One more time, for the record: Hugh Fitzgerald, the second main blogger on Jihadwatch (i.e. with Robert Spencer) is a separationist, if the word means anything. Being highly hospitable to Hugh, Jihadwatch, if not a separationist website, sure is hospitable to separationism. So I’m at a loss to see where I’ve said anything much wrong. If you want to pick nits, perhaps instead of saying “separationist websites like Jihadwatch” I should have said “websites hospitable to separationism like Jihadwatch.” But for heaven’s sake.
I can’t even see what these people are steamed about. If Islam is, as Spencer & Co. claim, the world’s most intolerant religion, founded by a crazy pedophilic warmonger whom Muslims perversely persist in regarding as the model for humanity, separationism looks pretty sensible to me. Why do the Jihadwatch guys so furiously disavow it?
As to my being a left-wing Machiavellian seeking to discredit separationism: While I’m not a separationist myself, I don’t mind it. I mean, I don’t see anything immoral, deplorable or “racist” about it. (Islam is not a race.) I can’t see why the American people should be forced to have anything to do with the Muslim nations, if we collectively decide we’d rather not. I have made plenty of favorable references to outspoken separationists like Randall Parker. I just don’t see how separationists can, constitutionally and in good conscience, “separate” native-born Muslims who don’t want to renounce their U.S. citizenship, as most surely don’t.