French Interior Minister Claude Guéant is requiring applicants for French citizenship to show support for French values as a condition for French citizenship. Good for him. Good for France.
Candidates will be tested on French culture and history, and will have to prove their French language skills are equivalent to those of a 15-year-old mother tongue speaker. They will also be required to sign a new charter establishing their rights and responsibilities.
Why import millions of people who are fundamentally illiberal into a liberal polity?
The Swedes let in lots of Muslim immigrants and those immigrants did not exactly assimilate to Swedish culture and values. Why do the Swedes need to find out the hard way that this result is inevitable? Well, in any case, they are having to find out the hard way that Muslim immigration is a mistake. Blasts in a busy Stockholm shopping district killed at least one bomber and injured at least 2 other people. The bombers wanted to punish the Swedes for tolerating blasphemy against Islam. How dare they.
An editor at the Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra, Dan Skeppe, said the agency had received an e-mail minutes before the blasts; it was also addressed to Sweden’s security police, and included a sound recording addressed to “Sweden and the Swedish people.” Mr. Skeppe said the recording cited Swedish “silence” over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad drawn by the artist Lars Vilks, criticized Sweden’s 500-soldier military contingent in northern Afghanistan and threatened attacks on Swedes.
“Now, your children — daughters and sisters — will die like our brothers and sisters and children die,” it continued. “Our actions will speak for themselves. As long as you do not end your war against Islam and the insult against the prophet and your stupid support for that pig Vilks.”
If you are like me and can't keep up on all the artists and writers and film makers that Muslims want to kill then it helps to read the Wikipedia page on the Lars Vilks Muhammad as a dog cartoon controversy. Of course Muslim hot heads are still not over it.
On 11 June 2007, Vilks was invited to participate in an art exhibition on the theme "The Dog in Art" (Swedish: Hunden i konsten) that was to be held in the small town of Tällerud in Värmland. Vilks submitted three pen and ink drawings on A4 paper depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a roundabout dog. At this time, Vilks was already participating with drawings of Muhammad in another exhibition in Vestfossen, Norway, on the theme "Oh, My God". Vilks, who is a known proponent of institutional art, has stated that his original intention with the drawings was to "examine the political correctness within the boundaries of the art community". According to Vilks, the art and culture communities in Sweden repeatedly criticize the United States and Israel, whereas Muslim values are rarely even questioned.
Even recently Vilks was threatened with death. They think God (or Allah if he's different from God) wants Vilks to die and they no doubt expect to be rewarded for killing him.
A Swedish fighter with the Shebab [al-Shabaab - Ed], a Somalian milita with ties to Al-Qaeda, has urged Muslims to kill an artist from Sweden who depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a dog, US monitoring group SITE said Tuesday.
“Wherever you are, if not today or tomorrow, know that we haven’t yet forgotten about you,” said the Shebab member Abu Zaid in a video warning to artist Lars Vilks.
You can check out more of his cartoons which enrage Muslims. They do not think they should have to tolerate blasphemy. To them suppression of blasphemy is more important than freedom of speech. This makes them incompatible with Western civilization. But try convincing the multicultural Left of that. Of course, their dedication to freedom of speech is also pretty weak.
Back in May 2010 Vilks did something that upset Muslims again. He didn't upset them so much as they conditioned themselves to be upset by what he did.
Swedish cartoon artist Lars Vilks, who became the target of an alleged international murder plot for his 2007 cartoons of Mohammed as a dog, again angered Muslims Tuesday by showing an Iranian film that depicts the Prophet entering a gay bar.
When Mr. Vilks showed a scene from the film at Uppsala University in Sweden, a protester charged the dais and hit him, breaking his glasses. Police were forced to detain or pepper-spray some unruly members of the crowd as other protesters yelled "Allahu Akbar" – "God is great."
The Jews in Malmö, Sweden have felt the hatred of Muslims and this has driven some to leave. The Malmö Muslims have at time acted out like the Muslims of the banlieues of Paris, burning cars and rioting. In addition that December 2008 episode there was also an April 2010 rioting episode. The Swedes brought all this on themselves.
Does industrialized civilization just get too safe and comfortable for the Left? Do they feel a need to set up conditions guaranteed to make society deteriorate? Their disastrous decisions are a constant source of wonderment to me.
Update:The suicide bomber Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly was living in Britain with a Swedish wife when he traveled to Sweden to do his terrorist attack. He might have previously lived in Sweden. He studied physical therapy in Britain and was trained as a terrorist in Yemen.
An Islamic suicide bomber who attacked Christmas shoppers in Sweden at the weekend is a British university graduate and was living in this country until two weeks ago.
The article says security officials in Britain think British universities are a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. What would Winston Churchill think of this? What would Pitt the Younger or Disraeli say? What would David Lloyd George or Arthur Balfour say to do about this mess?
Claire Berlinski, an American journalist who lives in Turkey, was originally sympathetic to Muslim women who wanted to wear a veil. But she found that Muslim fundamentalists are not willing to tolerate non-wearers of the veil.
One woman here told me of her humiliation in childhood when her family was ejected from a swimming pool because her mother was veiled. I believed her. All stories of childhood humiliation sound alike and are told in the same way. It was perverse, she said to me, that she should be free to cover her head in an American university but not in a Turkish one. It seemed perverse to me as well. It would to any American; politically, we all descend from men and women persecuted for their faith. I was, I decided, on the side of these women.
But that was when I could still visit the neighborhood of Balat without being called a whore.
Figuratively speaking she's been mugged by reality.
The argument that the garment is not a religious obligation under Islam is well-founded but irrelevant; millions of Muslims the world around believe that it is, and the state is not qualified to be in the business of Koranic exegesis. The choice to cover one’s face is for many women a genuine expression of the most private kind of religious sentiment. To prevent them from doing so is discriminatory, persecutory, and incompatible with the Enlightenment traditions of the West. It is, moreover, cruel to demand of a woman that she reveal parts of her body that her sense of modesty compels her to cover; to such a woman, the demand is as tyrannical, humiliating, and arbitrary as the passage of a law dictating that women bare their breasts.
All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.
If Islam is really that incompatible with a free society then the Europeans need to do much more than a burqa ban. Otherwise the only way to protect native Europeans in the long is Ataturk-style dictatorial secular rule.
How to reconcile liberal support for multi-culturalism with liberal support for liberalism? A set of values that is not the same as the liberal set of values in some way is incompatible with liberalism. The liberal view of multi-culturalism seems to be rooted in a condescending view that liberalism is the modern global form of manifest destiny. Confronted with cultures which are anti-liberal at their core liberals ignore the deep-rootedness of inter-cultural differences and assert that when members of all other cultures are transferred into Western countries they will not pose a problem for liberalism. Rather, liberals save their powder for native Western conservatives as the real enemies. I think this is the height of folly.
Environmentalists made a big deal of the rhetoric of sustainability. I'd like to see liberals track demographic and social trends with an eye on the sustainability of liberalism. I think they promote values and policies that ultimately undermine the sort of society they want to see. America and Europe are going to become less like their ideal Swedish welfare state because the demographic trends which liberals support with immigration policies and welfare policies will create the kinds of societies that can not afford a Swedish welfare state.
Steve points to a blog post by U Chicago public policy grad student Tino Sanandaji on indications that immigrants to Europe are de-assimilating.
I just read an important new paper about immigration and assimilation in Europe, that (if the information in it is correct) contains surprising results. The paper includes data on employment rate of first and second generation non-European immigrants in the 3 major European countries of France, Germany and U.K (the 4th largest European country - Italy - has few non-European immigrants).
Looking carefully at the data in some of the tables, we can see that non-European immigrants in Europe are de-assimilating, with the second generation doing worse than the parents.
This isn't the only measure of de-assimilation. Other indicators include spread of the hijab head covering, Muslim terrorism, forced marriages (with bounty hunters to kidnap the women), and cousin marriage.
Shouldn't problems be solved? Rather than wallow in these problems and let civilization decay shouldn't policy makers do something to address the root causes of problems? In that spirit some modest proposals:
Given European opposition to cutting the welfare state the need for them to reverse the immigrant flows is even more urgent.
The men aren't working.
For women, the second generation is slowly assimilating. Whereas the first generation works 35% less than natives, the second generation works 27% less than natives, an improvement of 8 percentage points. (the figures are the non-weighted, arithmetic mean of the 3 countries, below I have put data in each one).
For men however the trend is the opposite. The second generation non-European immigrants are less likely to work than the previous generation! While the first generation work 10% less than natives, the second generation works 24% less, a deterioration of 14 percentage points.
Gotta state the obvious: People who aren't working aren't paying taxes and instead are collecting benefits from the welfare state. So these immigrants are not helping Europe deal with the costs of an aging population.
The other needed information here: For those immigrants and their descendants who are working how much money are they making and how much taxes are they paying. It seems likely that a group with a lower labor market participation also works at lower skilled and lowering paying jobs when they do work. So the difference between native and immigrant labor on government revenue and costs is probably much larger than indicated by only the labor market participation rates.
On the bright side, German politicians are getting on the clue train.
Horst Seehofer, leader of the Christian Democratic Union Party (CSU), which is a member of the coalition government in Germany, said in an interview to Focus magazine, "It is obvious that immigrants from Turkey and Arab countries face more difficulty integrating into German society than other immigrants."
"In any case," Seehofer added," the conclusion is that we don’t need additional immigrants from 'foreign cultures'."
The center-left parties in Europe are losing power over immigration. There's hope for Europe.
The Germans are coming to their senses. Multiculturalism is a dead parrot. Someone tell the Norwegians. The German Chancellor proclaims the utter failure of multiculturalism. Like the bulk of the Western elite, she is a slow learner. But better late than never.
"Multikulti", the concept that "we are now living side by side and are happy about it," does not work, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin.
"This approach has failed, totally," she said.
I hear Doctor McCoy saying "Its dead Jim". The German culture will dominate.
Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU's Bavarian sister party, CSU, told the same party meeting Friday that the two Union parties were "committed to a dominant German culture and opposed to a multicultural one.
"'Multikulti' is dead," he said.
This is a measure of how far European thinking has shifted on immigration and multiculturalism. Europe has come from behind and bypassed the US in a shift against immigration of incompatible cultures. The newly formed Dutch government adopted major planks from the small political party PVV which Geert Wilders leads. Anti-immigration parties are growing in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and other European countries.
There is the matter of the 2.5 million Turks in Germany who remain steadfastly Turkish. They also do far worse in schools and the workplace. What to do about that?
Merkel spoke a week after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in which they pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany's 2.5-million-strong Turkish community.
Time for some out-of-the-box thinking: Has it occurred to Merkel or Erdogan that those 2.5 million Turks would integrate much better into Turkey? I mean, they are Turks after all. They could continue to retain their culture and successfully integrate if the German and Turkish governments were to help them move back to a culture that is the same as theirs. Think of it as reunification.
Imagine an American politician talking like this. Horst Seehofer, leader of the CSU, says certain groups of immigrants do not do as well.
Earlier this week, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU's Bavarian sister party, CSU, said about integration that it was "obvious that immigrants from different cultures like Turkey and Arab countries, all in all, find it harder".
Muslim ethnics form their own parallel communities heavily isolated from the host society. Why should the host society inflict this on themselves?
It is still possible for a Western government to take steps to stop demographic deterioration. The political party headed by Geert Wilders (whose Fitna video about Islam is worth watching) has made a deal with the newly formed minority government of the Netherlands to cut back on immigration and ban burqas.
They also announced tougher measures on immigration and public security and said they will propose a ban on the burqa and other full-body robes worn by some Muslim women.
The tighter rules on immigration reflect the influence of the anti-Islamist Freedom Party. This party, also known as the PVV, has promised to support the minority government, which will consist of the Liberal Party VVD and the Christian Democrat Party CDA.
In northern Europe efforts to cut back on immigration are achieving success. More rightward leaning parties are coming to power and cutting back on the importation of people whose religions and cultures are not compatible with Western Civilization. We need these policies in America.
The announcement came yesterday from anti-Islamic MP Geert Wilders.
"A new wind will blow in The Netherlands," Mr Wilders declared in The Hague. "We want Islamisation to be stopped."
Hurray Mr Wilders. He is achieving these successes in spite of an attempt by the Dutch elite to use the legal system to silence him. The Netherlands does not recognize a right to free speech.
The leader of the PVV anti-Islam party faces five charges of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement in the trial, which begins on Monday.
I am reminded of George Orwell:
"The controversy over freedom of speech and of the press is at the bottom a controversy over the desirability, or otherwise, of telling lies. What is really at issue is the right to report events truthfully, or as truthfully as is consistent with the ignorance, bias and self-deception from which every observer necessarily suffers. "
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
I especially like this one:
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "
A proposal: A number of blogs should organize a day to protest to the Dutch government the prosecution of Geert Wilders. We should all write posts about Wilders that day and also organize emailing, physical mail letters, and other forms of protest against the Dutch government's attempt to silence Wilders.
The coalition will aim to halve immigration, emulate Denmark in making it difficult for the spouses and children of immigrants to join them, and deport immigrants found guilty of crimes meriting sentences of 12 years.
The government said it plans to make it harder for immigrants already living in the Netherlands to bring other family members here and also would make it tougher for unskilled immigrants with little chance of finding work to move to the country.
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, whose videos for last week's election showed a veiled woman overtaking a pensioner in a rush to collect welfare cheques, now hold the balance of power between the center right government and the opposition.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is still pushing for another big immigration amnesty in the United State.
A Muslim taxi cab driver in Great Britain does his part to prevent assimilation and maintain the multi-cultural flavor in Bradford. He uses his taxi driver network of information to track down girls who are trying to escape forced marriages.
On the face of it, Zakir was simply a veteran taxi driver and a popular member of the community in Bradford. Few customers would have realised that behind his bubbly exterior he provided another, much more sinister service. For around £5,000, Zakir would track down women and girls who had run away from home to escape a forced marriage. A bounty hunter, Zakir's mission was to bring them back to their families.
While most locals in the tightly knit south Asian community thought Zakir was merely picking up and dropping off passengers each day, his work provided perfect cover to exploit his contacts with fellow drivers and shopkeepers to hunt down runaway teenagers. According to Zakir, some bounty hunters would also befriend officials in housing departments and in the Department for Work and Pensions to get National Insurance numbers – a strategy confirmed by campaigners against forced marriages.
Forced marriages? Well, 15 year old girls can't make their own decisions. Their parents are the only responsible parties who know which cousin makes the best match. If the British want to enjoy the benefits of multiculturalism then they've got accept forced marriage. Only if the British want to defend their own cultural legacy should they try to stop this sort of thing. Since they aren't trying to stop Muslim cousin marriage I can only conclude they want their own culture to get snuffed out. I'm sure Barack Obama would approve.
In Bradford 75% of Pakistanis are married to first cousins. Hey, they aren't all getting divorced or spending their time getting picked up in bars for one night stands. Nope, marrying their cousins. I bet they are making lots of babies too. Wombs determine the future of the world.
Baroness Deech, a family law professor and crossbencher, will call next week for a “vigorous” public campaign to deter the practice, which is prevalent in Muslim and immigrant communities and on the rise. She will reignite a debate started five years ago when Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, drew attention to the number of disabled babies being born in the town and called for cousin marriage to be stopped.
Baroness Deech is fighting an uphill battle. The British aren't going to wake up tomorrow and try to save their nation from decay.
Fifty-five per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. British Pakistanis represent 3 per cent of all births in Britain but one third of children with recessive disorders.
British Members of Parliament who represent Muslims do not want to talk about the problem. Democracy is failing.
Of course it is possible to put many positive spins on the Muslims in Bradford. For example, cousin marriage in Turkey causes many forms of mental retardation in patterns that are useful for scientific researchers looking for genes involved in brain development. So cousin marriage can be used for medical research. Bet you didn't know that.
Plus, you know a lot of Republicans make a big deal of family values right? Well, cousin marriage makes family events warm and cozy. Okay, so some of the people at these events are mentally retarded. But we are supposed to celebrate the differently abled, right? Bradford UK seems like a great site for an International Special Olympics. You read it here first.
Such unions are seen as strong, building as they do on already tight family networks.
"You have an understanding," explains Neila Butt, who married her first cousin, Farooq, nine years ago.
"Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related," she says.
"You have the same family history and when you talk about the old times either here or in Pakistan you know who you are talking about. It's just a nicer emotional feel."
British leaders of an earlier era probably would have stomped on this.
There are so many ways to see upsides with Muslim immigration into Europe. Look at the culturally enriching Muslim fruit and vegetable vendors in Germany. The demographic future they offer Germany has got to make the Chinese absolutely giddy. With Germany as China's biggest export competitor the high Muslim fertility rate in Germany bodes well for Chinese businesses who currently have to compete against smart aggressive German corporations around the world.
So great news for the Chinese, right? Good for them. Of course, you might be thinking "it is bad news for the Germans". But wait. Think this thru. There are a lot more Chinese than Germans. So a development that helps the Chinese helps a lot more people. To anyone who believes that the greatest good for the greatest number is the highest moral belief (at least some strike poses asserting this) this would seem like good news.
Now, you might find the tone of this post just a tad sarcastic. But we live in an absurd time. The dominant liberal ethos of our era has become detached from reality. It has set modern Western nations on course toward ruination. It is hard to find a way to talk about sanely while standing here on the deck of the Titanic with excellent binoculars.
An anti-Muslim populist in the Netherlands is forming an international alliance to spread his message across the west in an attempt to ban immigration from Islamic countries, among other goals.
Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, told the Associated Press that he would launch the movement late this year, initially in five countries: the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany.
"The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom', is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world," Wilders said at the Dutch parliament.
Islam is incompatible with Western values. So the ban makes sense. Why bring in people who favor a form of government that will strip away rights you now enjoy? Why live in an environment that will be more oppressive? Why let your country get worse?
2.5 million Muslims are threatening to leave Facebook. Hey, if you aren't comfortable with the virtual world of Western countries and want to leave it why not go even further? You can move yourself to a Muslim country that requires women to veil and that treats non-Muslims as second class citizens. While you are headed out the door take some useful fools with you.
Geert's ban could be combined with Steve Sailer's proposal to pay Muslims to leave.
One reason we need to keep Muslims out of the West: We can't count on our own governments to protect us from them or to protect our rights when Muslims start demanding they get taken away from us. Case in point: Geert is going to be tried in a Dutch court for the temerity of criticizing Islam. Here's what'll get your prosecuted in the non-free Netherlands: Fitna.
Legislators in Belgium voted almost unanimously to ban full face coverings for Muslim women on Thursday. While women will still be allowed to wear the hijab, which only covers their hair, in public places the veil ban will forbid them from wearing any veil or scarf that covers their face and stops them from being identified.
The burqa does not fit comfortably with Western sentiments. It’s closed; Westerners are open. They want to see people’s faces. It’s also viewed as a prison for women – even if Muslim women are free to choose it. And it symbolizes fundamentalist Islam, which conjures up images of terrorism. That’s perhaps why the Dutch and Austrians are also discussing a burqa ban.
But sentiments shouldn’t be confused with bedrock freedoms, including the right to practice one’s religion. Being uncomfortable with another’s faith or even dress – and encoding that discomfort in law – puts one on the slippery slope to official discrimination. Will Sikh turbans be next?
But here's the problem with this line of reasoning: Western sentiments do not fit comfortably with Islam. In fact, of all the world's major religions Islam is probably the least compatible with Western values and lifestyles.
Some believe the key issue in the debate about Muslim body coverings and marriage practices (e.g. marrying 15 year old cousins) is whether individual Muslims should be accorded full rights to engage in their religious practices and customs: I suspect this attempt to treat Muslims only as individuals is based on a fallacy that all systems of belief are compatible with each other. They aren't. Mix together different groups holding conflicting value systems into the same society and some groups are going to come up losers. What Westerners need to decide is whether they want to gradually lose ground to a belief system that is in many ways inimical to their own.
Some Western thinkers argue that with free speech all views and positions will get a fair hearing, that people can be persuaded by rational argument, and that the many different religious and cultural beliefs can all be blended together in a free society. This is absurd. We already have factions that enforce secular mythologies (e.g. a Harvard law student can sleep with another student's ex-boyfriend and then get trashed in the press as a racist for insisting she was willing to consider genetic explanations for group racial differences. I get the impression she might have been trying to say that she didn't deny the possibility after perhaps arguing against it). Some factions win and enforce narrow bounds for discussion on many topics. They are often rabid about it.
A faction that starts out very small can be seen in the early stages as harmless because its numbers are too small. But we should ask ourselves about each faction just what it would do if it became a large minority or even a majority. If that faction would make us less free when present in larger numbers we should keep from immigrating to our society.
The anxiety and anger have been building all year. In March, a national coalition of Islamic organizations warned that it would cease cooperating with the F.B.I. unless the agency stopped infiltrating mosques and using “agents provocateurs to trap unsuspecting Muslim youth.”
Poor babies. Can we review some basics though? Do some Muslim clerics exhort their flocks to kill American infidels? Yes. Do some Muslim clerics serve as recruiters for terrorist groups? You bet. Do some Muslim clerics come to the United States with the intent of supporting Jihad against the United States? Yup.
The FBI wants to deny green cards to applicants who refuse to spy on relatives living overseas.
In September, a cleric in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, sued the government, claiming that the F.B.I. had threatened to scuttle his application for a green card unless he agreed to spy on relatives overseas — echoing similar claims made in recent court cases in California, Florida and Massachusetts.
I have an even better idea: stop giving green cards to foreign imams. Stop giving them visas. No need to spy on them here if they aren't here in the first place. If we allow a large Muslim subpopulation to live within the borders of a Western nation then law enforcement surveillance of that subpopulation is needed in order to foil terrorist plots.
For at least a decade, counterterrorism officials have had a wary eye on Mr. Awlaki, an American citizen now living in Yemen. His contacts with three of the Sept. 11 hijackers, at mosques where he served in San Diego and Falls Church, Va., remain a perplexing mystery about the 2001 attacks, said Philip Zelikow, who was executive director of the national 9/11 commission.
But in recent years, concerns have focused on Mr. Awlaki’s influence via his Web site, his Facebook page and many booklets and CDs carrying his message, including a text called “44 Ways to Support Jihad.”
Mr. Awlaki was consulted by the Palestinian-American Army Major Malik Hasan who went on a killing spree at Fort Hood.
Detroit -- The leader of a Detroit mosque who allegedly espoused violence and separatism was shot and killed Wednesday in an FBI gun battle at a Dearborn warehouse.
Luqman Ameen Abdullah, imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Detroit, was being arrested on a raft of federal charges including conspiracy, receipt of stolen goods, and firearms offenses.
Awlaki is not an isolated case, wherein a terrorist threat has emerged from an environment where these kinds of teachings were present.
Omar abu Ali, convicted of plotting with Al-Qaeda to kill President George Bush, was a valedictorian of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia. Among the teachings found in the school’s textbooks are passages promoting jihad, Anti-Semitism, and the murder of those who convert out of Islam.
people see even within all of this struggle it is better to be a Muslim under these conditions than to be a kaffir [infidel] under any conditions… before Allah closes our eyes for the last time you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America-that’s where we are now- to being the first religion in America.
There was also Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life-sentence for his role in plots including the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing. Sheikh Rahman was the imam of three New York mosques where he preached a militant form of Islam. His followers would go on to commit crimes congruent with his teachings. They include several others convicted with him in the New York plots. Sayyid Nosair, who murdered Jewish Defense League founder Meir Kahane, was also a follower of the cleric.
If we hadn't allowed Omar Abdel Rahman into the United States some now dead people would still be alive.
Now, you might think that if a Muslim (who has said he is a Muslim first and an American second) US Army Major goes on a killing spree after he made many complaints about the US war on terror as a war on Muslims that the guy was motivated by his beliefs as a Muslim. If you thought that way you'd be out of touch with American multi-culturalists who find other possible explanations. The latest: Without even yet setting foot in Iraq or Afghanistan Nidal Malki Hasan was pre-traumatized by the stories he heard about those conflicts. Post-traumatic stress disorder has a sibling called pre-traumatic stress disorder. The cool thing about this explanation: the acronym PTSD still works. Just change the Post- to a Pre- and you are good to go.
As the military begins its eighth year of the war on terror, much of the focus has been on the inability to fully support the growing number of troops diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. But the events at Fort Hood cast the issue even wider.
According to reports, Mr. Hasan desperately wanted to avoid being deployed to a war zone. While there appeared to be several reasons for this, including a conviction that he was a victim of harassment, he was also troubled by the stories he heard from overseas.
Among the reasons US Army Major Hasan didn't want to go to deploy to the Middle East: He didn't want to fight the side (Muslims) he feels loyalty toward.
This guy was some form of lunatic or psychopath, and it seems pretty clear to me at this point that he was inspired by terrorists. But there's no evidence that he was a terrorist--that is, that he was hooked into some organized network. Lots of people do terrible things in the name of their religion--just ask George Tiller. Their acts are, as the Catholic Church says, "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance". But they are no more indictments of a community than the acts of that Korean kid who went crazy at Virginia Tech.
Check out a definition of psychopath. Note the lack of empathy. But Hasan did have empathy for Muslims. He wasn't amoral. He was obeying a different moral code that has millions of adherents.
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
Hasan, Palestinian bombers, and Iraqi bombers have very similar motivations. They fight for their tribe, their religion, their in-group against others. Their empathy exists but has a focus. The focus isn't on the entire globalized world. It isn't on all the religions, nations, tribes or races. Their loyalty is to their group and their moral beliefs are built around what is good for their group. This isn't lunacy or mental illness. They are acting well within the normal range of human behavior as can be seen over a period of many centuries.
Megan's painted herself into such a small box of understanding of human nature that she can learn nothing from this episode.
There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this. Gun control would not have stopped a commissioned officer from obtaining guns. Barack Obama had no power to stop this. Infectious PTSD is a lousy theory. And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd. Evil people do evil things. That's all.
Evil according to whose moral code? There's not a global moral code accepted by all. You can find many Muslim preachers in the Middle East who see an attack by someone like Hasan in Fort Hood or by Iraqi jihadists in Iraq as acts of the highest moral order. Are all the Palestinians who attack Israel just randomly deciding to do this? Are the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan just coincidentally all just deciding to go plant road-side bombs or attacking American and NATO outposts by chance?
To dismiss something as simply evil is to place a stamp on it that says "no more thinking here". We can't run a foreign policy or an immigration policy or a US military recruitment policy with such a stamp on them. We've been trying to do that and the results have not been salutary.
A CNN article title states: Fort Hood suspect's religion was an issue, family says. Who would have expected that? An article in the Christian Science Monitor asks did we miss any warning signs? I'm afraid that the nation is beyond help in this matter.
Washington - As Army officials pick up the pieces after the tragedy that unfolded Thursday, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly walked into a soldier readiness center at Fort Hood, Texas and shot 13 people and injured as many as 30 more, the biggest question they may be asking is: Did we miss the warning signs?
What warning signs? Where You see any warning signs?
His anger was noted by a classmate, who said Hasan ''viewed the war against terror'' as a ''war against Islam.''
Finnell described Hasan as a ''vociferous opponent'' of the terror war. Finnell said Hasan told classmates he was ''a Muslim first and an American second.''
We have religious freedom in America, the freedom to put one's religion ahead of one's country. So this can't be a warning sign. This is just someone expressing a totally legitimate opinion according to our multicultural leaders. Diversity is strength. War is peace.
Born to Palestinian immigrants, Hasan's medical education was paid by the US government. The US military didn't want to let him leave the military even though he saw the US military as waging a war against Islam. Can we learn any lessons here?
His aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military.
"I know what that is like; I have experienced it myself while working as a bank executive," she said. "Some people can take it, and some cannot. He had listened to all of that, and he wanted out of the military and they would not let him leave even after he offered to repay" for his medical training.
In a strong assertion of continued faith Barack Obama says diversity is strength.
"They are Americans of every race, faith and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers," Obama said in his radio and Internet address, airing the weekend before Veterans Day.
"They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other."
Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun Times says we should not change our views of Muslims as a group based on behavior of individual Muslims.
"We should seal the borders!" said a friend of mine, someone I generally respect when he isn't saying stuff like that.
"Tell me," I challenged him "how the actions of this Muslim American indicts all Muslim Americans?"
He sputtered, and I went on.
"If a lady murders her kids and says that Jesus told her to do it, does that indict all Christians? All ladies?"
What about group average differences in behavior and beliefs?
A useful mental exercise for Mr. Steinberg: Imagine that a group became the majority of the US population. What would that group do to the rest of us? The idea that religious beliefs are totally a private matter is absurd. As I've pointed out previously, what Muslims believe would translate into bad news for the rest of us if they became a majority. They do not even have to become a majority in order for their beliefs to become a big problem for the rest of us. The idea that religions are all compatible with our values is absurd.
A 2004 poll of Muslims in Britain shows substantial support for very unBritish Sharia law courts. Doesn't sound personal to me.
A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".
Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.
In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.
Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
We should not let people into our countries who will resent us and seek to impose a repressive religion on us.
Thomas Lander reports on another example of appeasement of Muslims by a European government.
It is hot in Brussels. Ramadan has begun. The faithful in the predominantly Muslim borough of Molenbeek are not allowed to eat or drink from sunrise until sunset. Non-Muslim policemen, patrolling the streets of Molenbeek in their sweltering cars, are not allowed to eat or drink either. As every year during Ramadan, they have been told by their superior, Philippe Moureaux, the Socialist mayor of Molenbeek, that they have to respect Muslim sensitivities and not to “provoke” Muslims by violating Islamic Ramadan restrictions in public. In effect, Islamic or Sharia law is already applied – for everyone – in the Muslim areas of Brussels.
Whatever happened to the idea that non-Muslims should not be bound by a religion they haven't decided to believe in? Click thru and read the full article about how European police forces do many other things to appease Muslims.
In some European cities with large Muslim populations it is now possible to go on "Safari" in cities.
Some friends in Brussels organize one-hour trips through Molenbeek. They go in an inconspicuous car, driven by a local who knows the escape routes, and with a bodyguard. Otherwise the risk would be too great. These trips are called “safaris.” Similar “Eurabia safaris” are organized in other European cities. One of the highlights – though absolutely not the most dangerous one – of the safari in Rosengaard, the Muslim section of the Swedish city of Malmö, is a short stop, to give the visitor the opportunity to take a quick snapshot, in front of Malmö’s “Jihadskörkortsteori” (Jihad Driving School).
How cool is that? No need for long expensive intercontinental air flights to reach the wilds. You can put your life in danger much closer to home.
Writing at the Brussels Journal Thomas Landen describes how German authorities persecute ethnic German Baptists who do not want their children exposed to so many secular attitudes while the German authorities appease Muslim parents. Why? Landen says the authorities are afraid of the Muslims but not the Baptists.
In 1938, Germany outlawed homeschooling. The ban is one of the few bills introduced by Adolf Hitler that is still on the books in Germany today. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, hundreds of ethnic German families from Southern Russia and Kazakhstan emigrated to Germany. Many of them were Baptists who had been fiercely persecuted in the Soviet Union for their religious beliefs.
Following their arrival in the West, the Baptists soon became unhappy with what their children were learning in the secular German public schools. They decided to homeschool their children. This move led to fierce repression by the German authorities who took the parents to court on charges of “Hochverrat und Volksverhetzung” (high treason and incitement of the people against the authorities). Some parents were imprisoned, some were robbed of their parental authority, some had their children taken away from them. Some children who sided with their parents, such as 16-year old Melissa Busekros in 2007, were placed in a psychiatric ward because, as the psychiatric evaluation report stated, she “considers herself healthy and her behavior fully normal” and, hence, needed “urgent help in a closed setting” where she would get “special education treatment to ensure schooling.” Some families, having fled from the Soviet Union at one time, fled again, from the Federal Republic of Germany to Austria, Britain, or other countries with a more lenient approach to homeschooling. Some parents, however, complied with ‘Hitler’s law’ and reluctantly sent their children to school.
These Baptist parents are trying to teach values that the German people as a whole could benefit from.
Muslim boys and girls encounter treatment more aimed at appeasing their parents.
While Baptist children are being forced to attend carnival parties at school, a 1993 German court ruling stated that “as long as separate sports classes for boys and girls are not being offered” Muslim girls do not have to participate in the obligatory sports sessions at school. The parents of the girls had explicitly invoked Koranic prescriptions to object to their daughters participating in the co-ed sports classes. Strangely enough, the German school authorities did not appeal the 1993 court ruling and failed to bring the case to the Supreme Court. Instead, they accepted the ruling, which has since become a legal precedent accepted by all school authorities.
Likewise, last May a court in Münster ruled that, though Muslim schoolgirls are obliged to participate in school swimming lessons, they are allowed to wear so-called “burqini” swimsuits that cover their entire body and hide their figures. Wearing the burqini has never been a “tradition” of the majority in Germany – a country with a long tradition of Freikörperkultur or nude sports activities. On the contrary, it is a practice which results from “the religious convictions of a minority” which is less indigenous to Germany than Christian Baptists. Nevertheless, the German school authorities have accepted the Munster ruling. They have not taken the case to the Supreme Court in order to have Muslim children forced to swim in regular swimsuits. Muslim children do not have to comply with the “contradictory tradition of a differently inclined majority” in the same way as Baptist children, whose parents are fined if they do not attend the school carnival.
Click thru and read how Landen describes fear as the underlying cause of the different treatment. I think that government should not let in immigrants that they fear.
On The Internal Muslim Threat To European Peoples about Christopher Caldwell's new book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West . Watch the Monty Python skit there and pay especial attention to the getting hit on the head lessons at 4:00.
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.
A Muslim guy who founded a Muslim TV network in the United States in order to raise the image of Muslims in the US has been arrested for beheading his estranged wife.
The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her abusive husband, her attorney said — and was then found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York television studio.
Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has been charged with second-degree murder.
Stereotypes exist, by and large, because they have a basis in reality.
Muzzammil Hassan, the man who started a TV operation to improve the image of Islam, and then beheaded his wife, turns out to be something of an international man of mystery. Dan Riehl has been researching his background, and discovered that, despite claims he was raising money in America, he raised money for his TV operation in Saudi Arabia.
You know that old saying: You can take the wife-beheader out of the Middle East. But you can't take the Middle East out of the wife-beheader. What is the difference between the bulk of non-Muslim domestic violence and honor killing? Phyllis Chesler outlines the unique characteristics of honor killing. See table 1 at that link.
How much of this behavior is due to Islam and how much is due to consanguineous (cousin) marriage? Either way, we are importing a culture that condones it.
A Pakistani immigrant who strangled his daughter because she wanted to end her arranged marriage did it because she "would disgrace the family," according to an arrest warrant.
Chaudhry Rashid, 56, of Jonesboro, told police he is Muslim and that extramarital affairs and divorce are against his religion. That's why he killed her, the Clayton County arrest warrant says.
In court this week Rashid said, "I have done nothing wrong."
This is nature's way of telling you to keep Muslims out of your country. Pakistan only got around to pretending to treat honor killing as a crime in 2004.
Pakistan passed a law in 2004 banning honor killings, but the practice hasn't slowed, according to a United Nations committee charged with promoting women's rights. Honor killings stem more from tribal traditions and are not supported by religious doctrine.
When a blonde girl goes missing, cable networks stop in their tracks - but when a Muslim woman is murdered by her father, there's not a ripple of sustained interest. Where's the outrage?
Maybe it's muted because we've grown reluctant to pass judgment on other culture's customs - but multiculturalism hits a crossroads when honor killings come to America.
But our lefties will just wave those foreign culturalists through any crossroads and tell them to keep driving into the heartland - and build a mosque to show your foreignness. CNN created a new segment on Muslim honor killings without mentioning Islam.
Quite a feat: CNN has pulled off the MSM equivalent of describing a spiral staircase without using one's hands. It has managed to produce a segment on "honor killings" and related violence in the UK . . . without using the word "Muslim" or "Islam."
In Upstate New York a few weeks earlier, Waheed Allah Mohammad, an immigrant from Afghanistan, was charged with attempted murder after repeatedly stabbing his 19-year-old sister. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported that Mohammad was "infuriated because his younger sister was going to clubs, wearing immodest clothing, and planning to leave her family for a new life in New York City" - she was a "bad Muslim girl," he told sheriff's investigators.
On New Year’s Day 2008, in Lewisville Texas, teenage sisters Sarah and Amina Said were shot to death in a taxi — allegedly by their Egyptian Muslim father, a taxi driver who was charged with the murders and who remains at large.
The reported motive? The girls had dated non-Muslim boys.
A month earlier, across the border in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death by her Pakistani father, for refusing to wear the hijab or head scarf. She was also “guilty” of changing into Western clothes once she got to school.
Muslims aren't content to only repress their women. Muslim governments are trying to make it a violation of international law to criticize Islam.
Canada’s Maclean’s magazine (involved in another controversial human rights case that I wrote about here and here) has published an extensive article detailing the “remarkably successful” campaign to make “defamation of religions” a violation of international law. (H/t: Volokh Conspiracy)
Led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a Saudi-funded international body made up of 56 Islamic states from around the globe, the push seeks to empower all governments to punish citizens who “defame” any religion — particularly Islam.
With 56 Islamic states already we should draw the line and prevent the infiltration of Islam into still more countries.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies reports that a union in Tennessee has replaced Labor Day with the Muslim Eid al Fitr as a holiday.
The union at Tyson's Shelbyville, Tenn., chicken plant has negotiated a new contract that adds Eid al Fitr as a paid holiday for all employees, and drops Labor Day. A few observations: First, just complaining about illegal immigration won't do — this change was made to accommodate Somali and other Muslim (legally admitted) refugees, sought out by Tyson (and other meatpackers) as an alternative to illegal Hispanic workers.
Second, this is just another example of the conflict between mass immigration and modern society, specifically in this case, modern elites' unwillingness to require newcomers to conform to our ways, and instead conforming to theirs. And finally, the irony of a labor union dispensing with Labor Day just underlines my contention that the unspoken motto of the Left is immigration uber alles — there's no interest or constituency that the Left won't abandon if it conflicts with open borders.
Are we ruled by wimps, pussies, and fools? It sometimes seems that way. An earlier era America wouldn't have put up with this b.s.
Our problem with immigration is not just restricted to illegal immigration. Legal immigration can be just as destructive as illegal immigration. But most destructive of all: the beliefs that make this sort of nonsense possible.
It is not too late to turn back the clock. Spain is now paying some immigrants to leave.
In Spain, where legal immigrants alone make up nearly 9 percent of the population, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero surprised many at the start of his second term this spring by directing an about-face of his administration's previously lenient immigration policies.
In June, just three years after authorizing a mass legalization of 750,000 undocumented workers, Mr. Zapatero expressed support for the EU's Return Directive – a policy that allows member states to hold undocumented migrants, including minors, for up to 18 months, and, if deported, bans them from returning.
Faced with a 10.7 percent unemployment rate, Zapatero's new labor minister has announced a plan that would pay jobless immigrants to return to their home countries.
A French high court decided that at least some forms of Islam are incompatible with French citizenship. Political correctness prevents US courts from seeing this obvious truth.
“I would never have imagined that they would turn me down because of what I choose to wear,” Ms. Silmi said, her hazel eyes looking out of the narrow slit in her niqab, an Islamic facial veil that is among three flowing layers of turquoise, blue and black that cover her body from head to toe.
But last month, France’s highest administrative court upheld a decision to deny citizenship to Ms. Silmi, 32, on the ground that her “radical” practice of Islam was incompatible with French values like equality of the sexes.
It was the first time that a French court had judged someone’s capacity to be assimilated into France based on private religious practice, taking laïcité — the country’s strict concept of secularism — from the public sphere into the home.
A Muslim member of the French Government has attacked the head-to-toe Islamic dress as a prison, applauding a court decision to deny citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wore it.
“The burka is a prison, a strait-jacket,” Fadela Amara, the Minister for Urban Affairs and a longstanding women's rights campaigner, said yesterday. “It is not religious. It is the insignia of a totalitarian political project for sexual inequality.”
Not all cultures are compatible with each other.
Seoul South Korea-based journalist Shim Jae Hoon argues the burqa is a sign of cultural exclusivity.
Wearing a burqa, however, is a different matter. As a religious practice, it represents an extreme form of discrimination against women, even a hint of sexual bondage, as a burqa is mainly intended to keep its wearers from the gaze of males. It's more than a simple matter of religious practice or ethnic custom. In Malaysia once, I was startled by the sight of an Arab woman whose black figure in a burqa dispelled many people. Some Muslim friends told me a woman in a burqa would be the best way to keep their own women from accepting the fundamentalist form of Islam. Cultural diversity is today taken for granted in many countries, but fundamentalist Islam in the form of burqas -- we have seen what it did in Afghanistan under the Taliban -- is a sign of cultural exclusivity, not accommodation.
Now the Conseil d’Etat has rejected her appeal on the ground that she “adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with the essential values of the French community, and particularly with the principle of sexual equality.” This is the first time the court has refused nationality on the grounds of religious expression. The court heard that the couple followed salafism, a radical form of Islam. The woman adopted the burqa at her husband’s request in France, where she “lives in total submission to the men in her family”.
One French Muslim leader claims religion is personal as if that makes it unpolitical. But religion - especially Islam - is very political.
M'hammed Henniche of the Union of Muslim Associations in the Seine-Saint-Denis district north of Paris, fears that the ruling may open the door to what he considers ever more arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes "radical" Islam.
"What is it going to be tomorrow? The annual pilgrimage to Mecca? The daily prayer?" said Henniche. "This sets a dangerous precedent.
Religion, so far as it is personal, should be kept out of these decisions."
Islamic countries are politically just that: Islamic. They enforce laws about many aspects of life that are considered abhorrent in the West.
A 2004 poll of Muslims in Britain shows substantial support for very unBritish Sharia law courts. Doesn't sound personal to me.
A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".
Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.
In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.
Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed, while less than a fifth of those over 55 believed the same.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
We should not let people into our countries who will resent us and seek to impose a repressive religion on us.
David Pryce-Jones points to another European country where local attitudes toward Islam are not submissive. In Geneva Switzerland the City Fathers rejected a request to build a second mosque.
A mosque already existed in Geneva, but when the Muslim community sought to have a second mosque, the City Fathers replied that this would be possible when the Christians were allowed a church in Saudi Arabia. There is no record that outraged Arabs consequently withdrew their petro-dollar millions held in the local banks.
The Swiss are going to hold a referendum on whether to ban mosque minarets.
The Swiss Peoples' Party (SVP) has raised a storm by collecting more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for a ban on minarets in the country. Minarets, according to the SVP, are "symbols of political-religious imperialism." A spokesman for the party pointed out that, "Many women, even socialists, signed this petition because not one Swiss woman can tolerate the way that Muslim men treat their wives." By law, a national referendum is now obligatory.
After a year of stepped-up enforcement against illegal immigration and polarized debate on the issue, about half of the Hispanics in the United States now fear that they or a relative or close friend could be deported, a report released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center found.
That means a large fraction of Hispanics in the US are either illegals or related to illegals and see a vested interest in supporting law breaking. So law breaking breeds the conditions for further law breaking. What to do about it? Totally crack down and enforce immigration laws. Do some big deportations. The illegals will mostly then self deport.
A quarter of Hispanics are illegal aliens. So the poll result is totally unsurprising.
Hispanics are the nation's largest minority group, numbering 47 million (about 15.5% of the total U.S. population). About a quarter of Hispanic adults are unauthorized immigrants, most of them arriving as part of a heavy wave of immigration that began gathering force in the 1970s. Twice in the past two years, the U.S. Congress tried but failed to pass comprehensive legislation to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. However, federal, state and local governments have pressed forward with hundreds of new enforcement bills, regulations and procedures--including stepped up deportations, more workplace raids, and restrictions on access to driver's licenses and other government services and benefits.
Those two failures by Congress to pass "comprehensive" immigration legislation were both attempts to grant massive amnesties and keep up with business as usual. Popular anger stopped those attempts. The masses triumphed in two battles with the elites. Though the outcome of the war is still far from certain. Steve Sailer says we are in a demographic death spiral. Sure looks that way.
A plan by the counterterrorism bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department to create a map detailing the Muslim communities in that city, an effort described as a step toward thwarting radicalization, has angered civil rights groups, which say it is no better than racial profiling.
At least three major Muslim groups and the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter yesterday to top city officials raising concerns about the plan.
These Muslim groups ought to stop and think about what happens when Muslims in America carry out terrorist attacks. Do they become worse off when everyone looks at them with more suspicion? Might they be better of getting watched by police now if that watching prevents attacks that make all Muslims much less trusted than they are now?
Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups.
In recent days, he has featured “glad tidings” from a North African militant leader whose group killed 31 Algerian troops. He posted a scholarly treatise arguing for violent jihad, translated into English. He listed hundreds of links to secret sites from which his readers could obtain the latest blood-drenched insurgent videos from Iraq.
His neatly organized site also includes a file called “United States of Losers,” which showcased a recent news broadcast about a firefight in Afghanistan with this added commentary from Mr. Khan: “You can even see an American soldier hiding during the ambush like a baby!! AllahuAkbar! AllahuAkbar!”
Immigration brings an inherently hostile religion into our midst. Why inflict that on ourselves?
If Western countries adopted separationism then we'd face less risk from the jihadists and their supporters.
But the fight raging over an abandoned lot in London’s East End is of an altogether grander scale. A large and secretive Islamic sect proposed building what would have been the largest mosque in Europe, smack at the gateway to the 2012 Olympic Games, and within sight of London’s financial district.
A fundamentalist Muslim group is behind the mosque and Western law enforcement officials say the group is a recruiting ground for terrorists.
In Newham, the borough where the mosque would stand, Alan Craig, the leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance Party in the East End, started a one-man campaign against the mosque a year ago that has grown and gained national prominence.
He began by emphasizing the size of the mosque. But now he focuses on its sponsor, Tablighi Jamaat, a worldwide evangelical Islamic group based in Pakistan with millions of followers that professes to encourage Muslims to be more loyal to their faith.
American and European law enforcement officials say Tablighi Jamaat’s simple message masks a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. Two of the suicide bombers who attacked the London transit system in July 2005 had attended Tablighi Jamaat gatherings, British security officials said.
Consider the erroneous assumption behind the use of the term "mask" in the sentence I bolded above. A simple Muslim fundamentalist message does not mask the nature of a Muslim organization. The only masking going on is in the minds of those Westerners who refuse to see Islam for what it is: an aggressive dominating religion that was founded by a warrior ruler. Islam is radically different than Christianity which was founded by a guy who never led soldiers into battle and who did not seek to overthrow existing secular authority ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").
Alan Craig argues that Tablighi Jamaat’s officially stated renunciation of violence to spread Islam is a matter of pragmatics and not of principle. Since they so closely try to live as Muhammad lived and since Mohammad used violence and warfare to spread Islam they see the spread of Islam at the point of a spear, the barrel of a gun, or via improvised explosive devices as morally acceptable as long as violent tactics can work. Check out Alan Craig's video on this at YouTube.
Also see Alan Craig's YouTube home page.
There's a solution for this problem: Separationism.
While I'm at it, I like Brussels Journal and think Europeans shouldn't have to face a growing list of no-go zones and battles by Turks and Moroccans. Read more on Turkish nationalism in Brussels. I think it is very wrong for the European Union to outlaw speech against the Islamization of Europe. I agree with Diane West that those who see Nazis everywhere are fighting the last war and ignoring real threats in the process.
Audacious Epigone reports on the ethnic cleansing of blacks from areas of Los Angeles by Hispanic gangs.
Perhaps La Raza and the NAACP should see this as a priority, more urgent than the fabricated 'hate crimes' of various MinuteMen chapters:A south Los Angeles Latino street gang targeted African-American gang rivals and other blacks in a campaign of neighborhood "cleansing," federal prosecutors say. Alleged leaders and foot soldiers in the Hispanic gang Florencia 13, also called F13, are being arraigned this week on charges stemming from a pair of federal indictments that allege that the gang kept a tight grip on its turf by shooting members of a rival gang—and sometimes random black civilians. The "most disturbing aspect" of the federal charges was that "innocent citizens … ended up being shot simply because of the color of their skin," U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien told reporters in announcing the indictments.Thought tribalism had died out in the West? Like tuberculosis, it's returning. Half of all Los Angelenos are Hispanic, and their numbers are growing. Only 11% are black. It's a losing proposition for the old Crips and Bloods (I've heard from multiple people that the two rival gangs are uniting in some cities, but I've not seen anything definitive. If anyone has, please make it known in the comments).
There’s no physical sign, barrier or even a chalk line that marks the zone where a black can’t enter at the risk of grave harm. But the zone is there, and blacks know that if they enter it they can be beat, shot at or killed. The twist is that the forbidden zone is not in a redneck, backwoods town in a Southern state during the rigid and violent Jim Crow segregation era. The bigger twist is that the Klan, Neo-Nazis, racist skinheads and bikers didn’t establish the racially restrictive zone. Purported Latino gang members established it. The forbidden zone is in a small, mixed ethnic bedroom community in Los Angeles. The year is 2007, not 1947.
A black family that recently fled the community in fear for their lives bluntly told a reporter that they left because blacks there are scared to death. In the past year, the hate terror escalated to the point where blacks tell tormenting tales of being harried when they leave their homes, or their children walk to school. They say that they are forbidden to go into a park, and a convenience store.
We need maps on the internet that show ethnic no-go areas with some style of coding the areas so you can know how great the risks are and how the risks vary by time of day. That way you could avoid accidentally going somewhere that could lead to harm against you.
The left-leaning web site Alternet confirms LA gangs enforce color lines.
"The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don't want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it's an infestation," says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. "It's pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization."
"There's absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin," adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif.
"They generally don't like African Americans," Pomona gang unit officer Marcus Perez testified in that case. "If an African American enters their neighborhood, they're likely to be injured or killed."
Imagine whites were doing this sort of thing. The media would be extremely outraged. But curiously Hispanics are held to a different standard. This gets reported, but not a lot. Why is that? I can think of a number of reasons. But I'm not sure which reason is most important. My guess is that liberal white reporters are far more keen to score status points against poorly behaving whites than they are to score points against Hispanics. In a sense they are secretly racist and actually think they get a bigger boost by showing themselves morally superior to another white than to a black or Hispanic.
Where do these ethnic purger Hispanic gang members come from? Heather Mac Donald says most are illegal aliens and yet police are forced to turn a blind eye on their illegal status.
Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:
• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
• The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
I say deport all the illegal aliens since our population is too high. That'll cut the size of the gangs by more than half. That will also cut out future supply of gang members.
Scotland is the land of Scots. Scotland, you might think, exists for the Scottish who, btw, are overwhelmingly not Muslim. But the West has its internal enemies who want nothing better than to impose on us for the benefit of all the other cultures, religions, and ethnicities of the world. Scotland, a place whose rules used to be designed to be suitable for the Scottish, is starting to become hostile to the ways of the Scottish just like, for example, Rotterdam is becoming hostile to Dutch. Why? Islamic immigration made it possible for our enemies from within to use immigrant enemies to shaft us in ways petty and substantial. That immigration brings Muslims who expect non-Muslims to behave like Dhimmis. The Muslim immigrants serve as useful tools for Western leftist multiculturalist intellectuals who like nothing better than to screw over Western peoples. In Scotland medical workers aren't allowed to eat at their desks during the Ramadan holiday month of Islam.
TWO Scottish NHS trusts have decided all their staff should be banned from eating at their desks during next month's Ramadan when Muslims fast from dawn to dusk.
They will also be removing the vending machines and lunch trollies from their hospitals during the 30-day period.
That is just plain incredible. I eat at my desk to save time since I usually have too much to do. Surely like of Scottish NHS workers do the same. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
Mary Scanlon, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing in the Scottish Parliament said the move was a “step too far” for political correctness and unnecessary. “Scotland is a very tolerant, sensitive and welcoming country” but she added, “I don’t see it’s necessary for Ramadan to affect the lives of people of other beliefs,” she told Times Online, “It would be like saying Protestants shouldn’t eat meat next to Catholics who want to eat fish on a Friday.”
As we said, this is not an isolated case. While the Scottish NHS grovels before Islam, across the North Sea in Belgium the mayor of Brussels is refusing to let a group demonstrate on Sept. 11 — remember that date? — against the introduction of Sharia laws in Europe.
This is not Nazis marching on Skokie, Ill., but Europeans from Great Britain, Germany and Denmark who are alarmed by the Islamization of their homelands. They want to take their protest through the streets of Brussels to the European Parliament, where they will stop and honor the 9/11 victims with a moment of silence.
The West's politicians and intellectuals are mostly our enemies.
RIGHT-wing firebrand Pauline Hanson says she will run on similar policies to those that won her international notoriety a decade ago when she vies for a Queensland Senate seat at the upcoming election.
The main difference will be that this time the former fish and chip shop owner, who claims credit for forcing the Howard Government to adopt a harder line on immigration controls, will target Muslims.
"We need to have a look at our immigration levels and I'd like to have a look at putting a moratorium on any more Muslims coming into Australia," she said today.
"I want a moratorium put on the number of Muslims coming into Australia," Ms Hanson told the Nine network.
"People have a right to be very concerned about this because of the terrorist attacks that have happened throughout the world.
"I'm sick of these people coming out here and saying that our girls are like the meat market and the bible that is urinated on ... am I supposed to be tolerant?"
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community.
Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.
Tiny Muskens. Not exactly an intellectual giant.
Western countries need to take moves to slow or reverse the growth of the terrorism by Muslims living in the West who are learning terrorism on web sites.
"The Internet is the new Afghanistan," New York police chief Raymond Kelly said, as he released a New York Police Department (NYPD) report on the home-grown threat of attacks by Islamist extremists. "It is the de facto training ground. It's an area of concern."
The report found that the challenge for Western authorities was to identify, pre-empt and prevent home-grown threats, which was difficult because many of those who might undertake an attack often commit no crimes along the path to extremism.
This report from the NYPD is on the web: Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat (PDF format).
While the threat from overseas remains, many of the terrorist attacks or thwarted plots against cities in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States have been conceptualized and planned by local residents/citizens who sought to attack their country of residence. The majority of these individuals began as “unremarkable” - they had “unremarkable” jobs, had lived “unremarkable” lives and had little, if any criminal history. The recently thwarted plot by homegrown jihadists, in May 2007, against Fort Dix in New Jersey, only underscores the seriousness of this emerging threat.
Understanding this trend and the radicalization process in the West that drives “unremarkable” people to become terrorists is vital for developing effective counter- strategies. This realization has special importance for the NYPD and the City of New York. As one of the country’s iconic symbols and the target of numerous terrorist plots since the 1990’s, New York City continues to be the one of the top targets of terrorists worldwide. Consequently, the NYPD places a priority on understanding what drives and defines the radicalization process.
The aim of this report is to assist policymakers and law enforcement officials, both in Washington and throughout the country, by providing a thorough understanding of the kind of threat we face domestically. It also seeks to contribute to the debate among intelligence and law enforcement agencies on how best to counter this emerging threat by better understanding what constitutes the radicalization process.
We should halt Muslim immigration, deport non-citizen Muslims, and offer citizen Muslims money to give up their citizenship and leave.
The British branch of a world-wide radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, held a conference London on Saturday, in which speakers called for the overthrow of Muslim governments and their replacement with a single Islamic state, known as the caliphate. According to Hizb ut-Tahrir's website, "thousands" of people attended the conference.
Hizb ut-Tahrir - the Liberation Party in English - is active in dozens of countries, but has been banned in several Arab states, as well as European countries such as Germany and Russia. It is also illegal in China. In Britain, the organization is still legal, despite instances of the group's members and websites being found to promote anti-Semitic incitement to violence and calls for suicide bombings. In Australia, the organization is facing the prospect of a ban.
David Davis, writing in the Times of London (or should I say the Times of Londonistan?) says Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) is an enemy of Western democracies.
The British suicide bombers who attacked Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv in 2003 had Hizb ut-Tahrir contacts. Terrorist fixer Mohammed Babar (who turned and testified against the Crevice July 7 bombers) was a member. Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was influenced by HuT preachers. And Omar Bakri Mohammed, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir leader – now deported to Lebanon – believes that 7/7 was the fault of the British people and describes the 9/11 bombers as the “magnificent 19”.
And that is just in this country.
Across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia, HuT preaches a virulent brand of Islamic extremism. Senior Al-Qaeda leaders, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were members of HuT. Its UK website boasts that it is a “global party”, directly associating itself with the acts of its branches abroad.
In response to the recent attempted attacks in London and Glasgow, HuT confined itself to this general legalistic comment: “We reiterate our position that Islam does not allow the harming of innocent civilians.”
So were those targeted at Glasgow airport and the Haymarket “innocent” or “guilty” civilians? This deliberate ambiguity is telling.
How about deporting these people? Isn't their statements like nature's way of telling you that you face a threat to your lives and ought to take appropriate actions? Hello? The non-citizen Muslims could all be told to leave pronto. Then the citizen Muslims could be offered a buyback of their citizenship. This problem is solvable with sufficient will to solve it. Or do the British prefer "getting hit on the head lessons"?
Members of a radical Muslim group that Tony Blair promised to ban after the July 7 bombings have set up two schools in Britain to educate primary age children.
The Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation, a registered charity that runs private schools in Haringey, north London, and in Slough in Berkshire, was established two years ago by female members of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
HuT is big on doctors and engineers. Do I need to mention that engineers could make more effective bombs?
Yesterday Attorney-General Philip Ruddock signalled that authorities were looking at the Hizb ut-Tahrir group, which is currently legal in the UK and Australia.
Mr Ruddock was speaking after a Hizb ut-Tahrir defector from the UK, Ed Husain, warned Australian authorities to look at the group and said its leadership included a large number of doctors and engineers.
Ed Husain thinks there's a difference between Islam and Islamism. By contrast, ParaPundit thinks there's a difference between people who embrace the core beliefs of Islam and those who believe in watered down and impure variants of Islam. It is the believers in the diluted versions of Islam that do not want to dominate or kill non-Muslims.
If Londonistan radicals were all deported they would become more circumspect under the watchful eye of Middle Eastern rulers.
TRIPOLI, Lebanon: There was a time when Omar Bakri Mohammed embodied every stereotype of the jihadi extremist. From his perch in London, he threw around words like "kafir" - infidel - to describe Christians and Jews and openly praised the bombers of Sept. 11, 2001.
But sitting recently in his new library overlooking Mount Lebanon in this northern city, with a bloody battle raging between the Lebanese Army and the Qaeda-inspired Fatah al Islam at a Palestinian refugee camp a few kilometers away, Bakri presented himself as a changed man. Whether the shift is as meaningful as he asserts is an open question.
He speaks of peace, decrying the unnecessary use of violence and emphasizing the sanctity of life.
I decry the unnecessary tolerance of Muslim violence in Western countries by Western rulers.
A father who ordered the killing of his daughter after finding out she had a boyfriend has been jailed for life.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was raped and tortured before being strangled and buried in a suitcase in Birmingham.
Her Iraqi Kurd father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, of Mitcham, south London, will serve at least 20 years.
Her uncle Ari Mahmod, 50, who helped arrange the murder, and killer Mohammed Hama, 30, got life terms and will serve at least 23 and 17 years respectively.
A series of secret prison recordings showed that Banaz Mahmod’s killers had laughed as they raped and tortured her, before Mohamad Hama, a hired thug, stamped on her neck while strangling her with a ligature to “force out her soul”.
At least two of the killers got away by fleeing Britain.
At least two of the gang of killers have since fled to Iraq.
Ari Mahmod, 51, recruited a gang of thugs who tortured, raped and strangled his niece Banaz Mahmod, 20, before cramming her body into a suitcase and burying it in a pit, where it lay for three months. The brothers had decided Ms Mahmod was to be killed because she had fallen in love with a man they felt was unsuitable.
Ms Mahmod's father, Mahmod Mahmod, 54, left his home in Mitcham, south-west London, on the morning of the murder so that she could be killed there. An older sister was in the house at the time.
An associate of Ari's, Mohamad Hama, 31, who was recorded in prison boasting of kicking and stamping on Ms Mahmod's neck "to get her soul out", was also sentenced to life yesterday. He pleaded guilty to murder.
The minimum sentences ranged only from 17 to 23 years. Why should these men ever be given the chance to walk free again?
The older sister wore a burkah while testifying. She's afraid to show her face.
She was kept away from Western influences, entered an arranged marriage at the age of 16 with a member of her clan and was expected to fulfill the role of subservient wife and mother.
Ms Sood, who specialises in Asian family cases, told BBC Radio Five Live "honour crimes of some sort" whether or not they resulted in death, were becoming more common in the UK.
"But certainly honour crimes are being perpetrated in the hundreds every year," she said.
I reject multiculturalism. We should kick the Muslims out of the West. Pay the legal residents to leave and round up all the illegals.
Ziel at Lying Eyes provides evidence that Barack Obama favors an immigration policy that effectively puts extended family loyalty over what is best for America.
On the Senate floor yesterday, Obama condemned the one feature of the proposed immigration bill that actually makes sense: de-emphasizing family ties and using a point system based on skills in selecting who gets to immigrate. The "family reunification" policy is, of course, insane, as there is no benefit to America whatsoever of allowing someone to live in the country merely because a relative is already living here, and any immigration policy that is not based on what is good for America is insane.
"The point system does not reflect how much Americans value the family ties that bind people to their brothers and sisters or to their parents," he said. "How many of our forefathers would have measured up under this point system? How many would have been turned back at Ellis Island?"
Barack Obama has very curious family ties. His Kenyan father was a bigamist and when his father married his white Christian mother from Kansas Barack Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya (and his father went on to do more bigamy). One wonders whether Senator Obama thinks that reunification should include members of of an extended family from Africa born to a succession of wives.
When Americans think of family they think of the nuclear family first and foremost. We are able to have government which is less corrupt and inefficient than those in places like Iraq and Kenya in large part because each civil servant does not feel obligated to get jobs for every brother and cousin they have.
Obligations to extended family (as seen with the practice of cousin marriage in Muslim countries) come at the expense of obligations to the larger society. Extended family loyalty is the enemy of a modern free society and should be recognized as such.
To appreciate how extended family immigration creates problems see my post Over Half Of Pakistanis In Britain Married To First Cousins Also see Christopher Caldwell's article in the New York Times Magazine entitled Where Every Generation Is First-Generation
Marriage is not just an aspect of the immigration problem in Germany; to a growing extent, it is the immigration problem.
This leaves open only one avenue for non-European men and women who want to enter Germany legally: marriage to someone with legal residency in the country. Fortunately for would-be immigrants, young ethnic Turks in Germany have a strong tendency to marry people from the home country. Exact statistics are hard to come by, but it is possible that as many as 50 percent of Turks (a word that in common parlance often includes even those with German citizenship) seek their spouses abroad, according to SchÃ¤uble, the interior minister. For most of the past decade, according to the ministry, between 21,000 and 27,000 people a year have successfully applied at German consulates in Turkey to form families in Germany. (Just under two-thirds of the newcomers are women.) That means roughly half a million spouses since the mid-1980s, which in turn means hundreds of thousands of new families in which the children’s first language is as likely to be Turkish as German.
Binational marriage alarms many Germans for two reasons. First, it allows the Turkish community to grow fast at a time when support for immigration is low. The Turkish population in Germany multiplies not once in a life cycle but twice — at childbirth and at marriage. Second, such marriages retard assimilation even for those Turks long established in Germany. You frequently hear stories from schoolteachers about a child of guest workers who was a star pupil three decades ago but whose own children, although born in Germany, struggle to learn German in grade school. After half a century of immigration, every new generation of Turks is still, to a large extent, a first generation.
Extended families and chain immigration of families create parallel societies in which family loyalties trump and replace loyalties to fellow citizens and in which women have little freedom.
Why does all this matter? The US Senate is debating a bill, S.1348, that will provide a legal amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and also help some of their family members immigrate as well. It is time to speak up against their proposal and tell your elected representatives you oppose massive immigration. Make a call to tell them. Here is the US Senate contact list. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121.
Islamic supporters of six Muslims arrested in London earlier this week today staged a rowdy demonstration outside the top security police station where they are being held.
Dozens of angry demonstrators branded Tony Blair a "terrorist" while carrying banners stating "Sharia Law - the future, free our Muslim brothers" and "Crusade against Islam"
More than 100 Muslim men, women and children gathered outside Paddington Green Police Station in west London where the six suspected Islamic extremists - including firebrand Abu Izzadeen - are beiMuslims Stage Demo Outside Police Stationng detained on suspicion of inciting terrorism and raising funds for terrorism.
Muslim fundamentalists want Sharia law for all because that's what the base texts of their religion tell them to demand.
Mr Islam said: "We definitely want to see Sharia law in place here. We want to see it implemented for everyone. Only then will there be harmony and there will be peace and justice amongst mankind."
The Muslim fundamentalists are not extremists within Islam. They are the orthodox. They follow the base texts and teachings of their religion. The so-called moderate Muslims are really Muslims who believe a watered down version of Islam or who don't want to personally be troubled to follow all the instructions of Islam.
If the Europeans do not want to live in increasingly Islamicized societies they could pay their legally present Muslims to leave and deport their illegal Muslims.
Americans should fear that the Iraq debacle will lead to left-liberal and neoconservative liberal demands to let in more Iraqi immigrants. That's already happening to Sweden and they didn't even support the war. The Swedes are harming their own society with a foolish immigration policy.
Many of the thousands of Iraqis fleeing their homeland want to go to Europe, and Stockholm is their port of entry. Now Sweden wants other European countries to share the burden. EU ministers are meeting this week to discuss how to cope with increasing numbers of Iraqi refugees.
Clue for the Swedes: What makes Sweden so desirable for non-Swedes? The Swedes. You make your society function well. You do not commit a lot of crimes. You are smart enough to maintain an industrial society. You have qualities that make Sweden function well. But here's your problem: The more non-Swedes you people let in the less desirable the place will become for you and the less you'll be able to make the place work well.
Any Iraqis who make it to Sweden can stay and join the welfare state.
Ridha, like thousands of his fellow Iraqis, has found a new life in northern Europe. Sweden, because of its liberal visa requirements, guarantees Iraqi expatriates the right of residence in the country. Last year Sweden welcomed more than 9,000 Iraqis, which was close to 50 percent of all Iraqi refugees arriving in Europe in 2006 and four times as many as in the previous year. Eight hundred Iraqis fled to Switzerland, and almost 2,000 Iraqis applied for asylum in Germany in 2006 (although only 1.1 percent of those applications were approved). The United States, which launched its crusade against the "Axis of Evil" by invading Iraq, accepted less than 600 refugees from Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.
Are the Swedes masochistic?
The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant background on why they are only robbing native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in Sociology. “I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they are robbing other youths. It usually doesn’t involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.
Almost 90% of all robberies that are reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. “When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as much as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth view Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers don’t plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”
These robbers are serving a pedagogical purpose. By robbing the Swedes they are teaching the Swedes that their immigration policy is suicidal. Will the Swedes wake up before Muslims become a large fraction of the population of Sweden?
“Exit Folkhemssverige - En samhällsmodells sönderfall” (Exit the People's Home of Sweden - The Downfall of a Model of Society) is a book from 2005 about immigration and the Swedish welfare state model dubbed “the people's home,” written by Jonathan Friedman, Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson and Åke Wedin. According to them, the Swedish Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate diversity, everything Swedish is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this policy is considered a form of racism:
“The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists.”
The authors fear that the handling of the immigration policies has seriously eroded democracy because the citizens lose their loyalty towards a state they no longer consider their own. “Instead of increasing the active participation of citizens, the government has placed clear restrictions on freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of congregation.”
I've noted this loss of loyalty to the state in myself. Why feel loyalty to something that is obviously not loyal to you?
The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two -- both of Moroccan origin -- after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.
A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution -- the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.
In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.
Some Westerners are definitely enemies of the West. Take this judge for example.
Thanks to Dragon Horse for bringing this story to my attention.
Islam is already causing enough oppression of people in Germany without help from judges. A group of out-of-the-closet former Muslims is getting death threats from current Muslims
A group of former Muslims in Germany who formed a non-religious society have been sent threatening letters, pronouncing them "fit for death."
Mina Ahadi, an Iranian-born woman, founded the society in Cologne with 10 sympathizers several weeks ago and called it the National Council of Ex-Muslims. At the end of February she called a news conference in Berlin to publicly pronounce herself non-Islamic.
The police have assigned plainclothes bodyguards to protect her ever since.
"I'm a target," said Ahadi, 50. She said members of her society had received letters telling them they would be shot in the back. When she went online with a fierce attack on Islamic organizations, somebody circulated a statement suggesting she was fit to be killed, she said.
Islam does not recognize a right to leave the religion. In many Muslim countries leaving Islam is against the law.
Believed to be the first test of its kind in Europe, the southern state of Baden-Württemberg has created the two-hour oral exam to test the loyalty of Muslims towards Germany.
But now they will be quizzed on their attitudes to homosexuality and western clothing for young women, and whether husbands should be allowed to beat their wives.
Other questions covering topics such as bigamy and whether parents should allow their children to participate in school sports have been called "trick questions", meant to catch people off guard.
The state interior ministry said the test would be used to filter out Muslims who were unsuited for life in Germany. Those who answered "correctly" but later acted against expected behaviour, such as wife-beating, could have their citizenship removed.
Andrea Brandt and Cordula Meyer of the German magazine Der Spiegel report on the development of a Muslim parallel society in Germany.
Germany's Muslim population is becoming more religious and more conservative. Islamic associations are fostering the trend, particularly through their work with the young -- accelerating the drift towards a parallel Muslim society.
The article explains how German judges are instrumental in allowing Muslims to separate themselves in schools and other venues. My take: If separate parallel societies within borders are acceptable in this supposed universal world of liberal secular market capitalism and globalism why not put the separate societies on different sides of borders? Why do we need to construct separate parallel societies at close quarters in neighborhoods? How does this benefit us? It seems to only cost us and inflict strife, hostility, and conflicts right where we live.
Surveys in the country have charted a significant increase in fundamentalist attitudes, particularly among younger Muslims. The experiences of Ekin Deligöz, a member of the German parliament representing the Green Party, underscore the potential dangers. Having called on Muslim women to remove their headscarves, Deligöz faced death threats and now receives police protection.
This is a long article with lots of descriptions of Islamic residential homes for adolescents where the kids are basically taught to separate themselves from non-Islamic society. Click through and read the whole thing if you have any doubts about the scope of the problem.
The Muslims in Germany are becoming more Islamic and more separate from German society.
According to Faruk Süen, director of the Center for Turkish Studies, the boys and girls are increasingly defining themselves by reference to their faith. In his view, this is another consequence of 9/11. After the terror attacks, Islam was stigmatized by the world at large, he explains, sparking a counterreaction among Muslims. In 2000 Süen's center conducted a survey. The results showed that 8 percent of immigrants of Turkish extraction said they were "very religious." In 2005, the figure had climbed to 28 percent.
The survey's findings on headscarves are also striking. While only 27 percent had thought Muslim women should cover their hair in 2000, the number had almost doubled to 47 percent five years later. A similar pattern emerged on the topics of dual-sex sports classes and participation in coeducational school trips. Rejected by 19 percent in 2000, by last year the proportion had risen to 30 percent.
Women and young men are startlingly conservative: 59 percent of 18- to 30-year olds favored Muslim women wearing headscarves, as did almost 62 percent of female respondents. Members of mosque associations took particularly orthodox positions, including - and above all - the VIKZ members.
Why force your kids into environments where they are not tolerated? Why allow your society to change into a hostile alien one by letting in incompatible immigrants? Why force Western Christians into the same hostile conditions seen in Muslim countries? I realize that George W. Bush calls Islam a religion of peace. But why not challenge this ridiculous lie?
A teacher at Richard Elementary in the same district gave disturbing evidence last year to the school committee: German children "weren't really being tolerated," and "Christian" was often used as a term of contempt. The teachers were doing their best to set things straight during class "but, sadly, with very little success," she said.
This sort of report always remind me of Monty Python's Argument skit and the "Being Hit On The Head lessons". Yes, it is a stupid concept. But it is a concept which the West's elites have taught its masses they have to accept.
What should we do about Islam? Keep the Muslims out of the West. Lawrence Auster calls this strategy separationism. Mr. Auster brings to my attention an Investors Business Daily editorial calling for the separation of Islam from the West.
Global Jihad: A new Gallup poll finds that richer, better-educated Muslims are more likely to be radicalized. This explodes the myth of the poor, dumb terrorist.
Since 9/11, the politically correct elite have mau-maued Americans into thinking the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion out of ignorance and poverty. Or that they've been brainwashed by Osama bin Laden.
But Gallup found the opposite to hold true: The most radical among Muslims — those who support jihad — earn more and stay in school longer. These are the smart ones, not the rubes.
As the IBD editors point out, the behavior of Muslims contradicts liberal dogma on education. Modern liberal dogma holds education as universal cure for most of what ails society. We are constantly told by high church liberals that if only we spent more on education and improved our ability to educate then everything from crime to racial differences in achievement to terrorism would go down.
In an amazing conclusion the IBD editors become perhaps the first editors of a major American newspaper to advocate the separation of Islam from the West.
Gallup's survey of Muslims, the largest conducted, puts to rest theories that radicals attack us because they're poor and alienated from society. Or because they're dim and easily misled.
Radical Muslims have an education and an economic future, yet they still hate. They're literate enough to interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against infidels.
Perhaps the only sane course in this war is to separate the West from Islam.
As Lawrence Auster points out, IBD's editors are unusual in the press because they follow the evidence to a logical conclusion.
Now, IBD’s editors are not the first people to note the connection between modernization and jihad. Intellectuals such Olivier Roy and Francis Fukuyama have said the same. But those intellectuals never follow through to the logical conclusions of this factual observation. Instead they suggest bandaids, such as easing the radicalization of Western Muslims via greater efforts at assimilation. IBD—and this is what is amazing—does follow through to the logical conclusion. If education and wealth, and thus by implication modernization, spur jihadism, then every additional contact of the West with Islam, whether through the export of our culture, technology, and political ideas to the Islamic world, or the import of Muslims to the West, leads to greater jihadism.
To dismiss the evidence one has to make an argument along the lines that moderate doses of Western exposure cause Jihadism but that if only we could make the doses of Western culture big enough then the Muslims would turn away from hostility toward non-Muslims.
Is this argument right? Sure, but only if we used methods that are anathema to liberals. What would work? If we took their babies away and raised the babies in Christian homes then the kids would grow up non-Muslim and hence wouldn't have the Muslim hostility to the West. We can hope that if the kids get to watch MTV that'd turn them away from Islam. But when we look at Muslims in Western countries such as Britain and Germany we can plainly see that the daily exposure of the larger societies is not enough to turn Muslims away from their hostility and their own construction of parallel cultures.
I criticize the war in Iraq because it does not protect us at home. We should stop Muslim immigration and pay Muslims to leave. For the cost of the Iraq war we could have greatly reduced our risk of Muslim terrorism by putting well defended national borders and thousands and miles between us and them.
Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.
As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.
It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.
I say deport the illegals, stop granting citizenship to Muslims, buy back the citizenship from those Muslims who are citizens, and deport them all. If they are terrorists or criminals revoke their citizenship without compensation.
Muslims now try to kill French police and burn police cars.
"Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, demands that officers be given armored cars in the most dangerous areas.
“He said yesterday: ‘We are in a state of war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their “comrades” free when they are arrested.’”
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has also used the term "intifada" to refer the Muslims in the housing estates.
Will the Muslims start using IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) of the sort seen in Iraq? My guess (perhaps over-optimistically) is that such a move would backfire. I'm thinking the higher and faster the Muslims escalate the better for the West. The sooner they reveal their ultimate intentions the sooner steps can be taken against them before it is too late. On this point see my post Muslims Criticize Al Qaeda For Waking Up Westerners To Muslim Immigration.
Also see my previous posts Muslims Said To Make Up 70% Of Prisoners In France, Most Prisoners In France Are Muslim, Headscarves And Islam In France And Turkey, Houellebecq could do French jail term for insulting Islam, and Theodore Dalrymple on French Ghettoes.
All this was about a year ago. It was not the first time I had conducted an interview with someone in a full veil, but this particular encounter, though very polite and respectful on both sides, got me thinking. In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds - the entirely English accent, the couple's education (wholly in the UK) - and the fact of the veil. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone "face-to-face" who I could not see.
So I decided that I wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven't.
Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.
I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can - almost literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say. So many of the judgments we all make about other people come from seeing their faces.
I thought it may be hard going when I made my request for face-to-face interviews in these circumstances. However, I can't recall a single occasion when the lady concerned refused to lift her veil; and most I ask seem relieved I have done so.
Straw's essay and subsequent statements (see below) shows just how much further along the British and Europeans have moved in their thinking about Muslim immigrants as compared to political elites in America. America's political elites are still stuck inside the narrow intellectual confines of the bundle of lies which the Left has built for them.
Shaykh Ibrahim, who trained as an imam, said: "I have a beard and I wear a traditional long shirt. Sometimes I wear a turban and a hat. Am I going to be his next subject of concern?" He said he welcomed a debate but Muslims "would want ownership of the outcome of that debate".
Dr Reefat Drabu, the chairman of the social and family affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said: "If Mr Straw thinks this is going to break down barriers, it isn't. If anything, it is going to alienate Muslim women and be a catalyst for more of them to wear the veil and prove a point."
She added: "If you are trying to build bridges, you need to listen to what Muslims are saying. The problems that alienate women are to do with foreign policy and no one seems to take any notice of that. This country is supposed to celebrate diversity. That is the wonderful thing about this country: that it accepts, that it is tolerant. Women who wear the veil are making the statement that they are separate from society and that is why they wear it."
I do listen very carefully to what Muslims are saying. As a result I've come to the conclusion that Islam is not compatible with Western society and we should provide economic incentives to get Muslims to leave. I find Pope Benedict's view that Islam is incompatible with Western societies to be spot on.
Jack Straw has inflamed the controversy over Muslim women wearing veils by saying that he would prefer them to stop wearing the garments altogether. The former Foreign Secretary provoked widespread anger, both among Muslim groups and in his Blackburn constituency, when he disclosed that he asked female constituents to uncover their faces in meetings.
Undaunted by a wave of criticism, including condemnation from the one of the Church of England's most senior bishops, Mr Straw waded further into the row yesterday. Asked if he would rather the veils be discarded completely, he said: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."
The Leader of the Commons told Radio 4's Today programme: "You cannot force people where they live, that's a matter of choice and economics, but you can be concerned about the implications of separateness."
Physical proximity does not prevent the construction of parallel separated societies. High levels of immigration enable the development of greater separation and prevents assimilation. TO get a sense of just how deep this problem runs in Britain see my post Over Half Of Pakistanis In Britain Married To First Cousins.
Getting them to unveil won't solve the problem. Islam is not compatible with Western societies. Wrap your minds around that. Islam is the problem.
Mr Straw explained the impact he thought veils could have in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people.
"Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day," he said.
"That's made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That's just a fact of life.
"I understand the concerns but I hope, however, there can be a mature debate about this.
"I come to this out of a profound commitment to equal rights for Muslim communities and an equal concern about adverse development about parallel communities."
He is right of course. Facial expressions provide a wealth of information about what people really mean. Misunderstandings and distrust will rise to the extent that people become less able to read each others' facial expressions.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said yesterday that opposition to the veil was not government policy, but that Tony Blair “believes it is right that people should be able to have a discussion and express their personal views on issues such as this”.
But some Muslim representatives were more sympathetic, and there was support from other sources. Daud Abdullah, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “This [veil] does cause some discomfort to non-Muslims. One can understand this.”
The Labour peer Baroness Uddin told GMTV yesterday that there was a need for debate, declaring: “It is about human rights on both sides — Jack’s right to say and the women’s right to wear what they please.” The Right Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, said: “I can understand why he has said it.”
The enforcers of political correctness would probably attack an American politician who made similar comments.
Writing for the left-leaning Guardian Martin Kettle sees the veil as a form of rejection of the larger culture.
There is, of course, a wider issue here. Straw himself refers directly to it in his article. The veil is an explicit statement of separation and distance, as he puts it. It literally comes between its wearer and other people. It is impossible not to see it as a barrier dividing the individual inside from the world outside. Whether the veil is also a form of self-protection or separatism is harder to say. Not all cases will be the same. Many of us fear the latter, perhaps wrongly, although in the hoodie era it is hardly the only form of dress in modern Britain that can be read that way.
But the veil is a much more loaded statement than even a hoodie, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It is not merely a badge of religious or cultural identity like a turban, a yarmulke or even a baseball cap. It says something not just about the wearer but about the non-wearer too. It says, or seems to say, I do not wish to engage with you. It is at some level a rejection. And since that statement of rejection comes from within Islamic cultures, some of whose willingness to integrate is explicitly at issue in more serious ways, it is hardly surprising that it should be challenged.
Muslims do not want to integrate because they see Muslims as above non-Muslims and they see the proper order of society as one where Muslims rule over non-Muslims.
A paratrooper wounded in Afghanistan was threatened by a Muslim visitor to the British hospital where he is recovering.
Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.
Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital.
They now half jokingly refer to getting "a Boche rather than a Blighty" in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply. "The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility," said an officer serving in Afghanistan.
The British Muslims see fellow Muslims in Afghanistan as part of their group and fellow British citizens as not part of their group.
Writing for the Washington Post Geneive Abdo reports on what she found talking to Muslims in America. They are turning away from assimilation.
If only the Muslims in Europe -- with their hearts focused on the Islamic world and their carry-on liquids poised for destruction in the West -- could behave like the well-educated, secular and Americanizing Muslims in the United States, no one would have to worry. So runs the comforting media narrative that has developed around the approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, who are often portrayed as well-assimilated and willing to leave their religion and culture behind in pursuit of American values and lifestyle. But over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California -- and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.
The basic tenets of Islam are incompatible with assimilation. Therefore Muslims who come to Western countries are settlers, not immigrants. They do not come to join our societies. They come to recreate their own societies side-by-side with ours. British Muslims when polled put their Muslim identities and loyalties ahead of their British ones. Abdo reports on the same process happening in supposed melting pot America. So much for the neoconservative claim of the mythical uniqueness of America that supposedly makes us immune to the problems of Old Europe.
A Muslim woman proudly proclaims her right to not assimilate to American culture.
Ismahan recalled similar experiences. In elementary school, she had tried to fit in. As an adult, though, "I know I don't have to fit in," she said. "I don't think Muslims have to assimilate. We are not treated like Americans. At work, I get up from my desk and go to pray. I thought I would face opposition from my boss. Even before I realized he didn't mind, I thought, 'I have a right to be a Muslim, and I don't have to assimilate.' "
We are going to have an alien nation, a balkanized nation. Why do this to ourselves?
Also see my post Over Half Of Pakistanis In Britain Married To First Cousins. Also see Larry Auster's posts Muslim Miss England Turns On England and From "peaceful" conversion to jihadist mass destruction, Islam is a single continuum.
Twelve girls sat in rows at the front of the community room in Silver Spring's Muslim Community Center, calming their nerves with giggles and girl talk. In their sweaty hands, they held prepared speeches. On their heads, they wore scarves in a rainbow of colors: pink, brown, gold, white and lavender.
The seventh- and eighth-graders were competing in a debate on this question: Is a segregated, all-Islamic upbringing key to protecting your Muslim identity?
Eight of the dozen argued yes, using variants of the theme offered by Fatimah Waseem. Young Muslims "join with the non-Muslims, copy them and look up to them. This is hurting our identity. . . . Sometimes, we turn way from Islam," she said. "In conclusion, . . . we cannot sway in the wind and become weak. We need to be protected . . . by segregation."
The kids want to segregate.
If Western culture is alien to Muslims values then doesn't Muslim immigration bring in people whose values are incompatible with Western values?
Dar-us-Salaam, whose Friday prayer services draw 500 to 700 worshipers, describes on its Web site its plan to create an Islamic enclave as a way to sustain its members' Muslim identity and spread Islam by example. Besides a mosque and school, "such an Islamic environment would include . . . businesses and shops for employment and basic needs, housing, medical and financial institutions."
This dream reflects the strict Salafi approach of Saudi-trained Safi Khan, Dar-us-Salaam's imam, who believes that Muslims in this country need close-knit communities to cope with pressures from law enforcement officials and a Western culture alien to Islamic values.
All cultures and religions do not promote the same values or beliefs. All cultures and religions are not compatible. We ignore these basic facts at our peril.
Jon Snow of the Times of London toured around Britain and found that Muslims increasingly live as a separate community. The Muslims hold very unliberal beliefs such as that free speech rights should not extend fully to religious matters. Immigration of Muslims to Britain has created growing separate, deluded, and hostile society.
A sizeable number of British Muslims to whom I talked were convinced that Princess Diana was killed because of her relationship with a Muslim, a view reflected in our survey of 1,000 Muslims — not just angry young men, but the elderly, women, the poor and wealthy businessmen. Half of those polled believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US and Israel, while one in four think Diana was murdered to stop her marrying a Muslim.
The evidence that integration has stopped comes from comparing our survey with previous studies, most notably one conducted in 1993 by Tariq Modood, professor of sociology at Bristol University, who says political identification with Islam has grown disproportionately among the young since then.
It is generally assumed potential radicals come only from deprived areas, but Modood confirms that the well-off and educated are drawing away just as much. Many youngsters from Bradford are going to university and in a sense having it both ways — benefiting from this country’s facilities but taking with them core beliefs that sometimes lead to separateness.Indeed, a 19-year-old Muslim studying biomedicine at a London university explained that the very fact of his education had led him to think the way he does. At one point I asked him and his two friends: “You’d like me to become a Muslim, wouldn’t you?” They said I’d be much better for it, and talked about the positive aspects of converting.
An overwhelming number of British Muslims believe free speech should not extend to insulting their religion, and one-third would rather live under sharia law, as laid down by the Koran. A 29-year-old of Turkish Cypriot origin told me: “I feel that democracy altogether isn’t working as a system. I believe that man-made laws aren’t really the answer.”
But the liberal chattering classes still attempt (quite successfully) to convince the natives that Muslims pose little threat to their way of life.
At Audacious Epigone crush41 reports on a Pew Global Attitudes Survey which found most surveyed Europeans still think immigration from the Middle East and North Africa is a good thing.
A couple of the findings are bemusing. The percentage of people in the following countries who think continued immigration from the Middle East and North Africa is a good thing: Spain - 62%, France - 58%, Great Britain - 57%, Germany - 34%. This even though an overwhelming majority of people in each country are concerned about rising Islamic extremism. And more people in each of these countries believe an Islamic identity distinct from a national identity is growing: Spain - 46% (compared to 36% holding a contrary view), France - 68%, Britain - 69%, Germany - 72%. The public in these places that feel a Muslim identity is growing firmly believe that this trend is a bad thing: Spain - 82%, France - 87%, Britain - 59%, Germany - 83%.
So at least 38% of the Spanish, 59% of the French, 41% of the British, and 60% of the Germans feel that what is happening in the Muslim community in their home countries is a bad thing (assuming, likely in error, that all respondents ambivalent toward or disagreeing with the assertion that Islamic identity is growing at home approve of the way the Muslim community conducts itself in their home countries). Why the French anomaly? A majority feels continued Islamic immigration is good but a similar majority believes what is happening in the French Islamic community is bad.
It says something about the intellectual decline of the West that so many Europeans are intent upon taking being-hit-on-the-head lessons in the form of mass Muslim immigration. Yet the Germans have seen through it and turned back from the multicultural diversity folly. Well good for them!
Human minds tend to underestimate just how differently other people think. I see an element of "surely the Muslims can't honestly mean what they are saying" in the reaction of the general public of Western nations toward what the Muslims in their midst actually say. But media talking heads and editors make this problem worse by underreporting the extremists and going out of their way to find seeming moderates who will mouth the proper liberal pieties while claiming to represent the vast majority of their ethnic and religious brethren.
The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.
Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).
By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent. While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims.
Across the board, Muslim attitudes in Britain more resembled public opinion in Islamic countries in the Middle East and Asia than elsewhere in Europe. And on the whole, British Muslims were more pessimistic than those in Germany, France and Spain about the feasibility of living in a modern society while remaining devout.
The Pew poll found that British Muslims are far more likely than their European counterparts to harbour conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks. Only 17% believed that Arabs were involved, compared with 48% in France.
My theory to explain these results: If your society goes out of its way to show Muslims respect and approval then they will interpret this as appeasement by a timid and unconfident majority. They will respond by demanding more and telling each other they have every right to anger at the non-Muslims who are illegitimate as rulers.
By contrast, a society whose elites consider their own culture superior (and the French fit this bill) and who look down on other cultures sends a powerful message to Muslims: You are in a society that sees any demands you make for special treatment as illegitimate. To the extent that a society self confidently asserts the superiority of its values it provides itself some degree of protection from Muslim fundamentalists.
You can read the full Pew report: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics.
There's an obvious lesson in the full report for pro-Open Borders Jews: The Muslims hate you. You really should oppose loose immigration laws that let Muslims move into Western countries.
Update: Also see The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other.
On the Right Reason blog Steve Burton argues that a lack of honesty about racial inequality lies at the heart of American and Latin American debates about immigration.
Illegal immigration is a hard issue to tackle because it is, in the end, a matter of racial inequality. And Americans - including Latin Americans - are very bad at confronting issues of racial inequality honestly and coldly.
O.K., So here's the marrow that you gotta get at:
(1) Latin America in general, and Mexico in particular, is at least as deeply riven by racial inequality as the United States.
(2) Because they cannot solve their problem of racial inequality, Latin America's ruling Creole oligarchies (as Hugo Chavez would say) prefer to deny it, to deflect attention from it, and to export it to the United States.
(3) But the United States can no more solve its own problems of racial inequality than the Latin Americans can solve theirs.
(4) So unless and until we come up with solutions to these problems that work better than anything we have tried lately, our acceptance of essentially unlimited numbers of illegal Latin American immigrants is leading, not to their successful assimilation to our culture (what's left of it), but, rather, to the assimilation of the United States to the socio-political pathologies of Latin America.
Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela know that in Latin America the biggest conflict is between the lighter colored mostly European elite and the darker colored Amerind lower classes. Though I doubt either of them would admit that IQ differences play a big role in creating this division. The United States now runs the risk that this battle will come to dominate American society as well. Why subject ourselves to this? It is a stupid thing to do to ourselves.
Mexico's elite argue that Americans who want to keep out the Mexican Amerinds are racists, oppressiors, and other labels popular with the Left. Yet that elite is primarily white and its complaints are motivated by two selfish motives: A) to get rid of an Amerind lower class that it does not much want and B) to extend the power of Mexico's elite into a country that is much wealthier than Mexico. These desires are obviously contradictory since successful execution of their desire to do Reconquista would necessarily lead to Mexico's elite once again getting all those lower IQ Amerinds back under upper class Mexican Spanish rule.
But enough of their desires. Americans need to stand up for our own best interests and stop sacrificing our interests to corrupt Latin American elites, short-sighted American corporate interests, and America's own idiotic Leftists who place their frantic efforts to feel morally superior to non-Leftist whites above the best long term interests of the commonwealth. Afraid of getting called "nativist" or "racist" or the like by their ilk? Get over it. The stakes are too high and the damage being done to America is too great. It is time to assert your own selfish interest for immigration restriction against America's opponents who are busy pursuing thier own self interests under the cloak of dubious claims to the high moral ground.
I have before me a study published Oct. 20 in a leading Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, which reports that "Arab and Muslim attacks on Jews are rising sharply in Swedish society [while] silence surrounds Muslim Jew-hatred." The study, inadequately translated from Swedish, was prepared by two Swedish social scientists, Sverker Oredssom, a professor of history, and Mikael Tossavainen, his research assistant.
The situation has become so bad, they report, that "Jews in Sweden today often feel compelled to hide their religious identity in public: necklaces with stars of David are carefully hidden under sweaters, and orthodox Jewish men change their kippot [skullcaps] to more discreet caps or hats when they are outdoors. Jews in Sweden nowadays get secret telephone numbers to avoid harassment. In Sweden. Today."
In a Swedish population of some 9 million, there are about 20,000 Jews, mostly in Stockholm, Sweden's capital. The social scientists blame the Muslim migrants, now 3.9 percent of the Swedish population, for the growth of anti-Semitism.
A Jewish professor at the University of Copenhagen was attacked for quoting the Koran in a lecture.
Muslim immigration is bad. Multiculturalism is retarded. Intellectuals who support multiculturalism should be ashamed of themselves. Multiculturalism means importing Pakistani beliefs about gang rape into Australia. Multiculturalism means importing Lebanese Muslim clerics who think women who do not completely cover themselves deserve to be raped.
Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohamad, 34, has been quoted by a newspaper as telling a lecture at the Bankstown Town Hall, in south-western Sydney, that women who wore skimpy clothing teased men.
"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No-one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ...," Sheik Mohamed was quoted as saying in the lecture.
"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, mini skirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."
Chattering leftie fools make a big deal on the need for tolerance. As I see it they have it exactly backward. What Western societies need is extreme intolerance. We need intolerance for Muslim rape gangs in Australia or in the French banlieues. How about taking their members and whipping them to death in public squares? What we need is intolerance for Muslim rioters. How about issuing assault rifles to French police on occasion of the next Muslim riots in France with orders to shoot to kill? How about revoking the residency permits of any legal immigrants who violate laws and deporting all the illegals?
They are probably the most violent, prolific gang rapists Sydney has known, with as many as 18 young victims. But until now the extent of the horrific crimes of four brothers from Pakistan has been kept secret.
Yesterday, more than three years after they went on a six-month rampage, luring girls as young as 13 to their home in Ashfield to rape them, suppression orders forbidding publication of their trial details were lifted.
But to their father, a GP in Sydney's west, it is Australia that is unjust.
Last month he told Sydney Morning Herald journalist Natasha Wallace: "You are the enemy of the Muslim . . . they [his sons] are not rapists."
Dr K has maintained his sons' innocence all along, even after viewing in court one of the videotapes police found inside their rented Ashfield house. It showed a comatose 13-year-old girl, drunk or drugged, and the brothers performing degrading criminal acts on her body.
During one of his sons' trials, Dr K revealed his views about Australian girls to a reporter: "What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."
What did the Australian government expect would happen to their own citizens after the government let in people who come from such an un-Western culture that holds women in such contempt?
An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi, has sparked political outcry from the left-wing Unity List and right-wing Danish People's Party, after stating in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are "asking for rape."
All the illegal alien Muslims should be deported. For the rest Steve Sailer proposes an excellent idea: buy out the residency and citizenship of Muslims in Europe. The same would work just as well in other Western countries.
Update: Jamie Glazov interviewed Justus Reid Wiener about his new book on Palestinian Muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians.
FP: Christian Palestinian women have suffered terribly. Can you tell us some of the details of their plight?
Weiner: Christian women suffer rampant sexual harassment, rape and even forced marriage. For example, Islamic militants have attempted to force Christian women wearing modern, revealing clothing to conform to the strict, modest Muslim dress code. In addition, Muslim men have attempted to rape Christian women, sometimes achieving their objective. These victims may, ironically, end up marrying the man who raped them because in their society they are regarded as unclean for marriage purposes.
Christian men risk being jailed when they intervene to rescue Christian women being attacked or insulted. The Muslim perpetrators get off scot-free because they have family members in the upper echelon of one (or more) of the 12 "security" forces.
Of course this is the same sort of behavior that we see with Muslim communities in many Western nations.
Weiner's book is entitled Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society.
POLICE yesterday declared six popular beaches unsafe for public use this weekend after intelligence revealed armed rioters are planning attacks.
In an unprecedented move, Police Commissioner Ken Moroney urged people to stay away from Cronulla, Maroubra and Bondi beaches in Sydney, Terrigal on the Central Coast, Nobbys Beach in Newcastle and beaches in Wollongong.
The lockdown decision was made after police received "credible threats" the areas would become race riot zones.
"These are extraordinary measures for extraordinary times," Mr Moroney said.
Those who ignore the advice will have their cars searched at checkpoints and will be turned away by police, unless they have a valid reason for going into the areas.
You might be wondering which ethnic group wants to riot on these Australian beaches. Is it white folks? Or Arab Muslims. The article does not say.
A Dec. 13, 2005 report in The Australian suggests both Arab and white groups want to fight.
One text message circulating yesterday in Sutherland Shire, which includes Cronulla, said: "Good work for the efort we put in at 'nulla. But the wogs came back and stabbed one of our people! ... We'll show them! It's on again Sunday."
A rival text message said: "The aussies will feel the full force of the arabs as one ... brothers in arms unite now ... let's show them who's boss ... destroy."
I hear music and singlng. "Majeeda, I just met a girl named Majeeda. And suddenly that name will never be the same. Majeeda".
But how'd this all start in the first place? Did drunken white Australian rednecks start the rioting at Cronulla? That's the impression some news reports give. But a Dec. 6, 2005 Daily Telegraph report makes it clear that Arabs have been harassing and attacking whites at Cronulla for years.
"GET off our beach. This is our beach. We own it."
These are the fighting words a group of thugs spoke to three North Cronulla surf lifesavers before bashing them on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
The attack has disgusted Sutherland Shire residents and surf lifesavers who volunteer their time to protect the lives of beachgoers.
Cronulla locals say in the past three years a large influx of youths have travelled from Sydney's west to the beachside to intimidate beachgoers and start fights.
One of the lifeguards was knocked unconscious.
The latest incident occurred at 3pm on Sunday when three lifesavers, aged 15, 19 and 20, were walking from the beach to the surf club at the end of their shift.
They were approached by four men of Middle Eastern appearance, aged in their late teens or early 20s, who initiated a verbal confrontation.
One of the men king-hit the 19-year-old, who fell back and struck a metal picket fence, sustaining a cut and being knocked unconscious.
Eight to 10 other men then joined the original four.
NSW Police have locked down some streets in Cronulla, Maroubra, Coogee and Bondi and established security checkpoints in other areas as part of Operation Seta.
From 7am today police were authorised to establish security checkpoints for 48 hours on key access roads to beachside suburbs across Sydney’s south and east.
Deputy Commissioner Andrew Scipione said other areas would be assessed on an hourly basis before any decision is made to order further lock downs.
“We are acting on intelligence we’ve received from a number of credible sources and are changing our tactics and strategy hourly in accordance with the latest information,” Deputy Commissioner Scipione said.
“I will again ask people who do not need to travel to the nominated areas of Cronulla, eastern suburbs, central coast beaches, Maroubra and Wollongong to stay away as they will only increase traffic congestion.
“This is not a normal weekend and we sympathise with the frustration of motorists however the action we are taking is to ensure our priority is public safety at all times.
“I would like to thank the public for their co-operation and patience.”
Several websites also carry calls for fresh action this weekend. Visitors to fightback.org.au are asked to meet near Cronulla beach at 1pm tomorrow for a rally against "home-grown terrorist gangs".
