Ayn Rand Institute Speakers Accept False Alternative and Evade the Obvious on the Stealth Jihad

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Mon, 2018-01-08 00:12

I recently came across this video clip from a much longer discussion from June 2017. It's a discussion on threats to free speech.

The clip is around ten minutes long and is the panelists' response to a question: "How would you apply the question of free speech to radical Islamic preachers like Anjem Choudary ... should they be silenced or should they be free to say what they feel." Such an artfully presented false alternative.

Not one of the three panelists, who all responded to the question, challenged its false premise. The panelists were Dave Rubin of the "Rubin Report," Fleming Rose whose cartoon was an object of the notorious "cartoon jihad," and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute. The panel discussion was a presentation during the week long Objectivist Conference (OCON) in June of 2017.

Each of the panelists address the question in turn beginning with Rubin. Rubin's response is the most predicable and pedestrian. He states that only direct calls to violence are actionable because there's no such thing as "hate speech," thus conflating "hate speech" with sedition, treason and fifth-column conspiracies. They're saying vile things but, "you have to let these people speak." He makes the distinction between jihadists (who commit acts of violence) and "islamists" who are just stealth jihadists using the West's tolerance against us. By the way, "Islamist" is one of the terms made up by Western squishes that actual Moslems never use when referring to themselves.

Flemming Rose's response is downright bizarre. The jihadists "are doing what the Communists did during the Cold War and we managed pretty well ... I think we did pretty well ... In Denmark the Nazi Party also wasn't banned ... I think we have been pretty good at fighting totalitarian ideas...." Those Danes tortured and murdered by the Gestapo would probably disagree on how well things worked out. And, what's this we stuff?

Denmark was occupied by the Nazis from 1940 to 1945. It was liberated by General Eisenhower's American and British armies. If General Montgomery's forces had not cut-off the Jutland Peninsula from the East, Russian would be Rose's native tongue. Needless to say, Denmark had little to do with the American victory over the Soviets in the Cold War. The unstated premise is "after we give our country away to invading Moslem barbarians, the Americans will come and save us for a third time." Don't count on it.

To his credit, Steve Simpson gives the most in-depth and sensible answer to the question, but he still evades the elephant pooping on the rug. He correctly observes that European, and the American, Communist parties were agents of a hostile power. He states that they should have been treated as criminal conspiracies - as should various (stealth) jihad organizations in the West. He argues for this analogy by using the example of the mafia and that the government can treat it as a criminal organization - he doesn't mention the propriety of RICO. His use of the "Italian mafia" and not MS-13 is an interesting tell.

Simpson's analogy is only valid to a limited extent. Communists and Moslem fifth-columnists are far more dangerous than criminal gangs that just seek loot. The political, social and cultural agendas of such seditious enterprises make them far more insidious and threatening. Their avowed purpose is to destroy our way of life, undermine the culture that makes liberty possible and fundamentally transform the USA into some form of police state. These conspiracies do so not by "shaking down" the corner grocer, but by infiltrating, subverting and taking over key social institutions, including government agencies.

I think the elephant being ignored in this discussion couldn't be more obvious. The real question is why should civilized Europeans and Americans suffer the likes of Anjem Choudary in their midst? Although an "anchor baby" born in England, the only rational way to deal with the Choudarys is to strip them of their British citizenship and ship them back to Pakistan. In Pakistan the jihadists can exercise their "right" to foment hatred for all infidels. The all too obvious response to the question is "they have to go back if they attempt in any way, shape or form to undermine our liberty and way of life." And, "needless to say, the further immigration of Moslems must be immediately halted."

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) would never allow such a question to be raised, much less openly debated, in any venue they control. Any response that conflicts with ARI's no-borders (for Europe and America) dogma will be suppressed, deleted and banned. That's their right. They have the absolute right to be dishonest evaders. And, the rest of us have the right to point out the cowardice at every opportunity.

This article was originally published here with supporting links: http://militaryreviews.blogspo...