Attention Mainstream Objectivism: Islam's "Rule of Numbers"

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Thu, 2013-05-30 05:01

On the rare chance that anyone in organized Objectivism Land actually reads anything that challenges some of their core beliefs, I would like to introduce them to Islam's "Rule of Numbers".

The rule:

"It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear."

The escalation phenomenon:

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon. Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a “religion of peace,” and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

But if numbers grow:

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of “grievances,” a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London’s butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters destroyed 100 cars and property. The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding “immigrant” in self-defense.

If numbers get even larger:

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians—bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists. Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that’s because there are fewer infidels to persecute. And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences—as dhimmis—always careful to “know their place.”

When Muslims dominate:

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm. Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad. Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new “blasphemy” laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia—where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Such is the rule of numbers, Islam style.

What does Yaron Brook have to say about this? Or "throw-the-borders-open" Harry? Dr. Diana? Craig Biddle? Dan "I defend Islam" Edge?

Is this just Conservative silliness? Is it "flawed epistemology"? Maybe its "deterministic"? You know just because you are a Muslim doesn't mean you're a jihadist? Maybe we should just focus on the economy? Yeah, that's the ticket.

When organized Objectivism has the guts to address the subject of Muslim immigration, it will be worthy of respect as an intellectual movement. As of now, it is sterile and impotent. And Rand is spinning in her grave.

Cognitive Dissonance

Doug Bandler's picture

In Biddle and all the other open borders Objectivists. This is ideology in the worst sense of that word; i.e. not integrated philosophic thinking.

...the strategy has been labeled...

What does this mean? That the strategy is "labeled" incorrectly? It sounds like Biddel is throwing a passive/aggressive dis at the anti-Islam advocates who have identified what stealth Jihad is. So Biddel must not believe in stealth Jihad. After all, stealth Jihad can only be waged through immigration, which to serious Muslims is a form of settlement. Thus immigration can never be the culprit.

Mainstream Objectivists are as bad as Leftists on many issues. I can understand why so many intelligent Conservatives see Objectivism as an infantile philosophy not worthy of respect. It isn't. But many of its loudest mouths are (not worthy of respect).

Craig Biddle - Incredible

Neil Parille's picture

Here is a fairly lengthy essay by Open Immigrationist Craig Biddle.


It's titled, "The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts."


One of the explicit goals of Islamists is to pervert U.S. and Western culture by infusing it with Islamic values and gradually preparing it for the implementation of Islamic law (aka sharia). As the Muslim Brotherhood declares in its “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house . . . so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious.” This strategy has aptly been labeled “stealth jihad” or “creeping sharia.” The general goal is to saturate America with Muslims, Islamic ideas, Islamic institutions, and Islamic norms such that America gradually and peacefully becomes an Islamic state.


Just how are the Moslems saturating the US and Europe, Craig? The words "immigration" and "immigrant" don't appear in your piece.

Would Biddle explain how Fort Hood and the Boston Massacre would have been prevented by bombing Saudi Arabia and Iran.

EDIT: I just sent an email to Biddle informing him of the conversation here at solopassion and telling him that we'd all be interested in what he might say.

Binswanger Still For Open Borders - HB List

Neil Parille's picture

Recent posts by Harry Binswanger:

5/16 Two papers, two headlines
5/17 IRS: What did the President know, and when?
5/17 The definition of reason, postscript
5/17 Throw open the borders

Re Binny

Doug Bandler's picture

Sure, he's got a Ph.D. But, he never did anything with it. His publishing is thin, just a few edited works and his dissertation. That's not much after forty years by somehow who apparently doesn't have to work for a living. I don't consider his HBL thing as real work or scholarly output.

This has always bothered me about him. He was not a "professional philosopher". He was a professional Objectivist lecturer. There's a difference. There's nothing wrong with that but Binny and many other Objectivist intellectuals have this bad habit of making absolute statements on very difficult topics that are outside of their specialty. Immigration is not epistemology (Binny's specialty). There are some broad things we can say about immigration but there is a whole lot that depends on empirical data. All of which Binny has ignored. Not to mention his ignorance of the effect on America from Leftist immigrants.


Grant Jones's picture

Just watched the video you referenced. I was very disappointed with Lewis. "Ideology of Islamic totalitarianism." WTF? Then Diana West goes for the throat and nails the massive evasion involved. I can't fathom why that Heritage Foundation drone was even invited. Embarrassing is the word.


Grant Jones's picture

Doug, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

Binny typed: Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people our country needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.

I've never understood how someone so detached from reality became a senior Objectivist philosopher. Sure, he's got a Ph.D. But, he never did anything with it. His publishing is thin, just a few edited works and his dissertation. That's not much after forty years by somehow who apparently doesn't have to work for a living. I don't consider his HBL thing as real work or scholarly output.

"Self-selected," like the founding leaders of the Communist Party USA, the mafia, anachist president killers and mad bombers, and the Haymarket bombers. Never mind something called the "St. Louis Hegelians" from the 19th century. Pure, undiluted rationalism thy name is Binny.


Neil Parille's picture


I sent Binswanger an email once, and he didn't respond.

Maybe someone who is not a humanity diminisher should ask him if believes the US, Europe and Israel should put any limits on Islamic immigration.

If 100,000 men in their twenties from pro-Taliban regions of Afghanistan or Pakistan want to come to the US or Israel, does Dr. Binswanger think they should be allowed?


Difficult to Read

Neil Parille's picture


I don't think Harry believes what he says.

If he believes that immigrants are "self selected" for hard work, individualism, etc. then he thinks Moslem immigrants are less likely commit terrorism. But I'm sure he was not surprised that 9/11, Fort Hood, The Boston Massacre, etc. were committed by Moslems. Really, Binny's first thought was that the Boston Massacre was committed by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution?

Likewise, Binny's first thought was that London, Madrid, and the recent riots in Sweden were committed by the descendents of Heingist & Horsa, El Cid, and Eric the Red?


Would-be terrorists certainly

Richard Wiig's picture

Would-be terrorists certainly fits the bill.

Here's another good article by Raymond Ibrahim.

The calm before the jihadi storm:


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Didn't folk read the qualifier at the very beginning of Harry's article?

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 certainly favour a moratorium in Islamogoblin immigration in the present circumstances. Might not Harry, under the above strictures? Has anyone asked him? This article is 3 years old.

difficult to read

Doug Bandler's picture

The Brothers Tsarnaev were self-selected for their virtues as Americans?

Not only this, what about the 75% of Hispanic immigrants who vote Left? Is that showing their "virtue as Americans". When I read this from Binswanger, I'm tempted to say he is an idiot. Now I know he is not dumb, he does have a degree from MIT. But his view on immigration and immigrants is just so non-reality-focused that its breathtaking.

the link

Doug Bandler's picture

Can you post a link to the panel discussion with West, Journo, and Lewis? Thanks.

Notice the very title - The "Islamist" threat. That tells you all you need to know.

Binswanger on Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Apparently not a single problem from Open Immigration.


Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people our country needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.


The Brothers Tsarnaev were self-selected for their virtues as Americans?

I get the impression that Ayn Rand didn't completely trust Binswanger. I imagine she'd puke at his belief that Israel is morally obligated to allow unlimited Islamic immigration.

-Neil Parille

Diana West

Grant Jones's picture

I wish the West had some more men like West.

Can you post a link to the panel discussion with West, Journo, and Lewis? Thanks.


Doug Bandler's picture

Every time there is one of these type of events with the better anti-Islam Conservatives and an Objectivist, I am continuously amazed at how weak and relatively useless the Objectivist contribution is. In one panel a year ago or so Elan Journo and John Lewis were at the same table as Diana West. Diana spoke in remarkably detailed terms about the danger from Islamic infiltration of the American Government and military and of the dangers of Sharia Law. The Objectivists kept on talking about assaults on "individual rights" and the danger of "Islamists". I kept thinking to myself that both Lewis and Journo weren't in Diana's league. It was embarrassing in a way. I expect more of the same with this.


Doug Bandler's picture

Thanks for that Link. Another site I hadn't seen. From what you quoted I would say there is alot of truth there. But as for other things on that site, I need to think. But generally, I think that Objectivism will need a "2.0" at some point. Rand laid down some very broad principles. But they are being tested by events and phenomenon that she didn't envision; ie Islam. We're living through history in one sense.

Geert Wilders

Grant Jones's picture

ARI's Elan Journo will be participating in a panel discussion that includes the great Geert Wilders. Sadly, I don't think ARI will learn anything from Wilders and will continue their dogmatic slumbers.

"Especially for readers in Southern California: June 9-10, I’m scheduled to speak at a conference hosted in Los Angeles by the American Freedom Alliance, “Europe’s Last Stand? Debt, Demography, and the Abandonment of National Sovereignty.” I’m particularly looking forward to hearing the talks and panels. Among the invited speakers are the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, the scholar Daniel Pipes, and the writer Bat Ye’or."


gregster's picture

What do you make of the following post Doug?

The more I follow the links the more I need to consider, so, Doug just take a look for the meantime.


gregster's picture

and ARI I believe are more interested in attracting donations to an already strong balance sheet and have made the decision to not frighten the horses over the obvious evil monkey in the room that is numbers of Islam adherents. Or they are dishonest, and effectively blinded. But I wouldn't expect there to be an "organised Objectivism." Rand was against such a thing.

What do you make of the following post Doug?

"..closed-system Objectivists in particular angrily, defensively, and resentfully reject the possibility that Objectivism requires systematic revision, that Rand’s views on a wide range of subjects were not just wrong (sometimes downright immoral or stupid), but incompatible with the best applications of her best principles. A surprising number of them agree with what might be called Leonard Peikoff’s Directive 5-89: “…let those of us who are Objectivists at least make sure that what we are spreading is Ayn Rand’s actual ideas, not some distorted hash of them.”

"When [Leonard Peikoff] is in book-writing mood, however, an agnostic fog enwraps Ayn Rand’s “best student and chosen heir.” Suddenly, this beneficiary of thirty years’ apprenticeship to the master becomes unsure whether Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is really a presentation of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand; it could, he admits, be a series of “misstatements of her views.” Caveat lector. He asserts with apparent modesty that we’re not to give him too much credit for the contents of his recent book Understanding Objectivism, because after the blank check he handed his editor for revising it, he has “no idea” what its contents are. As for the DIM Hypothesis, it opens with what Peikoff himself calls a “wild” guess about the overlap between its contents and Ayn Rand’s counterfactual ideas, concluding that there is a 5-15% chance that Ayn Rand would have regarded the book as garbage."

"..a twenty-first century Objectivist intellectual should sweep such Directives aside with the contempt that they, and their exponents, deserve. He or she should actively aspire to become the next Edward Bernstein of Objectivism, doing explicitly and self-consciously for Objectivism what Bernstein did for Marxism. The movement, alas, is already rich in its aspiring Lenins and Trotskys; it has a Gang of Four, and it has a Comrade Sonia. It doesn’t need any more of them. Nor should such an aspiring Objectivist “Bernstein” worry too much that some self-designated authority figure intends to take the “Objectivist” label from him or her."


Comment viewing options

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