Because of Wilders, one by one, establishment conservatives are starting to “get” Islam
It needed a prominent, appealing individual to embody and speak the truth about Islam, and this has made it possible for mainstream conservatives to start to speak it as well, if still very tentatively.
From Powerline:
Is Wilders wrong? Roger Simon’s take
March 11, 2010 Posted by Paul at 11:49 AM
Our friend Roger Simon examines the criticism leveled against Geert Wilders by Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer, which I addressed here and here. Roger agrees with my pro-Wilders take. He believes that Wilders makes us uncomfortable because “if Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.”
Wilders also makes many conservatives uncomfortable because, as Roger notes, he called for banning the Koran in Holland the way Mein Kampf is restricted in that country, to scholars in libraries—a step I oppose. Wilders has said he never really wanted a true banning and that he made his call to give publicity to this issue in his country.
If so, this was a misguided way to go about generating publicity. But it doesn’t seriously detract from Roger’s conclusion that Wilders “is a highly intelligent man on the front lines of the struggle for a secular and free Europe and should not be dismissed—or misunderstood.”
[end of Powerline entry]
Simon: “if Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.”
Notice the way Simon puts this. He doesn’t say, as Daniel Pipes has said, that “if one sees Islam as irredeemably evil … it leaves one with zero policy options,” and that therefore we must pretend to ourselves that Islam is different from “Islamism” and that “moderate” Islam is the solution to “radical” Islamism. No. Simon is saying that if we see that Islam itself is the problem, “then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.” Instead of deliberately avoiding the reality of Islam, as Pipes does, Simon is looking at it, or at least is showing a willingness to look at it. And it is only through such a willingness to look at the reality of Islam, no matter how disturbing it may be, that a true solution can be found.
Here is the full Pipes quote, which I discussed in my 2005 article, “The Search for Moderate Islam.” Pipes said:
[I]f one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next? This approach turns all Muslims—even moderates fleeing the horrors of militant Islam—into eternal enemies. And it leaves one with zero policy options. My approach has the benefit of offering a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.
Right. Believing in a total fantasy that denies Islam’s unchangeable doctrines and 1,400 years of Islamic history is the way to build a realistic policy toward Islam.
(For those who want to read the entire article, “The Search for Moderate Islam,” it begins here.)
* * *
On another point raised in the Powerline entry, I agree with Paul about Wilders’s idea of banning the Koran. As I said before, it was never a serious proposal. It was part of his ongoing attempt to articulate the nature and the threat of Islam. Unfortunately, it did put off a lot of people, so, overall, it was a mistake.
- end of initial entry -
John Dempsey writes:
You wrote:
On another point raised in the Powerline entry, I agree with Paul about Wilders’s idea of banning the Koran. As I said before, it was never a serious proposal. It was part of his ongoing attempt to articulate the nature and the threat of Islam. Unfortunately, it did put off a lot of people, so, overall, it was a mistake.
When an untruth, such as “Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists” is pronounced repeatedly by the President of the United States and all other world’s leaders, the media, pundits, Protestant pastors and Catholic priests alike, and even the Pope himself, it eventually becomes accepted as truth, as in this case. How would one fight a falsehood like this without going to extremes like Wilders did in advocating a ban on the Koran? How else do you get people to stand up, take notice and start to think clearly about something that is so embedded as truth, but is really a lie? I think that Wilders had to do this to bring people to the realization that Islam’s doctrine in itself is so fundamentally egregious that it poses an existential threat to the Netherlands. Even if people were put off at first, I think it took this over-the-top idea to simply get them to take notice. And as they take notice, there is no other option but to “get” Islam, particularly if they are to appeal to its evil doctrine. Sometimes you need a two by four.
LA replies:
This is an excellent point, very true.
Vivek G. writes:
Wilders is an intelligent man (also politician) on many counts.
1. He understands and perceives the Islam problem quite correctly. No Islamism, Islamofascism type of terminology, and an absence of the resulting confusion.
