Migrant Crisis: Culture Matters
Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago to Culture
Open borders do not work as westerners wish they would.
SOURCE URL: http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/1469
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Although, culture is a tricky thing. For instance, I do not think the Amish represent the foundations our country was built on (not meaning to pick on the Amish, just pointing out that American culture is perceived differently by different groups). In some ways Chinatown represents more of that cultural american spirit than downtown.
I empathize with the writer, but in some ways, he chooses himself as a winner with some caveats and all other Indians as surely losers.
I am often reminded of this scenario. I had several friends who built their houses or purchased houses that were up on the mountain overlooking the city. These were the same people who lobbied against and circulated petitions for, not letting other private property owners sell their land to a development farther up the mountain. It would ruin the "natural setting." There is somewhat of a privileged point of view the author takes and we are to indulge him because he basically says that nobody else is wise enough to change their thinking when presented with opportunity. History shows this is not the case. The first step for any migrant to grasp when coming to the US, is that individual lives are important. The "I.". That's huge for a second world or third world dweller to understand coming to a first world nation. There is plenty of that individualist thinking left in the US and the most important idea to get across to new immigrants, IMO.
I think they represent exactly the kind of society that Thomas Jefferson envisioned. The Amish ALL work, and they trade value for value. If they were atheists perhaps you would view them in a different light...because under that condition they would be nothing more than an in vivo agricultural version of Galt's Gulch in AS.
Further, you can go on and on all you like about how enlightened Germany's refugee intake program is, but reality and history say that there is no way in hell those people coming in abruptly and by the millions are going to immediately become literarily proficient in the language and assimilate into the existing culture. To say that defies logistics and reality.
Self-destructive belief systems do NOT change over night, and sufficient numbers will cling to the old ways (including Sharia) and the German culture will be significantly and probably detrimentally impacted--especially women's rights.
History (one of my degrees, btw) has shown that this happens over and over. Emigrants in those kinds of numbers WILL change the culture.
Besides, Germany is already in the process of breaking contractual long-term leases and turning older people out of their lifetime homes to make space for these immigrants. Eminent domain for long-term leasers. Do you agree with that? Do nations need to take in people for whom they have NO lodgings without disenfranchising their own native born? Please. I'd like an answer.
You noted that the emigrants, "must speak German." So, if they do NOT learn German will they be deported? No, and they are not going to become fluent in German nor are they going to completely assimilate western style government.
As a student of history, you should realize that culture is a fluid concept that can't be dammed up without stopping progress and improvements of the lives of those behind the dam. I think of the effects of migrations as similar to the constructive demolition of capitalism. Germany's problem is not the migrants, it's the socialist government they've adopted over the last 50 years which will attract as many migrants as can get in.
If insulting others or playing the victim is what you choose to do, you won't enjoy your time here. We are trying to have a civil site here promoting discussion among respectful people.
But tell me, what do you really think?
Agreed Germany is being destroyed, but you ask, if they deserve it. Well yes. The widespread application of well meaning but badly thought out policies is having the inevitable result, there are some that are waking up but the majority just want more.
The analogy of a dam is good.
I think the author just doesn't get it. Christianity was a primary enemy of reason throughout 2,000 of those years and democracy, the nation state, and public education as collectivist ideals are the opposites of the enlightenment.
The author may propose some interesting conclusions and argument, but he's not pro-freedom nor writing from reason and logical rationality. It wasn't the culture of Europe, but just the opposite--the escape from that cloying and freedom destruction culture, that led to the founding and experiment which led to what was America.
I am not a 'religious' person, but have found that zealot atheists are among the most ill-informed, obnoxious, controlling and micro-managing people in the world. I belong to a social club with a membership of approximately 150 people. There is one atheist who has made everyone else so miserable that they have given up saying grace before meals, and walk on eggshells to remain 'secular' but still have socials during the Christmas and Hanukkah seasons.
I plan to put a stop to that shit soon because I am the President elect. If he doesn't like the way the harmless majority of a VOLUNTEER membership social club celebrates then his ass can find an atheist social club for his social outlet.
Irrational zealots (of whatever stripe) who cannot " live and let live" perturb me. Especially when they have an elitist, condescending, omniscient, and pedantic attitude.
As to the Amish, I don't dislike them, but deciding to live your life in the 18th or 19th century and deny the tremendous benefits that technology has provided to human life, I put right up there with denying your child modern medicine or dancing with snakes. But again, I hold no animosity to any of them nor to your desire to confront your atheist over his attempt to control your group. Atheists come in all shapes, sizes, and personalities just like every other human. I choose to deal with them as individuals and I let no one control or attempt to de-humanize me. If they are rational men, then I can interact with them. If not, regardless of their positions on anything, then I ignore them.
I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to control you, your group, nor anyone else. But your antipathy towards an Objectivist's rational rejection, on an Objectivist site, of a magical entity and the propaganda of those that want to see their beliefs popularized beyond their homes and churches (proselytization) will meet with response on this site.
Deal with it as you will.
"Deal with it as you will." Well, Zenphamy, I sure as hell am not going to deal with it by looking down my nose as the Amish because they have a different lifestyle and values from me, but one which make them healthy and happy and not a burden for me.
FYI, I didn't come here as some novice who saw the movies and was curious. I came hoping to find people who actually take Rand at her written word and think for themselves--even if it means they don't always agree with her every little implementation of her philosophy. I read Rand's novels years ago, was intrigued and made a very serious and years-long study of her writings. I've reread them. I even have some originals of The Objectivist Newsletter left to get rid of from a dismantled collection of Randian memorabilia. I studied up on Rand herself, too. I've probably forgotten more about Rand's work and Rand herself in her personal life (which was sometimes not exemplary by her own standards, btw) than many of the people here. Don't patronize me because I never conform blindly to all the aspects of any philosophy, including Objectivism. And don't accuse me of having antipathy because I accept no one else's reason above my own. Rand wouldn't approve of that.
But as you say, it's no skin off my nose. As long as they don't try to interfere with my rights as a free man of the mind, I won't interfere with theirs. But I also won't proclaim their lifestyles as some sort of ideal or try to pick a fight over it.
Even some here who claim to be "pure" Objectivists [ judging from their use of adjectives such as vitriolic, judgmental, and dogmatic in retorts to the tiny rigid orthodox oligarchy here] appear to have problems with the condescension wearing thin.
Newsflash: Even with her philosophical errors and personal issues that biased her thinking, I have not seen any evidence of a single mind here that even remotely is in the same league as Ms. Rand. So some of you need to get over yourselves.
It makes no difference to me what you think of me. This forum is an occasional distraction in a busy life, and should I get tossed for speaking with brutal honesty about some of the bad impressions I've picked up here? Big Deal. Life goes on.
But being here seems to matter to some other very earnest contributors, whom I perceive have become very hyper-vigilant to slight, sarcasm, and passive-aggressive provocation.
As somebody on here said a while back, "We have a world to win." Hello! It ain't gonna get won by trying to make people feel stupid.
Why you might ask, do I feel that's appropriate? I'm a free man and I exercise all of the rights that a free man has by existence including the use of my mind. This is also a site dedicated to the principles formulated by Ayn Rand (though maybe not a perfect human, an undoubtable genius) and to those interested in her, her works, and the philosophy she formulated from insight that is indeed rare in this world. I consider her on a par with Einstein, for those brilliant insights and the ability to express them in ways that tie into the daily lives and striving of all humans. One of the important issues I've discovered on this site is that there really is very little purist opinions on the site. There are a few, but they are in the small minority.
I admit I'm not a big fan of the conservative, political bent on the site nor the liberal nor the religious, for the simple reason that it kind of misses the point of the troubles we find ourselves in as a country and a people. I consider them all to be sides (maybe edges) of the same coin not only letting, but advocating for bigger and bigger government and more and more intrusion into the lives of the individual people of this country, as well as those of the rest of the globe as well. It is difficult for me to accept that others don't have the same ability I have to assess facts of life, apply logical reasoning and rational thought to those facts, and reach opinions and choices of action, separated from emotions and superstitions.
I don't consider those to be pro-freedom or pro-individual positions. When one advocates for the government to take up one's positions and beliefs over other's, what are they really arguing for. More imposition of government force and more loss of individual freedom to live, to produce, to search for freedom and happiness. That is not a proper government, and the description of a proper government for myself goes back to Locke, quite awhile prior to AR.
There are some on the site that are extensively studied on the works of Rand, some are philosophical thinkers attempting to expand the philosophy to more areas than Rand managed in her work, and some that are livers of the philosophy. Many are searchers, and there are a few that arrive wanting to disprove her derivations applied to religion, politics, abortion, altruism, and more importantly-the way forward.
Although politics are not philosophy and vice versa, Objectivist thought does attract the more conservative side of politics for the emphasis on freedom.
In as much as I might have contributed to your negative impressions of the sight, I sincerely apologize. But I value reason and Objectivist thought above all else. It's been my life.
Tetrahedron
Faces = 4
Conservative
Liberal
Religous
Don't know (too large a category in polls)
Nothing but rigid edges and sharp points between the groups.
Most common tetrahedron - diamond - good symbol for how hard people hold onto their opinions
It does not seem much to ask, but our green altruists think that would be going against cultural diversity and promoting racism.