Muslims in Western countries need to assimilate for their own sake and this is why

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Bin Laden had a huge stash of porn.
www.reuters.com...

Bin Laden was not a Muslim. he was an agent.

Agent of what???

the Powers that Be.

I don't PERSONALLY care if they wanna wear burkas or whatever. They can act as Islamic as they want and I don't care as long as they're not taking violent verses literally.

But I think for their own sake, they need to 'do as the Romans do' to some degree, because many Europeans and other Westerners feel like they are 'taking over' and I fear they (the West) might overreact tragically if the economy continues to worsen.

The reason the Holocaust happened was because the Jewish people segregated themselves (some of it was forced yes, but mostly Jews chose to live in ghettos, which were not necessarily run down like today's ghettos) and Europeans got paranoid and thought Jews wanted to turn the entire society Jewish.

reply to post by lifeissacred


True true,

Your post reminds me of my time in Perth,

Perth is the Capital of western Australia and is aparantly the most isolated city over 1 million in the world. When I first moved to there I couldnt believe how racist the locals all were towards Aboriginals. I was personaly disgusted and thought of them all as ignorant rednecks, I made a point of not hanging round anyone who I heard saying racist things (My first few weeks were very lonely).

Catching a train home from work one day I got off at my station and realised I left my wallet somewhere, I ran to the station master and he got the driver to check the train and it wasnt there. I found a phone box and called my bank to cancel my cards then called the police to report it missing. While I was on the phone 3 Aboriginal kids came up (14-16) and 1 asked for 2 dollars, due to the fact the police were giving me a hard time and I had just lost my wallet I wasnt in the greatest mood and very abrutly said "Sorry I dont have any money on me" he then came closer and in a threatening tone said "gimme some money now" I was too angry at losing my wallet to be scared so I turned back and said "Mate I just told you I dont have any money". He came right up to me and said "give me your wallet now" I had to laugh and said "Im on the phone as we speak to the cops reporting my wallet lost, maybe you can ask them if they can help ya out with some money" After that he changed his tone and said "I was just kidding haha" and walked off.

I put this down to an isolated incident and didnt think of it until 2 days later when I was verbally abused by several drunk Aboriginals walking through the city, unfortunately the list goes on, abuse, a fight, vandalism etc etc

After this I thought no wonder people in Perth dont like Aboriginals if this is all they ever see of them.
I think the same thing is happening in the west now with Muslims, all people see in the media are carefully placed propaganda pieces that dont reflect well on Muslims and then at home they have the dregs of muslim society in their countries disrespecting their laws, living off welfare that comes from their taxes, expecting people to adapt to their presence when their the ones who are in a new country etc etc

Being honest I can see and understand why most people dont like Muslims and I cant really blame them

left wing (or liberal left wing) infestation of the establishment in Europe over several decades has led to two things (amongst many others) pertinent to this issue:



* the degradation of our social structures, in particular the family and a resultant increase in individual and degenerate behaviour

* a large scale immigration policy, often from muslims nations, in particular the indian sub continent of pakistan and bangladesh


Bring these two together and you have a problem


The traitorous elite now apparently don't think multi culturalism is a good thing (they really do, though in public they have to come off with sound bites against it) even though 10 years ago they deemed those who opposed it (ie most of us )as racists


Brilliant eh

Originally posted by descartes90
The reason the Holocaust happened was because the Jewish people segregated themselves (some of it was forced yes, but mostly Jews chose to live in ghettos, which were not necessarily run down like today's ghettos) and Europeans got paranoid and thought Jews wanted to turn the entire society Jewish.

edit on 15-5-2011 by descartes90 because: (no reason given)

And yet we vilify Hitler for what the Jews did to themselves? That just doesn't seem fair.

"The Holocaust happened because Jewish people segregated themselves"

That just takes the cake for me when it comes to the craziest, most ignorant comments I've ever read. And just to clarify so you don't get hot under the collar, I'm not referring to you.. I refer to your comment.

I think responsibility for the Holocaust extends a little bit beyond those that they marched one by one into the furnaces. But that's just my opinion.

I feel that the efforts being made here to discuss whether or not Muslim cultures should assimilate into Western civilization are completely futile when the feeling exists that the Jewish population is responsible for the Holocaust. I think I'll bow out of this discussion before I have to read any more of this.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by descartes90
The reason the Holocaust happened was because the Jewish people segregated themselves (some of it was forced yes, but mostly Jews chose to live in ghettos, which were not necessarily run down like today's ghettos) and Europeans got paranoid and thought Jews wanted to turn the entire society Jewish.

edit on 15-5-2011 by descartes90 because: (no reason given)

And yet we vilify Hitler for what the Jews did to themselves? That just doesn't seem fair.

"The Holocaust happened because Jewish people segregated themselves"

That just takes the cake for me when it comes to the craziest, most ignorant comments I've ever read. And just to clarify so you don't get hot under the collar, I'm not referring to you.. I refer to your comment.

I think responsibility for the Holocaust extends a little bit beyond those that they marched one by one into the furnaces. But that's just my opinion.

I feel that the efforts being made here to discuss whether or not Muslim cultures should assimilate into Western civilization are completely futile when the feeling exists that the Jewish population is responsible for the Holocaust. I think I'll bow out of this discussion before I have to read any more of this.

I don't think the Jews are responsible for it, I'm just saying the reason Europeans hated them was because (some of them) did not make an effort to do as the Romans do, instead, they made a bunch of little Israels in Europe. The Islamic population in Europe is much the same, many do respect the native people and adapt, but many also create their own Little Arabias within Europe.

I know it's kinda offensive to say ANYTHING possibly negative about the Jewish people, since what happened to them is so horrible it's essentially akin to speaking ill of the dead. But the truth is, the ghettos they lived in, were not bad places they were forced to live in, they willingly lived there, at least at first, to be with fellow Jews. Of course they weren't always in the best parts of town, but it's not like the Jewish population was aching to be assimilated.

reply to post by descartes90


Ok, now what about us black american muslims? And the white american muslims?? What you're describing is 95% ARAB culture. Go around some american muslims, ones whose culture is the american culture, then try telling us ALL to assimilate.

reply to post by descartes90


You're contradicting yourself. And you're speaking for a population that I can only assume you don't represent.

If the need to assimilate is illustrated by the Holocaust, wouldn't that reflect that those pushing for assimilation are in the wrong, similar to how the Nazi regime was in the wrong? We do agree they were in the wrong, right?

Or was there agenda justified, just carried out incorrectly?

I feel you're supporting an agenda that is documented in history and you're standing on the wrong side of history on this issue.

reply to post by blueorder

the degradation of our social structures, in particular the family and a resultant increase in individual and degenerate behaviour

How is this being degraded by 'the liberal left' as you put it? And why is an increase in individual behaviour a bad thing?

In the past social structures have been nothing more than an expression of the establishment's oppression of peoples for their own gain. For example, religion as a means of control, monarchy as an expression of the state's complete authority etc. If one is to defend social structure (as you are) then they are inadvertently defending 'the elite'. Social structure by definition infers that certain people have more rights than others or that there is a certain limit to individual liberty (as a libertarian I cannot condone preventing a person to have maximum individual liberty). What you percieve as threatening 'social structure' (the elite) is actually a symptom OF social structure.
Individualism and a disregard of the established social structure in favour of personal liberty is the solution to the issues the west is facing, it is not the problem.

Also

The notion of family being 'degraded' is hardly anything new. Many would associate the 'breakdown of the family' to the modern abandonment of religious morals which is merely a result of scientific development. Personally I believe in God and that the family is very important to the development of individuals.

On immigration, in our current system we need population growth, without immigrants our population would decline and age. All developed societies rely on population growth in order to foster economic growth. i.e. the more people who work and pay tax, the more we develop. This is the underlying fault with the capitalist system. It is sustained only by what is unsustainable, growth. Hence to offset the lack of growth governments have to encourage re-settlement from places which have surplus populations.

Looking at other interpretations of immigration outside of the economic factors, shouldn't people have the right to live wherever they want? As a libertarian it's my view that states and governments have no right in telling people where they can and cannot go, with exception to encroachment on another individual's personal property. A person has the right to live where they want, if they can traverse the natural boundaries of the planet then there is no reason to prevent them from settling in another place as we have seen consistently throughout history. Populations have always changed, we ourselves in Britain are essentially a nation of immigrants (our culture, values and language have changed successively as more people from various places came to these islands)

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by descartes90

 

Ok, now what about us black american muslims? And the white american muslims?? What you're describing is 95% ARAB culture. Go around some american muslims, ones whose culture is the american culture, then try telling us ALL to assimilate.

I'm not saying you should totally assimilate ... as in give up your beliefs ... i'm just saying you have to respect the people around you. when in rome.

Originally posted by chissler
reply to post by descartes90

 

You're contradicting yourself. And you're speaking for a population that I can only assume you don't represent.

If the need to assimilate is illustrated by the Holocaust, wouldn't that reflect that those pushing for assimilation are in the wrong, similar to how the Nazi regime was in the wrong? We do agree they were in the wrong, right?

Or was there agenda justified, just carried out incorrectly?

I feel you're supporting an agenda that is documented in history and you're standing on the wrong side of history on this issue.

Of course they [Nazis] were wrong. I don't personally have a problem with the creation of ethnic enclaves. But I worry about them because when a geographic area ghettoizes into segregated ethnic areas, with cultures that do not complement each other (Singapore for example, is multi-ethnic, but the reason they do not commit genocide is because Singapore is a police state and the cultures get along well), it often leads to genocide.

I'm not "victim-blaming" or anything, I'm just saying I have a gut feeling that the Europeans are about to come down HARD on the Muslims there, and I really really hope that doesn't happen.

reply to post by descartes90


I think you're showing a horribly ignorant side in believing that all muslims are from other countries

I know many muslims that are very assimilated to our ways, yet the public will be worked up over one guy bitching over something they agree with.


Again stating, I know many muslims who appreciate american values, some born here, some born from other countries.

But you know what? That's not an interesting news story. Here's a thought: Stop believing everything the media shuffles into your mind. They unconciously make you afraid of muslims, and then they criticize you when you are afraid of muslims...

Would people get in touch with reality already?

Originally posted by lifeissacred
How is this being degraded by 'the liberal left' as you put it? And why is an increase in individual behaviour a bad thing?

Take the British example then, take crime, it has absoloutely sky rocketed compared with the 1950s for example, and poverty is not the excuse as people were much poorer then- so, for just one example, the fact that more people are raped, robbed and murdered due to these breakdowns and increase in individualism

In the past social structures have been nothing more than an expression of the establishment's oppression of peoples for their own gain. For example, religion as a means of control, monarchy as an expression of the state's complete authority etc. If one is to defend social structure (as you are) then they are inadvertently defending 'the elite'. Social structure by definition infers that certain people have more rights than others or that there is a certain limit to individual liberty (as a libertarian I cannot condone preventing a person to have maximum individual liberty). What you percieve as threatening 'social structure' (the elite) is actually a symptom OF social structure. Cut out the class system and rid nations of ruling classes and a sideaffect of that is there will no longer be a traditional social structure (which we still have)
Individualism and a disregard of the established social structure in favour of personal liberty is the solution to the issues the west is facing, it is not the problem.

I can indulge in a wider debate about structures and breakdown in any notion of respect for authority (and you can shove your class warfare stuff, as I mean something so basic as respecting a working class bus conductor), but specifically the family structure, and the traditional family structure at that, is the bedrock of any civilisation- now I realise that someone can grow up in a single parent family and be well adjusted and the reverse with someone who has two parents, but , in terms of general trends and wider societal issues, single parent families are MUCH more likely to lead to educational problems, crime etc

The notion of family being 'degraded' is hardly anything new. Many would associate the 'breakdown of the family' to the modern abandonment of religious morals which is merely a result of scientific development.

hence I said "decades", these elitist traitors have infested our establishments for many years- yes, single parent families are a result of "scientific developent"- aye, dead on, have a trip around many of the sink estates

On immigration, in our current system we need population growth, without immigrants our population would decline and age.

ANOTHER consequence of the assault on traditional norms and family structure- how about promote growth of the traditional family instead of importing ridiculous numbers of immigrants with the associated social costs and cohesiveness issues

All developed societies rely on population growth in order to foster economic growth. i.e. the more people who work and pay tax, the more we develop. This is the underlying fault with the capitalist system. It is sustained only by what is unsustainable, growth.

Immigration is MUCH more complex than that

Looking at other interpretations of immigration outside of the economic factors, shouldn't people have the right to live wherever they want?

I believe in the nation state, so no

As a libertarian it's my view that states and governments have no right in telling people where they can and cannot go, with exception to encroachment on another individual's personal property. A person has the right to live where they want, if they can traverse the natural boundaries of the planet then there is no reason to prevent them from settling in another place as we have seen consistently throughout history.

If you do not believe in the nation state or any sort of ability to plan services, education, health etc, then you may think that- I do not subscribe to such deluded thinking

Populations have always changed, we ourselves in Britain are essentially a nation of immigrants.

Classic liberal/left nonsense, meant to try and disturb national cohesiveness- there has not been an influx of immigrants on the scale of which we have experienced in the last few decades for 1,000+ years so it is absoloutely irrelevant to discussions now- we used to burn witches in the past, should we reinstate that?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by descartes90

 

I think you're showing a horribly ignorant side in believing that all muslims are from other countries

I know many muslims that are very assimilated to our ways, yet the public will be worked up over one guy bitching over something they agree with.


Again stating, I know many muslims who appreciate american values, some born here, some born from other countries.

But you know what? That's not an interesting news story. Here's a thought: Stop believing everything the media shuffles into your mind. They unconciously make you afraid of muslims, and then they criticize you when you are afraid of muslims...

Would people get in touch with reality already?

I have nothing against Muslims. I don't think they were behind September 11, I do not think they are the 'enemy' like many people do. I'm not fond of Islam, but then again I'm not fond of any of the Abrahamic faiths.

The truth is most Muslims are from other countries, or are descended from recent immigrants. I agree though, many if not most Muslims are very Western culturally.

I'm just worried that non-Muslim Western people are gonna strike brutally at the Muslims, most of whom are perfectly decent people too. And not wearing burkas and learning the local language isn't that much to give up, and it might even prevent horrible things from happening.

reply to post by descartes90


I'm from Baltimore, living in Atlanta, have never heard of any honor killings going on, have never blown anything up, don't drink (as some people of other faiths choose not to), don't smoke, avoid drugs, avoid porn, played basketball in high school, am going to college, drive a toyota, pay taxes, own a gun, pray 5 times a day, meditate, and would NEVER move, what the hell more do you want? I believe people just want me to STOP being muslim because it offends them that my wife covers her hair.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by descartes90

 

I'm from Baltimore, living in Atlanta, have never heard of any honor killings going on, have never blown anything up, don't drink (as some people of other faiths choose not to), don't smoke, avoid drugs, avoid porn, played basketball in high school, am going to college, drive a toyota, pay taxes, own a gun, pray 5 times a day, meditate, and would NEVER move, what the hell more do you want? I believe people just want me to STOP being muslim because it offends them that my wife covers her hair.

I don't think you should give up your faith. Personally, I could care less what you do. I'm just saying that the reason why the Europeans committed the Holocaust is because they had an irrational fear that the Jewish enclaves would swallow up their whole culture, and modern Westerners today fear the same thing about Muslims. If our economy continues to get worse, it's VERY possible history could repeat itself, I'm afraid. You sound like you respect the local culture of where you live, so imo you have already done what you should do to prevent hatred towards your people.

reply to post by descartes90


I know a few women who make the choice to wear a niqaab (nobody in America calls them burqas and most muslims who AREN'T from Pakistan laugh at that word) so why should they not be allowed? I have no problem with saying the immigrant muslims should learn the language but why change their dress? If a woman can walk around in a swim suit with butt and breasts hanging out, why can't another woman cover it all up?

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by descartes90

 

I know a few women who make the choice to wear a niqaab (nobody in America calls them burqas and most muslims who AREN'T from Pakistan laugh at that word) so why should they not be allowed? I have no problem with saying the immigrant muslims should learn the language but why change their dress? If a woman can walk around in a swim suit with butt and breasts hanging out, why can't another woman cover it all up?

Hmmmm Good point. The Niqaab is just an example, I'm just saying in essence that the Melting Pot multiculturalism in general works better than the "Salad Bowl" kind.

This has got to be the dumbest thread I've ever seen, and I usually hang out in the "chemtrail" forum.

Muslims are people, Deal with it.

They have the right to be here. Deal with it.

They have the right to wear what they want. Deal with it.

No one has the right to tell them how to act if they are not breaking a law. Deal with it.

If you can't deal with it, tough. Your opinion does not trump the constitution.

If you are not a fan of America's policy on individual freedom, thats too bad. It's just not your choice.

If you want to change something, you have to take political action instead of just tell people how to be. They're your rights, get to know them.

I hope the next time you fly you have to sit next to a Muslim, just so you are consumed by your misplaced ignorant fear for the duration of the flight. Maybe then you will start to realize how idiotic you truly sound.

Take the British example then, take crime, it has absoloutely sky rocketed compared with the 1950s for example, and poverty is not the excuse as people were much poorer then- so, for just one example, the fact that more people are raped, robbed and murdered due to these breakdowns and increase in individualism

This is nothing to do with individualism and is attributed much more towards the 'degradation of the family'. Something which I agree is a major problem, though I'm much more inclined to view the rise in crime as a result of lack of social education i.e. 'knowing what makes good parenting'

From the telegraph:

More people were beaten up or stabbed in his Birkenhead constituency than in the whole of the country a century ago. The root cause of these ills was "the growing collapse in the art of good parenting", he said Mr Field argued that families were the best place to develop "a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions, a thoughtfulness for others and a growing sense of self-government", he said. Mr Field praised a report from the think tank the Centre for Social Justice which said Britain faced social collapse. It warned the UK would be saddled with "generation of disturbed and aggressive young people doomed to repeat and amplify the social breakdown disfiguring their lives and others around them". Mr Field said Britain was now entering a "social crisis [which is] every bit as dramatic as the economic recession into which we are entering." He called for parent lessons to be part of the national curriculum using English literature books and "science lessons on how the animal kingdom nurtures its young".

Lack of personal responsibility, individuality and self-control are the root causes of crime in Britain today, such actions being all too often stimulated and encouraged by the ever widening gap between rich and poor and the endearment many people have for the 'upper-crust' as is pushed by mass media. Whilst people may not be as poor as they were in history, the relative proximity of the rich to the poor nowadays makes crime for profit much more common.

but specifically the family structure, and the traditional family structure at that, is the bedrock of any civilisation- now I realise that someone can grow up in a single parent family and be well adjusted and the reverse with someone who has two parents, but , in terms of general trends and wider societal issues, single parent families are MUCH more likely to lead to educational problems, crime etc

Again I agree with you 100% but looking at individualism as the cause of this would be incorrect. People who lack self-control, discipline and a sense of individual freedom and responsibility are naturally unable to function effectively within a family, something which should be organised horizontally and equally, not hierarchically (I'll develop this point later on). This in my opinion is the root cause of the 'breakdown of the traditional family'.

single parent families are a result of "scientific developent"- aye, dead on, have a trip around many of the sink estates

I never said that, I said lack of religious morals (which reinforce the notion of 'family structure') are a result of scientific development.

how about promote growth of the traditional family instead of importing ridiculous numbers of immigrants with the associated social costs and cohesiveness issues

Yes, if you want to maintain the current system that would be an option, however it's extremely hard to maintain a large family nowadays especially given rising costs of living and a lack of social welfare and benefit systems which encourage growth of families. As a mere matter of utility it is much more viable to allow immigration to foster population growth as opposed to spending multiple billions and many years encouraging the host population to increase themselves (though in most cases they do not factor in the social tension which would result).
As well as that there is also emigration to take into account, hundreds of thousands leave Britain every year, this population decline needs to be made up for somehow, the swiftest way to do so is immigration.

If you do not believe in the nation state or any sort of ability to plan services, education, health etc, then you may think that- I do not subscribe to such deluded thinking

It doesn't take a nation state to 'plan services, education and health etc' all it needs is a voluntary administrative organisation. Nation states are organised hierarchically, without a nation state society could be organised horizontally in order to maximise the benefits of having healthcare systems, education etc. Nation states are a result of a ruling class excerting authority over the majority, the foundation of the nationstate was the tribal kingdom, (in Britain for example it was the individual celtic tribes which frequently fought eachother, upon the arrival of the saxons, angles, jutes, vikings it was divided into many kingdoms and tribal areas, later one dominant group subjugated every person under one monarchy etc.

Classic liberal/left nonsense, meant to try and disturb national cohesiveness- there has not been an influx of immigrants on the scale of which we have experienced in the last few decades for 1,000+ years so it is absoloutely irrelevant to discussions now- we used to burn witches in the past, should we reinstate that?

Are we not a nation of immigrants or at least a culture of immigrants? Our culture is constantly changing and has successively changed as a result of foreign peoples and cultures affecting us. The protestant reformation, the rennaisance etc, two major events affecting our history and none of these were born in Britain, they are all foreign in origin. The rennaisance is largely the result of the preservation of Classical European knowledge by Islamic societies and came initially from Southern Europe via trade etc. Protestantism being from Northern Germany etc.

Britain has historically been the centre of the world, we've always accepted foreign peoples into our country, why should this stop now? If you look far enough into your ancestry you're bound to find an immigrant or two within one or two hundred years or so. The same goes for kids nowdays, people are assimilating, those whose parents came here from abroad will eventually be part of what people like to refer to as the 'ethnic British'. The ethnic make-up of nations has always and always will develop, it's nature.

It's not 'liberal/left nonsense' it's common sense, there is no use in feeling threatened by people. We have no reason to be afraid of immigrants so long as the principles of personal responsibility and individual liberty are foremost in our culture.