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.
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.
Try me.
You seem to be editing out a few key points:
[ul]
[li]Northern European descendants are the stewards of their respective countries (US later referred to as being one of them).[/li][li]Northern European descendants undergo lifelong “programming” of self-hate.[/li][li]This self-hate being manifested in strives to insure that the “Northern European descendant” ethnicity become minorities “within their own countries.”[/li][li]Another part of “the programming” is that Northern European descendants are (erroneously) taught that:[/li][LIST]
[li]“Slavery was primarily an all white-affair.”[/li][li]“Nazi-Germany is a natural result of white nationalism.”[/li][li]“and so on” (bastards!).[/li][/ul]
[li]while in reality:[ul][/li][li]“The slavery” was going on for centuries by mainly Arab merchants.[/li][li]Northern Europeans ended “the slavery” world wide.[/li][li]“Whites” fought a war to stop slavery.[/li][li]“Whites” fought a war to stop Nazi Germany.[/li][/ul]
[/LIST]
Not a quality post; mostly trash when it isn’t incoherent. What’s your take?
Cultural Marxists!
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?
Duh, dude, on what continent do you think Israel is located?
(funny that you thought that the rest of my “argument” was valid though)
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.
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?
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.
I’m so confused. Just yesterday I read that it’s Southern Europe that is being overrun by immigrants. 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.
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?
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.
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”):
White Australia policy - Wikipedia
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?
It’d be more accurate to say that they were overrun by colonists. There’s a big difference.
:dubious: No, they haven’t.