A reply to Steve Burton
(In this entry, MG says that my Separationist plan is much better than anything discussed by Mark Steyn and other mainstream conservative commentators. My articles on Separationism are collected here
MG (a.k.a. Mick) writes:
I’ve got really tired from morons having grand time at that idiotic thread at WWWW.
- end of initial entry -
Here is a comment I have posted:
steve burton sez:
I’ve been listenig to Mark Steyn’s America Alone on my Ipod, while tending to my garden, for the last couple of days, just to see if there might be any merit to Auster’s critique.
Would you kindly point me to a place in the book where Steyn has proposed a solution to the West’s predicament?
The book is great fun, beautifully written, & perfectly calculated to move casual readers in exactly the direction that Auster (presumably) wants them moved.
Why that’s not good enough for him, I simply can’t understand.
And no, his repeated suggestions that West European women out-breed Muslim women is not serious.
Clearly you have to re-read Steyn book.
As Steven M. Warshawsky in a brilliant review of America Alone in American Thinker said:
like so many other conservative commentators who take a hard line in the present “war on terror,” Steyn does not come out and say what he surely must mean—which is that Islam itself is the enemy. Islam is the world’s second largest religion, and claims to be growing faster than Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
Yet after spending page after page highlighting the demographic disaster that awaits Europe (and to a much lesser extent the United States), Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped. Period.
If one believes, as Steyn clearly does (with strong support from the evidence), that Muslims as a group not only are not assimilating into Western culture but are actively hostile toward the very principles upon which our societies are built, then it is “suicidal” (a term frequently used by Steyn) to permit millions of Muslims to take up residence within our countries.
After spending nearly 200 pages describing the dire threat to the West posed by Islam, Steyn begins the final chapter of America Alone by assuring his readers that his book “isn’t an argument for more war, more bombing, or more killing, but for more will.” This statement is either naive or disingenuous. Because Steyn is a very smart fellow, I opt for the latter interpretation.
The West can either submit to this violence and intimidation, or we can fight back.
But what does “fighting back” mean? On this vital question, Steyn’s book, quite frankly, is disappointing. Steyn offers an ambitious 10—point list of options, but he does not explain what they would entail in practice.
My most serious criticism of Steyn, however, is that he refuses to acknowledge the dramatic implications of his own analysis. Take another look at items 2, 5, 9, and 10, on Steyn’s list of options. Together these would amount to a declaration of war against Islam. Obviously, the Muslim world will not take kindly to our “throttling” their funding of Islamic institutions in the United States and Europe, let alone our “rolling back” such institutions in other parts of the world. Nor will the Muslim world perceive our “ending” the Iranian regime or our “opportunistic” use of military power against other Muslim targets in benign terms.
So, without saying anything concrete, Steyn sorta, kinda, perhaps, maybe, argues for a war on Islam. Very good for the Pundit to the World.
We can be sure that any escalation of this conflict by the West (however necessary for our own security) will be met with an intensification of the global jihad.
Thus, contrary to Steyn’s earlier denial, his book plainly is “an argument for more war, more bombing, [and] more killing.” Only Steyn won’t admit it, probably because he wants to retain some “mainstream” credibility. This may be an understandable concern for a professional commentator, but it undermines the power and coherence of his book.
While little Lawrence Auster, whom nobody will publish, who is as close to Soviet time dissident as one can be in the contemporary USA, years ago had a crystal clear plan for dealing with Islam to save the West. And his plan does not involve military confrantation in which millions of Muslims would be killed.
George Kennan will be known forever for formulating Communism Containment policy.
Lawrence Auster has formulated Separation Policy for the Islam threat, that, IMHO, is just as important as Kennan’s containment.
Either West will submit to Islam, will crash it in a war or will separate itself from Islam.
Auster’s Separation will be remembered as a good policy that brought good results or a good policy that was not followed by insane cowards, ie Western elites, to result in disaster.
Posted by Mick | June 17, 2009 2:10 AM
[end of comment at WWWW.]
Terry Morris writes:
I must confess that I love “Separationism.” The first time I read it it made perfect moral and practical sense to me. I’ve been an advocate ever since.
Paul K. writes:
Hope you’re feeling better. We need you! I haven’t been following the discussion at 4W among those who feel Austercized. Frankly, I don’t understand the problem. If you were the editor of a flagship conservative publication, controlling the parameters of debate, I could understand their grievance. Instead, you one man with a blog, in no position to reward those who agree with you or silence those who do not. You have much to say that many of us value, but no political clout whatsoever (would that that were not so). Those who do not care for your opinions are free to debate you or ignore you. So how to explain their outrage and hurt feelings?
I’ve given up trying to understand it. Of course I don’t have power, as you said. But perhaps the assertive/authoritive way I often express my views makes it seem as though I do.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Send