What are your best arguments against multiculturalism?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

What is the difference between a democracy and a constitutional government here?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

In a democracy, the state is expected to do whatever the people want. Get the majority on your side, and you can do anything.

In a theocracy constitutional government, there are some fundamental principles the state must always follow. As long as people believe these principles have some higher origin or innate moral value, they won't rebel against them.

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

In a democracy, the the state is expected to do whatever the people want.

In theory yes, but democracy has now simply become a fascade for a hostile oligarchy. Policies are rammed through against the publics interests; public opinion is massaged and shaped by the media — witness the hysterical attempts to meme right wing terrorists into existence.

A few years back there was a study done that looked at the legislation being passed in the US. Not suprisingly policies that favored the very wealthy where quickly approved; more populist demands, such as curbing immigration, were simply ignored.

I can't find the link. If anyone reading this knows of it, maybe you can post below.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Policies are rammed through against the publics interests

Example, majority public support for increasing immigration has never existed

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Or both world wars — probably almost all of them tbh.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Great examples as well.

https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-start-world-war.aspx

Americans' Support for Assisting England, France and Poland

How far should we go in helping England, France and Poland ...

Yes No
% %
Should we sell them food supplies? 74 27
Should we sell airplanes and other war materials to England and France? 58 42
Should we send our Army and Navy abroad to fight against Germany? 16 84
GALLUP, SEPT. 1-6, 1939

Bunch more here. From the dates you can likely see when propaganda started being used.

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

If it appears that Germany is defeating England and France, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our army and navy to Europe to fight?

Gallup, Oct. 5-10, 1939

Yes 29%

No 71%

Do you think the United States should declare war on Germany and send our army and navy abroad to fight?

Gallup, May 18-23, 1940

Yes 7%

No 93%

Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do–to keep out of war ourselves or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

Gallup, June 27-July 3, 1940

Help 35%

Keep out 61%

No opinion 4%

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The one I like to cite is the 1943 Army poll that found that 90% of American servicemen said they would rather lose the war than end segregation.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, that's rather revealing.

[–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I still get depressed when I think about it. I sometimes wonder if our culture isn't suffering some sort of post traumatic shock as a result.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah it's quite saddening. Western leaders made the wrong choice and the world has been headed downhill ever since. Really does seems that exclusive communities that are autonomous and self-sufficient as possible are the only way forward.

[–]Nasser 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Germany declared war on the US.

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And Britain declared war on Germany. The German people were also unenthusiastic about WWII.

Also the U.S. was de facto in the war already thanks to its supply arrangements with both Britain and Russia. If they had wanted to stay out of the war they probably could have.

You are correct though. Hitler's declaration of war on the U.S. always seemed incredibly reckless to me. I am not a historian but a recent book suggested that he was more concerned with American money power (which he saw as Jewish) than conventional historians had thought previously.

DW:

Brendan Simms summarizes his main thesis: Hitler's driving force in domestic and foreign policy was born out of a love-hate relationship with "Anglo-America." It was not the fear of communism and the Soviet Union that led him to war and destruction, but rather the struggle with Great Britain and the United States and the fear of international capitalism.

[Snip...]

According to Simms, even Hitler's anti-Semitism did not arise primarily from a deep hatred of Jews, but secondarily, from a competition with "world capitalism" based in the US, where Jews were sitting in positions of power. [Cont...]

The book is controversial amongst court historians — Evans politely says it is dishonest rubbish— possibly because it accords with some of the views of the alt-right. It also, given the social turmoil in Germany during the 1920s, seems ridiculous Hitler wasn't concerned with Soviet power.

My own view is that history is open to so many interpretations, especially when it comes to matters of emphasis and nuance that it becomes a form of myth making — a means by which we interpret our current circumstances despite it being rooted in objective fact.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Nasser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Doesn't matter.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    The elites love democracy.

    Every type of government can be corrupted. The only advantage democracy has, is that it makes corruption easier to hide.

    No one can actually know what the majority wants. A monarch has a brain and a voice. A constitution can be read. I'm not sure why democracy has become so popular.

    Monarchy may seem better, but people actually capable of being a king are very rare. Most kings are either useful idiots, or early corpses.

    Theocracy would be the best, if there was a way to persuade the people to punish traitors. The US founders have tried.

    People only care when they live in smaller communities. But small communities make an easy target, and love tribal wars.

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm not sure why democracy has become so popular.

    It's the cheapest form of government that allows "elites" to control society. If they're the king, then that's a visible role and the public will know who to blame.

    With democracy you can just keep fucking people over while swapping out new pawns. It's a government that allows perpetual misery. Hence why the MSM hates the concept of a strongman or dictator. When no legal means of correcting these sociopolitical failures exist, then inevitably the final political solution (force) is the only one remaining. Hence why "bread and circuses" (aka soma, modern equivalent is grilling and sportsball) are so important to keep the populace content.

    [–]Jacinda 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    After reading this thread I went down an Internet rabbit hole. Through pure synchronicity I came across the following paragraph in an article on mountaineering of all things.

    Planet Mountain:

    [Democracy] requires an educated and informed electorate which is not only absent in all Third World counties but the United States as well. The United States was conceived as a republic, but public opinion mostly believes we are a democracy. "Democracy is an ideal, it is not a product of evolution and therefore has certain dangers, which are: 1. Glorification of mediocrity. 2. Choice of base and ignorant rulers. 3. Failure to recognize the basic facts of social evolution. 4. Danger of universal suffrage in the hands of uneducated and indolent majorities. 5. Slavery to public opinion; the majority is not always right." The citizens of a nation are a product of that culture and the moral values of that society. No civilization has endured which abandoned its moral values except for the adoption of better and more fit customs. [Cont...]

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    This idea of right and wrong has its origins in and comes to us from religion.

    Where does religion come from? All creatures want to attain the good and escape the bad. A simple creature can only work with what it sees. A perceptive creature sees not only things, but the method to attain them. A path to what is good, a path to what is bad. A wise creature is able to see not only the path, but even the principles behind it. The principles behind these paths, are the root of religion.

    The problem with religions, is that they aren't truly teachable. A brain needs a source of pain or pleasure to rewire itself. Empty words can't replace it. Unless a creature can taste the thing, it won't learn to love the path to it.

    Even the simplest creatures know the good and the bad. Religions are a natural result of evolution.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    When a society wants to infringe on someone's natural rights, it is always possible to refuse. Natural rights are more real than the society will ever be. You can't just annihilate someone with a vote.

    Equality is the recognition of our inevitable mortality and ignorance. Just because some people may seem better to us, doesn't mean they are universally the best. Someone who has won once, won't win in every situation.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Maybe "erase" would be a better word. When the state wants to take someone's life, voice or property, it is always possible to hide, run or fight. And no, soldiers aren't mindless immortal superhumans some imagine them to be. We are just rarely told about successful resistance. You can vote to declare certain people the enemy, but you can't erase them from existence with a vote.