the climate change scam

[kinglear]

Homeless man admits killing mother and son who tried to help him
Richard Hartley-ParkinsonTuesday
3 Oct 2017 2:10 pm

A homeless man who turned on a family who had tried to help him has admitted murdering the mother and her 13-year-old son. Aaron Barley was taken in by Tracey Wilkinson who fed him, clothed him, gave him housing and found him a job.

But he returned to his life of drugs and turned on Tracey and her son Pierce. Dressed in dark clothing, Aaron Barley went upstairs to murder Tracey Wilkinson and her 13-year-old son – and then waited to ambush her husband, shouting ‘Die you bastard’ as he knifed him six times. Although Peter Wilkinson almost died due to the severity of his injuries, he has a clear recollection of returning home after his early morning walk, the subsequent attack, and overhearing a paramedic say his wife was already dead.

‘I did my normal thing of going out to take the dog for a walk,’ Mr Wilkinson said. ‘I came back and I can remember looking through the window at the back door of the house, thinking that everybody must have overslept because nobody was up. ‘I opened the back door and, as I did it, he jumped out from behind a wall in the kitchen, all dressed in black, with a big knife held over his head and started stabbing me with it. ‘From that point I grappled with him for a short period of time and he stabbed me six times – he stabbed me twice in the face, twice in the abdomen and twice in the back.’ Although Mr Wilkinson feared Barley would continue his onslaught, he instead heard the sound of his 4×4 being driven off the property’s gravel drive.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/03/home...on-who-tried-to-help-him-6973832/?ito=cbshare

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

yeah see that's what your heart is telling you and that's good but we also need to hear what our head is saying

there was a couple in the news in the UK in recent years who took a homeless guy off the street into their home to try and help him. he stole from them and then murdered them

Unfortunately those things happen and it's horrible that an act of kindness resulted in that but nevertheless people can be murdered by their loved ones too, etc. So, to me, the issue is society and how they e.g. tackle mental health, homelessness, etc. I don't think the issue is showing kindness. Although, I don't think I would bring a homeless person home while in UK so, yes in some areas the way we show kindness needs to be appropriated in a way. Further, I would definitely not bring a homeless person home if I had children because kids learn by our example and who knows maybe one day they would have that fabulous idea of inviting a total stranger to the house while I'm not there.
Anyway, we are off topic. I am sympathetic that some individuals that voted had little to no awareness of the consequences.

 

[Wyote]

yeah see that's what your heart is telling you and that's good but we also need to hear what our head is saying

This is extremely condescending, you poor baby

 

[Lady Jolanda]

This is extremely condescending, you poor baby

Would be about time that we heard what his head is saying. So far his ass has been making his arguments.

 

[Ren]

arguments

 

[Reason]

You can't eat me, I'm Herbert Mooooon!

 

[JennyDaniella]

LOL oh man... I love you guyz.

*group hugs group hugs*

 

[Deleted member 16771]

wow that is a refreshing level of maturity!

what we need to keep in sight here is that behind all these narratives and rhetoric is an IDEOLOGICAL struggle

what is called 'the left' by the corporate media is really not a movement for the people at all. It is corporate socialism which ends up with the capitalist oligarchs in total control

In order for them to achieve their vision for global control they must first smash nation states and the mass movement of people is one means by which they do this. Another means by which they do this is to teach youngsters in university to hate their own country by pushing overly simplistic narratives about history that don't really dig down into the who's and the wherefore's

The aim of this 'critical theory' is to condition (brainwash) young people into hating their country but without ever really thinking in depth about the workable solutions to the worlds problems (and the world DOES have problems)

What the corporate socialists (capitalist oligarchs) do to keep everyone fussing and fighting among themselves is they divide society into competing factions through identity politics and then they teach those factions to use 'political correctness' to silence anyone who questions any of the elites narratives

By doing this they make many people into the unwitting dupes of the elites scheme to enslave humanity under their technocracy

So if you question weaponised (orchestrated) MASS immigration then according to what the elites deem through THEIR media to be 'politically correct' you are a 'racist'

It doesn't matter if you actually really care about the plight of the immigrants but share a different view of what can be done about the situation (eg ending third world debt to the corporate socialists and getting the financiers claws out of their countries)

This then shuts down any nuanced discussion about the IDEOLOGY that is behind this thereby preventing the public from ever being able to have a proper debate about what sort of society they would actually like to have

Hi @kinglear, you raise some interesting concerns here, and I feel obliged to point out that they are legitimate concerns which are rationally explicated.

Of course you know that personally I don't think these things are being orchestrated at a global level by some kind of grand conspiracy - of that you have yet to convince me.

However, you made some points which are pertinent in the light of this meta-debate we're having about censorship and name-calling ('racist', &c.).

