Questions For Yaron Brook Regarding The Boston Massacre

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Fri, 2013-04-19 22:13

Yaron, if by some chance you are reading this:

1) Do you still think that the solution to Islamic terrorism is war policy?

2) Would the Boston Massacre have been avoided if we bombed Iran?

3) Given that the two Jihadists are Muslim immigrants here with green cards do you think that immigration plays any role at all in stopping Islamic terrorism?

4) Do you support the "Dream Act"?

5) Are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev & Tamerlan Tsarnaev "Islamists"? Are they advocates of "totalitarian Islam" or just plain Islam? What is the difference?

6) Would any acts of Muslim terrorism have occurred within US borders if there were no Muslims within US borders?

Feel free to post here or anywhere your answers to the above questions.

Regards,

Doug


Answers to the Questions

Real Objectivist's picture

1) Do you still think that the solution to Islamic terrorism is war policy?|No

2) Would the Boston Massacre have been avoided if we bombed Iran?|No

3) Given that the two Jihadists are Muslim immigrants here with green cards do you think that immigration plays any role at all in stopping Islamic terrorism?|Yes, but there is no stopping imagration nor should there be

4) Do you support the "Dream Act"?|Yes

5) Are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev & Tamerlan Tsarnaev "Islamists"? Are they advocates of "totalitarian Islam" or just plain Islam? What is the difference?|They are advocates of totalitarian islam

6) Would any acts of Muslim terrorism have occurred within US borders if there were no Muslims within US borders?|Most likely

Agreed

Jules Troy's picture

Ya.. We are fucked.

Change

LoveLife's picture

The first step is to realize that immigration policy, as well as other aspects of law and government, are a reflection of philosophy, not the other way around. Trying to wake up nihilists and get them to stop destroying (or to stop voting for other nihilists) is a fool's errand. It's nihilism itself that must be the first target.

You can't fight nihilism with logic. "Showing them the evidence" won't work; in order to argue, the other party must be rational. To me, this is the Big Mistake that the rational few who remain on the Right too often make (O-ists or not). We have to stop playing the Left's game, and stop assuming that they will play ours. It's time to change the rules.

So..

Jules Troy's picture

How the hell do we wake policy makers up so they change immigration policy.  How do we get politicians to recognize the threat.  To show them the evidence that they so blindly ignore that it is Islam itself that is the problem so they stop compartamentalizing a difference.  As long as people wrongly percieve that "it is just a small percentage of extremists" nothing will change.

As far as I can tell the west is going to blindly continue to take it up the tailpipe.

Answers

LoveLife's picture

ARI and Yaron have their own agenda. I'm not sure why O-ists should really care that much about what they say and do. We're individuals, not some collective.

FWIW, as an O-ist marching to the beat of my own drummer, here are my answers to your questions:

1) Do you still think that the solution to Islamic terrorism is war policy?

War policy is only one small part of the solution to Islamic terrorism.

2) Would the Boston Massacre have been avoided if we bombed Iran?

No, or at least it's very unlikely.

However, I don't think Yaron or any O-ists I know are suggesting just "bombing" Iran. The idea is to utterly destroy it. That's not the same thing.

3) Given that the two Jihadists are Muslim immigrants here with green cards do you think that immigration plays any role at all in stopping Islamic terrorism?

Of course it does. If you let people into the country who subscribe to an ideology that is dedicated to your destruction, well, you shouldn't be surprised when they act on that ideology.

4) Do you support the "Dream Act"?

Honest, productive immigrants of good moral character are good for any country, including the US. How you assess those things is a completely different question. I'm not an expert on the Dream Act, but from what I've seen, it would not exclude people based on destructive, anti-US ideologies, so I would be against it.

5) Are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev & Tamerlan Tsarnaev "Islamists"? Are they advocates of "totalitarian Islam" or just plain Islam? What is the difference?

From what I've seen about the things they said, and from statements from their mother, I would say they are Islamists. "Just plain Islam" advocates totalitarianism, so I don't think there's a difference between it and "totalitarian Islam."

6) Would any acts of Muslim terrorism have occurred within US borders if there were no Muslims within US borders?

That's like asking "would any crime have occurred if there weren't any criminals?" Of course not. But so what?

Lee Rigby named as Woolwich victim

Marcus's picture

TOS & ARI

Neil Parille's picture

I doubt they will say anything. After all, cases like the Boston Massacre and the London beheading show that the problem is immigration. Attacking Iran wouldn't have stopped them.

-Neil Parille

Help for Heroes...

Marcus's picture

The soldier was wearing a Help for Heroes hoodie. Help for Heroes is a British charity that helps provide better facilities for British servicemen and women wounded since 11 September 2001.

I've just ordered myself four T-shirts, to be worn in public as often as possible.

The normal website has crashed under the weight of demand, but the shop's mobile website is still working.

You can also join "Help For Heroes" on facebook, or if you are Linz just "like" it to show your solidairty.

Now wait ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... for Ron Paul to say it was"blowback."

In this sick guys own words

Jules Troy's picture
You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you – and your children.
 
When we start busting our guns...
So what he is saying is it is not a matter of "if" but WHEN...
 
Perhaps since politicians will do nothing it may in fact come to the average and ordinary citizens to start dealing with this crap. This dirtbag just threatened their children's lives "in future ".   People really need to wake the hell up, this is ISLAM.
 
I had to chuckle at one comment " Obama tommorrow will probably say it was just a random act of road rage".
ARI and TOS are sterile and weak Doug.  

Sick

Doug Bandler's picture

So, Muslims are now beheading Western law enforcement officers in broad daylight right out in the open, on a public street. I wonder if they were Islamists? You know, part of the "Islamist" threat.

I don't think ARI or TOS can actually say anything about this. This doesn't have to do with war strategy. Its a demographic and immigration issue. ARI has tied its hands on this issue. They have no choice but to remain silent on all this. The ARI has become comical. I take no joy in seeing them reduced to absurdity but that is what they have become - absurd.

It gets better, these people are muslim brotherhood

Jules Troy's picture

And they are in the whitehouse.  Yup yup there be foxes in the hen house.

Arif Alikhan - Assistant Secretary for Policy Development

for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mohammed Elibiary - Homeland Security Adviser

Rashad Hussain - Special Envoy to the (OIC)

Organization of the Islamic Conference

Salam al-Marayati - Obama Adviser –

founder Muslim Public Affairs Council

and its current executive director

Imam Mohamed Magid - Obama's Sharia Czar –

Islamic Society of North America

Eboo Patel - Advisory Council on Faith-Based

Neighborhood Partnerships


America is fucked..

Any Takers?

Grant Jones's picture

Anyone want to bet on whether ARI or TOS will deign to comment on this atrocity? As someone else mentioned, how can the West adopt a "hard war" policy against jihad supporting governments when the savages will retaliate in our streets in this manner?

Get out your sick bags...

Marcus's picture

A soldier was hacked to death (and beheaded?)...

Marcus's picture

...by two black men with meat cleavers in London today. They calmly waited for the police to arrive who shot them.

The police are treating the incident as a terror attack.

If they were Muslim terrorists the shit will really hit the fan on this one.

Doug, No Problem

Grant Jones's picture

This will be a short one, I'm getting too tired to type. Thanks for reading my blog and your compliments on it. I just got blog burnout and moved on to other things. Of course, you're right about ARI and their critique of Just War Theory. But, they still view the jihad as something occurring over there. I don't know how any intelligent observer can have such a nonsensical view.

As Nick Provenzo said of you: you're the best and most successful Objectivist writer since Ayn Rand. You'd think the ARI would consider you a prize and feature you. But no. Instead they'll write an op-ed praising Ann Hathaway's work ethic.

That's an excellent, pithy summation of a grotesque injustice.

Lindsay, I've lived in Hawaii for a lot of years and enjoy being on Hawaiian time. Lunch is whenever it is. Sticking out tongue

 

Ed

Doug Bandler's picture

Which, of course, won't be my final word on the subject. I'm here on the recommendation of "MadMax," whoever that is.

Good to see you here Ed! Yeah its me angry MadMax. I'm still mad but I think I make sense during my saner moments. And thanks for the link to your essay. Your blogging has kept my hope alive that there are clear thinking non-drones in the Objectivist movement outside of the few here on SOLO. I used to be on HBL (although I never posted) and I noticed that you were well aware of the evil of the Saudis and the problems of immigration. HB gave you some shit on it I think. You then left that list and I can understand why.

I am a big fan of your writing and your blogging. As Nick Provenzo said of you: you're the best and most successful Objectivist writer since Ayn Rand. You'd think the ARI would consider you a prize and feature you. But no. Instead they'll write an op-ed praising Ann Hathaway's work ethic. May the non-existent Christian god have mercy on their souls (one of my favorite expressions).

Thanks again for all your work Ed.

My Bad Grant

Doug Bandler's picture

As you can see, my name is Grant Jones.

I knew that! Grant Long, wasn't he a power forward for the Bulls in the 90s? Or was that Horace Grant? I'm all confused. I am high maintenance like Lindsay said.

Interesting to hear about the Masters degree. I followed your Dugout blog awhile back. I think I even gave you shit too. But I'm in a different place now intellectually. I was a Randroid on steroids most of my adult life sad to say. But it was your blogging that made me realize that ARI's hard war policy was unrealistic and necessary. Larry Auster's quarantine and contain strategy was equally as influential on me.

I give the ARI and Yaron Brook credit for rejecting the altruism of Just War theory but ultimately their whole approach to Jihad is flawed as it ignores the central role of Islam and Muslim immigration. That would require them to flesh out the parameters of Objectivism' view of individual rights more fully and no one in the movement is yet capable of doing that. So they push the Patton-esque war stuff instead.

Does this sound really, really stupid to anyone besides me?

I quoted a comment from a Conservative down below. It accurately describes exactly the insanity that you are describing:

I think the Sailer Doctrine has been expanded to "Invade the world, invite the world, support the world."

The thing that gets me is that we keep admitting Muslims to settle in the United States when it's obvious that a certain percentage of them will repay us with stunts like that of Chechendumb & Chechendumber. It doesn't matter if it's a small percentage -- there will be some terrorists in that consignment.

So we play this ridiculous game of hide and seek: you un-moderate Muslims get to shoot people and send limbs flying, then it's our turn to try and catch you, then it's your lawyers' turn to try to get you off, then it's our prosecutors' turn to convict you, then it's the government's turn to play the homeland security theme song with more invasions of privacy, then ... well, on and on.

All of which could be avoided with simple commonsense immigration restriction.

Brook and the ARI accept essentially the same policy as described above except that they want a more vigorous war effort. But as Neil Parille has pointed out, if you allow Muslims in your country and then bomb the shit out of their Muslim homelands, what do you think they are going to do within your borders? Salute you and remain peaceful? Rationalism (and naivete) on steroids.

Anyway, my apologies for botching your name and good to see you here.

Sadly

Jules Troy's picture

Sadly it is going to probably take a "suitcase nuke" detonated by jihadists to wake everyone out of their lethargy.  It will by that time be a case if "too little too late".  Not only are they emigrating at record levels but most of their women have between 4-7 offspring to every one of our 1.7.

This won't end well...

Grant

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As you can see from this thread, we're all waiting. Doug's questions will not be answered, of course. I'm afraid these guys are interested only in their plush comfort zones. They fiddle while civilisation burns.

Where exactly in the "Polynesian triangle" are you? Hawaii? If I invite you to lunch, will you indeed be late? I would hope so, since I regard rising before 5 pm as extremely careless. Only shallow people are brilliant any earlier.

Aloha Lindsay

Grant Jones's picture

Lindsay, greetings from the other end of the Polynesian triangle. No problem with the name. Call me whatever you want, just don't call me "late for lunch." One would think that being from Israel, Brook would have no illusions on the nature of the Death Cult. I'm still waiting for a reply (from any "official" Objectivist) on how the whole open borders principle would work out for Israel.

Mr Jones

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Welcome! And yes, the contradiction you point out so eloquently sounds really stupid to me, too.

I don't think you'll find any politically correct timorousness re taking on Islamofilth here on SOLO. The weasel-wordedness of mainstream Objectivism on this matter is a disgrace.

I'm sorry Mr Bandler got your name mixed up. He's adorable, but high maintenance; can't take him anywhere. Eye

Aloha

Grant Jones's picture

Aloha Doug,

Thank you for your kind words. As you can see, my name is Grant Jones. I left the PhD program and took a second Masters for reasons I won't go into here. I'm in general agreement with your views expressed on this thread. I think the civilized world has little choice but to end Moslem immigration, deport the one's already here, and declare the dar al-Islam under quarantine. It's simply a matter of self preservation. Adults who choose to adhere to the vicious Death Cult known as Islam have to be treated accordingly. In justice, it's what they deserve.

I also concur with your characterization of the sorry state of current official Objectivism. Courage doesn't seem to be a virtue they possess. For example, of late their almost total focus on economic issues. There's already CATO and a bunch of other think tanks that deal with those issues. My guess is that this policy may have much to do with placating donors by staying away from issues that are controversial within the context of Objectivism.

I'll try to describe one of their more silly contradictions regarding their recommendations for dealing with jihad. Both ARI and TOS take a "hard war" view on dealing with states that support the jihad.  They've stated that the United States has the right to nuke Moslem cities if needed for national defense. In those circumstances, Moslems in Moslem countries have no right not to be vaporized by nuclear weapons if its in the national security interests of the United States.  On the other hand, the US government does not have the right to prevent immigration into America by these very same people in the interests of national security, because it would violate their rights. Let's see: they have the right to immigrate, but they don't have the right not to be nuked. Does this sound really, really stupid to anyone besides me?

Thanks for your support in fighting the good fight. 

Bugger!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ed - I just inadvertently deleted your account. Every day I have to do an en masse deletion of spammers, and "Kenrick77" looked to be in the "spammer" category. It was only when I read your post that I realised my error. Apologies. You're very welcome here. Best wishes with the pamphlet.

Islam is Islam

kenrick77's picture

People: I have just finished a 10,000-12,000 word pamphlet on Islam's Reign of Terror for Voltaire Press. It is in its final editing phase. It will be available as a physical pamphlet and also online. In the meantime, for those who haven’t read it, there is this on Rule of Reason:

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.c...

Which, of course, won't be my final word on the subject. I'm here on the recommendation of "MadMax," whoever that is.

Ed Cline

I'll suggest it

Doug Bandler's picture

ain't never been a thread closed here. Eye Tell Ed Cline et al to post here!

I'm going to suggest it when the situation arises. Ed and Grant are smart dudes. The O'ist movement needs more of them; much more. And less Hsiehs and Armstrongs; ie less Hsiehkoffians. I can't believe I was ever one of them. Vote DemScum across the board because of the imminent Christian Theocracy?

God have mercy on me for ever believing such idiocy.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... ain't never been a thread closed here. Eye Tell Ed Cline et al to post here!

Sadly True

Doug Bandler's picture

But not surprising. Far more even tempered and less caustic people like Ed Cline and Grant Long (Objectivist phd candidate in war theory) have challenged ARI types over the issues of Islam, Muslims and immigration at the Capitalism Magazine website. They presented solid arguments and were met with indignation and eventually thread closing. That's the standard response.

Ed Cline has phrased it best: Objectivism has become an ossified thought movement. This is why Rand didn't want the movement in her name. She was right.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I guess it's apparent enough now that Yaron is not going to answer your questions. He has not replied to my private e-mail drawing them to his attention, either. I regard this as further confirmation, if such were needed, that ARI has become Politically Correct, and its currency is weasel-words like "reaching out" to have a "conversation"—reaching out, that is, to Leftist filth, but not to the likes of you, Doug. Rand must be spinning in her grave. It's instructive to note that in both its former dogmatist/intrinsicist and current pomo-subjectivist incarnations, ARI refused to front up to honest dissent.

good catch

Doug Bandler's picture

Clearly in the first 90 seconds, in 2010, Leonard thinks “a potential member of an enemy at war” should be restricted from entry.

Yes. That is the right road to travel down. I wish he had done that. But good catch.

ARI code for Muslim

gregster's picture

Clearly in the first 90 seconds, in 2010, Leonard thinks “a potential member of an enemy at war” should be restricted from entry. That this applies even in a capitalist (open immigration) country. He goes on to say that since it is a welfare state, there is an inherent contradiction; the foreigners’ right to travel versus citizens’ right to private property. He sides with the selfish attitude of citizens' rights against foreigners' welfare. Btw, that's a good thing.

I'm gunna pull a Mitt Romney

Jules Troy's picture

Me tooo ooo ooo!!

tsk tsk

Doug Bandler's picture

We need to kick them out, and eliminate an objective danger, horrific problem, and moral outrage.

You're a collectivist and a racist. You're also filled with rage.

No Objectivist brownie points for you.

Muslims? What Muslims?

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Peikoff discussed immigration in 2010 for over ten minutes without once mentioning the leading issue today: Muslims in the West. Their trespass and invasion is a nightmare. We need to kick them out, and eliminate an objective danger, horrific problem, and moral outrage. Why should the Western world turn into Israel, and become a permanently on-alert, locked-down, terrified, armed camp? Why won't Peikoff and the religious 'Objectivists' discuss this seminal issue? Seems like the usual ARIan evasion, dishonesty, cowardice, and depravity.

Leonard; July 5th 2010

gregster's picture

The Auster Plan

Doug Bandler's picture

The first time I read Auster's plan I disagreed. But the simplicity of his plan (and the Wilder's plan) is its strength. Auster understands what Brook does not, namely that the fundamental cause of Islamic terrorism is the presence of Muslims in Western lands. That is a hard pill to swallow for Objectivists because it runs against their approach to individualism. I don't see a conflict but there are very few Objectivists who agree with me.

But the pathetic commentary coming out of the Objectivist advocacy groups and the overwhelming majority of Objectivist blogs confirms to me the weakness of the Objectivist movement. Robert Spencer and Diana West are dealing intelligently with this issue. No one in O'ism land is.

The ARI

Neil Parille's picture

Doug,

Here is a good example of the moronic nature of ARI Objectivism from Ari Armstrong from The Objective Standard. (Actually, I'm not sure how close TOS is to the ARI since the McCaskey auto-da-fe, but that's a different question.)

Pope Francis tweets: "My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost."

Now, I don't think this is a good argument. Say I own some restaurants and make a decent profit. But I tell my employees not to be so concerned about food safety in order to increase my profits. I think this is morally wrong and probably counterpoductive given the chance I might get a bad reputation. But I don't see how it creates unemployment.

What's the heading of Armstrong's article? "Pope Absurdly Blames Unemployment on Profit."

http://www.theobjectivestandar...

Of course, he didn't blame unemployment on profit.

Ari Armstrong is so blinded by his hate of the Catholic Church that he has lost the ability to read.

And this is what counts as deep thought in the Objectivist community? Sad, really.

-Neil Parille

Yaron Brook Plan v. Auster Plan

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron Brook: Bomb Saudi Arabia & Iran while permitting unlimited immigration of Moslems into the US and the West.

Cost: Money, lives of US soldiers, tens of thousand deaths of innocent Moslem civilians, possible global depression when Islamic countries cut oil sales to the West

Likelihood of success: Minimal. Would probably increase terrorism in the US because of millions of angry Moslems.

Larry Auster: End Islamic immigration and pay Moslems to leave.

Cost: Money

Likelihood of success: very high.

Takeaway: Don't expect Brook to show up on SOLO anytime soon.

ARI...

Doug Bandler's picture

...Is getting worse on this subject over time. I don't think they would publish either of those two pieces today. Spinelessness is on the march like Sauron's armies. And the Muslims are the Uruk-hai who have been allowed entry within the once hallowed halls of Minas America. But only this time, the fellowship of the ARIans and just about every one else in the city is welcoming the Uruk-hai with open arms because its their right to emigrate, they have individual rights, and most of them are really swell people. Oh and their good for the economy. And if you don't believe any of this then your are a silly determinist and a collectivist. Hell, you're more evil than Saruon himself.

Yes. Give us your tired, your poor, your hungry, and your angry Muslim youth. We are a caring people. All will be assimilated as American values will trump all. (Those values will of course be approved by Ke$ha and company but don't mind that.)

Spit.Spit.Spit.Spit.Spit. etc, etc, etc ad infinitum.

I'm trying not to blame the Left, trying, trying, trying, trying.......

Tom

Jules Troy's picture

http://www.debbieschlussel.com...


So much for not allowing Sharia.  On the bright side female nurses will no longer need to scrub because it is immodest.  Soo maybe all the cases of cross contamination and death by bacterial infections might turn a few heads...

"individual liberty and tolerance" & ARI

gregster's picture

 

What has ARI had to say? Here's a couple, both would be too strong for Tom's stomach:

"End States Who Sponsor Terrorism" by Leonard Peikoff in 2001.

Most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs who would be paralyzed by an American victory over any of their neighbors. Iran, by contrast, is the only major country there ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of the Muslim fundamentalist movement they brought to life. That is why Iran manufactures the most terrorists.

If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.

Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended.

The greatest obstacle to U.S. victory is not Iran and its allies, but our own intellectuals. Even now, they are advocating the same ideas that caused our historical paralysis. They are asking a reeling nation to show neighbor-love by shunning "vengeance." The multiculturalists--rejecting the concept of objectivity--are urging us to "understand" the Arabs and avoid "racism" (i.e., any condemnation of any group's culture). The friends of "peace" are reminding us, ever more loudly, to "remember Hiroshima" and beware the sin of pride.

These are the kinds of voices being heard in the universities, the churches, and the media as the country recovers from its first shock, and the professoriate et al. feel emboldened to resume business as usual. These voices are a siren song luring us to untroubled sleep while the fanatics proceed to gut America.

 

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam
By Alex Epstein (Canberra Times, July 26, 2005; Fort Worth Star Telegram, August 1, 2005; Republican-American, September 11, 2006)

But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission.
Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational).

[..]

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

 

A problem I have there with Epstein in that last para is his religious relativism.

where we disagree

Doug Bandler's picture

or no other reason than they would not give up all or part of their religious views.

That's because their "religious values" come packaged with a war movement. That's where we disagree. I'm saying that Islam as such is the threat of initiatory force and ALL Muslims, peaceful or not, are assisting that force. I don't see Islam as a peaceful example of religious and intellectual freedom. Objectivism right now does.

My question is how many massacres have to happen before Objectivists even start to rethink their fundamental approach on this?

Doug, that is not the point.

Tom Burroughes's picture

Doug, that is not the point. The majority of Muslims do not want other people dead. They don't (otherwise, there'd be full-scale wars on the streets of the West right now). The point I am making is that forced conversion/renuniciation will radicalise those who might otherwise be more likely to get secularised and assimilated. And we can't be sure that if a person is forced, on pain of expulsion, to renounce Islam, that they will really mean it. Hence my point about how this is a great way to encourage extremism, not stamp it out.

A better option is to simply oppose any attempt to introduce sharia law and insist on the supremacy of secular law on all matters. No ifs, or buts. And to regulate immigration from Muslim countries so that assimilation can occur as fast as possible.

So you are in favour of expelling a person who might have been living peacefully in a territory, for years (such as running a business and doing the sort of things that Objectivists admire), for no other reason than they would not give up all or part of their religious views. (How can you prove what has gone inside a person's head?) It is fair to say that whatever else it is you and I might agree on, it is clear that your view of individual liberty and tolerance is very different from mine, or indeed, those of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Dissimulation

Doug Bandler's picture

Yes, he is the pro-Islam, Marxist man he always was. But Leftists advance their power by pretending that they are not what they are. They can do this because no one on the right has the strength and the moral certainty to call evil evil.

That being said, Obama is charismatic and witty. He always was.

Obama is not...

Marcus's picture

...the strapping young Muslim socialist he used to be.

Islam is Islam is Islam...

Doug Bandler's picture

I can think of no better way to create new generations of fanatics who harbour a murderous desire to attack the West than a policy of forced renunciation.

Larry Auster used to call this an example of "non-Islamic theories of Islamic terrorism"; i.e. excuses made for Islam and Muslims. The bottom line is they don't hate and kill us because of what we do. They hate and kill us because we are not Muslim and killing in the name of the religion of the crescent moon is what Muslims will always support because it is central to Islam.

Muslim fanatics are not

Richard Wiig's picture

Muslim fanatics are not created by American policy, they are created by Islam. It doesn't matter how nice you are to Muslims, Tom, they will still take your freedom because that's what their religion teaches them to do.

I can think of no better way to create new generations of fanatics who harbour a murderous desire to attack the West than a policy of forced renunciation.

You Beat Me To It Neil

Doug Bandler's picture

Since the establishment of anarcho-capitalism is less likely than the restoration of the Stuarts, I've decided not to give it ten seconds of my precious mental energy.

This is truly funny! LMFAO!!!

No More Mister Nice Guy

Doug Bandler's picture

I can think of no better way to create new generations of fanatics who harbour a murderous desire to attack the West than a policy of forced renunciation.

Fine. Then forced expulsion.

Tom. We are fighting a battle for civilization. You can not be nice in war. Muslims represent a grave danger. I don't give a rat's ass about them. I care about me and the civilization that makes my life worth living.

Objectivism' great failure is that it has yet to prove itself practical. It offers no rational guidance to Islam or Muslims. And nearly everything I see from Objectivists just underscores this.

Here is a great article

Tom Burroughes's picture

Here is a great article showing how many so-called "liberals" have tied themselves in knots over the Boston horrors. Read the whole thing. Here is his final flourish:

Time and again, Left-leaning campaigners and observers respond to terror attacks in the West by panicking about the possibly racist response of Joe Public – and time and again, their fears prove ill-founded and Joe Public proves himself a more decent, tolerant person than they give him credit for. What this reveals is that liberal concern over Islamophobia, liberal fretting about anti-Muslim bigotry, is ironically driven by a bigotry of its own, by an deeply prejudiced view of everyday people as hateful and stupid. The anti-Islamophobia lobby poses as the implacable opponent of bigotry, yet it spreads a bigoted view of ordinary white folk as so volatile, so brimming with fury, that they are one terrorist bombing away from transforming into an anti-Muslim pogrom. Yes, some prejudiced things have been said about Muslims post-Boston; but far more prejudiced things are being said or implied about ordinary Americans.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...

Brgds.

Loyalty tests, renouncing religions and unintended consequences

Tom Burroughes's picture

Right, let's assume that the US, for instance, agrees on a policy forcing all Muslims, including those living peacefully in the US for generations, to give up their faith, to shut down their mosques, cease disseminating the Koran, etc. Let's assume one can invoke "warlike" powers to impose draconian penalties on those who fail to go along with this - never mind the First Amendment or other constitutional protections of free expression and religion - what about a certain practical problem? Lets's assume that the majority do as is commanded (one hell of an assumption) and also assume that such a policy will not invite massive condemnation of the US and of course, hostility towards it. You will have some people who, in outward appearance, go along with this "giving up" demand but who harbour an even more fanatical attachment to their religion than before. The religion is driven underground. When that happens, history tells us that this is an ideal breeding ground for terrorism and extremism.

The people who carried out some of the recent bombing attacks in the West were not always "obvious Muslims"; some of them, in outward form, became Westernised in dress, habits and past-times. I can think of no better way to create new generations of fanatics who harbour a murderous desire to attack the West than a policy of forced renunciation. I don't have a problem of countries insisting that citizens affirm the supremacy of secular law - which is why request for shariah courts and the like is totally unacceptable and must not be conceded. Nor do I contest the need to regulate immigration if only to allow the benign process of assimilation to occur. But forced renunciation is unlikely to work as intended. Because what we want is to find out who the fanatics are. Renunciation policy will not do that.

I don't know for sure, Rosie,

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know for sure, Rosie, but I believe it is from just a few days ago.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

Richard: re Modern Day Birmingham video

Rosie's picture

What is the date of the Birmingham Council leader's speech, do you know?

Before or after this?

Irfan Naseer, 31, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Ashik Ali, 27, all from Birmingham, were convicted of plotting the 'spectacular campaign' designed to claim as many lives as the 2005 London Underground bombs that killed 52 innocent people.

'Why shouldn't we terrorise them, tell me that? You think about it, if someone came in your house, yeah, and started dancing and throughout the night and started basically having orgies and smoking drugs and stuff...you would terrorise them, innit.'

" you would terrorise them, innit " ?!

A death sentence, innit?!

The problem I see, Doug, in a

Richard Wiig's picture

The problem I see, Doug, in a nutshell, can be summed up in "not enough selfishness". Individual rights, an abstract concept, are held in higher esteem by many Objectivists and Libertarians than an actual free-society itself. A free-society is a value to be achieved and then selfishly defended, just like any other value. It doesn't belong to enemies of freedom, but they treat it as if it does because individual rights are ,apparently, universal. There needs to be much more giving the finger. We should all be thorns under their skin.

I only yet have an answer for

Robert S's picture

I only yet have an answer for #2.
MY answer for #2 is it's wrong to kill 1 innocent person. Yes, that makes any fight on terrorism much more difficult. It also avoids regional eugenics.

Modern day Birmingham.

Richard Wiig's picture

Modern day Birmingham. The guy speaking to them is the leader of the Birmingham Council.

Tom

Richard Wiig's picture

The context is war. Given that context it's appropriate to place restriction on the enemy.

What Doug seems to be suggesting is a sort of precautionary principle where whole segments of Mankind are both prevented from moving from A to B and then expelled from a territory for not what they have done, but what they possibly might do or think.

Orthodox Objectivists on the Boston Massacre

Neil Parille's picture

The Objective Standard, an outfit run by Open Immigration Objectivists which has (or once had) ties to the ARI, has finally commented on the implications of the Boston Massacre.

According to TOS, it doesn't have much to do with immigration or even foreign policy; the takeaway is - I kid you not - that it shows the impracticality of anarchism.

http://www.theobjectivestandar...

__________________

Had there been no government—that is, no police, no law, no final arbiter restricting what people may do—how would these killers have been identified and apprehended? By individual citizens investigating and prowling around on their own? By multiple private “defense agencies,” each working for different individuals or groups and following their own favored practices regarding the use of force?

__________________

Is this a good argument or bad argument against anarcho-capitalism? Since the establishment of anarcho-capitalism is less likely than the restoration of the Stuarts, I've decided not to give it ten seconds of my precious mental energy.

Perhaps next AriAn Armstrong will tell us that the Brothers Tsarnaev would have voted Republican but for the "xenophobia" of the R party.

A Great Comment From a Conservative

Doug Bandler's picture

This comment is perfect. It totally captures the insanity of America and its approach to Muslims and foreign policy.

I think the Sailer Doctrine has been expanded to "Invade the world, invite the world, support the world."

The thing that gets me is that we keep admitting Muslims to settle in the United States when it's obvious that a certain percentage of them will repay us with stunts like that of Chechendumb & Chechendumber. It doesn't matter if it's a small percentage -- there will be some terrorists in that consignment.

So we play this ridiculous game of hide and seek: you un-moderate Muslims get to shoot people and send limbs flying, then it's our turn to try and catch you, then it's your lawyers' turn to try to get you off, then it's our prosecutors' turn to convict you, then it's the government's turn to play the homeland security theme song with more invasions of privacy, then ... well, on and on.

All of which could be avoided with simple commonsense immigration restriction.

And this is what Objectivists are signing on to when they just stress war policy and ignore Muslims and immigration.

BTW, the above comment shows more common sense than I've seen from 99% of the Objectivist movement. Yaron Brook isn't capable of the above. As I keep saying, the better Conservatives are the only ones making any sense in modern America. The Objectivists are only good for economics. And economics does not move men's souls.

No Pogroms Or Gas Chambers

Doug Bandler's picture

So in other words, in response to my question about expulsions and so on, you seem to be assuming that any Muslim, even if they have been living in the US for generations, had better pack up their affairs, sell their homes, and leave.

What he needs to do and what the government should make him decide is whether he will swear off Islam. Muslims should not be allowed and Islam and Mosques should be banned. If your hypothetical Muslim wants to stay in America then he must reject Islam which would properly be considered a hostile war movement and NOT a peaceful faith system. The dude can stay but not as a Muslim. And he must understand that society hates his religion of birth and will not allow it within its borders. My guess is that 95% of Muslims would leave. GOOD. That's because their commitment to Islam will always be stronger than their commitment to America and you can not swear allegiance to both.

No one is advocating gas chambers Tom.

Expelling a whole population of people because of their professed or presumed religious views is a sort of pogrom. That is what is being argued for by Doug – mass expulsions.

Not a pogrom. Rational self-interest. The population being expelled is NOT innocent. The religion they swear allegiance to is deadly. It is a plague. The view you are expressing is the same one that I see everywhere from Objectivists. To me this is a flawed understanding of individualism and individual rights. Aggregates matter as does culture. A Muslim by definition is an adherent of Islam. Islam is a perpetual solicitation of violence. It doesn't matter that most Muslims don't actually commit the violence. They serve as cover for those that do.

The issue of Muslims may serve as a fracture point in the Objectivist movement. I'm sensing that there is a growing frustration and disgust with the mainstream O'ist view. If you ever find yourself on the same side as the Left, you really need to think things through. Those fuckers are never right.

What Gregster Said

Doug Bandler's picture

Tom's criticisms are fair I guess. I know how my position sounds. It took me 5 years to reach it. I get this from Larry Auster who I have come to believe was a misguided genius. But a genius he was, as well as the best polemicist of the last decade. NO ONE in the Objectivist movement was his equal. Peikoff came close but Auster was better. Lindsay has that potential but he would have to produce a massive amount of output which I don't know if he has the energy for. I'm not saying Auster's philosophy was right but that his thinking skills and his ability to essentialize ideologies like Islam and modern Liberalism were unparalleled.

As for the objections themselves, I think Greg did a good job of answering them. Much more can be said but the essence of it is this: on individual rights grounds I think my argument is sound. Islam represents the perpetual threat of initiatory force. Muslims swear allegiance to Islam by the very act of calling themselves Muslim. All Muslims represent a 5th column. It is not ethnic cleansing when we are dealing with Islam and its adherents; ie Muslims. Its their ideas and their actions which have been consistent for FOURTEEN CENTURIES.

I do think that immigration of non-whites in general is dangerous in the CURRENT political/philosophical context. But that is because of the Leftist welfare/regulatory state. Under laissez faire, "open immigration" would not present the dangers it does now. And in a free society, the differences amongst the races would not present the civilization ending threat that I think they do in a Leftist, anti-white, welfare state; ie modern "airhead America".

But Muslims are and always will be a danger. Islam is the mortal enemy of the West and non-Muslim humanity (that was auster's great insight and his excellent phraseology). That point is to me unquestionable at this late date in human history. That Objectivists don't get it both frustrates and depresses me. Muslims don't belong here and our Islam problems would vanish if they weren't here.

Yes Virginia, its that simple.

fair point

Doug Bandler's picture

there are several other think-tanks like Heritage, Cato, LP, several Christian groups like Constitution Party, tea-party types

All of these organizations have the same view of Islam and Muslims that Objectivism does. Namely that it is not Islam that is the problem but "radical Islam". Also, they all don't see the problem with Muslim immigration.

So you are right in saying that ARI is irrelevant to the American population. But my point is that even the American Right, as diverse as it is, is united in their ignorance of the evil of Islam and danger of Muslims.

How influential is the ARI for America as a whole?

Reason Man's picture

WRT this entire thread I wanted to ask the above question. Yarron Brooks, ARI etc may be highly influential amongst appreciable number of O'ists, but how much for America as a whole? First, there are many O'ist divisions; then there are many Libertarians and others who consider each other as enemies; third, there are several other think-tanks like Heritage, Cato, LP, several Christian groups like Constitution Party, tea-party types ...... so on and on. Amongst all these, how much weight does the ARI carry? (Approximate estimate, not numbers).

Gregster, let me unpack your

Tom Burroughes's picture

Gregster, let me unpack your responses:
Which young people are most dangerous once “radicalized?” Not Tea Party Christian patriots.
Maybe not. But as we saw from groups such as the Weather Underground, the Unabomber and the extreme Greens, violent acts are not the preserve of traditional religions.
We have advance notice in the scrawlings of Mohammed which are impervious to moderation. Secular ones? Which secular beliefs are inspiring repetitious terrorist acts?
In the past, various secular ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism applied. The anti-globalisation rioters spring to mind. And they were white, Westerners, in the main (mostly spoiled middle class kids).
The principle here being that if one accommodates another whose end motive is to overthrow all the freedoms gained by civilization, then one is sacrificing a greater value for a lesser value. It is most certainly precautionary. It is also valid. There is not a debt owed to savages. To accommodate stated enemies of freedom is acting against self-interest. It is irrational.
So in other words, in response to my question about expulsions and so on, you seem to be assuming that any Muslim, even if they have been living in the US for generations, had better pack up their affairs, sell their homes, and leave. Or what, exactly? Internment like the Japanese during WW2? For how long? A decade? What?
By the way, I haven’t said anywhere that I think all cultures are equally of merit.
I see evidence that the Objectivist open immigration axiom is not being weighed against the overwhelming negative outcome of the settling in the West of its enemies.
I don’t know what the Objectivist movement as a whole thinks on this question.
A pogrom? That is the Moslem specialty! What a fucking cheek to accuse a concerned Westerner of that.
Expelling a whole population of people because of their professed or presumed religious views is a sort of pogrom. That is what is being argued for by Doug – mass expulsions.

With respect, Tom..

gregster's picture

A problem I have with the approach Doug Bandler is taking is what happens when young people, who on the surface appear to have assimilated, then get radicalised?

Which young people are most dangerous once “radicalized?” Not Tea Party Christian patriots.

This does not just apply to religious beliefs, but secular ones also, and often not in a good way. We don't always know in advance who the trouble-makers are.

We have advance notice in the scrawlings of Mohammed which are impervious to moderation. Secular ones? Which secular beliefs are inspiring repetitious terrorist acts?

We don't have the ability to predict criminality, as was suggested in the plot of the movie, Minority Report.

We have it broadcast plainly in the Koran, and it only takes the more devout followers to carry it out.

What Doug seems to be suggesting is a sort of precautionary principle where whole segments of Mankind are both prevented from moving from A to B and then expelled from a territory for not what they have done, but what they possibly might do or think.

True. The principle here being that if one accommodates another whose end motive is to overthrow all the freedoms gained by civilization, then one is sacrificing a greater value for a lesser value. It is most certainly precautionary. It is also valid. There is not a debt owed to savages. To accommodate stated enemies of freedom is acting against self-interest. It is irrational.

It also correctly implies that cultural relativism - the fallacious belief that all cultures are of equal merit - is inherently threatening to life and freedom.

I cannot see any Objectivist, "official" or otherwise, being at all comfortable with this, particularly given the obvious abuses and bureaucratic nightmares that this could lead to. Doug is basically calling for ethnic cleansing, for a sort of pogrom, with all that that implies.

I’m uncomfortable with Objectivist intrinsicism on this important matter. I see evidence that the Objectivist open immigration axiom is not being weighed against the overwhelming negative outcome of the settling in the West of its enemies.

You’re wrong on the ethnic cleansing.

A pogrom? That is the Moslem specialty! What a fucking cheek to accuse a concerned Westerner of that.

I suspect I know what the "Mr Spocks" of the ARI will say to this.

You already said as much.

I find it astonishing that this sort of view in favour of such expulsions, and on such a basis, is held by someone who claims to admire Rand, who was an immigrant.

You compare Rand to slime?

A problem I have with the

Tom Burroughes's picture

A problem I have with the approach Doug Bandler is taking is what happens when young people, who on the surface appear to have assimilated, then get radicalised? This does not just apply to religious beliefs, but secular ones also, and often not in a good way. We don't always know in advance who the trouble-makers are. We don't have the ability to predict criminality, as was suggested in the plot of the movie, Minority Report.

What Doug seems to be suggesting is a sort of precautionary principle where whole segments of Mankind are both prevented from moving from A to B and then expelled from a territory for not what they have done, but what they possibly might do or think. I cannot see any Objectivist, "official" or otherwise, being at all comfortable with this, either on moral or practical grounds, particularly given the obvious abuses and bureaucratic nightmares that this could lead to. Doug is basically calling for ethnic cleansing, for a sort of pogrom, with all that that implies.

I find it astonishing that this sort of view in favour of such expulsions, and on such a basis, is held by someone who claims to admire Rand, who was an immigrant.

good point

Doug Bandler's picture

On the other hand, these two cretins spent most of their adult lives in the US. One of the losers spent six months in one or more of the Islamic republics of Russia. Lot of good 10 years of assimilation did him against six months in the Islamic border of Christian Russia. Certain groups seem to assimilate to the lowest common denominator.

Really good. As Auster used to argue, people are shaped by their culture. If you are a Muslim, whether in the West or outside it, you have been exposed to a culture and a thought system based on a deep, unbending hatred of non-Muslims. If you let a population of those types of people mass in your borders they will ultimately try to kill or subvert you. Culture matters.

Objectivists however are naive and rationalistic. Their understanding of "individualism" is unmoored to reality. Individualism is legitimate but it needs to have its parameters properly established. Objectivism has yet to do that. Witness the ridiculous things Objectivists say about both immigration and Muslims; i.e. their refusal to understand the dangers of both. Its embarrassing.

I would never self-identify as an "Objectivist" anymore. A Rand influenced Classical Liberal is as far as I would go. But at this point in my intellectual development, I could never be part of the same movement that includes nitwits like Diana Hsieh or 75% of the Objectivist bloggers. Not until the movement has enough people like Lindsay and Ed Cline will it have any cultural power.

The Objectivist movement has no passion, it has no rage, it has no life. Its a movement of sterile, drone-like "Mr. Spocks". Good luck going up against the left or Islam with that. Logic without passion is impotent. If you are unwilling to hate the evil that wants to destroy you, you will be destroyed. And both the Left and Islam want to destroy you. Wake up to that Objectivists. But whatever, I'm a racist.

Assimilation

Neil Parille's picture

I suppose after one hundred years of no immigration of Moslems into the USA the remaining Moslems will become assimilated into what's left of our depraved "culture." Moslems who take their faith seriously will be a curiosity, like Mormons in the desert who practice polygamy. How many of them are there? Who knows, who cares.

