Immigration/Integration - politics, problems, potential solutions

Remove all ads!

How about the last 60 years? And forget these old men and women complaining about the loss of the "eastern areas". They don't count.

There you are. The crucial word is "some". Not "all". Not "entire groups sharing one cultural background". "Some" individuals.

Yes, I know. Generalizations are bad. Certainly, most of the poor are peace- and lawful.

But these problems seem to be structural and they are increasing in number.

You mean it was an deliberate effort? No, I don't think so.

First, there was no "immigration policy" as such. The "guestworkers" were just that: cheap workers. When many of them couldn't or wouldn't go back to their home countries (about half of them did), they were allowed to bring their families. That's the amount of "immigration policy" in Europe. There was nothing else, at least in germany.

"Multiculturalism" was first introduced by the british conservatory party (!) as a possible solution. It meant segregation of the cultures; they should leave each other alone. I strongly assume that there was the idea of racial purity at work. At least in the back of their heads. The german tories were delighted be the idea, for some reason.

As whe know now, it was a stupid idea. Segregation is the opposite of integration. Now, the left ist trying to change the term into something positive, meaning that everyone can live his or her own culture (to some extent) while being integrated into the society.

I don't think they (we?) are boasting it. It's just a way of saying: "What is so special about it? Everyone is a mix of several bloodlines." I think even you are one.

As for roots: They usually are there where you were born and brought up. Not in your blood. It's socialisation, not genetics.

 

Because as I have said, that was not the purpose of the site. It does not bring evidence to the whole prostitution and drug dealing because this is common sense and widely known in the region. As for the churches, the pictures speak for themselves.

Sorry, but I can't refute claims which are not presented to me.

It is good that you are willing to learn. However, I ask you, how can someone who went specifically through a course on the Jugoslavian conflicts ignore these happenings? I take it is all a coincidence, once again, as you dont believe conspiracies, right?

No doubt, but the article was not meant to convince people. It was headed solely towards Russians/Slavs, and it assumed some prior knowledge on the situation.

NWO is a reality, and yourself couldn't refute the occurrances tied with it.

Except that I didnt say you have no cultural identity; and that I did not claim to be all-knowing about your Nation, which can be confirmed by the fact I asked for some data regarding Australia before I would say any more.

Explain what exactly? Because you didn't ask anything to be cleared up, as far as I can remember; maybe I overlooked something?
On a plus note, there are aspects of being Russian that no one who is not Russian ethnically or culturally can ever understand, but that I would expect to be the natural thing?

That is interesting. I will have to look that up.

You are using prejudice now by implying my own is born out of prejudice.

You see, the common grounds you mean are shared by animals themselves. I find it hard to believe they bear any relevance.

For starters, you either have common grounds with someone or you dont. It is not something you can build up like that.
The common grounds which I share with the rest of humanity - the ones you have mentioned - I also share with cats, wolfs and bears, so I fail to see how they are the least relevant, indeed. There are people who think animals are as valuable as human beings are, so who knows?

You are putting words into my mouth. I am not anti anyone, but Russia is the land of the Russians, and I am not harming anyone wanting this to keep like that.
Considering Russia does not have an immigration problem - like some countries already do - I fail to see how my world view is hurting anyone. It only will if people who think like you ever try to push your world view into my country; but then it will be your own fault for trying, and I will be only defending my Nation.
I will admit I am only concerned with my brethren though. At least I am sincere and thruthful in my concern, differently from some "humanists" who have never ever done anything to help his fellow human being, but boost a sense of moral superiority on the grounds that he just cares for the whole world. Now that is empty talking.

Yes, I think it is worse, but regardless, there seems to be a real misunderstanding I want to clear.
You keep speaking about me wanting to enforce a xenophobic homogeinity, but considering the fact Russia is a homogeneous Nation as it is now, I am not trying to enforce anything, but rather opposing any attempt to change it, which would be, in fact, an attempt to enforce something. Just wanted to point out which reasoning is trying to enforce anything.
------------------------------------------------------

Russia is not the sole Slavic Nation in the world... Even if you want to mention Russia, specifically, Alexander Nevsky expelled the teutonic order in 1242 - and the swedes just two years prior.
Through out the middle ages germans were hostile and agressive towards Slavs, and perpetrated many attrocities.
Not only that, but they always viewed Slavs as inferiours.
That not to say the Austro-Hungarian presence in the Balkans, WWI etc.
--------------------------------------------------

I will have to check on the immigration "History" to be more sure, but I would like to say someone who accepts what is going on is just conivent and even responsable for it. In the case I mean when the immigration started to take place.
Unfortunately since WWII "humanist" thinkers have been poisoning people's mind with their leftist ideas of one single world, which have found much support, considering they keep bringing nazism to back up their claims.

Sorry, but this is ilogical. For one, I can not push purity on people who are already mixed, thus, your claim is false. Furthermore, people who are mixed themselves might push for multiculturalism on the ones who are homogeneous themselves.
You see, I can only defend myself, never be on the offensive.

As to the last part of your post, I wont get into this, because it is getting too personal, and I realise it would be an eternal and nonsensical back and forth display of words, in which I say people from mixed backgrounds are rootless, and you say you know your own case and you are not.
I also dont want to be too personal about yourself, because doing so behind the net would be just stupid and pretentious.
So let me just say, speaking on general terms, that I do think people from heavily mixed backgrounds are oftenly rootless and have identity issues. I dont know how can anyone deny that, but let me mention I do know people born out of mixed marriages, and they have a hard time belonging somewhere, for one because neither side can properly claim him as their own; on the other hand because, and that is a human thing methinks, himself has a hard time fitting in, on his own account.
Sure, it happens that some people might say "my father is Italian, and I love pasta, my mother is Swedish, and she does some delicious Scandinavian dishes", but is that really having multiple roots? As the name itself implies, roots is something which goes deeper than the mere outside and minor aspects of things. Root is not something you can play with and say, if one of them fails, than I have another. Loosely it is like saying "I cheer for X and Y football teams, so if X fails me, I still have Y, and vice versa". This argument might be rationally and logically properly constructed, but it holds no water in the real world, because things dont work like that. I would say it is a sophism.
Furthermore, one can always say he is American or whatever, and find a common ground on all being equally Americans, but then I say I dont think US society/culture is deeply rooted into anything of higher appreciation. If anything, I would say most Americans are rootless. Well, for some this is not a bad thing, and I am certain many will proudly say "I am rootless, and I live fine by myself that way", but it wouldn't make him any less rootless, and I already said before the negative aspects of being rootless.
The US is economically a very successful Nation, hell, it is the sole superpower nowadays, but I would not say it's society is as much successful. In the least it has some serious issues, which can easily be related to it's rootless state.
I guess the botton line is, I think you are using root with a very superficial meaning, wherein I think it goes much deeper than claiming what you did. And no, my sole root is not grounded on being Slavic, I also have my family, friends, religion, profession, hobbies, literature, music, sports and others things to identify myself with. If one of these fails, I have another to support me. However, being Slavic is an incredibly important part of myself, not for no other reason other than being Slavic, but because it is something with a deep and real meaning which expands itself to many others aspects of my life.
I would like to quote Solzhenitzyn once again:

He know it out of experience, having lived during the communism.
Since the beggining, to sever the Russian roots of Russians themselves was the sole purpose of commies. To destroy the Orthodox foundations of Russia; it's values; to twist the very moral and traditional virtues which have kept Russians together for over a millenia; to destroy Russian identity, dignity and pride; because they knew, there was no other way to push their vile agenda other than doing so. Communism, as much as leftism in general, needs to sever people from their roots, because this is the way to create an one-world uthopian concept. A rootless people is helpless and weak, is not able to stand themselves against foes and threat; the commies knew it so, which is why they were so brutal and oppressive on Russian Culture and traditions.
In the end, the Russian people has won, but only because they couldn't sever the Slavic roots, which run deep and strong. Here alone we can see how much important all of this that I am talking about really is.
I dare to say a country such as the US, without a so strong and old root and self identify, could not pull out of this battle winning.
Root is not an abstract concept people who think like me pull out, it is an everyday reality. We all know and can see Europe is fading and rapidly decading. Sure, different people can give different explanations to this phenomenon, but in my opinion - which is not in the least absurd - the loss of cultural roots and identity is a major contributor. What they will do to arise once again - if that still is even possible - it is up to them to decide, but Russia, who is in bad shape and declining as well - it surely has picked up since the fall of communism, but I am being more general here - has it's own reality and solutions. To regain it's Slavic and Pravoslavie traditions, roots and identity is something it will make Russia rise once again, I am sure of that.
This subject is very extensive, and I could keep on for a bit longer, but I feel I am getting too personal on these issues, which I dont like doing so in an open forum like that, and my point is made anyway.
---------------------------------------------------

60 years is too little of a historical period, compared to centuries old strife. Why does the oldies dont count? I fail to see why, aren't they german?
Anyway, I dont consider post WWII germans to act and behave like proper germans, but of course this is just my own opinion, and I am sure you disagree with that.

What about "most" then? There is not much sense arguing either way. You might say it is the minority of them, and I the majority, and we will not arrive anywhere.

That means your structure is rotten. Better modify while there is still time.

I believe I answered this to Felinoid or someone else already.

[ November 16, 2005, 06:15: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

You just shot your self in the foot there; nazism was pro-NWO (specifically all arian), so it could hardly be used to justify a unified world.

I understand the point you're trying to make, that there's no going back from mixing, but in doing so you ignored my point completely. No matter.

As to the last part of your post, it's downright insulting and bigoted. I already said that we probably don't get quite the same thing out of it as you do, but saying it's nothing is . Here are a few other statements you made that are even worse:

Implying that we have none of these things?

Not to mention that you contradict yourself by alternately saying that roots are something that can't be split, and then splitting them. You are really full of it, Svy.

 

How would you know? I can trace my bloodline back to Saint Alexander Nevky.

I think they go both way.
---------------------------------------------------

Nazism has nothing to do with the NWO. But I think you fail to see my point, which is to say NWO supporters use nazism to back up their claims of an united world - as opposed to one with borders - saying wanting otherwise is half way to nazism, as if both things were necessarily related.

I didnt ignore it, I addressed it and proved to be ilogical.

Accuse but dont address. The tactics of someone desperate.

If you cant address my claims, dont bother answering my posts.
From now on I wont bother addressing you, as it is a pure waste of time and breath.

 

OK. Personal remarks - flaming - directed at a particular indivdual are off limits on the public board. These remarks are to be conducted via private mail. The entire community does not need to be dragged into a personal dispute of this type.

 

They are, but they are a minority.

Quite so. People can change. Peoples can change. If you want the royalist, nationalist german back, you have to search a bit. They still exist, but they are relics.

You sound as if you want the agressive germans back.

I agree. We are trying, but it takes a while. The point is, that the structure is rotten for everyone who is of low social status. That means indigenous germans and immigrants alike.

Not really.

 

I thought the minorities were supposed to be respected? How can someone who "does not count" be respected?

People change, but what has happened with germans post WWII is a bit too forced and un-natural to me. Feel free to disagree, but this is how I see it.

I want nothing from you, except that you stay out of our business.

What structural changes you are trying to implement? It is true the opposing candidate won your elections, but it was a very close call, which makes me think at least half of the whole german people don't see the need for much change.

This is what I have said about the immigration issue:

So far I still have nothing else to add.
-----------------------------------------------------

Sequitur,

Here it is another link which I think has more information:
http://www.kosovo.com/news_pogrom.html

[ November 16, 2005, 16:10: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Well, I was trying to point out that the nazis wanted to make a "new world order" of their own which was exclusively arian. I don't know what your definition of NWO is, but I take it for what the individual words mean and nothing more.

And if anyone says that (halfway to nazism), you can simply point out that uni-cultural assimilation (nazis) is far different from uni-cultural segregation. When you say "If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone," that last part is the most important one. Claiming otherwise is just slippery slope.

Okay, perhaps you missed it rather than ignored it. Or perhaps I should have put some space between my first sentence and the rest. The point of my first sentence was that we can't push any legislation on you. Your immigration policy is your own business.

The rest of that paragraph was addressing the unlikely case that you were pointing to our statements in this thread about which was, for lack of a better word, preferable. If you took it as all one idea, then I can see the confusion. But it would be nice if you at least tried to understand, rather than just reading what you want.

I don't need to address your claims any more than you would need to address a claim the Slavs eat their young. Infant mortality rates, crime reports, etc. wouldn't be necessary to debunk such a ridiculous claim. We are no more rootless than you are purple. I say our roots are strong and all you say is: "They aren't even roots." That is simply ridiculous, and deserves nothing more than a BS flag.

Our ethnic roots may not be as "gigantic" as yours, but we have more of them, and even in their slimness they are strong. Our structures may be different, but neither is inherently better. The root system of a regular tree branches in all directions, and it stands firm with the multi-directional support.
[blatantly ridiculous statement]
So if you deride our strength, you deride the strength of God's leafy giants.
[/blatantly ridiculous statement]

 

You are using a concept which applies to X, and using it to Y. It does not work like that.

Yes, I can, and I always do. But some people call me nazi anyway.

I am glad you agree with me then. As long as nothing is pushed around here, there won't be a problem.
However, western NGOs and goverments are already pressuring Russia on "multiculturalism", so I think conflict is inevitable.

If you think they are ridiculous, that is fine with me, but since I was warned as to not make generalisations, I will put this rootless subject in a more practical and observable perspective.
Take for instance whiggers. What are they if not a product of rootless homes, with no real identity? They emulate others, on the account that they have no root to support themselves. To put it clearly, they wish they were born different. Now you might say their root is behaving and acting like blacks, but then you would be totally twisting the meaning of roots.
I think these particular cases can be linked to a broader social/cultural problem, which, on it's part, might be related to a problem of lack of roots and self identification.
I am not saying all americans are rootless, but trying to objectively make an analysis.
And since you like to analyse me and my views so much, let me try to do the same with you. You said on countless times how you have contempt for humans, our behaviour etc. I can certainly see a problem of self identification and roots here. Misanthropy is a pathology, and not having a deeply entrenched support - on the grounds of roots and self identification - can only worsen the problem.
Sorry if that seemed a bit rushed, but I am kinda doing many things at once right now.

 

Yes, take them please, since I have no idea what the heck they are. Perhaps they are members of the "Whig" party. That would make sense since much of American polictial ideology was/is rooted in Whig ideology. Many of the Revolutionary generation were Whigs. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean here.

 

Heh, Chandos, that's funny This is the first place I saw the term used, but I am willing to bet it stands for "white people which emulate black behaviour" (with obvious pejorative connotations, i would think). The etymology is quite clear...

What Svyatoslav does't seem to see is that ultra-nationalism also most probably stems from feelings of inadequacy, lost identity, powerlessness, etc. Just look at the countries where this sentiment is (was) prevalent: Russia after the fall of communism (went from being world superpower to, well...) Yugoslavia after breaking up, Germany after losing the first World War. In this sense, nationalism is also a crutch.

 

@Chandos:
I believe Svy is referring to "whiggers" in a fashion I have heard only once before; it is a contraction of "white niggers". In plain speak, it's a "white person pretending to be black"; I believe the most visible example would be Eminem.

@Svy:

If it continues thus, it would be pretty much inevitable, yes.

But I think you're taking a rather narrow view of what roots are, or even can be; I'm sure you also think I'm being overly inclusive, and that's likely where our difficulty arises.

The "whigger" example, IMO, is just a matter of someone rejecting the roots that they were 'born into' and choosing one that better fits who they are. To continue the tree metaphor, let's say a tree extends a root into soil that does not have the right nutrients for it. It would eventually notice that, and the root would be allowed to shrivel and die while it sent out another root in a different direction. Had you been born in Germany, I have no doubt you would have done the same to claim your Slav(adjective?) identity. Now that we've gotten personal, I'd like to refute your 'diagnosis' of misanthropy with my motto on the subject.

 

Chandos,

Sorry, but I thought this term was widely known in the US. Whiggers mean Whites who behave and act like blacks, and are into rap culture etc. That is the only term I know to describe it.

 

Ah, I see now - Pseudo-ghetto types, those who imagine they are from the "hood." Yes, well, I run into those types occasionally. It seems to have an effect on all ethnic groups. Some young people like to embrace a counter-culture, whether it makes sense or not. I think it's more a function of fashion and the pop culture.

 

Except that this is not true. Nationalism is a XIX Century phenomena, much before all these Historical events you mention. Another note, there is hardly an ultra-Nationalist movement in Russia. "Ultra-Nationalism" has been present in the Balkans before any break up - before any joining up by the way.
Maybe you can argument something which has fundament next time?
---------------------------------------------------

Felinoid,

There is not a narrow and an inclusive definition of roots. You either have roots or you dont.
Roots is something you are born with; it is not something you can build up as you grow. Sure, you can find different identities/references as you mature, but those are hardly new "roots".
For all I have said in this thread so far, and I don't think it is an absurd claim - with my whigger example that I gave, not to be accused of making generalizations - that being rootless is the natural - though not the only one - cause of misguided people, whom having nothing to support themselves, end up creating all those artificial and ephemeral identities. I think it is a fair statement.

 

I fail to see what arguing about roots or lack of roots have to do with the original topic (see DMC's opening post).

Immigrants have roots. Why they choose or are forced to relocate depends on various things. People have come to the Americas for various reasons, economic, political, religious. As I see it the problem is not lack of roots but prehaps too much roots.