tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post6899084141691481301..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Clueless Left and IslamUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-24893218460785885592016-12-10T07:35:47.822-05:002016-12-10T07:35:47.822-05:00HOT CAM MODELS NEEDED!
GENERATE UP TO $10,000 EVER...<b>HOT CAM MODELS NEEDED!</b><br />GENERATE <b>UP TO $10,000</b> EVERY WEEK.<br />BECOME A <b><a href="http://xmodeling.syntaxlinks.com/r/BongaModels" rel="nofollow">BONGA MODELS</a></b> CAM MODEL TODAY!Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-34438746735191389212013-02-27T20:36:13.275-05:002013-02-27T20:36:13.275-05:00"... there's no guarantee that such milit..."... 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."<br /><br />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.)jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-81741346513028165372013-02-27T20:07:33.694-05:002013-02-27T20:07:33.694-05:00In answer to “madmax” [continued]:
“I'm not i...In answer to “madmax” [continued]:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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?)<br /><br />… 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.”jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1426182132226133282013-02-27T20:06:15.640-05:002013-02-27T20:06:15.640-05:00In answer to “madmax”:
“The main problem with the...In answer to “madmax”:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-73987365170577798572013-02-27T18:39:39.627-05:002013-02-27T18:39:39.627-05:00Madmax:
Now I get it, foreigners have an absolute...Madmax:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Yep, that makes perfect sense. While just quarantining the dar al-Islam is "lunatic." <br /><br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-26115153950126301712013-02-27T10:37:58.763-05:002013-02-27T10:37:58.763-05:00Grant Jones: The real enemy is not Islam—it is tho...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-37469601240889959282013-02-25T03:57:48.646-05:002013-02-25T03:57:48.646-05:00“…. immigration is THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT TO LI...“…. 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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-54562874866653474212013-02-25T03:56:05.217-05:002013-02-25T03:56:05.217-05:00“… AGGREGATES MATTER. I'm not denying free wil...“… 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.”<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.)jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-20414519730506091802013-02-25T03:54:06.385-05:002013-02-25T03:54:06.385-05:00You are just barely worthy of any reply; but since...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.)<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-2508488899845229912013-02-24T22:13:57.082-05:002013-02-24T22:13:57.082-05:001) That Islam is more potent than any force (wheth...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.)</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Once again we see Objectivists treating Objectivism and the Constitution as a suicide pact. And with moral righteousness too.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Rand.Would.Spit.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-48564983804734435032013-02-21T13:49:12.337-05:002013-02-21T13:49:12.337-05:00Within the context at issue, all anti-immigrationi...Within the context at issue, all anti-immigrationists are making two unwarranted assumptions:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />Each of these premises is invalid and unwarranted (and the second is, of course, self-contradictory).<br /><br />(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.)jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-16554539142653941292013-02-20T19:45:14.506-05:002013-02-20T19:45:14.506-05:00Mad Max: Just a note, re your statement – "I ...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. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-52865207763910598772013-02-20T17:22:52.545-05:002013-02-20T17:22:52.545-05:00Part 2
Tell all that to those mental midgets &quo...Part 2<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Yes, there was alot of venom in this post. Its warranted. madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-18668563212745856212013-02-20T17:22:14.725-05:002013-02-20T17:22:14.725-05:00Part 1
Immigration is a very complicated subject....Part 1<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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).madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-91642385068294341232013-02-20T16:48:24.902-05:002013-02-20T16:48:24.902-05:00Or consider: by the reasoning proffered here, it w...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-70402866931292889172013-02-19T20:32:21.514-05:002013-02-19T20:32:21.514-05:00As Ed wrote elsewhere, there are different types o...As Ed wrote elsewhere, there are different types of invasion. Not all invasions involved modern, Western armies marching in with flags flying. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />http://sheikyermami.com/2012/10/29/burmese-fight-back-bengali-islamic-invasion-goes-up-in-smoke/<br /><br />http://tundratabloids.com/2012/10/more-on-the-burmese-problem-with-muslim-bengali-hegemony.html<br /><br />http://hlaoo1980.blogspot.com/2012/10/troubles-in-arakan-1949-british.html#more<br /><br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-28295515809593489502013-02-19T12:27:06.612-05:002013-02-19T12:27:06.612-05:00All of the talk in this thread to the effect that ...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".<br />And people that come here illegally should have ABSOLUTELY NO rights, other than the right to be arrested and deported.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-28898173724409763892013-02-19T12:17:20.202-05:002013-02-19T12:17:20.202-05:00Grant Jones: (Sorry, can't resist one more fol...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?)jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-65399728960134862082013-02-19T12:16:00.525-05:002013-02-19T12:16:00.525-05:00Your comments on the left and the Nazis make it so...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.<br />The only reason Hitler and Stalin didn't love each other was that neither was willing to share world domination with the other,<br />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.<br />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,<br />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.<br />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,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-20398330817653106512013-02-19T11:51:05.282-05:002013-02-19T11:51:05.282-05:00Gentlemen (and Ladies, as applicable): “Realistic ...Gentlemen (and Ladies, as applicable): “Realistic quandaries” is right. <br /><br />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: <br /><br />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]?) <br /><br />Is that what we want? Would the resulting country be worth inhabiting and defending?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Is that what we want? Would the resulting country be worth inhabiting and defending?<br /><br />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.”)jayeldeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08300130228450096823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-39143007393612423682013-02-19T09:52:47.198-05:002013-02-19T09:52:47.198-05:00Comparing Baltimore to El Paso is somewhat of an u...Comparing Baltimore to El Paso is somewhat of an unbalanced comparison if the argument is about immigration.<br /><br />A better comparison might be Fargo to El Paso.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-83885758734299681692013-02-19T07:39:55.554-05:002013-02-19T07:39:55.554-05:00Grant: Good response. I would've posed the que...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? <br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br />Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-8865227897533093992013-02-19T04:39:51.499-05:002013-02-19T04:39:51.499-05:00Grant,
Has Harry Binswanger ever been asked (and ...Grant,<br /><br />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?Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-22440053540947157172013-02-19T01:25:32.309-05:002013-02-19T01:25:32.309-05:00P.S. Good point, Ed. The Frankfurt School vermin a...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-31640711786400763022013-02-19T01:15:31.552-05:002013-02-19T01:15:31.552-05:00Jayeldee, “The implicit premise of barring foreign...Jayeldee, “The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: “This is our country, we decide whom to let in.”” <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com