Friday, February 15, 2013

The Clueless Left and Islam

Daniel Greenfield penned a perceptive and welcome critique, "What the Left Does not Understand About Islam" (February 15th), of the cluelessness of the Left vis-à-vis Islam. The Left, he writes, is naïve about its rival ideology, and ideologically will always remain naïve. The Left, he writes, has never been able to think outside of the cardboard box it has built for itself.

The left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a fundamentally different foe than [sic] the Kaiser and that pretending that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of colonialists and arms dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.

From my own observations, what the Left refused to acknowledge was that it was Hitler's Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia that behaved like unrepentant imperialists and colonialists, invading and conquering other nations for all the loot they could lay hands on. It was the consistent kneejerk evasion of that fact which demoted the Left from a noisy avante- garde to a commune of deluded lunatics.  Greenfield goes on to remark:

The Cold War was even worse. The left never came to terms with Communism. From the Moscow Trials to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the moderate left slowly disavowed the USSR but refused to see it as anything more than a clumsy dictatorship. The only way that the left could reject the USSR was by overlooking its ideology and treating it as another backward Russian tyranny being needlessly provoked and pushed around by Western Europe and the United States.

The rise of Islam, however, presented the Left with another conundrum it could not handle.

Communism was…a red virus floating around the world, embedding its ideas into organizations and using those organizations to take over nations.

Islam is even more untethered than Communism, loosely originating from powerful oil nations, but able to spring up anywhere in the world. Its proponents have even less use for the nation state than the Communists. What they want is a Caliphate ruled under Islamic law, a single unit of human organization extending across nations, regions and eventually the world.

The Left, instead of confronting Islam as a rival ideology, has preferred to stick with the devils it knows, imperialists and the running dogs of capitalists. Greenfield notes:

The left is incapable of engaging with Islamism as an ideology, instead it reduces the conflict to a struggle between colonial and anti-colonial forces, showing once again that the left’s worldview is usually at least fifty years out of date.

Fifty years out of date, or fourteen centuries?

Their response to the Clash of Civilizations has been to include Islamists in the global rainbow coalition of minorities, gays and gender theorists, indigent third world farmers, transsexuals, artists and poets, sex workers and terrorists; without considering what the Islamists were or how they would fit into this charmed circle.

Here is another take on just how clueless the Left is about its competitor for power.

Project a hypothetical triumph of Islam over the world, and how its itinerant ally, the Left, would be treated. Not very well.  Consider the Left's global rainbow coalition of "minorities, gays and gender theorists, indigent third world farmers, transsexuals, artists and poets, and sex workers." Islam, committed to doctrinal purity and eager to cleanse the world in literal conformance with that doctrine, would act to extinguish every member of that rainbow coalition, including those not mentioned by Greenfield:  feminists, gun-owners, free-speech advocates, cartoonists who offend Islam, atheists, agnostics, apostates, followers of other religions, libertarians, anti-government advocates, Constitutionalists, First Amendment champions, and so on. Rightly or not, they'd all be lumped together in Islam's holding pen until they can be prosecuted, tried and walked to the chopping block or gallows. Leaving the Left what?

Nothing, not a single victim of capitalism or colonialism. The Left will wonder what happened to its dialectical materialism, or claim that these are not the progressive forces it had predicted would pacify the world and leave it warless and in peaceful harmony. They might complain, if they dared to, that a gatecrasher hijacked their future. The more perceptive Leftists might then grasp just what Islam meant when it claimed it was just a "religion of peace." They would understand that it won't be a world in which they'd be expected to pray five times a day to godless icons of Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, and Stalin, but instead to Allah and Mohammad.

They would understand that Islam isn't interested in peacefully coexisting with other faiths and ideologies, "interfaith dialogue" to the contrary notwithstanding. They would grasp that Islam is as totalitarian as anything conceived by George Orwell and would play no favorites, not even with loyal Party members.

All they would see would be piles of victims of Islam, not of capitalism or of colonialism.  The Left acts now as the janissaries of Islam, as ideologues and Sturmabteilung of another totalitarian system, for the moment tolerated and drafted into Islam's cause to swell the numbers of Islam's brigades and to handle the rough stuff in protests and demonstrations and clashes with the targets of the day. And when Islam's battles are won, the Left will act surprised when the executioners knock on their door and escort its members to killing fields that resemble Pol Pot's and to camps modeled on Auschwitz. They would be slaughtered by the bushel in the name of Allah, because they worshipped false gods or no gods and proposed a godless global government.  

The humbler and more cowardly of them will submit to Islam. All others would be terminated.  Some of their women and pretty boys would be whisked away to stock the numerous new harems that would be established, and which would not be limited to the palaces of Saudi Arabia and Dubai and Qatar and Cairo. They would pop up in New York City and Peoria and Buenos Aires and London and Vienna and San Francisco. Name your city or town.  

That would be the character of the world under a global caliphate. The Left would find itself in the inconvenient and embarrassing position of the garage mechanic, George Wilson, in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. In it, Wilson is told that it was Jay Gatsby who struck his wife in a hit-and-run outside his garage, not his airhead paramour, Daisy Buchanan. So Gatsby catches the mechanic's bullets. Wilson then shoots himself. Daisy gets off scot-free. While the literati may treat Daisy as a useless "ornament" of capitalism, in fact, Daisy is Islam.

Gatsby was F. Scott Fitzgerald's conception of unregulated capitalism, married somehow to gangsters and crime, while Wilson's grungy garage was symbolic of the underside of capitalism. Poor, exploited, put-upon George. But it was clueless Daisy Buchanan who killed the woman. Leftist literati may understand Fitzgerald's novel, but their ideological muchachos do not.

Intellectually honest Leftists will follow George Wilson's example. Less honest ones will adapt.

Greenfield concludes his masterly column thus:

The left dwells in an intellectual bubble of its own making. It transforms that bubble into an elaborate place, furnishing the space until it resembles a miniature world, but a bubble is not a world, it can only ever be a bubble. Trapped inside the bubble, the left cannot realize that the world is going backward, not forward, that the 21st century is really the 7th century and that the future is the past.

The Islamists understand this quite well. The left cannot.

I think Greenfield gives the Left too much credit for being clueless. I think his is a misplaced generosity. I am convinced that the Left's ignorance of the true nature of Islam is a front refined and tailored over recent decades, ever since Islam and jihad began making headlines, disguising something much more insidious. Down deep, in the remotest, darkest corner of the soul of every Leftist, collectivist, statist, and community organizer, is a seething glop of malice for freedom which he wishes to exterminate, come what may, never mind how, and don’t ask him about it if you don't want to see him froth at the mouth and threaten you with physical violence. If the extermination is performed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, or Cass Sunstein, or any other exponent of totalitarianism, it won’t matter to him, just as long as the murder is committed.

And if it's performed by Islam, so be it. He will be content, even if it means he will need to buy himself a prayer rug or pay jizya from his paltry income and show up at Islamic rallies as a loyal infidel. All else – the protests, the books, the lectures, the posters – is guff and practiced posturing to him. He works to create the image of a champion of the underdogs, whoever and wherever they might be, when, in truth, he would just rather shoot the mangy mutts.

And what is the root of that seething glop of malice? An unquenchable, malevolent envy of every individual who has ever achieved independence and happiness without the Leftist's assistance or advice or guidance, an envy of the incalculable wealth produced by what little capitalism has been permitted to exist in any given nation's mixed economy or welfare state. This envy is coupled with an intimate but repressed knowledge and certitude that the kind of ideal communist or socialist state envisioned by him can produce nothing but poverty, misery, a state of stagnation sustained by force and deception and lies, and the suffocation of the able and the brightest.

Of individuals better than he. All tyrants and would-be tyrants nurture an inferiority complex. The only way they can compensate for it is the use of force and as much power over people as they can muster.

Islam would also produce that kind of existence, and the Left must know it, if only secretly and not spoken about among themselves, and certainly not to the gullible hoi polloi, in another kind of "gentleman's agreement." The Left's ideology and Islam's ideology are compatible in practice, differing only in details and object.

After all, what should it matter to the Left to whose ideology the hoi polloi swear an extorted obsequious obedience? Barack Obama's, or Mohammad Morsi's?

The Leftist won't care which, just as long as they concede defeat and subservience to the State or to the Caliphate. 
 

46 comments:

madmax said...

This is a trenchant commentary on the Left that I don't see any other Objectivist writing. (I can't ever imagining a Gus van Horn or a "Dr. Diana Hsieh" or a Craig Biddle writing something like this. Conservatives they'll bash, but the Left? Not a chance. Leftists are secular!!) That's because mainstream Objectivism is too busy arguing for amnesty so we can get 30 million more Hispanics that will vote for the Democrats and effectively sentence America to become a third world Banana Republic. Priorities you know.

If altruism is "hatred of the good for being the good" as Rand argued (and I think it is) and the Left has made post-Kantian altruism a secular civic religion (combined with egalitarianism), then the Left MUST be committed to the destruction of the liberty traditions of the West. If you hate the good then you will want to destroy the good, and in the end you wont care who does the destroying - you or Muslims.

The Left hates the good therefore it does not hate Islam because Islam is not good but evil, irredeemable evil. Modern Liberalism is an evil phenomenon and I am becoming convinced that if a person spends too much time as a Liberal - their soul suffers and that evil rubs off on them. You can't swim in sewage and not stink. Modern Conservatism is no where near that bad (sometime send a memo to "Dr. Diana Hsieh" about that).

Oh but wait, I can hear the mainstream Objectivists lining up to tell me about the Conservatives and abortion and gay marriage and all those poor Hispanics that want a better life and, etc, etc, etc..

May the non-existent god have mercy on the Objectivist movement.

Edward Cline said...

Madmax: This column was inspired by Greenfield's column, in which I think he missed an important point (and everything else he says is true). It occurred to me when I was halfway through his column, and I immediately began taking notes for a (partial) rebuttal. No, I don't see other Objectivists tackling this issue, and you're right about their concerns about amnesty and Hispanics and so on. Just read a Front Page piece on how Somali students got into major set-to with black American students in Michigan. 300 or more students. Cops had to use mace to stop it. So, Mexicans, legal or illegal, aren't the only problem. And the gov't is deliberatley sprinkling Somalis all over the country, even in the Dakotas.

Grant Jones said...

Madmax, mega-dittos.

The shallowness of "official" Objectist writing on this topic never ceases to amaze me. They are like mainstream leftists in their egalitarian dogma that cultural differences don't matter. We're all the same, don't you know, except for food and clothing. Like the Marxists, they view human motivation as primarily economic in nature.

They can't fathom that Mexico is a third-world toilet because that is the political/social expression of their fundamental cultural values. Yet, according to the deep thinkers at ARI and elsewhere (all of whom consider themselves experts on economics) aggregates don't matter. Their militant rationalism is on full display in their "no borders" dogma.

jayeldee said...

"I think Greenfield [et al.--if I may] gives the Left too much credit for being clueless.... I am convinced that the Left's ignorance of the true nature of Islam is a front refined and tailored over recent decades ... disguising something much more insidious."

Very perceptive. I agree with you wholeheartedly (and with your following elaboration on the "insidious" character of what the Left's "front" is disguising). Cluelessness is, instead, largely the province of the Right, which tends to excuse or appease Islam precisely because it is, by their dim lights--"a religion." Of course, this notion is also part of the Left's front; but the Right really believes it to be an exonerating factor.

In the face of this false Left/Right alternative, where are we to turn for a short-term, political (read: military) solution? To a third party. (Fat chance? ... Probably. But I wager it's the only one we've got, in our lifetime.)

Neil Parille said...

Max,

On Ari Armstrong's blog he reposted his piece about the election and how the "xenophobic" Republicans were allegedly driving Hispanics away because of their anti-immigration views.

I posted the links to three National Review articles showing that Hispanics are liberals on most issues and that Republicans actually did worse among Hispanics after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. Armstrong promptly deleted my post even though it was quite polite.

Grant Jones said...

Neil, I had a similar experience at ARI's Laissez Faire blog. Instead of fostering a real intellectual discussion, comments were ended on the topic of immigration. It seems when certain persons' dogma are challenged, dishonest evasion is their only recourse.

http://capitalism.aynrand.org/ayn-rand-on-immigration/

Michael Smith said...

I'd like to ask those here who are objecting to "mainstream Objectivism's" immigration position three questions:

1)Can refute any portion of Harry Binswanger's Forbes article on immigration?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/02/03/anti-immigration-rhetoric-frighteningly-reveals-educations-failure/


2) Are you endorsing the notion that one (admittedly vast) violation of individual rights -- namely, the welfare state and all the looting required to support it -- justifies committing another vast violation of individual rights -- namely, the refusal to allow those unlucky enough to be born south of the Rio Grande to freely immigrate to U. S. territory?

3) Are you also thereby endorsing the collectivist notion of "group guilt", i.e. the notion that the possible future evil acts of some members of a group -- such as those 30 million Hispanics allegedly yearning to get here and turn the U.S. into Mexico -- justify violating the rights of all members of that group?

I recognize that there can be legitimate disputes about priorities and tactics in promoting Objectivism but our cause cannot possibly be helped by appearing to endorse any part of 2 or 3 above. Such notions are not part of Objectivism, “mainstream” or otherwise.

jayeldee said...

From Binswanger: "Even protecting our borders against terrorists, which would be legitimate if it could be done, is not the answer to terrorism. The answer is military action against terrorist-sponsoring states–especially Iran.... The threat that militant Islam poses to this country is real and urgent, but walls and airport inspections are not the answer. The answer is a government that uses its military for the protection of our rights, in self-defense."

Amen to that. Regarding Islam, the greatest enemy to our welfare is not "them," Islam: it is "us"--that is, it is the United States government, which (still) has the means to readily eradicate the threat Islam poses, but refuses to employ it (out of mixed motives, none of which are good). The greater enemy--the one that really matters--is already within our borders, long-entrenched.

Neil Parille said...

Grant,

According to open immigration Objectivists such as Binswagner and Hsieh, anyone should be free to move from country A to country B as long as he or she doesn't have a criminal record, a contagious disease or isn't a sworn enemy of B or a suspected terrorist.

Obviously the vast majority of people who would want to come to the US, Europe and Israel would be allowed in under such a policy.

Even Binswanger and Hsieh must realize that the end result of such a policy would be that countries such as Greece and Israel which have large Moslem neighbors would become Islamic in short order.

Even though the US might not become Islamic, it would be almost impossible to prevent would be terrorists into the US. Assume 50,000 men from a pro-Al Quaida province in Afghanistan or Pakistan want to come. According to Hsieh and Binswanger they should be let in, unless they are spotted on TV shouting "death to America" (not very likely).

Since Hsieh and Binswanger are nothing but consistent, they must believe that Israel's Law of Return and immigration policies are immoral, if not racist.

Neil Parille said...

Michael,

"Can refute any portion of Harry Binswanger's Forbes article on immigration?"

Yes, this is misleading if not false.

______________

Contrary to “accepted wisdom,” the data show that immigrants are less prone to crime than Americans. For instance, over one-fourth of the residents of El Paso, Texas are immigrants. But El Paso has about one-tenth the murder rate of Baltimore, a city of comparable size but with a far smaller immigrant population.

That’s not an anomaly:

“If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population,” says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. “If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you’re likely in one of the country’s safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso–these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they’re some of the safest places in the country.”

Criminals have a short-range, stay-in-the-’hood mentality. Immigrants are longer-range, ambitious, and want to earn money, not grab it.

__________

The largest group of immigrants is Hispanics. While there is some question as to whether Hispanic immigrants (those born in other countries)have higher crime rates, there is no doubt that Hispanics have higher crime rates. There are as many Hispanics in prison for murders as whites. Cities with long standing Hispanic immigrants such as Albuquerque have higher crime rates.

Bini is also wrong about immigrants being forward thinking and want to earn money and not take it is false. The recent proposition in California to raise the sales tax and taxes on the rich got overwhelming Hispanic support.

Over half of Hispanic families are headed by single mothers and they are more likely to be on welfare.

Neil Parille said...

JD,

_____

From Binswanger: "Even protecting our borders against terrorists, which would be legitimate if it could be done, is not the answer to terrorism. The answer is military action against terrorist-sponsoring states–especially Iran.... The threat that militant Islam poses to this country is real and urgent, but walls and airport inspections are not the answer. The answer is a government that uses its military for the protection of our rights, in self-defense."

Amen to that. Regarding Islam, the greatest enemy to our welfare is not "them," Islam: it is "us"--that is, it is the United States government, which (still) has the means to readily eradicate the threat Islam poses, but refuses to employ it (out of mixed motives, none of which are good). The greater enemy--the one that really matters--is already within our borders, long-entrenched.

_____

This shows how ridiculous Binswanger is. He supports a policy that would allow tens of millions of Moslems into our country. Then we go to war with Islamic states. What does Binswanger think all the Moslems in the US are going to do when we nuke Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Obviously they will become radicalized.

BTW, why does Binswanger think military action against Moslem states is the way to prevent terrorism in the US?

When the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in AD70 it didn't mean the end of Jewish resistance. They had another horrible war with the Jews in less than 70 years. I realize Binswanger doesn't like religion, but maybe he should do a little reading on the subject.

Let's remember, Binswanger supports an immigration policy that would have allowed the 9/11 terrorists into the US and thousands more. He wants to deflect from that fact. I won't let him.

jayeldee said...

NP,

“[Binswanger] supports a policy that would allow tens of millions of Moslems into our country.”

I wager that “tens of millions” of terrorists would not want to come here—IF they knew that the government had become serious about their eradication. Terrorists are bullies. Bullies are tamed by physical force (and sometimes, even only the credible threat of it). Were U.S. governments—Federal, State, and local—to actually get serious about Islam and its foreign and domestic henchmen, they would, in combination, have ample resources (some of which might, it’s true, have to be diverted from their wasteful and immoral “wars” on their smorgasbord of victimless crimes) to eradicate whichever bullies were stupid enough to relocate within the borders of their potent, mortal enemy. It would be like crawling into the jaws of a lion, which is alive and very well.

“Then we go to war with Islamic states.”

No—we don’t “go to war” with them. We eradicate them.

“What does Binswanger think all the Moslems in the US are going to do when we nuke Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Obviously they will become radicalized.”

“BECOME” “radicalized”?! They were that, from the get-go: modern Islamism is a vicious ideology. One can’t be a Muslim, without being “radical.” And again, I wager that, were the full force and fury of the U.S. defense apparatus to be unleashed on the nests of their terrorist states, most Muslims residing herein would be tamed—finally having been shown, as it were, the true face of God.

“….why does Binswanger think military action against Moslem states is the way to prevent terrorism in the US?”

I recently had wasps flying all over my garage. So I bought, and used, a can of poisonous spray—on the nest outside. No more wasps inside (or outside). (I admit the parallel isn’t precise, but you get the drift. I hope.)

“When the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in AD70 it didn't mean the end of Jewish resistance.”

Can’t use the parallel: by AD70, the decadent Romans were morally inferior to the Jews. Similarly, Muslims are (as yet) morally inferior to Westerners (even the Judeo-Christians amongst the latter—though in the case of that lot, not by much, I admit).

“….Binswanger supports an immigration policy that would have allowed the 9/11 terrorists into the US and thousands more.”

Doesn’t matter whether the terrorists are here or not—IF we get serious about eradicating them. (Indeed, a case could be made that such eradication is easier and cheaper, when the targets are actually underfoot—or rather, underboot. But the nests would still need eradicating—remember those wasps—and domestic “resources” would probably have to be diverted to the real, actual threats.) …. And there were, of course, many ways to accomplish the 9/11 atrocity that would not have depended upon residency.

Finally: “He [Binswanger] wants to deflect from that fact.”

What makes you say so? (How do you know what Binswanger “wants”?)

Neil Parille said...

JD,

Do you think Europe, the US or Israel should place any limits on the number of Moslems who can come?

jayeldee said...

NP,

"Do you think Europe, the US or Israel should place any limits on the number of Moslems who can come?"

No, of course not. The "limits" that should be "placed" should be on the behavior of the immigrants. Viz.--"If you violate rights, you will be prosecuted; perhaps imprisoned; perhaps executed." This policy would force our governments into actually protecting rights, rather than violating them.

jayeldee said...

To clarify my “stance”: if it were a crime to harbor thoughts—thoughts—of disposing of the modern United States of America, I myself should long ago have been summarily deported, imprisoned, or executed. Believe-you-me, the most perverse imaginings of the camel jockeys and diaperheads can’t even remotely approach mine, in terms of imagined, targeted violence. But if I in fact “should have been” deported, executed, or imprisoned—for my thoughts alone (bred largely, but by no means entirely, of an ideology)—it would not matter a jot to me: it would only be proof positive that this is no longer a country fit for civilized habitation, nor a nation worthy of its own survival.

And to repeat, also for clarity's sake: the Islamic dictatorships (or, for the matter of that—North Korea, China, Russia, you-name-it) are NOT our primary enemy. That dubious distinction belongs solely to the governments of the U.S.A.: it is THOSE entities that constitute the primary, most deadly, enemy of the U.S.A. And it is THOSE entities that stand in dire need of wholesale reformation (or removal and replacement, as required) …. By comparison, the diapered Muslims are candy asses.

Michael Smith said...

Neil Parille:

Posting unsupported claims regarding immigrants and crime does not constitute a refutation of what Dr. Binswanger wrote – it proves that you disagree, not that Binswanger is wrong.

