Multiculturalism Is Chaos

[OtherSheep]

[Do you think things have changed since Lives In The Balance was sung?]

Seventy years is a long time. Its confusing to people when you say there is a Palestinian genocide as if it were in progress this minute. I'd say it seems misleading, inflammatory.

You think Jackson Browne didn't know what was going on?

[No, it wasn't. Research the issue from both sides. Wiki won't give you that.]

I think on this one I'll listen to independent historians and not anyone who has a dog in the race or strangers. The historians want to get their facts right, so that's good enough.

Have you ever read talk pages at wiki? It's an eye-opener. It's like calling all people here those in the know. In the end, they use snippets from a few authors, and spin it out from there... if it doesn't get changed after the fact. I've read cover to cover the books they reference... quotes are often taken out of context... and Wiki summaries of why things happened are even worse. The only thing Wiki is good for, in my opinion, is help in remembering what you read where so you can dig up the source.

[What does condemning it really add up to?...]

It means they didn't approve of what happened.

In real time, worthless. The president who condemns activities and doesn't plan to stop them is doing cya. I agree that some within the Israelis are bold tigers, tho.

[Barbara Spectre says the Jews are spearheading multiculturalism in Europe. Do you seriously think that people outside of Europe have the right to demand that Europe lose her Christianity in the flood of other religions sent to her shores? Is it really equality, when it's forced? What happens next?]

Its the first time I've heard of this person. Sounds like a whole different topic rather than an argument about what Judaism is about.

Depends on who really speaks for the Jews, doesn't it? What I want to know is why Spectre's statement was allowed...

QUOTE="OtherSheep, post: 6767492, member: 64612"]
Barbara Spectre openly says the Jews have planned for Europe; quotation here:

"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural.

And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make.

They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
[taken from the video, posted farther up][/QUOTE

... who benefits?

[If that had been the case since ancient times, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because Jerusalem and Judah would never have killed all the Prophets that were sent to her, and wouldn't have been kicked off the land, and then had the promised Kingdom taken from her and given to a nation which would bring forth good fruit. Jeremiah 19 says Jerusalem and Judah is a broken pot which can never be made whole again.]

The pot is only one analogy for them. That is another entire topic, too. For what its worth good prophets aren't listened to by anybody. People only want to hear certain things. Its universal not specific to Judaism or to Judah.

"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."--Matthew 13:57

[As to cultures blending, culture is religion. If Jesus wasn't able to keep us, there'd be none called chosen and faithful standing with Him on the Mount. Blended religion is anathema to God, for she is Babylon the Harlot which seduced all men to her.]

Ok I follow your meaning of Babylon the Harlot. Yay I get it. I believe that if a person converts to Christ and denies themselves there is no culture. If they don't exist then they have no culture but Christ.

That would be true if African Christianity were European Christianity. Or if Mediterranean Christianity were European Christianity. Man understands God within the confines of his genetic predisposition. And if he's uncomfortable, he will go to where he feels at home. But why should Europeans be the ones to move from their own countries? Because this genetic predisposition affects one's entire world and colors all experience with what one is born to feel. People used to know these things about the different tribes that make up the world, and everyone was allowed to be comfortable in their own skin.

[And where there is Christian religion, that culture itself and the people of it are orderly, law-abiding, reverent, noble. This religion doesn't suffer itself to be blended. To keep such a thing from happening, Christianity will forsake the church buildings and return to the home gatherings of her youth. What else is culture made of, besides the things that are inspired by the religion that makes it whole?]

Hmm. I have noticed though that all people tend to mistake the trappings for the content. For example maybe someone has grown up in a church in which the minister always wore a flowing robe, they might have a very strong feeling that the flowing robe is important. That's a simple example, but there are many ways in which people think of the trappings as the substance.

What will happen to Europe, when her Christianity is forced into a fully alien skin? Remember Solomon's wives? Different religions effect or completely change the original faith. Blending adds to their Creator the blasphemies which are a direct defamation of character of the European Christian God.

