The View From Olympus: Register Moslems? Good Idea.

Donald Trump apparently was misquoted when he reportedly called for registering all Moslems in the U.S., but the idea is a good one. We are going to have to do it eventually, so we might as well get started now.

Moslems will not be the only non-state element fighting Fourth Generation war on American soil. Other entities, such as gangs, are already doing so. But the spread of puritanism within the world of Islam, which continues to gather strength, means Moslems will increasingly be a source of 4GW, here and abroad. At some point politically correct Washington will be forced by events to acknowledge reality and act.

A registry of all Moslems in America, if properly done, could benefit both the state and American Islamics. How? It would allow the sate to focus on those Moslems most likely to be violent, leaving others alone. For example, any Moslems registered as Sufis could and should be left undisturbed. Why? Because alone among major Islamic sects, the Sufis present no threat of violence. For that sin (the Koran commands violence against “unbelievers”), the Sufis are persecuted by both Sunnis and Shiites.

As is the case with violent crime, most Islamic Fourth Generation fighters are young men. A registry would allow security efforts to focus on them, assuming it asked for both age and sex. Children, women, and older men could be ignored, although many young Islamic women are now acting as suicide bombers.

A registry should indicate what mosque an American Moslem regularly attends. Presumably, the FBI is keeping watch on mosques where Islamic 4GW “jihad” is preached. People who attend such mosques should be prime suspects. On first thought, such mosques should be closed and their imams deported. But second thought suggest we might want to leave them open to serve as candle flames to draw the jihadis so they can be identified.

While political correctness gasps in horror at the idea of registering all American Islamics, the spread of Islamic puritanism suggests that may not be sufficient. The reason the state came into existence was to provide order–safety of persons and property–and if it is to retain legitimacy, it must do whatever is required to that end. If a registry and other security measures are not sufficient to prevent Islamic 4GW on American soil–from the state’s perspective prevention is everything; all first response is too late, because the peace has been broken and the state has therefore failed–stronger measures will be needed, including the option of exile.

Consider this scenario: A suitcase nuke goes off in, say, Seattle. It was brought in on an ordinary sailboat that came up from Mexico, where some of the drug gangs may have a relationship with Islamic 4GW entities. One of those entities–al Qaeda, ISIS, take your pick–credibly takes responsibility for the strike. An American city lies destroyed and casualties are in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

The little stage play that routinely accompanies Islamic massacres on Western soil–empty bluster from politicians, a few more useless airstrikes, blaming guns, women weeping and lighting candles–will not satisfy public anger. Across the country, mosques are being burned and Moslems strung up from lampposts.

At that point a Moslem registry might save Moslems’ lives, because it would allow the government to move quickly to send them into exile. For good reason, the age-old punishment of exile has been considered less severe than its alternative, death. Given the choice, American Moslems would probably rather leave than die. With Seattle still glowing, the public would probably not accept any lesser action.

Islam wants to have it both ways: at the same time it condemns civil society, demanding Sharia replace it, it seeks all the benefits civil society provides. The public, both here and in Europe, is beginning to perceive the contradiction. Each new incident of Islamic violence on Western soil will make that contradiction more clear. At some point, the state will have to resolve it or lose its legitimacy. A registry is a good, and rather moderate, place to start. favicon

9 thoughts on “The View From Olympus: Register Moslems? Good Idea.”

  1. My only concern is the tendency of a registry, in this age of political correctness, to become universal, the same way that airport security and TSA pat downs have. Our political class shows no evidence of possessing the mental machinery necessary to look at the hard alternatives and choose a careful, judicious, and measured path forward. I see the tendency of the state toward widespread implementation of a policy that is only useful on a limited basis.

    The point of the state, as you noted, is to keep order and protect its citizens. But a generalized registry stops being a protection and soon becomes a threat. To be a benefit any effort at registration must be focused, and dare I say it, discriminating, about who is being registered. But our society is almost incapable of that kind of effort, being preternaturally terrified of the very idea of singling out any group.

    Additionally, and this is my biggest concern, any effort to register Muslims will likely devolve into an effort to register other things that the political class feels threatened by, namely gun owners, for exercising their constitutional right.

    I do not like the idea of such a registry but understand that something different needs to be done than has been done about the ideological threat that certain strains of Islam present in the country I am willing to acquiesce. It gives me no pleasure but there has been much too much murder and mayhem in the name of Islam in this country.

    While there is plenty of other murder and mayhem outside of amateur and professional jihadists, most of the rest of it has not had ideological underpinnings and can be chalked up to the legions of unhinged people floating around the United States. That is a different problem set and requires a different solution.

    I would be happier if we would simply and willingly pay Muslims a handsome sum to relocate to an Islamic nation of their choosing with the stipulation that they be prevented from any return travel to the United States in exchange for the pay out. Considering the amount of money we’ve spent in the United States dealing with the terror threat, etc. this would be a far cheaper alternative. We could also have a schedule of payouts based on how long one waits before leaving. The sooner you self-deport the higher the sum. The longer you wait the less you are going to receive. Many of these individuals could take a good chunk of change and make a nice life among friends and relatives in an Islamic country.

    There are approximately 6 million Muslims in the U.S. A pay out of $100,000 dollars for each of them (and in some families that would be for multiple children) would go a long ways toward inducing them to take a buyout. That’s about the size of the U.S. defense budget for a year.

    But, with the internal threat of jihadists shrunken considerably, we could take the future savings from all of the intelligence and military efforts used against jihad, fighting Muslim nations, etc. to off-set the cost and still come out ahead as we shrink the size and mission of our military. By closing forward bases and shrinking the footprint of the military to make it into a national defense force rather than a vast expeditionary force we could afford such a payment.

    Then everybody wins. Muslims in the U.S. leave and take the treat of violent jihadists in their midst with them but they leave with cash in their pockets for a new life in a country that already embraces their worldview. The rest of the country no longer has to live under a vast web of surveillance and security measures and no longer needs to fear jihadist violence at home. And we get to shrink the size and footing of the military into something that makes sense rather than using it as a stick to poke other nations with.

    This idea is a little bit like the idea floated around in 1800’s of compensated emancipation of slaves. It looks expensive up front unless you compare it with the cost of a civil war.

  2. Hell, if we’re gonna do that, why not just kick the vile, goat herders back to whatever fly-ridden dung heap they came from? Why do we have to allow any more of em in, anyway? As Ann Coulter asked, what’s the upside of importing millions of mooslims, anyway? What do they do for us? Are they good for anything but voting Democrat?

  3. My concern with this, is that it might be a precursor for all of us, as AA seems to be concerned with as well. The only real solution would be to eliminate all non-Christians from our nation; but then again, why not just form a new nation based on principles of religion/race?

    “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. ”
    — John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States, and co-author of the Federalist Papers

  4. I second your concerns on something like this being ‘expanded’ beyond muslims. The no-fly list, currently transitioning to the no-fly/gun list, is the prime example of a government force marketed to prevent islamic terrorists, to be used against anyone that disagrees with the government. Pure executive power to strip citizens of constitutional rights without due process or transparency as to why. Imagine if by use of IP addresses, by visiting this ‘subversive’ website you were placed on the no fly/no-gun list. You wouldn’t even know why, you would just know you were placed on it.

    Extremely well-thought out description of ‘pay to leave’. I am more than happy to pay handome sums to get current muslims to leave, and to improve conditions in the Syrian refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Even if the US bears the brunt of the cost. Better than a war. The cost of security and cultural integrity of the United States and the West in general, outweighs the financial consideration. I know the this won’t sit well in the hearts of anti-tax/spend folks but you have to look at this pragmatically – long term it’s a cost saving, government-limiting measure.

  5. “I will tell you — lots of big things, lots of little things, you can call this anything you want, but if I become President, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again. That I can tell you.”

  6. Abraham Lincoln: America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
    Please explain why Trump needs to be president for me to say “Merry Christmas”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *