|
What may be coming, and how we should respond to it
This afternoon a correspondent shared with me the following thought. Given the association that the killer of Norway has established in the world’s mind between anti-jihadism and murderous violence, it is not unlikely that sites such as VFR will come under official investigation in the not-distant future to determine (a) if they are doing or saying anything that promotes violence; and (b) if any of their participants/commenters have said things that indicate a readiness to engage in violence. Under the circumstances, my correspondent continued, such investigations would be understandable and legitimate, and we should not fear them. I agree. Speaking for myself as a writer and blogger, I have always been an open book, and I think the same is true of other cultural conservatives and Islam critics in the anti-jihad blogosphere.
On a related point, I started reading the opening pages of the killer’s manifesto this afternoon, and the thought immediately came to me: This man commits an unprecedented mass murder, and now he expects people to read his political philosophy, BECAUSE he mass murdered 90 people? Why would I care what this person thinks? Why would I give a damn about him at all? He belongs in hell.
The upshot is that I have zero interest in the killer’s beliefs and world view. The only reason to acquaint ourselves with his writings would be, not to learn about his ideas for their own sake, but to know what he is saying in order to be able to defend ourselves from the false statements that the left is making about him (for example, that he is a Christian fundamentalist) in their campaign to discredit Christians and conservatives by linking them with his devilish acts.
One last point. In many recent comments at this site, there has been a note of anxiety, even paranoia, about how society will now view us, a fear that our traditional conservative beliefs may now be irredeemably tainted because this murderer claims to share them. My answer is that we should not retreat by even one millimeter from our correct and truthful positions, most importantly that Islam is a mortal threat to the West, and that we must stop and reverse the increase of its numbers and power among us.
Did environmentalists shy away from their environmentalism by one iota because the murderer Theodore Kaczynski was an environmentalist? Of course not. Then why should we back off our position because the monster of Utoya, mimicking our views, presents himself as a “cultural conservative” and anti-jihadist? If our argument is right and true and just, then that is what it is, regardless of the fact that some demon in human form happened to associate himself with it.
- end of initial entry -
TT writes:
I truly appreciate your blog and thank God for people like you willing to attempt to share the truth about the threat from Islam. And I appreciate the need to distance yourself and the entire anti-jihad movement from the evil violence perpetrated by the Norway killer. But it is being naive to suggest that before this is all over, long after we are gone, the problem of Islam in the West will be solved without violence. I applaud your suggestions for separation and encouraging Muslims, even paying them, to leave. But look at history, there is no precedent for a non-violent end to this conflict. Perhaps we just need to take a step back and consider what options are ultimately going to be available to those attempting to save the West from Islamization.
It is my belief that in the end our governments will fight on the side of the Muslims, so whatever resistance is made will be made by groups fighting against all odds, and they won’t be able to succeed without violence. We today are living in the very beginnings of this and it is my belief that we will be dead and gone long before this all plays out. But to think that the West will survive without having to use violence to defend itself is really wishful thinking.
LA replies:
I have discussed the likelihood of future violence, if we don’t remove the Muslims now. Here is the initial entry of my October 2009 discussion of El Ingles’s important Gates of Vienna article, “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”:
El Ingles’s disturbing April 2008 article at Gates of Vienna, “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”, is of continuing relevance. For those who missed it when it was published, or who, daunted by its length and the author’s somewhat expansive style, only picked up on its sensational thesis without reading it carefully, it is worth the investment of time. El Ingles, an Englishman, argues that there are three possible ways that the mortal threat that Islam poses to Europe can be ended: (1) inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will; (2) mass deportations of Muslims; and (3) the mass killings of Muslims, which he calls “genocide.” He is not at all proposing option 3, which he says would wreck Europe. But he makes a well reasoned case that options 1 and 2 either will be rejected by the Europeans, or, if tried, will prove impracticable, leaving the problem to keep growing worse and worse until option 3 become unavoidable regardless of what anyone thinks about it. He also says that the violence would not be carried out through the policies of governments, which would have lost control of the situation by that point, but through actions of an extra political nature.
The heart of the article, and of el Ingles’s original contribution to the issue, is his logical, objective analysis by which, step by step, he gives his reasons why option 1 and option 2 cannot happen, leaving only the option of mass violent death, and, along with it, the ruin of much of the West.
In the last section of the piece, he reverses himself and argues that notwithstanding what he has said up to that point there is a way that Muslims could be successfully removed by means of option 1 and option 2 (both of which correspond closely to my own proposals), and that if he were dictator of Europe that is the course that he would pursue. But, he continues, there is almost no chance of Western governments adopting such policies, leading again to the horror of option 3.
He doesn’t explain, however, why he assumes that the Europeans would win this conflict. Isn’t it possible, once violence has broken out, that the Muslims would win, in which case there would be both the horror of mass violence and the horror of Islamization?
It comes down to this: the only way for the Western countries to avoid absolute catastrophe is through the voluntary or forcible departure of their Muslim populations.
[end of 2009 initial entry]
I would add, it’s one thing to say that violence may very well come between Westerners and Muslims in the West. It’s another to excuse or rationalize the actions of a demonic mass murderer.
Alissa writes:
You wrote:
One last point. In many recent comments at this site, there has been a note of anxiety, even paranoia, about how society will now view us, a fear that our traditional conservative beliefs may now be irredeemably tainted because this murderer claims to share them.
I don’t understand why some comments are exhibiting this behavior. You have basically already committed “thought crime” and are utterly dead to the leftist mind and to liberalism in general. Your beliefs are considered in the liberal worldview irredeemably tainted whether or not there is some bomber out there.
