Whites now a minority in London

[Pericles]

"The world consists largely of weak men made and kept free by better men than themselves." John Stuart Mill

 

[erowe1]

"The world consists largely of weak men made and kept free by better men than themselves." John Stuart Mill

Where are all these free people?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Counries with lots of white people:
have high taxes
have high government spending
are heavily regulated
try to build empires
spend a lot on welfare, art, education, research, and other statist gobbledygook
it's hard to get guns or drugs

Countries with lots of brown people:
have lower taxes
have less government spending
are less regulated
don't build empires
spend less on welfare, art, education, research, and other statist gobbledygook
it's easy to get guns and drugs

America's "brown people" are mostly Mexicans, and that doesn't seem to be a country worth emulating.

 

[erowe1]

America's "brown people" are mostly Mexicans, and that doesn't seem to be a country worth emulating.

How many times has it dropped nukes on innocent people?

 

[fr33]

A tribe never existed that valued the Rights of the individual over the needs of the tribe.

You can only base that off of the history that has been documented. Much of history has not been.

If not tribes, there have always been hermits and savages throughout many civilizations that tried to live as free as they could.

 

[erowe1]

You can only base that off of the history that has been documented. Much of history has not been.

If not tribes, there have always been hermits and savages throughout many civilizations that tried to live as free as they could.

All people have an aversion to being robbed, killed, or kidnapped by others, and try various ways of avoiding those kinds of things.

The problem is that nobody has nearly as much of an aversion to being the one doing the robbing, killing, and kidnapping. I'm certain that there has never existed a community of people this side of the Garden of Eden that was free of those things. And wherever you have one person robbing, killing, or kidnapping another person, you essentially have the state. I don't think we should look at statelessness as a goal that we can one day achieve. I think we should view it as an asymptote we can approach, and the closer to that asymptote we get the better.

 

[UpperDecker]

Yep. The color of a person's skin makes no difference. We are all humans.

What makes a difference is assimilation or not. Does a person come here with a totally different mindset, with an agenda to change our system and society, or do they come to become an American (as defined by the Constitution, and the foundation of liberty and limited government). Many people have (and still do) immigrate here with a desire to assimilate. Others do not.

One part of a recipe for disaster is when communities become separate and isolated. For instance in Europe, there are entire Muslim neighborhoods and towns. This leads directly to non-assimilation, simply by the fact there is an inertia, and a critical mass of their previous culture which naturally prevents assimilation. At that point, it is nothing more than another nation carving out a section of a different nation. It is conquest, and the people in those communities think of it in those terms. Assimilation is not only prevented, it is actively opposed.

People tend to think that conquest comes from war. This is wrong. Conquest comes from migration with no assimilation. War may or may not lead to that, but war is by no means necessary for conquest.

This is a very interesting point, one that you see a lot of in California. Here in the Bay Area, we have multiple Chinatowns and in Southern California there is Koreatown. You can also see the problem when in Southern California you see places where Hispanics are "cleansing" their neighborhoods of black folks. My whole thinking on this topic is that if you are displacing people who are culturally Western with these other cultures, wouldn't it make sense that we stand to lose the culture of this country?

 

[Ender]

A tribe never existed that valued the Rights of the individual over the needs of the tribe.

Uhh...NO.

The Confederation of the original united States of America was based on the Iroquois Confederation of Peace.

 

[Ender]

This is a very interesting point, one that you see a lot of in California. Here in the Bay Area, we have multiple Chinatowns and in Southern California there is Koreatown. You can also see the problem when in Southern California you see places where Hispanics are "cleansing" their neighborhoods of black folks. My whole thinking on this topic is that if you are displacing people who are culturally Western with these other cultures, wouldn't it make sense that we stand to lose the culture of this country?

Europeans that migrated to the US also had their neighborhoods- Germans, Irish, etc. This is nothing exclusive to non-whites.

 

[pcosmar]

, wouldn't it make sense that we stand to lose the culture of this country?

What "Culture" is that? People are different all over this country,, and people are the same all over the world.

 

[UpperDecker]

What "Culture" is that? People are different all over this country,, and people are the same all over the world.

Right, I understand what you are saying. What I meant by that is that this country DOES have a distinct culture, however muddled it may be these days. And yes, people are the same all over the world, but you can't deny that they are also different.

 

[Michelangelo]

This is a very interesting point, one that you see a lot of in California. Here in the Bay Area, we have multiple Chinatowns and in Southern California there is Koreatown. You can also see the problem when in Southern California you see places where Hispanics are "cleansing" their neighborhoods of black folks. My whole thinking on this topic is that if you are displacing people who are culturally Western with these other cultures, wouldn't it make sense that we stand to lose the culture of this country?

Hispanics are culturally western. Latin America was colonized by Iberian powers. Spain and Portugal are in turn direct descendants of the Greco-Roman world. The wars of independence in Latin America were fought by both native born Americans and sympathetic Europeans. Republicanism and democracy are dominant in the Americas.

What exactly needs to be assimilated? Latin America already knows of Plato. It is Christian. The concept of federation isn't foreign to Latin America. The oldest universities in the Americas are not in the USA or Canada, but in the south. Is it the Spanish language that needs to be gotten rid of? If the question is who is more 'western', then Spanish defeats English. Spanish is closer to Latin than English is. English is a germanic language.

 

[Barrex]

A tribe never existed that valued the Rights of the individual over the needs of the tribe.

Hard to know and tell. In bible Israelis were without a king or any government official for most of their history(already mentioned it in this thread.).

From oldest history of my people we had similar situation like Israelis. When king was needed he was elected. Also based on legends slavery was allowed in our tribes. From Constantine VI (De administrando imperio) and Flavius Heraclius Augustus we know that out of 7 tribe leaders in Croatia 2 were women... Since I love history I learned that they and we are not different at all and I wouldnt automatically assume that they were all kings or slaves.

All people have an aversion to being robbed, killed, or kidnapped by others, and try various ways of avoiding those kinds of things.

The problem is that nobody has nearly as much of an aversion to being the one doing the robbing, killing, and kidnapping. I'm certain that there has never existed a community of people this side of the Garden of Eden that was free of those things. And wherever you have one person robbing, killing, or kidnapping another person, you essentially have the state. I don't think we should look at statelessness as a goal that we can one day achieve. I think we should view it as an asymptote we can approach, and the closer to that asymptote we get the better.

Aristotles theory on how states/governments were created.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

This is a very interesting point, one that you see a lot of in California. Here in the Bay Area, we have multiple Chinatowns and in Southern California there is Koreatown. You can also see the problem when in Southern California you see places where Hispanics are "cleansing" their neighborhoods of black folks. My whole thinking on this topic is that if you are displacing people who are culturally Western with these other cultures, wouldn't it make sense that we stand to lose the culture of this country?

Culture tends to be more compartmentalized than people give it credit for. People can talk about the supposed 'culture' of the Founding Fathers until they are blue in the faces, but there was indeed a lot of variation among them, and I wouldn't say most of their presidencies (of the ones that did go on to become president) were consistent with their ideals. The US has a ton of competing cultures (think of bigger food industries versus local growers, for instance, just to show you that cultures don't always have to be national or ethnic in origin) that still echo some common sentiments (key word there) of self-reliance, industry, freedom from tyranny, etc. The problem is that most people's understanding of these concepts varies, and those variances tend to play into what authoritarians want - a society that is easier to control. One can also argue that the reason people have these differing ideas of just how "free" a society can be is also due to authoritarianism, through control of schools, the media and even existing business structures (I know the emphasis on hierarchy in the Progressive Era played a large role in how most larger companies operate today, which is an interesting thing to study all in itself).

Most European countries, mainly the ones that engaged in colonialism, are kind of 'paying the price' of their earlier misadventures (from the culture warrior standpoint, anyway). Many 'Hispanics' in Southern California do actually come from a Western country, or at least one that has been strongly influenced by Western culture. Mexico remained under European control until the 1820s, is predominantly Christian, speaks a Western language, etc. 'Western' does not always equate to 'developed' or 'white'. Even the civilizations on which 'Western' ideals are supposedly based, primarily ancient Greek and Rome, were characterized by a high degree of diversity.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hispanics are culturally western. Latin America was colonized by Iberian powers. Spain and Portugal are in turn direct descendants of the Greco-Roman world. The wars of independence in Latin America were fought by both native born Americans and sympathetic Europeans. Republicanism and democracy are dominant in the Americas.

What exactly needs to be assimilated? Latin America already knows of Plato. It is Christian. The concept of federation isn't foreign to Latin America. The oldest universities in the Americas are not in the USA or Canada, but in the south. Is it the Spanish language that needs to be gotten rid of? If the question is who is more 'western', then Spanish defeats English. Spanish is closer to Latin than English is. English is a germanic language.

