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.
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.
![[Image: popcorn2.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/popcorn2.gif)
