If Plan A to save the West from Islam fails, what do we do?
Jeff in England for about the 137th time urges me to abandon my entire position on Islam and adopt his instead. He writes:
I regard Tariq Ramadan and his views as far more dangerous than the more obvious Islamic extremists.
BUT, given the fact that the West does not seem willing to stop Islamic immigration (or any other immigration) to any great extent (if at all), we may have to deal/negotiate with him and his like.
That is why I urge many VFR readers to stop romanticising the BNP and other ultra-right wing racists who talk about the fantasy of deportation and instead concentrate on affecting the progressive mainstream including so called liberals.
LA replies:
If we don’t have the will to keep them out, we (including progressives) are certainly not going to have the will to “deal with them” once they’re here. So, my Plan A is: they don’t belong here, they must be kept out, and they must be made to leave. If Plan A fails, there is no conceivable Plan B. If Plan A fails, their numbers and power will keep increasing, until there is civil war, and then either they defeat us and take over, or we defeat them and make them leave. In other words, Plan A remains the only plan. It’s Plan A or Islamization.
You write: “That is why I urge many VFR readers to stop romanticising the BNP and other ultra-right wing racists who talk about the fantasy of deportation and instead concentrate on affecting the progressive mainstream including so called liberals.”
First, I’m not aware of anyone at VFR romanticizing BNP and other right-wing racists. I had one entry the other day about the BNP, linking a perfectly reasonable and respectable ad by a local BNP group in Wigan, England. (And by the way, I looked through that group’s past articles before I linked their site and found nothing objectionable; it was mostly routine stuff about the establishment’s refusal to do anything about immigration, the same issue that consumes you.) A couple of weeks before that, I had a critical entry asking whether the BNP were only taking the stands they take out of electoral calculation. Prior to that, based on a search of VFR’s archive page, the last item on the BNP was about a false story this past January saying that the Vlaams Belang had allied with the BNP. The previous story with BNP in the title was in August 2006 when I had two substantive pieces on what the BNP stands for (here and here) That constitutes the totality of coverage of BNP at VFR for the last 20 months, yet you say that VFR and its readers are romanticizing the BNP and other right-wing racists. This strongly suggests that your judgments about the BNP and my stand on it are not sound. (Here are Google search results for all mentions of BNP at VFR.)
Second, your idea of “affecting the progressive mainstream” is sheer escapism. Ironically, you call the only real solution—making Muslims leave—a mere fantasy to be dismissed, while you call “reaching out to liberals” to get liberals to do—what?—realistic. But once Muslims are here among us and gaining more and power, what do you expect liberals to do about that?
The bottom line is, you are also unwilling to grapple with the horrible problem we face, so you have recourse to some substance-less “reaching out to liberals.” You’re like Sen. Kerry in 2004, whose answer to every foreign policy challenge was, “Form an international coalition.” Yes, Senator, and once we form this coalition, what does this coalition do? To that, he never had an answer. And neither do you.
- end of initial entry -
Adela G. writes:
Jeff writes:
…given the fact that the West does not seem willing to stop Islamic immigration (or any other immigration) to any great extent (if at all), we may have to deal/negotiate with [Tariq Ramadan] and his like.
That is why I urge many VFR readers to stop romanticising the BNP and other ultra-right wing racists who talk about the fantasy of deportation and instead concentrate on affecting the progressive mainstream including so called liberals.
Offhand, I cannot imagine anything more romantic than the notion that it is possible for us to deal/negotiate with the likes of Tariq Ramadan or indeed, any Muslims. My understanding is that the concept of deceiving the infidel adversary is an integral part of Islam; if this is so, no meaningful dealing or negotiating with Muslims is possible.
I find the notion of affecting the progessive mainstream to be equally romantic, since they are as determined in their way as Muslims are to impose their will on their fellow citizens and to ignore or suppress any argument contrary to their aims, no matter how convincing.
I suspect we will find, sooner or later, that neither Muslims nor leftwingers can be dealt with under any circumstances other than those that imply our willingness to use force against them.
As always, when discussing such depressing topics, I would be delighted to be have my points refuted.
Steve D. writes:
It seems to me (based, admittedly, on just this single post) that you and Jeff are talking past each other rather than to each other. What you propose—strict limits (to about zero) on Moslem immigration, and deportation of as many Moslems as possible—is essentially strategic (and a strategy that I agree wholeheartedly with). What Jeff seems to be talking about is essentially tactical. You answer the question, “What should we do?” while he answers the question, “How should we do it?”
Considering that your strategy involves the use of immigration law that presently does not exist, the only way to implement that strategy is to change the laws; and in a democratic polity, the only way to do that is to elect more lawmakers who agree with us than the liberals can match. Unfortunately, politics is pretty much a zero-sum game: we can perhaps do a better job than the opposition of marshalling our forces, but increasing your power usually comes down to convincing more people that you are right and your opponents are wrong. So the question remains: how do we convince a majority of unconsciously-liberal Westerners that it is in their best interests to segregate themselves from the Islamic world?
That brings us around to the proposal by Alan Roebuck to the problem faced by European conservatives. (He could just as easily have written the same things about American conservatism.) I think that the single most vulnerable area of liberalism is their belief, touched upon by Mr. Roebuck, that discrimination represents not intellectual vigor but moral turpitude. It is vulnerable on two counts: first, that it is rationally indefensible; and second, that it represents the absolute bedrock foundation of modern liberalism. Destroy it, and all of liberalism falls with it.
But that only pushes the question back one level; it still remains to be asked, “How do we successfully wreck the modern cult of non-discrimination?” The only way must involve “affecting the progressive mainstream”—a question you (and all of us) need to consider. But we must “affect” them only through converting them—and how do you convert liberals (or mobilize conservatives) without organizing groups such as the BNP? This is a question that Jeff needs to consider.
LA replies:
There’s a lot here, I’m just replying to one point. I don’t think it’s correct to say that Jeff agrees with me on ends, and only disagrees on means. The starting point of Jeff’s position is that the Muslims are here and that it’s off-the-planet to suggest that they are ever going to leave. Therefore we have to figure out a tolerable modus vivendi with them. Hence his suggestion of “negotiations” with the like of Tariq Ramadan.
Steve D. writes:
I didn’t mean to imply that you and Jeff agreed on the ends; rather, that it seemed as though you were mistaking his means (“affecting the progressive mainstream,” which I take to mean convincing more people of the rightness of our views) for a bad end, and he was mistaking your end (deportation of Moslems) for bad means.
What’s more, it didn’t seem to me that Jeff was suggesting we learn to live with Moslems. Rather, we will have to negotiate with them and “that is why” we should “concentrate on affecting the progressive mainstream including so called liberals.” What that implies to me is that we need to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. But what Jeff may overlook is that if we have that strength, we will not need to negotiate: we can legislate instead.
Jeff in England writes:
Again, I would love it if we had the will to keep them out. But that just ain’t the case. You seem to want to twist reality to how you want it, not how it is. Your tough talk is an empty shell.
Deals and compromises and new ways of thinking have to be made in scenarios such as these to make the best of a bad situation.
Literally, the best we can hope for is some level of immigration restriction combined with some degree of progressive Westernisation (despite its flaws which are another subject), which would include what is known as “moderation.”
Now, you needn’t remind me that moderate Islam is mostly an illusion (though there are some degree of differences with Islam and between Muslims). But as the Muslims are NOT going to be removed from the UK or the rest of the West, we can only keep trying. That’s where possible alliances come in. And I mean with progressives (liberals) as well as moderate Muslims.
We fight for as much immigration restriction as possible at the same time. Some progressives may be interested in that. One obvious example of those progressives who might support us is gay people and gay rights activists. Artists like Theo Van Gogh are another possibility.
Forget about removal, it’s a waste of time thinking about it.
As I said, your Plan A as the “only plan” sounds tough but is an empty shell. It’s infantile given the situation as it really is. It makes you and others like you feel good but it gets us nowhere. Burying your head in the sand would accomplish just as much.
My Plan B has problems but at least it is “in reality.” It has a chance of some success. Your Plan A has no chance of success. None, Larry, none. Especially the removal part which I thought you had abandoned.
So let’s get working. We keep trying for immigration restriction and maybe, just maybe, some level of restriction will emerge. Whether due to which individual politicians will be elected or the will of the mainstream or both. It won’t be 100 percent or anything near that if it does emerge.
Meanwhile we try and have dialogue as well. With selected progressives and selected “moderate” Muslims. We talk about strengthening Western core values and how Muslims can fit into that. We support “progressive” Muslims going back to their own communities and teaching those core values. Freedom of expression, rights for women and gays, rights of Muslims to leave their religion, rights of young Muslims to marry whom they want etc etc. They must question the Koran more and find new interpretations that fit in with Western values. And so on and so forth. I can talk more in detail about this if people wish.
I wish there that Islamic culture wasn’t here in the UK and the West (despite the fact that there are many decent individual Muslims). It is reactionary and oppressive and even dangerous at times. But it is here due to our laxity and tolerance. Their permanent presence (numbers to be determined) has to be faced up to and I hope you and VFR readers can do it. Your support of what you call Plan A makes me think you are unwilling to face up to it.
C’mon Larry, time for a rethink.
Van Wijk writes:
I take from this post (and several other of his that I have read) that Jeff is more concerned with realpolitik than he is with genuinely preserving the West. If, in order to “win,” we must compromise and compromise some more until our principles and values are but a distant memory, then we lose, and so does our civilization.
Jeff doesn’t realize that it is our principles that stand as a bastion against the rising tide. The closer people come to drowning, and the more sites like VFR shout the truth to the rafters, the more the people will look to us.
But if they don’t, if we are already too far gone, well, many great men through the centuries have stood on principle and were willing to risk destruction for it. And many were destroyed. It is them that we revere, not the great pragmatists of history.
If we were to compromise with our eternal enemy as Jeff wants us to, there are very few points on which we would not compromise eventually. Then, instead of a bastion, we would be just another islet in a sea filled with similar islets, doomed to be submerged.
LA replies:
This is so well put I want to repeat it:
“If we were to compromise with our eternal enemy as Jeff wants us to, there are very few points on which we would not compromise eventually.”
Adela G. writes:
I’m no historian nor scholar of the Koran. But nothing I have read or heard anywhere about Islam or Muslims indicates they are open to any sort of compromise with the West. Indeed, compromise seems to be a concept for which they feel only contempt and whose uses they fail to comprehend.
I suspect that when non-Muslims say, “Let’s compromise,” Muslims hear, “We capitulate.”
If at present, Muslim demands seem steep but still doable to the West, that’s only because they don’t feel they have sufficient strength yet to make those demands which will be impossible for the West to accede to and still remain recognizably the West.
Muslim implacability and relentlessness cannot be underestimated. (And yes, like other Westerners at VFR and elsewhere, I know some very nice, truly decent Muslims. I’m talking here in generalities.)
Steve D. writes:
All right, I admit it: I was wrong. Jeff WAS talking about the end in view when he proposed negotiating with Moslems and “affecting the progressive mainstream.” His solution apparently entails a continuing Islamic presence and influence in the West, while yours does not.
Van Wijk suggests that Jeff is more concerned with pragmatic politics that with preserving the West. Who are to be our allies in this realpolitik?
“One obvious example of those progressives who might support us is gay people and gay rights activists.” Would that be those gays who were among the most systematically discriminated-against groups in Western history until this generation? And they’re going to toss aside all their hard-won gains and ally themselves with the people they consider the intellectual inheritors of their longstanding oppressors?
“Artists like Theo Van Gogh are another possibility.” Like Theo van Gogh in what way—murdered by Moslems? Or, barely respected by anyone and tolerated only for their amusement value?
“We support ‘progressive’ Muslims going back to their own communities…” Who in the world are these “progressive” Moslems? And isn’t it “progressives” who have caused most of the institutional damage to the West that has allowed an alien—and pinheaded—tradition to become a problem in the first place? Will we be dealing with them as progressives, or as Moslems? Will they be dealing with their communities as Moslems, or as progressives? And what can they possibly “convert” their co-religionists to, if not progressivism, which leads inevitably to…more Moslem immigration, more hate-crime laws directed at conservative opposition, and more bulkheads giving way as the ship goes down by the bow?
Jeff, do they read Patrick Henry in England?
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!”
Your options are two: win, or lose.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 26, 2008 07:35 AM | Send