On the point about nation-states and mass migration, it's clear that certain commonly held opinions preclude a clear debate on this, because signaled membership of a particular clique is more important than the truth. So we can't typically even entertain questions like:

Are western nation-states worth defending?

Does mass migration threaten the internal stability of such polities?

I think the probable answer to both of these questions is 'yes', and I don't think that means I am a 'racist'. I have experienced actual racism first hand and typically define myself as a leftist.

What genuinely gets to me, though, is a trend on the left which you yourself describe and which has been given the name 'oikophobia': this fear or hatred ow the home or one's own culture or nation.

I understand where it comes from - it's the guilt of imperialism and slavery, &c. Quite understandable, and of course I have engaged in it myself.

However the problem is that it has become the knee-jerk reaction to view everything in this light. To constantly say that 'the real enemy is my own country and its imperialism/&c.' rather than apportioning blame to where it truly belongs.

And the consequence of this is that our institutions which ought to be defended, are not.

For example, it is patently obvious to anyone that the English common law is ethically superior to Sharia. And when I say 'superior', I literally mean that - ask any Saudi woman who has your confidence.

This kind of value judgement makes my fellow leftists cringe, because it seems as if we would therefore be trying to impose or inflict something upon another culture, and we naturally gravitate towards defending the underdog.

It's a noble impulse, but it can blind us into oikophobia and forgetting to defend those things in our civilisation which are worth defending.

 

[Reason]

Hi @kinglear, you raise some interesting concerns here, and I feel obliged to point out that they are legitimate concerns which are rationally explicated.

Of course you know that personally I don't think these things are being orchestrated at a global level by some kind of grand conspiracy - of that you have yet to convince me.

However, you made some points which are pertinent in the light of this meta-debate we're having about censorship and name-calling ('racist', &c.).

On the point about nation-states and mass migration, it's clear that certain commonly held opinions preclude a clear debate on this, because signaled membership of a particular clique is more important than the truth. So we can't typically even entertain questions like:

Are western nation-states worth defending?

Does mass migration threaten the internal stability of such polities?

I think the probable answer to both of these questions is 'yes', and I don't think that means I am a 'racist'. I have experienced actual racism first hand and typically define myself as a leftist.

What genuinely gets to me, though, is a trend on the left which you yourself describe and which has been given the name 'oikophobia': this fear or hatred ow the home or one's own culture or nation.

I understand where it comes from - it's the guilt of imperialism and slavery, &c. Quite understandable, and of course I have engaged in it myself.

However the problem is that it has become the knee-jerk reaction to view everything in this light. To constantly say that 'the real enemy is my own country and its imperialism/&c.' rather than apportioning blame to where it truly belongs.

And the consequence of this is that our institutions which ought to be defended, are not.

For example, it is patently obvious to anyone that the English common law is ethically superior to Sharia. And when I say 'superior', I literally mean that - ask any Saudi woman who has your confidence.

This kind of value judgement makes my fellow leftists cringe, because it seems as if we would therefore be trying to impose or inflict something upon another culture, and we naturally gravitate towards defending the underdog.

It's a noble impulse, but it can blind us into oikophobia and forgetting to defend those things in our civilisation which are worth defending.

Well put!

 

[kinglear]

Unfortunately those things happen and it's horrible that an act of kindness resulted in that but nevertheless people can be murdered by their loved ones too, etc. So, to me, the issue is society and how they e.g. tackle mental health, homelessness, etc. I don't think the issue is showing kindness. Although, I don't think I would bring a homeless person home while in UK so, yes in some areas the way we show kindness needs to be appropriated in a way. Further, I would definitely not bring a homeless person home if I had children because kids learn by our example and who knows maybe one day they would have that fabulous idea of inviting a total stranger to the house while I'm not there.
Anyway, we are off topic. I am sympathetic that some individuals that voted had little to no awareness of the consequences.

lets put this in context

so the context is as we all know here regardless of how much melanin we have in our skin that tensions in society are rising and that certain groups are creating a race consciousness in the public

so originally the left wanted to create a 'class consciousness' in the public to create a 'revolutionary consciousness' so that the working class would overthrow the bourgeousie however when it came to a war between nation states the working class abandoned that struggle and they rallied to the flag

I suggest this is because all humans really want a homeland...somewhere to call home and to feel safe

So prior to the two world wars there had been a lot of communist agitations and its fair to say that jews were central to that but another thread broke off which is zionism

So one thread was calling for a world revolution and the other thread was calling for a jewish homeland. Both of those threads are still existing today. The jewish homeland rejects mass immigration and wants to ensure jewish sovereignty. So zionists work to ensure a jewish state while communists work to ensure that no one else is allowed a homeland of their own

Now it becomes hard to speak factually sometimes because sometimes the facts are not palatable for people but the fact remains that the 10 most safe countries in the world are also some of the least diverse. 9 are white majority countries and the other is japan

The current leftist mantra is that multiculturalism is a moral imperative but there is no evidential proof anywhere in the world that it is the best path to stability and prosperity. In fact there is increasing evidence that it has a destabilising effect

Am i arguing for purely ethno-nationalist states? No but i am discussing the harsh realities of human dynamics. I'm not saying things are entirely black and white but the thing about democracy is that it is rule by the majority and that means that a majority can then legally oppress a minority

For this reason in multicultural societies people are splitting up into tribes that all want to hold the reins of power and they see the way to achieve that as being to make their demographic the largest in the country

so the question is: in this atmosphere of racial politics what happens to the group that ends up the minority especially if they have been demonised by the majority in the process?

I have seen a clip of open border activists in california who decry 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacism' while they themselves are waving mexican flags thereby showing themselves to be mexican nationalists and calling for a reconquista of the americas by brown people thereby showing themselves to be brown supremacists

So i think we need to appreciate that 'supremacists' come in all colours because essentially what is happening is that each identity group wants theirs to be the majority

here watch this clip and listen to some of the rhetoric and ask yourself what happens to white, black and yellow people living in california if brown supremacists take control? Would people that are arguing that they are reconquering lands that belong to them be tolerant of any ethnic groups outside of their own? In fact would they be tolerant of native americans because surely their claim to the land would make them competition in the land rights narrative argument...

 

[kinglear]

Hi @kinglear, you raise some interesting concerns here, and I feel obliged to point out that they are legitimate concerns which are rationally explicated.

Of course you know that personally I don't think these things are being orchestrated at a global level by some kind of grand conspiracy - of that you have yet to convince me.

However, you made some points which are pertinent in the light of this meta-debate we're having about censorship and name-calling ('racist', &c.).

On the point about nation-states and mass migration, it's clear that certain commonly held opinions preclude a clear debate on this, because signaled membership of a particular clique is more important than the truth. So we can't typically even entertain questions like:

Are western nation-states worth defending?

Does mass migration threaten the internal stability of such polities?

I think the probable answer to both of these questions is 'yes', and I don't think that means I am a 'racist'. I have experienced actual racism first hand and typically define myself as a leftist.

What genuinely gets to me, though, is a trend on the left which you yourself describe and which has been given the name 'oikophobia': this fear or hatred ow the home or one's own culture or nation.

I understand where it comes from - it's the guilt of imperialism and slavery, &c. Quite understandable, and of course I have engaged in it myself.

However the problem is that it has become the knee-jerk reaction to view everything in this light. To constantly say that 'the real enemy is my own country and its imperialism/&c.' rather than apportioning blame to where it truly belongs.

And the consequence of this is that our institutions which ought to be defended, are not.

For example, it is patently obvious to anyone that the English common law is ethically superior to Sharia. And when I say 'superior', I literally mean that - ask any Saudi woman who has your confidence.

This kind of value judgement makes my fellow leftists cringe, because it seems as if we would therefore be trying to impose or inflict something upon another culture, and we naturally gravitate towards defending the underdog.

It's a noble impulse, but it can blind us into oikophobia and forgetting to defend those things in our civilisation which are worth defending.

lets consider a few things...

DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENT REVEALS KNIGHT OF MALTA KISSINGER WORKING TO REDUCE FERTILITY IN THE POPULATION:

National Security Study Memorandum
NSSM 200
Implications of Worldwide Population Growth
For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests
(THE KISSINGER REPORT)
December 10, 1974
CLASSIFIED BY Harry C. Blaney, III
SUBJECT TO GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 AUTOMATICALLY DOWNGRADED AT TWO YEAR INTERVALS AND DECLASSIFIED ON DECEMBER 31, 1980.
This document can only be declassified by the White House.
Declassified/Released on 7/3/89
under provisions of E.O. 12356
by F. Graboske, National Security Council
n Section II Action to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline: Population and a Development Assistance Strategy, we see under B, “Functional Assistance Programs to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline.”
Source: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab500.pdf

Sperm counts among western men have halved in last 40 years – study
Reasons for the ‘shocking’ drop are unclear, say researchers, and represent a huge and neglected area of public health
Nicola Davis@NicolaKSDavis
Tue 25 Jul 2017 18.00 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 20.49 GMT
Sperm counts among men have more than halved in the last 40 years, research suggests, although the drivers behind the decline remain unclear. The latest findings reveal that between 1973 and 2011, the concentration of sperm in the ejaculate of men in western countries has fallen by an average of 1.4% a year, leading to an overall drop of just over 52%. “The results are quite shocking,” said Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist and lead author of the study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...40-years-study

Replacement Migration:
Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

 

[kinglear]

look at the racially charged language used by the democrats these days to try and stir up a war in US society along racial lines and how will that end?

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/1/18 [FULL] | Breaking Fox News November 1, 2018

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

lets put this in context
so the context is as we all know here regardless of how much melanin we have in our skin that tensions in society are rising and that certain groups are creating a race consciousness in the public

I personally think that's ridiculous. A melanin shouldn't dictate an individual view of the other. However, I'm not disagreeing that such tension in society exists and that certain groups are creating race consciousness in public. Nevertheless, most people at one time or another have thought that one cannot judge a book by the cover and, have used that argument when they feel judged. So, why can some of the same people allow themselves to judge others by superficial appearance?
Appearance means null because we all will die and honestly, I doubt that people will say or the obituary will contain: 'oh man, that melanin'. Nah, people remember how you made them feel.
Same thing goes with race. Humanity is still learning 'us vs them' - liking and loving certain individuals is all part of social bonding.

so originally the left wanted to create a 'class consciousness' in the public to create a 'revolutionary consciousness' so that the working class would overthrow the bourgeousie however when it came to a war between nation states the working class abandoned that struggle and they rallied to the flag

Dis iz tru

I suggest this is because all humans really want a homeland...somewhere to call home and to feel safe

Yes, fundamentally we want to feel safe - it's important for our own growth. However, the loudest ones are usually afraid.

So prior to the two world wars there had been a lot of communist agitations and its fair to say that jews were central to that but another thread broke off which is zionism

True

So one thread was calling for a world revolution and the other thread was calling for a jewish homeland. Both of those threads are still existing today. The jewish homeland rejects mass immigration and wants to ensure jewish sovereignty. So zionists work to ensure a jewish state while communists work to ensure that no one else is allowed a homeland of their own

True

Now it becomes hard to speak factually sometimes because sometimes the facts are not palatable for people but the fact remains that the 10 most safe countries in the world are also some of the least diverse. 9 are white majority countries and the other is japan

That's correct. Let's take Iceland for example due to low population and easy to track changes: prior, that country wasn't diverse at all. Also, it was pretty much a 2-3rd work country prior to WW, well there was relatively small population of immigrants spread across the country - most notably Serbian, Thai, etc. However!, there was little to non arguments of them being there
So, why were they welcomed there?
Even if there weren't many immigrants they were still measurably noticeable due to low population.
One would say that they were welcomed because Icelandics are very open towards adopting children from racially different countries;
Their history with North Americans;
Becoming an exchange student is very common; Learning 4-6 languages is considered a norm in Iceland which means that from early age they are introduced to different cultures.
Then there is also, that Icelandics can trace their ancestry to far away countries that would be seen racially different.

Further, when immigration started to increase in Iceland increasing number of individuals refused to learn the language - to Icelandics whom are very protective of their language and values.. many became worried that the language would be harmed and started to wonder how other individual values could harm their own overboarded sense of safety.
Every country has 'that thing' that they protect but 'that thing' varies by nation.

So, to make a long story a little bit shorter: I honestly don't think it has got to due with anything but commonalities and perception of some form of safety.
....sorry for the essay but I did a lot of research on Norwegian vs Icelandics vs. UK when it comes to immigration. Although I'm only giving example of the icelandics now lol

The current leftist mantra is that multiculturalism is a moral imperative but there is no evidential proof anywhere in the world that it is the best path to stability and prosperity. In fact there is increasing evidence that it has a destabilising effect

Honestly, I think that it is still moral imperative and actually is the best path to stability and prosperity.. despite the evidence. The evidence can be altered when other components are taken in and other measures taken. I mean, how much does one nation do to assist immigrants to adapt?
Also, taking in individuals from war ridden nations - no matter what race it is but obviously they are going to be suffering from psychological illnesses. I myself have PTSD so, I find it a common sense that certain individuals have a harder time to adjust and, to integrate with the nation.
Therefore, the nations must ensure that it is made easier for immigrants to adjust to it! Usually nations do this: 'yeah, come on over have a little cultural shock and cognitive dissonance. We won't help you though but just don't make a mess! ' THEN once someone makes a mess it becomes so easy to point the finger at them and use race, religion, or the colour of their skin as an excuse.
For me, sadly, I find that looking at how nations rehabilitate their prisoners gives insight into how they sometimes approach immigrants. It's 'us vs them'. Immigrants aren't part of 'us' nor are prisoners. Both belong to 'them'. or, that it has to do with pre-existing 'class'. Yup, I'm not even kidding.

Am i arguing for purely ethno-nationalist states? No but i am discussing the harsh realities of human dynamics. I'm not saying things are entirely black and white but the thing about democracy is that it is rule by the majority and that means that a majority can then legally oppress a minority

True. Minority should yell, kick and, scream for ice cream. But mainly look at ways to stabilise their home.

For this reason in multicultural societies people are splitting up into tribes that all want to hold the reins of power and they see the way to achieve that as being to make their demographic the largest in the country

..

so the question is: in this atmosphere of racial politics what happens to the group that ends up the minority especially if they have been demonised by the majority in the process?

They..hide.. get resentful and then kick and scream for something other than ice cream.

I have seen a clip of open border activists in california who decry 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacism' while they themselves are waving mexican flags thereby showing themselves to be mexican nationalists and calling for a reconquista of the americas by brown people thereby showing themselves to be brown supremacists

I dunno... haven't seen it.

So i think we need to appreciate that 'supremacists' come in all colours because essentially what is happening is that each identity group wants theirs to be the majority

Yeah but those that are loudest are usually afraid. To me, it's just scared people that need a hug.

here watch this clip and listen to some of the rhetoric and ask yourself what happens to white, black and yellow people living in california if brown supremacists take control? Would people that are arguing that they are reconquering lands that belong to them be tolerant of any ethnic groups outside of their own? In fact would they be tolerant of native americans because surely their claim to the land would make them competition in the land rights narrative argument...

This I have a seriously hard time understanding .. every single American that I know is very open and warm. I know.. stereotype, but still. It's true!
How has it dramatically reduced their quality of life? How is US meeting them?
I mean obviously, it does affect but .. why & how? What commonalities need to be recognised? what's different? Pointing at someones skin is easy and lazy.
Even though that chick was preaching that they will 'take control' - why was she saying that? Maybe she meant different control then is perceived? Maybe they fundamentally feel like they are unwelcome and therefore, are trying to force that they become welcomed? I don't know really, perhaps it is the result of the immigration camps that were set up? it's a retaliation against that?. I honestly don't know.
But I do think it's important to come to understanding that each group is simply trying to have a voice and, when people feel like they need a voice they feel threatened. So why does each group feel threatened? what is their 'thing' ?
_________________
People need to find a commonality for them to perceive the other as less of a 'threat'. But what they perceive as a threat varies by nation - a threat to an Icelandic would be the language and a threat to their feeling of (overboard-)safety, UK sums a lot down to governship and, maintaining class-safety, Norway safety for the nation and prosperity, Sweden.., etc, etc.

...maybe it's also a threat against some pecking order? I mean, often when kids start a new school or join a new group of friends they try to stay in that neutral zone, and keep a low profile and then slowly climb the ladder.. I dunno

rant over
edit: I think I'm naive and idealistic when it comes to these things.

 

[Skarekrow]

Forgive me, the 'racist' label was used in another thread ('Vote (or not)'). But let me clarify my objection (and btw, Skare is one of my favourite people, so I say this as something that any right-minded person can engage in, me included).

As @Ren and @Puzzlenuzzle and @Lady Jolanda have pointed out, being labelled a 'racist' is a very serious thing to happen to you in contemporary Western society. It can be career ending, and I can think of very few other terms which have the effect of practically immediate ostracism if they stick.

In the context of a debate, therefore, an ad hominem attack of such magnitude as this can often have the effect of seriously damaging the credibility of the party so labelled whether it is true or not.

We must reflect that it is a powerfully dehumanising label: once it sticks, anything you say or think is ignored, and hence we should apply it to individuals only with extreme caution or certainty.

For example, take the following true statement and reflect how strange it makes you feel:

Sometimes racists make good points

Or what about this:

Sometimes racists make good points, and we should listen to them!

Racism was perhaps the greatest evil of the twentieth century, and we should be right to be sensitive about it, but we have an equal duty to make sure that our civil discourse is healthy and accepting of all sincerely held opinions, otherwise these opinions get driven underground, away from the critical light, and may one day come back to bite us.

So the admonition is a simple one: attack the ideas not the man, because human beings are simply too precious to be discarded and discounted in such ways.

'Erroneous' or fallacious opinions should be argued against, not used as evidence of someone's inherent corruption. Otherwise this democracy we have is farcical at best.

I am a sincere believer in the 'public forum' and in democracy, and perhaps the avoidance of ad hominem attacks, however tempting, however true, is just part of the duty we must exercise in order to uphold these institutions in the long term.

Okay - he is anti-immigrant then.
(was also taken out of context)
Which to me is a racist way of thinking in the way he expressed it.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I personally think that's ridiculous. A melanin shouldn't dictate an individual view of the other. However, I'm not disagreeing that such tension in society exists and that certain groups are creating race consciousness in public. Nevertheless, most people at one time or another have thought that one cannot judge a book by the cover and, have used that argument when they feel judged. So, why can some of the same people allow themselves to judge others by superficial appearance?
Appearance means null because we all will die and honestly, I doubt that people will say or the obituary will contain: 'oh man, that melanin'. Nah, people remember how you made them feel.
Same thing goes with race. Humanity is still learning 'us vs them' - liking and loving certain individuals is all part of social bonding.

Dis iz tru

Yes, fundamentally we want to feel safe - it's important for our own growth. However, the loudest ones are usually afraid.

True

True

That's correct. Let's take Iceland for example due to low population and easy to track changes: prior, that country wasn't diverse at all. Also, it was pretty much a 2-3rd work country prior to WW, well there was relatively small population of immigrants spread across the country - most notably Serbian, Thai, etc. However!, there was little to non arguments of them being there
So, why were they welcomed there?
Even if there weren't many immigrants they were still measurably noticeable due to low population.
One would say that they were welcomed because Icelandics are very open towards adopting children from racially different countries;
Their history with North Americans;
Becoming an exchange student is very common; Learning 4-6 languages is considered a norm in Iceland which means that from early age they are introduced to different cultures.
Then there is also, that Icelandics can trace their ancestry to far away countries that would be seen racially different.

Further, when immigration started to increase in Iceland increasing number of individuals refused to learn the language - to Icelandics whom are very protective of their language and values.. many became worried that the language would be harmed and started to wonder how other individual values could harm their own overboarded sense of safety.
Every country has 'that thing' that they protect but 'that thing' varies by nation.

So, to make a long story a little bit shorter: I honestly don't think it has got to due with anything but commonalities and perception of some form of safety.
....sorry for the essay but I did a lot of research on Norwegian vs Icelandics vs. UK when it comes to immigration. Although I'm only giving example of the icelandics now lol

Honestly, I think that it is still moral imperative and actually is the best path to stability and prosperity.. despite the evidence. The evidence can be altered when other components are taken in and other measures taken. I mean, how much does one nation do to assist immigrants to adapt?
Also, taking in individuals from war ridden nations - no matter what race it is but obviously they are going to be suffering from psychological illnesses. I myself have PTSD so, I find it a common sense that certain individuals have a harder time to adjust and, to integrate with the nation.
Therefore, the nations must ensure that it is made easier for immigrants to adjust to it! Usually nations do this: 'yeah, come on over have a little cultural shock and cognitive dissonance. We won't help you though but just don't make a mess! ' THEN once someone makes a mess it becomes so easy to point the finger at them and use race, religion, or the colour of their skin as an excuse.
For me, sadly, I find that looking at how nations rehabilitate their prisoners gives insight into how they sometimes approach immigrants. It's 'us vs them'. Immigrants aren't part of 'us' nor are prisoners. Both belong to 'them'. or, that it has to do with pre-existing 'class'. Yup, I'm not even kidding.

True. Minority should yell, kick and, scream for ice cream. But mainly look at ways to stabilise their home.

..

They..hide.. get resentful and then kick and scream for something other than ice cream.

I dunno... haven't seen it.

Yeah but those that are loudest are usually afraid. To me, it's just scared people that need a hug.


This I have a seriously hard time understanding .. every single American that I know is very open and warm. I know.. stereotype, but still. It's true!
How has it dramatically reduced their quality of life? How is US meeting them?
I mean obviously, it does affect but .. why & how? What commonalities need to be recognised? what's different? Pointing at someones skin is easy and lazy.
Even though that chick was preaching that they will 'take control' - why was she saying that? Maybe she meant different control then is perceived? Maybe they fundamentally feel like they are unwelcome and therefore, are trying to force that they become welcomed? I don't know really, perhaps it is the result of the immigration camps that were set up? it's a retaliation against that?. I honestly don't know.
But I do think it's important to come to understanding that each group is simply trying to have a voice and, when people feel like they need a voice they feel threatened. So why does each group feel threatened? what is their 'thing' ?
_________________
People need to find a commonality for them to perceive the other as less of a 'threat'. But what they perceive as a threat varies by nation - a threat to an Icelandic would be the language and a threat to their feeling of (overboard-)safety, UK sums a lot down to governship and, maintaining class-safety, Norway safety for the nation and prosperity, Sweden.., etc, etc.

...maybe it's also a threat against some pecking order? I mean, often when kids start a new school or join a new group of friends they try to stay in that neutral zone, and keep a low profile and then slowly climb the ladder.. I dunno

rant over
edit: I think I'm naive and idealistic when it comes to these things.

Even if this is an idealistic view, I don't think your idealism is misplaced, Nuzzles - in the very long term, if Humanity is to survive and thrive, the divisions between people must dissolve into something like trivia.

However, it's the speed at which this is taking place that is troubling to some people, and I think it is probably the case that 'multiculturalism' must be radically redefined for it to work safely.

The good news is that this has been done before. For most of human history, most people have lived in multiethnic empires, subscribing to some common, core 'imperial' culture but maintaining regional variations and distinctions.

The weird thing about the 20th century, however, is that it has largely been one of ethnic disaggregation and not about 'race mixing' at all. The old multiethnic empires were broken up, and these strange, 'artificial' ethnostates were created in their place. Millions of people were moved en masse to conform to the new border situation, and communities which once coexisted peacefully, now feel tensions.

So yes, historically it has been that multiethnic polities were the norm rather than the rule, and that these were the most successful kinds of polities. However this always came with a very important caveat.

Everybody must also subscribe to the imperial core culture.

Why was it that the Jews and Christians were disliked in the Roman Empire? Well mostly that their religion was exclusivist, which pissed off the religiously plural society which harboured them.

In our modern conception of 'multiculturalism', what is missing in ideological (if not de facto) terms is the imperial core culture, and it isn't difficult to see what this core culture might look like in the West (tolerance, democratic spirit, &c.). Let's call this the 'Western Imperial Culture'.

Now, it must be asserted that there are some cultures globally that are simply incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and so far we have been timid in recognising this. The way some sects of Islam (E.g. Wahabism) treat women, for example, is of course incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and yet is tolerated out of what seems purely to be the fear of being labelled 'racist'.

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response.

However, that does not mean that we should be willing to discard a culture which we are all, deep down, protective of. I've called it here 'Western Imperial Culture' simply because we must at some point recognise again its 'imperial' character, and not flinch at that description; must be allowed to say 'democracy is superior to despotism', 'equality is superior to discrimination', &c.

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

Even if this is an idealistic view, I don't think your idealism is misplaced, Nuzzles - in the very long term, if Humanity is to survive and thrive, the divisions between people must dissolve into something like trivia.

However, it's the speed at which this is taking place that is troubling to some people, and I think it is probably the case that 'multiculturalism' must be radically redefined for it to work safely..

How would you redefine multiculturalism? multiculturalism is literally what it is. The way we interact with cultures is the problem. One can redefine whatever there is but the core value and problem will be the same.

The good news is that this has been done before. For most of human history, most people have lived in multiethnic empires, subscribing to some common, core 'imperial' culture but maintaining regional variations and distinctions..

Yeah but what happened before before subscribed to the common? Also, then, people were more punished towards going against the norm. E.g. the head of the empire largely contributed to what the norm was? The view of individuals wasn't the same as it is now. So yes, it has been done before but the context is vastly different even though the problem was the same. Does that mean that the way forward is communism?

The weird thing about the 20th century, however, is that it has largely been one of ethnic disaggregation and not about 'race mixing' at all. The old multiethnic empires were broken up, and these strange, 'artificial' ethnostates were created in their place. Millions of people were moved en masse to conform to the new border situation, and communities which once coexisted peacefully, now feel tensions..

It's not weird at all.

So yes, historically it has been that multiethnic polities were the norm rather than the rule, and that these were the most successful kinds of polities. However this always came with a very important caveat..

....

Everybody must also subscribe to the imperial core culture..

Communism?

Why was it that the Jews and Christians were disliked in the Roman Empire? Well mostly that their religion was exclusivist, which pissed off the religiously plural society which harboured them..

And how did that make the others feel? How did they interact? Did the Jew and Christian try to convert individuals?

In our modern conception of 'multiculturalism', what is missing in ideological (if not de facto) terms is the imperial core culture, and it isn't difficult to see what this core culture might look like in the West (tolerance, democratic spirit, &c.). Let's call this the 'Western Imperial Culture'..

That's ideology. Cultures in the west clash as well and regarding an imperial culture- that's pejorative.
Also, there are deeper layers to 'core culture' also, a culture is just a concept that governs different mindsets, values, norms etc. Further, tolerance and democratic spirit doesn't play out the same way in all western cultures.

Now, it must be asserted that there are some cultures globally that are simply incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and so far we have been timid in recognising this. The way some sects of Islam (E.g. Wahabism) treat women, for example, is of course incompatible with Western Imperial Culture, and yet is tolerated out of what seems purely to be the fear of being labelled 'racist'..

Dynamics are completely different between cultures in the west and, there are also men in the 'Western Imperial Culture' that mistreat women just the same or worse but then, we put a blind eye to that and just compare it to Wahabism. Not everyone in Wahabism mistreats women.

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response..

Not really what I meant though.. I meant that there should be awareness that people from war zones suffer psychologically. Not tackling that will create negative effects and therefore, risk creating more 'racism' and, I mean that in the present tense.
However, there is also the memory of other events e.g. Armenia, Rwanda, slavery etc etc....
There are ptsd in every part of the globe and west surely doesn't have more PTSD then let's say certain parts of Africa or Middle East.

However, that does not mean that we should be willing to discard a culture which we are all, deep down, protective of. I've called it here 'Western Imperial Culture' simply because we must at some point recognise again its 'imperial' character, and not flinch at that description; must be allowed to say 'democracy is superior to despotism', 'equality is superior to discrimination', &c.

Why?

 

[kinglear]

Okay - he is anti-immigrant then.
(was also taken out of context)
Which to me is a racist way of thinking in the way he expressed it.

no i'm not anti-immigrant

what i'm saying to you is that MASS immigration is being orchestrated right now by capitalist oligarchs as a way of breaking down national identity so that they can remould the world into a technocratic society that those oligarchs would control with total power

i don't agree with their ideological view and i'm sure many immigrants wouldn't either if they understood the full implications of where it all leads to

 

[kinglear]

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response..

the holocaust has become a religion

it has memorials peppered across europe and israeli school kids are bussed out to camps in europe

Its been made into this giant thing and no one is even allowed to investigate it. We all know that science can be politicised but so can history. Historians are not even allowed to investigate the holocaust or they are vilified and lose their jobs

We are told a version of events and that's that. I was taught about that at school but i was not taught about the genocide of tens of millions of russians that occured before and alongside those events in nazi germany

There is a reason the holocaust has been made into a religion that no one is allowed to question

There are certain narratives handed to us by the elites and they are sacred cows. if you question those narratives or begin to try to investigate them you are attacked. This is because behind these sacred cow narratives are an IDEOLOGICAL agenda that requires people to perceive reality a certain way

They cannot be open and honest to you about that agenda because then you would reject it so instead they weave narratives that then make you perceive things how they want you to perceive them so that you go along with or at least don't question the agenda

 

[kinglear]

I want to move away from this black and white thinking where if you say you are against ideologically driven mass immigration that you are some how against all immigration. It's not the case

or that if you question zionist influence that you are against all semites

or that if you are critical of some of the things the democrats do that you must be a trump supporter

people have been conditioned by the corporate media to see the world as two competeing factions and that they must take a side

I suggest its not that simple

There are many angles to all of these things that we need to learn if we want to really understand the driving forces behind it all

 

[kinglear]

It's understandable, since the memory of the Holocaust, and 19th century imperialism, is still very very raw, and colours our behaviour in fear. You might even say that the West has PTSD because of the Holocaust, and anything which seems even superficially to resemble that kind of racialised thinking triggers the 'fear of racism' response..

what's happening though is that people with an ideological agenda are seeking to sow narratives into the minds of college students through a variety of courses that are not designed to prepare those students to be able to get jobs and contribute meaningfully to society

the courses are designed simply to create a victimhood mentality so that the student is set on the war path to seek retribution

So with colonialism for example it was really driven by elites. If you look at regular white folks they were themselves colonised for example britain was colonised in 1066 by outsiders who have occupied it ever since and who still own most of the islands land privately

British people were driven off the land in the agricultural revolution and into the cities where they were exploited for their labour in the industrial revolution

Some people had their roofs set on fire above their heads to force them out of their lands. They were forced onto boats and sent to places like american and australia. Once people lost their land there were famines and poverty which sometimes led to crime as people stole for food and those people were then deported from britain in the tens of thousands and sent to places like the americas and australia. Anyone who resisted through force of arms was also deported often to the west indies.

Many british men were press ganged which is to say knocked unconscious and dragged off to serve in the navy. others were forced into indentured servitude in the americas and indies

Some were left with nothing and no other choice but to 'take the kings shilling' and join the british army so that they could get three square meals a day and not starve.

This idea that 'white people' are behind colonialism needs to be smashed and people need to dig deeper to see that there were elites driving things and that those same elites were also persecuting whites. Also other ethnic groups were most definately upto their own exploitative projects. The slave trade for example was mostly run by arabs and jews and was finally ended by white christians

History needs to be retold with the barebones fleshed out so that people can see the real driving forces behind things but the courses in universities run as part of marxist critical theory like:
-african studies
-islamic studies
-womens studies
-gay studies
etc

will not tell this expansive version of things. they have been crafted to give people the elites narratives and perceptions of what went on ie to make people see things the way the elites want them to see them so of course the courses will never dig down into who those elites are