Hafrada, Rak Hafrada"Separation, only separation! That is the
only solution!"
This was the fundamental idea that the greatest Jewish leader
of our time, Rabbi Meir Kahane ZT"L (may the blessed memory
of this Tzadik be immortalized), repeated to Israeli and diaspora
Jews, as well as to non-Jews.
A decade-and-a-half after Rabbi Kahane's assassination by a
Saracen beast, his idea is catching on among genuine American
right-wingers ("paleo-conservatives").
One of my favorite authors, Lawrence Auster, whom I consider
a righteous gentile who possesses the attributes of a true
Kahanist---perspicacity, intellectual honesty and courage, writes
in View from the Right:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006250.htmlIF WE CAN'T DEMOCRATIZE ISLAM, AND WE CAN'T DESTROY IT, THEN WHAT?Andrew McCarthy’s great statement
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006230.htmlrefuting the Bush/neocon Democracy Project raises a deeper question that McCarthy will need to resolve. McCarthy is making two distinct and correct assertions: that Islam is indeed the problem; and that Islam is not just a reaction against American freedom (as the president imagines) but is a coherent belief system with a billion followers, most of whom are passionately devoted to it. This being the case, what is McCarthy’s strategy for the war on Islamic jihadism, a.k.a. the war on Islam? McCarthy says we have to defeat our enemies. Surely McCarthy is not suggesting that we can “defeat”—i.e., subdue and bring under our direct power—the whole of the Islamic world and force them to give up their religion, in the same way that we defeated and destroyed Nazi Germany and uprooted Nazism?
I would suggest that McCarthy is touching on a contradiction in his own thought process that will eventually move him toward the logic I have been enunciating for the last few years:
- Islam is the problem.
- However, we do not have the ability to destroy Islam.
- Nor do we have the ability to democratize Islam.
- Nor do we have the ability to assimilate Islam.
- Therefore, the only solution is to separate ourselves from Islam.
This is my rollback, isolate, and contain strategy.
...
This is consistent with a piece that Mr. Auster wrote for
FrontPage Magazine on January 28, 2005:...
Here again is the Pipes quote that began this whole discussion:
If one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next? This approach turns all Muslims—even moderates fleeing the horrors of militant Islam—into eternal enemies. And it leaves one with zero policy options. My approach has the benefit of offering a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.
Pipes says that the first result of our failing to believe in moderate Islam is that we would see Muslims as our eternal enemies. Yet for the last 1,400 years Muslims have been—as Pipes himself indicates in some of his writings—our
very long-term enemies. And it was during those same centuries, when Western civilization viewed Islam as its enemy, that it successfully drove back repeated Islamic invasions and saved itself from conquest and extinction. By contrast, it is only in the modern period, when the West stopped viewing Islam as its enemy (which occurred at the same time that the West stopped being publicly Christian), that it dropped its guard and began admitting the Islamic immigrant masses that now threaten the survival of Europe. So which way is better? To view Muslims as our enemies (which we did for a thousand years and it didn't harm us but
saved us), or to view Muslims as our friends (which leads promptly to our own defeat, dhimmitude and ultimate extinction)? If a certain party is our enemy, isn't it better to know that he is our enemy, rather than to imagine that he is not? This is especially the case when the appropriate response to the enemy is simply to build solid walls between us and him, rather than to wage a world war in order to force him to become like ourselves.
...
Summary and conclusionTwo starkly different paths lie before us.
If we pursue the course of ecumenism, we will embark on a decades-long attempt to turn Muslims into moderate Muslims. The endeavor would become the central political project and moral commitment of our society, an obsessive, irrational quest that—like the Oslo "peace" process—we could never permit ourselves to abandon, no matter how many times it had failed. In the process we would empower Islam and lose ourselves.
If we pursue the course of civilizational defense, we will unstring Islam as a global force by decreasing Muslims' presence in the West and containing them within their historic lands. Once the two civilizations are no longer in each other's faces, our freedom and safety will no longer depend on our begging, cajoling, and bribing them to give up their deepest convictions.
Which path is more promising? The path of civilizational realism, in which we recognize Islam as our eternal adversary and act accordingly, or the path of the civilizational peace process, in which we look on a billion Muslims as moderates who have somehow failed so far to realize that they are moderates, but who—we devoutly believe—will somehow discover that they are moderates if we keep trying hard enough to convince them of that fact?
Topic: Hafrada, Rak Hafrada (Separation, Only Separation!) (Read 9669 times)