Additional benefits of Separationism

Konstantin writes:

In light of the current rampage across the Muslim world over the anti-Islam movie, I wanted to provide some additional thoughts on why a geographic separation between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds is not only a requirement for our survival, but would have positive effects in addition to drastically reducing the threat of domestic jihadist violence.

One must look at the economic reality and acknowledge that most Muslim countries’ contribution to world’s economic activity is insignificant. Except for some “moderate” Muslim countries like Turkey and Malaysia, and the Arab Gulf states that have acquired massive wealth via supplying the world with oil (a commodity discovered and mostly demanded by white men—which gives the Arabs the means to finance the spread of Wahhabism), the rest of the Islamic world is pretty much stuck in the seventh century culturally and economically. The explosive mix of their backward religion and their low IQ inhibits any innovation and creativity, which are essential for economic prosperity. After all, any new ideas are considered un-Islamic, so their societies are at an intellectual dead-end. Combine that with the demographic dynamics: Their population rises inexorably, making everyone even more miserable on average and more willing to flock to the West. Not to mention that it is particularly the “radical” Muslims who produce more children and breed an army of jihadists, while the “liberal” ones prefer the materialistic aspect of their lives and produce fewer children. So the jihadists gradually take over while the moderates’ share of power dwindles. Western liberals’ hope that moderate Muslims would somehow get a grip on political leadership in a “democracy” is therefore misplaced. The whole society regresses further in all aspects.

[Stopped here.] The same thing will happen in the West if borders are left porous—more so as the native population that does not even acknowledge this threat is dying out via low birth rates, as it is the case in Europe.

However, if Muslim populations are separated from non-Muslim populations, there are a few things occurring in Muslim nations. First, their growing population will exert an immense pressure on their natural resources, leading to a more frequent eruption of violence and wars, by which the West will not be affected at all. These wars over natural resources, in addition to the permanent warfare between various tribes and groups (as seen in Libya), will direct all their attention away from the foreign policies of the West and its treatment of Muslims (which basically will be none, as they are separated), and their survival mode will shift their focus to defending themselves and their families in these wars instead of planning attacks against the West. Muslim males will be kept busy killing each other by having high levels of testosterone, no employment, and little to eat. I think this is another aspect that would reduce the threat of outside jihadist attacks against Western countries besides the already drastically reduced threat of “homegrown” domestic attacks.

Secondly, I think that in a very long term, their misery and desperation is more likely to make them receptive for a “reform” of Islam or the acceptance of Christianity. Here is the issue: If Muslims gradually took over the West, it would give them the confirmation that their success was bequeathed by Allah, so that their belief system must therefore be the only true and legitimate. This success would embolden them into gearing up their efforts to further expand jihad. If, on the other hand, Muslims would be left in misery and permanent exposure to violence in their quarantines, utterly despised by the rest of the world, many would notice the immense prosperity gradient between them and the non-Muslim world and at some point realize that their religion is to blame for their misery. This could make them “friendlier” towards the West and other non-Muslim nations, which would fortify peaceful diplomatic relationships. Under these circumstances, there is a more likely chance that they would renounce their belief system and be open to a more “progressive” version of Islam or even consider the acceptance of Christianity (that would look quite attractive in light of the prosperity of populations that have adopted it, even those with a low IQ). I am not saying that this would happen anytime soon, but geographic separation is more likely to induce this change at some point in the very distant future than our current open-border and tolerance mode. Whenever or not that might occur, geographic separation is definitely a win-win situation for the West.

LA replies:

Of course I agree with Konstantin’s strategy, and have made the same points myself many times in my advocacy of Separationism. If the non-Muslim countries, particularly the West, were say to the Islam worldwide community: “We understand what you are. Your beliefs make you extremely dangerous to us. Therefore we must quarantine you in your own countries,” and then proceeded to quarantine them, without any hope of the quarantine being lifted, this permanent judgment on Islam and this permanent separation of Muslims from the rest of humanity, might—I emphasize might—over time get them to re-think their adherence to Islam.

At the same time, such possible re-thinking by Muslims is not the purpose of Separationism. The purpose of Separationism is to protect non-Muslim humanity from Islam. If, addition to that purpose, the Muslim as a result of the separationist policy gave up Islam (or adopted some kind of modified Islam such as Kemalism), that would be an additional, wonderful benefit, but it is not the purpose of the policy and we do not adopt the policy with the expectation that it will happen. We adopt the policy in order to save ourselves from Islam, not to save the Muslims from themselves.

- end of initial entry -

Marie writes:

In point of fact, Muslims completely understand “Separationism”!

Most cities in the West already have ”no-go” areas. For non-Muslims that is. We all know the consequences for non-Muslims who are so foolish as to enter a no-go area, right?

Surely we can reciprocate?

As in, say,

“Australia is now a ‘no-go’ area and you can expect to be attacked, killed, or chased out if you attempt to enter. Oh, and should the ambulance, police, or fire brigade attempt to come to your aid, they too will be pelted with stones and attacked.”

Let’s make the West a no-go area.

Michael H. writes:

I have been reading many of your articles on Separationism, and find the arguments generally compelling. However, I wonder about the prospects of Christians living in majority-Muslim countries. What would become of the Copts, the Chaldeans and the already-embattled Christians of Pakistan if the West separated itself from the Muslim world? You posted the comments of Konstantin, who wrote about an “eruption of violence and wars.” Can we conscionably abandon our co-religionists to such chaos, knowing that they would be the first to suffer? Likewise, one has to wonder about the likely fate of the various Christian holy places under an ever-more radicalised Muslim society.

Overall I find much about Separationism which recommends itself, and I apologise if you have already addressed this question without my having noticed it, but I find myself being nagged by the idea of abandoning so many Christians to the greater Muslim savagery which I suspect is yet to come.

LA replies:

At the moment I don’t have an answer to your important questions. I may have addressed them in the past, but I don’t remember if I have. It’s something that has to be thought about.

However, I will say this. Isn’t it already the case that the remaining Christians in the Islamic lands are being persecuted, killed, and chased out?

Konstantin writes:

I appreciate your posting my statement regarding the benefits of separating the Muslim world from ourselves. I would like to respond to the reader who expressed concerns about Christians living in Muslim-majority countries.

I have also given thought to the bleak fate that faces those Christians. We can agree that the predicted, expected warfare exacerbated by massive Muslim population growth would make living in those countries a hell even for the Muslims, let alone the Christians who would be exposed to a demographic time bomb that would devour them earlier or later. Under these circumstances, I sympathize with the Christians from the Middle East who contemplate migrating to the West, and I admire those who have the guts to stay in their home countries despite being in such peril. However, letting all Middle Eastern Christians coming to the West would herald the final obliteration of their ancestral and cultural roots, which would be abetted by them adopting the Western lifestyle. Their unique identity and historical awareness may fade after a very few generations, so I don’t know whether this would be something good to strive for.

The best the West could do in my opinion is to resort to the very concept that this discussion is about: Separationism, but on a local level. Much like Israel, which should serve as the model: a tiny country which is surrounded by a giant, hostile Muslim continent, yet keeps them in check, primarily due to superior military power and Separationism. (Have you noticed that since the construction of the wall, the number of Palestinian suicide attacks has decreased dramatically? Of course, our leftist leaders won’t admit it.) Instead of senselessly spending endless military, financial, and human resources on “defeating terrorism and securing freedom” in hellholes like Afghanistan, Western efforts should be diverted to helping Christians in the Middle East create an Israeli-style enclave, where they would have their own government and sealed borders, and thus be separated from Muslim Arabs. The white West, Israel, and this new Christian country would form a triangle of alliance and support each other. I am aware that the enclave, whose location I haven’t come up with yet (probably where Christians still constitute a sizable population), would expose the Christians to outside attacks by the Arabs, but this is an option that most Christians would vastly prefer over the intimidation, persecution, and lack of political power they endure as residents in majority-Muslim countries. This new country would initially grow in population due to Christian immigration from outside. That way they could preserve their ethnic and cultural line and some historical monuments on their new land. Obviously, maintaining the prosperity of their new country would require them constantly to guard and defend their “Trojan Wall,” Separationism’s body.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 17, 2012 07:52 PM | Send