The lie of multiculturalism

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have specific statistics to support your opinions or is this simply going to be a subjective rant.

Personally, I enjoy living in a large city that provides me with many options in terms of dining and entertainment. I, too, have seen the old neighborhoods change with the changing demographics. Some have become poorer and more.run sown, while others that had become unfashionable have been revived and become extremely desirable.

Multiculturalism is not a lie, it has been responsible for the growth of human civilization since the earliest times.

You might want to research some actual history. Every civilization that integrated multiculturaly, destroyed itself within about 100 years. The Roman Empire is a good example, as well as the Babylonians if you want to do a bit of reading. Two huge powerful civilizations, pffft, done.

You might want to give your head a shake, check reality and tell us which present multicultural societies are doing well and are not on the fast track towards national implosion. I can tell you Canada is doomed, England's pooched, the US is almost totaled. Yeah, the multi-culti and PC crap is doing a world of good. /sarcasm off

Cheers - Dave

What 'civilisation' that ever colonised an existing 'civilisation' ever succeeded?

You've got sand in your mouth.

Å99

It works if the immigrating group actually wants to be a part of their new home. In other words, assimilate. It seems to me, that the first few waves of immigrants would assimilate more efficiently, but with more struggle, than later waves of immigrants. They have no choice because learning the local customs is the only way to get by. But when later waves come along, their is already a community in place for them to feel comfortable in. They are more content to stay the same because it is more difficult to change. Why change if you don't have to?

So then when you have a bunch of people who don't want to change, living and working together, it causes problems. Things don't run as smoothly, because there is a lack of lubricant in the machinery. Manners and etiquette are the lubrication of society. When two parts of the machine come into contact, a form of lubrication between them is needed, people are no different.

But different cultures have different ways of dealing with this. The host nation rightfully expects to retain their culture, even knowing it will be changed in various ways they expect their most treasured parts of their culture to remain. This can be maintained by limiting immigration so the two cultures have time to acclimate. You do it gradually. A sudden influx of people who are not accustomed to the ways of the nation they are migrating to will cause all sorts of mayhem. That should be obvious.

a reply to: 3n19m470


"But different cultures have different ways of dealing with this. The host nation rightfully expects to retain their culture, even knowing it will be changed in various ways they expect their most treasured parts of their culture to remain. This can be maintained by limiting immigration so the two cultures have time to acclimate. You do it gradually. A sudden influx of people who are not accustomed to the ways of the nation they are migrating to will cause all sorts of mayhem. That should be obvious." Quote 3n19m470

...or you could round 'em up and stick 'em in reservations...

Å99

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Canada is far from doomed. Multiculturalism has worked in major Canadian cities and in some rural areas where immigrants can practice farming.

when talking about LA, Detroit or London, these large cities have more,than immigration causing problems, and they are not,any standard for the rest of the world to look to on immigration.

multiculturalism means both sides need to adjust. Not just the new folk. Racial purists whether immigrant or locals always have trouble with this part.

originally posted by: passit
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Canada is far from doomed. Multiculturalism has worked in major Canadian cities and in some rural areas where immigrants can practice farming.

when talking about LA, Detroit or London, these large cities have more,than immigration causing problems, and they are not,any standard for the rest of the world to look to on immigration.

multiculturalism means both sides need to adjust. Not just the new folk. Racial purists whether immigrant or locals always have trouble with this part.

Hitler thought he was 'racially pure'...that's funny...

Å99

originally posted by: rowanflame
I'm so sick of these rich politicians who live in "choice" areas talking about how multiculturalism is supposedly a great thing. As someone who actually has lived this and seen my area in London change into one of the most multicultural boroughs I completely refute what they say. They don't live it and therefore are not qualified to talk on the subject.

Everything in my area has steadily declined since it has become more multicultural. The whole area has become more dirty, dysfunctional, increase in crime, decrease in employment, increase in drugs, decrease in school grades, decrease in services, local businesses, decrease in the etiquette people show for one another, people becoming like animals. I find the whole thing disgusting and can say with 100% certainty that no civilisation can be built or maintained off the backs of such a community. If immigration into London is not halted within 100 years London will be a huge ghetto where only the poorest will be forced to live, I suspect anyone with money will either have moved way out to some gated town or left the country completely.

I don't know about London, but the "multi-cultural," i.e. extremely diverse, immigrant filled from all over the world, cities of the U.S., such as L.A., NYC, and SF, are the economic powerhouses of the US. They also are some of the most creative and forward thinking places compared to the opposite. I know, I grew up in the San Francisco area and now currently live in New York City. I've also lived in places like Arizona, and abroad.

I'm not certain that your hypothesis as to the roots of the problem is a correct diagnosis.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I'm not quite what you are actually on about, but to claim that the fall of the roman empire, and Babylon (which was really a city, then a city state, no where near the standing of the roman empire) was solely due to multiculturalism is to be completely ignorant of actual history. Babylon was pretty much ALWAYS ruled by foreigners, not like they ever had some type of golden age with some type of "pure" culture - they pretty much invented modern society - one of the first cities where people of diverse backgrounds intermingled -

The Roman empire collapsed for a number of reasons, and it can be argued it never really went away, it's just adapted, the Roman Catholic Church still holds much sway in the world, and it is a Roman institution. To say multiculturalism was the cause of their collapse, I disagree, I think it was very much the reason they exploded in growth - the ability to absorb their neighbors, through diplomacy or force, and make them "Roman". I will agree they overextended their borders, and made a great many enemy, but if they weren't able to assimilate their neighbors, they would of never been an empire.

a reply to: Lipton

Soooo... multiculturalism = illegal immigration? And for someone who labels someone else a "label-loving", you use quite a number of labels in your own post...

Sigh, this is the future..

Soon we will all be the same...

It is our destiny it is a outcome of our design..

The cultures that succeeded have now been taught that everything is equal now and must accept it..

I guess the goal here is for many years from now have no culture...

Perhaps at that time when we all look the same we will finally all get along, and figure out how to get off this planet...

So we exist in a timeline where the catalyst to this portion of evolution is in effect...

Whether it succeeds or fails is the question..

If history tells us anything...

IT FAILS once again..

As a matter a fact this has happened before in history...

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have specific statistics to support your opinions or is this simply going to be a subjective rant.

Personally, I enjoy living in a large city that provides me with many options in terms of dining and entertainment. I, too, have seen the old neighborhoods change with the changing demographics. Some have become poorer and more.run sown, while others that had become unfashionable have been revived and become extremely desirable.

Multiculturalism is not a lie, it has been responsible for the growth of human civilization since the earliest times.

You might want to research some actual history. Every civilization that integrated multiculturaly, destroyed itself within about 100 years. The Roman Empire is a good example, as well as the Babylonians if you want to do a bit of reading. Two huge powerful civilizations, pffft, done.

You might want to give your head a shake, check reality and tell us which present multicultural societies are doing well and are not on the fast track towards national implosion. I can tell you Canada is doomed, England's pooched, the US is almost totaled. Yeah, the multi-culti and PC crap is doing a world of good. /sarcasm off

Cheers - Dave

What 'civilisation' that ever colonised an existing 'civilisation' ever succeeded?

You've got sand in your mouth.

Å99

It would seem you have a problem with comprehension, maybe it's a language thing ;-) The point is, is that multicultural integration in any previous society according to known historical records destroyed the host society. Let's look at it as host and parasite shall we, if we do that, we can call the native american indians the host society and the europeans the parasites. Using that example, your argument fails and mine still stands. Let's try some critical thinking and a little research, huh?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Bicent76

How would multiculturalism equal "no culture"? Cultures differ neighborhood to neighborhood in the same towns. The only way we would have "no" culture is if we were all dead. These arguments seem to be more aimed at the fear that the current or past "popular" culture is at threat from other competing, currently growing differing cultures.

originally posted by: passit
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Canada is far from doomed. Multiculturalism has worked in major Canadian cities and in some rural areas where immigrants can practice farming.

when talking about LA, Detroit or London, these large cities have more,than immigration causing problems, and they are not,any standard for the rest of the world to look to on immigration.

multiculturalism means both sides need to adjust. Not just the new folk. Racial purists whether immigrant or locals always have trouble with this part.

I have to stop drinking coke while I read these responses, it tends to shoot out my nose as I laugh. No, both sides DO NOT have to adjust, assimilate or leave. This is the problem, society gets all murkey, there's no consensus and as far as governments go, they can run rampant because there is no central focus because of a fractured self-interested society. This is the tail waggin the dog, it's what we have now. 3-7% of the population (special interest groups using lobbyists) control governmental direction. It's not a democracy and it's both ethically and morally wrong, but the only way to get to this point is by making smaller and smaller groups of self interested multi-cult communities that will never agree on the central problem.

You can't fix the problem with governments or their handlers unless you have majority consensus among the people. Unfortunately, you can never have consensus when all groups in a multi-cult environment are pulling for themselves and forgetting about everyone else.

Because of this aspect of multi-culturalism, society fractures to an unrecoverable tipping point, services get overburdened and fail, infrastructure fails, politicians fail and of course, monetary systems fail, the society fails. Wait a few more years, you'll see it in full blown action as we accelerate down the slide.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have specific statistics to support your opinions or is this simply going to be a subjective rant.

Personally, I enjoy living in a large city that provides me with many options in terms of dining and entertainment. I, too, have seen the old neighborhoods change with the changing demographics. Some have become poorer and more.run sown, while others that had become unfashionable have been revived and become extremely desirable.

Multiculturalism is not a lie, it has been responsible for the growth of human civilization since the earliest times.

You might want to research some actual history. Every civilization that integrated multiculturaly, destroyed itself within about 100 years. The Roman Empire is a good example, as well as the Babylonians if you want to do a bit of reading. Two huge powerful civilizations, pffft, done.

You might want to give your head a shake, check reality and tell us which present multicultural societies are doing well and are not on the fast track towards national implosion. I can tell you Canada is doomed, England's pooched, the US is almost totaled. Yeah, the multi-culti and PC crap is doing a world of good. /sarcasm off

Cheers - Dave

What 'civilisation' that ever colonised an existing 'civilisation' ever succeeded?

You've got sand in your mouth.

Å99

It would seem you have a problem with comprehension, maybe it's a language thing ;-) The point is, is that multicultural integration in any previous society according to known historical records destroyed the host society. Let's look at it as host and parasite shall we, if we do that, we can call the native american indians the host society and the europeans the parasites. Using that example, your argument fails and mine still stands. Let's try some critical thinking and a little research, huh?

Cheers - Dave

'Comprehension' - very good! A+ for you...you are correct...any 'parasitic' entity will be abhorred...in your example, this could only be true for PURE blooded natives of nations...how can this be said of Brit and US?..it can't...and therefore, by dent of generations, cannot claim the culture.

This multicultural red herring is economic...
I'll repeat it (because no genius has cared to reply)...
Affluent neighbourhoods do not have a problem with a culturally diverse makeup...

We see nothing resembling the leg-chewing that goes on amongst the redneck populations of poorer neighbourhoods (bless thier hearts)...from whatever racial background they come from...

Got a theory?

Å99

Yes because London has ALWAYS been the prime location to live, as opposed to the original slums of the modern industrial age.....
The "wogs" bring so much filth ey guvnah? Miss the good ol' days eh?

London slums arose initially as a result of rapid population growth and industrialisation. They became notorious for overcrowding, unsanitary and squalid living conditions. Most well-off Victorians were ignorant or pretended to be ignorant of the subhuman slum life, and many, who heard about it, believed that the slums were the outcome of laziness, sin and vice of the lower classes. However, a number of socially conscious writers, social investigators, moral reformers, preachers and journalists, who sought solution to this urban malady in the second half of the nineteenth century, argued convincingly that the growth of slums was caused by poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and homelessness.

www.victorianweb.org...


Fresh sewerage anyone?

In an article published on 24th September '49 he described a London Street with a tidal ditch running through it, into which drains and sewers emptied. The ditch contained the only water the people in the street had to drink, and it was ‘the colour of strong green tea’, in fact it was ‘more like watery mud than muddy water’. This is the report he gave:

‘As we gazed in horror at it, we saw drains and sewers emptying their filthy contents into it; we saw a whole tier of doorless privies in the open road, common to men and women built over it; we heard bucket after bucket of filth splash into it’ (2).

Mayhew’s articles were later published in a book called London Labour and the London Poor and in the introduction he wrote:

‘…the condition of a class of people whose misery, ignorance, and vice, amidst all the immense wealth and great knowledge of “the first city in the world”, is, to say the very least, a national disgrace to us’ (3).

www.hiddenlives.org.uk...

what about the good ol crack days...the gin craze...they had no clean water so over half the cities population drank gin daily and got drunk for a penny, Londons gin craze was THE highest urban gender non specific addictive substance pandemic in history. Men and women slaughtered drunk and dying from gin.
But that was the good ol days eh when brits were brits and no wogs in the making filth n trouble.

Customers could get "drunk for a penny and dead drunk for two pence." Sometimes the retailer even threw into the deal a straw pallet on which to sleep off the stupor in a back room.

London now learned the terrors of mass drunkenness, as public intoxication became an everyday sight. Gin contributed to the dangerous volatility of street mobs, and crime increased greatly.

It was in this frightening context that Fielding created the "Bow Street runners," predecessors of the modern London police.

The family life of the gin-sodden poor was depraved.

OP know you're own history and stop making yourself look stupid.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
How exactly would a majority population consensus fix governmental corruption, and what, exactly, would that consensus be, in your opinion, to "fix" this problem?

a reply to: Syyth007

let me break down into smaller portions..

We all become the same culture...

Also we all look the same...

If their was a god, I think he would have thought of this first...

Yet we will never all really look the same or have the same culture..

Yes you stand corrected..

As I said before this has happened before...

So what I am saying, is either we find a way to assimilate and be part of something bigger then just ourselves and how we feel just about our self or we keep doing this over and over again..

Maybe it will be different when we all look the same... Yet we still will not all talk the same.. So that will be the new complaint, or dysfunction in sociology.. Or it may just remain the constant... CLASS..
In either case.. Good luck with finding harmony among the world.. Last I checked the last person that wanted that was John Lenon.

You see what mankind does with dreamers...

originally posted by: Syyth007


Soooo... multiculturalism = illegal immigration? And for someone who labels someone else a "label-loving", you use quite a number of labels in your own post...

Reread my post. (NM apparently I offended someone delicate sensibilities) You're obviously attempting to twist what I wrote and label me as a closet racist.

It isn't working.

I don't give a fiddler's # what color someone is. I do however care if they sneak here in the cover of darkness rather than following the laws of their future host country.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

GTFO

Slow night at GLP? Or are you just so damned ignorant you can't articulate a fully thought out opinion without spewing hate filled vocal feces?

*shakes head*

And I most closely identify with the label "anarcho-libertarian" thank you.

Now go have a nice cold glass of... milk and calm the f### down.

Again, I'll reiterate, you're so white you're opaque. You have no idea what an "anarcho-libertarian" is and the opines of an apologetic schmuck mean little to me.

a reply to: Bicent76

How exactly does multiculturalism mean we will "all look the same"? Like I said in my earlier post, that is the antithesis of multiculturalism. When has there ever been one dominant culture where everyone looked the same, had the same cultural beliefs, etc? Why would you think that is in our future? Sit 10 people from the same immediate family, you will find plenty of ideas and beliefs they all disagree about. Ideas/beliefs what have you are all part of culture. We aren't automatons, and never will be.