Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Imran Siddiqui]

that the fault lies at the society immigrants are moving into without even considering other options

Considering they aren't violent in EVERY society they move into (the US as an example where they generally aren't), it isn't entirely an irrational position to take.

Is the argument that Muslim immigrants who go to the US are so substantially different than those that go to the UK or France, etc? If not (and I can't imagine anyone making that argument), then what accounts for the difference?

[RGBVideo]

Seriously VJ, you might want to ponder a little what you just wrote. I expressed my dislike of an author I know already enough. And you think it means I want separate laws depending on race? You're seriously off the bat.

Like TLC, you are running away from reality by presenting a strawman. The OP's criticism is, among many other things, directed at "laws depending on race" as you're putting it. You attacked the whole OP as it was, thus you are among other things defending this thing the OP is strongly criticising.

You too agree with Bruckner on this one.

No, I did not give a blanket "It's Bruckner, so I agree with it" -thumbs up. Try again. Actually, don't... read on.

The content of this post so far has pretty much nothing to do with what I wanted to say to you or why I have posted or am reading this thread.

Spiffor mon ami, you are now being full of ****. You are again confusing the discussion with strawmen and constructed tangents so you shouldn't think about what is currently happening for yourself. You refused to read anything what I wrote and instead just quoted yourself claiming that I was calling you with names and started with "you might want to think what you just wrote", trying very hard to create an impression to yourself that I am saying insane things (=things which you should not bother your head with) while managing not to repeat those presumably "insane things" I actually said. Please reconsider what has been said and what is happening -- and think again.

I am very cautious about the touchy-feely libruls who want to let Muslims live in obscurantism because they're too immature to adapt to western society - this is racism

Good, we're in agreement.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Do you feel that your society is better served when more women are able to go out at night without fear of sexual attack because they are discreetly dressed?

That's an excellent question, to which I have no easy answer.

Unlike being examined by male/female doctors (which I think is quite unimportant), safety from human predators is very important IMO, no matter the excuse the predator can have. So, I'm all for the law punishing the rapists no matter how the victim was dressed. And that the victim's "provocative" attitude shouldn't be weighted in the judge's decision.

However, this is made easier by the fact that almost everyone knows that rape is bad. Except for young male chauvinists, I don't know of any subculture or counterculture that thinks rape is ok. Muslim ethics is definitely against it, in any case.

To make things better, I think we need to do the feminist fight once again, just like 40 years ago. My impression, upon talking to people of Moroccan origins, is that they have the exact same chauvinist ideas as the French two generations ago: a girl who lives alone before being married has to be a whore (similar with boys btw). A girl who dresses "sluttily" asks for it. And it took a LONG time for our judges to stop accepting this excuse btw.
In the past, progress came from the feminist struggle (just like it's the gays themselves that promoted tolerance toward gays). I think we're back to square one when it comes to these populations. There are already feminist associations that specifically come from these minorities, and who adress those minorities in particular. I also think that education and institutional TVs should consider gender equality as something it must encourage, rather than taking it for granted. I trust the awareness will rise, but that it'll take one generation or two

In the meantime, we should prevent such crimes by:
- preventing the existence of ghettoes, where girls are surrounded by countercultural chauvinist boys
- having a police on the beat
- punishing the crimes when they take place

"Gotcha! You want to enforce on of our values!" Well, duh.
I don't care about excusing criminals, or excusing crime. I hope that we prevent problems in a fashion that is socially acceptable: it happens that rape is almost universally rejected (yes, even in Islam, even when the girl isn't dressed in the Hijab: Islam postulates she has a share of responsibility), and that almost everybody will understand the repression thereof.

But what about those places where ghettoes do exist, and where there actually is a peer pressure toward wearing the hijab? Well, no ban on the hijab. If the girl feels safer that way, it's a cop out, for lack of better solutions. Just like the sucky old times.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is the argument that Muslim immigrants who go to the US are so substantially different than those that go to the UK or France, etc? If not (and I can't imagine anyone making that argument), then what accounts for the difference?

There might be something different between the US and some European countries which is not a matter of the inability of the European countries to be good hosts, as some appear to be suggesting.

Perhaps the US has different immigration criteria, or the people are from different countries, or perhaps the US has a more robust idea of its own values and preparedness to defend them, or stronger law enforcement. Perhaps the numbers are far less.

As was said elsewhere - integration isn't and hasn't been a great problem historically in the UK - only in recent years have some arrivals or second / third generation had problems with the host country. This has co-incided with the rise of Islamism in the world generally.