2. He articulates the dangers posed by Islam reasonably well. In my opinion, the dangers of Islam can never be over-stated, and Wilders does not mince words or understate the dangers.
However, in my opinion, his unique selling point, is that:
3. He is talking about taking action towards a solution.
There are many who vaguely understand the Islam problem, and implicitly if not explicitly blame Islam. So, shall I say, not too many points to Wilders on that:-). Similarly there are quite a few who talk about the dangers posed by Islam. So one might say “well done Mr. Wilders,” and then stop at that. But think of “taking concrete steps,” and none (especially amongst politicians) is to seen. Larry Auster, Hesperado and the like (there are very very few such likes indeed) have proposed their solutions in the form of Separationism and the Iron Veil, but these folks are not active politicians. In that sense Wilders stands tall and alone. I fervently hope that he won’t be alone for long.
By the way, my personal take on Islam has always been more radical and extreme compared to even David Yerushalmi of SANE. :-) But we do need to make a beginning somewhere, and Wilders is good, pretty good.
* * *
UPDATE, 11 p.m.:
Below is Roger Simon’s column. On the issue of interest to us here, Simon’s substantive view of Islam, the article shows the intellectual dilemma in which Simon now finds himself. On one hand, by agreeing with Paul Mirengoff that Islam, as set forth in the Koran, “commands Muslims to exercise jihad … to establish shariah law [and] … to impose Islam on the entire world,” he is opening himself to the truth about Islam, as I indicated before. On the other hand, he also says (a) that he fears that truth, (b) that he doesn’t want to face that truth because he would find the results too depressing, and (c) that if the truth about Islam is what he fears it is, then the only solution, other than something akin to a “global armageddon,” is an “Islamic reformation.” Thus, even as Simon agrees with Mirengoff that Islam commands Muslims to exercise jihad, establish shariah, and impose Islam on the entire world, he imagines that Islam can be “reformed,” meaning that it can turn itself into the opposite of itself and still be Islam.
The thinking process of all Islam-aware mainstream conservatives without exception is limited to these two sterile options when it comes to what to do about Islam: destroy the Islamic world and kill hundreds of millions of Muslims, which of course is out of the question; or hope that the Muslims reform themselves, which can be no more than a hope, since we cannot make it happen, and in any case it’s inherently impossible. Nevertheless, since killing a fifth of humanity is out of the question, hoping that Islam reforms itself is the only acceptable option. But since Islam will not reform itself, and since Islam commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world, Simon’s seeing the truth about Islam leads him to the realization (unstated by him, but I think it’s why he’s depressed), that our destiny is to be taken over by Islam.
Such is the intellectual incoherence and practical helplessness vis a vis Islam that people remain in, so long as the possibility of rationally discriminating against Muslims and removing them from the West has not occurred to them. I lay out such a program here. See also the collection of my writings on What to do about Islam.
Here is Simon’s column, with the brief section dealing with his substantive view of Islam in bold
March 10th, 2010 10:18 pm
Beck, Krauthammer and the Geert Wilders perplex
Geert Wilders—the sometimes-libertarian Dutch politician currently on trial for “hate speech” in his country—has become a kind of Rorschach test for right-of-center American pundits. He has recently been under attack by Glenn Beck, who seems to have called him a fascist, and by Charles Krauthammer, who, while more judicious, claims Wilders does not understand, or misconstrues, the difference between Islam and Islamism (and is therefore not worthy of our support).
Beck’s criticism of Wilders is pretty dismissible since the populist TV commentator does not appear particularly versed in European affairs. Indeed, in the video linked at his name, Beck erroneously identifies French politician Dominique de Villepin as “far right” and then mispronounces his name—in fingers down a blackboard fashion—as if he had confused the Chirac protégé with the truly fascist Jean Marie le Pen. Maybe he had. Only his producers, who have served him poorly here, know for sure. And maybe even they don’t, which is the problem. (Beck should also have another look at Jonah Goldberg’s book and at Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom before he makes such simplistic conclusions about fascism, the left and the right across the pond.)
I could go on about how the American Right ought to become sophisticated about international affairs (not that the American Left is!), but I will pass on to Charles Krauthammer, a man many of us—myself included—regard as the sine qua non of conservative columnists. He too seeks to distance himself from Wilders:
What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it’s simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline responds:
The words “radical” and “extreme” connote the relationship between Wilders’ view and mainstream thinking (in this they differ from the word “fascist,” which connotes a specific ideology). In the politically correct West of today, I believe it is fair to characterize Wilders as radical and extreme.
But is Wilders wrong? Krauthammer says he is because the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. and Europe are not Islamists. Wilders does not deny this. As he said last week in London:
The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Wilders is making a theological point here—his contention is that Islam, as set forth in the teachings of the Koran, “commands Muslims to exercise jihad … to establish shariah law [and] … to impose Islam on the entire world.” I’m no scholar of Islam, but I believe Wilders is correct. To show otherwise, one would have to explain away portions of the Koran. It is not enough just to call Wilders’ interpretation of that book “narrow.”
If you agree with Mirengoff,—and I do—it is important to support Wilders in his trial, if only as a supporter of fundamental free speech. The ACLU—if it existed in any honest fashion—would be behind the Dutchman in a heartbeat. Such support would seem to be obvious and an easy choice for a man like Krauthammer. So why his unease with Wilders?
I know how presumptuous (and dangerous) it is to psychoanalyze a psychoanalyst (well, psychiatrist) like Charles Krauthammer, but I am going to risk it. I suspect the columnist gave voice to those opinions of Wilders not because he thinks the Dutch politician is “extreme,” but because he is afraid the Dutch politician is right. Call it projection, but I believe this because I have the exact same fear. I think many of us do and we don’t want to face it. Who would? The resultant conclusions are too depressing.
If Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed. And nothing short of an Islamic reformation will solve it. (Well, there is something else, but it’s pretty close to global Armageddon and who wants to deal with that?) Wilders—living much closer to the fault line in Amsterdam, the city of Theo Van Gogh’s and Pim Fortuyn’s murders, than we do in Washington or L. A.—feels the confrontation in a more visceral manner on a daily basis. Indeed, much of the Dutch public seems to as well, since, according to a recent Reuters report, Wilders’ Freedom Party leads the pack in their forthcoming parliamentary elections, leaving Wilders with the bizarre possibility of being elected Prime Minister while being convicted of “hate speech.” All this in the country we most identify with the values of the Sixties. Go figure. (Well, maybe that’s actually why.)
Much of the condemnation of Wilders—and an issue that disturbed me—comes from his supposedly calling for the Koran to be banned in Holland the way Mein Kampf is restricted in that country (to scholars in libraries). He reasoned that the Islamic holy book contained the same kind of racial incitement as Hitler’s apologia; therefore, it should have the same treatment. Well, that could be, but the problem for Westerners, especially Americans, is the whole book banning thing. Wilders, however, insists that he never really wanted a true banning and that his call was to give publicity to this issue in his country.
He discusses this in more detail than I have seen elsewhere in an interesting interview with Bill Whittle for PJTV. I also asked Wilders about the banning personally when I met him at a social gathering in Los Angeles, where he said substantially the same thing.
Unfortunately, the important issues at play here may not be surfaced in his forthcoming trial, because the judges have seriously restricted the number of witnesses. They seem to want the case to go away. Perhaps they too, like Krauthammer, are terrified that Wilders is right.
Okay, I am putting words in the columnist’s mouth—or fears in his unconscious. I apologize. I already admitted I am projecting. But whatever the case, attention must be paid to Geert Wilders. He is a highly intelligent man on the front lines of the struggle for a secular and free Europe and should not be dismissed—or misunderstood.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 11, 2010 02:04 PM | Send