Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

by **yavuzovic** » Wed May 20, 2020 2:27 am

JaMinTheGreat wrote: ↑
Tue May 12, 2020 3:28 am
How has any culture formed, if not multi-culturally? Multiculturalism, I think, can be applied to the moment that the first tribe of early humans met and interacted with another early band of humans. Some of them eventually decided to merge and eventually lead to cities and cultures that we celebrate. The different cultures of Sparta and Athens isn't an issue today, but it was at the time. The tolerance of Christianity vs the tolerance of paganism isn't an issue today, but it was in the past? Is religious freedom a failed example of multiculturalism?

I completely agree with this statement. There are no pure nations. Even living in different parts of a country makes us two different groups. So we have to understand that different groups don't make any problem. Then what, why are immigrants usually increase the crime rates or at least, they dip into our eyes? Then we have to look at what bring the citizens together, what makes the differences between us a wealth but not the immigrants. I live in Turkey and identify myself as a Turkish, however, both my parents belong to minority groups and even my maternal grandparents are immigrants. You can consider Turkey as a country that people migrate from, rather than they migrate to, but from the eyes of the people in conflict zones (firstly Syria, and some other Middle-east countries, maybe even from Africa) Turkey is easier to enter and the people are often welcoming. Currently there are 3,5 millions of Syrian immigrants, who are considered strangers, while I'm not. The reason is, when I look at my family, we are adapted to the community, while the immigrants have a different culture and a different life style. Considering both are Muslim-majority countries and yet there is a cliff of cultures, the gap is even bigger in European countries, US and Canada. I can say that what makes a person stranger in a country is not the identity. Anyone who comes from abroad can be a better citizen than most of native citizens. The problem with high migration scenarios is the bigger the immigrant population is, the bigger the cultural gap becomes. Many can disagree with me, but I see nothing wrong with people accepting being a citizen of my country and living in. I'm not sure how to name it, or if that's against or in favor of multiculturalism, but I definitely support multinationalism.

I prefer a nation that acts in harmony with me, not a nation that carries the same blood as me.

by **Fluminator** » Tue May 12, 2020 7:11 am

Oh man, this was the thread leon essentially said "No I don't think Arabs suck, it's a different racial group which I won't say..."

by **JaMinTheGreat** » Tue May 12, 2020 3:36 am

New England Fire Squad wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:08 pm

Fluminator wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:59 pm
Look man. I'm not a fan of radical Islam or the establishment's method of dealing with it either. But decrying multiculturalism because of one extreme group who were literally radicalized because the west droned their home countries for countless years... doesn't really flow.
This seems like a dodge to me, albeit a good one. I would argue that since Bangladesh (among many others) has one of the highest support levels for terrorism, and has never been bombed by the US, while a good argument on its face, begins to crumble when one looks at the details. Belgium hasn't been bombing them- neither has Denmark, or Sweden. Why would they hold attacks on them by an entirely different entity against others simply for looking somewhat similar to their aggressors? This seems to support my argument rather than yours- if they've become radicalized even before they arrive in Europe, why let them in? As an aside, I would certainly agree that the US should cease bombing anyone anywhere, and furthermore we should return virtually all of our military home, as well as ending all foreign arms sales.

It's not just the current drone war, it's centuries of pillaging a continent by Europeans. And I'm not only blaming the Europeans, as if there aren't bad actors in Bangladesh historically or currently.

I think "holding attacks on an entirely different entity for simply looking somewhat similar to their aggressors" shouldn't need to be explained, it's a very common phenomenon.

Glad we're on board about a cease to war mongering, foreign arm sales, etc. We've got something significant to work together on.

by **JaMinTheGreat** » Tue May 12, 2020 3:28 am

How has any culture formed, if not multi-culturally? Multiculturalism, I think, can be applied to the moment that the first tribe of early humans met and interacted with another early band of humans. Some of them eventually decided to merge and eventually lead to cities and cultures that we celebrate. The different cultures of Sparta and Athens isn't an issue today, but it was at the time. The tolerance of Christianity vs the tolerance of paganism isn't an issue today, but it was in the past? Is religious freedom a failed example of multiculturalism?

If multiculturalism is a problem, is nationalism too? The idea of Western culture breaks down in recognition of the fact that individual Western countries have killed each other for thousands of years and thus have not displayed a moral superiority over other cultures. This culture is better, this culture is better. These countries cannot coexist (mine should dominate), these cultures cannot coexist, and mine is best.

The argument about Muslims being unable to adapt to Western values...Catholics were assumed to be incompatible with democracy because of "Pope worship." That proved to be false. The Arab spring was a real movement.

And maybe you're forgetting how Iranians empowered a democratic, freedom valuing government that was consequently overthrown by the USA. Our government and citizen-body have taken anti-democratic actions. But we don't have an idea that Americans don't value democracy.

Perhaps the Muslim?Middle Eastern immigration swell is caused by the massive destabilization of that region by Western imperialism, which may highlight cultural flaws of moral superiority, arrogance, and entitlement on a higher level of destruction than what Muslim immigrants have wrought.

Should the Irish have been kicked out collectively after the New York Draft Riots? That was blamed on the intrinsic failures of Irish people by wealthy WASPS, at that time.

Is trade related to multiculturalism and is it desirable?

Should people in cities and rural areas interact?

Does expanding your horizons benefit the human mind/spirit?

This response could be better organized, but I've decided that I don't have enough time to spend on it, though I still want to engage you ideas.

by **Senlac** » Fri May 03, 2019 8:50 pm

Senlac wrote: ↑
Fri May 03, 2019 7:18 pm
“These aren't recent Muslim immigrants in charge of the party, but long term native born British citizens. They didn't suddenly change to these views to get political support.”

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premiu ... -1.5379387

Looks like the Israelis disagree...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Artic ... aspx/21562

Twice...

by **Senlac** » Fri May 03, 2019 7:18 pm

“These aren't recent Muslim immigrants in charge of the party, but long term native born British citizens. They didn't suddenly change to these views to get political support.”

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premiu ... -1.5379387

Looks like the Israelis disagree...

by **Randomizer** » Fri May 03, 2019 4:39 am

This didn't happen since Muslims migrated to Great Britain, but goes back centuries.

Anti-Semitic sentiment is historical from 1180 with the York Massacare https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/vis ... -massacre/.

Read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales the Nun's tale about the blood libel where Jews were accused of murdering a Christian boy to use his blood to make Passover Matzah.

Read Shakespear's Merchant of Venice on how Jews were treated.

While there have been some instances where British leaders helped Jews:

Balfour Declaration to establish a Jewish homeland in thanks for a Jewish scientist helping the British war industry with explosives. It was later proposed that the homeland be in Uganda, Africa.

Before and during World War II, Great Britain was not as concerned with stopping killing the Jews, although they did allow some to immigrate before the war. as with stopping German expansion.

After World War II, the British blocked immigration to Israel and the Foreign office was firmly pro-Arab. They turned the area over to have the UN decide to appease the Arabs.

Look at the native born leaders of Britain's Labour Party:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... my-corbyn/

These aren't recent Muslim immigrants in charge of the party, but long term native born British citizens. They didn't suddenly change to these views to get political support.

It has just become politically acceptable to voice it public.

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:35 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 10:32 pm
No, I don’t think “we created Israel so we can’t be anti-Semitic” understands the point. The point is that throughout history there has been clear and present danger to the Jewish people in every corner of the world, Europe and the UK included. And in recognizing that that danger wasn’t going to disappear just because one country was forced to stop committing genocide against them, Israel was created.

References to “anti-Semitism on the rise” are not and have never been about numbers of anti-Semitic people. It’s about events. Such as:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semi ... ight-year/

“In 420 cases recorded last year, witnesses gave descriptions of the alleged perpetrators. In those cases, 57 percent were described as Europeans and 25 percent as Arab or black.”

It’s a perpetual international crisis, and blaming people of other national origins for it is extremely reductive.

Hey, let's not lose track of the original point that was made. Randomizer used the example of rising anti-Semitic sentiment as a reason why multiculturalism was a necessary and useful force in Western societies (presumably because it mandates the development of principles of toleration which would reduce, among other things, anti-Semitic sentiment). Exploring whether the source of that rise is the migrant or native population is important to evaluate the truth of the premise. And like it or not, at first blush there is good reason to think it is the migrant population, for reasons I've stated before. I'm not attempting to be reductive and I am open to the idea that Randomizer was correct to say that multiculturalism helps in this regard (though still skeptical).

I agree it is an international issue that cannot be reduced to one group or another causing the problems. It's still worthy to examine whether bringing in large numbers of foreign peoples without fully assimilating them is making the problem better or worse.

Thanks for providing stats on the issue, this is a good starting point. I'm going to look for the cited report because I have a couple of questions on it that the article doesn't answer and which would be unfair of me to expect you to know without researching. For sake of discussion:

Are people of non-Arab, non-Black descent but predominantly from Muslim countries counted as Arab or Black, or in a different category? I'm specifically thinking of Pakistanis and Iranians, both of whom are from Muslim-dominant countries but which, as far as I know, wouldn't be considered either.
What is the population breakdown of the UK? Although I concede that my initial impression (that the Muslim migrant population would be responsible for the majority of the incidents) is incorrect, the relevant stat would be per capita incidents; as a made-up example, if European-descended people were 30% of people in the UK, that would be damning evidence that it's the native and not migrant population, since they would be committing the incidents at nearly twice the rate you'd expect from a random distribution. Obviously the report is dealing with just the total number, this is something I'd need to explore on my own, which I will.

I'll check these out and report back. Thanks again.

by **Senlac** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:17 pm

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-jewis ... in-corbyn/

Also from the times of Israel. This is the action of the Jewish Labour Movement which has been affiliated to the UK Labour Party since 1903. It is one of the oldest socialist movements in history. Yet when faced with almost 1000 recorded cases of anti-Semitism within their party the leadership does nothing. In politics this has to be about votes as nothing else would be worth the price in credibility.

by **TrPrado** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:32 pm

No, I don’t think “we created Israel so we can’t be anti-Semitic” understands the point. The point is that throughout history there has been clear and present danger to the Jewish people in every corner of the world, Europe and the UK included. And in recognizing that that danger wasn’t going to disappear just because one country was forced to stop committing genocide against them, Israel was created.

References to “anti-Semitism on the rise” are not and have never been about numbers of anti-Semitic people. It’s about events. Such as:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semi ... ight-year/

“In 420 cases recorded last year, witnesses gave descriptions of the alleged perpetrators. In those cases, 57 percent were described as Europeans and 25 percent as Arab or black.”

It’s a perpetual international crisis, and blaming people of other national origins for it is extremely reductive.

by **Senlac** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:23 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 8:59 pm
If anti-Semitism weren’t widespread and international, spanning every region including Western Europe, Israel wouldn’t exist. To say that this anti-Semitism is new or the result of migrants is to ignore the history of the diaspora.

I never said that & you know it. What I said was Labour politicians in UK are exploiting anti-Semitism amongst Muslim migrants to win votes in migrant areas.

It is the only reasonable explanation why a left wing party that has been friends with & supported by Jews for almost one hundred years would be reluctant to speak out against anti-Semitism. They don’t want to lose the votes of their new support base.

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:08 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 8:59 pm
If anti-Semitism weren’t widespread and international, spanning every region including Western Europe, Israel wouldn’t exist. To say that this anti-Semitism is new or the result of migrants is to ignore the history of the diaspora.

Isn't that the entire point?
The UK--that is, the British people as represented by their government--created the state of Israel out of recognition that the Jews faced a global threat of anti-Semitism and needed their own homeland. Probably the most... anti-anti-Semitic (no idea what word I'm looking for here) thing any people could do.
Since then, the UK has seen a lot of migration predominantly from the Muslim world, which is known, among other things, for very pervasive anti-Semitism.
After that, anti-Semitism is on the rise in the UK and Jews, who were previously comparatively safe in the UK, no longer feel safe there.
How do you look at these events and not conclude that this is a consequence of multiculturalism without sufficient assimilation?
Again I invite someone to show proof that it comes from the native population and not the migrants, and to be clear I'm not asserting that the anti-Semitic attitudes must be from Muslim migrants, that Muslim migrants are inherently anti-Semitic or that the native British population cannot be anti-Semitic or has never been anti-Semitic in the past.
But I would think it obvious that given these facts, the presumption should be that the new arrivals brought anti-Semitic sentiments with them, not that the native population without explanation rediscovered ancient anti-Semitic sentiments long buried within them at the same time as large migration from a region of the world with elevated anti-Semitic tendencies occurred.

by **TrPrado** » Thu May 02, 2019 8:59 pm

If anti-Semitism weren’t widespread and international, spanning every region including Western Europe, Israel wouldn’t exist. To say that this anti-Semitism is new or the result of migrants is to ignore the history of the diaspora.

by **Senlac** » Thu May 02, 2019 8:40 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 7:35 pm
As someone who is surrounded by campaigners and political consultants and candidates (my naivety regarding politics has been kind of squashed and murdered over the past couple years), and who also knows very good and well how political posturing works, you can’t fake those kinds of dogwhistles. You’ll get caught one way or the other. And those don’t develop around signaling something to gain the support of migrants.

Pushing the line of anti-Zionism into being anti-Semitic shouldn’t be taken as trying to gain votes, it should be taken as people simply behaving as anti-Semites with a particular agenda.

Then we disagree. Evidence will come to light demonstrating who is correct on this point.

by **Carl Tuckerson** » Thu May 02, 2019 7:53 pm

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 6:00 pm
I'm struck by the naivety of the proposition that Great Britain & the Commonwealth nations fought Hitler's evil Nazi regime because of their concerns for European Jews.

You're getting a bit in the weeds on my comment. I didn't say that it was the overriding concern behind their intervention, but it certainly was a factor. The Allies stood against the genocide of Jews and other people deemed worthy of genocide by the Nazis. Even if there were realpolitik considerations or even simple survival considerations behind the fight, the fact remains that millions of British men laid down their lives to save the Jews from Hitler.
And so when you have to consider a possible rise in anti-Semitism, and you're talking about a choice between the direct descendants of those men, or the large migration of the most anti-Semitic group of people on the planet today to Great Britain, I would think it very obvious who the culprit is.

I’d say when you look at who’s perpetuating the anti-Semitic attacks you get a feel for the actual answer, CT.

Sure, and this is where it would be nice for Randomizer to show evidence that the rise in anti-Semitic sentiment in the UK is the fault of the native population and not the migrant population.

by **TrPrado** » Thu May 02, 2019 7:35 pm

As someone who is surrounded by campaigners and political consultants and candidates (my naivety regarding politics has been kind of squashed and murdered over the past couple years), and who also knows very good and well how political posturing works, you can’t fake those kinds of dogwhistles. You’ll get caught one way or the other. And those don’t develop around signaling something to gain the support of migrants.

Pushing the line of anti-Zionism into being anti-Semitic shouldn’t be taken as trying to gain votes, it should be taken as people simply behaving as anti-Semites with a particular agenda.

by **Senlac** » Thu May 02, 2019 7:07 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 6:54 pm
Ehhhh, the line can be a bit hazy sometimes and the boundary gets pushed, but there’s a difference between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

Yeah there’s a huge difference. Largely depending on if you want somebody’s vote or not. Be as “anti-Semitic” as you like (refusing to adopt generally accepted conventions on anti-Semitism) when canvassing the neighbourhood, but only “anti-Israel” when on the BBC TV debate.
To think otherwise is the naivety raised by the Major earlier in the thread. The only reason Labour won’t retreat from their anti-Semitic stance is fear of losing the Muslim immigrant vote. It’s clear as day, but can never be spoken.

by **TrPrado** » Thu May 02, 2019 6:54 pm

Ehhhh, the line can be a bit hazy sometimes and the boundary gets pushed, but there’s a difference between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

by **Senlac** » Thu May 02, 2019 6:39 pm

TrPrado wrote: ↑
Thu May 02, 2019 6:26 pm
There are certainly those on the left who take anti-Zionism to its most anti-Semitic extreme, but I think it’d be folly to chalk that up to trying to gain migrant support.

Nope, just dirty politics as usual. That’s very likely exactly what they have been doing to win elections in largely Muslim constituencies. What chance does a Pro Israel candidate have with such an electorate. None.

by **TrPrado** » Thu May 02, 2019 6:26 pm

There are certainly those on the left who take anti-Zionism to its most anti-Semitic extreme, but I think it’d be folly to chalk that up to trying to gain migrant support.

Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations

Re: Multiculturalism Ruins Nations