Although the site says the protest will be peaceful, it asks participants to leave identification at home and bring Australian flags, ski masks, bullhorns, gloves and CB radios. It also asks participants not to "bash people who look wog/Leb on that alone", explaining that some of "our boys" are of Eastern European appearance.
On the neo-Nazi site Stormfront there are calls for fresh shows of power in both Sydney and Perth. On the usually laid back surfing website Realsurf.com there is a post urging protesters to set fire to a Sydney mosque.
Muslim immigration is bad. Western countries should halt all Muslim immigration and deport most non-citizen Muslims.
Eleven men were arrested in the new wave of unrest. Sydney police said they confiscated iron bars and molotov cocktails in Cronulla. Bullets were fired at teachers’ cars after men of Middle Eastern appearance abused gatherers at a school Christmas carols service in the suburb of Auburn.
The violence followed Sunday’s shocking events on Cronulla beach, some 25km south of Sydney, when a 5,000-strong mob indiscriminately attacked men and women of Middle Eastern appearance to vent their anger against Sydney’s sizeable Lebanese population.
SYDNEY has declared war on all rioters after more than 48 hours of lawlessness and admissions from both the police and Muslim leaders that they have been unable to control the angry mobs of young men.
Police are also now investigating bullet holes found in the cars of several staff members at St Joseph the Worker Primary School in South Auburn after a Christmas carols service on Monday evening. Parents and children were abused by a group of young men of Middle Eastern appearance and gunshots were heard during the service.
Young men of Arab descent struck back in several Sydney suburbs Sunday, fighting with police for hours and smashing dozens of cars with sticks and bats, police said. They said 31 people were injured, including a white man who was allegedly stabbed in the back, and 16 people were arrested.
But how about some context? Janet Albrechtsen says the whites of Cronulla are embattled.
YESTERDAY a colleague emailed me from New York. The young lawyer - her family lives in Brighton-Le-Sands, a bayside suburb north of Cronulla in Sydney - wrote: "While I agree there is no justifying excuse for the violence and breakdown in order that occurred at Cronulla, it needs to be put in context. Unless you live in an area like Cronulla, Brighton-Le-Sands or Bondi, you have no idea what it is like to have one's suburb regularly inundated with large groups of young Muslim men from the western suburbs who proceed to shoot people [as has happened in Brighton], intimidate people, regularly threaten people within their vicinity with violence, drive around in large groups screaming abuse at people from cars with their music blaring, regularly brawling, etc."
This young woman recounted that all of the girls in her family (except the youngest) have been "subject to harassment inflicted by groups of these men - comments on our appearances, racist comments on our Australian background, unwanted touching, being followed while walking home by groups of men in cars (I was once followed all the way home - have never been so scared in my life), sexually explicit remarks while alone, with friends or with boyfriends, unwanted called-out invitations to have sex with groups of them, etc".
The attack, apparently prompted by reports that Lebanese youths had assaulted two lifeguards, led to retaliation by young men of Arab descent in several Sydney suburbs on Monday. The young people fought with the police and smashed 40 cars with sticks and bats, the police said.
What made Cronulla different was that those taking part were much better off, better educated and from more respectable homes than the miners who enforced White Australia more than a century ago. Cronulla is essentially a white ghetto compared with many other parts of multicultural Sydney. Its residents are mostly Australian-born, with Australian parents of British and Irish origin. The overseas-born come mainly from Britain and New Zealand. Moreover, it is isolated by geography and has no nearby ethnic neighbours. As in many other cities with changing populations, such areas tend to defend themselves from what they see as invaders. This can lead, as in the US, to gated suburbs and the deliberate exclusion of others.
Surfers and residents say racial tensions at the beach have simmered for years. Shaun Donohoe, a 24-year-old chef, said: "[Lebanese Australians] look down on our women. They don't really assimilate to our way of life. I've been at war with them for 10 years."
You know how French cities have no-go areas? The Australian whites fear that their beach is going to become a no-go area just like French city neighborhoods.
The violence broke out a week after two Australian lifesavers were allegedly assaulted on the beach by a Lebanese gang. Some residents, fearing that their popular weekend surfing haunt was in danger of becoming a no-go area, threatened anybody of a vaguely Middle Eastern appearance.
Western nations should halt Muslim immigration.
Radical Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed for making the film Submission I, a critical view of Islam's treatment of women. If you have 11 minutes to spare you can go view Submission I in 4 parts. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian-born member of the Dutch parliament who made the film with van Gogh, lives under constant extensive police protection due to death threats against her by angry Muslims. Hirsi Ali intends to finish making the next 3 parts of the Submission short movie series. Timothy Garton Ash recently met with Hirsi Ali and says Hirsi Ali is a big advocate of the value of the Enlightenment.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is much more than just a voice for the voiceless oppressed. In person, she is a thoughtful, calm, clear, almost pedantic spokeswoman for the fundamental liberal values of the Enlightenment: individual rights, free speech, equality before the law. At dinner afterwards, she told me how these liberal individualist ideals were first quickened in her by reading English literature as a schoolgirl in Kenya, where her family had fled from Somalia. She loved the work of Charles Dickens and George Orwell. (As a young Muslim girl, she briefly thought the horrible behaviour of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm helped explain why Muslims don't eat pork.) Then, studying political science in the Netherlands, she discovered the classics of western liberalism. Two authors she particularly admires are John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper.
I find her critique of multiculturalism, in the name of Enlightenment liberalism, too sweeping. In my view, her support for the French ban on the hijab in schools and public offices amounts to advocating an unnecessary restriction of individual liberty in the name of individual liberty. But her central claim seems to me vital and irrefutable: if being a free country means anything at all, it must mean that people have the chance to criticise freely, and without fear of reprisal, Islam, Hinduism or Sikhism, as they now in practice have the chance to excoriate Christianity (despite Britain's ridiculous blasphemy laws), Judaism or, for that matter, Darwinism.
I do not find Hirsi Ali's critique of multiculturalism too sweeping. Multicullturalism is a retarded idea promoted by white Western intellectuals intent on demonstrating their moral superiority to other white people at the expense of the West itself.
I think the obvious lesson to learn from van Gogh's death and the fact that many Dutch political figures live under constant police protection is simple enough: Muslim immigration to the West is bad. We shouldn't allow it. It is harmful to our societies. Why inflict damage on ourselves?
Garton Ash points out that Sikhs also threaten critics with death.
This right to free speech, which is to an open society what oxygen is to human life, is under direct threat from people whose position is very simple: if you say that, we will kill you. And not just in the case of Islam. Remember that violent protests and death threats from extremists in Britain's Sikh community forced the playwright Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti into hiding, and her play Behzti off the stage in Birmingham.
Garton Ash points out that the Labour government in Britain is trying to appease British Muslim voters by outlawing harsh criticism of Islam.
How does our government react? By extending police protection to threatened individuals, to be sure, as it did for Salman Rushdie. By making the right noises about tolerance, peaceful protest and free speech. But also - shamefully, stupidly, cravenly - by itself proposing to restrict that right, in an ill-considered, ill-drafted bill to bar "incitement to religious hatred". Among the motives behind the reintroduction of this already once rejected bill in Labour's last election manifesto were appeasement of some self-appointed spokespersons of the Muslim community in Britain and transparent political opportunism - as the distinguished human-rights lawyer and Liberal Democrat peer Anthony Lester observes in an excellent book prepared by English PEN (Free Expression is No Offence, edited by Lisa Appignanesi); he says that the bill was introduced as "a targeted bid to woo British Muslim support for New Labour in marginal constituencies where hostility to the illegal invasion of Iraq had alienated many Muslim and other potential voters from Labour to the Liberal Democrats".
Islam is fundamentallly illiberal and hostile to a free society. Islam's core beliefs are not compatible with a free society. Why disarm ourselves by pretending otherwise? How dare a Western government threaten to jail anyone who speaks their mind about Islam.
In Britain Labour Party MP Ann Cryer commissioned a report that found Pakistani Muslims engage in high rates of consanguineous marriage.
The report, commissioned by Ann Cryer, revealed that the Pakistani community accounted for 30 per cent of all births with recessive disorders, despite representing 3.4 per cent of the birth rate nationwide.
It is estimated that more than 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, resulting in an increasing rate of genetic defects and high rates of infant mortality. The likelihood of unrelated couples having the same variant genes that cause recessive disorders are estimated to be 100-1. Between first cousins, the odds increase to as much as one in eight.
In Bradford, more than three quarters of all Pakistani marriages are believed to be between first cousins. The city's Royal Infirmary Hospital has identified more than 140 different recessive disorders among local children, compared with the usual 20-30.
This is all a recipe for societal decay.
People who in-breed effectively are constructing their own mini-society within the larger society. They feel less loyalty to government and fellow citizens.
This brings to mind Phil Rushton's new report on how genetic distance affects feelings of group loyalty and patriotism.
Research showing how genes affect group loyalty and patriotism was published in the October 2005 issue of Nations and Nationalism, an academic journal of the London School of Economics.
Entitled "Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology, and genetic similarity theory," it shows how genetic similarity provides "social glue" in groups as small as two spouses and best friends or in those as large as nations and alliances.
The evidence comes from studies of identical and non-identical twins, adopted and non-adopted children, blood tests, social assortment, heritabilities, family bereavements, and large-scale population genetics.
For example, identical twins grieve more for their co-twin than do non-identical twins. And, family members grieve more for children who resemble their side of the family than they do their spouse's side.
Also, spouses who are more genetically similar have longer and more satisfying marriages.
Based on their DNA, two randomly chosen individuals from the same ethnic group are found to be as related as first cousins.
Thus, two random people of English ancestry are the equivalent of a 3/8 cousin compared to people from the Near East; a 1/2 cousin by comparison with people from India; and like full cousins by comparison with people from China.
The study's author, J. Philippe Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario said, "This explains why people describe themselves as having "ties of blood" with members of their own ethnic group, who they view as "special" and different from outsiders; it explains why ethnic remarks are so easily taken as 'fighting words.'"
Here's an important point:
Human social preferences, like mate choice and ethnic nepotism, are anchored in the evolutionary psychology of altruism. Adopting a "gene's eye" point of view allows us to see that people's favoritism to kin and similar others evolved to help replicate shared genes.
People who are more distantly genetically related will behave less altruistically toward each other. Leftists who are for immigration of other races are basically promoting the formation of a society whose members will behave less altruistically at the scale of the entire society. The members of this society will instead be far more nepotistic in giving jobs, promotions, charity, and other help. They'll be more willing to commit crimes against strangers since strangers will be more genetically distant from them.
All the multi-cultural blather will not change how people see each other:
The paper described the group-identification processes as innate--part of the evolved machinery of the human mind. Even very young children make in-group/out-group distinctions about race and ethnicity in the absence of social learning.
Want to live in a more balkanized society split up by genetic groups? That's what current immigration patterns are driving us toward.
I found it very curious that upper class Indians are claimed in this press release to be genetically closer to Europeans than to lower class Indians.
For example, YouGov asked respondents how loyal they feel towards Britain. As the figures in the chart show, the great majority say they feel "very loyal" (46 per cent) or "fairly loyal" (33 per cent) but nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent, feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.If these findings are accurate, and they probably are, well over 100,000 British Muslims feel no loyalty whatsoever towards this country.
The proportion of men who say they feel no loyalty to Britain is more than three times the proportion of women saying the same.
For more on British Muslim loyalty problems see here.
For more on cousin marriage and its importance in understanding politics and societies see my posts "Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development" and "John Tierney On Cousin Marriage As Reform Obstacle In Iraq" and "Consanguineous Marriage Perpetuates Violence In Muslim Mindanao" and "Endless Supply Of Brothers And Cousins Fuels Iraq Insurgency". If you want to understand the world understand consanguinity and genetics. The human race will suddenly make a lot more sense. Though probably your view of the human race's future will become more pessimistic. Also see Steve Sailer's article "Cousin Marriage Conundrum". Also see Steve's post "Corruption's Correlates". The Consang.net has a Global Prevalence map which demonstrates once again that a picture is worth a thousand words.
First cousin marriages also lower IQ by a few points on average, which Arabs can't afford. One study found a seven point depression in IQ, but other studies point to maybe half that. In any case, it's one reason that IQs among Caucasian Muslims are lower on average than among other Caucasians.
Of course, this has major implications for the question of the day about why Muslim immigrants aren't integrating into European societies, with everybody who is anybody denouncing European racism. But if the Muslims force their daughters to marry their cousins from the Old Country, they aren't going to engage in the most effective form of integration: inter-ethnic marriage.
A racial group is a partly inbred extended family. Due to cousin marriage, Muslims are particularly inbred within particularly limited extended families, which is a major reason why Muslim cultures are so fractious and integrate so poorly into larger societies.
Moreover, cousin marriage is to be deplored on multiple grounds. It goes hand in hand with arranged marriages, which we in the West despise. White Europeans are supposed to be beating themselves up with guilt right now over their failure to "integrate" Muslims, but arranged cousin marriages are the surest engine for maintaining Muslim ethnocentrism. And, finally, Muslim cousin marriages are a major engine of immigration fraud. Believing in true love, European countries allow their citizens/subjects to bring in their foreign spouses, but these arranged cousin marriages seldom have anything to do with romance, and often everything to do with getting visas for extended family members.
Obviously, European countries need to stop first cousins from marrying. But, that's not the way you're allowed to think about the problem:
"The problem that faces clinicians is how to deliver genetic services without stigmatizing British Pakistanis on the basis of their marriage pattern."
Stigmatization of cousin marriage is exactly what Britain needs, but it won't happen because it's associated with a politically privileged minority group. As we've seen in the U.S., stigmatization can work when a behavior is seen as either being common among the majority (e.g., drunk driving, smoking) or within a non-privileged minority (e.g., cousin marriage was easily stigmatized because it was associated with white hillbillies, who aren't a political force qua hillbillies). But when a form of bad behavior is linked to a privileged minority, such as gangsta rap or illegitimacy is linked with blacks, it is much harder to stigmatize in a multi-culti society.
White leftists are too foolish to act responsibly when non-whites are in their midst. They have status games they need to play and they need to act out their myths. Common sense just goes out the window.
Mr Gaudin’s graphically enhanced point is that Marseilles’ natural borders – steep hills to the north, east and south, with the sea to the west – have forced it to build HLMs, or high-rise council flats, in the city centre. He contrasts this with most French cities, which have housed their poor immigrants in outer-city suburbs – the infamous banlieues – physically and psychologically excluding them from the bourgeois city centres.
But before the Muslim riots Marseilles was losing 5 to 10 cars a night to arson!
As other French cities burst into flames, Marseilles stayed calm. At the peak of the riots, about 35 cars were burnt a night in the city, hardly more than the pre-riots average of 5 to 10 a night.
Marseilles has police no-go zones.
Yet Marseilles is far from an idyll of racial harmony. There are police no-go zones, and police recently discovered a cache of weapons, including machine guns and a rocket launcher, in one such area.
Relative comparisons between decaying societies tend to cause people to underappreciate just how much is going wrong.
EVREUX, France - Three white-haired women stood before the burnt wreckage of their beauty salon, reminiscing about the days when they still felt safe walking the streets of this Normandy town after dark.
"We were happy here," said one of them, an 80-year-old. "Now we're afraid."
Another looked at her watch and reported it was almost 4:30 p.m. the time that school lets out and when this group of older ladies makes sure they're at home, behind locked doors.
Evreux is like many towns in France, with its prim flower beds, its towering stone cathedral and streets left scarred from a night of fury that has changed the way people live.
80 year old ladies shouldn't have to flee from the streets when schools are let out.
A television news executive admitted last week to censoring coverage of the riots for fear of encouraging politicians such as Mr. Le Pen.
Jean-Claude Dassier, the head of the television news service LCI, told a conference in Amsterdam:
"Politics in France is heading to the right, and I don't want right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars."
He fears electoral victory for Jean-Marie Le Pen and his fellow immigration restrictionists.
A Frenchman tells me the French press and internet are being censored (and he was writing on Nov. 10, 2005 so his "last night" was Nov. 9):
Since last night, some anti-islamist websites (as France-Echos, politically far right, that I've already cited here) are unavailable from France (except via the use of proxies).
I'm not in France and have access to France Echos: I noticed there that the forum is still active (posting from foreigners in majority) and that one of the responsible of the website (Francis Percy Blake) carefully avoid to answer to questions about this censorship.
I've requested a friend in France to check for me some websites, and could notice that France-Echos is not the only one censored, but that the most known islamist forum is NOT censored.
National media have announced that violence has greatly decreased this night ("only" 482 cars burned instead of 610). However, in Nice Matin (the newspaper of the French Riviera) they indicate discretly (not on the front page) that the number of cars burned in the department has increased (30 cars) despite the curfew.
I understand that the strategy is to try to limit the competition between cités which is indeed a part of the problem.
Tomorrow, November 11th, is holyday: it's the anniversary of the end of WWI (nov 11, 1918). An islamist group is calling for a huge demonstration on the Champs Elysées (Paris), on Yahoo! News French I could read an article about it, calling it a "call for peace", but this demonstration has, AFAIK, not yet been allowed. Reminder: Islamists were first beginning to prepare an independant demonstration for saturday afternoon, but after that have decided to rally the demonstration of friday whose original aim was "for Palestine and in memory of Yasser Arafat". The Parisian Police has forbidden the detail sale of oil.
The analysis of what appears on AFP shows that the official culprit of these riots are "racism" (of course: only the racism of whites) and "discrimination". Sarkozy has requested that foreigners condemned would be forbidden to stay in France, but the left is against, and SOS Racisme (a socialist association) has intended a complaint at the Conseil d'Etat for illegality.
And a proof of the censorship in a newspaper as important as Liberation (the 2nd after Le Monde) has been found: http://www.acmedias.org/B473.asp
Again, from a Frenchman on the manipulation of the public by the press:
In short: last wednesday, some "youths" had attacked a bus, spread petrol in it, and put it on fire. A disabled woman was in the bus, unable to leave the bus alone, and she tells that the youths spread petrol directly on her. Fortunately, the bus driver came back to help her, and she is just severely burned, alive.
At first, the media tried to avoid this affair: it would give a "bad image" of the rioters, and they want to "appease the tensions". However, on friday evenning, France 3 (a part of the national TV group France Television) diffused a interview of 2 daughters of this woman (according to the newspaper "Le Figaro", she has 3 daughters). These two girls are, as their mother, whites, Europeans, and one looks like a lot her mother.
A few hours after, TF1 (private TV) and France 2 (another of the group) diffused their interview of the daughter of this woman: an arabic islamist girl...
Sure, it is possible that this woman has really 3 daughters, and that one of these is Arabic and Islamist: I do not know. But it is very surprising: in such situations, France 2 should use the France 3 images, because of synergy in the group, the competition is against TF1.
So, even if it is all regular, that this woman has 3 daughters, one being an arabic islamist, that France 2 with 24 hours late decided to find the daughter of this woman, and film her, even if there is nothing behind, that it's just genuine journalism, it fits so much with the current propaganda that Islam has nothing to do with riots that it is surprising. An extraordinary luck, I would say.
You can't trust the press.
LEIDEN, Netherlands -- As Prof. Afshin Ellian arrived at Leiden University law school one day recently, two bodyguards hustled him through the entrance and past the electronically locked doors leading to his office. For the rest of the day, the men stood sentry outside those doors, scanning the hallways for any sign of the people who want him dead.
Ellian is one of a soaring number of Dutch academics, lawmakers and other public figures who have been forced to accept 24-hour protection or go into hiding after receiving death threats from Islamic extremists. In a country with a tradition of robust public debate and an anything-goes culture, the fear of assassination has rattled society and forced people such as Ellian to reassess whether it's worth it to express opinions that could endanger their lives.
While France embraced the "Proposition Nation" approach favored by neoconservative intellectuals the Netherlands just as enthusiastically embraced and celebrated the multiculturalism advocated by leftist intellectuals. Well, both approaches failed.
One of the many Dutch political figures, academics, and public intellectuals who are living under political protection is Somalia born Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali's police protection is so extensive that her neighbors are suing the Dutch government and her apartment building owner for all the impositions they suffer as a result.
One neighbour, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "It is crack-pot. The security guards drive out of the parking garage with squealing tyres - in the middle of a residential area. The guards walk around day and night, and a car with the engine running is constantly stationed outside our window. I've had enough".
Of course Hirsi Ali hears all those same noises and can never escape from them by moving.
PARIS -- Dutch police arrested a known teen-age extremist Friday and six other suspects for allegedly plotting to assassinate Dutch politicians and to attack the headquarters of the Dutch intelligence service, authorities said.
The group, they said, has links to a cell broken up last year after the Nov. 2 assassination of Theo Van Gogh, an outspoken filmmaker and descendant of the artist Vincent Van Gogh.
THE HAGUE - A Dutch terrorism suspect arrested in October allegedly hoped to shoot down an El Al airliner at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, a television program reported Friday, citing police and secret service documents.
Samir Azzouz, 19, was one of seven suspects arrested in four Dutch cities on Oct. 14 on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack.
Azzouz, one of almost one million Moslems who are roughly six percent of the country’s population, allegedly recruited two Federal Express workers at the Schiphol airport to give him information on the airline's landing and take-off patterns.
We should not have to have our societies disrupted, our politicians and intellectuals living under bodyguard protection, and our people killed by terrorists. How about a practical solution?
A few years back Ward Connerly tried and to get his Racial Privacy Initiative passed in California as a ballot referendum. The initiative would have outlawed government collection of racial identity information on the theory that the less the government knew about racial identity the less it could implement racial preferences. Well, in France estimates of how well racial groups do are all pretty speculative because the government either does not collect or refuses to publish by race breakdowns of school performance, incarceration rates, unemployment rates, average income, and assorted other measures. One can come across articles claiming that, for example, 70% of the people French prisons are of Arab Muslim and black Muslim extractions or that the French military is anywhere from 10% to 23% Muslim. But these are all rough estimates by people who are eyeballing particular institutions. France does not have the huge bodies of statistical evidence by race that the United States has.
France's attempt at racial blindness has failed at preventing race from becoming a big political issue and it has failed to make all races and ethnic groups perform equally well. This has become a political problem and the French government started making noises about implementing racial preferences even before the riots by Muslim ethnic groups. Perhaps the French government moved so slowly to put down the riots in part because the government wanted to use the riots to build support for a racial preferences system by using the riots to illustrate the depth of France's problems with certain immigrant groups.
Now, consider that France fancies itself a nation founded on an abstract set of ideas rather than on joint membership in an in-breeding ethnic group. So France is a "Proposition Nation" of the sort that neoconservative intellectuals want to turn America into.
Nobody in Fajullah hates anybody more than the WSJ Propositionists hate the French. James Taranto of the WSJ, for example, recently insinuated that 3,000 French people hadn't really died in the August heat wave—the Frogs probably just made it up because 3,000 Americans died on 9/11!
The irony, and it's an instructive one, is that France has officially sported a Proposition Nation ideology for 200 years. To any passing Martian, it would look almost identical to the one advocated by Taranto and Co.
Pro-immigration neoconservative intellectuals argue for granting membership in the American polity based upon a common embrace of beliefs about freedom and democracy. Since the pro-mass immigration neocons argue that nearly everyone in the world loves freedom and democracy (really, I'm not making this up) basically they see the whole world as proto-Americans trapped under the rule of corrupt small elites running un-American governments. In the neocon view these downtrodden oppressed folks are all just waiting to get free and start respecting everyone's rights to freedom of religion, speech, property, etc. However,as Steve Sailer points out France embraced the "Proposition Nation" idea for hundreds of years before the neocons showed up and France's highly meritocratic and racially blind "Proposition Nation" failed to assimilate and make successes out of their North African and sub-Saharan African immigrants.
The standard neocon response to immigration, clearly seen for example in a derivative thinker like Tamar Jacoby, is that mass immigration would be all hunky-dory if it weren't for those evil leftist intellectuals (probably of French descent) who seduce innocent immigrants into identity politics, affirmative action, etc.
But France shows that you can follow all the convenient neocon ideas and still have minority groups rioting in the streets.
Of course, the French won't be allowed to discuss any effective solutions for their problem—such as the push-pull plan to encourage Muslim emigration I outlined on Sunday.
Instead, respectable opinion is telling the French that they must impose affirmative action quotas on themselves. (Indeed, that was the plan of supposed tough-guy Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy all along.)
And, of course, free speech—never France’s strong point—will have to be replaced by “anti-hate” laws to suppress the inevitable native protests, especially when affirmative action is seen to be failing.
Not for the first time on VDARE.COM, we see that diversity is not strength. It’s weakness—the subversion of hard-won liberal principles (quotas are incompatible withfreedom of association and equality before the law). And, back of that, it’s rioting in the streets.
The neconservative "Proposition Nation" theory fails in empirical practice. But the neocons are, as they continually demonstrate, unempirical ideologues. They are promoting false and harmful myths about human nature. They are wrong on immigration. They are wrong on foreign policy.
French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered the expulsion of all foreigner caught carrying out attacks in the on-going riots.
"I have asked prefects that foreigners here legally or illegally, who have been convicted (over the unrest) be expelled without delay from our territory," he said of the top government officials who oversee France's 96 administrative districts.
Unfortunately most of the rioters have not been caught. Also, the total number arrested only runs into a few thousand and some of those have French citizenship.
Mr Sarkozy told MPs that non-French nationals - "not all of whom are here illegally" - had been convicted of taking part in the attacks.
"I have asked the prefects to deport them from our national territory without delay, including those who have a residency visa," he said.
This is a small step in the right direction. But why didn't the French government act more promptly to impose curfews and call out the military to put down the riots?
J'ai demandé aux préfets que les étrangers, qui sont en situation régulière ou irrégulière, qui ont fait l'objet d'une condamnation, soient expulsés sans délai de notre territoire, y compris ceux qui ont un titre de séjour", a-t-il précisé."Quand on a l'honneur d'avoir un titre de séjour, le moins que l'on puisse dire c'est que l'on n'a pas à se faire arrêter en train de provoquer des violences urbaines", a ajouté le ministre.
Thanks to "Invisible Scientist" for the tip.
Villepin said discrimination is a "daily and repeated infringement of our national ideals."
"These discriminations have a considerable cost for our community," he said. "They deprive our country of talent, and the determination to succeed like others. They feed - notably in the young - frustration and the feeling of not belonging to the national community."
Now that whitey has been fingered as the villain in this piece of political street theater France is going to embrace racial preferences with a vengeance.
While Villepin points to foreign-sounding names as indicators which French businesses use to discriminate he offers no explanation for why, say, Vietnamese immigrants in France are not mostly living in lower class ghettoes and not filling up French prisons. Villepin wants no truck with the idea that the reasons some groups do poorly lie with those groups. The French like to think they are different in some special way from Americans. But they repeat all of our mistakes.
Sarkozy's small scale deportations will matter far less in the long run than Villepin's racial preferences racket.
On Sunday night, vandals burned more than 1,400 vehicles, and clashes around the country left 36 police injured, setting a new high for overnight arson and violence since rioting started last month, national police chief Michel Gaudin told a news conference.
Attacks overnight Sunday to Monday were reported in 274 towns and police made 395 arrests, Gaudin said. The Justice Ministry said Monday that 27 people had been convicted in fast-track trials since the beginning of the unrest.
What percentage of those arrested have French citizenship?
So far there have been only isolated reports of wanton violence beyond France's borders -- five cars set on fire in Berlin on Sunday night and six in the western German city of Bremen. In Brussels, five cars were also set alight on Sunday.
In the Netherlands, where almost 20 percent of the population is of foreign descent, the riots in France are also being closely monitored.
Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France said.
My guess is these religious groups are going to get government money in exchange for these groups taking measures to enforce of the peace. The government will probably partially surrender sovereignty in some neighborhoods in exchange for Muslim militant groups preventing further riots. But can the purchased groups rein in the gangs?
Two French police were shot and the destruction of property is increasingly accompanied by physical assaults as well.
Local police commander Bernard Franio said: "This is real, serious violence - not like the previous nights. I'm very worried because this is mounting."
In Grigny, south of the capital, rioters fired on police with pellet guns or hunting rifles late yesterday, national police spokesperson Patrick Hamon said.
In time the Muslim gangs will smuggle in more guns and also learn how to build improvised explosive devices. Will the French put down the rioting before it starts to mature into something more deadly?
The New York Times reports that the rioters have begun building improvised explosives.
Most people said they sensed that the escalation of the past few days had changed the rules of the game: besides the number of attacks, the level of destruction has grown sharply, with substantial businesses and public buildings going down in flames. Besides the gunfire on Sunday, residents of some high-rise apartment blocks have been throwing steel boccie balls and improvised explosives at national riot police officers patrolling below.
The French police had better start buying heavily armoured vehicles.
Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''
The French government will try hard to buy the peace. I expect backroom deals involving money and an unofficial system of declaring some areas off limits to French police in exchange for Muslim militant groups keeping the peace in those areas in ways that do not involve arson. Of course women in those areas will continue to be required to wear hijabs or risk rape or stabbing or other forms of assault. I also expect the French government to adopt a racial preferences system to discriminate against whites and for Muslims.
Update: A French correspondent points to a French language analysis of the fatwah against violence (anyone read French?) which he says shows the fatwah argues against indiscriminate violence by referencing Koran verses arguing for jihad and for attacks against Jews. So leading Muslims in France are for jihad. This is hardly surprising. Anyone who knows French want to go read that post and report back what it says? Even better yet, anyone want to translate it into English?
The Europeans need not wait like deer caught in headlights and watch their societies deteriorate under the demographic weight of hostile Muslims. Steve Sailer offers a modest proposal: The Muslims should be paid to leave.
Which brings us to the unmentionable alternative solution that Peter Brimelow has just pointed out in his Why Not (Muslim) Emigration?: A more practical approach than "fashioning a national identity that will connect” etc. etc would be to have the disaffected simply leave.
Start by deporting all the rioters who get caught by the police. I bet the rioting would calm down very rapidly as the news got around that rioting was a one-way ticket out of France.
A push-pull policy could be very effective in getting Muslims to go away. European countries should combine the push of a crackdown on welfare and crime with the pull of a buy-out offer. Returning to the Old Country with a sizable nest egg would be alluring to many who haven't assimilated into the European middle class.
Steve proposes a buy-out program.
Offer Muslim residents, say, $25,000 each to go away. Permanently.
The cost may seem high. But it is a lot cheaper than war and a lot cheaper than funding the welfare and prison and other costs of having large, growing, and hostile subpopulations eating at the foundations of your society. Also, the money paid would put an end to being-hit-on-the-head lessons.
I do not see why people who do not have permanent legal residency would need to get bought out. Illegals and temporary workers could just get rounded up and escorted to air flights. A bounty could be offered to legal citizens to pay them for turning in illegals. Even legal residents could get deported without payment if the governments in Europe wanted to get cheap about it. In the econo version the buy-outs payments could be offered only to Muslim citizens. Buy their citizenship back from them.
First the Europeans need to end all immigration from Muslim countries and to stop processing applications for asylum, legal residency, and citizenship from those countries. Also, births to people who are non-citizens should not automatically bestow citizenship on the babies. Then aggressively round up and deport all illegals. Then buy out the citizenship of anyone who will sell their citizenship. Then deport them.
Europeans, like Americans, need to look real hard into themselves and ask themselves how much they like or even love their own societies. If their love of their own societies burns strongly enough then they ought to take the needed steps to remove those who hate the very things they love.
The assiduously courted invasion usually rests on a curious idealism that I find hard to credit in adults. The notion is that we are all just people, brothers under the skin, that all we need is love and understanding, black and white together, kum bah ya; only a few reactionary forces need to be stilled to bring about universal bliss. This happy thought doesn’t surprise me among students in high school. Politicians aren’t.
Has no one noticed that diversity doesn’t work? Putting together peoples with little in common begs for trouble, usually with success. It is the chief source of the world’s bloodshed and enmity.
Look around you. Start with Canada, where the Brits and French detest each other. Drop down to the USA, where black, white, and brown wait uneasily for no one is sure what; the lid is held on by Washington, which acts as a sort of federal Tito. There are Hindus and Moslems in India, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, blacks and whites in South Africa, Moslems and Buddhists in Thailand, Turks and Germans in Germany, Vietnamese and Montagnards in Vietnam, Moslems and animists in the Sudan, Jews and Moslems in Israel, Cambodians and Vietnamese in Cambodia, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Indians and Mexicans in Chiapas, Basques and Spaniards in Spain, Indians and Fijians in Fiji.
But what have facts to do with foreign relations? It is much more entertaining to base policy on adolescent theories and see what happens.
Actually, adolescents are more realistic about human nature. You have to go off to college to get brainwashed by tenured fools with the really immature and stupid theories about human nature. Read Fred's whole essay.
Update II: Theodore Dalrymple says Western intellectuals have promoted assumptions that inevitably lead Muslims to conclude that their poorer performance in Western societies is the fault of the everyone but Muslims.
The evidence of Muslims’ own eyes and of their own lives, as well as that of statistics, is quite clear: Muslim immigrants and their descendants are more likely to be poor, to live in overcrowded conditions, to be unemployed, to have low levels of educational achievement, and above all to be imprisoned, than other South Asian immigrants and their descendants. The refusal to educate females to their full capacity is a terrible handicap in a society in which, perhaps regrettably, prosperity requires two household incomes. The idea that one is already in possession of the final revealed truth, leading to an inherently superior way of life, inhibits adaptation to a technically more advanced society. Even so, some British Muslims do succeed (the father of one of the London bombers owned two shops, two houses, and drove a new Mercedes)—a fact which their compatriots interpret exactly backward: not that Muslims can succeed, but that generally they can’t, because British society is inimical to Muslims.
In coming to this conclusion, young Muslims would only be adopting the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism don’t even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups themselves might account for differences in outcomes.
As long as Western intellectuals insist upon promoting false assumptions about human nature the West is going to continue to head down the road of cultural suicide. Reject the left liberal falsehoods about human nature. Reject the lies. Turn away from collective societal suicide. Our civilization is worth saving.
AUBERVILLIERS, France -- Marauding youths torched nearly 900 vehicles, stoned paramedics and burned a nursery school in a ninth night of violence that spread from Paris suburbs to towns around France, police said Saturday. Authorities arrested more than 250 people overnight _ a sweep unprecedented since the unrest began.
Unrest, mainly arson, was reported in the northern city of Lille, in Toulouse in the southwest and in the Normandy city of Rouen. It was the second night that troubles spread beyond the difficult Paris suburbs.
So far we aren't seeing either organized small arms attacks or use of improvised explosive devices, at least not that I've seen mentioned. If either of those forms of attacks start happening then that'll be a very ominous turn of events. So far we are just seeing lots of angry north African Muslim Arab youths rioting and asserting control of their turf (which they mostly are already accustomed to controlling).
The north African Arab Muslim gangs are moving outside of their neighborhoods to attack less defended non-Muslim neighborhoods.
Thursday night into Friday morning, the violence spread to other parts of France for the first time. Attacks and fires were reported in Normandy on the northwest coast, Dijon in the central Burgundy region and Provence in the far south.
Firefighters are tired from the continous fires.
The French government has deployed 1,300 riot police in the streets of troubled communities. It has dispatched firefighters from around the Paris region to relieve their suburban counterparts, exhausted from the nightly demands of chasing hundreds of blazes.
In Baghdad a continuing story has been the attacks on vehicles on their way to the airport and the inability of the US military to totally stop these attacks. Well, the trains that run between Paris and the Charles de Gaulle International Airport pass through Muslim neighborhoods and the Muslims are attacking the airport trains.
Two trains connecting Paris and the airport were attacked Thursday, prompting engineers to run only one in five trains on Friday, rail officials said. The U.S. Embassy warned travelers Friday against taking trains to the airport, calling conditions in the troubled areas "extremely violent."
Imagine that. Muslim rebels could cut Paris off from international air travel.
The violent outbursts have been particularly sensitive for Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, who has advocated more rights for immigrants and has proposed changes in French law that would allow government buildings to be used as mosques. But he also has ordered major crackdowns on crime in poor communities where residents say police often harass them needlessly.
In an interview published in the newspaper Le Parisien Wednesday, Sarkozy said some of France's poorest towns are under "the rule of gangs, of drugs and of traffickers." He insisted his crime-fighting techniques would use both "firmness and justice."
A correspondent who is a French citizen tells me Sarkozy is not the firm defender of law and order that he pretends to be.
Sarkozy only speaks, rarely acts (and it's probably better like this). His nickname gives a very quick idea of how he is considered: "Sarkozislamist". Many people wonder if he is a "sous-marin" ("submarine" = someone acting for someone else undercover) of the Islamists.
To give you an idea of Sarkozy's way of dealing with problems: a few years ago, polls showed that "insecurity" had become a major concern for French people. By "insecurity" they meant: the fact that you cannot go in certains areas, that when you park your car you have a high risk of finding it destroyed when returning, that burglary is on the rise, etc. The Government told they had "understood the strong message from the population", and Sarkozy developed the concept of "road insecurity". So, as French were concerned with insecurity, they moved policemen out of dangerous area to the road side to control if people did not drive too fast, if they had fasten their security belt, etc. And he could announce a huge success in his "fight against insecurity"...
This French correspondent also says that the real differences between Villepin and Sarkozy are exaggerated.
The opposition between both is exaggerated by media on any affair, and for these riots, they are positioning themselves on opposite points. While Sarkozy uses strong words and speak about Republican Law, Villepin is trying to give an image of himself as compassionate, and is willing to give advantages to Muslims.
But actually, these are no more than words. When Sarkozy speak about being strong, he is not at all, and he has not done anything to put in practice what he tells.
Another problem with Sarkozy is that he is the one who has given a huge political power to Islamist by creating an official Muslim Organization.
Why hasn't the French government called out their Army to restore order? One possible reason for reticence: A substantial number of French Army soldiers are Muslims and their loyalty is in doubt.
A large chunk of France's ethnic immigrants come from the country's former North African colonies. Many have failed to break away from low-income housing projects, and experts say they are often marginalized in terms of educational opportunities and jobs.
Today, these ethnic immigrants represent between 10-20 percent of French soldiers, a figure that is growing, the French Institute report notes.
The French government tries to hide data about crime rates by race and other race-related information. So it is hard to know how many French soldiers are Muslim. I recently came across a claim that 23% of French military recruits are Muslim. Anyone come across better information on the ethnic make-up of the French military? That correspondent says the Muslim recruits are rebellious and religious and cultural clashes routinely play out in French military barracks. But a recent report by a French research institute improbably claims that the North Africans in the French military are just as patriotic toward France as are Frenchmen.
M. Bertossi reported that beur soldiers feel "just as patriotic as the rest" and are especially motivated in the struggle against terrorism, which they see as a slur on Islam. But the loyalty of the French-Islamic troops was "constantly questioned" by their officers and comrades.
While some Muslims undoubtedly feel the way Bertossi claims quite a few do not. I bet top French policy makers have doubts about whether French Army Muslim soldiers would obey orders if sent out to restore order in the Muslim suburbs around Paris.
The Brussels Journal web log has a lot of coverage of the effects of Muslim immigration on European society. The French government also doesn't want to call out the Army because to do so would be an admission of the scale of the problem.
The latter, however, is unlikely to happen. If the politicians bring in the army they are acknowledging what the policemen, the fire fighters and the ambulance drivers know but what the political and media establishment wants to hide from the people: that there is civil war brewing and that Europe is in for a long period of armed conflict. This is the last thing appeasing politicians want to do and so they have begun to criticise Sarkozy.
Of course by failing to quickly and ruthlessly put down the rebellion the French government is allowing it to spread so that it really ends up looking far larger. French media censorship can not hide all this from the French public.
That previous post also relays reports about "no-go" zones in Belgian and Swedish cities where Muslim immigrant groups keep out fire fighters, rescue vehicles, and even police.
Paris-based Iranian writer Amir Taheri reports that some Muslims want to create their own local sovereignties free from French sovereign government control.
Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.
The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.
"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
This is the logical end result of immigration of incompatible religious and ethnic groups combined with multi-culturalism: the Balkanization or Lebanonization of a society.
The number of cars torched overnight - 1,295 across France - was the highest since the violence began Oct. 27, France-Info radio and other French media reported. Police, who earlier put the number at 918, did not immediately confirm the figure.
The night before, 900 vehicles were burned throughout the country.
By one measure the rioting is definitely spreading. Over half the burning cars Saturday night were not near Paris.
The number of cars torched overnight - 918 across France - was the highest yet since the unrest began Oct. 27. Of the cars burned, 545 were outside of the Paris region, the Interior Ministry said. The night before, 900 vehicles were burned across the country.
The count of overnight arson attacks, still incomplete, could rise further, the police said Sunday, adding that it did not include shops, gymnasiums, nursery schools and other targets attacked by bands of youths.
Overall, the intelligence chief expressed doubt that there was much coordination among the marauding gangs in different towns or regions.
"In this era of Internet, text-messages, cellphones and television, everybody knows what's going on," said the chief, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons. "The coordination comes mainly from the information revolution. The methods are similar because their social class is similar…. I don't justify it at all, but there is an element of social demand here, of social distress. The message is: Our life is [expletive], so we are going to destroy everything."
Claude Chevallier, manager of the smouldering carpet depot, sees breakdown all around -- "on the family level, in schools and in civic life. Many youths have never seen their parents work and couldn't hold down a job if they got one."
Meanwhile six youths, all aged under 18, were last night arrested in a raid on a building in Evry, south of Paris, during which more than 100 bottles, gallons of fuel and hoods for hiding rioters' faces were also found.
The government has been embarrassed by its inability to quell the disturbances, which have called into question its unique integration model, which discourages recognizing ethnic, religious or cultural differences in favor of French unity. There is no affirmative action, for example, and religious symbols, like the Muslim veil, are banned in schools.
"The republican integration model, on which France has for decades based its self-perception, is in flames," the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung declared. An editorial in Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung called the violence around Paris an "intifada at the city gates," a reference to the anti-Israeli uprising by Palestinians.
I expect to see France embrace racial preferences for Arabs and black Africans. The preferences will become a substantial tax on French businesses. But first the French need to find a way to stop the rioting. Deportations of rioters would be effective. But I do not think the French will do that.
The week of riots in poor neighbourhoods outside Paris, which has spread to 20 towns, has been well covered by the international media.
Not so for Århus, Denmark.
“Nothing of it has penetrated to the English-language sections of Danish media,” laments the Viking Observer.
The Observer took the trouble to translate into English the following from Danish Jyllands-Posten:“Rosenhoj Mall has several nights in a row been the scene of the worst riots in Århus for years. “This area belongs to us,” the youths proclaim. Sunday evening saw a new arson attack.
As long as the rioters do not start building improvised explosive devices to start killing people I expect the French elite will choose appeasement as their top response. Though if the French electorate gets mad enough the National Front could make big enough electoral gains to make more punitive policy responses such as deportations possible. But my guess is that Western Europe is not ready to turn away from demographic suicide.
In France, about 70 percent of immigrants and their second- and third-generation offspring are Arabs from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia; recent years have also seen influxes of black Africans from former French colonies even farther south.
One significant change, is that until a decade or so ago, immigrants proudly referred to themselves as ''French Arabs," ''French Algerians," ''French Moroccans," and so on. Today, in a sign of alienation, they typically call themselves ''Muslims," taking religion, often the radical brand, as their strongest identity.
Their identities are shifting away from feelings of being French. Well, if they do not see themselves as French then deportation won't exactly remove them from their French homeland, now will it?
French Muslim youths who blame the French police for the deaths of a couple of deaths of two of their number continued rioting for the sixth straight night as the riots spread to additional areas.
Dozens of vehicles and garbage cans were set on fire as youth gangs and police clashed for a sixth night in poor suburbs ringing the eastern side of Paris.
Hundreds of police patrolled Clichy-sous-Bois, where the riots broke out, after two teenagers of African origin were electrocuted and a third critically injured while reportedly hiding from police within the walls of an electrical sub-station last Thursday. Police deny the allegation.
He admits belonging to a group that is sometimes a bit "chaud" - meaning troublesome - a hint at the unrest of the past few days.
He describes the nightly presence of the CRS, the French riot police, as provocation.
"If they didn't come here, into our area, nothing would happen," he says. "If they come here it's to provoke us, so we provoke back."
How dare the police think they have a right to patrol a neighborhood during a riot. You'd think the police see themselves as legitimate enforcers of the law and that the police see the laws of their own society as applying to everyone.
"The law must be firmly applied and in a spirit of dialogue and respect," government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope quoted Chirac as telling the weekly cabinet meeting.
Apply the law in a spirit of dialogue? The "dialogue" has to get pretty physical with rioters. Imagine the French cops saying to rioters "I respectfully bash you to the ground and hope you will respectfully respond by staying down and groaning".
Cope is worried about an "escalation of disrespect".
"The absence of dialogue and escalation of disrespect would lead to a dangerous situation. There cannot be 'no-go' areas in the republic," Cope told reporters.
Too late Mr. Cope. France has had no-go areas dominated by north African Muslim Arabs for years.
France now has spokesmen for poorly behaved ethnic groups who defend the right of their groups to burn cars and riot without getting insulted in response.
Squabbling broke out within Villepin's government when Equal Opportunities Minister Azouz Begag openly criticised Sarkozy for calling the protesting youths "scum".
"I talk with real words," Sarkozy fired back in an interview in the daily Le Parisien. "When someone shoots at policemen, he's not just a 'youth', he's a lout, full stop."
Politicians in America are under tighter taboo rules about what can be spoken aloud than those in France. But the taboo enforcers are gathering strength in France as well.
Note that France has an "Equal Opportunities Minister" and that minister has a name that denotes a non-French origin. France, like Brazil, is in the process of implementing racial preferences to discriminate against whites and for other racial and ethnic groups. This will fail to improve performance of the lower performing groups just as it has failed in the United States.
When groups need preferences that's a sign that immigration policy should be adjusted to keep out those groups. The French like to argue their society is superior to American society in various ways. However, through immigration policy the French have now inflicted upon themselves higher crime, riots, no-go areas in cities, racial preferences, and religious conflict.
Also see my previous posts "Theodore Dalrymple on French Ghettoes", "Guy Milliere says France No Longer A Western Country", and "Muslim Veils, Marking Territory, Broken Windows".
In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women?
If people think Western ways are so corrupt that they'd kill their daughter for following these ways then why are these people allowed to live in the West?
Hatin's crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family's adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men. For her family, such behavior represented the ultimate shame -- the embrace of "corrupt" Western ways. Days after the crime, police arrested her three brothers, ages 25, 24 and 18. The youngest of the three allegedly bragged to his girlfriend about the Feb. 7 killing. At her funeral, Hakin's Turkish-Kurdish parents draped their only daughter's casket in verses from the Koran and buried her according to Muslim tradition. Absent of course, were the brothers, who were in jail.
German cities have ethnic groups who are living in their own cultures isolated from German society. Communications technology enables cultural cocooning. The melting pot is broken.
The problem is that much of this insular and ultra-religious world is out of public view, often hidden in inner-city apartments where the most influential links to the outside world are satellite dishes that receive Turkish and Arabic television and the local mosque. Tens of thousands of Turkish women live behind these walls of silence, in homes run by husbands many met on their wedding day and ruled by the ever-present verses of the Koran. In these families, loyalty and honor are elevated virtues and women are treated little better than slaves, unseen by society and often unnoticed or ignored by their German neighbors. To get what they want, these women have to run. They have to change their names, their passports, even their hair color and break with the families they often love, but simply can no longer obey.
It is hard to imagine how new laws protecting womens' rights can fix this situation. Most of the women are too afraid to try to break free of their families. Their positions will remain secret from the larger society. Read the whole article. It makes for sober reading.
What is the point of letting in people who isolate themselves and create a society within a society? These Muslims do not come to Germany to join German society. They come to get money while maintaining their own separate and incompatible culture.
A correspondent observes:
Pity Germans don't have the will of the British in India. Sir Charles Napier, conqueror & governor of Sindh (1843-47) and Commander-in-Chief of India (1849-1851) observed:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
A few public hangings would sober up these Islamists rather nicely. Might help with assimilation as well.
Stop Islamic immigration and deport all the Muslims who do not have citizenship. Then start killing those who try to enforce their culture by killing and enslaving their daughters. The Germans should kill (preferably by slow painful and very public means) the parents who order their sons to kill their daughters. When the "international community" complains then they should just say they are expressing their local indigenous culture.
Members of Western societies need to decide that they have cultures and values that are worth defending. They need to decide reject the sort of liberalism that amounts to a cultural suicide pact.
Joel Kotkin argues that unless Western cities take a very aggressive position against potential terrorists that fear will drain their urban centers of populations. Thanks to immigration European cities are following the American pattern of white flight.
Nor is this flight a strictly American phenomenon: Population has been dropping in London, Paris, Hamburg, Milan and Frankfurt. In many of these cities, the only rapidly growing group is immigrants, most of them Muslim, including many who are increasingly recruited by and susceptible to Islamist extremists.
So much for the idea of Muslim immigration as a solution to European demographic problems. Muslim immigration, by causing white flight, contributes to the decline of European cities. The obvious response ought to be to halt the Muslim immigration and deport all the Muslims who are not already citizens. Such a move might save some cities.
Lots of cities in history declined due to violence.
It's too early to tell how businesses or individuals might react if terrorist attacks were to become commonplace. But the historical record isn't promising. Many of the earliest cities of antiquity -- in places as dispersed as Mesopotamia, China, India and Mesoamerica -- shrank and ultimately disappeared after being overrun by more violent but often far less civilized peoples. As is the case today, the greatest damage was often inflicted not by organized states, but by nomadic peoples or even small bands of brigands who either detested urban civilization or had little use for its arts.
A number of older American cities have become shadows of their more glorious pasts. The same fate awaits still other cities as higher crime and lower achieving populations displace the white populations that used to make up their majorities.
A lot of financial services firms are moving away from big concentrated cities in order to reduce the risk of terrorism.
It's easier to measure effects of decisions by financial services firms to shift more of their operations to suburbs and smaller towns, in part because they are less vulnerable to a potential terrorist assault. Jobs that used to be done in Manhattan are migrating to New York's outer suburbs, as well as to places such as Florida. The same has been happening to London. British observers note the steady movement of financial and other high-end service jobs to less vulnerable and less expensive provincial cities, as well as offshore havens in India and other parts of the developing world.
Kotkin notes that the dense and centralized nature of London and New York makes mass transit more feasible for them. But the mass transit then becomes an obvious target of attack due the density of the people on the buses and trains and also due to the dependence of these cities on mass transit.
Kotkin argues that in order to survive cities must abandon multiculturalism for assimilation. But what if a group embraces a religion that makes it incompatible with the larger society? Kotkin also argues for wider scale installation of eletronic surveillance systems and active surveillance of suspected terrorists. He also argues for preventive detention. While that probably won't pass constitutional muster in the United States in Great Britain Parliament has fewer restraints. Though Britain has now placed itself under an EU constitution and it is not clear whether the highest court in the European Union will allow the British government the range of powers that it has exercised in the past.
Demographics matters. America's demographics outlook is grim. Ditto Europe.
Steve Sailer has written a very interesting article about the rise of Amerind (a.k.a. Indian or indigenous peoples) populist political movements in Latin American countries. An example of this phenomenon which has the Bush Administration upset is Hugo Chavez who as President of Venezuela is waging class warfare against middle class and upper class Spanish (i.e. white) people on behalf of the mostly Amerind lower class. Bush supported a failed coup against democratically elected Chavez, thereby demonstrating the limits to Bush's supposed trust in democracy as the panacea to solve the world's ills. The coup failed because the Amerind masses supported Chavez on the streets.
Steve points out that rising Amerind resentment toward whites in Latin American countries and could (and probably will) eventually translate into a similar resentment in the United States. A rising proportion of Mexican and other Latin American immigrants are Amerinds with bottled up resentment of white middle and upper classes.
This anti-white movement in Latin America will likely make the less white Hispanics more resentful and hostile toward non-Hispanic whites in America.
This could set off massive social change.
What is often forgotten is that their grandparents viewed blacks the same way. That's why corporations named famous food brands "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima"—the connotation was that by buying these products, you were virtually partaking of the rich man's luxury of having your own smiling, nodding black cook.
During the Black Pride movement of the 1960s, however, blacks came to resent servant jobs.
And how much can you blame them? There's something that's just not very American about the master-servant relationship.
The downside, of course, was that when blacks turned against their old jobs, many ended up resorting to crime to make money.
Which is why wealthy Americans discovered illegal immigrant Hispanic service workers. They came to assume that it was the natural order of things for whites to command Latinos.
I suspect that the anti-white movements in Latin America will, sooner or later, set off a revulsion among Hispanics in this country against servile jobs roughly similar to the Black Pride reaction of the 1960s.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if, in a generation, wealthy Americans are smugly assuming that their new Indonesian immigrant servants are naturally deferential—unlike those sullen, crime-prone Latinos they had to let go.
And perhaps in two generations, the rich will tell each other that their new Indian Untouchable immigrant servants are born knowing their place, unlike those uppity Indonesians they had to fire.
Perhaps I'll be proved wrong.
But what if I’m not?
Shouldn't we at least be talking about these possibilities?
As always with American’s post 1965 Immigration Disaster: Why are we taking this risk?
I think the development of a large Hispanic servant class is a recipe for turning the political and social culture of the United States into something far more like Latin America's culture than like America's historical culture. We'd be much better off stopping and reversing the illegal alien influx and placing high skills and education requirements for legal immigrants while simultaneously decreasing the total number of legal immigrants.
Business interests in America focused on short term profits oppose attempts to prevent a demographic shift that will be deeply harmful in the long run. At the same time politicians in both parties are more interested in winning the immigrants over to their party than they are in doing what is best for the American people. While the Democratic Party's leaders are correct in seeing the lower class and less educated non-whites as easy recruits the Republicans around Bush are just plain deluded.
In Bolivia the conflict between the indigenous highlands Amerinds led to an indigenous blockade of La Paz which drove the most recent Bolivian President from office. The white Spanish reaction has taken the form of a movement for regional autonomy and even talk of outright secession among the Spaniards.
SANTA CRUZ, BOLIVIA – If Lorgio Balcazar Arroyo has his way, Bolivia will soon have a system of government like the United States.
Mr. Balcazar, from the industrial eastern part of Bolivia, is general manager of the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee, a key organizer behind a controversial referendum on regional autonomy that is scheduled for Aug. 12. Broad dissatisfaction with the central government has led to an independence movement in this industrial boomtown. Leaders here say autonomy would help buttress the area against such volatility in the west as the month-long protests in May that paralyzed the capital and led to the resignation of Bolivia's second president in less than two years.
But as the demands from Santa Cruz gain legitimacy, the rivalry between east and west here is increasingly delineated in racial terms. It's the eastern cambas (European-descended Bolivians) versus the western collas (a term often used to refer to western indigenous people).
At one extreme are groups like the Camba Nation, which calls for independence from the indigenous cultures, described on Camba Nation's website as "slow and miserable" and prone to "conflict and communalism."
Bolivia's current crisis was sparked by the resignation of President Carlos Mesa earlier this month. Mr Mesa's political position became untenable after he opposed a hydrocarbon law calling for a tax on foreign energy companies to be increased from 18% to 50%. Foreign investors in Bolivia, including Britain's BP and BG Group, have invested $3.5bn in the country's gas fields since 1997.
Many among Bolivia's indigenous majority, led by Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, are now demanding the nationalisation of the country's private energy assets as a way out of poverty.
Nearly 75% of Bolivia's 3.9 million indigenous people live below the poverty level, compared to a national average of 53%. Non-indigenous Bolivians, meanwhile, earn more than twice as much as their indigenous compatriots, who collect an average monthly wage of just 513 bolivianos (£35).
Mr. Morales, leader of Bolivia's largest opposition party, the MAS, or Movement Towards Socialism, rose to prominence as the head of Bolivia's coca-growers association, and came a close second in Bolivia's last presidential election in 2002.
In a strange turn, Mr. Morales was himself "blockaded" yesterday, and prevented from entering the city of San Julian in the Santa Cruz region by people still angry at the MAS blockades, which along with achieving their political objectives kept essential supplies from being distributed to ordinary people. The incident ended peacefully.
The United States of America too will develop even deeper splits along ethnic and racial lines if current immigration trends are not stopped. Even if the foreign influx is entirely halted eventually lower class and predominantly Amerind Latin American imimgrants are going to develop greater resentment at their class position in American society. Racial preferences under so-called "Affirmative Action" programs will not make the Amerinds do as well as whites. So America looks set to enter a stage of greater political divisions across racial lines.
As we move further into the 21st century whites may eventually become a market dominant minority ala Amy Chua's World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. For more on this see my previous posts Identity Politics Building Ethnic Conflicts In Latin America and History Of American Interventions Bodes Poorly For Democracy.
The particular edition, however, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," previously was banned by the Los Angeles school district because commentary notes accompanying the text were regarded as anti-Semitic.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has included the edition in the Islamic book-package it offers libraries nationwide and now is giving it away to help "improve America's image" through a program called "Explore the Quran."
They aren't trying to improve America's image. They are trying to recruit more believers to Islam.
Ali's rendering of Surah (Chapter) 2:65 of the Quran, which reads like most English versions, says: "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed. In the matter of the Sabbath; we said to them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
In his corresponding note, Ali says: "There must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing community in a seaside town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were turned into apes."
Under the heading "Jews" in the book's index, is a reference to Surah 5:60, which says: " ... Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some he transformed into apes and swine ... ."
In the index under "Jews" also are these phrases: "cursed," "enmity of," "greedy of life," "slew prophets," "took usury," "unbelief and blasphemy of" and "work iniquity."
The article goes on to discuss whether the interpretive footnotes in this particular translation are within the mainstream of Muslim Koran interpretation. The problem for Jews is not just in the footnotes. The problem is in the original text and the mainstream interpretations of the original text. A lot of Westerners don't seem to be able to get their minds around the idea that beliefs they hold to be extreme are widely accepted in other cultures and religions.
Depicting Jews – and sometimes also Zionists – as "the descendants of apes and pigs" is extremely widespread today in public discourse in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
For example, in a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."
In one of his sermons, Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca – beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."
"Read history," called Al-Sudayyis in another sermon, "and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others'] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race 'whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...' These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."
In a sermon at the Said Al-Jandoul mosque in Al-Taif, Saudi sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi explained that "the qualities of the Jews" were present at all times and in all places: "The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places... is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam – which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam."
In an August 2001 sermon, Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, Palestinian Authority official and imam of the Sheikh Ijlin mosque, Gaza City's main mosque, called on the Palestinian people to forget their internal disagreements and turn all weapons against Jews: "lances must be directed at the Jews, the enemies of Allah, the nation accursed in Allah's book. Allah described [them] as apes and pigs, calf-worshipers, idol-worshippers..."
Seeing Jews as "descendants of apes and pigs" is common also in Shi'ite Islam. Such statements appear, for instance, in a 1998 speech by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of the Shi'ite 'Ashoura holiday. Nasrallah regretted that the holiday fell "on the 50th anniversary of the bitter and distressing historical catastrophe of the establishment of the state of the grandsons of apes and pigs – the Zionist Jews – on the land of Palestine and Jerusalem." He closed his speech with these words: "... We reaffirm the slogan of the struggle against the Great Satan and call, like last year: 'Death to America. To the murderers of the prophets, the grandsons of apes and pigs,' we say: ... 'Death to Israel...'"
These statements are made not only by clerics and preachers. Following their lead, public opinion leaders in the Arab world also call the Jews "the descendants of apes and pigs." The image has pervaded the public consciousness, even in child-rearing. In May 2002, Iqraa, the Saudi-Egyptian satellite television station, which according to its website sets for itself the goals of "highlighting aspects of Arab Islamic culture that inspire respect," "highlighting the true and tolerant picture of Islam and refuting the accusations directed against Islam," and "planting a spirit of mutual understanding and dialogue among members of the nation and opening channels of cultural connection with the cultures of other nations," interviewed a three-and-a-half-year-old "real Muslim girl" about Jews. On "The Muslim Woman Magazine" program, the girl was asked whether she liked Jews; she answered, "no." When asked why she didn't like them, she said that Jews were "apes and pigs." "Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Koran." At the end of the interview, the pleased moderator said: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she... May Allah bless her, her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are children, so that they will be true Muslims."
These people aren't going to change unless they lose faith in Islam. We should stop all Muslim immigration into the United States and Europe and stop pretending that all the religions and cultures of the world are compatible with each other.
Recently Muslim in several countries rioted in response to a Newsweek article claimings Korans were kicked around and flushed down a toilet by Guantanamo interrogators in order to break down Muslim interrogation subjects. Robert Spencer argues for seeing the Muslim response to the report as the biggest problem.
When in April EBay offered a consecrated host for sale, imagine if Catholics had rioted and seventeen people were killed.
The media would have been full of stories about the dark side of the “Christian Right.”
Imagine if, when Muslims desecrated the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus in 2000, destroying it with hammers, rampaging Jewish mobs had killed dozens of Palestinians.
The establishment media response would again have inundated us with stories about the heroic Palestinians and their Israeli oppressors.
Neither of those things really happened. But seventeen people have been killed and hundreds wounded in riots by Muslims since Newsweek published its story about an American interrogator flushing a Qur’an down the toilet at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
Spencer says the biggest problem here is that Muslims in many countries would respond to the Newsweek article by rioting and killing in the first place.
Spencer argues there have been wrong two main reactions to the Newsweek story: First, on Right some argue that Newsweek was irresponsible for running the story and should be blamed for the result. Some make that argument based on the point that the story might not be true. Others go further and say regardless of whether the story is true Newsweek shouldn't have run it because basically we know how those Muslims would react. In this line of thinking the media have an obligation in the war against terrorist, radical Islamic, or whatever we are fighting to not provide material suitable for propaganada.
The second reaction, coming mostly from the Left, argues that we shouldn't have done stuff like reports of prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or the invasion of Iraq or support for Israel or assorted other things that have made Muslims feel aggrieved. This argument assumes moral responsibility rests chiefly on the shoulders of white males or America and that anyone non-European, non-white, or culturally non-Western is either not morally rseponsible for what they do or automatically justified due as a result of victimhood from Western white male oppression.
But both of these reactions are misguided. The Muslim reaction to the Newsweek story - like the Muslim reaction to Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or the Muslims reaction to Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's movie Submission - is radically different than, say, the reaction to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. No one killed Serrano. He didn't have to go under 24 hour a day police protection and go into hiding. The Muslim reaction is an assertion of the moral legitimacy of measures to protect their religion from any and all criticism. That assertion is incompatible with classical Western liberalism and that assertion makes Islam incompatible with Western society.
If the critics of the Bush Administration handling of interrogations at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other sites wanted to state "Well, given that Muslims believe in a religion that asserts its supremancy and demands unversal subservience to Muslim religious claims and given that we need to avoid insulting their illiberal sensitivities in order to fight terrorism we have got to give deference to Islam that it doesn't deserve" then I could see seriously considering their argument. But of course they aren't going to say that.
'This is the ultimate spiritual torture,'' said Muqtedar Khan, a non-resident fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution who studies Islam and world politics. ''If this was done, it is the ultimate blow.''
Think about that. Seriously, should all the people in the world be forced to treat some book as sacred just because the adherents of a single religion claim that noone should be able to mistreat it? This sounds like a global equivalent of the push for a constitutional amendment to ban US flag burning.
Often the wiser course may be to avoid insulting a person's or group's beliefs or values. But if we can't insult some group's beliefs without getting marked for death (e.g. Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh) then we are less free regardless of whether we insult them or not. I don't want to live in a society like Holland where some elected officials live under police protection due to their criticisms of Islam.
By the end of the week, the rioting had spread from Afghanistan throughout much of the Muslim world, from Gaza to Indonesia. Mobs shouting "Protect our Holy Book!" burned down government buildings and ransacked the offices of relief organizations in several Afghan provinces. The violence cost at least 15 lives, injured scores of people and sent a shudder through Washington, where officials worried about the stability of moderate regimes in the region.
"In the United States, if there's a terrible report, people don't riot and kill other people," she said. "And you can't excuse what they did because of the mistake - you know, you can't blame it all on Newsweek."
Differences in values between different cultures are large and in many cases incompatible. Will Laura Bush learn any lessons about incompatible cultures from this episode? If she does will she try to teach them to George?
Azza Basarudin, a UCLA graduate student in Middle Eastern Studies, recently complained that when she bought a used Koran on Amazon.com from Bellwether books she discovered that someone had written "Death to all Muslims" on the inside cover. She reacted to this as if she were being persecuted and complained to the Muslim Public Affairs Council which proceeded to lodge a series of complaints and draw press attention to the incident. Daniel Pipes sees this as another example of Muslims demanding special rights for their religion at the expense of the freedom of the American public at large.
(5) The idea that a Muslim has the right, without proof, to accuse a non-Muslim of blasphemy, as Basarudin and MPAC have done, brings to mind the notorious anti-blasphemy laws in force in Pakistan. There, as the World Council of Churches explained in 2000, those laws "have become a major tool in the hands of extremists to settle personal scores against members of the religious minorities particularly Christians." In the United States, the blasphemy accusation serves as the basis for a Jesse Jackson-like corporate shakedown (note MPAC's demand for Amazon to fund its programming).
(6) That Amazon suspended Bellwether from selling Korans via Amazon is a symbolic punishment rather than a substantive one, but it matters nonetheless. Can one imagine any other book's defacement leading to such a penalty?
(7) This episode is yet another instance of Islamist organizations relentlessly seeking special privileges for Islam. At a time when American Catholics must endure "art" that consists of the crucifix in urine and a Virgin Mary made in part of elephant dung, why should American Muslims be indulged in their exquisite sensibilities? As Stephen Schwartz keeps repeating, if Islam is to flourish in America, it must adapt to America.
Used book reseller Bellwether Books should not be held responsible for what is written inside a used book. When you buy a used book over the web you are taking a very obvious gamble on ripped pages, scrawed comments, highlighting markets, and all the rest. No groups which attempts to elevate an insult written in a book should be able to demand any sort of restitution or donation to its cause by book sellers (as MPAC has predictably tried to do with Amazon). My attitude: Grow a thicker skin or emigrate. If you don't like freedom of speech then leave.
View from the Right blogger Lawrence Auster, respondng to the Pipes article, argues for an even more drastic response to illiberal Islam: Deportation.
Stories like this need to be covered, but the problem is, we can keep writing about these things forever and it will make no essential difference. The curse of having these fanatics in our face will continue. If we don’t want ourselves and all the generations that come after us to have to keep dealing with this stuff, there’s only one answer: initiate a net out-migration of Muslims from the U.S and the West, year after year, until the numbers of those that remain are tiny, their Muslim identity weak, and their power non-existent.
You, Mr. Pipes, want to manage the Muslim problem, a job that will never end and that leaves them in our face, forever. I and the people who think like me want to solve the Muslim problem.
Whether Auster's preferred response is reasonable depends in large part on the nature of Islam. Auster's response will seem illiberal by many. But if the more pessimistic Western interpretations of Islam are correct then toleration of Islam amounts of toleration of intolerance. In my view the Dutch ought to deport every single Muslim who says Theo van Gogh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Rita Verdonk or Job Cohen or Ahmed Aboutaleb deserve to be killed.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian immigrant to the Netherlands who is an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, has renounced Islam. With the slain Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh she made the film Submission which offers a highly critical view of Islam. Radical Muslims in the Netherlands assassinated van Gogh and Hirsi Ali now lives under constant and mostly secluded guard due to numerous death threats she has received from Muslims in the Netherlands. Hirsi Ali advocates a complete stop of Muslim immigration into Europe and in favor of an intellectual revolution in Islam that is in some respects analogous to the outcome of the Protestant Reformation.
Hirsi Ali argues that there is less a problem with migration in general, than with its Muslim component in particular, and that she should know, because she is herself a Muslim migrant. Hopes for a moderate Islam are only meaningful, she argues, if it is possible to chip away the theological brickwork - constructed, she believes, on a foundation of female oppression - which permeates the structure of the religion. But Islam, she says, is unable to endure criticism or change, and is essentially at odds with European values. With up to 20 million Muslims living in the EU, the journey she has taken in the past 16 years from Africa to Europe, from asylum seeker to politician, and from devotion to apostasy, has come to appear central to the story of the crisis of multiculturalism on the continent. This month, Time magazine selected her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world - an odd but remarkable acknowledgement for a 35-year-old Somali who four years ago was unknown, even in the Netherlands.
Note, however, that the early stages of the Protestant Reformation were highly intolerant of anyone who didn't adhere to the dominant Protestant Chuch in each area of Europe where new non-Catholic Churches developed. The Protestant Reformation took centuries to play out. Changes in beliefs have to take place across generations since many people will not change their beliefs as they get older. Therefore while I wish success to those who are trying to reform Islam as a practical matter we have to accept that as things now stand Islam is not compatible with a free Western liberal society. Also, the basic underlying texts of Islam strike me as more problematic for a reformation than the Bible was for Christianity. Islam's texts just leave less wiggle room for a reinterpretation.
The other problem with the prospects for an Islamic reformation is that the Islamic societies just do not have the general level of intellectual ferment that would support an religious intellectual revolution. While I do not have any statistics handy the figures in the past I've seen appallingly low figures on the rate of new books published in Arabic, for example. The Arab countries are not full of readers and thinkers who are eagerly seeking out new ways to look at life, society, and religion. So I don't see how a serious intellectual revolution in Islam could spread in Muslim countries.
Allowing Muslims to immigrate to the West might be justifiable from the standpoint of grand strategy if those Muslims living in the West would start an intellectual movement that would reform all of Islam along more liberal and tolerant lines. But the number of Muslim living in Western societies is already large enough to allow newer and more liberal intellectual strains of Islam to develop. Further Muslim immigration into the West seems imprudent and may well be folly.
Thanks to Raj for the pointer to the Guardian article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and thanks to Rochi Ebner for the pointer to the Robert Spencer article.
Update: Writing for the sometimes conservative National Review Online Andrew McCarthy takes on knee jerk right wing partisan attacks on Newsweek as missing the point.
The outpouring of righteous indignation against Newsweek glides past a far more important point. Yes, we're all sick of media bias. But "Newsweek lied and people died" is about as worthy a slogan as the scurrilous "Bush lied and people died" that it parrots. And when we engage in this kind of mindless demagoguery, we become just another opportunistic plaintiff — no better than the people all too ready to blame the CIA because Mohammed Atta steered a hijacked civilian airliner into a big building, and to sue the Port Authority because the building had the audacity to collapse from the blow.
Sorry, but I couldn't care less about Newsweek. I'm more worried about the response and our willful avoidance of its examination. Afghanistan has been an American reconstruction project for nearly four years. Pakistan has been a close American "war on terror" ally for just as long. This is what we're getting from the billions spent, the lives lost, and the grand project of exporting nonjudgmental, sharia-friendly democracy? A killing spree? Over this?
I'm surprised that NRO would run an article so critical of thoughtless right wing demagoguery. Good for them.
McCarthy complains about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" coming from right-wingers (I hesitate to call them conservatives) who support democracy building in the Muslim countries. Well, low expectations certainly are at least inconsistent with support for democracy promotion as a key strategy in reduce the risk of terrorism. But what is wrong? The low expectations or the support for democracy building? In my view a realistic realistic appraisal of all the available evidence on the Muslim countries leads logically to low expectations. Therefore the neocon Bush Administration project to export "sharia-friendly democracy" is an exercise in folly.
Yes Andrew, we just got a killing spree, over this. Integrate this evidence into your view of the Muslim countries.
If you are not a long time ParaPundit reader and haven't read all my posts on why democracy is not a panacea check out some of my older posts on democracy: "Prospect Of Democracy Breeding Ethnic Hatred In Iraq" and "Robert Conquest On The Limits And Pitfalls Of Democracy" and "History Of American Interventions Bodes Poorly For Democracy" and "Democracy Requires A Supporting Set Of Beliefs" and "Will Democracy Make Middle East Governments More Anti-American?" and "Low Per Capita Income Countries Never Remain Democracies" and "A Critical Look At Natan Sharanky's Democracy Argument".
On March 2, the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mohammed v. Gonzales [PDF] that women from countries which allow female circumcision are eligible for asylum in the United States.
It is foolish take our standards for what is right and wrong and basically state that for any country that violates our standards its population should be able to emigrate to the United States. There are 20 times more people outside of the United States than inside it. Transportation costs are steadily falling. The more people who are made eligible to come the more who will come. It is as simple as that. We can't be the refuge for billions of people. The current illegal alien population in the United States (which might be as high as 20 million) is already far too large without adding in millions of asylum seekers.
According to Amnesty International, more than 100 million women have been subjected to female genital mutilation. Within the same societies, there are millions more who have not yet endured the practice.
All of them are now eligible for asylum.
If much of the world has governments and customs that are so terrible and if we should feel morally obliged to help the denizens of these places who are opposed to these laws and customs then there are other options for how to respond. Britain and some European countries have been exploring ways to safeguard refugees by allowing them to move to other Third World countries where they can escape whatever persecution they claim to be fleeing. Some countries can be induced to accept these refugees in exchange for aid.
Another possibility is a limited reintroduction of colonialism. Western countries could take over some forsaken country (there are plenty to choose from - how about Zimbabwe?) and impose colonial rule. Recruit fans of colonialism to administer the place (I would even argue for drafting Max Boot and a few other neoconservatives into service as colonial rulers). Then let refugees from other countries move there and live under the rule of people who will impose Western customs and law.
I don't think such a proposal has a snowball's chance in hell. But by the logic of the asylum supporters there are hundreds of millions stuck living in backwardness and ignorance who need some help. I'd rather they find some way to act out their desire to help those people that does not involve them inflicting the Third World's people onto the populations of the First World.
When a teen lifted his baggy shorts and flashed a swastika and German army tattoos at Kenny Turner outside his high school last June, the popular black Lake Elsinore senior just kept walking.
"It was the second-to-last day of the school year," recalled Turner, now 19. "I didn't want to be in trouble with one day left."
But Turner and two witnesses said the young man, armed with an ice pick, ran after him and stabbed him while screaming a racial slur. It's an incident that, although rare, is emblematic of a growing problem in the Inland Empire, authorities say.
The number of reported hate crimes in Riverside and San Bernardino counties has risen sharply in recent years, fueled in part by dramatic demographic changes that experts say are bringing more minorities into a region that has long been home to pockets of white supremacists.
What would be those dramatic demographic changes? Hispanics, of course.
So are you expecting the guy's name to be Smith or Clarke or Jones? Nope:
Last month, Armando Perez, 19, pleaded guilty to a felony hate crime assault for stabbing Turner. Perez could not be reached for comment.
Perez identified himself as white to the police. Well, this is not implausible. Some people from Mexico are pure Spanish. Spain is as European as, say, Italy or Serbia. Perez is expected to be out of jail in 6 months. So why, under America's system of racial preferences for the supposedly oppressed non-whites, should Perez be eligible for racial preferences as a Hispanic if he applies to college or to get a government job? Should DNA testing be instituted for Hispanics to separate out the pure Europeans and make them ineligible for preferences?
Update: Because of racial intermarriage the question about DNA testing strikes me as something that may be taken seriously at some point in public policy discussions. Suppose Bob Smith marries Maria Gonzales and they have a kid named Bill Smith. Then suppose Bob's sister Betty Smith marries Maria's brother Juan and they have a child named Pedro Gonzalez. Do you think the admissions officials at, say, Harvard are going to treat Bill Smith and Pedro Gonzalez equally? Of course not. Who will get to define what race you are in the future?
The New York Times has an awfully politically incorrect headline on an article about Dutch who are fleeing their country: "More Dutch Plan to Emigrate as Muslim Influx Tips Scales" (same article here)
This small nation is a magnet for immigrants, but statistics suggest there is a quickening flight of the white middle class. Dutch people pulling up roots said they felt a general pessimism about their small and crowded country and about the social tensions that had grown along with the waves of newcomers, most of them Muslims. "The Dutch are living in a kind of pressure cooker atmosphere," Mr. Hiltemann said.
Foreign born are 10% of the population of the Netherlands. Immigrants commit an outsized proportion of crimes.
Immigrant youths now make up half the prison population. More than 40 percent of immigrants receive some form of government assistance, a source of resentment among native Dutch. Immigrants say, though, that they are widely discriminated against.
If the second and later generation descendants of immigrants were included in the crime figures the picture would no doubt be even bleaker. Of coursethe immigrants are reproducing much miore rapidly than the Dutch. The Dutch should stop committing national suicide. They should put an end to all immigration.
A screening of Theo van Gogh's film 'Submission', scheduled for the Rotterdam film festival was cancelled by the producer of his film company, Gijs van Westerlaken, for 'security reasons. Ironically, the far left Groen Links and Socialist party joined forces with the Christian Democrats to petition the Justice Minister to insist the film be shown in order not to hand a victory to the terrorists.The decision not to show the film was widely criticised both in Holland and abroad, and seen as a victory for the terrorists,who are trying to impose Islamic law on Dutch society.
The Sunday Times of London has a great and rather long article about immigration in Europe which I highly recommend you read in full. Polls of Muslims in Holland about the 9/11 attacks helped catalyze the shift of Dutch positions away from tolerance of immigrants and this shift allowed Pim Fortuyn to launch his political career.
The consensus has shifted across the board. In a country that can still seem a parody of itself — a magistrate ruled recently that an armed robber was entitled to a tax rebate on the cost of his gun as a tool of his trade — even the leader of the Green party has called for it to be illegal for Muslims to import spouses through arranged marriages. Integrated teams, drawn from the police, social welfare and housing offices, are used to locate and arrest illegals. Social welfare knows who is drawing benefit, housing offices have addresses, and police check for criminal records. The number of asylum seekers has been slashed from 43,000 to 10,000 a year, nine-tenths of whom have their applications rejected.
Multiculturalism is damned. A recent poll found 80% in favour of stronger measures to get immigrants to integrate — and 40% said they "hoped" Muslims "no longer feel at home here".
How did this happen? The first open shift came in 2001, with 9/11. Frits Bolkestein, the leader of the VVD Conservative Liberals, had struck a chord in the 1990s with his insistence that immigrants conform to western culture, but immigration issues were largely the preserve of "racists" and "crypto-Nazis" on the political margins. Then came reports that the atrocities in New York and Washington had been greeted with cheers in parts of Rotterdam. Forum, the Dutch institute for multicultural development, commissioned an opinion poll of Dutch Muslims. It showed that 48% had "complete understanding" and 27% "some understanding" of the attacks. Overall, only 62% disapproved. Wim Kok, the then prime minister, expressed his shock. The poll was said to be "unbalanced".
Another was held. This found that, although only a small number of Turkish and Surinamese Muslims supported the attacks, 26% of ethnic Moroccans approved of them.
Facts about the Muslim Moroccan immigrant assassin of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh call into question the argument for assimilation as the solution. Van Gogh's assassin could write excellent Dutch and even had adopted some Dutch cultural practices.
The murder forced another highly sensitive issue — religion — into the mix. The Dutch were brought face to face with the disturbing fact that a full-blown jihadist group had grown up in their midst, and that it was locally born and recruited. It was, they say, their own 9/11. Van Gogh's alleged assassin, Mohammed B, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan, spoke and wrote excellent Dutch. The farewell letter found on him when he was arrested was written in rhyming couplets, in the style that Dutch families send to one another each Sinterklaas (Santa Claus) Day, December 5. He had studied at a well-regarded lyceum before dropping out of a technical institute.
He then started spending time at the Al-Tawhid mosque in Amsterdam. At some stage he joined a militant Islamic group, the Hofstad group, named after the Hague, where it was based. It was led by Redouan al-Issa, alias Abu Khaled, a Syrian-born geologist turned spiritual leader. Mohammed B's friends included Samir Azzouz, an 18-year-old radical later arrested for plotting to bomb Schiphol airport and the Dutch parliament.
Slums and poverty played no part in Mohammed B's background. He grew up in pleasant, low-rise housing in west Amsterdam, graffiti-free, with open spaces and playgrounds. When arrested, he was living in good council housing. The street has small, modern houses, with well-tended gardens, the hedges trimmed, and a heron often standing on a rooftop. Lace curtains mark the Dutch houses; satellite dishes are the ubiquitous indicator of immigrants.
Well, Muslim kids will be Muslim kids. Playing around at blowing up Parliaments and airports, killing documentary filmmakers, all the regular stuff associated with growing up as a Muslim boy around non-Muslim populations. This is to be expected. Why do people make such a big deal of it? Oh right, the whole thing about the non-Muslims expecting more respect. But they are non-Muslims. How can they be expected to be treated as equals by Muslims? Of course many young Muslim hotheads will outgrow this youthful stage and develop greater ambitions like becoming a middle manager of terrorist cells or even a chief executive of a terrorist organization or, for those who want a more publically visible role as a pillar of the community, becoming a firebrand preacher rallying the next generation to Jihad at the local mosque. Some of the technically more adept may get into administering Islamist jihad websites. Even those caught committing crimes against non-believers can serve the constructive purpose of recruiting more Muslims to Jihad in the prisons.
In Holland, unlike in the mainstream media in America, higher rates of use of government entitlements is seen as a sign that immigrants just may not be vital to the economy.
The debate can be highly sensitive. Ethnic minorities account for 40% of social-security recipients, with a rate six times higher than for the native Dutch. They have a high unemployment rate, and they make up a large majority of the prison population. This is seen as undermining the accepted wisdom that immigrants are vital to the economy.
How could such a thing be true if a reigning national mythology of America is that immigration made America great and immigration is always a boon for existing Americans? Could it be that the people peddling this mythology are intellectual con artists peddling an agenda for their own economic or political or ethnic group interests? Could the mythology about immigration be a bright shining lie?
Well, here's an obviously anti-family policy: By letting Dutch Muslims to bring in spouses to marry they are encouraging a policy that causes marriages to end in divorce.
It includes marriage patterns. Three-quarters of young Muslims, including those who are Dutch born, marry a partner from their country of origin. "It's often a cash transaction," Wilders claims. "Two-thirds of them divorce after three years — the minimum period for the spouse to get the right of residence."
So the asylum root into Holland has been pretty much cut off. But the marriage route is alive and thriving. I bet a Moroccan Muslim in the Netherlands could marry a series of foreign partners to bring in many people. Oh, and they allow family reunification immigrants. So bring in the brother or son or mother. This allows chain immigration just as happens in the United States. Chain immigration should be brought to an end.
While Holland is cracking down Spain is being supremely stupid about immigration.
And what of the EU? "Migration has to be managed at a European level," Aboutaleb says. "But there is no common sense on asylum or illegals," he adds. Because EU passports are recognised throughout the union, the action of one country in accepting — or refusing — migrants affects others.
Aboutaleb cites Spain as an example. In 2000, it had an amnesty of 250,000 sin papeles (illegals). This month, at a time of increasing controls elsewhere, it announced another amnesty. "Spain has perhaps a million illegals, in agriculture and construction," Aboutaleb says. "The moment they get an EU passport, they can move all over Europe.
Predictably lots of people are flowing into Spain from within and outside of Europe with false papers trying to get in on the Spanish amnesty.
The mandarins in Brussels and some of the national governments are still intent on collective cultural suicide. The recent decision in Brussels to begin accession talks to make Muslim Turkey a member of the EU is folly on an enormous scale. But populations (and even some politicians) in some of the member states (most notably Holland and Denmark) are turning hard against immigration and against Muslim immigration in particular.
German publisher Mathias Dúpfner says that Europe is pursuing the same policy of appeasement toward Muslims that Europe pursued toward Hitler: appeasement.
Is Europe giving way to blackmail? The question was raised in Germany last month by an article in Die Welt, the country's most heavyweight paper, by Mathias Dúpfner, head of the big Axel Springer publishing group. He titled it Europe — Thy Name Is Cowardice. He said that a crusade is under way "by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open western societies" that is set upon the "utter destruction" of western civilisation. This enemy, he said, was spurred on by "tolerance" and "accommodation", which were taken as signs of weakness. Europe's supine response, he said, was on a par with the appeasement of Hitler.
Can "The Death Of The West" be prevented? As demonstrated by the Theo Van Gogh murder it depends in part on the tactics adopted by the most extreme Muslims. Barring big shocks that wake people up to the damage that immigration is doing to Europe there is a tendency to slowly acclimate to gradually worsening conditions. Leftists who hate their own societies have been only too willing to rationalize and excuse the behavior of immigrants. Business interests that are interested in cheap labor provide another pillar of support for immigration that is a net harm to societies. To repeat a quote from James Q. Wilson which Steve Sailer has recently posted on his site:
The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important.
A curious thing is happening in Belgium these days: a small but vocal number of Jews are supporting a far-right party whose founders were Nazi collaborators. The xenophobic party, Vlaams Belang, plays on fears of Arab immigrants and, unlike the prewar parties from which it is descended, courts Jewish votes. Perhaps 5 percent of the city of Antwerp's Jews gave it their votes in the last election.
The Belgian example is extreme, but it represents the sharpest edge of a much broader political shift by European Jews - away from the left, particularly the far left, and toward the center and right, in the face of rising displays of anti-Semitism and the European left's embrace of the Palestinian cause.
Vlaams Belang is the reborn Vlaams Blok party which the leftists in power in Belgium banned. Political freedom in Belgium is pretty limited if you are not left-wing.
Wilders now travels everywhere with six bodyguards. He cannot sleep in his own home, but is moved around between various undisclosed safe houses. He sees his wife twice a week, at a safe house. Visitors to his parliament office must be cleared in advance and are thoroughly searched; even ballpoint pens are carefully examined.
"It's like being caught in a bad B movie," Wilders said. The guards are always there: "If I go to the toilet, they are standing behind the door."
The irony, he said, is that the people who are threatening him walk the streets freely, while "the people who are threatened are more or less in prison."
Wilders has concluded that Islam can't be reconciled with liberal democracy.
Wilders's transgression, according to the extremists demanding his death, is his insulting of Muslims in the Netherlands, with frequent denunciations of Islam. "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible," he said in the interview. "They will never be compatible -- not today, and not in a million years."
Holland is known for a sort of extremism in tolerance of alternative lifestyles. But the Dutch never calculated the possibility that some cultures and religions have a intolerance built into them that is incompatible with Dutch society. Even if that intolerance manifests in only a small fraction of a Muslim immigrant group the extreme lengths that the most hostile Muslims are willing to go to are enough to get people killed and other people living in fear and under police protection.
Wilders wants to field a list of candidates in next Dutch election as part of his Wilders Group party. But anyone who joins his list will immediately have to go under continuous 24 hour per day police protection. The Muslim militants are therefore already a very practical obstacle to the creation of Dutch political parties which oppose Muslim immigration and Muslim radicalism.
Western nations should put a stop to Muslim immigration. There is no compelling reason why we should inflict upon ourselves the problem that the Dutch are having. What is going on in the Netherlands reminds me of the Monty Python character who accidentally enters the room for "Getting Hit On The Head Lessons". Well, does anyone aside from some masochists want to have "Getting Hit On The Head Lessons"? That is what the Dutch, through their foolish immigration policy, have effectively inflicted upon themselves. The US is doing the same with massive Hispanic immigration but with a different set of resulting problems.
French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin on Thursday called for a television channel run by the Lebanese Shi'ite terrorist group Hizbullah to be taken off the air after it accused Israel of exporting AIDS to the Middle East.
Raffarin told the upper French Assembly, the Senat, that he intends to revoke the license of the Al-Manar satellite station that had been granted by the CSA, the French Broadcasting Authority.
The CSA cited as evidence an al-Manar broadcast last week that spoke of "Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like Aids through exports to Arab countries". The broadcast said Israel had "no scruples" about infecting Arabs and Muslims.
What was that French regulatory agency thinking by granting Al-Manar approval in the first place? Here's another way to appease the Arabs? That must have been it. Expecting the serializers of a series on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to behave according to Western norms was really unrealistic.
The 29-part series, "Al-Shatat," was produced in Syria and broadcast throughout the Middle East by Hezbollah. Based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," it depicts among other scenes the killing of a Christian child on the orders of a rabbi so the blood can be baked into matzos for Passover.
CSA director Dominique Baudis, in a letter that accompanied the license, warned that some of the programs aired by the network in the past would violate the license's terms.
Some programming by the channel "depicts violence toward civilian populations in a favorable light," could incite hatred among religious or national groups and "bring trouble to the public order," he said.
My guess is that some of Al-Manar's staff doesn't even know when the station is being absurd. What, you mean "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" isn't the gospel truth? Everyone in the Casbah knows it is.
Al-Manar's Head Of News Hassan Fadlallah defends the Arab and Muslim values portrayed on Al-Manar.
"Our programs are based on cultural, Islamic and Arab values that a billion people believe in, and it fits with some French values like freedom, justice and human rights.
Should Arabs be free to tell other Arabs that Jews are plotting to take over the world, that Jews are spreading AIDS, and that Jews should be hated? There are American and French Jewish groups who think the answer to that question is "No".
Freedom? To do what? Plant car bombs?
"By acting promptly to remove this promoter of hatred and violence from the airwaves, Prime Minister Raffarin has acted in the best interest and traditions of France and of all Europe," said David A. Harris, AJC's executive director. "Al-Manar, and other channels carrying similar anti-Semitic, anti- American and anti-Western messages, can have no place in a Europe that values tolerance, pluralism and peace."
In acting today to request the Conseil d'Etat, the supreme French judicial-executive body, to ban Al-Manar from the French communications satellite Eutelsat, the prime minister responded to evidence that the station violated terms of its conditional license by airing outrageous accounts of "Zionist" plots to spread AIDS in Africa. In authorizing Al-Manar to broadcast on Eutelsat, the French broadcasting authority, CSA, had imposed a code of conduct consistent with French anti-discrimination laws.
The decision by the French Broadcasting Authority to allow Al-Manar, the satellite network of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, to continue to broadcast in France, "undermines the significant progress that the Government of France has made in the last year to combat the anti-Jewish and incendiary anti-Israel environment that exists in some sectors of French society," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, in a letter to French President Jacques Chirac. "Indeed, your Government had come to understand that attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions do not occur in a vacuum, that hateful propaganda coming from the Middle East is a major catalyst.
Noting that "anti-Semitism continues to be a serious problem in France," and that the "government has taken a number of steps to quell these anti-Jewish acts," Mr. Foxman said that by "allowing Al-Manar to preach its message of hate through television sets across France sends a very contrary message." He urged President Chirac to have "your government to reconsider this decision."
There are a few things that are interesting about this story. First off, France does not have as much free speech protection as the United States. My guess is that satellite and cable services in the US aren't going to carry Hezbollah TV because there aren't enough Arabs in the US to generate sufficient demand. But my guess (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the US government wouldn't block a satellite TV service from carrying a paranoid, delusional, and extremely anti-Jewish satellite TV channel.
Of course the French need to be able to stomp down on their Muslims or else a lot more bombs would be going off in France.
Another interesting aspect of this story is the activity of American Jewish organizations which are basically advocating for censorship in France. Are all cultures and religions so compatible that free speech can always be allowed under all circumstances? These Jewish groups apparently think not. How does this translate into the American context? Will the ADL and AJC start advocating censorship of radical Imams in American? Or will they start advocating against immigration of Muslims into the United States? After all, if large scale immigration of some group is going to make censorship necessary then isn't that an argument against allowing that group to emigrate to some country? My guess is that the big Jewish groups in America are still unwilling to accept that they support immigration policies harmful to both American interests and Jewish interests.
Some French Jews think Arabs in France are making France into an inhospitable place for Jews. There are 600,000 Jews and 6 million Arabs in France. One third of one percent of the French Jews leave for Israel each year.
Since 2001, more than 2,000 French Jews have arrived each year, double the rate of the 1990s and more than from any other single country, says the Jewish Agency, the quasi-governmental agency that oversees immigration and absorption.
"France is an Arab country. That's enough for us to leave," says Moshe Bendrihem, 50, a Morrocan-born Jew who moved from a Paris suburb four years ago to Eli, a West Bank settlement. Bendrihem wears a skullcap, or kippah. He didn't always. "It is impossible to wear a kippah in France," he said, for fear of being singled out for attack.
Interest in the Jewish state can be gauged by the number of visitors. Nearly 200,000 French tourists came to Israel in the first nine months of 2004, a 74% jump over the same period last year.
Six million Arabs didn't show up in France overnight. Why weren't the French Jews arguing against so much Arab immigration decades ago?
85 year old former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt says that multiculturalism can only work in a totalitarian society and the Turks should not have been brought into Germany as guest workers.
"The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society," he told the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper.
He added that it had been a mistake that during "the early 1960s we brought guest workers from foreign cultures into the country".
Well, a bit late for the admission. When will the Europeans start deporting all the illegal immigrants and revoking residency of anyone with the slightest bit of radical Muslim leanings? It is time to at least slow the growth rate of the problem. Oh, and change your tax laws to encourage more natives to have kids.
Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered by Muslim extremists in the Netherlands and Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to have full-time bodyguards. What does the paper of liberal record have to say? Nothing useful. The Grey Lady is more worried about the safety of Muslims in the Netherlands than the safety and liberty of the Dutch.
The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants.
The challenge for Dutch political leaders is to find ways to reverse this disturbing trend of politically motivated violence without making it harder to achieve cultural harmony.
Theo Van Gogh was killed because the centralized Dutch planning bureaucracy failed to make better plans! The idea never occurred to me. But then I'm not a left-liberal. Still, I'm willing to get on board with any idea that might help. Maybe the Dutch can hire some retired Soviet Russian government planners to help out. Government planning is the solution. Who would have thought it? Oh, only the editorial board of the New York Times. I applaud the comrades for their insight.
Oh left-liberals look at how far your political movement has decayed. How shameful your most prestigious media outlet, how pathetic, how incredibly invincibly ignorant and foolish. Western culture needs to be defended but you have become its enemies. No wonder Bush was reelected. Middle America knows the liberal elites are their enemies.
The violence by Muslims against Westerners is both politically and religiously motivated. Islam is inherently political. The only "cultural harmony" that the Muslims will accept is one in which all others bow down to Muslim authority. The real danger is that any society that gets a large number of Muslims in its population will become oppressed by Muslim extremists. But the Grey Lady is never going to admit that. There is reality and then there is the world according to the secular religious faithful.
Fervent believers in the secular religious faith do not want to abandon their worship of multiculturalism. The irony here is that these same secular faithful look down on Christian fundamentalists for their beliefs that are purely based on faith. Yet the secular liberal faithful embrace false beliefs about human nature that have been shown to be false in this world.
Pieter Dorsman of the Peak Talk blog grew up in the Netherlands (I think he now lives in America) and he has translated a Dutch report of a poll of Dutch people about the Theo Van Gogh murder.
More than 60% is afraid of riots between Moroccans and Dutch as a result of the murder of Van Gogh. Almost 90% thinks that the Dutch security services should keep a closer eye on fundamentalist Muslims than the 150 that are now being watched. Also, 80% of the interviewed agree with the statement that: “Holland is much too tolerant”. The poll also reveals that 3 out 10 Dutchmen (28%) would leave the country if they were in a position to do so.
The Dutch want to flee their own country. The New York Times is more worried that the Dutch might oppress their oppressors.
Peiter reports that the Dutch government will eventually lull themselves back to sleep so that the problem can continue to worsen.
Well I did that about fifteen years ago and as much as it pains my parents to see their only son with his young children abroad they understand it and often tell me over the phone that Holland just isn’t a great place to grow up these days. I hear that from a lot of Dutch friends. If that many people are ready to bolt and if elections are driven exclusively by how much you can extract from the government and not about the imminent threat that seeks to destroy your society from the inside, then that society is pretty much on the ropes. Yes, the Van Gogh murder will invoke a new spirit of action and determination but no one has the political capital to act on it and if they had, it is bound to fizzle after a few years, which is what happened after Fortuyn.
The West is going to continue to decay as long as its intellectuals are to be counted in the ranks of its enemies.
"Dear Mrs Hirshi Ali (sic). Since you stepped into the political arena in the Netherlands you have been constantly busy terrorising Muslims and Islam with your remarks," the letter said, calling Hirsi Ali a "disbeliever fundamentalist".
Donner said the five-page letter, which was neatly typed and written in Dutch and Arabic, appears to be "not from one person but a movement."
Titled "Open Letter to Hirsi Ali," it threatens jihad, or Islamic holy war, against "infidels" everywhere, particularly in America, Europe and the Netherlands.
"Saifu Deen alMuwahhied," apparently a signature, is written at the bottom of the last page.
The other five names on the list are Somali-born Liberal VVD MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, independent conservative MP Geert Wilders; Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk; and Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen and his deputy Ahmed Aboutaleb.
Dutch police now believe that the muder of film maker Theo van Gogh is part of a larger and coordinated action by radical Muslims to public figures that they feel are 'enemies of Islam.' As a result, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, two politicians critical of Muslims, have been taken to a safe house by Dutch police.
The Dutch have one thing going for them at this point: The Jihadists seem determined to prevent the Dutch government from going back to sleep.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands Nov 2, 2004 — A Dutch filmmaker who had received death threats after releasing a movie criticizing the treatment of women under Islam was slain in Amsterdam on Tuesday, police said.
A suspect, a 26-year-old man with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, was arrested after a shootout with officers that left him wounded, police said.
Van Gogh's great grandfather also named Theo was the brother of painter Vincent Van Gogh.
AMSTERDAM — Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has led tributes to film director Theo van Gogh, who was assassinated in Amsterdam on Tuesday morning.
Balkenende said he was horrified to hear of Van Gogh's murder. But he also called on the public not to jump to conclusions about the deadly attack.
Authorities said the suspect is a citizen of both Morocco and the Netherlands, although they don't know if he is Muslim.
Volkert Van der Graaf, the murderer of Pim Fortuyn, got off with a sentence that will make him eligible for parole in 2014. Will Theo Van Gogh's murderer get off as lightly?
Van Gogh, a chain-smoking social critic and satirist, received threats after the August television broadcast of his movie "Submission," which he made with a Dutch politician who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth.
In the fictional story, a veiled Muslim woman spoke about her violent marriage, being raped by a relative and later brutally punished for adultery. In some scenes, the actress' naked body is shown through a transparent gown. One scene shows her body with Quranic verses written on it.
The English-language film was written by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a lawmaker who has outraged Muslims by criticizing Islamic customs and the failure of Muslim families to adopt Dutch ways.
Will Ayaan Hirsi Ali see to it that Van Gogh's two planned sequel movies still get made?
Van Gogh spent 18,000 euros (£12,500) of his own money making the film in secret - and it was to be the first instalment of a three-part series.
The second part was due to look at the issue from Muslim men's points of view.
The murders of Fortuyn and Van Gogh might create a climate of fear that will lead to a decrease in public airings of harsher criticisms of Islam in the Netherlands.
"All praise to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds," begins the text painted across the actress's throat, which then scrolls down her bare chest. It is taken from the fatiha or opening of the Koran, the lines recited aloud by men, and silently by women, at Muslim prayer five times a day throughout the world.
