An insistent voice of defeat

There is a VFR reader, a former leftist, American-born though a long-time resident in England, who every week or two sends me the exact same e-mail telling me that my idea of removing Muslims from the West is impossible, and that instead we must learn to get along with them, because many of them are not so bad and they share many values with us. The e-mail below is identical to about 20 others he’s sent. I’ve laid out my disagreements with him as clearly as I can, and have asked him to stop bothering me with the same message over and over, but he keeps sending it. However, I don’t close him out, because he also sends useful and interesting e-mails. So for once I thought I’d let other readers share in my, uh, enjoyment.

He writes:

I read your well written replies to your readers’ comments regarding Muslim immigration. Again I will say that certain policies such as reduced immigration of Muslims are remotely possible in Europe and the West. Another 9/11 MIGHT increase the chances of that happening. However there is ZERO, I repeat ZERO, chance of removal of any serious amount of Muslims (a crazy cleric here and there or a jailed terrorist perhaps). I’m not saying I wouldn’t like it to happen. But it won’t. It’s a “roundup” (to use that term associated with the Wild West) that would be impossible to put into action. It simply isn’t going to happen. But you don’t want to see that or admit that. Which is your Achilles Heel. If you want to label me as defeatist for that view, well go ahead. And I repeat that I am not “getting at you” personally. In addition I will say that the fact of Muslims supporting and encompassing many values that many in the mainstream would consider desirable while much of our own white Judaic-Christian culture (religious and secularised) falls into decadence of various sorts is a major problem. Mainstream White Christians (both religious and secularised) are very concerned about the decadence and criminal behaviour which is characterising much of Western society and Muslims represent an ally in that scenario. Plus the fact that in the United States, Hispanics, due to their huge numbers (and birthrates when settled) are often more of an immediate problem to most white people (as are blacks due to their criminal behaviour). Here, for many, Gypsies are a greater problem than Muslims. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuineess realised they couldn’t defeat the British and get a united Ireland, so they adapted. That’s what we must do. First we must accept the unacceptable. A significant amount (ever increasing due to huge birthrate) of Muslims are here to stay in the West. End of story.

Carl Simpson feels that things have gotten so bad that the previous reader is not being defeatist but is onto something with his notion of an alliance with Muslims:

Your English correspondent brings up an interesting issue just from the practical, on-the-ground aspect. As you have pointed out with various postings on VFR in two recent examples (here and here), there is little prospect of the reigning liberal regime being toppled through democratic means. The majority of the British electorate are evidently thoroughly brainwashed with multiculturalist ideology and thus indifferent to the totalitarian measures already in place there. Worse, the elections themselves are open to all manner of non-British living there who will naturally vote for their liberal allies.

While I certainly applaud and support the BNP’s civilized attempt to work within the system, it would appear that the system itself has been corrupted beyond reformation. I hope that I am wrong. There have been great awakenings in the past (though rare) which have led to real changes but I wonder if the time is now past for this in the UK—and Western Europe generally. At the end of the day, it may be necessary for the remnant of English patriots there to actually form temporary alliances with the Muslims in order to destroy, undermine, and overthrow the liberal ruling elites who have engineered a semi-permanent lock on political power. I view the west’s liberal ruling elite as a far more dangerous enemy than Islam itself. Tony Blair and his ilk are engaged in what amounts to a deliberate campaign to completely eradicate all traces of traditional western civilization from the UK every bit as much as Islam is. The ruling liberal elite also have the real power—right now—to carry out this agenda, which they are doing with gusto. They constitute the greater threat in the short term.

I could actually envision a situation in which a temporary alliance with the Muslims might be justified if it would actually result in the complete destruction of fifth-columnists. It’s all a nasty and extremely dangerous business to be sure. It also appears the ruling elite have already made their little pact with Mohammed’s followers, to boot. However, a patriot does not owe any loyalty to a traitor, even an elected one. To quote Cicero:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But, it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But, the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government, itself.”

Have the ruling elite in the west crossed to line into treason? I think the case can be made that they have in many instances. A globalist who wishes to destroy his native land via treaties with unaccountable supranational entities, multiculturalism, and mass immigration of aliens is a traitor. His loyalties are not to his own nation, but to something else altogether. Tony Blair and the English ruling elite have crossed the line. They deserve no quarter whatsoever.

LA replies:

What Mr. Simpson is saying is that we must adopt an Islamic-type strategy and make a temporary alliance with the Lesser Enemy, the Muslims, in order to bring down the Greater Enemy, the reigning Western Left. (Or the Muslims are the Greater Enemy, and we temporarily ally with it in order to defeat it later.) But it is not at all apparent how Muslims would help bring down the reigning left, other than through the same methods that are a threat to the whole society, not just to the left.

There is, however, a logic to this. I began saying after Britain’s dhimmi-like response to the July 2005 London bombings a kind of thing I had never said before, that the English are so far gone in sleep and surrender that only through much worse destruction and suffering was there any hope that they would revive and begin to defend themselves. What Mr. Simpson is suggesting is that Western patriots begin actively allying themselves with the jihadists in the hope that further jihadist attacks and challenges will shake the West out of its torpor. That we become the allies of jihadists in seeking to bring down the West. Our motives would be different from theirs, of course. They are seeking to destroy the West and take it over. We want the current leftist order to be brought down, so that the West can begin defending itself again, notably from the Muslims themselves. The logic is, in order to become free to defend ourselves from the jihadists, we must help the jihadists bring down the liberal order, which prohibits us from defending ourselves from the jihadists.

I’m not going to respond any further to this right now, except to say that for Mr. Simpson, who is not an extremist at all but a judicious, thoughtful person, to make proposals of this nature indicates how extreme our situation has become.

LA continues:

There are two overwhelming objections to Mr. Simpon’s idea, one practical, one moral.

The practical objection is, what would this supposed alliance consist of? What could conservatives actually do to strengthen jihadists against the reigning liberal order? Take their side? Agree with their propaganda that they are really “moderates” and that there is no such thing as a terrorist? Attack the government for its anti-Muslim bias in defending America from terrorism? Call for the end of the Patriot Act and other effective means (insufficient as they are) to apprehend terrorists?

The sheer insanity of such notions leads immediately to the second, moral objection. In order even to attempt this idea of an alliance between conservatives and jihadists, conservatives would have to make themselves evil, much as the anti-American left or a figure like George Galloway has done. They’d be so corrupted by the process that they would thereafter become useless for anything good.

It is one thing to say, which I say, that the West is so far gone in liberal dreams and liberal surrender that only major destruction, suffering, and loss can awaken it and stir it to self-defense. It is a very different thing to say that Westerners should assist the evil forces that are seeking to bring about that destruction.

The reader from England writes back:

The reader (Carl Simpson) who talks of alliances with Jihadists (though he hates Blair more than Muslims if I understand correctly) is so far gone into fantasy that I can’t even justify a reply. C’mon, let’s play on Planet Earth!! Ditto let’s stop any sort of praise for the BNP who are a bunch of racist anti-semitic thugs even if we (or should I say I) agree with them on certain issues. As for you (Lawrence) I have tried my best to bring you into reality regarding this, especially as many of our feelings about Islam and Muslims are similar. You see my attempts as nagging you and you are partially right. I have said that the mainstream (and it is very debatable who and what the (white) mainstream is and it is not to be confused with encompassing all whites as many many whites are non-mainstream but that’s another e-mail topic) has certain values that are similar to certain Islamic values. I meant this to show how this makes it even more difficult to rouse the (white) mainstream, as it is hard to get people angry enough to kick people out if their values are similar (and again I acknowledge that many whites are not in the mainstream and have values that oppose Islamic values). I didn’t mean my e-mail as a personal view of wanting to forge an alliance. It’s almost like you would like me to feel that way. I certainly feel Islam and Muslim culture are dangerous(even though I have Muslim friends). I certainly don’t want to ally with them. Of course certain of their values are good values but so what. We have seen the bad side of Islam and Muslims too often. But kicking Muslims out is not on the agenda in any shape or form. They wouldn’t even be first on many white Judaic-Christian (who as I’ve said are a very varied bunch) people’s list. Of course 9/11 and 7/7 moved Muslims up as hate figures so to speak. But not remotely to the point of society seeking out each Muslim family and getting them to leave. It’s not on the agendas and that and that makes it very difficult for us.

LA replies:

I am amazed at my American-British correspondent’s lack of comprehension on a point that I have made to him repeatedly. He seems to feel that the fact that the proposal to remove Muslims is not “on the agenda” is a decisive refutation of that proposal. OF COURSE it’s not on the agenda. It is a radical idea the adoption of which would require nothing less than a revolution of attitudes in the West. But I am saying that as the Muslim problem increases and the nature of the Muslim threat becomes more apparent, this radical-seeming proposal will start to seem more and more logical, sensible, necessary, and right to more and more people. There are reasonable arguments to be used against the removal idea. The fact that it is not currently on the agenda is certainly not one of them.

Carl Simpson writes:

Thanks for your well-reasoned response. It helped to clarify my own thinking on this issue. I actually agree with your moral objection on the notion of an active alliance with Muslims to destroy to treasonous left. I was thinking before more in terms of a passive alliance. You’re correct that by actively working in consort with an enemy who seeks to destroy the west, conservatives would end up embracing evil themselves. This moral objection you raise is more than enough to discount such an idea altogether. I would just like to submit that Muslims are by no means the only evil force engaged in the action of destroying the west. We make the identical moral error when we actively support people like Tony Blair.

Also, the more I think of it, the whole “practical” idea of a passive alliance falls flat on its face as well. As I mentioned in passing earlier, the Western left has evidently already made their Faustian bargain with Islam. Even if one entertains the concept of destroying the greater enemy via a passive alliance with the lesser enemy, I think the point is largely moot. (I don’t think that the ruling Bushites have quite degenerated to this level here in the USA, so I’m deliberately leaving American politics off the table.) As you pointed out, the European hard left, like the repugnant George Galloway, is already engaged in an active alliance with Muslims, while the Blair regime’s alliance is more passive in nature.

So, the practical question for the remnant of British patriots remains: How are they to survive to fight another day? By supporting Blair, who has set up a full-fledged totalitarian regime where leaders of an opposition party are arrested and tried for things they say in a private conversation? The point about Blair, Galloway and their ilk being the greater enemy also stands: They are traitors who bear the full moral responsibility for their actions. Because they are traitors, the British government cannot be considered to have any moral legitimacy. Their Muslim allies whom they’ve invited en masse into the country will turn on them soon enough, as they always do. As I mentioned before, it’s really a horrible situation. Perhaps the few British patriots remaining should consider moving to Australia, for Britain is most likely a lost cause.

I note with amazement how your English reader trots out typically leftist-style accusations of “racism” and “anti-Semitism” against the BNP. France’s LePen was accused of the same, of course, despite his support of Israel. Perhaps he really isn’t so much a British conservative who is pessimistic about the present ugly situation there as a neoconservative with misgivings about Islam and hordes of immigrants destroying the place.

LA replies:

The BNP is well-known for its record of serious anti-Semitism. There is evidence, which I have reported here, that it has made serious, not cosmetic, efforts to dump its past anti-Semitism. But given BNP’s reputation it’s reasonable for someone to call it anti-Semitic.

The reader in England writes:

I notice that you have titled my e-mail “An Insistent View of Defeat.” That defeatist mentality is what you would like me to be advocating so you can feel that YOU’RE not giving up but ME, but (un)fortunately that isn’t the case. I have previously said that Islam and Muslim culture are the enemies, not just so called extremists. I have called for zero immigration of Muslims. I have said we must identify Islam as the enemy because of its nature and theology (even if individual Muslims are nice). I have said the West should be a lot tougher on Islam and Muslims. I have never advocated an alliance with Muslims. Does this sound defeatist so far? All I have said is that although I too want the amount of Muslims significantly reduced in the West, there is no way Muslims are going to be removed en masse. Is trying to get a grip on what is possible defeatist? If you want I can mouth the illusion that most Muslims can be removed. That would make you feel better. I think you should apologise to me for labeling my views defeatist (I’m NOT being unfriendly here) as it misrepresents my views and attitude. Defeatist is not recognising the reality of the situation. Because if you don’t you can’t win. Look at the Palestinians. always wanting to get rid of Israel. Woe to anyone who says that Israel is here to stay. Well the same goes regarding the Muslims here. We have to be totally real on what is possible in our attempt to deal with Islam and Muslims. Amd we must stop the game of labeling people defeatist who point out harsh realities. Yeah, I repeated the same message periodically as the same viewpoint (removal of Muslims) kept appearing in VFR. But to then misrepresent my views by calling them “defeatist” is wrong and I feel you should retract that title.

LA replies:

The way you’re constantly sending me e-mails and going after me on this issue, which is something I’ve been trying to develop into a hopeful alternative to the present hopeless approaches, and I’m one of very few people trying to do this, is a pain in the neck and is defeatist, and the title I gave the blog entry expresses my feelings about it. Once someone has a different view than you, and you disagree, and you don’t have any new arguments to give him, but only the ones you’ve used already, you’ve got to let it go.

Also, your own position seems confused. It’s impossible for anyone reading your quasi stream of consciousness e-mails to figure out what your actual position is.

You did seem to be calling for an alliance with Muslims, then you denied that you had done so. However, it’s possible to read you as saying that Muslims are in an alliance with conservatives against decadance, not that you favor such an alliance. If that’s what you meant, I’ll take back the statement that you advocated an alliance with Muslims.

However, you misunderstand my position so badly that I wonder if you’ve thoughtfully read anything I’ve written on the subject, especially my article at FrontPage Magazine, “How to defeat jihad in America,” (a piece I’ve linked here probably 40 or 50 times), where I spoke of a variety of different types of approaches toward different categories of persons within the Muslim community in order to initiate a steady net-out-migration, largely voluntary. A steady out-migration is not an en masse removal. I have never said remove all Muslims en masse. In fact, I specifically argued against thinking in such terms, because the sheer impossibility of it would make people give up in despair and then not try to do anything. Instead, I’ve said over and over that the key point is to reverse the current direction of things, so that Muslim numbers and power are steadily getting less rather than steadily getting greater.

That you misunderstand me so badly on an issue I’ve repeated myself on so often removes your right to be my critic on this issue.

Carl Simpson writes:

Again, thanks so much for your very thoughtful reply to my earlier “thinking out loud” about the issue of liberalism’s desolation of the UK, Islam, etc. With two ememies working at once to destroy us, the natural temptation is to think of joining with one to destroy the other.

Thanks to your post, I can now see that joining with either enemy is basically an embrace of evil. Your insight in clarifying such issues is invaluable—to me at least.

LA:

I didn’t sufficiently reply to this comment by my correspondent in England that Carl Simpson complained about:

“The writer (Simpson) who seemed somewhat sympathetic to the BNP reminded me how far I am from certain people who hold anti-Islamic and ant-immigration views. There are certainly vast differences among your readers.”

I find this comment disturbing. I’ll assume the reader was tired when he wrote it. If he is saying that he is completely out of sympathy with anyone who is even somewhat in sympathy with the BNP, then I agree with him that there are large differences here. In a nation in which all major parties and all media are on the anti-national dhimmi left, for someone who says he opposes expansionist Islam to reject totally the only organized group in Britain that is trying to protect it from the Islamic takeover, and to reject everyone who is even somewhat in sympathy with that group, raises questions about the depth of his concern for the British nation.

I again point to the BNP’s statements about anti-Semitism, and Robert Locke’s article at Think-Israel, “The British National Party Goes Straight.” If Think-Israel can publish a sympathetic article about the BNP, maybe it’s time for my British correspondent to give it a second look as well.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 22, 2006 05:40 PM | Send