Finally, a bylined writer at a respectable conservative website, Rebecca Bynum at the New English Review, directly addresses the problem of the professional Islam critics who warn endlessly about the dangers of Islam, but who refuse to say what we ought to do about Islam. Bynum fully understands the "Usual Suspects" phenomenon, and she goes beyond it by proposing a separationist-type strategy, including--and she says this without qualification--a call to "stop all Muslim immigration into America."
#3
OT : kewl, a link to "View from the Right", I like that blog, but I usually don't post stuff from it, or from Vdare or similar websites, as I fear it might be too rightwing for RB. But Laurence Auster is rather sharp, IMHO.
... the most useful part was the morning devoted to analyzing the essence of Islam, reducing it to a few key ideas: a dual ethical system, which does not admit of the Golden Rule, and the principle of submission, submission of Believers to Allah, and of non-Muslims to Believers.
Sue Myrick, a Representative from North Carolina, has already formed a bi-partisan Anti-Jihad Caucus which will undoubtedly begin to propose legislation to combat jihad in all its forms including propaganda, influence buying and demographics as well as terrorism.
1. Define Islam as the political ideology it is, so that it is no longer protected by freedom of religion and our laws against sedition come into effect.
2. Stop all Muslim immigration into America. This should be made a task separate from, and not to be confused with, other immigration initiatives.
3. Limit Muslim influence buying in Washington and academia.
4. Remove Muslim chaplains from our prisons and military.
5. Deport those Muslims, and their families, who are convicted of criminal activity, including but not limited to polygamy, activity that is prompted by or connected specifically to beliefs that are part of their mental makeup and cannot be shed as long as they are loyal to Islam and to the umma al-Islamiyya, and not to the laws of the Infidel nation-state.
It is reasonable for us to define Islam as it defines itself as a Total System, which includes a well-defined politics; a political system that locates the source of its legitimacy in Islamic doctrine which is believed to be the will of God. Political legitimacy is not found in the will of the people, for those who obey man rather than God are not true Muslims but idolaters. Therefore Islam is openly subversive toward any non-Islamic political system and especially toward democracy which is inherently vulnerable, but can certainly be made less so.
A moratorium on Muslim immigration into America would require new legislation (at present, there are no records kept concerning the religion of immigrants). This will have to change. Religious liberty cannot extend so far as to countenance subversion.
It is heartening to see that numerous other more well-published writers are now advocating reverse immigration. It represents one of the only methods of countering the colonization of Western cultures by Islam. This is self-preservation at work. Nothing less will reverse the immense damage already done to our laws and the publics general quality of life. Living under the constant specter of Islamic terrorism is simply too great of a price to pay for Muslticulturalism and its supposedly lofty but, ultimately, destructive goals.
5. The conclusion one must reach is that there are, in truth, very few moderates. For if one sees the full meaning of Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and sees how they have affected the behavior of Muslims both over 1400 years of conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and in stunting the development -- political, economic, moral, and intellectual -- of Muslims everywhere, it is impossible not to conclude that this imposing edifice is not in any sense moderate or susceptible to moderation.
... And this brings up the most important problem: the impermanance of "moderate" attitudes. What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the "fanatics," if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a "renegade" or apostate, will at some point "revert" not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?
8. That is why even the designation of some Muslims as "moderates" in the end means almost nothing. They swell Muslim numbers and the perceived Muslim power; "moderates" may help to mislead, to be in fact even more effective practitioners of taqiyya/kitman, for their motive may simply be loyalty to ancestors or embarrassment, not a malign desire to fool Infidels in order to disarm and then ultimately to destroy them.
10. "There are Muslim moderates. Islam itself is not moderate" is Ibn Warraq's lapidary formulation. To this one must add: we Infidels have no sure way to distinguish the real from the feigning "moderate" Muslim. We cannot spend our time trying to perfect methods to make such distinctions. Furthermore, in the end such distinctions may be meaningless if even the "real" moderates hide from us what Islam is all about, not out of any deeply-felt sinister motive, but out of a humanly-understandable ignorance (especially among some second or third-generation Muslims in the West), or embarrassment, or filial piety. And finally, yesterday's "moderate" can overnight be transformed into today's fanatic -- or tomorrow's.
[emphasis added]
The elite class has every intention of continuing to fight the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.
[emphasis added]
This ones the corker. Im seeking permission to post it tomorrow in its entirety. It is, quite simply, one of the finest assessments of what will be required to thwart Islams intention of global domination. Definitely a MUST READ.
News, news everywhere -- so much one can hardly take it all in:
Item One: In Gaza, Islamic Jihad is planning to send waves of female suicide bombers into action against the Zionist Entity. Asked by an Israeli reporter whether self-detonating ladies enjoy the same 72-virgin deal as the lads, an Arab scholar said no, but that the gals will be served in Paradise by "dwarfs." Snow White got seven dwarfs, but it's unclear whether Blow White will get the full 72: Sleepy, Grumpy, Bashful, etc., all the way down to Incendiary, Non-Alcoholic and Anti-Zionist.
