I read Derbyshire's original entry about Nation of Islam etc., again.
Lawrence Auster wrote about it: "[Derbyshire] said that there are homegrown Muslims, like the Nation of Islam, and that separationism, meaning stopping immigration or reversing immigration, won't help us with them."
But Derbyshire says much more than that!
Read the whole thing carefully from the beginning. The overall issue is the poll of the U.S. Muslims. Derbyshire points out the inclusion of the N.o.I. adherents. And then goes on to say "That skews the whole thing, both response-wise and solution-wise.", the "whole thing" here referring to U.S. Muslims in general. And in specifying how the whole thing becomes skewed solution-wise, he says that therefore "none [my emphasis] of the policies proposed by 'separationists' is relevant." Why? Because of Nation of Islam. Because of these guys--who are not even Muslims--none of the real Muslims can be "separated". Yes, this is really what he is saying.
But the last paragraph is even more interesting. Derbyshire takes us through his argument in three steps:
So according to Derbyshire the "unpleasant answers" in the Pew poll come excessively from the N.o.I. respondents, and if they were removed, we would get "a clearer picture of the actual danger". That is that there is not as much of an actual danger from Islam, as suggested by the Pew poll, according to Derbyshire. As pointed out by Robert Spencer, we cannot expect more than this from someone who thinks that Karen Armstrong is worth reading.
What would mislead us the first time reading Derbyshire's entry is that he, in the middle of his three-step argument, interleaves the comment about the N.o.I. adherents not being the ones engaging in "martyrdom operations". With a less careful reading this will leave the impression that he means the opposite of what he does when he talks about getting "a clearer picture of the actual danger". As anyone else with a liberal mindset about Islam, Derbyshire is, of course, aware of that suicide bombing and terrorism comes from among the real Muslims, but imagines that this is a fringe, and that proper Islam is not like that. Read further...
We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today.
Let's send Marcfrans back to the '30s. A Jew comes running down the street, having just escaped a rain of stones of a nearby pogrom. He turns to Marcfrans for help, and Marcfrans tells him that there is nothing to worry about, because throwing stones like that in the streets is illegal. Then he lectures the Jew about how we live in a democracy, and that if he is not fully content with the situation of the country he lives in, he should just turn to his member of parliament, so that his issues can be dealt with in a democratic way. Giving people lectures in this way gives Marcfrans a high sensation of self-righteousness. I doesn't worry him the least that his words are empty and have no connection to reality. But is Marcfrans merely innocently naive or is he also complicit in the atrocities?
Back to the 21st century. The mob rule of the stormtroopers is again like it was in the '30s, only under different symbols. It's a rule of political correctness (originally a Stalinist invention). The keyword for the veritable lynch mob to set after someone is today "racist!". 'Racist' a word that effectively has the same ostracizing function as 'kafir' has among the Muslims. Or as calling out "contra-revolutionary" or "capitalist pig" after someone under Maoism or Stalinism. So is Marcfrans innocent here? Is he just neutral in the situation, defending his Panglossian dream? I think not. He has clearly sided with political correctness. He is eager to call out "racist" against anyone who is not staying within the pole marks of multiculturalism. Well aware of that this is the call for projecting the collective hate of the mob against that person. Quite as all other PCs, Marcfrans takes pride in using "racist" as carelessly as possible. It is seen as a way of showing that you are faithful to the cause.
Dear Marcfrans, it is not possible to take a middle position regarding Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism or multiculturalism. These ideologies are so extreme that a middle position effectively means supporting it. Don't support something that you will deeply regret when you get older!