"Oh, the "multicultural conspiracy". Just come out and say you think the Jews are behind it."
Just come out and say that you hate black people.
"Prove what's so wrong about a multicultural Europe."
Brussels.
But seriously now, the problem with multiculturalism is that it doesn't work well, particularly when you try to combine conflicting cultures in large numbers within the same borders, for example Islamic culture and French or German or whatever western culture. Now, I'm not for cultural purity either, but things work out much better when there is a dominant culture that the residents of the country (even the immigrants or minority cultures) respect.
You have ample examples of multicultural failure throughout history (and these cases don't even necessarily involve Muslims), take for example mass Chinese immigration into Tibet, done purposely by the communists do dilute Tibetan culture. How has "multiculturalism" worked out for Tibet? Total defilement of their culture. Why should they have to tolerate communist Chinese imperialism? You think they give a fuck if you call them "xenophobes", no they want their culture back. Take for example Yugoslavia. Totally unsustainable, you had several different people over there and they didn't get along. They were only kept in check by a dictatorship and when Tito died, they split into many countries. Sudan - split in two. Iraq - perpetual conflict between Sunni Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs, the map was badly drawn, should be broken down into 3 countries at the very least.
There should be an implicit expectation of immigrants to integrate into the culture they're emigrating to. Why should a population willingly accept the dilution of their own culture in their own homeland? Like, you don't have to do everything the natives do, but have some fucking respect, speak the language and stand up for the basic values of your new country. Else, why did you come if you hate it so much?
You know, Islam isn't even superior to western culture, it's VASTLY inferior in every way that counts. Its treatment of women is barbaric, its treatment of homosexuals is barbaric even by mainstream Christian standards, its legal system is theocratic and totally inadequate for industrialized civilizations. What do you hope to gain from it? What do they have to teach the west?
"America is pretty damn multicultural, and is the ideal to follow,"
The US is a melting pot, not a multicultural country. The reason it works better than Europe is because people adopt a wider American culture and sort of water down their old identity.
Even so, beware attempts to allow for special accommodations, usually supported by the left. Some Muslims have sued for special accommodations in the workplace. Such laws should be repealed. If you don't like your workplace, quit.
"By assimilation, you destroy the worst aspects of their culture and keep everything worth keeping around. That's what it means to assimilate into Western culture."
There is no assimilation. European leaders have gone out of their way to make special accommodations for Islam, including Sharia civil courts in Britain through arbitration and David Cameron openly supporting Sharia finance and wanting to make Britain a center for Sharia finance.
"Wait, immigration to Putin's Russia? Not even getting into the immigration from Muslim Soviet republics (massive), Moscow has the largest Armenian community outside of Armenia. Over 2 million Armenians, many who came since Armenian independence. Hundreds of thousands of Georgians as well. Belarusians, you bet. Don't even get me started on ethnic Ukrainians in Russia--quite a few came after 1991. Once again, you display you have zero clue what you're talking about."
Armenians make up a total of 0.86% of the Russian population.
Also, are you actually aware of what Putin's position is on immigration and multiculturalism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okdMgkQJ5no
"If we speak about immigrants, that is citizens of other countries, in Russia most migrants, most immigrants, come from former Soviet Republics, from other parts of the former Soviet Union. This new generation might not be speaking Russian well but some do. We still do share some kind of a common mentality, some kind of a common background, some common historic memory, or maybe some common ancestors or relatives. That makes it much easier for these people to integrate to a new society."
Putin is not a multiculturalist. He expects people to integrate or get lost.
"They need to realise they have to observe our laws, they have to respect our culture, our history."
While Merkel is someone who hides the German flag for fear of offending the Muslims.
"Getting revenge on Russia? Go tell that to all the Estonian and Latvian fascists out there who vandalise Russian monuments, assault Russians, discriminate against them when they can, etc."
Wow! That's your best example? Vandalism and assault?
I asked for examples of Christian terrorists. If imperialism supposedly breeds terrorism and Islam has nothing to do with it, then where is Russia's 9/11 committed by Christian terrorists disgruntled over Russia's communist imperialist past?
For that matter, where are the Hindus? India was a British colony. Yet Hindus don't blow themselves up in Britain to get revenge.
"That's right, let's end the refugee crisis by being the reverse North Korea."
Securing the borders isn't North Korea-like. It's what sane countries do.
"No one gets in!"
Certainly nobody who tries to breach the border yes. People should come legally.
"True Aryan man"
Fuck you.
"does not help the weak!"
There's a difference between helping people and committing cultural suicide and putting your own citizens at risk. Remember the New Years Eve mass wave of sexual assaults and the countless rapes and murders these refugees commit?
It would be easier to just set up a safe zone within Syria and send aid there, but no, you insist on them coming to Europe. Why? Agenda that's why.
"Your logic is painfully flawed. Oh, you bet they'll still try. Because even if you enact step one, they'll still come, because Europe is still better than what they have,"
That means they'll at least need to work or invest in a business or something, pull their own weight. No free ride for them.
"if you enact step two, they won't care, they'll find a way around,"
Europe doesn't have a border with Syria, it's not that simple.
Also, there wasn't a refugee wave of this size during Iraq war.
"you enact step three, lol, that won't do shit, probably less than Trump's Great Wall of Mexico will,"
Mexico has a 2000 mile border with the US. Syria doesn't have a border with ANY EU country.
"you enact step four, they still don't care, because most of their boats sink anyway."
Again, you can keep them in Syria and send aid if you really want to help them. It would actually be cheaper.
"I also question why spending on all this border security is okay but spending welfare isn't."
Because if you don't have a border you don't have a country and why should refugees get welfare anyway? They haven't paid anything into the system at all. I don't support welfare in general, but if you're going to have a welfare state, you can't also have open borders, people will exploit it to the max and collapse your precious welfare system.
"The real solution--deport/imprison criminal refugees, and never allow them back in. "Refugee blacklist". Everyone else can stay, just break down their community like you'd break down any other fundie community."
Oh yeah let's wait until they rape your butt before we do anything about it, that makes sense.
Uh no. Stop them from coming in the first place.
"Yes, Ataturk is one of my icons. Do you think I'm stupid enough to bring him up without knowing what he did?"
Right, so why do you still make the claim that Islamic extremism is due to western imperialism? Ataturk opposed both. You know he could have easily made Turkey into a Sharia state and even become the new caliph, but he chose NOT TO. In fact everything he did would be easily classed as "Islamophobic" by social justice warriors today.
If the Muslim world can't adequately modernize that's their problem. You can't blame the west for your failures, sorry Muslims.
"I think he is the very model for the Islamic world, and I think if every Muslim country had a leader/dictator like him, the terrorist problem would be pretty minimal and mostly secular in nature."
Ba'athist tyrants are far preferable to Sharia tyrants or the corrupt, lazy, slave-societies that are Middle Eastern monarchies. There were better men in the Iraq Ba'ath Party than Saddam that should've replaced him--at that point, Iraq would've ended up far better than it did.
Once again, you prove to be an abject failure at arguing with. For a guy who talks about playing chess with pigeons, you seem to be pretty good at that yourself. Always dodging my points that indict your argument, always bringing up new, random points, strawmanning me as a generic liberal SJW when I'm blatantly not if you've actually been reading my posts, seriously, if you're a troll, great job, because you're one of the best we've had here."
Probably because you repeat talking points I've heard from SJWs and you've admitted to being far left anyway.