Item Two: From Sikeston, Mo., comes the touching story of a 3-year-old girl and Raymon and Richard Miller, two brothers who happen to be the father and uncle thereof. Unfortunately, they don't know which is which. Four years ago, Holly Marie Adams, who was in town for the rodeo, "slept with" both men on the same day. And in the fullness of time, upon discovering the fullness of her belly, she decided Raymon was the dad and demanded child support.
Raymon decided he saw himself as more of the uncle type, and so dragged his brother into court. What did the DNA results show? Well, they're identical twins, so there's a 99.5 percent probability Raymon's the father and there's a 99.5 percent probability Richard's the father. And, as they're both crying uncle, that suits neither of them. Naturally, Raymon wants the state of Missouri to pick up the child support. Technically, the state of Missouri didn't "sleep with" Holly Marie Adams, though, if it too had been in town for the rodeo that day, its chances would have been better than even.
Given that neither man wants to be the father in any meaningful sense, the famous split decision of the wisdom of Solomon might be in both their interests, if not the little girl's. What passes for heartwarming family sentiment in this case comes from the brothers' mother, who said, "I felt like I had gained a granddaughter but lost my sons."
Item Three: America's bipartisan "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. Just because this story comes above the fold on Page One doesn't mean it's not just as nutty as the foot of page 27 news-in-brief stuff up above. Peggy Noonan's take at the Wall Street Journal bore the sub-headline: "Open Borders? Mass Deportations? How About Some Common Sense Instead?"
Indeed. Everyone wants to sound reasonable and be the chap who charts the middle course between the Scylla of open borders and the Charybdis of mass deportation. But these are not equivalent dangers. The Charybdis of mass deportation is a mythical monster: It does not exist. It will never exist. No politician is arguing for it, and no U.S. agency is capable of accomplishing it. Indeed, even non-mass deportation does not exist. Go on, try it. Go to your local immigration office and say: Hello, boys. Here I am. I'm an illegal immigrant, got no right to be here, been breaking the law for 20 years, but I've seen the light and I want you to deport me back to Mexico, Yemen, you name it. The immigration guys will say: Leave your name and address and we'll get back to you in a decade or three.
But the Scylla of open borders does exist. It's the reality of the situation. What else would you call it when a population the size of Belgium's (the lowball estimate) or Australia's (the upper end) moves onto your land? And with the connivance of multiple state agencies, not to mention those municipalities that proudly declare themselves to be "sanctuary cities?"
In life's rich tapestry, there are bound to be questions to which there are no good answers -- that Missouri paternity suit is one of them. That's how advocates of the "bipartisan compromise" prefer to talk about immigration: difficult business, no ideal solution, and only extremists would pursue such theoretical perfection as "mass deportation."
OK. But whatever happened to non-mass deportation? Not long after Sept. 11 I chanced to be heading north on I-87 between Plattsburgh and Montreal. At the border crossing from Champlain, N.Y., to Lacolle, Quebec, I noticed that what appeared to be a mini-refugee camp had sprung up. It's not often that you see teeming hordes lining up to get into Canada, so I asked the immigration officer what was going on. He rolled his eyes and did a bit of boy-those-crazy-Yanks stuff and then explained that most of the guys waiting to get in were from Pakistan. In the wake of 9/11, the authorities had rounded up various persons of interest in the New York City area. Whether or not they were terrorists, they'd certainly violated immigration law, overstaying visas and so forth. And as a result, many other illegal immigrants from Muslim countries had concluded it was time to liquidate their assets and break for the border. In other words, the roundup of a relatively small number of persons sent thousands more fleeing to Canada. As that Missouri grandma would say, don't look on it as losing a Pakistani illegal but as gaining a Canadian neighbor.
So the question is: Why is enforcement of U.S. immigration somewhere between minimal and nonexistent? By some estimates, half of all illegals have arrived on George W. Bush's watch -- i.e., they broke into a nation at war with borders supposedly on permanent "orange" alert.
To return to the 72-virgin jackpot, even the looniest jihad-inciting imam understands that human nature responds to incentive, to the tradeoff between obligation and reward. But the immigration bill is all reward and no obligations. The only clause that matters is the first one: the mandatory open-ended probationary legal status the bill will confer the moment it's passed. All the rest -- the enforcement provisions on border agents and security fences that will supposedly "trigger" Z-visas and then green cards -- is nonsense, most of which will never happen. If you're "undocumented," you don't care about whether your Z-visa leads to citizenship 15 years from now: What counts is crossing the line from illegal to legal, which in this bill happens first, happens instantly and happens (to all intents and purposes) irreversibly. All the rest is Beltway kabuki.
That Missouri case should remind us that in a wealthy society the knottiest problems are usually the consequences of moral choices. To embed lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration and to allow it to metastasize through the wider society was perverse and debilitating. Most Americans see this differently from Washington and Wall Street. They're pro-immigration but they don't regard it as a mere technicality, a piece of government paper: after all, feeling American is central to their own identity. They rightly revile the cheap contempt the rushed Senate bill demonstrates not just for transparent, honest small-r republican government but for the privilege of being American. Happy Memorial Day.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/29/2007 06:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Given that each pardoned illegal with z standing can sponsor four members of his/her family, why not just short cut the process and annex Mexico now. They instantly become American citizens, solves that issue. Might as well get access to the resources and hammer the drug lords directly rather than just getting stuck with all the welfare cases and the throw aways of the society. It's not like an honest person could argue that we should respect Mexico's sovereignty when the expect us to surrender ours.