If the UK are such lousy hosts, how come Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and African Christians are not the subject of difficult relations?

[RGBVideo]

Imran

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

that the fault lies at the society immigrants are moving into without even considering other options

Considering they aren't violent in EVERY society they move into (the US as an example where they generally aren't), it isn't entirely an irrational position to take.

Who is "they"? newsflash: I'm not really talking about black people, brown people, muslims, hindus, pastafarians or green people. I'm talking about violent people. A very small group of immigrants are now doing a majority of violent crime in Helsinki. They're doing it shamelessly and openly because they know that they're not going to suffer from what they're doing. Astonishingly, they're doing very violent crimes very rationally, certainly not out of emotional reactions (I don't dare to say that it's out of sheer joy or enjoyment, but the jaw-dropping rape cases I've read about are starting to make me think it's just that). They are repeated offenders who get away from penalties with a slap on the wrist and are soon "re-assimilated" in to the society with social welfare network immediately starting to take care of them at the end of their jailtime. Then they get caught again from similar crimes. And again. And again.

There's a fellow who was kicking the crap out of two teens with backpack (who didn't dare to do anything and we're instead just constantly asking him to stop, even though it looked really bad with all the blood around) in a metro stop while yelling words (I presume insults) in some language I don't have the slightest clue of. When I asked about some invididual cops who he was the night after we got him, they said that he was on probation for manslaughter he was sentenced to six months earlier. What the ****? How the **** did he got off so fast? He had really fancy clothes when we caught him -- where the **** did he get the money for them?

He didn't get any jailtime for what he did to those kids. I presume he's now beating people for money in some other metro stop. These repeated offenders do not very clearly want to assimilate. Why won't they be kicked back to their own country if they truly want to have laws of their own? BS like this wouldn't work in USA, you've got your very own and very harsh hellholes for non-citizen immigrants who are caught from crimes. In America, you have to earn your citizenship, it won't be given to you in the name of "multiculturalism" ( ).

Why is it the fault of our culture and "they feel left out" if some invididuals are being violent ***holes?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
Like TLC, you are running away from reality by presenting a strawman. The OP's criticism is, among many other things, directed at "laws depending on race" as you're putting it. You attacked the whole OP as it was, thus you are among other things defending this thing the OP is strongly criticising.

Are you aware there is such a thing as nuance? I.e, that you can attack an author and his stance without automatically being favourable to what the author opposes?
In this case, I strongly oppose Bruckner's radicalism about wanting to impose our values, without consideration to the people we're adressing. This adds up to my dislike of his character.
I also oppose what he's talking about (and which is the most extreme/moronic form of multiculturalism).

No, I did not give a blanket "It's Bruckner, so I agree with it" -thumbs up. Try again. Actually, don't... read on.

Oh, so you understand there is something such as nuance? Good. I suspected as much (otherwise, I'd have never bothered writing those long posts). That's the same for me: I oppose Bruckner's POV, but I don't give a blanket "it's against Bruckner, so I agree with it" to what he attacks.
Especially since I agree with one point of his in the OP: that some pretend-multiculturalists are racists in disguise, in that they "infantilize" the brown people, too immature to understand our enlightenment. That's what Siro wanted to highlight when creating this thread. He just chose an article that rang too many bad bells for me.

Spiffor mon ami, you are now being full of ****. You are again confusing the discussion with strawmen and constructed tangents so you shouldn't think about what is currently happening for yourself. You refused to read anything what I wrote and instead just quoted yourself claiming that I was calling you with names and started with "you might want to think what you just wrote", trying very hard to create an impression to yourself that I am saying insane things (=things which you should not bother your head with) while managing not to repeat those presumably "insane things" I actually said. Please reconsider what has been said and what is happening -- and think again.

I was quoting myself, because I wanted to show you where I started writing my post. I knew it'd be long, and that it'd likely crosspost with one of yours. That was a misunderstanding

I do think honestly for myself, tyvm. I know it sounds hard to believe, that an opinionated commie might think for himself, but that's what I do. This is actually the main reason why I come to 'Poly: because I enjoy the thought-provoking debate, and because I enjoy seeing the perspective from various countries, and from various ideological backgrounds.

As to the Europe thingie: I have lost touch with European arcana more than a year ago, so I don't know if a multiculturalist EU law is in the works. It'd surprise me however at this juncture: the EU wants to have a barely amended constitution, and it's no time to open a can of worms such as multiculturalism. Especially when you consider that the Non/Nee came from France and Netherlands: in France, the traditional Republican model is very much appreciated (we banned the scarf, and I'm in a small minority), and in the Netherlands, Theo Van Gogh's assassination definitely didn't help the multiculturalist cause.
One thing I can tell you is that Europe isn't dominated by the France-Germany duo anymore. And even if it was, France is definitely not dominated by the likes of me. So you shouldn't feel threatened too much by what I write on the internet. You might want to start worrying when various Commie parties win elections in Europe, ie not anytime soon

[RGBVideo]

More thoughts, Imran.

What I mean is that USA kicks such people out. In EU, such people are glorified, since their primitiveness, stupidity and violence are part of "their culture".

Then we have the idiotic laws brought over from Strasbourg and Bruxelles, giving such people special treatment in courtrooms since differences in crime of different ethnic groups must be an indication of discrimination by the people investigating crimes and immigrants (multiculturalist codeword for black muslims) must receive special appeals because the police is clearly discriminating against them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Perhaps the US has different immigration criteria, or the people are from different countries, or perhaps the US has a more robust idea of its own values and preparedness to defend them, or stronger law enforcement. Perhaps the numbers are far less.

As was said elsewhere - integration isn't and hasn't been a great problem historically in the UK - only in recent years have some arrivals or second / third generation had problems with the host country. This has co-incided with the rise of Islamism in the world generally.

Well, I'm not sure the immigration mix or criteria is all that different (before 9/11 no one gave a crap). Though it appears that you are saying that the US's greater nationalism is an asset... though it would seem to me to be cause for greater tension. If a person is a radical, engaging a nationalist would necessarily result in violence, no?

Maybe it the US's gun laws... radical Muslims never know who's packing heat .

Now, granted, not screening recent arrivals may have lead to some of this, but WHY are the 2nd and 3rd generation going all gung ho? It doesn't appear that they were raised in radicalism. But suddenly they turn to it? What is going on that that is happening?

If the UK are such lousy hosts, how come Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and African Christians are not the subject of difficult relations?

Well the Jews have had some complaints recently, and it isn't just from Muslims as people automatically assume. A lot of anti-Semitic hate crimes come from white right wingers (BNP goons - equal opportunity haters) . Jews, though, in general tend to be quite a bit more intelligent in the response to that.

[RGBVideo]

I was quoting myself, because I wanted to show you where I started writing my post. I knew it'd be long, and that it'd likely crosspost with one of yours. That was a misunderstanding

As to the Europe thingie: I have lost touch with European arcana more than a year ago,

so I don't know if a multiculturalist EU law is in the works.

EU gives Finland laws all the time. Ever heard of directives? Like I've said, currently 2/3 of all Finnish laws passed in the Finnish parliament are passed as they were received from EU central bureucracy. We are being idiots for doing what they say, I know. Only one party in Finnish parliament has even considered directives as guidelines instead laws which must be passed during public discussions about the laws in the Finnish parliament.

One thing I can tell you is that Europe isn't dominated by the France-Germany duo anymore. And even if it was, France is definitely not dominated by the likes of me. So you shouldn't feel threatened too much by what I write on the internet.

One thing I can tell you is that Europe isn't dominated by the France-Germany duo anymore

"Franco-German leadership of Europe" was mostly a media creation, just like "Belgium leads Europe" seems to be now. What I meant were European Parliamentary party blocks and who decides how they vote.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
EU gives Finland laws all the time. Ever heard of directives? Like I've said, currently 2/3 of all Finnish laws passed in the Finnish parliament are passed as they were received from EU central bureucracy.

Yeah, it's pretty much the same in France. However, most EU directives are about economics (in a broad sense: transport, liberalization, labour laws, consumer protection, and homogenizing the common market in general), with some of the rest being about the environment.

I can't think of a European directive about multiculturalism, except for the Charter for regional languages (which only concerns old minorities) and maybe some things in the Charter of fundamental rights. Edit: oh yes, we must have somthing about Roms and Russophones, so indeed, there could be some EU-multiculturalism in there.

If you know of an existing directive that pushes for multiculturalism in the EU, I'd be glad to learn about it. For the tme being, I'm skeptical, considering the large differences between several of the main EU countries on the issue.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
To make things better, I think we need to do the feminist fight once again, just like 40 years ago.

Please, spare us the feminists. There's an overlap between these guys, the ultra-Christians, the ultra-Muslims, the ultra-Right, and General Ludd. It seems to me that they all hate 'painted whores' and blame them for provoking male lust. OK, I'm guessing at Ludd's take on this and extrapolating from other posts, but I couldn't resist it.

My take on women's appearance is simple. Men can have no excuses for their behaviour wrt violation of women and sexual assault. A man who cannot control himself is an animal and that is the end of it. Lock him up and throw away the key.

Back to the doctors - my view is that if there is a demand from women to be seen by female gynos, this carries far more weight than a demand from men.

[Spiffor]

Sirotnikov and others.

The responses to Bruckner, by the two people he incriminates, are fairly interesting.

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1161.html

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1166.html

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, I'm not sure the immigration mix or criteria is all that different (before 9/11 no one gave a crap). Though it appears that you are saying that the US's greater nationalism is an asset... though it would seem to me to be cause for greater tension. If a person is a radical, engaging a nationalist would necessarily result in violence, no?

Maybe it the US's gun laws... radical Muslims never know who's packing heat .

I honestly don't know. Do you have Abu Hamza style ranting clerics in the States? There's this phrase 'Londonistan' which is supposed to refer to a culture of extremism in some mosques and a fashion for ultra-radicalism.

Perhaps 'Nationalism' is not an entirely negative thing when it is about cohesion in society and shared values and principles. Perhaps there should be a less negative word for it. I feel that the West, certainly the UK and EU, has lost its way in knowing what really defines its own values - enlightenment values that should be non-negotiable, but somehow seem up for grabs. When free speech is under threat - as it is from many quarters, it seems that those values are no longer taken for granted.

Now, granted, not screening recent arrivals may have lead to some of this, but WHY are the 2nd and 3rd generation going all gung ho? It doesn't appear that they were raised in radicalism. But suddenly they turn to it? What is going on that that is happening?

My (unfashionable) view is that the concept of interventionism has become popularised in recent years at various levels. What it boils down to, for the firebrand young radical, is that if "going to war for {insert noble cause here} is good enough for Tony Blair, it is good enough for me". Add this to the concept of internationalism among leftists and liberals, the disregard for traditional notions of sovereignty and nation-states, mixed with the concept of an Islamic Nation that transcends borders, and the radicalism is more of a religious version of ideas that are popular with governments and secular internationalists alike. That is, that International Law and Sovereignty are inconvenient fictions that deserve to be disregarded in the service of some greater good. I consider these to be the bedrock of international order, more so than leading governments, it seems.

The video rantings of one of the 7/7 bombers reminded me of some Socialist Workers Party student spouting off about how he was going to save the world. Almost as if the so-called Jihadist was reading from a script written not in Lahore or Ramallah, but in the West.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Please, spare us the feminists. There's an overlap between these guys, the ultra-Christians, the ultra-Muslims, the ultra-Right, and General Ludd. It seems to me that they all hate 'painted whores' and blame them for provoking male lust. OK, I'm guessing at Ludd's take on this and extrapolating from other posts, but I couldn't resist it.

My take on women's appearance is simple. Men can have no excuses for their behaviour wrt violation of women and sexual assault. A man who cannot control himself is an animal and that is the end of it. Lock him up and throw away the key.

This is common sense today. It was definitely not common sense 50 years ago. Had this forum existed 50 years ago, any rape thread would get comments about how the woman was asking for it - and these comments would have been acceptable.

There is only one reason why common sense changed: feminism. It doesn't have to be like Ludd's, fortunately (actually, there are 4 to 5 schools in feminism IIRC, with very very different views). But the central point of feminism is that women themselves decided to defend their dignity and sovereignty. Had they not done it, the westerners of today couldn't give any lessons to their Muslim minorities.

[RGBVideo]

An example of a specific directive, Spiffor:

If you know of an existing directive that pushes for multiculturalism in the EU, I'd be glad to learn about it. For the tme being, I'm skeptical, considering the large differences between several of the main EU countries on the issue.

I didn't have the faintest idea where I'd find all official directives listed before the last post of mine in this thread. I hope I never have to find anything from EU bureucracy websites anymore -- I was afraid I couldn't find the directive at all altough I've heard of it's content and seen what it means it practice. Took me a while to find the that directive, which has led to the discriminative practice I mentioned in this post of mine: Racial equality directive 2000/43/EC Art. 5 (1).

Here's the part which was used to the legal discrimination I described (underlining mine):

Positive Action

The directives recognise explicitly that outlawing discrimination will not necessarily be enough by itself to ensure genuine equality of opportunity for everyone in society. Specific measures might be called for to compensate for disadvantages arising from a person’s racial or ethnic origin, age or other characteristics which might lead to them being treated unfairly.

We're all equal, but some might be more equal than others.

This is what ideology of multiculturalism is in theory, surreal violence and continous fear I have described in this thread is what it is in practice.