Frustrated!

(Sorry for not coming up with a more informative subject line. I posted this here since the topic is emotional for some people, just in case.)

I work with a MP candidate who opposes multiculturalism as his main theme. He is increasingly popular in spite of the media doing its best to ignore him. Now, finally, a big magazine (like all of them, very pro-multiculturalism) wanted to interview him. They wanted also two other people who oppose multiculturalism. The other one was easy to find, he is another MP candidate. We offered them a third person.

This person is an originally Russian Jewish woman. She was a refugee in USA at Gorbatchev's time, and learned perfect English there, as well as her trade (a systems enginer/programmer). She has lived in Finland for a long time now, speaks and writes perfect Finnish (a feat not all *native* Finns are capable of), is very opinionated against multiculturalism and has her own blog. And they turned her down, because 'she is not Finnish'. The only thing makng her 'not Finnish' is that she doesn't have the citizenship. Unless of course you think that no-one originally foreign can ever become a Finn?

She was very sarcastically amused that anti-multiculturalism MP candidates accept her as a Finn, but not pro-multiculturalism journalists.

Makes me think though, that the lack of citizenship was an excuse. That they will want to paint the anti-multiculturalists as ignorant racists, and she wouldn't quite fit the picture. I do hope the article will prove me wrong.

Don’t hold your breath. Painting opposition to multiculturalism as racism is the order of the day. Smear tactics is the only recourse for those without arguments.

I’ll try to respond more fully later but would you mind just filling in a bit more on his opposition to multiculturalism? I tend to want to separate the ideological multiculturalism and the phenomena of multiculturalism itself.

I’ll try to respond more fully later but would you mind just filling in a bit more on his opposition to multiculturalism? I tend to want to separate the ideological multiculturalism and the phenomena of multiculturalism itself.

Sorry, I'm awfully busy and this is a very comlicated subject, but I try to give the gist of his opinions in nutshell. There is indeed a difference with ideological multiculturalism (a de facto totalitarian, communism-like dogma he opposes) and the phenomenon of different ethnical or other subcultures co-existing peacefully (something there has always been in Finland in spite of our largely monoethnic demography - and that we don't oppose).

In our situation there are two main concerns.

- Immigration policy. From left to right, our political parties have decided that we should purposely increase immigration exponentially for the sake 'of creating a multi-cultural Finland'. Anyone who disagreed is ignored and silenced, or painted as motivated by ignorance and racism. However, ethnic and religious tensions and violence happen everywhere in Europe. The larger the radically different foreigner populations, the worse. This development is aided and abitted by the idelogy of multiculturalism that does not encourage integration (in fact it actively discourages it), and by other social factors such as large amounts of unemployed young men in some immigrant populations.

The right-wing parties are motivated by the desire of getting more cheap labor to compete with the natives (the fiscal right-wingers) or the idea that there is something inherently shameful of having a rather monoethnic culture (the value-liberal right-wingers). The leftistly thinking are motivated either by the general dislike of national states or patriotism in any shape ('why should we have the right to deny anyone from coming here or prefer those who are our own citizens') or by the desire to rescue people in third world countries by allowing them to move here.

We, on the other hand, think that immigration is not something desirable just for its own sake. Immigrants should be allowed here if it can be expected that they have a realistic chance of integrating to the society (finding employment or something else useful to do, learning the language, hopefully also finding contacts with the natives). On the other hand, finding advice, language courses and easier bureacracy with work permits when the immigrant already has a willing employer and such are policies we support. Refugees are a footnote of their own - the ones we do take should have special help since they probably need it for many reasons, but obviously taking refugees, much less masses of people who don't suffer from persecution but from poverty, can't be the primary way our tiny 5 mil country offers help for the suffering of the world.

- The idelogy of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is firmly rooted in moral relativism, which is notoriously bad when it tries to exist in real world. The idea is that several different cultures live under the same jurisdiction, and none of them has any right to judge the norms of others. This doesn't work. Culture is all about norms, it is a guide through everyday life interactions, or 'programming of mind' as I don't remember which social psychologist puts it. Therefore it is inevitable that the co-existing cultures can and do clash. Especially when the most enthusiastic proponents of multiculturalism are detemined to import as exotic and different cultures and possible - partly out of xenomania, partly out of the white man's guilt complex.

There can be different subcultures. And there are. Jews and Tattar Muslims have lived in Finland for a long time, keeping their own religion and customs in spite of always being well-integrated to the society, for example. But there must be the umbrella monoculture, the Finnish culture we expect any immigrant to embrace if they want to live here. They can still have their own religion and customs, as Finland is a democratic country that enforces human rights. The relativism creeping on multiculturalism's heels also endangers that. 'We must restrict freedom of speech, lest someone take offence!' 'We must erase all notion of Christianity in our traditions, we are multicultural now!' We think we should take a firm non-relativistic stance for democracy, human rights and old European values of englightment. (The multiculturalists typically pay lip service to all that, but in practice contradict themselves when it comes to condemning abuses in exotic countries or immigrants who are not from Europe or USA).

Also, the way immigrants are treated patronizingly as objects who can't take responsibility for their own actions or don't know their own opinion is, in our opinion, racistic, demeaning, and contributing to social problems.

Hope that is not too muddled.

I’ll try to respond more fully later but would you mind just filling in a bit more on his opposition to multiculturalism? I tend to want to separate the ideological multiculturalism and the phenomena of multiculturalism itself.

Sorry, I'm awfully busy and this is a very comlicated subject, but I try to give the gist of his opinions in nutshell. There is indeed a difference with ideological multiculturalism (a de facto totalitarian, communism-like dogma he opposes) and the phenomenon of different ethnical or other subcultures co-existing peacefully (something there has always been in Finland in spite of our largely monoethnic demography - and that we don't oppose).

Ok and thank you for taking the time. It is good if he differentiates between the ideology and the phenomenon and tries to actually explain that. It is complicated but necessary I think.

In our situation there are two main concerns.

- Immigration policy. From left to right, our political parties have decided that we should purposely increase immigration exponentially for the sake 'of creating a multi-cultural Finland'. Anyone who disagreed is ignored and silenced, or painted as motivated by ignorance and racism. However, ethnic and religious tensions and violence happen everywhere in Europe. The larger the radically different foreigner populations, the worse. This development is aided and abitted by the idelogy of multiculturalism that does not encourage integration (in fact it actively discourages it), and by other social factors such as large amounts of unemployed young men in some immigrant populations.

I can understand this; things have gotten worse in places like France for instance. The fact that government almost encourages the immigrant’s alienation, bloated welfare states and a general aversion to a free market (which is what creates jobs, look at Ireland) in Europe, I think are contributing factors to a lot of the problems apart from the ideology itself.

The right-wing parties are motivated by the desire of getting more cheap labor to compete with the natives (the fiscal right-wingers) or the idea that there is something inherently shameful of having a rather monoethnic culture (the value-liberal right-wingers). The leftistly thinking are motivated either by the general dislike of national states or patriotism in any shape ('why should we have the right to deny anyone from coming here or prefer those who are our own citizens') or by the desire to rescue people in third world countries by allowing them to move here.

I suppose they went out and asked their electorate about what they want to do? Sounds like another day in the lives of the insulated political classes of Europe.

We, on the other hand, think that immigration is not something desirable just for its own sake. Immigrants should be allowed here if it can be expected that they have a realistic chance of integrating to the society (finding employment or something else useful to do, learning the language, hopefully also finding contacts with the natives). On the other hand, finding advice, language courses and easier bureacracy with work permits when the immigrant already has a willing employer and such are policies we support. Refugees are a footnote of their own - the ones we do take should have special help since they probably need it for many reasons, but obviously taking refugees, much less masses of people who don't suffer from persecution but from poverty, can't be the primary way our tiny 5 mil country offers help for the suffering of the world.

I believe that if people have the will and/or ability they should be allowed to move and settle wherever they want. This does not mean however that the taxpayers in Finland or anywhere else on the globe for that matter has to financially support them. At that point it becomes common sense that one should learn a language and integrate into the new society so that one can live where one has moved. Again state policy and the European welfare system do a good job at hindering that.

As for “financial” refugees, I think people have the right to seek better lives for themselves. If that is not possible at point A they should be allowed to move to point B to seek their fortunes. Again not at the expense of the Finnish state. Although finding your fortune is extremely hard in Europe, maybe even impossible.

The best way for Finland and the rest of the West to truly help people is to remove tariffs and stop subsidizes for their own industries so we can have a truly global, open and free market. Here the state is the problem again since both are a source of income for it.

- The idelogy of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is firmly rooted in moral relativism, which is notoriously bad when it tries to exist in real world. The idea is that several different cultures live under the same jurisdiction, and none of them has any right to judge the norms of others. This doesn't work. Culture is all about norms, it is a guide through everyday life interactions, or 'programming of mind' as I don't remember which social psychologist puts it. Therefore it is inevitable that the co-existing cultures can and do clash. Especially when the most enthusiastic proponents of multiculturalism are detemined to import as exotic and different cultures and possible - partly out of xenomania, partly out of the white man's guilt complex.

I can’t really add much here apart from saying that this is close to many of own thoughts on the subject. The value, cultural and moral relativism inherent in the ideology is the problem.

Without firm convictions of values, of morals an individual and a society is lost in a wasteland seeking an oasis. That oasis for Europe I fear will prove to be mysticism and the basest forms of collectivism.

There can be different subcultures. And there are. Jews and Tattar Muslims have lived in Finland for a long time, keeping their own religion and customs in spite of always being well-integrated to the society, for example. But there must be the umbrella monoculture, the Finnish culture we expect any immigrant to embrace if they want to live here. They can still have their own religion and customs, as Finland is a democratic country that enforces human rights. The relativism creeping on multiculturalism's heels also endangers that. 'We must restrict freedom of speech, lest someone take offence!' 'We must erase all notion of Christianity in our traditions, we are multicultural now!' We think we should take a firm non-relativistic stance for democracy, human rights and old European values of englightment. (The multiculturalists typically pay lip service to all that, but in practice contradict themselves when it comes to condemning abuses in exotic countries or immigrants who are not from Europe or USA).

I agree that in order for the phenomenon of multiculturalism to work there has to be a set of overarching values or a philosophy that is shared by the people living within the society. The vaunted inter-cultural exchanges will only happen when people carry real respect not government mandated respect for each other.

I also think that for instance the fact that people are trying to ban more and more speech also has allot to with the fact that unlike the United States, Europe lacks a strong bond with the ideals of the enlightenment.

Standing up for the values of the enlightenment, of individual rights and freedom and of reason and science is an important stance to make and that bears repeating. Especially in the face of relativism and encroaching mysticism.

Also, the way immigrants are treated patronizingly as objects who can't take responsibility for their own actions or don't know their own opinion is, in our opinion, racistic, demeaning, and contributing to social problems.

That is also a problem but the political classes treat us all like children.

Hope that is not too muddled.

Nope, It was ok IMHO.

Ok and thank you for taking the time. It is good if he differentiates between the ideology and the phenomenon and tries to actually explain that. It is complicated but necessary I think.

Yes, it is a rare person and definitely not one I would support who wants to completely close the country from foreigners or deny different people who have found their own niche in our culture 'being Finns'.

I can understand this; things have gotten worse in places like France for instance. The fact that government almost encourages the immigrant’s alienation, bloated welfare states and a general aversion to a free market (which is what creates jobs, look at Ireland) in Europe, I think are contributing factors to a lot of the problems apart from the ideology itself.

There is that - and the most vocal proponents of multiculturalism are also the most vocal proponents of a bloated welfare state, and the kind of people who never consider that all the nice stuff the state provides for people has to be actually paid for by real, productive work.

I suppose they went out and asked their electorate about what they want to do? Sounds like another day in the lives of the insulated political classes of Europe.

They don't care. Not when it comes to this topic. All the polls clearly state that some 70% of people don't think we need proportionally more immigrants - but whenever anyone addresses the fact, they claim that it is the less educated, less intelligent, old people who think so so the problem will solve itself in future. It is a collective madness of sorts, just like sucking up to Soviet Union was. The people always had their own idea then also.

On the other hand, it has been a good thing at times that we have this tradition of political consensus. It is because our small country is so homogenic in its values and realities people live in. But it makes it very hard to get anyone who truly challenges the status quo to make it to the circles where it matters.

I believe that if people have the will and/or ability they should be allowed to move and settle wherever they want.

I do think everyone has the moral right to try and do so, but it is no obligation of any country to provide them the chance (not to mention the obvious practical problems - in case of Finland, we only *have* five million people and have a generous welfare system that would give a stellar living standard to the billions of people suffering of poverty. But if even a small fraction of them all moved here, we simply couldn't keep the welfare standard). However, it would be better if the people in poor and developing countries would try to make their own country a good place for people to live in. Not that I can blame them for dreaming of better life and trying to achieve it by moving elsewhere.

This does not mean however that the taxpayers in Finland or anywhere else on the globe for that matter has to financially support them.

But it would be against our constitution to let people starve or freeze in the streets - and even if we did, there would be a lot of unrest and crime as a result. If anyone was allowed to move in if they please, that is. I don't think that was what you meant, though.

As for “financial” refugees, I think people have the right to seek better lives for themselves. If that is not possible at point A they should be allowed to move to point B to seek their fortunes. Again not at the expense of the Finnish state. Although finding your fortune is extremely hard in Europe, maybe even impossible.

If they have a solid plan how to make that fortune, I say welcome. These are the kind of immigrants who often truly make a positive contribution. If the plan is to live on our welfare, however, then nope.

[

I agree that in order for the phenomenon of multiculturalism to work there has to be a set of overarching values or a philosophy that is shared by the people living within the society. The vaunted inter-cultural exchanges will only happen when people carry real respect not government mandated respect for each other.

And that can only happen when people know who they are themselves and take healthy pride in that - and also can trust other people to an extent that the overarching umbrella culture provides.

Standing up for the values of the enlightenment, of individual rights and freedom and of reason and science is an important stance to make and that bears repeating. Especially in the face of relativism and encroaching mysticism.

It has gotten expontentially worse in the last 15 or so years, I'd say.

There is that - and the most vocal proponents of multiculturalism are also the most vocal proponents of a bloated welfare state, and the kind of people who never consider that all the nice stuff the state provides for people has to be actually paid for by real, productive work.

It has always mystified me how some people can think that it is magicked out of the air somehow.

I do think everyone has the moral right to try and do so, but it is no obligation of any country to provide them the chance (not to mention the obvious practical problems - in case of Finland, we only *have* five million people and have a generous welfare system that would give a stellar living standard to the billions of people suffering of poverty. But if even a small fraction of them all moved here, we simply couldn't keep the welfare standard). However, it would be better if the people in poor and developing countries would try to make their own country a good place for people to live in. Not that I can blame them for dreaming of better life and trying to achieve it by moving elsewhere.

As I see it, humans should be allowed to move and settle rather freely but as you point out, a welfare state can not handle this and the more bloated it is the lesser is its longevity in such a world.

The free movement of humans means that the states of the world cannot keep or at least must drastically decrease their financial and service support to their citizens.

The problem with many of the poor countries is that it is easier to blame say America for their real and perceived problems. What they essentially need is capitalism and an end to the political oppression one finds in many of them.

This does not mean however that the taxpayers in Finland or anywhere else on the globe for that matter has to financially support them.

But it would be against our constitution to let people starve or freeze in the streets - and even if we did, there would be a lot of unrest and crime as a result. If anyone was allowed to move in if they please, that is. I don't think that was what you meant, though.

Kind off, the free movement of people would require that there was alot less poverty in the world though. We may get there yet.

Please ask me to clarify more, the time is about 3.00 here now so I am a wee bit tired.

As for “financial” refugees, I think people have the right to seek better lives for themselves. If that is not possible at point A they should be allowed to move to point B to seek their fortunes. Again not at the expense of the Finnish state. Although finding your fortune is extremely hard in Europe, maybe even impossible.

If they have a solid plan how to make that fortune, I say welcome. These are the kind of immigrants who often truly make a positive contribution. If the plan is to live on our welfare, however, then nope.

The problem is that the system kind of encourages "living-on-the-dole" behaviour both in immigrants and natives alike.

Standing up for the values of the enlightenment, of individual rights and freedom and of reason and science is an important stance to make and that bears repeating. Especially in the face of relativism and encroaching mysticism.

It has gotten expontentially worse in the last 15 or so years, I'd say.

I agree, I also think there will be some kind of backlash in the end and I fear it will be a resurgence of fascism.