A new reader, Geza1, made an excellent comment in the thread Jim Kalb and Islamic perversion. I post it here with some comments of mine interspersed, bracketed and bolded:
As bad as liberalism gets (and it is quite bad right now), I would still rather live in ultra-liberal Sweden 2060 than any Muslim country for the simple reason that I would be ruled by white people instead of some Arab or Pakistani sultan. Yes, I would lose most of my identity and history as a European under the new liberal order, but I'd rather have an anemic European identity and descendants with white skin instead of being forced to worship a magical meteorite with my butt up in the air five times a day and have descendants who'd look like they belong more in National Geographic rather than Stockholm.
Yes, liberalism is built on lies and even if Islam has a concept of the transcendent why should I care if it has more truth than liberalism? I might as well convert to Scientology then because even THAT has more truth than liberalism. There is no truth behind liberalism and something that even has a inkling of truth in comparison can still be bullshit.
Most of us on this blog are in agreement that liberalism is only temporary, Islam very may well be as well. But Islam will take longer to die out and it will dilute our gene pool in the process. Any "truth" Islam offers is not worth the genetic carnage it will unload on the white West.
The Sinic civilization is interesting here, from more than one point of view. Apart from its historic longevity, it is also today the civilization that is most successfully defending itself against Islam, and effectively cracking down on Islam within their lands. But last century China went through several decades of Maoism, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. A period of truly horrid evil. But temporary. And this is how we can compare it with modern liberalism, which is also temporary. I'm sure there were Chinese Jim Kalbs, at the time, that were saying that China would be better of under Islam. But China came out of the Cultural Revolution and is strong today. Likewise will the West get out of modern liberalism. But once you have been Islamized there's no way out of it. This is yet another serious flaw in Kalb's thinking, to compare something temporary with something permanent. There's no way out of Islam, but there are many ways out of liberalism (quite as there was a way out of the Cultural Revolution for China). This alone makes any kind of "advanced liberalism" eminently more preferable than Islam.
Geza1 writes: "I would still rather live in ultra-liberal Sweden 2060 than any Muslim country". The way things are going Sweden will be a Muslim country by 2060. And according to Jim Kalb this is preferable to a scenario where immigration is stopped but modern liberalism is kept. And this is not hypothetical, because this is what already happened in Denmark. If any Western country is a secular modern liberal country, Denmark is. Denmark (maybe challenged by Holland) has always been considered the most liberal country of the West, and this has not changed. What Denmark has done is to provide for secular modern liberalism to sustain. Wait a few decades and the situation will have crystallized and Jim Kalb will be clear in his preference of Islamic Sweden before liberal Denmark.
The traditionalist conservatism of Jim Kalb is not a general tool for seeing the big picture and providing substance for a defense of European civilization. It is a specific tool for criticizing liberalism. But because of this narrow view it's bound to crumple. As I have pointed out, the worst aspect of contemporary modern liberalism is how it invites Islam into our countries, and how this will make them become Islamized during this century, if the process is not stopped. But according to the trad conservatism of Jim Kalb, liberalism cannot be criticized for this, since it is better, according to Kalb, if liberalism leads to Islam than if liberalism is able to sustain itself. Since Islam "has more of a place for natural human inclinations", retains more complex truths, and has "a theoretical place for Christian communities". And thereby Kalb's trad conservatism has collapsed completely. It is then not even useful as the specific tool it was designed to be, for criticizing liberalism. Because it doesn't see the big picture, and is overly concerned with the evils of liberalism, it misses the biggest problem in modern liberalism altogether: that it is currently leading to Islamization. This is what Lawrence Auster refers to as "consciousness that modern liberalism is so evil that anything, including Islam, would be better than it". I call it the collapse of traditionalist conservatism.