Auster belittles Frank Gaffney’s all-hat-and-no-cattle approach to Islam:
"Every effort" must be made to ensure that toxic sharia stops leeching into America, every effort--other than moving one's fingers on one's keyboard and typing the words, "Muslim immigration must be stopped." Nope. THAT effort is beyond Mr. Gaffney's power.
I see Auster’s bet and raise him:
"Every effort" must be made to ensure that toxic sharia stops leeching into America, every effort--other than moving one's fingers on one's keyboard and typing the words, "All Muslims must be deported." Nope. THAT effort is beyond Mr. Auster's power.
14 comments:
It is so obvious that Muslims must be deported. I do not understand Auster and others for their reluctance to draw the ultimate conclusion about Islam. Of course it is a hard road to follow: some say impossible. But it is logistically feasible; witness what we did in WWII for some 10 million troops. The reluctance is squarely upon those who practice moral relativism and political correctness, I believe.
I agree that the only reason this isn't even on the table for discussion, much less being done, is because of political correctness (or its variant, PC MC -- politically correct multi-culturalism).
The Auster solution, only a couple of asymptotic cranks of the gears tighter than the Spencer solution, reminds me of that old saying, "closing the barn door after the horse has fled" -- only here, to modify the metaphors of the analogy, it's closing the barn door after dangerous pests have already invaded the barn. Indeed, it's worse than that, because by the time the West is ready to begin actually doing what Auster proposes -- a reasonable guesstimate would be no less than 25 years (and I think that's a generous underestimation) -- there will be millions more Muslims within the West and innumerable more of them will have insinuated deep within our various institutions their complex networks of associations (as indeed they already have, but it will only be more so by then).
Had the West in the aftermath of WW2 -- before PC MC was the unofficial law of the land throughout the West -- not been complacent about Muslims and recognized them for the potential danger they represented, the West might have been able to deploy a massive and complex Auster Plan that would have been effective, because at that point there were so few Muslims inside the barn. Now, 50 years later, it is arguably too late for an Auster Plan to be sufficient. And certainly that problem will be clearer and more formidable when the West even begins to rationally discuss entertaining an Auster type Plan, some 25-50 years in the future.
I suggest a three-phased plan of deportation:
1. Ban immigration and visitations of all Muslims into the US, but with provisions for controlled diplomatic and business visitations.
2. Request that all resident Muslims voluntarily return to their native lands within 6 months, or face forcible deportation.
3. Initiate forcible deportations, including native American Muslims!.
The question is, what if Islamic nations will not accept our home-grown converts? That is a puzzlement.
Incidentally, I have sampled all of your writings here, and, so far, have not found any disagreements, which probably means that I haven't read deeply enough yet!
This is indeed an extrodinary collection of work, and it is a joy to find someone that articulates in detail what I have surmized in general from far less in-depth study and adumbration(undoubtedly this is your favorite word!).
You have provided me a great underpinning for my general opinions on the matter of the problem of Islam.
Thanks Mannning,
Your 3-point plan at first sight resembles Auster's Plan, with two important differences:
1) your plan ultimately (and within short order) includes all Muslims
2) your plan integrates the teeth of force without ambiguity and at all points of non-compliance.
Your plan sounds fine. Any plan of total deportation will probably entail stages anyway. Also, it likely cannot be done in total "surprise" (i.e., without the Muslims within the West knowing about it beforehand). Such a massive enterprise will undoubtedly be perceived as a massive attack on Muslims and will likely galvanize more of them to postures of overt hostility than prior to that. This will have to be anticipated and prepared for. Nevertheless, since the modern West is the most tolerant and beneficent civilization in history, such a transfer of populations (which many other countries have done, including many Muslim countries, btw, up into recent times) will likely be accomplished in the most humane manner it has ever been accomplished in history -- though, again, we will have to do what we have to do to ensure our security if Muslims resist in violent ways.
I appreciate the fact you're browsing through my blog. If you've picked up on "adumbrate", it shows you're paying good attention!
Thank you for your response.
For me, it is demoralizing to find a group of highly intelligent and knowledgeable people on the subject of the problem of Islam seemingly at each other's throats incessently. I have been around Auster a lot, and am quite aware of his quick trigger turns. I have read GOV, and appreciated the attempts there to find a common ground for the problem and its solution.
Also, I have visited consuede's blog, and to my horror, found so much nonsense about US imperialism that I gave a few half-hearted blasts and left.
Of course, I have read Jihad Watch, and a few of your posts on JWW, which led me to your site. I am all for a coherent, holistic solution, and some kind of organization that multiplies the strength of the anti-Islam movement. So far, I do not see this as a realistic hope.
Mannning,
Well, organization would be good for the movement. I don't know if you've delved into my essays dealing with that, but I've written about 4 or 5.
I can understand some people thinking that people like me (and Auster, from a different angle) are stubbornly holding on to an attitude that would hinder unity and organization. If only we just went along with them in their uncritical support of the luminaries of the movement (Spencer probably the most important of them), everything would be fine, and the movement could keep growing. Don't rock the boat, they seem to say.
The problem with this is that I am not rocking the boat. I don't think a movement is threatened by members offering up internal criticisms. In fact, what DOES rock the boat is members (and unofficial leaders) thinking that internal criticisms rock the boat. It is their hypersensitive paranoia about that which tends to be counter to unity. In fact, internal criticism can help a movement. It's part of the health of any group or movement to allow, and digest, internal criticisms. Only tyrannies resist criticisms.
But that's only one hindrance to unity in the Movement. Another one, perhaps more important, is that no one seems to be actually trying to organize the Movement! The Movement remains amorphous, with ragged edges, and no real organization. Why doesn't someone try to galvanize it into an actual movement? The people on whose shoulders this task should naturally fall, it seems to me, are the luminaries -- the ones with the most influence, the ones most admired, the ones most popular. Such as Spencer, for one.
Perhaps 10 years from now, Spencer may see fit to actually start doing something concretely in that direction.
And for the record, if an Anti-Islam Movement started to coalesce in concrete terms, I would not insist on "lockstep agreement" with my opinions -- but I would insist on my right to voice my opinons within the Movement, just as any other individual should have that right in any Movement that respects free speech and equal representation of its members.
Eric, your points are well-taken, and I do agree that "luminaries" should lead the way.
What this seems to imply, however, is that there must be a certain ambiguity in stating the final goal, an implicit understanding that we want to be rid of the Islamic menace, somehow, ASAP, and that we would have an "asymtotic" leadership, to use your term. The details of just how the goal would be reached evolves from there.
I can live with that for a while, but Spencer apparently cannot, and Auster is simply too volatile to lead. Baron took hiself out of the running some time ago, pleading other involvements of importance to the movement. Your position is sound, in my opinion.
Your mission of documenting the anti-Islamic position here is about finished, as you stated, so you have the necessary ammunition and knowledge. You would make a grand EVP and Chief Policy Officer, with a yet-to-surface luminary as the Head Poobah.
I appreciate your support, but I think any solicitation of my input is exceedingly unlikely in the near future, if ever.
One necessary step toward crystallizing the conversation toward the prospect of organizing the movement -- not even actually organizing it but just putting it on the table for discussion -- would have to be a formal proposal by some luminary for all the other luminaries to meet and discuss that particular topic -- organization. Ideally, if such a meeting took place, it would be transparent to the larger non-luminary public who are interested. Even more ideally, it would try to establish a mechanism for input from that larger public into the discussion process.
Part of that mechanism dovetails into the very nature of organizing -- for organizing should involve a development of a structure that would resemble democracy -- i.e., would integrate input from the larger interested public.
All this preliminary stuff, however, can't get off the ground without some luminary or luminaries actually having this idea (or becoming acquainted with it from some blogger, like me) in the first place. So far, I see no signs at all that any of them are aware of that idea at all, let alone want to do it. So far, they seem to continue coasting along on the status quo of a kind of buoyant disorganization, where they continue doing what they do -- going to meetings to talk about this, that and the other topic of the jihad and how to resist it; going off to give lectures; writing on their blogs; writing books and publicizing their books and making money. In some sense, they are behaving as though this were all a less urgent project, like some important issue of the day like for example Evolution vs. Creationism where the ongoing stimulation of competing ideas is really the main point but actual action is secondary -- or actual action is not that dire and complex (but only involves, for example, some specific Proposition to be voted on in a specific region). They don't seem to realize that the fight against Islam cannot keep moving along in this form, but has to transform itself into a more organized sociopolitical movement not only to effect specific changes in laws, but also the better to grow more and more public awareness.
I realize that the groundwork of education and raising awareness has to be laid, and has been laid often (but not always) quite well by Spencer and other Messrs et al. But for how long should we remain on this lower-burning level, until we see we have to move up to the next level?
Nobody in the movement seems to be talking about this aspect at all, it seems. Except me -- but I'm not really counted as "in the movement"; just an annoying gadfly that barely hangs on to the periphery and is threatened (when they bother to take notice of my insignificant existence) with being cast out into the outer darkness if I don't "behave" and stop "rocking the boat".
Erich:
I wonder if there is a hint of cowardice in the reluctance of the natural candidates to step up to leading the AIM? Surely such a position would draw significant attention by the evil ones in our midst.
Maintaining the loose, fractured and squabbling bunch that now composes the core of the AIM is very much to the advantage of Muslims, and they just might want to keep it that way. Those that understand jihad would understand the danger of running a vibrant and growing movement, wouldn't they?
Mannning, cowardice might explain part of it, insofar as increased organization would make them an increased target; though some of the luminaries who lead a relatively public life now can always point to that as evidence of their bravery. I think the explanation is more lack of imagination, though that doesn't seem to suffice to explain it all. I'd hesitate to conjecture that some of them are actually just using the situation to make money and therefore recognize the current ongoing state of disorganization as conducive to that.
It could just be that what is needed is for some already famous and influential person -- a celebrity or a well-known politician -- to become and anti-jihadist, and then use his influence and fame to galvanize a movement. Without such an infusion of juice from above, the only other alternative will be for the peasants to build it stone by stone from below.
Well then, let us start building! This peasant stands ready to do something: lift stones; or make waves somewhere.
I have written Auster of my opinions, and he more or less ignored me.
In the past, I have stated my opinions on conservative blogs--no sense in engaging the lefties. Few bloggers seem to want to engage the Islamic problem. I was castigated for condemning all Muslims more than once, using quotes from the post-Medina parts of the Koran. The usual reesponse has been, "Well, look at the Old Testament. It has fire and brimstone too!" It is a diversion that satisfies them.
Any suggestions?
Mannning,
I'm afraid I don't have anything heroic or tangibly hopeful in the short-term to suggest. Other than the slow stillicide in the war of ideas, accompanied wherever possible by local activism whether it's just writing letters to editors, calling your congressman (or equivalent), or attending town meetings and making pertinent opinions vocal and similar things including finding a local chapter of certain movements like ACT (check this out to see if it's something you could get involved with http://www.actforamerica.org/ )-- there's really nothing else we peons can do, in the absence of a concrete coherent organization to belong to that would galvanize and use our numbers & talents. While the ACT organization I linked seems like it could fulfill that function, I'm not sure. I hope to research it more to see if it's viable. At the very least, all the luminaries should get behind ACT, if ACT is indeed a viable vehicle for organization and activism.
Just my two cents, but I have faith in the effectiveness of the slow stillicide of ideas because I have faith in the West, where it has worked countless times in its history.
We seem to have thinkers more than doers, Erich, even intellectuals. The history of a group composed of such people is that of degeneration into squabbles rather than rallying around the higher purpose of the group. AIM is apparently no exception. There is some agreement on the first ten or so steps required to achieve the objective of defeating Islam, but, not on how to organize to do so.
This is a two-sided proposition:
what we must do, and what the Muslims will do in parallel. We watch with some horror as the UK and Europe become saturated with Muslim inroads. The more the Muslims succeed there, the more penetrating the message is that they convey to the public here.
This must be used as negative propaganda to the hilt.
The steps here must begin with a successful resurgence of Republican office holders; more specifically, Conservatives themselves. Elections from 2010 through 2020 and beyond must steadily increase the conservative penetration of our government until there is a super-majority.
This needs to be worked on very strongly. The Republican Party is the best hope Conservatives have to dominate the liberals sufficiently to get action on the Islamic front.
In parallel, the message of the evil of Islam must be propagated far and wide. In this, those associated with AIM must play a major role, and they are now, with real effect. That effect will be amplified by Muslim actions in the same time frame, if they can be reported effectively around and through the MSM, despite their PCMC bias.
There are more actions to be set forth, but the nub of my thinking is that we must win the political fight in the next decade, we Conservatives, or it may be too late for us, and for the nation, to defeat Islamic ambitions.
Post a Comment