Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
whoa! almost compete in this country..
links in article at site
SNIP:
Peter Goodchild
Before multiculturalism and diversity became the dogma of our times, before the 1970s, socialist parties and labor federations across the Western world opposed unrestricted immigration because it lowered wages and threatened labor union solidarity. Today, by contrast, socialists and leftists in general, are vocal supporters of immigration.
For a socialist today all criticism of immigration is "victimizing the poor." Any genuine evidence of the harm caused by the importation of cheap labor to native workers is simply overlooked. One cannot convince a socialist of the lack of logic in their beliefs. Socialism is not a rational stance; it is merely a projection of an "underdog" self-image.
Leftists in the past had a strong sense of wrong and injustice; the difference today is that socialists hate their own culture and their own national heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame about the wrongs imperialist Europeans inflicted on the world, and a whole host of other wrongs such as the slave trade and the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants in British Columbia a hundred years ago. Their sense of moral outrage comes with self-abasement. They have low cultural self-assurance, no pride in their historical past and very low self-esteem as an ethnic group.
Once that sense of low cultural self-esteem has become fixed, all else follows. One must believe that sharing the wealth is more important than protecting ones native workers and environment from unchecked mass immigration and urban sprawl, although such sharing would only create universal poverty. If the entire world's income were put into a large pot and redistributed so that each person received exactly the same as everyone else, the result would be universal poverty. If all farmland were redistributed evenly, there would still not be enough farmland for everybody. If I gave a billion dollars to the world, each person would receive fourteen cents. And after all such redistributions, the world's population would still be heading rapidly toward another doubling of numbers, so any gains would be negated.
Current European generations must also believe that their own culture is intrinsically guilty of alleged crimes committed by prior generations requiring preferential treatment of current immigrants even though they were not the recipients of those alleged crimes. Of course, that is a belief those other cultures are always happy to agree with. And once that guilt has become established as fact, every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize redress and compensation at all costs. Even entire years are not dedicated to reconciliation for all the wrongs Europeans did to the naturally good non-Europeans.
ALL of it
Council of European Canadians
links in article at site
SNIP:
Peter Goodchild
Before multiculturalism and diversity became the dogma of our times, before the 1970s, socialist parties and labor federations across the Western world opposed unrestricted immigration because it lowered wages and threatened labor union solidarity. Today, by contrast, socialists and leftists in general, are vocal supporters of immigration.
For a socialist today all criticism of immigration is "victimizing the poor." Any genuine evidence of the harm caused by the importation of cheap labor to native workers is simply overlooked. One cannot convince a socialist of the lack of logic in their beliefs. Socialism is not a rational stance; it is merely a projection of an "underdog" self-image.
Leftists in the past had a strong sense of wrong and injustice; the difference today is that socialists hate their own culture and their own national heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame about the wrongs imperialist Europeans inflicted on the world, and a whole host of other wrongs such as the slave trade and the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants in British Columbia a hundred years ago. Their sense of moral outrage comes with self-abasement. They have low cultural self-assurance, no pride in their historical past and very low self-esteem as an ethnic group.
Once that sense of low cultural self-esteem has become fixed, all else follows. One must believe that sharing the wealth is more important than protecting ones native workers and environment from unchecked mass immigration and urban sprawl, although such sharing would only create universal poverty. If the entire world's income were put into a large pot and redistributed so that each person received exactly the same as everyone else, the result would be universal poverty. If all farmland were redistributed evenly, there would still not be enough farmland for everybody. If I gave a billion dollars to the world, each person would receive fourteen cents. And after all such redistributions, the world's population would still be heading rapidly toward another doubling of numbers, so any gains would be negated.
Current European generations must also believe that their own culture is intrinsically guilty of alleged crimes committed by prior generations requiring preferential treatment of current immigrants even though they were not the recipients of those alleged crimes. Of course, that is a belief those other cultures are always happy to agree with. And once that guilt has become established as fact, every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize redress and compensation at all costs. Even entire years are not dedicated to reconciliation for all the wrongs Europeans did to the naturally good non-Europeans.
ALL of it
Council of European Canadians
