Der Spiegel has an account of the ideological roots and political networks from which Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivek was influenced:
Such blogs provide a window into a strange scene: pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel — but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist. It is a “patriotic-nationalist” scene which detests the Nazis but is sympathetic — to the point of maintaining informal contacts — to the Tea Party Movement in the US, to the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria, to the right-wing football fan group known as the Casuals and to the stridently anti-Muslim English Defence League.
It is a scene which is considered to be militant and ultra-right wing, but which has in the past cooperated with the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a group which has been branded a terrorist organization in the US. Such a connection would be unthinkable for neo-Nazi groups. Indeed, the JDL has even joined demonstrations held by the English Defence League — a surprising alliance perhaps, but the crossover is clear: Islam is the enemy.
A central tenant of the writings coming out of this scene is that Muslims are currently in the process of taking over Europe with a “demographic Jihad.” They use statistics, historical references and precarious prognostications in an effort to feed the extreme right with an intellectual-sounding foundation for their hatred of foreigners. The scene is extremely well networked and growing rapidly.
There is also this NYT’s piece on the small group of American bloggers and writers, including Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, who spew this kind of rhetoric and were also read frequently by Breivek. I won’t go as far as to say that the right-wing, nativist, pro-war nationalism of these blogs and groups are what caused Breivek to commit these acts. Clearly, there is much more that goes into what drives such a maniac to that point. Still, throughout the American political spectrum this kind of ideological make-up is among the most hardline, perverse, and immune to penetrating criticism (or more precisely, more immune than most). It requires an understanding of these issues that is based on fear and an active effort to ignore basic facts like Islamist terrorism’s fundamental motivations, the relatively low and actually declining threat of Islamic terrorism, or the significant economic benefits more open immigration policies elicit. It is the opposite of sober analysis and to a certain extent justifies horrible policies of the state and perpetuates ignorant perceptions of Muslims and war policy. This is a long way of saying that I don’t think it should be considered out of line, as some have put forth (see Times link), to address the apparently real influence this kind of ideology and rhetoric had on Breivek, and has on many others who will never act out violently.
Update: via Jesse Walker, this from Washington Post blog:
Most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism. At CPAC last year, Geller and Spencer drew a large crowd for their documentary referring to the proposed community center near Ground Zero as “the second wave of the 9/11 attacks.” Yet they’re now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association. What’s clear is that they understand that the principle of collective responsibility is a monstrous wrong in the abstract, or at least when it’s applied to them. They are now begging for the kind of tolerance and understanding they cheerfully refuse to grant to American Muslims.
"the right-wing football fan group known as the Casuals" – LOL.
A casual is a type of supporter, not any one group.
So it's really a surprise when some listens to the hate-filled speeches of the ultra right (and/or ultra left) wingers and then takes matters into his own hands?
ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU PEOPLE WANTED?
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that all is as it seems. I believe as time passes more details- probably very uncomfortable ones for certain nations and governments- will come to light that will show who or what organization was this terrorist's handler and who his accomplices were (and who are, presumably, still at large).
I'm still rather unclear on the tactics, though- it makes no sense to kill people of your own race if you're protesting the presence of another race. Why didn't he go after Muslims if he's so gung-ho to fight us? By killing his own people, he has proven himself to be- in his world- a race traitor. If the West is so threatened by Muslims, why kill White European children, the ones who are the next generation of White (dare I say Aryan) leaders? If the terrorist truly believed the 14 Words he would have never even considered such a plan. "" We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children "" doesn't have a lot of meaning if it's White Children who are being killed, does it?
I, for one, will be very interested to see how the "White Christian Terrorist" angle is played up in the MSM. If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds that the narrative is already being rewritten to cast the terrorist as 'mentally deranged' or 'emotionally unstable'- it just wouldn't do to call a WHITE CHRISTIAN MAN a TERRORIST, would it?
When will we see all Christians painted with the Terrorist brush in the same way all Muslims have been for years? Why can't I drive by a church or a gun store now and not wonder what nefarious schemes are being plotted within those walls? How can I be sure that church down the street isn't a meeting place for a cell of Christian Terrorists planning an attack on the local day care? Why doesn't the Christian world do more to sniff out and expose terrorism within its own worldwide community? How can we trust ANY Christian now? (SEE, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, DOESN'T IT?)
John, you're quite right that in the American media the word "terrorist" is less about actions than about who is behind the actions. Hence a friend of mine with a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford and a U.S. law degree was actually capable of repeating the slander: "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims". This friend of mine evidently does not think of the likes of Timothy McVeigh as "a terrorist", but simply crazy, deranged. I suppose some people think you have to be part of a conspiracy, a nebuolous, shadowy organization in order to be a terrorist. You can't be a lone gunman or an elected government's standing army and also commit acts of terror.
In Breivik's mind, the people he was going after were themselves race traitors, ideological collaborators with 'The Enemy'. That's how he justified doing what he did; he does not even see that he has committed a crime. That he has no empathy for the loved ones these (mostly young) people have left behind certainly argues for his being a genuine socio- and or psychopath. I guess there really is a genuine difference between people like this and the people the media usually labels as terrorists, i.e., no foreign country has actually invaded his land, no one has dislodged any of his people and no-one is bombing or shooting at them–in other words, he is something worse than a terrorist–even the people who are blowing up civilians in response to their neighbour's villages being bombed are doing so in response to a legitimate grievance. This guy just doesn't like seeing different people in his country or anywhere in Europe.
Exactly, the target of his hate is Liberals, in particular the Labour Party. In the mind of a racist "white folks should know better"? To this type of warped mind I guess Lady Liberty is a monster?
I wonder how long before this story is burried and no more coverages of it is provided,unlikr stories involving even suposed a plot by a muslim?
You've got plenty of legit things to gripe about. Words like 'muslimist' and 'islamist' in the headlines of supposedly respectable newspapers not the least among them but that we don't call this guy a terrorist because he's white and Christian-ish isn't a legit issue. We called the IRA terrorists, after all. But not McVeigh or the Unibomber. They were isolated nut jobs lashing out at imagined enemies. I think Breivek fits that description better. Technically terrorists? Maybe, but I'm happier to brand the guy a right wing extremist nut who got his kicks reading quotables from Fox favorites and the Tea Party. We'll get a lot more mileage out of that and its high time the conservative hate machine got shut down.
But, mark my words, if this guy were from ANYWHERE in the Middle East- Muslim or not- or a Muslim convert, he would have been INSTANTLY branded as a terrorist, even if he destroyed only property and didn't take a single human life, or even injured anyone. Within hours the MSM would have a complete dossier on the guy's International Terrorist Connections ™, right down to his daily cell phone calls to the ghost of Osama bin Laden- even if said connections and phone calls had to be manufactured to support the 'official story'.
What this man did- for whatever motivation he followed- is completely reprehensible and I know many in the Muslim world are praying for the families of the victims and the survivors. At the same time, though, I am disgusted by the double standard the MSM plays by when things like this happen- do they make ANY distinction if Muslim Guy is mentally unstable or emotionally unbalanced and commits acts like this? No- he's a Terrorist, period. So, too, is this guy- regardless of his ideology or mental state.
Right wing extremist? Yes. Terrorist? Definitely.
I do agree with you- the hate machine has GOT to stop or it will, in time, crush us all.
I think more thought should be put into immigration policy other than greed (exploitation) and fear (xenophobia). I don't want Anders Breivek or anyone else with his violent inclinations living in the same country as me. If only there was a place for them like the prisons in the movies Escape From NY and LA. Then the extremist could fight it out and let the rest of us live peacefully.
Is it really open immigration (impeccable) vs nativism (racist)? If violent Saudis weren't in the US to train for and carry out 9/11 then would these right wing racist be spreading their filth in the media against Muslims? People like the French expect their immigrants to drop their culture and their clothes at the door of their country. That is ridiculous to allow someone in but then demand that they change. Those types of human relationships aren't very fun.
I can't quite tell whether you're being serious or not. There are places where you put violent people already, it's called prison. You have a criminal justice system which is based on putting people in jail when they commit crimes or conspire to commit crimes. You prove they did it and you put them in jail. What more do you want? What immigration policy do you think would prevent "bad" people coming into your country beyond what already takes place at customs? And what do you do with "bad" people who are from your country? You can't deport them to somewhere else because they won't want them either. Nor can you bar an entire country's population from doing business with you, visiting you, or immigrating, just because a small number of people from that country did bad things to you once–you might as well not have any relations at all with any other country ever again, like a little boy pouting in the corner because one of his friends punched him. Grow up.
I'm just trying to push the discussion away from the black and white immigrant all bad, and immigrant all good arguments. I'm just spinning out ideas that are possible and far fetched. However all of them are about keeping the peace.
I think quotas should be done away with. An immigration policy that vets people and looks for emotional stability, liberal attitudes, and considers the current levels and locations of xenophobia in the country. A policy that looks to see how the countries are getting along. What the people think of each other from both countries. Somalians are going home from the US to fight. I'm sure we would all be scared like little boys if we ran across a MS-13 gang. That gang could have been prevented if Salvadoran's didn't move into gang territory in LA and needed protection. Perhaps an immigrant social worker catering service needs to be implemented. Help them find nice, safe places to live away from gang territory and red states.
The problem is that countries are is stuck with their undesirables. I'm half serious about the Escape From NY comment but Antarctica would be a good place to send them. Saudi Arabia continues to do bad things to the US. It's people hate Americans and they went to Iraq to kill them. They support Al Qaeda financially. There is a difference between visitors on business or vacation and people who come and stay and learn to fly planes into buildings. If people are going to get a visa or something then they should be observed a little and given a lie detector test (tell them it's a Scientology personality test). Britain didn't let Michael Savage in and I don't blame them. Canada does the same thing with people who do not hold their liberal beliefs. Britain isn't any less worst off because it didn't let an American rebel rouser in.
Perhaps all my ideas are bad but I'm tired of the black and white debate on immigration.
Maybe my 'grow up' was closer to the mark than I thought: if you are rather young and all this is new to you, than welcome to the wider world. On the one hand you call for an extremely nuanced (but hopelessly un-implementable) approach to immigration including social workers(!) which are really only necessary for asylum seekers, not regular immigrants (do you know the difference?). On the other hand, you may be surprised to hear that you are thinking in black and white terms yourself: "They support Al Qaeda financially"–who? how many? The government of Saudi Arabia? Private individuals? Which ones? The ones who moved in to your neighbourhood? Hence my uncertainty over the seriousness of your first post.
I'll admit some of those ideas are poor but it got you talking. I do think the US population is overly spied on. I also don't think it is prudent to try and invite the world in and try to kill and control it at the same time. If the US is going to maintain a war against the world then it should protect it's citizenry from those that seek revenge and make everyone go through a bureaucracy. Stop the war against other people or check criminal records and party affiliation. I also think it is good mannars in making sure a Muslim family doesn't wind up in a American Taliban trailer park (unless they want to) is a good idea. Why would they want to live in a red state like Tennessee where they are discriminated against?
Asylum seekers are those who admitted into the country because of issues with their country of origin. Regular immigrants sneak in with no papers. Then there is the legal ones that go through the bureaucracy.
Somewhere between 1 to 10 million Salafist. Saudi citizens. I'm not saying that Saudi = bad. People are individuals. I'm saying that some caution should be taken when the US government is at war with their religion and them (50% of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq were Saudi). Also the US is at war with Al Qaeda which is also Salafist.
So would you let in Likud, Neo-Nazis, Salafist, Hezbollah, MS-13, and IRA for the sake of not making us poorer? Then continue the insane drug war which leads to so much gang activity. The discriminatory education requirements for jobs that keep minorities out of good positions because many of them are poor to begin with and can't afford getting a high cost brainwashing. There are only a few things that actually require more education than grammar school. Intellectual property rights which keeps them from innovating existing products to make a buck. Then continue the killing spree across the world, killing their own people. Create international agreements which open their markets for plundering and force them to come to the US as laborers because they are knocked out of their home market. Then when something happens barbaric politicians lead an uncivilized population into endless war against them with the help of a media that trivializes and sensationalizes information to an empty headed population. We are going to be in a world that makes 1984 sound pleasant if we continue this path.
The monitoring now is just a taste of what is to come after some moron goes on a killing spree again. This isn't Norway. The US has a history of treating it's immigrants like crap, looking down on them, and hyping them up to be danger greater than they are. The US has a huge population of Breiveks. They shouldn't be antagonized.
I hate to tell you this but we are much poorer after 9/11. Most people aren't as bright and sharp as you. As you can tell I am not as intelligent as you. The wars after 9/11 have diverted investment from productive sectors of the economy. Osama Bin Laden won. Then here comes the problem. The US government won't mind it's own business. A significant percentage of the population that elects this government also doesn't want to mind it's own business. Then it finally pisses someone off and they have asymmetrical revenge. Then for example, the population lights their torches and gets their pitchforks when it hears the word "mosque." The media plays on the xenophobia. It is enough for politicians to take notice and support their racism. People make the absurd claim that Muslims aren't legally allowed to practice their religion and build their Mosques in America. The debates on immigration always turn towards the immigrants. How about the population of Western countries? Are they civilized enough to handle the unfamiliar? Look at the savage response after 9/11. The demands of assimilation in Western Countries. No one likes to be brow beaten into conformity. Many of these people are Breivek clones in someway or another, hopefully not in the terrorist aspect.
What are your ideas on immigration? You say the half-baked ideas of my brainstorming do not bear fruit. Is it fine as it is? If not Is there an order in which things should be done? Personally I think it could be anarchic and open if the US stopped the war against poor people the world over and minded it's own business. I think in the future there will be a medical solution to solve the issue of tribalism. Scientist are already playing with human genes. It is only a matter of time.
How are you managing to include so much text in these posts? You must be a hacker! :)
"Regular immigrants are the ones who sneak in"?! Like I said before, I can't always quite tell where you are coming from. I assure you that some of the things you think are such good ideas are already in place (for example, the US would not let Cat Stevens in on the basis that… um, let's see, he converted to Islam, like, 20 years ago, and stopped recording music up until recently, that's kind of unusual (=suspicious)). Get me? You're already excluding too many people for political reasons that have nothing to do with security.
"Likud, Neo-Nazis, Salafist, Hezbollah, MS-13, and IRA"? You think these are all equivalent? The IRA have decommissioned, and only splinter groups are active now. I may not like Likud MKs, but they have as much legitimacy as (say) the Democratic Unionists. Ian Paisley may be an unpleasant man, but as far as anyone knows he's not a criminal. Beyond my anecdotal knowledge I can't really comment on US immigration policies with any specificity as I don't live there and I'm not an American anyway.
Cat Stevens as far as I know is against violence. He is a musician that happens to be Muslim. He isn't comparable to say Avidgor Lieberman. I think America and Europe are separate issues. Your country might be civilized. America is not and never has been. Europe can handle violence without going on a killing spree. Europe has large numbers of Muslim immigrants that it is trying to learn to live with. America doesn't and is being it's xenophobic paranoid self. America is clearly at war with Islam and other countries are not as much if at all.
I don't think Americans can handle too much immigration. It is too much for them. Historically America is xenophobic. Slavery, the genocide of the Native American Indians (they really could have used an immigration policy that barred Europeans from flooding the Americas), the demands of assimilation, and the racial hygiene movement. Xenophobia towards Muslims is just the latest in a long list of hatreds. It is no wonder the Norway terrorist relied on the crap Americans published. Hitler did too. He loved him some Henry Ford.
I know there is some strife in Europe over North Africans but they don't go blow up the world and destroy the whole well being of the world like the US. France isn't a multicultural utopia as proven by the 2005 civil unrest. I've read that there has been active discrimination of North Africans. They get passed over for jobs because of their names reveal their ethnicity. Sarkozy is starting to channel the same xenophobic racism that can be found in America with the demands that everyone become French. Did the Europeans assimilate in the Americas? No. Would Europeans gladly change their laws and customs to reflect those of their immigrants? Female circumcision okay? It is part of their culture after all.
By the way, lie detectors are a fiction. So is 'truth serum' and all the other BS. You can't keep people out based on party affiliations or 'personality traits' any more than you should keep them out based on which country they come from. It won't make you safer–just poorer, in every sense of the word. As for the monitoring, that's being done already in spades in the US. Do you seriously think people in the US are not being spied on enough that you are calling for even more of it? Have you read anything on this site (or the news) from the last five to ten years?
My problem with some forms of immigration has been the "brain drain" we create in developing nations. When we remove the best and the brightest from some 3rd world nation, which might really benefit local development. Yet in the 1st world, we get the gripe of "why can't those people fix their problems"? If the educated ones stuck around to help build up their society, it might help.
'If violent Saudis weren't in the US to train for and carry out 9/11 then would these right wing racist be spreading their filth in the media against Muslims? People like the French expect their immigrants to drop their culture and their clothes at the door of their country."
These right wing racist were spreading their filth long.long before 9/11.When the French ruld North Africa ,they did not drop their culture and their clothes at the door of the countries of North Africa.
But the French LEFT north Africa. When are the north Africans going to leave France? And btw, the French entered the maghreb to end the barbary pirates enslavement of Europeans, about 1.5 million of them over a few centuries.
True, I concede your point but they didn't have a national trauma to use as a tool for imperialism. Now they have Muslim "Zealots" that they can hype up to scare modern day Romans with. I recall the news media playing that clip of the towers falling again, and again for months in the US. They really beat it into the population.
The base of the Republican party is just as Christian Zionist as Breivik. He is one of their own. They think a minority population that is virtually powerless is going to install Shariah law. Would this be taking place now without the "New Pearl Harbor" that they see as validating their racism? It wouldn't be as bad in my opinion. The powers that be would only be able to say "Saddam is scary because he has weapons of mass destruction" instead of "Saddam is allied with big scary Al Qaeda and you know what they did."
I don't think anyone is disputing the facts that (a) racists existed before 9/11, or that (b) 9/11 made racists worse, i.e., entrenched or revived and revised their already nascent or dormant views. Hence you have former Jew-haters now become Muslim-haters and forming alliances with Jewish Muslim-haters (who really, really, really ought to know better than this). Now can we move on to something useful and constructive?
And the French, whatever their flaws with respect to civil rights in schools these days, on which they have made a big mistake, effectively punishing the victims (Muslims) and rewarding the victims bullies (following the French argument), do not expect immigrants to drop their culture and clothing at the door, either, just for the record.
According to the J Post yesterday, the shooter is an ardent zionist & Israel supporter.
Could he of been retaliating for Norway's vote for a Palestinian state?
Setting off the bombs on same date as the King David Hotel bombing by Jewish Terrorists in 1946 is curious?
His actions look very much like a 'price tag' attack. The Norwegians were supposed to see there was a high price to pay for their support of the Palestinians. In the same way, the Turks were supposed to see a high price for their support of attempts to end the siege of Gaza when 9 of them were murdered on the Mavi Mara.
Is there such a thing as a terrorist in America or Europe that doesn't have the word "Israel" on the tip of his tongue? This is on both "sides" of the conflict. Is this POS known as "Israel" worth it?
Will the FBI and the Justice department start going after those who inspired this terrorist by their speaches and writtings as it have been going after so many Muslims and their organizations?Would Peter King hold heartngs on the threats from right wingers like him enablares and supporters of terrorism after all he had been a big supporter of IRA.
Ignored in in all of this the influnce that so-called main street media nd politicians have on shaping ,influcing ,and impolding the actions of many like this person.In the US you have congressman Peter King,Palin,herman Cain and so on.In Europe :
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism "has utterly failed." Immigrants needed to be force-marched into German culture, and if this is not possible, they should not be allowed to enter the country.
In February of this year, Britain's Cameron and France's Sarkozy followed Merkel's lead. Cameron blamed the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" for encouraging migrants to "live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream." France's Sarkozy gave a bitter speech against multiculturalism and then told the MPs of his "Union for a Popular Movement" party that he wanted laws to rein in Islam. http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad07252011.html
Why shouldn't German culture be the norm and standard IN GERMANY Lear? Why should an ethnic German welcome his race-replacement and erosion of his culture? This certainly doesn't happen elsewhere. In Japan this week there was a large demonstration against foreigners being in the country. Never mind all the help and money they were given dealing with the tsunami.
Taking, for the sake of argument, an opposing viewpoint: If a nation isn't increasing- or at least maintaining- its indigenous ethnic population, sooner or later those of a different ethnic group or groups who ARE increasing their numbers will outnumber the original inhabitants; it is a mathematical certainty. If Germans aren't willing to step up and produce enough babies to repopulate their own ranks, it is inevitable that another ethnic group will fill the void. The numbers on reproduction are plain: all one needs to do is look at birth and mortality rates to see the trend in population distribution.
The same situation is perceived as happening in the US by some: within a few years, those identifying themselves as Caucasians will be outnumbered by those from other than that ethnic group. The birth rates of Blacks and Hispanics outstrips that of Caucasians: the mathematics of demographics. From the standpoint of those of the "White is Right" community, this is a situation that is at once intolerable as well as frightening- when will we see Oslo-style attacks from those organizations and individuals? From the standpoint of those non-Caucasians, we may indeed see our own form of 'price tag' attacks for injustices over the years, real or imagined. Either way, we face our own version of multi-cultural discord in America, and I fear it will have less to do with an influx of Middle eastern influence as opposed to it originating from within our own existing population.
But that's because of immigration which the people neither wanted or were asked about. If the only people in Germany are Germans the birthrate doesn't really matter. Japan may face a major population decline in the future, but there is no competing ethnic or racial group there since the Japanese believe their country is not an outpost for the third-world staffed U.N. or a dumping off ground for undesirables.
Immigration policies are just that- policies. If the voters do not support a particular policy, they will vote out those politicians who advance that agenda and vote in those politicians who support the popular view and who will change the policy. Since we're using Germany as an example, they've had a liberal immigration policy for decades and they've had all the opportunities in the world to vote in those who would reform those policies- did they? The same applies in America- we've had an open, unenforced border for decades coupled with liberal immigration policies- and NOW people want to whine about immigration? We've had years to work on the issue and not one of our politicians has ever taken solid steps to make positive reform- it's all tied to backroom deals and political correctness.
But the perceived problem isn't ONLY with immigration- even if Germany, for instance, sealed its borders and didn't let ANY more non-German in, they'd STILL have a problem matching the birth rates of those non-Germans who are already in-country and who may already be bona fide German citizens. What of them? Since their numbers are growing and German numbers declining, why should THEY have to give up their culture and assimilate into a (to them) foreign culture that is dying? The same is happening here in the US with regard to a large part of the Hispanic population- their birth rates and total numbers are outstripping those of native-born Americans (of any race) and will soon propel that ethnic group into the majority- why should they (to their reasoning) give up anything of their culture since they fully expect to be in the majority in a few short generations?
While I don't for one minute support violence in pursuit of 'ethnic purity' or whatever you want to call it, I do understand the issue from both sides. Unless you do something to insulate your ethnic group and culture AND maintain a positive population growth, shifting demographics will bury you. The choice, for good or bad, is up to each nation to determine: they either live in the world community with its rich diversity of people and cultures, or they seal themselves off from the world and tend to their own. Either approach has its advantages and disadvantages; it's up to each nation to decide what's more important.
It sounds very 19th and early 20th century of them. Things turned ugly then. What will happen now?
Norway doesn't need or benefit from muslim foreigners. That being said, killing 91 people is hardly the right approach to take. But maybe if the powers that be hadn't turned this matter into a taboo subject, this might not have happened.
Posted in reply to another comment regarding the 'failure of multiculturalism; the comment was specifically about Germany's reaction to their own cultural divide with regard to immigrants.
~~
Taking, for the sake of argument, an opposing viewpoint: If a nation isn't increasing- or at least maintaining- its indigenous ethnic population, sooner or later those of a different ethnic group or groups who ARE increasing their numbers will outnumber the original inhabitants; it is a mathematical certainty. If Germans aren't willing to step up and produce enough babies to repopulate their own ranks, it is inevitable that another ethnic group will fill the void. The numbers on reproduction are plain: all one needs to do is look at birth and mortality rates to see the trend in population distribution.
The same situation is perceived as happening in the US by some: within a few years, those identifying themselves as Caucasians will be outnumbered by those from other than that ethnic group. The birth rates of Blacks and Hispanics outstrips that of Caucasians: the mathematics of demographics. From the standpoint of those of the "White is Right" community, this is a situation that is at once intolerable as well as frightening- when will we see Oslo-style attacks from those organizations and individuals? From the standpoint of those non-Caucasians, we may indeed see our own form of 'price tag' attacks for injustices over the years, real or imagined. Either way, we face our own version of multi-cultural discord in America, and I fear it will have less to do with an influx of Middle eastern influence as opposed to it originating from within our own existing population.
I think it has more to do with LBJ opening the floodgates in 1965, something he NEVER TOLD the American people he was going to do.
When did the Melting Pot become Multi-kulti, and what is the difference?
The 1960's. A disastrous decade.
No one talks about the ideals of the melting pot anymore. They ought to be reconsidered. Speaking only of multi-culturalism misses the mark for me. Aren't the parameters; multi-culturalism vs mono-culturalism the wrong ones to be using to framing the debate? Maybe they should be melting pot vs mono-culture?
No one talks about these things because liberals and leftists have made them taboo subjects.
The melting pot required assimilation and often a large sacrifice and a good deal of loss even when it was done willingly. Multi-culturalism demands none of this, it demands "rights". I think it leads to Balkanization and identity politics. It would be nice if a balance could be struck because the requirements of melting were sometimes excessive and constricting, but it seems we live in a time where balance can't even be discussed because the words we use are themselves flavored with accusation.
Practically all the recent advances in the US are attributable to foreign born graduates who came here and continued with their study to PhD and followed that with a spectacular academic and research career. All this was possible because everyone, regardless of their background and regardless of whether they wanted to assimilate or not, was welcomed with an open arm. At the other end of spectrum workers from Mexico contributed to a substantial agricultural growth in California and other states. All those who want to oppose multiculturalism are more interested in their race than in the progress and well being of this nation of ours. What if US becomes less than 50% Caucasian? Why would that be a problem?
Exactly, The same goes for those South American tribes who want to preserve their own language and culture, one is considered an outsider if one doesn't. Racists, opposing progress! Why do they have a problem if their lands are repopulated with other cultures? Clearly, the answer can only be racism. Even Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration. And for those who don't want to assimilate… well, who is it cares only about their "race" again?
I have nothing against South American tribes if they want to be racist or even tribalist. They are happy with their environment and don't give a hoot about progress. The problem is that we claim to be enlightened and invite people from all over the world to contribute to our society. We can't all of a sudden turn around and tell them ASSIMILATE or else…And, when some of us start worrying about the percentage of Caucasians then they are really not simply talking about assimilation they are talking about expulsion.
Assimilation is only the answer I think. Trying to understand others religion are also very important. Bombing and suicide bombing on behalf of a religion will never be understood. That's wrong judgment. I believe that all religions teach about peace.
What Breivek was done is creating new problem for our world.
Immigration policies are just that- policies. If the voters do not support a particular policy, they will vote out those politicians who advance that agenda and vote in those politicians who support the popular view and who will change the policy. Since we're using Germany as an example, they've had a liberal immigration policy for decades and they've had all the opportunities in the world to vote in those who would reform those policies- did they? The same applies in America- we've had an open, unenforced border for decades coupled with liberal immigration policies- and NOW people want to whine about immigration? We've had years to work on the issue and not one of our politicians has ever taken solid steps to make positive reform- it's all tied to backroom deals and political correctness.
But the perceived problem isn't ONLY with immigration- even if Germany, for instance, sealed its borders and didn't let ANY more non-German in, they'd STILL have a problem matching the birth rates of those non-Germans who are already in-country and who may already be bona fide German citizens. What of them? Since their numbers are growing and German numbers declining, why should THEY have to give up their culture and assimilate into a (to them) foreign culture that is dying? The same is happening here in the US with regard to a large part of the Hispanic population- their birth rates and total numbers are outstripping those of native-born Americans (of any race) and will soon propel that ethnic group into the majority- why should they (to their reasoning) give up anything of their culture since they fully expect to be in the majority in a few short generations?
While I don't for one minute support violence in pursuit of 'ethnic purity' or whatever you want to call it, I do understand the issue from both sides. Unless you do something to insulate your ethnic group and culture AND maintain a positive population growth, shifting demographics will bury you. The choice, for good or bad, is up to each nation to determine: they either live in the world community with its rich diversity of people and cultures, or they seal themselves off from the world and tend to their own. Either approach has its advantages and disadvantages; it's up to each nation to decide what's more important.