Another split in anti-jihad camp: Spencer criticized by his own editors for proposing end of Muslim immigration

(Posted from the road.)

Paul Nachman writes:

Wild. Ben Johnson at FrontPage Magazine reviews the new Robert Spencer book. His review includes this paragraph:

Analyzing the problem is one thing; solving it is another. Spencer’s prescriptions on what to do will rankle some and lead to his further character assassination. He is at his best when calling for the government to impose existing laws—and most gets to the point when he calls for a revival of patriotism, the self-assurance necessary to deny Islamic encroachment, white liberal guilt, and multiculturalist recriminations of the greatest nation in the history of the world. He is at his most questionable in calling on the government to “End Muslim immigration into the United States.â€�

Yet in 2002, here was Johnson writing about the “disaster” of the 1965 Immigration Act.

LA replies:

And notice that all the measures mentioned by Spencer that Johnson does support—bringing back patriotism, renewing self-confidence, etc.—add up to ZERO. As I’ve said to Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, and other Usual Suspects when they’ve made the same empty proposals: after you’ve brought back patriotism, renewed self-confidence, and rejected political correctness, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT ISLAM? They never have an answer. Their anti-jihad “movement” consists of a lot of Churchillian-sounding, furious rhetoric, signifying nothing.

Also, regarding Johnson’s 2002 article on the 1965 Immmigration Act, the article is obviously drawing on my 1990 booklet, The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, but Johnson doesn’t reference it. I guess he didn’t want anyone writing about the “tainted sources” of FrontPage Magazine.

November 30

Sara R. writes from England:

Perhaps I can venture a guess as to the way their minds work. I would imagine that the bringing back of patriotism, self-confidence etc. is for these critics a psychological first step. The thinking goes something like this: The bulwarks of society have been badly breeched over the past 50 years. It is now so full of holes that we are powerless to stop both creeping jihad and social deterioration. If more and more people in the West can renew their confidence in our history and traditions, the bulwarks will begin repair themselves, and then, it is assumed, we will (on both an individual and collective basis) have the confidence to face down the demands of Muslims both within and without our borders. I believe this is what is behind the thinking of the ‘Usual Suspects’. In spiritual/psychological terms it is a good first step. Whether or not it is enough, is unlikely.

LA replies:

I doubt that people will gain the confidence to take a meaningful stand against Islam by systematically avoiding taking a meaningful stand against Islam.

LA writes:

The topic raised in my exchange with Sara continues here.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 29, 2008 03:48 PM | Send