The day before Orlando, I got a 7 day ban [from Facebook] for simply pointing out that tolerating muslims isn't worth it. We don't derive any benefits from the so-called "good muslims" which are worth the very grave and very real costs and risks imposed by the "bad." From a simple cost/benefit standpoint, exclusion is amply warranted.
This is not an issue of principle. The principle of tolerance exists for a purpose (minimizing conflict.) If it does not serve that purpose in this case, because it demonstrably will be taken advantage of, but will not be reciprocated, if it leads to conquest and colonization rather than cooperation, then it is a bad principle. Hitching your wagon to a principle and following it through the gates of hell is pointless folly.
This is not a rights issue. There are no natural rights. Rights originate in exchange, one consideration for another. Religious freedom can prevail between those who are willing and able to make an exchange of religious freedom. But it is not in our interests to extend religious freedom (or any other sort) to people who will flagrantly violate our own. Furthermore, there is no right to immigrate. It is a privilege which may, or may not, be extended by those already resident if it suits their interests.
When the willingness to reciprocate varies by individual, or is unclear, it's a trickier question. That's where the risk/reward question comes in. No doubt *some* Muslims, are willing to live peacefully and tolerantly in the west. Obviously, not all are willing. And it can be very hard to tell them apart. Plus, for every terrorist, there are several willing to aid and shelter and cover for, and excuse them.
Trump's initial response was pitch perfect, stressing similar points to these.
But he took a beating in the polls and in the media, (although that now seems fabricated) as cucks and progressives tripped over themselves to show their sympathy and tolerance for Muslims and Islam. We're treated to the bizarre spectacle of a populace so adled and confused by duplicitious narratives that their sympathy for their enemies actually *goes up* after every deadly attack. Meanwhile, a host of charlatans and liars struggled furiously to muddy the waters and shift blame, to Christians, to conservatives, to straight, white, males (the single common thread in all progressive narratives, and the only way to understand their reflexive hypocrisy and bad faith as anything but random.)
In 24 hours, they had turned it into a gun control issue. Never mind that gun control failed to stop Islamic terrorists in Belgium or France. The Republican *majority* in the Senate caved to the Democrat *minority* and agreed to hold votes on new gun control measures. The ONE issue that conservatives have reliably held fast on, gun rights, they abandoned in a matter of hours because they don't want to be called bigots.
Even Donald Trump suggested he might support banning those on the no fly list and the terrorist watch list from buying guns (which would just make them discretionary "no guns" lists.) This is, in my opinion, the worst blunder he has ever made. And if he doesn't disavow it, and adopt a better position, then I'm done with him.
So, it's been an interesting week.
Afterword by Ex-Army: The thing about Eli is that he simply kicks over a lot of unquestioned assumptions. Take tolerance. It's generally accepted that tolerance is a good thing in itself, one of those Platonic ideal things on which one's philosophy is based. Well, it isn't. As Eli so clearly points out, tolerance is a sort of agreement, like everybody deciding to drive on the right, that will minimize conflict. At various times and places in history, for example, Catholics and Protestants decided to tolerate one another's presence, rather than fight about it, because everybody on both sides had concluded that more was to be lost than gained by resorting to violence. They had their own past experience to back up that conclusion. And both sides being a reasonable bunch, they were indeed able to behave tolerantly towards one another. It worked fine precisely because it was an agreement, not a basic principle. If it's a principle, like most seem to think it is nowadays, we also have to tolerate the presence of Islam, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims aren't tolerant at all and have no intention of becoming so. They see our tolerance ethic as weakness and insist on our tolerating everything they do, while they see no reason whatsoever to tolerate our principles. One simple example is that in the West, we decided long ago that polygamy was a custom that is bad for society and outlawed it. This was pretty much the case throughout the West long before Islam existed, and before Christianity, for that matter.
But Muslims, of course, actually consider polygamy a positive thing and are intolerant of those who would prohibit it or even fail to prohibit it. When they have enough power and influence, they will insist that polygamy be not only permitted but enforced by the state. This will apply to other Islamic rules and customs, like child marriage and the seclusion of women. And just wait to see what they have in store for homosexuals when they have the upper hand.
The amusing thing is that as cultures go, Islam is comparatively similar to Christendom in its rules and prohibitions. We actually agree on an amazing number of things, from the general idea of justice to the prohibition of cannibalism. Believe me, there are cultures much more contrary to Western values than Islam. Just wait till we get a few million of them.
Well, I sort of ranted away just on the "tolerance" principle, but Eli does the same with other notions that we've been jollied into taking for granted instead of being at least skeptical about their utility. The "right to immigrate," for example, which is some sort of fetish to liberals, neocons, and libertarians, makes no sense whatsoever when examined critically. In most cases, it translates into a "right to invade." No, I have no right to move to Nepal and live there. If the Nepalis decide it would be a good thing for me to do so, they can give me permission, but it's their decision, not mine. I have no "right" to force myself on them, and take advantage of all the neat Nepali stuff they've taken centuries to develop for themselves and their descendants (not for me). If they decide collectively that it would be good for them if I moved in, then I can, and everybody is happy. That is, in fact, the way most countries have handled the immigration question for quite some time now, and it works. Our own history is a little misleading, because we actually did need immigrants from time to time, and were, as a result, somewhat casual about vetting them. Now, of course, we don't need them at all, and shouldn't be casual at all. And it should be decided based on the needs of Americans, not on the needs of potential immigrants.
Quibcags: I thought Eli's piece deserved two this time. A long and a short. The first is illustrated by a Bosch painting of hell, but to make it a true quibcag, I added a tiny Dragon Half [link] in the lower left. And the second is illustrated by Yoko LIttner [link], because the line sounds like something a cowgirl would say.