Wednesday, August 17, 2016

There ain't no easy way out


It's depressing to read some of the commentaries about current problems and issues, and the solutions proposed by the knuckle-dragging brigade.  I'm sure my readers have seen the same sorts of suggestions that I have:
  • Dealing with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism?  "Nuke Mecca!  That'll show them we mean business!"
  • Dealing with riots in Milwaukee and other US cities?  "Shoot all the rioters!  The survivors won't riot any more!"
  • Dealing with illegal immigration in the USA, or the refugee crisis in Europe?  "Send them all home - at gunpoint if necessary!"

The trouble is, while these simplistic solutions sound good to those frustrated and outraged by the extent to which our society has deteriorated, they simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  Consider:
  • If we "nuke Mecca", there is already at least one Islamic state (Pakistan) with its own nuclear weapons.  There are very strong indications that it's agreed to sell another Islamic state (Saudi Arabia) nuclear weapons, if and when needed.  If Mecca were to be nuked, I guarantee you that within five to ten years, there'd be up to a dozen Islamic states (and possibly a few Islamic terrorist movements as well) with nuclear weapons of their own.  How, precisely, would we defend ourselves against them?  It's not as if they have to be delivered by military aircraft or missiles.  A nuclear device could be concealed in a shipping container, or a yacht, or aboard a commercial flight.  Imagine an airliner, making its descent prior to landing at a major airport, but then suddenly blowing up in a thermonuclear fireball a few thousand feet over, say, Chicago, or New York, or Atlanta . . .
  • Shooting rioters?  Yes, that would work initially . . . until outraged community groups armed themselves, got training in the use of their weapons, and fought back.  That's already happened when ex-servicemen nursed a grievance, then used their military training to exact revenge for perceived slights, racism, etc.  (Witness Washington DC in 2002, Dallas in 2016, etc.)  So far, it's been on a very small scale.  However, gangs are known to be sending their members into the military to receive training, then bring that back to the "hood" to teach their "homies" how to do it.  Whether we like it or not, the USA is awash with guns.  Those who want them will always, repeat, always be able to get their hands on them;  and if attempts are made to confiscate firearms to prevent that, huge numbers of law-abiding citizens will resist that just as fiercely as will criminals.  It's wishful thinking to try to shut that stable door.
  • Illegal immigration?  I'm strongly in favor of deporting all illegal aliens who are caught, particularly those who commit crimes.  However, there's simply no way we can force those who are not caught, to leave.  There are too many sympathizers, too many fellow travelers (including the gangs who smuggle drugs and other contraband into this country, who rely heavily on networks of illegal aliens to do so).  We'd have more success going after those who employ illegal aliens, thereby preventing them from entering the job market - but even that isn't a foolproof guarantee of success.  There's too much money to be made by unscrupulous employers, willing to hire illegals at much less than the legal minimum wage and with none of the statutory benefits and protections, in order to line their own pockets.  Money talks.  It always has, and it always will.  Finally, there are large sections of our society that are adamantly opposed to expelling illegal aliens (see this list of "sanctuary cities", for a start).  They won't obey orders to round them up, and will put all sorts of obstacles in the way of any outside authority that tries to do so on their "turf".

I hope this illustrates the point that there are few, if any, easy solutions to our current problems.  I wish there were!  It would be wonderful to say, "Press Button A to solve Problem B".  Unfortunately, life's not like that.  It's not black and white.  There's an awful lot of gray around.

There's also the moral dimension.  I know some will accuse me of being "wet" or wishy-washy or whatever, even though I don't think I am:  but I'm a retired pastor.  I try to live my life according to Christian principles.  From that perspective, the "Golden Rule" (which some prefer to call the "ethic of reciprocity", to cut out the religious connotation) governs my interaction with others:

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12)

And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise (Luke 6:31)

If it would be unethical, or immoral, or just plain wrong, for someone to do something to you or your loved ones, that makes it just as unethical or immoral or wrong for you to do it to them or their loved ones.  By the same token, if you do something to them, you're implicitly giving them the right to do the same thing to you.  It's as simple as that.  (And if you don't share my Christian perspective on that, consider that the Golden Rule is a foundational element of many cultures around the world, religious and/or secular.  That includes every major religion.  It's not limited to Christianity.)  Nor is the application of the Golden Rule dependent on reciprocity.  It's not valid to say, "I'll treat you as I want to be treated if, and only if, you first treat me as I want to be treated."  The Golden Rule - at least for Christians - is not conditional.)

This doesn't mean one has to be soft on crime.  If rioters are breaking the law, I have no problem whatsoever in bringing those rioters to justice.  That falls under the "render unto Caesar" provision of the Gospels.  However, when it comes to taking down entire suburbs, many of whose residents have not been involved in crime or violence, that changes the picture.  We are not permitted to treat innocent people like lawbreakers.  (That doesn't just apply to rioters, either.  Witness the blatantly unconstitutional armed sweeps and no-warrant searches conducted in Boston in the wake of the 2013 bombing there, when police treated ordinary householders and bystanders like criminals.)

In the same way, destroying Islamic terrorists is a no-brainer, but that doesn't justify destroying innocent civilians living near them.  Deporting illegal aliens falls under the same heading as dealing with criminals;  but that doesn't give us the right to suspect (or treat) anyone and everyone as if they were an illegal alien, merely on the grounds of their name, or the language they speak, or the color of their skin.  When it comes to refugees, by all means keep out those who may pose a danger to our society, including on the basis of their religion.  However, that doesn't remove from us the moral obligation to help them, if necessary in their own countries or neighboring areas, by providing supplies and assistance there instead of here.  (And what if the countries neighboring their own don't want to accept them either?  Are we morally or ethically entitled to insist that they do that, while refusing to help them do so, and/or accept at least some of the refugees ourselves?)

I wish - oh, how I wish! - we could wave a magic wand and solve all these problems instanter.  Life would be so much simpler if we could . . . but life's not like that.  Its issues are complex and many-layered.  Any overly simplistic "solution" is more than likely to cause additional problems that may be even more complex and insoluble than the originals.


*Sigh*


Peter

20 comments:

sth_txs said...

As I see it, the illegals need to leave. Legal immigration must also be curtailed. The jobs and economic growth are not there and most of those coming have no concept of Western ideals like Republican government.

I understand why they are coming, but it is not our job to absorb these people. I resent those lefty retards who won't acknowledge that Mexico is a racist country and it's government actively works to send their undesireables somewhere else instead of changing the conditions to make their economy better for everyone. And Mexico is not happy with their southern neighbors jumping their border either.

One way to curtail the hiring of illegals is to reduce regulations on business like starting with the abolition of minimum wage.

shugyosha said...

Nothing more than small data points, but:

* Russia has ISO container missiles

* ETA [Basque terrorism] used to send volunteers to Spanish armed forces strike / shock / SpecOps back when they were a mostly volunteer draftee section. I don't suppose they're the only ones who had that idea.

Take care.

Anonymous said...

I definitely agree with going after the employers of illegal aliens. After all, they are breaking the law as well if they KNOWINGLY employ persons who are here illegally. No work, the less the illegal alien is compelled to come here.

Illegal immigration hurts many people. The countries who (whom?) are having population moving have no pressure to make situation better in their country. So the people who are trapped there have nothing getting better. The smugglers who bring the illegal across not only make lots of money, they attack and rape their clients.

Anonymous said...


True, there is no easy solution. Any solution that has real long, long term benefit will also probably be too drastic and horrifying for the majority of people to consider.

So we wring our hands and kick the can down the road for the next generation to solve? Despite the fact we know the powerful elite that have the power to start solving these problems are the same ones that caused and profit off of them? They are either re-arranging chairs on the Titanic to favor themselves or contemplating global genocide as part of their schemes.

Anonymous said...

Many a riot has been put down by shooting or killing rioters. Having worked in Eastern Europe I can tell you the police there have no issue using deadly force. I'll assume that was true when you were in So. Africa. The police during the Watts riots shot a large number of people. It may not be morally acceptable, but it does work.

Nuking Mecca would only make this truly global war.

Gerry

Joe Mama said...

Keller over at Eastern Iowa Firearms Training blog offered a "simple" solution that I am 100% on-board with.

http://eiaft.blogspot.com/2016/07/commentary-do-your-job.html

People, just do your "job".

Adult men: Act like adults. Act like men (defender, protector, planner). Hold ourselves accountable.

Adult women: Act like adults. Act like women (nurturing, caring, tough-love as necessary). Hold yourselves accountable.

Children: Get on with the job of growing up. Don't loiter in "adolescence" (a term with little biological significance) between ages 13-and-26. Amish men act like men when they turn 18. They have the wisdom to defer to older, more experienced men when they are available. They also have the discernment to recognize fools regardless of the fool's age and discount the fool's advice accordingly.

Minecraft Chuck said...

You're right about not nuking Mecca. It would just piss them all off. A nuclear armed Iran is the first step to Armageddon, however. We need to take them down before that. In order to do that, we'd most likely also need to remove Pakistan as a threat. We would have India as an ally in that if we conducted a first strike against Pakistan's nuclear arms, and then put boots on the ground to show resolve.

Defeating and occupying (think East Prussia as opposed to the travesty that was Iraq and Afghanistan) Pakistan and Iran are the necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, first steps in avoiding the end of our world. We'd probably be best pushing the Turks back across the Bosporus while we're at it, to help preserve Christendom in Europe. Not certain any more that they're worth saving. God helps those who help themselves, after all.

There are no longer any easy, simple, or even palatable solutions to the Muslim problem. Not that there really ever was one.

Kell said...

Most of what we're seeing today is the consequence of half a century of tearing down national and civilizational institutions. From marriage to the rule of law, from basic work ethic to primary and secondary education, every aspect of society has been crippled or corrupted for short-term political or monetary gains. We're seeing what happens when a significant and influential portion of a society does not concern itself with the health of said society. As usual, humans are their own worst enemies.

How do we fix it? Not a clue. It would take a once-in-a-generation kind of leader to understand the full scope of the problem, determine a comprehensive solution and drive it through. Alternatively, we can hope and work for a slow cultural shift that restores all the values and traits that underpin a healthy society. Humans being humans, however, it'll probably take an existential crisis and millions of dead bodies to force a reset.

Avraham said...

Nuking the bastards. Sounds good to me.

WhatToDo said...

Step 1: Strictly control the border. See Hungary and Israel for modern examples of how to do this.

Step 2: Give reward of $1,000 per illegal alien to anyone turning in an illegal. Deport the illegal to their country of origin. If they return illegally, jail them. If they return legally, no harm no foul.

Step 3: Fine $25,000 per illegal alien to anyone caught employing such for the first time they're caught. The second time is the same fine plus a jail sentence.

Step 4: Massively reduce legal immigration from the Third World. Follow the Australian example and turn boats back around to live or die at sea.

Step 5: Use H1-B visas for their original purpose (i.e., to expedite bringing in a few individuals of extreme talent).

Step 6: Enjoy your reclaimed nation.

Tim D said...

Dealing with riots in Milwaukee and other US cities? "Shoot all the rioters! The survivors won't riot any more!"

Well, it worked for the New York Times.

Anonymous said...

Imagine an airliner, making its descent prior to landing at a major airport, but then suddenly blowing up in a thermonuclear fireball a few thousand feet over, say, Chicago, or New York, or Atlanta . . .

And the downside would be....?

A.B. Prosper said...

The won't be nuking or deporting anyone, we are not even able to close our borders or maintain roads and infrastructure.

we are in the Early 90's Russia looted by the Oligarchs stage.

Neo Cons friends might have eyes on Russia but they aren't that crazy as such a war would end all our current problems as a nation.

Crawl out through the fallout is a funny song but no one wants to live it.

As a culture, what's left of the West is unwilling and politically unable to kill a billion people in any case and sacrifice many of our own lives in retaliation so nuking Mecca is right out.

If we were we could push the button tomorrow or spend a few dollars on improving ERRB weapons and were willing to resolve the issue for good we could . Our current cultures based on tolerance, openness and the like would have to go though . The English speaking world and Europe might look like Northfire from the movie V though that might be better than dhimmitude or genocide of European peoples which is the likely result of continuing current polices

Hell just turning ultra nationalist which Northfire is a parody of might solve a lot of problems up front. Especially for Europe who despite decades of agit-prop know quite well who there people are and could easily expel every Muslim in non Muslim Europe if they had the political will and leaders who didn't want them dead.

However controlling riots through force does work, 4 dead in Ohio back in the 1970's more by accident and design put a large damper on more aggressive riots. However those were nice White college kids with something to lose, it might not work on lower class Black of Latino kids and could end up in a much larger war.

Again the real casualty is an open tolerant society and a few innocent people.

That said, a race war and separation is inevitable, once the US is unable to make ends meet , pay people off they'll get tribal, Whites included and its going to be "Your skin color is your uniform" all the way down

As for deportations, baby steps. You can't easily deport 50 million people in a year but you can stop ALL future immigration and gradually deport a lot of people on flimsy grounds . Trumps often mocked wall would work fine if applied.

Starting now though, deport 5 million a year and make it quite difficult to get in, get benefits or get a job and many will also self deport. We won't end up with exactly the same demography as say 1964 but we'll end up with a functional state which is good enough.

Not doing this means the US slides to 2nd or 3rd tier economically and culturally and becomes a low trust Latin American country with all the poverty and dysfunction.

Lastly, though 12:04 was being snarky, many Americans share much the same views, not seriously but most know these are not American cities but Leftist Multicultural Hellholes and as such hardly pull the heart strings. In theory if they were war casualties it would be mostly of people who hate this country anyway

Its always been a running gag, I was in the theater watching ID4 back in the 1990's and audience cheered when Congress was blasted by aliens but its deeper now in ways that were not the case in than or even in 2001 . That time was nearly a generation ago,times, demography and outlook has changed drastically for the worse

However doing nothing as you council is the council of defeat , the best approach is to take careful steps to close borders, deport people over time, the Trump method more or less.

we probably won't do this though and will end up with a civil war of some kind and several smaller more homogeneous nations which while not ideal is the historical arm

JWM said...

This post makes interesting contrast to the ones about Milwaukee and Africa. It seems we are perfectly capable of importing tens of thousands of Somalis, (arguably the very worst that Africa has to offer) yet we are incapable of getting rid of them. Islam has a mandate of perpetual war against unbelievers, yet our leaders and the EU cabal continue to invite them in. They call us rayciss bigots if we object. BLM terrorists are spoiling for a race war. I note your recent post on media lies re the "we need our weaves" gurl.
This is tantamount to releasing hyenas in to the eco systems of the great plains, or releasing pirranha into our lakes and streams, or telling us that we need to learn live with rattlesnakes in our back yards. And if there were an uprising against the moslems or BLM thugs, our government would declare us the enemy and kill us on behalf of the moslems and blacks. I'm certain that you visit Vox Day's blog, and that you've read the comments. That anger is very real, and it's not confined to a few fringe types. I don't know what I fear worse- the nastiness that will come from evicting the enemy, or the collapse that will come from accommodating them.

JWM

Timbo said...

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live like slaves

Winston S Churchill

VFM #7916 said...

Do unto others as you would have them do to you?

Absolutely, when everyone is Christian and Western Civilization.

Otherwise? No. In that case, "Do unto others as they would do to you."

Peaceful? Peaceful back. Jihad? Jihad back.

It's not pleasant, or nice, but the survival of your family requires the barbarians be driven back. Otherwise you'd suffer the fates of those cities and peoples who've been erased from the Earth. No civilization has a guarantee of continuing except through the force of their arms and the reason in their brains.

Kristophr said...

The Eisenhower administration dealt with the illegal problem by doing just that, shipping them back at gun point.

Sanctuary cities can be corrected by withholding federal funds.

And yes, you can punish employers for even hiring them, and aid workers for giving them free stuff.

Anonymous said...

Worried about islam hating us because we nuke mecca/riyahd/islamabad/Flint MI?

Guess what. islam already despises and hates us and wants all of us infidels dead or converted.

It's a political death cult, not a religion. It calls itself a religion, but an objective review of its rules and rewards and history will reveal the truth about the pedophile's followers.

They already hate us. Nuking a bunch of them might be a pretty savvy move.

Reality: they declared war on we infidels 1400 years ago and have not quit since.

Will said...

Islam is absolutely incompatible with our Constitution. They should not be allowed to reside here in any way, shape, or form. Period. This is not a religious situation, as Islam is more a political system masquerading as religion. Since any of them can be "radicalized" at the flip of a switch, non are trustworthy. I've read their operating manual (Quran).

Send the illegals back. Start now. Build a wall. Make it very expensive in money and court to hire any of them. Eliminate the "born here from illegals" citizenship. Require both parents to be citizens first.

This can be done. With or without an internal war, your (our) choice. Maybe, if we're lucky.

Paul, Dammit! said...

Enact Secure Communities legislation by making SSN's searchable for empoloyment as part of holding W2's on employees. Make knowingly hiring illegals or not filing W2's for employees punishable by a $10,000 a day, non-dischargable fine.
If we want to stop illegal immigration morally, we need to uniformly discourage cheating on taxes.