The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: September 2014

Euphemisms: The Euthanasia of Words

One must really hand it to President Barack
Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron for their anti-ISIS speeches at
the U.N. on Wednesday: They managed to condemn ISIS, or the Islamic State of
Syria and Iraq, without much uttering the words “Islam” and “Muslim.”
Not once did Cameron
in his UN speech mention “Islam,” but rather “Islamist extremism,” surely a
redundancy in terms. He did, however, utter “Muslims” or “Muslim” five times. The
rest of his speech stressed that other Muslims were also being killed by the
“extremists” and, echoing George W. Bush from nearly a decade and a half ago,
indicated that ISIS had “hijacked” Islam, thus exonerating Islam.  He mentioned “evil” once, at the end of his
speech.
Did Hitler “hijack” Nazism? Did Stalin
“hijack” Communism? Did Ruhollah Khomeini
“hijack” Islam?
Obama
mentioned “evil” once, also, and uttered “Islam” four times. From him we heard
the usual puffery about Islam being benign and peaceful and the cornerstone of
Western civilization, and repeated his assurances (to Muslims) that we are not
at war with Islam
. It’s a statement he made in Cairo
and in Ankara, Turkey (“In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never
will be – at war with Islam. “) It’s an “extremist ideology” that has declared
war on the West, it’s the “violent extremists” who are responsible for the
thousands of deaths and the carnage, not Islam itself, implying that Islam is
just a hapless spectator to horrific crimes, and not the perpetrator of them.
Obama will not acknowledge that Islam is
nothing if not “extremist” or “radical” or “violent.” However: Islam is as Islam does. That is the
immutable fact which Obama and his ilk disguise in their patter of dhimmitude,
multiculturalism, and moral relativism.
One can even pronounce a proscribed word
and not mean that it has any connection to reality or the word’s actual meaning.
Obama has made a rhetorical career of it.
Obama will throw a tantrum and berate his
military advisors if they try to “paint
all of Islam with the same brush.
” That is, as a conquering, murdering,
raping, looting ideology, as ISIS is and does. If the future indeed does not belong to those who “slander” the
prophet of Islam – that is, identify Mohammad as the conquering, murdering,
raping, looter he was, provided he actually existed – then the West is cooked
per halal style, with our throats cut
with knives or machetes we handed to our executioners , our property looted,
our womenfolk sold off as sex slaves and concubines, and our children enrolled
in politically correct madrassas.
Denial, willful ignorance, wishful
thinking: the hallmarks of our age. If you know the truth about ISIS and Islam,
as Obama does, and deny the truth, that is to side with Islam and ISIS.   Cameron is merely a knee-knocking fool, whose
middle name must be ostrich.
Everyone but a semi-literate dolt reading
the British
press
knows that the term “Asian,” when it occurs in a story about the
Pakistani grooming gangs or an attack on white Britons, stands for the
prohibited and unmentionable term “Muslim.” But it isn’t only careless usage of
the term “Muslim” which could incur judicial disapprobation, jail time, and
financial and personal penalties, but the wrath of Muslims over their “outraged
religious feelings” or the alleged imputation of their ethnicity, as though
mentioning a criminal’s Islamic affiliation was tantamount to expressing one’s
“racism.”
Euphemisms, except in certain, defined
circumstances (such as in dramatic dialogue, or in lyrics or poetry, or in humor),
are corruptors of language and of minds. Euphemisms are not metaphors or similes
for anything.  Their purpose is to disguise
facts, not serve as guides to facts or as a means of clarification. Their
primary purpose is to help a mind evade perceiving and dealing with reality. A
euphemism used in dramatic dialogue can be justified if it stresses a disguised
fact; but there is no justification for employing a euphemism when dealing with
reality.
Politically
correct
writing and speech employ euphemisms by the dozen (see my two
columns on the subject, “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism
” and “Thought
Crime: The Logical End of Politically Correct Speech
”) and a mind that
consciously, habitually employs them is either epistemologically corrupt or in
the process of becoming corrupt. The malady is reversible by choice, and so is
not irreversible except in the most corrupt minds. An act of volition is
necessary to cure oneself of the habit.
Here is an example of a not-so-complex
euphemism, one employed by federal nutrition “experts” and the education
bureaucracy: “Managed
choice
,” meaning an authoritarian desire to force Americans to choose what
they, the bureaucrats, consider to be “healthy diets,” and to force parents and
their children to associate with others in schools and neighborhoods, whether
or not  they wish to associate with them.
“Managed choice,” however, is a contradiction in terms.
Suppose one said to you: “The situation here
is pure anarchy!” How would you
interpret the statement? First, what is the definition of anarchy? The Oxford English
Dictionary
lists four possible meanings. And what is the context? Is one
referring to a food fight in a school cafeteria? Is it a metaphor on the
contents of someone’s mind or about a bizarre argument? Is the speaker
referring to an “absence of government” or a “state of lawlessness”? A
collapse of civil authority?
The purpose of euphemisms in any political,
moral, or cultural discussion is to deny reality by denying words of their
meanings. “Workplace violence,”
a particularly egregious evasion of facts coined by former Homeland Security
head Janet Napolitano with the approval of Barack Obama, is another euphemism
for Islamic jihad.   
Allow me to demonstrate the employment of
metaphors, but not of euphemisms.
Euphemisms
are fig leaves for those uncomfortable with reality, and political correctness
in speech and the written word demands that everyone affix them to their own
minds, else be charged with indecent exposure. Euphemisms are the ObamaCare
death panel for language. Words are buried alive, or injected with the poison
of subjectivism
.
Censorship is the “managed choice” of
language.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? The
last sentence, however, was an example of a metaphor employing a euphemism
against itself. A censor, however, will not warn you to “Choose your words
carefully,” but rather to “Choose my
words carefully.”
Because euphemisms are words, let us hear from an expert on language and words,
novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, who rarely, if ever, employed euphemisms. Here she
discusses the origin and purpose of language:
In order to be used as a single
unit, the enormous sum integrated by a concept has to be given the form of a
single, specific, perceptual
concrete, which will differentiate it from all other concretes and from all
other concepts. This is the function performed by language. Language is a code
of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of
converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes. Language is the
exclusive domain and tool of concepts. Every word we use (with the exception of
proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an
unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind….
Concepts represent
a system of mental filing and cross-filing, so complex that the largest
electronic computer is a child’s toy by comparison. This system serves as the
context, the frame-of-reference, by means of which man grasps and classifies
(and studies further) every existent he encounters and every aspect of reality.
Language is the physical (visual-audible) implementation of this system….
Concepts and,
therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition—not of
communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the consequence,
not the cause nor the primary purpose of concept-formation—a crucial
consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but still only a consequence. Cognition
precedes communication
; the necessary pre-condition of communication is
that one have something to communicate.
The habitual or congenital usage of euphemisms,
therefore, reflects a desire to emasculate one’s own cognition and the
deliberate attempt to divert or con the cognition of others.
What is the origin of modern Euphemism-Speak?
Linguistic Analysis and a hyena’s litter of minor theories about language. Rand wrote:
There is an element
of grim irony in the emergence of Linguistic Analysis on the philosophical
scene. The assault on man’s conceptual faculty has been accelerating since
Kant, widening the breach between man’s mind and reality. The cognitive
function of concepts was undercut by a series of grotesque devices—such, for
instance, as the “analytic-synthetic” dichotomy which, by a route of tortuous
circumlocutions and equivocations, leads to the dogma that a “necessarily” true
proposition cannot be factual, and a factual proposition cannot be
“necessarily” true….
The reductio ad
absurdum
of a long line of mini-Kantians, such as pragmatists and
positivists, Linguistic Analysis holds that words are an arbitrary social
product immune from any principles or standards, an irreducible primary not
subject to inquiry about its origin or purpose—and that we can “dissolve” all
philosophical problems by “clarifying” the use of these arbitrary, causeless,
meaningless sounds which hold ultimate power over reality. . . .
Proceeding from the
premise that words (concepts) are created by whim, Linguistic Analysis offers
us a choice of whims: individual or collective. It declares that there are two
kinds of definitions: “stipulative,” which may be anything anyone chooses, and
“reportive,” which are ascertained by polls of popular use.
  In other
words, fifty million Frenchmen can be right, individually, or collectively –
but never wrong. That’s what euphemisms
can do to language, any language, distill words into meaningless symbols. Which
does not facilitate communication between men.
What rushes in to fill that vacuum is the
euphemistic babble of Obama and countless other politicians, academics, and
their fellow travelers in the cult of “speaking in tongues.”

