Presented for your interest, in case you missed it: Mark Krikorian’s essay at NRO, “Two, Three, Many Islamic Republics — How to achieve our strategic objectives.” This extract on “separationism” is especially worth reading:
Islam willchange, but only (or at least sooner) if we pursue some variation of what Larry Auster calls “separationism.” “Separationism” is the isolation of Islam from the rest of the world through military action, restrictions on immigration, and other means, presumably including a radically more aggressive search for alternative automobile fuels.
Follow the link to Auster’s blog, “View From the Right.” From his December 2006 entry Separationism, his summary of what we need to do vis a vis Islam:
- Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
- But we cannot destroy Islam.
- Nor can we democratize Islam.
- Nor can we assimilate Islam.
- Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
This is pat; perhaps too pat. For example, I don’t believe that we can’t assimilate Islam. That is, I believe that it is possible. I don’t, however, happen to believe that it is going to happen with any kind of probability. The rational approach? So far, separation from Islam might work — except that the world has a way of knocking, with great force, on our door.
Doubt this? The 9/11 Arab terrorists had no real grievance; and they didn’t need one to come to our house. My only regret is that we haven’t bombed their house with sufficient vigor. Their house being any and all Islamic nations that support terror: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, “Palestine.” The list is long.
Food for thought.