Japan needs babies.

[AlucardNoir]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

IF the only reply for "London is no longer English" is "London is as British as it's ever been" then we have a break in communication. And yes, the english have been historically "white", not that that term was actually used until rather recently. English was what was used, that's why there was so much discrimination in the anglo-saxon US against the Irish, because the Irish were not English, not anglo-saxon, not part of the group. "White" is a race, but here's the thing, outside of the US with it's melting pot wishful dreams, we also have ethnicities and historically those have been the source of much "intra-racial" fighting. Before it was fashionable to look down of the "poor savage", before having different gods was a fashionable excuse for war, fighting your neighbors that spoke a different language and which had different local customs and traditions was the norm. Actually, that kind of intra-racial fighting is what led to the World Wars and the dismantling of the colonial system in the first place. The white Germans and Italians feeling left out by the white English and the white French that had more or less carved the rest of the world for themselves.

Also, just so we're clear, you're accusing me of a colonial attitude when my very argument is one that is by it's very nature against colonialism - namely that every people deserves it's own patch of land to call home? One that is based on the fact that when you mix different cultures and ethnicities you historically end up with tears and bloodshed? As has been the case in eastern Europe where different ethnicities were forced together, as has been the case for the middle east, or Africa, or any other region on the globe where western Europe drew the map with multicultural, multilinguistic, multiethnic countries in mind. Yeah, I must be the greatest colonialist since Columbus.

I just love it when regressive like you just go full McIntosh. The anglo-saxons aren't the result of "the mixture of cultures", they're the result of the repeated brutal conquest of a region by foreign invaders - just like the rest of the world, and every single other culture on the planet right now. They're not the result of some nice and peaceful cohabitation that resulted in the mixture of languages and cultures. They're the result of war, rape and the forced adoption of the victor's cultural and linguistic norms by the vanquished.

Whether it was by peaceful cooperation or war, rape and forced adoption, it is still by its very nature a ''mixture of cultures.'' I don't understand what you mean by that.

What is a ''regressive'' in actual, practical terms? Is that from the same book of meaningless buzzwords as ''SJW''?

Oxford definition: 'becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.'

In this case: a state pre-Civil Rights, where the color of your skin, your type of genitals, or your preference for romantic partners, could dictate if you get to work today and/or eat tonight.

Fair enough, but is that how the term ''regressive'' was being used here by referencing Jonathan Mcintosh whose claim to fame is little more than being one of Anita Sarkeesian's mates? I was more interested in knowing what apparently the ''new'' definition of the word is.

Firstly, sorry, I must have projected and assumed that when you wrote: "[...] that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet." You meant peaceful and desirable mixture of cultures as opposed to war, rape etc. etc. Since you seemed to think saying that present day Anglo-saxon/English culture being a result of a mixture of cultures was somehow a defense against it's continued existence.

Secondly, nope, that's exactly how I used regressive. As I said, I live in Eastern Europe, we know first hand the effects of forced multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious countries. I am against multiculturalism and anyone that defends that idea has regresive views and as such can be described as a regresive.

[Riedquat]

The majority of immigrants are exactly like you and me: they want jobs, they want families, they want to love, they want freedom. The problem is that they are the current ''Other''. They are the one's that you can blame for all of society's ills. Everyone gets their turn to be ''The Other'' at some point - gays, the Irish, blacks, women, white men, Jews, Muslims. Sadly it is such an effective propaganda tool that it will happen forever.

"You're blaming it all on a fear of the 'Other'" is another oft-repeated dismissal to avoid actually engaging or even bothering to understand someone else's point of view. It's an automatic assumption about what is "right" and therefore anyone who seems to disagree (whatever reason they actually give) is by definition wrong. Very dogmatic.

I'm still waiting for someone to say what's actually wrong about liking a world with a variety of cultures and identities, different ones in different places, people being able to identify with them. Why respecting that and not liking it being threatened is somehow wrong. I like a world with distinct, different, rich variety from place to place.

[ProfessorDetective]

You think that that "London is no longer English" comment is proof because it fits your own bias and that's what you want to hear. Let's be honest here. That's only reason why you believe that to be true.

You are also ignoring fact that not everyone who migrates does so because they want to but because they have to for one reason or other. You also seem to assume worst about them. But I guess you think that they should just suffer and die like animals because they aren't caucasians and don't have same culture. I see that colonial era attitudes are still strong.

By the way that Anglo-Saxon culture that was result of mixture of cultures and English language was formed by mixing language that Saxons spoke with what Normans who conquered England spoke and Latin with modern alphabet that we use having been created in Arab and is thus called Arabic alphabet.

Yeah, I have no reason to take you seriously anymore because you lack sense and you act based on emotion that is fear.

