Monday, January 12, 2015

How multiculturalism fuels Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam

Multicultural Suicide by Victor Davis Hanson:
... In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists ...

... In the end what is multiculturalism? A global neurosis. For its elite architects, it is a psychological tic, whose loud professions square the circle of enjoying guilt-free the material comfort that only the West can provide. For the rest, multiculturalism is a sort of fraud, a mechanism to blame something that one secretly desires in lieu of addressing the causes of personal or collective self-induced misery.

An excellent essay, well worth the read and saving for future reference.

And, for a good example of a multi-cult "useful idiot" that fits Mr. Hanson's decription here's "Harry Potter" billionairess, J.K. Rowling.


Anonymous said...

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. For one, asides from Canada none of the other countries I know of have actually adopted multiculturalism. In the US they have a melting pot and there the Muslim community has on balance generally assimilated quite well although their numbers are on a per capita basis much smaller than Europe and more spread out in both location and immigration waves as well as 1/3 are African-American converts.

In Europe, where things haven't worked out, policies have been varied. Britain has been a polarizing debate between multiculturalism and assimilation; France has been full assimilation and often hostility; Germany brought most Muslims as guest workers who were only supposed to be temporary during the post war boom but stayed permanently; while Sweden has focused on open immigration policy with much government aid including free settlement and language programs.

In the case of Canada, multiculturalism actually is widely misunderstood in its origins and roots. In the early 60s with the rise of Quebec nationalism, the government commissioned the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Many of those who were not of British and French ancestry such as Italian-Canadians and Ukrainian-Canadians objected to this as they felt excluded so the government adopted bilingualism and multiculturalism. Since then its largely been used as a political football and mostly to gain votes. It's the Lower Mainland suburbs and 905 belt in Ontario that determine who wins and loses elections thus why all parties are pro-immigration. If it was rural Quebec that determined who wins, I suspect the tactic would be much different.

Xanthippa said...

Regarding J.K. Rowling: Many years ago, when I first started blogging, I had written a piece about the way the Harry Potter books normalized Islamic separateness, Sharia and no-go-zones.

Please, consider the following:

There is a parallel society in England, some of whose members live within the greater community but most of whom live in self-segregated communities.

This parallel society has its own laws, enforced by its own police and courts and all the members of this society are subject to these laws, whether they want to or not.

They have their own parallel banking system.

The host society does not dare interfere in the internal matters of this parallel society, interacting strictly with the top officials of the parallel society.

Some of the members of this parallel society are so unfamiliar with the host society's social norms that they cannot function within it.

The populace of the host society is mostly unaware of this parallel society in their midst.

Does this sound familiar?

Should not Ms. Rowling be held accountable for idealizing and normalizingsuch a fragmented society?

And for your anonymous commenter: both the USA and the EU have implemented official multiculturalism policies in the 1980's

Anonymous said...

I see the point JR, but at the same time it shows how isolated and ethnocentric Canadians really are. It was only a few months ago that Canada had our terror attacks against our military and that is all forgotten now. ISIS has just recently called for of the same kind of attacks against ANY unbeliever by any means whatsoever anywhere in the world.

The proof is in the fact that there are intelligent and articulate people, such as anonymous above, who justify, defend and promote Canadian style multiculturalism. No offence to anonymous but I dare suggest that he/she is a visible minority who is a benefactor of multiculturalism. That's wonderful and all but even the benefactors of Canada's multiculturalism must also take a stand against Islam and the hate they promote against the infidel.
For the record I am indeed an islamaphobe and you all may call me that accordingly. I oppose Canada's open immigration for other reasons besides that fact that we allow over 55 thousand Muslim immigrants a year to come here.
I also have an issue with the overall cost of immigration that can exceed over 23 billion a year as reported by the Fraser institute a few years ago. The very immigration policy created by the liberals and then maintained by the Cons.

PM Harper took a brave stand against Muslim terrorist the day of the Paris attacks and called a "spade" a "spade". At the same time we hear that the Harper government is welcoming over 12 thousand Syrian refugees to Canada.
Harper has had almost five years to clean up the liberal mess after 9/11. On 9/11 Canada's Muslim population was 1.8 percent and as of 2012 it was 3.2 percent an increase of 82%. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Canada and the fastest growing population demographic. Instead Harper maintained status-quo on the immigration and refugee policies. Again. kudos to Harper for calling them terrorists but shame on his political correctness for his liberal, left leaning immigration policies.

Alain said...

There is always to a certain extent multiculturalism in most societies; that is the blending of different cultures and an acceptance. The problem however is state sponsored multiculturalism where the state encourages and enables non integration and even not learning the language of the host country. With state sponsored multiculturalism everyone is identified as a member of a collective instead of individual citizens, all equal. This can never work and must produce a balkanised country instead of any kind of national unity. We now find every government agency and department bending over backwards to promote and provide service in a multitude of foreign languages instead of limiting those to the two official languages. With this I find it unfair to blame the immigrants for not learning the language of their host country and for not seeing any benefit or necessity of integrating. We have become Hotel Canada where you can bring your culture, your language along with your traditional conflicts without changing a thing other than geographical location.

JR said...

Xanthippa, What you say about the self-segregation of Muslims in the EU is true and people like Rowling should definitely be called out for promoting an ideology that enables acceptance of it. Unfortunately Rowling's point of view has infected a huge swath of Western society including much of the media, so making her accountable for it isn't easy. She's just one more influential symptom of the problem.

Anonymous [6:33 PM], The warped ideology of multiculturalism (per Hanson's description) is accepted as gospel by most leftists throughout the West. Hanson's point is that this has led to the West's paralysis in dealing with Islamic terror. Many Western leaders are largely in denial that Islamic terror even exists. As noted in an earlier post a good example of this is Francois Hollande's recent public statement that the "... the fantatics had nothing to do with the Muslim religion." In America, the Obama administration refuses to use the word "jihad" or any other word that might in any way connect terrorist actions with Islam; and they are exceedingly reluctant to even use the word "terror" in connection with any terroristic violence that is clearly rooted in radical Islamic ideology. If that isn't indicative of paralysis, I don't know what is.

Anonymous [12:59 PM]. I sympathize with your position. I'm prone to Islamophobia as well, but I like to think my fears are rational - events have proven there's good reason to be afraid. We need immigration but there ought to be some serious scrutiny and limitations on who we accept from Islamic countries. I'd be fine with taking those refugees fleeing Syria if they were Christian (or at least non-Islamic).

Alain, I think that's right. It's unavoidable that immigrants from other cultures will bring with them their languages and values. For the most part there's no harm in that (it may even be valuable) as long as there's no conflict with the host culture. And, should the newcomers wish to maintain aspects of their culture it should definitely not be funded or promoted by the state. The state's role should be only be to assist their integration into our culture, to promote unity. But, unfortunately, it is the leftist's version of multicultural ideology that seems to have become dominant.

Alain said...

JR, yes that was the point I was trying to make, that in the past no government agency or person forced people to give up their original culture (provided it did not harm others) or language, and most groups had their own cultural organisations funded by themselves. At the same time the immigrants obtained at least a working knowledge of English, or at least the ones who worked outside the home. Their children became as fluent in English as any other Canadian and adapted to society at large. Now we have government agencies not only encouraging the opposite but funding it, which is ridiculous. If Canada is to survive as a nation instead of hundreds of balkanised entities feuding among themselves, the government needs to cease what it is doing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous# 2 - This is Anonymous#1 and actually I am white and fourth generation Canadian so I've had no benefit from multiculturalism. I don't think multiculturalism is perfect and certainly it has its limits, but considering we have fewer problems than most countries with immigration I don't think a radical overhaul is needed. As for Muslims and those who are radical, perhaps less emphasis on refugees and family class and more on skilled class would help as although some fundamentalists are well educated on balance one who is well educated is more likely to question religious doctrines as well as will likely be a net benefit economically for Canada. The real problem is Canada has a low birth rate and if we want to maintain our lifestyle, we need immigration. The only way we can have substantially less immigration without issues is if birth rates are to rise substantially thus reducing the need for immigration.