FrontPage Magazine simultaneously denounces Muslim custom of honor killing and tells readers to accept it

One of the top missions of FrontPage Magazine over the last few years has been opposition to radical Islam. Stephen Brown, a contributing editor at FP, has an article about the Muslim couple in Canada who murdered their three teenage daughters plus the first wife of the man, apparently in a mass honor killing. He ends the article like this:

Honor murder is a heinous and horrific practice outside the experience of the Western world. But the West will have to get used to it. Honor murder is here to stay.

At VFR I speak of the “Usual Suspects”—conservative writers who describe Islam as totally alien and incompatible with our society, but don’t suggest any measures to stop its growth among us, by, at a minimum, stopping further Muslim immigration. “Islam is terrible! Islam will destroy our freedoms! Get used to it!” This is the message of the Usual Suspects. We can see from Brown’s article that the Usual Suspects phenomenon is as strong as ever.

I’ve posted at FP the below comment about Stephen Brown’s article:

“Honor murder is a heinous and horrific practice outside the experience of the Western world,” Stephen Brown writes. “But the West will have to get used to it. Honor murder is here to stay.”

This is a very unhelpful thing to say. Why does Stephen Brown surrender to the presence in our society of something that according him has no place here? And why surrender to it so automatically, without exhibiting the slightest impulse of protest or resistance? Doesn’t Mr. Brown have any spirit at all?

Mr. Brown shows the passivity of the modern liberal, though in this case the liberal calls himself a “conservative”—the liberal’s complete lack of any instinct or desire to preserve his society against that which is utterly incompatible with it, in this case a religion the growing presence of which spells the death of the West.

44 years ago, at the time of the debate on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which opened America to immigration from every nation on an equal, non-discriminatory basis, there were virtually no Muslims in America. If Congress had known in 1965 that by importing Muslims, it would inevitably be importing honor killings, as well as the entirety of sharia, which is totally incompatible with our way of life, as well as many Muslim terrorists, would it have opened America’s doors to Muslims? No it would not. So, since we now can see that it was a terrible mistake to let Muslims enter America en masse, isn’t it the logical and sensible thing to reverse the mistake by finding ways to get the Muslims to leave?

And if reversing Muslims immigration seems too extreme, how about, at a bare minimum, stopping further Muslim immigration? That is certainly within our moral and legal power. But even that minimal possibility does not occur to Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown is listed as contributing editor to this website which, as one of its leading missing, opposes radical Islam. Also, this website and particularly its editor David Horowitz have strongly supported Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who calls for the end of all Muslim immigration into the Netherlands. And yet the idea of stopping further Muslim immigration into America is not even a twinkle in Mr. Brown’s eye. Again I ask, why the disconnect? Why support a Dutch politician who advocates the barring of further Muslim immigration into the Netherlands, while not even mentioning as a possibility the barring of further Muslim immigration into the U.S.?

For readers who are interested in doing something about this terrible problem rather than just wringing their hands while surrendering to it, here are my articles on what to do about Islam in the West.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 25, 2009 10:14 AM | Send