The West's Paralysis over Western Muslims

View from the Right ^ | March 17, 2005 | Lawrence Auster

[rmlew]

For decades the Dutch people, like other Westerners, shut their eyes to the mounting challenge posed by the unassimilated Muslim immigrants in their country. Reality has now painfully intruded, and the Dutch find themselves in the midst of a national trauma brought on by the jihadist slaughter of filmmaker Theo van Gogh and the subsequent jihadist beheading threats against two Dutch politicians.

An e-mail I received recently offers a cogent description of the Dutch people's troubled mood, as well as of the larger Western suicide attempt that the Dutch situation exemplifies:

A friend is in Amsterdam now for a 16 day vacation. He speaks Dutch and knows many Dutch living in the U.S. He says they are waking up, but they feel EXTREMELY torn inside because everything they have been taught tells them that they are wrong to feel bad that their country is being overrun by people who essentially don’t want to be Dutch and let it show.

The Dutch feel "torn"--but by what? Not by the threatening presence of Muslims who openly despise their country, but by their own critical attitude toward those Muslims, an attitude that violates the Dutch ethos of tolerance and inclusion. And that is why, as reported recently in the New York Times, many Dutch have been emigrating from the Netherlands. They’re not so much fleeing the Muslims as fleeing the guilt and inner conflict they experience as a result of their negative reactions toward the Muslims. To remain good liberals in their own minds, the Netherlanders must get rid of such negative feelings--by abandoning the Netherlands to the enemies who make them feel that way.

However, it does not behoove us to gaze on this spectacle with a superior attitude, for we are no better than the Dutch, and we are facing the same ultimate fate as they. Freedom House recently published a report about the Saudi-funded propagation of virulent anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish exterminationist ideology in thousands of Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques throughout the U.S. The Bush administration has done nothing about this, but continues to admit Saudi immigrants and travelers into the U.S. and to maintain good relations with the Saudi Kingdom. At the same time, there has been no elite or popular protest, either over the Wahhabist fifth column or our government's non-response to it. No protest--in this country where we self-importantly tell ourselves that we are at "war" with Islamo-fascism. That's some "war," isn't it? It's a war that consists of our promoting elections in far-away countries of which we know nothing, while we permit our mortal enemies to operate at will inside our country.

For the present, it remains inconceivable that we would oppose, let alone kick out a significant number of the Muslims whom we have so foolishly permitted en masse into America. The most we propose doing is to redouble our efforts to assimilate them--or, since any serious assimilation efforts have been dead letter for decades, to talk, endlessly and evasively, about the need to redouble our efforts to assimilate them. But to recognize the Muslims for the adversaries they are, to state forthrightly that people who believe in jihad against America do not belong in America, and to take appropriate action on the basis of that statement, would be to abandon the non-discriminatory ethos that is the sacred core of modern America and the modern West. According to this view, which President Bush has raised to the level of a global crusade, there is no "we" and there is no "they." There is only humanity, consisting of individuals, and all individuals are the same because they all dream of freedom. A belief in the universal sameness of all persons serves as the basis for Bush's global democratist rhetoric. But by ignoring cultural particularities and the mutual incompatibility between different cultures, this belief system precludes any serious defense of our own civilization.

As an example of this mentality, consider the British conservative journalist David Pryce-Jones's response to Europe's Islam crisis. Replying to correspondents in the March Commentary (at p. 12 in the linked pdf file), he starts out by stating his assimilationist assumptions. "Settling in their millions in the various countries of Europe, Muslims immigrants have an identity crisis: whether to accept or reject assimilation." The first problem here is that Pryce-Jones is assuming that Europe is already presenting assimilation as a viable option to the Muslims, which in fact is not the case at all. Far from trying to integrate Muslims, the Europeans have for decades been encouraging them to maintain and build up their religion and culture. Indeed, several European governments even subsidize the construction of mosques. At the same time, the Europeans keep retreating before the encroaching Muslim presence, and officially sign on to every plank in the Islamist agenda, from openness to Muslim immigration to uncritical embrace of the anti-Israel cause. As Bat Ye'or argues in Eurabia, Europe has already put itself out of existence as a cultural entity. Its policy, embodied in such organizations as the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation of the Dialog of Cultures, is to seek the total economic, political, and cultural merger of Europe and the Islamic countries. So, since Europe has no assimilation program for the European Muslims, why should Pryce-Jones expect these radically alienated Muslims to assimilate?

However, even if the Europeans had not surrendered their culture and were trying to assimilate the Muslims, Pryce-Jones would still be wrong to suggest that all these Muslims could easily assimilate, if only they chose to do so. The very idea shows a failure to grasp the profound differences between Muslims and Westerners, and the inherent dynamic within Islam that is driving European Muslims to assert their distinctiveness more and more, rather than to give it up.

Pryce-Jones speaks about the radical Sheikh Omar Bakr Muhammad, who tells Britain's Muslims that they are at "war" with the West and that an Islamic state must be created in Britain. At a big conference hosted by the Sheikh, pictures of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center were shown and "the rapt watchers thrust their fists in the air and chanted 'Allahu Akbar!' (God is great!). They then all cheered the name of bin Laden."

With all due respect to Pryce-Jones, these people hardly seem to be in the throes of an "identity crisis." They seem to be joyously expressing their murderous enmity toward Britain and the West. Yet Pryce-Jones's references to a Muslim "identity crisis" would lead the average reader to believe that such Muslims are not enemies of Britain, but only incompletely assimilated individuals who could be led back to the true path, if Britain would only increase its effort to assimilate them.

Continuing his identity-crisis trope, Pryce-Jones says that Europeans also have an identity crisis, "as they decide what to make of this large and growing minority in their midst, particularly the Islamists who aspire to colonize them." Notice his choice of words: the Europeans are deciding "what to make of" the Muslims who are seeking to colonize Europe--not what to do about these Muslims. The implication is that if people are trying to colonize you, the most you can do is decide what you think about them. The possibility of deciding to do something about them doesn't even arise. This is a "conservatism" that consists of endless kvetching about our approaching civilizational doom, rather than of trying to forestall it.

Finally, Pryce-Jones refers to the idea, raised by some of his correspondents, that either Europe will succumb to the Muslims, or there will be a backlash of the kind that occurred in Holland following the van Gogh murder (when, for example, some Dutch boys in revenge for the killing burned down a Muslim school). He remarks: "Down either of these roads lies every prospect of social disintegration and violence." In Pryce-Jones's book, the burning of a few Muslim schools would be as bad for the Netherlands as the wholesale submission of the Netherlands to Islam.

Which leaves what options? Once again, only further efforts at assimilation--something which most Muslims have no desire to do, and which most Europeans have no will to impose on them. For an intelligent Westerner such as Pryce-Jones to keep repeating--at this very late stage in the game--the hackneyed call for "more assimilation" is a cowardly evasion of reality, a formula for unending Western helplessness. Yet this evasion appears in a neoconservative journal that, because of its loyalty to Israel, is universally seen as hostile to Muslims. As I wrote at FrontPage last May, even the most hard-boiled thinkers among us think that our domestic safety rests on the assimilation of U.S. Muslims, and security measures against terrorism. Three and a half years after 9/11, the West still sleeps, managing the jihad threat instead of doing something about it.

And the West will continue to sleep, so long as it refuses to renounce the liberal belief that the highest values of our society are tolerance and inclusion, the liberal belief that all differences can be settled by reasoned discourse, the liberal belief that we must strive forever to find common ground with people who are irreconcilably different from us. So long as liberalism with its non-discriminatory embrace of the Other remains the core of Western identity, the West will be unable to know itself, to value itself, and to defend itself. And the Muslim conquest of the West will continue.

[rmlew]

The lack of paintings or sculptures is an anti-idolitary tradition. The prohibition against the construction of and reverence for graven images is found in Judaism too.
I believe that the lack of incense and starkness is a sign of Wahabbi or Salafi influence. Other Sunni schools, Salafis, and Shi'ites do not follow this.

Mosques serve a purpose other than just being a place of worship. They are a sign of Muslim power. In Muslim countries, no Synagogue or Church can be as tall as the smallest mosque.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[donbosco74]

Thanks.

So if the tallest church can't be as tall as the smallest mosque, what would that mean for a country like Germany with the tall church spires, if Mohammedans were to take control?

I forgot to mention that my book says that mosques are also used for other types of gatherings, not just for prayer. It gives some examples but I don't recall them right now.

[dennisw]

Thanks for posting this. I could not find it even though I had the link to Front Page for it. Now I know that David Horowitz got rid of it ... for whatever reason

[rmlew]

The first is that Europe is already lost. Europe simply does not have the ability to reverse the policies that let the barbarians in. European leaders would have to admit how wrong their core beliefs turned out to be, which they will never do. But even if a new cadre of leaders can be found, the native Europeans are too few and too old to throw out the young and vigorous barbarians they have invited in. The Europeans have passed the demographic point of no return.
If the European countries decided to remain Western, they would need to reChristianize (religion and fecundity are related), and change EU and national laws on immigration. None of this would be easy, and it would have to be a group effort given the existance of the EU.
Fortunately, the Muslim population is no greater than 15% in even the most overrun countries. Change would be possible, although some violence would surely break out.

I believe we have to try what we are doing now first if we are to avoid tipping the balance to the wrong side. In my opinion, John Kerry would have won if the general population had thought President Bush was too hard on Muslims. And John Kerry would have taken the U.S. the way of Europe.
Most American support immigration restrictions and enforcement of current laws. Over 70% support increased restrictions on Msulim immigration and a net outflow. The problem is that the business community and media would be against it. Worse, as with most immigration measures, the real harm would come from "moderate" Republicans who would back up the hysterics of the left. (Jack Kemp and the Bushes did far more to hurt us over Prop 187 than La Raza.)

We are trying to isolate the conflict to a few "radical" Muslims, thus avoiding a war with the entire Muslim world. So far, against all odds, we are succeeding.
Please. On September 15, 2001 a President other than Bush could have asked Congress for the authority to deport every Muslim non-citizen and to enforce laws against non-Muslim illegals.Instead, Bush turned the Islamist lobby, CAIR and and AADL, into the mainstream and called Islam a religion of peace.

If this high stakes gamble fails, a general war against Islam will eventually ensue. Many of our "allies" will try to make peace with our enemies (as they already are). Many Americans will side with our enemies as well (as they already are). We will stand almost alone in the world, and divided at home. We will need all the unity we can muster, or we too will fall.
Frannce and Germany merrily becomes Eurabia, while China is effectively helping the worst Muslim regimes. Russia vascilates between domestic anti-Muslim activities and foreign anti-Americanism. That leaves part of the Anglosphere, Eastern Europe, and India on our side.

I fail to see how promoting a strengthened EU,Turkish entry into the EU, or kowtowing to CAIR helps us.

[nuconvert]

Sorry for confusing you with the author. I'm not feeling very well today.

No one said more can't be done. But to say that Bush hasn't done anything, is just false.

I don't think my travelling anywhere will prove or disprove that MOST muslims don't have any desire to assimilate. I'm sure there are Arabic ghettos, Korean ghettos, Puerto Rican, etc.
The vast majority of muslims in the world are Asians. Maybe what you and the author mean by muslims is Arab Wahabbists? If so, then make the distinction.

I'm just giving some explanations for why his article may have been pulled based on my reading it. These were just 2 issues that stood out.

[Happy2BMe]

ANOTHER (WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE) - ping.

(And about that 'War On Terror' thing . .)

Americans' Tax Dollars Fund the Wahhabi Lobby

=========================================

Freedom House recently published a report about the Saudi-funded propagation of virulent anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish exterminationist ideology in thousands of Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques throughout the U.S.

The Bush administration has done nothing about this, but continues to admit Saudi immigrants and travelers into the U.S. and to maintain good relations with the Saudi Kingdom.

[Travis McGee]

Radical Islam is an insane murder cult; moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West.

[donbosco74]

Ditto.

[dervish]

In my opinion, John Kerry would have won if the general population had thought President Bush was too hard on Muslims. And John Kerry would have taken the U.S. the way of Europe.

xxxxxxx

I disagree. Pres Bush won because he was perceived as strong on terror. Being tougher, like on immigration, might have brought in some Buchanan Conservatives who said they were not voting for Bush in protest.

[dervish]

Nice article.

I think Horowitz is having a bad week. Also I vaguely remember that CAIR is suing him so perhaps there is a need to be circumspect. CAIR is suing all over the place. The Muslims know all too well how to use the systems they despise.

I had a conversation with a Dutch woman in the week after the killing of van Gogh and her grief was at the outburst of anti-Muslim feeling which to her was a sign of the dying "liberalism" of her country. When I pointed out that the Muslims had killed the liberalism, what else can you call murdering a filmaker because you don't like his film, police removing the Ten Commandments from the murder scene because it "offends" Muslims, she did not get it.

[spodefly]

Interesting article and thread.

BTTT

[Valin]

Bump for later.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest for the ping. I suggest everyone save a copy of this column for posterity.

I found it to be truthful, not hostile.

Hostility would be Koranic verse toilet paper.

Hmm... not a bad idea...

[nopardons]

bttt

[lainde]

Great article!

[rmlew]

Mr. Auster asked me to point out that he is speaking of EUROPEAN Muslims, and the non-assimilating, alienated quality of this community has been referred to again and again in the mainstream conservative press. It's not something he's made up.

I think that Mr. Auster is a little optimistic.
I went to school with an Egyptian Muslim. While he assimilated, his 2 brothers and sisters did not. I believe that one sister is back in Egypt. Her husband was arrested as a member of Gamat Al-Islamya. The rest are members of the Muslim brotherhood or associated orgs.

[Bogolyubski]

Thanks for posting this article, rmlew. Auster is truly one of the most under-appreciated conservative writers around. While there are those who like to label him a Paleo, he's no Buchananite, but one who fully supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation - and has been interviewed on an Israeli nationalist radio program. He nailed Buchanan over his anti-Israel screed penned in the wake of the Passover terror attacks.

Auster, Bat Yeor, and Srdja Trifkovic are some of the lonely voices crying in the desert telling us the truth about Islam and what its plans are for the west, including the United States - which are the same now as they were 1400 years ago. Even Ariel Sharon seems to have bought in to the whole liberal mythology about Islam's "moderate" nature, sadly. Liberalism is incapable of meeting this threat, whether in the unvarnished leftism offered by John Kerry or the form masking itself as conservatism under George W. Bush and his Neo-Jacobin corporatist allies.

[Convert from ECUSA]

"As I wrote at FrontPage last May, even the most hard-boiled thinkers among us think that our domestic safety rests on the assimilation of U.S. Muslims, and security measures against terrorism. Three and a half years after 9/11, the West still sleeps, managing the jihad threat instead of doing something about it. And the West will continue to sleep, so long as it refuses to renounce the liberal belief that the highest values of our society are tolerance and inclusion, the liberal belief that all differences can be settled by reasoned discourse, the liberal belief that we must strive forever to find common ground with people who are irreconcilably different from us. So long as liberalism with its non-discriminatory embrace of the Other remains the core of Western identity, the West will be unable to know itself, to value itself, and to defend itself. And the Muslim conquest of the West will continue."



The author hit the nail on the head, right on the money!

[nuconvert]

"he is speaking of EUROPEAN Muslims"

What are "EUROPEAN Muslims"? Again I say, if he's speaking of Arab Wahabbists in europe, then make that distinction.
I'm sure he's aware there are different muslim sects. Wahabbists (who are a minority sect and who are regarded as a cult by other muslims) do not assimilate and I assume this is to whom he's referring.
But if he doesn't want to sound like he's condemning all muslims (which, I believe, may be a big part of why his article was pulled, then he should choose his words more carefully. ( as with the Bush statement of Pres. Bush doing "nothing", that I referred to previously).