2009 August 01 Saturday
On The Internal Muslim Threat To European Peoples

A New York Times review of Christopher Caldwell's new book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West summarizes the bad news which Caldwell conveys about Muslim immigration into Europe.

But they are arguments one is not used to hearing put so baldly, at least from the West’s leading political journalists. Primary among them are these: Through decades of mass immigration to Europe’s hospitable cities and because of a strong disinclination to assimilate, Muslims are changing the face of Europe, perhaps decisively. These Muslim immigrants are not so much enhancing European culture as they are supplanting it. The products of an adversarial culture, these immigrants and their religion, Islam, are “patiently conquering Europe’s cities, street by street.”

Mr. Caldwell is a vivid writer, and like an action-movie hero he walks calmly away from his own detonations while fire swirls behind him. “Imagine that the West, at the height of the Cold War, had received a mass inflow of immigrants from Communist countries who were ambivalent about which side they supported,” he writes. “Something similar is taking place now.”

What is the sense of allowing a hostile religion into your country? Why let in an immigrant group that will create a parallel society?

The existing peoples of the European nations are not allowed to have an honest debate on the subject.

The most chilling observation in Mr. Caldwell’s book may be that the debate over Muslim immigration in Europe is one that the continent can’t openly have, because anyone remotely critical of Islam is branded as Islamophobic.

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders lives in hiding and with police protection due to death threats from Muslims and yet the Dutch government is prosecuting him for his statements which are critical of Islam. The Dutch lack America's 1st amendment speech protections. The Dutch also lack a government which puts the interests of its people ahead of an oppressive religion.

The European elites are afraid of angering the Muslims. Isn't that fear reason enough to stop and reverse this immigration? The reversal is possible: European governments could pay Muslims to leave.

Since the Belgian authorities try to pressure the Brussels Journal over its coverage of Islam in Europe it seems fitting to quote the Brussels Journal on the attempts by French authorities to hide from the French public the extent of the threat from Muslims in France.

The French Interior Ministry has issued orders to the prefects not to communicate to the media the crime statistics for the nights of July 13-15. The cartoon at the top shows Marianne, the woman symbolizing the French Republic, watching the "official" weather report, “More sun tomorrow” it says, as it pours outside.

The Brussels Journal has also recently taken a look at how Newsweek paints a rosier picture of Islam in Europe than is justified by the facts.

In an article published in Newsweek this week, William Underhill tells the magazine’s readers that “fears of a Muslim takeover [in Europe] are all wrong.”

The article was published one week after Muslim youths, during consecutive nights of rioting, torched hundreds of cars and burnt the entire business district of the French town of Firminy to the ground.

Perhaps Mr. Underhill was unaware of the events in Firminy, as are many Europeans and even Frenchmen, because the media are loath to report facts like these. In the Fall of 2005, a wave of nightly rioting by young Muslim thugs suddenly disappeared from the news when the press, at the request of the French authorities, stopped reporting about it.

In France, over 750 territorial enclaves have been given up by the state and are no longer controlled by the French authorities. These are the so-called “zones urbaines sensibles” (ZUS, sensitive urban areas). They have even been listed as such on an official website. The ZUS are run by Muslim gangs, while the inhabitants live under a combination of Shariah law and mafia rule.

Warnings concerning the loss of Europe to Islam is referred to by Mr. Underhill as “rabble-rousing stuff” and “alarming and highly speculative projections.” While conceding that “about half of respondents in Spain and Germany [hold] negative views of Muslims,” Newsweek pretends to know better than the 50 per cent of Europeans who feel uneasy about their daily confrontations with men in djellabahs and women in hijabs (if not niqabs and burkas), and with the construction of huge mosques in their home towns.

Every time I read about Muslim immigration into Europe I flash on Monty Python's Argument Clinic and the "getting hit on the head lessons" which start at 4:00 in this video:

Why subject yourselves to "getting hit on the head lessons"? That's what's the European governments are doing to their peoples.

Update: Also see Fouad Ajami on Caldwell's book.

Also, on Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order see Fouad Ajami's review.

In Huntington’s unsparing view, culture is underpinned and defined by power. The West had once been pre-eminent and militarily dominant, and the first generation of third-world nationalists had sought to fashion their world in the image of the West. But Western dominion had cracked, Huntington said. Demography best told the story: where more than 40 percent of the world population was “under the political control” of Western civilization in the year 1900, that share had declined to about 15 percent in 1990, and is set to come down to 10 percent by the year 2025. Conversely, Islam’s share had risen from 4 percent in 1900 to 13 percent in 1990, and could be as high as 19 percent by 2025.

It is not pretty at the frontiers between societies with dwindling populations — Western Europe being one example, Russia another — and those with young people making claims on the world. Huntington saw this gathering storm. Those young people of the densely populated North African states who have been risking all for a journey across the Strait of Gibraltar walk right out of his pages.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 August 01 12:10 PM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
Dummy said at August 1, 2009 12:56 PM:

Sensitive Urban Zones. So that's what they're called now. A few years ago, when I was on leave I took some time to visit France. Walked about quite a bit. Ended up in one of these "ZUS's" by mistake in Paris. Dry sniped the whole time. I wouldn't go back there without being in an armored vehicle.

kurt9 said at August 1, 2009 2:27 PM:

Contrast with this article showing the the Islamic takeover fears are receding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/radicalisation-european-muslims

Randall Parker said at August 1, 2009 3:14 PM:

kurt,

A few points:

An immigrant group becomes a lot more assertive once its numbers become larger. Right now the Muslims make up too small a voting bloc. When that changes they'll make bigger demands.

Also, once an immigrant group becomes larger it develops the ability to relate more within the group and less outside. So it becomes easier to marry within the group and work within the group. Not all immigrant groups do this obviously. But Muslims are far more prone to dot his.

A final point: The Muslims are doing poorly academically and economically as compared to the Europeans. So they will tend to segregate based on different paths in education and work. This further sets them apart and breeds resentment. People tend to blame others (as we see in the US of A) when their group does more poorly. The shouts go up "institutional racism" and the demands for racial preferences get translated into policies that discriminate against the more successful groups. Europe has this in its future.

miles said at August 1, 2009 5:19 PM:

Heartbreaking isn't it? Ive read all about it through some European blogs. Ive wondered what "the elite's" angle is on this for some time, other than the stated desire for cheap labor or demographic-buttressing. There is obviously a "democracy deficit" in these nations for something so unpopular to keep taking place in spite of low public opinion.

What Europe will probably get is a police-state when things get bad enough, with cameras everywhere and many more prison beds. But it didn't have to be that way. Muslims, when others will pay for it, have lots of kids and will eventually outnumber the Europeans in Europe. What then? Some have asserted European elites hate Western Civilization so much that they wish to destroy it. If thats so, they will probably be getting their wish over the next 100 years. Its simply madness.

James Bowery said at August 1, 2009 6:04 PM:

miles said: Ive wondered what "the elite's" angle is on this for some time... What Europe will probably get is a police-state when things get bad enough, with cameras everywhere and many more prison beds.

Did you just answer your own question?

Their angle is slavery.

Kralizec said at August 1, 2009 6:08 PM:

An acknowledgement of Mark Steyn's having raised the issue of Muslim immigration since 2003 would have been gracious and, well, accurate. Steyn has given kinder treatment to Pat Buchanan, acknowledging that Buchanan, whatever his defects, was well ahead of most other men in recognizing Islam's threat to Europe and the weakness of European left-"liberals" in facing the threat and dealing with it.

no said at August 1, 2009 6:30 PM:

Fears receding? You can't trust the Guardian..

The 'fears' are growing.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/08/yet-another-mass-meeting-to-demand-a-caliphate/

Not that you can take the BNP at face value either, but you can cross reference else where, the point is things are going on.

Randall Parker said at August 1, 2009 6:38 PM:

Krazilec,

The world contains a lot of pundits. A lot more pundits besides Mark Steyn have raised the issue of Muslim immigration for years. I very rarely read Steyn. Actually I very rarely read most mainstream pundits, tending to spend most of my time looking at "upstream" sources.

The people who most consistently warn of the dangers of immigration are paleocons, not neocons. The neocons (and I count Steyn in that camp) pretty much limit their anti-immigration rhetoric to Muslims. It is great that at least they are correct on the Muslims. But I mostly expect them to be wrong on immigration otherwise. That is one of the several reasons I do not read them much.

Dan said at August 1, 2009 10:39 PM:

Not quite there.

The only mainstream criticism of Muslim immigration I read from conservatives is “it harms gays, or feminists, or Jews or that Arabs bring a noxious gang-culture“. The whole idea of becoming British or Italian or Swedish is ridiculous. You cannot convert to being a European. Its innate. Speaking a language or eating certain foods are characteristics of an ethnicity but does not define Nigerians or Koreans etc. If so, I may one day be able to call myself Cherokee and therefore “Native American“. Why not? I can obtain citizenship and dress in traditional Native American clothing. There! Just as Indian as Crazy Horse. As our post-modern elites would have it, soon “Cherokee” and “British” are all-inclusive and therefore meaningless. Soft, mushy, indefinite, debatable, safe.

This is all very undemocratic, too. Who voted for millions of Muslims immigrants?

A.Prole said at August 2, 2009 1:58 AM:

....and the American government busily importing Mexicans and sub-cons at a frightening rate isn't doing anything different.

OneSTDV said at August 2, 2009 8:49 AM:

Read "While Europe Slept".

Mercer said at August 2, 2009 4:38 PM:

There is another review of the book in the NY times Sunday book review by Fouad Ajami. It is more positive about the book and more skeptical of Muslim immigration then Garner.

As a frequent reader of the NY times I found the Ajami piece amazing. I have never read anything but praise for multiculturalism and immigration in the paper before Ajami.

Ned said at August 2, 2009 7:28 PM:

" If so, I may one day be able to call myself Cherokee and therefore “Native American“. Why not? I can obtain citizenship and dress in traditional Native American clothing. There! Just as Indian as Crazy Horse. As our post-modern elites would have it, soon “Cherokee” and “British” are all-inclusive and therefore meaningless. Soft, mushy, indefinite, debatable, safe. "


I couldn't help but be amused by this comment. Apparently some are unaware as to how the affirmative action racket plays out in the US. I work with a lady (Caucasian, light brown years, blue eyes) whose grandfather (born in the Netherlands) was orphaned at a young age and got adopted by a Native American couple. He therefore bacame a member of the tribe, which didn't mean much at the time. But his granddaughter is therefore one-fourt Ihdian and has always listed her ethnicity as "Native American." She gets a check from the tribal casino every month, too.

m sher said at August 2, 2009 9:30 PM:

Repreating a comment above: Read "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. It is the best and most readable of all of the books on the immigration situation in Europe (and I have read them all, except the new one by Caldwell).

Kralizec said at August 3, 2009 9:49 AM:

On a lighter note, here's "Christopher Caldwell," writing on another troublesome European ethnic group.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/097171830X/

sg said at August 5, 2009 11:54 AM:

And you thought socially conservative Christians were threatening.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©