Steyn sees fatal threat of Moslem immigration, but …

An e-mail to Mark Steyn:

Dear Mr. Steyn,

In your article, “An Open-and-Shut Case,” in the December 8 New York Sun, you write:

[CAIR’s] chairman, Omar Ahmad, has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.” The Koran “should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” However, its supply of White House invites and presidential photo ops never seems to dry up, and its willingness to see offense everywhere is treated respectfully by the media.

Good, you see the problem of Moslems whom we have permitted en mass into this country and who are fundamentally and irremediably hostile to our society. The question I have for you is: Therefore, what? What do you propose that we do about this? Stop the Moslem immigration? Deport Moslems who are already here? Continue the Moslem immigration while calling for renewed efforts at “assimilation”? (I’m sure you understand that “assimilation” is to Moslem immigration what the “peace process” is to the Arab war against Israel.) Or just continue vaguely complaining about the problem?

However, as it turns out, you do recommend something. Your article concludes:

… A tolerant society is so reluctant to appear intolerant, it would rather tolerate intolerance.

In Holland, the late Pim Fortuyn recognized that at some point the contradiction had to be resolved. In Nigeria, Sudan and other frontiers between the ummah and the rest of the world, it already has—in favor of Shariah law and the Islamists.

It’s hard to see why the enervated West should prove any more successful at squaring the circle. However, we can at least cherish the absurdities [of the double standard that Westerners accord Moslems] on the way down.

So, you write a column about a group that in your estimation represents the death of our society if it is not stopped, and all you can suggest is that we “cherish the absurdities on the way down.” How can you see a threat like this and then just wipe your hands of it? That’s certainly not what you do regarding the terror threat from abroad. There you recommend that we engage in strong action to defend ourselves. You’ve written hundreds of columns supporting the war on Moslem enemies and terrorists in other countries. Why don’t you support a similarly decisive policy with regard to Moslem enemies in this country? Why don’t you want to do something about this?

Lawrence Auster

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 08, 2003 06:27 PM | Send

Bravo. Probably he does, but he wants to keep his career even more.

Posted by: Shrewsbury on December 8, 2003 6:45 PM

In the quotes given above, Mark Steyn proposes that the Moslem immigration problem is not only destructive to the Western World, but insolvable and, as a result, the West is “going down”. Then he proposes doing nothing about it.

I would like to ask the following question: If every Islamic-believing person were driven from the West so that absolutely none— zero — were left, would the Western World still be “going down”? Or would it turn around and go back up?

In previous posts we’ve discussed how the West is in the last stages of nihilism, as defined by the late Eastern Orthodox monk, Fr. Seraphim Rose. The characteristic of a nihilistic society is self-destruction. With Western society directing its energies toward self-destruction, isn’t it true that Western society is “going down” even without Moslems? In fact, isn’t it true that the Moslem immigration problem is a symptom of the West’s self-destruction, not the cause? Can you think of self-destructive attitudes, practices, laws, and judicial rulings that will eventually cause the demise of the West, even if there were not a single Moslem living on Earth? If so, then can the Moslem immigration problem be solved without our nihilistic society rejecting nihilism and restoring belief in the existence of absolute Truth?

Posted by: Arie Raymond on December 9, 2003 12:17 AM

I think Mr. Raymond is absolutely right. With not a single Moslem on earth, the Western societies would still be destroying themselves. But the Moslems help the Western nihilists do it a lot faster. One could think of massive incompatible immigration as the _chief material manifestation_ of a society’s nihilism. This doesn’t mean we can forget about the immigration and just concentrate on our moral ills—we don’t have the leisure for that. We must address both issues simultaneously.

Mr. Raymond’s comment is similar to what Thomas Fleming said (discussed in another thread) that instead of fighting single-sex marriage we should just concentrate on restoring Christianity. That would be great, if we weren’t facing an imminent apocalypse. We have no choice but to deal with the internal moral crisis, and the external political crisis, simultaneously.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 9, 2003 1:18 AM

He knows the solution and he would probably support public policy defending the solution. Despite not actually saying it, his clear pessimism comes through, something that I can feel sympathy towards.

Yes, the “cherish the absurdities” solution is just idiotic, but I think it evidently leads to a few conclusions: first, you have to get people to actually care about what is happening (and not only about the significant Moslem situation), and second, have them actually join the fight against the nihilistic hordes pervading our country and public policy. In America, it could happen, but it’ll be harder in Europe, I think. Mark, like myself, is not a great visionary. Despite conservative victories, destruction is everywhere.

