, but he sent it as an e-mail, rather than posting it at the website, and it has not appeared there. So I’m posting here.
In regard to the Usual Suspects:
YES THEY NEEDED AND STILL NEED TO BE CONDEMNED LOUDLY AND CLEARLY.
LARRY AUSTER IS BRAVELY DOING THAT.
WE SHOULD ALL BE GRATEFUL TO LARRY AUSTER FOR THAT.
Yet he is being attacked in various blogs for his criticism of Spencer and other Suspects (note: the attacks on Auster regarding his personality etc. is not the concern of this e-mail but I will say that despite numerous disagreements with him on many issues he has never in any way personally attacked me in any shape of form).
Well, guess what folks, those Suspects need to be criticised. Then and now.
I initially used the term “Usual Suspects” for the Islam critics which Larry Auster then went on to use in regard to the intellectual cowardice and illogic of the “position” of several commentators (Phillips, Steyn, Spencer, Leo McKinstry, Pipes etc.) on the issue of Islamic immigration to the West. That position was really the lack of a position as these Usual Suspects did not want to provide any sort of solution to the Muslim problem. The most obvious solution, that of stopping Muslim immigration to the West, was virtually completely ignored by these Suspects.
The term “Usual Suspects” was not and is not meant to be taken in a “personal” sense, as those Suspects surely know. Larry Auster and myself have never been interested in personally attacking the so called Usual Suspects. That they can’t handle intellectual criticism of their positions is their problem.
Rather the term was used on the basis that after brilliantly and often passionately warning us in their numerous articles and speeches about the dangers of Islam and Muslims to the West, these Suspects then proceeded to ignore the possibility of providing any sort of serious solution to the very problem which they were warning us about.
If they did mention immigration restriction of any sort it was often hidden away or not defined in any clear consistent manner. Spencer’s writing is a great example of that.
Many times Larry Auster and others including myself tried to confront the Suspects on this omission of a restriction solution (or any solution for that matter) and many times we were thwarted. Sometimes there was no reply at all. Other times there were cries of unfair (personal) attack (Spencer in particular). Others just responded with rudeness. All Auster and myself and other VFR readers wanted was a clear statement from these Suspects of their position on immigration restriction as a solution to the problem. Auster, like myself and various VFR readers, found it absurd that these Suspects wouldn’t talk about this or come out with a clear answer to the question of whether they would support or not support Muslim immigration restriction (whether 100 percent or not).
Spencer has come out with some pro-restriction views, at least at times. We need more clarity from him. McKinstry seems to support immigration restriction, I think. Again, more clarity is needed. Other Suspects still don’t mention restriction at all. After all this time I am still not sure on whether Melanie Phillips supports restriction or not.
On the whole, my suspicion is that deep down the Suspects are afraid of being seen as “racist” or “Islamophobic” or just plain hateful. Liberalism (in the deepest sense of the word) is very deep within many Suspects and it is difficult for them to support denying the right of Muslims to come to the West, even after they have warned us of the dangers of those Muslims to the West.
I have reiterated many times that a pro-restriction position does not imply that there are not many decent Muslims. In addition, no Muslims here in the West should be persecuted merely because they are Muslim.
But in order to stop the Islam religion and Muslim culture from swamping us and destroying our culture and society, we must take radical measures to stop their numbers increasing. Certainly immigration restriction is the most obvious way of doing this. It cuts out the problem before there is a problem.
Immigration restriction is very possible and very realistic. Yet the very best commentators on the “Muslim problem” around, the Usual Suspects, refuse to talk about it let alone advocate it. This is very helpful to the proponents of Islam in the West and a green light for Muslims to come here in continuing great numbers.
Do the Suspects not deserve condemnation for this? Are they not intellectually teasing us with all their warnings of the dangers of Islam and Muslims and then not wanting to provide any sort of solution to the problem?
The Rushdie and Cartoon affairs showed us that it not just so called Islamic “extremists” who are a problem for the West. We saw many so called “moderate” Muslims support intolerant and anti-Western positions.
Many Suspects refused to condemn so called “moderate” Muslims and put forth the view that radical extremists are the problem and not Islam itself. Daniel Pipes was a great example of this line of thinking. Larry Auster rightfully criticised the likes of Pipes for holding this position.
Others like Robert Spencer brilliantly criticised Islam itself which inferred that the whole Muslim community could be considered a danger, as all practicing Muslims literally are obligated to believe every word the Koran says.
Larry Auster complimented Spencer on his good work for providing this insightful critical analysis of Islam.
But in so far as providing a solution to the problem, specifically one which would involve immigration restriction, Spencer has said many contradictory things on the subject. Larry Auster pointed this out. Unfortunately Spencer took this point as a personal attack. Auster then asked him in the name of clarity, YES OR NO, does Spencer support stopping Muslim immigration. Again, Spencer took this as a personal attack.
Larry Auster has not only done nothing wrong by taking these Suspects to task; rather he has done us a great service. Auster simply wants Muslim immigration restriction to the West to be considered by these Suspects in a clear and consistent way. If they oppose it they must explain why. If they support it, Auster asks if they cannot make it more obvious that they do so, as their influence is great.
Auster is not being divisive at all; rather he is trying to unite all sensible people to deal with the Muslim problem. He is encouraging clarity and clear thinking and sensible action.
THANK YOU LARRY AUSTER.
Sincerely,
Jeff from England