Octo, I'm rather intrigued by whence you stumbled across your array of knowledge when it comes to Marxism and politics in Britain. Don't get me wrong, some of what you said was good, if some of it totally unoriginal and lacking thought - especially on that whole Cultural Marxism episode you spoke highly of as an example of 'coining' the term racism as un-eponymous to itself.
I'd like a list of what books were you reading when you wanted to place that mask of culminated artificial knowledge on that face of yours. Your thoughts are as dangerous as a proletarian wearing the mask of an academic and trying to give a history lesson on politics, socioeconomics and morality.
Haha. I'm sorry if I come across as trying to be some academic authority, I'm not. Just someone who sees through the lies built into society.
Yet you think my thoughts are dangerous, that says it all. Just go on and say it, I'm guilty of thoughtcrimes.
Dr Snakeman said:
Look, excluding people from your country because you think that them being different will somehow "taint" your culture is a bad thing. If someone wants to live somewhere else, and intends to abide by the laws of their new country, to immigrate legally, and to contribute to society, then they have every right to do just that. Saying that you don't want them because you think they look funny is wrong. No exceptions.
No, no it isn't. Cultures and civilisations are
not blank slates which should be some sort of free-for-all. First of all, they have accepted, commonly spoken indigenous languages. In the United Kingdom, that's English, Welsh, Gaelic, and a few minor languages. When nationals of another country, with another language, immigrate here in large numbers and continue to speak their native language in their own communities, they invariably change the landscape, creating a language barrier to the indigenous people. This is harmful to community cohesion, because you have considerable portions of the population who cannot understand one another. It is acceptable when this happens on a small scale within major cities- small enclaves such as Chinatown for instance, can be a haven for those Chinese who do not wish to speak English more fluently. Yet when this happens on a national scale, it is almost always divisive. It places an unnecessary burden on society in terms of translation costs and loss of community. There can be several different languages coexisting within a country, as is evident in bilingual Wales, though even this creates conflict. Imagine what would happen, then, if we let another million or so Arabic-speakers in with the freedom to speak primarily Arabic. They place a burden on society to speak their language or become mutually exclusive. How would you like it if thousands of people swamped your previously English-speaking neighbourhood with a completely foreign language that you cannot understand, with no intention to learn fluent English? Would you not rightly feel like your community or local area had been invaded or otherwise externally changed? Relative linguistic homogenity is essential to community cohesion. You don't get this sort of local community in cities anymore, only non-English speakers do in their enclaves.
So, a shared language is one requirement of a stable, cohesive national culture.
Then there are cultural values, traditions, etc. Social aspects of culture demand that people have a reasonably shared sense of social etiquette. This minimises conflict between strangers, and facilitates trust. Etiquette can be considerably different between culture regions -- and indigenous people may rightly feel aggreived and offended when someone comes to their country and does not respect certain basic social tenets and understandings. When we go abroad, we are told to abide by local customs at the very least. It should be even more important for people who intend to immigrate to a country. The more people who come to a country and disregard the pre-existing culture, the more social cohesion and trust decrease, and the more people - both indigenous and immigrants - will feel alienated.
The burden should be on the immigrant, not the original inhabitant. You would never go to China and expect a warm welcome if you adopted rude behaviours now, would you? You'd just be another rude foreigner - and with unchecked mass immigration, that's a lot of rude foreigners deciding to permanently reside in the country on a large scale. Some immigrants may indeed respect local customs, but a large portion of others will not unless they are strongly pressured to do so. Local culture needs to be assertive or it will be displaced and weakened by a mish mash of foreign cultures. It just
isn't the same country if millions of foreigners come and don't integrate with the indigenous culture to an expected degree. People shouldn't be expected to surrender their national or cultural heritage in its entirety, but the principle remains the same. If it's going to impose upon local cohesion and make the indigenous peoples feel unwelcome, or change the character of the local community considerably, it should not be allowed. Cultures do change healthily and naturally, but by the will and self-determination of insiders, not relative newcomers.
Oh, I have plenty more to say about this later, but I'm going to cut it short for now.
