17 OCTOBER, 2021
In an effort to placate the Muslims and stem the violence, Germany had established Sharia courts under Islamic scholars for Muslim communities…
10 JULY, 2022
It came as quite a shock to her, so much of a shock that she didn’t even cry out, when five boys surrounded her, exclaimed, ‘This is our sister,” dropped a blanket over her head and pulled her into a cellar.
Germans and German law had long since stopped defending Muslim women…
5 MARCH, 2024
‘We still take some immigrants from Old Europe,’ the [American] consular explained. ‘But we don’t really need them… You’re in the process of losing your own homeland. You brought it on yourselves and it’s become irreversible now. So ask yourself: Why should we accept into our country people with a history of destroying the country they live in?’
We’ll be seeing a lot more novels like this – although perhaps not in Canada, if the Canadian Islamic Congress and their dopey enablers in the “human rights” commissions succeed in their campaign to get fictional plots rendered actionable. But I was interested to see that apparently the authors of Quebec’s Bouchard-Taylor report, according to a story in Le Journal de Montréal, accept the notion of an Islamic conquest of Europe as not without foundation. It’s a lopsided valse macabre between two left-footed dancers. “Why are you so certain everything’s going down the tubes?” Gabi, a young German of conventional anti-American multiculti post-nationalist views, asks her Muslim boyfriend as he decides to flee the Continent for life in Boston.
“Because my people could fuck up a wet dream,” Mahmoud answers. “And I’m beginning to think that yours can, too.”
IV
FREE SPEECH AND THE MULTICULTURAL STATE
Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend.
You remember that business from 2007 when Senator Larry Craig had his unfortunate run-in with the undercover cop in the Minneapolis Airport men’s room? When the Canadian “human rights” apparatchiks began investigating my writing north of the border, I was amazed to pick up a newspaper south of the border and read that Senator Craig’s lawyer had filed a brief arguing that the inviting hand gestures he supposedly made under the bathroom stall divider were constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. What a great country! In Canada, according to the Canadian Islamic Congress, “freedom of speech” doesn’t extend to my books and columns. But in America Senator Craig’s men’s room semaphore is covered by the First Amendment. From now on, instead of writing about radical Islam, I’m only going to hit on imams in bathrooms. It’ll be a lot safer.
In countries without a First Amendment, the state has become very comfortable at regulating speech, initially in the interests of approved groups such as gays, and at the expense of non-approved groups such as Christians. So the threat to western liberties isn’t Islam, so much as the politically correct enforcers paving the way for tyranny.
At which point, enter Islam. In the last decade, Muslim groups in the west have decided reasonably enough that what’s sauce for the gays and the Jews should also be sauce for the imams. One can’t blame them for grabbing a slice of the censorship action, but the scale of their project is very different. And for the most part the west greets it with passivity and/or cowardice ever more unconvincingly dignified as “multicultural sensitivity”:
MULTICULT
The slipperiest ism
FIVE YEARS after the (a) all too predictable blowback to US foreign policy born of decades of poverty and desperation or (b) controlled explosion by Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-Zionist agents (delete according to taste), I get a lot of mail on the lines of: C’mon, man, cut to the chase – are we gonna win or lose?
Well, let me come at that in an evasive non-chase-cutting manner and circle around to it very gradually. I gave a speech in Sydney last month and among the audience was a lady called Pauline Hanson. A decade ago, Miss Hanson exploded onto the political scene Down Under on an explicitly nativist platform, forming the One Nation Party and arguing that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians”. She was mocked mercilessly as a former fish’n’chip shop owner, a 14-year-old school-leaver, an old slapper of dubious romantic attachments, etc. On the last point, I must say, having seen her in a little black number on the TV show “Dancing With the Stars”, I thought she was a fine-looking woman, an impression confirmed when she stood up to ask her question.
Nonetheless, her question was a little overwrought. After some remarks about “grave concern for Australia”, flag-burning, immigrants who “do not want to assimilate”, and “a push for multiculturalism”, she ended with: “This is not just happening in Australia. We see it happening worldwide, as you said, in the western societies. I want to ask you who’s doing it, why is it happening?”
Now I don’t happen to agree with all the “swamped by Asians” stuff (by which she means Chinese and Japanese and whatnot rather than “Asians” in the coyly euphemistic sense in which the British media now use the term). An ability to prioritize is essential in politics and, simply as a practical matter, there’s no point in our present struggle in making enemies of large numbers of potential allies. So I took refuge in a big philosophical answer, and said I thought it all went back to the battlefields of the Somme. The ruling classes of the great powers believed they had lost their moral authority in the First World War and, although they rallied sufficiently to defeat Nazism and fascism and eventually communism, they never truly recovered their cultural confidence.
There’s always been a market for self-loathing in free societies: after all, the most famous anti-western idea of all was itself an invention of the west, cooked up by Karl Marx while sitting in the Reading Room of the British Library. The obvious defect in Communism is that it’s decrepit and joyless and therefore of limited appeal. Fascism, likewise, had many takers in those parts of the cultural west that were politically deficient – ie, continental Europe – but it had minimal support in the heart of the political west – ie, the English-speaking world. So the counter-tribalists came up with something subtler and suppler than Communism and Fascism – the slipperiest ism of all. The great strength of “multiculturalism” is not that it’s an argument against the west but that it short-circuits the possibility of argument. If there’s no difference between English Common Law and native healing circles and Sharia, then what’s to discuss? Even to want to debate the merits is to find oneself on the wrong side – for, if the core belief of multiculturalism is that there’s nothing to talk about and everything’s equally nice and fluffy, then to favour honest argument puts you, by definition, on the extremist side.
That’s the genius of multiculturalism: It renders discussion undiscussable. I’m sure most of my colleagues at The Western Standard have found themselves in this situation on call-in shows or at public meetings. You point out, for example, that there are very few “free” Muslim societies. And your questioner retorts: “Well, that’s just your opinion.” And so you pull up a few facts about GDP per capita, freedom of religion, life expectancy, women’s rights, etc. And she says: “Well, you’re just imposing your values on them.” And you realize that the great advantage of cultural relativism is that it makes argument impossible. There is no longer sufficient agreed reality. It’s like playing tennis with an opponent who thinks your ace is a social construct.