"The dark side of multiculturallism"

It was really hard for me to analyze this prose because the subject matter was so intense and eye-opening. First I read "The European Dilemma, it's starts of with a scene, which gave me the notion that this was going to be a bit on the sensational side. But then it just got more and more intense with mutilation of female genitalia and female abuse. This article largely appealed to personal experience where as the other argued with statistics. I was convinced of multiculturalism as being bad, which I guess of Ali's view. But I think the point of the article is to argue that it could be bad. Multiculturalism isn't bad, it's old taboos which interfere with freedoms we enjoy in Western society. And as a member of such a society I feel other should be granted the same freedom I have. I agree with Buruma's the notion that the answer is not forced atheism, there must be another way. People should have the right to religion. Just a generation ago woman were also repressed in western culture, and it had nothing to do with religion. But at the same time, the bible also doesn't point out to "write male superiority on the flesh of women." That statement thoroughly shocked me. "That language of wounds and bruises." I didn't like how Ali called Islam a backwards religion, I think almost all religion can be taken to extremes. But I couldn't help with agreeing with her view of injustice simply because of her personal experience. She said true Islam is irreconcilable with secular states." I think that's also perspective, I'm sure there is a way to view it as peaceful and I'm sure not all Isamist think that. What they are lacking is education, a different view of the world. If Western society ended the terror hold of the catholic church, I'm sure the future holds the same for Islam. The West used to have mass burnings of unbelievers just a few hundred years ago. And now look at the situation. These are just the patterns of human nature for whatever reason. We need to penetrate their media, so they can be like all the Europeans who want to be just like Americans (I'm kidding).


After reading the dilemma peace, Steyn's peace just crushed me. All the statistics. But at the same time his solution is either we need to start having a shit ton of babies or kill all the Islamic believers in order preserves Western thought. Although he never flats out and says it, this is his argument. It makes perfect sense except he fails to take into consideration the marvels of Western science and manipulation. While it's true that some countries which can't afford to feed themselves have babies, he still have more intelligence. We have robots and spy plans and all sorts of crazy gadgets. Look how we brought down the reds in Russia, and without military force. Of course he argure that they are fighting in similar ways, without weapons and with lots of semen. When and if Europe does become Eurasia, I think the Europeans won't go down without a fight. Spain has also made strict immigrations laws for Africans, I'm sure these other countries will have to suck up the idea of appearing racist and follow suit. He does have a good point about America and England, but for the most part the radicals are living in the stone age. And like I said, we have some crazzy crazy intelligence on out side. It won't be the same battle in my opinion.

Some stats I found:

1. 80% of the women in Oslo's shelter system are Muslims fleeing abusive families, husbands, and boyfriends;

2. Danish Muslims make up 5% of the population but 40% of the welfare rolls;

3. refugee—friendly Switzerland is already 20% Muslim;

4. the world's most wonderful city (in my view) Amsterdam is now majority Muslim;

5. 70% of all French prisoners are Muslim;

6. the four London bombers that killed 56 in July of 2005 received almost a million dollars in welfare benefits.

This whole situation kind of reminds me of the American civil war. I think what we need is enlightenment, all of us need to be aware. The middle east needs to learn tolerance and the west needs to think about what they are going to do about these statistics. In the future, there probably won't be race, we probably will be just a group of brown people like in that episode of south park where people from the future come to visit. That's alright, but if the future is going to be intolerant towards women and freedom, well that I have a harder time trying to swallow. I just don't see it happening, I can't see it happening. Please don't let it happen? I know I will dying fighting, and I'm a pacifist. But when I'm 80 years old and the government announces all women will have to have their clits chopped off, that's the day I blow up the white house or whatever power will be in that time. Besides, if westerns become the minority to that degree, they will become poor, and the poor always have more babies for whatever reason. We'll populate japan alright, trust me.

Speaking of which, another shocking part of Styln's piece is the whole story of that toy company making dolls for elderly people in Japan. That absolutely crushed me. Then he mentions it as part of are slippery slope towards transhumanism. Good god, all this stuff is crazy. Then it could get into this whole philosophical discussion of are we our bodies? Or are we our memories? What makes us human? Can we become computers so that we could live forever?


On the technical side of things, both dictions were quite different. Steyn used a lot of colons. A lot of if x then y. Y because x. It was mathematical. Homles read more like a novel style of prose, a lot of long sentences and clauses. But it was still very cleanly written and extremely easy to understand.