They're both Indo-European, ultimately derived from "Proto-Indo-European".

 

[UpperDecker]

Hispanics are culturally western. Latin America was colonized by Iberian powers. Spain and Portugal are in turn direct descendants of the Greco-Roman world. The wars of independence in Latin America were fought by both native born Americans and sympathetic Europeans. Republicanism and democracy are dominant in the Americas.

What exactly needs to be assimilated? Latin America already knows of Plato. It is Christian. The concept of federation isn't foreign to Latin America. The oldest universities in the Americas are not in the USA or Canada, but in the south. Is it the Spanish language that needs to be gotten rid of? If the question is who is more 'western', then Spanish defeats English. Spanish is closer to Latin than English is. English is a germanic language.

Maybe I should have used a different word than Western for the US culture. You make good points, but in regards to Latin America, isn't there a pretty good history of dictatorships? These are the things that I look at and hope that I am wrong when I wonder if people come here for freedom or just to make money. Please don't take that as me being anti-immigrant or against non-American cultures, as that is not how I am meaning to come off.

Culture tends to be more compartmentalized than people give it credit for. People can talk about the supposed 'culture' of the Founding Fathers until they are blue in the faces, but there was indeed a lot of variation among them, and I wouldn't say most of their presidencies (of the ones that did go on to become president) were consistent with their ideals. The US has a ton of competing cultures (think of bigger food industries versus local growers, for instance, just to show you that cultures don't always have to be national or ethnic in origin) that still echo some common sentiments (key word there) of self-reliance, industry, freedom from tyranny, etc. The problem is that most people's understanding of these concepts varies, and those variances tend to play into what authoritarians want - a society that is easier to control. One can also argue that the reason people have these differing ideas of just how "free" a society can be is also due to authoritarianism, through control of schools, the media and even existing business structures (I know the emphasis on hierarchy in the Progressive Era played a large role in how most larger companies operate today, which is an interesting thing to study all in itself).

Most European countries, mainly the ones that engaged in colonialism, are kind of 'paying the price' of their earlier misadventures (from the culture warrior standpoint, anyway). Many 'Hispanics' in Southern California do actually come from a Western country, or at least one that has been strongly influenced by Western culture. Mexico remained under European control until the 1820s, is predominantly Christian, speaks a Western language, etc. 'Western' does not always equate to 'developed' or 'white'. Even the civilizations on which 'Western' ideals are supposedly based, primarily ancient Greek and Rome, were characterized by a high degree of diversity.

As I stated above, I could have used better wording as you are correct in the fact that "Western" isn't so much fitting for the culture of the US. I think that the problem is that some folks leave their country because the culture is hurting that country, but then they bring that culture to the new country. For example, in Britain there are areas that are basically all Muslim and they enforce Sharia Law which goes against the culture of London. Or here in California, there are neighborhoods that are territories of gangs from Latin America that have become uninhabitable to others. Again, I am not saying that this is a majority of folks and I am not against immigration or other cultures, but it is something that could potentially hurt the liberty movement IMO.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

OK, obviously there are many different aspects of culture, some important, some not important. Let me repeat my definition of American culture: "(as defined by the Constitution, and the foundation of liberty and limited government)". The US Constitution was unique in it's separations of powers, limits on government, States rights, Constitutional Amendments, etc. This was the agreed upon basis for this nation. There are certainly a lot of other cultural norms, but the role of government is the foundation.

Maybe it will be easier to define what is not American culture:

- When there was an issue with a polygamist compound in the news, and they took away all the children to cries and wails from libertarians, a recent Chinese immigrant told me "the government should send in the military and destroy them!". Is that American culture?
- When a person from a different group dates your daughter, is it OK to chop off her head for causing dishonor? Is that assimilating American culture?
- If a woman does not wear a veil, should she be beaten on the street by morality enforcers? Is that American culture?

Yes, American cultural norms do change, and that is often the result of immigration. Should we put horse and dog on the menu tomorrow? That does not violate the Constitution in any way, yet some may feel strongly about it. Should we ban the consumption of all meat products at the Federal Level, without a Constitutional Amendment, if the President is a vegetarian and enough people in the Congress will go along with it? That would be a cultural change. Should everyone be forced to go to a certain Church, on a certain day, and pray at certain times each day, under penalty of death? That would be a cultural change.

People are people, and cultural norms change. The US at this point is not an example of how bad a situation gets. Look to the Balkans, or Syria, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or Burundi, or Kosovo, or Yugoslavia, or Kashmir if you want to see what happens when groups decide they want to eliminate other groups.

 

[Michelangelo]

OK, obviously there are many different aspects of culture, some important, some not important. Let me repeat my definition of American culture: "(as defined by the Constitution, and the foundation of liberty and limited government)".The US Constitution was unique

I wouldn't say unique.

in it's separations of powers,

Nope. Not unique here. Latin American Republics do have separation of powers. Admittedly the executive in many countries has squashed the power of the other branches, but its not like the American Presidency hasn't done the same.

limits on government,

Not unique. Latin American Republics have constitutions.

States rights,

Not unique at all. Several, admittedly not all, Latin American republics have strong states right. Texas was a Mexican territory that seceded out of states rights. In addition you have the Rio Grande, the Yucatan, and several other states secede. Much of Mexico's early political strife was between the states and the federal government in the DF. Likewise the central american countries are constantly battling between forming a United States of Central America and their own independence.

Constitutional Amendments, etc.

Nope, Latin America has this too.

This was the agreed upon basis for this nation. There are certainly a lot of other cultural norms, but the role of government is the foundation.

Maybe it will be easier to define what is not American culture:

- When there was an issue with a polygamist compound in the news, and they took away all the children to cries and wails from libertarians, a recent Chinese immigrant told me "the government should send in the military and destroy them!". Is that American culture?

Yes it is, sadly. Look up the Mormon Wars. The government has military intervened several times to squash polygamy.

- When a person from a different group dates your daughter, is it OK to chop off her head for causing dishonor? Is that assimilating American culture?

Yes. Bans on inter-racial marriage is part of American history. All too sadly.

- If a woman does not wear a veil, should she be beaten on the street by morality enforcers? Is that American culture?

I'll give you this one.

Yes, American cultural norms do change, and that is often the result of immigration. Should we put horse and dog on the menu tomorrow?

If there is market demand for it, yes!

That does not violate the Constitution in any way, yet some may feel strongly about it. Should we ban the consumption of all meat products at the Federal Level, without a Constitutional Amendment, if the President is a vegetarian and enough people in the Congress will go along with it? That would be a cultural change. Should everyone be forced to go to a certain Church, on a certain day, and pray at certain times each day, under penalty of death? That would be a cultural change.

People are people, and cultural norms change. The US at this point is not an example of how bad a situation gets. Look to the Balkans, or Syria, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or Burundi, or Kosovo, or Yugoslavia, or Kashmir if you want to see what happens when groups decide they want to eliminate other groups.

Ionno man. I still don't see what is so unique from the USA and Latin America. I want to say that its has a high degree of religious freedom, but even today you have bans on atheists serving in government. Religion is still brought up during elections. In Mexico its against campaign regulations to mention religion at all.

The USA is great. Really, it is. I just disagree with this notion that it is unique.

 

[erowe1]

Right, I understand what you are saying. What I meant by that is that this country DOES have a distinct culture, however muddled it may be these days. And yes, people are the same all over the world, but you can't deny that they are also different.

I don't believe that there exists a single distinct American culture.

But if it does exist, I don't want the government trying to preserve it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Nope. Not unique here. Latin American Republics do have separation of powers. Admittedly the executive in many countries has squashed the power of the other branches, but its not like the American Presidency hasn't done the same.
...

I said "was" unique at it's creation. Sure there are a lot of copycats since then with varying degrees of success.

And as far as some of the examples, yes, our government has proven to violate it's own Constitution on occasion, and it seems like it does it more every day. But that doesn't change the essence.

You seem very focused on Mexico and Latin American. I am speaking in terms that are independent of ethnicity. I am a Californio, so I have no problem with mixing of US and Mexican culture, as long as we are still talking about the rule of law (and the Constitution).

I am more concerned about Piers Morgan. Another white liberal who has fled from a mess that he created, only to attempt to screw our country up! He wants to impose his "anti-gun" culture upon us, and does so from a very high pulpit, with no regard whatsoever for the Constitution (2nd Amendment). He can go back to England, and take all of his gun-grabbing friends with him. Maybe the title of this thread would change if we deported enough of them!