If the mainstream media in this country weren’t utterly leftist and PC, you’d see every TV channel plus C-SPAN tomorrow morning grilling immigration enthusiasts in light of this article and similar recent ones, really raking them over the coals, openly calling them to account for their civilization-killing policies which may no longer have any solution.

(Don’t anyone hold his breath, though.)

Reading this article is like hearing the sound of the crack of doom … the doom of what is known as the West.

It may already be too late to turn this around. “Write letters to your Senator and Congressman?” Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but somehow I just don’t think Sen. Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords, Sen. Pat Leahy, and Rep. Bernie Sanders — my state’s delegation to D.C. and extreme radical leftists all three — have “what it takes” (it takes a brain and a pair of functioning eyeballs) to even remotely sense what needs to be done next, on an emergency basis.

I don’t see anything in Abou Jahjah’s statement that a typical multiculturalist would not applaud. On the surface, at least, it’s nothing more than an assertion of the Muslims’ desire to be on equal footing with members of the culture which preceded them in the “host country”.

What the statement does *not* say —- and perhaps this is where the “mask” hasn’t really come off yet —- is that the Muslims intend to *displace* that previous culture. That is a conclusion which is contributed, implicitly, by Mr. Auster.

The liberal move to replace unicultures with a multiculture is a frequent topic here. But that isn’t the move the Muslims are making with statements like Mr. Jahjah’s. They’re simply exploiting multiculturalism for their own purposes. Mr. Jahjah’s statement provides no evidence as to what those purposes —- beyond a refusal to assimilate —- might be.

The way the Muslims have been able to beat us is almost comical. They come over with the intent to kill us, then a few of them get caught in a pattern of violence, and the liberals scream ‘racial profiling’ and cuddle up next to the Muslims and say ‘don’t worry innocent little brown man, we won’t let the evil greedy white men hurt you’. The Muslims play dumb and keep repeating the slogans that inflame the left, with the same goals in mind the entire time. The interesting part is that, when it boils down to it, the left also wants to destroy the greedy white men’s society. I hate it all.

The immigration enthusiast will claim that Islamists maskeup a small percentage of immigrants, so we shouldn’t punish the many because of the few. Ugh!

In response to Charlie, I’d say that Jahjah’s remark goes beyond the typical multiculturalist statement in that it specifically denies not only the legitimacy of the majority culture of the host country but the very existence of the host country. “I don’t believe in a host country…. I’m in my country, not the country of the Belgians.” He is claiming possession of Belgium for Islam. As I’ve been arguing in print since my first article on multiculturalism in National Review in 1989, this has always been the implicit logical end of multiculturalism, but it has not been spelled out like this before. More ominously yet, Jahjah is spelling it out not in the context of the usual multicultural debate over curriculum, but in the context of violent Muslim riots.

Remus very well describes a situation that makes The Camp of the Saints seem not an extreme parody but simply an accurate representation of reality.

As to Jim Carver’s comment that the immigration enthusiasts will claim that Islamists only make up a small percentage of the Muslims, unfortunately, it’s not just the left and the pro-immigrationists who say that. Patrick Buchanan has recently said a similar thing (the figure he used was 0.1 percent), as I will be discussing in an item to be posted in the next day or so.

From Serge Trifkovic’s new book The Sword of the Prophet (p. 103):

“On the eve of the First Crusade, the prominent Islamic scholar Abu Ala Al-Mawardi prepared the formal blueprint for the Islamic government, based on the Kuran, the Tradition, and the practice of the previous four centuries of conquest. It reiterated the division of the world into the House of Islam, where umma had been established, and the House of War inhabited by “harbis”, that is, the rest of the world. The House of Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it; it can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come with the completion of the global conquest. The progression was from “Dar al Sulh”—-when the Muslims are a minority community, and need to adopt temporarily a peaceful attitude in order to decieve their neighbors (Mecca before Mohammad’s move to Medina is the model for which the Muslim diaspora in the Western worls provides the contemporary example)—-to “Dar al Harb”, when the territory of the infidel become a war zone by definition. This happens as soon as the Muslim side feels strong enough to dispense with pretense. The example is provided by Mohammad, who accepted a truce with Mecca when he was in an inferior position but broke it as soon as his recuperated strength allowed and offered his pagan compatriots the choice of conversion or death. In Europe today, the early signs of this forthcoming stage, amounting to a low-intensity civil war, are visible in ethnic disturbances in English and French cities, when young English-born Pakistanis of French-born Norht Africans venture out from their no-go areas.”

