Victory in Britain!! Prime Minister says multiculturalism has failed

Originally posted by arollingstone
The vast majority of Muslims despise fundamentalists for giving Islam a bad and incorrect public image and going against many of the very principles of the religion. Yet, you still have the nerve to put it on the majority - it isn't rational and it isn't fair.

edit on 9-2-2011 by arollingstone because: typo

So why aren't the local Muslim leaders seeking out and dealing with these extremists then. If it is against their religion then surely they would weed them out?

We didn't hear about the animals that burnt the poppies being cast out from their local mosques did we?

reply to post by invetro


more automatic suggestion techniques from varying media the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun, Guardian . Telegraph etc. than one track brainwashing. Ultimately, ''hey we love other cultures as long as they are nice'' ' keep it in line with moderatism' meanwhile their society is being depleted of resources and the population unquestioningly following their governments agenda because of some devised ''british values'' spin.

So many in this country follow the lead of media and spout the rhetoric of their preferred media source, often in the same style without really questioning their own beliefs and the truest reality on the matter in question.

So while, a lot of opinions vary, it isn't necessarily a concise, well thought opinion, based on fact...more typically rehashed media spin.

As for replying to your comments on immigration, this is a huge topic which deserves more than a post on a thread about a government comment.

The point I am making here is that I believe this statement was intended by the government to get people arguing the semantics rather than paying attention to the real issues, which there are plenty, and the things being reported in the media now.

These things are likely to be the reason for the comment and are the documentary from C4 showing real life brainwashing from Muslim extremists in the state funded Muslim schools...guaranteed to cause outrage amongs the majority, and rightly so.

Additionally, the current investigation into the UK government ''doing everything in it's power'' due to not wishing to compromise business relations, to release the Pan Am bomber, who went to his homeland to a heroes welcome on the premise of terminal illness though is still alive after, so far 18 months. Again guaranteed to outrage the masses, and quite rightly so.

The UK government, invited this immigration, released Al Magrahi and did so with full knowledge of how it would cause consternation, as a measure of damage limitation, throws out comments every now and then to effectively appease the masses.

When the masses think they are getting things they want and are being listened to they will be more quiet, and well, if they are confused in the first place and taught to eschew thinking and individuality, then the jobs half done already.

Originally posted by KingDoey

Originally posted by arollingstone
The vast majority of Muslims despise fundamentalists for giving Islam a bad and incorrect public image and going against many of the very principles of the religion. Yet, you still have the nerve to put it on the majority - it isn't rational and it isn't fair.

edit on 9-2-2011 by arollingstone because: typo

So why aren't the local Muslim leaders seeking out and dealing with these extremists then. If it is against their religion then surely they would weed them out?

There are no naturally evolved local muslim leaders , yet .

Majority of the English are not ready to accept the muslims to be one of themselves .


That ' born in the barn 'story .


Today , as I was driving thru an ordinary British City ; I stopped at the red lights and saw a group of brown-black skinned muslims who also were dressed in traditional arab costumes.
They were on the pavement , huddled around a stand with a sign proclaiming the return of Jesus and Deccal .

There was a Blonde girl with blue jeans on their stand and judging by the animated looks on the faces of these muslims ,I concluded that they were trying to explain to her , what their view of future was going to be .

As I was waiting for the traffic to move , I had looked at the car next to me and saw a middle age woman who was also watching these muslims too .

As she has turned her head around , I could clearly see the expression of distaste and repulsiveness on her face .

For a moment ; our eyes crossed path and I could read what she was trying to communicate . :rollseyes:

I smiled to myself and drove off .


Interesting times we live in indeed .

Originally posted by KingDoey

Originally posted by arollingstone
The vast majority of Muslims despise fundamentalists for giving Islam a bad and incorrect public image and going against many of the very principles of the religion. Yet, you still have the nerve to put it on the majority - it isn't rational and it isn't fair.

edit on 9-2-2011 by arollingstone because: typo

So why aren't the local Muslim leaders seeking out and dealing with these extremists then. If it is against their religion then surely they would weed them out?

We didn't hear about the animals that burnt the poppies being cast out from their local mosques did we?

edit on 9-2-2011 by KingDoey because: (no reason given)

How would you propose they weed them out? For the most part, they are doing all one can be expected to do to weed them out - most Muslims are just getting on with their lives and ignoring those stupid fundamentalists, who aren't ever really going to achieve their goals, whilst regularly condemning them. The fundamentalists, who aren't even Muslim based on their perspectives and attitudes, are uneducated, self-righteous and deluded; they're the ones you're mad at. But they have no true power anyway, they're treated as morons - every nationality and religion has morons. Moreover, they are shunned from Muslim society. What more can you do to uproot a problem? If the British public wants to have a go, have a go at these very few insane men and stop going on about Muslims in general. Muslims are on your side.

www.aldeilis.net...:londons-muslims-condemn-extremists&catid=224:news-reports&Itemid =346

Independent Article

Thrown out mosque

And no I'm not sure if I heard about the poppy incident, may have briefly, but remind me - did every single British Muslim take part in that event? I think not. There were around 35 people involved - thats all they could gather for their shameful and grossly disrespectful protest. Clearly, you missed the point. I'm sure many white British people are going to get drunk beat each other up this weekend, or beat members of other nationalities up based on their racial origins, or whatever variances they may have - does that mean all white British people are violent savages? No of course not. What are you personally going to do about it except for condemn that behaviour?

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by arollingstone

 

it takes Consciousness and self awareness to have clear thoughts and intelligent thought processes, which mostly involves removing oneself literally and / or metaphorically from and above the restricted reality spheres of the current society in the UK and many other places.

The current and recent historical mainstream education system has been for the purpose of creating a nation of non thinkers, taught to look no deeper than the surface of things they are told and to follow media led rationale and view points.

This has culminated in a population of mostly unintelligent, work horses paying into the tax system without a second thought as to the structure of civilizations, and any deeper, more meaningful realities of a significant universal nature. These workhorses are displaying learned behaviour, reacting to trigger words and spouting 'learned' rhetoric as displayed in media and purposely limited educational teachings. The reality spheres such a culture has created are small and the population mostly 'in neutral' auto pilot, reactionary in a controlled verbal manner, consistent with such learned behaviour.

Such reactions and behaviour is a control method deployed by governments.

The reaction displayed in this thread are completely consistent with such behaviour and if these words were thrown out to any discussion forum of the average population, the same reactions to the same key words would be shown.

One could almost rewrite a dictionary with the format of:

word: meaning; typical reaction.

multicultural is a key word that produces specific reactions, in this instance it is a distractionary word from the supposed 'point' of the statement. I believe this word was used purposefully for this reaction.

To be honest there's not too much I could add to this post, asides from a few Chomsky quotes - well done.

They could start by naming and shaming them so that the public can get hold of them and exact justice. If i burnt a Koran i would be jailed (or done over by a Muslim hate mob) its as simple as that.

It is not the muslims that bother me so much, it is the fact that it is one rule for ethnic minorities in England and a completly different set of rules for the average Englishmen: In favour of the ethnics. I am so glad that Cameron has finally realised that multiculturalism has failed and sincerely hope that steps are taken to make this country ours again.

I am all for other races and religions being here don't get me wrong, but when they start to have more rights than me in my own country it becomes a problem.

As for getting drunk and having a scrap at the weekend thats not about discrimination, it is simply the working class man letting of steam at the end of a hard week. Its all good fun

Originally posted by KingDoey
They could start by naming and shaming them so that the public can get hold of them and exact justice. If i burnt a Koran i would be jailed (or done over by a Muslim hate mob) its as simple as that.

It is not the muslims that bother me so much, it is the fact that it is one rule for ethnic minorities in England and a completly different set of rules for the average Englishmen: In favour of the ethnics. I am so glad that Cameron has finally realised that multiculturalism has failed and sincerely hope that steps are taken to make this country ours again.

I am all for other races and religions being here don't get me wrong, but when they start to have more rights than me in my own country it becomes a problem.

As for getting drunk and having a scrap at the weekend thats not about discrimination, it is simply the working class man letting of steam at the end of a hard week. Its all good fun

Whatever punishment someone would be given for that action, it would be the same punishment for if someone committed a similar offence to Christians or Jews. I know drunk fighting is not generally about discrimination, but occasionally it is - I was debunking someone else's view that it is ok to generalise based on a vast minority. It is not all in good fun mind you, what is so fun about attempting to physically damage someone's body - whatever the reason? It's totally delusional. But that is another topic - in summation though, fighting and violence is pathetic - especially the extent to which it occurs in the UK. Mind you, it occurs in every country that alcohol is consumed (it is most pathetic when someone goes out intending to get in a fight because they can't handle their booze, or because of their own insecurities). Bottom line - the UK has much more pressing issues than Muslims to worry about - how about the education system? Tackle that 100% and you will tackle many many other issues, it will reduce knife crime for example.

More importantly, multiculturalism has NOT entirely failed - ask any British Asian where he is from - he will tell you the town in England that he is from, you have to make a point of asking where their parents are originally from a few times to find out. They see themselves as British, and they are proud to be recognised as such - they watch the same TV programmes as you, listen to the same music and enjoy the same past times. Cameron and the government/the elite just want you to think otherwise - he doesn't want you to, God forbid, get along with each other! If you could all learn to love one-another, or at least tolerate each other, you might one day realise well hey sometimes you screw me, sometimes I screw you, but we're both getting screwed really bad by these guys. Oldest trick in the book.

reply to post by Haydn_17


Great, now all the Muslims will begin to be extradited from European countries and they will go back to the Middle East and take over the State of Israel since that was the place they've lived at for the last 2000 years.

And the world will have to support it the same as supporting the extradition of Jews after WWII when the same happened to them.

Yeah? Don't see that happening? Neither do I. But it should if you want equality in inequality.

Khar

reply to post by awake_and_aware


A serious question: Do you even know what David Cameron meant when he used the word liberal?

edit: I'll tell you - he meant 'of liberty' not 'left wing.'

Apparently British values include forcing people to be free. There's no contradiction here! Well, it's nothing new, really. The British have been forcing their enlightened values on the world for centuries.

reply to post by WatchRider


Yeah, it was just the royalty and the government that called for and committed conquest. And the merchants. And the intellectuals. And the priesthoods. And the landowners. And, judging by this thread, the peasantry.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

Apparently British values include forcing people to be free. There's no contradiction here! Well, it's nothing new, really. The British have been forcing their enlightened values on the world for centuries.

edit on 9-2-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)

Basically, yes. Liberty often needs to be protected, enforced and fought for. And liberty does not mean that everyone can do whatever he wants, even infringe on other peoples rights. It is not anarchy. There is no contradiction here at all.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by Maslo


Liberty means what the gov will give you and you do what they want. If they decide in uk you will have no friends they will make damn sure, you will not have any friends.

Thats liberty.

reply to post by Maslo


That Jefferson quote says that liberty must be refreshed by killing tyrants i.e. by getting rid of order imposed from above.

True liberty is order created from below, grassroots self government. You are not a libertarian. It is not liberty when the government tells you what you can and cannot do, and you accept that. That is not liberty. It is a comfortable slavery.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Maslo

 

That Jefferson quote says that liberty must be refreshed by killing tyrants i.e. by getting rid of order imposed from above.

True liberty is order created from below, grassroots self government. You are not a libertarian. It is not liberty when the government tells you what you can and cannot do, and you accept that. That is not liberty. It is a comfortable slavery.

Nope, tyranny does not depend on the source, whether from above or from below.

Democracy is just a tyranny of the majority, and can lead to liberty being denied often just as effectively as a one-man dictatorship. Nazism was a grassroots movement, too, and won democratic elections.

Anarchy in practice is also not liberty, because it does not have any mechanism to protect liberty when under attack.

reply to post by Maslo


I'm sorry, but what 'mechanism' exists to protect you from the tyranny of the majority? When the majority gets elected to office and they are tyrannical, what mechanism defends the minority? The law? The government can and will abrogate it. Their human rights? The government can and will revoke their rights. Their guns? That's not a political mechanism, it's just anarchic self-defence.

Your real failing in this argument is in saying that 'liberty must be defended' and then saying that the State can't guarantee freedom. How are you supposed to defend your own liberty without attacking the repressive state?

And another thing. You say liberty must be defended. Presumably you are defending Leader Cameron's right to say that 'Liberty must be forced on people.' Let me ask you something. Why is it wrong for Muslim extremists to deny liberty to each other and force each other to observe only the limited freedom of sharia law? Why is it not wrong for the tyrannical minority government to deny liberty to Muslim extremists and force them to observe only the limited freedom of Liberal ideology, as defined by British law? Why does one form of liberty have to give way to the other?

The arguments that I have heard in the past go like this.

British 'liberty' should conquer Muslim 'liberty' because Muslims are invading Britain and it is the natural right of the British to deny liberties to those who want to rule over them (nevermind the obvious paranoid nonsense here, this is the argument that is repeated over and over, in this thread and elsewhere).

It is OK to conquer and enslave other people, as long as they are not me and my favoured group (I read this on ATS, and it was almost a joke response, but it cut to the core of almost every Islamophobe's idea of a 'solution' to the 'Muslim Problem').

MUSLIM IS A FAKE RELIGION GURRRR

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I'm sorry, but what 'mechanism' exists to protect you from the tyranny of the majority? When the majority gets elected to office and they are tyrannical, what mechanism defends the minority? The law? The government can and will abrogate it. Their human rights? The government can and will revoke their rights. Their guns? That's not a political mechanism, it's just anarchic self-defence.

Yes, I am talking about government, laws, constitution, human rights etc. - in democacy they obviously cannot protect you if the majority has anti-liberty or anti-humanic views (but they can still slow down the process), but they can protect you from the tyranny of the minority. Anarchy has not even such mechanism. Thats why both democracy and anarchy are not ideal forms of government. I dont know what exactly you mean by your grass-roots self-government, but it sounds o lot like dictatorship of the majority (democracy) or the powerful (anarchy).

Your real failing in this argument is in saying that 'liberty must be defended' and then saying that the State can't guarantee freedom. How are you supposed to defend your own liberty without attacking the repressive state?

You are equating state with democracy. We have constitutions and high courts for a reason, to protect basic rights of people (such as liberty) against attacks, even by the majority.

And another thing. You say liberty must be defended. Presumably you are defending Leader Cameron's right to say that 'Liberty must be forced on people.' Let me ask you something. Why is it wrong for Muslim extremists to deny liberty to each other and force each other to observe only the limited freedom of sharia law? Why is it not wrong for the tyrannical minority government to deny liberty to Muslim extremists and force them to observe only the limited freedom of Liberal ideology, as defined by British law? Why does one form of liberty have to give way to the other?

I dont think you know what liberty means. Liberty is not democracy, individualistic or anarchy. When someone wants to limit someone elses freedom (such as muslim extremists often want) and he is stopped, the liberty is upheld, not diminished. The whole problem with muslim extremists is mostly in their anti-liberty opinions. That makes fighting against them and their freedom to impose them on others a pro-liberty fight.

reply to post by Maslo


I want to do two things in this response. I want to point out a connection between the attitude you and many others espouse, and an attitude that I assume you will find odious. I also want to point out that you seem to think that not harming others=liberty.

Who else says that liberty must be defended against those who would take it away? Who else says that their authority must be enhanced so that liberty can be preserved? Revolutionaries, communists, democrats - they all say the same thing. If you want to be free then you must obey the law, or you will not be permitted any freedom whatsoever. SLAVERY. IS. FREEDOM. If the State does not protect the revolution, then there is no freedom; therefore the state must have as much power as possible to combat any form of counter-revolutionary behaviour. Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat/tyranny of the majority must be established and freedom crushed, so that freedom can survive. Do you see the contradiction here? You cannot have both a state of liberty and a state of laws. If you have any laws, then liberty is lost. It is absolutely impossible for the state (judicial, executive, legislative) to provide freedom because there is a contradiction of terms between 'government' and 'liberty.' Is slavery really freedom, as long as its a slavery that you have been raised and conditioned to believe is normal and tolerable?

Liberty does not mean protecting people from infringing on the liberty of others. That is nonsense. What you describe is a third party intervening to prevent someone from acting on their freedom to harm others. That is not a defense of freedom. It is an assault on freedom. The culprit may be assaulting the freedom of someone else, but that does not not mean that the intervention is 'protecting' liberty. It is protecting the liberty of one party and destroying the liberty of another, just as the assailant is protecting his own liberty and destroying that of another. Intervention is no more libertarian than the oppressive act itself.

But oh, boo hoo, there is a victim. Shallow emotions get in the way of Liberty, a concept that comes to us only through Reason. Someone is suffering; therefore their liberty is more important than the person who is winning.

There is a reason Nietzsche called democracy a slave morality. It is because it always seeks to destroy the strong and protect the weak. It always seeks to destroy liberty and at the same time claim to be a defender of liberty. It is a form of condescending slavery that offers only token freedoms, token liberties, and banishes anything that defies its almighty Laws.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


In that case I would agree with you. The media does have a lot of sway and is part of the reason I don't read the angry tones of the daily mail and I try to watch ALL of the news networks on my satellite box. To base your views on the entirety of one newspaper or channel is lazy and a massive trap that the majority are stuck in.

But I will say that the outrage is difficult even for me to avoid. The language used is pretty powerful when I think about it and I worry about the consequences. I might not be Islams biggest fan for example, but I do not want them expelled from this country. They do have the extremist groups, not welcome, but I think once a proper leap towards immigrant intergration is thought out and implemented there is no need for these hate groups to exist on either side and communities might be less apprehensive of adopting some of our cultures and basically joining in some more.

I digress though. While I wasn't expecting Cameron to comment on this issue right in the middle of Egypt erupting into chaos, I wondered if he did it to bond stronger with Angela Merkel who I believe made similar comments a few months ago.

reply to post by invetro


the release of comments from governments seems to be in tandem and controlled, probably part of something bigger given the recent meetings of heads of state in the US and the Egypt thing.

Publicly announcing that multiculturalism has failed isn't hard to say. It has it's political dangers but ultimately it's simply a political speech. The problem for Cameron and the Liberal Democrats is going to be what to do with the millions of Muslims and their multicultural supporters who will not support his policy? In a democratic society, a political is only as good as the support it gets from the majority. If the majority of Britons support the policy they are still going have to do something with the millions of Muslims who may not be willing to support the policy. It will be interesting to see if Cameron offers serious consequences for those who continue to support multiculturalism. Bottom line: If his policy has majority popular support it will ultimately succeed in a few decades. If it doesn't have popular majority support it will fail. Cameron is hardly an extremist so perhaps he does speak for the majority. UK does have laws protecting minority rights but they don't have a Bill of Rights. It will be interesting to see how The British Courts will respond to any legal challenges.

Personally, I have nothing against multiculturalism but neither am I wedded to the concept. It's success or failure ultimately depends on the willingness of the majority to adapt and accept minority beliefs. In hard economic times,history suggests that the majority has little patience for minorities and uses them as scapegoats for society's ills. That's neither racist nor bigoted it's merely historical fact.