What do we call the people who emigrate? What do we call the people who remain, of
whom a certain percentage can't get away? Immigrants in Europe can't become part of
the mainstream in the respective countries because the culture of the countries refuses to
admit outsiders.
You are an American, Canadian or Australia by dint of personal determination. You are
French, Argentinean etc. by birth. Hence the continuing ethnic heritage devotion in the
United States, Canada and Australia -- I'm Italian or I'm Greek or I'm Nigerian, a person
might say.
In these three countries and to a lesser extant England, you can be accepted as a
hyphenated person, but in the rest of the world you are either or are not. You can't be
hyphenated, in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. Hyphenation is not allowed
culturally and often legally, hence the constant rebellions based on religions, cultures,
ethnicity; the whole issues of volatile minorities.
Then they move to America and no problem The Jewish Diamond dealer in New York City
taking a cab driven by a Palestinian Arab, conversing in imperfect English, at peace,
thanking their lucky stars that they are American. This is not normal or accepted in any
other countries, where foreigners are indeed that: foreign.
People immigrate to the United States because they can not achieve what they want to
achieve back in their native countries. The cultures of those countries inhibits or prohibits
all efforts at creating a better life, by which ever parameter indiividuals perceive. This, to
prevent more immigration requires change of culture back home.
The economic haves have adopted cultural imperatives to create wealth. The economic
have-nots have retained cultural operations that promote poverty. While political
democracy is tied to economic democracy, in a direct correlation, most of the world does
not believe this. Though there is plenty of evidence. Mostly in the form of free countries
having more wealth, more so-democracies have more wealth.
But the wealth does not come from merely having elections. Wealth is predicated on the
development of systems of law and commerce that have nothing to do with elections,
except that only democratic states have these systems of law and commerce.
It is often said, well, Argentina or Columbia or Malaysia are democracies, after all they have
elections. But if all the people can vote for are statists/socialists who work hard at
preventing the instillation of wealth producing systems of law and commerce than what is
the point of the elections? Cuba has elections, too. Big deal. All the elections in Mexico will
not bring to power anyone who seems serious about correcting that nation's troubles, but
instead focuses on people who blame the United States for all their troubles. They are
socialists, whether they use the actual name or not, because they believe that the state
should own the primary means of production of natural resources because all the land and
the natural resources belong to the people, and the government represents the people.
What really happens is unrelenting corruption and theft of the national wealth.
American would be perfectly happy for everyone else to become like America -- thus
eliminating war, distress and more immigration under negative circumstances. But the rest
of the world is seemingly dedicated to the prospect of ignoring the reality that is in front of
them. Obviously, whatever the United States and Canada are doing is working to create
the most powerful and richest nations on earth. Why wouldn't the rest of the world
emulate us as fully and as quickly as they could?
Mostly because they are beholden to Socialist thought and the Divine Right of States.
Within culture, politics and economics, socialist theory is still so prevalent across the world,
because socialism is merely modern words applied to the ancient system of the Divine
Rights of Kings. Where the state knows all for the good of the people. Individualism is
suspect because it necessarily diminishes the all encompassing rhetoric of The People.
Simplistic demagoguery is easier than complex individualism. It is easy to say that food,
health care, clothing and shelter are the Rights of Man -- but it is much harder to say that
individuals are capable of creating their own. The state can provide for everyone only by
denying everyone the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.
"The State will own the national oil company for the good of the people," is perhaps the
biggest farce perpertrated on mankind. There is this belief oil is such an important
commodity that mere individuals have no right to own it. Especially corporations from
America.
The fear of lack of control is one of the biggest hindrances to individualism. These cultures
are so imbued with the idea that anything less than total conformity to a national/ethnic
culture is dangerous to the very existence of that nation/ethnic group that individuals who
stray are actually against the People.
The continued Marxian belief that rich countries require the existence of poor countries,
which just isn't true at all. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor backwards cultures
will not result in better conditions in the poor places, because the structural ideas for wealth
creation and retention aren't present. Mexico nationalized the oil industry decades ago, and
has made billions upon billions of dollars -- a huge transfer of wealth from a rich country to
a poor country -- and where is the money? Or where is the products of the money?
Mexico is still poor.
The United States has granted billions of dollars to countries in an effort to help them, and
what happens to the money? It lines the bank vaults of the Switzerlands of the world.
whom a certain percentage can't get away? Immigrants in Europe can't become part of
the mainstream in the respective countries because the culture of the countries refuses to
admit outsiders.
You are an American, Canadian or Australia by dint of personal determination. You are
French, Argentinean etc. by birth. Hence the continuing ethnic heritage devotion in the
United States, Canada and Australia -- I'm Italian or I'm Greek or I'm Nigerian, a person
might say.
In these three countries and to a lesser extant England, you can be accepted as a
hyphenated person, but in the rest of the world you are either or are not. You can't be
hyphenated, in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. Hyphenation is not allowed
culturally and often legally, hence the constant rebellions based on religions, cultures,
ethnicity; the whole issues of volatile minorities.
Then they move to America and no problem The Jewish Diamond dealer in New York City
taking a cab driven by a Palestinian Arab, conversing in imperfect English, at peace,
thanking their lucky stars that they are American. This is not normal or accepted in any
other countries, where foreigners are indeed that: foreign.
People immigrate to the United States because they can not achieve what they want to
achieve back in their native countries. The cultures of those countries inhibits or prohibits
all efforts at creating a better life, by which ever parameter indiividuals perceive. This, to
prevent more immigration requires change of culture back home.
The economic haves have adopted cultural imperatives to create wealth. The economic
have-nots have retained cultural operations that promote poverty. While political
democracy is tied to economic democracy, in a direct correlation, most of the world does
not believe this. Though there is plenty of evidence. Mostly in the form of free countries
having more wealth, more so-democracies have more wealth.
But the wealth does not come from merely having elections. Wealth is predicated on the
development of systems of law and commerce that have nothing to do with elections,
except that only democratic states have these systems of law and commerce.
It is often said, well, Argentina or Columbia or Malaysia are democracies, after all they have
elections. But if all the people can vote for are statists/socialists who work hard at
preventing the instillation of wealth producing systems of law and commerce than what is
the point of the elections? Cuba has elections, too. Big deal. All the elections in Mexico will
not bring to power anyone who seems serious about correcting that nation's troubles, but
instead focuses on people who blame the United States for all their troubles. They are
socialists, whether they use the actual name or not, because they believe that the state
should own the primary means of production of natural resources because all the land and
the natural resources belong to the people, and the government represents the people.
What really happens is unrelenting corruption and theft of the national wealth.
American would be perfectly happy for everyone else to become like America -- thus
eliminating war, distress and more immigration under negative circumstances. But the rest
of the world is seemingly dedicated to the prospect of ignoring the reality that is in front of
them. Obviously, whatever the United States and Canada are doing is working to create
the most powerful and richest nations on earth. Why wouldn't the rest of the world
emulate us as fully and as quickly as they could?
Mostly because they are beholden to Socialist thought and the Divine Right of States.
Within culture, politics and economics, socialist theory is still so prevalent across the world,
because socialism is merely modern words applied to the ancient system of the Divine
Rights of Kings. Where the state knows all for the good of the people. Individualism is
suspect because it necessarily diminishes the all encompassing rhetoric of The People.
Simplistic demagoguery is easier than complex individualism. It is easy to say that food,
health care, clothing and shelter are the Rights of Man -- but it is much harder to say that
individuals are capable of creating their own. The state can provide for everyone only by
denying everyone the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.
"The State will own the national oil company for the good of the people," is perhaps the
biggest farce perpertrated on mankind. There is this belief oil is such an important
commodity that mere individuals have no right to own it. Especially corporations from
America.
The fear of lack of control is one of the biggest hindrances to individualism. These cultures
are so imbued with the idea that anything less than total conformity to a national/ethnic
culture is dangerous to the very existence of that nation/ethnic group that individuals who
stray are actually against the People.
The continued Marxian belief that rich countries require the existence of poor countries,
which just isn't true at all. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor backwards cultures
will not result in better conditions in the poor places, because the structural ideas for wealth
creation and retention aren't present. Mexico nationalized the oil industry decades ago, and
has made billions upon billions of dollars -- a huge transfer of wealth from a rich country to
a poor country -- and where is the money? Or where is the products of the money?
Mexico is still poor.
The United States has granted billions of dollars to countries in an effort to help them, and
what happens to the money? It lines the bank vaults of the Switzerlands of the world.
| Immigrations and Immigrants |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Poltics Re-explained |
