Maybe this sort of open arrogance on the part of the Western world’s uninvited and unwelcome guests is what is needed to wake Westerners up enough to realize that most of the Moslems who have set up housekeeping in the West need to be sent home.

Enoch Powell was right. HRS

A correspondent has an interesting angle on this:

“Based on the analysis of my British friends, I’m glad the Moslems are letting the cat out of the bag. It makes it easy to prove to the public they’re a menace. And censoring them would imply censoring our side, which gains more from the truth.”

If the West should not repent (what are the odds?), then at least we are left with two consolations: one is the concomitant demise of liberalism itself; the other is one honest article from The New York Times!

I too had to rub my eyes on reading the Times. The facts detailed there were familiar — but how did they get in the Times? Are even liberals scared now? Or is some form of conservative infiltration taking place?

Yes, the Times article is remarkable. The reporters looked at the world and reported what was happening, instead of filtering everything through that surreal Times spin machine.

“The reporters looked at the world and reported what was happening, instead of filtering everything through that surreal Times spin machine.”

Could the excellent and somewhat frightening story by the _Times_ be an example of the “unprincipled exception”?

“Could the excellent and somewhat frightening story by the _Times_ be an example of the ‘unprincipled exception’?”

I suppose so. Liberal principle says that you must never tell the unadorned truth about leftists, cultural aliens, and mortal enemies. But sometimes these things just go “too far” for even the liberal to endure them any longer, and he begins to speak the truth. But this truth-speaking is not some new, principled position to which he is now committing himself. Rather, it is an exception from his normal liberalism, to which, terrified of the cold air he has been breathing at this unaccustomed height, he will very soon return.

I think this is a classic example of the “unprincipled exception” in action. Mr. Auster’s comment described it perfectly - the liberals at the NYT will allow this one story to appear, but in the following days and weeks we’ll no doubt be reminded of how Islam is so much more tolerant than traditional Christendom, with all of the usual references to the wonders of Moorish-controlled Spain, etc.

The bracing shock of the cold air of truth is just too much fir the typical liberal to handle. The good thing is the possibility that scales might fall from eyes somewhere out there in the readership. A great fire can begin with just a spark.

We have our own McCarran-Walter Act which presumably would apply to Islam as much as to the friendlier, less dangerous Communism. The courts have liposuctioned this in the past few years, but it’s still on the books for any administration willing to use it.

“…but how did they get in the Times? Are even liberals scared now? Or is some form of conservative infiltration taking place?”

I hope so, and also hope it’s a trend. CNN did a fairly respectful report on a “counter-pre-protest” by pro-lifers in DC in advance of this weekend’s witch-walk. For balance, they interviewed a 25-to-35-year-old teenager who watched in disgust. I mean, like, it was her “personal choice”, you know, and that these people couldn’t respect that, like, totally “bums me out!” Really, those were her final words.

No “pro-choicer” would have let that air. CNN has a pro-life mole!

Here are some thought-provoking comments sent to me by a correspondent who reads and responds to VFR, but who seems to prefer posting his comments to me rather than to the weblog.

To sum up my correspondent’s idea at the start: The neoconservatives’ strategy for universal democracy, which traditionalists fear and oppose, is actually releasing the true depths of Moslem aggression against us, an event that will invalidate the neocon dream of universal democracy, awaken the West to the true clash of civilizations (which neither the Wilsonian neocons nor the isolationist paleocons want us to see), and thus bring our civilization back to its senses and save the West.

Here’s the exchange.

Correspondent to LA:

Mr. Auster: Yes, that was an interesting article and it was on the top fold of the front page making it hard for people to miss. I wonder if this is an example of the benefits of increased conflict resulting in part from the Iraq war and the tougher stance taken by the US & Israel toward the Palestinians? It seems clear the neocons and others who advocated the Iraq war didn’t think the strategy through clearly, but ironically the increased conflict caused in part by that fact may have an unintended side benefit of clarifying the real clash of civilizations taking place inside Western societies. And perhaps neos haven’t acknowledged this aspect because they don’t wish to violate liberal taboos which are also in some way central to their own global democratic ideology. But the benefit of increased conflict means they may not be able to avoid that sooner than expected.

LA to Correspondent:

An interesting theory, except for the fact that the neocons don’t want to avoid conflict, they want a broader conflict, don’t they? However, on further thought, it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that the neocons wanted a broader conflict but with the happy ending of re-shaping the Mideast in the direction of universal democracy. But, as the jihadis keep manifesting themselves as more and more dangerous to us, the notion of a global strategy leading toward universal democracy (based on the belief that everyone including Moslems is just like us in every respect that matters) starts to collapse, and we find ourselves facing an unappeasable mortal enemy who simply must be crushed or rendered impotent.

In other words, we’re not just facng the apocalypse of liberalism. We’re facing the apocalypse of neoconservatism.

Correspondent to LA:

I think that’s right. So both the isolationists and the neocons are wrong. The isolationists and/or paleos in a way want to avoid conflict or at least the Wilsonian crusade for democracy but at the same time that very policy, pursued in a poorly thought-out fashion (although the most unrealistic neocon plans weren’t practical to begin with) may result in opening up opportunities for those who wish to deal blows against liberal multiculturalism and open borders globalism. At least that is the silver lining I see in the dark cloud facing us out of the misbegotten Iraq policy. Of course, it will likely take much more open agitation by the jihadists in our midst before the topic becomes fit for public discussion and then only because it can’t be avoided. But one can hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Mr. Auster’s correspondence with his off-site interlocutor (I wish he would comment on-site so we might all pitch in) provokes a few thoughts.

At the risk of oversimplifying, here they are. Neocons do welcome war and strife - abroad. They welcome it as an opportunity to exercise American military power and to strengthen American globalist hegemony. They do this for a number of reasons. “Realist” neocons truly believe that the world will have a hegemon, no matter what, and that the hegemon should be the benevolent, globalist United States (once Americans been purged of unhealthy attachments to our historical origins and actual past; i.e., once America becomes the bland, diverse Proposition Nation of Immigrants of neocon dreams - a sort of neutered United Nations in one country). Neocons believe that American hegemony is the best guarantor of Israel’s survival, and that Israel is the essential bulwark of the new order in the world’s most problematic region. Many neocons have a strange fascination with blowing up people and things in foreign lands, despite assiduously avoiding the risks of military service themselves.

What neocons do not want is domestic unrest. Military hegemony abroad, jingoism at home. Neocons want America’s prole-population to be compliant and to supply bodies and dollars for the hegemonic program that is so essential to neocons’ self-fulfillment. I think they assume that as the prole-population becomes more foreign-born, more Third-World in origin, it will become even more compliant. (Neocons do not care who populates the United States, after all, as long as the proles acknowledge the Proposition. But they may be in for a rude shock; any protest against established order by our new fellow-“Americans” is likely to be a bit more physical than the constitutional arguments Old Americans might make.)

In sum, I suspect many neocons welcome a clash of civilizations abroad, but think they can avoid it at home. Not being a religious bunch, for the most part, they still don’t fully appreciate how dangerous a djinn has popped out of the Moslem bottle. Being liberals they believe, in the case of immigrants to the United States, that allegiance to the Proposition will supersede the religious and tribal allegiances that are in the immigrants’ very nature.

Here the much-derided paleos, many of whom view the world in Christian terms, see the real problem more clearly. This clash of civilizations is about much more than free-market economics and democratic elections. As long as we allow every other civilization and culture to establish colonies within our own, we will have that clash at home. Neocons and the rest of the liberals like to pretend this isn’t so. Most paleos know better. HRS