Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 2:54 am
Somehow, after seeing Atto's video of Tommy Robbins, I had the suspicion before watching your video that it would be attacking Robbins as not being xenophobic enough.
So multiculturalism is a "failure", and the Nazis weren't as bad as we all thought? Is that the case?
It is necessary in my view to examine all sides of an issue and in this case it is an issue of mass immigration, or even relatively limited immigration, of foreign people into a given state. There are varying poles of interest. American business for example — construction, manufacturing, the service industries — welcome the influx because they need cheaper, entry-level labor. They don’t have much social consciousness or cultural consciousness and cannot care what happens to a culture whose •identity• is altered by such an influx.
It requires what we might label •cultural chauvinism• to
conceive of the idea, and the practice, of creating strong boundaries. All this was outlined through the discourse offered by Renaud Camus which, in your case, could not even be listened to because of your odd social and political proclivities. You will (and •they• do) refer to Camus as Nazi-like. Except he is so far from being such the accusation is absurd. He is concerned for the integrity of his culture and the life of his people. But to arrive at definitions within those categories involves harder stances that, in your mushy sentimentalism, are intolerable.
My view is that you (you-plural) are sick, denatured, weak people. You cannot even begin to define cultural identity. You are push-overs, weak-willed, and you make decisions on the basis of sentimentalism, not on sound reasoning. You are hardly a man, Gary. I again sympathize with your mental illness but as I have said I view the cultural strata that barfed you up as essentially sick. You represent the end of a culture, and you are a destructive influence all-told.
Multi-culturalism is the beginning of the end of a defined, historical culture, you drooling ape, and this is very easy to understand when the term ‘diversity’ is examined. To become ‘diverse’ is to become subject to a guilt-based notion that your group as such is invalid or really criminal. The diversification of
any culture, galoot, is obviously the beginning of that culture’s end.
Once cultural and somatic identity is lost, then that culture becomes subject to mere economic powers. I.e. the Walmartization of peoples. These are particularly ugly, but powerful, aspects of an American political-social ideology tied to a perverse civil religiousness. It can all be examined and sorted through if a man appears capable of clear thought. Such thought requires a
basis for thought. And one capable of taking a wide range of issues into consideration.
Anecdotally, I was up in the States recently after years away and I observed first hand both the influx of immigrants and the effect of it on cultural identity (i.e. former American identity). Effectively, no one can really talk to any others nor associate in depth because they do not share a language nor a history. What is their affiliation with the nation? Not much of one really.
It could happen that in following generations the new arrivals assimilate, but the damage done to the existing, historical culture is real indeed.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times one must examine a case like that if France in order even to think about cultural identity. The French are uniquely capable of that because of education and cultural pride. They are a far more intellectual culture than low-reasoning general American culture, so rife with conflicting interests and narratives.
But all of this is, naturally, completely unintelligible to you (-plural) since your mind has been colonized with that pathological •European grammar of self-intolerance•.
