PostHeaderIcon Why Not Redefine The Problem?

How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.

Are we winning?

The answer is a simple NO.

Why aren’t we winning?

Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?

I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?

First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just that”. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.

Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for” group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal” really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).

But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islam”. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war” instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical” form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals” by this supposedly “other” branch of Islam.

That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.

Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.

Would the “left” have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.

Am I a bigot? No, I think I am simply realistic.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

14 Responses to “Why Not Redefine The Problem?”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    From the outside looking in…

    I will get to the substance of your post presently, Troy; but first allow me to (once again) object to your remarkable affinity for collective language.

    Our own modern…
    Are we winning?
    Why aren’t we…?
    Could it be that we…?
    we are fighting?
    …what keeps us from…?
    our own Constitution.
    …those among us
    …the rest of us
    …those among us
    …are we insane?
    …embedded among us
    we now have…
    … to our war with…
    …in our favor…
    Our government…
    we (the USA) …
    …will consider ourselves
    we will outlaw…
    …within our own…
    we will respond…
    Our next move…
    …as we know it…

    Whew…

    I find it fascinating to notice how much I have changed over the years. When my native contumacy encountered Ayn Rand, my ensuing worldview readily rejected altruism and collectivism, in favor of egoism and individualism. Then, after absorbing Harry Browne’s books exalting freedom and disparaging governments, I acquired the liberating notion of individual sovereignty. Eventually, I was ready for the works of Murray Rothbard, et al.

    Now, as a resolute individualist anarchist, altruism is absolutely anathema to my mind. Thus, it automatically trips over collective pronouns like ‘we,’ ‘our,’ and ‘us.’ They immediately put this reader on the outside looking in, somewhat like an anthropologist studying an alien (if not primitive) culture. What drives the herd instinct in sheeple? I can understand family kinship, and perhaps even local tribal affinities; but how are folks so easily programmed to believe national, or even global, governments are necessary, much less beneficent?

    Yes, I am grateful to have been born into Western culture, and during my childhood in the ‘40s and ‘50s it seemed rather idyllic; but it no longer is, and what remains certainly does not deserve my fealty. Ten thousand years of human history went for naught, now that these insolent Progressive snowflakes have arrived on the scene, anxious to tell us old fogies how we should/must live our lives. Screw them and the collectivist tyranny they rode in on.

    Neither is it my duty to try to save them from themselves. Yeah, it would be cool to return to the halcyon days of yesteryear; but no amount of activism, education, politicking, or voting will ever bring back the carefree world of “Leave it to Beaver” or “Father Knows Best.” Today’s Beaver is glued to his smart-phone, and his Progressive father voted for Obama and Hillary. Is there any cure for idiocy? I question whether what little remains of Western civilization is even worth saving, much less fighting for.

    While I share your frustration over the tactic of terrorism practiced by religious fanatics, Troy, I’m afraid the realities of current geopolitics preclude effectively stopping them. Our hegemony is slipping fast, and the distributed powers that be would never allow us to declare war on all of Islam. Modern technology and asymmetric warfare are rapidly rendering much of our military might obsolete. Besides:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.

    You left out the more relevant clauses in the First Amendment, which would render your proposal to outlaw the practice of Islam within the borders of the US decidedly unconstitutional:

    “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

    You are free to consider Islam as evil as you wish (I certainly do, and make no apologies whatever for my bigotry toward the miscreants within it); but the Constitution you revere forbids you from demanding of any of its adherents, that they publicly disavow their fundamentalists, before you permit them to exercise it, speak about it, write about it, or peaceably assemble for it.

    Think about this: Would you personally be safer there in hinterland Texas, with or without a declared war on Islam? It is my opinion that more than one actor already has the technical ability to explode an EMP over America. ICBMs are unnecessary. Shorter range missiles could be launched from close offshore, by a submarine or even a cargo ship. The aftermath of such would be simply unthinkable. ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      Dave, You do Islam a favor it does not warrant when you compare it to another “religion”. As we both know, Islam is a complete system for controlling the behavior of other people — which just happens to contain a religious element, which itself is more adapted to control than to a realistic belief in anything beyond death. To be precise, the only thing in the modern world to which Islam may be properly compared is communism. Which also touched on religion but enjoys no protection from our Constitution.

      As an example of what I call unrealistic belief, Islam holds that Mohamed left this Earth for (wherever) from Jerusalem, riding his favorite horse. It is an accepted fact (besides horses no being able to fly) that Mohamed was never anywhere near Jerusalem during his evil life. Yes, I know true “religions” believe things equally silly but that is allowed so long as their beliefs do not require them to kill others.

      No doubt that many members of the world community now possess the power to cause unbelievable damage to the entire planet. And, IMHO, it is only a matter of time until one of them actually starts the process. Which is why I prefer to risk preemption.

      As for my continued use of the collective pronoun… you know that I don’t consider any living thing to be complete (or sufficient) in and of itself. Indeed, for all I know, whatever miracle started life on Earth happened only one time, meaning every living thing is actually the remote relation of every other. IMHO, if more of us understood that, we would be far less apt to abuse each other.

      Your views on how best to govern yourself does not alter the reality that you are not alone, however much you (and I) may wish to be.

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Islam is a complete system for controlling the behavior of other people — which just happens to contain a religious element, which itself is more adapted to control than to a realistic belief in anything beyond death.

        Agreed; but how is that any different to the scam Moses pulled off? Ever read Leviticus? Aren’t all forms of religion examples of authoritarian attempts to control behavior? In any case, if Muslims were not also selling paradise beyond the grave, I suspect recruiting martyrs for suicide missions would be a tad more difficult. 😉

        Yes, I know true “religions” believe things equally silly but that is allowed so long as their beliefs do not require them to kill others.

        Allowed by whom? Where is this caveat delineated in American jurisprudence? It certainly isn’t found in the Constitution.

        Although I condemn all authoritarian endeavors, whether sectarian or secular, it was not my intent to do Islam any favors with my remarks. All manner of weird cults and outright scams, have been deemed protected by the First Amendment. Seriously, what are the chances that SCOTUS would not rule your proposal unconstitutional?

        Which is why I prefer to risk preemption.

        As would I, if I thought it feasible and reasonably effective. A persuasive case for preemptively nuking North Korea or Iran, before they acquire the ability to nuke America, might be made. Declaring war on Islam, and effectively all Islamic regimes under Sharia rule, while outlawing the religious practice of millions of American Citizens (just imagine the reaction of Farrakhan and his disciples), would not constitute effective preemption, it would be feckless saber rattling in the extreme.

        …we would be far less apt to abuse each other.

        I suspect folks would be even less apt to abuse each other, if busybody altruistic do-gooders would leave them the hell alone, to live their lives as they choose to live them.

        Your views on how best to govern yourself does not alter the reality that you are not alone, however much you (and I) may wish to be.

        Of course, we (you and I 😀 ) are not alone; nor would I wish to be. That does not condemn me to acquiesce to altruistic collectivist schemes accepted by others. The accident of my birth on the North American continent, as it happens in a territory called Arkansas, does not prevent me from stubbornly resisting any so-called authority, endeavoring to regulate how I live my life, be it a religion, state, potentate, oligarchy, or a committee of my peers in some sort of commune.

        To be clear about my attitude toward altruism, as an anarchist, individualist, and freethinker, I approach society as an honest, peaceable, responsible, self-sufficient, free trader. I expect nothing I have not earned, and refuse to contribute anything that it does not please me to voluntarily offer. No one owes me a living, and I owe nothing to others. In commerce, I peacefully trade with my neighbors on a value for value basis. I take no more than I am willing to give in return, and refuse to trade when I deem the offer currently inequitable.

        In a true laissez-faire free market, absent coercion of any sort, no one is ever harmed by a trade. Both sides are always winners, for they each gave up something they valued less, for something they valued more at the time of the trade. This principle holds true, whether the trade is for labor, commodities, or personal possessions. I despise all attempts to regulate the marketplace, whatever the altruistic motives, as pure folly. Such is inevitably counterproductive in a free society, and ultimately stifles progress.

        My objection to your prolific use of collective pronouns, is the implication that your reader is subsumed under them, when referring to political or social entities or concepts. In my own case, I often reject that premise. Lest other readers be unaware of my contumacy, I occasionally find need to declare such, when replying to your posts. Nothing personal…

        Try to stay high and dry this weekend, my friend. Harvey is sure fixing to mess with Texas. 😉

        • Troy says:

          Dave,
          I will not respond to your arguments except to note that, as a confirmed Objectivist, I abhor altruism in all its forms.

