Saturday, July 26, 2008

What Can We Do?

The essay below, written by Westerner, was originally posted on Lawrence Auster’s blog in October 2007. Last winter the author asked me to re-post it here at Gates of Vienna. In the thick of events I put it aside for later, and then forgot about it. Westerner wrote me again yesterday to remind me, so here it is.

But first I’d like to talk about Westerner’s proposed program in order to clarify my own stance towards it.

The Beast of 666Parts of it — such as destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities — are prudent and desirable. Other prescriptions — such as the one calling for the destruction of Mecca and Medina — I find imprudent and immoral. This is not to say that such drastic steps can never be prudent or moral. The firebombing of Dresden, for example, was unthinkable in the fall of 1939, but by February of 1945 it had become quite thinkable.

When the survival of an entire people is at stake, no option can be ruled off the table. As we come closer and closer to that point, more and more unthinkable things will be thought about by more and more people.

But the West isn’t at that point yet. Whatever you may think of Westerner’s policy suggestions from a moral standpoint, they are — with the possible exception of the destruction of Iran’s nukes — politically impossible, and will remain so indefinitely.

Under the circumstances, prescriptions for what “we should do” are just so much air blowing past the lips of powerless people.

We must make it an invariable policy… we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located… We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to…

Who are “we” that might do these things? Define “we”.

We, that is the writers of this blog and anyone who is likely to read it, cannot do any of these things. Not only that, if “we” means the leaders of the United States or other Western countries, then it’s easy to see that “we” aren’t going to undertake them anytime soon, and certainly not in my lifetime.

I can devise cogent policies that are eminently intelligent, thoughtful, logical, and supremely just, but it won’t do me any good. The people who make the grand decisions are far from the world I inhabit, and think very differently than the people in my circle.

I’ve been banging this gong for a long time, but I’ll bang it one more time: We are a small group of like-minded people scattered throughout the Western world, gathered in loosely interconnected networks which have at most a modest influence on local affairs. We are largely excluded from any voice in the corridors of power.

When I move from the prescriptive to the normative in my writings, I recommend that the focus be on what is actually achievable for the distributed networks of the Counterjihad. Legislative initiatives, demonstrations, protests, lawsuits, lobbying our elected representatives, fundraising, publicity, recruiting, and improved communication — all those are achievable. As time goes by, our reach may extend, but for now grand policy remains beyond our grasp.

To his credit, Westerner acknowledges that his essay is designed not as an action plan, but as a way of making people aware of what he thinks must be done.

Now I’ll let him have his say:

Dealing With the Islamic Threat
by Westerner

In recent years, several knowledgeable writers — including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem) — have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. They will accept temporary truces, but are resolutely determined to continue their struggle until total victory, and will utilize whatever methods are necessary to achieve that goal.

The nature of the Islamic state that they seek to impose on us is clear, both from their ideology and from their history. It will not include either freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, nor will it include equal rights for women. Those non-Moslems who are neither killed nor forcibly converted, will be dhimmis (lacking the normal rights of citizens, and subject to special taxes and humiliating treatment). Since Muhammad himself held slaves — and, indeed, enslaved formerly free persons — it will be blasphemous to allege that slavery is immoral. No vestige of our democratic system will endure.

However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone).

Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- - - - - - - - -
However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate. Even if an American president (and a sufficient number of congressmen) were to become convinced that Auster is correct — and even if the president proceeded to carry out those suggestions — the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states, most of which contain a large, powerful Islamic establishment dedicated to the spread of Islam throughout the world. Furthermore, many of those states possess enormous reserves of oil, and the wealth that those reserves lead to. In a few years, that American president would leave office, and sooner or later would be succeeded by a leader who is less convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to us and must be opposed by such firm measures. Auster’s suggestions, therefore, even if adopted, will only bring us a brief reprieve.

We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. To some readers, this may seem impossible: How can a movement which boasts of 1.2 billion followers ever be crushed? But we should not despair. Remember, just a few decades ago, the Communists ruled far more territory — and a considerably larger fraction of the world’s population — than the Moslems do today. The West is far stronger than the Moslem world, and if we use our assets wisely and act boldly we can crush Islam permanently. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps:

1. We should start by thoroughly destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. (Yes, we could triumph even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, but only at a far greater cost.)
2. Next, in order to protect our homeland from Moslem terrorists we must adopt a policy of not accepting any immigrants (or even tourists or students) from Islamic countries, and by deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally. (It is not that most Moslems are terrorists, but rather that most terrorists are Moslems, and that by keeping Moslems out of our country we can greatly decrease the frequency of terrorist attacks in the United States.)
3. We must make it an invariable policy that we will not permit any predominantly Moslem country to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction. (Pakistan obviously represents a special case, since it already possesses nuclear weapons. However, even though the present government is reasonably friendly to us, we cannot permit them to keep those weapons, nor the facilities producing them.)
4. There are various ways in which we can eventually reduce our (and Europe’s) dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, those programs will take decades to carry out. The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. The states bordering the Persian Gulf are all weak, and if we make up our mind to do so we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located, drive away the people who live there now, and produce the oil ourselves. These, of course, are acts of war, and would be immoral if done solely to enrich ourselves. However, the Moslem world is already at war with us, and we are fully justified in taking such actions to defend ourselves and our way of life.
5. Our government must then embark on a policy of persistently denouncing Islam. We should repeatedly state and broadcast that Muhammad was not “the messenger of God,” but rather was a false prophet. We should also tell the world that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and a cruel, greedy, and lascivious man. (The truth of these statements is amply documented by ancient Arab writings.) Islam cannot be defeated if, in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we continue to ignore these truths and continue to speak of Islam and its founder respectfully.
6. Finally, we must demonstrate — in an absolutely unmistakable way — that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence. (In order to avoid unnecessary loss of life, the first two or three such sites should be sparsely populated, and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina should be given a reasonable length of time to evacuate.)

Since most Moslems believe that the truth of Muhammad’s statements were demonstrated by his military victories, the total destruction of those cities cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is therefore probable that over the course of a century the number of Moslems in the world will drop drastically. Some Moslems will convert to other religions; some will become agnostics or atheists; and those who remain “Moslem” will break up into many small sects. In any event, bereft of military power, oil — and the diplomatic power that brings — and money, Islam will lose much of its appeal and will cease to be a menace.

It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. And just as we were justified in killing millions of Germans and Japanese to achieve victory in World War II, we are justified in killing large numbers of Moslems to maintain our independence and freedom from the Islamic menace. Note that our victory in World War II did not occur until about eight million Germans — and a similar number of Japanese — had been killed, a far greater number than would be killed by the program suggested here.

Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States — or any coalition of Western nations — until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done. It is vital that when an American president is elected who understands the gravity of the Moslem threat, and is willing to take strong action to counter it, he uses that window of opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Islam, so that the threat does not continue.

If the current trend of events continues, within a generation or two the West is headed for a violent civilizational conflict without precedent in recent history. But, for the time being, regardless of what any of us think of Westerner’s ideas, they will not be implemented.

I asked earlier: Who are “we”?

It seems more and more likely, given the acclamation that repeatedly greets the Immanent Messiah of Hope and Change, that the answer is: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

And then we’ll get what’s coming to us. As events unfold, some or all of the policies proposed by Westerner will likely be implemented.

The people who implement them, however, will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Mecca and occupying the oil fields, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions.

Because that’s what happens when drastic emergency situations arise, when an entire civilization as at stake. The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish hundreds of millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.

When the time comes, we won’t be doing those things. They will.


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Tanstaafl said...

My apologies Baron.

Baron Bodissey said...

Testing to see if a new comment will show on the post.

Engineer-Poet said...

Quoth xlbrl:

"Atheism has brought on more death and terror in it's short sway than any other ideology. And it is an ideology, not the lack of one."

Reading that was a true laugh-out-loud moment.

Atheism is, at its core, an endorsement of doubt as the central thesis.  Trust nothing that you cannot verify, unless you cannot think without it.  This is a principle shared with science, which is why so many top scientists are avowed atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins).

What xlbrl calls "atheism" are actually a set of personality cults.  Stalinism and Maoism are the opposite of atheistic:  they have their unquestionable dogmas taken straight from their anointed prophets, Whose Proclamations Must Not Be Questioned (just like a certain "prophet" of Arabia).  Do you think this is atheistic?  Do you think there's a shred of doubt, of testing against reality, in any of this?  If you do, I want some of what you're smoking.

Thomas Jefferson himself purged the Bible of everything mystic, leaving only the philosophical statements attributed to Jesus.  Today he'd probably be a humanist.  This is a possibility you may want to test; after all, if it fits better against reality than what you think now, you'd be insane not to take the possibility seriously.

Nobody said...

I'm late to this, but here is what I suggested, which could cover a great deal of what Baron, CS, Zenster, Erich, Awake and others have suggested.

I agree completely with Westerner's goals as laid out in his original post, if not its complete implementation. For instance, on the question of nuking Mecca and Medina, I believe that it's a mis-application of the 80/20 rule, where 80% of the efforts go into solving 20% of the problem. For one thing, the populations of Mecca and Medina, even counting tourists during Haj, wouldn't be more than, say 10m, out of a world total of 1.3b. So if these 2 cities were nuked, it would do nothing about the Mohammedans worldwide, who may indeed react like they did to the cartoons and the movie Fitna. However, I do not think it is immoral to destroy those cities, and would certainly not complain were that to ever happen.

My implementation of the same process would be different. For starters, instead of nuking, I'd capture Mecca & Medina, and expel all Mohammedans from there, and ban them from going there, period. That alone would heavily demoralize them, since their holiest shrines would be under infidel occupation, and while they may be angered, they'd be demoralized as well. This will take a lot less force than nuking, and at any rate, with the Saudis being militarily the paper tigers that they are, they won't be able to defend Mecca. Just expel all Mohammedans from those cities, and issue shoot at sight orders for all who dare appear. Reason I believe it'll work is that Mohammedans believe that when they destroy infidel churches, synagogues, temples, et al, that infidels would be demoralized. Just as people in the West make assumptions about Islam based on what they see in Christianity or Judaism, similarly, Mohammedans made and continue to make assumptions about Infidels based on how they themselves would react if the shoe was on the other foot. For this reason, I have in the past on JihadWatch advocated 'reverse shariah', where we take shariah law, interchange Mohammedan and Infidels, and then apply them, and watch the ummah screech. For this reason, if Mecca and Medina became totally infidel cities, and the Ka'aba and the tombs of Mohammed, Abu Baqr, Aisha, Umar I and Uthman were demolished, they would be sick to their stomachs. Besides, the nukes could then be used elsewhere.

Now, lets go to the ummah that resides outside Mecca and Medina. Since >50% of the Ummah resides in the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies, start there. While I agree with the proposals to take out Iran's nukes, the same has to be done with Pakistan. It does not make sense to argue that Iran can't be a nuclear power, but Pakistan can.

The way to do it is to bomb both their military and civilian nuke facilities, as well as take out their air force and command centers. The mistake a lot of people make is that since Pakistan has nukes, if Karachi was bombed, NY or LA would be bombed in response. But this is only a valid concern if the country contemplating such an attack was India. Because while Paki missile systems would cover most of India, it wouldn't come anywhere near the US, so the US could attack Pakistan and disable them militarily like Israel did its neighbors in 1967, without risking a Paki military counter-strike on US cities. Once this was done, the goal would be to launch major attacks on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia and make it clear that the only thing that would stop it would be these countries going Infidel. If they refused, it would be followed by nukes on their most heavily populated/major cities, such as Karachi, Dhaka, Rawalpindi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and a neutron bomb on Lahore (Also, India would need to be read the riot act and told in no uncertain terms that unless they ban the practice of Islam within India, they too risk a fate similar to Pakistan: even they are not likely to put the survival of their Mohammedans above their own Hindus, Sikhs and other Infidels). This threat alone would make millions of Mohammedans jettison Islam, and that population would have gone down by about 500k.

Now for the rest of the world's ummah, since they are widely dispersed, the method there would be to read the major populated countries - Egypt, Turkey, Iran, et al the riot act, and maybe even accompanied by bombing major cities, like Teheran, Cairo, in addition to taking out Iran's nuke program. As far as the gulf goes, in addition to seizing Mecca and Medina, Arab and Iranian oilfields would accomplish the job of de-funding, as well as demoralizing them. While it's debatable as to how many Mohammedans would jettison Islam simply given a choice, the question of how many of them would do so at the barrel of a gun is another one altogether. And here, their own taqiyya would work against them, since it'll be the Mohammedans who will be at a loss to detect the genuine apostates who would jettison Islam simply given a chance, from the fakes, who may just be practicing taquiyya.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 204 of 204   Newer› Newest»