Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[RGBVideo]

(and yeah, I'm ignoring the "for daring ..." part, since VJ realizes full well Spiff was dismissing Bruckner qua Bruckner.)

This attempt is even better. DanS'ing a claim that Spiffor's criticism of OP consisted of only personal attack against Bruckner altough Spiffor has constantly attacked against OP's demands consistently in this thread since this post of his.

Some casual observers who are just starting to watch this thread might even believe you. Unfortunately, I'm not insecure enough to care about your complex web of strawmen anymore. If you want entertainment out of annoying people, buy some mice and start planting scores of them into your neighbours backyards'. 2.2/10.

Do you feel that your society is better served when more women are able to go out at night

Girls as young as 14 have been gang-raped in broad daylight near Helsinki central railroad station with policemen too afraid to do anything since it's hard to tell whether unconscious woman dressing like an adult is against or for ****ing and cops have been sacked for "racist prejudice" like trying to stop public sex between a black guy and a white woman before, so you can frame questions like this to be more emotional if that's what you're trying to get at.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I feel that our civilization is better served when more women have the ability to come to the hospital, as they aren't prevented from going by their brutal husbands.

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?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
First post of yours in this thread, attacking an author for daring to demand end for separate law treatment based on race. Ergo, you're defending law enforcement bias against white people.

Oh yeah, I forgot I was an objective associate of radical Islam

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So, attacking an author unknown to VJ is antiwhite racism?

Good strawman, pretending that I was claiming that criticising the author because the author is white is racism instead of what I actually claimed. I edited the part where I said that I hadn't heard of him before since someone might have even taken it for real.

Too bad I've known you for long enough to recognise your nitpicking out of things both you and the guy you're laughing at agree on and know as irrelevant to know that you're trolling again -- heck, if you wouldn't have posted right after my last post, I wouldn't have even opened your post window. You don't get me pissed off at your irrelevant strawmen anymore because I know from your posting habits that you're just trolling for attention with them. 1.2/10.

[Last Conformist]

So, attacking an author unknown to VJ is antiwhite racism?

I think I'll need to get a rasist, javisst! bumper sticker.

(and yeah, I'm ignoring the "for daring ..." part, since VJ realizes full well Spiff was dismissing Bruckner qua Bruckner.)

[RGBVideo]

You want me to find a quote of yours where you're defending anti-white bias?

Originally posted by Spiffor

Enlightenment fundamentalism or racism of the anti-racists?

Pascal Bruckner...

Good, I've read enough.

First post of yours in this thread, attacking an author for daring to demand end for separate law treatment based on race. Ergo, you're defending law enforcement bias against white people.

Man, that was easy. Thanks for playing a rhetorical game. Now how about that reality?

[Spiffor]

Quote my anti white bias.

Or quote my racist bias, as I "infantilize"* the non-whites.

I've written enough material in this thread for you to have no problem finding quotes, I'm sure


*this is a Brucknerian word.

[RGBVideo]

From you for one.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
That's what I meant. That's what we can see in this 'poly thread, too.

From whom?

[RGBVideo]

It's not that "whites are to blame" per se, but because the ones who claim so, are white themselves

That's what I meant. That's what we can see in this 'poly thread, too. White people who are catching up on the trend of fight against racism are trying to compensate their insecurity by changing the sides in state-sponsored racism. 'If it's racism against the other race, surely it must be anti-racism?' seems to be the line of thought. And then there is the thing that "muslim" seems to be a code-word for "non-white", and state-funded celebrations for "muslim-related people" such as the state-funded Eurovision of muslims are only restricted to everyone who's not white.

edit: Insecure people who are trying very hard to be against racism are being racist against whites under the newspeak term of "multiculturalism", that's what's happening in Europe. If these people would actually live in areas where muslims are being relocated by the state, perhaps they'd see the actual problems, too.

[Heresson]

VJ, I believe it is a bit different. It's not that "whites are to blame" per se, but because the ones who claim so, are white themselves, mostly, and they think that white people are able and should be understandable and tolerant towards allien cultures, they are expected to act like adults, while other people, immigrants, are treaten as chidlren in "no stress" upbringing. Like people who need constant care.
But in fact, often these people are acting like spoilt teenagers terrorising their "parents", and mommy will always find an excuse to blame her husband, not her dear little sonny for it.
That's what's racist about it. Anti-white bias as well, of course.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Odin


IMO the problem is that fact that Islamic society not only lacks any distinction between secular and religious authority, it actively opposes such distinctions. To paraphrase Sam Huntington, in Western society God and Caesar are separate, in Islamic society God IS Caesar.

In the West the notion of the Separation of Church and State goes back to St. Augustine and the notion of the distinction between City of God and the City of Man, and then to the struggles between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy. Islam never had such distinctions, the Caliph was both Emperor and Pope. Most of the other civilizations around today are closer to the West on this aspect then to Islam.

I think that's a staunch simplification.

Isn't, for example the British King also the head of the English church?
Does Islam even has the concept of a Pope? No.

I think the main obstacle to the integration of the muslim immigrants is not their faith, but their primary alligiance to their family/tribe/clan. Even in their native countries, they have little alligiance to their King or State.

And yes, alligiance to the State is an 'enlightened' concept.

[RGBVideo]

Reality, the old crime against ideology.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

This attitude was exactly the point of the OP. Immigrants who aren't white can't be blamed for anything, because it is against the multiculturalist ideology: multiculturalism is racism in disguise of a positive-sounding word combination (who exactly wouldn't be against tolerating many cultures from around the world? I'm all for it). Thus multiculturalist ideologies, even if they don't have the remotest clue about what is actually happening in European cities in the name of their ideology, always drop the blame for problems on white natives, no matter what happens.

I've seen enough of this blatant ideology-motivated racism in Finnish newspapers to understand it here: Hate-crimes made in broad daylight against white people are always explained as the fault of the victims under complex codewords. When people are being gang-raped in their home cities, it's their fault because they're white and "do not understand the delicacy of muslim clothing culture". When people are stabbed to death by a surrounding gang over not giving cigarette while waiting for a bus, it's their fault because they're white and "do not share the muslim understanding of collective ownership". When people are beaten to death with broken beer bottles just for going to a bank by walking sticks, it's their fault for being white and "unfortunately not understanding the provocative nature of the disability in muslim culture". See? Your friend wasn't murdered because his offenders were murderers or even killers, it was because your friend was ignorant.

But when a black muslim living alone has his apartment window broken while he's downtown, it makes national news and is a "clear indication of deep-rooted racism in Finnish culture" and a "unfortunate demonstration of Finnish bigotry towards people from different cultures.

No hyperbole is ridiculous enough when "multiculturalist" ideologues are trying to pin down the blame for violent muslims on native Europeans. No doubt I am now classified as a racist and my news to them can be now forgotten with such excuse.

edit:

Originally posted by Pekka
To put multiculturalism in simple terms, it has the way it would be positive, and it has the way these aggressive multicultural advocates promote it, and that's THE negative. By advocates I don't mean people who think like yeah, ok, but more like those who are aggressive, blame everything because the natives are racist clearly, and that's the reason blaablaablaa. These little ****ers should be shot in the head. They are also the ones who do not understand the concept of TOLERANCE, which means, that I tolerate you, and you _also_ tolerate me, and we both tolerate our cultures. THat's not how a true crybaby superculturalist thinks.

When superculturalist says he looooves everyone but you, it makes them a whore in a way, but a dysfunctional one. What is important to realize is that these superculturalists do not tolerate you. The only tolerate people who hate you. And then they do a little circle jerk.

But what we think about multiculturalism, most peo ple only think yaay, ethnic food, yaay. This is a nice thing, but that's what the common person thinks. Nothing wrong in this. What superculturalists think is that there are no innocents, only racists who show their true colours when they blame, say, an immigrant murderer. Obviously they are racist to call someone a murderer. Now, if they point out for example, that the person who was a murderer was also an illegal, a career crook, convicted in several countries before and somehow slipped through borders, well, pointing that out is a horrible racist act, it makes you a lover of facist ideology, and the one claiming this act of racism the hope of humanity.

What these ivory tower punks don't have is a world view, sense of realism, tolerance and they also lack in the intelligence part most of hte times. How to spot one? They shout stupid slogans. Kind of like their fascist counterparts. They love to hate you, and the world would be saved if everyone was like they are.

Now, The idea of multiculturalism is fine by me. But it doesn't mean, that if there's conflicts between the locals and the new comers, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is because obviously the locals are racist rednecks. This can't be a claim made by default. But it is.

Also, we have to be able to talk in reasonable terms, as in, how do we integrate new comers? They have to know the rules, the way things are done in general, so they can operate and find their place in the nation.

Multiculturalism is not about mixing all cultures into one big **** off weirdo thing that has no colour, taste or feeling. I thought it was supposed to be about having different cultures appreciated? But it's only about ethnic food or what ever let's all assimilate BS.

