What is the ultimate goal of the multicultural movement?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh indeed - the incident at Utøya was absolutely despicable and the act of a madman.

Actually that story has had the Daily Mail treatment done to it.

In Norway 'assault rape' is very specific subtype of rape, when you look at the details it was a very small number.

However in the reporting of it, they mention the 'assault rape' cases in the context of muslims carrying them out but provide no hard numbers. A sentence later they provide the hard figure for all rape categories knowing full well readers will confuse the two.

In reality assault rapes were I think something like 6 cases out of 250 rape cases.

Very, very dishonest reporting on that.

It is true however that muslims in Britain and Scandinavia are hugely and disproportionately more likely to commit sexual offences compared to people of other religions or atheists.

Fair enough - I stand corrected. I didn't know this, and dishonest reporting doesn't do the anti-Islamist cause any good.

Not all Muslims are that way, and behavior and customs posited as originating from Islam relates more to variances in different tribal cultures. I find Iranian, Turkish, and Iraqi Muslims to be less backward than Saudi or Somalian Muslims for example. A lot of people blame female circumcision on Islam, but its really a Somalian custom, not Islamic, practiced by Somalian Christians, Muslims, and animists alike.

Somalia is probably one of the most war torn, tribalistic countries in existence, so that's probably why there's so much conflict between Somalian immigrants and natives in Western European countries they settle into for amnesty. Many of them have a war like mentality, and they don't leave it behind in the old country. Giving refugee status to them may be well intentioned, like bringing in a dog from the rain for shelter, but because of how traumatized, hardened, and aggressive they are, it has bad social consequences.

Iranians have a more modern outlook, where Saudi Arabians are stuck in the middle ages, and I've had more difficulty connecting with Saudis as a result, culturally. Plus I've found Sunni Islam to be less tolerant toward other belief systems than Shia Islam, and that might play a role as well.

I'd have to research more on the immigration policies in countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and how they came to be, to make an informed opinion. Immigration and mixed populations in other countries, like the UK, Russia, the US, France, etc is distinctly related to past colonial and neo-colonial policies though.

I don't think its healthy to blame this all generally on immigration or multi-culturalism as a generality, due to the complexities of the issue. I don't think its healthy to lump people into large, indiscriminate groups, and to get to the heart of these problems takes careful thinking.


I see Islam bashing in a very similar light to Judaism bashing. Its dangerous, because they're very large, expansive groups with lots of differences. Just as how all Jews aren't in agreement with Palestinian settlements, right-wing political Zionism. and aren't all powerful bankers, not all Muslims are anti-semitic(ironic term being that most Muslims are semitic people groups their selves) or anti-hebraic or terrorists. In a region like Kazakhstan, Christians, Muslims, and Jews get along perfectly fine. In other regions, they don't, and it all depends on customs, cultural sentiments, and the history of the specific regions and tribes you're dealing with.

Indeed. Many are very open, tolerant and understanding individuals. The problem in Britain though is that many of our Muslims are from Pakistan (and often tribal areas at that), with some from Somalia and other parts of the world. They don't necessarily show the religion of peace in a good light.

The culture isn't the problem - the religion is. Many countries with Muslim-majority populations have fine cultures of their own but they are hampered by Islam. Remove the vice grip of Islam and everything becomes that much more amenable. I love Middle Eastern food, for instance.



You're not kidding. These men - and they are mostly men - see local white women as a matter for sport, and many Somali immigrants rape at any given opportunity. These dregs of society are a liability and a walking timebomb to innocent, peaceful men and women everywhere. We should refuse asylum to them - we have no responsibility to them. Send them back, frankly.



Well, many would be able to be much more modern if they weren't ruled by a bunch of conservative religious theocrats and bovine, bone-headed, bearded morality-obsessed thuggish morons that want to wipe Israel off the map.



There isn't enough "Islam-bashing". Not all Muslims are terrorists, not by a long chalk and there are quite a number of radical liberal Muslim thinkers and a few politicians too. They have my support and admiration - they're on the side of freedom and liberty. I would rather have them for neighbours than an ignorant white racist thug any day. I have no identification whatsoever with the BNP or their ilk and I am repulsed by their benighted racist thinking.

I think the Iranian revolution was similar to the French or Russian revolution. I see them in a very similar light. What's bad is the Iranians had a modern, democratically elected government 60 years ago. However, the president who was in power in 1953,Muhammad Mussadegh, wanted to nationalize the oil industry and end economic monopolization of that sector from foreign companies like BP and Exon. so, the MI6 and CIA arranged a coup on behalf of their multinational cohorts to restore absolute power to the Shah of Iran, a monarch. Say what you will about the economics, but I think a nation, with any right to self determinism, should be able to do with its own resources whatever it wants to without having to worry about foreign powers imposing a totalitarian system of government on the country.

The people of Iran were painfully aware of this for years, while the Shah banned political opposition and tortured dissidents. This pushed people to extremes, and resenting monarchism, as well as westernism altogether, the Republican, Islamic revolution gained the most support. This resembles the Russian revolution in a lot of ways. The Russian people were sick of foreign, western influences, as well as the backward Czarist system, so the Bolsheviks got the support they needed. It was distinctly non-western, as well as non-monarchistic. Many Russians didn't like how the Czar and industrialists tied them up into a western European conflict where they were losing lots of lives.

In both cases, there were a lot of things foreign power did to push both countries to extremes. The same could even be said about Germany, post-WWI, as well.

Religion in general scares me, because a basic tenant is that believing something without evidence is a virtue. Its a really easy way to control someone. I know it means different things to different people, and these different religious texts get filtered through an individuals personality. A more chill peaceful person is gonna notice the passages having to do with hellfire less, and pay more attention to the stuff about love and compassion. That's sort of why I try not to lay too hard on peoples religious sentiments. I know where you're coming from though.

Well, I am certainly familiar with r/k theory in relation to natural selection--and equally I am well aware that there has never been any experimental corroboration.

I have no doubt that there have been attempts to analogize it to human social behaviours--but I suspect these are no less academically accepted than the original theory as it applied (or, rather, failed to apply) to natural selection.

basically meme theory posits that cultures can be seen as evolving, competing entities like any other population, and differing strategy in reproductive quantity and quality apply to them as much as to biological populations: does a culture survive by biologically out-reproducing another culture, by conquering and forced conversion, or by providing comforts and benefits that lead to loyalty and stability but little growth and vulnerability to invaders. I'm making a mash-up of the description, but it makes a lot of sense.

As for biological r/k theory, it was taught ot me as self-evident theory when I took bio 101 in high school: the elephant vs. the tick, and everything in between. Given that the theory basically states that different reproductive strategies exist, it's hard to think of how it could be tested further than the observation that such differing strategies do, in fact, exist.

You know what other field of thought tried to relate evolution to humans and use it to justify stuff? Eugenics. Also X-men.

Equating humans to animals doesn't really work because humans have rights that need to be respected, and humans have awareness of their own actions and use reason to make decisions. So you can't just write-off injustices as 'letting nature take its course', as those theories seem to, by extension.

Anyways, that stuff isn't real science. Races, cultures, religions, orientations, genders, are not 'scientifically' superior to eachother, ever.

It doesn't say anything about what's "superior." It talks about which cultures succeed, and which do not, and why. Humans are not immune to the laws of biology and evolution just because we like them.

Anyway, this is a diversion from the main point of the thread that I brought up only because something Visagurnt said reminded me of a paper I'd once read. I won't post more on this thread, but if you're interested I invite you to start a new thread on the PPR or science forums.

An all-inclusive work force and the absolute power that this affords its leaders.

Ahh Teddy Roosevelt the third was responsible for that debacle in Iran, I do believe. Set a precedence ever since too as it proved to be much cheaper than the former ways.