Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer writes in FrontPage about how the media has instantly misunderstood the murder of Theo van Gogh:
“War is deceit,” said Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, and deception remains a potent and little-recognized weapon in the hands of international jihadists. Radical Muslims today charge “racism” against anyone who dares to point out their motives and goals — manifesting a canny awareness of what stands as the unpardonable sin in Western political discourse. All too often, the mainstream media plays along, probably because they simply don’t have any conceptual apparatus enabling them to view conflicts any other way. Yet their continued misapplication of conflicts as “racial” interferes with realistic appraisals of what they really involve — most notoriously in a Netherlands still reeling from last week’s murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a jihad terrorist on an Amsterdam street.The Times of London did this last Sunday with an article entitled “Jihad wrecks Dutch race harmony.” After noting evidence of a “‘brigade’ of Dutch jihadists preparing to murder ‘the enemies of Islam’ in a terror campaign,” the Times worried that all this jihadist activity has “prompted some to rethink their faith in a multiracial society.”
The Times wrings its hands over the possibility that “Dutch tolerance no longer extends so readily these days to immigration and religious diversity.” Ah yes. It’s all about Dutch intolerance and rejection of “religious diversity,” you see. It doesn’t seem to occur to the Times that the killing of van Gogh was a supreme manifestation of the rejection of “religious diversity” — even while reporting that the note that van Gogh’s murderer impaled on his body declared that “hair- raising screams will be squeezed from the lungs of the non-believers.” Not against “white Dutchmen,” mind you, but against “non-believers.”
The Times isn’t the only major media outlet suffering from this myopia. Newsweek International carried a story recently entitled “Racism’s Rising Tide,” quoting a French journalist: “Our Europe cannot be one of racism. Never.” But, according to Newsweek, “more strident voices in Italy are pushing in exactly that direction. Oriana Fallaci, now 74, has developed a niche all her own as a best-selling voice of fear and fury.” Fallaci is the courageous Italian thinker who has published several books now about how jihad ideology threatens Europe. But for Newsweek, it’s all about how “the new antipathy toward foreigners of color, especially in Italy, is a far more worrisome trend.”
But why exactly must the killing of van Gogh prompt some to “rethink their faith in a multiracial society”? And why are Fallaci’s warnings signs that “foreigners of color” are being victimized? If everyone in the Netherlands were white and blonde, and yet 5% of the population believed that the society should be remade into an Islamic state, wouldn’t the Dutch be facing the same problem they are now? If everyone in Italy were descended from the ancient Romans, and yet a significant number of them believed that Italian society must be made over to conform to the dictates of Islamic Sharia law, would that be nothing for Italians to be concerned about? If the mosques of the Netherlands and Italy were populated by people like John Walker Lindh (“Johnny Taliban” from Marin County, California), Adam Yehiye Gadahn (a.k.a. Adam Pearlman), Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) and Jack Roche (the Australian Muslim convert who met Osama bin Laden and thought he was a “very nice man,”) would Holland and Italy be safe today?
The problem, in short, is not the race, but the ideology of Muslim immigrants. For over thirty years, besotted EU officials have concluded pact after pact with the Arab League that made for massive Muslim immigration into Europe without assimilation. Would the new European Muslims accept European pluralism? That was assumed — betraying a shocking naivete and ignorance of what Islam has historically taught about the nature of society and the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The problem is not racism, but precisely a clash of civilizations, or a clash between two radically opposing views of how society should be ordered. Another news item from Holland last week vividly illustrated that fact: when Dutch artist Chris Ripke commemorated van Gogh by painting a mural featuring the words “Thou shalt not kill,” a local mosque leader complained to police. The mural, you see, was “racist.” The police obediently sandblasted away the offensive message.
If “thou shalt not kill” is racist, then so is the entire Christian civilization upon which Holland (and Europe in general) was built. And that, no doubt, is exactly what the multiculturalist journalists who see the strife in Europe as a race problem believe.
Facinating article Mr. Spencer. Thanks for posting it on your site. ;-)
Theo gets killed but the Dutch are intolerant! That takes the cake.
Here is how a PhD, expert on extreme right wing parties, describes what's happening in Holland, in http://www.hbl.fi/cgi-bin/mediaweb:
"Holland drawn to a cycle of violence?
During last week, Holland has been shaken of a series of violent actions against Muslims. The Dutch tolerance has been overwhelmed by intolerance, says researcher Susanne Jungerstam-Mulders.
...
Since film director Theo van Gogh was murdered last week, allegedly by a Muslim extremist, Muslim schools and mosques have been arsoned in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Breda och Huizen....
Dr. Susanne Jungerstam-Mulders, of universities of Helsinki and Antwerpen:
- The tolerant Holland has turned intolerant, or tolerant of intolerance. Especially in big cities it's totally legitimate to call Muslims, and especially Moroccans, by abusive names. This can also be a reason why the violence surfaced like this - because if it's legitimate to say whatever, then also the treshold for action is lower.
The murdered director and columnist Theo van Gogh irritated Muslims with columns that according to Jungerstam were often downright tasteless.
- According to Theo van Gogh any self-control that affects freedom of expression was self-censorship. He wrote columns with outrageous formulations where he called the Muslim culture backward. That says a lot about debate climate in Holland - it's ok to say so terribly much and I'm afraid that it will manifest itself in action.
... I'm afraid that violence will escalate and the coutry will be driven to a vicious circle. There is a great risk that the society will be more polarised."
* * *
Do you see here what I see: Theo van Gogh, that outrageous, shameless, intolerant guy, was begging for it, and he got what he deserved, and it's his fault that the violende has further escalated? I missed less important bits from this translation, but there was no single word in the article saying that murdering van Gogh was wrong, or that there may have been some intolerance on the side of Muslims. The whole problem is that it has been "legitimate" to criticize Islam - well, mr. B helped to solve that problem, didn't he? Somehow the expert seems to have missed that the intolerance that was long visible in e.g. the treats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has already manifested itself in action. That doesn't seem to scare her a bit. Obviously, it's more outrageous to call Islam backward than to commit brutal murder.
The rhetorics of racism described in mr. Spencer's article is stupid enough, but blaming the victim ... isn't it "downright tasteless"?
of course, I meant threats, not treats, to A.H.A. ...
The part of Mr. Spencer's article where he retorically asks if the EU officials expected that Muslims would accept European pluralism is a very telling statement. This is something Mr. Spencer and Bat Yeo'r have been writing about for quite some time.
Why did the European Community then seemingly give little or no thought to the social implication we are seeing in abundance today with a large, hostile in every way, Muslim presence on European soil?
Why, why, can someone please give me an explaination, my head is spinning. I know Bat Yeor's position, but I cannot believe so many would become Judas' and betray the land of their fathers for purely economic reasons. It doesn't make any sense.
Nervous breakdown/
Mr. Spencer frames the problem clearly. The media views this as a racial issue and not as a fundamental difference of civilizations. Until they get it through their thick skulls, it may be too late.
The New York Times idealized Communism from the 1930's on and white washed it until they abandoned supporting it all together in the 1980's. At that time they began referring to the Communists as "conservatives" and embarked on their social engineering programs to promote liberalism in America. But the Conservatives they had better fear are the Islamists. We don’t have another 50 years until the media wakes up.
It is not a racial issue. No other immigrant groups in Europe seem to so despise the societies within which they have inserted themselves into. The problems of uncontrolled immigration into America is a threat to our national culture and identity. But with Muslim immigrants, they are actively relentlessly forcing and demanding change onto our societies on both sides of the Atlantic without delay and with our full cooperation.
RACE ISSUE ???
from:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/14640383?source=Evening%20Standard
Ken faces probe over cleric
By Ross Lydall Local Government Correspondent
11 November 2004
Ken Livingstone's links to a controversial Muslim cleric were today set to spark a formal investigation.
The Mayor provoked uproar in the summer when he welcomed Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall, despite claims that the preacher condoned suicide bombers and vilified Jews and homosexuals.
At the time, Mr Livingstone welcomed him as an honoured guest and said he was a leading voice of moderation who was being wrongly vilified by the media.
Now the Mayor faces an investigation by the London Assembly after a dossier of al-Qaradawi's alleged comments and views was compiled by a coalition of Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and gays.
The Assembly can debate whether Mr Livingstone is in breach of his duty to pursue good race relations. It has no power to censor him, but one possibility would be to refer the case to the official watchdog, the Standards Board for England, which can bar elected members from public office if it finds them in breach of their duties.
The dossier draws together speeches, transcripts and website entries attributed to al-Qaradawi.
Some comments are thought to endorse the use of suicide bombers and others criticise homosexuality. The coalition hoped to present the document to Mr Livingstone but he has refused to meet them. He believes the allegations against the Qatar-based cleric are unsubstantiated and unfair.
The Mayor admits he does not share al-Qaradawi's views on gays. In a letter to the coalition rejecting a meeting, he wrote: "The fact that I do not agree with Dr al-Qaradawi or other religious leaders on some issues will not stop me from continuing a dialogue or sharing a platform with them on issues upon which we agree."
A spokesman for the Mayor added: "It would be completely irresponsible and damaging to community relations in London not to maintain a dialogue with representatives of a religion with more than a billion followers around the world."
The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens on the Assembly agree that the Mayor has a case to answer. But the Muslim Council of Britain, which organised al-Qaradawi's visit, said: "The continuing highlighting of falsehoods and misinterpretations attributed to the sheikh is hugely damaging to everyone."
We are so shocked at the blindness or ridiculous agenda of Europeans to allow themselves to be overrun by a culture so alien to their own. We wonder "how can the media be so stupid" to call a political overtaking 'racial intolerance'?
Meanwhile, something very similar is happening here in the US, as we speak. We are on our way to becoming an Hispanic culture. Mexico has a political agenda and knows that yes, a country can be sold down the river for economic reasons, especially capitalistic democratic ones.
Millions of Mexicans swarm over the unprotected border; they reproduce 6 to 1 vis a vis their hosts; they do the low rung jobs, for a while, and then, since they are so poor, begin to demand free foodstamps, medical care from emergency rooms, WIC, housing...and play on the hosts guilt for being better off; coastal cities such as LA and Miami become spanish speaking, parts of Texas and New York and as the numbers grow, other areas look more Mexican than American; locals leave, making more room for the invasion, because they don't recognize their culture anymore and are accused of 'white flight' because Americans can't tolerate any one 'different'parroted by the media non stop.
And who benefits most?
Business. Corporations. Therefore politicians. Cheap labor AND millions of consumers who need lots and lots of products, homes, cars, bank loans, everything.
Small American families do not consume ENOUGH so the government is importing millions who will.
But people do not inundate a host country without bringing large elements of their culture with them. Corruption is a way of life in Mexico, from the police to the businessman. Taking advantage of the 'gringo' is perfectly acceptable as well as one's own kind who are weaker. Drugs. Superstition. Crime and brutal criminals. Our prisons are now filled with hispanic gangs, men who have not been socialized to respect anything but macho strength and who certainly have no respect for women.
Millions of sweet, uneducated, hardworking Spanish speaking people pour into this country, looking for 'a better life'(making great for WalMart whether working or buying) but along with them come millions of lesser humans who see the rich white culture as easy pickings - but the money making media fails to warn America about what the future will look like when European Americans are a minority.....
But, I would add that, although I have been concerned about this Mexican invasion for more than a decade, I am glad that it is not a Muslim culture, such as the one that is overtaking Europe. Hispanics tend to be Catholic...so they won't want to cut off our heads, just head our politics!
Has anyone thought about the losses to our culture, not just the benefits - of becomeing a hispanic majority?
The point in time we are in now will be looked at in the history books , in centuries to come, and thought of as a time of great ignorance and stupidity, and the bain of political correctness being at the centre of it.
In the future people will not be able to understand , especially only 60 or so years after the fall of the Nazis, how our leaders, our media, and many of the people of western society allowed islam into it's midst, a religion openly declaring it's hatred for unbelievers, openly declaring war on us ( through jihad, which is each muslims primary obligation), and allowed it to thrive almost unchallenged, while the only ones that did challenge it were called "racists,nazis and bigots".
They will be bewildered at our stupidity in falling for such blatantly hostile megalomaniac tactics, and without painting these even more obviously racist people as racist themselves. Who would have thought , the west, the most advanced civilization in mankinds history, is set to be conquered by one of the most primitive, babaric, anti-progressive movements in mankinds history.
robert has made a most interesting rational point when he said: "If everyone in the Netherlands were white and blonde, and yet 5% of the population believed that the society should be remade into an Islamic state, wouldn’t the Dutch be facing the same problem they are now? If everyone in Italy were descended from the ancient Romans, and yet a significant number of them believed that Italian society must be made over to conform to the dictates of Islamic Sharia law, would that be nothing for Italians to be concerned about? If the mosques of the Netherlands and Italy were populated by people like John Walker Lindh (“Johnny Taliban” from Marin County, California), Adam Yehiye Gadahn (a.k.a. Adam Pearlman), Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) and Jack Roche (the Australian Muslim convert who met Osama bin Laden and thought he was a “very nice man,”) would Holland and Italy be safe today?
The problem, in short, is not the race, but the ideology of Muslim immigrants."
this not only puts the lie to the calls of "racism" so comfortable in the minds that have embraced postmodern multiculty leftwing philosophy, but, more importantly, robert has identified the metaphysical crux that defines this war as ideological -- indeed, in the realm of religion, philosophy, and even spirituality
which brings me around to the ultimate reason we should support the war: for our national security and the security of our allies (even those like france who spit in our face), we must continue a campaign to release the islamic world from despotic totalitarian political structures. it is only in giving these people freedom and exposing them -- through the internet, television, and mass communications -- to the marketplace of ideas that they can on an individual basis be confronted with the tools necessary to (1) reform their religion (my personal opinion is that this is a very difficult path); and/or (2) experience a secular enlightenment/renaissance that will cause them to abandon their false religion. it is in helping this civilization out of their medieval barbarity that we will win this war
we must fight the jihadists and help those who would abandon jihad. this is the solution not only for afghanistan and iraq, but the palestinians, the sudan, iran, syria, need i mention more?
What we have here are the fruits of failed social engineering.
I lived in Munich, Germany in the early 1970s. I saw firsthand how the "gast-arbeiters" were treated by the Europeans. Believe me, the Turkish immigrants (and others of Middle Eastern and moslem background) were NOT invited to assimilate. They were relegated to the poorest parts of the city. Only the most menial jobs were open to them. I knew a gentleman who was tri-lingual and well educated but could only find work as a "waiter". His story was common.
When so many moslem immigrants were rejected by the once Christian Europe, they naturally and defensively established ghettos. What other choice did they have? European social engineers verified the Islamic belief that Westerners are racist.
We, Americans, should know very well what happens when a large minority becomes marginalized by the dominant culture. In the 1960s, a mass migration took place of rural "blacks" who came to the manufacturing cities of the North. They were looking for jobs and a chance at some prosperity.
They were fleeing, in large part, the failed policies of the Olde South.
What happened? Well, drive through our large cities. Rejected by the dominant culture; housed in "projects" (like Cabrini Green in Chicago) that were more like prison skyscrapers than apartment buildings; preyed upon by drug merchants; offered dehumanizing "population control" instead of an honest wage; the urban African Americans were "ghetto-ized".
Both groups, Euro-moslems and African-Americans, are treated as experimental populations by the social studies scholars. It is no coincidence that this inhumane treatment by the dominant culture consistently produces hate groups like the Black Panthers or the various "jihadists" that currently flourish in Europe.
Perhaps the chance for Europe to welcome "legal" immigrants and to treat them as fellow human beings has been lost. Perhaps the US is doomed to repeat the mistakes of Europe. If so, then we can expect militancy to escalate. We can expect to see more murder; more mayhem; more disintegration.
Because the West abandoned the foundational teachings of Christianity (charity and inclusion) and embraced what passes as "wisdom" in the secular realm (prejudice and exclusion), we will be forced to "convert or die".
Interestingly, the only hope that the US may have for salvaging our culture rests with the Hispanic immigrants who, two to one, take their religious and cultural lives very seriously. In large part, they have not bought the social engineers' lies about "family planning". This means that the Hispanics know that natural law is natural law: reproduce or die.
Perhaps there will be enough Hispanic-Americans in places of cultural influence to stand ground against the jihadists. After all, it's a numbers game anyway.
Patricia,
The "transformation" of the U.S. by Mexicans is not a conscious movement on their part. Many of the Mexicans, Central, and South Americans that illegally enter the U.S. do not have any agenda other than getting better job. I also bet you 10 to 1 that the idea of bilingual education did not come from Hispanics (in fact, many Hispanics are strongly against it). Unfortunately, many Hispanics (possibly due to their low education) are manipulated by leftist groups in the U.S. Even so, over 40% registered Hispanic voters voted for Bush, so they hardly represent a "voting bloc" as strong as that of blacks that voted overwhelmingly democrat. Finally, it may please you to know that Cuban-Americans on the whole have higher incomes, higher education levels, and vote overwhelmingly Republican in comparison to non-hispanice white Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I also favor strong immigration controls. The alternative is chaos. But the cultural "pollution" from Hispanics is hardly my concern. Perhaps on the brighter side their strong Catholicism may prevent Americans from becoming like the post-Christian Europeans slouching towards Eurabia.
ted wrote -
'we must continue a campaign to release the islamic world from despotic totalitarian political structures. it is only in giving these people freedom...'
This has to be approached very carefully. Remember that the jihadists in Algeria and Pakistan are only kept in check by military juntas. And in Syria and elsewhere by secular dictatorships. Remember what happened in Yugoslavia when it was 'liberated' from communism and the Bosnian muslims immediately began planning for a Taliban-like islamic state?
US and coalition soldiers are dying daily having released Iraq from from a despotic regime. The genie that Saddam kept bottled up all those years has been well and truly released and we are seeing the consequences. Yes, there are elections planned for January, but will it have all been worth it of the majority shi'ites vote in a Shia theocracy on the Iranian model? The one vote, one time deal?
I agree with your other points about exposing the islamic world to modernity and materialism through all possible means, but let's remember that the various dictatorships are not encouraging fundamentalism but trying to suppress it. In his videos UBL shows greater hatred for Middle Eeastern regimes than he does for infidels. He wants them overthrown, and we shouldn't be in any hurry to help him get what he wants.
PEGGY
I think your analysis is way off mark. You are framing the issue in terms of "xenophobic" discrimination.
Not the reality on the ground in Europe now. If you read Mr. Spencer's article today, you will see it is not an issue of immigrants in general but Muslims in particular. They simply seem to refuse to embrace Western pluralism.
What is their excuse for acting out in America?
Or are you their apologist who will defend 1450 years of Islamic intolerance?
Occupied Europe out.
Peggy - Your analysis forgets that Islam demands that Muslims disdain all others simply because they are non-believers. Thus, even well educated Muslims that hold plum positions here in the United States disdain the rest of us and hold out the formation of the Caliphate as the ultimate goal. Why? Religious chauvinism and the desire to return to a time when Muslims were in command and the rest of us were, in one way or another, enslaved.
Your theory reflects a socialist mindset. We want to give people a better way of life. However, we don't want them to displace us and end up under their boots. History bear out this analysis: all cultures that have come into contact with Islam have had conflict, and many were overrun and absorbed by these predators. Islam is a exclusive culture -- all power and glory for them; there is no room for compromise nor coexistence.
I think Peggy has a point. One of the reasons why the race language is used so much is that in a way, Europeans are racist, in the sense that the European national identities are strongly based on the German-style notion of ethnicity, you must have the right genes to belong. While this sense of ethnic identity is still strong, we have learned PC, we have learned it's a bad thing to be a racist and we do anything to prove we're not. It's true the ghettoization of Muslims, now more and more resulting from their own refusal to integrate, has been encouraged by a sense of racial/genetic/ethnic otherness that Europeans feel toward people from any foreign ethnic groups.
Multiculti ideology is the perfect way to turn segregation into a virtue: we are such nice people, we respect your different culture, we won't criticize anything you do, and at the same time, our ethnic group stays genetically clean. Accept and keep distance, that's the nationalist multiculti ideology's core idea. You don't need to think of those alien people as Swedes, or Dutch, or Germans, or Danes, and still you can reward yourself with a self-righteous feeling of being antiracist. So when someone dares to mess up the fake harmony and criticize Islam, he must be racist because we are so used to thinking about these things in racial terms. It's hard for those people to get that you can hate Islam as a cult and as an ideology, and at the same time like some immigrants, or darker than pink-skinned people. That's why those who call Pim Fortuyn a racist are so silent about his Black co-worker and his Moroccan partner - it doesn't match the pattern where you must either love or hate evertything foreign and non-white. Europe is just only starting to realize that people of foreign origin are different individuals, that some of them are cool and bright, and some of them are vicious and hostile, and some may be members of a violent and dangerous cult, and that revealing it if it's so is NOT racist. Pim Fortuyn got it, Theo van Gogh got it, most people here get it.
To protect what's good about Europe, we should stop interpreting European identities in racial terms - only then do we not need to feel "racist" when defending European values, and only then can we confront Islam without feeling guilty. Someone mentioned the word "baby" here - that's what it's all about. It's time to realize that foreigners in general, and Muslims in particular, are not babies who must be comforted and understood and soothed and accepted no matter what they do. You can only expect someone to be responsible when you first realize they're adult.
What I say above doesn't mean I'd disagree a bit with epg and Andrew. What I mean, rather, is that the multiculti mindset is itself racist because unable to confront Islam as real opponent, seeing it rather as "racial other" (what a monster of a term!) that needs to be treated be like a baby, totally different, totally unaccountable, in need of endless care and understanding.
i find scandie's thoughts quite interesting. indeed, america is quite different culturally from europe since we have a national identity that asks only that our citizens drop the pretenses of their former cultures that would separate them from us and assimilate. yet freedom allows for anyone to engage in cultural behaviour that is not deemed a threat (thus orthodox jews dress how they wish to with no problem, the amish ride around in horse & buggy, latin americans go out to salsa clubs, and on and on. incidentally, the magnetism of americanization/assimilation is likely the driving force as to why the majority of muslims in america are quite content to be here as opposed to the muslims in europe who seem in majority to resent their adopted countries.) as scandie has pointed out it is the european model of separating the cultures that lies at the heart of multiculty metaphysics. this, for instance, is why the leftwing advocates such insanity as encouraging new latin american immigrants to not learn english and assimilate. were they to pay attention to the assimilated latin american population, they would realize why nearly half of this population voted for bush and considers their multiculty programs anathema to realizing the american dream
i agree with benelux that the war should be done carefully. however, the idea that the war plays into bin laden's strategy is contradicted by his latest tape. also, this particular enemy does not seem to meet the rationalization that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." indeed, the enemy is seductive and is more likely to woo friends away from us were we not to continue to be firm in our resolve. fallujah, for instance, is a very symbolic victory. i found ralph peters' column in today's new york post to be quite right on
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/33870.htm
Collectively, Muslims believe they will prevail over the western infidel world because we are so foolish and weak, not willing to be as intolerant and aggressive as they are.
Political Correctness proliferation and the mass media seems to reinforce and incourage that sinister Islamic notion.
And the paradox is not some " conservatives get it right and liberals got it all wrong " type thing. Take a guy like Bill Mahr. He is a hard leftist but is not politically correct when it comes to Islam. He dishes out the most truthfull and harsh critisim of Islam one will see in the mass media.
In one State of The Union Address, President Ronald Reagan refered to Osama Bin Laden as a " freedom fighter ". The jihad movement has played right wing politicans like a drum to support their Islamic agenda.
This is not a left verses right question but more of a secular verses Islam question in which the left and right can unite on the NO TO ISLAM question pressing the modern world at present.
Nossy
Permit me to elaborate briefly. My point, which perhaps I did not make as well as I intended, was that social engineering is often racist. When moslems (and other groups) are imported for their cheap labor but are ghetto-ized (i.e. the terrible social experiments conducted upon African Americans in cities like Chicago with its horrible, inhumane high rise "zoos"), you are creating a climate which breeds proverty and despair. Poverty and despair breeds violence against the dominant culture. And, population control is not a remedy for poverty. This is NOT theory. Look at the history of our cities in the US.
We know the results of these experiments. The Black Panthers, gang wars, etc are the "fruits" of bad social engineering. Isolation + population control = violence and disintegration.
I cannot say for sure, but it is very likely that if the formula applies to the unfortunate African Americans who were the first "subjects" of the experiment, it will apply to the Euro-moslems and maybe Ameri-moslems as well. Why wouldn't it?
The only addition we might be able to make is that because of Islam's peculiar teachings about the uses of violence and it's inherent anti Westernism, the current experiment's outcome will be WORSE than the outcome suffered by the African Americans.
To summarize: If ghetto-ization is the only solution we can offer to the "clash of civilizations" which Mr. Spencer accurately describes we can expect a worse outcome than was experienced in the African American "experiment". In other words, social engineering + bad urban planning + population control is a recipe for disaster.
The "legal" Mexican variable was introduced to explain that strong cultural and inclusive religious values can protect a group from falling prey to the schemes of the social planners. And further, because the Hispanic population is following natural law (reproduce or die. Do you hear that, Europe?), therefore the Hispanics may help save Western Civilization.
We can fight it all we want, but it is a numbers game in the end.
That's all. I am, by the way, NOT a socialist.