This reminds me of an article also in Dec. 8th’s New York Sun by Alicia Colon, mentioning about youth and their exposure to the “meanstream” press. She ends on an encouraging note: “I do, on the other hand, have great faith that our youth, if given the opportunity, can still recognize the truth.” Let’s not encourage children, then, to read Mark’s article. ;-)

Posted by: Brian Olsen on December 9, 2003 1:32 AM

The Visigoths may be at the gates but only we can let them in. Only our rot will let them over run us.
Leftists, especially followers of the Frankfurt School, are a virus on our culture, turning our institutions against us and preventing a counter-attack.
Given time thier poison may well kill us. We do not act. Our elite have either been affected or incapacitated by the fear of upsetting the declining order at the cost of their positions. We are comming to fear the treatment more than the disease.
However, the carrion is not waiting for us to die. The Chinese wish to resume their roles as dominant civilization, at least over 2/3 of the Eurasian landmass.
The Islamists wish for a global Khalifaya.
If trends continue, all we can due is pick our successor. However, the future is not written.

America can still choose to purge ourselves of the poisons and traitors, and end the torrent of immigrants remaking our society. We can take up the mantle not only of superpower but of civilizational hegemon.
We are not Rome. We lack the will and culture of imperial conquest. However, we can be the Athens of a Doric league against the new Asian threats.

Posted by: Ron on December 9, 2003 1:48 AM

We sure are like Salvianus’ Rome, when he wrote:
“The Roman Empire is luxurious, but it is filled with misery. It is dying but it laughs.”

I addressed the question of conservatism and optimism (or pessimism) in a recent essay on TCS:

Posted by: Paul Cella on December 9, 2003 10:25 AM

Sometimes, “conservatives” complain about the results of the immigration policies they in fact favor. Then they say, “We can’t do anything anyway.” Steyn’s piece is in this vein. We have yet to see a change in this way of thinking.

Posted by: David on December 9, 2003 11:31 AM

While Moslem immigration is indeed a grave problem, and Moslem aliens would have been immediately deported following 9/11 by any truly healthy society, I believe that illegal Mexican immigration is (by far?) the greater threat. By sheer numbers…well, I don’t have to make the argument against that here, to this audience. But I suppose that we stand a better chance of actually doing something about the Moslems because of their brothers’ terrorism, while the Mexicans will just go on insidiously changing the culture from the inside.

Posted by: Gracián on December 9, 2003 1:36 PM

Truly, innumerable evils have compassed us about. (Ps. 40:12)

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 9, 2003 2:04 PM

The comment above is what I meant when I said earlier in the thread that we must ultimately reject our self-destructive desires and practices. Otherwise, if the Moslems don’t get us, the Mexicans will. Or the Chinese. Or the Democrats. Or the Republicans.

However, Mr. Auster is right…that the hour is so late that the battle must be waged on all fronts simultaneously.

It’s like a man told he has cancer may suddenly develop a great interest in acquiring a healthy lifestyle, something he was indifferent to before. But the cancer still has to be dealt with. Both must go together. He must build health and destroy disease simultaneously.

But our society has a specially difficult problem. What if the sick man is a nihilist and doesn’t want to live? Suppose he sides with his illness? That is the essential point that is plaguing Western society. Nihilism negates life itself. The will to live has to be there first for any action toward health to be successful.

As things stand now, there is a strange co-dependency between Moslems inside Western countries and Western society. Western society wants to be destroyed and the Moslems are more than happy to oblige. Both get what they want. A union made in hell.

Posted by: Arie Raymond on December 9, 2003 6:29 PM

If posters would make clear which previous comment they are speaking of, it will easier to follow the discussion. For example, an earlier comment in this thread refers to “the comment above.” Does the poster mean the comment that immediately proceeded his own, or some other? Also, posters should not assume that a preceding comment will remain the immediately preceding comment before their own. By the time they post, someone else may have posted a comment as well. It makes it easier all around if posters specify which comment they’re replying to.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 9, 2003 6:55 PM

Mr. Raymond writes:

“As things stand now, there is a strange co-dependency between Moslems inside Western countries and Western society. Western society wants to be destroyed and the Moslems are more than happy to oblige. Both get what they want. A union made in hell.”

It is amazing, isn’t it? A part of this is, we insist that they are basically like us and want to become exactly like us; yet they are and want to be completely different from us. We assume that they are a religion of peace and tolerance; when they want to wipe out everything in the world that is not Islam. At the same time we punish anyone who doesn’t share our illusions. If anyone speaks unwelcome truths about Moslems, he is showing “cultural condescension” or worse. The confrontation between our super liberalism and their totalitarian tribalism is truly a marriage made in hell.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 9, 2003 7:05 PM

In his post of 01:18 AM yesterday, Mr. Auster wrote,

“With not a single Moslem on earth, the Western societies would still be destroying themselves. But the Moslems help the Western nihilists do it a lot faster.”

Michelle Malkin, in a chilling column in which she all but proves that the motivation of the Beltway Snipers was Islamic Jihad, asks why some in the media tried to hush this important connection up:

I second Mr. Auster in quoting Mr. Raymond here:

“As things stand now, there is a strange co-dependency between Moslems inside Western countries and Western society. Western society wants to be destroyed and the Moslems are more than happy to oblige. Both get what they want. A union made in hell.”

Posted by: Unadorned on December 10, 2003 6:47 PM

I must admit I love Mark Steyn writing.
He is arguably the best conservative writer we have. He is still building his following.
He gives a feel he sees thru PC garbage, immigration included. If he starts going after immigration now, he runs the risk of being blacklisted prematurely.

It is entirely possible, if a bit wishful thinking on my part, he will follow Alexander Dubcek and Boris Eltzin model: a believer who raises in totalitarian system and comes to hate it secretly at the end.

American elites attitude toward immigration is a pretty totalitarian one. One has to be clever for a maximal impact.

Posted by: mik on December 11, 2003 7:53 PM

This morning’s National Post (Toronto) has an editorial, “Much ado about Sharia”, pooh-poohing the ‘blogosphere’s’ concerns about the enforcement of Sharia-based arbitral awards in Canada. I believe we started this flap here on VFR.

Posted by: paul on December 13, 2003 12:31 PM

In a blog entry in today’s edition of “Turnabout” (an entry aptly titled “The Waxing Crescent), Jim Kalb shows how natural — and perhaps inevitable — it will be for Shari’ah law, once it gains a toehold in North America, to fill the liberalism-created void where portions of our own time-honored Western system of laws used to be. Liberalism has so hollowed out certain portions of our once-vibrant bedrock legal system, sucking the life-blood out of them and leaving them the wasted wrecks of their former selves, that people will prefer not to be judged according to them any longer, once a system as yet wholly untainted by liberalism becomes available as an alternative.

Posted by: Unadorned on December 13, 2003 2:21 PM

Liberals and the ruling elite of the west absolutely deserve to have Sharia imposed upon them. Are they living in some fantasy world where they think they’ll be able to stay on top and exempt themselves from all laws as they pretty much do now - while Sharia is used to oppress the masses? Are they so intensely dedicated to destroying what remains of traditional western society that they are willing to consign themselves to destruction along with the rest of us?

The mullahs won’t be so understanding as their hand picked judges in matters like Bill Clinton’s escapades with interns, etc. Imagine what a court of mullahs would do to Ted Kennedy! I find the liberals’ support for Muslim immigration and the spread of Sharia, etc. incomprensible apart from either the “marriage made in hell” described above or a betrayal of their own people that would leave them in control somehow. (Note how Chirac is now posing as a leader in the Islamic world. Does he really believe the Muslims will keep him around once they gain sufficient strength?)

Posted by: Carl on December 13, 2003 2:53 PM

Carl writes (02:53 PM),

“Note how Chirac is now posing as a leader in the Islamic world.”

Such, of COURSE, is one of the early effects of excessive incompatible immigration into a nation which holds “tolerance” and “equal rights” in high regard, as Western nations generally do — politicians are very soon forced, by the mad scramble for every possible vote they can scrounge up which no politician may bypass, to act like the champions of the new ethno-culture. Suddenly ITS concerns begin to take center stage when it’s still a long way from anything like actual numerical dominance. All this in turn sets up a vicious cycle of pandering which has, before anyone realises what is happening, the effect of augmenting both the demographic numbers and the political power of the group — which in turn only reinforces and accelerates the original vicious cycle and introduces a whole host of additional vicious cycles.

In no time at all there is an actual ethno-cultural shift that nobody wanted or foresaw but which it is too late to undo.

This is PRECISELY one of the main reasons commentators like Lawrence Auster, Jim Kalb, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, and so many others are sounding the alarm over excessive incompatible immigration now, while there is still a little time to act before the point of no return is reached.

This is not rocket science, folks. Where are the élites? They had better understand that they must either act or they will rue the result of their inaction and, yes, their unexcelled stupidity and immorality.

Posted by: Unadorned on December 13, 2003 3:30 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):