British Multiculturalism

[Kyriakos]

I think Oruc meant primarily political, not economic liberalism.

Anyway, an all-White Britain looks attractive indeed:

You didn't even need to change Scotland

 

[aelf]

Values don't work like that.
The one who pushes their values the hardest will win out. In our age of moral relativism we are too wimpy to assert anything. A confidant hard civilisation like the people who come from Islamic nations will dominate in such an environment.

He's right, you know that?

Wrong.

Have you ever heard of rebellious kids? When parents try to push their values onto their kids, it doesn't always work, even if they push them harder than anyone else. Some may rub off in the end, but there also enough cases where the kids end up being opposed to everything their parents stood for.

It's not simply about who pushes their values the hardest. If that's true, advertisers and propagandists would have much easier jobs than they have.

This isn't actually a new opinion on his part, as far as I can tell.

It seems they were always alluded to, but never so openly stated.

I might have missed something, though. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to drivel that gets posted.

 

[Tahuti]

Wrong.

I wasn't really being serious here (the fact that I changed Hitler to 'Hilter' in TF's quote should have been a giveaway).

It's not simply about who pushes their values the hardest. If that's true, advertisers and propagandists would have much easier jobs than they have.

In all seriousness, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I've noticed that WASPs are once again minority in Londinium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Ethnic_breakdown

That 1.3% who are Arab certainly seem to threaten some whites though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, every other post is basically an insinuation of racism.
Come to think of it, that is true for many other far-left posters on this forum.

You cannot trust a marxist to debate on the issues. It's all about your race and the race about the people you're talking about. If that is different, well obviously you're racist.

Maybe so, but you'll notice that in this thread, we're not the only ones. Broken clocks, and so forth.

I wasn't really being serious here (the fact that I changed Hitler to 'Hilter' in TF's quote should have been a giveaway).

For reference:


Link to video.

 

[Takhisis]

Wait, hold on, does this mean that Quacker's is now pro-Scottish independence? If he's giving up on multi-ethnic states as a Doable Thing, it seems to be implied that he'd prefer England to go it alone...?

Not quite. Oatmeal is actually an English independentist. England should secede from the UK and leave the Channel Islands, Man, Scotland, Shetland, Orkney, Northern Ireland and the Falklands (am I missing anyone?) in the UK, with its capital at Jersey.

Indian people supposedly are linked to 'aryan' or something. The 'Roma' (obvious exonym, and a very later one too) are argued to have been expelled from India due to being of the lowest caste (their name translates to "not to be touched", and obviously there is the current lower caste in India with the same eponym).

O Yperprotopansevastoypertato Kyriako, 'Roma' means 'man'.

The English sailed in large numbers, following Hastings, to the Byzantine Empire at 1066, and quickly became the largest ethnic group of the Varangian guard (before that it was Scandinavian).

So, based on the Falklands (by analogy, of course), we should give the city to the English. And right on cue for the commemoration of the battle of Gallipoli, too!

 

[Domen]

For instance, successfull countries with multiethnic peoples are rare.

"King resorted to a plan for increasing the inhabitants... He opened an asylum. Thither fled, from the surrounding peoples, a miscellaneous rabble, without distinction of bond or free, eager for new conditions; and these constituted the first advance in power towards that greatness."

Source: Livy, "The History of Rome"

But Rome collapsed ca. 1000 years (ca. 2000 if we count Byzantium) after that asylum was opened, so I suppose it doesn't count as success ???

 

[Lone Wolf]

Immigrant barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire

 

[Domen]

Immigrant barbarians had destroyed the Roman Empire

Flavius Odoacer was already a Roman citizen when he decided to "destroy" the Roman Empire.

But at that time newspapers did not write "today the Roman Empire has been destroyed".

 

[Lone Wolf]

And the immigrants who destroy the European Civilization also obtain citizenship

 

[Domen]

BTW:

Can you also see this link between the word "asylum" and the word "assimilation" ???

===========================

Edit:

Indian people supposedly are linked to 'aryan' or something.

Check:

Word "Aryan" ("Nobleman" in Sanskrit language)

Ancient Aryans

Aryan language

Aryan languages

Indo-Aryan languages

Indo-Aryan migration

Aryan invasion theory

Indigenous Aryans theory

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, to be honest ...

 

[useless]

So will you be voting for little-england UKIP then Quackers?

 

[Domen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American#White_and_European_Indigenous_identity

http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Article/Index/4922

Bill John Baker is 0,0312% Cherokee.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Quackers

Multiculturalism just means letting people live how they want to live, and dealing with the inherent tensions through negotiation.

The alternative is monoculturalism, which means aiming to remove any tensions by telling everyone how to live.

 

[BvBPL]

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?

You are examining the situation from a very self-centered point of view. You want to know what multiculturalism has done for you.

Maybe it doesn't need to do anything for you. Maybe the fact that having Britain open its doors to the people of less developed nations is good for those people and that the good so achieved justifies the policy in itself.

Maybe Britain is strong enough to deal with any potential negative fallout from the policy while at the same time reaping any secondary local benefits.

 

[Oruc]

Well, every other post is basically an insinuation of racism.
Come to think of it, that is true for many other far-left posters on this forum.

They didn't come here to talk or convince you, but to pat each other on the back.
Diversity is their sacred cow and people get quite upset if you're critical of it. An American I knew from an imageboard made this

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxi39krWLd0GSHphY3dwajVvYms/edit?pli=1

a little joke challenge, but they went rabid. they cut up his leaflets/posters and organised a sit in on diversity day stopping anyone going to these special diversity lessons. Because apparently this guy must be a white nationalist and they didn't feel safe anymore.
He ended up being suspended from his college, he was going to get kicked out but some other Americans on the board got him in contact with some sort of legal team that handled things like that. He was able to go to a different college.

Oruc is right, Quackers. If you want to oppose multiculturalism, you have to oppose economic liberalism; you have to oppose free trade; you have to believe that, when people are free to move wherever they want and take up employment wherever they want, that this somehow harms the economy. You can talk about the social impacts all you want, but the economic impacts are clear. That's why business leaders are opposed to any plans to withdraw from the EU or make it harder for workers to get visas. You have to be an isolationist, you have to oppose globalisation, you have to oppose free trade and the free market. Because the free market depends on the free movement of labour, and if you restrict the latter, then you restrict the former as well.

We can still trade without free trade, we don't even have free trade now. Even if we stopped all immigration we would still trade, Italian immigrants don't bring our years supply of pasta with them.
Economics should never been the dominant concern it must be subservient to the people. We have a huge problem with youth unemployment, screw the business leaders they shouldn't dictate to everyone else.
I was also referring to political liberalism, which dominates the "West".

you have to oppose globalisation

You should oppose Globalism, it will end meaningful differences. You think it is enough that some wear a turban, some pray towards a certain spot on the earth or others have mohawks or tatoos, but try asking them about their world view, their morality, their values and you'll get the same non answer.
Globalism is the death of diversity the destruction of any real meaningful differences, replaced with a veneer an illusion of it. For a man without depth I guess that's enough.

 

[Quackers]

@Quackers

Multiculturalism just means letting people live how they want to live, and dealing with the inherent tensions through negotiation.

The alternative is monoculturalism, which means aiming to remove any tensions by telling everyone how to live.

This is an unusual definition of multiculturalism. Not even the hardcore pro-multiculturalists would adhere too, perhaps TF might. Needless to say I totally disagree.

 

[Quackers]

Maybe Britain is strong enough to deal with any potential negative fallout from the policy while at the same time reaping any secondary local benefits.

Maybe is the key word here.
It implies that we're taking a risk. Part of my argument is that an uneccessary risk. If we hadn't gone down this route years ago we wouldn't even have this problem.
At present the benefits are very small. Push a muticulturalist and the best they can come up with is empty platitudes about "celebrating diversity". Vain, silly things like foreign cuisine or foreign woman might pop up.

The downsides could be enormous. As i've stated and proven many times multiethnic states are prone to instability which could lead to conflicts. This is the worst case scenario.

 

[BvBPL]

At present the benefits are very small. Push a muticulturalist and the best they can come up with is empty platitudes about "celebrating diversity". Vain, silly things like foreign cuisine or foreign woman might pop up.

Those are benefits to you and the rest of the majority population. You are not the only population that receives benefits. Far greater, likely, are the benefits that the immigrants get from being in Britain.

They get better health care, better pay, better education, possibly a safer society, possibly a society that better accepts their sexuality / religion / political view, and the benefit of living in a liberal democracy.

Those are real, serious benefits that are very helpful to real people. Those benefits are far greater than being able to get a curry takeaway. As you evaluate the worth of multiculturalism you need to take into the account the benefits received by the immigrant population.