In the counter-jihad
blogsite Gates of Vienna,
last year Westerner
In recent years, several knowledgeable writers—including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem)—have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone). Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.
However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate—the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states. We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps: (4) The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. (6) Totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence.
It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States—or any coalition of Western nations—until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done.
After another sentence Westerner’s entry ends. Note that, among other paragraphs, I omitted steps 1, 2, 3 and 5. The first one to comment on Westerner’s article was Bodissey.
Baron Bodissey said:
The people who implement [such steps], however, will not appeal to ordinary folk like you and me. Along with nuking Mecca and occupying the oil fields, they will remove what’s left of our civil liberties, militarize our societies, imprison and execute those who disagree with them, increase the power of the state, nationalize our economies, and enact powerful controls over the entire populace via the media, the schools, and all public institutions. Because that’s what happens when drastic emergency situations arise, when an entire civilization is at stake. The people who undertake actions that kill or impoverish hundreds of millions of people are the same kind of people who do all those other nasty things. Men who are that ruthless will act just as ruthlessly to preserve and extend their own power. You can’t avoid it; it’s a package deal.
Chechar’s comment for this blog: Is there another alternative? Once the European Muslims reach numerical majority (cf. Mark Steyn’s America Alone), the scenario of letting radical islamists gain power of the British and French nuclear arsenal is horribler than the scenario that Bodissey warns us about. I will now add excerpts of several commenters as posted in Gates of Vienna.
I don’t really think the ideas presented in Westerner’s essay are really that bad. Honestly, I’ve had pretty much all six of those ideas for a little while because I don’t really see any alternative in dealing with Islam. Therefore the only solution left is to fight back against Islam with the same ferocity with which they fight us. Sure, the death of millions upon millions of people doesn’t sound like the best thing to moral people, but what choice do we have? We could be morally superior, so to speak, and not take such drastic action, but in that case we would be dead, or in the best situation, living as dhimmis. Sorry, but I am certain of one thing: I personally will do absolutely anything to avoid having the world go Islamic.
Conservative Swede said:
Regarding the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Islam has been around for 1400 years. Nukes have only been around for a little more than 60 years. Islam is seriously begging for having these sites nuked. So it’s just a matter of time before it happens. If it doesn’t happen early, nuclear proliferation will make sure that eventually an Islamic nuke will hit us. After a finite number of Islamic nukes upon us, we will eventually nuke Mecca and Medina. So there is no stopping this. The only open question is how much destruction, death and mayhem the world will suffer from before that event takes place.
Actually we will reach a point when this sort of drastic measures will be simply unavoidable. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the next generations will witness such a society. It’s the fault of our irresponsible, blind, spineless, dumb leaders and elite, because they are unable and unwilling to stop the Islamic expansion right now. When the Turks besieged Constantinople, the priests and theologians were debating about the sex of angels. This is what our politicians are doing now. If we don’t remove the idiotic political elite which is leading the West nowadays, our grandchildren will pay bitterly for the mistakes and weakness of their ancestors.
Now it may well be that such a development would be inevitable during an all out confrontation with Islam, and that’s the reason why I favor a quick and dirty solution, rather than a corrosive stalemate eating our democracy and civil liberties from within.
Conservative Swede said:
Islam must be eradicated. And this is the reason why Mecca has to be completely destroyed; burned to the ground. This is the decisive blow against Islam. Turning towards a place, five times a day, which is just rubble will not strengthen your faith, it will eat you up from the inside. And you cannot go on pilgrimage to a place that doesn’t exist. Two of most important pillars of Islam effectively eliminated. Medina should be destroyed in the same way, of course, so they won’t start turning there for prayer. All in all it has to be a massive power demonstration showing beyond any doubt that it’s not Allah that rules this planet but the civilization with the greatest means to apply violence and destruction, i.e., us.
I have never once seen it suggested that we deport those native Americans who corrupt the young and commit sedition openly. I would.
Conservative Swede said:
Put Islam and nukes together in a laboratory environment, and the outcome will always be a destroyed Mecca. So the ways things are setup can only eventually lead to a giant showdown.
Most regulars here at GoV [Gates of Vienna] know quite well that my preferred first course of action is for Western militaries to begin targeted assassinations of Islam’s clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy. To quote an old Danish saying: “Go to the horse’s head, not it’s tail”. Decapitating Islam should be our first priority. The damage done through a few hundred or thousand killings could quite possibly change the entire course of history. Rest assured that not killing Islam’s aristocracy will most definitely lead to a holocaust of one sort or the other. A great first step is to kill any Muslim on earth that openly talks of making terrorist nuclear attacks, starting with Ahmadinejad.
Bearing in mind my unshaken opposition to first-use of nuclear weapons in the MME [Muslim Middle East], I can only go on to agree that obliterating Mecca with an atomic bomb is one of the few ways to adequately conveying both the West’s displeasure with Islam and the total fallibility of Allah. As with Machiavelli’s observation, the blow we land should be one that does not heal. There must be a permanent record of just how foolish Islam was to constantly provoke the West.
This is why Iran’s nuclear weapons project should be shut down and even why Pakistan’s atomic arsenal should be confiscated. While Western minds reel at the prospect of using nuclear weapons, Muslim salivate at the very thought of it. Once proliferation occurs within the MME, a holocaust is only a matter of time.
Islam’s destruction is the only acceptable outcome. It will be a supreme moral challenge for the West to understand that military pre-emption costing hundreds of thousands or even more than a million lives will be far more humane than allowing the inevitable holocaust that Islam is sure to precipitate.
All this talk of how to deal with Islam is pointless, because it ignores the real problem: liberals that are preventing us from doing anything. The home front is the biggest front. It would be relatively easy to defeat Islam if we had a free hand. What’s the point of discussing whether we should nuke Mecca when we can’t even stop Jihadists from coming to our countries because liberals won’t let us do that? Let’s talk about how to defeat liberals instead! That is the real problem.
Lawrence Auster said:
Baron Bodissey and others in this thread argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it.” This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us. Obviously, any kind of solution to the Islam problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by anti-jihadists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Bodissey and others implicitly imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived at within the current liberal assumption that governs our world. But that is false. It is modern liberalism itself—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or religion are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.
Therefore it is the liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For Bodissey to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge liberalism on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West. Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from stopping all Muslim immigration, to designating Islam as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Muslim out-migration, to the quarantine of Muslims within the Muslim lands, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies ASSUME that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism. The defeat of liberalism is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore the end of liberalism should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.
To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? NOT by saying, “There’s no support for it.” NOT by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” NOT by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.” No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our WHOLE case, including the diagnosis (Islam is a mortal threat to us) AND the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Islam; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our WHOLE case, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism. It’s the WHOLE case that will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.
Baron Bodissey said:
To be clear: it may someday become necessary, moral, ethical, and imperative to raze Mecca, pulverize the rubble, bulldoze it flat, and sow the ground with salt. We haven’t come to that pass yet, but we may reach it someday. It grows more likely with each passing day of our feckless policies towards Islam. But we aren’t there yet, and I strive to find ways to arrive at our goal via a different route. I think laying out the whole case occasionally has value, but the effectiveness of my mission may be better achieved by concentrating most of the time on the itty-bitty baby steps.
Lawrence Auster said:
As the audience sees it, it’s not clear that Islam is bad, because (1) the liberals skillfully excuse Islam, and (2) even the Islam critics don’t really seem to think Islam is that bad, since they never say that we should do anything about it. The seriousness of the analysis of the Islam threat is underscored by the seriousness of the proposals to deal with it.
The best we can do is ruthlessly manage the problem:
(1) Deport all Muslims from the West; kill the Muslims who resist or try to circumvent #1.
(2) Set up a new Iron Curtain around the lands to where the Muslims have been deported, and kill the Muslims who try to leave. Will this be possible to implement perfectly? Of course not. Even if we had the political will to do this, there would still be holes in the system, and the West would probably continue to be plagued into the indefinite future with rogue cells of underground Muslims who have slipped through the net and who try to attack in various ways.
Captain Willard said:
Sadly, the simple fact is that we have neither the will nor the stomach to undertake such a strategy that as short a time ago as 1945 was seen as a quite reasonable way to wage war against one’s sworn enemies. Look at the very first comment in this discussion [not included in this collection] which considers the rather mild military measures considered by the original poster [Dymphna’s comment, a GoV admin] to be “pornographic.” And that commentator is somehow officially associated with a blog whose avowed purpose seems to be to discuss how to fight Islam! No, I fear we are in for a great many disappointments in the years ahead as the West continues to quiver fearfully and retreat from the aggressive assault of Islam, and the first comment in this thread is part and parcel of exactly why: when even folks who pretend to understand the threat of modern Islam on the march express squeamish reservations about actually fighting it, we are indeed on the losing side. And if the West were truly serious about its “war” with “militant” Islam or its “war on terror,” it would make war the way it did when it was last serious about actually winning (as opposed to simply not losing, which is a different thing), and which is within the memory of some still living, the events of which occurred scarcely two generations ago. But, alas, it is not, and there we are.
The West has only a decade or two, at most, to dismantle Islam before we come under nuclear terrorist attacks.
Specifically, you are ignoring an approximately 300-year-period when the West was both globally powerful and not corrupted by PC [political correctness] such that it was uninhibited in horning in on the Third World through Colonialism and in doing so interfered massively all over most parts of the Muslim World. As a consequence, do you think it was mere coincidence that Islam was more docile during that period, relatively speaking?
All we need, and even this is a tall order, given the mainstream dominance of PC MC [politically correct multiculturalism] throughout the West, is to regain our former rationality and apply it to the threat of Islam, and over time Muslims will hunker down again. Additionally, an Islam that is internationally isolated (under the kind of geographical quarantine I proposed above, echoed by Auster) will of itself become quickly weak, for Muslims have no talents, no industry, no psychological-sociological-cultural ability to sustain the kinds of institutional and infrastructure health necessary to mount any kind of significant attacks. Under such a geographical quarantine, will Muslims cease to be a threat to the West? Of course not. Will that threat become considerably—and therefore sufficiently—reduced, rolled back to the levels of the way it was during Western Colonialism or even better? There is no good reason to think why not.
Conservative Swede said:
The holy sites should not just be pulverized (and named after Oriana Fallaci), they should be forever occupied. Thusly it will make the Hajj impossible, and even the prospect of being able to do it any time in the future inconceivable. In fact, I think that probably one should just destroy Mecca first. And only after that, when the Muslims have redirected their prayers and Hajj towards Medina, should Medina be destroyed in a similar manner.
Finally Zenster, your suggestion of targeted assassinations against Islam’s aristocracy also belongs to the category of age-old wisdom, and yes such a suggestion belongs on the table for a problem of this magnitude. But also here I will say that because it’s Islam it won’t work. Your suggestion amounts to cutting off all the heads of a hydra. While it will hurt them severely, the heads will eventually grow back. No, we need to go for the body for the kill, i.e., we need to attack their faith. All in all, I think it will be fairly easy to destroy Islam, once we have collectively understood that this is what we need to do.
The day this total war turns hot we need more than such a half-hearted stance against Islam, because this is what would be truly insane. In the face of such a formidable enemy we must muster all our mental focus against him. A half-hearted approach only aiming for limited war and treating the monsters with respect, is a sure formula for failure. Limited war has been the paradigm of the United States since WWII and it has left the world in chaos. Most of the cases have been utter failures: China, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia. And even the cases that succeeded have been half-measures: Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq. The idea that war can be successfully waged with the left-hand and without the mental focus on total victory is simply bourgeoisie crap.
Lawrence Auster, you wrote: “To protect ourselves from Islam, or even from nuclear-armed Islam, we do not need to exterminate every single Muslim on earth. We just need to destroy those regimes and terrorist groups that actually threaten us.” Unlike in past wars, the threat from Islam is mostly unrelated to individual states. The predominant threat comes from an amorphously trans-national shadowy network, often seemingly harmless and ordinary Muslims. This reflects the more general problem about Muslims: since we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims, we must, in the context of our collective self-defense, rationally treat them all as dangerous.
Conservative Swede said:
Erich, I cannot see why the destruction of Mecca couldn’t be done in addition to your Ruthless Management policy. If the Muslim world has first been rendered essentially harmless, there is little risk. But the opportunity is great. With a successful outcome we’d break the spirit of Islam, and it won’t be necessary with a perpetual ruthless management. Islam has never before been properly defeated. It’s never been tried.
While many other actions would surely just lead to strengthening their fighting spirit (such as e.g. nuking Teheran), this one is designed to crack it. Nothing would break their faith in Allah like this. And without an immovable faith in Allah the whole jihad becomes pointless for them; meaningless. How can Allah guarantee 72 virgins in heaven if you die in battle, if he cannot protect Mecca? Does he even exist? This will kill their fighting spirit, and then continue to eat up their belief in Islam from the inside. The snake will keep rattling for some time after we have cut the head of it, so we need to keep it at a distance during that. But the snake cannot keep moving for long without its head.
“The danger of Muslims developing WMD [weapons of mass destruction] if they were truly isolated is virtually nil, since Muslims don’t have the intelligence to develop and deploy them without Infidel talent and materiel.”I sincerely think you underestimate this problem. A typical pharmaceutical plant can churn out enough anthrax spores to kill this world’s entire population. Nuclear weapons aren’t the only game in town. This is why I foresee the need to maim Islam so severely that it simply cannot survive at all.
Forget the fantasies of nuking Mecca until we learn to “nuke” the left wing biased media and academia. Can anyone deny that they have managed to make the number one concern post 9/11 and sundry bombings in Europe not guarding against further Muslim aggression but guarding against mythical Islamophobia? Fear of racism has literally been made greater than fear of an existential threat. This is suicidal.
What would be far more effective than merely destroying that black rock they worship in Mecca would be to carve from it an enormous statue of a crowned Christ with His foot on a prone Mohammed’s face, or on a cracking and crumbling crescent, while holding up a cross and a (straight, Christian) sword. Instead of being able to indulge in romanticized nostalgia for a vanished sacred object such as Jews do for the Ark of the Covenant or Christians for the Holy Grail, Muslims would then be confronted in an ongoing unavoidable way by the permanent and utter defeat, the weakness and falseness, of their religion.
Conservative Swede said:
The discussion is also essential in the way that in order to know how to destroy Islam properly, you have to fully understand its nature. And even though the people discussing here are top tier, I would say that there are still several ones that haven’t yet taken in the full nature of Islam.
In a few more decades of unchecked immigration, half of the West will be “Bosnia” and lost. This is a much bigger damage than one or a couple of nukes could do. In fact, given the absurdity of the times we live in, an Islamic nuke upon us could be the very thing that wakes people up, and becomes the start of good times.
I’m not sure even a major Muslim nuclear strike against an American city would convert hard core liberals who crawled out of 9/11’s rubble like cockroaches claiming it was our own fault. But the mushy middle would swing over to commonsense and survival tactics. They are not mentally ill like lefties, just followers. Believe me, right now, if they heard this raving about deporting and killing millions of Muslims, without the groundwork of understanding what Muslims have in store for them, they will simply conclude that WE are the crazies the leftist media and academia paint us as.
On this point, I also think there is value in our soberly and dispassionately, without hatred or false delicacy, directing armies, navies and air forces against the Islamic enemies even though we are at present nothing but a handful of isolated bloggers.