British Multiculturalism

[Quackers]

So we have pursued this policy over the last 20 years or so. We've had roughly 3m new arrivals since 1997.

My question is: where is the benefits?

Many things I see are in fact negatives. For instance, successfull countries with multiethnic peoples are rare. You don't need to be a historian to work that out. Just look at what happened in Eastern Europe 1989 onwards. Countries dissolved, wars occured, ethnic cleansing was in full swing. What great benefit did these countries like Yugoslavia enjoy which we are now getting? Could that be the future in a centuries time? Remember, Plotinus worked out at fertility rates of a few years ago: Muslims will constitute a sizeable chunk of the British population in 100 years time.

Many people will think that is great. I think it will be catastrophic.

Now we get crazy stuff where oversubscribed English schools are forced to hire interpretors to teach the foreign children and where remedial English language classes are being introduced in a Leeds school. In the Midlands we had a terrible story last year. A group which abused children was hiding in plain sight but because of their race were allowed to get away with the crimes for years because social workers/police/council were terrified of dealing with it. Oh and according to the Guardian, a champion of multiculturalism and mass immigration, 1/5 of Muslims would support a proposal of Sharia law! Great! Still, we already have sharia courts in the UK when it comes down to divorce/inheritance but there has already been abused. No fear, we can just roll back these silly sharia courts right? Nope: now Sharia is getting enshrined in British law. 10 years ago you would be laughed at to suggest implementing Sharia law, now we already have. What will happen in the next 10?

So can anybody justify and defend this policy? In my mind it has been a complete failure. David Cameron and Angela Merkel both agree. If you could wind back the clocks how would you have arranged immigration differently?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Plotinus worked out nothing of the sort. You missed his point. He deliberately included demonstrably false assumptions in order for this number to be as alarmist as possible. In reality, predicting fertility rates and such after 100 years is pretty much impossible.

Communalism is not a good thing, I agree.

 

[Quackers]

Plotinus worked out nothing of the sort. You missed his point. He deliberately included demonstrably false assumptions in order for this number to be as alarmist as possible. In reality, predicting fertility rates and such after 100 years is pretty much impossible.

Communalism is not a good thing, I agree.

Nope, re-read my text I said he used fertility rates at that time (2009?) to make this claim. Obviously, it might change in the future but that is speculation. It's better to build on knowable things rather than adjust on future speculation. Still, it's a rough and ready measure and it is near-impossible to predict the make-up of the population in 100 years time.

 

[Lone Wolf]

And he deliberately ignored that immigrants' fertility rates have been decreasing so far as their generations pass. Saying that they will decrease in near future is not speculation. And claiming anything about them in 100 years is pure speculation, yep. But the entire point of his post was "100 years is an exaggerated alarmist figure, and anything closer is even less reasonable".

 

[Camikaze]

Does that not also assume that the children of Muslims will also be Muslim?

 

[Darkflight]

Does that not also assume that the children of Muslims will also be Muslim?

It ass-umes quite alot.

 

[Masada]

A group which abused children was hiding in plain sight but because of their race were allowed to get away with the crimes for years because social workers/police/council were terrified of dealing with it.

That's not the fault of the Pakistani Muslim community. The Common's Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming Report outright said that the "condemnation of those from those communities of this vile crime should demonstrate that there is no excuse for tip-toeing around this issue."

Nope: now Sharia is getting enshrined in British law.

No, it isn't. Per the article:

The new guidelines are one example of the practice notes that the Law Society issues for the use and benefit of its members.

These documents represent the Law Society's view of good practice in a particular area. Lawyers are not required to follow them, but doing so makes it easier for them to account to oversight bodies for their actions.

1/5 of Muslims would support a proposal of Sharia law!

What does that mean though? Do those Muslims want hudud? Or do they want laws which recognise Islamic practices relating to divorce and marriage?

Still, we already have sharia courts in the UK when it comes down to divorce/inheritance but there has already been abused.

Australian Courts have ignored domestic violence, Western law must be corrupt and need to be wound back!

So can anybody justify and defend this policy? In my mind it has been a complete failure. David Cameron and Angela Merkel both agree. If you could wind back the clocks how would you have arranged immigration differently?

Yep. I live in a functioning multi-cultural society. Unlike Europeans, we Antipodeans (and Americans) aren't all vile ethno-nationalist scum. Ours is a pure civic nationalism!

Nope, re-read my text I said he used fertility rates at that time (2009?) to make this claim. Obviously, it might change in the future but that is speculation. It's better to build on knowable things rather than adjust on future speculation. Still, it's a rough and ready measure and it is near-impossible to predict the make-up of the population in 100 years time.

That's true of populations in the aggregate (because of policy choices e.g. immigrantion) but not true of TFRs for immigrant population where there is ample lived evidence to show that they decline to around the same level as the host population. Otherwise Australia would be populated by a lot more Irish because those dudes had really high TFRs back in the motherland.

 

[Quackers]

Irish fertility rates bear no relation to Pakistani/Bangladeshi fertility rates bro.

Also, hasn't Australia been suitably enriched by lebanese rapists in Sydney?

Again, so what benefit do you get out of this arrangement? If you keep a population fully homogenous, like Japan or South Korea, you eliminate racism in one fell swoop because it is impossible to exist. You don't have fractious situations like Yugoslavia, the USSR and Africa. There are tons of examples where these type of societies have failed but we bury our head in the sand and say: it won't happen to us? That is stupid. 70-100 years down the line we may have a Nigerian situation on our hands. Why even risk it?

 

[Winner]

Incidentally, the Japanese society is among the most racist (in the proper meaning of that word) in the world.

Your whole thesis is backwards. You need to differentiate between multiculturalism as the ideology pushed forward by the radical left (=white European civilization is evil, therefore we must dilute it by importing people from the 'traditionally oppressed' cultures in order to exact revenge on the West for its past crimes) and multiculturalism as a fact (and mostly as euphemism for multi-racial/multi-ethnic society, there being unclear when exactly does a society count as multi-ethnic: is 1% minority share enough? 5% Or 10+%?).

I have no problem with a society becoming more cosmopolitan due to pretty natural trends in human migration. I think the benefit is that it creates links between the society and the outside world, stimulating people culturally as well as intellectually. I have a problem when certain radical ideologues seek to fragment the society based on their perceived cultural identity rights and other nonsense.

 

[Dachs]

I have a problem when certain radical ideologues seek to fragment the society based on their perceived cultural identity rights and other nonsense.

That sounds like it describes the people against "multiculturalism" more than it describes the people for it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Incidentally, the Japanese society is among the most racist (in the proper meaning of that word) in the world.

That's mainly because there're still foreigners outside the Japanese islands. Eliminating all foreigners from the Earth and populating the planet with the Japanese people will, as a result, eliminate all racism and reduce the horrible over-population on the islands.

 

[Winner]

That sounds like it describes the people against "multiculturalism" more than it describes the people for it.

Both, actually. The two extremes in the debate over ideological multiculturalism support each other, they differ in that those who are for employ their double-standards to support minorities, whereas those against apply double-standards to support the majority. Both are big on talking about "identity" and its importance.

 

[warpus]

My question is: where is the benefits?

And right off the bat we see one of the dangers of multiculturalism: Obviously your English teachers must have been Polish.

 

[Quackers]

Incidentally, the Japanese society is among the most racist (in the proper meaning of that word) in the world.

Your whole thesis is backwards. You need to differentiate between multiculturalism as the ideology pushed forward by the radical left (=white European civilization is evil, therefore we must dilute it by importing people from the 'traditionally oppressed' cultures in order to exact revenge on the West for its past crimes) and multiculturalism as a fact (and mostly as euphemism for multi-racial/multi-ethnic society, there being unclear when exactly does a society count as multi-ethnic: is 1% minority share enough? 5% Or 10+%?).

I have no problem with a society becoming more cosmopolitan due to pretty natural trends in human migration. I think the benefit is that it creates links between the society and the outside world, stimulating people culturally as well as intellectually. I have a problem when certain radical ideologues seek to fragment the society based on their perceived cultural identity rights and other nonsense.

I do know the difference but the UK is obviously going down the route of the former. We do not try to intergrate immigrants. Cultural diversity is a goal here. A "British" or "English/Welsh/Scottish" culture/identity will simply become one of many. People think that this type of structure will be a happy one but all the evidence is to the contrary.

The UK itself is a good example of fractious ethnic groups in union. Even after centuries of a mutally beneficial relationship between England and Scotland there is still a Scottish independence movement. When you consider the difference between the two nationalities it is tiny.
What happens when you have 5m Muslims, concentrated in one part of the country and with very little to do with everybody else? It's going to be a nightmare.

And right off the bat we see one of the dangers of multiculturalism: Obviously your English teachers must have been Polish.

Stellar contribution as usual...

 

[Masada]

Irish fertility rates bear no relation to Pakistani/Bangladeshi fertility rates bro.

Yes, it does. The Irish-Catholics had far more kids than Anglo-Protestants which led the latter to the conclusion that the Irish-Catholic "breeders" might just overrun the place. This did not happen. Irish birthrates declined to around the same level as the Anglo-Protestants which saved Australia from the evil of Caesaropapism. Similar panics have been experienced with the Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Aboriginals, Asians and now Muslims. Australia has literally had a fertility scare every decade since White Australia collapsed in the 70s.

Also, hasn't Australia been suitably enriched by lebanese rapists in Sydney?

For those not in the know, Quackers is referring to the Sydney gang rapes of 2000 which were carried out by Australians of Lebanese descent. Since then there's has been no further instances of Australian's of Lebanese descent getting together and raping women to my knowledge. White people seem to be doing a lot of murders where I'm living at the moment. I guess I should be thankful for white people too!

70-100 years down the line we may have a Nigerian situation on our hands. Why even risk it?

I agree. I fully support banning further British immigration to Australian. You guys seem to hate democracy because half of your parliament is appointed (like Burma). Your regime is run by a narrow oligarchical elite who all seem to come from Eton. Your society is also heavily segregated according to class and race. All of which are totally at odds with Australia's value system.

 

[really]

That's true of populations in the aggregate (because of policy choices e.g. immigrantion) but not true of TFRs for immigrant population where there is ample lived evidence to show that they decline to around the same level as the host population. Otherwise Australia would be populated by a lot more Irish because those dudes had really high TFRs back in the motherland.

It's ok - we blend in well.

I was watching 8 out of 10 cats on Channel 4 (UK) last night - of the seven people on the show - one was Irish (Aisling something or other), one was born in the UK to Irish parents (Jimmy Carr) and another has described himself as half Irish (Sean Lock)

Not sure what point I am making.

 

[IAM]

I despise this politically correct multiculturalism crap.

 

[Masada]

Not sure what point I am making.

That you Irish are going to conquer the UK and turn it into a corporate tax haven with overpriced houses?

 

[warpus]

Stellar contribution as usual...

I replied in kind, after reading your OP.

I mean, half your thesis is based on a joke post Plotinus made to show how absurd your position is.

 

[Tahuti]

So can anybody justify and defend this policy? In my mind it has been a complete failure. David Cameron and Angela Merkel both agree. If you could wind back the clocks how would you have arranged immigration differently?

Your opposition to multiculturalism is based on strawmen, like most arguments against multiculturalism are, unfortunately: Multiculturalism is not an ideology, it is a matter of fact. Before any immigrants arrived, Welsh, English, Scots and Irish made Great Britain a multicultural society to begin with.

And please do not say that multiculturalism forces you to accept suttee, gangbanging (is that an oriental tradition?) or honour killings, because nobody has ever said you need to accept any of those things to have a proper multicultural society. In fact, such practices are absent in well-educated minorities who are also well-integrated, nevermind they are in fact culturally distinct. It is a buzzword used to drive populist sentiments (comparable to how the left loves the word 'neoliberalism') which means absolutely nothing and ultimately drives us away from the true reasons why some migrants fail to integrate.

One reason immigrants fail to integrate is because of poor urban policies, that need to be solved at municipal levels. Where did the Stockholm, London and Paris riots all begin? In the suburbs with 'Labour Party architecture' ala le Corbusier. People are not encouraged to mingle and are ignorant of local practices and because of function separation are also deprived of economic opportunities those who live in the inner city do have (for Americans, European cities usually have a prosperous inner city and suburbs are usually dilapidated).