Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Thu, 2012-09-20 13:16

I found this piece on John Ansell's blog. It's been doing the rounds as "A German's View on Islam" by Dr. Emanuel Tanay.

But truth matters. Although Emanuel Tanay is real and a holocaust survivor he did not write this article, nor is he German.

The original version is a blog post written by Paul E. Merek. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specialising in programs that—fittingly, in the present context—protect children from predatory adults.

I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

Right....

Ross Elliot's picture

...so tough treatment of the Islamists, with regard to speech?

I think America can handle tough speech. You don't?

Ross

Doug Bandler's picture

I think something like that with regards to Islam is proper. Again, I'm basing all of this on the classification on that religion as a military/political movement aimed at conquest of the American Republic. I think that merits very special, and very tough, treatment.

So, Doug...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you agree with the Alien and Sedition Act?

Incrementalism

Doug Bandler's picture

What about the Muslims currently here?

Incrementalism. First, stop further Muslim immigration. Second, ban all new construction of mosques. Third, close all mosques with Jihad infiltration and Jihad literature (80% of them), then deport all those associated with the mosque. Fourth, close down all Muslim civil rights groups (ie CAIR) and indict their operators and deport everyone else associated with them. Fifth, Formulate extremely tough and explicit rules regarding stealth Jihad and Islamic intimidation of infidels. Anyone who violates these rules is deported.

Also, culturally, there needs to be a MASSIVE demonstration of HATRED for Islam. Hollywood should produce 50 anti-Islam movies per year. Any threats against the studios, actors, or producers will meet with swift punishment and deportation. Batman and Ironman need to be killing Sharia faithful Muslims in their movies and killing them with attitude.

You get the point.

The West needs to make it clear to Muslims that we HATE their religion and the true practice of Islam will NOT be tolerated. Muslims will then self-deport themselves because they will know that they are NOT WANTED IN THE WEST.

I don't think I am being unreasonable. Just sane.

Again, as a I said, if the Islamist shows nefarious action, nail them. Otherwise all you're doing is setting up a filter for ideas that will eventually be used against true freedom fighters.

I respect this point Ross. I do. But I don't think there is a danger of this IF Islam is classified as a political / military movement that is hostile to America and the West. That is the point which needs to be ironed down though. And I admit, to do that would take more knowledge of Islam than I possess although I really think that I am not being crazy here.

And there, Doug...

Ross Elliot's picture

"But I think their conclusions are right. Islam needs to be isolated and quarantined away from the West."

...you're on the dangerous slippery slope I was getting at.

Immigration? Ok, ban 'em all. What about the Muslims currently here? The millions of them. Deny their speech rights? Their association rights? You see the point? Why not? If the immigrant Muslims are dangerous, the ones that are already here must be as well.

There's this old argument that the benefit of free speech is that we have a wide open field of ideas. And as freedom lovers we expect that the truth will out when it comes to the debate over those ideas. We prefer the nasty debate to the government ban.

Again, as a I said, if the Islamist shows nefarious action, nail them. Otherwise all you're doing is setting up a filter for ideas that will eventually be used against true freedom fighters.

Ross

Doug Bandler's picture

So you ban *any* immigration form Arab or Muslim states?

I agree if you're targeting those that have any history of nefarious intent. What about those that want to escape the Islamic dictatorship?

Was this policy advocated when Eastern Europeans wanted to escape the regime in their countries during the Cold War? The Japanese interned in the US and NZ during WW2?

Again, if you can show a history of violent intent towards the country of immigration, then fine, refuse them. But a blanket ban? Ok, what do we do with current immigrants who protest, via speech, certain policies? Intern them?

Fine, do it. But don't be surprised if the same principle is used to intern *you* when you criticise the modern oppressive Western state. Or do you think you'll get a free pass because you are a natural born citizen?

If speech isn't sacrosanct, be it in the pursuit of religious ideas, or of those in favor or freedom, then what is?

I have many problems with this.

1) The problem of aggregates - one individual Muslim could be peaceful. But allow millions of them to emigrate to your country and now you have Muslim enclaves. The peaceful ones act as cover for the violent ones. Also, Muslims will be used by the Left the way they use Blacks and non-whites. That is that they will make Islam and Muslims a "victim group" and any criticism will be labelled "racism" or "hate speech", etc. Look at what they say about Robert Spencer. Allowing Muslim immigration in today's Leftist cultural context is suicide. Look at Europe for further proof.

2) Islam provides a different context than what you presented. Eastern Europeans and Japanese do not swear allegiance to a hate-filled god and his warrior prophet whose mission was to conquer the entire Earth.

3) Islam is a military movement in addition to being a religion. That makes it UNIQUE. And thus, it needs to be treated uniquely. It is not collectivism to hold that Muslims are the foot soldiers for their warrior religion and therefore should be banned from Western nations. I don't care how nice some of them can be and yes, some of the chicks are really hot. Too bad. Now, what exactly should be immigration policy and all policy as it relates to Muslims in the West, well that is difficult. I don't know exactly except that I think Geert Wilders is on the right path in calling for a de-Muslimification of the West.

I think your entire view on this is wrong because your view on Islam is wrong. Which is why I keep saying that Islam needs to be classified properly. And it hasn't. Not by anyone yet in the O'ist movement. Only a few Traditionalist Conservatives have touched this subject and they are coming from a different philosophic foundation than we are. But I think their conclusions are right. Islam needs to be isolated and quarantined away from the West.

What?

Ross Elliot's picture

"The policy was written pre-9/11. We imagined the waive-any-claim-on-welfare and peaceful-intention provisions would take care of any malignant contingencies. My personal position now is that there ought to be a blanket ban on Islamo-immigration (except outward) and the construction of any new mosques, and the monitoring/profiling of Muslims already here ought to be aggressively pursued by the agencies charged with protecting our lives and liberties—all of this on account of the war which they, the Islamo-filth, declared. I have said this for years. There's no chance that Libz will adopt such a policy, alas."

So you ban *any* immigration form Arab or Muslim states?

I agree if you're targeting those that have any history of nefarious intent. What about those that want to escape the Islamic dictatorship?

Was this policy advocated when Eastern Europeans wanted to escape the regime in their countries during the Cold War? The Japanese interned in the US and NZ during WW2?

Again, if you can show a history of violent intent towards the country of immigration, then fine, refuse them. But a blanket ban? Ok, what do we do with current immigrants who protest, via speech, certain policies? Intern them?

Fine, do it. But don't be surprised if the same principle is used to intern *you* when you criticise the modern oppressive Western state. Or do you think you'll get a free pass because you are a natural born citizen?

If speech isn't sacrosanct, be it in the pursuit of religious ideas, or of those in favor or freedom, then what is?

Political Correctness is tyranny with manners

Rosie's picture

How about this, Doug?!

If Muslims do like the traditions, laws, and/or values of the country they are visiting, they should stay away.

Bar them at the port of entry, hand them a little booklet in Arabic that clearly states . . .

Thank you for selecting [country] as your vacation destination. Before you are allowed to enter we want you to be aware of several important distinctions between [country] and your native country.
We apologize in advance is this alters your vacation plans.

1.) After protracted disagreements, Islam is now considered a military political doctrine. Followers of this doctrine shall not receive any undo consideration.

2.) The leaders of this doctrine, both visiting and abroad, have no legal status above and beyond that which we extend to all visitors.

3.) This is our country, you are our visitor, and while we shall make every attempt to be polite hosts, our cultural idioms hold sway over yours. Please be respective of our ways. If you feel such idioms may be in conflict with any deeply held beliefs, please make arrangements for your departure now.

4.) Lastly, please keep in mind while you are visiting our country, our laws, supersede those of your native country. What is a crime in yours may not be a crime in ours. Conversely, what is not a crime in your country, may be a intolerable offense in ours. If in doubt, please visit your embassy and inquire.

Doug

Rosie's picture

But for official war policy, yes declare war on specific nations with specific objectives.

I don't understand what this means in practical terms, Doug.

Can you explain what you mean, possibly by way of example, please?

P.S.
Uh oh, I said the word pussies. I must be an evil sexist.

I don't think you are evil. Eye

error

Rosie's picture

- duplication

Doug

Rosie's picture

All we need to do is isolate ourselves from Islam and Muslims. That is not that difficult to do.

In a country whose culture is that of the melting pot and multi-culturalism? And whose constitution and laws defend this position?

Yes, it is difficult to do.

From the last passage of the Forbes article about the burqa:

But we should also have the courage to say to immigrants, "You come here to seek a better life, one that's based on different values and habits from the country you left. We believe our society provides a better, more successful, way of life otherwise you wouldn't be here. Therefore it's up to you to change. That may be painful and demanding, but we will help you in the process through adequate education and color-blind employment opportunities. But change you must."

This is sensible and logical. But they will say, "We want the opportunities your country offers us and our children but we thought that your Constitution allowed us the right to practice what we did not leave behind when we left our country: our cultural heritage."

Japan and its Immigration Policy

Rosie's picture

You will have noted that the first three articles from Forbes magazine were entitled In Defense of Japan's Immigration Policy.

So, naturally, I had to find out just what Japan's immigration policy is or was.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/te...
This brief article dated July 2012 from The Japan Times gives an initial and very interesting philosophical overview of their immigration policy.

http://www.migrationinformatio...
This article from the Migration Information Sources (whose author is Japanese) gives an initial and very interesting overview of Japan's laws and policies, concluding:

"The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent "war on terror" have had important impacts on Japan's immigration policy.

In December 2004, the government adopted an action plan for the prevention of terrorism. Accordingly, the Immigration Bureau is undertaking stricter entry and admission procedures. These include the finger-printing of all foreign nationals 16 and older entering Japan, the use of an advanced passenger information system, and the installation of crisis management officials at major ports and airports. Japan has also initiated closer international cooperation, particularly with the United States, to stop the entry of known and suspected terrorists."

In general, the immigration policy is based mainly on allowing successful claims for people with Japanese descendants and/or in respect of internal company-sponsored labour needs. Rather than immigration granting citizenship, it seems Visas are mainly provided and illegal immigrants are tolerated for this provides labour but avoids any rights due to the citizen being granted. e.g., social welfare. Japan seems to be the one country that can allow or prevent whomsoever they wish from becoming a Japanese citizen by basing its immigration decisions for special cases on *policy* rather than laws. Although this article is against this practice, it describes how Japan does this:
http://www.tabunka.org/newslet...

As essayist, Penn, states, "The Japanese government does not keep any statistics on the number of Muslims in Japan. Neither foreign residents nor ethnic Japanese are ever asked about their religion by official government agencies" (from Michael Penn, "Islami in Japan". Harvard Asia Quarterly. Retrieved 2008-12-28) but from the information I have looked at on the internet, there seems to be only a small population of approximately 120,000 Muslims in Japan of which only 10% are Japanese. See also Islamic people in Japan.

The Muslim communities are made up in order of size by Indonesians, Bangladeshis,
Pakistanis and Iranians .

In conclusion, the Japanese model is designed to retain Japan's "Japanese culture". It does not aspire to be multi-cultural as the USA does and therein lies the rub.

also from Forbes magazine re Immigration

Rosie's picture

The same journalist from Forbes magazine also makes a few interesting comments about immigration at the end of this article which was written in relation to the outcry following the comments by the President of France regarding the burqa.

Libz Immigration Policy

Rosie's picture

I found these three articles in Forbes magazine which seem to me (who is not well versed in libertarian philosophy but has a working knowledge only) to be a libertarian-based citizen’s “property rights” argument in forming Immigration policy:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...

I wonder if these could be of use in forming a Libz immigration policy based on the citizen and his property rights in terms of immigration?

And to get a grasp of what NZ citizens want, this article 1. hosts a petition to the leaders of a number of countries (NZ not listed) requesting cessation of Muslim immigration 2. Links to sites setting out the reasons why this policy ban should be implemented and 3. Incidentally includes some most interesting articles and links in the comments section!

Yes it is that Simple

Doug Bandler's picture

Is it possible to declare war against Islam, a religion?

Islam has declared war on us. But for official war policy, yes declare war on specific nations with specific objectives. But for the philosophy underlying war policy what needs to be understood is simple. And that is that Islam is a warrior religion that preaches ceaseless, never ending war, killing and subjugation against non-believers. THAT should be the foundational premise behind EVERYTHING we do in the Islamic world. As I just told Robert, I don't think we need to engage in mass slaughter or mass killing (although the thought of nuking Mecca and Medina does fill my heart with joy - yes I take pleasure in evil people suffering). All we need to do is isolate ourselves from Islam and Muslims. That is not that difficult to do. Or it wouldn't be for a culture not drowning in Leftist pacifism or Christian pacifism which is your view. Fuck, even Objectivists are pussies on this subject. Uh oh, I said the word pussies. I must be an evil sexist.

From Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh

Rosie's picture

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Buddhist monk who also takes the Eucharist. He is an international peaceworker and author. He was nominated by Dr Martin Luther King for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967. In his nomination Dr. King said, "I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of [this prize] than this gentle monk from Vietnam. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity." No one won it that year.

Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

"Professor Hans Kung has said, "Until there is peace between religions, there can be no peace in the world." People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result. The second precept of the Order of Interbeing, founded within the Zen Buddhist tradition during the War in Vietnam, is about letting go of views. "Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints." To me, this is the most essential practice of peace."

(It's that simple, Doug!)

Doug

Rosie's picture

Is it possible to declare war against Islam, a religion?

"It's that simple."

I don't think it is that simple at all.

Modern Warfare

Rosie's picture

The problem with basing any anti-Islam immigration policy around any declaration of war based on 9/11 or any other acts of terrorism is that, because modern warfare has arrived in the form of terrorist attacks, these are not attacks issued from a country's government against another country but from independent organisations within a country.

Hence, there can only be a general War Against Terrorism but not a war against the country whose citizens host the terrorists.

More than this

Doug Bandler's picture

A formal declaration of war must be declared in writing by one country's government to the other..

I would go further. I think a Constitutional Amendment or something equivalent needs to be drafted which declares Islam to be a hostile enemy organization dedicated to the destruction of America and the West. Therefore its practice needs to be banned and its adherents need to be deported. Its that simple.

But our culture could never do that. Hell, Objectivists aren't even willing to CONSIDER it. That is where my rational rage is at. I get that Mainstream Conservatives are idiots and that Lefts are seditious. But Objectivism has been such a disappointment on this issue that I could cry. Really, I am feeling nothing but contempt for every Objectivist that does not see the necessity of incrementally de-Muslimifying the West.

Good Question

Doug Bandler's picture

How do you propose this policy be legally effected without trespassing laws against racial or religious discrimination?

This is the million dollar question and it is the question that I want Objectivism to wrestle with. There needs to be distinction made between religions. All of them are not equal in the way they are practiced. This is something Official Objectivism does not want to do. They fear giving Christianity any special standing as a "better religion". But this view is stupid and destructive.

Islam IS different and it needs to be treated as such. I truly believe that O'ism has the epistemological tools to deal with this but so far no Objectivist is willing to do the intellectual work. They are STILL working from the "radical Islamist" framework; ie that the problem is bad Muslims instead of the allowance of Islam and Muslims inside the West. I can understand making this mistake 10 years ago but the 2005 cartoon incident was the wakeup call. After that, it was clear Islam was a clear and present danger and steps were needed to isolate and quarantine it.

9/11 and the Rules of War

Rosie's picture

9/11 was not a formal declaration of war according to the Rules of War just as Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was not a formal declaration of war.

It was only when Germany then invaded Poland that England exercised a declaration of war - in writing from its Government to Germany's government.

Rules of Declaration of War

Rosie's picture

A formal declaration of war must be declared in writing by one country's government to the other.

Islam Immigration ban?

Rosie's picture

How do you propose this policy be legally effected without trespassing laws against racial or religious discrimination?

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

all of this on account of the war which they, the Islamo-filth, declared.

The problem here is that the onus is on you to establish that Islam has, in fact, declared war on Western civilisation. It's an onerous onus.

Libz policy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The policy was written pre-9/11. We imagined the waive-any-claim-on-welfare and peaceful-intention provisions would take care of any malignant contingencies. My personal position now is that there ought to be a blanket ban on Islamo-immigration (except outward) and the construction of any new mosques, and the monitoring/profiling of Muslims already here ought to be aggressively pursued by the agencies charged with protecting our lives and liberties—all of this on account of the war which they, the Islamo-filth, declared. I have said this for years. There's no chance that Libz will adopt such a policy, alas.

Doug

Richard Goode's picture

If we know what Islam will teach young Muslims then why are we letting them in the country?

Should Muslim immigration be allowed? I think the answer to that question is no.

Traditionally, libertarians have promoted an open immigration policy.

Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor. We will run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state and confirm their peaceful intentions on entry.

Some say that our government's immigration policy works. But should peaceful people be able to cross borders freely? I now think the answer to that question is also no.

There is no libertarian justification for such a policy. There never was. Libertarianism is a political doctrine that prescribes how a country's government is to treat its its own citizens. Not the wretched refuse of another country's teeming shore.

The problem with advocating a completely open immigration policy is that the onus is on those advocating such a policy to justify exceptions to the general rule. I'm going to go out on a limb here ... and advocate a completely closed immigration policy. And now the onus is on would-be immigrants to justify exceptions to the general rule.

You want to emigrate to New Zealand? The individual freedom is ours - and we mean keep it that way. The personal responsibility is yours - to say why we should open the golden door.

The question remains...

Doug Bandler's picture

If we know what Islam will teach young Muslims then why are we letting them in the country? Official Objectivism's answer to that question has been every bit as pathetic as the answer given by the Left and the mainstream Conservatives.

Lest we forget

Richard Goode's picture

Comment viewing options

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