Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2015

Multicultural Europe On the Brink

From a Facebook post

The window of opportunity for reasonable European leaders to address the cultural cancer of Islamism before there’s a major right-wing backlash — is getting smaller and smaller. Islamist ideology isn’t new, and it isn’t going anywhere — once again, we’re dealing with the same worldview that was behind the ’93 WTC bombings, the embassy bombings of the 90s, the attack on the USS Cole, 9/11, the London and Madrid attacks, the execution of Theo van Gogh, the Fort Hood massacre, the attack in Benghazi, the Charlie Hebdo executions, the rise of ISIS, and on and on and on —

What’s particularly frightening about the ongoing situation in Europe is how many of the attacks there have been home-brewed. And the problem is not limited to acts of terrorism: in Muslim ghettos in countries once thought to be bastions of tolerance, like Holland, sharia law has as much or more sway than the true laws of the government. Gay-bashings are happening again in cities that once thought they’d done away with them. Anti-Semitism is on the rise again. A recent poll showed 16% of Frenchmen call themselves supporters of ISIS, and you can bet they aren’t named ‘Francois.’ Another poll showed 98% of British Muslims morally disapproving of homosexuality. Can there be any debate any longer that multiculturalism and cultural relativism have failed Europe?

The middle way is always to take in a moderate number of newcomers from foreign cultures and to insist on assimilation. There is no reason why Europe can’t take in a number of Muslim immigrants and turn them into successful Europeans. As President Obama has pointed out, America’s Muslim community is well-assimilated and should serve as an example to the world. But if the choice facing Europe boils down to voting in more high priests of multiculturalism and open-borders — and voting in right-wingers who want to totally seal national borders and keep them all of ‘them’ out — well, it’s not going to take very many more attacks like this before the post-Cold War dream of a unified, open, multicultural Europe goes up in flames.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

From a Facebook post

You cannot reason with leftist identity politics ideologues on campus. They do not want to have a debate or a conversation with you. They are certain you are suffering from some combination of unconscious prejudice and unchecked privilege, and they will not legitimize the oppressor by engaging in ‘dialogue’ with him as if he were their moral equal. In their eyes, the topic at hand is *not* a debate, and you cannot understand them until you grasp the implications of that.

I would certainly know — at American University, while I was a columnist for the school newspaper (I identified as a ‘classical liberal’), I tried repeatedly for over a year to convince representatives from both Women’s Initiative and Students for Justice In Palestine to participate in their choice of one-on-one or multi-person panel debates with me and someone else from the College Republicans. I was the most-read and most-responded-to writer in the paper and I wrote constantly on identity politics and campus matters, so it’s not like I didn’t have standing to propose a student debate. Time after time: No, no, no, no, no — “This is not a debate,” “We won’t treat this issue as if there’s your side and my side.”

In essence, these are the moral assumptions of war. If it’s not a debate, the enemy must be destroyed. Their methods of ‘debate’ against me were always attempts at character assassination: I was a ‘reactionary,’ a ‘sexist,’ an ‘elitist,’ a ‘rape apologist,’ etc., despite the fact that I was an openly gay libertine atheist who publicly bashed social conservatism and bourgeois values. No matter — the nature of the event is that you are either with them or against them.

Consequently, explanations about why they are wrong should only be addressed to fence-sitters. Don’t even try to reason with the campus fanatics. Just pronounce swift, unequivocal judgment. Their attitudes are incompatible with liberal democracy. They are censorious. They are arrogant and dismissive. They are not emotionally or spiritually prepared for human life. And what they stand for absolutely must be stopped, because the state of education in this country is already dire enough.

Read Full Post »