October 25, 2003
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or
email address published when sending VDARE email.
John
Derbyshire Writes James Fulford On Free Verse, Blank
Immigration Policy
A Reader Is Tired Of Neoconservative-bashing;
Peter Brimelow Sympathizes.
From: Gideon Isaac
I am tired of the bashing of
neoconservatives on your site. The latest is a
review by
Paul Craig Roberts of Professor Claes G. Ryn's new
book,
America the Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest
For Empire.
Neoconservative "ideas are destroying our country"
says Professor Ryn. He adds that Neoconservatives are
really
Neo-Jacobins, and their ideas are a "recipe for
perpetual war." They have a "fantastic claim to a
monopoly on virtue.” They want to "remake America
into an empire" to "impose virtue on the world."
I see myself as a neoconservative,
and I do not advocate invading any country that is not a
threat to us, even if that country has
mass graves and
torture chambers like Iraq did. It is not
"fantastic" to say that we are closer to a monopoly
on virtue than
Saddam Hussein was, and is.
Let’s look at the last two
invasions we took part in. Afghanistan had become a
training camp for Islamist extremists from all over the
world. We found maps of
American cities in their camps.
Then came Iraq. We did not invade
because we felt more virtuous than Iraq. We invaded
because we were afraid that Saddam
would amass nuclear weapons and give them to Al
Queda. Saddam was no innocent victim. He
tried to assassinate the father of the current
President Bush, and he had used
chemical weapons at
Halabjah on his own citizens, and he used them in
the conflict with Iran. He also had at one time an
active nuclear weapons program (see the book "Saddam's
Bombmaker: The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's
Secret Weapon"
by Khidr Abd Al-Abbas Hamzah).
So should we now invade Iran? Iran
assassinates dissidents
at home and abroad. Iran military parades are
accompanied by slogans such as
"We shall crush the US under our feet." Iran has
a nuclear program. Fidel Castro visited Iran a while
back, and
told the Iranians that the American Imperialists
were very weak. (And America certainly has weaknesses,
such as
porous borders, and a relatively small fraction of
citizens who have been in the military.)
Professor Ryn even sees a reason
that neoconservatives want immigration—supposedly
because the hordes of young Mexicans pouring into the US
are a convenient source of
cannon fodder.
I've never heard even the most
enthusiastic advocate of immigration argue this. I can't
speak for other neo-conservatives, but for me, just
seeing what is happening to France with its
unprecedented demographic changes is warning enough
against unrestricted immigration.
6 to 8 million
Frenchmen are Moslem, out of a population of 62
million. The Moslem population is young and rising, and
has
3 to 4 children per woman as opposed to 1.4 children
for other non-Moslem women.
Moslem immigrants come from countries where
radical anti-Semitism is nurtured by the
media, by politicians, and by religious education.
Instead of French culture
moderating their attitudes, their attitudes
change France. Slogans such as "Death To Jews"
are routinely shouted at large scale Arab or left wing
demonstrations in Paris and other cities. And Jews, in
this case, are the canary in the coal mine—the people
who hate them tend to have other
anti-Western attitudes as well.
So, yes, let's be careful about
whom we
admit to this country, but let's not assume that
what goes on in other countries is none of our business.
It unfortunately is.
Peter
Brimelow comments:
Although we have repeatedly
said that VDARE.COM is
not a full-service webzine, and focuses only on
immigration and the National Question, some our
syndicated columnists, like Paul Craig Roberts, are
outspoken on many other issues. This is a problem for
us, because there is no doubt that the immigration
reform coalition, like all coalitions, is split on other
issues—and especially on the war. We run Gideon Isaac’s
letter in the spirit of fairness within the coalition
(and will NOT be publishing ripostes, at least on its
foreign policy aspects).
I
might add, on a personal note, that I have reason to
regard many of the neoconservative leaders as personal
friends—and even, perhaps surprisingly, as
allies on the immigration issue. Politics makes
strange bedfellows, and also adversaries.