Separationism: as good an idea in Dutch as in English

(Note: a full English version of the article has been added to this post.)

Sam Hooft has written an article on Separationism at a Dutch website, Het Vrije Volk (“Free People”). Mr. Hooft says the site is a Dutch equivalent of Free Republic. I generated an English translation at Babel Fish but it’s pretty rough. Since I can’t translate Sam Hooft’s Dutch into good English, here’s a passage where he translates my English into good Dutch:

Islam vormt een groot gevaar voor onze beschaving.

Maar het is onmogelijk om de Islam te vernietigen.

Noch kunnen we de Islam democratiseren.

Noch kunnen we de Islam assimileren.

De enige manier om ons te beveiligen tegen de Islam, is om ons af te schermen van de Islam.

That last line in the original English is: “Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.” That’s not exactly what I meant to say, however. Separationism is not about isolating ourselves; it’s about isolating Islam. So I should have written: “Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate Islam from ourselves.”

* * *

Update: Mr. Hooft has kindly cleaned up the Babel Fish translation and made it readable, with some further slight editing by me:

A Solution for Our Problems with Islam?
by Sam Hooft
November 2, 2007

Since the attacks by Moslims on 11 September 2001 the debate in the Netherlands has been dominated by Islam. But where have we gotten with all this chattering? Is there also a solution? A new philosophy is that of Separationism. Is building a virtual wall around the West the best protection? Ideas concerning a Grand Strategy against Islam.

Both in America and in Europe there is more and more dissatisfaction on the Right with President Bush and the center-right governments that have followed the Americans after 9/11. The utopian attempt in Afghanistan and Iraq to build a pro-Westeren “democracy” costs the West lots of treasure and thousands of deaths among the troops. In the meantime, the massive immigration of Moslims to Europe (and to a lesser degree to North America) continues unabated and so does the Islamizaation of the West which is its direct consequence. A new answer comes from thinkers such as Lawrence Auster. The Separationists adhere to the following propositions:

Islam forms a large danger for our civilisation.

But it is impossible destroy Islam .

Nor we can democratise Islam.

Nor we can assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to protect ourselves against Islam, is to separate ourselves from Islam.

What does it mean exactly, “separate ourselves from Islam”? It means that we should have as little as possible to do with the Islamic world. According to the Separationists, we do not have to conquer Mecca, but keep Mecca at bay, just as Israel built a wall to guarantee the security of the Jewish population while leaving the Palestinians on the other side of the wall to their own devices. The West should build a virtual wall.

Firstly, the Separationists would reduce the immigration from Islamic countries to the West as soon as possible to zero. (And that means of course that an Islamic country like Turkey can never become a member of the EU).

Secondly, Separationists, in a legal, humane, and prudent manner, therefore without proceeding to violence, threats, or intimidation, wish to reduce the numbers of Moslems who are already present in the West, and reduce their cultural influence. Thus radical Moslems who live in the West and call openly for jihad or for introducing the sharia should be returned to their country of origin. Both Geert Wilders and the Swiss SPV have called to do the same with Moslems with double nationalities who commit serious indictable offences. Radical mosques in the West must close their doors. Islamic customs which militate against the existing Western laws and customs must be fought, from serious indictable offences such as honor killins and the maltreatment of women, to apparently more innocuous matters such as introducing Islamic holidays and permitting ritual slaughter. Consider making all Moslems an to pay them money if they remigrate to their country of origin. If you would offer to each Moslem in the Netherlands 50,000 euro in exchange of handing in their Dutch passport or residence permit and signing an agreement to never return, how manyTurks and Moroccans would not make use of this?

Thirdly, stop the Western interference in Muslim countries. No more military invasions of Muslim countries, no more weapon supplies, no support to corrupt regimes, and as soon as possible let’s withdraw our troops, first of all from Afghanistan and Iraq. That does not means that the West would no longer intervene militarily against concrete threats of Moslem countries, but that building democracy is no longer our mission. If Moslems want liberal, democratic, prosperous societies they must build them on their own. If a Muslim country threatens a Western country, military intervention should be fierce, but preferably by means of bombardments from the air or short, intensive actions of paratroopers and commandos. No large-scale military invasions with ground forces and occupations of such country by the same troops. All miltary bases which the West has still in the Islamic world should be closed, but military bases should be set up in not-Islamic, neighbouring countries on the periphery of the Moslem world to prevent further territorial expansion of Islam. Limit interference with the internal matters of Islamic countries.

Not all conservatives were for the war in Iraq. In the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn and Frits Bolkestein were for example opposed. They were right; the neoconservatieve proponents of the war were wrong.

Fourth, treat the Moslem world such as the West treated the Communists during the Cold War (or such as the Moslems themselves treat Christians and Jews in their countries). No student visas for Moslems. No direct flights from Teeran, Amman, or Jeddah to London, Amsterdam, and Rome. That means as well that the West must reduce the cultural imperalism of Islam, by making it more difficult for Moslems to transmit their programmes (prohibit Islamic Internet sites, tv channels, and the distribution of radical writings).

Fifth, the Western addiction to the oil from the Middle East and with that the enormous income for the Moslem world should be ended. Without oil, Islam has no leg to stand on. Let’s use all of our ingenuinty and research & development and combine it with large state subsidies to reach as soon as possible independence from Mideast oil and gas.

The Grand Strategy of Separatonism looks prudent without being timid. If the Western countries would implement this strategy a large conflict with the Moslems would be discouraged rather encouraged. We have nothing to gain by adding oil to the fire. No rational persons would want to conduct a world war against Islam, a belief system with a minimum of one billion partisans. Nobody gains from a clash of civilizations. We gain nothing from tough talk combined with military violence against Moslems, whose anger against the West this only enflames, when in the meantime we don’t hinder the Moslems from immigrating into the West and spreading their beliefs here. But the problem, sir, that remains. [Sam Hooft: This is a quote from Pim Fortuyn, meaning that he wasn’t the problem and that if he were to die the problem of Islam would remain.] Separationism offers a stimulating thesis. It is well worth considering.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 02, 2007 10:48 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):