A Closer Look at Multiculturalism

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There's nothing wrong with someone holding a religious fundamentalist viewpoint, just so long as their actions do not transgress the laws of their society.

When talking about immigrants, I am of the opinion that dominant culture should have a right to put up almost any however arbitrary condition they want to protect their cultural heritage and hegemony. This includes deporting every immigrant that holds a fundamentalist viewpoint, even if it is not against the law for actual citizens to hold these.

And yes, I do consider it wrong to hold such opinion (tough thoughtcrime should not be punished), and some actions from muslims here on ATS I have witnessed (such as posts advocating stoning or criminalisation of homosexuality) could get them up to a few years in prison in my country.

Anyone who flouts the reasonable laws of their nation displays a complete lack of respect for their society and others, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims. I've never understood this idea that Muslims should somehow be held to a higher standard than others.

Agreed.

I'm all for inclusion. No one should be discriminated against because of the color of their skin. But, I believe that the best person should be hired for a job, not the person that has a skin color that is underrepresented.

However, I work in a University and almost every big event has at least one speaker will go on and on about diversity. They have slogans like "Diversity is Strength". What does that even mean?

I work in the computer field. Most of the people in that field are male, and white, Asian, or from India. Underrepresented minorities remain underrepresented. Slogans don't program computers. It takes people with specific skill sets and the proper training.

When I hear people talking about how to improve diversity I have to assume that would be at the expense of people with European Ancestry. To me, this sounds just like racism. How can you increase the percentage of one race unless you decrease the percentage of another race.

I don't think that multiculturalism works. I think that it's wonderful if you celebrate things from your culture and keep your traditions alive but when you choose to live in a country, you should become a citizen of that country and embrace that countries culture. So I subscribe to the old and outdated melting pot theory of immigration.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I completely agree with you. There is a massive difference between tolerance and what the elite call "diversity". The diversity business is rubbish, social engineering at its lowest point and is a pox on both society and certainly on corporations.

All corporations today have diversity agendas, mostly to fight off law suits. They require mandatory training,implement subtle quota systems, all of it. Now, building a diverse team is smart. It makes the work environment more interesting and adds perspective to many types of functions that add to the team. That should be done however through smart hiring. All things being equal, choose a minority. There are plenty of smart minorities where that is possible in most professions. Perhaps not all and seeking for them is a burdensome cost, but in most. Getting grief from HR about the lack of African Americans on my team, in a state where the percentage of African Americans was far below the national average (about 3%), I solved the problem easily by switching colleges in my college recruiting program and targeted traditional black colleges and in so doing got absolute rock stars.

I've sat across the table from the EEOC. I've been sued by people for discrimination, I have been disposed and have had to discuss my rationale for laying off minorities. I've been asked to explain why I am not spending a disportionate amount of time mentoring minorities. Never lost a case, but the amount it takes to respond to such nonsense is outrageous. The tone is guilty before proven innocent. It is all crap.

Tolerance does not equal or has anything to do with "diversity"

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There's nothing wrong with someone holding a religious fundamentalist viewpoint, just so long as their actions do not transgress the laws of their society.

So there is nothing wrong with someone holding nazist viewpoint, just so long as their actions do not transgress the laws of their society?

You are missing one important fact - laws of the society are determined by majority in democracy (and often by influential and vocal minority in practice). There is no need to transgress the laws of the society when you can change them to suit your needs with mob rule. Nazism came to power though democratic elections.
Thats why european democracies realised anti-democratic opinions must be fought by anti-democratic means if necessary, and now embrace prevention - people and groups holding views against human rights such as nazis are monitored and actively prevented to spread and attain majority, even with anti-democratic means (restricting freedom of speech of such people and jailing them). You simply cannot effectively use democratic means against people who do not respect democracy and human rights.

The same should be done about muslim extremism - spread of such views should be prevented, even by antidemocratic means - restricting immigration of such people into the country in this case would be most effective solution now.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Diversity is no more 'mandatory' than the seasons or a full moon - Diversity Happens. It's not a 'mandate'. No one mandated it, so it's not mandatory, it's just the natural evolution of the population of the planet. We live together and share this rock.

We can get along or not.

You can resist it or get used to it. Your choice.

Many average people from all races and cultures view many laws and racial quotas as "forced" diversity.

some examples:

www.nytimes.com...
It is an open secret among personnel professionals that race-conscious hiring has become the rule, not the exception, since the 1971 Griggs ruling you refer to, and moreover that such practices are routinely camouflaged by statistical legerdemain or newspeak about what constitutes merit hiring. While employers often resort to quotas or other race-conscious hiring procedures to avoid litigation under Griggs, they must deny such practices publicly to avoid reverse discrimination suits. We need not wonder why employers are not coming forth to document the legacy of Griggs.

en.wikipedia.org...
Racial quotas in the United States began to be implemented with government approval after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially during the 1970s.[1] Richard Nixon's Labor Secretary George P. Schultz demanded that anti-black construction unions allow a certain number of black people into the unions.[1] The Department of Labor began enforcing these quotas across the country.[2] After a Supreme Court case, Griggs v. Duke Power Company, found that neutral application tests and procedures that still resulted in de facto segregation of employees (if previous discrimination had existed) were illegal, more companies began implementing quotas on their own.[2]

In a 1973 court case, a federal judge created one of the first mandated quotas when he ruled that half of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Department's new employees must be either black or Puerto Rican.[2] In 1974, the Department of Justice and the United Steelworkers of America came to an agreement on the largest-to-then quota program, for steel unions.[2]

In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.[1] The Court said that "goals" and "timetables" for diversity could be set instead.[2] A 1989 Supreme Court case, United Steelworkers v. Weber, found that private employers could set rigid numerical quotas, if they chose to do so.[1] In 1990, the Supreme Court found that a 10% racial quota for federal contractors was permitted.[2]

Then in 1991, President George H. W. Bush made an attempt to abolish affirmative action altogether claiming that “any regulation, rule, enforcement practice or other aspect of these programs that mandates, encourages, or otherwise involves the use of quotas, preferences, set-asides or other devices on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin are to be terminated as soon as is legally feasible." [3] This claim led up to the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, however the document was not able to implement these changes. It only covered the terms for settling cases where discrimination has been confirmed to have occurred.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...(United_Kingdom)


I guess if someone can't "get out" so to speak, they would be victims from both sides of the mirror.

Originally posted by allintoaccount

Originally posted by allintoaccount
can anybody comment on the fact that Mohammed is the most popular name for newborn boys in the u.k? And the fact that white british have on average 1.6 children per family and muslim families have considerably more. What will happen when the baby boomers die? In 50years time I predict the sharia law party will win power or may be an islamic national party will gain power and evict the indigenous . Does anybody care?

still waiting for some comments on this post, bit close to the bone I think.

2 immigrants with birthrate of 4 will have 120 children in 80 years. This
does not include the immigration of others into the country or relatives of
any of these. WW III in Europe will be fought in the child nurseries.
Islam is not a race but a Political/Religious cultic way of life that either
assimilates or destroys other cultures as it has done for 1400
years and 270 million killed.



The sheeple are paralyzed by fear.
Three terms people must understand.
Stockholm syndrome,Cultural Marxism, and Islamic Memes.

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2]

www.thesun.co.uk... White Britons a minority by ‘66 By GRAEME WILSON Published: 18 Nov 2010 Add a comment Add a comment (83) WHITE British people will be in a MINORITY in their own country by 2066, an expert warned last night. David Coleman, professor of demography at Oxford University, said they will make up less than HALF the population in just over 50 years. And soaring immigrant birthrates mean white British kids will be in a minority of youngsters in the UK even sooner. The dramatic decline will be fuelled by record-breaking levels of immigration, coupled with the departure of thousands of Brits for a better life abroad, th

Famous Islamic Rage Boy

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Well, race does not = culture today. You're correct. But it certainly did in the past

Not really. Culture has little to do with race.

A white Bosnian, Turk or Armenian is not culturally similar to a white Englishman.

The only reason why there's an historical link between race and culture is purely down to the fact that widespread travel and unforced migration didn't exist until the last hundred years or so.

Originally posted by Maslo
So there is nothing wrong with someone holding nazist viewpoint, just so long as their actions do not transgress the laws of their society?

Yes.

Please explain what harm a pro-Nazi's beliefs are causing to society.

Originally posted by Maslo
You are missing one important fact - laws of the society are determined by majority in democracy (and often by influential and vocal minority in practice). There is no need to transgress the laws of the society when you can change them to suit your needs with mob rule. Nazism came to power though democratic elections.

Which laws in modern, Western societies have been implemented as the result of religious fundamentalism or fanaticism ?

Yeah, democracy is just a more measured and controlled version of ochlocracy, but any agenda-driven religious or political extremist group will get pretty short shrift in a democratic society, because - despite the pessimistic wailing and gnashing of teeth of misanthropists - most people aren't arses.

Originally posted by Maslo
people and groups holding views against human rights such as nazis are monitored and actively prevented to spread and attain majority

There's no such thing as ''human rights''.

''Human rights'' is just as much a man-made philosophical concept as Nazism is.

An informed society will never tolerate extremist ideologies of any flavour.

Originally posted by Maslo
even with anti-democratic means (restricting freedom of speech of such people and jailing them). You simply cannot effectively use democratic means against people who do not respect democracy and human rights.

Again, this mythical, nebulous notion of ''human rights''. Have a word with yourself.

People's freedom of speech and liberty aren't restricted because of the political views that they hold, but because of the intent and potential consequence of their words.

Originally posted by Maslo
The same should be done about muslim extremism - spread of such views should be prevented, even by antidemocratic means

In England, incitement of racial or religious hatred is a crime. Incredibly enough, the laws in England apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion or irreligion.

I'm sure that most other European countries have similar legislation to stamp out irresponsible and hateful rhetoric which may be expressed by one of their citizens.

Originally posted by Maslo
restricting immigration of such people into the country in this case would be most effective solution now.

Eh ?

When you emigrate to another country you don't have to explain your religious or philosophical beliefs as one of the conditions to gain citizenry.

How exactly would you restrict the immigration of religious extremists ?

Your views aren't going to halt the inevitable influx of Muslim immigrants to Slovensko.

If multi-culturalism happens naturally so be it.

It's when the government gets involved with quotas and other such nonsense that makes me see red. England has it worse off than us in that respect I think. TPTB over there are bound and determined to pack that country shore to shore with immigrants. "Well, the Somali's are lagging a little behind these days, let's go round some up and bring them here. Look how wonderfully diverse we are!"

It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
It's when the government gets involved with quotas and other such nonsense that makes me see red. England has it worse off than us in that respect I think.

I agree that the it's wrong for the government, or any other authority, to dictate quotas along arbitrary, rather than meritocratic, lines, but - if you'll pardon my French - it's complete bollocks to suggest that this is a major issue in England.

''Affirmative action'' is practically non-existent here.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I'm not referring to affirmative action as it is in the US.

I am referring to countries (the US is guilty of this as well) setting quotas for immigration.

In my opinion, when reviewing immigration applications, governments should take the people that will benefit their countries the most. Doctors, engineers, scientists...regardless of race. If countries are taking immigrants just to fill a quota and those immigrants end up in the projects (or council houses) then they've just shot themselves in the foot.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes




, but any agenda-driven religious or political extremist group will get pretty short shrift in a democratic society, because - - most people aren't arses.

An informed society will never tolerate extremist ideologies of any flavour.

People's freedom of speech and liberty aren't restricted because of the political views that they hold, but because of the intent and potential consequence of their words.

In England, incitement of racial or religious hatred is a crime. Incredibly enough, the laws in England apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion or irreligion.

I'm sure that most other European countries have similar legislation to stamp out irresponsible and hateful rhetoric which may be expressed by one of their citizens.

Originally posted by Maslo
restricting immigration of such people into the country in this case would be most effective solution now.

Your views aren't going to halt the inevitable influx of Muslim immigrants to Slovensko.

The Terrorist is a Politician. Terrorist acts are Political Acts

.


First off once you eliminate freedom of speech you no longer have a democratic process
and thus you dont have a true democracy.
Second the people are sheeple. Only a small percent participate in a democracy. Most democracies
are set up as republics, the people dont have direct control over anything.
The NWO or PTB have decided to destroy the middle class with an immigrant invasion and the
people have been powerless to do anything about it.

Third religious extremists have enormous power because they create a voting block that controls
politicians. In america the christian fundies have a lot of influence. In England the Islamists already
have enormous power. Voting when they have numbers, rioting when the dont, and violence to control the
streets.
Fourth the Arab Muslims simply have to out breed the indigenous peoples to control society and
get Sharia implemented which is what they are doing. Islam is not compatible with democracy.
Extremism has ruled most of the world for a long time. Most of the world is ruled by some form of
fascism,or theocracy. The Iraqi's were a sophisticated society which now is in a state of civil war
to be followed by a theocracy.

You seem to be in favor of the Emulsification of England.

4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it.

This may be one of the most brilliant innovations in Islam. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law. Islam has a system of law, called Shari'a, and all Muslims are obligated to continually work toward making their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other memes added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the memeplex has significant consequences. I think this is Islam's most brilliant innovation, and also the most terrifying to non-Muslims.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There's no such thing as ''human rights''.
''Human rights'' is just as much a man-made philosophical concept as Nazism is.

Spare me your postmodernist nihilist crap. If it influences human society, or anything for that matter, then it exists, regardless of it its natural phenomenom or social construct (which is a false dichotomy, since human brains producing social constructs are part of nature).

Let me paraphrase you:
There's no such thing as ''religion''.
''Religion'' is just as much a man-made philosophical concept as Nazism is.

Now its true that God (most probably) does not exist, but religion certainly exists and influences people, so saying its nonexistent just because its a social construct is false.

An informed society will never tolerate extremist ideologies of any flavour.

I am not sure of that. Pre-war Germany was one of the most civilised countries in the world, and extremist ideology still came to power. The same with Czech Republic, where communists won elections after WW2, and then disbanded democracy and instituted dictatorship. (and czech republic was more advanced than France before communism took over).
You may argue that majority of people in fact did not agree with nazism/communism, but that only further proves my point, that extremism can in practice overtake the country even when vigilant minority wants it.

How exactly would you restrict the immigration of religious extremists ? Your views aren't going to halt the inevitable influx of Muslim immigrants to Slovensko.

Extremism can be mapped quite well by the police and secret service. Then it is just a question of appropiate legislation mandating deportation of these people, and low immigation quotas from countries where extremism is prevalent.

If fact, something similar is in our new immigration reform - along with filtering immigrants based on job market needs and education, and even actively promoting immigration into Slovakia in countries when the number of dangerous immigrants is the lowest and number of people having qualification in a fields most needed on domestic job market is the highest.
This shows that such policies are certainly possible to implement, when EU pseudohumanist salloon intelectuals with their excuses why its impossible to stop mass immigration without negating the benefits of immigration are ignored.

In a democracy, opinions people hold is the important variable for power. Thus I believe it is justified for a democratic nation to filter its immigrants according to their political opinion, however arbitrary, because unrestricted immigration in a DEMOcratic country is nothing less than an attack on the sovereignity of its citizens. Just as it is OK for owners of a house to filter people they allow to visit, and much more permanently reside in their house, by any arbitrary criterion.

I dont have problems with Muslim immigrants, just extremists. Which I can admit, currently make up a minority of muslim immigrants into western countries (but not in their home countries!).

Which laws in modern, Western societies have been implemented as the result of religious fundamentalism or fanaticism ?

Abortion bans, laws which do not allows homosexual marriages, Uganda antihomosexuality bill... And when you want to replace western people with immigrants not from western society, your condition that it has to be western society is not applicable.

Of course you are commiting logical fallacy of false analogy - assuming that when christianity, where religious fundamentalism is almost nonexistent for more than 200 years and currently has strong freedom and small government meme associated with it, have not resulted in fundamentalist laws, the same would be true with modern far more fundamentalist Islam, where concept of separation of religion and state is nonexistent. That simply does not follow.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There's no such thing as ''human rights''. ''Human rights'' is just as much a man-made philosophical concept as Nazism is.

Which only further underlines the threat societes and ideologies that do not share this ideals possess to us.

And so is multiculturalism, by the way.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


You should be nominated for the idiot of the year award and here is why:

The type of multiculturalism the OP is referring to involved: A Polish part of town, an Irish Part of town etc.

The concept of "white" was created by Anglo's as a way for them to remain "in control" even after they became a minority in the USA.

The only reason why African's had a problem with segregation is that they expected Anglo's to treat them like equals and they never tried to form their own communities(always tried to be apart of others communities). Anglo's are sociopathic by nature. They have a wolf like mentality and readily take advantage of others. Hence why most of the other "whites" didn't want anything to do with Anglo's unless it couldn't be avoided.

Skin pigmentation is very superficial. But bone structure and genetics is not. Look up the differences in bone structure between almost/pure European races and compare(like Compare Irish to French, Anglo to German) and you will find very stark differences.

The only reason why it "seems" like there is no difference is because of the forced mixing of the various Euro-races by Anglo supremacist's at the point of the gun. Under recognized treaties it would be considered genocide. Many of mixed(white) origin in America are the children of the genocides committed in the early 1900's.

reply to post by korathin

The concept of "white" was created by Anglo's as a way for them to remain "in control" even after they became a minority in the USA.

tisk tisk .... it has not happened YET

According to the US census bureau, the dominance of [color=limegreen]non-Hispanic white people, who today account for two-thirds of Americans, will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than half in 2042 and 46% by 2050. In the opposite trajectory, those who describe themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian and Native American will increase in proportion from about a third now to 54% by 2050. source

I wonder who makes up the "non-Hispanic white people" ?????

The type of multiculturalism the OP is referring to involved: A Polish part of town, an Irish Part of town etc.

would it make any difference if was:

Nigerian and Namibia? both have cultural differences.....yes?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


or how about people from different tribes in Libya ?

or maybe people from Korea and India ?

Skin pigmentation is very superficial. But bone structure and genetics is not. Look up the differences in bone structure between almost/pure European races and compare(like Compare Irish to French, Anglo to German) and you will find very stark differences.

any scientific credible sources for this ?

The only reason why it "seems" like there is no difference is because of the forced mixing of the various Euro-races by Anglo supremacist's at the point of the gun. Under recognized treaties it would be considered genocide. [color=limegreen]Many of mixed(white) origin in America are the children of the genocides committed in the early 1900's.

interesting...
any credible examples ?

An old thread, but so much wrong here, I can only try to correct a couple of misunderstandings.

Someone said there is no such thing as human rights.

Someone else said wrong viewpoints should be punished.

Both of these sentiments are completely and factually wrong. Human rights are something that we have by simply being born. They have nothing to do with any paper or any human-constructed system, paper, rule or document. Law is the same way - it hasn't really changed in centuries much, and even remained fundamentally the same for thousands of years.

Legal system is different, but that's another story - everyone should know the difference between 'lawful' and 'legal' though - the difference is ENORMOUS and life-changing.

No one needs any human creation to have human rights. If you are born completely alone on another planet, you have human rights.

"Civil liberties" are a completely different thing - THAT is something that can be given and taken away. Human rights are unalienable - no document, paper or another human being can take them away from you, they are ALWAYS part of you, no matter what. Constitutions, Bills of Rights and such can MENTION such rights as examples, but they can't GIVE them or TAKE THEM AWAY.

Privileges, 'civil rights', 'civil liberties', and anything that makes you a 'citizen', are human-created, and can be taken away from you, as well as given, granted, or the worst; 'issued' (never let anyone ISSUE you anything, if you want to remain free).

We all have the right to freely have _ANY_ viewpoint about ANYTHING. There are no limitations. I can have the viewpoint that all chinese people should be tickled with a feather until they say uncle every week, but that doesn't mean that I should be killed. The thought itself wouldn't harm anyone (DISCLAIMER: I do NOT have such a thought - this is just an example).

Some people say that people should control their sex drives, their lusts, or their desires - but this is a futile and ludicrous attempt, and it's completely hypocrite to claim to be able to do it, unless you are a Yoga master, Zen-master, Enlightened, or a Sage of some kind (or perhaps mastered some difficult meditation techniques, in which case, you could be called a 'yoga master' anyway), or just naturally perfect in abstinence - or something as extreme.

Other than that, we all have desires - they may be very humble desires, like the desire to eat a bowl of rice when we get hungry, or the desire to relieve our bladder, when it gets full. Or a materialistic desire, like the desire to get a better automobile, a bigger house, or at least to be able to live in a peaceful neighbourghood. It maybe a spiritual desire, as the desire to become enlightened or to learn to love your fellow neighbour as yourself, even if the neighbour is causing you a lot of stress because of their reckless lifestyle and multicultural richness.

My point is, that we can't really control our desires, normally. But we don't have to!

All we have to control is OUR ACTIONS.

Law is based on our actions alone - NOT our viewpoints, NOT our thoughts, NOT our speech (there is _FREE_ speech, remember? That's our unalienable right! We have the right to speak our mind freely, and to put ANY sentence together by using any words we choose, and no one has the right to stop us from doing it. But others have the right to choose to become offended or insulted by what we say, and to use their right to free speech to insult or threaten us (not according to the legal system, though, but that's different, as legal system protects governments and corporations, and deals with civil liberties, which are privileges, and not rights), and so on, and so forth. And no one has an obligation to print our words or let our use our free speech right on or inside their property, whether it's a web server or a building).

How can there be FREE SPEECH, if there can't be FREE THOUGHT?

That's the worst possible police state symptom; the "Thought-Police"! If you are not allowed to think 'wrong' thoughts, you can't be free to speak honestly and freely, and you thinking 'right thoughts' has absolutely NO VALUE, because it was not chosen by you, but it was ENFORCED instead.

That kind of life has no value, where you can't CHOOSE between good and evil. If you are forced to choose good, that choice has zero value. Only if you are free to choose evil, but still choose good, has your choice any meaning.

There is so much wrong here, and I'd like to correct more, but this should suffice for now - at least I tried to correct some wrong viewpoints. Wrong, because they are factually wrong - not wrong, because they'd be ideologically or morally wrong necessarily. And even if they were, I wouldn't try to correct them, because - everyone has the right to their viewpoint.

No matter _WHAT_ it is. Yes, you are free to love Hitler or Muhammed, Stalin, Mussolini or George Bush as much as you want, and no one can lawfully punish you for that viewpoint.

And that is good.

I think it's okay except for one thing. Most cultures hate one another. They all think their way is best. Take a test. Walk outside and see where people are together. Are they of mixed races or the same? They are the same here. Fix that and get back to me.