White Privilege or just Statistics?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Culture is memetic in nature, steerable but not controlable. Migration is following ressources/wealth...

Migration leads to hybridization of cultures and has always proven to be beneficial.

Albert Pike made some good points about the benefits of cultural melting pots.

The notion that there is a coordinated cultural invasion, is a bit far fetched and has a slightly racist paranoid undertone... I can't prove there isn't but I'm not keen on entertaining the idea without proof either.
the migratory patterns don't imply that happening in any way or form...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Of course. It still doesn't negate the fact that no "race" of people have had such a global chokehold on not just military and economic might, but alao dictated history as well.
Look at a world map, Europe is still center of attention, most of ancient history is also made up by Europeans.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the world is being 'de -europed' right now, and it's an awkward situation.

originally posted by: Terpene

Migration leads to hybridization of cultures and has always proven to be beneficial.

Albert Pike made some good points about the benefits of cultural melting pots.

My original point was Europe went too fast/too much and when you do that you do not get a melting pot as much as pockets of cultures that do not mix. So, in England and other EU countries, you get pockets of culture such as Muslims that do not want to mix with the country's traditional culture and are large enough there is no need. I would not also call it a migration either as that would imply a slower expansion through other cultures with some similarities at the start, and so you get that melting pot scenario. What you all had wasn't a migration and was more of an invasion of cultures extreme to what was local. This can still work unless the numbers are larger than what we would say is a proper absorption rate of multi-cultures melting together.

The notion that there is a coordinated cultural invasion, is a bit far fetched and has a slightly racist paranoid undertone... I can't prove there isn't but I'm not keen on entertaining the idea without proof either.
the migratory patterns don't imply that happening in any way or form...

In America, we legally take in 1.2 million per year. I don't think any other country comes close. With the liberals, they want to keep the border porous and so they see illegals as future liberal voters who live off the Government. Think if England had 15,000 people per day come into your country. They don't speak English have few trade skills and have no way to take care of themselves. In America it is a political tactic, in the EU and England it was just some woke ideals that backfired, as most woke ideals do.

originally posted by: strongfp

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the world is being 'de -europed' right now, and it's an awkward situation.

Europe lost its hold 100+ years ago. I'm not sure what you mean by de-Europe either. Making England less English is that what you mean?

Seems the Chinese are getting into many countries today to "own" them in one way or another. Europe had its run a long time ago, no need to De-Europe anything today.

a reply to: Xtrozero

racism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.

*Britannica

There is no denying that DEI and such is fundamentally racist... It would also be much more effective to punish those that are "privileged" than to support those that aren't...
But alas, we probably dodged racist bullet there...

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are still living in the decay of Roman influence... Europe's influence didn't just go away. I live in a nation technically still owned by a European power.

originally posted by: Terpene

There is no denying that DEI and such is fundamentally racist... It would also be much more effective to punish those that are "privileged" than to support those that aren't...
But alas, we probably dodged racist bullet there...

I see the word "privileged" used more as an expletive or derogatory labeling. It is used by privileged people to suggest other privileged people have more privileges than they do..lol so stupid.

I never seen it used on the world stage. People in India do not call Americans privileged, for example. One needs to be privileged to understand privilege in the first place.

originally posted by: strongfp
We are still living in the decay of Roman influence... Europe's influence didn't just go away. I live in a nation technically still owned by a European power.

Is that bad in some way or is it just history?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Go read my other posts... I'm not going over this again.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I never seen it used on the world stage.

That's not how you do the dividing... Especially not when you are moving on to the gooses you feasted.

I see what you say about the usage of the word. There might be some truth to it's neurolinguistic application.

You need the upper class to hold the dam. The middle class is the sugar coating of a #ty life, because it could be worse. It's motivation and a sense of achievement.

Most don't strive for upper class, as the gap is so big it's hard to achieve. They are also the vast majority that share the smallest piece of the cake per capita. You can't bring down the middle class without backlash but you can make it so they are at the bottom too, simply by raising the bottom.

With three you can maintain the status que with two you can divide and conquer...

originally posted by: Terpene

Most don't strive for upper class, as the gap is so big it's hard to achieve. They are also the vast majority that share the smallest piece of the cake per capita. You can't bring down the middle class without backlash but you can make it so they are at the bottom too, simply by raising the bottom.

With three you can maintain the status que with two you can divide and conquer...

We saw that with communism where 90% of the population was equal, equally poor. There will be forever the upper oligarchy, not going to get away from that, but I don't see them as bad. Some can be bad just as some poor are bad, but overall who creates the jobs?

We also need to personally decide what success means for us. What do you see as success for yourself in life? People keep looking at others and are jealous as what they have, but that is just an immature way to go through life.

I have also said many times, what makes one person rich is peanuts for the masses. I have given many examples of that over the years. I can also have 100 bucks and be richer than billions so the whole 10% has 90% of the wealth really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you look at 8 billion people. We could take 10 trillion from the rich every year until they have nothing left and spread it among the world population and that would give each human 4 bucks a day to live on, so how long can we do that for too, 10 years or less? Money is not a way to measure success and others with a ton of money doesn't really matter in the end when we look for our own personal success in life.

Also, why is middle class a crappy life? I live very good in my middle-class world. I lack nothing, so is that bad?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can't add anything to that post other than 100% correct.
Thank you.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Also, why is middle class a crappy life?

It's only crappy to people who don't appreciate what they have, I think.

I live 60 miles south of Chicago. I see on the news every day that Chicago has become a War Zone. My life could be A LOT WORSE.

But times have changed. My Dad was able to do a lot with the pay from his Union Job. That money doesn't go half as far now.

So I can see why folks in this thread called it "Money Privilege".

originally posted by: GotterDameron23

I live 60 miles south of Chicago. I see on the news every day that Chicago has become a War Zone. My life could be A LOT WORSE.

My friends that live in Chicago tell me it is a very isolated area, and they love living there, so who knows? They are a gay couple and had more concerns about moving to FL for work...lol I told them... Do you know how many gay people live in FL...geez They followed the woke attacks on FL dealing with improper reading material in lower school levels.

But times have changed. My Dad was able to do a lot with the pay from his Union Job. That money doesn't go half as far now.

I'm assuming they are retired now. So yes, your passive income after retirement is less. Mine will be 50% of what I make now, not counting 401k. The deal is as you retire your cost footprint is much smaller too.

If you think about it your mortgage is 1/2 of your pay and SS would be the other half.

If I do the math if one makes 150k they see about 55% of that due to tax, 401k investments etc. That would be 82k in the bank. The lack of a mortgage + SS would be about 72k. Add in pension and/or 401k and you can be better off after retirement.

Raising two kids, both in college, paying gas/insurance/maintenance on four cars, paying medical for four people, feeding four people, living expenses for four people, so on and so forth, and without all that extra expense your retirement expense will be massively lower.

The problem is they could be at a fixed income and the crap that Biden did isn't helping those in that situation.

Someone has to have control or you end up with competing groups who end up turning on each other in pursuit of power. We had rule by consensus until the effects of Hart-Cuellar and welfare began tilting the birthrate in favor of the minority groups. Now everyone demands their hand on the wheel at the same time. Not a safe method of driving either.