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



=>
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
Muslims

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

If Islamic terrorism has contributed anything at all to Western civilization, it may actually have helped preserve it. Nothing has made Europeans wake up to what they have allowed mass immigration to do to them than the jihad many Muslims are licking their whiskers to wage against the new countries to which they have invited themselves. Last week the New York Times in a front page story offered the details.[ British Militants Openly Support Bin Laden and the Rule of Islam, New York Times, By Patrick E. Tyler And Don Van Natta Jr., April 25, 2004]

What the Times calls “a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II” have come to prefer Osama bin Laden to Tony Blair. In fact, the Times reports,“they say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street” and they “swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the ‘Magnificent 19′ and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.”

This is the Europe of the future, not the one Charles Martel fought to save from Moslem armies in the eighth century but the Europe that the European chapter of the Open Borders Lobby has helped create, with its suicidal libertarianism and bottomless appetite for cheap labor. Today, it turns out, the cheap labor carries a price that even libertarians might find a bit stiff.

The “small group of young Britons may not be so small, though what the Times also calls “mainstream Muslims” are upset at them and similar movements. Nevertheless, similar movements are also on the march.

The spiritual leader of the movement, a gentleman known as Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, has a simple message to impart to his followers, and he imparts it regularly: “If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden’s offer of a truce—provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months—Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.” “All Muslims of the West will be obliged” to “become his sword.” So much for assimilation.

Nor is the sheik alone. One Muslim authority in Hamburg told the Times, ““My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States.” No doubt, but it’s Great Britain and Europe that seem to be on the receiving end just now.

“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,” and in March, British police busted nine “Pakistani-Britons” for trying to build a terrorist bomb.

Well, no doubt the West can handle it. Not only will the Muslims eventually assimilate and start their own computer companies, but the British and American mega-state will simply crush anybody who steps out of line. That, of course, is possible, but why is it necessary to create a leviathan able to crush people who don’t belong here anyway? Why not just kick them out and forbid others to come at all?

In any case, thanks again to the suicidal habits of the Western mind these days, crushing terrorists may not be so simple anymore . “The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech.” Actually, the authorities have had little trouble stopping what they claim is “hateful speech” when it’s foes of immigration and multiculturalism that are speaking it. When it’s real hate, the open advocacy of murder and terrorism that gushes out of the mosques, there’s little the authorities can do.

The “authorities,” the Times reports, are left mainly with efforts to seek deportation , “a lengthy and uncertain process subject to legal appeals, when the suspect can keep inciting attacks.”Mostly what the “authorities” do is “resort to less effective means, such as mouse-trapping Islamic radicals with immigration violations in hopes of making a deportation case stick. ‘In many countries, the laws are liberal and it’s not easy,’ an official said.”

There’s no reason the Times account should surprise those who have followed the idiocies of mass immigration and multiculturalism for the last several years, nor should the paralysis the West has inflicted on itself. What the story confirms—and maybe what it will teach those who have never learned it—is what such critics have long known: that the basic and perhaps mortal disease of the white West is that it has ceased to be able to protect itself from its cultural, religious and racial enemies, because it has washed its own brains with the lie that such enemies don’t even exist.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Immigration, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

With what may have been the single most effective act of terrorism in history, the forces of Al Qaeda have managed to knock out of the American-led coalition of their enemies one of its major (indeed, one of its few) European allies and shatter the delusions of victories the Bush administration loves to flaunt. What happened in Madrid in the past week may turn out to be a major turning point in Mr. Bush’s “war on terror”—and not a turn toward victory.

The first lesson of the Madrid bombing is that the war on terror is a colossal flop. In the last two years the United States has launched two full-scale wars, invaded and conquered two countries and constructed a vast new internal security apparatus at home that many see as a threat to civil liberties. Despite all of that, the terrorists remain capable of carrying out well-coordinated acts of mass terrorism in a country thousands of miles away from their home bases, murdering 200 people and injuring more than a thousand, and toppling a government to boot. You tell me: Who is winning the “war on terror,” and who is losing?

Secondly, the Madrid bombing, perhaps for the first time, shows the link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance to the American invasion. Under Saddam Hussein there was little if any substantive link, if only because the Islamic fundamentalism of Osama bin Laden and the secular authoritarianism of Saddam are as alien to each other as each is to the West. One of the great accomplishments of Mr. Bush’s war has been to drive these two antagonistic forces together, to the point that Al Qaeda now carries out a major terrorist attack against a country with which it has no natural quarrel except that it is allied with the United States in the Iraq war.

Thirdly, the bombing and its aftermath show just how shallow and ill-conceived the whole war on Iraq itself was. Spanish voters dumped the incumbent government in elections following the bombing because they want no part of that war, into which the government had dragged their country.

Having grotesquely over-estimated the easiness of victory in Iraq, both the United States and its allies now face the inevitable erosion of support that the continuing war there—and wherever else Islamic terrorists choose to take it—will bring. The result may well be the eventual total isolation of the United States as remaining allies decide that the kind of carnage and conflict a protracted occupation of Iraq and the “war against terrorism” brings is not worth the price.

Fourthly, the Madrid bombing not only shows that Al Qaeda remains capable of carrying out massive acts of terror but that it understands the political strategy that always controls any kind of deliberate violence, conventional or terrorist. The purpose of the bombing was not simply to blow up lots of people but to topple a government, weaken the enemy’s alliance, and demonstrate which side has more power.

And because we now know that Al Qaeda understands the political uses of terror and is not simply acting out of “madness” or “evil” as the president and his propagandists keep repeating, we have every reason to expect similar acts of terrorism in this country in the near future—before the election, and intended to topple the Bush administration just as they toppled the Spanish government.

Finally, what we ought to learn from the Madrid bombing is that the war on terrorism as Mr. Bush and his advisers have designed it not only has not been won but is not winnable at all. It is not possible for the government or any government to capture or kill every person willing and able to make and plant bombs capable of inflicting enormous damage and loss of life. Nor is it possible for the government to protect every conceivable target the terrorists may choose to strike. If you protect planes ands airports, they will attack trains and train stations. If you protect trains, they will attack shopping malls. If you protect shopping malls, they will attack bridges, office buildings, public parks, theaters. Protecting against that kind of terrorism is possible, if at all, only in a state like Orwell’s 1984.

The armchair warriors in the Bush administration and its friendly press are now muttering about Spain’s “appeasement” of terrorism for choosing to get out of an ill-conceived, unwanted and unnecessary war before any more horrors happen. But it’s not appeasement; it’s simply the belated realization that what has already happened in Madrid didn’t have to happen at all and would not have happened had the country and its government minded their own business. At least the Spaniards have learned something, at a bloody price. Americans should too.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Muslims, Terrorism 
🔊 Listen RSS

“It is spine-chilling,” spouted The Economist magazine last week in its cover story entitled “France’s Shame,”[pay archive] “for Europeans across the continent who fear that the success of the odious Jean-Marie Le Pen may inspire voters elsewhere to follow suit.”

Well, not exactly. What’s spine-chilling is that within a week after this and similar avalanches of name-calling hit the news stands, the Dutch political counter-part to Mr. Le Pen lay dead in a pool of his own blood, spilled by a left-wing assassin apparently driven to violence by the very sort of demonization that the Atlantic ruling class unleashed on Mr. Le Pen and similar foes of mass immigration.

French voters, crowed the Washington Post after Mr. Le Pen won only 18 percent of the vote in the presidential elections on May 5, “from across the political spectrum responded in huge numbers to calls from politicians, the media, business leaders, unions and the Roman Catholic Church for a massive protest vote against what they called Le Pen’s racist and xenophobic positions.”[French Extremist Loses BigWashington Post, May 5, 2002, Page A01]

If it’s “hate crimes” you’re looking for, put all of the above in the prisoner’s dock, because it was the very hatred they spewed at Mr. Le Pen and similar leaders all over Europe that inspired the murderer of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands one day later. What Mr. Fortuyn’s death tells us is how far the ruling class is prepared to go to stop the opponents of mass immigration from gaining power: It will go as far as necessary, including incitements to murder.

Yet despite the victory of crooked “conservative” Jacques Chirac, Mr. Le Pen did not do so badly. He won more votes than ever before, raised his percentage of the national vote from 15 to 18 percent and substantially improved the chances of his Front National in future elections. No leader of the populist right in either Europe or the United States has done as well since the 1968 candidacy of George Wallace, who won a bit less than 14 percent of the popular vote. If nothing else, Mr. Le Pen’s efforts may have put immigration control on the European political map.

Then again, so what? The demonization inflicted on him and his allies across Europe not only contributed to the murder of Mr. Fortuyn but also effectively frightened millions of other voters from voting for him at all. Since otherwise more-or-less reliable media kept calling Mr. Le Pen a “fascist,” a “racist,” and an “anti-Semite,” suggesting he would build concentration camps for immigrants and had “denied the Holocaust,” it’s perhaps understandable that so few supported him. Indeed, if any of these smears were true, it would be entirely understandable why many Frenchmen might want to shoot him dead. That is probably what the ruling class was privately hoping for.

Yet even if the calculated demonization campaigns won’t always work in the sense of frightening voters or inspiring free-floating crackpots to commit murder, the ruling class has other means to stop the swelling anti-immigration tide. Both pro- and anti-Le Pen spokesmen have suggested that Third World immigration into European nations has indeed gone a bit too far and that some reforms are in order. After all, when global terrorism is being plotted by Muslim fanatics in places like Hamburg and Rotterdam, you really don’t have to be a fascist to support some reduction.

But any such measures will be either rhetorical or purely cosmetic, just as they have been in this country since Sept. 11, where the open borders lobby has altered its agenda not one jot or tittle. In 1978, Margaret Thatcher, faced with a revolt on her right from Britain’s anti-immigration National Front, made a few noises about cutting back on immigration. That was all her mainstream conservative supporters asked for. Once in power, she did and said nothing more about the issue. She didn’t have to.

The fact is that the Atlantic ruling class now depends on mass immigration. It needs immigrants for cheap votes. and cheap labor, to replenish failed institutions like churches, unions and schools where unborn European children never sit. It needs immigration to create a new underclass to justify all the ruling class’s social engineering and reconstruction policies.

Most of all, it needs mass immigration to break down the racial, cultural and national barriers that stand in the way of the global political and economic integration that is at the top of the elite’s agenda.

Mr. Le Pen may well have begun forcing European politics to turn a corner the ruling class doesn’t want to turn.

But the blood spilled in the Netherlands this week may be merely the first, as the foes of mass immigration begin to grasp just how far their enemies will go to stop that corner from being turned at all.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Even as the political oligarchies of France and half a dozen other European states joined to denounce the “extremism” of Jean Marie Le Pen, German police were extracting (that’s the polite word, I think) a confession from a real-live extremist who had plotted to blow up a synagogue in France.

The extremist has no connection whatsoever with Mr. Le Pen or his Front National and undoubtedly doesn’t much care for them. His name is Aeurobui Beandali, a native of Algeria who invited himself to Germany in 1992 as an immigrant.

Mr. Beandali was nabbed on a tip from British and French police, who say the leader of the plot to bomb the synagogue in Strasbourg was another Muslim immigrant now in jail in Great Britain. U.S. authorities would also like to talk to Mr. Beandali about possible connections he has with terrorist plots in Los Angeles.

The point is that nowhere in all this argosy of global terrorism does an “extremist” of the Le Pen kidney pop up. If it’s terrorism, the violent anti-Semitism that blows up synagogues, and political extremism you’re looking for, Europe’s immigrants from the Middle East are where you’ll find them.

The New York Times reported much the same earlier this month, in the wake of a series of bombings directed against French Jews in almost a dozen different cities, what the Times calls “the worst spate of anti-Jewish violence in France since World War II.” [NYT , April 8, 2002.:The Mideast in Marseille: Violence Shakes a City (Pay archive) free version] For all the blather over the last several years about the “rebirth of fascism,” neo-Nazi skinheads and the political success of such populist right-wing leaders as Mr. Le Pen, Austria’s Joerg Haider and others in several different countries, that’s not where any of the new terrorism is coming from.

It’s coming from the very immigrants these emerging leaders have been warning about for decades.

“This is not anti-Semitic violence, it’s the Middle East conflict that’s playing out here,” the president of the Jewish Council in the Marseilles region told the Times. What has been obvious to critics of mass immigration for years is now flapping home to roost: Immigrants don’t leave their beliefs, values and habits at the border; they carry them across, and old feuds, fights and ethnic and religious conflicts are perpetuated in their new countries.

Terrorism, however, is one thing, but immigrants also become citizens, and citizens vote, and when they vote, the same cultural and political baggage they imported across the border drives their ballots. France today has 600,000 Jews. It also has five million Moslems, about a third of whom now have the vote. Guess which group will exercise more political clout.

“All the political parties have taken into account the reality of the Muslim voting potential in France,” a French sociologist recently told United Press International. If democracy knows one law, it is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in France, as in the United States, non-Western immigrants are a wheel around which national politics is beginning to turn.

“There is an electoral cushion of about 1.5 million people of North African origin,” says the leader of a French anti-discrimination group. “They can make or unmake majorities. They can make or unmake a president. They can make or unmake a deputy. The politicians have understood.”

The brute fact of Muslim political power may go far to explain the kind of hysteria about Mr. Le Pen’s anti-immigration policies that gushed from French politicos of the left and right last week. Certainly it’s a fact that helps explain the anti-Israeli slant of President Chirac.

“Today,” UPI reported just before the first voting in the presidential election, “Mr. Chirac is winning new respect from Muslim youth, who consider him more pro-Palestinian than Mr. Jospin,” the socialist whose career was extinguished by Mr. Le Pen’s votes. Mr. Jospin, however, was no sluggard when it came to pandering to Muslims. His campaign program committed him to supporting giving non-European residents the vote.

The anti-Semitic terrorism of recent weeks in France is, in the long run, probably much less worrisome than the shape of French politics in the future. As Arabic and Muslim immigrants gain more and more power through the ballot box, they’ll have less and less need for dynamite. That may make for a more peaceful country, but the contents of Arabic-Muslim politics may not be willing to stop merely at forcing a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli foreign policy.

If immigrants can blow up synagogues now, what will they do to synagogues—and the Jews who worship in them—when they can actually pass and repeal laws?

Maybe some people who have long supported mass immigration in both Europe and America ought to start thinking about it again.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Jews, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ten years after American forces pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti people are telling American reporters they have come to prefer the people murdering Americans. “I hate the American government,” one member of the Kuwaiti parliament told CBS reporter Mike Wallace on “Sixty Minutes” last week. That, in a nutshell, is what we get for a foreign policy devoted to spreading democracy and do-good instead of pursuing our own national interests.

The reason the Kuwaiti apostle of democracy hates us, he said, is that we support Israel against Palestine and through our military aid to the Jewish state allow the Israelis to kill and repress Palestinians. The Palestinians are Arabic and, for the most part, Muslims, and the Kuwaiti therefore feels a strong identity with them. He’s not alone.

The New York Times, a few days before the “Sixty Minutes” segment on anti-Americanism in the Persian Gulf micro-state that Americans forced Saddam Hussein to disgorge in 1991, carried a story along similar lines. It reported on one Kuwaiti family that decided last year to name its new-born son after one of the most popular figures in the country: Osama bin Laden. (NYT, November 16, 2001,For Some Kuwaitis, the Ardor for America Cools by Douglas Jehl Pay archive.)

It also reported on why bin Laden is so popular. “It seems the Americans only want to support Israel and attack the Muslims. And if this is a war between Christians and Muslims, we ought to fight.” The American bombing in Afghanistan has seemed to confirm these views among many Kuwaitis, especially since most of the Afghans being bombed had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks on American targets.

One Kuwaiti businessman, who spent years in the United States and is not anti-American, told the Times, “I have never seen resentment toward the United States as much as I’ve seen in the last few weeks.” The Kuwaiti government, plugged back into its sockets by U.S. power after the Gulf war a decade ago, has been tepidly supportive of President Bush’s “war on terrorism,” but the Kuwaiti people are less than tepid.

“In conversations around Kuwait,” the Times reports, “in offices and shops and the nighttime political and social gatherings … ordinary people said their good feelings toward the United States were eroding every day.”

Ten years ago, the U.S. government told Americans they were fighting Iraq to stop aggression and support freedom—in a country that didn’t even have a parliament back then. We heard a great deal about how Iraq’s troops committed mass rapes and murders in Kuwait and how all the atrocities stopped once the United States imported Truth, Freedom and Justice at the point of bayonets.

There were, of course, more mundane reasons for the Gulf war—not the least the need to secure American and Western access to oil resources—but it’s hard to get a civilian population excited about stuff like that. It’s easier to crank them up to fever pitch by casting the war as a conflict between Good and Evil. Most Americans probably believed that, just as they believe that’s why we’re bombing Afghanistan now.

Not everyone else sees it that way, of course, but that’s not quite the point. The larger and more important point is that in fighting what we want to think are conflicts between Good and Evil, we expect the people we help to love us for it. Probably they should, but the fact is they don’t.

They don’t love us because they are evil or morally inferior but because, as part of a different civilization and a different set of kinships and loyalties, they can’t help but identify with their own people—Palestinians and Afghans—more than with those who aren’t their people—Christians, Jews, Americans and Westerners.

The response we get for helping people who are not part of our civilization is not unlike what Rudyard Kipling tried to warn us about: “Take up the White Man’s Burden —/and reap his old reward:/ The blame of those ye better,/ The hate of those ye guard.”

Kipling, like most imperialists, was willing to live with the hatred and ingratitude Westerners receive for their efforts to help other peoples, but most Americans aren’t imperialists and they don’t much care for the old reward they’re getting.

Right now, there’s something of a debate going on in this country as to whether the United States should be an empire or not. Before we decide, we need to think about what empires involve. They’re not all victory parades and shiny uniforms; they also involve the hatred, justified or not, that many, not just in Kuwait but throughout the Arab world, feel for America today—and don’t imagine we won’t pay a price for that hatred sooner or later. “The silent, sullen peoples,” Kipling also wrote, “shall weigh your Gods and you.”

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ever since Sept. 11, President Bush and other national leaders have been telling us how loyal, law-abiding and patriotic most American Muslims and Arabs are. There’s no reason to doubt it, but there’s no doubt as well that a lot of American Muslims of Arabic background don’t feel terribly comfortable with being Americans at all. That’s no reason to blame them—there’s little reason why immigrants from a very different culture should feel comfortable here—but it is a good reason not to permit the mass immigration that let them come here.

Reporter Ralph Hallow of the Washington Times interviewed a number of Muslims in a recent story and found that while they are far from the kind of murderous fanatics who carried out the Sept. 11 massacres, they’re still not fully on board with most other Americans about the nation’s response. [Washington Times, October 11 "Muslim students are wary of the war"]

Thus, Altaf Hussain, a 31-year-old Muslim who’s a Ph.D. candidate at Howard University and president of the National Muslim Students Association, says he wouldn’t be willing to fight other Muslims. “Not under these circumstances and not for this war. It doesn’t sit well to say Afghan people should suffer when they have not done anything.” Mr. Hussain’s not a marginal figure, and his views are not isolated. “Most Muslim students hold widespread grievances about America’s role in the Middle East conflict, its sanctions against Iraq and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia.” Those just happen to be Osama bin Laden’s main gripes as well.

Mr. Hussain isn’t convinced that bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, nor is another American Muslim youth, Ashraf Ali, at the University of Maryland. “Everything is in question until the evidence comes,” he says. Another, Bilal Dogan, vice president of the Muslim Students Association, says, “Inasmuch as I could fight terrorism, I have no problem. If I’m asked to fight Muslims, I won’t.” In their view, once a Muslim commits real terrorism and kills innocent people, he ceases to be a Muslim. Unfortunately, in a war, a nation has to demand more than that from loyal citizens and soldiers.

Even less loyalty emerges from remarks cited by Washington Postcolumnist Marc Fisher last week. [Washington Post, Muslim Students Weigh Questions Of Allegiance, October 16, 2001] Speaking to students and teachers at the Muslim Community School in Potomac, Md., Mr. Fisher was told by one seventh-grader, “What does it mean to be an American? Being American is just being born in this country.” That’s all it may mean to her and whoever taught her that, but to millions of us whose ancestors settled and fought to create it, America means just a bit more. But not to Ibrahim, an eight-grader who also piped up about patriotism. “If I had to choose sides, I’d stay Muslim,” he told Mr. Fisher. “Being an American means nothing to me. I’m not even proud of telling my cousins in Pakistan that I’m American.”

On several policy issues, the Muslims questioned by Mr. Hallow and Mr. Fisher dissented from what our government does and is doing and from what many Americans want it to do. Most regard Israel as the “real terrorists,” and insist that Muslims are now being persecuted in the United States as well as Israel. Lots of Americans who aren’t Muslims or immigrants may share the same views, but there’s a major difference.

The difference emerged from a remark of Salahudeen Kareem, the principal of the Muslim school, to Mr. Fisher. “Allegiance to national authority is one thing, but the one who gives us life is more entitled to that authority. This is the story of religion through all time. When national laws and values go counter to what the Creator believes, we are 100 percent against it.”

What Mr. Kareem is expressing and what many American Muslims appear to endorse is what used to be called a “double loyalty.” It was an accusation that used to be regularly launched against both American Jews and American Catholics—that the one placed Israel, the other the Pope, above loyalty to the nation. American Jews and Catholics, however, have spent most of their histories in this country fighting that accusation; American Muslims seem to treasure it.

Most serious Christians and Jews would agree that they have no obligation to obey a nation or state that commands actions contrary to the laws of God, but most Christians and Jews in the United States don’t feel the need to reach for that principle all the time or when we’re in conflict with other, mainly Christian, states. If the Muslims who have invited themselves to this country do feel that need, they clearly aren’t comfortable being here. Maybe they should go back where they belong as soon as possible, and if they don’t, maybe the government and nation for which they feel so little attachment should encourage them.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

America is not the only country to have a problem with Arabic and Muslim immigrants. If you think the consequences of allowing mass immigration from the Third World states of the Middle East are coming home to roost, in Europe they are starting to rip down the whole henhouse.

In Germany, which has welcomed “guest workers” from the Middle East for decades, there are now some 3 million Muslims, most of them Turkish, and Berlin is the third largest Turkish city in the world. This may be the reason that Germany served as what the New York Timescalls “the haven of choice” for the terrorists who plotted and carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Just as the hijackers could mask their presence and plans in the United States because of the alternative social structures that mass immigration has created, so in Germany Muslim immigration served the same purpose.

“There are many reasons,” the Times reports, for the terrorist preference for Germany, “among them the fact that the terrorists could blend into a society with a large Muslim population and more foreigners than any other in Europe.” But Germany is by no means alone in providing such havens. [NYT October 5th, 2001, A NATION CHALLENGED: AN ASSESSMENT; In Germany, Terrorists Made Use of a Passion: An Open Democracy]

In France, where for years Jean-Marie LePen’s Front Nationale has warned against the dangers of mass immigration and where some 5 million Muslims now live, the enemy is within the gates. “Bin Laden for President!” shout Arab sympathizers of the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as Agence France Presse reported last week. “Maybe I don’t approve of what he did in New York, but when I saw him talking on television I thought, ‘What a great guy!’” says one, a 19-year-old computer technician.

He and his friends have little use for strict Muslim fundamentalism but they seem to share Osama bin Laden’s political agenda. As the news story reported, “They are in many ways integrated into French society—their manners, clothes, habits of speech clearly place them in France—but are fired by a fierce rush of Arab and Islamic pride.” Once again, the fallacy of assuming that external assimilation is more than skin deep becomes clear.

In Holland also, the Arabic and Muslim population offers critical support for the bin Laden network as well as for several other Middle Eastern terrorist groups. In fact, Muslim immigrants have invented what reporter Adriana Stuijt calls “a new form of terrorism against the civilian population at large.” “‘Muslim cultural organizations’ have turned the streets of Antwerp and Rotterdam into main battle grounds for Muslim-fundamentalist male criminal youth gangs who deliberately attack, rob and invade ethno-European cultural events and throngs of shoppers in the large shopping districts.” As the white European birth rate falls while that of Third World immigrants to Europe rises, the Muslims know very well whose continent Europe will soon become. It’s the Europeans who don’t have a clue.

In Rotterdam, she reports, “These gangs target major shopping districts and traditional European cultural and sporting events to rob, terrorize and abuse especially the ethno-Dutch population. During these organized attacks, the youths are also seen to deliberately target ethno-European girls and women, demanding that they start obeying the strict Muslim shari’a laws favored by terrorist regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.” In Belgium last summer, gangs of Algerian and Moroccan youths attacked Flemish citizens holding an annual fair. In Britain Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants rioted in several northern cities.

Not only is the immigrant presence a challenge to European cultural values and institutions (not to mention simple law and order) but also it provides a crucial support network for international terrorism. In Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and France, some 20 suspects have actually been arrested or detained for alleged connections with the Sept. 11 attack, and the New York Times reports “it has become increasingly clear that there are a number of cells throughout Europe like the one in Germany that investigators believe played a central role in planning the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Even when immigrants are not openly sympathetic to terrorism against the countries that took them in, they provide a vast underground in which real terrorists and their supporters can live, operate, and conceal themselves and their activities. And, as the immigrants gain the vote, they constitute a massive political lobby that will be able to influence European policy toward terrorism, the Middle East and U.S. action there.

The sheer, unmitigated insanity of the massive immigration that both our own government and those of Europe have allowed should by now have become so obvious that lawmakers on both continents should be rushing to reverse it. They’re not. But since they were insane to allow immigration on this scale in the first place, it’s not surprising they’re still too crazy to stop it.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Muslims, Terrorism 
🔊 Listen RSS

If there was any doubt that Western civilization is withering like last summer’s roses, it should be removed by the reactions to the remarks of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that the West is superior to the civilization of Islam. What’s really convincing that the West is dripping down history’s drainpipes is the reaction to the Prime Minister’s remarks not just from his critics but from those who agree with him.

No doubt over-wrought by all the global chest-thumping that has been popular since Sept. 11, Mr. Berlusconi pronounced to a group of journalists last week, “We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries.” (Washington Post, September 28,2001,Muslims Call Italian’s Take on Islam ‘Racist’)

Of course, saying one’s own civilization is better than someone else’s is Taboo No. 1 in the new table of commandments handed down by the multiculturalism, multiracialism, and egalitarianism that dominate the emerging global regime—at least if one’s own civilization is white, Christian, and Western. It’s perfectly OK to say your own civilization is superior to that of the West if it’s non-white, non-Christian and non-Western, but unfortunately Mr. Berlusconi is none of the above.

The Italian opposition leader Francesco Rutelli at once denounced the Prime Minister’s remarks, while the New York Times quoted the head of Italian Jewish Organizations, Amos Luzzatto, as declaring, “In my opinion, one can not speak of the superiority of one culture over another.”( NYT, September 28,2001, Berlusconi Comment About Superiority of West Stirs Furor) Is that so? I’ll bet there was a “culture” prevailing in Europe about 60-70 years ago that Mr. Luzzatto would denounce.

Yet the Western reaction was tepid compared to that of the Muslims. The secretary general of the Arab League informed the world that “I consider his remarks racist” and that Mr. Berlusconi has “crossed the limits of reason and decency,” while the prime minister of Iran said the remarks were due to Mr. Berlusconi’s “ignorance about Islam’s culture and civilization,” and a Turkish newspaper called the Italian leader “a new Mussolini.”

It’s not surprising that non-Westerners wouldn’t care for the prime minister’s sentiments, but why is it so hard for Westerners to believe their own civilization is better than others? If they don’t believe that, why don’t they move to another one?

But then, some in the West did defend Mr. Berlusconi, and it immediately became apparent why more Westerners didn’t: Quite simply, the West has forgotten how to tell whether one civilization is better than another.

Thus, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online easily explained why the West is better. “There’s not a single category of enlightened governance in which the West broadly speaking isn’t superior to the Islamic world—again, broadly speaking. Religious freedom, social mobility, and tolerance, the guarantee of rights and liberties in law, prosperity—you name it, and we beat the robes off them (though in family cohesion, they probably have the edge on us).” (VDARE.COM NOTE: Click here for the an Islamic site’s version of family cohesion in Islam, here for the State Department’s report on Human Rights in the Middle East, detailing the abuse of women who fail to cohere.”)

It doesn’t occur to Mr. Goldberg (or to several other neo-conservatives who offered similar answers) that citing Western values to defend Western values is something of a vicious circle. Muslims could just as easily say their civilization “beats the robes” off ours because they punish blasphemy and don’t allow women to go around half naked in public. Of course the West is better at practicing Western values than other cultures—that follows by definition, but it proves nothing.

What virtually no Westerner seemed to say or grasp is that a civilization can be said to be better than another if the fundamental ideas and values it incorporates in its institutions are “better”—that is, more true, more reflective of reality. Some civilizations (like that of Europe and its descendants) survive and flourish and even drive out other civilizations, precisely because they have a better grip on reality, a better and truer vision of reality.

They attain that vision through a variety of perspectives—science, philosophy, religion, art, literature—and if a society lacks such perspectives or has contempt for them, one can safely say that it is not civilized. Societies that don’t have much of a grip on reality often don’t last long, especially in conflict with those with better grips.

By that standard, is the modern, liberal, secular West that Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Goldberg and most of the prime minister’s other defenders invoke really superior to that of the Muslims? I have no doubt that the historic West that defeated and eventually surpassed the Arabic civilization built by the ancestors of today’s Arabs was superior. As for the one Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Goldberg think is so terrific, the “civilization” that now dominates the planet—well, I wouldn’t bet the ranch.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Muslims 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”