I think the introduction of the term "one-way multiculturalism" will clarify much discussion on this topic.

Yes, many Muslims have come to Europe for a better life but that does not mean that they wish to live as Europeans do. Look around. I believe that the majority wish to live under Islamic Law and establish Islamic society in Europe. Any suggestion that the UN can be a positive force in any way is strictly naive and foolish. It is run by the Islamic countries and their bought and paid for Third World clients.

The author writes that the British National Party has a "continued addiction" to anti-Semitism. The BNP itself claims otherwise, citing Jewish councillors and members. Perhaps the author's description is more applicable to how the party used to be in earlier decades rather than what the modern organization has evolved into.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the current fertility rate in Algeria is 1.89, in Tunisia 1.74, in Turkey 1.92, in Iran 1.8. Those are four major Muslim countries and none of them is going to replace its current population. Even Bangladesh, a very poor Muslim country, has seen its fertility drop in half—from 6 in the 1980s to about 3 currently. These numbers tell us that the demographic divide between Muslims and everyone else isn't nearly as great as Mark Steyn thinks it is.

The problem with limiting Muslim immigration in Western Europe is that, if Steyn's book is correct, the Europeans have painted themselves into a demographic corner. Even the populations of Catholic countries are failing to reproduce themselves. Western European democracies have become dependent upon the Muslim population influx to supply the young workers needed to support their social programs. The only remedy I can see, short of a drastic change in political philosophy that would shrink those social programs, is to take immigrants from non-Muslim ethnic groups, such as Latinos from Central and South America or non-Muslim Asians from India.

I relish reading you and Steyn and I agree with most of your criticisms of his new book. Your "to do" list makes infinitely more sense than his but his stark "layout" of the core issues, humorously put, grasps people's attention better. I'd like to think that if the two of you collaborated, the result would become a manifesto for all the world to get behind. Keep it up.

It is an irony of history that we simultaneously see the
dangerous foolishness of what Mr. Hitchens calls one-way
multiculturalism, and hope that Islam's cultural diversity
remains intact. Unfortunately, the decline of local syncretistic Islam, described years ago by V.S. Naipaul has since sped up and is unlikely to pose a counterweight to the three main competing Islamofascisms—Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood, and Iranian. All of them promote a vision of the Ummah as pernicious as that of Hitler's Volk, and they are ready and willing to work together against Western civilization.

Mr. Hitchens seems to be counting, or at any rate hoping
for, a not-too-violent Muslim Reformation and Enlightenment. I fervently hope that his recommended policies take hold.

Yet how is it that not a one of these supposedly intrepid intellects dares to advocate the one thing most needful of all: the complete and immediate cessation of Muslim immigration (or should I say infiltration) into the dar-al-Harb? Without that, everything else is just wool-gathering and nit-picking. If Mr. Hitchens really wants to beat out those whom he calls fascists, he had better come up with at least enough thumos to slam that damned golden door shut.

I'll buy. One thing, though. Oil money in Central African states, or in any wretched second- or third-world countries, is a curse. It will find its way to the lowest and most loathsome common denominator, without exception, thus making dysfunction both more powerful and more permenant. No pipe dreams, Hitch. That ain't you.

Glad to see that there are more and more people aware of the global problem of Islam. One of your readers commented on banning Muslim immigration. The problem with that is there are many Muslims who want out because of religious persecution. They want a better life and come here to seek it. As was pointed out to me: in denying immigration we may well be denying a person who could find a cure for all cancers or a thinker who could bring us peace. We only need to be more aware and start visiting mosques and questioning the likes of CAIR as to their real motives.