Take Your Integration and Shove It!

When discussing immigration in Western Europe these days, the big buzzword is “integration”. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently convened an integration summit to discuss strategies to help Germany’s large Turkish minority to accommodate themselves to German society — and, coincidentally, to steal some of the thunder from Thilo Sarrazin, whose anti-immigration book has proved a huge popular success.

But what does “integration” mean for practical purposes? And the big question, which largely goes unasked: Is it really possible to integrate Europe’s huge Muslim population in any meaningful way?

An interview transcript from an October 29 program on Denmark Radio should give pause to anyone who still thinks “integration” is doable. The young woman interviewed for the program was born in Denmark, but she makes it quite clear that she has never integrated into Danish society, nor does she ever intend to do so.

Henrik Ræder Clausen sent the tip for this interview, and he included these comments:

We are discussing ghettos in the Danish media (mostly about knocking down high rise apartment blocks, unfortunately), and here is an interesting interview with a resident who has a whole new take on the issue. She feels safe because it’s an area for Arabs.

Many thanks to Anne-Kit of Perth, Australia, for translating this post from the Danish blog Uriasposten:

“New Dane” on National Radio: “You can’t force me to live with you, our ways of thinking are different”

This week Denmark’s State Radio is featuring “Ghetto” as a headline, Tuesday’s broadcast is worth a listen if you still think ghettos are about socio-economic issues. The interviewee was an 18-year-old girl from Gellerup [a culturally enriched suburb of Århus], born in Denmark but mentally “resident” in Lebanon, something which she didn’t see as a problem — indeed segregation seemed to be a goal in itself.

26/10/10 — “Apropos”, P1 — Ghetto and identity (interview with Iman Rabeh from Gellerupparken).

Mikkel Krause, P1: My guest is Iman Rabeh, who is 18 and has lived in Gellerupparken [an immigrant housing estate] her whole life. Tell me what you think it’s been like living in Gellerupparken.

Iman Rabeh, Gellerup: Well, Gellerupparken, it’s been my life, it’s been — all my friends, because everywhere in Gellerupparken there are both good memories and bad memories, but, you know, I can’t leave Gellerup.

Mikkel Krause: But what are the values in what we now call a ghetto, that are important to you?

Iman Rabeh: Well, the value is that community … that we all understand the same language, which we all speak, that we stick together, you know, my neighbor — all my neighbours are Arabs, and if they’re not Arabs then they are Lebanese, and if they’re not Lebanese then they are — we have that love for one another that you’re an Arab, I’m an Arab, we can talk with each other, we can discuss everything, we come from the other countries…

Mikkel Krause: But what does it mean to you, that you come from Gellerupparken specifically, you know, that you’re Iman from the ghetto rather than Iman from Vejlby or wherever else you might come from?

Iman Rabeh: Oh, it means everything! Because if I moved to a Danish area then it wouldn’t mean that much to me because one thing is that I know the language, but you know, Danes as such, they are not like us, they — in everything we have different customs, we have different — you know, we are different and have different ways of thinking. Take our neighbours, if we want to borrow some things from the neighbours we just do that. It’s just overall, in everything, that you’re an Arab, I’m an Arab, we give some things to each other, it doesn’t matter.

Mikkel Krause: You’ve said straight out that if you were to one day leave Gellerup, and maybe you will be forced to leave Gellerup because they want to tear down the apartment blocks or whatever, then you’ll just move to another ghetto.

Iman Rabeh: Yes that’s right. I would move to another ghetto.

Mikkel Krause: But why would you do that?

Iman Rabeh: Well because I can’t — I’ve lived my whole life with … well let’s ask another question — why do we go to Lebanon every year? I haven’t done that but, you know, I’ve gone there the last two years. But everyone else, why do they spend hundreds of thousands of kroner going to Lebanon every year? I wonder why. To be able to chat, sitting with each other, hearing the language, to hear, to be able to say that this is mine, you have that good feeling that this is me. It’s mine! This is where it makes sense.

Mikkel Krause: But let’s say you were out walking about the streets at three o’clock at night, I don’t know if you ever do that, but where would you feel the most safe. In the centre of Århus or out in Gellerupparken?

Iman Rabeh: In the ghetto, in Gellerupparken. Because we all know each other, no one would dare harm anyone else. But if I were in a Danish area or something like that, I would feel unsafe and scared.

Mikkel Krause: We could say that something that’s been discussed an awful lot recently during the ghetto debate is how the ghettos function as kind of parallel societies, or closed areas. What you are saying here, the picture you are painting, doesn’t it sort of confirm that view?

Iman Rabeh: That’s possible, but no — all Danes are welcome to come to Gellerup to live together with us, but if for example I walk around there on my own then there wouldn’t … then I’d be 100 percent certain that no one would lay a finger on me, or steal my handbag or my bicycle, because I’m one of “them”. You know, we all know each other, they would never do that.

Mikkel Krause: Your parents, how much contact have your parents had with Danes outside the ghetto, or for that matter with Danes inside Gellerupparken, and with Danish society in general during your childhood and adolescence?

Iman Rabeh: No contact at all. They have no Danish friends and they have no acquaintances, so all they have are the schools; when they are invited to school celebrations then they go for the sake of my brother or sister, you know, whatever. Or the local government [social services], they have contact with the local government and that, but they have no common friendships with Danes like, for example if a Dane says to my mum ‘let’s go out tonight!’, then my mum would think ‘you must be crazy — you want me to go out at night, to go out for a meal or something like that? I do that with my family, I wouldn’t do that with my friends.’ Or go to the public swimming pool for example, my parents would never to that, or even think about it. The problem is that my parents have this way of thinking that’s a thousand years old, generations old, from our great-great ancestors [sic]. They follow this tradition, and of course the Danes follow their culture.

Mikkel Krause: But what has it meant to your parents’ relations with Danish society. The fact that they have never felt “anchored” here and lack any significant contact with Danes?

Iman Rabeh: It has meant that they can’t understand us who were born here, and raised here. If I tell my mum that I’m going out with a girlfriend at 6pm, and we’re just going out for a meal or to see a movie, then they wouldn’t understand it, because [my mum] has this way of thinking that she would never do that, not unless I’m going out to eat with my family, then that would be completely different. But when I say that, she doesn’t understand me. You know, I’m not going out to do something wrong, I’m just going out to eat a meal, and to the cinema.

Mikkel Krause: So there’s a big difference between your parents’ contact with Danish society and their way of interacting with other people, and then your own contact.

Iman Rabeh: Yes that’s right — a big difference.

Mikkel Krause: One of the possible solutions to the ghetto problem, which the politicians talk about, is to dissolve the ghettos by forcing people to mix with each other. In other words having more Danes move to Gellerupparken, for example, and more immigrants move out into the general society. What would that mean to you and your family?

Iman Rabeh: We can’t do that, just like you and I and they can’t decide where other people should live, we can decide for ourselves. No one can force anyone else to move out.

Mikkel Krause: What would you do if they tried?

Iman Rabeh: Oh, of they tried I would rebel – Where is the freedom of expression you talk about? Where is that exactly? I will decide where to live. Just like you decide for yourself. Great, if you want me to live … if you want to force me to live with Danes then I’d like to live with Pia Kjærsgaard, for instance.

Mikkel Krause: There is another, much discussed, solution, which is to demolish some of the apartment blocks in Gellerupparken. What do you think of that kind of solution?

Iman Rabeh: Not at all. That is the wrong solution. You should build something instead of tearing something down. You could make it a nicer place, but why would you tear it down? There is no reason for that.

Mikkel Krause: Thank you very much for coming, Iman Rabeh.

Iman Rabeh: Thanks for the invitation.

[Emphases by Kim Møller of Uriasposten]

26 thoughts on “Take Your Integration and Shove It!

  1. The real issue is that the integration process is actually slowed as the level of un-integrated immigrant increases.
    The inflow has to be matched by the outflow (the integration capacity) to have a sustainable immigration policy.

    The West in its ideologically enforced multiculturalism phase has had and is having unsustainable immigration levels well exceeding any host societies capacity to integrate. To make matter worst there is one more effect and the left-wing fascist greenies love using the notion: the tipping point. The capacity to integration not only slows as the pool of un-integrated immigrants and their descendants increases, but it also reaches a tipping point where long terms parallel societies are formed out of these ghettos that out friend above romanticises about. It is this development of parallel societes open to political guidance for foreign colonial powers (eg Erdogan or Turkish diplomats in Vienna) that we are seeing today.

  2. Oh, I suppose I don’t have to point out that them not being integrated is a GREAT thing, since you can transplant their communities to another country considering they have no real ties in Denmark. I hardly see why people want to integrate these people.

  3. The obvious question ought to be: “Why are you here? You make great economic efforts to go back to you old country, so why do you not stay there?”
    They want our welfare, but they reject our societies. It’s immoral, and they should stand accountable for it.

  4. Studies in the US show that closing ghettos increases the amount of crime. It spreads the crime to where the residents are moved and along routes between their new homes. Google Hanna Rosin in The Atlantic: “American Murder Mystery” for media reporting.

    There is no easy solution to crime ridden ethnic ghettos in the West. One possible solution is outlined in
    Singapore rejects Western multiculturalism
    . But I suspect the opportunity to implement that is past.

    While on that site LoveFreedomTruth.com also check out “Law enforcers not peace keepers” and “Al Qaeda agrees with Bush”.

    The enablers of Islamist expansion are also a problem.

  5. I suppose that every-one knows what would happen if a Dane,or Swede,frenchman,englishman,german or Italian wee to say the same things?Why is it dialog when they say it and racism when we say it?Immigrants have simply come for our money and countries,being incapable of producing a civilised society themselves,parasites they are ,for they fully intend to destroy thier host.

  6. @ Englishman
    In the left-wing world there is no racism against white peoples – or western people – especially Christians ones.
    It just is impossible and does not compute. These peoples are the only ones that have and can carry collective guilt and they must be culturally and racially diluted to better the world – a normal, non-indoctrinated person,
    and we are all in part infected, would say that such a view is racists, but in the left-wing world you must be a bigot for thinking this- and further steps of ‘declassification’ must be sought against you.

    In the left-wing world Islam is free of this guilt and sin. Any acts of islamic terrorism are acts of pure virtuous self defence.
    No act of islamic terrorism can ever match the guilt that western people have. Indeed Western people have brought it onto themselves when they are targets of such terrorism.

    In the left-wing world, left-wing terrorism and left-wing fascistic regimes (read socialist/communist regimes) are free of guilt for the same reason.

    PC and MC are fascistic mechanism of an ideology,of an ism; sense, logic, reason does not come into it. You are either with the reigning political ideology or you are THE ENEMY – no where have your heard that language used recently (hint: American politics).

  7. rebelliousvanilla said.

    A sustainable immigration policy means no immigration. It worked fairly well for Europe for thousands of years. Let alone integrating outsiders.

    I cannot quite agree RV. At various points in UK history we have had significant “immigration” some of which (Roman Viking, French – all european) was by the sword.
    Integration occurred. Later we had Dutch, German, Italian, Chinese, Indian, immigrants.
    My own great great grandparents were German (presumably economic) immigrants.
    Integration has been fairly complete with one or two minor cultural “blips”. None seem to live in ghettos.The Jewish immigrants did for a time but apart from a few ultra orthodox groups do not any more.
    So religion, since it involved Pagan, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist religions doesn’t seem to be have caused a problem. Well maybe it did but only for a very small time in history.
    Most of our early immigrants were from other European nations. Later ones came from the Indian sub-continent, the far east, the Caribbean and parts of Africa.

    Problems sadly have ONLY arisen in any big way with a large influx of Muslims.In our case Pakistanis, Bangladeshis. and Somalis
    THAT is the difference.(we have also had, and still have, problems with Caribbeans and Nigerians where religion is not so clearly the issue)
    I think America is perhaps similar.

    ONE religion, and a few critical cultural differences on morality, cause the problem.

    What beats me is that “destitute” asylum seekers are fairly easily able to quickly afford and dare to return to their homeland, which would “persecute” them they say, once they are awarded citizenship. THAT exposes the lie and even benefit claimants manage to undertake the Hajj and run cars and much else. Begs many questions.

    That doesn’t mean “no immigration” but does mean that immigration policies have to become “racist”. Try telling that to our politicians though.
    The UN and the Geneva Convention have much to answer for.

  8. “One of the possible solutions to the ghetto problem, which the politicians talk about, is to dissolve the ghettos by forcing people to mix with each other.”

    The solution may be worse than the problem…

  9. bewick, conquest and immigration are different things. This is why the founding American generation and the colonists aren’t immigrants, but conquerors.

    And you should look at the crime rates of your black immigrants too. They’re not that peachy either.

    Anna, it’s not immoral. What is immoral is expecting people to come here and adapt. If you accept civic nationality, their way of life is just as valid as the way of life of a real Swedish person.

    trempictrempic, why? If the black men are Swedish citizens, what’s the problem?

  10. Having a sense of cultural identity is one thing, abject isolationism is another. Muslim insistence upon establishing immiscible parallel societies is breeding up a catastrophe.

    Once enough predation and crime has taken place, indigenous Danes will react as they already are beginning to do. Morons like Iman Rabeh who boast so loudly about refusing to assimilate are sealing their own doom.

    El Inglés touched upon this in his essays at Gates of Vienna. While ostensibly preserving cultural identity, this intentional ghettoization also serves to cluster newcomers, especially those who are Hell bent against assimilation.

    If rejection of integration is out of contempt for a host culture, the stage is set for serious conflict. Witness the “no go zones” found in Britain and elsewhere throughout Europe. At first blush, these look like island fortresses of cultural purity.

    What such ghettoes really represent are just islands. In creating these enclaves, their occupants have segregated themselves in a manner that is not conducive to strategic survival. Then again, a glance at modern Muslim war fighting capabilities reveals the Islamic mind’s immense shortcomings over tactical issues.

    There appears in the text of El Inglés’ essays and their accompanying comments observations as to how much easier it will be to isolate and lay siege to these, most frequently urban, enclaves.

    To realize how tenuous the security of these enclaves are; imagine how laughable it is for one of these emphatically unassimilated Muslims to try and hide out in a rural area like the Cotswolds. What was once a badge of cultural identity proudly displayed in native garb and manner, would just as quickly see such a refugee in the hinterlands tracked down and apprehended with alacrity, turban and all.

    This epitomizes how serious the lack of Muslim integration really is. They not only refuse to assimilate but, if push should come to shove, they cannot.

    All of this bodes exceptionally unwell for Europe’s Muslims. The pre-World War Two Jewish population was far more integrated, both in appearance and demographically, than a vast majority of European Muslim immigrants.

    Through their criminality and scorn for Western society, Muslim immigrants are antagonizing host cultures beyond all endurance. Combine this intellectual or emotional insult with Islam’s traditional wave of criminal assault and any ability to tolerate such blatant predation simply evaporates.

    Read the introduction to David Brin’s book, “Otherness”. Wherever you see the word “dolphin” or “porpoise”, substitute it with “Muslim” and you will start to see just how perilous it is for swaggering loons like Iman Rabeh to boast about their adamant refusal to integrate. For a more in depth read upon how Islam represents a competing meme, read Brin’s essay, “Survival of the Fittest Ideas”.

    Western civilization is clearly in a “memewar” with both invading cultures and its internal elevation of “otherness” to the position of dogma. One might argue how it is the adulation of individuality that has thrust otherness to the fore, but Liberal fascination with universal tolerance for the entire spectrum of human behavior is a more likely culprit.

    It is impossible to enshrine cultural modes like criminality, piracy or enslavement as being worthy of respect. The moral relativism required to do this renders ineffective vital mechanisms of self-protection that have long served as defensive barriers against invasion or colonization.

    Liberalism has crippled these longstanding self-defense mechanisms and arrogant thugs like Iman Rabeh are about to find out what happens when indigenous populations are collectively threatened by sub-normal intelligences.

  11. Merkel calls on Germans to develop “feelings for cultural enrichment”, which is beyond parody.

    Feelings of care and compassion for Muselmanic invaders ordered from above? Ridiculous!

    The former STASI IM (internal mitarbeiter) is totally off the rails and tries to steal Thilo Sarrazins thunder, without doing anything about the problem, hoping it will blow over.

    Like Australia, Germany is overrun and the governing elites are trying to put the fire out with gasoline and denial. It won’t work.


  12. Merkel calls on Germans to develop “feelings for cultural enrichment”, which is beyond parody.

    Hey, I have such feelings!

    This being a PG-13 blog, I shall refrain from posting them, though.

  13. This is a wonderfull development.
    If “integration” is failing then the host culture is releaved of mingling with the human and social polluting jihad jivers. Things would go in the right direction if the different European countries instead demanded all muslim and even all middle eastern, north african and south asian women and men for that matter,must wear head scarves or towels to immediatly differentiate them and their barbarous beliefs from the rest of the population. It will be much easier to enact legislation such as baning all hallal meat etc. to steer the cult of moe-ham-mad out of whats left of the civilized world.

    The greater the visual and behavioral differnce the more intense the response to the problems they create by their presence.

  14. Integration is not the solution – it is the problem.

    No one tries to “integrate” chinese or russian immigrants – they do it on their own.

    There is a whole “immigration industry”, an army of social- workers, politicians and teachers who live from the problem integration. It is not in their interest to solve it.

    The evil thing is that we are told to “open up” id est: to give ourself up. Everyone has the right to save his culture, except us.

    Even Sarrazin just tries to solve problems that we onlay have because of the millions of muslims in our country. Let them go back where they belong and we do no longer need things like all-day schools.

    Mass immigration to Europe has to stop. Close the borders! And kick everyone out who just looks in the wrong way. Then we got a chance to survive.

    Greetings from Germany


  15. You have to watch out for this word “integration.”

    Integration can mean, that both Germans and Muslims must accomodate each other….and not specifically that Muslims must accomodate and assimilate to German culture.

    Assimilation is not integration, and vice versa.

    You arent looking for integration, but rather assimilation.

    Integration traditionally has meant that the host culture accomodate minorities and immigrants, via affirmative action, positive discrimination, and subjugating the host or majority culture to minority or immigrant cultures.

  16. Sheik yer’mami: Like Australia, Germany is overrun and the governing elites are trying to put the fire out with gasoline and denial. It won’t work.

    I don’t think Australia is being overrun. Perhaps you mean Austria.

  17. Thank you Zenster, I have been looking at the problem from a different angle but had reached the same conclusion, namely that the Moslems in Europe have set themselves up for a massive deportation or massacre depending on how mad the host nation is. One reason most of the people writing about the problem are so doom and gloom is because they are products of the modern liberal damaged educational systems.

  18. Richard: … I have been looking at the problem from a different angle but had reached the same conclusion, namely that the Moslems in Europe have set themselves up for a massive deportation or massacre depending on how mad the host nation is.

    As I have often noted, none of these issues would be arising were not Islam the apocalyptic supremacist theocracy that it always has been.

    That said, Europe’s budding Multicultural social engineers have taken an immigration problem and converted it into one that promises to become what may well be a starter’s pistol for the looming Muslim holocaust.

    Whether it be through allowing jihadis access to European soil and its international shipping lanes such that terrorist nuclear devices may be deployed against the West, or simply by abdicating all responsibility for protecting the rights of Europe’s indigenous populations, these EU Islamophiles are literally guaranteeing what El Inglés terms “discontinuities” on a scale that will meet or exceed that of the original Holocaust.

    Again, none of this would be an issue save for Islam’s insistence upon world domination. However, the scope and magnitude of this crisis has undergone routine magnification by European Socialists and whatever eventual mayhem occurs must be laid at their bloody feet as well.

    What they have done goes so far beyond the realm of ordinary humdrum treason that it represents a crime against humanity. European infidels and Muslims alike will suffer in the MILLIONS and all for the sake of those who kowtow to their false god of Multiculturalism.

    No punishment will be too harsh for those who have brought Western civilization to the brink of this insane precipice.

  19. Zenster said 11/11/2010 11:31 AM
    ” Western civilization is clearly in a “memewar” … “

    This brings to mind the article in Citizen Warrior (in case you haven’t seen it):

    That said, it seems to me that we’re dealing with a cultural “yin and yang” effect (or maybe double-edged sword is a better analogy), both on the part of the West and on the side of Islam as well.

    One of the strengths of Western Civilization is that we’re willing to question ourselves and our understanding of the world, willing to accept and embrace other beliefs and incorporate those beliefs into our culture — willing to hybridize ourselves, in a sense. And yet, with regard to Islam, our openness to new ideas seems to be a losing proposition. On the side of Islam, their strength is that they DON’T adapt to new cultures or beliefs… and yet, of course, that strangles and isolates them and keeps them from advancing — which is the other edge of the sword, ie, the great weakness of Islam.

    So the relative “openness” versus “closedness” of our two cultures is for each of us, a strength and a damaging weakness. To some future anthropologist, it should be very interesting to study how this conflict ultimately plays out; unfortunately as a here-and-now participant, I just hate that there’s any chance at all that some 7th-century psychopath’s self-aggrandizing pseudo-religion could destroy a thousand years of progress on the part of Western Civilization.

    Frightening, and sad…

Comments are closed.