The Nexus Between Intolerance and Failure
Moscow Times columnist Alexei Bayer exposes the bleak neo-Soviet future based on its barbaric attitude towards diversity:
Earlier this year, I attended a breakfast hosted by the Lord Mayor of London John Stuttard, at which he kept quoting statistics on the number of foreigners working in London's financial district and the variety of countries they represent. I doubt that the discovery last month of car bombs on London streets will diminish his delight at the multicultural character of the British capital.
Throughout history, the hallmark of any dominant society has been its international centers. Rome was probably the first global city during its heyday. Victorian London and 19th-century Paris were magnets for immigrants. New York was a famous melting pot in the first half of the 20th century, and today, when it is once again thriving, half of its population is foreign-born. Similarly, London's current revival, after years of post-WWII blight, has gone hand in hand with its internationalization.
This is because immigrants represent the most energetic and ambitious part of society, and advanced civilizations prosper when they utilize their energies and ambitions. Conversely, insular societies that ban foreigners or hamper their advancement and integration tend to lag behind.
This holds true for entire historical epochs. In the Middle Ages, geographical movement was restricted while local affiliation became paramount. Not surprisingly, technological and commercial stagnation endured for centuries.
Since the early modern period and until the middle of last century, attitude toward Jews has served as a litmus test. It seems that whenever a nation began persecuting its Jewish population, it inevitably lost its global standing and was either defeated in war or simply collapsed. Examples include: imperial Spain, tsarist Russia, Hitler's Germany and, most recently, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, extending a welcome to the Jews coincided with the rise of the Netherlands, Britain and many German city-states.
In medieval Europe, Jews were early promoters of international commerce and nascent globalization. Being a widely scattered diaspora, they could establish business ties among their co-religionists everywhere. Tolerating Jews meant opening up to the outside world, while persecuting them signified the closing of the national mind, which led to eventual decline and defeat.
The litmus test endures, but in addition to Jews, it now covers attitudes toward immigrants from less-developed countries and the gay community.
In a global world, the willingness to welcome foreigners and the ability to assimilate them is particularly important. The success of the U.S. economy since 1980 closely parallels the renewed inflow of immigrants. My favorite statistic is the percentage of the foreign-born population in the U.S. After declining to an all-time low of 5 percent in 1970, it has now risen above 12 percent -- the highest in 80 years. Americans born in India, China, Russia and elsewhere are the reason the U.S. economy benefits so much from globalization.
Attitude toward gays, meanwhile, is a measure of tolerance in society. Modern societies succeed when they allow different groups to coexist peacefully. Many decayed American cities now try to attract gay communities because their presence often sparks revitalization. Moral relativism -- defined as refusal to set standards for truth, morality and behavior -- is the engine of capitalist progress.
Current anti-immigrant legislation and attempts at gay-bashing in the U.S. may undermine its ability to lead in the modern world. This is also why homogeneous, xenophobic and homophobic China is unlikely to emerge as a global leader -- and why Japan never did so in the 1980s.
The same goes for Russia. Since the 1998 financial crisis and the rise in oil prices, Russia not only has taken a step away from democracy, but it has abandoned all attempts to become an advanced society. The rise of "Russia for Russians" xenophobia and the widening backlash against its gay community clearly signal where Russia is going.
5 comments:
I enjoy how Mr. Bayer twists the facts. His mere mention that the 1998 financial crisis marked the end of "all attempts to become an advanced society." discredits the rest of his points. He has to either be brain-dead or La Russophobe to truly believe that. I'm sure all Russians would just love to go back to 1998, when we had democracy, capitalism, a booming economy, and cute puppies.
"Diversity" and multiculturalism are the destroyers of society. Not only being racist (People should be judged by their character, not by what "diversity" they contribute), multiculturalism is merely one of the many vehicles that scum use to destroy societies. These invaders dilute the pool of human capital with waste, and create an under-class just waiting to bite you (Hello France).
I don't care if Russia is inhabited by people that are green, but no Russian should allow uncontrolled immigration consisting of human debris from the former Soviet Union under the guise of allowing for diversity.
Russians must also fight against xenophobia. Fighting against illegal immigration and against allowing the interest of foreigners to come before the interests of Russians is a noble cause. Stabbing people on the train because they are darker than you is the hallmark of a different brand of scum, but scum nonetheless. However, Russians must not allow themselves to be deluded into believing that they are engaging in xenophobia when they are only defending their own rights. I, along with every Russian I know, would love to have immigrants that wish to help and take part in Russian society. Every American I know would love to have the same kind of immigrants come to the US (me included). However, nobody who is in their right mind wants the kind of immigrants whose sole contribution to society is "diversity".
Unfortunately, this same philosophy is what is destroying the USA. (People who don't agree, please continue deluding yourself that those uneducated, crime-ridden illegal immigrants are "energetic and ambitious part of society"). England is already feeling the effects of its immigration policies, and I wonder how long the US has unless drastic steps are taken.
About homosexuality, cry me a river. I really don't care what you do in your bedroom, but that is a private matter. The public has no obligation to tolerate defective public behavior like pride parades and gay marriage. Why don't all the Western humanists who worry about Russian gays invite them into their country. That way they get their precious homosexuals who are apparently essential to a healthy economy, while the evil Russians can't persecute the poor gays anymore.
Living on the front-line of "diversity", in New York City, I can tell you that the future will not be pretty. I hope that Americans of all races will be able to come together and stop diversity for the sake of diversity. We must stop considering the color of each others skin's, and start considering our contribution
KIRILL:
The entire world knows that after Putin came to power Russia went into retrograde, destroying civilized democracy in favor of a corrupt dictatorship very similar to what many African nations have. No media, no opposition parties no local elections, the central government making all decisions for the sheeplike people of Russia.
You're a classic neo-Soviet man, who cannot see himself as the rest of the world does, and who cannot see the rest of the world for all the neo-Soviet propaganda and lies you imbibe. This ignorance destroyed the USSR, and it will just as surely destroy Russia and you. Emperors new clothes, dude, emperor's new clothes.
Perhaps you're just jealous that La Russophobe publishes a powerful blog and Mr. Bayer is a published columnist, whereas all you do is scribble your silly little bits of gibberish about what they do. Your pathetic excuse for a "brain" can't even see that when you need to write so much about what we say, you confirm its significance.
Pipsqueak. Silly little rodent, dancing for our amusement.
La Russophobe believes that Yeltsin's government was a civilized democracy....
Let us all hope that La Russophobe gets to one day live in a similar democracy to the one that was in Russia prior to Putin, since she seems to like it so much.
You obviously have nothing to say on what I posted, so it is you that chooses to write spam gibberish.
Kirill, for once we agree. Since this post was more American orientated then Russia, I am more inflamed than usual.
Alexei Bayer embrace of moral relativism is disgusting and ill informed. He uses the example of Jews, Jews have historically been the most either the most affluent or educated or both. This has allowed them to contribute to American society disproportionately creating wealth financially and culturally. America has also historically have preferences for immigrants from Europe, preferring educated and skilled people, which explain why many immigrants have on average more wealth then even the natives. The American dream is there for people, it is hard though, being more educated and affluent than average helps tremendously.
Like Kirill said, you think that the typical non english, and non educated illegal immigrant adds to US wealth or contribute to American society? It is the opposite, financially the amount of taxes they potentially pay is offset by the services they use in the US. Simple calculation of the public burden to the amount of potential contribution in dollars concludes that there illegal immigrant cost more than they contribute. If you ever been to hospitals down near the border you will see this.
There is also the question of maintaining the American character. Yes America does have a culture and it is distinct from other cultures. Accordingly Americans want to perserve their culture. If you multiculturalist don't see this, then move somewhere else, its very annoying being told that you have no culture of your own. America has had bouts of xenophobia to extremely lax attitudes towards immigrations. However, as a country, we have to and need to have the choice to choose who we want to come here. If we deem that a certain group would not contribute to American society, America has the right to refuse their immigration. That why you see American for the most part welcoming European immigrants. They are usually very educated and affluent, and because of that we think that they will help America. Illegal Mexican no need apply.
The avalanche of illegal immigrants also threatens American society culturally, just by peer numbers. If you look at local conditions of some of the border towns you can see the rapid changes that the local Americans have no say in because the US government doesn't enforce the border laws. They don't assimilate readily maintaining loyalty to Mexico. 90 percent of Mexican immigrants legal or illegal said they would side with Mexico if there was conflict with the US. They don't come to the US to live the US life, but come to live the Mexican life in the US, leeching and destroying the economic dynamism in the local area.
This is the difference that moral relativistic people are blind to. The proximity of having your home country right next to the country of immigration makes it impossible to cut the loyalty and cultural roots that are needed to assimilate and participate in American life. To live as citizen of country, he or she must recognize that the laws, traditions, and culture of that country are the things they should aspire for and contribute to. A citizens who thinks that a foreign country's laws and custom applies more to them than the country that they are a citizen of, are not citizen in a civic sense anymore; they are just foreigners with the wrong passport.
Towns and cities that witness uncontrolled demographic changes because of illegal immigrants change for the worse. Not only is illegal immigration undemocratic in nature because the locale population have no say on who comes, it is dangerous to the survival of the locale. Educated citizens whether they be Latino, Asians, or whites begin to flee creating a brain drain wherever the local authorities allow illegal to flood in regardless of the capacity of those towns to absorb them. These affluent people are able to vote with their feet and leave effectively draining the region of skilled labor. However, how about the less affluent Americans who are less inclined for financial reason to move? They are not as privileged to have to same resources to move are more likely forced to stick it out. Then when they organize to voice their complaints, the politically correct character of the current American leadership(in the same school as Alexei Bayer) labels them as racist thus censoring them. Its all bad I tell you.
Thus Alexei Bayer whoever he is, needs to just shut up about immigration because he has no clue. Anything else he writes about I will have to read before passing judgment, but immigration is not a strong point obviously. If idiots like this are part of the Russian opposition, then maybe Russia needs a dictatorship.......................
.........
I kid, I kid :-)
Well done adam.
Post a Comment