(Sorry for commenting an old article).

A quote from Dalrymple: " On one hand, the children of immigrants were told they were French; on the other, they were de facto excluded from the rest of society. Ferocious resentment was the result, and to coin a phrase, we ain’t seen nothing yet. "

Contrary to what Dalrymple says, the violence committed by immigrants is not caused by racism against them or by their social exclusion from European society. He should give us some proof of what he says.

What an excellent min-Bio you present.You clearly know your Classical Greek history.Bravo! Of course, I posted this item tongue-in-cheek.(Read it again and you'll see the truth of that claim  for yourself).The Times review APPEARS to describe a man who is extremely ignorant about all cultures beyond his own,yet insists that ALL cultures are equal.Isn't this PRECISELY how modern multiculturalists operate? (EXCEPT that in their case,the ignorance is all too often wilful).As for those naive-lefties and relativists of whom you speak,I can assure you that I have as much time for them as Mullah Omar would have for a packet of pork scratchings and a pint of English Best Bitter.

@ Atlanticist911

Despite your beautiful pseudonym, I fear that you read too much of the naive-leftie and relativistic New York Times (NYT), although I do not want to detract from anything positive they might have said about Kapuscinsky's (probably excellent) book.

Herodotus was NOT a "multiculturalist", at least not in the way that term is commonly understood or used today.  He was born in south-west Asia, not in present-day Greece.  As an 'Eastern Greek' he certainly travelled widely to 'enquire' (to Lybia, Egypt, northern and southern Greece, even east into Babylon), and eventually 'settled' in southern Italy.  He set out to explain and 'celebrate' the great events of the Persian wars against the Greeks in the 5th century BC.  He did NOT know any foreign languages.  He did provide many fascinating descriptions of cultural 'details', and brought strong personal interpretations to the complex sources he interrelated.  He was also explicitly critical of many of the oral stories (main source in his time) that were reported to him in different places.   He accepted that 'the gods' are active in human affairs and truly speak to men (through oracles), and he was most indignant when some of his contemporaries refused to accept the truth of oracles.  He accepted that the gods may punish a descendant for the deeds of an ancestor.  In his way of writing and thinking, 'hereditary guilt', 'retribution', and 'inevitability' were independent forces, etc.....

Now, does any of this sound anything like our contemporary "multiculturalists" at the New York Times?   It does not. 

First, Herodotus wrote as a 'Greek' about his times.  He shared the Greek view of the battles of 480/79, BC, between Greeks and Persians as battles for freedom and for a life under the impersonal and just rule of law.   In his writings, there is nothing to be found of the cultural perverse self-hatred with which the current NYT establishment seems to be saturated.  He had no false illusions of being a 'neutral' journalist before he was a 'Greek'.   In short, he still had a proper sense of priorities.  

Second, Herodotus was not an extreme moral-relativist like most of the current "multiculturalists" and the NYT crowd.   With him there was no nonsense about so-called faulty black-and-white thinking and the world being 'gray'.  He was not afraid of making moral judgements and refused to put his head in the sand.  Like many eastern Greek settlers and travellers of his time, he saw other cultures as "extreme points of contrast" with the world of the Greeks, and perhaps misunderstood some of them (like the Egyptian world as a "polar opposite" to Greece).  He sympathised with the passing panhellenic world of his time.  To him, the real enemies were "treachery, spontaneous violence, and the lower classes".   He admired liberty, but was not an uncritical 'democrat', given that he often put the Spartans in a favorable light in his writings.

Of course, Herodotus wrote in the early stages of the great flowering of the 'Classical Greek World'.  At a time of a particular culture's RISE, not at a time of cultural DECLINE (like our western multiculturalists of today). 

Excerpted from a recent NYTimes book review of R.Kapuscinski's book: "Travels With Herodotus":

He had never heard of China,or Japan,he did not know of Australia or Oceania,had no inkling of the existence,much less the great flowering of the Americas.If truth be told,he knew little of note about western  and northern Europe.He also believed that Ethiopean men ejaculated black semen.Yet [...] he was [...] the first to argue that each culture requires acceptance and understanding...

If I didn't know better (which, of course,I do), I'd swear this was the description of the  first  multiculturalist ever to draw breath.

"the United States' "melting pot" ignores severe discrimination against certain European groups (e.g. Italians, Irish)"

Germans were always discriminated against pretty heavily in the late 1800's.  Although with Irish many were Catholic and the US at the time was almost completely Protestant.  With regards to the Italians as far as I know most were from the south and were just not considered european or "white" and the criminality didn't help much either.

From Armor:"but I would like to know if immigrants are really more violent in france than in England or the USA. " All americans are immigrants except for a few part indians left on reservations. Black criminality seems to be the highest followed by Hispanic immigrants. The other immigrants even from third world countries seem to be far less trouble than french immigrants as far as I can tell. The US is better at asimilating immigrants than europe and especially France.

Kap. Andre: "neither the ethnic French nor France's non-White ethnic groups are prepared to abandon their present affinities. Thus, this situation cannot be resolved with a "win-win" solution."

I suspect non-white immigrants do not care which European country they live in. I think they are mostly interested in the material aspects of their life in Europe. We see much violence aimed at Europeans by immigrants, and it is not a sign of deep love for Europe. Dalrymple even says they harbor ferocious resentment against us! If they want to preserve the culture of their ancestors, we should have even less compunction in sending them back to their home countries. The problem for Europeans is that we have no other country to go back to.

Kap. Andre: " Pan-Arabism and Islam are inextricably linked. Moreover, Muslim immigrants do not "turn to Islam," rather they are merely identifying with their cultural background, as Arabic culture is Islamic. "

I know that islam is linked to Arab culture, and islam permeates Arab culture. We cannot convert to islam without learning some arabic. But we can learn Arabic without converting to islam. I think many sons of Arab immigrants would rather forget about islam, and they are encouraged to do so by the European environment, but they may still be interested to learn some Arabic, for example. It is nice to have positive feelings about the culture of your ancestors.

Kap. Andre: " What if they don't want to "separate" or "go home"? How far are you prepared to go? "

I suggest we don't ask for their opinion. But our debate is theoretical. Before we think of mass repatriation, the first thing to do is to stop mass immigration which I suspect now continues at a record level in france. I don't expect a civil war if we decide to send immigrants back home. If there is violence, it will be caused by the European extreme left. But I would rather deal with it now than in fifty years. We may also need to use force against the North African governments.

What I really want is for Brittany to leave france. After independence, we will kick out the immigrants (and a number of french people). We will ask them politely and propose financial aid to some of them. Then, they can choose to go back to Africa or stay in france. It will no longer be our problem. We won't have to expel that many people. So far, immigrants are fewer in Brittany than in the rest of france.

However, in the real world, the brainwashed Bretons do not support independence yet. They don't even understand it is a possible option. I am not sure we will be able to make them root for independence before it is too late. The government in Paris is heeding Dalrymple's advice and has already begun sending us more and more Africans so they won't remain concentrated in "ghettoes" around Paris (or in Africa!). Their arrival is now accelerating. This week, I drove past the house of my childhood and noticed for the first time an African woman leaning out of the window. What is likely to happen is that white Parisians fleeing their dreadful region will keep on buying up little pieces of Brittany thanks to their higher incomes. They already own much of the seafront. At the same time, subsidized housing will mainly go to the immigrants. Once Brittany is filled with a mix of Africans and Parisians, there won't be any point for the remaining Bretons to stay there and they will probably scatter all over france, in areas where houses are more affordable. There won't be a Brittany left. There won't be any point any longer in asking Paris to give us cultural, political or linguistic rights. It is likely that we are finished! In Britain, Wales will probably have a similar fate.

As you can see, our current problem in Brittany is not yet how to kick the Africans out. Most of them have not arrived yet. They will arrive in the next few years, and our problem is how to be prepared to kick them out in 20 years from now, when the Bretons finally wake up, which is unlikely to happen anyway. I can already hear the leftists protesting against efforts to expel African immigrants in 2027. They will say that expelling immigrants is inhumane, although it seems it isn't a problem for Africans to quit Africa today, leaving their loved ones behind and settling down in a foreign Europe, where they don't know anyone and where they know they are unwanted. But the sob stories are only told when Africans are sent back home, never when they leave their home place.

Armor: "There is no popular culture left in france, there is a big void. And I don't think we can recreate any common culture or any feeling of belonging to a common society as long as we keep the immigrants."

Fostering that sense of cultural belonging or national consciousness would invariably entail some form of creative destruction as the concepts of France and French would be altered to be inclusive of both ethnic French and non-White immigrants and their descedants, etc. Unfortunately for its proponents, neither the ethnic French nor France's non-White ethnic groups are prepared to abandon their present affinities. Thus, this situation cannot be resolved with a "win-win" solution.

Armor: "In fact, the reason why many young immigrants turn to islam is because it gives them a sense of identity, which is a natural human need. If you teach young immigrants to write the Berber or Arabic languages, or traditional Arab music, they will be less interested in islam. Unfortunately, as they say in french government: 'the language of the republic is french'."

Pan-Arabism and Islam are inextricably linked. Moreover, Muslim immigrants do not "turn to Islam," rather they are merely identifying with their cultural background, as Arabic culture is Islamic.

Armor: "But both Europeans and immigrants know this is nonsense. Immigrants are not stupid. They know they have an identity of their own. It is absurd to suggest that an immigrant would arrive in Europe and start believing he is French or English because he heard so on the radio."

Supposing this claim is true, then therefore non-European immigrants are consciously and/or subconsciously aware that they are essentially 'fifth columnists' with every intent to transform their host societies inasmuch as it suits their individual and group interests.

Armor: "The truth is that Europeans are gradually forced out of their own towns by immigrant violence, and by the breakdown of society in their neighborhoods."

Perhaps it is time to "liberate" these towns...

Armor: "It is true that Europeans have never supported the immigration policy; it has been forced on us. But even so, many Europeans feel little loyalty to their fellow Europeans and will hire immigrants because they want to avoid practicing any discrimination. Besides, state job agencies have a policy of sending immigrants to firms who ask them for workers. Our governments spend public money to prosecute firms who won't hire immigrants. On the other hand, immigrants who only hire their own kin are never prosecuted because few Europeans want to work in an immigrant family business."

Agreed.

Armor: "We should go for separation and send them back home before they show even more "ferocious resentment" to ourselves and our children."

What if they don't want to "separate" or "go home"? How far are you prepared to go?

Armor: "In the future, if I am replaced by immigrants instead of by my own children, I don't care whether my replacements are muslim or atheist. As the whites become fewer and fewer in Europe, I think what will make the process of disappearing even more painful will not be the growing presence of islam around us, but the growing presence of violence. The violence of immigrants has little to do with islam. Muslim Arabs who still hold to their religion are probably less violent than atheist Arabs who believe in nothing. In fact, a large part of immigrant violence comes from Africans, and it makes no difference whether they are muslim, christian, or have an animist background."

I would counter that Muslims are no less prone towards criminality or organized violence than any other non-White group in Western Europe (save some East Asian groups), however, their political activism and violence has resulted in their being largely considered the vanguard of the non-White invasion and colonization.

Dalrymple: " Only the French, with their republican model, have gone in for a salutary monoculturalism "

There is no popular culture left in france, there is a big void. And I don't think we can recreate any common culture or any feeling of belonging to a common society as long as we keep the immigrants.

Dalrymple says immigrants harbour ferocious resentment because they feel excluded. I don't think this is true at all, but I would like to know if immigrants are really more violent in france than in England or the USA. If so, maybe this is precisely because they have been cut off from their parents' culture.

In fact, the reason why many young immigrants turn to islam is because it gives them a sense of identity, which is a natural human need. If you teach young immigrants to write the Berber or Arabic languages, or traditional Arab music, they will be less interested in islam. Unfortunately, as they say in french government: "the language of the republic is french".

" On one hand, the children of immigrants were told they were French; "

This is the catechism delivered by the french government, mass media, and extreme left. But both Europeans and immigrants know this is nonsense. Immigrants are not stupid. They know they have an identity of their own. It is absurd to suggest that an immigrant would arrive in Europe and start believing he is French or English because he heard so on the radio.

" on the other, they were de facto excluded from the rest of society. "

This isn't true. The truth is that Europeans are gradually forced out of their own towns by immigrant violence, and by the breakdown of society in their neighborhoods. Europeans will even renounce having children because they live in too dangerous places. It is Europeans who are being excluded from Europe. Sometimes, you meet French young people who talk and behave angrily like immigrant youths. But smart parents will move to some other town so their children do not become like that.

It is true that Europeans have never supported the immigration policy ; it has been forced on us. But even so, many Europeans feel little loyalty to their fellow Europeans and will hire immigrants because they want to avoid practicing any discrimination. Besides, state job agencies have a policy of sending immigrants to firms who ask them for workers. Our governments spend public money to prosecute firms who won't hire immigrants. On the other hand, immigrants who only hire their own kin are never prosecuted because few Europeans want to work in an immigrant family business.

" Ferocious resentment was the result, and to coin a phrase, we ain’t seen nothing yet."

I don't think we should blame ourselves for the "ferocious resentment" of immigrants. They behave violently anywhere they go. There is the same problem in the USA. We should go for separation and send them back home before they show even more "ferocious resentment" to ourselves and our children.

" but unfortunately their economic and social policies helped, if not to create, at least to maintain Muslim ghettoes. "

No one is forcing immigrants to live in "ghettoes" among themselves. On the contrary, immigrants are forcing Europeans to flee. By the way, the muslim "ghettoes" are getting bigger and bigger and will soon represent most of the population in the largest french cities. How can we still call that "muslim ghettoes" ? It will be more like whole muslim regions. What is wrong with having "muslim ghettoes" anyway? If the problem is islam, then Dalrymple should ask for the elimination of islam in Europe, not the elimination of muslim ghettoes.

Our problem in the West is not failed integration, but replacement ot Europeans by third-worlders. The solution is repatriation, not better transformation of third-worlders into Europeans. Dalrymple suggests it would be okay to replace Europeans with third-worlders if we could transform them into cultural Europeans so as to preserve European civilization. What is the point of developping such theoretical nonsense? It has nothing to do with reality. I don't understand how you can lament the disappearance of European civilization and not condemn the immigration policy.

In the future, if I am replaced by immigrants instead of by my own children, I don't care whether my replacements are muslim or atheist. As the whites become fewer and fewer in Europe, I think what will make the process of disappearing even more painful will not be the growing presence of islam around us, but the growing presence of violence. The violence of immigrants has little to do with islam. Muslim Arabs who still hold to their religion are probably less violent than atheist Arabs who believe in nothing. In fact, a large part of immigrant violence comes from Africans, and it makes no difference whether they are muslim, christian, or have an animist background.

Theodore Dalrymple: "Only the French, with their republican model, have gone in for a salutary monoculturalism, but unfortunately their economic and social policies helped, if not to create, at least to maintain Muslim ghettoes. On one hand, the children of immigrants were told they were French; on the other, they were de facto excluded from the rest of society. Ferocious resentment was the result, and to coin a phrase, we ain’t seen nothing yet."

Firstly, the mistake that the French republic made with regards to their non-European minorities, especially its Muslims, was allowing their immigration at all. Secondly, though French "economic and social policies" may exacerbate disparities between ethnic French and French Muslims, no policy or progamme has ever enabled the co-habitation of a state by peoples of diverse racial and/or ethnic origins, such that this co-habitation is peaceful, prosperous, equal, democratic and liberal. Indeed, from a historical perspective, polyglot societies are not sustainable in the long term. F.e. the United States' "melting pot" ignores severe discrimination against certain European groups (e.g. Italians, Irish) and non-Europeans, many of whom (e.g. African-Americans) were excluded entirely from American public life i.e. African-Americans did not significantly contribute to their nation's domestic or international position because they were prevented from doing so until the 1960s civil rights movement.

No matter which way you cut it, the West is looking at another Thirty Years War a'la Magdeburg or Baghdad/Mogadishu/Rwanda/Yugoslavia, if you want a contemporary example.