Multi-culti (in Poland) -- roadmap to disaster?

What is so disastrous about multi culturism? It's never led anyone down the path of ruin. It only becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if you let it. Don't view it as evil or it will become that!

Anyone ever hear of the power of positive thinking?

It's not so much about MC per se, PP. I think it doesn't really fit the Polish model but many Poles are indifferent and it wouldn't be catastrophic if kept within reason.

If you have to have health insurance before moving to Poland, rest assured, multiculturalism will be kept in check. Immigrants like to move where there's benefits from the state.

Many Poles paid dearly for the idiocy of Dmowski and his lackeys, made worse by the fact that it was not their treaty to uphold - the agreement was with Piłsudski. No doubt that it was a dastardly thing to do, but I've seen you blow this horn before; you display Poland as a conniving nation eager to screw Ukraine at any possible opportunity. That was simply not the case, and you do history an injustice in promoting that view.

It is my hope that the thousands dead in Lwów and elsewhere, and the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, have taught Poland a valuable lesson on foreign affairs. That shameful part of history would have been vastly different were it not for the National Democrats inciting Ukrainian contempt.

I mostly agree with this.

North America was built by immigrants and because of history I think its appropriate here.
I live in near Toronto and 50 percent of the population was born outside the country and/or is a visible minority (like me).

I lived in a neighborhood that had lots of Poles, Italians, Blacks, etc for almost 20 years. I didnt have problems until more of a certain people started coming from the dangerous areas and I had to move out.

More guns were coming, more crime and it was getting unpleasant (keep in mind in Canada little people have guns compared to the US)

I moved out to the suburbs where my neighbourhood now is mostly white and quiet. I have to say I prefer it this way.

Europe is a white continent and it should stay that way for the most part. The same with Africa, Asia, etc.

Europe has different colour shades, legend. The key is to look at the prevailing dynamic in any one country. Take France, for example. They have many black folk, as does GB. Poland doesn't and that's just how it is. However, fair is fair and if 1,000,000 foreigners came into Poland then they'd see how it is for GB to handle things.

There are hundreds of thousands of immigrants in Poland. From Ukraine, Belarus...

You did not understand my post. Ah, whatever ..........funny thought, my understanding of Polska dla Polakow have been always that Poland should be govern by Poles in the interest of Poles, nothing about an exclusion of others ...must be western european thing.

We are not talking about status. Equal or otherwise.


At least try to make a relevant comment to get any response.

Diverstiy only works for a society within a framework of similarity where the 'diversity' ends up being variations on a theme.

True diversity, where a significant portion of the society disagrees about the basic ground rules, leads to conflict and the greater the diversity the greater the conflict.

The traditional model of the US was built on a large common ground and as long as all groups accepted certain organizing principles - majority rule with protection for the minority, rule of law, the idea that every individual is supposed to pull their weight economically, if you are helped you should be grateful, etc etc there could be significant diversity in diet, religion, clothing, lifestyle etc. Even if a lot of people had trouble living up to the ideals in real life the fact that there was a common set of values held society together.

Conversely, a more homogenous society without much variation in religion or ethnicity can support deeper ideological divisions.

But no society can stand ethnic-lifestyle diversity combined with ideological diversity.

In the European context this is very clear with immigration. In short, importing large numbers of Muslim peasants (or groups with high rates of internal violence) does not do a single good thing for either the host country or the new residents. We know the results of that experiment very well and there's no reason not to pull the plug on it.

In terms of Poland immigrants (to the extent they're necessary or desired) should prefer culturally similar (non-Muslim) groups from the former USSR and/or groups with a good track record of pulling their weight economically, integrating and not causing problems (like the Vietnamese).

Some seems to confuse the term "Multiculturalism". Immigration doesn't automaticly mean mutliculturalism.

Multiculturalism is an ideology, and a very very dangerous one (just like any ideology created by... the unmentionables). It says that all cultures are equally good, and all cultures have the right to live. A multicultural society means that each ethnic/cultural group have certain rights connected with just that culture/ethnicity. It can (and will) mean that for instance muslims will live under sharialaw in the UK, and the brits will live under UK-law. The UK-law (or at least most of it) wouldn't apply for the muslims, they would have their own rules and laws. That is multiculture, a set of pararell societys within the society. As we all know, europeans doesn't share the thought that all cultures are equally good. There are certain things we don't and can't tolerate. However with multiculturalism this is what will happen, and also is the whole thought behind multiculturalism. And as you can see from Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy to name a few, they critise multiculturalism. The new thing they are talking about is assimilation, or cultural nationalism (ethnically diverse society with a common shared majority culture) which is what it means. Still nobody has mentioned that massimmigration from culturaly different people (in every single sense) might not be the best for Europe or it's people. The massimmigration will continue, but now they have throwned "Multiculturalism" overboard and want to assimilate instead. The situation will remain the same, although now with fancy new words and talk about how they are taking action against the situation. Because who with more than a single braincell can see how culturally distant people (and segregated by their own choice) would start to assimilate and throw their culture away because some politicians say so?

And to answer the thread, I think you get my opinion the multiculturalism doesn't work and that both that ideology and massimmigration as a phenomena is damaging europe beyond recognition.

well - I have seen plenty Somali women in London who couldn't actually speak any English - my guess is they are living at the expense of the UK taxpayer - were they obliged to learn English they could find a job and contribute a bit instead

And exactly how far are you willing to go in forcing them? Because they won't do it by free will, then they would already have done it by now. Take away their social benefits? Then you might have a big violent mob on the streets. These groups are now very large in numbers and already have a lot of "No go-zones" all over Europe. Even police hesitate to go in to certain areas. And never without heavy backup.

As a group, Somalis are really the worst of both worlds. The traditional culture has always been very violent and they're mostly Muslim (with the backwardness and low social capital that comes with that).

The _only_ way that Somali immigration won't be a disaster is for it to be selective (not very many and more highly educatable) and keeping them as far apart as possible. Once you get a large number of Somalis together they tend to start acting as if they were in Somalia which is the very opposite of civilization.

(I would welcome any counter examples of large Somali communities with low crime and low use of social benefits and high education).

I challenge you to name three.

There are no "no-go" zones in Europe.

Brussels have a few. France have their "Zones Urbaines Sensibles", specially around Paris and Marseille. Sweden haven't got the particular "No go for whites zone" during daytime, but areas where police do not enter without backup and also don't stop criminal activity (such as illegal bars and gambling) since it is considered to dangerous to anger the groups who control the are. Denmark (Copenhagen) has "Norrebro", which is controlled by foreign criminals, although I wouldn't really call it a no go-zone. In Oslo there is "Gronland", who by the muslims there claims to be a no go zone for non-muslims. Homosexuals (for instance) cannot enter without being attacked.

I hear similar areas exist in Holland. But for sure, France and Brussels seems to be in the lead position as of now.

I really have no desire to get *any* comment from you...

But I'm pleased that you tried. :)


I thought take-aways were big in Britain... ;)


So basically it's kick out the Muslims! (But keep the Kebabs!!!) ;D

The whole argument really puts into perspective the whole notion of culture... how it changes, what influences it, and how resilient it is (how it wants) to change... (in reflection of a country's economics, politics, religion and wealth.)

None of them show real 'no-go' areas though - even the example of the French police shows that they'll simply go back next time with more of a force. You'd do the same in plenty of "white" areas too - there are still parts of Northern Ireland that the police won't go to easily - and no non-whites in sight.

A no-go area is where the police won't go at all without the armed forces - for instance, Crossmaglen in Northern Ireland for many years.

Now you are splitting hairs in my opinion. Sure, central Bagdad is more of a no go-area. But we are talking right in the middle of Europe. And it is growing, it is fairly new. So in few years I predict more violence and more intolerance between cultural groups. The situation will get worse. I just call it as I see it.

You're quibbling about definitions and missing the main point here. None of the examples given are okay and none of them should be tolerated. Blithely saying there are no no-go areas is just enabling really negative behavior that no country needs.

(and yeah, white no go areas suck too as do no go areas for non-whites or muslims)

Some people's favourite subject is on. To keep it short.
Is there some target quota of foreign-born in a given country that should more or less be adhered to in order to avoid major problems?

It depends on situation.

Can immirgants be allowed to form insular communities (ghettos) without learning the host country's language and ways?
This should be avoided and there must be any kind of support to make integration easier (they shouldn't accepted if they are not willing to integrate).

Should they be given the same rights and privileges (social benefits, education, healthcare, etc.) as taxpayers who are bankrolling the system?

Yes.

What about illegal aliens who have entered illegally and immediately disapepar in ghetto communities (esp. Hispanics, and many Mexicans are hard for Causacians to tell apart ) and immediately go on the dole. In fact, their main purpsoe for coming to the USA was to obtain undeserved benefits for themselves and their families. They have no love or loyalty towards their host country or its people, but are there only to milk it for what it's worth.

That's no way to talk about Polish people!

Just like Americans have no love nor loyalty towards the people they steal from... including (if memory serves me correctly) the Mexicans.

If the Yanks had just let those southern territories remain in Mexico's dominion.. there would be little "immigration" to speak of... ;)

Technically speaking... Mexicans might feel *very* loyal...

Or do lost and conquered lands only affect Polish hearts...? ;)

Hehehe, there is some truth in that, delph. In for a penny, out for a pound :) (then to złoty)

1...Yes
2...This can't be prevented unless you lock them up where they will do the same thing, but native language should be a requirement for employment and services.

3...Only to a degree

If you embrace MC then you have to take the bad with the good. In Scotland, for example, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani folks don't really cause any problems to speak of. However, I surmise that a few radical Pakistani sorts might have snuck in and nobody wants those sorts, not even their host country. I would be aghast, as would many Poles, were we to be practically debarred from entering some areas due to hostile foreign elements. There is a video somewhere on Youtube about a Norwegian family who were taunted on a daily basis from Muslim elements. If I were them, I'd call the police and get those buggers deported.

It's considered as racism.

It's called not letting enough of them in so that they take over whole sections of a city. This is what people everywhere say by feelings like a stranger in one's own country.

state run higher education

the ban happened later in the 30's

and I don't think it had a simplistic explanaition (motivation)

btw. numerus clausus is not a complete ban (someone mentioned here that at the same time some American universities (private) were not accepting Jewish students at all