[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niicDbbSky0[/youtube]
It started with Christian missionaries in the late 1800’s… :-"
An overlooked or dismissed portion of history by nationalists is that multiculturalism was started by European military imperialism and expansionism. (Abetted by Christian missionaries to make everybody around the world more civilly western)
This was done from a delusional standpoint that the west was superior to everybody else culturally and Christianity was the superior singularly only correct form of religion. It was all about economic and religious integration of the rest of the world by the west. (Colonialism)
In this portion of history is the birthplace of modern multiculturalism. (Marxism hijacked that movement later on as time progressed.) (Really started taking off in the 1960’s after a bunch of Marxists immigrated to the United States after world war II.) (1960’s counter culture and such during the Vietnam war was totally Marxist inspired.)
Europeans would be better off if colonialism never happened in the first place. Unfortunately history didn’t work that way.
And yes, it cannot be denied how zionism has played a huge role in the creation of Marxism, Trotskyism, and communism. One isn’t a nazi for saying such, that’s just a historical reality and fact. What is also becoming a historical fact is how these same Marxists have taken over the liberal and democratic political parties of the west.
couldn’t watch it past the first few seconds; clear anti-Semitism. why come on a philosophy board and do stuff like this? do you expect people to learn something? are you observing yourself or taking notice of anything around you at all?
Do you consider yourself an open minded person?
Autsider, your thoughts?
Yeah, the video is poorly done and the message is vague with Jews depicted as a sort of cultural vampire on others. I think what Autsider is trying to say however even with that crude poorly done video is that Jews historically have been behind the push of multiculturalism. (Especially under Marxism.)
He could of went at it a better way in description for the focal point of discussion but there you have it.
I don’t think Jews are beyond criticizing or reproach where calling everything anti semitic is ridiculous.
So the Zionist movement to statehood preceded Karl Marx? No, it was a reaction to Nietzsche (literally) and Prussian Anti-Semitism, pushing German Nationalism at the expense of the Semetic population.
Jewish Zionism from Nordau and Herzl was a nationalist reaction to German Racial Nationalism, when they finally realized that the Prussians we’re never gonna accept them, no matter how German they became, and so started looking around for a new homeland.
It is a reaction to german racism, hardly the cause. In fact, a lot if the arguments given by Nietzscheans on this forum come from Nordau in this book, not Nietzsche, who he cursed as the greatest degenerate of his era.
Karl Marx was already writing well before this, decades prior.
Marx came first. Period. One caused the other, and not the way your asserting.
Further, multiculturalism was the legal reality from antiquity on. Egypt regularly incorporated foreign troops into it’s state. Romans were quite enthusiastic in importing African and middle eastern colonies into Europe. The Alexandrian Successor States followed multicultural policies, importing Greeks and establishing colonies mixed with local populations, Hellrnizing them. They had both Greek and local cultures.
Feudalism didn’t give a flying fuck about culture, it wasn’t nationalist inherently, hence the absurdities of how the Holy Roman Empire was structured. The Romano-Byzantine state continued Roman practice of settling barbarian populations with their borders, some tribal chiefs even became emperors. Huns were purely multicultural, taking up populations across the steppe.
How deep into your ass are you digging Merlin to pull this information from? It isn’t from Hakluyt. Why do you think stating these things makes it somehow coherent and correct? The leading families of the ancient world wouldn’t hesitate to adopt Africans into their family.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodes_Atticus
He was like a Rockerfeller in the ancient world, still famous, this is a son he adopted:
Don’t mock his features, he is almost certainly all of our ancestors. If someone lived in that era, and has living descendants to this day, it us statistically impossible for a European not to be descended from someone in the Roman Empire. Absolute impossibility not to be descended.
This was hardly uncommon. That’s our history and ancestors. Even Germans took in just about anyone, had slaved, fucked said slaves, made babies, those babies made babies. Asians invaded from the Steppes. Whites like the Celts invaded Asia Minor… you really have no idea how much we’ve been mingling throughout history. We started fucking the Indians, Pocahontas, as soon as we landed at JamesTown.
Spain, Portugual, later France all made attempts at North African colonies that were considered intergral, not mere colonies. Spain still has a few in Morocco.
At what point do you say we were not multicultural? How can you look at imperial policy if the British or French Empires and claim it wasn’t?
You got your shit invested, we almost universally always were multicultural. There were eras in which we were not, and even in those eras a lot if exceptions were made in favor.
The movement for Jewish zionism preceded Nietzsche and Germany actually going as far back into Napoleonic France Turd. Zionists at the time begged Napoleon to help them create an Israeli state but it never happened or crystallized with his expulsion to Elba.
There is a difference between multiculturalism happening sporadically or randomly and state sponsored multiculturalism. Not everybody of ancient Rome or Greece embraced cosmopolitanism either. The Romans eventually had to recruit foreigners when their empire over expanded concerning the Roman legion.
It’s a different kind of multiculturalism entirely when you forced it onto others or coerce people to embrace it as a political agenda.
Do you have to hate people who are different from you in order to be open minded?
Not hardly.
All of Europe had issues with the Judists (and thus the Jews), thus they were outcasts of every newly proposed nation-state, hence the famous question - “What to do with the Jews?”.
When you watch this cartoon, do you find it compelling? Revealing? Profound? Or are you just posting this to see what kind of inflammatory responses you can get?
Because if you’re impressed by the video, then I don’t think you’re very smart.
