Moslems must not become an unprincipled exception
and other Westerners, shocked by such incidents as the slaughter of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, begin to recognize the nature of the jihadist threat, there is the distinct possibility that they may treat Moslems as an unprincipled exception
to the general liberal policy of open borders. In other words, liberals and conservatives may say, “Moslems are a problem and must be excluded, we understand that now. But Moslems are a unique exception
to the general idea that all people of all cultures can assimilate into America. To prove the greatness and inclusiveness of America, we must continue our generous open-borders policy for all other groups.” Thus, in reaching the conclusion—indispensable to our saftey and freedom—that Moslems are a danger to our civilization and must be kept out and even deported, the West may end up embracing all the more fervently the mass immigration of other
non-assimilable groups, who, though not as hostile and dangerous as Moslems, would nevertheless represent the steady transformation and disappearance of our historic culture and way of life. We must not allow this to happen.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 06, 2004 07:46 PM | Send
Our real enemy isn’t half as much the Mohammedan infidel as it is the scalawag gatekeepers who let him in the door. They’re the ones who have to be made to pay a price.
I wish I believed we would ever get so far as making an unprincipled exception. Meanwhile, I am starting a petition drive urging Michael Moore to address Islamic misogyny in one of his courageous, cutting edge films.
Trying to kill two birds with one stone? :-)
Marv, LOL! How about an all-expense paid bicycle tour of Amsterdam’s new neighborhoods as a reward. I’d be most happy to contribute!
It would be tragic, indeed, if the dangers of mass immigration of Mexicans continue to be ignored by those in power, and La Raza and MEChA are able to carry out their dreams of “Reconquista”…
What do you mean, “RE-conquista”, kemosabe? It’s merely “conquista”. They never truly owned it before.
I am fascinated by the concept of the “unprincipled exception.” I would like to comment on it later after I read all the material Mr. Auster has linked.
For now I would say Muslim immigration to America presents the greatest most immediate threat to our way of life. They have been a significant presence in America for only a short time and within that period they have made tremendous advances advocating and transplanting their civilization here in relation to all other groups. Think of Grover Norquist’s indispensable help.
Essentially the Muslims are going straight to the source to gain hegemony, by attempting to infiltrate every aspect of our government and society, with seditious intent.
The Mexican Reconquista warriors are trying to flood America with Mexicans in an attempt to gain control by sheer force of numbers. A bottom up approach, very sucessful due to their geographical proximity. I think of them as the second deadly threat to our Republic.
Various other immigrant groups, again third worlders, by virtue of their enormous numbers and free reign to set up outposts of their homelands here, are clearly another long term threat. Their contribution is the further weakening of American identity.
Reform must be accross the board without exception if our culture is to survive.
On the other hand, even if an unprincipled exception were made applying to Muslims alone, a wall would have been breached—the turning-away of invaders would have left the realm of the unthinkable—and from that a principle, in place of the mere unprincipled exception, might eventually follow.
Apologies for the triple posting, my computer and I are having issues…
What Paul said is of course the hope. But we must be aware that the open-borders party will try to do what I described, that is, they will try to make terrorism and jihad the standard for immigration restriction: if immigrants do not present the danger of terrorism and jihad, then they are fine and there’s no reason to oppose their admission.
The neocons have used a similar argument in the past with regard to blacks. They would say, Hispanics are very desirable as immigrants because, unlike blacks who are surly and difficult (the neocons didn’t put it quite that plainly but it was their meaning), Hispanics are willing workers. In other words, the socially maladjusted behavior of lower class blacks now defined the bottom threshold of immigration acceptability. Any immigrant who had better conduct than a surly black, was defined as “assimilable” to the United States and therefore acceptable as an immigrant.
This is the logic of liberalism, to define the socially acceptable by some low standard, such as the absence of violence or the absence of gross incompetence, rather than by a high standard, such as the maintainance and flourishing of our civilization.
At what point is America diverse enough? Will there ever again be a halt to open boarders or has America become the rightful property of the world?
“Any immigrant who had better conduct than a surly black, was defined as “assimilable” to the United States and therefore acceptable as an immigrant.”
Americans should thank their lucky stars that they seceded from Britain before 1833 - in Trinidad & Tobago, when slavery was abolished by the Brits in 1833, the blacks wouldn’t work for pay for their former masters, and so the Brits ended up importing East Indians into the colony to do the grunt work in the plantations. (The same scenario happened also in Guyana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, South Africa, and Fiji, as well as in Dutch Surinam.) Imagine having to deal with an American South full of East Indian Hindus and Muslims, as well as restless blacks and white trash…