“Where do we go from here?” A practical call for Western defense against Islam

Finally, a bylined writer at a respectable conservative website, Rebecca Bynum at the New English Review, directly addresses the problem of the professional Islam critics who warn endlessly about the dangers of Islam, but who refuse to say what we ought to do about Islam. Bynum fully understands the “Usual Suspects” phenomenon, and she goes beyond it by proposing a separationist-type strategy, including—and she says this without qualification—a call to “stop all Muslim immigration into America.”

Bynum begins by talking about a workshop she attended led by Bill Warner of the Institute of the Study of Political Islam:

As Warner compared this mental state [of a dhimmi] to the psychology of an abused child, a frustrated attendee exclaimed, “Enough about this! What do we do?!” Warner’s answer was that more workshops needed to be held in order to awaken still more people.

While I agree the more people who are aware of the dangers of Islam, the better, there comes a time when practical political steps must be formulated and implemented….

She then states perfectly the contradictory and self-defeating position of the “see-the-evil-but-do-nothing-about-it” Islam critics:

Warner also advocates unity among non-Muslims in order to build resistance to Islamization, but without commonly agreed upon political goals, it is hard to see how such unity can either be created or maintained. How can we work together without something to work toward? [Emphasis added.]

Bravo.

Bynum continues by laying out a practical strategy which is in step with separationism:

We can begin by convincing Congress to implement the following minimal acts of self-defense:

1. Define Islam as the political ideology it is, so that it is no longer protected by “freedom of religion” and our laws against sedition come into effect.

2. Stop all Muslim immigration into America. This should be made a task separate from, and not to be confused with, other immigration initiatives.

3. Limit Muslim influence buying in Washington and academia.

4. Remove Muslim chaplains from our prisons and military.

5. Deport those Muslims, and their families, who are convicted of criminal activity, including but not limited to polygamy, activity that is prompted by or connected specifically to beliefs that are part of their mental makeup and cannot be shed as long as they are loyal to Islam and to the umma al-Islamiyya, and not to the laws of the Infidel nation-state.

Will the opposition be fierce? Of course it will. But we cannot move forward without some plan for political action.

She closes on a note of civilizational defense:

After 9/11, many wondered if Americans would “have the stomach” to prosecute this war and at the time the thinking turned upon numbers of casualties and summoning the will to fight with appropriate ruthlessness on the battlefield. As it turns out, the battlefield is on our own soil, and everywhere in the Bilad al-kufr, and must be fought not so much with bombs and tanks and planes (though sometimes those can be useful in disrupting weapons projects and terrorist training centers), but rather by using the tools provided by domestic laws and social attitudes. And surely in the end, especially in Western Europe, there will have to be all kinds of restrictions on immigration, and on the possibilities for obtaining citizenship, that do not any longer disguise the need to limit the size of the Muslim population in non-Muslim countries if those indigenous non-Muslims are to retain control of their own countries, and not see them, at a faster and faster rate, subject to Muslim pressures and Muslim demands and Muslim aggression that, as we see all about us, is ceaseless and will not, cannot stop—but can only be contained. We need to acquire the understanding that many things which in theory might dismay us are not in fact morally abhorrent—see the Benes Decree of 1946, as Hugh Fitzgerald keeps suggesting—but are the minimum required to fulfill the duty we have, not only to our posterity, but to the civilizational legacy we inherited and must protect from those who do not respect, and would not wish to preserve, it. We owe Shakespeare and Dante, Spinoza and Hume, Leonardo and Balthus, Kepler and Einstein a bit more than mere lip-service. We owe it to them to preserve a world where they, and others like them, may be produced—for not one of the great cultural figures of the West could have been produced in, or for one minute survived in, the Lands of Islam. Understand that, and you begin to understand everything.

I’ve just presented highlights. The whole article, called “Where Do We Go from Here?”, is worth reading, especially where Bynum talks about seeing Islam as a form of sedition, and about ending specific kinds of interactions the United States has with Muslim countries.

In my article on Separationism, in which I quote several writers whom I consider separationists (and Bynum has now been addedto the list), I said that separationism is at present a tiny minority view, but someday will be the majority view. Rebecca Bynum’s stirring article gives me increased confidence that that will happen.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2007 12:39 PM | Send