Dr. Pipes is a real dilemma. On one hand he is excoriated by the more obvious extremist groups such as CAIR. But he also enjoys support among other, allegedly ‘moderate’ Mohammedans. http://www.supportingdanielpipes.org/ links to a letter signed by 79 such ‘moderates.’

Whatever their motivation for supporting Dr. Pipes — possibly a concern that groups like CAIR are complicating acceptance of Mohammedanism here, or maybe it’s just plain political infighting — the controversy over Dr. Pipes does give the illusion of a struggle between extremists and moderates, and in so doing it heightens the perception that the difference has significance in the long run.

It also gives cover to President Bush, who comes off as standing against the CAIR types even as he might be bringing in a Trojan Horse.

Dr. Pipes has written some informative articles that I have found helpful. But in the back of my mind I’ve always had this nagging concern that the apparently constructive work he has done might inadvertently serve to bolster a dangerous naivte about the ultimate danger posed by the increasing Mohammedan presence, no matter how moderate many of them may seem at this juncture.

Dr. Pipes seems to have a genuine appreciation for Arab/Islamic culture. Just as Jared Taylor has for Japanese culture where he grew up. But as Mr. Taylor has said, “I like the Japanese, but that doesn’t mean I want this country becoming Japanese.” With the increase of Mohammedans through immigration, conversion, and childbirth, I have seen estimates that some of our major cities could have majority Mohammedan populations in 20-30 years. And then we will see what is meant by ‘moderate.’

Joel writes:

“Dr. Pipes has written some informative articles that I have found helpful. But in the back of my mind I’ve always had this nagging concern that the apparently constructive work he has done might inadvertently serve to bolster a dangerous naivite about the ultimate danger posed by the increasing Mohammedan presence, no matter how moderate many of them may seem at this juncture.”

Excellent point. In order to show he’s not anti-Muslim, Pipes is required—every single time he criticizes, bad, militant Muslims—also to make a big point of praising good, moderate Muslims. The net effect of this is to promote the belief in a moderate, harmless Islam, and thus, in the long run, to help establish the unassailable legitimacy of Islam in this country.

This is the fate of all moderate conservatism, that is, of conservatism that consists of disagreeing with a few liberal positions, while failing to challenge liberalism per se. Thus Pipes insists on one important exception to the liberal imperative of non-discrimination: we need to discriminate against militant Muslims. But apart from that one exception, he accepts the underlying liberal premise of non-discrimination, and in any case does nothing to challenge it. And so the mass immigration of Muslims and others continues.

I posted a variation on the above article at Front Page, this one directed at Krauthammer and the way he supports the mass immigration of third-worlders into this country, and then when we find ourselves unable to criticize the radical Muslims we have imported, he blames, not the immigration that brought these people here, but political correctness.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=9405&commentID=145043

Well, there are some Muslim groups who want Wahhabi mosques monitored. The head of the very large Naqshbandi tariqa (Sufi group) in the U.S., Shaykh Kabbani, gave a ‘shocking’ presentation to the Whitehouse in 2000, saying that Wahhabis were running a majority of mosques in the U.S. (with Saudi funding) and that extremists were planning something big - an attack on the U.S. Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike dismissed his warning as rabble-rousing. But after September 11th his warning was seen as something that should have been taken more seriously.

Kabbani represents moderates who do encourage action to be taken against extremists. On Mr. Auster’s suggestion that immigration of Muslims shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place, I will only say that its far too late now to worry about it. We have a ‘multi-cultural’/’multi-religious’ reality now in most Western countries, and going back is a chimerical dream. I think we must do as Pipes does, and make the best of the situation by encouraging moderation and combatting extremism.

I wonder if it would work if the U.S. government some how (indirectly) gave a large amount of cash to Sufi mosques and limited Saudi funding?

If we confine our concerns about Mohammedanism only to the ‘extremists’ and the possibility of things (and people) getting blown up or otherwise harmed, then we are missing the more insidious, long-term danger, which we ignore at our peril.

No matter how peaceful certain ‘moderate’ Mohammedans seem at present, this is going to change once a critical mass is reached in terms of population. There will be a serious push for Islamicization of society, including the implentation of Sharia. This will begin in enclaves with a majority Mohammedan population.

Those who reject this demand will of course be labeled intolerant, bigoted, ‘racist,’ insensitive, and generally not understanding of the needs of Moslems. Considering how far the defeatist spirit to which you call attention has already manifested itself by allowing a huge and unassimilable population to enter and settle this land, I doubt there will be much resistance to this unless our people have been sufficiently roused to the danger.

We are already on track for certain of our major cities to see a Mohammedan majority within 20-30 years. When this happens there is going to be trouble, and I don’t see any way out of it that will not involve serious violence.

Historically, this is what has ALWAYS happened whenever Mohammedans are present in sufficient numbers, and it is a ‘chimerical dream’ to believe that it will be otherwise in our country.

William urges that America do nothing more vis à vis Muslim immigration than simply “encouraging moderation and combatting extremism,” a formula, as Joel points out, for ultimate Muslim ascendancy is this country, even if it appears “moderate” at first. Yet in another thread today, http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001679.html#7996,
William wishes for a Vietnam-style U.S. humiliation at the hands of the Baathists and Jihadists in Iraq as the only way to stop the neocons. So William (who may have posted here before) does not seem all that concerned about Muslim extremists after all. He hates the neoconservatves so much that he supports our country’s enemies because he thinks that will hurt the neocons. It’s like the pre-war French Right, who hated the Third Republic so much that they hoped for a Nazi victory over France.

It’s impossible to disagree with Joel’s prognosis about the long-range consequences of Muslim immigration. Therefore a much more pro-active policy is needed. I’ve laid out the principles before, and here they are again:

1. An instant end of all mass immigration from Muslim countries under the 1965 Immigration Act;

2. Deportation of all Muslim illegal aliens;

3. Deportation of all Muslims, whether resident aliens OR naturalized citizens, who support terrorism, Jihadism and Wahhabism;

4. A new public philosophy that states that America is a Western, Christian country with a Judeo-Christian morality, and that it intends to remain so.

These steps would reverse the current momentum that is leading to our destruction. Instead of Muslims becoming more and more in America, they would start becoming less and less.

The facts here are that Daniel Pipes is demonized by the Left and has very few friends among the Muslims. He is not up for a position that would change our immigration policies.

So Pipes is a neo-con, I believe you are saying. Is there a chance at all, even the slightest, that a MORE conservative nominee would be accepted for his post? And here you go again—a perfectly fine man who needs support from all conservatives and you are saying he might as well be a liberal because he accepts underlying liberal assumptions.

Tell me, who is the BETTER candidate?

Lawrence Auster writes:

“The neoconservative way, of opening America to a mass influx of Muslims, and then trying to discriminate between the “militant” and “moderate” Muslims, is a formula for national ruin. It is like admitting a tiger into your house, and then trying to teach it table manners. The only way to be safe is not to admit the tiger into your house in the first place.”

Resp. So you ARE even beyond Pat Buchanan who has never wished to eliminate all non-Western immigration. Tell me, Mr. Auster, what percentage of Americans agree with you here?? 20%—10%—5%—perhaps 2% is about it. No it would not be “national ruin” if America had some peaceful Muslims living here!! National ruin comes very easy to Mr. Auster.

America is not so weak.

Mr. Friedman thoroughly misses several points.

The comparison he makes is a forgiving one. Do we judge everything according to what leftists oppose? Of course they are against Dr. Pipes, for reasons that are obvious. Dr. Pipes has spoken forcefully against the visibly militant Mohammedans. This is unacceptable to the left. So anything that is to the ‘right’ of this becomes the de facto line in the sand that the ‘right’ must take? If we let liberals determine where that line is to be drawn, then we are already so far left that right becomes moot.

It only becomes a question of how quickly we allow ourselves to be overrun.

Mr. Friedman confuses expedient strength with long term viability that can only be sustained with a firm resolve. Clearly he has already accepted defeat, and only because he finds the current terms of surrender to be comfortable.

Mr. Friedman appears to be oblivious to both the history, (and current aims as manifested in places throughout the world,) of Mohammedanism AND of the history of past world powers. A reading of Mr. Auster’s current pamphlet “Erasing America” would be a good primer of our current national state.

But Mr. Friedman’s short-sightedness, so characteristic of most of our fellow citizens, will have its moment of testing. Mr. Auster prescribes a formula by which we can stave off the inevitable consequences of the course on which we have embarked. Or we can deal with the fallout later. Exactly how Mr. Friedman sees things unfolding is not clear, but if we do not deal with this problem now then we will be dealing with a much bigger problem in the not-to-distant future.

I admire Daniel Pipes and have frequently quoted him favorably at this website. His position on Muslims in America is very good as far as it goes, in that he talks about the reality of militant Islam in our midst. But I think his position is ultimately inadequate, for the reasons I explained.

In refuting what Mr. Auster wrote, Mr. Friedman wrote,

“No it would not be ‘national ruin’ if America had some peaceful Muslims living here!!”

But Mr. Auster never said it would be. There were “some peaceful Muslims living here” in 1965, and no patriot at that time saw any need for alarm in regard to their presence — including, I dare say, Mr. Auster.

What’s changed since 1965 has been the advent of excessive incompatible immigration (which, as everyone knows, began really galloping out of control around the mid-eighties), and what Mr. Auster and his fellow traditionalists (among whom I am proud to number myself) are concerned about vis-à-vis the Muslims is not merely “some peaceful Muslims living here” — who were always more than welcome as far as we were concerned, and always will be welcome — but, what is very different, “mass immigration from Muslim countries under the 1965 Immigration Act,” as Mr. Auster phrased it in his comment a couple of posts above. Mass immigration is a different thing altogether from “some peaceful Muslims living here,” the phrase Mr. Friedman used. VFR and its friends question the wisdom of allowing radical demography-changing, culture-changing Muslim immigration into the United States. That has nothing whatsoever to do with merely “some peaceful Muslims living here.”

Joel wrote:

“This is unacceptable to the left. So anything that is to the ‘right’ of this becomes the de facto line in the sand that the ‘right’ must take?”

Neat. I don’t think that’s ever been said before—that the right-most acceptable position for conservatives is what the LEFT is attacking.

Which means the left can control the right completely. As they move their aim of attack more and more to leftward, the right rushes leftward to defend that spot from the left.

So, for example, they insanely hate Bush, a moderate to liberal Republican. So all the conservatives gather their forces and passionately defend Bush from the leftist attack.

The more the left increases its hatred, the more the combatting of that hatred becomes the whole mission of the right. You end up with the David Horowitz-type conservative.

Joel, thanks for helping to run to Mr. Auster’s defense even if his words remain more inciteful than insightful. My beef here is that he keeps running away from common ground almost in a perverse way. Ask Americans after 9/11 if there are to many militant Muslims running around and especially too many illegal alien Muslims running around and maybe 95% of America agrees. But when he distorts the truth by positing that NEOCONS have pushed for and opened a “mass influx” of Muslims and that in correctly discriminating between the peaceful ones and the militant ones, this is the road to national ruin—this is absurd. It is absurd on its face, just as many of his others statements are absurd.

Surely there must be great merit in Daniel Pipe’s work and much to celebrate in his nomination. But only HERE on this folder, unique to all the conservative world, we actually have one conservative brazen enough to attack Dabiel Pipes and the gist of the critique has to do with immigration mistakes made by previous administrations,, for goodness sakes!! Daniel Pipes has nothing to do with immigration. It is more fraud to accuse Neo-cons of pushing for and creating a policy of mass immigration of Muslims. How can you put up with this Joel?

Firm resolve, sure since your basic critique is correct. But bizarre finger pointing at Neo-cons—it just makes no sense.

Regarding Mr. Auster’s policy recommendations listed 1-4, I surely agree with #4, and I have large agreement with 2 and 3 with some definition and regarding his #1—this depends on his definition of “mass.” Truly, our immigration policy needs to be reformed and in some ways, radically.

Daniel Pipes’ nomination is a step in the right direction and deserves no “insufficient” cat calls from any conservative when the battle to empower him is such a battle with liberal opposition.

How am I wrong, Joel?

Mr. Friedman writes,

“My beef here is that [Mr. Auster] keeps running away from common ground almost in a perverse way.”

What was the “common ground” the neo-cons were running *toward* so unperversely when they went behind Prof. Paul Gottfried’s back and disgustingly torpedoed his professorship at Catholic University?

What “common ground” was Bill Kristol running *toward* so unperversely when he gratuitously treated Trent Lott as if he were Simon Legree and Adolph Eichmann rolled into one (an outrage on its face)? I certainly am no fan of the pantywaist compromiser Lott or of his “go along to get along” philosophy. His is a shameful record of weakness; he is a man who never once in his political life took a stand and actually fought for a principle. But neither did I consider him evil incarnate as the neo-cons did, just because he represented, in a sense, the Old South (I don’t think Bill Kristol knows the first thing about the Old South, by the way).

Was the unjustified treatment they dished out to Lott in such full measure an example of all the “common ground” they keep running toward so unperversely?

Mr. Friedman wrote,

“But when he distorts the truth by positing that NEOCONS have pushed for and opened a ‘mass influx’ of Muslims and that in correctly discriminating between the peaceful ones and the militant ones, this is the road to national ruin—this is absurd. It is absurd on its face … It is more fraud to accuse Neo-cons of pushing for and creating a policy of mass immigration of Muslims.”

Is Mr. Friedman saying with a straight face that the neo-cons favor radically reforming immigration? Are the neo-cons ready, for example, to call for a return to the (perfectly good) immigration set-up which was in effect from 1924 to 1965?

Reading Mr. F’s comment that I am “distorting truth” by saying that the neoconservatives have been consistent supporters of large scale open immigration under the 1965 Immigration Act, including, of course, that of Muslims, I’m thinking, it’s difficult enough to have a conversation with an ignoramus; but when the ignoramus’s level of indignation is in proportion to his ignorance, it’s completely impossible.

Mr. Friedman, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the best intentions in what you’re trying say. I disagree with you on the facts of this issue.

As far as the neo-cons are concerned, perhaps you could help me out here. Please provide a list of the neo-cons who have come out against Mohammedan immigration. Keep in mind that Mohammedan immigration is still flowing quite freely, notwithstanding the token measures that have occassionaly been touted on restricting visas from certain Arab countries. So unless one is actively _opposing_ the current inflow, they are as much as in favor of it.

Now Sec. Powell said not so long ago that we actually need MORE Muslims coming to this country. Please inform us of the quote from his boss, President Bush, that repudiated this assertion. I have yet to hear of it. Furthermore, the President’s failure to close our southern border leaves open even more opportunities for Mohammedans to cross, as we have already seen: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31027

The other point where I maintain you are egregiously mistaken is in your complacent view of what you regard as ‘peaceful’ Mohammedans. I would not argue that a small number of Mohammedans in this country in itself represents a threat. And as a full disclosure, I have a couple friends among them. But even they give me cause for concern. I expressed this in another thread; see http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001639.html

And here is the gist of the problem. I am afraid that you, and so many of our countrymen, just do not understand the character of Mohammedanism, no matter in what guise it takes. I would not say that there aren’t some followers who genuinely mean no harm, but they are the one’s who are ‘nominal’ Muslims, not really taking the teachings of the religion seriously — and even there a concern remains, since there is a component of ethnic pride involved for people of Arab descent. (If you are not aware of the Ishmaelite basis of this religion, which makes it an inevitable antagonist to Judaism and Christianity, I’ll be glad to elaborate on that point.)

But the problem remains that as even seemingly moderate Mohammedans increase their presence here by immigration, conversion, and childbirth, a conflict becomes inevitable. You have to learn from history, or at least from what is going on in the world TODAY. Please consider purchasing a copy of the book, “The Sword Of The Prophet” by Dr. Serge Trifkovik. This will provide some crucial insight to what we are going to be facing. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1928653111/qid=1061358619/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-6414638-0768720?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Unfortunately, you ignored my earlier statement concerning the coming demographic changes. I am sorry I do not have a reference at my fingertips, (I will grab it when I run across it again,) but the fact is that in 20-30 years, certain of our major cities will have a majority Mohammedan population if something is not done to alter our present course. This will lead to the same confrontation that occurs everywhere else in the world where it happens. Sir, violence will be the inevitable result. It is delusional to believe otherwise. It’s like saying that you or I could walk through Southeast D.C. or South-Central L.A. at 3AM and expect to meet friendly faces and come out OK on the other side.

As far as Dr. Pipes is concerned, in one way I hope he gets the position, since we can expect no one better. But the concern I have about it is analogous to what we’ve discussed before on VFR about how having a liberal-leaning Republican has effectively taken the steam out of a more robust conservatism. When a liberal scrub was in office, at least we had a strong conservative opposition. Dr. Pipes’s views are good in some ways and not so good in others. It is the latter that concern me. Just because liberals opppose him doesn’t automatically nullify these concerns.

Now I have to say a word in defense of Mr. Auster, (since I’ve already been accused anyway.) ;-) Mr. Auster presents a rational and workable plan that at once cuts to the core of the problem — mass immigration and the presence of a largely unassimilable population AND pulls the rug out from under the real extremists who might have their day if this problem is not rectified, and soon. Mr. Auster’s views are not extreme; they are a sensible approach to preempt a long-term dilemma. If these steps are not taken, then we will eventually have handed an ace to some elements that both you and I abhore.

You need to take this alot more seriously than you apparently do now. I hope you will reconsider.

OK—very odd comments. First, Unadorned. I thank you for your response but I am scratching my head yet again. First, you go off on a tangent about Trent Lott (who knows what this has to do with the converstation?— you call him a “pantywaist compromiser” and then you somehow blame Bill Kristol for not standing up to support him. Huh? This is yet another classic and I am beginning to get used to the dance on this message board. You dislike the guy, I dislike the guy, Bill Kristol dislikes the guy but because Bill Kristol is a neo-con (are your sure?) *he* is to blame for not supporting him. Since you have read Mr. Auster quite a bit— I suppose this makes “sense” but I hope that if you read your own words back it might seem more like nonsense.

Then you want to believe that a policy that pushes for a mass migration of Muslims is a Jewish neo-con ideal. Please stop. Think for a minute. Forget for a moment that this website’s leader has uttered these words. Can you really believe conservative Jews want this nation flooded with Muslims?? Can you really be serious?

Is there a person on this board who has had a relative murdered by a Muslim?

Mr. Friedman’s comments are so ignorant and overwrought that I’m inclined to disinvite him from this website. On second thought, however, I’ll allow him to go on embarrassing himself, at least for a little while.

Joel, I appreciate your lengthy response and I will do my best to respond. It is some irony that you go first to Colin Powell because he is the moderate that conservative Jews have so openly opposed accross the board. We don’t like the state depratment period and Powell has always been not just suspect, his policies and instincts are almost always wrong. He speaks well and has good stage presence. Many people believe he is credible (unfortunately, these are oftentimes the wrong people!) but it is crazy to link Colin Powell with Jewish conservatives since I cannot believe he can be linked in any way. As for a list of neo-cons—this is my complaint on another folder—I need YOUR help in telling me who is and who is not a neo-con. You guys have the “list.”

To your next acusation that I wish to soft pedal the threat posed by Muslims—I surely do not. I will not scapegoat the portion of the Muslim population but how can it come as news to you that Jews do not like Muslims precisely because of THEIR hatred towards Jews. Why is France, for example so antisemitic? It is because of the large Arab population. Jewish conservatives—absolute top of the list, do not wish America have the kind of Muslim populace that is part of several nations, like that of France. It is less that we dislike Muslims and far more that Muslims harbor such animosity towards Jews. Why are people on this board so confused about this basic relationship. Do I really have to stand up and try to convince you that Muslims are not very fond of Jewish people and that Jews as a result are not that happy to see a lot of Muslims?? With all respect, duh!

Next point, your two-faced support of Pipes. You like him but you don;t like him. This is another bad line from the Auster echo chamber. Conservatives need to lead. You can’t rationally be happy with a protest position against a liberal, doing more damage to our national security. This is a dreadful thing to say, Joel. We have to lead and we need the best guy out there and you agree that Pipes is the best and yet you are still here to whine about it. This is an immature stand. Celebrate Pipes and hang tough in support of him since it is all too easy to imagine the post filled by someone not even in the neighborhood of his credentials. Worry about your “concerns” later—we can always have concerns. Are you a married man Joel?

Didn’t you have concerns? Are you over them now?

Best regards, David

Mr. Friedman:

I confess that I cannot quite comprehend your truculence in this matter. Both Mr. Auster and Joel have stated their admiration for Daniel Pipes (the former more emphatically); I will state the same: Pipes has done valuable work, bravely. His contributions to the preservation of our country will not be forgotten.

These sentiments, however, are simply _not_ incompatible with a nagging suspicion that Dr. Pipes is sadly inadequate. It is my own opinion that Dr. Pipes is lacking in a broader historical perspective, a reflective sense of the essential _ancientness_ of our confrontation with Islam. He has done solid work in documenting important recent trends — for example, the infusion of febrile energy to Islam by modern Western radicalism — but he has not penetrated deeply enough to the very long history of alternating rivalry and warfare between Islam and Christianity.

It is an illuminating fact to remember, for example, that, hardly a hundred years before the founding of the American Republic, the Turks were threatening to overrun central Europe; that, in other words, men of the American Revolutionary generation in Europe felt the menace of the “Mohammedan” not unlike the way men of the 1950s felt the menace of the Communist.

To rely on an antiquated language, Islam is the strongest and most enduring heresy: not even St. Francis could make a dent in it via conversion, though he walked among the Muslim opponents of the Crusaders many times.

For myself, I will support the nomination of Daniel Pipes, if for no other reason that his nomination infuriates the multiculturalists and the Islamists. As a fact, though, I will continue to harbor grave concerns that he shares the much of the characteristic benightedness of the Modern Age, and thus does not see with real historical eyes what it is that confronts us.

In reply to Mr. Friedman:

I don’t feel mentioning the unfair treatment meted out by the neo-cons to Trent Lott (for that obviously innocent, sort of absent-minded crack he made on the occasion of Sen. Thurmond’s hundredth birthday) was “going off on a tangent.” I feel it was pertinent to Mr. Friedman’s twice criticizing Mr. Auster for ignoring the “common ground” that exists between traditionalist conservatives and neo-conservatives. My point was that the neo-cons are far more guilty of ignoring any common ground that may exist between the different conservative groups (who should, it’s true, be allies more than they have been).

The neo-cons run a very tight ship indeed, and want things their way and no other way. They are spoiled sports and the last ones to compromise.

Look how neo-con James Taranto sought to damage Peter Brimelow for publishing a favorable review of Michelle Malkin’s book critical of the government’s non-policy on immigration — he purposely drew public attention to Brimelow’s home address, a piece of information which the editor of a potentially controversial web-site wouldn’t want in the spotlight. If that was an example of respecting the “common ground” between neo-cons and other conservatives, I’d hate to see an example of when they trample on it!

How about when the neo-cons at the Goldberg Review fired Ann Coulter for saying, OBVIOUSLY with tongue in cheek (though with much bitterness, it is true, partly at having just lost her good friend Barbara Olsen in one of the planes), that we should invade the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity, and also because she referred to Arab Muslims using the perfectly polite adjective “swarthy”? Neo-con calls for invading the same folks and democratizing them were not that different from Coulter’s tongue-in-cheek comment, and “shock” at the perfectly good word “swarthy,” used to mean “dark-complected,” is on a par with shock at seeing the perfectly good word “niggardly” used in the normal way by that Baltimore public official or whoever he was.

And why was it necessary for neo-cons to use their influence to persuade a university to cancel its offer of a professorship to a fellow conservative (though not a neo-con — it was Prof. Paul Gottfried)? Was that an example of how they are so interested in seeking out common ground among conservatives — getting a conservative’s professorship cancelled so he can’t teach?

I could cite more stories. Do these look like people who are compromisers and seekers of common ground?

Furthermore, a point I made in my post which I’d think would be obvious was completely missed by Mr. Friedman: although I didn’t like Lott, he didn’t deserve to be pilloried for the reasons the neo-cons pilloried him. There was no inconsistency in my saying I was no fan of his on the one hand, and criticizing the wrong-headed and mean way the neo-cons treated him on the other.

“Then you want to believe that a policy that pushes for a mass migration of Muslims is a Jewish neo-con ideal. Please stop. Think for a minute. Forget for a moment that this website’s leader has uttered these words. Can you really believe conservative Jews want this nation flooded with Muslims?? Can you really be serious?”

First, neither of the hosts of this site ever said any of that. On the contrary, they and most friends of VFR see the current immigration disaster as a complex problem with many different causes. But it cannot be denied that the neo-cons oppose any endorsement of the sort of fundamental immigration reform which is urgently needed right now, both in this country and in Europe. One of the hallmarks of the neo-con position is support of what I refer to as excessive incompatible immigration. Now, Mr. Friedman cannot seriously deny that, can he?

Mr. Friedman’s candid reply is appreciated. Our differences in one respect, that of the threat of the increasing Mohammedan presence, appear to have narrowed somewhat, (though I’m not certain,) so I’ll address the rest of his comments.

But first, I was in no way identifying Sec. Powell as a neo-con. And as for President Bush — I’m not sure what he is anymore. I mentioned their seeming eagerness to welcome more Mohammedans here. The point of doing so was to call attention to the lack of any vocal opposition on the part of neo-cons.

And since you yourself express uncertainty as to who are the neo-cons, then you are obviously in no position to refute Mr. Auster’s assertion that neo-cons favor our open immigration policies. You are correct in pointing out the danger that Mohammedan immigration presents to the Jews, but wrong in asserting that Jews have uniformly opposed it. This has been discussed previously here: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001041.html

In the matter of Dr. Pipes, there is little I can add to the characteristically insightful statement Mr. Cella has offered. I have benefited much from Dr. Pipes’s work, which is often nothing short of brilliant. His history of the shifting significance of Jerusalem to Mohammedanism was outstanding. His penetrating analyses of the Israeli/Arab conflict, where he is certainly on the right side, make him an important figure for that reason alone.

But that said, I’m afraid I must return the charge of taking an immature stand. You are saying — and explicitly! — that we must either be altogether for or altogether against someone, and this is simply ridiculous. The real world never works this way. If I must agree with everything or nothing a person stands for, then I would have to choose ‘nothing’ in almost every case. (General Washington is deceased.)

What? You can’t agree with the right positions a person takes while being opposed to others that are wrong? If a conservative candidate is correct on every other issue save that he wants to disarm the citizenry, then I cannot give such an one my wholehearted support, even if I must concede that he is better than his liberal opponent who wants to legalize homosexual marriages, offer privileges to minorities denied to whites, socialize medicine, grant amnesty to all illegals, and smoke cigars with Fidel Castro.

I hope that Dr. Pipes is confirmed in his nomination. On the expedient front he is a good choice, in that he does stand clearly against Mohammedan extremists. But this does not nullify the long-range concern that he may not stand against increased immigration of those who are ostensibly ‘moderate,’ indeed, acquiring this position may have the effect of facilitating that problem.

Such is the dilemma we so frequently are confronted with. Our choices are rarely between black and white, but depend on our discernment between varying shades of gray.

Finally, since you bring your questioning to the personal level, yes, I am a married man. And no, I never had the slightest concern nor have I ever had any reason to since. The Lord has blessed me, and my darling wife, beyond our fondest expectations. So I will concede also that sometimes things are presented in black and white. :-D

The real distinction about Muslims is whether they are in power or not. If they are not, then they will act and appear passive, that is, moderate. However, when the Muslims are in power, they have never been moderate, except when appearances suited their foreign policies. Islam, by its very nature, is not moderate toward those who are outside the uma. They are expedient at best, but even then, always oppressive. The protestant and Roman Catholic West is ignorant of Islam’s true nature. We should be studying how non-Muslims have been treated in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India and elsewhere, places that have been subjected to cultural and religious genocide for the last 1300 years. Turkey was once Orthodox Christian until the 10th century. What happened to them? Pakistan and Bangladesh was once Hindu. Where did they go? Bethlehm was a Christian city just a generation ago. This disapperance did not happen willingly. Except for Bethlehem, these countries native religious populations were eliminated long before Wahabism began to show itself in the 18th century. The fact is Islam, all of it, is the problem. We need to wake to this and be ready to meet the challenge. In a real sense we must all don our armour and become Crusaders to protect what little freedom we still posess. If we do not, we certainly will be impaled on our crosses.

Islam and the modern liberal West perfectly compliment each other. Islam believes in subjugating and destroying all that is not itself; the liberal West believes in “including” and “respecting” all that is not itself. As I’ve been saying since 9/11, either the West ceases to be liberal, or it ceases to exist.

Mr. Auster wrote,

“Islam believes in subjugating and destroying all that is not itself; the liberal West believes in ‘including’ and ‘respecting’ all that is not itself.”

In actual practice, this translates into: Islam believes in subjugating and destroying all that is not itself; the liberal West believes in subjugating and destroying all that is itself, because if any vestige of itself remains, someone else might feel excluded or disrespected.

One way or the other, the result is the same: ” … [E]ither the West ceases to be liberal, or it ceases to exist.”

A brilliant restatement, Unadorned; and an grim epigram to remember as we “go gaily in the dark”:

“Islam believes in subjugating and destroying all that is not itself; the liberal West believes in subjugating and destroying all that is itself, because if any vestige of itself remains, someone else might feel excluded or disrespected.”

For some clarity in mold of what Ms. Clark calls for, we need to turn to observers of history less infected by liberalism, which often means men of the past. I wrote about two recently:

http://techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-081403A

In response to my comment, “As I’ve been saying since 9/11, either the West ceases to be liberal, or it ceases to exist,” a correspondent wrote:

“What is the purpose of this statement of yours. You could be arguing for the other side.”

Apparently my shorthand formulation can create misunderstandings, so it is necessary to add qualifications, even though I’ve made them repeatedly in the past. What I am saying is that liberalism is the Western-generated ideology that is destroying the West. That doesn’t mean that liberalism per se must be gotten rid of, but that liberalism must be made a coordinate or subordinate element within our constitutional order and our scale of values rather than the sole ruling value, which is now the case. In other words (as I wrote at Front Page magazine in “Liberalism: The True Cause of Today’s Anti-Semitism), if liberalism is not to be an utterly destructive force, it must be part of a social order that is not itself liberal.

This is another way of saying that what is wrong in our system is that the liberal principles are explicit, the traditionalist principles only implicit. The traditionalist principles need to become explicit, to assert themselves over and against liberalism, so that liberalism is thereby contained. Without such an opposing force, liberalism just continues to do its thing, progressing forward, dissolving one traditional value and institution after another, starting with bad things like slavery and Jim Crow, but ending with good things like marriage and nationhood.