UK Immigration, Lies in History and Wokeness Debunked by Simon Webb



Since history was recently the topic of the hour, I’ll let you know I’ve been watching History Debunked by Simon Webb on Youtube. His tagline is that the popular view of history is not necessarily the correct one. Indeed, some views become corrected as new information becomes available, such as learning that the Vikings did not really wear horned helmets and Cleopatra was not really Egyptian in ancestry, or our own local example that the Code of Kalantiaw was actually fictitious. Among Webb’s own books are The Suffragette Bombers, Suffragette Fascists and Secret Casualties of World War Two, the content of which you may surmise from the titles.

Webb may be highly opinionated and nationalistic, and I may disagree with a few of his views, but I think his research stands up to scrutiny. Many of his recent videos see him criticizing apparent condoning of illegal immigration to the UK, the woke movement, and so on. People will first assume he is racist because of how he says human races is a valid concept and that it likely is a factor on people’s intelligence (I myself once took on the belief that there is no concept as race, but have now reversed my position). I however believe he is not racist. What he’s cautioning against is reckless acceptance of immigrants because it is leading to increases in crimes and other effects that are detrimental to society in the British Isles, threatening British culture and overloading the health care system.

However, what he really raises the alarm on is seeming misinformation in British media about races. Webb claims that history is being rewritten by media to force acceptance of illegal immigrants, especially black ones, with claims like black people invented the Internet, the light bulb and other things (Hmm, sounds awfully familiar… Filipinos invented the yo-yo, Armando Lite invented the Armalite rifle, etc.). Some even want to push that half of the British army was black some centuries ago, or that thousands of blacks were in England during the medieval ages (a key name dropped by Webb is David Olusoga). All of these can be proven false with the historical sources that have always been there.

Webb also laments the forcing of diversity in TV and movie casting in roles that should be taken by whites. For example, some high-class characters in the period TV series Bridgerton are cast as black or people of other color. What happens is that watchers with no knowledge of history will assume that people of color were really part of nobility, even if the truth is otherwise. And if no effort is made to correct this, it will indeed be a deliberate rewriting of history.

But, Webb claims, instead of listening to criticisms against these, the British government and BBC instead seek to put down such dissenting opinions by saying, you are racist. This makes for convenient strawmanism, doesn’t it?

And we in the Philippines have a similar situation with fake history and “fake news.” This usually involves the Marcos-Aquino narrative. We here at GRP get accused of historical revisionism when we say that Bongbong Marcos won this year’s elections not because of misinformation, but because many people have been believing in him for a long time already. But we also claim that even some of the anti-Marcos side have made use of misinformation. This misinformation includes saying that only the Marcos regime killed and tortured people in the country in the 1970s, when in fact communist insurgents and others also tortured and killed civilians.

And there are many other things. Anyone who is anti-Marcos can do no wrong? Just look at Presidential Commission on Good Government employees who were caught committing corruption. When Marcos saw the Edsa 86 demonstrators, did he flee Malacanang like the president of Sri Lanka did recently? No, an official of the Reagan administration phoned Marcos and told him to step down. Then the US sent choppers to pick him up. There are some even saying the Mendiola Massacre was done during the Marcos Era. No, get your facts straight, it was during Cory’s watch.

Immigration, or rather refugees, had been a topic in GRP too, such as the controversy over Rohingyas. Some parts of the Pinoy chi-chi Netisphere called for our government then to accept Rohingya refugees without question. I said then that if refugees are to be accepted, they should be kept in camps (as we did with the Vietnamese Boat People), carefully monitored and not integrated into society yet. They need to be tested before acceptance. And then there were members of the GRP Facebook group who said not to accept them at all and I now understand the reason why.

In the UK, as Webb lamented, refugees immediately get integrated into society. The reason given by the government is that the healthcare system needs more employees to care for aging people. But, Webb says, this falls flat as earlier immigrants who came in also age, develop dementia and themselves need care.

I see as the real reason for forcing acceptance of immigrants the desire of businesses to have more customers. When the refugees arrive, they’ll be shoehorned into British society as paying customers.

It seems to be the same reasoning behind the late BS Aquino’s utterance of “traffic congestion is a sign of progress.” The assumption behind that is that people moving about bring money and are customers driving consumption. I disagree with this. I believe that people moving about do not necessarily carry money and can move about without it. But even when they do have money, will they buy food or other goods as expected when they’re in the area? Some might even demand for free things or steal.

That’s even more true about foreign refugees, they mostly bring no money with them. The plan might be to settle them with jobs once accepted. However, given the signs described above, crime and all, their integration may never be smooth. They are unlikely to assimilate into British culture and will cause trouble in relation to this. Their consumption patterns may not follow the expectations of businesses. And, they might even send remittances out of the country, which won’t really benefit the UK. I agree with Webb that pushing to take in immigrants as the next major customers is an unsound business strategy and is actually causing more trouble than it is worth.

I don’t say immigrants are necessarily bad by fiat, and neither does Webb. But reckless acceptance (well, reckless anything at all) would make for bad policy. If a diverse society will be successful, diversity should not be deliberately pushed.

It may also be related to the Woke Problem. Rewriting of British history to shoehorn in people of color is likely part of the Woke Agenda. Wokes have infiltrated much of the political, business, media, educational and entertainment communities (well, pretty much everywhere). I’m guessing that businessmen find it fit to cater to the Woke Agenda on the assumption that wokes have the money now. However, I think this assumption will be proven wrong in due time, especially if it gets revealed that many wokes don’t work and live on allowances.

I recommend people watch the History Debunked Youtube Channel for some interesting views and refutations of other myths like the idea that the Magna Carta is a pioneering human rights document. I follow him not because of right wing views (I’m sure we both will deny it). It’s because of what he says, the popular view of history is not necessarily right, and often, the popular view was a product of propaganda. Aside from the historical corrections I mentioned above, propaganda was key to marketing the Aquino side as saints and heroes and marking anyone not on their side as belonging to the devil. It created a divide that was advantageous to vested interests; and yet those spreading the misinformation claim to have the monopoly of truth. Webb and we at GRP offer alternative information that may actually turn out to be the real truth.

On propaganda and business, there is indeed some double-dealing and doublespeak being committed by certain organizations and businesses together with governments who market themselves as the “good guys” for a “higher cause.” But all they’re after is your money and they’re willing to curtail your rights for it. More about that in a later article.

59 Replies to “UK Immigration, Lies in History and Wokeness Debunked by Simon Webb”

  1. 1. america being the most successful and powerful country in history negates your screed against immigrants

    2. it was wokes who started the emancipation movement, i guess simon webb is pro slavery

    1. 1. The founders of America were not immigrants. They were colonizers. These are very different.
      2. The anti-slavery people did what they did based on Christian principles. They did not call themselves wokes, wokes are very different, wokes are Marxist.

      Wrong also on Webb being a pro-slavery person. Webb himself covers the history of racism and anti-racism in The Equalitarian Dogma, available for free.

      1. no dice

        1. america isnt strong because of its founders. its because of the waves of industrious immigrants over the years. the hardworking people of other countries come together for the opportunity.

        2. wokes are progressives born out of the enlightenment. just a few things they gave us: women suffrage, minimum wage, civil rights, environmental protections, emancipation of slaves.

        1. 1. I’ll just refer to Benign0’s article that immigrants are not the main source of a nation’s greatness. The native citizens are. Immigrants were just brought in for filling increasing job vacancies and are more of supplementary to a nation’s greatness. Immigrants did not go to the moon or make up most of US armed forces in World War 2. They did not make up most of the US scientists that made advancements.
          https://www.getrealphilippines.com/2015/06/do-filipino-immigrants-really-contribute-to-the-greatness-of-the-united-states-and-other-countries/
          2. All those things you mentioned are not from the wokes. Wokes for me are just the people today calling themselves such but not leading to any significant societal change. They are just noisy credit-grabbers. All those who fought for rights, those early “progressives” are much different from the wokes of today. And radical progressives, like the Suffragette Bombers, are not the reason suffrage was granted in the UK. In fact the bombers set it back. Rather, other countries like New Zealand (the first in 1893), Australia, Finland and Norway had granted the vote, so it made sense to follow those countries. In New Zealand, it was a Christian women’s group that wanted the women’s vote, not woke people.

