A reader endorses Krikorian’s Separationism Leading to Mass Apostasy

Kristor L. writes:

So, Mark Krikorian has come around to my way of thinking! I could never figure out how Separationism—admirable as it is—could be effectively sustained for the entire future history of humanity, particularly with the continued evolution of technology. If “our paramount and indispensable object is our safety and freedom from Islamic influence,” then Separation must be just the first step. That paramount object can only be achieved when Islam as a significant historical force is destroyed, as the worship of Moloch was destroyed. Islam must be crushed to the point that it is no stronger than, say, voodoo.

There are only two ways to achieve such a goal: kill all the Muslims outright (a choice they may yet force upon us), or so demoralize them that they become convinced that Islam must simply be wrong, or it would work better/find favor with God. Killing all the Muslims would be horrible. So we have to try to convince them that Islam is a mistake.

To do this, we must first contain them, and then also keep them off balance and impoverished, so long as they remain Muslim. Chaos in Muslim lands is to our benefit. Let the price of oil soar; we’ll find substitutes pronto, if we are forced to, or if there is a fortune to be made in doing so. If we then also quarantine all the non-oil GDP of the Muslim lands away from the world economy, that would be like losing, what, Holland? We can afford that. So, quarantine the Muslims. Sabotage their economies again and again, with SEALS, Predators, and cruise missiles; every now and then, roll over their most powerful player as we rolled over Saddam, then leave them to fight with each other over the ruins. We must be to them repeatedly, relentlessly, as Sherman was to the South. We must force them to their knees right away, and keep them there. It all sounds ugly, to be sure; but that’s war, right? We are at war, and they are the enemies who are right now doing their best to kill us. The last thing we want is to be building Muslim nations; that would be like building Nazi nations in the aftermath of Kristallnacht. No: this is war, so we must be nation destroyers.

Once the Muslims are quarantined, impoverished and destabilized, we can set about taking back Christendom: all of it, and permanently. This can be done in two discrete ways. Militarily, we must push back at the edges of the Muslim lands, push Islam out of the Sahel, Lebanon, the Philippines, Xinjiang and the Horn of Africa. It will be called ethnic cleansing, but it is a classic strategy of war. After WWII, the Sudeten Germans were cleansed from the Czech lands, and no one thought it odd. Then, let the Christian conversions already under way continue to compound, so that Muslims see China, India and Africa all going Christian at ever-increasing rates. Put these two together, and Islam could suffer a fatal collapse of morale and disappear within a couple generations.

We must push them from, “Wow, this jihad stuff is working, we could win, cool!,” to, “The hell with it, this jihad stuff is for the birds; who has time for such a fool’s fantasy?”

One way or another, the jihad must be dealt with, finally, completely, and utterly, and soon, or it will be with us forever—which is to say, that sooner or later, it will wholly triumph.

It would be nice if we didn’t have to go through all this; we’d much prefer to live and let live. Who wants to engage in a world war, other than a maniac? But the logic of jihad is inexorable: it leaves us no other way out. So be it, then. The Muslims must be made to understand that, precisely because of the logic imposed on them and us by their religion, it is they who face a simple choice: apostasy or demographic/economic disaster.

I’m not talking about a hot war like WWII, but nor yet am I talking about a Cold War like WWIII. This is a lukewarm war, ideal for the new military doctrines now being installed: relatively few major deployments, and those quite short; lots and lots of precise, devastating attacks on high value targets, deep in enemy territory; and constant guerrilla pressure on enemy frontiers.

Comparing the destruction of Islam to the destruction of the ancient religion of the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians is not idle. Hannibal had rampaged through Italy for years. The Romans our Fathers recovered from this near-fatal catastrophe. They took Sicily and Iberia from Carthage, and then Africa; and then razed Carthage, and salted the earth where it had stood, to ensure that they would never again be threatened by those who made pious holocausts of their own children. Who today makes pious holocausts of their own children?

LA replies:

I think we need to distinguish between what is indispensable for our safety and freedom, and what is highly desirable but not necessarily indispensable. The separation and isolation of Muslims from the non-Islamic world is indispensable. The elimination of Islam as a religion, once that isolation has been effected, is highly desirable, but not indispensable.

I said “pretty neat” to Mark Krikorian’s plan because of the way it went farther than, and conceptually completed, my own previous ideas. But I have not subscribed to Krikorian’s plan, nor to Kristor’s plan. Kristor’s plan passes the test of internal coherence and is inspiring in its audacity. Whether it is practicable is another question. It is one thing for the nations of the West to remove their Muslim populations; that is something that would be within their power, if they had the will to do it. It is another thing to launch a war which will only end when all Muslims have given up Islam. I don’t think that that is something that we can make happen. Yet, as I said, I am inspired by Kristor’s bold vision which says that we can make it happen.

Here is Kristor’s prevous long comment about how to defeat Islam. I continue to welcome all rational ideas on how to solve the Islam problem.

Simon N. writes:

Kristor’s policy is the exact opposite of a defensive strategy of separate and contain—he’s advocating permanent war against Islam until it ceases to exist. This means permanent offensive engagement with Islam, and is likely to destroy us long before it destroys them. A defensive strategy, as advocated by William Lind and Lawrence Auster, and as practiced on Israel’s behalf by Ariel Sharon, is in my opinion the only hope of success. And success here means our survival, not their destruction.

LA replies:

Yes and no. It’s the opposite of “separate and contain” in that it spells unending war and contact with Islam. It’s the same as separate and contain in that it still begins by getting the Muslims out of the West, which for me is always the main thing.

Remember, “separate and contain” is not purely defensive, not by a long shot. It means actively moving Muslims back into their homelands and actively keeping them there and actively intervening to destroy dangerous regimes or terrorist groups.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 24, 2007 01:46 AM | Send