A note from Fjordman concerning this post:
I have been criticized for doing good analyses of the situation in the West, but not giving good enough answers to exactly what we should do about the situation.
The following is a very rough first draft. I would be happy to get feedback, including criticism, from readers, in order to prepare a more thorough post later on.
We live in the age of the retreat of the Western world order. The West is declining as a percentage of world population, and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. Westerners need to adjust our self-image to being just one of several powerful civilizations in the 21st century. As such, we also need to ditch Messianic altruism: We have no obligation to “save” the Islamic world, and do not have the financial strength or the demographic numbers to do so even if we wanted to.
We are not all-powerful and are not in the position to help all of the Third World out of poverty, certainly not by allowing all of them to move here. The West must first of all save itself. We need to regain our cultural confidence and reject Multiculturalism. End the nonsense of “celebrating our differences.” We should be celebrating our sameness.
- - - - - - - - - -
We should clean up our history books and school curricula, which have been infected with anti-Western sentiments.
We should take a break from massive immigration, also non-Muslim immigration, for at least a generation, in order to absorb and assimilate the persons we already have in our countries. This is first of all a practical issue, as the West is becoming so overwhelmed by immigration that this may, and probably will, trigger civil wars in several Western nations in the near future. We already have massive Third World ghettos in our major cities. Future immigration needs to be more strictly controlled and ONLY non-Muslim. There is no reason to allow a single Muslim to enter our lands.
This immigration break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer be the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures and countries that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries. We are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to take a single immigrant if we do not want to. We should also use this respite to gradually make illegal immigrants leave. But above all, we should use the time to make the West Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy for the containment of Dar al-Islam.
The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin
Westerners need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws.
As columnist Diana West points out, we should shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive, and amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from sharia states. Calling this the War on Terror was a mistake. We need to give it another name, maybe “War of Self-Defense against the Jihad.” Another possibility is “War against Apartheid.” [Baron Bodissey’s two cents: Call it “Take Back the Culture.”] Given sharia’s inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, it is de facto a religious apartheid system. Calling this struggle a self-defense against apartheid would make it more difficult for Western Leftists to dismiss it. We should also focus on how ex-Muslims are treated just like runaway slaves: Harassed, beaten, and frequently murdered in their quest for freedom.
People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam the way www.faithfreedom.org and Jihad Watch are doing is probably more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Authorities or groups of dedicated individuals should engage in wholesale efforts to explain the real nature of Islam. Popular education in the tenets of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the uses of taqiyya and kitman as religious deception.
As Hugh Fitzgerald says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) and moral failure in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures, of their states, of their societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Harb, are a direct result of various Islamic doctrines and assumptions.
We should exploit the many fissures between Shias and Sunnis, and between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims by pointing out all the ways in which Islam is a vehicle for an Arab supremacist ideology. Divide and conquer. Divide and weaken. Divide and demoralize.
We also need to deprive Arabs and Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in various forms. Which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project to become independent of Arab oil.
And once again, as Mr. Fitzgerald asks: “What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”
I have heard comments that it is impossible to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China during the middle ages, it will be impossible to contain anybody in the 21st century, with modern communication technology.
I understand this objection. No, it won’t be easy, but we have to at least try. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to avoid this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of such technology.
I’m tired of hearing the “You turn into what you fight” argument. The British, the Americans and the Canadians didn’t become Nazis while fighting Nazi Germany, did they? They bombed the crap out of the Nazis, and then went home. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we DON’T keep them out of our countries, since they will subdue us and Islamicize us by force.
The West isn’t feared because we are so oppressive, we are despised because we are perceived as being decadent, weak and pathetic.
Muslim nations believe that they can hide behind non-state terrorist groups, secretly funded by Muslim states, and watch us chase shadowy terrorist groups while continuing to sponsor terrorism. They get away with it because they’re not scared of us. No, not just Europeans, but Americans, too.
Westerners want to be liked, while most of the world either hates us or despises us. We’re the schmucks of the planet. People can just squeeze us for money, walk across our borders at will and shout “racism” if anybody tries to stop them, but at the same time heap abuse on the citizens of that country.
Why should Muslims be scared of the West? I wouldn’t be. Yes, we should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will occasionally have to take military action to crush Arab pretensions to grandeur.
The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. In the end, it is possible that we will win or lose by the sword. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological war with force on certain occasions. Holding a higher moral standard isn’t going to defeat an Iranian President with nukes, threatening another Holocaust.
Writer Raymond Kraft explains Western softness very well: The Islamic movement “has turned the civility of the United States and Europe into a weapon and turned it against us. It has weaponized niceness, it has weaponized compassion, it has weaponized the fundamental decency of Western Civilization. We have become too civilized to defeat our enemies, perhaps too civilized to survive.”
By the Management of Savagery, it can foment endless incidents of terrorism year after year, decade after decade, until Westerners are worn down, exhausted, demoralized, and no longer have the political will to keep trying to defend Western Civilization.
Kraft thinks we are naïve in believing that the deeds of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the whole Islamic Jihad, are done by a bunch of “non-state actors.” In real life they’re agents of nation states (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, China, North Korea, at least) who want to weaken the West by a proxy war.
The Chinese and the Russians do not want to fight an open war with the Americans, but they would be hugely pleased to see the United States cut down to size a bit, until it is about as much a threat to anybody as the European Union is now, “so the Chinese and Russians can run the global show as they see fit, ration the oil, and pocket the profits.”
There is, however, a big difference: The Islamic world always has been our enemy and always will be. China and Russia do not have to be our enemies, although our relations will be complicated because of their size and their own Great Power ambitions. We can, at best, persuade them that directly opposing us isn’t going to pay off.
Although the West should limit immigration in general and first of all take care of its own interests, this does not mean that we should isolate ourselves in global affairs. The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic and anti-Western groups. We should starve it for funds, ridicule it at any given opportunity and de-legitimize it as much as possible.
As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. This would automatically exclude pretty much all of the Islamic world. Another possibility is an expansion of NATO. The most important principle at this point is to isolate and contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have direct influence over our policies, which they partly do through the UN.
What the West should do is to enter into strategic alliances with non-Western states that share some of our political ideals and goals. We might consider some non-Muslim Asian nations such as Japan and India, perhaps also Thailand and the Philippines. We will, however, still need some understanding with Russia and China and some mechanism for consultations with both of them. Perhaps, instead of any new and formalized organization, the most important countries will simply form ad hoc alliances to deal with issues as they arise.
For Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to dismantle the European Union in its present form, and regain national control over our borders and our legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed as an organization, and so infiltrated by Eurabian and pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. Europeans have little or no chance of regaining control over our own future, far less of implementing a proper control over Muslim immigration, before the EU has been discredited and perhaps destroyed.
Europeans also need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it belongs to a specific historical epoch that we are now rapidly leaving behind. The welfare state economies will become less competitive in a world of several billion new capitalists in low-cost countries. Besides, the welfare state creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world, and it breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in the fight against Jihad. It may also indirectly contribute to the low birth rates in many European countries.
We should use the money instead to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.
Europeans should also adopt legislation similar to the First Amendment in the American Constitution, securing the right to free speech. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry. We need to get rid of hate speech laws. Europe needs free speech more than ever.