Here’s a question: should Japan import millions of Muslims to aid its efforts to suppress muslim violence in that country? If your answer is Japan doesn’t have muslim violence precisely because it doesn’t have muslims there trying to help solve it then you really don’t understand the question being asked. So I’ll rephrase it more candidly: what rhetorical pap would convince a sufficient number of Japanese to relinquish their country to hostile foreigners?
In many ways, such questions form the landscape of our age: a topography of oily cant strewn about the culture in hopes of it attaching to the gullible. And, of course, in nearly every instance the adhesive is strictly applied on one side only. After all, English colonists brought beneficial diversity to the monochromatic American Indians, as Europeans did in all-black Africa. Think of the delicious European restaurants! Plainly native opposition to this inclusion was borne of hate and bigotry and Hitler. But that’s not where the tar is intended to stick, is it?
Instead we are told—not asked—to repeat obvious lies. Not because these lies are made believable, but because not believing is punished. And having the tailwind of punishment at their back makes for very lazy propagandists. For instance, this blog has no power but whatever power it has to convince. But if your livelihoods depended upon public affirmations (or at least no public denials) of the content here, then the combox would be jammed with obsequious huzzahs. And I wouldn’t have to bother convincing you of anything.
There are a multitude of these ridiculous lies, or liturgy I suppose would be just as accurate. And while all are endlessly repeated as any mantra intended to bolster acceptance, one I noted recently is the remarkably counterintuitive Japanese example above. The proposition being that doors keep people who want to hurt you out of your house, which frustrates the people who want to hurt you, so remove the doors. There is one group who will always appreciate the simple elegance of this theory: people who want to hurt you.
As a matter of routine, CNN.com recently allotted real estate to members of this cohort. Opining critically on Trump’s milquetoast not-a-muslim ban…
The ban is so obviously, palpably, indeed explicitly anti-Muslim in nature that it has — understandably — offended Muslim-American communities around the world, including in the United States. Yet those are precisely the communities that can prove critical for identifying and responding to individuals becoming radicalized by groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.
Perhaps an even more elegant solution to public safety would be to import fewer easily offended communities. For what intelligence gathering do we need these sensitive and excitable parties in the absence of individuals prone to Islamic radicalization? I mean I’m not prone to joining ISIS or al qaeda. Are you? What percentage of white westerners would be? And of this number, how many would be thwarted by importing more foreign Muslims? The more I think about this, the less I like the CNN “watch them in your house” terror-prevention model. In fact, I am increasingly certain the Japanese “ignore them in their own house” concept results in a much more peaceful and less offended polity.
But that’s an archaic form of Western logic: the kind that doesn’t accrue to our detriment. For modern sensibilities, you’re just going to have to step in the pap and pretend to like it.