# The psychology of nationalism



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

What are your thoughts on people who are excessively nationalistic to the point of leaning towards xenophobia, racism and the far right in general?

In some ways I can understand that it's a primeval intuitive reaction to fear 'others', due to the fact that for most of history it was a valid argument that there are only so many resources in an area so that area had to be defended/fought for and 'non-natives' rejected.

In modern society/economies, it's a fact that now that isn't the case, as immigrants put in more than they take out, and more able human resources equate to a bigger economy and thus more jobs.

Meta-analysis of realted studies show that lifting all barriers to the movement of people would add trillions to global GDP for example.

Anyone who has any regard for academic analysis of the situation is surely of the same idea that borders should be lax and migration welcome.

Is it really just those people who tend think intuitively rather than analytically that are against immigration?

I personally have zero regard for nationalism and what patch of dirt someone is from means nothing to me. I'm all for wide open borders and people being given as much rights if they are my neighbour or from the other side of the world.

I find it incredibly ignorant and xenophobic to wish for people from other countries not to come to the one you live in. That's on basic humanitarian grounds, never mind the legacy of colonialism of which the West still has a 'debt' to much of the rest of the world to 'repay'.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Just as most other cases of people abusing a clinical term (like "phobia") this is often very misleading. 

The dictionary defines a "phobia" (loosely) as a persistent and IRRATIONAL fear of something. Therefore having a fear that is not irrational is not really a phobia. If you're afraid that eating chocolate is going to turn you into a rooster, that would be an irrational fear. A fear of outsiders is not irrational, as history has a long history of proving this fear is entirely rational. 

Although I would agree (generally) that you have just as much to fear from the 500 a5sholes in your own town as you do the 500 as5holes in some town halfway around the planet. Either way, a distrust of other people is not entirely irrational and is therefore not actually a phobia. Most people are out for themselves and you can assume they will abuse your trust if you let them. 

Beyond that, if people want to immigrate here they should at least do it by the book. I was born here and I have to follow all the laws and regulations to the letter. Some asshat from some other country should not be able to break every law in existence and get a pass. 

And frankly, it's not like we don't already have more than enough asshats here already who are already struggling under conditions that can sometimes be almost as bad as 3rd world countries. I don't know what they think they're going to accomplish by adding millions more.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Just as most other cases of people abusing a clinical term (like "phobia") this is often very misleading.
> 
> The dictionary defines a "phobia" (loosely) as a persistent and IRRATIONAL fear of something. Therefore having a fear that is not irrational is not really a phobia. If you're afraid that eating chocolate is going to turn you into a rooster, that would be an irrational fear. A fear of outsiders is not irrational, as history has a long history of proving this fear is entirely rational.
> 
> Although I would agree (generally) that you have just as much to fear from the 500 a5sholes in your own town as you do the 500 as5holes in some town halfway around the planet. Either way, a distrust of other people is not entirely irrational and is therefore not actually a phobia.


I'd say you are too focused on the term phobia there. The term xenophobia could be argued not to be a phobia at all, but just an opinion:



> *xenophobia *
> dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.


Also, you make the mistake of referring to the past to justify fear of foreigners. Yes that once was a valid argument, but it arguably isn't anymore. Especially as someone from the US, a nation build on immigrants from various nations at various times in very very recent history, what is it you think is to fear?

Likewise my country, the UK is built on immigration, albeit more distant waves in the main, but it's still very much a 'mongrel' nation, and all the better for it IMO. Waves of cultures advanced the UK and made it the great place it is today. The mixing pot that is the US is arguably the same.

At every stage people feared the immigrants until they became so integrated they couldn't really be distinguished.

Do the initial predominately English and secondary German immigrants still resent the generally later Italian and Irish immigrants in the Eastern US for example? I wouldn't say so. ~150 years ago that was obviously a lot different though.



> Most people are out for themselves and you can assume they will abuse your trust if you let them.


I'm not so sure about that. Many people are happy to put in a good days work for a good days pay, and pay their taxes when they know there is a solid state that isn't corrupt. (At least compared to where they are from where corruption can be rife)



> Beyond that, if people want to immigrate here they should at least do it by the book. I was born here and I have to follow all the laws and regulations to the letter. Some asshat from some other country should not be able to break every law in existence and get a pass.


Ah but the issue is should those laws even be there in the first place? As I cited above, freedom of movement can be extremely beneficial. It's why the Schengen agreement exists in the EU for example, which allows member states citizens free movement between countries.



> And frankly, it's not like we don't already have more than enough asshats here already who are already struggling under conditions that can sometimes be almost as bad as 3rd world countries. I don't know what they think they're going to accomplish by adding millions more.


Again, this is falling back on primitive thinking which assumes that adding more people means less jobs. It doesn't. More people mean a larger economy which means more jobs for all.

Here's another way to think about it; do you resent people from rural areas of the US moving to cities to find work and a better life? If so, why are those people who may be moving hundreds of miles any different to those who may me moving hundreds of miles to find a better life but across a border?

Why should borders, which are just a human concept, and often illogical and destructive, be recognised to such and extent as to have such a dire effect on humanity?


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

People who welcome immigrants are usually well off, they don´t know poverty and existential struggle. So they feel safe, while the poor people feel threatened. They feel like they have to defend the bits and pieces that are left in this world for them. Who wouldn´t feel angry when immigrants come and are given maximum support and fortunes, while nobody gives crap about the native poor and homeless. Where do you think the money that are given to immigrants come from. They are paid from our taxes. It has to be taken from somewhere, and it´s not from the wealthy ones. They are very welcoming, because it´s not at their expense. They wouldn´t accomodate them in their homes, but are ok with accomodating them in the homes of others. Merkel has numerous houses and residencies, but said she wouldn´t accomodate even one immigrant, while she is happy to invite millions into her country. The same goes for other elite and upper class welcoming members.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> People who welcome immigrants are usually well off, they don´t know poverty and existential struggle. So they feel safe, while the poor people feel threatened.


Nonsense. People from across the wealth spectrum who understand the economics welcome immigrants.



> They feel like they have to defend the bits and pieces that are left in this world for them.


That's because they aren't knowledgeable enough to understand how a modern economy works. Their minds are stuck in ancient tribalism mode and don't realise how the modern world works.



> Who wouldn´t feel angry when immigrants come and are given maximum support and fortunes, while nobody gives crap about the native poor and homeless.


What a horribly biased view. Immigrants are almost always given less benefits than natives, and to say the natives are just ignored it gross denial/ignorance.



> Where do you think the money that are given to immigrants come from. They are paid from our taxes. It has to be taken from somewhere, and it´s not from the wealthy ones.


When you say 'our taxes' you mean the taxes of everyone who pays tax in the country, which includes all the working immigrants, who by net pay more taxes than they take in benefits. How can you be against your nation having more money? :?

With regards to how much tax wealthy people pay, in the US it's shamefully little, but in Europe it's thankfully more. Either way, they are still contributing, even though some immorally tax dodge.



> They are very welcoming, because it´s not at their expense. They wouldn´t accomodate them in their homes, but are ok with accomodating them in the homes of others. Merkel has numerous houses and residencies, but said she wouldn´t accomodate even one immigrant, while she is happy to invite millions into her country. The same goes for other elite and upper class welcoming members.


Which governments are forcing people to accommodate immigrants? :? Of course nobody should be expected to accommodate strangers in their home as a matter of course. Some people will, and good for them, but it's not the 'norm', and countries can accommodate immigrants like they can natives.

It's a very lame/bizarre argument to to chastise Germany's generous highly moral immigration policy based on the fact the Chancellor isn't accommodating immigrants in her own home. :?


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Mixed. On the one hand, they're the ones who put up most of a fight against bad/non-functioning integration like we're seeing in Europe. On the other, they tend to distrust everything foreign without good reason. I feel humanity should be moving towards consolidation, not divided by petty self-interests. This is a slow process, but it seems to happen naturally, or we'd still have the kingdoms of Mercia, Gwent and Wessex, among others, instead of a unified England. We've managed to put aside tribalism and feudalism in favor of something greater, so hopefully nationalism can be put aside in favor of a greater cultural union and common values.

I don't know what the arguments are for the economic advantages of open immigration, but politically and socially, the facts are disturbing. Turks in Germany are considered some of the best integrated and they're still fiercely patriotic (for Turkey) and generally support a very right-wing regime. To say nothing of the various ethnicities that generally don't ever assimilate, contribute disproportionately to crime rates and stick to their enclaves. I completely understand the nationalist misgivings. Far more rational than the regressive position, which is complete lunacy and hypocrisy. Bottom line, you should only take as many as you can be sure you can assimilate. And by assimilate, I don't mean a fifth column loyal to some repressive regime. At the very least, the second generation should be much, much closer to the values and identity of their new country than to their parents' origin.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ScorchedEarth said:


> I feel humanity should be moving towards consolidation, not divided by petty self-interests. This is a slow process, but it seems to happen naturally, or we'd still have the kingdoms of Mercia, Gwent and Wessex, among others, instead of a unified England. We've managed to put aside tribalism and feudalism in favor of something greater, so hopefully nationalism can be put aside in favor of a greater cultural union and common values.


Exactly. Too many people fail to see the bigger picture and learn from history. We were once a nomadic people in tribes in the tens. Over the millennia we have grown into bigger and bigger 'tribes' and it has always brought benefits. More consolidation of resources and integration and thus inter-dependency always equals less conflict. It's one of the reasons the EU was formed for example.

Ideas of nationalism seem so backwards to me. Someone arguing for an independent England for example is as archaic to me as someone arguing for an independent Mercia. The time of small nation states is passing/has passed. The 21st century is the age of the superstate, so China, the US, the EU (in a way at the moment), India, and Brazil. i.e. almost continental rather than country sized states. It's the natural progression of humanity. Hopefully in the 22nd century we will be a unified earth and we will be at the interplanetary stage of development.



> I don't know what the arguments are for the economic advantages of open immigration, but politically and socially, the facts are disturbing. Turks in Germany are considered some of the best integrated and they're still fiercely patriotic (for Turkey) and generally support a very right-wing regime. To say nothing of the various ethnicities that generally don't ever assimilate, contribute disproportionately to crime rates and stick to their enclaves. I completely understand the nationalist misgivings. Far more rational than the regressive position, which is complete lunacy and hypocrisy. Bottom line, you should only take as many as you can be sure you can assimilate. And by assimilate, I don't mean a fifth column loyal to some repressive regime. At the very least, the second generation should be much, much closer to the values and identity of their new country than to their parents' origin.


As I say, look at how firth, sixth etc generation Italian and Irish are in the US. They were once the Turks of modern Germany. It needs multiple generations for an immigrant culture to 'fully' integrate. We just need to be patient. It's barely been one generation in many cases and some people are calling for those immigrants and their "strange ways" to be deported. It's totally ignorant of how anthropology functions.

As I inferred, it tends to be those people who aren't particularly well educated about how culture works and only think in a simple intuitive way who don't understand this.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> That's on basic humanitarian grounds, never mind the legacy of colonialism of which the West still has a 'debt' to much of the rest of the world to 'repay'.


What debt? They should be repaying us.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> What debt? They should be repaying us.


Are you honestly trying to deny the enslavement, rape and pillage of many third world countries, both of people and resources at the hands of the historic colonial countries?


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> Are you honestly trying to deny the enslavement, rape and pillage of many third world countries, both of people and resources at the hands of the historic colonial countries?


No, I don't deny it because I don't care. Any kind of enslavement, rape, and pillaging is just par for the course when it comes to conquering land.

All of that is completely normal for everyone. The only strange thing about western colonialism is that we gave them modern medicine, technology, and attempted to uplift them from their primitive existences. I don't know why we even bothered because they obviously don't appreciate it and now they whine about it constantly. We should have just outright enslaved or otherwise subjugated them all as every normal civilization has done in the past when they conquered land, but we did this whole "bring civilization to the savage" nonsense instead and it was a huge mistake. We were too nice and now it's coming back to bite us.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> No, I don't deny it because I don't care. Any kind of enslavement, rape, and pillaging is just par for the course when it comes to conquering land.
> 
> All of that is completely normal for everyone. The only strange thing about western colonialism is that we gave them modern medicine, technology, and attempted to uplift them from their primitive existences. I don't know why we even bothered because they obviously don't appreciate it and now they whine about it constantly. We should have just outright enslaved or otherwise subjugated them all as every normal civilization has done in the past when they conquered land, but we did this whole "bring civilization to the savage" nonsense instead and it was a huge mistake. We were too nice and now it's coming back to bite us.


Wow. Defending slavery and rape on the grounds that, "that's the way it's always been done", is a shocking extremist and potentially racist position.

Shame on you.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> Defending slavery and rape on the grounds that, "that's the way it's always been done"


That's the way that it was always done until "the evil westerners" put a stop it. You can decide whether or not that was a good idea, but it's pretty funny that apparently only the west has some debt to pay for slavery that happened during colonialism when slavery was completely normal until the west abolished it and then tried to force the rest of the world to abolish it.

The only thing the west has done that I see as repulsive is the obnoxiously sanctimonious mentality that seems to be the norm in the west. Suddenly we think that slavery is wrong and so the entire world has to be forced to go along with our moral indignation?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> That's the way that it was always done until "the evil westerners" put a stop it. You can decide whether or not that was a good idea, but it's pretty funny that apparently only the west has some debt to pay for slavery that happened during colonialism when slavery was completely normal until the west abolished it and then tried to force the rest of the world to abolish it.
> 
> The only thing the west has done that I see as repulsive is the obnoxiously sanctimonious mentality that seems to be the norm in the west. Suddenly we think that slavery is wrong and so the entire world has to be forced to go along with our moral indignation?


Obviously there is no monetary debt to be paid as it was 'just' long enough ago, but when we are talking about such recent acts then there can be liability for apologies (which several Western countries have done for fairly recent atrocities) and even compensation when people who were directly affected are still alive. (Germany and Japan being examples)

That aside, the fact you seem to be defending slavery based on legacy grounds is unbelievable.

Shame on you.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> Obviously there is no monetary debt to be paid as it was 'just' long enough ago, but when we are talking about such recent acts then there can be liability for apologies (which several Western countries have done for fairly recent atrocities) and even compensation when people who were directly affected are still alive. (Germany and Japan being examples)
> 
> That aside, the fact you seem to be defending slavery based on legacy grounds is unbelievable.
> 
> Shame on you.


If it seems like I'm defending slavery then that's because I won't apologize for the strength of western civilization. Our ancestors were superior and they crushed them. It's something to be proud of, not something to be ashamed of. This weakness that exists within the west today where many people want to grovel and apologize over every example of strength in our history is just disgusting and I will never go along with this pathetic self-flagellation.

I won't apologize for our past achievements and conquests and it's mind boggling that so many westerners are willing to go along with having their own history used as a weapon against them. We have nothing to apologize for and if anyone feels that we have wronged them and that we should apologize then they should be happy that they are still alive.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> If it seems like I'm defending slavery then that's because I won't apologize for the strength of western civilization. Our ancestors were superior and they crushed them. It's something to be proud of, not something to be ashamed of. This weakness that exists within the west today where many people want to grovel and apologize over every example of strength in our history is just disgusting and I will never go along with this pathetic self-flagellation.
> 
> I won't apologize for our past achievements and conquests and it's mind boggling that so many westerners are willing to go along with having their own history used as a weapon against them. We have nothing to apologize for and if anyone feels that we have wronged them and that we should apologize then they should be happy that they are still alive.


Spoken like a true racist.

Shame on you.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> Spoken like a true racist.
> 
> Shame on you.


Spoken like a true ethnomasochist.

Don't procreate.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> Spoken like a true ethnomasochist.


To the contrary, it doesn't take ethnomasochism to know that slavery is wrong and white people aren't "special" and hold no blame for past atrocities. Do you defend the Nazi's as well and call ethnomasochism of those who comment on their abhorrence? :roll

Don't be so naive to stick your head in the sand and not accept any of the negatives that white mankind has attributed to global society. That doesn't mean we can't also acknowledge the positives as well you know.



> Don't procreate.


Spoken like a true eugenicist?


----------



## vsaxena (Apr 17, 2015)

As a proud American patriot and legal immigrant, I support both nationalism and national sovereignty -- and I believe _every_ illegal immigrant should be deported back home, no exceptions. My family earned entry into the United States the proper way, and we expect others to do so as well.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Rockwell said:


> If it seems like I'm defending slavery then that's because I won't apologize for the strength of western civilization. Our ancestors were superior and they crushed them. It's something to be proud of, not something to be ashamed of. This weakness that exists within the west today where many people want to grovel and apologize over every example of strength in our history is just disgusting and I will never go along with this pathetic self-flagellation.
> 
> I won't apologize for our past achievements and conquests and it's mind boggling that so many westerners are willing to go along with having their own history used as a weapon against them. We have nothing to apologize for and if anyone feels that we have wronged them and that we should apologize then they should be happy that they are still alive.


I'm assuming, then, that you approve of every person who takes advantage of you and harms you, since they're just exhibiting their superior strength. They certainly shouldn't feel bad or apologize for the harm they inflict on you. Instead, they should be proud of their accomplishments and continue to harm and abuse you. Talk about being a masochist.

This is possibly the most bizarre position I have ever heard of.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

truant said:


> I'm assuming, then, that you approve of every person who takes advantage of you and harms you, since they're just exhibiting their superior strength. They certainly shouldn't feel bad or apologize for the harm they inflict on you. Instead, they should be proud of their accomplishments and continue to harm and abuse you. Talk about being a masochist.


They shouldn't feel bad, but it would also be ridiculous for me to approve of it. If someone tries to harm you then you have to fight back. This whole thing just boils down to ingroups and outgroups. When groups of humans are interacting with each other then you feel a sense of pride when your ingroup conquers an outgroup and you should feel angry and want revenge when your ingroup is harmed by an outgroup.

This is extremely fundamental stuff that everyone should instinctively understand, and this is also why moral universalism is poison. We can see the insanity that it produces when the basic concept of ingroups and outgroups is almost impossible for many people in the west to comprehend. For example, if you say that conquest is universally wrong then you end up with complete stagnation and these bizarre scenarios where an objectively stronger group kowtows to an objectively weaker group. How Australia deals with the demands of the Aboriginals is a good example of this. On the other hand though, if you say that conquest is universally right then you end up with an insane and suicidal scenario like the one that you described where the person who is being attacked would have to approve of being attacked.

Both positions are wrong because moral universalism is wrong. There are only ingroups and outgroups and what is morally right or wrong is determined by what is good for your ingroup. You take care of your own people. This is very basic stuff and the fact that we're deviating from this way of thinking just shows the degree of insanity that has infected western civilization.



ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary, it doesn't take ethnomasochism to know that slavery is wrong and white people aren't "special" and hold no blame for past atrocities. Do you defend the Nazi's as well and call ethnomasochism of those who comment on their abhorrence?


Are you referring to those antideutsch groups in Germany? Yes, they're ethnomasochists.

Let's look at Japan as an example of a healthy post-war mentality to contrast the insanity of Germany. The Japanese are very stubborn when it comes to apologizing about what happened in WW2 and any kind of apology from the Japanese government is a source of a massive amount of controversy within Japan. They're proud of their ancestors that fought in WW2, regardless of what happened during the war, because these people fought for their nation and loyalty to your ingroup is more important than whether or not some outgroup feels that they were wronged during the war. I completely agree with how the Japanese handle this and it is disgusting to me that many Germans would spit on the graves of the people who fought and died for their nation because they have more compassion for the plight of rival outgroups than for their own people.



ugh1979 said:


> Don't be so naive to stick your head in the sand and not accept any of the negatives that white mankind has attributed to global society. That doesn't mean we can't also acknowledge the positives as well you know.


The only thing that's naive is to think that this "global society" is something that even exists. Nationalism isn't going any where. As far as positive and negative contributions though, I would agree that we should condemn anyone who harms their own ingroup or actively advances the interests of an outgroup at the expense of their own people. If you want to talk about white people then there are many examples of white people who do this and a large amount of these examples have been within our lifetime.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> They shouldn't feel bad, but it would also be ridiculous for me to approve of it. If someone tries to harm you then you have to fight back. This whole thing just boils down to ingroups and outgroups. When groups of humans are interacting with each other then you feel a sense of pride when your ingroup conquers an outgroup and you should feel angry and want revenge when your ingroup is harmed by an outgroup.
> 
> This is extremely fundamental stuff that everyone should instinctively understand, and this is also why moral universalism is poison. We can see the insanity that it produces when the basic concept of ingroups and outgroups is almost impossible for many people in the west to comprehend. For example, if you say that conquest is universally wrong then you end up with complete stagnation and these bizarre scenarios where an objectively stronger group kowtows to an objectively weaker group. How Australia deals with the demands of the Aboriginals is a good example of this. On the other hand though, if you say that conquest is universally right then you end up with an insane and suicidal scenario like the one that you described where the person who is being attacked would have to approve of being attacked.
> 
> Both positions are wrong because moral universalism is wrong. There are only ingroups and outgroups and what is morally right or wrong is determined by what is good for your ingroup. You take care of your own people. This is very basic stuff and the fact that we're deviating from this way of thinking just shows the degree of insanity that has infected western civilization.


You are confusing archaic tribalism with modern pluralistic society. The basic in or out group concept is the primeval intuitive thinking I mentioned in my OP, but we don't need to be so dumb to only use that basic method of thinking. We have the time and ability to analyse situations and make educated judgements rather than snap ones.

Also, you seem to be seeing things in a very black and white manner. Who's 'your group'? People from a different country? People of a different gender? People of a different sexuality? People of a different skin colour? 'Your' group can be as diverse or undiverse as you want, but it's just yours, and when you combine everyone groups there is a vast intertwined spectrum, not black and white groups.

Imperialist conquest is morally wrong. That's not to say that if someone tried it there wouldn't be consequences and the other party would just get walked over. That's why we have organisations such as NATO etc to help prevent that very scenario.

Of course there is still going to be a level of tribalism for certain things such as between sports teams etc but when it gets to the point you are justifying slavery like you did then you are just a racist and seemingly unable to see the world through modern or moral eyes.



> Are you referring to those antideutsch groups in Germany? Yes, they're ethnomasochists.


No i'm clearly talking about people who condemn Nazism not being ethnomasochists. That isn't antideutsch , obviously.

Do you condemn Nazism?



> Let's look at Japan as an example of a healthy post-war mentality to contrast the insanity of Germany. The Japanese are very stubborn when it comes to apologizing about what happened in WW2 and any kind of apology from the Japanese government is a source of a massive amount of controversy within Japan. They're proud of their ancestors that fought in WW2, regardless of what happened during the war, because these people fought for their nation and loyalty to your ingroup is more important than whether or not some outgroup feels that they were wronged during the war. I completely agree with how the Japanese handle this and it is disgusting to me that many Germans would spit on the graves of the people who fought and died for their nation because they have more compassion for the plight of rival outgroups than for their own people.


It seems like you are calling on German's to defend their Nazi ancestors. That's simply shocking. If you don't see how that makes you a terrible person then so be it.

For the record, the Japanese have apologised and given compensation to hundreds of thousands of people the Japanese army enslaved and raped during WWII. Doing that is helping mend the relationships between them and their neighbours. To say they shouldn't is just abhorrent.

It's not those that legitimacy fought for Japan in WWII that are the issue. They can be respected. It's the slavers, murderers and rapers among them that the apology is about and of course they should be condemned rather than respected.



> The only thing that's naive is to think that this "global society" is something that even exists. Nationalism isn't going any where. As far as positive and negative contributions though, I would agree that we should condemn anyone who harms their own ingroup or actively advances the interests of an outgroup at the expense of their own people. If you want to talk about white people then there are many examples of white people who do this and a large amount of these examples have been within our lifetime.


We'll see. A hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable there would be an EU. We are undeniably becoming more and more of a global society with where someone lives becoming less important than ever.

Of course there will still be ultra nationalists and group fanatics who express xenophobia and racism towards others, but I think it will become less then ever in time.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> You are confusing archaic tribalism with modern pluralistic society. The basic in or out group concept is the primeval intuitive thinking I mentioned in my OP, but we don't need to be so dumb to only use that basic method of thinking.


I don't believe that we're beyond tribalism because I live in a modern pluralistic society and all I have to do is look around to see how dysfunctional it is. I would argue that we've regressed back to something that is actually weaker than tribalism, at least in many of the larger cities in the US, because there is no sense of community or shared identity at all. When you throw together many different cultures then we're not all blended together into some diverse society. You have groups of unassimilated people that self-segregate and they maintain some sense of tribalism within their communities, and if they do eventually assimilate after a few generations then this only means that they adopt the same mentality of the atomized individual that the majority of the population has. They're not adopting an identity, they're not joining an ingroup of any kind, it's just a mass of strangers that you don't know at all, you don't trust them at all, and they just happen to live near you. The end result of all of this is a low-trust, atomized society that would descend into total chaos without a massive police force to keep it all barely under control.



ugh1979 said:


> Also, you seem to be seeing things in a very black and white manner. Who's 'your group'? People from a different country? People of a different gender? People of a different sexuality? People of a different skin colour? 'Your' group can be as diverse or undiverse as you want, but it's just yours, and when you combine everyone groups there is a vast intertwined spectrum, not black and white groups.


Your ingroup should be a large group of people who you would think of as almost as close to you as family and you would die to protect them. Honestly, we don't even have an ingroup anymore beyond small social circles and that's why I say that we have regressed from tribalism into atomized individualism. If white people currently have an ingroup identity then it's certainly not based on race at the moment because white people are at each other's throats at the very mention of the existence of race. Other groups don't seem to have this same problem to the same extent and they haven't regressed back to this self-destructive form of individualism, but it would be a joke to say that white people have any kind of racial solidarity right now.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you what my ingroup is because it's such a mess over here, but it's very easy to see the outgroups that exist within our societies because they self-segregate and maintain a tribal identity. This is why Muslims have so much influence in these western pluralistic societies even though they are a relatively small minority within these nations. They actually work together based on a shared religious/ethnic identity, which is a concept that is almost completely foreign to us at this point. A small group with a strong tribal identity that practices ethnic networking will always out-compete the masses of unorganized individuals that make up the rest of these pluralistic societies.



ugh1979 said:


> It seems like you are calling on German's to defend their Nazi ancestors. That's simply shocking. If you don't see how that makes you a terrible person then so be it.
> 
> For the record, the Japanese have apologised and given compensation to hundreds of thousands of people the Japanese army enslaved and raped during WWII. Doing that is helping mend the relationships between them and their neighbours. To say they shouldn't is just abhorrent.
> 
> It's not those that legitimacy fought for Japan in WWII that are the issue. They can be respected. It's the slavers, murderers and rapers among them that the apology is about and of course they should be condemned rather than respected.


This is a perfect example of why it's so important to be extremely stubborn when it comes to apologizing to outgroups. How can Abe give a sincere apology for something that happened when he wasn't even born? No one asks that question though because a sincere apology isn't the point of this. First you get someone to apologize, then you say that the apology isn't enough, and then you try to humiliate them and milk them for everything they're worth. They've been arguing over that comfort women issue for decades and many Japanese people were very upset about that apology last year because they understood what it would lead to, but when you make it so difficult to get a simple apology then you don't get bogged down in the endless amounts of guilt-tripping and demonization that you see in Germany.

As you said, "It's not those that legitimately fought for Japan in WWII that are the issue. They can be respected." but when is this same thing applied to Germans? People don't really have a problem with Japanese people respecting their ancestors that fought for Japan in the war because the Japanese refused to ever apologize for doing that, but the Germans have allowed themselves to be pushed around so much and humiliated so much that they've allowed the very outgroups that fought them in the war to determine how Germans who fought in WW2 will be perceived and now it's rare for anyone who fought for Germany in WW2 to be seen as anything other than an "evil nazi that gassed 6 million jews." That's obviously ridiculous, the Germans should be able to respect their ancestors that fought in the war in the same way that the Japanese are able to.



ugh1979 said:


> We'll see. A hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable there would be an EU. We are undeniably becoming more and more of a global society with where someone lives becoming less important than ever.


What kind of EU identity exists? The only thing resembling any kind of European solidarity that I see is ironically from the nationalists who want to get out of the EU. The EU is an absolute mess.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> I don't believe that we're beyond tribalism because I live in a modern pluralistic society and all I have to do is look around to see how dysfunctional it is. I would argue that we've regressed back to something that is actually weaker than tribalism, at least in many of the larger cities in the US, because there is no sense of community or shared identity at all. When you throw together many different cultures then we're not all blended together into some diverse society. You have groups of unassimilated people that self-segregate and they maintain some sense of tribalism within their communities, and if they do eventually assimilate after a few generations then this only means that they adopt the same mentality of the atomized individual that the majority of the population has. They're not adopting an identity, they're not joining an ingroup of any kind, it's just a mass of strangers that you don't know at all, you don't trust them at all, and they just happen to live near you. The end result of all of this is a low-trust, atomized society that would descend into total chaos without a massive police force to keep it all barely under control.


Our social circles have a limit of around 150, so it's inevitable that in cities there will be many strangers. I don't have a problem with that and don't fear people just because I don't know them.

I think it's fair enough not to trust anyone until they have earned it, but that goes for anybody in any group. I wouldn't say police forces are that big either. It's not like the national guard locking down and area! Many days I won't see a single police person.



> Your ingroup should be a large group of people who you would think of as almost as close to you as family and you would die to protect them. Honestly, we don't even have an ingroup anymore beyond small social circles and that's why I say that we have regressed from tribalism into atomized individualism. If white people currently have an ingroup identity then it's certainly not based on race at the moment because white people are at each other's throats at the very mention of the existence of race. Other groups don't seem to have this same problem to the same extent and they haven't regressed back to this self-destructive form of individualism, but it would be a joke to say that white people have any kind of racial solidarity right now.


Our groups as I say are no bigger than they have ever been. That doesn't mean we can't live in peace with everyone we don't know though.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regards to race. Some white people are at each others throats, always have been, and some people will find solidarity which being around other white people. Others won't. And vice versa for every other demographic. There's a wide spectrum of people out there that span every group rather than the 'black and white' notion of people you seem to describe.



> Unfortunately, I can't tell you what my ingroup is because it's such a mess over here, but it's very easy to see the outgroups that exist within our societies because they self-segregate and maintain a tribal identity. This is why Muslims have so much influence in these western pluralistic societies even though they are a relatively small minority within these nations. They actually work together based on a shared religious/ethnic identity, which is a concept that is almost completely foreign to us at this point. A small group with a strong tribal identity that practices ethnic networking will always out-compete the masses of unorganized individuals that make up the rest of these pluralistic societies.


I wouldn't say Muslims have that much influence in western societies at all. They are often under represented at various levels if anything. Muslims living in numbers in the West is a very new thing. Give it a hundred years or so then look again and see how it is. That's a reasonable time frame for this kind of discussion about integration.



> This is a perfect example of why it's so important to be extremely stubborn when it comes to apologizing to outgroups. How can Abe give a sincere apology for something that happened when he wasn't even born? No one asks that question though because a sincere apology isn't the point of this.


It's better than nothing, and doing so is helpful as it's mending relations between the countries.



> First you get someone to apologize, then you say that the apology isn't enough, and then you try to humiliate them and milk them for everything they're worth. They've been arguing over that comfort women issue for decades and many Japanese people were very upset about that apology last year because they understood what it would lead to, but when you make it so difficult to get a simple apology then you don't get bogged down in the endless amounts of guilt-tripping and demonization that you see in Germany.


As I say, it's abhorrent you don't think Germany and Japan should apologise for their war crimes.

You didn't answer my question btw so i'll repeat it; do you condemn Nazism?



> As you said, "It's not those that legitimately fought for Japan in WWII that are the issue. They can be respected." but when is this same thing applied to Germans? People don't really have problem with Japanese people respecting their ancestors that fought for Japan in the war because the Japanese refused to ever apologize for doing that, but the Germans have allowed themselves to be pushed around so much and humiliated so much that they've allowed the very outgroups that fought them in the war to determine how Germans who fought in WW2 will be perceived and now it's rare for anyone who fought for Germany in WW2 to be seen as anything other than an "evil nazi that gassed 6 million jews." That's obviously ridiculous, the Germans should be able to respect their ancestors that fought in the war in the same way that the Japanese are able to.


There is a huge difference between the Nazi party and the Empire of Japan in the 40's. It's nothing to do with the fact the German's apologised, of course they should have, as the Nazi's were far worse than than Japan, and pretty much en masse, unlike the Japanese where it was just small groups who committed war crimes. That's a significant difference.



> What kind of EU identity exists? The only thing resembling any kind of European solidarity that I see is ironically from the nationalists who want to get out of the EU. The EU is an absolute mess.


There are lots of people in the EU who feel solidarity for it. I know I do.


----------



## Rockwell (Jun 2, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> You didn't answer my question btw so i'll repeat it; do you condemn Nazism?


No, I fully agree with National Socialism.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Rockwell said:


> They shouldn't feel bad, but it would also be ridiculous for me to approve of it. If someone tries to harm you then you have to fight back. This whole thing just boils down to ingroups and outgroups.


In-groups and out-groups are the very basis of war and conflict; consequently, we should be rejecting that mentality at every opportunity. And when it's not possible to reject it, we should group for rational reasons, not arbitrary, accidental ones; eg. based on shared values, not shared skin color or ethnic background. It makes sense for me to identify with a person of another country and ethnicity if they share my values; it makes no sense for me to identify with someone I disagree with simply because he lives next door and we have the same skin color. We should condemn the actions of people we disapprove of on moral grounds, not ethnic grounds.

I find the idea of taking pride in the actions of other people just because they bear some superficial resemblance to me contemptible and taking pride in any kind of violence morally repellent.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Rockwell said:


> No, I fully agree with National Socialism.


Shame on you then.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> Nonsense. People from across the wealth spectrum who understand the economics welcome immigrants.


Speak for yourself, you belong to what?



ugh1979 said:


> That's because they aren't knowledgeable enough to understand how a modern economy works. Their minds are stuck in ancient tribalism mode and don't realise how the modern world works.


Crap. There are some idiots for sure, but it´s offensive to label all ordinary working people as primitive racist or xenophobes. There was some social experiment where a long time syrian resident in my country pretended to be an illegal immigrant and asked people on the street for a hotel. Everyone was very polite and helpful and one old man even offered him to sleep in his house. I myself am no racist either, I have travelled and lived abroad in before and have no problem with other races neither am afraid of them. The thing is that Europe isn´t inflatable and common sense is if a lot of people come, some will have to go as there is not enough space and resources!



ugh1979 said:


> What a horribly biased view. Immigrants are almost always given less benefits than natives, and to say the natives are just ignored it gross denial/ignorance.


You are basically saying there are no homeless and poor people in Europe, which isn´t true. Why are governments accepting so many immigrants when there are native people living in poverty. Why don´t they first try to raise THEIR living standards. My country recently accepted some iraqi christians who got free flight, accomodation (some of them in a hotel), language lessons, support and money... they get all this for free while people on minimum wages have to slave and struggle to barely survive. Still, a part of them decided to flee to Germany and other part of them decided to return to Iraq. They still weren´t satisfied with what they got here which is a joke as they were supposedly in grave danger at home. It shows they are in 90 % golddiggers, not genuine poor people in need. If they were, they would be grateful even for little and keen to cooperate and integrate. Sadly according to what I see, most of the immigrants who come are fit young men with a lot of money who can afford the journey while the genuine poor people have to stay in danger at home. Most of the immigrants are uneducated with poor working morals, lack of discipline and entitlement mentality. They see it as their right that our countries will provide for them while they behave as kings and act as if our countries were theirs and push their customs and rules on us. Is that how a visitor behaves in their host house?? If we came to their country they would shoot us straight away let alone let us build churches etc.



ugh1979 said:


> When you say 'our taxes' you mean the taxes of everyone who pays tax in the country, which includes all the working immigrants, who by net pay more taxes than they take in benefits. How can you be against your nation having more money? :?
> 
> With regards to how much tax wealthy people pay, in the US it's shamefully little, but in Europe it's thankfully more. Either way, they are still contributing, even though some immorally tax dodge.


There are some immigrants who end up working, but IMO the majority is unemployable, so they will have to stay on benefits. Plus, if they are accepted indiscriminately, they will bring their extended families, have many children etc.. what is happening in France, Germany now. Violence, people ae afraid leaving their homes etc. I don´t want that our country ends up like this.



ugh1979 said:


> Which governments are forcing people to accommodate immigrants? :? Of course nobody should be expected to accommodate strangers in their home as a matter of course. Some people will, and good for them, but it's not the 'norm', and countries can accommodate immigrants like they can natives.
> 
> It's a very lame/bizarre argument to to chastise Germany's generous highly moral immigration policy based on the fact the Chancellor isn't accommodating immigrants in her own home. :?


When I say "home" it was only a metaphor, I mean that a country is a common home fo all people. If 80 % of citizens don´t want immigrants the minority who do should respect that. They have no right to push immigrants on the country, which they do just because it won´t affect them as much as others as they are wealthy. They wouldn´t accomodate them in their own home but push them on our common home. I see it as an arrogance.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> Speak for yourself, you belong to what?


I can speak of others as well since I know it to be true. What do mean, "you belong to what"?



> Crap. There are some idiots for sure, but it´s offensive to label all ordinary working people as primitive racist or xenophobes. There was some social experiment where a long time syrian resident in my country pretended to be an illegal immigrant and asked people on the street for a hotel. Everyone was very polite and helpful and one old man even offered him to sleep in his house. I myself am no racist either, I have travelled and lived abroad in before and have no problem with other races neither am afraid of them.


Where did I label "all ordinary working people as primitive racist or xenophobes"? I said the group you are speaking of, which certainly isn't "all ordinary working people", weren't knowledgeable about how modern economies work. (I suspect)



> The thing is that Europe isn´t inflatable and common sense is if a lot of people come, some will have to go as there is not enough space and resources!


That may be the intuitive idea, but as I say, it's a primitive one which doesn't hold up in modern economies in the vast majority of cases, and in fact immigrants increase resources since they on average pay more tax than they take out in benefits.

Several countries in the West need immigration to be prosperous and curtail the ageing population unbalance. When countries have negative population growth due to not enough people having children, (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Japan, Italy, and Greece for example), immigrants are crucial.

Also, European cities are some of the least densely packed in the world, so the 'no space' claim doesn't fly either.



> You are basically saying there are no homeless and poor people in Europe, which isn´t true. Why are governments accepting so many immigrants when there are native people living in poverty. Why don´t they first try to raise THEIR living standards.


Of course there are homeless and poor people, but they still get more or equal benefits compared to immigrants. Issues such as poverty are complicated, but of course governments try. Also as I say, immigrants on average contribute more than they take so why wouldn't governments accept them? It's people with a primitive mentality on the subject that curtails it as they pressure governments to not.



> My country recently accepted some iraqi christians who got free flight, accomodation (some of them in a hotel), language lessons, support and money... they get all this for free while people on minimum wages have to slave and struggle to barely survive. Still, a part of them decided to flee to Germany and other part of them decided to return to Iraq. They still weren´t satisfied with what they got here which is a joke as they were supposedly in grave danger at home.


An anecdotal tale that i'm sure had some good reason for. Governments don't go handing out free flights and hotels rooms unless there are some very special circumstances. That is far from typical for most immigrants.



> It shows they are in 90 % golddiggers, not genuine poor people in need. If they were, they would be grateful even for little and keen to cooperate and integrate. Sadly according to what I see, most of the immigrants who come are fit young men with a lot of money who can afford the journey while the genuine poor people have to stay in danger at home. Most of the immigrants are uneducated with poor working morals, lack of discipline and entitlement mentality. They see it as their right that our countries will provide for them while they behave as kings and act as if our countries were theirs and push their customs and rules on us. Is that how a visitor behaves in their host house?? If we came to their country they would shoot us straight away let alone let us build churches etc.


You've pulled that 90% figure out your *****. It's shocking you think they aren't just trying to get a better life for them and their family. That's what drives the vast majority of immigration, and immigrants are almost always far more keen to work than many lazy natives who just stay on benefits as they can't be bothered working.

I find all the immigrants I know or know of to be very hard working and good citizens, after all, it's in their interest to be as otherwise they are likely to be sent home. Many are very well educated as well.

Also, it's extremely ignorant to say immigrants are rich! Other than the professionals who come to do high skill jobs they are often very poor, hence why they are moving, especially if they have had to come in illegally and have had to pay people smugglers.



> There are some immigrants who end up working, but IMO the majority is unemployable, so they will have to stay on benefits. Plus, if they are accepted indiscriminately, they will bring their extended families, have many children etc.. what is happening in France, Germany now. Violence, people ae afraid leaving their homes etc. I don´t want that our country ends up like this.


Nonsense, many find work, often doing the jobs the natives don't want to do.

Your post reeks of xenophobia.



> When I say "home" it was only a metaphor, I mean that a country is a common home fo all people. If 80 % of citizens don´t want immigrants the minority who do should respect that. They have no right to push immigrants on the country, which they do just because it won´t affect them as much as others as they are wealthy. They wouldn´t accomodate them in their own home but push them on our common home. I see it as an arrogance.


And if the majority of people are happy about immigration then the minority should respect that that yeah? In the US only 34% want less immigration for example. In the vast majority of Western countries support for immigration is higher than opposition of it.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> I can speak of others as well since I know it to be true. What do mean, "you belong to what"?
> 
> Where did I label "all ordinary working people as primitive racist or xenophobes"? I said the group you are speaking of, which certainly isn't "all ordinary working people", weren't knowledgeable about how modern economies work. (I suspect)
> 
> ...


 Your views are typical of a middle or upper class leftist. That´s my observation, people think they are fully logical and objective, but the truth is everyone is influenced by conditioning. Some people who had good lives, never were in real danger and didn´t have to struggle much in life therefore see the world as friendly. It also depends on how much love they received during their childhood etc. I even remember reading once about some scientific experiment which found this out. Everyone sees the world through prism of their personality and experiences. When I look at myself, I used to be a lot more „liberal" and trusting in the past. It´s unbelievable to me now, how could I for example leave my bag unattended in someone´s house and believe they wouldn´t look into it. Which unfortunately almost always happened, and I even had things stolen. I know it wasn´t logical not to realize the danger, but somehow it was more comfortable not to see it.

So it seems with today´s leftists who seem generous, welcoming and trusting, conveniently tailoring their arguments into picking out the (often dubious) positives and leaving out the negative aspects of the situation. You still keep saying the immigrants will be an asset for our countries, they will work, pay taxes etc., only pick out the assuming positives, but leave out the negatives, like the nature of islam, the whole system etc. It´s also funny some people base their views of the whole situation on their personal experiences with a few, like saying „islam isn´t bad I know some muslims which are very friendly and peaceful". As for me, I look at the whole picture, of course not ALL of the immigrants are bad people, but as I said, the majority of them are economic immigrants. Why does everyone want to go only to Germany, UK or Sweden etc, which happen to be countries where they receive most benefits. If they´re in danger, why don´t they for example stay in Turkey, Italy, Greece or Hungary. And you say they´re poor? Where they got the thousands of dollars for paying the smugglers and the whole journey, mobile phones etc. They also receive so much help from charity workers but don´t value any of the things, only are arrogant and demand still more and better things. Have you seen the camps they left, they burned blankets and things they received, threw half eaten food and sweets on the ground etc. No appreciation of the help whatsoever. When they are provided accomodation, they soon make terrible mess there, never clean after themselves and damage things. Never grateful for anything and nothing is good to them. There may be some decent ones among them, but as always, the savages prevail. That´s simply what I see and I am not a xenophobe for saying this.

Besides, I have been out in the world quite long enough and think I know people in general, most are rotten to be honest. So I am not so naive to believe telltales about nice immigrants who are keen to work and integrate. IMO, they´re not going to integrate, as every community tends to keep to themselves. Which is what happens now, they form huge ghettos where is dangerous for native citizens to go. Not to speak about general violence in the cities, rape of women etc. Promoting sharia law, banning alcohol, christian customs, pushing halal, demanding that women are covered. How is it their job to tell us what to do, they´re not home here, we are. Besides, every capitalist society has classes. Which class are they integrate into? The precariat probably. But there is enough of native poor people already and poverty shouldn´t exist AT ALL in our society, why not first improve their living situation BEFORE taking in immigrants. If the state is incapable of doing this, how are they going to cope with providing for so many immigrants. And no the immigrants surely aren´t the ones who are going to raise standards of the poor. You say the natives are lazy to work? Do you wonder they don´t want to slave in horrible conditions for a pittance? The immigrants accept lower wages, because in their countries that means much more, which is going to even more corrupt the already corrupted system. The multinational companies exploit workers shamelessly and this is what should be stopped. It´s not a solution when they still restrict their conditons,or move to cheaper lands and exploit the poorest of the poor. The whole system is wrong. Besides it´s the USA´s and european governments fault that the immigrants come, because they overthrew regimes in midleeastern countries and made life there unliveable. Immigrants aren´t going to fix ****, as the whole system is rotten.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> Your views are typical of a middle or upper class leftist. That´s my observation


My views are typical of leftist liberals in general. Class is irrelevant. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they don't understand how beneficial immigrants are.



> people think they are fully logical and objective, but the truth is everyone is influenced by conditioning.


It's a simple fact that immigrants contribute more than they take. You can ignore that fact all you want, but you aren't going to posit a strong argument by doing so. Of course everyone in influenced by conditioning, some good, some bad. The right wing culture of xenophobia and nationalism is an example of bad conditioning for example.

A better education helps to overturn this in general, hence why college graduates rather than high school drop outs tend to be more left wing/liberal.



> Some people who had good lives, never were in real danger and didn´t have to struggle much in life therefore see the world as friendly. It also depends on how much love they received during their childhood etc. I even remember reading once about some scientific experiment which found this out. Everyone sees the world through prism of their personality and experiences. When I look at myself, I used to be a lot more „liberal" and trusting in the past. It´s unbelievable to me now, how could I for example leave my bag unattended in someone´s house and believe they wouldn´t look into it. Which unfortunately almost always happened, and I even had things stolen. I know it wasn´t logical not to realize the danger, but somehow it was more comfortable not to see it.


That's an odd little anecdote, but you must hang around with some shady people then. Maybe try only leaving your bag unattended around people you trust? That's what most sensible people do. Dodgy people can be anywhere, from all walks of life, so it has nothing to do with this discussion.



> So it seems with today´s leftists who seem generous, welcoming and trusting, conveniently tailoring their arguments into picking out the (often dubious) positives and leaving out the negative aspects of the situation.


Wow the audacity it takes for you to say other people use cognitive bias in their arguments is unbelievable. :lol



> You still keep saying the immigrants will be an asset for our countries, they will work, pay taxes etc., only pick out the assuming positives, but leave out the negatives, like the nature of islam, the whole system etc. It´s also funny some people base their views of the whole situation on their personal experiences with a few, like saying „islam isn´t bad I know some muslims which are very friendly and peaceful". As for me, I look at the whole picture,


It seems like you are only focusing on the negative points.

I look at the whole picture too and don't see a minority of Islamic extremists as a reason to turn away desperate people from our shores. We in general enjoy a very high standard of living. The fact you are sitting here debating this means you are wealthy in terms of most people in the world. I'm all for trying to share that standard of living with people who aren't so fortunate.



> of course not ALL of the immigrants are bad people, but as I said, the majority of them are economic immigrants. Why does everyone want to go only to Germany, UK or Sweden etc, which happen to be countries where they receive most benefits. If they´re in danger, why don´t they for example stay in Turkey, Italy, Greece or Hungary.


Do you really think Turkey, Italy, Greece or Hungary are happy just to take all the refugees? All valid countries should contribute to helping these desperate people fleeing war and persecution. And of course many will chose to go where they can try and establish the best life of them and their family.



> And you say they´re poor? Where they got the thousands of dollars for paying the smugglers and the whole journey, mobile phones etc.


Wow, that's incredibly naive. Do you even have clue about what most of these people do in their desperation to raise the money to pay the smugglers. It's disgusting to claim that they are in fact rich, as the bombs destroy their towns and cities and death squads roam their land.



> They also receive so much help from charity workers but don´t value any of the things, only are arrogant and demand still more and better things. Have you seen the camps they left, they burned blankets and things they received, threw half eaten food and sweets on the ground etc. No appreciation of the help whatsoever. When they are provided accomodation, they soon make terrible mess there, never clean after themselves and damage things. Never grateful for anything and nothing is good to them. There may be some decent ones among them, but as always, the savages prevail. That´s simply what I see and I am not a xenophobe for saying this.


Wow and you are claiming leftists are being cognitively biased? :roll Such a sweeping negative claim about them is abhorrent as it is ignorant.

I guess it helps you to think of them all as scum when you are saying slam our doors in their face and send them home to their war torn countries to die.



> Besides, I have been out in the world quite long enough and think I know people in general, most are rotten to be honest.


Maybe you just live in a particularity bad place or attract people who don't get on with you or like you?

My experience is that most people are decent. 



> So I am not so naive to believe telltales about nice immigrants who are keen to work and integrate. IMO, they´re not going to integrate, as every community tends to keep to themselves. Which is what happens now, they form huge ghettos where is dangerous for native citizens to go. Not to speak about general violence in the cities, rape of women etc. Promoting sharia law, banning alcohol, christian customs, pushing halal, demanding that women are covered. How is it their job to tell us what to do, they´re not home here, we are.


As I said, it takes many generations to integrate, and I gave examples of the Irish and Italians in the Eastern US who also lived in ghettos and xenophobic claims made about them by many locals for many generations.

Can you cite any example of Muslims in Western countries forcing natives to abide by sharia law or any other Muslim tradition or cultural aspect?

It's nonsense to claim they are making such demands on the locals.



> Besides, every capitalist society has classes. Which class are they integrate into? The precariat probably. But there is enough of native poor people already and poverty shouldn´t exist AT ALL in our society, why not first improve their living situation BEFORE taking in immigrants. If the state is incapable of doing this, how are they going to cope with providing for so many immigrants. And no the immigrants surely aren´t the ones who are going to raise standards of the poor. You say the natives are lazy to work? Do you wonder they don´t want to slave in horrible conditions for a pittance? The immigrants accept lower wages, because in their countries that means much more, which is going to even more corrupt the already corrupted system. The multinational companies exploit workers shamelessly and this is what should be stopped. It´s not a solution when they still restrict their conditons,or move to cheaper lands and exploit the poorest of the poor. The whole system is wrong. Besides it´s the USA´s and european governments fault that the immigrants come, because they overthrew regimes in midleeastern countries and made life there unliveable. Immigrants aren´t going to fix ****, as the whole system is rotten.


There are many issues there we could discuss further but indeed the capitalist system we have isn't ideal. The typical US libertarian version of it is particularity fowl. However, look to the likes of Scandinavia which have the Nordic Model which is a cross between capitalism and socialism, and it's no wonder their people rate as the happiest in the world year after year.

Nobody is saying immigrants are going to fix societies issues, but we can at least have the humanity to help our fellow people, especially when it's proven that immigrants on average pay in more than they take out.

What's your solution to solving the problem of poverty?


----------



## OohSexyLady (Mar 7, 2016)

I think it is more about emotion(?). Think about the things that you _loved_ as a child. How do you _feel_ when someone stirs up those memories in you? How do you _feel_ when someone attacks one of those things you love? You see this a lot in countries where everyone is similar. For example, modern China has had a bit more of a nationalistic swing in the last decade or so and so has Russia. These sentiments often grow out of our experience. Those "family memories" that are unique to each individual, but happen to be shared for the most part on a larger scale. In America for example it is fireworks.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

There are too many appeals to emotion in cases of nationalism, so I hardly find benefits in it.

I'm not sure about the present day, but I'm sure that if our civilization thrives and becomes a type 1 civilization, obsolete concepts like nationalism won't be necessary anymore.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

Consent matters above all else. Nations/populations have a right to preserve their way of life if they wish.

As Gore Vidal (hardly a right-winger) put it:



> In 1999, in the lecture "The Folly of Mass Immigration", presented in Dublin, Vidal said:
> 
> "A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north. Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety, or even the pursuit of happiness. But now, with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species"


 Nationalism is not inherently right wing. it can be either a good or bad thing depending how it is utilised.

Nation states with defined borders are essential for human progress.

A nation state with defined borders creates a *body-politic - *a group of people bound together by shared interests, shared experiences, language, culture and history. When people are all roughly on the same page, they can progress together in the same direction, often quite rapidly.

When too many people inside a nation are all pulling in different directions, progress is slowed drastically. 
In other words: national borders have a concentrating effect. A vital one, I'd argue.

It's no accident that humanity has progressed so much in the last 300 hundred years. Such process is not _despite_ national borders, but in large part _because_ of them. That progress took place within nations with defined borders.

It's no accident that small nation states in western Europe (particularly the Scandinavian ones) are the most advanced and progressive in the world. (yes, of course I'm aware they also historically benefited from colonialism) The ideas produced there could then be shared with the rest of the world.

The opposite of a nation state with defined/enforced borders would be a lot closer to anarchy than advocates for it admit or are aware. It would actually be a regressive, rather than progressive step, in my view.

If those nations suddenly had to accommodate half the population of Bangladesh (for example) they would become a hell of a lot less progressive in the short term, and their future progress would be drastically slowed.

Of course there will always be some Globalists/corporatists dangling the carrot of more GDP in front of nations as reward for doing away with borders/the nation state. Such people should be resited, in my view.

We have ways of improving conditions/life for people around the world that don't involve doing away with national borders. *It's precisely because these practices have been working so well that so many people from the developing world can now afford to move around. *The people on the move are often not the poorest of the poor, but the middle-classes from developing nations.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

one thing with this nationalists is that they always look like this:










bald, well trained, angry look, tattoes.....


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> My views are typical of leftist liberals in general. Class is irrelevant. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they don't understand how beneficial immigrants are.
> 
> It's a simple fact that immigrants contribute more than they take. You can ignore that fact all you want, but you aren't going to posit a strong argument by doing so. Of course everyone in influenced by conditioning, some good, some bad. The right wing culture of xenophobia and nationalism is an example of bad conditioning for example.
> 
> ...


 Btw., I score on the political compass as „left libertarian", close to authoritarian, although there are some questions I wasn´t sure about, so it might vary slightly.

You´re basically saying that people who didn´t go to university are uneducated primitives, that´s why they´re nationalists. Some may be, but lack of formal education doesn´t mean that a person is stupid. There are intelligent and ignorant people regadless of what kind of formal education they have. IMO education is a whole life process, you learn by reading a lot and studying from internet etc. Curiosity and interest is important. Solely going to school is not enough.

I know some people who have university education, yet didn´t lost their ability of critical thinking and common sense. One of them is an expert on economy and currently a member of European Parliament. I like to read his articles in a newspaper every day, as he is very smart and always spot on. Unfortunately it looks like just a mere fact that a person has university education doesn´t make them smart. I guess it depends on everyone´s general personality, if they had critical thinking before entering the school they know how to separate corn from the chaff, while others might get brainwashed. According to my observations and books form Ben Shapiro etc. there is agenda pushed in universities and brainwashing of students.

The abovementioned politician has been a long time critic of immigration, when they asked him why, he said „the fact that I am very leftist doesn´t mean I am completely stupid". As I discussed it before, I do think the opinions and general worldview of many liberal leftists seem pretty naive, which most probably is because they had decent to sheltered lives. People who come from well-of family, go from school right to university, then get married and work in an office will experience the world as a nice comfortable/secure place contrary to a person who comes from broken family with violence, instead of going to university has to work for a minimum wage or gets homeless. They will experience the world and people from the harshest side. When you live at the bottom, you are most vulnerable and exposed to exploitation, abuse and mistreatment. Which is what I have experienced abroad as an aupair, where people very often hire you with the sole intention to milk you what you are worth, then unscurpulously kick you out without payment. Because as an aupair, you have no legal rights and so they´re treating you as a slave. There are some nice people who don´t, but the majority of people are foul (which you often learn only when you´re down), and this is not only my experience, but of most other aupairs I met too. Not to even speak of philippino slaves in Saudi Arabia etc., who often get even tortured and raped by their families. Nepali construction workers in Saudi Arabia who never get paid and eventually are let to die, despite they work for billionaires. And what about things like honor killings, when mother sets her own daughter on fire? There are thousands and thousands other examples of unbelievable cruetly. I have worked in a factory last year, although only one day, because it was in the summer and temperature over 40. The factory only had tin roof and no cooling or climatization whatsoever. We had to wear thick uniforms, rubber boots, gloves and woolen sleeves. I thought, is this for real, they must be kidding! Then you work 8,5 hours nonstop, only every 2 hours you can go to the toilett for 5 minutes. No lunch break, no water unless from the tap when you go to the toilett. Combined with the fact that the work is 3 shift and there is no bus connection in the afternoon and in the everning/at night, so I had to cycle to work 6 km. Your pay is in conversion like 285 british pounds a month (with food here being even more expensive than in England or Germany). I have heard of one car plant in our country where workers were fainting and dying in the process. Why do they still work in such conditions? Often because they have no other choice. It does make you angry then when large numbers of imnmigrants come and are handed everything from the governments for free, yet still it´s not good enough to them and they often commit crimes. Outrageous arrogance. And stop the crap with them being endangered, as most are pretty much only economic immigrants, that means golddiggers. I have talked about it already but you conveniently ignore it.

It´s hard to believe you´re asking me to explain the obvious, I have even given examples of how muslims demand that we live according to their customs, yet you still ask again. Isn´t it true that muslims demand that our women are covered, that we don´t drink alcohol, that we don´t have christmas trees in public places, find it offensive when shops and restaurants sell pork etc. There is not sharia law in the western countries yet, although they do apply it among themselves and their aim is that for example Britain, Belgium etc is sharia in the future. That´s their mission.

IMO the only solution to poverty is spiritual progress of people, otherwise every solution will always be imperfect. You can´t have ideal system when you have imperfect people. Communism isn´t that bad though, at least that´s what I experienced as a child and a teenager. It does have negative sides but at least there was equality, equal prices everywhere, security (with the price of limitation of freedom) etc. No homelesness, hunger, drugs, prostitution.. even religion was illegal for some reason.

I am sorry though I am behind with my work and writing these replies takes me so much time. This topic could be discussed indefinitely and I just don´t have the time, so I apologize.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

Just to add, I am actually not against taking in GENUINE immigrants who are in danger at home, provided they will behave decently and be grateful for what they are given, and provided they will return back home after the war is over. But we aren´t inflatable and cannot take in the whole world, even immigrants from countries where there is NO WAR AND NO DANGER, who are massively comming as well. I don´t care if they are poor at home, it´s their problem, we cannot solve poverty of other countries when we´re not capable solving our own!!!


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

^^ Well I'm very glad you weren't making the decisions to let myself and my family into our new country! I can't imagine my life if we had stayed, *shudders*.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

eukz said:


> There are too many appeals to emotion in cases of nationalism, so I hardly find benefits in it.
> 
> I'm not sure about the present day, but I'm sure that if our civilization thrives and becomes a type 1 civilization, obsolete concepts like nationalism won't be necessary anymore.


Yeah. It's a long way off.

At the moment we live in a world that is hugely unbalanced in terms of basic values and the economy. Having open borders at the moment would encourage people to only enter certain countries and not others, since the quality of life and laws are not similar enough in all countries.

You can only have so many people in a certain geographical area before it becomes unsustainable.

Our current economic model encourages inequality in living standards and the economy globally. So open borders would only be feasible with intense restructuring or the replacement of capitalism.

If automation takes over the economic system will evolve, and if we spread out galactically and leave the planet or encounter other intelligent life, open borders could theoretically occur. Especially if there are significantly less Humans on Earth (with the machines doing most of the work.)

The problem of having relative shared values will also be a consideration, but I think it seems likely that there will be much less variation on the subject of Human rights in the far future. Assuming we don't destroy ourselves before that point.


----------



## gunner21 (Aug 4, 2012)

Rockwell said:


> If it seems like I'm defending slavery then that's because I won't apologize for the strength of western civilization. Our ancestors were superior and they crushed them. It's something to be proud of, not something to be ashamed of. This weakness that exists within the west today where many people want to grovel and apologize over every example of strength in our history is just disgusting and I will never go along with this pathetic self-flagellation.
> 
> I won't apologize for our past achievements and conquests and it's mind boggling that so many westerners are willing to go along with having their own history used as a weapon against them. We have nothing to apologize for and if anyone feels that we have wronged them and that we should apologize then they should be happy that they are still alive.


stormfront is that way bud. --------------------------------------->


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> You´re basically saying that people who didn´t go to university are uneducated primitives, that´s why they´re nationalists. Some may be, but lack of formal education doesn´t mean that a person is stupid. There are intelligent and ignorant people regadless of what kind of formal education they have. IMO education is a whole life process, you learn by reading a lot and studying from internet etc. Curiosity and interest is important. Solely going to school is not enough.
> 
> I know some people who have university education, yet didn´t lost their ability of critical thinking and common sense. One of them is an expert on economy and currently a member of European Parliament. I like to read his articles in a newspaper every day, as he is very smart and always spot on. Unfortunately it looks like just a mere fact that a person has university education doesn´t make them smart. I guess it depends on everyone´s general personality, if they had critical thinking before entering the school they know how to separate corn from the chaff, while others might get brainwashed.


All I said was that those without a college education tend to be less liberal. :? Of course there can be smart people of all education levels.



> According to my observations and books form Ben Shapiro etc. there is agenda pushed in universities and brainwashing of students.


Oh yeah and such a right wing conservative wouldn't have an agenda for saying colleges 'brainwash' students to be liberal? :roll



> The abovementioned politician has been a long time critic of immigration, when they asked him why, he said „the fact that I am very leftist doesn´t mean I am completely stupid". As I discussed it before, I do think the opinions and general worldview of many liberal leftists seem pretty naive, which most probably is because they had decent to sheltered lives. People who come from well-of family, go from school right to university, then get married and work in an office will experience the world as a nice comfortable/secure place contrary to a person who comes from broken family with violence, instead of going to university has to work for a minimum wage or gets homeless. They will experience the world and people from the harshest side. When you live at the bottom, you are most vulnerable and exposed to exploitation, abuse and mistreatment. Which is what I have experienced abroad as an aupair, where people very often hire you with the sole intention to milk you what you are worth, then unscurpulously kick you out without payment. Because as an aupair, you have no legal rights and so they´re treating you as a slave. There are some nice people who don´t, but the majority of people are foul (which you often learn only when you´re down), and this is not only my experience, but of most other aupairs I met too. Not to even speak of philippino slaves in Saudi Arabia etc., who often get even tortured and raped by their families. Nepali construction workers in Saudi Arabia who never get paid and eventually are let to die, despite they work for billionaires. And what about things like honor killings, when mother sets her own daughter on fire? There are thousands and thousands other examples of unbelievable cruetly. I have worked in a factory last year, although only one day, because it was in the summer and temperature over 40. The factory only had tin roof and no cooling or climatization whatsoever. We had to wear thick uniforms, rubber boots, gloves and woolen sleeves. I thought, is this for real, they must be kidding! Then you work 8,5 hours nonstop, only every 2 hours you can go to the toilett for 5 minutes. No lunch break, no water unless from the tap when you go to the toilett. Combined with the fact that the work is 3 shift and there is no bus connection in the afternoon and in the everning/at night, so I had to cycle to work 6 km. Your pay is in conversion like 285 british pounds a month (with food here being even more expensive than in England or Germany). I have heard of one car plant in our country where workers were fainting and dying in the process. Why do they still work in such conditions? Often because they have no other choice. It does make you angry then when large numbers of imnmigrants come and are handed everything from the governments for free, yet still it´s not good enough to them and they often commit crimes. Outrageous arrogance. And stop the crap with them being endangered, as most are pretty much only economic immigrants, that means golddiggers. I have talked about it already but you conveniently ignore it.


I'd say it's very naive to think pro-immigration leftist liberals tend to be wealthy while anti-immigration right wing conservatives tend to be poor.

Your post above seems to be talking about the poor treatment immigrants in some cases but getting 'everything for free' in others, so i'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

I'd already replied to your other points in my previous post but you've just ignored them and repeated the absurd claims again.



> It´s hard to believe you´re asking me to explain the obvious, I have even given examples of how muslims demand that we live according to their customs, yet you still ask again.


Where did you give examples?



> Isn´t it true that muslims demand that our women are covered, that we don´t drink alcohol, that we don´t have christmas trees in public places, find it offensive when shops and restaurants sell pork etc. There is not sharia law in the western countries yet, although they do apply it among themselves and their aim is that for example Britain, Belgium etc is sharia in the future. That´s their mission.


Absolute nonsense. You're deluded if you think Muslims are demanding non-Muslims in the West convert to Islam.



> IMO the only solution to poverty is spiritual progress of people, otherwise every solution will always be imperfect. You can´t have ideal system when you have imperfect people.


"Spiritual progress". What is that supposed to mean?



> Communism isn´t that bad though, at least that´s what I experienced as a child and a teenager. It does have negative sides but at least there was equality, equal prices everywhere, security (with the price of limitation of freedom) etc. No homelesness, hunger, drugs, prostitution.. even religion was illegal for some reason.


Increased socialism is a better option.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> Just to add, I am actually not against taking in GENUINE immigrants who are in danger at home, provided they will behave decently and be grateful for what they are given, and provided they will return back home after the war is over. But we aren´t inflatable and cannot take in the whole world, even immigrants from countries where there is NO WAR AND NO DANGER, who are massively comming as well. I don´t care if they are poor at home, it´s their problem, we cannot solve poverty of other countries when we´re not capable solving our own!!!


Actually many Western countries are 'inflatable' and can take in more people since more people means economic growth.

Many Western countries need to take in more people as well to fill labour shortages.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> Actually many Western countries are 'inflatable' and can take in more people since more people means economic growth.
> 
> Many Western countries need to take in more people as well to fill labour shortages.


What labor shortages? What jobs? The ones that are increasingly being turned over to machines? We're talking almost exclusively unskilled labor, with worse education than the natives, coming in with no knowledge of the local language, bitterly competing against the natives for the same scant few jobs and then sending their earnings abroad. If I'm not mistaken, this is precisely the reason why the USA is about to elect an angry potato for president, and one of the main reasons for the Britain crisis.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ScorchedEarth said:


> What labor shortages? What jobs? The ones that are increasingly being turned over to machines?
> We're talking almost exclusively unskilled labor, with worse education than the natives, coming in with no knowledge of the local language, bitterly competing against the natives for the same scant few jobs and then sending their earnings abroad. If I'm not mistaken, this is precisely the reason why the USA is about to elect an angry potato for president, and one of the main reasons for the Britain crisis.


Some places have labour shortages and there are various menial jobs many natives don't want to do, so immigrants often fill the gaps. Also, only a small selection of jobs are being automated at the moment.


----------



## Blue2015 (Jul 3, 2015)

Self preservation is an instinctual reaction to danger, and there are certain studies that show there is a danger when there is a clash of cultures, aka multiculturalism. Immigration needs to be regulated, and the immigrants that come need to be given a couple of generations to assimilate to the current culture of the nation they have migrated to. We cannot have separate communities being created who have contradictory values to our own - this will only lead to conflict.






http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580905001656


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> I'd say it's very naive to think pro-immigration leftist liberals tend to be wealthy while anti-immigration right wing conservatives tend to be poor.


Actually what I was talking about isn´t healthy liberal leftism, more like political correctness.



ugh1979 said:


> Your post above seems to be talking about the poor treatment immigrants in some cases but getting 'everything for free' in others, so i'm not sure what point you were trying to make.


I wasn´t talking about immigrants, I was talking about people at the bottom of society, which can be native or guest workers. Nothing to do with immigration. When I was working abroad, I didn´t come there and get pampered like some of today´s immigrants who are paid journeys, hotels, language courses and given generous pocket money. I had to earn money for the journey on my own, often had to sleep at the station when searning for jobs etc. Once I spent at the train station a whole week with almost no money.



ugh1979 said:


> I'd already replied to your other points in my previous post but you've just ignored them and repeated the absurd claims again.


Just the same as you´re doing.



ugh1979 said:


> Where did you give examples?


 *banning alcohol, christian customs, pushing halal, demanding that women are covered.*
When I say for example "that women are covered" obviously I don´t mean wearing burkas, but that they don´t wear revealing clothing.



ugh1979 said:


> Absolute nonsense. You're deluded if you think Muslims are demanding non-Muslims in the West convert to Islam.


You´re very manipulative and twisting the meaning of everything I say. You´re wasting my time with this ****. I didn´t say "convert to Islam", read properly and use your common sense. What I meant is they use pressure for example that there is not a christmas tree in public place because it is offensive to them etc. Thousands of other examples. If you didn´t hear about anything like that then you must be sleeping or removed from reality.



ugh1979 said:


> "Spiritual progress". What is that supposed to mean?


Becoming better and more mature people.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> Actually what I was talking about isn´t healthy liberal leftism, more like political correctness.


So those who are more politically correct are pro-immigration and those that aren't are more anti-immigration?



> I wasn´t talking about immigrants, I was talking about people at the bottom of society, which can be native or guest workers. Nothing to do with immigration. When I was working abroad, I didn´t come there and get pampered like some of today´s immigrants who are paid journeys, hotels, language courses and given generous pocket money. I had to earn money for the journey on my own, often had to sleep at the station when searning for jobs etc. Once I spent at the train station a whole week with almost no money.


Your story is the same as most poor immigrants. Your anecdotal tale of some that were given free flights and hotel rooms is certainly not the norm. You don't honestly believe it is do you?



> Just the same as you´re doing.


What points did I ignore? If you list them i'll happily address them. I'll then list the points you've ignored and you can reply to them.



> *banning alcohol, christian customs, pushing halal, demanding that women are covered.*
> When I say for example "that women are covered" obviously I don´t mean wearing burkas, but that they don´t wear revealing clothing.


I'd already replied to that absurd claim. You clearly ignored my reply and just restated it. There would be an uproar if that happened in the West. It's only Muslims that Muslims push their customs and traditions on. Feel free to cite evidence for your claim. On what grounds do any immigrants have for pushing their customs on natives, and how would they do it? Shouting at natives in the street? :?



> You´re very manipulative and twisting the meaning of everything I say. You´re wasting my time with this ****. I didn´t say "convert to Islam", read properly and use your common sense. What I meant is they use pressure for example that there is not a christmas tree in public place because it is offensive to them etc. Thousands of other examples. If you didn´t hear about anything like that then you must be sleeping or removed from reality.


If they aren't demanding we convert to Islam then why are they demanding people practice Islamic traditions? You're clearly grasping at straws with these absurd claims but as I say, feel free to cite a report of Muslims in the West demanding non-Muslim women are covered or demanding that we don't drink alcohol or sell/eat pork. Who are they making their demands to? The police? The government?

You're clearly making it up to suit your xenophobic argument and it's just lies.



> Becoming better and more mature people.


You should say that then as "spiritual growth" is a rather opaque term.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> So those who are more politically correct are pro-immigration and those that aren't are more anti-immigration?
> 
> Your story is the same as most poor immigrants. Your anecdotal tale of some that were given free flights and hotel rooms is certainly not the norm. You don't honestly believe it is do you?
> 
> ...


As I already said, I have no time to waste on this absurd debate anymore, it would be polite of you if you respected that.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> As I already said, I have no time to waste on this absurd debate anymore, it would be polite of you if you respected that.


What a cop out. You know you can't back up what you have claimed so resort to this. :roll


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)




----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> What a cop out. You know you can't back up what you have claimed so resort to this. :roll


I said I was BUSY which is the TRUTH, yet you don´t respect that. Besides I know well from before that you´re aggresive, manipulative and closedminded, only interested in winning the debate and destroying your opponent in order to get an ego boost. You never have the balls to acknowledge even if your opponent is clearly right and always find a way to twist it around (often in and absurd and ridiculous way) so you can call yourself a winner.This is not a fair play and I am not an idiot to keep buying into your manipulative ****. I know that you´re an ******* from before and it was very generous of me to sacrifice my precious time to debate with you, but it was cleary a mistake.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> I said I was BUSY which is the TRUTH, yet you don´t respect that.


So you say, but you have time to come back and post this rather than back up your claim.



> Besides I know well from before that you´re aggresive, manipulative and closedminded, only interested in winning the debate and destroying your opponent in order to get an ego boost. You never have the balls to acknowledge even if your opponent is clearly right and always find a way to twist it around (often in and absurd and ridiculous way) so you can call yourself a winner.This is not a fair play and I am not an idiot to keep buying into your manipulative ****. I know that you´re an ******* from before and it was very generous of me to sacrifice my precious time to debate with you, but it was cleary a mistake.


Simmer down and no need for childish name calling.

Losing a debate/being caught out lying obviously immensely frustrates you. You say I "don't have the balls" to admit i'm wrong, yet you run away as soon as you are shown to be wrong. :roll


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> So you say, but you have time to come back and post this rather than back up your claim.
> 
> Simmer down and no need for childish name calling.
> 
> Losing a debate/being caught out lying obviously immensely frustrates you. You say I "don't have the balls" to admit i'm wrong, yet you run away as soon as you are shown to be wrong. :roll


Demanding proofs that muslims are behaving aggresively in the UK and everywhere else in Europe is just as ridiculous as demaning proofs that the sky is blue. I could easily give thousands of examples, show articles, videos etc. The thing is though that you´re always asking for proofs in the situation where your opponent has convincing arguments and you´re too ***** having to acknowledge they are right. Your asking for proofs for totally absurd things comes across as desperate and aggresive at the same time, it´s bordering on harrasment. You´re here just to excercise your ego instead of being interested in genuine conversation. It leads nowhere and you´re wasting people´s time.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bloodymary said:


> Demanding proofs that muslims are behaving aggresively in the UK and everywhere else in Europe is just as ridiculous as demaning proofs that the sky is blue. I could easily give thousands of examples, show articles, videos etc. The thing is though that you´re always asking for proofs in the situation where your opponent has convincing arguments and you´re too ***** having to acknowledge they are right. Your asking for proofs for totally absurd things comes across as desperate and aggresive at the same time, it´s bordering on harrasment. You´re here just to excercise your ego instead of being interested in genuine conversation. It leads nowhere and you´re wasting people´s time.


If you can give thousands of examples then why not cite a report of Muslims in the West demanding non-Muslim women are covered or demanding that we don't drink alcohol or sell/eat pork as I ask?

You claiming you can easily do it but not doing it totally destroys the legitimacy of your argument.

It's absolutely laughable you think asking for evidence to back up an absurd claim is, "desperate and aggresive at the same time, [and] bordering on harrasment." :lol

You might think something is as obvious as the sky being blue but it's certainly not to others, so you need to do something other than make the claim then shout abuse when someone challenges you on it in order to effectively debate.


----------