LA replies:
Well, there is the hope of persuading people to our point of view. And the fear is not only that such persuasion may become even harder than it already is, but that anyone holding our views may be actively suppressed or persecuted.
Ed H. writes:
You are correct..we must meet this assault head on. Our major weapon is to point out that multiculturalism has brought cultures together have been at war for 1,500 years. It is the criminal naivete and utopian escapism of the liberal left that has brought Islamic terror inside Europe and has also created the nihilsitic despair of individuals like Breivik. It is the criminal fantasy world of the psychopathic children of the Left that has created this hell and unleashed this madness.
Gerry Neal of Throne Altar Liberty writes:
Greetings Mr. Auster,
I am writing to say that I appreciated your recent posting “What may be coming, and how we should respond to it” concerning the tragedy in Norway and its implications for conservatives opposed to jihad, multiculturalism, etc. I agree wholeheartedly.
Daniel M. writes:
You havent really said anything I disagree with, but I wanted to point out one error.
“Did environmentalists shy away from their environmentalism by one iota because the murderer Theodore Kaczynski was an environmentalist? ”
That isn’t entirely accurate. Kaczynski was and is (I believe he used the term for himself) a ‘Neo-Luddite’. It dovetails at times with environmentalism, but it isn’t the same thing. Luddites are often motivated by the destruction of traditional society, so they usually have a more rightward bent. A good portion of Kaczynski’s manifesto was about the mentality of a leftist, and why neo-Luddites should never accept them as allies. So when some on the left complain when Kaczynski is mischaracterized as a “leftist environmentalist,” I think they are justified in doing so, in the same manner that we object to the media calling the Norwegian killer a “fundamentalist Christian.”
LA replies:
Thanks for the correction.
Speaking of the Kaczynski/Breivik parallel, the AP tonight reports this:
DENVER—Parts of the manifesto written by the suspect in Norway’s terrorist attacks were taken almost word for word from the writings of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. The passages copied by Anders Behring Breivik appear in the first few pages of Kaczynski’s manifesto. Breivik changed a Kaczynski screed on leftism and what he considered to be leftists’ “feelings of inferiority”—mainly by substituting the words “multiculturalism” or “cultural Marxism” for “leftism.”
Ferg writes:
You wrote:
“In many recent comments at this site, there has been a note of anxiety, even paranoia, about how society will now view us, a fear that our traditional conservative beliefs may now be irredeemably tainted because this murderer claims to share them. My answer is that we should not retreat by even one millimeter from our correct and truthful positions, most importantly that Islam is a mortal threat to the West, and that we must stop and reverse the increase of its numbers and power among us.”
It is interesting to compare our current situation to that of Winston Churchill during the 1930s. His book “The Gathering Storm” is a worthwhile read as a primer in how not to give up no matter how badly you are treated or how your views and opinions are mocked and derided. The man never retreated one inch from his warnings about Hitler and the re-arming of Germany and the folly of letting it continue un-opposed. Not from the first rise of Hitler to the fall of France in the debacle of the collapse of the war in the West. He never quit, nor should we.
July 25
Edward L. writes: If Breivik says that the earth is round, are we supposed to insist that it’s flat?
Alexis Zarkov writes:
I think that most Europeans don’t like the idea of Islam taking over their continent, and they’re starting to fight back. Breivik could be Europe’s John Brown. Some modern white historians (Toledo, DeCaro, Reynolds) paint the murdering terrorist Brown in a favorable light, almost adopting the viewpoint of black historians such as W. E. B. Du Bois. Who knows, in a hundred years Breivik could be a hero to some. He’s not. He’s a Norwegian Charles Manson in my view. There must be a European push-back against Islam, but not in the evil form represented by Breivik.
Here’s my theory regarding the Islamic penetration. Once the Islamic population in a country reaches a “critical mass,” the Muslim community becomes ever more aggressive and demanding, and gets accommodated—that buys a little peace. What’s the critical mass? Probably something like five percent of a country’s population, although for large countries, the critical mass might take the form of a number instead of a proportion. Only about 0.6 percent of the American population is Muslim (CIA World Factbook) yet we see trouble already. Once the critical mass barrier gets breached, a country enters a condition of instability. It’s like pouring sand to form a little conic-shaped mountain, or sandpile. The cone builds up smoothly, but when the pile grows high enough, the cone will suddenly collapse without warning after a few additional grains get added. I think some European countries have reached the critical stage. The immigration advocates don’t understand that the next little influx of Muslim immigrants can be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.” We can now quantify the breaking point and relate all this to social networking theory. See the book by Duncan Watts, Small Worlds. All this means the problem of Islamic immigration could be far more serious than even people like Robert Spencer think. Some countries, like Britain, could be on the verge of a major power grab by the Muslims where whole pieces of the country get surrendered to Muslim governance.
July 26
Paul T. writes:
Alexis Zarkov says of Breivik: ‘He’s a Norwegian Charles Manson in my view’. The parallel that occurred to me was with Charles Whitman, the young ex-Marine who climbed a clock tower at the U of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966 and from that height shot 48 people, 16 fatally. Gary M. Lavergne wrote a fine book about Whitman (A Sniper in the Tower), which after some 300 pages of close investigation concluded that he was just plain evil. As explanations go, it’s never been bettered. Incidentally, Whitman first killed his mother, leaving a note saying that he loved her, and Breivik reportedly wrote of his stepmother that he was very fond of her but would not mind if she were killed in a “Knights” operation.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 24, 2011 08:02 PM | Send
|