The New Terrapin Gazette
10 August, 2012
A nation trained to think hedonistically cannot survive amid peoples who work like slaves and breed like rabbits, and whose chief national industry is war.
The Questions Themselves Are Seismic — And The Answers Are Fraught
Face facts: when you have a tiny minority of dangerous people in a large nation, and the emotional outcry from the electorate is deafening (thanks to highly sympathetic news media), there is a tendency for everyone involved to go a little crazy. That’s a good time for rational thinking, so begin with this fundamental question: what’s probably the greatest threat to your life? Well, unless you are a professional fisherman, it’s likely to be automobile accidents. It could be diabetes or cardiac disease. Certainly it’s not being shot by a madman, or even being killed in a robbery.
When spectacular, inexplicable crimes hit the news, everybody seems to unplug that part of the brain that evaluates risk sensibly. People demand measures that will prevent lunatics from making themselves dangerous, even though the threat is minuscule. That “minuscule” threat includes death at the hands of the world’s worst people, suicidal jihadis.
That implies that rather than tie the population of the nation in knots with security measures, we should deal with the people who were behind the horrible events of September 11, 2001.
Part of that must include an enquiry into the mindset that drove otherwise normal men to commit the atrocity. This newsletter has glossed Islam sufficiently to provide a rationale for recommending robust defenses against that faith’s missionaries. Islam is less a religion than a death cult.
It is not rational to consider a bloody-handed death cult just another faith, somewhat along the lines of a Protestant sect. Reason and experience can be hard taskmasters, and in the case of Islam, they are relentless; they compel the public and the jurisprudential system of the USA to impose draconian measures in the interests of self-defense. Note first, and perhaps most importantly, that if definitive measures are not taken, the incidence of catastrophes will grow and thousands more will perish. Islamist mass murderers are just that — and they are utterly unafraid of all dangers to themselves. They expect, even hope, to die in the accomplishment of their holy missions.
The conclusion that must be reached will shock most people — until they think it through and examine the alternatives. It is this: Muslims, even the “moderate” adherents of Islam who are non-violent and good people, should not be admitted to the USA. (Yes, no tourists, no visitors, no students, no immigrants. Diplomats only. How to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Do your best, and err on the side of caution. Messy? You bet.)
That’s a proposal based on recognition of the hard and repeatedly demonstrable fact that the teachings of Islam are incitements to mass murder and attempts to exterminate Western Civilization. Those who consider the Koran and hadith God’s guides to Heaven will make very dangerous neighbors for non-Muslims (as the Buddhists of southern Thailand can tell you). Immigrants in Britain provide a horrifying example: these peaceful, moderate Muslims’ children, born in the UK, went through school and university, graduated and practiced as physicians…yet plotted and carried out bloody jihadi mayhem.
The theology of hate and murder is the legacy Muslim parents transmit to their children, even though the parents may themselves sidestep the Koran’s insane commandments.
As a counter to the radical proposal of halting further Muslim immigration, it might be pointed out that the individual runs little risk from acts of (what is euphemistically called) terrorism (rather than religious and cultural war), and that risk will probably rise only slightly if Muslims enter the USA in larger numbers.
This reminds of the logic employed in the 1950s in an attempt to end US testing of nuclear devices in the atmosphere. It was argued that even an infinitesimal risk of disease caused by radiation was intolerable because it was imposed rather than voluntarily agreed.
Does that mean that eliminating (or reducing) a very small risk is always a good idea? Evidently, for advocates of firearms control/restriction/
So it seems that if you support firearms restriction, you must agree that preventing further Muslim immigration is acceptable.
Since this newsletter insists that immigration and visa policy be changed in the interests of risk reduction, must it therefore also demand firearms confiscation?
There is a huge distinction between trying to remove the tools a maniac might use to kill people and the refusal to allow members of a death cult entry to the nation.
If it were not for that distinction, yes, this newsletter would call for firearms confiscation — with just one proviso: it would have to be effective. That means it would have to be total. That goal can never be met. It is far easier to tell Muslims, “That’s enough of you. No more Muslims will be admitted, for you all represent a danger to our evolved ethical commitments. Your teachings are fundamentally inimical to our laws, our beliefs, our values, our principles, our ethics and our culture. You are aliens in every sense of the word, and as long as you are Muslims, you will remain alien. Your religion teaches that all Muslims are in a perpetual state of war with all non-Muslims, and the fact that you are peaceful today means simply that you are waiting for a chance to realize the goals of your faith. Your holiest of holy books devotes over sixty percent of its pages to denunciations of us, the people you call kafir. You do not qualify as citizens, residents, visitors or tourists because you reject all our founding values, and, at the command of the supernatural being you claim created the world and mankind, you seek to overturn our culture and impose sharia where we have modern and ethically superior statutes and practices. You cannot tolerate our political system and our concept of Liberty as valid choices. You cannot ever honestly swear allegiance to our flag and to our republic, for, in fact, you are the blood enemies of both.”
How very different that is from telling a law-abiding citizen, “That knife you are using in your kitchen could be used to slice open your neighbor’s baby. You must surrender that potential weapon.”
The distinctions one can make between the purposive, deliberate and highly logical plans of Islam on the one hand and the motives of greedy criminals (burglars and thugs and financial swindlers, for example) are utterly clear. To deny that clarity, and to ignore the glaring, fundamental contradictions that alienate all Muslims from the primal values of Western Civilization, is to descend into irrationality, if not insanity.
At some point, the government must intervene to enforce and protect the values found in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Those who utterly reject those documents may properly be excluded from the community.
That exclusion is parallel to the incarceration of homicidal maniacs who have yet to kill anyone. Society has a right to protect itself.
The principle: deal with people, not things. When the mindset or past behavior of the individual is not a good fit with Western Civilization, take measures to banish or imprison the alien.
To some, this will seem a denial of the claim in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Now while this newsletter does not endorse anyone’s claims regarding the supernatural, the fact is that assuming that equal creation implies the eventual development of equivalent value systems is wildly irrational. Remember, please: Islam can not tolerate the rights of man, which include free speech, freedom of religion, and the political supremacy of a secular democratic republic.
Clearly any program of immigration reform that is highly discriminatory must be subjected to intense criticism. It must be held to the standards proclaimed by the founders of the nation. Like all governmental policies and all laws, it will be imperfect, and it will cause harm. This is earth, not Heaven.
Yet…the proposed ban on Muslims would be clumsy, harmful, unworkable…wouldn’t it? Of course. Wherever there are police, there is police brutality. Wherever there is education, there is sexual abuse of the young. Whenever there are large numbers of mutually voluntary transactions, there is cheating and deceit. Whenever ideas are exchanged, there is a danger, and often a probability, of misunderstanding. Life is more than amply supplied with problems; none of them are excuses for opting out of law enforcement, schooling, business, discussion — and life itself.
Reform, yes. Surrender to endless abuse? No! A desire for Utopia? No, not for rational people; better is possible, while perfect is unattainable. Only rascals insist or imply that the difficulties of life are just problems, and that solutions to them are available.
Yes, it’s a drastic step. Give it some serious thought, Pilgrims. Ask yourselves what matters most, and what risks you are willing to take. Then ask yourselves what risks you are willing to impose on your neighbors.
Meanwhile, note this interesting report, and ponder its intent (news media are seldom guilty of publishing anything that springs from a totally value-free background) and implications: “Already, attendance at and donations to mosques have dropped significantly, as many Muslims reasonably fear that they will be targeted for investigation based solely on their religious beliefs.” Source. Finally, have a look at two commentaries that raise additional questions: one and then two.
Maybe What The Place Needs Is A Force 23 Earthquake
California is falling apart. That’s an ending of a sort to a story that began years ago, and the causes of the unfolding catastrophe are well known. This newsletter complained about the plight of the Fool’s Gold State long years ago, before Arnie appeared. Yes, all of the criticisms are valid and factually correct — but there is one rejoinder made by the politicians that is not addressed in “wingnut” screeds: the fact that the California legislature’s hands are tied on most spending, and the initiative provision in the state constitution has forced the legislature into a weak position (the electorate can legislate directly). The hidden assumption: that if the legislature had more power and room to maneuver, things would be much, much better. That’s nonsense, of course, but to some folks it is reasonable.
Regarding which, a word. Collectivists always see the cure to the tragic consequences of their actions as the application of yet more of the baneful cause. (In plain English: when you suffer from diarrhea, the quack prescribes a laxative.) Increasing control of the individual is paired with confiscatory taxation that hinders productivity, and people are encouraged to become increasingly dependent on government. Yes, it’s madness, but it is easy for the poor to understand: they will get money taken from those undeserving folks who have it (and who, according to the collectivist myth, would have simply sat on their riches, taking that money out of circulation) because the kind and generous government will intervene to impose fairness on the economy. It’s an infuriating cycle, to be sure, but it sells — and the politicians are excellent snake-oil peddlers. They are particularly effective in California, where millions feel that the mere existence of rich folks is somehow unjust. It is to this disgruntled and resentful segment of the voters that Obama appeals most, and those people are the real reason why he will serve a second term.
This newsletter sees the fundamental problem in California as growing out of the fact that the state has only one fully-functional political party; the Republicans are so weak that they have virtually no say in anything. How do you correct that, given a population that demands more and more benefits, and believes in punitively taxing the people who have money? Well, you can’t. And that should be a lesson for the rest of the nation. The current federal administration is even more extremist in its collectivist policies than is the California ruling elite.
So, how to fix California, a place that hardly has any Tea Party presence at all? The state needs a rational administration like the one that did so much for the fortunes of Louisiana. Who spearheaded that? Look it up, Pilgrims….
Wow, Look At That Blonde!
Harry Reid is sheltered by the constitution when he says that Romney is guilty until proven innocent: according to the senator from Nevada, the GOP candidate must prove that he paid income tax for the last ten years. He could not say this outside the Senate chamber without risking a lawsuit. How to understand this? Is Romney an evil capitalist who exported jobs and paid no taxes?
No presidential candidate is required to open his tax records. The Democrats are addressing their loyal voters, many of whom bitterly resent the wealthy.
If Romney allows the world to see his tax returns, he will regret the move for the rest of his life. Given that blunder, the Democrats will inundate the electorate with endless phony details and criticisms and complaints about how Romney’s CPAs filled out the paperwork; the mud-slinging will be horrendous. And, in all likelihood, there will not be a valid point in the entire avalanche of accusations.
Yes, this is an unprincipled ploy to distract the voters from the real issues of the campaign (here’s another example). It’s intellectually dishonest, but legal.
If Romney steps into the trap, he’ll be put in the position of having to explain more than any human being possibly can. In politics, that’s fatal.
Romney should make Obama explain. There is a lot Romney could use to discomfit the incumbent, but this newsletter guesses the Republican will let it all go.
Team Obama wants to prevent people from thinking about the economy, the disaster that is US foreign policy, and the future of the nation with Obamacare in place (make your own links — use these search terms in a decent search engine on the internet: “physicians consider retirement obamacare”).
Yes, bin Laden is dead. How hard was that for Obama? Revisit Nr. 252 of this newsletter.
The real story of this campaign is not the distractions the Democrats are using, but the mistakes the GOP has made and continues to make. For one thing, the Republican party should call on the “wingnut” community to behave better, and especially to deal with facts (yes, the outfit at the link is suspect, and its reports have betrayed political bias, if memory serves; still, it’s at least mostly correct in this case). Romney should chronicle the failures and absurdities of foreign policy, hammer Obama very hard on Fast and Furious (while giving the media a real beating, as well), and drive home the point that the forthcoming election will require thousands of people watching the polls carefully and checking the voter registration lists.
Finally, Obama is an economic ignoramus. He’s vulnerable on that issue, and Romney should make a series of speeches on how a good president would deal with taxes and money. He could contrast what Obama believes with the facts; cite Obama policies and ideology, and then outline the right way to do things; he could list the blunders of the Fed and of the political appointees who messed up Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, explaining as he goes what a Republican president would do to keep the train on the track.
Sure, the press would not report it very much at all, and would downplay it if they covered it, but it would make great video for TV ads and for the internet. The “wingnut” websites that are misbehaving, tossing non-facts around with reckless abandon, would love to have the videos.
Who/what caused the current economic downturn? Well, it was W, of course! Unless you ask the Federal Reserve….
Wind and solar generation of electricity? “In the absence of a seismic technological breakthrough, they are doomed to remain boutique sources of energy that cannot be counted on to power the economy going forward.” Exactly. So what can mankind do to generate energy? A good answer is available.
Related: anthropogenic global warming again. For an update on the issue, you can’t do much better than this commentary, for it explains how the cult is trying to defend itself from reason.
From NTG’s Unreported Changes folder: “During the visit of US Secretary of State Leon Panetta to Israel last week,”. Huh? Source here. This is an improvement: Panetta’s easier to look at. Not fun, you understand, just easier.
Harry Reid, class act.
How did the Dynamite stimulus work? “It worked miserably….” So says Laffer, and he does his best to prove his point.
So Romney is a heartless brute, eh? Well, so Team Obama says, and the “wingnuts” are howling about the libel. Really, now: how many minds will this hissing and spitting change? — This newsletter’s answer: none. Zero. Not a single Obama voter is going to think, “Gosh, those Democrats are a bunch of desperate, unprincipled liars. Their TV ads are just about as low as you can get. I finally see the light! I’m gonna vote Republican, and I may even do it six or seven times, just like I was gonna do for that rascal in the White House!”
Civil rights violations by the feds? Here’s a report claiming the FBI routinely used illegal means to avoid paperwork and the involvement of the courts in attempts to find out what people did with their telephones; the period in question, and the investigations supposedly concerned, had to do with “terrorist” acts (code word for Islamist violence) in the USA and elsewhere. Sooner or later, the electorate should decide just how much it’s willing to tolerate as the cops go after the bad guys. Give it some thought, Pilgrims.
“Wingnuts” look at the TV news media. Cute and snarky; also pretty much on target.
“An insurgent assassination campaign against people working with the government or Nato forces has seen the number of targeted killings in Afghanistan climb by more than half, the United Nations said.” Can you trust the UN? Maybe.
Ah, perspective. Have you ever looked at old issues of this newsletter, to see how its various prognostications and complaints have held up? If you have a sense of history…well, you get the idea. Back issues are available at this location; in the event the posted issues don’t go back far enough for you, send NTG an e-mail request for the ones you want. Shoot, all 260+ issues can be packed up in a compressed bundle that’s yours for the asking, and don’t worry about managing it — your computer will do that automatically. You know what’s disappointing about reading the back issues? The links that take you to locations where the desired information used to be. Yep, some good stuff has been purged…such as that video of Obama giving Hillary the finger.
If there’s a way out you’ll find out and see all and be all
You’ll never wonder what spell you been under
To make you forget all this time
If you’re looking for the way, you don’t have to ask
You can see it plain as day, you don’t have to ask
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Eric Arthur Blair.
The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Fedora Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.
Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.