|
Spencer and Muslim immigration, again
Robert Spencer quotes the same story about Blair’s heir-in-waiting Gordon Brown that I discussed on Friday:
Finally admitting that he expected to take over from Tony Blair this year, the Chancellor said that he wanted to promote a “modern patriotism” as an alternative to Islamic extremism. Mr Brown said: “I believe we can do more to separate some Muslims from the dark forces that they can be susceptible to.”In response to which Spencer comments:
Good luck, Mr. Skywalker.What Spencer means is, it’s a fantasy to think that Muslims can be separated from the dark forces of Islam to which they are or can be susceptible. Not only that, but it’s a fantasy to think that even some Muslims can be separated from those dark forces of Islam. Now that is a radical statement. I’ve never seen Spencer go that far before. But wait—if Spencer thinks that not even some Muslims in Britain can be separated from the dark forces of jihadism, what does Spencer propose be done about that? Remember, his only immigration-related proposal is that Muslim immigration applicants be screened for jihadist views and associations. He has never suggested any measures to reduce the long-term jihadist threat of Muslims already in the West, such as deporting them (except, of course, for deporting outright jihad and terror supporters). So Spencer is saying that the entire Muslim population is inextricably linked (actively or potentially) with the dark forces of jihad, and he proposes that we do absolutely nothing about this. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? But that’s not all. In another item posted on Friday, Spencer approvingly quotes Investor’s Business Daily’s comments about Muslim organizations’ false claim there are eight million Muslims in the U.S. (the bold formatting is Spencer’s):
But it’s the Wahhabi lobby’s big lie. CAIR and other militant Muslim groups use it to intimidate politicians, corporations and media to change policy.To repeat IBD’s point, which Spencer emphasizes with bold formatting to indicate his agreement with it: the bigger the false number of U.S. Muslims claimed by the Islamist organizations, the more they can intimidate the mainstream society, and the bigger the foothold they gain in America. But wait—the same logic would apply to real Muslim numbers as well as fake ones, wouldn’t it? If the real number of Muslims in the U.S. were eight million, then, according to Investor’s Business Daily’s logic, that would be a “lot scarier” than what we have now and it would increase the Islamists’ power in America. But has IBD ever proposed that Muslim immigration be stopped, in order to prevent Muslims from reaching that much scarier eight million level? Nope. Has Robert Spencer ever proposed that Muslim immigration be stopped? Nope. Has Spencer ever proposed that the absolute numbers of Muslims being allowed to immigrate to the U.S. even be reduced? Nope. Spencer’s only policy idea is that jihad supporters and people thought reasonably likely to be jihad supporters be prevented from immigrating or gaining citizenship; the immigration slots vacated by the excluded jihad supporters would be filled by other Muslims. So Spencer has no proposal—nada, zero, zilch—to stop the steady increase of the immigration-fed Muslim population in America which, according to Investor’s Business Daily and Spencer himself, must lead to the acquisition of more and more power by the existing jihadist Muslim community in America. Spencer is the best Islam critic in America that I know of. But what, in practical terms, do all his writings and warnings and clear-eyed descriptions of Islam come down to? That we should continue to allow Muslim numbers and jihadist power to keep increasing in this country. But then what’s the point of his website, Jihad Watch? What’s the point of his writing all those articles and books about Islam? What’s the point of his going on all those tv shows? As I discussed yesterday, a writer at the neoconservative website The American Thinker, Steven Warshawsky, called for a halt of Muslim immigration. So it’s not impossible, it’s not inconceivable for commentators in the respectable mainstream to take this position. I have heard that Spencer privately indicates he believes in outright restrictions on Muslim immigration, but feels there is no political consensus behind such a step at present and therefore no point in calling for it. But how does the political consensus of a society change? Through intellectual leadership. Spencer is the leading voice in America pointing out the ineluctable jihadist nature of Islam. Imagine the effect he could have in moving America’s consensus on the Islam problem in a helpful direction if, instead of advocating policies that flat-out ignore or contradict his dire diagnosis of the Islam problem, and thus leave the Islam issue hanging in a state of incoherent confusion, he advocated policies that were logically consistent with—indeed, absolutely required by—his diagnosis.
Jeff in England writes:
I will say that D’Souza’s views pandering to Islam are ridiculous, but Spencer (and Pipes and Phillips) is not much better. D’Souza tells us to join forces with traditional Muslims; Spencer tells us to screen out the worst Muslims and let the rest in. What a choice OF “SOLUTIONS” by two of America’s most famous commentators. It’s so obvious that we simply have to stop letting Muslims into the West. Yet Spencer and Phillips and Pipes can’t bring themselves to call for it, using every psychological trick in the book to avoid saying what needs to be done. You couldn’t make it up. Maybe there is a computer chip in their brains stopping them from stating the obvious (Muslim immigration must stop). There is no other choice but to keep pointing out their lack of common sense and logic no matter how this may bore certain readers of VFR and other e-mags. Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Send Email entry |