1. Do you think it is beneficial for different cultures to mingle?
Define beneficial. If you are asking will it make a lot of people rich, then yes, probably. If your asking will it benefit a culture to be intermingled with another, then no. It will just mean the dillution of yet another individual culture into the coca colonisation of Planet Earth.
Some people like to imagine that the world will one day be a great big United States of Earth. That we will all live in harmony, rich and happy and well fed. In my opinion though, no matter how precious something is, once you've given it away, then you no longer own it and that goes for identity as well.
I don't want to live in a world where my identity is defined only by a meaningless passport. It is important to me as a rational human being to feel I have a sense of belonging to my family and to my people. I don't care about ideology but I am a patriot in that I love my nation, its history, its culture and its character. Yet I can sense that I am already a threat to my own culture in that I am a mongrel. An 'Anglo Dane'.
What does that mean? On the one hand its a boon for me to have two cultures from which to learn and draw inspiration. But on the other hand, how do I put the one above the other? What happens when these two cultures clash? Its not hard to understand why so many Muslims feel an antipathy towards Denmark when they perceive the very real clash of culture between western Denmark and their roots in the Islamic middle east. On the one hand they want to remain true to their ambitions and on the other to their heritage.
Is this beneficial for Denmark? 2. Do you think there already is a "global culture"? Or there will be a "global culture" in the future?
I think we are well under way towards that end and I don't know how far away the reality of the mono culture is, but I can't see it working in the long run. This wealth and over population is destroying the bio diversity of the planet faster than we can learn how to repair the damge we are causing.
Worse yet we seem to be heading towards a new period of warfare in Europe with a new threat arising from the millions of immigrants pouring into the sub continent and gradually eroding everything that the Europeans have spent the last two hundred years building and fighting hideous wars to preserve.
Everything we are, and were, everything we've built, even democracy and the rule of law is being dismantled, in the name of multiculture.
During the 1990s, many attempts were made to enlighten the British about what was happening. But they refused to see this problem as having a religious character. If this was a religious problem, it became a religious confrontation - and the specter of a religious war was too horrendous. A religious war is different from any other war because you are dealing with absolute beliefs and the room for compromise is very limited. Religious wars are very protracted and bloody, and often end up with a very high toll of lives.Link.
That is not denial, though, but revulsion. The British establishment may have recoiled in horror from the prospect of religious war precisely because it has sufficient institutional memory to know just what such wars entail. Religious war, however, is precisely what it will have, on the worst possible terms, and with an extensive fifth column in place. Successful manipulation of religious conflict is a lost art. Cardinal Richelieu and his successor Jules Mazarin kept the Thirty Years' War aflame in Germany by subsidizing new entrants into the fray, notably Sweden's Gustavus Adolphus (King Gustavus II), deploying French forces when proxies were not available.
The carnage claimed the lives of more than half of the German speakers and left France the dominant power in continental Europe until 1870. On a smaller scale, Britain played such divide-and-conquer games throughout its imperial history, most obviously by transplanting Scottish Protestants to Northern Ireland. Some in India read malice aforethought into the 1947 partition of the sub-continent. Britain no longer has malefactors with the iron stomach and broad culture of a T E Lawrence or a Sir Richard Burton to undertake such projects.
QUOTE(The Gates of Vienna)
Two Swedish girls were sent home from school for wearing sweaters showing a tiny Swedish flag. The headmaster was concerned that this might be deemed offensive by some immigrants. Helle Klein, political editor of the newspaper Aftonbladet, boasts: “If the debate is going to be about whether there are problems with immigrants, we don’t want it.” Hans Bergström, former editor-in-chief of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, worries that Sweden has become “a one-party state.” According to Friedman, the elites are nervous and worried to see their power slip away. And therefore they want to silence critics, as for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small rightist party outside parliament opposed to immigration. “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak. It is absurdly undemocratic. They are marginalised. They are isolated and ridiculed. . . . and then they are called undemocratic. Link.
Before the national elections in the fall of 2006, members of all the established parties, including the so-called right-wing opposition, are cooperating in efforts to boycott any collaboration with the Sweden Democrats or other “xenophobic” parties after the elections. This is widely applauded by the Swedish media establishment. The majority of headmasters in Stockholm’s high schools want to block the Sweden Democrats from participating in pre-election debates at their schools because they disagree with their “perspective on humanity.” Party members can seldom hold meetings without being hassled by political hooligans, who make noise, destroy equipment or even resort to violence. Violent assaults and life threatening attacks against members of the Sweden Democrats, by Muslims or “anti-Fascists,” have taken place many times, but are rarely mentioned in the media. No dissent is tolerated in Sweden.
In one such attack, which extreme Leftists were later openly bragging about on the Internet, around 30 members of the Sweden Democrats were attending a private party outside the town of Växjö. “To clearly demonstrate that the Sweden Democrats are not welcome in our area, about 20 anti-Fascists chose to attack the party.” “The Sweden Democrats were attacked with knives, axes, iron bars and other weapons. After that, their cars were destroyed.” The brave Leftists then smashed the windows and threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside, where they were again attacked and beaten with iron bars and axes. Several of the people were hospitalized after the attack. This was a peaceful, private party by unarmed members of a perfectly legal political party that just happens to be critical of the country’s immigration policies. These brave Leftists or “anti-Fascists” do, for some curious reason, seem to behave pretty much like, well, Fascists, a bit like the Brown Shirts in the 1930s, physically assaulting political opponents to silence them.