Why Dymphna Is Seriously Mistaken

My previous post was about the Gates of Vienna co-blogger Dymphna, who accepted immigrant Hirsi Ali's comments on the cliched (and self-serving) view that America is an "idea."

It could be that Dymphna just went along with this because she likes Ali, since she starts her post praising Ali and her: "[I]ncisive intelligence [and] her willingness to take politically incorrect positions."

She should read Ali's interview carefully, since there are parts where Ali is tediously conventional and at times incoherent, especially when she critiques Christianity and when she vacillates between radical and moderate Islam.

I won't go into the interview, since I have discussed Ali's mixed messages several times on both this blog and at Camera Lucida. Rather, I would just like to mention Dymphna's (and I assume her co-blogger Baron Bodissey 's) error.

If America is just an idea, devoid of a culture, a history and a specific ethnic people which built and developed it into the America even Ali can identify (she differentiates it easily from France, for example), here is the problem. How can Dymphna and Bodissey believe in Muslims’ peculiarities of religion and culture – which they report daily on their anti-jiahd blog - if they accept that America is none of that, and is merely an abstract idea? Why one set of criteria for Muslims, and another for America? Muslims themselves have rejected that America is cultureless or a mere idea. They must believe in the concreteness of America’s people, religion culture and certainly ethnicity, since they are working so hard to be rid of it.

In a strange way, Dymphna is behaving like the Muslims she daily denounces on her anti-jihad blog. While Muslims want everyone to be Muslim by hook or by crook (often by crook), she also has no qualms about anyone (everyone) being American through immigration. Dymphna’s abstract and idea-based America open to all is a mirror image of the universalist, yet religion-specific, violent ummah of Islam.

There's nothing wrong with bad ideas as long as they don't see the light of day. But Dymphna's convoluted views are commonly held, and their devastating consequence is that they will allow more of these Muslims (like any other immigrants) to enter this "idea-based" America through the generous and open immigration system. These Muslims will then escalate their activity of destroying America they have assessed as being very particular and certainly not an idea (nor Muslim), and engulfing it into their Islamic ummah. The happy universalism that Dymphna may have envisioned then turns rapidly into the Islamic purgatory she never expected.

More Proof that Conservatives Are Out to Lunch

Dymphna of the Gates of Vienna, who was one of the conservatives whose whereabouts I inquired about here, has given me - only a few days later - more reason (proof) for my concern. She has posted an interview Ayan Hirsi Ali recently had with the LA Times, and added her own commentary. It is an astonishing revelation by one of the most prominent anti-jihad conservative bloggers. There is nothing conservative about what Dymphna has written. Here a quote from Ali's interview that merited Dymphna 's commentary.

Ali, who is eligible for American citizenship in three years says:

America has the advantage that when you become a citizen, you pledge loyalty to a Constitution that’s about ideas and not about ethnicity. Because of that, Americans do not feel shy about teaching new Americans why citizenship is important, why patriotism is important, pride about the Founding Fathers. That’s an easier sell than taking pride in the history of France, for instance.

To which Dymphna adds:

Heh. Another Francophobe here.

That's it. A foreign ex-Muslim comes to her country, derides her country's history and culture, and reduces it to an abstract concept, and all Dymphna could do was agree with a chuckle.

In my recent trip to NYC, and even in my travels across New York State and Pennsylvania, I was struck by the uniqueness of what I saw. Nothing like NYC could grow out of a Canadian culture, try as people might with Toronto. All the farmlands at the bottom of hills and forests are so uniquely American (and admittedly Canadian – there are still a lot of resemblances between these two countries), with their distinct red barns, the tall round silos, and the carefully cultivated very large farms which are like comforting oases in valleys below the giant mountains. But the difference in size is still tremendous between Canada and the U.S., and the farmlands are a testament to this (and of course the NYC monoliths). Even the mountains are bigger!

I find it astonishing that immigrants to the U.S., and of course here in Canada, keep stressing - self-servingly, I am now sure - that there is no "culture" here, that everything is a blank slate up for grabs by anyone who crosses the shores.

I'm surprised that someone like Dymphna fell for this. But, wasn't that my point all along?

Better To Put Conservatives To Task; Someone Has To Wake Them Up

Kevin Michael Grace talked about "my country (Canada)" in his email to me and in his Vdare article. Yet, he brought no insights, merely predictions of doom, for his country after his two-year absence. I will continue to wait with anticipation what Grace offers to the discussion - what else can he say after this? I hope something better.

I think Grace's presence has been an important one in Canadian blogging and alternate news. I have always respected his views. I've emailed him twice, once on general immigration and multiculturalism issues, another time to wish him well on his apparent illness. I never got any response from him for either correspondence.

It's interesting that he should email me this time in response to my post on the whereabouts of conservatives, and not to any email I sent. But, I don't think it was really to communicate with me, but rather to set his name straight - that he is not a nihilist but merely a pessimist. I believe that if this post had been left on my blog, he wouldn't have bothered to respond; it was instead linked at a popular conservative website that he clearly reads.

He hasn't responded to my long (third) email explaining my conclusions on the absence of conservatives, which I sent directly to him as well as publishing it on my blog. I genuinely thought he would respond. The issues are important, and I think my concerns are legitimate.

I have declared that no Canadian conservative (of any ilk) is bothering about multiculturalism and immigration these days. Grace was one of the few. William Gairdner was another, but he stopped his media presence soon after his book The Trouble with Canada came out in the early 1990s.

In fact, I have stated that Grace himself has reneged on that position, preferring to attach himself to a pessimistic, and what I ultimately do call a nihilistic, view that it is self-censorship which is the culprit and that it will have the last word. Here is his definitive quote from his Vdare article last month:

Self-censorship has become a defining Canadian characteristic. Despite Hadjis’s brave decision [KPA: Hadjis was the HRC judge who deemed Section 13 unconstitutional during the Lemire case. But he is not brave, merely opportunistic. Too many scandalous events had occurred during the case, and Hadjis simply had to find a way to dismiss it], it is unlikely we will see a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend any time soon.

This is more than pessimistic, this is borderline nihilistic.

So, this is how things progress here. Even the most outspoken and original thinker in the country – yes that is a big honor – capitulates at some point. The only rebuttal to my critique Grace had was to send me an article on “libertarian-extreme,” to show that he had no inclinations towards libertarianism, which was one of my other critiques of him in my blog post. But anyone can find fault with the Madonnas and the Dennis Rodmans, and most of Grace's article was about the extreme (libertarian) behaviors of celebrities.

In a blog post I drafted more than a year ago (July 31, 2008) but never posted, which I titled “Purging the Blogs,” this is what I wrote about Grace:

[Removing my link to] The Ambler:

This was one of the best Canadian blogs around. Kevin Michael Grace would have an array of topics from film reviews to mordant political commentary. I thought he was dead-on with his assessment of the Conrad Black case. But, he had written earlier that he was recovering from an illness. Then it looked like he did recover. Nonetheless, his sparse posts, and his last terribly distressing one, has led me to conclude that he has somehow given up on us, his readers and fellow-citizens. We needed people like him to see through the foggy world of multiculturalism and political correctness.

The Ambler hasn't posted anything since March 2008. If he resumes, and posts on a regular basis, I will reinstall his blog link.

I cannot find (or thankfully remember) this "last terribly distressing" post; many of Grace's articles are no longer available at his website. But perhaps my intuition on his mood and mindset was correct after all, even as far back as July 2008.

Will Kevin Michael Grace Go Back To His Roots?

Yesterday I posted my letter to Kevin Michael Grace, after he responded to my blog post on disappearing conservatives. I asked where all the conservatives had gone (including him).

His response was to send me an article he wrote in 2004 for Reason. It is well worth reading this article, since it captures the absurdities of "freedom" which our society espouses. I neglected to provide the link to that article in my copy of the email for my blog post, so here it is.

But, that was five years ago, and people can change quite a bit in five years . And many libertarians love to write about what unrestrained freedom does to people, which is what Grace has done in Reason. Madonna and Dennis Rodman are certainly not ordinary - in fact they're pretty crazy. We can all (liberals, conservatives and libertarians) have a lot of fun mocking them.

An article five years ago about extreme individuals abusing the freedoms of society doesn't necessarily make one a non-libertarian. Here is a much more succinct and realistic critique of libertarianism that commentator Ferg made at the View From the Right:

True there are individual exceptions to this, but the large majority of people who identify themselves as conservative do not really WANT to give up their rent-a-spouse easy divorces, their we can not have a baby NOW abortions, their government bailouts, their abdicate parenting leave it to the professionals mind set, their religion is not literal faith, their easy credit and two income families, their sexually liberated women, their dump the old people on the nursing homes and let the professionals deal with their infirmities attitude, their self fulfillment dreams, etc. etc. etc. Expecting conservatives to be better than liberals on these things is like expecting one group of fifteenth century Venetian noblemen to be better, more honest and more moral than any other group of fifteenth century Venetian noblemen. Not going to happen. Hence, the dodge into libertarianism. Timothy Leary is alive and well, and harder to kill than Ozzie and Harriet. Indeed, Ozzie and Harriet have become objects of derision today, while Leary is just someone who went a bit too far. People today, even conservatives, do not believe in original sin. But we are all fallen, and that is why society is supposed to be structured to contain our fallen natures, not glory in them Beware of what you celebrate, for what you celebrate you encourage.

After a prolonged absence from his website and other media, Grace's "comeback" article at Vdare is also a disappointment. I have already critiqued that article, but I will repeat my qualms more succinctly .

- Grace doesn't take seriously the multicultural/immigration link to the Human Rights Commissions and the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, he claims that there is no connection at all. Yet the two most notorious HRCs cases directly involved immigrants and Canada’s multiculturalism, where Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were brought to the HRCs by offended Muslims.

- Grace emphasized the censorship aspect of the HRCs and the CHRA, which is in effect saying that they curtail free speech. This is the line that Levant, now a proven libertarian, has taken all along. When I challenged Levant via my blog posts about this, I have received no comment so far. When I tried to ask him a related question at an open meeting he held, he clearly avoided my question.

- At a time when huge societal changes are taking place, and especially on the Muslim front, I was surprised that Grace's article at Vdare never discussed those issues. In fact, he dismissed them by saying:

Canada may have the highest immigration rate in the world, but this is not an issue. Canada’s major cities may have been turned into simulacrums of the Third World, but this is not an issue. Quebec is the tail that wags the Canadian dog, but this is not an issue. There is little left of what we used to be, and what little that exists steadily disappears, but this is not an issue, either.

Self-censorship has become a defining Canadian characteristic.

He clearly means in the context of the HRCs and the CHRA. But, I have argued against that perspective here, and have been writing about it throughout my reports on Levant and the HRCS. I have stressed that high immigration and Canada's multiculturalism do indeed have a lot to do with these institutions and policies.

Until Grace starts addressing these pressing issues once again, like he used to, I will continue to question his core beliefs. But, I would rather he returned to his previous hard-line perspectives and write the kind of incisive articles he does so well.

Are the Human Rights Commissions and the Canadian Human Rights Acts Only About Censorship?

Kevin Michael Grace, host of The Ambler and writer at Vdare has sent me an email about linking him with libertariansim. I have posted both his email and my response to him.

Here is his email:

Dear Ms. Asrat:

I don't know where you got the idea I am a libertarian, paleo or otherwise. See this. I may be a pessimist, but I am not a nihilist; the biggest influence on my political and social thinking is Hilaire Belloc. As for immigration to my country (Canada), my position is: end it. I see no need for Canada to take in more than, say, 5,000 immigrants a year for the foreseeable future. As for Muslim immigration, my position is: none, ever.

Cordially,

Kevin Michael Grace

Here is my long response:

Dear Mr. Grace,

Thank you for your email. It has always been a pleasure reading your articles, and I am glad to see that your website is up.

As I wrote in my blog post, I am observing a trend (seeing and sensing, as I've put it), so some of my thoughts are some kind of intuitive analysis of what I see happening.

I do apologize if I singled you out incorrectly, or unfairly, but this is how I see what's happening. After a prolonged absence, your first article - your comeback article, if I may say so - was on the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commissions. I have written about your article in this post. Surprisingly, I found that your concern over the HRCs and the CHRA was not to disclose their positions on non-discrimination, but to talk about their attempts at censorship - or as you say "self-censorship."

I make a case in my post that the primary objective of the CHRA and the HRCs is to prevent non-discrimination, perceived or real, toward groups ranging from homosexuals to feminists, with minority groups filling in the gaps. This self-censorship which you talk about is a consequence of this coercion by non-mainstream groups who are sabotaging long-held beliefs and behaviors to favor their way of life.

Most Canadians do discriminate. I will wager that in the safety of their private homes many will not self-censor. But, public life is often harsher, and people have to toe the line if they want to prevent hassles, including getting sued or losing their jobs.

With increasing liberalism (in the case of homosexuals and feminists), and mass immigration of visible minorities, chances for getting into trouble (i.e. doing something that will be construed as racism or discriminatory), has resulted with a culture of fear. People will say as little as possible about contentious issues in public.

I was surprised, therefore that your argument against the HRCs and the CHRA was that they were a secret plan to "kill politics." I think they were partly a result of immigration (or admittance of non-traditional peoples) and their fears of discrimination. It was the blacks and Jews who influenced the formation of the CHRA in the first place. But, this is of course maintained by liberal ideas and politics.

So, rather than talk about these societal changes, and the historical reasons for the formation of the HRCs and the CHRA, and what fuels them these days which includes high immigration levels, it seems that you preferred to talk about self-censorship as the overriding factor. As I said before, this self-censorship came out of a specific historical and social context. It seems your concern relates to the narrow focus of individual freedoms (of speech, of expression etc.) that libertarians hold dear, rather than to the broader social issues that conservatives try to address, which certainly also includes free speech and expression as part of the whole picture.

That is why I implied that you might have libertarian inclinations.

Sincerely,

Kidist Paulos Asrat

Why People Slide Ever Closer Towards Libertarianism

My previous post titled "Where have all the conservatives gone?" has been linked at View From the Right. An interesting discussion has ensued on libertarians and libertarianism. Commentator Ferg has sent a great post about what most people are not ready to relinquish, which slides them ever closer towards libertarianism.

Where Have All the Conservatives Gone?

There is a strange trend I'm seeing (and sensing) all over the media - whether it is with informal bloggers or more seasoned writers. People are turning to some form of libertarianism.

Here are a few examples:

Kathy Shaidle who now blogs at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog, had a post up describing her political position as "Libertarian for myself, but conservative for everyone else."

Dymphna, of Gates of Vienna, has written that she and her co-blogger husband Baron Bodissey avoid using the label "Republican" to describe their political leanings, but adds that libertarian might be a better fit for them.

Ezra Levant, who clearly is not a liberal and most likely supports Harper's Conservative Party, shows signs that he is a libertarian at heart, especially with his profile at his Facebook site. His official website mentions no such affiliation.

Kevin Michael Grace who hosts the website The Ambler, who at one time was writing sharp articles on immigration (he was definitely against it, and it seemed for cultural reasons), appears these days to be a libertarian - of the paleo sort.

Although Peter Brimelow, of Vdare, has never come out directly and said what his political position is, I have come to the conclusion that he also is a paleo-libertarian.

And here is the vanishing, and magically reappearing, libertarian stance of Ilana Mercer, who’s not really indecisive , but instead has never really left libertarianism (read the page headings). Once one's caught the libertarian bug, it is there to stay.

Taki Magazine's Taki himself, whose online magazine is an alterative to the liberal media, has declared that he doesn't want his writers to use the word "conservative." He apparently endorsed Ron Paul in the last elections, so this founder of the magazine The American Conservative is most likely another (paleo) libertarian.

The editors and directors of the International Free Press Society often write articles emphasizing loss of freedom rather than loss of culture. Even the Mohammed cartoon debates focussed on the freedoms that Muslims are curtailing rather than the cultures they’re destroying.

There seems to be a distancing from conservatism amongst the intellectual elites. Perhaps a comprehensive conservative outlook is difficult to embrace. For example, it is far easier for Levant to focus his energy on dismantling the body that is limiting his free speech - the Human Rights Commissions - rather than addressing the phenomenon holistically and looking at the underlying causes and problems. "Then what?" becomes the million dollar question. Unpleasant truths and harsh measures start to rear their ugly heads.

I think what these writers and leaders are afraid of is the looming responsibility they would have if they took on conservatism as a whole, rather than in small segments - and their own favorite segments, at that, which usually have to do with some freedom or other.

Vdare writers can go on about immigration, yet they seem reluctant to walk the walk (unlike Numbers USA) to direct their protests into action. Levant, by just addressing the Human Rights Commissions is in effect saying "Après moi, le déluge; I’ve done my bit, the rest is too hard." Grace has simply become more nihilistic and pessimistic over time.

I think the solution is not to be overwhelmed, and not to cut up the problem into small pieces, which then often become unrelated when left in their truncated sections. A holistic, all-inclusive approach is really the best. And if that becomes overwhelming for individuals, then they should form groups of people who can contribute to different areas.

Perhaps I’m being too optimistic. Perhaps none of those I mentioned above is willing to pick up the torch of conservatism. I still don’t know why conservatism is so maligned. It reminds me of non-Christians who feel they would be oppressed if they became Christian – that they would lose all their freedom. Paradoxically, the opposite is true. And, it is the same with conservatism.

Conservatives have become (should become) the avant-garde of our time, the front-line warriors. It takes courage, vision and a certain humility to be a conservative. All those chattering writers, who think they’re so brave taking on the "liberal media" have barely scraped the surface of what needs to be done, and not only that, they are also clearly unwilling to do anything but write (i.e. complain). Thus, being a self-serving libertarian is much easier than being a society-rescuing conservative.

Recent Events

I have posted a link to my postings on free speech, including Westergaard's presentations in New York and Princeton, on the side bar under "Recent Events."

Muslims' Organic Growth

It is a treat to be around more-or-less like-minded people. It often allows one to develop ideas and thoughts without negative and critical opposition, which usually cut off such thoughts and ideas at their bud.

One of the conversations I got into during my brief stay in New York was when I was describing the purpose of Our Changing Landscape. The blog started out, as I have previously written, as the surprised recordings of the changes I was seeing around me. As I was explaining the evolution of this blog, another revelation of the Muslims' strategy came to mind.

Muslims are changing things very organically. I don't think there is a centralized bureau planning a change here and a change there. The whole transformation of the societies Muslims are taking over is done with pushes forward and pulling back when gone too far, and a tentative reach there followed by a more decisive move. Stealth (jihad, sharia) is a popular word these days describing Muslims' activities. Stealth implies a certain strategy, a certain planning of events. I think Muslims are much less strategic than we think, and are simply pushing themselves into hostile environments, slowly encroaching into those territories for final takeover. This could take a few years or a few decades. That is why I think "organic" better describes their movement.

Muslims continuously test our resistance. When it is too strong, they wait for another opportune moment to introduce their change, often with much better success. Sometimes, they will just get overly aggressive, to see how far they can get away with things. They bargain for a higher stake, but are really going after a lower one, until another opportunity arises and the stake can only go higher.

This is the organic growth that "peaceful" Muslims are nurturing, with the full confidence that the end goal will be accomplished. But there are those moments which unfurl the Toronto 18 and the London Subway Bombers, condoned by all Muslims. Such violent acts (in conjunction with these organic infiltrations) are demanded by the Koran and have to be obeyed. It is all part of the growth.

Muslims have perfected the unobtrusive, organic growth. Suddenly, like ivy on a building, or algae in a pond, they are everywhere.

Email to Paul Belien

Here is an email I sent to Paul Belien, Vice President of the International Free Press Society, with my blog posts on my recent visit to New York and Princeton.

Readers might be interested in finding these blog posts in this separate list.

Dear Dr. Belien,

Thank you for passing your contact information to me during my visit with you and other International Free Press Society Board of Directors to attend Kurt Westergaard's Princeton, and later on Manhattan, presentations.

I was very pleased to have been invited in late August by one of your board members to be included in this important visit. You might be interested in the reports I made on my blog Our Changing Landscape on the various outcomes of that trip, including reports on him in the Canadian press and television.

Here is a list of the posts:

- Freedom in Denmark?
- Jonathan Kay, Feeble Spokesman for the National Post
- Ezra Levant and Kurt Westergaard: Fate
- Muslims in the West: A Simple Case of Cause and Effect
- Westergaard's Bombshell, So To Speak
- Hope and Optimism
- The Politics of Revolution which Temper and Harden the Breast

Please feel free to browse through the rest of Our Changing Landscape.

Sincerely,

Kidist Paulos Asrat

Update on Hope and Optimism

The link I provided in my comment: "This is how Levant should be thinking, and not 'optimistically' finish off his incomplete mission" at my post on Wednesday leads to an incorrect link (the up-to-date list of my HRC posts). I should have linked it to Levant's own post which he simply titles "Why I'm Optimistic" where he confesses that he has "never been more optimistic" on the fate (negative) of the HRCs and his contributions to that effect.

This relates better to my critique on my Wednesday post. I think that Levant's narrow focus on the HRCs and ignoring or downplaying the overall picture surrounding them shouldn't be cause for optimism, since that is a work only partially done. I hope now that my Hope and Optimism post reads a little more coherently.

The Politics of Revolution which Temper and Harden the Breast

Paul Belien, Vice President of the International Free Press Society, has an article up in the Brussels Journal about Kurt Westergaard's reception at Yale and Princeton. After I heard Westergaard present his story at Princeton, we shared a ride back together to NYC, with members of the IFPS, and one of the things I said to him was "What I found really sad about your account is that in your speech you said that this was 'just another day at work,' and then all this happened to you."

Belien writes about the hostility and complete lack of empathy the Princeton and Yale students had towards Westergaard, who has to live in a barricaded home and under 24-hour security for the rest of his life.

It is surprising, and disheartening, that young people cannot even feel any sadness that a member of their society (at large, yes) has to live under such inhuman conditions. Yet they are ready to stand by a foreign god and his foreign followers, something which has nothing to do with them, their history or even their current life, except to be part of the liberal ideology which they so readily espouse.

Here is a quote from Burke's excerpted book I read on my trip to New York:

The worst of these politics of revolution is this; they temper and harden the breast, in order to prepare it for the desperate strokes which are sometimes used in extreme occasions...This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgot his nature.