But the more important points are the ones raised by my questions 2 and 3. I gather from your silence on those questions that you do believe that one wrong can justify the commission of another wrong – and that the guilt of some group members justifies the punishment of the innocent group members.

Is it really necessary to point out that two wrongs don’t make a right? That punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the very definition of injustice? And that nothing can justify an injustice? I find it difficult to believe that you think otherwise……

Grant Jones said...

Michael, it's all been said before. Bruce Thornton has posted today an article dealing with most of Binswanger's factual errors. Neither Binswanger's mistaken factoids nor Thornton's corrections are anything new.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/half-truths-delusions-and-immigration/

jayeldee said...

Grant Jones--I read Thornton's piece twice, and must say it's of little use; it's really just a disintegrated collection of journalistic concretes that never rises to the level of principle. And how can it possibly refute (or even “relate to”) what I take to be one—if not “the”—central principle of Binswanger’s cogent argument, as stated in these two consecutive paragraphs:

‘The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: “This is our country, we decide whom to let in.” But who is “we”? Is it the government? The government does not own the country. Government jurisdiction–yes; government ownership–no. Only the private owner of land or any item of property may decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

‘American land is not collective property. The claim that “we” have the right to decide who is allowed in means that some citizens–those in the group with the most votes–claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.’

{And THERE's a sentence worth repeating: "The government does not own the country.")

Edward Cline said...

Gentlemen: Before immigration became a political football, virtually the only control the government had on immigration was the detection and containment of communicable diseases. And, frankly, anyone who is a Muslim is a risk. Examine the ideology. It allows no disagreement or talk-back. The country is still experiencing the consequences of allowing communists into the country during the rise of Nazism, and their excuse was chiefly because they were Jews. They settled in academia and in Hollywood. I have nothing against Jews, but the ideology these individuals brought with them shouldn’t have been welcomed. There was nothing we could do about it, because our own commitment to liberty was being corrupted and suborned, and that manifested that this happened during the Roosevelt era, between 1933 and 1945. Since then, especially with the rise of the welfare state in the 1960's, immigration because a policy issue, and quotas began to be imposed, quotas based on race and national origin. So, sit back and kick that information around a while.

Edward Cline said...

Gentlemen: Here's a repost. Before immigration became a political football, virtually the only control the government had on immigration was the detection and containment of communicable diseases. And, frankly, anyone who is a Muslim is a risk. Examine the ideology. It allows no disagreement or talk-back. It is totalitarian and there's no "reforming" it. Offer me an example of a "reformed" Nazism. The country is still experiencing the consequences of allowing communists into the country during the rise of Nazism, and their excuse was chiefly because they were Jews. They settled in academia and in Hollywood. I have nothing against Jews, but the ideology these individuals brought with them shouldn’t have been welcomed. There was nothing we could do about it, because our own commitment to liberty was being corrupted and suborned, and this happened during the Roosevelt era, between 1933 and 1945. Since then, especially with the rise of the welfare state in the 1960's, immigration because a policy issue, and quotas began to be imposed, quotas based on race and national origin. So, sit back and kick that information around a while. Otherwise, I'm out of this discussion.

Grant Jones said...

Jayeldee, “The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: “This is our country, we decide whom to let in.””

That premise is absolutely correct. In a certain context the American people does “own” the country. And, it’s the only context that matters. I refer, of course, to Westphalia Sovereignty. The American people as a political community have every right to determine what government actions are in their self-interest and then to have their government pursue such policies. Such policies include the absolute right to decide who and what crosses the international frontier and enters American territory. Your and Binswanger’s main problem is with the nation-state as a sovereign political entity. If you or he believes the nation state is an invalid “collectivist” concept, then make that argument. Be forewarned that by doing so you will only demonstrate your total detachment from reality.

John Quincy Adams wrote, “She [the United States] is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” His meaning should be clear. The rights of foreign nationals are not the problem of the American people or their government. The protection of the liberty of the American people is the only concern of our government. That liberty requires the maintenance of American national sovereignty. Such sovereignty requires limiting immigration to only those who will become Americans and who will never pose a threat as a fifth-column or as a stalking horse for hostile foreign powers.

One of the more idiotic things Binswanger said in his Forbes article follows, “Hordes of immigrants would come to overcrowd America, you say? Okay, take a really extreme scenario. Imagine that half of the population of the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population–from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. The result?” The death of American cultural identity and the American sense of life, with the country transformed into a Balkanized chaos of warring ethnic tribes. I sometimes quip that the no-borders crowd would have no problem with the entire, barbaric population of Pakistan invading, oops, immigrating into the United States. If they actually mean such, then their rationalistic detachment from reality is complete.

Apparently unlike Binswanger, I understand the uniqueness of American culture and its sense of life. Immigrants, with rare exception, do not arrive here possessing either. Those values must be learned and assimilated, while the irrational values of their homeland must be eradicated. The process of assimilation takes time and a healthy American culture for them to learn from. This is why immigration rates must be held down to a level where such assimilation can occur as quickly as possible. As Thornton noted, fully 75% of Mexican legal immigrants support President Hussein’s destruction of America. They don’t know any better. And, all the baseless pieties of the Binswangers won’t change the facts.

Grant Jones said...

P.S. Good point, Ed. The Frankfurt School vermin accepted American hospitality and responded with plots to co-opt American culture in order to speed the nation's destruction. Such garbage should be immediately deported.

Neil Parille said...

Grant,

Has Harry Binswanger ever been asked (and responded to) the obvious question of what he thinks the consequences of the USA and Israel adopting "open immigration" might be?

Edward Cline said...

Grant: Good response. I would've posed the question, re your remark about Pakistanis moving here: Why would Pakistanis move here in such numbers? Are they tired of being Pakistanis? Is there something wrong with Pakistan that their citizens would move here in such numbers? And if they moved here, would they all begin to study American history, memorize Patrick Henry's give-me-death speech, become conversant in the Federalist Papers, and repudiate Islam?


But if they move here and spit on American history, call Henry a raciest, piss on the Federalist Papers, and remain loyal to Islam, and at the same time insist that Sharia law is coequal with the Constitution, or superior to it, and that Americans must adapt to them and their religion/ideology, and not the other way around -- would that not constitute an invasion? And "invasion" is precisely what our own government has been sanctioning and encouraging for decades, one governed by the preferential quotas established by policymakers, quotas based on race and national origin.


As for their moving here en masse to find a better life and better economic conditions – that motive can't be questioned, except that they think they'd move here expecting that the prosperity would magically continue and it not occur to them that their primitive culture and religion, which they'd want to preserve, are precisely what impoverishes Pakistan and Egypt and Somalia and Mexico and will continue to impoverish those countries and leave them in states of fetid stagnation. They're as ignorant as our policymakers.


But some of our policymakers aren't so ignorant. Like Obama, they're nihilists, out to destroy the country because it is the good. They don't know how to create. But they have expert advisors who guide them in the policies of destruction.


It's the government that practices discrimination and racism. And it's the policymakers behind that practice who welcome "huddled masses" of their choice with the intention of keeping them huddled and grateful to them as dependents on government favors. They are expected to vote welfare and controls and soaking the rich and middle class every time, and they don't disappoint. Ted Kennedy was one of the worst racist policymakers (aside from his wanting to impose socialized medicine on the country, together with the Clintons and Obama and their predecessors going back decades). Ted Kennedy thought the country was "too white, too European." That is the premise of the Clintons and the Obamas, as well, not to mention many others in government. Who are the racists here?

There must be a better solution to the immigration question than just letting everyone in, and I don’t see it being addressed here, except by a few individuals. And when they raise the realistic quandaries we have been put in by the government, they're attacked.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Comparing Baltimore to El Paso is somewhat of an unbalanced comparison if the argument is about immigration.

A better comparison might be Fargo to El Paso.

jayeldee said...

Gentlemen (and Ladies, as applicable): “Realistic quandaries” is right.

I’m far from bowing out of the discussion—but have only time and inclination at the moment to reiterate where immigration controls, of the sort being bandied about here, will leave us:

If I find a buyer for my home, to complete the transaction I will have to ask one or more of the governments that have jurisdiction over me to validate the ethnicity, the political persuasion, the moral convictions, and perhaps even the personal (as opposed to merely the criminal) history, of the potential purchaser. And I will have to delay the transaction until the investigation is complete—to the satisfaction of whichever bureaucrats have jurisdiction over me. (Or, to expedite the process, perhaps Official Validation Certificates could be sought by and awarded to potential purchasers, in advance—issued by whichever bureaucracies are salient to the transaction [or to my existence, as such]?)

Is that what we want? Would the resulting country be worth inhabiting and defending?

Or consider: by the reasoning proffered here, it would seem that, if I am already a citizen—but develop an “interest” in ideologies (such as, say, Communism, or Islamism) that advocate the abolition of my home country, I would be subject to deportation or incarceration (or execution?), solely on the basis of that “interest.” And suppose, just suppose, that the “interest” I develop were to be in an ideology that advocates the abolition of 9/10’s of the existing bureaucracies—and even, under certain extreme circumstances [which are, by every current indication, coming to seem less and less “extreme,” as the days drop dead] justifies the use of physical force to accomplish it? That might well also justify my deportation, incarceration, or execution, mightn’t it.

Is that what we want? Would the resulting country be worth inhabiting and defending?

For now, I conclude that, while free immigration might well destroy what little is left of this country—preventing it, will surely destroy it. (Is that what we want?) … (There are days, I will admit, when my own answer to that question is: “Perhaps.”)

carlwk3c said...

Your comments on the left and the Nazis make it sound like the Nazis were "right wing". They were NOT. The Nazis were national SOCIALISTS.
The only reason Hitler and Stalin didn't love each other was that neither was willing to share world domination with the other,
Mussolini's Fascists were also leftists. Hitler got along with Mussolini as long as he was a useful idiot. When he began to lose his utility, Hitler dumped him.
McCarthy was proven right. There WERE a lot of communist spies in the government. It was proven just a few years ago with the declassification of the Venona Prohect,
The leftist today, who are useful idiots for the elite of the banking cartels, are unwilling to share world domination with the Muslims. The Muslims were allied with Hitler during WWII, but also eventually became unnecessary toHitler and fell by the wayside.
Today's "war on terror" has a LOF of parallels with The Hitler/Stalin struggle. Today, it's the left vs. the Muslims, struggling for world domination. (The establishment rinos are just for show ... Both D's and "R"s are statists and work for e same puppet masters,

jayeldee said...

Grant Jones: (Sorry, can't resist one more followup just now.) Re your "The American people as a political community have every right to determine what government actions are in their self-interest and then to have their government pursue such policies" .... Yes, that "right" is currently sanctioned. That's what makes us a "democracy." (And--is that what we want?)

carlwk3c said...

All of the talk in this thread to the effect that "people have the 'right' to come here to the US" is pure bullshit. There is no such "right".
And people that come here illegally should have ABSOLUTELY NO rights, other than the right to be arrested and deported.

Grant Jones said...

As Ed wrote elsewhere, there are different types of invasion. Not all invasions involved modern, Western armies marching in with flags flying.

Burma is enduring a form of aggression from Bangladesh. Large numbers of Moslems are invading Burmese territory. They've been doing that for 1400 years. Such "ghazi" serve as the first wave of invasion by softening up the target. Of course, the media trumpets the invaders as victims when the Burmese attempt to defend themselves. And now the OIC is threatening military action to force Burma to accept the Moslem colonizers.

http://sheikyermami.com/2012/10/29/burmese-fight-back-bengali-islamic-invasion-goes-up-in-smoke/

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/10/more-on-the-burmese-problem-with-muslim-bengali-hegemony.html

http://hlaoo1980.blogspot.com/2012/10/troubles-in-arakan-1949-british.html#more

Remember the first law of Islam: wherever Moslems achieve a significant percentage of the population, vicious suppression of non-Moslems will follow as night follows day. Sorry, reality just doesn't conform to the no-borders crowd's abstractions. I'll go with reality.

madmax said...

Or consider: by the reasoning proffered here, it would seem that, if I am already a citizen—but develop an “interest” in ideologies (such as, say, Communism, or Islamism) that advocate the abolition of my home country, I would be subject to deportation or incarceration (or execution?), solely on the basis of that “interest.” And suppose, just suppose, that the “interest” I develop were to be in an ideology that advocates the abolition of 9/10’s of the existing bureaucracies—and even, under certain extreme circumstances [which are, by every current indication, coming to seem less and less “extreme,” as the days drop dead] justifies the use of physical force to accomplish it? That might well also justify my deportation, incarceration, or execution, mightn’t it.

This is slippery slope garbage. "Islamism" is a bullshit term. Islam is what we are at war with. Scrap the weasel words like "Islamism". Islam and Communism are MILITARY/POLITICAL movement. If you subscribe to them then you are advocating the use of force for the conquest of America. On those grounds alone you should be deported. But as Grant has stated. If you are A Muslim or a Communist, you are in essence part of a FIFTH COLUMN the goal of which is the conquest and transformation of America. You don't have the right to do that.

THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE!!! Jesus, mainstream Objectivists are as suicidally delusional as Leftists. When I read the comments of Ed or Grant or Neil I feel that I am reading the comments of mature, mindful people. When I read the comments of everyone else, its like reading the comments of ignorant children. Sadly, Objectivism while a great philosophy has not produced a mature movement. Its still populated by petulant little children who have no clue about the real world.

madmax said...

Part 1

Immigration is a very complicated subject. Objectivism should NOT make it a primary or featured subject for its advocacy. In today's context, i.e. a Leftist ideological state with a criminal organization (the Democrats) running the country who actively want to transform the country (which means to destroy it), open immigration is a suicide pact. Muslims should be banned. Hispanics should be radically limited. All non-whites should be radically limited.

Why? Because if the country loses its white majority the Republicans will NEVER win another major election. The Left will have TOTAL power. The country will be lost. THE AMERICA OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WILL BE DEAD. Good luck trying to spread Objectivism then.

Under ideal circumstance, i.e. laissez faire, what would the immigration policy be? I don't know. But even there, I think Grant is right. Aggregates matter. And when an immigrant group comes here they will bring their social/cultural/political culture with them. That must be addressed in any sound immigration policy.

I can't EVER see allowing Muslims to enter, unless Islam undergoes some radical transformation. It hasn't happened in 14 centuries so I don't hold out much hope for that now. Regarding non-whites, IMO the country should have been firmly laissez faire first and true liberty should have been internalized. And of course the battle with the Left should have been won and NO government schools allowed to exist. Under those circumstances, a multi-racial society could have incrementally and GRADUALLY been allowed to develop Burkean style (and I know Burke was a Conservative).

But the way the Left (and cowardly Republicans like Reagan) allowed non-Europeans to INVADE the US since the 1964 immigration platform (spearheaded by that fat repulsive Leftist Ted Kennedy) has RADICALLY altered the landscape of America. So much so that it is a very real possibility that the DEMONCRATS will never lose another election. As shitty as the Republicans are, they are the only hope to stop the Leftist destruction of America. YOU WILL NEVER TRANSFORM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. EVER!! Your only hope is to transform the Republicans and Muslims, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, basically all non-whites will NOT vote Republican in any significant way. The Democrats have CLIENT GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THEM FOREVER. Not to know that is to confess total fucking ignorance; i.e. Binswanger (Jesus was an MIT education ever wasted on him).

madmax said...

Part 2

Tell all that to those mental midgets "Dr. Diana Hsieh" or Ari Armstrong or Craig Biddle or basically any mainstream Objectivist essay writer (there are some exceptions). These fools are still bitching and moaning against Conservatives and some imagined "imminent Christian theocracy". THAT IS NOT REALITY FOCUSED.

Organized Objectivism should focus on rejecting altruism, ending the welfare state, ending the regulatory sate, ending central banking, ending public education, championing a secular value oriented philosophy as opposed to today's Leftist nihilists. It should NOT be getting into the immigration debate b/c it is way too complicated and NO ONE knows what a laissez faire immigration policy would even look like. Its too early.

But as I keep saying. The Objectivist movement is immature and it has no quality leaders. Men like Binswanger are an EMBARRASSMENT. I love Rand and her philosophy. But I cringe at the Objectivist movement. Right now, the only mature, sensible people fighting the Left are the better Conservatives. Objectivism is doing diddly to effect any meaningful change. Organized Objectivism and essentially all Objectivists still use terms like "Islamist" or "Totalitarian Islam". Any movement that doesn't have the smarts or the guts to say that ISLAM IS EVIL is too fucking cowardly to warrant respect. The day that ARI or any of its affiliates explicitly declares both the Left and Islam to be evil is the day I'll take them seriously. I shouldn't hold my breath.

Yes, there was alot of venom in this post. Its warranted.

Edward Cline said...

Mad Max: Just a note, re your statement – "I can't EVER see allowing Muslims to enter, unless Islam undergoes some radical transformation. It hasn't happened in 14 centuries so I don't hold out much hope for that now…." I've written here on RoR and elsewhere, as you probably well know, that Islam can't be reformed in any meaningful way and still remain "Islam." It would require discarding and repudiating about 95% of its doctrine and scripture. What would be left wouldn't be the Islam so many Borg-head ciphers know and love. However, ditto your other comments, but without the language or bitterness.

jayeldee said...

Within the context at issue, all anti-immigrationists are making two unwarranted assumptions:

1) That Islam is more potent than any force (whether it be an ideology or an organized resistance) that opposes it, and that it will emerge as dominant—that it will win the day, and never suffer defeat—wherever and whenever an attempt is made to impose it.

2) That most or all immigrants are merely irredeemable products of their native culture—that they are, essentially, bereft of volition. (But at the same time, it is bizarrely assumed that any “new,” foreign culture will have no meaningful impact on them.)

Each of these premises is invalid and unwarranted (and the second is, of course, self-contradictory).

(And though it is rather beside the point, both premises are probably what undergird the air of unbridled malice that is prevalent amongst the anti-immigrationists. Regarding this, it would behoove those whom the shoe fits to realize that malevolence is no sign of “maturity.” It's quite the opposite, isn't it.)

madmax said...

1) That Islam is more potent than any force (whether it be an ideology or an organized resistance) that opposes it, and that it will emerge as dominant—that it will win the day, and never suffer defeat—wherever and whenever an attempt is made to impose it.

This is insane to me. What you are saying is despite what we know to be true when Muslims enter ANY nation, lets fight a war to win them over and suffer the consequences. Let's SUFFER to show how noble we are. Jeez, I never knew Objectivism was the new Christianity.

2) That most or all immigrants are merely irredeemable products of their native culture—that they are, essentially, bereft of volition. (But at the same time, it is bizarrely assumed that any “new,” foreign culture will have no meaningful impact on them.)

Jesus, will this garbage never end? Look, AGGREGATES MATTER. I'm not denying free will. What I am saying (and Grant has said better than me) is that CULTURE MATTERS. Muslims come from a culture steeped in Islam (which means hatred and violence) and tribalism (due to inter cousin marriage which is endemic in the Muslim world). As a result Muslims INTERNALIZE a belief system that STAYS WITH THEM FOREVER and is in fact ENCOURAGED BY THE LEFT.

But my argument to ban Islam is based on it being a military movement. So volition is not relevant. Why? Because to even call yourself a Muslim means you HAVE VOLITIONALY CHOSEN TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO THE MILITARY MOVEMENT OF ISLAM.

Once again we see Objectivists treating Objectivism and the Constitution as a suicide pact. And with moral righteousness too.

And though it is rather beside the point, both premises are probably what undergird the air of unbridled malice that is prevalent amongst the anti-immigrationists.

Or maybe it is just the case that there are those of us who love the best element of the West and understand that immigration is THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT TO LIBERTY IN EXISTENCE. History is clear on this. There needs to be certain conditions met in a culture or immigration is not a positive but a negative. In our present LEFTIST MULTICULTURALIST EGALITARIAN WELFARE STATE, immigration is DANGEROUS. For all the reasons that Grant and I have stated. If your skin is so god damn thin that you have to ascribe "malice" to anyone who disagrees with you, then you are weak and useless in the battle for liberty.

Sorry Ed, but I do have bitterness towards the Objectivist movement. Maybe its not justified, but I HATE weakness. And the mainstream Objectivist movement strikes me as weak and pathetic. As much as I hate Islam, you have to give Muslims credit. They want to conquer the entire earth and subject everyone to Islamic rule. They will kill, lie, subjugate EVERYONE who does not agree with them. Yet, the do this with total pride and righteousness. They are evil but they are strong and proud. Objectivists have morality on their side but they are timed, cowardly and weak.

Rand.Would.Spit.

jayeldee said...

You are just barely worthy of any reply; but since it is “just barely” (and not “not”)—I shall. (Without bothering, however, to “[sic]” any of your sloppiness, nor respond to any of your plenitude of ad hominems.)

“What you are saying is despite what we know to be true when Muslims enter ANY nation, lets fight a war to win them over and suffer the consequences. Let's SUFFER to show how noble we are.”

If you bothered to read any of my previous posts here, you would know full well that that’s certainly NOT my point. We should annihilate the Islamic dictatorships (or any other state that harbors terrorists en masse). That is not to “win them over.” It is to bury them. (I daresay, however, that such uncompromising action would certainly “win over” more than a few of the few survivors.) And we still have the means readily available to accomplish that feat…. Israel is a pretty good example of what happens when a country that possesses the means to a “full resolution” refuses to employ it—but opts, instead, for half-measures: like immigration controls, spies, walls, loyalty oaths, and the like. It merely postpones the inevitable—while, in the meantime, its population awaits, during moments of crises with bated breath, the next horrific atrocity, all the while hoping beyond hope that their government will protect them on the spur of the moment, somehow, just this one more time. If no crises seem to be looming, everyone tends to relax—boarding the buses, populating the cafes, and so on. Meanwhile, their enemies are fully aware that Israel has hamstrung itself….. Whereupon—well, we all know the horrific, periodic results…. And the U.S. government is even more clueless than that of Israel; to entrust it with an endless maze of bureaucratic controls and barriers (all ineptly administered, of that we can be certain)—and so avoid the requisite military action and encourage the resident population to reduce or let down its guard—would be, in my view, the height of folly.

jayeldee said...

“… AGGREGATES MATTER. I'm not denying free will. What I am saying … is that CULTURE MATTERS. Muslims come from a culture steeped in Islam (which means hatred and violence) and tribalism…. As a result Muslims INTERNALIZE a belief system that STAYS WITH THEM FOREVER and is in fact ENCOURAGED BY THE LEFT.”

Yes, “cultures matter”—as do “aggregates.” And owing, precisely, to the fact that those hateful cultures do exist in the form of “aggregates,” the solution I’ve referred to above is rather obvious, isn’t it. And you ARE “denying free will.” You assert that it exists, alright—but that it becomes moot in the face of extreme cultural forces. That is simply not so; all of the Muslims, to a man (and woman), know quite well what they are about, and they are quite capable of change. (But that doesn’t mean that I think we should rely upon their volition, for our own sake: it takes time to adopt new premises, after all—and by every indication, we haven’t the time to allow for it. We may in fact have much less time than any of us think.)

“But my argument to ban Islam is based on it being a military movement. So volition is not relevant. Why? Because to even call yourself a Muslim means you HAVE VOLITIONALY CHOSEN TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO THE MILITARY MOVEMENT OF ISLAM.”

Do you even hear what you’re saying? You want to “ban” a “military movement”? A “military”?—a military that is, as it were, “on the move”? You think that’s a solution? Such “movements” aren’t subject to “banning”: they must be physically destroyed, at their root…. And “swearing,” by the way, does not eradicate volition. (There is, for one trite example, an act known as perjury, which is quite volitional.)

jayeldee said...

“…. immigration is THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT TO LIBERTY IN EXISTENCE. History is clear on this. There needs to be certain conditions met in a culture or immigration is not a positive but a negative. In our present LEFTIST MULTICULTURALIST EGALITARIAN WELFARE STATE, immigration is DANGEROUS.”

No, the most dangerous existential threat to our liberty is already here, well-entrenched: it is the United States Government—the very agent you wish to entrust with … immigration controls. I, on the contrary, wish to “entrust” it only with the destruction of our foreign enemies: and it has shown itself, even with its many arms restrained, to be far more adept in that line than at the task of “managing” immigration (or of, literally, any other action that does not entail immediate direction by military personnel). Moreover, it is fully equipped to accomplish the requisite destruction. But it’s woefully equipped to “ban” the immigration of peoples it deems, on its own twisted and precarious standards, to be dangerous; and I can’t see it ever becoming adequately “equipped.” Moreover, it’s not even the government’s proper business. (See: Binswanger--et al.) But militarily—it is (as yet) adequately equipped—and that is its proper business.

“If your skin is so god damn thin that you have to ascribe ‘malice’ to anyone who disagrees with you, then you are weak and useless in the battle for liberty.”

Okay, I’m backtracking on my promise not to reply to your more obvious inanities—of which, this is one. My perception of malice is hardly dependent upon “disagreement.” I rather like disagreement, as it stimulates thinking, somewhat. But in your case.… Well: I suggest you record your own copy on an audio device, then go sit in a dark room—and listen. Carefully. See if you sound confident, proud, and—if not benevolent (I am sure that would be asking too much), at least free of malice…. Of course, you actually sound to my ears like a hateful, raving lunatic—which I’m sure is your intent. But sounding like an enraged thug does nothing whatsoever for your “argument,” and convinces no one of anything (other than the obvious). In fact, you are nearly as much a victim of Islam as those that have perished in its manifold atrocities. It has you quite where it wants you: cowering, fearful, and pleading with your own corrupt government to somehow save you—with more bureaucracy. That is no answer. And you are a fool to think that it is.

Grant Jones said...

The evidence of what happens when Moslems invade a previously non-Moslem territory is overwhelming. The news coming from Europe leaves no question that it IS an invasion. There can also be no doubt that such cleansing and oppression of non-Moslems is the result of Koranic injunctions. Therefore, those who still argue that Moslems have the "right" to invade and destroy civilized communities are dishonest evaders. I don't see any other alternative to their refusal to face facts.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/europe-a-continent-in-flight/

jayeldee said...

Grant Jones: The real enemy is not Islam—it is those governments that cannot or will not defend the rights of their own citizens. Any country that has collapsed to that level (or that never ascended to it) will not, and should not, survive—Islam or not. And to expect the government of such a country to “control,” or to be able to control, the influx of terrorists and thugs constitutes, in itself, an evasion of reality. Bureaucratic controls instituted by governments that do not recognize rights in the first place will either be ineffectively and unjustly administered, or, more likely, will convert the country at issue into a racist totalitarian state—into, that is, some rough equivalent of Islam.

And even such controls that can be more-or-less effectively instituted by “the better governments” (of which, that of the U.S. is still one—as yet) only postpone the real cure—and simultaneously advance the state toward full-fledged totalitarianism, through control of both private property and the movement of whole peoples, including the innocents among them.

No: the only moral and practical answer to Islam is massive physical force, directed at the nests—the points of origin—of the actual/potential terrorists; and, in the meantime—while awaiting the benefits of that destruction to accrue—the fierce and consistent defense of rights within the borders of non-Islamic countries. (I’m not familiar enough with FrontPage to know whether they have the courage and perspective to consistently champion the destruction of the Islamic states—or whether they instead advocate the suicidal policies of the “non-interventionists.” Perhaps those more familiar with the site can enlighten me, on that score.) Absenting the necessary military action and the requisite domestic defense of rights, citizens of such countries must either flee, or rely on their own devices—meaning, their own weapons. Enter the Second Amendment…. As one “Drakken” remarks, in the “Comments” section of the FrontPage piece to which you link: “The muslims are sowing the seeds of their own destruction,once this war kicks off and make no doubt it will, it will be open season on every muslim with no bag limit, leftist who chose to interfere will be met with the same fate. You can take that to the bank.”

Islam does of course contain “the seeds of its own destruction”—as is true of all evil, anti-human ideologies and movements. And while we really shouldn’t wait for those seeds to germinate, all indications are, currently, that we will…. Keep your powder (and plenty of it)—dry.

madmax said...

In answer to jayeldee:

1) re devastating war - I have no problem with devastating large sections of the Muslim world if it were necessary. However I don't think it is necessary and it is an unnecessary waste of life. The main problem with the ARI style analysis of the Islam problem is that they treat it as purely a military problem. That is wrong. IT IS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. If there were no Muslims in America there would have been no 9/11.

Its ironic that jayeldee calls me a raving lunatic when my system would call for the isolation and containment of Muslims in Muslim lands with no involvement with them. They could pray and honor kill themselves to their heart's content. But they would have no contact with us. But jayeldee's war approach would have us kill millions of people when it is not necessary if Islam were banned from Western nations. So the simple solution of banning the death cult known as Islam, deporting its mindless masses and quarantineing it to its historic lands is called insane but waging a needless war of destruction and killing tens of millions is called sane. OK.

2) re military movement - Yes, Islam is a military movement. And yes, it could easily be banned. How many Muslims were there in America in the 19th century? Banning Islam does not mean banning the religion in the world. IT MEANS BANNING THE RELIGION IN AMERICA! But understand what is meant by this. MUSLIMS IN AMERICA ARE A FIFTH COLUMN. I'm not interested in bullshit discussions of "determinism" (the Objectivist substitute term for the Left's "racism"). I'm interested in preventing the growth of a population that WILL foment for Sharia and Jihad WHEN THEY ARE LARGE ENOUGH. And with idiots like Binswanger encouraging mass immigration from every shithole country in the world so his "real estate value could increase" the reality is that Muslims would be agitating for Shari dominance in no time flat. This is fucking common sense. But I realize for a mainstream Objectivist that is difficult.

The main problem with jayeldee's approach to Objectivism is that it denies the reality of the cultural impacts of immigration. It has the egalitarian view that all people are the same deep down and if you put them in the same geographical territory all will be alright so long as there is a free market. This is delusional on so many levels.

Grant Jones said...

Madmax:

Now I get it, foreigners have an absolute right to immigrate into America and the West. Not to allow Mohammedans to invade and take over is a violation of their rights. "Rights" as interpreted by ARI are a suicide pact.

On the other hand, it is not a violation of the rights of foreigners to carpet bomb/nuke their cities and exterminate them by the tens of millions. Because that's what it will take. And even then, there's no guarantee that such military action would end the jihad or stealth jihad in the West. Nor, is it explained how such a foreign policy would ever come to pass with an active fifth-column pulling strings in Washington.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. While just quarantining the dar al-Islam is "lunatic."

Madmax, you're right about how painfully shallow the official Objectivist movement is on the topic of immigration and culture. They would do well to read the books of Thomas Sowell and others on this topic. But for rationalists, reality is that which conforms to their abstractions. Peikoff wrote somewhere that rationalists cannot prioritized. Since, all floating abstractions carry the same weight, rationalists cannot have a hierarchy of values and are unable to integrate. We see this on the immigration and Moslem issue in spades.

jayeldee said...

In answer to “madmax”:

“The main problem with the ARI style analysis of the Islam problem is that they treat it as purely a military problem. That is wrong. IT IS AN IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. If there were no Muslims in America there would have been no 9/11.”

But it IS a “military problem.” You yourself described Islam as a “military movement.” (In fact, there you go again—in your point 2, here.) Which is about right—except, I would call it “quasi-military,” as the diaperheads are not that organized (yet), nor do they have coordinated access to sophisticated armies and technology, as such (yet). Let’s nip ‘em in the bud, then—before they do. Why wait? …. And, as I have already remarked, there were ways—and still are—to accomplish a 9/11, that did not depend upon residency. That another 9/11 has not occurred is probably only testament to the camel jockeys’ primitive means, disorganization, and low-grade conceptual capacity. Let’s keep it that way—and eliminate their nests, and whatever potential they might possess—right now. RIGHT now. Time’s a-wasting.

“Its ironic that jayeldee calls me a raving lunatic when my system would call for the isolation and containment of Muslims in Muslim lands with no involvement with them. They could pray and honor kill themselves to their heart's content. But they would have no contact with us. But jayeldee's war approach would have us kill millions of people when it is not necessary if Islam were banned from Western nations. So the simple solution of banning the death cult known as Islam, deporting its mindless masses and quarantineing it to its historic lands is called insane but waging a needless war of destruction and killing tens of millions is called sane.”

I don’t believe you can “ban” an evil that is willing and eager to employ means of catastrophic physical aggression: it should be destroyed—the source of it should be—if the means are available; which, to us in the U.S., they are. There’s nothing “lunatic” about that; it’s merely common sense. Do you really think that the terrorist Islamics are going to “respect” a “ban” on them? (“Oh, okay—now we see: they don’t want us there; well, okay then, we’ll leave them alone.”) Of course not: no more than a psychopath will respect a “ban” on “assault weapons.” And we needn’t “wage a war”—nor would I consider it advisable. That would be a waste of our lives and money. I’m not in favor of a “conventional” war, by any means. “Millions of people” will, however, certainly have to go—of that there is no doubt: that is the reality of “unconventional” war—and, as well, the means to our own long-term preservation as a (more-or-less) free people. But time’s a-wasting.

jayeldee said...

In answer to “madmax” [continued]:

“I'm not interested in … discussions of ‘determinism’….I’m interested in preventing the growth of a population that WILL foment for Sharia and Jihad WHEN THEY ARE LARGE ENOUGH.”

The answer to that conundrum is not “banning” thoughts in people’s heads, nor in establishing new bureaucratic procedures. And moreover: do you really have so little confidence in what I presume (perhaps inadvisably) are your own convictions—that they will not emerge triumphant, in a war of ideas and persuasion, over those of the subhuman? This is what I find most amazing of all: you—and your ilk—are attributing enormous intellectual and moral efficacy to a band—okay, an overwhelming swarm—of primitive diaperheads and camel jockeys, that “believe in” ghosts and robed prophets. That’s truly amazing to me. If this is the world we now inhabit—if such lowly vermin are now so utterly invincible and potent—is it a world, then, that’s even worth inhabiting and defending?! (And if so—why?)

… And you really ought to get over your apparent obsession with “the Objectivist movement,” and “official Objectivism.” There IS no “movement”—nor should there be; and what’s “official,” or not, is of no import whatsoever. There are only individual minds: you have one, and I have one; and there’s only reality—one reality—and truth and falsity; and that’s all that matters. (Ayn Rand only got suckered into her pathetic, parasitic “collective” out of her superhuman benevolence and innocence …—and her enormous loneliness. Had she it to do over again, I wager she’d have taken a different course. Well, live and learn—sometimes too late.) For myself—FWIW—I don’t “follow” ARI, in the slightest; I’ve really no idea what they’re up to (or down to)—and I don’t care (since I’m not a donor). I seldom look at Biddle’s site, and almost never at Hsieh’s. What “official Objectivism” is saying, I’ve no idea whatsoever; and I don’t care an iota. I only care about what’s true; and I’ve a mind—and reality—to determine it. And so do you. Use it, and forget the “officials.”

jayeldee said...

"... there's no guarantee that such military action would end the jihad or stealth jihad in the West. Nor, is it explained how such a foreign policy would ever come to pass with an active fifth-column pulling strings in Washington."

No, there is no "guarantee"--not with extermination, nor with immigration "controls." There is NEVER "a guarantee." Would that there were: reality, however, simply won't oblige. But the point is--we can't "control" immigration without violating rights, and there's precious little reason to think that such "control" would be effective, anyway--or effectively administered by the leftists (or rightists) in Washington. But we DO know that we have the capacity to eradicate the Islamic dictatorships, almost no matter how incompetent are our ruling politicians. Even if the unconventional assaults aren't fully effective in achieving our objective to be left alone, at least our world would be rid of the terrorists' nests. (And if this "solution" seems extreme to YOU--just imagine how the surviving camel jockeys would view it. I'm damnably sure we'd have them thinking twice--to put it mildly.)