International Germany's Multicultural Experiment: 45% of Migrants Failed German Integration Courses

Europe's experiment with "Multiculturalism" rather than adopting North America's "Melting Pot" is...


  • Total voters
    285
Part of maintaining our culture is tolerance of differences that are unimportant to us, even if they're important to those practicing them. That is a core part of having an open culture. Being able to wear a turban in public even though it's not traditional American dress is as much a part of American culture as being prohibited from wearing shorts in Qatar is a part of theirs. In a sense we don't tolerate superficial differences for the sake of the immigrant, we tolerate them because we want a tolerant culture that gives people freedom to dress as they like. I think there's some wisdom in what you say in terms of the strictre culture dominating the less strict one, and that's why I think we should strongly hold the line both legally and culturally on things that do matter. It's a tough balance and it's one where I think the far left goes way too far in being accepting of cultural practices that are alien to Western values simply because they're held to be important by minorities. I also agree that Islam is antithetical to Western values as it's practiced almost everywhere in the world, and I do believe that if Muslims are going to immigrate to the West it's on them to give up those parts of their religion that are in opposition to Enlightenment values and it's on us as the citizens of those nations to push back strongly however we can against attempts to import those medieval cultural practices. Of course, I also don't believe religions have any inherent truth so I have no problem telling someone to 'moderate of leave', because I don't really respect religious beliefs for their own sake.

I guess that what I've described emphasizes the Broken Window Theory in a preventative sort of way, where we don't even let the small stuff go by to where we even need to stand strong on the important issues, but I also understand that that approach is not an "American" one. I am also not advocating it per se, but I think it distinctly shows how our cultures differ, i.e. when they are here they can wear what they want, but when we go there, we cannot.

As for them giving up their values, it's just not going to happen, and I don't think it's realistic to believe they will. The best case scenario is one where both cultures amalgamate over time where second and third generations lose their cultural zeal and begin to identify more with the new world, but that process is usually a lengthy one, and after cultural conflict has already reaped it's bloody reward.

I just don't see a scenario where this doesn't end in a lot of grief for both parties, and I wish more people recognized that. I don't even want to fight a culture war, I just want people to admit it.
 
I guess that what I've described emphasizes the Broken Window Theory in a preventative sort of way, where we don't even let the small stuff go by to where we even need to stand strong on the important issues, but I also understand that that approach is not an "American" one. I am also not advocating it per se, but I think it distinctly shows how our cultures differ, i.e. when they are here they can wear what they want, but when we go there, we cannot.

As for them giving up their values, it's just not going to happen, and I don't think it's realistic to believe they will. The best case scenario is one where both cultures amalgamate over time where second and third generations lose their cultural zeal and begin to identify more with the new world, but that process is usually a lengthy one, and after cultural conflict has already reaped it's bloody reward.

I just don't see a scenario where this doesn't end in a lot of grief for both parties, and I wish more people recognized that. I don't even want to fight a culture war, I just want people to admit it.

I don't think they'll give up their culture. On the contrary, I only think we should allow in people who have largely adopted Western culture prior to immigrating, either because they were born into a Westernized family or social class (e.g. educated Pakistanis) or simply because they find it preferable to their own native culture for whatever reason.

I actually think the best case scenario is one where our culture gradually overtakes theirs, which while it sounds fantastical has been the historical precedent over the last 150 years of so. Look at Japan and China today: not totally Western by any means, but Western enough where it counts for us to live peacefully with and have strong economic ties to. I don't assume this happens without conflict (if it happens at all), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I actually think this is a lot more likely to happen in Arab nations, oddly, than in places like Africa. There's simply a lot more Western influence historically and the middle and upper classes throughout the Arab and Persian worlds are moderately to highly Westernized already. Things like women voting in Saudi Arabia are small changes, but they're also important ones. I think to some extent the original Islamists were inspired less by Islam per se than by what they saw as rapid encroachment on their traditional values by Western influence, which goes to show you how powerful our culture can be.

Africa I just have almost no hope for in the foreseeable future. Too much tribalism, too much corruption, no infrastructure, and a lack of human capital on top of religious fundamentalism (I'm not sure there's any other kind of religion in Africa, frankly). I actually expect Arab terrorism to wane somewhat as the century progresses, but I expect African terrorism to increase substantially.
 
I don't think they'll give up their culture. On the contrary, I only think we should allow in people who have largely adopted Western culture prior to immigrating, either because they were born into a Westernized family or social class (e.g. educated Pakistanis) or simply because they find it preferable to their own native culture for whatever reason.

I actually think the best case scenario is one where our culture gradually overtakes theirs, which while it sounds fantastical has been the historical precedent over the last 150 years of so. Look at Japan and China today: not totally Western by any means, but Western enough where it counts for us to live peacefully with and have strong economic ties to. I don't assume this happens without conflict (if it happens at all), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I actually think this is a lot more likely to happen in Arab nations, oddly, than in places like Africa. There's simply a lot more Western influence historically and the middle and upper classes throughout the Arab and Persian worlds are moderately to highly Westernized already. Things like women voting in Saudi Arabia are small changes, but they're also important ones. I think to some extent the original Islamists were inspired less by Islam per se than by what they saw as rapid encroachment on their traditional values by Western influence, which goes to show you how powerful our culture can be.

Africa I just have almost no hope for in the foreseeable future. Too much tribalism, too much corruption, no infrastructure, and a lack of human capital on top of religious fundamentalism (I'm not sure there's any other kind of religion in Africa, frankly). I actually expect Arab terrorism to wane somewhat as the century progresses, but I expect African terrorism to increase substantially.

Can you clarify your first statement? When you say "we should allow in people who have adopted..." are you saying that you want to reject immigrants unless they've shown they can assimilate? Not that I will fight you on that, I just want to see if I'm reading you right.

Perhaps you're right as to how the culture war will proceed, but I think you're being too optimistic. It's a complicated subject and one that I'm not well versed in. I mostly just give my uneducated opinion, so I'm happy to see people humour me.

I've been watching this series called The Human Planet, which deals with how good people are at manipulating the environment to live in like no other species. It's a bit self-congratulatory, but it shows these wildly different cultures, some in Africa, and I can't help but thinking that despite them being a bit backwards, it works for them. Not everyone needs infrastructure and capital to be happy, and frankly, Western intervention would kill those cultures in every possible way. Every culture is important, and I just wish that people actually believed that instead of just providing lip service.
 
It's not a "sham", it's what it's always been. A fancy word for the extinction of Europeans.

Nobody else is expected to be "multicultural". If you are anything else your culture is respected. Europeans are expected to hate their ancestors, hate themselves, and bow down to other cultures.

Multiculturalism has never had any other meaning and anyone who pretends it does just stutters themselves into exhaustion before conceding that it's the truth.
 
Can you clarify your first statement? When you say "we should allow in people who have adopted..." are you saying that you want to reject immigrants unless they've shown they can assimilate? Not that I will fight you on that, I just want to see if I'm reading you right.

Perhaps you're right as to how the culture war will proceed, but I think you're being too optimistic. It's a complicated subject and one that I'm not well versed in. I mostly just give my uneducated opinion, so I'm happy to see people humour me.

I've been watching this series called The Human Planet, which deals with how good people are at manipulating the environment to live in like no other species. It's a bit self-congratulatory, but it shows these wildly different cultures, some in Africa, and I can't help but thinking that despite them being a bit backwards, it works for them. Not everyone needs infrastructure and capital to be happy, and frankly, Western intervention would kill those cultures in every possible way. Every culture is important, and I just wish that people actually believed that instead of just providing lip service.

I don't think every culture is important. Or at least, not equally important. Every culture is interesting, some are dangerous, but few are likely to do much to move the human race forward in any discernable way.

As for my first statement yes, I tend to think that immigration needs to be more tightly controlled (to the extent that's possible) and that certainly from countries with decidedly anti-Western values that someone needs to have demonstrated somehow that they're capable of living in and contributing to a modern Western society before being admitted. It is no virtue to better the lives of immigrants expressly at the cost of the safety and happiness of your own citizens. A good example is the Somali community in Minneapolis: in a city with low unemployment and a high degree of education, they have unemployment something like 5x the state average, terrible educational outcomes, and much higher rates of crime. Why? Because they were coming from an undeveloped tribal society and they had no context or background for how to succeed in the a modern knowledge based economy. Even the idea of going to school regularly was highly alien to most of the community. They were unready to be Americans in any sense: cultural mores, religion, education, working, etc. So I think it's reasonable to ask yourself what good it does us to let these people in when we can very reasonably expect that both they and their children will not be able to contribute to American life, rather they live off government subsidies and turn to crime at a much higher rate than the general population. I question to come extent whether it's even really good for them to go from a society like Somalia to one like America; certainly, they're not going to be victims of ethnic cleansing in Minnesota. But at the same time, they're also not rebuilding their own nation, and they're creating a burden for ours. This is not to say that we shouldn't accept any war refugees: we can and should strictly for moral reasons. But whether we should give them permanent residency or give their children born here citizenship, or whether we should shy away from recognizing that preventing them from falling behind the rest of America in every way will be expensive and prone to failure I'm highly skeptical. I'd like to see America eliminate blanket birthright citizenship and treat refugees less as immigrants and more as guests who will be taken care of but expected (and frankly, forced) to return to their countries of origin whenever whatever conflict they're fleeing has ended.
 
I don't think every culture is important. Or at least, not equally important. Every culture is interesting, some are dangerous, but few are likely to do much to move the human race forward in any discernable way.

As for my first statement yes, I tend to think that immigration needs to be more tightly controlled (to the extent that's possible) and that certainly from countries with decidedly anti-Western values that someone needs to have demonstrated somehow that they're capable of living in and contributing to a modern Western society before being admitted. It is no virtue to better the lives of immigrants expressly at the cost of the safety and happiness of your own citizens. A good example is the Somali community in Minneapolis: in a city with low unemployment and a high degree of education, they have unemployment something like 5x the state average, terrible educational outcomes, and much higher rates of crime. Why? Because they were coming from an undeveloped tribal society and they had no context or background for how to succeed in the a modern knowledge based economy. Even the idea of going to school regularly was highly alien to most of the community. They were unready to be Americans in any sense: cultural mores, religion, education, working, etc. So I think it's reasonable to ask yourself what good it does us to let these people in when we can very reasonably expect that both they and their children will not be able to contribute to American life, rather they live off government subsidies and turn to crime at a much higher rate than the general population. I question to come extent whether it's even really good for them to go from a society like Somalia to one like America; certainly, they're not going to be victims of ethnic cleansing in Minnesota. But at the same time, they're also not rebuilding their own nation, and they're creating a burden for ours. This is not to say that we shouldn't accept any war refugees: we can and should strictly for moral reasons. But whether we should give them permanent residency or give their children born here citizenship, or whether we should shy away from recognizing that preventing them from falling behind the rest of America in every way will be expensive and prone to failure I'm highly skeptical. I'd like to see America eliminate blanket birthright citizenship and treat refugees less as immigrants and more as guests who will be taken care of but expected (and frankly, forced) to return to their countries of origin whenever whatever conflict they're fleeing has ended.

That's beautifully said, and I find it difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing. The Somali example, in specific, is exactly the problem one should anticipate, and recognize that it's unfair to both parties. It hurts everyone.

Every culture is important, but not every culture is comprised of admirable qualities. While I disagree with some Islamic tenets, I wouldn't dream of tearing Islam down completely. Refine it, sure, but not eliminate it from the East. If it works for them and they value different things, that's fine by me.
 
Muslims suck and smash crime rates wherever they go. Who knew..

Ohh wait stats for the past 10 years knew.
 
Her full quote was probably more like: "Multiculturalism is a sham. So we must have more multiculturalism."
 
It's certainly not a humanitarian mission by the ruling class, although it is masquerading as such for propaganda purposes.

I agree it isn't about workers though, and it most certainly isn't about assimilating people into the German culture, or whatever is left of it.

It's primarily about manufactured conflict and dissolving German identity, while providing pretext for power grabs.

It's so simple when viewed from the perspective of a hostile elite.
To what extent?
 
To what extent?

The more conflict there is the more the state power can be grown.

They are already using it to justify social media censorship, and as we saw in Paris when there is terrorism the state will justify police state measures. The dynamics are such that terrorism will become more common place, and people will accept such actions from the state.

The actors in power create the problems in order to justify the solutions. The bigger the problems, the bigger the solutions.

Undermining homogenous society is one of the primary objectives of the international Oligarchy as well, since the ability to stand against hostile rulers and/or their agendas is greatly diminished in diverse, conflicting societies. So this empowers those at the top. There is a reason it is pushed so hard.

So the more dysfunction and conflict the better, and the weaker the natives become the better, from the perspective of those orchestrating the mess.

Same agenda being run all over (not just Germany)
 
That's why we need to worry less about the religion of people we allow to immigrate and worry much, much more about class and education. I don't care if you're a Pakistani Muslim if you were educated in English schools, sympathetic to Western culture, and have the skills to add value in a modern economy. I have a huge problem with you immigrating if you have no skills and are going to bring 3rd world tribalism and religious fundamentalism with you. It's not incumbent upon Western countries to let just anyone in, and while I don't think race or relgion are valid reasons to refuse entry I do think ability to contribute in a positive way to the society you're joinging is an extremely important criterion.
I'm partially there with you. I would favor education the greatest, but it also depends from what culture. If we pull immigrants from northern Afghanistan, even the affluent ones are into bacha bazi. There was an Egyptian or Pakistani immigrant here in America who killed his two daughters because he found out they had girlfriends (the 911 call of one of the dying girls is on YouTube, if you want to torment yourself).

But overall, I agree with you. Certain factors should be considered and one of them is culture/education has to be high on the list. Not just letting anyone and everyone in. It's more about, what can you contribute to society? Will you be a net positive? Etc.
 
I'm partially there with you. I would favor education the greatest, but it also depends from what culture. If we pull immigrants from northern Afghanistan, even the affluent ones are into bacha bazi. There was an Egyptian or Pakistani immigrant here in America who killed his two daughters because he found out they had girlfriends (the 911 call of one of the dying girls is on YouTube, if you want to torment yourself).

But overall, I agree with you. Certain factors should be considered and one of them is culture/education has to be high on the list. Not just letting anyone and everyone in. It's more about, what can you contribute to society? Will you be a net positive? Etc.

Culture matters a lot. And I have no problem having a higher bar for an Afghan immigrant than, say, a French one simply because the French in general are much closer to Americans in terms of cultural background.

I would be curious how many honor killings in the US are performed by highly educated immigrants who were given entrance based upon their skills vs. those who came here some other way, e.g. refugee status, family reunification, etc. I'd be willing to bet it's much more common among the latter.
 
Here is the deal. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political movement and a legal system. Most Muslims want Sharia Law and that is directly opposed to Western Civilizations cultures and laws. We do not want to murder those that do not hold a specific religious belief, we do not want to subjugate women, we do not want to murder gays, we do not want to close our streets, parks, etc... of Fridays to have religious prayer which can be done in private or in more appropriate settings.
 
Culture matters a lot. And I have no problem having a higher bar for an Afghan immigrant than, say, a French one simply because the French in general are much closer to Americans in terms of cultural background.

I would be curious how many honor killings in the US are performed by highly educated immigrants who were given entrance based upon their skills vs. those who came here some other way, e.g. refugee status, family reunification, etc. I'd be willing to bet it's much more common among the latter.
I have no idea. My guess would be the number of honor killings here would be small, but I'd be surprised if there were many outside of Muslim communities.

Main point is, I don't want immigrants from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

 
My experience working and going to school with quite a few Pakistani people (not so many Afghans) is that there's huge bifurcation in their society between educated elites who tend to be very Western in outlook, and the mass of the population which is very religious, fundamentalist, and tribal. I don't have any problem with the guys I've dealt with, and I wouldn't mind more of them in the US, but I would be very much against the immigration of the vast majority of Pakistani or Afghan people to America. I don't think it would benefit us at all.
 
Oh, look. It's another Merkel thread where I can voice my hatred of this traitorous lunatic.

I just want to pipe up in here to say that honour killings are more of a cultural thing than a Muslim thing. There have been many cases of nutty Hindus killing family members for disgracing their names, or acting in a manner deemed inappropriate, or counter to traditional norms.
 
Again, to the extent that multiculturalism consists of retaining some traditions from your native culture I don't have a problem with it. We shouldn't look down on others because their dress or food or whatever is unfamiliar if they're learning the language and adopting the broader social values of their new home. What you can't allow is such a critical mass of immigrants that they essentially turn pockets of your country into the shitholes they came from. I'd guess that due to the massive influx of so many refugees that Germany would have a hard time assimilating them even if they wanted to be assimilated, and I'm not convinced at all that they do.

There seems to be a very big gap between the American "melting pot" brand of multiculturism compares to the sham in Europe.

Here in the U.S, minority ethnic groups automatic gravitates towards one another and form communities, but they still yearn to be "American", they appreciate the freedom and democratic ideals that they could only dream of in their native land, an they all aims for that American Dream while contributing the best aspects of their own culture to make society more colorful.

By contrast, I see so many people migrated to Germany and Britain and France decades ago and have zero interest in being a German, British, or French.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top