Derbyshire and Separationism, again
John Derbyshire has once again dismissed separationism, displaying his sad resignation to the Islamization of the West. He displays his usual defeatist and empty arguments.
I’ve read it. As a carcass rotting in the sun is to a living (and struggling) organism, so Derbyshire is to conservatism and America.
- end of initial entry -
With one exception. The rotting carcass doesn’t congratulate itself on its sad, superior wisdom.
Paul Henri writes:
Below is my online post to Derb’s nonsense.
You are so smart; it is hard to believe you are so unwise. You can see instantly a bad poem or a logical/math error, but you cannot see that Muslims invade countries by infiltration when they cannot do so by sudden invasion. This is historical fact you could read far faster than your readers. Yet you give up. Why? You have so much talent to contribute to the defense against Muslims.
Read Ann Coulter’s book about McCarthy before dismissing him. And please don’t use some possible errors in her book to dismiss one of her theses: Affection for the Soviet Union and Chairman Mao on a massive scale, so massive we conservatives noticed that even the liberal John Lennon had to shut it down with Revolution. Now we have the brilliant Derb categorizing reasons to question the threat.
All the Best,
James P. writes:
Paul Henri advises Derbyshire to read Ann Coulter’s book on McCarthy. I did not know she had written such a book. However, knowing what I know about Coulter, I would advise anyone interested in McCarthy to read M. Stanton Evans, “Blacklisted by History” instead.
Leonard D. writes:
I posted a comment over at Taki’s on this. Although I agree with Derb that the “full package” of separationism is indeed politically impossible given our current constitution, I do not agree with him that all of it is. In particular, the policy of selecting immigrants on religion does not strike me as completely out of the question; and since this is about 90% of the separationism program, it seems to me that separation is thus a realistic goal.
Anyway, reading Derb talking about Muslim blacks got me thinking. It seems to me that there is somewhat of a salutary cultural effect of having a black minority in this case, as well as others. Black culture is despised by working white Americans. When blacks start doing something radical and new, and those doing it continue to fail, it is thus marked as being low-class (and thus delegitimized) in the eyes of the white majority. Obviously this effect is not so strong that it prevents all aspects of black culture from being adopted, in particular music. But it has arguably helped hold the line on the use of hard drugs, welfare, gang membership, and Islam.
Although I agree with Derb that the “full package” of separationism is indeed politically impossible given our current constitution …
Of course it is impossible given our current Constitution. As I have said many times, Separationism requires the abandonment of the current absolute rule of liberalism, specifically it requires a statutory or constitutional declaration that Islam is not a religion under the meaning of the First Amendment. A “conservative” or “rightist” like Derbyshire who rejects a movement to save our civilization because it can’t be put into effect at this moment, under the current absolute rule of suicidal liberalism, is not thinking. Worse, he is accepting the current absolute rule of suicidal liberalism, and doesn’t believe in trying to change it. He’s a “rightist” who doesn’t oppose liberalism. Some rightist.
Dean Ericson (previously identified at VFR as Dean E.). writes:
Here’s the comment I just left at Taki’s mag for Derbyshire’s latest useless screed:
The Prime Minister of Doom speaks:
“Give in. Give in. Always, always, always, always, in everything, great or small, large or petty, always give in, *except* to convictions of honor and good sense. Yield to force. Dither, complain, then yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
As of 10:45 a.m. Monday, there are about 25 comments following the Derbyshire article, and with two or three exceptions, they all energetically reject his argument and call for the exclusion of Muslims from the West.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 19, 2010 09:29 PM | Send
Just as with the Tea Party and the Christine O’Donnell issue, this looks like yet another split between liberal (or in this case liberal-symp) elites, and conservative base.
I call Derbyshire a liberal-symp or sympathizer (a play on Commie-symp) because he makes it so clear that he doesn’t believe in challenging the rule of liberalism and will shoot down any attempt to do so.