A couple of years ago I was telling my Spanish friend Ana about my life in Japan. I related how one evening I was walking home along a quiet street when and I heard loud voices behind me. I turned around and saw an east Asian boy and girl on a single bicycle riding down the middle of the road. They must have been about 20-years-old and were talking so loudly. How strange, I thought. Japanese don’t usually do that, not even young ones. As they passed me I noticed the couple were speaking Chinese rather than Japanese. Aha!, I thought. Chinese people are generally louder and less buttoned up than the Japanese. I have noticed this many times while in Japan.
My friend Ana often raises her eyebrows at such stories and tells me that such anecdotes don’t prove that all Chinese people are loud! She is sure there are some quiet Chinese people, just as there must be some loud Japanese people and I am sure she is right. But I never claimed that all Chinese people are loud. I just said I had noticed a general difference.
We have similar discussions about nearly everything: not all Jews are intelligent, not all blacks commit crimes, not all men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women etc. etc. Her argument appears to be that all bell curves look the same. Who cares if the curves for Chinese and Japanese, Jews and Gentiles, men and women are a little left or right shifted? I should lighten up, stop looking for patterns of behaviour and try to sound a little less like Adolf Hitler.
Yet these patterns matter to me. A husband who crashes the family car ten times is wrong to turn to his wife on the one occasion she crashes and say, ‘See, despite all your talk about how careful you are you’re really no more careful than me.’ This would be innumerate and just plain stupid. There is an important difference between someone who crashes once and someone who crashes ten times. One crash says nothing about the driver, ten crashes do.
In a recent televised debate on the Migrant Crisis which you can watch here, Simon Schama used the same stupid argument. He accused Mark Steyn, who had just committed the unforgivable crime of noticing the high number of rapes committed by migrants, of implying that all male migrants are therefore would-be rapists. He regarded this as a grotesque slander against Islam and against migrant men as a whole. You can see his righteous outburst at 47.13 – 48.20 in the video.
Of course Mark Steyn had said no such thing, nor even implied it. He simply drew attention to the fact that the bell curve for rape among male migrants is extremely right-shifted in comparison with that of Norwegian men (and pretty all other men). He stated the fact that though Muslims make up something under 2% of the Norwegian population they commit 50% of the rapes in Oslo.
This statistic should have given Simon Schama pause for thought. He could have taken the opportunity to ask himself whether these statistics say anything meaningful about Islam or the culture the migrants come from. He might even have wondered if genes untouched by centuries of western civilisation play a role. Or he might have wondered, as I did, whether Muslims look at the likes of Simon Schama and conclude that a continent filled with such cowardly, effeminate men is just ripe for conquering. My guess is that Muslim men would rape a lot fewer western women and children if western men were a little more like their Viking and Norman forebears. As it is Europe is filled with Simon Schama-like men who hope their effeteness will be mistaken by barbarian rapists for virtue and kindness.
When I try to picture an Englishman abroad going round raping the local African, Indian or South American women and children I can only envisage an arrogant man who has absolutely no respect for the people among whom he is living. I can only think that that is how Muslim rapists view Europeans: undeserving of any respect.
Whatever the true reason for the Muslim rape epidemic, clearly something must be causing it. Yet Simon Schama wasn’t interested in finding out what that something might be. Instead, the only thing he concluded from the alarming figures was that Mark Steyn was a double-bigot, first for noticing the figures and then again for mentioning them.
Schama thinks Europe has have done a terrible job of integrating Muslims into its societies, for which of course he blames Europeans rather than Muslims. (He says this at 50.30). He thinks migrants should be integrated, not into our awful consumer society, but into the world of thinkers like John Lock, John Milton, and John Stuart Mill. This is what will entice them away from their Salafism, their Wahhabi-ism and their Jihadism.
Hmm, good luck with that. Even I don’t read those writers, neither does anyone else I know. It seems we have to change our society into a uniquely intellectual one, one that coincidentally suits Simon Schama down to the ground, if we hope to integrate a huge and hostile group of erstwhile goatherds into our society. Who but an intellectual with no idea of what most people are like would suggest that reading Lock, Milton and Mill was the solution to the biggest problem the West currently faces? I have to say that my own preferred solution is just to turn all Muslim migrants away at the border. I think this tactic is much more likely to end well, at least for us Europeans, than attempting to turn millions of low-IQ, under-educated, highly-volatile, religiously-enthralled people into Enlightenment scholars.
As far as I can tell Mark Steyn seems to have nothing against Islam, nor against Muslims, but thinks that Islam took a wrong turn into Salafism and Wahhabism during the last century. This has rendered the adherents of these strands of Islam incompatible with the western world in a way that mainstream Islam never used to be. This could be true, though it might also be mistaking the weakness of Islam from the Siege of Vienna to 9/11 for peacefulness. I don’t know enough to say, nor am I interested enough to read about it. I just want Islam to go away so I can think about more pleasant stuff.
Schama appears to believe that all migrants are like his own clever Jewish parents who emigrated to England during the 1940’s. In his view all migrants are the same and any number of them, no matter how many millions, can be integrated into the wealthy West. And since neither rape nor anti-Westernism are unique to Islam, nor are either of them central tenets of Islam (really?), there is really nothing to worry about. All we have to worry about is our own bigotry and our own ineptness at integrating those whose only wish is to contribute to our societies. Right. My own opinion is that we are not all the same, we don’t all want the same thing and that when it comes to immigration numbers matter.
Sometimes my vision of a perfect day is to hear that Simon Schama has become the latest victim of a Muslim migrant attack, like this Good White who was raped by a Somali. The rapist will now be sent back to Somalia, something for which the rape victim allegedly feels sorry and partly responsible. Christ. Still, if someone has to be the victim of Muslim ‘enrichment’ let it be the people who wanted them here in the first place. It is a kind of justice when the Simon Schamas of this world have to personally bear the consequences of their smug, self-righteous beliefs. Unfortunately it is 3-year-old children and the women of Europe who are at present bearing those consequences.
For some reason I just don’t care about the people now landing on Greek beaches, whether they are Muslims or black Africans. I would like to say that this is due to ‘compassion fatigue’ but the truth is I couldn’t have cared less from day one. And it’s no use telling me I should care. ‘Should’ doesn’t enter into my feelings. I find I can sympathise with the Jews of the 1930’s, with the Ugandan Asians in the 1970’s and with the Japanese in the Tohoku earthquake and Tsunami of 2011. I also sympathise a little with the presently persecuted Christian minorities in the Middle East. Yet even with these groups my concern keeps itself well within reasonable limits. I think it’s a pity while I’m watching the news and immediately forget about it once the news has finished. And when I look inside myself I find I have no positive feelings towards the current Muslim and black migrants. This is because I view past immigration from their countries as one long list of cons with absolutely no pros that I can discern. I look upon these people as ‘them’ rather than ‘us’, the enemy rather than ‘friends I have yet to meet’. Unlike Simon Schama who wants to spread his love around equally and indiscriminately, I want to save mine for the people I actually like. This seems to me a more human attitude than the love-for-all-mankind of the Jesus wannabes. Though most progressive liberals who subscribe to this idea probably don’t realise it, I’m pretty sure it is a Christian idea and not something innate to all humans. If progressives want to adopt this Christian idea that’s fine. I just find it odd since they generally sneer at anything connected with Christianity.
Simon Schama certainly seems to view everyone as ‘us’ (apart from Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage, who are of course hateful, bigoted racists). He also sees the current migrant crisis as a win-win situation. Westerners will win by adding lots of energetic young Muslims to their sclerotic and ageing societies, as well as being able to put into practice their ideas of brotherly love and solidarity, something they generally only pay lip service to. On the other hand Muslims will win by escaping from the conflicts that unfortunately and totally inexplicably spring up like weeds wherever Muslims are to be found. Of course there is no danger that they will bring their conflicts with them.
I on the other hand see this more as a zero-sum situation: the more Muslims that enter Europe, the more Islamised Europe will become, which is not something I want. For someone like me, an atheist who sees Islam as both a dangerous religion and an equally dangerous political ideology, actively helping large numbers of Muslims to come to the West is like the Jews assisting the Nazis. I simply don’t feel any brotherly love or solidarity towards them, no matter how often I am told I should.
I feel the same way about socialism, the welfare state and Black Lives Matter. I am against all these institutions and helping them would involve me working against my own interests. Why would I do that?
I’m sure if got to know some of the Muslims and blacks landing in Greece I would like them, just as I would no doubt like some socialists and welfare statists. But the migrant crisis isn’t about getting to know individual people and allowing only the nice ones in. It is about letting in millions of unvetted blacks and Muslims. And if there is some kind of screening process the criteria is almost definitely not to let in only the likeable migrants, which would be my own criteria.
Since we weren’t able to screen out the nasty Muslims even before the migrant crisis – think of the paedophile rings of Rotherham and Rochdale, the bombings in Madrid and London and the beheading of Lee Rigby – how are we magically going to be able to do so now? And even if we could do this, how do we know the children and grandchildren of these migrants won’t grow up to be more radicalised than their parents, just like the second and third generations of present European Muslims are? How do we know they won’t outbreed us and ultimately replace us when all projections suggests they will? How do we know they won’t continue to drain the public coffers as they do now?
If someone wants to show me why I should support a policy of resettling large numbers of Muslims and blacks in traditionally white Christian countries against the interests of my people and my culture, I am willing to hear it. In the meantime, here is Douglas Murray’s article on one particular part of the Steyn-Schama debate. And here is an article by a lady who was present at that debate.