|
Postmodern Trendoid III
|
Karnal wrote on May 30 th, 2016 at 6:42pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 30 th, 2016 at 6:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 30 th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 30 th, 2016 at 1:46pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 30 th, 2016 at 1:27pm: "integration" - as opposed to "assimilation" works fine misty.
The old assimilation model was rightly discarded because it doesn't work. It tells migrants they must completely drop their way of life and become clones of the dominant culture. Its a fantasy - you simply can't rip the culture out of someone and expect them to seamlessly fit wholly into a foreign one - even when they are attracted so much by it that they want to move to a country that has it. You either restrict your immigration program to countries of the same culture (tried that, and we ran out), or have a whole generation of migrants living a lie and feeling disillusioned. Integration says that immigrants can be productive and make a positive contribution to society while they retain their culture. In fact, it goes further and says that multiculturalism enhances society - since a population of happy people being comfortable to 'be themselves', and not someone else, makes for a healthier society. Integration only works if the populations of the imported cultures remain small, very small. Once they reach a certain level they will then push their ideas/practices onto others. Voting blocks form, infiltration into the public service and universities occur, and then it's game over if it isn't countered before too long. Your describing whats known as the 'core-periphery' multicultural model, which is not the original idea of multiculturalism espoused by the likes of Zubrzycki when they developed the Australian concept in the 1970s. The core-periphery model is little more than a modified assimilationist model - as it contains the same basic ingredient of a chauvenistic, dominant culture (in our case - anglo culture), which ultimately everyone must aspire to, and adopt. It can be seen as assimilationism by stealth - as it pays lip service to pluralism and diversity, but in reality, it conditions people to view the "core", dominant culture as superior and makes people who aren't in that culture to feel inadequate. The original multiculturalism idea though, was a trully pluralistic concept - in fact it does away altogether with the idea of separate, competing cultures, and instead focuses on a single, dynamic and diverse culture: that is composed of many and equal "sub-cultures" if you like. Its encouraging to hear some enlightened people in Europe embrace this concept - where they'll talk about mosques and synagogues and churches etc, coexisting together, as being part of "our" culture, rather than merely accepting those things as representing separate cultures, albeit accepted into society. 'Models', hehe. The nature of any ethnic group is to expand its influence. It's not in its nature to bend over and let itself be taken over (unless you're a self-hating lefty type, of which only exist usually in white countries). 'Non-competing' cultures is the stuff of idealism, which is why it only exists in people's heads. That’s right. Ethnic groups are like tribes of apes - only one can prevail and survive. This is why they need to be cordoned off from each other. Unless you want to do a bit of research and make some cash off the Muselman. This is perfectly reasonable. We’re whites. We’re above all that ethnic nonsense. Selling out your white culture for a job with the Muselman is "progressive". Just as you try to expand the influence of your lefty "progressive" group interests, non-lefties push back and defend their group interests. The same thing occurs on an ethnic level. You can't get outside of the world of conflict. This is why lefties are always talking about how things should be, and not as they are.
|
Forum
Pages: 
A Gated Community that refuses Muslims .. (Read 20626 times)
