Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In a democracy, che, unlike in your beloved communism, they are one and the same thing.

Bull****. The government and its people can vary widely on how they treat groups.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
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.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=107757

The guy was born and raised in the west. He is completely anti-enlightenment, as a genuine Muslim fundie. Where should we deport him*?
Where do we depot the countless Christian fundies who grace western societies with their anti-enlightenment positions?

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?

My ad-hominem was toward an author I know well enough already, as I've read enough works from him. His article was perfectly unsurprising, and I have the same criticisms toward it than toward any other thing I've read from him: i.e, that it's opinionated BS which I happen to disagree with (and I even wrote an elaborate post afterwardsto explain it to you).




*answer: for this one, we won't have to, as he actually wants to emigrate to Qatar, which is NOT his country of rigin: he'd be one of those few migrants who actually move because of values instead of money - and only unperfectly so, since Qatar is less devout than some poorer Muslim countries

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
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?

Exactly. This fact doesn't fit the 'Oppressed by teh evil racists' model, so it will probably be ignored.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
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.

Funny, I've heard a short while ago that the LCR (far-leftists) was an objective associate of capitalism, and that we the Communist Party should focus on fighting them.

"Objective associate" is a wonderful insult to hurl about.

Hey, I can tell too that Sarkozy's an objective associate of anti-enlightenment, as his organization of the National Council of French Islam (CNCM) gives almost no room for liberal Islam in the mosques

This is fun!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I don`t think anyone is disputing that feeling excluded is conducive to extremism. What´s debatable is whether "multiculturalism", ethnic rights, etc, is likely to ameliorate feelings of exclusion.

This is what this thread should be about. I guess balance is everything. On the one hand, we need to have a society with a strong identity, and with values we are strongly attached to. We shouldn't be ashamed of our values of democracy, equality, human dignity etc.

On the other hand, we shouldn't be stupid and dogmatic about them. Currently in France, there's a problem with Muslim men who don't want their women to go to a male OB-gyn. However, once a woman is in the hospital, the hospital must treat her, which means these women will often get to be examined by a male OB-gyn.
The knee-jerk reaction would be to tell the chauvinist husbands to **** off, and not to change a iota. The pragmatic approach would be to shuffle personnel, so that there are more female OB-gyns in hospitals with many muslims. Both approaches have been tried (depending of the hospital). The results are a matter of appreciation: personally, 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.

Another thing where "multiculturalism" is practical is with school lunches. With all the various taboos about food around there (which aren't only religious: see vegetarians), you can't really have one menu anymore. So, you have a self-service, with enough choices that nobody feels excluded. At my uni-restaurant, for example, we generally have pork/beef + chicken/fish. Vegetarians can ask for vegetables only if they want. As a result, nobody is excluded from the restaurant, which actually helps integration.

In short, multiculturalism sometimes contribute to integrate minorities in mainstream society, as the society changes a bit to accomodate them along with the others. It sucks when it creates exclusives.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You will notice that secularism is what Bruckner's article is actually about. Since Bruckner wants us, among other things, to enforce our values on people who disagree with them for religious reasons.

I happen to know a convert Muslim who wears the scarf on her own accord. And I know her enough that I'm sure she isn't coerced into it. In the UK (where she now lives, though she's French), she's free to teach.
Bruckner wants to curb her freedom to teach, as he's a staunch supporter of the headscarf ban. It's definitely secular. It might be "enlightened" with Bruckner's definition. Now, explain me how it fits your definition of enlightenment.

"Our" values, BTW? Opposition to silly headdresses wasn't on my list of values last I checked.

I suppose that makes me an objective associate of radical Islam. I even support the right of pupils to wear baseball caps in class!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I suppose that makes me an objective associate of radical Islam. I even support the right of pupils to wear baseball caps in class!

[Heresson]

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?

New Jews? Please, let someone think of that Indians are in fact a lost tribe of Israel and should immigrate to it. That'd be fun!
Hm. That would make Pakistanis kind of muslim Jews as well, which would be even more interesting.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which is a bit silly after you see how Algerians and Arabs are treated in France. They may say one thing, but actually act in another.

Typical of a society that is so preachy, that it can't walk the walk. It's just like those US-states that have the most fundies, while at the same time having the worst divorce and teen-pregnancies rate.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sandman
Don't you believe history is composed of repeating 'generations', Odin? How is that different from Marxism?

I think there are cyclical changes in the mood of a country that creates the appearance of generations with repeating sets of collective personalities. There are tons of theories about cyclical historical trends so I don't see how that is controversial.

The main beef I have with Marxism is that I find Marxist historical theory to be simplistic and somewhat teleological. I adhere to Marxian economic theory and agree with some of Marx's sociological notions, however.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.