printWhich is what I said back in … 2005, in the column titled “Get With The Global Program, Gaul”. At the time, the famed Francis Fukuyama, Frederick Kempe, and Jonah Goldberg—neoconservatives all—had fingered the French for racism and snobbery in marginalizing their Muslims, who were running riot across France. All nonsense on stilts, naturally. The French simply rejected what we Americans embrace: submerging aspects of their identity for their mad-as-hell Maghrebis. As I wrote then:
“To her credit, France has no institutionalized multiculturalism. Integrating individuals, not communities, is how the French have approached their émigré population. They say their republican values proscribe affirmative action. But since America’s republican values haven’t hindered racist quotas here, says our neoconservative troika, the French should get with The Program.”
“Schadenfreude tinged with a sense of American superiority,” is how I characterized this neoconservatives response to the destruction Muslims visited across France. Their recommendations for the errant Europeans? Perfect yourselves by following us Americans; through affirmative action programs; through fashioning a spanking new national identity; do some “nationl building.”
Now, Dr. Daniel Pipes admits to finding the European anti-Islamist stance encouraging. Those of us who have family in Europe are well-aware that this position is widely shared by Europeans. In the Netherlands, for example, they vote in large numbers for Geert Wilders, an influential Dutch parliamentarian working against the spread of Islam in his country, and roundly condemned by most on the American “right” as a fascist.
Dr. Pipes’ is a welcome conversion, although he is simply lauding politicians for catching up with the people they are supposed the represent. Writes Dr. Pipes:
The stirring speech by British prime minister David Cameron on Feb. 5, in which he intelligently focused on what he called the “hands-off tolerance” of “Islamist extremism,” including its non-violent forms, exactly fits this pattern.
In similar fashion, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany last October deemed multiculturalism to have “utterly failed.” A referendum in Switzerland about minarets manifested the concerns of that country’s population – and polling around the continent showed those sentiments to be widely shared.
The rise of respectable political parties primarily focused on the issues surrounding Islam – with Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands at the forefront – is perhaps the single most encouraging sign, compelling legacy parties like the British Conservatives to pay attention.
We don’t want multikulti in Europe. In Denmark we introduced an immigration stop in 1973 and it lasted for more than 30 years. Never the less the (Muslim) immigrants streamed ind. The method was abuse of family reunification laws. An EU invention.
We still do not want Islamification of our society. For example, in 1973 we hardly had any private schools for example. Now one in eight children is in a private school, kindergarten etc.
And this development is accelerating. People will do whatever it takes to avoid Islamic influence.
That actually goes for the non-Muslim immigrant’s as well. They all assimilate just fine.
The problem is not immigration as such. The problem is Islam.
Neo-con Pipes, and his “conversion”? Are you kidding? If Europe were being invaded by Mexicans instead of Jew-hating Islamists, he’d have no objections at all.
What I find most infuriating about “multiculturalists” is their abyssmal ignorance of culture.
Back in anthro grad school I encountered a “multiculturalist” looking for previously unblamed white people to tar with the racist brush, and he picked the Swedes. Specifically, he accused them of being mean to Gypsies.
I remarked that people who leave their houses with doors and windows wide open to air them out, might get a tad upset when bands of theives pass through.
“How can you call them theives?” he asked, outraged.
“Uh, give me a hint. Is it because they take things that don’t belong to them?” I replied.
“Well that’s just their culture.”
“Yes, and in my culture we lock people like that up. So why is it OK for everybody but us to defend out culture?”
I further pointed out that among the Roma, stealing from another Rom was punished not by a brief confinement, but by lifelong exile.
Here is the Prophet on Multiculturalism:
The Qurayza were fought and then defeated in battle, and then were allowed an arbitrator to decide their punishment. Muhammad suggested Sa’d ibn Mua’dh, a leading man among Aws, a Jewish tribe that converted to Islam, whom they believed would judge in their favour, and hence agreed to. However, he passed an execution sentence against the Qurayza and 600-900 Qurayza men were beheaded (except for the few who chose to convert to Islam), all women and children enslaved, and their properties confiscated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_and_Jews
A more politcally correct version:
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml
My favorite argument is that there is no such thing as ‘racism.’ The real conflict is ‘multiculturalism.’ On the job, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Arabs work well together; but at quitting time, everyone goes their own way home. It’s an old lesson. In Genesis, the story of the ‘Tower of Babel’ clearly points out that multiculturalism didn’t work from the beginning of history. Language carries the baggage of culture and that story is the first of numerous attempts to have multiculturalism that failed. Mr. Pipes is well known for his knowledge of Islam, it is good that he is applying his knowledge in print.