          As for the storm, all we are getting here is very heavy rain. My old area near Corpus Christi is not fairing nearly as well although Corpus seems to have missed the worst of the wind damage. The floods may be a different story.

          Troy

          Users who have LIKED this comment:

          • avatar
          • ◄Dave► says:

            I suspected that you were far enough inland that the initial hurricane force winds would not reach you; but upward of 40″ of rain is a serious threat to lowlands. I hear the alligators have taken over the streets already in some locales. 😯 ◄Dave►

    • Well said, ◄Dave►. I’ll have to think on some of that.

      I get why we should endeavor to consider people to be born equal, but an ideology seems like fair game to judge people on, at least by non-government entities. As people get ever stranger in their beliefs, it becomes clear that we can’t all humor each other’s nonsense while still believing in our own.

      It’s important that people be able to choose their own allegiances. At this point, half the country can’t tell the difference between a nationalist and a supremacist, and making up vague labels like alt-right to brand people with is causing more harm than good.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
      • ◄Dave► says:

        I’ll have to think on some of that.

        A man after my own heart! Cogitate away… then come back and let’s chew it over. 🙂

        …we should endeavor to consider people to be born equal…

        Why? PC? It simply isn’t true. I have no difficulty reconciling the misfortune that I don’t have the basketball skills of a Wilt Chamberlain, or the intellectual candle power of an Elon Musk. Why is it so difficult for others to acknowledge such manifest inequalities, in congenital aptitudes between individuals? The science behind the Bell Curve is considerably more compelling than the science behind the AGW hypothesis. Why is one considered settled by the Left and the other dismissed out of hand as racist? The answer can only be PC on both accounts, not the slightest respect for science. Stefan Molyneux has some fascinating interviews on the subject, including with Charles Murray himself, listed here: Human Intelligence

        …ideology seems like fair game to judge people on…

        Ideology and/or culture. Review the deeper discussion we had here a year ago: Cultural Bigotry ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    After nearly a decade of listening to everyone in this country that doesn’t matter dividing and promoting cultural bigotry in this country I am heartened by what I see going on in Texas. Not because it surprises me but because it is on full display for the world to see. All those nasty racist good old white boys coming up out of the bayou with their red neck air boats and monster trucks to pull people white black yellow and brown out of a bad situation. The optics blow the agitators narrative right out of the water and we all know optics is all that matters these days. But more than optics the proof is in the results. Any loss of life in a tragedy is terrible but in a disaster this size what not many are talking about is that the death toll is only around fifty right now. Like I said, any death is a tragedy but this number is incredibly low. That is a testament to the effectiveness of an organic response over waiting for the government to come in and muck things up. That is America my friends. Not the America that destroyers want you to see. I expect in the not too distant future you will start to here a comparison between the response to New Orleans and Katrina to Houston. What they won’t cover is the government mucking that up big time. I think the then mayor is even now serving time over that.

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • Chris says:

      Hmmmmm. I may have to expand on this. The kitty litter in my box has been dry for way too long. I must cogitate a bit.

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
    • Troy says:

      We are really proud of our fellow Texans and sorry that I am too old and decrepit to go and help. When Katrina hit, we still lived in Austin and we volunteered to work in the shelters there. It was an interesting experience but mostly what we saw were people from New Orleans who did not have a clue how to help themselves. And, a Governor and Mayor in LA who knew even less. As well as an administration in DC that had trouble finding its posterior with both hands.

      How different it is this time. The disaster is even larger but we have people at every level who know how to take charge and get things done. I just hope the progressives don’t throw a monkey wrench into the process.

      Troy

      Users who have LIKED this comment:

      • avatar
    • ◄Dave► says:

      …waiting for the government to come in and muck things up. That is America my friends.

      Now, how much do you consider the government, its Constitution, and the “rule of law,” etc. to be part of your definition of “America?” I once would have thought them integral and inseparable. I was wrong. 😉 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        Hmmmm. Well you only used half my statement but since you ask. Local and state governments do have a place in providing rescue services in a natural disaster. The reason being those institutions are contracted by their respective citizens to provide first response services. Police, fire, rescue squads and the like. That is what the citizens pay for and should get. I have no problem with that. My biggest question is what level the federal government should play in local and regional disasters. Many times a disaster requires more equipment and technical manpower that is available to local and state agencies. I have no problem re-purposing military assets to assist local and state governments in rescue and recovery. Their paying for it is a constitutional function and they deserve to facilitate when in obvious need. What I don’t see as a function is the now over bloated agency of FEMA. It’s unnecessary and not a constitutional function of the federal government. If a disaster requires federal assistance all that needs to be done is local and state “officials” lay out a “mission directive”. Military commanders will get it done without politics mucking it up. Of course getting it done now falls on the local and state citizens making sure they elect competent people to deal with the situation in the first place. FEMA came to be because the people of LA and New Orleans failed to do that.

        As far as recovery and rebuilding go the feds should have nothing to do with it with the exception of federal assets in the area. Period. End of story. Insurance companies should be first on the line. State and local governments need make sure every valid claim is properly paid out. From there on it’s up to the states and locals to rebuild their own communities. What’s often forgotten is that nearly every state has it’s own constitution and statutory framework. My guess would be that those laws severely restrict their state responses to such events. Particularly when it comes to borrowing large sums of money. In effect the feds bail out states from their own restrictions because states know they shouldn’t have to rebuild John Smiths hot dog stand. They just have no problem letting the feds do it. My final question. Sitting here in balmy and dry upstate NY why is it my responsibility to insure that John Smith can sell his hot dogs in Houston?

        • ◄Dave► says:

          You missed my point. Most Americans subconsciously define America in political terms, implicitly sanctioning their rulers in the process. Indeed, to many, failing to participate in partisan politics and elections is considered un-American. If the Constitution and the entire bureaucratic nightmare built upon it, were to mercifully be tossed onto the scrapheap of history, wouldn’t this blessed fatherland still be America? It would to me, and I suspect it would continue to be for my redneck brethren down in the bayous. In fact, American culture would be far more authentic, absent government coercion bent on transforming it into some Progressive utopia.

          Local and state governments… are contracted by their respective citizens to provide first response services. …what the citizens pay for and should get.

          I would have no objection to anyone contracting with others for such services, including an entity choosing to call itself a ‘government,’ as long as doing so is a voluntary transaction. The question is do you sanction those governments you support, using naked coercion to extract taxes from inhabitants in their claimed realm, to pay for services they do not require and/or did not voluntarily contract for? Do you grant them a monopoly for offering such services, and the initiation of force?

          I concur with your disdain for FEMA; but how is it any less Constitutional than maintaining (and constantly using) a standing Army, when Congress has not declared war since Pearl Harbor, 75 years ago? It is time to acknowledge that there is nothing sacrosanct about the dead letter Constitution. It means precisely what contemporary politicians, bureaucrats, and judges decide it means; nothing more or less.

          Sitting here in balmy and dry upstate NY why is it my responsibility to insure that John Smith can sell his hot dogs in Houston?

          Exactly, Chris; but notice that this is just an extension of my [pro-Liberty / anti-government / anti-statism / anti-collective / anarchist] argument (pick the synonym least likely to trigger you 😉 ), which works at any distance. A portion of my rent payment goes to pay for public schools, through my landlord’s unavoidable property taxes, even though I am vehemently opposed to the brainwashing of innocent children. That is the very purpose of these evil facilities, one of which is just around the corner. ◄Dave►

        • ◄Dave► says:

          The FEMA boondoggle is probably even worse than you imagine, Chris. Check out: Dear Texas, we need to stop rebuilding your houses

          NFIP paid to rebuild one Houston home 16 times in 18 years, spending almost a million dollars to perpetually restore a house worth less than $120,000. Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston), has almost 10,000 properties which have filed repetitive flood insurance damage claims. The Washington Post recently reported that a house “outside Baton Rouge, valued at $55,921, has flooded 40 times over the years, amassing $428,379 in claims. A $90,000 property near the Mississippi River north of St. Louis has flooded 34 times, racking up claims of more than $608,000.”

          The well-reasoned article is an eye opener worth reading in its entirety. ◄Dave►

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links