Toying With Genocide
1. The Most Dangerous Game
LURKING BENEATH OUR INTERNAL ARGUMENT concerning the relentless demographic
expansion of Islam into the West without assimilation, is the persistent
background question, "Oh, my, whatever shall WE do with THEM?"
WE are, you see, like muddlers and fiddlers since Nero, worried about THEM.
Our doltish conservative muddlers and fiddlers worry about what "THEY will
do to US" if we aren't very, very careful and selective about which of THEM
we capture or kill while WE seek to give THEM the "gifts" of freedom and
democracy. Our brave new fiddlers on the Left fiddle about worrying if THEY
have enough to eat, enough to wear, enough respect, enough, in short, of the
love THEY deserve for not killing US today.
Both bumbling groups may differ in the focus of their fretting, but fret
they do. For the problem, as they have defined it, has to do with what is
commonly stated as 'a statistically small group of Muslims around the world'
who need to be dealt with in some manner so that greater Islam can get on
with the historic task of being "a religion of peace and understanding." The
majority of both camps of muddlers and fiddlers agree on this one thing: It
isn't Islam that's the problem, just a few heretics that have gotten out of
hand in their zeal to obey the will of God, and, hey, who hasn't done that
from time to time?
One solution, commonly referenced as "the Left/Liberal" position is
essentially "leave them alone and they'll come home. They know its for their
own good." The other solution, "the Right/Conservative" position, is to
force assimilation, modernization, reformation and democratic mechanisms
upon Islam "for its own good."
The two positions agree that "something must be done." They differ only in
their specifications for "a New!, Improved! Islam" that can play well with
other religions and nations in the post-modern world where "business as
usual" is worshipped more than any other state of affairs. Both positions,
whether they focus on "giving" the benefits
of the modern world to the West's Islamic populations spread out in its
cities and nations, or "bringing" the same benefits to the center of Islamic
mass in the Middle East, share the belief that Islam can be "fixed."
Once you understand that the question posed by both enclaves of political
"thinkers" boils down to "How can WE best fix THEM?" the subtext of the
whole Big Argument starts to echo Richard II:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills....
In short, both sides think that in some way "Islam is broken." Is it?
Finding myself in neither political camp, it strikes me that Islam --
especially if you look at the fertility rates of Muslims, mosque
construction and attendance, and the retention and conversion of the
faithful around the globe -- is doing just fine. It strikes me that a
religion that doesn't view itself as broken is unlikely to take kindly to
the notion that it needs fixing. Still, that's the proposition advanced by
both camps in our broken and shattered society. But it is a proposition that
is advanced only sotto voce, in whispers, because to ask, right out loud, if
Islam wants to be "fixed" or indeed can be "fixed," is to know the answer in
the act of asking.
The answer is a resounding "No." And that brings the persistent background
question, "Oh, my, whatever shall we do with THEM?" into sharp relief in the
foreground of Western minds. If history is any guide that is the single most
dangerous question one group of humans can ask about another. It is a
question no sane member of the West nor sane member of Islam would ever want
thrust into the foreground, for it begins the process of transforming a
group with whom a society lives in peace into the "Others" with whom a
society cannot live in peace.
2. The Answer to the Other
ONCE A SOCIETY BECOMES CONVINCED that it is harboring something within it
that is intractably "Other," and that the "Other" clearly and without
quarter means to destroy it, that society looks for an answer that preserves
it at the expense of the "Other." The classic answer is, in historic terms
and sooner rather than later, genocide.
History is littered with mounds of corpses piled up in the name of
preserving or advancing the status quo of the dominant powers in a nation or
civilization by the eradication of a group within the main body that,
rightly or wrongly, threatens the majority in word, deed or demographic. The
targeted group is almost always a group that cannot or will not assimilate
into the larger society. To do would make it other than it is; would make it
become that which it is incapable of becoming without ceasing to be. One of
the most difficult groups to assimilate into a society is one that draws its
core identity from an inflexible religion. This is not to say that Islam in
incapable of reformation, only that it has a solid track record of killing
its Luthers as soon as it sees them. Still, past performance is no guarantee
of future results so there is still, for now, a glimmer of hope. Especially
in America where one of our core myths is that, like the Borg, we can
assimilate anybody. Right? Right.
Much is made of the ability of the United States to assimilate all manner of
national, racial, religious cultures and characteristics into itself and
grow stronger. The eagle in the Great Seal of the United States holds the
banner "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) unfurled in its beak. But the
process of this assimilation in the past has never been an easy one as the
Irish, the Italians, and the African Americans, among many others, have
learned. Still, over time measured in generations, the process has always
succeeded. It has succeeded to such an extent that the American left now
makes a fetish of dis-assimilation, code-named "diversity." Indeed, the
reveling in diversity is not so much a fetish as it is a hobby. Americans
indulge it, albeit with continued carping, because we can afford it. We have
that much money and that much spare time. For now.
And perhaps only for a little bit longer as the present debate and rising
anger over unrestricted the illegal immigration without assimilation of
Mexican people illustrates. Whether or not immigration is illegal the
American model depends on assimilation to function. When an ethnic or
cultural minority swells in numbers and shows no interest in assimilation,
trouble begins and grows. We not only want our immigrants to work in
America, we want them to become Americans first and immigrants second.
3. The Classic European Response: "YOU will never be US."
NOT SO IN EUROPE where the expectation of immigrants was, from the start,
that they would come in, do a bunch of scut work, and leave the rest of
Europe to the Europeans. After all, the deeper thought goes, you can't
really expect a Muslim from Morocco to every be a "a real Frenchman," "a
real Italian," "a real German," or a "real Englishman."
The inner fixations on race and origin are much more firmly held in Europe
than in the US. Regardless of the talk about assimilation heard widely in
Brussells and the traditional capitols of Europe, the fact remains that for
many decades everyone that was staunchly European was quite content to let
"their" muslims live apart. Now, with the advent of the rising birthrate and
violence emerging from the various Muslim ghettos in all the major and most
of the minor cities, Europe is starting to re-examine their "Muslim problem"
in search of a solution.
And Europe, right up to the war now on simmer in the Balkans, has a
distressing habit of coming up with solutions that are all too final. Groups
within Europe that do not fit into Europe, that dwell in ghettos and keep to
their own language separate from the larger society, are often expelled or
excised. In a way, although Germany took the point, the Holocaust was
Europe's way of getting it's Jews to leave. Where to? At the time it didn't
matter, just so long as they were -- in one way or another -- gone.
4. "Past Policy is No Guarantee of Future Policies"
TO DATE, the policies of the various European governments is to avoid
Holocaust 2.0. After all genocide is not only unhealthy for children and
other living things, but bad for business and a quasi-socialist economy that
already has enough problems, thank you very much.
Socialist-powered policies which have penned up Europe's exploding Muslim
population are being redoubled in funding, intensity and "sincerity",
especially in light of the London bombing and French riots. Sensitivity
towards the needs and issues of the Muslim youth of Europe becomes even more
sensitive. Efforts to educate the non-Muslim populations of Europe towards
an even more benign view of Islamic needs ( 'A religion of peace stained by
the actions of a fanatic few.') are expanded. European leaders speak
incessantly of tolerance and the time it takes for Islam to find its way and
become, at last, truly European. And the various Imams and leaders of the
INE (Islamic Nations of Europe) stage photo-ops shaking the hands of these
understanding leaders the besieged EU. The Imams know the premise of
Europe's policies to be false, but they would be poor leaders if they did
not use it to buy all the time that it can.
The policies of the United States parallel these European attitudes. They
counsel tolerance, patience and understanding at home while taking the same
sheaf of ideals and adding the forced imposition of democracy abroad as the
recipe for assuring Islam's ultimate assimilation into the West. Indeed, the
schism here is, as noted at the beginning of this essay, is over how much
force can be used to impose our way on a religion and a culture in a part of
the world that is not known for its love of democracy and individual
freedom. Where Islam has always found its version of freedom in submission
to its theocracy and the melding of the individual into the mass, the big
bet the Bush administration is making is that man is everywhere the same and
everywhere yearns for "Freedom, American Style."
5. What If?
ALL WELL AND GOOD if the current leaders and policy makers in Europe and
America are right; if Islam can be, with enough time and money, assimilated
into the Western way. But what if they are wrong ?
What if, as has been repeatedly stated by Islamic spokesmen in their media
and their capitols and their mosques, Islam has neither the interest in nor
the capacity for assimilation? What if Islam continues, as it has for many
centuries, to be implacably hostile to the West? What if, in a series of
increasingly violent incidents coming quickly over a relatively short number
of years, what we so tenderly term "Islamic radicals" continue to attack the
cities and nations in which large numbers of Muslims live in relative
isolation from the body politic, and it is known that those attacking come
from and fade back into these unassimilated populations?
A year or so back, much was made of the concept of "the tipping point," a
state in which the accrual of relatively small changes over time suddenly
reaches a kind of critical mass and induces a rapid phase change in a
previously stable system. This concept holds that while large events can and
do change things, a lot of small events change things as well.
After the London transport bombings of last year, several commentators were
quick to point out that they did not, in terms of human life, rise to the
level of the Madrid bombings to say nothing of 9/11. The implicit notion
underneath this sort of commentary is that, "Well, it's not so bad." In the
same vein, some commentators, regarding the French riots, assured listeners
as the car burnings faded away, "Well, it could have been worse." Both
palliatives ignore the nature of terror accrual and compassion fatigue
within the human memory.
At this point, most aware humans -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- assume
that whenever and wherever on the globe a terrorist incident takes place it
is almost certainly going to have a Muslim signature on it. Even when it
does not, the Muslim's have been so effective in aligning terrorism with
Islam that people assume terror's perpetrators are Muslim even if it is
shown later that they were innocent of this or that particular incident.
6. How Fragile is the West Really?
PUNDITS LIKE TO SAY that Western civilization is fragile and that it is
perched, like some gigantic teetering pyramid, on a single weak pivot formed
of supply chains, consumer economies, global telecommunications, and an
international system of finance. To an extent, that's true. The continuing
prosperity we enjoy depends on these things if our present, pleasant happy
world is to go forward day after day, world without end, always.
As long as all these modern innovations and a myriad others are up and
running undisturbed, the West can continue to support Happy Meals, $500,000
chicken shacks in California, an organic chicken in every Williams-Sonoma
pot, and a new hybrid Prius in every garage. Seen from this perspective, our
prosperity is indeed delicate. The economic hit that would follow a second
9/11 on American soil would quickly put paid to all that. The Happy World
would be put on hold for a number of years and we'd have the "Hard Times"
our parents and grandparents have told us about. But we would survive and,
in only a little bit, thrive again in "the Day After Tomorrow."
For, as much as we should do everything possible to avoid a second 9/11, the
blunt fact is that the United States, Europe and the entire edifice of
Western Civilization, can ride out a second 9/11. It can ride out 100 9/11s
and still, in an inch of time, return and thrive. It can even ride out the
killing by weapons of mass destruction of any kind of a number of cities.
America, Europe, and Western Civilization can survive anything the radical
Islamists can throw at us. What it will have much more difficulty surviving
with its cherished "values" intact will be what happens to Islam should it
continue to attack the West with increasing ferocity.
7. The Real Reason to Fear a Second 9/11
IT IS CLEAR that what will happen to Islam across the world should terrorist
attacks continue and increase will be the arrival at the tipping point where
the West decides, in a way that no internal political opposition can
curtail, to expel Islam and Muslims from the infected nations and the world
itself by any means necessary. A common catch phrase of Marxism is that "The
capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him." I dread the coming catch
phrase, "The Muslim will supply the West with the excuse to eradicate him,"
but that is clearly lurking in one of our possible future.
The first 9/11 brought out the Marines, the Army, the heavy armor, the B-52s
and the Stealth fighters with their "smart bombs," and the effort at a new
precise war in which the greatest care has been taken to minimize the
killing of innocent civilians. Not always successful, but compared to the
Blitz, the firebombing of Hamburg, and the obliteration of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, this caring and careful warfare that is about as kind as we can
make it. The most terrible aspect of the trend of war in the 20th century
was to kill as much of the civilian population of the enemy as possible. The
methods were skillfully refined over decades until World War II accounted
for around 50 million dead. The current approach to war in Afghanistan and
Iraq is one which can reasonably be called a patty-cake war; one that has
been successful, if in nothing else, in minimizing civilian suffering.
I would submit that this approach to war against Islam is clearly one driven
by the current policies of the West that aims to, essentially, talk Islam
out of its current obsessions and madness. It is the very small stick
wielded alongside our soft and enticing words of "democracy," "freedom," and
"prosperity." In a way, the West's manner of war with Islam at present is
essentially a kind of tough love: "Please learn to control your acting out.
Please learn play well with others, or we're going to have to get serious."
Put somewhat baldly, the argument within the West on what to do with Islam
is now between those who believe it should not be spanked at all but have
its self-esteem boosted, and those who think that a small spanking now
followed by the hot fudge sundae of freedom will result in acceptable
behavior. Either could be right, but if both are wrong the next level of
discipline is typically expulsion. And by "expulsion" I do not mean that
Islam will simply be sent to its room.
A second series of attacks on America at the level of 9/11 or greater will
not bring out more B-52s. They are already out. A second series will bring
out the one arm of America's war machine that has rarely been asked about,
written about, or even mentioned in passing since September, 2001; the
ballistic missile submarines.
8. The Re-Activation of MAD
WE DON'T LIKE to ask or think about the current possible missions and
targets of our ballistic missile submarines. Where are they? Few know. What
can they do? Almost nobody remembers.
There has not been a publicly acknowledged live demonstration of a nuclear
explosion in the atmosphere where it can be seen and reported since the
Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Our common memory of them usually revolves
around some grainy black and white film from the Nevada test sight,
disturbing vintage photographs from Ground Zero and its aftermath at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or some fading technicolor footage from Bikini
Atoll. Every year fewer and fewer people are alive who have actually seen
the horrendous scale of destruction these weapons create. A common
description is "The sun brought, for a few moments, to the surface of the
Earth," but that doesn't quite cover it.
What does cover it is that the use of these weapons by the United States or
its allies is the current Western way of remote genocide. To use them, even
under the most extreme provocation, is the greatest sin against humanity
that can be conceived. But the cold fact is that should America or the West
feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently
threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the
Muslim centers of mass.
It is well to remember that nuclear weapons were first built up under the
Cold War policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Now that the Soviet
Union is gone and China has not yet risen to the status of a bellicose enemy
(it may well not go this way), the element of mutuality has faded from this
acronym, but the capacity for assured destruction persists.
9. The "Unthinkable" Can and Is Being Thought
ANYTHING YOU THINK CAN'T HAPPEN can happen. Especially those things you
think cannot possibly happen. Under the right circumstances, human beings
are capable of anything. We hold within ourselves an eternal capacity for
evil that has no bottom. Should Europe feel the threat of Islam within its
borders too keenly it is not difficult to envision it returning to the up
close and personal techniques of genocide it perfected in the last century.
Europe is very, very good at police states, purges, death camps, massacres
and Gulags. Although it may look to be weak and appeasing, Europe's final
solution skill set is never stored very far away.
Should the United States come to feel threatened in a similar way, its
preferred technique (also perfected in the last century) is remote genocide.
To employ it would plunge this nation into a decades-long tunnel of
political and spiritual agony, and change our destiny and character forever.
But I have no doubt that, if we feel for any reason threatened enough, we
will indeed come to the day when the unthinkable becomes doable.
This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq and the
Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn Islam from the
road it is on towards one of reformation and assimilation is the best path
that can be taken at this time. Indeed, for all the ineptitude of the
current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this
shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy
to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between
Islam and its own destruction.
Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an
exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion
Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History.
History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all that,
"Yes, if you really want to, you can."
And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/005957.php
--
No third-world immigration to the western world! Many danes think the same,
see e g
http://www.dendanskeforening.dk/index.asp?id=27 .
Don't surrender, keep on fighting !!!