Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Maybe we can have globalism when half the world stops being so bad.

[Post War America]

When the concerns of many nationalists can largely be boiled down to "er muh gerd brown people are coming into the country", it can be quite difficult to really seem reasonable. Because ultimately what many mean by tightening immigration laws is kicking all the brown people out. Similarly when fear of a new world order boils down to a fear of any multinational organization expanding its power, it becomes quite difficult to seem reasonable there.

Further I should like to point out that no culture survives in stasis, and while respecting culture could be considered a good thing, it is another entirely to hold a dogmatic belief that (typically Western) cultures must remain exactly as they are ad infinitum. Cultures in stasis die, cultures that adapt survive.

Open Borders Progressivism logically leads to a world government. There is no way they will deny voting rights to migrants, or welfare. This will be deemed "second-class citizenship" and oppressive. However, since the migration can occur so easily, there is essentially no point to having different jurisdictions at a major level, so to eliminate tax evasion and combat all the national separatists that will inevitably arise, they will attempt to create a world government.

That's where this ends. It's obvious that's where this ends with a little thought and observation of their previous behavior.

Globalist arguments can largely be boiled down to "culture, religion, and ideology do not meaningfully impact behavior."

In all likelihood yes, open borders will eventually break down nations as we think of them today. However, this is not a new process, humans are tribalistic creatures, however, the concept of what the tribe is has expanded over the millennia. Our modern notion of the nationstate is just the current form of tribal grouping which most humans consider acceptable. However, what I am saying is not that open borders and the like will not eventually create a monotribal planet, but that the nationalist notion of a globalist Illuminati type conspiracy to create some sort of autocratic one world government that wishes to obliterate culture is a farce.

When the concerns of many nationalists can largely be boiled down to "er muh gerd brown people are coming into the country", it can be quite difficult to really seem reasonable. Because ultimately what many mean by tightening immigration laws is kicking all the brown people out. Similarly when fear of a new world order boils down to a fear of any multinational organization expanding its power, it becomes quite difficult to seem reasonable there.

Further I should like to point out that no culture survives in stasis, and while respecting culture could be considered a good thing, it is another entirely to hold a dogmatic belief that (typically Western) cultures must remain exactly as they are ad infinitum. Cultures in stasis die, cultures that adapt survive.

Um, no. Maybe you should try asking us what we actually are concerned about instead of making assumptions, because not all nationalists are like "Dem dayum immigrants stealin' our jawbz"

1. I am not racist. I don't give a shit what color they are or their religion, my concerns with immigration are based on, you know, the bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill and rape people just because we don't agree with their barbaric culture, that supports the rape of children, abuse of women, and murder of people who are not the same religion as them? And the fact that illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL? We should not be giving lawbreakers a break. It's not because of the race or religion, it's because of the troublemakers who want to fuck everyone else up. Hence why immigration should be strict so we can filter out the dangerous people. The terrorists DO NOT want peace, being nice to them will not help. They want to kill us, that's why they're sneaking in with the innocent refugees. We need a way to keep them out and bring those who are genuinely just refugees in.

2. I am not saying cultures are unchangable, I am saying people should be allowed to keep their culture as much as they want if it's not hurting people. Embracing cultures does not mean you automatically have to hate other cultures. Some of them just don't get along though, as we see with Shariah trying to interact with western nations. Forcing those cultures that are natural enemies together is not a good idea, they'll just kill each other.

1. You say you're not racist, but then proceed to go on a tirade about a particular ethnic group's evil and barbaric ways, without even pausing to consider that there might be cultural differences within that ethnic group (A Jordanian for example, would likely cringe at what you're saying), or the fact that the modern Jihadi is a monster the West is largely responsible for creating. Further you are assuming I desire amnesty for those who immigrate illegally, which is NOT a point I made. Lastly I would point out that most countries do have a vetting system in place for refugees.

2. Right here is the crux of the argument. The point I'm trying to make here, is that "natural" enemies aren't a thing. On the whole most Arabs and Westerners probably don't want to kill each other, barring of course a vocal minority on both sides. Yes there may be some strife if sufficiently different cultures try to integrate, but this is where the Old World should follow the needs of the New, and get better at assimilating different cultures.

[Neo Balka]

Maybe we can have globalism when half the world's stops being so bad.

Maybe when The last light of the American republic is stamped out by the Eurocrats.

That will be cold day in hell.

[Soyouso]

Open Borders Progressivism logically leads to a world government. There is no way they will deny voting rights to migrants, or welfare. This will be deemed "second-class citizenship" and oppressive. However, since the migration can occur so easily, there is essentially no point to having different jurisdictions at a major level, so to eliminate tax evasion and combat all the national separatists that will inevitably arise, they will attempt to create a world government.

That's where this ends. It's obvious that's where this ends with a little thought and observation of their previous behavior.

Globalist arguments can largely be boiled down to "culture, religion, and ideology do not meaningfully impact behavior."

In all likelihood yes, open borders will eventually break down nations as we think of them today. However, this is not a new process, humans are tribalistic creatures, however, the concept of what the tribe is has expanded over the millennia. Our modern notion of the nationstate is just the current form of tribal grouping which most humans consider acceptable. However, what I am saying is not that open borders and the like will not eventually create a monotribal planet, but that the nationalist notion of a globalist Illuminati type conspiracy to create some sort of autocratic one world government that wishes to obliterate culture is a farce.

Um, no. Maybe you should try asking us what we actually are concerned about instead of making assumptions, because not all nationalists are like "Dem dayum immigrants stealin' our jawbz"

1. I am not racist. I don't give a shit what color they are or their religion, my concerns with immigration are based on, you know, the bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill and rape people just because we don't agree with their barbaric culture, that supports the rape of children, abuse of women, and murder of people who are not the same religion as them? And the fact that illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL? We should not be giving lawbreakers a break. It's not because of the race or religion, it's because of the troublemakers who want to fuck everyone else up. Hence why immigration should be strict so we can filter out the dangerous people. The terrorists DO NOT want peace, being nice to them will not help. They want to kill us, that's why they're sneaking in with the innocent refugees. We need a way to keep them out and bring those who are genuinely just refugees in.

2. I am not saying cultures are unchangable, I am saying people should be allowed to keep their culture as much as they want if it's not hurting people. Embracing cultures does not mean you automatically have to hate other cultures. Some of them just don't get along though, as we see with Shariah trying to interact with western nations. Forcing those cultures that are natural enemies together is not a good idea, they'll just kill each other.

1. You say you're not racist, but then proceed to go on a tirade about a particular ethnic group's evil and barbaric ways, without even pausing to consider that there might be cultural differences within that ethnic group (A Jordanian for example, would likely cringe at what you're saying), or the fact that the modern Jihadi is a monster the West is largely responsible for creating. Further you are assuming I desire amnesty for those who immigrate illegally, which is NOT a point I made. Lastly I would point out that most countries do have a vetting system in place for refugees.

2. Right here is the crux of the argument. The point I'm trying to make here, is that "natural" enemies aren't a thing. On the whole most Arabs and Westerners probably don't want to kill each other, barring of course a vocal minority on both sides. Yes there may be some strife if sufficiently different cultures try to integrate, but this is where the Old World should follow the needs of the New, and get better at assimilating different cultures.

1. That is not racism mate. Racism is treating someone a certain way for their race specifically. I said I was okay with people having their culture, IF it doesn't hurt anyone. What I said was disagreeing with the negative side of a culture and people who refuse to stop doing those things. I wouldn't give a shit where they came from if they didn't endorse raping CHILDREN (child sex rings are enough of an epidemic in the US) as "marriage" and they didn't go around killing people over a religion. It's the violence, not their race. We need a way to keep those people out and let those who mean well able to come in, therefore immigration laws exist, and why want them to be strict.
Radical Islam existed before modern day. Muhammad started it. Yes the west did a poor job of helping get rid of it, but it was there since the birth. Yes, not all Muslims are like that, but the ones that do are the reason we need to be on our toes about who we let in. To do background checks. It'd be the same if Christians were doing this.
My country is in the process of trying to set one up, hence why Trump wanted the temporary immigration ban.

2. In Shariah countries Jihadist supporters are not a minority, as it is against their law to disagree because the law is based on the religion and kills anyone who disagrees.
Shariah nations and democratic nations DO NOT get along, because their cultures by nature hate each other. Shariah disapproves of religious freedom, the west does not. Shariah believes in stoning those who are "sexually immoral", including rape victims. The west does not. Shariah believes there is no rape in marriage. The west does. Shariah believes little girls can marry grown men. The west does not. The races by themselves, obviously are not enemies. That'd be silly. But those cultures are at each other's throats because they can't coexist. Forcing them to try to make up is not going to work. Some people will never get along. Some cultures need to stay away from each other for safety.

[Neu Leonstein]

In Shariah countries Jihadist supporters are not a minority, as it is against their law to disagree because the law is based on the religion and kills anyone who disagrees.

It would really help your argument if you used the proper terminology. Whatever awful stuff is done to people in those countries, referring to it all as "shariah" is not only going to be unhelpful in the discussion at hand (since it is so broad a term that you probably end up having to define what you mean by it separately), it also makes it that much harder to differentiate between people who want to hack somebody's limbs off and people who follow far more liberal (for want of a better term) interpretations of Islamic scripture and jurisprudence and who don't think of anything like that when they hear the term "shariah".

NSG literally has a thread for Islamic discussion. Why not go there and just ask the honest question, fairly and without loading the terms and starting an angry argument: what does the word shariah mean?

[Ashkera]

In all likelihood yes, open borders will eventually break down nations as we think of them today. However, this is not a new process, humans are tribalistic creatures, however, the concept of what the tribe is has expanded over the millennia. Our modern notion of the nationstate is just the current form of tribal grouping which most humans consider acceptable. However, what I am saying is not that open borders and the like will not eventually create a monotribal planet, but that the nationalist notion of a globalist Illuminati type conspiracy to create some sort of autocratic one world government that wishes to obliterate culture is a farce.

An autocratic one world government is a substantial risk of this idea of Globalism and you know it. It doesn't need an Illuminati plot to happen. Islamic countries want to prohibit the criticism of Islam, for instance.

What's more likely to happen is to turn the entire world into Brazil. This is not desirable in the least.

Worse than Brazil. National cultures would be replaced by subcultures. Ethnic groups would fight street wars. Politics would be a disastrous mess.

The claims that Globalism is inevitable, prior to interplanetary colonization, are nothing but a desired self-fulfilling prophecy Globalists are trying to will into existence. It isn't inevitable if people are smart enough to prevent it before it happens.

[Ashkera]

NSG literally has a thread for Islamic discussion. Why not go there and just ask the honest question, fairly and without loading the terms and starting an angry argument: what does the word shariah mean?

"Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]"

Actions and what is said between group members in confidence might be a better guide.

[Neu Leonstein]

"Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]"

Actions and what is said between group members in confidence might be a better guide.

Oh, brother.

[Theodorex]

"Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]"

Actions and what is said between group members in confidence might be a better guide.

Oh, brother.

What do you Neu Leonstein think about this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wg6_hqu2Ck
It talks against multiculturalism, therefore racist? I've asked my very good leftist friend recently that where has multiculturalism worked very good. He said Singapore. I thought to myself at that moment that left is done.

[Ashkera]

"Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]"

Actions and what is said between group members in confidence might be a better guide.

Oh, brother.

Which is the most trustworthy source on what Communism is like: what Communists say Communism will be like, what Communists say Communist countries are like, or how attempted Communist countries actually turned out?

[Soyouso]

In Shariah countries Jihadist supporters are not a minority, as it is against their law to disagree because the law is based on the religion and kills anyone who disagrees.

It would really help your argument if you used the proper terminology. Whatever awful stuff is done to people in those countries, referring to it all as "shariah" is not only going to be unhelpful in the discussion at hand (since it is so broad a term that you probably end up having to define what you mean by it separately), it also makes it that much harder to differentiate between people who want to hack somebody's limbs off and people who follow far more liberal (for want of a better term) interpretations of Islamic scripture and jurisprudence and who don't think of anything like that when they hear the term "shariah".

NSG literally has a thread for Islamic discussion. Why not go there and just ask the honest question, fairly and without loading the terms and starting an angry argument: what does the word shariah mean?

Shariah law is the law of the Islamic religion when applied to a nation, essentially a divine law. The scholars took what Muhammad said and applied it to a government. Therefore it sprouted a culture. I brought it up as an example of a culture that does not get along with others. Shariah in it's traditional form is a violent, barbaric law that has no place in the west because it is against everything western nations stand for. It kills those who oppose Islam, hence it is in support of the terrorists the majority of the time. That is why it is so hard to get rid of those radical groups, because they have so much support. I am glad there are many people who do not follow it and understand religion is not an excuse to hurt people, but we still have to stop those who are doing that.
Please actually look up what is in that law system and tell me people from countries like the United States of America wouldn't be concerned about some of those policies. Even with adaptions it is still not compatible with western nations, hence why those two cultures do not get along, and why I brought it up in this discussion.

Also, I'm not angry. I'm simply trying to show my point of view so we can understand each other better. Open discussion is a good way to do this, yes? I like hearing the other side of the story so I can figure out where a person is coming from, and I'm trying to answer the OP's question by suggesting they listen to what nationalists have to say so we can each understand each other's concerns better and not see each other as "monsters". Not all nationalists are like me, of course, but it's best to talk to them and ask them why they feel certain ways. Not saying you specifically are being presumptuous, just in general with the sides.

[Neu Leonstein]

What do you Neu Leonstein think about this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wg6_hqu2Ck
It talks against multiculturalism, therefore racist? I've asked my very good leftist friend recently that where has multiculturalism worked very good. He said Singapore. I thought to myself at that moment that left is done.

First of all, now I had to clean it out of my viewing history so youtube doesn't start bombarding me with that sort of stuff. Not cool. And second: come on. Whatever messed up problems race relations in the US generate is not relevant here. That's not "multiculturalism", that's slavery and its after effects. And yeah, you don't wave a big confederate flag in your video while talking about how it would be best for different folks to stay apart from one another without exposing yourself to suspicions of racism. It's kinda like if someone flew a swastika while talking about how it might be better for there to be no Jews in Germany, someone might think they were a Nazi.

Anyway, I've lived 16 years in Australia, which is more than a quarter foreign-born, in which something like a fifth of people speak languages other than English at home, and so on. And healthcare works. No amount of angry teens typing away at their keyboards is likely to change my life experience, so I'm not really inclined to have these discussions again.

[Ashkera]

Anyway, I've lived 16 years in Australia, which is more than a quarter foreign-born, in which something like a fifth of people speak languages other than English at home, and so on. And healthcare works. No amount of angry teens typing away at their keyboards is likely to change my life experience, so I'm not really inclined to have these discussions again.

The stress on the system didn't become strong enough to create a wave of Populist Nationalism until multiple conditions were violated. Until the contradictions within pro-diversity multiculturalism are adequately addressed, the stress, and thus upsurge in anti-Globalism, will remain.

This is part of what Soyouso is getting at. Basically there is a window of ideologies and cultures that are more-or-less compatible, given some rate of assimilation, and it's actually pretty broad, so at first glance, it looks like all cultures are compatible. However, there are ideologies and cultures outside that window, especially when assimilation rates are low, or sabotaged by switching from Melting Pot to the enthic-tension-in-a-can that is Cultural Mosaic. When you pretend otherwise, it smacks against reality, as we start getting talks about how major terrorist attacks are an inevitable part of living in any metropolis, even though they need not be.

Also this quote is funny because usually anti-Globalism is stereotyped as just coming from old people that Globalists are waiting to die off. Very likely 16 years refers to your lifespan and you yourself are a teenager.

[New Werpland]

Anyway, I've lived 16 years in Australia, which is more than a quarter foreign-born, in which something like a fifth of people speak languages other than English at home, and so on. And healthcare works. No amount of angry teens typing away at their keyboards is likely to change my life experience, so I'm not really inclined to have these discussions again.

The stress on the system didn't become strong enough to create a wave of Populist Nationalism until multiple conditions were violated. Until the contradictions within pro-diversity multiculturalism are adequately addressed, the stress, and thus upsurge in anti-Globalism, will remain.

This is part of what Soyouso is getting at. Basically there is a window of ideologies and cultures that are more-or-less compatible, given some rate of assimilation, and it's actually pretty broad, so at first glance, it looks like all cultures are compatible. However, there are ideologies and cultures outside that window, especially when assimilation rates are low, or sabotaged by switching from Melting Pot to the enthic-tension-in-a-can that is Cultural Mosaic. When you pretend otherwise, it smacks against reality, as we start getting talks about how major terrorist attacks are an inevitable part of living in any metropolis, even though they need not be.

Also this quote is funny because usually anti-Globalism is stereotyped as just coming from old people that Globalists are waiting to die off. Very likely 16 years refers to your lifespan and you yourself are a teenager.

He probably said that in reference to the video, which is a juvenile-sounding person whining about how non-white people live in the US. Not a real criticism of multiculturalism either.

[Neu Leonstein]

Also this quote is funny because usually anti-Globalism is stereotyped as just coming from old people that Globalists are waiting to die off. Very likely 16 years refers to your lifespan and you yourself are a teenager.

Or maybe I'm not and I've spent the other half of my life in two more countries.

[Ashkera]

Also this quote is funny because usually anti-Globalism is stereotyped as just coming from old people that Globalists are waiting to die off. Very likely 16 years refers to your lifespan and you yourself are a teenager.

Or maybe I'm not and I've spent the other half of my life in two more countries.

Could be, but this forum has a number of teenagers and there is a tendency for political debates to sometimes tend towards irony.

[Theodorex]

Whatever messed up problems race relations in the US generate is not relevant here. That's not "multiculturalism", that's slavery and its after effects.

US is not multicultural, Christmas is national holiday etc. When Estonia broke away from Soviet Union, there was large population of Russians who had been brought to Estonia during the Soviet Union (we call It Russian occupation). Large part of them were not loyal to Estonia. Estonia is a nation state with one state language. Large part of those Russians today don't speak almost no Estonian at all, they watch Russian television and are influenced by what is said in Russian news. For example during conflicts like Georgia or Ukraine their view of the conflict is very close to Putin's view. Estonia did not give those Russians citizenship automatically(even the ones who were born In Estonia during Soviet Union didn't get it) It was always justified by nationalists that those people are not loyal to Estonia and if they could vote, they would vote us into Содружество Независимых Государств. Openly they talked about language exams etc. For a true multiculturalist these Russians should have been given a citizenship. Similar thing is going on with Turkish people in Germany and Netherlands. I personally don't believe that multiculturalism could work in democracy. You would have different identity groups in parliament fighting each other on issues that otherwise would not be there. We are talking about two groups here that are both Christians and sure cannot be that different than say Somalies and Estonians. You would not have traditional left right wing politics but these groups start fighting each other. Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

[Neo Balka]

Whatever messed up problems race relations in the US generate is not relevant here. That's not "multiculturalism", that's slavery and its after effects.

US is not multicultural, Christmas is national holiday etc. When Estonia broke away from Soviet Union, there was large population of Russians who had been brought to Estonia during the Soviet Union (we call It Russian occupation). Large part of them were not loyal to Estonia. Estonia is a nation state with one state language. Large part of those Russians today don't speak almost no Estonian at all, they watch Russian television and are influenced by what is said in Russian news. For example during conflicts like Georgia or Ukraine their view of the conflict is very close to Putin's view. Estonia did not give those Russians citizenship automatically(even the ones who were born In Estonia during Soviet Union didn't get it) It was always justified by nationalists that those people are not loyal to Estonia and if they could vote, they would vote us into Содружество Независимых Государств. Openly they talked about language exams etc. For a true multiculturalist these Russians should have been given a citizenship. Similar thing is going on with Turkish people in Germany and Netherlands. I personally don't believe that multiculturalism could work in democracy. You would have different identity groups in parliament fighting each other on issues that otherwise would not be there. We are talking about two groups here that are both Christians and sure cannot be that different than say Somalies and Estonians. You would not have traditional left right wing politics but these groups start fighting each other. Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

Oh no no no no no no no no no.

[Darussalam]

Crawling out from my comfort zone to address a rather tiresomely common misconception.

NSG literally has a thread for Islamic discussion. Why not go there and just ask the honest question, fairly and without loading the terms and starting an angry argument: what does the word shariah mean?

"Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]"

Actions and what is said between group members in confidence might be a better guide.

...
Nevermind that it's not necessarily what taqiyya entails, nevermind that the doctrine is, notoriously enough, quite obscure even among the conservative Muslim circle (I was educated in orthodox Muslim school for nine years and I haven't heard a word about taqiyya until my exposure to the uglier parts of the internet), nevermind that I, an ex-Muslim that detest ignorant leftist apologias of my former faith, consider taqiyya to be one of the very few rational and somewhat agreeable doctrine by the standard of a sixth-century desert religion, but I think it's self-explanatory that the merit of dismissing discussion with Muslims in an anonymous internet forum on the ground that they might mislead you as obliged within their faith is rather questionable.

To be honest, the paranoid cry about taqiyya is a tired meme and should shoot itself in a dignified manner. There are many valid objectionable doctrines in Islam that Muslims don't shy away from.

[Soyouso]

Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

No. Some cultures are violations to human rights. Cultures cannot all coexist. I only respect those that respect the basic rights of the people.

[Mattopilos II]

Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

No. Some cultures are violations to human rights. Cultures cannot all coexist. I only respect those that respect the basic rights of the people.

That is why I tend to breakdown cultures into what actually comprises them. Some cultures have a certain foundation that is harmful to the individual and as such to society. That foundation must be replaced, or removed entirely, if it is ever to survive with other cultures, and as such, over a large period of time without opposition.

[Post War America]

Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

No. Some cultures are violations to human rights. Cultures cannot all coexist. I only respect those that respect the basic rights of the people.

So obviously Western culture needs to be destroyed because of the horrific colonial abuses of the European great powers (that were gleefully encouraged by the culture of the time). There are few ethnic groups that are completely innocent, and attempting to obliterate one because it violates human rights is itself an abuse of human rights.

[Soyouso]

No. Some cultures are violations to human rights. Cultures cannot all coexist. I only respect those that respect the basic rights of the people.

So obviously Western culture needs to be destroyed because of the horrific colonial abuses of the European great powers (that were gleefully encouraged by the culture of the time). There are few ethnic groups that are completely innocent, and attempting to obliterate one because it violates human rights is itself an abuse of human rights.

I am talking about the present, not the past. What cultures are doing now is what matters. I never fucking said we should GENOCIDE cultures that do that. Don't make assumptions. I am saying that we should not give any benefits to those cultures until they stop doing what it is they were doing. As in not doing the stuff they do.

No. Some cultures are violations to human rights. Cultures cannot all coexist. I only respect those that respect the basic rights of the people.

That is why I tend to breakdown cultures into what actually comprises them. Some cultures have a certain foundation that is harmful to the individual and as such to society. That foundation must be replaced, or removed entirely, if it is ever to survive with other cultures, and as such, over a large period of time without opposition.

Indeed

[Post War America]

So obviously Western culture needs to be destroyed because of the horrific colonial abuses of the European great powers (that were gleefully encouraged by the culture of the time). There are few ethnic groups that are completely innocent, and attempting to obliterate one because it violates human rights is itself an abuse of human rights.

I am talking about the present, not the past. What cultures are doing now is what matters. I never fucking said we should GENOCIDE cultures that do that. Don't make assumptions. I am saying that we should not give any benefits to those cultures until they stop doing what it is they were doing. As in not doing the stuff they do.

You referred to Middle Eastern Muslims as natural enemies of the West. Generally when something is to be considered a natural enemy it is generally considered to be worth destroying. Further, going by your logic, one doesn't need to commit genocide to obliterate a culture, because they're so fragile that a few people from another moving can place a culture in jeopardy of extinction. What benefits are the Middle East getting anyway? A daily delivery of cluster bombs compliments of a Russian airplane? Durka Durkas being allowed to enter countries that they weren't born in, to escape a Civil War?

Oh, brother.

What do you Neu Leonstein think about this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wg6_hqu2Ck
It talks against multiculturalism, therefore racist? I've asked my very good leftist friend recently that where has multiculturalism worked very good. He said Singapore. I thought to myself at that moment that left is done.

>Assumes Globalism is strictly a leftist phenomenon.
>Ignores the fact that globalism is primarily promulgated by a neoliberal capitalist class that wishes to obliterate boundaries to labor markets, allowing them to simply remove labor resistance as a factor in their bottom line.

As to arguments further up on the page, I will address those soon, but they are getting large enough that I feel it necessary to hunt down sources and do a debate proper.

[Soyouso]

I am talking about the present, not the past. What cultures are doing now is what matters. I never fucking said we should GENOCIDE cultures that do that. Don't make assumptions. I am saying that we should not give any benefits to those cultures until they stop doing what it is they were doing. As in not doing the stuff they do.

You referred to Middle Eastern Muslims as natural enemies of the West. Generally when something is to be considered a natural enemy it is generally considered to be worth destroying. Further, going by your logic, one doesn't need to commit genocide to obliterate a culture, because they're so fragile that a few people from another moving can place a culture in jeopardy of extinction. What benefits are the Middle East getting anyway? A daily delivery of cluster bombs compliments of a Russian airplane? Durka Durkas being allowed to enter countries that they weren't born in, to escape a Civil War?

I am saying that the negative aspects of that culture are so significant that it naturally cannot get along with the west and it is best not brought here. The people themselves, yes, they are not automatically bad. But if they try to enforce Shariah law in my country, that's when they need to leave. Stoning people is not legal here.
I do not respect Shariah because it goes against all of my values, it doesn't mean I want those who support it to die. They do.
It means I avoid people who advocate for it in my country, since they are against us. Because I don't want to end up stoned to death for being raped or forced to be Muslim. We do not do that here and I want it to stay that way. Muslims by themselves are fine, but it's the radicals who want Shariah law that are the enemy, because those are the terrorists.
I am saying that Middle Eastern Shariah culture is the enemy of western culture, polar opposites, and the reason I brought up immigration was we need to regulate it so only those who don't get uppity from laws not matching their homeland come in. It isn't about keeping "brown people" out, it's about safety. It's be the same if any other country had terrorists threatening to sneak in with them, no matter the religion or whatever. Some cultures plain will never get along.