What's Not to Like About Multiculturalism?

What's Not to Like About Multiculturalism? https://youtu.be/Dc0tm_pE7i8 -------/\/\/ Hey, Europe:  look how well 'multiculturalism' is coming along across the Atlantic, in USA, during Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Trump is described as: 'polarising' 'extreme' 'populist' & appealing to 'raw sentiments' So now it's 'polarising' and 'extreme' to be an American patriot of European descent, who wishes to take measures to retain the character  of a nation built by one's forefathers? Or that's what California's majority Mexican flag-wavers and the leftist rent-a-rabble would have you believe, as they run amok, threatening violence, damaging police vehicles, and causing general disturbance and public nuisance, in an attempt to disrupt an American presidential candidate's campaign.  Actions which not only harass a political candidate, but also threaten and infringe upon the rights of his supporters. Let the rowdy rabble be a warning:  the Western ruling oligarchy planned program of invasion and dispossession of European society (sold as 'multiculturalism' and as economic 'good') produces highly undesirable consequences that are dangerously in conflict with future efforts to maintain the integrity of European societies (wherever they may exit). Meanwhile in Britain:  David Cameron, the British PM douche-bag, whose country has been given away from underneath Britons by politicians much like Dave, attempts to score political points by describing Trump as 'divisive, stupid & wrong'. It doesn't get any more stupid and wrong than importing terrorism, importing race riots, importing social problems, importing taxpayer costs, importing displacement of one's own people, importing dismemberment of one's own society, and importing what will destroy one's society in due course.  What a conning, despicable, political-point-scoring, whoring clown, that off-shore-account-holding Dave Cameron is.  F*ck off, Dave.  Impress us all by moving to Kabul or Mexico City. -------/\/\/ Further reading: Oligarchy-Owned American Politics | Soros Buys Hillary 2016 LINK | Post If it weren't for all that militarised police and FBI political policing, the oppressed Americans would have had a revolution by now.

Invasion of Europe - Frank Salter (Political Ethologist)

Article SOURCE as marked AUDIO *Originally appeared on: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/01/germanys-jeopardy-could-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization.html Frank Salter political ethologist Introduction: Dire Predictions My name is Frank Salter. I'm an Australian political ethologist, meaning that includes biological approaches when studying society and politics. I've spent much of my career researching at a Max Planck Institute in Germany, as well as teaching there and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. One of my research areas is ethnic solidarity and conflict and how this affects democratic welfare states. In this talk I discuss the dire predictions that have been made about the massive influx of immigrants and refugees still entering Germany and other European countries from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Many then fan-out, crossing Europe's old national borders which are no longer regulated due to the Schengen Agreement. Some believe this could end European civilization, despite the outpouring of goodwill and hospitality shown by millions of Germans and other Europeans. These predictions have not only come from anti-immigrant ideologues but from moderate politicians. An example is Tony Abbott, until recently Australian prime minister. Speaking in London, Abbott called on Europe to close its borders to avoid a "catastrophic error". He declared that protecting the borders will "require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences — yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever."1 Curiously, neither Abbott nor the other commentators explain why the influx would be so damaging. The same is true of Angela Merkel's argument for opening the borders. Where was the sober and transparent assessment of costs and benefits? In this talk I attempt such an assessment, by reviewing research on the way that ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties. I then compare these costs with the benefits of mass Third World immigration asserted by Angela Merkel and her supporters. Social Conflict UK Race Riots 2011 Recent tragic events, including the attacks in Paris, make terrorism appear the most obvious and immediate threat. The overwhelming majority of incomers are Muslims. Though most Muslims are not terrorists, many terrorists are Muslims. In general, rising ethnic diversity increases the chance that one minority or another will oppose the government's foreign policy. Tragedy results if even a small number of disaffected individuals adopt violence. However, terrorism is not the main harm likely to arise from the present immigration. The main effect will be to fracture the psychological bond of nationality, leaving citizenship a hollowed-out legalism. That is because rising diversity is associated not only with violence such as terrorism and civil war, but with a general loss of social cohesion. But let us begin with violence. Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk. In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety — guerrilla and civil war — between 1932 and 1982; that's a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions.2 That finding is obviously relevant to the present situation where Muslims are flooding into a largely Christian and secular Europe. A study of contemporary societies by Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen examined ethnic conflict defined more broadly to include discrimination, ethnic parties and interest groups, as well as ethnic violence and civil war. Vanhanen used evolutionary theory to hypothesize that diversity would cause conflict to rise. Among the 176 societies he studied, Vanhanen found that in 2010 two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity.3 In other words, much of the difference between united peaceful countries and those riven by ethnic conflict is the latters' ethnic diversity. A related effect of diversity is lowered cooperation and "social capital", the extent to which people support each other. As heterogeneity grows, participation in clubs and volunteer work falls. People become more isolated and less trustful. The effect is strongest in local neighbourhoods where people experience different ethnic groups.4 In other words, it is not ignorance or isolation that cause ethnic discord, but contact with other cultures, including foreigners entering a homeland territory in large numbers. German governments should be aware of the tendency of ethnic diversity to cause social conflict because that tendency has been studied in German research institutions. For example, ethologist Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a professor at the Max Planck Society, and colleagues such as Johan van der Dennen at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, have for decades studied the effects of cultural mixing on ethnocentrism and xenophobia in mass anonymous societies. Both have warned that large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace. Some of the research I've been discussing was inspired by evolutionary theory. This is an important approach long excluded from the social sciences. Human psychology evolved in the context of ethnically homogeneous groups. From this perspective the diversity now being imposed by modern elites is unnatural on the evolutionary time scale. That unnatural level of diversity is responsible for some of the conflict, according to evolutionary theory. Further confirmation of this evolutionary hypothesis is the finding that genetic diversity, as distinct from cultural diversity, correlates with social conflict. Since ethnic groups are pools of genetic similarity,5 mixing such pools increases genetic variation within a society and, according to new global research, causes greater social conflict.6 Stronger causes than genetic diversity are cultural, economic and historical factors, which help explain the surge of goodwill that Germans, Swedes and other Europeans showed Syrian refugees in 2015. But these factors can fluctuate greatly in the short term, while it can take many generations for genetic variation to fall. More Crime German victim of Muslim Gang Rape Crime is social conflict in which the aggressor breaks the law. The track record of crime committed by non-Western immigrants to Europe is not reassuring. A disturbing trend in France, which has Europe's largest Islamic population, is the growth of no-go areas where even police dare not venture except in force. In addition in France and Britain there are occasional riots so violent and extensive that police lose control. These periods of mass conflict amount to uprisings. The trend is for parallel societies to be established as the immigrant populations from less compatible cultures segregate themselves and new generations come of age. Generous welfare and multiculturalism exacerbate immigrant crime, which often increases in the second generation. Between 1997 and 2013 large scale organized sexual exploitation of White girls took place in the English town of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, predominantly by Muslim Pakistani men. Up to 1,400 girls as young as 12 years of age were raped and sex-trafficked by multiple men. Sweden and Denmark also offer a glimpse of what Germany can expect from the intake of unselected immigrants coming from incompatible cultures. In Sweden the majority of those charged with murder, rape and robbery are immigrants, despite immigrants numbering only 16 per cent of the population.7 In Denmark immigrants from several countries commit crimes at a much higher rate than do ethnic Danes. This is especially true of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.8 The greatest frequency of law-breaking was shown by the children of non-Western immigrants. Those aged 15-19 were overrepresented by 93 per cent, those aged 20-29 by 130 percent, and those aged 30-39 were overrepresented by 135 per cent. Ethnic Danes were underrepresented for all these age categories. For Germany the data are less accessible but an unconfirmed report indicates that in 2011 asylum-seekers committed 3.3 per cent of all crimes, many times their proportion of the German population.9 By 2014 that already-high figure had jumped to 7.7 per cent of all crime. In the same period, the number of assaults and shoplifting across Germany more than doubled.10 Reduced Welfare ' "Poverty in Germany at its Highest Since Reunification" Obviously the influx of millions of poor people will strain welfare budgets. Europeans who have paid social security insurance their whole working lives will soon be supporting health, housing, unemployment and age benefits for millions who have never contributed. If the influx is not stopped, this will be the start of an astronomical transfer of wealth, while the system survives. It might not survive long because most European governments are already heavily in debt and managing heavy welfare expenditures. In 2013, the last year for which data are available, general government gross debt in Austria was 81% of GDP, in Belgium 104%, France 92%, Germany 77%, Italy 128%, Spain 92%, and the United Kingdom 87%.11 In Sweden government debt is only about 39% of GDP but its immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are straining the budget. These immigrants make up about 16% of the population but take as much as 58% of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from ethnic Swedes.12 That transfer is a bad investment because about 48% of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40% are not working. But welfare is still more fragile than these figures indicate. Research conducted at Germany's Max Planck Society indicates that ethnic change due to immigration will change taxpayers' motivation, reducing their willingness to support welfare. Comparison of welfare systems around the world shows that as ethnic diversity rises, welfare tends to decline.13 Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities. Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries' ethnic diversity.14 The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants' homelands. It's a lose-lose strategy. Greater Ethnic Inequality Ethnic inequality, a major cause of civil conflict, will increase as a result of the present influx. When an ethnic group fails to achieve income equality down the generations, the effect is deeply ingrained resentment and a low threshold for civil unrest. That might be why second generation immigrants often show higher criminality than their parents. Once again there is no excuse for ignorance because Germany has its own native-born instructor on the causes of ethnic inequality. Thilo Sarrazin is an SPD politician and was, until 2010, board member of the Deutsche Bank, the year he published a book titled Germany Abolishes Itself: How We Risk Losing Our Country.15 Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare and their higher fertility. He found that slow assimilation was caused by the Islamic religion and lower educational outcomes were caused by persistent ethnic tradition.16 When he wrote this, Angela Merkel was already German Chancellor. She condemned Sarrazin and endorsed his removal from the Deutsche Bank board, an omen of her 2015 radicalism and intolerance. It is certain that the present influx will escalate ethnic stratification in Germany and in Europe. If this were only due to poor languages skills and low education, the inequality could close within a generation or two (still an appalling assault on the receiving societies). But many of the immigrants come from populations with long records of poor educational and economic performance, likely to result in chronic ethnic stratification reminiscent of despotic empires.17 By importing a new underclass, Germany and Europe are abolishing their egalitarian national societies. Racialized Politics Turks protesting "Nazi terror", "job discrimination" and "daily racism" in Germany An open door policy is advocated by self-proclaimed anti-racists such as Angela Merkel and her allies on the far left. The "anti-fa" protesters who shout-down PEGIDA and other conservatives take it for granted that borders should be open to all comers. But one certain outcome of the new immigrant influx is the further racialization of politics and growing demographic pressure on ethnic Europeans. Racialization will take the form of sectarianism, ethnic parties, multiculturalism, school indoctrination, political correctness and affirmative action — discrimination meant to equalise outcomes. Racialized politics is already a fact of life in diverse societies such as Britain, France, the United States and Australia. Throughout recorded history societies controlled immigration, especially when it involved large numbers. Angela Merkel's and Francois Hollande's open door policy is a reckless