        2. 1. those are some profoundly ignorant statements. everyone in america is an immigrant. immigration was continuous from the establishment of the american nation, most ww2 soldiers were 2nd or 3rd generation descendant of immigrants.

          that benigno article belittled filipino immigrants specifically, not all immigrants.

          2. those things i listed are established historical achievements attained by the work of progressive wokes. its not up to you just as its not up to you to accept evolution or gravity.

        3. 1. Saying everyone in America is an immigrant is wrong. If one’s family has been in born in America, if one was born there, into a long established American society and has been living there and based there since then, they are not immigrants. That includes Native Americans. You are creating your own definition of immigrant. An immigrant is someone who moved to another country in their own lifetime.
          2. Saying the people who fought for women’s suffrage, minimum wage, civil rights, environmental protections, emancipation of slaves are progressive wokes is like saying Mick Jagger was the Emperor of Rome. Also, remember that all of these involves policies, so they can’t have been achieved by activists alone. Even the politicians who enacted the policies deserve credit, and they are often not progressive wokes.

        4. “I’ll just refer to Benign0’s article that immigrants are not the main source of a nation’s greatness. The native citizens are. Immigrants were just brought in for filling increasing job vacancies and are more of supplementary to a nation’s greatness.” – ChinoF
          ———
          So, America really don’t need immigrants? They have nothing to do with America’s greatness, the country that was basically build up and created by immigrants? I don’t believe that.

          “Saying everyone in America is an immigrant is wrong.” – ChinoF
          ———
          Not really. ‘Everyone in America is an immigrant’ means that their ancestors came from somewhere else, which is exactly true. Even if your entire family was born in the US but your roots came from somewhere else, you came from an immigrant.

          Lifetime or not, when you have a great, great, great grandfather or your roots that came from China or India, etc. you a product of an immigrant. Native Americans, those the whites/Europeans conquered and vanquished to take over the their land are the REAL natives of the country NOT those who came and trounced them and deny them their rights.

          I say, do not belittle the contributions of immigrants in a country made up of immigrants. That’s a ridiculous thing to do.

        5. Belittling immigrants? Call out Simon Webb for doing the same thing as well.
          As I explained below, being the product of an immigrant doesn’t make one an immigrant.

  2. “And we in the Philippines have a similar situation…” – ChinoF
    —–
    There’s the rub. What follows that was a litany of past issues that is really irrelevant to the topic.

    What’s defending the Marcoses got to do with the “UK Immigration by Simon Webb”? Webb did not talk about martial law or human rights abuses.

    There was a clear disconnect there. Let’s not make the article a one-fits-all piece. Let’s all stay on the the lane and avoid mixing up things to prevent confusion.

    I can see the agenda but please write a separate article for it.

      1. @ChinoF: “But there’s no disconnect. It’s related because in that article, I’m debunking misconceptions or “fake news” against Marcos.”

        No, you’re not! Obviously there’s some disconnect there. You’re double-talking and, in a way, you’re eating your own words.

        Take this very clear inconsistency of your applying judgement for different personalities in your provided link for instance:

        In one case, you consider “Lacson is still a choice for me since those reports of him killing people (criminals?) never led to a conviction.”

        And then, in another case, without even offering some categorical proofs and/or explainations why, you refered to Rita Gaddi as a Marcos apologist and Marcos Sr. as a corrupt thief:

        “I’m obviously not pro-Marcos. I agree that Marcos was corrupt and stole from the country.”

        Even-though you’re just blindly assuming, admittedly saying, “I do hope to know with finality the truth about this.”

        See… If you care about the things you say or write, you won’t miss them. It’s a misconception to have the correct application of judgement of debunking whatever every-time.

        1. I just have conclusions at the moment, but the conclusions can change the moment new information comes up. Before Simon Webb, I hadn’t known that black people were writing propaganda on British history, or that British suffragettes then bombed churches and other places. To me, it’s not double talk, I just write according to my opinion at the moment, and facts I once thought were set in stone can turn on its head the next minute. For now, I accept the established account that the Marcoses are guilty of corruption. But let’s say my theory that CIA agents helped Marcos steal money or stole on their own using his name or techniques comes out true. Or the Marcoses and their apologists are proven right. Things are changed in a flash. And what is the truth and what is a lie is different.

