Defining an indispensable condition of Western defense as “lunacy”
I stand by what I said last March in the entry, “Is it an escapist fantasy to talk about reversing Muslim immigration?” Significant numbers of Muslims are going to be living in Europe for eternity and it is a fantasy psychology that denies that. How many remains to be seen and depends on whether any significant immigration quotas are put into place.
But even if they are put into place (which is doubtful and doesn’t stop illegal Muslim immigration), the birthrate of Muslims already here is much higher than the Christian and secular population. Please get real (Karen especially) and start to deal with the problem in a more realistic way.
Why are some VFR readers such fantasists? Do they want to remain on the lunatic fringe, doomed to impotence? Perhaps that is the psychology at work in VFR readers. Suggest impossible solutions which can’t work and then feel superior to those who are trying to find realistic solutions which may involve compromise.
The position you attribute to “some” VFR readers is in fact the position of VFR itself; you have on numerous occasions disagreed with me, not just with “readers,” on this very point. Therefore, according to you, VFR is a lunatic fringe, consisting of people who in their lunacy feel superior to non-lunatics. Clearly, you are fundamentally opposed to what VFR stands for. It’s time for you to recognize this fact and act accordingly.
- end of initial entry -
In my view, an indispensable premise and starting point of any project to save the West from Islam is the agreement that Muslims must be removed from the West. I don’t expect everyone instantly to agree with that position. But anyone who dismisses out of hand the possibility of getting at least large numbers of Muslims to leave, who regards us as lunatics for believing in that objective, and who demands that we drop that objective as a condition of being seen as “sane,” is obviously not on our side.
Mark J. writes:
Before Jeff in England rides off into the sunset, I am very interested to hear what his “realistic solution(s) that may involve compromise” would be.
If the population of Muslims in the West is growing faster than the native people, then it is a mathematical certainty that they will become the majority. If they become the majority, it is nearly as certain that they will impose Islam on the minority, and that they will become more and more assertive as they approach majorityhood.
What possible compromise in any sense that has meaning to people who want to maintain Western civilization and identity can address these eventualities, without requiring that Muslims essentially leave the West? I am curious what his “realistic solution” is.
Mike Berman writes:
Jeff in England says that it is “an escapist fantasy to talk about reversing Muslim immigration.”
Jeff may be correct at this point in time. As Muslim numbers inevitably grow in the West, however, the Islamists will increasingly assert themselves in their political, cultural and violent forms of jihad. Isn’t it even conceivable in Jeff’s world that there will come a time when even mainstream whites will have had enough? Who’s to say what that breaking point might be? It could take a dirty bomb or worse, but at some point the tide could turn. It is the function of VFR and its readers to lay the groundwork for that time by increasing awareness and sounding the alarm while we are still in the majority.
Karen writes from England:
This is Jeff just going back to square one again. We have rehearsed all of his “solutions” before and found them utterly meaningless. Jeff’s answer to the Muslim problem is perpetual compromise, which would lead to eventual submission.
As I remember, Jeff has never offered any solutions, beyond the vague general idea of “reaching out” to Muslims who “share our moral values.” What this reaching out would consist of, what this coalition would aim at achieving, and how it would prevent the further growth of the power of Islam in the West, he has never said.
Jeff in England writes:
I didn’t realise that “being on our (your) side” means agreeing with things which are impossible. Talk about masochism!
So, as far as I understand, whatever impossible or near impossible solution VFR readers put forth to any problem which I disagree with (even if I had the same goals), then the conclusion will be made by you is that I am not on your side. Now there is logic for you. [LA replies: Jeff is ignoring the fact that concerning one of VFR’s central positions, he described VFR as “lunatic fringe.” If that’s not a case of not being on the same side, I don’t know what is.]
At this point, VFR readers, there is more of a chance of all Muslims in the West converting to Christianity than Muslims being removed from the West (with the exception of the odd fanatic fundamentalist Muslim). So no more talk of removal please, it might make you feel tough but it has zero chance of happening.
I won’t claim to have a complete realistic solution to the Muslim problem. Saving Western civilisation would be the focal point of any solution. That Western civilisation would have to include Muslims living in the West.
I would start by entering into proper dialogue with various Western ex-Muslims (Ali Sina for example), secularised Western Muslims (such as Hirsi Ali) and Western Muslim dissidents (such as Irshad Manji who still regards herself as a practicing Muslim). I would then enter dialogue with selected progressive Muslims such as Sufis (even if they have had a mixed history) as they are generally not of the jihad type. I would then move on to dialogue with selected mainstream moderate Muslim leaders and icons (even though we know so called moderate Muslims can be not very moderate). [LA replies: Dialog with this one. Dialog with that one. And what is all this dialog aimed at achieving? More dialog. Jeff is the John Kerry of West-Islam relations.]
Finally, as part of these initial first steps I would make contacts with selected influential liberals (including gay activists) who realise that there is a serious problem with Muslims in the West (even if they don’t grasp that liberalism has helped accentuate this problem).
We would enter into dialogue knowing there will not be a perfect solution. Saving Western civilisation will be the name of the game and compromise will be inevitable. Not ridiculous compromise but compromise based on respect. Saving the West will involve the participation of Muslims as well as every ethnic and religious group living in the West.
Our task is to get Muslims (and others) to begin to see that the West which they have come to needs to be saved and that there will have to be changes and compromises made by Muslims if they want to really be part of this society. They have to be shown that they cannot keep being the Muslims of the 8th century or of the countries they came from. [LA replies: And what if the Muslims don’t agree with Jeff’s “musts” and “have to’s” and “cannots”?]
Meanwhile the Muslim immigrant numbers need to be kept down as much as possible by the introduction of reasonable quotas. We would like zero Muslim immigration but that ain’t gonna happen either. But some sort of significant immigration restriction in various Western countries is key.
I admit that Muslim numbers seem bound to keep increasing and that it does not bode well for the West. But perhaps our dialogue with the people I have mentioned will help to spur Islam and Muslims to change.
My solution (its first steps) has some chance of making some impact in an attempt to save the West. Your solution (removal) is off the radar and is a non-starter.
Jeff doesn’t acknowledge that we’ve had this debate before and that I and others have fully and satisfactorily answered his position and shown why it’s wrong. The reality is that Jeff does not share VFR’s view of Islam. Instead of recognizing this, and taking his arguments to a venue that will be more receptive to them, he keeps expecting me to drop my clear understanding of the nature of Islam, as something radically incompatible with our society, for his amorphous understanding of Islam, as something that can be made to fit into the West without changing the West into something else.
To understand the folly of Jeff’s continual haranguing me on this issue, it would be as though I sent endless comments to the editors of the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos telling them that their left-wing philosophy is all wrong and that they should become traditionalist conservatives.
Mark J. writes:
I’m imagining Jeff’s “dialog” with the Muslims:
(Now, while Muslims are small minority:)
Jeff: You’re welcome to stay in our Western countries, but we really need you to respect our way of life.
Muslims: Oh certainly. We just want to improve our circumstances. We’re all about respect and compromise. Oh, would it be too much too ask to install footbaths in public areas and allow us to build mosques in your major cities?
Jeff: No problem at all—we’re very willing to have reasonable compromises. Build away! But remember to respect our way of life.
(In a decade or two, when Muslims are a signficant minority:)
Muslims: We must be able to control our areas of the country. We are Muslims; we must have sharia law in those areas.
Jeff: Sure, that’s reasonable—just remember to respect our way of life! It’s all about reasonable compromise!
Muslims: Oh, we will, certainly. Also, we need you to prohibit publishing anything by anyone that would offend us. We’re willing to compromise, though—we won’t call for the traditional Islamic punishments for such blasphemies—only long prison terms.
Jeff: Well I don’t like it, but it’s all about compromise, so OK.
(In another couple decades, when Muslims have effectively colonized and control large swaths of the cities and have significant political power:)
Muslims: We are ruling here now. You will convert to Islam or you will pay the tax that dhimmis must pay.
Jeff: Um, hey guys, let’s have some reasonable compromise here. Remember how you agreed to respect our traditions? Let’s open a dialog on this.
Muslims: Who is this infidel dog to talk to us? Chop off his head.
Alex A. writes from Britain:
Apropos your commenter Jeff’s views on the fantasy of reversing Muslim immigration (in Europe):
Even if the political will existed, reversing the immigration of Muslims into Europe by peaceful means seems unlikely. Negotiation won’t wash: few Muslims having experienced the security and affluence of the West will abandon it for the poverty of the East. Bribery hasn’t been tried to any significant extent, but it seems probable that a few unattached men might be persuaded to return to Pakistan and elsewhere for a consideration—but not enough to make much difference to the demographic trend.
