"Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?)

John Hall johnhall@evergo.net
Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:17:05 -0700


> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On 
> Behalf Of Russell Turpin
> 
> Yep. On the other hand, a large number of cultures have
> been seduced by western ways, until they are ripe for 
> democracy. 

The RIF revolt is precisely *because* they view their people as being
seduced by western ways.

> >Intentionally weakening the forces of assimilation as
> >we have done for the last 35+ years is a really _bad_ idea.
> 
> I don't know to what you're referring. Can you expand?

The 1965 (I think) modification to Americas immigration policies gave up
on the idea of limiting demographic shift due to immigration.

Now, a better policy might have been to let in those most likely to
assimilate, not necessarily those who looked like people who had already
immigrated.  But that would have required judgements in a situation
where people didn't feel comfortable judging.  Absent that, the old
policy was probably better.

Finally, the moral relativism and multi-cultural pieties have reduced
the social pressures to assimilate -- along with political movements
dedicated to seperatism.

> 
> >A second Holocaust in Germany in another 50-100 years is not 
> >out of the question.

I'm referring to a time when Germany is more Middle Eastern than German.


> But if you're betting as to where the next 
> holocaust might occur, it seems to me that Israel now would 
> be a more likely site than Germany. 

Yes.

And the heart of our disagreement is that we both accuse the other of
advocating policies that will bring that day closer.

Or, another way to look at it is this.

You have a vision that you believe might avoid it altogether.

I think it is probably unavoidable, and I'd rather pick a side -- the
side that shares most of the values of Western Civilization.