Leftist And Globalist Calls For Multiculturalism Are Nonsensical

A very good "common sense" article based on reality. I think anyone with an ounce of common sense knows what is going on and why. This article is pretty good summary of the situation and the inevitable outcome.

The author has laid out the scenario that in order to achieve a “new world order” system that is rooted in collectivist suppression of individual liberty that an intentional erosion of society is in progress.... designed and being implemented to achieve an outcome which will turn our nations into a world police state.

Does anyone really think all of this chaos being created and the illogical decisions being made by our governments is really incompetence? I do not believe they are this stupid and that yes, there is a plan being implemented to intentionally cause strife and division in order to achieve a very nasty Globalist outcome.

Agree or Disagree?

www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/leftist-and-globalist-calls-for-multiculturalism-are-nonsensical-you-cannot-have-two-or-more-diametrically-opposed-cult ures-within-the-same-society_03202017

alt-market.com...

This is why the leftist and globalist call for “multiculturalism” is nonsensical. You cannot have two or more diametrically opposed cultures within the same society — one of them has to take precedence over all the others. Globalists in particular KNOW this is the reality, and they use multiculturalism as a means to undermine nations specifically built upon traditional sovereign values.

Leftists are in most cases merely useful idiots that promote multiculturalism as a means of “penance.” That is to say, they believe that traditional western culture should be punished for past transgressions and in due course, phased out completely in exchange for a new utopian system.

Both leftists and globalists will often try to argue that if tribalism was not prevalent there would be no ill will between Muslims and Westerners or any other groups for that matter. But, as stated earlier, what they are glossing over is the inevitability of groups separating based on principals. The only way for all groups to coexist in close proximity in the multicultural paradise we are being sold is for ALL value systems to be eliminated except for one. And perhaps that is the point.

Globalists prefer an outcome in which traditional values are erased and replaced with a “new world order” mindset; a system that is rooted in collectivist suppression of individual liberty, where freedom is exchanged for “harmony;” one global tribe worshiping one global god — the state.

This is it and is so easy to see as you said. Multiculturalism is no different than putting a big dog and a cat inside of a pen, or a lion and a gazelle. They do not mix! This plan has been in the works for a very long time it would seem.

Has it hit a critical level yet? In some countries it seems obviously a yes, and is just a matter of time before we start seeing widescale violence here in the U.S. unless something is done, IE travel bans, vetting, etc. for one.

Sooo..

Palastina has to go?

What about Chinatown in New York? I liked that place. But it is an alien culture there.

And man, I like foreign food. Should I stop?
..
.
Sometimes the answers provided are FAR TOO SIMPLE..

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Sooo..

Palastina has to go?

What about Chinatown in New York? I liked that place. But it is an alien culture there.

And man, I like foreign food. Should I stop?
..
.
Sometimes the answers provided are FAR TOO SIMPLE..

I don't see the Chinese blowing stuff up and knifing people, and no one is saying to wipe any culture out. Anyways.. A little common sense would show that society #1, present day 2017 will not get along with society #2, medieval 1500 or whichever era the culture is acting like.

a reply to: infolurker

Hey look! Another thread by a right leaning member where he quotes a right leaning source that strawmans the left! That's totally new and refreshing! /sarc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: infolurker

Hey look! Another thread by a right leaning member where he quotes a right leaning source that strawmans the left! That's totally new and refreshing! /sarc.

Yes, the article addresses your objection:

Globalists seek to irritate existing divisions and trigger chaos between groups because ultimately, they want to demonize the very concept of tribalism and make way for a one world ideal that fits THEIR agenda.

Leftists are decidedly less self aware on why they fight so hard against tribalism. They see cultural division of any kind on the part of the west as inherently evil. Ironically, when it comes to so called “victim groups” like Muslims, social-justice warriors will argue that their aggressively divisive behavior is off limits to criticism because you have to be “from that culture to understand it”. So, tribalism on the part of designated victim groups is beyond reproach, and tribalism on the part of westerners is a cancer that must be eradicated.

To reiterate, leftists love tribalism initiated by those they consider victim groups. They only hate tribalism when it is initiated by conservatives and the traditional western middle class. The double standard is evident.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Same could be said of a left leaning member where he quotes a left leaning source that strawmans the right! That's totally new and refreshing! /sarc.


Let me know if you have trouble realizing that fact.

Both are equally bad. So stop trying to sound like the morally right person.

a reply to: infolurker

Yep that is the textbook example of a strawman. Thanks for proving my point.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Sooo..

Palastina has to go?

What about Chinatown in New York? I liked that place. But it is an alien culture there.

And man, I like foreign food. Should I stop?
..
.
Sometimes the answers provided are FAR TOO SIMPLE..

Wow, you guys really need to actually read the article. here is your answer:

Liberty proponents like myself would point out that there is an underlying principle within natural law that could solve many of the problems that arise between groups with differing world views without sacrificing everything to join a one-world collectivist hive mind. That rule would be the “Non-Aggression Principle.” To summarize, the non-aggression principle holds that no person or group has the right to impose their beliefs or will on another person or group. The only time force of action is warranted is in self defense and the defense of innocents.

If a society was to operate by the rule of non-aggression, and people were to abide by that rule, then most groups and cultures could live peacefully. For the people who do not abide, removal from that society or nation would be necessary.

This is the intrinsic advantage of tribalism in its purest form; tribalism allows us to discriminate against groups with destructive principles and behaviors, or against those that have different objectives. Some divisions are useful divisions. This allows for a group with shared goals to accomplish those goals without constant internal obstruction or sabotage. As long as the non-aggression principle is adhered to, tribalism is the ideal system.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Same could be said of a left leaning member where he quotes a left leaning source that strawmans the right! That's totally new and refreshing! /sarc.


Let me know if you have trouble realizing that fact.

Both are equally bad. So stop trying to sound like the morally right person.

Um... Ok. And? I haven't posted any strawman threads were I pretend to speak for the right, so how about you stop your baseless accusations right now?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Same could be said of a left leaning member where he quotes a left leaning source that strawmans the right! That's totally new and refreshing! /sarc.


Let me know if you have trouble realizing that fact.

Both are equally bad. So stop trying to sound like the morally right person.

Um... Ok. And? I haven't posted any strawman threads were I pretend to speak for the right, so how about you stop your baseless accusations right now?

I didn't say YOU did I? You must be guilty of something since you all of a sudden made this conversation about you! Unless its the biased liberal coming out of you...

I made that statement generalizing all left leaning members, maybe not you but you did the same thing in generalizing a group of people making this very statement.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
I didn't say YOU did I? You must be guilty of something since you all of a sudden made this conversation about you! Unless its the biased liberal coming out of you...

I made that statement generalizing all left leaning members, maybe not you but you did the same thing in generalizing a group of people making this very statement.

So in other words it is just partisan attack on the left with no baring on the conversation at hand. Got it. I'll ignore you going forward.

a reply to: infolurker
That is a biased interpretation from a right-leaning site. Do you really think that this is worth a reply?

Because simply said, this lumps all kinds of not-hating-aliens-people in one lump together, even if they have so very different goals in mind.

It is like left vs. right in Germany. The ultra-right-wing: hates everything foreign. The ultra-left: some are in it bc they hate the right, some are just in it for chaos, some are hating the police and governmental forces, some are in it bc they don't like their teachers/parents/judges.

I always see the stupid ultra-left (which are usually far from being "communists) as a very diverse group, and you can't tell the motivations in one person by looking at another person in this part of the political spectrum.

Yet, you can do it with the right. They hate everything foreign. Their motives are just so flat and dull, you have to wonder how they can manage to not drop over their feet while chewing bubblegum.. Okay, this was a stereotype.

But the far right is far less diverse than the far left. So your article is going too simple to give actual answers.

a reply to: infolurker

Please tell me you know the multiculturalism agenda has been pushed upon the US since the late 1970's. It started with the Immigration Act of 1965, pushed by leftists and designed to quell immigration from Europe and to open immigration from the rest of the world. They preached multiculturalism and diversity at me when I was in school in1979. By the 1980's, when I went to meetings at an oil company I was working for, speakers were graded on how many times they said the words multiculturalism and diversity in the course of a speech. I mocked them in meetings when randomly throwing out the words entirely out of context.

Its done dude, its over. Thats one reason the country is so screwed up, no shared values, no sense of community and instead of a melting pot, you got a salad bowl of different tribes all hating each other.

All you can do now is withdraw to a rural part of the country your tribe dominates and get a concealed carry license. Talking about it is pointless........its a done deal.

a reply to: infolurker

So which cultures are diametrically opposed to each other? I think that provided you can respect the laws of the land that trumps the issue of what culture you practice. Amazingly your post sound a like the 70s Pan Afrikanist movement!


Under US law what are you going to do with American nationals with different cultures that have sworn allegiance to the USA?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Typical response from someone that cant take criticism when its due. You just shut people down and assume your opinions are always right. If that isnt a typical liberal i dont know what is. Either way your loss. Moving on

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Typical response from someone that cant take criticism when its due. You just shut people down and assume your opinions are always right. If that isnt a typical liberal i dont know what is.

You're damn right I'm going to shut someone down for lumping me into a group attack on the left that I'm not guilty of doing.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: infolurker
That is a biased interpretation from a right-leaning site. Do you really think that this is worth a reply?

Because simply said, this lumps all kinds of not-hating-aliens-people in one lump together, even if they have so very different goals in mind.

It is like left vs. right in Germany. The ultra-right-wing: hates everything foreign. The ultra-left: some are in it bc they hate the right, some are just in it for chaos, some are hating the police and governmental forces, some are in it bc they don't like their teachers/parents/judges.

I always see the stupid ultra-left (which are usually far from being "communists) as a very diverse group, and you can't tell the motivations in one person by looking at another person in this part of the political spectrum.

Yet, you can do it with the right. They hate everything foreign. Their motives are just so flat and dull, you have to wonder how they can manage to not drop over their feet while chewing bubblegum.. Okay, this was a stereotype.

But the far right is far less diverse than the far left. So your article is going too simple to give actual answers.

OK, the author has laid out the scenario that in order to achieve a “new world order” system that is rooted in collectivist suppression of individual liberty that an intentional erosion of society is in progress.... designed and being implemented to achieve an outcome which will turn our nations into a world police state.

The argument has been presented... Do you disagree? What do you consider untrue?

Do you really think all of this chaos being created and the illogical decisions being made by our governments is really incompetence? I do not believe they are this stupid and that yes, there is a plan being implemented to intentionally cause strife and division in order to achieve a very nasty Globalism outcome.

Disagree?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Typical response from someone that cant take criticism when its due. You just shut people down and assume your opinions are always right. If that isnt a typical liberal i dont know what is.

You're damn right I'm going to shut someone down for lumping me into a group attack on the left that I'm not guilty of doing.

Stop generalizing the right then. You have no right to do so even if you were right on point. You can try but it isnt fact

a reply to: infolurker

Liberty proponents like myself would point out that there is an underlying principle within natural law that could solve many of the problems that arise between groups with differing world views without sacrificing everything to join a one-world collectivist hive mind. That rule would be the “Non-Aggression Principle.” To summarize, the non-aggression principle holds that no person or group has the right to impose their beliefs or will on another person or group. The only time force of action is warranted is in self defense and the defense of innocents.

If a society was to operate by the rule of non-aggression, and people were to abide by that rule, then most groups and cultures could live peacefully. For the people who do not abide, removal from that society or nation would be necessary.

This is the intrinsic advantage of tribalism in its purest form; tribalism allows us to discriminate against groups with destructive principles and behaviors, or against those that have different objectives. Some divisions are useful divisions. This allows for a group with shared goals to accomplish those goals without constant internal obstruction or sabotage. As long as the non-aggression principle is adhered to, tribalism is the ideal system.

I think I need more coffee.....I agree with that ⬆️ But the article in its entirety sounds like they think left leaning is bad, but that above is left leaning and it's good.
It actually sounds very Canadian....but I know that no one wants to hear that.

I need to re-read the whole article again 😕