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

 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

With Muslim terrorists committing anti-Semitic massacres in France and Denmark earlier this year, and Middle Eastern and African youths routinely harassing Jews on the street in European cities, one might think that facilitating another massive influx of Muslims, along with all the chain migration to follow, would be considered not good for the Jews.

Some Eastern European countries have offered to accept persecuted Syrian Christian refugees, but not Muslims. You might think that would be considered a reasonable compromise good for the Jews, right?

But that is simply unthinkable to the current mind. The important thing is not to do practical things to help actual European Jews, the important thing is to stick to the Narrative and follow out its symbolic logic. Thus, from the New York Times:

Hungarian Leader Rebuked for Saying Muslim Migrants Must Be Blocked ‘to Keep Europe Christian’
SEPT. 3, 2015

Open Source

Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, was criticized online and in person on Thursday for writing in a German newspaper that it was important to secure his nation’s borders from mainly Muslim migrants “to keep Europe Christian.”

“Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims,” Mr. Orban wrote in a commentary for Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung, a German newspaper. “This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.”

“Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?” Mr. Orban asked. “There is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders.”

Before meeting with Mr. Orban on Thursday in Brussels, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, which represents European Union leaders, thanked him for securing Europe’s borders, but took issue with the argument of Mr. Orban’s opinion article.

“I want to underline that for me, Christianity in public and social life means a duty to our brothers in need,” Mr. Tusk said as he stood alongside Mr. Orban.

“Referring to Christianity in a public debate on migration must mean in the first place the readiness to show solidarity and sacrifice. For a Christian it shouldn’t matter what race, religion and nationality the person in need represents.”

Mr. Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland, drew attention to his rebuke of the Hungarian leader on social networks, and his office posted video of his comments on YouTube.

Mr. Orban waited until the end of the day to respond to Mr. Tusk. At a separate news conference in which he faced reporters alone, he reiterated the theme of his article, that Europe was at risk of being “overrun” and had to shut its borders. The Hungarian prime minister argued that European countries had no obligation to accept most of the migrants, as “the overwhelming majority of people are not refugees because they are not coming from a war-stricken area.”

“Our Christian obligation is not to create illusions,” he said. …

Mr. Orban’s formulation echoed notorious remarks made by the poet T.S. Eliot in 1933, another moment in history when Europeans expressed fears of being overwhelmed by a “flood” of non-Christian immigrants.

The Real Enemy

The highest priority must always be to defeat the real enemy, T.S. Eliot.

Of course, you can’t stop T.S. Eliot in the past without getting a few more kosher supermarket shoppers and bat mitzvah security guards murdered by Muslim thugs in the future. But the deaths of these Jews will, apparently, be a small price to pay for not having to consider whether diminishing marginal returns have started to set in for our era’s dominant ideological obsessions.

Never forget: It’s always 1933.

Thus, from the New York Times once again:

Treatment of Migrants Evokes Memories of Europe’s Darkest Hour

BUDAPEST — In Hungary, hundreds of migrants surrounded by armed police officers were tricked into boarding a train with promises of freedom, only to be taken to a “reception” camp. In the Czech Republic, the police hustled more than 200 migrants off a train and wrote identification numbers on their hands with indelible markers, stopping only when someone pointed out that this was more than a little like the tattoos the Nazis put on concentration camp inmates.

Razor-wire fences rise along national borders in Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary and France. Many political leaders stoke rising nationalism by portraying the migrants as dangerous outsiders whose foreign cultures and Muslim religion could overwhelm cherished traditional ways.

“It was horrifying when I saw those images of police putting numbers on people’s arms,” said Robert Frolich, the chief rabbi of Hungary. “It reminded me of Auschwitz. And then putting people on a train with armed guards to take them to a camp where they are closed in? Of course there are echoes of the Holocaust.”

Europeans are facing one of the Continent’s worst humanitarian crises since World War II, yet many seem blind to images that recall that blackest time in their history.

This migrant crisis is no genocide. The issue throughout the Continent is how to register, house, resettle or repatriate hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees, a daunting logistical challenge. But perhaps not since the Jews were rounded up by Nazi Germany have there been as many images coming out of Europe of people locked into trains, babies handed over barbed wire, men in military gear herding large crowds of bedraggled men, women and children.

At the same time, the images may reveal a deeper truth about Europe and its seeming unpreparedness for a crisis so long in the making: While extolling the virtues of human rights and humanism, it remains, in many parts, a place resistant to immigration and diversity.

As a result, some here are reacting in ways that recall some of the Continent’s darkest impulses.

“They must be oblivious because who would do that if they had any historical memory whatsoever,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “It’s amazing, really. Certainly those images of the trains can’t help but conjure up nightmares of the Holocaust.”

Rabbi Frolich was especially struck by the lies used to manipulate the migrants.

“They tell them that the train was going to Austria and then take them to a camp instead,” the rabbi said. “I don’t think the police got instructions from the government to do it this way, but it is very similar to what happened to Jews in the 1940s.”

Jan Munk, chairman of the Jewish Community of Prague, was inclined to be generous in his interpretation of the episode.

“I understand the reasons why the police marked migrants with numbers,” he said. “They are under a lot of pressure and stress and simply did not realize the connotations it would have. It was indeed tasteless and reminded me of the numbers at Auschwitz, but I know it was not done on purpose.”

But for others, the fact that it was not done on purpose was even more frightening, showing a puzzling historical disconnect in many of the very places that the Holocaust caused the deepest devastation.

“It may be correct that they didn’t know, but the insensitivity and the ignorance of the imagery their actions evoked is stunning; it’s just sickening,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in New York.

The T.S. Eliot Menace is the important thing, not the future of Europe.

George Orwell famously stated: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

But those who control the present may not actually get a future they will like if they are so focused upon symbolically smiting their enemies of the past that they blind themselves to learning from the present.

🔊 Listen RSS

Last week, British authorities released the names of 19 British-born individuals arrested for plotting to blow up airliners by smuggling bombs onboard in sports drink bottles:

Abdula Ahmed Ali, Cossor Ali, Shazad Khuram Ali, NabeelHussain, Tanvir Hussain, Umair Hussain, Umar Islam, Waseem Kayani, Assan Abdullah Khan, Waheed Arafat Khan, Osman Adam Khatib, Abdul Muneem Patel, Tayib Rauf, Muhammed Usman Saddique, Assad Sarwar, Ibrahim Savant, Amin Asmin Tariq, Shamin Mohammed Uddin, and Waheed Zaman.

Notice a pattern?

Yet, almost five years after 19 Saudi Arabian and Egyptian individuals with similar-sounding names hijacked four airliners and killed 3,000 people on 9/11, the United States government remains committed to not using ethnic profiling to raise the odds of airport security.

During his second debate with Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush,hoping to win the Arab vote in Michigan, promised to eliminate airport profiling:

“Secondly, there is other forms [sic] of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what iscalled secret evidence [sic]. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn’t just an issue at local police forces. It’s an issue throughout our society.”

Although Bush lost Michigan anyway, he began implementing this policy at airports in early 2001, a move which may have contributed to 9/11, although nobody seems interested in this question other than me.

In January 2002, an 86-year-old former governor of South Dakota and retired brigadier general named Joe Foss, on his way to give a speech to cadets at West Point, was subjected to the third degree by Phoenix airport security for 45 minutes because the metal detector was set off by his dangerously pointy Congressional Medal of Honor. When I first heard this, I assumed that Bush’s anti-profiling rules wouldbe laughed out of existence.

I was wrong.

Bush has stuck with this plan in the post-9/11 world as adamantly as he has stood by his similarly discredited-by-events obsession with increasing immigration. Indeed, criticism of it has largely died out.

Meanwhile last week, inconclusive fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah Shi’ites of South Lebanon inspired a frenzy of apocalyptic war fever among prominent commentators in America, with many lashing out in frustration at Israel’s inability to kill satisfactory numbers of Hezbollah guerillas who have burrowed deep into their home turf.

Excitable gentlemen claimed once again that we are on the brink of World War III with The New Hitler. (The precise identity of this imminent world-conqueror has varied over the last half decade, depending on the date and the obsession of the pundit, with the Muslim Fuhrer role being filled by bin Laden, Hussein, Zarqawi,Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah.) The logic of more than a few of these diatribes appear to imply a pressing need for the nuclear genocide of much of the Muslim world.

In other words, the Administration and its media shills remain committed to their Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World. Bomb them over there and indulge them over here.

Obviously, when you stop and think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.

So, it’s time for a new Grand Strategy to unify domestic and foreign policies for how Westerners should deal with Muslims. Because strategizing routinely fails due to too much Rube Goldbergish complexity, I’ll boil it down to one word:


Perhaps the most quoted social philosopher of our time famously asked:

“Can we all get along?”

Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:

No, we can’t.

So, deal with it. When we get in each other’s faces, we get on each other’s nerves. It’s time to get out of each other’s faces.

Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are fo r. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.

To paraphrase E.M. Forster:

“Only disconnect.”

If we start disconnecting now, maybe in a generation or two we’ll have forgotten what we’ve done to each other and can start afresh.


Domestic policy:

In the long run, as Robert Pape’s study of 460 suicide bombings shows, there’s a strong correlation between outside occupation and suicide terrorism, so cutting down our footprint in the Muslim world will slowly reduce terrorism against us.

But that may take a generation to work itself out. In the meantime, we need to take rational steps to defend ourselves.

  • First, do no more harm. North American and, especially,European countries should stop making their problem worse. It’s time to cut off immigration from Muslim countries, with thepossible exception of a few more rational places like Turkey and Malaysia.
  • Implement ethnic profiling of Muslims. Treat them with suspicion. If they don’t like it, they can leave.
  • Enforce the laws against cousin marriage. Arranged marriages between young Muslim women in the West and their first or second cousins back in the Old Country are the main engines in Europe of de-assimilation and of immigration fraud.

I recently received this email:

My name is XXX. i’m YYYteen years old and am a muslim girl living in scotland and was wondering if you know ofanything that will help me escape marrying an older first cousin from the middle east. I know i sound stupid but i got really freaked when my mum spoke to a relativetelling them that she’d still give my hand to my cousinwho is years older and tells the relative to wait because i haven’t finished school and my other education. Also it is my mum’s brother’s son i’m supposed to marry and my uncle is really ill and my mum dotes on him. what if my uncle died and that was his dying wish, to have me married to my cousin? how disastrous is that going to be, i mean i don’t even like the thought of inbreeding i think it’s sick! Please do you know any loopholes in a XXXwedding that will stop me getting married to ZZZ? Pleasecan you help i haven’t even finished school or got a job so this has really blown me away!

This situation is utterly common. Among married people in Britain ofPakistani background, 55% are married to a first cousin. Not surprisingly, Pakistani children in Britain have very high rates of birth defects.

In particular, as I outlined last fall, Europeans need to begin a push-pull system to persuade Muslim legal residents to leave.

  • Combine that with “buyout offers” paying $25,000 (or more, if necessary) to pull the less successful Muslims out.


Foreign Policy:

First, calm down, take a deep breath, and get some perspective.

Contrary to what is being printed in the neoconservative fever swamps, we are in no danger whatsoever of being conquered by Islam’s military might, such as it is. We don’t need to nuke large swatches of the Muslim world.

The United States is vastly more powerful militarily than all the Muslim-run nations put together. We account for either 48 percent or 49 percent of all military spending in the world. That’s almost eight times more than that of all 44 or so Muslim-dominated countries combined. (Of course, in the real world, Muslim nations can seldom getthemselves combined over anything.)

We have complete air supremacy.

We have twelve aircraft carriers, featuring more than 80 percent of the naval aircraft in the world. All the Muslim countries in the world have zero.

One obvious reason for the military weakness of Muslims is that, despite much oil, they aren’t very economically productive so they are mostly poor. According to the CIA World Factbook, Muslim countries account for just 8.4 of the global GDP, compared to America’s 20.3percent.

Interestingly, the notorious Iranians devote only 3.3 percent of their GDP to military spending, while we allot 4.06 percent.

The boring fact, one that won’t get mentioned much on Fox News because it doesn’t help ratings, is that the world became more peaceful and less threatening when the main engine of lethal mischief, the Soviet Union, broke apart.

The bottom line is that America, as the lone hyperpower, can severely punish any Muslim state that hurts us, as we showed in Afghanistan in 2001. If necessary, we can conquer and occupy any one of them. That leaves the Muslims with the poor man’s ways of war: guerillaresistance and terrorism.

What we can’t do is occupy them and make them:

  • resemble us politically, socially, or culturally;
  • love us for ruling them; or even
  • merely submit to us, if they really don’t want to and we’re not willing to slaughter them en masse, as civilized nations seldom are these days.

The Israelis found all this out when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. The Shi’ites of Southern Lebanon initially cheered Ariel Sharon’s tanks because the Israelis were coming to drive out the Palestinian immigrants whom the Shi’ites hated. But being occupied gets old quick, and soon Hezbollah was organizing attacks. Israel held a strip insouthern Lebanon until withdrawing in 2000.

Occupying a Muslim country is like trying to teach a duck to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the duck.

This hard-earned realism isn’t the end of the world. The oil exporting countries will still need to export oil to the world market—it’s not like they have other ways to pay their bills.

So, let’s get out of Iraq.

And invest some of the $87 billion wasted annually on occupation on, among other things, defensive technologies like anti-missile systems.

Being a sensible, realistic idea, the Disconnect Strategy may lack the irrational emotional appeal of Invade the World—Invite the World. But isn’t it time for common sense?

[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 VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

John Derbyshire‘s recent column Hesperophobia, (cont.)(“hesperophobia” is historian Robert Conquest‘s term for fear and loathing of the West) is interesting both in itself and because it was spiked by his employer National Review Online. That it couldn’t be published says a lot about the puerility of mainstream conservatism.

Derbyshire, of course, is not puerile. Unlike the typical opinion journalist, who got into the business straight out of school, long before he’d earned any of his opinions, Derbyshire was in his 50s before becoming a full time writer. He’s lived all over the world and had many jobs, both mundane but instructive (such as computer systems analyst) and exotic (such as getting beaten up by the great Bruce Lee in the kung fu movie Way of the Dragon.)

Similarly, unlike the run-of-the-mill pundit, who knows only politics and some tedious pop culture, such as Star Trek trivia, Derbyshire’s particular interests range from poetry (he’s put together an enjoyable CD of three dozen great American poems) to mathematics. His book Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics was a surprisingly big seller and his next book,Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra, is slated for publication in the Spring.

Reflecting on the Muslim cartoon riots in his spiked column, Derbyshire asks: “The West is hated all over the rest of the world. Why?”

He answers his question:

“They hate us from wounded ethnic pride. They hate us because of our cultural superiority; which is to say, at one remove, our political superiority. They hate us because they can’t organize societies like ours, in which security, prosperity, and hope for the future are available to all, and creativity flourishes. They can’t, they know they can’t, and the knowledge drives them nuts.”

White Americans have a hard time realizing this because we don’t think about Third Worlders much at all. Why not? Because we don’t see them as rivals. It’s like how Tiger Woods thinks about the average PGA golf pro a lot less than the typical pro thinks about Tiger Woods.(Tiger thinks about Jack Nicklaus and his records.) And just knowing that Tiger isn’t worrying about them annoys an awful lot of them no end.

Similarly, we white Americans think of each other as rivals, and sometimes we think of those snooty French as competitors, and we treat the Northeast Asians as rivals when it comes to business. But we don’t think much about the Third Worlders, and that drives them crazy.

That this makes them mad at us is only human nature. And, as Derbyshire, says, “We may not, to borrow a rhetorical figure from Trotsky, be interested in the reality of human nature, but it is interested in us.”

I suspect that what got his essay rejected by NRO was this:

“It has long been known, for example, that East Asians have better visual-spatial skills than other peoples… But if a group of humans with one genetic heritage can differ slightly from some other group in the way they process visual information, might they not also differ in the way they process social information? And if they do so differ, might it not be that forms of society that come easily to one group, might come only with great difficulty, or not at all, to another?”

In contrast, the President’s invade-the-world-invite-the-world strategy is fundamentally based on the opposite assumption: that everybody is equal in potential, and that to even question that is unthinkable and evil.

Mr. Bush may be right. Many fashionable thinkers make the same claim. The late Stephen Jay Gould advised his readers to repeat after him, “Human equality is a contingent fact of history.” To help keep their faith up, he advised them to chant his slogan “five times before breakfast.”

But, what if Mr. Bush and Dr. Gould are wrong?

The genetic science is progressing so fast that we’ll know soon enough—perhaps two decades to be rock solid certain. We know which way the scientific wind is blowing right now, but even if we ignore that, wouldn’t the prudent action be to wait a couple of decades, to restrict immigration and refrain from utopian foreign adventures, until the science is in?

Then, if the Bush-Gould theory of human nature turns out to be right, we can open up the floodgates again and start occupying backward countries once more, with little harm done.

But what if Bush and Gould are wrong? Then we will have dug ourselves into a much deeper hole 20 years from now than we are in now. If Bush turns out to be fool and Gould a charlatan, well, then the joke will be on us, the American people.

As for the post-purge National Review, it will, as Enoch Powell put it in his famous speech on immigration, deserve the curses of those who come after.

[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 VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Francis Fukuyama, a recovering neocon, continues his attempt to distance himself from neocon orthodoxy. Last week, in a Wall Street Journal essay “A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder for the future” (November 2), Fukuyamaheretically noted that immigration has proven a disaster for the Netherlands and Britain.

Of course, Fukuyama was only talking about Muslim immigration, not the good kind of immigration (i.e., everybody else in the world), so he’s not wandering too far off the neocon reservation.

Further, Fukuyama’s policy recommendations come straight out of Neoconism for Dummies:

[C]ountries like Holland and Britain need to…reformulate their definitions of national identity to be more accepting of people from non-Western backgrounds[T]he much more difficult problem remains of fashioning a nationalidentity that will connect citizens of all religions andethnicities in a common democratic culture, as the American creed has served to unite new immigrants tothe United States.”

Been there—done that! As I wrote about Europe on over a year ago in a piece meaningfully headed “Four Failed Immigration Approaches”:

“One European country has already tried out just about the entire neocon bag of assimilative tricks—with deeply mixed results… The French have traditionally tried to do with their immigrants almost exactly what the neocons recommend here: cultural assimilation, education in civics theories, monolingualism, meritocracy, separation of church and state, and all the rest.”

And today we can see the result: a week straight of immigrant rioting in Paris of such intensity that one French official likened it to a “civil war.”

Bad timing, Frank!

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 thatwill connect” etc. etc. would be what we might call the “Sailer Scheme”: have the disaffected simply leave.

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.

A buy-out program, paying Muslims who are legal residents of European countries to emigrate, could be a huge bargain compared to more rioting, terrorism, crime, and multiculturalism.

Offer Muslim residents, say, $25,000 each to go away. Permanently.

A family of five festering in the slums of Paris, Rotterdam, and Birmingham could live in North Algeria, Pakistan, or Indonesia like local gentry if they had $125,000 in the bank!

Of course, not all Muslims would accept the buy-out, but those who stayed behind would tend to be the more satisfied and less troublesome.

A few technical caveats:

  • The program could only be open to legal residents in the country as of today, to discourage both a sudden influx and a baby boom.
  • To discourage illegal return immigration, the buyout would only be paid out over the course of, say, five years to ex-residents now actually living in Muslim countries.
  • An immigrant who accepts the buy-out but then wishes to return to the European country for a tourist visit would have todeposit the value of the buyout as a bond. Visa over-stayers would be imprisoned.

At $25,000 each, for every million Muslims who leave, the one-time cost to the taxpayers would be $25 billion.

For the Dutch, who have about one million Muslims resident, the gross cost would be just over 5% of one year’s GDP ($481 billion in 2004). (To get the net cost, you’d have to adjust for savings to the taxpayer like the cost of e.g. educating immigrant children. It might well turn outthat this buy-out program is a fiscal boon).

Even if it took $50,000 each, that would still only be one percent of the Netherland’s GDP per year for merely a decade.

That’s a cheap price for solving the country’s worst problem.

Although buy-outs are a win-win solution, they are considered a weird, radical idea by the reigning multi-cultis, whose most-quoted philosopher once asked “Can’t we all just get along?”

But, in private life, where people care more about effective problem-solving than competing in a holier-than-thou sweepstakes, buy-outs are a common practice.

When a business finds it hired the wrong people, it often determines that paying them to go away is better for all concerned that letting them hang around.

Europe must now know that it brought in too many of the wrong kind of people. It should act like a responsible corporation and pay them to leave.

Not for the first time, the Israelis have the right idea. I’ve already noted that they’ve demonstrated for us that border fences work. Now it turns out they’ve also tried buy-outs. Payments to leave have been used at least twice in recent times: to pay off Israeli settlers to exit the Sinai in the early 1980s in the wake of the Camp David Accords; and to vacate the Gaza Strip earlier this year, successfully averting civil war within Israel.

Of course, for a European democracy to start a program of immigrant buy-outs would be a crushing rebuke to Western governments’decades-long determination to “elect a new people.”

That’s all the more reason to do it.

[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 VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

David Horowitz calls Frank J. Gaffney Jr.’s recent long exposé of how Republican insider Grover Norquist’s Muslim voter outreach programbuilt alliances between Karl Rove and some unsavory Arab activists “the most disturbing that we at have ever published.” Several of the activists are now under arrest for alleged terrorist connections. Rove remains at large.

These revelations will come as no major surprise to readers. But it’s useful to have them all in one place.

It’s also useful to remember that the bellicose Horowitz and Gaffney are mad at Norquist partly because he suggested that President Bush might, you know, endanger his re-election chances by invading Syria and/or other Muslim countries before next November.

The notion that the voters might frown upon America being sucked into another guerilla war before this one is finished might strike a Man from Mars as common sense. But it’s heresy in some quarters.

I’m not sure I buy all of Gaffney’s arguments in his piece. But, as Sam Spade said to Brigid O’Shaughnessy at the climax of The Maltese Falcon, after he gave her seven reasons he can’t play the sap for her anymore:

“Maybe some of them are unimportant. I won’t argue about that. But look at the number of them.”

Foolishly, Norquist agreed to debate Gaffney on a radio show hosted by his old friend Hugh Hewitt. Numerous fervent war-bloggers listened in and gave Norquist the thumbs down.

Nevertheless, the mass media hasn’t picked up the story yet. It’s too insiderish. Worse, it leads to an issue they’ve adamantly refused to touch: in his pursuit of Arab Muslim voters, did President Bush’srelaxing of enforcement of two anti-terrorism tools—ethnic profiling of airline passengers and the use of secret evidence against terrorism suspects—allow 9/11 to happen?

In the anxiety that followed the attacks, the media instinctively decided that the nation needed the comforting myth that it was being led by astrong, wise, and far-seeing President. Unsettling thoughts about the links between the White House’s political ploys and America’s unpreparedness were swept under the rug.

A third reason for avoiding the Muslim mess: Norquist is quick to drop the atom bomb of allegations—Racist!—on whomever questions him.Thus in his letter banning Gaffney from his famous Wednesday meetings for Beltway conservative activists, he said (repetitiously),

“There is no place in the conservative movement for racialprejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred… Theconservative movement cannot be associated with racismor bigotry. … It is important that we, as conservative,stand up against bigotry, racism, and religious hatredwhenever it raises its ugly head.”

Aw, phooey! This kind of bullying needs to be laughed out of public discourse.

It’s perfectly natural for Arab-Americans to favor Arab interests—just as it is for Irish-Americans to favor Irish interests, Jewish-Americans to favor Israeli interests, or Mexican-Americans to favor Mexican interests.

But just because it’s inevitable doesn’t mean any such group should be exempt from criticism. The only way to keep ethnic activists honest is to stop them suppressing debate by playing the race and religion cards.

The real mystery about the Norquist-Rove enterprise is not: why a red-bearded Protestant would found the Islamic Institute?

After all, a man has bills to pay, and oil-rich Arab Muslim governments and organizations are eminently capable of paying them.

Another Sam Spade quote is pertinent:

“We didn’t believe your story, Mrs. O’Shaughnessy, webelieved your 200 dollars. I mean you paid us more thanif you had been telling us the truth, and enough more tomake it alright.”

No, the real mystery is the sheer incompetence of Rove, Norquist’s chief enabler.

If you decide to sell out your country for a pile of votes, well, Mr. Political Genius, you ought at least to check first that this pile of votes is big enough to be seen without an electron microscope.

Rove’s attitude to GOP core supporters reminds me of Sydney Greenstreet playing the Fat Man, Kasper Gutman. He explains to a devoted henchman why he’s betraying him:

“I couldn’t be fonder of you if you were my own son. But,well, if you lose a son, it’s possible to get another.There’s only one Maltese Falcon.”

Of course, the Maltese Falcon that the Fat Man eventually obtained at vast cost in life and treasure turned out to be a lead fake. And the same thing has happened to Rove.

I reported recently that in the last Congressional election, according to the restored VNS exit poll data, Muslims cast only 0.3 percent of the vote.

Since then, the Census Bureau announced that people of Arab descent only make up 0.4 percent of the resident U.S. population.

Because most Arab-Americans are Christians, these two figures suggest that Arab-Muslim voters comprise only about 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the electorate!


I’ll leave the last word to Joel Cairo (as played by Peter Lorre), as he reacted to the Fat Man’s foul-up:

“You… you bungled it! You and your stupid attempt to buy it! You… you imbecile! You stupid fat-head you!”

[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 VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Muslims 
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 unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?