Many moons ago, a commenter at Gates of Vienna, one "Armance", commenting on the remarks made in February of 2011 by British Prime Minister David Cameron to the effect that "multiculturalism has failed", may have hit the nail -- or at least a nail -- on the head (or at least a head):
What they mean by ["multiculturalism has failed"] is that "the majority is guilty for not doing enough to integrate and accept the ethnic, religious and racial minorities. Please, can I have more money for inclusion and integration governmental projects, at the expense of the European taxpayers? Thanks."
I.e., there are two ways to regard something as a "failure":
1) the underlying intentions and goals are good, but the execution has failed
2) the execution has not failed -- it simply exemplifies the rotten substance that permeates the project (which should be scrapped altogether).
Now, when I intimate that multiculturalism should be scrapped altogether, I only refer to the Ism that has developed over the past half century, not necessarily to the wider, more amorphous Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman virtue of universalism, of which that Ism is a derivation and deformation. There are many in the anti-Islam movement, as well as many "conservatives" who may or may not be in the anti-Islam movement (if only because they don't say where they stand on that issue or have not fully clarified whether their opposition to various "Islamist" things reflects an opposition to Islam itself, or just to some "extremist" truncation leaving the main trunk of Islam un-condemned), who seem to express an ethnographic/cultural purism that is unrealistic. I do not necessarily oppose the efforts of any given Western region to maintain some type of system of management whereby it has the right to pursue limits on immigration and limits on the demographic aggrandizement of any given foreign ethnic people within its borders; however, when such a project would be pursued in too artificial a manner, it would begin to resemble the very Socialism and tyranny these Western conservatives otherwise oppose. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that any democracy has the right to set limits on immigration, and if those immigrating are mostly non-white non-Westerners, such limits should not be prejudicially labeled as "bigoted" or "racist".
Additionally, we should discriminate clearly between two classes of non-Western immigrants: Muslim and non-Muslim. The latter should be given preference, even if there will be imposed certain limits, as suggested above. The former, however, should be considered a unique class, and immigration should not only be halted, but those who are already within the West should be deported. The reasons for this have been discussed here and elsewhere in great detail. In a nutshell, it is based on the fact that the Islam which Muslims follow is much more than a mere religion: it is a detailed and fanatical blueprint for sedition -- necessarily integrating ultra-violence -- against any political order that does not submit to Allah and to the laws of Allah as set forth by Mohammed.
It is the Ism of Multiculturalism which has forced upon the West a rigid axiom by which the above clear discrimination is not only avoided, but often positively penalized, usually through the ostracization of career and political suicide, sometimes through more formal methods of criminal prosecution based on various forms of "hate speech". This is so mainly because of the obvious racial complexion in the ethnography of Muslims -- which is no accident, but reflects the historical fact that Islam spread mostly through non-Western, non-white regions in its fanatically intolerant and savage imperialist expansion. Indeed, under the Ism of Multiculturalism, of all groups perceived as "ethnic", it is Muslims who, in the last decade after 911 -- by virtue of the accident that they are largely non-white non-Westerners combined with the willful malevolence of their violent fanaticism -- have become the most preferred non-Western people of all.
Time and time again, I have seen politicians and analysts lament that Muslims are not "assimilating" -- this lament clearly couched in terms of continuing to promote the persistantly failing project of assimilation (though one can always point to the seemingly Westernized stealth Muslims as "proof" of the assimilation whose failure to succeed is otherwise bemoaned).
Where that project continues to show signs of failure, is where the rubber meets the road that divides the anti-Islam observer from the PC MC multiculturalist:
The former will recognize that Muslims are solely to blame for that failure, because their super-culture, Islam, has deformed them to a point where success (on a scale sufficient for our safety needs) is impossible -- and where most, if not all, apparent signs of success are in fact stealth jihadism by slick Muslims pretending to be Westernized.
The latter -- the PC MC multiculturalists -- will continue to scratch their heads and wonder why so many Muslims are failing to assimilate, and will tend to locate sources of that failure in our Western system, in poverty, in our Western tendencies toward bigotry of the Other, perhaps timidly stepping their toes into the waters of possibly considering that a "tiny minority" of Muslim "extremists" and other Muslims recently "radicalized" may also be making matters worse -- but never ever considering that Islam itself and its poisonous hold on the hearts and minds of Muslims is the sole cause of this failure.
I tells ya, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. (Beginning...!? saith the joshing demurrer.)
If you can't bitterly contort your lips into something resembling a wry, and infinitely jaded smile just this side of a painful grimace; you have to cry.
Healthy Multiculturalism and Unhealthy Multiculturalism
Healthy Multiculturalism and Unhealthy Multiculturalism