Is Separationism practically feasible?
Fjordman writes:
I follow the discussion regarding separationism with interest. I am in the separationist camp myself. Islam isn’t reformable. In the long run, the only strategy that will work is to break Islam down by letting Muslims suffer the consequences of their culture without bailing them out, show them that this is caused by Islam and make them leave Islam. We should separate ourselves from Muslims as much as possible. And by “we” I don’t just mean Westerners, but non-Muslims in general.
We should stop giving Muslims any kind of aid. There are several reasons for this. The first one is that it’s not our job to fix their problems. They’re adults, they can do so themselves.
The second is that we don’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t fix all of their problems even if we wanted to. We don’t have the capacity to take in their excessive population growth. It’s time we in the West realize our limitations, stop trying to save the world and start trying to save ourselves, while we still can.
The third reason is that our aid does more harm than good, anyway. Muslims feel no gratitude for our help. On the contrary, they view money from non-Muslims as a sign of submission and will thus become even more aggressive. If they get money and technology on their hands, this will generally be used to terrorize non-Muslims.
For these reasons, I don’t think we should spend any money on Muslims at all. The money we save from this should be used to build credible defenses, keep Muslims out and make our countries good places to live. The only resources we should spend on Islam-related issues should be on breaking Islam down. The one good thing that has come out of Muslim immigration to the West is the growth of movements of former Muslims. We should give them the possibility to spread their message.
The crux of the problem is that we still have the means to win this, but we lack the will. I was re-reading Machiavelli’s The Prince the other day, and it still contains useful lessons. Our problem is not so much that we have enemies but that we have enemies who do not respect us, largely because we do not respect ourselves. China is also an infidel country, but Muslims usually don’t mess with China because they know the Chinese would squash them without mercy. They respect China. They don’t respect the West. As Machiavelli says:
“A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral. It will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously.”
The Second World War contributed to a major shift in Western ways of thinking about a wide range of issues, and firmly established the paradigm of total non-discrimination. Stopping Muslim immigration isn’t politically possible according to the ruling Multicultural paradigm, but this isn’t sustainable and is going to break down soon, anyway. A new paradigm will then emerge, one dedicated to Western survival.
This, however, brings us to the final and most difficult point of separationism as a strategy: Is it technically possible? I have heard comments that it is not practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. Given that the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China during the Middle Ages, it will be impossible to contain anybody in the 21st century with modern communication technology. I understand this objection, and I sometimes wonder whether it is correct. With the spread of nuclear technology and other kinds of WMD in the Islamic world, is it possible for us to separate ourselves from them? How would we react to a nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail for Jizya? Frankly, I don’t know, and it worries me. So the question is: While separationism is certainly desirable, is it a viable option in an age of globalization of dangerous weapons?
LA replies:
Of course it’s a viable policy, if there is agreement on its necessity.
There are four ways that Muslims can enter non-Muslim countries: illegal immigration, legal immigration, temporary visits for travel/business, and military invasion.
People say we can’t stop illegal immigration. That is of course false. The means are all there, we just have to put them into effect. So, just as we can stop the current illegal immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics, as well as that of people who overstay their visas, we can stop any future illegal immigration of Muslims. Obviously we also have control over the legal immigration of Muslims. Limited travel and temporary sojourns for business and diplomatic purposes by Muslims can be allowed, while being placed under careful controls.
Any individual country has the power to do all three of these things. Therefore, the prevention of further Muslim entries into the non-Muslim world simply requires that all non-Muslim countries do these three things.
As for military invasion by Islamic powers, we and other countries generally have the ability to repel military invasion. Furthermore, the Separationist platform calls for the permanent placing of military bases at the margins of the Muslim world, and the swift destruction of any dangerous Muslim regime. If a Muslim country invades a non-Muslim neighbor, the regime ruling that country will be eliminated.
As for any sharia-ruled regime that had not done anything specifically threatening but that acquired or was in the act of acquiring nuclear weapons and delivery capability, at a minimum its nuclear capability must be destroyed, even if the regime itself were not destroyed.
Now the response to what I’ve just said will be: “All non-Muslim countries on earth cooperating in the same policy to contain and isolate Islam? Impossible!” I agree that at this moment it seems impossible. But the first thing to remember is that we don’t have to wait for all countries to defend themselves before we start to defend ourselves. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the United States passed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution like the one recently posted at VFR, that, echoing the language of the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery, outlawed the practice of Islam in the United States. Other countries would follow our example, one by one, until the rejection and exclusion of Islam, something previously considered inconceivable, became a broad consensus in the non-Islamic world.
- end of initial entry -
Terry M. writes:
I think your answer to Fjordman is dead-on-accurate. And I think as well that the viability of Separationism in a globalized world is predicated upon, as you say early on, agreement on its necessity.
I would only add that we must, at some point, adopt the separationist strategy, or something very comparable to it. And the sooner the better. Whether it seems practical or not, is not the issue. The issue is the impracticality of not adopting it. Which boils down to the unacceptability of the results of continuing to adhere to the principles of the alternative.
* * *
In connection with the current discussion, I recommend this entry from January 2006 in which a reader presents various objections to my contain and isolate idea (which I later called Separationism), and I reply to him.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 21, 2007 01:45 PM | Send