:: Friday, September 19, 2014 ::
Muslims and Self-Sacrifice
Posted by Edward Cline at 2:03 AM
Last March I discussed the Muslim state of
mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that
drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means
having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”
When asked why
police had targeted his brother [Kawa], he said he had no idea.
"I dunno, I
got a lot of anger. It's a war on Islam just because we grow our beards. They
want to label us as a terrorist, or supporters of IS, whatever, that's up to
you." he said.
He later said he
believed Kawa may have been targeted because he hung around with "hot
A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to
preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.
In front of 300 angry protesters,
controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger
within the Islamic community and said it was time to stop the victimization.
“We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he
declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.
One must ask
oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy
kaffirs and the lowest
of all creatures they'd really rather not be anywhere near, why do they
wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading
and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – a country full of them, where they must deal
with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher
standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”? I think those are just flash card reasons.
What exactly is a kaffir? Islam
Stack Exchange, a website for enquiring Muslims, provides an authoritative
My understanding of the term kafir
is that it refers to a person who literally rejects God's authority.
So while even the most blatant polytheist
would still be mushrik, he would not (necessarily) be kafir.
It's not until the message has been relayed
to him and he refuses to accept it that he would be labelled kafir.
However, it seems the common use of the
word kafir, at least nowadays, is to refer to anybody who is non-Muslim,
regardless of whether or not they're familiar with God's message and His
What is the actual meaning of this term in
the primary sources? As in, when the Qur'an and the hadiths refer to the kuffar
(or ayuhal kafireen) which interpretation is more correct?
I think the real
reason why Muslims want to rub shoulders with us is that Islam inculcates a
psychosis in Muslims that allows them to endure the "detested ones"
while putting down roots for "the cause," which is basically to
subjugate and/or kill kaffirs. They
don't even need to think about it, not clearly, it's just a fuzzy state of mind
that will in many eventually blossom into action. Their remaining silent about the atrocities
their brethren are committing across town or across an ocean, or denying that
ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Islamic gangs have
nothing to do with Islam, nonetheless still makes them culpable.
Of course, this is just a natural query looking for a logical causal-connection
in Muslim behavior, but in a tentative answer one will not find any logic, just
as one won't find clean, rational logic in Sharia law or in the Koran. I don't
think the Muslim Brotherhood master-plan types even care how their
lower-ranking Muslims think or behave, as long as tothey go to the West to plant
seeds and play victim or minority or loud-mouthed advocate -- in short, to act
as a spreading, slow-acting poison in Western culture, which has weakened
itself with multiculturalism and political correctness and moral relativism.
These maladies didn't exist in, say, 19th Britain, so such a "master
plan" wouldn't have worked there or even in France.
Brotherhood’s “master-plan,” or “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group,” written May 22nd, 1991, per the Gates
of Vienna and numerous other blog sites, cites:
One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land
Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram,
and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
The process of
settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan
[Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within
and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work
wherever he is…
But in the 20th and
21st centuries, such a "master plan" is feasible, and a goodly measure
of that feasibility is enabled by the Western refusal to acknowledge the
nature, methods and ends of Islam. That “General Strategy” is well-advanced in
Europe, not so much in America in spite of our political leadership’s evasion
of the issue. And Islam has millions of faith-lobotomized followers to perform
those tasks and the footwork. All they need do is "be there" in
Dearborn, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, London, Sydney, Amsterdam, and even
in tiny Reykjavik, Iceland, to “be fruitful and multiply,” without even joining
a noisy demonstration or carrying signs saying "Behead those who defame
Islam." If Islam is spreading, it is largely the West’s fault; it
refuses to recognize Islam as the pestilence it is.
Islam is evil, but
evil, as a rule, derives any strength or potency it might claim from a refusal
of its victims to recognize that it is anti-life, anti-self, and, in this
instance, fundamentally anti-man. Islam requires that men consciously repudiate
and discard one’s self-interest. Only self-sacrifice is permitted. It requires
that one submit without reservation or question to the arbitrary, capricious,
irrational whims of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient ghost.
Muslim mothers have
boasted of being “proud” that their sons successfully exploded suicide vests
and killed themselves and others. This is the kind of sacrifice which Western
mothers, while they adhere to the Judeo-Christian notion that sacrifices are
necessary to preserve a value, are not familiar with. One of the most repulsive
and psychotic instances of sacrificing values among Muslims is the “honor
killing” of wayward mothers and daughters by their own parents and other
So, I think that
for the average Muslim, there's an intractable altruist psychosis in his mind
that draws him to Western cultures and nations, not for jobs or a higher,
healthier standard of living, but because, down deep, he knows there is a good
there and it must be despoiled or destroyed because Allah commands it. So, he
will endure being engulfed in a sea of filthy kaffirs. The demands of selflessness and unquestioning submission
inherent in Islam make it easy for a Muslim to “suffer” so. A Muslim can be content to safely participate
in the “insurgency” against the West by being a passive cipher and welfare king
(or queen), or engage in mere criminal acts against random Westerners in the
Westerners’ own countries (rapes, beheadings, no-go vigilantes, attacking Jews,
This, in Western
parlance, is self-sacrifice, not for a “noble end,” or even to preserve values
– but instead to destroy values, by being a negative presence among the good. However,
before they commit the final, ultimate self-sacrifice, Muslims first want to
sacrifice you. It is a sought-after
self-sacrifice which easily metastases into pure nihilism.
2 Comments ::
:: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 ::
Frightened Turtles II
Posted by Edward Cline at 12:50 PM
The debate over immigration and open
borders or open immigration continues.
A British correspondent argued with a
reader of Andrew Bernstein’s “Immigration
and the Welfare State” about the pros and cons of open borders or open
immigration, vis-à-vis Muslims and Mexicans.
The reader’s position on the matter is confusing, as he
seems to want it both ways: a total ban on all Muslim immigration into Western
countries, and a selective or discriminating ban on Muslims who advocate
violence to impose Islam on others or a whole country (in conformance with the official
Ayn Rand Institute position).
So he isn't clear on his own position at
all. He also contradicts himself when he says that Islam is both a criminal
organization and a religion. But a genuine criminal organization, such as the
Mafia or a drug cartel, is not moved by an ideology of any kind; these
organizations are merely opportunistic gangs taking advantage of irrational
laws. Islam, however, is a totalitarian ideology moved by the agenda of supremacy
over all other religions and political systems, even though it has little
ideational content, and little such content in its “jurisprudence,” Sharia law,
other than the “prophet’s” say-so or the pretzel-like logic of its judges.
The only thing he's right about is that the
Koran is a prescription for conquest
and committing criminal acts, criminal per Western concepts of individual and
civil rights, which Islamic spokesmen deny the validity of, because Islam
doesn't recognize individual rights or the civil liberties of Western nations. However, Muslims do avail themselves of them
to advance Islam; they have adopted Lenin’s assertion that capitalists will
hang themselves with the rope they sell to the Reds; it's much the same thing.
Frankly, I think the open borders
"faction" on this issue is guilty of a severe dropping of context.
This is not the early 20th century when hundreds of thousands of Jews and
Italians and other ethnic/religious groups immigrated to this country. The
overwhelming majority of them were not trying to impose Judaism or Catholicism
or the Mafia on everyone else. Their personal religious convictions were not a
threat to anyone else. True, some Jews and Italians who came here were
gangsters, or became gangsters. In many instances, when they were identified and
apprehended, they were either deported or imprisoned after a trial for their
But Islam isn't the same thing. Jews and Italians did not pose a peril to
everyone else, native-born or not. Whether or not your average
Friday-go-to-prayers Muslim is active in propagating or proselytizing Islamic
doctrine or engages in criminal actions based on Islamic scripture, such as
terrorism, they're still culpable and indirectly responsible for the actions of
their more consistent brethren, who engage in violence per the diktats of the Koran. On that point, I agree with
Leonard Peikoff 100%. My policy would be: Either repudiate Islam altogether, or
leave for and/or return to a country where your ideology is implemented, but
you're not implementing it here.
I dismiss the assertions of those Muslims
who claim that Islam can be reformed in the same way Catholicism and
Protestantism were reformed, that is, by removing religion from a country's
politics. As I've written many times before, Islam can't be reformed without
killing it; Islam is based on the initiation of force and once that imperative
is removed from the religion (or the violent verses in the Koran “reinterpreted” beyond recognition), there's not much left to
it except perhaps a Masonic-like ritual or something resembling a fraternity of
the Knights of Pythias. (Or Ralph
Kramden’s Bensonhurst chapter of the International
Brotherhood of the Loyal Raccoons.)
All in all, one is still left in puzzlement
over Writeby's and the Brook faction's position on not banning or not removing
Muslims from the U.S. (or from Britain). And the context being dropped by them
and Writeby is that we are all living in countries that are far more statist
than they were in the early 20th century.
Moreover, I think it's somewhat futile to
be arguing over immigration rights when we're losing or have lost rights
wholesale in terms of personal income and consumer products and behavioral
policies imposed by the government and other non-immigration
issues. Others deny it, such as Bernstein, but our welfare state is a draw to Mexicans and Muslims (as is
Britain's). When the Jews and Italians and other European groups came here in
the early 20th century, there was no welfare state. When Cubans risked their
lives coming to this country, they weren't drawn to the welfare state which by
then actually existed, but by the chance to live their lives independently of
the state (Communist or not). One can't say that now about Muslim or Mexican
(or Central American) immigrants.
As for the Mexicans and other Latinos, I
think most of them come here for semi-ideological motives; our welfare state is
more generous and more efficient than the ones they left behind. They will naturally
vote Democratic out of gratitude or compulsion or manipulation (if they vote at
all), and, as I noted in my original column, help to perpetuate the death grip
the Democrats and other statists have on this country.
Granting that large numbers of Mexicans may
come here for employment; where, in an economy deliberately
tanked by Barack Obama, are they going to find it? In landscaping?
correspondent wondered whether or not there is a political correctness angle to
all this. As in not wanting to address the issue that the people who are
causing all the problems with immigration in the US and UK are those with brown
skins coming into a country with mainly white skins. Mr. Brook and other ARI spokesmen
don't usually pull their punches in regards to racial issues, like affirmative action,
reparations etc. But immigration itself
is a different matter; it's controversial. So our enemies could have fine old
time, if ARI argued for immigration controls, painting it as white men wanting
to keep out "darkies."
But even if this were the case, there
should be no capitulation to political correctness at all. As I remarked
elsewhere, we're in this mess because people have played our enemies game by
being cowards and not addressing issues for fear of being seen as
"racist" or “Islamophobic.” And the end result of this spinelessness
is, say, Rotherham and the Pakistani rape gangs in Britain, and, over here,
honor killings of girls and women, beheadings, “lone Muslim wolf” shootings at
Jews and other infidels, the Boston Marathon bombing, and “workplace violence”
committed by the likes of Major Nidal Hasan.
So if the unrestricted immigration by
Mexicans or “Chicanos” and Muslims is not
going to be in the national interest and is downright dangerous, then it needs
to be acknowledged and said. And the Objectivist credentials of anyone who is
deliberately pulling back on the issue or obfuscates it are at the very least questionable.
Further, none of the open immigration
advocates regard the Muslim and Mexican settlement in the U.S. or in the UK or
the Continent as an invasion and conquest by demographics; for the Muslims,
this is prescribed by the Muslim
Brotherhood. There isn’t a European country whose Muslim population is less
than ten percent of the overall population. But I doubt that any of them have
bothered to read the Brotherhood memorandum,
dated 1991, which I've often cited or linked in my past columns, or bother to
read the manifestos of the Mexican supremacists’ La Raza or the Aztlán
They seem to treat these phenomena as just
loopy outfits on the fringe the political spectrum. The Mexicans here in the
U.S. (or their spokesmen) are also on a "reconquest" effort, wanting
to "take back" all of California and much of the Southwest. The
racist element in the effort is pretty blatant, as strong and as virulent as it
is in Islam. As the ISIS jihadists want to erase the blue-eyed Yazidis as a
race (by raping their women), Mexican nationalists want to subjugate blue-eyed
gringos. But these facts are never addressed by Brook et al. They have their magic wands, you see.
My British correspondent noted:
Objectivism is NOT
some mystical, utopianist cure-all where there will be no evil or wrong-doing
in the world. Objectivism is not the magic wand of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,
which, waved over an issue, solves it automatically, irrespective of context.
The open borders
advocates seem to think: Well, there's
Objectivism, which runs along the lines of Adam Smith, that there is an
"invisible hand" of Objectivism that will somehow make Islam not the
murderous religion that it is when its adherents move to foreign countries.
They obviously know how murderous Islam is because the very same people who are
arguing for open borders and also arguing for a total war, and possible nuclear
war, with Islam! So why are they contradicting themselves?
This is why I won't engage the advocates of open borders or open immigration in
argument. Their terms are so vague and their public positions so untenable with
regard to their professed fealty to Objectivism it isn't worth my time to
engage them. They keep flip-flopping or just won't come out and say what they
really mean. There is a unfortunate strain of evasion in their positions. I
don't think any of them, including their legions of open borders supporters,
have delved into Islam, the Mexican issue, and Europe as deeply as I think they
should. They seem to think that Objectivism is
that magic wand, which, once it's waved over the issue, presto! There’s the
Stossel’s article, “Immigration
is American,” like some open border arguments, dwells on some important
points and also on irrelevancies. He does, however, point out the chief culprit
in the issue: the time it takes for prospective immigrants to be granted the
right to apply for citizenship, political asylum, and also for work visas and
residency, which is arbitrarily daunting and onerous. The requirements imposed
on prospective immigrants were once a product of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, established in 1933 (another FDR legacy), and
governed by two things: politics, and the convenience of the INS bureaucracy.
The functions of the INS, after 9/11, came
under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security and its functions were
divided between three new bureaucracies: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. Further, while restrictions on Chinese immigration have lapsed, for
example, the INS and its successor bureaucracies have instituted other racial
and ethnic quotas.
Stossel argues for less restrictive and less
onerous legal applications for citizenship and residency, and that’s fine. But,
again, he argues from the standpoint of ideal circumstances, in which we lived
in an ideally free country and not in the trough of statist controls and in a
continuous state of crisis, situations created by political pragmatism and
multiculturalism. As with other open border positions, this is surely another
argument of gossamer. To ignore these aspects is to indulge in wishful
must first extricate themselves from the claws of statism before they can begin
to credibly address peripheral issues such as immigration. Otherwise, it’s a
matter of the dog chasing its own tail.
5 Comments ::
:: Thursday, September 11, 2014 ::
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:49 PM
I would like to remind readers that we live
in a country that is barely free. If we lived in ideal political conditions in
which the only flaw might be a border closed to some or all immigration, the
"open borders" argument might hold water. But we live in a growing
authoritarian or police state.
This is an issue which many intellectuals –
including some I should logically regard as moral and intellectual allies – shy
away from like frightened turtles.
This country for too long has been the
plaything of statists and “social engineers” of every stripe – Republicans,
Democrats, environmentalists, welfare statists, special interests or lobbyists,
and so on. President Barack Obama is the apex and end heir of every statist law
and notion ever proposed or legislated, ever since ratification of the
Constitution, even as the ink on it was barely dry – and Obama is the logical
end of all those unopposed laws and policies. He loots without care or thought of
whatever might replace the looted wealth and nullified rights – except for
stage-managed anarchy and beating into submission the American spirit.
Obama practices Islamic taqiyya, which is saying one thing in
his woozy, folksy style English, but meaning something else. Most readers here,
instead of conceding that Obama is a nihilist, buy the official line that he is
merely a rudderless, arrogantly insouciant pragmatist. Actually, his
predecessor, George W. Bush, was a card-carrying pragmatist, formulating his
policies on the premise that he could preserve that status quo – whatever that
might have been – by denying the deadly peril of Islam. However, Obama, who
administration has been top-heavy
with Muslims from his first term, is a rotten-to-the-bone nihilist steeped in
“community organizing” and a subscriber to the agenda of the “socialist transformation”
of the country into a super-size European Union. Some intellectuals of my
acquaintance deny that he is a nihilist, and instead call him a rudderless pragmatist
or assign him some other non-condemnatory appellation.
This is not observing his behavior and
actions with any kind of objectivity. It is an evasion of the evidence of one’s
senses. Waiting for Obamacare to collapse? Waiting for Obama to okay the Keystone
Pipeline? Waiting for him to put together a “Coalition of the Reluctant” to
combat ISIS? Waiting for him to rein in our lawless Attorney General, Eric Holder,
or to order any number of federal agencies to stop spying and threatening
private citizens and organizations that question federal power? Take a number.
Open immigration is
both morally right and economically beneficial.
I certainly do not disagree with that
statement, but I would add this qualifier:
In a free country.
Which it has become less and less of for
well over a century.
Yes, immigrants in the past and in recent
times have come to this country for the freedom to work and enjoy the fruits of
their productivity. That was when the INS had semi-rational criteria on
entrance to the country. But waves of Muslims
with their own colonizing
and settlement agenda and hordes of
illegals from Mexico and points south have been streaming in almost unopposed.
Mixed in with these numbers are also Muslims
and jihadists of every terrorist stripe, especially now from ISIS. Not to
mention criminals with records in their native countries.
Many illegals are not coming to America to
reinvent the wheel. Many of them are coming and have come to game the welfare
state, and are not truly “yearning to be free,” except on the dole.
Many readers here deny that is the case. But
all they can do is talk, talk, talk the fine points of a philosophy of reason
to prove their ideological purity, even in the face of their and America’s slow
demise. “We stand for open borders,
never mind that we’re being swamped with illiterate aliens whose room and board
and education we are expected to pay for; never mind many of them are diseased –
many of them children now being seated in public school classrooms with native
born American children; never mind the malevolent designs of a president who is
seeking to bolster the Democrats’ death grip on this country, and who has
demonstrated repeatedly his hostility to this country, to Western culture, and to
Western civilization. None of that is important.”
They think and say this while they’re being
eaten alive by the drooling beast of Obama’s policies. They refuse to
contemplate the horrible notion that they and every other American have been “played.”
Well, what’s wrong, one might ask, with
enrolling illegal immigrant children in school? Does any reader here seriously
believe that they will be imbued with the American spirit of independence and
self-reliance? If native born American children are being brainwashed by Common
Core and anti-American curricula in their studies, and the leftwing teachers’
unions to regard themselves as unexceptional and that “they didn’t build that,”
what are the chances of illiterate illegals having flashes of insight that our
educational establishment is a scam and has been for decades.
I think one of the most off-base remarks
made in “Immigration and the Welfare State” is:
In addition to the
economic gain, there is an important security benefit to an open immigration
policy. Since it is a great boon to an immigrant to be in the country legally
rather than illegally, the overwhelming majority, given the choice, will walk
in through the front door, thereby initiating the process of becoming a U.S.
citizen. The flood of migrant workers seeking to illegally sneak across the
Mexican border will reduce to a trickle. The money and manpower
currently deployed to keep Mexican workers out of the country can then be used
to keep Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists out of the country.
the author ever heard of Obama’s blueprint for across the board “amnesty,” the Dream Act, of legislation sanctioning
the instant, automatic citizenship, with full welfare state benefits, for numberless
illegals? Isn’t this legislation grossly unfair to those who spent years
working for their citizenship, and who might have had to wait years to gain
admittance to the country per the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s now
politically governed – and, frankly, racist – rules?
And is Obama really interested in keeping
Islamic terrorists out of the country? To judge by his actions and his policies
– one of which is for the U.S. to train “moderate”
terrorists to combat “extreme” terrorists – I think not.
There is another statement by Bernstein
that I take exception to. One of them is:
Some argue that
because of America’s current welfare state, the country cannot afford an open
immigration policy. This is false for two reasons. One is that a welfare state
is pernicious to both those funding it and those parasitical off of it; the
former, because they’re robbed—the latter because its perverse financial
incentives support men’s most indolent premises, and seduce onto the dole many
who could otherwise gain minimum wage employment. From purely humanitarian
considerations, the welfare state must be irrevocably dismantled, regardless of
America’s immigration policy.
Yes, the welfare state must be dismantled
and abolished. But, when will that happen? Those who come here either game the
welfare state or wind up depending on it. They are supposed to replace the “simpering
Americans” who regard the country as a paradise of entitlement. How? Our
economy is moribund and few new jobs – middle or low-paying – are being
in the “public sector.” We have an expanding public sector and an
ever-shrinking private sector. Where are the new jobs going to materialize? In
a command economy such as ours, which sector will see the greater growth?
My main point here, however, is that
because we are living in a virtual state of siege – the “homeland” is now “Fortress
America” that refuses to identify a hostile, murderous foreign enemy, Islam, hampered
by a plethora of
controls and prohibitions on virtually every aspect of American life – we
are in a no-win conundrum that will only resolve itself with a political and concomitant
philosophical collapse of the altruist morality that sustains an ever-omnivorous
state – or a revolution. These are
scenarios which “official” Objectivists are reluctant to contemplate or
The Founders weren’t.
10 Comments ::