The Islam question boiled down

Terry Morris wrote:

Let’s all agree on this, the problem with Islam is Islam. There’s nothing that non-Muslims can do to change Islam, and there’s nothing that Muslims will do, anytime soon if ever, to change Islam. Therefore, Islam, being inherently and uniquely hostile to the West is inherently and uniquely incompatible with the West, and in order to protect ourselves from Muslims we must eventually remove them from the West. It’s as simple as that. End of story.

LA replied

I like this!

Terry Morris replied:

Thanks. But isn’t this essentially what you’ve been saying for … ever?

LA replied:

You’re trying to trap me into an Austerian egomaniacal statement. Not going there.

Seriously, this is actually a problem for me, though not a serious one. I am trying to advance certain understandings, which I’ve been developing for a long time. This inevitably involves my repeatedly saying things like, “As I said in my 1996 article…,” which gets tiresome and pompously self-referential. Yet if I am to advance my ideas, I need to point people to the writings where these ideas were developed. So how do I advance my ideas without talking about … me?

Back to your comment, what I like is its conciseness, the way you boil down an important truth to its logical essentials in which there’s not a single wasted word and every word fits. But wait—I’m always pushing conciseness (e.g. my favorite quotation of La Rochefoucauld), people have often praised me for my conciseness, and I’ve sometimes suggested that you eliminate unnecessary verbiage from your postings at Webster’s. Therefore, if I praise your conciseness, that’s another form of egomania, isn’t it?

I can’t escape …

Terry Morris replies:

Ha!

Well, I thought that I should have added ” … and the quicker the better.” Meaning, the quicker we get on with this business, the better off we all are, including the Muslims. My concise statement in quotes fitting very well into the original statement, don’t ya think? ;-)

On a cursory reading of you, that’s the way it comes across when you cite your own articles from whenever. But I don’t think there’s any way to avoid it; people are just going to have to get over it or move on. I imagine that’s roughly how the two camps are divided anyhow.

… and I’ve sometimes suggested that you eliminate unnecessary verbiage from your postings at Webster’s.

And I’ve always appreciated your willingness to point out certain of my errors; they’re not falling on deaf ears, believe me. When I become unteachable, that’s when I become useless to any worthy cause.

Therefore, if I praise your conciseness, that’s another form of egomania, isn’t it?

I suppose it is. LOL You know what they say: “Humility is the sincerest form of bragging.” So there ya go.

LA replies:

Which was probably also first said by La Rochefoucauld, the great delineator of the ego and its delusions. However, I’ve never understand whether La Rochefoucauld is criticizing the ego and its self-deluding games and saying that this is not the way we ought to be, or whether he is saying, yes, this is the way we are and let’s accept it. Is he a moralist, or a realist-nihilist? I don’t know the answer.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 12, 2008 03:20 PM | Send