Multiculturism, whats your view?

F.U.B.A.R

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
411
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnJcsQYZEGU&NR=1&feature=fvwp]YouTube - Multiculturalism and Islamification in Britain - Part 1[/ame]


Is there anyone from the liberal left changing their mind? An honest question, hoping for some honest replies.
 


weepee

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
720
Islam doesnt come under the multiculturalism, as its a faith based lifestyle, with no room for compromise. Europe can cope well enough with its many diverse peoples and their languages/cultures, Islam being the single greatest threat to that.
 

F.U.B.A.R

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
411
Islam doesnt come under the multiculturalism, as its a faith based lifestyle, with no room for compromise. Europe can cope well enough with its many diverse peoples and their languages/cultures, Islam being the single greatest threat to that.
Obviously islam is a faith. But is very much a culture too. Ive seen some video's on this subject, but parts of this one are a real eye opener.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
I think Anglo-Saxon culture had a very bad effect here.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
A society should be enriched by new cultures and by nature the spreading of the genepool is advantageous for civilisaton. What made the US so great in the late 19th century was immigrants.

It is important that people maintain their identity and aspects of their culture. But they should never impose it on others especially their hosts, who in turn should be tolerate of them. The immigrants should integrate smoothly with their hosts as well.

Its the old saying, In Rome, do what the Romans do.
 

F.U.B.A.R

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
411
A society should be enriched by new cultures and by nature the spreading of the genepool is advantageous for civilisaton. What made the US so great in the late 19th century was immigrants.

It is important that people maintain their identity and aspects of their culture. But they should never impose it on others especially their hosts, who in turn should be tolerate of them. The immigrants should integrate smoothly with their hosts as well.

Its the old saying, In Rome, do what the Romans do.
Completely agree with you. I also think most politicians start out with good intentions regards immigration and integration policies, however, im convinced there is enough evidence to prove we need radical change, particularly with regards to islam and "its" intolerance to western values.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Aayan Hirsi Ali has a great article in the WSJ 6 hours ago - particularly in terms of the multiculturalist-elites trying to silence Geert Wilders and the huge numbers of Dutch people who feel the way he does:
Aayan Hirsi Ali said:
....How is it possible that a mature European liberal democracy is prosecuting an elected member of parliament for his political opinions on the most pressing issue of the day—namely, Islamic fundamentalism? There are three main reasons.
First, there is the matter of traditional politicians' discomfort with Mr. Wilders. Historically, the Netherlands has insisted on the idea of "consensus." Though on paper this means compromise, in practice it has meant conformity of thought and a refusal to rock the boat on controversial issues.
The same could be said about the Irish political-class' conspiracy of silence on immigration-control. :roll:
No issue has tested this comfortable consensus more than the ascent of Islam, first presented by immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by asylum-seekers and refugees from various Muslim countries beginning in the 1990s. Most elites responded by preaching "tolerance." Give Muslim immigrants benefits and wait until they voluntarily integrate, their argument goes. Even if that process would take generations—even when it became apparent that some Muslims practiced female genital mutilation and honor killings, and imams openly urged their congregations to reject Dutch culture and law—citizens were not to criticize Islam.
A growing segment of the population—including Mr. Wilders and me, when I was a member of parliament from 2003 to 2006—doubted this facile and dangerous idea of "tolerance." This upset politicians, professors, journalists and other opinion-makers who tried to make us untouchables.
There were exceptions: Brave people in media, business and even in the military supported me politically, often behind the scenes. Still, I eventually left the country due to a combination of frustration with the campaign of ostracism and the extreme threats I faced from Islamists who wanted to kill me. Mr. Wilders, however, endured.
The second reason Mr. Wilders is on trial is the electoral power of Muslims in the Netherlands' four major cities. During local elections in March 2006, Muslim immigrants for the first time acted as an unofficial power bloc that could make or break a major Dutch party.
The supposed victims of Dutch discrimination were now a force to reckon with. Thus, major parties including Labor and the Christian Democrats—dominant since World War II—now support policies like increased immigration from Muslim countries and welfare benefits for Muslim voters. And they turn a blind eye to the implementation of informal Shariah law, particularly concerning the treatment of women.
Third, there are the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam. One strategy used by the 57 OIC countries is to treat Muslim immigrants to Europe as satellite communities by establishing Muslim cultural organizations, mosques and Islamic centers, and by insisting on dual citizenship. Their other strategy is to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in "hate speech" against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU.
The implications of this trial are enormous. In the short term, it could bring the simmering tensions between Holland's approximately one million Muslims and the 1.4 million voters who elected Mr. Wilders to a boil. The Netherlands has seen its share of Islamist violence before and could well see violent confrontations again.
On a more fundamental level, this trial—even if Mr. Wilders wins—could silence the brave critics of radical Islam. The West is in a war of ideas against political Islam. If free speech is not protected in Europe, we're already losing.
She knows what she's talking about because she lived through theocracy in Somalia so it becomes difficult for the Left-Liberal multiculturalist-set to question her motives. It is a wakeup call when persons from the background of her can be found in agreement with Geert Wilders on the threat of radical Islam. And yet the arrogant Left-Liberal multiculturalist-elites see fit to try Geert Wilders for exercising his constitutional right to free speech. In fact, Dutch prosecutors decided not to try him but were leaned on to do so before the GE by a Dutch judge. It feels like Europe is regressing in terms of personal-freedoms, what with these trials for political-heresy like questioning the Holy Grail of the Protocols of the Elders of Multiculturalism in the Left-Liberal PC Euro-elites.

NB I am not referring to the Jews. My use of that term is intended to expose the true international-conspiracy - which is not a Jewish one but rather a globalist, one-worlder agenda of unelected, unaccountable global-governance where personal-liberty is sacrificed on the altar of eroding what makes the West free as a necessary price for silencing debate on the erosion of separate national identities via the imposition of multiculturalism. I favour assimilation of immigrants and oppose ad-hocery which is the multicultural-agenda of encouraging newcomers to remain outwardly-different as part of a conspiracy by the Left-Liberal ruling-elites to enrich themselves with a tsunami of your hard-earned cash to be wasted on PC-lawsuits (facilitated by multiculturalist/PC-legislation creating vague new offences designed to conflate criticism of multiculturalism with 'hate-speech'), the quangocracy, opportunities for politicians to live off the fat of the land with 'multiculturalist' ministerial portfolios. Meanwhile, fatcat benefactors of this elite benefit through labour-exploitation of a more docile workforce desperate for a "better life" in the West - even when that undercuts Irish labour (which is the idea). ;)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,566
Nothing wrong with multiculture all, providing it dosent attack the host culture.

However when you move large numbers of people to other countries and enforce their culture over the existing one in the name of PC and saying im not racist then it becomes just another hijacked government project.
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,480
Website
en.wikipedia.org
A society should be enriched by new cultures and by nature the spreading of the genepool is advantageous for civilisaton. What made the US so great in the late 19th century was immigrants.
European imigration particularly of the WASP kind seemed to be advantageous to the US and to a lesser extent Canada. Free market capitalism didn’t flourish in america because of immigration equally sourced from all parts of the world. The majority of countries in the Americas are dodgy to say the least and have had massive immigration. The highest GDP per capita country in South America, Argentina effectively wiped out its indigenous population, so avoided destabilising grass roots indigenous Marxist movements.

It is important that people maintain their identity and aspects of their culture. But they should never impose it on others especially their hosts, who in turn should be tolerate of them. The immigrants should integrate smoothly with their hosts as well.

Its the old saying, In Rome, do what the Romans do.
I hear its a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain two contradictary views in ones head.

Ever listen to Hans Herman Hoppe?, hes a libertarian who argues for immigration restrictionism.

A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its "antiauthoritarianism" (trust no authority) and seeming "tolerance," in particular toward "alternative" — non-bourgeois — lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special "sensitivity" in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose non-discrimination or "civil rights" statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others' expense. They can indulge in their "alternative" lifestyle without having to pay the "normal" price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to "open borders."
http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf
 
Last edited:

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,803
I think Anglo-Saxon culture had a very bad effect here.
What? Anglo-Saxon culture has had a very bad effect on England?

.....and presumably Irish culture has had a very bad effect on Ireland.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,575
Completely agree with you. I also think most politicians start out with good intentions regards immigration and integration policies, however, im convinced there is enough evidence to prove we need radical change, particularly with regards to islam and "its" intolerance to western values.
In general, I agree. We should welcome other cultures - they enrich a genuine cosmopolitan society.

However, the limits need to be stated up front. Take a case in Germany - a Muslim in court for wife-beating was given a suspended sentence when the judge (a woman!) agreed that wife beating was acceptable in his culture. A case I remember here in Ireland involved an African man who went around circumsising young black kids, without any medical qualification. A kid bled to death - the upshot was that the judge also suspended the sentence for manslaughter because of the "cultural circumstances".

I have to say my memory of the second case is a bit hazy - but it could happen in theory. Similarly for genital mutilation in women, honour killings for lose of virginity or "sexual misbehaviour", forced marriages, rape within marriage etc. I am open to Sharia law but only in civil cases where both parties agree without duress. A cleric can act as mediator - I would allow any clergyman do the same.

So, to cut a long story short, I am all for multiculturalism as long as human rights (which are universal) are always upheld and affirmed. Any applicant for citizenship should have that explicitly made clear.
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,803
So, to cut a long story short, I am all for multiculturalism as long as human rights (which are universal) are always upheld and affirmed.
How can you be for human rights while supporting the infliction of 'enrichment' on those that don't want it?

What you are for is suppression.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,575
How can you be for human rights while supporting the infliction of 'enrichment' on those that don't want it?

What you are for is suppression.
In general, I am against the state interfering in the bedroom, the bathroom or the kitchen. If people want to live a particular way, that is fine with me ... as it was pointed up above, adding to the national cultural gene pool is good.

I would not gave anyone the right to dictate how their neighbour should live, as long as the neighbour is living a blameless life, not diminishing the civil or human rights of anybody.

If you want to democratically argue that the state should police people's "culture" and make sure they lived in a manner dictated by law (other than ordinary criminal law), then good luck with that. I thought we were proud of the freedom to choose and the toleration of difference.
 

QuizMaster

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
3,193
Website
www.quizmatic.com
Culture, race, national identy, call it what you will.
It is not a static thing. It changes over time. Borders move, people move, languages change and blend and split off all through history.
No country, no people, no culture, came about in isolation. The history of Ireland can only be told in the context of the history of Europe, which in turn is a part of the history of the world.

Every one of us is an immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants, who supplanted the original people. The only exception to this is if you are reading this from the shores of Lake Turkana in Ethiopia, and can trace your ancestors back 3 million years.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
Culture, race, national identy, call it what you will.
It is not a static thing. It changes over time. Borders move, people move, languages change and blend and split off all through history.
No country, no people, no culture, came about in isolation. The history of Ireland can only be told in the context of the history of Europe, which in turn is a part of the history of the world.

Every one of us is an immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants, who supplanted the original people. The only exception to this is if you are reading this from the shores of Lake Turkana in Ethiopia, and can trace your ancestors back 3 million years.

Well said.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,631
Actually, the support for multi-culturalism is an act of aggression against the host nation, because the people(dual nationals) who promote it know where it is heading and they believe that it is good for their race and do not care what the consequences are for the host nation.

The tolerant liberal fools in office, who for temporary political advantage of securing the votes of idiot "progressive" liberals sanction the immigration of alien and potentially hostile people under the guise of liberality.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top