Four other women act out scenes of torment and repression. One battered victim in a torn dress, exposes her shoulders and arms covered with lash wounds and the text of Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," it says.
Ms. Hirsi Ali was drawing attention to that verse before she was elected to the Dutch Parliament and well before she collaborated with Van Gogh in creating their mini-movie "Submission". So her use of that verse in the "Submission" short film is a more artistic approach for her on-going efforts to draw attention to the nature of Islam.
"The most important verse, which I still refer to, is in the Koran and it is the verse which says women should obey the male members of their families - their fathers and their husbands - and if they do not do that then the husband may beat his wife," she said.
"That's also a side of Islam and I've pointed to it and I've said there are millions of people who carry out just that simple verse.
"Millions of Muslim women all around the world are oppressed in the name [of] Islam.
"And as a woman who was brought up with the tradition of Islam, I think it's not just my right but also my obligation to call these things by name."
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the emotions incited by her statements, especially among radical Muslims, underscores the state of the Islam. (Radical) Muslims are incapable of self-reflection. Consequently, any critical remark is perceived as an offense.
She believes that the Dutch are insufficiently aware of the threat which a rapidly growing radical Islam poses for the basic values and norms of Dutch society. Because of her outspokenness on these issues she has received death threats and needs permanent personal protection.
By "hard work", she refers not to her 11-minute film Submission, which was broadcast on Dutch television and included images of a naked Muslim woman draped with an opaque veil, nor her newspaper columns which criticise Islam; she means dealing with the reaction from the Islamic community in Holland and beyond. Since Submission was broadcast, the threats have intensified rather than died down.
"I don't walk in the streets alone," she says. "Groups of Muslim boys shout out 'whore' and all kinds of sexist remarks and threaten to kill me and so on. They're young men, mostly unemployed, and I don't know how much you can take that seriously but it feels horrible.
"The written threats say 'we will kill you' and they all go to the police. I think most people who kill someone don't ring up first and say they're coming to do it. It's intimidation. They say because I have said I'm not Muslim any more – which I haven't said, I've said I don't believe in God and the hereafter – I have no right to criticise Islam. They don't want discussion."
That she tolerates this daily, while refusing to back down on what she lightheartedly calls her Islam Reformation Project (IRP), has earned her the title of "brave". Admittedly, this is generally among white Dutch people who admire her confidence but don't want to commit themselves on Islam or Dutch multicultural policy, yet it's not without warrant. Hirsi Ali would disagree.
"It started with simply stating some facts," she says. "For example, the position of women in Islam compared to western countries is far worse. That's a fact. You don't have to be brave to say that. In Islam, homosexuals are killed and disowned by their families and in some countries, Egypt for example, they are put in cages. Christians and Jews living in the Netherlands and other western countries are very tolerant towards each other, but Muslims accept only other Muslims and fundamentalists will not even talk to moderate Muslims. These are facts. You don't have to be brave to state these things or discuss them loudly."
To the surprise of many, she became a leading voice condemning the government's support for multiculturalism, programs costing millions of dollars a year that she considers misplaced because they help keep Muslim women isolated from Dutch society.
Then Ms. Hirsi Ali, 32, began receiving hate mail, anonymous messages calling her a traitor to Islam and a slut. On several Web sites, other Muslims said she deserved to be knifed and shot. Explicit death threats by telephone soon followed. The police told her to change homes and the mayor of Amsterdam sent bodyguards. She tried living in hiding. Finally, last month, she became a refugee again, fleeing the Netherlands.
"I had to speak up," she said, in a telephone interview from her hiding place, "because most spokesmen for Muslims are men and they deny or belittle the enormous problems of Muslim women locked up in their Dutch homes."
I am now a member of parliament for the Liberal Party. My subjects - my portfolio - include the migration of non-Western migrants to the Netherlands, the emancipation of women, and development aid to developing countries.
Unfortunately I cannot do this line of work in my country of birth.
Somalia is made up of a population which is 100% Muslim. The radical leanings of a huge number of the population is unfortunately growing, and the position of the Somali woman has never been worse than it is now.
If I were to say the things that I say now in the Dutch Parliament in Somalia, I would be killed.
She describes how last Thursday in a bar in The Hague she was tapped on the shoulder and addressed by man of around 24 years that said: “Miss, I really hope with all my heart that the Mujahedeen will get you and kill you.” Confronted with this Hirsi Ali picked up a knife and gave it to the man. The man’s startled reaction was that he didn’t want to do it because he was afraid to go to jail.
Hopefully Hirsi Ali will continue to be given enough bodyguard protection to keep her alive, in the Dutch Parliament, and in the public eye.
Well, I talked to a Dutch friend of mine in University, and asked him if he had ever met a person of Moroccan origin in his classes. He thought about it and mentioned one girl, who was rather atypical in many ways (she was a classic nerd). To me, this is a hint that the future is apartheid, if current trends continue. Two killings (first Pim, now Van Gogh) is not a trend, but it is really hard to maintain a sanguine assimilationist perspective in the face of ideologically motivated murders.
Multiculturalism doesn't work in a single society.
Update II: 8 Islamic radicals were arrested for suspected involvement in Van Gogh's murder. 6 are from Morocco, 1 from Algeria, and one has dual Spanish-Moroccan citizenship. Also, last week a man was sentenced to 9 months in jail for threatening to fill Ayaan Hirsi Ali and for publishing her address on the internet.
Writing for the UK Spectator Anthony Browne reports on the determination of Muslims to spread Islam via immigration. Saudi Wahhabi preachers take the line of argument that the West is best kept complacent about the Muslim threat until so many Muslims immigrate that they can take control.(free registration required)
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
Many secular Westerners who have a hard time understanding how anyone could seriously embrace religious beliefs tend to discount the idea that a religious faith could pose a threat to Western societies. But those same secular Westerners are not reproducing enough to replace their numbers while at the same time the Muslims are reproducing much more rapidly. Demography becomes destiny.
For Western Europe, which is both closer to Muslim lands and suffering from a more severe birth dearth than the United States, demographic trends are the biggest threat. Yet most of Western Europe's politically correct elites refuse to acknowledge the threat. The EU mandarins even go so far as to misrepresent the ethnicity and religious beliefs of the people who are attacking Jews in Europe One reason for their denial is that they do not want to admit that their own secular culture does not have universal appeal. Another reason is the lingering effects of Marxism. The rest of the world is viewed in class terms with poor non-Europeans seen as victims of racism and colonialism.
If the intellectuals of Western societies do not regain some sense of belief in their own cultures and ethnicities as things worth defending then they are going to be outnumbered and eventually ruled over by people who do not suffer from self-inflicted loathing of their own identities.
Ireland's government has decided to require all Muslims seeking legal residency in Ireland to sign an affidavit testifying that they have at most one wife and will not enter into multiple marriages at once. This reasonable requirement on the part of the Irish government has an Irish civil rights group upset.
The government introduced the written oath this month after rejecting an application from a Lebanese man for both of his wives and all 13 children to be granted residency.
A married Muslim man seeking residency must now declare he has "one spouse only" and "has no intention of entering into a simultaneous marriage".
The ICCL has never at any stage suggested that polygamous marriages should be permitted in Ireland, or that individuals living in Ireland, whose religious backgrounds would permit the taking of more than one spouse should be allowed to have more than one marriage recognised in law. The ICCL does not and has never advocated recognition of polygamy, but this has nothing to do with the discriminatory - and potentially unlawful - policy adopted by the Department of Justice requiring males of the Muslim faith, lawfully married to an Irish spouse, to swear a religious specific affidavit. Any journalist who has to date suggested that ICCL supports the recognition of polygamous marriages has never been in contact with the ICCL office or any representative thereof before making this untrue allegation.
It is precisely because polygamy is not permitted in Ireland, and because Muslims living in Ireland respect the law of the land in this regard, that the policy adopted by the Department does not have an objective or legal rationale to support it, and is based purely on a prejudicial assumption about Islam and all persons of the Muslim faith, irrespective of their nationality, or the laws of the country from which they originate.
What is so burdensome about this requirement? Muslims do believe they have a religious right to enter into polygamous marriages. This distinguishes Islam from the Catholicism which has played such a large role in forming the customs and laws in Ireland.
Here's more from the ICCL argument. My bold emphasis added.
Irish law does not recognise polygamous marriages. Therefore, if a Muslim man who already had one wife was to marry an Irish citizen, that marriage would not be considered to subsist in Irish law - therefore the question of applying for citizenship would not arise. If the Muslim man is lawfully married to an Irish citizen and wanted to enter into another marriage in Irish law, he would not be permitted to unless he was lawfully divorced from his previous wife - therefore he is being asked to swear to a situation that cannot arise in Irish law. Therefore the affidavit has no legal value or validity. It assumes that as Islam as a religion will permit - but does not require or promote polygamy - that Muslims, irrespective of whether they come from secular societies or states that do not recognise polygamy, do not understand or would not respect the normal law of the land because they are "different". It shows a deep lack of respect for the Muslim community in Ireland - both Irish nationals and non-Irish nationals - who live here in complete accordance with our laws. It belies an ignorance about the many millions of Muslims around the world who live in monogamous marriages, and live in countries, predominantly Muslim or not, where polygamous marriages are also not permitted in law. Muslims in Ireland are required to - and do - live in accordance with the Irish law, irrespective of their religious faith and the swearing of an affidavit regarding their religion, because it has no objective basis or rationale is discriminatory.
But Islam as as a religion does permit polygamy. It is different from Catholicism. Differences in political and cultural belief systems do matter and any attempt to ignore those differences in the name of human rights is an attempt to deny reality. Are Muslims more likely than Catholics to enter into polygamous marriages? Yes, of course. Do some of them even see this as a religious right? Yes, again of course. Does a government sometimes need to make special efforts to make sure a group with beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of the majority will live according to the rules of the majority? Well, one only has to look across the Irish Sea to find Muslims in Britain preaching and planning terrorism and theocracy. This is happening in a country where the cultural majority strongly oppose and are threatened by what members of this cultural and religious minority consider to be acceptable and preferred norms of society. An affidavit of this nature sends a strong message to would be Muslim residents that there are forms of behavior that are beyond the pale of acceptability in Ireland. I see an analogy here with the French ban on veils in schools. See my post Muslim Veils, Marking Territory, Broken Windows.
In my view the Irish are not going far enough. What they ought to do is ban immigration of Muslims to Ireland. Why allow the immigration of people whose culture and moral code clash with one's own? Why subject oneself to the harmful results? What has turned Westerners into masochists about their own culture and beliefs that they willingly subject themselves to immigration of peoples whose beliefs and norms of behavior clash so fundamentally with their own?
Reacting to yet another Wall Street Journal smear on immigration restrictionists Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies sees open borders advocates as post-nationalists who are not as attached to the United States as are the old fashioned nationalists who oppose open borders.
Because for post-Americans, there can be no legitimate opposition to their open-borders views. To the degree that Cannon is facing political trouble, it must be because his opponent is "running hard on xenophobia," as the Journal writes, "courtesy of deep-pocketed restrictionists." (Attention any "deep-pocketed restrictionists." Call me!) To concede that supporters of more moderate immigration levels and tighter enforcement might be anything other than racists or "humanity-is-a-virus" leftists would be to acknowledge the legitimacy of a nationalist, as opposed to a post-nationalist, worldview; in other words, to admit that borders have value, rather than being awkward anachronisms that interfere with business.
Let me be clear what I mean by a post-American. He's not an enemy of America — not Alger Hiss or Jane Fonda or Louis Farrakhan. He's not necessarily even a Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy. A post-American may actually still like America, but the emotion resembles the attachment one might feel to, say, suburban New Jersey — it can be a pleasant place to live, but you're always open to a better offer. The post-American has a casual relationship with his native country, unlike the patriot, "who more than self his country loves," as Katharine Lee Bates wrote. Put differently, the patriot is married to America; the post-American is just shacking up.
The Wall Street Journal, never a publication to play fair with those who have the temerity to disagree with them on immigration, has the audacity to claim that "deep-pocketed" immigration restrictionists were funding Matt Throckmorton's primary challenge to open borders advocate and Republican Congressman Chris Cannon. This slant is hard to square with the fact that Cannon outspent Throckmorton 9 to 1 and the fact that open borders advocates donated to Cannon's campaign. The deeper pockets in the immigration battle are the business interests that want a continuing supply of cheap foreign labor to drive down labor costs.
While his terminology is a little different Krikorian's arguments mirror those of Samuel Huntington. See Samuel P. Huntington On Cosmopolitans, Imperialists, And Nationalists and Samuel P. Huntington On Nationalism Versus Cosmopolitanism.
The claims being investigated by police in Lancashire and Manchester are that some voters have been intimidated into handing over their blank ballot papers.
One man told BBC Radio 4's PM: "They are knocking on doors and saying give us your forms, we'll fill them in for you and we'll post them for you...they are trying to fiddle the elections."
Who exactly are these people who are knocking on doors demanding blank postal ballots? What religion do they profess to follow? You won't learn that from the BBC. Luckily there are still some somewhat right-wing newspapers left in Britain and so we can learn from the Daily Telegraph that Muslim community figures are intimidating other Muslims into allowing the more powerful figures to control their votes.
Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, West Yorks, feared that the majority of the ballot frauds were part of "a cultural problem" that faced Asians in the North.
She said Muslims were coming under pressure from community elders to surrender their votes.
"People are going to homes, demanding that the voters give up their ballot papers - and that is what they are doing." She said the Asian community "tends to stick together" and, if one of its leaders knocked at the door and asked people to do something, "they by and large do it".
Where is the individual belief in one's own right to decide for oneself who one will vote for? Isn't that sort of belief necessary in order for a democracy (at least a liberal democracy) to work? Aren't cultures and religions that do not embrace this belief incompatible with liberal democracy? Do not expect to hear that question discussed by the BBC.
Coun Hemming (Acocks Green) put the spotlight on the Muslim-led People's Justice Party and the Labour Party, who he accuses of manipulating postal votes.
Bordersley Green, the centre of a bitter three-way battle between the Liberal Democrats, the PJP and Labour, has 19,500 registered electors. One third have applied for postal votes.
In South Yardley, the ward which Coun Hemming is contesting, applications for postal votes are concentrated on a small, tight-knit Asian community.
While many leftist intellectuals in the US, Britain, and Europe openly and loudly profess to despise the Christian religious conservatives that make up a substantial fraction of the Republican base I can't say I recall any of these same intellectuals taking on the "Muslim-led" People's Justice Party at the same time. Why is that? Is it okay for non-white people to be reactionary, religious, and illiberal?
Coun Ali Khan said: "The Labour Party is getting desperate for the Muslim vote after community leaders rallied Muslims not to vote Labour. The Labour vote is collapsing."
Expect larger doses of ethnic and Islamic religious politics in Britain's future. Demography is destiny unfortunately.
James Fulford relays news reports on how some Gypsies in New York state treat their teenage girls.
“At the house, though, the girl said a man raped her in an upstairs bedroom.
“Moments later, the girl said her mother stormed into the room and demanded to know what happened. The girl said she was still bleeding when her mother took her home and beat her ‘like it was my fault.’
“The next weekend, the girl said her mother took her back to the house. When she arrived, the girl said, the mother of the man who had raped her ‘welcomed me to the family.’
“That night, she said, she was forced to sleep in the man’s bed, where she was raped again.
“‘I asked him why he was making me have sex with him and he told me he had to pay my mom $3,000 for me to be his bride.”
The girl is 15 years old. James reports that the Trinity Emmanuel Lutheran Church sponsored the entry of the family into the United States. Good intentions are not an excuse for irresponsible actions. The asylum-promoting Protestant churches that engage in helping people come to the United States are harming this country.
James also notes that many of the news reports on this story leave out the ethnicity and religion of the responsible parties. Can't let the readers see patterns that demonstrate that different immigrant groups behave differently on average in important ways. The readers might reach conclusions that the liberals in the media don't want the readers to reach and so the readers have to be protected from forming opinions justified by the facts. Can't have that.
To learn about the "in group morality" of Gypsy culture and why we should want to keep it out of the United States see Steve Sailer's essay A Gypsy is haunting Europe… for the scoop.
What kind of school would follow a curriculum designed to keep the women down and the devout Muslims hostile toward the rest of us? A Saudi diplomatic school for Muslim kids in London.
The King Fahd Academy in Acton, west London, named after the current Saudi ruler, devotes up to 50 per cent of lessons to religious education and teaches almost all classes in Arabic, with boys and girls following different curricula.
Dr Mai Yamani, a research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had two daughters at the school, but removed them when she became uncomfortable about the education they were receiving. "I moved my eldest daughter at the age of seven. Her new school said that, in their opinion, she had been 'totally untaught' to that point. They had to put her in a class with much younger children, which was terrible for her.
"The school is trying to make sure that the Saudis who go there abide by the system of state control in Saudi Arabia. The method is 'loyalty to the system and hostility to the outsider'.
Dr. Mai Yamani is daughter of the famous Saudi ex-oil minister Sheikh Yamani who cut such a big international figure back in the 1970s at OPEC meetings and in his announcements about oil prices..
The claims about this school provide insight into what schools in Saudi Arabia must be like. A country whose populace is taught a fundamentalist strain of Islam which has hostility toward non-believers is a country that not surprisingly produces a lot of terrorists. When the rest of the world buys oil it is funding a society, education system, and religious missionary effort that is spreading Wahhabi Islam all over the world. Shouldn't this be considered a national security problem by all Western liberal democracies? Shouldn't the US and other countries adopt energy policies designed to decrease the demand for Middle Eastern oil and to eventually obsolesce oil entirely?
Also, shouldn't US immigration policy be changed to keep Wahhabi Muslims from immigrating to the United States?
Americans need to start prodding their politicians to develop an effective strategy to deal with fundamentalist Islam. Not all religions or sects are forces for peace. Not all cultures are compatible with classical liberalism. Lets stop pretending.
Dr. Steven M. Steinlight has an excellent and lengthy analysis of why current immigration trends are a threat to the safety and influence of American Jews. It is entitled High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry
Survey research, plus mountains of anecdotal evidence, reveals a profound change in attitude among American Jews. Opinion polls in the three years following the attacks of September 11, 2001 show a plurality favoring lowered immigration, 70 percent the introduction of a secure national identity card, and 55 percent believing Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States. It may not require another domestic terrorist enormity for respondents to discern simple cause-and-effect relationships; more ambitious efforts to persuade might suffice.
My experience at the grassroots suggests Jews know little about the history of their own immigration, immigration policy, the scale of immigration, or the engines that drive it. Frequently, all that’s required to effect attitudinal change is apprising them. When I began my efforts, the Jewish media spoke of Jewish attitudes in favor of open-borders immigration as "monolithic;" now it’s commonplace to speak of "a raging debate."
Steinlight sees many changes that weaken the forces for assimilation.
Perhaps the chief distinction between today’s immigration and that of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that assimilated even the most recalcitrant. These forces have been weakened by multiculturalist ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics; the demise of Americanization programs; the death of civic education; the rise of bilingualism; and the elimination of obligatory national service.
Technological differences also carry gigantic consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications allows immigrants to maintain continuous, ongoing ties with native lands, cultures and languages — something not possible a hundred years ago. Many "immigrants" are permanent resident aliens who live in two societies simultaneously but maintain primary loyalty to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin.
It is highly unlikely today’s immigrants will be as rapidly or fully absorbed into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents. The immigrants are different; the country and its social institutions are different; the economy is different; technology is different; what is deemed normative is different. To believe the outcome will be the same under a wholly distinct set of conditions and socio-political constructs is not merely willful thinking: it is absurd.
Demographic changes can happen very rapidly.
Of the manifold concerns about immigration felt by all Americans and American Jews in particular, the way it fuels Muslim immigration is most worrying. The May 14, 2003, Globe & Mail announced that Muslims outnumber Jews in Canada, noting this demographic shift "could ultimately affect [Canada’s] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict."
Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in America, with potentially enormous impact for both American Jewry and American foreign policy. According to the 1991 Canadian Census, there were 25 percent more Jews in Canada than Muslims. Within a single decade that demographic advantage was erased. According to the 2001 census, the Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.
CNN and ABC News recently reported a doubling of the Arab population in the United States in just two decades. The number of Arabs alone (not Muslims in general) is already nearly 1.3 million. For virtually its entire history, Arab immigration was primarily Christian and lopsidedly Lebanese; now it’s virtually all Muslim, with the immigrants’ lands of origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.
Muslim immigration has fundamentally altered demography, culture, and the political landscape of Western Europe. Its impact on Jewish life is disastrous, and it has turned European foreign policy on the Middle East from even-handedness to one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic. Symbolizing the transition was the EU’s failure to condemn the Nazi oration by the former Malaysian Prime Minister. Also shocking was the EU’s rejection of the report it commissioned from the German Technical University on the upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. It was labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. In today’s Islamized Europe, Jews live under physical threat, something unknown since the rise of fascism.
Steinlight points out that Hispanic immigrants come from Latin American Catholic societies where anti-semitism is still widespread and socially acceptable. He worries that this will contribute to the growth of anti-semitism in the United States as Hispanic imimgrants are too numerous to assimilate to US norms and too tied to their cultures and societies of origin.
Steinlight forecasts that eventually the Muslim vote and money in the United States will cancel out the Jewish influence and the United States will cease its strong support for Israel.
It is worth examining trends in Europe to see what the future holds for Jews in America as the size of the Muslim population in America increases and eventually surpasses the size of the Jewish population. One problem is the Muslim imam preachers who are hostile to non-believers.
Overwhelmingly foreign, and sometimes speaking only Arabic, Europe's imams often have little understanding of their host countries, and their teachings run counter to modern European values and gender roles, say Muslim leaders and government officials. But there seems little chance of any change soon, they add.
According to Olivier Roy, a French expert on political and radical Islam, the issue is not whether these men belong to what are widely considered to be terrorist groups - he says they do not - but the spread of extremist messages.
"There are no terrorist groups operating in mosques - neither in France nor elsewhere. Al-Qaeda does not organise itself in mosques," he told BBC News Online.
"The rationale behind the French move is that fundamentalism, or Salafism, may push some youths towards radical Islam and possibly terrorism. Radical imams are seen as providing the ideological framework for terror - so as well as a political perspective, there is an issue of security involved.
The French interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, said yesterday that the country must urgently begin training Muslim clerics in a moderate Islam that respects human rights and the republican code.
Britain jailed an imam from Jamaica for nine years in March 2003 for urging followers to kill Hindus, Jews and Americans. It is now trying to deport another high-profile cleric, Abu Hamza al-Masri, accusing him of advising and supporting terrorist groups,.
And recruitment is paired with a compelling new strategy to bring the fight to Europe.
Members of Al Qaeda have "proven themselves to be extremely opportunistic, and they have decided to try to split the Western alliance," the official continued. "They are focusing their energies on attacking the big countries" — the United States, Britain and Spain — so as to "scare" the smaller states.
Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics or begin operations like the one that came to notice when the British police seized 1,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb ingredient, in late March, and arrested nine Pakistani-Britons, five of whom have been charged with trying to build a terrorist bomb.
Writing for leftist Guardian of the UK Jeremy Seabrook affects an attitude of disdain for the British National Party for opposing Muslim immigration and the threat it poses to Britain.
The tale the BNP tells today, in the rundown streets of the fearful old and the disinherited young, is about the spread of an alien creed, aided by the fifth column of an enemy within, and of hordes of migrant strangers at our border. The detail - "islands of Islam in our communities", "a race relations industry kowtowing to the apologists for terror", even "the imminent extinction of the white man" - however ghoulish, is less significant than the narrative of the nation in danger; for this resonates strongly with earlier versions of these islands in jeopardy.
But Britain really is in danger. A growing Muslim population will turn Britain into a place that the BNP supporters really do not want to live in - and with good cause. So why shouldn't the BNP and its supporters talk this way? What is illegitimate about wanting to live in one's own culture and not in a culture that is hostile to one's beliefs, values, and culture?
Moscow Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt said that the European Union's relatively swift agreement to accept 10 new states was motivated by the need to ensure a supply of inexpensive workers to counter Muslim immigration to Europe.He claimed this was one of the signs that the Europeans are beginning to recognize that Christians and not just Jews are threatened by the new demographic reality, in which 25% of French youth, and an even higher proportion of Belgian young, are Muslim. "We have to tell Europeans that if they're burning synagogues today, tomorrow they'll be burning churches," he said.
You can't count on the EU's elites to be honest about their motivations. To get a sense of just how mendacious the European Union political elite is willing to be about the threat that Muslims pose to Jews in Europe see my previous post EU Agency Misconstrues Sources Of Attacks On Jews. Jews in America need to ask themselves whether that is the kind of future they want for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren.
If you are at all taken in by the argument that immigration law is unenforcable and that illegal immigration can not be stopped then for a contrary view see the posts in my category archive Immigration Law Enforcement.
Harvard history professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of the recent book Who Are We : The Challenges to America's National Identity which examines the various threats to American national identity and how to respond to them. An essay by Huntington that sketches ideas from his book is called Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite
Growing differences between the leaders of major institutions and the public on domestic and foreign policy issues affecting national identity form a major cultural fault line cutting across class, denominational, racial, regional and ethnic distinctions. In a variety of ways, the American establishment, governmental and private, has become increasingly divorced from the American people. Politically, America remains a democracy because key public officials are selected through free and fair elections. In many respects, however, it has become an unrepresentative democracy because on crucial issues--especially those involving national identity--its leaders pass laws and implement policies contrary to the views of the American people. Concomitantly, the American people have become increasingly alienated from politics and government.
The gap between public and elite is especially great on America's economic relations with the rest of the world. In 1998, 87 percent of leaders and 54 percent of the public thought economic globalization was mostly good for America, with 12 percent of the leaders and 35 percent of the public thinking otherwise. Four-fifths of the public but less than half of foreign policy leaders think protecting American jobs should be a "very important goal" of the U.S. government. Fifty percent or more of the public but never more than a third of leaders have supported reducing economic aid to other countries. In various polls, 60 percent or more of the public have backed tariffs; comparable proportions of leaders have favored reducing or eliminating them. Similar differences exist with respect to immigration. In two 1990s polls, 74 percent and 57 percent of the public and 31 percent and 18 percent of foreign policy elites thought large numbers of immigrants were a "critical threat" to the United States.
These and other differences between elites and the public have produced a growing gap between the preferences of the public and policies embodied in federal legislation and regulation. One study of whether changes in public opinion on a wide range of issues were followed by comparable changes in public policy showed a steady decline from the 1970s when there was a 75 percent congruence between public opinion and government policy to 67 percent in 1984–87, 40 percent in 1989–92, and 37 percent in 1993–94. "The evidence, overall", the authors of this study concluded, "points to a persistent pattern since 1980: a generally low and at times declining level of responsiveness to public opinion especially during the first two years of the Clinton presidency." Hence, they said, there is no basis for thinking that Clinton or other political leaders were "pandering to the public." "A disturbing gap is growing", one analyst concluded, "between what ordinary Americans believe is the proper role of the United States in world affairs and the views of leaders responsible for making foreign policy."19 Governmental policy at the end of the 20th century was deviating more and more from the preferences of the American public.
Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to America becoming a cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume an imperial role. The overwhelming bulk of the American people are committed to a national alternative and to preserving and strengthening the American identity of centuries.
America becomes the world. The world becomes America. America remains America. Cosmopolitan? Imperial? National? The choices Americans make will shape their future as a nation and the future of the world.
Bush's half-baked immigration amnesty guest worker proposal is an example of a policy promoted by elites in the face of poll after poll showing widespread popular opposition to current levels and types of immigration.
Along the way, Mr.Huntington observes that Americans can choose among three broad visions for their country in relation to the outside world.
- Cosmopolitan: America "welcomes the world, its ideas, its goods, and, most importantly, its people." In this vision, the country strives to become multiethnic, multiracial, and multicultural. The United Nations and other international organizations increasingly influence American life. Diversity is an end in itself; national identity declines in importance. In brief, the world reshapes America.
- Imperial: America reshapes the world. This impulse is fueled by a belief in "the supremacy of American power and the universality of American values." America's unique military, economic, and cultural might bestows on it the responsibility to confront evil and to order the world. Other peoples are assumed basically to share the same values as Americans; Americans should help them attain those values. America is less a nation than "the dominant component of a supranational empire."
- National: "America is different" and its people recognize and accept what distinguishes them from others. That difference results in large part from the country's religious commitment and its Anglo-Protestant culture. The nationalist outlook preserves and enhances those qualities that have defined America from its inception. As for people who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, they "become Americans by adopting its Anglo-Protestant culture and political values."
The left tends to the cosmopolitan vision; the right divides among imperialists and nationalists. Personally, I have wavered between the latter two, sometimes wanting the United States to export its humane political message and at other times fearful that such efforts, however desirable, will overextend the American reach and end in disaster.
Count me as firmly in the ranks of the unreconstructed American nationalists. I want America to remain America. Pipes, on the other hand, has definite neoconservative imperialist leanings. He would like to see America do more to reshape the world and especially to remake the Middle East. But he sounds like a conflicted neocon who realizes that the neoconservative foreign policy prescription has echoes of "A Bridge Too Far" from the World War II Operation Market Garden. The important difference in the case of neocon foreign policy is that the gap between means and ends is alot more than just one bridge too far.
There are people on the Left who favor the "Cosmopolitan" future who simultaneously oppose the "Imperial" future. However, many neoconservatives are for open borders at the very same time they are for an aggressive military policy of attack upon various countries such as Syria and Iran that they view as enemies. Curiously, Steve Sailer's labels to sum up neoconservative domestic and foreign policy map fairly well to Huntington's categories of "Cosmopolitan" and "Imperial".
Domestic Policy: Invite the World!
Foreign Policy: Invade the World!
I see serious problems with the neoconservative project because the neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan are unwilling to acknowledge the size and costs of the military that would be needed to properly handle Iraq. To pursue the much bigger foreign policy program of David Frum and Richard Perle to invade and occupy Iran and Syria might require a doubling or tripling of the size of the US Army. The invasion could be done with a smaller force. But as Iraq has shown the occupation would be very labor intensive as well as expensive. Iran has about three times the population of Iraq. The US Army isn't even big enough to properly occupy Iraq. So Iran is out of the question unless the Army can be made much larger. Of course, that would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to pursue a policy which has questionable benefits. Invade Syria? The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi Arabians.
Contra William Kristol and Robert Kagan, that the US Army isn't big enough to occupy and pacify Iraq is not the fault of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld. Rumsfeld did not have a military big enough for the job. That is not his fault. Bush has yet to ask Congress for the money needed to build a military that is big enough. Given the current one half trillion dollar US federal deficit and Bush's desire to keep his tax cuts in place don't expect Bush to make the argument for an expansion of the US Army by hundreds of thousands of troops either.
The "Imperial" future is effectively held back from full development by the fact that various segments of the American population would rather have lower taxes or more social spending for old folks or more spending on education and medical care for the teeming masses of poor immigrants. The neoconservative support for open borders therefore is creating domestic spending pressures that are undermining the Imperial project. At some point will they acknowledge this?
America's biggest problem is not the Imperialists. There are large financial constraints and reality in Iraq is bursting a lot of illusions of those who think that democratic transformation of a Middle Eastern country is easy to do. America's bigger problem is on the home front.
Writing for the neoconservative publication The Weekly Standard James W. Ceaser reviews Huntington's arguments on the threats to American national identity and of American culture and civic society.
THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE of national disintegration lies in the realm of ideas. Although an intellectual himself and a faculty member at Harvard University, an institution with considerable intellectual pretensions, he has not flinched from launching a frontal assault on the dominant opinion of the intelligentsia. Intellectuals, according to Huntington, have widely abandoned the concept of the nation. Their opposition manifests itself first in the movement that encourages primary identity with sub-national entities linked to racial and ethnic groups. Known as multiculturalism, this movement has promoted a sustained campaign in our schools against any form of civic education, having as its objective, in the typical jargon of one of its proponents, the transformation of the schools into "authentic culturally democratic sites" that give emphasis to the cultures of sub-national groups. But encouraging identification with these cultures hardly begins to describe the depth of multiculturalism's opposition to America. Its moving spirit, according to Huntington, is above all an animosity to Western civilization, which is regarded as the engine of oppression of all nonwhite peoples. Multiculturalism, writes Huntington, "is basically an anti-Western ideology."
An even more serious attack against the American nation comes from a group of thinkers whom Huntington labels "transnationals." These are intellectuals "who argue the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large" and don't place value in the idea of the nation (let alone this nation). As his centerfold Huntington features the ubiquitous Martha Nussbaum, who denounces "patriotic pride" and urges people to give their allegiance to the "worldwide community of human beings." Where Nussbaum treads, others are certain to rush in. And sure enough Huntington spots Richard Sennett trotting along behind, condemning "the evil of a shared national identity," and Amy Gutmann opining that it is "repugnant" for Americans to learn that they are, "above all, citizens of the United States." Huntington might be dismayed, but certainly not surprised, to learn that Gutmann's heartfelt expressions of repugnance have since helped elevate her from a professorship at Princeton to the presidency of the University of Pennsylvania.
In a now famous essay entitled The Ideological War Within The West John Fonte argued that transnational progressives (a.k.a. tranzis) are hostile to local democratic rule and determined to shift power up into undemocratic transnational institutions. The tranzis map fairly well to Huntington's "Cosmopolitans". However, at least at this stage the greatest source of threat to American identity probably comes less from increasing power in international institutions than from use of existing national institutions and policies to teach and promote policies that break down nationalism and patriotic feelings. Also, there is the huge problem posed by immigration.
Huntington sees the greatest threat to national identity coming from massive immigration from Mexico. On that point see my previous post Samuel P. Huntington Comes Out Against Immigration From Mexico and also see my post Samuel P. Huntington On Nationalism Versus Cosmopolitanism.
Update: One big problem I have with neoconservative foreign policy is that it has an underlying assumption of a universally held desire for freedom, democracy, and other American values. In an April 2003 speech at Georgetown University Huntington calls this the universalist's illusion.
He named one British Ambassador who seemed to capture Huntington’s interpretation of the world standpoint.
“One reads about desire for American leadership in the United States. Everywhere else,” the diplomat said, “you read about American arrogance and imperialism.”
Huntington blamed this split in interpretations as something he called the universalist’s illusion — the idea that everyone in the world holds the same ideals as United States citizens. “If they do not have them,” Huntington joked with an eerie seriousness, “they desperately want them. If they do not want them, they don’t understand.”
Harvard history professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of the recent book Who Are We : The Challenges to America's National Identity and opponent of continued large scale immigration from Mexico has a short essay in the latest edition of The National Interest on the widening split between America's elites and the majority of its people.
The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability—within acceptable conditions for evolution—of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.
Huntington points out that the elites, by defying the desires of the majority on issues of national identity, are causing the government to behave in an undemocratic fashion. I have previously made this argument with regard to immigration. In poll after poll clear majorities of Americans state opinions about immigration that are in opposition to what the elites want and to what the government actually does. Because this trend shows little sign of reversing it seems to me that what is needed are constitutional reforms to install mechanisms to allow more decisions to be made by direct popular referendums. As Huntington points out, multinational corporations that are nominally American have growing interests that are in conflict with those of the American people and these corporations increasingly put those interests ahead of those of the United States. At the same time many American intellectuals have little or no loyalty to historical US customs or values. Why should the public think of these groups as members of the same polity? That is not how these other groups define themselves.
The national question is not going to go away. It is only going to become bigger. On the debate of Britain's own national question see David Goodhart's response to his critics in the new UK Prospect issue:
For, as my deputy Alexander Linklater has put it, there are many answers to the question "Who are we?" but the one answer we surely cannot give is: it doesn't matter.
I am increasingly convinced that what is advocated by those who argue for "diversity" is a society in which whoever finds themselves in the majority on some issue or cultural belief today should find themselves in the minority tomorrow subjected to the will of the new majority. So then are the advocates of "diversity" motivated by loathing of themselves or loathing of the current majority?
Some have reacted skeptically to Samuel P. Huntington's argument that the huge Mexican immigration presence is creating dual loyalties among people of Mexican descent in the United States. Well, politicians of Mexican descent in America are turning out to be very fertile ground for the Mexican government as it attempts to increase its influence over American federal, state, and local governments.
The Mexican government is lobbying U.S. lawmakers and civic leaders for amnesty or guest-worker status for millions of illegal aliens now in the United States, working through a coalition of U.S.-based immigration rights associations, Mexican-American organizations and grass-roots Hispanic groups.
This growing political alliance, which also seeks expanded education and health care benefits for Mexican nationals in this country, along with additional programs for labor, community development and access to services, is led by the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, also known as the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior.
The institute plans to bring more than 400 U.S. lawmakers and community leaders of Mexican descent to Mexico City by the end of this year.
As part of that drive for influence in the United States 6 years ago Mexico made it possible for Mexican immigrants to the US and even their US-borne children to hold dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico.
Under a new Mexican law that went into effect last month, naturalized U.S. citizens who were born in Mexico can now apply to retain Mexican nationality.
As many as 7 million naturalized Americans could take advantage of the new law, and so could their U.S.-born children, perhaps doubling the number eligible to hold dual U.S. and Mexican nationality. Never before has the United States had to face a problem of dual loyalties among its citizens of such great magnitude and proximity. Although some other countries -- such as Israel, Colombia and the Dominican Republic also allow dual nationality -- no other nation sends as many immigrants to the United States nor shares a common border. For the first time, millions of U.S. citizens could declare their allegiance to a neighboring country.
Mexican immigrants have been less likely than other immigrants to become American citizens. They have waited an average of twenty-one years, compared to about seven years for other immigrants.
In a television interview in 2000, Mexico's President Vincente Fox made his country's intentions clear concerning the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere:
"I'm talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now.
And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean [that] in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income."
In other words, his stated long-term goal is the abolition of the border between the US and Mexico.
Anti-American combatants John Walker Lindh, the notorious "American Taliban," and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a citizen of both the United States and Saudi Arabia, were captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. But neither Mr. Lindh nor Mr. Hamdi will be stripped of his U.S. citizenship, because in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizenship is an inalienable right that can only be lost if it's voluntarily renounced.
The number of Americans who are also citizens of other countries is soaring. And the growing prospect of U.S. citizens serving in foreign, even antagonistic, armies and governments, and foreign citizens serving in our own army and government and voting in our elections, raises disturbing questions about loyalty and national identity.
Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, also believes Mexican dual citizenship will have a negative impact on the U.S.
"In the words of Theodore Roosevelt, dual citizenship is a 'self-evident absurdity,'" Krikorian told WND in an interview. "You can no more be a genuine citizen of two countries than you can adhere to two different religions at the same time."
Actually, some find it possible to hold contradictory beliefs on subjects that can not be proven and many religious religious beliefs certainly can not be proven. But when it comes to political loyalties contradictions end up getting resolved by specific actions that support one or the other of competing loyalties.
Mexicans are not the only group with divided or questionable loyalties. Most Muslims in the Los Angeles area have more loyalty to another country than they do to the United States.
In one of the few systematic in-depth studies of identifications of Muslim immigrants with their country of origin and the United States, GhaneaBassiri (1997), an Iranian doctoral student at Harvard, found that they are extremely ambivalent about this country. More specifically, GhaneaBassiri found "a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States." Indeed, his questionnaire showed that 80 percent of his sample of Muslims in Los Angeles and a third of those who had converted to the Muslim religion felt more allegiance to a foreign country than to the United States.
Yet another serious thinker and accomplished scholar has come out for a radical change in current US immigration policy. Harvard historian Samuel P. Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, has come warning of the dangers of the current trend in US immigration in the March/April 2004 issue of Foreign Policy in an important article entitled The Hispanic Challenge.
The impact of Mexican immigration on the United States becomes evident when one imagines what would happen if Mexican immigration abruptly stopped. The annual flow of legal immigrants would drop by about 175,000, closer to the level recommended by the 1990s Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by former U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Illegal entries would diminish dramatically. The wages of low-income U.S. citizens would improve. Debates over the use of Spanish and whether English should be made the official language of state and national governments would subside. Bilingual education and the controversies it spawns would virtually disappear, as would controversies over welfare and other benefits for immigrants. The debate over whether immigrants pose an economic burden on state and federal governments would be decisively resolved in the negative. The average education and skills of the immigrants continuing to arrive would reach their highest levels in U.S. history. The inflow of immigrants would again become highly diverse, creating increased incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb U.S. culture. And most important of all, the possibility of a de facto split between a predominantly Spanish-speaking United States and an English-speaking United States would disappear, and with it, a major potential threat to the country's cultural and political integrity.
Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is without precedent in U.S. history. The experience and lessons of past immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence.
In the past, immigrants originated overseas and often overcame severe obstacles and hardships to reach the United States. They came from many different countries, spoke different languages, and came legally. Their flow fluctuated over time, with significant reductions occurring as a result of the Civil War, World War I, and the restrictive legislation of 1924. They dispersed into many enclaves in rural areas and major cities throughout the Northeast and Midwest. They had no historical claim to any U.S. territory.
On all these dimensions, Mexican immigration is fundamentally different. These differences combine to make the assimilation of Mexicans into U.S. culture and society much more difficult than it was for previous immigrants. Particularly striking in contrast to previous immigrants is the failure of third- and fourth-generation people of Mexican origin to approximate U.S. norms in education, economic status, and intermarriage rates.
If you are not yet convinced that current immigration trends are deeply harmful for the United States then I encourage you to read the article in full. Huntington focuses on the cultural reasons why current immigration policy is harmful in contrast to many commentators who focus on the economic costs. His cultural arguments are important and deserve more attention than they receive.
However, the economic arguments also bear repeating here because, yes, they matter too. For instance, 100 years ago for someone to come to the United States without a high school level of education - let alone a college degree - was not much of a problem because most jobs didn't require advanced training or a great deal of cognitive ability. Industrialization was producing factory jobs that required the ability to do incredibly monotonous and simple tasks over and over again. A much larger portion of the labor force were manual laborers and many worked outside doing things that required considerable physical brawn. Well, automation has advanced to the point that a continually dwindling portion of the workforce does factory jobs or outside hard manual labor jobs.
The upshot of the continuing changes in the economy is that the relative value of less skilled workers has declined and looks set to continue to do so. At the same time the Western democracies have all built up welfare states that seek to maintain a minimum level of education, medical and other services and goods available to all. A substantial and growing portion of the population gets more in goods and services from the government than it pays in taxes. When considered on top of the economic problem the cultural and political problems outlined by Huntington become even more serious. We can not afford - either economically or culturally - to continue on the current path on immigration policy. We need to deport the illegals, stop Hispanic immigration, and put both the need to maintain the existing culture and the advantage of much higher skilled and talented immigrants as key factors in determining who is eligible to immigrate to the United States.
For more on Huntington on other subjects see my previous posts William H. McNeill On Samuel P. Huntington and Stanley Kurtz on Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington.
Update: One argument made by defenders of massive immigration from Mexico is that the initial immigrants may not be well educated but the successive generations of their children and grandchildren will eventually approach US norms. Well, no. The most stunning table in Huntington's article shows little improvement in education attainment across generations of Mexican immigrants.
Education of Mexican Americans by Generation (1989-90)
* Except Mexican Americans, 1990
First Second Third Fourth All Americans * No high school degree (%) 69.9 51.5 33.0 41.0 23.5 High school degree (%) 24.7 39.2 58.5 49.4 30.4 Post high school degree (%) 5.4 9.3 8.5 9.6 45.1
Look at the bottom row showing post-high school achievement even into the fourth generation. This is happening in spite of the fact that racial quotas for college admissions used by so many colleges and universities have long applied not just to blacks but to Hispanics as well. This is a stunning result. I honestly expected a higher figure just because enough universities have enough dubious departments with low standards that it is possible to get a bachelor's degree without studying much difficult material.
Update II: Huntington is also the author of a new book on immigration entitled Who Are We : The Challenges to America's National Identity.
Update III: A later issue of Foreign Policy features a large number of mostly vitriolic responses to Huntington's article. Here's part of Huntington's reply to his critics. (free registration required)
Yzaguirre and Roger Daniels allude to Benjamin Franklin’s concerns about German immigrants in Pennsylvania maintaining their language and culture. They do not go on to quote Franklin’s argument that to correct the situation, the government should “distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English schools where they are now too thick settled.” George Washington and Thomas Jefferson endorsed similar policies. One can only hope that Yzaguirre and Daniels now support measures like these which our nation’s founders thought essential to maintain the United States’ identity.
Bruce Wright accuses me of promoting the “lazy Mexican stereotype.” Yet the only sources I quote on Mexican culture are Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Along with Yzaguirre and Jacoby, Wright also attacks me for saying that America’s core culture is “Anglo Protestant.” Historians have, however, repeatedly shown that to be the case, and I document this point at length in my forthcoming book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. As I point out in the article, if America had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics, it would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil. The differences between the cultures of the United States and Mexico have also been highlighted by the Mexican philosopher Armando Cíntora, Mexican Foreign Ministry official Andrés Rozental, and Mexico’s premier novelist, Carlos Fuentes, who has commented with Tocquevillian eloquence on the gap between Mexico’s Spanish-Indian heritage, with its “culture of Catholicism,” and America’s Protestant culture descended “from Martin Luther.”
The last refuge of those unable to make reasoned arguments based on facts and logic is to resort to slander and name-calling, as do Daniels, Wright, Jon Lindsay, and Edward Lopez Jr., who variously refer to me—or my argument—as “unsavory nativis[m],” “chauvinism,” “European nativism,” “unabashed racism,” or “xenophobic.” Such charges should have no place in FOREIGN POLICY.
In general, the critical responses demonstrate how difficult it is to have a serious, informed, and reasoned exchange on what is, as Pei accurately writes, “the most fundamental question about the United States’ future as a nation and a culture.”
Holland's 30-year experiment in trying to create a tolerant, multicultural society has failed and led to ethnic ghettos and sink schools, according to an official parliamentary report.
If multiculturalism can't succeed in the Netherlands it seems doubtful it can succeed anywhere else.
Between 70 and 80 per cent of Dutch-born members of immigrant families import their spouse from their "home" country, mostly Turkey or Morocco, perpetuating a fast-growing Muslim subculture in large cities.
This calls out for an obvious response: ban the importation of Muslim spouses.
The children of immigrants have been encouraged to learn Arabic, Berber, or Turkish in elementary schools rather than Dutch. The mind reels at the possible rationalization for this policy. Were all these immigrants being trained to be able to speak their parent's language so that they could all return home some day? Probably not. Maybe, in decadent modern Western fashion, Dutch was seen as the language of white European oppressors and not sufficiently natively authentic? Sound like an absurd explanation? What explanation wouldn't be absurd?
The report recommends government housing subsidies for Muslims to move out into the white Dutch suburbs. If the government goes through with this proposal then the costs of immigration are about to go up even higher for the Dutch. They'll have to pay more for immigrant housing and put themselves at greater risk of being victimized by groups that commit crime at higher rates.
But city leaders estimate that Rotterdam receives 60 percent of all new immigrants to the Netherlands, and that it simply cannot cope with the housing expenses and other social-welfare costs of absorbing more. Meanwhile, city leaders say middle-class Dutch residents are leaving the city because of rising crime rates and deteriorating neighborhoods. While crime records are not kept according to ethnicity, Dutch police and government officials have publicly linked a rise in crime to immigrants, particularly youth gangs.
Recent surveys show that 62 percent of Rotterdam residents support limiting immigration. The city's non-European population has risen over the past decade, in part because of the arrival of spouses from the old country - and robust birth rates. A recent government study in Rotterdam showed that the average birth rate for Moroccan women is nearly four times that of the Dutch rate of just over one child.
The Dutch are not going to be able to escape from their immigration problems. The immigrants are breeding more rapidly and the Dutch government may bring the crime problem to the suburbs.
Norwegian Cabinet Minister Erna Solberg, whose responsibilities include immigration, wants Muslims in Norway to adopt Norwegian values.
She's especially critical of the role that Imams play in Norway. "These religious leaders can't just be brought up from Islamic countries where Muslims are in the majority," Solberg said. "They have no understanding of what it's like to be a Muslim in a country where they're a minority. "They have to get more education, which they should get here in Europe," she continued. "It's especially important that immigrants learn what it means to live in a feminist society."
Suggestion for Ms. Solberg: If you want immigrants whose values will more closely match the values of the native people of Norway why don't you prevent people who have widely different and incompatible values from immigrating in the first place?
Muslims in Norway profess to not know what she is talking about.
The World Islamic Mission in Norway, claiming it doesn't understand Solberg's criticism, asked Solberg to explain what she means by "modernization," which she did on national radio on Tuesday.
See my previous posts Terrorism and the Assumptions of Classical Liberalism and Individual Rights The Highest Value Of All People? for explorations on the question of whether there are incompatible systems of values. My short answer: Yes, and the sun just as obviously comes up in the East. Why is the obvious so hard for some people to understand?
Although a regime of legal protection of individual rights is one of the greatest achievements of civilization, and the surest basis of most of the rest, nonetheless it is not a project that can be pursued with unswerving consistency -- at least not with results that would be broadly acceptable. More basically, the project of securing individual rights cannot even be launched without a political decision to embrace certain values at the expense of others. Rights theorists argue that rights ultimately can be justified as compelled by reason, and I have a good deal of sympathy with that argument. But such an argument, even if successful, still leaves unanswered a fundamental question: Why be reasonable? Why value a system based on reason over one based on other human values or needs? Clearly there are alternatives: People have been unreasonable throughout most of history. A Wahhabi imam believes unbending adherence to the Sharia makes for the ideal social order, and reason isn’t going to convince him otherwise. Indeed, he believes that unbridled reason is an evil to be combated. Ultimately, then, the case for liberty is an assertion of values: A society in which liberty is the primary political value is a better society than the alternatives -- both because liberty is intrinsically valuable and because it is a potent instrument of our other values.
There are many societies where liberty is not the primary political value. In fact, there are probably more societies where liberty is not the primary political value than there are societies where it is the primary political value.
Many libertarians believe that governments are the biggest obstacle in the way of a greater respect for individual rights. This only begs the question of why even in democracies do governments so often show a willingness to place other concerns above the protection of individual rights. The most important reason is that most people do not value individual rights as highly as the most doctrinaire libertarians claim to. Of course, one can ask people whether they place a high value on individual rights and at least in the United States most will claim that individual rights are very important to them. But many vote as if other desires (e.g. for funding of health care, retirement, education, farm subsidies, etc) are more important.
Even when it comes to protecting individual rights there are widely differing interpretations as to what are the greatest threats to rights and what the government should or should not do about them. Some people are more afraid of having their rights violated by criminals than by the government and hence want the government to have more power to compel testimony, get wiretap and search warrants and to have other powers to stop criminals. Other people think the government is the greater threat and hence want the government to have less power to use to prevent crimes or to discover the perpetrators of crimes. Still others think the economy is inherently unfair and want the government to use taxes to play Robin Hood robbing from the rich to give to everyone else.
Brink Lindsey argues for a pragmatic libertarianism in which libertarians recognise that not all people have the same values as they do. This recognition, if used in libertarian considerations of all political questions, would make libertarianism less ideological and more empirical.
Any ideology is essentially a set of simplifying assumptions about human nature and reality. Compare libertarianism to communism. Communism is an ideology which suffers from at least 2 major false assumptions. First, it assumes that the vast bulk of humanity can be molded into being so incredibly altruistic ("New Soviet Man") that property will no longer be necessary. Also, in its bureaucratic form communism assumes that planners can be both smart enough and knowledgeable enough to make decisions with sufficient wisdom to allow them to manage an economy down to the lowest level. These assumptions caused communist states to continually try to do the impossible and they failed.
Ideological libertarians also make assumptions about human nature that are false. Utopian libertarianism suffers from the false assumption that people can be convinced to be rational enough and fair enough to each other that they will support a system in which protection of individual rights is the sole value for deciding the nature of governments. Some libertarians even go as far as the most idealistic communists by dreaming of a whithering away of the state entirely (see the science fiction of L. Neil Smith for example). As an ideology libertarianism suffers from the same kinds of flaws that communism suffers from: it assumes humans possess a nature that they do not possess in reality.
People in different countries on average embrace different beliefs. For instance, extent of religiosity varies considerably around the world. Also, different parts of the world on average differ in the kinds of values they embrace.
As Lindsey points out, there are people who for religious reasons are deeply hostile to Western conceptions of liberty. For example, in Britain Muslim Sheik Abdullah el-Faisal has been found guilty of preaching hatred and encouraging the murder of unbelievers.
El-Faisal received seven years for soliciting murder, 12 months to run concurrently for using threatening and insulting words and a further two years - to run consecutively - for using threatening and insulting recordings.
During the trial el-Faisal argued that his words were taken from the Koran, the Muslim holy book, and that he had been misrepresented.
Can someone be doing something wrong if they are just preaching the beliefs of their religion? Keep in mind when you answer that question to yourself that there are hundreds of millions and perhaps even billions of people who will answer that question differently because they have different beliefs and values. Also, even in the case of two societies which both accept that there are some religious beliefs that are so wrong that their teaching should be outlawed that the two societies may have conflicting views about which religious beliefs should be illegal. What el-Faisal taught in Britain would not get him jailed in Saudi Arabia while in Saudi Arabia it is illegal to preach any part of any non-Muslim religion.
Another jihad tape contains the words: "So you go to India and if you see a Hindu walking down the road you are allowed to kill him and take his money, is that clear?"
El-Faisal does not hold individual liberty as his highest value. What he has learned from Islam causes him to view individual liberty as in conflict with values that he holds to be more important.
Shiekh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Muslim group, said: “The judge was not a Muslim, the jury were not Muslims and I see this sentence as part of a crusade against the Muslim faith.
“The Koran was on trial. El-Faisal is being penalised for speaking the truth; he was not speaking his own words, but those of the Koran. He would not have been treated this way if we were not in such an Islamophobic climate.”
Is this guy just a lone nut? No. Throughout Britain there is a market demand for Islamic material that encourages hatred of non-Muslims.
El-Faisal, 39, a former supporter of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, made a series of tapes — with names such as "Jihad" and "No Peace With Jews" — that were distributed throughout Britain for sale in Islamic book shops.
While el-Faisal was also prosecuted under more a recent British hate crimes law the solicitation of murder charge relied on an old unusual and rarely used British law.
Abdullah el Faisal, a Jamaican native born 39 years ago as William Forest, was the first person in more than a century to be charged under Britain's Offenses Against the Person Act of soliciting without a specific victim -- a law dating back to 1861.
This prosecution probably couldn't have happened in the United States. The US doesn't have a hate crimes law that outlaws insults and the hurting of feelings or the encouragement of hatred. Such a law probably wouldn't pass constitional muster due to conflicts with Bill of Rights guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. Also, the charge for solicitation of murder relied on an old and rarely used British law that may not have an American equivalent. Does anyone know whether such a non-specific solicitation to murder can be treated as a crime under American law?
This prosecution underscores the problem that the United States faces in dealing with religious belief systems that are hostile to the values that form the basis for American governance. How can someone be prosecuted essentially for promoting values that conflict with the values that form the basis for American law and governance?
Just who lives in a society and what they believe have a great deal of influence on the laws and customs of a society. This is true even in non-democratic societies.
More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.
A parallel process of Muslim enfranchisement is accompanying this population surge. Nearly half of the 5 million to 7 million Muslims in France are already French citizens. The situation is similar for most of the 2 million Muslims in Great Britain. Most recently, in 2000, Germany joined the countries where citizenship is granted according to birthplace instead of ancestry. The new German citizenship laws added already a half million voters to the rolls and have opened the road to citizenship to all other Muslims in Germany. With currently 160,000 new Muslim citizens a year, the number of voters might total 3 million in the next decade.
It is inevitable that the nature of European governments and society will change in a direction that places a lower value on liberty and reason if, as seems likely, the growing Muslim population in Europe find less value in liberty or in reason than does the pre-existing native population.
Ideological libertarians favor the complete free movement of people across national borders. They view restrictions on movement as violations of rights. But the biggest libertarian challenge in politics is to create or preserve a polity that believes protecting individual rights to be the primary value in the first place.
Lee Harris, in an interesting essay entitled "Taking the Terror Cult Seriously", examines the assumptions of classical liberalism and argues that terrorists and ancient Spartans both demonstrated the falsity of a key assumption of liberalism.
Hobbes was the first man to argue that it was possible, in principle at least, to create a stable and peaceful social order exclusively on the basis of the enlightened self-interest of the individual members of that social order. Each man would see that it was to his advantage to renounce violence as an instrument for his own self-aggrandizement and to permit a monopoly of violence in the hands of a single authority.
This is the foundation of all forms of liberalism, both classical and modern, and is equally the presupposition of both Ayn Rand and John Rawls; though none of the later formulations of liberalism achieves the same clarity in respect to this core belief as Hobbes achieved in his political philosophy. For the great indispensable faith of all liberalism, as Hobbes understood, is the tenet that all men have the exact same proportionate fear of violent death, and that because such a fear is equally distributed, men all have the exact same motive to renounce violence, namely their equal fear of violent death at the hands of their neighbors.
As career criminals, corrupt officials, and terrorists demonstrate daily, people do not all have equal levels of motive to respect the rights of others. Also, and even more ominously, people do not even have equal desires to keep themselves alive. Oriana Fallaci understands this difference:
"Listen," she said, wagging a finger. "Those who do not follow what people like me say are unrealistic, are really masochistic, because they don’t see the reality …. Muslims have passion, and we have lost the passion. People like me who have passion are derided: ‘Ha ha ha! She’s hysterical!’ ‘She’s very passionate!’ Listen how the Americans speak about me: ‘A very passionate Italian.'
"Americans," she said, repeating for me something she told the American Enterprise Institute, "you have taught me this stupid word: cool. Cool, cool, cool! Coolness, coolness, you’ve got to be cool. Coolness! When I speak like I speak now, with passion, you smile and laugh at me! I’ve got passion. They’ve got passion. They have such passion and such guts that they are ready to die for it."
Too many modern liberals (and I include leftist liberals, libertarian liberals and even some neoconservative liberals) have so internalized the need for everyone to accept the existence of everyone else that they have a hard time accepting the consequences of the fact that others do not share their beliefs.
All ideologies are simplifications of reality. Liberalism is no exception. Simplifications can seem to work for a time and over some range of conditions as long as those conditions do not vary too far outside of the conditions that an ideology assumes to always be true. The problem for classical liberalism today is that technological advances are making it easier to create conditions in Western societies that are outside the range of allowable conditions needed for a liberal society to survive.
Technology creates challenges to classical liberalism in a few ways that all strengthen each other. First of all, technology increases the amount of damage that non-state actors can do. Common elements of modern industrial society can be used to wreak havoc on that society. Another consequence of advances in technology is the great increase in contact between liberal and illiberal civilizations (the idea of civilizations used here in the same sense as used by Samuel P. Huntington). People who in the past had very limited access to information about the West and who would have had a hard time travelling to liberal Western societies can now learn about and travel to and even live in Western societies rather easily.
The increase in contact across cultures certainly is spreading ideas in both directions. So the various cultures are changing in response to contact with other cultures. However, this is also causing increased hostility in some cases as some people in each culture learn things about other cultures that they find deeply objectionable.
Another change being wrought by technology is happening within illiberal civilizations. Simply put, the various distant parts of a given civilization are finding themselves in greater contact with each other. This greater contact is causing increasing homogenization of thought within those civilizations as geographically separate peoples are increasingly able to hear the exact same arguments and read the same writings. Within Islamic Civilization this is helping to spread fundamentalist Islam from the Arabian peninsula and Egypt (e.g. see this Canadian Muslim web site's enthusiastic description of the influence of Egyptian fundamentalist Sayyid Qutb) to destinations as far away as Indonesia, Malaysia, and even mosques in America. Local varieties of religious belief are dying off in ways that are roughly analogous to how chain stores outcompete local stores.
A reduction in the cost of transportation combined with an environment that allows in large numbers of legal and illegal imimgrants challenges classical conceptions of citizenship. Some people who come to dwell in liberal societies not only do not embrace the liberal ideals but also actively work against those ideals. One method by which people work against the ideals of the larger society is to isolate their children from it and to arrange to have their children taught a conflicting set of values. Others work against the larger society by committing or supporting acts of violence against the society.
Some argue that globalization obsolesces the concept of citizenship. Wall Street Journal editorial writer Robert Bartley thinks our borders should be open to all comers.
Back in the immigration debate of 1984, we proposed a five-word Constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.... Someone who believes in the free trade in goods and free movements of capital will quite naturally believe in free movement of labor, another factor of production. In terms of men, what could be more fundamental than the freedom to move your person? Perhaps the most important freedom of all is that of emigration....
Bartley sums up in closing:
America’s uniqueness, its special advantage celebrated tomorrow, is that it is a nation rooted not in an ethnic heritage given by birth, but a set of ideals any immigrant can share.
Note that Bartley said America is a nation with "a set of ideals any immigrant can share". He didn't say "will share". He didn't say "must share". In fact, as J.P. Zmirak discovered when he had a conversation about immigration with a pair of Wall Street Journal editorial writers, these advocates of an extremely open immigration policy do not believe that all native born Americans share the ideals that define a real American.
And then the émigré leaned forward, brow knitted, to confide a new insight. “They’re not real Americans,” he said in a thick Slavic accent. The people who show up wanting to work, who aren’t afraid of 12 hour days, who set up shops in Chinatown and put their whole families to work from childhood on—people who put their faith in capitalism, those were the real Americans. “Not those resentful parasites. Just because they happen to live here, that doesn’t make them Americans.”
The open immigration crowd are trying to have it both ways by supporting a position that is obviously contradictory. On one hand they are totally in favor of free immigation. On the other hand, they advance a definition of real American citizens based on personal convictions and work habits and admit that not all legal native born Americans meet their definition for real Americans. Therefore in their eyes some native born lack legitimacy as citizens.
This brings us to an interesting consequence of their attitude. It is obvious that tens of millions of Americans do not fully believe, live, and vote in accordance with the ideals that the Wall Street Journal editorial writers think define real Americans. Anyone who votes for politicians who fund the welfare state is voting in a way that the Wall Street Journal editorial writers would surely hold to be anti-American. Wouldn't it be logical for these editorial writers to therefore argue that voters who vote for support of the welfare state fail the WSJ ideological litmus test and should be stripped of their citizenships and deported? Should people who apply for welfare benefits similarly be deported? After all, if the proponents of the European social welfare state become too numerous won't the Wall Street Journal's America of open markets die from election wins that will send into office anti-Americans who will vote for a bigger welfare state and trade protectionism?
Of course the Wall Street Journal isn't gong to argue for a system of ideological belief tests for citizenship and deportation of non-believers (non-believers of the WSJ global capitalistic utopian faith that is). Such criteria would have to be applied to immigrants and doing that would cut down on the inflow of immigrants. While the WSJ folks surely must understand that somehow what people believe affect whether they are good citizens the WSJ editorial writers are opposed to any potential obstacles to immigration. Why is this? The reason is that even though they loudly proclaim their support for a rather encompassing political and economic ideology they ultimately are motivated by a desire to increase the size of the labour market. How new arrivals will vote or behave as citizens is less important to them than that the new arrivals will be available for hire and to start new companies. Whether new arrivals will be willing to serve on juries, come forth to bear witness to crimes, refrain from using government jobs to enrich family, vote for politicians that respect individual rights (e.g. the right of young women to date the men of their choosing without getting killed by dad or her brothers), join the military, and refrain from acts of terrorism all are less important to the Wall Street Journal than whether the bulk of the new arrivals will be available to eagerly work long hours with smiles on their faces.
By advocating open borders the Wall Street Journal is arguing for something that is analogous to the Tragedy of the Commons but in a political dimension rather than an economic one. The Journal writers take for granted the liberal society that undergirds a market economy. They even take for granted the continued existence and current popular level of support for a market economy. They have done so as a consequence of their embrace of a utopian ideological faith of a strongly libertarian character. This libertarian faith assumes that government is the biggest obstacle to a capitalistic utopian society. But this faith ignores the connection in a democracy between the nature of the voters and the nature of the government. It also ignores the connection between the nature of a nation's citizens and the behavior of its civil servants. The different cultures in the world have different capacities to support uncorrupt government and free societies. The cultural and religious beliefs and family structures of the people who live in a society all profoundly affect the kind of society it will be and the kind of government it will have.
Technology makes it easier for people to travel and communicate across national borders. However, technology does not obsolesce patriotism or the liberal nation-state. The reason for this is simple in the extreme: we still need the state to protect us from would-be rights violators both internal and external. In order to have a functional and effective nation-state (and yes anarcho-libertarians, we really do need one) we need a population that feels strongly loyal to the nation-state, to the kind of society that a given nation-state protects, and to their fellow citizens. Absent that loyalty we can not have an effective military or a government that is sufficiently uncorrupt to function well. A political Tragedy of the Commons will occur when people feel no sense of proprietorship toward their nation. This is the risk we are already running with our current immigration policy. That risk will become an inevitability if we adopt a policy of totally open borders.
John Derbyshire points out that while advances in communications and transportation are bringing people from around the world in increasingly closer contact with each other the cultural differences are not melting away as fast as the contacts are increasing. America has to worry as never before about the loyalties of non-citizen residents and of naturalized and native born citizens whose religious beliefs come with political loyalties to entities outside of the United States. We can not afford to ignore this growing problem:
This and the other, related issues are getting very acute. In a way, that is a paradox. We live, after all, in the age of globalization, when the differences between nations are melting away, when you can eat an identical MacDonalds hamburger in Baltimore, Beijing or Berlin. To ask Americans to become more conscious of their nationality in such an age seems absurd. The kind of things we read on MEMRI, though, remind us that the cultural homogenization of the human race has quite a way to go yet. The traditional insouciance of Americans towards citizenship and immigration belonged to a time when the country was empty, travel was difficult, and an ethic of assimilation was taken for granted by everyone — conditions that apply less and less every year.