You might have some valid points to make but your delivery system is insufferable and your tone so condescending that I seriously doubt if anyone listens.

You appear to want to shove your point of view down everyone’s throat rather than sell us on your ideas.

“Sorry, but this is a particularly doltish comment. The Anaconda Plan was a war strategy.” Doh! You think? And what was the end result?

Is there no one left in California to fight with? I am not here to fight or debate, so don’t attempt to engage again. It will be pointless for you.

But none of this is really what I’d consider “good” exciting. It’s exciting the same way a disaster is.

Just keep repeating, diversity is our strength!

Just forget that diversity and unity are too opposing concepts — it helps all the brainwashing go down a bit better.

Sorry, but this is a particularly doltish comment. The Anaconda Plan was a war strategy. Enforcing our nation’s sovereign will and reclaiming our right of self-determination, seriously damaged by the open borders policies of Bush and by the mendacious meddling of the Mexican government in our political affiars, bears no relation to this example whatsoever.

It would take writing a book to explain it to you and I don’t have the time. You might want to compare the fatalistic world view of Catholicism — particularly Iberian Catholicism which was heavily influenced by Arab and Islamic cutlure — to the non-fatalistic world view of Protestantism.

Yeah, actually I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Norway and
Sweden and they are both lovely countries. I was trying to think of places where there was a very high degree of ethnic homogeneity. Iceland would have been an even better example. Also a strikingly pleasant an beautiful place.

Sweden is no longer homogenous, it has imported hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslim immigrants, for no good reason as they don’t even work in the Swedish economy. Not content with being at the top of world quality of life indices, Sweden decided it needed to be “enriched” by “diversity.”

It’s third largest city, Malmo, is nearly Muslim-Arab majority. The Muslim immigrants riot and burn down Malmo with depressing regularity. They also like to sexually harass and do worse things to indigenous Swedish women, including under-age girls. Swedish women who live near Muslim enclaves have taken to dying their blonde hair dark because it lessens the harassment. (I have Scandinavian friends and have heard chapter and verse about what’s going on over there.)

“Enrichment” is more important after all than the safety of little Swedish girls who previously were able to walk about their homeland freely.

Denmark and Norway are also in the process of being “enriched” BTW. (Although Denmark’s indigenous people have started to rebel against the “enrichment” and voted against more massive immigration from the Third World — a move which has been denounced as “racist” by Denmark’s neighbors.)

So far Iceland hasn’t been “enriched” but I’m sure it’s day is coming too.

I suspect the Nordic Countries will no longer be at the top of the world quality of life indices in a few more years. Look at how far the greatly “enriched” Great Britain has fallen in ITs OECD ratings.

If most of the “enrichers” were capable of creating a First World society comparable to what Sweden or Denmark or Great Britain used to have, they would have already done so in their own countries.

It is pretty hard to ‘invent the industrial revolution’ with an illiterate population.

Where is the cause and effect between Protestantism and the Industrial Revolution?

I simply do not feel you can leave literacy out of the equation. Literacy sets the stage for all other things to happen. I dont think literacy caused any one particular event to happen, but I think its overall presence is a common denominator in how far a society advances. People who can read can absorb new ideas.

While we are at it, the printing press sure didnt hurt the advance of man either. I tend to look at history holistically rather than a linear series of events.

Well let me tell you..living in MP is sure exciting. You’ve got the RnR scandal, the $33 million elementary school, they hd a problem with an overflowing sewage pump last year, the mini-motels on the west side of the city, etc.

But none of this is really what I’d consider “good” exciting. It’s exciting the same way a disaster is.

The blockading of the South during the Civl War seems to illustrate your point about borders. re: That kind of border kills economies and kills the adaptive power of the country behind the wall.

Send Sherman though and you have sealed the deal.

Dolph

Ever been to Sweden? I have. I must say I didn’t find it boring.

I am not “uncomfortabe” with diversity, I have black grandchildren (or EuroAfrican to be precise.)

I am just saying that it doesn’t work. It’s not a “strength” as the slogans go. A moderate bit of diversity might be good, but huge amounts of it are not good. There has to be something to hold people together. Otherwise you get The National Formerly Known as Yugoslavia. The historical record on this is very clear.

In the US the main thing holding us together is the English language and the Constitution — and yes, the AngloProtestant majority. And all three of those things are under serious attack by the open borders lobby and their allies.

I have gotten the impression that you are just more comfortable with less diversity. If that is the case, then Utah is seriously a place to consider. Most of the people there are descended from white northern europeans. Even the skycaps at SLC airport are white….which was phenomena I had never seen before. As I told you before, the theocracy component of the state would not be a place where I would be comfortable but I sure do like to visit there.

I work fairly hard at not being aggressive. No one that knows me has ever accused me of being passive aggressive. Perhaps you have found the inner me. I do try to be polite. I am not always and when I am not, it weakens my point.

I view open borders as an ideal of economic and individual liberty, but I have said clearly that in the present age we need secure borders for security purposes.

Open borders, even in an age of perfect security, simply aren’t sustainable. All countries with decent political, social and economic systems would be over-swamped, and then these countries would be just like the undesirable countries that the swampers left behind. This is utopianism, plain and simple. It doesn’t have any place in the real world. It’s basically nuts.

You seem to see a border as a wall that keeps things out. I see the border as protecting my nation’s sovereignty and ability to effect self-determination. We don’t have that anymore. Mexico has a great deal of power over our political affairs in some of our most important states. Without self-determination we are no longer a nation.

That kind of border kills economies and kills the adaptive power of the country behind the wall.

Lack of self-determination kills nations - and peoples — a lot more quicker than whatever you are going on about. I don’t relish the day when Mexico has even more power in my homeland than it already has — and it has a lot.

No country on earth can grow a successful economy purely internally, without immigration.

This is a sweeping statement, with little proof behind it. China is not importing immigrants, it has a successful economy although many social and political problems.

It simply can’t be done. Try that here, and this country will be in the middle third of world economies within my actuarial lifetime (that means, like, real soon).

There is no proof to this statement whatsoever. What about the social costs of forcing incompatible cultures to live together? Europe will have a civil war within 15 or 20 years between its non-assimilating Muslim imports and its native-born people (the ones who don’t run away, that is) — that will certainly bring them down quite a bit in world economic status, you can count on it.

Other cultures encourage literacy, but other cultures did not invent the Industrial Revolution and all that has sprung from that. It’s more than that.

It has to do with a belief in the rule of law instead of rule of men, belief in transparency and honesty in government and business, the honoring of individual achievement rather than belief in fatalism, and so on. Believe it or not these things are not universal values.

I don’t see anything wrong with trying to preserve those cultural traits and neither do I think there is anything wrong with believing that they are at least in part, responsible for our (former) greatness as a nation.

NoVa Scout can go on blathering about boiled potatoes as if that were the essence of the culture that invented parliaments, the industrial revolution and most of the scientific and technological advances of the past 350 years or so.

I’m sorry if you think I’m aggressive. You have a way of being passive aggressive and lobbing insults at people while pretending to be nice. It’s a bit irritating. This is a good example of that:

You seriously might want to consider looking at Utah as a future home. It is the most homogenious state in the union. Beautiful country. It is a little too much of a theocracy for my tastes but that might not bother other folks. I expect New Hampshire is acquiring many of our same problems, but I don’t know this for a fact. Plus it is colder than the devil there in winter. Beautiful country though.

Right, and I’ll be happy to take my sheet and pointed hat with me.

I actually believe ‘celebrating diversity’ divides us. I believe that when people look at what they have in common, even though they may be very different, they tend to get along better. I tend to ignore what is different about people and try to emphasize what the commonalities are. That is probably about as deep as it gets with me.

You made a very good point here and I agree. Too bad your friend decided to unload full-bore on me without reading a word I wrote.

For NoVA Scout, here is the Human Development Index for the world, notice anything, er, um, unifying about the ones in the top 10-20?

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

You know the funny thing is, if I’d written something about Microsoft being a better managed company than Apple (or vice versa), I’ll bet Mr. NoVa scout would find that perfectly reasonable.

I say some cultures exhibit better management and organizational skills than others, I’m a “racist.”

In contrast, Protestants were encouraged to learn to read so they could read the Bible. The by-product of this religious emphasis has been an overall generally better educated population in heavily Protestant nations.

On the other hand, I give the Catholic Church full credit for preserving literacy, history and religion for two thousand years.

The above is my own theory and certainly a simplification of a very complex topic. Probably thousands thought of it before I did.

Heh, heh? Stereotype much? I come from a long line of Roman Catholics. My mother and aunt were both former nuns. Want me to recite the Act of Contrition for proof?

I have come to appreciate the difference between Protestant nations and Catholic ones though. All Protestant-majority nations are at the top of human development indexes, even now with massive immigration from the Third World. You can look it up. The top 20 countries in terms of education, economic development, social development, technological advancement, honesty in government etc. are all Protestant majority except Austria and a couple of Asian nations that used to be British colonies (Hong Kong and Singapore). Catholic nations except for a few that are close to the Protestant ones in Europe are pretty much at the bottom, although not doing quite as badly as most Muslim ones.

And therein lies the problem with this issue. A lot of the ardent folks attracted to it are people like Mary. One doesn’t have to scratch the surface very deeply to find a throw-back to the Know-Nothings of the 1850s or the anti-Catholic/anti-this/anti-that groups of the late 19th and early 20th century. America became great despite these people, not because of them. They are to be shunned and avoided as inimical to the American ideal and counter to our strengths as a nation.

This is short-hand for “I can’t refute a word she says, so I’ll play the race card and the bigotry card. I’ll even accuse the daughter of a former nun of being anti-Catholic because I’m so sure I’m right.”

