Comments on manifesto

I’ve received good suggestions on my draft manifesto for the defense of the West against Islam, and have already made some changes in it in response. From time to time I will post some of the suggestions along with my replies, if any, starting below. While it won’t be possible to adopt every suggestion, it is useful and rewarding to know what various people would like to have included in such a document. Also, be sure to see the most recent exchange, in which a reader calls for me to talk about the plight of women and persecuted minorities in the Islamic lands.

Mark N. writes:

Your manifesto is good as far as it goes, and you are of course correct in asserting that Islam is an aggressive religion whose ultimate purpose is to impose Sharia on the entire world. But what I believe needs to emphasized in your manifesto, just as much as the aggressive nature of the Muslim religion, is the fundamental incompatibility of Islamic and Western culture. I emphasize “fundamental” in that no political solution can change that basic truth. This truth rests in the fact that Islam is not merely a religion, but a civilization. Rudyard Kipling once noted, “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat..” That was true one hundred years ago, as it is now.

I believe the West’s present difficulties in dealing with the Muslims rests on the fact that all true civilizations are religious by nature, at their inception, and throughout their development. A civilization’s art, moral vision, literature, politics, social organization, economics, whatever, all stem from a common religious vision. Since Western civilization has broken the organic unity of its culture and its former Christocentric vision, it has been at war with itself like a raging neurotic. What is one to do when the intellectual classes in Europe are too damned arrogant, dare I say too damned obtuse, to even mention Christianity in the EU constitution?

Your manifesto must address what measures need to taken to reconstitute European culture. You have always been an advocate of deporting the Islamic “fifth column” from Europe and the United States. Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that a miracle occurs, and there is a massive movement to rid the West of many of its obstreperous “guests.” Fine, well that’s a start, but where does that really leave us? What you advocate is necessary, but not sufficient. In Europe the mass of people are so alienated from their Judeo-Christian past, that their own history is inscrutable to them. They have neither the intellectual or psychological ability to build on their religious and cultural patrimony, let alone nurture and expand it. I suppose what I am asking is: How do we restore the West (especially Europe) to its former true self, once the threat is temporarily removed? Your manifesto must somehow address this.

My reply:

I agree entirely on your first point, that I need to emphasize the incompatibility. In fact that used to be the way I always talked about Islam, as being a culture radically incompatible with ours. But I guess more recently, as I’ve learned more about Islam, I’ve emphasized the inherent direction of Islam itself toward sharia, jihad, etc., more than its incompatibility with the West. I do need to bring that back into the manifesto, so thanks for pointing this out to me.

On your second point, the need for a return to Christianity, I’m a little ambivalent about this. On one hand, I am convinced, and have written, that the plight of Europe is the clearest possible instance of a society which is destroying itself through rejection of God, and which can only save itself by repenting of its secularism and turning back to God. On the other hand, is a manifesto, or a political article, the proper venue for such an argument? This gets into the problematic area of urging religion because it’s useful on the material and social plane, rather than because it’s true. I think the two types of concerns are reconcilable, and have written as much, but that would require a more complicated argument than is appropriate for a manifesto.

However, the point is important enough that it does belong in such a manifesto, so I will try to find some way to include it.

Thanks for these suggestions.

Carl Simpson writes:

Do you think the term “radical egalitarianism” might read better than “extreme form of liberalism” in the final paragraph?

My reply:

It’s a close call. I think liberalism (the mainstream belief system of our time), plus the extremism of that mainstream belief system, is closer to the idea I’m getting at than radical egalitarianism, which suggests something more like a programatic effort to make everyone the same.

I keep coming back to the idea that the mainstream, respectable belief system of our time, called liberalism, has an inherent extremism, so that there’s a continuum between mainstream liberalism and leftism. If you call it radical egalitarianism, that sounds like a radical, leftist movement from the get-go.

That’s a difference of view between David Horowitz and me, for example. Horowitz thinks leftism is the primary problem, and that it has turned most former liberals into leftists. I think liberalism is the primary problem, and has an inherently extreme logos and telos making it manifest in ever more extreme ways over time.

Mr. Simpson replies:

I certainly see your point. The thing that strikes me about the difference between David Horowitz’s view and yours is that Horowitz’s view is essentially a narrow one—limiting his opposition to standing against the hard left from whence he came—while your own view is much broader. That’s why you are able recognize the strong elements of utopianism and radical egalitarianism in liberals like Bush and Rice while DH remains blinded to these strongly leftist components of their neoconservative ideology.

The worst of it is that the so-called conservatives like Bush, Rice, et al have actually done far greater harm to the fabric of this country than unhinged moonbats like Howard Dean and Michael Moore in the last five years. Europe is a different situation, where the hard left has really faced no effective opposition in decades.

A reader in Italy writes:

I’m not sure how to insert it, or even if it is the case to insert it, but I feel the need to mention, perhaps only obliquely, the particular hatred of the Muslims for Jews (the canaries in the mine).

After the horrors of the 1940’s we were told to “never forget.”

I would also make mention of also of the plight of women and how “the extreme form of liberalism which has become the dominant belief system of the West” has woefully abandoned the dignity, rights and needs of 50% of the world’s population. In other words that liberalism’s mindless openness actually corresponds to more doors being slammed shut.

In a redraft I would somehow put in the word “tribality”

Another reader, Dmitri, wrote soon after I sent out the first version (since revised) on Thursday:

I believe, that racial considerations, though are quite permissible for separate individuals, interest groups or even countries, should not be reflected in the manifesto of universal importance. They may significantly weaken both importance and support of the document. The manifesto should not discriminate against races, but against belief systems. Newborn children are equal, if not in the sense of their IQ, but in the face of God. That was the strong point of liberalism that helped it to win in public opinion. For the aim of this manifesto, a hypothetical Arab which completely accepted our values and beliefs (I don’t mean secular values) shold be indistinguishable from native Westeners. Your phrase “dangerous characteristics of non-Western peoples and belief systems” can be wrongly qualified as racist, therefore I suggest to remove the word “peoples” and leave only belief systems. The remaining phrase is still strong enough, and it will not alienate those who dislike racism, because race is not the point here. I believe that we should stress that belief systems are unequal. That does not mean that it is our obligation to teach other nations, but it means that we must protect our belief system, which actually is the aim of the manifesto, as I understand it.

P.S. Sorry for repeating same words several times. I am not a native English speaker and never got good marks for essays.

In response to this I revised the final paragraph of the manifesto, among other things, changing “dangerous characteristics of non-Western peoples and belief systems” to “dangerous characteristics of non-Western cultures and belief systems.”

Paul wrote:

Your rewritten manifesto is excellent. I’ve only two comments for your consideration:

— “true teachings”—perhaps “authentic teachings” or “unvarnished teachings” would be clearer? (Obviously you didn’t mean that the teachings are “true” in any other sense).

— should a manifesto end on such a downbeat note? or should it be followed with something more calculated to inspire?

My favourite is De Gaulle’s, written after the fall of France. You probably know it well, but here it is anyway, in French and English:

A TOUS LES FRANÇAIS!
La France a perdu une bataille!
Mais la France n’a pas perdu la guerre!
Des gouvernants de rencontre ont pu capituler, cédant à la panique, oubliant l’honneur, livrant le pays à la servitude.
Cependant, rien n’est perdu! Rien n’est perdu, parce que cette guerre est une guerre mondiale.
Dans l’univers libre, des forces immenses n’ont pas encore donné.
Un jour, ces forces écraseront l’ennemi.
Il faut que la France, ce jour-là, soit présente à la victoire.
Alors, elle retrouvera sa liberté et sa grandeur.
Tel est mon but, mon seul but!
Voilà pourquoi je convie tous les Français, où qu’ils se trouvent, à s’unir à moi dans l’action, dans le sacrifice et dans l’espérance.
Notre patrie est en péril de mort.
Luttons tous pour la sauver!
VIVE LA FRANCE !

TO ALL FRENCHMEN!
France has lost a battle!
But France has not lost the war!
A makeshift government may have capitulated, panic-stricken, forgetful of honour, delivering their country into servitude.
Yet nothing is lost!
Nothing is lost, because this war is a world war.
In the free world, immense forces have not yet given of themselves.
One day these forces will crush the enemy.
On that day, France must be present at the victory.
She will then regain her liberty and her grandeur.
Such is my goal, my only goal!
That is why I urge all Frenchmen, wherever they may be, to unite with me in action, in sacrifice and in hope.
Our country is in mortal danger.
Let us struggle together to save her!
LONG LIVE FRANCE!

Mark D wrote Thursday:

Your draft Manifesto begins: “We, citizens of the West………..”

In the body of the Manifesto, you identify Islam as a threat to the West, you assert the West must defend itself by various means and with certain understandings about the character of Islam, and you identify liberalism as an obstruction to an effective defense.

However, you do not clarify the identity of “the West,” or the cultural or historic characteristics of the West worth preserving and fighting for.

I would think appeal would be made to those fundamental characteristics of the West that we would never surrender—as they are fundamentally constitutive of our cultural and historic identity—and certainly not surrender to appease Islam.

As to what those characteristics are, I’m sure your readership can identify them and hone them to a core of principles and experiences that constitute the West.

I suggest a few for consideration:

1. A separation of the temporal and spiritual powers, with mutual respect, toleration and support.

2. Consent of the governed (more fundamental than “democracy”), and limited, constitutional government.

3. Rule of law, binding on both citizens and government itself.

4. Freedom of religious exercise—the “first freedom.”

5. Historic nationhood and culture, and language, as a substantive good to be defended and preserved.

On Friday Mark D. sends this follow-up:

In the comments on your Manifesto, Paul includes the words of De Gaulle upon the fall of France to the Nazis.

The key word in De Gaulle’s Manifesto is “France,” just as the key word in your Manifesto is the “West.”

In 1940, perhaps there was a homogenous understanding within France about the meaning of “France,” and therefore De Gaulle could make good rhetorical use of that evocative meaning.

One could question whether that is the case today within France, whether it has lost its soul or lost the self-understanding of its soul (I don’t know if this is the case, and I have no opinion on the question). In any case, when De Gaulle used the term “France,” he was not speaking of a geographical piece of territory; he was speaking of a shared soul.

The same concerns apply to the word, the “West.” Perhaps the implicit position should be that, if a reader of the Manifesto does not understand the meaning of the word “West,” perhaps it is time that he/she does learn that meaning.

This leads me back to my initial point that your Manifesto should include the core characteristics of the West that are worth fighting for, and which we should not surrender in the face of Islamic challenge.

Perhaps it should be said, clearly, 1. the West exists and all Westerners are bound together by the shared soul of the West, whether we choose to acknowledge that fact or not; 2. our very identities, and that of our nations and communities, depend on the continued health and preservation of the West as a civilization; and 3. To preserve ourselves as a civilization, and as nations and communities within that civilization, we must preserve, and fight for, the West and its traditions; otherwise, we literally lose ourselves.

It was our Swedish conservative reader who the other day suggested the need for a traditionalist manifesto on Islam counterposed to the leftist secularist manifesto, which gave me the idea of writing such a manifesto myself. He thinks I’ve left something important out of the manifesto.

He writes:

You have focused on the West. You have covered the non-Muslim societies. But you have forgotten non-Muslim people living within the Muslim world.

I would add the following to your penultima paragraph:

[Instead, we must recognize that the aggression and the threat come solely from Islam, and further, that this aggression is not directed only at the West, but at all non-Muslim societies, since Islam commands the subjugation of the entire earth to Islamic law.] Islam has bloody borders, but within the Muslim world the aggression of Islamic law is institutionalized since centuries ago. We all know too well the sorry plight of Muslim women, but often forgotten is the plight of the non-Muslim minorities—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Atheists, etc.—that are oppressed, persecuted and forced to pay “protection money,” according to Islamic law. Worst off are the apostates of Islam, for whom Islamic law commands the death penalty. A consequence of the new Islamic Jihad is that such Sharia enclaves have been established and are expanding within the West.

[However, while the aggression comes from Islam and is directed at all non-Muslim societies, the West is uniquely vulnerable…]

Best Regards,
Mr. Particular Swede

My reply:

True, but what can we do about that? Can we change the Muslim world? I don’t think so. We can protect ourselves from Islam. We can push Islam back within itself—a vast, unprecedented task, but doable if we have the will to do it. But it’s not within our power, no matter how strong our will is, to change Islam into something else. Therefore, as I see it, what’s the point of talking about helping the persecuted women and minorities living under Islam? We can’t do anything for them. To try to do anything for them simply returns us to the delusional Bush policy of trying to liberalize the Muslim world. The U.S. cannot liberalize the Islamic world, and neither can Muslims. Islam is what it is and can be no other. Islamic cannot be liberalized. The only way to change it would be by disempowering it or destroying it, i.e., by Kemalization (meaning that Islam is removed from the public sphere and confined to a strictly private sphere) or by mass apostasy. But it’s not in our power to make those things happen. So let’s not be utopian fantasists like President Bush. As Bat Ye’or said to me once, and I quoted her in an article: We cannot save the souls of Muslims. We have to save our own souls.

However, this does not mean that there is no hope for the internal victims of Islam. If, as I propose, Islam were pushed back inside its own borders, deprived of any power and of any hope of being able to influence the non-Muslim world, such a humiliating event could very well weaken the power of Islam within the Muslim societies themselves, making Kemalization and apostasy more likely. We cannot make those things happen. But we can create the conditions in which (1) We ourselves are safe from an Islamic world that has been rendered powerless by us; and (2) This disempowered Muslim world may be internally freed up to move in non-Islamic directions.

Thus my policy is the exact opposite of President Bush’s. Bush says that we can liberalize the world of Islam by empowering Muslims and giving them “hope.” I say that we have no ability to liberalize the world of Islam, and that any attempt by us to empower them and give them hope only makes them more powerful and more confident and thus more dangerous to us; but that we can, by depriving the Islamic world of power and hope, create the possibility that it may then de-Islamize itself. In any case, our first, second, and third priority is our own safety and preservation, which we have the power to secure, not the succour of individuals and groups oppressed under Islam, whom we have no direct power to help.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2006 11:24 PM | Send