The Integrated Multicultural Society

[Lutiferre]

I dont know for exactly how long Europe has been multicultural - since some ancient civilizations and areas have been multicultural, we cannot really use that as a factor. But the majority of Europe has been significantly multicultural for 30-40 years. Denmark has been significantly multicultural since the 1970's, and before that its much less. After that, its only been increasing however, both things such as adoptions of African and Indian babies, and the immigration of non-Western refugees and so on.

This is almost - this IS an integrated multicultural society. Mainly in bigger cities, but it still affects all of Europe. What I want to ask everyone with this thread is how this affects your social relationships?

The main problem through the years for me is when friends of mine bring their Arab friends to my house, and similar things. I am not as prejudicial as some are, but there is almost no exceptions to the cultural trends of the Arab and Somali immigrants we have here, and they are also valid in this case.

I am not at the luxury that my friends are any kind of nationalists. I have a few that are, but the majority of people I know, both friends and family, are not. Another problem is that I for an example have an Indian "friend", the adopted "son" of my mothers friend, who I have known since I was a kid. That is an example of what I mean with "integrated".

Any experiences such as this you want to share? And how do you tackle such things - through exceptional tolerance, or through general prejudice?

[wilpuri]

I am sure most of us at some point have to face the dilemma created by the difference that exists between our weltanshauung and the reality.

I have friends who are foreign but by all practical standards have assimilated into mainstream society. I treat them as the individuals they see themselves as, and I don't really see a conflict between having such acquaintances and a nationalistic world view. I've spoken of my views to some of immigrant backgrounds and most of them sympathise and understand.

We cannot expect to live as we would in our hypothetical ideal societies.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by wilpuri

I am sure most of us at some point have to face the dilemma created by the difference that exists between our weltanshauung and the reality.

I have friends who are foreign but by all practical standards have assimilated into mainstream society. I treat them as the individuals they see themselves as, and I don't really see a conflict between having such acquaintances and a nationalistic world view. I've spoken of my views to some of immigrant backgrounds and most of them sympathise and understand.

We cannot expect to live as we would in our hypothetical ideal societies.

I dont really have a problem with the few Swedes and Poles we have in this country, as long as they do not migrate in the hundreds of thousands, and of course, behave and follow our standards, they do not pose a threat to society. However, when countless of Somalis and Turks migrate, and decide that they will create their own little mini-sharia in the immigrant areas around the country, and live by their own laws, ignoring the norms of Danish society, I start having a problem. That is also, when it becomes impossible for me to accept any Muslim immigrant as my own. I feel that, perhaps, the cultural differences are simply too great to be countered anytime soon - and before that has happened, more destruction than any multicultural optimism can compensate for has been imposed on society.

The exception, would be of course, in these ages, those that may have such background, but integrate into society, and at the very least try to. I keep telling myself that we must also take part of the blame for their presence here, because we let them in. And what fool lets the enemy in, and provides for them? That must be what they are thinking, that must be why they think they can install sharia in our society. But then we must also excuse them for taking the very opportunity that we provided them. That being said, it was also done on some terms, even though they were very liberate. If they dont successfully integrate into society, then even in this society, they have no place here. As even a prominent socialist said, commenting on the islamist extremism and the recent riots in this country, "they have no place in this society; they can go to hell".

[donTomas]

I have friends who are foreign but by all practical standards have assimilated into mainstream society. I treat them as the individuals they see themselves as, and I don't really see a conflict between having such acquaintances and a nationalistic world view. I've spoken of my views to some of immigrant backgrounds and most of them sympathise and understand. (Wilpuri)

I subscribe to this paragraph at 100%. I'm not able to say it better. I'm in the same situation and I'm not going to back down my thoughts: my land and my heritage are not up for discussion at all.

In Spain the immigrant floodtide started just ten-twelve years ago, so we have to distinguish between the tiny immigrant community previous to, say, 1997, and the uncontrolled tide since that year. Immigrants who grew in Spain in eighties and the first half of nineties where "surrounded" by spaniards, so they *had to* became spaniards at a 90%. but today immigration is so brutal and spaniards' birth rate so suicidal that what we are up to is simply substitution and the destruction of spanish people. We are being transformed into a merge of Brazil, Morocco and the USA. And the only attitude allowed is to feel fine, smile and to look the other way.

[Lutiferre]

One of the points with this thread was the question of how you as ethno-nationalists envision to create a mono-cultural society?

What will you do with the millions or hundreds of thousands of foreigners already in your society? Deport them? Not an option, you cannot send someone anywhere in the world, based on their ancestral origins, seeing as the majority of the populated world is multicultural. So what will you do with them, when it is clear that you have to keep them in your nation?

Dictate them an ethnic identity? For obvious reasons, that is not an option either.

Destroy the Untermensch? Hitler tried that, didnt get him far (and lets not make this a discussion about Holocaust revisionism, this is just an example).

So the reality is, whether or not one intellectually advocates or rejects the idea of a society with a wide array of people and cultures from many parts of the worlds, that society is now a reality, a reality that conflicts with the ideals of nationalists on this site. So what practical solution do you envision?

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

One of the points with this thread was the question of how you as ethno-nationalists envision to create a mono-cultural society?

Do you think non-ethno-nationalism exists?

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

What will you do with the millions or hundreds of thousands of foreigners already in your society? Deport them? Not an option, you cannot send someone anywhere in the world, based on their ancestral origins, seeing as the majority of the populated world is multicultural. So what will you do with them, when it is clear that you have to keep them in your nation?

Of course we must deport them - back to where their ancestors came from. The whole concept of multiculturalism is a hoax, except some degenerates most people like to stay within their own ethnic group.
Currently European people are too weak and it is unlikely this will change this soon, so there are no deportions to be expected anyway. But the more foreigners come, the more the government comes under pressure, since these foreigners, especially Muslims, have better things to do than to "integrate". They hate the liberal democracy and exploit it for their own purposes.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Dictate them an ethnic identity? For obvious reasons, that is not an option either.

All over Europe the US model of "constitutional partiotism" is pushed, this means no matter of what origin, you are an equal citizen. Many foreigner take the citizenship to benefit from welfare, but they continue to consider themselves as Turks, Arabs etc. The Turkish prime-minister recently said "assimilation is a crime", he meant Turks shall remain Turks, no matter what passport they have. That is a good sign since it deepens the segregationist tendencies.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Destroy the Untermensch? Hitler tried that, didnt get him far (and lets not make this a discussion about Holocaust revisionism, this is just an example).

There are a certain number of people thet need to be tied up, but in general a repatriation must be the goal.
You chose Hitler as example, I think noone here denies the Danes, the Russians etc. were right to drive the foreign occupies out of their lands, using all weapons available - right must be enforced, no matter the offender likes it or not, the methods will depend on the offender's behaviour.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

So the reality is, whether or not one intellectually advocates or rejects the idea of a society with a wide array of people and cultures from many parts of the worlds, that society is now a reality, a reality that conflicts with the ideals of nationalists on this site. So what practical solution do you envision?

Currently there are no practical solutions since all nationalist and so-called "right-wingers" fail to gain any political influence despite about 50% of the population thinks there are too many foreigners within our borders.
So currently the only weapon is to fight the "integration" by boycotting (non-European) foreigners and to encourage segregationism.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Do you think non-ethno-nationalism exists?

No, I dont think it, I know it - it is pretty indisputable fact.
People define nation and ethnicity differently, which leads to different kinds of nationalism, even different kinds of ethno-nationalism. I believe there is a poll about that here.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

The whole concept of multiculturalism is a hoax, except some degenerates most people like to stay within their own ethnic group.

Depends how you define multiculturalism. We are using a presumed definition of multiculturalism in this thread (and many other places), without clearly defining it. To a large extent, I myself am the product of multiculturalism - I am the descendant of a mixture of Danes, Jutes (who themselves are a mixture of many things), Dutch and Austrian immigrants, and to my most essential roots, I am the descendant of a mixture of Indo-Europeans and paleo-Europeans. Whats more, many of the cultural components of my country have a foreign origin, such as Christianity. So to a large extent, multiculturalism is also embedded in ourselves and our cultures.

The difference is that that it is another kind of multiculturalism - intra-European, so to speak - whereas today, multiculturalism typically refers to either societies with a dividing ethnic/cultural diversity, caused by large migrations between countries, or large minorities, typically non-western refugees or immigrants, with foreign cultures and religions.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Currently European people are too weak and it is unlikely this will change this soon, so there are no deportions to be expected anyway. But the more foreigners come, the more the government comes under pressure, since these foreigners, especially Muslims, have better things to do than to "integrate". They hate the liberal democracy and exploit it for their own purposes.

The fact that you use muslims as an example of "foreigners" interestingly indicates what I just wrote is pretty accurate.

On topic,

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Of course we must deport them - back to where their ancestors came from.

How? You do know, that their countries will likely not take them back, right? In Denmark, we are having these controversies with thousands of refugees that have been rejected and officially "deported" 10+ years ago, living in asylum here in the country, because their countries (typically Middle Eastern) wont have them.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Currently there are no practical solutions since all nationalist and so-called "right-wingers" fail to gain any political influence despite about 50% of the population thinks there are too many foreigners within our borders.
So currently the only weapon is to fight the "integration" by boycotting (non-European) foreigners and to encourage segregationism.

But you, seemingly suggesting that the only nationalism that exists is ethno-nationalism, must certainly also be against European immigrants?

[M.R.]

It's only important that they know what my views are, if they're fine with it than it's ok and I have no problem with them either.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

One of the points with this thread was the question of how you as ethno-nationalists envision to create a mono-cultural society?

Assimilation (for some foreigners) and deportation (for others).

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

How? You do know, that their countries will likely not take them back, right?

In the case of Belarus "Chernobyl area of eviction" comes to my mind immediately. 4500 square kilometers.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

So currently the only weapon is to fight the "integration" by boycotting (non-European) foreigners and to encourage segregationism.

This gets my vote too.

[donTomas]

So currently the only weapon is to fight the "integration" by boycotting (non-European) foreigners and to encourage segregationism.

The final goal of this method is to make them "to vote by their feet", i. e., to make them leave voluntarily.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by donTomas

The final goal of this method is to make them "to vote by their feet", i. e., to make them leave voluntarily.

The problem with this approach is what I already mentioned here:

You do know, that their countries will likely not take them back, right? In Denmark, we are having these controversies with thousands of refugees that have been rejected and officially "deported" 10+ years ago, living in asylum here in the country, because their countries (typically Middle Eastern) wont have them

So even if they want to leave voluntarily (which they in most cases dont, even those that have been officially deported attempt to stay), or are forced to leave, there are many cases where it is simply not possible to send them back. They have become the burden of the country they live in, no matter where they originate. This is not to speak of what would happen if we attempted to make all immigrants go back - then, thats where their countries would start rejecting them.

The problem with the societally integrated multiculturalism is also the fact that many immigrants are born in the given country - and are thus second-generation, and "rightful" citizens of the given country - which makes it legally impossible in most cases to send them back.

And even in a hypothetical attempt at this method, it would be impossible to make everyone boycott immigrants. Even those with nationalist tendencies in many countries, would accept any immigrant if they promised to assimilate.

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

Assimilation (for some foreigners) and deportation (for others).

So lets say we deported everyone it was possible with. Then we would still have a very large amount of immigrants, many of which would likely resist assimilation - criminal types, or religious fanatics. If we assume it would be possible to force them to assimilate (which we cant be sure of), we can not deny that there will always be a cultural impact anyway. There would be a foreign cultural influence embedded in society. The problem really is how you are going to make them assimilate successfully, especially if you force them.

I am skeptic of the approach of cultural dictatorship. Even if it was ideal, which it isnt, how would one make that happen? Most people are against any kind of nationalism, and many of those that arent, are much more liberal than that.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

So lets say we deported everyone it was possible with. Then we would still have a very large amount of immigrants, many of which would likely resist assimilation - criminal types, or religious fanatics. If we assume it would be possible to force them to assimilate (which we cant be sure of), we can not deny that there will always be a cultural impact anyway. There would be a foreign cultural influence embedded in society. The problem really is how you are going to make them assimilate successfully, especially if you force them.

I am skeptic of the approach of cultural dictatorship. Even if it was ideal, which it isnt, how would one make that happen? Most people are against any kind of nationalism, and many of those that arent, are much more liberal than that.

I believe every healthy national organism by its nature strives to become homogeneous. So I didn’t propose anything especial since there are only two ways to this homogeneity – assimilation and alienation (deportation/ghettoes/apartheid etc.). (Well, there is a third way - extermination; but I think we’ll both agree that it’s abnormal for a human to kill another human ). By ‘assimilation’ I mean not accepting some ways of behaving or a system of values but complete assimilation (I’m keeping in mind here mostly high percentages of “Poles”, Russians and Ukrainians in Belarus and the high percentage of inter-ethnic marriages because of that). Who cannot be assimilated successfully (for different reasons) should be alienated. Nobody should be forced – simply if you don’t want to be assimilated, then please: a suitcase – a railway station – a freight car. Successful assimilation means very little or no foreign cultural elements remained, so I don’t think that possible foreign influence can be a big problem.

Welcoming multiculturalism is a sign of unhealthy society, that’s why I think that it will be rejected anyway. Societies can’t remain sick forever.