A nation of Marys would have us cowering behind our walls of stone and barbed wire, totally without confidence in our ability to compete in a world economy, not being able to dance very well, at the lowest economic standards in the world, with no major league pitchers worth a damn, eating overcooked beef, Wonder Bread and only the occasional vegetable (no garlic), no Jesuit schools (two of which did this Protestant a very good educational turn), and fearing our shadows.

This is again shorthand for “I can’t refute a word she says, so I’ll throw in a bunch of red herrings about baseball pitchers and bad dancing.”

at the lowest economic standards in the world,

Finland and Japan are at the highest economic levels in the World. Finland even beat the US a few years in a row as most competitive economy in the world. They are not “diverse” — they both have strong unifying cultures. I guess they can’t really compete in the global economy though. Japan will have to import 20 million incompatible and uneducated Pakistanis to compete with such future world-beaters as Great Britain (from which 500K native born Britons flee every year, specifically to get away from massive immigration from incompatible cultures.)

You haven’t really read a single word I wrote or considered a single point I made. You just reacted and then blathered emotionally and irrationally. I’m disappointed — and alarmed. We apparently do not teach logic or rhetoric in this country anymore.

Secondly, I find your combativeness offputting. I am not here to debate anyone. I am not going to. It is too much like work to me. If I don’t respond to a point you are making, then it is because I either do not agree or do not care.

Basically I want to find out what is going on in my community. That is my purpose for even coming to this website. Many people have far worst problems in their neighborhoods than I do.

You seriously might want to consider looking at Utah as a future home. It is the most homogenious state in the union. Beautiful country. It is a little too much of a theocracy for my tastes but that might not bother other folks. I expect New Hampshire is acquiring many of our same problems, but I don’t know this for a fact. Plus it is colder than the devil there in winter. Beautiful country though.

Actually, you have no clue how I really feel about diversity. I am going to inform you. I didn’t have a diversity-laden childhood by any stretch. I adapted through the years when I moved to Northern Virginia. I actually believe ‘celebrating diversity’ divides us. I believe that when people look at what they have in common, even though they may be very different, they tend to get along better. I tend to ignore what is different about people and try to emphasize what the commonalities are. That is probably about as deep as it gets with me.

Our future cyber encounters will probably be more productive if you ask me how I feel about something, rather then informing me how I feel. You probably have some very good points to make. You have obviously done a great deal of research on issues that interest you. However, your delivery system is so aggressive and strident that I tend to just glaze over and move on. Exhange of ideas is not a blood sport to me.

I’m pretty WASP-y genetically, but I’d be the last to say that this is a basically Northern European Protestant culture. It may have been up to 1850, but it hasn’t been for a long time. The culture shifts fairly rapidly. It may take turns that this or that group doesn’t much care for (I’m really down on modern popular music), but, historically, I think the kaleidoscope has been exciting and positive. I wouldn’t change it for a thousand European homogeneous (boring) scenes (think Sweden - they make good cars, but . . .)

I view open borders as an ideal of economic and individual liberty, but I have said clearly that in the present age we need secure borders for security purposes. You seem to see a border as a wall that keeps things out. That kind of border kills economies and kills the adaptive power of the country behind the wall. No country on earth can grow a successful economy purely internally, without immigration. It simply can’t be done. Try that here, and this country will be in the middle third of world economies within my actuarial lifetime (that means, like, real soon).

Glad to know where you stand on Catholicism. I’m Anglican, but I wouldn’t spend any time (beyond the few minutes I’m spotting you now) with someone who runs down the Catholic Church as a force for good in the world.

And therein lies the problem with this issue. A lot of the ardent folks attracted to it are people like Mary. One doesn’t have to scratch the surface very deeply to find a throw-back to the Know-Nothings of the 1850s or the anti-Catholic/anti-this/anti-that groups of the late 19th and early 20th century. America became great despite these people, not because of them. They are to be shunned and avoided as inimical to the American ideal and counter to our strengths as a nation. A nation of Marys would have us cowering behind our walls of stone and barbed wire, totally without confidence in our ability to compete in a world economy, not being able to dance very well, at the lowest economic standards in the world, with no major league pitchers worth a damn, eating overcooked beef, Wonder Bread and only the occasional vegetable (no garlic), no Jesuit schools (two of which did this Protestant a very good educational turn), and fearing our shadows. It ain’t for me boys and girls. I hope it’s not for you, either. Be careful of the company you keep on this issue.

Court-ordered, taxpayer-funded “entitlements” for illegal aliens are taxation wthout representation. We have no rights to petition our elected officials for relief from this form of taxation. That is taxation without representation. Combined with open borders delivering an unlimited number of “entitled” people into our communities, our “future” is legalized tax slavery. There could theoretically come a day where we could literally be taxed for everything we own in order to meet these “entitlements” and still not have enough money to pay for them all.

I don’t think that day will come though. There will be an armed tax revolt before then. Already native-born people are talking about it, all over the Internet. I would have joined a tax strike if the Bush-Kennedy Shamnesty bill had passed.