How “conservatives” prohibit discussion about saving the West from Islam

Mike Berman writes:

Yesterday I attended an event at NYU sponsored by the NYU Objectivist Society where Daniel Pipes was one of the speakers. A man rose during the Q&A and advocated the deportation of Muslims. Pipes’s retort was to ask how the questioner would feel if it were his convert-sister who was one of those being deported.

LA replies:

That’s the knee-jerk reaction of a liberal, and proof that Pipes is a liberal. For liberals, as I always say, the wrongness of discrimination transcends all other values. So that, for example, if any government action, even one that is vitally necessary to preserve a country, will arguably result in an act of discrimination against even one individual, the contemplated government action is immoral and must not be done.

Further, notice how Pipes conflates the idea of making ANY Muslims leave—presumably the most dangerous ones—with instantly making all Muslims leave, including someone’s imaginary harmless sister who just converted to Islam. Any thought about getting Muslims to leave is portrayed as the instant overnight forcible deportation of all Muslims, which seems horrendous, inhuman, and out of the question, with the result that the very topic of doing anything about Islam in the West is barred outright.

Similarly, the supporters of comprehensive immigration reform keep saying that the only alternative to legalizing all illegals is to deport them all. The latter seems so horrific to our delicate sensibilities that it leaves mass legalization (a.k.a. amnesty) as the only alternative. But of course the open borders supporters leave out the actual alternative, which is the steady enforcement of immigration laws leading to gradual voluntary attrition.

Why do liberals lie like this? Because for liberals the highest value is the elimination of all discrimination. For liberals, as I explained in my discussion of Norman Podhoretz in this article, all discrimination is one. All discrimination is the moral equivalent of Auschwitz or leads potentially to Auschwitz. But since some discrimination is in fact necessary for the existence of any country, and since most people want their country to survive, liberals must falsely portray the very idea of discrimination as an intolerable evil not to be considered for even a single instant. It’s off limits. Don’t go there. No decent person goes there. It’s like hot metal. You don’t touch it. You don’t even talk to a person who wants to talk about touching it.

That’s what Pipes was trying to do with his reply about the questioner’s sister, to make it emotionally impossible for people to discuss rationally what to do about the Muslim threat in the West. His aim was to put the idea of stopping and reversing Muslim immigration so far off limits that the very thought of it cannot be formed.

This liberal power play aimed at suppressing debate about the most vital issues that face Western countries as well as other non-Islamic countries must be confronted head on, over and over, whenever it used. Liberals with their verbal weapons have controlled our minds and speech for decades, while we have been helpless. If the West is to have a chance to survive, our side must have verbal weapons equal and superior to theirs.

- end of initial entry -

Erich from Jihad Watch Watch writes:

I liked your response to the story of how Pipes recoiled from the idea of deporting Muslims.

“Pipes’s retort was to ask how the questioner would feel if it were his convert-sister who was one of those being deported.”

This reminds me of a similar question posed by Phil Donahue to his guest William F. Buckley, about taking necessary drastic measures against the Iranians during the 1979-80 hostage crisis. Donahue essentially asked him the same question (to paraphrase): “What if your sister were among the hostages and your actions might kill her?”

Buckley answered impeccably: “If my sister were in danger, I would probably do everything I could to save her, even if it jeopardized our larger goals—but I would still be wrong.”

LA replies:

I have got to dig up and post online my interview with Alan Colmes two years ago about the Mexican immigration invasion. Colmes’ only argument, his sole concern, was to prevent discrimination. It was not part of his mentality to try to understand the immigration problem and how we might respond to it. His obsession was to feret out “discrimination” in what I was saying, which would discredit my position.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 06, 2008 11:55 PM | Send