»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: 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.”

On the occasion of the Australian raids on homes after discovery of a plot to behead a random Australian, that is, a non-Muslim, playing the Muslim-persecution-race-religion card, a Muslim whined that:

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 heads".

Another Muslim complained and warned, in the Daily Telegraph:

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 answer:

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 commands.

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.

The Muslim 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 United States:
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 relatives.

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, etc.).

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.

:: Permalink | 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 crimes.

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?

 One 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 movement.  

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 answer!  

 John 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 thinking.

 Americans 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.

:: Permalink | 5 Comments ::

 

:: Thursday, September 11, 2014 ::

Frightened Turtles 

:: 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.

There are certain statements in Andrew Bernstein’s “Immigration and the Welfare State” column that I take grave issue with.  The first is:

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.

 Has 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 created, except 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 discuss.

The Founders weren’t.

:: Permalink | 10 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Muslims and Self-Sacrifice
» Frightened Turtles II
» Frightened Turtles
» The Steady Abrogation of Freedom
» Thumbs Down on Voltaire Press
» The Self vs. the Group
» The Origins of Modern Black Collectivism
» Police Blame Media for Race Riots
» Our Descent into Madness
» Yearning to Breathe Free: The Foundations of a Rat...

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster