German Tomfoolery

When Diversity Reigns Supreme

One of the unfortunate realities we increasingly face is that the secular West is ideologically bankrupt.  The vault is empty and bare.  Or, to change metaphors, there ain't no juice left in the tank.  As a consequence, Western leaders are becoming dumb and dumber by the day. 

Take the unfortunate case of the German Federal Integration Commissioner, Aydan Özoğuz profiled in the previous blog post.  This worthy is arguing that because diversity is the cultural principle governing all other laws in Germany there is no such thing as "German" culture into which all must integrate.  The deep culture of Germany is multi-Kultur.  To be German is to be different from other Germans.  Therefore, no-one need integrate into anything: all that is required to be German is to live out one's own peculiar beliefs and practices.

Writing in Tagesspiegel, the Commissioner denounced the debate over Leitkultur (meaning ‘dominant’ or ‘guiding culture’) — in which conservative politicians have suggested migrants should assimilate to a shared set of cultural values  — as “ridiculous and absurd”.

“And no wonder, because it’s simply not possible to identify any sort of culture that’s specific to Germany beyond the language.   “Even historically, it is regional cultures, immigration and diversity that have had a bigger role in shaping our history.”  Globalisation, and the ongoing transformation of Germany into a society of ever increasing numbers of different peoples and lifestyles, “leads to diversity being amplified and multiplied further”, Özoğuz added. 

We are told that Chancellor Merkel has lustily clapped and cheered on this tom foolery.  We wonder in passing whether the Integration Commissioner understands what she is saying.  Probably not.

Dialogue of the Deaf

A Swedish Gaffe That Wasn’t 

The world guffawed when it thought Donald Trump was hallucinating about Sweden. But he wasn’t really wrong.

By Jonathan S. Tobin
National Review Online

Late-night television hosts got another gift from President Trump over the weekend, but it turns out the incident wasn’t so much comedy gold as it was an illustration of everything that is wrong about the colloquy between Trump and his critics on immigration and refugees.

On Monday evening, Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers made a meal out of the latest Donald Trump gaffe. Trump was lambasted for saying that there had been a terror attack in Sweden on Friday night. Since there had been no such attack, it prompted the usual avalanche of mockery in the president’s direction. But while Trump’s vague language and willingness to fabricate facts to suit his talking points often justifies the brickbats thrown in his way, in this case there were two problems with the hilarity: Trump didn’t actually claim there had been a terror attack, and the facts about Sweden actually do back up his claim about a surge in violence by Muslim immigrants in Europe.

During the course of his campaign-style rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Trump said:

We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris.

Given the context, in which he appeared to be referencing violence in Belgium, France, and Germany, it sounded as if Trump was saying there had been an attack the previous evening in Sweden. Except he wasn’t.

Letter From the UK (About Massive Policy Failures)

Rejection of UK Government's Perverse Ineptitude

96% Label Government’s Anti-Radicalisation Strategy Ineffective At Tackling Extremism

Breitbart London

Sarkis Zeronian

A poll has revealed the public has no faith in the government’s anti-radicalisation scheme, with 96 per cent of respondents saying it is a failure.

The coalition government’s flagship Prevent strategy was unveiled in June 2011 as part of its attack on extremism in Britain, and further revamped last year. It followed a review of the previous Labour government’s failed anti-radicalisation attempt. The three main objectives were:

“to respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat from those who promote it; to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support; and to work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation that we need to address.”

Today the Daily Express reports that only four per cent of respondents to a poll believe the anti-radicalisation strategy can be described as effective.

Europe's Traitorous Enclaves

Europe’s Fear Of "Fear"

‘Islamophobia’ Led Directly To The Belgium Attacks

This latest attack in Brussels would not have been possible without this network of native-born, disaffected Muslims. And for that, Europe has no one to blame but itself.

M. G. Oprea

The Federalist

Last week, I wrote about the myriad instabilities in the Middle East and North Africa, from the civil war in Yemen to the bombings in Turkey and the ongoing disaster in Syria. What I didn’t touch on, however, is how these instabilities are reverberating on the European continent. Sadly, this week another tremor was felt. Today, during the morning commute, terrorists bombed a train station and the airport in Brussels. So far, more than 30 are reported dead and more than 150 injured.

These attacks come five months after the Paris attacks that shocked the world and took the lives of 130 men and women. These terrorists had pledged their allegiance to ISIS and were carrying out what they believed to be holy jihad. Although most of the perpetrators were killed during the attacks or in the days after in a suburb of Paris, one man eluded the police. That man, Salah Abdeslam, was captured on Friday after a months-long manhunt.

The city has been on high alert since his arrest. They knew Abdeslam had a large network in Brussels, and that he had been planning more attacks. They feared his network of operatives would lash out. They also discovered detonators in a safe house last week before his arrest. Presumably, today’s bombings in Brussel were a reaction to Abdeslam’s apprehension, either out of concern that he would talk or that the police would soon be on to them, too.

What is shocking the Brussels police, however, is the scale of Abdeslam’s network and its capacity to help him avoid capture for so long in a city that authorities were scouring for him.

Oxymorons Aplenty

Modern Islam Is An Impossibility

The chattering classes in the West fondly cling to the idea that Islam can be Westernised.  It can be transformed into the kind of nominalism tolerable to the West.  What is being proposed is readily understandable.

The idea is that the teachings and doctrines of Islam would be filtered through Western humanitarian glasses.  All doctrines which clashed with Western values--particularly socio-political values--would be modified if not discarded.  All Islamic teaching would be filtered so as to exclude or modify every teaching that did not conform to Western values and beliefs.  What would be left would be a nominal Muslim--that is, a Moslim in name only.  But there is a trade-off.  The West in return would honour and genuflect before the butchered remnant of the religion.  The nominal Muslim would be treated with respect.  He would be invited to participate in the highest councils of the land.  He may even get the odd invitation to the White House.

We in New Zealand have seen how this process works.  In fact our nation is built upon it.  We proudly proclaim ourselves to be generally multi-cultural, but specifically bi-cultural.  We have welcomed Maori into the highest councils and counsels of the land.  But every Maori knows that most of the traditional beliefs of Maoritanga have long been left behind.

Lonely Voices

A Dishonoured Prophet 

Muslims are different and they are not going to integrate into Western society--so says Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission under Tony Blair.  Unsurprisingly, this view cuts right across the prevailing orthodoxy in Europe generally, and the UK in particular.  

To discuss this helpfully, we need to make some distinctions.  We need to be clear what sort of Muslim are we talking about.  As everybody knows, there are Muslims and Muslims, just as their are Christians and Christians.  Grant, if you would, that there are millions of Muslims in the West whome we can categorize as nominal Muslims--that is, Muslims in name only.  They do not get out the prayer mat, face Mecca and bow their faces on the ground six times a day.  Neither to they ever contemplate going on the haj.  They do not attend mosques, except for social occasions. They rarely, if ever, read the Koran.  They do not speak nor read the language of the Koran, Arabic.  They drink alcohol, ignore Ramadan, and socialise at the local pub.

Nominal Muslims have indeed integrated into Western society.  But there are Muslim immigrants who want to live as consistently as they can with Muslim practices.  They strive to follow the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad, the Koran, and wherever possible, Sharia Law.  They are not nominal Muslims, but genuine conscientious believers.  Such Muslims are far less likely to integrate into secular Western society.  On the contrary they believe and practice Islamic imperialism.