Recently, I published here an unstinting encomium of Diana West. Well, nobody’s perfect.
A flaw I noticed recently occurred within the context of her formulation of what our war is really about—and it is a well-articulated formulation:
It is not, as our presidents vaguely invoke, a war against "terrorism," "radicalism" or "extremism"; and it is not, as the current hearts-and-minds-obsessed Afghanistan commander calls it, "a struggle to gain the support of the (Afghan) people." It is something more specific than presidents describe, and it is something larger than the outlines of Iraq or Afghanistan. The war that has fallen to our generation is to halt the spread of Islamic law (Sharia) in the West, whether driven by the explosive belts of violent jihad, the morality-laundering of petro-dollars or decisive demographic shifts.
However, when she gets around to articulating what concrete measures this war properly understood entails, she veers over into incoherent Austerism:
Halting the spread of Islamic law in the democratic West requires halting Islamic immigration. . .
That’s all fine and dandy, but that’s only half the problem. She makes no mention of what to do about the millions of Muslims already within our borders. And, as I have argued before with reference to Lawrence Auster’s similar scheme, the problem of the numbers of Muslims within the West is only going to increase as the years go by, through a combination of continued immigration and high birth rates (as well as, perhaps only marginally, increased conversions to Islam within the West). It is eminently reasonable to suppose that neither Diana West’s proposal nor Auster’s similar proposal is going to be implemented for years—if not decades—from now.
That means that while the West is dilly-dallying and ignoring Diana West and Auster, we will grow so many more Muslims within our borders, the problem of Islam will have become (if it is not already so now, for that matter) relocated to a domestic Western problem. At that point, several years (if not a few decades) down the road, to “halt Islamic immigration”—as Diana West and Lawrence Auster sternly intone as though that were a tough no-nonsense measure—would be like closing the barn door: not after the horse has got out, but after the wolves have already got in.
Further Reading:
An Iron Veil
Auster’s Insufficiency and Incoherence
3 comments:
This is absolutely right. In fact, after a few decades, the question of whether Muslims are allowed to continue to immigrate or not will be irrelevant from a pure numbers standpoint: at that stage, expelling resident Muslims will have to be a higher priority than stopping more Muslims from coming in, since there will be far more resident Muslims than immigrants.
One thing that beats me - if one recognizes that the problem is Islam/Muslims (does Diana West make the spurious distinction between Islam and Muslims in the same way Spencer, Wilders, Atlas do), how does one make the distinction that Muslims from, say, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Bangladesh et al are dangerous, whereas the ones born and brought up here, as well as recent converts, are benign? Their environment? But the environment varies wildly - in no way is the cultural environment in Bangladesh, for instance, any similar to that in Yemen, and yet, rightly, people don't try to draw distinctions between those 2. Yet, we are supposed to draw distinctions between Muslims brought up in Bradford or Dearborn vs those brought up in Mogadishu or Faisalabad? It's not like Muslims in Bradford or Dearborn are brought up to think of themselves as Brits/Americans first, and Muslims afterwards.
You are right in your disagreement w/ Auster and West, but I'd go one step further and say that already, expelling Muslims already here is more urgent than stopping more Muslims from coming here, because the number of Muslims we currently have far exceeds those who come annually. Also, these things have a salutary effect - once Mohammedans see their fellow Muslims being kicked out of the West, they won't even try to come here (except for those who are trying to plot the next 9/11)
Nobody,
"In fact, after a few decades, the question of whether Muslims are allowed to continue to immigrate or not will be irrelevant from a pure numbers standpoint: at that stage, expelling resident Muslims will have to be a higher priority than stopping more Muslims from coming in, since there will be far more resident Muslims than immigrants."
Precisely.
"...Islam/Muslims (does Diana West make the spurious distinction between Islam and Muslims in the same way Spencer, Wilders, Atlas do)..."
I'm not sure. So far in the essays I've read of hers, it hasn't come up. It wouldn't surprise me, however. Time and time again, I've been disappointed by analysts I thought were truly no-nonsense only to find a vast chasm of PCish sentiment lying under some rock of their argument.
"how does one make the distinction that Muslims from, say, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Bangladesh et al are dangerous, whereas the ones born and brought up here, as well as recent converts, are benign? Their environment? But the environment varies wildly - in no way is the cultural environment in Bangladesh, for instance, any similar to that in Yemen, and yet, rightly, people don't try to draw distinctions between those 2."
Good point. I think one thing that is going on here is that for these analysts, beholden to a bit of PC MC, there is a kind of mystique about being a Third World "native" that endows those Muslims with an expectation on the part of the analyst of being less than civilized already -- less than human: it is a holdover from one of the wellsprings of the origins of PC MC, regarding the Noble Savage almost as a kind of animal with no ethical responsibility for his actions, and so when he behaves like a savage tiger or jackal, ripping people into pieces and drinking their blood, etc., the Western analyst doesn't feel the same shock and fury he would feel if he saw white Westerners doing this. Irrationally, on the other side of the coin, as soon as the Muslim is in America and perhaps particularly as he has a Western haircut and shirt and slacks, that Third World Noble Savage mystique has vanished, and the Muslim is endowed now with another set of PC MC excuses.
"You are right in your disagreement w/ Auster and West, but I'd go one step further and say that already, expelling Muslims already here is more urgent than stopping more Muslims from coming here..."
I meant to imply that and I sort of did with one parenthetical comment, but the force of this essay was to bring out the flaw that their immigration-halting suggestion is not going to be realized anytime soon -- so right from the start, their suggestion is unavoidably transformed into something different, due to the unavoidable change in circumstances the future will develop, even though they are not accounting for this unavoidable transformation. I wanted to highlight that particular aspect. But I agree with you that we need to deport Muslims now and not wait around. However, the same problem applies to our suggestion. Even so, the nature of our suggestion remains superior, I maintain, because even if the situation gets worse, our suggestion (deportation) will address the situation better than halting immigration at that point. The only thing is, our suggestion will suffer from the growth of Muslim numbers within our societies in the meantime. It will thus be much more difficult to implement, when we finally wake up and are ready -- but I believe that by pushing for it now, and helping to re-orient our collective consciousness about this now, we will do our part to making it that much faster and more ready & effective when the time comes.
"Also, these things have a salutary effect - once Mohammedans see their fellow Muslims being kicked out of the West, they won't even try to come here (except for those who are trying to plot the next 9/11)"
I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps for some. But for others, it will arouse various forms of civil unrest -- riots, perhaps guerilla insurgencies here and there. Were we to begin today, we could minimize that reaction. But 25 to 50 years down the line, when the West is finally ready? It will be much messier, and probably bloodier, to do.
Post a Comment