ARC on Libyan Murders

Ayn Rand Center's picture
Submitted by Ayn Rand Center on Fri, 2012-09-28 21:38

Elan Journo, a fellow at The Ayn Rand Center, has just had a new op-ed published at FoxNews.com: “Our Self-crippled Policy Encouraged the Deadly Embassy Attacks”

"The murders of American diplomatic and military personnel in Libya underscore the consequences of America’s longstanding failure to uphold the rights of Americans to live and speak their minds in the face of the Islamist threat."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

--ARC Media


Yes, good point.

Doug Bandler's picture

But if you think your money could be better spent other than on ARI, feel free to hit the "Contribute" button here. This is one site that doesn't distinguish "Islamism" from Islam. And I could use the help.

Yes, I intend to. I would love to see SOLO become bigger than ARI.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your point is well made, but for one thing: Binswanger doesn't advocate letting absolutely anybody in:

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. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).

I don't know where he'd stand on a blanket ban on Islamic immigration.

But if you think your money could be better spent other than on ARI, feel free to hit the "Contribute" button here. This is one site that doesn't distinguish "Islamism" from Islam. And I could use the help. Eye

the real reason why the ARI won't use the term "Islam"

Doug Bandler's picture

The cycle persists, because without connecting the dots to see the big picture,without grasping the uniting religious goal of the Islamist movement, we cannot take the steps necessary to stop it. Until we end America’s policy of passivity, inaction and appeasement, we can only expect more Islamist aggression.

Someone please ask Mr. Journo what the hell "Islamist aggression" is and how it differs from "Islamic aggression"? What texts do "Islamists" rely on? What holy sources? If you answer those questions you will find that "Islamists" really are true Muslims and that "Islamist aggression" really is "Islamic aggression".

Ah, but if you arrive at that conclusion then you would realize that your enemy is not "Islamism" but ISLAM. And if Islam is your enemy then what do you do with all those Muslims you let in your country on theories of "open immigration" which every Objectivist from Binswanger to Biddle keep telling us is "the true approach to liberty"?

Yeah, you see the problem. If O'ists like Binswanger, Biddle and Journo were to go down that bunny hole they would have to wrestle with some serious issues that would conflict with their approach to Objectivism.

Now you know why the fucking ARI won't use the word "Islamic" or "Muslim". They would have to scrap their suicidal approach to immigration and they know that. This is a VERY weak spot in the Objectivist politics. Its the proverbial chink in the armor. I think it can be answered without junking the Objectivist politics but it does represent a challenge. A challenge orthodox Objectivism doesn't have the stomach for. I hope everyone sees that now. Say thank you Doug.

P.S. I'm seriously debating with myself if the ARI even deserves my donations at this point. They are useless on so many issues I'm starting to wonder what value they serve.

What "Islamism" Implies

Doug Bandler's picture

"Islamism" implies that what is at fault here is not Islam but something else, a something else which is presumably not connected to the holy texts of Islam. "Islamism" is a perversion of Islam or something extraneous to Islam but not actually Islam. Because if it was actually just Islam why invent a new term? The term "Islamism" lets Islam off the hook and creates two categories: regular non-violent Islam (which doesn't exist) and "Islamism" which is violent. Nothing good can come from this distinction. ARI should be embarrassed by this. This is weak, KASSless, weasel-wordish GARBAGE.

Yaron Brook should be ashamed. I have never found Journo's analysis worth a damn. Really, I do not like his Traditionalist philosophy but I still say that Larry Auster is the BEST commentator on Islam in America. He understands the true evil of this religion and how Muslims that grow and develop under its culture can not be changed; not in any time frame reasonable for war policy. No Objectivist understands this. And that is what saddens me. That a fucking Conservative, and real crazy one at that, can do what Objectivsts can't. It makes me feel that something is fatally flawed with Objectivism. I don't think that is the case but that is how I can feel when I read this weak crap.

Ha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I thought that would set you a-spittin', Doug!

Presumably the ARC folk believe there is something called "Islamism" as opposed to "Islam." Presumably they mean by it, "Those who take Islam seriously, and kill and die for it." Here was I thinking such grotesqueries were called "Muslims."

Mr Journo writes:

The cycle persists, because without connecting the dots to see the big picture,without grasping the uniting religious goal of the Islamist movement, we cannot take the steps necessary to stop it. Until we end America’s policy of passivity, inaction and appeasement, we can only expect more Islamist aggression.

I look forward to his specifying what "steps" he considers to be "necessary," in a future article.

Islamist?

Doug Bandler's picture

I can't stand the weasel word "Islamist". That in itself is a huge turnoff. What the fuck is an "Islamist"? Could it have something to do with being a true Muslim?

More spitting.

Comment viewing options

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