As a practical matter, it's merely a matter of spending the money to get a five million man military in the US. Equivalent to a 1,000 ship navy, and of course equivalent air force, marines/army.

It's merely a matter of spending the money to get missile defense. Merely a matter of getting the funds together to make more and better nukes.

But that won't matter unless Bin Laden is proven wrong (his theory that the Americans will run away as paper tigers whenever bloodied). So sadly we must prove that we can and will use nuclear weapons if provoked in order to deter attacks against us.

This means likely pre-emptively nuking Iran's nuclear program at some point, and possibly also Pakistan's.

While the death toll will be high, it's a lot LESS than strategic level reaction to the nuking of an American City which is inevitable after Iran gets nukes (if not by Iran then the inevitable Saudi, Omani, Jordanian, Egyptian, and Turkish nukes).

Sadly my prediction is that we will see in the US the desire to pretend it's Party like it's 1999 all over again. Until we lose a US city or three, then break out the strategic boomers and such.

Short of that, it would be a positive thing if the Muslim Street were afraid of the American Street. Pedicaris alive or Rasuili dead.

But are the Fjordmen fnord???

Don't see the fnords! ;)

And please don't change the topic of the discussion to tossing buckets of instant sunshine around either.

Fjordman and many others, including myself, have come to a bleak place in our deliberations. We didn't want a war with a pitiless and unappeasable enemy, but it seems we have one anyway. So now, what positive, useful, constructive recommendations and lines of thought can follow from such a bleak conclusion? As long as there is bound to be a growing number of people who think like this, what's the best outlook for the big overall discussion about what to do about Islam?

What do you think of Fjordman's recommendations? Can you do better? (And if so let's hear it.) And what do you think of the comments in his thread? (The seem mostly good to me.)

Taking a step back and looking at this with some detachment, what are the implications if views like this become more popular? Because after a few more years of "same jihad, different day," they may indeed become more popular.

I've already made two suggestions from that point of view.

One is, people are going to start calling this something. (If not the Fjordmen, then something else.) It's a bunch of people with, in some cases, very well informed views on the topic at hand, swapping ideas and posts and coming up with a logic and sets of recommendations that share a strong family resemblance. These common ideas extend a long way beyond Iraq. (This is not just the "to Hell with them hawks.) Some sort of label for this global view is called for.

The other is, this does not point to a more violent and militarily active policy. People who want to stigmatize all critics of Islam as "racist" and "Islamophobic" and so on often say that is the implication of a negative view of Islam. (When in fact aggressive violence really is a main practical implication of Islam's negative view of us.) But no, the opposite is the case. What follows from Fjordman's logic is containment, as he illustrates himself.

#1 from Jim Rockford: "Short of that, it would be a positive thing if the Muslim Street were afraid of the American Street. Pedicaris alive or Rasuili dead."

"Pedicaris"? "Rasuili"?

Anyway, this comment reminds me of another thing the Fjordmen, or whatever you want to call them, seem to have in common: they have no interest in impressing, or frightening or in any other way trying to get a "correct" reaction out of the Muslim street or the Muslim world in general. They don't think we are in a dialogue or a conversation of civilizations at all. They are not about "confidence building" or "process" or "sending signals," and they certainly aren't willing to make practical concessions in return for possible signals or to send signals.

They are looking for moves for us to make to save ourselves. (However they define "us".) However nice they might think it would be if the umma redefined its job as saving us from defeat, their logic and their recommendations never depend on that or any other desired Muslim reaction. (Hence, in part, their preference for disengagement.)

This is almost a litmus test.

Daniel Pipes (link) is as informed as anybody you could meet on the scope and nature of the Islamic threat, but his answer to militant Islam is moderate Islam - a reformed Islam that seems not to exist, yet. As long as that continues to be the root of all his thinking about solutions, he's best described as a neoconservative. From where he starts, policies of engagement and also optimistic assumptions about Islam's capacity to reform follow. (If there's one (1) way forward, you might as well assume it has a chance.)

Fjordman: "The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible."

It's day and night on this issue.

It is simple.
Take the fight to the people.
Inform them of the danger posed by Islam.
(Don't be silly, it IS Islam)

Once the people are ready to fight,
The leaders will get in front,
And we will finally have a Clash of Civilizations.
This war of a Thousand Cuts is bleeding us.

If we don't act NOW, we will have to save Eurabia with millions of our soldiers.

Jim Rockford (comment #1)is correct, but when have we been practical lately?

This war will have to be fought using 4GW and 5GW techniques, and we will invent new paradigms.

Due to blogger users not being able to post URLs, my anti-spambot URL is below.

thunderpigblog DOT blogspot DOT com

Re: #5 from Thunder Pig: did you read Fjordman's ideas, and if so which of them, if any, did you think had value?

Very interesting, David.

I liked the idea of controlling immigration. Societies can only assimilate newcomers so fast.

The article had a style like one of our State-of-the-Union addresses: a big laundry list of wishes. That's a good thing and a bad thing. It's obvious that the writer has bought into the Islamic fundamentalist ideas of how the world is to be conquered. If you accept that reality, then those recommendations fall neatly out of it.

As an aside, since we're all not dead yet, perhaps "acting smart by analysing a problem endlessly and calling attention to negatives and problems" might not be such a bad idea, unless you are saying that the end is so near that thinking is to be given up. The definition of terms is the beginning of wisdom -- some smart guy said that once. I think as long as you are trying to further define the problem (which sometimes involves poking holes in other theories) you are helping out folks on all sides of the debate.

You know, sometimes you need to continue analyzing a problem even while you're picking up a big stick and beating the heck out of something.

Fjiordman's essay "Recommendations for the West" is well worth reading. For other thought-provoking essays on this subject, see Steve Sailer.

"Recommendations for the West" is about the same length as another, justly-celebrated reflection on the subject of how the West might deal with a potentially mortal threat: The Sources of Soviet Conduct, written by "X" in 1946.

In his later years, George Kennan was not adept at grasping the nature of the Islamist threat. But if the exercise of contemplating the policy of Containment of the Soviets is helpful as we ask What To Do? in 2006, then we can do so.

Part I

The political personality of Soviet power as we know it today is the product of ideology and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Soviet leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in Russia. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of official Soviet conduct. yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered...

Part II

So much for the historical background. What does it spell in terms of the political personality of Soviet power as we know it today?

Of the original ideology, nothing has been officially junked. Belief is maintained in the basic badness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands. But stress has come to be laid primarily on those concepts which relate most specifically to the Soviet regime itself: to its position as the sole truly Socialist regime in a dark and misguided world, and to the relationships of power within it...

Part III

In the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes. It must be borne in mind that there was a time when the Communist Party represented far more of a minority in the sphere of Russian national life than Soviet power today represents in the world community...

Part IV

It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet regime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and, weakening of all rival influence and rival power...

#7 from Daniel Markham: "As an aside, since we're all not dead yet, perhaps "acting smart by analysing a problem endlessly and calling attention to negatives and problems" might not be such a bad idea, unless you are saying that the end is so near that thinking is to be given up. The definition of terms is the beginning of wisdom -- some smart guy said that once. I think as long as you are trying to further define the problem (which sometimes involves poking holes in other theories) you are helping out folks on all sides of the debate.

You know, sometimes you need to continue analyzing a problem even while you're picking up a big stick and beating the heck out of something."

Oh, I'm all for continuing to analyse and think! And I love for important terms to be clearly defined. But I had this post (link) and this comment (link) in mind.

(I can't find another, funnier comment on a guy who had everyone convinced he was a genius because he could analyse any problem endlessly, till one day the boss said: OK, we get it, you're smart, but just tell us what to do. He couldn't! He only knew how to keep drawing out problems to make himself look clever!)

And also Popper on falsification. At some point you should put up some proposals that might be proved wrong by events.

Or, it can clarify your views to cash out their implications in pragmatic terms. Surely that's not anti-intellectual?

I'm wary of the mental negativity that come with accepting that Islam really is a threat. I feel sorry for guys like Charles Johnson and Robert Spencer who put in long hours dealing with corrosive stuff, so we can have the facts, and I'm grateful to them, but I would never do that myself.

I think it's high time to start putting together positive solutions, even from such a bleak beginning, and drawing together such proposals as have already been put forward.

And it's good to look in a fairly detached way at a school of thought that's starting to coalesce based on accepting the problem as it seems to present itself and dealing with it in the most effective, civilized and humane way that may be available.

#7 from Daniel Markham: "I liked the idea of controlling immigration. Societies can only assimilate newcomers so fast."

Yup.

#7 from Daniel Markham: "The article had a style like one of our State-of-the-Union addresses: a big laundry list of wishes. That's a good thing and a bad thing. It's obvious that the writer has bought into the Islamic fundamentalist ideas of how the world is to be conquered. If you accept that reality, then those recommendations fall neatly out of it."

(nods) That's pretty much my own thinking.

The key positive plank is of my own positive proposals is proactively to defend freedom of religion, especially the right to change your religion, including of course apostasy from Islam with no consequences. During the Abdul Rahman crisis in Afghanistan, Muslim authorities, including moderates, made it clear that he had to recant or be killed (or at least pay a bitter price in some way, but really he should be killed), because Islam could not survive in the long run if people do what they want like this with impunity.

Well, all right then. (big grin) Freedom of religion is one of our noblest and most important principles, and I've been pushing people for years to say whether they're in favor of upholding it, but that was like learning the secret of Achilles' heel.

Most people will tell you how to beat them if you just listen patiently for a while. Our enemies know their own religion very well, they act like we're to stupid to listen and learn, and they're talkative.

The rest is working out a coherent set of ideas ready for practical action, as Fjordman has now done.

David -- you are spot-on about already having a lot of this in place, as the article points out. Freedom of religion, and not having the government endorse religions, like shariah law, is already out there. I guess we just need to remember what we already know!

I think we're doing very well with most all of mainstream Islam -- up until the point that there is a significant portion of the population that wants to overthrow our western liberal values. That's why immigration reform makes so much sense to me.

#11 from Daniel Markham: "David -- you are spot-on about already having a lot of this in place, as the article points out. Freedom of religion, and not having the government endorse religions, like shariah law, is already out there. I guess we just need to remember what we already know!"

That's true - and I think it's characteristic of what I'm calling the Fjordmen till a better name comes up.

The logic is: if you are no longer looking to Islam for favourable reactions, if you don't look to our enemies for salvation, where is the strength to dig us out of this hole to be found? The only answer, which everyone is going to find, is in our own traditions. People will look to different parts of our own traditions.

Some will look to the Enlightenment, others to the legacy of the Reformation, others to specific national traditions, Victor Davis Hanson looks to traditions going back to the Classical Greeks, I look to Rome and to a lesser extent the Renaissance, and of course Pope Benedict XVI has no difficulty figuring out where he fits in. But basically, we are looking at one history, and we should be able to understand and to some extent adapt to each others answers. And this is an advantage.

When you look at what we're up against, and what our enemy is about in the words of its adherents, it's scary because Islam has a good winning record against us, but ultimately it also looks like we should be able to do this. In Europe, they have a lot of history in dealing with religious fanatics, and many of our finest values and traditions are basically lessons learned from such conflicts. Which is great, because people well educated in our traditions should be able to understand and get justifiably enthused by correct solutions, in large numbers.

We have to overcome white guilt, malign multiculturalism and a bunch of other negative factors, and there are new problems (such as nuclear proliferation and catastrophic demographics) that require new solutions, but in great part there are proven solutions ready to use if we can summon the will to apply them.

In the comments to Fjiordman's post, npabga (sic) offered a concrete suggestion with an aikido-like flavor--redirecting the weaknesses of the Islamists and the hard Western Left. S/he proposes to set gender-equity quotas by country for foreign students coming to the U.S.

For most non-Muslim nations, this should pose no particular obstacle. Of course, it's the full-tuition money that accompanies students from oil-rich countries that university administrations particularly crave. How would misogynistic societies handle the imposition of such quotas? If the response was to redirect their student to First World nations that were more willing to appease, that would be an ... interesting ... public relations statement. How would the equality-of-outcomes-loving American Left think about this quota idea? "Moneybags should be free to discriminate on the basis of gender, even if it damages the cause of individual liberties at home and abroad" would also make a revealing talking point.

Re: #8 from AMac: thanks for the links.

The "containment" quotes were well chosen: dead on.

At some point, though, a real neocon is going to pipe up and ask: "but Bush's democratic transformation policy starts with the assumption that unlike the Soviet Union, death cult terrorism can't be deterred, so do you dispute that or where are you doing to show your solution to that? And Diana West wants to trade an active policy for a defensive one: how do you think we are going to win playing perpetual catch-up?" And so on.

I think those questions can be answered, once we have a really solid grasp of the Fjordman agenda, but that's when the discussion will get really interesting.

I think the second Steve Sailor article, The Larger Lessons Of The Danish Cartoon Crisis (link) is very cogent and relevant. I'll yank one point out of context, and apply it to Fjordman in a different way.

In return for DPP support, Denmark's government has sharply reduced immigration. This has had salutary psychological effects. As I've long pointed out, politicians' normal terror of the immigrant vote is seldom based on its current size, which is usually limited, but on its seemingly limitless future expansion. Merely bringing the rate of immigration under control changes the political psychology immediately. Defying political correctness no longer seems quite so unthinkable to politicians.

One of the problems in beating Islam is that we can't discourage Muslims because they can see very well that in global and demographic terms they are winning. Some of us may be too polite to talk about the Muslim woman's womb as the ultimate weapon, but Yasser Arafat for one wasn't.

Our enemies are convinced (in poetic terms) that if they don't win a battle today it's because they are destined to win it tomorrow.

However, once implement a program like Fjordman's throughout the West and especially Europe, and it stands to reason that if Muslims can's win the battle against their Christian and post-Christian hosts today, they're not going to win it tomorrow either.

I think that will have major implications long before the altered demographic trends start to bite in our favor - implications that might be enough to cover the gap between a long-term solution (less Islam) and some immediate problems (like the threat of terrorist nuclear jihad).

Of course there'll be a tidal wave of Muslim hatred as Fjordman-like policies are implemented - but our enemies wake up hating every morning seething with hate, so who cares?

And if there's to be a tidal wave of balked ambition and biter hatred anyway, which there must be unless we intend to appease our way to total defeat, the sooner it comes and is resolved in victory for the West and defeat for Islam, the better. Like, before there are nukes floating around.

Because I don't want either Israel or our American friends - the likeliest targets of nuclear jihad, as the Great Satan - nuked. Not because I'm scared of what the Americans might then do. I just don't want our American friends nuked, period.

David Blue,

I think Fjordman does not take into account either the full reality of today's Europe.

For instance, he asks for a stronger national sovereignty, which in Europe is simply irrational. Why? Because the only way Europe can stay internally peaceful and assure a certain level of prosperity for their citizens is thorugh a common market...

...and the only way it will work is having a common currency and a common labour market.

Therefore European Nations are losing sovereignty as a natural process and the European Union, though wrongly managed, is assuming them, we like it or not.

Thus I think it has to be a pan-European effort, as it was the battle of Lepanto in 1571 or the battle of Vienna of 1683 (Polish and Germans against Turks and, ho ho ho, French), the way to achieve a solution.

For example, a pan-European Coast Guard agency should be constitued and all the jurisdiction on immigration (including assylum) should be transfered to the EU. Those are simply the consequences of having a common labour market, and French Interior Minister Sarkozy has endorsed them.

Of course, Norway, outside the EU and having such big amount of oil reserves, can follow any policy their people decides. But they are the exception, not the rule, in Europe.

Again, Fjordman looses touch with reality proposing an strategy of keeping appart from the Muslim world. You cannot leave alone Islam when the distance between Europe and Islamic countries is 0 (Ceuta and Melilla), or 9 miles (Morocco and Spain).

America might afford that strategy, at least for a while, Europe simply cannot.

I percieve in some of Fjordman's ideas some kind of Nationalism, the way it usually happens in Scandinavia.

Europeans have to realize who they are, who the Islamists are, our geostrategic position, and the problems they arise. There I think comes the issue of the Welfare State, on which I agree with Fjordman: Most Europeans keep focused in obtaining subventions from the government and don't bother about international politics or about the future.

The problem gets even worse, when immigrant populations ask for those privileges, sometimes in a violent way.

I also agree with him in Multiculturalism: not all the cultures are the same. We should defend ours, which has demonstrated, until now, to be far superior and able to give their citizens a better standard of living. Multiculturalism is also a hide-out for the old enemies of the Western Word: the far Left.

#13 from AMac: "In the comments to Fjiordman's post, npabga (sic) offered a concrete suggestion with an aikido-like flavor--redirecting the weaknesses of the Islamists and the hard Western Left. S/he proposes to set gender-equity quotas by country for foreign students coming to the U.S."

It's an excellent idea tactically.

Strategically it makes most sense if you are already on board with the Fjordman agenda.

If you are fully trusting in Saudi Arabia as an ally and committed to taking as many Saudi students as you can get, then it makes no sense to put obstacles in their way.

Probably one that falls in the no-brainer catagory is to break our oil habit and cut off Islam's gravy train. Angry militants spreading a hateful theology is dangerous- angry militants spreading a hateful theology bankrolled by hundreds of billions in oil money is deadly.

Unfortunately the Bush administration has premised this war on the idea that the American people (aside from military families) will never stand for being called upon to sacrifice in any meaningful way. We should have spent the last 5 years freeing ethanol from its current Big Corn death spiral by killing tarriffs on imported ethanol and killing corn-centric incentives that make switch grass untenable. We should be building nuclear reactors to prepare for a electric or hydrogen based cars. We should raise CAFE standards. We should raise gas taxes and call it a War Tax. We should open up exploration off the California coast, pump more in the Gulf, build in ANWAR.

Now here is the problem- Republicans (at least under Bush) are never going to force a hard time on the American people even in the name of war. The party in power decided rocking the boat might cost them political power, so they treated the American people like little children- a sucker for every shot. The Democrats on the other hand would rather chew their own arms off then seriously discuss drilling in ANWAR or building more nuclear reactors- ironically the Dems can take any position on foriegn affairs from rabid hawk to peace-now dove safely, but going off the reservation with the Greens is a sure ticket to Lieberman City (or worse).

Politically this is a nightmare for anyone with a pragmatic turn of mind. I dont have any answers- but it did occur to me that centrists(and the blogosphere in particular) might hash out a Gang of Seven like set of common demands that might be negotiated and sworn to. This wouldnt accomplish a revolution but it could change the dialog and get our pols actually talking about the critical issues with some specifics. The question is- are we too far gone to save ourselves by compromise? Can Conservatives agree to radically raising CAFE standards and can Liberals agree to drill in ANWAR? Somehow i dont think its going to happen- as much as we complain i dont think people truly feel a sense of desperation just yet.

Fjordman is IMHO naive in thinking we can have "little to do with" Islam and Muslims. The process of globalization, technology, and communications every day points out how miserable a failure Islamic society and civilization is, and how much a success the forces of Westernization (include Japan and China in this) have become.

Muslims are history's losers, they know it, and that is what drives their rage (their traditional society having no hope of competing against the West).

Take all of Fjordman's excellent advice and you STILL have civilizational conflict

Wind and the Lion: Brian Keith as TR utters "Pedicaris alive or Rasuili Dead," sends in the Marines after "Raisuli" played by Sean Connery after he abducts Candace Bergen. This is the traditional way US Presidents have made Muslims stop attacking us (see Jefferson and Tripoli). Only force works, no surprise given the primitive tribal nature of Islamic society.

Containment and isolation will NOT work because the world is too small, interconnected, and aware of each and every triviality. People in Bali know who "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is and that is a recipe for conflict until one side or the other is destroyed.

Muslims are NOT winning. They are LOSING. Gaining populations of semi-starving people dependent on handouts, yes. When China fully urbanizes and exports everywhere, what will Muslim societies do? Don't confuse population with power. The very poorest nations have no clue how poor and useless they are, and such are not really part of the global trade and communication network. Once those largely Muslim nations gain a bit of wealth and see what colossal failures they are, watch out. A tidal wave of conflict. No one likes being a loser.

Given these dynamics, the wise nation(s) would prepare to deter attacks that will come (every Muslim nation in North Africa must dream of a European conquest) by dumping the Welfare State for military spending, and many punitive expeditions to deter attacks.

#15 from J Aguilar: "Thus I think it has to be a pan-European effort, as it was the battle of Lepanto in 1571 or the battle of Vienna of 1683 (Polish and Germans against Turks and, ho ho ho, French), the way to achieve a solution."

However the Battle of Lepanto was a unique feat, impossible to repeat even with a brilliant and successful leader available.

#15 from J Aguilar: "For example, a pan-European Coast Guard agency should be constitued and all the jurisdiction on immigration (including assylum) should be transfered to the EU. Those are simply the consequences of having a common labour market, and French Interior Minister Sarkozy has endorsed them."

This might work but it might also result in transferring all authority for immigration law away from states that, driven by democracy and alarmed populations, might at least occasionally want to exercise it, to an international bureaucracy that is insulated from popular pressure. Isn't it a lesson of recent struggles in America that effective border control arises from a bottom up political process or not at all?

#15 from J Aguilar: "Again, Fjordman looses touch with reality proposing an strategy of keeping appart from the Muslim world. You cannot leave alone Islam when the distance between Europe and Islamic countries is 0 (Ceuta and Melilla), or 9 miles (Morocco and Spain).

America might afford that strategy, at least for a while, Europe simply cannot."

#18 from Jim Rockford: "Take all of Fjordman's excellent advice and you STILL have civilizational conflict"

I don't think Fjordman was saying, "this is all we will ever need to do," rather I think he was saying "at least we must do this". As much separateness as possible is desirable, just as one would stop someone with a laceration and severe bleeding from bleeding further regardless of what further treatment might be needed. Put some pressure on that - now!

This is almost inevitable, because we don't know what the umma will do except that it is always doing something, and every day is a new possibility that it may be something so ugly and consequential that measures previously considered adequate will now be seen to be inadequate.

Instead of an endless list of "if-then" statements like "if a powerful radiological weapon goes off at Buckingham Palace", it makes sense to say, "whatever may come, we need to do at least this. So let's get on with it."

#15 from J Aguilar: "I percieve in some of Fjordman's ideas some kind of Nationalism, the way it usually happens in Scandinavia."

That might be right - but isn't a high regard for the state and often the nation something we in the Western tradition have in common? I think Americans might have more rather than less in common with Europeans if the latter were more simply patriotic and less emotionally focused on a grand trans-nationalist project. In other words, for the West as a whole, isn't a radical and sweeping approach to trans-nationalism a net divider rather than a uniter?

#18 from Jim Rockford: "Wind and the Lion: Brian Keith as TR utters "Pedicaris alive or Rasuili Dead," sends in the Marines after "Raisuli" played by Sean Connery after he abducts Candace Bergen. This is the traditional way US Presidents have made Muslims stop attacking us (see Jefferson and Tripoli). Only force works, no surprise given the primitive tribal nature of Islamic society."

Thanks.

By the way, checking the links I noticed Dhimmi Watch (link):

Fjordman responds to critics who say that he writes good analyses, but doesn't say anything about what should be done about the problems at hand, by offering some superb Recommendations for the West at Gates of Vienna.

In doing so, as you'll see, he often draws upon the recommendations made here at Jihad Watch by our own Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of the Jihad Watch Board of Directors.

I don't think this is laziness. I think it's a common starting point, logic and political cultures leading a bunch of different people to decide that a similar policy and similar sets of minimum recommendations make sense.

There are some deep structural flaws in the the strategy that Fjordman expounds-- while some of his instincts are right, he is trying to map a contra-Soviet Cold War containment strategy onto Islam. In effect, he's trying to fight the last war.

Let me emphasize that this will not work.

Here's why: The Soviet Empire contained nothing, in sufficient and monopolized quantities, that we actually required, in an absolute sense, to continue living our lives the way we very obviously so choose to live.

Realistically, it is extremely difficult to disengage and contain a geographic region which, owing to its stocks of oil and other petrochemicals, can make at least a credible threat to tank your economy. There is a counter-argument: that Islam can no more afford to stop selling oil than the West can afford to stop buying it. This is true. But it does not map to a mutually assured destruction mindset-- it is a situation which strengthens economic contact, and the conflict that generates can be ratchetted with some precision by either side through either austerity measures or price hikes.

Until such time as global demand for oil plummets, no strategy of containment will work, no attempt to cut off the economic lifeline will bear fruit. And that requires more, much more, than simply saying, "Let's not use so much oil."

It would require, at a start, a near complete shift to a solar/nuclear/coal economy. None of those is impossible, but all of them are painful and require massive infrastructure shifts and technological advances which are in some cases theoretical at best. (Solar needs some serious technology before it even comes close to being a serious electrical power generator, nuclear designs look good but need to be proven, and in all these cases, technological breakthroughs are required to break the vehicular dependance on petrochemicals.)

Bear in mind also that while the United States and Europe pursue this course, India and China will reap the indirect benefits of falling oil prices (or at least non-rising) which will probably make it quite reasonable for them to continue paying for oil.

And even if we somehow achieve this dream of a world with abundant nuclear power and vehicular fleets running off hydrogen produced by that cheap nuclear power, not just in the West, but in India and China, it is still not clear to me that that woudl reduce the demand for oil so much that the middle East would wither and rot. That does not appear to me to be how the situation would play out. Rather, I suspect that all economies would continue to import oil, but that the economies would simply grow faster for having other sources of energy with which to indulge.

Containment, while attractive, is not a workable option.

Marcus Vitruvius (#21)

It will work in Norway, country that has plenty of oil fields.

David Blue (#19)

Navas de Tolosa (1212), the Tunisian campaign (mid 1500's), Lepanto (1571), Gates of Vienna battle (1683), all have been military efforts made in common by European Nations or Kingdoms.

This might work but it might also result in transferring all authority for immigration law away from states that, driven by democracy and alarmed populations, might at least occasionally want to exercise it, to an international bureaucracy that is insulated from popular pressure.

David, please note that the European countries no longer control their borders. A person from Latin America can enter Spain on Spanish Law and then move to France. An Algerian can enter Spain with a French tourist visa; France complains about Spanish immigration policies, that are already out of reach for its public opinion... the Old European Nations, as we knew them, are gone: the sooner we realize it, the better we will be able to respond to immigration problems.

And if there are problems with the European Union, reform it, but the jurisdiction about immigration is already out of reach of EU members alone.

Isn't it a lesson of recent struggles in America that effective border control arises from a bottom up political process or not at all?

David, you cannot build a wall among European Nations. It existed one, and was torn down.

That might be right - but isn't a high regard for the state and often the nation something we in the Western tradition have in common?

Yes, it is.

I think Americans might have more rather than less in common with Europeans if the latter were more simply patriotic and less emotionally focused on a grand trans-nationalist project.

I think you are wrong. The EU was founded on three freedoms: movement of goods, capitals and persons across any country. That is classic Liberalism, the same that wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In other words, for the West as a whole, isn't a radical and sweeping approach to trans-nationalism a net divider rather than a uniter?

No, it isn't. As I have said before, Europe WAS transnational when the hour to defend us from Islam came. Moreover, Europe HAS to be transnational because a common market (that implies common currency, common labour market...) is the only way to keep peace among Europeans and assure them a prosperous future. Furthermore, Europe IS already transnational: between 200,000 and 300,000 Germans live in Spain, English have their own newspaper and had appealed to the European Union a regional law that they consider unfair.

In the end, that is the problem: European Nations have weakened, but neither the European Union has evolved into a strong, democratic organism, with few jurisdictions but full in those areas, nor there is a common European public opinon to check its work.

Only looking through a very narrow field of view, can those proposals to step back one century in European history be considered. It might make some sense for a Scandinavian with his future assured by oil.

Marcus Vitruvius,

In my opinion, you have identifed one of George Bush's signal failures: the absence of a coherent strategy to deal with the implications of remaining committed to an economy that becomes increasingly more reliant on imported petroleum. Instead of focused R&D, incentives, conservation, better mileage, and nuclear power (etc.), we have an energy policy of "don't upset the apple cart."

This appears to play to our enemies' strengths (among other things, e.g. fostering higher rates of global warming).

I'm not particularly excited about a soft war on Islam, which uses such illiberal conceits as religious discrimination, clothing bans and speech restraint.

On immigration, the Agenda would prefer a religious test, but barring that would prevent immigration from countries that engage in terrorism. To avoid the appearance of bigotry, the Agenda would confine Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Baha'i and others to potential dhimmitude. I see no strategic benefit to this, just an expression of hostility. I believe these immigrants (at numbers capable of assimilation) would be a net plus for the Western countries that receive them and a net loss for the countries that would lose them.

The Agenda would also ban advocacy of Sharia. Why? I've had sharia advocated to me and somehow escaped unharmed. A local doctor, who left Iran in '79 for some reason, explained that she felt sharia law was better for women on issues of divorce and marital property rights than American law. Maybe. I don't know American divorce law very well, but I've heard a lot of criticism. Is her critique any worse, nay criminal? If she could make the case that sharia is better in that regard, why not?

Certainly the Agenda is right to condemn jihad and the inequality of infidels as contrary to liberal democracy, but I'm no great fan of criminalizing hate speech, whether preached by prayer leaders or klan leaders, unless it directly incites violence.

Banning people from wearing certain clothes? Banning prayer calls while allowing church bells to ring? Using the schools to undermine religious instruction? Barring charitable contributions from Muslims?

All in all, quite an illiberal set of responses to save Western liberalism. Maybe this makes more sense in Europe, but I would assume that Islam compete in the marketplace of ideas like the rest.

(Also, agree with Mark Buehner a lot on the need to address oil, radical Islam's strategic leg)

J Aguilar: Thus I think it has to be a pan-European effort, as it was the battle of Lepanto in 1571 or the battle of Vienna of 1683 (Polish and Germans against Turks and, ho ho ho, French), the way to achieve a solution.

Its my recollection that the Turks were able to mark through much of the Balkans, not with overwhelming military force, but by making alliances with other Christian Kingdoms. The Turks masterfully exploited the factions.

Today, the question seems to be whether the European Union recognizes its strategic vulnerabilities to the South or whether its more motivated to form a socialist opposition to the United States.

#21 from Marcus Vitruvius: "There are some deep structural flaws in the the strategy that Fjordman expounds-- while some of his instincts are right, he is trying to map a contra-Soviet Cold War containment strategy onto Islam. In effect, he's trying to fight the last war.

Let me emphasize that this will not work."

In your opinion, what will?

#21 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Containment, while attractive, is not a workable option."

I see the attraction as the desire to deal with a serious emergency in a civilized and humane fashion, without violence or with as little violence as possible. And I share this desire.

Is this desire possible of satisfaction, other than by altering one's estimates of what is going on to suit one's wishes?

(We could assume the umma is about to renounce jihad forever of its own free will, then there'd be no problem devising counter-measures while respecting civilized limits, only I doubt reality would follow our wishes.)

If so, how?

#22 from J Aguilar: "... the Old European Nations, as we knew them, are gone: the sooner we realize it, the better we will be able to respond to immigration problems.

And if there are problems with the European Union, reform it, but the jurisdiction about immigration is already out of reach of EU members alone."

If the only path to immigration reform now lies through EU reform, how do you think EU members should achieve this reform?

David Blue: "Isn't it a lesson of recent struggles in America that effective border control arises from a bottom up political process or not at all?"

#22 from J Aguilar: "David, you cannot build a wall among European Nations. It existed one, and was torn down."

What do you say will work?

#25 from PD Shaw: "Today, the question seems to be whether the European Union recognizes its strategic vulnerabilities to the South or whether its more motivated to form a socialist opposition to the United States."

Today I am proposing that the main question be: What is to be done?

Secondary questions to include: what is the best, most productive way for the Fjordmen to contribute to the big discussion about protecting the West from Islam, what are the characteristics of this school of thought in general, and what are the implications if events continue to add plausibility to its basic assumptions, so that it grows more popular?

I'm posting this from work, in between answering the phone and other stuff they pay me for, so apologies in advance if this is a bit disjointed.

Demographics:
Muslims numbers are growing faster than non-Muslim in Western countries. For purposes of argument, I'm willing to accept this as a basic premise, though I'd love to see some hard numbers if anybody's got them. I'm also willing to accept that this is a bad thing. Even if you believe (as I do) that not all Muslims are a problem, basic math cannot be denied. If X percentage of Muslims are actively inimical to Western culture, Y percentage support them, and Z percentage don't oppose them, no matter what values you assign X, Y, and Z, the bigger the Muslim population the bigger the real number of 'problem Muslims.'

Muslim growth relative to non-Muslim can be broken down into four categories -- immigration, birth rate, conversion, and retention - and I'll address each separately.

Immigration: Reduce/eliminate immigration of Muslims. The suggestion of cutting off all immigration from Muslim countries has merit, but it's also too broad. There needs to be some provision for non-Muslims departing those countries (quite possibly for their very lives, especially when the Malthusian pressure cooker aspect of this kicks in). Likewise for family reunification and the 'automatic citizenship if born here' arrangement needs some serious rethinking to boot. AMac's suggestion of gender parity for exchange students is also bloody brilliant.

Birth rate: How can the Muslim birth rate be reduced? Women's liberation seems to work pretty effectively in that regard. Financial, educational, and intellectual independence are anathema to 'barefoot and pregnant.' Stress sex education and make birth control as widely available in Muslim communities as humanly possible. Does it smack of eugenics? You betcha, but we're in a war here. On the flip side, there's encouraging non-Muslims to bear and raise more children, but there are quantity vs. quality concerns to be addressed there.

Conversion: Islam, at least of the sullen loser variety, seems to be quite popular with the sullen loser subset of society represented in prisons. How can this be reduced/eliminated? Also, throttle off the flood of Saudi, etc. cash into Western mosques. Stringently enforce accreditation requirements on Islamic schools. On the flip side, Christian missionary work and proselytization (since they're the non-Muslim religion most inclined in that direction) needs to kick into high gear, especially targeting Muslims.

Retention: It's easy to hold onto your followers if it's death to leave. Part and parcel with more active efforts to convert Muslims should be steps to make conversion from Islam easier and safer. Vigorously prosecute any and all threats, assaults, and murders directed against Muslim apostates as hate crimes. Set up an 'underground railroad,' formally or informally.

#24 from PD Shaw: "I'm not particularly excited about a soft war on Islam, which uses such illiberal conceits as religious discrimination, clothing bans and speech restraint."

Given that I think we are in a war with Islam, and that its aims are fatal for us, and that I don't want to make war on civilians (or no more than can be avoided), I'll say up front that I'm very excited about the idea of a soft war on Islam. Both the alternatives, that is harsh rather than soft war or defeat by a dreadful and implacable enemy, strike me as unattractive.

I suppose if the idea of soft war is unattractive, then the means, like most warlike means, are also going to look unattractive.

#24 from PD Shaw: "All in all, quite an illiberal set of responses to save Western liberalism. Maybe this makes more sense in Europe, but I would assume that Islam compete in the marketplace of ideas like the rest."

I don't think the idea is directly to save liberalism, but rather to save populations and cultures that bear both liberalism and other good things - the complete heritage of the West, and not only one particularly precious part of it.

But anyway, what would you want to save, especially in Europe, and what do you say will do the job?

#24 from PD Shaw: "(Also, agree with Mark Buehner a lot on the need to address oil, radical Islam's strategic leg)"

OK, that's positive.

Re: #29 from Achillea - great post, bang on topic, thanks!

I think you are wrong. The EU was founded on three freedoms: movement of goods, capitals and persons across any country. That is classic Liberalism, the same that wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Sometimes it helps to read history. The founders of America were exceedingly aware of borders, enacted tariffs and passed legislation having to do with movement of goods and people across borders. I’m not sure what the commentor means with “capitals.” Spain would move its capital to Massachusetts? Perhaps he’s speaking of money – it’s not clear. For a quick history lesson the commentor would do well to read this “link”:http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer06/irwin.html.

Another correction: The founders were nothing like a present day liberal. For one thing they almost never showed contempt for their nation in public, especially during a war, as so many Liberal icons have. Just as we have Conservatives and Liberals today, they also had their counterparts of opposing factions in the early days but ALL sides ratified the Constitution, not just the “Liberals”(who didn’t exist back then anyway).

Questions to commentor: Which parts of the Constitution have to do with tariffs, trade, treaties and money? If all this was unimportant why write it into the Constitution?

But anyway, what would you want to save, especially in Europe, and what do you say will do the job?

Reinvigorate the Four Freedoms.

Freedom of Speech, to say anthing, even critize someone else's beliefs or point out unpleasant things, like someone's inability to speak the language. Everything else defeats assimilation and reinforces greivance.

Freedom of Religion, or as I would prefer Freedom of Conscience, to believe whatever one wants, including Islam. No special status for any particular religion and no special restrictions. The special restrictions Fjordman proposes are an anethema and would surely only push more Muslims to the other side.

Freedom from Fear. People should not live in criminal enclaves where organized crime need not fear the police.

I have nothing really to say about Freedom from Want, other than the fundamental need to provide jobs for those who can work.

The problem with most people's issues with Fjordman's proposition is that they are attacking a single part of it instead of considering the whole. I think it more or less works as a whole; the whole thing needs to be agreed on and done, not parts of it. Parts of it by themselves would not work.

Flaw of containment -> countered by reducing usage of oil.

Flaw of immigration -> countered by reconstructing the EU as a democratic federal body instead of an autocratic one.

etc. Instead of throwing away Fjordman's assertions, try to come up with something that does not counteract his other policies but nullifies the problems with a given proposal. As being conservative-leaning folks in many aspects, (at least some of us) it is our idea to get things done with minimal change.

Thus our first reflex is to discount a strategy by itself that has a flaw, and (possibly) suggest a replacement.

This does not lend itself to building up the WHOLE of the policy, even though it might work well if we were talking about individual parts in seperation from the whole.

I think there are a few things we need to accept:

1. Islam itself is in essence our enemy. Not all muslims are, but Dar Al Islam (the house of Islam) is.

2. We will need to establish a double-standard against our foes, or force them to the standards held for us. One or the other, regardless of whether they conflict with our personal principles.

3. We must not be concerned with 'becoming our enemy' but instead be concerned with overcoming him. If we are who we say we are, then we will not become that enemy. Are we so naive?

4. We must be prepared to do illiberal things to our enemies, because they will do illiberal things to us no matter what course we plot.

I think we're not arguing Fjordman per se, but the underlying ideas on which Fjordman has built his policy. We can't really debate the substance of his policy until we all stand on similar ground.

Does anyone agree?

Here's my two cents:

I don't necessarily think Muslim immigration in and of itself is the problem. The problem is immigration (+) multiculturalism (+) welfare state (+) clash of cultures, and this problem manifests itself most acutely (today, at least) in Western Europe.

Why? America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all immigrant cultures with a strong history of accepting newcomers into a melting pot and giving them equal opportunity (-ish) to succeed. Immigrants to these countries tend therefore to do a better job finding their way into the mainstream, and ultimately being absorbed by it, Muslims included.

The old cliche, "I know lots of Muslims and they're all fine people" is true in my case. I'm in a western Canadian city of 1M+ people, with about 10,000 Muslims (so, not a lot). I work for the local university. I know lots of Muslims, and all of them are totally integrated. They practise Islam much the same as most Christians, Catholics, etc., practise their own religions. I know a Muslim who married a Jew. I had a female Muslim employee who laughed when her parents tried to arrange a marriage for her, and then dated whoever she felt like -- including at least one non-Muslim. No honour killings there. So to behave as though Muslims cannot become positive, productive members of society is just not true.

(On a side note, I will admit that eastern Canada is beginning to have its problems as a result of Liberal socialist and multi-culturalist policy over the past thirty years, but we're still nowhere near as advanced along with this as Western Europe, and things appear to be changing.)

Europe has a much bigger problem. (1) They are not immigrant societies, and in many ways their cultures are "closed" to immigrant integration – they want them to stay different -- hence the large immigrant ghettos ringing many of the major cities, and the high unemployment rates even among highly skilled individuals. (2) Blind adherence to multiculturalism handcuffs many Europeans with regards to doing a better job integrating immigrants and standing up to Muslim extremism. After all, to even admit there is a problem is, from the perspective of a far-gone multiculturalist, basically no different than rascism. (3) The welfare state coupled with #1 gives immigrants all the excuse they need to sit in their ghettos, bored, unassimilated and looking for trouble. (4) Ridiculously lax family-reunification immigration rules allow plenty of opportunity for the worst elements to import as many forced brides and additional potential trouble-makers as they can, adding to the overall problem.

All that said, while I certainly agree "The West" is facing an existential threat from Islam, I don't agree that we have reached any sort of tipping point yet where all-out war is necessary, let alone a certainty.

The solution will be many pronged, and may include much of the following:

1. Continue allowing for Muslim immigration, but drastically tighten up the rules and begin focusing as much as possible on skilled labour.

2. Implement new incentives to try to raise the birthrates in western countries in general. We need the kids, and this would in part solve part of that low birth-rate / aging population dilemma that forces so much immigration in the first place.

3. Minimize the welfare state. Make it much less easy for Muslims to come and live “on the dole” as it were.

4. Start equally applying our laws to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For example, I'm sick of watching Muslims in marches incite violence, threaten others, etc., etc., while police and government stand idly by. No tolerance for intolerance, as it were. Letting Muslims get away with this nonsense on the streets, in the mosques, in the schools, etc. only encourages more. We don’t let “white people” behave this way, so why should we let Muslims?

5. Immigration control is a joke, so tighten it up. Deport the law-breakers instead of coddle them.

6. Regulate the mosques. Want to be an Imam in a western mosque funded by the government (which you see a lot of in Western Europe)? Make 'em get a license. Preach against the west, call for jihad, denounce the Jews, whatever: license gone, new Imam, simple as that, until you find one willing to focus on the positive aspects of Islam rather than the negative ones.

7. Make extra-national funding of religious schools and mosques illegal (i.e., no more Saudi or Pakistani funding and all the fundamentalist garbage that comes with it). If they want these things here, let them pay for them here.

8. Stop putting up with "special cases" for Muslims because, after all, we have to be “sensitive”, don’t you know. You want to be a Muslim working for the diplomatic protection service? Great! Won't guard the Israeli embassy? You're fired! Wanna be a taxi driver? Great! Won't take people carrying dogs or alcohol? You're fired! Seriously, though, why do even put up with this garbage? No special rules for Muslims. Remember, no tolerance for intolerance.

9. Eliminate multiculturalism as a policy. Integration is the new policy. Change educational, governmental practise accordingly. Fire those unwilling or unable to get with the program.

10. Stand up for and promote western style secular democracy to immigrant populations, part-in-parcel with #7. It's better than any other system. Begin selling that idea from day 1 in the immigrant’s new country.

11. Tie aid money provided to Muslim countries to specific projects with built-in oversight and accountability, rather than just providing blanket money directly to governments. We're all good with helping the poor, improving medical and educational systems, that sort of thing, nothing wrong with that. Propping up the armies of totalitarian dictators? Not so much. Let's give that a pass. In other words, use our hard-earned funds to promote positive change in Muslim countries, or no funds are a-coming.

12. The internet, satellite TV and mobile phones give us lots of opportunities to unleash a propaganda campaign in the Muslim world unlike any other seen before. Let's spend some serious bucks showing Muslims that there are better ways and providing counter-weight to idiocy like Al-Jazeera. Think people won’t watch or listen? Well, they won’t if you lecture them. But if you provide quality, culturally-sensitive positive programming -- and enough of it -- people will tune in. At the very least we’d be adding the voice of sanity to the mix.

In my view we're fighting a long-term battle here. Let's not talk about nuking Mecca until we've at least taken a few simple, fundamental steps in the right direction and seeing how they go, you know? Cultures take time to change and the best we can do is help that change along. I mean, how long did it take after the US civil war before black people were allowed on the same buses as whites across the whole United States? When did women get the vote in Canada – my Grandmother still remembers when that happened. So, there's a lot of work ahead of us, but we’ve got to be committed to it for the long term.

Anyway, good thread David. You've really been putting up some good stuff lately.

-Boo

AMac #23:

In my opinion, you have identifed one of George Bush's signal failures: the absence of a coherent strategy to deal with the implications of remaining committed to an economy that becomes increasingly more reliant on imported petroleum. Instead of focused R&D, incentives, conservation, better mileage, and nuclear power (etc.), we have an energy policy of "don't upset the apple cart."

Yes and no, in my opinion.
In detail:

Yes, I agree that George Bush has not yet (nor, at this stage, will he ever) craft what I consider to be a comprehensive strategy, even a preliminary comprehensive strategy. There are actions-- large actions-- he has taken which are included in what my idea of a comprehensive strategy would be, but his doctrine is not complete.

I somewhat disagree with you on the notion of George Bush and energy policy, though. It's a mild disagreement, but there are some signs of a Bush strategy-- or a growing Republican consensus which Bush reflects, it doesn't matter much to me-- on energy.

There have been moves afoot to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles, get better regulatory, insurance, and funding status for nuclear reactors, research for improved solar technologies(*) and so forth. But an economy the size of the United States' that is drenched in hydrocarbons does not turn on a dime, even when the technical alternatives are there, as they are for nuclear non-vehicular power. When they're not there, as with vehicular power systems, no incentive system will help.

But moreover, I'm still not convinced that even having the ability to reduce oil consumption by, say, 90%. In an economy this size, I'm sure there will always be someone-- a lot fo someones-- for whom oil will still be an attractive alternative. We can mitigate the harm to our economies, but I don't think alternate energy plans of even the most optimistic kinds can effectively starve the Middle East.

• And solar is not quite the pie in the sky dream I thought it was two years ago-- I can dig up the government reports I saw, if epople are interested, but there was a comprehensive one about a year ago that laid out in detail the potential research paths to commercially viable solar power generation on significant scales.

M.V., thanks for the response. Unfortunately, I think my criticism holds.

Starving the Middle East: Oil is just too valuable, that'll never ever happen.

But it would be an immense accomplishment if the US used, say, 15% to 25% less petroleum per capita in five years than we use today, as a result of technically and economically feasible substitutions, incentives, and conservation measures. This could have been taking place since 2005 or 2001 (or 1997, or 1993). I see no serious effort under Bush. It's not how he thinks.

David Blue (#26)

Like art critics, I don't think I have to put up a workable idea, just because I shot down an unworkable one.

However, in the spirit of being constructive... if disengagement won't work, then we'd all better hope that engagement can and will. I think it can work. It remains to be seen whether it will work, whether the field of engagement strategies can be winnowed until something practiceable and effective can be broguht to bear, and whether such a thing can be brought to bear for long enough to show positive effects.

When responding to AMac, just above, I mentioned that the Bush Administration has committed actions which I include as a necessary subset of a workable strategy. I am fairly convinced that the real idea was not kicking over Saddam Hussein because he was a threat, but because he was a convenient thug whom no one would actually miss, in the pursuit of building a cultural bridgehead into the heart of Islam.

(And no one actually does miss him-- but in the same sense that it was convenient for the Bush Adminsitration to link him more tightly with terror than he was, it is also convenient for great powers like China and Russia to wring their hands and keep us occupied-- this is a theme that Fjordman, in my opinion, got right.)

This is an idea that I came up with on my own, and that I've seen echoed in places like Tom Barnett's thinking (I like a lot of what Tom Barnett writes, but he's a little too chirpy happy for me at times, and has an annoying tendency to make every set back-- every single one-- a result of an American failure rather than the result of an enemy success) and Stratfor's extended analyses. It's an idea that just makes sense to me.

Another reason disengagement won't work is that the technology curve favors mass destruction weapons spiralling downward inexorably into the hands of smaller and smaller actors. Sixty years ago, it took the resources of half the planet to come up with a working nuclear bomb. Today, we were all surprised that one of the poorest nations on the planet failed to get it right on the first time. In twenty years, major NGOs will be able to create them, and it won't be long after that before the terror groups of the future will have them.

This is a war on a clock-- a badly defined clock, but a clock none the less. Containment will not work.

What is necessary is engagement of the sort that does two things:

1) Builds up functional indigenous states or security structures in places where they are collapsing or collapsed. The model here is Afghanistan, and it needs to varigated and replicated as far and as wide as possible. Afghanistan is at best a C+ effort.

2) Convinces, one way or another, terror sponsoring states to stop generating the problems they're generating, and crack down on the problems that just happen to be there. Pakistan is about the brightest spot I can think of out there, and they're about a C- effort.

Iraq had the potential to be a good, solid B+, but it has failed for many reasons. (Why B+? Because ideally it had at least the potential to start a reverse domino effect in the region and would have put Iran completely within a ring of either United States allies or United States military power.)

I am quite deadly serious when I say that, far from disengagement from the region, the only solution which I think will have any chance of success is engagement so vigourous and invasive that, thirty or forty years hence, the region will be said to have been remade, such that the thought of major Arabic NGOs having the technical capabilities to make nuclear weapons will be just about as scary as Japan having that capacity-- which is to say, not that scary at all.

But Japan is an island nation with no natural resources and half our population. Islam nearly girdles the globe and has three times the population of the United States. And we have thirty to forty years, by my reckoning, not sixty. So we'd better get ourselves in gear and be willing to make the mistakes up front while they're less expensive.

The first thing we do is, encourage the hell out of all the trade seeking Muslim, and especially Arabic, nations to trade. With anyone and everyone. If that means letting the Emirates manage a port, let them. Welcome them. It doesn't mean exempting them from normal security or union rules-- those are just ways to draw them closer to us. It might even mean setting a slightly higher bar for them, with the goal of creating ripple effects-- specificy a sliding and increasing percentage of workers need to be female, for instance. It might also mean demanding that they invest in the best real-time port container scanning equipment, such as a few far eastern ports do, with the goal of creating an integrated global shipping and security regime. In short, any regime that wants the economic benefits of western contact should be helped along the garden path actual westernization. Adict them to the contact and then force it down their throats. Gently.

Sceond, start finding some Islamic underdogs and start exploiting the fissures in the Islamic world. Seriously. We're doing that with Pakistan, now, showing them how bad it could be without them to (try and) get them to slowly reform themselves. This is not an overnight process, but I think it is at least a partial success-- it seems that the military and ISI have been purged, to an extent, even if the results in the Wazir region are... suboptimal, at best.

Find more of these regions, and squeeze.

Ideally, find Shi'a regions that are unhappy with Iran's Shi'a hegemony and attempt to peel them away and set up regions as successful as the Kurdish regions as more cultural beachheads. Azerbaijan seems like a likely place to focus some attention. Perhaps there are more.

Likewise, if there are Sunni regions that are deeply unhappy with the Saudis, use them.

But above all else, engage, and transform.

Thunder Pig Blog.

> Pakistan is about the brightest spot I can think of out there, and they're about a C- effort.

Pakistan? C-? F-, waiting to happen [Concordat with the Taliban]. Alas, more than one reason to think so [The wrath of AQ Khan].

Let me try that again:

Thunder Pig Blog

Will some one please explain to me how nuclear power will solve our oil problem?

I'm still tring to figure that one out.

"We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of ?infidels? and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin."

Wow! Fjordman sounds desperate. Does he really think that we are going to round up the tourists from, say, India, and ask who is Muslim and who's not? Will the Kuwaiti entrepreneur here on a business visa be summarily sent home in mid-deal?
Will the graduate student from the UAE get the heave-ho, whle his Sikh roommate gets to stay?
His idea is going to be so fraught with exceptions and special cases as to be unworkable.
Or does her perhaps intend it just to apply to illegal immigrants? Some hope for it then...

As to amending the Constitution to limit freedom of speech in order to deport people for what they say, good luck. And "country of origin"? What about the the 6th-generation Anglo-Celto-Germano-Saxon American who has converted to Islam? Where do you deport that guy to?

Like I say, good luck. If there's another 9-11 (god forbid) the public may be more ready for some of this. I realize he's talking abaout the entire West, not just the US. Different countries will see it differently....

#36 from Marcus Vitruvius

And solar is not quite the pie in the sky dream I thought it was two years ago-- I can dig up the government reports I saw, if epople are interested, but there was a comprehensive one about a year ago that laid out in detail the potential research paths to commercially viable solar power generation on significant scales.

If there is research still to be done it is pie in the sky.

And BTW electrical power is not a problem. However, if it was we have the wind turbine alternative that is capable of rolling out one nuke plant equivalent a year, right now. How many nuke equivalents of solar are we capable of producing a year? Roughly .01 to .1 - i.e not very significant.

Mark B. #17: +1 and Right On! You've articulated the core of what I've called "The energy policy to annoy everyone." Unfortunately, it's also a strategic necessity. Collaborate on a post?

The easiest way to reduce the Muslim birth rate without resort to any sort of obvious anti-Muslim or pro feminist agitation is to get more Electricity to the regions were Muslims are dominant or trying to dominate.

1. Washing machines
2. Micro waves
3. TV
4. The 'Net

etc. more information.

Electric motors are cheaper than Slave Labor.

Well the anti-spam bit ate my post.

The cure for the Muslim world?

Electricity.

1. Washing machines
2. TV's
3. Microwaves
4. the 'Net

The electric motor has done more to liberate women than any political movement.

M Simon #42:

Nuclear power solves very little, unless several other technical and infrastructure problems are solved as well. Specifically, nuclear power must be coupled with a way to effectively transfer the evergy generated to a portable, high power density storage medium, such as advanced batteries, synthetic hydrocarbons, or hydrogen, and vehicles can be run off it which are all on par with vehicle costs today.

Those solutions do not yet exist.

M Simon #44:

As an engineer who plans along technology curves, I think your definition of "pie in the sky" is a bit restrictive. Here is the report I mentioned earlier:

http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf

(Beware, it's a direct link to a PDF file nearly 300 pages long. But it's something I'd value Tim Oren's opinion of.)

The report lays out everything from the basic science challenges required, and some research directions to pursue, but also includes considerations of economics-- what is required for solar energy to be viable is a reduction in cost per kW*hr of about a factor of ten to fifty, depending on what it is you want to accomplish with it. Note also, the research includes, but is not confined to, the typical photovoltaic systems most people think of as being "solar power." It also includes much more prosaic systems such as photothermal systems, requiring more modest materials science advances.

Read the report. It's interesting.

AMac (#37)

I respectfully disagree. It's not a big effort, but it's an effort. In either case, I disagree that it will be enough, or soon enough, or deep enough. Less global reliance on oil increases our latitude of action, in that we can be less hurt by oil producing nations, but it and the strategy of containment that Fjordman lays down solves nothing.

In general (no longer address AMac specifically):

Starving the Middle-East does nothing. It simply reinforces the squalor and other conditions promoting despotism and hatred in the region. This, combined with the relentless advance of technology that presently favors offense instead of defense, does not convince me of a strategy of containment. Far from it.

m.vitruvius@gmail.com

#48,

I too am an engineer who plans based on learning curves.

One of my favorites is the methanol based fuel cell. Roll out has been promised in two years since 2002. We are still two years away from roll out.

Even stuff we think we know how to do is not easy.

More Smoke and Methanol.

In any case wind is within a factor of two of the cost of coal fired plants at the average wind site. At the best sites it now costs about the same as coal electricity.

Wind is within striking distance of real significance. Solar - still far off.

BTW the fuel cell has to come down in cost by a factor of 50 to 100 to be viable. We have no idea how to do that. R&D is ongoing.

As you point out - we have no cost effective way of turning electricity into a transportation fuel.

Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West.

I don’t know about Europe but the pro-war and anti-war factions in the US are not showing any signs of resolution. If winning the war against global jihad means that the anti-war elements in the US must first change their minds, then the war is not win-able, period. They are not going to change their minds. As the sword descends toward their necks during their executions in the coming Caliphate they will still be blathering about multi-culturalism. Suggestion #1 bites the dust.

_I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the
right to preserve our own culture and pass it on to future generations. _

But those who care about this sort of thing are doing this. Suggestion #2 is already happening in those places in the US where there is anyone present who cares and there exists the ability to do so. In the case of the US the universities and colleges, our main inculcators of culture, are firmly in the hands of the multiculturalists and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. There’s probably some closet hard-liners here and there but the closet is where they’ll stay if they value their careers. And I guess I expect a bit of novelty instead of a statement of the obvious.

_We should clean up our history books and school curricula, which have been infected with anti-Western sentiments. _

Here too is a case of something that is already occurring in those places where such actions are viable.

We need to remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders.

Here too – already being done in the US. I suppose the situation in Europe is different.

_We should take a break from massive immigration, also non-Muslim immigration, for at least a generation, in order to absorb and assimilate the persons we already have in our countries. _

If only it was feasible this would be a good suggestion. However, the MSM and the Left in the US would never allow it to happen. Anti-immigration folks would immediately be labeled as racist.

_But above all, the West, and indeed the non-Muslim world, should make our countries Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy of containment of Dar al-Islam. _

I have no response because this suggestion is too vague. He may be explaining this tack in more detail below but I’ll address it as I come to it.

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

A great suggestion and may even be doable as far as the “creative and indirect ways” are concerned. No immigration allowed from countries deemed supporters of terrorists – none allowed who enslave their women. Good.

Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia.

Hmmm … I’ don’t think the US courts would uphold legislation directing the deportation of someone who desires something. And I’m not a fan of the concept of ‘thought crime.’ He gets a zero for this suggestion.

Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims.

Special pleading, if being allowed to act outside the law is meant, is not a problem in the US – I gather it is in Europe.

Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths.

The SCOTUS would knock any such law down so fast it would make a Norwegian’s head spin. Zero on this suggestion.

All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community.

In the US this is policy left up to the individual school boards and school administrations. I can’t see the federal government forcing all the little boys and girls in the US to take part in Phys Ed or go out for football or attend all the school’s basketball games. And I don’t see how such an action would truly aid the cause. He gets no points for this suggestion.

The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus also contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women.

Will never happen in the US, except for special situations where identification is concerned: photos on ID, mugshots, security badges, etc. Also cops doing traffic stops and investigations should be able to see what’s under the veil. All having to do with identification – but banned in public? The SCOTUS would blow any such law to smithereens.

Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims.

This is not a problem in the US – nobody is forced to build prayer rooms. If it’s done at all it’s done voluntarily. But this is probably a gauge of how bad it’s gotten in Europe.

Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws.

Not bad. Probably feasible in the US because of the many abuses of this provision in the US immigration law. My ex-wife is still an INS Hearing Officer and I was subject to a lot of griping about this particular provision during our marriage.

Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

I’m going to defer on this particular suggestion. I would want to research the constitutional issues, the practicality of trying to winnow the Muslims from the non-Muslims in the investment process, etc. but am not going to take the time.

As columnist Diana West of the Washington Times points out, we should shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this the War on Terror was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog suggests the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for Western culture. Another possibility is “War against Apartheid.” Given sharia’s inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, it is de facto a religious apartheid system. Calling this struggle a self-defense against apartheid would make it more difficult for Western Leftists to dismiss it.

Labels are funny – they seem to have a life of their own. I’m afraid WOT may be the best we are going to get on this. “Take Back the Culture” and “War against Apartheid” just don’t cut it for me. How about “Kick a Jihadist in the head”?

_People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam is probably more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Authorities or groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the uses of taqiyya and kitman as religious deception.
As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings._

This cluster of suggestions are all pretty good but the PR would have to be handled well otherwise I see the “hate-group” label stuck on any such effort.

Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralize.

The US does this as foreign policy already. The Egypt and Jordan are pitted against the Syrians, the Saudis and Pakistanis played against al Qaeda, etc. We don’t do this sort of thing too well but we are learning. The enemy is much better at this than the West.

If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of Jizyah, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

A good idea but the State Department, the Congress and probably most US Presidents would more than likely be against it. They all seem to be under the delusion that they can buy these folks off. They are being gamed by the Jihadists without even knowing it.

but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.

A Manhattan Project is fine but the issue is very complicated and I am of the opinion that even with the best of efforts weaning the US off of oil will be terribly slow in relation to the events unfolding. Oil is embedded within our existence and will be hard to expunge.

We also need to reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. The British, the Americans and the Canadians didn’t become Nazis while fighting Nazi Germany, did they? The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t fight them and keep them out of our countries, since they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as being decadent and weak.

Amen, brother.

We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims and start reaching out to non-Muslims.

Amen again.

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. Another possibility is an expansion of NATO. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they partly do through the UN.

I am not a lover of the UN but it CAN prove useful as is being proved right now with the resolution against NORK. Let’s starve the UN because far too much corruption is there but keep them around so we can keep an eye on certain folks and know what they are up to. Having an alternative organization on the side of anti-Jihadist nations is a sterling idea I’ve seen expressed elsewhere.

What the West should do is to enter into strategic alliances with non-Western states that share some of our political ideals and goals. This includes non-Muslim nations such as Japan and India, perhaps also Thailand, the Philippines and others. We will, however, still need some understanding with Russia and China and some mechanism for consultations with both. Perhaps, instead of any new and formalized organization, the most influential countries will simply form ad hoc alliances to deal with issues as they arise.

This is already underway as fast and as often as Conde Rice’s slim, lithe legs can carry her to the Whitehouse jet.

The rest is mainly about what Europeans need to do.

#34 from RiverCocytus: re: looking at Fjordman's agenda overall rather than only each idea in isolation: agree.

Flaw of containment -> countered by reducing usage of oil.

Flaw of immigration -> countered by reconstructing the EU as a democratic federal body instead of an autocratic one.

etc. Instead of throwing away Fjordman's assertions, try to come up with something that does not counteract his other policies but nullifies the problems with a given proposal. As being conservative-leaning folks in many aspects, (at least some of us) it is our idea to get things done with minimal change.

Thus our first reflex is to discount a strategy by itself that has a flaw, and (possibly) suggest a replacement.

This does not lend itself to building up the WHOLE of the policy, even though it might work well if we were talking about individual parts in seperation from the whole.

#34 from RiverCocytus: "I think there are a few things we need to accept:

1. Islam itself is in essence our enemy. Not all muslims are, but Dar Al Islam (the house of Islam) is.

2. We will need to establish a double-standard against our foes, or force them to the standards held for us. One or the other, regardless of whether they conflict with our personal principles.

3. We must not be concerned with 'becoming our enemy' but instead be concerned with overcoming him. If we are who we say we are, then we will not become that enemy. Are we so naive?

4. We must be prepared to do illiberal things to our enemies, because they will do illiberal things to us no matter what course we plot.

I think we're not arguing Fjordman per se, but the underlying ideas on which Fjordman has built his policy. We can't really debate the substance of his policy until we all stand on similar ground.

Does anyone agree?"

Yes, on all for points and in general.

The West MUST equate Islam with ignorance, violence, bigotry, hatred, idiocy, lower class failure. Treat Islam as akin to the KKK or Neo Nazis.

ENDLESSLY satirize, ridicule, make fun of, and depict Islam and Muslims as losers too stupid to do much other than mouth breathe and cut off heads. People to be shunned as violent losers unfit for anything.

Allow no public space or acceptance for Islam any more than marching around saying Sig Heil is accepted. No Islam in government offices, employers, schools, media, any more than Nazis goosestepping around would be tolerated.

Every entertainment program portraying Muslims as the equivalent of backwoods Deliverance inbred mutant hillbillies. Making owning up to being Muslim as akin to being a member of the Klan.

THAT will either drive Muslims out or make their expression of their identity inside Western nations unacceptable.

Culturally, this is the only way to prevent what is already happening. Soccer hooligans fighting Muslims in the UK at Windsor. Ordinary britons refusing to get on a plane in Majorca for fear of being blown out of the sky by Muslim passengers.

Re: #33 from PD Shaw ...

Islam implies jihad and jihad implies fear, which as we've seem also impacts on freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and judging by the state of the Muslim world freedom from want too.

How would you reinvigorate freedom from fear?

#38 from Marcus Vitruvius:
"David Blue (#26)

Like art critics, I don't think I have to put up a workable idea, just because I shot down an unworkable one.

However, in the spirit of being constructive... if disengagement won't work, then we'd all better hope that engagement can and will. "

Ah. Fine. My perspective is that soft engagement has proved not only not to work but to be suicidal, while harsh engagement is unpalatable and politically impossible anyway, so we might as well hope that a soft war and self-protective disengagement can and will be made to work at least better than the alternatives.

There's no possibility for agreement, but at least we understand each other to this extent.

David Blue (#54)

Ah. Fine. My perspective is that soft engagement has proved not only not to work but to be suicidal, while harsh engagement is unpalatable and politically impossible anyway, so we might as well hope that a soft war and self-protective disengagement can and will be made to work at least better than the alternatives.

There's no possibility for agreement, but at least we understand each other to this extent.

I think we're close to understanding each other, but we might not be there, yet. I don't think we've actually tried soft engagement, not as an actual strategy to be applied to those whole theater. We've softly enagaged here and there, tactically, and gotten mush, because some players in the region-- notably, Iran-- are good and deep strategic thinkers in their own right.

We've tried hard engagements, with mixed results.

We haven't yet tried disengagement, and we won't, because it is transparently obvious (to me, at least) that we cannot and will not shift away from hydrocarbon fuels in a meaningfully short time frame. It is less obvious, but still my conviction, that it just won't work anyway.

My effort is simply to this end:

Remember that all politics (as they say) is local? Well, we need local solutions, as well as larger scale ones.

As a Christian, I know that the solutions that work are those which stand on solid principles but leave great room for flexibility and liberty where required. The only way to have this flexibility is to have a sturdy foundation. Let me explain further.

We need to figure out the things that all of us MUST agree on regarding this; it is possible we are wasting our breath arguing whether or not the US government should deport all Muslims. (Not saying whether we are or not.)

My point is simple: Figure out what is essential to our strategy against Dar Al Islam, and then work out the details of how it applies to each of our lives based on our circumstances, abilities, position, place, age, etc. This is the essence of the strategy by which Christianity was spread so quickly in the early times.

Note, though, we must all agree on a few things before we can even figure out our fundamentals. This is the nature of the divide between the unbelievers and believers in Christendom; without the core agreement, there is no way to come into accord.

For instance if we do not agree that Dar Al Islam is the enemy, then we cannot come up with co-operative strategies to defeat it. We MIGHT end up with co-operative strategies, but that's just a reflection of our similar roots and circumstances. Based on probablities that effect essential things, no such strategy is rational. (That is, the meta-strategy of not requiring or defining a common foe.)

But if we do, we can then look at other people's strategies who also see Dar Al Islam as an enemy, and see where our own feelings, ideas, thoughts coincide with theirs and compare them to others. Through this process we can quickly devise some fundamentals to our strategy. In this way, we will all seek the same goal without doing the same thing (and thus our strategy will be workable in almost any situation. -- the flexibility.)

Of course, I think the other 3 points I made are worth noting. You might use them to disqualify people's suggestions (or qualify them) based on an obvious stance regarding them. I would personally dismiss any policy that is based on

1. Dar Al Islam is NOT the enemy
2. We must be held to a standard higher than our enemy, and cannot require our enemy to be held to that standard, or we cannot establish a double-standard if necessary;
3. In doing such and such, we are becoming our enemy;
4. We must always do things in a liberal fashion, that is, in the tradition of the enlightenment. (I.E. Just war, etc...)

This is to say, I would look at a policy based on merits not associated with these. I tend to believe that a policy that makes us into our enemies (one that ACTUALLY does) tends to actually hurt us in other clear ways. Judge it based on the measurable merits instead of the 'feeling' of becoming one's enemy. Likewise to the other policies.

Secondarily, I can say that it is a priviledge to be treated with fairness and liberality by one's enemy. It is something we extend as a courtesy that we by no means owe anyone or have as an obligation. The gentleman is not gentle because he is obliged; but because he does so when it is his will. He is a gentleman because he is much more generous with his gentility.

So when I look at Fjordman, I agree well with him not because I think I can do any or all of the things he wants, but because I see he sees the same fundamentals I do. As one of the Fjordmen all that is necessary is to grasp the fundamentals and figure out what is best to be strategically done in the given situation.

This is the exercise. Take each of his statements, and instead of trying to weigh it against what you think is possible, feasbile, reasonable etc, weigh it against what you think motivates it.

Now, dismiss any idea that is based on one of the four (instead of better reasons) and group as best together the motivations of different suggestions. Then trim the fat off of the motivations to try to see what Fjordman is ACTUALLY saying. If you try to round out his motivations into very, very broad categories you should come up with something similar to my four.

But wait, we want something more concrete. So go back upwards and try to find where his ideas meet most readily. For instance, a set of his ideas might come under the idea of Rebuild the Culture of the West. Or, Attack the mind of the Enemy. Or, Prevent the Enemy's advance. I would like to enlist anyone here's help in actually determining what those fundamental practical stratagems are. One might call them the Fundaments, and the four (or however many you can come up with) the Axioms.

So even if we disagree with Fjordman, unless we are in a good position to effect policy on that scale (we may or may not be) there is also the important aspect of what we can do, or what we can get others to understand that they can do.

The problem with blogs often is, we argue a lot of abstract about what the US is doing wrong, so on and so forth, but we never get to here:
1. A solid agreement on things the US could do or should do to resolve problems
2. Things we as citizens could ACTUALLY do to either
a. effect the birthing of policies regarding 1.
b. actually make positive constructive changes in our own lives.

I'm not suggesting 'activism', or at least not in the sense that it is commonly known. Activism is just a byword for 1. being an inflexible douchebag 2. violating one's oaths to try to complete an agenda 3. assembling and spewing hate.

If what we desire is possible, then doing it will fulfill our oaths, instead of forcing us to dishonor them.

Contrariwise, if we desire something that is wholly unrealistic and false, we will find ourselves betraying our oaths and being dishonorable for its sake, to no end other than acheiving it, even if it has been shown to be foolishness.

My job will likely never involve picking up a gun for the US (though I would not be adverse to doing so.) This is because I can see that my talents are best used for other things. (Thus, my circumstance informs my actions based on these fundamental strategies.)

This seems like a lot to do, and seems like a herculean effort, no?

1. Agree on the axioms
2. Find the fundaments
3. Discern a workable personal strategy
4. Persue the strategy
5. Forsake the unworkable and wrong

But its not. Its not just possible, its inevitable.

What do you think?

(I'm already trying to do my part.)

Please note that a meta-part to this is, answering the question What must be done? As is stated in the post. That should be a constant recurring goal.

Elaborating on and modifying a bit from my previous post (thanks, David Blue), now that I have time to ponder everyone's comments without distractions.

Restating the premise: There is a strain of Islam which is antithetical to Western cultural values, and its fundamentally supremacist nature makes it inimical to those values. It cannot be accomodated within those values, it will either destroy them or be itself destroyed. What percentage of Muslims follow this strain of Islam has been the subject of considerable conjecture and debate -- for now, call it X.

Whatever real numbers X works out to is what must be reduced/eliminated from our society. This can be done by reducing the number of Muslims overall or by reducing the percentage of Muslims X represents. It's not necessary to make the West -- at least America, Europe is a harder case -- unfriendly to Muslims in general and might even, as grackle touches on in #50, variously run contrary to those values and be flat-out illegal/unconstitutional. What is necessary is to make it unfriendly (in fact, downright hostile) to followers of the 'X' stream of Islam. And that's where multiculturalism has got to go. It needs to be made absolutely diamond clear and hard that if you choose to live in the west, then you must abide by Western cultural values. Your religion is only one among many. You are subject to the same laws as everyone else -- you get no special exemptions or protections. Those who cannot accept that will be forbidden entry, imprisoned and/or deported.

If the no-such-thing-as-a-moderate-Muslim camp is right, the result will be the effective elimination of Islam from America. If it is, so be it, but I doubt that's the case. The US has a pretty good track record for assimilation of foreign cultures, and a lot of that comes from previous and now-assimilated waves of those cultures walking newcomers through it. Doing everything in our power to make non-supremacist Islam the dominant stream in the US is very much in our best interests.

#50 from grackle, re: Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West.

#50 from grackle: "I don't know about Europe but the pro-war and anti-war factions in the US are not showing any signs of resolution. If winning the war against global jihad means that the anti-war elements in the US must first change their minds, then the war is not win-able, period. They are not going to change their minds."

Same here (in Australia). Therefore ""resolve the war in the West first" means "do nothing about the external threat."

I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the
right to preserve our own culture and pass it on to future generations.

#50 from grackle: "But those who care about this sort of thing are doing this."

Well, he approves, and so do I. I think it's OK to say our minimum set of actions should include X as part of the overall pattern, even if, fortunately, some people are already giving X their best shot.

This applies to some of his other points too.

For (my) example, we need to say out loud that if people want sharia they should go away to some country where that's the law. In Australia, John Howard and some members of his government have said that. The advice is still correct, and it's worth saying in advice for all kinds of countries where the government maybe hasn't said that. If in come countries it hasn't been done because it can't be done, in others it might perhaps be possible - if the leaders were bold, the people are ready to back them.

#50 from grackle: "Labels are funny - they seem to have a life of their own. I'm afraid WOT may be the best we are going to get on this."

I agree.

How long have people been saying it should be "HIV" and not "AIDS"? AIDS stuck, end of story.

If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians "aid," which has in reality become a disguised form of Jizyah, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

#50 from grackle: "A good idea but the State Department, the Congress and probably most US Presidents would more than likely be against it. They all seem to be under the delusion that they can buy these folks off. They are being gamed by the Jihadists without even knowing it."

Unfortunately I think you're right again, but the suggestion is still part of a good pattern, and if America can't do better now you'd have to hope some European countries can do better than they have been doing.

We also need to reject the "You turn into what you fight" argument. The British, the Americans and the Canadians didn't become Nazis while fighting Nazi Germany, did they? The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don't fight them and keep them out of our countries, since they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn't feared because we are "oppressors," we are despised because we are perceived as being decadent and weak.

#50 from grackle: "Amen, brother."

Amen!

We should stop trying to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims and start reaching out to non-Muslims.

#50 from grackle: "Amen again."

I'll stop here. We are so on the same page on these basic, essential points.
Without agreement on points like this, especially "worry about overcoming, not becoming", nothing useful can follow.

#55 from Marcus Vitruvius: "I think we're close to understanding each other, but we might not be there, yet."

Fair enough.

#55 from Marcus Vitruvius: "I don't think we've actually tried soft engagement, not as an actual strategy to be applied to those whole theater. We've softly enagaged here and there, tactically, and gotten mush, because some players in the region-- notably, Iran-- are good and deep strategic thinkers in their own right."

OK, this is your opinion.

#55 from Marcus Vitruvius: "We've tried hard engagements, with mixed results."

When did we employ a hard pushback against Islam, fighting violently to deprive the House of Islam or territory and populations?

If we did so at all, I'd say the results weren't "mixed" but a total failure leaving no trace of our efforts.

Or... almost no trace. Did you mean Catholic East Timor, liberated from Muslim Indonesia? But this was a special case. I would call that a soft struggle. Australia certainly did not fight Indonesia, instead there was cooperation.

#55 from Marcus Vitruvius: "We haven't yet tried disengagement, and we won't, because it is transparently obvious (to me, at least) that we cannot and will not shift away from hydrocarbon fuels in a meaningfully short time frame. It is less obvious, but still my conviction, that it just won't work anyway."

A disengagement policy is the equivalent of putting up a shield to protect yourself against someone cutting you, and fighting defensively in the most systematic, comprehensive way practically available. It's still valid if you can't keep out every stab, every slash. If we can't shift from hydrocarbon fuels, nevertheless not agreeing to be swamped by inimical populations is still a great idea, as opposed to the alternative. And the same for other parts of a containment policy. Perfection is generally not possible in war, but you protect yourself and your side as best you can anyway. As for the enemy, you try to give him nothing and lead him nowhere.

Again, as for ideas such as trying to make the West an unfriendly environment for Islam to expand in, the doctor doesn't stop trying to treat the patient because he's already contracted an infection, or if there's a (Muslim) spearhead stuck in the poor guy, well, it might be a good idea to get it out, clean up the wound as best you can and patch him up.

Islam in relation to us is nocuous, or what amounts to the same thing, it has in it, apparently inseparably, poisons such as jihad and the example of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). We need less of it. Especially we need less of it inside our borders, which are the skins of our states.

Since we are under attack, self-preservation seems a good idea. I take this to be the basic orientation of Fjordman and people who think like him.

To David Blue Re #5

Yes, I read Fjordman.

We can do nothing as a civilization until we win the War Within the West First.

This is my third attempt to post.
Maybe it has something to do with the links, maybe the content.
Google these words: Western World Politics Revolutionary Defeatism.

My thesis is that the Left will fight us every step of the way, getting increasingly shrill, eventually violent, until they are completely marginalized and ignored. Since they are keeping us from fighting this war, they are more dangerous to us than Islam.

To management: please lemme know why my posts are not making it past moderation... I suspect I may have goofed the links. I certainly hope it is not the content. I was merely pointing out the truth.

Send me an email should you wish to discuss further.

[ Comment reformatted and released from queue after 12 hr delay. Antispam software flagged it because it contained the Longest. Hyperlink. Ever. Reminder: at least for now, max of two URLs per comment. --M.F. ]

#6 Daivid Blue (I somehow killed my previous response)

Yes, I read Fjordman's ideas...and they start with fighting it out with the Left over multiculturism. We can take no other steps without that first one because they will always seek to undermine us. Read Revolutionary Defeatism to see where I am coming from on this issue.

Not all cultures are equal, and some have no redeeming value. You can guess which ones.

It may even come to violent conflict, because they (The Left) will not accept defeat that is inevitable once people become awakened to the danger the left poses to our civilization.

Also try reading How The Left Was Won by Richard Mgrdechian.

I present this not to start a flame war, but to inform you of the danger we are in. This multi-culti PC "will be the death of us all".

#61 from Thunder Pig: "Yes, I read Fjordman."

Good.

#61 from Thunder Pig: "We can do nothing as a civilization until we win the War Within the West First."

OK, you have your opinion, I have my opinion, and these two opinions are not the same.

#61 from Thunder Pig: "This is my third attempt to post.
Maybe it has something to do with the links, maybe the content.
Google these words: Western World Politics Revolutionary Defeatism."

I did. It's a reasonable piece. Unfortunately it's at blog spot.

#61 from Thunder Pig: "My thesis is that the Left will fight us every step of the way, getting increasingly shrill, eventually violent, until they are completely marginalized and ignored. Since they are keeping us from fighting this war, they are more dangerous to us than Islam."

Every step of the way where, down what path?

Those of us who have accepted that Islam is an enemy, as Fjordmn has and as others have, and as I think more people will as the global jihad continues, need to discuss what is to be done about it.

Our contributions to this big discussion should be as civil, productive, rational, practical and positive as possible, and I'm holding up Fjordman's article as a model for emulation in this regard.

Afer we have a reasonable consensus on what is to be done and in what spirit we should act (an ideal state that is nowhere in sight), it might make sense to discuss how the Left, its academic arm and the mainstream media are impeding necessary measures, and what we could do to deprive their opposition of force.

David Blue #63:

> Those of us who have accepted that Islam is an enemy...

This is either grossly in error, or a form of shorthand that is an invitation to misinterpretation. Having read your essays, I presume the latter.

Islam, like Christianity (and atheism, for that matter), is a schismatic movement. There is no unitary Islam to be our enemy, or our friend.

"Christianity" includes major organized sects (Greek Orthodox), splinters (traditional Amish), organized 'heresies' (Mormons), and extinct beliefs (Nestorians).

"Islam" has a similar typology, with five schools of major Sunni jurisprudence, Wahhibis, multiple mainstream Shi'ia movements, various apocolyptic sects (Twelvers), splinters (Alawites) and heretics (Ba'hais).

As this is similar to a point you have already made, I doubt it's controversial. The West's core problems with 'Islam' remain. It is nonetheless worth the extra effort to speak carefully and precisely, given the ease with which complex arguments can be distorted. Both willfully, and inadvertantly.

AMac,

I was under the impressioin that all versions of Islam proclaim the supremacy of Islam.

The fight between the various versions will be to some extent held in abeyance until the supremacy clause has been nearly fully exercized.

PD Shaw (#25)

Its my recollection that the Turks were able to mark through much of the Balkans, not with overwhelming military force, but by making alliances with other Christian Kingdoms. The Turks masterfully exploited the factions.

Those factions? The Turks were openly helped by the French, which plundered Southern Germany during those years. So what? In the end Sobieski came.

In Navas de Tolosa only three Iberian kings fought: Castilla, Navarra and Aragon. Leon and Portugal sent some troops or remained appart. In Lepanto Spanish troops had to watch both the Turks and their allied Venecians... that is quite normal. The difference is that the Christians had always built up alliances when it was needed, and always have followed the call enough people to hold the line.

Now with proposed Europe's ABM shield happens the same. Probably not all the countries will fund it, but all will benefit from it.

David Blue (#27)

If the only path to immigration reform now lies through EU reform, how do you think EU members should achieve this reform?

What do you say will work? [Instead of a wall]

The main problem to establish a common immigration policy has always been assylum. Some countries would grant it to persons that other countries simply cannot afford to. A common procedure should be reached, with the possibility of appealing to an European Court. That procedure should be based on objective reasons, not the interest of any country in particular.

A responsible for Immigration should be appointed with full jurisdiction on EU development funds for third world countries. The country that not cooperate with the EU controlling immigration would be punished with no funds from any EU member and other commercial sanctions.

A new common coast guard unit and a border guard with jurisdiction to pursuit illegal immigrants in all countries should be created. They should obey a simple and righteous EU law on the matter. Beyond the borders, they will be tackling illegal immigrants according to the danger they represent to the society.

Contigents for immigration will be created. Citizens of selected countries may be left to enter the EU is manpower is needed. The process will be transparent. The necessities will be correctly assesed and not follow the interest of some businessmen.

The EU burocracy in Brussels should be slimmed and federalized. That is, they will have jurisdiction in only a few common matters, but clearly defined. The EU should stop being simply a subvention center for agriculture and other areas.

The French, oposing federalism, trying to build an EU likely to his own country, should be kept as what they are: a nation of 55 million people in an Europe of 500...

As you can see, the problem is not lack of ideas, but of will.

Re: #64 from AMac, Thanks for the heads up.

I think I have invited a misunderstanding, but on the page you linked to I was accurately quoted, so I'll live with that.

In effect I've started answering the question, less Islam: how? here, but drawing attention to Fjordman's ideas, and how they may look in the context of the ideas of other people who would prefer less Islam.

My original post in this thread was approving in some ways, but also rather detached.

I want to look at the characteristics of this line of thought, not to make it Holy Writ but to see how this is evolving and what its good and bad points are, what it is useful for and what it might be useless for, and what it implies for the debate about Islam if this line of thought becomes more prominent.

That possible aspect of the thread went nowhere, but I meant it.

I hung back on offering criticisms of what Fjordman said (except for a really basic issue I raised at Gates of Vienna), wanting to see what others would say, and in some ways I've defended Fjordman. So I drifted nearer advocacy than was my original intention.

This might create a false impression that I do support almost everything that he said. Far from it. I just think he did us a service in pulling together a lot of typical ideas clearly, concisely and politely expressed in one coherent pattern in one easy to access document.

On what I meant by calling Islam an enemy, and I think more on saying we should aim at "less Islam" I've left blanks, and it would be better to fill them in than leave others to fill them in with speculation. ("Less" in what respects, and why?)

But I only blog so fast (not very fast at all, and you can see how many errors I make when I post comments quickly), and those would be posts for another day.

Also, other topics interest me much more than the war on terror: issues like mateship and heroism that transcend your side/my side, Australian statecraft and alliance politics, and fundamental theories of war to name only three. I don't want to wind up a "war on terror blogger" piling up post after post on boring and hellishly depressing stuff. If you take each possible misunderstanding as a indication you need to hammer out a follow-up post on that same topic right away, you're gone.

Re: #64 from AMac ... Ah, I read the thread, and I see the accurate quote, attribution and link are due to you. Thank you twice then!

On the other hand I originally skimmed the thread and only looked back because I thought I ought to, for safety. I should really be long abed by now. It's another reminder of what a time-sucker posting on these neuralgic topics can be.

Still I think it was worth it to post on what Fjordman said, even if only to point out that for reasonable people who decide Islam is (or Islams are) in some sense an enemy (or enemies, in a number of adversaries or rivals not necessarily identical to the number of possible Islams), no desire or recommendation to nuke or otherwise blast Muslims follows, either logically or in the usual case. What follows is a desire to put up the shutters, a hankering for systems of containment, and a harsh wariness that chills anything like high-minded neoconservative adventurousness.

D. Blue: Islam implies jihad and jihad implies fear, which as we've seem also impacts on freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and judging by the state of the Muslim world freedom from want too. How would you reinvigorate freedom from fear?

In addition to what I mentioned earlier about not ceding legal control of Islamic neighborhoods in cities like Paris, I would prosecute religious speech that incites violence. In the U.S. there are to problems with this approach. First, the Supreme Court in a case called Brandenberg v. Ohio, laid out a pretty stringent test while dismissing charges against Klan members calling for violence against blacks. Second, the U.S. does not have a robust domestic intelligence program. I would advocate changes on both of these limitations.

These are not necessarily European problems, however. The European problem appears to be the result of a larger, unassimilated, often underemployed population that due to physical proximity can keep closer connection to radicals in their homelands. This appears to be the result of longterm political and economic decisions made by Europe that would take decades to turn around.

Electricity is a unifying principle. Other than the deployment cost most every one is for it.

Microvaves.

TV.

Use electric motors to end the slavery of women.

Labor saving devices.

M. Simon:

Electricity is a unifying principle. Other than the deployment cost most every one is for it.
bq. Micro[w]aves.
bq. TV.
bq. Use electric motors to end the slavery of women.
bq. Labor saving devices.

Guess you've got some work to do, then.

Ugh. Blockquoting syntax kind of vague. Oh well.

Anyway, the downside of electricity is that it gives (in effect) these people access to more Jihad propaganda. Can you think of a strategy to counteract this?

(I would suggest a propaganda war...)

Hummm, Propaganda Wars as in video games like Vice City? Sex Drugs and Rocken Roll with 72 Virgins! No, we the Great Satan would never do that!

#72 RiverCocytus,

The counter to jihad propaganda? Glimpses of ordinary American life. Very subversive.

We could start out with traffic jams. Modern autos as far as the eye can see.

Re-runs of Dallas. Or my favorite Simon and Simon.

Democracy, whiskey, sexy.

BTW could you explain your point in #71. I'm a little thick.

#73 Jonathan,

We help provide the electricity. Video games are then a consumer choice.

No electricity, no choice.

The biggest deal is that electricity empowers and educates women.

Nah, I was just pointing out, that we ought to try to also make suggestions that are implementable, or at least, figure out ways to make them so. So we want electricity to flow across the middle east-- (which it may already?) I'm going to just conclude that we've decided that Electricity is a fundament to our strategy. So the question is, how does you or I get electricity to the unelectrified?

#64 from AMac: "Islam" has a similar typology, with five schools of major Sunni jurisprudence, Wahhibis, multiple mainstream Shi'ia movements, various apocolyptic sects (Twelvers), splinters (Alawites) and heretics (Ba'hais).

Just for clarity now: I did not mean to identify Ba'hais as an enemy. There is a temple in Sydney, and it is a source of only good things, no disturbance. There is nothing about my Ba'hai friends or their beliefs or practices that has ever given me any cause for concern.

As far as I know, Fjordman has not identified them as a problem either, and there's no obvious reason why he ever would.

i should have figured out you were under fjordmen's absurdist spell with your last post.

his anti-immigration cat call is nothing more than the echo of a whole generation of xenophobes.

i exposed here how little he knows of his own beloeved europe, much less of islam:

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/fjordmans-tired-tropes/

Re: #33 and #69 from PD Shaw...

So your program is:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Consience
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear
- i. not ceding legal control of Islamic neighborhoods
- ii. prosecute religious speech that incites violence

Yes?

David Blue (#27): "If the only path to immigration reform now lies through EU reform, how do you think EU members should achieve this reform?"

David Blue (#27): "What do you say will work?"

#66 from J Aguilar:

"The main problem to establish a common immigration policy has always been assylum. Some countries would grant it to persons that other countries simply cannot afford to. A common procedure should be reached, with the possibility of appealing to an European Court. That procedure should be based on objective reasons, not the interest of any country in particular.

A responsible for Immigration should be appointed with full jurisdiction on EU development funds for third world countries. The country that not cooperate with the EU controlling immigration would be punished with no funds from any EU member and other commercial sanctions."

A new common coast guard unit and a border guard with jurisdiction to pursuit illegal immigrants in all countries should be created. They should obey a simple and righteous EU law on the matter. Beyond the borders, they will be tackling illegal immigrants according to the danger they represent to the society."

Contigents for immigration will be created. Citizens of selected countries may be left to enter the EU is manpower is needed. The process will be transparent. The necessities will be correctly assesed and not follow the interest of some businessmen.

The EU burocracy in Brussels should be slimmed and federalized. That is, they will have jurisdiction in only a few common matters, but clearly defined. The EU should stop being simply a subvention center for agriculture and other areas.

The French, oposing federalism, trying to build an EU likely to his own country, should be kept as what they are: a nation of 55 million people in an Europe of 500...

As you can see, the problem is not lack of ideas, but of will.

If lack of will is the problem, why is giving an appointed Euro-bureaucrat control of immigration, even contrary to the interest of any country in particular, part of the solution and not part of the problem?

#75 RiverCocytus asks,

How does one get electricity to the ME?

Lets start with Iraq.

They have a grid. Which is a start. What they lack is sufficient generating capacity. So adding generating capacity is the priority.

What do you do?

1. Hire an engineering firm
2. Estimate requirements.
3. Order plants. (oil or gas fired would work in Iraq)
4. Wait for the plants to be produced
5. Install plants
6. Extend the grid as electrical capacity becomes available.

Gas fired plants could be done relatively quickly. About a year or two from the initial order to actual generation.

Oil fired plants of major capacity would take three to five years from requirements to installation.

So that takes care of Iraq and places with a grid.

What about places where there is no grid?

Wind is pretty cost effective.

What is lacking is low maintenance electrical storage.

So how to fix that? Flywheel storage. We know how to do it but there is not much demand because there is not much need in places with an adequate grid (developed countries).

So I would start a Manhattan type project to develop and roll out the storage required to electrify villages and small towns.

Once these electrified islands are developed interconnect them with a grid for redundancy and further distribution.

The Rural Electrification Administration in America has had a lot of experience with the type of engineering required.

The Eteraz url from above.

fjordmans-tired-tropes

David Blue (#79)

If lack of will is the problem, why is giving an appointed Euro-bureaucrat control of immigration, even contrary to the interest of any country in particular, part of the solution and not part of the problem?

Even contrary to the interests of any country in particular??

I repeat:

A common [assylum] procedure should be reached, with the possibility of appealing to an European Court. That procedure should be based on objective reasons, not the interest of any country in particular.

1. I spoke about assylum.
2. I don't say the decission to give assylum to a person has to be directly or only in EU administration hands. Countries might vote against it, but the assylum, once granted, would be for all EU countries.
3. Moreover, I say that particulars or even EU countries may appeal to justice, if they consider the decision unfair or contrary to the aproved procedure.

That might unlocked the tie in EU immigration policies.

The lack of will to follow a pan-European policy on immigration is the problem.

Let's now consider some FACTS:

1. European economy is built on a common market, more precisely a common market of goods, capital and persons, that is, labour.
2. Immigrants enter in one country (often from ex-Colonies) and then simply move to other, because the labour market is common.
3. Therefore, the immigration policy of one country affects all the others (even non-EU), but the people and politicians of one country cannot influence the decisions on immigration of the other. That happens right now.
4. The only way the voters of one country can influence the immigration policy of another is making it a common immigration policy. A common labour market = a common immigration policy, as a common capital market = a common currency, or a common goods market = common industrial norms.
5. A common immigration policy needs a common immigration police, with some, few or full, jurisdiction on borders; in order to not being dependant on National police, not accountable by other countries citizens.

Let's assume the reality of today's Europe.

#82 from J Aguilar: "The lack of will to follow a pan-European policy on immigration is the problem."

Ah. I didn't understand that was the lack of will you had in mind.

OK, if that's what you think the problem is, then your solution follows. The policy will be pan-European.

So your program is [the Four Freedoms]. . . Yes?

Help, I'm about to be pinned down. I suggested the Four Freedoms to counter what I see as an illiberal Fjordman agenda. Perhaps the makes sense for Europe given the severity of its problems, but I suspect they would make the problem worse by declaring 20% of the population "the enemy."

But are we talking about a program for Europe, the West or as most of the commentors appear to assume, the United States?

My program in the West would start by winning in Iraq -- Something for which there appears to be a lack of will. Second, greater economic integration through projects such as the Middle East Free Trade Agreement. There is no greater force to reorganize a culture than capitalism. Third, I would raise taxes on gasoline (at least in the United States). Fourth, I would find some way to increase religious dialogue without state coercion.

I think the immigration issues, which make up a bulk of the Fjordman agenda, are simply too different between the United States and Europe. And lot of the other stuff would simply be unconstitutional in the United States -- it would require a super-majority of Americans to stand up and say Thomas Jefferson was wrong and our sacred documents (the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) were wrong.

Not to be a pedant or anything, but it's 'asylum' not 'assylum.'

David Blue: "So your program is [the Four Freedoms]. . . Yes?"

#84 from PD Shaw: "Help, I'm about to be pinned down. I suggested the Four Freedoms to counter what I see as an illiberal Fjordman agenda. Perhaps the makes sense for Europe given the severity of its problems, but I suspect they would make the problem worse by declaring 20% of the population "the enemy.""

No more "pinning down" then. I've got your idea. The Four Freedoms should counteract the undesirable Fjordman Agenda.

#84 from PD Shaw: "But are we talking about a program for Europe, the West or as most of the commentors appear to assume, the United States?"

Fjordman talked about the West, but in fact (understandably) filled out a prescription for Europe, including prominently in his recommendations idea that meet European needs and can be implemented in Europe (in principle, given a state or nationalist resurgence, which he calls for).

Many commentors also said the "West" but in fact addressed America, where parts of Fjordman's agenda look unnecessary and irrelevant (there is no equivalent of the undemocratic European Union for North America), and couldn't be implemented this side of mass constitutional change.

One of the lessons of the thread for me is that this is so. People are not about to transcend the different situations of America and Europe in the name of some shared heritage or interest.

(Nor will it be possible for Europeans to transcend their differences on the basis of a European Union, as that undemocratic, bureaucratic, top-down institution is in practice a lot about transcending Western-ness for the "greater" synthesis of a Eurabia which would balance against America.)

I think this is bad news for the Fjordman Agenda. Down the road if a democratic government in Europe, under the pressure of worsening conditions, tries to implement something like the Fjordman Agenda, they will need to act at least partly in the name of the West. But the leading power of the West, intellectually as well as in other ways, is America. And America and Americans will probably condemn them unsparingly for doing things that would be unconstitutional (presumptively immoral and illegitimate) and unnecessary in North America. Given that the legitimacy of such a democratic government would be under the severest attack from the outset, this is an unfavorable condition for the success of its agenda.

#84 from PD Shaw: "My program in the West would start by winning in Iraq -- Something for which there appears to be a lack of will. Second, greater economic integration through projects such as the Middle East Free Trade Agreement. There is no greater force to reorganize a culture than capitalism. Third, I would raise taxes on gasoline (at least in the United States). Fourth, I would find some way to increase religious dialogue without state coercion."

Victory in Iraq, greater economic integration, the power of Capitalism, raise taxes on gasoline, more religious dialogue: got it.

Of course, this doesn't accept anything like Fjordman's starting point on what the situation is and what sorts of things a viable set of recommendations would have to achieve if implemented for the survival and the success of Western nations.

#84 from PD Shaw: "I think the immigration issues, which make up a bulk of the Fjordman agenda, are simply too different between the United States and Europe. And lot of the other stuff would simply be unconstitutional in the United States -- it would require a super-majority of Americans to stand up and say Thomas Jefferson was wrong and our sacred documents (the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) were wrong."

Yup. And exactly.

#58 from Achillea: "Restating the premise: There is a strain of Islam which is antithetical to Western cultural values, and its fundamentally supremacist nature makes it inimical to those values. It cannot be accomodated within those values, it will either destroy them or be itself destroyed. What percentage of Muslims follow this strain of Islam has been the subject of considerable conjecture and debate -- for now, call it X."

Are you just speaking freely there, or do you think it is actually just one strand in Islam - the theological rotten apple in the barrel or something like that?

I read you - correctly? - as having something like a medical view of the problem. The disease will cure itself in time, as America is good at absorbing immigrants. But that still leaves the medium and short run, and a population that is carrying something like Jihad Flu - or possibly two or more bugs.

#58 from Achillea: "Whatever real numbers X works out to is what must be reduced/eliminated from our society. This can be done by reducing the number of Muslims overall or by reducing the percentage of Muslims X represents. It's not necessary to make the West -- at least America, Europe is a harder case -- unfriendly to Muslims in general and might even, as grackle touches on in #50, variously run contrary to those values and be flat-out illegal/unconstitutional. What is necessary is to make it unfriendly (in fact, downright hostile) to followers of the 'X' stream of Islam. And that's where multiculturalism has got to go. It needs to be made absolutely diamond clear and hard that if you choose to live in the west, then you must abide by Western cultural values. Your religion is only one among many. You are subject to the same laws as everyone else -- you get no special exemptions or protections. Those who cannot accept that will be forbidden entry, imprisoned and/or deported."

Globally, five years after 11 September 2001, Muslims still accept gentlemen such as Osama Bin Laden as their co-religionists. It's not that they choose the side of crime and lack of legitimacy, but they respect that people who are demonstrably playing by definitive Islamic rules, at least in making jihad on the West (maybe not in attacking their fellow Muslims) remain Muslims in good standing. I think that's long enough for us to reach final, not provisional judgements about what you can openly uphold and do and still be a Muslim.

It seems that Western pressure would have to be intense and sustained to force Muslims into siding - definitely temporarily and probably grudgingly - with unbelievers against their co-religionists.

I guess that's what you're calling for when you say it "needs to be made absolutely diamond clear and hard" ... Reluctance can be overbalanced if the wider society is firm in what it wants. So fair enough.

And after all, many Muslims do choose the right side, by straightforward means such as joining the armed forces. (Not that everybody can or should do that - but if you do it's unquestionably conclusive.)

#58 from Achillea: "If the no-such-thing-as-a-moderate-Muslim camp is right, the result will be the effective elimination of Islam from America. If it is, so be it, but I doubt that's the case. The US has a pretty good track record for assimilation of foreign cultures, and a lot of that comes from previous and now-assimilated waves of those cultures walking newcomers through it. Doing everything in our power to make non-supremacist Islam the dominant stream in the US is very much in our best interests."

As I said before many times, I don't agree with the no-such-thing-as-a-moderate-Muslim school. Most Muslims are like most of anybody else: they want good thing for themselves and their families. They want to prosper. They won't deliver a raving speech and be expelled, if those are the options, they'll say what they have to say till the political balance of power becomes more favorable or less vigilantly enforced. And you do call for vigilance. So that part of your idea seems solid.

Anyway: do you think there is basically a dominant and a non-dominant stream of Islam in America, with the non-supremacist stream not yet being the dominant stream?

lol, i think you and fjordman are in the Axis of Idiots.
Tell me, Blue. What do you call a group of people who are wholly antithetic to UBL and his obscene works, yet busily commit themselves at non-stop 120db to endlessly promoting one plank of the al-Q platform, that this is really a War on Islam?

ha ha, i memba why i don't comment or read here anymore.
there isn't even any Sufi wisdom, let alone neocon wisdom. >:-(

Are you just speaking freely there, or do you think it is actually just one strand in Islam - the theological rotten apple in the barrel or something like that?

By strand (or strain, or stream) of Islam, I'm not referring to particular 'designated' Islamic sects or subsects. I'm a results-oriented sort of gal, and really don't much care what label a particular Islamist wants to slap on his variant of Islam. If he sees himself as having a religious duty and/or mandate to coerce Western cultural values to be subordinate to his religious beliefs, then -- be he Shiite, Sunni, Wahhabist, Salafist, whatever -- he is a member of the supremacist 'rotten apple' strain of Islam.

I read you - correctly? - as having something like a medical view of the problem. The disease will cure itself in time, as America is good at absorbing immigrants. But that still leaves the medium and short run, and a population that is carrying something like Jihad Flu - or possibly two or more bugs.

Not entirely correctly, though your characterization of my view as somewhat medical is very apt on several levels. I do view supremacist Islam as much akin to a virus (others have described it as a viral meme). Like a virus, it's spread by contact to those with a weak 'immune system.' Like a virus, it can mutate and sometimes 'jump species' (jump cultures).

And, like a virus, it's nothing to be ... uhm ... sneezed at. My grandmother, who lived through the Influenza Pandemic after the Great War, was known to visibly flinch at the phrase 'oh, it's only the flu.' America has a very strong 'immune system' built up by exposure to a variety of virulent ideologies. But, as you point out, simply sitting back and letting the disease run its course means, at very least, suffering some very unpleasant symptoms in the short and medium runs (no pun intended). And there's always the remote possibility the infection could prove fatal. I have never, and would never, advocate such a course, my view is simply that care should be taken that the cure not be worse than the disease.

Further extending the metaphor, much of the discussion so far, including my own comments, can be cast in terms of 'identifying disease vectors,' 'instituting quarantines,' and 'developing antiviral therapies.' My only even remotly unique contribution was the concept of 'vaccination' in the sense of using a weakened or killed version of a pathogen to ward off an infection.

Anyway: do you think there is basically a dominant and a non-dominant stream of Islam in America, with the non-supremacist stream not yet being the dominant stream?

I think the non-supremacist strain is currently the dominant strain here in America, though I don't think that means we should be any less vigilant or implacable in regards to the supremacist strain. I'm quite willing to support some fairly drastic measures to help ensure the non-supremacist strain remains dominant, so long as those measures have more to recommend them than merely being drastic.

Many commentors also said the "West" but in fact addressed America, where parts of Fjordman's agenda look unnecessary and irrelevant (there is no equivalent of the undemocratic European Union for North America), and couldn't be implemented this side of mass constitutional change.

Yes, I found myself frequently sliding into mentally conflating 'the West' as a whole with just America. Understandable, perhaps, but irritating and potentially confusing. After repeatedly having to go back and make revisions, I finally gave up and -- though admittedly imperfectly -- just tried to clarify that I was speaking of just America. The whys, wherefores, and what-to-do-about-its of Europe's less-successful encounters with supremacist Islam need a post of their own (more likely several posts) to do justice.

#88 from matoko_afritah: "lol, i think you and fjordman are in the Axis of Idiots.
Tell me, Blue."

No.

But I think it's inevitable that increasing numbers of people in Europe and other parts of the West will refuse to define "winning" as empowering, enriching and accepting Islam. Helping out the Muslim world has been tried now. Alternative notions of "winning" are wanted, if not for Iraq then for those parts of the world where Islam does not yet entirely dominate.

I really see all the strategies proposed here as contributing to one of two solutions; either global thermonuclear war or apartheid and concentration/re-orientation camps. Do not delude yourselves that isolationism is a viable policy in the 21st century.

But cheer up! I'm sure the members of the Axis of Idiots can all get full professorships at Terror Management U.
lol.

ha ha, sorry, i meant to say, "sounding the Islam-alarm in the War on Terror".
my bad.

Tell me, matoko. What do you call a person who is wholly antithetic to something she calls Islamophobia, yet busily uses a style of argument nearly guaranteed to drive people away from her position?

It does not advance your cause to use the phrase "Axis of Idiots". It harms your cause.

Personally, I think that almost every time you comment you harm your cause. And it's all a matter of sytle and methods. You have the content. You have the brain. You want to use your powers for good. Yet you appear to be choosing a combative, cynical, caustic, sarcastic and often argument free style! Where's the gentle persuasion? Where's the patience? The best teachers are gentle and patient.

Your methods are really good for preaching to the choir. That needs to be done, sure. Find an echo chamber. Use them there. Here, you should try patience.

Beware when using humor! When done well it can be effective. In the absence of facial cues and tone of voice it is easy to misinterpret. It's entirely possible that I am completely missing that you are trying to be wickedly funny. Well, you could call me an idiot. Real comedians, faced with a crowd that doesn't get it, don't do that. They change what they are doing. If you watch one, you'll see.

Ann Coutler is trying to be funny, you know. I can tell because I see her on TV and she is always laughing. That's those facial clues and tone of voice. But mostly she's too over the top to actually be funny. And it can be painful to watch.

David Blue, by comparison, is much more patient. Over time he will win this argument in this place, because he has chosen tactics and methods which are winners. You don't want that.

Man, I would really like to understand what you are about, since Dean values what you say and his opinion is valuable to me. But your style is so off-putting I can scarely stand to read your arguments.

It's probably genetic. My faithfully liberal and tolerant Mom would feel the same way.

Yours,
Wince

Here, you should try patience.

Well, he is trying patience, he's trying our patience. Though, actually, after the 'Axis of Idiots' silliness, I skipped over the rest of his stuff. My time is too valuable to waste on trolls.

Achillea,

matoko is a she, not a he. If she is a troll, she is a well educated and well informed troll. It's hard to get past her style to find that out.

Yours,
Wince

okfine, achillea, here's your part then.
BTW, Achillea, that virus modelling is so lame and tired, and utterly inappropriate. Here are some books you can read on cultural evolution, which is what is really happening here.
go up for the live links to Boyer's Religion Explained and Cavalli-Sforza's Cultural Transmission and Evolution.

wince, aziz says i speak in code. im a math major. if i could speak in equations i would. sorry.
and it isn't funnie. i am outraged by stupidity.
sorry, i can't joke about it.

Globally, five years after 11 September 2001, Muslims still accept gentlemen such as Osama Bin Laden as their co-religionists.

I accept Code Pink's 'Starhawk' as a co-religionist of my own, but still strongly disagree with her on virtually every issue (and I'm not the only Wiccan to do so). She's a very ignorant, foolish, and misguided Wiccan, but she's still a Wiccan. I'm sure various of the Christians here can name similar cases within their own faith. I'm not surprised that it's possible to find Muslims worldwide who accept Bin Laden et. al. as fellow Muslims.

What is of concern to me is what levels of agreement and/or support Bin Laden and his ilk may muster among Muslims, but even that concern is scaled geographically. While I'd love to see his strain of Islam eliminated worldwide, the highest priority goes to crippling/killing it in America, followed by crippling/killing it in Europe, followed by everywhere else, followed by the Middle East. Note: this doesn't preclude kicking the holy livin' cr*p out of it wherever in the world we feel the need to do so, just that my main focus is on countering any fifth column here at home.

It's hard to get past her style to find that out.

Which would fall into the category of her problem, not mine.

What is of concern to me is what levels of agreement and/or support Bin Laden and his ilk may muster among Muslims, but even that concern is scaled geographically...

What is of concern to me is the levels of support and/or encouragement you and your ilk give to Bin Laden's WoT==War on al-Islam and your cheerleading for the Clash of Civilizations.

the highest priority goes to crippling/killing it in America, followed by crippling/killing it in Europe, followed by everywhere else, followed by the Middle East.

dont the wiccan have to know mytholgy?
Such a problem, how to slay the hydra in the global village. give me a viable solution.

i am outraged by stupidity.

Yes, but stupidity does not mean "doesn't agree with makato". Manage your anger. David Blue's thesis is not like Robert Spencer's thesis. David Blue is not arguing that Islam is inherently incompatable with Democracy, including religious freedom. He is arguing that real Muslims on-the-ground in the Middle East and elsewhere are so prejudiced in favor of Muslims and against Christians and Jews that we cannot fight in the Middle East without creating more enemies than friends.

Futhermore, neither position is stupid. If Robert Spencer is correct, that Islam is inherently incompatable with Democracy, including religious freedom, than we should change how we approach this conflict. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence he can call upon to support his thesis. I think that Marxism is inherently incompatable with Democracy, including religious freedom, and I see no logical reason to assume that, just because there are a billion Muslims, that Islam is not inherently incompatable with Democracy, including religious freedom. Indonesia's democracy may not last, for example, or it may not embrace religious freedom.

I can certainly imagine a Christian democracy which does not embrace religious freedom. Can't you?

There is also plenty of evidence that David Blue can call upon to support his thesis, and if it is true, than we may also need to change how we approach this conflict.

Personally, I think that calling such easily supportable positions stupid is stupid. Now go get mad at yourself. (I was joking in that last sentence.)

Personally, I don't think Islam is inherently incompatable with Democracy and religious freedom. After all, Christianity had to do through a Reformation, some nasty wars and the Enlightenment before we got religious freedom figured out. But by the same token, can the Muslim world figure this out in time? When we have nukes and bio warfare and genetic engineering and nanotech? That's a good question. And David Blue's question is a good one too. Can we be good enough friends with our Muslim allies to pull this off? It's easy to be friends with Great Britain.

Ask yourself this question. If there were dozens of Japanese countries, could we fight in some of them against some of them and be good allies with the the others?

It's easy to be allies or enemies with all of Japan. Much harder to be allies with some Japanese and enemies of others.

Yours,
Wince

that is not my argument wince.
that is a wider argument that i have little interest in.
my argument is that it is STUPID to support Bin Laden and Nejad and Sadr with rhetoric claiming the War on Terror must really be a War on Islam. Because that is what they want, what they say.
how is spencer useful in being able to regurgitate jihaadi atrocity logic? He is proving he is only just as smart as they are, like a trick dog.

David Blue: Globally, five years after 11 September 2001, Muslims still accept gentlemen such as Osama Bin Laden as their co-religionists.

#98 from Achillea: I accept Code Pink's 'Starhawk' as a co-religionist of my own, but still strongly disagree with her on virtually every issue (and I'm not the only Wiccan to do so). She's a very ignorant, foolish, and misguided Wiccan, but she's still a Wiccan. I'm sure various of the Christians here can name similar cases within their own faith. I'm not surprised that it's possible to find Muslims worldwide who accept Bin Laden et. al. as fellow Muslims.

I think it would be hard for a Roman Catholic today to do and advocate what Osama Bin Laden has done and still be a Catholic in good standing. In general, Christians in our age do a pretty good job of policing their lunatics. Beyond a point, would-be Torquemadas and worse find that they are put down severely, shamed and excluded by those they want to call their fellow Christians.

It's fair to point out that other religions, especially pagan religions, don't have such internal policing. The means don't exist, and there is no drive to enforce conformity anyway.

But Islam does have fierce internal policing, with accusations that someone is no longer a real Muslim backed up by menaces and in some cases actual violence.

Since Islam has fierce internal policing and a keen concern with who is not a real Muslim, I think it's a serious matter that deadly Muslim militants such as remain Muslims in good standing while suspicion and sanctions fall on others.

It's not a level playing field. And while the playing field remains tilted in certain directions (which unfortunately tend to ganging up against us and not with us), I'll consider it reasonable to expect the militants to come out ahead of the less activated, not always and everywhere, but in the long run, and too often to ignore.

#98 from Achillea: What is of concern to me is what levels of agreement and/or support Bin Laden and his ilk may muster among Muslims, but even that concern is scaled geographically. While I'd love to see his strain of Islam eliminated worldwide, the highest priority goes to crippling/killing it in America, followed by crippling/killing it in Europe, followed by everywhere else, followed by the Middle East."

Here we come down to issues of national interest, not principle. As an Australian, I look next door to the world's most populous Muslim nation, steadily crushing to death every religion other than Islam within its borders, gradually growing more militant and tolerant of Muslim militants, and on occasion willing to expand its borders.

I don't think a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Christian Indonesia would be the same kind of long term problem.

Because of this, I'm concerned wherever Islam succeeds in giving itself the tools to wage war on every other religion - a slow-burning war that can continue even where democracy prevails, as it does for the time being in Indonesia. And in a variety of ways, I would like less Islam.

Naturally, I want all things good for America, "our great and powerful friend" - but that's not the same way you care about America, your country.

I don't positively agree with Fjordman on a bunch of issues, but I don't blame him for putting everything together in a way that makes sense from his national perspective, whether that adds up well from an Australian or American perspective or not. We are all of us in this Western tradition deeply creatures of our states - much more so, I think, than we often realise.

#98 from Achillea: Note: this doesn't preclude kicking the holy livin' cr*p out of it wherever in the world we feel the need to do so, just that my main focus is on countering any fifth column here at home.

(grinning) Beautifully put.

Aargh! Fudge!

Since Islam has fierce internal policing and a keen concern with who is not a real Muslim, I think it's a serious matter that deadly Muslim militants such as Abu Bakar Bashir remain Muslims in good standing while suspicion and sanctions fall on others.

Re: #102 from Wince and Nod. Hi, Wince and Nod.

It's nice, and surprising, to see what I said read back pretty accurately. Thanks for your kind words.

And, let me elaborate a little.

Re: #102 from Wince and Nod: "David Blue's thesis is not like Robert Spencer's thesis. David Blue is not arguing that Islam is inherently incompatable with Democracy, including religious freedom. He is arguing that real Muslims on-the-ground in the Middle East and elsewhere are so prejudiced in favor of Muslims and against Christians and Jews that we cannot fight in the Middle East without creating more enemies than friends."

Pretty much.

Though I openly admit that I'm always influence very much by the cast that I'm Australian, and what I see as Australia's friends (such as America and the United Kingdom) and what I see as important for Australia, so my focus is not just on the Middle East. (And I take issue with Ralph Peters not only for treating Robert Spencer unfairly but also for defining the problem we are up against as residing purely in the soil of the Middle East, regardless of religion, and nothing to do with the rest of the world. From an Australian point of view, I don't think that's a viable position.)

Reasons given for the Bali blast included Australia's support for East Timor and our support for America and the United Kingdom fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - which in both cases we had to do if we had any honour and memory for our friends. (World War II veterans in Australia who remembered support from the East Timorese were important in making the case that we should side with those who had been our friends then, and of course America and the United Kingdom were our great allies in World War II, and the latter is our parent country. You can't decently turn your back on connections like that. In Australia, mateship is and must always remain a peak value. Doubly so when it supports our geo-strategic interests.) Unfortunately, the Muslim Indonesian popular response to Australia and Australians over East Timor has been bad.

Muslims seem to blame us for our good military actions and policies as much as for our arguably bad ones and our self-interested ones. What matters is whether we are opposing active Muslim hostilities against non-Muslims (or lesser Muslims). If we are, Islam seems to bias Muslims to ganging up together against us and any victims we helped. It's Dar al Islam vs. Dar al-Harb. It doesn't matter that we weren't thinking along those lines. It's what Muslims think that creates the fight.

This is not just the extremist nutcases, unfortunately, and so our problem isn't only with them. It's also moderate Muslims. The door is way too open for militants to do things that we can't and mustn't sit still for - and then when we come out fighting as we must, the bundling effect comes into play.

I saw that one of the reasons given by the 11 September, 2001 jihadis for attacking America was the suffering of Muslims in former Yugoslavia - which the Americans were innocent of, and which they had even fought their fellow Christians to alleviate! I also see that in Iraq, most Iraqis now approve of attacks on Americans - even though the Americans are trying to bring the Iraqis things they say they want, such as utilities, security and democracy! So yes, we have a problem with the nutcases - but it's not only with them, it's a problem with biases that shape mainstream Muslim sentiment and that consequently enable all kinds of hostile actions, including and not limited to terrorism.

As long as we are faced with such biased thinking, which I think ultimately flows from the kind of political cultures Islam encourages, my estimates of what we can achieve by military action within the Muslim world and playing according to its rules are pessimistic.

In response to this situation, I've basically said three things, and not said three others.

Statement I: This setup points to a tragedy, in which we won't be able to avoid fighting a lot of good people who are Muslims. Even though we should always remember that as individuals they are good people and we should not give in to hate, we must fight full force for victory and for our key values (like mateship) and principles (like freedom of religion) anyway. ("Full force" means boldly and fiercely. We won't win by fighting in a permanent cringing posture or pausing every ten minutes to express regrets.)

Statement II: We should aim (in a variety of ways) at less Islam. I mean to elaborate on that another time.

(Since I use a multi-level model of Islam as an adversary, "diminish Islam" is not as simple a goal as it may look. I haven't forgotten that the open dominance of the kind of Islam we are fighting now is recent, and that in the 20th Century there was plenty of jihad in the guise of Pan-Arabism and Socialism, with people lining up on the same largely confessional lines and chanting different slogans in return for Russian backing. Top level Islam doesn't suddenly appear from nowhere when openly terroristic and politicised Islam takes center stage, nor is it morally equal only to the worst deeds of terroristic political Islam. It has other flavours, times and moods as well.)

Statement III: We should seek non-Muslim allies whose self-interest also impels them to regard "less Islam" as a reasonable goal.

I think non-Muslim allies will weigh our actions more fairly according to whether we help or hurt them, and that such allies will therefore be more secure, trustworthy and lasting than they can ever be with Muslims who are always inclined to see us as bad guys and to bring in other conflicts such as over Israel, even when those distant conflicts are no skin off any local noses. I think it's so hard to get real allies deep in the world of Islam (especially but not only the Middle East), and they are so cool, duplicitous and prone to change sides violently against us that we have to compromise what ought to be basic war aims just to build pretend coalitions. (This hamstrung George H.W. Bush, who I do not blame at all for the limitations on what he was able to do in his war with Saddam Hussein.) I also notice that when we "win" there, we put in charge "allies" who keep supporting what seem to them to be good causes such as Hezbollah's terror attacks on Israel. I think we are better off to fight on the bloody borders of Islam, where real allies and lasting gains may be available. Seeking and aiding non-Muslim allies as a priority will further alienate Muslims, but I've said that this is just part of a tragedy that we have no reasonable choice but to accept.

I've not bought into the argument over whether Islam is compatible with democracy (in which case everything is assumed to be fine once Muslims have democracies set up for them) or whether Islam is incompatible with democracy. That's not the issue, from my point of view. (My guess is that Muslims can sustain stable democracies - in which, under endless and sometimes violent oppression, every religion other than Islam will go into a permanent decline, and in which Jews will be unsafe, and so on.)

I'm not saying that the Fjordman agenda is a complete, sufficient and wholly correct solution to the problems Islam poses to us. How could it be? When I'm looking at a different problem, when even in the Gates of Vienna thread I raised what seems to me to be a critical issue of demographics that Fjordman did not address, when I've stressed the need to protect apostates and free-thinkers and make it dangerous and costly to issue fatwas of death (another issue that Fjordman didn't find a place for in his short list of the key policies), when I've said all along that we need to fight proactively for our values (not worrying about starting a war since we are already in a war, and not worrying about whether our values will offend others since they will be offended even by cartoons and beauty contests anyway), whereas Fjordman (looking at the grim realities of his own neighbourhood) advocates containment, even when the needs of self-protective containment are in obvious tension with our values - and so on.

I thought Fjordman made a great contribution to the big discussion we need to have about what to do about Islam, so I praised him and called attention to his work, that's all. I can occasionally see merit in ideas that are at variance with my own.

here you go with the "less islam" argument again.
i thought that wasn't what you meant?
n'etes toi pas si bete, cher.
what good is a strategy that is patently unimplementable?
je crois que tu parle seulement a ecoute ton mots.

what good is a strategy that is patently unimplementable?

Less Marxism worked. With a billion Chinese and 150 million Russians, plus others, living under Marxism.

Yours,
Wince

OTOH, Grim has a different strategy which might work, called Heroic Epic Warfighting.

President George W. Bush, Avenger of Bones.

I like the sound of that. It speaks to me.

Yours,
Wince