That leaves us awaiting either a “prosperous event” which would encourage Muslims to demand immediate repatriation (and I can’t think of one), or a Muslim outrage causing such a huge loss of life that a forcible expulsion of Muslims became politically possible. It’s a weak and passive policy to wait on events, but there’s no alternative at the present time.
Philip M. writes:
Without wanting to join in and kick a man whilst down, I have to say I find it depressing to think that Jeff is on the “conservative” end of the political spectrum and yet is so utterly defeatist about the West that he even thinks that just stopping, never mind reversing Islamic immigration, is impossible. Is he really so brainwashed by the media into what can be done that even this simple step is impossible? If someone had told Jeff 50 years ago how England would look and feel in the new millennium, would he have thought that possible? Would the average Soviet Russian in the mid ’80s have believed how quickly their world would disappear, or the medieval Catholic? What Jeff thinks of as a grown-up sense of realpolitik contrasted to the VFR position is merely an inability to see that in the broader sweep of history things can change quickly and rapidly—and the impossible can just as quickly become the possible.
In this regard Jeff exhibits traits common to many people I have argued with on these issues, in particular the idea that the world and its trends are now fixed and irreversible, and the only changes that can be made now are gentle nudges and tweaks. Why?
For example, it is all very well talking of winning over “moderate” Muslims to the cause of the West, but Jeff does not seem to appreciate that by the middle of this century we will be well on the way to being a Muslim country. This “debate” with Islam is something that is going to be played out in every generation, and won forever until the end of time! Think about it, Jeff—the modern Jihadi movement was born in the early 20th century, in parts of the world that had sometimes not seen Islamic political extremism for generations. These movements can flare up at any time and sooner or later we are going to enter into a “dialogue” we don’t win. What then? Are you going to wait until it is we who are forced to leave Europe? What examples are there of Muslim countries that have had a fruitful enough “dialogue” with Islam that you would be willing to live there? If you cannot think of any such countries, why do you think it would be any different here?
It is also a mistake to judge the potency or possibility of a position by its current popularity. In reality most peoples opinions are extremely changeable, like Jeff they are often based not on what they would really want, but on what they think is “possible.” Jeff does not really tell us whether he would actually like deportations if he thought that they were possible, only that it is not. How many others are there like you? Sometimes all it takes is for a few brave people to stand up and say unequivocally, “This is what I believe, and this is why I believe it,” and when the howls of derision have died down and they see you are still standing, still asking why this cannot be so, still insisting you are deadly serious. Then people sit up, take notice, and ask themselves exactly why they had convinced themselves it could not be done in the first place. There is a marketplace of ideas, and their values can go up and down as with all other commodities. With hindsight it may turn out that your dialogue-with-Muslims-schtick is a beta-max solution to a problem that is awaiting the introduction of the DVD.
Philip says:”In reality most peoples opinions are extremely changeable, like Jeff they are often based not on what they would really want, but on what they think is ‘possible.’ Jeff does not really tell us whether he would actually like deportations if he thought that they were possible, only that it is not.”
This is very ironic, because Jeff has been an ally of mine in calling on the Islam critics, the “Usual Suspects” (and it was he who first called them that), to talk about restricting Muslim immigration. The Islam critics’—or rather their excusers’—typical excuse was that they would like to have Muslim immigration restrictions, but that it’s not “possible,” now, because there’s not enough support for it, so there’s no point in even talking about it or urging it.
But now it turns out that Jeff’s rationale is very like that of the Islam critics whose feet he has been holding to the fire these last couple of years. In fact, in a key sense his position is even more appeasement-oriented than theirs. The Usual Suspects have simply avoided the issue of immigration cessation or reversal, refusing to address the issue at all. Jeff goes further and says that immigration reversal is totally out of the question, that anyone who advocates it is on the lunatic fringe, and, further, that even cessation of immigration is impossible. The most Jeff aims at is reduction of Muslim immigration, not its cessation. Having explicitly accepted a future in which “significant [and ever increasing!] numbers of Muslims are going to be living in Europe for eternity,” he argues that the best we can do is have “dialog” with them with the aim of reaching an entente cordiale. This is Jeff’s Plan B—and it is a formula for the progressive and irreversible extinction of the West.
