VIDEO: A Muslima's thoughts about Islam, immigration and multicult

Please allow me, dear reader, to present some excerpts from a book written by a Muslim lady who now lives in the Paranoid States of America. I'll give you the title and the author's name later.

When massive immigration began in Holland, which wasn't until the 1980s, there was a sense among the Dutch that society should behave with decency and understanding toward these people and accept their differences and beliefs. But the result was that immigrants lived apart, studied apart, socialized apart.

Holland's multiculturalism -- its respect for Muslims' way of doing things -- wasn't working.... Holland was trying to be tolerant for the sake of consensus, but the consensus was empty. The immigrants' culture was being preserved at the expense of their women and children and to the detriment of the immigrants' integration into Holland.

Many Muslims never learned Ducth and rejected Dutch values of tolerance and personal liberty. They married relatives from their home villages and stayed, inside Holland, in their tiny bubble of Morocco or Mogadishu....

Surely Islam was some kind of influence in the underperforming segregation of so many immigrants in Holland? ...of all the non-Western immigrants...the least integrated are Muslims.... Muslims in Holland make disproportionately heavy claims on social welfare and disability benefits and are disproportionately involved in crime.

If Muslim immigrants lagged so far behind even other immigrant groups, then wasn't it possible that one of the reasons could be Islam?... Why was it racist to ask this question? Why was it antiraciszt to indulge people's attachment to their old ideas and perpetuate this misery?

If Mark Steyn (for instance) dared to publish those quotes in his blog, or say them out loud in a speech or podcast, he'd be hauled before a "human rights" commission by a group of Muslims and offended liberals. It's happened before. His defence would be that those aren't his words, but those of a Muslim, namely Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel (Free Press, 2007), from which those paragraphs are taken.

Ms Ali was born in Somalia, and lived the hard life of a good Muslim girl -- complete with gential mutilation -- in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, before fleeing to Germany, thence to the Netherlands, where she made which she admits was a bogus refugee claim. She did not give her right name, and, rather than saying she was running from an arranged marriage, said she was fleeing persecution, and in danger of her life.

Unlike many Muslimas, she did well in Europe, working her way through university with a degree in political science. Eventually she became a member of the Dutch parliament. Infidel is the story of her difficult physical journey, but also of her intellectual awakening and eventual rejection of Islam.

Ms Ali's political activism made her aq political superstar and champion of free speech. It also made her the target of threats from Islamic extremists and their apologists. But it wasn't she who paid for her supposedly Islamophobic views. It was Theo van Gogh [no relation. Ed.], who directed Submission: Part 1, a short film written by Ms Ali, which criticized the Islamic mistreatment of women. On 2 November 2004, Mr van Gogh was assassinated by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim who objected to the film's "Islamophobic" message.

In the last quarter (or so) of Infidel, Ms Ali tells how she was taken into protective custody, sent into hiding in the USA, and (almost) stripped of her Dutch citizenship. All this in spite of being named one of Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2005, and Reader's Digest's European of the Year.

Within 24 hours of the announcement of the order declaring Ms Ali "unDutch" (later rescinded), she was offered a position with the American Enterprise Institute. Click here to read more about her on the AEI website. And do read Infidel!

Further reading: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali blasts Ilhan Omar over call to remake US, says 'I don't think we need a revolution'", by Charles Creitz, Fox News, 10/7/20. Read enough already? Here's the video.

Francis Fukuyama: unassimilated immigrants pose threat to liberalism

Meet Dr Francis Fukuyama, one of the world's most celebrated political scientists. He's the author of The Origins of Political Order, Political Order and Political Decay, and The End of History and the Last Man. In that now-famous work, he argued if you imagined history as the process by which liberal institutions -- representative government, free markets, and consumerist culture -- become universal, it might be possible to say that history had reached its goal.

Last summer, Dr Fukuyama, "postponed" the end of history, saying that liberalism was not triumphant after all, but threatened by the desire of identity groups for recognition. Click here to read all about his remarkable volte-face in "Francis Fukuyama Postpones the End of History" (New Yorker, 27/8/18). [How often is it that Walt recommends an article from the New Yorker?! Ed.]

Dr Fukuyama's name came up again today in an article by the Toronto Sun's Anthony Furey, who quotes liberally [Careful. Ed.] from "Against Identity Politics: The New Tribalism and the Crisis of Democracy", the essay the good doctor wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine, which inspired the New Yorker article.

Since Mr Furey commends the article to Canuckistan's Minister of Refugees, Immigration and Citizenship -- Somali-born Muslim Ahmed Hussen -- I trust he (Mr Furey) won't mind if I repost the three quotes he selected, just in case Mr Hussen is a reader of WWW.

The real debate [Dr Fukuyama wrote] should...be about the best strategies for assimilating immigrants into a country’s creedal national identity. Well-assimilated immigrants bring a healthy diversity to any society; poorly assimilated immigrants are a drag on the state and in some cases constitute security threats.

Assimilation into a dominant culture becomes much harder as the numbers of immigrants rise relative to the native population. As immigrant communities reach a certain scale, they tend to become self-sufficient and no longer need connections to groups outside themselves.

Democratic societies are fracturing into segments based on ever-narrower identities, threatening the possibility of deliberation and collective action by society as a whole. This is a road that leads only to state breakdown and, ultimately, failure.

As Mr Furey points out, "Against Identity Politics: The New Tribalism and the Crisis of Democracy", isn't entirely about integration, nor is it a "safe space for right-wing views", with its very critical takes on President Trump's policies. All the more reason why it should be read by Mr Hussen and all those liberals who think that "carefully controlled" immigration is the key to growing Western economies and that "diversity is our strength".

Archbishop of Canterbury speaks out on refugees, Islamic extremism

Unlike the Paranoid States of America, the so-called United Kingdom does not insist on the separation of church and state. Quite the opposite. The Church of English is the "established" (official) church of, errr, England [Duh! Ed.] and the Queen of England is "Fidei Defensor" (Defender of the Faith), etc etc. As well, senior members of the Anglican hierarchy have positions in the British Parliament as "Lords Spiritual". So it is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the C of E, occasionally makes public his opinions on matters political.

The incumbent Archbishop, Rt. Rev. Justin Welby, gave a lengthy interview to Politics Home, Parliament’s weekly magazine, in which he called upon Britons to be welcoming to migrants but said that concerns about assimilating them into British society are not racist. "There is a tendency to say 'those people are racist', which is just outrageous, absolutely outrageous,>" said Britain's chief cleric. "Fear is a valid emotion at a time of such colossal crisis. This is one of the greatest movements of people in human history. Just enormous. And to be anxious about that is very reasonable."

Archbishop Welby accepts that, politically, the debate around refugees and migrants is deeply divisive, and says concerns about the pressure new arrivals could place on communities and services are entirely legitimate. "In fragile communities particularly – and I’ve worked in many areas with very fragile communities over my time as a clergyman – there is a genuine fear: what happens about housing? What happens about jobs? What happens about access to health services? There is a genuine fear. And it is really important that that fear is listened to and addressed. There have to be resources put in place that address those fears."

Speaking of the jihad being waged by ISIS and other Islamic extremists against the West, Archbishop Welby warned that, "For the first time in centuries in this country ... we find ourselves involved in conflict which has very, very significant theological aspects. Not only in the Middle East but around the world, in all kinds of places, you’re seeing the outworking of that. You’re seeing it in Libya, in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, right across the Levant and Mesopotamia.... And therefore an intelligent response to this must include theological and religious literacy, and an understanding of what drives people when they are caught up in religious ideas."

Internationally, he opines, that means confronting those states, in particular Saudi Arabia, that have aided the development of extremism and violence. "The key thing is, if we are going to deal with extremism, mainstream religious leaders – which within many parts of the Islamic world includes governments – must be very, very clear about taking responsibility for the violence within their own traditions ... and tackling that effectively. That will mean places like Saudi Arabia tackling extremist thinking within their own tradition. Much support has come from within those countries, and they need to be challenged on that. They need to stamp out the support for the extremist views from within their own societies."

In order to be fully successful, the Archbishop said, the struggle against religious violence and extremism must involve a domestic component too. He offered a staunch defence of the UK’s own "Judeo-Christian tradition", and warned against attempts to dilute those values out of a misplaced fear of causing offence.
"I think you’ve got to be very clear about rights and wrongs," he said. "You can’t turn a blind eye, in any way at all."

This, he added, is where secularism too often goes wrong. A successful multi-faith society, he believes, should not view faith as a threat to be pushed to the margins, nor identity as a zero-sum game of exchange, where different groups deny their values to avoid alienating others. "We need to be confident about our own heritage, our Judeo-Christian heritage, whether we’re believers or not," he says. "That is what has shaped our own values, and we need to be confident in that." [My emphasis. Walt]

Saying the unsayable about the unspeakable in Brampton, Canada

Brampton, Ontario, Canada used to be a nice little white little community. Walt passed through there in the early 1950s and remembers it having a population of less than 10,000 and one (1) traffic light at the main intersection, which everyone called "The Four Corners". (Banks occupied three of the four corners. How Canadian is that?!) The traffic signal had only red and green lights, didn't need a yellow. No-one signalled turns because everyone knew where everyone else was going anyway. It was that kind of town.

Sixty years later, Brampton has changed. The population is well over half a million, and more than half of those are vizmins, mainly from south Asia although a black ghetto is developing in the city's northwest quadrant. Don't take Walt's word for it. Check out "Brampton's growing pains", which appeared in the Brampton Guardian last week.

The Guardian kind of downplays the issues of immigration, race and poverty because Canadians like to pretend problems like ghettoization only exist in other countries. In case you can't find the paper's reference, we'll copy it here.
"The population explosion has also sparked concerns about ghettoization, both in terms of income and race. Like other Peel Region municipalities, Brampton faces growing income inequality thanks to a decline in well-paying jobs, a surge of immigrants who may face language barriers in the workplace, and rising home prices."

The article didn't generate a lot of interest or discussion. Why would it, in places with nicknames like "Bramladesh" and "Sikhdale"? That's the way things are, thanks to Pierre Trudeau's Liberal governments of the 1970s and every one of their successors of both red and blue stripes. The politicians opened the floodgates because every immigrant is a potential voter who will be beholden to the progressive pols who allowed them to escape their third-world cesspits by coming by the boatload to the Great No-longer-white North.

Now, however, a political action group called Immigration Watch Canada, is causing some long-overdue discussion about the pitfalls of excessive immigration of unassimilable minorities. They dare to question the wisdom of "a social engineering experiment that is conducted on Canada’s mainstream population in order to make it a minority."

They're circulating a pamphlet called "The Changing Face of Brampton - Is This What You Really Want?", which has predictably (and instantly) been denounced as "racist" by the usual gang of "progressive thinkers" and forces for good in the community.

The flyer points out the drastically changed demographics of Brampton's population. It shows two photos. The first is of a group of white people. The second shows a group of Sikhs. Under it is the question: "Is this really what you want?"

Certain people are upset -- hotter'n firecrackers as Fred C. Dobbs would say. "This kind of message divides the community", said MPP Jagmeet Singh (NDP, Bramalea-Gore-Malton). Mr. Singh is the first turbaned Sikh to be elected to the Ontario legislature. Said he, "We need to celebrate our diversity and celebrate the fact that Canada is first and foremost a country of immigrants." Ah yes. "Celebrating diversity" is the politically correct thing to say and do. Not "Is this really what you want?"!

Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell expressed her disapproval in a tweet -- of course -- and written statement from her office. "These flyers are disgusting," she said, suggesting the document might fall under a hate crime. ("Hate crime" = political incorrectness.) "Racism has no place in Brampton. I have informed Peel police about these bigoted acts."

(Mayor Fennell, by the way, has a higher salary and expense account than just about any other "chief magistrate" in Canada. She gets re-elected year after year thanks in part to the votes of people whose ID might be called into question by people less charitable than Walt.)

Balpreet Singh, of the World Sikh Organization of Canada, doesn't think the "hate crime" charge is going to stick. "I think the pamphlets are in very bad taste," he said, "but I don't think that they go into the territory of hate crime, so I don't expect anything to be done."

That's one thing both Mr. Singhs and Immigration Watch Canada agree on. There will be a provincial election as early as June, a municipal election in the fall, and a federal election next year. Nothing will be done to halt or even reduce the flow into Canada -- and other Western countries -- of unassimilable third-world immigrants. It's too late.

An earlier comment worth reading: "Brampton suffers identity crisis as newcomers swell city’s population", Toronto Star, 24 May 2013