The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Wouter]

4 hours ago, Arakan said:

When it comes to multiculturalism and the ability to integrate significant numbers of religious people of North African / Arabian background into a secular society like the Western European one, there are two realities. One from the ivory tower, and one on the ground. 

People everywhere are sick and tired to be told by those Ivory Tower dwellers that the only problem is that they, the ground dwellers are intolerant, bigot or racist. 

Religion has nothing to do with race. Arameans and Assyrians are well integrated in Germany, Muslim Arabs in the large majority are not. same goes for religious Turks. Secular Turks again well integrated. 

I agree with that. I have the impression that most of the "progressive" elite live themselves in "white" neighbourhoods. What happens in mixed areas, let alone predominantly islamic areas, is not their problem, and they may not even be aware of it. Their experiences with immigrants are often limited to highly educated and competent people in their work environment, who are far more likely to not stick to the outdated ideas that many traditional muslims still hold.

A striking example of that is the ex-European Commisioner De Gucht, who arrogantly declared that "our western values are not threatened". It's easy for him to say, his main residence is in the very "white" community of Berlare and he has a lavish villa in Tuscany. I'm sure the "western values" aren't threatened there...

In a true multicultural society, "western values" would be one of many. The more people present who hold other views (like: the Qu'ran is the truth and must be followed to the letter), the more this will be reflected in the reality on the streets and eventually, in the political process.

I note that Erdogan is already having a significant say in how the large Turkish communities in parts of Germany and Belgium respond.

[Savannah]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 

been personally struggling (from an intellectual perspective) to know whether a strong sense of national cultural identity breeds xenophobia or whether it is the reverse. It's a bit of both of course, but it's also like a chicken or egg scenario.

A strong sense of cultural identity flourishes  from a strong culture, for example from  language, art and entrepreneurship. 

 

Also, the mass migration of jewish folks from France to Israel isn't happening because they are xenophobic, it's because they have a sound, rational fear. 

 

[Tijgy]

 

On 14-12-2016 at 9:47 AM, Jo498 said:

If I understand correctly, the claim should be "multiculturalism is difficult in a modern national welfare state", not "multiculturalism per se". Many Empires were multicultural (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian monarchy) but they were usually unified in the imperial structures and religion (or ideology as the Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia). And if the Empire was weak there were often problems, including war and civil war, usually along ethnic and/or religious fault lines. The idea that an Empire like Austrohungary or the Soviet union can reduce ethnic tensions or at least keep them at bay seems not wrong. It certainly seems right that tension flare up once the Empire crumbles. There are all kinds of things with which one can keep tensions at bay, e.g. Bread and Circuses. People are tribal by nature I am afraid but they don't care too much as long as everything seems to be working well.

The whole situation is more than this one single event of course but the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by some nationalists (separatists) is always referred to the event that resulted in WOI. So those ethnic tendencies in Austrohungary could be pretty dangerous.

My country also started to riot against the Habsburgs, when their enlightened emperor Joseph I had the idea to impose the same measures upon the Austrian Netherlands as the rest of his emperor. The interesting thing is that the results of this revolutions was completely different from for example the French revolution: they wanted to have a rather conservative state and it was also very pro-Catholic. 

Of course this revolution only existed one year and the Austrians reconquered us. And the France decided to "liberate" the rest of Europe from the Ancien Regime or had to defend their revolutionary values of liberté, egalité et fraternité. So four years later we became a part of France; and we started some riots against them because France decided to close our churches (or destroy them), stole the property of the catholic churches (and still didn't gave them back) and imposed some obligatory military service. A month ago, I saw some victims of the French repression against those rioters.

People never like it when their old customs are being destroyed even in the name what some other people consider to be "higher values". 

--

Some news regarding some future elections. Wilders from the PVV (Dutch extreme-right party) is last week convicted for hate-speech. In the polls after his conviction he is actually even more rising and he has now 36 of the 150 seats in the polls. The second party in the polls, the party of the PM, has 23 seats. 

[Rippounet]

On 17/12/2016 at 7:30 PM, Wouter said:

70% says that religious laws are more important than secular laws. That says enough.

It really doesn't, unless you're already biased against Muslims. You like that study, but as has already been pointed out to you on this forum, you'd get comparable numbers with any religious group (if anything, 70% is a rather low percentage). In fact, I'm surprised the Berlin Social Science Center published such a study since without any point of comparison with either members of other religions or non-religious people it is completely worthless and can only be used to defend xenophobia.
In fact, religion aside, most people would probably say they consider their personal principles and values more important than the laws of their country (I know I would). This of course does not lead to criminal behavior, if only because personal values and the rule of law are generally complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

On 17/12/2016 at 7:30 PM, Wouter said:

The discrepancy between pushing for gay rights on the one hand, and inviting large numbers of people from cultures where gays are reviled, is something that the proponents of "multicultural" (read: mix large numbers of islamic immigrants in western societies) europe never seem to tackle head on.

Probably because the heaviest opposition to gay rights has come from traditional Christian groups, and no politician is crazy enough to underline the fact that religious people of all kinds tend to be homophobic.

In fact, the real difficulty you (and others who share your views) have is to conclusively demonstrate that Islam specifically and/or a significant proportion of the Muslim population constitute actual threats to our Western societies. It's difficult to demonstrate because it's not the case. Take France and its 4,7 million Muslims... If such a large population was an actual threat you wouldn't be down to quoting the BSCS study again. As I like to say irl, if most Muslims wanted to kill us we'd be dead already.

On 17/12/2016 at 7:41 PM, Wouter said:

Their experiences with immigrants are often limited to highly educated and competent people in their work environment, who are far more likely to not stick to the outdated ideas that many traditional muslims still hold.

A striking example of that is the ex-European Commisioner De Gucht, who arrogantly declared that "our western values are not threatened". It's easy for him to say, his main residence is in the very "white" community of Berlare and he has a lavish villa in Tuscany. I'm sure the "western values" aren't threatened there...

The fallacy here consists in presenting "Western values" as set in stone and widely accepted, when in fact secularism, women's rights and gay rights are very controversial issues in our Western societies. Not to mention the fact that the relationship between the state (and its laws) and the individual are at the center of the current political paradigm and is constantly evolving. Thus it's unclear to me what exactly is "threatened" by Islam specifically since both conservatism and liberalism tend to be about defending certain values in opposition to others...
In the final analysis, values, by definition, are not something you can impose on others, whether they are Western, secular, Christian or Muslim, and attempts to do so generally lead to violence. There's no escaping the fact we all share different values and different degrees of tolerance to other sets of values. The question then becomes what specific acts or traditions should be prohibited (at least in the public sphere) for the greater good, or, to put it differently, to demonstrate that certain acts or traditions constitute a threat to others. Theoretically at least, important Western values do include freedom of religion, humanism and tolerance, which all tend to be conspicuously absent from the xenophobic discourse.

Then, there's the question of what we are talking about exactly. I don't see multiculturalism as a goal, and certainly don't believe that Western countries have to become multicultural ; I also think very few politicians actually say such things (they certainly don't here in France). Rather, I view multicultural policies as necessary to deal with the fact of multiculturalism, itself a consequence of numerous socio-economic (sometimes political) factors, few of which are actually desirable in the first place. I understand that living in de facto multicultural societies does not appeal to many, if not most people. I simply don't see any alternative. Once you have restricted immigration, the only alternative to multiculturalism is by definition ethnic cleansing.
This of course leads us to the recent refugee crisis. One may or may not agree with Merkel's decision to welcome huge numbers of refugees from Syria or Arghanistan. Now they are here however it would be extremely dangerous to implement policies to openly reject their cultures and religion, to deprive them of some of their rights, and generally speaking, to make them second-class citizens. This is exactly what ISIS is hoping that Western nations will do, so that it can encourage and use their radicalisation.

To conclude, I'll say that anyone who truly believes in such a thing as "Western values" should have faith in them. Our constitutions, the rule of law, and the political process are all very powerful and resilient. They have withstood greater crises than the ones we are facing today, and it would be folly to change them under the pressure of xenophobia.

 

[Jo498]

Quote

. Our constitutions, the rule of law, and the political process are all very powerful and resilient. They have withstood greater crises than the ones we are facing today, and it would be folly to change them under the pressure of xenophobia.

I agree that they should not be changed too quickly. But I am not at all sure that they are powerful and resilient. They have been and are being changed to some extent already. E.g. Germany changed some rules (overly) quickly in face of the leftist terrorism in the 1970s, than in response to the first waves of asylum seekers in the 1990s. France has been in a "state of emergency" now for more than one year since the terror attacks in Paris in 2015. And while I am in some respects as far from libertarian-anarchist as it gets, I can hardly deny that the state is very reluctant to change such rules back to the stage where it could wield *less* power.

I am not sure but one can hardly deny that a lot of the constitutions, institutions, due processes etc. of the West seem "rules for fair weather". It seems anything but clear to me that they can withstand tougher economical or political crises. And the problem then is that because modernity has destroyed (or at least weakened) a lot of non- or semiformal local structures and often delegated both duties and power away from local or nonformal actors to official institutions, so it seems anyones guess what enters such power vacua when the official structures and institutions fail (they can fail by breaking down, but also by becoming corrupt or simply to inert and inefficient).

There is also a fascinating dynamic everyone of us has experienced at the small scale in families or groups of friends that does make things, hm, "interesting" at a larger scale.

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.vob7ljcw8

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I am not sure but one can hardly deny that a lot of the constitutions, institutions, due processes etc. of the West seem "rules for fair weather". It seems anything but clear to me that they can withstand tougher economical or political crises.

We would have to disagree about that. On the contrary I think the current institutions are able to withstand great pressure with a minimal amount of change. Primarily because our Western institutions are not as democratic as we think they are in the first place.
On the other hand, there is a crisis of efficiency. A system of government is only as solid as the faith its people have in it. And while our institutions have a remarkable political stability, they also tend to be bad at problem-solving, which leads to a crisis of faith that is far more dangerous than the original problems.

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.vob7ljcw8

A fascinating read, thanks for contributing something as enlightening. I'm a bit skeptical that the minority-rule can be described as a rule rather than an occasional phenomenon. But it is certainly central to our discussion here.

The problem as I see it is that we have not one, but two highly intolerant minorities. On the one hand we have Salafist Islam that threatens to take over the Muslim communities. On the other hand, xenophobic populist movements in Western countries that encourage some form of racial or ethnic dicrimination. We have two separate dynamics that actually fuel each other. In a way, Salafism and xenophobia a can be seen as the two sides of the same coin ; ISIS is quite open in its support of xenophobic Western leaders.
Such dynamics can be very hard to break. And though they mostly hurt the minorities, there's no telling what dangerous side-effects populism can breed.

[Happy Ent]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

On the other hand, xenophobic populist movements in Western countries that encourage some form of racial or ethnic dicrimination. 

I think that statement borders on the irresponsible, in particular in a thread otherwise characterised by quite reasonable opinions. Your claim is true only for some very strange interpretations of “some form of,” in particular the interpretation “no.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with xenophobia, even in a malevolent reading of the word, and absolutely everything wrong with Salafist Islam, even in  a benevolent one. The former is a human weakness (if that—it’s just kinship altruism, the very foundation of a good part of society) that is entirely consistent with liberal democracy. There is no constitution ever, that posits the same rights (or obligations) no non-citizens as to citizens, and all democratic constitutions are build on an extremely narrow social contract that is consistent with xenophobia.  

The latter is a political system entirely incompatible with democracy.

I really can’t see how you can find these concepts worth comparing, in particular with respect to their compatibility with democracy.

Choosing to live in a xenophobic democracy versus under Islam? It’s not even a question. And I’m not even a woman. Or Jewish. Or gay.

[Jo498]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

We would have to disagree about that. On the contrary I think the current institutions are able to withstand great pressure with a minimal amount of change. Primarily because our Western institutions are not as democratic as we think they are in the first place.
On the other hand, there is a crisis of efficiency. A system of government is only as solid as the faith its people have in it. And while our institutions have a remarkable political stability, they also tend to be bad at problem-solving, which leads to a crisis of faith that is far more dangerous than the original problems.

The instutions are entrenched and inert, so I agree that they will probably not change quickly. Still, I think there is more evidence that they are often overtaxed by the problems they are supposed to solve and at some stage it does not really matter if an institution is stable but dysfunctional or breaks down. Take terrorism: We have gross failures (9/11 so gross that conspiracy theories still abound) or "tough" reactions, like explosion of surveillance or havin a state of emergency for more than one year with another extension coming up, IIRC. Take the asylum seekers and refugees. The governments are clearly overtaxes, oscillating between measures that are either too lax (welcome, but not really once you are there) or to rigid (close border for everyone).

Quote

A fascinating read, thanks for contributing something as enlightening. I'm a bit skeptical that the minority-rule can be described as a rule rather than an occasional phenomenon. But it is certainly central to our discussion here.

I also think that Taleb is overgeneralising the mechanism. But it is one very plausible way how minorities can dominate majorities by "soft power". What Taleb seems to ignore is that it can also backfire. If the minority  "vegetarians" keep imposing their minority rule, the majority "carnivores" are going to explode at some stage. I am pretty sure that a lot of the supporters of populist parties have grown resentful towards some of the imposers of progressive or puritan minority rules because they feel that they have played along for a long time with stuff they disagreed with, just to avoid quarrel, that they have given the little finger but the whole arm has been taken.

Maybe it is a slightly different mechanism but the "oppression (or offense) Olympics" works along similar lines. It's not enough to force anyone to eat organic at the party, now it's gonna be vegetarian, then vegan etc. Almost everyone could understand that racial slurs or jokes should be considered offensive and banned but now it is offensive if a cast of a movie is all white or all straight or whatever.

 

[Wouter]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It really doesn't, unless you're already biased against Muslims. You like that study, but as has already been pointed out to you on this forum, you'd get comparable numbers with any religious group (if anything, 70% is a rather low percentage). In fact, I'm surprised the Berlin Social Science Center published such a study since without any point of comparison with either members of other religions or non-religious people it is completely worthless and can only be used to defend xenophobia.
In fact, religion aside, most people would probably say they consider their personal principles and values more important than the laws of their country (I know I would). This of course does not lead to criminal behavior, if only because personal values and the rule of law are generally complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

[...]

This of course leads us to the recent refugee crisis. One may or may not agree with Merkel's decision to welcome huge numbers of refugees from Syria or Arghanistan. Now they are here however it would be extremely dangerous to implement policies to openly reject their cultures and religion, to deprive them of some of their rights, and generally speaking, to make them second-class citizens. This is exactly what ISIS is hoping that Western nations will do, so that it can encourage and use their radicalisation.

To conclude, I'll say that anyone who truly believes in such a thing as "Western values" should have faith in them. Our constitutions, the rule of law, and the political process are all very powerful and resilient. They have withstood greater crises than the ones we are facing today, and it would be folly to change them under the pressure of xenophobia.

 

You asserted that it's not true that a large number of muslims (in Europe, in context) have ideals of political islam. Well, this study shows that about 70% in Belgium and The Netherlands, and about 73% in France agrees that the rules of the Qu'ran are more important than the rules of the country where they live. And that about 82% in Belgium and France, and about 74% in The Netherlands agrees that "there is only one interpretation possible of the Qu'ran and each muslim should follow this interpretation". 

And furthermore, 66% of muslims in Belgium, 61% in France and 54% in the Netherlands agrees that muslims should return to the roots of the faith (that is, they self-identify as what is commonly called fundamentalists).

All in all, 52% of the muslims in Belgium and France, 45% in The Netherlands and even 55% in Austria agree with all of the principles bolded above.

Contrary to what you claim (did you even read the link before you declared it "completely worthless"?), they did make a comparison with a control group (of equal size) of people in the involved countries who self-identify as christians. The percentages for those who agreed with all three principles (or equivalent, "bible" instead of "quran") are given, as well: 3% in Belgium, 2,5% in France and 5% in the Netherlands. So we're talking about a disparity of 9 times (The Netherlands, which still has some fundamentalists Christian societies with their own, small but viable and stable political parties) to 21 times in France (which, just like Belgium, is largely secular dominated even among people who may call themselves christians).

So your statement "most people would probably say they consider their personal principles and values more important than the laws of their country" is demonstrably wrong. No wonder you find this study - published in a very leftist Flemish newspaper, I stress again - "completely worthless", as it goes right against your own beliefs. 

You want us to believe that the people who hold such fundamentalist ideas have no inclination whatsoever to transform this into political clout? Even though the people who think likewise, in Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Turkey... have all taken action in some way, to enforce their religion and their conservative/reactionary interpretation of it?

http://nos.nl/artikel/2149194-moslimmannen-weren-vrouwen-uit-cafes-in-franse-banlieues.html ).  

This example of Nadia Remadna, who filmed how she was asked to leave a café ("for males only") in a salafist islamist quarter of Paris, demonstrates that the "resilience" of "western values" (which I have always put between quotes, as its definition is loose; but everybody who sees this video in good faith knows what is meant here) is severely overestimated. Sévran now has more in common with North-Africa - rural North-Africa even - than with what we think of as France.

And you talk about personal principles, but the point is, those self-confessed fundamentalists don't really have personal principles; all the principles they need and want are found in the Qu'ran, other religious texts and in the interpretation of imams and other voices with religious authority (like the media outlets of the Daesh, or the Hezbollah,...). There is no need for debate when the direct word of God is available, right there on the page. it's not a personal principle, it's a common/shared principle of that group that is strictly adhered to.

As for your middle paragraph, that's a more pragmatic POV but in essence you are saying that we should fear the newcomers. Hasn't the usual PR babble been that those people are great for the economy, that they are highly educated and that they will pay for our pensions? "We have to respect them, and especially their religion, or face the consequences" sounds less sellable, that's for sure. Even it there is some truth in it, pragmatically speaking. Still, it's hardly a reason to plead for even more immigration from the same sources.

And speaking about the source, Boris Johnson was actually correct when he said that Syria is mostly a proxy war between Iran and Saudi-Arabia (even more so than Russia/US). What are the Gulf States doing to help the refugees?

 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I think that statement borders on the irresponsible, in particular in a thread otherwise characterised by quite reasonable opinions. Your claim is true only for some very strange interpretations of “some form of,” in particular the interpretation “no.”

Sure. Because there is absolutely no link between xenophobic policies and racial hatred, or between xenophobic populist parties and white supremacists.
Besides, none of Marine Le Pen's close advisers has ever been condemned for racial hatred, belonged to (or lead) ultra-violent far-right groups. No supporter of the National Front has ever called for ethnic purges in meetings or demonstrations (in fact, it's not like Marine Le Pen's father was calling for "kicking arabs out" for decades).
So yeah, it's totally irresponsible to underline the fact that people in the National Front want to go well beyond restricting immigration. It's not like the National Front was founded by people who were actually condemned for collaborating with the nazis, or even belonged to an SS division. And it's not like just two years ago, the treasurer of Le Pen's "Jeanne" organization celebrated his birthday with nazi salutes.

Here's an article explaining the National Front a bit. It's biased, but the factual information is still correct. I apologize for the bias, but it's difficult to find decent articles in English on the subject, since the international media has been giving a lot of attention to Marine Le Pen's "rebranding" of the party:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/08/is_france_going_fascist_extreme_right_national_front_is_now_the_most_popular_party/

Then, you have some titbits of information that find their way in the international press. Like this:

Quote

Several of the FN mayors elected in 2014, notably David Rachline in Fréjus and Robert Ménard in Beziers, have pursued a campaign of petty harassment and denigration of their local Muslim populations. Ms Le Pen’s niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, said last week that it was not possible for French-born Muslims to be “truly French” because they did not share France’s Christian “traditions and values”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-we-should-be-scared-of-marine-le-pens-front-national-a6765751.html

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone living in France knows what the National Front was ; there is a very long history of racist declarations and incidents and it hasn't stopped just because we are in the 21st century.
The question is to know if it has truly changed. Many people want to believe this, and Marine Le Pen has been very skilled in changing her rhetoric (she was less nuanced when she started in politics), but there are still many openly racist people (both sympathisers and leaders) in the party. Le Pen is the one who focuses the attention on mere xenophobia, while less important figures can be far more provocative. If you think I'm irresponsible, good. Perhaps you'll realize that the National Front's slogan ("France to the French") is hardly innocuous.

 

2 hours ago, Wouter said:

So your statement "most people would probably say they consider their personal principles and values more important than the laws of their country" is demonstrably wrong. No wonder you find this study - published in a very leftist Flemish newspaper, I stress again - "completely worthless", as it goes right against your own beliefs.

I can't read Flemish so I did my best to find information on the study with google. I still missed some things apparently, and it's a pity since any mistake weakens the points I'm trying to make.

It's not about beliefs. It's about numbers, which tend to be stubborn. It is estimated that there are about 15,000 radical Muslims in France. This is a very official number. It has been consistently used by the RG (intelligence service of the police), the INSEE/INED (national statistics institute), sociologists, and lately, by the prime minister himself. Of course, the number of "djihadists" is significantly lower.

So yes, that study seems quite worthless to me. I'm genuinely surprised that the numbers are so low for Christians, and that does make me question some of my assumptions. What you conclude or suggest is still ludicrous though, since you obviously want to equate Islam with fundamentalism, and fundamentalism with a political agenda  -at least.
Oh, also, I certainly didn't say we should fear the newcomers. I was slightly more subtle than that.
Let's be clear: I think the proportion of dangerous Muslims is comparable to the proportion of dangerous xenophobes. Both frighten me. But there's no point in arguing that Salafism is bad with you guys, is there?

Now the question I'd really like you to answer is what you propose exactly. In spite of our differences, we still agree on some things. What I don't get is what this leads to exactly, if not ethnic cleansing (as some supporters of the National Front acknowledge from time to time).
France has pretty much closed its borders already (the current numbers of immigrants and refugees are rather low here). Depriving foreigners of some rights is completely pointless, but I have no solid reason to object. So... What is it that you are saying?

 

[Iskaral Pust]

Rippounet, this thread was not neo-nazi Muslim-bashing but I think you have been reacting as though it were.  I don't think I've seen a single post in support of LePen, Trump or any other, just discussion of why the electorates are rebelling against the status quo of globalization and borders open to trade, capital and people.  Also, you seem to be disingenuous in wishing away the clash of culture between a majority of Muslims who live in the west and the secular democracies in which they live, as Wouters ably described.  You seem to be creating the straw men you wish to fight -- go to Breitbart if that's what you're looking for. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Also, you seem to be disingenuous in wishing away the clash of culture between a majority of Muslims who live in the west and the secular democracies in which they live, as Wouters ably described.

Disingenuous is a strong word which I find insulting here, but I'll admit I've reacted with insufficient consideration after reading certain contributions. However, although I believe I'm not the one who brought the question of how the West should view Muslims on the table, this was always the elephant in the room from the very first page of the thread since it plays a significant role in the rise of certain parties. It would be naive to think that the "revolt of Western electorates" is purely about rejecting neoliberalism ; while I share this analysis, it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss the fact that xenophobia and islamophobia play a significant role in the process as well.

Now, faced with the study which Wouter is using, there are two possible reactions. The first is to accept its findings unquestionably. In which case, I assume we would start viewing Western Muslims as having political ideals that conflict with our established institutions since a crushing majority of them seem to view secular laws as less important than their faith. Or, as you put it, to assume there is a clash of culture. This isn't only terrifying, it also potentially has very serious political consequences if some parties decide to act on this conclusion, and yes there are some who wish to do just that and even some who already are.
The second is to wonder whether this study is enough to reach such a conclusion in the first place. The author of the study himself has been rather nuanced in his own conclusions. Among other things he has stressed that according to him a majority of Muslims do not hold fundamentalist ideals, that fundamentalism does not necessarily include or justify violence, or even that Islam is not the problem.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-islamic-fundamentalism-marginal-phenomenon-europe.html    
Of course, I will personally add that one must be careful to distinguish fundamentalism from radicalism or Salafism and even radicalism from criminal behavior.
Then, perhaps we could take the time to think about the questions that were asked and how to interpret the answers, whether other studies or sources contradict the obvious conclusions from the study. There are, but I won't get bogged down in exchanges of sources and numbers, I have made it obvious that I trust the RG's analyses far more than any study (these were people tasked with the security of the state, and they were good at it).
Lastly, perhaps it would be wise to look at the greater picture. There are two narratives as regard multiculturalism. One states that it has failed and can only fail. The other seeks to advocate and strive for its success, whatever the difficulties, while all too often downplaying them (and here I can only plead guilty, but this is not something I will be ashamed of). But paradoxically the two are not absolutely mutually exclusive. Even if you assume that multiculturalism has "failed" on some (or many) levels, it might still be better to try to salvage it than to consider alternatives. I have yet to see any morally acceptable alternative.

Meanwhile, we can always discuss the evils of neoliberalism, and what the origin of such issues are, to prevent the discussion from devolving into "neo-nazi Muslim-bashing" as you say.

[Happy Ent]

Why can’t multiculturalism be a choice? Some societies can decide to be multicultural (and fail or succeed), others can reject that choice. 

The choice is not between “let’s tell a story under which multiculturalism has failed” and “let’s try to make multiculturalism work, whatever the cost.” The choice is if you want to have that problem at all.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 14/12/2016 at 7:44 AM, Kalbear said:

New Zealand is a good example of a welfare state which has a fairly heterogeneous population, selective immigration, and is largely successful. 

Our free-market liberals didn't need mass immigration to get their way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthanasia

(Contrary to popular belief, the free market reforms of the 1980s left the welfare state alone. People were receiving generous unemployment benefits even as the government was throwing them out of work. The demolition of the New Zealand welfare state is a 1990s phenomenon, that has only partly been reversed since).

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Lastly, perhaps it would be wise to look at the greater picture. There are two narratives as regard multiculturalism. One states that it has failed and can only fail. The other seeks to advocate and strive for its success, whatever the difficulties, while all too often downplaying them (and here I can only plead guilty, but this is not something I will be ashamed of). But paradoxically the two are not absolutely mutually exclusive. Even if you assume that multiculturalism has "failed" on some (or many) levels, it might still be better to try to salvage it than to consider alternatives. I have yet to see any morally acceptable alternative.

This is the part which I don't think the people pushing multiculturalism have quite thought through before forcing it on their compatriots. On the one hand, I agree with you that there is no alternative which is compatible with the 21st century Western moral framework. On the other hand, we have been trying to salvage it for years now and it does not appear that things are getting any better. What happens if most people decide that it cannot be salvaged and give power to the only people willing to begin dismantling it? This is not the only component of the 21st century Western moral framework that may be a casualty of this mess...

[Happy Ent]

Reading through what I read, let me again disavow the phrase “failed” for multiculturalism. It paints the false picture that, say, a state with misogyny, antisemitism, totalitarianism, ubiquitous surveillance is a “failure.” That is misleading, I believe. I would not like to live in such a society. But it can be usefully viewed as a success, as an outcome of multiculturalism that is not only inevitable, but desirable. Many societies have chosen to build themselves on that model, and it’s what they want. (There are obvious upsides to these kinds of societies, such as the fact that your women and daughters are property, that nepotism (which is a Virtuous Act) actually works, low taxes, etc. Most psychologically important is that such societies relieve their citizens of what Popper calls the strain of civilisation.) So: Syria is a choice. It is not a failure. I just want to choose differently.

Another point where the debate might improve: we are being intellectually dishonest when we talk about multiculturalism. Very few discussions are improved by intellectual dishonesty. So maybe we should stop using that phrase; few people actually dislike cultures just for them being different. What we dislike is the culture of the Middle East and North Africa, most importantly Islam and the associated tribal and patriarchal values. Europe is (after all) not becoming multicultural, but bi-cultural. It is the not the fact of mixing cultures that is the problem, but the specific other culture. So islamophobia would be a better name, if it weren’t so emotionally and morally charged. (On the other hand, maybe this is a discussion better had in terms of euphemisms and intellectual dishonesty, because not everybody has my sociopathic tendencies and blindness to tone.)

[Jo498]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

Why can’t multiculturalism be a choice? Some societies can decide to be multicultural (and fail or succeed), others can reject that choice. 

The choice is not between “let’s tell a story under which multiculturalism has failed” and “let’s try to make multiculturalism work, whatever the cost.” The choice is if you want to have that problem at all.

But it is not really a choice in reality. Because it was a slow process in most countries. E.g. in Germany the foreign workers (Gastarbeiter) were hired starting in the mid/late 1950s because the booming economy needed more workers. The officials who brokered that deals apparently thought that most of these people would return to their home countries fairly soon. But they did not. Disaster failed to happen for decades, despite prejudices and occasional tensions. As for the asylum seekers, Germany had a rather liberal law there for the obvious reason that many Germans only survived because they could flee somewhere from the Nazis. This was hardly ever talked about (probably because the numbers were so low) until the reunification when refugees from the Balkan and the near/middle East exploded and frustrated (usually East) German hooligans torched refugees homes. One reaction was to make it more difficult to get asylum. But this was already a change in laws that was highly contested and it would be against the constitution to completely abolish that law, so in praxi what you do is work with the fiction of "safe states" the people passed through, with making the rules for granting political asylum more restrictive etc.

The situation is that one finds oneself in some kind of multicultural society because of several generations of work immigrants, people from former colonies (like in Britain and France) etc.  So there never really was a choice because it was a slippery slope and nobody really thought about the long term consequences. Now it would be grossly unfair (although this happens frequently) to deport people born or having lived "well integrated) in the host society for years only because of their religion. It would also be impractical. So one has to deal with it. Problem is that people tend to be naive about it. Multiculturalism is nice as long as it is mainly more choices for cheap food, or if the people are already basically westernized. It is not nice if the culture involves practices we find problematic or abhorrent.

Still, even in these cases we often have to admit that there are freedoms we can hardly restrict without failing according to our own fundamental rules. E.g. freedom of religion is a fundamental liberty and it can only be restricted by comparably fundamental rights. One cannot simply say that a foreigner has to follow the rules of the host country because these rules include freedom of religion. This is why I find the head scarf discussion so silly. One can demand that women show their faces (at least when identification is necessary), but I do not see any plausible way to restrict personal and religious freedom because most Westerners are not used to women wearing head scarfs (My grandmothers very often wore head scarfs, not only when doing "dirty work", although not of the complete "coverup" variety and they were Lutheran christians, not muslims.)

[Happy Ent]

11 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

So there never really was a choice because it was a slippery slope and nobody really thought about the long term consequences.

I don’t understand that kind of reasoning. In which sense is this not a choice? There are plenty of people who think about long term consequences, and plenty of political parties to react to that. Choice (or “agency of the electorate”) is the only useful way of understanding politics in a democracy. It works pretty well.

Maybe climate change is a useful analogy. It’s also a choice, and therefore usefully a topic of public debate and political decision making. Of course, climate change is less useful to think about than immigration politics, because the effect of environmental policies are global (and therefore don’t track the boundaries of electoral powers), while immigration policies are national (and therefore perfectly track the boundaries of electoral powers.) 

Immigration has positive and negative effects, just like pollution. The power dynamics are similar (immigration and pollution help “the economy,” for instance.) Both are subject to rational political decision, data analysis, etc. Both are subject to entirely emotional, ideological, tribal signalling. Both are big problems where we will make mistakes as well as correct decisions. Both have long term effects. All of this is part of reality and politics and the public sphere. And all of it is usefully viewed as choice. Defaitism is not a useful psychological stance (even though it relieves you from the strain of civilisation.)

[Jo498]

O.k, admittedly I am too young and do not remember any political discussion about the foreign workers in the 1970s (and I have not read up on that history in any depth). There certainly were choices involved back then but mainly because of the error or delusion that the Gastarbeiter would only stay for while and later return, I do not think there was a big public discussion. (And tbh there never were founded suspicions of terrorism or considerably heightened crime with the Italian, Greek, Turkish etc. foreign workers and their children for most of the time. Obviously there was no big concern about islamic terrorism before ca. 9/11. Also things like honor killings and forced marriages I do not remember being mentioned before ca. 2000. And people were far less PC and squeamish in the 80s and 90s so I cannot imagine that such crimes would not have been fairly big news.)

Of course there are still choices in principle even now. But in modern democracies not everything is up for choice (actually very little is in practice...) Certain fundamental rights are not. And deporting citizens just because of their ethnicity or religion would clearly be against those fundamental rights. (If the West doesn't play by these rules, at least in principle, it has forfeit all pretense of moral superiority.) The right for political asylum is more contested but it is also seen as a fundamental right by many. The choices mainly concern the "dubious" cases and the practical limits.

But I hold that humanitarian help (war refugees and political asylum seekers) and immigration policy (and multicultural society) should be treated as different issues and they are frequently thrown together, especially the leftists/centrists seem confused here (the rightists/populists are in dubio also against humanitarian help I guess).

[Werthead]

Quote

This is the part which I don't think the people pushing multiculturalism have quite thought through before forcing it on their compatriots. On the one hand, I agree with you that there is no alternative which is compatible with the 21st century Western moral framework. On the other hand, we have been trying to salvage it for years now and it does not appear that things are getting any better. What happens if most people decide that it cannot be salvaged and give power to the only people willing to begin dismantling it? This is not the only component of the 21st century Western moral framework that may be a casualty of this mess...

I'm not sure how the conclusion "it does not appear that things are getting any better" is reached.

In Britain we have a relatively multicultural society which is mostly successful. The last time there was widespread social disorder in the country (the 2011 riots) it was caused by perceived police brutality and double standards against black people, and many white British people joined in on the side of the ethnic minority.

Where there are weakenesses and problems, they are well-known and engaged with: the certain "ghettoisation" of Muslim communities in some parts of the north, for example and problems with radicalisation coming from outside influences, although the number of people this has affected is vanishingly tiny compared to either the Muslim population or the population at large (although, as seen in July 2005, still with potentially devastating consequences). You compare this to the relatively successful integration of people of different origins in schools, communities and many professions right across the board.

Indeed, the primary concern I have encountered with Muslim friends (or more notably their older generations) is a fear of secularisation: many of my self-professed Muslim friends and acquaintences still pray regularly, but also smoke, drink and have relationships outside of marriages. The "danger" of secularisation to that community seems to be much greater than the reverse (at least from their perception).

The perception that multiculturalism has failed or is failing is widespread, but if it had failed there would be vastly more social disruption, upheaval and chaos than there actually is (i.e. almost none at all). I can only speak of the UK so the experience in other countries may be different.