IF the only reply for "London is no longer English" is "London is as British as it's ever been" then we have a break in communication. And yes, the english have been historically "white", not that that term was actually used until rather recently. English was what was used, that's why there was so much discrimination in the anglo-saxon US against the Irish, because the Irish were not English, not anglo-saxon, not part of the group. "White" is a race, but here's the thing, outside of the US with it's melting pot wishful dreams, we also have ethnicities and historically those have been the source of much "intra-racial" fighting. Before it was fashionable to look down of the "poor savage", before having different gods was a fashionable excuse for war, fighting your neighbors that spoke a different language and which had different local customs and traditions was the norm. Actually, that kind of intra-racial fighting is what led to the World Wars and the dismantling of the colonial system in the first place. The white Germans and Italians feeling left out by the white English and the white French that had more or less carved the rest of the world for themselves.

Also, just so we're clear, you're accusing me of a colonial attitude when my very argument is one that is by it's very nature against colonialism - namely that every people deserves it's own patch of land to call home? One that is based on the fact that when you mix different cultures and ethnicities you historically end up with tears and bloodshed? As has been the case in eastern Europe where different ethnicities were forced together, as has been the case for the middle east, or Africa, or any other region on the globe where western Europe drew the map with multicultural, multilinguistic, multiethnic countries in mind. Yeah, I must be the greatest colonialist since Columbus.

I just love it when regressive like you just go full McIntosh. The anglo-saxons aren't the result of "the mixture of cultures", they're the result of the repeated brutal conquest of a region by foreign invaders - just like the rest of the world, and every single other culture on the planet right now. They're not the result of some nice and peaceful cohabitation that resulted in the mixture of languages and cultures. They're the result of war, rape and the forced adoption of the victor's cultural and linguistic norms by the vanquished.

Whether it was by peaceful cooperation or war, rape and forced adoption, it is still by its very nature a ''mixture of cultures.'' I don't understand what you mean by that.

What is a ''regressive'' in actual, practical terms? Is that from the same book of meaningless buzzwords as ''SJW''?

Oxford definition: 'becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.'

In this case: a state pre-Civil Rights, where the color of your skin, your type of genitals, or your preference for romantic partners, could dictate if you get to work today and/or eat tonight.

Fair enough, but is that how the term ''regressive'' was being used here by referencing Jonathan Mcintosh whose claim to fame is little more than being one of Anita Sarkeesian's mates? I was more interested in knowing what apparently the ''new'' definition of the word is.

Well then, it's either 'anti-Civil Rights' or 'people I don't like who are/who think different from me'. Still the opposite of progressive AKA 'anti-xenophobe/nazi' or 'people I don't like who are/who think different from me'.

I'm 'anti-xenophobe/nazi' progressive, by-the-by.

[ProfessorDetective]

The majority of immigrants are exactly like you and me: they want jobs, they want families, they want to love, they want freedom. The problem is that they are the current ''Other''. They are the one's that you can blame for all of society's ills. Everyone gets their turn to be ''The Other'' at some point - gays, the Irish, blacks, women, white men, Jews, Muslims. Sadly it is such an effective propaganda tool that it will happen forever.

"You're blaming it all on a fear of the 'Other'" is another oft-repeated dismissal to avoid actually engaging or even bothering to understand someone else's point of view. It's an automatic assumption about what is "right" and therefore anyone who seems to disagree (whatever reason they actually give) is by definition wrong. Very dogmatic.

I'm still waiting for someone to say what's actually wrong about liking a world with a variety of cultures and identities, different ones in different places, people being able to identify with them. Why respecting that and not liking it being threatened is somehow wrong. I like a world with distinct, different, rich variety from place to place.

So, you believe we can not have that in a single place? Well, a denser area. Look, whenever I hear something similar to 'they should just stay over there/where they came from', my mind automatically goes to segregation or that insane junk thrown at those five senators/house reps a while back.

[Riedquat]

So, you believe we can not have that in a single place? Well, a denser area. Look, whenever I hear something similar to 'they should just stay over there/where they came from', my mind automatically goes to segregation or that insane junk thrown at those five senators/house reps a while back.

You're trying to twist it there and I hope you're honest enough to realise that you're doing so. The similarities are superficial at best but you seem to be automatically equating it with a negative view of anyone from anywhere else. Remember that my view applies equally in the other direction - I find it pretty depressing to see bits of other countries turned into little parts of the UK. It's good to be in them with one or two other expats around, not good if you're surrounded by them and are part of what's made a significant change to where you've gone.

Of course you can't have that in a single place. It isn't that place then if it's all there, just some random mix (and by implication would end up like that everywhere, i.e. everywhere's the same).

[AlucardNoir]

The majority of immigrants are exactly like you and me: they want jobs, they want families, they want to love, they want freedom. The problem is that they are the current ''Other''. They are the one's that you can blame for all of society's ills. Everyone gets their turn to be ''The Other'' at some point - gays, the Irish, blacks, women, white men, Jews, Muslims. Sadly it is such an effective propaganda tool that it will happen forever.

"You're blaming it all on a fear of the 'Other'" is another oft-repeated dismissal to avoid actually engaging or even bothering to understand someone else's point of view. It's an automatic assumption about what is "right" and therefore anyone who seems to disagree (whatever reason they actually give) is by definition wrong. Very dogmatic.

I'm still waiting for someone to say what's actually wrong about liking a world with a variety of cultures and identities, different ones in different places, people being able to identify with them. Why respecting that and not liking it being threatened is somehow wrong. I like a world with distinct, different, rich variety from place to place.

So, you believe we can not have that in a single place? Well, a denser area. Look, whenever I hear something similar to 'they should just stay over there/where they came from', my mind automatically goes to segregation or that insane junk thrown at those five senators/house reps a while back.

You know what, you should probably tell that to Mexico. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBIS_KEVl0w[/youtube]

Or maybe Israel. I'm sure the Jews would love to hear how Israel should be multicultural, multiethinc and most importantly multireligious. Who needs a state for the Jews anyways, they can just share and I'm sure they'd be welcomed everywhere they go, especially those neighboring predominately muslim countries.

[CmdrKing]

I'm still waiting for someone to say what's actually wrong about liking a world with a variety of cultures and identities, different ones in different places, people being able to identify with them. Why respecting that and not liking it being threatened is somehow wrong. I like a world with distinct, different, rich variety from place to place.

Mostly that such a world has never existed, and the delusion it has is typically a fantasy used to sell war, imperialism, and fascistic nationalism.

And where it hasn't, or where the drive to conquer has been diminished or removed... you get a country like Japan, whose government is spending more energy creating the illusion or stability and ethnic unity than in celebrating and advancing the culture.

[clearspira]

I'm still waiting for someone to say what's actually wrong about liking a world with a variety of cultures and identities, different ones in different places, people being able to identify with them. Why respecting that and not liking it being threatened is somehow wrong. I like a world with distinct, different, rich variety from place to place.

Mostly that such a world has never existed, and the delusion it has is typically a fantasy used to sell war, imperialism, and fascistic nationalism.

Very true. The history of the world has been built upon people from different cultures mixing together whether they wanted to or not. There have been very few times in history where a country was truly of one race and culture.

Ancient Rome for example was almost completely dependent upon its slaves to operate its infrastructure and logistics due to the high death rate of the native Romans. Men and boys died in its many wars, women and girls died in childbirth, and any child who made it to 5 years old was lucky. It was so much dependent on its slaves in fact that a proposal to have slaves wear uniforms that marked them out as slaves was quietly dropped after someone pointed out that if the slaves actually realised just how many of them there were in comparison to the natives that there may be a revolution. Just how many were there in actual terms? Approximately 40% of the population at its height.

Why do I bring this up? Because only a small amount of those slaves were native. The rest were brought to Rome from across the entire Empire and beyond: Gaul, Hispania, North Africa, Syria, Germany, Britannia, the Balkans, Greece, etc. Now are we to think that with 40% of the city being immigrants that this did not influence Roman culture at all? Sounds unlikely.

Now add in the fact that Roman slaves in comparison to the black cotton farmers for example had an almost astonishing level of freedom from owning property, to earning their money and buying their way out of enslavement, to lodging complaints against their masters for mistreatment - in fact it is often joked that Roman male slaves had more rights than free Roman women. And whilst that is arguable, the end result being that once free, many of these foreign Roman slaves became rich, powerful and influential citizens.

[Riedquat]

Mostly that such a world has never existed, and the delusion it has is typically a fantasy used to sell war, imperialism, and fascistic nationalism.

Of course it's existed - unless you take that position to a ludicrous extreme in order to justify your equally extreme reaction. All I'm seeing here is an attempt at saying things have to be one extreme or or the other, black and white, and because you find your extreme less obnoxious (which it probably is) then anything that so much as hints as the other direction is automatically wrong.

In short it's just as prejudiced, short-sighted, ignorant and bigoted as what you complain about. It's a case of massive oversimplification - something's perceived as bad therefore anything that seems to be the opposite to that is OK, anything that you can twist to being related is not. In short just the type of thinking substitute that has caused so many problems throughout history. Dogma instead of looking at subtleties, complexities, and shying away from having to consider anything that doesn't line up with some established notion of what's right and wrong and not deviating from that an inch.

[ProfessorDetective]

So, you believe we can not have that in a single place? Well, a denser area. Look, whenever I hear something similar to 'they should just stay over there/where they came from', my mind automatically goes to segregation or that insane junk thrown at those five senators/house reps a while back.

You're trying to twist it there and I hope you're honest enough to realise that you're doing so. The similarities are superficial at best but you seem to be automatically equating it with a negative view of anyone from anywhere else. Remember that my view applies equally in the other direction - I find it pretty depressing to see bits of other countries turned into little parts of the UK. It's good to be in them with one or two other expats around, not good if you're surrounded by them and are part of what's made a significant change to where you've gone.

Of course you can't have that in a single place. It isn't that place then if it's all there, just some random mix (and by implication would end up like that everywhere, i.e. everywhere's the same).

I hear all of this and start thinking about those white genocide crazies who think ANY direct interaction between ethnicities, especially romantic relations and births, will lead to Caucasians spontaneously not existing. You know those guys would love to just say 'contaminate the Aryan Race', but know that that'll get them written off right away.

Am I overexaggerating by making these comparisons? Probably. But these are what come to mind. Saying that people should be separated for the betterment of the whole (outside of convicts or abusive families, of course) just raises red flags with me. It's a kneejerk reaction, but it's mine.