French President Nicolas Sarkozy Joins Cameron, Merkel, Condemns Multiculturalism

[FrankRep]

Nicolas Sarkozy, French President

French President Nicolas Sarkozy agrees with other European leaders who say multiculturalism has failed.​

Sarkozy Joins Cameron, Merkel, Condemns Multiculturalism


R. Cort Kirkwood | The New American
14 February 2011


Flashback:

2009: Crescent Over Europe

The latest news on the Islamization of Europe is grim because Europe will be 25 percent Muslim, a “demographic time bomb."​

2009: Muslim Face of the EU

In early May, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi predicted Europe’s future: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquests. by R. Cort Kirkwood​

2009: Paris Burning Again

Vandalism, violence, and rioting has broke out again in Bagnolet, Paris among North African Muslims. by R. Cort Kirkwood​

 

[Petit Tonnerre]

Even though I agree with him for once, the reason he just did it is because he thought it would look cool to act like the others leaders...He is such an attention whore...

 

[doodle]

It would have been nice if American leader Barack Hussein Obama would have joined them too in this call.

Isn't Sarkosy himself in multicultural dating with his girl friend? She is European and he is multicultural.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Multiculturalism is people following their own beliefs and customs. Should this be banned by the government? Don't we promise Freedom of Speech? Of Religion? The Freedom to Assemble? Should this only apply to people exactly like us- or should it apply to ALL people?

 

[LinusVanPelt]

This is also just in: European Leaders Announce That Work On Proof for 2+2=5 Not Going Well

 

[LinusVanPelt]

Multiculturalism is people following their own beliefs and customs.

No, it's not.

Should this be banned by the government?

You have it exactly backwards. "Multiculturalism," which is different from multiracialism or pluralism, is enacted only through government imposition on the rights of its existing citizens, usually for the purpose of establishing a permanent second-class work force, or quasi-slavery. It involves creating "special," legally tenuous, places and rules for certain groups based on bigoted, low expectations of those groups, and at the expense of other groups.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Multicultrualism- definitions: http://www.answers.com/topic/multiculturalism

n
A philosophy that recognizes ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages others to be enlightened by worthwhile contributions to society by those of diverse ethnic backgrounds.



Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/multiculturalism#ixzz1E9syBFVM

multiculturalism or cultural pluralism, a term describing the coexistence of many cultures in a locality, without any one culture dominating the region. By making the broadest range of human differences acceptable to the largest number of people, multiculturalism seeks to overcome racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/multiculturalism#ixzz1E9sdCu8V

Perhaps you can explain how it is being "imposed".

You are right that some people do confuse it with racial issues (or try to use it as a racial or religious issue). Multiculturalism ALLOWS people to celebrate their own cultures. It does not IMPOSE those cutures on others.

 

[Kludge]

So I'm guessing they don't have any type of "Conscientious Objector" system in place...?

 

[LinusVanPelt]

Hey Zippyjuan, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to tell anyone: Inaccurate information exists on the internet, even among such a venerable authority as answers.com.

If Multiculturalism and Pluralism were the same thing then there wouldn't need to be two different words. The phenomenon you quoted by way of defining multiculturalism, i.e. "the coexistence of many cultures in a locality, without any one culture dominating the region," has never existed, anywhere, ever.

To answer your last question, the attempts at "multiculturalism" have been imposed by various governments' treasonous refusal, in Europe and the Americas, to enforce their own immigration laws, against the wishes of their own citizenry and, in places such as Canada and Europe, a refusal to enforce even such laws as those prohibiting parents from severely beating their teenage daughters for offenses such as walking home from school with a boy. Nobody in this country wants to live next door to such cultures, and obviously many Europeans feel increasingly the same way.

Addtionally, I would personally contend that race-based affirmative action laws, which are blatantly bigoted and racist, also stem from the perverse notion of "multiculturalism," e.g. the idea that blacks and hispanics would not be smart enough to learn calculus or score high on MCAT's and LSAT's without extra "bonus points" for the color of their skin.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The definitions were posted at Answers but quoted definitions from the Oxford Dictionary and the Columbia Encyclopedia. Those are pretty reliable sources for definitions.

 

[jmdrake]

Forget the dictionary. Lets look at how Sarkozy, the focus of this article, defines multiculturalism.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," Sarkozy said on TFI television, adding,

Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want ... a society where communities coexist side by side.

If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France....

We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.

So where in his definition are the words "Multiculturalism is enforced by the government"? And he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says that "we want to respect differences" but that "communities should not exist side by side". Oh really? So a Jewish kibbutz will no longer be allowed in France? How about a monastic Catholic community? No longer allowed? Would a Jewish community like Kiryas Joel not be allowed in France? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York) And how is this attack on freedom of association pro freedom?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Cameron was claiming that problems were arising because people were living within their own groups within the country of Britain and not "blending in" with the rest of society. The only way you can change this is to ban people from living together in groups. Should the government tell people how and where they can live? Is that a libertarian ideal? What about white groups who tend to divide themselves into Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods? I see the issue as cloaked anti- Muslim racism.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Borg had a plan to deal with multiculturalism.

 

[LinusVanPelt]

Forget the dictionary. Lets look at how Sarkozy, the focus of this article, defines multiculturalism.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," Sarkozy said on TFI television, adding,

Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want ... a society where communities coexist side by side.

Those ellipses are in a pretty crucial spot. I'd like to see the full quote. But regardless, I'm not going to let myself be put into the position of defending Sarkozy's specific statement and I can't speak with any authority on the situation in France. My point was the broader topic of multiculturalism.

Let's go to that dictionary, as Zippyjuan suggested:

cultural pluralism 
–noun Sociology .
1. a condition in which minority groups participate fully in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural differences.

mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism 
–noun
1. the state or condition of being multicultural.
2. the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.

The key difference is that pluralism assumes a "dominant society," whereas multiculturalism assumes separate cultures can exist with equal status and legitimacy, in a (somehow) unified society. The problem should be obvious, and apparently it is obvious to European heads of state such as John Cameron, Angela Merkel, and Nick Sarkozy, as well as many European citizens. In the above dictionary definition, how totally separate cultures can exist equally among one larger "unified" culture is not explained, because it can't be. It is a logical impossibility unless you play with already-vague terms like "culture" and "society" until they lose all meaning.

America is an example of a succesful pluralist society. There are different cultures, but they all must adhere to the laws and cultural norms of the dominant culture. See Ave Maria, the planned Catholic community in Florida:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-18-ave-maria_N.htm

Monaghan dismisses questions about whether the town will tolerate non-Catholic views. But he created a stir last year when he was quoted as having said in a speech to a Catholic men's conference that pharmacies wouldn't be allowed to stock condoms or birth control pills and that cable TV would show no pornography.

Monaghan has since said he misspoke. Project manager Donald Schrotenboer says the town will obey all local ordinances, but officials "would prefer" that businesses sell only products consistent with a family-friendly environment.

That hasn't appeased the ACLU of Florida, which says it will continue to monitor the town. Monaghan's "comments on the record give us legitimate concerns about the community he's creating," says Executive Director Howard Simon. Although many religious groups, from the Amish to Hasidic Jews, have their own communities, "constitutional issues arise when the religious group wants to act as if it also has governmental authority."

Freedom means different things to different people. To my mind, national and cultural sovereignty is not at all antithetical to freedom. Nobody is forced to immigrate to other countries. As far as I'm concerned, the push for this mythical state of "multiculturalism" is pretty much shorthand for international communism. It's a pipe dream of statist social engineers, and it wouldn't be desirable even if it could be achieved.

I see the issue as cloaked anti- Muslim racism.

Of course you do. But it's not, and not least because Muslims are not a race.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Everytime I read about Europe they either have super liberal douchebag rage against the machine types or they're ready to build the 4th reich. Is there no middle ground with these people?

 

[Petit Tonnerre]

Everytime I read about Europe they either have super liberal douchebag rage against the machine types or they're ready to build the 4th reich. Is there no middle ground with these people?

Multiculturalism is a left wing liberal ideology. Those nuts want everybody to be mix raced, they want no borders, they want all Africa to come here and get social benefits paid by us, the locals, because we are supposed to be bad people because we are white, we are males and some of our ancestors colonized Africa, even if we had nothing to do with it, and frankly, colonization was more an economical failure than anything else glorious.

The thing is that, what is intended with this ideology is to create a new multicultural man, a man with no identity, no cultural background, no reason to fight for anything. It's just a way to implement communism in people's brain by preventing them to have any way to mentally defend themselves, but those nuts don't realize it, because they are those who were brainwashed by USSR subversion during the XXth century...

Another thing is that you might think that immigrants are hard working people coming there to work. Well...not in France, they just come here because we are the most generous welfare giving country. The hard workers, they rather go to French Canada.

For instance, if you are an illegal and over 65 yo you can get 750 euros a months by just asking for it. So what you have now is an incredible number of algerians over 100 yo, more than in France according to statistics about the recipients, in fact their families inherit the allowance for generations on...
You have also the AME, which is free medical care for any illegal. So we have chinese, Algerians, Ivoirians, who come there with a Visa, to just get free medical care and go home right after. They are thousands of way to get benefits like this, and they know the tricks better than lawyers...

Yet, the worst are those thousands of young Africans, growing up in French ghettos in polygamous households because the parents get money allowances for each children, with no proper upbringing, getting educated by street thugs. They can stab you for the only fact you looked them in the eyes. We call them "racailles" which means scums.

 

[canadian4ronpaul]

Cameron was claiming that problems were arising because people were living within their own groups within the country of Britain and not "blending in" with the rest of society. The only way you can change this is to ban people from living together in groups. Should the government tell people how and where they can live? Is that a libertarian ideal? What about white groups who tend to divide themselves into Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods? I see the issue as cloaked anti- Muslim racism.

the thing is zippy, is that is imposed through immigration. all across europe, nationalist parties are rising because the vast majority of people there (as well as here in north america) are against further mass immigration. chinese, hindus, nigerians, latin americans et al would not all be living in canada if it was not for government immigration quotas. they created this mess, then do everything possible to get people to NOT blend in. encourage them to keep language, keep their customs etc. they are doing everything except for looking out for the interests first and foremost of their citizens.

 

[eduardo89]

Multiculturalism is a left wing liberal ideology. Those nuts want everybody to be mix raced, they want no borders, they want all Africa to come here and get social benefits paid by us, the locals, because we are supposed to be bad people because we are white, we are males and some of our ancestors colonized Africa, even if we had nothing to do with it, and frankly, colonization was more an economical failure than anything else glorious.

The thing is that, what is intended with this ideology is to create a new multicultural man, a man with no identity, no cultural background, no reason to fight for anything. It's just a way to implement communism in people's brain by preventing them to have any way to mentally defend themselves, but those nuts don't realize it, because they are those who were brainwashed by USSR subversion during the XXth century...

Another thing is that you might think that immigrants are hard working people coming there to work. Well...not in France, they just come here because we are the most generous welfare giving country. The hard workers, they rather go to French Canada.

For instance, if you are an illegal and over 65 yo you can get 750 euros a months by just asking for it. So what you have now is an incredible number of algerians over 100 yo, more than in France according to statistics about the recipients, in fact their families inherit the allowance for generations on...
You have also the AME, which is free medical care for any illegal. So we have chinese, Algerians, Ivoirians, who come there with a Visa, to just get free medical care and go home right after. They are thousands of way to get benefits like this, and they know the tricks better than lawyers...

Yet, the worst are those thousands of young Africans, growing up in French ghettos in polygamous households because the parents get money allowances for each children, with no proper upbringing, getting educated by street thugs. They can stab you for the only fact you looked them in the eyes. We call them "racailles" which means scums.

+1

 

[Mini-Me]

The thing is that, what is intended with this ideology is to create a new multicultural man, a man with no identity, no cultural background, no reason to fight for anything. It's just a way to implement communism in people's brain by preventing them to have any way to mentally defend themselves, but those nuts don't realize it, because they are those who were brainwashed by USSR subversion during the XXth century...

I never even considered this, but it really does make sense. That's not to say I'm going to suddenly go collectivist and oppose all immigration or interracial dating or anything. I figure it's pretty much the inevitable result of globalization that the vast majority of humanity will be some vague tannish color in a few hundred years, and I'm a bit sad about the destruction of diversity that this will entail, but I'm in no position to decide who anyone falls in love with (hell, I don't even know who I'll fall in love with).

At the same time, now that you bring it up, I do recognize the logic of pushing multiculturalism for the deliberate purpose of eliminating any kind of competing cultural identities or traditions which might encourage loyalty to anyone or anything other than the state. It's the same as the eradication of religion in the USSR, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were right. Still, as long as someone, somewhere, always manages to preserve history, there will always be someone interested in learning from it. Even aside from the long-term economic intractability of central planning, I think it's pretty much futile to try keeping an entire cultureless, "blank slate" society captive to the statist ideal for long (say, more than a few generations).

 

[canadian4ronpaul]

I never even considered this, but it really does make sense. That's not to say I'm going to suddenly go collectivist and oppose all immigration or interracial dating or anything. I figure it's pretty much the inevitable result of globalization that the vast majority of humanity will be some vague tannish color in a few hundred years, and I'm a bit sad about the destruction of diversity that this will entail, but I'm in no position to decide who anyone falls in love with (hell, I don't even know who I'll fall in love with).

At the same time, now that you bring it up, I do recognize the logic of pushing multiculturalism for the deliberate purpose of eliminating any kind of competing cultural identities or traditions which might encourage loyalty to anyone or anything other than the state. It's the same as the eradication of religion in the USSR, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were right. Still, as long as someone, somewhere, always manages to preserve history, there will always be someone interested in learning from it. Even aside from the long-term economic intractability of central planning, I think it's pretty much futile to try keeping an entire cultureless, "blank slate" society captive to the statist ideal for long (say, more than a few generations).

actually, this is not something you have to even think about. its the truth. check out this video first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu-9-OhHog

then do some reading about the frankfurt school for yourself. seriously sinister stuff. and thats the most ridiculous thing. people who claim to support "diversity" are actually only destroying it by turning the world brown/beige. personally, i dont like that this experiment happens to be taking place in MY country first and foremost, or any european country for that matter, given the historical and cultural significance.