Monday, July 28, 2008

GoV supports CAIR's mission?

Am I picking fights unnecessarily with those who are largely in agreement with me on the issue of Muslims in the West? I don't believe so, but maybe you do.

Under this GoV thread Auster pointed out that Dymphna had wrongly asserted that many Muslims are American citizens of several generations, showing that in point of fact few Muslims are American citizens of several generations. Like Auster, I had also picked up on the falsity of Dymphna's statements, and intended to respond, only to find that I had been railroaded by Mr. Auster who beat me to the punch. ;-)

Nah, as I've written before, one of the fundamental tenets of CAIR's mission -- openly announced in so many words in each and every of their articles -- in America is to empower American Muslims. And as I've questioned, rhetorically, before, how are Muslims in America to do this, and to what purpose do they seek empowerment? The answers to those questions are very obvious to my mind.

But the implications of Dymphna's statements to the effect that we cannot even discuss removing Muslims, and thus the Muslim threat, from America and the West because they are already well established third and fourth generation citizens here, when in truth they are not, are what compelled me to respond the way I did in the thread. As I said, when you boil it all down to its fundamentals, what Dymphna is basically saying is that she supports a permanent Muslim presence and empowerment of Muslims in the West; what her position means, if followed, is that while her statements are false at the moment, they will become truthful a couple of generations down the road, at which point our progeny will be in a much weaker position to deal with the Muslim threat than we in our generation are.

What is fundamentally different, then, about Dymphna's position as she stated it in the thread, and that of CAIR as they incessantly state it under every article they post at their site? Both positions lead to the very same results -- a permanent empowered Muslim presence in the West -- which is, from any truly conservative pro-Western perspective, unacceptable.


Lawrence Auster said...

Years ago following an article of mine in National Review in which I had criticized Richard John Neuhaus's position on Muslim immigration, he wrote a letter to NR in which he made the opposite initial claim from Dymphna's, but his logic led in the same direction. He did not say, like Dymphna, that there were too many established Muslims in America for us to do anything about them. Rather, he said that the Muslim population in America was much lower than the then commonly accepted figure of four to seven million, about two million, and therefore Muslim immigration was nothing to worry about and I was being an alarmist.

I replied that Neuhaus, by appealing to the lower figure as nothing to worry about, had conceded the premise that if there were indeed four to seven million Muslims in the U.S., that would be something to worry about. Yet, I continued, if we followed his policy of not preventing the further increase of Muslims in America, we would soon have the larger number of Muslims in America that he had conceded would be worrisome.

Lawrence Auster said...

And notice the constant dishonest two-step of those who oppose restrictionist immigration policies. Initially they say that immigration is no big deal, and the immigration opponents are being alarmist. But then, a few years later, they suddenly turn around, notice the huge immigration population, and declare that there's NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT! So when the disaster could have been prevented, they denied that there was any disaster coming. After the disaster has clearly occurred, they tell us we have no choice but to surrender to it. Through these changes, their one constant is to prevent any opposition to immigration.

Thus Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, one of the most brainless of the open-borders neocons, for years dismissed the very notion that Mexican immigration was something to worry about. Then a couple of years ago, he wrote that California has been so Hispanicized that the state is effectively lost forever to the Republican party. He of course did not admit that his own policy of mocking and dismissing any concerns about Hispanic immigration helped create the very disaster he was now observing and surrendering to.

The neocons' main function is to tamp down conservative opposition to the liberal agenda by persuading conservatives there are conservatives out there (the neocons) who are opposing liberalism, when in fact the neocons are facilitating the liberal agenda.

Rick Darby said...

What is wrong with Dymphna? She spends a good deal of her life at Gates of Vienna trying to raise awareness of the true nature of Islam, but like so many others, buys into at least part of the CAIR line. In effect — not intentionally, but in effect — she supports the immigration free-for-all supporters by implicitly acknowledging their trump card: "Resistance is hopeless! It's gone too far! You can't stop it now."

For the moment, Muslim penetration has not reached a critical mass. We could keep it that way by stopping any further Muslim immigration, including spouses, parents, aunts, uncles, cousin brides. By failing to, we light the fuse of the demographic bomb. Within a few years, they will have significant numbers, and we the consequences.

Terry Morris said...


I don't know. I sincerely hope Dymphna changes her tune. I'm an admirer of both she and the Baron for their work on the Islam issue. But you're right, she becomes effectively one of their agents in claiming that Muslims are too established (and empowered) in America to do anything about them now.

I do know this, Muslim footwashing rituals, Muslim self-flagellation ceremonies, Muslim "honor killings", Muslim hatred of Jews and Christians and the desire to do violence to us, all of which we're now seeing in America, do not belong in America. And I for one, irregardless of how large their numbers grow, will never cease to keep pointing that out. It's not a matter of whether we can do something about them, but of whether we will do something about them. And "realism" concerning the Islam issue is to acknowledge that we must do something about them.


Thank you for posting the link to your 1994 article. Everytime I think I've read all of your major articles on a given subject, I come to find that I haven't. A great article indeed!