social experiment that is already inducing compassion fatigue. Nationalist and anti-immigration parties are rising in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland. The ethnic inequality discussed earlier is an important cause of racialization. By the second generation poorer immigrant groups, especially those that are culturally or racially visible, become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that legitimate grievances. These ideologies help immigrants rationalise their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of White racism. The ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, social workers, politicians and ethnic leaders. Victimhood ideologies also produce guilt and fear in Whites, by linking their ethnic identities — and only theirs — to extremism and fascism.18 This is unfair because White majorities are typically less ethnocentric than minorities. The myth of minority victimhood conditions the White majority to accept replacement-level immigration. These doctrines have been influential in English-speaking countries and much of Western Europe since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile in Germany immigration politics has started in the non-democratic mode typical of ethnic politics throughout the West. No referendum is planned to give Germans a choice concerning their destiny. With minor exceptions, citizens do not even have the option of voting against the open door policy in a normal election, because the major parties support open borders. Germans who wish to have a say in immigration policy must vote for new parties that have not yet been captured by special interests. Reduced Civil Liberties Merkel discussing ways to limit "anti-immigrant" views with Facebook founder Zuckerberg Rising diversity undermines civil rights. Wherever the founding ethnic group has lost control of immigration, governments come under pressure from the political left and their minority clients to suppress "hate speech", which can include statements of opinion and fact. The limiting of free speech also precedes and helps cause the rise of replacement level immigration. But certainly it is also an effect of diversity. Restrictions of speech have a chilling effect on public debate. The millions now flooding into Germany and Europe are beneficiaries of this repression. Their presence will only increase pressure on government to crack down on restless natives. The underlying reason for the crackdown will be the rise of massive endemic social conflict, wholly predictable and indeed predicted by social scientists. Benefits? Arguments for Open Borders Are these costs outweighed by the benefits proposed by Angela Merkel and her supporters? Six main arguments have been advanced to persuade Germans to accept the influx: The first argument is Merkel's claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides' interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries. The second argument is Merkel's claim that Germany will benefit by throwing off its Nazi legacy once and for all. This is a despicable argument because Germans are innocent of genocide, unless one accepts the Nazi doctrine of collective racial guilt. The opposite effect is more likely. Vilification of ethnic Germans could intensify because Merkel has launched a new era of racialized politics in which exponents of mass Third World immigration will use any victimhood narrative to silence the majority. The third argument was stated by the German Interior Minister in mid September 2015.19 He claimed that the government had no choice but to accept any number of refugees because Article 16a, paragraph 1, of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, states that "Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum." This is a strictly legalistic argument because, as we have seen, there is no moral duty to settle large numbers of refugees in Germany. So let's look more closely at the law. Paragraph 2 of Article 16a of the Grundgesetz states that paragraph 1 does not apply to persons entering the Federal Republic "from a member state of the European Communities".20 The overwhelming majority of refugees entering Germany have come via other EU states. Germany was entitled to prevent them entering but the Merkel government suspended the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to be returned to the European country of first arrival.21 How could Germany have accepted this EU law in the first place if it contradicted the German constitution? If, on the other hand, the Dublin Regulation reflects article 16a of the constitution, how could it be so easily suspended?22 Clearly Germany and the EU can legally protect their borders. It is Merkel and other EU leaders who allowed the influx, not any law. The fourth argument was advanced by Merkel and Mercedes CEO Dieter Zetsch, who maintained that the refugees will make productive workers. Zetsch stated: "They could, like the guest workers from decades ago, help us preserve and improve our prosperity. For Germany cannot any more fill the jobs available." This is utopian speculation that runs counter to precedent and knowledge of cultural differences. More likely, Germany will be burdened by immigrant communities suffering high unemployment and concentrated in low productivity unskilled jobs. The fifth argument is even more radical. It was stated by demographer Stephan Sievert, of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Sievert optimistically stated that Germany's population was at last growing, after decades of stagnation.23 Sievert does not admit that his implied policy entails the rapid demographic replacement of the German ethnic family, in effect cultural genocide by stages. If the German people were given the opportunity to vote on this policy, perhaps a majority would agree with German author Botho Strauss, who declared that he prefers to live among his own people even if they are falling in numbers, rather than live in an imposed cultural mix.24 A sixth argument has been offered by Merkel, in her New Year's address for 2016. It is the open border mantra, that immigration is generally good. Merkel stated that "countries have always benefited from successful immigration, both economically and socially".25 It is a danger sign when highly educated people resort to tautologies, such as deducing that successful immigration is successful. In fact immigrant societies — America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and others — are all well down the track of turning their founding cultures into minorities without ever offering them a democratic choice. Merkel also followed the usual pro-immigration line by accusing her critics of "coldness or even hatred", implying that she is motivated by warmer emotions. And she foreshadowed a new inclusive definition of what it means to be German, which is a prudent move for someone intent on demographic transformation. Omitted from this latest statement, but likely to follow, are other elements of the pro-immigration mantra, such as diversity is strength, or German identity is the same as citizenship, or school children must be educated in tolerance, or immigrants rescue German culture from its white-bread impoverishment. These arguments and assertions are completely normal in Western societies whose political classes have opened them to mass immigration. These six alleged benefits of massive unselected immigration are typical of the intellectual level of open border arguments elsewhere in Western countries. That such shallow and sometimes mendacious rhetoric is uttered by intelligent individuals would be impossible without their near monopoly of media access resulting from the ideological intolerance that has suppressed open debate for decades. Conclusion: Jeopardy — Will Europe Survive? The evidence just reviewed indicates that dire warnings are not overstated. The ethnic transformation now being inflicted on Germany and the rest of Europe by its political class, if continued, will severely damage European culture and way of life. The opposed arguments are flimsy and fail entirely to address the perceived risks. Commentators are not exaggerating then they warn that European civilization, the result of three millennia of cultural evolution, is in jeopardy. Hopefully common sense will prevail and journalists and politicians will listen respectfully to the people's concerns and aspirations. Perhaps Merkel and Hollande will recover from their moral mania and free themselves from special interests long enough to deign the flood to recede. Perhaps the EU will formulate a conservative immigration policy, one that does not cater mainly to the interests of immigrants, minorities and the corporate sector but also respects Europeans by preserving their identities, cultures, domestic peace, equality and national cohesion. It is more likely that voters will solve the problem than Europe's intellectually corrupt political class, and that new parties will be granted the power to reclaim national sovereignty from the failed EU project. In that case the EU will collapse, as individual nations move to protect themselves from the Schengen Agreement, now become a mortal threat instead of a promise. That could form the basis for a new trans-European movement that protects the identities and ways of life of individual nations and Europe as a whole. But until now these considerations have been foreign to Angela Merkel and her supporters. She sells her open door policy as humanitarian. But in reality this is a cruel policy likely to produce suffering across Germany and Europe. She has failed to consider the interests of individual European nations or of Europe as a whole. Europe's political class has, in effect, embraced the most aggressive form of multiculturalism, in which the establishment forms an alliance with minorities to dominate the majority. The suffering the open door policy will bring — the inequality, including the special evil of ethnic stratification, the collapse of welfare, the crime, the slums and no-go areas, the degradation of women, the racialization of politics, the decline in wages, the loss of national cohesion, the growing sense of loss and alienation among Germans and immigrants alike, the accelerated replacement of Europeans in their ancient homelands, the constriction of civil rights and the pervasive chaos — all of this will last for generations. Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital. A responsible policy would resemble the British strategy of helping refugees in or near their own countries while restricting their immigration to Europe, though it should be noted that in Britain non-refugee immigration is out of control. For Germany the situation is more threatening due to its toxic political culture, despite its present low level of ethnic diversity. The country's chances of recovery — which means adopting a sustainable immigration policy — depend on how the following questions are answered by events. How long will it take for the present reaction to become a powerful political force? How long before Germany's leadership feels the wrath of a people enraged at the prospect of the transformation of their country? And should the reaction become intense, will citizens remain mobilised long enough to build political organisations sufficiently powerful to correct the situation? Will they be able to inflict political censure on Merkel and the political class so stark that it neutralises the incentives offered by the establishment? Will they be able to do so in the teeth of relentless attacks from the mainstream media and educational establishments? Will they stay focused long enough to renegotiate EU arrangements or withdraw Germany from them? Will they persist long enough to push through constitutional amendments that define Germany as the homeland of the German people and allow legal redress against leaders who attempt demographic replacement? Whether or not there is a pause in the influx, Germans and other Europeans should educate themselves about the deep causes of this disaster and how to prevent its recurrence.  http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/01/germanys-jeopardy-could-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization.html Frank Salter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Salter Website http://socialtechnologies.com.au/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Good article. Most people know much of this instinctively, I'd say. But it's good seeing confirmation from an academic. [I've not yet had a chance to check out the video/audio ... but it sounds like it's pretty much as per the above article.]

Corsica, France - Fruits of Unwanted Multiculturalism

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.rt.com/news/327182-corsica-bans-protests-france/ Corsica bans all rallies following series of violent anti-Muslim protests Published time: 27 Dec, 2015 10:07 The French island of Corsica has banned all demonstrations in a low-income neighborhood of its capital Ajaccio recently plagued by violent anti-Muslim protests, including the ransacking of a Muslim prayer house, and burning copies of the Koran. The decree banning protests in the volatile neighborhood of Jardins de l'Empereur until January 4 was issued by Corsica’s prefect Christophe Mirmand. “It is an order that was taken last night as part of a state of emergency… Instigation of hatred is an offence that can lead to criminal proceedings,” he said, as cited by France Info. He said ealier that police from mainland France have been called into Ajaccio, and prayer rooms and mosques were being guarded. Speaking on French iTELE he confirmed that two separate investigations have been launched into an attack on firefighters and the ransacking of the Muslim prayer house. READ MORE: Dozens take part in fresh anti-Muslim protest in Corsica after attack on prayer hall (VIDEO) Tensions mounted in Ajaccio after a night of violence when two firefighters and a police officer were injured in what the authorities described as ambushes by “several hooded youths” in the low-income neighborhood. On Friday, an angry mob retaliating over the attacks on the firefighters and ransacked a Muslim prayer house. The protests continued on Saturday when a group of 100-300 people marched in Ajaccio, shouting anti-Muslim slogans. READ MORE: Muslim prayer hall damaged, copies of Koran burnt in overnight rampage in Corsica Local police put at least five Muslim prayer houses in Ajaccio under protection and maintained a presence on the housing estate. Anti-Muslim sentiment is rising in France following the terrorist attacks on November 13 in Paris that killed 130 people. The Islamic State terrorist group claimed responsibility for the violence in the French capital. Corsica, a small Mediterranean island, has a long history of nationalistic movements, which occasionally lead to violence. Anti-immigrant and nationalist parties performed well during last month's regional election, giving the department its first-ever nationalist government. https://www.rt.com/news/327182-corsica-bans-protests-france/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The result of unregulated immigration and imposed 'multiculturalism'. Sounds rather unpleasant for all concerned. ꕤ

Video - Melanie Phillips Islam in Europe

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6QO9MfaH4 Melanie Phillips Islam in Europe 13 Jul 2011 Rough Summary {recommend:  check against audio} Pew Poll Britain least Islamophobic of all European nations that were studied & Britain nevertheless where Muslims hated their host country the most. Real religion has become individualism.  Nonetheless, a great desire for spirituality. Spirituality without the church, without organised religion & moral codes. Morality has been privatised. What's right for me, is the basis for moral and cultural relativism. Relativism involves no judgement to be permitted of people's lifestyles; the development of multiculturalism and victim culture, based on the doctrine that the values of the majority by definition are illegitimate, because they exclude the minorities. Under the doctrine of relativism, there is no objective truth; everything is a matter of opinion, because my values are the equal of your values and therefore it is merely my opinion versus your opinion. Under the doctrine of relativism, there is no objectivity; there is no truth. This has given rise to a moral and social anarchy, in which Britain is rapidly retreating to a pre-modern age of irrationality. Having disaggregated [divided] truth, we are no longer able to use the reason that bases itself on truth. Yet we make a fetish of reason. It is in the name of reason -- scientific reason, also known as empiricism -- we have exiled religion and declared that god is dead because the biblical stories are merely primitive superstition, as they don't correspond to the dictates of reason as defined by empiricism. Believe in a wide range of crap. Complete disintegration of rationality, belief, cultural identity, morality, spirituality and religion has created a cultural vacuum. Britain, Islamists filling the vacuum by: 1)  terrorising population through terror; 2)  converting the most vulnerable:  criminals, mentally disturbed, young who look for meaning beyond materialism.  3) exploiting victim culture, which has arisen out of doctrine of multiculturalism to claim that in the interests of 'equality' they must have preferential treatment in the public square, backed up by the threat of terrorism.  Intellectual elite in Britain has fallen for this hook, line & sinker, unlike the public, who most certainly have not.  But our intellectual, political and security establishment in large measure is saying, instead of Muslims in Britain being treated on the principles of equality like any other minority, they have allowed and, indeed, condoned and encouraged, the steady encroachment of Islam into the public sphere. So Britain now has earnest discussions by UK's most senior lawyers of the extent to which Islamic law can and should be permitted to encroach into the field of the English common law, although the principles of Islamic law are inimical to the English law and to the canons of Western society and British society. Archbishop of Canterbury stated:  entirely proper for British Muslims to have recourse to sharia family law alongside English common law. He was somewhat surprised by the explosive reaction he provoked. What he was saying we should have no fear of as a hypothetical enticement for the future was already happening, in spades. In Britain, there's a steady development of Muslim enclaves which are governed informally by parallel jurisdiction of sharia law, a kind of embryonic state within a state. Britain already turns an official blind eye to such things as cousin marriage, genital mutilation of women, honour violence, and polygamy. Indeed, Britain is now, as a state, encouraging and condoning polygamy, because Britain is now giving welfare benefits to the multiple wives of Muslim men. Britain's Prime Minister has said that Britain should become the global centre of sharia finance. What is not understood, is that this will institutionalise Islamism in Britain. It has come as a shock for some of Britain’s banks to find that on their sharia boards advising them about their sharia finance arrangements, sit those who are not wholly unassociated with Islamic terrorism and with al-Qaeda. Sharia, as understood by Melanie Phillips, does not prohibit the charging of interest.  Sharia merely prohibits exorbitant rates of interest. Sharia loans will entail the Islamisation of borrowers, Phillips states. British establishment refuses to see all of this and refuses to accept that religion is at the heart of the problem, and refuses to accept that what Britain is facing is an Islamic jihad. British establishment has instead accepted the Muslims' own assertion that what we are facing in terms of terror is nothing whatsoever to do with religion and if anyone says that Islam is a religion of violence, they will kill them. British establishment thinks that by seeking to accommodate this Muslim narrative of encroachment into the public sphere, they will draw the Muslim sting and get the Muslim community on-side, they will draw the sting of anger against Britain, they will turn jihadists into model citizens, and they will separate the community from al-Qaeda. British establishment think that the Islamic religion in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood is an antidote to al-Qaeda -- an antidote to terror.  They think the Muslim Brotherhood is a counter-radicalisation movement. As a result, they are using the Muslim Brotherhood and bringing it into the heart of British establishment, because they fail to understand that what Britain is facing is a pincer movement of Islamism being used against British society, not just through terrorism but also through cultural attack. Britain is seeing Leninist Islamism in the form of al-Qaeda, as well as Gramscian Islamism in the form of Tariq Ramadan and cultural Muslim Brotherhood onslaught, which corresponds to and is using the Gramscian onslaught on the basic tenets of Western civilisation through such things as the capture of the intelligentsia, the capture of the universities, the capture of the establishment, the capture of the civil service, the destruction of such things as family and nation, and substitution of the values of the excluded and transgressive for the values of the normal. That is the Gramscian project.  It has succeeded in Britain absolutely to the letter.  And the Islamists are coming along and Islamising Gramsci.  That's what Britain has. The government does not see this, so Britain now has Muslim Brotherhood people at the centre of government, advising government on how to combat Islamist extremism. Melanie Phillips has sat in defence establishment seminars, where she has seen hard-bitten people from the security establishment sitting lapping up Islamits bamboozling them with a sanitised and highly selective version of Islam. Melanie Phillips states that she knows that the British police are giving sensitive security information to Muslim extremists who are on their liaison groups with the community, which are not vetted in case they upset the Muslim community and they are asking permission of these people before they conduct raids. What this is doing is undermining the true moderate Muslims in Britain, of whom there are certainly some, but not by any means as many as is said to be, but they do exist. Cardinal Pell painted a benign and optimistic picture of relations between the non-Muslim and Muslim minority in Australia. Melanie Phillips makes a couple of points, which Pell did not fully acknowledge: 1.  Australia has very few Muslims compared to Britain and what there is in Europe, and that of course makes a considerable difference. 2.  Key thing about Australia is that this relatively happy state of affairs follows the incredibly hard line taken by John Howard and other ministers in that government, who basically said in terms, repeatedly:  this is the line we are drawing, we are a European Western society, you live here on our terms, or else you go -- and by the way, we are not letting a lot of you in and like it or lump it, these are our terms.  This is our society, this is our culture, you are welcome to take part in it, but on our terms. Melanie Phillips states, this is what has to happen.  Britain has to draw the cultural line in the sand. "The British Muslims say to us, we want equality.  We are a minority, we want equality.  And the establishment, because its so bamboozled by multiculturalism, thinks that equality means equality of the minorities with the majority.  But it doesn't.  The deal since the establishment has been that the majority upholds its own society -- and in the case of Britain and the West, tenets of liberalism, of tolerance of the disconnect between religion and the public square -- and that all minorities are treated the same *as each other* within that. In other words, they are all free and welcome to practise communities of faith, but where those faiths may conflict with the dominant values of the majority, those values must give way. ... In terms of the public sphere, it's ours:  you do not colonise it. So not one inch will we give to sharia, because we give it to no other minority." Britain has gone hell for leather in the opposite direction and that is why Britain is the most tolerant nation in Europe towards its Muslim minority, and it is the most hated by that minority. Antonio Gramsci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci Further Video Melanie Phillips on the threat of radical Islam 11 Mar 2015 https://youtu.be/S7qOemB2l9E?t=1680 Terrifying conclusion. Hard to weigh up how seriously to take Melanie Phillips, as she is very bound up in defending Israel -- ie Israel can do no wrong -- & it sounds like the US can't do wrong either (eg 2007 videos I just looked at). That could be unimportant, but it could also be a significant thing. The threat is probably real (but not necessarily for the reasons she thinks).  The rest I don't buy. Israel never gets bad press, but from the way this lady's talking in the videos I've seen, you'd think the press was crucifying Israel. Israel is always treated as an exception:  Tzipi Livni arrest warrant ignored; over 120,000 signature petition to arrest Netanyahu not discussed in UK parliament, contrary to own rules;  the "Israel has a right to defend itself" constant refrain, as Israel was pounding Gaza (which is like an open prison); the massive amount of aid Israel receives from the US; the military aid Israel received from Germany; the considerable amount of kowtowing to Israel and supporters of Israel that the West seems to do, are just some of the things that come to mind. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ

Sweden: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Elite 'Iron Cartel', the Public Lie, Media Censorship & Speech Oppression

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHsXWYaTlik&feature=youtu.be TITLE Warnings: Sweden is Headed Toward "a Cliff"... ______________________________________ Interview excerpts with Swedish economic researcher Tino Sanandaji, Ph.D.  University of Chicago. Fellow at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics in Stockholm. Iranian-Kurdish background. Published on Mar 16, 2015 Duration:  7:07 ______________________________________ TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] Tino Sanandaji You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict the future. You go to cities like Malmö, Sweden's third city. They are 20 years ahead demographically. That's what the rest of Sweden is going to be, and Sweden is taking more immigrants -- more refugees -- than UK, France and all the other Nordic country combined. 0:22 And at the same time, Sweden has in the OECD the largest gap in employment between natives and immigrants. It is literally the worst country in the world in terms of getting immigrants integrated into the labour market. The central problem of Sweden is that these facts are not openly discussed. 0:43 The right -- the political right, the left, and the media, they have formed an iron cartel to basically censor negative facts of immigration and to, sort of, highlight positive spin on this issue. And, you know, for a Swedish academic or a politician or a reporter go on TV and say the figures I have reported, that could destroy their career and, at any case, that would cause a huge amount of social reprisal. 1:19 Interviewer Before you continue, why, if they're facts? Tino Sanandaji This has deep historical reasons. And the historical issue I would argue is that when immigration -- refugee immigration -- for Sweden started in the late 1980s in large numbers, there was huge race -- violent -- aggressive racist backlash. So, you know, this is another paradox about Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries are quite peaceful, but in terms of racist murders, they top the world. And the Swedish elite -- again, the left, the right, and the media -- they formed a counter-movement to quell racism. And if the politicians and the media can claim that immigration is good for the economy, that it's not causing unemployment, it's not causing social problems, then they easily win the debate, right? So then they cheat. 2:15 Then they just create this, basically, public lie that things are going great, we have minor problems, but it is basically beneficial. So the sort of spin has become a reality to them. And given that they believe that, when they hear someone say these negative pessimistic numbers, they assume it can't be true because it that were true, why isn't everybody saying it on TV. You know, the social truth wins over the factual truth. 7:07 But I would understand this if there was a plan. So, OK, let's lie for a -- or white lies for a while -- until we solve this problem. The thing is though, the problem isn't solving itself. It's just slowly becoming bigger and bigger. And I have to say that the level of speech oppression that they have achieved to completely [censor?]  without any real laws -- at least it's not Iran, they don't put you in prison if you say these numbers. [ Economic & Social Consequences of Addressing Facts] What they do is, you may get fired or half your friends are going to remove you on Facebook. It works. So academics -- you know, these facts are well known by economists, for example. But economists are generally silent. What benefit is it for you if you're a blonde, blue-eyed Swede to go and say, yeah, immigration is really bad for the economy. Then you're saying the same thing as those skinheads, right? So then maybe you're one of them?  Maybe you're racist?  Why else would you be saying that? I mean, even in New York Time, had an article where it was shocked about the so-called 'consensus' in  Sweden; how there was a sort of wet blanket over the debate. 3:56 Interviewer It's like an irrational immigration cult. Tino Sanandaji Yes, I would say it is sort of an anti-racist cult.  That's what it is, so you know-- If you want to sort of 'psychologise', Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world, OK? They've lost their moral grounding -- and they're elitist, in particular -- are aggressively anti-religion, right. But people, of course, need some sort of spirituality, morality, some values. And, instead, their values are 'anti-racism,' so they created this alternative reality for themselves where it's the 1930s and they're the guys fighting Hitler. And, you know, if somebody says 'immigrants have high unemployment' -- some of them genuinely think, yeah, that's what Hitler said. They don't know what Hitler said.  They don't understand that. And, if you want, you can perhaps find an explanation in the lack of values and people fill it up, then, with something else. 5:01 Interviewer It's a religious substitute. Tino Sanandaji Yes.  That's what it is. It's a quasi-religion, yes. It's a secular religion. 5:09 Interviewer So what is the future of all this? Tino Sanandaji In the short-term, they're just going to continue. And we have the projections, that the record levels that we have now are going to accelerate even further. In the long-run, my guess is that this is going to collapse. Interviewer When you say 'collapse,' what comes to your mind?  Economic collapse-- Tino Sanandaji [interjects] -- in Sweden? Interviewer [cross-talk] --social unrest?  Yeah. Tino Sanandaji Adam Smith said that there's a lot of ruin in a nation. By that he meant that nations can take a lot of beating without collapsing. Sweden will never collapse, OK. What's going to happen if this continues is just a gradual deterioration in social-economic outcomes, mostly [??]. 5:53 Interviewer So what is the mentality?  Is it NIMBY -- 'not in my backyard' -- that as leaders of Sweden we're going to bring all these immigrants in because it makes us feel better, but they won't be going to our kids' schools? Tino Sanandaji Yes. So among Swedish politicians there was -- one of the Swedish newspapers had a survey -- one percent (1%) of them live in the areas where there is a lot of immigrants, and those [ie resident 1%] are typically immigrants. I mean, that just tells you -- you know, that just tells you something about those people, right, the elite -- which is this is multiculturalism for voters, but not for me and my kids. If you really think multiculturalism is good, why don't you go and live there? The fact that you don't live there, that almost none of them live there, almost none of them send their kids to school there, shows that at the human level, at some level, they understand that it is not working. And these politicians -- some of them -- know. I mean, I talk to high-ranking politicians sometimes. Some of them know what's going on, that this is unsustainable, and that basically, Sweden is slowly going towards a cliff. SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHsXWYaTlik&feature=youtu.be SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnP-XzB_U0&feature=youtu.be TITLE CBN: Malmö, Sweden:  Growing Muslim Influence ______________________________________ 2009 CBN: Malmö, Sweden: Growing Muslim Influence Duration:  5:42 ______________________________________ TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] Narrator Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, sits just across the water from Copenhagen, Denmark. To visitors, Malmö seems quiet, nice, maybe a little boring.  In other words, quintessentially Swedish. But under the surface, Malmö has serious problems. On Saturday when Israel played Sweden in a Davis Cup tennis match in Malmö, an estimated 6,000 (six thousand) leftists, Arabs, Muslims and anarchists protested the Israeli presence in the city, and many attacked police. Almost no fans were allowed inside to watch the tennis series because authorities feared disruptions or violence. Massive immigration has made Malmö today one-quarter Muslim and stands to transform it into a Muslim majority city within a few decades. One of the most popular baby names is not Sven, but Mohammed. Pork has been taken off some school menus. Want to learn to drive?  Here's Malmö's own Jihad Driving School. And despite Malmö's usually placid appearance, this experiment in multiculturalism has not gone well. This is the Rosengård area of Malmö:  a housing project where the radicalisation and crime have exploded, and fire and emergency workers will no longer enter without police protection. [Rosengård built between 1967 and 1972 as a part of Million Program. White flight since 1974.  Inhabitants of immigrant  background --  86% (2012) - here  Million Program -- public housing programme implemented by Swedish Social Democratic Party 1965-1974 -- appears to be high-density public housing -- here] 1:17 Immigrant unemployment in Rosengård is reported to be 70% (seventy percent). An immigrant-fuelled crime wave affects 1 (one) of every 3 (three) Malmö families each year. The number of rapes has tripped in 20 (twenty) years. And the crime wave has only accelerated a Swedish version of white flight from the city. Malmö has been so accommodating toward immigrant Muslims that a local Muslim politician and Imam has even declared that the best Islamic state is Sweden. But don't ask Malmö's Jews to give the city the same glowing assessment. Jews who dare walk the streets wearing their yamulkas risk being beaten up. 1:55 Lars Hedegaard International Free Press Society And it's true, Jews cannot walk in the streets of Malmö and show that they're Jews. Narrator Lars Hedegaard lives across the water from Malmö in Copenhagen, where he was a columnist for one of Denmark's largest newspapers. He says peaceful pro-Israeli demonstrations in Malmö, like the ones during the Gaza war earlier this year [2009], were met with rocks, bottles and pipe-bombs from Arabs and leftists. 2:22 Lars Hedegaard International Free Press Society I was there for a demonstration -- a pro-Israeli demonstration with four (4) or five (5) hundred people; Jews [and] non-Jews -- and I came over to cover it. The police allowed these, say, one hundred (100) Palestinians or Arabs, to shout and threaten, and throw bombs and rockets at us. A home-made bomb landed about ten (10) yards from me, went off with a big bang, and I thought:  well, now the police, of course, was going to jump these guys to get them out of the way They didn't. They just let them stand there. 2:57 Ted Erkeroth Swedish Democrats Interl Adviser I filmed the Police Chief and asked him why are they not reacting to this, why they're not doing anything. And he simply answered:  it's their right according to the Swedish Constitution to be there. We apparently did not have the same right because we were first [???] Narrator Swede, Ted Erkeroth, helped film the Arab-left counter demonstrations. He saw Arabs throwing rocks at a 90 year old holocaust survivor. Hopefully, you can show some of the clips from our manifestation for Israel, which is always peaceful and always with a message of peace, and theirs, always the quite opposite:  death, hate, and killing of Jews. Narrator And like all over the Western world, Arab and Muslim immigrants, along with some leftists and anarchists, have formed a political alliance against Israel and Jews. They demonstrate together, and in Sweden they vote together. Muslims and Arabs are a core constituency of the left. The immigrant issue is a big reason the right-wing Swedish Democrats are the fastest growing political party in the country. Matthias Karlsson is the Swedish Democrats press secretary. Matthias Karlsson Swedish Democrats 4:06 In may parts of Sweden people are, as I said, fed up and they're getting pushed too far and they want to make a stand. Narrator But the Swedish Democrats who stand for traditional Christian values and limits on immigration have been stigmatised by the Swedish media as fascists and bigoted. Erik Almqvist Swedish Democrats The media has tried to portray us as extremists, racists -- we're almost inhuman. Narrator Erik Almqvist, national youth leader for the Swedish Democrats, faces regular death threats and was almost killed recently in a left-wing knife attack. Erik Almqvist Swedish Democrats The multicultural system in Sweden has polarised the society. We have an ethnic polarisation.  We have, also, a political polarisation. Narrator Hedegaard says, as Malmö goes, so goes Sweden. Lars Hedegaard International Free Press Society I think the best prediction is that Sweden will have a Muslim majority by 2049. So we know where that country's going. Narrator CBN news was unable to get a response from Malmö's mayor Ilmar Reepalu, but he told a Swedish publication he does not think anti-Semitism is greater in Malmö than in other Swedish cities and said that harassment of Jews is 'not good'. [Other:  March 2012 -- Ilmar Reepalu claimed the Jewish community in Malmö was infiltrated by the Sweden Democrats.  His statement was characterized as anti-Semitic by, among other things, Lena Posner Körösi, leader of the Jewish Central Council, and Hannah Rosenthal, White House special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.  Wikipedia / Swedish to English translated] CBN News asked a number of Jewish leaders to appear on camera to discuss anti-Semitism, they all declined, with one saying it would only make the situation worse. Dale Hurd, CBN News, in Malmö, Sweden. SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnP-XzB_U0&feature=youtu.be ---------------------------------- Dale Hurd CBN News veteran began his journalism career in 1982 'Multiculturalism failing' Violent riots engulf Stockholm suburbs  Husby Riots in Stockholm ______________________________________ TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] 'Multiculturalism failing' Violent riots engulf Stockholm suburbs Husby Riots in Stockholm Published on May 22, 2013 Duration:  5:44 SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGpAUKJtzI Reporter Sweden could be paying a tough price on its policies on immigrants and multiculturalism. A Stockholm suburb erupted into violence for a few hours, as crowds of angry massed youths from migrant families burned cars, smashed windows, and hurled stones at police officers. What's believed to have fuelled the riot was the death of a sixty-nine year old, allegedly shot by police in the area last week. So to discuss how the mood might be changing in the heart of Scandinavia, we're now joined live from the Swedish capital by Marc Abramsson, who's Chairman of the National Democrats party. Mr Abramsson, thanks so much for joining us here on RT to discuss this. Well, we normally have, you know, the image in our minds the image of Stockholm as a very calm, placid city.  So how surprised were you to see those riots?  I mean, angry youths setting cars and buildings ablaze? 0:55 Marc Abramsson National Democratic Party Thank you. Well, I was not that surprised anymore. But this is fairly new to Sweden and this is a clear consequence of this multiculturalism politics that Sweden adopted around the 80s, and increased it in the 90s, and we are now seeing these problems;  that this politics is not working. And we have seen this -- this is not a unique one single occasion, we have seen this in Gothenburg, in Malmo, several times, and even in the city where I am an  elected councillor in Södertälje, in  Rona [municipality in Stockholm County, east central Sweden], we have these ethnic-based riots against Swedish authorities. So this -- I wasn't surprised, but we have seen this in Western Europe. It's very sad, and I think we'll see more of this if we don't change the politics in the future. 5:43 Reporter Well, let's take a look at this particular neighbourhood, and it's 80% (eighty percent), immigrant residents. And the trouble flared after police killed an elderly man there. I mean, obviously, these people feel they're not protected by the police.  Don't they have a right to be heard? Marc Abramsson National Democratic Party Well, I think that the problem beneath this -- it can be different things -- this time it was this man that was arrested and resisted and was killed. We have other things that happened in other places. But the main reason is that they don't identify themselves with the Swedish society or as Swedes, but their own ethnic group, they live in their own area, and they feel the area is their own, and when the police arrive, they feel that the police are intruding into their, sort of, country, if you would like. Reporter So how did that happen?  I mean, what led to that?  Sorry for interrupting you.  But what led to that, I mean, how did they -- sort of their neighbourhood or the community where they live turn into a sort of ghetto type dwelling there.  I mean, what about the integration policies, is the government doing anything at all to integrate the immigrants? Marc Abramsson National Democratic Party Yes, I think that Sweden has been trying harder than any other country in Europe to try to push for integration, where we invested virtually billions into it of taxpayers' money.  We've tried everything that the scientists have presented and, still, it's not working. And the problem -- the core here -- is that these people don't identify themselves as-- they identify themselves as their own ethnic group, and accede to the interests of their group. And with the second generation, it's even worse, because they are between the Swedish society and their parents' society, if you would like to. And it's clearly not working.  It's not working in Sweden, it's in France, or in the United States. This is something we'll see more of, and I don't think it's solvable to integrate this huge influx. If it was just a couple of people, of course. But what we have in Sweden today is an immigration stream that is so huge that we have no roof, where there's nothing that says we'll accept this many, or we can accept ten thousand (10,000) or a thousand (1,000), but it is unlimited. And that is basically -- I think this is really why this is escalating, because they want to live with their own people, their own ethnic group. They seek actively to live with their own group. So they concentrate themselves to these areas, and then they feel like their have their own little town in Sweden and they don't accept or identify with the Swedish authorities and this is just getting-- We have seen this for several years coming up with police cars:  when they do work in these areas they have to be two cars, one protecting the other, when they're working in these areas.  People are trying to maintain builds, have to have guards -- security guards.  The fire department can't work.  We've seen this in Malmo when they get attacked by angry immigrant youths that feel like they're intruding into their own area, even when they're trying to help. And this is basically-- it's not about bad or good people.  It's just a consequence of this politics. And what we would like to see, instead, is safe havens.  That we help people their own countries or in neighbouring countries-- 5:28 Reporter [interrupting] I understand, Marc, unfortunately we're running out of time. We have to leave it there, but thanks for talking to us here at RT and letting us know what you think on this issue.' That was Marc Abramsson, the Chairman of the National Democrats party [Sweden]. SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGpAUKJtzI ꕤ