If there’s no will in the West to stop Muslim immigration, is there a Plan B?

From: Jeff in England
Subject: THEY SAY EVERY STOP THE MUSLIMS STRATEGY CAN BE REPLACED

In response to your post on Spencer, I reiterate: If Spencer, Melanie, McKinstry, Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Minette Marrin and all the other Usual Suspects cannot be swayed to come out for quotas and immigration restriction of Muslims to the West, then the lesson is that we have to return to the drawing board to develop a Plan B (or C). We had counted on sensible logical argument coming from the mouths of these commentators but it hasn’t.

It is truly puzzling but we have to accept that our “convince the Suspects who will then convince the mainstream to support immigration restrictions on Muslims” strategy has not worked. The Suspects have not been swayed to come out for the immigration restriction option and the mainstream has not been either. We have to accept this reality and move on from there. Fantasies of mass removal or separation between Muslims and non-Muslims must not be on the table so to speak.

So while I agree on one level that so called “moderate Muslims” are an illusion (for all the reasons you have given), on another level they are the only game in town. At this point, there simply isn’t the willpower to keep Muslims out or restrict their birthrates etc. So while we must never stop trying to restrict their numbers coming in, we must focus on inculcating them as much as possible with the best values the West has to offer (as opposed to the many bad one currently on offer). In addition we must acknowledge that Islam has SOME good values too and build on them.

So while I am still a hardliner on immigration (zero option), I, like a good general, recognise the reality of the situation. Much like Gerry Adams did when disarming the IRA a few years back. Adams still wants an independent Northern Ireland but he knew that he couldn’t get it in the way that the IRA was pursuing. He was going to have to change tack.

So while I don’t want to hear any more warnings about Islam and Muslims from the mouths of Spencer and Melanie and McKinstry and all the other Suspects, I also feel that any more criticism of them is a waste of time. They have had numerous opportunities to put forth a cohesive immigration restriction of Muslims argument. They have chosen not to, end of story. We must get on with that plan B and /or Plan C. Or be consigned to the dustbins of history.

LA replies:

You write:

So while I agree that so called “moderate Muslims” are an illusion (for all the reasons you have given) on one level, on another level they are the only game in town. At this point, there simply isn’t the willpower to keep Muslims out or restrict their birthrates etc. So while we must never stop trying to restrict their numbers coming in, we must focus on inculcating them as much as possible with the best values the West has to offer (as opposed to the many bad one currently on offer). In addition we must acknowledge that Islam has SOME good values too and build on them.

What you’re arguing for here is humanly understandable, but frankly, what it adds up to is dressing up surrender as Plan B.

And in your witty way you tacitly acknowledge my point in your Dylan-paraphrase subject line: “They SAY every Stop-Muslims plan can be replaced.” But the reality, here, as in Dylan’s original lyric (“They say every thing can be replaced”), is that the stop-Muslim plan can’t be replaced. Either we stop the Muslims, or we lose.

LA continues:

By the way, Dylan’s verse,

They say every thing can be replaced
They say every distance is not near
But I remember every face
Of every man who put me here.

is profoundly anti-liberal. For liberals, there are no essentials, no substances. Everything is fungible. “Hey, everything is always changing, we’ve always been diverse, people have always complained about ‘losing our culture.’ Be cool.” But Dylan is saying that the essential things, the things that made us what we are, are irreplaceable.

Jeff replies:

I basically agree as you know. Either stop the Muslims or we lose. But there’s losing and there’s losing. We lost a lot when we compromised with the Russians over Europe at the end of WW II. We should have given them far less than they got. But there wasn’t the willpower to stand up to them fully. So we compromised and they eventually lost.

Anyway, back to the problem. There is not (unless there is another 9/11 or 7/7) the willpower in the U.S. or the UK to completely stop legal immigration in general including Muslims. Ain’t gonna happen. End of story.

So what can we do? Campaign for some form of quotas to be enacted? That could happen to a small extent in the next 10-20 years, especially if Muslims create trouble. But as I said in my other e-mail there would still be high birthrates and also be an increase in illegal immigration.

So if we can’t stop the increase of Muslims isn’t it better to try and persuade Muslims to become more tolerant and peaceful and enlightened etc. In addition, they bring some good qualities from the Islamic religion and culture and that could be useful for society in general.

I won’t pretend it isn’t a defeat of sorts. But what is the alternative? Wait for Muslims to attack us with a nuclear bomb so the mainstream population can then rise up against Muslims?

Adela Gereth writes:

Jeff in England writes:

“So while I agree on one level that so called ‘moderate Muslims’ are an illusion (for all the reasons you have given), on another level they are the only game in town. At this point, there simply isn’t the willpower to keep Muslims out or restrict their birthrates etc. So while we must never stop trying to restrict their numbers coming in, we must focus on inculcating them as much as possible with the best values the West has to offer (as opposed to the many bad one currently on offer). In addition we must acknowledge that Islam has SOME good values too and build on them.”

Perhaps I am stalwart enough to be a true traditionalist, after all. After reading this, I managed to remain seated in order to reread it, firmly squelching the impulse to leave the room before I threw up or blacked out. [LA comments: We may safely presume that Adela, an outspoken anti-feminist, is satirizing Nancy Hopkins’s famous response to Lawrence Summers’s speech on women’s science abilities.]

No, no, no. I am open to the notion of compromise, generally, I know that often we have to give a little (give away or give up) to get a little. But there are times when compromise is fatal. (I was rereading the portion of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich dealing with the British betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 just last night.)

I am no expert on Islam and have read only a few suras of the Koran. But I suspect that the phrase “moderate Muslims” is an oxymoron and unhelpful in that it mischaracterizes the nature of those Muslims not committing violence in the name of Allah. Perhaps a better phrase would be “unactivated Muslims” or even “uncommitted Muslims”. I simply don’t see how one can be a moderate adherent of an extremist ideology. (And yes, I consider “submit or die” to be extremist.)

As for inculcating Muslims with the best values the West has to offer, that seems to me to be an obvious non-starter. Any Muslims confronted with such a program of inculcation might logically reply, “Best for whom?” If you wait until they are here to attempt such a feat, you remove any incentive they have for participation, especially since deportation is not currently an option.

As for Islam having SOME good values, there is no doubt of that. But are they values exclusive to Islam? I was unaware it has any not to be found in societies based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

I think Jeff’s analysis of the current failure of Western will is spot on; his remedy, however, leaves much to be desired.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2008 10:39 AM | Send