It seems that Abu Jahjah is pretty much playing it by the book.

If Senators of today were more like Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania a hundred and thirty-six years ago, and less like today’s Vermont Senators Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy, we might not be in the immigration fix we’re in. Some of the points Sen. Cowan made in a post-Civil-War Senate ratification debate are included in the following Howard Sutherland article (URL below). Cowan’s arguments have obvious relevance for today’s world, not only for this country but clearly also for little Belgium and any other country which is being besieged and blackmailed by ill-mannered guests who are trying to take the place over. This Sutherland article (about the present-day XIVth-Amendment controversy) should be in the “Favorites” of anyone interested in the immigration debate:

http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm

Here’s a bit of Sutherland’s article, including some Cowan excerpts:

“[During the Senate ratification debate in 1866 on the proposed XIVth Amendment to the Constitution,] Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania spoke at length about the limits of citizenship and the rights of states (and, by extension, the federal government: senators in 1866 still acknowledged that the powers of the federal government were those expressly delegated to it by the states in the Constitution) to control who may enter from abroad:

” ’ … I have supposed … that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, BUT THAT IF IT WERE OVERRUN BY ANOTHER AND A DIFFERENT RACE, IT WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABSOLUTELY EXPEL THEM. [Emphasis added.]

” ‘I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; BUT IS IT PROPOSED THAT THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ARE TO REMAIN QUIESCENT WHILE THEY ARE OVERRUN BY A FLOOD OF IMMIGRATION … ? [Emphasis added. Note that what seemed pertinent only to California in 1866 now applies to a large number of states IN ADDITION TO California.] Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? [Today, of course, it’s the Mexicans for California, while it’s the Chinese for Vancouver, Canada.] I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the Country of California, and if another people, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? [Mr. Murgos, is not this last sentence pretty close to what you and I said we wished was written down somewhere as a fundamental right for the people of this country — the right to live among people who look and act like us, while recognizing the legitimate rights of minorities? And here’s this Senator saying it in 1866!] … As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she choose who is not a citizen of some one of the United States. …

” ’ … I wish to be understood that I consider those people to have rights just the same as we have, but not rights in connection with our Government. If I desire the exercise of my rights, I ought to go to my own people, people of the same beliefs and traditions, and not thrust myself in upon a society of other men entirely different in all those respects from myself. I would not claim that right.’ “ 

(Politicians of Belgium, please feel free to borrow any or all of Sen. Cowan’s ideas, in dealing with your own current immigration problems.)

Note that where Sen. Cowan says, ” … I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves [against an invasion in the form of overwhelming ethno-culturally incompatible immigration while D.C. stands by and does nothing]?,” the Constitution itself answers, in effect, “No, they are not powerless”: look at Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in Time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, OR IN SUCH IMMINENT DANGER AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY.” [Emphasis added.]

Governor and men of California (and of Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, etc.): show Karl Rove and President Bush the kind of stuff you’re made of. Your states are being invaded, D.C. refuses all help, and your danger is such as will not admit of delay. Rise up and defend your homes without waiting for D.C., as the Constitution clearly gives you the right to do!

Yes Mr. Cowan’s words are very similar. And the legal argument for opposing the current invasion appears worthy of further research. The U.S. Supreme Court will accept any argument when it wants to do something. Of course the Court is delighted when it can actually quote the Constitution along the way. I would not have been surprised to see the Supreme Court, if it had wanted to overturn a Clinton perjury conviction, sweat mightily to squeeze its meaning of “is” out of the tattered old Constitution. We might have heard about how “is” cannot be taken literally; you know, just like the right to bear arms cannot mean what it says.

It is no wonder that occasionally I have a fantasy in which I turn on the TV and see Dan Rather, with his maddest look ever, spit that the Supreme Court has ordered a federal or a state entity to defend the borders to protect the individual rights of citizens against the invasion. After all, the Court loves to say it is coequal with the other two branches of government. So let’s see the Court use some of that coequalness for something worthwhile. The government sure knew how to point guns at George Wallace. Oh well, time to wake up.

I will continue to say that the “War On Terror” will come to nothing as long as we allow radical islamists into America. There is another point. One reason these people strut around, spewing venom with such confidence, is that they know the governmental authorities will protect and favor them. Here in the USA, the radical hispanics and islamists know the US government favors them. Thus, the arrogant demeanor they project.

A correspondent e-mailed me:

“… I agree that Muslim immigration is an issue. However, Europe has a much bigger problem than the U.S. Europe encouraged/tolerated large scale immigration of unskilled labor from North Africa. As one would expect, the results have been dismal. See ( http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/Bering.html) for an article about Denmark and ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html) for an article about France.

“By contrast, many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are middle and upper class and do quite well. The town I live in is heavily Muslim as are the (private) schools my kids go to. The basic rule in our town in Texas seems to be “the more Muslim/Asian the school, the better the education”. To the best, I can tell there is little fanaticism.”

I replied:

With all due respect, I think you are falling into the mistake of thinking that if immigrants do not present an immediate, gross problem like crime or terrorism or extreme poverty or racial conflict, then they’re fine. Since the ones in your town don’t present such problems, to you they’re fine.

The basic fallacy is to look at a society as a material entity, as an economic machine, not as a culture and a civilization, so that as long as the machine seems to be running ok, there’s nothing to be concerned about. The reality is that the large scale presence of Muslims, even if many of them are now middle-class, spells the ruin of our culture.

And, as you know, many of them are not the middle class “assimilated” types but people who are devoted to jihad! In their schools they are taught jihad. They support terrorist groups. We are ALREADY paralyzed in trying to deal with the terrorist thread because of the political influence of the Muslims among us and the need not to “discriminate” against them. I’m sure you know all this. Furthermore, as their numbers keep increasing, they will get more and more powerful, even as more and more of them wiill not be the “nice middle class” ones but lower class.

I’ll state my position very plainly: Islam and the West are fundamentally incompatible. To let large numbers of Muslims into a Western society is to spell the ultimate ruin of that society, its institutions, its political traditons, its freedoms, its culture. Therefore Muslims in anything more than very small numbers do not belong in any Western society, period.

To assist in this crucial discussion, it would be helpful if the correspondent mentally replaced the Islamic countries with Irish countries and considered what hell the Protestants in Northern Ireland and the British would pay.

Not all the news is bleak. Roy Beck’s group, www.numbersUSA.com, has this to say in its e-mailed update this morning:

==================================================
“1. INFO——-STUART ANDERSON (SEN. ABRAHAM’S OPEN-BORDERS IDEOLOGY CHIEF) IS APPARENTLY OUT OF INS”
==================================================

“Our inside sources tell us that Stuart Anderson, assistant commissioner of policy and planning at INS, was ordered to leave INS as of yesterday.

“Anderson has been perhaps the greatest slap in the face of Americans by the Bush Administration. For years, he has written op-eds and authored papers extolling the virtues of open borders. He was Sen. Abraham’s hit man in the Senate until Michigan voters turned the senator out of office. Then, the new Pres. Bush appointed Anderson to run policy at the INS! His chief endeavors have been to keep sincere INS law enforcement officers from doing their job.

“We also have been told that the head of congressional relations for INS was ordered out. This is the person who has refused to answer virtually every question asked by congressional oversight committees during the last two years.

“Both these men apparently are being moved inside the Justice Department, at least temporarily. But there is great optimism that they will no longer have an opportunity to thwart enforcement of immigration laws.”

[I like that phrase, these two sicko lunatic psycho traitors to their communities, country, and culture “have been ORDERED out; ORDERED to leave”! If only there were some way to REALLY punish and humiliate them for all the damage they’ve done, rather than merely transferring the bastards horizontally into some other part of the D.C. bureaucracy! They’re getting off WAY TOO EASY!]