Thilo Sarrazin was fired today by the Bundesbank for reporting the truth about Muslim immigrants in Germany. His recently-published book has brought down the wrath of the German establishment upon his head, but all the shunning and condemnation haven’t silenced him.
Mr. Sarrazin wrote a recent article for the German newspaper BILD summarizing his conclusions about the effect on Germany of prolonged Muslim immigration. Our Flemish correspondent VH — working with a Dutch translation that was posted at the ICLA website — collaborated with JLH to produce the following English-language version of Thilo Sarrazin’s piece:
If I want to hear the muezzin, I also can book a vacation to the Orient- - - - - - - - -
by Thilo Sarrazin
Uncontrolled immigration may at any time threaten the state structures and undermine the stability of a society. The Chinese empire therefore had its Great Wall, the Romans had their Limes. At no time were the securing of the territory and the regulation of immigration something trivial. The complications arising from these issues threatened states and societies to their core and penetrated them deeply. And each time they were accompanied by orgies of bloodletting and violence.
In the German media this is frequently concealed. Immigration issues are often treated with a raised admonitory finger, and an attitude that probably can be the best characterized with the slogan: “Peep, peep, peep! We all just love each other.” This approach is as unhistorical as it is silly. Even more regrettable is that the German political elite lets its position on immigration be determined largely by the voices from the media. It thus runs the risk of alienating itself both from the people and the core of the problem.
The growing influx, noted by right-wing populist movements in many European countries — also the referendum on the acceptance of minarets, as held in Switzerland — are consequences of the predominantly unhistorical, naïve and opportunistic migration policy of European governments.
In all countries concerned — whether Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark or Norway — one makes similar observations about the group of Muslim migrants, namely:
- Below-average labor market integration;
- Above-average dependence on welfare benefits;
- Below-average participation in education;
- Above-average fertility;
- Spatial segregation with a tendency towards the emergence of parallel societies;
- Above-average religiosity with growing penchant for traditional and fundamentalist movements in Islam;
- An above-average criminality, from “ordinary” violent street crimes to participating in terrorist activities.
In Germany, an army of integration committees, Islam researchers, sociologists, political scientists, organizational representatives and a group of naive politicians work intensively, hand in hand, on trivialization, self-deception and denial of the problem.
It is particularly popular to blame the critics of Islam for a lack of tolerance. Thereby an important distinction is lost: One can, indeed must be liberal towards beliefs and lifestyles that differ from our own. But this liberality then may not be applied to those who do not want to tolerate different beliefs and lifestyles.
The 18-year-old murderer Ayham Sürücü — who in February 2005 in Berlin, commissioned by his deeply religious Turkish-Kurdish family-in-law, shot dead his sister Hatun Sürücü, five years his senior, because she had a different lifestyle — was deeply religious, and a representative of a broadly shared view among Muslims. Can someone who judges this kind of religion to be unworthy — even if it does not lead to murder — be described as illiberal?
That the strong growth of the Muslim minority in Europe is causing concern certainly need not be construed as xenophobia. Below-average employment among Muslim immigrants in Germany can be established. Only 33.9 percent of them earn a living through professional and other gainful employment. In the population without an immigration background, that is 43 percent.
It is often noted that many Muslim immigrants are especially likely to be self-employed. There are approximately 80,000 self-employed persons in Germany with a Turkish immigration background, of which 40,000 are in food retailing.
At any rate, the percentage of self employed persons among Muslim immigrants is significantly lower than that of the German population and other immigrant groups — in 2007 only 6.8 percent, compared with immigrants from EU countries (12.4 percent), Southeast Asia (13.9 percent) and persons without an immigration background (10.4 percent).
Compared to the working population, there are among Muslims four times as many people living on unemployment benefits and welfare assistance than among the German population. The situation is completely different among the migrants from the EU Member States. Their employment rate is 44.2 percent, which is even slightly higher than that of native Germans.
Of the people living in Germany with a Muslim immigration background, 30 percent have no school diploma whatsoever, and only 14 percent a Higher School Certificate.
It is noteworthy that the immigrants from the EU and South- and East Asia do not have similar problems. Of the children of the Vietnamese contract workers of the former East Germany 80 percent even have a Higher School Certificate, a higher percentage than the Germans.
Discrimination as a cause for this lack of success of the Muslim immigrants can be excluded, as groups of migrants from the Far East or India, whose appearance is even more exotic than that of the Turks and Arabs, in some cases even surpass the Germans.
The relative failure can also hardly be attributed to congenital capacities and talents, as it concerns Muslim immigrants of various origins. It also is a mystery why the progress in the second and third generations, if there is any, is much less with the Muslim immigrants than with others.
Some Germans — including the elite — have not yet even noticed the problem. In their life, domestic, and working environments Muslim immigrants at the most are encountered as cleaners or as an exotic backdrop for a rare visit to Berlin-Kreuzberg [culturally enriched neighborhood in Berlin]. Certain portions of the intelligentsia and the liberal press seem even to quietly gloat about Muslim immigration undermining German society.
What did the U.S. government do for the integration of German, Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants? They integrated themselves, because they had no other choice if they wanted to survive. There was no public support for importing brides. The failure of integration in Germany is due to the attitude of the Muslim immigrants.
I would like my great grandchildren 100 years from now still to be able to live in Germany — if they want to. I do not desire that the land of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren be largely Muslim, that Turkish and Arabic be spoken in broad swathes, that women should wear headscarves, and the daily rhythm be determined by the prayer call of the muezzin. If I want to experience that, I can book a vacation to the Orient.
I do not want us to become strangers in our own country.
Previous posts about Thilo Sarrazin:
| 2010 | Aug | 31 | Crossing the Red Line | |||
| Sep | 2 | Sweeping Problems Under the Rug | ||||
| 2 | The Bundesbank Gives Sarrazin the Boot |
14 comments:
Over the years I’ve talked to numerous individuals in Norway who’re strong supporters of multiculturalism. Their point of view is that although things aren’t looking too bright at the moment, things will improve over time, and the newly arrived immigrants will eventually integrate and become ordinary Norwegians (even though the immigrants’ genetic makeup will differ greatly from that of an ordinary Norwegian).
These multiculturalists will also use the US and Canada as examples to prove their case, as immigrants in those two countries have historically integrated successfully and adopted the local cultures. But what they’re failing to mention when they’re making that claim is that the immigrants who settled in America in previous centuries where already culturally very similar, and as a consequence it was fairly easy for them to integrate and get along.
And let’s be honest, the biggest obstacle that non-English speaking immigrants in America were facing at the time was the language, as opposed to the non-western immigrants in Europe today who are facing both language and cultural barriers. The cultural barrier being without a shadow of a doubt the biggest one to overcome.
I’m also amazed by how otherwise intelligent individuals can be so uncritical when they’re analysing trends and how eager they are to completely ignore the consequences of these trends, as is the case with non-western immigration. In Norway it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that non-western immigration has caused serious problems, both financially and socially (higher crime rates etc.) yet the message don’t seems to get through. The fact that the problems have increased exponentially with the influx of non-western immigrants is very clear to see if one analyses these trends honestly, but still multiculturalists choose to ignore it.
At the same time they’re almost hysterically concerned about non-essential issues such as man-made global warming even though the trends and facts run contrary to their own personal believes. Even so they still seem to believe in it 100 percent. So why is it that there is such a great disparity in their way of reasoning and analysing trends?
Another thing to bear in mind is that a person’s cultural identity is his most precious and defining trait. It’s what shapes his morals and his behaviour and it dictates to a great extent how he interacts with other individuals. It’s the basis of his core values. I don’t think that a western multiculturalist would swap his cultural identity with say a Saudi Arabian cultural identity. So why are they assuming that a non-western immigrant is going to scrap his cultural identity and values when he relocates to the western world?
