The production mechanics of RD make it impossible to comment on anything later than the wee hours of a Friday morning. At that point last week the Paris story was still breaking, so I mostly just commented from various angles on the folly of mass Muslim immigration into Western nations.
Mark’s thesis in the book is that with regard to Islam we have three options: Submit to Islam, destroy Islam, or reform Islam. He thinks Europe will submit to Islam; that destroying Islam, quote from Mark, “doesn’t bear thinking about”; and that it will be up to the U.S.A. to help Islam reform itself.The Europeans at least have patriotic immigration reformers building parties and winning seats in the parliaments. What has the U.S.A. got? Jeb Bush? [Laugh track.]
Well, here’s what I said in my review, quote of myself:
“Is that original list of options — submit to, destroy, or reform Islam — really exhaustive? How about we just fence it off: Expel our own Muslims, forbid Muslims to enter our countries, proscribe Islam, and deal with Muslim nations commercially at arm’s length? (They have to sell their oil to someone, or else starve.) Such actions are, of course, way over the line of politically acceptable discourse today; but in five or ten years, after a couple more jihadist atrocities, they will not be.”
End quote from myself. As you can see, I was more optimistic eight years ago than I am today. Five or ten years? It’s been eight, and those actions are still well over the PC line — if anything, more so than before.
Can we at least follow [David] Archibald’s recommendation: “Build the border fences, moats, and mine fields to keep them out”? So far as the U.S.A. is concerned, he’s speaking figuratively, of course. What’s needed is strict border and visa controls. I have doubts about our will to do those things.
On Europe, though, I’m a bit more hopeful.