        2. “For now, I accept the established account that the Marcoses are guilty of corruption.” – ChinoF
          —————
          Meaning, you are still waiting for some accounts that would contradict that fact for you to change your position?

          So, your stand on issues is you accept the fact as it is right now unless new information will convince you otherwise?

          What really is there to doubt as to the Marcoses’ connection with corruption? Is there really a possibility or can you still see something happening in the future that will exonerate Macoy and his cohorts and prove that they are snow white innocent and bereft of corruption?

      2. “I already wrote that article here.
”https://www.getrealphilippines.com/2022/05/more-misconceptions-anti-marcos/ – ChinoF
        —–
        You are right, you already wrote the article about “myths” against the Marcoses in a separate piece. No need to continue the issue on this article which is really all about UK and particles of its history.

        If you really intended to make it a one-size-fits all topic you shouldn’t have titled it as it is giving an impression that you are exclusively talking about UK immigration.

        One suggested topic you should have use is “Fake news in human history debunked”. Or “Debunking fake news in every country”.

        That should have done it. But to use UK as the frontal issue and then pivot to a Marcos defense is just a stretch.

        Did I deliberately miss what you wrote?

        Respectfully, please.

  3. 1. maybe more accurate to say “a nation built by immigrants”. nonetheless, a full negation of your nativist and ignorant diatribe against immigrants

    2. progressive from the word “progress” while people like you would have been content staying with monarchy, feudalism, slavery and women as second class citizens

    1. 1. A nation built by colonizers, not immigrants, as I see it. Immigrants do not significantly contribute to a nation’s greatness. They just benefit from it.
      2. Progressive, but not woke

      1. “Immigrants do not significantly contribute to a nation’s greatness. They just benefit from it.” – ChinoF
        —–
        Whoa, that’s the most bold, daring and misguided statement I’ve read on this blog for a long time. Before members of this blog pounce you on that, let me remind you there are a number of lists and records circulating that contains names of immigrants who were accredited and recognized in their role in contributing to what America (for example) has come to be as the most successful country on the planet.

        Have you heard the phrase “nation of immigrants”? That pertains to a nation that has become great because of the contributions of immigrants. Benefit is a two way thing. Immigrants contribute and benefit to the development, improvement and maintenance of a country that adopted them; the country benefits in the long run to have and embrace productive immigrants who contribute to nation-building.

        I don’t know where you got that idea but I hope, just like Webb, you stick to what is real.

        1. “Nation of immigrants” is a propaganda term, or a subjective one at least. It implies that the leaders, scientists, economists and other significant people who directed the nation’s success were mostly immigrants. I doubt. The scientists who led the space programs, the military leaders who colonized the Philippines and other US territories, the generals who defeated the Nazis and Japanese in World War 2, the authors who gave us great literature and ideas, the politicians who led the US, I’d wager most of them were longtime citizens whose parents and ancestors lived in the US for years, so they are not immigrants.

          Perhaps there are other immigrants who contributed to things like the space program, but I suppose among the lists you mentioned are people like Werner von Braun and people from the Nazis. I’d say they contributed, not led the success of the US. That’s what I mean.

        2. “Nation of immigrants” is a propaganda term…” – ChinoF
          —————
          No it’s not.

          Meaning of propaganda – information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

          Synonyms of propaganda – publicity, spin, agitprop, disinformation, among others.

          Question: What is political in saying the US is a nation of immigrants other than acknowledging a fact?

        3. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are the two richest men in America (probably the world)

          Jeff Bezos was raised by a Cuban immigrant (his adopted father) and Elon Musk is an immigrant.

          The reason America works is because of freedom.

          The idea that immigrants don’t significantly contribute to America is ridiculous. The country was founded by immigrants who wanted out of their previous country (kinda like ofw’s who want out of The Philippines, I guarantee if The Philippines was ran by ofw’s the country would be much more efficient)

          I can’t speak for England, as I do know their structure is much different than America and I have heard it is very difficult to accomplish things because of government bureaucracy (sort of like the Philippines).

          Immigrants are great for a country if that country has a belief system in place. The problem in the Philippines is no person or system has been able to convey a belief system.

          What are some beliefs all Filipinos hold true?

          God will give you more blessings if you give money away….

          That belief is not helping the country

        4. “Nation of Immigrants” comes from JFK’s book, right? He’s just using rhetoric for political purposes. Sounded good to us from a president who was relatively “clean” in those days. But I think he’s still wrong. The word immigrant is being applied to people who actually are not immigrants under his usage.

          For me, colonizers came to the US, settled, they’re the immigrants. But if the later generation of descendants lived in the land all their lives, they’re not immigrants anymore. They’re residents, even natives if you want. I disagree that the long-down-the-line descendants of immigrants should be considered immigrants themselves.

          Oh yes, we did go off on a tangent. Webb was talking about immigration in the UK, and here we are talking about America. But I’ll stick to my position even about the US.

          I wonder, what would you think of the idea that the immigrants to America were the ones that abused and oppressed the Native Americans. Will you say that immigrants invaded America and are now one reason to forestall immigration? Now if you say Native Americans were also immigrants, so they’re being invaded by other immigrants? Everyone in the world in an immigrant? That’s a stretch.

          If “nation of immigrants” is being used to justify acceptance of refugees and immigrants without controls, I disagree with it. It’s spin. Immigration controls should still be strict (consider 9/11), and refugees should be kept in camps, not integrated into society, I maintain.

          I disagree that rich people like Bezos and Musk contribute much to a nation’s greatness. As I said my later article on WEF, they are actually for themselves and are actually reducing a nation’s greatness by trying to sneak in their own influence on policies.

          I’d list among the greatest advances by non-immigrants, the synthesis of ammonia for fertilizer by Fritz Haber in Germany (which saved lives by doubling crop yield, but ironically Haber also developed Zyklon gas which was used in Nazi concentration camps), home refrigerators by Fred Wolf of Indiana, Gottlieb Daimler of Germany for the internal combustion engine, Malcolm McLean for the modern shipping container, and Edward Jenner for vaccines. These are among the really useful inventions that helped the modern world.

          God will give you more blessings if you give money away…. I agree that’s a wrong belief. That’s been propagated by longtime misinterpretations of the Bible. But I doubt a belief system alone is what makes immigrants useful. You need controls, you need a good culture, proper education. Usually the immigrant is useful if they assimilate and accept the culture of country they are in. If they keep part of their own culture, it must never clash with the culture of the land.

        5. “But if the later generation of descendants lived in the land all their lives, they’re not immigrants anymore. They’re residents, even natives if you want. I disagree that the long-down-the-line descendants of immigrants should be considered immigrants themselves.” – ChinoF
          =====
          I hope you are not intentionally missing the point to perpetuate your own biased understanding of what immigrants are and their contributions to a nation means.

          ‘Nation of immigrants’ does not mean everybody is an immigrant. What it connotes is the reality of the inhabitants of a particular country having their roots originating from other lands. It implies that everybody has an immigrant for an ancestor. If you were born in the US/UK but your ascendants originally came from another country you have an immigrant connection.

          It’s that simple.

  4. “I wonder, what would you think of the idea that the immigrants to America were the ones that abused and oppressed the Native Americans. Will you say that immigrants invaded America and are now one reason to forestall immigration? Now if you say Native Americans were also immigrants, so they’re being invaded by other immigrants? Everyone in the world in an immigrant? That’s a stretch.” – ChinoF
    —–
    If you anchored your logic on just one word, immigrant, and mix it with other terms that is not clear to you there is a possibility that you will get yourself confused in the process.

    Those who came to America during the time there was no country/US yet are immigrants. The “abuser/oppressor” angle came in later when conflicts arose between the new settlers and the natives.

    When we say immigrants we refer to those who have moved to foreign countries permanently for work or living. Seeking new life or greener pasture does not equate to invade, abuse or oppress people in another land.

  5. Kahimyang has an interesting article about the tsismis-vs-history issue and one piece of gossip or “fake news” spread by Yellows in the 1980s.
    https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2757/the-yellows-have-been-the-masters-of-rumors-turned-fake-history

    Plus, it’s reported that a New York Times columnist who battered Trump in his writings has said that he was wrong about the Trump-Russia collusion, meaning, that collusion never really happened. So it was “fake news.”
    On the New York Post too
    https://nypost.com/2022/07/21/ny-times-columnists-admit-to-being-wrong-in-series-of-mea-culpas/

    1. Seems like The Stagnant Filipino website is down… we have to look for Sangkay Janjan’s Youtube and FB page…

  6. The foundation of the United States is European civilisation — the cradle of a disproportionate chunk of humanity’s scientific achievement. The greatness of the US is accounted for by it being what someone called “the single biggest achievement of European civilisation”. The way America was and is constituted accounts for the success of the immigrants that came to its shores and is the reason why whatever these immigrants achieved stayed within its shores.

    1. There you go. What Webb has been saying is that this foundation is being threatened by immigrants. Instead of preserving the British cultural foundation, the misguided current leaders seem to be encouraging replacing it with with the cultures of the immigrants. Problem is, those cultures are not really very good. They are much more disorderly and have a lot of questionable practices, which is evidenced by immigrant behavior in the UK.

    2. It seems that benign0 has just debunked ChinoF’s earlier argument above and he didn’t get it.

      America being a “Nation of immigrants” is not a propaganda term. People there know they are. You go ask the native American Indians.

      1. No, Benign0 was talking about America as the nation other immigrants, such as Africans and Filipinos, flock to. These immigrants become successful in America, but their success is not brought home to their countries. It means the source of their success is the American culture or system, not America being successful because of immigrants. America is spoken of here as the carrier of European culture, not as a nation of immigrants. Let’s make it into a syllogism:

        Immigrants are successful because of American culture.
        American culture is based on European culture.
        Immigrants are successful because of European culture.

        1. Let’s juxtapose these two opposing statements for a moment. Then read, digest and decide if ChinoF is still correct with his understanding that his argument still stands:

          benign0: “The greatness of the US is accounted for by it being what someone called “the single biggest achievement of European civilisation”. The way America was and is constituted ACCOUNTS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE IMMIGRANTS THAT CAME TO ITS SHORES and is the reason why whatever these immigrants achieved stayed within its shores.”

          ChinoF: “It means the SOURCE OF THEIR (THE IMMIGRANTS!) SUCCESS IS THE AMERICAN CULTURE OR SYSTEM, not America being successful because of immigrants. America is spoken of here as the carrier of European culture, not as a nation of immigrants.”

          How is it possible for the American natives be the carrier of European culture without the possible introduction to them of the immigrants, them, being the original carrier of said European culture?

          How come those American natives, supposedly the carrier of the original American culture, are not even widely and popularly recognized as architects nor contributors to their nation’s varied achievements?

          In comparison, say, in the realm of Genetics, isn’t it correct that no two American natives can produce a half-breed or a new breed? Get it?

          Just an opinion… but I’ll have benign0, being the bright one, express the last say.

        2. So if immigrants are successful because of American culture, which came from European culture, European/American culture are not successful because of immigrants.

        3. “Immigrants are successful because of European culture.”
          —–
          If you are in Europe.

          Successful immigrants in America are basically benefitting NOT from European culture but American culture. American culture may have its origin from Western and European influence BUT it is one where cultures such as Asian, African, Latin and Native American conglomerates that gives it a distinct social and cultural characteristics.

        4. Immigrants are successful because of American culture.

          American culture is based on European culture.

          Immigrants are successful because of European culture.
          —————
          Let us rephrase that to make it more palatable.

          Immigrants are successful in America partly because of their dedication to be a success and their desire to assimilate and submit to American culture, tradition and custom.

          American culture is based on European culture but it is NOT a European culture per se; not a carbon copy nor an imitation. Because of ethnic and racial diversity independent of European culture, America culture has created its own distinct and social characteristics.

          The success of immigrants in America has nothing to do with European culture. Americans who escaped hardships and persecution in Europe does not credit their success to their home country but profess and affirm their faith and allegiance to their adopted country. Same with immigrants from other countries, they cite and credit American exceptionalism and culture to their success and not to their home country.

        5. “American culture is based on European culture but it is NOT a European culture” But the basis is still European. You cannot disconnect it that much.
          African, Latin and Native American cultures never reached the heights of advancement European civilization reached. Advancement examples: as I mentioned above Fertilizer by Fritz Haber, vaccines by Edward Jenner.
          Asians may have their own values of discipline and adherence to order. But post World War 2, what made Japan and South Korea, and later, China, progress into greater prosperity and economic heights? Adoption of Western technology and culture. I can say this about pop culture too, like anime and K-Pop/Drama.
          Asians may have produced gunpowder, but who innovated its use into a massive weapon? Europeans.
          But successful immigrants, let’s define successful as having good income and a relatively happier and secure life, achieve their success under the American/European context.
          Overseas Filipino Workers get money while they work, but when they come home or send money home, they become poorer. It’s because the American/European culture they work under does not get transferred to the Philippines.

        6. “African, Latin and Native American cultures never reached the heights of advancement European civilization reached.” – ChinoF
          – – – – –
          I don’t know the barometer or standard for one to say a certain culture has reached the ‘height of advancement’ compared to the rest. All I know is that all countries have their respective distinct culture that contributed to the formation and endurance of civilization. There is not one culture that did everything right, not one that is perfect, nor one that is infallible.

          And culture alone does not make a prosperous and wealthy nation. Geographical factors have a lot to do with how man advances or regresses in the scheme of things. Europeans did not turn all the things they touches into gold. We all know that. To even insinuate that European culture is the creme dela creme is just misleading at best.

          Let me just quote a piece I read that discussed about colonialism:

          “The central purpose of European colonialism was to benefit and enrich Europeans. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson propose that created different incentives for European powers in richer and poorer colonized lands. In richer places, they built governments whose task was to steal wealth and resources and send them to Europe, shattering the foundations of local prosperity. In poorer places, they actually built European settler communities, protecting economically useful institutions like private property rights in order to make these communities do well. In both previously poor and previously rich places, these colonial institutions altered the trajectory of their development down to the present day.”

          My point: let’s not pour in all the credit to Europeans and their culture and downplay the role of immigrants in nation building.

      2. I know Western nations did invade other countries through imperialism. But they also did colonialism (I consider those two as different ideas, imperialism means invasion while colonialism means settling with the intention of business and trading). They had already opened trade in the medieval age with Asia. Invasion came much later, after the age of exploration, which was spurred because of need to maintain what wealth and power they already had.

        Yet, come to think of it, are they the only ones who invaded others? Note that the Ottomans, Mongolians, Babylonians and other peoples also invaded other societies and had empires. They also had the gall to “use their dicks,” as Megget said, didn’t they? Then why didn’t they have a lasting legacy as big as Western Culture’s? Because there must be something about Western Culture that makes it outlast the others. My guess is mostly liberalism, as in upholding the rights of the individual, which makes ideas and practices last longer.

        You seem to imply that Europe and the United States became prosperous only because of luck. No. Aside from luck, there is how someone makes use of this luck. Western culture seems to make better use of the luck that comes their way.

        Without colonialism, would other nations, including hours, have progressed in technology? The long period of Japan in medieval times having no record of innovation or technological advancement seems to be an example that they won’t. It would seen that their traditions at the time actually contributed to their stagnation. Western culture when introduced to other countries has led to their increase in prosperity.

        Immigrants when they contribute to a country do so as hired workers. Before them, American the Europe achieved greatness with workers and thinkers of their own, who were not immigrants.

        These ideas are in Benign0’s Did Spanish colonial rule doom the Philippines? Think again…

        1. Aren’t Fat Man and Little Boy exactly symbols of greatness? Aren’t they proof of the intelligence and resources of the society that created them? And if Genghis Khan existed today, would he or his group have been able to make the bombs by themselves?

          But before I forget, even without the atom bombs, the US was ready to mop the floor with Japan through a planned invasion. And throughout the war anyway, US industrial power already surpassed Japan’s. The atom bombs merely hastened the end.

        2. They are indicative of the intelligence of a few people ( many of them of the hated jews ) that created the atomic bombs.

          Not of the entire united states.

          But gotta admire them americans – they went out there as a nation and put their necks on the line on foreign shores.

        3. “I consider those two as different ideas, imperialism means invasion while colonialism means settling with the intention of business and trading).” – ChinoF
          – – – – –
          Actually, they are not. They’re the same wolf in different clothing. Both utilizes the threat of force and both are imposed on the subject area whether the inhabitants like it or not.

          “Then why didn’t they have a lasting legacy as big as Western Culture’s? Because there must be something about Western Culture that makes it outlast the others. My guess is mostly liberalism, as in upholding the rights of the individual, which makes ideas and practices last longer.” –
          – – – – –
          Lasting legacy, you said? Well, that defends on your biases. Western culture maybe ahead of other cultures because they were the first to experiment and engage in endless wars and conflicts between colonial powers, invasions, killings, etc. Ever heard of a peaceful place and gentle people occupied by powerful invaders? That’s how the world started. Might makes right, and if it so happens that something good comes out of it, fine. But don’t forget not all subjugations are fine and dandy. There are also evil things that comes with it.

          “You seem to imply that Europe and the United States became prosperous only because of luck.” –
          – – – – –
          Read again the 2nd paragraph of my post above.

          An aside:
          “They also had the gall to “use their dicks,” as Megget said, didn’t they?”
          – – – – –
          Megget stares at his dick all day long as a hobby. That is why every time he speaks/writes “dick” is always the main focus. Remember when Aeta used to write decent and engaging posts? Well, he became a dick, too, because he decided to follow and subscribe to Megget’s hobby.

          Stay away from Megget. He’s a dick.

        4. So who made america great ?

          Mostly, the jews.

          The europeans and englishmen and so on were ok with their “civilization” and “technology” and notions of “liberty”and “culture” and “rugged individualism”..but the jews put america over the top.

        5. Juan Luna,
          The paragraph on geographical factors? It is for me pointing to luck. Like, you would not be a successful empire without being lucky enough to have great land? If you’re talking about fertile land, for example, that would have not been enough without Fritz Haber’s fertilizer discovery. Haber’s work is an example of the product of European Civilization that benefitted the rest of the world, and it perhaps helped led to more people birthed that would become immigrants later. Yes, there are other factors for European success, but Europeans, then Americans, seemed to use the hand that they were dealt well.

          On Jews, I suppose it’s because they made up most of the businessmen in Europe and were astute at their craft. I consider them Europeans despite their claim to be a separate culture. Their practices that lead to wealth generation could be considered part of European Civilization.

          Edit: Also just found this bit:
          In his The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, economic historian David Landes says ‘If we learn anything from the history of economic development it is that culture makes all the difference.’

        6. Hogwash.

          The jews were great at deadly plagues and dividing the red sea and wrestling with angels and letting the sun stand still and making great big fucking atomic bombs.

        7. Its not immigrants who make america great.

          Well some immigrants, maybe.

          The Italians were good for pravalone, and the greeks had sasha grey, but it was the jews who made the fucking atomic bomb.

        8. Saying that immigrants are not the source of a country’s greatness does not demean them and is not racist. Those claims are likely borne from the subversive critical race theory movement. It is just the fact at the moment, as important scientific achievements were done less by immigrants and more by people who long lived on the land.

  7. America is succesful not because of having better people, or a better culture whatever that means.

    America is succesful because they have a bigger dick, and the gall to use it as well ( hiroshima and nagasaki).

    America is powerful less because of having many good people, but more because by luck or pure circumstance or sheer deliberate effort, having a few great ones.

  8. Scientific and technological achievement is what ultimately fuels capital creation and, on the back of that, social progress. Cultures that lack a tradition of scientific and technological achievement are the ones doomed to be forever dependent and backward.

    1. How far will Jeff Bezos’ and Elon Musk’s rocket go for humanity’s “social progress”? Can they even talk about the real deal when it comes to space exploration? It looks more like science in the service of a few capitalists than science for social advancement. Take a look around.

      1. Wrong technology. Except perhaps if rockets bring up satellites that give us weather data and relay communications signals. But the more significant advancements are, among many others, Haber’s fertilizer, cotton gin, engines for ships and jet planes, cargo containers, and of course, computers and the Internet. All western civilization products.

      2. The brightest engineer could refuse somebody’s offer anytime he thinks his work will be wasted. American culture is a bad example of how technological achievement and capital creation lead to progress.

  9. Just look at how energy, transport and communications have become ineffective in this kind of economy. In today’s language it is considered a failure in systems intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.