The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Journalism’s Jihad Against Journalists

would be interesting to find contrasts, or similarities, between the recent White
House attack on editor and journalist Bob Woodward and the physical attack last
month on Lars Hedegaard, the outspoken Danish historian and journalist.

Woodward imbroglio is not just a storm in a teacup between a White House
underling and a liberal journalist. The “dust-up” reveals more about
the arrogance of politicians and political appointees, and their ambivalence
about freedom of speech. That arrogance easily translates into
authoritarianism. The danger lies not so much in a blatant threat to any
journalist that he will “regret” telling the truth. It rests in a
journalist becoming inured to such threats, regardless of their size or
implications, and leads to his regarding a flyswatter
or a truncheon as a normal way of conducting business.

American mainstream media has largely become inured to the threats,  much as the press became inured to the threats
issued by Hitler in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini in Fascist Italy, or Hugo Chavez
in socialist Venezuela to report only the news that fit their agendas – or be
shut down, gagged, or marched out to reeducation camps or just shot behind the
dumpster into which has been tossed the truth, the presses, and the

Islam naturally gnashes its teeth and bashes skulls over any criticism of Islam
is to be taken for granted. It happens every time someone has the courage to
call Islam what it is and concludes that its humongous Ummah is the new “resistance
is futile” Borg that threatens to swamp the West.  That our co-opted, lickspittle mainstream
media seizes upon any criticism of President Barack Obama to defame and
denigrate its authors is also to be taken for granted. It happens every time
someone calls Obama out on the real or projected consequences of his policies
or even on his ingrained dishonesty. Apparently the MSM is okay with a White
House underling, or even Obama himself, 
baring his teeth at a journalist who won’t knuckle under and write
something more pleasantly fawning and uncritical about his feigned obsession
with the sequester, among a host of other issues.

of Woodward’s feckless, sunshine friends in the media lack the gall to walk up
to Woodward’s door and take a shot at him, or at least give him a full load of
raspberries. They prefer to snipe at him or deliver their Bronx cheers via tweets
on Twitter or to mock him on screen and in print. As for Lars Hedegaard, the
MSM have largely ignored the February 5th assassination attempt on
him in Copenhagen. The New York Times, however, thought it imperative to smear
Hedegaard, and enlisted Andrew Higgins to take a shot at him in his February 27th
column, “Danish Opponent of Islam is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His
Right to Speak.”

begin with the Higgins
article about Lars Hedegaard.

title of Higgins’ column is misleading and intended to counter the fact that
Islamic leaders and spokesmen adhere to the doctrinal line that no one has a
right to oppose Islam or the right to speak about how barbaric and totalitarian
Islam is. Imagine a journalist being targeted for a rub-out if he ran an
article in a Chicago paper about how much of a psychotic, murdering, syphilis-infected
thug Al Capone was. That’s Islam. Countless Muslim attacks on Christians, Jews,
and others simply do not merit the attention of the MSM. Were it not for the
Internet, most people would be left in ignorance of the menace and the
atrocities perpetrated almost daily by Islam’s killers and jihadists.

is beyond Higgins’ ken that the Koran
specifically instructs its followers to indulge in taqiyya, or Muslim double-speak, to say one thing for the Western
press and another to themselves. It’s the Islamic way of crossing one’s fingers
behind one’s back. Or perhaps he’s read a sanitized version of the Koran, one that could only be about
thirty pages in length and full of pleasant homilies and poetry. Higgins began
his attack almost immediately:

When a would-be assassin disguised as a postman shot at — and just missed —
the head of Lars Hedegaard, an anti-Islam polemicist and former newspaper
editor, this month, a cloud of suspicion immediately fell on Denmark’s Muslim

However, as Mr. Hedegaard’s own opinions, a stew of anti-Muslim bile and
conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war, came into focus, Denmark’s
unity in the face of violence began to dissolve into familiar squabbles over immigration, hate speech and the
causes of extremism.

there. According to the MSM, everything that’s happened ever since the first
terrorist plane hijackings of the 1970’s, up through the World Trade Center
bombing of 1993, through 9/11, and the approximately 20,000 Islamic terror
incidents since 9/11, is all in our imagination, or just plain coincidence, or
can be attributed to global warming, and anyone who identifies a link between
those incidents and Islam is hallucinating a “stew of anti-Muslim bile and
conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war.” He must be a
whacked-out “Islamophobe,” or he snorts cocaine, or is a bigot and
racist. There is no civil war imminent. Never mind the fact that Islam has been
waging not a civil war, but a war against the West, and in particular against
the U.S. and Israel, for decades. Mr. Higgins must not read any newspaper but
the New York Times, so his ignorance may be forgiven.

But then something unusual happened. Muslim groups in the country, which
were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against
violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to
condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views,
no matter how odious.

The writer, who for several years edited a mainstream Danish daily, Information,
is a major figure in what a study last year by a British group, Hope Not
, identified as a global movement of “Islamophobic” writers, bloggers
and activists whose “anti-Muslim rhetoric poisons the political discourse,
sometimes with deadly effect.”

is how a “journalist” like Higgins consoles himself that he isn’t
hallucinating. Danish Muslims have at last spoken out against the attack on
Hedegaard. Where were they in 2005? Higgins cites a number of Muslim groups
that have condemned the attack on Hedegaard, and their words must be soothing
to him, because they help him sustain the illusion that Islam isn’t such a bad
ideology after all. Muslims aren’t capable of lying, or deceiving infidels.  They’d never demand that infidels defer to
their faith and adapt to it, grant it exemptions and preference at the cost of
suborning secular civil and even criminal law. Here is a sample:

When the news broke on Feb. 5 that Mr. Hedegaard had narrowly escaped an
attack on his life, recalled Imran Shah of Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, “we
knew that this was something people would try to blame on us. We knew we had to
be in the forefront and make clear that political and religious violence is
totally unacceptable.”

The Islamic Society, which runs Denmark’s biggest mosque and played an
important role in stirring up passions against the cartoons of Muhammad,
swiftly condemned the attack on Mr. Hedegaard. It also said it regretted its
own role during the uproar over the cartoon, when it sent a delegation to Egypt
and Lebanon to sound the alarm over Danish blasphemy, a move that helped turn
what had been a little-noticed domestic affair into a bloody international

Another Islamic organization, Minhaj
ul Quran International
, the Danish offshoot of a controversial group in
Pakistan that has taken a hard line at home against blasphemy, added its own
voice, organizing a demonstration outside Copenhagen’s city hall to denounce
the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and defend free speech. “We Muslims have to find a
new way of reacting,” said Qaiser Najeeb, a 38-year-old second-generation Dane
whose father immigrated from Afghanistan. “Instead of focusing on the real
point, we always get aggressive and emotional. This should change. We don’t
defend Hedegaard’s views but do defend his right to speak. He can say what he

Higgins, Muslims are just plain folk who want to be left alone to practice
their faith. The trouble, however, is that while most Muslims are indeed just
plain folk, they have little to say, and have said nothing, about the murders,
rapes, and harassment of Jews and other non-Muslims in Denmark, Sweden, Norway
and just about anywhere else Muslims have immigrated and settled in large
numbers with the specific goal of either taking over the country or
establishing their own little caliphates inside it, outside the law of the host
country (the term host implies a
sustenance-consuming parasite). Higgins
goes on:

The response from native Danes has grown more equivocal over time, with
some suggesting Mr. Hedegaard himself provoked violence with his strident views
and the activities of his Danish Free Press Society, an organization that
he set up in 2004 to defend free expression but that is best known for
denouncing Islam….

The attack followed a failed ax attack in 2010 by a Somali Muslim on Kurt
Westergaard, the artist who drew a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban,
and a foiled plot to behead journalists at the office of the newspaper that
first published that cartoon and 11 others in September 2005….

Mr. Hedegaard and his Free Press Society championed the newspaper’s right
to publish. They also railed against those in Denmark who seemed to contend
that the newspaper’s lack of respect for Muslim sensitivities deserved much of
the blame for the violent reaction in Muslim countries, which included attacks
on Danish diplomatic missions in Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Mr. Hedegaard has also fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered
into calumny. At a private gathering at his home in December 2009, he declared
that Muslims “rape their own children. It is heard of all the time. Girls in
Muslim families are raped by their uncles, their cousins or their fathers.”

they do. If Higgins would lift his nose from the thick print of the New York
Times, and cast about for another source of news other than Politico,
Slate, the Huffington Post, and Think Progress, he’d see that it’s not only
common practice among Muslim uncles, cousins and fathers to rape their own
children, but to murder them, as well, for “honor”-violating
infractions of a barbaric, tribal system of morality, infractions specifically
sanctioned by Islam’s highest authorities.

more of this kind of evasive and delusional swill in Higgins’ article, so it
would be pointless to recount it. Also, in reporting the incident, he glossed
over the pertinent details. Douglas Murray didn’t in his February 16th
article in the London Spectator,
“Lars Hedegaard interview: ‘I may be killed if I write this’”:

The assassin
came to his home dressed as a postman. When the historian and journalist Lars
Hedegaard opened his front door, the man — whom Lars describes as ‘looking like
a typical Muslim immigrant’ in his mid-twenties — fired straight at his head.
Though Hedegaard was a yard away, the bullet narrowly missed. The mild-mannered
scholar (70 years old) then punched his assailant in the head. The man dropped
the gun, picked it up and fired again. The gun jammed and the man ran off. More
than a week later, he has yet to be found.

insinuated dark designs in Hedegaard’s reputation. Murray reported the truth.

A well-known
figure in Denmark, Hedegaard’s profile rose after the mainstream media’s
capitulation in the wake of the Mohammed cartoons affair. He set up the Free
Press Society, an organisation which campaigns for the rights of journalists
and cartoonists to express themselves without fear of murder.

included foolish journalists and cartoonists who work assiduously to end free
expression without fear of murder. Many of Hedegaard’s critics wrote that he
should have expected another attack, and that he deliberately provokes these
attacks. “Well,” they say, “he ought to have known. This is what
happens if you upset or provoke people.” Murray addresses the issue and
quotes Hedegaard:

But given the
areas he has dealt in and what has happened to his colleagues, did he not guess
that something like this might -happen?

‘I never
speculated about that, because you can’t live your life that way. If every time
you sit down to your computer to write something you have this idea in the back
of your head, “I may be killed if I write this”, then of course you won’t be as
good as you could be. You’ve got to distance yourself from fear if you want to
be a true writer and a true intellectual, which is what I’m trying to be.’

a more realistic picture of the Islamic peril, Murray cites Middle East scholar
Bernard Lewis:

And why do
people keep trying to silence such defenders of free speech in Denmark, Holland
and across Europe? He paraphrases the historian Bernard Lewis: ‘The leaders of
the Ummah [Islamic nation] now evidently believe, or want to demonstrate, that
Sharia law has already gained force in places like Denmark. In other words it
has supplanted our constitution in their minds. Of course it didn’t use to be
that way, it used to be the way that you could draw Mohammed or paint him or
say whatever you wanted in the Dar al-Harb [‘The Land of War’ — as opposed to
the ‘Land of Islam’] because this was outside what Islam considered to be its
territory. Now they are implicitly claiming that we are already under Sharia

later softer words about Islam are at variance with his earlier charges against
Islam. Still, Hedegaard thought it proper to paraphrase the scholar.

an example of the kind of blinkered, jejune reporting of the shooting on
February 5th, here is an Associated Press report, as picked up by Fox

Danish media are reporting that an unknown gunman has tried to shoot a
Danish writer and historian who is a prominent critic of Islam. TV2 News and
the Politiken news site say Lars Hedegaard was not injured in the shooting. Both
say the gunman came up to Hedegaard’s Copenhagen home Tuesday on the pretext of
delivering a package, and then fired at least one shot but missed the writer. Copenhagen
police confirmed that there had been a shooting without injuries. They wouldn’t
say whether Hedegaard was the intended target. Hedegaard heads the
International Free Press Society, a group that claims press freedom is under
threat from Islam. He was fined 5,000 kroner ($1,000) in 2011 for making a
series of insulting and degrading statements about Muslims.

Understand that the item says that, even though it reports that a phony mailman
fired at shot at the writer, the police “wouldn’t say whether Hedegaard
was the intended target.” Perhaps it was the parcel he handed Hedegaard,
or an offensive, framed print of Rita Hayworth the assassin espied over
Hedegaard’s shoulder in the vestibule. No wonder Denmark is sinking under the
weight of Islam. The item noted that while Hedegaard was charged with making
“a series of insulting and degrading statements about Muslims” (re
the uncles, cousins and fathers remark), the writer did not think it relevant
to mention that Hedegaard was subsequently acquitted of the charge.

Mark Steyn,
who himself has been called on the carpet over his own “anti-Muslim” statements,
had this to say about the Associated Press item in the National Review:

the slapdash hack at the Associated Press can’t even get the basic facts right,
reporting that Lars was “fined 5,000 kroner ($1,000) in 2011 for making a series
of insulting and degrading statements about Muslims,” but apparently unaware
that last year the Danish Supreme Court struck
down his conviction 7–0

UPDATE: From the

Danish Prime
Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt condemned the attack, saying: “It is even worse
if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard using his
freedom of expression.” That statement would be more persuasive had not the
Danish state (as noted above) spent the last three years in multiple attempts
to “prevent Lars Hedegaard using his freedom of expression”.

Associated Press may be populated by slapdash hacks, but that is at least
better than an MSM populated by venal scriveners who are also manage to see,
hear, and speak no evil about Islam and President Obama. Which brings us to Bob
Woodward and the cavalry that didn’t come to his rescue. 

am no fan of Woodward. Most of his output is as hazy, wrong-headed and
south-pawed as that of his colleagues. But on the sequestering issue, he was
spot-on, charging Obama with being the instigator behind the whole farce, one
verging on “madness.” But much as Bernard Lewis softened his stance
towards Islam and even on the Armenian massacre by the Turks in 1915, Woodward
has half-back-pedaled from his initial charge that Gene Sperling’s
to him was a “worrisome” threat. Sperling’s shouting at Woodward over
the phone for half an hour recalls movie Nazis shouting over the phone at an
offending newspaper editor or a wayward Gauleiter. It says much about Woodward
that he would tolerate such treatment by any president’s appointee without
complaint. But all that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the MSM behaved
when one of their own was seen to be put in jeopardy.

can easily translate into any
American being put in jeopardy by the state over something he said, and the MSM
twiddling their thumbs and saying smugly, “Told you so. Didn’t you know
that the buck starts here?”

some context. Susan Heavey, writing for Reuters
on February 27th:

Journalist Bob
Woodward on Wednesday criticized Barack Obama’s
handling of the automatic U.S. budget cuts set to take effect this week,
calling the president’s decision to hold back on military deployments

His comments
continued what has become a running dispute between Woodward, perhaps the
country’s best-known print journalist, and the Democratic White House over who
is responsible for the across-the-board cuts scheduled to begin on Friday.

Last week,
Woodward published an opinion piece in the Washington Post – where he is an
associate editor – saying the administration was “wrong” to blame the
cuts on Republicans.

don’t imagine that Woodward golfs as much as Obama, with or without Tiger
Woods, so he had time to put together some thoughts and write something

Woodward, who
first gained fame in the 1970s from exposing the Watergate scandal during the
administration of President Richard Nixon, wrote a detailed account in his 2012
book, “The Price of Politics,” of the August 2011 deal that led to
the cuts.

On Wednesday he
attacked Obama for drawing national security into the budget debate. “So
we now have the president going out (saying) ‘Because of this piece of paper
and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’
That’s a kind of madness that I
haven’t seen in a long time,” Woodward told MSNBC on Wednesday. (Italics mine.)

is madness, especially when we know
that the U.S. will be sending $60
to the Syrian “rebels” to aid them in their war against
Syrian president Bashar Assad.  This is
besides the billions we send to the “Palestinians” and Egypt and
Libya and wherever else Islamist “freedom fighters” are waging a war
against freedom. That $85 billion sequestering will help to dent our own
defense of freedom here, but that’s irrelevant to Obama and his sycophantic
friends in the press corps. When it comes to aiding and abetting our enemies,
funds are untouchable and not open to debate or shouting over the phone for
thirty minutes.

the context. Here’s the reaction among Woodward’s colleagues, who conveniently
forget Voltaire’s pledge to defend anyone’s right to say anything. Breitbart’s
Big Journalism reported on February 28th, in “
Woodwardgate: Media Gang-Tackle Iconic Journalist to Save
Obama” that

This is an incredible case of the White House attempting to bully the most
iconic reporter of the 20th century – the reporter who, along with
Carl Bernstein, took down a president of the United States. So you might expect
the rest of the media to stand with Woodward. You’d be wrong. They’re too busy
spending time playing defense for the White House….

That meme was picked up by the White House’s favorite palace guards,
including Dave Weigel at Slate (he retweeted Smith, tweeted,
“Theory: Woodward is trolling,” then added via retweet that the whole situation
was “boring”); BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, who mockingly tweeted,
“Every reporter who deals with flacks/campaign advisors/politicos/ on a daily
basis finds that less than threatening”; Justin Green, who edits David Frum’s
blog at The Daily Beast, tweeted, “I
rarely, rarely report, and I’ve had flacks say worse. Not that rare”; Jeffrey
Goldberg of The Atlantic tweeted,
“As a reporter, I don’t think this was a threat”; Dylan Byers of Politico tweeted,
“tweets, I’m no Woodward but broadcast/cable TV PR reps use that ‘regret’
tactic a lot”; Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo tweeted, “Who
goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?” The messaging was universal from the
leftist Obama-supporting media: Woodward hadn’t been threatened, and was an
amateur or a crazy old coot to think he was being threatened. Matt Yglesias of
Slate summed up the general Palace Guard Media take:
“Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.”

The gall of this is astounding. All of these reporters combined might equal
one tenth a Bob Woodward in the journalistic pantheon; the notion that their
treatment at the hands of press flacks in any way reflects the general or
appropriate treatment of someone like Woodward is absurd on its face. But the
junior varsity is all too happy to gang tackle a reportorial Hall of Famer on
behalf of their beloved President.

I don’t
share Breitbart’s esteem of Woodward, and it shouldn’t astound anyone that
liberal journalists would turn on one of their icons if he perchance told the
truth about their idol. After all, they have turned on the whole country in
lockstep with the administration. John Nolte, also of Breitbart, expressed his
disgust with the MSM in a separate piece, “Cult
of Obama: List of Journalists Throwing Woodward Under Bus”:

But when that news
hit, many in media immediately chose to protect Obama by ridiculing Woodward,
questioning his motives, and/or dismissing his reporting. Meet the members of
the Cult of Obama…(list of tweets from journalists)…

NOTE: This post
has been updated. Woodward did not claim to be threatened by the White House. That
language has been used by the media. One reference to “threat” has
been rewritten in this piece to accurately reflect Woodward’s statement…

wrote two columns on Netflix’s spot-on “House of Cards,” and
highlighted in it why the media plays a central role in that fictional account of
how power-politics can draft the corrupted media in its progress towards absolutism
in government. Kevin Spacey, who co-produced and stars in the series, even admitted
that these days, fiction is in competition with reality.

writing for The Week, underscores that competition.

The White House threatens reporters. A lot. It is sort of a humblebrag to
say that people with titles as lofty as “Assistant to the President”
and with titles as lowly as “deputy press secretary” have used the
F-word in conversations with me. Both White House officials and journalists
tend to be arrogant and self-referential, and there is a lot of healthy and
sometimes unhealthy tension on the job. We yell at each other, and we butt
heads, and we live to work another day. Threats about cutting off access are
fairly routine. Just not if you’re Bob Woodward and used to deference.

to be expected, the New York Times threw its weight behind the Cult of Obama and
sneered at Woodward in its own special way, emphasizing just how much Woodward
is a trembling wuss. Christine Haughney and Brian Stelter, in “
Woodward Is New Hero for the Right (Yes, Really)” wrote:

His feud with an unnamed official, first reported in Politico, which
said Mr. Woodward clearly saw the administration’s choice of words “as a veiled
threat,” initially drew cheers from many conservative commentators and
bewilderment from many Washington reporters who wondered whether Mr. Woodward
was being a tad oversensitive.

In an interview later on Thursday, Mr. Woodward emphasized that he had not
said he felt threatened. “I never said it was a threat,” he said, but added
that he still had concerns about how the administration handled criticism. “We
live in a world where they don’t like to be challenged, particularly when the
political stakes are so high,” he said….

Other veteran reporters said on Thursday, in essence, “We’ve heard worse.”
Major Garrett, the chief White House correspondent for CBS, said that he
thought the flare-up was “a completely ridiculous story” and that conflict came
with the White House beat. “Every reporter knows when a source is angry about
something you’re working on, you’re on the right track,” he said. “Just get on
with it.”

Jake Tapper, who recently joined CNN from ABC, where he covered the White
House, recalled unpleasant conversations with both Republicans and Democrats
and called it part of the job. “In my experience,” he said, “neither side has
had a premium on tones that may not be soothing, or words that may not be
suitable for children.”

virtual absence of any supporting reportage on the courage and mortal peril of
Lars Hedegaard, and the virtual absence of any supporting reportage of Bob Woodward
– who is only occasionally courageous and certainly not in mortal peril – about
his conflict with the White House, points up to a state of journalism that could
only be defined as self-destructive and suicidal. The press is supposed to be
the Seal Team Six and oppose and warn us of any encroachments on the First
Amendment and on anyone’s First Amendment right to say whatever his thinks is
the truth. It is supposed to come to the defense of anyone threatened with punishment
for telling it.  

if the press doesn’t value the truth, and treats it as a Frisbee to toss around
in a pretend game it thinks is a matter of political expediency, then Americans
must fall back on their own resources, and become their own defenders against a
corrupted Fourth Estate and the authoritarians it lets in the front gates.


House of Cards: Bewitched by Power


Barack Obama Dies, Leaving Sharp Divisions in the Country


  1. Anonymous

    Ed wrote: "It happens every time someone has the courage to call Islam what it is and concludes that its humongous Ummah is the new "resistance is futile" Borg that threatens to swamp the West."

    This essay and the above statement got me to thinking about Ed's article on the Left's delusional views on Islam that he published here a few weeks ago.

    In large part, the comments on that article revolved around the "official" Objectivist position on immigration, and Moslem immigration in particular. Whenever an Objectivist (even one of long standing and knowledge) strays from the Party Line on these issues, they quickly become unpersons. I don't understand why ARI, and others, refuse to address the clear and present danger of Moslem immigration, which has created large and dangerous fifth-columns throughout the West.

    It's an issue that is obviously not going away. Currently, Muslim Brotherhood groups have made deep inroads infiltrating and subverting the American government and those of the West. Instead of directly addressing this threat, ARI continues with their view that Islam is only a problem "over there." The evasion of reality is staggering.

  2. Edward Cline

    Grant: That I refuse to dismiss Islam itself and the peril it poses here can help to explain why I've been on the outs with ARI for many more years than I care to remember, kept at arm's length, shunned, and treated as a non-person. So I've stopped attending their gatherings and haven't sent them a dime in ages. I've been writing for years that Islam is as much a threat to our freedom as Obama or any other politician. If they bothered to examine Islam as much as they examine the agendas of the Democrats and Republicans, perhaps they'd see the common thread, common premises, and common ends. But they can't imagine that what is happening in Europe vis-à-vis Muslim immigration and Islamists assuming offices in government and even in the judiciaries of the various countries, happening here. There are now Muslims in Britain's House of Lords, and many in the Commons. It's the same story in virtually every European country.

    We have Muslims in our own House of Representatives. They're in key positions in our military departments, in important positions in intelligence, in civilian security agencies, in the State Department, on state court benches, in police forces…in the White House, Obama's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. You really must be a practiced repressor to not acknowledge that the U.S. is in double trouble, vectored in a pincher movement between the secular statists and the "religious" statists. Leonard Peikoff himself predicted that if dictatorship comes to America, it will likely be a theocratic one. But I don’t think he projected a de facto Islamic one. I've gotten over the ostracism and so that no longer matters to me.

  3. Anonymous

    The jihadists have infiltrated many segments of both American government and civil society. For example, CPAC won't allow Pamela Geller to attend this year. That organization has been thoroughly compromised by a handful of determined stealth jihadists, with much help from cowardly "moderates."

    But according to official Objectivism, the real problem are mainstream Christians. Such complete detachment from reality doesn't inspire confidence about their judgment on any other topic. I suspect that anyone who offers to give a talk at Objectivist Conferences along the lines of Geller and Robert Spencer would also receive a cold shoulder and ostracism.

  4. Edward Cline

    Grant: Yes, I read about Geller being banished from this year's CPAC, presumably at the behest of Grover Norquist, the "pro-freedom" lackey of the Saudis. I also discovered that Norquist runs Newsmax (a Christian news outlet), so I cancelled my subscription to it yesterday. There are other conservative, Christian news weblogs (Townhall, Canada Free Press, others) but they don’t push religion much, and often carry excellent columnists such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.

  5. madmax

    I don't understand why ARI, and others, refuse to address the clear and present danger of Moslem immigration

    The reason ARI won't address the problem with Muslim immigration is that it would force them to face the problem with immigration in general. ARI and mainstream O'ism sees "open immigration" as part and parcel with laissez faire which it sees as the political extension of individual rights. So if you disagree with "open immigration" you disagree with laissez faire which means you disagree with individual rights which means you disagree with Objectivism. IMO, this is rationalism.

    But I think this is inevitable until such time as the Objectivist politics is fleshed out by treatise writers; good ones, which we haven't had yet. Immigration is a very complicated facet of a nation's politics. It is intimately connected with national defense and national cohesion. NO ONE has done this subject justice in the Objectivist movement. Rand herself didn't cover it. Binswanger's attempt is rationalistic garbage not worth the ascii ink its printed with.

    Basically this is the Objectivist movement at its worst. Its herd-like behavior that resembles either religion or Leftism. "Oh you're opposed to open immigration, you must be opposed to individual rights. Worse, you must be a collectivist! Even worse, you're a determinist!!" But this gets to properly laying out the parameters of individual rights. Especially when it comes to how aggregates matter and how different hostile cultures affect ours through immigration.

    This is going to take a VERY SMART person. And they will have to fight against an Objectivist orthodoxy that will be hostile to them. What is else is new? Same shit, different movement. But I, and I hope other non-drone-Objectivists, have become disgusted with organized Objectivism over their failure to properly condemn Islam and the Left. Their failure is unforgivable, especially given the nature of Rand's novels. Its an insult to Ayn Rand. She would spit at the ARI if she were alive today. And that is not hyperbole.

  6. Edward Cline

    MadMax: Your anger is understandable and I share it. I might be the one to pen the treatise you mention, but I've been writing these columns for years without subsidy or compensation, unlike most ARI people who have a whole Foundation behind them. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "open immigration" stance of the "official" Objectivists is all fine and good, had we a free country. But opening the borders to all manner of hungry parasites would only help to perpetuate and worsen the welfare state and give our statist enemies a greater voting bloc than they have now and which they could count on every time to return them to power. Obama's recent release of hundreds of detained illegals is a case in point under the "sequestering" ruse. This is so obvious a consequence I'm always astounded that these purported far-seeing individuals can't see it.

  7. Edward Cline

    By the way, here is a very good column from Front Page about Woodward and the whole sequestering farce, complete with a moral to be drawn by Woodward wannabes who "wander from the narrative."

  8. madmax


    If you pen that treatise, I would be one of the first one to buy it. But…

    Even in a free country as Objectivism defines it, I still think immigration would be difficult and it could never really be "open". Open to who? Muslims, criminals, those from violent countries that have no legitimate way to indicate who is violent and who is peaceful? In such a free country could 100 million people from Africa immigrate in a few years time as they would probably want to? The assimilation rate becomes an issue. Should immigrants be sponsored? Is there a time frame for them to find work? Granted, laissez faire would make this subject alot easier, but still there does seem the need for a developed science for this. Perhaps immigration theory would be a whole subcategory of politics. (For example, what should Israel's immigration policy be? Should ANY Muslims be allowed within its borders?

    The Objectivist answer to this has been pathetic.) But no mainstream Oist sees it that way. I get the sense that for mainstream O'ism, as it is for libertarianism, the borders are just a fiction. Which is why I say that the Conservative movement, as flawed as it is, is the only serious and mature political movement out there. Objectivism is still in its early infancy. I love Rand to the bottom of my heart, but I am embarrassed by mainstream Objectivism. That's how I see it.

    Thanks for frontpagemag link. BTW, I wish any Objectivist site were as informative as Frontpagemag.

  9. Neil Parille

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Neil Parille


    I don't think that Open Immigration Objectivists (OIOs) have thought much about the consequences of open immigration.

    1. According to OIOs, countries such as Greece and Israel, which border countries with much larger Islamic populations, are morally required to allows almost everyone in. Within a couple decades these countries would be Moslem.

    2. Assume that 50,000 men in their twenties from a pro-Taliban area of Afghanistan or Pakistan want to come to the US. The government of these countries tell us they have no criminal records. No one has seen them on any on videos chanting "death to America." According to Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D. it is immoral to exclude them.

    3. While I agree that it is not incompatible to have a generous immigration policy and rising standard of living, consider what would happen if we had OI. Tens of millions of Central and South American would flood the South West within a decade. What do you think would happen to the wages of Americans who live there in the short term (or relatively long term)? And you don't have to be Ludwig von Mises to know that there would be an incentive for people to come to the US until they depress wage rates to the same level as the rest of the world. Can't wait.

    I'd point out that, contra what Ed seems to think, the effect would be roughly the same whether the US is free or not. (Would Jews in a laissez faire Denmark or Norway feel safer than they do now?)

    Incidentally, many OIOs such as Craig Biddle think that open immigration should be combined with vigorous military action against Moslem countries, their religious leaders, and holy sites. I wouldn't want to live in a majority Moslem London, Paris, Detroit or wherever when the UK, France or the USA starts bombing Mecca. Moslems riot at the smallest of things. Can you imagine what they do if we bomb Mecca. Millions of moderate Moslems would become radicals.

  11. madmax


    I agree with all your points except this:

    And you don't have to be Ludwig von Mises to know that there would be an incentive for people to come to the US until they depress wage rates to the same level as the rest of the world. Can't wait.

    Austrian economics would say that under laissez faire the depressed wage rate would only be in nominal terms. In actual (real) terms the value of wages (and their purchasing power) would go up because production costs would be lowered significantly. The standard of living would rise. However…

    Your overall point is still right though and it is my exactly my point. That is: there is a rate at which immigrants can be assimilated without disrupting a culture. Especially if you are talking about immigrants from a collectivist or violent (or both) culture. That accounts for the majority of the earth. Basically there are problems with allowing mass immigrations from non-European humanity. Oooh, did I just say that?

    So even under the freest of political circumstances (laissez faire) there would still be very difficult issues with immigration. But mainstream O'ists acknowledge none of this and accuse you of being a "collectivist" (or worse) if you even raise the issue. Hell, they've basically black listed Ed Cline for not going along with the orthodoxy on the subjects of Islam and immigration.

    I don't agree with the Paleo and racial Conservatives. But they do raise issues about culture that NO Objectivist has answered. And the Islam problem is the one area where Objectivism has been PATHETIC. Biddle, Binswanger, Hsieh et all are embarrassing to the point of raising the consideration that their credibility in ANY area is suspect. Peikoff at least makes some sense and he does have balls. But he's the only one in the O'ist movement that does. The rest of the movement has been gelded. A movement of Diana Hsieh's and Ari Armstrongs will accomplish nothing except putting people to sleep. Some culture warriors.

  12. Neil Parille


    As I understand it, Austrian Economics teaches that the only way you can increase the real income of workers is to increase the marginal productivity of labor. And the only way you can do that is to increase the amount of capital invested per worker.

    So – to take an extreme example – assume the population of the US doubles tomorrow. The stock of capital has not increased. However, the number of laborers has increased. Wages will go down.

  13. Anonymous

    "Incidentally, many OIOs such as Craig Biddle think that open immigration should be combined with vigorous military action against Moslem countries, their religious leaders, and holy sites. I wouldn't want to live in a majority Moslem London, Paris, Detroit or wherever when the UK, France or the USA starts bombing Mecca."

    Indeed. It's an article of faith that a campaign to take out the regime in Iran and then maybe Saudi Arabia would end the jihad. They present no evidence for this belief. It's a view based on faith, because they don't understand Islam and don't want to.

    They also need to go back to Poli Sci 101. Domestic policy determines foreign policy. With a sizable and influential Moslem fifth-column in the country (enabled by leftist traitors), there is absolutely no chance of a serious military campaign against jihad supporting governments. Many are counted as "allies" by the traitor class in Washington, all bought with Saudi money.

    Neil is right about the economic ramifications of rapid immigration for unskilled worker. Contrary to the ARI party line, such immigration in the late 19th century depressed labor wages and causes much civil unrest. For example, the Chicago riots of 1885.

    More importantly is the issue of assimilation. Immigrants have to learn how to be Americans. That takes much time, generations in fact. Most immigrants have always supported the party of statism, the Democrats. That's an obvious historical fact that the no-borders crowd just ignores.

  14. Anonymous

    Madmax,"So even under the freest of political circumstances (laissez faire) there would still be very difficult issues with immigration."

    Absolutely. But the rationalists live in a world of floating abstractions. When confronted with uncongenial facts, they descend to ad hominem, evasion and argument from intimidation. All they have are abstractions as talking points. Historical facts don't interest them.

    I think there are other reasons besides the immigration issue for Ed being blacklisted. In part, it's the official movement's love affair with academic credentials. Although academia is an open sewer, ARI and the rest of the official movement require validation from that smelly pesthole. Their desire for academic "respectability" goes way beyond simply trying to get Ayn Rand's works into the classroom.

    One final thing, real wages can ultimately only be increased by advancing technology. Eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Regarding immigration, what America needs are top notch scientists and engineers, not illiterate laborers. I wrote, "what America needs," because the national self-interest of the United States is what should determine immigration policy and not the alleged rights of foreign nationals to cross our borders.

  15. Drew

    I don't get all the vitriol directed toward ARI.

    ARI has a specific function and a specific mandate. Like it or not, they are trying to penetrate the mainstream, and you don't do that by charging out of the gates with angry rhetoric about immigrants. ARI folk have stated publicly about the essential nature of Islam.

    How can one not appreciate the great success Yaron Brook has been having with his efforts to "spread the word"? I think he's an excellent public face of Objectivism.

    I do agree with a lot of what is being said here. But why are we particularly emotional over the issue of immigration and Islam?

    I am open to pursuasion, so I was hoping to read more about this issue with the various commentaters refuting the actual, stated positions of those whom the vitriol is directed (Hsieh, Armstrong, etc..).

  16. Anonymous

    Drew, I've directed criticism at ARI, not vitriol. I've stated at length reasons for disagreeing with the official Objectivist position on immigration and how to respond to all varieties of jihad. I'm not going to repeat myself here. If ARI understood Islam, then they would articulate a strategy to defeat the ummah, not a couple of nation states. ARI's ignoring the stealth jihad, which is a fundamental tenet of Islam, demonstrates their ignorance. The stealth jihad conducted by Moslem immigrants and their recruits is the greatest foreign threat to our freedom and national security.

    All to often, the "angry rhetoric" on immigration comes from those who advocate the official line whenever they encounter an opposing viewpoint. I've been personally attacked and defriended on Facebook by those who believe in no-borders, but who apparently can't defend their positions without resorting to name calling, argument from intimidation, and evasion.

  17. Neil Parille


    According to ARI supporters such as Craig Biddle, Harry Binswanger, Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, Israel is morally obligated to allow virtually unlimited Moslem immigration even if the end result is Israel becoming a Moslem state with Sharia.

    Is it "anti immigration" to point out the consequences of the ARI position?

    Why don't Binswanger, et al. defend the morality of this position?

  18. Drew

    Where do these people mention that Israel is obligated to allow muslim immigration in Israel to the point of destruction?

    I appreciate your commentary Grant. I guess there's no vitriol, but I thought that accusing ARI of evasion was harsh. Perhaps they are in error in their strategy or focus, but I wouldn't jump to evasion as their problem. That's all I have to say on that.

  19. Anonymous

    Drew, "evasion" is the proper term. For evidence, go to the link that follows. The link is to an entry on ARI's blog on immigration. When the discussion was not going the way they wanted, comments were closed. That's evasion.

    I think Neil's point is that the no borders' view is that unless a person has been convicted of a felony or harbors a communicable disease, he has the absolute right to cross any border. Of course, such a policy when mean the end of Israel. But, it would also mean the end of many European states. In other words, the no borders crowd's main problem is with the very concept of the nation-state.

  20. Anonymous

    P.S. Re, evasion. I've just been banned from commenting on The Objective Standard's blog for the thoughtcrime of disputing TOS's absurd hyperbole on this post:

  21. Drew

    No, Grant, evasion is the refusal to look at the facts. Since ARI blog you cite retained yours and Ed's comments for others to see, instead of treating you like a "thought criminal" (now there's hyperbole), I would say that you are wrong.

    Neil is also a purveyor of lies since I've been asking the accused people about their views on immigration and it does not fit the hyperbole and, yes, vitriol being uttered here.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén