A reader works through his thoughts on Steyn, Pipes, and Islam
A reader from Melbourne, Australia writes, in an e-mail with the subject heading “Steyn, Friend or Foe?”:
I tend to agree with your reader who said that Mark Steyn’s silence on immigration was “a calculated tactic in order not to offend the left too much, so that he can be allowed to continue in the near-mainstream press.” You doubt the likelihood of this being the case, saying such a position could only be taken by a serious man and Steyn isn’t serious, citing as evidence his indifference to the fate of Belgians, which, as you say, may as well be the fate of Frenchmen, Germans or simply the people known historically as Europeans in their entirety.
But in that response, Steyn goes on to say that while he is indifferent to the fate of Belgians, he is amazed that Belgians are indifferent to the fate of Belgians. Your reader and I could be right: It might be seen as a little too extreme for Steyn, the white Ameribritinadian (whatever he is), to be worried about the fate of other white men of a different nationality on a different continent, but it ought to be quite normal for white Belgians to be concerned for the fate of white Belgians.
Furthermore, later in that mailbag, he posts a letter from a Mark Collins, in which Steyn is asked to address immigration which Steyn leaves unanswered. Obviously an answer denigrating immigration reform would seem highly illogical, since that is the only way of addressing Muslim demography; whilst an answer supporting it would make him an “extremists.” Could this not be seen as an attempt to put the immigration reform point of view across (via suggestion) and still maintain respectability by leaving it unanswered? Whether we are better off with Steyn or without—whether he is friend or foe—comes down to the impact he has on his readers. Given that Steyn offers no solutions, will his readers be inspired to search further for answers? Or will, as I ask pseudonymously in the AmRen comments, the overworked Anglosphere, more interested in the next three months than the next thirty years, and desperate to believe everything will be all right, simply feel reassured that someone is considering the issue and that surely a solution can’t be far in the offing?
LA replies:
You write:
Or will, as I ask pseudonymously in the AmRen comments, the overworked Anglosphere, more interested in the next three months than the next thirty years, and desperate to believe everything will be all right, simply feel reassured that someone is considering the issue and that surely a solution can’t be far in the offing?
This has been one of my repeated points. Conservative readers of Steyn get the feeling that the “big people” are aware of the problem, that it’s being handled, and this comforts them; whereas in fact nothing of the kind is taking place. This is one of Steyn’s perfidious effects. It is also, I say, the concentrated essence of neoconservatism, which is to make people believe that there is some kind of conservatism that is in existence and active and defending civilization, when in fact there is not.
I grant that some people may be woken up by his urgency and go beyond what he is saying. But even if he has that good effect in some cases, that does not excuse him from his own deeply dishonest and defeatist handling of the issue.
I also repeat that I am astonished at how many people on the right are prepared to forgive Steyn anything in the name of, “He had to remain silent or see his career destroyed.” This is nonsense. Established conservative writers do not have their careers destroyed by merely mentioning something about the need to reduce Muslim immigration into Europe . The fact that Steyn doesn’t discuss immigration AT ALL demonstrates conclusively that he doesn’t WANT to reduce it, NOT that he wants to reduce it but is afraid to say so.
Reader to LA:
You said:
It is also, I say, the concentrated essence of neoconservatism, which is to make people believe that there is some kind of conservatism that is in existence and active, when in fact there is not.
I had been harbouring some doubt on that point, and to have you bring it up now, the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to agree with you.
And the more disinclined I am to forgive the Mark Steyn. On this, I stand corrected.
I spent most of yesterday reading through your site and it is apparent you have spent a good deal of time writing about the deleterious effects of neoconservatism on conservatism. I should have done so before rushing to defend Steyn. Hope springing eternal is not all bad, but it clearly clouds judgement.
I also was not aware of how much you have written on Islam. Your name finally struck me as familiar when you linked to Front Page, and I remembered your debate with Daniel Pipes. In retrospect, I see Pipes’ position [on “moderate” Islam] leading to what we might call “Steyn Syndrome”; a set of ostensibly conservative analyses giving rise to a false sense of security among conservatives.
The same reader also writes:
I’ve gone back and re-read a lot of Pipes’ pieces. Your characterization of him seems spot on. How did I ever get hoodwinked by these types?
As for Hirsi Ali (yes, undeniable bravery and all that), not only shouldn’t it be the job of Europeans to reformulate, or have a hand in reformulating, Islamic doctrine into something friendlier, or to coax Muslims into apostasy, even if the project could be successfully completed, it wouldn’t really do much for Europeans.
Widespread apostasy of Muslims in *Islamic countries* would be fantastic. The same by European Muslims is rather ho hum. Sure, we’d have fewer train bombings, fewer honour killings, no eventual imposition of Shariah to worry about, but Europe would still be left with masses of formerly Muslim, intimidating, sulking, jobless, witless third worlders. Even now the “French youths” harassing moribund French natives would qualify as “apostates” by Islamic standards, what good does Hirsi really expect can come from debating Islamic theology with them?
And since Godless Euro-nihilism isn’t a particularly alluring alternative, and since we certainly can’t expect many of them to convert to Christianity (not that Hirsi would ever try that), most will either fall back to Islam or stretch the nihilism to its logical extreme—much like blacks have done in America. It really would be a pointless exercise, but it’s one which I suppose a lot of ‘realist’, Hirsi Ali-ist liberals would favour. (A ‘realist’, or a ‘true,’ liberal being one who treats Islam with the same contempt he treats Christianity or any religion; instead of reserving the contempt for Christianity alone.)
Worst of all, if such a project succeeded, it would allow liberals to say “Integration/assimilation worked! Look, Muslims are rejecting religion just like real Europeans!” In which case they’d feel justified in hankering for ever more immigrants to thus assimilate.
Anyway, I’m speaking as though a European-guided reformation has even the slightest chance of success. It doesn’t, and thank God for that!
If we’re going to get into hot water, and we must, with Muslims, let it be over Islam’s place in Europe—which is to say outside Europe—not over “Is Islam true?.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 12, 2006 08:16 PM | Send