The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims

I want to address Western xenophobia in general in this post, in the context of post-colonial anxiety. I will be using America as my main example, and Canada as a secondary example. I hope that this post is useful to you readers. I know that most ATS members will try to troll me hard, but I want to pre-empt them by saying; I am already dancing on your graves.

Now that ATS' immigrant-hating season has ended and its Muslim-hating season has begun, I feel free to post about colonialism without getting drowned out by dozens of "MEXICANS TUK MEH JERB" threads. With this short preface out of the way, let's dive into it. Why do Americans fear 'Mexicans'?

In my previous message from the mothership, Arizona and the Human Rights Movement, I described the way that the illegal immigration issue is going to turn and gave a brief outline of the historical processes that it was fulfilling. Much to my delight, my prediction has all but come to pass. Before any conservatives ask, yes, I am a commie terrorist Mexican and I hate America. [Note to serious, open-minded readers; this is sarcasm directed at the small-minded goons that have harassed me in previous threads because I dared to tell them the truth. This thread is about those goons.]

Most Americans are unaware of the history of the US southwest. They have a vague understanding of it; they remember the Alamo, certainly, but not much leading up to or following it. It is in the context of this historical ignorance that Americans fall prey to the more vile elements in their society, which promote their vile apartheid views through the media, disguised as concern for American jobs. I cannot give a detailed history here, but I can give the willing reader some context of the Mex-American conflict.

It is ironic that ignorant Americans bitch and moan about illegal immigration and the "slow invasion" of America. They do not remember how Texas was settled. American colonists were welcomed into Texas in 1822, but further immigration was banned in 1830. What did the Texians do? The very same thing that modern Americans fear Latin immigrants will do. They held conventions demanding that Mexico alter its laws and its constitution to suit the few hundred American settlers in Mexican lands. When the Mexicans refused to abandon their own political goals to suit the Texians, the impudent Americans declared revolucion.

When Americans demand that the border be enforced, what are they really asking for? They are not demanding that a natural boundary be enforced. The US-Mexico is not like the Rocky Mountains or the Rio Grande. A vast stretch of it is an artificial boundary set up to divide Mexico into two parts. The northern part, occupied and governed by the United States of America after the Mexican-American War, and the southern part, occupied and governed by the United States of Mexico. What Americans are asking for when they demand stricter border controls is not the protection of America against Mexico. They are demanding that America continue to keep Mexicans out of their own backyard.

If they knew the historical context of their demands, would modern Americans change their mind about border policy? Would they decide to re-open the border and restore Mexican access to their north? I think that we can confidently say, no, they would not. Most supporters of strong borders and opponents of immigration do not really care about democratic values. They do not care about human beings and their rights. They are fascists who only care about preserving their own rights and privileges.

Allow me to explain. They do not care about human rights. If they did, then they would guarantee freedom of mobility to Mexican migrants who just want to work. If they did, then they would not say that the security of the USA comes before the rights of 'Mexicans' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Americans were actual democrats in the spirit of Jefferson and Franklin, then they would not be willing to sacrifice liberty at the altar of Security.If Americans were democrats, they would sacrifice their security for the liberty of all mankind. They would have faith in humanity and they would trust their neighbours to respect them and their rights.

Instead, most Americans are more like our friends [adversaries] here on ATS. Let us look at a few examples. Neo96 is a user here on ATS that leaps to my mind. He is a strict legalist; it doesn't matter if an action violates someone's rights or not, if it defies the LAW then it is BAD. Is this kind of slave morality appropriate in a democracy? Is it appropriate to say that actions should be arbitrarily banned in a society of free persons? Neo96 is also one of the thousands on ATS that thinks it is a fantastic idea to surrender liberty for a *potential* boost in public safety and security. Why are laws necessary? Because Neo96 is one of the millions of Hobbesians that hide in our democratic societies and pop their heads out to remind us that without the coercive force of laws, men are nasty, brutish, and their lives short.

Now, I don't want to pick on Neo96, nor do I want to pick on America. This legalist-nationalist ideology is not confined to the slave-moralists of the USA. It belongs to the slave-moralists of every colonial regime. It is the ideology of oppressors that have lost their masculine bravado and find themselves surrounded by their former slaves. It is the ideology of those who were once colonial masters and now find themselves obliged to treat their one-time inferiors as equals. It is the ideology of those who once found their racism, bigotry and xenophobia mirrored and reinforced everywhere in society but now find themselves forced to live in a humanist, democratic society.

Let us take Canada as an example. At one time, Canada was a strong nation. In the second world war it boasted one million soldiers out of a population of eleven million. But, do not be fooled into thinking that they fought against anti-semitism and the Holocaust. Popular histories of the war far too often simplify it, as if it were a crusade by absolute libertarians against absolute dictators. Canada was one of the White Dominions. Its multiculturalism is an extremely recent and on-going development. Its 20th century policies on race are best encapsulated by this quote from Prime Minister King in 1938: "We must seek to keep this part of the continent free from unrest and from too great an intermixture of foreign strains of blood." Its policies on race are best demonstrated by its active and vigorous eugenics policies. Combined with the residential school system, Canada followed a policy of deliberately exterminating aboriginal culture.

Fast forward to today. Illegal immigration is an important issue in Canada as well, but it is not as concerned with Latin-American immigration as the USA is. Canadian xenophobes alternately hate and fear Asians. My Canadian-ATS example is this thread. Read it and discover how intolerant Canadians are of foreigners, and how willing they are to find some excuse to deny them access to this country. Read it and discover how Canada can continue to perpetuate crimes against humanity under the guise of multiculturalism.

Under the guise of multiculturalism? Yes, these Canadian xenophobes are somewhat different from their southern counterparts. They pretend to care about the plight of foreigners only because the appearance of cosmopolitanism is the only source of Canada's international prestige. In reality, most Canadians loathe cosmopolitanism. My prime example is Toronto, hated across the country. Toronto's population is 49%+ foreign born. I do not feel the need to further substantiate the hatred of Toronto. Instead, I will provide the first-hand testimony of a user named 'lowball' (scroll down). Does this anti-cosmopolitanism remind American readers of Republican loathing of every major US cosmopole?

The common thread here is, as I said above, colonial dominion. Canada, America, Britain, France; these are all countries with immigration 'problems' and they are all countries with colonial histories. What binds together conservatives from all of these colonial countries is their fear that those nations that they once enslaved are going to come back with a vengeance and colonize Euro-America. They all fear that their democratic state mechanisms will actually be exercised; that people born in foreign countries will gain control of America through entirely legal means. This is the essence of Republican fears about immigration. It is not about jobs. It is not about drugs. It is not about rights or liberties. It is entirely about keeping the Mexicans in their place and keeping them OUT. It is wholly anti-democratic. It is wholly anti-humanist. It is only one step above apartheid; immigrants are fine as long as they are in such small numbers and they are so assimilationist that they pose zero threat to the status quo. That is the popular Republican message, that is the popular conservative message across the First World.

Why is this attitude appearing now? I will give a glib response. It is because the people of these nations, which were once master moralists, have acquired that precondition for all slave moralities. They have become sick, weak, impotent and old. It is time for them to die off or get better, but they stubbornly refuse to do either. They cling to the past, to what once worked but no longer works. They resist the inevitable. Like almost every ATS member, they fight the future, and they will lose.

It is up to you to fill in the 'blanks' in the above paragraph.

These exact same arguments are exactly applicable to the case of Islam v. the Western World.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


You are making it more complicated that it really is. The real reason illegal immigration, and uncontrolled immigration from those countries and cultural domains is frowned upon is apparent when we look at a map of the world GDP per capita and happiness:

www.econguru.com...

thejunction.net...

More advanced societes will be hurt by large scale immigration from less advanced ones.

reply to post by Maslo


I don't see how your statements fit together. Are you saying that people from countries low on the GDP or Happiness indices are going to bring their unhappiness and their poverty with them when they come to America? If that is the case, then why hasn't the West been destroyed by the centuries of immigration waves from poorer countries? Why didn't the Irish, German and Ukrainian settlers in 19th Century America and Canada destroy those countries and their prosperity? Why didn't waves of Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians and other Asians in the 20th century destroy those countries and their prosperity?

An answer that I have encountered often in the past is that it takes time to accommodate or assimilate immigrants, and that too many immigrants arriving at once will overthrow the status quo. This is a presumption that is usually, or perhaps always associated with the claim that immigrants are a drain on national and public resources that do not give anything back to society. It is also associated with the claim that a wave of immigrants will change the cultural [a word used by conservatives as a euphemism for racial or ethnic] make-up of the country. This latter argument is precisely what I have discussed in the opening post; it is the fear that America will be colonized by non-Whites and non-Europeans, and that White Europeans will have to follow the cultural norms of other peoples. It is a fear held by people who think that immigrants should conform themselves entirely to the cultural norms of White Europeans. It is the hypocrisy of the colonist who always has the unconscious knowledge of their precarious situation.

The claim that immigrants will ruin the economic well being of the country is also nonsense. Capitalism demands a constant inflow of cheap labour, especially if they have little knowledge or experience of labour unions. The longer a family is in America, the more well acquainted it becomes with the various humanitarian, socialist and labour movements that can benefit them as labourers. The longer a family is in America, the more they feel entitled to dignity and rights and a fair wage. This is the primary reason that 'Mexican' immigrants can "steal" American jobs; American workers have too great a knowledge of their inherent worth as human beings, and too great a knowledge of the legal resources that protect their human dignity. Without a constant inflow of cheap labour, how are capitalists supposed to compensate for the Labour movement?

The fear of foreigners somehow contaminating the west with their poverty and unhappiness is a cover. It is a fear that is agitated by the media, that is aggravated by 'think tanks' with political agendas, that is promoted by politicians and pundits. Even if it has some grounding in reality, the fact of the matter stands; it is a fear that is used to push nationalism and segregation of the world's people. It is a fear that is the vanguard of global apartheid, a fear that motivates the violation of every human being's rights. Address that.

FandS
One thing that I don't see discussed much is the globalist agenda at work here.

Do any of these peoples make the rules for immigration in the countries they are entering?
Nope they do not.
So for the locals to blame the immigration on the immigrants...
It was the host country's governments that allowed the people in...
What drove them out?

Why hasn't Obama or Bush before him closed the border?
Geez Bush even threw Ramos and Campian, the two border guards, in jail for doing their job
Who let the muslims into France, the muslims?
Why are these people leaving their homes ?

Because the globalist agenda is driving them out
Blaming the victims of that is just wrong I think
Blaming the peeps in the host country isn't right either...

The globalist governments and corporations, and the military industrial complex, and the media, are all making this happen.

INHO
More important to examine the agenda behind it all
thats where the danger lies

PS the residential school genocide is a real sore point with me
it really illustrates what the government and the churches are all about

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

If that is the case, then why hasn't the West been destroyed by the centuries of immigration waves from poorer countries? Why didn't the Irish, German and Ukrainian settlers in 19th Century America and Canada destroy those countries and their prosperity?

The US was more economically and culturally advanced than the original immigrant countries only for cca 50 years (since WW2), and the gap was never that wide like it is now. Also, asian and european culture is far more similar to the standard western culture than african or muslim one.

This latter argument is precisely what I have discussed in the opening post; it is the fear that America will be colonized by non-Whites and non-Europeans, and that White Europeans will have to follow the cultural norms of other peoples. It is a fear held by people who think that immigrants should conform themselves entirely to the cultural norms of White Europeans. It is the hypocrisy of the colonist who always has the unconscious knowledge of their precarious situation.

Colonial years and slavery are long gone. Do you think we should now pay for the sins of our grandfathers and allow us to be colonized to level the karma? I dont think so.
Yes, people are afraid they will have to follow the (clearly inferior and barbaric to our western standards) cultural norms of immigrants if they fail to assimilate and become influential. I dont see any hypocrisy there, its logical, and its about culture, not race or ethnicity.

The claim that immigrants will ruin the economic well being of the country is also nonsense. Capitalism demands a constant inflow of cheap labour, especially if they have little knowledge or experience of labour unions.

The prices clearly show what market needs - the cost of cheap unqualified work is already very low, so low that it approaches the value when even paying basic needs becomes difficult, and supply/demand ratio is still rising. With automatization and scientific advance it will become only worse and worse. Why would we need to flood the already oversaturated unqualified work market with more people? They will only cause unemployment to rise.
Capitalism does not need a constant inflow of cheap labor, exactly the opposite - the most needed labors come with the best salary, demand increases prices, not the other way around.

The longer a family is in America, the more well acquainted it becomes with the various humanitarian, socialist and labour movements that can benefit them as labourers. The longer a family is in America, the more they feel entitled to dignity and rights and a fair wage. This is the primary reason that 'Mexican' immigrants can "steal" American jobs; American workers have too great a knowledge of their inherent worth as human beings, and too great a knowledge of the legal resources that protect their human dignity.

Yes, people in civilized society know their dignity and rights. But that is a good thing, which immigrants can undermine. Or do you think its somehow bad? Why?

Without a constant inflow of cheap labour, how are capitalists supposed to compensate for the Labour movement?

By employing domestic unemployed people (which the US has plenty of) and automatization.

It is a fear that is the vanguard of global apartheid, a fear that motivates the violation of every human being's rights. Address that.

Since when is moving everywhere you want basic human right? Where is it in the declaration? Just as you can restrict other peoples right to enter your house, people can decide to do the same for country. You cannot keep someone from LEAVING a place (that is imprisonment), but you can freely prevent others to ENTER your place, that is perfectly compatible with human rights.

reply to post by Maslo


The colonial years are not gone. Colonialism continues to this day. It is committed by Western-educated citizens of third world countries. They continue to participate in their native societies and governments, but they do so in the manner of Europeans. They are the Trojan horses of colonial empires that have gone underground and obscured their activities around the world. The problems of colonialism are more relevant than ever because of the hidden nature of colonial power.

I don't know if you read many anti-Muslim or anti-Immigrant screeds here on ATS, but the old colonial xenophobias have gone underground as well. They are repackaged and resold to the paranoid masses of Colonists by their beloved, infallible demagogues [read: demigods]. The ideologues at the centre of it all are aware of the colonial implications of their rhetoric. They are aware of what their followers will do when they are given their sanitized racism. They are deliberately encouraging this underground racism, this barely-obscured xenophobia. They feed talking points to millions of slumbering Americans, including many active on ATS. Examples are here, here, here, all throughout this thread, this thread, et cetera ad infinitum.

Why is the fear of colonial retribution a bad thing? Because if immigrants successfully reform American culture and law (and that is an enormous if; the establishment is racist because it is run by a handful of aristocratic families, most or all of them European) then it will be democracy in action. Why do American conservatives oppose this? Because they are opposed to democracy. Democracy is fine, as long as it works for them and them alone. Point and case; The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.

You would do well to remember that this conflict is not really about culture. Most vocal critics of other cultures are not, in fact, criticizing those cultures. They are criticizing some snippet of it that they absorbed through the media, which was portraying it in a particular light. It may have been a positive or a negative portrayal; that does not matter. What matters is that they are incomplete portrayals. What matters is that these conservatives are basically attacking caricatures and stereotypes and accusing all members of a 'culture' of obeying those caricatured versions of themselves.

I put culture in quotes here because the caricatures are almost universally racist, islamophobic, or otherwise bigoted. They do not show you the ethnic and cultural diversity of different nations. They show you ONE example of a culture or ethnicity from that country, and they present it as if all people from that territory belong to that one culture or ethnic group. We may make the distinction between culture and ethnicity in our discussion here, but the vast majority of Westerners, conservatives in particular, conflate the two. They are underevolved anti-humanists that still think of the world as divided into races or tribes or 'nationalities' as well call them today, in our sanitized colonial language. Do not be mistaken by the words they use. These people are racist, tribal thinkers, plain and simple. They are not suited to a modern democratic state.

The greatest apartheid of all is the system of nation-states itself. This is the idea that a government should correspond to nation, to a specific heredity, and that this government should be pinned down to a specific territory. Essentially it is a political system in which the world is seen as a patchwork of races that must be separated from each other by borders and separate political regimes.

I do not care to respond to the economic claims. Past immigration waves have demonstrated that capitalist countries have a bottomless demand for cheap labour and that those already living in a capitalist society are too savvy to even want to labour. LABOUR IS SUFFERING AND NO SELF-RESPECTING MAN SHOULD WILLINGLY SUBMIT HIMSELF TO IT.

edit: P.S. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all persons have the right to leave and return to their country. Where are they to go when they leave their home country, but another country? They have the explicit right to travel to other countries.


P.P.S. Before I forget, the point of this thread is in the middle of this post. The opposition to immigration, the opposition to ISLAM especially, is extremely anti-Democratic and Anti-American. This opposition throws out several basic human rights, basic values of the Revolution; freedom of expression; freedom of religion; freedom of conscience; freedom of movement; the right to the pursuit of happiness and more. The opposition is more akin to Mussolini and Hitler, the great fascist nationalists [read: racists] than to Jefferson, the great democratic humanist.

I'm realy not afraid of other races. I come from a decent city and in decent citys the crimes are committed by all races.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

The colonial years are not gone. Colonialism continues to this day. It is committed by Western-educated citizens of third world countries. They continue to participate in their native societies and governments, but they do so in the manner of Europeans. They are the Trojan horses of colonial empires that have gone underground and obscured their activities around the world. The problems of colonialism are more relevant than ever because of the hidden nature of colonial power.

I dont consider people with western culture who already live in third world countries since the days of real colonialism and exercise they democratic right to influence their society bad form of colonialism. Unless you want to claim that black people already legally living here are also colonialistic. Otherwise you wont be consistent.

You seem to use "colonialism" as some universal evil-world. Ask yourself, why exactly was colonialism bad? It was because europeans wanted to rule the third world countries with absolute power, rape the countries of their resources without adequate free market compensation, and use non-white persons for slavery and generally threat them as subhumans. NOT because they spread western inventions and civilized culture, that was a good thing.
Do different modern more cultural varieties of it share the same qualities that made it bad in the past? Or do they share more of the good qualities? What happened for example in Zimbabwe, when the government stopped these western "neo-colonialists" and redistributed their farms and land to native population with not so western culture? The net effect was very bad - that means the cultural "neocolonisation" was good for the country.

They are aware of what their followers will do when they are given their sanitized racism.

Rejecting immigration because of the clearly inferior and incompatible culture and education level of the immigrants and not because of their race or color is NOT racism. Stop that political correctness doublespeak. RACism is about RACE, not culture or location. When we say we dont want unrestricted immigration because of the negative sociologic and economic effects, not because of the race if the immigrants (we are indifferent to that), its by definition NOT racism.

Because if immigrants successfully reform American culture and law (and that is an enormous if; the establishment is racist because it is run by a handful of aristocratic families, most or all of them European) then it will be democracy in action.

And when people decide they want to limit immigration, suddenly it would be not democracy in action? And "western educated" people reforming third world societies (which you consider evil colonialism remnant) dont do so democratically?

You would do well to remember that this conflict is not really about culture. Most vocal critics of other cultures are not, in fact, criticizing those cultures. They are criticizing some snippet of it that they absorbed through the media, which was portraying it in a particular light.

Our media are almost univerally propagating political correctness, endless tolerance and multiculturalism propaganda, and scream "racism" at anyone who dares to oppose the pseudohumanistic multi-culti crap.

Noone sane would suggest that all or even overwhelming majority of members of different cultures share those negative traits. But statistically, it is true that they are far more prevalent than here. This is a fact, not snippeting or media manipulation. Barbaric practices like cruel punishments, stoning, gender inequality, absence of secularism, honour killings etc. are undeniably more prevalent in those cultures. Also see this. As you can see, its not isolated opinion of a few extremists, significant portion of their population holds these views.

The greatest apartheid of all is the system of nation-states itself. This is the idea that a government should correspond to nation, to a specific heredity, and that this government should be pinned down to a specific territory.

I do not support the idea of nation states, I support the idea of citizen states, that is anyone can come and become a citizen of a given state even regardless of ethnicity, IF he fulfills the conditions required to do so, set and agreed upon by current citizens. If one of the condition is posessing a certain ethnicity, living for a certain time as a registered non-citizen immigrant, or not immigrating from a certain area, or having IQ above 100 and playing ukulele, if its agreed upon by democratic way, they have full right to demand it from their guests who want something from them. Just as you can decide that you wont let people who cannot play ukulele or any other criterion you see fit into your house, and people who want to step on your private property must respect that, or dont move to your place. Country-house analogy.
As for your last point, yes I think government should have jurisdiction only over (be pinned down) to a specific territory. Is there any other way which wont cause chaos?

Regarding past immigration into the US:
en.wikipedia.org...

From 1492 to second half of twentieth century, the majority of immigrants were members of the same or very compatible culture (europeans, asians), and were more or at least comparably advanced culturally, economically and regarding education as domestic population. Also, automatization was in its infancy and economy needed large amounts of even unqualified work.

This is all different today, we have completely unprecedented situation now. The new immigrants are members of very different culture, and are clearly inferior to domestic population in all abovementioned aspects. And demand for unqualified manual work that would otherwise provide economic opportunities for these people is also suddenly very low and rapidly falling due to automatization (for the first time in history). The analogy of past immigration is flawed on many levels.
Tell me, what history teaches us - what happened when large amounts of culturally inferior people began to migrate into culturally different and more advanced empires? The western world is walking the path of Roman empire, overrun by the barbarians.

edit: P.S. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all persons have the right to leave and return to their country. Where are they to go when they leave their home country, but another country? They have the explicit right to travel to other countries.

Country-house analogy. Banning (unjustified) imprisonment also does not mean that private land owners rights to restrict access into their property are nonexistent.

reply to post by Maslo

You are making it more complicated that it really is. The real reason illegal immigration, and uncontrolled immigration from those countries and cultural domains is frowned upon is apparent when we look at a map of the world GDP per capita and happiness:

You missed a couple
1. Many of the" illegal immigrants" are drug runners or other criminals.

A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence....

Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records – including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers....
borderissues.us...

2. It is hard not to resent the immigrant you trained to do your job after you are fired and they take your job from you. It is hard to see a friend replaced by an immigrant. Look at the computer industry and the construction industry. May of these higher paid jobs in both industries are now being done by immigrants while Americans flip burgers or work for Walmart.

3. Why should I an American have to learn a foreign language to get along in my own country? My LEGAL immigrant grandparents worked hard to become Americans and made sure their children WERE Americans and integrated into American society.

The "Politically Correct" attitude that a foreigner has MORE rights than a citizen is not only very irritating it is down right dangerous:

Eight Steps To Destroy America

...Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: (First) ;"Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' ...
www.rense.com...

reply to post by crimvelvet


Good points. Especially the quote:

History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' ...

QFT.

SmedleyBurlap: I noticed you advocate globalisation and global "superstate" or one world government where borders would perish. It is a noble idea (if it wont be run by the Illuminati ), but some very important points should be met before that, otherwise it will be doomed to become a disaster from the start:
1. The great economic and educational differences between different locations of the world must be leveled.
2. All people and cultures in this superstate must agree on at least basic human rights and cultural values - declaration of basic human rights, gender equality, secularism, moral values etc.

Even after the creation of the superstate, local people should have some local governments and degree of autonomy. You cannot decide wisely about problems and affairs on the other side of the earth, certainly not like people living there.

Untill this happens, its better for the humanity to have states and borders than risk turning the western world to a third world country.

reply to post by Danbones

...The globalist Agenda.....

One of the problems in Mexico that is never mention is what the USA and NAFTA did to the Mexican people.

2002: Effect of US policies and NAFTA on farmers in USA and Mexico:

Between 1995 and 2000, the prices US farmers receive for corn declined 33 percent, 42 percent for wheat, and 34 percent for soybeans. No wonder that since NAFTA went into effect 33,000 small farmers in the US have gone out of business— more than six times the pre-NAFTA rate.

In Mexico, the price farmers receive for corn has plummeted 45 percent At least 1.5 million farmers have left their land. 900,000 people leave Mexico's land every year, a U.N. program says. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% - from 2.3 million to 575, 000 www.globalexchange.org...

Once the Ag cartel forced Mexican farmers off the land and used ultra cheap American corn to hook the population they dramatically raised the prices causing food riots, and record earnings for Monsanto and Cargill the grain traders.

2007:

How the rising price of corn made Mexicans take to streets

Mexico was ablaze in late January. Just two months after the election of Felipe Calderon as Mexico's President, protests had broken out across the country.

Thousands of people were marching on the main cities calling on their pro-free trade businessman President to halt a phenomenon threatening the lives of millions of Mexicans.

In their hands the protesters clutched cobs of corn, the staple crop that makes tortillas and for many of Mexico's poor the main source of calorific sustenance in an otherwise nutritionally sparse diet.

Over the past three months the price of corn flour had risen by 400 per cent. Despite being the world's fourth largest corn producer and a major importer of supposedly cheap American corn, millions of Mexicans found the one source of cheap nutrition available to them was suddenly out of reach.... www.independent.co.uk...

Much of what is going on around the world can be laid at the door of the greedy banker/corporate Cartels who have no problems killing people through starvation if it means another dollar in their pocket. If you dig deep enough you will usually find the dollar and a banker at the bottom causing the problems.

(Financiers control 85% of Monsanto stock)

I see one major flaw in your arguments. What you are arguing for, essentially, is a one-world government. Only by establishing a global governance can the artificial lines you mention be erased. As long as there are non-global governments, there will be a need for immigration policies.

I for one do not support a global government. The reason is that I recognize variations in culture that still separate the human race. As an example: in my culture, beef from cattle is considered a dietary staple, yet in other countries cows are considered sacred and may not be used for meat. I would consider the act of eating a dog or cat abhorrent and a last resort to survival; some countries use them for meat animals regularly.

None of these differences make any of us wrong, nor do they make us right. They are cultural differences.

Most people are very comfortable with cultural idiosyncrasies in their own culture, and do not wish to change. As a result, since I also believe the natural state of mankind if freedom, none of them should be forced to change. There is no legitimate reason to change the sacred status of cattle in India, just as there is no legitimate reason to outlaw beef in the United States. Both cultures are equally legitimate; both sets of laws are equally legitimate. But that legitimacy applies only to their respective cultures.

Whenever someone chooses to change counties, they also make an implied decision to change cultures. It would be ludicrous of me to visit India, to continue my example, and demand that I be allowed to slaughter cattle. Such would be an atrocity to those who live there and cherish the culture. Likewise, it would be ludicrous for someone from India to demand that Americans pass laws giving cattle a sacred status. Each set of laws is appropriate for their respective cultures and no others. As such, it would be burdensome and inefficient to even attempt to retain cultural identities under a global government. Such a government can not exist as long as people are allowed to be themselves and celebrate their heritage. A global government can only work well if there only exists one single culture among all people.

Language itself is a part of this cultural identity, to the extent that even within the United States there are massive cultural and linguistic differences form one area to another. Some areas of the Northeast and some areas of the Southeast have such strong dialects as to make communication between them extremely difficult, despite the fact they both speak English. As base languages differ, this discrepancy increases. There are hundreds of languages still in use around the globe today, not counting regional dialects, and as long as this is the case, a global government cannot exist and neither can unrestricted immigration.

That is the foremost complaint about illegal immigration: the attempt by some to enforce their cultural norms on another culture. If an immigrant attains US Citizen status legally, that is an implied acceptance of the fact that they are accepting the cultural change. If someone enters the country and does not do so legally, that is an implied denial of the same. My state is historically and primarily made up of an English-speaking population; therefore the official language should be (and is, in a de facto sense) English. I expect those who come here to stay to be able to communicate in English, just as I would expect to be required to communicate in Spanish if I were to move to Mexico. I expect those who come to my state to reside indefinitely to abide by the laws that have been established around my culture, just as I would be expected to abide by Mexican law were I to move to Mexico. I do not demand a private rejection of their native tongue, nor complete fluency in mine, but I do expect a wholehearted attempt, which will typically allow for communication.

That is not hate, nor is it xenophobia. That is simple common sense and fairness.

A secondary but related complaint is the crime that comes with unrestricted immigration. Without some form of control over who is crossing the border, no country can have any hope of protecting its citizenry. Those entering may have long infamous criminal backgrounds and tendencies which are unknown to the law enforcement here. That is obviously not applicable to every illegal immigrant, yet it is applicable in the sense that a country's population demands and expects some measure of protection from crime. Even if only one out of a thousand illegal immigrants is infamous... a murderer, for example.... it is still a risk to the population of the country accepting open immigration, and a risk that they should not be forced to accept over some sense of globalism.

999 immigrants who do not commit a murder do not justify the one who does.

Another concern is economical. A country, any country, can only hold so many people. The first choice of living in a country does and should go to those who have lived there and accepted (or even embraced) the culture of that country. To allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter makes resources scarce for all. There are only so many jobs, only so much infrastructure, only so many schools. It makes no sense at all to expect those who are a part of a culture to reduce their standard of living for those who do not accept (and even try to change) the established culture.

Those who state theories such as you have done are typically hiding another motive. Of course, in your case, that motive is not hidden. It is that you hate the United States culture, as you state in the OP. The easiest way to remove a culture is to dilute it to the point that it can no longer function, then remove it with different cultural laws and restrictions.

This is the problem I have with any illegal immigration, be it from Mexico, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, or Mars. I am happy with my culture and I do not want it to be taken from me. I am happy to share my state with immigrants from anywhere, as long as they are happy to accept that they are the ones who moved here; I did not go there. It was their decision, and as such it is their responsibility to adapt to my culture, not my responsibility to adapt to whatever cultural norms someone wants to bring with them.

As a southerner, I pride myself on Southern Hospitality. Yet, that hospitality does not extend to someone who visits my home and tries to paint my kitchen purple. it does not extend to someone who comes to visit and demands ribeye steak instead of black-eyed peas, potatoes, and cornbread. It does not extend to someone who comes to steal or to harm myself or my family. In those situations, I will kick the visitor out. To accomplish this, I retain the right to refuse to let certain people enter my home... and that decision as to who can and cannot enter is mine and mine alone.

What you support is akin to trying to force me to allow anyone who wishes to enter my home, steal my belongings, harm my family, and force my every action. The answer is no, I will not do so. Some time back, in a survival thread, a poster mentioned simply taking a few vegetables from a garden to survive, or hunting on land without knowing who owned it. My response was that was a good way to get shot for little, when all one usually has to do is knock on the door, say "I'm hungry", and probably receive a full meal and as much food as they can carry with no risk to life or health.

What I tell you now is that my culture is indeed such: I will defend myself vigorously against a thief who does not ask nor acknowledge my ownership of my land, and gladly aid those who do. I will not change my culture as long as I live here. I will expect those who come here to adapt to it. Now, if you wish to define such as 'hate', then so be it. I call it 'respect'.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Now that ATS' immigrant-hating season has ended and its Muslim-hating season has begun, I feel free to post about colonialism without getting drowned out by dozens of "MEXICANS TUK MEH JERB" threads. With this short preface out of the way, let's dive into it. Why do Americans fear 'Mexicans'?

I would award 10-stars for this blurb alone!

Well done

reply to post by Maslo

Noone sane would suggest that all or even overwhelming majority of members of different cultures share those negative traits. But statistically, it is true that they are far more prevalent than here. This is a fact, not snippeting or media manipulation. Barbaric practices like cruel punishments, stoning, gender inequality, absence of secularism, honour killings etc. are undeniably more prevalent in those cultures. Also see this. As you can see, its not isolated opinion of a few extremists, significant portion of their population holds these views.

Here we see European chauvinism, the root cause of the horrors of the era of European colonialism, laid bare. Who are you to say that Europe is 'civilized' and everyone else is 'uncivilized'? Who are you to say that the practices of non-European peoples are 'barbaric'? America is the only 'civilized' nation that still practices capital punishment. Are Americans barbarians because they follow a violent practice that has no place in your culture? I will hazard a guess and say that no, they are not uncivilized. Capital punishment has a reasonable, logical justification in the minds of many Americans. It is a part of the American idea(s) of justice, law, and order, and in the context of these ideas it is absolutely justifiable, though it is debatable.

The same goes for honour killings, stoning, arranged marriage, polygamy, theocracy, tribalism, modesty [burqas and niqabs etc], gendered division of labour and so. These practices are not inherently bad. They make sense within the context of the cultures in which they are practiced, they are useful, perhaps even necessary practices for maintaining and propagating the ideals of that culture. These practices may not work in a modernist European context [you may be surprised by how terribly many 'barbarians' and anti-secularists live amongst you] but they do work in their native context.

And the criticism can go both ways. European society discourages family, clan and tribal associations. If someone promotes the welfare of their relatives in business or politics or school or any other field, they are called nepotists and corrupt. From the perspective of a tribal society, this is barbarism; this is the breakdown of the extended and nuclear family, necessitated by the laws of democracy. When family and tribal unity are the underlying sources of unity in your society, why would you agree with European anti-family values?

The presumption that Europe is in some way superior to other cultures is a presumption that only makes sense within European culture. To an Indian, European culture may seem distinctly dangerous to their well-being, and they could just as well say that their own culture is superior to European culture. Neither of these presumptions are universally true, because both of them are true only within the cultural context that spawned them. To enforce one culture against other people as if it were the universally best culture is wrong.

P.S. I agree that Western-educated Africans, Asians, Latin Americans etc should be allowed to participate in their home country's government, but I still think that their Western-based education is Euro-chauvinistic and that it perpetuates the crimes of colonialism.

P.P.S. The barbarians were invited into Rome, often as mercenaries. The Roman Empire fell because the slave population had grown too large, and traditional Roman martial values were upheld by landowners, who had a direct stake in the success of the Roman State.

reply to post by crimvelvet


This is a response to your quote regarding bilingualism. I have one strong and obvious counter-example.

Since the Quebec Act of 1774, French culture in Canada has been protected under Anglo-British law. The first French-Canadian Prime Minister, Wilfrid Laurier, was elected in 1896, 29 years after the confederation of Canada. Six of 22 Prime Ministers have been French Canadian. In 1969, the parliament under PM Trudeau passed the Official Languages Act, which made bilingualism the official policy of the federal government. In the 41 years since, 3 French-Canadians have been elected PM (four, if you include Trudeau again).

I know that the above is biased. It shows how Canada has succeeded at bilingualism, but ignores the two referendums on Quebecois independence. I should note here that the popular push for Quebec independence has waned. So, there is at least one example of a stable bilingual country.

It is NOT America's duty (nor Canada's, for that matter) to be a provider of jobs to people around the world who want a better life. We can't even do that for some of our own CITIZENS.

Just because the government of Mexico can't get their # together, doesn't mean the US and Canada hve to suffer the repercussions, and provide jobs, social services etc.

These people need to look at reforming their nation and it's problems, instead of fence hopping in droves.

And honor killings and stonings are not inherently bad? A man will kill his own daughter because of some imagined slight on his 'honor', and that's not bad? That's called moral relativism, and it's the biggest crock of # ever espoused.

reply to post by Darkrunner


What are you, a communist? It's not the state's duty to provide jobs to anyone, not even its own citizens. This is not the USSR.

A job is a task that someone needs or wants to have done. If there are millions of tasks that private citizens want completed and Hispanic migrants are ready, willing and able to do them, why should private citizens turn down the opportunity to hire them? Oh, it's not fair, it's not fair that private citizens would rather hire cheap, good labour that can't talk back to them or unionize than hire self-entitled, loudmouth Americans and Canadians. Suck it up and face it. The job market is first come, first serve, and if you don't have a job, it is nobody's fault but your own.

reply to post by TheRedneck


This is all well and good and pragmatic, but you seem to me to be taking the short view on immigration. Certainly, some immigrants must adopt Anglo-American cultural norms and learn English just to survive in this country. That doesn't make it necessary for all of them. Once a migrant community is established, it becomes easier for new migrants to live in this country without learning English and without learning too many new cultural norms. If they want to leave the immigrant enclave then they will need to adapt a little bit, but it is not necessary for them to make too many concessions. In the long run, most migrants eventually adapt to their new environment to the point that they can operate beyond the migrant community with some success.

I say that concessions must be made on both sides. So what if Chinese immigrants do not assimilate into your culture? They are now citizens and they should be respected as such. They have certain freedoms of expression and you cannot enforce your culture on them just because it would make things more efficient for you and yours. Even if they are not citizens, they still possess those rights. Practical pressure will motivate them to adapt or assimilate, at least in part; perhaps they will assimilate more or less completely due to pressure from xenophobes and monoculturalists. It is up to them to evaluate their normative and material cultures and decide what to keep, what to reject, and what to adopt. This is how assimilation tends to work, regardless of government policy; even when an assimilation policy is in effect, it discourages immigration and encourages immigrants to take their cultures underground or to translate them into Anglo-American forms.

In the long view we can see the breakdown of boundaries between cultures. If Chinese immigration to the First World continues, as political trends in China suggest it will, then Chinese communities will not fully assimilate for many years. They may do the opposite; they may become increasingly Chinese and more resistant to assimilation. This doesn't mean that the West will turn into a patchwork of 'cultures.' In the spaces between 'American' and 'Chinese' communities, something new will emerge. Those immigrants that are willing to assimilate because they desire greater participation in American society will adopt American norms and material. Those Americans friendly and sympathetic to their new Chinese neighbours will adopt Chinese norms and material. Culture is not tied down to nation or government, as you seem to suggest. Culture is not a discrete entity with a well defined boundary. I imagine culture to be like a house built of bricks; each individual brick is a custom or an object that, assembled in a certain arrangement, makes up the house of 'Chinese' culture. Of course, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of specific normative and material cultures under the umbrella term 'Chinese culture.' There is an unlimited number of ways in which customs and objects can be arranged to create new cultures. There is an unlimited number of possible customs and objects to choose from.

What I see in the long view is a Euro-American 'culture' that takes in new 'bricks,' new components of culture from around the world at an increasing pace. What I see is the further decay of Euro-American exceptionalism and chauvinism as the younger generations come into possession of an increasingly international culture. What I see is the total breakdown of all boundaries, of all discretion, and the perpetual re-assembly of humanity as a whole.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I say that concessions must be made on both sides. So what if Chinese immigrants do not assimilate into your culture? They are now citizens and they should be respected as such. They have certain freedoms of expression and you cannot enforce your culture on them just because it would make things more efficient for you and yours.

I do make a concession: they are allowed to come here.

If that sounds harsh or selfish, remember that I did not go to their country; they came to mine. Just the same as if you were to come into my home, I have already shown you some concession by allowing you in the door. That is the extent to what I should be required to show you in that example. If you do not like my home, you are free to leave it and visit someone else or return to your home. You do not have the right to change me or my home to suit you.

If a Chinese immigrant does not assimilate into my culture, the culture they chose freely to enter, then that, sir, is a show of disrespect towards me. I do not return respect for disrespect. If a Chinese immigrant enters my country legally and makes an attempt to assimilate, that is a show of respect and I will return respect for respect.

That is the fatal flaw in your argument. You speak of respect for the immigrant, but ignore the disrespect shown the indigenous citizens by the immigrant. You place the playing field on its side rather than leveling it when you do this.

Also, remember that I am not forcing my culture on anyone, nor do I intend to nor will I attempt to do so. It is not their culture. It is mine. The immigrant has chosen to immerse themselves in my culture. I will accept that choice, probably even welcome them; however I will not accept an expectation someone may (and according to news reports, does) have to be catered to and pampered wherever they may decide to go.

It doesn't work that way; never has and never will. If one wishes respect, they show it as well.

They may do the opposite; they may become increasingly Chinese and more resistant to assimilation. This doesn't mean that the West will turn into a patchwork of 'cultures.' In the spaces between 'American' and 'Chinese' communities, something new will emerge. Those immigrants that are willing to assimilate because they desire greater participation in American society will adopt American norms and material. Those Americans friendly and sympathetic to their new Chinese neighbours will adopt Chinese norms and material. Culture is not tied down to nation or government, as you seem to suggest. Culture is not a discrete entity with a well defined boundary.

While I will agree that culture does not follow the strict geographic boundaries that define nations, it is inherently tied to national interests. All laws are the result of cultural expectations. As I mentioned before, India considers cows sacred; I, in the USA, consider them food. That is a cultural difference that has created the formation of two nations with opposing legal systems on that subject. I would imagine that in some nations bordering India, there are also countries where cattle are legally protected, but not to the extent they are in India itself. this is what you describe: the slow shift between cultures across national lines.

This is the very purpose of nations. Each one defines an area of land where a particular culture exists. Were there no differences in culture, there would be no need for differing laws and regulations and thus no need for nations. But cultural differences do exist, and the only way they can co-exist is for all, all, I repeat ALL cultures to have access to an area they can call home.

This place where I live, on a mountainside in Alabama, is my area I call home. It is where those of my culture reside; one could say it is where my culture itself resides. If I disagreed strongly enough with this culture, I am free to move to another area where I feel more comfortable. But when I make that move, I also have to understand that I am leaving my culture and adopting a new one. I have to expect that there will be a period of readjustment when I am struggling to understand and adapt to the new culture I chose to adopt. I cannot expect the area I move to to change its culture to accommodate me, for if it did, what would be the benefit of my moving there?

I expect the same from others. Not more, not less, just the same.

TheRedneck

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Here we see European chauvinism, the root cause of the horrors of the era of European colonialism, laid bare. Who are you to say that Europe is 'civilized' and everyone else is 'uncivilized'?

Definition of civilized:

Having a highly developed society and culture. 2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
or
having a high state of culture and development both social and technological.

All qualities that define the term "civilized" are present more in the western societies than in the less developed countries. Therefore western countries are more civilized.

The same goes for honour killings, stoning, arranged marriage, polygamy, theocracy, tribalism, modesty [burqas and niqabs etc], gendered division of labour and so. These practices are not inherently bad.

From our western cultural POV, they are. So we have every right to restrict them and those who promote them from entering our "house", or if they enter, demand them to adjust. Just as they have every right to for example restrict infidels from entering their country if they decide to do so, and if our people enter their country, they must obey their rules or face the consequences.

You do not consider stoning bad? What culture do you adhere to? Or are you not a cultural person?

I fail to see how the fact that cultures are relative somehow implies they suddenly should not matter at all for those who subscribe to them.
If anything, it says every culture has equal rights, including equal right to protect itself from other wanting to disband it.

When family and tribal unity are the underlying sources of unity in your society, why would you agree with European anti-family values?

I wouldnt. I would probably fight against that if western world wanted to impose this values upon my society by mass imigration (not peaceful promotion and education) too. But western world has exactly the same right if the situation is reversed.

The presumption that Europe is in some way superior to other cultures is a presumption that only makes sense within European culture.

Of course. And your culture, at least in basic human rights, is not european or western? Dont you live in western country?

To enforce one culture against other people as if it were the universally best culture is wrong.

Exactly. Invasion of the different cultures homecountry (immigration against the will of the majority) is also enforcement.

I agree that Western-educated Africans, Asians, Latin Americans etc should be allowed to participate in their home country's government, but I still think that their Western-based education is Euro-chauvinistic and that it perpetuates the crimes of colonialism.

Yet you somehow dont consider exactly the same process as western colonialism in the past happening now criminal, even when you are now part of the threatened culture.

The barbarians were invited into Rome, often as mercenaries. The Roman Empire fell because the slave population had grown too large, and traditional Roman martial values were upheld by landowners, who had a direct stake in the success of the Roman State.

We are in exactly the same situation. The foreign and domestic "slave" (cheap unqualified laborers) population is growing too large (indicated by the price of said work falling almost below the value required for basic standard of living) to be utilized by the economy, and in addition, automation is for the first time in history greatly hastening the process. That means higher number of unemployed, less taxes collected, more money required on welfare, and so on. Downward spiral.