All we really need to do, revisited

(Note: In the comments section of this entry a reader proposes a way for dealing with Muslim extremists, based on policies successfully carried out by colonial governments. Other readers reply to Jeff in England’s 2007 comment that we should not even discuss the idea of removing Muslims.)

In February 2007, as I was reading British columnist Minette Marrin’s incredibly involved action plan to squelch Muslim extremism, adding up to the constant surveillance, evaluation and control of almost every activity of virtually every Muslim in Britain, an endeavor that would absorb a major part of the energies of that nation for all future time, a subversive but logically inevitable thought came to me. Click here to see what it was.

- end of initial entry -

Roger G. writes:

I’m guessing the “well known conservative writer” who comments in that thread is Andrew McCarthy. He’s publicly said that Islam is the problem, but I’ve never heard him state that Muslims must be quarantined.

Prakhar G. writes:

You wrote in the 2007 entry:

“WOULDN’T IT BE A LOT EASIER JUST TO MAKE THEM LEAVE?”

No. What the British columnist mentions as necessary to restrict Muslim extremism is incorrect and typical of a person not well versed in techniques of eradicating extremist groups. Here, the best source to look at would be the tactics that colonial countries used to maintain control of their colonies (which they did for minuscule costs and at great profit until the very end of the colonial era when the liberal idiots in governments lost the nerve).

If a group exists which does not have a large number of extremists then all that is needed to control it is to punish extremely all the terrorists etc. that do pop up. If some region already has a large number of terrorists, miscreants, etc., then modern warfare techniques (described exceedingly well by Roger Trinquier in his book “Modern Warfare”) can eliminate these organizations in a matter of months.

Examples: Under this policy, all the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay would be given two options. Either they voluntarily cooperate and they will be left alive but locked up until further notice or they will be interrogated, with pharmaceuticals if needed, and then summarily executed. Any terrorists found would either be shot on sight or captured for further interrogation. Granting them Habeas Corpus rights or anything even close is an insane and fundamentally idiotic and weak policy.

An example of the effectiveness of these techniques can be found in the history of the FLN in the City of Algiers (before the French Paratroopers were forced to withdraw due to political pressure back home).

This policy can be carried out in a democracy: the U.S. used similar policies in the Philippines and they worked. Many of the colonial governments were well on their way to democracies. However, I doubt this policy can be carried out in our democracies due to political considerations, but that applies to your plans as well.

As to whether these measures are too brutal: a little violence now saves a lot of violence later. It is much more humane (in terms of the absolute number of people killed/mutilated/tortured/etc.) to have a central authority utilize extreme measures against terrorists than to allow decentralized groups of terrorists to carry out their own atrocities.

Furthermore, more warm bodies can always be used for more productive labor as long as they are properly secured. The policies proposed here are significantly more economically efficient.

LA replies:

First, your ideas, while good, are more geared for dealing with an insurgency in a foreign country under a colonial government, than for dealing with immigrants and citizens in our own country.

Second, your policy is only directed at terrorists and violent criminals. It is not directed at the larger and more fundamental threat of the peaceful spread of Islamic power in the West.

Third, OF COURSE my plan is too radical to be adopted under our existing liberal belief system. I am saying that if we are to survive, that belief system must be rejected. How can that happen, unless we challenge it?

See my speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America.”

James P. writes:

In the 2007 entry, Jeff in England wrote:

Well it’s better than some recent Dylan. However, forgetting my own mixed feelings on the subject, I would leave the removal option alone. It is steps ahead of the immigration restriction option and has zero chance of happening at this point. In addition it loses credibility for you. I’m not saying that your opinion is mad, I’m just saying it is certainly not on the table as of now and it is a waste of time talking about it.

One could just as well say that the Minette Marrin program of intensive monitoring all Muslims everywhere in Britain for all time has zero chance of happening, too, and is a waste of time talking about. If the left says the only two choices are “Do nothing” and “do nothing effective,” then of course we are automatically defeated (which is exactly what the left wants). I think it is far more credible to argue for a program that will actually solve the problem, even though it “politically unacceptable,” than to argue for a program that will not solve the problem but is “politically acceptable.”

The main thing to realize with Muslims in the UK as well as Hispanics in the U.S. is that they were not forcibly brought to the country at government expense, so they do not need to be forcibly removed at government expense. They voluntarily came to the country because the legal, political and economic environment encouraged them to do so. Change the legal, political, and economic environment, and they will voluntarily leave.

M. Mason writes:

Jeff in England wrote:

I would leave the removal option alone. It is steps ahead of the immigration restriction option and has zero chance of happening at this point. In addition it loses credibility for you. I’m not saying that your opinion is mad, I’m just saying it is certainly not on the table as of now and it is a waste of time talking about it.

Talking about it openly is how, inch by inch, the “removal option” eventually does get put on the table, at least in the minds of those who can still be swayed. Of course conservatives will be the ones way out in front speaking to an issue of such civilizational importance, that’s what they’re good at, and furthermore, they’re not just going to wait around until everyone else finally catches up to reality before they do it.

If you think it’s some sort of tactical blunder for concerned citizens openly to advocate for this now over the internet and in other venues while we still have time to reverse course, then how do you expect other people in our liberalism-soaked societies eventually to get it through their heads that it’s perfectly ok for them to start thinking and debating about it too before the depredations of Islam in Western countries become unbearable and irreversable? By what means of communication are they going to “get the signal,” Jeff? Mental telepathy?

Jeff in England replies:

I can’t believe that intelligent rational people actually think removal of Muslims or any other immigrant or racial or religious group would ever be considered in the West. Even the interned Japanese in WWII in the U.S. were not removed. It is totally against the grain of the huge majority of Westerners … right down to the core. Which is why even the BNP, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant as they are, are not talking about forced removal ( the idea of voluntary removal is a joke).

In addition it would be physically impossible to round up significant amounts of Muslims and/or all immigrants and/or people of different races (including mixed race). How far back would it go? First generation? Second generation? Third generation? If such a policy was ever attempted (not that it will be) in either the UK or U.S.A. there would be a good chance of a civil war occurring. Blood would flow on the streets, big time.

And how would we find out where and who all these immigrants are? Go house to house doing searches? Write letters asking who is an immigrant and who is not or who is Muslim and who is not? Who is mixed race and who is not? Etc.

This infantile talk that if we don’t talk about it can’t happen is just that … infantile talk. God, some of you VFR readers live in a total fantasy world. And then scoff at people who question it.

Stop wasting your time in removal fantasies. It’s a form of masturbation; a form or wish projection that just can’t happen. Repeat after me: Removal is not an option. Ain’t gonna happen, ain’t even going to be considered, EVER.

LA replies:

I had previously closed out further comments from Jeff on this topic, because it had been gone over so many times. But since two commenters here replied here to Jeff’s two-year old comment, I invited him to reply. As can be seen from his reply, it’s as though he hasn’t been following the discussion at all. He seems to think that my entire policy is one of forcefully deporting all Muslims from America in one fell swoop. It’s as though he’s not taken in anything I and others have written about this.

His further lack of any thought on the subject is shown by his comment, “Blood would flow on the streets, big time.” He’s never acknowledged that much more blood will flow if the Muslim populations in the West are allowed to continue to grow and gain power.

Philip M. writes from England:

I see Jeff has been peddling his line that repatriation will never happen. I like this quote from the Nick Griffin article in a recent Independent interview. The report writes:

I suggest that he can’t stop multiculturalism, and he spirals off into fantasy. “If we’d been sat in cafe anywhere from East Berlin to the Urals in 1988, anyone who was of the mindset of Pravda, Izvestia and so on would have said you can’t stop Communism. Inevitability is the chief weapon of totalitarianism, and we do live in a totalitarian society.”

It has become something of a given to assume that if we tried to deport immigrants it would end in civil war, and I think it is worth thinking about whether this would actually be the case. Would it? If the whole nation wanted them to leave, what could they possibly hope to achieve? How could they ever “win”? If it was clear that they simply had no choice, that one way or another they were going to be gone, I think they would quite possibly become resigned to their fate and just leave.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 17, 2009 04:19 PM | Send