And on their promises of self-defense you will not hear a laugh
Concerning my December 2006 article on Daniel Pipes that I
relinked yesterday, Philip M. writes from England:
You write:
Pipes was not always so circumspect. In an article in the November 2001 issue of Commentary, entitled “The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America,” Pipes included immigration among the principal means by which “peaceful Islamism” advances itself. “To me,” he wrote, “the current wave of militant Islamic violence against the United States, however dangerous, is ultimately less consequential than the non-violent effort to transform it through immigration, natural reproduction, and conversion.” Pipes concluded the article by calling for “the immediate reform of immigration procedures to prevent a further influx of visitors or residents with any hint of Islamist ideology.”
Another great line of attack from Daniel “Crack” Pipes, which induces in the reader a sudden intense rush of euphoria and excitement as he feels that Pipes is about to defend the West against Islam, followed by a long and unpleasant “comedown” during which the user may experience feelings of irritability and disillusionment as he realises that the argument the crack-Pipes advances amounts to a restatement of the neo-con position, hidden with the clever use of the term “Islamist Ideology” (i.e. “normal” Muslims are OK).
A long spell in the VFR rehab clinic is the only known cure from this noxious substance.
LA replies:
What Philip say about Pipes is true. It’s the endless neoconservative trick by which people are made to think that some threat to our civilization is being opposed, when in reality it is not.
That’s why the term neoconservatism remains so accurate and so useful.
Neoconservatism is a liberal ideology which uses conservative-sounding words, and thus leads people to believe in the comforting illusion that there is a conservative defense of our civilization in process, and thus that no further conservative defense of civilization is needed.
Neoconservatism is a necessary adjunct to liberalism. Liberalism with its irrational, anti-civilization ideology produces severe discontent, which would be dangerous to the liberal project. Neoconservatism puts that discontent to sleep by making the discontented ones believe (falsely) that liberalism, and the threats liberalism has unleashed, are being effectively opposed by “conservatives.”
I notice that Philip finds my analysis of Pipes useful and illuminating. What this means, according to my critics in the anti-jihad movement, is that Philip is a sycophantic follower of a cult led by a thin-skinned tyrant whose writings on the Islam problem are motivated by the desire to tear down other people in order to glorify himself.
- end of initial entry -
Philip M. continues:
As I mentioned, in the quote is the weasel-worded statement that we should not allow immigration from anyone with a hint of “Islamic Ideology.” Ordinary Americans will read this as meaning “Muslims,” but, of course, he only means “extremists.” So in fact, all he is really saying is. “We should not allow terrorists into America.” Which is hardly ground breaking. It would be interesting to put the third-degree on a man like this and ask him where normal peace-loving Islam ends and where the Islamist begins, and what happens if they pretend to be peace-loving Muslims in order to get in, and what happens if they are peace loving but their children are not … it is full of holes. I suspect he knows this. Its only purpose is crowd-control….
John D. writes:
You wrote:
“Neoconservatism is a necessary adjunct to liberalism. Liberalism with its irrational, anti-civilization ideology produces severe discontent, which would be dangerous to the liberal project. Neoconservatism puts that discontent to sleep by making the discontented ones believe (falsely) that liberalism, and the threats liberalism has unleashed, are being effectively opposed by ‘conservatives’.”
I don’t believe that I’ve ever noticed you having made this particular point before, that neoconservatism actually assists in helping liberalism to continue to function. I think this is true. Liberalism must have this sort of assistance which essentially facilitates the suppression of dissent in the guise of actual dissent. Otherwise people would actually realize that they need to step up their opposition to liberalism themselves instead of thinking that it is already being opposed. [LA replies: Exactly!]
Maybe this is something that needs be considered as a fundamental foundation in defeating liberalism. I don’t yet know how it would work but it seems that if neoconservatism is indeed a structural support for liberalism, exposing this fact would start to weaken neoconservatism and in turn aid in strengthening opposition to liberalism, thus helping to destabilize and defeat it.
LA replies:
I just want to make clear that while the neocons proper represent a particularly acute form of this phenomenon, the same is also true, though less acutely, of mainstream “conservatives” generally.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Send