sends this standalone version of a comment he posted at Lydia McGrew’s blog last month:
Whenever people suggest serious steps by which America could defend herself against the threat of Islam, many other people, including many generally reckoned to be conservative, express fundamental opposition to the proposals.
Like every great lie, the idea that we must not resist Islam in any serious and specific way does contain an element of truth: effectively resisting powerful aggression always does coarsen a people to some extent. But faced with the choice between being coarsened and being destroyed, we must choose coarseness.
(There is, of course, legitimate room to dispute the specifics of the proposals. The “great lie” is that any sort of “discrimination against Moslems” is wicked and un-American. I’m also not trying to counter those who claim that the threat is minimal or nonexistent. These claims require a different response.)
When serious proposals are made to diminish the presence of Islam and its threat, commenters frequently point out that given current realities, these proposals have little chance of being implemented and if implemented, would probably also be used against Christians and other parties innocent of the intent to destroy us. True enough, but three responses:
First, the unpleasantness of singling out a specific religion for opposition would not be required if Moslems were not here in significant numbers, or if it were not the case that there are no officially supported roadblocks to their increasing in numbers and influence. Drastically decreased Moslem immigration is the absolute first prerequisite (not sufficient, but necessary) for adequately defending ourselves.
Second, we must articulate how a properly-ordered America would defend itself. It is a given that no serious proposals for defending ourselves will be permitted by our current masters. It is understood that such proposals are thinking outside the box.
Third, this points to the need, even in a properly-ordered America, for some sort of formal declaration that Islam (with individual exceptions noted) is a uniquely hostile and dangerous religion/social system/community of people (such as the constitutional amendment proposed by Lawrence Auster). Any serious proposal must suggest steps to enable us defend ourselves against the threat of Islam, not against a generic “fundamentalism” or “religion” or “intolerance.” We could even make a distinction between the benign and threatening elements of Islam. But a declaration of our intent to defend ourselves against the threat of Islam, like a declaration of war, is necessary in order properly to defend ourselves. Once again, this sort of clear and focused thinking it totally against the current spirit of the age, but someone needs to say it.
And permit me to point out that in war, we engage in activities that would be totally unacceptable in peacetime. Many of those objecting to these proposals are not acknowledging that Islam has, for all intents and purposes, declared a low-level but serious and widespread war on us. Certainly many Moslems are unaware of or opposed to the war, but it is occurring nevertheless. And when a nation is attacked, it is necessary for its leadership class to acknowledge that a war is occurring, and to take some steps that would be unacceptable in peacetime. Yes, if these steps were to be implemented under current conditions, Christians and other innocent parties would be in some danger. But remember: these proposals are an exercise in thinking outside current boxes.