The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Publications Filter?
Nothing found
 TeasersiSteve Blog

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

From Toronto’s Globe and Mail a few weeks ago:

The Islamic State’s perversion of hijra


Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015

Rebecca Gould, the author of the forthcoming book Writers and Rebels: The Literature of Insurgency in the Caucasus, is a professor of humanities at the University of Bristol.

In recent decades, the Arabic word jihad – once used to describe the duty of all Muslims to act according to their faith – has become overwhelmingly associated with the waging of violent war against non-believers. With the rise of the Islamic State, another term has been refashioned for inclusion in the lexicon of extremist violence: hijra.

Other ways it is spelled include hegira and hejira. I used hegira in my new Taki’s Magazine column, “A Few Questions about the Hegira to Germany,” because that’s the way I saw it when I first read about it in the 1960s. (That was back in the days when progressive opinion favored the spelling “Moslem” and only dusty imperialists stuck with the offensively old-fashioned “Muslim.”)

As with jihad, this is no mere semantic hijacking. The real-world implications are all too alarming. By militarizing the concept of hijra, which traditionally referred to Muslims’ peaceful migration to lands where they would be free from persecution, they have created a powerful tool for radicalizing and recruiting Muslims far and wide, including in the United States and Europe.

Hijra’s association with Islam has its origins in the Prophet Mohammed’s escape from Mecca to Medina in 622, to avoid assassination and preserve his community. He and his followers knew that as long as they remained in Mecca, they would be despised by non-Muslims; their very lives were in danger. And so, in an act of hijra – or migration – the prophet left the city of his birth. Islam would have a stable base, because Muslims in Medina would be free to worship according to the dictates of their faith.

And, as it turned out, after much conflict, to impose their faith upon everybody in Medina and/or kill the recalcitrant (such as 700 Jews executed in Medina).

And Medina was just the beginning. By 732 A.D., or 110 A.H. (After Hegira) according to the Muslim calendar, there was a Muslim army in central France.

Mohammed’s hijra is not narrated in the Koran, but the sacred book is structured around the event, divided into revelations he received in Mecca and those he received in Medina. The year of Mohammed’s hijra also became the first year of the Islamic calendar. And, as the faith spread, the word came to describe not only Mohammed’s departure for Medina, but also a general obligation by all Muslims to migrate to lands under Muslim rule when it will serve their faith.

Or maybe not quite yet fully under Muslim rule.

Over the course of Islamic history, hijra has come to represent more than physical movement; it is widely viewed as an injunction to create a better world in lands under Muslim rule. …

In early modernity, however, with the systematic expulsion of Muslims from Spain in 1492, and later from lands seized by other colonial empires, hijra acquired a more violent meaning that anticipated its later association with jihad. After these expulsions – most notably by the Spanish and Russian empires – the concept came to signify not only the pressure to migrate, as during Mohammed’s lifetime, but also an ultimatum from the state: Leave or you will be slaughtered.

Chechen refugees hijraing in Boston, April 2013

Centuries after these violent expulsions by European powers, hijra today signifies much more than physical relocation. For many modern Muslims, hijra represents the perpetual movement between memory and forgetting. It is what Muslims do when – like Palestinians and Chechens – they have been dispossessed by more powerful states. …

Most recently, however, under the Islamic State, hijra has acquired a connotation that alienates it from its prior meanings. The Islamic State can only understand hijra as physical migration for the purpose of jihad. For the Islamic State’s crude and contrived medievalism, the past is of only instrumental value, to be refashioned in the service of violent conquest and savage repression. Far from being an ethical mode of remembering – a source of cultural continuity and consolation – hijra has been turned into a call to arms by this new self-proclaimed caliphate, which the vast majority of Muslims today do not recognize as part of their religion.

Before hijra became militarized, it was used to hold the present accountable to the past. In this richer, if more elusive, sense, hijra far exceeds – indeed, confounds – the Islamic State’s remit. The word’s original evocation of the early Islamic community of believers who had to migrate not to wage war, but rather to live in peace, are nuances that the group’s ideologues – whose appeals to the force of the new require a purified version of the past – would very much like us to forget.

🔊 Listen RSS

From Taki’s Magazine:

Questions about the Hegira to Germany

By Steve Sailer

The German chancellor is being celebrated for finally redeeming her subjects’ innate Nazi bloodguilt by inviting into the European Union huge columns of helpless Syrian refugees.

Or at least that’s what you are supposed to think, just as you were supposed to assume the innocence of Michael Brown and the guilt of Haven Monahan.

On the other hand, you may have some questions. Such as, if these are civilian war refugees, where are all the women, children, and elderly? Why are the incoming masses instead so heavily made up of young louts with smartphones? One of my readers, Lot, looked at a half-dozen photographs of the new arrivals and estimated, “Overall, these migrants are more male than the United States Army.”

Read the whole thing there.

🔊 Listen RSS

University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller [send him mail] appears to have a lot of time on his hands to pursue his avocation of amateur Commissar of Political Correctness. Not only did he have’s Peter Brimelow thrown off the air last summer (follow the resulting row here) but he’s nursed an obsession with our lovely columnist Michelle Malkin that’s hilariously creepy.

Ironically, Muller’s crusade against profiling nearly claimed a distinguished victim last year: Muller himself, in an instantly-forgotten terrorist (not least by him) incident on the UNC campus.

First, the matter of Malkin: On September 28, 2006, Muller tried to score points off (or possibly in his own mind, with) Michelle by posting a picture of her on his IsThatLegal? blog in a bikini.

The image he had discovered, however, was an obvious Photoshopping of the head of the petite Michelle onto a very tall woman’s body. She laughed:

“Yup, and for the record (sorry to disappoint the gentlemen), I haven’t worn a bikini since I had my two kids.”

This was only part of a campaign that has caused Malkin to file a complaint with Muller’s employer. Earlier, on April 4, 2006, Muller announced that he had monitored Michelle’s blog postings over a 36-hour period, cross-referenced them against his reconstruction of her travel itinerary, and then (perhaps typing as fast as he could before the Halliburton black helicopters came to take him to Abu Ghraib), announced that she couldn’t have written them all herself.

You see, the smoking gun (according to Muller) was that she posted an item at 8:25 AM, then flew to Minneapolis for three hours, then posted another at 12:31 PM! How could she do that?

Uh, by using a wireless networking card in her laptop?

The commenters on Muller’s own blog were unkind to the professor, to the say the least.

It’s not surprising that Muller has given up debating in favor of smearing, slandering and if possible silencing his opponents. He seems otherwise underequipped for intellectual combat. I first heard about Muller from his 27,000 word denunciation of Michelle Malkin’s 2004 book In Defense Of Internment: The Case for “Racial Profiling” in World War II and the War on Terror.

I had written a long review of Malkin’s book for, arguing that the Roosevelt Administration’s interning West Coast Japanese-American citizens was, in hindsight, a mistake, justifying President Reagan’s granting $20,000 compensation checks in 1988. Yet, I said, it was also an understandable mistake under the extreme stress and uncertainty of confronting a Japanese fleet that had conquered close to an eighth of the world’s surface by early 1942. (Here, by the way, is the wise Thomas Sowell‘s similar review.)

Muller, though, knew better. It was all completely unjustified and the fault of white American racism. After all, he wrote, the U.S. government

“took no action affecting American citizens of German or Italian ancestry. (In other words, if your name was, say Joe Kaminaka or Lou Matsumoto, you were evicted and confined; if your name was, say, Joe DiMaggio or Lou Gehrig, well, uh, you know.)”

For somebody who purported to be an expert on the internment controversy, Muller didn’t seem to have much experience discussing it with anybody who didn’t already wholly agree with him.

For example, Muller’s Joe DiMaggio quip above was a classic case of leading with your chin. DiMaggio’s own father, a San Francisco crab fisherman, was grounded for the war’s duration to prevent him—the dad of the most popular athlete in America—from rendezvousing in the fog beyond the Golden Gate Bridge with Mussolini’s invasion fleet … or something. This was much nuttier than fears of Japanese-American collaboration with Tojo’s fleet.

Further, Muller repeatedly made assertions that were prima facieabsurd to anyone with an understanding of the dire naval situation in early 1942. At that time, Secretary of War Henry Stimson argued(incorrectly, as it turned out, but sincerely) that Japanese hit-and-run raids on the West Coast were “not only possible, but probable in the first months of the war, and it was quite impossible to be sure that the raiders would not receive important help from individuals of Japanese origin.”

Muller, bizarrely, claimed that America then “faced identical (indeed, more serious) threats along its East Coast.”

In reality, neither Germany nor Italy had much of a surface navy left by 1942. The Germans had already lost the Graf Spee and Bismarck, and they never even finished an aircraft carrier, the decisive asset in 1940s naval warfare. Moreover, the unconquered Royal Navy stood between Germany and the beach at Coney Island. The remnants of the German surface fleet were largely bottled up in the Baltic Sea by the by the vastly larger Royal Navy, with its base at Scotland’s Scapa Flow.

As Harvard historian Niall Ferguson notes in his fine new book The War of the World:

“At the outbreak of war [in 1939], the British had seven aircraft carriers, the Germans none; fifteen battleships to the German’s five; forty-nine cruisers to the Germans’ six; 192 destroyers to the Germans’ twenty-one.”

Similarly, the British guns inside the Rock of Gibraltar kept within the Mediterranean what little was left of the Italian fleet after its defeat by the British at Taranto in 1940 and Cape Matapan in 1941. How exactly the survivors were going to sail around Cape Horn to link up with the DiMaggio crab boat was left unexplained. Perhaps the U.S. was worried that Mussolini would build a new Italian navy of glass-bottomed boats so they could steer clear of the old Italian navy.

In contrast, when the internment decision was made in early 1942, the Japanese Navy then boasted ten aircraft carriers (six full-sized) and eleven battleships. But the U.S. could normally put only three flattops to sea in the Pacific—and most of our battleships were still at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese carriers had revolutionized global warfare, raiding Hawaii, Australia, and Ceylon, a span of 65 degrees of longitude, between December 1941 and April 1942.

Moreover, the Japanese regime had inculcated a fanatical racist militarism among the Japanese (as exemplified by the refusal of almost all of the 22,000 Imperial troops on Iwo Jima to surrender), including several thousand American citizens whose Japan-born parents had sent them back to the Old Country for education and indoctrination.

In contrast, Il Duce’s subjects showed negligible enthusiasm for the war. Indeed, when Patton’s army landed in Sicily in 1943, Italian soldiers put down their guns, ran down on the beach, and helped the Americans unload.

In Germany, war lust was running higher than in Italy, but the loyalty of German-Americans had been fully tested in World War I, when expressions of pride in German culture in the U.S. had been crushed during the anti-German Kulturkampf.

Now the rest of the story: The political purpose of Michelle’s book was to argue against Bush Administration Transportation Secretary Underperformin’ Norman Mineta’s adamant opposition to ethnic profiling at airports due to his internment as an infant during WWII.

Mineta’s policy of harassing obvious non-terrorists has wasted enormous amounts of the limited time of passengers and personnel. For example, Joe Foss, an 86-year-old former Marine general and South Dakota governor on his way to give a speech at West Point, was given the third degree by airport security for 45 minutes because he had set off the metal detector with … his Congressional Medal of Honor.

To Muller, though, Michelle’s advocacy of the ethnic profiling of Middle Eastern Muslims was just racist hysteria. He was particularly outraged that Michelle had put on her book’s cover pictures of both Richard Kotoshirodo, the American citizen who had spied on Pearl Harbor for Japan, and the organizer of the 9/11 slaughter, Mohammed Atta.

In 2005, though, we learned that political correctness allowed arch-terrorist Atta to board his first flight on 9/11. David Hench of the Portland Press Herald interviewed U.S. Air ticket agent Michael Tuohey in 2005 and recounted that fateful encounter.

“Then [Tuohey's] eyes locked on Atta.

“’It just sent chills through you. You see his picture in the paper (now). You see more life in that picture than there is in flesh and blood,’ Tuohey said.

“Then Tuohey went through an internal debate that still haunts him.

“’I said to myself, “If this guy doesn’t look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.” Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it’s not nice to say things like this,’ he said.” [More]

That’s exactly the reaction Mineta had been demanding of airport workers. And, as I pointed out on the evening of 9/11/01, Mineta’s boss, George W. Bush, had been calling since the 2000 campaign for laxer airport security in the hopes of winning the Muslim vote. Amusingly, Muller and Bush are on the same side of the profiling issue.

Now the denouement: an even more striking irony was to come.

A shaken Muller blogged on March 4th, 2006:

“I am nearly speechless about the jeep attack on the UNC campus yesterday.

“The spot the assailant chose was the very center of the campus … In the noon hour it’s just mobbed with students, faculty, and staff. Not infrequently I’m over there in the noon hour myself; there’s a Jamba Juice in the dining hall where I like to get smoothies.”

The SUV-driving terrorist, who would have gladly murdered Muller if the professor’s schedule had brought him to the pedestrian-only zone, turned out to be …


  • Michelle Malkin?

Only in Muller’s dreams.

Instead, this exponent of Sudden Jihad Syndrome was Muller’s most embarrassing nightmare: a recent UNC grad named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar.

According to Wikipedia, the North Carolina terrorist is:

“… an Iranian-born American citizen who confessed to intentionally hitting people with a car on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to ‘avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide’ and to ‘punish’ the United States government. While no one was killed in the attack, nine people were injured (none seriously)… In one letter, Taheri-azar wrote, ‘I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree.’”

Four days later, Muller had recovered his gall enough to praise the campus leadership for not calling the terrorist a “terrorist.”

“In Defense of Worrying About The Word ‘Terrorist’”

“So this question of what to call Mohammed Taheri-azar is not an easy one. Yes, what he did was, on my view, ‘terrorism.’ But I do not wish to join those clamoring for the deployment of the word. I want to use the word deliberately, carefully, without shearing from it its very worrying connotations. That is what I see this community doing as it debates what to call this frightening young man, and I applaud the community for it.”

One of Muller’s commenters sardonically observed:

“Geez, next thing maybe you and your comrades will stop using the word ‘racist’ for every policy you disagree with. I won’t hold my breath, though.”

Yeah. Here at, we’re not holding our breath, either.

For Muller or for the myriad of Mullers who currently paralyze American public debate.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islam, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

On Sunday, five years less a day after Saudi and Egyptian terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, the New York Times reported in More Muslims Arrive in U.S., After 9/11 Dip:

“In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents—nearly 96,000—than in any year in the previous two decades.” [By Andrea Elliott, September 10, 2006]

Of course, no foreign Muslim can hurt us here in America unless we let him into America. But the Bush Administration, instead of securing the borders, is ginning up another round of war fever.

Iran in 2006 is being compared to Germany in 1938—although the clearest comparison is to Iraq in 2002.

Of course, the Iranian Shi’ite government’s new influence in the Persian Gulf, which we’re supposed to worry so much about, is the result of the Administration destroying the Iraqi Sunni secular regime that was deterring Iran—and replacing it with a Shi’ite-dominated administration with close ties to Iran.

As I’ve been pointing out for some time now, rather than doing something simple and sensible such as increasingly disconnecting America from the chaos of the Muslim world, the Grand Strategy of the Bush Administration in the half decade since 9/11 hascontradictorily consisted of

  • Invade the world
  • Invite the world
  • In hock to the world

The prodigious young blogger Daniel Larison similarly sums up the BushAdministration agenda as: Imperialism, Immigration, and Insolvency.”

Websites like Belmont Club try to reassure the faithful by offering ever more convoluted explanations of what the Administration’s master strategists are actually up to. But the suspicion is growing that, rather than being masterful Machiavels always seeing a half-dozen steps ahead, the White House has simply lacked the competence to judge what its various spasmodic actions will unleash.

Is there an underlying rationale to Invade-Invite-In Hock?

Or has American policy simply been the chaotic outcome of the shifting power struggles of Administration players each in the grip of his own idée fixe?

Whether you’re a Pollyanna optimist or a paranoid pessimist, it’s still an oddly comforting assumption that somewhere, behind all the nonsensical propaganda, there is somebody smart who is secretly pulling the strings to achieve his goals, whatever they may be.

That there’s an Inner Circle comprised of profoundly competent men plotting the course of history is one of the most popular staples ofscience fiction. In Star Wars, the Jedi Knights battle each other to determine the fate of the galaxy. In Isaac Asimov’s Foundationtrilogy, psychohistorian Hari Seldon has scientifically grasped what willhappen for the next 1,000 years.

The same pattern is found in science fiction by “serious” authors. Theclimaxes of both famous English mid-century dystopian novels, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984, are didactic dialogues in which omniscient and omnipotent Inner Circle representatives proudly explain to the idealistic main characters the sinister logic behind the regime’s disinformation.

In 1932, Huxley’s Mustapha Mond, the brilliant physicist turned globaloligarch, details why the government requires everyone to dither away his or her time on hedonism.

Then in 1948, Orwell followed with the horrifying encounter between Outer Party member Winston Smith and O’Brien of the Inner Party:

‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’

“Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.

“‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is notenough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure thathe is obeying your will and not his own? … If you want apicture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— for ever.’”

So—has America’s policy since 9/11 been dictated by benevolent Obi-wan Kenobis and Hari Seldons or by evil Mustapha Monds and O’Briens?

“Neither,” suggests Gregory Cochran, the physicist and geneticist, who correctly pointed out in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was too broke to have a nuclear bomb program. “There is no Inner Party in our government. They just don’t know what they are talking about.”

The reality, in Cochran’s view, is more like Idiocracy, the funny new movie from the wonderful Mike Judge, creator of King of the Hill and Office Space, whom I profiled in VDARE on 3/26/06. A 100 IQ soldier played by Luke Wilson is accidentally frozen for 500 years. When he awakes, he discovers that everyone he meets is a moron.

Who is behind this horror? The hero is whisked off to the White House. But instead of meeting an all-seeing Mustapha Mond who can reveal the inner workings of the dystopia, the “President of America” turns out to be a professional wrestler as clueless as the voters who elected him, with a cabinet chosen to make him feel intellectually adequate bycomparison.

Similarly, consider, today’s Number Three man in the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005, the civilian neoconservative “intellectual” Douglas Feith. He was notoriously described as “the #$%^&*@ stupidest guy on the face of the earth” by General Tommy Franks, whose own mental acuity reminded few observers of, say, Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, the victor of Midway.

In a memo a few days after 9/11, Feith proposed first attacking South America as a surprise to the terrorists,” which, it indeed would have been, as well as a surprise to the rest of humanity over the age of two.

Feith’s reasons for wanting to use American military might to slaughter random Arab merchants who do business on the Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil Triple Border(as well as anybody else who happened to be in the vicinity) were no doubt deeply personal. (Feith’s longtime law partner in Feith & Zellwas L. Marc Zell, who is a prominent spokesman for extremist Zionist settlers in the West Bank.)

Still, Feith’s plan was also flagrantly ridiculous. As a coherent entity,“the terrorists” exist even less than any Bush Administration “Inner Party”. There are no “the terrorists”— just terrorists, many of whom hate each other, and many of whom are no threat to the U.S.(And there were definitely no terrorists endangering America in remotest South America.)

Yet, rather than being eased out of his crucial position immediately after so graphically displaying his unfitness, Feith stayed on for anotherfour years to work his Idiocracy-style mischief, pipelining convicted conman Ahmad Chalabi’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s purported WMD programs to Dick Cheney.

Meanwhile, the Number Two man at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, another neoconservative intellectual, was using the opportunity presented by the mass murder committed by Saudi and Egyptian Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan to call for conquering the anti-Islamist Iraq regime of the secular socialist Sadam Hussein.

While Feith’s chief motive appears to have been to kill Arabs, any Arabs, Wolfowitz is widely considered an idealist who actually believed the Administration’s flapdoodle about the Arabs being ripe for democracy.

But why would any grown man think such a thing about the Arabs?

We may never know for sure. But private motivations have been known to drive outsiders in the Middle East in the past. For example, on the 684th and last page of T.E. Lawrence’s eloquent memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom comes the stunning statement that Lawrence actually had a secret reason for liberating the Arabs in 1917-1918 and he’s not going to tell us what it was:

“The strongest motive throughout had been a personal one, not mentioned here, but present to me, I think, every hour these two years.

The least vague answer Lawrence ever provided was once, when asked why he had fought for Arab independence, he replied:

“I liked a particular Arab, and I thought that freedom forthe race would be an acceptable present.”

The most likely candidate for Lawrence’s favorite Arab was a teenage waterboy. Similarly, we found out in 2005, when Wolfowitz of Arabia was being kicked upstairs to head the World Bank (just like that other failed Defense Department official Robert McNamara), that Wolfowitz’s favorite Arab was Shaha Riza, a middle-aged Arab feminist. According to the Washington Post, his girlfriend “sharesWolfowitz’s passion for democratizing the Middle East.”[Europeans Resist Wolfowitz for World Bank, By Paul Blustein and Richard Leiby, March 18, 2005 ]

I’m sure Ms. Riza, along with all her family and friends that Wolfowitz met, is highly capable of participating in a Jeffersonian democracy. But one shouldn’t help send one’s country off to war based on such an unscientific sample.

The least likely candidate for the role of the brilliant Mustapha Mond: the man who actually holds ultimate responsibility—President GeorgeW. Bush.

Yet Bush’s former ghostwriter persuasively outlined the mixture ofcheap politics and oedipal jealousy that inspired Bush’s hopes for an Iraq war well before 9/11:

“‘He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,’ said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. ‘It was on his mind. He said to me: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.” And he said, “My father had all this political capital built upwhen he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.” He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it…

“Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks.”

Bush’s invite-the-world immigration plan makes little sense either as policy or politics. Five years after 9/11, it’s becoming obvious that hisAdministration’s invade-the-world strategy reflects mostly the deluded obsessions of a few men of strong passion and weak reason.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islam, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s The Immigration, Stupid

The international extent of Muslim mob violence over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed can distract from its roots:Muslim immigration into Denmark.

When a reporter for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper discovered that Danish illustrators were refusing the innocent job of drawing the pictures for a Danish children’s book on the history of Islam because of a fear (quite reasonable, as we now see) of violent retribution by Muslims living in Denmark, the newspaper’s cultural editor, Flemming Rose, became interested in a the topic of self-censorship within the Danish media. As an experiment, he invited 40 illustrators to drawpictures of Mohammed. Twelve complied.

Publication of the Danish Dozen last September set off the usual outrage. But the true ratcheting up was due to a delegation of Muslim imams living in Denmark. They took a junket to the Middle East with a portfolio that included, not just the twelve cartoons, but three more offensive fabrications. As Michelle Malkin has reported, one of the pictures these “Danish” imams flogged as supposedly a Jyllands-Posten cartoon of the Prophet with the face of a pig (an unclean animal in Islam) was actually a forgery based on a newsphoto from a French pig-calling contest that had nothing to do with Islam.

The Relative Courage of the Danish GovernmentWas No Accident

By informing Muslims that Danish newspapers are free to print what they want, the government of Denmark has shown more backbone than we are accustomed to seeing in European governments. Incontrast, last week the Swedish government shut down a private website for posting a mild drawing chiding Muslims for lack of introspection.

[ note: This article about the censorship says that thewebsite belongs to the Swedish Democrats, considered by Sweden's media to be a "far-right" party. The Swedish Democrat website seems to be down, and so is, which in English would be "Swedish Democrat-Courier " but is still up, and here's their political program in English. Not "far-right" by American standards—the Swedes wouldconsider many centrist Democrats "far-right."]

The Danish politicians’ moral fiber was not a fluke. Since 2001, Denmark has had a coalition government dependent upon the support of the immigration restrictionist Danish People’s Party. In the 2005 election, it won 24 of the 179 parliamentary seats, making it the third largest party. The DPP website staunchly states:

“Denmark is not an immigrant-country and has never been so. Therefore, we will not accept a transformation to a multiethnic society.”

In return for DPP support, Denmark’s government has sharply reduced immigration. This has had salutary psychological effects. As I’ve long pointed out, politicians’ normal terror of the immigrant vote is seldom based on its current size, which is usually limited, but on itsseemingly limitless future expansion. Merely bringing the rate of immigration under control changes the political psychology immediately. Defying political correctness no longer seems quite so unthinkable to politicians.

Surprise! Multiculturalism Means…MultipleCultures

Guess what? Danes and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social organization and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a severe problem. It’s what separate countries are for.But due to mass immigration, it is in fact becoming a huge stumbling block.

To know them is not necessarily to love them

One of the dominant myths of our age is that any hostility among people is caused by a lack of mutual familiarity. Of course, it’s reassuring to think that anybody who doesn’t like you just doesn’tknow you well enough. But you may be just kidding yourself.

Unfortunately, this form of self-delusion is the reigning mindset among Western ruling classes.

For example, last year the Supreme Court outlawed the state of California’s prudent practice of segregating inmates by race during the first 60 days of their prison terms while checking if they had tendencies toward racist violence. Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority that this entirely reasonable attempt to prevent felons from maiming and raping fellow prisoners of other races might “breed further hostility among prisoners and reinforce racial and ethnic divisions.”

Last week, after race riots broke out between Mexicans and blackgang members in the unsegregated LA County jails, Sheriff Lee Baca pleaded with the ACLU to let him separate the races permanently. .But the ACLU was unsympathetic. Ideology 1. Facts 0.

Another example of this elite hallucination came in the conclusion of New York Times reporter Craig S. Smith’s jaw-droppingly naive article on the Danish Dozen:

“But whether [Flemming Rose's] exercise had achieved his stated goal—of forcing citizens to think about theirsubmission to someone else’s taboos—it was clear that ithad helped extremists on both sides who would keepEurope and the Muslim world from understanding eachother.” [Adding Newsprint to the Fire, February 5, 2006]

Uh, Craig, actually this exercise has enabled Europeans and Muslims to understand each other much better.

They just don’t agree.

A more pressing question than whether or not Muslims understand Western values (long answer: no) is: do elite Westerners still understand Western liberties?

What this pathetic New York Times article suggests is that Muslims understand the new and improved Western values perfectly. They know that the highest prize in the contemporary West is to beconsidered an official minority, which then gives you that ultimate value: victim status.

Importing Muslims Seemed Like a Good Idea atthe Time, But…

Many Americans are currently congratulating themselves for their brilliance in choosing to locate the U.S. north of a huge supply ofunskilled Latin Americans, rather than north of a huge supply of unskilled Muslims, like those idiot Europeans.

But it ain’t over till the fat…whatever. Forty years ago when Europe opened the floodgates to Muslim workers, Islam looked like a spentforce. Similarly, anti-white populism seemed like a relic of the past in Latin America just 15 years ago, but today it’s the hottest trend once again. And it may well spill over into Hispanic communities in the U.S.—which would give us no end of trouble.

The point is that we don’t know which groups will become actively aggrieved when. So it pays to be prudent and limit immigration carefully.

Sending Muslims Home Is a Better Idea Now

Many European countries already have underfunded programs to pay immigrants to leave. It’s time for them to get serious about a push-pull program to persuade a large number of Muslims to exit Europe.

Diversity and Freedom of Expression Conflict

Although VDARE.COM has run scores of articles under the title “Diversity vs. Freedom” over the years, almost nobody else has gotten the message….yet.

Self-Censorship Is Bad Even When MuslimsAren’t Involved

It’s wonderful that the Danish Cartoon Crisis is causing some people in the West to wake up to the problem of self-censorship.

Yet the truth is that the Islamic taboo on visually depicting the Prophet is one of the least onerous forms Western media self-censorship. Did you ever feel a desperate urge to see an artist’s conception ofMohammed’s face?

Me, neither.

I could list any number of examples of major topics that VDARE.COM covers while the Main Stream Media won’t.

But let me remind you of just one: the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

The content is irresistible—it synthesizes the best information available from 168 published academic studies to come up with estimates of the average IQ of 81 countries. Further, the book delivers perhaps themost important finding in the history of developmental economics: national average IQ and GDP per capita correlate at the extraordinarily high level of r = 0.73.

Obviously, this book would be valuable for international investors and aid agencies. Lynn and Vanhanen’s suggestion that lack ofmicronutrient fortification of staple foods is costing Third World countries crucial IQ points was recently endorsed by the government of Ghana.

It also has crucial political implications. For example, back before the Iraq invasion in 2003, physicist Gregory Cochran repeatedly pointedout that Iraq (average IQ = 87 according to Lynn and Vanhanen) didn’t have enough smart engineers to make nuclear weapons withthe limited amount of money available to the regime. He turned out to be right.

In contrast to Cochran’s insight, our intelligence services weren’t allowed by the reigning mindset to consider Iraq’s average IQ.

Yet, over the last four years, mention of this book’s existence has only once appeared in a newspaper or magazine widely distributed in the United States.

And, hilariously, that was when The Economist fell hook, line, and sinker for the ludicrous Blue States Have Higher IQs than Red States Hoax in 2004. The magazine attributed the wholly phony data to IQ and the Wealth of Nations!

Lynn now has a sequel out, Racial Differences in Intelligence. It summarizes 600 different IQ studies by racial group. I haven’t seen it yet, but Jason Malloy has provided a 13,000 word review on

VDARE.COM will be covering it—but don’t expect to see any mention in the Main Stream Media.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islam, VDare Archives 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation