On 8/12/2026 at 11:37 AM, exchemist said:

No more than the people of Ukraine appreciate invasion by the Russians, I imagine.

What do you want to say with this answer? You consider me to be an Ukrainian? Yes I stand with Ukraine. And what is your point?

42 minutes ago, Linkey said:

What do you want to say with this answer? You consider me to be an Ukrainian? Yes I stand with Ukraine. And what is your point?

How about you address questions asked of you before asking ones of your own

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

What do you want to say with this answer? You consider me to be an Ukrainian? Yes I stand with Ukraine. And what is your point?

Well, fairly obviously, people tend not to welcome military conquest.

By the way, the Copts were not “replaced”. The indigenous people became Arabised, that is converted to Arab culture, language and religion. Today’s Copts are the Christian remnant of the previous Byzantine culture.

But none of this is relevant to present day immigration to Britain.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by exchemist

A conservative (small 'c') critique of Thatcher vs Farage

Obviously. I'm no fan of Thatcher, so for those uncomfortable with my social democratic leanings, this is where another POV thinks we are at.

On 8/8/2026 at 10:42 PM, exchemist said:

I do understand how some areas can get taken over by immigrants, to the consternation of the previous inhabitants. This has happened in a few places, e.g. in parts of the East End of London, which frankly reminded me of Dubai rather than London: most of the shops with signage in Arabic script (Urdu), people in dishdashes and salwar kameez, women with veils, newly built mosques, etc. If you are over 40 and grew up there you must wonder what the hell has happened and feel a stranger in your own neighbourhood. I was shocked to drive down a road I used 40 years ago to commute from Essex and find it unrecognisable. But trying to elevate this to some sort of existential threat to the nation is obviously unjustified. And in fact, many of the supporters of these far right parties live in areas that are 99% white British, with almost no immigrants!

You seem fine that the culture that you and possibly your parents grew up in is slowly being eroded away allowing a new culture to take over that does not align with historic UK values and morals?

If this change was proven to be a step forward then I think most would be happy to support an integration. But its not, its a slow take over. The UK was built on immigration, and up until recently most immigrants would respect and accept the UK's culture and values. But now they just want to impose theirs on ours and ultimately change the UK to an Islamic state.

The town where I live is dominated by Pakistani Muslims, and to be frank its become a shit hole to live in. Unkept, dirty, rife with un lawful activity that is often ignored by the authorities.

And before anyone comments that this is a far right view its not, and neither is it racist or anything similar. I am stating facts that the far left and those unaffected choose to ignore or point blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity! Migration is a good thing and its welcomed when immigrants are respectful, happy to integrate and also contribute to the system.

35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do.

Yet people who fear this and speak up are branded "far right" or "racist". It seems ok for any other culture to defend itself but offensive when the British want to defend their own?

Just the typical hypocrisy that infects modern views.

Lets just live together, share resources and respect each other, both as individuals and as cultures!

This is all that most normal respectful and caring people really want.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do.

Yet people who fear this and speak up are branded "far right" or "racist". It seems ok for any other culture to defend itself but offensive when the British want to defend their own?

It’s racist when you paint all people as the same, based on the actions or traits of an individual.

As far as “any other culture” goes, I think that’s just a fabrication. Other cultures are going through similar things and seeing the same kind of reactions, pro and con. You also say “the British” when it’s “some British” which is also stereotyping. It deflects individual responsibility for the racism when you can say everybody is doing it, just like it makes it easier to treat people a certain way if they're all painted with the same brush.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You seem fine that the culture that you and possibly your parents grew up in is slowly being eroded away allowing a new culture to take over that does not align with historic UK values and morals?

I'm not British but it seems to me the US and UK are fairly similar when it comes to values and morals and we hear the same line about "eroding our values, etc...". However, there are some of us who don't care for the hypocrisy of, "might makes right" unless it is against us or the hoarding mentality of too much is never enough, that is endemic in both cultures, so maybe change is not such a bad thing. People complain about "sharia law" without even knowing what it is. Seems to me most of the complainants would like sharia law in the civil arena since it prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation and really isn't that much different from laws anywhere else. It's mostly in the religious part where practitioners have to be hypocrites to allah instead of god that they differ. Other than that it seems both want to impose their own fanatical beliefs on anyone deemed worthy of not being killed...

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You seem fine that the culture that you and possibly your parents grew up in is slowly being eroded away allowing a new culture to take over that does not align with historic UK values and morals?

If this change was proven to be a step forward then I think most would be happy to support an integration. But its not, its a slow take over. The UK was built on immigration, and up until recently most immigrants would respect and accept the UK's culture and values. But now they just want to impose theirs on ours and ultimately change the UK to an Islamic state.

The town where I live is dominated by Pakistani Muslims, and to be frank its become a shit hole to live in. Unkept, dirty, rife with un lawful activity that is often ignored by the authorities.

And before anyone comments that this is a far right view its not, and neither is it racist or anything similar. I am stating facts that the far left and those unaffected choose to ignore or point blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity! Migration is a good thing and its welcomed when immigrants are respectful, happy to integrate and also contribute to the system.

35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do.

Yet people who fear this and speak up are branded "far right" or "racist". It seems ok for any other culture to defend itself but offensive when the British want to defend their own?

Just the typical hypocrisy that infects modern views.

Lets just live together, share resources and respect each other, both as individuals and as cultures!

This is all that most normal respectful and caring people really want.

Nothing and nowhere stays the same. We see what we want to see and ignore the rest.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You seem fine that the culture that you and possibly your parents grew up in is slowly being eroded away allowing a new culture to take over that does not align with historic UK values and morals?

If this change was proven to be a step forward then I think most would be happy to support an integration. But its not, its a slow take over. The UK was built on immigration, and up until recently most immigrants would respect and accept the UK's culture and values. But now they just want to impose theirs on ours and ultimately change the UK to an Islamic state.

The town where I live is dominated by Pakistani Muslims, and to be frank its become a shit hole to live in. Unkept, dirty, rife with un lawful activity that is often ignored by the authorities.

And before anyone comments that this is a far right view its not, and neither is it racist or anything similar. I am stating facts that the far left and those unaffected choose to ignore or point blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity! Migration is a good thing and its welcomed when immigrants are respectful, happy to integrate and also contribute to the system.

35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do.

Yet people who fear this and speak up are branded "far right" or "racist". It seems ok for any other culture to defend itself but offensive when the British want to defend their own?

Just the typical hypocrisy that infects modern views.

Lets just live together, share resources and respect each other, both as individuals and as cultures!

This is all that most normal respectful and caring people really want.

Well, no culture can be preserved unchanged in aspic, especially in the modern world with its IT interconnections and ease of international travel. But I simply do not buy this notion of some new culture taking over, at a national level. There is no evidence that national institutions, laws, education etc are being radically changed by some new culture. I do acknowledge there are places whose character has changed due to the natural tendency of immigrants to form ghettos. But elevating that to a national takeover is getting it out of proportion. Where I sympathise is that I do think there should be more of an expectation for incomers to fit in. Perhaps there is a role for the planning system and local law enforcement here, and maybe an induction process for people acquiring citizenship, as they have in the Netherlands: https://www.government.nl/themes/migration-and-travel/integration-in-the-netherlands/civic-integration-in-the-netherlands

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

35 years ago I worked for a Pakistani fella (Bob, everyone called him this) he said to me that the grand plan is to take over the UK, in his exact words - " Teach my children to rape and pillage the white man until all hope is lost" The was no shame in his conviction this is what he believed was the right thing to do.

I have to ask: are you on the spectrum? This quote is so clearly someone responding to your prejudice with some withering sarcasm, that I have to wonder if you cannot pick up on basic social signals.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The town where I live is dominated by Pakistani Muslims, and to be frank its become a shit hole....

...neither is it racist or anything similar. I am stating facts that the far left and those unaffected choose to ignore or point blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity!

Try to zoom back a bit from your own written words and consider what they reveal.

Also.... evidence? Beyond your personal anecdotes about raper/pillagers named Bob, and your hot takes on what seem to be impoverished areas?

I was vacationing in Europe since the 5th and missed this ...

Ignorant people, like all MAGA and Lynkey, should be reminded that, with the current birthrate in the UK ( as well as the rest of Europe, North America, and Oriental nations like S Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc. ) there will not be ANY Britons left in less than 200 years.
What is preferable, an empty island, or one populated by different cultures ( and young people who work and pay taxes to support the pensions of the aged Britons ) ?

I would think, not only should they be bringing in immigrants, but also providing their children with free education to help them assimilate into the British way of life, and rid them of some negative cultural 'baggage' that they may bring with them.
But of course, MAGA and Linkey view this as immigrants getting 'freebees' even though it helps alleviate the problems they often cite.

Logically, what's the point of praying, it's nothing more than a wishlist of what you want, minus the time to achieve it...

funny how a wish, often makes us feel better...

Ignorant poeple will never understand why they're wish is not understood...

On 8/22/2026 at 8:57 AM, dimreepr said:

Logically, what's the point of praying, it's nothing more than a wishlist of what you want, minus the time to achieve it...

The illogical part is the reason for prayer, after that it makes perfect sense, so for anyone like you or me it IS a waste of time. However there are benefits to focusing the mind, like in prayer or meditation, so it might not be a complete waste of time for someone else.

22 hours ago, npts2020 said:

The illogical part is the reason for prayer, after that it makes perfect sense, so for anyone like you or me it IS a waste of time. However there are benefits to focusing the mind, like in prayer or meditation, so it might not be a complete waste of time for someone else.

It's funny really, the reason the British nation/empire is going down the tubes are bc we're human; we're capable of tremendous intellectual process's that are slowly peeling the onion that is the universe; yet we're incapable of teaching anyone that fear is our Achilles heel and money is the arrow; and so history is on a constant loop of failure to learn anything really practical.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's funny really, the reason the British nation/empire is going down the tubes are bc we're human; we're capable of tremendous intellectual process's that are slowly peeling the onion that is the universe; yet we're incapable of teaching anyone that fear is our Achilles heel and money is the arrow; and so history is on a constant loop of failure to learn anything really practical.

I'm not sure what is meant by "going down the tubes" because a lot of Americans say the same thing, yet we reside in a world that is pretty advanced in almost every area of endeavor when compared to the past.

16 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I'm not sure what is meant by "going down the tubes" because a lot of Americans say the same thing, yet we reside in a world that is pretty advanced in almost every area of endeavor when compared to the past.

"going down the tubes" is about world power and influence on that stage, no self appointed police person should be allowed to join the force; the area of endeavour involved in force, often described as peace keeping, is a never ending, futile, race to the most effective killing machine that won't effect us.

There's a reason sport is an excellent analog of war, every season there's a new champion, sometimes they seem unbeatable but they always are...

Every genertion think they're smarter than the last bc that's the human condition, it's almost like we're designed to forget the past, and possibility of it holding some valuable information.

On 8/16/2026 at 8:07 AM, exchemist said:

Perhaps there is a role for the planning system and local law enforcement here, and maybe an induction process for people acquiring citizenship, as they have in the Netherlands: https://www.government.nl/themes/migration-and-travel/integration-in-the-netherlands/civic-integration-in-the-netherlands

Germany has something similar and I have some mixed feelings about how they are conducted. There are good educational elements, including civics, for example. But a challenge is that at least back in the days, they were also a lot of issues. Some of which are detrimental to success and others which are actively reducing the chance of success.

In the past at least, many of these classes were framed to some degree around how you should behave and that the local way is the only way. This has the idea in mind that assimilation of immigrants includes cultural erasure of their background, which is obviously rather tricky. And as those classes were not implemented with any of acknowledgement of the background culture. Hence, the goal initially was not integration, as somewhat realized in the US and Canada, but rather diminishing the foreignness of the individual. So it ended up either in two extremes, one is that the principles and aspirations of the society are taught (e.g. democracy, equality etc.) but that often clashes with reality and does not appear operational or they are more specifically geared towards modulating behaviour which would try to fulfill the erasure bit and can cause backlash. But even those who want to fully assimilate and erase their otherness, there is another obstacle. In my experience, integration or the harsher form"assimiliation" hinges on what folks consider to be common sense notions of their society and their individual members. The big issue is that these notions are aspirational for themselves, but considered prescriptive for immigrants. What has been criticized in this approach is then that the lack of integration becomes a property of the individual, rather than an issue of the system. And because the notions are so ephemeral, it is often used as a separator. This is especially evidence in visible minorities where often no level of effort results in the coveted classification of assimilated (or, let's say, integrated). There are a couple of very good papers discussing how problematic the notion of integration (and even worse, assimilation) is as they lack a proper framework that allows one to study and measure the issue in a coherent way.

Take Netherlands, for example. It considers it self a secular state, so when it comes to social integration, being a Muslim, is considered to be non-integrated as they are not following secular ideals. Yet, while the Netherlands is majority non-religious, there are still about a third Christians, which are not considered non-integrated. Then of course, one would evoke history of Christianism and justify how exemptions have to be carved out there, but I think you will appreciate that the situations rather complex and, if you come from a different cultural background, you might see a lack of fairness, after all, despite your best efforts, you cannot change your history.

Another measure is what is sometimes called socio-cultural integration, where folks measure contact of one ethnic group with others. In these papers you will notice an interesting patterns often showing that the native groups often have the least interethnic contacts, but then they highlight which non-native group is least interacting with others. I.e. the native group is considered "neutral". The issue here is that this neutral group is also the largest, so if they do not interact much with other ethnic groups, then it also means that the other, smaller ethnic groups have much less chance for interethnic interactions. Conversely, in countries where the native groups interaction more broadly (e.g. because in societies where native ethnicities are considered more broadly), then suddenly society looks more integrated according to this measure. IOW, the main driver for this measure is actually the native group, rather than the immigrant group. However, the label of good or poor integration is foisted on them. It does not meant that they have no agency in the process, but rather that the policy does not consider the whole context. It is, unfortunately, not as some have envisioned in earlier posts, a true two-way street. It goes one way, and regardless how bumpy the road, it is on the driver, not on the road builder.

A good read, though perhaps a bit verbose as social sciences tend to be, on some of the issues when we talk about integration is here https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783709

1. It at once individualizes and de-individualizes integration: it is

seen as the individual’s responsibility, while on the other hand

entire cultures can be held responsible. Integration is measured not

at aggregate level, but at the level of the individual. However, it

makes no more sense to say that individuals are socially integrated

than it does to say that they are socially disintegrated. The

fundamentally relational nature of relative positions of immi-

grants vis-a`-vis the non-immigrant population is thereby ob-

scured. At the same time, culturist notions of sociocultural

integration allow for a de-individualization of integration. If

individuals are deemed not properly integrated, then their

culture is the primordial cause. Thereby, the individualized

responsibility is spread out over a larger group identifiable by a

culture, which in practice is reduced to a marker of ethnicity that

itself comes down to nationality.

2. It allows for a selective attribution of modernity and non-

modernity. The measurement of sociocultural integration takes

place by measuring the degree to which an individual holds

modern beliefs. Dutch society is defined as secular. One might

think that the presence of one million Muslims would lead to a

reconsideration of this a priori secular character of society and to a

conclusion that apparently, society has changed. But the social

scientific measurement of integration makes a different move: it

concludes that society has actually remained the same, but that

there are now one million people that, to a greater or lesser degree,

reside outside society.

3. It effectuates a dispensation of integration and of the ethnicity of

autochtonous Dutch citizens. Integration is measured only among

allochtones. The differentiation between autochtones and alloch-

tones is not unique to the Netherlands; it also exists in Belgium

and certain French-speaking African countries (Geschiere 2009).

Already proposed in 1973 (Verwey-Jonker 1973), it was inserted

into policy discourse at the advice of the Dutch Scientific Council

for Government Policy (WRR 1989). This was done as an effort to

avoid the negative connotations of ‘minorities’, but the latter is an

aggregate term, while allochtone can be, and is, individualized.

The autochtone/allochtone differentiation thus renders groups

observable because their members become measurable. Integration

is accordingly measured on an individual level, and only in the

case of allochtones. Native Dutch, in this type of research,

The imagination of ‘society’ in measurements of immigrant integration

apparently have no ethnicity, and they have received a dispensa-

tion of integration. Integration becomes a marker of what differs

from society. The crucial difference is not that between the well

integrated and the less well integrated, but between those for whom

integration is an issue at all and those for whom it is not.

4. It projects the society/outside society differentiation into the

future by means of a genealogization of integration, meaning that

integration gains historical continuation in the sense that new

generations start to be conceived in light of it. Integration research

distinguishes between first-, second- and third-generation immi-

grants. This, as mentioned above, is something of a paradox, as

second-generation immigrants have not immigrated. But it allows

for an extrapolation into the future of a measurable population,

the identification of which facilitates the identification of the

mirror image of society. This is sustained by the semantics of

allochtony mentioned above. For allochtone literally means ‘not of

this ground’. However, many children of immigrants who are born

in the Netherlands are yet identified as allochtones. In fact, the

criterion to speak of allochtone is to have at least one parent born

in a country other than the Netherlands (which means that the

core of the Dutch royal family consists exclusively of allochtones).

So the semantics of allochtony functions as a way of rendering

future generations visible as possibly distinct and thereby as

distinct from society.

5. It contributes to what can be called a virtualization of citizenship.

Since 1994, the policy definition of integration is citizenship. Yet

that creates the situation that a large group of citizens in the

formal juridical sense are nonetheless deemed not properly

integrated, which makes their status as citizens problematic, since

integration equals citizenship. This has to do with a differentiation

between formal and moral citizenship (cf. Schinkel 2010; Schinkel

and van Houdt 2010), and with a relative emphasis on the latter in

culturist discourse. This effectuates a virtualization of citizenship,

since citizenship now becomes a possibility instead of an actuality,

and it becomes a virtus in a culturalized sense.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Germany has something similar and I have some mixed feelings about how they are conducted. There are good educational elements, including civics, for example. But a challenge is that at least back in the days, they were also a lot of issues. Some of which are detrimental to success and others which are actively reducing the chance of success.

In the past at least, many of these classes were framed to some degree around how you should behave and that the local way is the only way. This has the idea in mind that assimilation of immigrants includes cultural erasure of their background, which is obviously rather tricky. And as those classes were not implemented with any of acknowledgement of the background culture. Hence, the goal initially was not integration, as somewhat realized in the US and Canada, but rather diminishing the foreignness of the individual. So it ended up either in two extremes, one is that the principles and aspirations of the society are taught (e.g. democracy, equality etc.) but that often clashes with reality and does not appear operational or they are more specifically geared towards modulating behaviour which would try to fulfill the erasure bit and can cause backlash. But even those who want to fully assimilate and erase their otherness, there is another obstacle. In my experience, integration or the harsher form"assimiliation" hinges on what folks consider to be common sense notions of their society and their individual members. The big issue is that these notions are aspirational for themselves, but considered prescriptive for immigrants. What has been criticized in this approach is then that the lack of integration becomes a property of the individual, rather than an issue of the system. And because the notions are so ephemeral, it is often used as a separator. This is especially evidence in visible minorities where often no level of effort results in the coveted classification of assimilated (or, let's say, integrated). There are a couple of very good papers discussing how problematic the notion of integration (and even worse, assimilation) is as they lack a proper framework that allows one to study and measure the issue in a coherent way.

Take Netherlands, for example. It considers it self a secular state, so when it comes to social integration, being a Muslim, is considered to be non-integrated as they are not following secular ideals. Yet, while the Netherlands is majority non-religious, there are still about a third Christians, which are not considered non-integrated. Then of course, one would evoke history of Christianism and justify how exemptions have to be carved out there, but I think you will appreciate that the situations rather complex and, if you come from a different cultural background, you might see a lack of fairness, after all, despite your best efforts, you cannot change your history.

Another measure is what is sometimes called socio-cultural integration, where folks measure contact of one ethnic group with others. In these papers you will notice an interesting patterns often showing that the native groups often have the least interethnic contacts, but then they highlight which non-native group is least interacting with others. I.e. the native group is considered "neutral". The issue here is that this neutral group is also the largest, so if they do not interact much with other ethnic groups, then it also means that the other, smaller ethnic groups have much less chance for interethnic interactions. Conversely, in countries where the native groups interaction more broadly (e.g. because in societies where native ethnicities are considered more broadly), then suddenly society looks more integrated according to this measure. IOW, the main driver for this measure is actually the native group, rather than the immigrant group. However, the label of good or poor integration is foisted on them. It does not meant that they have no agency in the process, but rather that the policy does not consider the whole context. It is, unfortunately, not as some have envisioned in earlier posts, a true two-way street. It goes one way, and regardless how bumpy the road, it is on the driver, not on the road builder.

A good read, though perhaps a bit verbose as social sciences tend to be, on some of the issues when we talk about integration is here https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783709

This reading of the Netherlands is incorrect. It indeed considers itself a secular state, as does France, but in neither case do they consider that merely following a religion makes somebody “non-integrated”. What might make someone non-integrated would be not speaking Dutch and not accepting or tolerating the laws and conventions of the Dutch.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This reading of the Netherlands is incorrect. It indeed considers itself a secular state, as does France, but in neither case do they consider that merely following a religion makes somebody “non-integrated”. What might make someone non-integrated would be not speaking Dutch and not accepting or tolerating the laws and conventions of the Dutch.

I am using the example given in a book, I think from the same author I cited earlier, where integration research uses variables such as mosque-going as a measure of integration. The factors you mentioned are "hard" factors which generally are not particularly controversial. However, the soft factors of success, which fall under elements of socio-cultural integration are a bit of a mess. I don't know whether there is a formal authoritative system used by policy-makers (though I know that at least years back that was missing in the German discussions). But there have been government reports around 2000-2010 that wrestled with the notion whether Muslims can be integrated and highlighted the tension that arises from their beliefs in a secular society. Fundamentally there is the base assumption that being Muslim also means for example running counter to liberal values. This same notion, however, is not held against fundamentalist Christians. The author I cited, argues from an even higher level basically stating, assume that there is a large percentage now of Muslims, how can they still not be considered to be part of society? But even if we don't that far, clearly religion or any other parameter of choice is used as a delineator, justified or not, and often in an arbitrary manner.

A recent paper touches on these themes from a slightly different perspective. While their main argument is on attitudinal ambivalence, they do describe here a kind of negative two-way street and the boundary between self and others:

This aligns with social identity theory, where a robust Dutch national identity, rooted in post-pillarisation secular liberalism and colonial-era narratives, may amplify boundaries between “native” and “other.” This reflects a defensive orientation where individuals who strongly identify with Dutch heritage may view Muslim integration as a threat to cultural continuity, particularly amid populist rhetoric framing Islam as incompatible with progressive values (Missier 2022; Mudde 2019). The process is reciprocal, as majority rejection can also impact how minorities negotiate their bicultural identities (Fleischmann and Weegh 2021).

Abbas, T. The complexity of coexistence: Dutch perspectives on multiculturalism and Muslim integration. Acta Polit (2026).

To many Americans, accustomed to a highly heterogenous patchwork quilt of cultures, there's a tendency to find phrases like "______ integration" offensive. Integration is a word that somehow always conjures its opposite. Having lived next to an indigenous reservation, I know "assimilation" (with it's very dark history out here) also makes good people bristle. Such terms are a reminder of how often a core ideal of America has been tarnished by its own citizens. Groupthink, usually paranoia-driven, subverts all the fine talk enshrining individualism.

I saw a similar thing spending a summer in France 50 years ago. People bashing Arab immigrants, others lamenting the buckling of France's ideals of personal freedom and cultural tolerance. La plus ça change, la plus c'est la même.

Even some liberals here are apt to favor diversity so long as it doesn't come to their street. When it's close to home, they really want....total assimilation. Borg-like levels of it.

Glad I'm not a social scientist. I think it would be incredibly difficult to plumb the depths of American hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance over what it means to protect the nation's core values.

O know you're quite familiar with Canadian multiculturalism, CharonY.
Cultural diversity is encouraged, and even celebrated, here.
( we have Multicultural festivities for two weeks in May, in St. Catharines; great parties every night )

However, immigrants are reminded why they left their countries to come to Canada, and things like racial or regional hatred from their origin, or the maltreatment of women is discouraged, as is elevating religions above secular law.
One has to remember that in some of the originating countries life is 'cheap', I don't have a problem reminding/teaching them that they came to Canada for a better way of life.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

O know you're quite familiar with Canadian multiculturalism, CharonY.
Cultural diversity is encouraged, and even celebrated, here.
( we have Multicultural festivities for two weeks in May, in St. Catharines; great parties every night )

Absolutely, even if not perfect I felt that being part of the culture is much more attainable in Canada (and, until not too long ago, perhaps also in the USA) compared to Europe because of that.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

However, immigrants are reminded why they left their countries to come to Canada, and things like racial or regional hatred from their origin, or the maltreatment of women is discouraged, as is elevating religions above secular law.

It is true that there are certain ideals that should be help up in society. Certainly with respect to laws, but to some degree also on the cultural side. However, I think the point I am trying to make is that for true participation in a society, these goals have to be attainable and, there should be some level of fairness in its evaluation. For example, there is often talk about misogyny and homophobia among certain immigration, which might be factually true, and the rate might be higher compared to the "native" population. However, it is for example unreasonable to expect that this attitude would be entirely absent in an immigrant population, especially if it also exists in the native population.

The second issue is that the goals of integration should be clear and attainable. Being perfect is not an attainable goal, for example. Don't look different is another example. In most integration debates, these measures are murky (also mentioned in the papers I mentioned) and so are the paths to become part of society (again, in the European context).

I haven't read the entire thread, but am responding to one aspect of the OP. In the interests of full disclosure I am a myself a mongrel, having an English mother and Scottish father.

My son was largely raised in Scotland and therefore adopts the common Scottish position of supporting the opponents of England in any sporting event, especially football matches. I pointed out that he was only 25% Scottish, with a further 25% English and then 50% a mix of Indonesian, Malaysian, Chinese and possibly a sprinkling of Indian. On that basis he should be supporting England, certainly not opposing them. I liked his response:

"Dad, you're talking genetics. I'm talking culture."

I'm still not sure what it signifies, but I liked the speed of the response and the clever rhetoric. Perhaps hybridism isn't such a bad thing.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am using the example given in a book, I think from the same author I cited earlier, where integration research uses variables such as mosque-going as a measure of integration. The factors you mentioned are "hard" factors which generally are not particularly controversial. However, the soft factors of success, which fall under elements of socio-cultural integration are a bit of a mess. I don't know whether there is a formal authoritative system used by policy-makers (though I know that at least years back that was missing in the German discussions). But there have been government reports around 2000-2010 that wrestled with the notion whether Muslims can be integrated and highlighted the tension that arises from their beliefs in a secular society. Fundamentally there is the base assumption that being Muslim also means for example running counter to liberal values. This same notion, however, is not held against fundamentalist Christians. The author I cited, argues from an even higher level basically stating, assume that there is a large percentage now of Muslims, how can they still not be considered to be part of society? But even if we don't that far, clearly religion or any other parameter of choice is used as a delineator, justified or not, and often in an arbitrary manner.

A recent paper touches on these themes from a slightly different perspective. While their main argument is on attitudinal ambivalence, they do describe here a kind of negative two-way street and the boundary between self and others:

Abbas, T. The complexity of coexistence: Dutch perspectives on multiculturalism and Muslim integration. Acta Polit (2026).

Well yes I can agree this describes a particular attitude within Dutch society, but not that it is the official policy of the Netherlands. If the author asserts it is the latter, I would take issue with that, on the basis of my own experience of living there.

The elephant in the room is indeed Islam, but I suggest it is a particularly assertive form of what has come to be known as political Islam, which seems to be relatively recent movement within some branches of the religion. I can quite understand the society coming into conflict with that, as the whole point of it is to challenge the culture, mores and behaviour of the host society.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

My son was largely raised in Scotland and therefore adopts the common Scottish position of supporting the opponents of England in any sporting event, especially football matches.

But this is true of most sports at a much lower level for events between say football clubs for different towns or even between clubs from the same town.