Spencer, immigration and the mental landscape

Robert Spencer has come out for ending all Muslim immigration from Muslim countries. He writes:

Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.

Lawrence Auster and VFR readers comment upon it here.

I just wrote below letter to Auster:

------

Hi Larry!

Great news about Spencer! I felt it was coming, but I didn't expect it so soon. The mental landscape has changed decisively in only the last three weeks.

1. Three weeks ago Sarkozy's adminstration reported that they: i) have ruled out legalizing illegal aliens en masse, ii) will deport 25.000 illegal aliens this year, and iii) will pay immigrants to go back home. Yes, Sarkozy is very much an enigma, and his positions on other issues makes us legitimately question if he's really on our side. But nevertheless, his position, policy and statements about immigration is hard cash, and therefore a merit that can never be taken away from him. And let us recognize that the most important aspect of these statements and policy is not what they do for France, but what they have done and will do for the whole West. Suddenly the idea of "bribing" Muslims to go back home ("bribing" as Derbyshire or anyone else who wants to distance themselves from the idea would call it), is not merely something written about at "obscure" sites such as VDARE, now it's official and effectuated policy of a completely "kosher" political administration. Deportation is now "kosher" too. The ice has been broken. Sarkozy did it. The mental landscape has changed, and from this there is no return.

2. The whole immigration bill affair, and what it has triggered. The conservative revolt against Bush and his bill. The rage of ordinary people. Laura Ingraham's indignant telling-off of Bush. Ann Coulter taking a race-conscious position on immigration. Frontpage publishing it. Tom Tancredo suggesting a moratorium on all legal immigration in the televised GOP debate. And it was only McCain that talked positively about the bill in those debates. Most of them took a clear position against illegal immigration. Etc. Etc.

Newt Gingrich suggests that "the GOP’s only hope of holding on to the White House in 2008 is to nominate a candidate who runs against Bush, just as Nicolas Sarkozy won France’s presidency by making his own president, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent." None of the GOP candidates went as far yet, even though Tom Tancredo is closest to it. Newt Gingrich, however, suggests that he's the American Sarkozy. This will be interesting. Gingrich might not be in position to win, but if he formulates his campaign in this way, he's already got an important job done, in further changing the mental landscape.

3. Finally Spencer himself. Three weeks ago, in the tumult created by Derbyshire, Spencer referred to the idea of preventing further Muslim immigration as "eminently sensible", but adding "before it can even be discussed intelligently in the public sphere, there has to be a significant increase in public awareness about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and if anything, at this point we're generally going in the opposite direction on that." But saying so out loud undermines the whole strategy which it describes. Therefore, such a thing would only be said by someone mentally preparing himself for coming out of the closet (or an idiot). With the change of the mental landscape in America the last two weeks, Spencer concluded that it was time to come out.

And I'm sure he's greatly relieved to not have you, Lawrence, nagging him anymore. So you definitely weigh in here. Still, of course, Hugh Fitzgerald made sure to distance himself from you. Nobody wants to be associated with you, even if they have the same position. But by following your blog, and seeing who you communicate with, and who comment, it's clear to me that they all listen to you. And that you manage to annoy them in a constructive way. Nobody, who wants to remain fairly respectable, wants to be associated with you. That's tough. But considering the fate met by Jesus and Socrates--two other major annoyers--you are still doing fine.

Finally I'd like to comment upon Jeff's idea of the lie detector test. You are correct in your argument against Jeff, and your defense of Spencer. But I'd just like to strengthen your argument. Imagine that there was such a lie detector test. Spencer wouldn't buy it. As he wrote:

Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.

The keyword here is "potential jihadists". A imaginary lie detector test would only be able to sort out the current jihadists. The potential jihadists are those that go for a trip back to Pakistan, come home with a full beard, and then one day suddenly shave it off, and this is the last time they ever shave... No lie detector test could sort out potential jihadists, because any peaceful Muslim could turn into a jihadist. And Spencer knows this, better than most people.

But there are still problems with Spencer's position, due to the fact that he wants to refrain from any "racism". As here when he suggests that Norwegian Lutheran immigrant wife-beaters should be deported together with the Muslims that he wants to have deported for Sharia sanctioned wife-beating. This is a shallow sort of tap dancing--due to his adherence to liberalism--which of course doesn't make sense at all. And his only argument is "I mean, who wants wife-beaters here, anyway?" It's this kind of shallow liberal irresponsibility that paves the way for veritable witch-hunts by feminist commissars and the kind.

But it's great that Spencer is a liberal, now that he has taken a clear stand against Muslim immigration. By being a liberal, he has a big audience.

Update:
After Lawrence posted the Dylan quote--in above mentioned thread--I told him that I'm not at all suggesting that he is in the same league as Jesus and Socrates, but that he is exercising the same kind of sport. And there are very few indeed who practise it. And generally they only gather a larger fan club posthumously.