:: Monday, September 22, 2014 ::
Productive vs. Parasitical Societies
Posted by Edward Cline at 8:00 PM
Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish,
penned an excellent and perceptive essay, “The
Rationing Society.” My chief problem with the essay is in the choice of the
terms “production society” and “rationing society,” which misdirect attention
from the fundamental issues. Mr. Greenfield’s focus in the essay is the
mechanics of wealth distribution in a “rationing society,” at least of such
wealth would remain in an economy crippled by controls. I have selected a few
of Greenfield’s statements to throw some light on their validity.
best literary depiction of a dystopian or “rationing society” or polity is George
Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Regardless
of the value of Orwell’s perceptive insights into the means and ends of
totalitarianism – and they are many and spot-on – his basic conception of a
functioning totalitarian regime was flawed. A “production society” means
free minds, minds free to innovate and sustain a technological or industrial
civilization, free to act, and free to trade and to move about and assemble
with others or not. A “rationing society” depends on the very attribute in men
it wishes to leash or exterminate: free minds free to act.
Orwell’s other famous novel, the parable Animal Farm, was merely
an attack by a “democratic socialist” on Stalin’s regime. Stalin and Soviet
Russia lost many supporters in the West on the occasion of the Non-Aggression
Pact signed by Stalin and Hitler in 1939. But when Nazi Germany invaded
Soviet Russia, its Western supporters hurried back into the fold.
A rationing or authoritarian society seeks
to freeze things in a state of stagnation, the better to control things and
everyone, but even a technologically stagnant society still needs minds that
can sustain it. This is an implicit confession that the state is neither
omniscient nor omnipotent. A rationing society will put a premium on the
competence to even repair a telescreen or a “Floating Fortress” or weaponry or
manufacture razor blades. A free, independent mind is such a society’s primary
enemy. The result of leashing or punishing it is the impoverishment of nearly everyone but the
entrenched political class – and then collapse.
Until the collapse occurs, competent minds able
to prop up dwindling products such as shoes and razor blades and food which
must now be rationed, until the assembly lines halt, raw materials become
scare, and the stockpiles are depleted. The minds that could have replaced them
will have been snuffed out, or, as happens in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, those minds will finally
have gone on strike and disappeared. Rand noted in For The New Intellectual:
freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without
economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
Greenfield wrote: "A socialist
monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight
of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman
and child in the country."
In a capitalist society, force is banned
from human relationships, including trade. This is why monopolies in a
capitalist society can be overcome. Innovators have a chance to rise and
prosper. In a socialist, rationing, or authoritarian society, force is not
banned and becomes the primary arbiter and determining factor, or the “economic
tool” of first choice by statists. Innovators are discouraged by the threat of
force or directly by force. The force can take the form of literal policing
with clubs and guns and with the seizure of property and persons, or with
punishing fines, taxes, draconian regulations, or a combination of all
Among other inevitable consequences is the
involuntary transfer of wealth to the state and its patronized special interest
For example, New York has the highest taxes
on cigarettes and other tobacco products in the nation, compelling smokers to
cross state lines to purchase them, order them online, or rely on cigarette
smugglers (many of whom, today, are Muslim gangs). The taxes, imposed by the
federal government, by states, and by municipalities, are intended to
discourage smoking, but these same governments nonetheless depend on the tax
revenue. Taxes are imposed on gasoline purchases to discourage an increase of
carbon emissions, yet these same governments depend on that revenue, as well.
Another instance of an authoritarian grip
on another commodity is education. At the moment, “Common
Core,” an educational system calculated and guaranteed to dumb down any
child forced to attend a "public school," is being mandated across
the country, with private schools in many states compelled to adopt it, as well.
With what penalty if a private school
does not adopt it? A raid by a SWAT team? Financial penalties? Loss of
accreditation? Jail for the school’s governing board and teachers? The
sequestering of the school children? Big Brotherish monitors assigned to all
classrooms? Your guess is as good as mine.
Why is Bill Gates’s Gates Foundation a “special
interest”? It is because his “charity’s” educational goals mesh with the
federal government’s, to turn American school children into “responsible” and
proactive ciphers to advance what the state says is the “common good.”
Another instance of a rationing society is
Obamacare. I don’t think I need elaborate on the federal government’s mandating
Americans to purchase of health insurance.
Still another instance of a “rationing
society” is the nullification of the right to move one’s property out of harm’s
way – that is, out of reach of government taxation, regulations, and controls. See
this story about our Authoritarian-in-Chief’s rules for moving
corporate headquarters out of the U.S. to friendlier foreign shores, and
then moving profits and earnings back into the U.S. The Washington Post quoted Secretary of the
Treasury Jack Lew, who chortled:
But the rules would
not block the practice, known as tax “inversion,” and Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms.
targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques
used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic
benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them
altogether,” Lew said in a written statement.
The Authoritarian-in-Chief himself waxed
sanctimoniously, according to the New
“While there’s no
substitute for congressional action, my administration will act wherever we can
to protect the progress the American people have worked so hard to bring
about,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the regulations on so-called
corporate inversions were announced.
Barack Obama and Jack Lew and all the other
Progressives and leftists in and out of office want to imprison private
property to better slice it down to a “fairer” size – and also to pay off a national
debt that can never be paid, not even in six generations of slave labor.
Lenin saw the consequences of Soviet
Russia’s full implementation of Communist rationing policies and devised his New
Economic Policy (NEP) to stave off starvation and possibly a revolt of the
“proletariat” against the “Revolution.” It allowed a modicum of freedom of
trade. He “saved” the Revolution by
adulterating Communism – for a while. It was rife with corruption that reached
the highest levels of the multitude of bureaucracies. Instituted in 1921, it
ended in 1929.
Stalin succeeded Lenin and atavistically
reverted to full Communism, kicking off the starvation of millions, a vast
expansion of the Gulag, and the infamous purge trials. However, Soviet Russia could
not have survived for as long as it did except for what it could steal, cajole,
or wheedle from the West. As long as there were semi-free nations willing to
grant it bank credits and send it grain and build its factories, it could stumble
along as a gasping dependent, counting on the very “economic” forces it wished
to eradicate in Russia and around the world. As long as there were semi-free “production
societies,” it survived, but just barely and by force. The same thing happened
in Mao’s China, but after Mao’s passing the Communist regime there saved itself
by opting out for “free market” fascism. However, it’s not really “free
enterprise” when the ruling political class insists on having a hand and role
in any enterprise.
Greenfield wrote: “Paradoxically, the
rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of
production as lower production requires even greater rationing.”
It isn’t actually a paradox. Under
authoritarianism, dwindling production is a function of the number and severity
of controls imposed to ensure everyone’s “fair share” or ephemeral “social
justice” or some other state-designated end. It’s an absolute corollary of
basic economics, a matter of fundamental cause-and-effect.
0 Comments ::
:: Friday, September 19, 2014 ::
Muslims and Self-Sacrifice
Posted by Edward Cline at 2:03 AM
Last March I discussed the Muslim state of
mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that
drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means
having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”
When asked why
police had targeted his brother [Kawa], he said he had no idea.
"I dunno, I
got a lot of anger. It's a war on Islam just because we grow our beards. They
want to label us as a terrorist, or supporters of IS, whatever, that's up to
you." he said.
He later said he
believed Kawa may have been targeted because he hung around with "hot
A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to
preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.
In front of 300 angry protesters,
controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger
within the Islamic community and said it was time to stop the victimization.
“We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he
declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.
One must ask
oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy
kaffirs and the lowest
of all creatures they'd really rather not be anywhere near, why do they
wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading
and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – a country full of them, where they must deal
with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher
standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”? I think those are just flash card reasons.
What exactly is a kaffir? Islam
Stack Exchange, a website for enquiring Muslims, provides an authoritative
My understanding of the term kafir
is that it refers to a person who literally rejects God's authority.
So while even the most blatant polytheist
would still be mushrik, he would not (necessarily) be kafir.
It's not until the message has been relayed
to him and he refuses to accept it that he would be labelled kafir.
However, it seems the common use of the
word kafir, at least nowadays, is to refer to anybody who is non-Muslim,
regardless of whether or not they're familiar with God's message and His
What is the actual meaning of this term in
the primary sources? As in, when the Qur'an and the hadiths refer to the kuffar
(or ayuhal kafireen) which interpretation is more correct?
I think the real
reason why Muslims want to rub shoulders with us is that Islam inculcates a
psychosis in Muslims that allows them to endure the "detested ones"
while putting down roots for "the cause," which is basically to
subjugate and/or kill kaffirs. They
don't even need to think about it, not clearly, it's just a fuzzy state of mind
that will in many eventually blossom into action. Their remaining silent about the atrocities
their brethren are committing across town or across an ocean, or denying that
ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Islamic gangs have
nothing to do with Islam, nonetheless still makes them culpable.
Of course, this is just a natural query looking for a logical causal-connection
in Muslim behavior, but in a tentative answer one will not find any logic, just
as one won't find clean, rational logic in Sharia law or in the Koran. I don't
think the Muslim Brotherhood master-plan types even care how their
lower-ranking Muslims think or behave, as long as tothey go to the West to plant
seeds and play victim or minority or loud-mouthed advocate -- in short, to act
as a spreading, slow-acting poison in Western culture, which has weakened
itself with multiculturalism and political correctness and moral relativism.
These maladies didn't exist in, say, 19th Britain, so such a "master
plan" wouldn't have worked there or even in France.
Brotherhood’s “master-plan,” or “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group,” written May 22nd, 1991, per the Gates
of Vienna and numerous other blog sites, cites:
One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land
Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram,
and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
The process of
settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan
[Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within
and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work
wherever he is…
But in the 20th and
21st centuries, such a "master plan" is feasible, and a goodly measure
of that feasibility is enabled by the Western refusal to acknowledge the
nature, methods and ends of Islam. That “General Strategy” is well-advanced in
Europe, not so much in America in spite of our political leadership’s evasion
of the issue. And Islam has millions of faith-lobotomized followers to perform
those tasks and the footwork. All they need do is "be there" in
Dearborn, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, London, Sydney, Amsterdam, and even
in tiny Reykjavik, Iceland, to “be fruitful and multiply,” without even joining
a noisy demonstration or carrying signs saying "Behead those who defame
Islam." If Islam is spreading, it is largely the West’s fault; it
refuses to recognize Islam as the pestilence it is.
Islam is evil, but
evil, as a rule, derives any strength or potency it might claim from a refusal
of its victims to recognize that it is anti-life, anti-self, and, in this
instance, fundamentally anti-man. Islam requires that men consciously repudiate
and discard one’s self-interest. Only self-sacrifice is permitted. It requires
that one submit without reservation or question to the arbitrary, capricious,
irrational whims of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient ghost.
Muslim mothers have
boasted of being “proud” that their sons successfully exploded suicide vests
and killed themselves and others. This is the kind of sacrifice which Western
mothers, while they adhere to the Judeo-Christian notion that sacrifices are
necessary to preserve a value, are not familiar with. One of the most repulsive
and psychotic instances of sacrificing values among Muslims is the “honor
killing” of wayward mothers and daughters by their own parents and other
So, I think that
for the average Muslim, there's an intractable altruist psychosis in his mind
that draws him to Western cultures and nations, not for jobs or a higher,
healthier standard of living, but because, down deep, he knows there is a good
there and it must be despoiled or destroyed because Allah commands it. So, he
will endure being engulfed in a sea of filthy kaffirs. The demands of selflessness and unquestioning submission
inherent in Islam make it easy for a Muslim to “suffer” so. A Muslim can be content to safely participate
in the “insurgency” against the West by being a passive cipher and welfare king
(or queen), or engage in mere criminal acts against random Westerners in the
Westerners’ own countries (rapes, beheadings, no-go vigilantes, attacking Jews,
This, in Western
parlance, is self-sacrifice, not for a “noble end,” or even to preserve values
– but instead to destroy values, by being a negative presence among the good. However,
before they commit the final, ultimate self-sacrifice, Muslims first want to
sacrifice you. It is a sought-after
self-sacrifice which easily metastases into pure nihilism.
8 Comments ::
:: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 ::
Frightened Turtles II
Posted by Edward Cline at 12:50 PM
The debate over immigration and open
borders or open immigration continues.
A British correspondent argued with a
reader of Andrew Bernstein’s “Immigration
and the Welfare State” about the pros and cons of open borders or open
immigration, vis-à-vis Muslims and Mexicans.
The reader’s position on the matter is confusing, as he
seems to want it both ways: a total ban on all Muslim immigration into Western
countries, and a selective or discriminating ban on Muslims who advocate
violence to impose Islam on others or a whole country (in conformance with the official
Ayn Rand Institute position).
So he isn't clear on his own position at
all. He also contradicts himself when he says that Islam is both a criminal
organization and a religion. But a genuine criminal organization, such as the
Mafia or a drug cartel, is not moved by an ideology of any kind; these
organizations are merely opportunistic gangs taking advantage of irrational
laws. Islam, however, is a totalitarian ideology moved by the agenda of supremacy
over all other religions and political systems, even though it has little
ideational content, and little such content in its “jurisprudence,” Sharia law,
other than the “prophet’s” say-so or the pretzel-like logic of its judges.
The only thing he's right about is that the
Koran is a prescription for conquest
and committing criminal acts, criminal per Western concepts of individual and
civil rights, which Islamic spokesmen deny the validity of, because Islam
doesn't recognize individual rights or the civil liberties of Western nations. However, Muslims do avail themselves of them
to advance Islam; they have adopted Lenin’s assertion that capitalists will
hang themselves with the rope they sell to the Reds; it's much the same thing.
Frankly, I think the open borders
"faction" on this issue is guilty of a severe dropping of context.
This is not the early 20th century when hundreds of thousands of Jews and
Italians and other ethnic/religious groups immigrated to this country. The
overwhelming majority of them were not trying to impose Judaism or Catholicism
or the Mafia on everyone else. Their personal religious convictions were not a
threat to anyone else. True, some Jews and Italians who came here were
gangsters, or became gangsters. In many instances, when they were identified and
apprehended, they were either deported or imprisoned after a trial for their
But Islam isn't the same thing. Jews and Italians did not pose a peril to
everyone else, native-born or not. Whether or not your average
Friday-go-to-prayers Muslim is active in propagating or proselytizing Islamic
doctrine or engages in criminal actions based on Islamic scripture, such as
terrorism, they're still culpable and indirectly responsible for the actions of
their more consistent brethren, who engage in violence per the diktats of the Koran. On that point, I agree with
Leonard Peikoff 100%. My policy would be: Either repudiate Islam altogether, or
leave for and/or return to a country where your ideology is implemented, but
you're not implementing it here.
I dismiss the assertions of those Muslims
who claim that Islam can be reformed in the same way Catholicism and
Protestantism were reformed, that is, by removing religion from a country's
politics. As I've written many times before, Islam can't be reformed without
killing it; Islam is based on the initiation of force and once that imperative
is removed from the religion (or the violent verses in the Koran “reinterpreted” beyond recognition), there's not much left to
it except perhaps a Masonic-like ritual or something resembling a fraternity of
the Knights of Pythias. (Or Ralph
Kramden’s Bensonhurst chapter of the International
Brotherhood of the Loyal Raccoons.)
All in all, one is still left in puzzlement
over Writeby's and the Brook faction's position on not banning or not removing
Muslims from the U.S. (or from Britain). And the context being dropped by them
and Writeby is that we are all living in countries that are far more statist
than they were in the early 20th century.
Moreover, I think it's somewhat futile to
be arguing over immigration rights when we're losing or have lost rights
wholesale in terms of personal income and consumer products and behavioral
policies imposed by the government and other non-immigration
issues. Others deny it, such as Bernstein, but our welfare state is a draw to Mexicans and Muslims (as is
Britain's). When the Jews and Italians and other European groups came here in
the early 20th century, there was no welfare state. When Cubans risked their
lives coming to this country, they weren't drawn to the welfare state which by
then actually existed, but by the chance to live their lives independently of
the state (Communist or not). One can't say that now about Muslim or Mexican
(or Central American) immigrants.
As for the Mexicans and other Latinos, I
think most of them come here for semi-ideological motives; our welfare state is
more generous and more efficient than the ones they left behind. They will naturally
vote Democratic out of gratitude or compulsion or manipulation (if they vote at
all), and, as I noted in my original column, help to perpetuate the death grip
the Democrats and other statists have on this country.
Granting that large numbers of Mexicans may
come here for employment; where, in an economy deliberately
tanked by Barack Obama, are they going to find it? In landscaping?
correspondent wondered whether or not there is a political correctness angle to
all this. As in not wanting to address the issue that the people who are
causing all the problems with immigration in the US and UK are those with brown
skins coming into a country with mainly white skins. Mr. Brook and other ARI spokesmen
don't usually pull their punches in regards to racial issues, like affirmative action,
reparations etc. But immigration itself
is a different matter; it's controversial. So our enemies could have fine old
time, if ARI argued for immigration controls, painting it as white men wanting
to keep out "darkies."
But even if this were the case, there
should be no capitulation to political correctness at all. As I remarked
elsewhere, we're in this mess because people have played our enemies game by
being cowards and not addressing issues for fear of being seen as
"racist" or “Islamophobic.” And the end result of this spinelessness
is, say, Rotherham and the Pakistani rape gangs in Britain, and, over here,
honor killings of girls and women, beheadings, “lone Muslim wolf” shootings at
Jews and other infidels, the Boston Marathon bombing, and “workplace violence”
committed by the likes of Major Nidal Hasan.
So if the unrestricted immigration by
Mexicans or “Chicanos” and Muslims is not
going to be in the national interest and is downright dangerous, then it needs
to be acknowledged and said. And the Objectivist credentials of anyone who is
deliberately pulling back on the issue or obfuscates it are at the very least questionable.
Further, none of the open immigration
advocates regard the Muslim and Mexican settlement in the U.S. or in the UK or
the Continent as an invasion and conquest by demographics; for the Muslims,
this is prescribed by the Muslim
Brotherhood. There isn’t a European country whose Muslim population is less
than ten percent of the overall population. But I doubt that any of them have
bothered to read the Brotherhood memorandum,
dated 1991, which I've often cited or linked in my past columns, or bother to
read the manifestos of the Mexican supremacists’ La Raza or the Aztlán
They seem to treat these phenomena as just
loopy outfits on the fringe the political spectrum. The Mexicans here in the
U.S. (or their spokesmen) are also on a "reconquest" effort, wanting
to "take back" all of California and much of the Southwest. The
racist element in the effort is pretty blatant, as strong and as virulent as it
is in Islam. As the ISIS jihadists want to erase the blue-eyed Yazidis as a
race (by raping their women), Mexican nationalists want to subjugate blue-eyed
gringos. But these facts are never addressed by Brook et al. They have their magic wands, you see.
My British correspondent noted:
Objectivism is NOT
some mystical, utopianist cure-all where there will be no evil or wrong-doing
in the world. Objectivism is not the magic wand of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,
which, waved over an issue, solves it automatically, irrespective of context.
The open borders
advocates seem to think: Well, there's
Objectivism, which runs along the lines of Adam Smith, that there is an
"invisible hand" of Objectivism that will somehow make Islam not the
murderous religion that it is when its adherents move to foreign countries.
They obviously know how murderous Islam is because the very same people who are
arguing for open borders and also arguing for a total war, and possible nuclear
war, with Islam! So why are they contradicting themselves?
This is why I won't engage the advocates of open borders or open immigration in
argument. Their terms are so vague and their public positions so untenable with
regard to their professed fealty to Objectivism it isn't worth my time to
engage them. They keep flip-flopping or just won't come out and say what they
really mean. There is a unfortunate strain of evasion in their positions. I
don't think any of them, including their legions of open borders supporters,
have delved into Islam, the Mexican issue, and Europe as deeply as I think they
should. They seem to think that Objectivism is
that magic wand, which, once it's waved over the issue, presto! There’s the
Stossel’s article, “Immigration
is American,” like some open border arguments, dwells on some important
points and also on irrelevancies. He does, however, point out the chief culprit
in the issue: the time it takes for prospective immigrants to be granted the
right to apply for citizenship, political asylum, and also for work visas and
residency, which is arbitrarily daunting and onerous. The requirements imposed
on prospective immigrants were once a product of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, established in 1933 (another FDR legacy), and
governed by two things: politics, and the convenience of the INS bureaucracy.
The functions of the INS, after 9/11, came
under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security and its functions were
divided between three new bureaucracies: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. Further, while restrictions on Chinese immigration have lapsed, for
example, the INS and its successor bureaucracies have instituted other racial
and ethnic quotas.
Stossel argues for less restrictive and less
onerous legal applications for citizenship and residency, and that’s fine. But,
again, he argues from the standpoint of ideal circumstances, in which we lived
in an ideally free country and not in the trough of statist controls and in a
continuous state of crisis, situations created by political pragmatism and
multiculturalism. As with other open border positions, this is surely another
argument of gossamer. To ignore these aspects is to indulge in wishful
must first extricate themselves from the claws of statism before they can begin
to credibly address peripheral issues such as immigration. Otherwise, it’s a
matter of the dog chasing its own tail.
5 Comments ::