Western”, modern countries that never adopted multiculturalism - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan 

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!


Western”, modern countries that never adopted multiculturalism - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan


Japan’s and South Korea’s post-World War II forty-year economic growth surge without immigration has always been an embarrassment to the immigration and multiculturalism enthusiasts. In 1990, the then-Designated Enthusiast Economist Julian Simon was reduced to admitting: "How Japan gets along I don't know. But we may have to recognise that some countries are unique in their characteristics."


Western Europe have had a long and close friendship with these countries post WW2. They have not initialised media campaigns portraying these countries as Nazis, boycotted them economically or threatened them with invasion if they don’t start implementing multiculturalism. It’s therefore quite contradictory to how Western Europe ridicule, harass and persecute any and all individuals and groups in their own countries who support monoculturalism.



Japan and multiculturalism


Japanese society, with its ideology of homogenity, has opposed multiculturalism which has been adopted by Western Europe and the US.


Japan accepted just 16 refugees in 1999, while the United States took in 85,010 for resettlement, according to the UNHCR. New Zealand, which is smaller than Japan, accepted 1,140 refugees in 1999. Just 305 persons were recognised as refugees by Japan from 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to 2002.







South Korea and multiculturalism


South Korea is among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations. Like Japah and Taiwan, South Korea rejects the doctrine of multiculturalism. Most Koreans tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group sharing the same "blood" and history. A common language and culture are also viewed as important elements in Korean identity.


The idea of multiracial or multiethnic nations, like Canada or the United States, is opposed in general and strikes many Koreans as odd or even contradictory.








China, Africa, the Islamic world and multiculturalism


The European cultural Marxists/multiculturalists often directly or indirectly claim that everyone opposing multiculturalism are racists, fascists and Nazis. So according to their logic China, Africa and the Islamic world are all Nazi regimes as they never implemented multiculturalism. As of now, ONLY European countries (US, Canada, Aussie included) and a few Hindu and Buddhist countries are actual multiculturalist regimes (India, Thailand Phillipines and a couple more). So why the double standards? Why do they only use the fascist/Nazi bashing rhetoric to paralyze all attempts of resistance in European nations and against patriotic groups and individuals? The answer is discussed thoroughly in this compendium. The phenomenon is called the self loathing complex also referred to as “European guilt” in combination with the Marxist goal of destroying the European, Christian, straight man. One of the primary beliefs of many Marxists is that everything European is a cancer in the world that has to be exterminated. According to their logic; Europeans are the cause of all the evil in the world so they must exterminate all Europeans (deconstruct the European majority) in order to be able to create the Marxist utopia of eternal peace and harmony.



Africa, China and the Islamic world


China is a monocultural country, just like African nations and a majority of countries in the Islamic world. Everyone who has travelled and lived in Africa knows that all African nations, with the exception of perhaps South Africa, are monocultural nations and they are very racist towards all Europeans. I have personally experienced overwhelming discrimination from the first second I set my foot in Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia. And you really don’t have to travel to African nations to comprehend this as it is a widely known truth. Talk to ANY European visitor to Africa and ask if he would want to settle there with his family and the answer would be “no”. This is primarily due to discrimination. The same can be said about China and the Islamic world. While a significant number of citizens in Islamic or Muslim countries are directly hostile to Europeans, Chinese are usually just after your money. It is unbearable to live the rest of your life in a country where there is a constant and an overwhelming danger of being “Shanghaied”. My stepmother was the Norwegian Vice Counsul in Shanghai and I know several Europeans working there. They are willing to “cope” for the duration of their company term, as the pay is good, but they would never settle there permanently with their families. I remember when I was in Shanghai a few years ago. During my three week stay I had more than 10 people asking me to take a photograph with them. Apparently, the Nordic appearance is a relatively rare sight, especially for rural Chinese visiting the big cities during their vacation. While this can be a charming and even a flattering experience, having a mob of people constantly glaring at you all day long is a psychological burden. An example is when I went to Mc Donalds with my friend, Xun. He is a Norwegian Chinese btw and he was my partner at one point, in Oslo, when I day traded actively. He taught me advanced Chinese candlestick/MACD strategies in relation to stock analysis. Anyway, at Mc Donalds as with anywhere, it is not likely that you will enjoy your meal when you have 50 Chinese constantly glaring at you. During my stay in Shanghai there were 5 attempts to Shanghai me (they target Europeans), one was unfortunately successful (30 Euro demanded for a simple 1 Euro dish).


As for China on a state level, they actively use demographical warfare against Tibet and areas populated by Muslim Uyghurs. China is a monocultural country, just like African nations and a majority of countries in the Islamic world.


Democracy not working

By Fjordman


Currently, the democratic system is in my view not working properly in any Western country. It is more or less dead in Western Europe, where most of the real power has been transferred to the unelected organs of the European Union, anyway. Virtually all Western countries have lost control over their borders. This is not a sustainable situation. You can call your political system a democracy, a dictatorship, a republic, a monarchy or whatever you want, but a country that does not control its territory will eventually die. It's inevitable.


The situation is made worse by the fact that globalisation of transportation has put severe pressure on our nations in a manner which was unthinkable only a few decades ago. When the first Christian Gospels were written down at the end of the first century AD, the population of the Roman Empire was about 60 million people. This mirrors the annual global population growth in the early twenty-first century. In other words: The global population grows by another Roman Empire every single year. Our system wasn't designed for such numbers. It needs fundamental change, or it will soon collapse into civil wars or dictatorships or both. We also have a situation where some left-wing parties in particular deliberately import Muslims and others because they vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties. A political system where it pays to import enemies obviously isn't sustainable.


When I criticise democracy, this should not be taken as an indication that I believe in elitist rule. I criticise it because it clearly doesn't automatically ensure freedom of speech and security for life and property, which is the hallmark of true liberty. Another problem is that it isn't always the best system for long-term decisions because people tend to prefer short-term gains. I still believe, however, that there should be a powerful element of real public influence, to curtail the potential for absolute rulers and abuse of power. We have clearly veered too far in the direction of the latter with the EU, where the ruling elites have skillfully eliminated any constraints on their power.


The democratic system has significant flaws, but it worked to some extent as long as there was sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common interests. What we are witnessing now is the gradual breakdown of this demos, starting from the top down. Powerful groups frequently have more in common with the elites in other countries than they have with the average citizen in their own. If you no longer believe in your nation as a real entity with a specific culture, it simply becomes a tool for obtaining power, a stepping stone for your global career. Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for fleecing the voters while in power and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral inhibitions against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business buddies who give you financial support desire it. This process is related to technological globalisation, but it has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilisation.


Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system. Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.


The most important thing to realise is that democracy is a tool, a means we use to achieve an end. Too many people now confuse it with the end itself. "Democracy" has come to mean something that is good, something everybody wants, a bit like sex or chocolate. But there is no rational reason to assume that democracy of universal suffrage is uniformly good and can be applied with equal success in all circumstances, a huge mistake Americans made in Iraq.


Any political system must first and foremost ensure the survival, the continued physical existence, of the community it serves. After that comes ensuring the prosperity and liberty of this community in the best possible way. However, when I look at the situation in Western countries today, I cannot see that democracy always ensures our liberty or prosperity, and in many cases it functions so poorly that it threatens our very survival. Perhaps in order to ensure our continued existence, we need to supplement democracy with other tools in our toolkit.








Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-04-07; просмотров: 467; Нарушение авторского права страницы; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - (0.015 с.)