Mexicans Who Happen to be Living in America Demand Racial-Grievance Studies

Mexicans Who Happen to be Living in America Demand Racial-Grievance
Studies

May 13th, 2011

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

Multiculturalism, which used to be merely noxious, has become a raging
infection which poses as much of a threat to America as the national debt or
terrorism — before Osama assumed room temperature.

Recently, a gang of ethnocentric thugs took over a meeting of the governing
board of the Tucson, Arizona, Unified School District, chaining themselves to
desks, screaming slogans, and chasing board members from the room.

They were enraged by an attempt to make a course that teaches history “from a
Mexican-American perspective” optional instead of a substitute for a required
course in U.S. history.

The Mexican American Studies Program incites approximately 1,700 middle-and
high-school students in the district annually.

After an investigation, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom
Horne determined that the basic theme of the curriculum (AKA: Raza — “the race”
— Studies) is that Hispanic students “were and continue to be victims of a
racist American society driven by the interests of middle- and upper-class
whites.”

Classrooms in which this pedagogy is perpetrated are decorated with pictures
of such Latino “heroes” as Castro and Che Guevara.

Textbooks refer to citizens of this country as “Anglos” or “Euroamericans”
(rather than Americans) and include such gems as an essay by one Robert Jensen,
which claims Thanksgiving is a “white supremacist holiday” that should be
replaced by a “National Day of Atonement” for gringo sins against people of
color.

The introductory chapter promises: “We will see how half of Mexico
(California, Texas and the Southwest) was ripped off by trickery and
violence. We will see how Chicanos became a colonized people. In the process of
being colonized, we were robbed of land and other resources.” The nerve of those
Texans, tricking Santa Anna into attacking the Alamo and killing its
defenders to the last man.

In violation of a recently enacted Arizona law, the curriculum promotes the overthrow of the United States government and “resentment toward a race or class of people,” is “designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” and advocates “ethnic solidarity instead of treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The multiculturalist assault on America is multifaceted.

In 2010, on Cinco de Mayo (which celebrates the Mexican army’s 1862 victory
over the French – big whoopee), a group of patriotic students at the Live Oak
High School in Morgan Hill, California, were sent home for wearing American-flag
t-shirts. Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez is said to have….

Read
more
.

Germany Confronts the Failure of Multiculturalism

Germany Confronts the Failure of Multiculturalism

Posted By Jacob Laksin On October 22, 2010 @ 12:24 am In FrontPage

German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignited a political firestorm this past weekend when she pronounced [1] German multiculturalism a failure.

Addressing a youth delegation of her Christian Democratic Union Party, Merkel observed that in light of the widespread failure of immigrants, particularly Muslims, to integrate – whether by learning the German language or by adopting German cultural and legal norms – the country could have no illusions about the success of its so-called multikulti policies in assimilating immigrants.

“We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”

Merkel added that the only solution was for immigrants to learn the language and to integrate into the dominant German culture.

As any mention of the untouchable issue of immigration tends do, Merkel’s comments elicited furious condemnation from the German and Left. The left-wing Tageszeitung dismissed her remarks as populist posturing. The Financial Times Deutschland insisted that such rhetoric “cannot be excused.” Still other critics charged that Merkel was stoking “xenophobia.”

Yet the most notable aspect of Merkel’s remarks is just how unremarkable they were. Indeed, the most compelling criticism of her public renunciation of multiculturalism is that it has come too late in Germany’s immigrant crisis.

That crisis dates back to the 1950s. At the time, vast numbers of foreign guest workers, or Gastarbeiter, were required to make up for the post-war labor shortage. In the years that followed, these migrant laborers were needed to fuel the country’s booming industrial economy.

If many of the contemporary problems of immigration and integration were not anticipated, one reason is that it was assumed these workers would return to their countries of origin. Initially, many did just that. Over time, however, fewer and fewer returned. Temporary guests became permanent ones, with the consequence that Germany is now home to some 16 million foreign workers out of its population of 82 million.

Not all of these foreign workers have failed to integrate into German society. Whether Russian or Chinese [2], many have learned German, found jobs, and become productive members of society even as they’ve retained the traditions and language of their native culture. An important exception, however, is Germany’s Turkish community, which at 2.5 million also happens to be the country’s largest ethnic minority. That community is also at the heart of many of Germany’s social, and increasingly, security problems. When Merkel talks about the utter failure of multiculturalism, this is what she has in mind.

The failure of German Turks to assimilate is a well-documented phenomenon. A 2009 study by the Berlin Institute for Population and Development found that even after 50 years and three generation in the country, Turks remained a people apart. They reside in what Germans have come to call “parallel communities,” a diplomatic term for what are in effect ethnic ghettos shunted off from mainstream German society. This exclusion exacts a heavy toll on new generations, many of whom do not know the native language. Reports of primary school classes where 80 percent of children cannot speak German are testimony to the seriousness of the problem.

Religion would seem to be one of the underlying reasons for the Turks’ persistent outsider status. Turks make up the majority of Germany’s 4 million Muslim residents, and despite the secular reputation of 20th century Turkey, there is abundant evidence that their brand of Islam has been in tension with German culture and society.

That is most evident in the contrasting levels of religious commitment. While Germany has followed the European trend toward secularization, its Turkish immigrants remain fervently religious. A 2006 study by the Essen Center for Turkish Studies found that 83 percent of Muslims of Turkish-origins described themselves as religious or strictly religious. And while German leaders have long toed the politically correct line that Islam is fully compatible with German ways – even the blunt-speaking Merkel has paid repeated lip service to the pluralistic cliché that Islam is a “part of Germany” – Turkish Muslims seem to disagree. Not only do nearly half of German Turks say that Islamic laws are incompatible with German society, but many live that way. Forced marriages and “honor” killings are two of the more prominent examples of Islamic practices clashing with German laws and culture. Even in death, many Muslim immigrants spurn integration. By some estimates [3], as many as 80 percent of Muslims have their bodies sent to their home countries so as to avoid a non-Muslim burial on German soil.

More and more, that clash of civilizations underlies a security concern in Germany. This August, German authorities finally shuttered the city’s Taiba mosque, a nursery of jihadist terror whose alumni included September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta [4]. Just this week, German federal prosecutors arrested [5] 8 men, including a Turkish national, on charges of supporting al-Qaeda and spreading terrorist propaganda on the internet. Previous crackdowns on German-based jihadist groups have also netted Turkish Islamists. As a result, Germany is now on the international radar as a major base for jihadist terror. When the U.S. recently issued a travel alert for Europe, it specifically cited Islamists originating in Germany.

With the costs of multiculturalism’s failure so plain to see, it’s not surprising that many Germans are anxious about where mass immigration has led them. Merkel’s recent comments are only the latest crack in the politically correct “consensus” surrounding the taboo subject. In August, Thilo Sarrazin, a senior official at Germany’s central bank, published a book about the dangers of Muslim immigration whose theme was summed up in its provocative title: Germany Does Itself In. Sarrazin was forced to resign his position amid press furor, but his book continues to top Germany’s best-seller lists – a good indication of where the public’s sympathies lie. Another measure of the national doubts about the wisdom off immigration comes from a recent study, which found that one-third of Germans feel the country is being “over-run by foreigners,” while nearly 60 percent feel that Muslim religious practices should be “significantly curbed.” Elite opinion remains hostile to open discussion of immigration, especially Muslim immigration, but a growing segment of German popular opinion plainly feels that it represents a legitimate worry.

While this concern is encouraging, mirroring as it does Europe’s broader awakening to the issues of immigration and Islamic extremism, it is not altogether a heartening phenomenon.  For one thing, the growing alarm about the problem of Muslim integration coexists with a revived anti-Semitism. The same study that found Germans supporting restrictions on certain Islamic practices also found that 17 percent think Jews “have too much influence.” Another problem is that while it is becoming more acceptable to point out the failures of multiculturalism, no serious solution has been offered. Modest attempts at assimilation, such as language classes, are unlikely to overcome entrenched cultural and religious divides.

That will become an even bigger problem for Germany in the decades ahead. At 1.36 children per woman, Germans have one of the lowest fertility rates not only in Europe but in recorded history. Statistics on Germany’s Turkish community are sparse, but there is a consensus that comparatively they have many more children. If those trends hold, Germany likely will look very different in the not-so-distant future. Acknowledging that multiculturalism has failed may be a necessary first step to coping with the consequences of Islamic immigration. But it will not save Germany from that looming demographic predicament.

Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium

FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND

FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND
 LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER. FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT
 ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, PLEASE READ AND LEARN A DIFFERENT
 VIEWPOINT.

 Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare
 the pants off you!

 We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his
 thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration
 overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of
 America’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the
 name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,”
 explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the
 entire state of California. He said it would march across the country
 until
 it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

 Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave  a
 stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as
 he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He
 said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too
 rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in
 history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all
 great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would
 show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

 “Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: “First, to destroy America, turn
 America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History
 shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of
 two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an
 individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be
 bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The
 histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate
 are
 histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia,
 and
 Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press
 for
 autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria
 suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques,
 Bretons, and Corsicans.”.

 Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and
 encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of
 belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences
 Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are
 due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other
 explanation is out of bounds.

 Third, “We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much
 effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin
 Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: “The apparent success of
 our
 own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not
 by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated
 ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only
 tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.”  Lamm said, “I would
 encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would
 replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is
 important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in
 America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing
 their similarities.”

 “Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
 educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated,
 and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
 have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

 “My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and
 business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic
 identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology’ I would get all
 minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the
 majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure
 on the majority population.”

 “My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and
 promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would
 stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are
 mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing
 each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most
 historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a
 nation
 together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they
 belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and
 literature;
 and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic
 games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these
 bonds were n ot strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism
 and
 geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.
 “E.
 Pluribus Unum” –From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the
 emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of
 the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

 “Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to
 talk
 about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word
 similar
 to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed
 thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.
 Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established
 multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
 ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
 laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
 America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
 symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

 In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound
 silence followed. Finally he said,. “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson
 Davis’s book “Mexifornia.” His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to
 destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read
 that book.”

 There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud
 above every attendee at the conference. Every Americ an in that room knew
 that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
 darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is
 being
 suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our
 educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that
 practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate
 ‘diversity.’
 American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a
 Third World in America – take note of California and other states – to
 date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of
 George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in
 the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and
 “Ignorance is strength.”

 Governor Lamm wa lked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
 conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is
 deeply
 in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster
 stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and
 destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.

 If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this
 on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don’t.

A Communism for the 21st Century

A Communism for the 21st Century

I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.

On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.

continue reading

Multiculturalism and Islam: Sharia vs European constitutions

Multiculturalism and Islam: Sharia vs European constitutions
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
Problems in Holland and Denmark. Great Britain as an example: decades of multiculturalism that have lead to ghettos, closure, radicalism of Islamic communities. Women ever penalized. Being European citizens involves having the duty to integrate. Third in a series of articles.

 Beirut (AsiaNews) – Multiculturalist ideology, i.e. the blind tolerance of any culture or tradition, is destroying Europe and standing in the way of any positive development of Islam.  Such ideology has been condemned by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali intellectual and parliamentarian who, having received death threats from Muslims for her defence of women’s rights and tired of European multiculturalism, left Holland to go work in the United States at the American Enterprise Institute.  She accused Holland of excessive acquiescence, of encouraging the immobility of Muslim communities and even of letting itself be conquered by Islam and Islamic law.

In making room for Sharia, there is the risk of conflict with European constitutions.  An interesting thing is taking place in Denmark, a country which is at the forefront of multi-culturality. The SIAD Party has recently been founded and it proposes the following: anyone who cites Koranic verses contrary to the Danish constitution must be punished because the constitution is superior to all other laws.

And they quote articles 67-69 of the Danish Constitution which says, “We authorize freedom of worship, as long as it is exercised within the framework of Danish laws without disturbing public order.”

All this is a clear signal that people are beginning to reflect on the possible contrast that exists between the constitutions of European countries and certain laws of the Koran.  In Demark too, there exist two trends: the “left”, or the “do-gooders”, who want to respect the culture of others, saying that ours is not an absolute, or suggest that we must be tolerant and give Muslims time to take this step; and those who make no allowances, and who say that if a person is not able to integrate, he is better off going elsewhere.

But the most significant and problematic case is that of Great Britain: here, after decades of multiculturalism, instead of integrating and coexisting, Islamic communities are increasingly closing themselves into ghettos, and fundamentalistic behaviours, dangerous for all society, are emerging.

State schools and Islamic morals

The most representative association of British Muslims, the Muslim Council of Great Britain, has asked that Muslims be recognized the right to apply Islamic morals in state schools.  On February 21, it published a 72-page document and presented it to the government in the name of 400,000 Muslim students attending the country’s state schools.  They ask that the government accept the demands of Muslim parents and youngster on the grounds of faith concerns.

Taking their cue from their concept of modesty, they say that female students:

a) have the right to wear headscarves or the hijab (there is no mention however of the niqab);

b) have the right to not take part in physical education lessons, because Islam prohibits contact between the sexes in public and because there is the risk of girls exposing bare skin, which is prohibited by Sharia.

They also demand separate classes for girls and boys; the refusal of dancing and of sex education (which is a family matter and not a topic for school); drawings and anatomy textbooks must not show genital organs.  As for faith and history, they ask for a revision of the entire teaching system in the name of Islamic morals.

 The Education Ministry has not yet replied officially, but has already said that these requests will be a step backwards in terms of the tolerance that already existed.

British and Muslim

The tendency towards closure – the fruit of multiculturalism! – is apparent also at another level.  Last February 19, a public survey in the Sunday Telegraph shows that 40% of British Muslims are favourable to the introduction of sharia.  This demonstrates the radicalization of a substantial part of the country’s Islamic community.  Forty percent feels foreign to British society and deems that it is necessary and normal to lead a lifestyle in line with the most radical of Islamic ethics.

Another element which is emerging is the detachment of these people from British society.  Asked “How do you feel about the victims of conflicts in the world?”, the reply was “compassion”, “solidarity” and even “anger” with reference to conflicts involving Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Simply put, they feel closer to Muslims than to Great Britain, which is directly involved in some of these conflicts.

From the sociological point of view, it should be said that they come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and belong to traditional families, but it is also worth noting that they have been in Great Britain for at least two generations.  It seems clear to me that the reactions to 9/11, instead of creating more global solidarity around the idea of the fight against terrorism, have instead radicalized Muslims who are siding with each other to defend their brothers in faith.

September 11 created or reinforced, in the entire Islamic world, an identity crisis: Islam and Muslims are under scrutiny.  Faced with this situation, there are those who stop to reflect on what must be reviewed in Islamic teaching behaviour, and there are those whose reaction is closure and aggressiveness so as to affirm more forcefully the radical diversity of Islam vis-à-vis the surrounding culture.  This second kind of behaviour is typical of many young people of second or third generation, who fully recognize themselves neither in Islamic nor in Western tradition (despite having perfectly assimilated the latter).

In any case, this study and the requests regarding schools show that Muslims in Great Britain are increasingly identifying themselves with their religion, more than with local society and culture.

Modesty for males and citizenship

The problems raised by Muslims, for example those in Great Britain, are real.  There does exist a problem of ethics in society, and thus also in the school system.  An exaggerated liberalism which allows young people everything, especially at the sexual level, on the grounds that they must learn to make their own choices, is certainly unacceptable to both the Muslim and Christian communities, as well as to the human community tout court.  But preventing contact between boys and girls, or preventing the teaching of all things related to sexuality is an entirely different matter.  Here, it is not a question of ethics, but of customs and traditions, and this is no longer acceptable.  In any given country, the norms of that country must be observed, not those of the homelands of a few parents!

Furthermore, one might ask oneself why, on the question of the relationship between sexes, it is always the woman who must be hidden or “observe modesty”, as is still said.  If modesty is a virtue – and in fact it is – it applies to males as it does to females.  And since modesty seems to be more spontaneous in females, it would seem more necessary to impose it upon males!  In other terms, despite the best intentions, Muslims tend to confuse customs with ethics.  Customs are tied to determined groups (ethnic, geographic, religious…) and do not apply to the national civil society.  Ethics dictate principles which are valid for every human person, independent of their sex or religion, and therefore are worth defending and fighting to defend.  It is time that we learn to defend ethics that are respectful of the human person, by starting to teach and practice them in schools, to everyone.  As for special treatment for a particular group, in the name of their different culture, this is a deformation of what should be “authentic multiculturalism,” which learns to evaluate different cultures and improve one’s own on the basis of comparison.

The question behind this problem is: what does citizenship mean?  Is it a piece of paper, useful to acquire so as to have advantages and few obligations?  Or is it a profound reality, the result of a pondered choice, which can also demand even big cultural sacrifice?

And more: what is the identity of an Italian citizen of Egyptian or Moroccan or Chinese or Albanian origin?  If it is Egyptian, Moroccan, Chinese, Albanian, then I ask: what is the sense of having requested and obtained Italian citizenship?  It is not perhaps to enjoy the advantages that a country offers and then return to live in one’s country of birth or that of one’s parents?  In that case, I am just an exploiter.  But if it means a conscious choice, which implies changes in behaviour, the desire to build with other citizens a more just society etc, then, yes, I deserve citizenship.  I think that society must help each person to make such pondered choices, helping and facilitating efforts to integrate.

Make English Our Official Language

Make English Our Official Language
By Newt Gingrich and Michael Ciamarra
AEI.org | March 21, 2007

English has never been the only language in America. However, it has been and should remain our primary language and the official language of our government at all levels.

Alabama showed the way in 1990 by adopting English as its official language.

Historically, immigrants have been a source of ingenuity and prosperity for this country. The vast majority of Americans can trace their heritage to a distant land, and many maintain a strong affection for the home of their ancestors or their birth country.

Traditions pass from generation to generation within ethnic groups to create a tapestry of diversity that covers and enriches our nation.

We should continue to strongly encourage legal immigrants to become citizens, but it is important that those seeking citizenship embrace American values and the culture which bind us together. In order to preserve that bond, a common language is imperative.

In the United States the language of success is English, even while we have a robust and enriching tradition of people speaking different languages within their ethnic communities.

Speaking and understanding English is a basic requisite to succeeding in the United States. It also provides the basis for American cultural unity.

The debate over how to address continued illegal immigration to this country and the presence of millions of people living here illegally continues unabated across the nation. In Alabama, as in many states, there is little doubt that immigration will be a major issue in the current session of the Alabama Legislature.

Some people would have you believe that anti-immigrant or racist sentiments are driving the debate. But this isn’t true.

Surely there are pockets of vitriolic anti-immigrant sentiment in this country, as there always have been. But most Americans readily accept their neighbors who are Latino or Asian or other backgrounds, because they are American.

What lies beneath the immigration controversy today is twofold.

First, the failure of large numbers of immigrants to assimilate into our culture is leading many to fear that we are experiencing the disintegration of American cultural values.

American civilization is the most successful in all of human history for a reason. Our rule of law rests on the firm foundation of our cultural values, one of which is a common language.

If assimilation weakens, our foundation will weaken.

Second, Americans are concerned by the ever-increasing numbers of immigrants who are here illegally.

While we work to make English language not only the official language of government but also as our unifying common language, we should ensure that any comprehensive immigration reform includes a commitment to promote citizenship and ensure a solid understanding of the Founding Fathers and the core values of American civilization.

Specific citizenship reform measures for new legal immigrants should:

  • Replace bilingual education with intensive English instruction to help new Americans assimilate into our civilization, thus preserving our culture.
  • Return ballots to English language format, focus on English language literacy as a prerequisite of citizenship, and insist that dual citizens vote only in the United States and give up voting in their birth nation.

These principles were understood and accepted throughout history, which enabled us to absorb millions of immigrants and their children into the American way of life.

  • Rescind Executive Order 13166 requiring multilingualism in federal documents.
  • Require an American history test written in English for any legal immigrant who wishes to become a citizen and meets all qualification criteria.
  • Enforce the Oath of Allegiance by making its understanding and affirmation part of the citizenship test.
  • Focus federal funds on teaching American history and the principles of American civilization, and create specific programs to emphasize American heroes, including military heroes.
  • Provide in-depth English language and American history and civics training for new immigrants through a national program modeled after the highly successful “Ulpan Studies” program in Israel.

This would develop practical skills necessary to actively participate in everyday American life and American productivity.

New Americans have always enriched our nation, and for American civilization to succeed, we must maintain and strengthen America’s civic culture.

We must do much more to help new legal immigrants who want to embrace American values and culture by helping them to attain citizenship and assimilate easily into our culture.

As we work toward reforming immigration policies, especially citizenship reform measures, we must never lose sight of the self-evident truths affirmed at the founding of our great nation. We are all created equal–citizen and non-citizen alike–and we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For these truths to have meaning, we must recognize that every person has an inherent human dignity that must be respected. These truths morally bind us to create a workable immigration solution founded upon a system of patriotic integration with our language–the English language–as the common unifying element

West: Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism

West: Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism

Diana West, who is consistently perceptive, has written what may be her most outstanding column yet. (Thanks to PRCS for the link.)

Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It’s as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.I’m not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. Instead, I’m thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of “no surrender” even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box “terror,” even as we go on about “an ideology of hate.” It’s a script that smacks of sci-fi fantasy more than realpolitik. But our grim reality is no summer blockbuster, and there’s no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is going to thwart “terror” or “hate” in the London Underground anymore than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, city bus or shopping mall in Israel.

Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals — ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.

Notice I didn’t say “Islamists.” Or “Islamofascists.” Or “fundamentalist extremists.” I’ve tried out such terms in the past, but I’ve come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it “moderately” enables or “extremistly” advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who’s to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten.

A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against “expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism” (another one of those amorphous terms) because “many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith.” Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times’ Simon Jenkins wrote, “The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident.”

In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action — stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters — means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that’s the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death — as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law — the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.

This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. It’s unlikely that the 21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its online bombing coverage of the word “terrorist”; the spokesman for the London police commissioner has declared that “Islam and terrorism simply don’t go together”; and within sight of a forensics team sifting through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian reported, to “rejoice in the capital’s rich diversity of cultures, traditions, ethnic groups and faiths.” Just don’t, he said, “name them as Muslims.” Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.

Europe’s tolerance finds its limit: Death of multiculturalism

Europe’s tolerance finds its limit: Death of multiculturalism

 
National Post

Tolerance may have died in Europe the day Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.On the morning of Nov. 2, 2004, as Mr. van Gogh cycled to work in Amsterdam, the bearded young man in a long Middle-Eastern-style shirt fired at him with a handgun.

The mortally wounded filmmaker tried to run for cover. But the killer chased him, shot him once more and slit his throat from ear to ear.

Then, he plunged two knives, one with a five-page letter attached, into the body.

The note began: “This is my last word, riddled with bullets, baptized in blood … “

It was filled with jihadist slogans and threats and contained a blood-curdling diatribe against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who had written the script of Mr. van Gogh’s last film, Submission. The 10-minute short about the abuse of Muslim women had upset some Muslims because it showed sacred Koranic texts superimposed on a semi-naked woman.

Bouyeri’s missive ended with a threatening chant: “I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Holland, are going to meet with disaster.”

The savagery of the killing triggered revulsion across Europe. Today, the continent is attempting to cope with increasingly bitter racial and religious squabbles and is riven with doubts about its future.

Decades of open-door immigration policies have transformed Europe through the arrival of several million immigrants, mostly Muslims, from North Africa, Turkey and Southwest Asia.

But as the region became one of the most multicultural regions on Earth, its people have gradually turned against the policies that made it this way.

From Amsterdam to Paris and Brussels to Berlin, politicians want to restrict immigration and force recent arrivals to integrate more thoroughly into their new homelands.

The Netherlands, where 6% of the country’s 16 million people come from Islamic countries, has found itself at the forefront of a general hardening of European attitudes toward Muslim minorities.

In the two years since Mr. van Gogh’s murder, the Dutch government has adopted sweeping reforms aimed at forcing immigrants to integrate more fully into society. Immigrants must now pass a language test within five years of arrival or risk being deported. They must also take special integration classes when they apply for a visa.

Rotterdam has published a code of conduct suggesting that immigrants speak Dutch when out in public and the government runs courses to train imams in Western values.

This week, elections in the Netherlands seemed to reinforce the growing distrust between the native and immigrant populations when the Freedom Party, a previously insignificant far-right fringe group, won nine seats in parliament.

Led by Geert Wilders, a strident radical who goes out of his way to insult Muslims and warn that the Netherlands is about to be engulfed by an “Islamic tsunami,” the Freedom Party is now the fifth- largest in the Dutch parliament.

Mr. Wilders is the political heir of Pim Fortuyn, a populist politician who campaigned on immigration issues and was assassinated in 2002 just before elections.

This time around, Mr. Wilders called for an end to immigration and demanded bans on building religious schools and mosques.

“We need more decency in this country, more education and less Islam,” he recently told Dutch television.

“We have had enough Islam in the Netherlands. I believe Islam is a violent religion and the Koran is a violent book. There is no such thing as moderate Islam.”

Similar far-right movements are flourishing, along with large Muslim immigrant populations, in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy.

In France, one citizen in five voted for right-wing extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 presidential election.

Now, Nicolas Sarkozy, the hardline Interior Minister who hopes to represent the centre-right in next April’s presidential contest, has begun to court the anti-immigrant vote, unveiling a proposed immigration act that is a virtual copy of the Dutch regulations.

“The French way of integration no longer works,” he said recently, referring to last year’s riots in immigrant neighbourhoods, the worst civil unrest in the country in decades.

But it’s not just the far right that is declaring the death of multiculturalism.

Britain’s ruling Labour party has abandoned the laissez-faire pluralism of the past and introduced a U.S.-style citizenship ceremony, complete with declarations of loyalty. Naturalizing immigrants must also pass language and citizenship tests.

More recently, Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, created a huge controversy when he declared he wanted Muslim women to abandon the veil.

He insisted he didn’t want to be “prescriptive,” but felt that covering people’s faces makes it more difficult to communicate.

“Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers — people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able to pass the time of day,” he said.

“That’s made more difficult if people are wearing a veil.”

The comments caused many Muslims to insist they are being persecuted simply for being different.

“The implication is clear: niqab- or hijab-wearing women, and, through them, European Muslims are being asked to submit not to the law of the land, but to each country’s dominant way of life,” Naima Bouteldja, a French journalist, wrote in The Guardian newspaper.

“The mounting campaign against multiculturalism by politicians, pundits and the press, in Britain and across Europe, is neither innocent nor innocuous,” said Ambalavaner Sivanandan, director of Britain’s Institute of Race Relations.

“It is a prelude to a policy that deems there is one dominant culture, one unique set of values, one nativist loyalty — a policy of assimilation.”

Still, in the wake of last summer’s suicide bombings on London’s transit system by home-grown terrorists, there are growing fears multiculturalism protects and preserves every culture — except the host culture.

The native-born terrorist has become a symbol of multiculturalism’s failure. Usually, these new extremists do not feel at home in the West but have only the most tenuous ties to their families’ original homelands.

As a result, they are susceptible to arguments of religious certainty and promises of eternal glory.

The cultural isolation encouraged by multiculturalism also lets Islamist activists find refuge and anonymity in Europe’s immigrant communities.

“The fruits of 30 years of state-endorsed multiculturalism have only increased inter-racial tension and inter-racial sectarianism,” analyst Patrick West wrote in a recent report for the British think-tank Civitas.

“The fact that the London suicide bombers of July 7 [2005] were born and bred in Britain — and encouraged by the state to be different — illustrates that hard multiculturalism has the capacity to be not only divisive but decidedly lethal.

On the other hand, Trevor Phillips, a black political journalist who heads Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality, suggests multiculturalism is outdated because it fails to address cultural differences or reinforce common values.

Britain could be “sleepwalking” towards segregation, he warns, saying, “We have allowed tolerance of diversity to harden into the effective isolation of communities.”

“The multiculturalism beloved by our political and civic bureaucracies has not only failed to deliver peace, but is the partial cause of alienation and extremism,” said Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani-born Anglican Bishop of Rochester.

When that isolation and extremism combine with the simmering resentments of Europe’s immigrants, neither tolerance nor understanding are likely.

In such a globalized clash of cultures, multiculturalism seems doomed to be eclipsed by anger and fear.

pgoodspeed@nationalpost.com

NEW EUROPEAN POLICIES STRESS INTEGRATION

DENMARK

Danes used to pride themselves on their multiculturalism. Then last fall the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed.

Muslims around the world were outraged.

By the time things settled, Danes were beginning to see their 200,000 Muslim immigrants as a threat to their own national identity.

In recent years the Danish government has adopted several policies that aim to hasten the integration of the 5% of the population who are immigrants — mainly Muslims — from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq.

Family members, for instance, must now pass an “attachment test” showing their loyalty to Danish society and values.

FRANCE

France has the largest Islamic presence of any country in Western Europe — its more than six million Muslims, half of them citizens, make up nearly 10% of the population. Many live in drab suburbs that have become no-go areas for the authorities, plagued with drugs, gang rapes and fear. Periodically they erupt in violent protests such as the two weeks of riots in November, 2005.

France’s official policy is of assimilation and integration, but such laws as the 2004 ban on female students wearing Muslim headscarves are fuelling resentment and reinforcing immigrants’ sense of exclusion.

A new “social integration contract” requires immigrants to take a half-day civics class and, if necessary, up to 500 hours of language instruction.

Immigrants would receive a 10-year residence permit and discrimination protections in return for undertaking to learn French and get a job.

GERMANY

Getting German citizenship was once as simple as swearing an oath of allegiance to the country’s constitution.

Now prospective Muslim immigrants in Baden-Wuerttemberg are questioned on their personal political and cultural views.

Candidates are asked their opinions on religious freedom, sexual equality and homosexuality, with questions as blunt as, “Do you think a woman should obey her husband and that he can beat her if she is disobedient?”

In the past Germany did not even acknowledge it had immigrants. They were “guest workers” who would one day go home.

Some 3.3 million Muslims now live in Germany and, like the rest of Europe, the country has begun to adjust its laws to try to force greater integration.

The government provides new migrants with 600 hours of language training and 30 hours of civics instruction.

SWEDEN

For decades Sweden has had some of Europe’s most liberal asylum laws.

As a result, it has one of its fastest-growing immigrant populations.

Of the nine million Swedish citizens, about 1.08 million are foreign-born and up to 40,000 asylum seekers are waiting to be approved.

Once proud of its multi-ethnic, multicultural reputation, Sweden has recently become aware it is a house divided. Immigrants dominate in some areas — they form nearly 40% of the population of Malmo, the third-largest city.

They feature largely on welfare rolls, have higher jobless rates and push up crime.

There are also fears radical Islamic groups are finding terrorism recruits in Sweden.

In October, 2005, a 19-year-old Swede, a refugee from Yugoslavia, was arrested in Sarajevo in an apartment that contained suicide-bomb vests and explosives.

To encourage greater integration and to underline efforts to re-emphasize Sweden’s Western values, the government wants to ban girls under 15 from wearing veils, introduce mandatory medical examinations to detect ritual genital mutilation, end arranged marriages and cut off state funding for religious schools.


EUROPE’S TOLERANCE FINDS ITS LIMIT: DEATH OF MULTICULTURALISM

EUROPE’S TOLERANCE FINDS ITS LIMIT: DEATH OF MULTICULTURALISM

Peter Goodspeed

National Post, November 25, 2006 On the morning of Nov. 2, 2004, as Mr. van Gogh cycled to work in Amsterdam, the bearded young man in a long Middle-Eastern-style shirt fired at him with a handgun. The mortally wounded filmmaker tried to run for cover. But the killer chased him, shot him once more and slit his throat from ear to ear.  Then, he plunged two knives, one with a five-page letter attached, into the body. The note began: “This is my last word, riddled with bullets, baptized in blood…” It was filled with jihadist slogans and threats and contained a blood-curdling diatribe against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who had written the script of Mr. van Gogh’s last film, Submission. The 10-minute short about the abuse of Muslim women had upset some Muslims because it showed sacred Koranic texts superimposed on a semi-naked woman…   The savagery of the killing triggered revulsion across Europe. Today, the continent is attempting to cope with increasingly bitter racial and religious squabbles and is riven with doubts about its future.  Decades of open-door immigration policies have transformed Europe through the arrival of several million immigrants, mostly Muslims, from North Africa, Turkey and Southwest Asia.  But as the region became one of the most multicultural regions on Earth, its people have gradually turned against the policies that made it this way… [Last November], elections in the Netherlands seemed to reinforce the growing distrust between the native and immigrant populations when the Freedom Party, a previously insignificant far-right fringe group, won nine seats in parliament.  Led by Geert Wilders, a strident radical who goes out of his way to insult Muslims and warn that the Netherlands is about to be engulfed by an “Islamic tsunami,” the Freedom Party is now the fifth- largest in the Dutch parliament.  Mr. Wilders is the political heir of Pim Fortuyn, a populist politician who campaigned on immigration issues and was assassinated in 2002 just before elections… Similar far-right movements are flourishing, along with large Muslim immigrant populations, in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy.  In France, one citizen in five voted for right-wing extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 presidential election.  Now, Nicolas Sarkozy, the hardline Interior Minister who hopes to represent the centre-right in next April’s presidential contest, has begun to court the anti-immigrant vote…   But it’s not just the far right that is declaring the death of multiculturalism. Britain’s ruling Labour party has abandoned the laissez-faire pluralism of the past and introduced a U.S.-style citizenship ceremony, complete with declarations of loyalty. Naturalizing immigrants must also pass language and citizenship tests.  More recently, Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, created a huge controversy when he declared he wanted Muslim women to abandon the veil… [Straw’s] comments caused many Muslims to insist they are being persecuted simply for being different.  “The implication is clear: niqab- or hijab-wearing women, and, through them, European Muslims are being asked to submit not to the law of the land, but to each country’s dominant way of life,” Naima Bouteldja, a French journalist, wrote in The Guardian newspaper… Still, in the wake of last summer’s suicide bombings on London’s transit system by home-grown terrorists, there are growing fears multiculturalism protects and preserves every culture—except the host culture.  The native-born terrorist has become a symbol of multiculturalism’s failure. Usually, these new extremists do not feel at home in the West but have only the most tenuous ties to their families’ original homelands. As a result, they are susceptible to arguments of religious certainty and promises of eternal glory. The cultural isolation encouraged by multiculturalism also lets Islamist activists find refuge and anonymity in Europe’s immigrant communities.  “The fruits of 30 years of state-endorsed multiculturalism have only increased inter-racial tension and inter-racial sectarianism,” analyst Patrick West wrote in a recent report for the British think-tank Civitas.  “The fact that the London suicide bombers of July 7 [2005] were born and bred in Britain—and encouraged by the state to be different—illustrates that hard multiculturalism has the capacity to be not only divisive but decidedly lethal…” …In such a globalized clash of cultures, multiculturalism seems doomed to be eclipsed by anger and fear.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers