Multiculturalism | WarSclerotic | Page 6

Archive for the ‘Multiculturalism’ category

Terrorism in The Therapeutic Age

July 21, 2016

Terrorism in The Therapeutic Age, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 21, 2016

therapy

We know what is going to follow the latest terrorist murder in Nice. Shrines to the dead will instantly spring up. Conclaves of citizens will gather at sorrowful demonstrations filled with ecumenical clichés. The media will profile selected victims, wringing every ounce of pathos out of their tragedy. Twitter will be inundated with sentimental bromides and ephemeral hashtags, and politicians will give solemn and empty speeches laced with even emptier threats.

Welcome to terror in a therapeutic age.

What we will not read are passionate demands from most citizens of Western governments that mind-concentrating force be unleashed on those responsible for the latest slaughter of the innocents. Nor will we hear stirring speeches from our political leaders that forcefully make the moral case for war against the murderers and their enablers.

Obsessing over feelings and emotions is what many moderns reflexively substitute for meaningful action. Righteous anger and burning revenge of the sort that fired up Americans after the Pearl Harbor attacks are too “mean” and “hurtful,” and require a serious commitment and exorbitant risk. Displaying emotion is cheap and gratifying and offends no one. Indeed, such displays demonstrate the purveyors’ superior “we are the world” sensibilities and sensitivity. It is “conspicuous compassion,” as Alan Bloom called it, as much a status symbol as Veblen’s conspicuous consumption. It’s how people show themselves to be civilized and advanced, too sophisticated for retrograde emotions like avenging anger. That’s so Old Testament.

In the therapeutic world, conflict is to be resolved by peace, love, and understanding. Or as our Attorney General said after the Orlando jihadist massacre, “Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love.” Thus the institutional instruments for resolving our differences with the jihadists are diplomatic engagement, foreign aid, economic development, negotiated agreements, and careful nurturing of our enemies’ self-esteem. We must flatter them, stroke their egos, attend to their grievances, censor any unpleasant facts about their religion. Pretend, as Obama does, that Islam, the “religion of peace” and has absolutely nothing to do with Muslim terrorism, or what he prefers to call “violent extremists.” Assert, like Hillary, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The problem is, we live in a world of people with radically different ideas about the goods they should pursue, and who don’t give a damn about “peace, love, understanding,” or the opinions of Western infidels about their religion. Whatever their potential is for possessing and recognizing a “common humanity,” in practice this possibility remains mostly unexpressed in their traditional religious tenets. Rather, Muslim jihadists––and hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslims–– limit their compassion, sympathy, and respect for humanity to fellow Muslims, and deny them to the infidel or heretic. That’s why zakat, the personal obligation for Muslims to make charitable contributions, for the most part restricts that charity to other Muslims.

The only “common humanity” pious Muslims recognize is the divine obligation for all humans to become Muslim. Their highest goods are not democracy, prosperity, leisure, and tolerance, but obedience to Allah and his laws. And millions of them view violence in the name of Allah as the divinely justified instrument for creating a world in which “all men say there is no god but Allah.”

Appeals to a “common humanity,” then, are useless as appeasing flattery for dealing with a man who, willing to die and kill in the name of Allah, drives a truck over men, women, and children, killing, mangling, and dismembering them. Flattery only confirms the jihadist’s belief that the infidel West is populated by godless hedonists eager only to enjoy life for one more day, and so are willing to sacrifice their freedom and rights for the short-term pleasures of la dolce vita. They are unworthy of compassion, for they no longer know what is worth dying and killing for. They have forgotten what Lincoln called the “awful arithmetic,” the tragic reality that some people must die today so that more people don’t die later––the gruesome calculus that the Allies followed to defeat fascism, Japanese imperialism, and Nazism.

Over forty years ago, the great Soviet dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel lecture identified this chronic weakness that permeates the West:

The spirit of Munich has by no means retreated into the past; it was not a brief episode. I even venture to say that the spirit of Munich is dominant in the twentieth century. The intimidated civilized world has found nothing to oppose the onslaught of a suddenly resurgent fang-baring barbarism, except concessions and smiles. The spirit of Munich is a disease of the will of prosperous people; it is the daily state of those who have given themselves over to a craving for prosperity in every way, to material well-being as the chief goal of life on earth. Such people––and there are many of them in the world today––choose passivity and retreat, anything if only life to which they are accustomed might go on, anything so as not to have to cross over to rough terrain today, because tomorrow, see, everything will be all right. But it never will! The reckoning for cowardice will only be more cruel. Courage and the power to overcome will be ours only when we dare to make sacrifices.

These comments about the Soviet Union and the West are just as true today about the “fang-baring barbarism” of Islamic jihad. The surreal denial of the nature of the enemy and his religious motivations; the symbolic military gestures that serve public relations and political advantage rather than a strategy for defeating the enemy; the unwillingness to accept the eternal tragic realities of war and instead create suicidal rules of engagement vetted by pettifogging lawyers; and the refusal of citizens to pay the price necessary for destroying the enemy––all reflect the disease that Solzhenitsyn identified.

The problem is one of morale, not ability. We can destroy ISIS. Even the fictional Peter Quinn, from the series Homeland, knows how: put 200,000 troops in a country indefinitely or “bomb Raqqa into a parking lot.” In the real world, Asia Times columnist “Spengler” agrees. Wage total war both against the enemy abroad and against fellow travelers and sympathizers at home.

But don’t hold your breath. The political will for such action does not exist among a significant number of Americans. They would rather feel than act. Meanwhile, they indulge lachrymose sentiment, a luxury of the pampered rich. They call for “diplomacy” and “engagement,” the tried and true camouflage for the fear to act. They prefer to spend money on more and more government provided “butter” rather than on guns, as they move on to the next episode of televised tragedy in between bouts of Pokémon Go.

Meanwhile, the reckoning for our cowardice grows ever closer and ever crueler.

Categories: Cowardice, Empathy, Foreign policy, Homeland Security, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Media, Multiculturalism, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Rules of war
Tags: Cowardice, Empathy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Media, Multiculturalism, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Rules of war

Comments: Be the first to comment

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism?

July 17, 2016

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism? Gatestone Institute, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, July 17, 2016

♦ Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

♦ Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? As usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

♦ “As soon as these people… say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.” — Inspector Leif Fransson, Swedish border police.

♦ Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

Like all other European countries, Sweden is trying to fight against jihadists and terrorists, but it often seems as if the key players in Sweden have no understanding of what the threats are or how to deal with them.

In 2014, for instance, the Swedish government decided to set up a post called the “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism.” But instead of appointing an expert as the national coordinator, the government appointed the former party leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin. Apart from Sahlin having a high school degree, she is mostly known for a corruption scandal. As a party leader of the Social Democrats, she lost the 2010 election, and as a minister in several Socialist governments, she has not managed to distinguish herself in any significant way. Göran Persson, who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006, described Mona Sahlin this way:

“People believe she has a greater political capacity than she has. What comes across her lips is not so remarkable. Her strength is not thinking, but to convey messages.”

With such a background, it was no surprise that she was ineffective as National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism. But the fact that she used her high government agency to help her friends came as a shock to the Swedish public. Sahlin had hired her former bodyguard for a position at her agency and signed a false certificate that he earned $14,000 dollars monthly, so that he could receive financing to purchase a $1.2-million-dollar home.

Sahlin also gave the man’s relative an internship, even though the application had been declined. Before Sahlin resigned in May 2016, she said, “I help many of my friends.”

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Ministry of Justice responsible for issues that would seem far more related to violent extremism, Sweden has, for some reason, placed the agency to combat violent extremism under the Ministry of Culture.

While the U.S sees the fight against Islamic extremism as a security issue, Sweden evidently believes that combating violent extremism should be placed in a ministry responsible for issues such as media, democracy, human rights and national minorities. With such a delegation of responsibility, the government seems either to be trying to hamper efforts to combat violent extremism, or it does not understand the nature of the threat.

The lack of understanding of violent extremism, combined with politicizing the problem, has been evident, for instance, in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the city councilor responsible for safety and security in Malmö, Andreas Schönström, said that European right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than violent Islamism. And on June 5, 2016, Jonas Hult, Malmö’s security manager, wrote: “The right-wing forces in Malmö are the biggest threat.”

With such statements, one would think that perhaps Malmö is a city filled with neo-Nazi gangs. Not so. Malmö is a city that usually ends up in the news because of Islamic anti-Semitism or extremist activists working to destroy Israel. There have been no reports of any neo-Nazi movements in Malmö in the recent past.

When supporters of Pegida (an anti-Islamic migration political movement in Europe) came to Malmö, they had to be protected by the police due to thousands of extremist activists and Muslims protesting the presence of Pegida. Of Malmö’s residents, 43.2% were either born abroad or their parents were.

Further, the Social Democrat politicians have held local municipal power in Malmö since 1919. To say that Malmö is somehow a place where right-wing extremism is a threat is simply not based on facts. Instead of seriously combating violent extremism, many in Sweden have chosen — possibly imagining it easier — to politicize the problem.

Sweden also has not yet reached the point where the authorities distance themselves from violent extremism. The association Kontrakultur (a cultural and social association in Malmö), receives about $37,000 annually from the municipal cultural committee of Malmö. On its website, Kontrakultur writes that it cooperates with an organization called Förbundet Allt åt alla (“The Association Everything for Everyone”). This organization, in turn, according to the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism, consists of violent extremist activists.

The idea that municipal funds should in no way go to organizations that cooperate with violent extremists is something not yet rooted in Sweden. In June 2016, for example, a 46-year-old Islamic State jihadi arrived in Malmö. He was taken into custody by the police for speedy deportation. But when he applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency took over the matter to examine his asylum application, and ordered the deportation stopped. Inspector Leif Fransson of the border police described the situation:

“As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.”

In August 2015, the Swedish government submitted a document to Parliament outlining the Swedish strategy against terrorism. Among other things, the document stated:

“It is important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.”

Under the headline “Gender Perspective” in a committee directive from the Swedish government on the mission of the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism you can observe:

“The violent extremist environments consist mainly of men, and in the extremist movements there are individuals who oppose gender equality and women’s rights. It is therefore important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism, and that norms that interact and contribute to the emergence of violent environments are effectively counteracted.”

Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? But as usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

914

Mona Sahlin, who was Sweden’s “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism,” until she resigned in May amid corruption allegations, is shown posing with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2010. The Swedish government’s directives to her agency stressed that it is “important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism.” (Image source: Social Democratic Party)

There is no evidence that “gender perspective” is relevant or useful in the fight against extremism and terrorism, yet we see that the Swedish government, in several documents related to terrorism and extremism, evidently believes that “gender perspective” is what should be used in the fight against those threats. This gives just some idea of how strenuously Sweden wants to disregard the problem, or even ask experts for help.

One might argue that this is because Sweden has never been exposed to Islamic terrorism or that extremism is not something that concerns the nation. Sweden has, however, had experience in facing Islamic terrorism. On December 11, 2010, a jihadist blew himself up in central Stockholm. Taimour Abdulwahab did not manage to hurt anyone, but Sweden got a taste of Islamic terrorism and has every reason to want to defend itself against more of it.

Islamic extremism is, unfortunately, becoming more widespread, especially in Sweden’s major cities. Gothenburg, for example, has been having major problems with it. In November 2015, there were reports that 40% of the 300 Swedish jihadists in Syria and Iraq came from Gothenburg. The only country that has, per capita, more of its citizens as jihadists in Iraq and Syria than Sweden, is Belgium.

As facts accumulate, there is much information indicating that Sweden has huge problems dealing with Islamic extremism and jihadism. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in the beginning of 2015, published a press release using the words “historic challenge” to describe the threat from violent Islamism. Already in May 2015 the head of Säpo, Anders Thornberg, expressed doubts that the agency could handle the situation if the recruitment of jihadists in Sweden continued or increased.

Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

This general politicization, combined with the failure to prioritize the fight against terrorism and extremism, is the reason Sweden is, and continues to be, a magnet for extremists and terrorists. Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and that there are feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jihadists also know that there are large gaps in the Swedish bureaucracy and legislation that can be exploited. These are the policies that have been created by Swedish politicians. One can therefore only question if Sweden seriously wants to fight the threats of terrorism and extremism.

Categories: "Far right hate groups", Gender perspective, Islam and females, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamist deportations, Islamists, Israel, Jews, Multiculturalism, Sweden
Tags: Gender perspective, Islam and females, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamist deportations, Islamists, Israel, Jews, Multiculturalism, Sweden

Comments: Be the first to comment

Refugee Activists Worry Anti-Rape Laws Will Hurt Muslim Migrants

July 11, 2016

Refugee Activists Worry Anti-Rape Laws Will Hurt Muslim Migrants, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 11, 2016

(Please see also, Germany’s New “No Means No” Rape Law. — DM)

four_lions_menus_3 (1)

This is one of those clarifying moments that show what the left really stands for. The left claims to fight for women. It claims to want gay rights. And yet Muslims come first. They always come first.

After mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, the German Parliament voted Thursday in favor of a stricter sexual-assault law that also could ease deportation rules for refugees convicted of sex-related offenses.

The changes appear aimed at two overlapping targets: closing legal loopholes over sexual assaults amid complaints that German codes are too lax and addressing mounting public backlash after the country absorbed the bulk of the wave of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and beyond last year.

But some lawmakers and activists oppose linking the two issues, claiming it could further stigmatize refugees and others as German public opinion increasingly turns against them.

Further stigmatize them… after the mass rapes that they carried out in which 2,000 men assaulted 1,200 women. This was the sexual assault equivalent of 9/11.

The parliamentary vote came on the same day that a court in Cologne sentenced two men in the New Year’s Eve assaults. Iraqi national Hussein A., 21, and Algerian Hassan T., 26, were handed suspended one-year sentences. They were the first suspects to be convicted over the assaults. Both had arrived in Germany in the past two years, a court spokesman said.

They got off with a slap on the wrist. But let’s not stigmatize them.

Bernward Ostrop, an expert on asylum law at the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas, said Germany’s new sex assault law would most probably not make the country safer and was instead meant to send a message to voters. “We already have very good possibilities to deport persons who have committed crimes,” Ostrop said.

Yes, that would be why Hassan and Hussein got suspended one-year sentences.

Opposition politicians and activists have argued that amending the law to make it easier to deport foreign nationals guilty of sexual offenses could create the impression that foreigners are more likely to commit such crimes, stoking tensions further.

I wonder what could possibly create that impression?

A. The fact that it’s true

B. The fact that it’s true

or

C. The time that 2,000 Muslims sexually assault 1,200 women in one day

Halina Wawzyniak, a lawmaker from the Left Party, said that she was generally in favor of stronger sexual-assault laws but that sex assaults and immigration should not be linked.

Wawzyniak said she feared that the new law could lead to “disproportionate” sanctions for relatively minor offenses by asylum seekers and that they could face a “double punishment” by being deported.

This is the left. Remember that. They pretend to be feminists, but they put Muslim rapists over female victims.

Categories: Germany, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Multiculturalism
Tags: Germany, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Multiculturalism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Anger, Honor and Freedom: What European Muslims’ Attack On Speech Is Really About

June 30, 2016

Anger, Honor and Freedom: What European Muslims’ Attack On Speech Is Really About, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abigail R. Esman, June 30, 2016

1052

Indeed, much of the Muslim violence in Europe is about exactly this: intimidating non-Muslims into a fearful capitulation, where words like “I hate Muslims” and drawings of Mohammed become extinct because the Muslim communities insist that it be so. It is about forcing Westerners to rearrange their lives, their culture, to accommodate the needs and values and culture of Islam. It is about control, and the power over freedom. And it is about creating a culture in which honor is injured by words and restored through violence and terror.

**********************

“Clash of civilizations,” some say. Others call it the “failure of multiculturalism.” Either way, the cultural conflicts between some Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide continue to play out as Western countries struggle to reconcile their own cultures with the demands of a growing Muslim population.

But herein lies the problem: in many ways, the two cultures are ultimately irreconcilable. There is no middle ground. And hence, the conflicts and the tugs-of-war continue.

Over the past two months, the events surrounding controversial Dutch columnist Ebru Umar have encapsulated that “clash” at its core, a salient metaphor for the tensions, particularly in Europe, between the West’s Muslim populations and its own. More, they illuminate the enormity of the problems we still face.

Umar is no stranger to the spotlight, or to the wrath of Dutch Muslims who read her many columns, most of them published in the free newspaper, Metro. For years, the Dutch-born daughter of secular Turkish immigrants has raged against the failure of other Dutch-born children of immigrants, mostly Moroccan, to assimilate into the culture of their birth. She loudly condemns Dutch-Moroccan families for the shockingly high rates of criminality and violence among Dutch-Moroccan boys – as much as 22 times the rate of Dutch native youth – a phenomenon she ascribes to their Islamic upbringing and their parents’ refusal to allow their children to mingle among the Dutch.

But her critiques have earned her no converts. Instead, Dutch-Moroccan youth, whom she calls “Mocros,” have regularly taunted her, both online and in the street.

This past April, however, Umar added a new team of enemies to her portfolio: when, in response to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erodogan’s demand that a German satirist be prosecuted for insulting him on TV, Umar tweeted “f***erdogan,” Dutch Turks turned on her in fury. “How dare you insult our president!” cried these Dutch-born subjects of Holland’s King Willem-Alexander. And while Umar took a brief holiday on the Turkish coast, one such Dutch-Turk turned her in to the police. She was arrested at her vacation home in Kusadasi, and though released the following day, was forbidden to leave the country. The charge: Insulting the Turkish president. It took 17 days before discussions between Holland’s prime minister and Turkish authorities enabled her to return to the Netherlands.

But she could not return home. In her absence, Umar’s home had been burgled and vandalized, the word “whore” scrawled on a stairway wall. Death threats followed her both in Turkey and on her return. When it became clear she could not ever return to the apartment she had lived in for nearly 20 years, she announced on Twitter (Ebru Umar posts constantly on Twitter) that she would be moving out.

Meantime, in Metro and elsewhere, she continued her criticism of Moroccans and, as she herself notes, of Islam overall.

And so it was that on the day Ebru Umar moved out of her apartment in Amsterdam, a group of Dutch-Moroccans in their twenties came to see her off, taunting her with chants: Ebru has to mo-o-ve, nyah nyah.” Though furious, she ignored them – until one of them began to film her loading her belongings into her car. For Umar, being taunted by the very people whose threats had forced her from her home in the first place was bad enough: but this violation of what little privacy remained for her was more than she could take. She grabbed her iPhone and began filming them right back. “Go ahead,” she challenged. “Say it for the camera.”

Scuffles ensued, and soon one of the Moroccans had her iPhone in his hand. The others laughed. Then they ran away. Umar filed a police report and, still smarting, took to Twitter once again: “C**t Moroccans, I hate you,” she posted. “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you and I hate your Muslim brothers and sisters, too. F**k you all.” (It is important to note that, however offensive, the expression “c**t Moroccans” is a common epithet in the Netherlands.)

But, hey – she was angry. Her phone had been snatched from her hand in a brutal, aggressive gesture that left her feeling violated and, vulnerable. She had just been forced to leave her home. She had endured prison, a criminal inquiry, and death threats, all at the hands of the same group on whom she now spewed her fury.

Her words may have been harsh or inappropriate, but they were words. She had not struck her tormenters as they filmed her. She did not call for their demise, or strap a bomb around her waist and visit the local mosques.

She took to Twitter and said: I hate you.

“But hate,” she tells me later in an e-mail, “is just an emotion.” And in a column penned more than two years ago, she observed, “Hate me till you’re purple, but keep your claws off me.”

Here is where Ebru Umar’s story becomes the story of the Western world. In response to her words (“I hate you. F*** you”), several Muslims – Moroccans and others – filed charges against her for hate speech. (Though ironically, “I hate you” does not legally qualify as “hate speech.”) Such words are an attack upon their honor, a humiliation: and if there is one thing experts on Arab and Muslim culture will agree on, it is the significance of humiliation and honor in governing their lives. For this, Dutch Moroccan youth threaten Umar on the streets, and have done so, she says, for years: after all, she insults them.

1664

But in truth, it isn’t just the youth. The broader Muslim community stands by, silent: they do not condemn the youth who taunt her, who rip her telephone from her hands, or post things on the Internet like “We hate you, too – can you please kill yourself?” or “Oh, how I hope she ends up like Theo van Gogh.”

Theo van Gogh, also a controversial columnist, was shot and stabbed to death in 2014 by a radical Dutch-Moroccan Muslim.The commenter wishing her the same fate used the name “IzzedinAlQassam,” the founder of modern Palestinian jihad, and an icon of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

For people like this, it doesn’t matter that Umar – or van Gogh – inflicted no violence, any more than it mattered that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were not violent. It was the insult, the humiliation – to them, to Islam, to Mohammed – that mattered: and an insult, a humiliation, deserves a violent response.

Indeed, much of the Muslim violence in Europe is about exactly this: intimidating non-Muslims into a fearful capitulation, where words like “I hate Muslims” and drawings of Mohammed become extinct because the Muslim communities insist that it be so. It is about forcing Westerners to rearrange their lives, their culture, to accommodate the needs and values and culture of Islam. It is about control, and the power over freedom. And it is about creating a culture in which honor is injured by words and restored through violence and terror.

When Umar says “I hate you,” what she hates, really, isn’t the Moroccans who attacked her or their “Muslim brothers and sisters.” What she hates is this – this effort, this battle over honor and speech and freedom, and this clash between violence and expression, guns and conversation.

“I don’t want Muslims to leave,” she tells me, again by e-mail. “I want them to embrace the Enlightenment, Western society, the Netherlands.” And in turn, she calls on the Dutch to “set rules: no violence in any sense. And stop using culture or religion as an excuse for behavior.”

Ebru Umar’s words. More of us should listen.

Categories: Cultural correctness, Erdogan, Europe, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Holland, Islam - submission, Islamic culture, Islamic honor, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Islamist moral values, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, Turkey
Tags: Cultural correctness, Erdogan, Europe, freedom of speech, Hate speech, Holland, Islam - submission, Islamic culture, Islamic honor, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Islamist moral values, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

Humor? | Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need.

June 28, 2016

Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need. Dan Miller’s Blog, June 28, 2016

(I marked the post as “Humor?” but it comes very close to reflecting Obama’s world view. The opinions implicit in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

This is a guest post by Loretta Lynchmob, Supreme Attorney of Imam Obama’s Loving America. Her younger sister is among the singers in the following inspirational video, as is Hillary Clinton. Here are her, er, inspiring words.

I also participated in this dazzling performance on my way to support an abortion clinic:

Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to sing What the World Needs Now is Love before or after making my remarks following the White supremacist hate-group’s attack in Orlando, Florida during which almost two hundred innocent homosexuals and lesbians were killed or wounded. That sad incident, of course, had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with the wonderful Religion of Peace and Tolerance. Rather than listen to the haters who claim that it was on account of ~~our~~ their beautiful Islam, we must give all Muslims at home and abroad love, not hate.

This brings me to the major point of this article: Since everyone — including Muslim “terror” groups — wants the same loving sort of life that all good Americans want, we must give them what they want and need to end their totally justified “depredations.” To do so is Imam Obama’s Loving American way and we cannot do otherwise; that would not be who we are and would put us on the wrong side of ~~his~~herstory.

What do immigrants and the so-called terror groups want and what can we give them?

“Terror” groups, like the immigrants fleeing the poverty and repression they suffer in much of Latin America, want to have the same prosperity and freedom that we have in Imam Obama’s already-great America; America was never greater than under ~~the heel of~~ Obama. The Latin American immigrants want it here, the “terror groups” want it in the countries we wrongfully took from them to give to radical firebrands such as President al-Sisi in Egypt and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Occupied Palestine. They will have the prosperity and freedom they want and deserve only when we give them love, not hate. Trump offers hate, we offer love. Surely, ours is not only the better way, it is the only way.

Aside from our abiding, non-judgmental love, what can we give them? They are poor so we need to give them money and the stuff that money can buy. Based on our outpourings of love, they will not use the money to purchase automatic weapons and other types of assault rifles to use against innocents or even against us. Obama’s wonderful peace deal with Iran is a case in point: due to His wisdom in returning to Iran economic power and money of which she had been unjustly deprived, Iran has joined the world community as a peaceful power, opposed to “terrorism,” and will never have nuclear bombs. Only those in America who cling hatefully to their guns and their religion of hate see the world differently and use weapons of war on innocents.

We can, and must, also help them to learn more about democracy. We encouraged democracy when the Egyptian masses overthrew “their” dictator Mubarak and replaced him with their own peace-loving, tolerant President Morsi. That’s the way true democracy works. Then, sadly, a few thousand Egyptian enemies of the brave and peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood conducted a coup, led by an Egyptian general, and replaced President Morsi with a fascist dictator named al-Sisi. The people of Egypt have not forgotten about how democracy should work, and given a chance will again rebel against fascist al-Sisi and depose him in favor of another brave, peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood advocate. We must do everything we can to help them in their loving quest for true freedom and true democracy.

Much of Occupied Palestine is rich; that’s where the Jews live and parade with their filthy feet in what they call “Temple Mount.”

What do the Jews give their Palestinian brothers — who want only their love and sustenance? When they provide water, they poison it. They often cut off electricity to Gaza, with no better excuse than that their poverty-stricken supplicants there can’t pay for it! Is money all that matters? Is gross human suffering of no consequence?

We can, and must, do everything possible to send the Jews festering in Occupied Palestine back to wherever they came from. It’s only just and fair! The blessed United Nations is one hundred percent with us on this; too long have we vetoed Security Council resolutions even modestly adverse to “Israel.” Were we to sponsor a decree by the UN Security Council to rid Occupied Palestine of its Jews, it would pass without veto. If we believe in love — not the hate spewed by “Israel” — that’s precisely what we must do.

Hillary Clinton is indisputably the best-qualified person to take up Obama’s great work when He, sadly, must leave office next January. There is much left to be done, and only She can and will do it. Even the proprietor of this vile right-wing hate blog has said so. Trump, on the other hand, would destroy everything that Obama has done and thereby destroy America as we know and love her. A vote for Hillary is a vote for honesty, candor and, most important, love. A vote for he-of-the-orange hair is a vote for dishonesty, lies and hate.

****************

Editor’s comments

Ms. Lynchmob does a good job of articulating the differences between Trump and the Obama-Clinton cabal and their visions for America as seen by the left. How many in Obama’s America see things as she does?

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel and human rights, Jews, Love sweet love, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinians, Sisi, Temple Mount, U.S. politics, United Nations, Zionists
Tags: Donald Trump, Egypt, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel and human rights, Jews, Love sweet love, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, national security, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinians, Sisi, Temple Mount, U.S. politics, United Nations, Zionists

Comments: Be the first to comment

The EU-Progressive Paradigm is Falling Apart

June 27, 2016

The EU-Progressive Paradigm is Falling Apart, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, June 27, 2016

op_2

In short, millions of ordinary people in America, England, France, and many other Western nations know that the paradigm of transnational hegemony and technocratic rule created not a utopia, but an arrogant privileged class that believes it is superior and thus entitled to boss other people around and lecture them about backward superstitions and bigotry. And it looks like these average citizens have had enough.

******************************

Long-developing cracks in the Western political establishment’s century-old paradigm suddenly widened this year. In the US Donald Trump, a reality television star and real estate developer, improbably became the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Bernie Sanders, a socialist and long-time Senate crank, challenged the Democrats’ pre-anointed nominee Hillary Clinton, who prevailed only by dint of money and un-democratic “super-delegates.” Meanwhile in Europe, the UK voted to leave the European Union, perhaps opening the flood-gates to more defections.

These three events share a common theme: populist and patriotic passions roused by arrogant elites have fueled a rejection of Western establishments and their un-democratic, autocratic, corrupt paradigm.

That political model can be simply defined as technocratic and transnational. Starting in the 19^th century, the success of science and the shrinking of the world through technology and trade created the illusion that human nature, society, and politics could be similarly understood, managed, and improved by those trained and practiced in the new “human sciences.” This new “knowledge” said people are the same everywhere, and so all humans want the same things: peace with their neighbors, prosperity, and freedom. The absence of these boons, not a permanently flawed human nature, explains the history of war and conflict. National identities, along with religion and tradition, are impediments to institutionalizing this “harmony of interests.” International organizations and covenants can be created to enforce this harmony, shepherd the people towards the transnational utopia, and leave behind the misery and wars sparked by religious, ethnic, and nationalist passions.

Technocracy, however, is by definition anti-democratic. So how can the foundational belief of Western governments – the sovereignty of free people and their right to be ruled by their own consent–– coexist with an administrative state staffed by “experts” and armed with the coercive power of the state? Quite simply, it can’t. As for the transnational ideal of a “harmony of interests,” it was repudiated by the carnage of World War I, when the Entente and Central Powers sent their young to die under the flags of their nations on behalf of their particular national interests. Yet the West still codified that transnational ideal in the League of Nations, even as it enshrined the contrary ideal of national self-determination, the right of people to rule themselves free of imperial or colonial overlords.

This gruesome war demonstrated that people are still defined by a particular language, culture, mores, folkways, religions, and landscapes, and that nations have interests that necessarily conflict with those of other nations. That’s why the League failed miserably to stop the aggression of its member states Japan, Italy, and Germany, and could not prevent an apocalyptic second world war that took at least 50 million lives. Yet the Western elites continued to pursue the transnational dream of technocratic rule after World War II, creating the UN as yet another attempt to trump the reality of national differences with some imagined harmony of interests. In reality, the UN has been an instrument used by states to pursue those interests at the expense of other nations.

Still not learning their lesson, the transnationalists created yet another institution that would subordinate the nations of Europe to its control, on the debatable assumption that the carnage of two world wars was wrought by national particularism. They confused genuine patriotism and love of one’s own way of living, with the grotesque political religions of fascism and Nazism, both as much avatars of illiberal tribalism as nationalism grown toxic. Thus was born the supranational EU, which began modestly in 1958 with the European Economic Community, and then relentlessly expanded over the years into today’s intrusive, unaccountable bureaucracy of anonymous technocrats that has concentrated power in Brussels at the expense of national sovereignty.

Similarly, in the US the progressives of the early 20^th century began transforming the American Republic based on similar assumptions. They believe that economic, social, and technological progress rendered the Constitution––particularly its separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalist protections of the sovereignty of the states––an anachronism. “The age of enlightened administration had come,” F.D.R. proclaimed, and he set about creating the federal bureaus and agencies that have over the years expanded in scope and power, and increasingly encroached on the rights and autonomy of the states, civil society, and individuals.

But the Eurocrats and progressives forgot one of the most ancient beliefs of the West, and a fundamental assumption behind the structure of the Constitution––that a flawed human nature, vulnerable to corruption by power, is constant across time and space. As Benjamin Franklin wrote during the Constitutional convention, “There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice: the love of power and the love of money,” which when combined have “the most violent of effects.” As much as the democratic mob, any elite, whether of birth, wealth, or education, is subject to power’s corruption and abuse. That’s why our Constitution checked and balanced power: to limit the scope of any part of the government, and thus safeguard the freedom of all citizens no matter their wealth, birth, or education.

In contrast, the conceit of progressives and EU functionaries is that they are somehow immune to the seductions of power. They think their presumed superior knowledge and powers of reason make them more capable and trustworthy than the fickle, ignorant masses and the elected officials accountable to them. History, however, shows that technocrats are as vulnerable to the corruption of power as elites of birth or wealth, and that power is, as the Founders were fond of saying, “of an encroaching nature” and must “ever to be watched and checked.” The expansion of the EU’s tyrannical regulatory and lawmaking power at the expense of national sovereignty is the proof of this ancient wisdom. So too are America’s bloated federal executive agencies aggrandizing and abusing their powers at the expense of the people and the states.

Thus the dominant paradigm that has long organized politics and social life in the West is now under assault, for history has presented this model with challenges it has failed to meet. The resurgence of Islamic jihadism and terror has been met with sermons on Islamophobia and therapeutic multiculturalism. A newly assertive Russia has pursued its national interest with state violence, only to be scolded by our Secretary of State for “behaving in a 19^th century fashion.” The financial crisis of 2008 was caused in part by government political and regulatory interference in the market, the same policies that have kept economic growth sluggish for over seven years. Feckless immigration policies have been worsened by a failure to monitor those who get in, and to assimilate those that do. And most important, the redistributionist entitlement regime has weakened the citizens’ character, fostered selfish hedonism, and is on track to bankrupt this country and many in Europe. All these crises have in the main been the offspring of progressives and Eurocrats, whose only solution is to cling to the policies that empower and enrich them, but degrade their own cultures and endanger their own peoples.

Millions of citizens both in the US and in Europe have been watching these developments and living with the baleful consequences that the hypocritical, smug progressive and EU elites seldom encounter in their daily lives. This long-festering anger and resentment of those who smear them as stupid racists, neurotic xenophobes, and fearful “haters,” has now burst to the surface of political life. People can see that the “we are the world,” “global village” cosmopolitanism enriches and empowers the political, cultural, and business elites, but passes on to the people the risks of careless and often deadly immigration policies, and the economic dislocations of a globalized economy. They see that coastal fat cats, who can afford the higher taxes and the costs of environmental regulations, care nothing for the flyover-country working and middle classes pinched by higher electric and gasoline bills. People who live in tony enclaves of white professionals and hipsters support unfettered immigration, while others have to live with the crime and disorder that comes from thrusting into their midst people from very different cultures and mores, including some who have a divine sanction to kill the same people who have welcomed them in.

In short, millions of ordinary people in America, England, France, and many other Western nations know that the paradigm of transnational hegemony and technocratic rule created not a utopia, but an arrogant privileged class that believes it is superior and thus entitled to boss other people around and lecture them about backward superstitions and bigotry. And it looks like these average citizens have had enough.

England has spoken in favor of popular sovereignty and self-government. Soon it will be America’s turn. Our British cousins made the right choice. Let’s hope we do too.

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, Democracy, Dictatorship, Establishment, European Union, Federal Government, Freedom, Globalism, Homeland Security, International Community, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Right and wrong sides of history, United Nations, Vulgarians, Western civilization
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, Democracy, Dictatorship, Establishment, European Union, Federal Government, Freedom, Globalism, Homeland Security, International Community, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Right and wrong sides of history, United Nations, Vulgarians, Western civilization

Comments: Be the first to comment

Op-Ed: The American Gulag

June 26, 2016

Op-Ed: The American Gulag, Israel National News, Phyllis Chester, June 26, 2016

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him: If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me. They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey; along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

Categories: Antisemitism, BREXIT, Censorship, Extremism, Freedom of speech, Homosexuals, Islam and homosexuals, Islamists, Leftists, Media, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Right wing haters
Tags: Antisemitism, BREXIT, Censorship, Extremism, freedom of speech, Homosexuals, Islam and homosexuals, Islamists, Leftists, Media, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Right wing haters

Comments: Be the first to comment

Brexit and Multiculturalism

June 26, 2016

Brexit and Multiculturalism, American Thinker, Salim Mansur, June 26, 2016

The people of Britain made their decision by a slim majority of 52 percent to 48 percent to Leave the EU. After months of heart-wrenching debates and all the leverage that the Remain side with the Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposite, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, could apply, the people decided staying within the EU was not positive for Britain’s future.

The referendum’s outcome throws Britain into a period of economic and political uncertainties that the Remain side vigorously pushed as their main argument for staying within the EU. There will be a lot of soul-searching among the British elites in politics and business, in the media and in the universities, as to why the opponents of the EU prevailed. The referendum results will be minutely analyzed to understand why the British public was not sufficiently persuaded by their party leaders to back the status quo, and why on the other hand a majority of voters put aside their fear of uncertainty in favor of leaving the EU.

But the overarching reason why Britain left the EU, I believe, is plainly and simply understood if political correctness is set aside. A slim majority of the British public, primarily its aging population who remember what Britain was once like not too long ago as society and culture that open immigration policy severely, if not mortally, has undermined, decided that to save what remained of their island kingdom they needed to regain their full political sovereignty instead of losing more of it to the bureaucrats of the EU in Brussels.

Immigration, it bears repeating, and what it together with multiculturalism have done to Britain in incrementally unraveling its very special place in history, over-rode the arguments in favor of remaining in the EU. The peril of open-door immigration was foreseen many years ahead of the decision made to join the European Common Market (the predecessor to the EU) ratified by a referendum held in June 1975.

Nearly half-century ago Enoch Powell, a Conservative MP and a member of the shadow cabinet led by Edward Heath, spoke out on the perils of open immigration that came to be known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

196754_5_

At a Conservative Party gathering in Birmingham on April 20, 1968, Powell warned how unrestricted immigration was inexorably and unalterably changing the nature of British society. What is mostly remembered of Powell’s speech is what was at the time considered inflammatory. But for Powell it was about numbers as he stated, “bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.”

The Birmingham speech ended for Powell a distinguished career in politics as his warnings went unheeded, and he was removed from his position in Heath’s shadow cabinet. In the aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings in London, and concerns over “homegrown terror” from radicalized Muslim immigrants or Muslims of immigrant parents born in Britain, Powell’s warning in retrospect was prophetic for contemporary Britain and the West in general.

In the forty years since Britain joined Europe, immigration from the “Third World” countries of Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean have changed her urban landscape. According to Britain’s 2011 census, the foreign-born population constituted 11.9 per cent of the total population. But the cumulative number of the British public as foreign-born, or children of foreign-born, since at least 1961 makes the total in aggregate numbers or in percentage term substantively greater than the 10 per cent of Britain’s population that Powell had warned could significantly alter the character of the country.

It is not immigration alone of people of non-European ethnicity that has had a cumulative impact on the makeup of contemporary Britain. After joining Europe in 1975 Britain, in common with other Western liberal democracies, adopted the policy of multiculturalism as the basis of meeting the demand for equality with the country becoming increasingly multiethnic due to immigration and open borders.

The policy of multiculturalism is based on the spurious idea that all cultures are equal and, therefore, deserving of equal respect and treatment. In effect, this means that the liberal democratic culture of the host country, since multiculturalism as a policy or doctrine is nonexistent outside of the West, is equal to or no better than nonliberal or illiberal cultures of non-Western societies. Hence, multiculturalism is one of the most insidious assaults on liberal democracy based on the hard-won principle of individual rights and freedoms.

In the United States, among those most notable who warned against multiculturalism was Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in his book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (1991). The vulnerability of liberal democracies arises, however, from the situation that the tools by which liberals have advanced the principles of individual rights and secured them in law are equally available — and indeed, often provided for by liberals as a matter of principle — to those who either do not believe in liberal values or subordinate them to collective rights based on the arguments of group identity. The demand by vocal segments of the Muslim community for the acceptance of Sharia provisions by Western governments is, consequently, a logical outcome of multiculturalism adopted as a policy of treating equally people of different cultures within a liberal democracy such as Britain.

Such demands as acceptance of Sharia provisions, which have been incrementally conceded in Britain, might be ridiculous to the majority population of the host country. But for the British elites, the absurdity would be in denying the implicit logic of multiculturalism that they concocted and sold to the people.

The absurdity inherent in multiculturalism might be noted in the example of Bikhu Parekh, appointed to the House Lords in 2000 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair made Parekh, a professor of race relations and of Indian origin, a life peer to secure ethnic Indian votes for the Labour Party. Parekh on his part went on to suggest that Britain should change its name because of the negative connotations for millions of people around the world and, moreover, since Britain has become increasingly multicultural, there remains no justification for it to be British anymore.

Open-door immigration and multiculturalism might also be viewed as the response of Western liberal democracies driven by a sense of guilt for past wrongs. This sense of guilt is uniquely a Western phenomenon, making liberal democracies vulnerable to claims of past injustices made by others, especially non-Westerners who were once ruled by European powers.

The French political philosopher Jean-François Revel observed, “Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it… What distinguishes it is its eagerness to believe in its own guilt and… is zealous in devising arguments to prove the justice of its adversary’s case and to lengthen the already overwhelming list of its own inadequacies.”

In the post-referendum analysis to come of the vote in Britain for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that the issues of immigration and multiculturalism will receive due attention. These are sensitive issues, and there is a legitimate place for politeness — distinct from political correctness — when discussing sensitive issues in public.

But if the elites in Britain, and elsewhere in the West are not to get too disconnected from the public, they will need to be honest with themselves and understand how the twin policies of immigration and multiculturalism have divided their societies. It will be a tragic mistake to interpret the vote to leave EU by the British people as a populist and nationalist movement tinged with “white” bigotry.

Instead the Leave vote in this referendum was driven in some measure by the very respectable desire of the British people to demand a halt to the irreversible diluting of their national culture, rich in history and about which they have every right to be genuinely proud, by increasingly conceding to elite-driven policies of immigration and multiculturalism.

To equate a culture that has given to the world Shakespeare and Newton, the Magna Carta and parliamentary democracy, ruled the waves and defended freedom when it was most imperiled, with cultures that practice slavery or gender inequality or impoverishes the human mind, is demeaning. But in the post-9/11 world the British people, though they are not alone, have patiently suffered some living in their midst who take a pathological pleasure in insulting their hospitality, threatening their security, engaging in terrorism and openly espousing causes or doctrines at war against deeply embedded values of freedom and democracy cherished by them.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, described in her book Londonistan how greatly, and not for the better, immigration and multiculturalism have changed her country. It should be a matter of pride and celebration when Sadiq Khan, born to Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, is elected the Mayor of London. This could only have happened in the contemporary West.

But if there comes a moment when immigrants from Pakistan, or India, or Nigeria and elsewhere, such as Bikhu Parekh, on the basis of multiculturalism push to turn large portions of Britain into cultural enclaves of their origins, then the tipping point of tolerance for diversity, or pluralism, on the part of the host population has been reached.

The Leave EU win in the referendum was brought about as a result of the tipping point reached by the people in Britain.

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Multiculturalism
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Multiculturalism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Germany’s Turkish-Muslim Integration Problem

June 24, 2016

Germany’s Turkish-Muslim Integration Problem, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, June 24, 2016

♦ Seven percent of respondents agreed that “violence is justified to spread Islam.” Although these numbers may seem innocuous, 7% of the three million Turks living in Germany amounts to 210,000 people who believe that jihad is an acceptable method to propagate Islam.

♦ The survey also found that labor migration is no longer the main reason why Turks immigrate to Germany: the most important reason is to marry a partner who lives there.

♦ A new statistical survey of Germany — Datenreport 2016: Social Report for the Federal Republic of Germany — shows that ethnic Turks are economically and educationally less successful than other immigrant groups, and that more than one-third (36%) of ethnic Turks live below the poverty line, compared to 25% of migrants from the Balkans and southwestern Europe.

♦ “In our large study we asked Muslims how strongly they feel discriminated against, and we searched for correlations to the development of a fundamentalist worldview. But there are none. Muslim hatred of non-Muslims is not a special phenomenon of Muslim immigration, but is actually worse in the countries of origin. Radicalization is not first produced here in Europe, rather it comes from the Muslim world.” — Ruud Koopmans, sociologist.

Nearly half of the three million ethnic Turks living in Germany believe it is more important to follow Islamic Sharia law than German law if the two are in conflict, according to a new study.

One-third of those surveyed also yearn for German society to “return” to the way it was during the time of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, in the Arabia of the early seventh century.

The survey — which involves Turks who have been living in Germany for many years, often decades — refutes claims by German authorities that Muslims are well integrated into German society.

The 22-page study, “Integration and Religion from the Viewpoint of Ethnic Turks in Germany” (Integration und Religion aus der Sicht von Türkeistämmigen in Deutschland), was produced by the Religion and Politics department of the University of Münster. Key findings include:

47% of respondents agreed with the statement that “following the tenets of my religion is more important to me than the laws of the land in which I live.” This view is held by 57% of first generation Turkish immigrants and 36% of second and third generation Turks. (The study defines first generation Turks as those who arrived in Germany as adults; second and third generation Turks are those who were born in Germany or who arrived in the country as children.)
32% of respondents agreed that “Muslims should strive to return to a societal order like that in the time of Mohammed.” This view is held by 36% of the first generation and 27% of the second and third generation.
50% of respondents agreed that “there is only one true religion.” This view is held by 54% of the first generation and 46% of the second and third generation.
36% of respondents agreed that “only Islam is able to solve the problems of our times.” This view is held by 40% of the first generation and 33% of the second and third generation.
20% of respondents agreed that “the threat which the West poses to Islam justifies violence.” This view is held by 25% of the first generation and 15% of the second and third generation.
7% of respondents agreed that “violence is justified to spread Islam.” This view is held by 7% of the first generation and 6% of the second and third generation. Although these numbers may seem innocuous, 7% of the three million Turks living in Germany amounts to 210,000 people who believe that jihad is an acceptable method to propagate Islam.
23% of respondents agreed that “Muslims should not shake the hand of a member of the opposite sex.” This view is held by 27% of the first generation and 18% of the second and third generation.
33% of respondents agreed that “Muslim women should wear a veil.” This view is held by 39% of the first generation and 27% of the second and third generation.
31% of female respondents said that they wear a veil in public. This includes 41% of the first generation and 21% of the second and third generation.
73% of respondents agreed that “books and movies that attack religion and offend the feelings of deeply religious people should be banned by law.”
83% of respondents agreed that “I get angry when Muslims are the first to be blamed whenever there is a terrorist attack.”
61% of respondents agreed that “Islam fits perfectly in the Western world.”
51% of respondents agreed that “as an ethnic Turk, I feel like a second class citizen.”
54% of respondents agreed that “regardless of how hard I try, I am not accepted as a member of German society.”

The study also found that Turks and native Germans hold radically different perceptions about Islam:

While 57% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with human rights, only 6% of Germans do.
While 56% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with tolerance, only 5% of Germans do.
While 65% of Turkish Germans associate Islam with peace, only 7% of Germans do.

Based on the answers provided, the authors of the survey concluded that 13% of respondents are “religious fundamentalists” (18% of the first generation and 9% of the second and third generation). Although these numbers may appear insignificant, 13% of the three million Turks in Germany amounts to nearly 400,000 Islamic fundamentalists, many of whom believe that violence is an acceptable means to spread Islam.

The survey’s findings mirror those of other studies, which show that Turkish migrants are poorly integrated into German society.

In 2012, the 103-page study, “German-Turkish Life and Values” (Deutsch-Türkische Lebens- und Wertewelten), found that only 15% of ethnic Turks living in Germany consider the country to be their home. Other key findings include:

Nearly half (46%) of Turks agreed with the statement, “I hope that in the future there will be more Muslims than Christians living in Germany”; more than half (55%) said that Germany should build more mosques.
72% of respondents said that Islam is the only true religion; 18% said that Jews are inferior to Muslims and 10% said that Christians are inferior.
63% of Turks between the ages of 15 and 29 said they approve of a Salafist campaign to distribute a Koran to every household in Germany; 36% said they would be willing to support the campaign financially.
95% of respondents said it is absolutely necessary for them to preserve their Turkish identity; 87% said they believe that Germans should make a greater effort to be considerate of Turkish customs and traditions.
62% of respondents said they would rather be around Turks than Germans; only 39% of Turks said that Germans were trustworthy.

The survey also found that labor migration is no longer the main reason why Turks immigrate to Germany: the most important reason is to marry a partner who lives there.

Meanwhile, a new statistical survey of Germany — Datenreport 2016: Social Report for the Federal Republic of Germany (Datenreport 2016: Sozial-bericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) — shows that ethnic Turks are economically and educationally less successful than other immigrant groups.

The report, produced by Germany’s official statistics agency, Destatis, in cooperation with several German think tanks, shows that more than one-third (36%) of ethnic Turks are living below the poverty line, compared to 25% of migrants from the Balkans and southwestern Europe (Spain and Portugal). The average income of ethnic Turkish households is €1,242 ($1,400) per month, compared to €1,486 ($1,700) for non-Turkish migrants and €1,730 ($1,950) for German households.

Only 5% of ethnic Turks earn more than 150% of the average German income, compared to 21% of migrants from Eastern Europe, 18% of those from southwestern Europe and 11% of those from the Balkans.

1662

An open-air market in the heavily-Turkish Kreuzberg district of Berlin. (Image source: The Berlin Project video screenshot)

The report also shows that Turks have a lower educational attainment than other migrant groups in Germany. Only 60% of ethnic Turks complete secondary school (Hauptschulabschluss), compared to 85% of migrants from Eastern Europe. Moreover, only 8% of ethnic Turks between the ages of 17 and 45 earn a Bachelor’s degree, compared to 30% of migrants in the same demographic from Eastern Europe. Education is a determinative factor for successful integration, according to the report.

German multiculturalists often blame the lack of Turkish integration on the Germans themselves. Writing for Die Welt, economist Thomas Straubhaar argues that most Germans view Turks as guests, not as fellow citizens, an attitude which discourages Turks from integrating:

“Ethnic Turks are essentially treated as guests — hence the controversy over whether their faith belongs to Germany or not. Their immigration is seen as temporary. Their contribution to German culture is seen in a negative light.

“Those who treat migrants as guests should not be surprised when they behave as such. Guests are not expected to have any emotional devotion to the host, nor does the host feel any obligation to show irrevocable loyalty to the guest.

“Guests will not be willing to put all their cards on the table of the host country and take full responsibility for successful integration. Guests assume that sooner or later they must return home again. In everything they do, they will always consider their guest status and be only halfheartedly engaged. This applies to investments in language, culture, friendships, social contacts and professional career.”

Others counter that those who act like strangers should not be surprised if they are treated as strangers. Sociologist Ruud Koopmans argues that one of the most determinative factors in successful integration involves the cultural gap between host and guest. The greater the distance, the greater the integration challenge.

In a recent interview with WirtschaftsWoche, Koopmans criticized multiculturalists who for normative reasons insist that culture and religion should not be factored into the debate on integration:

“In all European countries, Muslim immigrants lag behind all other immigrant groups in almost every aspect of integration. This applies to the labor market, but also to educational achievement, inter-ethnic contacts, i.e., contacts with the local population, and identification with the country of residence.

“Three decisive factors determine cultural distance: language skills, inter-ethnic contacts — especially those involving marriage — and values about the role of women. They all have something to do with religion. This of course applies especially for ideas about the role of women, which are derived directly from the Islamic religion. The greater the cultural distance between groups — especially when there are cultural taboos — the more complicated inter-ethnic marriages become. Such taboos make it virtually impossible for a Muslim, and especially Muslim women, to marry a non-Muslim. Statistics from various European countries show that less than ten percent of Muslim marriages are inter-ethnic.”

Detlef Pollack, the author of the University of Münster study cited above, blames the lack of Turkish integration on discrimination: “The message to the majority German population is that we should be more sensitive to the problems encountered by those of Turkish origin,” he told Deutsche Welle. “It is our view that the feeling of not being accepted is expressed in the vehement defense of Islam.”

Koopmans rejects the link between discrimination and radicalization:

“This is a common assertion. But it is wrong. In our large study we asked Muslims how strongly they feel discriminated against, and we searched for correlations to the development of a fundamentalist worldview. But there are none. Muslim hatred of non-Muslims is not a special phenomenon of Muslim immigration, but is actually worse in the countries of origin. Radicalization is not first produced here in Europe, rather it comes from the Muslim world.”

Categories: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic law, Multiculturalism, Turkish immigrants
Tags: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic law, Multiculturalism, Turkish immigrants

Comments: Be the first to comment

Matt Bracken: The Hybrid Vigor of the Coming European Islamic State

May 23, 2016

Matt Bracken: The Hybrid Vigor of the Coming European Islamic State, Gates of Vienna, May 21, 2016

(Here’s the video referenced in the article. — DM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBOcT5zfmo

— DM)

Gates of Vienna introduction

The following essay and meme by Matthew Bracken were prompted by a cell-phone video from Germany of a culture-enricher assaulting a German teenaged boy. I won’t embed the video; I find it almost too unbearable to watch. To see a young man so unable to defend himself, so unwilling to stand up and be a man, is disheartening and dismaying.

Below are Matt Bracken’s thoughts on what all of this means.

Bracken article

bracken-dhimmi

This is heartbreaking to see, but very important.

This is how a dhimmi is created in a gun-free country, where armed self-defense is an alien concept. This is prison yard rules, and the young German is just fresh meat. This German kid will probably convert to Islam just to stop the pain and “gain the respect” of his new masters.

Note how the bully threatens to beat him every day just to harden him up and make him a man. A similar psychological process occurs in military boot camp with new recruits. He doesn’t know it yet, but his mother and sisters are now Moslem chattel property. He won’t lift a finger to defend German women; he is a dhimmi at best. Most likely he will just convert as a matter of bare survival, but he will always be a “second-class Muslim”, even if he submits. These IslamoNazi bullies will have him reciting the Shahada in less than a month, and after that, his sister is toast. Just fresh meat for the hijra jihadis.

This is how Islam has spread for 1,400 years: brute force, threats, intimidation, and using terror as an example of how far they are willing to go to force the spread.

Smug Americans who own firearms might laugh at the current plight of the Europeans, but they should not. The Europeans have been brainwashed by the “multi-kulti-uber-alles” Left to simply submit when the planned hijra invasion happened, which is happening now. The ordinary Euros were betrayed by Quisling traitors in high offices. From the Muslim point of view, the hijra invasion is moving from the dawah (preaching) phase to the jihad phase, using violence and threats of even greater violence to force a complete Muslim takeover. That German boy now understands who are the alpha males, and who are not: The Moslems are, and he isn’t.

But there is the long-term danger in this process even to America. If Islam wins in Europe, a well-known social/genetic dynamic will kick in. All of the German girls and women (even the man-hating radical feminists and lesbians) will be raped, enslaved, or “married” by force, but one way or the other, there will be a rising generation of Muslims in Europe who are half-German.

People should understand a genetic process called “hybrid vigor.” There is a reason the Ottoman Turks collected European boys to be raised as Janissaries. The Arab desert Muslims have terrible DNA after 1,400 years of first-cousin inbreeding, but when they impregnate their German conquest victims they will create generations of 100% full Muslims who are half German. Of course, this will happen in every European country, not only Germany.

Americans should not be smug about the collapse and Muslim conquest of Europe. Half-German “Super Muslims” will be a tough adversary. Remember the Ottoman Janissaries from history. They were fearsome fanatics, but also big, strong and smart.

Another crop of “Super Muslims” were the Berbers of Morocco, who provided most of the brains and muscle used for the invasion of Spain in 711 AD. The “desert Arabs” were a scrawny and pitiful bunch. Man for man, they were weaklings compared to the hearty Berber mountain folk. But the Berbers were divided, tribe against tribe, from one Atlas Mountains valley to another. The invading Arab armies picked off one tribe at a time, and forced them all to convert. These newly united Berber Super Muslims were imbued with ”convert zeal,” and ready to invade new worlds to spread the banner of Islam.

United for the first time in history, the Muslim Berbers of Morocco (under mostly Arab leadership) turned their natural war-lust against the Christians of Spain. Like the pre-Muslim Berber tribes had been before them, each Spanish Christian principality was divided from the others across the mountains of Spain. The united and newly converted Muslim Berber armies swept over the separate Spanish fiefdoms one after the other.

The point is that Muslim invasions have often succeeded against divided foes who were, man for man, much stronger and even smarter. A generation later, this invigorated hybrid population can be very dangerous, because after the consolidation phase where the invaded region is brought under united Islamic control, they will be straining to burst their borders and conquer new worlds, like the Super Muslim Berbers did in Spain. Think also of Iran in this context. United Arab Muslim armies conquered Persia, creating another brand of hybridized “Super Muslims.”

I shudder to think of what German Super Muslims will be capable of in thirty years, if Islam is triumphant in Europe. They would make the Earth shake

Categories: Caliphate, Europe, Fertility, genetics, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism
Tags: Caliphate, Europe, Fertility, genetics, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives