It turns out that Baron Bodissey, at Gates of Vienna, lays out an insightful manifesto on the mission of his blog in defending the values of Western liberty, progress, and rationalism against the growing politically-correct Muslim-multiculturalist onslaught:
The Left has recently become fairly monolithic in its alliance with and support for Islam. By adopting the time-honored anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-capitalist rhetoric of the Marxists, Muslims have managed to make common cause with Greens and Socialists across the entire Western world.The essay continues, but the author turns away from extreme reactions to the Islamist wave, suggesting a pragmatic approach to assimilation and reform:
The Right, however, remains divided on the topic of Islam. Some traditional conservatives view orthodox Islam — which does, after all, display a notable moral rectitude — as less of a threat to the West than the native modern depravity of popular culture, with its emphasis on mass consumption, hedonism, promiscuity, homosexuality, and mindless self-gratification.
Such thinking, however, remains a minor strain among conservatives. The central argument on the Right is between those who believe that a “moderate Islam” exists, and those who think it is a mirage....
The jury is still out on this question, of course. But in four years of blogging it I haven’t seen any signs of a moderate form of Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who are moderates, of course — people who lead normal lives, don’t brutalize their families or kill apostates, and don’t strive to institute a new Caliphate through violence, intimidation, and deception. But they are “moderates” to the extent that they don’t practice their faith. They are MINOs (Muslims in Name Only), or unannounced apostates, or Muslims who pay very little attention to their religion.
The sad fact remains that there is no significant alternative within Islam to the “radical” version if one wants to be a practicing Muslim in a faith community. Any Muslim who turns to the roots of his faith in the Koran and the hadith finds a blueprint for violence, intolerance, and bestial treatment of women and non-Muslims. He discovers that his faith requires him to make war against non-Muslims until the entire world submits to Allah, or to die in the attempt. He learns that the precepts of Islam govern his life down to the minutest of details, including which shoe to put on first and in what direction to face when urinating.
There are a few Muslim scholars who would like to abandon the hadith entirely and re-interpret the Koran to edit out the violent and intolerant parts, in order to bring Islam into line with the modern world. But these courageous individuals face insurmountable obstacles — the tenets of Islam insist that the core scriptures are the immutable word of Allah, and may not be changed or interpreted. Not only that, anyone who dares to attempt such a project is the worst of heretics and deserves to be killed.
Needless to say, these conditions tend to put a damper on Islamic revisionism.
No American political figure of national stature is willing to go on record talking about the actualities of Islam. Not only would he face a full-bore media assault as a “racist” if he did, but Saudi money has been spread so widely and corrupted so deeply that our political structures are seriously damaged, perhaps irreparably. Members of the federal government are even officially forbidden to associate “Islam” and “jihad” with “terrorism”. That’s how bad it’s gotten....Baron Bodissey trails off here into a disussion of an authoritarian response to the creeping assualt of Islam on the West. Would the U.S. or the major European states welcome the "man on horseback," the strongman who concentrates despotic control with the backing of the muted masses to wipe out Islamo-fascism root and branch?
I asserted above that none of the policies demanded by dedicated right-wingers — a halt to Muslim immigration, containment, mass deportation, the destruction of Mecca, etc. — are realizable in the current political climate.
But that climate can change at a moment’s notice. Mujahideen all over the world are desperate to get a suitcase nuke or a bucket of ricin into a major population center in the United States. Given the number of zealots who intend to do us harm, and the current sieve that we call our borders, it’s all but inevitable that a deadly catastrophe will eventually occur, devastating our economy and ushering in a brand new political climate within the space of a few short weeks.
At that point the situation becomes chaotic and unpredictable, and many of the stringent measures advocated by the Islamophobes — plus even more horrific ones — are likely to be implemented.
Well, not exactly, but the discussion ends inconclusively.
To me, it's not a question of capitulating to multicultural political correctness and the widespread acceptance of the banality of Muslim evil. Nor will we need to give up our freedoms to a populist dictatorship.
The United States will defeat radical Islam just like we've defeated other totalitarian threats in the past: with a combination of hard power in economic and military strength, and the soft power of enlightenment ideals of rationalism and forward movement.
There is a model that works, which is the American way. As long as we keep a focus on economic growth, international trade, and individual freedom, the nation will prevail in our current difficulties with our religious enemies worldwide.
This outcome is predicated, of course, on the acession to power in the United States of a leadership that sees the nature of our challenges clearly, and one which will not take the option of moderation to its malignant outgrowth of appeasement and capitulation.
If that does happen, perhaps as early as next year, with a victory for the Democrats in the fall, I'm less confident the American traditions of openness, reason, and tolerance will prevail.