[JRS1]

Correction, my country of origin. The USA is my homeland.

OK.

I was neither born nor raised in Korea. I've visited the country once. I'm fairly certain that plenty of individuals who aren't even racially East Asian never mind ethnic Korean have far greater knowledge of the Korean languange, culture, and history than I do.

That isn't the same as multiculturalism though is it? If they are culturally Korean?

I already stated my views on what immigration policy should be. I think it's stupid for Korea to favor individuals simply on the basis of bloodlines. To favor a gyopo who's Korean only by descent but knows nothing of Korean language, culture, etc. over someone who may not be of Korean blood, but took the trouble to gain fluent knowledge of all things Korean, has desired skills and wants to contribute to Korea's growth and well-being strikes me as actually self-defeating.

Nobody said anything about favouring Korean diaspora. I have asked you a simple question. Would you want to see a policy of multiculturalism in Korea where ethnic Koreans are displaced? Yes or no?

You appear to evade the question- AND include qualifiers that are dead against the current practice of multiculturalism.

If you think that my standards will still inevitably result in a "majority immigrant Seoul" than so be it.

No. You are avoiding the question again. Its not about my interpretation of your policy and its potential results. Its a simple enough question - would you like to see it in Korea. Yes or no?

[Gletkin]

There's no right to migrate. That's the point that was being made

As I (fruitlessly perhaps) tried to remind you, you first posited that definition in discussing the ethnicist wars in Yugoslavia. (In that case it was not so much "right to migrate" as "right to not migrate".)

Why did you do that if not to claim that demos had some sort of ethnicist or racist meaning?

Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunic have said much the same things as I was saying there.

Reading that paper you linked to de Benoist, like yourself, also pretty much just asserted the supposed meaning of demos.

Judging from what I've read so far, even that whole passage in de Benoist's essay, demos had no more "anti-immigrant" meaning to it than "municipal" does today.

No. The issue is that Islam is in the West, where it does not belong.

So what is to be done with the Bosniacs and Albanians then?

Why would I bother to refute claims of 'racism'?

Indeed you didn't before, but then suddenly cared enough to make that "I differentiate different types of multiculturalism" post.

Keep playing this retarded line up that I must be crazy because 'I said so', and because I think your posts in my direction indicate that I am somehow lacking in knowledge about very basic facts of European history.

Dude, WTF are you talking about!? The only one who's "playing this retarded line" is you.
Although at this point you are starting to sound a bit delusional.

Get over it. If you don't like it and can't sufficiently address it or put forward an alternative point of view, you ought to have just ignored it.

If you can't bring solid proof to back your claims YOU get over it and don't derail the thread with ad hom drama.

That isn't the same as multiculturalism though is it? If they are culturally Korean?

As I've already said, people mean different things by "multiculturalism".
I don't think total assimilation is necessary. They can still retain a measure of their own culture if they're still able to function in and contribute to the society they're in.

Would you want to see a policy of multiculturalism in Korea where ethnic Koreans are displaced? Yes or no?

Immigration in and of itself is not "displacement".

AND include qualifiers that are dead against the current practice of multiculturalism.

So you claim.
But if you really think that's the case, then why do you continue to badger me?

You appear to evade the question.....
.....No. You are avoiding the question again.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. The ability and willingness to contribute to society matters more to me than actual ancestry.
If this results in a majority ethnic Korean Seoul, good. If this results in a minority ethnic Korean Seoul, also good.
I am neutral on this. I don't favor instituting policies to enforce ethnic purity or domination, nor do I favor instituting policies to ensure that ethnic Koreans become a minority.

Btw while you harp on your 45% White London you ignore that the same stats also state that 87.17% of the UK's population as a whole is still White.
Spread out your immigrants more then if you hate a "non-White London" so much.

[Noob]

Reading that paper you linked to de Benoist, like yourself, also pretty much just asserted the supposed meaning of demos.

Judging from what I've read so far, even that whole passage in de Benoist's essay, demos had no more "anti-immigrant" meaning to it than "municipal" does today.

I think you're just trying pin my supposed values ('anti-immigrant' - the immigrants themselves are never to blame) onto me and that article again. And sure, if your argument is that Alain de Benoist is making stuff up, that's fine. It's impossible to address that sort of argument, so I'll move on.

So what is to be done with the Bosniacs and Albanians then?

The monarchy was determined that religion should no longer be a foreign-oriented master dividing the Albanians, but a nationalized servant uniting them. It was at this time that newspaper editorials began to disparage the almost universal adoption of Muslim and Christian names, suggesting instead that children be given neutral Albanian names.

Official slogans began to appear everywhere. "Religion separates, patriotism unites." "We are no longer Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, we are all Albanians." "Our religion is Albanism." The national hymn characterized neither Muhammad nor Jesus Christ, but King Zogu as "Shpëtimtari i Atdheut" (Savior of the Fatherland). The hymn to the flag honored the soldier dying for his country as a "Saint." Increasingly the mosque and the church were expected to function as servants of the state, the patriotic clergy of all faiths preaching the gospel of Albanism.

Monarchy stipulated that the state should be neutral, with no official religion and that the free exercise of religion should be extended to all faiths. Neither in government nor in the school system should favor be shown to any one faith over another. Albanism was substituted for religion, and officials and schoolteachers were called "apostles" and "missionaries." Albania's sacred symbols were no longer the cross and the crescent, but the Flag and the King. Hymns idealizing the nation, Skanderbeg, war heroes, the king and the flag predominated in public-school music classes to the exclusion of virtually every other theme.

The first reading lesson in elementary schools introduced a patriotic catechism beginning with this sentence, "I am an Albanian. My country is Albania." Then there follows in poetic form, "But man himself, what does he love in life?" "He loves his country." "Where does he live with hope? Where does he want to die?" "In his country." "Where may he be happy, and live with honor?" "In Albania."

Indeed you didn't before, but then suddenly cared enough to make that "I differentiate different types of multiculturalism" post.

Indeed, it's a nuance in my position. This isn't the first time that I've differentiated between different types of multiculturalism.

Although at this point you are starting to sound a bit delusional.

I see, if you say so. You still haven't come up with a reason for why you thought I needed telling that European monarchs were of mixed heritage, or that Britain had a Jewish prime minister, as though I didn't somehow already know, or as though it supported your argument somehow. I don't particularly care for an answer either way.

If you can't bring solid proof to back your claims YOU get over it and don't derail the thread with ad hom drama.

It's nice to see that you've essentially dropped all of the most relevant of your claims and counter-arguments and are left with this in their place. Is there anything else that you would like me to address at this point?

[JRS1]

As I've already said, people mean different things by "multiculturalism".
I don't think total assimilation is necessary. They can still retain a measure of their own culture if they're still able to function in and contribute to the society they're in.

You were talking in terms of people being submerged in Korean culture. Hence the confusion.

So you think that people from other cultures should adopt the prevailing culture as their prevailing culture. I think we can agree on that.

Immigration in and of itself is not "displacement".

I never said it was. But a decline in absolute numbers shows a displacement has occured.

So you claim.
But if you really think that's the case, then why do you continue to badger me?

Because its a forum, for political discourse. And I expect the intellectual courtesy of people not flannelling their answers.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. The ability and willingness to contribute to society matters more to me than actual ancestry.
If this results in a majority ethnic Korean Seoul, good. If this results in a minority ethnic Korean Seoul, also good.
I am neutral on this. I don't favor instituting policies to enforce ethnic purity or domination, nor do I favor instituting policies to ensure that ethnic Koreans become a minority.

Given that Seoul has a huge percentage of ethnic Koreans - you appear to be supporting the status quo by neutrality.

But lets say that you dont care if it does or it doesnt become minority Korean. Do you apply the same indifference to Europe?

Btw while you harp on your 45% White London you ignore that the same stats also state that 87.17% of the UK's population as a whole is still White.
Spread out your immigrants more then if you hate a "non-White London" so much.

Enough with the harping and badgering schtick. We are here to debate. If you don't want to then don't.

Immigrants are allowed into the country in such numbers. They go to London, Birmingham and other large cities. What on earth could I, or indeed the government, do to spread them out better?

[Pants-of-dog]

You were talking in terms of people being submerged in Korean culture. Hence the confusion.

So you think that people from other cultures should adopt the prevailing culture as their prevailing culture. I think we can agree on that.

Canada has a long standing tradition of being racist against indigenous people. Should immigrants to Canada also learn this racism? Should immigrants to Europe learn to be bigoted against Roma?

What about multicultural situations that do not arise from immigration, such as in Canada?

Immigrants are allowed into the country in such numbers. They go to London, Birmingham and other large cities. What on earth could I, or indeed the government, do to spread them out better?

Provide tax incentives for all people (not just immigrants) to live outside of cities. Mind you, I do not see the problem with having cities that have a majority of non-white people.

[Gletkin]

I think you're just trying pin my supposed values ('anti-immigrant' - the immigrants themselves are never to blame) onto me and that article again.

You had just said:

There's no right to migrate. That's the point that was being made

While the particular issue being discussed was the ethnicist wars in Yugoslavia.
Given that context, that claim of yours only makes sense (despite being wrong) as an attempt to claim that demos had some sort of ethnicist, racist or anti-immigrant meaning. Otherwise, you just countered POD with something that wasn't relevant to what he was talking about.

Similar to your thing with idiotes. Etymological lectures that weren't relevant at all to the restriction of citizenship status even amongst natives.

It's impossible to address that sort of argument

Because you can't refute it.
It's quite simple, either there's proof, or there isn't. Your sources have not provided the evidence for your claim. It's as simple as that.
So by all means, "move on".

The monarchy was determined that religion should no longer be a foreign-oriented master dividing the Albanians, but a nationalized servant uniting them. It was at this time that newspaper editorials began to disparage the almost universal adoption of Muslim and Christian names, suggesting instead that children be given neutral Albanian names.

Official slogans began to appear everywhere. "Religion separates, patriotism unites." "We are no longer Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, we are all Albanians." "Our religion is Albanism." The national hymn characterized neither Muhammad nor Jesus Christ, but King Zogu as "Shpëtimtari i Atdheut" (Savior of the Fatherland). The hymn to the flag honored the soldier dying for his country as a "Saint." Increasingly the mosque and the church were expected to function as servants of the state, the patriotic clergy of all faiths preaching the gospel of Albanism.

Monarchy stipulated that the state should be neutral, with no official religion and that the free exercise of religion should be extended to all faiths. Neither in government nor in the school system should favor be shown to any one faith over another. Albanism was substituted for religion, and officials and schoolteachers were called "apostles" and "missionaries." Albania's sacred symbols were no longer the cross and the crescent, but the Flag and the King. Hymns idealizing the nation, Skanderbeg, war heroes, the king and the flag predominated in public-school music classes to the exclusion of virtually every other theme.

The first reading lesson in elementary schools introduced a patriotic catechism beginning with this sentence, "I am an Albanian. My country is Albania." Then there follows in poetic form, "But man himself, what does he love in life?" "He loves his country." "Where does he live with hope? Where does he want to die?" "In his country." "Where may he be happy, and live with honor?" "In Albania."

That's nice, but you had said:

The issue is that Islam is in the West, where it does not belong.

"Islam doesn't belong here" is not consistent with state neutrality that extends freedom to excercise religion to all faiths.

I see, if you say so. You still haven't come up with a reason for why you thought I needed telling that European monarchs were of mixed heritage, or that Britain had a Jewish prime minister, as though I didn't somehow already know, or as though it supported your argument somehow. I don't particularly care for an answer either way.

Yeah, my last line on my quote:

I don't think the ancient and "modern" empires were as different as you make them out to be.

Disagree with my view on empires all you like, but ever since then your chosen response to this was "You think I'm stupid or crazy don't you? DON'T YOU!?"
Again, take your own advice and simmer down.

It's nice to see that you've essentially dropped all of the most relevant of your claims and counter-arguments and are left with this in their place.

You made an assertion within the context of ethnic strife.
I disagreed with your assertion and asked for proof.
You provided a source, but upon reading that it's revealed that it didn't really provide solid evidence either.
Instead of such evidence, you offer nothing but denials and bizarre "arguments" like the above.

Is there anything else that you would like me to address at this point?

You haven't addressed my refutations in this entire thread, why should you start now?

Because its a forum, for political discourse. And I expect the intellectual courtesy of people not flannelling their answers.

I hardly see how I'm "flanneling answers" when if anything I gave a more precise response, repeatedly from the get go.
If anyone here is "flanneling answers" it's Noob.

But lets say that you dont care if it does or it doesnt become minority Korean. Do you apply the same indifference to Europe?

Sure.

Enough with the harping and badgering schtick. We are here to debate. If you don't want to then don't.

Then stop obsessing over irrelevancies.
When someone has already spelled out their position, it's pointless to harp on trifling details that don't stem from them.

Immigrants are allowed into the country in such numbers. They go to London, Birmingham and other large cities. What on earth could I, or indeed the government, do to spread them out better?

Shall I return the favor and start badgering you for how you would redistribute immigrant populations within the UK anyway?

So you think that people from other cultures should adopt the prevailing culture as their prevailing culture. I think we can agree on that.

I don't think absolute total assimilation is necessary but yes, they should understand that permanently relocating to another land has its price. They can't expect to live life 100% identical to "the Old Country".

[Noob]

While the particular issue being discussed was the ethnicist wars in Yugoslavia.

Wrong, it was about Athenian democracy and the non-existent 'right to migrate', very clearly. Let's review the line of conversation:

What is 'genuine' democracy, then? That view point comes about when you take history to be linear and that progress upwards and upwards is inevitable and that the future is getting better and better. I don't think that 'democracy' has been continuously refining itself through the ages - and democracy can only work when there is a more-or-less homogeneous population with common interests to fight for. If there are competing values, these interests can never be fully reconciled. Democracy isn't more 'modern' than other types of governance, and systems of governance with strong democratic and communitarian traditions have existed throughout history: see Scandinavia from the Viking era onwards.

Essentially, ancient democracy was based on the right to participate in society and community, whilst modern democracy is based on the right of the individual to withdraw from society and his obligations therein. Ancient democracy was communitarian, whilst modern democracy is individualist. The meanings of 'people', 'nation', 'city', and 'freedom' are changed entirely. There really isn't a basis for comparison there. The liberal tradition is for rule of law, human rights, respect for individual liberty, but the democratic tradition is for equality, popular sovereignty, and the identity of the ruler and the ruled - there's no necessary relation between these two traditions. In fact, representative democracy established itself to filter popular sovereignty; contemporary democracy attempts to organise the liberty of individuals rather than to elicit any decisions from the people.

Or the right to join society and take on obligations therein instead of being pre-judged and barred from doing so.

There is no and never has been any 'right' for foreigners to join a society, if somebody is an outsider, conferring citizenship to that person has always been a privilege and an exception. Ancient democracy was based on the organic community, and modern democracy, following Enlightenment tradition (the tradition which states that inherited values are obstacles that ultimately need to be done away with - 'the weight of the past'), doesn't differentiate between different groups of people but instead organises everybody through the prism of an abstract egalitarianism. There cannot be a 'universal people' that pays no attention to ethnicity, religion, culture, or tradition in place of a 'national people' in one space - it simply doesn't work - what is the common denominator of everything and everyone? You're still using modern democracy as a benchmark for ancient democracy and as I say, the two systems of modern representative democracy and ancient direct democracy (in practice, aristo-democracy) couldn't have been more different since they evolved historically very differently (and they are not related in the sense that the two systems are 'cousins') - the visions of social bonds in the modern era compared to the ancient era are so utterly different to one another that it's pointless to try to make a comparison between the two.

For someone who denies holding ethnicist or racist views (although I'm wondering why you're suddenly so bothered about it now, you genuinely didn't seem to care before) you sure make it easy for sensible conclusions to be drawn that you do.

There's no right to migrate. That's the point that was being made, and why would I be bothered about what term somebody wants to tag me with on the internet? The other point that was being made was a non-belief in 'humanity', and universalism.

Because you can't refute it.

Sure, how does somebody refute "this is an assertion and I don't believe it"? I'm not going to bother to tackle that, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

"Islam doesn't belong here" is not consistent with state neutrality that extends freedom to excercise religion to all faiths.

It's nice that you've managed to pick up only that, but the passage made quite clear that the various religions of Albanians were basically nationalised, undermined, and that a nationalistic policy of 'Albanism' was put into place under a secular state.

"You think I'm stupid or crazy don't you? DON'T YOU!?"

With all of these cute emoticons you keep dotting around the place, I think you're the angry one. And yet here you still are trying to talk about that. I don't believe I framed it like that, either. Perhaps you are injecting your own value judgement into those remarks. I expect you to try to quote it back at me to demonstrate how crazy those accusations were.

Again, take your own advice and simmer down.

No thank you.

You made an assertion within the context of ethnic strife.
I disagreed with your assertion and asked for proof.
You provided a source, but upon reading that it's revealed that it didn't really provide solid evidence either.
Instead of such evidence, you offer nothing but denials and bizarre "arguments" like the above.

I didn't make an assertion within the context of ethnic strife, no. I simply mentioned ethnic strife in Yugoslavia to support my point that disparate peoples cannot live together in the same room since they have competing material and spiritual interests, and so they will eventually be brought to a state of war where one group seeks to dominate, expel or massacre the other, or all three at the same time. Your assertion was that modern democracy 'grew out of' ancient democracy, when the two couldn't be more different and the term 'democracy' only reappeared in the eighteenth century, and even then it had a negative connotation. If we are to accept your line of reasoning (and linear view of progress), then communism and fascism 'grew out of' liberalism, and in fact that would be a much more accurate statement given that they all existed in the same time period and weren't, unlike ancient democracy and modern democracy, separated by millennia. This line of thinking when applied to democracy is entirely redundant.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of "proof" you're looking for and what for, regardless; clearly these are ideological issues. If you have a problem with the definitions of Greek words, perhaps you could ask a Greek person to clear it all up for you.

You haven't addressed my refutations in this entire thread, why should you start now?

I feel the same way.

If anyone here is "flanneling answers" it's Noob.

I've repeatedly expounded on answers when asked questions. Your tendency has been to ignore 90% of the questions put to you by myself. Stay mad.

Also, you mentioned that if somebody has taken the time to learn about and has devoted themselves to Korean culture and language, then they should not be excluded from Korea. However, if you take note of how many people can speak English or French or Spanish in the world, do you see that language is not as sufficient a barrier in vetting people for immigration purposes for England, or France, or Spain, as it would be for Korea? And also note that ninety-nine percent of the time, people do not migrate for cultural reasons - because culture creation or indeed cultural pursuits largely are not the domain of the working person since they have to work - the vast majority of people migrate for economic reasons, and it has always been that way.

[Thompson_NCL]

What about multicultural situations that do not arise from immigration, such as in Canada?

Which situations are those? Canada originally engaged in monoculturalism, which is why the natives were marginalised and isolated. This was as a direct result of mass immigration.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which situations are those? Canada originally engaged in monoculturalism, which is why the natives were marginalised and isolated. This was as a direct result of mass immigration.

Yes, Canada engaged in monoculturalism. This was not a result of mass immigration, but a result of colonialism and imperialism. Monoculturalism failed. Over and over again. Eventually, Canada got smart and stopped trying to engage in overt cultural genocide.

Anyways, I previously pointed out that the existence of peaceful minority majority communities in Canada disproves your prediction that "conflict will erupt" when immigrant populations become large. Would you like to reply?

[SolarCross]

colonialism = mass migration

[Pants-of-dog]

colonialism = mass migration

I think it would be more correct to say that colonialism is a specific type of migration, as well as a set of power dynamics that is specific to colonialism and that other forms of migration do not necessarily have.

Not all mass migration is colonialism, and while some migration is necessary for colonialism, mass migration is not.



Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Human migration is the movement by people from one place to another with the intention of settling temporarily or permanently in the new location. The movement is typically over long distances and from one country to another, but internal migration is also possible. Migration may be individuals, family units or in large groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

[Gletkin]

Wrong, it was about Athenian democracy and the non-existent 'right to migrate', very clearly. Let's review the line of conversation:

Yes, let's.
THIS is where it began:

The violence in Yugoslavia did not appear only during the conflicts of the 1990s. During WWII there were also ultra-nationalist groups who fought each other.

I say this because those seem to be the conditions that correlate with ethnic strife in Yugoslavia.
This, of course, implies that ethnically diverse countries with strong democratic traditions and little violence will be stable and prosperous.

I suppose you are using the definition of modern democracy that has been abstracted from its territorial and historical dimensions by referring to actual abstract conceptions like liberal rule of law, free markets and human rights, and where 'people power' and the 'people' in 'people power' means nothing (demos: 'land occupied by a people'), yes?

And later on:

Democracy can only function when the national question has been resolved, and democracy in a multiethnic state how you would like to see it is semantic nonsense. "One man, one vote" is totally inapplicable (to a country like Yugoslavia) because its competing ethnic interests makes the concept redundant.

To be a citizen meant to have a homeland. Democracy was rooted in the concept of autochthonous citizenship - one does not become an Athenian, one is born an Athenian.

This all links to multiculturalism because it's part and parcel to the egalitarian liberal-universalist nonsense of today. It's the fact that citizenship has been stripped of meaning - modern democracy has substituted 'national people' for 'universal people'.

There's no right to migrate

In this context why on earth would you make such an assertion and back it with statements like these if not to claim or insinuate some sort of ethnicist or anti-immigrant meaning?
Or do you just like to wander off all the time?

I didn't make an assertion within the context of ethnic strife, no. I simply mentioned ethnic strife in Yugoslavia to support my point that disparate peoples cannot live together in the same room since they have competing material and spiritual interests, and so they will eventually be brought to a state of war where one group seeks to dominate, expel or massacre the other, or all three at the same time.

Um, what you just described very much falls within "ethnic strife".
Besides, since ethnic strife was what was being talked about, if that's not what you addressed then you basically just went off on a tangent.

Sure, how does somebody refute "this is an assertion and I don't believe it"?

By presenting evidence backing it up....which you've yet to do.

I'm not going to bother to tackle that, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Yeah I refuse to believe allegations not supported by valid evidence.
How unreasonable of me.

It's nice that you've managed to pick up only that, but the passage made quite clear that the various religions of Albanians were basically nationalised, undermined, and that a nationalistic policy of 'Albanism' was put into place under a secular state.

The passage is also quite clear that it doesn't match your absolutist statement that "Islam doesn't belong here".

With all of these cute emoticons you keep dotting around the place

Emotis or not, it's clear that words don't have any greater effect on you.

I think you're the angry one.

Right, because it's only calm and collected people who out of the blue whine about being thought of as ignorant or insane.

I don't believe I framed it like that, either. Perhaps you are injecting your own value judgement into those remarks.

Right, injecting one's own value judgements.
Like accusing others of thinking that you're ignorant or insane or of being angry.

And yet here you still are trying to talk about that.

What, you don't like talking about how much you've been acting like a drama queen?
Don't feel like sharing these red herrings of yours anymore?

I expect you to try to quote it back at me to demonstrate how crazy those accusations were.

They certainly demonstrate that you suddenly preferred to make it all about you.

Again, take your own advice and simmer down.

No thank you.

Stay mad.

Yeah it's an emoticon. Who cares?

Your assertion was that modern democracy 'grew out of' ancient democracy, when the two couldn't be more different and the term 'democracy' only reappeared in the eighteenth century, and even then it had a negative connotation.

Yes it did originally have a negative connotation. Nevertheless, it changed over time. You repeatedly used it yourself in a non-pejorative manner throughout this thread.
That doesn't change the fact that it represented a continuing trend of spreading political enfranchisement from the one or few to the many.

If we are to accept your line of reasoning (and linear view of progress)

No it's not just "linear view of progress".
Modern democracy expanded upon ancient democracy, using it as a template.
Are they the same? Of course not. But to say that they have nothing in common is flat out wrong.

then communism and fascism 'grew out of' liberalism

For what it's worth the Leninists actually did see themselves as the "proletarian" parallel to the "bourgeois" revolutionaries that overthrew (or tried to overthrow) feudalism. Despite being typically regarded as "far-right" (which even some of its proponents don't mind) fascism is often said to be a syncretic ideology cannibalizing parts from previously existing ideologies including "democracy" and "republicanism".

and in fact that would be a much more accurate statement given that they all existed in the same time period and weren't, unlike ancient democracy and modern democracy, separated by millennia.

Simply being contemporaries is by no means a cause of similarity.
So simply by existing at the same time the Islamic State, Cuba, the Free State Project, etc. all have more in common with each other than past regimes or movements?

I've repeatedly expounded on answers when asked questions

You've presented much, but proved none.
Pages of of "expounding" but not a shred of concrete evidence.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of "proof" you're looking for and what for

Well yes that would require you to stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Your tendency has been to ignore 90% of the questions put to you by myself.

Which, again, is all about you.

You still haven't come up with a reason for why you thought I needed telling that European monarchs were of mixed heritage, or that Britain had a Jewish prime minister, as though I didn't somehow already know

You're really going to try to spin a sub-thread out of rhetorical questions?

If you have a problem with the definitions of Greek words, perhaps you could ask a Greek person to clear it all up for you.

It's not the Greeks who are making these allegations, you are.

However, if you take note of how many people can speak English or French or Spanish in the world, do you see that language is not as sufficient a barrier in vetting people for immigration purposes for England, or France, or Spain, as it would be for Korea?

All that would mean is that a major potential hurdle, that of communication, doesn't exist for such people. Beyond that is, as you put it, "injecting your own value judgement".
Anyway I also stated that countries should be free to discriminate based on skill sets as well.

And also note that ninety-nine percent of the time, people do not migrate for cultural reasons - because culture creation or indeed cultural pursuits largely are not the domain of the working person since they have to work - the vast majority of people migrate for economic reasons, and it has always been that way.

Sure.
Still even if only passively they face enormous pressure to assimilate to some degree to function in the society they've moved to.

[Noob]

Gletkin - I didn't see much arguments being presented there, so this conversation clearly already died. Yes, all of those statements have 'ethnicist' meanings, I am an ethnocentrist, I don't even know what you're trying to get at. I'm not denying it and haven't been denying it, and essentially I reject your use of 'ethnicist' to mean 'racist'. Why don't you define 'racism' for me? I have my own definition of 'racism' and 'anti-racism'. As I already said, if you're so averse to the definition of demos as 'land occupied by a people' and are unsatisfied with my efforts thus far, go and ask Alain de Benoist, who used the phrase in the first place. I am sure that if you send him a nice email in French he could elucidate for you.

not a shred of concrete evidence.

What evidence do you require? This is an ideological issue.

The passage is also quite clear that it doesn't match your absolutist statement that "Islam doesn't belong here".

And? You asked 'what is to be done with Bosniacs and Albanians'. That passage is one approach that could be undertaken, clearly nobody is going to go along with any policy that starts off as 'we are going to remove you from your religion'.

What, you don't like talking about how much you've been acting like a drama queen?

If you say so. You can keep talking about that by yourself if you like.

You're really going to try to spin a sub-thread out of rhetorical questions?

What makes you think that I've been asking rhetorical questions? (this isn't a rhetorical question)

Still even if only passively they face enormous pressure to assimilate to some degree to function in the society they've moved to.

That's if they don't self-segregate and there are few enough so that they can be 'absorbed', which often isn't the case in Western Europe.

[JRS1]

Canada has a long standing tradition of being racist against indigenous people. Should immigrants to Canada also learn this racism? Should immigrants to Europe learn to be bigoted against Roma?

Then Canada needs to sort themselves out and stop it. Simple really.

Romany issues - Im not up to speed on. I know plenty of gypsies, but I dont think they are the same in the UK.

What about multicultural situations that do not arise from immigration, such as in Canada?

What about them?

Provide tax incentives for all people (not just immigrants) to live outside of cities. Mind you, I do not see the problem with having cities that have a majority of non-white people.

Neither do I have a problem, I live in such a city. 99% yellow. I just wouldn't want them to become a minority in their homeland.

Im interested in tax incentives - how would that work?

[Pants-of-dog]

Then Canada needs to sort themselves out and stop it. Simple really.

I completely agree.

Can you please answer my question: Canada has a long standing tradition of being racist against indigenous people. Should immigrants to Canada also learn this racism?

Romany issues - Im not up to speed on. I know plenty of gypsies, but I dont think they are the same in the UK.

I think they are somewhat different.

Should immigrants to Europe learn to be bigoted against Roma?

What about them?

How are people supposed to adopt the prevailing culture if there are more than one?

Neither do I have a problem, I live in such a city. 99% yellow. I just wouldn't want them to become a minority in their homeland.

I have no problem with that happening in a "white" country.

Im interested in tax incentives - how would that work?

You get a tax rebate if you move to the country.

[JRS1]

Can you please answer my question: Canada has a long standing tradition of being racist against indigenous people. Should immigrants to Canada also learn this racism?

Is it the prevailing tradition of Canada?

I think they are somewhat different.

Should immigrants to Europe learn to be bigoted against Roma?

See above. I dont think it defines us more than rape defines Indians.

I have no problem with that happening in a "white" country.

I know you dont. Do you have a problem with non whites becoming minorities in their countries?

You get a tax rebate if you move to the country.

A tax rebate on what? Income tax? OK - define country vs city.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is it the prevailing tradition of Canada?

In many places, yes.

See above. I dont think it defines us more than rape defines Indians.

Can you please answer the question with a simple yer or no? Thanks.

I know you dont. Do you have a problem with non whites becoming minorities in their countries?

Not really.

[JRS1]

Can you please answer the question with a simple yer or no? Thanks.

You mean this?

Should immigrants to Europe learn to be bigoted against Roma?

I don't know what you think the night classes are like over there...but no, they shouldn't be bigoted against the Roma.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay. So we agree that immigrants should not take on all aspects of the prevailing culture.

Now, which aspects of the prevailing culture should immigrants adopt?

[JRS1]

There is no prevailing culture of Roma hatred. I have lived in Europe for 75% of my life, all my family and close friends are European - and I have never seen that as part of our culture.

You may know better, but its news to me.