...May be grasped in the following manner: They treat the question, "How could one be harmed by jihadists, if they and their sympathizers were not present in one's country?" as a sort of Zen koan. Instead of simply accepting the obvious point concerning immigration and subversion on the homefront, they assume that there must exist some hidden depths, and so they set out to derange their sense of reason - and to derange their hearers - by uncovering those hidden depths.
It could unfold, in Zen-fashion, like this.
The master learned in the way of Mahomet posed the question to his rebellious disciple, "How could a people be harmed by an adversary if their adversaries and sympathizers are absent from that people's land?"
The rebellious student returned to his quarters to meditate upon the question, using as aids the collected works of Harry Jaffa and Norman Podhoretz.
The following morning, he returned to the master and answered, "They could be harmed were their adversaries to suborn the treason of someone who would then allow a WMD to be smuggled through an American port."
And the master replied, "O stiff-necked and rebellious pseudo-disciple, were the adversaries to suborn treason, the traitors would be sympathizers. And how could the adversaries suborn treason if they were not even able to contact anyone from among the people? You are overthinking and deranging your reason. The depths lie in the surface. Meditate some more."
On and on this went, until finally, the miserable disciple said, "Master, I have solved the riddle, and the answer is this: the adversaries could harm the people by the fact of their absence, for in the case of such absence, the people would prove themselves as exclusionary and intolerant as their enemies. Discrimination is the greatest evil, the greatest harm, and the people would become like unto their adversaries. This would be their destruction."
Whereupon the master sent the disciple away, on the grounds that he was as yet too foolish to tread the path of wisdom, requiring the purgation of his rebellion before he could learn.
There are no obscure depths to the problem of the jihad and our response thereto; there are questions concerning certain details, but there are really no mysteries, because they do not have to be like us in order for us to be as safe as it is possible to be in this world from them. Moreover, they do not have to be among us, because nondiscrimination is merely the negation of the principle whereby any culture preserves itself as itself, and not a moral imperative in this regard. But instead of common sense, we get all sorts of folderol about "becoming like the terrorists", simply because we dislike the religious and cultural milieu from which they arise.
Neoconservatism: lowering our collective IQ.
Comments (9)
"Neoconservatism: lowering our collective IQ."
The Jacobin's quest for Empire has helped to redefine what it is to be an American, a conservative and to make us less safe in the face of the Jihad. They have been a disaster on every front.
Posted by Kevin | October 31, 2007 10:58 PM
I'm all in favor of discrimination against Muslims in our immigration policies and swift deportation in many cases. We do, though, already have many Muslim citizens who are therefore not subject to deportation, either summary or otherwise. And then there's the Internet. It would be a big step in the right direction if we'd get rid of ridiculous anti-discrimination ideas in high places. But I would not take one to be stupid if one thought there were still not-so-very-farfetched ways in which America and Americans could be harmed and we could be given reason to worry about the jihad even if all the advice of the separationists were followed. Which isn't a reason not to follow their advice.
Posted by Lydia | November 1, 2007 3:44 PM
We do, though, already have many Muslim citizens who are therefore not subject to deportation, either summary or otherwise.
If naturalized citizen believed in Sharia at the time of naturalization, by definition he did not support Constitution of the USA and so his naturalization is invalid.
For Muslims born here a program to pay them a bribe to give up citizenship and leave the USA is feasible, only will is lacking.
I would imagine that a grant of $1M per family will tempt 80% of Muslims to move away.
Posted by mik_infidelos | November 1, 2007 4:13 PM
Lydia,
Discrimination occurs every time someone decides that on person, object or activity is to be preferred for a specific reason over another. You discriminate when you choose to buy one car or house rather than another. a teacher discriminates ever time he grades the work of a student.
The real issue in discrimination is the basis on which the discrimination occurs and the purpose for preferring one person over another.
Society (and especially government and employers) should not discriminate on the basis of what a person thinks or believes, or on the totally irrelevant basis of race, religion or place or origin. Behavior is the only valid reason for discriminating against a person, and the behaviors need to be limited to those which damage other people.
Behavior that shows a lack of respect for accepted property rights or violence towards others is a perfectly proper basis for discriminating against someone. (Drug dealers - strongly against against. Drug users - not going to be useful employees in many cases, but their biggest crime is in supporting drug dealers or the crimes they commit to support their habit.)
Gender? Religion? Race? National origin? Not good basis for discrimination. Instead look for competence and ability to work well with others. The federal laws are a rough approximation of this idea, mostly intended to overcome the American tradition of severe negative discrimination based on Race. Laws, being very general rules, are not good at isolating true justice in each specific situation, but in the cases described in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act are designed to correct specific recurring failures in American society which have extensive long term negative effects. Their purpose is to declare that certain bases for discrimination are not social beneficial, and to prevent their use.
Back when I owned a Honda, the best two mechanics I found were both from Saudi Arabia. Oddly, so was the retired Civil Engineer (University of Oklahoma trained) who operated the used car lot I bought the Honda from. None were religious fundamentalists, and I'll trust any of them before I'll trust a fundamentalist of any religion. If you are going to exile religious fundamentalist, the ones who are anti-social include the Christian fundamentalists. Get rid of them also.
The proper basis for discrimination is not religious belief. It is whether or not they will act to force others to change their religious beliefs. I find conservative Southern Baptists no more trustworthy than I do the extremists of al Qaeda. But in each case, I will wait for evidence of antisocial behavior - evidence like the fundamentalist training school in North Dakota teaching guerrilla warfare methods to children of Christian fundamentalist families - this is no different from the al Qaeda training camps.
Posted by Richard | November 3, 2007 2:55 PM
mik_infidelos,
Do you think we could also pay the Christian fundamentalists to leave the U.S.?
That would be at least as valuable as getting rid of the Muslims.
Or maybe, to be more efficient, we could just get rid of the people like Timothy McViegh who, as individuals, are a threat to America. That would be a lot more efficient than the racist effort to simply remove certain categories of people.
Posted by Richard | November 3, 2007 3:30 PM
"I find conservative Southern Baptists no more trustworthy than I do the extremists of al Qaeda."
This is insanity. When was the last time a Southern Baptist blew himself up in a mall? Flew a plane into a building? Etc., etc. I know how much people who want to make such moral equivalencies love to bring up McVeigh. AFAIK, he wasn't Southern Baptist. But it's pretty funny how y'all who say silly things like the above quotation just have that _one_ terrorist act you have to keep coming back to. As opposed to a gazillion Muslim terrorist acts. It's really a matter of wilfully closing your mind to evidence.
What I said about the civil rights acts is that I object to them partly on the grounds that they end up requiring discrimination on the basis of race in the form of affirmative action and such ideas as "disparate impact." Libertarians have been pointing this out forever. If you're so het up, Richard, about discrimination on the basis of race, you should rethink your support for the 1964 Civil Rights acts and the subsequent applications thereof by administration after administration.
Posted by Lydia | November 3, 2007 4:37 PM
This is insanity.
That implies that the statement might be excusable because of some medical problem or chemical imbalance, though. Me, I think it is just freaking nuts.
Thought experiment: given a choice of leaving your daughter or wife in the hands of a bunch of Southern Baptists or Al Qaeda operatives for (say) six months, how many would opt for the Al Qaeda operatives?
Posted by Zippy | November 3, 2007 6:24 PM
Yeah, maybe I was too nice. :-)
But perhaps we've just known the moderate Southern Baptists. :-)
Posted by Lydia | November 3, 2007 7:40 PM
Do you think we could also pay the Christian fundamentalists to leave the U.S.?
That would be at least as valuable as getting rid of the Muslims.
We could, but it will be insane, Christian fundamentalists are as good patriotic Americans as they come.
Of course, if Chris fundamentalists will start flying into building and blow themselves in kindergardens, I might change my opinion.
But I would have no problem to pay YOU to leave this country and would contribute personally, say $1000, to that end.
Till then you are free to spill your antiChristian, anti-white venom.
Posted by mik_infidelos | November 3, 2007 8:15 PM