Sam B. writes:
Jeff in England has already begun to accept his dhimmitude, if only psychologically. He has lived for so long with the changing demography that he doesn’t really appreciate the danger. (The salami principle; or the lobster who doesn’t notice that the water’s heated up to boiling point until it’s too late.) Moving Moslems back to where they came from—including native-born second generation?—perhaps more worthy of repatriation to their holy lands, since they are the ones who perpetrated the London attacks—may be a VFR “fantasy”—i.e., there may be some very practical difficulties. The British courts may have an insuperable task when it comes to passing an entire body of laws to that end. Which means that it can’t be done by fiat (e.g., overnight), but will mean a gradual legal, social, and political, not to mention educational process. That, in contrast to making a silk purse out of a Moslem sow’s ear (excuse the porky pun!) seems far less fantastic than “Let us reason together.” Dialogue, compromise with “moderate” Moslems, etc. That—Jeff’s position—may be even more of a fantasy than the one he saddles VFR with.
Jeff in England writes:
You and some of your readers are trying to paint me as being naive about the dangers of Islam. Sorry, that won’t wash. Nice try though. If Western Muslims became a majority tomorrow in Europe it would more or less be the end of Western civilisation. Islam as it now stands is an anti-Western religion and culture.
But we have some time to go yet on the demographic time scale (less time in Europe than America but still time). Immigration quotas may give us some more time. The key is to dilute Islam to some extent. Just as Christianity was diluted. Not that Christianity was ever the threat to Western civilisation that Islam is, despite its oppressiveness and at times evil qualities. Of course the West is more or less defined by Christianity while Islam is foreign to it.
One could argue that countries like Turkey (a semi-Western country) and Malaysia (a partially Westernised Asian country) have a form of diluted Islam. That is not to say those countries are great to live in but there is some degree of political freedom and separation from orthodox Islam.
Islam is a dangerous religion for sure. I wish it weren’t in the West. But it is, permanently. And the non-Muslim West is not about to go to war with Muslims. Sorry about that. Zero chance again.
So my initial means to save the West and keep Muslims at bay (some form of dialogue coupled with the strengthening of a secularised form of Islam plus an alliance with Christian and secular liberals to help put pressure on Muslims) are the only game in town.
Is there a good chance of this solution working completely? No. Is there some hope of it working in part? Yes. Is there some chance of diluting Islam? Yes, but we’re going to have Muslims onside to lead the way. Is there any chance for your solution to work. Nope. Which would you prefer to try?
I recommend that people read Ryder’s important comment in the recent thread about Thomas Fleming, where Ryder describes the type of the “proselytizing defeatist.” The comment reads in part:
Going beyond Fleming in particular, you raise a broader issue that I seldom if ever see discussed. Namely, when people “give up” on the possibility that traditional conservatism might succeed (or white nationalism, or whatever else on the Right), why this propensity to start proselytizing far and wide about how hopeless everything is? Why the need to spread defeatism?
This describes Jeff to a “t.” Jeff hasn’t just personally given up on the possibility of removing Muslims from the West, which would be understandable; he is passionately trying to persuade us that we should give up on that possibility too. According to him, if we talk about the desirability and necessity of reversing Muslim immigration, we’re lunatics. The only way we can show ourselves to be rational and responsible people worthy of participating in mainstream discussion is by giving up any hope of a non-Muslim future for our society, and by never discussing the idea again.
The proselytizing defeatist seems to hold the contradictory notion that a person’s mind can’t be changed to help the cause, but somehow a person’s mind can be changed to hurt or give up on the cause. Apparently proselytizing only works one way with such types: to spread defeatism.
I don’t want to be beating up on Jeff here, but the logic of the argument draws me to the conclusion that a Usual Suspect is less harmful than a Proselytizing Defeatist.
El Ingles writes:
Jeff says: “Is there any chance for your solution to work. Nope. Which would you prefer to try?”
It is facile for Jeff to claim that the removal of Muslims from the West is impossible. It is eminently possible. The political will does not yet exist, that is all. We need to generate it, and in that endeavour, Muslims are already giving us all the help they can. Far better we rely on them to aid us in this manner than in expecting them to line up with us to “dilute” Islam!
I am not a willing self-publicist, but my essay “Surrender, Genocide or What?,” which I believe you have read, is as detailed an examination of this entire question as I have yet encountered. Interested parties can Google it. It was hosted at Gates of Vienna, but can be found in other places now.
