A Requiem for Reason

Oh well. It never amounted to much anyway.

by Fred Reed

Much hoorah, there is, over the mosque that may or may not be built in New York. I don’t give a tinker’s damn (whatever precisely that may be; I presume that tinkers’ oaths were thought more efficacious than others) whether they build it or not. The matter does however put to rest for me any hope of rationality in human affairs. This, I grant, could be accomplished with a very small bed.

At this writing, the government’s war for oil and AIPAC has more or less solidly metamorphosed, among the rubes at least, into a war against Islam. Men of thunder and portent peddle the notion like starving encyclopedia salesmen. No less a political howitzer than Pat Buchanan says that the mosque should not be built, because of the religious motivation of the Saudis who attacked the towers. His view has been eagerly received by the populace. Now it seems that yahoos at some fourth-grade church in Florida plan to burn a Koran to commemorate 9/11.

Splendid, this. We are telling 1.3 billion Moslems that America is not fighting Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Terror. No. It is Islam itself we hate. How very wise. This will make it so much easier to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those security forces that GIs are supposed to be training—the ones with the AKs—they will know that their trainers are their enemies. Curiously, this is just what bin Laden tells them.

Glands again trump minds, if any. Consider that ten minutes before the first tower got hit in New York, the thought had occurred to practically no one in America that Islam constituted a mortal threat to all that we hold holy, chiefly chain restaurants and iPods. But Islam afterwards offered to fill this void that the Russians had wimped out on. For a brief period after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Americans had no threat to worry about. They found it deeply puzzling. Weren’t we supposed to be afraid of something? It didn’t feel right.

Then came New York, and suddenly we saw it: The Clash of Civilizations. Islam was out to get us. Why hadn’t we noticed? A roaring hatred for Moslems sprang up from people who had never met a Moslem, who had a garden slug’s grasp of history. A deep satisfaction came over the land. We had been made whole again.

Battling Mohammedans quickly became an industry. The government at first tried to peddle Terrorism as the enemy, not Islam, but it didn’t stick. Something more robustly flackable was wanted.

I find Buchanan, of the American Conservative, proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant. No doubt. Very. Would it be poltroonish of me to note that just now Christian armies are busily annexing and wrecking Afghanistan and Iraq, having recently bombed Somalia? That they use robotic aircraft to murder Yemenis, that they hunt down Moslems in the Philippines (where after 1898 Americans engaged in atrocities that would win the admiration of the Japanese), encourage Israel to ruin Lebanon and to run a concentration camp for Moslems in Gaza, enthusiastically murder Pakistanis from the sky, and threaten Syria and Iran?

Those Moslems. Militant, they are. The bastards.

The Islamic countries listed above are only those currently attacked by America. Let us look at the matter in another way. I append here a list of all Christian countries conquered by militant Moslems since 1529:

Next, a partial list of Moslem countries conquered by Christians: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq (the first time), Iraq (again), Iran, Pakistan, East Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai….

This list does not include such minor Christian conquests as North, South, and Central America, India, China, Southeast Asia, black Africa, and such. Unconscionable, Moslem aggressiveness is.

Buchanan regards the events of 9/11 as no end grievous. So do I. Yet perhaps people who live in glass pots and kettles shouldn’t call names. The UN’s figures give 600,000 Iraqi children dead because of the American embargo, which didn’t allow, for example, chlorine to sterilize water. This is equivalent to 6.4 million dead children in the United States. Hmmm: If Moslems had killed this trifling number of our sprats, might we wax grumpish?

Yes, I know, the UN is a commie Marxist socialist anti-American conspiracy, and not as trustworthy as the American propaganda apparatus. All right. Let’s assume that the UN lied by a factor of ten, and thus only 60,000 Iraqi children died thanks to us. Thus, if 3,000 Americans died in New York, we owe the Moslems some 57,000. No?

If I may sally briefly into unloved seriousness: What puzzles me, as one who has lived extensively abroad, is how little Americans are able to see things through the eyes of others, how little empathy they have (this latter defect being characteristic of both psychopaths and narcissists).

Consider a headline from www.Antiwar.com of a sort appearing almost daily: “US Drone Strike Destroys House Full of Children in Pakistan.”

Apparently no one in the Great Rubber Room north of Mexico has an inkling why this might arouse hatred in Pakistanis. Can you imagine the fury that would ensue if a Moslem blew up a house full of American kids in, say, Queens? But when we kill their kids, no one cares. “Yeah, well. Tough. Giv’em a few dollars.” Buncha dirty raghead larvae. No better than cock roaches, right?.

Now, we’re going to have a pop quiz. Take out a sheet of paper. Question: Can you think of any reason why Moslems might be unhappy with America?

Right! They hate our freedoms.

In which case they daily have less to hate us for.

It doesn’t pay to underestimate an enemy, I hear. All right: Moslems are so very dangerous not just because of their many extremist groups—Salamists, Al Sushis, the Falafel, and the Wasabi for example—but because of their immense industrial strength, which doesn’t exist. With the possible exception of Turkey, not one Islamic nation is in the First World. I picture bearded, turbaned warriors wading ashore on aquatic camels, causing no end of panic in Atlantic City. I mean, what do camels eat?

The horror.

Herewith a searing insight for the ever-puzzled State Department: Actions have consequences. If you support Batista, you will engender Fidel. If you support the Shah, you will get Khomeini. If you attack Moslems, you will get bin Laden. It might be better to stay home and read a book.

©Fred Reed
http://www.FredOnEverything.net

One Response to A Requiem for Reason

  1. Dearest Fred:

    A “tinker’s dam” is a bit of clay or putty which controls heat and the flow of brazing material while repairing a split or hole in a pot or kettle, or it would be if anyone repaired pots any more. Afterwards the hardened lump was thrown away, having served its purpose. It was necessary but totally expendable, and good for absolutely nothing afterwards. It wasn’t worth much before then. Of course, when it WAS needed nothing else would do.

    A more useful bit of historical trivia is probably “not worth a continental,” Geo. Wash’s fiat currency, which I expect to be updated to “not worth a Bernanke,” as I refer to the $100 bills (“bills” being an excellent way to think of them) which represent what an Andrew Jackson did during the Reagan years. While I am spreading enlightenment, camels are essentially herbivores, but, like goats, will chew on almost anything including people.

    There, now, are we feeling better, after a few calm, rational, instructive moments? There is, indeed, good will left in this world–somewhere, maybe–and some place birdies twitter and the sun shines. At 5:23 a.m. I am watching my unofficial gecko collection outside enjoy the nightly buffet on the windows banking my computer, dining on foolish moths drawn to my light. The four large ones eat well, the little one is growing splendidly, I am amused, and the moths get what they deserve for being stupid, careless, smug, defenseless zealots oblivious to the dangers of the world around them.

    For what little good it does I agree that our troops should not be abroad no matter WHAT the stated motive is, and I don’t think 180,000 of them should be training in “crowd control” at Ft. Benning, either. If it comes down to it I prefer having the boys shooting foreigners (on those rare occasions when they are allowed to fire back) to shooting Americans while alphabet soup guys clasp their hands in girlish glee.

    Muslims do not hate our freedoms, exactly; they object to our customs on prudish and religious grounds, which is quite enough when translated into violent action, but the important part is that those people don’t want what we’re selling–because we must admit that there are those who believe we are defending freedom and attempting to help others change to the political system the USA represented, long ago. Americans, in general, have very kind hearts…and very cynical, self-serving, power-hungry politicians.

    Let us suppose, dear much-admired-by-me Fred, that the Muslims succeed in their oft-stated goal of spreading Islam to every nation and imposing Sharia law, beheading infidels cheerfully. That does not mean we need to attempt to wipe out all Muslims (and if it did the most efficacious way would be to withdraw our troops and let them fight each other, that apparently being their favorite pastime other than whacking Jews), but it does mean that we need to guard ourselves at least at home.

    In the most diffident way possible, since I truly cannot imagine disputing FRED’s word, where is the oil we are accused of invading people for? One would expect the price at the pumps to go down if ships stuffed with greasy booty had been arriving frequently all these years. I can certainly imagine a cabal of oil men (I read Tom Clancy, after all.) but it would have been far more cost-efficient just to have kept Kuwait when we were there. What are we looking for, a country whose oil we like better?

    Have you looked at a map of the Middle East lately? In particular consider Iraq, the Straits of Hormuz, the Gate of Tears, and Yemen. If I were an Iraqui or Iranian madman not distracted by the US, I would be salivating around knocking off potential rivals and a little light-hearted torture for my leisure hours. I would be fanning the flames of Shi’ite resentment which have been building for centuries, dreaming of restoring the Persian Empire, and making quiet incursions beefing up the large Shi’ite population in Yemen, a country which provides a straight shot over a broad front into the soft underbelly of the decadent Sunni Saudis and soooo temptingly close to my borders.

    If I didn’t have the horses to close the two beautiful bottlenecks to oil shipment completely I would certainly do my best to show the world that Somali pirates are a joke compared to what Persians can do. The project is quite feasible and in some sectors popular…and the easy way would be to sink the tankers, starting with several mysterious “accidents.” Somehow I doubt that the mullahs and their jolly companions brood about oil spills.

    Does that mean that I think we should be occupying the time, far less the lands, of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? I already said “no” once. I think we should pull out and let them have all the fun they want to and use our own oil for domestic purposes. Allow the Balkan states to continue their thousand-year war without our blood and our money; they’re accustomed to it and may even enjoy it, for all I know. I even think (just to be certain I upset almost everyone) that we should stop badgering Israel to cede territory dangerously, and stop arming their enemies–unless you have a more apt description of passing out Patriot anti-missile-missiles and billions of dollars as though Congress found them in Cracker Jack boxes?

    Nobody minded when Obama wanted a puppy, but I really did object to adopting a hundred thousand members of Hamas, planning to bring them here at our expense and then support them. Perhaps they are all perfectly harmless non-English speakers without any skills to succeed in America (ah, good, now I’ve offended an entire continent)and will be quite happy living on welfare and lecturing on urban warfare, but I’m an analyst. I am not sanguine (as in hopeful) about the chances that all 100,000 will turn out to be honest, peaceable, and law-abiding. We cannot stop those who hate us–whether their behavior is rational in their eyes or not–from attacking our country, but shouldn’t they at least have to pay their own air fares and the costs of visas?

    I have been an enormous fan of yours for years, Fred, and remain one. Could we, perhaps, agree that while we’re reading our books, sipping mango Margueritas, and watching the cattle graze it would be wise to keep an occasional eye on what is going on around us? Alas, I realize I care far more about my own silky skin than I do about assuaging the anger of others, particularly since I am an innocent bystander.

    Chuckle…I really do mean more or less what I said, but I was also indulging myself by trying to entertain dear Fred, whose work I have loved for years. If I succeeded perhaps he will give a great shout of laughter and say, “Linda, you are an adorable nut, just as you claim, and that is how I would have presented the other side of the argument.”

    Even megalomaniacs can dream.

    Regards,

    Linda Brady Traynham

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

%d bloggers like this: