The Ground Zero Mosque and Acts of War

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Fri, 2016-02-26 08:14

I wrote the following response to Biddle's drivel several years ago. He has yet to explain how the imported jihad should be dealt with, how importing Moslem barbarians is in the interest of the American people and how bombing Iran will end the jihad (including stealth jihad) in the West.

The Ground Zero Mosque and Acts of War:

All warfare is based on deception. – Sun Tzu

In the Fall 2010 issue of The Objective Standard, Craig Biddle wrote an article, “The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts,” that compounds several errors held by many Objectivists on this issue. He argues that although America is at war with "Islamists," governmental force to prevent the building of the mosque would violate property rights. However, Biddle does not suffer from any illusions about the nature of Islam or the current struggle. He points out that America “is in a (shamefully) undeclared but nevertheless real military war with Islamists” (10). The enemy includes states that support terrorism, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, the enemy is not limited to nation-states:

"This military war is a part of a broader cultural war—a war of ideas, principles, and norms—and our enemies in this broader war include more than those Muslims who enact or call for violence against Americans. Our enemies in this broader war include any Muslims who seek via any means—whether violent or peaceful—to destroy America and establish an Islamic state in its place…The general goal is to saturate America with Muslims, Islamic ideas, Islamic institutions, and Islamic norms such that America gradually and peacefully becomes an Islamic state." (10).

The above is a good summation of the methods and goals of the stealth jihad not only in America but also around the world. In Western Europe today Americans can view their future if the stealth jihadists continue their successful infiltration.

All thoughtful, patriotic Americans—including Objectivists—agree on the seriousness of Islamic aggression upon the West. However, there is much disagreement on how to fight the stealth jihad. Biddle recommends a solution with a strong emphasis on ending jihad supporting regimes starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, he advocates that when dealing with the stealth jihad on American soil the only recourse is debate, boycott and moral suasion.

Besides declaring war upon Iran and—if necessary—Saudi Arabia, Biddle’s three point plan for dealing with the stealth jihad on American soil is for private citizens to “morally condemn Islam in particular and creeds of faith and dogma in general…recognize and uphold the principle that tolerance is not a virtue but a vice…ostracize individuals and boycott businesses” that are involved in building the Ground Zero mosque” (19-20). There are several problems with Biddle’s recommendation, not the least of which is his view that it is the responsibility of private citizens to thwart sedition of this magnitude, which also has a foreign source[s].

To begin with, Biddle mischaracterizes the motives of those who oppose the Ground Zero mosque. Several times in his essay he states that the primary reason for opposing the mosque is its “insulting nature.” This denigrates opposing views as merely emotional. He argues (correctly) that “insults” are not a valid reason for depriving Americans of their property rights. He then launches into several paragraphs on the principles of property rights. His premise being that those who disagree with him (including individuals who have been Objectivists for decades) are not “thinking in principles” (16).

Biddle begins his essay by acknowledging that “some [who oppose the mosque] say that property rights do not apply in this case because the mosque backers are aiding the enemy” (9). He dismisses this argument. The only way the government could legitimately prohibit the mosque’s building is if it were providing “material aid” to the enemy (15). With this position, Biddle’s demonstrates his lack of knowledge on the type of war we are now engaged in, along with a more general ignorance of military history.

The morale of a nation under attack is central to whether that country will survive and emerge victorious. Churchill’s exceptional leadership in the summer of 1940 is a classic example of how one man changed a nation from defeatism to trumpeting that surrender is not option. As Ayn Rand observed,

"A country’s morale is crucially important, in wartime. In World War II, the British Lord Haw-Haw was, properly, regarded as a traitor—for the crime of trying to undercut the British soldiers’ morale by broadcasting scare stories about Nazi Germany’s invincible power." [1]

Here, Rand is reiterating Napoleon’s famous maxim of war, “the moral is to the physical as three to one.” And clearly, the purpose of the Ground Zero mosque is to undercut American morale in the continuing, one-sided campaign against the stealth jihad in the West, while emboldening the warriors of Mohammed. Biddle’s strict separation between the physical and psychological factors of warfare is completely invalid and reeks of the mind/body dichotomy. Jihadists are waging psychological and ideological war against the West, which dovetails nicely with their terrorism. There is no safe way to draw a sharp line between the two. Terrorism and the stealth jihad are two halves that form one whole.

The false dichotomy between the material and moral in warfare that Biddle propounds is the result of his not understanding the kind of war the United States, and our Western allies, are engaged in. For example, Biddle claims that if the United States declared war on Iran and then quickly destroyed that regime (without endless handwringing over Iranian civilian deaths), “we would demonstrate the hopelessness of the Islamic cause, deflate their motivation to kill, and effectively collapse their nihilistic movement” (18). He provides absolutely no evidence for this assertion except by noting that such a strategy worked against Germany and Japan during and after World War II. There are obviously vast differences between these cultures. What worked with Germany and a quickly Westernizing Japan may not work with a culture largely based on Islam and its adherence to the Arab tribal mindset.

He states that taking out Iran would eliminate “the main sources of spiritual and financial support for Islamists”—another dubious assertion. Islam has suffered many devastating military set-backs from the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 to the slaughter of the Mahdi’s forces at Omdurman in 1898. From the ashes of numerous defeats, Islamic conquest, in its many forms, rebounded once the victors became tired, soft or converted. Biddle seems unaware that it is for this very reason that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928. Hassan al-Banna’s purpose was to revitalize Islamic resolve after the overwhelming defeat of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The Caliphate was dissolved and large sections of the Moslem world were under foreign domination. This disaster did not “deflate their motivations to kill.” Instead, the Islamists became ever more vicious, as their alliance with Nazi Germany makes clear.

Yet another faulty premise of Biddle’s is his reversing cause and effect on the relationship between domestic and foreign policy. He seems to believe that a more rational foreign policy can precede domestic reform. In other words, how can America in its present state possibly embark on the policy of declaring war upon Iran and other jihad supporting regimes? The short answer is that it cannot. It is bad enough that so many on both the left and the right remain clueless on the threat of jihad in all its forms. Furthermore, a reexamining of American foreign policy is made much more difficult by the government and civilian institutions that have been compromised by stealth jihadists spreading disinformation or worse. I contend that the stealth jihad now occurring on American soil will have to be dealt with before we can expect the government to adopt a rational foreign policy.

Perhaps Biddle’s worst blunder is his belief that warfare is something that can only transpire between nation-states. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. This is particularly true when dealing with Islam. Moslems self-consciously think of themselves as part of an international community-of-believers called the ummah. Jihadists (of all varieties) operate as members of the ummah, not for any particular government. Their justification for perpetual war against the infidel is located in the Koran, the Hadith and countless fatwas. The ummah is their source of legitimacy to wage war. They function as a worldwide state within numerous territorial states. Eminent military historian John Keegan describes the Islamic view of war:

"Islam dissolved the two principles on which war had so often been fought before: territoriality and kinship. There could be no territoriality in Islam, because its destiny was to bring the whole world to submission to the will of God…The Arab armies benefited greatly from the presence in the settled lands they invaded of the musta’riba, Arabs who had given up the desert life but who felt strong cultural bonds with them and proved willing to fight at their side as soon as they heard a doctrine of brotherhood preached in the name of Islam." [2]

This is the enemy the West faces. Thinking in terms of fighting and defeating nation-states ignores the enemy’s nature. Vanquishing such an unprecedented enemy will require much rethinking on the part of Americans. It will also require taking steps that may seem extreme, but are necessary. For example, Robert Spencer is one of our top scholars on Islam and the stealth jihad. In his important work Stealth Jihad, Spencer describes and documents the nature of the stealth jihad and how it operates in America. He reaches the stark conclusion that as “a simple matter of national security” the United States should end further Moslem immigration. He argues that such a policy is inescapable unless and until sharia law supremacy is no longer a part of Islam. [3] Given the facts, history and nature of Islamic supremacy, Spencer’s is a logical conclusion. In contrast, Biddle’s call for boycotts in the face of invasion seems silly and entirely beside the point.

[1] Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), 252.

[2] John Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 194, 196-7.

[3] Robert Spencer, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2008), 278.


A Couple Posts on Biddle

Neil Parille's picture

Brook the Leftist

Neil Parille's picture

Brook agrees with or acquiesce to the liberal narrative on everything. Take Muslims. He denies that Muslims are misogynistic and advocate rape. OK, he wouldn't use the words "multiculturalism" or "homophobia" but in the end he takes the view of the left that you have to be a bigot to not want Muslim immigration.

Is Brook stupid? Doesn't he know that most Muslims (outside of the West and Israel) live in countries which either don't have laws on domestic abuse or don't enforce them?

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

I was suggesting only that you listen to the last ten minutes. Smiling

On Brook

Grant Jones's picture

Neil, thanks for sharing the link and info. I don't have time to listen to Brook's podcast. Happily, being able to think for myself, I don't need to.

Remember, there are two sets of political principles on immigration and national security: one for the United States and one for Israel. Brook's loyalties are obviously for Israel. The USA is just a place to hang out in a gated community for such cosmopolitans.

Yaron Exempts Israel

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron said if we defeated radical Islam, didn't have welfare state, no multiculturalism, etc. he'd support open immigration of Muslims into Europe and the USA. He didn't mention Israel and I think he has said that Israel should never have open immigration. If Islamic immigration into Europe and the US is not a problem, why exempt Israel?

Yaron Brook: The Problem Isn't Islam It's The West

Neil Parille's picture

Here's Yaron (around 1:20 and following) calling for eventual open immigration of Muslims and saying they can be assimilated.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/y...

"The real enemy are not Muslims, the real enemy is multiculturalism. [Some people say] they hate women and they rape women constantly . . . . that is just not true."

Too Late For That

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Bombing the buggers circa. 1980 with nuclear weapons, for instance, and 'yes' it would have been prevented

That wasn't done and now you have 50 million Muslims in Europe. Attacking the historic and spiritual home of Islam now is an impossibility without starting massive internal civil war. Neil is right. OrgOism's official foreign policy solution to everything Islamic is wrong. This is not a military problem. It is an immigration / cultural problem. Muslims would have to be out-migrated / deported and an entirely different posture would have to be taken regarding immigration.

But Objectivists are so mired in philosophic rationalism that they can't support this because they think it would destroy the entire liberty / Randian project.

Depends

Mr_Lineberry's picture

when they were bombed and with what.

Bombing the buggers circa. 1980 with nuclear weapons, for instance, and 'yes' it would have been prevented

A Question for Yaron

Neil Parille's picture

"The nanny who allegedly murdered a 4-year-old girl and then paraded through Moscow with her severed head has said she murdered the child to avenge the deaths of Muslims in Syria killed by Russian airstrikes."

How would bombing Saudi Arabia or Iran have prevented this?

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

The argument that Brook uses to restrict immigration into Israel is that Israel is at war. But Israel isn't at war with Indonesia or Malaysia. It certainly isn't at war with Christian Ethiopians.

Journo will make a big deal about attacks in Israel because he can put it in the context of Israel vs. Palestine He ignores the situation in Europe (ans specifically Sweden and Germany) because he would have to admit that Islamic misbehavior even in the face of taxpayer funded immigration would reveal something about Islamic culture.

I follow some ARI objectivists on twitter and some other Objectivist sites and I have seen only one mention of what's going on in Europe?

-NP

Binswanger & Brook

Neil Parille's picture

"Binswanger thinks that Muslims are making Europe a better place."

Has he ever explicitly said that? My god if he has it only proves that Columbia and MIT will allow even morons to get degrees.
____________

I should have been clearer. Not explicitly. But that's the implication of his belief that immigrants make a country better.

Brook's theory of human nature is bizarre. Simply being in the presence of virtuous freedom lovers is sufficient to convert people with 1400 years of hostility toward the West. Mollyenoux made the point that in the age of the internet and mass communication, the reasons for the success of the west are clear. All you have to do is go on and the internet and read about the (relative) freedom and prosperity due to limited government, property rights, due process, etc.

Obviously Yaron won't come here to debate. He won't debate it on his show or on Facebook either.

A Question for Yaron Brook

Grant Jones's picture

Should ten million Christian Ethiopians be allowed to freely emigrate into Israel? If not, why not.

B, B & B

Grant Jones's picture

Except for Israel. Israel gets to have a wall and defend itself from the jihad. Don't get me wrong, Israel should be far more ruthless than they are.

Below is a link to Elan Journo's latest on "Palestinian" aggression against Israel. Funny how ARI is completely unconcerned about the jihad in the United States or Europe. Try asking Brook why the USA shouldn't adopt the immigration policies of Israel and see him shamelessly evade.

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2...

Brook thinks it's impossible

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Brook thinks it's impossible for immigrants to change the country.

This is where Objectivists are utopian and in denial of human nature. Of course immigrants can change a country, especially in a mixed economy welfare state that it governed by ideological egalitarians. Even if you had the "free society", there is a flaw in thinking that liberty is self-sustaining. Objectivists sort of understand that you need to have the right philosophy but they completely are blind to (or evade) the necessity to have the right genetic infrastructure. I'm not sure a "free society" could allow the importation of millions of low IQ people and remain free. Especially if those people are Muslim.

Objectivists have given absolutely no thought to the biological requirements for liberty. And of course they bristle with rage at the mere thought of that being important.

Binswanger thinks that Muslims are making Europe a better place.

Has he ever explicitly said that? My god if he has it only proves that Columbia and MIT will allow even morons to get degrees.

Objectivism and the Left

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron Brook said that if the USA were a "free country" then we could have 10 immigrants for any native. That's nearly twice the number of Muslims in the world.

Think about that: 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.5 billion who knows what brought into the country.

This is even worse than the left. The left wants these people because they will change the country. Brook thinks it's impossible for immigrants to change the country.

Binswanger thinks that Muslims are making Europe a better place.

-NP

similarities to the left

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Objectivists have a similar view to Leftists in that they think that Muslims will be transformed by the individualism and egoism of the West and become Western in outlook and behavior. The left thinks that egalitarianism and secularism and "equal opportunity" will do the same. Both movements think that Muslims can be transformed into something other than what their culture demands and that the Western world can "modernize" and thus tame Islam. Binswanger wrote a post recently (one of the one's he uses to try to sell HBL) asking "what tamed Christianity and can it be used to tame Islam?" Look at where his head is at. Jesus.

Auster's take on this was the correct one as it was grounded in reality. Muslims can not be transformed and thus they can not be assimilated in our historical context. In order for that to occur, the violent impulses of Islam would have to be eliminated. That is something that can only occur on an historical scale. Until then (if ever), Islam is something to be feared and Muslims as a group can never be trusted. They must be excluded from the West and America.

Total EXCLUSION of Muslims should be the foundational premise when it comes to dealing with the Islamic problem. But think about what we get from the mainstream including Objectivists; stopping "radicals" or "Islamists" or "Jihadists" or "terrorists", etc, etc. The entire philosophic orientation is wrong. Objectivists should know this but they don't. They are TOTALLY mainstream in their views on Islam and yet they think they are "radicals". Delusional.

I encourage to Google up Larry Auster and "Separationism". It was one of Auster's greatest conceptual achievements that he fully understood Islam and the only way to deal with it.

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

I'm sorry to say but I think that to Biddle, Brook and Binswanger the attacks on native women are just collateral damage on the path to creating a pro-egalitarian/pro-immigration society.

Indeed, Neil

Grant Jones's picture

They seem completely unconcerned about the escalating jihad in America and Europe.

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

"Perhaps Biddle’s worst blunder is his belief that warfare is something that can only transpire between nation-states. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. This is particularly true when dealing with Islam. Moslems self-consciously think of themselves as part of an international community-of-believers called the ummah. Jihadists (of all varieties) operate as members of the ummah, not for any particular government. Their justification for perpetual war against the infidel is located in the Koran, the Hadith and countless fatwas. The ummah is their source of legitimacy to wage war. They function as a worldwide state within numerous territorial states."

This is the key point. Saudi Arabia and Iran could be nuked, become Quaker or whatever and that wouldn't matter one bit to the Jihadists. They would act the same way (or perhaps worse).

And of course it won't change rape Jihad, the daily harassment of women and Jews, etc. To be honest, I don't get the impression that these things particularly bother BB&B.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.