Israel's Final Solution for Gaza and Lebanon

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Sun, 2010-06-06 20:22

In every serious and important sense, Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon have declared war on Israel. These two jihadi states are overwhelmingly committed to conquering and enslaving the local Jews -- if not exterminating them. And these Muslim monsters are very open and confident about achieving this new holocaust. Pretty much nothing could be more heartlessly evil. So why doesn't Israel effectively counter these massive threats, and defeat these two obvious Islamo-fascist enemies?


The nations of Gaza and Lebanon profoundly need to be decisively and resoundingly defeated. Their two dictatorships need to be crushed into oblivion for all time. The political, intellectual, religious, and military leaders there should be captured and killed -- or at least publicly humiliated -- and their false and evil philosophy of Islam, jihad, and sharia should be simultaneously refuted, condemned, and ridiculed into non-existence.


And some of the war-mongering, enemy territory of the Gazans and Lebanese needs to be taken away from the Islamic attackers so that they know that they've been defeated, and thus have to pay a real price for their loss (a kind of legitimate "land for peace" deal). These Muslim ignoramuses and lowlives need to be clearly and emphatically informed that their defeat is a direct product of their ideology, and that they desperately need a new one if they wish to acquire liberty, prosperity, and the good life, while avoiding terrible military defeats in future.


The victorious party (Israel), in turn, should impose this new ideology by force. They should use coercion and propaganda (no debates), for as long as necessary, to convert the Muslim barbarians into Western liberals. This means, among other things, no more Islamic t'v', radio, web sites, lectures, sermons, mosques, madrassas, monuments, etc. Only strictly Western liberal ones are allowed.


Israel should follow the practice of occupied Germany and Japan from 1945 to 1955. She should help give her Islamic enemies a new culture by completely rewriting their constitution and laws. And Israel should only end the occupation when the Islamic former-savages are truly civilized. Meanwhile, Israel should fully tax them thruout the occupation so that this re-education process costs the Jews nothing. Better yet, Israel should somewhat overtax these Islamic aggressors and monsters so that the occupation yields a small profit.


This process worked beautifully in Germany and Japan. And even tho' Muslims now are basically low animals (owing to their false and evil Islamic beliefs), they're still human beings. So it will work beautifully in Gaza and Lebanon too.


( categories: )

Aaron

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I knew we could count on you Linz to be wrong on this.

Always a pleasure. Eye

Regarding anti-Islam O'ism

Doug Bandler's picture

And, yes, in a way I would actually respect an intellectual opponent on this issue more if they called (certainly unjustifiable in my view) for outright banning of practice of Islam, confiscation of all Islamic places of worship, etc.

I have not yet seen an Objectivist make the argument against the banning of Islam in America, but there are those that are close. If Islam is conceived as an ideology dedicated to a permanent solicitation to commit murder of non-believers - an argument that has alot to support it especially the Koran itself - then it can be argued that organized Islam is a perpetual threat to the safety and lives of non-believers. In that case Mosques, Islamic schools, etc, would all be enemy incursions and the Cordoba House would be an enemy beach-head. This line of thinking on Islam is not crazy. I don't know if I would go that far but I wouldn't summarily dismiss it (or those like the Peikoffs and Ed Cline who are coming close to this type of argument).

I think that as Objectivism (and thus Objectivists) have more experience with and exposure to Islam, special objections to that religion (as opposed to Christianity) will develop. Islam is the most warlike religion ever conceived. It is a hate-filled, supremacist ideology dedicated to the conquest of non-believers, the plunder of their property, and the subjugation of their people. As much as I hate Christianity, I concede that Christianity is far less vile than Islam. New Testament Christianity was a pacifist creed dedicated to the renunciation of this world. Islam is a warrior's rationalization for conquering the whole planet.

LP's 'fatwa' element was

Aaron's picture

LP's 'fatwa' element was terrible, an inexcusable attempt to shutdown discussion without debate, and guaranteed to foment the worst hostility. However, AP (on the one side) and Paul Hsieh (on the other) I think both gave excellent civil coverage of the respective viewpoints and the difficulties involved, and were great voices of reason and calm in soothing the divide of potential 'Oist schism 2010'.

"These arguments do not lead to "destroying" Muslims and mosques in America but they may lead to a significant (if not total) restriction on the practice of Islam itself. This is something which is not a crazy, hate-filled claim the way you make it out to be."

My presentation was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Obviously I don't agree with either Peikoff, especially Leonard, concerning current conclusions. However, I do think that *if* their central concept were true - i.e. we're at war with Islam itself and this can legitimately trump the property right of American Muslims - the resulting conclusion concerning course of action would be in fact *much* broader and stronger than they are mentioning. To most 'anti-Cordoba-house' Oists' credit, only LP and a subset are arguing for 'literally explosive' actions as opposed to only using govt zoning laws, etc. Regardless the particular type of actions they view as legitimate against Muslims, though, it seems clear that the application would logically be about mosques+Muslims anywhere in the country rather than myopic focus on only the headline-grabbing Cordoba house. And, yes, in a way I would actually respect an intellectual opponent on this issue more if they called (certainly unjustifiable in my view) for outright banning of practice of Islam, confiscation of all Islamic places of worship, etc.

Aaron

Wrong characterization

Doug Bandler's picture

Seriously, I've yet to see someone anti-Cordoba-house get over their irrelevant obsession with 'it's near ground zero!' and actually see that the implications of their philosophical arguments leads to destroying mosques and muslims anywhere in the country.

These arguments do not lead to "destroying" Muslims and mosques in America but they may lead to a significant (if not total) restriction on the practice of Islam itself. This is something which is not a crazy, hate-filled claim the way you make it out to be. Dealing with Islam is a very serious issue. One which Objectivism as a whole has not really focused on. For the record I agree with Dr. Peikoff but I think that the debate that went on was a good one with good arguments presented on both sides. And for the most part it was civil.

Isn't that disappointing

Aaron's picture

Isn't that disappointing about Peikoff? He went straight for the bombing of private property on American soil - but then got all pussy about it and said the mosque should be evacuated first, rather than bombing it when full of muslims! What's the point of that? And where's his call for bombing all the other mosques too? If you're going to toss rights in the wastebin, why be so half-hearted about it?

Seriously, I've yet to see someone anti-Cordoba-house get over their irrelevant obsession with 'it's near ground zero!' and actually see that the implications of their philosophical arguments leads to destroying mosques and muslims anywhere in the country. They'd still be dead wrong, but at least not so bloody inconsistent.

I knew we could count on you Linz to be wrong on this. I'm not even surprised by Peikoff being wrong, though his new 'fatwa' about 'you don't really understand Objectivism' if you disagree is disturbing. Hseih and others nailed it.

Aaron

And she's absolutely right!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And far too polite.

Unfortunately it's chickens coming to roost. Leonard relied on the likes of rationalists like Diana for support for his fatwa which succoured the very scum whose "property rights" he is now correctly arguing against.

Still, better late than never. Leonard is right, Diana is wrong. The mosque should be stopped, and if it gets built, bombed out of existence.

Amy Peikoff

gregster's picture

In support of Lenny.

Scott

Olivia's picture

But you Kiwis need to get the bird shit out of your ears and listen, and understand what I have said on all of this.
"Muslim appeaser" is about the meanest, most-insulting and inaccurate thing that has ever been attributed to me on this site.

I'm certainly not intending to be mean or insulting to you. I have always had the utmost respect for you.
This has come about because of what I consider to be a really poor metaphor; that the Islamic threat to America is nothing more than a bee-sting on a cancer patient. A bee sting won't kill a cancer patient, unless there exists a chronic allergy. I tried to point out to you that the Islamic threat is well within your borders and growing rapidly - in the clip I posted, Sharia Law has more weight with the police than the U.S. Constitution!

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm with Peikoff 1000% on this. This is not another fatwa. He's not making agreement with him a litmus test. He simply states, accurately, that Objectivism's view of property rights is not rationalistic and contextless and does not mandate, in the present situation (war, declared by them) allowing the construction of a mosque to go ahead. He's absolutely right.

The only error he makes is in equating Obama with Bush. Bush was weakened by precisely the eventuality Peikoff's fatwa promoted: a Dem-scum takeover of Congress. He should revoke that damned rubbish once and for all, explicitly—and the mindless lemmings who unquestioningly supported it (or remained silent about it) should admit how pathetic they were. The correct term, btw, is "Hsiekovians"! Eye And they'll agree with him on this matter not because he's right, alas, but because he's Leonard.

I like the distinction he makes between "passive" and "innocent." Spot on.

I am *very* concerned about how fragile he sounds.

Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mosque

Doug Bandler's picture

Dr. Peikoff has weighed in on the Ground Zero Mosque:

http://www.peikoff.com/podcasts/

He again states that disagreement with him is tantamount to not understanding Objectivism. I actually do agree with him but with some stipulations. I just wish he wouldn't make agreement with him on an application of Objectivism to a very difficult case the litmus test of being an Objectivist. Nevertheless, his view on this is KASS. I have a feeling that most of the Hseihkoffians will not agree with him.

I will simply note that the

Richard Wiig's picture

I will simply note that the same "Filthy Nazis" would APPLAUD what Kyrel has supported

The filthy nazis are actually aligned with Islam so really, Kyrel, hits the nail right on the head.

Play Down?

atlascott's picture

Appeaser?

"you play down this threat"

Like hell.

I am not going to repeat what I have written on this site, repeatedly, about ISLAM being the problem.

I am not going to repeat my support of crushing foreign force.

I am not going to repeat what I have said in the past about what needs to be done domestically.

I am not even going to point out that dealing with Islam domestically and culturally is distinct from the wasteful, suicidal foreign policy we have been following overseas.

I will simply note that the same "Filthy Nazis" would APPLAUD what Kyrel has supported, here and elsewhere, being applied to Americans citizens, and he has authorized totalitarian power over us all. This trend - giving up the Constitution for an "Emergency" - is the real biggest threat here, along with what the government is doing to our economy.

Especially when in foreign policy, we could wipe them off the map.

I'm not an appeaser or soft on anyone who doesn't deserve it.

But you Kiwis need to get the bird shit out of your ears and listen, and understand what I have said on all of this.

"Muslim appeaser" is about the meanest, most-insulting and inaccurate thing that has ever been attributed to me on this site.

Funny (not) ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... how it takes non-Americans to point this out to (some) American Objectivists.

Whereupon they get all uppity!!

Objectivists, raised on Rand's railings against those whom Lady Slapper rightly calls "filthy filthy appeasers" need to have it explained to them why (and even that) appeasement is filthy??!!

I've just relocated to my previous residence where I get Fox News. Beck has become a complete flake in the time I've been away, and Fox generally just mindlessly manic. They can't say "It's warm in California" without making it sound like the Apocalypse! Despicable, in the literal sense. Gratuitous brainless melodrama to be despised, treating us as morons who need shock and horror every nanosecond. (And the quackers!! Worse than Kiwis!!) I couldn't work for them. I'd simply refuse to be part of that foul and phony frenzy, and I would assuredly shoot Shepard Smith as its most foul and phony perpetrator. I watched with disgust for a few hours and then wondered why I'd missed it. It's just another face of the Drooling Beast, giving good ideas a bad name with its inane hysteria.

And I just wish McChrystal would tell Obama to go fuck himself, to quote a popular salutation around here. Eye

I'll be back fulltime in a bit. Meanwhile, I'm glad to see the young folk enjoying themselves.

Bravo Olivia!

gregster's picture

Bee stings my arse!

Whoa!

Olivia's picture

Syrian born Wafa Sultan speaks about Islam with her usual vehement urgency.

Regarding Muslim women she says: "They must realise that they have only two choices; to change or to be crushed."

Bee sting on a cancer patient bullshit!

Olivia's picture

Scott, it really annoys me that you play down this threat.

Ok, America has bigger problems internally, you may say, but that is exactly what is giving the Islamic movement its impetus to boldly expand.
"Over there?" If only!
It's now deeply embedded within the boundaries of your own shores.

Check out the video of the christians in Dearborn who can't even hand out the gospel of John OUTSIDE the Arab Festival without being taken into custody. That's because even your police force understands that Muslims have to be left alone because they're politically "special."

Dangerous, dangerous stuff.

Also, watch the interview conducted by Bill Whittle on the PJTV clip. Ground Zero will soon have an Islamic "victory marker" sprawled over it. This makes me feel sick.

9/11 wasn't enough of a lesson to the world it seems. Makes me almost certain that it will take another World War for people to get it. Even in that case it might not be enough.... socialism and communism didn't exactly die in the last one did they.

ACT FOR AMERICA NEWS HOMEPAGE... http://www.actforamerica.org/i...

And I object to the statement that Kyrel "pollutes" his posts. He does nothing of the sort. If Mr. Greaves wants us to go all softly softly just because a billion people, who happen to think their hideous ideology is the truth, might have their fucking feelings hurt, then we're really in trouble, even here on SOLO.

Filthy Nazis!
Filthy Pinkos!
Filthy Muzzies!
And the very worst because they let the other three breathe too freely...
filthy, filthy Appeasers!

Bravo, Mr. Greaves

atlascott's picture

"...Kyrel's statements included unfocused visceral nonsense - slurs applicable to more than a billion people.

Every believing theist is to be pitied, but they are not all morally equivalent...."

Good stuff, Mr. Greaves. Kyrel is correct about a lot here, but he pollutes it.

Well...

atlascott's picture

I supposed I cannot get away with smiling and saying "I never did mind the little things..."

Yeah, Paul's overall approach to foreign policy is good, but, as I have admitted before, he is not on track when assessing the threat in this particular. And it is a big problem.

Unfortunately, the "bee sting on a cancer patient" analogy stands, because America has survival-level threats and what is going on between Islam and America "over there" is not anywhere near the most pressing issue. You, Linz, know that I agree that there needs to be some serious and unquivocal show of force. Effective, dead-bad-guy-and-settlements-turned-to-dust sort of violence. I think that we even agree that occupation, attempts at regime-building, and unncessary boots on the ground are wastes of time, when we have such other cost effective options at our disposal.

I am still impressed with Paul's grasp of economics and politics, but as I have said, i am not a proponent of all of his positions on every issue. I still think that he is the smartest, most well-read and most liberty-friendly candidate.

Olivia, I am referred to your posts which bear the Subjects of "Have to Say" and "Doug..." Great stuff.

mfgreaves

Leonid's picture

mfgreaves "And to my ear, "filthy muzzies" sounds too much like "filthy kikes". It is to a dark and unthinking place that such discourse will lead us."
And to my ear too, maybe even more, since I personally know many Muslims, some of them are religious, who are decent, hard working and peace loving people. However that doesn't justify moral grayness of political correctness. The failure to call the evil by its name could only lead to the compromise with it. “In the compromise between good and evil only evil could win" (AR). I want to reiterate: I don't consider Muslims en mass as evil. The whole confusion arrives from the equivocation of Islam with Muslims. Islam, or rather Islamism is political ideology that without doubt is evil. Islamists are evil. But they represent only a thiny minority of Muslims.

You're right Kyrel..

Olivia's picture

But in context, and under a war situation, it would only take a little to fairly classify the attendants and supporters as traitors. Then they could be tried and executed.

I like this much better. My fighting spirit sometimes makes me so hot under the collar that I shoot first and ask questions later.

In my view, freedom is 100% good in theory and 100% good in practice. It's just sometimes you have to look for the proper freedom alternative.

Thank you for reminding me that people will hang themselves in the context of freedom.

My biggest problem with all of this Islamic crap is that their movement is politically sanctioned by the West, not just tolerated, but actually helped, endorsed, protected and mollycoddled by our system. Makes me wanna smash it all.

Any insights on this?

Freedom Always

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Olivia -- I like your fighting spirit! You said:

"Imagine during WWII having Shinto schools operating all over America and Europe whilst the allied troops were fighting down in the Pacific - or Nazi schools for that matter whilst dropping the troops on Normandy. Would be ludicrous and counter-intuitive."

I basically agree. But these schools and propaganda centers should still be left untouched, based on freedom of speech and thought. But in context, and under a war situation, it would only take a little to fairly classify the attendants and supporters as traitors. Then they could be tried and executed. Before that, these organizations should be very highly "profiled" and observed, with their proponents doing the war effort a favor by self-identifying themselves as very likely enemies. During war, common sense dictates few Shinoists and Nazis will attend, and these can certainly be heavily punished by society (not gov't) by being treated as pariahs.

In my view, freedom is 100% good in theory and 100% good in practice. It's just sometimes you have to look for the proper freedom alternative.

Now come on ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Just listen to yourself. My point was about the rush to defend Islamogoblinism or minimise its threat. You're in the latter category, not the former. I don't understand why you'd be in either, given that Islamogoblinism is disgusting, filthy and menacing from any pro-freedom standpoint. So there has to be something else going on. Did you marry an Islamogoblin instead of me? That *would* be grounds for excommunication!

In the meantime, I shall act on your kind advice.

But I won't endorse your DeSalvian appeasement. Go fuck yourself too.

Whole lotta self-fuckin' goin' on!

Yeah, that's what I am,

PhilipD's picture

Yeah, that's what I am, Lindsay; a staunch defender of Islam. Go fuck yourself.

I truly don't understand ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the rush to defend Islamogoblinism here and diminish its menace. Obviously you bee-sting-on-a-cancer-patient types won't be persuaded by any number of bombings and other atrocities, or by bin Laden's fatwa against America, but here it is anyway:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/te...

For clarity then,

gregster's picture

if I may. How about "The [insert mysticism of choice] and their ideology need to be humiliated and disgraced"?

'The Muslims and their

PhilipD's picture

'The Muslims and their ideology need to be humiliated and disgraced.'
~Kyrel

That's all Muslims: seems straight forward, Olivia.

So no view then on why, if as you say, moderate Muslims are such a tiny, tiny minority, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are not subjected to Islamic laws? If all of them are so hell-bent on world domination why haven't they started in their own backyard first?

Sheesh!

Olivia's picture

But the idea that book burning, bombing mosques and setting out to humiliate all Muslims by declaring war upon Islam, will somehow light further fires of resistance in a country such as Malaysia is flat out wrong.

Nobody, Philip, has even suggested this for Malaysia.... my point with countries such as this is that they have to reform themselves and until they do, their governments should be foes to the West.

'Currently, Malaysia has no

PhilipD's picture

'Currently, Malaysia has no law that would impose the death penalty on apostates. Yet public movements have been formed to highlight this Islamic tenet.'

True enough. Yet were you to read Malaysian newspapers you would know that there are increasing strong protests, particularly amongst the growing middle-class, against nonsense such as this and against the caning of Muslims who drink grog.

But the idea that book burning, bombing mosques and setting out to humiliate all Muslims by declaring war upon Islam, will somehow light further fires of resistance in a country such as Malaysia is flat out wrong.

What is also interesting about Malaysia is that it has a two-track justice system; Muslims are subject to Islamic laws, non-Muslims are not. And there don’t seem to be any plans to change that.

Why is that do you think?

Olivia

Doug Bandler's picture

What is your take on Diana's view regarding Islam? She's making an argument similar to Leonid's. Namely that you can not ban or regulate in the realm of ideas. She's likening that to thought-crime legislation and argues that it is right out of the Left's playbook.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/201...

I'm not so sure Kyrel...

Olivia's picture

about this...

Islam, Nazism, communism, devil worship, and other wretched philosophies -- no matter how false and evil -- should never be banned, nor their propaganda centers forcibly closed down.

...especially when America has deployed 166,000 troops to counter it.

Islam is a political movement, which has declared war on the West (I know I'm beginning to sound like a parrot on this point, but so be it).

Imagine during WWII having Shinto schools operating all over America and Europe whilst the allied troops were fighting down in the Pacific - or Nazi schools for that matter whilst dropping the troops on Normandy. Would be ludicrous and counter-intuitive.

Re: Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East

mfgreaves's picture

Rand's statements in that video (which I have seen more than once), are focused and rational. She reminds us that Israel is an island of reason in a sea of unreason. Kyrel's statements included unfocused visceral nonsense - slurs applicable to more than a billion people.

Every believing theist is to be pitied, but they are not all morally equivalent. They may all be guilty of something, but Israel must start by blunting the tip of Islam's spear. Bury Hamas and Hezbollah. Neutralize Iran. Many of the world's other muslims will follow the western theists out of the middle ages.

And to my ear, "filthy muzzies" sounds too much like "filthy kikes". It is to a dark and unthinking place that such discourse will lead us.

Mike

(And perhaps Leonid did not realize that solopassion.com *had* been tagged in a web filter as an "extremist site", as Mr. Perigo's post "First They Came for the Objectivists ..." relates. "extremists for political correctness"? How about "extremists for property rights"? Anybody can block any site they want from their network. Or is their network to be placed at *our* disposal? How about a newspaper being required to print every letter-to-the-editor?? Certainly Mr. Perigo is not required to publish this post on his site, though I hope that he will.)

Leonid wrote:
"Objectivists are radicals, radicals for reason. But if extremists for political correctness want to censor solopassion, they should censor Ayn Rand first."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Freedom of Association for Liberal Nation-States

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Islam, Nazism, communism, devil worship, and other wretched philosophies -- no matter how false and evil -- should never be banned, nor their propaganda centers forcibly closed down. But the people who hold such beliefs and patronize such places should be extremely carefully watched (or "profiled") by rights-protecting gov't. And at some point, in my view, if a given citizen or denizen is such a hard-core enemy of his Western liberal state, then he should be judged an objective threat and potential treasonist -- and thus forcibly removed from the country. On the surface, this seems to trample freedom of expression and belief -- but I say No. I call it freedom of association in which collectives can choose who they want to associate with, talk to, etc. -- but obvious enemies and lol-lifes aren't allowed to force their way inside (such as into a private country club). Keeping and kicking out individuals of such vast social evil and menace is evidently just. Such deportation strips a communist's and jihadi's political rights (privileges) -- but not their civil liberties.

Olivia

Leonid's picture

Olivia "Unfortunately the power of ideas can get deeply buried in human experience if frightfully bad ones are the order of the day. "

Bad ideas become the order of the day by default, that is, by the lack of the good ones. You don't have to wait thousand years if you take Kyrel's advice :
"The key to winning the war on Islam is tell the truth. Teach Western intellectual and political leaders the facts about Islam, and then have them state openly and loudly that Islam is an ideology as evil as communism and Nazism. "

I'd add-this is not enough to expose the evil nature of certain ideology. One has to define what is good and what is evil , to show the alternative to evil, to substitute bad ideas with the good ones and to show why they are good. This is a job for philosopher, not for a soldier and every battle first won in the realm of ideas.

I don't know why ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

...DeSalvo is applauding you, Lady Slapper (though naturally I join in the applause). He's the one who says the Islamogoblins are but bee-stings on a cancer patient. Evil

And, Big Scott, I challenge you to comment on Mr. Bandler's retraction of his support for Saddamite Paul after Paul's beyond-disgraceful comments about Israel and the Gaza situation.

Thanks Scott...

Olivia's picture

Kick Ass, Olivia! Great post.

Which one?

This conference is where I am from. (Chicago, IL)

Might pay to alert the media - left and right - to see what they make of it, who knows, maybe they might even cover it?

Leonid...

Olivia's picture

you said this to Kyrel; "Are they successful? Think about Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. They are in the dustbin of history. Think about ongoing uprising in Iran. You shouldn't underestimate the power of ideas."

Unfortunately the power of ideas can get deeply buried in human experience if frightfully bad ones are the order of the day. I cite the glory of the Greco-Roman period giving way to the darkness of the Medieval age as an example. Then a gestation period of 1000 odd years before the Renaissance and another 400 odd before such a thing as beautiful and necessary as Separation of Church and State was on the table for serious discussion. Forgive me, but I'm not that patient.

Philip

Olivia's picture

I've taken it that by war, Olivia means just that. Guns and bombs against all of Islam. So was I wrong in thinking that?

You are wrong.

But make no mistake, it is Islam that is our foe... not just Sharia, Jihad or Terrorism, but actual Islam. ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION IT IS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT - which happens to be based on its abject superstition.

Where necessary guns and bombs should be used - Gaza and Iran for instance - 2 examples of states that should be given no quarter. (By that I mean no quarter given to its leadership and military, not its civilian population unless they aggress.)

In America, anti-western Islamic zealots should be stripped of their citizenship and kicked out of the country. Muslim schools should be shut down, mosques and movements where Sharia and Jihad are favourite topics should be closed.

We keep thinking like Westerners regarding civil rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc, but civil rights exist for civilized people. Those who wish for calamity to brought down on us are not civil... hell, they're not even sane.

In this war a great deal of effort is going to have to be spent deciding who is friend and who is foe, but once a foe has been identified as a foe, he should be treated as that and ONLY that.

You might find this an interesting article about Islam in Malaysia... www.islamicnz.com/?q=node/119

The country is now riveted on the fate of ordinary citizens like sales assistant Lina Joy and former religious teacher Kamariah Ali, who are trying to change their religious affiliation through the legal system. Muslim professional organizations and the Islamic opposition political party hold the view that renunciation of Islam is punishable by death. Likewise, the defense by Malaysian civil reform movements of individuals' freedom of conscience has been denounced by some religious leaders as an attack on Islam.

Currently, Malaysia has no law that would impose the death penalty on apostates. Yet public movements have been formed to highlight this Islamic tenet. If it is not applied, the argument goes, there will be a massive exodus of Muslims to other faiths. The immediate goal is to keep the courts from allowing Lina Joy or Kamariah Ali to convert.

Until countries like this can move beyond such legal dilemmas as whether or not to put to death apostates, their governments should be treated as foes. I'm sure if many of their citizens, as you say, look to the West in admiration it will help them to fight for the separation of Religion and State in their own backyard, as well they should to bring about a Reformation. Then and only then might it end up as just a religion.

Interesting discussion

Doug Bandler's picture

What I take from this discussion is that the subject of how to classify Islam is a difficult one. Olivia has made a good argument that Islam proper is our enemy. But if that is the case, then it would follow that Islam itself should then be banned. That's a difficult call. Many Objectivists would disagree with that. This is a ultimately an epistemological issue and a very complex one. One would have to have more knowledge of Islam and of ethical / political theory than I currently possess. I think this is a question that Objectivism needs to answer though because a big argument against Objectivism / libertarianism is that it can not provide for the defense of a nation. We can't let that image stand.

Massive, Aggressive Population

atlascott's picture

This conference is where I am from. (Chicago, IL)

There is a massive population of Muslims in the SW burbs of Chicago.

Insular, non-English-speaking, and they belong to Mosques where hate and conquest is advocated.

American intelligence agencies must be utterly blind, deaf and dumb. Or shackled by the direction of their political masters.

A Quick and EASY War to Win

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The key to winning the war on Islam is tell the truth. Teach Western intellectual and political leaders the facts about Islam, and then have them state openly and loudly that Islam is an ideology as evil as communism and Nazism. This will devastate it and its followers. Jihad and sharia will go into swift and deep decline. Muslims everywhere will kill these two loathsome ideals.

Also have the US Congress officially declare war on all jihadi groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. Hunt them down everywhere on earth and exterminate them. Don't worry about the "innocent civilian" colleagues, supporters, and collaborators they hide behind.

Kill the top 1000 leaders and cronies in every Muslim dictatorship on earth using smart bombs and commandos.

Flood the Muslim world with pro-Western liberal propaganda. Don't allow the radio and t'v' etc. signals to be jammed. If fact, jam theirs.

Take back all of the oil and natural gas the Muslims "nationalized" away from us since the '50s -- plus penalties and interest.

Etc. All of this is justice. None is PC, MC, etc. But it's all moral and just. Piece of cake!

Kick Ass, Olivia!

atlascott's picture

Great post.

I've taken it that by war,

PhilipD's picture

I've taken it that by war, Olivia means just that. Guns and bombs against all of Islam. So was I wrong in thinking that?

Yes!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Magnificent by the Kiwis.

But you're missing the point darling. It's an ideology with which we're at war. Who here has said Malaysia or Indonesia has declared war and that we should flatten them qua Indonesia or Malaysia?

Actually, Bush was correct in the aftermath of 9/11 when he said any country which harbored this kind of filth should expect to be incursed upon. Unfortunately, he ran out of nerve. And all along was way too fond of the Saudis.

I must have missed both

PhilipD's picture

I must have missed both Indonesia's and Malaysia's declaration of war.

Certainly Indonesians would find it surprising that their representatives have declared war; they seem to be favouring democracy in ever increasing numbers. Or, do you get to decide who their true representatives are?

(still in Cambodia)

Gooooooooooal! And the Kiwis score!

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That's good to know. I get in terrible trouble for advocating a ban on Muslim immigration.

But just which part of the world are you in? It seems to keep changing? Eye

And the war on 1.5 billion people is no such thing. It's war against a filthy ideology whose representatives have declared war on us. Which part of that is difficult?

Wobbly? I would have acted

PhilipD's picture

Wobbly? I would have acted against Iran long ago were it up to me. And I would have stopped Muslim immigrants coming to the West long ago, too.
But lumping 1.5 billion people together on the basis of religion and then declaring war upon them, is just ugly. Hell, many of them either admire the West, or are just too damn busy scratching out a living to have the energy to hate it. Lest that's the way it seems in this part of the world.

Divine Mr D

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm curious. Normally you're reliably and impeccably KASS. But on Islamogoblinism you go wobbly. Why?

I trust my question won't cause you to have hurt feelings or flounce, as is the wont of others. I'm genuinely curious. No one here is advocating genocide against Muslims. Just taking them at their word. Wot's the problem?

So what do you reckon,

PhilipD's picture

So what do you reckon, Olivia? Flatten somewhere like Malaysia and see how that goes, or go for the big 'un first off and level Indonesia?

Olivia

Leonid's picture

Observe, that Islam is waging war mainly in the realms of ideas. What stop you to do the same thing? You are much better equiped. Show that Objectivism is a dawn of new era. They call to give up life. You can call to live the life in full.

No Doug..

Olivia's picture

Waging a war against Islam as such is an impossible objective.

Not if the West is prepared to be ruthless. (We know that they are not.)

ISLAM HAS DECLARED WAR ON THE WEST - and acted on it for fuck's sake.

Get a load of this? This shit is TOLERATED in US suburbs! It can and should be shut down and the people who fund and organize it thrown out of the country on their filthy asses.

Olivia

Doug Bandler's picture

Did you read my post? I said nothing about waging a war on "terror". My objection was to the phrase "the war against Islam" for the reasons I gave. You can't wage a war against one fourth of the human race. If we waged a ferocious war against Sharia Islam that would be enough. Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. My point is that when you declare war you must target an enemy you can defeat. Waging a war against Islam as such is an impossible objective.

Doug...

Olivia's picture

the point that you are missing - as do most people - is that Islam, through its military wing and fundamentalist traditionalists (most of them) has declared war on us. We should respond accordingly and demoralize it as a philosophy and incarcerate or deport those who take Jihad seriously.

Regarding Sharia law, it is rife throughout Europe and the US. You'd think that after brutal attacks on both their homelands the US and Europe would systematically weed out citizens who pay homage to any form of Sharia or Jihad - whether in mosques or schools - they need to be silenced and humiliated in the name of sedition. Instead they are sanctioned. Muslim schools should be banned at this time in its history.

I stress again that this is a war on Islam, not on terror, for the terror is only one small part of the atrocities which take place in its name. I also stress again that Islam is a political movement.

Why should we wait until THEY force a hideous calamity on our world before we take a hard line on their ideology and practices. Did WWII teach us nothing? I think there is wisdom in denying them the same civil rights as everyone else in order to protect civil liberties which they use for their own filthy agenda. They want submission - ours. "Filthy Muzzies" is too kind a term for these people.

A mosque anywhere near ground zero, privately funded or not, is an act of passive aggression toward us. It disgusts me more than I can say that a New York committee voted 25 to 1 in favour of it. They do it in the name of Islamic advancement which is part of their expansionist tactic. It is seditious and it needs rooting out, but alas we are being manipulated into showing "tolerance" toward it.

Fuck that.

Kyrel

Leonid's picture

"Otherwise...Kaa-blooeey!!!"
It just took few Islamists and half-million dollars to destroy Twin Towers and to kill 3000 Americans. Imagine what 1.5 billion, or even 1% of them could do, if they really wanted to.

"Leonid -- You write: "...I'd like to reiterate: one cannot fight ideas by force." Yes you can. Dictatorships do it all the time. So do semi-free states. "
Are they successful? Think about Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. They are in the dustbin of history. Think about ongoing uprising in Iran. You shouldn't underestimate the power of ideas.

Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East

Leonid's picture

mfgreaves:"This is the kind of thing that could get solopassion.com tagged as an extremist site in some web filter."
Objectivists are radicals, radicals for reason. But if extremists for political correctness want to censor solopassion, they should censor Ayn Rand first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

War Against Islam

Doug Bandler's picture

Olivia, I agree with nearly every word of your KASS post. The one small objection I have is to the phrase "the war against Islam". Why? For this reason. Islam is a religion with 1.5 billion adherents. It controls 57 countries. It is impossible to win a war against that type of enemy and to declare war against an enemy you can not defeat is suicide. Don't misunderstand, I despise Islam but you can't declare war on what amounts to 1/4 of mankind.

I would say the phrase should be the war against "Sharia Islam". Our goal should be to defeat the major political forces of Sharia (nation states most responsible for the spread of Sharia worldwide) and then to isolate and quarantine the Middle Eastern Islamic world. We should not be engaging in any type of cultural / political transformations of Muslim nations as that is impossible; no "Forward Strategies of Freedom" nonsense.

We should destroy enemy nations and then either leave them for dead or leave them to rebuild on their own with Roman style ultimatums that if they persist with Jihad we will annihilate them in a modern rendition of the destruction of Carthage. Domestically, we should make it impossible for Sharia to spread to Western lands which would mean restrictions placed on Islamic immigration as well as extreme scrutiny placed on Muslims and the practice of Islam. Some of these issues have been discussed in various threads. Lindsay has made some good comments on this.

But to declare war against an entire religion seems impossible to me and to violate one of the fundamental rules of war in that you should never fight an enemy you can't defeat.

Have to say...

Olivia's picture

that what Kyrel/Andre writes here in his original post IS what needs to be done. Israel has had war declared on it numerous times by the Palestinians, Lebanese and Gazans, not to mention that sick little man in Iran who intends to wipe it from the face of the earth - if that's not a declaration of war, what the hell is?

Bush coined the term "The War on Terror" inappropriately... it is, and should be, the war on Islam.

