Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
Author Message
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #1
Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
One of the theories about why the global elites want to have open borders and allow massive numbers of immigrants to enter Europe and the U.S. is that it's easier to rule a multicultural population. The theory goes, if the populace consists of people from many cultural backgrounds, it's harder for them to unite against their rulers, because they're too busy fighting each other.

Is this really how it works? It seems to me, the more cultural minorities you have, the more groups you have wanting representation in the government. For example, if you have a government run by Hindus, then the Muslims are going to demand, "We want our own independent state, so we can rule ourselves! We refuse to accept Hindu domination." Therefore, you have to give the Muslims representation in the government, in order to appease them. (Maybe that's why Israel, despite being a Jewish state, allows Arab parties to be in the Knesset.)

But if you have a government that consists of people from many different cultures, then it becomes harder for it to govern, because the same fights that divided the people end up dividing the government, too. For example, the U.K. runs the risk of a hung parliament because the Irish and Scottish regional parties prevent the Tories or the Labour Party from getting a majority. Because of all the radical parties seeking to control Israel, its government often collapses mid-term, resulting in early elections. Weimar Germany has the same issue. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and all that.

In the U.S., the fact that the country is polarized between Trump fans and SJWs would theoretically make it easier for the government to rule, except that the government itself is divided, and whatever the President tries to do, there's a huge faction of people who oppose him. It probably would have been the same way if Hillary had been elected.

To some extent, it's a pain in the neck for the state to have a bunch of immigrants around. They rally in the streets waving their foreign flags, and interpreters have to be brought in to translate whenever they end up in court. The state has to cater to those cultural minorities (like when Trump says and does stuff to appease the Cuban refugees, or the Zionist Jews).

I think what the global elites actually want is not multiculturalism, but rather a monoculture. When they say to "celebrate diversity" what they actually want is for people to come together in one melting pot that will, for the most part, instill first world values in the third world population, rather than the other way around. The end result they're hoping for is that all cultural barriers to international trade will be abolished. After all, think how much easier it would be to conduct global commerce if we all had one language, one currency, one set of customs, etc.

The way a variety of cultures is maintained is by isolating cultures from each other, not bringing them together. It's like how the Galápagos Islands have a lot of strange creatures because of their isolation. They go extinct when predators from the mainland are brought in, and then there's less diversity of species in the world. Similarly, it's been pointed out that when you expose Filipinas to an influx of western betas, it changes how they behave. They start acting more like American women.

If the "divide and rule" strategy works, then I wonder why Hitler didn't say, "I should keep the Jews and other minorities around so that I can play the various groups against another another and thereby more easily rule." In practice, most countries that aspire to have an empire try to destroy the local culture and put their own culture in its place, because they want unity, not diversity.

One advantage to the leader, though, of having minority groups around is that he can say to the majority, "I need extra powers to keep this minority group in check." In a federal republic, any inter-cultural conflicts in a province also give the federal leader an excuse to say, "I need more power so I can intervene to keep order and protect minorities in the provinces." That's how the U.S. states ended up losing a lot of power to the federal government after the Civil War.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2017 05:18 PM by Jean Valjean.)
06-25-2017 04:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Pollito Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 185
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation: 2
Post: #2
RE: Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
Popcorn 2
06-25-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Pollito's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
MidJack Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 360
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 6
Post: #3
RE: Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
The only way for a unified Earth to exist is for all groups to give up their ethnic interest simultaneously, and there is no evidence that will ever happen. I do not know the elites' plan, but I doubt they care about achieving a homogeneous global culture so long as populations remain manipulable and none become too powerful.
06-25-2017 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Paracelsus Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,242
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 149
Post: #4
RE: Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
Quote:One of the theories about why the global elites want to have open borders and allow massive numbers of immigrants to enter Europe and the U.S. is that it's easier to rule a multicultural population. The theory goes, if the populace consists of people from many cultural backgrounds, it's harder for them to unite against their rulers, because they're too busy fighting each other.

Is this really how it works? It seems to me, the more cultural minorities you have, the more groups you have wanting representation in the government. For example, if you have a government run by Hindus, then the Muslims are going to demand, "We want our own independent state, so we can rule ourselves! We refuse to accept Hindu domination." Therefore, you have to give the Muslims representation in the government, in order to appease them. (Maybe that's why Israel, despite being a Jewish state, allows Arab parties to be in the Knesset.)

So long as your power-holding opposition is divided and can't act together, you can rule. Nobody took the United States seriously until the Declaration of Independence in which not one, not two, but thirteen colonies banded together under a single instrument. That is why the motto of the United States is E pluribus unum, - Out of many, one.

Conversely, Hitler was able to gain power with no more than 30% of the electorate supporting him simply because none of the opposition parties could get their shit together to stop him. In Venezuela, Maduro holds power not just because he controls the military, the food supply, and the ports; he holds it also because his opponents are a coalition of idiots.

This is the one great power-taking technique the Left uses across all of Western democracy: they might be a bunch of IQ 90 idiots, but their party discipline is second to none, if they need to kill one of their dissenters, they tend to do it in private, because party discipline gets you more power than having individual opinions. Bernie Sanders is an old-school leftist, which is why the old turd bent over and let Hilary Clinton rape him with a strap-on even after it was proven she had cooked the books against him in the DNC. He took it and endorsed her because he knew full well a DNC tearing itself apart would have even less chance of winning than Hilary Clinton being put forward with a shit base of policies.

Muslim soft conquest of the West operates by similar principles. Only a minority of them are out-and-out ISIS supporters, but a vast swathe of them want shari'a law to govern them, which is worse than ISIS. ISIS can bomb people or buildings. Shari'a destroys civilisations.

To conquer the West, Islam needs only three things:

(1) Demographic superiority, i.e. breeds more over time and holds enough of its people to Islam;
(2) A society with no native-born lower class capable of working cheaply, i.e. the West;
(3) A society built on principles of tolerance to the point of self-destruction, i.e. the West (see Nassim Taleb's scholarly articles on how intolerant minorities dominate and in time destroy tolerant majorities.)

Remove any of these foundations and Islam would fail. If white Christians were not addicted to premarital sex without consequence -- i.e. contraception/abortion -- they would not be outbred. If lower class black, Latino, or whites were not partially or wholly on government benefits and were instead working for a livable wage, there would be no reason to import cheap Arabic labour or outsource it to other countries. If the West had not so thoroughly absorbed absolute tolerance and democracy for even the most undeserving, Islamic intolerance would have been met with bullets long ago.

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2017 09:51 PM by Paracelsus.)
06-25-2017 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like Paracelsus's post:
uncledick, Handsome Creepy Eel, Simeon_Strangelight, SamuelBRoberts, YossariansRight, Professor Fox, Hannibal
RIslander Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,766
Joined: Dec 2013
Post: #5
RE: Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
Based on your writing style its safe to say: You're NASA Test Pilot.
06-26-2017 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like RIslander's post:
Simeon_Strangelight, Paracelsus
YossariansRight Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 35
Post: #6
RE: Multiculturalism and the "divide and rule" strategy
This is all by design.

When over a 1,000 years of hard earned empirical evidence is thrown into the trash and uncivilizable foreign hoards are imported from the bottoms of their gene pools and the civilian population is disarmed and left defenseless by a criminal and/or insane government, this is exactly what you get.

“….and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say… we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.

- President Donald J. Trump
06-26-2017 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like YossariansRight's post:
estraudi, Chevy Woonsocket
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication