RE: What Happens, When It Happens? "SHE'll BE RIGHT MATE?" (PART 4)
You were saying:
When policies are based upon religion and not HUMAN RIGHTS then we get a conflict between cultures.
a) those that respect HUMAN RIGHTS
&
b) those that do not.
Immigration should be looked at as a tool to improve the nations well being, not as something to be abused.
& yes, there is a direct order given in "a book" in which invasion by populating (immigration) is to be used as a tool to expand the religious cult, to over rule the governments in those lands and to impose a totalitarian regime based on religion.
So, everything that you are saying here does makes sense, once you look at the facts shown on this map.
The issues in the USA with "racial violence" is probably going to take a long time to fix. Not because one race is inferior to any other, but because the subculture that derived from them being segregated from the rest of society was a logical result.
I personally disagree with the approach of "they will through generations of living here become one with the culture of our nation". You have literally hit the nail on the head with the example from the USA. Even though different in WHY they are forming subcultures, the results are the same. One could compare South Africa and The USA on that topic, but we can all learn from the experiences from both of those countries.
I believe that one of the first cases of this type of situation was in the Roman Empire, Spartacus. Maybe shown as a hero, when in actual fact was the result of people being treated in inhumane ways just because they were of a different genetic makeup.
History sure does have a way of telling us one fact:
Humans will be humans and we shall keep on doing the same old mistakes over and over again.
Your response provides food for thought, and opportunity for challenge. Sorry if my response is a bit delayed. I am not sure what your map is showing... It appears to be in German, and a bit small, so I had to use the browser's zoom function.
If we are looking at human rights, China, North Korea, Stalin's USSR don't fare too well either, and they were not religious in the sense you're referrnig to.
Speaking of human rights, they are largely a religious concept, just as is equality. Of course if you searched the entire universe for morals, human rights, or equality you would not find anything of the sort. They can only exist in our minds, within the context of a civilisation that agrees to them, and enforces them. Human rights are essentially whatever we decide is important, and demand that others protect - and we may have a good case for that, but that's all it is. If today the green party tells you gay marriage is a human right, and in ten years it'll be the right to record any of 56 genders on your passport or driver's license, how could you argue objectively against it? Who's to say what a human right is and what it isn't? Of course some 99% of us will agree on... But yes, there is a meaningful distinction between human oriented societies, and religious, more collective oriented societies.
Re racial violence, I am from a different school of thought, and am not convinced that it is "fixable". I am more from the separatist mindset, and I don't think races should be forced to live together if they do not choose to, and unfortunately in the Western world it has been forced on us all. There should be ethnically homogenous areas, and multiracial areas for those who choose to live in them. Each side could visit the other. That way genuine racial and cultural diversity could actually be preserved in the world, and there would be a guaranteed homeland for each race. I can think of three groups that don't, Tibetans, Palestinians and Western Europeans and their diaspora in the new world. I'm sure there are others but I think you get the point I'm making.
So I do not see how racial segregation from decades past could produce the levels of crime we see with blacks. That has all ended, there has been a black president, decades of integration, school programs, welfare programs, black actors and musicians pasted all over movies and TV, as well as affirmative action policies. You had Japanese in internment camps in WWII and yet there is no violent criminal subculture of Japanese Americans. Japan got the atomic bomb dropped on it, Germany was flattened, and yet they rebuilt to be superpowers within hardly any time at all. So to make that argument you'd have to also look at all the other cases of racial segregation. Not only that but if you look at worldwide violent crime, sub Saharan Africa and South America dominate, as well as PNG: http://chartsbin.com/view/1454 where there are highest proportions of blacks and natives, of course there are other issues like war zones, and deprivation, but there is a definite trend. European and East Asian countries have consistently low rates of violent crime. There is so much research one can do in this area (think HBD), and the resources are out there, you just have to look for them.
Yes, absolutely immigration should be used as a tool to improve a nation's well being, not as something to be abused. Given that immigration policy was not formed by the will of the people, and that we cannot vote on matters of immigration (as of course all of the worlds races have the perfect right to live amongst us in large numbers and eventually outbreed us - were we ever asked?), it is a matter of abuse, and even war by the powers that be against their own people. A lot has been said on that topic by Peter Brimelow (vdare.com), a lot of which I think you will agree with. The problem with being liberal, pro diversity, open borders, is that if you take it far enough, our borders will eventually be filled with people who don't share our values, and we will be a minority. The difference with the way I have come to think, is that culture is an outgrowth largely of biological race, and with some races, assimilation simply isn't possible in large numbers.
If you wanted to take it even further, a bit higher in the controversry department, try www.theoccidentalobserver.net - I'd read it, along with comments, for a good 4-6 months before forming jumping to any conclusions though. So yes, immigration is a cultural weapon, but it's origins are not in reactionary Islam. I actually used to think more like you did a few years back until I discovered Occidental Observer. You'll find strong opinions in the comments section, including I'm sure some you'll find a bit full on at the start, but the comments are moderated, and if you have honest questions or arguments you'll get a fair go.
So that's the crux of the matter, if we want to fight to win, we have to know who we are, who our enemies are, and why the world is the way it is, without compromise - and for that we need the 'whole truth', and full picture of what's going on.