Productive vs. Parasitical Societies

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish,
penned an excellent and perceptive essay, “The
Rationing Society
.” My chief problem with the essay is in the choice of the
terms “production society” and “rationing society,” which misdirect attention
from the fundamental issues. Mr. Greenfield’s focus in the essay is the
mechanics of wealth distribution in a “rationing society,” at least of such
wealth would remain in an economy crippled by controls. I have selected a few
of Greenfield’s statements to throw some light on their validity.
 The
best literary depiction of a dystopian or “rationing society” or polity is George
Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Regardless
of the value of Orwell’s perceptive insights into the means and ends of
totalitarianism – and they are many and spot-on – his basic conception of a
functioning totalitarian regime was flawed.  A “production society” means
free minds, minds free to innovate and sustain a technological or industrial
civilization, free to act, and free to trade and to move about and assemble
with others or not. A “rationing society” depends on the very attribute in men
it wishes to leash or exterminate: free minds free to act.
Orwell’s other famous novel, the parable Animal Farm, was merely
an attack by a “democratic socialist” on Stalin’s regime. Stalin and Soviet
Russia lost many supporters in the West on the occasion of the Non-Aggression
Pact
signed by Stalin and Hitler in 1939. But when Nazi Germany invaded
Soviet Russia, its Western supporters hurried back into the fold.  
A rationing or authoritarian society seeks
to freeze things in a state of stagnation, the better to control things and
everyone, but even a technologically stagnant society still needs minds that
can sustain it. This is an implicit confession that the state is neither
omniscient nor omnipotent. A rationing society will put a premium on the
competence to even repair a telescreen or a “Floating Fortress” or weaponry or
manufacture razor blades. A free, independent mind is such a society’s primary
enemy. The result of leashing or punishing it is  the impoverishment of nearly everyone but the
entrenched political class – and then collapse. 
Until the collapse occurs, competent minds able
to prop up dwindling products such as shoes and razor blades and food which
must now be rationed, until the assembly lines halt, raw materials become
scare, and the stockpiles are depleted. The minds that could have replaced them
will have been snuffed out, or, as happens in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, those minds will finally
have gone on strike and disappeared. Rand noted in For The New Intellectual:
“Intellectual
freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without
economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
Greenfield wrote: “A socialist
monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight
of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman
and child in the country.”
In a capitalist society, force is banned
from human relationships, including trade. This is why monopolies in a
capitalist society can be overcome. Innovators have a chance to rise and
prosper. In a socialist, rationing, or authoritarian society, force is not
banned and becomes the primary arbiter and determining factor, or the “economic
tool” of first choice by statists. Innovators are discouraged by the threat of
force or directly by force. The force can take the form of literal policing
with clubs and guns and with the seizure of property and persons, or with
punishing fines,  taxes,  draconian regulations, or a combination of all
forms.
Among other inevitable consequences is the
involuntary transfer of wealth to the state and its patronized special interest
groups.
For example, New York has the highest taxes
on cigarettes and other tobacco products in the nation, compelling smokers to
cross state lines to purchase them, order them online, or rely on cigarette
smugglers (many of whom, today, are Muslim gangs). The taxes, imposed by the
federal government, by states, and by municipalities, are intended to
discourage smoking, but these same governments nonetheless depend on the tax
revenue. Taxes are imposed on gasoline purchases to discourage an increase of
carbon emissions, yet these same governments depend on that revenue, as well.
Another instance of an authoritarian grip
on another commodity is education. At the moment, “Common
Core
,” an educational system calculated and guaranteed to dumb down any
child forced to attend a “public school,” is being mandated across
the country, with private schools in many states compelled to adopt it, as well.
 With what penalty if a private school
does not adopt it? A raid by a SWAT team? Financial penalties? Loss of
accreditation? Jail for the school’s governing board and teachers? The
sequestering of the school children? Big Brotherish monitors assigned to all
classrooms? Your guess is as good as mine.
Why is Bill Gates’s Gates Foundation a “special
interest”? It is because his “charity’s” educational goals mesh with the
federal government’s, to turn American school children into “responsible” and
proactive ciphers to advance what the state says is the “common good.”
Another instance of a rationing society is
Obamacare. I don’t think I need elaborate on the federal government’s mandating
Americans to purchase of health insurance.
Still another instance of a “rationing
society” is the nullification of the right to move one’s property out of harm’s
way – that is, out of reach of government taxation, regulations, and controls. See
this story about our Authoritarian-in-Chief’s rules for moving
corporate headquarters
out of the U.S. to friendlier foreign shores, and
then moving profits and earnings back into the U.S.  The Washington Post quoted Secretary of the
Treasury Jack Lew, who chortled:
But the rules would
not block the practice, known as tax “inversion,” and Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms.
“These first,
targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques
used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic
benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them
altogether,” Lew said in a written statement.
The Authoritarian-in-Chief himself waxed
sanctimoniously, according to the New
York Times
:
“While there’s no
substitute for congressional action, my administration will act wherever we can
to protect the progress the American people have worked so hard to bring
about,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the regulations on so-called
corporate inversions were announced.
Barack Obama and Jack Lew and all the other
Progressives and leftists in and out of office want to imprison private
property to better slice it down to a “fairer” size – and also to pay off a national
debt that can never be paid, not even in six generations of slave labor.
Lenin saw the consequences of Soviet
Russia’s full implementation of Communist rationing policies and devised his New
Economic Policy
(NEP) to stave off starvation and possibly a revolt of the
“proletariat” against the “Revolution.” It allowed a modicum of freedom of
trade.  He “saved” the Revolution by
adulterating Communism – for a while. It was rife with corruption that reached
the highest levels of the multitude of bureaucracies. Instituted in 1921, it
ended in 1929.
Stalin succeeded Lenin and atavistically
reverted to full Communism, kicking off the starvation of millions, a vast
expansion of the Gulag, and the infamous purge trials. However, Soviet Russia could
not have survived for as long as it did except for what it could steal, cajole,
or wheedle from the West. As long as there were semi-free nations willing to
grant it bank credits and send it grain and build its factories, it could stumble
along as a gasping dependent, counting on the very “economic” forces it wished
to eradicate in Russia and around the world. As long as there were semi-free “production
societies,” it survived, but just barely and by force. The same thing happened
in Mao’s China, but after Mao’s passing the Communist regime there saved itself
by opting out for “free market” fascism. However, it’s not really “free
enterprise” when the ruling political class insists on having a hand and role
in any enterprise.
Greenfield wrote: “Paradoxically, the
rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of
production as lower production requires even greater rationing.” 
It isn’t actually a paradox. Under
authoritarianism, dwindling production is a function of the number and severity
of controls imposed to ensure everyone’s “fair share” or ephemeral “social
justice” or some other state-designated end. It’s an absolute corollary of
basic economics, a matter of fundamental cause-and-effect.
Laissez-Faire capitalism is the
ideal “production society.”

Muslims and Self-Sacrifice

Last March I discussed the Muslim state of
mind in “The Pathological Roots of Islam.” This time around I explore the reason that
drives ordinary Muslims to want to immigrate to Western nations, when it means
having to deal with infidels “lower than pigs and apes.”
On the occasion of the Australian raids on
homes after discovery of a plot to behead
a random Australian
, that is, a non-Muslim, playing the
Muslim-persecution-race-religion card,
a Muslim whined
that:
When asked why
police had targeted his brother [Kawa], he said he had no idea.
“I dunno, I
got a lot of anger. It’s a war on Islam just because we grow our beards. They
want to label us as a terrorist, or supporters of IS, whatever, that’s up to
you.” he said.
He later said he
believed Kawa may have been targeted because he hung around with “hot
heads”.
Another Muslim
complained and warned, in the Daily
Telegraph
:
A MUSLIM leader chose the hallowed steps of Lakemba’s War Memorial to
preach outrage and condemnation over the anti-terror raids across Sydney.
In front of 300 angry protesters,
controversial Hizt ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar warned of a growing anger
within the Islamic ­community and said it was time to stop the victimization.
“We are tired of being made scapegoats. The government is the terrorist,” he
declared to the gathering, many waving anti-government placards.
One must ask
oneself this question: If Muslims regard non-Muslims as filthy
kaffirs
and the lowest
of all creatures
they’d really rather not be anywhere near, why do they
wish to surround themselves with them by immigrating to – or rather, by invading
and colonizing, too often by a nation’s invitation – a  country full of them, where they must deal
with them daily and not in a beheading way (at first), either? Is it the higher
standard of living? Is it the welfare? Is it for jobs? A “better life”?  I think those are just flash card reasons.
What exactly is a kaffir? Islam
Stack Exchange
, a website for enquiring Muslims, provides an authoritative
answer:
My understanding of the term kafir
is that it refers to a person who literally rejects God’s authority.
So while even the most blatant polytheist
would still be mushrik, he would not (necessarily) be kafir.
It’s not until the message has been relayed
to him and he refuses to accept it that he would be labelled kafir.
However, it seems the common use of the
word kafir, at least nowadays, is to refer to anybody who is non-Muslim,
regardless of whether or not they’re familiar with God’s message and His
commands.
What is the actual meaning of this term in
the primary sources? As in, when the Qur’an and the hadiths refer to the kuffar
(or ayuhal kafireen) which interpretation is more correct?
I think the real
reason why Muslims want to rub shoulders with us is that Islam inculcates a
psychosis in Muslims that allows them to endure the “detested ones”
while putting down roots for “the cause,” which is basically to
subjugate and/or kill kaffirs. They
don’t even need to think about it, not clearly, it’s just a fuzzy state of mind
that will in many eventually blossom into action.  Their remaining silent about the atrocities
their brethren are committing across town or across an ocean, or denying that
ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Islamic gangs have
nothing to do with Islam, nonetheless still makes them culpable.

Of course, this is just a natural query looking for a logical causal-connection
in Muslim behavior, but in a tentative answer one will not find any logic, just
as one won’t find clean, rational logic in Sharia law or in the Koran. I don’t
think the Muslim Brotherhood master-plan types even care how their
lower-ranking Muslims think or behave, as long as tothey go to the West to plant
seeds and play victim or minority or loud-mouthed advocate — in short, to act
as a spreading, slow-acting poison in Western culture, which has weakened
itself with multiculturalism and political correctness and moral relativism.
These maladies didn’t exist in, say, 19th Britain, so such a “master
plan” wouldn’t have worked there or even in France.

The Muslim
Brotherhood’s “master-plan,” or “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group,” written May 22nd, 1991, per the Gates
of Vienna
and numerous other blog sites, cites:
One of the primary documents [pdf] used in the Holy Land
Foundation trial in 2008 was the “Explanatory Memorandum: On the General
Strategic Goal for the Group”. It was written on May 22, 1991 by Mohamed Akram,
and gave a brief description of the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
United States:
The process of
settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the means. The Ikhwan
[Muslim Brotherhood] 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 by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work
wherever he is…
But in the 20th and
21st centuries, such a “master plan” is feasible, and a goodly measure
of that feasibility is enabled by the Western refusal to acknowledge the
nature, methods and ends of Islam. That “General Strategy” is well-advanced in
Europe, not so much in America in spite of our political leadership’s evasion
of the issue. And Islam has millions of faith-lobotomized followers to perform
those tasks and the footwork. All they need do is “be there” in
Dearborn, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, London, Sydney, Amsterdam, and even
in tiny Reykjavik, Iceland, to “be fruitful and multiply,” without even joining
a noisy demonstration or carrying signs saying “Behead those who defame
Islam.”  If Islam is spreading, it is largely the West’s fault; it
refuses to recognize Islam as the pestilence it is.
Islam is evil, but
evil, as a rule, derives any strength or potency it might claim from a refusal
of its victims to recognize that it is anti-life, anti-self, and, in this
instance, fundamentally anti-man. Islam requires that men consciously repudiate
and discard one’s self-interest. Only self-sacrifice is permitted. It requires
that one submit without reservation or question to the arbitrary, capricious,
irrational whims of an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient ghost.
Muslim mothers have
boasted of being “proud” that their sons successfully exploded suicide vests
and killed themselves and others. This is the kind of sacrifice which Western
mothers, while they adhere to the Judeo-Christian notion that sacrifices are
necessary to preserve a value, are not familiar with. One of the most repulsive
and psychotic instances of sacrificing values among Muslims is the “honor
killing” of wayward mothers and daughters by their own parents and other
relatives.
So, I think that
for the average Muslim, there’s an intractable altruist psychosis in his mind
that draws him to Western cultures and nations, not for jobs or a higher,
healthier standard of living, but because, down deep, he knows there is a good
there and it must be despoiled or destroyed because Allah commands it. So, he
will endure being engulfed in a sea of filthy kaffirs. The demands of selflessness and unquestioning submission
inherent in Islam make it easy for a Muslim to “suffer” so.  A Muslim can be content to safely participate
in the “insurgency” against the West by being a passive cipher and welfare king
(or queen), or engage in mere criminal acts against random Westerners in the
Westerners’ own countries (rapes, beheadings, no-go vigilantes, attacking Jews,
etc.).
This, in Western
parlance, is self-sacrifice, not for a “noble end,” or even to preserve values
– but instead to destroy values, by being a negative presence among the good. However,
before they commit the final, ultimate self-sacrifice, Muslims first want to
sacrifice you. It is a sought-after
self-sacrifice which easily metastases into pure nihilism.

Frightened Turtles II


The debate over immigration and open
borders or open immigration continues.
A British correspondent argued with a
reader of Andrew Bernstein’s “Immigration
and the Welfare State
” about the pros and cons of open borders or open
immigration, vis-à-vis Muslims and Mexicans.
The reader’s  position on the matter is confusing, as he
seems to want it both ways: a total ban on all Muslim immigration into Western
countries, and a selective or discriminating ban on Muslims who advocate
violence to impose Islam on others or a whole country (in conformance with the official
Ayn Rand Institute position).
So he isn’t clear on his own position at
all. He also contradicts himself when he says that Islam is both a criminal
organization and a religion. But a genuine criminal organization, such as the
Mafia or a drug cartel, is not moved by an ideology of any kind; these
organizations are merely opportunistic gangs taking advantage of irrational
laws. Islam, however, is a totalitarian ideology moved by the agenda of supremacy
over all other religions and political systems, even though it has little
ideational content, and little such content in its “jurisprudence,” Sharia law,
other than the “prophet’s” say-so or the pretzel-like logic of its judges.
The only thing he’s right about is that the
Koran is a prescription for conquest
and committing criminal acts, criminal per Western concepts of individual and
civil rights, which Islamic spokesmen deny the validity of, because Islam
doesn’t recognize individual rights or the civil liberties of Western nations.  However, Muslims do avail themselves of them
to advance Islam; they have adopted Lenin’s assertion that capitalists will
hang themselves with the rope they sell to the Reds; it’s much the same thing.
Frankly, I think the open borders
“faction” on this issue is guilty of a severe dropping of context.
This is not the early 20th century when hundreds of thousands of Jews and
Italians and other ethnic/religious groups immigrated to this country. The
overwhelming majority of them were not trying to impose Judaism or Catholicism
or the Mafia on everyone else. Their personal religious convictions were not a
threat to anyone else. True, some Jews and Italians who came here were
gangsters, or became gangsters. In many instances, when they were identified and
apprehended, they were either deported or imprisoned after a trial for their
crimes.

But Islam isn’t the same thing. Jews and Italians did not pose a peril to
everyone else, native-born or not. Whether or not your average
Friday-go-to-prayers Muslim is active in propagating or proselytizing Islamic
doctrine or engages in criminal actions based on Islamic scripture, such as
terrorism, they’re still culpable and indirectly responsible for the actions of
their more consistent brethren, who engage in violence per the diktats of the Koran. On that point, I agree with
Leonard Peikoff 100%. My policy would be: Either repudiate Islam altogether, or
leave for and/or return to a country where your ideology is implemented, but
you’re not implementing it here.

I dismiss the assertions of those Muslims
who claim that Islam can be reformed in the same way Catholicism and
Protestantism were reformed, that is, by removing religion from a country’s
politics. As I’ve written many times before, Islam can’t be reformed without
killing it; Islam is based on the initiation of force and once that imperative
is removed from the religion (or the violent verses in the Koran “reinterpreted” beyond recognition), there’s not much left to
it except perhaps a Masonic-like ritual or something resembling a fraternity of
the Knights of Pythias.  (Or Ralph
Kramden’s Bensonhurst chapter of the International
Brotherhood of the Loyal Raccoons
.)
All in all, one is still left in puzzlement
over Writeby’s and the Brook faction’s position on not banning or not removing
Muslims from the U.S. (or from Britain). And the context being dropped by them
and Writeby is that we are all living in countries that are far more statist
than they were in the early 20th century.
Moreover, I think it’s somewhat futile to
be arguing over immigration rights when we’re losing or have lost rights
wholesale in terms of personal income and consumer products and behavioral
policies imposed by the government and other non-immigration
issues
. Others deny it, such as Bernstein, but our welfare state is a draw to Mexicans and Muslims (as is
Britain’s). When the Jews and Italians and other European groups came here in
the early 20th century, there was no welfare state. When Cubans risked their
lives coming to this country, they weren’t drawn to the welfare state which by
then actually existed, but by the chance to live their lives independently of
the state (Communist or not). One can’t say that now about Muslim or Mexican
(or Central American) immigrants.
As for the Mexicans and other Latinos, I
think most of them come here for semi-ideological motives; our welfare state is
more generous and more efficient than the ones they left behind. They will naturally
vote Democratic out of gratitude or compulsion or manipulation (if they vote at
all), and, as I noted in my original column, help to perpetuate the death grip
the Democrats and other statists have on this country.
Granting that large numbers of Mexicans may
come here for employment; where, in an economy deliberately
tanked
by Barack Obama, are they going to find it? In landscaping?
 One
correspondent wondered whether or not there is a political correctness angle to
all this. As in not wanting to address the issue that the people who are
causing all the problems with immigration in the US and UK are those with brown
skins coming into a country with mainly white skins. Mr. Brook and other ARI spokesmen
don’t usually pull their punches in regards to racial issues, like affirmative action,
reparations etc.  But immigration itself
is a different matter; it’s controversial. So our enemies could have fine old
time, if ARI argued for immigration controls, painting it as white men wanting
to keep out “darkies.”
But even if this were the case, there
should be no capitulation to political correctness at all. As I remarked
elsewhere, we’re in this mess because people have played our enemies game by
being cowards and not addressing issues for fear of being seen as
“racist” or “Islamophobic.” And the end result of this spinelessness
is, say, Rotherham and the Pakistani rape gangs in Britain, and, over here,
honor killings of girls and women, beheadings, “lone Muslim wolf” shootings at
Jews and other infidels, the Boston Marathon bombing, and “workplace violence”
committed by the likes of Major Nidal Hasan.  
So if the unrestricted immigration by
Mexicans or “Chicanos” and Muslims is not
going to be in the national interest and is downright dangerous, then it needs
to be acknowledged and said. And the Objectivist credentials of anyone who is
deliberately pulling back on the issue or obfuscates it are at the very least questionable.
Further, none of the open immigration
advocates regard the Muslim and Mexican settlement in the U.S. or in the UK or
the Continent as an invasion and conquest by demographics; for the Muslims,
this is prescribed by the Muslim
Brotherhood
. There isn’t a European country whose Muslim population is less
than ten percent of the overall population. But I doubt that any of them have
bothered to read the Brotherhood memorandum,
dated 1991, which I’ve often cited or linked in my past columns, or bother to
read the manifestos of the Mexican supremacists’ La Raza or the Aztlán
movement.  
They seem to treat these phenomena as just
loopy outfits on the fringe the political spectrum. The Mexicans here in the
U.S. (or their spokesmen) are also on a “reconquest” effort, wanting
to “take back” all of California and much of the Southwest. The
racist element in the effort is pretty blatant, as strong and as virulent as it
is in Islam. As the ISIS jihadists want to erase the blue-eyed Yazidis as a
race (by raping their women), Mexican nationalists want to subjugate blue-eyed
gringos. But these facts are never addressed by Brook et al.  They have their magic wands, you see.
My British correspondent noted:
Objectivism is NOT
some mystical, utopianist cure-all where there will be no evil or wrong-doing
in the world. Objectivism is not the magic wand of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,
which, waved over an issue, solves it automatically, irrespective of context.
The open borders
advocates seem to think: Well,  there’s
Objectivism, which runs along the lines of Adam Smith, that there is an
“invisible hand” of Objectivism that will somehow make Islam not the
murderous religion that it is when its adherents move to foreign countries.
They obviously know how murderous Islam is because the very same people who are
arguing for open borders and also arguing for a total war, and possible nuclear
war, with Islam! So why are they contradicting themselves?

This is why I won’t engage the advocates of open borders or open immigration in
argument. Their terms are so vague and their public positions so untenable with
regard to their professed fealty to Objectivism it isn’t worth my time to
engage them. They keep flip-flopping or just won’t come out and say what they
really mean. There is a unfortunate strain of evasion in their positions. I
don’t think any of them, including their legions of open borders supporters,
have delved into Islam, the Mexican issue, and Europe as deeply as I think they
should. They seem to think that Objectivism is
that magic wand, which, once it’s waved over the issue, presto! There’s the
answer!  
 John
Stossel’s article, “Immigration
is American
,” like some open border arguments, dwells on some important
points and also on irrelevancies. He does, however, point out the chief culprit
in the issue: the time it takes for prospective immigrants to be granted the
right to apply for citizenship, political asylum, and also for work visas and
residency, which is arbitrarily daunting and onerous. The requirements imposed
on prospective immigrants were once a product of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service
, established in 1933 (another FDR legacy), and
governed by two things: politics, and the convenience of the INS bureaucracy.
The functions of the INS, after 9/11, came
under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security and its functions were
divided between three new bureaucracies: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. Further, while restrictions on Chinese immigration have lapsed, for
example, the INS and its successor bureaucracies have instituted other racial
and ethnic quotas.
Stossel argues for less restrictive and less
onerous legal applications for citizenship and residency, and that’s fine. But,
again, he argues from the standpoint of ideal circumstances, in which we lived
in an ideally free country and not in the trough of statist controls and in a
continuous state of crisis, situations created by political pragmatism and
multiculturalism. As with other open border positions, this is surely another
argument of gossamer. To ignore these aspects is to indulge in wishful
thinking.
 Americans
must first extricate themselves from the claws of statism before they can begin
to credibly address peripheral issues such as immigration. Otherwise, it’s a
matter of the dog chasing its own tail.

Frightened Turtles


I would like to remind readers that we live
in a country that is barely free. If we lived in ideal political conditions in
which the only flaw might be a border closed to some or all immigration, the
“open borders” argument might hold water. But we live in a growing
authoritarian or police state.
This is an issue which many intellectuals –
including some I should logically regard as moral and intellectual allies – shy
away from like frightened turtles.
This country for too long has been the
plaything of statists and “social engineers” of every stripe – Republicans,
Democrats, environmentalists, welfare statists, special interests or lobbyists,
and so on. President Barack Obama is the apex and end heir of every statist law
and notion ever proposed or legislated, ever since ratification of the
Constitution, even as the ink on it was barely dry – and Obama is the logical
end of all those unopposed laws and policies. He loots without care or thought of
whatever might replace the looted wealth and nullified rights – except for
stage-managed anarchy and beating into submission the American spirit. 
Obama practices Islamic taqiyya, which is saying one thing in
his woozy, folksy style English, but meaning something else. Most readers here,
instead of conceding that Obama is a nihilist, buy the official line that he is
merely a rudderless, arrogantly insouciant pragmatist. Actually, his
predecessor, George W. Bush, was a card-carrying pragmatist, formulating his
policies on the premise that he could preserve that status quo – whatever that
might have been – by denying the deadly peril of Islam. However, Obama, who
administration has been top-heavy
with Muslims
from his first term, is a rotten-to-the-bone nihilist steeped in
“community organizing” and a subscriber to the agenda of the “socialist transformation”
of the country into a super-size European Union. Some intellectuals of my
acquaintance deny that he is a nihilist, and instead call him a rudderless pragmatist
or assign him some other non-condemnatory appellation.
This is not observing his behavior and
actions with any kind of objectivity. It is an evasion of the evidence of one’s
senses. Waiting for Obamacare to collapse? Waiting for Obama to okay the Keystone
Pipeline? Waiting for him to put together a “Coalition of the Reluctant” to
combat ISIS? Waiting for him to rein in our lawless Attorney General, Eric Holder,
or to order any number of federal agencies to stop spying and threatening
private citizens and organizations that question federal power? Take a number.
There are certain statements in Andrew
Bernstein’s “Immigration
and the Welfare State
” column that I take grave issue with.  The first is:
Open immigration is
both morally right and economically beneficial.
I certainly do not disagree with that
statement, but I would add this qualifier:
In a free country
.
Which it has become less and less of for
well over a century.
Yes, immigrants in the past and in recent
times have come to this country for the freedom to work and enjoy the fruits of
their productivity. That was when the INS had semi-rational criteria on
entrance to the country.  But waves of Muslims
with their own colonizing
and settlement  agenda
and hordes of
illegals from Mexico and points south have been streaming in almost unopposed.
Mixed in with these numbers are also Muslims
and jihadists
of every terrorist stripe, especially now from ISIS. Not to
mention criminals with records in their native countries.
Many illegals are not coming to America to
reinvent the wheel. Many of them are coming and have come to game the welfare
state, and are not truly “yearning to be free,” except on the dole.
Many readers here deny that is the case. But
all they can do is talk, talk, talk the fine points of a philosophy of reason
to prove their ideological purity, even in the face of their and America’s slow
demise.  “We stand for open borders,
never mind that we’re being swamped with illiterate aliens whose room and board
and education we are expected to pay for; never mind many of them are diseased –
many of them children now being seated in public school classrooms with native
born American children; never mind the malevolent designs of a president who is
seeking to bolster the Democrats’ death grip on this country, and who has
demonstrated repeatedly his hostility to this country, to Western culture, and to
Western civilization. None of that is important.”
They think and say this while they’re being
eaten alive by the drooling beast of Obama’s policies. They refuse to
contemplate the horrible notion that they and every other American have been “played.”
Well, what’s wrong, one might ask, with
enrolling illegal immigrant children in school? Does any reader here seriously
believe that they will be imbued with the American spirit of independence and
self-reliance? If native born American children are being brainwashed by Common
Core and anti-American curricula in their studies, and the leftwing teachers’
unions to regard themselves as unexceptional and that “they didn’t build that,”
what are the chances of illiterate illegals having flashes of insight that our
educational establishment is a scam and has been for decades.
I think one of the most off-base remarks
made in “Immigration and the Welfare State” is:
In addition to the
economic gain, there is an important security benefit to an open immigration
policy. Since it is a great boon to an immigrant to be in the country legally
rather than illegally, the overwhelming majority, given the choice, will walk
in through the front door, thereby initiating the process of becoming a U.S.
citizen. The flood of migrant workers seeking to illegally sneak across the
Mexican border will reduce to a trickle. The money and manpower
currently deployed to keep Mexican workers out of the country can then be used
to keep Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists out of the country.
 Has
the author ever heard of Obama’s blueprint for across the board “amnesty,” the Dream Act, of legislation sanctioning
the instant, automatic citizenship, with full welfare state benefits, for numberless
illegals? Isn’t this legislation grossly unfair to those who spent years
working for their citizenship, and who might have had to wait years to gain
admittance to the country per the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s now
politically governed – and, frankly, racist –  rules?
And is Obama really interested in keeping
Islamic terrorists out of the country? To judge by his actions and his policies
– one of which is for the U.S.  to train “moderate”
terrorists to combat “extreme” terrorists – I think not.
There is another statement by Bernstein
that I take exception to. One of them is:
Some argue that
because of America’s current welfare state, the country cannot afford an open
immigration policy. This is false for two reasons. One is that a welfare state
is pernicious to both those funding it and those parasitical off of it; the
former, because they’re robbed—the latter because its perverse financial
incentives support men’s most indolent premises, and seduce onto the dole many
who could otherwise gain minimum wage employment. From purely humanitarian
considerations, the welfare state must be irrevocably dismantled, regardless of
America’s immigration policy.
Yes, the welfare state must be dismantled
and abolished. But, when will that happen? Those who come here either game the
welfare state or wind up depending on it. They are supposed to replace the “simpering
Americans” who regard the country as a paradise of entitlement. How? Our
economy is moribund and few new jobs – middle or low-paying – are being
created, except
in the “public sector
.” We have an expanding public sector and an
ever-shrinking private sector. Where are the new jobs going to materialize? In
a command economy such as ours, which sector will see the greater growth?
My main point here, however, is that
because we are living in a virtual state of siege – the “homeland” is now “Fortress
America” that refuses to identify a hostile, murderous foreign enemy, Islam, hampered
by a plethora of
controls
and prohibitions on virtually every aspect of American life – we
are in a no-win conundrum that will only resolve itself with a political and concomitant
philosophical collapse of the altruist morality that sustains an ever-omnivorous
state – or a revolution.  These are
scenarios which “official” Objectivists are reluctant to contemplate or
discuss.
The Founders weren’t.

The Steady Abrogation of Freedom

The ongoing abrogation of the Constitution
and the freedoms it was established to protect and guarantee is complemented by
the Islamic campaign to abrogate them, as well. What makes it possible are
multiculturalism (no culture is superior to others), political correctness
(many things are unmentionable, or mentionable only in euphemistic terms),
diversity (a Brunswick Stew of cultural traditions, social relationships, and
even political systems can enrich American culture and society), and
subjectivism (all systems of values, moral, political and even esthetic, are
mere prejudices, with no basis in reality).
Abrogation of the “peaceful” Koranic verses by the violent ones, and
the abrogation of the U.S. Constitution by Islamic Sharia law (not that Muslims
need any help from Congress and Obama to accomplish that) is an established
goal by all the Islamic organizations in the U.S.  But, first, let’s define the term. Merriam-Webster online:
:  to abolish
by authoritative action :  annul
:  to treat as
nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities>
As virtually every Islamic scholar, past
and present, has preached, the later violent verses and
dictats in the Koran abolish the
earlier “peaceful” ones.  They
may as well have never existed, because the Koran especially was purported
dictated in its entirety into Mohammad’s ear, and Mohammad, an illiterate
bandit and killer, in turned supposedly dictated it to unknown scribes. (See
Robert Spencer’s book, Did
Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins
). The Koran really didn’t begin to be
assembled, collated, edited, expunged of “unauthentic” attributions,
and disseminated by Islamic scholars until centuries after Mohammad’s death.
Before examining how Islam would abrogate
our freedoms, we should examine some alternating examples of how the Koran abrogates its “peaceful”
(Mansūkh)
verses with the abrogating ones (Nāsikh).
On imposing
jizya, or a poll or protection tax on
“infidels.”
“Peaceful”
or Abrogated:
Those
who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have
given them. 2:3
Abrogator (Nāsikh):
Take
alms out of their property, you would cleanse them and purify them thereby, and
pray for them; surely your prayer is a relief to them; and Allah is Hearing,
Knowing.
9:103      
Peaceful
or abrogated on Jews, Christians and other “infidels”:
Surely
those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians,
whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their
reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. 2:62
A violent verse against unbelievers:
And
whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him,
and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. 3:85   
A
“peaceful” verse about unbelievers:
And
when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any
but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and
to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up
prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now
too) you turn aside.  2:83
And
its antonym:
Verse
of the Sword
   9:5
A
“peaceful” verse about fighting unbelievers:
And
kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you
out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at
the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you,
then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist,
then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 2:191 and 2:192
However,
we’d really rather go amok:
Verse
of the Sword 9:5
On
Islamic “tolerance”:
But
if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and
(so) everyone who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and
the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed
they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the
delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants.  3:20
And
intolerance, enslavement, and the spoils of war:
O
Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their
dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has
given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and
the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles
and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing
woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her–
specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have
ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands
possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.   9:5 and 33:50
Non-responsibility
for what unbelievers believe:
Follow
what is revealed to you from your Lord; there is no god but He; and withdraw
from the polytheists.

And if Allah had pleased, they would not have set up others (with Him) and We
have not appointed you a keeper over them, and you are not placed in charge of
them.

And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the
limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance. Thus have We made fair seeming
to every people their deeds; then to their Lord shall be their return, so He
will inform them of what they did.    6:106 and 6:107

Allah
changes his mind:
Verse
of the Sword  9:5
On letting
unbelievers alone:
Leave
them that they may eat and enjoy themselves and (that) hope may beguile them,
for they will soon know.  15:3
Well…maybe
not:
Verse
of the Sword  9:5
Be
patient with the unbelievers, they’re not your responsibility:
And
be patient and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and
grieve not for them, and do not distress yourself at what they plan.  16:127
Hmmm…On
second thought:
Verse
of the Sword  9:5
This
goes on for several score more verses, about 113 of them. But, what is the “Verse of the Sword”?
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and
slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie
in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish
regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for
Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9:5 
As one “The Koran for Dummies”-like site, Abrogated
Verses of the Quran
, notes:
…We would like to
cite Brother Mark’s quotation of Muslim scholar Ahmad Von Denffer regarding the
conflicting views held by Muslim scholars over the precise nature of
abrogation:  Von Denffer defines it clearly as:
“What
is Abrogated?
According to some scholars the Qur’an abrogates only the Qur’an. They base
their view on suras 2:106 and 16:101. According to them the Qur’an does not
abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur’an. This is, in
particular, the view held by Shafi’i.
Others are of the opinion that the Qur’an may abrogate the Qur’an as well as
the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53:3-4.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:

1 Qur’an abrogates Qur’an.
2 Qur’an abrogates sunna.
3 Sunna abrogates Qur’an.
4 Sunna abrogates sunna.” (Ulum,
Von Denffer, p. 107f)
The ‘founding’
scholars couldn’t even agree in ‘basic principles’ over what abrogates what
between the Sunnah and Qur’an! (Brother Mark, A ‘Perfect’ Qur’an,
p. 230, online
edition
)
Oh, yes. Allah is “oft-forgiving, and
most merciful,” except when it comes to dealing with non-Muslims (Sunnis
vs. Shi’ites), Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, American journalists, British school
girls, Christian nuns, Yazidis, Saudis, Iranians, Copts, and a very long list
of others who must be fought, slain, seized, raped, beleaguered and
extinguished.
Now, when you read the whole list of
“peaceful” verses, what strikes one is their concrete-bound banality.
Aside from advising Muslims to more or less chew their food thoroughly, of letting
the dice roll where they may (with “Allah’s blessing”), of letting
the infidels stew in their own juices, of washing behind one’s ears, and of not
stepping on camel dung, these are the discombobulated dictats, musings, ravings,
and advisories of a certified idiot high on date punch spiked with an
hallucinatory drug.   
When one reads the whole list of the violent, abrogating verses, one is
struck by their psychotic petulance, vindictiveness, hatred, and homicidal
character.
Islam, however, on the whole, is
totalitarian ideology, which governs one’s life from birth to death, from head
to toe, from friendship to animosity, from what is lawful (Sharia),
what is permissible (halal) and what
is not. If one were to assign percentiles to the focus of Christians and Jews
on their religions tenets vs. the focus of Muslims, Christians and Jews would
compartmentalize their religion by 20%, allowing them to see to their daily
concerns without the tenets interfering. Their religion is effectively
side-lined. Muslims, however, could be assigned 80%, which does not allow them
to see to their daily affairs without conforming to Islamic tenets and forming
all their societal relationships governed by Islam.
The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand,
is not a document that features concrete-bound dictats, musings, or advisories.
It is governed by abstract principles applied to the political relationship
between men with the end being the protection and guarantee of individual
rights and the delimiting scope of force that can be permitted by government in
pursuit of those ends.  The Bill of
Rights was added to dispel any possible ambiguity or misinterpretation about the
document’s purpose. But, as many imams in America have claimed, as well as
spokesmen for the various Islamic organizations in the country, the end-game of
any Islamic presence in this country
is to replace the Constitution with Sharia law. Ryan Mauro wrote last July, in
his article on the Clarion Project, “Popular
U.S. Imam: Constitution Inferior to Sharia
,”
While you were
spending Memorial Day Weekend barbequing and honoring the U.S. servicemen who
gave their lives for the country,18,000 people attended an annual Muslim-American
conference in Connecticut. An additional 14,000 watched online. And the message
they heard from one prominent speaker was particularly offensive in light of
the holiday: The U.S. Constitution is inferior to Islamic Sharia Law. 
The imam is named Zaid
Shakir; he’s no stranger to readers of the Clarion Project. We’ve documented his
Islamist ideology and anti-American
rhetoric
 repeatedly.
Despite the shredding apart of his “moderate” costume, he continues to be a
sought-after speaker at Islamic venues across the country. He’s also chairman
of Zaytuna College in California, the subject of a recent New
York Times
 whitewashing.
He spoke at the annual Islamic
Circle of North America-Muslim American Society
 conference on May 25
at the Hartford Convention Center in Connecticut.
Mauro goes on to note:
1991
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo
, which defines its “work in America is a kind
of grand jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” lists ICNA as
one of its fronts. Predictably, ICNA demands that the U.S. cut off military aid to Egypt in
retaliation for the military’s overthrow of the Muslim
Brotherhood
.
The subject of his
speech was “The Legitimacy of Secularism” and a video of his speech has been posted online.  It
was an attack on secularism, modernity and how the U.S. Constitution based
“membership” on equal citizenship instead of religion. “One of the great
dilemmas of modernity is that it pits rootless freedom … you can do anything
you want in a liberal free society, as long as it does not violate the rights
of others … that freedom creates a state of rootlessness.” (7:15-9:00)
Meanwhile, in an exercise of back-pedaling taqiyya (of saying one thing to the face
of an infidel, but meaning just the opposite, or of just plain lying), Omar
Ahmad, former chairman of the Hamas-connected Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR), denies having said in 1998,
“Islam isn’t in
America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” and, “The
Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Art Moore, in his December 2006 WND
article, “Did CAIR Founder Say
Islam to rule America?
” details the denial not only by Ahmad, but by
CAIR and other Islamic organizations. Lisa Gardiner, then a reporter for the
Fremont, California Argus, stands by her statement that Ahmad said it. But CAIR
and other Islamic spokesmen scrambled in panic.
Ahmad told the
Muslim leaders – and WND in an interview – the attribution is a “total
fabrication” and assured them the newspaper, the Fremont Argus in California,
issued a “clarification” after he “challenged” reporter Lisa Gardiner.
That seemed to
satisfy the Muslim leaders, but Gardiner told WND she continues to stand by the story, and Editor Steve
Waterhouse said he’s confident she got it right. After hearing that news
Thursday, one of the Muslim leaders immediately resurrected the issue with his
colleagues, declaring Ahmad and CAIR need to find a way “to extinguish this
fire.”
“She was a good,
solid reporter,” Waterhouse said of Gardiner. “She was absolutely certain about
what he said and what she reported.”
Ahmad let the cat out of the bag. CAIR and
others hurried to recapture the cat and make certain it was drowned. Call it an
emergency act of abrogation in emulation with the Koran itself.
It isn’t bad enough that President Barack Obama
wishes to “transform” America into a socialist “republic.” His
administration is top-heavy
with Muslims, far out of proportion of a census of Muslims living in this
country, nearly three million
out of a population of nearly 320
million
. His abuse of presidential executive powers marks him as a wannabe
caliph with a weakness for the infidel sport of golf, but who intends to rule regardless of Congress, the American
public, and Constitutional limits on his powers.


For the longest time, American politicians have beleaguered individual rights
and freedom with a multitude of stratagems. Over the last several decades, Islam
has allied itself with that incremental erasure of our rights and the
Constitution. 

Thumbs Down on Voltaire Press

Those of you who visit the Voltaire Press Facebook
site should be advised that I have been permanently blocked from leaving
comments on it that contradict the premises, assumptions, and conclusions of
the pro-open borders and pro-open immigration narrative, and, indeed, from even
visiting the Voltaire Press Facebook site.
The link you
followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

Also, the new manager of Voltaire Press
remains anonymous,
and has refused multiple times to identify himself. It is certainly not Gary
Hull, who has vanished, but who would never upbraid me for providing links to
news stories that contradict that narrative (I am aware of the particulars of
his status, as some of you might be).
Most of the patrons who do leave posts on
the Voltaire Press page are what I call rationalizing, picayune “bean
counters” and dabblers trying to reconcile Objectivism, a philosophy of
reason,  with a variety of straw men
issues, and who deny the perils of an Obama-staged
invasion
of illegals, not only from Mexico and Central America, but now, it
has been reported by Texas
and the FBI,
by Islamic jihadists
from the Mideast and Africa. This is aside from their erroneous premise that
the U.S. it not at war with Islam (contrary
to what President Obama said in Cairo
and elsewhere, Islam is at war with us), and so immigration restrictions of
potentially hostile immigrants are not morally justified. This is tantamount to
residents of a burning building discussing the nature of fire, about who might
or might not be the arsonist, and having a coffee klatch to discuss shades of
meaning, instead of escaping from the conflagration or attempting to put out
the flames.
It’s the caliber of intellectual discussion
that gives intellectual discussion a bad name.
Anyway, visit Voltaire Press on Facebook and
see for yourself the character of the discussion. I’m done with Voltaire Press,
and it with me. I’ll continue to fight the battles that need to be fought, and
Voltaire Press can go on bean-counting and erecting scarecrows.
Another person’s posts whose arguments
against the unrealistic policies of open borders and open immigration were also
deleted. I do not know if he has been banned, as well.
Over the course of a week, my comments were
repeatedly deleted from the Voltaire Press Facebook page by the current Wizard
of Oz-like anonymous manager without reason or explanation, except that the
mystery person once wrongly opined that I had called Keith
Weiner
names, which I certainly had not.
My last, futile, and subsequently deleted
comments were to refer to that practice and to the anonymity of the host as an
instance of “impeachable cowardice.” I’m surprised that no regular
visitor to Voltaire Press’s Facebook page has ever requested that this person
remove his Guy Fawkes mask and reveal his identity. Obviously, this person has
something to hide to be so stubbornly mute in his refusals. In all the debates I’ve
ever witnessed, the moderator’s identity has always been known.

Now that my posts have been removed from
the site, no one can judge for himself what I said, whether it was germane to
the topic or in the way of character assassinations.   
Readers here may remember that during the
imbroglio over the Ground Zero mosque a few years back, and whether or not Muslims
had a right to erect a victory mosque blocks away from the site of the
destroyed World Trade Center (e.g., “It’s private property!” and
“It’s freedom of religion!” and etc.), everyone knew my identity. I
did not delete the posts of those who disagreed with me from my Facebook site,
except the nastiest ones that resorted to ad hominems, nor did I block anyone
from visiting my site.
Another curious consequence of the ban is
that Mr. Guy Fawkes must necessarily repudiate my essay, commissioned and
written under the aegis of Voltaire Press, and published in May 2013, “Islam’s
Reign of Terror.” But, that essay
is still linked
to Voltaire Press. Excerpts of it appeared on Rule
of Reason
and elsewhere.
Some time before the Ed Mazlish
and Keith Weiner
articles raised the hackles of the open-borders/open immigration clique, I
queried Voltaire Press about publishing “Islam’s Reign of Terror” as
a print book and on Kindle. There was no response to that query. Months,
passed, and, being unable to contact Gary Hull, who commissioned the essay, because
his Duke University and personal email accounts were disabled (all my email
queries to his addresses were rejected as “undeliverable”), I went
ahead and published the essay on Amazon
and on Kindle. Sales of both editions reflect a more significant interest in
the subject than perhaps was reflected on Voltaire Press.
Well, there are “open borders”
and there are “open discussions.” Draw your own conclusions.  Voltaire Press is free to block access to its
Facebook page to anyone it chooses, and to delete posts it does not like left by
its readers. But, for Mr. Guy Fawkes, there is a terrific, well-paying job
waiting for him with the New York Times, or at the Ministry of Truth.
And, that is the end of that.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén