Norway Attacker Said To Be Influenced By British Nationalist Group

At the risk of seeming like an American chauvinist, I think our problems here are lessened (i.e. not eliminated) because we stress assimilation over multiculturalism.  We are free to practice our beliefs and associate with whomever we please, but all of this is done in an overreaching American culture and ethic.  Multiculturalism too often results in self imposed segregation.  This in turn leads to insularity between groups, stereotypes, ignorance, fear, and finally tension and violence.  PS:  The attempt to smear right wing groups  with some notion of responsibility is heinous and leads to more mistrust.  Breivik,  will no doubt be judged to be a sociopath.  His racial and political views are secondary to his pathology.

Every ethnic group/nation has a right to exist and defend its interests. The masses of  non- European immigrants threaten the future existence of Europe. This can not be denied. The low birth rates of Europeans and the high birthrates of non-Europeans will lead to a demographic catastrophe for European culture. Racial diversity will always cause tension and could lead to all out civil war.

This tragedy in Norway raises an issue for all of us. Nearly all of us who are distraught over what happened have been hiding from open debate about the costs and benefits of cultural intermixing. In America we tend to espouse only the positive results of bringing cultures together, such as economic innovation that can result. We tend to avoid discussion about negatives of cultural encounters, such as how our “nation” was built on a fertile land that was almost wiped clean of its indigenous inhabitants. The beliefs and economy of Native Americans did not fit with the Christian and capitalistic view, so they had to be removed, leading to centuries of chronic pain and suffering for them. As long as the winners of cultural mixing or contact write the history, it will be viewed as a one-sided success. The question is not whether multiculturalism is a success or failure. instead the question we need to be thoughtfully asking is whether we’re better off or worse off in mixed groups or as more homogeneous groups. Will we function better or worse if every nation and region has an ethnic minority from every other nation and region? Along with this we need to bring up other difficult questions, such as whether the indigenous people, whether white English or Native American or Japanese, have an inherent right to their native land, and whether they have the right to keep other people out.

The English have always been somewhat racist.  One only has to listen
how they talk about the Scots, Frogs, Pakis, Chinks, Chogues, and other
Colonials (Aussies, Canadians, Indians) to realise this.  The
poor/unemployed/less educated have also had a long tradition of soccer
hooliganism (“fans” taking pleasure in beating up opposing supporters),
perhaps enhanced by growing income inequality under Margaret Thatcher
in the 1980s.  This underclass competes for scarce jobs with new
(non-white) immigrants, many of whom these days happen to come from the
Middle East (i.e. Muslims).  Usually, the latter are quite docile and
keep to themselves.  However, Tony Blair’s decision to join the US in
overthrowing Saddam Hussein with WMDs as the pretext (read, “Words of
Mass Deception”), resulting in the death of many innocents Muslims, has
provided more radical mullahs the opportunity to radicalize British
Moslem youth.  Multiculturalism is not a failure–come to Montreal or
to Toronto to see how it can thrive even though these cities are not
perfect–but lousy political and economic decisions are to blame.  (By
the way, in France, they do not collect census data on ethnicity and so
cannot measure the unemployment rate of Muslim youth to see whether
there is systemic discrimination against them and thus to devise
programs to overcome barriers that may exist.  At least the US posts
unemployment rates of blacks, Hispanics, and whites).

As long as the British economy does poorly (it has probably 5 more
years to go before things improve significantly), groups like EDL and
elsewhere in Europe will continue to prosper with the underclass.Â
“It’s the economy, stupid.” 

I’m disappointed by the coverage of this story.  NPR interviews one person, another journalist (Ms. Collins), and digs out some YouTube and other video footage for the interview with the EDL leader.  While the Ms. Collins took care to interview both EDL and Muslim leaders, the story is heavy on emotion and light on fact.  Questions I would like to see answered are:

1)  Have violent attacks per capita in the English village where EDL started increased or decreased during the years of immigrant population growth?   Who, exactly, has instigated those incidents that have occurred?

2)  What is the British Government policy on immigrants?   Are they supposed to assimilate, as the EDL leader asserts, or are they allowed or expected to maintain their ancestral culture while in Britain?  The story as reported poses this question quite forcefully (in the quotes from the EDL leader that he expects immigrants to assimilate vs. the assertions of the imam that make it clear that the muslim community does NOT want to assimilate) but leaves us without any answer.

3)  What is the plan of action, if any, from the British government in the near term, regardless of their long-term policy?    What are the national and local police doing?  What is the local government doing?

Whether or not the EDL and the immigrant groups are racist and violent or simply victims of circumstance, more substantive questions should be asked and answered.

Is it possible that cultures and ethnic heritage groups cannot exist unless others cultures and groups exist? In other words, we wouldn’t know electrons had a negative charge without finding some protons with a positive charge. If this is true, I would suggest that the beauty and wonder of the different cultures and groups around the world is how they are unique from others. Then, if this is true I think that maybe the loss of any one culture or group is a loss and watering down for all of us. Sometimes cultures or ethnic groups are directly killed (eg Europeans killing Tasmanians), sometimes they are removed from their land (their relevant context, eg Cherokee moved to Oklahoma), sometimes they are overwhelmed by another population (with larger numbers, higher birth rates, more wealth or power, etc. eg Chinese in Tibet) and forced to assimilate into another group. There are many avenues to the loss of a people. It looks to me like the loss of native Europeans cultures has begun through dilution by other groups with rapidly growing populations. Would this be a loss for everyone?

Mo, you have articulated something I have often wondered about but have no idea how to get an answer.  I mean if I hated everything about a culture, I wouldn’t move there.  It’s note even a matter of “love it or leave it” – I’m talking about people who were not born here, or in the UK, or in some other Western European country.  But even for those who were born in such places, surely one of those totalitarian Islamic states would welcome them with open arms?

As for the growth of “Islamophobia” – I think it is often overstated or at least oversimplified.  There is definitely a (justifiable) fear of radical Islam and those members who have no respect for human life and will willingly commit murder for (for what now? I don’t even know).  Those Muslims who are more moderate – where are they? Why is there not a huge, public debate within Islam about terrorism in the name of the religion?