Christians finally smashing the idol of Multiculturalism

[timothyu]

Yeah but God was on both sides so that made it ok. Isn't the wisdom of man amazing. lol

 

[HantsUK]

I am trying to describe the problem in the most concise way possible...

Compare these two scenarios:



------------------
A. Post-WW2 western nations become saturated with degenerate practices like atheism, no-fault divorce, usury, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, transgender propaganda, pornography, crime, etc...

Postwar Consensus Christianity's response: "Oh well... people are people... the world is a fallen place... we just have to spread the Gospel and change people's hearts!"

vs.

B. Western nations desire to preserve traditional Pre-WW2 majority culture and ethnicity by reducing or halting mass immigration from non-western countries.

Postwar Consensus Christianity's response: "You are an evil racist sinner! You are cast out! You have no place in polite society! Repent!"
------------------

This is why many people conclude that a de facto new religion rose to power after WW2, when the values of the "Open Society" were established as the foundation of what makes people good or bad. Traditional concepts of Sin were largely abandoned...

and yet we still get Fire and Brimstone type of preaching whenever a westerner suggests that it's bad for 20,000 Haitians to move into their town.

As the UK was specifically cited in the OP, I will comment based on the situation in the UK.

degenerate practices like atheism, no-fault divorce, usury, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, transgender propaganda, pornography, crime, etc...​

are not the result of mass immigration.

The UK is a post-Christian nation. The majority of British people from a British background have no Christian faith. They have rejected the Gospel - or increasingly, not heard it.

The church in (in, not of) England has been in decline since probably about 1900, but certainly since the First World War. The last time we (in England) experienced revival was the late 1800's.

If it was not for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian countries, the church would be in a far worse situation.

Other Western European countries are similar or have even lower Christian affiliation than the UK. France is a secular humanist nation.

 

[seeking.IAM]

If that is not enough, our processing system is also horribly backed-up with pending legal applications that can take years to lead to a decision.

How many await that decision while in the country already?

Here are some real examples of what I referenced from persons known to me in real life.

A young person meets an immigrant who has already been in the country legally for 13 years, first on a student visa then in a professional position on a work visa. There is no pathway to permanent residency to a green card from a work visa. The only hope for that immigrant is marrying a U.S. citizen or winning the visa lottery from their country, which they can't. After dating for a couple of years, they married and began the process of the immigrant partner's application for a green card. They buy a house together. They have a child. They engage an immigration attorney to help them navigate the bureaucracy. They collect numerous letters of reference as required. This is required twice at different stages. They go for interviews. They wait. In the meantime, the immigrant spouse has not seen their parents still in the old country now for approaching 20 years. First because they feared not being allowed back into the country for their job after a visit. Then during the last four years, because if you leave the country while your green card application is being considered, you are considered to have abandoned your application. Four years after the green card application and thousands of dollars spent, the green card is finally approved. It will be another 5 years before the new permanent resident of the United States (i.e., green card holder) can apply for citizenship.

Situation #2, a woman is brought to the U.S. as the child of legal immigrant parents. The parents and the woman are permanent residents of the U.S., all holding green cards. The child grows up, graduates from high school and joins the U.S. Marine Corps where she serves in the Pentagon...still on a green card. She serves out her enlistment, marries, and four babies come in quick succession. She is unskilled. She and her husband are both employed in marginally paying jobs while supporting and raising a family of six. Three of the children go off to college; she helps to the degree she can. It is only after her last child turns 18 and leaves the house that she finally has enough disposable income to prepare for and pay for the citizenship test finally becoming a citizen more than 20 years after she proudly served as a Marine.

Both of these persons did things legally and the right way. Granted some persons of lesser character would have long before looked for illegal avenues of entry because the wait was too hard, too long, too unlikely, or too expensive. I am not supporting illegal entry. I am suggesting if a predetermined amount of legal entry was not so hard, so long, and so expensive there might be somewhat fewer people trying to sneak into the country.

 

[lifepsyop]

Don't you mean 'fighting against each other'? You forget that during the past few centuries Western European Christian countires have been at war numerious times.

Reminder: the Second World War, the First World War, Crimean war, Napoleonic Wars, Anglo-Spanish war, and many more.

Within countries there have been numerous civil wars and fighting. Just one example: the English Civil War. Or more recently, 'The Troubles' (sorry, that's two examples).

Travel around the coast of Britian and you will see reminders of these conflicts.

Yep, and even today plenty of Christians in America are obsessed with wiping out Christians in Russia. Pretty sad.

It appears even relatively closely related ethnic groups have enough trouble getting along as it is.

Not sure the solution to that is dropping 20,000 Haitians into some town in Ohio.

 

[lifepsyop]

As the UK was specifically cited in the OP, I will comment based on the situation in the UK.

degenerate practices like atheism, no-fault divorce, usury, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, transgender propaganda, pornography, crime, etc...​

are not the result of mass immigration.

I didn't say they were.

I said postwar multi-culturalism or "anti-racism" is the new religion that replaced the Christian religion that was always restraining against those types of sinful behavior.

The UK is a post-Christian nation. The majority of British people from a British background have no Christian faith. They have rejected the Gospel - or increasingly, not heard it.

The church in (in, not of) England has been in decline since probably about 1900, but certainly since the First World War. The last time we (in England) experienced revival was the late 1800's.

good point. probably has something to do with why their land has been given over to foreigners.

If it was not for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian countries, the church would be in a far worse situation.

Other Western European countries are similar or have even lower Christian affiliation than the UK. France is a secular humanist nation.

Yea, and Germany is in even worse shape. I think since the 20th century, all these nations have largely turned their backs on God in favor of secular liberalism, and so God is allowing them to be overrun with foreigners who largely hate them.

Interestingly, many Eastern European countries have maintained their faith in God, are not facing problems anywhere near this scale, in terms of actually being replaced by outsiders.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is a flawed analogy. My nation, my state, my town, and my neighborhood are public spaces, in a way that my house is not. My house is my own personal private property, and I get to say who lives there. My state, town, and neighborhood are public spaces (containing privately-owned spaces, but the state/town/neighborhood itself is public).

Doesn't the community get a say??? This is a radically atomized point of view, where nothing exists above the level of the individual.

A person can enter my state, town, and neighborhood without showing any kind of credentials, and they are allowed to buy or rent a house in my state/town/neighborhood regardless of their ethnicity or nationality.

So, basically, an ethnic group has absolutely zero rights to remain an ethnic group, is more or less what you're implying here. (assuming you agree with it, I don't know if you do.)

The desire for ethnic preservation itself is evil. That is one of the central tenets of the postwar consensus.

Japan is evil if they'd prefer Japan to stay majority ethnic Japanese. (or no? what are your thoughts about that?)

A majority European-descent community is evil if they'd prefer their community to remain majority European-descent.

Because any ethnic preferences = Hitler. (the Satan figure of the postwar religion)

It's interesting that you ask the question in this way. My neighbors who are first-generation immigrants from Ukraine and Germany and England are "white". Most of my African-American neighbors are from families whose ancestors arrived in the US 300-400 years ago, so they're definitely not immigrants.

Is your focus on immigrants, or on non-white people?

My focus is really on the postwar obsession with eliminating ethnic barriers, particularly the obsession with any "white" people who would prefer not to become minorities in the nation where they grew up as a majority.

Generally, I do think it is wrong to force widely disparate ethnic groups into close proximity with each other, via programs of mass immigration, as this tends to result in ethnic conflict and loss of social trust, which has all sorts of negative repercussions.

African Americans have been in America since the beginning, so they clearly have a right to the land. That said, I don't necessarily think forcing black and white people to mix together at gunpoint was the best approach. And we obviously still have major race-related social issues, some of which aren't even allowed to be discussed because of our new postwar religion. (i.e. it's evil to notice race)

To answer the literal question in your post, here's a graphic from Wikipedia about the demographics of my state:

View attachment 359831

(Source: New Jersey - Wikipedia )

I see that diagram is from year 2021.

Do you have a sense what the ethnic make-up was as a child, when you were growing up? (I assume somewhere around the 1970's or 1980's)

3. Preserving American culture


Preserving American culture is (mostly) a good thing, and the desire to preserve it is sensible.

Preserving American ethnicity is something else.

Is it something else? Would American culture be recognizable if the nation had been founded by equal parts 16th century Chinese, Middle-Eastern, and European peoples?

Culture is obviously downstream from ethnicity to some extent, and significantly so.

The problem is that ethnicity has become a dirty word in the postwar religion. The mere suggestion that ethnic groups are different from each other causes people to get suspicious.

I'm not sure exactly what American ethnicity is, as we've had many waves of immigration over time. And historically there have been attempts to preserve purity of ethnicity that were really bad.

Yea, focusing too much on "ethnic purity" can be really bad.

But so can the belief that any ethnic preference is an impurity that must be cleansed out. This has been the reigning ideology of postwar consensus religion.

As it stands today, we are only allowed to notice the evils of the former, but we must remain blind to the evils of the latter.

 

[PloverWing]

I see that diagram is from year 2021.

Do you have a sense what the ethnic make-up was as a child, when you were growing up? (I assume somewhere around the 1970's or 1980's)

I did not grow up in New Jersey. I grew up in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.

A really old census report from the time I was born (thank you, Internet!) tells me that the racial makeup of that area at the time was 74% "White", 26% "Negro", with 0.4% "Other races". The census report doesn't break down "White" into smaller categories. My sense, thinking about the family names of the kids I grew up with, is that most of the "White" residents of the area were descendants of people who came to North America from Britain and Northern Ireland during the Colonial Era. I also am in this category.

It was a time of de facto segregation, and virtually all of my friends were white. Societal things were going on around me that I didn't fully understand, because I was a tiny child. But here's an interesting piece from WHRO, the local PBS station, about population movements in Hampton Roads during that time: Norfolk’s White Flight: How shifting demographics shaped a region

 

[timothyu]

It has only been in the last few years that someone could openly question the supposed sacredness of his character.

How much of this has to do with the recent BLM movement that wished to reject him over his notion people should be given opportunity based on merit rather than colour? We once had what was a called 'token blacks' to counter MLK's idea and today we see the same thing happening with other fringe groups, the results of their input being substandard because they were hired based on identity rather than ability.

 

[timothyu]

I

My focus is really on the postwar obsession with eliminating ethnic barriers, particularly the obsession with any "white" people who would prefer not to become minorities in the nation where they grew up as a majority.

Is the preference a fear of becoming a minority or is it common sense in realizing that a group that built a good thing soon find that others are attracted to it who built and want to build nothing as their previous homeland may show, the end result being all take and no give, along with the fact growth stops at the tipping point as the builders are overtaken by the stagnant. I've asked before, why do these people today only flock to these 'advanced' nations rather than each others? Or are they meant to be the great levelers to keep advanced civilization in check?

 

[Jipsah]

I believe quite the opposite. I think there would be less illegal immigration if there was a smoother and less costly pathway to legal immigration. I think most Americans don't understand or have experience with how complex, difficult, time consuming, and costly legal immigration can be.

It's a pain in the posterior, no lie, but it isn't all that bad. Being married into a family of recent immmigrants, and marrying into another, I know whereof I speak,

If that is not enough, our processing system is also horribly backed-up with pending legal applications that can take years to lead to a decision.

I spent a good bit of time in my younger years going back and forth to immigrations meetings with various immigrant friends and kinfolk. In Tennessee, the only immigrations office back in the day was in Memphis, 200-odd miles from the Nashville area where we lived. The drive back and forth sucked. But we got it all sorted out, and everyone who wanted to got citizenship. It wasn't that bad, considering we were dealing with the federal government, which is never easy. End result for me was that I became well known in the small (in those days) East Asian community in Nashville, which is how I met my wife.

 

[Jipsah]

The UK is a post-Christian nation. The majority of British people from a British background have no Christian faith. They have rejected the Gospel - or increasingly, not heard it.

Yeah, that makes me sad. The football fan group I belong to flies over for games (usually once a year, none of us is rich) we usually go for a Saturday home game and a Tuesday away game. That means that the two of us who are Catholics and the one who is Anglican (me) go to church, which earns us endless, generally good-natured, hooraw from our English football-brethren for being weird religious fanatic Yanks. (Although at the pub we're usually lauded for being "proper Wall" for making a transAtlantic run just to support our team... and never weaseling when it's our round)

(And on the multicultural side, my full-Korean adopted daughter noticed that no one ever semeed to pay any attention to us as anything other than Yanks, which she found refreshing as compared to the US, where a great many people assume we're foreign until proven otherwise. )

The church in (in, not of) England has been in decline since probably about 1900, but certainly since the First World War. The last time we (in England) experienced revival was the late 1800's.

Yeah, I went to Mass at St. Mary's in Rotherhithe last trip, and it was maybe 10% full which I found sad.