A categorical call for the separation of Islam from the West
years, the Norwegian essayist Fjordman had adopted Separationism
by stages. As of 2006-07 he was still expressing doubts about calling for the complete removal of Muslims from the West. By December 2010, as I wrote here
, he was a 100 percent separationist.
His latest article, “Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World,” may not add anything substantively new to his position, but, as is suggested by the title, his message is more authoritative, more categorical, more urgent than in the past.
Now think what it would mean if the whole anti-jihad movement adopted Separationism as thoroughly and explicitly as Fjordman has done here. If that happened, there would be a clear, rational alternative to the current madness (see the previous two entries), an alternative that was being put forth, not just by two or three isolated writers, but by a movement. When that happens, Separationism will start to enter the mainstream debate and be recognized by the mainstream conservatives. They won’t agree with it, if course, but they will at least be aware of the existence of this alternative, “extreme” view and they will have to respond to it in some way and explain why they don’t agree with it.
Here are excerpts from the article:
Islam means “submission.” If you are not willing to submit to Islam or Islamic rule then Islam is your mortal enemy, always has been and always will be. Yes, Islam itself. Not “radical Islam,” “militant Islamism” or “evildoers abusing the peaceful teachings of the Koran.” Islam.
Islamic culture is incompatible with all of the best aspects of European civilization. No form of Islam as it exists today belongs in any Western country…. Islam cannot be reconciled with our way of life. It is incompatible with any civilization worthy of that name, Eastern or Western….
We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.
If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term.
We cannot continue as we are today, or our freedoms will slowly be eroded and our societies gradually destroyed. We need to halt Muslim immigration to all Western countries on a permanent basis. Any agreements or charters that prevent such a policy from being implemented must be changed. This probably means that Westerners in return have to accept less freedom of movement in Muslim majority countries, but given that these are becoming more dangerous and less hospitable year by year, the age of mass tourism there may soon be over, anyway.
The writer Hugh Fitzgerald has for years advocated the strategy of making Western countries as unfriendly to Islamic practices as humanly possible, which is an excellent idea. We must immediately ban any and all applications of sharia law in all Western countries, including minarets, calls to prayer, halal meat and veils in public places.
We should not try to export “democracy” to Islamic societies that are not ready for them. The attempt to do so has been a costly failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and has brought hostile Islamic regimes to power in places like Egypt. Muslims should not be in our suburbs, but neither should we occupy their countries. We should maintain an armed and vigilant separation. If we need to briefly invade their countries to take out terrorist camps or neutralize serious military threats then we should do so, and leave again afterwards….
Is separation a viable long-term strategy in the twenty-first century? It’s not yet possible to supply detailed answers about how such a policy can be successfully implemented in an age of rapid global communications, but I see the urgent need for us to implement as much of it as possible if we want our societies to survive and remain free. Perhaps separationism will not be sufficient to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, for instance, but it is the very minimum we as a civilization can live with.
[end of Fjordman excerpts.]
One new point Fjordman adopts in this article is my long standing idea that if there are threats to us from Muslim countries, we need to mount a quick invasion, destroy the threat, and then leave.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 23, 2012 02:44 PM | Send