The West and the Guest

Posted By David Solway On November 17, 2010 

Let’s start with a simple thought experiment. You invite a guest into your
house, give him a room, and make all your facilities available to him. You
find him a job — it might be one that needs to be done, it might not — but
if he runs into difficulties or loses his job you provide him with the
wherewithal he requires. Eventually he brings his family over for an
extended visit which turns out to be permanent and before you know it an
entire part of your house has been sealed off or, as in some instances, has
become a domestic no-go zone.

Your new guests refuse to participate in your home life. They deplete your
budget, may not even learn your language, install a V-chip in your computer
to prevent the normal range of your communications, and in the course of
time begin agitating to introduce a new set of house rules which you, the
proprietor, are expected to abide by. It is quite possible that you return
one evening to discover that your kids have been traumatized and the house
is in shambles. It may happen as you set off for work in the morning, you
find your car has been torched.

Clearly, the allegory may not be exact in all its particulars, though it is
on the whole a valid, if somewhat lurid, picture of what goes by the name of
multiculturalism. What we call “multiculturalism” is not to be construed as
identical to “diversity.” The former allows the ethnocratic retention of the
in-group’s language, justice system, customs, and politics in
semi-autonomous enclaves, as, for example, the 751 zones urbaines sensibles
<http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france>  [1]
in France, Tower Hamlets
<http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/25/sharia-in-the-uk/print/>  [2] in London
and Bury Park
<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/no-go-zone-muslim-areas-comi
ng-soon-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/>  [3] in Luton, so-called “no drive
areas” like Kreuzberg <http://euro-med.dk/?p=16953>  [4] in Berlin,
off-limit areas in Brussels <http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2584>  [5],
Amsterdam’s Slotervaart <http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2584>  [5]
district, the Rosengard
<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/09/muslims-rule-major-swedish-city.html>
[6] quarter in Malmo, and many other high-risk neighborhoods in cities
across the face of Europe, most virtual Islamic republics and many prone to
communal violence; the latter assumes the orderly and beneficial mingling of
different peoples in the public agora, which is the case with most immigrant
communities. When we say “multiculturalism,” we mean primarily a social
project which approves of the voluntary segregation of many Muslim
communities to pursue a life apart from, and all too often hostile to or in
actual conflict with, the heritage lifestyle that has welcomed them.

The original theory was that something like a social paradise could be
created by good will and horticultural sentiment alone. The garden metaphor
<http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Muhammad-Ali-Center-Peace-bw-3943305004.html?
x=0&.v=1>  [7] became extremely popular. Liberals were convinced that their
vision of society as a sort of trellised garden, sheltering a great variety
of exotic plants all jumbled together and left uncultivated, would enable
its inhabitants to flourish without root competition. But this was a merely
emotional construct that would lead in practice to rampant parasitism and
the degradation of the spirit of cultural autonomy and integrity. It is as
if we were moving down the phylogenetic scale toward a condition of
simplistic psychic organization, resembling James Cameron’s Navi
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%282009_film%29>  [8] worshipping their
holy tree in a fictional Pandora. Indeed, what the Swiss legionnaire poet
Arthur Nicolet
<http://www.fschuppisser.ch/exewiki/index.php?title=Nicolet%2C_Arthur>  [9]
wrote of his country soon applied to the West in general.

L’Helvetie est un paradis

Ou l’esprit marche à quattre pattes.

(Switzerland is a paradise

Where the spirit walks on four feet.)

In any event, one of the most bizarre aspects of multiculti is that so
preposterous a situation was long regarded as acceptable, morally
justifiable, and even inevitable. Such behavior on the part of the
proprietor, gradually surrendering deed and title to an interloper with no
lien whatsoever on the property, furnishes a practical illustration of
mental deterioration, if not a working definition of galloping obtuseness.
And that it took more than a generation before the owner of the house, or
his inheritors, began even to consider the prospect of self-restitution, of
reclaiming one’s property from a guest who was on his way to taking
possession of the premises, may offer a sliver of hope but, given what looks
like an approaching fait accompli, not much consolation.

Still, better late than never, as one says, though better early than late
would have been preferable. Anyone with a single grey cell in his head would
have realized at the outset that the multicultural experiment, as originally
conceived, was a social cul-de-sac, a license freely given for the seizure
of natural rights and eviction of the host from a portion of his dwelling —
perhaps, ultimately, to become a paying, second-class occupant in what was
once his own house.

The issue is compounded, however, by a powerful liberal-left orthodoxy that
has invested its self-importance, ideological convictions, and intellectual
life, if not its very survival, in maintaining the multicultural burlesque.
This is especially the case with the European Union which, as Andrew Bostom
writes, “is a corrupt and undemocratic superstate with totalitarian
aspirations” that needs millions of Muslim immigrants “to secure the power
base for the unaccountable bureaucrats who now oversee what passes for
European governance.” In America as well, dissent is being quashed “in
schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is
cause for dismissal from both public and private employment” (email
communication). A restraining order
<http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/10/court-blocks-oklahoma-sharia-ban/>  [10]
recently issued by a U.S. district court against Oklahoma’s anti-shari’a law
is another case in point. In effect, challenging the multicultural paradigm
is a good way of tempting professional suicide or official retribution.

Thus, the hysterical reaction among the denizens of the left to German
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s tardy but clear-headed and realistic assessment
that multikulti “has failed, utterly failed.” She was, of course, alluding
to Germany’s restive Muslim/Turkish immigrant population. Thilo Sarrazin,
anti-Islamic author of the recently published Deutschland schafft sich ab
<http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/34936/german-thilo-sarrazin-banker-book-
racism-europe.html>  [11] (Germany Does Away with Itself), was
unceremoniously fired from his executive post at the Deutsche Bundesbank,
despite the polls that indicate he has the popular will on his side.
Austrian “whistleblower” Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Woolf is currently being
prosecuted by the Austrian government for conducting public seminars on the
menace of Islam. Of course, the trial and trials of Dutch politician Geert
Wilders, who wishes to restore his country to a semblance of sanity, to take
back the house, as it were, has become an international flashpoint. “Europe
is running adrift,” remarked Oskar Freysinger, leader of the Swiss People’s
Party, in a recent lecture
<http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/oskar-freysinger-is-islam-threat.
html>  [12] to the Flemish Parliament, “not because of fanatics who occupy
the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.” They have permitted
“beachheads of Islam” in what Muslims designate as the territory of the
infidel, in other words, the countries to which they have emigrated. There
can be little doubt that Muslim “emigration” (or “immigration”) is a
politically correct euphemism for “infiltration.”

We are now on very delicate ground as we try to address the central
question, which is: what to do? We are a liberal democracy and are bound to
uphold the axial principles that sustain it: freedom of speech and of the
press, freedom of assembly, the dispensation of impartial justice, habeas
corpus, the right to civil and legal protections. These are codes and
scruples that cannot be easily bent or violated in endeavoring to deal with
the problem. Additionally, we have a degenerate and poorly educated
political echelon and a cynical left-wing media apparatus that have together
risen to the defense of the same Muslim groups who have exacerbated the
dilemma from which we suffer. Multiculturalism is, for them, a sacred cow
that must be worshipped, fed, and given dung-freedom in our thoroughfares.

We can see how this unholy confederacy works. We are presumably dowered with
the principle of freedom of speech. Yet our courts (as in Holland and
Austria) and our Human Rights Commissions (as in Canada) are gradually
rendering this supreme value, on which all others depend and which honorable
people dutifully respect, null and void. Woe betide anyone who speaks out
candidly against Islam or Islamic terrorism (aka “man-made disasters”), who
attempts to exercise his constitutional right to burn a “holy book” (as did
the unfortunate pastor Terry Jones), or who objects to the plan to erect a
mosque at Ground Zero by a consortium of shari’a proponents and in defiance
of common decency. The United Nations at the behest of the OIC (Organization
of the Islamic Conference) is debating the motion to criminalize defamation
of religion (read: Islam). This is being done under the banner of silencing
“hate speech,” but obviously the shadowy intent is to silence any speech the
authorities find offensive.

And we are only skimming the surface. Freedom as we have traditionally
understood it is on the verge of becoming a punishable offense. A
civilization is inexorably coming apart — for that is manifestly what is
happening — and yet we are expected to embrace the enemy and submissively
shuffle off the stage of history. The house of Western culture is being
invaded by a twenty-first century volkswanderung and we are, apparently,
supposed to sue for clemency or simply move out. How dim can a dhimmi get?
How servile and craven?

But there is more to it. Failing to act in a meaningful way will produce
intermediate results we would have preferred to evade, namely the irruption
of civil discord and possibly flat-out violence, as far right political
parties shed their fringe status and capitalize on growing citizen
discontent to acquire parliamentary and legislative sway. The theories which
animate these parties are clearly historical clunkers, but they are subject
to a kind of Cubanization, older intellectual vehicles that are constantly
rebuilt to substitute for the lack of new and better ideas. It is important
to note that I am not referring to the reasonable right that seeks to
instill a degree of prudence and common sense into governance and to curtail
or monitor unchecked Muslim immigration — parties such as Ruth Evensen’s
Danish Freedom Party, Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom in the Netherlands,
Oskar Freysinger’s Swiss People’s Party, Jimmie Akesson’s Sweden Democrats
which has purged itself of extremist elements and sent twenty members to the
Swedish parliament, and now René Stadtkewitz’s long overdue Die Freiheit
(The Freedom) Party in Germany.

I am referring rather to xenophobic and reactionary groups that are
essentially vigilante militias in business suits, such as the Freedom Party
in Austria, Jobbik in Hungary, the National Alliance in the U.S., the Front
National in France, and the British National Party. These frankly racist
organizations, in an intensifying effort to assume the reins of power,
profit from the Islamophilia and pandering myopia of our governing and media
patricians and tap into the smoldering anger of ordinary citizens at the
betrayal of their rulers. As Stadtkewitz explains
<http://www.danielpipes.org/9022/germany-freiheit-party>  [13], “The
established parties, unfortunately, are not ready to take a clear stand but
instead abandon the people to their concerns.”

I am not envisioning the second coming of the Third Reich but I am
suggesting that alarmingly regressive ideas of racial purity, the revival of
obscurantist doctrine, and the imminence of reactionary violence are factors
to be considered. Whether the parties of the far right would manage to
contain the Islamic threat is another question entirely. The cure is
certainly no better than the disease and both are to be avoided. But there
is no doubt that these newly resurgent atavisms are the direct beneficiaries
of a befuddled “activist” judiciary, the compliant media, and liberal-left
Western administrations that have succumbed to their own ultraistic liberal
pieties, sentimental chestnuts, and electoral avarice with regard to the
perceived advantages afforded by aggressive but exploitable ethnicities.

We should not need to be reminded that diversity is a staple of Western
life; indeed, it is a source of extraordinary vigor and richness. But
immigrant collectives that set themselves apart, that refuse to integrate
into the norms and usages of their host population, that reject and denounce
the culture that has received them, and that even strive to subvert or
destroy the social and political armature in which they are embedded should
not be so readily tolerated. As Thomas Sowell warns
<http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/20/the-multicultural-cult/>  [14], the
“multicultural dogma … that we are to ‘celebrate’ all cultures, not change
them,” and that “any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural
norms of the larger society” must be censured as a form of cultural
imperialism,” will see to our eventual disintegration as a coherent and
largely peaceable society. The eminent National Post columnist George Jonas
concurs <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/23/george-jonas/>
[15]: “Multiculturalism’s motto, if it had one, would be ‘from one, many.’”
This is plainly not what is meant by “pluralism”; it is more like political
promiscuity and social anarchy.

The only viable solution to our predicament resides not in waiting for the
left to see the light and jettison its social, cultural, political, and
economic programs, since this is not going to happen anytime soon.
Ideological doctrine and ballot calculations are powerful blinders. To quote
Nathaniel Hawthorne from The Blithedale Romance
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1420929623/pajamasmedia-20>  [16],
liberal minds do not “recognize the process” by which their putative
benevolence “has been debased into all-devouring egotism,” nor can they see
how their supposed philanthropy is “a false deity” with “iron features.” On
the contrary, the solution depends upon the emergence of the parties of the
moderate right that are willing to address the multicultural fragmentation
of national unity and revise immigration policies currently in place to
render them more appropriate to national requirements. This is the only way
to disarm the twin peril of the Islamic advance on the one hand and a
nascent fascism on the other.

Daniel Pipes is famous for suggesting that the antidote to radical Islam is
moderate Islam, a mantra that has not borne much fruit. It might be more
accurate in our duple context to say that the antidote to the extreme right
is the moderate right, that is, the remedy for fascism is not leftism but
conservatism, just as conservatism is the only conceivable pharmacon for
mending a febrile society and restoring it to approximate health. Coming to
rational terms with an increasingly intrusive Islamic fact would not only
deprive the far right of its populist fuel but would also help renew the
pneuma, the spiritual integrity and mores of the heritage culture. The
alternative is the ongoing dismantling of the social infrastructure,
escalating friction and strife, and potential dispossession.

Ottoman thinker Said Nursi predicted in his Damascus Sermon
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9754320063/pajamasmedia-20>  [17]
that “Europe and America are pregnant with Islam. One day they will give
birth to an Islamic state.” His modern doppelgänger, imam Faisal Abdul Rauf,
instigator of the Cordoba Mosque project in New York City, is of the same
mind, urging in his 2004 book, What
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060582723/pajamasmedia-20> ’s Right
with Islam [18], the “incorporation of [shari’a] tenets in the basic
constitution of the country.” One recalls, too, the Muslim Brotherhood’s
1991 document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for
the Group in North America
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235>  [19],
which proposed a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” and stated that Muslims
“must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
sabotaging its miserable house.” The insinuation of shari’a, along with the
practice of lawfare <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare>  [20],
instruments of social and political intimidation, and the tactical fallback
on bloodshed and tumult, are the weapons of choice.

This is how the guest expropriates the house and makes it his own. It is his
version of eminent domain and Western civilization’s subprime housing
bubble. If we do not reawaken and re-assert our proprietary rights, we might
as well start searching for a quonsat exile somewhere in the jungle. Or
maybe, if we get lucky, we can rent a tent from Muammar Gaddafi.

  _____  

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-west-and-the-guest/

URLs in this post: 

[1] zones urbaines sensibles:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france

[2] Tower Hamlets:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/25/sharia-in-the-uk/print/

[3] Bury Park:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/no-go-zone-muslim-areas-comin
g-soon-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/

[4] Kreuzberg: http://euro-med.dk/?p=16953

[5] Brussels: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2584

[6] Rosengard:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/09/muslims-rule-major-swedish-city.html

[7] garden metaphor:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Muhammad-Ali-Center-Peace-bw-3943305004.html?x
=0&.v=1

[8] Navi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%282009_film%29

[9] Arthur Nicolet:
http://www.fschuppisser.ch/exewiki/index.php?title=Nicolet%2C_Arthur

[10] restraining order:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/10/court-blocks-oklahoma-sharia-ban/

[11] Deutschland schafft sich ab:
http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/34936/german-thilo-sarrazin-banker-book-r
acism-europe.html

[12] lecture:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/oskar-freysinger-is-islam-threat.h
tml

[13] explains: http://www.danielpipes.org/9022/germany-freiheit-party

[14] warns: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/20/the-multicultural-cult/

[15] concurs: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/23/george-jonas/

[16] The Blithedale Romance:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1420929623/pajamasmedia-20

[17] Damascus Sermon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9754320063/pajamasmedia-20

[18] What’s Right with Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060582723/pajamasmedia-20

[19] An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group
in North America:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235

[20] lawfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to