Islam is a frightful blend of barbaric ideas built around the humiliating concept of submission. Submission to a gargoyle of a God and his Pedophile Prophet, submission to repression, submission of Clerics & Imams, submission to stonings, submission to genital mutilations, submission to honour killings, submission to terrorism, submission to lashings, submission to forced marriages, submission to Sharia law and submission to political dictatorships. Whether people hold the ideology of Islam fundamentally or passively (moderately), it makes no difference, for the power of Islam in this particular epoch in which we speak, happens to be held by its fundamentalist/traditionalists. In the hands of its loving, gentle, peaceful Sufi poets it is not.

That power has to be broken before it breaks an already weakened West.

I see a world which seems to pay no heed to the fact that devastating nuclear weapons are being put into the hands of murderous, religious fanatics who intend to use them - and have even stated who they will use them on. Little Satan & Big Satan.

They are not fazed at the idea of bringing about calamity and death because they believe in the afterlife.

Crush them before they try to crush us. Islam is and always has been a political movement.

no more "We Con the World"

Doug Bandler's picture

Leftist YouTube blocked the Israeli "We Con the World" spoof of that idiotic, altruistic disgrace from the 80s "We Are the World". They say it is because of copyright infringement but that strikes me as bullshit. More evidence that the whole damn Leftist world is opposed to Israel and roots for her destruction. God, I hate Leftists.

First they came for the Objectivists

mfgreaves's picture

Kyrel wrote: "filthy muzzies"

This is the kind of thing that could get solopassion.com tagged as an extremist site in some web filter. I urge everyone to avoid using hateful language like this.

Israel is moral. Hamas is immoral.
We all know this here (I think).
What is needed is justice; not hatred.

Mike

Ideas vs. Force and Political Power

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leonid -- You write: "...I'd like to reiterate: one cannot fight ideas by force." Yes you can. Dictatorships do it all the time. So do semi-free states. These are part of the ideas advanced by Prof. John Lewis. Maybe you should check him out. In my judgment, he's the number one expert on war theory on this earth.

You also say: "There are about 1.5 billion Muslims [on earth]. If most of them were Islamists we all would be dead by now and the whole world would be one big radioactive ruin." Average, normal, standard, moderate Muslims want this! It's not so only due to a current lack of Muslim ability. Western science, and the resultant military technology and economic wealth, protect us. Otherwise...Kaa-blooeey!!! Sad

Doug

Leonid's picture

"“Do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is Merciful to you. And, whoever does that, out of aggression and injustice We shall burn him in a Fire. And that is easy for Allah."
( Qur'an, 4:29-30).

Doug "As regards this, it is my understanding that this is an earlier verse when Muhammed did not as yet have power. The way that Robert Spencer explains it is that the earlier more peaceful verses have been "abrogated" which means that they are superseded by later Meccan verses such as the Sword Verse (verse 9 I believe) which demands eternal war against the infidel. "

That's true, but nevertheless this verse is still valid . Suicide bombing is criticized by the scholars of Islam on this very basis. See for example
http://www.ihsanic-i...ked_Car....
However Islamists simply ignore their arguments.

Doug

Leonid's picture

Doug "A general point you make is that if government was strictly an individual rights protecting organization (as it should be) that strictly separated religion and state and prevented religious belligerence (of any religion) then society would be able to assimilate Muslims and inevitably lead to their secularization. "
That's right. The separation of state and religion is a two-way road. State has no business to deal with people's believes as long as their believes don't lead to the infringements of the other people's rights. But if some people will decide for example to introduce the practice of human sacrifices or killing in the name of the family's honour, they won't be able to justify these practices by using the excuse of religious freedom. State should promptly interfere in order to stop these practices and to punish the offenders.

one more thing about Islam

Doug Bandler's picture

For example Islam explicitly prohibits suicide.
"“Do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is Merciful to you. And, whoever does that, out of aggression and injustice We shall burn him in a Fire. And that is easy for Allah."
( Qur'an, 4:29-30).

As regards this, it is my understanding that this is an earlier verse when Muhammed did not as yet have power. The way that Robert Spencer explains it is that the earlier more peaceful verses have been "abrogated" which means that they are superseded by later Meccan verses such as the Sword Verse (verse 9 I believe) which demands eternal war against the infidel.

The anti-Jihad Conservatives argue that Muslims are trained to stress earlier "peaceful" verses of the Koran in their "outreach" programs with infidels to deceive them into believing that Islam is peaceful. From my understanding of the Koran (and from having read it), I am inclined to see Islam as a call from Allah to Muslims to wage eternal war against non-believers until all the world is dar-al-Islam. This is one of the reasons that I tend not to be as positive as you when it comes to Muslims. I admit, however, that I am no Islam scholar and it is entirely possible that the Conservative anti-Jihad authors have misrepresented things.

Leonid

Doug Bandler's picture

I also think that the problem of aggregates is exaggerated. 20% of Israeli population are Muslims and they don't even try to establish Sharia law even on the level of a village.

That is an interesting fact that I did not know.

A general point you make is that if government was strictly an individual rights protecting organization (as it should be) that strictly separated religion and state and prevented religious belligerence (of any religion) then society would be able to assimilate Muslims and inevitably lead to their secularization. I must admit that you are more positive on Muslims than I am. I often wonder if in today's world large quantities of Muslims can successfully be integrated in Western nations. But I admit I really don't have an answer to that. But its good to see someone with a really solid understanding of Objectivism like yourself take a positive position. It gives me something to think about.

Nonsense

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Women should be caged, most particularly because they're incapable of appreciating the music you mention. They're all hormones. In fact, they should be banned. There is no cure for women known to man. Pull yourself together, Quintana.

The New Rules

Jason Quintana's picture

I am in favor of the plan... the final solution outlined in this thread. But I want to add to the requirements. Especially when it comes to the women. I want to be the new Leader of this Nation. The important thing is that the women are subservient. And that they worship Jas.... J.... JAllah. And uh.. all of the other men can have up to 4 of them. But I can have as many as I want.

And there is one more requirement. They have to like Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky.

No... This is not enough. They have to LOVE Mahler and Sibelius too. Otherwise ears get chopped off.

Kyrel

Leonid's picture

Kyrel "Leonid -- Prof. John Lewis would certainly disagree with you about the morality and effectiveness of force and military victory in defeating evil and tyrannical ideas. I wonder: to the extend you know his views, how would you appraise them?"
I'm not familiar with Prof. John Lewis' views. But I'd like to reiterate: one cannot fight ideas by force. And for the proof look on the recent Iranian uprising. After 30 years of brutal Islamist oppression people went out against armed Revolutionary Guard, shouting " We want freedom."

Kyrel "And what percentage of Muslims in this world are merely Islamic, but not "Islamicist"? I personally find that first number miniscule."
Let see. There are about 1, 5 billion Muslims. If most of them were Islamists we all would be dead by now and the whole world would be one big radioactive ruin. Since this is not a case, your estimation apparently is not that accurate.

Doug

Leonid's picture

Doug "From reading the anti-Jihad literature, which is exclusively from Judeo-Christian Conservatives, I get the impression that they would disagree with this."
The truth is that Islam always was a political tool as Judaism and Christianity. But Islam is dealing with many other issues except conquest; it teaches the faithful what to eat and how to pray and how to wash hands and when and how to conduct lawful sexual intercourse and etc... Islamism uses certain parts of Islam and ignores or even contradicts others. For example Islam explicitly prohibits suicide.
"“Do not kill yourselves. Verily, Allah is Merciful to you. And, whoever does that, out of aggression and injustice We shall burn him in a Fire. And that is easy for Allah."
( Qur'an, 4:29-30).
That doesn't stop suicide bombers. Islam is powerful and dangerous only as long as it supported by the machinery of state. One cannot wage a war against another state or terrorize its population as private enterprise. I also think that the problem of aggregates is exaggerated. 20% of Israeli population are Muslims and they don't even try to establish Sharia law even on the level of a village. They know that Israeli government will not tolerate that. Vast majority of Israeli Muslims obey the law of the land.

Maybe Reread What I Actually Wrote!

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I would remind anyone who has forgotten, that the essence of this discussion is war, such as how Israel should deal with a militarily defeated Gaza and Lebanon, and how the WWII Allies should have dealt with the defeated fascist tyrannies -- those fantastically successful enemies and devastators of the West. I wasn't discussing how free states should deal with Muslims in general, except regarding immigration, which was a secondary topic introduced by Doug Bandler.

But I do indeed think that -- aside from a minimum of asylum cases -- only high quality people who enhance a given nation should be let in, or allowed to remain in, high quality states. And, yes, there are many more elements to consider than most people suppose when passing judgment on would-be immigrants. But anyone who thinks my long list of criteria is extreme or outrageous should consider: almost all these factors are considered already by most nations, albeit implicitly. And most people consider most of them when judging potential friends and associates too. Employing high standards for citizens or friends doesn't necessarily involve crazyness, maliciousness, fascism, or tyranny.

Scott

Olivia's picture

Yes, the smiley was to indicate that I'm not quite that cracked.

Proof positive

atlascott's picture

This thread is just another exhibit in the vast body of evidence establishing that a person can be correct on a particular sub-issue but PROFOUNDLY WRONG and even clearly cracked on most or all others -- and they always reveal it if you let them continue speaking.

"Kyrel" and Olivia, I hope one or both of you are joking. In Olivia's case, the smiley suggests that she is, thank goodness.

Dangerous, puerile nonsense. Scary, fascist.

Just ask yourself WHO is going to do the evaluating and exporting and deciding who gets screened.

You will immediately have your answer. Government.

Such a system would enable government power over all of us to an extent unimagined here, and realized only in the worst dictatorships the world has ever known.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug—you quoting Kyrel:

I favor standards and evaluations for current citizens. Anyone who can't pass a test should have their citizenship stripped and be summarily deported. This test should generally include: IQ, education, law-abidingness, non-welfarism, pulchritude, athleticism, artistry, youthful adulthood, rationality, individualism, libertarianism, entrepreneurship, creativity, patriotism, English fluency, wealth, etc. I don't favor banning Muslim immigration per se, but we should profile the hell out of them, and almost consider them "guilty until proven innocent," as others here have suggested.

I did warn you that one minute he's like the ARI on uppers, the next like TAS on downers. You've just seen an instance of the former. You might now evince the latter by suggesting Sciabarrian Polish, as I call it, is not scholarship but pretentious gibberish. Eye

Gosh...

Olivia's picture

Deporting citizens for lack of pulchritude?!? You definitely can be KASS, but we have to part company on this subject.

I'm with Kass Kyrel on this one! My eyes hurt from having to look at ugly, unkempt people all too often - I honestly have to force myself against my will to hold eye contact sometimes because it's hard to cut car deals without it. Such people are welcome to wear burquas any day around me. Eye

Kyrel

Doug Bandler's picture

Some good points in there, but this:

But I would go even further in citizenship/residency restrictionism. I favor standards and evaluations for current citizens. Anyone who can't pass a test should have their citizenship stripped and be summarily deported. This test should generally include: IQ, education, law-abidingness, non-welfarism, pulchritude, athleticism, artistry, youthful adulthood, rationality, individualism, libertarianism, entrepreneurship, creativity, patriotism, English fluency, wealth, etc.

politely speaking is over the top. This sounds more like some juiced up version of Plato's Republic than an individualist Laissez-faire state. Deporting citizens for lack of pulchritude?!? You definitely can be KASS, but we have to part company on this subject.

'PhilipD -- Just curious:

PhilipD's picture

'PhilipD -- Just curious: What do you think of all the book burnings and literature destructions in Germany and Japan after WWII?'

It was silly; there was no general order to find and destroy books in private homes, so what really was the point? And on the banned list were books on plumbing and horse care, for example.

But that's a side issue.

German book burning gave a way to compare Nazi Germany with 'America’s free marketplace of ideas.' That was a mighty strong contrast. But then they threw that all away by trashing books upon victory. What message do you think that sent, not just to the Germans but to Americans and the rest of the world, about freedom? We are paying for that now. And if you burn a book, do the ideas burn, too?

Now how about all that mosque bombing and lining people up against a wall and shooting them if they fail your 'correct thinking' test, Kyrel?

Prof. John Lewis

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leonid -- Prof. John Lewis would certainly disagree with you about the morality and effectiveness of force and military victory in defeating evil and tyrannical ideas. I wonder: to the extend you know his views, how would you appraise them? And what percentage of Muslims in this world are merely Islamic, but not "Islamicist"? I personally find that first number miniscule.

A Better Way

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

PhilipD -- Just curious: What do you think of all the book burnings and literature destructions in Germany and Japan after WWII? What do you think of the Allies' mandatory re-education efforts, including forcing non-military civilians to visit the worst part of the death camps? Do you consider all that censorship and coercion to be ineffective or counterproductive? What would have been a better way to convert them away from fascism and militarism?

Immigration in General and for (ugh!) Muslims

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Immigration is a somewhat difficult and tricky issue -- at least for me.

But in general I do not favor open immigration. That sounds like open trespass and open invasion to me. It violates the principle of free association and, indirectly, private property. And it's much worse in a welfare state like America where there is coercive collectivism, such as public streets, no-charge public schools and emergency medical rooms, and (absurd) automatic citizenship for babies born here, including crime-prone, illegal immigrants.

But I would go even further in citizenship/residency restrictionism. I favor standards and evaluations for current citizens. Anyone who can't pass a test should have their citizenship stripped and be summarily deported. This test should generally include: IQ, education, law-abidingness, non-welfarism, pulchritude, athleticism, artistry, youthful adulthood, rationality, individualism, libertarianism, entrepreneurship, creativity, patriotism, English fluency, wealth, etc. I don't favor banning Muslim immigration per se, but we should profile the hell out of them, and almost consider them "guilty until proven innocent," as others here have suggested.

Hope this helps! (Also hope this discussion hasn't alarmed too many people. But I'm a fearless, true-Objectivist radical and many people should NOT read my comments. I'm also a pure elitist who does not write for the massman.)

Appeasing Islam

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay -- You wrote of my supporting "weasel-wording appeasers of Islamofascist Goblinism like Sciabarra." You'd really have to cite a specific opinion or article of his before I could express an evaluation of Prof. Sciabarra's views. To my knowledge he hates Islamo-fascism and doesn't appease it at all.

Alas, it's true ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Dr. Peikoff isn't infallible. See his fatwa!

But he's magnificent. And passionate. Can't say the same for Harry, dammit.

Correction

Doug Bandler's picture

I shouldn't have phrased it "validating perception". What Binswanger is going to do is to defend perception from the materialist attack that perception is "flawed" and we can't trust the evidence of the senses. That is one of the primary arguments used by skeptics / materialists to attack the validity of reason and to belittle Ayn Rand. Binswanger is well read in the physiology of perception in a way that Ayn Rand wasn't. He's read and studied James Jerome Gibson and is going to incorporate some of that knowledge into his defense of perception.

I do seriously hope you're starting to realise there are important insights into applications of Objectivism independent of HBL?!

Please, say it isn't so! The next thing you'll be telling me is that Dr. Peikoff isn't infallible. What else? Do I have to give back my ARI secret decoder ring too? You ask too much.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

He will even get into validating perception.

Perception needs to be validated??!!

Only to a rationalist.

I should add that Binswanger was regarded by the orthodoxy as a rationalist—and even, at the highest level, as a dishonest one—until recently, when, for whatever reason, he was re-ordained as respectable.

My own view is that he's intellectually outstanding but an off-putting, snotty, deliberately, gratuitously obnoxious anal-retentive. See Ellen Stuttle's account of her husband's encounter with him. Somewhere here. Ellen?

And Doug, you don't seriously have to justify your membership of HBL to me. I'm just pulling your tit. I do seriously hope you're starting to realise there are important insights into applications of Objectivism independent of HBL?! Eye

more on aggregates

Doug Bandler's picture

Raises the question-would they emigrate without those benefits?

They might. The anti-Jihad literature argues that conquest through immigration is a favorite Islamogoblinist tactic. They might come over for the economic opportunities and still try to implement Sharia. The solution to that would be to repudiate multiculturalism which is part of the broader philosophic battle that is with the Left and not with Islam.

Surely one or one thousand is the same problem, in principle.

But what about ten million or one hundred million? The point I am getting it is that if you are going to be an advocate of open immigration, and open immigration is an integral component of laissez-faire (free market of labor and not labor protectionism), then you need to be able to make the case to anti-immigrationists (read Conservatives) that open immigration is not suicidal. What argument can you give when these Conservatives hit you with "so you libertarians are just going to let one hundred million Muslims into the country? And what will stop them from establishing a Sharia state? See, libertarianism is unrealistic and a suicide pact"? This is a common sentiment among Conservatives (especially Paleos - they tend to hate libertarians and Objectivists).

Lindsay has offered a good starting point. IslamoGoblinites have waged war in Islam's name. This changes the presumption of benevolence to go against all Muslims unless they do something to swear off Political Islam. (What exactly is a difficult question.) But the principle seems to be a sound one, namely if you have an ideological phenomenon (which Islam is) and the spokesmen of that ideology wage war against you in the name of that ideology then all people under that ideological banner are presumed to be in a state of war with you. This gives us a rights-based principle to prohibit them from entering the country, and we need principles not just common sense. Common sense, as important as it is, is never enough.

However, this still doesn't answer the problem of aggregates with regard to immigration as a whole. Many Conservatives and even some Objectivists (Scott Atlas) will argue that if you let in large numbers of immigrants from non-liberty oriented countries that you could change the native culture (and possibly destroy it). So even in a much freer country, could you allow one hundred million Hispanics to enter in a relatively short period? Even without a welfare state? I don't know. Does the government have a legitimate role in keeping immigration at a "reasonable pace"? Again, I don't know.

Ok...

Sam Pierson's picture

I get that. You protect the right of individuals within the free country first.

What problem of aggregates?

gregster's picture

Surely one or one thousand is the same problem, in principle. Their Islamogoblinism has declared war, and a promise to behave in a state-plundered house with benefits cannot be trusted. Raises the question-would they emigrate without those benefits?
I don't care if a few ideal emigrants are deserving of welcome. There is a risk thereafter. Fuck em all. Common sense innit?

good summary

Doug Bandler's picture

To repeat: when Islamogoblinites have declared war on the west in the name of Islamogoblinism, western governments, acting on individualism, should adopt a presumption-of-guilt policy.

I haven't seen an Objectivist state the principle this clearly before. I am starting to think that this may go a long way to solving the problem of aggregates.

Regarding Binswanger, whatever his personality quirks, he is one of the few Objectivists that writes on philosophy of mind issues, and he is very good at technical epistemological issues. So I joined HBL for that. Also, Binswanger is publishing a book on technical epistemology which deals with cognitive methodology. He will even get into validating perception. So this is important stuff.

With Objectivists I guess the best you can do is "take 'em as you find 'em".

I didn't say that!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I concur with Linz's immigration principles. Blocking them all runs counter to individualism.

I advocate blocking 'em all when they have declared war on us, and unblocking on a case-by-case basis.

To repeat: when Islamogoblinites have declared war on the west in the name of Islamogoblinism, western governments, acting on individualism, should adopt a presumption-of-guilt policy.

I concur...

Sam Pierson's picture

I concur with Linz's immigration principles. Blocking them all runs counter to individualism. I will read Mr B's article.

Horreurs!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug—you signed the HBL Loyalty Oath??!!

Oh no!!

What am I to do??

Must I now denounce and banish you??!!

More to the point, won't he??

I fear so.

Oh, woe is we!

What is to become of us all??!!

Eye

Good Principle

Doug Bandler's picture

Re-reading Harry's article, I find it excellent, if not quite addressing the matters we are trying to resolve here.

I agree. His article is very good at dealing with the general rights based theory underlying immigration. And for that I credit him. However, there are many details that he does not address. But having been a member of his list for a number of years I would say that Binswanger is far more lenient than I would tend to be on many of the immigration details, although he never really has weighed in on the subject of Muslim immigration to my knowledge so it is unfair to judge him.

when war has been declared and waged by them (Muslims, in the name of their religion), a government dedicated to the liberty of its citizens must operate on a presumption-of-guilt premise, albeit with procedures for waiving that presumption.

I like this principle and I like the point that we are in a de facto war already. The presumption of peaceful intentions should be reversed and Muslims should be made to understand that war has been waged against us in the name of Islam. If they don't see and understand this, that tells us something about them right there. Excellent point.

Actually ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... checking this, I think Harry is advocating the same policy I am:

http://www.capitalismmagazine....

Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases.

"Would-be terrorists" would in my view, in the current context of jihad, include all Muslims. I'm not sure if Harry would agree with that but I think it follows from his premise. As I said, when war has been declared and waged by them (Muslims, in the name of their religion), a government dedicated to the liberty of its citizens must operate on a presumption-of-guilt premise, albeit with procedures for waiving that presumption.

Re-reading Harry's article, I find it excellent, if not quite addressing the matters we are trying to resolve here.

Comment viewing options

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