Replies

This article was published at FrontPage Magazine at about 3 a.m. Eastern time this morning, and then, sometime between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m., was removed by David Horowitz without notice to me that he was doing so. I only found out that the article was missing because, after I had posted the link to the article at VFR, several VFR readers told me the article was gone. I wrote to Mr. Horowitz's editors asking them what had happened. Not hearing back from them, I wrote to Mr. Horowitz himself, before he told me what had happened. He felt the article said nothing new on the subject and was too hostile to Moslems, so he decided to pull it.

First, there is nothing critical about Moslems in this article beyond things that I have previously published at FrontPage. Second, the article is not primarily about Moslems but about the West's response, or rather lack of response, to them. I therefore find the notion that there is nothing new or worthwhile in the article troubling. I argue that the West, faced with the challenge of growing unassimilable and jihadist Moslem populations in its midst, is in effect limiting itself to just two responses: the liberals' response, which is to retreat from the Moslems (as many Dutch are now doing by emigrating from the Netherlands); and the conservatives' response, which is point out the serious threat Western Moslems pose to us (which convinces the conservative grassroots that the conservative elites are on top of the issue), but then to propose doing nothing about this threat except to call for yet further efforts at "assimilating" the Moslems. Of course, any real assimilation is impossible, given the fact that the Western nations have culturally and spiritually cancelled themselves out of existence (so that there is nothing for Moslems to assimilate themselves into, even if they wanted to), while the Moslems are on fire with their own religion and culture. No one in any influential position in the West is calling for the cessation of Moslem immigration into the West and the removal of jihad-supporting Moslems from the West.

Here is the article, in exactly the form in which it was published this morning at FrontPage:

Thanks for posting this article, rmlew. Auster is truly one of the most under-appreciated conservative writers around. While there are those who like to label him a Paleo, he's no Buchananite, but one who fully supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation - and has been interviewed on an Israeli nationalist radio program. He nailed Buchanan over his anti-Israel screed penned in the wake of the Passover terror attacks.

Auster, Bat Yeor, and Srdja Trifkovic are some of the lonely voices crying in the desert telling us the truth about Islam and what its plans are for the west, including the United States - which are the same now as they were 1400 years ago. Even Ariel Sharon seems to have bought in to the whole liberal mythology about Islam's "moderate" nature, sadly. Liberalism is incapable of meeting this threat, whether in the unvarnished leftism offered by John Kerry or the form masking itself as conservatism under George W. Bush and his Neo-Jacobin corporatist allies.

"As I wrote at FrontPage last May, even the most hard-boiled thinkers among us think that our domestic safety rests on the assimilation of U.S. Muslims, and security measures against terrorism. Three and a half years after 9/11, the West still sleeps, managing the jihad threat instead of doing something about it. And the West will continue to sleep, so long as it refuses to renounce the liberal belief that the highest values of our society are tolerance and inclusion, the liberal belief that all differences can be settled by reasoned discourse, the liberal belief that we must strive forever to find common ground with people who are irreconcilably different from us. So long as liberalism with its non-discriminatory embrace of the Other remains the core of Western identity, the West will be unable to know itself, to value itself, and to defend itself. And the Muslim conquest of the West will continue."

The author hit the nail on the head, right on the money!