#5
...why not just short cut the process and annex Mexico now.
Annex Canada too, please.
Well...be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. This is exactly what the North American Union idiots are trying to sneak past the American people.
If it happens, it won't be America anymore, and you do not want the problems that will come with annexing Mexico. Build the wall, and force them to leave by cutting off the flow of goodies.
Posted by: Natural Law ||
05/29/2007 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
Last week, the Lebanese army attacked a squalid Palestinian refugee camp that's become infested with Islamist suicide terrorists and guerilla fighters. On May 20, government troops surrounded the camp, with tanks and artillery pieces shelling it at close range. Army snipers gunned down anything that moved. At least 18 civilians were killed, and dozens more injured. Water and electricity were cut off. By week's end, much of the camp had been turned into deserted rubble. Thousands of terrified residents fleeing the camp reported harrowing stories of famished, parched families trapped in their basements.
How did the rest of the world react? The Arab League quickly condemned "the criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam," and vowed to "give its full support to the efforts of the army and the Lebanese government." EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also condemned Fatah al-Islam, and declared Europe's "support" for Lebanon. And the UN Security Council called the actions of Fatah al-Islam "an unacceptable attack" on Lebanon's sovereignty. As for the Western media, most outlets ignored the story following the first flurry of news reports.
At this point, please indulge me by re-reading the first paragraph of this column -- except this time, substitute the world "Israeli" for "Lebanese" in the first sentence. Let's imagine what the world's reaction would be if the ongoing siege were taking place in Gaza or the West Bank instead of the Nahr al Bared refugee camp on the outskirts of Tripoli, Lebanon.
What's with Al Gore and his book called "Assault on Reason"? David Brooks thinks he has "a bizarre view of human nature." (TimesSelect link.)
Gore seems to have come up with a theory that the upper, logical mind sits on top of, and should master, the primitive and more emotional mind below. He thinks this can be done through a technical process that minimizes information flow to the lower brain and maximizes information flow to the higher brain.
The reality, of course, is that there is no neat distinction between the higher and lower parts of the brain. There are no neat distinctions between the rational mind and the visceral body. The mind is a much more complex network of feedback loops than accounted for in Gores simplistic pseudoscience.
Without emotions like fear, the logical mind cant reach conclusions. On the other hand, many of the most vicious, genocidal acts are committed by people who are emotionally numb, not passionately out of control.
So, ironically, it is Gore himself who is being irrational -- according to Brooks.
But wait. Does Gore actually believe in this unscientific view of the human mind? Is the point of this book to wake us up and make us see that we've been manipulated by the media?
The other way of looking at the problem Brooks points out is that Gore is being quite rational, he understands very well that emotion and reason are intertwined, and he is using talk about rationality to manipulate our emotions. I think the use of that scary word "assault" in the title gives it away.
Be very afraid. Evil people want to control you -- assault you! --with invisible forces that play upon parts of your body that are beyond your conscious thought. I will protect you with this magical substance I have called Reason. Come to me. I will save you.
Two comments:
1. Odd that AlGore should be such a champion or rationality, considering that he's making his name these days as the leader of the all-too-irrational cult of global warming.
2. I've read comments by some of the writers of the original Trek on the character of Spock (Yep, he's a fanboy!--Ed.), and the character came out the way he did in part to fulfil a particular dramatic function, and in part because the actor (Leonard Nimoy) acted in a deliberately alien fashion to set him apart from the rest of the ensemble. Spock was supposed to be symbolic of rationality, just as McCoy was supposed to be symbolic of emotion. Their function in storytelling was be the exposition of Captain Kirk's internal thought processes--the captain would ask both for advice, and their conversation with the captain would dramatize the captain's decision-making.*
One of the writers (I think it was David Gerrold) said that while the Vulcans were portrayed as thinking themselves superior to the rest of us, their hyper-rationality actually made them inferior. I think that's right. History has shown that rationality without compassion leads to eugenics and all sorts of other nastiness.
The upshot of it is that Spock wasn't intended as a model for the next step in human evolution, and shouldn't be held up as such. I don't know how someone as irrational as AlGore could lead us to that promised land even if it were somewhere we really wanted to go.
*-Because of this dramatic necessity, both Spock and McCoy were unbalanced personalities. McCoy was over-emotional to the same degree that Spock was under-emotional.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/29/2007 14:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting bit about Star Trek, but... I'm very confused... as until reading this, I never realized this was a fictional serie, I thought it was a documentary, just like Mission Impossible or The avengers.
#3
Obviously Gore et al missed the entire arc of the Enterprise series. Vulcan intrigue and plots abound along with treaty violations, repression of dissidents, clandestine alliances with Romulan interlopers and an attempted administrative coup d'etat. Nothing that would make a Donk blink, but well short of the pinnacle of virtue.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