A non-western immigrant is just as unwilling to change as a western person moving to a non-western country. I think that more and more people are discovering this very important fact at the moment. Non-western immigrants won’t change their cultures and values; they wish to hang on to them, which when you think about it is only natural.
kritisk_borger: The [European] cultural barrier being without a shadow of a doubt the biggest one to overcome.
Ummmmm … no. Your later statements begin to address this problem but, even then, do not wholly winkle out the real issue.
It has become patently clear that Islam is "[t]he cultural barrier being without a shadow of a doubt the biggest one to overcome".
I don’t think that a western multiculturalist would swap his cultural identity with say a Saudi Arabian cultural identity. So why are they assuming that a non-western immigrant is going to scrap his cultural identity and values when he relocates to the western world?
You seem to be engaging in cultural relativism. There is no equivalency between Saudi Arabian and Western culture in the first place that might drive any confusion about adopting one over the other.
Saudi culture remains a barbaric and brutally misogynistic environment that typically holds little promise for any but the most wealthy individuals who are born to privilege.
By comparison, Western culture offers nearly untrammeled opprotunity for all who appropriately assimilate. Yes, there are remnant issues of social stratification that continue tp persist but they are nowhere near on a par with those found in Saudi Arabia or the vast majority of other Muslim-majority countries.
What's more, the simple fact remains that immigration to the West is a frank admission that Western culture is superior. Those who seek to maintain otherwise even as they arrive on Westerrn shores are the worst sort of hypocrites and, all too frequently, seditious traitors.
A non-western immigrant is just as unwilling to change as a western person moving to a non-western country.
This is quite open to dispute. A huge number of immigrants, both past and present, have routinely displayed great pride in becoming American citizens, despite being of foreign extraction. This phenomenon appears with far less frequency in Muslims immigrants regardless of their host country.
I think that more and more people are discovering this very important fact at the moment. Non-western immigrants won’t change their cultures and values; they wish to hang on to them, which when you think about it is only natural.
Again, you are providing facts not in evidence. Either show how all immigrant populations display a similar resistance to assimilation or recognize that Islam tends to inspire a unique degree of enclave mentality and refusal to integrate.
As an example, what other non-Islamic nation's leader is claiming that "assimilation is a crime against humanity", like that of Turkey's Recep Erdogan?
The distinctions you appear to draw do not hold water.
The complaint is that the administrations/elites are not listening,of course they are not listening this is thier agenda to destroy the west and thereby control the planet.They will only discuss what they wish to discuss,all else is taboo,and in this way they control every issue that is important to us and stiffle any dialog that is opposed to the diminution and enslavement of modern western man.The internet is our last avenue of communication,and a wholesale assualt is allready in progress upon our right to even speak to one another,and i am glad that resistance is stirring,but it will have to become much more muscular if we are to achieve even a semblance of freedom.
Zenster said..
“Ummmmm … no. Your later statements begin to address this problem but, even then, do not wholly winkle out the real issue.
It has become patently clear that Islam is "[t]he cultural barrier being without a shadow of a doubt the biggest one to overcome"
I think it is a matter of cultural barriers, whether it is an Islamic cultural barrier, an African cultural barrier or an Indian cultural barrier. People who’re different are always met with skepticism. I would still be opposed to multiculturalism even if Islam did not have a presence in Europe.
“You seem to be engaging in cultural relativism. There is no equivalency between Saudi Arabian and Western culture in the first place that might drive any confusion about adopting one over the other.”
No, I’m not a cultural relativist. I believe that the western culture is superior to the Islamic culture. I’m simply pointing out that it’s naive to expect that people from other cultures will automatically scrap theirs and adopt a western culture.
“A non-western immigrant is just as unwilling to change as a western person moving to a non-western country.
This is quite open to dispute. A huge number of immigrants, both past and present, have routinely displayed great pride in becoming American citizens, despite being of foreign extraction. This phenomenon appears with far less frequency in Muslims immigrants regardless of their host country.”
I know expats who have lived/lives in various no-western countries (PNG, Fiji, Hong Kong, Malaysia) and they live segregated lives in their own little communities. And none of them particularly wish to adopt immerse themselves in the host country’s ways. I’ve also dealt with many Indians and Chinese and although they seem to integrate more thoroughly than other ethnic groups they are still very different to us.
“I think that more and more people are discovering this very important fact at the moment. Non-western immigrants won’t change their cultures and values; they wish to hang on to them, which when you think about it is only natural.
Again, you are providing facts not in evidence. Either show how all immigrant populations display a similar resistance to assimilation or recognize that Islam tends to inspire a unique degree of enclave mentality and refusal to integrate.”
If you read that sentence one more time you’ll see that I’ve started it with ‘I think’ which means that it’s my own personal opinion.
“The distinctions you appear to draw do not hold water.”
That’s your personal opinion. I don’t share it.
Zenster wrote: As an example, what other non-Islamic nation's leader is claiming that "assimilation is a crime against humanity", like that of Turkey's Recep Erdogan?
Mexican President Calderon: Wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
kritisk_borger: If you read that sentence one more time you’ll see that I’ve started it with ‘I think’ which means that it’s my own personal opinion.
Opinions not substantiated by facts are anecdotal at best and, just as often, simply useless.
For instance, your example of ex-pat communities abroad does not hold up well against much more significant immigrant influxes into regions like America and Europe. The ex-pat numbers are far smaller and, typically, incapable of providing the sort of broader socio-political perspective that this discussion involves.
latté island: Mexican President Calderon: Wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
One might just as easily attribute that statement to the fact that the single largest legitimate sector of Mexico's economy (excluding narcotics trafficking), is money obtained from remittances sent home by Mexican nationals working abroad, usually in America.
Indeed: "Wherever there is a Mexican, there is" … Mexico's economy.
Zenster said...
“kritisk_borger: If you read that sentence one more time you’ll see that I’ve started it with ‘I think’ which means that it’s my own personal opinion.
Opinions not substantiated by facts are anecdotal at best and, just as often, simply useless.”
Well, I claim that it’s a true statement, you claim otherwise.
Tell you what, why don’t you then put your money where your mouth is and prove me wrong? If you can’t then you’ve just presented your own personal opinion devoid of any substance, and as we know by now, according to you;
‘Opinions not substantiated by facts are anecdotal at best and, just as often, simply useless .’
Zenster said ...
“For instance, your example of ex-pat communities abroad does not hold up well against much more significant immigrant influxes into regions like America and Europe. The ex-pat numbers are far smaller and, typically, incapable of providing the sort of broader socio-political perspective that this discussion involves."
I’m claiming that expats often have the same reluctance as today’s non-western immigrants to adopt to their new country’s culture and values, and I’m speaking from personal observation. Just because the expat community is smaller doesn’t disprove this claim.
There are more than 5 million Americans claiming Norwegian ancestry. Many of the Norwegians that went over to America refused to let go of their language and traditions. There were several towns and villages in the US, especially in the ‘Norwegian states’ like the Dakotas, Minnesota and Wisconsin where only Norwegian was spoken, and where the kids went to Norwegian schools. And that went on for several generations.
Same thing goes on today with first generation European immigrants in the new world. They speak their own languages at home and maintain their tradition and cultures. Even in the Norwegian community in Spain, Norwegian is the only spoken language, many of the Norwegians living there wouldn’t even be able to phrase one Spanish sentence.
Why don’t you prove me wrong on that one too?
He should run for Chancellor! He'll beat marxist Merkel no probs!
@Zenster: had to laugh at "wherever there is a mexican there is Mexico!
Funny but that is what muslims say about their empire: can't wait for muzzies v mexicans!
They're not immigrating, they're colonizing.
Islam doesn't adapt, it overwhelms.
They do not emigrate, they invade.
And, if they fail, Mohammadens regroup, and attack again.
SEE: The Balkans.
The EU-nuchs are delusional.
Islam is comiong to replace you, not serve you.
(Or, to paraphrase The Twilight Zone:)
The Koran- IT'S A COOKBOOK!
Zenster wrote,
"A huge number of immigrants, both past and present, have routinely displayed great pride in becoming American citizens, despite being of foreign extraction."
Sigh. And thus the debate between the universalists and the particularists continues.
Look, Zen. Yes, you are right that there are aspects of Western culture which are objectively superior to aspects of non-Western culture. You are even right to argue that, our entire moral framework overall is demonstrably closer to the Truth than the moral framework of any other culture.
But that doesn't make Western culture universal or universally assimilable.
Why? Because no matter how many nonwhite footsoldiers Glenn Beck finds in the Delaware Crossing, the general in charge was George Washington, a white man, more specifically an Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
All available evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the history of the West is the history of the white race, and without the white race, the West never would have been.
The nonwhite immigrant simply cannot look back at our history, our triumphs, our defeats and our accomplishments and honor them as the history, triumphs, defeats and accomplishments of his forefathers. And he cannot help, if he has any sense of loyalty in him at all, but look with admiration and jealousy at the history, triumphs, defeats, accomplishments of his own forefathers.
Imagine a Turk celebrating the defeat of his forefathers at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Can you imagine a more perverse demand to make of a son than that he celebrate the defeats of his own father? And yet that is precisely what the right-liberal, "assimilationist" conservative demands of foreigners in his midst.
It's an unreasonable demand. No, let the foreigner honor his fathers in his own home. And let us do the same in ours.
bartholomewscross: But that doesn't make Western culture universal or universally assimilable.
Nowhere do I say such a thing. It is highly unlikely that all global cultures can properly assimilate into American or European societies. My point regarding Muslims is a direct reflection of this.
All available evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the history of the West is the history of the white race, and without the white race, the West never would have been.
Which is where Oreos, Bananas and Coconuts come from. All of them are White on the inside. Just as Western culture is.
It is ironic to note that those ethnicities which demonstrate the most resistance to adopting White aspects of American culture are just as often the least successful; and not for any reasons of racism, regardless of what those individuals may claim.
The nonwhite immigrant simply cannot look back at our history, our triumphs, our defeats and our accomplishments and honor them as the history, triumphs, defeats and accomplishments of his forefathers.
What is the alternative? Continuation of traditions and practicies that are inimical to success or physical health? The issue of birth defects related to consanguinious marriage among Muslims is a prime example. The profound levels of depression that arise from FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and purdah-related isolation of Muslim women also spring to mind.
So, there is a lot of incentive to adopt the mindset of America's founding fathers and its White culture. Unpleasant as it may be, there is no virture in glorifying the feats of ancestors that mired your ancestral culture in lasting poverty and lack of accomplishment.
Simple logic points towards direct benefits confered upon your own (immigrant) genetic line due to adopting the enhanced features of Western culture. Proper assimilation plays a key role in obtaining such an outcome.
Any widespread inability to appreciate and participate in Western host cultures needs to be construed as a direct indicator of continuing future opportunities for continued immigration from those countries or cultures.
Imagine a Turk celebrating the defeat of his forefathers at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Can you imagine a more perverse demand to make of a son than that he celebrate the defeats of his own father? And yet that is precisely what the right-liberal, "assimilationist" conservative demands of foreigners in his midst.
Imagine a Turkish woman with sufficient brains that wants to opt out of oppressive and misogynistic Islamic culture. Although of Syrian extraction, Waffa Sultan is a prime example of someone who has, more than likely, accepted the triumphs of Western civilization as a triumph for her own future generations.
Is this an exception to the rule? Perhaps, but it is the only valid form of immigrant assimilation. The alternative is a subtly bigoted "separate but equal" mentality which has poisoned the tradition of American assimilation and immigrant culture.
It's an unreasonable demand. No, let the foreigner honor his fathers in his own home. And let us do the same in ours.
It's only "unreasonable" if someone wants to import a failed mentality along with them into some other culture. At that point, they are not immigrants but colonists.
Zenster is having trouble getting his comment posted here. Let's see if I can do it for him.
-------
Zenster said…
bartholomewscross: But that doesn't make Western culture universal or universally assimilable.
Nowhere do I say such a thing. It is highly unlikely that all global cultures can properly assimilate into American or European societies. My point regarding Muslims is a direct reflection of this.
All available evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the history of the West is the history of the white race, and without the white race, the West never would have been.
Which is where Oreos, Bananas and Coconuts come from. All of them are White on the inside. Just as Western culture is.
It is ironic to note that those ethnicities which demonstrate the most resistance to adopting White aspects of American culture are just as often the least successful; and not for any reasons of racism, regardless of what those individuals may claim.
The nonwhite immigrant simply cannot look back at our history, our triumphs, our defeats and our accomplishments and honor them as the history, triumphs, defeats and accomplishments of his forefathers.
What is the alternative? Continuation of traditions and practicies that are inimical to success or physical health? The issue of birth defects related to consanguinious marriage among Muslims is a prime example. The profound levels of depression that arise from FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and purdah-related isolation of Muslim women also spring to mind.
So, there is a lot of incentive to adopt the mindset of America's founding fathers and its White culture. Unpleasant as it may be, there is no virture in glorifying the feats of ancestors that mired your ancestral culture in lasting poverty and lack of accomplishment.
Simple logic points towards direct benefits confered upon your own (immigrant) genetic line due to adopting the enhanced features of Western culture. Proper assimilation plays a key role in obtaining such an outcome.
Any widespread inability to appreciate and participate in Western host cultures needs to be construed as a direct indicator of continuing future opportunities for continued immigration from those countries or cultures.
Imagine a Turk celebrating the defeat of his forefathers at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Can you imagine a more perverse demand to make of a son than that he celebrate the defeats of his own father? And yet that is precisely what the right-liberal, "assimilationist" conservative demands of foreigners in his midst.
Imagine a Turkish woman with sufficient brains that wants to opt out of oppressive and misogynistic Islamic culture. Although of Syrian extraction, Waffa Sultan is a prime example of someone who has, more than likely, accepted the triumphs of Western civilization as a triumph for her own future generations.
Is this an exception to the rule? Perhaps, but it is the only valid form of immigrant assimilation. The alternative is a subtly bigoted "separate but equal" mentality which has poisoned the tradition of American assimilation and immigrant culture.
It's an unreasonable demand. No, let the foreigner honor his fathers in his own home. And let us do the same in ours.
It's only "unreasonable" if someone wants to import a failed mentality along with them into some other culture. At that point, they are not immigrants but colonists.
I wrote,
"The nonwhite immigrant simply cannot look back at our history, our triumphs, our defeats and our accomplishments and honor them as the history, triumphs, defeats and accomplishments of his forefathers."
Zenster responded,
"What is the alternative? Continuation of traditions and practicies that are inimical to success or physical health?"
Are you asking or telling? The alternative is exactly what I have already written and what our forefathers had in mind when they started this country: that America become a shining city on a hill, an example to the rest of the world. Your answer would have us become the world itself to the entire "talented tenth" of the Third World. And a tenth of the Third World is a large number indeed! I think you underestimate just how many people want to get out of those hellholes.
But as much as I sympathize with these talented nonwhites, they cannot all come here. And if they did, they would find it alien and strange, or in leftist parlance "racist". And we all know where that leads.
True, most non-white peoples have no Charlemagnes, no Bachs or Jeffersons or Dostoyevskys of their own. But isn't that an opportunity for the ambitious man? If the man whom you would allow into our country is as worthy as you claim, why deny him the opportunity to prove it in his homeland whose people more desperately need (if that's your standard) his heroics than we? And, more significantly, among people who could identify with him and therefore celebrate his achievements as that of a native son?
I would humbly suggest to Ms. Sultan and others like her that her nationality was determined by God and is no accident of birth. If she, a native daughter, will not speak to her people about the truth, who will?
No, the Lord ordained the boundaries and divisions of mankind. It is a good thing to belong to a people and to know your place among the nations. I have no idea why any God-fearing man would deny that.
Post a Comment