There are two types of muslims: Semites who have immigrated from Arab countries, and Africans who have been converted while living in the U.S.

I think the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily comprised of Africans who have converted to Islam. (Many of these conversions take place in prison.)

Forcing Arabs to leave won’t do much to slow the growth of Islam in the black community. Although it might be argued that black Islam, as a uniquely American phenomenon, is less dangerous that Arabic Islam.

Ron makes a good point about the differences between American Black Muslims (if that is whom he means) and Moslem immigrants from the Middle East. I have to believe, given the relentless volume of immigration over the last three decades, that Moslem immigrants are more disruptive to American society, and more dangerous. Black Muslims have wreaked havoc from time to time on a small scale (which we should not tolerate), but they have nothing on the order of the September 11th attacks on their battle standard. Jihad, imported from the Dar al-Islam by immigrants and illegal aliens, is the greater Moslem threat to America - and Christendom generally.

I know Mr. Auster is sometimes annoyed by my criticisms of neo-conservatives, but this I cannot resist. Gaffney is a perfect example of the schizophrenia of the type. He is aggressively in favor of invasions, occupations and “regime changes” in the Middle East and elsewhere, always justified by positing threats to the United States or American interests. He is only very slightly concerned about actual cultural and physical threats to Americans within the United States. Perhaps this is just another manifestation of the Proposition Nation fantasy that makes neocons (and liberals generally, of whom neocons are but a sub-set) happy to see America’s historical foundations torn up and her traditions purged, the better to create the utopian multicultural poli-sci experiment they favor. This liberal project will fail, but probably not before it destroys the country. HRS

I would like to correct an assertion by the other Ron. The immigrant Muslim population is only partially Arab Muslim.
In the rest of the world, most Arabs are Muslim and most Muslims are not Arabs.
Please note that most American Arabs (or people whose families fled from the nomads from the Hijaz and Nejd) are Christian. Heck, if you look at the North African population other than Egyptians, there are more Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews in America (80,000+) than Muslim Berbers and Arabs from this area.
I also disagree with the idea that the phenomenon of black Americans converting to Islam is not a threat. These people are not only anti-American, but openly committing existential treason to the West. The fact that their ancestors were most likely not Muslim, but captured by Muslims is irrelevant to them. The continuous enslavement of blacks in the Sudan, if not Arabia, is ignored. Converting to the Nation of Islam is the ultimate statement of hatred for America.
I believe that the majority of immigrant Muslims in America are not Arab. They are Pakistani, Persian, Bangladeshi, Indian, Indonesian, Turkish, and sub-Saharan African.

I also disagree with the idea that the phenominon of black Americans converting to Islam is not a threat. These people are not only anti-American, but openly commiting existential treason to the West. The fact that their ancestors were most likely not Muslim, but captured by Muslims is irrelevent to them. The continuous enslavement of blacks in the Sudan, if not Arabia, is ignored. Converting to the Nation of Islam is the ultimate statement of hatred for America.

In fairness to Mr. Gaffney, his piece does not refer to efforts to win muslims over to moderation, but rather to avoid giving recognition to Islamicist dominated muslim groups in the US, and instead recognize moderates. Presumably he is talking about muslims here legally. Gaffney’s remarks would seem to be a criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct. However, it is a fair criticism that he entirely fails to mention the immigration issue.

Thucydides writes that Gaffney’s article “does not refer to efforts to win muslims over to moderation, but rather to avoid giving recognition to Islamicist dominated muslim groups in the US, and instead recognize moderates.”

I don’t agree. Here is the relevant excerpt from the article:

“Mr. Saied’s own story, however, also suggests our best antidote to the poisonous effects of those like the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to radicalize and otherwise to dominate their co-religionists around the world — and to subject the rest of us to ‘a way of life entirely shaped by the Koran and Islamic law.’ According to Mr. Barrett, he has ‘gravitated back toward the more moderate values [he] learned growing up’ and seeks to encourage others to become what he calls ‘progressive’ Muslims.

“No one should underestimate the difficulty of this task.”

Isn’t that cute? Gaffney admits how terribly difficult, likely impossible, it will be to turn extremist Moslems into “progressives”; but it doesn’t occur to him to advocate the infinitely more do-able (if we had the will to do it) task of simply expelling these threatening characters from our country.

And notice the liberal assumptions that continue to inform Gaffney’s thought: We must, he says, gamble our future and our very existence on some (impossible to achieve) change of heart on the part of total aliens, based on OUR faith in THEIR ultimate reasonableness and good nature. But we must not TAKE ACTION OURSELVES to assure our own safety. We must not even consider that as a possibility. Gaffney like other neoconservatives is eager for us to make war on Islamists in other countries, but he won’t support common sense, pro-active measures to protect us from Islamists in our own country.

If the neoconservatives do not abandon this contradictory and suicidal position, they will deserve to be lit down in shame and dishonor in the pages of history.

Has anybody else seen this article on today’s FrontPageMag: “Ford Foundation finances a “blasphemy amendment” to prevent Americans from cursing Allah’s name.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11513

What is going on here????

Boys, boys…

If Gaffney said something forthright, then he wouldn’t be invited to important cocktail parties, or wimp talk shows like Hugh Hewitt, now would he?

They *used* to call such commentary “effeminate.”

Joel—

Isn’t it sad when heirs are guilty of their wealth, and bend over for everything?

Old Henry sure wasn’t and he sure didn’t…

Mr. Lefevre, thank you for that link! I just read the article, and I find it extremely gratifying that at long last someone is going to shine some disinfectant sunlight on that far-leftist Gramscian organization, the Ford Foundation. I hope future articles in the series will name names, outing the specific individuals in the power structure there who’ve been unswerving champions of everything that’s poisonous for this country. As everyone knows, the Ford Foundation has been one of the biggest funders of MECHA and other of the ill effects of massive incompatible immigration into the U.S. I would say it’s fallen into the hands of out-and-out Marxists. I’d LOVE to see this bunch brought down.

After further pondering Mr. Gaffney’s article, while it is true that he doesn’t literally call for efforts to make muslims in the US more moderate, and only specifically mentions giving official recognition to moderate muslims rather than the Islamicist dominated groups, Mr. Auster’s inference that Gaffney’s remedy is to encourage moderation is a fair one. What Mr. Gaffney doesn’t seem to recognize is that radical Islamicist groups probably do fairly represent the views of the overwhelming majority of their members. It is not as though they had been taken over by a clique of Islamicists. But Mr. Auster is correct that it is an enormous omission not to raise the issue of the nature and makeup of this country’s immigration, an issue that no politician wants to touch for a variety of reasons, both practical and corrupt.

I am in general agreement with Howard Sutherland’s points, but it is not true that neoconservatives believe in multiculturalism; at least most do not. Rather, they believe that immigrants can and will be assimilated as they were in the past, despite the worst the multiculturalists can do. In effect, they ignore, or wish away multiculturalism, or assume that it will be doomed to failure, and they can go on having large-scale immigration, which they like, without paying a penalty. That that is a fantasy is a point with which none of us will argue. I do not think, either, that neocons can be accurately characterized as “liberals,” but I understand the term in a narrower sense than Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Auster. That neoconservatism originated as “Cold War” liberalism is true, but it has now acquired neuroses all its own.

Frontpage.com’s article on the Ford Foundation is excellent. However, that operation has long since gotten out of the control of the Ford family; I seem to recall that even Henry Ford II was fed up with it. As for the
American Black Muslims; they are organizationally and ideologically different from orthodox Muslims, but that does not make them a bargain. Although they have softpedalled a bit lately, they originated as bitter anti-white racists and were even worse than the orthodox Muslim fanatics in that respect. To be sure, racialism, or at least hostility to Christianity and the West, seems to be a common motivation for black American conversions to straight Islam.

Mr. Levine wrote,

“… and [neoconservatives] can go on having large-scale immigration, which they like …”

What do they like about it? Exactly what end which they hope to see come to pass does it further?

They are for free trade and for capital markets that are unfettered by national borders, and some of them claim that their support for massive 3rd world immigration into first world countries is desirable as amounting to the labor counterpart to the free movement of capital — i.e., the free movement of labor unfettered by national borders. Is that their only reason for liking it?

Strip away the verbal cosmetics and you’re left with this: Neo-cons are just liberals who would rather pay less tax.

Every single other position they have is garden-variety liberal.

Their pro-war bent has much less to do with protecting US interests than “engaging” the enemy—which is nothing more than the “detente” theory of earlier libs.

An earlier poster noted that after their phony viewing with alarm at all the social changes, they just go on with their silly little effeminate (there—I said it!!) articles, preaching to own pathetic choir.

Mr. Auster is a “neo-con”?

Auster is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Jingo. On immigration, culture and the decline of civility, he’s quite good. But mention Israel, Iraq or the Civil War and he becomes a bombastic screwball.

That’s basically my assessment. Without any fine tuning this is neoconservatism isn’t it? Maybe overlooking the Civil War part though.

It seems that when a paleocon wants to attack someone he sees as a neocon, the childish name-calling is inevitable. It’s a basic characteristic of the species. However, since Chesterfield and J. Newton are familiar with this site and presumably with its rules of civility, I can only conclude they don’t have much desire to post here again in the future.

I didn’t say you were a neocon, Larry. You’re a weird mix of good and bad who refuses to take criticism well.

Chesterfield is your typical paleocon of today who thinks that gratuitously calling the host of a website where he’s joining in a discussion a “bombastic screwball” is mere “criticism.” Today’s paleocons continually engage in “criticism” like this, and much worse than this, then find themselves disliked and excluded, and then turn around and complain, “Hey, we’re being shut out for criticism. That’s not fair.” The game is without interest. So much of paleoconservatism has become a synonym for a truly stupid and boorish immaturity.

To Unadorned: Unfortunately, neocon attachment to immigration is not simply extreme libertarianism. It is an emotional and in a certain way somewhat laudable tribute to their forefathers who were themselves immigrants. It is also an emotional attachment to (a certain [liberal] understanding of) the greatness of the U.S. and its putative ability to assimilate everyone. They love (a certain vision of) this country and can’t imagine why anyone else would not. Thus criticisms of neocons on immigration are interpreted by them as antipatriotic criticisms of the U.S.

To RonL: It is true that many Arabs in America are Christian, not Muslim. In my admittedly limited experiences with Christian Arabs, however, I have found that they are very likely to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel. For some reason, people who migrate here from impoverished dictatorships and find peace and wealth nevertheless harbor resentments and hatred of our country. I’ll leave the psychology of it to someone smarter than me, but I have more concern about aliens in America than for black Americans playing at radicalism.

>>Has anybody else seen this article on today’s FrontPageMag: “Ford Foundation finances a “blasphemy amendment” to prevent Americans from cursing Allah’s name.”

>>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11513

>>What is going on here????<<

Well, actually, what is going on here is explained very well in this post by Eugene Volokh:

http://volokh.com/2003_12_28_volokh_archive.html#107282390345309697

As Volokh points out, the exercise proposed does *not* advocate adoption of an anti-blasphemy amendment, but instead invites students to evaluate such an amendment, considering its possible advantages and disadvantages, and keeping in mind that at the time of our Nation’s founding, prosecutions for blasphemy were not regarding as inconsistent with freedom of speech (although, unless we were also to adopt an amendment dropping the Establishment Clause, the proposed blasphemy amendment would have to benefit non-Christian religions).

As Volokh points out, the exercise suggested by the Constitutional Rights Foundation is virtually identical in concept with one he sets forth in his First Amendment textbook, regarding a proposed “murder advocacy exception” to the First Amendment. As Volokh points out: “I didn’t include the problem because I thought the [murder advocacy] exception would be a good idea. I actually think the exception would be a bad idea; but I thought that the best way to get students to understand free speech arguments is by getting them to consider the proposal, and to think it through on their own.”

In other words, rather than “just telling students ‘blasphemy laws bad, attacks on Salman Rushdie bad,’” the exercise “asks them to thoughtfully discuss reasons why some might support blasphemy laws (as many Christians have in the American past, and as I’ve heard a few support even today), and why others might oppose them.” That’s a far cry from actually advocating an anti-blasphemy amendment. I would imagine that the most likely outcome of the exercise would be to strengthen students in their conviction that such an amendment would be a bad idea.

Maybe there’s something else going on that deserves condemnation, but it isn’t evident from the Constitutional Rights Foundation page that FrontPage linked to.

OK, so I must be too new here to know Mr. Auster’s feelings on the war of Northern agression. Please don’t tell me that he is a pro-Lincoln semi-con.

I don’t think he is a neo-con, and he attacks paleo-cons….so dear Mr. Auster, how *would* you characterize yourself??

Mr. Shaw can use our search engine or archives page to find articles here that contain the words “Civil War.” We’ve had long debates on the subject with various neo-Confederates and paleo-libertarians.

I describe myself as a traditionalist conservative.

I’m saddened to find that Mr. Auster is on the wrong side of the Civil War.

Not all Christians from Arab countries are the problem, only those who see themselves as Arabs.
Christians lived in the Middle East 600 years before the armies of Mohammed swept out of the Hijaz. Most of these Christians were decendants of far older peoples: the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Moabites, Copts (Egyptians), Phonecians, Cartheginians, ….
These groups were opressed by the Muslims for 1300 years. The survivors went through a Stockholm syndrome whereby they survived by associating with their opressors, especially after the Crusades.

With the rise of nationalism in the region, many Christians sought to be more Arab than the Muslims. The idea was that if Arabis was the goal, then Christians were equal to Muslims.
Phalangism, Ba’athism, and most pan-Arab movements were founded by Christians.

To be blunt, never trust any Christian who calls himself an Arab.

Agricola is right about the neocon motivation for supporting immigration. I myself would doubt that either libertarianism or economic motivation is any important part of their affection for immigration, but some neocons, having dropped their original Keynesian or social democratic ideas about economics, are suckers for any economic concept loved by Country Club Republicans. Basically, however, they feel that opposing immigration is like opposing their grandparents.

Re Agricola and Ron’s comments about Christian Arabs: They seem to be unaware that secular Arab nationalism was ORIGINATED by Christian Arabic speakers. From their point of view asserting a secular Arab national identity was a way of getting out from under Muslim sectarian hostility. To put it mildly, this proved a blunder. I am not sure that Arab Christians are all that hostile to Jews, but to the extent they are, this may derive from 1) VERY old religious hostilities 2) Wishful thinking that if not for the establishment of Israel things in the Middle East would have worked out better for them. Perhaps that is not entirely wishful thinking, since the arrival of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon did do much to destabilize the country. However, the Christians among the Palestinians have generally been less fanatical about Israel than the Muslim majority, and the Lebanese Christians have, at times been allied to the Israelis.

In reply to Seamus’s of 10:17 AM, I understand that the ‘hypothetical’ amendment is generically written, and the circumstances are a ‘study group’ type. But I don’t think that fully expresses the context, which involves what amounts to an apologetic for Mohammedanism, whitewashing its history, lying outright about its present. The whole thrust of this amendment as discussed generates from Mohammedan blasphemy laws, and that is the only reason it is made a topic at all.

The point about the Establishment Clause doesn’t fit here, not merely because the meaning of that Clause has been distorted. The First Amendment was not intended to place constrictions on state or local laws or ordinances. I have no problem with a locale forbidden cursing in public, agreeable to the concerns of the local community. I have a BIG problem with the Federal government dictating such things.

In a practical sense, (again thinking ‘hypothetically,’) no matter how generic such an amendment was written, it would in actuality be enforced today in the same manner as speech codes. Those codes are written to apply to everyone; in practice they apply only to whites. An amendment as ‘discussed’ would apply to Christians, and to no one else.

I doubt that point is made looking ahead in these CRF materials, but I suspect that the _need_ for it typically centers around (at least nominal) Christians offending poor victimized Mohammedans, sort of like the ADL’s “Teaching Tolerance” focuses on hate crimes as if they are all committed by whites.