Home Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma
Home Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma

Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma

France's President Sarkozy has stated that multiculturalism has failed, insisting that Muslim immigrants merge into the "national community". Germany's Angela Merkel made virtually the same statement earlier at her party's convention. British PM David Cameron went further saying that Islamism had taken root because multiculturalism had diminished a collective English identity. All three leaders are conservatives and language like this has been greeted with applause by their base. But there is really very little to cheer here.

Announcing the failure of multiculturalism in Europe of 2011 is as relevant a disclosure as the comic French song, Tout Va Très Bien, Madame La Marquise, in which the groom informs her ladyship that her husband had committed suicide after losing his money and burned down the estate, by telling her that everything was alright except for a minor mishap with her horse. Multiculturalism may be the post-national left's favorite nag, but the failure here is much greater. It is mass migration from the Muslim world that is the problem, and any policy that only addresses the consequences, rather than the cause, is bound to be a failure.

Of the three leaders, Cameron was the only to lay out something close to a policy. But his muscular rhetoric sounds suspiciously like the pre-election Sarkozy. And conservative British pols have developed a habit of talking tough about Islam one minute, and pandering to it shamelessly for votes on the other. Before becoming Prime Minister, Cameron went to live with a Muslim family and announced that, "Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

Has Cameron suddenly realized that the extended Muslim family with its rugs and hospitality masks less appetizing cultural problems, particularly when it comes to the treatment of women, or is he trying to stay ahead of a public backlash. Sarkozy certainly is. His popularity is low. Meanwhile LePen's daughter is behind a revived party, without her father's Nazi sympathies and anti-semitism, that may take away enough votes to make a difference. Merkel is also unpopular and needs a red meat issue that will distract the voters from Greece and Portugal. And so for all that European leaders are talking about the threat of Islamic separatism, and the Palestinization of Muslim communities with their No Go zones, honor killings and riots, they are still speaking the language of integration.

Integration. Process the millions of Muslims through British, Germany and French schools and make sure that they know the national language, rather than the urban patois that has become the lingua franca of a changing Europe, showing up in rap albums and TV shows. Teach them how wonderfully tolerant we are, bridge the gap by celebrating their culture, and maybe even making room for a little Sharia law on the side. Tie the knot and there'll be a happy integrated nation, which marries the Middle Eastern values of hospitality and the British values of not beheading your daughter.

The problem with this new anthem of 'Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma' is that multiculturalism isn't the problem, it's the symptom. The British, French and German systems haven't failed, they have had a chance of success. It would have been possible to integrate a few thousand Muslims per country, but not a few million. Certainly not people who have no definition of integration, and whose cultural and religious assumptions are so far apart that they cannot integrate without losing their identity.

But even this need not have been a complete and absolute disaster. 3 million Nepalese might have made their own separate communities, as they have in towns such as Reading, without it leading to a civil war. The natives would have complained of the smells, the foreign languages and the strange signs. Of entire English towns in the hands of strangers. And it would have ended at that. But Muslims are a special case for three unfortunate reasons.

First, they hold an enduring grievance toward Europe for everything over the last 1000 years. Considering the troubles in Northern Ireland between peoples far more closely related by culture and blood, who in their right mind thought that it would be a good idea to import millions of foreigners who still resent the loss of Spain, the Crusades and colonial governments with nearly equal ferocity, and imagined that it would all go smoothly.

Second, their culture is tightly integrated with their religion, and their religion has a long history of expanding through conquest. A history both ancient and recent. It took enormous arrogance to import millions of members whose civilization still employs violence as a religiously sanctioned tool for promoting the faith, and then act as if they could be integrated with a good lesson plan.

Third, many Muslim countries have enormous wealth and influence, and have used it to promote Islamism and tear down the defenses of Western nations. Imagine if the Soviet Union had possessed enormous oil wealth or if Japan in the 80's had decided to use its wealth to aggressively promote a cultural takeover. That is what we are dealing with here.

All this talk of integrating Muslims disregards them as a civilization, and treats them as if they were delinquents. Cameron's talk of youth falling into extremism suggests that he thinks of them as if they were children from a broken home falling through the cracks of the system and shooting up heroin on council estates, rather than young men acting in accord with the values of their own religion.

The Muslim terrorists of Europe are neither impoverished nor marginalized. They are doctors, architects and university students who have taken the full benefit of what the countries have to offer them, and gone to war to win it all. They are not brats acting out, but soldiers engaging in a war of conquest. A simple fact that all the integration prattle obscures.

The difference between the so-called extremists and the moderates, is that the extremists want to conquer Europe by force, and the moderates through demographics and culture. The extremists want to blow up Europe. The moderates want to integrate it. And their lesson plans have gotten much further into the European, Canadian, Australian and American child-- than the lesson plans of the Western integrators have into the Muslim child.

Cameron has rightly identified a portion of the problem. But his solution is asinine. You do not create a vigorous culture worthy of respect by passing a law and making it so. A culture that merits respect can only be created by the measure of its accomplishments. The decline of English culture parallels the physical recession of the nation, its power, its industry and its achievements. (And that is a fair warning for America, which is headed down the same path at a slower pace.) A lesson plan on King Alfred the Great, will not make England great, and will not earn Muslim respect, let alone their integration. Most nations have their own grand histories and their own tales. But unless they still have greatness within them, these are nothing but matters of trivia.

Talk all you want of greatness, but great nations colonize, they are not colonized. All a UK Muslim needs to do in order to gauge where the future lies is look at the native birth rate, at the Muslim birth rate and at the immigration statistics. And then he can safely relegate King Alfred the Great, Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill to the realm of obscure trivia from a vanishing nation. After all Byzantium too was great in its time, but now it's a giant Muslim marketplace.

The Middle East was once the cradle of civilization, today it is a heap of dirt with a smattering of oil, olive groves and vast dirty slum carrying the names of once legendary cities. The region was full of cultures and civilizations that were once great, before being trodden under the boots of maddened Bedouin fanatics. Today only two, the Jews and the Persians, exist as independent nations. And it would not take all that long to turn Europe into the new Middle East.

The integrators imagine that they can halt that process with a reading of 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' or by banning the burqa, but the tide of history is not turned so easily as that. The great men of England's own history could tell Cameron that. It is not history that makes nations great, but the way in which they carry on that history into the present. The way in which they realize that history in the present day.

Say what you will about Muslims, but they are realizing their history in Europe today. While they reenact the old battles, their foes are tempting them with social services funding. European governments want Muslims to join their republican secular states. Muslims want Europeans to join their caliphate. And it is not difficult to see who will win that particular contest if things go on as they are.

Reporting the failure of multiculturalism is a touch of Tout Va Très Bien, Madame La Marquise by the integrators who are comically understating the scope and the nature of the problem. Europe's problem is not multiculturalism, but that it has been invaded and it has forgotten how to fight back.


  1. Ending the immigration of Muslims into europe would be a start, but continuing the Political Correctness bending over for those muslims already living in europe won't change things. When the English Defense League holds a rally, the Politically correct condemn them. How can any country survive when they fail to see the evil that is called Islam.

  2. The mistakes that europe made are the same mistakes being made here in America. After 9/11 George Bush allowed 30,000 Saudi's to receive visas to come to America to study. Its like inviting more foxes into the chicken coup to finish off what remains of the chickens not killed by the earlier foxes.

    Muslim Obama is openly pushing for massive immigration of Muslims from Somalia, and other countries. We already see what happens in places like Dearborn Michigan where Muslims have taken control. Christians are arrested for trying to spread the word of god at a Muslim festival. Whatever happened to free speech?

    Muslims are already blocking the streets to pray in New York and perhaps other cities. This has to end. Its not too late to put an end to the push by Muslims to bring Sharia law to America. I don't want to be around when the flag of Islam is flying over the White Mosque.

  3. These politicians say whatever jumps into their mind at the time, whatever is expedient. They rarely follow through at all.

  4. Daniel, Frau Merkel is Germany's chancellor, not her president.

  5. mindRider27/2/11

    The aging of Europe's population due to low birthrate made immigration a necessity in order to sustain Europe's elaborate social security for it's populace. Since the birthrate in Muslim countries is one of the highest in the world and as the unemployment in the Muslim countries was on par with the birthrate, cheap imported labor from these countries looked attractive and for the first generation of immigrants it was. They where hardworking, housed out of sight keeping to themselves and not bothersome. However when they started importing their families the second generation came to a quick grasping of understanding how to take full advantage of the system they had originally been imported to sustain, thereby putting it under enormous pressure. This, plus the inflexibility of Islam to adept to the liberal European social environment except for on the negative side (pimping & drug dealing) and the ruling classes political inability to tell the truth of what was happening started to cause the problems. Now that the Muslims have bred and immigrated from a small minority to a substantial number of the population they want to impose there backward ways on the rest. I doubt that political parties like the Dutch PVV or that of the daughter of LePen (which remains a highly suspect person) could turn the tide. Europe has, before but especially after wwII, lost it's courage and will to fight so the end is clear: be it 10, 20 or 40 years the concept of individual freedom once born in European minds shall be lost.

  6. Anonymous27/2/11

    Either Islam will be supreme, or those who will resist it.

    Therefore, there is no place in the future for those who know nothing about Islam.

    When you look at today's elites, you know that you are looking at history - they are not Islam, and they are not those who will resist it either.

    Therefore, they will not be in power in the feature.

    This is why multiculturalism is crumbling and the Left is imploding all over Europe.

  7. "They are brats acting out, but soldiers engaging in a war of conquest. "

    You left out the word "NOT," and perhaps you may add "mere."
    As in: They are "NOT mere" brats acting out, but soldiers...

  8. "And it is not difficult to see who will that particular contest if things go on as they are."

    Sorry for pointing out a grammatical error once again. You probably meant to write:
    it is not difficult to see who will "WIN" that particular contest...

  9. Anonymous27/2/11

    Isn't it odd how the politicians blame certain groups of people for the catastrophic failure of THEIR social experiment?

    First it was because the British people are "racists" now it's the fault of the muslims. All done to distract people from the harsh truth:

    Multicultuarlism is not meant to succeed. It is cultural marxism, a weapon designed to destroy the west. And it is doing so and it isn't becuase of any particular section of society, including muslims.

    Cultural Marxism has turned my country Great Britain into a lunatic assylum run by parasites, looters and demented marxists. Their goal is absolute power.

    The cancer killing my country and Europe is Marxism. It's been doing so since 1945. And most of my countrymen have very little knowledge of how evil this ideology truly is.

    Proud Brit.

  10. Anonymous27/2/11

    This is another great article that shows Daniel's gift for insight and writing that make him one of the most important blogs to subscribe to that I have found.

    I would say that I might have already known each of the individual facts he cited, but it requires a gift, and maybe more experience, to tie together their significance in this manner.

    Another matter is finding the right words to explain things to people. Articles like this help us to be better prepared on talking points.

  11. Anonymous27/2/11

    Um... Yes. Seems obvious. Demographics is destiny.

  12. I don't think the problem is multiculturalism at all. There are other ethnic and religious groups in Europe and the US which haven't sought to destroy their continent/country from within.

    This is unique to Islam. Their high birth rates compared to western countries compounds the problem.

    Yep. Let's allow mass immgration of Muslims into the western societies and cross our fingers and hope they adopt western attitudes and lifestyles within a generation or two.

    Then again, maybe it's not unique to Islam at all.

    Not to be racist but it's not too different from the failed public housing projects. Originally meant to provide housing for low income people it is now a total disaster. They're typically built in nicer, low crime areas of a city. Rather than work and earn the right to move into a nice neighborhood, the government decided they have the right to live in a low crime, pleasant area...just because.

    Do the majority of the housing project tenants from high crime areas conform to the values of a low crime neighborhood?

    Rarely if at all.

    In any event the problem with multiculturalim and Islam is that it requires people to tolerate their cultural and religion to such an extent that it threatens the very foundation of our countries--politically, religiously, you name it.

  13. Anonymous27/2/11

    Unique to Islam? Yes, but to a point that it more of the host culture's failure to force them to assimilate. When Europeans came to the USA in the early 20th century, they worked hard at assimilation even to the point of trying to lose their accents.

    You don't see that with Hispanics, Russians, Indians, Islanders, or Muslims in the US today. They expect to have special rights because of their alledged ethnicity.

  14. Anonymous27/2/11

    The situation in Europe, and America is not far behind, is so dire, that nothing but a war will rescue us from oblivion.

    As a direct consequence of our meddling in Muslims countries, we have so enraged the Islamic world that they are now revolting. First stop will be installing sharia.

    This may seem bad, but when most if not all Islamic nations are sharia, there will be no alternative but to draw an Iron curtain. An Iron curtain, like the one we had with the Warsaw pact, means no further immigration of Muslims. We will effectively be in state of war with Islamic countries in the ME.

    There are consequences of such a situation - chiefly, the enemy within will be named, as a first step.

  15. Anonymous27/2/11

    Children of Terror
    Highly Recommended!

    Reposted after being unavailable for six months

    This film deals with the militant madrassas in Sudan often inhabited by the orphans of the jihad in southern Sudan, Darfur, Nigeria and Chad. Here, the men are usually enslaved or killed; the women, if not killed, are taken north and sold after enduring sadistic rapes. But the children are often kidnapped and deported to terrorist training camps, where they are brainwashed into the Islamic ideology of hate and trained for military warfare against non-Muslims and the west. When they finish their schooling they are sent back home or abroad to establish sleeper cells and await orders from religious leaders.


  16. Anonymous27/2/11

    @DP111 - "As a direct consequence of our meddling in Muslims countries, we have so enraged the Islamic world that they are now revolting."

    This certainly has nothing to do with anything the West has done or not done. The Quran says to hate kafirs and kill them wherever you find them.

    In school, I was raised to believe colonialism was a bad thing. But looking at the progress, freedom, and opportunities enjoyed by non-conformist Muslims during colonial rule, the only thing I can say the colonial powers did wrong is that they did not stay in power long enough to finish civilizing the Muslim world.

    This failure to stay in power is a direct consequence of WWII bankrupting the colonial powers. So in that sense, WWII was a success by Hitler in continuing the war against the Jews that may have consequences graver than the Holocaust.

  17. Anonymous28/2/11

    Nice piece of rabble-rousing Dan. The problem with your analysis is of course the aspects to the discussion which you so carefully step around because it isn't just "the left" who are marketing borderless Europe is it?

  18. Chaney1/3/11

    Angry, violent, bigoted brown people covering their faces with white sheets are okay with progressives; but angry, violent, bigoted white people covering their faces with white sheets are not..?
    What can intelligent, educated, tender-hearted Americans and Europeans have to learn from these people who are so eager to destroy America, Israel, Britian, Xtians, Jews, people who poke fun at them, your children, their children, and yet they have spent NO time evolving to the point where they DON'T wipe their own butts with their bare hands and then NOT wash them with soap and water. Really, what are we thinking? Human rights violators like Muslims and (China) other medieval, unevolved nations cannot lead us into magnanimity; only back into the slave era. We are not nameless, faceless or interchangable. We do not lack separate identities or exist only to further empty ideolgies of those who are willing to be SHOCKINGLY violent and commit atrocities in order to seize power.
    Raise the bar people, we do not need to sink the the lowest common denominator in order to fit in.

  19. Anonymous1/3/11

    John K
    Its the koran that guides them most definitely, I agree with that. And it is there that the idea of Infidel states invading and occupying Islamic nations, that is so galling to the Muslim mind, for that is against the law of allah, which requires them to invade and subdue non-Muslim people- not the other way round.

  20. Anonymous1/3/11

    Right DP111. Every time I hear a complaint about infidels on Muslim land, I cringe and think that Muslim land might be Mecca or Medina, or Saudi Arabia at best. They can return all the rest to their rightful owners.

  21. Totally OT but every once and I while I get filled with saddness; wishing we could all go back in time before September 11 when the greatest problem facing the US was the Chandra Levy/Gary Condit matter. Before we knew what Allah hu akbar, inshalla etc.

    On a lighter note, Latma now has me saying yalla once in a while lol. Maybe I watch too much Latma

  22. Anonymous1/3/11

    How true, Keli. I now know far more about Arab culture than I ever wished to know, and what a heavy burden it has been!

    I get a kick out of Latma too. I sent out Jihad Bells with my Christmas letter and just posted the Arab Democracy Anthem to a couple of places.

  23. Anonymous1/3/11

    I predicted some 7 years ago, that our intervention in Muslim countries will set off huge hatred for the West among ALL MUSLIMS. Time and time again over the last few years we have seen that Muslims have protested against our interventions. Moderate Muslims even warned us that it will increase terrorism. So it did, with 7/7 , Fort Hood and other terrorist actions and plots. We also saw the intense hatred of our returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It was this last that led to Western public beginning to realise that Western Muslims were a threat. Occupation of Islamic territory is NO NO to all Muslims. Simply NOT ON.

    We really need to intervene in another Islamic country and then see what happens.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Muslims cannot live side by side in the same nation with others. Separation was necessary. The trouble was how to arrive at such a situation without recourse to force or coercion, as that would invalidate our claim to be a civilised and tolerant society. We are, thankfully getting to that situation, when it will become a reality.

    All this I predicted in a private email to a friend.

  24. Anonymous1/3/11

    Ali Sina believes that Islam will break down as information technology penetrates the Muslim world. This is evidenced by the fact that Islam is such a weak religion that it can only protect itself with a death penalty and prohibit the introduction of other ideas. He says that no Muslim can read his book, Understanding Muhammad, and remain a Muslim.

  25. terrorism was well underway before any intervention, so were plans for a global caliphate

    technology can bring change, but not when there is a cultural dominance by one side

  26. Anonymous3/3/11


    Terrorism is always a chacteristic of Islam - they call it Razia. What we have been seeing in the last ten years or so, are far more attacks on Western military forces, as well as the usual.

    Our interventions in Islamic nations has allowed "Defensive" Jihad to become legal.

  27. It's always been legal, and there have always been pretexts of one kind or another.

    What is changing now is the greater availability of foreign forces in conflict zones as targets, and the demographic boom for Muslims in Western countries.

  28. Anonymous3/3/11

    Defensive jihad is only the 2nd of 3 phases of progressive revelation.

    When Muhammad first started out, jihad was prohibited. When they had a small force, only defensive jihad was allowed. When they became powerful, offensive jihad was mandated. Muhammad's last command was to conquer the world in the name of Islam, and today's map is the reflection of the success of that.

    So this explains why you can find verses supporting all 3 views in the Quran. The doctrine of abrogation means the offensive jihad verses supercede the earlier verses, but at the same time, the doctrines of dualism and progressive revelation means that all the verses are true at the same time, and the Muslims can use the verses which are appropriate for the situation.

    So, in the US, the stage 1 prohibition of jihad is in effect, and we see talk of a religion of peace. In countries where Muslims are stronger, but not dominant, we see defensive jihad. Nevertheless, the preferred doctrine, by abrogation, is offensive jihad.

  29. Anonymous4/3/11


    There are various types of Jihad, and there is no doubt that excuses can be found to invoke any. However, it is incumbent on all Muslims to protect that part of the Umma that is resident in an Infidel country from threats, as that is the main arm of the invasion. Thus Razias, or raids can continue but must use forces from outside the target country. Therefore British Muslims may attack America, as that does not threaten the safe presence of American Muslims and so on.

    There is also the Jihad that is incumbent on all Muslims ie when a Muslim country is occupied by a or a group of "Infidel" countries. It is then we see that even citizen Muslims will attack their own country. 7/7, Madrid, Forts Hood and Dix, are such examples. Muslims are legalistic in their attacks. Generally they have canonical reasons for their methods and reasons. They may even get the OK from the imam if they are in doubt.

    Now you are right that it does not matter to us what reason they use. But if we decide to go on the offensive, we need to know which buttons to push to invoke appropriate responses, which then allows us to respond in the manner which we had in mind, but lacked the justification.

    John K wrote: but at the same time, the doctrines of dualism and progressive revelation means that all the verses are true at the same time.

    Absolutely right. At its core, Islam is a dual faced religion.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like