 19th century where he belongs.I'm guessing English isn't your first language. Or second, or third, or fifteenth.

Wallenstein
07-18-2011, 08:06 AM
Down with this sort of thing.

Eonwe
07-18-2011, 08:11 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.

The difference being that statements like "All Northern European descendants have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country," indicate clearly that the OP is not interested in discussing cultural perspectives regarding immigration and national/racial identity, but is instead starting from a hostile, extreme, and unfounded position, and then asking why whites have to be so damned welcoming to everyone else, when we "let" all those other people just sit around in their monocultures.

Bricker, you pulled out an interesting and possibly worthy translation of the OP (though I do ask for a cite about the consistency of white Northern Eurpoean cultures with regards to being welcoming of immigration), but I think Giles is just as close to the truth of the OP as you are.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 08:11 AM
Careful now, Wallenstein.
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.Even if we ignore the insistence that Northern Europeans have somehow been brainwashed into a position of desiring cultural diversity (and likewise ignore the underlying petulance of the OP), while Northern Europeans may be more tolerant of cultural diversity than other cultures are it's still a long way from "we all hate our respective cultures to the point of wanting to dilute them into unrecognizability via unrestrained immigration from outside Europe".

The OP assumes a lot of facts not in evidence.

El_Kabong
07-18-2011, 08:14 AM
Helpful tip: when the very title of the OP assumes facts not in evidence, the thread is unlikely to go well.

Giles
07-18-2011, 08:14 AM
I'm guessing English isn't your first language. Or second, or third, or fifteenth.
Second language, actually. My first language was baby talk.

Simplicio
07-18-2011, 08:16 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.

So he's asking why different cultures have different ideas about accepting the different ideas of different cultures? Maybe if Ireland let in more Japanese people, the culture there would change to be more hostile to letting in more ethnic diversity.

(As to Ireland specifically, they've been open to letting in immigrants because back when Ireland was an impoverished hell-hole, large numbers of Irish people emigrated out of the country to the US and other places. So I don't really see how that can be interepreted as the kind of N. European self-loathing the OP theorizes).

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 08:16 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.I didn't know you were fluent in Nonsense.

Wallenstein
07-18-2011, 08:25 AM
(As to Ireland specifically, they've been open to letting in immigrants because back when Ireland was an impoverished hell-hole, large numbers of Irish people emigrated out of the country to the US and other places.

What do you mean "when"...?

;)

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 08:30 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.
That's what the last two lines boil down to, and it's a reasonable question. The rest is more closely approximated as "why aren't the darkies more grateful?"

Wait... Israel? Ethnic homogeny? Israel has some serious issues with anti-black racism, but Ethiopian Jews have the same right of return as French ones.

miss elizabeth
07-18-2011, 08:31 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.

Very nice "interpretation". Too bad the OP wasn't able to write it.

If you want us to discuss this topic, I suggest you open a new thread with this as the OP. Otherwise, this well poisoned.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 08:34 AM
I didn't know you were fluent in Nonsense.

And Nordic Nonsense at that (btw, it is rather amusing, and telling, that the OP took out Italy and the Iberian Peninsula out of his "Europe". I guess if the OP already has a problem with Southern Europeans, his hollow rants against even more foreigny foreigners make more sense. In a way. Somehow.)

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 08:37 AM
Well, he's just not talking about people who don't mainly origin from down there, mmmkay?

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 08:37 AM
That's what the last two lines boil down to, and it's a reasonable question. The rest is more closely approximated as "why aren't the darkies more grateful?"

Wait... Israel? Ethnic homogeny? Israel has some serious issues with anti-black racism, but Ethiopian Jews have the same right of return as French ones.

Ethnic homogeny. Not skin colour. If you consider (like Zionism does) that every Jew is part of the same people, then yes, Bricker's point is valid (btw, Israel doesnt have racism problems only with Blacks, last I checked. But let's not Isderail this train wreck, it's already heading to the wall on its own).

levdrakon
07-18-2011, 08:41 AM
Second language, actually. My first language was baby talk.Could you wait until the OP actually articulates his/her hateful white supremist agenda?

Believe it or not, sometimes we like to sniff out ignorance and fight it around here, rather than immediately tarring, feathering, tying it to the back of a pickup and dragging it out of town first.

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 08:49 AM
Ethnic homogeny. Not skin colour. If you consider (like Zionism does) that every Jew is part of the same people, then yes, Bricker's point is valid
Skin color is pretty much an integral aspect of ethnicity.

Giles
07-18-2011, 08:52 AM
Could you wait until the OP actually articulates his/her hateful white supremist agenda?

Believe it or not, sometimes we like to sniff out ignorance and fight it around here, rather than immediately tarring, feathering, tying it to the back of a pickup and dragging it out of town first.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for RaleighRally to respond -- and I think there's enough ignorance revealed in the OP for us to start collecting tar and feathers.

Alessan
07-18-2011, 08:56 AM
Skin color is pretty much an integral aspect of ethnicity.

As ethnicity has no real scientific basis, it can mean whatever people want it to mean.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 09:01 AM
Could you wait until the OP actually articulates his/her hateful white supremist agenda?

No we cant, he already pulled up the same shit with this "Cultural Marxism" thing which was 3 pages of gibberish before finalling blurting out that "Cultural Marxism"= Political Correctness (and was spread in Sweden by the US). A baseless rant's place is not in GD but the Pit.

Believe it or not, sometimes we like to sniff out ignorance and fight it around here, rather than immediately tarring, feathering, tying it to the back of a pickup and dragging it out of town first.

That's the Northern European way baby, that's how we used to treat our outcasts. At least he'll be lynched the way his ancestors would have wanted.

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 09:01 AM
As ethnicity has no real scientific basis, it can mean whatever people want it to mean.
Sure, but Bricker specifically used Israel as an example of a country which "embrace[s] cultural and ethnic homogeny". As an Israeli, do you think that's an accurate statement, in the context of the OP?

ETA: Ethnically, I mean. Obviously Israel is in some sense culturally homogenous.

levdrakon
07-18-2011, 09:03 AM
No we cant, he already pulled up the same shit with this "Cultural Marxism" thing which was 3 pages of gibberish before finalling blurting out that "Cultural Marxism"= Political Correctness (and was spread in Sweden by the US). A baseless rant's place is not in GD but the Pit.Ah, not his first thread then. Nevermind; carry on! :)

Hypnagogic Jerk
07-18-2011, 09:04 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for RaleighRally to respond -- and I think there's enough ignorance revealed in the OP for us to start collecting tar and feathers.
Also, we're already familiar with RaleighRally's debating style and ideas. (I wouldn't call him a "white supremacist", but he definitely believes that "white" majority countries should severely restrict immigration and especially immigration from Muslim-majority countries. I don't know what he thinks about immigration from "brown" but Christian countries. And he blames liberals and "cultural Marxists" (something none of us knows what it means) for the fact that immigration policies are too liberal for his tastes.) Maybe levdrakon hasn't been exposed to RaleighRally's posts yet.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 09:05 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.

Alessan
07-18-2011, 09:08 AM
Sure, but Bricker specifically used Israel as an example of a country which "embrace[s] cultural and ethnic homogeny". As an Israeli, do you think that's an accurate statement, in the context of the OP?

ETA: Ethnically, I mean. Obviously Israel is in some sense culturally homogenous.

You could say that Israel embraces a broad variety of races and cultures, all of them Jewish; non-Jewish races and cultures, not as much. We're very diverse, but it's diversity with an asterisk.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 09:12 AM
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.

Because they're all fucking Asians and we're Europeans. What the hell man, cant you remember your own culture well enough that you have to latch on Orient's twisted ways as a model.
We're not cheap Asian knock-offs, man, we're EUROS!!! We invented the Gods so that we'd have something to compare ourselves with.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 09:17 AM
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.If it's a classic cultural Marxist tactic, why are you doing it? Are you a cultural Marxist?

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.1) No, because no one is proposing such a thing; and

2) I strongly suspect that, even if someone were, no one would be able to explain it to you in terms you would accept.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 09:19 AM
Because they're all fucking Asians and we're Europeans. What the hell man, cant you remember your own culture well enough that you have to latch on Orient's twisted ways as a model.
We're not cheap Asian knock-offs, man, we're EUROS!!! We invented the Gods so that we'd have something to compare ourselves with.
Ok, that is your explanation to South Korea and Japan. But what about Israel?

Marley23
07-18-2011, 09:19 AM
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.
This thread is probably going to The BBQ Pit anyway, but if you continue to call people names you'll get a warning and the thread will be sent to the Pit.

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 09:20 AM
So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.
Perhaps you missed the part where Israel does embrace mass immigration. 38% of Israel's population is foreign born.

In any case, you are (again) misstating the question. Nobody in Northern Europe is taught to "embrace mass immigration" as far as I am aware. They are taught not to throw bricks at immigrants, which is somewhat different.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 09:24 AM
2) I strongly suspect that, even if someone were, no one would be able to explain it to you in terms you would accept.
Try me.

orcenio
07-18-2011, 09:28 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.You seem to be editing out a few key points:


Northern European descendants are the stewards of their respective countries (US later referred to as being one of them).
Northern European descendants undergo lifelong "programming" of self-hate.
This self-hate being manifested in strives to insure that the "Northern European descendant" ethnicity become minorities "within their own countries."
Another part of "the programming" is that Northern European descendants are (erroneously) taught that:

"Slavery was primarily an all white-affair."
"Nazi-Germany is a natural result of white nationalism."
"and so on" (bastards!).

while in reality:
"The slavery" was going on for centuries by mainly Arab merchants.
Northern Europeans ended "the slavery" world wide.
"Whites" fought a war to stop slavery.
"Whites" fought a war to stop Nazi Germany.



Not a quality post; mostly trash when it isn't incoherent. What's your take?

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 09:29 AM
They are taught not to throw bricks at immigrants
Cultural Marxists!

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Perhaps you missed the part where Israel does embrace mass immigration. 38% of Israel's population is foreign born.
Before 1965, the US also embraced Israels version of immigration. That is, to only allow immigrants of the same ethnicity. But this came to be consider in the US as a "racist" policy. But not in Israel. Why this double standards?

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 09:34 AM
Ok, that is your explanation to South Korea and Japan. But what about Israel?

Duh, dude, on what continent do you think Israel is located?

(funny that you thought that the rest of my "argument" was valid though)

Acid Lamp
07-18-2011, 09:39 AM
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.

No problem. Seems Bricker had the right of it after all. No pretending, I really just didn't get the thrust of your OP. It happens sometimes.

So to start this debate off correctly, Cite?

Leaving aside the vast differences in culture and history of those disparate nations, which in itself is enough to justify all manner of conflicts on immigration policy, They all are entitled to form their own governmental policies. It's not as if there is a great cabal of secret people "teaching" countries about anything.

Let's leave Israel aside since it is a complicated can of worms and use simpler comparisons. Why don't we compare two countries with similar conditions, the largest variable is population and physical size: Japan and Iceland.

Both are island nations sharing a similar climate and a heavy fishing industry. Both have highly developed first world standards, and both use and produce high end technologies. Both are culturally homogenous to a large degree, and both have their own distinct culture and language which they expect to be honored. To varying degrees both are culturally insular.

I would argue that difference on immigration policy stems from history. The Japanese have done fairly well for themselves as a nation throughout history, occasionally reaching limited Empire status. They have not had a real need historically speaking to play very nice with others, or to trade widely for basic goods. They are self-sufficient and isolated. This naturally produces a culture that will not be overly welcoming or tolerant of different ways of doing things. Their way has been FINE for centuries, why change?

Iceland has always been a small country. It has been held under Danish rule for quite a long time, and independent for a short while, historically speaking. Unlike the Japanese, Icelanders are descended from settlers, farmers, and traders used to ranging a long way and dealing with many disparate cultures. They traded for many goods despite their self sufficiency and maintained cultural ties with the mainland. This has produced a culture that understands that playing nice with others gains them far more profits then what they eke out on their own. There, people are expected to assimilate to a certain degree, but they welcome new foods, music, dress, and goods to their home culture while maintaining a strong sense of their core principles. They have taken a more balanced approach than the Japanese because it is beneficial for them to do so.

Unless you are going to argue this as a racial issue, I don't see how you fail to understand that different circumstances produce different results.

Alessan
07-18-2011, 09:40 AM
You know, RaleighRally, of all the countries in the world, Israel - with its unique founding circumstances and human makeup - is perhaps not the best example you could choose to illustrate the point you appear to be trying to make in your opening post. Why are you focusing on it?

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 09:51 AM
Before 1965, the US also embraced Israels version of immigration. That is, to only allow immigrants of the same ethnicity. But this came to be consider in the US as a "racist" policy. But not in Israel. Why this double standards?
The US is an outlier because it has no innate ethnic identity.

Acid Lamp
07-18-2011, 09:55 AM
The US is an outlier because it has no innate ethnic identity.

Exactly. Even among First Nations Peoples there is as much cultural diversity as among Europeans.

Implicit
07-18-2011, 10:00 AM
I'm so confused. Just yesterday I read that it's Southern Europe that is being overrun by immigrants (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616724). I just don't know what to think. :rolleyes:

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 10:03 AM
No, no, Southern Europe is about to be overrun by immigrants. Not sure why, exactly, since per that OP it's also about to become a blasted hellscape of old people and government default.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 10:08 AM
I'm so confused. Just yesterday I read that it's Southern Europe that is being overrun by immigrants (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616724). I just don't know what to think. :rolleyes:

No, no, Southern Europe is about to be overrun by immigrants. Not sure why, exactly, since per that OP it's also about to become a blasted hellscape of old people and government default.

Chen019 and RaleighRally are like the Wonder Twins. Note how RaleighRally specifically excluded Southern Europe from his rant, so that Chen019 could attack on the from the South without suffering from Friendly Fire.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 10:11 AM
Chen019 and RaleighRally are like the Wonder Twins. Note how RaleighRally specifically excluded Southern Europe from his rant, so that Chen019 could attack on the from the South without suffering from Friendly Fire.Note to self: start thread complaining about immigrants in Australia as it's much easier to hold and get extra armies.

Also: what's with all these foreigners in Kamchatka?

Acsenray
07-18-2011, 10:12 AM
I would argue that difference on immigration policy stems from history. The Japanese have done fairly well for themselves as a nation throughout history, occasionally reaching limited Empire status. They have not had a real need historically speaking to play very nice with others, or to trade widely for basic goods. They are self-sufficient and isolated. This naturally produces a culture that will not be overly welcoming or tolerant of different ways of doing things. Their way has been FINE for centuries, why change?

Iceland has always been a small country. It has been held under Danish rule for quite a long time, and independent for a short while, historically speaking. Unlike the Japanese, Icelanders are descended from settlers, farmers, and traders used to ranging a long way and dealing with many disparate cultures. They traded for many goods despite their self sufficiency and maintained cultural ties with the mainland. This has produced a culture that understands that playing nice with others gains them far more profits then what they eke out on their own. There, people are expected to assimilate to a certain degree, but they welcome new foods, music, dress, and goods to their home culture while maintaining a strong sense of their core principles. They have taken a more balanced approach than the Japanese because it is beneficial for them to do so.

There is another key difference. Countries like China and Korea have a significant history of being subject to heavy foreign influence, colonialist mercantilism, or straight up military subjugation. The Japanese, fearing an imminent military occupation, took preemptive action and cut off the country from the rest of the world for two centuries.

The West, on the other hand, has for centuries prospered as a result of open relationships with other countries, at first because it was in a dominant role militarily and economically.

The post-WWII immigration wave has done much to sustain the scientific and economic prosperity of the West, which has benefited from the Asian "brain drain." To the extent that political policies cut off this cycle, the West will begin a downward slide, hastening the economic domination of the Chinese.

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 10:33 AM
Note to self: start thread complaining about immigrants in Australia as it's much easier to hold and get extra armies.Australia was overrun by immigrants. Just ask the Australian Aborigines.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 11:08 AM
Australia was overrun by immigrants. Just ask the Australian Aborigines.
Australia seems to have had the same immigration policy as the US (ended 1965) and Israel (still exists, but they use the J-word instead of "White"):
The White Australia policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted "non-white" immigration to Australia from 1901 to 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

Could this shift in Australia has something to do with the "Political Correctness"-revolution in the 60s? Or was there popular support from ordinary Aussies to make their country more multicultural?

orcenio
07-18-2011, 11:13 AM
Australia was overrun by immigrants. Just ask the Australian Aborigines.It'd be more accurate to say that they were overrun by colonists. There's a big difference.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:15 AM
All Northern European descendants have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country.

:dubious: No, they haven't.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:16 AM
So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.

No reason why they should not, except that South Korea and Japan are full up, and only a Jew, a very religious Christian, or an idiot would think of emigrating to Israel.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 11:17 AM
Why don't we compare two countries with similar conditions, the largest variable is population and physical size: Japan and Iceland.
Why not compare Japan to Great Britain. They both had an empire. They both export a lot of goods overseas. Why does Great Britain need millions of muslim immigrants but not Japan?

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:25 AM
Quite. And I'm not quite sure what immigration has to do with anything.

As I know from other posts of his, RaleighRally is still bearing a grudge over the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965), which abolished the frankly racist national-origin quotas of the Immigration Act of 1924. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924) He's not even American, yet he bears a grudge.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:27 AM
As I understand the OP, his argument boils down to: Northern European countries, and/or countries with majority populations that derive from Northern European cultures, seem to hold in common a meme that cultural and ethnic disversity should be encouraged, through immigration as well as other means; other cultures, such as South Korea, Japan, and Israel, do not share this meme and instead embrace cultural and ethnic homogeny.

Discuss.

We're right, they're wrong.

John Mace
07-18-2011, 11:27 AM
Why not compare Japan to Great Britain. They both had an empire. They both export a lot of goods overseas. Why does Great Britain need millions of muslim immigrants but not Japan?

Because the British have been programmed from birth to hate their culture. Duh!!!!

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 11:28 AM
Why not compare Japan to Great Britain. They both had an empire. They both export a lot of goods overseas. Why does Great Britain need millions of muslim immigrants but not Japan?
Why should immigration be based on need? Why single out Muslims? The UK has as many Hindu immigrants as Muslim.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 11:28 AM
No reason why they should not, except that South Korea and Japan are full up, and only a Jew, a very religious Christian, or an idiot would think of emigrating to Israel.
You know very well of all the Arabs who want to go back to Israel. There are also a lot of black refugees who wants to go there:
Sudanese refugee shot fleeing Egypt for Israel (http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudanese-refugee-shot-fleeing,22700) Egyptian border guards shot a Sudanese refugee and arrested two others from war-torn Darfur region on Wednesday as they tried to cross from Egypt into Israel, a police official said.
Hmmm, wonder why those Egyptian border guards are instructed to shoot refugees heading for Israel...

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:29 AM
I didn't know you were fluent in Nonsense.

How long you been here, you didn't know Bricker is a lawyer?!

-- BrainGlutton, Esq.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:32 AM
And Nordic Nonsense at that (btw, it is rather amusing, and telling, that the OP took out Italy and the Iberian Peninsula out of his "Europe". I guess if the OP already has a problem with Southern Europeans, his hollow rants against even more foreigny foreigners make more sense. In a way. Somehow.)

That Nordic Nonsense is part of our American heritage, BTW. Kindasorta. Our Founding Fathers were not merely white supremacists, they were Saxon supremacists, they believed English blood superior to all other. Swedes were too "swarthy" for Ben Franklin. (http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/01/benjamin-franklin-and-white-and-red.html)

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Jefferson, for his part, hoped for a racial amalgamation between American whites and Indians -- after all the blacks had been emancipated and deported.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 11:34 AM
Why should immigration be based on need? Why single out Muslims? The UK has as many Hindu immigrants as Muslim.First the British all went over to their countries to live, and now they're all just returning the favor. It's very civilized.

More tea?

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 11:37 AM
No thank you, vicar.

Giles
07-18-2011, 11:44 AM
Australia seems to have had the same immigration policy as the US (ended 1965) and Israel (still exists, but they use the J-word instead of "White"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
Not the same, though there were similarities. A big part of the difference was that the White Australia Policy treated southern and eastern Europeans as "White". After 1945, in particular, when Australia was strongly encouraging immigration from Europe, that meant a lot of immigrants from places like Italy, Greece, Poland and Russia -- places that U.S. immigration policy before 1965 was discouraging immigration from.
Could this shift in Australia has something to do with the "Political Correctness"-revolution in the 60s? Or was there popular support from ordinary Aussies to make their country more multicultural?
The WAP ended as a result of legislation from both major political parties, in the 1960s and 1970s. You can call it "political correctness" if you like, but it was part of a removal of all forms of racial discrimination.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:44 AM
The US is an outlier because it has no innate ethnic identity.

"American" is a definite ethnocultural identity, one shared by persons of various "races." White, black, Indian -- we're all cousins anyway, and others can freely marry into the family.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:46 AM
Why not compare Japan to Great Britain. They both had an empire. They both export a lot of goods overseas. Why does Great Britain need millions of muslim immigrants but not Japan?

:dubious: The word "need" is irrelevant to this discussion and you fucking know it.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:48 AM
You know very well of all the Arabs who want to go back to Israel. There are also a lot of black refugees who wants to go there:
Sudanese refugee shot fleeing Egypt for Israel (http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudanese-refugee-shot-fleeing,22700)
Hmmm, wonder why those Egyptian border guards are instructed to shoot refugees heading for Israel...

Probably because they want to make nice with the Israeli government, and anybody who tries to sneak in might well be a Palestinian or Pal-sympathetic terrorist.

And I doubt there are many Arabs at all who really "want to go back to Israel" so long as the Israelis/Jews are running it.

Chronos
07-18-2011, 11:54 AM
You can't make yourself into a minority if you're already a minority.

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 11:54 AM
It'd be more accurate to say that they were overrun by colonists. There's a big difference.Potayto, potahto!*



*OK, of course there is a difference, but the OP is so far off that I can't be bothered to make much of a point. I find it hard to believe this is still in Great Debates.

Great Antibob
07-18-2011, 12:02 PM
They both export a lot of goods overseas. Why does Great Britain need millions of muslim immigrants but not Japan?

Who says Japan doesn't? Here (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20070701pb.html)'s an article describing the shortage of cheap labor in Japan. It's a few years old but the fundamental demographics haven't changed much. Japan needs cheap, immigrant labor but also wants to preserve an essentially racist culture.

If Japan had a more permissive immigration policy and/or let more of their women work, some of these issues would go away.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 12:23 PM
I doubt the OP has ever been to NE. This: "have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country" is the wrongest things I have read this week.
I am a Northern European and at this very moment giving you high quality posts from a Nordic country. I have been educated in Sweden from the age of 6 until I graduated from university a couple of years ago. I think I know a lot more than you about the brainwashing in our Schools. Diversity issues (ie whites are always the ones to blame) are taught to the children already in kindergarten and we are constantly reminded about the horrors of our German neighbors in WW2 and the Slavery of the Americas.

Our Prime Minister says this about our culture:
Old Swedish is only barbarism. The rest of the development has come from outside. http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/reinfeldt-det-ursvenska-ar-blott-barbari

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Well? Sweden was pretty barbaric in ancient times, in the Dark Ages, in the Middle Ages, and well into the Renaissance, I should think.

Anne Neville
07-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Because Britain and Scandinavia, and countries whose cultures derive from them, have bland food. We want better food, and what better way to get it than to have people from those other cultures with the better food come to us and cook it for us? I suppose we could travel to their countries for the better food, or learn to cook it ourselves, but this way is so much more convenient.

msmith537
07-18-2011, 12:39 PM
In all fairness, a lot of those nationalities the OP listed BARELY count as "White".;)

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 12:43 PM
In all fairness, a lot of those nationalities the OP listed BARELY count as "White".;)

Especially those Swedes! (See post #69.)

clairobscur
07-18-2011, 12:49 PM
Me not understand OP. Hating white heritage doubleplusgood. Making whites minority doubleplusgood. OP nonsense. Me back main program.

Capitaine Zombie
07-18-2011, 12:57 PM
Especially those Swedes! (See post #69.)

Franklin must have been on drugs to put Swedes, Germans (minus Saxons), French, Spaniards, Italians and Russians in the same category to start with. But that that category would be "swarthy", you can see that more than a few of the Founding Fathers really belonged in Arkham.

Me not understand OP. Hating white heritage doubleplusgood. Making whites minority doubleplusgood. OP nonsense. Me back main program.

You cant understand, you're not a Northern European dude (oh, wait, seems that acording to the OP you are. Which is weird. Why exclude Spain, Portugal, and Italy from the outrage but not France???).

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Especially those Swedes! (See post #69.)
I am pretty sure Franklin was referring to the Swiss. This is kind of a very usual slip of the tongue.

Anyhow, whiteness is not the topic here.

Gyrate
07-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Especially those Swedes! (See post #69.)Damn squareheads (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squarehead).

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 01:07 PM
Because Britain and Scandinavia, and countries whose cultures derive from them, have bland food. We want better food, and what better way to get it than to have people from those other cultures with the better food come to us and cook it for us? I suppose we could travel to their countries for the better food, or learn to cook it ourselves, but this way is so much more convenient.
We have mcdonalds, burgerking and cocacola all over the place, but no hordes of American refugees! (only a handful hippies who deserted the Vietnam war)

I think you have to come up with something better.;)

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 01:12 PM
Damn squareheads (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squarehead).
You are wrong. It only applies to Norwegians and Germans according to this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ripley_map_of_cephalic_index_in_Europe.png?uselang=en

Mighty_Girl
07-18-2011, 01:29 PM
We have mcdonalds, burgerking and cocacola all over the place, but no hordes of American refugees! (only a handful hippies who deserted the Vietnam war)

I think you have to come up with something better.;)Trust me, in the list of reasons to emigrate to the US *"food" does not rate very highly. I can see someone listing food in their reasons to move to France, or even Thailand, but Burger King? No way.



*I am aware that US cuisine =/= McDonalds. The OP may not.

Anne Neville
07-18-2011, 01:58 PM
We have mcdonalds, burgerking and cocacola all over the place, but no hordes of American refugees! (only a handful hippies who deserted the Vietnam war)

I think you have to come up with something better.;)

But it's clearly easy to learn how to make McDonald's or Burger King food. It's done by low-skilled, low-paid people here in the US. The people in other countries who want that kind of food don't have to let Americans immigrate to get it. We're willing and able to train their own low-skilled people to do it.

Kyomara
07-18-2011, 02:43 PM
Wait, RaleighRally, you still haven't responded to these two excellent posts, which make similar points:

There is another key difference. Countries like China and Korea have a significant history of being subject to heavy foreign influence, colonialist mercantilism, or straight up military subjugation. The Japanese, fearing an imminent military occupation, took preemptive action and cut off the country from the rest of the world for two centuries.

The West, on the other hand, has for centuries prospered as a result of open relationships with other countries, at first because it was in a dominant role militarily and economically.

The post-WWII immigration wave has done much to sustain the scientific and economic prosperity of the West, which has benefited from the Asian "brain drain." To the extent that political policies cut off this cycle, the West will begin a downward slide, hastening the economic domination of the Chinese.


Leaving aside the vast differences in culture and history of those disparate nations, which in itself is enough to justify all manner of conflicts on immigration policy, They all are entitled to form their own governmental policies. It's not as if there is a great cabal of secret people "teaching" countries about anything.

Let's leave Israel aside since it is a complicated can of worms and use simpler comparisons. Why don't we compare two countries with similar conditions, the largest variable is population and physical size: Japan and Iceland.

Both are island nations sharing a similar climate and a heavy fishing industry. Both have highly developed first world standards, and both use and produce high end technologies. Both are culturally homogenous to a large degree, and both have their own distinct culture and language which they expect to be honored. To varying degrees both are culturally insular.

I would argue that difference on immigration policy stems from history. The Japanese have done fairly well for themselves as a nation throughout history, occasionally reaching limited Empire status. They have not had a real need historically speaking to play very nice with others, or to trade widely for basic goods. They are self-sufficient and isolated. This naturally produces a culture that will not be overly welcoming or tolerant of different ways of doing things. Their way has been FINE for centuries, why change?

Iceland has always been a small country. It has been held under Danish rule for quite a long time, and independent for a short while, historically speaking. Unlike the Japanese, Icelanders are descended from settlers, farmers, and traders used to ranging a long way and dealing with many disparate cultures. They traded for many goods despite their self sufficiency and maintained cultural ties with the mainland. This has produced a culture that understands that playing nice with others gains them far more profits then what they eke out on their own. There, people are expected to assimilate to a certain degree, but they welcome new foods, music, dress, and goods to their home culture while maintaining a strong sense of their core principles. They have taken a more balanced approach than the Japanese because it is beneficial for them to do so.

Unless you are going to argue this as a racial issue, I don't see how you fail to understand that different circumstances produce different results.

These are the most meaningful arguments against your OP. Please address.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 02:45 PM
You seem to be editing out a few key points:


Northern European descendants are the stewards of their respective countries (US later referred to as being one of them).
Northern European descendants undergo lifelong "programming" of self-hate.
This self-hate being manifested in strives to insure that the "Northern European descendant" ethnicity become minorities "within their own countries."
Another part of "the programming" is that Northern European descendants are (erroneously) taught that:

"Slavery was primarily an all white-affair."
"Nazi-Germany is a natural result of white nationalism."
"and so on" (bastards!).

while in reality:
"The slavery" was going on for centuries by mainly Arab merchants.
Northern Europeans ended "the slavery" world wide.
"Whites" fought a war to stop slavery.
"Whites" fought a war to stop Nazi Germany.



Thanks orcenio. Another thing I might add is the obsession with the Nazi-concentration camps. Northern European descendants are never taught in school that these camps origin from the Brits, in their war against civilians in the Boer-War. Do not click this link if you are sensitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these British concentration camps.

Really Not All That Bright
07-18-2011, 02:53 PM
Uh... so what?

Batfish
07-18-2011, 02:55 PM
NVM

Lemur866
07-18-2011, 03:00 PM
Aren't the British Northern European?

Ibn Warraq
07-18-2011, 03:03 PM
Thanks orcenio. Another thing I might add is the obsession with the Nazi-concentration camps. Northern European descendants are never taught in school that these camps origin from the Brits, in their war against civilians in the Boer-War. Do not click this link if you are sensitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these British concentration camps.

So then concentration camps were invented by "white" people.

Incidentally why is "white nationalism" so important to you. I've had several white girlfriends, more than a few of whom may have been attracted to me because I'm not white, but I've never understood this fear so many white people have of non-whites.

Could you explain it to me.

Is it a result of anxiety that white women may find black and brown men more sexually appealing?

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 03:07 PM
Wait, RaleighRally, you still haven't responded to these two excellent posts, which make similar points:

There is another key difference. Countries like China and Korea have a significant history of being subject to heavy foreign influence, colonialist mercantilism, or straight up military subjugation. The Japanese, fearing an imminent military occupation, took preemptive action and cut off the country from the rest of the world for two centuries.

The West, on the other hand, has for centuries prospered as a result of open relationships with other countries, at first because it was in a dominant role militarily and economically.

The post-WWII immigration wave has done much to sustain the scientific and economic prosperity of the West, which has benefited from the Asian "brain drain." To the extent that political policies cut off this cycle, the West will begin a downward slide, hastening the economic domination of the Chinese.




These are the most meaningful arguments against your OP. Please address.
@Acsenray You are wrong. The West has never indulged in large scale immigration until the 1950s. It is possible to prosper without importing impoverished people from the third world. Both the West and Japan are examples of this. Immigration of poor people to welfare countries just costs a lot of money and makes social capital dwindle. Relating Acid Lamp ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14034931&postcount=62), I asked her to do a comparison between Japan and Great Britain instead, because comparing little Iceland with Japan is a bit lame, to say the least.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 03:23 PM
Uh... so what?
I just wanted to show how they consistently are trying to make the Germans look bad. The Germans themselves are a bit tired of this too:
The German ambassador has attacked history teaching in British schools, claiming it fuels xenophobia by focusing solely on his country's Nazi past. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/09/schools.artsandhumanities

I must point out though that I do not like the Nazis at all. Especially their horrific treatment of non-Germanics and the Holocaust. Their plan for Sweden was not nice either:
In April 1942, Goebbels expressed similar views in his diary, writing that Germany should have occupied the country [Sweden] during its campaign in the north, as "this state has no right to national existence anyway" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossgermanisches_Reich#Nordic_countries

Anne Neville
07-18-2011, 03:29 PM
Thanks orcenio. Another thing I might add is the obsession with the Nazi-concentration camps. Northern European descendants are never taught in school that these camps origin from the Brits, in their war against civilians in the Boer-War. Do not click this link if you are sensitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these British concentration camps.

In the OP, you said Brits are Northern Europeans. Now, you're implying that they're not. Which is it?

@Acsenray You are wrong. The West has never indulged in large scale immigration until the 1950s.

If the US is part of the West, then parts of the West certainly did have large-scale immigration before the 1950s. Some of those immigrants came from countries that are not part of northern or western Europe. We have a lot of descendants of Polish immigrants here in Pittsburgh- we have a pierogi section in the frozen foods section of our grocery stores (mmmm.... pierogies). A lot of Italians also came to the US before the 1950s.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 03:30 PM
Could you explain it to me.

It is very easy to explain by an example: If the Palestinian people would get a country of their own, they would not like Europeans and Israelis to immigrate in large number every year so that the Palestinians themselves would eventually be a minority and having their Arabic language replaced by Hebrew or English.

Der Trihs
07-18-2011, 03:31 PM
10 Attempt_To_Become_Minority = YES
20 GOTO 10

YogSothoth
07-18-2011, 03:41 PM
Why do you assume these immigrants aren't white? Are you waiting at the seaports and the airports watching them as they come in like I do? Because I can tell you that the majority of immigrants coming from Muslim countries are oppressed whites fleeing unjust demonization by the tyrannical regimes that dominate the Middle East. Trying to get a hamburger in Mecca is like trying to find a non-molested child in the mausoleum of Michael Jackson, they are still pulling survivors out from that

The facts are that white caucasians represent the largest primary color group immigrating into the US. After the fall of Nazi Germany and the exile of the Norse from this realm, America is the last bastion of freedom left on this planet where those of us with Thule blood are not a minority, but even this is threatened. What our Teutonic ancestors fought for has been given away freely in this day and age

But attacking immigrants is hardly the answer because they are not the problem. The reason why South Korean, Japan, and Israel are not encouraged as the US is to welcome immigrants is simply because of the whitening process. Notwithstanding the fact that most immigrants to the US are white, the combination of conservative schools and chemicals, such as the flourides in water, in this country is the #1 cause of skin bleaching in the world. Even people who are ethnically black or Hindu or gay eventually end up like your typical Robert Byrd in the 40's and later a Roman Senator

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 03:47 PM
In the OP, you said Brits are Northern Europeans. Now, you're implying that they're not. Which is it?

Just before your post, I explained why: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14036069&postcount=99

If the US is part of the West, then parts of the West certainly did have large-scale immigration before the 1950s. Some of those immigrants came from countries that are not part of northern or western Europe. We have a lot of descendants of Polish immigrants here in Pittsburgh- we have a pierogi section in the frozen foods section of our grocery stores (mmmm.... pierogies). A lot of Italians also came to the US before the 1950s.
You are wrong. The Immigration Act of 1924 sought to maintain an ethnic status quo by favoring immigrants from Northwestern Europe. There is nothing "racist" in trying to maintain an ethnic status quo. The U.S. needed quotas because it was apparent that some ethnicities were not assimilating as well as the Northwestern ones. You know, there was no "Political Correctness" in those days. It was only the interest of the American People that mattered.;)

Acsenray
07-18-2011, 03:52 PM
@Acsenray You are wrong. The West has never indulged in large scale immigration until the 1950s.

First of all that's untrue. Second, it has nothing to do with what I said. Without the wave of post WWII. Immigration, we would quickly have become a backwater. We depend almost entirely on Chinese, Indian, and other immigrant scientists and mathematicians for pushing our technological and economic development and we depend almost entirely on Latin American, Vietnamese and other labor to keep our industrial and service sectors churning. And there's nothing new about this. Almost all the prosperity and progress that the United States has ever achieved or enjoyed is due to massive immigration. Those few periods in which immigration diminished are the times that we have slumped. By the way, in the United States, immigrants are net tax [I]payers[/]. It's old white people who are draining our social capital.

Dissonance
07-18-2011, 03:53 PM
Thanks orcenio. Another thing I might add is the obsession with the Nazi-concentration camps. Northern European descendants are never taught in school that these camps origin from the Brits, in their war against civilians in the Boer-War. Do not click this link if you are sensitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these British concentration camps.Where to begin. Okay, are the British Northern European or not? Why would Northern European descendants be taught that Nazi-style concentration camps originated with the Brits when they didn't? Hint - the Brits weren't using the camps to systemically exterminate the Boers from the face of the earth. If the Boer war was a war against civilians, what were the Boers doing mobilizing all those Commandos?

YogSothoth
07-18-2011, 04:15 PM
You are wrong. The Immigration Act of 1924 sought to maintain an ethnic status quo by favoring immigrants from Northwestern Europe. There is nothing "racist" in trying to maintain an ethnic status quo. The U.S. needed quotas because it was apparent that some ethnicities were not assimilating as well as the Northwestern ones. You know, there was no "Political Correctness" in those days. It was only the interest of the American People that mattered.;)

It is racist if it discriminates against our Southern European brethren. You seem to have a funny idea that all the anglos are solely concentrated in NW Europe when in fact the last barbarian invasion and sacking of Rome drove the Saxons across the boundaries of continents and time. Now it is not unusual to find an albino (a blessed reminder of our ancestors) in the jungles of Africa or in the Pre-Cambrian era. Your Political Correctness exposes your wrongheaded favoritism for these NW Europeans, when you should be celebrating the exansion of our ethnic purity into the South.

Acid Lamp
07-18-2011, 04:24 PM
Relating Acid Lamp ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14034931&postcount=62), I asked her to do a comparison between Japan and Great Britain instead, because comparing little Iceland with Japan is a bit lame, to say the least.

Him. I'm Male. :)

I disagree that the comparison is "lame". I deliberately picked Iceland because it was and remains culturally insular like Japan and has a unique language linked to that culture, like Japan. Unlike the Japanese though, they have not embraced isolationism and I explained why.

Great Britain is a poor comparison. Historically speaking they ruled a sprawling empire across the globe, ( not a local empire sharing many cultural ties like the Japanese) and founded little colonies everywhere. They weren't just a cultural exporter, they were a cultural steamroller. English and it's variants is a widely spoken trade language utilized fluently in any number of countries and not linked to any one home cultural group. That isn't an apt starting point for discussing the differences in immigration policy. You are comparing apples and oranges.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 05:02 PM
Why do you assume these immigrants aren't white? Are you waiting at the seaports and the airports watching them as they come in like I do? Because I can tell you that the majority of immigrants coming from Muslim countries are oppressed whites . . .

No, Yog, we're talking about real white people here.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 05:03 PM
You are wrong. The Immigration Act of 1924 sought to maintain an ethnic status quo by favoring immigrants from Northwestern Europe. There is nothing "racist" in trying to maintain an ethnic status quo.

:dubious: Yes, there is, Raleigh, and, yet again, you fucking know it.

HubZilla
07-18-2011, 05:04 PM
Perhaps what the OP means: Why are cities like London, Oslo, and Amsterdam are full of non-whites? While Tokyo and Seoul are largely homogeneous. Not sure how Israel fits in, though.

Anyway, per Wiki: "estimated 28 % of Oslo's residents are of an immigrant or non-Norwegian background". Amsterdam: "Today, people of non-Western origin make up approximately one-third of the population of Amsterdam, and more than 50% of children". In London, there are YouTube videos of strolls through Peckham with hardly a white person visible.

The indications are these are fairly recent immigrants, was it a decision by that bloc of countries to admit so many? And that countries like Japan and Korea could pass on?

I don't think it's racist to say if I were to walk down a street in Oslo, I would be shocked to see 1 in 3 people not being a blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavian. Like meeting me in Hawaii: seeing an easily-sunburnt white haole boy, rather than a ukulele-strumming tanned kane ;)

Acid Lamp
07-18-2011, 05:23 PM
Perhaps what the OP means: Why are cities like London, Oslo, and Amsterdam are full of non-whites? While Tokyo and Seoul are largely homogeneous. Not sure how Israel fits in, though.


The problem is, that is like asking why fish don't have tits while seals do. Cultures are simply different from one another based on history, geography and any number of other factors.

A more serious answer would include that Affluent European cities are more welcoming to immigrant populations who do not mind working the menial positions in exchange for getting to live in a stable, prosperous country with good opportunities for their children. First world Asian countries and most of the developing world still has a huge base of uneducated poor to do the work, and their family oriented, insular culture is a stumbling block to immigrants. One that is not outweighed by the benefits of attempting to integrate into it.

In other words, while it might be worth moving to Tokyo to purse a high end career in the sciences, it isn't worth the hassle to open a dry cleaners or wax floors.

Qin Shi Huangdi
07-18-2011, 05:44 PM
Thanks orcenio. Another thing I might add is the obsession with the Nazi-concentration camps. Northern European descendants are never taught in school that these camps origin from the Brits, in their war against civilians in the Boer-War. Do not click this link if you are sensitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these British concentration camps.

The Nazis did not invent concentration camps, true. But they invented death camps which is where the gas chambers were and most of the Holocaust victims perished.

Great Antibob
07-18-2011, 05:44 PM
In other words, while it might be worth moving to Tokyo to purse a high end career in the sciences, it isn't worth the hassle to open a dry cleaners or wax floors.

Yup, though the Japanese do want them. And they don't have that uneducated base of cheap native labor anymore.

See My Post #78 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14035154&postcount=78) above.

The Japanese DO want cheap immigrant labor. But they also don't want to treat many immigrant laborers like human beings. So, they want the immigrants with one hand but deny them decent treatment with the other. Color me surprised that immigrant laborers choose not to go to a country that wants to pay and treat them poorly (and children of immigrants will never be citizens). At least in Western Europe (or "Northern"), they don't have the same level of discrimination/poor treatment and the children of immigrants have a valid shot at social advancement.

South Korea is getting to be the same way. Though due to a demographic mismatch (more men than women due to selective abortion/child abandonment), there's a growing number of wives imported from other countries. That aspect has helped (very, very slightly) cut down on the racism in that country. Of course, if unification with North Korea does occur, there's going to be no shortage of poorly educated cheap labor for a generation.

Qin Shi Huangdi
07-18-2011, 05:55 PM
It would be much easier y'know, if the Europeans, Japanese, and Korean just had more kids. Its one of the great ironies of history that has societies have grown richer and more able to afford kids they have had less kids.

John Mace
07-18-2011, 05:59 PM
It would be much easier y'know, if the Europeans, Japanese, and Korean just had more kids. Its one of the great ironies of history that has societies have grown richer and more able to afford kids they have had less kids.

It's not ironic at all. In poor, agrarian societies, kids are a resource. You can't afford not to have lots of kids if some are going to die in childhood and you need them to work the farm. In rich countries, kids are an expense.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 06:12 PM
The problem is, that is like asking why fish don't have tits while seals do. Cultures are simply different from one another based on history, geography and any number of other factors.

A more serious answer would include that Affluent European cities are more welcoming to immigrant populations who do not mind working the menial positions in exchange for getting to live in a stable, prosperous country with good opportunities for their children. First world Asian countries and most of the developing world still has a huge base of uneducated poor to do the work, and their family oriented, insular culture is a stumbling block to immigrants. One that is not outweighed by the benefits of attempting to integrate into it.

In other words, while it might be worth moving to Tokyo to purse a high end career in the sciences, it isn't worth the hassle to open a dry cleaners or wax floors.
I think you are making the whole issue way to complicated. It is as simple as the "Political Correctness"-revolution in the 60s. The politicians in North Europe and North America rather wanted to make ethnic suicide than facing the risk of being called a racist by the "Political Correct"-media. If there was a referendum about immigration, the answer would be a clear NO! In Sweden, there was a referendum in the 80s about immigration:
Sjbo became known in the late 80s for a referendum about the reception of refugees, where the No-side won. http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%B6bo

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 06:20 PM
I think you are making the whole issue way to complicated. It is as simple as the "Political Correctness"-revolution in the 60s.

A subject you have repeatedly made clear you do not understand, or else maliciously persist in misrepresenting.

RaleighRally
07-18-2011, 06:22 PM
The Nazis did not invent concentration camps, true. But they invented death camps which is where the gas chambers were and most of the Holocaust victims perished.
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.

asterion
07-18-2011, 06:24 PM
10 Attempt_To_Become_Minority = YES
20 GOTO 10

I was going to post some of the lyrics to "Minority", but when I looked them up I saw that I had forgotten just how bad Green Day's writing is. But I am pretty sure they were all of Northern European descent.

asterion
07-18-2011, 06:25 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.
You're seriously going to cite Pat Buchanan on the Holocaust?

YogSothoth
07-18-2011, 06:26 PM
I think you are making the whole issue way to complicated. It is as simple as the "Political Correctness"-revolution in the 60s. The politicians in North Europe and North America rather wanted to make ethnic suicide than facing the risk of being called a racist by the "Political Correct"-media. If there was a referendum about immigration, the answer would be a clear NO! In Sweden, there was a referendum in the 80s about immigration:

http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%B6bo

No, you're incorrect. There is no worries about Political Correctness because they denied many NW European whites from immigrating. You are falling into the trap of the mainstream media who has fed you stories of brown immigrants coming to America but the reality is that the majority of immigrants are white

silenus
07-18-2011, 06:26 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war.

So, January of '42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference)?

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 06:34 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.

I suppose you remember well enough, your mistake there is in trusting Pat Buchanan. They started laying the groundwork in 1939, and there is no doubt whatsoever as to what they were planning: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Early_measures)

The question of the treatment of the Jews became an urgent one for the Nazis after September 1939, when they invaded the western half of Poland, home to about two million Jews. The pre-war Second Polish Republic had been divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, in the preceding Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Of the German share of Poland, the north-western parts were annexed, while the south-eastern parts were made the Generalgouvernement, administered by Hans Frank. The invasion led Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and France to declare war—World War II had started.

Himmler's right-hand man, Reinhard Heydrich, recommended concentrating all the Polish Jews in ghettos in major cities, where they would be put to work for the German war industry. The ghettos would be in cities located on railway junctions, so that, in Heydrich's words, "future measures can be accomplished more easily."[74] During his interrogation in 1961, Adolf Eichmann testified that the expression "future measures" was understood to mean "physical extermination."[74]

Furthermore, Hitler had already "united" almost all the "scattered Germans" before Churchill came to power. The only "deal" that could have let him take in the rest -- Volga Germans in Russia, other Volksdeutsche in Poland and Southeastern Europe -- would have been one that gave him a free hand in invading, conquering and annexing all the German-minority countries in Europe -- IOW, letting him win, and build his continental Greater Germany on the bones of Poland and Russia. That ain't no "deal." That's just Pat Buchanan's wet dream.

Qin Shi Huangdi
07-18-2011, 06:47 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.

No. Without a war, the Nazis would just have devoted all their resources to the Holocaust unless by a butterfly they accept Himmler's plan to send them all to Madagascar or something. And at any rate there should have been no deal with Hitler, he'd already waged wars of conquest in Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France (where except for Danzig and Alsace-Lorraine there are very few Germans).

straight man
07-18-2011, 06:50 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.
...so?

(Seriously, even ignoring that you're wrong, that's the lamest defense of the Nazis I've ever heard.)

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 07:02 PM
RaleighRally, you are come for. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616793)

Cheshire Human
07-18-2011, 07:41 PM
I'm guessing English isn't your first language. Or second, or third, or fifteenth.

Second language, actually. My first language was baby talk.

And you sucked at it, didn't you. Admit it! That's why you switched to English in Pre-K! Right? Right??? See it's all a plot by the Non-English-speaking Northern Euros! And their off-white immigrant minions! A PLOT, I tell you, a PLOT! We're all doomed! Well, only us white people, but you get the idea...

mac_bolan00
07-18-2011, 08:20 PM
is the OP sure there is no contra- or tangent-force, such as the fact that other enthnicities tend to gravitate towards northern european populations?

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 08:28 PM
is the OP sure there is no contra- or tangent-force, such as the fact that other enthnicities tend to gravitate towards northern european populations?

"Gravitate" sexually?! If RaleighRally buys that old canard I'm sure it does not reassure him, quite the reverse! That's how race-mixing happens!

Dissonance
07-18-2011, 08:56 PM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.Yes, because Pat Buchanan's insightful views on WW2 makes him widely acknowledged as a historian of great stature.

Oh wait, no, I meant it's regarded as the batshit crazy ramblings of an idiot that it is.

msmith537
07-18-2011, 09:17 PM
@Acsenray You are wrong. The West has never indulged in large scale immigration until the 1950s. It is possible to prosper without importing impoverished people from the third world. Both the West and Japan are examples of this.

Gues you aren't counting all those Irish who came over during the potato famine. Those screamin' Chinamen who built the Transcontinental Railroad. Not to mention all dem...ahh.. Negro slaves.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 09:56 PM
The Romans prospered by bringing slaves of all known colors from all over the Mediterranean world and beyond to Italy. Today's Italians are in substantial part their descendants, I suppose. A case against race-mixing, if you look at Italy now. Or for, if you consider where the Renaissance started.

Dr. Crap
07-18-2011, 10:04 PM
I like the countries I own to have kebabs.

ITR champion
07-18-2011, 10:09 PM
You are wrong.
Anne Neville is correct and you are incorrect. There was a large wave of Polish immigrants to the United States long before the 1950's (http://www.poloniatoday.com/immigration1.htm). The first ones arrived in the 18th century, it picked up steam in the 19th century, and topped out in the early 20th century, as part of a total of almost ten million immigrants who arrived in the 1900-1910 decade. You keep pointing to the immigration reforms in 1924 but the United States was founded in 1776. Our country put tight controls on immigration for only a very small part of its history. For the most part, we've always welcomed immigrants from all over the world.

All Northern European descendants have been programmed since early childhood to hate their heritage and strive for making their own ethnicity to a minority within their own country.
This statement is inane. Computers can be programmed; humans cannot be programmed.

Bridget Burke
07-18-2011, 10:18 PM
So, who programmed them? Some group of clever untermenschen? But how could they be so clever as to "program" their betters? Or did they program themselves?

Does not compute.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 10:55 PM
Anne Neville is correct and you are incorrect. There was a large wave of Polish immigrants to the United States long before the 1950's (http://www.poloniatoday.com/immigration1.htm). The first ones arrived in the 18th century, it picked up steam in the 19th century, and topped out in the early 20th century, as part of a total of almost ten million immigrants who arrived in the 1900-1910 decade. You keep pointing to the immigration reforms in 1924 but the United States was founded in 1776. Our country put tight controls on immigration for only a very small part of its history. For the most part, we've always welcomed immigrants from all over the world.

Pssst! White people (the real ones) are never "immigrants"! Pay attention!

This statement is inane. Computers can be programmed; humans cannot be programmed.

:) And the ITR unit passes the beta test! Next week we ship!

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 11:00 PM
So, who programmed them? Some group of clever untermenschen? But how could they be so clever as to "program" their betters? Or did they program themselves?

Does not compute.

Wait, I know this one . . . Starts with a "J" or an "I" or an "H" or something . . .

Dissonance
07-18-2011, 11:09 PM
This statement is inane. Computers can be programmed; humans cannot be programmed.You were programmed to say that.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
07-19-2011, 12:55 AM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.

We're here to fight ignorance, not spread it.

Pat Buchanan is hardly a credible source of information about the Holocaust.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 01:01 AM
We're here to fight ignorance, not spread it.

Pat Buchanan is hardly a credible source of information about the Holocaust.

Nor about what causes civilizations to decline. Nor anything else, apparently, that he makes his own issue or writes a book about.

MEBuckner
07-19-2011, 01:39 AM
As I remember Pat Buchanan, the Nazis didn't start the death camps until it was obvious that they were going to lose the war. So if Churchill had struck a deal with Hitler, letting him reunite all the scattered Germans, then there would be no Holocaust.
The Wannsee Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference) was in January 1942. Belzec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_extermination_camp) began operations as an extermination camp in March 1942; Sobibor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp) became operational by May 1942; and Treblinka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_extermination_camp) by July 1942. Experiments with mass killings using gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Auschwitz_II-Birkenau) actually seem to predate the Wannsee Conference, with Auschwitz-Birkenau clearly in action as a major extermination camp by June 1943.

Meanwhile, Nazi Germany launched a major offensive against the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue) in June-November 1942; the German position at Stalingrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad) did not finally collapse until February 1943.

If anything, the Nazis launched the worst phase of the Holocaust at the point where they still clearly thought they could win, and began trying to wind down the Holocaust as the tide began to turn against them: Belzec was dismantled in June 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_extermination_camp#Closure_and_dismantlement), Treblinka in August 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_extermination_camp#Resistance) and Sobibor in October 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor_extermination_camp#The_uprising) (following uprisings in the latter two camps); shutting down these camps also coincided with the beginnings of massive Soviet counteroffensives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png). Of course, winding down the Holocaust did not involve letting the remaining Jews go; killing any survivors was part of the process of getting rid of witnesses and evidence, along with attempts to destroy the bodies of victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005).

SanVito
07-19-2011, 02:43 AM
But it's clearly easy to learn how to make McDonald's or Burger King food. It's done by low-skilled, low-paid people here in the US. The people in other countries who want that kind of food don't have to let Americans immigrate to get it. We're willing and able to train their own low-skilled people to do it.

Well, to be fair, British low-skilled people don't want to work there, so we have to import people who do, so British immigration is America's fault. Subject settled.

Capitaine Zombie
07-19-2011, 03:02 AM
RaleighRally, you are come for. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=616793)

Darn, I thought we were already in the Pit.

Capitaine Zombie
07-19-2011, 03:08 AM
The Romans prospered by bringing slaves of all known colors from all over the Mediterranean world and beyond to Italy. Today's Italians are in substantial part their descendants, I suppose. A case against race-mixing, if you look at Italy now. Or for, if you consider where the Renaissance started.

Dennis Hopper tried that, didnt turn out well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXjcf47y-zk)

(btw, first time I notice it's Delibes's "Lakme" as background music for this scene, good choice)

amanset
07-19-2011, 04:15 AM
No, you're incorrect. There is no worries about Political Correctness because they denied many NW European whites from immigrating. You are falling into the trap of the mainstream media who has fed you stories of brown immigrants coming to America but the reality is that the majority of immigrants are white

Indeed. Is it just me that finds it amusing that our Swede here has such an issue with those horrible brown people coming to his country when over 10% of the population of his country emigrated to the US?

So, what makes it OK for Swedes to go en masse to the US but not brown people to go en masse to Sweden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_emigration_to_the_United_States

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 09:09 AM
Put up or shut up RaleighRally. Several (most?) of the historical or demographic assertions you have made have been proven false by direct evidence. These have also mostly been facts you could have easily found by yourself by simple web searches.

You've repeatedly dropped lines of debate without acknowledgement where contrary evidence to your position has been revealed and have simply moved on to a different tack - which often also lacked in factual accuracy.

Maybe it's time to pull back, do some research (that's not just repeating some nutter's position while superficially checking the facts), and put forth a version of your theory with the level of support a reasonable high school student could muster.

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 09:10 AM
It wasn't just Poles who immigrated here to Pittsburgh before the 1950s, either. I saw a news article today about a church (http://stnicholascroatian.com/Index.html) that was the hub of a Croatian community. The parish's Web site says the parish was established in 1894, to serve Croatian immigrants, most of whom came here between 1890 and 1920.

They weren't trying to assimilate into America, either, as is often claimed about immigrants in this time period. One of the purposes of the church was to "preserve the Croatian language and customs".

We've also got a Greek Orthodox cathedral that I pass on my way home from work most days (and that has a lovely Greek food festival every spring). Its sign proclaims that it was established in 1906, so presumably there was a Greek Orthodox community here at that time.

We have an Italian neighborhood, Bloomfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomfield_%28Pittsburgh%29#History), that has had a significant Italian population since around 1900.

We have a mosque that was founded in 1932, according to their website (http://1mm.homestead.com/). Again, that implies that there was a Muslim community here at that time. People generally don't build churches, mosques, or synagogues unless there are people there to use them.

Pittsburgh has had many different kinds of immigrants since well before the 1950s.

San Francisco has a Chinatown that dates back to the 1850s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco#Early_history). North Beach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Beach,_San_Francisco#History), also in San Francisco, started attracting Italian immigrants after it was rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake.

Acsenray
07-19-2011, 09:17 AM
Immigrants are amongst the most highly motivated and productive members of a population. People generally don't like to leave their birthplaces. Especially in traditional cultures, there are generations of connections to people and places and traditions that they have to give up. It's hard and it's painful and it's a lifetime of heartbreak. People move because they need to and because they are driven to. Immigrants have always been the engine of American progress.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 09:45 AM
Remember Lawrence Welk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Welk) and his funny accent? No, he was no immigrant. He was born and raised in Strasburg, North Dakota, where everybody spoke German; he learned English in school.

Giles
07-19-2011, 10:38 AM
Remember Lawrence Welk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Welk) and his funny accent? No, he was no immigrant. He was born and raised in Strasburg, North Dakota, where everybody spoke German; he learned English in school.
Interestingly, one President had English as a second language. No, it wasn't Barack Obama: it was Martin Van Buren, whose first language was Dutch, even though he was born and grew up in upstate New York.

(But of course, the Dutch and Germans are white folk in the eyes of the OP.)

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 10:49 AM
The politicians in North Europe and North America rather wanted to make ethnic suicide . . .

:dubious:

"Ethnic suicide"?

Please provide some specific examples of such a thing in times past, and, as to each, please make the case it was a bad idea. N.B.: Ethnic assimilation is not the same thing and is usually not a bad idea.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 12:17 PM
Anne Neville is correct and you are incorrect. There was a large wave of Polish immigrants to the United States long before the 1950's (http://www.poloniatoday.com/immigration1.htm). The first ones arrived in the 18th century, it picked up steam in the 19th century, and topped out in the early 20th century, as part of a total of almost ten million immigrants who arrived in the 1900-1910 decade. You keep pointing to the immigration reforms in 1924 but the United States was founded in 1776. Our country put tight controls on immigration for only a very small part of its history.
If there was such a huge number of Polish in the US, why didn't they get a higher quota in the Immigration Act of 1924? Consider this:
limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
The second wave of European Americans arrived from the mid-1890s to the 1920s, mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe.[25] This wave included Italians, Greeks, Turkish, Hungarians, Portuguese, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles and other Slavs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_American

The Poles were not the ones to be favored in the quotas because of a reason you might conclude yourself.


For the most part, we've always welcomed immigrants from all over the world.

Until 1890, you mostly had Northwestern European immigrants, so it was all fine. But then the US started to get immigrants that were not able to assimilate as easily, and that's why the need for Immigration reform. But in the 60s, because of the "Political Correctness"-revolution, you just had to lift those quotas in order to avoid the risk of being stigmatized by the mighty "Political Correct"-media.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 12:33 PM
Indeed. Is it just me that finds it amusing that our Swede here has such an issue with those horrible brown people coming to his country when over 10% of the population of his country emigrated to the US?

So, what makes it OK for Swedes to go en masse to the US but not brown people to go en masse to Sweden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_emigration_to_the_United_States
From your link:
As ready workers, the Swedes were welcomed by the Americans, and there was no significant anti-Swedish nativism of the sort that attacked Irish, German and, especially, Chinese newcomers. The Swedish style was more familiar: "They are not peddlers, nor organ grinders, nor beggars; they do not sell ready-made clothing nor keep pawn shops," wrote the Congregational missionary M. W. Montgomery in 1885; "they do not seek the shelter of the American flag merely to introduce and foster among us socialism, nihilism, communism they are more like Americans than are any other foreign peoples.
And according to a professor at Harvard who is the world's leading political scientist and expert on social capital, one can even now measure the positive impact on America's social structure as a result of the Scandinavian immigration.

The best single migration-based positive determinant of social capital is the fraction of the population that is of Scandinavian descent. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/6/1825848.pdf

High social capital is very important in a society. High social capital leads to less crime, less corruption and greater productivity, among other things. Social capital tends to decline in diverse communities, and in Scandinavia immigration will of course also mean less fraction Scandinavians, further fueling the decline of social capital.

So amanset, I have showed you that Americans and Swedes are very close in terms of culture and Swedes produce higher social capital than any other ethnicity in the US. And if that is not enough for you, I can add that the Swedes didn't emigrate to England, because that country had no continent to fill!!!

Giles
07-19-2011, 12:37 PM
The Poles were not the ones to be favored in the quotas because of a reason you might conclude yourself.
I must admit to being a bit confused about the reason. Was it because Poland did not exist as an independent state during the relevant time period, but was mostly part of the Russian Empire?

And I find it hard to see why you want to draw a line between Germans and Poles. Apparently, Germans are northern Europeans, and so are good immigrants, while Poles are eastern Europeans, and so are bad immigrants. I don't see that matches the reality of German Americans and Polish Americans, quite apart from the fact that historically the boundary between Germany and Poland has been very moveable.

Hypnagogic Jerk
07-19-2011, 12:59 PM
From your link:
As ready workers, the Swedes were welcomed by the Americans, and there was no significant anti-Swedish nativism of the sort that attacked Irish, German and, especially, Chinese newcomers. The Swedish style was more familiar: "They are not peddlers, nor organ grinders, nor beggars; they do not sell ready-made clothing nor keep pawn shops," wrote the Congregational missionary M. W. Montgomery in 1885; "they do not seek the shelter of the American flag merely to introduce and foster among us socialism, nihilism, communism they are more like Americans than are any other foreign peoples.
And according to a professor at Harvard who is the world's leading political scientist and expert on social capital, one can even now measure the positive impact on America's social structure as a result of the Scandinavian immigration.
Okay, and what do the Swedes have that the Irish or Germans (or Chinese) don't, that make them more apt to become Americans? Are the latter organ grinders and sellers of ready-made clothing, only in the US to foster nihilism?

Superfluous Parentheses
07-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Exactly. I suppose those who "pretended" not to understand my OP just wanted to use the classic cultural Marxist tactic of stigmatizing.
Or maybe it's just the timeless European cultural practice of taking the piss out of obvious bullshit.

So can anyone please explain to me why Northern Europeans should be taught to embrace mass immigration, while at the same time the inhabitants of South Korea, Japan and Israel should not.
You haven't demonstrated the first part is true and you can't since it isn't, and I think the inhabitants of countries other than mine can decide for themselves what they do or don't want to teach themselves. What do you care about Japan's immigration policies?

Marley23
07-19-2011, 01:12 PM
But in the 60s, because of the "Political Correctness"-revolution, you just had to lift those quotas in order to avoid the risk of being stigmatized by the mighty "Political Correct"-media.
Why did the politicians care what the media was supposedly saying?

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 01:14 PM
Until 1890, you mostly had Northwestern European immigrants, so it was all fine.

Who, exactly, are "Northwestern European" immigrants, and what about them makes them better than other immigrants?

But then the US started to get immigrants that were not able to assimilate as easily, and that's why the need for Immigration reform.

But the earlier immigrants didn't always assimilate easily. They continued to speak their native languages- my grandmother remembered an uncle of hers who had immigrated from Sweden and did not speak English. There were towns in the Midwest where a lot of people spoke German, Norwegian, or Swedish. They formed churches and organizations made up mostly of their own ethnic group and intended to promote the language and culture of that group, as the Croatian immigrants here in Pittsburgh did with their church that I mentioned earlier. The children of the immigrants were more interested in learning English and assimilating. It's much easier to learn a new language when you're a child than when you're an adult. Of course more of them were going to learn English than the adults, you always have more people willing to do something when it's easy than to do something hard.

They look more assimilated now, of course, because they came here longer ago. You don't know that the descendants of today's Mexican immigrants in the 2100s won't be as assimilated as the descendants of 19th century Swedish immigrants are today.

The descendants of those Croatians who founded that church in Pittsburgh have assimilated. The diocese is trying to demolish or sell the church, because not enough people go to it. Presumably, their descendants go to churches with other Americans, or disdain organized religion, just like many other Americans do.

Having a different religion isn't a total barrier to assimilation, either. There are a lot of Jews in the US who you wouldn't know were Jewish unless they told you. Today's Muslim immigrants may end up following a similar pattern. Most of them haven't, yet, because they haven't been here long enough.

Cheshire Human
07-19-2011, 01:22 PM
...
The Poles were not the ones to be favored in the quotas because of a reason you might conclude yourself....

Prejudice against us Poles?

FTR, I'm only half Polish. The rest is good old American Mutt. You know, like our current President...

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 01:29 PM
Until 1890, you mostly had Northwestern European immigrants, so it was all fine. But then the US started to get immigrants that were not able to assimilate as easily,

Here (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20C12FC3554147A93C0A8178BD95F4D8185F9)'s a 1919 NY Times article (PDF warning) about a letter Benjamin Franklin wrote in the 18th century about German immigrants (presumably among your "Northwestern European" immigrants). His complaints ought to sound familiar to you. He complains that they don't know English and aren't well assimilated (though presumably by 1890, they were). His solution was an enforced assimilation of Germans into English speaking society before they posed a significant threat.

Beyond that, Franklin described Swedes, Germans, and French as being of a "Swarthy" complexion and lumps them together with Italians, Spaniards, and Russians. So, we'll just have to narrow your definition of "Northern" Europeans even more, if we want to use the even older narrative of the English and Saxons.

So, there was no rush to assimilate, even for the Germans or Swedes. It looks like your arguments are simply an oversimplification of history in hindsight.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 01:36 PM
You haven't demonstrated the first part is true and you can't since it isn't, and I think the inhabitants of countries other than mine can decide for themselves what they do or don't want to teach themselves. What do you care about Japan's immigration policies?
I think you were from Holland. Let us look at Amsterdam as an example. Publicly, you Dutch will say "How nice to have non-Westerners in majority in our Capital". But at heart you feel sorry about it. The teachings in your schools and the brainwashing by Dutch-media and Hollywood have made you so politically correct that you rather become a minority than complain about it in public.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 01:39 PM
Here (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20C12FC3554147A93C0A8178BD95F4D8185F9)'s a 1919 NY Times article (PDF warning) about a letter Benjamin Franklin wrote in the 18th century about German immigrants (presumably among your "Northwestern European" immigrants). His complaints ought to sound familiar to you. He complains that they don't know English and aren't well assimilated (though presumably by 1890, they were). His solution was an enforced assimilation of Germans into English speaking society before they posed a significant threat.

Beyond that, Franklin described Swedes, Germans, and French as being of a "Swarthy" complexion and lumps them together with Italians, Spaniards, and Russians. So, we'll just have to narrow your definition of "Northern" Europeans even more, if we want to use the even older narrative of the English and Saxons.

So, there was no rush to assimilate, even for the Germans or Swedes. It looks like your arguments are simply an oversimplification of history in hindsight.
He meant Swiss and not Swedes. I have already answered to that before in this thread.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 01:42 PM
Why did the politicians care what the media was supposedly saying?
For starters, they would lose their job if branded as a racist.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 01:43 PM
For starters, they would lose their job if branded as a racist.

Not always. That would depend on the politician's state/district.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 01:44 PM
:dubious:

"Ethnic suicide"?

Please provide some specific examples of such a thing in times past, and, as to each, please make the case it was a bad idea. N.B.: Ethnic assimilation is not the same thing and is usually not a bad idea.

I repeat.

Remember: If you have five children and they take spouses of five different colors, all your grandchildren remain cousins.

Giles
07-19-2011, 01:48 PM
He meant Swiss and not Swedes. I have already answered to that before in this thread.
Most of Ben Franklin's objections were directed at Germans: he seemed to think them the worst kind of immigrants, who stuck obstinately to their own language and customs.

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 01:51 PM
I think you were from Holland. Let us look at Amsterdam as an example. Publicly, you Dutch will say "How nice to have non-Westerners in majority in our Capital". But at heart you feel sorry about it. The teachings in your schools and the brainwashing by Dutch-media and Hollywood have made you so politically correct that you rather become a minority than complain about it in public.

How do you know this? How, exactly, did you find out what the majority of Dutch people think but will not say?

What, exactly, are the criteria for who is a non-Westerner?

Superfluous Parentheses
07-19-2011, 01:55 PM
I think you were from Holland. Let us look at Amsterdam as an example. Publicly, you Dutch will say "How nice to have non-Westerners in majority in our Capital". But at heart you feel sorry about it. The teachings in your schools and the brainwashing by Dutch-media and Hollywood have made you so politically correct that you rather become a minority than complain about it in public.
I am from the Netherlands. There really isn't a shortage of people who will complain about the Moroccans and Turks around here - especially not in the part of Utrecht where I live. However, the Netherlands - the major cities especially - are traditionally/culturally welcoming of immigrants with different cultural practices. We've never been a closed country.

But I suppose you're right; we are taught in school that it's not nice or civilized to discriminate against people just because they have a funny accent or a different color skin.

As for your "you're becoming a minority" point; even if whatever you'd call 'the Dutch' would make up less than 50% in some major cities would not make them a minority even in those cities unless there would be at least one other 'ethnicity' that was larger than 'the Dutch'. There are shitloads of immigrants from all over the world (even Sweden and the US) in Amsterdam.

Giles
07-19-2011, 01:56 PM
What, exactly, are the criteria for who is a non-Westerner?
Apparently, for RaleighRally, it's very easy: you draw a line on a map of Europe, with the Westerners who are "good" immigrants on the northern side of the line, and the non-Westerners who are the "bad" immigrants on the southern side of the line.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 01:58 PM
Who, exactly, are "Northwestern European" immigrants, and what about them makes them better than other immigrants?

This is from my OP: "For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia"

So if your surname is Neville you are probably English and therefore Northwestern European.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 02:00 PM
They spoke different versions of Germanic-languages, but in their minds they had the same spirit that had been carved out for thousands of years in the harsh climate of Northern Europe. So this cream of humanity founded the greatest nation on Earth: the United States of America.

Until they were conquered and supplanted by the Earth's true Master Race: The Inuit! (Ya wanna talk about survival in harsh northern climes!)

Marley23
07-19-2011, 02:02 PM
For starters, they would lose their job if branded as a racist.
So you're saying the public considered racism to be a bad thing?

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 02:02 PM
This is from my OP: "For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia"

:mad: Fucking Micks in this?! And fucking Frogs?!

Giles
07-19-2011, 02:03 PM
... "For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia" ... They spoke different versions of Germanic-languages ...
I don't think this is just a nitpick, but the language spoken in France and half of Belgium is French, which is not usually thought of as a Germanic language.

In addition, German is spoken in about 3/4 of Switzerland, so why isn't it on the list?

ETA: Our friend RaleighRally has just edited out the second part of the quotation above, but I'll keep it there for posterity's edification.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 02:07 PM
Until they were conquered and supplanted by the Earth's true Master Race: The Inuit! (Ya wanna talk about survival in harsh northern climes!)
You have to change your post or otherwise Spectre will be angry with me. Please:(

Ibn Warraq
07-19-2011, 02:08 PM
I don't think this is just a nitpick, but the language spoken in France and half of Belgium is French, which is not usually thought of as a Germanic language.

In addition, German is spoken in about 3/4 of Switzerland, so why isn't it on the list?

For that matter, since French is a Romance language why aren't Spain, Portugal and Italy on the list.

Moreover since Iran means "Land of the Aryans" why isn't Iran on the list.

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 02:08 PM
He meant Swiss and not Swedes. I have already answered to that before in this thread.

You have provided YOUR word that this was probably a "slip" with NO corroborating evidence. Nice try citing yourself as a correction.

Beyond that, his later sentence claiming only English and Saxons were truly "white" indicates he meant to include the Scandinavians AND the Swiss among the Swarthy Peoples.

It still doesn't address the point that there were among even the Founding Fathers those hold the same opinion of "Northern" or "Northwestern" Europeans that you do about other Europeans or that they considered themselves primarily English. Or that some considered the assimilation of many of these outsiders to be proceeding too slowly.

Dissonance
07-19-2011, 02:08 PM
He meant Swiss and not Swedes. I have already answered to that before in this thread.Your proof that he meant Swiss not Swedes is what, your gut feeling?

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 02:14 PM
Your proof that he meant Swiss not Swedes is what, your gut feeling?
I have traveled extensively and know that many Anglos confuse them.

Dissonance
07-19-2011, 02:17 PM
I have traveled extensively and know that many Anglos confuse them.So in other words, yes, your only proof is your gut feeling and your personal desires about it.

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 02:27 PM
I have traveled extensively and know that many Anglos confuse them.

Care to comment on the point that Franklin goes on to describe all non-English and non-Saxons as "Swathy"? It tends to undercut your argument that it was a simple slip, which still has no real backing.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 02:39 PM
So you're saying the public considered racism to be a bad thing?
Yes because racism is closely related to nazism and klu klux klan.

What the media did in the 60s was to extend the definition of a racist. All of a sudden it was racist not to change the ethnic status quo of one's country.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 02:44 PM
Yes because racism is closely related to nazism and klu klux klan.

What the media did in the 60s was to extend the definition of a racist. All of a sudden it was racist not to change the ethnic status quo of one's country.

:dubious: No, it remained racist to object to changes in the ethnic status quo of one's country. It always was racist, after all. The drafters of the Immigration Act of 1924, whose stated purpose was to preserve America's character as a North-European white man's country, would not have gone green at the word "racism," they would've said, "Yeah, so?" What happened in the 1960s was not that this or that became newly defined as "racist", but that racism became much less defensible.

Marley23
07-19-2011, 02:50 PM
Yes because racism is closely related to nazism and klu klux klan.
Indeed.

What the media did in the 60s was to extend the definition of a racist. All of a sudden it was racist not to change the ethnic status quo of one's country.
So you're acknowledging that the public has spoken on this issue, and that they sided against you?

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 02:52 PM
Care to comment on the point that Franklin goes on to describe all non-English and non-Saxons as "Swathy"? It tends to undercut your argument that it was a simple slip, which still has no real backing.
I think Franklin never had seen a typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swede like me. If he had, he would have been as impressed as Ibn Fadlan:
In 921, an Arab, Ibn Fadlan was sent by the Caliph of Bagdad to accompany an embassy to the King of the Bulgars of the Middle Volga. Ibn Fadlan wrote an account of his journeys with the embassy, called a Risala. During the course of his journey, Ibn Fadlan met a people called the Rus, a group of Swedish origin, acting as traders in the Bulgar capital. Ibn Fadlan tells us:

"I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Volga. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy..." http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vikheight.shtml

This "specialist" seems to be impressed too:
Himmler stated that the Swedes were the "epitome of the Nordic spirit and the Nordic man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossgermanisches_Reich

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 02:55 PM
This is from my OP: "For simplicity, Northern Europeans in this thread are people who mainly origin from Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia"

So if your surname is Neville you are probably English and therefore Northwestern European.

It's by surname, is it? What if you're like a friend of mine from college, and are half Dutch, half Mexican, have a Dutch surname, grew up in the US, looked white, was an atheist? Is he a desirable Northwestern European, or not? Which of these attributes determines whether he's Northwestern European or not?

Giles
07-19-2011, 02:58 PM
:dubious: No, it remained racist to object to changes in the ethnic status quo of one's country. It always was racist, after all. The drafters of the Immigration Act of 1924, whose stated purpose was to preserve America's character as a North-European white man's country, would not have gone green at the word "racism," they would've said, "Yeah, so?" What happened in the 1960s was not that this or that became newly defined as "racist", but that racism became much less defensible.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. was not just "a North-European white man's country" in 1924: about 10% of the population was African American (or Negro, as they would have said then), but they did not set up quotas so that 10% of immigrants would come from West Africa to preserve that part of "America's character".

In addition, Chinese were barred from migrating to the U.S. between 1885 and 1943, despite earlier Chinese migration to the U.S. (particularly to California), so that was another part of "America's character" that immigration law wanted to exclude.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 03:06 PM
Indeed.


So you're acknowledging that the public has spoken on this issue, and that they sided against you?
The journalists (and Hollywood) were using "racism" in a dishonest way in order to get public support for their agenda -- and succeeded. The American People lost, big time, accordning to Robert Putnam's research.

Marley23
07-19-2011, 03:12 PM
The journalists (and Hollywood) were using "racism" in a dishonest way in order to get public support for their agenda
How bizarre that the public uncritically accepted what a couple of journalists said. I agree this is a much simplier explanation than the crazy idea that public opinions changed over time.

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 03:19 PM
I think Franklin never had seen a typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swede like me.

Far be it from me to assert what he had seen or not, but if this is the best counter you can provide, count me among the unimpressed.

Since he included the Germans among the Swarthy (even the blond haired, blue eyed version), I can only assume Franklin was not basing his judgment solely on appearance. One anecdote from somebody who had never encounter any Scandinavians can hardly be used to justify the response of a person who had, in all likelihood, met the people of several nations and backgrounds in either Boston or Philadelphia and still held to some misguided notion of inherent English superiority.

But nice try.

John Mace
07-19-2011, 03:24 PM
Until 1890, you mostly had Northwestern European immigrants, so it was all fine. But then the US started to get immigrants that were not able to assimilate as easily, and that's why the need for Immigration reform.

You've stated that several times, about immigrants not being able to assimilate. It's simply not correct.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 03:24 PM
How bizarre that the public uncritically accepted what a couple of journalists said. I agree this is a much simplier explanation than the crazy idea that public opinions changed over time.
It was not only "a couple of journalists". The Frankfurt School commandeered most of the American mass media, and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 03:29 PM
The journalists (and Hollywood) were using "racism" in a dishonest way . . .

:dubious: And just what did they call "racism" that is not? (Remember, racially discriminatory immigration policy is racism by definition.)

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 03:30 PM
The Frankfurt School commandeered most of the American mass media . . .

How exactly did they do that?

. . . and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans.

What "cartel"? It is only very recently that one can speak of an American media cartel, or cartels. And any dishonest influences in it don't come from Marxist academics, they come from MBAs in suits who can hire and fire the editors.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 03:37 PM
I think Franklin never had seen a typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swede like me.

"The ideal Aryan is blond like Hitler, tall like Goebbels, and handsome like Goering!" :D

Marley23
07-19-2011, 03:39 PM
It was not only "a couple of journalists". The Frankfurt School commandeered most of the American mass media, and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans.
It's getting difficult to keep up with the increasing goofiness of these arguments. Marxists do not run the U.S. media (most of the media is run by very successful capitalists) and journalists and Hollywood are not capable of transmitting a unified message like this. You are trying (vainly) to convince people that the media and Hollywood got together despite all their competing interests, decided to redefine something that everyone understood, and pulled it off in a very short time. At no time in history has any group won over the American public like that. Can you imagine what the world would look like if it were actually possible to advertise that successfully?

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 03:57 PM
It was not only "a couple of journalists". The Frankfurt School commandeered most of the American mass media, and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans.

Why would "the media" and "Hollywood" want to do this? It would require a good deal of effort and resources, and people don't usually do things that require a good deal of effort unless there's some benefit for them in it. Corporations are even less likely than people to do stuff for no benefit to themselves.

gatorslap
07-19-2011, 04:09 PM
Perhaps what the OP means: Why are cities like London, Oslo, and Amsterdam are full of non-whites? While Tokyo and Seoul are largely homogeneous. Not sure how Israel fits in, though.

Anyway, per Wiki: "estimated 28 % of Oslo's residents are of an immigrant or non-Norwegian background".

28% with origins outside the country, of which a significant portion are white, makes the city "full of non-whites"? The city is still 72% ethnic Norwegian and probably well over 3/4 white.

I'd hate to hear what you think of my hometown.

Amsterdam: "Today, people of non-Western origin make up approximately one-third of the population of Amsterdam, and more than 50% of children".

Define "Western".

The indications are these are fairly recent immigrants, was it a decision by that bloc of countries to admit so many? And that countries like Japan and Korea could pass on?

In most of Europe there are no restrictions on immigration within -- a citizen of any such country may freely cross borders and live and work in any other. Although Norway is not a member of the EU, it is still part of the European Economic Area by separate agreement.

Additionally, the UK's immigration policy towards people from Commonwealth countries, while not unrestricted, is relatively relaxed. This has much to do with history. I imagine some other European countries, particularly France, also have some sort of relationship with certain former colonies that provides for a lot of immigration. Thus, you have people moving from India to the UK to elsewhere in Europe (perhaps Oslo), or from Algeria to France to elsewhere in Europe (perhaps Amsterdam).

I don't think it's racist to say if I were to walk down a street in Oslo, I would be shocked to see 1 in 3 people not being a blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavian.

I think it's a little racist to be "shocked" by that.

Like meeting me in Hawaii: seeing an easily-sunburnt white haole boy, rather than a ukulele-strumming tanned kane ;)

Hawaii is pretty diverse and contains a large number of white people. No one would be shocked to see you. But they might be shocked by your presumptuousness.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 04:15 PM
Why would "the media" and "Hollywood" want to do this?
Because they are Leftists! If the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next American Renaissance needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself.

msmith537
07-19-2011, 04:18 PM
It's getting difficult to keep up with the increasing goofiness of these arguments. Marxists do not run the U.S. media

Of course not...it's the Jews!

Giles
07-19-2011, 04:22 PM
Because they are Leftists! If the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next American Renaissance needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself.
What? People like Rupert Murdoch are Marxists? Now you're just being silly.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 04:34 PM
What? People like Rupert Murdoch are Marxists? Now you're just being silly.
I think he is because rootless and ruthless cosmopolitans are the ones who benefit most from this new world order. (Cultural Marxism is not the same as Economic Marxism, thus letting him keep his loads of money)

Superfluous Parentheses
07-19-2011, 04:35 PM
Because they are Leftists! If the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next American Renaissance needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself.
I... don't know how to respond to this. Please tell us you're joking.

PigArcher
07-19-2011, 04:39 PM
I think he is because rootless and ruthless cosmopolitans are the ones who benefit most from this new world order. (Cultural Marxism is not the same as Economic Marxism, thus letting him keep his loads of money)

Assuming for a moment that your claim that political correctness = cultural marxism actually makes any sense, how does Rupert Murdoch fit in here? Neither he nor the various branches of his media empire are generally considered politically correct.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 04:42 PM
I... don't know how to respond to this. Please tell us you're joking.
It was chocking for me too when I first realized it. Check this out: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13880108&postcount=26

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 04:43 PM
I think he is because rootless and ruthless cosmopolitans are the ones who benefit most from this new world order.

:dubious: "Rootless cosmopolitans"? Where have I heard that before? Are you talking here about the Murdoch media empire, or the House of Rothschild?

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 04:43 PM
I think he is because rootless and ruthless cosmopolitans are the ones who benefit most from this new world order. (Cultural Marxism is not the same as Economic Marxism, thus letting him keep his loads of money)

Rupert Murdoch. Rupert f***ing Murdoch - the guy who owns Fox News, which stands against liberalism and political correctness. He's a cultural Marxist by virtue of his anything-but-cultural-Marxist news station?

Political Correctness? Have you seen Fox News AT ALL?

This is just ridiculous. You're simply labeling people to fit your world view, regardless of whether or not the facts actually fit the label.

Marley23
07-19-2011, 04:44 PM
Because they are Leftists!
Yes, leftists like Robert McCormick dominate the U.S. media. It's obvious at this point that you know as much about the press as you do about Marxism and immigration, but the other thing you need to realize is that few media barons will let their politics get in the way of making money. That's their actual position, and it's about as un-Marxist as it gets.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 04:45 PM
Define "Western".

It includes Yanks, Canucks, Aussies, Kiwis, but, for some strange reason, nunna dem Spics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations)

Dissonance
07-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Why would "the media" and "Hollywood" want to do this?Why would they do such a thing to keep "typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swedes" described as "perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy" down you ask? I'm waiting to hear it's the Jews behind it all.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 04:49 PM
Because they are Leftists! If the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next American Renaissance needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself.

Never worked in Hollywood, but I was a newspaper reporter once, and I can tell you they're mostly middle-class centrists with some liberal tendencies. One I met was a Marxist and she was not yet 22, wouldn't surprise me if she no longer calls herself that. Journalism is indeed a liberal profession, to the extent that playing Jack-the-Giant-Killer and exposing the guilty secrets of the mighty (politicians, businesscritters, labor leaders, religious leaders, whatever) to the light and air is ipso facto "liberal," but that's all.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 04:55 PM
Because they are Leftists! If the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next American Renaissance needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - old Karl Marx himself.

In any case, if what you're hoping for is for the American people to come around to the idea that the civil rights movement, or race-neutral immigration policies, or anything of the kind is inspired by Marxism, I know that's not gonna happen, because it's been tried. The racists kept pounding that same "Communist!" line throughout the '50s and '60s -- longer, in Jesse Helms' case -- and it lost traction every year and it is never getting it back. We're immune to that now, we've already had the smallpox. For that matter, the name of Marx no longer even scares anybody.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 04:58 PM
I think this thread is soon to be over. Can we please summarize?

1. Northern Europeans would not vote for mass immigration if they had the chance.
2. Still the countries of Northern Europeans are flooded with immigrants.
3. The media is labeling those who dare to oppose the immigration as xenophobic or racists.
4. In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all, thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

Is this correct?

PigArcher
07-19-2011, 05:01 PM
I think this thread is soon to be over. Can we please summarize?

1. Northern Europeans would not vote for mass immigration if they had the chance.
2. Still the countries of Northern Europeans are flooded with immigrants.
3. The media is labeling those who dare to oppose the immigration as xenophobic or racists.
4. In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all, thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

Is this correct?

No, and you haven't come anywhere close to making a coherent argument to support any of those points, and in fact, they are for the most part provably wrong.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 05:08 PM
I think this thread is soon to be over.

Only if you declare victory and run like a coward fool.

Can we please summarize?

1. Northern Europeans would not vote for mass immigration if they had the chance.

False. They do have the chance. You're all republics -- well, some monarchies, but the kings ain't gonna meddle on this point.

2. Still the countries of Northern Europeans are flooded with immigrants.

You need them. Shoulda had more babies.

3. The media is labeling those who dare to oppose the immigration as xenophobic or racists.

The media is right. I mean, you're not even pretending, and I doubt your party in Sweden is even pretending, to make a conceivably race-neutral "Theytukahrjahbz!" economic argument here.

4. In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all . . .

Of course there is. Historically, far more so, Confucians don't question authority; Israelis do, but live in a constant seige-mentality. The content of the indoctrination might be different.

. . . thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

And safe from the Aussie Peril!

Is this correct?

No. None of it is. And you know it is not.

Great Antibob
07-19-2011, 05:10 PM
I think this thread is soon to be over. Can we please summarize?

1. Northern Europeans would not vote for mass immigration if they had the chance.
2. Still the countries of Northern Europeans are flooded with immigrants.
3. The media is labeling those who dare to oppose the immigration as xenophobic or racists.
4. In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all, thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

Is this correct?

No.

(1) Nobody would "vote" for mass immigration at all. But they may or may not vote for more or less permissive immigration policies, which may or may not result in increased immigration. Wyoming, for example, is currently very welcoming of immigrants, Hispanic or not, to combat a declining population and lack of cheap labor.

(4) What does the media have to do with it at all? As previous posts have illustrated, Japan and South Korea, at least, have had bad experiences with colonizing influences (those self-same "Northern" Europeans at work, actually). In the case of South Korea, it was known as the "Hermit Kingdom" centuries before exposure to Western influence at all. In both cases, some small strides are currently being made to be more accommodating to immigrants, since their own sources of cheap labor have dried up. If anything, there is a culture of indoctrination against immigration. It's helped created the aforementioned labor issues.

And Israel is hardly ethnically homogenous. Far from it, actually. It's not even culturally homogenous. Your sources on this are not satisfactory.

Acsenray
07-19-2011, 05:23 PM
Fervently-held belief?

Satire?

We're through the looking glass, folks.

Gyrate
07-19-2011, 05:26 PM
If the British were as rabidly anti-immigration as you seem to think the BNP would be a far more successful party than it is. Heck, the Tories tried campaigning on the issue a few times in the last decade and failed miserably. No one wants completely open borders but neither do they want "ethnic" quotas.

RaleighRally
07-19-2011, 05:36 PM
If the British were as rabidly anti-immigration as you seem to think the BNP would be a far more successful party than it is. Heck, the Tories tried campaigning on the issue a few times in the last decade and failed miserably. No one wants completely open borders but neither do they want "ethnic" quotas.
Enoch Powell had a majority of the Brits supporting him, but the "establishment" sacked him anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
The "Rivers of Blood" speech was a speech criticising Commonwealth immigration, as well as proposed anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom made on Saturday, April 20, 1968 by Enoch Powell (19121998), the Conservative Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West.
The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed.
Earlier that day, 1,000 London dockers had gone on strike in protest at Powell's sacking and marched from the East End to the Palace of Westminster carrying placards saying "Don't knock Enoch" and "Back Britain, not Black Britain".

An Gada
07-19-2011, 05:42 PM
Israel isn't ethnically homogeneous.

tomndebb
07-19-2011, 06:02 PM
I think Franklin never had seen a typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swede like me. Bullshit. He was a personal friend of the Swedish ambassador to Paris and he negotiated a treaty of friendship between the U.S. and Sweden in 1784, meaning he had to have contact with several members of the embassy staff at that time.

You might want to note that spouting (more) nonsense hurts your argument rather than helping it.

tomndebb
07-19-2011, 06:15 PM
I think this thread is soon to be over. Can we please summarize?

1. Northern Europeans would not vote for mass immigration if they had the chance.
2. Still the countries of Northern Europeans are flooded with immigrants.
3. The media is labeling those who dare to oppose the immigration as xenophobic or racists.
4. In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all, thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

Is this correct?1. They have the chance and they do not appear to be voting strongly against immigration, although there are discussions regarding what sort of limits might be prudent to exercise.

2. They want the cheap labor so they tolerate the immigration. Nothing surprising there.

3. People who fear foreigners are xenophobes by definition.
People who hate other people because of their appearance tend to be racist.
Your arguments against immigration tend to be based on fears of foreigners alongside some particularly stupid definitions of who is "white" or who is "Northwestern European" (Austria? really?), so I suspect that much of the criticism that you see in the press does look, to you, as though it is attacking xenophobia and racism.

4. You have been shown to be wrong on just about every count regarding Israel.

Japan and Korea each have their own internal issues regarding xenophobia and racism, (ever hear how native Ainu are treated in Japan or how Okinawans are treated on the four big islands?), but they are actually more homogeneous because Japan was never attractive to outsiders until the very last few years, (no land, for one thing), and Korea was held as a vassal state by Japan for most of the period of Westernization (with a threat of invasion from the North taking up the last 60 years).

So, basically, you are wrong on just about every point you have tried to make.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 06:17 PM
You might want to note that spouting (more) nonsense hurts your argument rather than helping it.

Don't stop him now! [pops corn]

Ibn Warraq
07-19-2011, 06:19 PM
Israel isn't ethnically homogeneous.


Agreed. Even if you lump Sephardis, Askenazis, and Mizrahim together, roughly 24% of all Israeli citizens are Gentiles.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 06:37 PM
Agreed. Even if you lump Sephardis, Askenazis, and Mizrahim together, roughly 24% of all Israeli citizens are Gentiles.

And, if I'm not mistaken, most Israelis are fluent in at least three languages: Hebrew so they can talk to each other, Arabic so they can talk to their neighbors, and English so they can talk to the world. A very cosmopolitan culture, that!

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 07:06 PM
Before you post any thing else, Raleigh, would you please acknowledge -- in such a way as we can be sure you really understand it -- the plain fact that saying "I want my country to remain white!" or whatever is racism?

Because, you seem to be constantly dropping hints that it's . . . something else, which "cultural Marxists" gave the undeserved name of "racism"; which is nonsense.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 07:21 PM
Enoch Powell had a majority of the Brits supporting him, but the "establishment" sacked him anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.[10]

All seems kinda silly now, don't it?

Dissonance
07-19-2011, 07:28 PM
And safe from the Aussie Peril!I'm sure you mean the Austrian Peril, not the Australian Peril. I know this because I have traveled extensively and many Anglos confuse them.

Giles
07-19-2011, 08:33 PM
I'm sure you mean the Austrian Peril, not the Australian Peril. I know this because I have traveled extensively and many Anglos confuse them.
Who is the Austrian Peril? That well-known Cultural Marxist, Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Anne Neville
07-19-2011, 09:18 PM
In Japan, South Korea and Israel, there are no such media or indoctrinating at all, thus leaving their countries ethnically homogenous.

They have media in Japan, South Korea, and Israel. American TV shows are popular in all three of those countries. The cultural Marxists would already have a leg up on taking over the media in those countries, if they've already taken over the American media. Why do they not take over the media in Japan, South Korea, and Israel, and encourage mass immigration, the way they do in other countries?

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 09:24 PM
They have media in Japan, South Korea, and Israel. American TV shows are popular in all three of those countries. The cultural Marxists would already have a leg up on taking over the media in those countries, if they've already taken over the American media. Why do they not take over the media in Japan, South Korea, and Israel, and encourage mass immigration, the way they do in other countries?

Lady, you know no rules of charity,
Which renders good for bad, blessings for curses! ;)

Ibn Warraq
07-19-2011, 09:35 PM
And, if I'm not mistaken, most Israelis are fluent in at least three languages: Hebrew so they can talk to each other, Arabic so they can talk to their neighbors, and English so they can talk to the world. A very cosmopolitan culture, that!

Most Israelis(excluding Israeli Arabs) are no more likely to speak Arabic than Anglo Americans are to speak Spanish.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 09:39 PM
Most Israelis(excluding Israeli Arabs) are no more likely to speak Arabic than Anglo Americans are to speak Spanish.

Surprising. They have a whole lot more reason. But, if the Arabs know English too, it's all good.

marshmallow
07-19-2011, 10:37 PM
"Ethnic suicide"?

Please provide some specific examples...

The proud Roman people degraded themselves into what we know as...Italians. :eek:

amanset
07-20-2011, 05:02 AM
28% with origins outside the country, of which a significant portion are white, makes the city "full of non-whites"? The city is still 72% ethnic Norwegian and probably well over 3/4 white.

I'd hate to hear what you think of my hometown.


Indeed. Statistics about how many people in an area are immigrants are fairly meaningless without analysis of what ethnic groups those immigrants belong to. Also, cities generally receives different types of immigrants than rural areas. OSlo may have a 28% immigrant demographic but Norway as a whole apparently has 18%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Demographics

Anyway, looking at where these people come from. Apparently the two biggest sources of immigrants to Norway are Poland, just across a small section of water away and Sweden, a neighbour.

In 2010 approximately the same amount of Swedes emmigrated to Norway as people did from Africa and the Americas combined. About 9400 came from Sweden and 12100 from the whole of Asia (including the Middle East).

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/20/innvutv_en/tab-2011-05-05-03-en.html

I don't think I need to explain to you how culturally similar Norwegians and Swedes are.

Gyrate
07-20-2011, 05:32 AM
I don't think I need to explain to you how culturally similar Norwegians and Swedes are.I dunno - have you ever noticed how Norwegians eat lutefisk like this, but Swedes eat lutfisk like this?

Cheshire Human
07-20-2011, 05:34 AM
I think Franklin never had seen a typical tall, blue-eyed, blond Swede like me...

Umm... OK, You're blond, so what?

'Cause I'm a Blonde' (http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/lyrics2/nov_causblonde.html)

Because I'm a blonde I don't have to think, I talk like a baby and I never pay for drinks
Don't have to worry if I'm getting a man if I keep this blonde and I keep these tan
Cause I'm a blonde yeah, yeah, yeah
Cause I'm a blonde yeah yeah yeah

I see people working and it just makes me giggle,
cause I don't have to work, I just have to giggle
Cause I'm a blonde B-L-O-N-D
Cause I'm a blond don't you wish you were me?
...

Der Trihs
07-20-2011, 05:43 AM
I think he is because rootless and ruthless cosmopolitans are the ones who benefit most from this new world order. (Cultural Marxism is not the same as Economic Marxism, thus letting him keep his loads of money)It's amusing to see someone with such a paranoia towards Marxism use a Soviet euphemism for Jews (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/925/in-the-old-soviet-union-what-did-it-mean-to-be-branded-a-cosmopolite) like "rootless cosmopolitans"

BrainGlutton
07-20-2011, 09:13 AM
It's amusing to see someone with such a paranoia towards Marxism use a Soviet euphemism for Jews (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/925/in-the-old-soviet-union-what-did-it-mean-to-be-branded-a-cosmopolite) like "rootless cosmopolitans"

I thought the phrase originated with Hitler, and not as a euphemism. I'm sure "mushroom of humanity" is one of his.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2011, 09:15 AM
I dunno - have you ever noticed how Norwegians eat lutefisk like this, but Swedes eat lutfisk like this?

Still, the two cultures are similar in that they prove their racial superiority by being able to eat the stuff, and prove their racial inferiority by having invented it.

Anne Neville
07-20-2011, 10:51 AM
Still, the two cultures are similar in that they prove their racial superiority by being able to eat the stuff, and prove their racial inferiority by having invented it.

No, I think lutefisk is a prank they play on tourists. They don't eat it, they just get the rest of us to eat something foul and laugh at us. They also threaten children with it, to get them to behave. My Swedish-American grandparents used lutefisk the latter way.

RaleighRally
07-20-2011, 10:52 AM
Rupert Murdoch. Rupert f***ing Murdoch - the guy who owns Fox News, which stands against liberalism and political correctness. He's a cultural Marxist by virtue of his anything-but-cultural-Marxist news station?

Political Correctness? Have you seen Fox News AT ALL?
Not since they fired Glenn Beck because of his lack of political correctness. Duh!!!

Acsenray
07-20-2011, 11:01 AM
No, I think lutefisk is a prank they play on tourists. They don't eat it, they just get the rest of us to eat something foul and laugh at us.

I understand that lutefisk consumption is higher in Canada and the United States than it is in Scandinavia. The world's largest producer is in Minnesota (http://www.olsenfish.com/about.cfm).

Giles
07-20-2011, 11:01 AM
Not since they fired Glenn Beck because of his lack of political correctness. Duh!!!
So, Fox News without Glenn Beck is too left wing for you? That's an interesting place to be on the political spectrum.

Giles
07-20-2011, 11:04 AM
I understand that lutefisk consumption is higher in Canada and the United States than it is in Scandinavia. The world's largest producer is in Minnesota (http://www.olsenfish.com/about.cfm).
Those damned Swedish Minnesotans! They won't assimilate as ordinary Americans, in spite of being in the U.S. for centuries. Let's send them back home, and replace them with some nice Mexicans who will assimilate.

RaleighRally
07-20-2011, 11:16 AM
It's amusing to see someone with such a paranoia towards Marxism use a Soviet euphemism for Jews (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/925/in-the-old-soviet-union-what-did-it-mean-to-be-branded-a-cosmopolite) like "rootless cosmopolitans"
I used the phrase "rootless cosmopolitan" just to tickle Brian Glutton. As you know, he has often spoken favorably about the NWO. I suspect him to be a "rootless cosmopolitan" and his previous work as a newspaper reporter just reinforces that suspicion. But I don't mind. One of my best friends at university was a "rootless cosmopolitan" and I think I have never met anyone with a finer personality. We never discussed immigration though, because at that time I was just an ordinary liberal. What disturbs me in general about "rootless cosmopolitans", is that they favor mass immigration to all Western countries except one. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Ibn Warraq
07-20-2011, 11:37 AM
What disturbs me in general about "rootless cosmopolitans", is that they favor mass immigration to all Western countries except one. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

What country is that?

Also can you provide me with the names of people who've supported "mass immigration" to the US, the UK, and Sweden but not to "this one" western country?

Great Antibob
07-20-2011, 12:07 PM
Not since they fired Glenn Beck because of his lack of political correctness. Duh!!!

Fox News fired Beck for lack of political correctness? That's a complete load of BS. That's just a silly face saving excuse.

They fired Beck because sponsors were dropping (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104070011)him left and right. Media companies exist to make money, and Beck was not accomplishing that goal. The biggest ratings in the world don't matter if advertisers don't give you money. So blame those advertisers for being cultural Marxists or whatever, but Fox News (and Rupert Murdoch) were simply chasing the money.

Der Trihs
07-20-2011, 01:00 PM
I used the phrase "rootless cosmopolitan" just to tickle Brian Glutton. As you know, he has often spoken favorably about the NWO. So, you used an anti-Jewish euphemism against someone you "suspect" of being a Jew, and who you think supports something that doesn't exist.


I suspect him to be a "rootless cosmopolitan" and his previous work as a newspaper reporter just reinforces that suspicion. But I don't mind. One of my best friends at university was a "rootless cosmopolitan" and I think I have never met anyone with a finer personality.What the hell does being a reporter have to do with being Jewish? And "one of my best friends is X" is outright cliched as a defense of the cornered bigot, using it doesn't make you look good at all.

What disturbs me in general about "rootless cosmopolitans", is that they favor mass immigration to all Western countries except one. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.No; imaginary on your part, pure and simple.