Norwegian Tragedy And Failed Multiculturalism
From the desk of Lucien Oulahbib on Wed, 2011-07-27 18:04
Multiculturalism has nothing to do with diversity and plurality, but rather with imposed unity replacing common values. It is only a temporary phase, leading to the next milestone: giving groups immunity from the common law and making them dependent on community-specific laws. At best, multiculturalism is a form of cohabitation which growingly becomes more agressive, leading to a State in the State, contrary to what a Republic should be.
This criticism has nothing to do with racism nor with xenophobia, because it does not imply a rejection of foreigners. The only aim is to prevent that the foreigner behaves as the new owner instead of as a guest. Is it still allowed to think this way, or is it too late?
In the absence of a debate, when dissenting voices are immediately labeled as the "far right" or the "fascosphere" (a term recently coined by Le Monde), it is doubtful that a confrontational debate would suffice to extinguish the fire started by the arsonist multicultural firemen.
On the website of the Al Arabiya tv network, Bernd Debusmann quotes my previous article, where I wrote:
If there were a real counter-power, symbolic or spiritual, enabling a critical debate on the role of Islam in the world without being accused as a racist, maybe this inexcusable and vile act would have taken another form? Nobody knows.
Indeed, nobody knows. But it’s worth a try.
I meant that it is not certain that a real democratic debate on Islam and immigration will suffice to stop a wave of rejection on which fanatic assassins can surf, if there are no real solutions to the problems. And what's the use of closing down "far right" websites, prosecuting thought crimes, locking up citizens or sending them to rehabilitation centers to cure them of their xenophobia or islamophobia?
Twenty to forty years ago, immigrants integrated themselves in France without being hindered by the current cultural relativism which has been brought about by third-worldism (Christian too) and by decomposing communism. These were the times when friction was rare and when the Front National obtained 1% of the votes.
But since then, some hypocrites have insisted that immigrants are not required to accept the values of the host community and must claim their right to be different (a right which is denied to the host people). Over the years this has resulted in various crises, even in hostility towards immigrants who want to integrate ("you're acting white!").
This is not the result of misery and poverty. Their parents, immigrants from the first and second generation, were much poorer but they never displayed any disrespectful behavior. Some say it's because they were "oppressed" and now we must fight against the "oppressors". They say that the tolerant majority of immigrants should be brought to a more distinctive identity, and towards a culture of refusal.
The host people are suffering daily on trains and crowded sidewalks where they are not even allowed to look up, because their gaze would appear as a racist challenge. That is the reality of which the multiculturalists are in denial, and this is the reality that some refuse to accept, some to the point of inacceptable and inexcusable acts. But it does not mean that we should refrain from criticizing the reality and from wanting to transform it rather than just endure it.
It was not the criticism of this situation that turned the Norwegian pseudo-templar into a killer, but those who have created this situation. An Islamist suicide bomber has no reason to attack our open society, other than for wanting to replace it. But the citizens who are skeptical towards multiculturalism are just asking that their rights are not forgotten.
Breaking the thermometer is not the way to treat the fever. We can ignore it, certainly. But beware of the next shock.
Lofty discussions about the Pope or Prophet's beard.
Submitted by GMQ on Wed, 2011-07-27 23:18.
We're sick and tired of discussing whether islam is a threat or not. Why dont' you ask your self the following:
Is it OK for men and women who are not related to work closely togheter?
Is it Ok for juvenile girls and boys to spend time together, e.g. in scouting or any school outing activity?
Is it OK for someone to be homosexual?
Is it OK for a woman to have a free will and follow her interests
Western liberalism versus the World
Submitted by mpresley on Wed, 2011-07-27 22:15.
Let us suppose that one million Western Europeans migrated to China, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, or just about anyplace non-Western. They then congregated in a few cities and began demanding special favors based upon their newfound immigrant status. What would these governments, and the indigenous peoples think and do about it? The answer is, of course, obvious. It is only the Western left-liberal (and their right-liberal counterpart, the neoconservative) that thinks such a proposition could ever be natural, or desirable.