Is Separationism too liberal?

In the following article, “Westerner,” arguing that the Separationist policy does not go far enough, lays out a new, radical strategy for defending the West from Islam. As I have been saying since VFR started, I am interested in all reasonable proposals—meaning proposals based on reasoned argument, no matter how extreme they may appear—on how to protect our civilization from the religion of Muhammad.

DEALING WITH THE ISLAMIC THREAT
by Westerner

In recent years, several knowledgeable writers—including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem)—have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. They will accept temporary truces, but are resolutely determined to continue their struggle until total victory, and will utilize whatever methods are necessary to achieve that goal.

The nature of the Islamic state that they seek to impose on us is clear, both from their ideology and from their history. It will not include either freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, nor will it include equal rights for women. Those non-Moslems who are neither killed nor forcibly converted, will be dhimmis (lacking the normal rights of citizens, and subject to special taxes and humiliating treatment). Since Muhammad himself held slaves—and, indeed, enslaved formerly free persons—it will be blasphemous to allege that slavery is immoral. No vestige of our democratic system will endure.

However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone).

Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.

However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate. Even if an American president (and a sufficient number of congressmen) were to become convinced that Auster is correct—and even if the president proceeded to carry out those suggestions—the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states, most of which contain a large, powerful Islamic establishment dedicated to the spread of Islam throughout the world. Furthermore, many of those states possess enormous reserves of oil, and the wealth that those reserves lead to. In a few years, that American president would leave office, and sooner or later would be succeeded by a leader who is less convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to us and must be opposed by such firm measures. Auster’s suggestions, therefore, even if adopted, will only bring us a brief reprieve.

We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. To some readers, this may seem impossible: How can a movement which boasts of 1.2 billion followers ever be crushed? But we should not despair. Remember, just a few decades ago, the Communists ruled far more territory—and a considerably larger fraction of the world’s population—than the Moslems do today. The West is far stronger than the Moslem world, and if we use our assets wisely and act boldly we can crush Islam permanently. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps:

1) We should start by thoroughly destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. (Yes, we could triumph even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, but only at a far greater cost.)

2) Next, in order to protect our homeland from Moslem terrorists we must adopt a policy of not accepting any immigrants (or even tourists or students) from Islamic countries, and by deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally. (It is not that most Moslems are terrorists, but rather that most terrorists are Moslems, and that by keeping Moslems out of our country we can greatly decrease the frequency of terrorist attacks in the United States.)

3) We must make it an invariable policy that we will not permit any predominantly Moslem country to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction. (Pakistan obviously represents a special case, since it already possesses nuclear weapons. However, even though the present government is reasonably friendly to us, we cannot permit them to keep those weapons, nor the facilities producing them.)

4) There are various ways in which we can eventually reduce our (and Europe’s) dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, those programs will take decades to carry out. The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. The states bordering the Persian Gulf are all weak, and if we make up our mind to do so we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located, drive away the people who live there now, and produce the oil ourselves. These, of course, are acts of war, and would be immoral if done solely to enrich ourselves. However, the Moslem world is already at war with us, and we are fully justified in taking such actions to defend ourselves and our way of life.

5) Our government must then embark on a policy of persistently denouncing Islam. We should repeatedly state and broadcast that Muhammad was not “the messenger of God,” but rather was a false prophet. We should also tell the world that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and a cruel, greedy, and lascivious man. (The truth of these statements is amply documented by ancient Arab writings.) Islam cannot be defeated if, in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we continue to ignore these truths and continue to speak of Islam and its founder respectfully.

6) Finally, we must demonstrate—in an absolutely unmistakable way—that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence. (In order to avoid unnecessary loss of life, the first two or three such sites should be sparsely populated, and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina should be given a reasonable length of time to evacuate.)

Since most Moslems believe that the truth of Muhammad’s statements were demonstrated by his military victories, the total destruction of those cities cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is therefore probable that over the course of a century the number of Moslems in the world will drop drastically. Some Moslems will convert to other religions; some will become agnostics or atheists; and those who remain “Moslem” will break up into many small sects. In any event, bereft of military power, oil—and the diplomatic power that brings—and money, Islam will lose much of its appeal and will cease to be a menace.

It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. And just as we were justified in killing millions of Germans and Japanese to achieve victory in World War II, we are justified in killing large numbers of Moslems to maintain our independence and freedom from the Islamic menace. Note that our victory in World War II did not occur until about eight million Germans—and a similar number of Japanese—had been killed, a far greater number than would be killed by the program suggested here.

Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States—or any coalition of Western nations—until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done. It is vital that when an American president is elected who understands the gravity of the Moslem threat, and is willing to take strong action to counter it, he uses that window of opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Islam, so that the threat does not continue.

- end of initial entry -

Mike B. writes:

Many readers, including Mr. Auster, will consider the proposal to use nuclear devices against our Muslim adversaries to be outlandish. Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable? Such a retaliation against Mecca and Medina is even more justifiable because 9/11 resulted in more casualties than Pearl Harbor, the victims were civilian not military and the attack occurred on our mainland. Japan did not present a nuclear threat but Islam clearly does.

Since WWII our mindset has deteriorated to the point where we have become so overcivilized that we have lost our self-confidence and our will to properly defend ourselves. To defeat Islam, it must first be thoroughly discredited and vanquished. If we are to continue this war by dropping food instead of bombs and by building bridges and roads instead of destroying them, our efforts will only be seen as weakness by our enemy. If we are to fight by trying to first win the hearts and minds of Muslims before we defeat them and expose their religion as a hoax, we are doomed to failure.

LA replies:

Mike’s argument re the A-bomb and Japan is most unsettling. No American leader ever said, “The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, therefore we have the right to incincerate 200,000 Japanese.” The use of the A-bomb was justified as the only way to get the Japanese to surrender, not as an act of revenge.

Before the pre-emptive nuclear destruction of Arab holy cities could be justified, it would have to be established in the minds of the world that Islam is indeed at war with us. A great deal must happen, a great deal must change, before we reach that point. Certainly we do not appear to be at war with Islam now, when we’re continually admitting Muslims into Amerca and inviting them to the White House.

This is why I think that Westerner’s idea is wildly premature. Before we could even realistically discuss such a step, we would first have had to do everything to defend ourselves short of that step, including removing Muslims from the West. Surely Westerner is not proposing that we drop A-bombs on Medina and Mecca while 20 million Muslims are residing in the West. If we’re going to wage all-out war, first we would have to remove the enemy aliens from our lands so that we can fight them properly in their own lands and they wouldn’t threaten us in our own.

This is why the separationist policy makes sense. First we roll back Islam from the West and contain it in its own lands, an extremely radical step that would transform the world as we know it. Then at that point, having established both the principle and the practical policy that Islam is our adversary from which we must protect ourselves, we would re-evaluate and see what more needs to be done.

Maureen C. writes:

Two points:

1) Westerner fails to take into account how to deal with the huge Fifth Column of Muslims and MS-13 criminals that U.S. Open Borders immigration policies have already seeded in the U.S. If U.S. forces begin any actions overseas, the U.S. population will be left vulnerable.

2) The U.S. should have invaded Venezuela, not Iraq, for the oil. After all, it would only be tit for tat; the South Americans are invading the U.S.

Kristor L. writes:

Westerner’s proposed strategy is in most respects identical with mine. The one major difference is that he suggests we take the Saudi oil fields now, whereas I suggest that, provided the economic incentives were in place, the amazing market and American ingenuity could wean us from oil in much less than the decades we are used to thinking about. Not that I rule out taking the oil fields, because that would be pretty easy.

But his fundamental point, which I have repeatedly argued, is that we can never finish the war with Islam until Islam is finished. So, we should take off the blinders, then take off the gloves, declare that the destruction of Islam is our policy, and get on with it. After all, this is what they have already done, in respect to us; is it not the least we can do, to recognize our adversary, and to honor his challenge?

Separation is obviously a key first step. No question about that. But we must recognize that we can’t keep Islam at bay, any more than we could keep Communism or Nazism at bay. All three of these ideologies have among their first principles that they must convert or destroy the rest of the world. Such ideologies do not go away on their own, and will not forever content themselves with a given amount of territory. Sooner or later, no matter how faithfully we maintain our borders with them, Muslims will find a way to attack us with nuclear weapons. The existence anywhere of a Muslim nation constitutes a mortal threat; so Islam cannot be tolerated anywhere.

Like Westerner, I have argued that a crucial step in the eventual eradication of Islam as a historical force will be the utter demoralization of Muslims, and that this can be accomplished by the repeated, demonstrated failure of their society—and, by implication, of its Islamic organizing principles—to compete with our own, not just economically and intellectually, but on the field of battle. All we really need to do is whip them decisively, again and again, the way we did Saddam, and the Taliban. We don’t need to make their lives all nice afterwards, as we have tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to whip them, then leave and whip them somewhere else, then turn around and whip them again. No need for us to pick up the pieces afterwards; they should pay that price. We should be to them, not the Red Cross, but Sherman.

Nuclear weapons will not be needed for this project. Better to do it with infantry, and with smart weapons; and then to publish the kill ratios. The point that we need to make again and again is that, man to man, nation to nation, they are pathetic losers. If we do, their morale will soon collapse. It is weaker than it seems, for it is based upon falsehoods—upon, that is to say, Islam—and falsehoods don’t work very well as organizing principles of a society or a life, as compared with truths. Sufficient evidence of the falsehood of Islam, and the inadequacy of Islamic culture, may be found in their relative intellectual and economic poverty, and decisively demonstrated by their military incompetence.

But none of this can happen until we of the West decide that we are really at war. Until that happens, we won’t even think about fighting with a whole heart. And I agree with Lawrence that we are as yet nowhere near that decision. My fear is that, as so often happens with the West, we won’t reach it until some precious thing—a great city, or cathedral, or nation—is lost to us; and that, at that point, realizing that the hour is too late for infantry or smart bombs, we will retaliate with nuclear weapons. To avert that catastrophe, the duty of those who feel its loom is to play the Cassandra, the Churchill, and to sound the tocsin.

LA replies:

Kristor writes: “The existence anywhere of a Muslim nation constitutes a mortal threat; so Islam cannot be tolerated anywhere.”

Kristor has done something I wouldn’t have thought possible, taken a position more extreme than that of David Yerushalmi. Yerushalmi says that any Islamic sharia regime is a danger because if it got nuclear weapons it would use them, and therefore it must be overthrown. Kristor says that any Muslim nation at all is a mortal threat and cannot be tolerated. He is calling for the pre-emptive military destruction of all Muslim countries—the whole Islamic world.

Kristor’s idea is based on the assumption that a Muslim country could acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems and attack us without warning, therefore we must destroy all Muslim governments now. That’s wrong. Long before a country reached that stage we would know something about it and could take pre-emptive action.

To carry out a war of pre-emptive destruction against all Muslim countries would turn us into a nation of Robo-killers. Even if we won, we would never be the same.

I’ll make the same concession to Kristor that I made to Yerushalmi and to Westerner. It is possible that such awful actions may be necessary at some point in the future. But we are not there now, not anywhere near there. Containment, combined with intermittent destruction of dangerous regimes, would be enough.

Kristor writes:

“After all, this is what they have already done, in respect to us; is it not the least we can do, to recognize our adversary, and to honor his challenge?”

But the same was true in the past, when the West successfully defeated and contained Islam. The West did not need to destroy Islam to be safe from it; it just needed to drive it back to its homelands in a powerless condition.

Jason writes:

I think Westerner has some good ideas. I also used to think force first, until sites like this educated me to the FACT that we have millions of the enemy right here in our own country. We must first remove the enemy from our own country before we can go and start leveling Islamic cities.

However, I do think the Tancredo approach of deterrence is a good one. The threat of the loss of Mecca if and only if we lose an American city first is very important. He has also never said we should nuke it, but bomb it. We can carpet bomb whole areas without the risk of nuclear fall out.

I disagree with Westerner on another major point. If we as the West, considering how blind and naive we have become, ever get to the point that we now feel bombing Mecca is okay, why on earth are we going to let them evacuate first? This would more then likely be in response to the deaths of millions of our own people. The retaliatory response should be, the death of millions of theirs.

But this I think at this point does need to be in response only, we cannot do this with millions of Muslims living in our own backyard.

LA replies:

To clarify the issue, Westerner is not proposing that we bomb Mecca and Medina in retaliation for some attack on us. He is proposing that we destroy Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons, after suitable warnings, in order to demonstrate to Muslims that we have complete power over them and that their god cannot protect them. His purpose is not retaliation but the demoralization of the Muslim world. Thus Tancredo and Westerner are talking about two completely different things.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 12, 2007 02:02 PM | Send