“…the Decline of the West to you, bub. (It’s better in German.)”
But it’s Victor’s conclusion I’d like to address:
Is not that the ultimate paradox: The solution to the sort of violence we saw in Britain and Sweden the past week, or to the endless acrimony over “comprehensive immigration reform,” is that the Western hosts will so accede to multiculturalism that the West will be no longer unique – and therefore no longer a uniquely desirable refuge for its present legions of schizophrenic admiring critics. If the immigrant from Oaxaca can recreate Oaxaca in Tulare, or the Pakistani second-generation British subject can carve out Sharia in the London boroughs, or a suburb of Stockholm is to be like in one in Damascus, then would there be any reason to flee to Tulare, London, or Stockholm?
To which I would answer yes. Because what if the goal is not to “flee to” Tulare, London, or Stockholm, but to eliminate those places by changing their essential nature from Western to whatever brand of home-country or ummah religio-cultural jingoism a sizable portion of the immigrants subscribe to? Along the southwest border of the U.S., some Mexicans have spoken for decades of a new Reconquista, effected peacefully via immigration and birthrates until the question of who shall be sovereign is no longer open. And does anyone seriously argue that the Muslims flocking to Sweden and elsewhere in Scandinavia have the slightest desire to “become” Swedish, Norwegian, or Danish? Or is a far more likely explanation that some come for the free stuff, a few to better themselves — “immigration” in the sense most Americans understand the term — while others form the advance guard of an invading force that seeks to occupy the city, county, or country and then transform it into precisely what it was that they “left behind”?
Seen that way, there’s no paradox at all.