breaking it down....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wum
Well I don’t blame you for wanting a world government at this point. After all, wouldn’t the abolition of racial, religious, and cultural identity cease all wars? Unfortunately this common theme of history has been designed and it’s called the Hegelian Dialectics.
This might seem a bit off topic here, but keep reading…
The dialectic process as described by Hegel can be reduced to three parts: a recursive pattern of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis (each idea) is opposed by its antithesis and reconciled with the thesis in a synthesis (consensus), which in turn becomes a new thesis opposed by antithesis. Hegel said that history was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas. Since every synthesis is the thesis of a new dialectic, social change is guaranteed. The process continues until society reaches the Absolute Idea: the ultimate synthesis, giving rise to no antithesis. In the context of this document, the "Absolute Idea" is world government.
|
leaving aside the fact that hegel can be disputed, this only serves to back up my point that through synthesis, culture's will always move closer together in a world where cultural transmission is so fast and easy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wum
It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.
|
i honestly can't see what this has to do with the argument
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wum
In contemporary terms, Bush hypocritically talks about defeating “terrorism” while doing nothing to secure the porous border between Mexico and the US. In fact, he comes out with the brilliant idea of “Amnesty” for 10+ million illegals. And let’s not forget the fact that the alleged “terrorists” also had visas to work and live in the US. When the population is so heavily “diversified” and one cannot tell the difference between American or Terrorist, what’s the next logical step? National ID cards.
|
But what of "Homegrown" terrorists like timothy mcveigh or the unabomber? What of white supremacists and militia's looking to overthrow the democratically elected governments? and you still can't seem to grasp that North America was NEVER a homogenous white christian culture. there may have been a brief period at the very beginning when the initial colonies arrived, but that was so long ago and in terms of the post-colonization history of north america such a short period of time, that for all intents and purposes america has been a multi-cultural society for so long that any appeal to traditional american culture MUST necessarily include those cultures you wish to exclude.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wum
What we have are artificially fomented problems, and then “solutions” like that Patriot Act that only serve to further control people.
And so they’ve taught you that the problem with the world is the fact that people hold separate identities, and since this “War on Terror” is nothing more than a clash of civilizations, multi-cult seems like the only logical answer.
Yes, but those minorities were small enough to be managed. In fact up until 1965 Canada had laws that prevented non-white immigration. If you want historical examples though, look at how multi-culti Yugoslavia fell apart, or northern India, or south Africa and so forth. In the end, the host society must be consulted about what direction the government takes, and there was never a referendum, plebiscite, or anything on making the country multi-racial.
|
in the example of yugoslavia there's a huge difference between allowing an ethnic group to immigrate to an existing country as opposed to taking a bunch of seperate countries and mashing them together to make a big one, then holding it together through fear and repression for 40 some odd years, then letting the government collapse....the example of yugoslavia therefore does not apply to an argument about immigration. none of those ethnic groups "immigrated" to yugoslavia.
in the example of northern india that came about not because of an attempt to create a multicultural society, but because of an attempt to seperate a previously multicutlural society (the partition of india and pakistan into hindu and muslim nations)
in south africa i'd first remind you that the immigrants in that case are the whites, and secondly, south africa's problems came about not through immigration or the blending of cultures they're a hold over from the world's colonial past and came about because it was stupid and fatal to think that in the modern world a country could hold on to it's colonial past for so long,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wum
But it’s not just Canada. What precedent establishes Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Germany, the UK, and France as multi-racial, multi-cultural countries? I challenge you to find me a shred of evidence that shows a referendum or poll or anything, that suggests that local populations wanted to undertake this dramatic change to their society. Kind of strange that all these countries all of sudden decided to take on millions of Muslims who are declaring Jihad on them huh?
|
what establishes these countries as multicultural is that when the citizens of those countries vote, anti-immigration parties rarely garner a large enough percentage of the vote to come to power. that is the biggest and most important referndum and poll that there can be by the way. why is that? it's a free vote. presumably the election results aren't fixed. so does that mean that the majority of europeans disagree with your views on immigration? i think it does. it certainly means that the majority of europeans aren't concerned enough to run to the polls and elect anyone who comes remotely close to agreeing with you. while nationalist parties have been on the rise in europe, it seems to me that the majority still seems quite happy with the status quo. while some may hold your views i think the majority of the citizens of the "culture" you seem determined to defend disagree with you. so where does that leave you?
Jan 17, 05
