A Modest Proposal

Beyond the Fendi sunglasses, Louis-Vuitton handbags, and even through the thick black smoke of the yellow Hummer rolling down the street, one can clearly discern the mentality shift that has trumped the consumerist cliché that so infamously portrayed 1990’s America. Post-September 11th American society, though gilded with Gucci, has been defined not by excessiveness, but by the dark shadow of paranoia within our lives ushered in by the disastrously imminent threat of another terrorist attack on our soil.

The United States has severed almost all good relations previously existing within the Middle East; consequently, we have adversely affected our security from terrorist and other foreign hate groups. Some factions within American society claim that the Middle East’s distain for our culture is fueled by our arrogance, ethnocentrism, and our preemptive invasion of a country completely disconnected to the well being of our society. However, it is clear that these Americans, not only are they wrong, but they are unpatriotic and probably terrorists themselves. The clear reason that the Middle East hates our country is not because of our salient role in global politics, and not because of our perpetual desire to instill democracy throughout the word, but because we harbor Christ lovers. Yes, we are a Christian nations, and the most powerful, influential, and important one at that. The terrorists’ hatred for our country parallels their hatred for Jesus, and this, by god, must be mended.

I have been assured by the President himself that a war on terrorism, not only is it grammatically implausible, but un-winnable at that. Yes, it is true; to preserve our security we must seek a solution unconventional to those inclined to fighting wars on the battlefield. Indeed, terrorism seems to be perpetuated, rather than stifled, when one tries to defeat it through might.

Therefore, I humble propose my own thoughts towards the matter of domestic security.

My solution is clear, simple, economical, requiring little need for excessive spending on homeland security, and entails no breach of liberty which seems so adamantly apposed by so many. After many consultations with the foremost scholars in their field and years of feverish contemplation, I have compiled a three prong plan of action.

After making acquaintance with a highly credited historian, I learned of the many economic and cultural benefits reaped by Spain in the 16th century after The Inquisition and France after the persecution of the Huguenots in the 18th century. Based on these pasted successes, it is quite apparent that first and foremost, to protect our country from the anti-Christian terrorist, America must instill a drastic and effectual ethnic cleansing program in which it exiles or eliminates all other religions besides Islam. According to a very knowledgeable source on the motives of terrorist organization, terrorists hate our country not based on arrogance, militarism, or jealousy; rather, they hate our country because of the vast majority of Christians which we harbor. Thus, ridding our nation of these Christians would effectively deter this principle motivation.

Second, our government must adopt Islam as its official religion. Terrorists, historically Muslim, attack our country in the name of Allah. However, if our country, the most powerful and influential country in the world, represented the cornerstone of the Islamic faith than any attack on our country would be an attack against Allah, thus defeating the effectiveness of attacks in his’ name. Therefore the threat of terrorist attacks would be eliminated.

For the third and final aspect of my plan, America must abjure the constitution while expunging all legal precedence pertaining to any social or political aspect of society. In their place we must construct a new government based on the laws dictated by the Koran (the Sharia). This provision is necessary when considering the third principle motive of the terrorist organizations: hatred for our culture. The stark contrast between our western society and that of the fundamentalist Islamic Middle East represents everything radical Sunni and Shiite factions detest: an active female role in society, sexual freedom, acceptance of homosexuals, and acceptance of all religions (the list goes on). However, all this must change.

For the greater good, we must adopt a policy of social, racial, and (especially) religious intolerance. This new political focus must be manned by an austere commander in chief that refuses to accept any ethnic dis-homogeneity at the cost of homeland security. I ask you, why fight our enemy when we can be them?

The advantages of the aforementioned proposal are obvious and many.

First, as mentioned before, the threat of terrorism will all but dissolve into the abyss as the terrorist find their justification for hatred is no more.

Second, not only will the terrorist threat be eliminated, but as a country it will no longer be necessary to bolster our bloated security budget through surveillance and anti-terrorist provisions, rather we could spend the money on improving education, lowering taxes, and raising the minimum wage.

Third, the contemporary methods used to diminish the threat of terrorism, such as increased use of surveillance and government regulation on daily activity, creates an antagonistic bond between homeland security and civil liberty. Through the use of surveillance we decrease liberty while increasing security, and with the elimination of surveillance we increase liberty while decreasing security. However, with the proposal that I have made, one need not compromise liberty for security because there would be no imminent threat of additional terrorist attacks, therefore no security risks, and thus no necessity for a breach of liberty.

Fourthly, by disregarding the constitution, we dissolve the wall of separation between church and state constructed by our predecessors. By allowing religion to intrude on our society’s so-called secular humanist beliefs, we can facilitate a stronger understanding of morality, an understanding which seems to be void in many of the youth today. Who, I ask, would be temped to exploit social services when they are guided by the hands of God? What corruption exists when one is working in the name of faith? How can imperfection exist in a society in which God is on its side? In a similar vein, divorce rates would decrease, regulation on obscenity would be instilled, restrictions on speech would be put in place, and a general purity can be reached when a society conforms to religious uniformity. Remember, it’s not the means by which we act, only the ends in which the actions result! The expulsion of some is certainly a small price to pay for the safe and harmonious existence of many!

Some would suggest that the way to preserve security would be through diplomacy and furthering good relations. Others still may suggest profiling based on actions (suspicious actions such as buying one-way flights into the United States, purchasing large amounts of explosive chemicals, or taking flying lessons without wanting to learn how to take off or land). However, clearly, these proposals are as unpatriotic as they are ludicrous!

My plan, being neither audacious, nor unconventional, nor controversial, should see no disapproval without at least a great deal of contemplation towards its benefits. I am not so adamant about my own proposal that I should reject another equally innocent, cheap, easy, and affective one. I do, however, contend that if someone were to disagree with my proposal, in turn offering a counter proposal, it should meet two requirements. First, it must account for the very real and dangerous threat of terrorism. Second, it must fairly estimate the effectiveness of surveillance while fairly estimating the resources available to the matter and at what costs it would be to acquire these resources. If such a plan is devised, and is superior to mine, I shall have no qualms with its presentation; however, I highly doubt such a proposal’s existence! In all sincerity, my plan harbors no misguided attempts for personal gain and for no one’s benefit but that of public good. Clearly, the enactment of my proposal should not be opposed by any rational person who keeps the good of the country (and the good of Allah) above the good of himself.



Post a Comment

<< Home