Fred will prolly blow this thing out of the water. But what is discussion all about?

They Are Bad. Now What?

From a redneck with a Styrofoam cup to the fine crystal and linen napkin crowd, the verdict is in. Muslims are bad and we must fear them. We must fear them to the same extent the Germans feared the Jews. We must hate them with a fever. We must destroy them before they destroy us.

This is the message I get from respected friends and talk show hucksters. It is consistent in its enthusiasm and also its shallowness.

I’ve actually known a Muslim and he missed his chance. There he sat. He even had a knife. I bet he was killed as soon as his comrades found out he could have killed me and didn’t.

For the good of the western world, this needs to be sorted out. I totally understand the animosity directed toward a religion that has the moral standards Muslims are universally known for. So far, nobody has shown that the Koran does not direct devout Muslims to eliminate non-believers. It is a grave problem.

But in all the rhetoric of those who seem to believe nobody is listening to their warnings on Islam, I have yet to hear what they propose to do about it. Secretary Henry Kissinger said last Tuesday, “We have to know the objective at the start and develop a strategy to achieve it.” What is it, Henry? It is time for the next step. Past time.

We don’t like what we see in Europe; no-go zones where police fear to tread and Sharia Law is in effect already. We who prefer the old English Common Law feel powerless to stop the onslaught of Sharia. We see the government chasing dope addicts, financing Tesla Motors, getting involved in civil wars halfway around the world and generally throwing a monkey wrench into every entrepreneurial endeavor that actually betters our world, while these lunatics see a border ripe for invasion.

No-go zones already exist here in the USA. Drug cartels run whole neighborhoods because our justice system has been so diluted with nanny-ism, trying to engineer society rather than simply protecting the decent people from the bad ones.

All the awful things we hear that the Islamists are doing are illegal here, and rightfully so. They have victims and we have law to deal with them. But when law has been used to restrict unpopular yet harmless behavior, when law is used to punish those who compete with political contributors or promote any business, when it replaces charity, when it replaces family; it has already crossed the line.

That line is where the principle of law to protect individuals has evolved to a point where it does anything at all beyond that. The law is now subject to “interpretation.” It is now vulnerable to the whims of the mob. We now have a democracy. To complain about Muslims influencing our laws might feel good and righteous, but we brought it on ourselves. Democracy makes the law subject to the majority instead of a tool to ensure individual rights. We don’t have to look very far to see where the majority can be wrong.

There is no longer a standard of individual sovereignty when we accept being forced to buy someone else’s groceries, medical care or schooling. The purpose of government has been forgotten when it is protecting foreign governments, sending our president on million dollar vacations and even exploring Mars. The traditional role of law is to step in when society’s standards are violated. The United States is already in a tenuous position as a singular society, as evidenced by the repeated term, “multiculturalism.” That means the law is unenforceable, spread too thinly in an attempt to enforce the terms of too many cultures.

When I hear this constant drumbeat that Muslims are bad, without any direction given to deal with it, I have to think that these obviously intelligent people are avoiding the next step for a reason. If a system of government that only protects individual rights is not enough to deal with religious violence, is it because the perpetrators of unlimited government benefit from that unlimited government to such an extent that they ignore the obvious solution in order to preserve their plunder?

What do these people who view themselves as an exclusive clique of enlightened ones have to gain from their incessant blabber that we are at war, rather than in a law enforcement crisis?

If we were really going to guard against the installation of Sharia Law we would simply enforce the laws we already have that contradict Sharia Law. In order to do that we would need the resources available upon elimination of the state as family. We would need to allow for uncompromised private property rights. For example, we would have to return air travel to a totally private business that has the right to defend itself and choose who their customers are.

As long as the precedent has been set that law can violate our rights, as it does today, we are vulnerable to the installation of Sharia Law. If we don’t want that (I don’t), then we should start by eliminating the precedents that empower the courts with such liberal interpretations of the law.

As for the tough talkers, there is nothing preventing them from conducting their own war. They can buy their own Styrofoam cups, linen napkins and fine crystal too. War should be declared by Congress before the rest of us get involved.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Fred will prolly blow this thing out of the water. But what is discussion all about?

  1. Pretty safe road down which you are embarking. You write nothing about how the advance of Islam can be halted, nor what Western countries should be doing to address the militancy of Islamic disciples – how the West can thwart it, or at least contain Islamic advancement.

    What you suggest is an internal rearrangement of nationalistic priorities, a description of issues on which the U.S. should be re-focused. Linking this to the incursion successes of Islam is simplistic and indicates a bit of naiveté regarding the Islamic religion/ideology and how it perceives the non-Islamic world and its “obligation” toward that world.

    I don’t disagree with any of the points you make regarding our self-imposed tolerance and manufactured love of diversity, and all in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, and that is corrupting American society and the Constitutional Republic that the Founding Fathers established. I fail to see how getting a few things straight in America will make one iota of difference regarding the intent of Islam to eventually be an adopted, planet-wide ideology. I can see how the progress of Islamic domination in America could be slowed, even halted, but how does this stop or help to thwart the militant incursions by Islamic sects around the world? (You would likely view aiding other countries in their fight against the extremist doctrine of Islam as none of our business, but the economy of America is based to a large extent on commerce and trade among nations and thus it has become America’s business.)

    The big issue as I see it is that the powers-that-be in the U.S. and still, to an extent, in Europe fail miserably at understanding Islam as an ideology, as a complete way of life, and as a political and economic system that has a single-minded objective of world domination. Nor do those powers-that-be understand the different sects of Islam and how they relate, or don’t relate, to one another. And for some countries, helping to empower discrete Islamic sects (e.g., ISIS) against Western interests is a counterproductive effort to the welfare of these helpful countries and only delays realistic, productive actions by the West to thwart Islamic imperialism.

    What is your suggestion as to how to halt the advancement of Islam, in terms of the terrorist activities now used by the ideology to increase their geographic domination? I agree that America waking-up and stopping our own foolishness of wrapping Islam into the love of diversity and multiculturalism will go a long way toward developing a solid defense against Islamic ideology incursions within the U.S. But what, if anything, should be done by the Western powers to stop the lunacy of Islamic militancy now occurring in the Middle East and parts of Europe, to stop the self-destructive implementation of Sharia law in Western countries, and to halt the progress of Islamic ideology that is being forced on unwilling populaces?

    Another aspect of this opinion regarding Islam in the world is that the Western powers do not appear to appreciate the difference between a Republic, or a Democracy, and a Theocracy, especially an Islamic Theocracy. There is a big, big difference, and an Islamic Theocracy is one where the clerics control all aspects of the theocratic nation’s behavior.

    Fred

    • We’ve got this Honda. It works fine. Is it because the Japanese can only build great cars and do nothing else that we can’t expect our trading partners to maintain order in their part of the world. Is It because our system of private property (?) makes us so vastly more prosperous that we are the ones taxed to finance world order.

      I think I saw where some Jordanians protested the burning of that pilot. Was the protest demanding that their people continue with their daily lives while Americans spend an increasingly large part of their lives paying for their protection?

      It seems to be a common theme that, for Americans, nothing costs anything. But for the rest of the world, it is too expensive.

      This burning man thing is like 9/11 all over again. We are turning into children, ready to hand everything over to whoever will make it better. What better way to destroy the great satan than to have it send their best to die and spend $2 trillion recruiting jihadists for their cause.

      I have no idea what to do to halt the progress of ISIS. But looking at recent history doesn’t inspire me to say let’s try it again. Sure, there’s been much more damaging wars. Are we willing to sacrifice 10,000 this time, maybe 50? As dad said, “what do we do, kill them all?”

      The reason I stayed local was because the world is not manageable. And I still think our reactions are a better recruitment tool for the crazies than the actions we are reacting to.

      On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, alternativebyfritz wrote:

      >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s