Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

America is not a White Anglo Saxon Protestant country.   America is a republic. 

But Canada is not,  Canada is the British Crown, which is WASP.   North German Protestants.

America overthrew that British Crown, and in the Declaration it doesn't say God, it says Creator, because the founders were Diests, so they left it up to you who you think the  Creator is.

Under British law, God is God, and he's not a Catholic,   The Queen is the Pope of Britain.

A "republic" is any system that has a representative government that elects an intelligence class (an educated 'college') to further be responsible to elect the formal government. "For the people" but indirectly "by the people". The idea was expanded to oppose Greek "democracy" for its rule by the masses where the masses themselves are composed more of relatively incompetent thinkers for being more gullible to popular irrational appeals rather than logical ones. [and why the general 'democratic' versus 'republican' divide there now] Plato's Republic defined this through Socrates as a means to elect a 'philosopher king', someone who was duty bound to lead based upon wisdom but NOT personal will. They are unwillfully elected by others due to their intellect. Thus, even the old Soviet Union and China were/are 'republics'. 

We are like that in that the old Feudal system meant to do this too. As such, we are also 'republican' in an older interpretation during the Middle Ages.  But the British then intrinsically believed that the wisdom of the leaders were inherent genetically to the Royalty. So ours is a form of 'For the people' but questionable to whether the actual 'kings' are/were intellectually elected through or by the people. The people ruled are 'commonors' and is actually quite insulting for presuming genetics predefines intellect absolutely.

You are correct about the 'Diest' thing. But 'atheism' was still then unacceptable to almost all religions then as now. Our country though is 'catholic'. The Anglicans are the first wave of protestors (and thus "Protestant") but still believers of the authoritarian system of the Romans. "Catholic" means "cat- (w)hole" or of all people universally. It has the same structure but the Anglican replaces the Pope with the King (Queen when without) AND still with authoritarian levels of Bishops, etc. That is what I meant. I'm using the more philosophical expression. The W.A.S.P. Protestants protested ANY catholic (universal) authority and permitted more lenient interpretation of the Bible, especially in the vernacular of local language translations other than Latin or the King's official Bible, for England. The U.S. adopted this. Notice that the Anglicans don't officially exist there because of this. Instead, they became the "Episcopal Church" to evade official loyalty towards Britain then. To American Protestants, Anglican is just a form of catholic church.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

A "republic" is any system that has a representative government that elects an intelligence class (an educated 'college') to further be responsible to elect the formal government. "For the people" but indirectly "by the people". The idea was expanded to oppose Greek "democracy" for its rule by the masses where the masses themselves are composed more of relatively incompetent thinkers for being more gullible to popular irrational appeals rather than logical ones. [and why the general 'democratic' versus 'republican' divide there now] Plato's Republic defined this through Socrates as a means to elect a 'philosopher king', someone who was duty bound to lead based upon wisdom but NOT personal will. They are unwillfully elected by others due to their intellect. Thus, even the old Soviet Union and China were/are 'republics'. 

We are like that in that the old Feudal system meant to do this too. As such, we are also 'republican' in an older interpretation during the Middle Ages.  

You are correct about the 'Diest' thing. But 'atheism' was still then unacceptable to almost all religions then as now. Our country though is 'catholic'. The Anglicans are the first wave of protestors (and thus "Protestant") but still believers of the authoritarian system of the Romans. "Catholic" means "cat- (w)hole" or of all people universally. It has the same structure but the Anglican replaces the Pope with the King (Queen when without) AND still with authoritarian levels of Bishops, etc. That is what I meant. I'm using the more philosophical expression. The W.A.S.P. Protestants protested ANY catholic (universal) authority and permitted more lenient interpretation of the Bible, especially in the vernacular of local language translations other than Latin or the King's official Bible, for England. The U.S. adopted this. Notice that the Anglicans don't officially exist there because of this. Instead, they became the "Episcopal Church" to evade official loyalty towards Britain then. To American Protestants, Anglican is just a form of catholic church.

But as a Protestant, I don't have to be Anglican, and even though I am loyal to Her Majesty, I don't subscribe to her church of funny hats anymore than I do the one in Rome.

I'm a particular kind of Briton, I am an Ulster man.  So I am anti Papist by heritage that way.

My American heritage is against Popery writ large.

And I embrace the Deist principles of the Founders.

Although they were not aware that the Universe is actually a simulation, they were at least aware the YHWH doesn't intervene miraculously

But again, as a Protestant, that's all kosher, I can commune with the Creator wherever and however I please.

We Protestants don't even follow Martin Luther's proscriptions per se, other than the protest against tickets to Heaven sold.

 Martin Luther ended up a raving anti-Semite so a lot of things he said was nonsense.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that the Church of England was a compromise.

The men who fought the Glorious Revolution would be called Hyper Protestants now.

They were militant and so faithful, that all the Papists had to do was to order people to denounce their Protestant faith on the street.

The ones who declined they could shoot on the spot, because those men who would rather die than denounce, were the Protestants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

But as a Protestant, I don't have to be Anglican, and even though I am loyal to Her Majesty, I don't subscribe to her church of funny hats anymore than I do the one in Rome.

I'm a particular kind of Briton, I am an Ulster man.  So I am anti Papist by heritage that way.

My American heritage is against Popery writ large.

And I embrace the Deist principles of the Founders.

Although they were not aware that the Universe is actually a simulation, they were at least aware the YHWH doesn't intervene miraculously

But again, as a Protestant, that's all kosher, I can commune with the Creator wherever and however I please.

We Protestants don't even follow Martin Luther's proscriptions per se, other than the protest against tickets to Heaven sold.

 Martin Luther ended up a raving anti-Semite so a lot of things he said was nonsense.

I'm not against the Royalty as such today, either, even though I'm against the principle. I think the Royalty now also is against the concept but in a Deistic way too. We owe this to the U.S. though. Britain just hasn't formally dropped this out of the same problem: pride. But technically, if the Queen lost her mind and thought to become demanding, our system is defined to accept this officially. We still treat this 'secularly' okay when we idolize the Disney-like treatment of Princes and Princesses. 

I share the 'simulation' idea. But I'm logically nihilistic (meaning I recognize nature has no favored value to be something  rather than nothing, NOT that we should act without assigning values morally). I'm working on a physics theory that can be derivable from logic with nothing as its initial 'input'. I'm guessing that you hold favor only to the traditional sense, like how I might still have fond memories and value to Christmas with Santa taking center stage? 

 

[Did you know that YHWH is "yeh oveh" which when translated more direct in the Greek at the time is "Je Ovah" which means "I egg" or "the egg", and both, in general, mean "the source", without original religious meaning. It was nihilistic: Given the source comes from absolutely nothing by the time of that scripture, it was considered something "unable to speak of" directly because it was relatively contradictory. This devolved today to mean "that which you are not allowed to speak of"....a taboo or curse, by many!]

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see immigrants being treated badly, people say shit on the internet, but I don't see them saying much to peoples faces.

That's not true.  My racial minority coworkers will get a racist comment from a ticked off white customer every once in a while.  But I would agree that most of the racism is unsaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

How is Canada so uniquely discriminating compared to any other state?

I'm taking about Canada, not claiming uniqueness in the world.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't subscribe to some fake country made up Canadian history, I embrace my culture.

Wolfe & Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham.

Brock & Tecumseh at the Heights of Queenston.

Bishop & Barker, Victoria Crosses.

Well what I'm talking about is even most Canadians of British origins have no idea about the people you mentioned above.  How can they even embrace their culture if they don't know what it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well what I'm talking about is even most Canadians of British origins have no idea about the people you mentioned above.  How can they even embrace their culture if they don't know what it is?

That was the Liberals plan.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Contrary to popular Canadian sentiment, Canada is still a monarchy, Canada is still the British Crown.

Canada is not ruled by the Queen of England, we are ruled by the Queen of Canada.  Two separate legal entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Like I'll give you a practical example, I'm watching the Antifa kids getting into a riotous behavior with people, but they are very careful to stick to their rights.

And the cops do not intervene, unless somebody crosses the line, but it's actually quite chaotic, they are getting rowdy and violent, but just skirting the line.

In Canada, none of that would be tolerated, the cops would round everybody up and throw them in jail without further ado

You're saying Canada doesn't have probable cause?  Explain.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art8.html

Quote

 

Because the purpose of section 8 is to prevent unjustified searches before they happen, the default standard is a system of prior authorization. More specifically, the default standard has three elements: (1) prior authorization; (2) granted by a neutral and impartial arbiter capable of acting judicially; (3) based on reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and there is evidence to be found at the place to be search.

...

Thresholds upon which a search may be authorized

"Reasonable grounds to believe" is the common standard in the Criminal Code, and most federal enactments, authorizing a search warrant in Canada.

"Reasonable grounds to believe" and "probable cause" as found in the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution are identical standards (Hunter v. Southam at pages 167-168) and equate with "reasonable and probable grounds" (R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140 at page 1166). "Reasonable grounds" is the equivalent of "reasonable and probable grounds" (Baron at pages 446-447; Morelli at paragraphs 127-8, per Deschamps J., in dissent but not on this point).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Plan for what?  What is the plan?  And its purpose?

Make sure people don't know the history, so the Liberal Party of Canada Propaganda can fill the void. Change the flag, push social history nonsense. The Nazi's did the same thing, the Liberals changed the anthem on top of it.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

And this is why, even though I am British American and I embrace the peoples of the Commonwealth as my people, I still respect the French Ethnonationalist State in Quebec

The Two Solitudes. 

One rule for us, another rule for them

The Queen allows for both

A unified republic cannot.

Why would the queen allow for both but a unified republic would not? 

Quote

Republican English Canada will bring the Confederation down, they just don't realize what they are messing with, because their history was erased, so they don't know the narrative.

What do you mean by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why would the queen allow for both but a unified republic would not? 

What do you mean by this?

Because Quebec would have to sign the constitution. 

Quebec is not signatory to the Canada Act.

The only reason that can be is that Quebec has a direct relationship with the sovereign which doesn't go through Ottawa, the Queen is above Ottawa.

Moreover, English Canada,  in its Progressive moral panic,  is out to criminalize European enthnonationalism.

While Quebec is a French ethnonationalist state fundamentally

That cannot be reconciled in a federation anymore, Quebec will have to leave to remain the free Quebec.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada is not ruled by the Queen of England, we are ruled by the Queen of Canada.  Two separate legal entities.

I didn't say it was the English Crown, it's been the British Crown since 1707 

Canada is British North America.  Canada is British.  The Queen of Canada is British.  Though ethnically she is German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well what I'm talking about is even most Canadians of British origins have no idea about the people you mentioned above.  How can they even embrace their culture if they don't know what it is?

But it's not apathy, Canadians have been indoctrinated to be this way.  

The Liberal plan to appease the Pequistes was to erase British Canada, then it mission creeped into appeasing ethnic minorities.

But that was Canadian history, so they threw the baby out with the bath water.

So now there is nothing,  just a void which the Liberals call the Post National State.

Canadians have no reference point, Canada is what the Liberals say it is and they make it up as they go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're saying Canada doesn't have probable cause?  Explain.

The Liberals are chipping away at it. 

Under the rubric of reefer madness hysteria, they have removed probable cause for the police to stop you in your car.

It was an omnibus bill, so they added some other things

Like the police can now come to your house and search without probable cause nor a warrant

To include taking urine and blood samples

So long as you were driving within two hours before the search.

So now the cops can not only stop you for a search without pc, they can follow you home and wait for you to go inside

Then search your house, no pc, no warrant, so long as they do it before the two hour window is up,

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is the Temperance Lady, all Temperance leads to Hatchetation in the end.

Canada is what the Liberals say it is, and they have control of the judiciary, so they just make shit up as they go.

The Post National State is actually lawless, it's chaos, there's no there there but the arbitrary rule of the Eastern Elites from their Ivory Towers in Toronto.

The Prime Minister can go live on tv, admit to obstruction of justice, which has brought American Presidents down,  but in Canada he has impunity to break the law.

The Liberals can arrest  senior military officers on trumped up charges, just for doing their jobs, which in the real world is called a banana republic.

The Liberals can make lawyers swear an oath to a bizarre Cultural Marxist dogma in order to practice law, which is called totalitarianism.

No matter who you vote for, you can't vote the Liberals out, because they are the Elite Consensus and the opposition is fake.  Tyranny by any other name.

The Liberals are disloyal, the are Americanized republicans, none the less, they are centralizing the broad powers of the monarchy unto themselves.

Inclusive to that is the Indian Act, which renders Canada into a racist apartheid paramilitary police state, but what they do to the Indians, they can do to you to.

In order to insinuate themselves as pretenders to the throne, they had to erase Canadian history and replace it with their own dogma.

Which, again, is exactly what the Nazis did in Germany; Historical Negationism.

Liberal Party of Canada Flag, Liberal Party of Canada Song, Liberal Party of Canada Ueber Alles.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This isn't true at all, obviously you haven't had a lot of personal experience with many Muslims. 

On the contrary. I've had lots. At one point the twin buildings where I lived started taking refugees - mostly Somalis and Lebanese. My building became about 40% Somali while the other became 70%. In fact the riding I lived in had the highest percentage of Muslims in Canada. I had Muslims working alongside of me years ago, too. They were nice enough, easy to get along with. But I never thought I knew their inner thoughts or what kind of people they were when not working.

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is like saying if you wear a yamaka then you must think the world is only 4000 years old and you hate homosexuals.  Sure some do but a lot don't, it's a stereotype

No, it's the actual tenets of the religion they profess devotion to. Judaism and Christianity went through reformation periods where they cast aside the barbaric interpretations of their holy texts. Islam never did.

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I work with a guy who is Muslim, he won't ever eat pork, but he's literally one of the nicest and most trustworthy people i've ever met in my life and doesn't hate anybody.

Yeah, well, we're back to not knowing the inner thoughts of a person's mind, or how they live their life away from work.

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You have to realize there is a broad spectrum of beliefs with Muslims just as their are for Christians, and younger people tend to be more modern than older people about their religious beliefs,

I know there are 57 member states in the Organization of the Islamic Conference and not a single one treats non-Muslims equal to Muslims and not a single one treats women equal to men and not a single one respects the right of the individual to differ from Islamic teachings. Also, I know from polling that the percentage of Muslim women wearing the Burqa, Niquab and hijab have been growing in Canada, not shrinking . Which does not attest to softening religious beliefs.

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

But most women who wear a hijab in Canada socialize with men, I've talked to a lot of them.  You're generalizing and making statements that aren't factually correct.

We're back to not knowing a casual acquaintance's religious beliefs, which they're certainly not going to share with an outsider. We're back to you believing they're devoted enough to wear a hijab everywhere they go their whole life, but reject all that other stuff about obeying men, about womens place in society, about unbelievers and gays and Jews. I do not share our confidence in this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's not true.  My racial minority coworkers will get a racist comment from a ticked off white customer every once in a while.  But I would agree that most of the racism is unsaid.

Well, in fairness, I said I don't see it "much", so on the one hand you say it's not true, then concede right after that is, since most is "unsaid", but no matter.

People hurl slurs at me from time to time as well, generally I wear their barbs as a badge of honour, as I personally see slurs as being no crime.

From time to time I have demanded satisfaction and buckled a fool for calling me out, but frankly I'm a little old for that sort of thing now.

I will concede that the immigrants I know fall into three categories for the most part, businessmen, military personnel and shady street connects.

I wouldn't say that any of them are anybody's victims and all are perfectly capable of defending themselves without any special protections, and being proud men, they don't ask for any.

Women and children is another matter perhaps,  but I expect men to handle their own shit, and I don't hang out with other peoples women and children, so I can't speak to that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

On the contrary. I've had lots. At one point the twin buildings where I lived started taking refugees - mostly Somalis and Lebanese. My building became about 40% Somali while the other became 70%. In fact the riding I lived in had the highest percentage of Muslims in Canada. I had Muslims working alongside of me years ago, too. They were nice enough, easy to get along with. But I never thought I knew their inner thoughts or what kind of people they were when not working.

If you got to know enough of them closely you'd know you're making broad generalizations that aren't accurate.

Quote

We're back to not knowing a casual acquaintance's religious beliefs, which they're certainly not going to share with an outsider. We're back to you believing they're devoted enough to wear a hijab everywhere they go their whole life, but reject all that other stuff about obeying men, about womens place in society, about unbelievers and gays and Jews. I do not share our confidence in this.

I have close friends who are Muslims, close friends who are Sikh's.  I have a Muslim female friend who doesn't wear a hijab, i have another who does, they both celebrate Eid.  There's also nutters out there that i wouldn't bother associating closely with.  I knew a Muslim woman, very modern, grew up watching Friends on TV, she didn't wear a hijab, then got religious again and starting wearing it on her own accord, and she was fiercely independent and who never let any man or family member tell her what to do. She isn't married either.  So you can't say Muslims who wear a hijab believe X and Y about their religion that has nothing to do with a hijab.  A hijab means sexual modesty, which isn't even a bad thing since there's teenage girls out there in midriffs and short skirts with their boobs out getting preggers at 16.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 1:04 PM, Argus said:

In fact, social trust corresponds more closely than any other factor to predicting economic prosperity. Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and co-authors from a paper titled, Fractionalization, argued that greater diversity leads to stunted economic growth. In other words, diversity is a weakness as far as the economy is concerned.

In 1981 The World Values Survey began an investigation into cross-cultural beliefs, values and motivations, and has since shown that societies with high social trust are not only more economically productive but also happier. The most successful are homogeneous countries, not the diverse ones.

http://archive.is/ulGJ4

If you've ever watched Fox News and CNN cover the same story you can see how easy it is for people with an agenda to dig up "stats", quotes, "supporting evidence", etc to come to whatever conclusion you want. 

I think this topic is as much of a non-starter as when Trudeau said "diversity is our greatest strength". Can't get into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A hijab means sexual modesty,

No.  A woman can dress modestly without having her hair, face, hands and body swathed in fabric that impedes her ability to walk, to move, to hear, to interact with others, to enjoy life.

A hijab is a sexual fetish that caters to men's fragile egos.  There is no reason why a woman should have to go around looking like a walking apology for being female, nor hide that she is female.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goddess said:

A hijab is a sexual fetish

Are you being extreme for effect or do you really believe this?  I find this claim as unreasonable as you find the claim that hijab=empowerment.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

There is no reason why a woman should have to go around looking like a walking apology for being female, nor hide that she is female.

I agree, unless she herself chooses to.  I might not get it, but as long as she's not forced through physical or mental abuse, it's her choice.   Even if my personal opinion is that she's been brainwashed by religion/culture/love, it's not my place, or the government's place, to tell her that she cannot dress how she wishes.  

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

it's not my place, or the government's place, to tell her that she cannot dress how she wishes.  

I agree.  That's why I don't do that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

it's not my place, or the government's place, to tell her that she cannot dress how she wishes.  

It is if he or she is insisting on covering their face for drivers license photos, health card photos, passport photos, and taking oaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...