 

[Rise]

You had no valid points to counter my post,

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out why your claim was an invalid fallacy of "Argument by Assertion".

And repeating your same invalid fallacious assertion doesn't mean your assertion stops being an invalid fallacy just because you repeat it.

you made irrelevant up BS

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".

Merely claiming anything I said is either untrue or irrelevant doesn't make it so just because you assert it is.

You cannot demonstrate factually or logically why anything I said is either untrue or not relevant.

just to cause an argument

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out that your claim was a fallacious Ad Hominem because you have no basis for accusing me of having wrong motives behind my post.

And merely repeating your Ad Hominem doesn't make it stop being an invalid fallacious response just because you repeat it.

and repeated them systematically (trolling), just as you always have done.

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out why your claim is an invalid Ad Hominem fallacy, as you have no basis for accusing me of trolling. You haven't countered that point or corrected the flaw in your post.

Merely repeating your fallacious invalid claim doesn't make it true just because you choose to repeat it.

Surely you can realise that i am not playing your game any longer

It's quite apparent you aren't interested in making arguments based on logic, which is the only thing I'm trying to do.
I wouldn't call that a"game" either as that's simply called the process of logical debate.

The question is then, why don't you want to base your arguments in sound logic?

Do you feel entitled to make arguments that are illogical and then have people accept them as logical just because you made them?

Do you feel entitled to claim things are true but then not have to prove they are true, and just expect everyone to accept your decree of what is true?


And why do you see the process of making logic based arguments as a "game you don't want to play"?

If you don't want to "play the game" of making logic based arguments then why would you enter a forum labeled "debate" to begin with?

 

[ChristineM]

Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out why your claim was an invalid fallacy of "Argument by Assertion".

And repeating your same invalid fallacious assertion doesn't mean your assertion stops being an invalid fallacy just because you repeat it.



Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".

Merely claiming anything I said is either untrue or irrelevant doesn't make it so just because you assert it is.

You cannot demonstrate factually or logically why anything I said is either untrue or not relevant.




Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out that your claim was a fallacious Ad Hominem because you have no basis for accusing me of having wrong motives behind my post.

And merely repeating your Ad Hominem doesn't make it stop being an invalid fallacious response just because you repeat it.




Logical fallacy, "Argument by Repetition".

I already pointed out why your claim is an invalid Ad Hominem fallacy, as you have no basis for accusing me of trolling. You haven't countered that point or corrected the flaw in your post.

Merely repeating your fallacious invalid claim doesn't make it true just because you choose to repeat it.



It's quite apparent you aren't interested in making arguments based on logic, which is the only thing I'm trying to do.
I wouldn't call that a game either, as that's simply called the process of logical debate.

The question is then, why don't you want to found your arguments in sound logic?

Do you feel entitled to make arguments that are illogical and then have people accept them as logical just because you made them?

Do you feel entitled to claim things are true but then not have to prove they are true, and just expect everyone to accept your decree of what is true?

 

[Rise]

A shrug emoji doesn't disprove any of the points I made nor does it support anything you tried to argue.

 

[OtherSheep]

Now that does all look like Chaos......... your Chaos.

Don't be so modest, ob... couldn'ta done it w/o ya.

 

[ChristineM]

A shrug emoji doesn't disprove any of the points I made nor does it support anything you tried to argue.

I tried to argue nothing, i cited my experience. You are the one who continually tries to argue

 

[Rise]

I tried to argue nothing, i cited my experience.

Your claim is demonstrably false. The following is a sample of the many things you unsuccessfully tried to argue:

you gave your opinion based on incomplete information

in an attempt to get a rise out of me

So many straw men and not a valid point among them.

Your points were irrelevant to my posts

Still trolling the thread,

You had no valid points to counter my post,

you made irrelevant up BS

just to cause an argument

I refuted all your claims as either false, unproven, or invalid logic, and you had no valid response to any of that.

If you think making baseless claims doesn't count as trying to argue something, then it raises the question of why do you think you are entitled to make baseless claims and not have anyone challenge or refute them?

By definition, making a claim is making an argument, unless you think you are above the need to provide a valid argument for your claims. In which case you're acting as though you think you're god who gets to decree what is true and no one gets to dispute that.

You are the one who continually tries to argue

Given that it's proven you tried to argue many things, it's puzzling that you seem to think you're entitled to not have your arguments refuted. Especially in a forum labeled "debate".

Why do you feel entitled to make claims and then not have them be refuted?

 

[ChristineM]

Your claim is demonstrably false. The following is a sample of the many things you unsuccessfully tried to argue:



I refuted all your claims as either false, unproven, or invalid logic, and you had no valid response to any of that.

If you think making baseless claims doesn't count as trying to argue something, then it raises the question of why do you think you are entitled to make baseless claims and not have anyone challenge or refute them?

By definition, making a claim is making an argument, unless you think you are above the need to provide a valid argument for your claims. In which case you're acting as though you think you're god who gets to decree what is true and no one gets to dispute that.



Given that it's proven you tried to argue many things, it's puzzling that you seem to think you're entitled to not have your arguments refuted. Especially in a forum labeled "debate".

Why do you feel entitled to make claims and then not have them be refuted?

I made no claim and i have decided the only way to stop you stalking me is to enroll you in a very select club. Welcome yo my ignore list

 

[Rise]

I made no claim

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

I just disproved your claim by posting several examples where you made claims of something being true.

Merely repeating your refuted claim, without counter-argument, does not prove your claim is true just because you repeat it.

The only reason you repeat it is because you don't have a valid counter-argument, because you were wrong.

Why do you persist in these fallacies then? Probably because you don't want to humble yourself and admit your claims were wrong.

and i have decided the only way to stop you stalking me

You are not arguing in good faith if your goal is to simply spew out your unproven claims and then expect not to have those claims challenged or refuted. Which is what you must believe if you define a legitimate counter argument against your claim as "stalking".

It raises again the question of: Why do you feel entitled to make baseless claims and not have then refuted?

It's bizarre that you seem to think someone offering a counter argument to your claims is somehow inherently wrong, as though you think you're beyond question.

The truth is the fastest way for you to not have someone talk to you is to stop trying to tell them what they said is wrong and stop accusing of them things that aren't true.

The fact that you think you are entitled to throw out baseless accusations and claims against someone, but then they aren't allowed to refute what you said, just because you don't want them to, is both immature and illogical. You act as though you've deified yourself in your own mind, thinking your word is truth and to question it is sin.

 

[Milton Platt]

Multiculturalism Is Chaos

"Culture definition is - the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; the characteristic features of everyday life."--Merriam-Webster

The 7-Headed Red Dragon of Babylon called Tiamet is primordial Chaos. Her son is Enki who is portrayed exactly the same as Seth-Typhon of Egypt. Typhon, returned, is Typhoea the Chimera. The Chimera is several animals all rolled into one multi-life-form. Daniel and Revelation describe this Beast, and tell us all what will happen to the woman who rides it.

MultiCulturalism is the basis of civil war.

If someone comes to your country with a different religion and laws, and demands that you allow them to practice their religion according to their laws, their demands will overthrow your own laws and your own religion. In effect, their alien culture will replace your own... city by city... block by block. MultiCulture is a lie, because your culture will no longer exist when all that remains is alien.

MultiCulturalism is literally anti-God.

"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."--Genesis 10, KJV

The word translated as "families" in Strong's Concordance is mishpachah; " a family, i.e. circle of relatives; figuratively, a class (of persons), a species (of animals) or sort (of things); by extens. a tribe or people:--family, kind(-red)."

Chronicon of Hippolytus
56. The Sons of Japheth the third son of Noah.
57. Gomer from whom are the Cappadocians.
58. Magog from whom are the Celts and Galatians.
59. Madai from whom are the Medes.
60. Javan from whom are the Greeks and Ionians.
61. Tubal from whom are the Thessalians.
62. Meschech from whom are the Illyrians.
63. Tiras from whom are the Thracians.
64. Kittim from whom are the Macedonians.
65. The sons of Gomer the son of Japheth the son of Noah.
66. Ashkenaz, from whom are the Sarmatians.
67. {Riphath} from whom are the Rhodians.
68. Togarmah from whom are the Armenians.
69. The sons of Javan the son of Japheth the son of Noah.
70. Elisa from whom are the Sicilians.
71. Tarshish from whom are the Iberians and the Tyrrhenians.
72. And the Citians from whom are the Romans and the Latins.
79. When looking to the north, these are the nations of Japheth scattered from Media as far as the Western Ocean.

Keeping in mind that Celts meant no more to Hippolytus and Caesar than it does to modern Universities, Celts were considered anybody who spoke a Celtic Language... Germanic peoples learned Celtic in order to be overlords to the Celtic countries they invaded... prior to bringing their wives and children who spoke Germanic languages. But place-names and DNA say the small tanned Celts are from Iberia.

What planet do you propose putting all the other cultures on?

 

[OtherSheep]

What planet do you propose putting all the other cultures on?

Central Asia?

 

[Rise]

I don't think the roots of Australian history matter if it has progressed beyond it's roots historically.

For that to be true you'd need to demonstrate a substantial break from the foundation of the concepts of morality and law that Australia inherited.
But you wouldn't be able to do that.
You've certainly have eroded the foundation you received from England but you haven't abandoned it.

You must take for granted just how much of your ideas about people's rights and responsibilities is based in the English legal foundation you inherited, which is in turn strongly influenced by Christian morality.

Although there is a slow attempt to replace that with a new secular order, as there is in other commonwealth countries, you haven't actually reached the point where you can say you've moved past your historical foundation of morality to replace it with something nonreligious (ie. atheistic by definition).

Because there's a lot of things you take for granted are moral, and don't question that they are moral, which cannot actually be proven to be moral from an atheistic worldview. Therefore, you can't logically say they are morals and laws derived from secular thought (secular meaning "without religion").

That's why I pointed out that most atheists in the west don't actually live according to what the implications of their theology would conclude. They still live mostly according to the judeo-christian morality they have inherited from society. They just jettison some aspects of that morality which they have decided they don't want, but then continue to adhere to the rest without questioning what basis they have for concluding those things are objectively morally right.

Over time they do indeed jettison more aspects of that moral tradition they inherited, because they no longer think they have anything restricting them from doing so, but I've never encountered an atheist who abandoned all of it. Even those like Hitchens were never prepared to jettison the full morality they had inherited. They just try to create an evolutionary excuse for it.

But the problem with using evolution as the basis for your morality is, of course, as I already outlined, that leads you down a devastatingly dark path. Because the only way evolution decides if something is good or bad is if it helps you pass on your genes. That's the only measure of success. And that's the only basis Hitchens could try to argue that certain concepts became immoral or moral, because they supposedly helped us pass on our genes better than alternatives. But it's by that measure that leads some people to think they should kill off 95% of humanity while leaving their family's power and wealth untouched if they think that is going to improve the passing on of their genes over others.

My definition in the OP came from "secularism" whether I understood that definition well or not.
'the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
"he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion"' 1
1 define secularism - Google Search

Your specific definition is not in agreement with other dictionaries, and is lacking in completeness of what that term fully implies.

Wordnik:

• n.
  Religious skepticism or indifference.
• n.
  The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Webster:
indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

Dictionary.com:
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Cambridge:
the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country


Given that everyone else is in agreement, and Google is so out of step, I would have to conclude that Google is either wildly incompetent at their job or they have shown intentional bias at trying to rewrite definitions to suit a political agenda.

You can see a list of self described secular states at wikipedia, australia is on the list: Secular state - Wikipedia

States can call themselves whatever they want, but ultimately that doesn't prove anything - what really matters is the reality of what they are in practice and what forms the basis of their society. It's the same concept behind authoritarian dictatorships calling themselves democracies. Just because you call yourself something doesn't make it true.

To be a secular state, by definition, is to be without religion.
But few states could historically be said to be without religion influencing their thoughts, actions, laws, morality, and policies.
The best you can say is that some states (particularly communist ones) could be said to have genuinely tried to create a secularist state and their actions reflect that desire, and they achieved a more secularist state than most. But they never completely abandon the morality they inherited because the people weren't willing to go along with that.

To try to define secularism as only "no state imposed religion" is to grossly distort the actual definition of that word and it's full implications.

That wikipedia article perfectly emphasizes the point I was making about how the academic deception plays out when some people try to characterize both the USA and the USSR as being in the same category of secular states.
Failing to take into account the fact that from their founding the USSR actively repressed expressions of Christianity in public life while the USA actively encouraged it by using public funds to print Bibles for children to use in school.

The USA never described itself as a secular nation from the beginning, and never intended to be one. John Adams specifically said that the constitution was designed ONLY for a religious and moral people, and would not work as a government for any other type of people. The very foundation of the government was built on the idea that we could get away with limited government because we had a people who embraced a common self restraint derived from their shared Christian morality, which carries with it the assumption that we were a nation of people who generally had a desire to be moral people who followed Christ.

Then you look at the wiki's definition of "secular" and the definition they give is a description of what the USA did (ie. simply ensuring everyone had the freedom to worship as they chose and advocate for those policies publicly or evangelize). Which is not the same thing the USSR did. What the USSR did is more in line with actual attempts to establish a secular state by removing religion's influence over public life.

That's how the fallacious equivocation of bait and switch is played.

Because the USA did not, and did not intend to, establish a secular society by definition. What the USA intended to do was establish true "freedom of religion".
In contrast, what the USSR did, would be better described as "freedom from religion". Ie. you might be able to have your own beliefs in your closet, but don't you dare try to share it with anyone or influence society based on those beliefs.

Communist nations like the USSR fully fit the true definition of secularism. But the USA never remotely resembled that. It is only in modern times that we see the USA moving towards resembling that and then academia lies to us claiming that's how it's always been.

I think that we manage freedom of religion well enough in Australia. Its not perfect perhaps, but I don't see how adding a state religion would help us.

Your statement is a strawman because it does not represent the actual definition of secularism.

You are falsely trying to say secularism means "the freedom to worship as you choose" or "no establishment of a state religion".

But I showed by posting those definitions that is not the definition of "secular" or "secularism".
Secular means to be without religion.
And secularism means to try to actively exclude religion from having a say in how a state should be run.

It is entirely possible to not force people to be a part of a state religion while also making no effort to remove religion's influence from your society, law, or government.
That describes how America was founded.
They actively wanted Protestant Christianity to continue to have sway over the morals and policies of society and the state. They just didn't want the government to forcibly compel the people to adhere to a certain belief system.

20th century academia has tried to perform a bait and switch where they want to proclaim that marxist style secularism was what the US founders were advocating. It's verifiably not true by looking at the writings of the founders and the actions of early government.

The reason they try to play this game is because everyone believes in freedom of religion but not everyone believes in forced secularization (which is what a true secular state is by definition). Forced secularization is inherently against freedom of religion.

It's Orwellian doublespeak to get people to believe that secularization is actually freedom of religion, when true secularization involves the suppression of religious ideas in the public square and the forbiddening of them from influencing law or government.

 

[danieldemol]

But it's by that measure that leads some people to think they should kill off 95% of humanity while leaving their family's power and wealth untouched if they think that is going to improve the passing on of their genes over others.

Anyone who tries to KO 95percent of humanity will soon find out how effective humans are at isolating threats to the gene pool.

 

[Rise]

Anyone who tries to KO 95percent of humanity will soon find out how effective humans are at isolating threats to the gene pool.

You are committing the logical fallacy of "Irrelevant Conclusion".
Even if your claim were true, it is still irrelevant to addressing the points I made.

The point I made dealt with how morality comes out of worldview.

The fact is there are people alive today who believe it is not only ok for them to kill 95% of the population, but even a moral good for them to do so (actually, some would advocate killing more than 99% of the population, as seen in the Georgia Guidestones Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia).

And if you are an atheist who believes morality comes out of natural selection then you have no basis for being able to tell them that they are wrong.

In fact, the only way natural selection can even measure whether or not their action is good or bad is for them to try it and then see what happens. Natural selection can't even tell you if it's good or bad before it happens.

But then how do you even put a value judgement on the results? You can't. Because you can't define what constitutes good or bad in an objective way via natural selection. It can only measure success at passing on genes. But unless that is how you define "good", then natural selection can't measure the goodness of an action.

There are only two ways that natural selection can objectively measure the success of any actions:
1. Did you pass on your genes more than the competition.
2. Did your genes avoid extinction.

But just because an action undertaken is "successful" at that narrowly defined task doesn't necessarily mean you can automatically declare it morally good. Because logically I could outline a long list of many examples of activities that you don't think are morally good, but which are also successful at passing on your genes in greater numbers. And I don't think you would dispute that I could do that.

You could succeed in passing on your genes in greater numbers and not letting your genes go extinct by killing off 99.5% of the population and enslaving large numbers of women under your harem in the aftermath.

But would you say that's morally good? No, you wouldn't.
Thus proving that natural selection has no objective way of measuring the morality of an action.

Lions kill the babies of competitors.
Does this ensure their genes get passed on more? Probably.
Does that make it right or morally good? Most would say no, because in the context of human behavior that would be seen as abhorrent by most people.
But they're just an animal, you say, they can't be held to moral standards.
Really, then why would you think you can hold people to moral standards if you're a natural selection atheist? By your belief system humans are just animals too.
You see the problem we have here.
Are lions immune to value judgments about their behavior? Not if you come from a Biblical perspective. Because God's is the one who defines right behavior with how He intended things to function. The BIble shows us that God did not intend lions to function in the Garden of Eden that way and it's not how they will function when Jesus returns to restore all things. So therefore we can conclude it is wrong that lions behave that way.

So you're forced to conclude that if their 99.5% genocide is successful at ensuring their genes pass on more than the competition, and they don't go extinct as a result of that genocide, then natural selection says what they did is good.

But good for whom?
Good for them and their descendants.
Not good for everyone else.
How can you call an action morally good if it's bad for everyone else and only good for you?

You can't even call that morality by most people's definition! Because most people's idea of morality deals with how you treat other people irrespective of whether or not you think it profits you to do so.

Natural selection measuring success and failure of an action only deals with how what you do benefits yourself and your descendants.

This is why it creates a very self centered view of morality.
The only thing that matters is what is good for you and your descendants. Other people are irrelevant in the equation. They have no inherent value beyond what they can do for you.

 

[OtherSheep]

20th century academia has tried to perform a bait and switch where they want to proclaim that marxist style secularism was what the US founders were advocating. It's verifiably not true by looking at the writings of the founders and the actions of early government.

At a glance these may not all seem to reflect the same problem, but they really do. It's what happens when one culture replaces another... like the cuckoo plants its egg in another bird's nest.

The Federalist (Gideon ed.) - Online Library of Liberty
Founders Online: To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 15 February 1791

"Lindbergh--Banking and Currency, and the Money Trust" "Why is your country at war and what happens to you after"

America used to be called a Republic... if you can keep it.
They couldn't. Now it's called a Democracy.
...making the world safe for Democracy...
No wonder the dictionaries have to be rewritten.

 

[Milton Platt]

Central Asia?

This is a multicultural plante...Asia is a part of this planet. Moving people around does not end multiculturalism, just rearranges it.

 

[OtherSheep]

This is a multicultural plante...Asia is a part of this planet. Moving people around does not end multiculturalism, just rearranges it.

I hope you'll forgive me for having a Religious view of this... at religiousforumsdotcom.

If they'd stayed in the land given to them, multicultmunism wouldn't be a blip on the radar.

As it is, the same guys who brought The French Revolution are the guys embedded in the BLM riots.

Ben Shapiro tells Mark Levin US is going through 'French Revolution in real time' without guillotines

 

[Milton Platt]

I hope you'll forgive me for having a Religious view of this... at religiousforumsdotcom.

If they'd stayed in the land given to them, multicultmunism wouldn't be a blip on the radar.

As it is, the same guys who brought The French Revolution are the guys embedded in the BLM riots

so where do you want to reset the clock to? Remove all people from the Americas who are not 100% indigenous? How do we then redistribute those Indigenous? Which era do we use to decide their territorial boundaries are? Oh, wait.... they originally came across the bering strait, so I suppose we need to move them all back to Siberia. But those people didn’t originate there, either. I know, let’s just move the entire human population back to it’s point of origin. We can all live on the African continent. There, it’s all done.
What do you mean “the land given to them”? Essentially all the people on the planet occupy lands they conquered.

Ben Shapiro tells Mark Levin US is going through 'French Revolution in real time' without guillotines

 

[Milton Platt]

I hope you'll forgive me for having a Religious view of this... at religiousforumsdotcom.

If they'd stayed in the land given to them, multicultmunism wouldn't be a blip on the radar.

As it is, the same guys who brought The French Revolution are the guys embedded in the BLM riots.

Ben Shapiro tells Mark Levin US is going through 'French Revolution in real time' without guillotines

At which point? should the entire human population have stayed in Africa?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

MultiCulturalism is the basis of civil war.

This doesn't fly well with the fact that there are/were plenty of civil wars where the differences were purely political and not at all due to differences in culture - let alone where one side consisted of immigrants.

In fact, when has that ever happened, a civil war where one side were the natives of the country and the other side were immigrants???

If someone comes to your country with a different religion and laws, and demands that you allow them to practice their religion according to their laws

This again doesn't happen. Which is to say, the part where you say "according to their laws". It seems to me that just about every country expects their residents to comply with the laws of the land - regardless of their background or immigration status.

, their demands will overthrow your own laws and your own religion. In effect, their alien culture will replace your own... city by city... block by block.

Once again, where is this occuring?
In which block / city / country were the laws of the land replaced by the laws of the immigrants?

MultiCulture is a lie, because your culture will no longer exist when all that remains is alien.

Unless the culture is a secular multi-cultural culture, off course.
I'ld also add that a LOT of countries are exactly like that... where the natives themselves are actually divided into different cultures. The US being a prime example. It's a nation that exists entirely out of immigrant communities from all over the world.

Belgium, my own country, is another. The north (Flanders) is dutch while the south (Wallonie) is french. In fact, after the last Gulf war, a Belgian delegation was invited to Iraq to come and tell them how we've managed to exist for +150 years without erupting in brutal civil war... as they had quite a big sunni/shiite problem. And the short answer was "well... you just don't kill eachother and value some tolerance in a live and let live kind of way.... ". It's not exactly rocket science.

But really, most countries have sub-cultures like that.

MultiCulturalism is literally anti-God.

I thought you christians were all about being tolerant, peaceful, turning the other cheek and all that jazz...?

Keeping in mind that Celts meant no more to Hippolytus and Caesar than it does to modern Universities, Celts were considered anybody who spoke a Celtic Language... Germanic peoples learned Celtic in order to be overlords to the Celtic countries they invaded... prior to bringing their wives and children who spoke Germanic languages. But place-names and DNA say the small tanned Celts are from Iberia.

Owkay.


In all honesty, your entire OP reeks of trying to rationalize racism.