The Why And The How Of Ending Muslim Immigration
September 29, 2010, 05:08 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Matthew Richer's striking article Build The Dang Mosque!—To End Muslim Immigration at VDARE's main page deserves reinforcement while it's still fresh. The article's core idea is contained in this sentence from late in the essay:
My hope, then, is that the mosque’s construction will help to reignite the instinct of self-preservation that is so essential if the country is to avoid having a Muslim problem on a scale like that of Western Europe.
Conservative writer Lawrence Auster, a pioneering and powerful advocate of immigration sanity since at least 1990 (see his The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism in PDF or HTML), has also been thinking about Islam's mortal threat to Western societies for more than a decade. For example, nearly a year before the savage enormity of 9/11, Auster had written about The Clintons, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and the Myth of "Moderate" Islam.

Richer has just very ably reminded us of the "Why?" of ending Muslim immigration. But three paragraphs by Auster, written in 2006, may linger in your memory longer:

We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as �British Muslims�) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat. [Capitalizations as in the original]

So much for the "Why?" What about the "How?" Matthew Richer's essay suggests that it's important for growing numbers of Westerners to come to their senses, spurred by such thumbs-in-our-eyes as the Cordoba Islamic Center intended for Ground Zero. Absolutely!

But Auster has thought his way much further into the "How?" problem. In February 2009, at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference in Baltimore, he revealed the big picture he'd arrived at in a talk titled A Real Islam Policy for a Real America. The text of his talk, edited for publication, is here.

Auster's central insight, among many key insights, is that our Constitution's First Amendment needs qualification — via another amendment — if we are to rescue our society from ultimate submergence into Islam. (Recall that "Islam" means not "peace" but "submission.") As Auster explains, via the device of an imagined presidential speech to the nation:

[I]n order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is.

And that, my fellow Americans, is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to be about. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution declaring that slavery has no place in the United States. The same needs to be done with regard to the slavery that is Islam.

The recognition that Islam must be strictly excluded from the United States will come as a shock to most Americans, who've been taught that Islam is "just another religion." But it's not. As historian Serge Trifkovic, who grew up in a society with a vivid collective memory of the centuries of Muslim rule in the Balkans, wrote to me, "Islam is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the fundamental values of the West—and all other civilized societies, India, China and Japan included."

But, whether you're shocked or not, if you read Auster's ~4,100-word speech/essay, you'll be led relentlessly to his, and Trifkovic's, conclusions. (Note that the essay is followed by extensive comments from readers, so the speech-text proper isn't as long as it might initially appear.)

You can also see a video of Auster presenting most of the same ideas at a small gathering in New York City in early 2010. In particular, view Part 1.