I think Fraser Nelson is missing the big picture. Immigration has been one of the symptoms, but it is also a tactic. Islam has infiltrated Parliament, the MI5, Scotland Yard, and on and on. Even the Constable Blair recently said he wanted to hire thousands more Muslims.

The problem is much broader. The fifth column has infiltrated your government, your spy agencies, your school textbook creators (noticed that pro Islam stance they have taken on?), your neighborhoods with 1000s of mosques, to recruit, to dawah, to propagandize.

Oh it is a much bigger picture Fraser. But as Robert has commented on many articles he has posted, 'they (the media, the editors, the writers) are getting there.' I just wish they would hurry.

Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 8:08 PM

I think Fraser is still missing the big picture, but just to question multiculturalism and out of control immigration is a start in our PC correct world.

The big picture goes much deeper and is much more alarming. England, like America, has been infiltrated, in their government, in their security agencies, in their police, in their textbook development companies (noticed that proIslam expansive slant in those school books recently? I thought so.). They're not all laying around, waiting for the prayer call at the new Saudi funded mosque, stresssing the infidel economy as they pump the dole, no, the really smart ones (the leaders in their target area), they are busy making infidel 'friends' in high places, getting high level government jobs that you would never give a enemy.

Conquest, for Islam, is not a 20 year war, it's an endless war. For those Muslims, and they do believe it, peace for the world only comes when the universal ummah is achieved. Those really nice Muslims you like, they know. They befriended you to help Islam, protect Islam. The plan is fantastic and I think beyond the grips of our politicians. They know, one day everyone will be a Muslim. by sword, by tonque, by breeding. by dawah. The infidels are gone. Dar al-Harb has been absorbed into Dar al-Islam. What a glorious day that will be. So it is written in the Koran.

Immigration is just a symptom of the disease of multiculturalism, but Islam has used it to thrive and infiltrate the Infidel lands. The fifth column is here, it is strong, and our leaders are clueless.

Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 8:26 PM

sorry about that. The first post I thought I had lost and had to rewrite.

Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 8:29 PM

"You seem to shun these folks off to the side, and let them behave as if they never left Islamabad"

Implying that it's all the Brits' fault. That Muslims would really love to integrate and live happily together with everyone, but it's all the racist white Anglos that are preventing that. I guess us Aussies are also guilty of that too. It's all our fault that we have Muslim enclaves where non-Muslims sell the houses they'd lived in happily for decades because they feel unwelcome and threatened; where even cops feel their safety is at risk. We're such meanies.

He paints a rosy picture of Muslims in the US too, saluting the flag and learning English and shared values and all that. Is that true, American DW readers? From what I've gathered over the past few years of learning about Muslims in the West, not even America is free from Muslims who deliberately seek to separate themselves from the infidels amongst them. And it's more than enclaves and ghettoes, it's a state of mind. If they're not separated physically from their neighbours and countrymen, they are separated mentally and politically.

All this talk about melting pots and mosaics and multiculturalism are completely irrelevant when it comes to Islam. I've said it before: I have little problem with multiculturalism. I think it can work pretty well, but not with Islam in the mix. Multiculturalism and Islam are polar opposites. Islam is rabidly MONOcultural. Always was, always will be.

Posted by: feralee at July 18, 2005 9:10 PM

feralee,

It's not all rosy.

This, in Queens, New York.

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/GW1.php

Posted by: PRCS at July 18, 2005 9:18 PM

If you watched the muslim thinkers society.

"Brother thats worse than Army Intelligence"

You would see them Publicly stating "We do NOT owe allegiance to anyone or any country save ALLAH"

You can forget even in the USA about integration, the melting pot etc..

ALLAH and EVIL ISLAM must either be stopped or it will destroy us all..

I will NOT TRUST ANY MUSLIM and i am sorry if thats a broad brush but it isnt racism...

ITS REALITY...
They want everyone either DEAD, RAPED or muslim...
WE fight....
SCREW Mohammed

Posted by: jingoist at July 18, 2005 9:25 PM

feralee, they don't integrate in America either. They intentionally, deliberately isolate themselves from the mainstream. The big difference here I think is that there is not as much unemployment among muslims and they are better off financially. They can't gripe about being an "underclass", although they find plenty of other non-existent issues to bitch about.

Some attend public schools but there are many, many Islamic schools, and many muslim children born here never fully merge into American society. Their parents can't allow that or they know they would lose them forever; pop culture is too tempting. There are some who have completely abandoned Islamic culture and live just like us but who knows what lurks in the nether regions of their minds, or when they will be overcome by guilt and turn into instant fanatics.

The clerics and putative Islamic "leaders" do everything within their power to isolate muslim youth from mainstream American society. They learn the same crap in the mosques here that is taught everywhere---that they are superior to us, that they will "own" America some day, and that Americans are the enemy. For the most part, they keep a low profile to reinforce their constant claims of being "law-abiding, tax-paying citizens", until a big terrorist cell is busted. Then they're always innocent, of course! In my opinion, muslims in America are just too quiet and too low-key, except for the advocacy organizations, which never shut-up. That tells me they're up to no good on a massive scale.

Like in Britain, they are heavily concentrated in certain areas. Dearborn, Michigan is the largest "Islamic community" in America and there are entirely too many in California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York. There are muslims and mosques in every state, even Alaska and Hawaii. They have invaded, infiltrated every state, even places where nobody wants to live. I hope somebody is watching them, wherever they are.

For some reason, there aren't many where I live, and only one tiny mosque. I hope it stays that way, but it won't. They choose to isolate themselves; they don't want to integrate. That should be apparent to anyone with half a brain.

Their self-imposed isolation could be stopped in places where they live in government funded housing projects. The government could do the integration for them instead of allowing them to monopolize certain areas. If they don't like it, they can go back to their lands of origin, which is where they belong anyway.

Posted by: Susanp at July 19, 2005 12:40 AM

He paints a rosy picture of Muslims in the US too, saluting the flag and learning English and shared values and all that. Is that true, American DW readers?

As with most non-Hispanic immigrants, Muslims in the U.S. tend to be relatively affluent and well-educated- which is why there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, as everyone knows Muslim terrorism is the result of such root causes as poverty and racism... yeah.

In all seriousness, though, Muslims seem at least nominally integrated into U.S. society, though there are isolated enclaves of them in places like Dearborn, Michicagn, or even Lodi, California as we've recently discovered thanks to the antics of the ice cream jihadists.

While America was the originator and incubator of the multi-culturalist disease, it has largely been spared its worst effects. France, thanks to its strong (often crossing the line into absurdly arrogant) sense of national pride and identity, has also escaped relatively unscathed, though when it comes to the non-racialist aspects of identity politics it too has succumb (as seen in a recent law requiring 50% of its elected parlamentarians to be women). Britain, unfortunately, has caught the disease bad. And let's not even get started on Canada, where the proud eschewal of a cohesive national identity is the new national identity.

I credit the relative robustness of the American body politic with the fact that America has a long history of assimilating immigrants, and that its people are still unabashedly patriotic. But more important is its strong tradition of political populism, as seen in all its talk radio programs, political blogs, and grass-roots lobbying organizations. Americans do not defer to their political elites, and will quickly un-elect politicians and judges who get out of line.

Europe's biggest problem is its lack of such a populist tradition, and the neo-feudal deferral shown by its people to their political and cultural "superiors". For example, in almost every European country at least 40% of the people support the death penalty but it is now abolished across the continent and will never come back, thanks to a shared elite consensus regarding the issue. The same goes for multi-culturalism- the questioning of which is the new taboo. Let's hope constructive avenues develop for Europe's people to protest this corrupt collusion at the top without crossing over into its own sort of extremism.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at July 19, 2005 1:58 AM

Europe is still mired in class based society and intellectual feudalism... Europe is just like a US College campus of 350 million... Leftist kooks on the faculty, and hapless students forced to attend their lectures... The leadership and intellectual elites are completely divorced from the masses, and this allows fantasist policies such as the immigration of 25,000,000 Muslim into the heart of secular Europe. When the witches brew of Islamic psuedo socialism meets post modern there-is-no-opjective-truth secular socialism -- we see the result. Terrorist are 'misguided lads' -- terrorism is a hegemonic construct whose true cause is defined by capitalist repression and exploitation, and all such similar snookery...

But the terrorists that attacked America were nurtured in the European heartland. They feasted on EU anti Americanism and shared a yearning with their European hosts for the undermining and dismantlement of Western (American) sovereignty...

I think for the time being, Muslims largely feel appeased in the US, but clearly they incubate the same seditious virus their EU counterparts are infected with, but they haven't yet achieved critical mass. Does anyone doubt the likelihood of the exact same modus we saw in the 7/7 attack will happen in America? No sane person would predict 'it can't happen here...'

This is one reason I think it's so important to begin warning Muslims about what kind of fire they're playing with... They must be MADE to understand that it isn't our job to spill our precious blood, spend our precious treasure, and hinder our precious freedoms in order fix their heinous religion, or continue to accommodate them on our soil.

Posted by: jsla at July 19, 2005 3:29 AM

Mark Steyn on the same subject:

A victory for multiculti over common sense
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 19/07/2005)

It has been sobering this past week watching some of my "woollier" colleagues (in Vicki Woods's self-designation) gradually awake to the realisation that the real suicide bomb is "multiculturalism". Its remorseless tick-tock, suddenly louder than the ethnic drumming at an anti-globalisation demo, drove poor old Boris Johnson into rampaging around this page last Thursday like some demented late-night karaoke one-man Fiddler on the Roof, stamping his feet and bellowing, "Tradition! Tradition!" Boris's plea for more Britishness was heartfelt and valiant, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it. The London bombers were, to the naked eye, assimilated - they ate fish 'n' chips, played cricket, sported appalling leisurewear. They'd adopted so many trees we couldn't see they lacked the big overarching forest - the essence of identity, of allegiance. As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is.

So, if Islamist extremism is the genie you're trying to put back in the bottle, it doesn't help to have smashed the bottle. As the death of the Eurofanatic Ted Heath reminds us, in modern Britain even a "conservative" prime minister thinks nothing of obliterating ancient counties and imposing on the populace fantasy jurisdictions - "Avon", "Clwyd" and (my personal favourite in its evocative neo-Stalinism) "Central Region" - and an alien regulatory regime imported from the failed polities of Europe. The 7/7 murderers are described as "Yorkshiremen", but, of course, there is no Yorkshire: Ted abolished that, too.

Sir Edward's successor, Mr Blair, said on the day of the bombing that terrorists would not be allowed to "change our country or our way of life". Of course not. That's his job - from hunting to Europeanisation. Could you reliably say what aspects of "our way of life" Britain's ruling class, whether pseudo-Labour like Mr Blair or pseudo-Conservative like Sir Ted, wish to preserve? The Notting Hill Carnival? Not enough, alas.

Consider the Bishop of Lichfield, who at Evensong, on the night of the bombings, was at pains to assure his congregants: "Just as the IRA has nothing to do with Christianity, so this kind of terror has nothing to do with any of the world faiths." It's not so much the explicit fatuousness of the assertion so much as the broader message it conveys: we're the defeatist wimps; bomb us and we'll apologise to you. That's why in Britain the Anglican Church is in a death-spiral and Islam is the fastest-growing religion. There's no market for a faith that has no faith in itself. And as the Church goes so goes the state: why introduce identity cards for a nation with no identity?

It was the Prime Minister's wife, you'll recall, who last year won a famous court victory for Shabina Begum, as a result of which schools across the land must now permit students to wear the full "jilbab" - ie, Muslim garb that covers the entire body except the eyes and hands. Ms Booth hailed this as "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry". It seems almost too banal to observe that such an extreme preservation of Miss Begum's Muslim identity must perforce be at the expense of any British identity. Nor, incidentally, is Miss Begum "preserving" any identity: she's of Bangladeshi origin, and her adolescent adoption of the jilbab is a symbol of the Arabisation of South Asian (and African and European) Islam that's at the root of so many problems. It's no more part of her inherited identity than my five-year- old dressing up in his head-to-toe Darth Vader costume, to which at a casual glance it's not dissimilar.

Is it "bigoted" to argue that the jilbab is a barrier to acquiring the common culture necessary to any functioning society? Is it "prejudiced" to suggest that in Britain a Muslim woman ought to reach the same sartorial compromise as, say, a female doctor in Bahrain? Apparently so, according to Cherie Booth.

One of the striking features of the post-9/11 world is the minimal degree of separation between the so-called "extremists" and the establishment: Princess Haifa, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, gives $130,000 to accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists; the head of the group that certifies Muslim chaplains for the US military turns out to be a bagman for terrorists; one of the London bombers gets given a tour of the House of Commons by a Labour MP. The Guardian hires as a "trainee journalist" a member of Hizb ut Tahir, "Britain's most radical Islamic group" (as his own newspaper described them) and in his first column post-7/7 he mocks the idea that anyone could be "shocked" at a group of Yorkshiremen blowing up London: "Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks" - or the bus blows, or the Tube vaporises. Fellow Guardian employee David Foulkes, who was killed in the Edgware Road blast, would no doubt be heartened to know he'd died for the cause of Muslim "sassiness".

But among all these many examples of the multiculti mainstream ushering the extremists from the dark fringe to the centre of western life, there is surely no more emblematic example than that of Shabina Begum, whose victory over the school dress code was achieved with the professional support of both the wife of the Prime Minister who pledges to defend "our way of life" and of Hizb ut Tahir, a group which (according to the German Interior Minister) "supports violence as a means to realise political goals" such as a worldwide caliphate and (according to the BBC) "urges Muslims to kill Jewish people". What does an "extremist" have to do to be too extreme for Cherie Booth or the Guardian?

Oh, well. Back to business as usual. In yesterday's Independent, Dave Brown had a cartoon showing Bush and Blair as terrorists boarding the Tube to Baghdad. Ha-ha. The other day in Thailand, where 800 folks have been killed by Islamists since the start of the year, two Laotian farm workers were beheaded. I suppose that's Bush and Blair's fault, too.

I'd like to think my "woolly liberal" colleague Vicki Woods and the woolly sorta-conservative Boris Johnson represent the majority. If they do, you've got a sporting chance. But in the end Cherie Booth and Dave Brown and the Bishop of Lichfield will get you killed. Best of British, old thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/19/do1902.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/19/ixportal.html

Posted by: Sebastien at July 19, 2005 8:13 AM

I'm not sure I buy multiculturalism as the problem here, when so many immigrants have integrated well in the west over years gone by, Muslims included. I think there has been a very conscious movement within those immigrant societies to remain segregated, ...resist integration. True that the continental European practice of bringing in guest workers has contributed to the "two solitudes", but how many of the Islamist-friendly immigrants of the last couple of decades have moved to the west because their own countries are hostile toward them and the social benefits are soooo attractive to people who want to sit in mosques all day and study Koran? And, so far as I know the guest worker model doesn't apply to the UK, Canada or the US.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 19, 2005 9:20 AM

It is a singularly Muslim problem.

Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Chinese, African Christian and Caribbean immigrants integrate well and contribute to British society.

The one blot on the landscape is the Islamic community - in unemployment, female oppression, prison incarceration, crime figures, welfare dependancy, public housing dependancy, low academic achievment - in every social factor Muslims are at the bottom of the ladder.

But, apparently, it is their duty to convert Britain to Islaam, the One True Faith.

On the one hand freedom, art, music, beauty, life....on the other psychosis, violence and failure.

Multiculturalism as a lived experience is fine - as a state policy or ideology it allows fascism in the shape of Islamism to fester and grow and exploit our society - and we saw the result of that on 7/7.

Nevertheless, I cannot stress this enough - the success of immigrant groups, especially Sikhs and Hindus, shows that Britain is a tolerant and fair society, and demonstrates unequivocally that blame for Muslim failure - and Muslim hatred, violence, bigotry and intolerance lies squarely with Muslims themselves.

All the rest of it is true - this wretched political correctness and cultural relativism in the guise of an ideology of multiculturalism has been a significant factor in the rise of the terrorists and rhetoric of hate we constantly hear from Muslims in Britain.

Now our ruling ideology should be simple and clear:

Zero Tolerance for Fascism

Posted by: Zico at July 19, 2005 9:40 AM

Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why ditch multiculturalism? Why not just get rid of Islam? Why not stop Muslim immigrants, instead of all immigrants?

What other group of immigrants does what Islam does? Are there any problems in England, France, Holland, America, etc. with anyone EXCEPT Muslims doing these things (supporting terror, enslaving their wives/daughters, murdering people that question them, etc)?

Multiculturalism is great. Jews, Hindus, Chinese, Christian Arabs, Veitnamese, Philippinos, Nigerians, Haitians, etc. go all over the world and peacefully settle, blend in, quietly build and attend their places of worship, work hard, send all their kids to college, respectfully tolerate other religions, don't seek out converts, don't demand the murder of homosexuals, don't apologize for terrorists all over the world, don't stand on corners calling for the death of America, don't hold rallies and scream "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," don't raise money for "charities" that fund terrorism, they don't encourage their sons to marry "the other" for dubious reasons, don't forbid their daughters from marrying out, etc. etc.

I never cease to be amazed that my fellow liberals would WELCOME--in the name of diversity and tolerance, no less--the LEAST tolerant, the LEAST diversity-embracing cult in the history of the world.

KJ

rollinsfan021361@yahoo.com

Posted by: kj at July 19, 2005 9:52 AM

I am so sick of this ****.

I woud like to add some small, insignificant data.
They have awaken me, and they for sure made me stronger.

Who?
Teoretics of "american imperialism"
"Islam is peace" fanatics,
Impotence of our leaders.
Leftist propaganda machine.
Faceless buerocrats.
Ignorant public.

And soud of bombs going up in Europe.

Tell me, am I the only European willing to survive?

Posted by: RAGE at July 19, 2005 11:59 AM

KJ-

There is a confusion of terminology here. What you call multi-culturalism is really just old-fashioned assimilation. Multi-culturalism, on the other hand, is an ideology which demands the host country continually bend to the demands of its immigrants, no matter how backward or oppressive their native customs are. Multi-culturalism is in fact an ideology born of Western self-hatred, because it not only demands that non-Western cultures be preserved from Western influence within their own homelands, but also that they be preserved and subsidized when they are exported here in the form of immigrants. Multi-culturalism thus tries to protect every culture except its own.

One thing to note, though, is that terrorism is probably not the major long-term threat. By actively encouraging immigrants to retain their old customs and identities (and thus loyalties), multi-culturalism eventually fragments society enough to where it cannot defend itself from attack. Does anyone still remember the lead-up to the Afghanistan war, and how American Muslims, after expressing at best luke-warm sympathy for the victims, went on to say that we shold not punish the innocents in Afghanistan in retaliation? Now imagine if there were twice as many Muslims in our country, so that politicians had to seek their vote. How would our country every defend itself from jihadist attack?

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at July 19, 2005 12:01 PM

We must revert this trend.
We must revert it.
WE MUST.

And if we shall not be able to do that, we must exclude ourselves from this cancerous, dying body of Eurabia without a moment of regret. Form enclaves, throw of chains of multiculturalistic pathetic lies and liberalistic dogmas. Start anew. Or die trying.

Posted by: RAGE at July 19, 2005 12:30 PM

I never cease to be amazed that my fellow liberals would WELCOME--in the name of diversity and tolerance, no less--the LEAST tolerant, the LEAST diversity-embracing cult in the history of the world.

KJ

rollinsfan021361@yahoo.com

Posted by: kj at July 19, 2005 09:52 AM

Thanks, KJ. You get it. Too bad the self-proclaimed KingTolerance doesn't.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 19, 2005 12:40 PM

Zico wrote...The one blot on the landscape is the Islamic community - in unemployment, female oppression, prison incarceration, crime figures, welfare dependancy, public housing dependancy, low academic achievment - in every social factor Muslims are at the bottom of the ladder.

All of these are part of the strategy to stress and strain the infidel coffers. When it was discovered by the first Muslim immigrants, word spread like wildfire. The cupboard was unlocked and they all came to feast. The lazy ones work the benefits, the smart ones are busy infiltrating ALL of the infrastructure of your society.

Posted by: reset at July 19, 2005 1:06 PM

Zico is correct: this is a peculiarly Islamic problem.

kj's rhetorical question: "Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why ditch multiculturalism? Why not just get rid of Islam? Why not stop Muslim immigrants, instead of all immigrants?"

The answer is that the Ism of Multiculturalism cannot separate Islam from the modern liberal imperative to accept and promote the positive coexistence of multi-cultures.

Therefore, we need to ditch MulticulturalISM, which is an irrational ideology, and think outside the box of Isms. We don't need an Ism of many cultures to preserve our ongoing process of embracing the rainbow of different cultures -- particularly when that Ism is infected with the irrationality of insisting that the intolerantly anti-liberal system of Islam be included.

Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 3:24 PM

Metaxy, you didn't answer my question: why get rid of multiculture; why not just get rid of Islam?

Why does Sweden, America, Canada, England, etc. "need" Islam? We know why Muslims "need" to immigrate: so they can make a lot of money, raise money for the jihad, and spread Islam. But what do "we" get out of it?

It has been said many times here at this comments page that EVERYone else (Vietnamese, Hindu, Nigerian, Haitian, Mexican, etc.) moves to Western, "First-World" nations and gets along fine. They bring their ideas, hard work ethic, delicious foodstuffs, quirky-yet-mostly-harmless religious ideas, etc. and enrich our culture. It may help to recall the only option prior to the introduction of "multiculturalism", and that was "White, Christian, Anglo-Saxon Protestant supremacy." No doubt many of you GOPers would like to see a return to this culture, but I bet you would miss all the Italian, Chinese, and Mexican food.

Hindus are great people, as are Jews, Buddhists, Sihks, Jains, Parsis, etc. etc. Only one group seems to have trouble "assimilating."

And to be fair, many Muslims also do well, especially in America. I know that Muslims make up a sizable portion of welfare lazies and prisoners in Europe (70% of the prison population of France, e.g.) but that isn't the case in America. Most Muslims (real Muslims, not Nation of Islam wanna-bes) I have met in America have an intense interest in Medicine, Engineering, Science, etc. In other words, they want to make MONEY.

Of course they still pretend to be "sooo oppressed" and still raise money for jihad-oriented charities, and still revise history to suit their proseltyzing efforts.

I used to argue with the young jihadis at the campus Dawa Booth back at USF... I know all of their lies, spins, taqqiyas, and kitmans.

So I really know how to get their goat... one good way is to say "The West is the best because in the West one may do as they wish: you can be a Muslim, an atheist, or anything in between." Naturally they fire back with "But OUR way is best because it leads to a better, religion-centered society." So then I'd ask them "If that's so, then why did you or your parents LEAVE your Muslim country and come HERE? And why are people all over the world of every race, creed, color, tint, and hue all trying to get to the West instead of the other way around?" LOL. That usually stumped them. But some of them would fire back with "The Muslim nations are messed up because of the LEADERS of the Muslim nation. They aren’t leading according to Muslim principles."

I.e., they aren't Muslim ENOUGH. It's true: the most radical Muslims in the world, the Wahhabis of southern Saudi Arabia, are in danger of being overthrown and replaced with... a MORE fundamentalist flavor of Islam! And Pakistan? Let's just say I hope that "Freedom's On The March" isn't marching toward Pakistan. And just see the result of the elections in Iran, and now comes the news that Christians may not be safe in Iraq after the “Constitution” is “voted in.” My, my. Who would have predicted that? (Answer: any non-partisan.)

Well that's my two-cents' worth.

KJ

rollinsfan021361@yahoo.com

Remember, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, and Hindus are NOT clamouring to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or any other Muslim theocratic hellhole. That should settle the arguement as to "who has the superior culture?"

Posted by: kj at July 19, 2005 4:26 PM

"sorry about that. The first post I thought I had lost and had to rewrite."

Apology accepted.

Posted by: ia786 at July 19, 2005 6:08 PM

kj,

"Metaxy, you didn't answer my question: why get rid of multiculture; why not just get rid of Islam?"

I did answer your question. I said we need to get rid of the Ism of Multiculturalism which is irrationally connected to defending Islam. We can get rid of Multiculturalism, yet still retain the positive values of a multicultural society.

Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 6:29 PM

Islam spreads by instilling fear in non-believers who become too frightened to resist it for fear of retribution--which, of course, is not an imaginary fear. However, Muslims can also be made subject to fear, and this is a weapon which the West has failed to use. It is of interest that at the time of the London bombings, some of the Muslims interviewed by the BBC--a jihadist apologist news source--lamented the fact not that innocent people had been killed, which was of no concern to them, but rather the fact that "even" Muslims were subject to terror, that a Muslim was no safer in London than a Briton or an Israeli. One Muslim from Egypt sent in an e-mail of regret that the bombing would poison relations between Christians and Muslims. These comments reflect not only the callous indifference to the death of non-Muslims--which is obvious from the murder sprees that emanate from Muslim hands everywhere from Bali to Baghdad--but also the fact that Muslims actually do harbor fear, not only from their own home-grown terrorists, but from the reaction of non-Muslims who say that enough is enough. This is an important breach in the wall of their seemingly impervious indifference to the thoughts and feelings of non-Muslims. It is a breach that needs to be exploited and widened until the wall of Islam collapses, at least within the West, where it is otherwise ever growing stronger.

How is that to be accomplished? It could require the collaboration of governmental security services and organized crime to achieve the planned destruction of Islamic houses of worship in the West, targeted killings of Muslim advocates of jihad in the West, and intimidation of individual Muslims. Perhaps selective spread of pathogens to Muslims through their halal food sources. This would all have to be accomplished in the context of a firm clamping down to the vanishing point on the number of Muslims allowed to enter Western countries (which among other things would require that Turkey never become a part of the European Union; otherwise the inundation of the only stronghold of the West in the Old World, however lax this stronghold may be, by the Muslim hordes gaining entry through Turkey would be inevitable and irreversible--which in many ways it already is even without Turkey). But as horrible as it all sounds, the response to the visceral fear that Islam has introduced among the infidels can only be met with retaliation in kind. Certainly the CIA is not above collaboration with organized crime to achieve ends essential to national security, a collaboration that has extended back for decades in the heroin trade. At this point in history, the services of organized crime could be quite useful. The point is not to promote wanton terror on the part of the non-Muslim world, but to use terror for a specific end: that of intimidating Muslims from seeking entry to the West and that of encouraging Muslims already living here to leave. Because ultimately Islam, which offers nothing of interest to anyone with a functioning mind, is able to spread and establish itself only by virtue of a superior birth rate. It is the product of Muhammad's schizophrenic paranoiac mind, and as such, must be fought in terms that schizophrenia understands, which is counter-terror.

Posted by: Brad at July 19, 2005 8:08 PM

I think the problem is that the government doesn't discriminate in what kind of immigrants it wants.

It says that all immigrants are equally ok, they're not.

The non-muslim countries produce really good immigrants, the muslim countries don't.

We have to learn to be discriminating in who we let in.

Western countries are like magnets: do you want to attract the best you can get, or let in the garbage?

Multiculturism SHOULD be a good thing: muslims just ruin it for everyone.

Posted by: Voltaire at July 19, 2005 9:00 PM

KJ: "I never cease to be amazed that my fellow liberals would WELCOME--in the name of diversity and tolerance, no less--the LEAST tolerant, the LEAST diversity-embracing cult in the history of the world."

King: Most self-proclaimed "liberals" have evolved past the simplistic, broad catagorization that you seem to subscribe to so no, you're not much of a fellow liberal.

Radical Islamists are to blame here, not Islam and not all Muslims.

Waterlilly: "Too bad the self-proclaimed KingTolerance doesn't [get it.]"

King: Oh, I "get" it alright, and that's why I take issue with you and your redundant, solutionless, tiresome, rhetoric. While I do embrace diversity, I also reject radicalism of all sorts, Islamic radicalism included. I can see the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a Muslim who has chosen a radical, violent path. I "get" that radicalism is man-made. I "get" that Muslims can, have and do exist peacefully in many societies. I "get" that radicalism is fueld by corruption, oppression & frustration. I "get" that the world has already made the mistake of condemning an entire religion for the problems du juor. Being a Jew, I'd think you would be more sensitive to this. Alas, this I do not "get", Waterlilly, descendant of Polish Jews. You have managed to convince yoourself that 100% of a religion and its followers are out to conquer the world, convert us all and take over. Not only is this radical thinking in its own right, its a slap in the face to the millions of Jews who fell victim to wholesale extermination based purely on their religion.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 19, 2005 9:37 PM

Multiculturalism is not what many people think it is. Multiculturalism, a doctrine designed by elitist social engineers, is the view that all cultures are equal in value. It's purpose is to obliterate the merits of free, industrialized cultures by asserting that they are no better than primitive, undeveloped cultures. The doctrine and proponents of muliculturalism seek to obliterate moral values and judgments, incapacitating people's ability to distinguish good from evil.

Multiculturalism is moral relativism. There is no absolute truth, no absolute evil. Truth is culturally based. If primitive tribalism works for some people, it is therefore a valid and equal system. Multiculturalism encourages immigrants not to assimilate. Multiculturalists brand our culture as white, Western, Christian and heterosexual and they claim that our schools force this perspective on students. According to the set of standards recently offered by the National Center for History in the Schools, the U.S. is not part of Western civilization, but is based on three cultures---Native American, African-American and European. The European contribution was oppression, injustice, gender bias and rape of the natural world.

Multiculturalists demand that we renounce our beliefs in moral absolutes and become moral relativists, because paramount is their certitude that no truth transcends culture, and that no idea or moral concept is true for every cultural group. Tolerance is the only absolute. Multiculturalism and diversity are not synonymous, but they are related. Diversity quotas in universities are just the first step toward creating dozens of empowered minority groups whose goal is to overwhelm and replace the existing, indigenous culture. If these deranged elites have their way, instead of a melting pot, America will become a sprawling nation of separate, distinct cultures, sub-cultures, ethnicities, languages, and minority groups that will demand recognition and the ability to spread their views, establishing tolerance as an absolute. In other words, unmitigated chaos in the name of eliminating racism and bias.

The multiculturalists are rewriting history, attempting to legally enforce politically correct speech, and get hate speech laws enacted. Under an official doctrine of multiculturalism, the concepts of family and personal responsibility could be construed as hate speech against welfare recipients.

The theory among the intelligentsia and social engineering elites is that by establishing multiculturalism everywhere, they will destroy what they consider mankind's two biggest enemies---religion and nationalism. Religion and patriotism are what cause wars, or so they believe. Their hideous experiment is a recipe for unthinkable disaster, as we are already witnessing.

Posted by: Susanp at July 19, 2005 9:47 PM

King Tolerance wrote: "Radical Islamists are to blame here, not Islam and not all Muslims."

The word "radical" literally means "going back to the roots". Yes, the violent Jihadists are going back to the roots of Islam and, as Spencer keeps pointing out indefatigably, the moderate Muslims have yet to cogently refute the authentic fundamentalism of the violent Jihadists. Perhaps that is, as Spencer speculates, that the moderate Muslims know they haven't a canonical leg to stand on and that, ultimately, they haven't faced the implication of getting along in the modern secular world -- namely, that the Islam they continue to revere needs to be brought out of the medieval time capsule in which it is being protected from the beneficial effects of oxygen, air and sunlight which will erode and transform Islam in ways they irrationally fear.

The moderate Muslims are trying to have their couscous and eat it too, and the "radicals" among them are calling them on it, but the moderates refuse to overhaul Islam through a Reformation that will once and for all eject all the radicals in the only way possible: by ejecting a significant part of the actual roots of Islam.

Christianity already went through a long and painful process of doing that (and that painful yet productive and astonishing process continues). Islam needs to catch up.

In the meantime, of course, the West doesn't have the luxury of waiting around for Islam to go through a Reformation & Enlightenment in order for the explosions and beheadings and stonings and whippings and honor killings to stop, and the West will do what it has to, to defend itself.

Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 9:51 PM

That's right susanp -- as I've been saying, Multiculturalism is an ISM, ISM, ISM.

It has nothing to do with the virtue of a multicultural society. In fact, it is an ideology, ironically homegrown in the West, masking a morbid condemnation for the West and has little to offer in place of the West except -- for a brief sunny period in the 20th century -- a mass-murdering Communism, until that collapsed.

Now it notices on the horizon a pure and perfect revolutionary Islam and wonders if perhaps we would not all be more pure and just and utopian if Islam ruled the world and deposed the evil, corrupt West.

Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 11:09 PM

metaxy, diocletian, reset, susanp, ya'll have it right as far as I can tell, and I enjoy reading your posts.
Someone wanted to know about groups other than muslims in the USA. We do have a great problem with illegal aliens (wetbacks) from Mexico, and, increasingly, Central America. The illegals form their own communities, blending in with the indiginous hispanics on the fringes. In Texas, we recently passed a law that requires proof of a social security number to get a driver's license (about time, I said). I had mine renewed two weeks ago. The wait at my location was an hour and a half, and most of the people were white or black. This is a great change from a few years ago, when two-thirds or three-fourths of the applicants were obviously illegal.
A federal judge in Dallas made a big splash during the Clinton years, because the oath of citizenship was administered in Spanish. Of course, it is a requirement of citizenship for the applicant to be able to read, write and speak the English language.
The multiculturalists managed to intimidate real Americans with a lot of victims-are-special crap some thirty or forty years ago and we (along with some other southern and southwestern states) have to print our BALLOTS in Spanish and English. The liberals want illegal aliens to have the right to vote, and in many states they do because it is so easy to register. Clinton pushed the motor-voter legislation, so when you get your driver's license you are asked to register to vote. (That loophole may have been closed in some states like Texas because of the social security card requirement, but Oregon, for example does ALL registration by mail--easy to cheat).

In Houston, the only remaining downtown hospital, St. Joseph's, is closing because of the pressure of emergency and obstetric medicine for illegals. They avoid the county hospital where some 80 percent of the babies are hispanic. Medical care for illegals is breaking local budgets, and politicians are having to raise property taxes to pay for them.
But the "immigrants" do not want to assimilate. Their loyalty is to Mexico (which recently published a short handbook on how to cross the Rio Grande, where to go, how to get free services in the United States, etc.) or to Guatamala, or El Salvador, or whatever. Mexico is encouraging the illegals here to vote in Mexican elections, and they recognize dual citizenship so that even "converts" can vote "back home" also.

The courts are full of them. Our municipal courts used to smell like a latrine because of all the dirty kids that pee-peed while mama was waiting for her traffic ticket to be called. Now, the defendants have learned to just not show up for Court. The warrant gets issued, but there isn't a chance in hell it will be served, because the illegals move so frequently, and they hide each other. If you have a traffic accident with an illegal alien, which is very common as so many have never driven until they arrive here, your uninsured motorist coverage will pay for the damage and injuries they cause up to the usual policy limit of $20,000 which is theoretically collectible by the insurance company in a civil suit against the illegal and negligent driver. But, ha ha, they just move. The constitutional right to due process (that is, notice and the right to be hears) mean that they are never taken to court.
In family court, the county governments have to pay for translators, and I have seen entire trials conducted in Spanish because neither the husband nor the wife were citizens or even legal resident aliens. (One local judge got so disgusted at that one morning that he cursed, threw down a law book on the bench, and walked out of the courtroom.)
In criminal court, it's about the same. And the local police are under an AMNESTY order to avoid reporting the ilegal to immigration authorities (in fact, in most cities, the police cannot even ask about a person's immigration status).
The jails are full of illegal immigrants, who form gangs. When I served on the Grand Jury, I had an opportunity to tour the jail, and studied the book that had been produced to identify the various gang memberships by their distinctive tatoos.
Mexico does not have the death penalty. Texas does. If a Mexican national commits mass murder in Texas and flees back across the border to Mexico, he's home free. Mexico will not send him back to Texas because of the possible death penalty.

Our schools educate lots of illegal immigrants, (or the kds of illegals) and the authorities cannot ask about citizenship status because that would have a "chilling effect" on the parents and result in the non-enrollment of the children. Of course, the children are entitled to be taught in Spanish. State wide test scores are constantly being pressed downward by the influx of illegal alien children, and there is a constant pressure to dumb-down the tests so that individual schools or districts don't appear to be doing worse year-to-year.

All of these protections were not available to earlier immigrants. My own ancestors came from central Europe. They all fled from religious persecution or economic stagnation or discrimination of one sort or another. My grandfather came over at the age of 13. He spoke no English. He worked on a farm and saved enough money to hire an interpreter to accompany him to classes at the little teachers college. He earned a degree, and later went on to earn a masters in psychology. He assimilated. Sent two sons off to World War II. Just like the Italian families, and the Polish families, and the Irish families, and the Jewish families, and the Scots and Swedes and the others. After a while you could barely tell them all apart. They spoke the same language, dressed the same. Started to eat the same foods and enjoy the same sports, and songs, and films, and jobs. If they went to church, and most did (until everyone became equal and standards disappeared), that was their own business.

Today, we have multiculturalism. This grew out of the civil rights movement, but perverted the ideals. We kept hearing that everybody was equal. OK. And if they weren't exactly equal, it must be our fault. Blacks, yes. It was wrong to segregate them. So, as a nation, we declared war on poverty. We gave special benefits. What a deal. Soon, everybody wanted a cut. Women, OK. My mother became a lawyer, and had to win lots of battles just to get licensed.

Handicapped? Sure. They needed some breaks. Hispanics? They need some bi-lingual education. Vietnamese. OK. We ruined their country. They fled on boats. Black pride. Who's gonna argue with that? Maybe we should have some black studies. Maybe do away with that course on Western Civilization. Let's study other cultures. Get sensitive. Must not offend. Corporations!! Train your employees not to talk about sex in the workplace, or watch out! We might get sued. And better not say anything about skin color, or religion. We might lose our government contracts AND get sued. Affirmative action. Gotta hire her, or him, or it, or them. Queer? No!! It's GAY!! No way. And she was a guy just last week!

Twenty five years ago, you could look in the law book index and there it was, the word BASTARDS. A whole body of law dealing with bastards. Not any more. That is insensitive. Implies a moral judgment. So it was changed. It was changed to ILLEGITIMATE. That lasted a few years. Still too insensitive. Now it's CHILDREN WITHOUT A PRESUMED FATHER. Great! Like they just popped out. If no daddy, then mama gets welfare. Federal Government pays the states back, but says you have to have a judicial system to find the fathers and make them pay. Father pays 20% of net income for one child. 25% for two, 30% for three, and 35% for four or more. Smart mama, she's not gonna marry and have three kids from the same man. Smart mama gonna have three kids from three different men. Gets 60% of average income, not 30%. It's the equivalent of portfolio diversification.

So, everybody's equal. All cultures are equal. We tolerate all cultures. Great. Does that mean we have to (or should)look the other way when the Nigerians (and others) circumsize their daughters, cut out the clitoris. Mother sometimes holds the girl down while daddy does the surgery. Right here in Texas. Or do we have to shut up when the muslims engage in honor killing? Or are we allowed to protest when the Indian tries to renegotiate the contract he signed yesterday? Can't we expect Iranians to use deodorant? In which cultures is it considered OK to ask after a man's wife but not to belch at the table, and vice versa. Isn't culture more than folk dances and bright costumes? Do we have to honor the tribal chief when he gets on the bus? If the new immigrant wants to spank (or fondle) our child, do we explain that Daddy has to let the nice man do that because that is what he is accustomed to doing? Does that mean that the guy from Sudan can keep a slave?

Moral relativism. Damn right, that's what it is. No standards. No absolutes. ABOVE ALL DO NOT BE JUDGMENTAL. Ask a multiculturalist if he is tolerant of all cultures. Then ask if he is tolerant of the Klu Klux Klan. Or slavery. Or NAZI's. Or fundamental Christians. (Oh, the Amish are OK.)

No, multiculturalism has turned tolerance into an embrace. We do not tolerate (put up with until the other guy can come around to our point of view). We have to make special provisions and avoid ANYTHING THAT MIGHT OFFEND. Feelings have become more important than facts. Reality does not exist. Who are you to judge?

Posted by: texan at July 20, 2005 1:05 AM

SusanP: "Multiculturalism, a doctrine designed by elitist social engineers, is the view that all cultures are equal in value."

King: This, and the rest of your soliloquy is a twisted view tailored to suit your needs. Multiculturalism focuses on human beings, and that all human beings are equal in value regardless of their colors, creeds, religions, etc. In today's world, cultures are free to mix, blend and migrate for various reasons. This does bring its challenges but also brings its rewards. Indeed, radical Islamists reject multiculturalism as do you. Pot - Kettle - Black.

Metaxy: "The word "radical" literally means "going back to the roots"."

King: Wrong! Another tailored definition brought to you by a "Dhimmiwatcher." And since you are wrong, these rest of your post is fluff whipped up to support your straw man argument which has been steeped in racist, bigoted rhetoric.

Radical means the following, all from Google's dictionary search (define: XXXXX):

1. the political orientation of those who favor revolutionary change in government and society

2. the label "radical" denotes "one who desires extreme change of all or part of the social order". (Britannica Deluxe CD2000)

3. a philosophy of education in which the purpose of education is to bring about social, political and economic change

4. Far beyond the norm

Radical Islamists are extremists born from the swamp of corruption & oppression, just as Christian radicals were.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 20, 2005 9:07 AM

King:

I have never alleged that 100% of Muslims are dangerous fanatics. If you read what I wrote above, I said a significant portion are. I have said that too many of them remain silent about those who are or make excuses for them.

And it's Kafirlily to you, dickhead.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 20, 2005 9:09 AM

Waterlilly: Between your "significant portion of" rants and your other double-standard, self-serving rhetoric, you have zero slack to make any distinctions.

I am sure your Jewish ancestors are proud that their dear Waterlilly has become good at solving the world's problems by blaming "significant portions" of a religion. Sound like anyone we both know?

In fact, you turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments on this entire website. You ignore history and subscribe to the same poisonous behaviors that fueld the holocaust.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 20, 2005 9:28 AM

kj asks:
"Why does Sweden, America, Canada, England, etc. "need" Islam? We know why Muslims "need" to immigrate: so they can make a lot of money, raise money for the jihad, and spread Islam. But what do "we" get out of it?"

You and I get nothing out of it. Surprise!!

But the politicians who drive the multicultural agenda get lots out of it.

Poll after poll after poll, reveal that the multi-immigrants reward with their vote, the party in power when they were allowed to immigrate.

The ultimate goal of the party in power, is to stay in power (and to reward yourself and your fiends).

Posted by: DhimmiNot at July 20, 2005 10:41 AM

KingFogHornLeghorn:

Funny thing is that the Nazis' current heir apparents -- Ernst Zundel and his followers, the Aryan Nation types, etc., and the people you so gallantly seek to defend find a great deal of common cause, particularly with their wish to annihilate Jews, and give each other a lot of mutual support, as well.

Are you completely unaware of the popularity both Mein Kampf and the Protocols have in Turkey, Egypt and most Middle Eastern countries? If it was only about injustices perpetrated against their fellow Muslims, they would have no need of such garbage in support of their cause.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 20, 2005 10:49 AM

King Tolerance,

From the American Heritage dictionary: "radical" --

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic

2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme.

These first two definitions in a nutshell describe the paradox of the political phenomenon of "radicalism". Radicals always fight against the present state of affairs in order to change the present according to a perceived past ideal.
It is only a recent vulgar and sophomoric understanding of the term "radical" arising out of the image of 60s hippies and protestors etc. that would truncate the inherent complexity of that term. (However, even there, the paradox is alive, when radical "anarchists" agitate in order to have society RETURN to its pre-artificial natural state that they feel has been ruined by technology and political structures.)

In terms of #2, what happens to be the dominant "usual or customary" state of affairs of Islam now in the present does not mean it is authentically practicing its fundamental principles. The Jihadists in fact believe that the dominant state of affairs in Islam now is a bad departure from the authentic founding principles of Islam, and the Jihadists' "extreme" measures are intended to bring Islam back to the root or source, back to the basics.

The main reason that Islam has lost touch with its fervently & militaristically zealous Jihadist roots is because of the astounding geopolitical dominance of the West over the entire globe over the past 400 years, combined with an abysmal stagnancy and corruption of the Islamic world during the same time period partially due to internal causes, partially due to the hegemony of the West.

Posted by: metaxy at July 20, 2005 12:16 PM

Waterlilly: "... the people you so gallantly seek to defend find a great deal of common cause, particularly with their wish to annihilate Jews, and give each other a lot of mutual support, as well..."

King: Really? It seems to me that I have said over, and over, and over, and over again that I loathe, despise and otherwise wish to be rid of radical Islamists as much as you do. I am just able to separate those bad people from the good people. I also see the many reasons that feed into the creation of radicalism and Islam, itself, is only one tiny portion of the reasoning behind it. There are many other reasons that seem to be pushed aside by you and your minions simply because it is easier for you to blame one intangible thing (religion) instead of adressing the other things like corruption, oppression and the injustices that the Arab world seems to see.

I am now convinced that you are either triple dense or just simply not reading my posts and arguing with me nonetheless. Your insistance of me making some comment about Polish Jews was sort of the dressing for me. YOU ARE NOT READING BEFORE YOU SHOOT OFF YOUR MOUTH.

Once again, here is my position:

I blame not all Muslims for radical Islam, rather, I blame the radicals and their interpretations of the Koran. I also recognize the bloody history of Christianity and find the Christian perspective herein hypocritical. I consider the wholesale condemnation of any religion based on the views and actions of a radical minority tantamount to Nazism.

Again, you turned out to be a huge disappointment if you cannot understand where I am coming from. Shame.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 20, 2005 1:15 PM

KingFogHornLegHorn:

Where you are coming from is apparent by both your nickname and your royal proclamation style of writing, so I can't begin tell you just how much your disappointment in me grieves me.

I have frequently raised the issue of corruption and oppression in Arab/Muslim countries and acknowledged how manipulated and abused the general population is by their rulers and clerics.

You, however, overlook entirely that much of the power that those corrupt and oppressive forces wield is drawn quite directly from Islam's holy texts and that when given the chance to vote for political representation, happily vote for fundamentalists, not progressives. 50% of the respondents to the recent Pew poll conducted in a number of Middle Eastern countries indicated that they still think of Osama -- who is only to happy, as Chris Hitchens put it, "kill those who are not Muslim enough... ...or are the wrong kind of Muslim" -- as a hero. And the numbers were highest in relatively progressive and enlightened Jordan.

So, who's the dense one here?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 20, 2005 2:44 PM

Seems like the King ain't so tolerant after all.

The Religion of Peace
Will Kill Some More

Posted by: texan at July 20, 2005 4:56 PM

King:
Individualism focuses on human beings.
Multiculturalism focuses on groups.

Posted by: texan at July 20, 2005 4:59 PM

Thanks for the comments, KT.

Not too unlike you to associate a descendant of Jews with the Holocaust.

You recognize that it's that old "tiny minority" of muslims making all the baddage, but you're open-minded enough to acknowledge the evil of the history of all Christianity. Rightie-o. Pot-Kettle-Black.

Should I expect more?

Imam Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at July 20, 2005 11:48 PM