Van Wijk writes:
Jeff’s view of the world is inverted. His idea for for the future of Europe is actually far less possible than the eventual separation from Islam advocated at VFR. Think of a grand-scale Operation Wetback. Make life singularly unpleasent for Moslems, both legally and through making them feel very unwelcome in various ways, and many of Jeff’s moderates will voluntarily remove themselves. This has been proven to work. Becoming best buddies with so-called secularists and moderates has not, despite five years of attempting to win hearts and minds in Iraq.
That being said, Moslems are not Mestizos. Some Moslems would stay behind and declare holy war on infidel Europe. These would be (correctly) viewed as hostile enemies. Alex A. has it right: this is not going to end without bloodshed, and a lot of it. But you can only have diplomacy with a Moslem when you hold a loaded gun to his head. In every other case, he will actively seek to conquer you.
However you look at it, the future of the West is unpleasent. The difference between Jeff’s solution and VFR’s is that the former virtually seals our fate, while the latter at least gives us a fighting chance.
Jeff in England writes:
Yeah, I like your new name for me.
To “win” any war, you have to grasp the reality of the situation on the ground. Hitler in the bunker supposedly still thought that the German people were going to rise and defeat the Russians. The point being is that you live by fantasy you die by fantasy. You cannot sanely advocate a militant strategy against an enemy if you are in no position to do so due to the real situation on the ground.
Do VFR readers really want to be remembered as bunker mentality strategists claiming victory was possible through their tough talking militant strategy?
In regard to removal (again). First, you would have to get a significant people of each Western country to want removal of Muslims. Ain’t gonna happen.
Then you would have to get the elected politicians to pass a law declaring that removal was going to happen (voluntary or not). Ain’t gonna happen.
Then, even if by a miracle bigger than Jesus coming back in the flesh, laws were passed for removal of Muslims, you would actually have to physically do it. Speaking for the UK scenario, it currently seems impossible to remove individual asylum seekers who have been ordered to be removed by the courts as their application has been turned down. And they are illegal and not entitled to be here.. Nope, ain’t gonna happen.
We could wait for some great white Christian uprising which will literally remove all Muslims. And wait and wait. Ain’t gonna happen.
So any rational person knows Muslims are going to be part of the Western mosaic.
That’s the reality on the ground which we have to deal with.
Maybe, just maybe, some reasonably severe immigration restriction laws will be enacted as time goes on. That’s a big maybe as recent attempts to do so have shown.
I personally am for 100 percent immigration restriction of Muslims. Do I think it has any chance of happening? Of course not. So I will compromise (there’s that word again) and be happy if some sort of significant quota on Muslims comes into being in the UK and the rest of the West. But is even that gonna happen. Not very soon if ever.
So while we wait for some sort of restriction to happen (which still would leave an increasing through birthrate Muslim population in place), I suggest that we build an alliance via dialogue of ex-Muslims, progressive Muslims, certain so called moderate Muslims, selected liberals and others to try and start some process of transforming Islam and diluting it.
I realise how hard it is to transform a whole religion and the culture of the people involved in it. In Christianity’s case it took hundreds of years and Islam is a much harder nut to crack. I am not over hopeful, Countries such as Turkey may provide some inspiration though of course the Turkish scenario is very different than the Western one.
I accept the obstacles involved in this attempt through dialogue at transformation but at the same time I realise that is the only game in town.
To reiterate, a good general works with the situation in front of him (her), not the situation he would like in front of him. That does not make him a defeatist. Dunkirk soldiers were hardly defeatists.
Look what Stalin did in 1939. Instead of talking some tough game, he wisely made an alliance with Hitler. He was castigated for it by many but better than anyone he knew the real situation on the ground and took appropriate measures. And he was proved right.
Churchill could talks as tough as he did because he knew that eventually the Russians would have to fight on the Western side, as would the “stay out of the war” Americans. And Churchill was only proved right because of that military backing from the previously “defeatist” Russians as well as the Americans.
What I am proposing is realism followed by rational response. We are in a tough situation as immigration in general, both legal and illegal, especially in Europe has been out of control. This is not a “before” scenario, it is an “after” scenario. Please, VFR readers (and editors), stop the tough talking baby games when it comes to dealing with Muslims or saving Western civilisation.
There are huge numbers of people from non-indigenous groups here in the West, many for more than a generation, and they ain’t going anywhere. That includes Muslims. Their birthrate is usually higher than indigenous whites. Those people in one way or another are going to have to be included in any solution.
Talking tough about dealing with Islam and Muslims makes some people feel good. But it has nothing to do with reality. That’s what many VFR readers have to fully realise in regard to the Muslim situation and in regard to saving Western civilisation in general.
