==Part One==
Returning from my Holiday weekend I see you are still engaged in further obsessive-compulsive rationalizations attempting to justify a rather twisted, misguided and ignorant agenda. ...
It's amazing how you portrayed me so "perfectly". Could you please now look a little bit in the mirror; you may have the chance to find the monster.
Personally, I take full responsibility for all my messages. It seems that you don't know the meaning of the words; I recommend you a dictionary (but not the one used by progressits).
I happened to grow up in New York City, surrounded by many neighbors of different national heritage, ethnic origins and religions who delighted in sharing their culture and customs, their cuisine, their music and their art and who respected each other's religious beliefs and right to worship as they please. What you perceive as "multicultural - disgusting matter which has lost all the beauty and the taste of the initial products", more enlightened men and women celebrate as a "Melting Pot", a metaphor used for over 200 years in the US and other free societies for the fusion of different nationalities, cultures and ethnicity into a rich and vibrant tapestry that everyone can benefit from.
NYC is a big city; not all the parts of the "city" are the same. You may have lived in a high crime zone or in suburbs in a nice house. Saying that you to live in NYC doesn't support your statements very well.
1) Following your "melting pot" metaphor link, I read:
The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements "melting together" into a harmonious whole with a common culture. The melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s. ... It was a metaphor for the idealized process of immigration and colonization by which different nationalities, cultures and "races" were to blend into a new, virtuous community, and it was connected to utopian visions of the emergence of an American "new man".
While indeed the pioneers had different nationalities, MOST of them (the majority) had two common traits: white and Christians. If we use your "melting pot metaphor" in metallurgy we find that we cannot weld together (or simply place together) any metals which are very different without taking special measures; that's because of their chemistry (something similar happens with people).
Also, don't forget that those people who came in Americas weren't there for the state welfare. They had to WORK in order to SURVIVE; some of them died, the strongers survived.
2) No doubt there are interactions between people with different nationalities; you can draw Venn diagrams to model all these interactions. But, in the end, people of the same culture, religious believes, etc. group together (you can see this as state-in-a-state structure on a smaller scale).
Of course they share their cultures; it's because of pride but mainly because of money: they want you in their restaurants, to buy "exotic" products, etc.
By simply eating, having "some neighbours with different nationalities", listening foreign music, etc., living in a nice neighborhood without crime, doesn't make you an expert in human interrelations.
Where do you think all those nations have been created ? Do you think they appeared in a multicultural system ? I'm sure they haven't.
People driven by a common language, common traditions, common dogmas and history formed those nations. That's why is extremely important to protect the identities of the nations and not to transform them in a "multiculturalist salad" as the liberal progresists would like.
3) "respected each other's religious beliefs":
can you explain how you could respect ALL the dogmas ? Some of them are in contradiction; you shouldn't forget that they were created by OTHER people and every monotheistic religion defines itself as the true one (and all others who don't follow it are heretics).
Should we apply the Islamic laws where you could be killed for apostasy or blasphemy ?
Should you respect a paedophile and a murdered ?
Should you please an alcoholic or a junkie by avoiding telling him the truth that he's an alcoholic or a junkie in order not to offend him ?
If one's religious believes is to make human sacrifices should we accept it, only not to provoke him ?
If you must respecting all the believes, doesn't that mean that you should also respect,
as I like to say, the Nazi and the Communist dogmas ?
I wait for answers from you !
4) Once again, I'll give a very simple example: imagine a society as an orchestra (composed from let's say 10,000 people) singing the same song, some better, some worse, but overall, the results is something harmonious.
Now, bring 10 people who sing another song. As they are a minority, the the result may still remain harmonious. Increase this number to 1000, or 2000 and you'll see that conflicts appear.
The same model applies for every country in the World; there should always be a majority and the percentage minorities must remain small in order to maintain an equilibrium and to keep the cohesion of the country. The zionist propaganda plays a huge role here: they tell you that "YOU don't matter, but others do". All this stability which has been created with the blood of our ancestors, the beauty of the diversity that you find when travelling from one country to country, will be forever gone if the plans of multicultralist progressist succeed.
No matter if I'll have to explain and fight 1, 1000, 1 million people like you, I'll do it without hesitation. My message for English people, for Italians and Spanish, for Chinese and Russians and for all others, is the same: defend your country, your kind, your language and do not transform it in a piggery multiculturalist system. It's up to me to adapt to your system; it's my obligation if I want to live in your system.
It is interesting and indeed rather ironic that you accuse others of not knowing history when you advocate for a hermetically sealed nativist society, ...
USA has been created by those who came there to find a new life. They had a risky live. I don't think it's smart for you to write about "nativist society" in order to support your statements. Don't get me wrong, people always killed people: French killed, English killed, Arabs killed,
Indians from Americas killed; some were the winners, and others, the losers. I suppose you don't really know too much history and how the societies were built all over the World.
