Dreher on Separationism

Rod Dreher at his “Crunchy Cons” blog discusses what I have called the Separationist School of Western-Islamic Relations. He intelligently asks whether my points one through four—Islam is a mortal threat to us, but we cannot destroy it, we cannot democratize it, and we cannot assimilate it—logically lead to my point five—we must separate it from ourselves.

Dreher is the assistant editorial page editor at the Dallas Morning News. Though this is only his blog and not a regular newspaper column, it is the closest my ideas on Islam have come to being discussed by a by-lined writer at a mainstream publication. Also, the blogger Vanishing American discusses a report at Galliawatch that interest is growing in the only logical response to the Islamic threat to the West, which is the removal of Islam from the West.

Gintas writes:

The reference is progress. Have you read the comments there? It takes me back to my high school German class. The teacher, when he’d get frustrated with us, would draw three circles on the blackboard, one high up and two lower down, arranged like a triangle. He’d ask us, “do you know what these are for?” We’d all gape at him dumbly. He’d point to the bottom two, “this is where I put my hands and” pointing to the top cicle “this is where I bang my head!”

LA replies:

You mean the comments replying to Dreher are as bad as that? I guess he just went too far!!!

Gintas replies:

Here’s a gem: “First we should require the Muslims to wear some symbol on their clothing to mark them apart. Of course, marriages between Muslims and pure Americans will present difficulties but this too has been dealt with by other societies. All that is lacking is the will and the boot.”

Hmm, not a bad start towards getting them to leave or convert.

Keep your comments disabled. Too much dreck to wade through.

Tom S. writes:

I must say, I don’t get it with regard to Dreher. Your point five obviously follows from points one through four, and Dreher, after some backing and filling, more or less admits it, in his discussion of points one through four. My question; why should an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which Dreher now is, so badly want point five not to be true? What has contact with Islam offered the Orthodox, or indeed any Christians, but dhimmitude, enslavement, and oppression?

Dreher’s “Crunchy Conservatism” has always had a strong affinity with the 1960’s counter-culture, despite its traditionalist trappings, and I have always believed that, in the end, Dreher would have to choose between being “crunchy” and being conservative, because, regardless of what he may believe, the 1960’s counterculture was and is the sworn enemy of true conservatism. It may be that he does not want “separationism” to be true, because this would force the choice upon him, and he’s not ready for that…

That being said, you get the idea that Dreher is actually trying to find the truth, and he’s not really liking where his search is taking him, but he’s persevering. That’s better than simply yelling “racist!” whenever you encounter an unwelcome idea.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 13, 2006 11:30 AM | Send