In order for the Western world to effectively deal with Islam, it must be just as ruthless a segregator and expel that which is not-West, in this case, the cultural practices of Muslims. For practical purposes this means expelling Muslims themselves, who would naturally take their cultural practices with them and be re-absorbed into the Dar al-Islam.
At this point, it is useful to remember that all war results in the movement of peoples. The mass movements following WWII were perhaps the largest in human experience, when ethnic Germans were expelled from all over Eastern Europe. Sometimes these expulsions were a matter of government decree as in Czechoslovakia through the Benes Decree, while others fled in response to the social pressure exerted by their neighbors. But the fact remains, millions were uprooted from the territories of Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia to be resettled into the then shrunken German homeland. They endured hardship, starvation, disease and death. The transfer could have been handled more humanely, but it was necessary they be moved. ... [snip]
It seems to me, we have come to a crossroads. We have the choice either to expel the current threat and the people bearing it, and then to contain that threat within certain boundaries, or we can continue with business as before, as the states and elites of Europe continued to do all through the 1930s... [snip]
Our sentimental belief that everyone wants the same thing, and that all creeds are essentially the same, will no longer do, and the kind of preemptive population transfers undertaken by Czechoslovakia (and many other European states), after World War II, when the Volksdeutsche sent to Germany, will have to be considered, discussed, and ultimately, have to take in a perfectly rational, no-nonsense, unhysterical and humane way. [emphasis added]
Let's think about this seriously for a moment. Let's consider some of the details of such an idea. Some degree of realism is required here.
Forget for a moment the legal obstacles. Laws can be changed in a democratic nation; very easily during martial law. Even more easily after a coup, or as part of a populist authoritarian takeover. This is especially true in countries without a written constitution as in the UK.
Forget for a moment the tsunami of violence that would immediately follow the leak of government plans for ‘population transfer’: the wave of rioting and fire bombs and random murder. Forget the burning cities, the torched schools and churches, the blasted buses.
Forget for a moment the economic consequences, the capital flight, the currency devaluation, the collapsing equity prices. Forget the destruction of British businesses abroad, the murder of businessmen overseas, the financial losses.
Forget for a moment the international outcry, the embargoes, the burned embassies, the murdered diplomats, expatriates and tourists. Forget that any plans to expel Muslims would be seen as a declaration of war on all Islamic countries. Forget the gnashing of teeth at the UN and EU. Forget the World Court, Amnesty International, the Vatican. Forget the reaction of the media worldwide. Forget that the UK would become a true international pariah state.
Forget the logistical complexities of rounding up 1.5 – 2 million angry men, women and children against their will. Forget that many will forcibly resist. Forget that many will go underground, hidden by sympathizers in attics and basements, nursing their hate, biding their time.
The questions I want to address are simple: where do you send them and how do you get them there? This is not like Czechoslovakia or Poland expelling Germans, or Turkey expelling Greeks. Muslims cannot simply be forced across the border into ‘their’ country. First, Britain is an island. Second, no European country ‘bordering’ Britain would want 2 million angry, impoverished refugees. This would not even be like the Partition of India. The refugees can’t walk or pack onto trains for the long ride out.
We are talking about forcing people onto airplanes and flying them somewhere. Between 1.5 and 2 million people would need a lot of planes flying for a long time. They won’t just sit quietly and enjoy the in-flight movie. That’s the whole point of expelling them, remember. The flights would require a significant number of guards on board to prevent the refugees from storming the cockpit.
Ok, these people are rounded up and forced onto planes thick with armed guards. The planes and their fighter escorts leave British airspace. Then what? Where do these planes land?
This is not like Egypt or other Arab states expelling Jews. In those cases Israel was glad to take them. The planes landed at Ben-Gurion airport and the Jewish refugees were welcomed, given housing and many forms of public assistance. This is not like Idi Amin expelling Asians from Uganda. Many flew to the UK where they were accepted as refugees.
What country will take these people expelled from Britain? This I think is the ultimate weakness of this idea. Where do these people go? I argue that no Muslim nation would take them for fear of enabling Britain or even colluding with Britain, the infidel pariah state. Even if a government let the planes land, would the population? Imagine the effect on Pakistan (where many British Muslims trace their family tree). If the dictator of Pakistan decided to accept the planes, I argue that many Islamists would view this as a betrayal, as helping the infidels commit crimes against the ummah. You can imagine the scenes. Mobs storming government buildings. Bombings. A revolutionary situation.
For the sake of argument let’s say the first plane lands in Karachi. The refugees are welcomed with open arms. Now what? Is Pakistan going to just let this plane refuel and return for another load of refugees? Even if the government, such as it is, says they will allow this, why shouldn’t they shoot the empty plane out of the sky? That would certainly deter a second plane from landing. Why shouldn’t Islamists themselves, using should fired missiles or good old-fashioned gunfire, take down the plane that is being used to commit this 'heinous and despicable crime'?
Without a country willing to accept the refugees, willing to grant landing rights, willing to sell fuel and allow the planes to takeoff and return, over and over, for weeks, this plan collapses. How are poor, backward country like Pakistan and Bangladesh going to house and feed and take care of these extra people, many of whom cannot speak the language and will not have skills useful in a third world economy? It's not that the populace may not want to help their distant relatives. It's that the very act of deportation is an act of war against Dar al-Islam. Working with Britain, the hated kuffar, to see that deportation is 'rational, no-nonsense, unhysterical and humane' will be the traitorous act of apostates, worthy of death.
In short, I think this talk of ‘population transfer’ or deportation is a fantasy people use to comfort themselves in these anxious times. But it is not a harmless fantasy. It’s a variation on the time-worn European dream of the Strong Man who will ride in on a horse and solve all their problems. This fantasy, like so many political wet-dreams, encourages passivity. What’s worse, it’s a fantasy of government action. It’s the government that has gotten them into this mess!
Sorry my British friends, even if you elect the re-animated corpse of Francisco Franco, the government is not going to magically solve this problem for you. You can't vote your way out of this. Radical Islam inside Britain is your problem. You. Your chaps at the pub. Your pals from the cricket team. Your neighbors. Your classmates. Your children.
Militant Islamists are prepared to conspire and plot against you. They’re prepared to threaten and intimidate you. They’re prepared to risk jail to smuggle weapons and raise money. They’re prepared to come at you, your families, your countrymen with real physical violence.
To quote Jimmy Malone’s dying words from The Untouchables: what are you prepared to do?
14 comments:
Forget for a moment the legal obstacles. Laws can be changed in a democratic nation; very easily during martial law. Even more easily after a coup, or as part of a populist authoritarian takeover.
Laws can be changed for either principal (sharia vs. democracy) depending on what the nation permits to proceed unabated.
Jews were floating on ships and denied asylum until Israel became a nation under the UN.
The so called Palestinians were also denied citizenship in Arab lands to promote this catastrophe in ME - but if things go as the appeasers wish (IOW, when hell freezes over), the Palestinians will recognize they already have a f'n state.
By your own words, war can influence people to leave under dire circumstances. MAKE Islam illegal. War has a tendency to take care of the details you fret over.
A few more atrocities will find the Brits in much less nice of a mood. Then, a foreign population can be gotten rid of with minimal violence. A government official just needs to say "We cannot guarantee your safety." The muslims will find their own places to go. Any official government program would be an utter waste of money.
Deportation not feasible, you say? Right, civil war it is. Hand me a torch and a machete. Let's get this over with ASAP and clear things up once and for all. I have better things to do than worrying about this year after year.
Thomas,
I could be reading a tad too deeply between the lines of your essay and could be imagining things...but I think I am clearly hearing you say -- very sardonically and wryly -- that the danger and explosiveness of what we are facing in the coming years (Europe/Britain/France first, then the States) will make the "problems and moral aspects" of expulsion seem like a Sunday walk in the park -- nay, that it shall soon stand as an extraordinarily sane/rational/reasonable reply to the pending dangers.
A book which everyone -- including myself (!) -- must read is Jean Raspail's prescient 1973 novel, The Camp of the Saints. Raspail indicates that he actually desired to make the Islamic onslaught the subject of the book -- but out of a desire to stay sane and safe he made the incoming hordes in the book to be flooding in from India. He writes in the Preface to the 1995 edition of Camp of the Saints --
"At this juncture, the moment has arrived to explain why, in Camp of the Saints, it is human masses coming from the far-away Ganges rather than the shores of the Mediterranean that overwhelm the South of France. There are several reasons for this. One pertains to prudence on my part, and especially to my refusal to enter the false debate about racism and anti-racism in French daily life, as well as my revulsion at describing the racial tensions already discernible (but for the moment not fit for discussion) for fear of exacerbating them. To be sure, a mighty vanguard is already here, and expresses its intention to stay even as it refuses to assimilate; in twenty years they will make up thirty percent —strongly motivated foreigners, in the bosom of a people that once was French.
He is speaking of the adherents of Islam.
Folks, even if you do not read Raspail's novel, be sure read the full Preface. I suggested this book to a friend. He read it, was stunned by it, and has been imploring me to read it in kind. This year I shall do so.
Gahd! Are we done reading stoopid books yet?
Correction: running on about how the poor downtrodden immigrants are NOT the Sarkozy gov'ts idea of model citizens.
Don't people over there notice it when thugs burn thousands of cars and run riot on trains?
I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said in this comments thread, but this is a great and thoughtful post, Thomas. I do think war will change things drastically, and war is coming. The personalities of nations will change when they feel they have their backs up against the wall.
As the Time Traveler says in Dan Simmons' short bit of speculative fiction The Century War, "At least understand that such decency goes away quickly when you are burying your children and your grandchildren. Or watching them suffer in slavery. Ruthlessness deferred against totalitarian aggression only makes the later need for ruthlessness more terrible."
This isn't a case of "ruthlessness deferred" that we are witnessing. It is the wholesale rolling over and baring of its throat by the West. If by some miracle it does not result in the West getting its throat ripped out, the ultimate awakening will be terrible indeed.
I agree that life can be made unbearable for a minority that the majority finds intolerable; through a combination of government action and societal pressure. Or even through vigilante violence (as one poster said the government cannot guarantee their safety). Then the minority would willingly leave for foreign shores. But that's a slow process over the long term. And some minorities would stay regardless.
Sure, all this could happen. Anytime soon? Unlikely in the extreme.
My point in this post is that deportation is extremely complicated, even under a government that wanted to do so (which Britain and every other Western nation is a long, loong way from having). The complications are enormous and under-appreciated by those who so casually toss around words like expulsion and population transfer.
Tit-for-tat mob violence, deadly ethnic riots, assassinations and widespread arson are much more likely scenarios. These do not require centralized and massive logistical, political and legal complexities; just gasoline, bottles, bats and a bunch of angry natives with little left to lose. It seems like most of these ingredients are in place.
So, which is likelier? A coup/revolution that results in a complete authoritarian takeover of society and government - Or... a bunch of pissed off Brits pushed too far?
Colonization has not completely faded from the institutional memories of Western European countries. So, resurrect their colonial ministries of old, invade Libya, and ship all the troublemakers to there. Oh, while they are at it, impose martial law and summarily execute any mouthy scumbag like Omar Brooks. Does this measure up to Malone's standards?
Think about it. Libya. It's backsliding on its promises to atone for their past terrorist-supporting sins, so there is a good pretext to invade. The population right now is a manageable 5 million, which is comparable to the population of a small country like Singapore or New Zealand. You can even divvy up the country into a Sharia-governed section for all those Sharia-loving youngsters we've been hearing about of late, an oxymoronic Sharia-within-democracy section (ship the oh-so-clever Tariq Ramadan over there and let him write the laws), a British common law section, an Islamosocialist section, etc.
Gentlemen, I'm probably naive but as far as I can tell only the citizens of the US are allowed to have guns. Do you think Molotov cocktails, rocks and cricket bats are going to stop your army or is your army going to side with you? Who is the CIC of the British military, Parliament, the PM or the Queen? Be ready friends, we may not be able to help because we have a "democratically" elected party that is trying to do to us what has been done to you.
Tom
Mass expulsion of Muslims from the UK isnt going to happen, even when the war starts (it will happen!) between islam and civilisatoin within the UK.
After living in the UK all my life and reading and witnessing the slow rise of Islam within its countys I have realised why this is.
There are a lot of 'Lefties' out there who back up the Muslims every second of the day. I work with some and when I discuss Islams plan to take over the UK (there blatantley is one!) I just get laughed at and called a Racist and that Muslims in the UK DO NOT want to take over our country and convert or kill us all. This is pure ignornace on their side cos I really think they should read the news and websites on a daily basis and come to terms with what is happening in the UK. So baring this in mind you have 'supporters' of Islam in this country who will protest and stand up for them in every way possible (you get this with everything, a bunch of people claiming rights for everything that moves, animals, trees, muslims, etc etc) but little do they know if Islam gets into power in the UK the people they are 'supporting' will quickly turn against them and issue forced conversions or head-tax or simply behead them if they refuse to convert.
Also the UK as seen in International eyes does want to appear as 'Racist' or a 'Dictatorship' even though Islam itself is a dictatorship which turns every country it runs into a poverty stricken hell hole. This has (my own personal view) nothing to do with race in my eyes. Its the RELIGION and the Islam way of life and everything it stands for that I hate. I have an asian fiance and asian friends from all religions (except islam) and I am sick of being called something that I am not. The best way to describe it for me is that even if a white person (I am white myself) was a muslim threatening my way of life and country, then I would hate and oppose them just as much as I would with an asian muslim or a black muslim.
So when the civil war comes our governement will not deport all muslims and there will be some people who will support the muslims and hide them away and try to protect them
until things calm down. I think we're going to see a pretty ugly next 10 years in the UK, with conflict and riots happenening on a day to day basis, but its too late to do anything about it now, muslims have been coming to this country since the 50's and its too difficult to turn round and say 'piss off back to where you came from'. Plus what you have to take into consideration is that Islam has a 1 million strong army in the UK who will turn at the drop of a hat if they think the time is right, and thats what the Imams are now telling the muslim population in the UK to do !!
So what we will see is areas of the UK controlled by purely muslims and areas that will be controlled by the non-muslims and fighting and violence will break out between the both. We will never eradicate all muslims from the UK, so i think this is more likely to happen.
England is still a monarchy, so what's to stop the Queen from ordering Her Majesty's Army to side with those who truly wish to defend her realm and ensure her well-being? I hope the Queen has the good sense to realize that absorption into the islamic caliphate, the treacherous desire of a large percentage of her muslim subjects, is not in her interest. If you consider who's in line to succeed the throne, I think it will be best to get the uprising (not really the right word, since it's a movement that ultimately defends the Queen, not rebels against her rule) going now, while the Queen is still alive. In times of crisis, I have more trust in her judgement and authority than Prince Charles'. Prince William is young and untried.
Post a Comment