Moscow

(Note, 3/30, 2:45 p.m.: comments have just been added to this entry.)

About the Muslim terrorist bombing of a Moscow subway, in which 37 people have been killed and hundreds injured: there is only one way that a non-Muslim society can be permanently safe from Muslim domestic terrorism and the constant threat of Muslim domestic terrorism, and that is to remove—by voluntary or coercive means—all sharia-believing Muslims from that society. In the absence of such measures, the threat and the reality of Muslim domestic terrorism in that society will continue, FOREVER.

UPDATE 3/30: When I drafted this post yesterday, I was thinking of our own situation. But of course the Russion situation is not analogous to ours; it is more like the opposite of ours. As reader Dale F. puts it, “We have allowed large numbers of sharia-believing Muslims to settle in the United States. The Chechens and the Ingush, the main sources of Russia’s ‘Islam problem,’ were indigenous people of the Northern Caucasus, forcibly incorporated first into the Russian empire and later into the Soviet, and would be only too happy to go their own separate ways.”.

So the larger principle, incorporating both the American and the Russian type of situation, would be: Avoid including Muslims in your society, whether through immigration or through empire. And if you’ve made the mistake of doing the latter, you must them go, or else the threat and the reality of Muslim domestic terrorism in your society will continue, FOREVER.

- end of initial entry -

Phantom Blogger writes:

It may be ignorance on my behalf, and stem from a lack of knowledge of your views, but what do you plan to do about Internet self-radicalisation? Do you plan to ban the websites or deport anyone who is seen frequently looking at these Internet sites? If this is the case then how do we determine what sites are ok to visit? And how could we trust the politicians and elites in charge to ban the correct sites? (You pointed out before that France was banning websites it considered to be racist, which meant any website that didn’t meet up to modern politically correct standards of what is acceptable).

With Internet radicalisation becoming more commonplace (and people radicalising themselves just through reading the Koran and other books on Islam) I think that there is no real way for non-Muslim society’s to be permanently safe from Muslim domestic terrorism. I think your idea of Separationism is a good one and would help reduce the problem hugely, but the idea that we can be permanently safe seems to me unrealistic. Also I seen in the lecture you delivered at an Act for America meeting you said that so long as there are Muslims living in the West we will have to go through the extreme security checks at airports forever, but even if we do separate ourselves from Muslims, with self-radicalisation I can only see us having to go through the extreme security checks at airports forever anyway.

LA replies:

We have to focus on the main problem, and the secondary problems will sort themselves out. Islam has entered the West via immigration, not through self-Islamization or self-radicalization of Westerners, which is a minor issue. If each Western country adopted the “rollback” policy I have proposed,—if it made it clear that it regards Islam as incompatible with and mortally dangerous to itself; if it stopped all Muslim immigration; if it essentially disallowed Islam within its borders by closing down pro-sharia mosques and deporting any Muslim immigrants (including those who have been naturalized) who advocate sharia; if it took away the citizenship of natural born citizens who advocate jihad (an admittedly extreme step which I explain and justify here); and if it offered a substantial one-time payment to Muslims who voluntarily depart—then, in addition to the actual departure of Muslims that would be brought about by these steps, there would also be a radical reduction of the power of Islam within that society and thus of its attractiveness. since people are drawn to the horse that seems to be growing stronger.

True, society cannot protect itself absolutely from the possibility of some lone jihadist mass murderer; but neither can it protect itself absolutely from other types of killers.

As for your question, “then how do we determine what sites are ok to visit?”, the answer is contained in my overall policy. Advocacy of sharia and jihad are not permitted; therefore such websites would be shut down or blocked.

But then you ask:

And how could we trust the politicians and elites in charge to ban the correct sites? (You pointed out before that France was banning websites it considered to be racist, which meant any website that didn’t meet up to modern politically correct standards of what is acceptable).

A society that reaches the point where it adopts the radical policy of Islamic rollback I have proposed, would be a society that has already rejected modern politically correct standards of what is acceptable. Our current, liberal-ruled, politically correct society would never adopt this policy.

My policy assumes the existence of a society ruled by commonsense, decency, and patriotism, not a society ruled by the madness of liberalism which says that we must be equally open to all groups, even a group explicitly devoted to our destruction. The extreme measures of exclusion called for in the case of Islam are unique to Islam, because of the uniquely extreme threat posed by Islam.

Mike Berman writes:

This is not the first time that Russian citizens have fallen victim to jihadists and yet her leaders see no contradiction in their actions as they refuse to join international efforts to prevent Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons. In fact, they are building Iran’s nuclear reactor for them. Go figure.

Leonard K. writes:

“G8 foreign ministers today strongly condemned the cowardly terrorist attacks on the Moscow subway that took place earlier this morning, and which have killed numerous innocent civilians and injured dozens more,” Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on behalf of his G8 counterparts.

“Cowardly attacks”? Let’s see. According to Merriam-Webster, a coward is “one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity”.

How can “one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity”, sacrifice one’s life, in order to kill as many enemies as possible?

LA replies:

Of course it’s not cowardly. “Cowardly” is the word used by liberal political leaders who don’t believe in good and evil, who don’t believe in their country and in fighting enemies of their country, but who, needing to appear “tough” (because that is the opposite of what they really are) call terrorists “cowardly” because they think it sounds tough.

A leader whose strongest word for mass murdering monsters is that they are “cowardly” reveals himself as a morally empty liberal who is incapable of naming evil as evil, and enemies as enemies—who, indeed, is so empty that he doesn’t even grasp how absurd it is to describe as “cowardly” a person willing to blow himself up for his beliefs.

And by the way, if the worst thing about suicide bombers is that they are “cowardly,” what is the good opposite of such cowardice? How, according to the G8 foreign ministers, would a brave jihadist behave, as distinct from a cowardly jihadist?

Mark P. writes:

You know, and this goes for the conflict between Boot and West, you really do not need to limit the immigration of Muslims based on Sharia-believing alone. Even if thinkers orbit the planet of “non-Islamic-reasons-for-Islamic-Jihad,” then those are still reasons for limiting their immigration. Are they very poor? Then why have them here? Are they angry about Israel? Then why have them here? Do they dislike American foreign policy? Then why have them here? Are they disaffected because of the difficulties of living in the West? Then why have them here? Are they angry because Islamic civilization has been eclipsed by the West? Then why have them here?

Islamic presence in America is a rich tapestry of problems from a variety of sources. Each source points to the same solution.

Mark C. writes:

You wrote:

there is only one way that a non-Muslim society can be permanently safe from Muslim domestic terrorism and the constant threat of Muslim domestic terrorism, and that is to remove—by voluntary or coercive means—all sharia-believing Muslims from that society.

The situation in Russia is different from that of Western Europe. In the case of Russia, Muslims wish to separate off from Russia—but the Russians won’t let them. Hence the terrorism.

Russia’s problem with Muslims came about not through Muslim immigration—but the expansion of the Russian empire. And for that you can hardly blame the Muslims, as reprehensible and disgusting their methods may be.

Russia should just let go its Muslim dominated regions—but instead they seem to be doing the very opposite, wishing to establish a common economic zone which will include Central Asian states and the Ukraine and Belarus. Putin seems to be a Eurasianist at heart—and therein perhaps lies part of the problem.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 29, 2010 03:04 PM | Send