Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by GePap
    If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?
    Heroin is evidently dangerous, it does not prevent people to experience it. People are generally tempted by bad reasons, not by correctness.
    Statistical anomaly.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Spiffor

      Iran under the Shah (like Saddam's Iraq) was becoming quite secular however, and with a more modern economy as well. The Shah, among other things, instituted women's suffrage, which was loathed by the clergy despite its meaninglessness.
      If becoming secular was the criteria for a state that it had reached the enlightenment ideals, you certainly believe that the USSR was enlightened. You are badly wrong; the ideals are mainly based of freedom of individuals (equality, opinion, expression).
      Secularity is only an easy solution to grant freedom of religion.
      Statistical anomaly.
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

      Comment


      • #48
        [q=Spiffor]The logical consequence of that, which is pretty obvious in the article, is that we need to enforce our enlightenment values on those who don't share them. At least on our territory (though Bruckner would love to see the west actively spreading them worldwide). For example, this is why Bruckner supports the headscarf ban, an example he brought up in this very article.

        I disagree with that, because I think it will only alienate people against the values of enlightenment, and that they'll have an extreme reaction as soon as the enforcement dies down (see the reactionary victory in Iran 1979, see how the Islamists seem to easily win elections in secular Arabic dictatorships).[/q]

        Indeed. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Enlightenment policies don't work at the point of a gun. Headscarf bans just get people pissed who you are trying to convert. Basically, the real change comes with the next generation. You let them grow up in a country that is free and most of them will accept their adopted society and enlightenment which is a part of that. Obviously some will not, but its an ongoing process.

        The US doesn't seem to have the same Muslim radicalism as Europe appears to be having, even though plenty of Muslims have settled in the States. Perhaps that can be a result of a more hands off spreading of enlightenment policies (a much more liberal free speech policy for one).
        I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

        Comment


        • #49
          Enlightenment policies don't work at the point of a gun.
          Exactly! That's why people who do not want to live under "enlightment policies" or whatever term we'll use for European law enforcement and culture should not move in here. America is different, because all Americans are immigrants: German immigrants who feel threatened by Pakistani immigrants can always return to Germany. We Finns' don't have anywhere to go into if Islamists will overtake our country: we'll become slaves in our own country.

          The US doesn't seem to have the same Muslim radicalism as Europe appears to be having, even though plenty of Muslims have settled in the States. Perhaps that can be a result of a more hands off spreading of enlightenment policies (a much more liberal free speech policy for one).

          Different European nations have tried different strategies in "naturalising" these immigrants. Sweden, France, Belgium and UK have all tried approaches. Belgium has tried an approach identical to what you just described.

          Also, muslims have free speech. Natives do not have free speech because of the muslims living amongst them. Want an example? A muslim priest preaches publicly for his fellow believers how muslim men are not to blame if they raping christian women -- the women are to blame. Nothing happens: this is completely okay and multiculturalist establishment doesn't react in any way. People from all religions try to counter this by doing nothing else but marching a defined route naked. This is classified as "a racist offense". Politicians, I kid you not, tell that people who are marching naked just in order to show that nakedness is natural and should not justify rape against women are "insensitive white supremacists". Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?
          Last edited by RGBVideo; February 5, 2007, 01:54.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by VJ

            Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?
            In this respect, it is now quite clear that the leftists of all kinds are the objective associates of radical islamism; they fight together what they called "islamophoby" which defines any comment or criticism of anything with the slightiest islamic references or connections.
            Statistical anomaly.
            The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Heresson

              1) most people don't want to "destroy islam"
              If Islam could be destroyed without hurting Muslims, wouldn't it be a good thing?

              NOTE: I count liberalisation or enlightenment of the faith as its destruction, because it's a very rigid structure, which, if contradicted in part, is destroyed in whole.

              Comment


              • #52
                VJ

                Spiffor - what is the alternative to enforcement of basic principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? Are you saying that Islamists should be able to veto our universal values of equality, on our own territory, just because the law is characterised as 'the barrel of a gun'? Ultimately all law is enforced through the barrel of a gun.

                As for Boris - I can no longer distinguish between those of his odious posts which are pure trolling, and those which are his own politics. They are indistinguishable to me, and symptomatic of the rapidly degenerating nature of what passes for 'debate' on this forum.

                Comment


                • #53
                  If enlightenment values are so self-evidently correct, why would anyone not chose them?
                  Has an enlightened nation ever slipped back to the kind of fundamentalism that existed before? Their have been lots of problems, crimes and mistakes by those societies but never has the enlightenment given ground. The West is now so dominant that the only serious threats are its own internal mistakes, ideological schisms and internal loss of will power. Islam is merely the thing which would fill the void if the west implodes, it is not itself able to cause the downfall of the west.

                  Enlightenment can not be forced on a society, it must come from within. The west can do its best by setting a good example, like not being imperialist bastards. What the rest of the worlds spits in our face when we try to cram it down their through they would actively want if we just let them come to us on their own terms.
                  Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - Thus spoke Zarathustra, Fredrick Nietzsche

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by VJ

                    Also, muslims have free speech. Natives do not have free speech because of the muslims living amongst them. Want an example? A muslim priest preaches publicly for his fellow believers how muslim men are not to blame if they raping christian women -- the women are to blame. Nothing happens: this is completely okay and multiculturalist establishment doesn't react in any way. People from all religions try to counter this by doing nothing else but marching a defined route naked. This is classified as "a racist offense". Politicians, I kid you not, tell that people who are marching naked just in order to show that nakedness is natural and should not justify rape against women are "insensitive white supremacists". Can you notice the obvious similarity between this ad hominem and the ad hominem our Apolytons own socialist "multiculturalists" Spiffor and Oncle Boris attacked the writer of the OP with -- without even reading the article before their knee-jerk responses?
                    From the links, I can't tell if the marchers cancelled the march on their own accord, or it was stopped by officialdom. Which was it?
                    Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                    It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                    The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]


                      Has an enlightened nation ever slipped back to the kind of fundamentalism that existed before?
                      What first comes to mind, Godwin be damned, is Germany under Hitler. But I think you need to define "enlightened" and "fundamentalism" before any sort of definite answer can be given.
                      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                      It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                      The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DAVOUT


                        If becoming secular was the criteria for a state that it had reached the enlightenment ideals, you certainly believe that the USSR was enlightened. You are badly wrong; the ideals are mainly based of freedom of individuals (equality, opinion, expression).
                        Secularity is only an easy solution to grant freedom of religion.
                        One could argue that Leninism is a quasi-religion (sorry Che).

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Don't you believe history is composed of repeating 'generations', Odin? How is that different from Marxism?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Last Conformist
                            What first comes to mind, Godwin be damned, is Germany under Hitler. But I think you need to define "enlightened" and "fundamentalism" before any sort of definite answer can be given.
                            It's not Godwin if it actually fits .

                            Weimar to Fascism fits.
                            I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The problem isn't radical Muslims emigrating to Europe. The problem is, once there, Muslims don't feel included in your societies. Extremism isn't something people just pick up. It would be much easier for me to recruit people to socialism if it were so. It is a response, instead, to the inclusivity or exclusivity of a society.

                              America is a realtively inclusive society. Those groups who we are not as inclusive of, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, are also where we see much more radicalization and extremist ideology.

                              Arabs, Turks, and South Asians have never been made to feel welcome in Europe, despite your "attempts" at multiculturalism. It is hardly any wonder that they then join transformative movements and seek solace among those that tell them they are the true people.
                              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                                The problem isn't radical Muslims emigrating to Europe. The problem is, once there, they don't feel included in your societies. Extremism isn't something people just pick up. It is a response to the inclusivity or exclusivity of a society.

                                America is a very inclusive society. Those groups who we are not as inclusive of, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, are also where we see much more radicalization and extremist ideology.

                                Arabs, Turks, and South Asians have never been made to feel welcome in Europe, despite your "attempts" at multiculturalism. It is hardly any wonder that they then join transformative movements and seek solace among those that tell them they are the true people.
                                England is a mongrel nation. My ancestors, in the last few generations have come from about 5 different countries - and I, like millions of other integrated English, am descended from immigrants who have been able to integrate. This country has hundreds and hundreds of years more experience of successful integration, albeit with some terrible failures on the way, than the USA.

                                Does the USA have the %ages of Muslims that Europeans do? If not, there is perhaps not a case to suggest that the USA is superior to Europe in this respect. Just because the Irish and Italians are happily mixed in (as they are also in England) it doesn't mean that the US has multiculturalism licked. It doesn't, as acknowledged above, wrt to several ethnicities.

                                Hence, blaming the locals, rather than divisive, identitarian policies, is mis-placed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X