Do VFR readers and others have the guts and wisdom to look at the real world and change their tactics accordingly? Let’s hope so, for everybody’s sake.
Otherwise they will be remembered as the “proselytizing fantasists.”
Give the “proselytizing fantasist” a fantasy cigarette!
This gets tiresome. Jeff’s vaunted “compromise” simply means surrender to Islam. He seems to have an understanding of how antithetical Islam is to our society, but in reality he doesn’t. If he did, he would see that, if the removal of Islam does not take place now and peacefully, it will take place later and violently (or else Islam will take us over, violently). There is no way to avoid this conflict. Avoiding the conflict now, is only putting off the conflict (or the complete victory of Islam) until later.
“Do VFR readers and others have the guts and wisdom to look at the real world and change their tactics accordingly?”
Translation: do VFR readers have the guts and wisdom to surrender preemptively to the Islamization of the West and the extinction of our society?
Yes, I guess such surrender would take a certain kind of “guts.” As the vulgar but apt saying goes, Jeff wants us to bend over and take it like a man.
I think we’ve gone around the track on this enough, and nothing can be accomplished by repeating the exercise. Jeff has his view on this. I and other commenters have ours.
Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
Regarding Jeff, I think that is what will happen to Spencer. As he has alluded many times in his writings and comments (some embedded deep within them), he seems to see no way out of the Muslim presence in the West. I predict that he will come up with a Jeff-like treatise of compromising with them, thinking that it will give the West an upper hand. How far away is a Usual Suspect’s modus operandi to what Jeff is proposing?
I would also add that your two biggest disagreements with long-time and seemingly sincere VFR readers have been regarding Muslims (Jeff and Conservative Swede).
Are we going to continue to see people dropping off at the pressure of how to deal with Muslims? Imagine if they’re like this at VFR how others behave/respond at say JihadWatch or as we saw at Gates of Vienna?
Obviously Swede doesn’t count as a sincere anything. From the moment he began to disagree with me last summer, he wasn’t merely disagreeing, he had become an enemy who was out to harm me.
Kidist compares me with Robert Spencer. I criticised Spencer (and other Usual Suspects) and still do, for (a) not being clear in his writing and where he stood on Muslim immigration (to the West) and often giving mixed messages, (b) not providing a solution to the problem in general, and (c) not supporting significant Muslim immigration restriction.
I have always supported a complete immigration restriction of Muslims to the West.. As removal is not an option I have not addressed it.
I still support complete immigration restriction of Muslims to the West. But not only is a partial restriction the most we can hope for, it is also very late in the game for that restriction to have the effect of keeping Muslim numbers down to a “reasonable” level. That is because of their high birthrate in comparison with the low birthrate of indigenous people here.
Like a general watching the state of the battle, I have come to realise that Muslims are going to be here in significant numbers. I wish it were not so (which again doesn’t mean that many Muslims are not decent people) but it is. Like a good general I am adapting to the state of the ground situation so to speak. Not what I want it to be but what it is. This is something many VFR readers seem unable to do.
And like a good general I develop new tactics to fit the situation. I do not advocate tactics which have no relevance to the reality of the situation.
You can call me a defeatist. Or a compromiser. But who is really aching for defeat by staying blind to the situation and inflexible to changing the fighting strategy? For that is exactly what Larry and many VFR readers/writers are doing. They seem to want to lose, seem to want Muslims to triumph, seem to want the West to go under as long as they (VFR readers/writers) can be said to not be compromising and not be speaking in a defeatist way. I will not seriously compare them to an apocalyptic cult but there are some similarities. [LA replies: Great. While Jeff delicately refrains from following Conservative Swede all the way and calling VFR a cult and me a cult leader, he nevertheless says that VFR has “similarities” to an apocalyptic cult. I don’t simply have a view Jeff disagrees with; I’m a quasi cult leader.]
There’s compromise and there is compromise. I’m not saying that we should compromise to allow Muslims to stay how they are. They must change significantly if they are to be part of this Western mosaic which they are living in.
That is why I am for opening dialogue, one step at a time, with various Muslim dissidents followed by what could be called “moderates.” And selected liberals too, many of whom are very anti-Islam. Not give them everything they want dialogue. Not even dialogue which acknowledges that their religion and culture is equivalent to Western religion and culture. No, dialogue with a view to pushing them to bringing their religion and culture into the 21rst century. Dialogue which will bring them into the Western civilisation paradigm that we are hoping to renew.
Again, I am not naive. Islam and Islamic culture is a serious danger to the West. It is also very resistant to change as are the Muslims who practice it. It is not Western in its essence which is why many of us oppose its presence here.
On the other hand, Islam and Muslim culture have good points. Muslims are family based and care for their elderly. Fathers stick around (even if the marriage is loveless). Muslim culture produces less criminals than many other groups. Drug taking and prostitution and stealing are frowned upon. Muslims are often very polite and decent on a personal level. They emphasise education (though for many a narrow minded one)
Islam itself is a transcendental religion and its followers have a natural humility before the Supreme Being. It emphasises devotion to something higher.
So there are good points about Islam and Muslims which given that they are here to stay we must acknowledge and emphasise them as we try and “dilute” Islam and bring Muslims to a more Western view of thinking.
I won’t go into all the bad points of Islam and Muslims. They are very well known, from intolerance of criticism against it to the intolerance of other peoples and their non-Islamic religions to a natural antipathy to Western style freedoms and democracy to forced marriage and honour killings etc.
Those bad points are bad indeed. But these people are here and are not leaving. So do we try to initiate dialogue with segments of their population. Or do we just leave it as it is repeating that they have to be removed when we know they won’t be.
If in this projected dialogue with certain mainstream Muslims we add to conservatives various liberals and representatives from other non-Muslim ethnic groups to selected dissident and ex- Muslims we would represent a huge majority of people demanding from the majority of Muslims significant changes in their way of going about things.
You may reply that Muslims will refuse to change one iota. Maybe so and in that case we are back to square one. But maybe they will agree to significant changes, especially if they realise every other group wants those changes from them.
This is not appeasement. We will be firm in our demands. The key for us is to get a strong enough coalition together to “negotiate” from a position of strength. And to know what we (the coalition as a whole) believe in.
Meanwhile we continue to advocate immigration restriction. Removal talk is irrelevant and should be dropped.
More soon on the step by step specifics of this Plan B.
While I’ve given Jeff all the space he wants to explain his position, the question still hangs out there: why should I consider further comments from a source that considers this website to be like an apocalyptic cult?
An anonymous commenter writes:
Jeff from England complains about the alleged lack of realism in the solutions proposed by VFR and its readers for dealing with Islam, yet there is little realism in Jeff’s own suggestions.
He says that we should engage in “dialogue with a view to pushing [Muslims] to bringing their religion and culture into the 21rst century. Dialogue which will bring them into the Western civilisation paradigm that we are hoping to renew.” He ignores the static and unchangeable nature of Islam, which makes such a development impossible. He tries to convince us that Islam has its good points, but even if for the sake of argument we accept that this is true, it ultimately does not matter, because whatever good points Islam may supposedly have are irrelevant to the fact that there are aspects of Islam which threaten the West (and which are also intrinsic to Islam). And finally, despite his many calls for “dialogue,” Jeff does not even mention the one major obstacle for meaningful dialogue, namely the fact that it is impossible to tell a “moderate” Muslim from a “non-moderate” Muslim.
In trying to come up with realistic solutions for dealing with the threat of Islam, Jeff has had to downplay the threat itself. As a consequence, he now resembles an Islam apologist.
You are quite right. Jeff, as much as he may deny it, is now compelled by the logic of his own position to become an Islam apologist. Since he believes that it’s totally impossible to remove Islam from the West, and that we should cease even discussing the idea, and since he also wants the West to survive, he is required to believe that we can make Islam, which we can’t remove from the West, compatible with the West. And this in turn requires him to present Islam as nicer, more civilized, and more pliable than it really is—it requires him to imagine, and to try to convince others, that Islam is reformable, which it is not. Meaning he becomes an Islam apologist.
Note a further irony. Central to Robert Spencer’s view of Islam is the idea that Islam cannot be reformed. Yes, Spencer plays endless verbal games on this point, but he makes it clear that it’s what he substantively believes. Jeff, by contrast, is now affirmatively arguing that Islam can be reformed. Thus Jeff is now to the left, so to speak, of Robert Spencer, the man he’s been relentlessly criticizing for the last two or three years for not being firm enough on the Islam question, or at least on the question of stopping Muslim immigration.
Jeff in England writes:
You are not an apocalyptic cult in any way shape or form and I apologise if I inferred you were. I shouldn’t have even brought up the term.
I will add too that despite my criticism of and disagreement with your views on how to deal with the menace of Muslims in the West, I am grateful for the insightful analysis you have given and are still giving all of us on the subject.
In addition, I still feel Spencer and Melanie and Swede have treated you shabbily without giving you the respect you deserve, both as an analyst and as a person.
Jeff in England writes:
I certainly recognise that Islam as it has been is incompatible with the West. Ditto with Muslim culture. I have made it clear that I prefer for Islam to not be here at all in the West. But as it most surely is and will be, I am suggesting attempts to talk with Muslims about some sort of dilution (of course it won’t be put to them using that exact term). Turkey somehow landed up with a form of diluted Islam. That must have come about with some form of transformation of Islam in that area over a period of time.
Is diluted Turkish Islam preferable to Saudi Arabian Islam? Is English Islam preferable to Turkish Islam? Of course. Likewise we can try to encourage further significant dilution. That doesn’t mean we negotiate softly softly. But it does mean talking to selected Muslims.
I reiterate that I am under no illusion about the nature of Islam and Muslim culture as they have been for centuries.
I am not over hopeful that the majority of Western Muslims are going to agree to change fundamental aspects of their religion and culture. But as removal isn’t an option and armed war against Muslims even less so and immigration restriction at best a possibility in small doses, the negotiations I propose are the only game in town.
I emphasise that we need to build a broad coalition to talk to Muslims from a position of strength.
If you want to feel superior by calling me a “Muslim apologist”, go ahead. Enjoy your fantasies of removal or an armed uprising etc while calling all those trying for a solution in the real world “apologists”.
GIVE THE ” MUSLIM APOLOGIST” A CIGARETTE!
Ok, Jeff is not a Muslim apologist, i.e., someone who is committed to presenting Islam in a more complimentary light than it deserves. Jeff is (how can I put it?) someone who desperately believes that somehow we can accept our ever-growing adversary among us (our adversary who is commanded by his god to subdue and destroy us), while we simultaneously dilute our adversary. And he thinks that this hopeless endeavor is a better expenditure of energy than spreading the message that Islam means our destruction and that the only way for our society not to be progressively Islamized is for Islam to be removed.
Which brings us back to the question of the proselytizing defeatist. Jeff thinks it’s impossible ever to remove Islam. Fine. I think he’s mistaken, but he has a right to his opinion. Why doesn’t he then work on what he believes in (i.e. accepting Islam in the West while trying to dilute it), while letting me work on what I believe in? Why does he waste his time and mine insisting that I drop my position of advocating the removal of Islam (which I obviously am convinced is right and am not about to give up), instead of advocating his position to people who might be receptive to it?
It’s like the Manhattan Project. They weren’t sure if they could produce enough fissile material by extracting plutonium from spent fuel rods, or by filtering U-235 from U-238. So they pursued both methods simultaneously. It’s the same here. Jeff should go his way, and I’ll go mine, and—who knows?— maybe his way will turn out to be right.
Van Wijk writes:
Personally, I think you’ve given Jeff too much space in this case, especially since he seems unable or unwilling to expound on this great plan of his. His five lengthy comments in this post all boil down to the same thing: Jeff is right, and the rest of us are not only wrong but juvenile.
It’s amusing that Jeff continuously paints himself as a general. The only generals he resembles are the ones who have commanded the Iraq debacle, who think that if we give democracy, personal freedom, and civil rights to Moslem Arabs then they will magically come over to our side. On what basis does he think that dialogue with Moslems will work?
I refer to what I said here: Jeff is not concerned with defending the West as a concrete entity. I’m beginning to suspect that, like so many liberals, the West he wants to preserve is the West that gives him a great deal of personal comforts, like SUV’s, nice restaurants, paid vacations and central heating, and which has more than enough room in its “mosaic” for any number of third world aliens. This would explain his refusal even to consider the possibility of removal, since truly fighting for your people would mean privation and meanness toward others. Jeff would have us believe that revolution is so 200-years-ago, that everything has changed and the old ways are irrelevant, and so we can either join the 21st century with him or stay in the fever swamp.
Well, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. Jeff is not a traditionalist, he is not on our side, and his ends and means are antithetical to ours.
I agree with Van Wijk that this discussion is repetitive and has gone on too long. So I’m no longer asking Jeff to let the discussion go, I’m telling him that this discussion is over.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Send