More back and forth with Conservative Swede

Now Conservative Swede has answered my earlier comment and done so in openly hostile terms. He’s mainly exercised over the fact that I supposedly said that he wants to kill all Muslims, and thus that I am playing the game of “no friends to the right.” I did not say or mean that CS wants to kill all Muslims; it was not he, but various neocon bloggers whom I mentioned in that connection, a subject I have often written about. He also objects to my characterization of his view of Islam as a “system of sexual perversion.”

So let me clarify. CS did recently describe Islam as a self-complete sexual organization of life, founded by a sexual pervert. While I felt there were original insights in his notion of how Islam keeps its followers motivated and in line through its sexual system, he presented this sexual system as the very essence of Islam. His portrait was in such lurid colors that Islam ceased to be a religion at all and became nothing but a horrible sex and power cult. Further, my experience has been that people who deny any value at all to Islam, who see it as nothing but evil and perversity, are more likely to urge the physical destruction of Islam. I did not mean to say that CS had advocated that and I should have been more clear in the way I wrote that sentence. If CS were acting as a friend, he might have asked me to clarify my phrasing, rather than assume that I was trying to say the worst about him.

The point of my distinction between Jim Kalb’s, CS’s and my “middle” position is as follows. Kalb sees islam as a religion devoted to a transcendent and absolute god and he would go along with Islam if the only choice were between Islam and advanced liberalism. CS ‘s position implicitly leads to the view that Islam is so horrible it must be destroyed (that may be a wrong inference on my part about his position but it is not an unreasonable one). My position is that Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God, but that this religion is so aggressive and so dangerous to us that we must treat it as a dangerous predator and keep it locked up.

Also, when I speak critically of the people who say we may need to destroy Islam physically, I am not denouncing such people or reading them permanently out of the debate. Therefore I was not playing the “no friends to the right” ploy when I implied that CS may have that view. To the contrary, I have frequently recognized, as in my exchange with David Yerushalmi, the possibility that some day we may be compelled to rain mass destruction on Islam for our own safety. How can that possibility be entirely dismissed, given that Islam is an apocalyptic system commanded by its god to dominate the world and destroy all who oppose it? (Let us also remember that for 30 years this country had a policy of being ready to destroy the entire USSR. on a moment’s notice if necessary.) But I’ve also said that such thoughts are extreme and un-called for in the present. At present Islam as such does not threaten us with destruction, it only threatens us because we have allowed millions of Muslims into the West. If we would simply keep Muslims out of the West, initiate a net out-migration of the ones who are already here, and confine them in their historic lands, while using selective force to destroy any Muslim regime that threatened to gain the capability to harm us, that would be enough.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 26, 2007 08:11 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):