There is genetic evidence to suggest that early Homo sapiens also interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans:
“Multiculturalism” spawns from the first ancient empires as a means to incorporate foreign cultures, races, peoples, and languages into their own power structure (State). The first signs of this is the Græco-Roman pantheon by which “many” gods permeated a large, growing, prosperous, and victorious society. Over time, more sophisticated methods were used to accomplish such a feat. An early empire would not flourish with so much infighting, intolerance, racial and ethnic distrust. So the first popular religions arose, the primary one being ‘Christianity’ (as its known today). This eventually morphed into Catholicism, which forcibly integrated other tribes around them, and offered universities and colleges for learning (indoctrinating) about foreign cultures. For example, paganism was, slowly, integrated into Judæo-Christian mythology, piece-by-piece, as Catholicism grew in power to its height and culmination (The Dark Ages). At the height of Catholic power before and during Medieval Europe, eventually all foreign cultures became suppressed, then censored, then outlawed and banished entirely.
“Satanism” for example was one of the means and methods for demonizing non-Catholic groups, faiths, ideas, and foreign religion, which is still used today as a means to shame, ridicule, and denounce a foreign ideology. However, of course, many of these ideologies, symbols, and meanings are authentically ‘European’ to begin with.
Today Propaganda, Psychology, and Sociology have all replaced traditional means and methods of cultural suppression. This is known as “liberal-leftism” politically. Liberals and Leftists claim to be “open-minded”, “tolerant”, and “accepting” of foreign cultures, ideologies, and peoples, but are they in reality and in effect? Of course not. Liberal-Leftists are similar to the Catholics during the Medieval Era. They uphold a social Status Quo, specifically programmed by their indoctrination (public schooling today), and ultimately rebuke and turn on those who “rock the boat” too much. For example, in Modern discourse, this is how and why Liberal-Leftism is at odds with “Radical Islam”. President Trump even quoted this war and fight today (a battle of ideals, of culture, of multi-cultural suppression and which strongest culture will dominate). The problem with Modern Leftism is that it is too fragmented, broken, and internally divided. “Westerners”, white people of the western world (hemisphere), Americans, etc. don’t really have strong ideologies or a ‘culture’ to put their faith, effort, and energy into.
Thus a culture must be made. A new order (New World Order) must be born and arise. But there are really no ‘Cultural’ leaders around, yet. Trump and Obama are sort of the first of their kind. They are figure-heads of culture, cultural leaders as you could say, and less ‘presidential’ (traditionally the presidential position was reserved for military leadership).
The artistic value of the metaphors in the video is what matters more to me than animations, graphics, etc.
For example, at the start of the video we can see how each peoples are represented by a person with particular physical features and clothing representative of their culture. When the gates of non-Europeans were opened what came in was vile, slimy black matter which slowly dragged everything down to its level into non-distinction, consuming and destroying it. This producing 2 people, 1 white and 1 black. But this white was different from his ancestors. He was physically unfit - weaker, fatter, shorter, likely less intelligent too, representing decay of the European man. He didn’t have any clothes on, instead he was naked, implying he was stripped from his past, his culture and ancestry. Weakened as he was, he then made a desperate, last ditch effort to fight back against Jewry, and the Jew claws his eyes out, weakening him further. Suddenly the negro joins the conflict and kills the weakened white man and the Jew, but, being little more than a chimpanzee (as indicated by him switching from bipedal to four-legged knuckle-walking), doesn’t know what to do now that he has won. Indeed, if by some miracle negroes win it would be the end of high civilization as we know it, because their average IQ is too low to maintain the complex infrastructures created by whites and Asians. Everything would just become another Africa, except even worse because there would be no charity from the white man.
Jews represent a history of miscegenation, race-mixing, and inability to “fit into” any other culture, people, society, or tribe. Thus Jews are, historically, the misfits of humanity. They don’t belong with other, more solidified and obvious ethnic, racial, and cultural groups. Jews lack a type of culture identity that most humanity has. Instead, Judaism should be understood as a part-religious, part-political ideology and racial identity. Connected to Israel, Middle Eastern history, and racially Semitic peoples, Judaism remains enigmatic to foreigners and most other people around the world. Judaism is, perhaps, the most exclusive social group, which occurs due to inherent distrust between Jewish/Semitic people and all others. To understand this difference more, people would need to examine the Jewish language (Hebrew) and the historical connections between religious Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Persia (Zoroastrians), and the Hellenes. Jewish people ‘specialize’ in cultural suppression. For Jews, a value that dominates more than any other, is loyalty to their ideology (Zionism) and political allegiances (those who support Israel).
I do disagree that Jews are “the big problem” when it comes to many Modern grievances. Usually it is the case that Jews are scape-goated and blamed for everything. But this is not always the case. However most non-Jewish people fear accusing Jews of negative and bad deeds, out of fear of being branded an anti-semite by the Liberal-Leftist (Modern Christian) majority. When people have this fear, then they will not nor cannot know how and why Jews are to blame for somethings, and when, and why. However, Jews are not some big monster. But it seems that non-Jews are usually intimidated by Jews, not only due to historical disputes, but also this propaganda that Jews are “way smarter” than everybody else (which is blatantly false).
At the height of ancient Greek and Roman civilization cosmopolitanism was their version of globalism trying to construct a global world by military conquest. Make everybody Greek or Roman.
Under colonialism it was make everybody Christian.
Now in our present time it is all about making everybody around the world a global citizen.
The names, titles, and ideologies change but the tactics remain the same.
What’s your solution to the problem?