Superculturalists are maybe one of the most annyoing people in this world. They're prolly worthy of execution. They kill all conversation and debate, they stick their noses into their own asses and smell it so hard they think it's paradise.

it is SUPPOSED to be like this: I am me and I appreciate my culture. Here, let me show you what we do. Do you like it? OK now show me yours and let me try some things. Cool stuff. So, see you later.

But that's not how it is with superculturalists, is it? THat's not even what they want. They want assimilation, where the most offended one (the weakest *******) is the one who makes the rules. Kind of like the Taliban.

I agree with you, but I think the "superculturalist" label needs some work. It still doesn't really mean anything and sounds as positive as "multiculturalist". A correct name for our self-described multiculturalists would be one which displays their (a) blatant hypocricy; (b) ideology-driven dream to destroying the culture of their own country and changing it into a well-established foreign culture.

Wanna do a Apolyton mini-meet with just the two of us, btw? I've always wondered how a person who refers to himself as SUPERCITIZEN (tm) actually looks.

[Odin]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let's assume for a moment that European society is inherently racist, purely for purposes of argument.

Then why don't Indians (excluding Indian Muslims) have problems integrating? These people are 2% of Britain's population, but responsible for 5% of its GDP - the new Jews, perhaps?

What happened? How come they were immune to this racism which kept every other people down?

Either they are somehow special, or one of our premises is wrong. Take your pick.

IMO the problem is that fact that Islamic society not only lacks any distinction between secular and religious authority, it actively opposes such distinctions. To paraphrase Sam Huntington, in Western society God and Caesar are separate, in Islamic society God IS Caesar.

In the West the notion of the Separation of Church and State goes back to St. Augustine and the notion of the distinction between City of God and the City of Man, and then to the struggles between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy. Islam never had such distinctions, the Caliph was both Emperor and Pope. Most of the other civilizations around today are closer to the West on this aspect then to Islam.

[Pekka]

To put multiculturalism in simple terms, it has the way it would be positive, and it has the way these aggressive multicultural advocates promote it, and that's THE negative. By advocates I don't mean people who think like yeah, ok, but more like those who are aggressive, blame everything because the natives are racist clearly, and that's the reason blaablaablaa. These little ****ers should be shot in the head. They are also the ones who do not understand the concept of TOLERANCE, which means, that I tolerate you, and you _also_ tolerate me, and we both tolerate our cultures. THat's not how a true crybaby superculturalist thinks.

When superculturalist says he looooves everyone but you, it makes them a whore in a way, but a dysfunctional one. What is important to realize is that these superculturalists do not tolerate you. The only tolerate people who hate you. And then they do a little circle jerk.

But what we think about multiculturalism, most peo ple only think yaay, ethnic food, yaay. This is a nice thing, but that's what the common person thinks. Nothing wrong in this. What superculturalists think is that there are no innocents, only racists who show their true colours when they blame, say, an immigrant murderer. Obviously they are racist to call someone a murderer. Now, if they point out for example, that the person who was a murderer was also an illegal, a career crook, convicted in several countries before and somehow slipped through borders, well, pointing that out is a horrible racist act, it makes you a lover of facist ideology, and the one claiming this act of racism the hope of humanity.

What these ivory tower punks don't have is a world view, sense of realism, tolerance and they also lack in the intelligence part most of hte times. How to spot one? They shout stupid slogans. Kind of like their fascist counterparts. They love to hate you, and the world would be saved if everyone was like they are.

Now, The idea of multiculturalism is fine by me. But it doesn't mean, that if there's conflicts between the locals and the new comers, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is because obviously the locals are racist rednecks. This can't be a claim made by default. But it is.

Also, we have to be able to talk in reasonable terms, as in, how do we integrate new comers? They have to know the rules, the way things are done in general, so they can operate and find their place in the nation.

Multiculturalism is not about mixing all cultures into one big **** off weirdo thing that has no colour, taste or feeling. I thought it was supposed to be about having different cultures appreciated? But it's only about ethnic food or what ever let's all assimilate BS.

Superculturalists are maybe one of the most annyoing people in this world. They're prolly worthy of execution. They kill all conversation and debate, they stick their noses into their own asses and smell it so hard they think it's paradise.

it is SUPPOSED to be like this: I am me and I appreciate my culture. Here, let me show you what we do. Do you like it? OK now show me yours and let me try some things. Cool stuff. So, see you later.

But that's not how it is with superculturalists, is it? THat's not even what they want. They want assimilation, where the most offended one (the weakest *******) is the one who makes the rules. Kind of like the Taliban.