Thursday, August 06, 2009
Auster's Insufficiency and Incoherence 2
1. Auster recognizes that “making Muslims leave” the West is the best way to manage the problem of Islam.
2. However, Auster refuses to take this to the logical conclusion:
a. We must make all Muslims leave the West.
b. We must expel them forcibly.
The logical conclusion 2.a. derives from the fact that there is no reliable way for us to tell the difference between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims, and this logical conclusion acquires compelling force from the unique and complex nature of the problem of Islam.
The logical conclusion 2.b derives also from the nature of the problem of Islam, particularly its enculturation of militant supremacist expansionism combined with its enculturation of hostile deceit in service of that militant supremacist expansionism.
3. Instead of 2.a., Auster would only try to make the dangerous Muslims leave—as if he has some magical key that can determine which Muslims are dangerous, and which Muslims are harmless. He specifically told me in an email that he is uncomfortable with my “totalistic” approach that would simply have for its goal the expulsion of all Muslims. So Auster crows about being the toughest anti-Islam analyst on the block with his “subversive but logically inevitable thought”; but then when the rubber meets the road, he shrinks back from articulating the no nonsense of what needs to be done.
Instead of 2.b., Auster would use a graduated combined approach of carrot-and-stick, whereby some Muslims are bribed with money to leave; other Muslims are forcibly expelled; and furthermore additional Muslims would over time find the West more and more inhospitable to their culture (through the West increasingly developing legislation and/or enforcing existing legislation that cramps the style of Muslims) and would for that reason simply desire to leave.
The problem with this graduated approach is two-fold:
a. It does not account for the unique nature of the problem of Muslims.
b. Even if it could be argued to work around the unique limitations and challenges presented by 3.a. (which is dubious at best), given the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West, it will not be implemented by the West until it is too late—i.e., after at least another 20 to 25 years if not much longer, by which time millions more Muslims will be within the West, making such a needlessly complex approach nearly unmanageable, as well as more dangerous, since these actions by the West will further “radicalize” their Muslim populations, which will have increased dramatically by then, engendering a potentially deadly tinderbox situation, if not actual eruptions into widespread riots and more attacks on us in various ways. This in turn would force the West to inflict upon Muslims various forms of physical coercion, and the potential for civil conflicts within the West, between Muslims and non-Muslim forces, would only increase. The potential for horrific, bloody and messy complications to the original, graduated, solution would likely unfold.
Better for us to adopt a single-minded goal, of expelling all Muslims, and work toward that goal without distracting ourselves with needlessly complicated and ultimately incoherent “graduated” strategies. We will never be able to begin to realize the process of working toward that goal, if even people within the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement inhibit themselves from facing the logical conclusion of the problem of Islam.
4. Furthermore, Auster adds insult to injury by accusing others of not having developed a clear and concerted and more no-nonsense plan of action to deal with the problem of Islam, when he himself has developed a plan that is flawed and stops short of doing what needs to be done, in great part because of his absurd (and ultimately reckless) concern for the “dignity and essence” of Muslims.
Again, I have analyzed this in more detail in my previous essay, An Iron Veil, as well as in the transcripts of this comments field in which I respond to various apologists for Auster.