Multiracialism and Democracy

[Liffrea]

Is it possible for both to co-exist?

I have personally held the opinion that it is an either or, that one can have a multiracial society or one can have a democracy, but not both. If you accept the former then, by extension, you have to accept the demise of political liberty at least if not the enforcement of an ideology by the state from the family home to the workplace.

But is this inevitable?

Recent events regarding the British National Party forced to accept non-white members and, effectively, allow it’s policies to be altered by the state seem to confirm this in my mind.

Most societies have a dominant ideology this is nothing new but the hallmark of what it means to be “Western” (at least in theory) has always been toleration for dissenting political points of view.

I’m taking the words at face value. Real democracies don’t exist, so there is no debate there, but in Western society (principally in Anglo-American politics) the tradition of “representative democracy” has been championed where (again in theory) several political parties representing various ideologies compete for votes.

If we accept, whether we like it or not, that Western society is going to be a multiracial one then we have a serious question to answer regarding one of the “pillars” of Western civilisation, political liberty.

What I see, in the UK at least where I live, is the remorseless advance of the state and it’s control but is this a consequence of a society increasingly fractured along racial lines (i.e. is the only way a multiracial society can survive a form of totalitarianism) or is it unrelated?

[hereward]

In my opinion, no, they cannot. When you have different populations in a state, they form voting blocks, which politicians will pander too, leading to corruption etc. Anyway, why would you make a stable Country, like G.B, Netherlands etc, multiracial. If the populace do not accept your beliefs, just change the populace.

[Wotan88]

I don't see a purpose of democracy in the first place. It's not a good system, it's based on old-time ignorance.

Democracy says that if a country consist of people, then these people should be able to vote, therefore ruling a country. But we limit voting by f.e. children because we think they're not able to decide themselves. To be honest, I'd say that more than 90% people aren't able to decide about politics themselves and they're manipulated by politicians.

I don't see any argument supporting idea that "people ruling themselves will have better situation". Parliament often decides about laws concerning children, children aren't allowed for vote - does it mean that government don't care about the children? No! There are laws concerning animals. Should we give animals right to vote because "some of the laws concern policies towards animals"?

Democracy's thought is overly optimistic, full of faith in people. But seriously - 90% shouldn't be allowed to vote, they know nothing about politics. Because of that they vote for lefties who always promise them wonders and miracles, they don't realize that they are lying. Only educated people should be allowed to govern the country.

Imagine airplane. There is pilot inside and plenty of people who are taking flight to, say, New York. Now let's invent democracy to that plane. Sixty people are voting about "which lever pilot has to pull". No a good idea, uh? Better solution is just to trust the pilot, who is qualified in that direction and will control airplane through this flight and successfully land in New York. Now just change "airplane" to "country" and "pilot" to "ruler" and you'll get, what I mean.

Most people are supporting multi-kulti and racial miscegenation. That's because they are brainwashed by various lefties. I don't see a possibility to combine democracy with racial separation. I strongly believe in different role of different people in society.

[Daos]

Imagine airplane. There is pilot inside and plenty of people who are taking flight to, say, New York. Now let's invent democracy to that plane. Sixty people are voting about "which lever pilot has to pull". No a good idea, uh? Better solution is just to trust the pilot, who is qualified in that direction and will control airplane through this flight and successfully land in New York. Now just change "airplane" to "country" and "pilot" to "ruler" and you'll get, what I mean.

Actually, they would vote which of them should be the pilot. In today's so called "democracy" people rarely have a say in how the country is ruled.

[Kadu]

Is it possible for both to co-exist?

I have personally held the opinion that it is an either or, that one can have a multiracial society or one can have a democracy, but not both. If you accept the former then, by extension, you have to accept the demise of political liberty at least if not the enforcement of an ideology by the state from the family home to the workplace.

But is this inevitable?

Recent events regarding the British National Party forced to accept non-white members and, effectively, allow it’s policies to be altered by the state seem to confirm this in my mind.

Liffrea I think you're confusing democracy with tiranny of the majority.
Political liberty in democracies has always been bounded by constitutional rights which are an essential part of the social contract between the civil society and political authority.

[Anthropos]

Is it possible for both to co-exist? Yes.

(If by multi-racialism you are referring to the present state of things.)


I have personally held the opinion that it is an either or, that one can have a multiracial society or one can have a democracy, but not both. If you accept the former then, by extension, you have to accept the demise of political liberty at least if not the enforcement of an ideology by the state from the family home to the workplace.

But is this inevitable?

Recent events regarding the British National Party forced to accept non-white members and, effectively, allow it’s policies to be altered by the state seem to confirm this in my mind.
No, I don't think so at all, but both mass-immigration and that tendency towards indoctrination are modern. It's the whole systematic-bureaucratic approach to society at work. There is no 'multiracialism' behind it.


Most societies have a dominant ideology this is nothing new but the hallmark of what it means to be “Western” (at least in theory) has always been toleration for dissenting political points of view. I would think again.

When people today look back on the Middle Ages, a lot of them think that those were terrible times of indoctrination. But weren't they in fact indoctrinated to think so? Swedish historian Dick Harrison claims that it's an idea that somehow gained foothold in elementary textbooks for no good reason, and that very few serious, fact-oriented historians support it. He also claims that the same can be said for other periods, whether Antiquity or 'The Happy Twenties'.

One tendency of Michel Focault's analysis of history - according to one interpretation - is to seek the roots of indoctrination in the Enlightenment and what followed in terms of new, systematic solutions to problems such as insanity, that until then had been solved without internment. Alongside that development he also noted a tendency of that new systematic approach to fathom all of society. The goal of controlling society as a whole in detail took form for the first time. It was also vocalized by such minds as Bentham's.


I’m taking the words at face value. Real democracies don’t exist, so there is no debate there, but in Western society (principally in Anglo-American politics) the tradition of “representative democracy” has been championed where (again in theory) several political parties representing various ideologies compete for votes.

If we accept, whether we like it or not, that Western society is going to be a multiracial one then we have a serious question to answer regarding one of the “pillars” of Western civilisation, political liberty.

What I see, in the UK at least where I live, is the remorseless advance of the state and it’s control but is this a consequence of a society increasingly fractured along racial lines (i.e. is the only way a multiracial society can survive a form of totalitarianism) or is it unrelated?Not unrelated, but uncausated. The latter (totalitarianism) is not caused by the former (multi-racial condition), and what is more, the latter tendency emerged before the former one (more often than not).


In my opinion, no, they cannot. When you have different populations in a state, they form voting blocks, which politicians will pander too, leading to corruption etc. Anyway, why would you make a stable Country, like G.B, Netherlands etc, multiracial. If the populace do not accept your beliefs, just change the populace.A given population (thought of here in biological terms), forms more than one voting block. Different people from it vote for different parties just as is the case with other populations.


Most people are supporting multi-kulti and racial miscegenation. That's because they are brainwashed by various lefties. I don't see a possibility to combine democracy with racial separation. I strongly believe in different role of different people in society.No, people don't support "multi-kulti and racial miscegenation". And they support even less the idea that race should determine their position in society or their place of living within the country.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Kadu
Liffrea I think you're confusing democracy with tiranny of the majority.

Not really, I fail to see the connexion between tyranny of a majority and the guarantee of political liberty in the sense of a legal right to representation…….

To be allowed to express one’s own political view and/or to join and/or to form a political body dedicated to the promotion of an ideology isn’t related, as far as I can see, to the imposition of an ideology by a majority (or indeed minority) only so far as ideologies that oppose a state promoted ideology are legally outlawed, which is seemingly the situation arising from the recent events involving the BNP where a party has been made to alter it's policy in order to conform to an ideology that it doesn't support.

Your tyranny of the majority is expressed in J. S Mill’s belief that society would be unjustified in imposing itself on an individual who thought different to the majority………a valid point but not necessarily relevant to the legal creation of a body that opposes the ideology of the ruling body, which is the point I am making here.

[Kadu]

To be allowed to express one’s own political view and/or to join and/or to form a political body dedicated to the promotion of an ideology isn’t related, as far as I can see, to the imposition of an ideology by a majority (or indeed minority) only so far as ideologies that oppose a state promoted ideology are legally outlawed, which is seemingly the situation arising from the recent events involving the BNP where a party has been made to alter it's policy in order to conform to an ideology that it doesn't support.

What I mean is that if such ideology goes against fundamental rights expressed in the constitution, even such ideology is embraced by the majority of the population it stands out of democratic terms. Of course you can disagree and argue against it, but never forget that it's a two way street.

[hereward]

A given population (thought of here in biological terms), forms more than one voting block. Different people from it vote for different parties just as is the case with other populations.


So the Labour party was misguided when it decided to increase population change to garner votes.

[Anthropos]

So the Labour party was misguided when it decided to increase population change to garner votes.

Righties are just as much into it as Lefties are. Do you think the Righties are misguided?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Not unrelated, but uncausated. The latter (totalitarianism) is not caused by the former (multi-racial condition), and what is more, the latter tendency emerged before the former one (more often than not).

Fair enough, but does multiracialism make the imposition of a state totalitarianism easier do you think?

I’m not sure what the situation is in Sweden but it’s acknowledged that in the UK racial segregation is a reality and tensions between various groups Muslim and non-Muslims, whites and blacks, whites and Asians, blacks and Asians etc are increasing…….one of the arguments against parties like the BNP or against allowing men like Wilders to speak out against Islam is that it creates tensions and divisions, leaving aside whether or not this is so, it would seem to indicate that a multiracial/cultural society isn’t one that can allow dissenting arguments. One could argue that it is easier for government to impose controls in the name of “social cohesion”.

I’m open to the possibility that it may not be an inevitable consequence (Singapore seems, from what I have read, to have a reasonably harmonious society) yet it does appear to be so in the West. I have to ask if Britain had remained a largely racially homogenous society with the strong sense of cultural identity it had in 1950 would we be seeing the increase in state control we see now in 2010? Totalitarianism (if we accept my premise that that is what is emerging in much of the West) may not be a consequence of multiracialism but is multiracialism a tool of totalitarianism in the West?

[Anthropos]

Fair enough, but does multiracialism make the imposition of a state totalitarianism easier do you think? No, rather the contrary, because it is much more difficult to pursue one solution in a diversified society.

It is much rather the antitraditional state of things and secularism that facilitates the kind of soft totalitarianism that is reigning in the West. Once people were turned by government propaganda into some blank individuals ready for consumption mentality, the one national solution to everything was quite easy to implement.


I’m not sure what the situation is in Sweden but it’s acknowledged that in the UK racial segregation is a reality and tensions between various groups Muslim and non-Muslims, whites and blacks, whites and Asians, blacks and Asians etc are increasing…….one of the arguments against parties like the BNP or against allowing men like Wilders to speak out against Islam is that it creates tensions and divisions, leaving aside whether or not this is so, it would seem to indicate that a multiracial/cultural society isn’t one that can allow dissenting arguments. One could argue that it is easier for government to impose controls in the name of “social cohesion”.

I myself lived in areas that are among the most 'multi-cultural' for years. The problem is overrated, but that is not to say that there is no problem, because there is a problem, and the problem is so much greater because goverment insists on the one national solution to everything. The establishment is very much anti-cultural in general and they do everything they can do to resist authentic culture. It's as if they didn't quite know what they were doing, and they are clinging to the idea of having absolute control.


I’m open to the possibility that it may not be an inevitable consequence (Singapore seems, from what I have read, to have a reasonably harmonious society) yet it does appear to be so in the West. I have to ask if Britain had remained a largely racially homogenous society with the strong sense of cultural identity it had in 1950 would we be seeing the increase in state control we see now in 2010? Totalitarianism (if we accept my premise that that is what is emerging in much of the West) may not be a consequence of multiracialism but is multiracialism a tool of totalitarianism in the West?The mania of secularizing and then controlling everyone started with democratization here, but it was not until the 1930's that it became more systematic in nature.

[skyhawk]

Fair enough, but does multiracialism make the imposition of a state totalitarianism easier do you think?

That's very much how I see it Liffrea............. if the recent multiracial society had been built by genuine pro multiculturalists , people who are concerned with harmony , or as much as is possible between different groups pitted against eachother in competition , they wouldn't have done it like they have.............. unless they sought to raise factional interracial tensions..........with which they can use to bring in new legislation.........with an uneasy air of totalitarianism but dressed as a move for the good..........social cohesion.
The War On Terror serves the same agenda.................legislation revising political freedoms/civil rights won over years of popular struggle..............but in the name of security.

These are times of serious revisions no matter what reasoning is given.........



I’m not sure what the situation is in Sweden but it’s acknowledged that in the UK racial segregation is a reality and tensions between various groups Muslim and non-Muslims, whites and blacks, whites and Asians, blacks and Asians etc are increasing…….one of the arguments against parties like the BNP or against allowing men like Wilders to speak out against Islam is that it creates tensions and divisions, leaving aside whether or not this is so, it would seem to indicate that a multiracial/cultural society isn’t one that can allow dissenting arguments. One could argue that it is easier for government to impose controls in the name of “social cohesion”.

I think there are mitigating circumstances why tensions between groups are the way they are. For one, employment insecurity and unemployment aren't going to assist racial harmony , as people fight for the scraps in hard times.

Also if we look back at the import of immigrant labour throughout our history we find that it is encouraged to discriminate against and marginalize them. The Irish migrant workers of the industrial revolution and before if they were alive today would bear that out I think .............surely this isn't going to improve race relations.

It doesn't help that our own leaders are all over Muslim countries as occupying forces with death and destruction on both sides. Hardly conducive to improved race relations which despite the odd few occasions were very much better before the Oil Wars

In short I think the differences between people are completely exploited by the elites who run everything for their own interests, their interest being loyalty to their own aggrandizment in most cases.......be that racial differences, religious differences............and I think that many people who buy into this top down promotion aimed at exploiting the tensions of a deeply factional society are missing the elephant sitting next to them.

I don't see that multiracial society necessarily subverts democracy but I think the market plutocracy definately does


I have to ask if Britain had remained a largely racially homogenous society with the strong sense of cultural identity it had in 1950 would we be seeing the increase in state control we see now in 2010? Totalitarianism (if we accept my premise that that is what is emerging in much of the West) may not be a consequence of multiracialism but is multiracialism a tool of totalitarianism in the West?

I think there are many reasons why the storm trooping immigration policies of late were introduced , I just don't tend to believe that it was to create a harmonious multi-ethnic society and have the feeling that " a largely racially homogenous" population was something that stood in the way of the corporate takeover of life............better to deal with squabbling infighting between minorities than take on a huge majority of united nationalists.
The problem they have is keeping a lid on it...........but they have huge amounts of experience and ready made examples to help them

[SwordoftheVistula]

What I mean is that if such ideology goes against fundamental rights expressed in the constitution, even such ideology is embraced by the majority of the population it stands out of democratic terms.

In order to enforce 'fundamental rights' expressed in a 'constitution', it takes a court system of some sort (usually with unelected judges) and an executive body willing to following the court directives over the directives of the elected legislature or voter referendums, which is 'anti-democratic'. The proponents of such laws accuse the court system of being 'anti-democratic', and are correct. In a true democracy, the people could vote to do whatever they wanted, or vote to change the constitution by simple majority vote.

[Kadu]

In order to enforce 'fundamental rights' expressed in a 'constitution', it takes a court system of some sort (usually with unelected judges) and an executive body willing to following the court directives over the directives of the elected legislature or voter referendums, which is 'anti-democratic'.

That is the source of several philosophical discussions, which culminates in the essence and validity of natural rights.



The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights

—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966



I think the strongest point is indeed the ethic of reprocicity(Golden rule), that's why earlier I said to Liffrea that this is a two way street.