August 17th, 2016 at 7:56 pm
Odakyu-Sen at 7.49….
Interesting comments. Tolerance, IMHO, is a good quality.
Multiculturalism, which is intolerant of non-multiculturalism, as in Japan and China, is the inverse of racism, which is also intolerant.
Both want to dictate racial composition.
Jack5,
Is it wrong for a society to dictate its racial composition?
Is it more acceptable for some societies to dictate their racial composition than for others to do so?
If so, then which societies would get a “free pass” from the MSM for doing so? And which societies would be ridiculed?
Odaky-sen at 8.04
I think societies have the right to decide the racial composition of their societies, but provided they do this in a civilised, humane, and tolerant way – not in the way the Nazis or for example, the Bhutanese, set out to do.
I think further that societies which don’t rationally, coolly, and unemotionally discuss the racial composition they would prefer have the composition set for them by folreigners or by an activist minority, some of whom benefit from change. In NZ’s case this is the small group of real estate agents, immigration consultants, and the liberal-pacifist-religious fanatic minority.
construction building industry, educational language institutions, parties seeking more voters.
Do other sectors of society get to discuss and have and input?
Odakyu-sen 7.49: You will note ‘diversity’ in city suburbs almost invariably favours the more working class areas, because working class residents are relatively powerless to fight against their suburbs being overwhelmed by alien cultures. Look toward Parnell, Takapuna, Devonport, Remuera and there will be a sprinkling of multiculturalism, but I can’t imagine those suburbs turning into Mt Roskill type shitholes. The city planners need their escape routes to the leafy streets, whilst the rest of Auckland can bask in the joys of diversity. Ponsonby does have a mosque, but then some rather strange people reside there.
No comments:
Post a Comment