On the other hand, these two cretins spent most of their adult lives in the US. One of the losers spent six months in one or more of the Islamic republics of Russia. Lot of good 10 years of assimilation did him against six months in the Islamic border of Christian Russia. Certain groups seem to assimilate to the lowest common denominator.

re Assimilation

Doug Bandler's picture

Objectivists don't ever deal with the assimilation question. They assume that if we had a free market then all immigrants would automatically assimilate. This is pure rationalism. Almost every Objectivist blogger and twitterer I've seen treats any challenge to "open immigration" as illegitimate and motivated by hatred. In that regard they are IDENTICAL to Leftists.

As for Muslims, I don't ever think they can be assimilated. They must be prohibited from entry and those already here must be expelled. The only way a person from a Muslim land should ever be allowed entry is if they swear off Islam. Islam does not fall under the protection of "individual rights" because it is inherently violent. Not understanding that is the greatest failure of the Objectivist movement IMO.

Regarding Neil, yes he has been remarkably consistent on many subjects, and stoic and disciplined in his argumentation. I have new found respect for him.

Assimilation is the key

Tom Burroughes's picture

Stanley Kurtz, over at National Review, argues that no coherent reflection on what happened can be done without addressing assimilation. I have never seen this sort of issue covered by objectivists systematically before, although I may be in error.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Yaron

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've just sent him an e-mail drawing this thread to his attention. Here's hoping he'll respond.

Update: just got an automated response that he's speaking at conferences in Brazil all through April, with limited access to email.

that's a good question

Doug Bandler's picture

What I want to know is, has Yaron Brook read it? Have you posted it to him, Doug? Can someone invite him directly to respond?

How would I even do that? I should probably search around the ARI site and see if there's a way to reach him. But I have a feeling that he wouldn't answer it. I've seen that most Objectivists are just like Leftists when it comes to something outside their comfort zone. My questions would trigger the "racist" reaction. Most Objectivists wouldn't even consider them respectable. Which shows how fucked the Objectivist movement is.

What I want to know is, has

Richard Wiig's picture

What I want to know is, has Yaron Brook read it? Have you posted it to him, Doug? Can someone invite him directly to respond?

Doug

Neil Parille's picture

Excellent questions.

Since I assume Brook supports "open immigration," I wonder how he thinks the tens of millions of Moslems he wants allowed into the US will act when they see their homelands bombed. It would make the LA riots look like a picnic.

There are stories recently about Jews leaving France because of anti-Semitic attacks. Does Brook think that these attacks would decrease if France bombed Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Doug...

Marcus's picture

...even if not allowed to admit it publicly I bet they do pay close attention to Muslims and Muslim groups. At least I'm sure they do this in the UK.

This just seems like sloppiness and incompetence.

more that incompetence...

Doug Bandler's picture

... its corruption. The Left will not allow profiling of any kind. In a sane society, all Muslims would be profiled and monitored (they wouldn't be allowed in the country at all, but put that aside for now). But today that is considered "racist" or "Islamophobic", etc. Essentially, these are violations of egalitarianism which as I keep saying is the dominant religion of the modern West. Every Objectivist organization should be popularizing this knowledge and viewpoint: the evil of Islam, the 5th column nature of Muslims, the evil of the Left, and the rule of egalitarianism and modern liberalism. But who says this? Sadly only me.

No, we get the bland, boring, passionless, often meaningless crap from mainstream O'ist organizations especially the ARI and the TOS (most notably Ari Armstrong who can bore a person to tears). Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Diana West (a great lady - I'm in love with her just for her courage and her conviction - maybe I'm not a misogynist after all), Andrew Bostom and similar types are far more notable in their efforts to fight Islam than ANY Objectivist we've seen so far.

Really, I consider this to be VERY important. Objectivism has been PATHETIC in the way it has dealt with the Islamic threat. On every major Objectivist forum that I have seen except this one there is no semblance of a rational approach to Islam (i.e. to hate it and eventually ban it). This is why I say that the Islamic threat has revealed the Objectivist movement to be in a stage of infancy. It is not ready for prime time yet. Maybe that is as it must be given the nature of intellectual movements; ie they move slowly. But for me its just damn frustrating.

Same old incompetence...

Marcus's picture

Maybe the secret service should be privatised?

Thanks

Doug Bandler's picture

Thanks guys.

The Boston bombings actually are my worst fears come true. Muslims in America are about to turn the U.S. into Israel. In time there will be no mall, no movie theater, no bus, no parade, etc that will be free from danger. We will be living in eternal, inescapable fear. And why?

For the simple reason that Muslims live amongst us. The first time I read those sentiments was when I encountered Larry Auster, now departed. I rejected them and took offense. That was 4 years ago. I have thought long and hard about it since and I now realize: Auster was right. Yes, I think the proper philosophic defense of the expulsion of Muslims from America rests on a different foundation than Auster's traditionalism. But Auster was right, and prescient. He once said in response to information about the security necessary for the Super Bowl that all this effort is due to but one fact: that Muslims are allowed in America. We live in fear because we can not make a valid moral judgement that Islam is evil.

Larry Auster was able to make that judgement based on his approach to Christianity. Objectivists can't make that judgment based on Rand's philosophy which is supposedly a philosophy for living on earth. I still believe that Rand's philosophy is the best philosophic system yet devised. Its just that I now fully believe that the Objectivist movement interprets Rand's system along Leftist lines thus neutering it and rendering it sterile. Diana Hsieh is my classic example. She is self-refuting. Just read her and you see the bastardization of Objectivism.

Objectivists need to come to the realization that the great danger of our time is immigration. In the context of this Leftist society, immigration of non-whites and Muslims will be the DEATH of America and the West.

But I was a deaf, dumb and blind Objectivist too once so maybe there is hope that other Objectivists will come to realize the short-comings of the current Objectivist movement. I am starting to see evidence that this is true. This site is one data point. There are a few others as well.

Score One for Them

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Islam is at war with America. The Boston Massacre is another victory for them. America now needs to decently reply and counterattack. But we won't. America today is way too intellectually ignorant and morally low for that. So they win -- again.

Well

Jules Troy's picture

It would be interesting if they answer!!!

Excellent questions!

Richard Wiig's picture

Excellent questions!

Comment viewing options

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