NationStates Jolt Archive

Culture Clash in Denmark
The close-knit Danes find their liberal ideals tested by a growing, alienated Muslim population

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061231/8denmark.htm

COPENHAGEN–This, a recent study concluded, is the happiest country on Earth. With Denmark's cradle-to-grave social welfare, highly regarded healthcare and education, prosperity, and small-country ethnic cohesion, the land that gave us Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales also excels at producing a good life in reality.

And yet, over the past year or so, the contented Danes have been forced to face both their greatest international crisis since World War II and the rise here of separate Muslim communities where many are unable or unwilling to enter the Danish mainstream. The international uproar over publication of 12 prophet Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper triggered violence that left at least 139 people dead, Danish diplomatic outposts torched in Lebanon and Syria, and Danish goods boycotted. Suddenly, Denmark felt dangerously exposed–a country of just 5.4 million people facing the wrath of an Islamic world exceeding a billion people.

The violence outside Denmark ultimately quieted down, though the country's security-threat level remains elevated. At home, the bitter disputes over the cartoons have highlighted an unhealed–and potentially hazardous–rift between the dominant Danes and the Muslim immigrants living in what are being called "parallel societies." Ask Danes and Muslim immigrants alike, and many will say there is something a bit rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark.

The legacy of the cartoon uproar is not all bad. Private efforts at building bridges between Muslims and non-Muslim Danes have accelerated. Secular Danish Muslims condemned the violence overseas and appealed for dialogue. That, say Danes, has encouraged a greater appreciation of the differences–political and otherwise-among Muslims here.

"Time bomb." Still, the cartoon crisis itself did not prompt any basic rethinking of how to integrate Muslims more deeply into Danish society. And the country is now preoccupied with things Muslim. Attention is riveted on any controversy linked to its Muslim residents–so-called honor killings of female relatives, street crime, terrorism probes, unemployment, forced marriages, use of veils, and so on. Denmark is pondering the specter of ever more young Muslims–unemployed and undereducated–finding their identities not as coolly secularized Danes but as fervent or even radical Muslims. "We are sitting on a time bomb," warns Eva Smith, a law professor and racism expert at the University of Copenhagen.

The ferment in Denmark is especially striking because of its progressive traditions, but it also reflects the broader tremors rattling western Europe, where tangled issues of national identity, culture, religion, and security arising from Muslim immigration have bolted to the fore. Old, ethnically grounded societies are being roiled by the presence of Muslim newcomers–or at least by the reaction to them. "There's kind of an unspoken assumption that they're not really Dutch, not really Danes, and so forth," reasons one senior U.S. official who follows the phenomenon. "Europeans are uncomfortable with Islam, and they see it as an alien body in their midst. ... Europe's got a huge problem, and they're just getting their minds around it now."
The cartoon controversy, along with frustration over the slow pace of Muslim integration, is leading some Danes to question their prized image as an open and tolerant nation. This, after all, is a people who under Nazi occupation spirited nearly all of their 7,000-some Jews to safety in Sweden. In the 1960s and 1970s, Denmark sought to offer one of Europe's most liberal immigration policies. Many came as guest workers and were later joined by family members and asylum seekers. Even so, Denmark remained remarkably mono-ethnic; only about 4 percent of the population is Muslim. Coming mostly from Arab states, Iran, and Pakistan, the immigrants have clustered in a few neighborhoods in Copenhagen and other cities.

Yet as the preoccupation with Muslims has deepened in recent years, Denmark has swung in the opposite direction, erecting perhaps Europe's most restrictive set of rules. A rightist, anti-immigration party sits not in government but at its side; the ruling coalition relies on its votes to govern. The mood toward immigrants has, with exceptions, soured. The share of Danes who view Islam as incompatible with democracy has shot up. And Muslims are often portrayed as troublemakers who sup at the table of Danish generosity–all the while rejecting what makes Denmark special. "They create ghettos. ... There are a lot of criminals," says Henrik Pedersen, a Dane who runs a Copenhagen trucking business. "Muslim people should be in a Muslim country."

More sophisticated immigration skeptics worry that "Danish values" are under threat by politicized Muslims who resist assimilation. These values include democracy, far-reaching personal freedoms, equality between the sexes, and the trust born of unusually strong social bonds. One government minister frankly called the Danes a "tribe" in describing their group identity. "The whole quality of Danish life stands or falls with this community of values," adds Ralf Pittelkow, a newspaper columnist and coauthor of a bestselling book on the Islamist challenge. "Danes need to feel reassured that the main features of Danish society remain unchanged. ... We are at a crunch point."

Some Danes argue that evading the impact of immigration is impossible. "Some people want to keep Denmark as a kind of museum," says Helle Stenum, the chairwoman of MixEurope, a pro-integration group. "We are a rich, safe society that is scared." Adds Copenhagen schoolteacher Maia Lisa Petersen as she rushes to a subway station, "These other cultures, other values force us to wake up. ... We can't hide anymore in this nice, perfect little Scandinavian world."

Nor can the Muslim immigrants easily hide in enclaves that insulate them from the culture that surrounds them. They say that the political and media atmosphere has turned against them–particularly since the cartoon crisis. "It totally changed my view of Danish society," says Mustafa Kucukyild, 26, who came from Turkey as a 1-year-old boy. "The spotlight is on Muslims. I'm much more cautious about what I say." As the kebab and pizza restaurant where he works fills up with blond-haired college students, he is talking about his estrangement from the Danes. Kucukyild is asked if, having spent nearly all his life here, he feels Danish. "Definitely, no," he replies. "No matter how much you want to be, you always have this black hair," he says, grabbing at a lock of his own. "I will always be a foreigner."

The alienation is pervasive, and it goes well beyond the discomfort some Muslims feel toward Denmark's permissive atmosphere. "Danish people are very hard people, very cold," claims Hassan, a middle-aged, Iraqi-born businessman in the Copenhagen district of Norrebro, where Danes often mix with immigrants. Hassan says that his children are adapting better than he is, though his 15-year-old daughter has faced problems in class–a teacher has chided her about her head scarf. Other immigrants report occasional hassles of other sorts: snide comments or being bumped on buses, being barred from nightclubs or followed by department store security officers–or the "what are you doing here?" stares in coffee shops. (Some Danes counter that Muslims are being overly sensitive, playing up an image of victimhood.)


It goes on for 4 more pages......please, read.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comments? Well as you all know, this is not the first time I have posted articles on this issue, and it is no coinicedence that the article is coming from Denmark, again. I honestly think that for some reason, whether it be political correctness, common courtesy, or apathy, most of NS doesnt want to realise there *IS* a probelmatic situation brewing.....I have just come back from another trip to Europe over the Christmas-New Years break...and so I know that there are problems going on. I am honestly not sure of the solution, but I think that Europe needs to tighten its immigration radically, atleast until it gets a hold on the cultural/racial situation that it has on its hands.

A problem that greatly needs to be resolved, 'ere reactionary actions begin.

A problem that greatly needs to be resolved, 'ere reactionary actions begin.
What, in your opinion, would some good resolutions/solutions to this problem be?

I am honestly not sure of the solution, but I think that Europe needs to tighten its immigration radically, atleast until it gets a hold on the cultural/racial situation that it has on its hands.[/I]Getting the proper hold of the situation (integration) would mean loosening immigration policies, not tightening them.

So what is multiculturalism exactly? From what I've been able to make out it's when you have a large number of immigrants who tend to live together and mostly ignore the culture of their new nation rather than make an attempt to integrate.

I suppose it would be preferable if all immigrants adapted to their new culture to some extent but how would you go about making them do that?

Getting the proper hold of the situation (integration) would mean loosening immigration policies, not tightening them.
Why's that? That would imply letting more immigrants in who cleary aren't fitting in with the host soceity.

If only that would just cause to irritate the problem more.... Why would you want to loosen policies? What good would that do?

So what is multiculturalism exactly? From what I've been able to make out it's when you have a large number of immigrants who tend to live together and mostly ignore the culture of their new nation rather than make an attempt to integrate.
"Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status. Multiculturalism contrasts with the monoculturalism which was historically the norm in the nation-state. (Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity, 'monocultural' can be a descriptive term for pre-existing homogeneity). The term multiculturalism is almost always applied to distinct cultures of immigrant groups in developed countries, not to the presence of indigenous peoples."

Thats from Wiki, and probably as general a defintion as you get.
I suppose it would be preferable if all immigrants adapted to their new culture to some extent but how would you go about making them do that?
Perhaps the limiting of immigration so you only have to deal with integrating small groups at a time...or, the realisation that some groups cultures are incompatible with 18th-19th century liberalism....?

Why's that? That would imply letting more immigrants in who cleary aren't fitting in with the host soceity.

If only that would just cause to irritate the problem more.... Why would you want to loosen policies? What good would that do?They aren't fitting in because the host society is discriminating against them. The immigration policies are one form of this discrimination.

What, in your opinion, would some good resolutions/solutions to this problem be?

Well, integration, and a willingness to integrate, on the part of the increasing Muslim populations, as well as a settling of the local Danes. By this I mean not an intentional drive to avoid irritating the Muslim populations, but just a lack of desire to.

On the inverse, I'd expect the Muslims to develop som reasonably thick skin on the matter, and when someone says something "offensive", to shrug it off like everyone else.

Oh, I'd also like to see the Muslims referred to as Danes.

Well, integration, and a willingness to integrate, on the part of the increasing Muslim populations, as well as a settling of the local Danes. By this I mean not an intentional drive to avoid irritating the Muslim populations, but just a lack of desire to.


Presumably the immigrant population must have done something to provoke the native Danes' ire, although this action was probably just not integrating in the first place due to their radically different culture in their home countries.


On the inverse, I'd expect the Muslims to develop som reasonably thick skin on the matter, and when someone says something "offensive", to shrug it off like everyone else.

Oh, I'd also like to see the Muslims referred to as Danes.

I think you'd have to find some way to promote integration to any incoming immigrants, just wishing them to have thicker skin isnt going to happen.

Getting the proper hold of the situation (integration) would mean loosening immigration policies, not tightening them.
As usual, your skills as a contrarian fail to disappoint.

Presumably the immigrant population must have done something to provoke the native Danes' ire, I don't see any reason to suppose that the natives were upset for any reason other than that the immigrants are different.

As usual, your skills as a contrarian fail to disappoint.Why thank you. :p

I don't see any reason to suppose that the natives were upset for any reason other than that the immigrants are different.


If you'd read the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, you'd see I said that the radically different culture of denmark compared to the land of their birth probably caused them to group together, and not interact with the native Danes so much. This might be why the Danes got annoyed with them.
So, because they're different.

If you'd read the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, you'd see I said that the radically different culture of denmark compared to the land of their birth probably caused them to group together, and not interact with the native Danes so much. This might be why the Danes got annoyed with them.
So, because they're different.Yes, but simply being different isn't a good enough reason to cause anyone to become irate. In other words, I thought you were saying that the Danes were justified in their ire.

Give it up for the American news that go all the way to Denmark to find stories about evil muslims. I'm convinced that USA and Denmark will join together in the hate against muslims considering their attitudes towards them.

So what is multiculturalism exactly? From what I've been able to make out it's when you have a large number of immigrants who tend to live together and mostly ignore the culture of their new nation rather than make an attempt to integrate.

I suppose it would be preferable if all immigrants adapted to their new culture to some extent but how would you go about making them do that?


Naaa man, it's where you have a mixed group of people from many cultures living in the same area, and all showing tolerance and understanding towards those of a differant culture. Ala London.

Naaa man, it's where you have a mixed group of people from many cultures living in the same area, and all showing tolerance and understanding towards those of a differant culture. Ala London.
Or any of a great many cities in the US. Most of the time, anyway.

Yes, but simply being different isn't a good enough reason to cause anyone to become irate. In other words, I thought you were saying that the Danes were justified in their ire.

Partly, yes. Both sides could do more to integrate, however simply because they are the more numerous and obviously control the government at the moment I think the native Danes are more to blame, but as we've seen the same situation in nearly all countries with large immigrant populations, the outcome does seem to be fairly inevitable. We just need to find a way to better integrate the two cultures, if that is possible.

Or any of a great many cities in the US. Most of the time, anyway.

Yeah exactly. Heheh iot makes me laff all of this ohhh stop the immergrants malrky, I mean people moving across the gobe has been happening aas long as man has been around, it shall contiue long after I'm dead, and in 3 or 4 thousands years we shall all be a nice coffee colour anyhoo.

Shit I mean who exactly owns the country of your birth, and by what right?

Or any of a great many cities in the US. Most of the time, anyway.
But its not fair to compare America to Europe in regards to this...as America was sorta formed as a land for everyone who could embrace our values and was searching for the same thing we were...freedom, life, and the pursuit of happiness......Europe has had the same ethnic groups with the same cultures for gazillions of years...then after WWII Europe just decides to dump a bunch of third worlders in their midst.....with no experience of them at all....its hardly suprising there are problems.

But its not fair to compare America to Europe in regards to this...as America was sorta formed as a land for everyone who could embrace our values and was searching for the same thing we were...freedom, life, and the pursuit of happiness......Europe has had the same ethnic groups with the same cultures for gazillions of years...then after WWII Europe just decides to dump a bunch of third worlders in their midst.....with no experience of them at all....its hardly suprising there are problems.

Yeah but then should we look at modifying attitudes or policies ... it comes to a point of how much like an overbearing mom that protects their kids too much to learn do we want the government to be

But its not fair to compare America to Europe in regards to this...as America was sorta formed as a land for everyone who could embrace our values and was searching for the same thing we were...freedom, life, and the pursuit of happiness......Europe has had the same ethnic groups with the same cultures for gazillions of years...then after WWII Europe just decides to dump a bunch of third worlders in their midst.....with no experience of them at all....its hardly suprising there are problems.

Whilst being an answer it is just not true. People have moved from their place of birth to all over the world for millienia. The Black man has been in my country, UK, for more than just this century, but the last, one , and the one before that, and that one too. What you think that only white Itialian Romans, invade these shores?

But its not fair to compare America to Europe in regards to this...as America was sorta formed as a land for everyone who could embrace our values and was searching for the same thing we were...freedom, life, and the pursuit of happiness......Europe has had the same ethnic groups with the same cultures for gazillions of years...then after WWII Europe just decides to dump a bunch of third worlders in their midst.....with no experience of them at all....its hardly suprising there are problems.
Well it isn’t’ going to stop. People need to grow up and deal with it.
Also, most people who migrated to the US did so for the same reason that these Muslims are migrating to Europe, for economic opportunity.

Yeah exactly. Heheh iot makes me laff all of this ohhh stop the immergrants malrky, I mean people moving across the gobe has been happening aas long as man has been around, it shall contiue long after I'm dead,
Yeah, but not in the sense of a huge swab of people from a totally different culture coming to live in your culture
and in 3 or 4 thousands years we shall all be a nice coffee colour anyhoo.
Surely that isnt a good thing?
Shit I mean who exactly owns the country of your birth, and by what right?
....the people whos ancestors helped build it...and the people of which that culture is part of them.

Can we say "religion is the only thing keeping morals intact"?

I should really hope that'd be hard to say with a straight face after that.

Meh. This doesn't sound like a big deal. We all know muslim extremists exist and are more plentiful than we want them to be. But extremists exist in every organization. We can't blame multiculturalism for a few idiots who think that Allah wants them to kill people.

Yeah, but not in the sense of a huge swab of people from a totally different culture coming to live in your culture

Your culture which is defined by what....?

Ohh yeah thats right the acident of where you are born. If you are born elsewhere you have a differant culture. Is the country of origin really that important? As to huge swabs, where show me, what you are talking baout, which swab, how many, and where have they invaded?


Surely that isnt a good thing?

Yeah how can it not be? one less thing for the human race to kill each other over huh! Shit we can't beat up the black man, coz we are all the same colour. That sounds wonderful to me.


....the people whos ancestors helped build it...and the people of which that culture is part of them.

What actulay own the land do they, and by what right? Soooo we should then kick out that Bush monkey from the white house, and let some native American cheif take over as ruler of the land and country then? Actualy yeah I can agree with that.

Your culture which is defined by what....?

Ohh yeah thats right the acident of where you are born. If you are born elsewhere you have a differant culture. Is the country of origin really that important? As to huge swabs, where show me, what you are talking baout, which swab, how many, and where have they invaded?
Perhaps the millions of muslims living in Europe?


Yeah how can it not be? one less thing for the human race to kill each other over huh! Shit we can't beat up the black man, coz we are all the same colour. That sounds wonderful to me.
....well you are obviously messed up in the head. So you want humanity to be one boring group of people, with no diversity?


Whatactulay own the land do they, and by what right? Soooo we should then kick out that Bush monkey from the white house, and let some native American cheif take over as ruler of the land and country then? Actualy yeah I can agree with that.
Wrong because Native Americans have nothing to do with the country of America...but rather were inhabitants of the continent of North America.

Perhaps the millions of muslims living in Europe?


Ohhh and they have only just arrived, or have they been there for years? When I was a kid, i went to school with Mulism kids, rather like my own children do now, and that was not just a year or two, so I can only conclude that Mulsims have lived where I do, for at least as long as I have.



....well you are obviously messed up in the head. So you want humanity to be one boring group of people, with no diversity?

If it brings us a united humanity, and world peace into the bargin, then I don't mind being 'messed up in the head' at all.


Wrong because Native Americans have nothing to do with the country of America...but rather were inhabitants of the continent of North America.


Ohhh but I thought you said that the people that own the land are the people whos ancesters help build it? What are there not still Native Americans living in America, why are they called Native Americans, I wonder? They had nothing at all to do with the history of the American nation? Ohhh yeah apart from us white fella's going in a killing a whole bunch of em, and stealing the land from them you mean? Soooo by that rethoric, you should be pleased that the Muslim horde is just over the hill, and prepeard to sweep us from the land of our birth and to remake a new Mulsim World, and a new world culture, shouldn't you, that is what you said wasn't it?

"Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status

So, multiculturalism is bad cuz it allows different cultures and allows equal status. OHNOES. MUSLIMS WITH RIGHTS.

So, multiculturalism is bad cuz it allows different cultures and allows equal status. OHNOES. MUSLIMS WITH RIGHTS.
No its "bad" because it just doesnt universally work well. Multiculturalism may work in Canadian city A, but that doesnt mean its the God forsaken truth of know all to work in every city/country on the planet....which is what politicians and leftists are making it out to be.

There is no reason why Denmark needs to have multiculturalism if the *DANES* don't want it. Why must the international community enforce this upon them and give them all terrible dirty looks if they dont like it?

Danes should get to decided if they want their soceity to have zillions of Muslims in it or not.

Also, hows this source? Normal enough for you? Its a relief that you can actually debate the topic without saying, "OMG LOOK AT THAT SOURCE! CAN. NOT. DEBATE. TOPIC.!" .......this is saying basicaslly the same thing as that Swedish one did.:rolleyes:

There is no reason why Denmark needs to have multiculturalism if the *DANES* don't want it. Why must the international community enforce this upon them and give them all terrible dirty looks if they dont like it?Because there are no good reasons for them to not want it.

Danes should get to decided if they want their soceity to have zillions of Muslims in it or not.And the international community is allowed to think lowly of them for it.

If it brings us a united humanity, and world peace into the bargin, then I don't mind being 'messed up in the head' at all.
:)
Besides, if all you're defining diversity by is skin color, I’d say you’re a very shallow person indeed.

No its "bad" because it just doesnt universally work well. Multiculturalism may work in Canadian city A, but that doesnt mean its the God forsaken truth of know all to work in every city/country on the planet....which is what politicians and leftists are making it out to be.

There is no reason why Denmark needs to have multiculturalism if the *DANES* don't want it. Why must the international community enforce this upon them and give them all terrible dirty looks if they dont like it?

Danes should get to decided if they want their soceity to have zillions of Muslims in it or not.

Also, hows this source? Normal enough for you? Its a relief that you can actually debate the topic without saying, "OMG LOOK AT THAT SOURCE! CAN. NOT. DEBATE. TOPIC.!" .......this is saying basicaslly the same thing as that Swedish one did.:rolleyes:


If the Danes really think like that and wreally want it, then let them expellel all they want out of the country, and when the trade embargoes hit them, they will be calling out from help from other countries. I mean historicly they had to go a Viking to live in that barren land.

Baah the stupidity of people never fails to amaze me. Multiculturalisim is nothing more than people movbing from place to place, and everybody else being tolorant towards it. Do you really, think that any one country can stand without the aid of the rest of the world, from trade in stuff they just cannot produce, or trade to get rid of exscesse stock. Multiculturalisim is a fact of life and it is here for good, shut up and get used to it.

Culture Clash in Denmark
The close-knit Danes find their liberal ideals tested by a growing, alienated Muslim population

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061231/8denmark.htm

COPENHAGEN–This, a recent study concluded, is the happiest country on Earth. With Denmark's cradle-to-grave social welfare, highly regarded healthcare and education, prosperity, and small-country ethnic cohesion, the land that gave us Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales also excels at producing a good life in reality.

And yet, over the past year or so, the contented Danes have been forced to face both their greatest international crisis since World War II and the rise here of separate Muslim communities where many are unable or unwilling to enter the Danish mainstream. The international uproar over publication of 12 prophet Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper triggered violence that left at least 139 people dead, Danish diplomatic outposts torched in Lebanon and Syria, and Danish goods boycotted. Suddenly, Denmark felt dangerously exposed–a country of just 5.4 million people facing the wrath of an Islamic world exceeding a billion people.

The violence outside Denmark ultimately quieted down, though the country's security-threat level remains elevated. At home, the bitter disputes over the cartoons have highlighted an unhealed–and potentially hazardous–rift between the dominant Danes and the Muslim immigrants living in what are being called "parallel societies." Ask Danes and Muslim immigrants alike, and many will say there is something a bit rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark.

The legacy of the cartoon uproar is not all bad. Private efforts at building bridges between Muslims and non-Muslim Danes have accelerated. Secular Danish Muslims condemned the violence overseas and appealed for dialogue. That, say Danes, has encouraged a greater appreciation of the differences–political and otherwise-among Muslims here.

"Time bomb." Still, the cartoon crisis itself did not prompt any basic rethinking of how to integrate Muslims more deeply into Danish society. And the country is now preoccupied with things Muslim. Attention is riveted on any controversy linked to its Muslim residents–so-called honor killings of female relatives, street crime, terrorism probes, unemployment, forced marriages, use of veils, and so on. Denmark is pondering the specter of ever more young Muslims–unemployed and undereducated–finding their identities not as coolly secularized Danes but as fervent or even radical Muslims. "We are sitting on a time bomb," warns Eva Smith, a law professor and racism expert at the University of Copenhagen.

The ferment in Denmark is especially striking because of its progressive traditions, but it also reflects the broader tremors rattling western Europe, where tangled issues of national identity, culture, religion, and security arising from Muslim immigration have bolted to the fore. Old, ethnically grounded societies are being roiled by the presence of Muslim newcomers–or at least by the reaction to them. "There's kind of an unspoken assumption that they're not really Dutch, not really Danes, and so forth," reasons one senior U.S. official who follows the phenomenon. "Europeans are uncomfortable with Islam, and they see it as an alien body in their midst. ... Europe's got a huge problem, and they're just getting their minds around it now."
The cartoon controversy, along with frustration over the slow pace of Muslim integration, is leading some Danes to question their prized image as an open and tolerant nation. This, after all, is a people who under Nazi occupation spirited nearly all of their 7,000-some Jews to safety in Sweden. In the 1960s and 1970s, Denmark sought to offer one of Europe's most liberal immigration policies. Many came as guest workers and were later joined by family members and asylum seekers. Even so, Denmark remained remarkably mono-ethnic; only about 4 percent of the population is Muslim. Coming mostly from Arab states, Iran, and Pakistan, the immigrants have clustered in a few neighborhoods in Copenhagen and other cities.

Yet as the preoccupation with Muslims has deepened in recent years, Denmark has swung in the opposite direction, erecting perhaps Europe's most restrictive set of rules. A rightist, anti-immigration party sits not in government but at its side; the ruling coalition relies on its votes to govern. The mood toward immigrants has, with exceptions, soured. The share of Danes who view Islam as incompatible with democracy has shot up. And Muslims are often portrayed as troublemakers who sup at the table of Danish generosity–all the while rejecting what makes Denmark special. "They create ghettos. ... There are a lot of criminals," says Henrik Pedersen, a Dane who runs a Copenhagen trucking business. "Muslim people should be in a Muslim country."

More sophisticated immigration skeptics worry that "Danish values" are under threat by politicized Muslims who resist assimilation. These values include democracy, far-reaching personal freedoms, equality between the sexes, and the trust born of unusually strong social bonds. One government minister frankly called the Danes a "tribe" in describing their group identity. "The whole quality of Danish life stands or falls with this community of values," adds Ralf Pittelkow, a newspaper columnist and coauthor of a bestselling book on the Islamist challenge. "Danes need to feel reassured that the main features of Danish society remain unchanged. ... We are at a crunch point."

Some Danes argue that evading the impact of immigration is impossible. "Some people want to keep Denmark as a kind of museum," says Helle Stenum, the chairwoman of MixEurope, a pro-integration group. "We are a rich, safe society that is scared." Adds Copenhagen schoolteacher Maia Lisa Petersen as she rushes to a subway station, "These other cultures, other values force us to wake up. ... We can't hide anymore in this nice, perfect little Scandinavian world."

Nor can the Muslim immigrants easily hide in enclaves that insulate them from the culture that surrounds them. They say that the political and media atmosphere has turned against them–particularly since the cartoon crisis. "It totally changed my view of Danish society," says Mustafa Kucukyild, 26, who came from Turkey as a 1-year-old boy. "The spotlight is on Muslims. I'm much more cautious about what I say." As the kebab and pizza restaurant where he works fills up with blond-haired college students, he is talking about his estrangement from the Danes. Kucukyild is asked if, having spent nearly all his life here, he feels Danish. "Definitely, no," he replies. "No matter how much you want to be, you always have this black hair," he says, grabbing at a lock of his own. "I will always be a foreigner."

The alienation is pervasive, and it goes well beyond the discomfort some Muslims feel toward Denmark's permissive atmosphere. "Danish people are very hard people, very cold," claims Hassan, a middle-aged, Iraqi-born businessman in the Copenhagen district of Norrebro, where Danes often mix with immigrants. Hassan says that his children are adapting better than he is, though his 15-year-old daughter has faced problems in class–a teacher has chided her about her head scarf. Other immigrants report occasional hassles of other sorts: snide comments or being bumped on buses, being barred from nightclubs or followed by department store security officers–or the "what are you doing here?" stares in coffee shops. (Some Danes counter that Muslims are being overly sensitive, playing up an image of victimhood.)


It goes on for 4 more pages......please, read.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comments? Well as you all know, this is not the first time I have posted articles on this issue, and it is no coinicedence that the article is coming from Denmark, again. I honestly think that for some reason, whether it be political correctness, common courtesy, or apathy, most of NS doesnt want to realise there *IS* a probelmatic situation brewing.....I have just come back from another trip to Europe over the Christmas-New Years break...and so I know that there are problems going on. I am honestly not sure of the solution, but I think that Europe needs to tighten its immigration radically, atleast until it gets a hold on the cultural/racial situation that it has on its hands.

Its the liberals who created this problem,not us.Dont be surprised if people,even in Europe,are getting sick of it all.

No its "bad" because it just doesnt universally work well. Multiculturalism may work in Canadian city A, but that doesnt mean its the God forsaken truth of know all to work in every city/country on the planet....which is what politicians and leftists are making it out to be.

Politicians, leftists and people who don't discriminate based on ethnicity. Whatever shall we do?

There is no reason why Denmark needs to have multiculturalism if the *DANES* don't want it. Why must the international community enforce this upon them and give them all terrible dirty looks if they dont like it?

Who said anything about the internrational communtiy enforcing anything on Denmark? Not I. I merely mocked the position of "foreigners=bad!" that you and anyone else who mindlessly rants against the evils of "multiculturalism."


Also, hows this source? Normal enough for you? Its a relief that you can actually debate the topic without saying, "OMG LOOK AT THAT SOURCE! CAN. NOT. DEBATE. TOPIC.!" .......this is saying basicaslly the same thing as that Swedish one did.:rolleyes:

Oh, you mean that Nazi one? It's amazing how closely your hatred of "multiculturalism" coincides with a nazi viewpoint. Foreigners are bad, Muslims are bad, one nation, one vote, purity of nation, blah fucking blah blah blah. I wonder how that makes you feel, as a Jew, that you are agreeing with and echoing the bigoted, xenophobic policies of nazism.

Multiculturalisim is nothing more than people movbing from place to place, and everybody else being tolorant towards it. Do you really, think that any one country can stand without the aid of the rest of the world, from trade in stuff they just cannot produce, or trade to get rid of exscesse stock. Multiculturalisim is a fact of life and it is here for good, shut up and get used to it.

Yeah apparently, being tolerant of other cultures is "not right for everyone," and it's an "experiment" that is "failing." We should go back to the good old days, when instead of being tolerant of other cultures, we'd put them in gas chambers and work camps!

Yeah apparently, being tolerant of other cultures is "not right for everyone," and it's an "experiment" that is "failing." We should go back to the good old days, when instead of being tolerant of other cultures, we'd put them in gas chambers and work camps!

I can get you a deal on several hundred acres, prime cotton-growing land, maybe ...

Why does this remind me of Smunkee's "us vs them" thread? Gee, the world's getting to be a scary place, it must be because of them furriners!

I can get you a deal on several hundred acres, prime cotton-growing land, maybe ...

Why does this remind me of Smunkee's "us vs them" thread? Gee, the world's getting to be a scary place, it must be because of them furriners!

HAhaha or them damned free thinking liberals!:rolleyes:

I intensely dislike the liberal assumption made with regards to multiculturalism. While highly liberal socially myself, I think that our attempt to be 'nice' and to 'respect cultures' has completely trodden constructive discussion on this issue.

I feel that many fellow liberals define multiculturalism very poorly by emphasising that we should respect our 'differences' and celebrate our 'difference'. But does this not lead to a fractured society?

Truer multiculturalism comes from building a society on the celebration of commonality and unity between peoples. That we should celebrate that which brings us together rather than that which divides us. By celebrating the inverse of this, one invariably creates unconstructive disunity and disharmony in society.

Who the fuck cares?

If a state wants to be multicultural, then let it. If it doesn't, then let it. Unless it's yours - just shut up, please!

I'm getting so sick and fucking tired of these types of threads. "OH NOES! The evil European multiculturalist liberal hippies will be the collapse of civilisation as we know it! The hordes of Islam will be upon us! NOES I say!! NOES!!" Usually followed by some sort of smugness from a US poster or two going, "we know better - silly Europeans", winking to each and nodding their heads like they have the perfect solution.

Fuck me.

Who the fuck cares?

If a state wants to be multicultural, then let it. If it doesn't, then let it. Unless it's yours - just shut up, please!

I'm getting so sick and fucking tired of these types of threads. "OH NOES! The evil European multiculturalist liberal hippies will be the collapse of civilisation as we know it! The hordes of Islam will be upon us! NOES I say!! NOES!!" Usually followed by some sort of smugness from a US poster or two going, "we know better - silly Europeans", winking to each and nodding their heads like they have the perfect solution.

Fuck me.
It's irritating from the European end too.

It's irritating from the European end too.

I agree completely. I was merely referring to the OP though, as this isn't the first time he's posted a thread like this.

Edit: Wait, I'm writing this from a European perspective - just to clarify.

I agree completely. I was merely referring to the OP though, as this isn't the first time he's posted a thread like this.
But at least it's not every day, like it was with DK.

Edit: Wait, I'm writing this from a European perspective - just to clarify.
Ah, It's pretty easy to assume that everyone except me is an American...

and in 3 or 4 thousands years we shall all be a nice coffee colour anyhoo.


Surely that isnt a good thing?


So you are having a pointy-hat day today...Whats wrong? See a black guy with a good looking woman that wouldn't spit on you?

Who the fuck cares?

If a state wants to be multicultural, then let it. If it doesn't, then let it. Unless it's yours - just shut up, please!

I'm getting so sick and fucking tired of these types of threads. "OH NOES! The evil European multiculturalist liberal hippies will be the collapse of civilisation as we know it! The hordes of Islam will be upon us! NOES I say!! NOES!!" Usually followed by some sort of smugness from a US poster or two going, "we know better - silly Europeans", winking to each and nodding their heads like they have the perfect solution.

Fuck me.

No, a Chara, fuck them.

What is funny is that you never hear anything about a budhist that cant integrate in any culture.

The problem of muslims is that their rules are too strict. If they get into countries with liberal ideas, where you can even use drugs in your house (muslims cant even drink alcohol), you´re gonna have problems.

The thing is that Europe has a lot of diferent cultures in a extremely small place. Mainly due to a lot of wars, nationalism developed there much faster and stronger than anywhere else. That means they hold their values and culture in high regard.

When a person from another culture comes in, he will have problems.

My conclusion: keep the muslims out of europe, unless they are willing to embrace their new culture fully. I mean, some places require you to give up your previous nation away, why shouldnt they be required to give islam away. Choose between the country and their god.

Wow. Another nativist thread. Interesting.

I mean, some places require you to give up your previous nation away, why shouldnt they be required to give islam away. Choose between the country and their god.How will you make sure? Make a squad of thought police?

How will you make sure? Make a squad of thought police?

AFAIK, in Japan you have to give up your previous nation and embrace japan´s rules. If they say you cant wear a scarf in school, you cant wear a scarf in school.

I dont know how it is in the US, but you have to honor the flag and the constitution, and say you will obey it and respect it. Which means it is above religion.

You see, religion is not bad. But when it conflicts with the contry rules and government, if you´ve vowed to fulfill it, you should.

Now, if muslims want to keep playing, please. But if they want their women to be bow down in a country that stands for women´s rights, they shouldnt be alowed to stay there.

ALSO, the country respects the freedom of speech. If someone wants to draw a picture of Mohamed pissing in a lake, he has the right to. And the people of the country should understand that. But muslims dont.

Read this:

"say, 'You Muslims,'" says Khader. "We are democratic without any reservations. ... We are Danes first and Muslims second." Naser says that the Islamists consider secular Muslims like himself as their principal enemy. "They are seen as more dangerous than Christians and Jews," he says. Still, only 14 percent of Danish Muslims back his group, according to a recent poll.

We are Danes first, and Muslims second. That is how it should be. Dont like Danes rules? Get out. These muslims imigrants there get 3 years of free danish education and also get unemployed money to survive... And they guys complain.

AFAIK, in Japan you have to give up your previous nation and embrace japan´s rules. If they say you cant wear a scarf in school, you cant wear a scarf in school.
You mean like France?

I dont know how it is in the US, but you have to honor the flag and the constitution, and say you will obey it and respect it. Which means it is above religion.
You mean... like France?

You see, religion is not bad. But when it conflicts with the contry rules and government, if you´ve vowed to fulfill it, you should.

You mean... like Fr..(you see where I'm going with this yet?)

ALSO, the country respects the freedom of speech. If someone wants to draw a picture of Mohamed pissing in a lake, he has the right to. And the people of the country should understand that. But muslims dont.
Or Jesus getting a blowjob from an altar boy. I'm sure that wouldn't piss off radical evangelicals or bible thumpers at all.

What do I care about France? France is a country far bigger and with far bigger culture diversity.

Havent you readed the story? Denmark is a country with 5 million people who look alike, think alike and live alike.

And in France and EUA, the problems are diferent, mainly not religion based. And in Japan they hate foreigners anyway.

And unless you´re in spain, catholics dont blow bombs.

What do I care about France? France is a country far bigger and with far bigger culture diversity.

Havent you readed the story? Denmark is a country with 5 million people who look alike, think alike and live alike.

And in France and EUA, the problems are diferent, mainly not religion based. And in Japan they hate foreigners anyway.

And unless you´re in spain, catholics dont blow bombs.

um there have been abortion clinic bombings in the US ...

Getting the proper hold of the situation (integration) would mean loosening immigration policies, not tightening them.

???

Danes don't want immigration, so the solution is to force them to accept more? That's just silly. Your hard-on for identity politics would make a Balkans out of Scandinavia.

They aren't fitting in because the host society is discriminating against them. The immigration policies are one form of this discrimination.

Not only is that counterintuitive (i.e., how can integration occur when you enable immigrants to form little ethnic pockets where they don't need to integrate?), it's also empirically false.

Shit I mean who exactly owns the country of your birth, and by what right?

Well, people own land usually by right of conquest, so who owns the land is whomever the conquerors say owns the land.

Well it isn’t’ going to stop. People need to grow up and deal with it.

It won't as long as people keep accepting it as inevitable. If people get sick of the douchebags in government ignoring their demands, eventually they will toss them out of office. That's sorta what democracy's all about.

If you are born elsewhere you have a differant culture. Is the country of origin really that important?

Well, yes, since if it goes down the crapper it'll probably take you with it.

Plus you're basically saying that culture, which is invariably tied to individual nations, is therefore unimportant, which is not only silly but just outright appalling.

If it brings us a united humanity, and world peace into the bargin, then I don't mind being 'messed up in the head' at all.

A united humanity is the goal? Wonderful. Y'know, Hitler could've united humanity.

Christ, people. Nations serve a valuable purpose. Imagine what would happen if a new Hitler came to power over a world government. There would be no nations to fight him, and no place for refugees to run to.

Don't tell me any of you seriously buy this globalist crap.

Because there are no good reasons for them to not want it.

(A) Obviously there are, when Muslims there keep pulling stunts like rioting and murdering over a silly cartoon.

(B) There are good reasons independent of that, including their desire to sustain their cultural identity.

(C) The fact that there are no good reasons not to have something (even if true, which in this case it isn't) isn't a sufficient basis to force something on people.

(D) Last I heard Denmark is a democracy. You don't force something on people just cause you think it's better for them.

If the Danes really think like that and wreally want it, then let them expellel all they want out of the country, and when the trade embargoes hit them, they will be calling out from help from other countries.

Get over yourself. We don't embargo the Arab world when one of their pisshole countries murders a Western tourist, what makes you think everyone will get up in arms when more Muslim immigrants are denied admittance to Denmark?

Multiculturalisim is nothing more than people movbing from place to place, and everybody else being tolorant towards it.

This isn't multiculturalism, it's multiracialism, you're just dressing it up in verbal camoflague to make it appear more palatable.

Can you even answer the question of why we should have one culture, much less a multitude of them? I doubt you can. You're hawking crude identity politics, nothing more.

Oh, you mean that Nazi one? It's amazing how closely your hatred of "multiculturalism" coincides with a nazi viewpoint. Foreigners are bad, Muslims are bad, one nation, one vote, purity of nation, blah fucking blah blah blah. I wonder how that makes you feel, as a Jew, that you are agreeing with and echoing the bigoted, xenophobic policies of nazism.

I invoke Godwin's law. You lose. Silly revisionist bastard.

For the record folks, you can be tolerant of other cultures without thinking they're entitled to move here en masse.

Wow. Another nativist thread. Interesting.

Why do you use "nativist" as an epithet?

---

Now for the $64,000 question: what is so great about diversity that it must be valued above all other things, including the basic rule of law and respect for democracy? You guys are basically saying that not even the will of voters should be allowed to usurp your absurd definition of "multiculturalism" (which, again, you cannot even define, much less explain as a valuable alternative to monoculturalism). If you're going to advocate race-baiting tyranny, you can at least have the decency to argue for why it's a positive good then just dredging up the old spectre of Nazism slathered with snark.

Why do you use "nativist" as an epithet?

Would you rather I reached for the flamebait of "fascist" instead? Sorry, but that's what this is.

More often than not, any attempt to demonstrate the failing of "multi-culturalism" is an excuse to divide people them-vs-us style based on petty differences. The OP talks about the Danish being very "liberal" but the fact is that this alienation in Denmark is caused by the elected government acting in a decidedly intolerant fashion.

Would you rather I reached for the flamebait of "fascist" instead? Sorry, but that's what this is.

Uh, people democratically deciding the future of their country is inherently un-fascist.

And you still didn't answer my question as to why it's a bad thing to favor the people of your own nation over those of others.

More often than not, any attempt to demonstrate the failing of "multi-culturalism" is an excuse to divide people them-vs-us style based on petty differences. The OP talks about the Danish being very "liberal" but the fact is that this alienation in Denmark is caused by the elected government acting in a decidedly intolerant fashion.

The cultural differences between immigrant Muslims and native Danes are obviously not very petty.

Uh, people democratically deciding the future of their country is inherently un-fascist.

And you still didn't answer my question as to why it's a bad thing to favor the people of your own nation over those of others.

The cultural differences between immigrant Muslims and native Danes are obviously not very petty.

It is not democratic to discriminate a minority group that lives in the same country as you!.

Cultural differences are ultimately always petty. This is not a question of favoring people of one's own nation over those of others. The problem is rather based around reactionary intolerant majorities who are scared by the thought of different cultures. They live there too!

But at least it's not every day, like it was with DK.

Whatever happened to DK?

Whatever happened to DK?

At the end, his head was so far up there he suffocated...

I love how some Americans act in these threads like the U.S is some sort of racially equal and culturally tolerant utopia.

The best example of a multicultural city that works is London - a European city, geography buffs! - and I highly doubt a prominent tv personality would keep their job after asking a muslim MP if they were working for "the enemy".

At the end, his head was so far up there he suffocated...

No, seriously. Was he banned, did he quit, or...? :confused:

No, seriously. Was he banned, did he quit, or...? :confused:


No idea, tbh.

Whatever happened to DK?

Eve Online.

The only thing I see here is oh I don't know, fear of the Muslim culture. Guess what Muslims aren't just from the Middle East. Look at place such as Indonesia and some states of Africa. Jeez 20 years ago this thread would probably have been about Communists taking over the world. Rise above the fear mongering media and the scare tactic policies of the current administration.

There is no reason why Denmark needs to have multiculturalism if the *DANES* don't want it. Why must the international community enforce this upon them and give them all terrible dirty looks if they dont like it?
For the same reason that the Nazi government wasn't allowed to decide whether it wanted Jews in Germany or not.

For the same reason that the Nazi government wasn't allowed to decide whether it wanted Jews in Germany or not.

If the Jews had moved to germany after the Nazis took over, refused to integrate themselves in anyway into society, and then started acting like dicks, you would have a point.

Presumably the immigrant population must have done something to provoke the native Danes' ire, although this action was probably just not integrating in the first place due to their radically different culture in their home countries. That and the Dane's (as well as most of the western world) consider many Islamic beliefs to be oppressive and backwards (Females being second class, etc). Plus it didn't help when the Muslims in Europe reacted to the cartoons with things like "Free Speech can go to hell" and "Kill all who insult Islam".


I think you'd have to find some way to promote integration to any incoming immigrants, just wishing them to have thicker skin isnt going to happen. Like I said, the problem is, is that many of the beliefs are too conservative and old fashioned for the Danes to understand. And people tend not to get along that way. Just see how everyone relates to Soviestan on NSG.

If the Jews had moved to germany after the Nazis took over, refused to integrate themselves in anyway into society, and then started acting like dicks, you would have a point.
1. The Muslims have been there before this current bunch of populist politicians and journalists who focus so much on it.

2. The Jews still had their own customs. Many of the orthodox Jews wore their funny hairstyles and black robes. They had their own temples and their own celebrations. And even before the Nazis there were cities in which most Jews lived in specific parts of the city.
It's at least as much as the xenophobes can offer in support of their argument.

But anyways, you missed the point of my analogy. Neither "the people" nor the government is sovereign enough about the strip of land they call their own that they would be allowed to trample on human rights. Even if all the Germans felt they needed to gas the Jews, that would not make it right.

And even if all the Danes felt they needed to round up and deport Muslims, or infringe on religious freedom, or deny people asylum, the world community has every right to do everything in their power to stop it.

For the same reason that the Nazi government wasn't allowed to decide whether it wanted Jews in Germany or not.

Well technically, no-one had a problem with that bit of hitler's plan. In fact they weren't even bothered that he didn't want them in austria or parts of czechoslovakia.

It wasn't until he moved on to removing them from poland that people got hot under the collar.

???

Danes don't want immigration, so the solution is to force them to accept more? That's just silly. Your hard-on for identity politics would make a Balkans out of Scandinavia.Not at all. The Danes are welcome to do the stupid thing and put stricter controls on immigration. As I said, though, they shouldn't be surprised if the world thinks less of them for it.

Not only is that counterintuitive (i.e., how can integration occur when you enable immigrants to form little ethnic pockets where they don't need to integrate?), it's also empirically false.Typically when a lower-class minority group forms its own pocket, it's because the majority group has ghettoized them.
Furthermore, if it's empirically false, then demonstrate it.

(A) Obviously there are, when Muslims there keep pulling stunts like rioting and murdering over a silly cartoon.Yes, Muslims as a collective are doing this, like the Borg.

(B) There are good reasons independent of that, including their desire to sustain their cultural identity.That's not a good reason, especially since there's little chance of them losing it.

(C) The fact that there are no good reasons not to have something (even if true, which in this case it isn't) isn't a sufficient basis to force something on people.Not in and of itself, no. There are good reasons to encourage multiculturalism, though.

It is not democratic to discriminate a minority group that lives in the same country as you!.

Cultural differences are ultimately always petty. This is not a question of favoring people of one's own nation over those of others. The problem is rather based around reactionary intolerant majorities who are scared by the thought of different cultures. They live there too!

I dunno what it is you're talking about, as I'm talking about Danes discontinuing immigration until integration occurs with the existing population, something it seems obvious that they want.

It is not discrimination to tell people in a foreign land they cannot come to your country, as they have no intrinsic right to do so.

Cultural differences are not ultimately petty, which is precisely the reason they often lead to violence when dismissed whole-hog with intellectually cowardly remarks like "you're just a racist/fascist/nazi/whatever." Witness the Balkans, Sudan, Chechnya, etc.

And so what if they're intolerant? They have a right to be. They obviously don't want this level of immigration they're being subject to and it's being foisted upon them by idiots like you who think you know what's better for them. It's not as if Muslim nations even approach Denmark's level of acceptance.

I love how some Americans act in these threads like the U.S is some sort of racially equal and culturally tolerant utopia.

I don't know where you're getting that impression, as I haven't seen anyone represent the U.S. in this light.

Unlike most other nations, we actually value things other than "cultural tolerance," which for some reason you guys think cannot be accomplished without demographically swamping unwilling nations with millions of minorities who will never integrate and go on to make problems for their host.

Eve Online.

What a dull game. :headbang:

The only thing I see here is oh I don't know, fear of the Muslim culture. Guess what Muslims aren't just from the Middle East. Look at place such as Indonesia and some states of Africa.

Duh. That's what happens when you spread your religion at the point of a sword.

And why do you assume it's fear? It's clearly just simple dislike. I dislike cultures that haven't progressed in 500+ years, too.

For the same reason that the Nazi government wasn't allowed to decide whether it wanted Jews in Germany or not.

Again, ridiculous. The Jews were native inhabitants of Germany, no less their people than the Aryan population (whatever that nonsensical term means). This is vastly different than refusing admittance to foreign immigrants for which a country has no evident need. Not to mention the Nazis kind of invaded other countries to kill Jews, which the Danes are not doing.

God, you people are such intellectual cowards.

Neither "the people" nor the government is sovereign enough about the strip of land they call their own that they would be allowed to trample on human rights.

Well we're not talking about trampling on human rights, we're talking about restricting immigration, something to which one has no fundamental right.

And even if all the Danes felt they needed to round up and deport Muslims

So far as I can tell, no one here has even suggested that.

or deny people asylum

Like Muslim countries do to Palestinians?

Again, asylum is a political privilege which the practicing nation is free to grant and restrict at its own leisure. It is not an obligation. Not to mention, asylum is part of refugee policy, which does not require refugees to live there permanently much less be treated as equals. Refugee policy simply lets refugees live elsewhere until the political situation in their country calms down, and then tells them to move on.

Christ Almighty, people, listen to yourselves. You're saying the world should embargo Denmark because its tiny Muslim minority gets dirty looks in the coffee shop, but you cannot even bring yourselves to acknowledge the manifold thousands of naked abuses of civil rights that occur daily in Muslim nations, much less condemn them.

The only thing I see here is oh I don't know, fear of the Muslim culture. Guess what Muslims aren't just from the Middle East. Look at place such as Indonesia and some states of Africa. Jeez 20 years ago this thread would probably have been about Communists taking over the world. Rise above the fear mongering media and the scare tactic policies of the current administration.


You know, maybe not 20 years ago, but 30 years ago the communists were trying to take over the world.

They had nukes. Now, people are afraid the muslims will get nukes.

Maybe they have it already.

You know, maybe not 20 years ago, but 30 years ago the communists were trying to take over the world.

They had nukes. Now, people are afraid the muslims will get nukes.

Maybe they have it already.

"The Muslims" already do... get informed. :rolleyes:

Who the fuck cares?

If a state wants to be multicultural, then let it. If it doesn't, then let it. Unless it's yours - just shut up, please!

I'm getting so sick and fucking tired of these types of threads. "OH NOES! The evil European multiculturalist liberal hippies will be the collapse of civilisation as we know it! The hordes of Islam will be upon us! NOES I say!! NOES!!" Usually followed by some sort of smugness from a US poster or two going, "we know better - silly Europeans", winking to each and nodding their heads like they have the perfect solution.

Fuck me.


Ummm well why not just not read them?

What is funny is that you never hear anything about a budhist that cant integrate in any culture.

The problem of muslims is that their rules are too strict. If they get into countries with liberal ideas, where you can even use drugs in your house (muslims cant even drink alcohol), you´re gonna have problems.

The thing is that Europe has a lot of diferent cultures in a extremely small place. Mainly due to a lot of wars, nationalism developed there much faster and stronger than anywhere else. That means they hold their values and culture in high regard.

When a person from another culture comes in, he will have problems.

My conclusion: keep the muslims out of europe, unless they are willing to embrace their new culture fully. I mean, some places require you to give up your previous nation away, why shouldnt they be required to give islam away. Choose between the country and their god.

Well fuck me keep the Muslims out of Europe huh!? You do know that Turkey is a part of Europe yeah? Or what about the Muslims that have been in Europe for as long as the Europeans?

Well fuck me keep the Muslims out of Europe huh!? You do know that Turkey is a part of Europe yeah? Or what about the Muslims that have been in Europe for as long as the Europeans?

Such as the Muslims in Serbia, Monte Negro, Bosnia, Ablania, etc.

Plus you're basically saying that culture, which is invariably tied to individual nations, is therefore unimportant, which is not only silly but just outright appalling.

Well obviously we have a differance of opinion here. It is my contention that cultural, or national pride is a worthless thing for the human race to cling to. I find the idea of fighting for your country quite a strange one, I find the idea of taking insult on the basis of cultural differances absolutly frightening. It means that the reason for so much violence, and trouble is nothing more than differances in 'the way we grew up'

These are some of my reasons why indeed I do think that pride in nation and culture are unimportant, I would love to hear why you feel my stance is silly and appaling?

Well fuck me keep the Muslims out of Europe huh!? You do know that Turkey is a part of Europe yeah? Or what about the Muslims that have been in Europe for as long as the Europeans?

muslims have been in europe for 40,000 years?

geographically turkey is in asia, well most of it anyway. politically and historically is a different issue though

muslims have been in europe for 40,000 years?

geographically turkey is in asia, well most of it anyway. politically and historically is a different issue though

Neither have Christians.
And geographically, Bosnia is in Europe, including all of it's Muslim population.

Neither have Christians.
And geographically, Bosnia is in Europe, including all of it's Muslim population.

true. I never said christians had been in europe as long as europeans.

And yes bosnia is in europe. So what if they're muslims?

true. I never said christians had been in europe as long as europeans.

And yes bosnia is in europe. So what if they're muslims?

Exaclty. No point at all in claiming the Islam is a foreign religion or trying to "keep the Muslims out of Europe".

Exaclty. No point at all in claiming the Islam is a foreign religion.

to europe? I never did, but..

it is, as it did not originate in europe. nor did any of the abrahamic religions for that matter.

But it could be claimed to be foreign also for the reason that christianity at least has had to adapt to the changes that europe has gone through, whereas islam has not had too. Enlightenment, etc...

to europe? I never did, but..

it is, as it did not originate in europe. nor did any of the abrahamic religions for that matter.

But it could be claimed to be foreign also for the reason that christianity at least has had to adapt to the changes that europe has gone through, whereas islam has not had too. Enlightenment, etc...

I think you'll find that the adaption of both Christianity and Islam to new philosophical trends varies greatly depending on the geographical area you're looking at.
Bosnian Muslims (generally speaking) are no more fanatically religious than the average French Catholic.

I'm curious actually. For the people who think european countries should adapt to muslim immigrants. How should these muslim immigrants adapt to the naitons they are moving too?

only curious on your opinions.

I'm curious actually. For the people who think european countries should adapt to muslim immigrants. How should these muslim immigrants adapt to the naitons they are moving too?

only curious on your opinions.

Neither should be forced to adapt to anything, as this is one sure way to create additional resentment on both sides. Both should, in an ideal case, be ready to interact and coexist, immigrants following the laws of the country they move to, and their new country providing assistance for them to learn the new language and get to know the political and social system.
Anything else has to happen voluntarily.

I'm talking about Danes discontinuing immigration until integration occurs with the existing population, something it seems obvious that they want.

It is obvious that some Danes wish for tighter immigration, while some do not.

It is not discrimination to tell people in a foreign land they cannot come to your country, as they have no intrinsic right to do so.

Not inherently, no. But it can be. I could make an immigration policy that says we will accept a million refugees a day, as long as they are all white. That would be discriminatory. You are correct that movement across borders is not an intrinsic right for people.

Cultural differences are not ultimately petty, which is precisely the reason they often lead to violence when dismissed whole-hog with intellectually cowardly remarks like "you're just a racist/fascist/nazi/whatever." Witness the Balkans, Sudan, Chechnya, etc.

I think this paragraph needs rewriting.

And so what if they're intolerant? They have a right to be. They obviously don't want this level of immigration they're being subject to and it's being foisted upon them by idiots like you who think you know what's better for them. It's not as if Muslim nations even approach Denmark's level of acceptance.

You are correct. People have a right to be intolerant. However, in most western democracies, these people are not allowed to make intolerant laws. Is immigration policy covered by this? Ask a Danish legislator. Because they are the 'idiots' doing the foisting you mention. If the Danes wish to elect a government that reduces immigration, they will do so. If not, they won't. Then we will know if it is true that 'they obviously don't want this level of immigration they're being subject to.'

Unlike most other nations, we actually value things other than "cultural tolerance," which for some reason you guys think cannot be accomplished without demographically swamping unwilling nations with millions of minorities who will never integrate and go on to make problems for their host.

Actually, I do not believe that cultural tolerance can only be achieved through mass immigration of people who refuse to assimilate. I believe cultural tolerance can be easily achieved by learning about other cultures and allowing other people to experience yours.

Duh. That's what happens when you spread your religion at the point of a sword.

Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is no longer spreading itself by the sword.

And why do you assume it's fear? It's clearly just simple dislike. I dislike cultures that haven't progressed in 500+ years, too.

I dislike individuals who are of a medieval mindset. They even pop up in very liberal societies. These are the types of people who refuse to allow for change and keep their culture from progressing.

Christ Almighty, people, listen to yourselves. You're saying the world should embargo Denmark because its tiny Muslim minority gets dirty looks in the coffee shop, but you cannot even bring yourselves to acknowledge the manifold thousands of naked abuses of civil rights that occur daily in Muslim nations, much less condemn them

Careful where you swing that brush. We are not discussing imposing sanctions on Denmark. Nor are we ignoring civl rights abuses in many prts of the world. In fact, loosening immigration means that people from these countries can come and live in a western society, and then go back, taking the best the west has to offer. Many of the Sudanese lost boys are now doing exactly that.

I think you'll find that the adaption of both Christianity and Islam to new philosophical trends varies greatly depending on the geographical area you're looking at.
Bosnian Muslims (generally speaking) are no more fanatically religious than the average French Catholic.

But in the case of Bosnia that is probably due to a Secular humanism world view which was prevalent during the existance of communist Yugoslavia.

And i have'nt heard anyone hear complaining about Bosniaks moving to their country or any such thing. But then they are european, with more of a european outlook.

But in the case of Bosnia that is probably due to a Secular humanism world view which was prevalent during the existance of communist Yugoslavia.

And i have'nt heard anyone hear complaining about Bosniaks moving to their country or any such thing. But then they are european, with more of a european outlook.

That humanistic world view didn't do much to prevent the genocides happing during the Yugoslavian civil wars.

So it's not the religion that's the problem after all, it would seem.
There are plenty of Bosnians living in Germany and Austria these days, btw. ;)

Well fuck me keep the Muslims out of Europe huh!? You do know that Turkey is a part of Europe yeah? Or what about the Muslims that have been in Europe for as long as the Europeans?

Yes, but I hope you do know that one of the reasons Turkey is not in EU is because it is islamic.

And of course I know there are many muslims in europe. But the deal is that they have been there for centuries, and they are a part of their countries already.

Yes, but I hope you do know that one of the reasons Turkey is not in EU is because it is islamic.

And of course I know there are many muslims in europe. But the deal is that they have been there for centuries, and they are a part of their countries already.

How many generations does it take then for a Muslim to become "European"?

And, no, the predominant religion of Turkey is no reason why it's not yet in the EU. It's economy and it's human rights violations are the reasons.

So it's not the religion that's the problem after all, it would seem.
There are plenty of Bosnians living in Germany and Austria these days, btw. ;)

i at no point said it was. Nor will you find any post in this thread where i did.

You'll notice, people are not complaining about west indian immigrants or people from the sub-continent or china.

People complain about poor immigrants that don't feel will contribute to their nation.
Example: pakistani muslims in england or turks in germany.

Why? Not because they look different, but because the natives feel that the immigrants keep their cultural baggage when they move to the new nation. And since it looks like they keep on coming, the 2nd and 3rd generation children of the immigrants get lumped together with the new arrivals.

Its like this whole stupid argument about muslims saying its their religion that women where the burkha/hijab, when in the koran there nothing specifying this. Its only because of the interpretation of certain imans.

Its always the same, if the immigrants don't intergrate culturally (not religiously) there will be problems.

That humanistic world view didn't do much to prevent the genocides happing during the Yugoslavian civil wars.


some much for the enlightenment of religious groups eh?;)

i at no point said it was. Nor will you find any post in this thread where i did.

I didn't mean to imply that, I should have elaborated. People go on about Muslim extremists, ignoring the fact that extremism can use just about any religion/philosophy/idea and wreak havoc. Humanism is an ideal that unfortunately never stopped fanatics of any colour, so I have serious doubts that Bosnian Muslims didn't become as fanatic as Muslims elsewhere for humanistic reasons. The root of the problem must be elsewhere.


You'll notice, people are not complaining about west indian immigrants or people from the sub-continent or china.

People complain about poor immigrants that don't feel will contribute to their nation.
Example: pakistani muslims in england or turks in germany.

Why? Not because they look different, but because the natives feel that the immigrants keep their cultural baggage when they move to the new nation. And since it looks like they keep on coming, the 2nd and 3rd generation children of the immigrants get lumped together with the new arrivals.

Its like this whole stupid argument about muslims saying its their religion that women where the burkha/hijab, when in the koran there nothing specifying this. Its only because of the interpretation of certain imans.

Its always the same, if the immigrants don't intergrate culturally (not religiously) there will be problems.

People in Britain used to complain quite loudly about immigrants from the West Indies, and people in Eastern Germany nearly burned some Vietnamese immigrants alive in the 1990s.
Xenophobia is an irrational fear, and it won't just go away with people adapting to their new country. Both the West Indians and the Vietnamese tried that. The one thing that seems to work rather well is getting people acquainted with the people they fear, getting them to interact socially and eventually to accept the "others". But that's not something that can be forced or made into any form of legislation, of course.

some much for the enlightenment of religious groups eh?;)

If you can't find enough religious feelings to control people, go for their nationalisitc fears. ;)

That humanistic world view didn't do much to prevent the genocides happing during the Yugoslavian civil wars.


Well, we are just cool like that. ;)

How many generations does it take then for a Muslim to become "European"?

And, no, the predominant religion of Turkey is no reason why it's not yet in the EU. It's economy and it's human rights violations are the reasons.

Theoreticaly, the first generation after the imigrants. Just growing in the new culture would make these new children adapt totaly to the new country.

But in countries that share very strong and similar bonds, things are not as easy. For example, in Denmark, a lot of people look the same. Which means people that doesnt look "slavic" may feel some kind of prejudice.

Its the same in Japan. Imigrants cant full blend in the society, but their kids can.

About Turkey´s violation of human rights: Isnt it because of islam, that controls indirectly the laws?

I didn't mean to imply that, I should have elaborated. People go on about Muslim extremists, ignoring the fact that extremism can use just about any religion/philosophy/idea and wreak havoc. Humanism is an ideal that unfortunately never stopped fanatics of any colour, so I have serious doubts that Bosnian Muslims didn't become as fanatic as Muslims elsewhere for humanistic reasons. The root of the problem must be elsewhere.

People in Britain used to complain quite loudly about immigrants from the West Indies, and people in Eastern Germany nearly burned some Vietnamese immigrants alive in the 1990s.
Xenophobia is an irrational fear, and it won't just go away with people adapting to their new country. Both the West Indians and the Vietnamese tried that. The one thing that seems to work rather well is getting people acquainted with the people they fear, getting them to interact socially and eventually to accept the "others". But that's not something that can be forced or made into any form of legislation, of course.

But that's just it. A 3rd generation west indian is english. Generally except for the fact that he or she looks different from you 'native' englishmen, they are the same. eat the same foods, like the same football teams, go to a pub, marry the girl next door, etc...

English people as an example (regardless of colour, etc...) don't see this happening with pakistani muslims.
On my personal experiences (went to a school where 90% of the students were from the sub-continent) you have budhists, hindus, sikhs, christians, mixing freely, sometimes talking in gujerati (sp?) but no different from any english person where it counts, even though most were first generation. Whereas the few pakistani students did'nt mix, if you met them in the streets, the female relatives, did not socialise, hell most would not talk unless they were over 60. This did not happen with the indian muslims. Only the pakistani ones.
At Uni is switzerland half the english students there were non-white. But they were as english as anyone i knew. All the english there were english first, whatever else second whever anglican, hindu, jewish, etc...

Theoreticaly, the first generation after the imigrants. Just growing in the new culture would make these new children adapt totaly to the new country.

But in countries that share very strong and similar bonds, things are not as easy. For example, in Denmark, a lot of people look the same. Which means people that doesnt look "slavic" may feel some kind of prejudice.

Its the same in Japan. Imigrants cant full blend in the society, but their kids can.


Good. Then almost all the Turks currently living in Germany are per definiton Europeans. Most are at least second generation these days.
And completely adapting to the culture in, say, Munich, would make you a cultural case for the social worker in Cologne. Germany doesn't have one single culture, it never had. It has an official language that is mostly spoken as a sort of second language by educated people, in everyday life people speak in their dialects (less so in the cities, but even there you might have a hard time).


About Turkey´s violation of human rights: Isnt it because of islam, that controls indirectly the laws?

No. It's because they have an antiquated understanding of criminal law and punishments. Or would you assume that the fact that Russia has the same human rights issues is due to their religion?

If you can't find enough religious feelings to control people, go for their nationalisitc fears. ;)

racial politics along ethnic lines at its best!

"Denmark is not a multicultural society. Under no circumstances will we accept Denmark transformed into such a dump. Real Danes despise the multicultural society, and reject all this so called 'society's' values. Real Danes are only loyal to the Danish State. We will never accept the foreigners as fellow citizens. We will never accept foreign culture as equal to our own, in Denmark." Mogens Camre, 2002. Danish member of parliament for DF, the governments supporting party & arguably the second most powerful political party over the past 6 years.

It's a snippet of a speach he held in parliament, not some random shite he said to cause a fuss in the media, or appeal to his own voters. Sadly it also quite accurately reflects the political majority in Denmark over the past 8 years.

The 'integration' problem faced by danes is very much something they've made for themselves. The old socialists initiated the problem by neglecting the workers they imported. This resulted in the ghettoisation of Muslim immigrants. The succeding governments, both right & left, continued this practice, and instead of attempting to do something about the growing lower-than-lower-class caste this policy of doing nothing crated, they increasingly blamed the resulting, completely predictable social problems, on the empoverished, disenfranchised minority their own failure as governments created.

It culminated when the VK government was elected, with DF as their support party. V & DF pretty much won both elections by running incredibly racist political ads in all the Danish media that'd let them, so much so that several NGOs attempted to sue them & have their ads banned (with no success).

Since then, there's been a shift among the Muslim minority groups. Instead of at least attempting to conform & somewhat embrace the Danish society, many - especially the 2nd & 3rd generation 'immigrants' - are in open rebellion against this so-called liberal society, that rejects them in every concievable way & treats them as an hostile invading force, despite the fact that most of them were born on Danish soil. Islam is growing. It is, because it doesn't reject those who try to embrace it. It just rejects everything else, but when the entire surrounding society already rejects these people, then that's pretty much a bonus.

It's poverty related. Religion & culture has fuck-all to do with it. All that shit's just an excuse to continue not dealing with it.

Theoreticaly, the first generation after the imigrants. Just growing in the new culture would make these new children adapt totaly to the new country.

But in countries that share very strong and similar bonds, things are not as easy. For example, in Denmark, a lot of people look the same. Which means people that doesnt look "slavic" may feel some kind of prejudice.

Its the same in Japan. Imigrants cant full blend in the society, but their kids can.

About Turkey´s violation of human rights: Isnt it because of islam, that controls indirectly the laws?

:p i hope no Danes see that.

If they complain Ill become muslim and bomb their country.

If they complain Ill become muslim and bomb their country.

Why would that require being muslim? Being a crazy person would do ...

Oh wait your trolling ...

Why would that require being muslim? Being a crazy person would do ...

Oh wait your trolling ...

It doesnt matter anyway, everyone knows Denmark is a fiction country that doesnt exist, just like Finland.

I mean, how can someone believe in a country where the majority of the population is made of blond hot females with blue eyes?

Has anyone here ever met a dale? Or someone from Finland? Huh? There is my proof.

It doesnt matter anyway, everyone knows Denmark is a fiction country that doesnt exist, just like Finland.

I mean, how can someone believe in a country where the majority of the population is made of blond hot females with blue eyes?

Has anyone here ever met a dale? Or someone from Finland? Huh? There is my proof.

Ummmy wife is of Swedish decent if that counts?:eek:

My ex was a Dane, with blue eyes & blond hair. The one before that was a Danish redhead with blue eyes. From personal observation though, it seems most Danes have brown hair in some shade, but blue eyes does seem to be prevailant. Same thing with the rest of Scandinavia.

I didn't mean to imply that, I should have elaborated. People go on about Muslim extremists, ignoring the fact that extremism can use just about any religion/philosophy/idea and wreak havoc. Humanism is an ideal that unfortunately never stopped fanatics of any colour, so I have serious doubts that Bosnian Muslims didn't become as fanatic as Muslims elsewhere for humanistic reasons. The root of the problem must be elsewhere.


But most of the violent extremists that are seen as a threat to the west are the Muslim ones.
At the moment quite a few africans are moving to europe, and generally appear to be quite a religious bunch (muslims, christians, so on)
So in 15 years if these people are seen as agressive fundamentalists, people will be complaining/worrying about christina extremists or just religious extremists in general.

But most of the violent extremists that are seen as a threat to the west are the Muslim ones.
At the moment quite a few africans are moving to europe, and generally appear to be quite a religious bunch (muslims, christians, so on)
So in 15 years if these people are seen as agressive fundamentalists, people will be complaining/worrying about christina extremists or just religious extremists in general.


Naaaa what with China becoming a great superpower and all I reco n in 20 years time or so it will be back to the Communists! Sheesh, the circle of life right!

Naaaa what with China becoming a great superpower and all I reco n in 20 years time or so it will be back to the Communists! Sheesh, the circle of life right!Yea, it's always some sort of über authoritan wank. Just imagine how peaceful the world would be if we didn't have minority elites creating social problems to divert us from the fact they're fucking parasites.

The bits of humanity that isn't profoundly stupid, all seems profoundly evil. I don't know which is worse...

Naaaa what with China becoming a great superpower and all I reco n in 20 years time or so it will be back to the Communists! Sheesh, the circle of life right!

don't you mean capitalists?

Theoreticaly, the first generation after the imigrants. Just growing in the new culture would make these new children adapt totaly to the new country.

I have seen the opposite happen in the Pakistani community in UK. The original immigrants are better integrated than their children. I have seen one person claim that it was his father who made the choice to be a Brit, not him, so he has no obligation to be a Brit. :p

Yea, it's always some sort of über authoritan wank. Just imagine how peaceful the world would be if we didn't have minority elites creating social problems to divert us from the fact they're fucking parasites.

so you think all 'minority elites' are parasites? bit of a broad stroke to refer to all types of 'elites' as parasites don't you think? or are you refering to the business and political sort?

The bits of humanity that isn't profoundly stupid, all seems profoundly evil. I don't know which is worse...

which bit do you fall into then?

Well obviously we have a differance of opinion here. It is my contention that cultural, or national pride is a worthless thing for the human race to cling to.

You have 0 reason to believe this, considering nations have formed almost all of modern human history and have enabled our current quality of life.

The fact that you do not choose to be born into it is irrelevant. I didn't choose to be born into my family but I love and treasure them anyway, and I am proud of the contributions I make to my family.

Not to mention national pride has nothing to do with choosing to be there. If your nation has many accomplishments under its belt, whether economic, social, cultural, etc., it's worth being proud of them.

Culture serves a valuable purpose, by sharpening the mind and exposing it to new ideas and concepts. Again, that you are not part of it by choice is irrelevant; not all things in life are about choice, and choice is not implicit in many of life's obstacles. This is just a canard hawked by globalist liberals to corrode national pride and advance their nation-liquidating agenda.

And finally, your objection to culture belies your excuse-making for multiculturalism. Why should we have a plurality of cultures if you can't even value one?

These are some of my reasons why indeed I do think that pride in nation and culture are unimportant, I would love to hear why you feel my stance is silly and appaling?

Because you are a westerner typing on a computer about things you obviously don't understand. You've lived your whole life in a nation with a culture (which has afforded you, among other things, the quality of life to buy a computer, get internet access, and complain about culture and nationhood) and never known or comprehended the alternative.

The alternative to nationhood is one of two things:

(1) Anarchy.

(2) Globalism.

Anarchy is undesirable for reasons we already know. Globalism is undesirable because 5/6 of the worlds' population are proles who live under dictatorships and have never known anything else; it is very likely that a globalist government would be controlled by a dictator of some kind, from which we would have no escape because... where would we go? The moon? Or, conversely, the whole concept of global government could just fail and plunge the world into chaos, having liquidated nations, the only other option for law.

Culture cannot exist without nationhood, although it can sometimes trascend it. Nationhood can exist without culture, but people must be bound by something; if not a common culture, the only alternatives are economic well-being (which most of the world lacks) and fear of the police. This is why ethnically diverse nations which have no money almost always devolve into despotism and ethnic conflict.

And yes, I am getting pissed off because people who adhere to your silly ideals vastly outnumber people like me. And people like me are going to suffer right alongside you when the end comes for civilization. And guess what? We have no choice in it.

Go take a stroll through the third world and tell me the accomplishments of modern nationhood and culture are "pointless."

I could make an immigration policy that says we will accept a million refugees a day, as long as they are all white. That would be discriminatory. You are correct that movement across borders is not an intrinsic right for people.

You could, although no one does. And this form of discrimination matters. When deciding how to distribute their own goods, the people of a nation have a right to be discriminatory.

If the Danes wish to elect a government that reduces immigration, they will do so. If not, they won't.

Agreed, although I recommend you tell this to the forum posters demanding the economic castration of Denmark for all its poo-pooing of head scarves and such.

Actually, I do not believe that cultural tolerance can only be achieved through mass immigration of people who refuse to assimilate.

Then I'm not directing my wrath at you, am I?

Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is no longer spreading itself by the sword.

It's violent squabbles with the west, as well as with Christians in Sudan, Russia, and elsewhere and Hindus in India, seem to suggest otherwise.

Although this is beside the point, anyway, as I did not suggest it was still spreading itself by mass invasion and conquest.

I dislike individuals who are of a medieval mindset. They even pop up in very liberal societies. These are the types of people who refuse to allow for change and keep their culture from progressing.

Which appears to be precisely the reason Danes disapprove of Muslims who riot and kill over a cartoon.

"Progress" is not a goal in itself and cannot stand for one. It's simply the movement towards a goal, whether it's the liberation of women, a more scholarly society, or whatever. And it is not a social good to be pursued at the expense of others, like democracy.

Careful where you swing that brush. We are not discussing imposing sanctions on Denmark.

Several in this thread have said they ought to be.

In fact, loosening immigration means that people from these countries can come and live in a western society, and then go back, taking the best the west has to offer.

If they do this (and in the U.S. with it's Mexican-majority immigrant population, at least, it doesn't), it has little apparent effect. It has been essentially as easy to travel through the west 40 years ago as it was today, suggesting at least one generation of immigrants should have returned home by now and sewed the seeds of reform. As these "emigrant nations" are basically just as pathological, or more so, I don't see evidence for this.

so you think all 'minority elites' are parasites? bit of a broad stroke to refer to all types of 'elites' as parasites don't you think? or are you refering to the business and political sort?I define elites as those who hold authority over others. which bit do you fall into then?The profoundly stupid group. Just like you. We let ourselves be ruled & manipulated. That'd be pretty fucking stupid in & of itself, but the ones doing it to us don't in any way have our best interest at heart, and that - to me at least - makes it even worse.

If stupidity was a crime, only the richest 2% of humanity wouldn't be imprisoned.

Tirindor, anarchism is a globalist socio-political philosophy ;)

Yea, it's always some sort of über authoritan wank. Just imagine how peaceful the world would be if we didn't have minority elites creating social problems to divert us from the fact they're fucking parasites.

The bits of humanity that isn't profoundly stupid, all seems profoundly evil. I don't know which is worse...

Well fuck me look at that, true words of wisdom, here?:eek:

I define elites as those who hold authority over others.

so pretty much every third person.


The profoundly stupid group. Just like you. We let ourselves be ruled & manipulated. That'd be pretty fucking stupid in & of itself, but the ones doing it to us don't in any way have our best interest at heart, and that - to me at least - makes it even worse.
If stupidity was a crime, only the richest 2% of humanity wouldn't be imprisoned.


well someone needs to make policies and so on. At least where i'm from we elect them.
I'd like to think i'm not manipulated, in the sense i don't take things at face value and look at alternative views opinions because making a choice, decision. But then since most sources of information are subjective in one form or another, i guess you're always being manipulated by someone.

You have 0 reason to believe this, considering nations have formed almost all of modern human history and have enabled our current quality of life.

The fact that you do not choose to be born into it is irrelevant. I didn't choose to be born into my family but I love and treasure them anyway, and I am proud of the contributions I make to my family.

Not to mention national pride has nothing to do with choosing to be there. If your nation has many accomplishments under its belt, whether economic, social, cultural, etc., it's worth being proud of them.

Culture serves a valuable purpose, by sharpening the mind and exposing it to new ideas and concepts. Again, that you are not part of it by choice is irrelevant; not all things in life are about choice, and choice is not implicit in many of life's obstacles. This is just a canard hawked by globalist liberals to corrode national pride and advance their nation-liquidating agenda.

And finally, your objection to culture belies your excuse-making for multiculturalism. Why should we have a plurality of cultures if you can't even value one?



Because you are a westerner typing on a computer about things you obviously don't understand. You've lived your whole life in a nation with a culture (which has afforded you, among other things, the quality of life to buy a computer, get internet access, and complain about culture and nationhood) and never known or comprehended the alternative.

The alternative to nationhood is one of two things:

(1) Anarchy.

(2) Globalism.


No mate you completly misuderstood me, I am not against nationhood, nor am I against cultures. In fact I am very much for cultures and multiculturilsm, what I am against is national pride, and pride of culture and the reason for this dislike is because of the problems it cause between both those of a differant nation, and those of a differant culture.

The whole born into it, is very relavent to my point. If for example you are English then your culture dictates that one should take the piss out of Frenchy, ribbit ribbit, two finger salute, etc...

If though you are born in France then the culture would be one of calling them dirty Brits roast beef.

Even here in the UK itself we have a differant culture between the North and South, 'fuckin' northen monkeys' vs 'fookin' southern shandies' Why? All because of where you where born? That truely is ludicrus.

By all means have some pride in the country of your birth for the good things that it has brought to the world, yet do you greive for all the ills it has brought? Seems like national pride is a one way street to me, when do we hear about national shame? I have talked to people before about thepride they feel in being English, about the Empire, about 1966 world cup, about how we brought language and education to the massess, yet as soon as I mention our place in the slave trade, our ill behaviour during the Empire, I get

'Well it's all in the past innit, I mean I never done them things did I?'

This is what national pride brings us, all the bad none of the good. It brings us to fight at football, it brings us to go to war, it brings us ill will towards our fellow man, and all because of where we are born? Is that logical then, and rational?

I did not call for the abolishion of culture, nor nation, I just say that they both cause far more problems than they help fix.

Culture more so. Tell me do you argee with female circumsicion? I don't I think it a barbaric thing to do, but it is also a cultural thing. So what do we do about it?

Go in there and educate the dirty buggers in proper behviour what what? Go in there and subjugate them, for their own good of course? Go in there and enforce our culture over theirs? What course of action would you suggest?


No I say that what country you come from and what culture you were brought up in should have no bearing in how you are treated, yet it does ummm.

Ummmy wife is of Swedish decent if that counts?:eek:

Sweden, the "country who remained neutral during WWI and WWII?"

Everyone knows no one remained neutral during WWII.

Sweden is fake too. How can anyone believe that? Look at a map. Its so way north that if you know anything about geography you know there is only ice up there. How could people live there, I ask you?

And again, she was probabily blond and had blue eyes. I´m more prone to believe she was a clone with the backstory that she came from a fictional country instead of believing in a country like that.

Denmark has every right to keep mud-hut savagery, in the form of people who won't behave, out of its society.

What if they attacked the Sven Bang atelier? What if they killed Erik Nording? What then?

Culture serves a valuable purpose, by sharpening the mind and exposing it to new ideas and concepts. Again, that you are not part of it by choice is irrelevant; not all things in life are about choice, and choice is not implicit in many of life's obstacles.

Culture serves many purposes. It acts as a social unifier, allowing people the ability to do things that individuals can not. It does not necessarily follow that culture sharpens the mind by exposing it to new ideas and concepts. I would argue that multiculturalism does a much better job at opening minds and sharpening them.

And finally, your objection to culture belies your excuse-making for multiculturalism. Why should we have a plurality of cultures if you can't even value one?

Many people who support multiculturalism, such as myself, value our own culture or cultures. It is by doing so that we empathise with others who value their own cultures. Multiculturalism and pride in one's own culture are not mutually exclusive.

...snip long rant about globalism...Culture cannot exist without nationhood, although it can sometimes trascend it. Nationhood can exist without culture, but people must be bound by something; if not a common culture, the only alternatives are economic well-being (which most of the world lacks) and fear of the police. This is why ethnically diverse nations which have no money almost always devolve into despotism and ethnic conflict.

Nations and cultures require each other, but that is besides the point, as immigration is controlled by the state, which is neither a nation nor a culture. And even ethnically homogenous nations which have no money almost always devolve into despotism and ethnic conflict.

You could, although no one does. And this form of discrimination matters. When deciding how to distribute their own goods, the people of a nation have a right to be discriminatory.

That depends on the law of the land. In this context, Danish law probably stipulates some sort of protection for all its citizens, regardless of their nation of birth or religion. So Danes can not discriminate against Muslim immigrant Danes. So this right that you speak of is not comprehensive.

I know what you are trying to say: if Danes decide to limit immigration, they have the right, and it can not be legally called discrimination. This only works if the Danes do not pass a law that says only non-muslims will be accepted. This would be discrimination. Even if Denmark changed its laws so that such a law would be constitutional, it would still be discrimination. And the cultural values of tolerance and openness would be gone, destroyed by the xenophobic Danes.

Which appears to be precisely the reason Danes disapprove of Muslims who riot and kill over a cartoon.

And it is also precisely why many Danes with black hair feel that they remain ostracised by mainstream Danish culture. Because the current governing coalition, and the people who voted them into power reflect some of this medieval mindset.

"Progress" is not a goal in itself and cannot stand for one. It's simply the movement towards a goal, whether it's the liberation of women, a more scholarly society, or whatever. And it is not a social good to be pursued at the expense of others, like democracy.

Change is inevitable. Good change is called progress. I don't know what you call bad change, but it usually happens when you don't think things will change and they do. Guess what? They always change. So progress is a goal. The goal of not letting events overtake you. If you can do that, then you can use these changes to strengthen your democracy and other social goods.

Several in this thread have said they ought to be.

If you think it's a really dumb idea, you don't have to respond to it.

If they do this (and in the U.S. with it's Mexican-majority immigrant population, at least, it doesn't), it has little apparent effect. It has been essentially as easy to travel through the west 40 years ago as it was today, suggesting at least one generation of immigrants should have returned home by now and sewed the seeds of reform. As these "emigrant nations" are basically just as pathological, or more so, I don't see evidence for this.

There may be many reasons why you don't see the evidence, but remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lost boys of Sudan are not setting up democracy centers or stock market exchanges. They are setting up hospitals and schools and potable water systems. Mexican immigrants send back tons of cash, forming an absolutely indispensable resource for developing the Mexican economy. And if you think Chile would have elected a single mother as President before all the exiles moved back, you are blind. There are many more examples.

There should be as much multiculturalism as people are willing to accept. The State, to begin with, has no business banning certain individuals from entering a country. If individuals in a country want to associate with foreigners and offer them employment, the right is theirs - so long as they can help their intended associates to settle in somewhere. If groups of individuals do not want to associate with migrants, they need not ; their property is theirs to dispose of as they wish, and they may exclude (or include) anyone they wish. However, they have no right to tell others whom to associate with or how to dispose of their property. After all, the limit of their ownership extends to the boundaries of their property, and that is it. What others do is not their concern.

The problem with this whole multiculturalism debacle is that the State treats its holdings and its citizens as though they were its property (which they are not - in fact, it is the warden of their rights, not their owner), and consequently some elements in society see it as the State's duty to evict undesirables and forcefully disassociate individuals with one another (or vice versa, depending on the mentality involved). These elements have the right to their opinion - but not to enforce it upon others.

If Danes don't want multiculturalism, then they should vote against it. That's their right.

But its not fair to compare America to Europe in regards to this...as America was sorta formed as a land for everyone who could embrace our values and was searching for the same thing we were
No, America was conquered for that purpose. Not formed for it.

Most generations of people in the USA have fostered opposition to immigration, believing that it was right for their parents, but wrong for the current hordes of "invaders". We see it today with regard to Mexicans. Before that it was Asians, and Irish, etc.

Tirindor, anarchism is a globalist socio-political philosophy

That's nice, but I didn't say "anarchism," now did I?

No mate you completly misuderstood me, I am not against nationhood, nor am I against cultures. In fact I am very much for cultures and multiculturilsm, what I am against is national pride, and pride of culture and the reason for this dislike is because of the problems it cause between both those of a differant nation, and those of a differant culture.

Cultures don't develop in a vacuum; they need universities, academies, and a reasonable quality of life in order to thrive, all things that require nationhood to develop. As I have already pointed out, nations cannot survive hating themselves or their pasts, as the only other things that can bind the people of a nation together besides a shared love for a common culture is economic well-being (which is fleeting) and police controls (which are abhorrent).

Culture and national pride has little to do with conflict. The incentive for widespread conflict (self-interest) will always be there independent of nations, and has in fact preceded human development of nations or cultures. The disincentive to widespread conflict, however, can only occur at a collective level, i.e., a disciplined and well-trained military force capable of quashing conflicts and thereby destroying the incentive one has to make them (as it is in very few people's self-interest to be killed by the government). So you can kick the legs out from under nationhood all you like, but the end result will be even more violence.

Even here in the UK itself we have a differant culture between the North and South, 'fuckin' northen monkeys' vs 'fookin' southern shandies' Why? All because of where you where born? That truely is ludicrus.

So? Petty squabbles among subcultures are natural (and again, will exist independent of cultures or nations). They don't become pathological until they stop exchanging words and start exchanging bullets.

Northerners and southerners poke fun at each other all the time here in the U.S., but when the shit hits the fan, they have each others' backs. That's why southerners frothed with rage when the (northern) World Trade Centers were destroyed. That's the value of having a common culture which both sides love; it doesn't matter if they don't like each other.

By all means have some pride in the country of your birth for the good things that it has brought to the world, yet do you greive for all the ills it has brought? Seems like national pride is a one way street to me, when do we hear about national shame? I have talked to people before about thepride they feel in being English, about the Empire, about 1966 world cup, about how we brought language and education to the massess, yet as soon as I mention our place in the slave trade, our ill behaviour during the Empire, I get ...

Again, irrelevant. All nations have historical stains on their souls, just as all individuals are stuck with having done things they aren't proud of. It doesn't mean individuals have no basis being proud of themselves and their own accomplishments (especially since they have no choice being born as who they were, or over any of the characteristics of their life that are determined almost exclusively by genetics and chance).

This is what national pride brings us, all the bad none of the good.

Unequivocally false for reasons I've already demonstrated.

Besides, there are worse things in the world than people shouting down other teams at soccer matches. Like people shooting each other, which is what the breakdown of nations implies.

Culture more so. Tell me do you argee with female circumsicion? I don't I think it a barbaric thing to do, but it is also a cultural thing. So what do we do about it?

Uh, we ban it, because it isn't a cultural thing. Not in western culture, at any rate. Although it will be if we follow your logic to its natural conclusions and allow Muslim immigration to commence at unnecessarily high rates.

Culture serves many purposes. It acts as a social unifier, allowing people the ability to do things that individuals can not. It does not necessarily follow that culture sharpens the mind by exposing it to new ideas and concepts.

I should've made it clearer that I was referring to high culture, i.e., quality literature, art, theater, philosophy, etc., and not to modern pop culture crap like Friends. Broadening horizons and expanding conscious thought is one of the greatest contributions high culture makes. Unfortunately it is almost always the one sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism, as high culture is peculiar to specific civilizations (and nations), whereas the wonders of technology have allowed low (pop) culture to spread worldwide.

Many people who support multiculturalism, such as myself, value our own culture or cultures. It is by doing so that we empathise with others who value their own cultures. Multiculturalism and pride in one's own culture are not mutually exclusive.

Nor is monoculturalism exclusive with recognizing the value of other cultures. But it does not follow from your (inaccurate) definition of multiculturalism that we ought to import millions of people we don't need and aren't prepared to accept from places where their culture will naturally clash with our own.

Nations and cultures require each other, but that is besides the point, as immigration is controlled by the state, which is neither a nation nor a culture.

An arbitrary distinction; as the ruling body of a nation, the state has an obligation to protect it. This is doubly true of democracies, where states rule on behalf of and solely with the consent of the people of that nation (and presumably the adherents to its culture).

And even ethnically homogenous nations which have no money almost always devolve into despotism and ethnic conflict.

I didn't suggest ethnic homogeneity was naturally linked to cultural unity, nor did I suggest that ethnically homogenous nations would universally develop workable cultures.

That depends on the law of the land. In this context, Danish law probably stipulates some sort of protection for all its citizens, regardless of their nation of birth or religion. So Danes can not discriminate against Muslim immigrant Danes. So this right that you speak of is not comprehensive.

Stern lecturing about headscarves and dirty looks in coffee shops do not constitute discrimination, which carries legal/political connotations.

And even if Danes have chosen to limit their lawmaking powers in this capacity, this does not imply the right does not exist; it's simply the product of a purely political choice as to how to exercise it. And as with all purely political choices, such protections can be undone.

Change is inevitable.

Hardly; in most cases it is the product of actions that are subject to political regulation (i.e., research, activism, etc.). Witness the fact that Middle Eastern nations have made only grudging concessions to change over the last few centuries, and often only when imposed on them by force or circumstances.

And progress is not synonymous with racial pluralism. Middle Eastern nations would probably not be any better off if only they had more ethnic Asians in them.

If you think it's a really dumb idea, you don't have to respond to it.

Of course I do. You probably think what I'm saying is dumb, but you respond anyway. I'll do the same to those who hawk ignorance. Just letting it slide is practically a tacit endorsement.

There may be many reasons why you don't see the evidence, but remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't deny this, but I cannot quantify or measure what I cannot see.

Mexican immigrants send back tons of cash, forming an absolutely indispensable resource for developing the Mexican economy.

Maybe so, but only at the expense of our own economic well-being and the addition of pathological elements into our society (i.e., crime, poverty, etc.).

And as we have seen, a growth in wealth does not correlate to a growth in friendliness to one's national interests. China's wealth is expanding rapidly, for instance, but it is no less hostile to its own neighbors (including Japan, which is in large part responsible for subsidizing this growth).

To everyone but Africans living in Africa, you're ancestors were immigrants at one point. And it seems to me that in the article, the problem was with the host society, not the immigrants.

I should've made it clearer that I was referring to high culture, i.e., quality literature, art, theater, philosophy, etc., and not to modern pop culture crap like Friends. Broadening horizons and expanding conscious thought is one of the greatest contributions high culture makes. Unfortunately it is almost always the one sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism, as high culture is peculiar to specific civilizations (and nations), whereas the wonders of technology have allowed low (pop) culture to spread worldwide.

Yes, you should have made that clearer.
I have never heard of anyone sacrificing any artistic or cultural contributions in the name of multiculturalism. The closest thing that comes to mind is the Taliban destruction of Buddhist artifacts in Afghanistan, but that was a blatant attempt to destroy multiculturalism. Also, high culture is not necessarily specific to specific civilisations. And technology has also enabled us to spread high culture around as well. Like this:
http://www.vispo.com/

So, if you have some sirt of link to prove that high culture is almost always sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.


Nor is monoculturalism exclusive with recognizing the value of other cultures. But it does not follow from your (inaccurate) definition of multiculturalism that we ought to import millions of people we don't need and aren't prepared to accept from places where their culture will naturally clash with our own.

Funny. I never defined multiculturalism, as far as I can remember. Nor did I claim that anyone should begin importing hordes of immigrants.

An arbitrary distinction; as the ruling body of a nation, the state has an obligation to protect it. This is doubly true of democracies, where states rule on behalf of and solely with the consent of the people of that nation (and presumably the adherents to its culture).

I think we have different ideas about what the words nation, culture, and state mean. If we can agree that the state is the bureacracy, legislasture, etc. and the nation is the people with a common history, language, etc. then we could say your sentence above is correct. Since, in a democracy, the state has an obligation to protect the nation, it reserves the right to set immigration.

I think we just agreed on something.


I didn't suggest ethnic homogeneity was naturally linked to cultural unity, nor did I suggest that ethnically homogenous nations would universally develop workable cultures.

No. But you did suggest that multicultural states which have no money almost always devolve into despotism and ethnic conflict. What I am saying is that multicultrualism, or ethnic homogeneity (sp?), has nothing to do with it.

Stern lecturing about headscarves and dirty looks in coffee shops do not constitute discrimination, which carries legal/political connotations

And even if Danes have chosen to limit their lawmaking powers in this capacity, this does not imply the right does not exist; it's simply the product of a purely political choice as to how to exercise it. And as with all purely political choices, such protections can be undone.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Hardly; in most cases it is the product of actions that are subject to political regulation (i.e., research, activism, etc.). Witness the fact that Middle Eastern nations have made only grudging concessions to change over the last few centuries, and often only when imposed on them by force or circumstances.
And progress is not synonymous with racial pluralism. Middle Eastern nations would probably not be any better off if only they had more ethnic Asians in them.

Tell me, does the partitioning of the Middle East by Allied forces count as a grudging concession to change? What about the Ottoman empire? Pretty stagnant there, I guess.


Of course I do. You probably think what I'm saying is dumb, but you respond anyway. I'll do the same to those who hawk ignorance. Just letting it slide is practically a tacit endorsement.

Actually, I just ignore your dumber comments. Why do you think I only respond to part of your posts?

I don't deny this, but I cannot quantify or measure what I cannot see.

Maybe so, but only at the expense of our own economic well-being and the addition of pathological elements into our society (i.e., crime, poverty, etc.).

And as we have seen, a growth in wealth does not correlate to a growth in friendliness to one's national interests. China's wealth is expanding rapidly, for instance, but it is no less hostile to its own neighbors (including Japan, which is in large part responsible for subsidizing this growth).

Well, as long as you agree with me that immigration allows for advances and development for the original country of the immigrants; these other factors are not in disagreement with my argument.