Dustin86

All you people crying "genocide" I truly don't think you understand. It is Islam or us. Now you can either be a Hanoi Jane, crying "genocide" in defense of the genociders, or you can fight along with the civilized peoples of the world against this dire threat.

You and others like you keep calling me a fascist, but after reading that link I can see absolutely no connection between me and real actual fascism according to that definition which I'm assuming Objectivists go by. I do not want to take people's businesses away, nor leave them with none of the rights only the responsibilities of ownership. I never mentioned businesses once. I also don't understand the connection between me and nationalism (fascists are supposedly nationalistic, according to your definition). Deislamization is to be a global undertaking of civilized peoples across the globe, of all races and nationalities, against the dark barbarity of Islam wherever in the globe it resides and against whatever governments support it.

There's a supposition here that most Muslims actually want Islam, rather than the truth which is that the vast majority of them are really trapped within Islam. It is a cult that most of them are actually trapped inside because of the very real fear of violence against "apostates". This is especially true for Muslim women. What self-respecting woman would want to be part of a religion where her testimony is worth half a man's? Where wife-beating is accepted? Where she is consistently turned into a lesser being in the public sphere? The answer is none, so that's 51% of the Muslim population right there, an outright majority, before we even begin counting the men. So really, even the majority of the Muslim population will consider deislamization as liberation. Really the only losers will be the cult leaders.

No, I'm not proposing anything even as far as denazification. That involved collective punishment after the fact. I am merely talking about the mere removal of Islam, not a removal plus collective punishment, as German denazification was. But if the Germans had started fighting again as a result of denazification in order to preserve Nazism, the United States would have renewed the war, yes. So yes, we will wage war if there is violent resistance to deislamification. " Too many people here and in England hold the view that the German people as a whole are not responsible for what has taken place – that only a few Nazis are responsible. That unfortunately is not based on fact. The German people must have it driven home to them that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilization." (--Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is the attitude that informed denazification.)

Dreamweaver, was denazification genocide or "just shy of genocide", yes or no? The world's religious communities cannot coexist with a "religion" that wants to convert them or kill them. You cannot scream "genocide!" on someone's behalf when their aim is to convert or genocide everyone else in the world. You can only remove their genocidal philosophy. That was the aim of denazification, and so it will be the aim of deislamization.

Nicky, you obviously don't know very much about denazification. You talk of it as if the Allies simply opened a big ol' bucket o' freedom over Germany. The truth is that the German population was held collectively responsible for things such as the Holocaust and really the war itself and was treated as such. Here is some actual video from the time to clue you in to the reality. Now, I'm not even suggesting going this far. I'm not suggesting holding the entire Muslim population collectively responsible for Islamic terror as we held the entire German population collectively responsible for Nazi terror in 1945. But I am demanding the removal of Islam, just as the removal of Nazism was effected in 1945-46. Now, as for your point about it now being a 1,300 year old religion with 1.6 billion adherents, well that's just too bad. Somebody should have done something about it when it was a 10 year old so called "religion" with 60 adherents, *but they didn't*. So we are left to deal with the results. And we have the choice of either dealing with them now, or submitting to what will be the inevitable Islamic/Sharia takeover.

Eiuol, the last thing I want people to think I am is a coward afraid to get in trouble. I wish I had never mentioned it; I only mentioned it pursuant to a specific person whose sole purpose in this conversation and perhaps also others appears to be to get me in trouble rather than to hold a sincere conversation. I have been called a "fascist" many times in my life, and have gotten in far worse trouble over my supposed "fascism" than a ban from an online forum. Given that, I am now going to ask does this forum have a block user function and how do I access it.

Nicky, "problem is over" means the successful completion of steps 1-3 on the list on my last post. When the states funding the terror are brought low and Islam itself is brought low, the terror will cease. But it will not cease until then. I am not about hunting down every single Muslim, or any individual Muslim for that matter, except those directly guilty of funding terror organizations or aiding, abetting, or carrying out terror attacks. What I am about is removing Islam's position as a major world religion and removing its ability to act on the world stage. It's like denazification in defeated Germany and Austria, and for the exact same purpose. Nicky, ideally I would like no war. Ideally I would like this to all happen without a shot being fired. But like the United States in 1945, I am willing to use war if deislamization does not happen peacefully.

I am tired of being mocked over supposed "fear of getting into trouble". I don't have such fear, it's just that I was unwilling to have a conversation with someone whose sole purpose in the conversation appears to be to get me into trouble. I already provided the answer. If my provision was not clear enough, I will provide it step by step. 1.) Temporary reorganization of Western countries from liberal individualist democracies into organic collectives overseen by temporary military governments that shall govern until the problem is over. 2.) The shutting of all mosques and "Sharia courts" in Western countries. 3.) An ultimatum delivered to all Muslim countries that within one month they remove all Sharia Law and "Sharia courts" in their own countries, that any Muslim "holy cities" such as Mecca and Medina become closed to all "Muslim pilgrims", that they remove "Islam" from all city names, all street names, that they close all mosques, that they remove all references to "Islam" in all government recognitions, that they abandon Islam as their state religion if it is their state religion by law, etc., and that we will be sending inspectors in a month to check that this has happened. The result of failure to abide by this will be war. This should have been done the day after 9/11. The ultimate alternative is a Muslim takeover and Sharia Law in our own countries.

I honestly don't care if you call me a "racist". The right wing in this country, which includes me, is getting so inured, so exhausted, of "racism and racists"™ that it doesn't have nearly the fear ability that it once had. (Witness how the media calling Trump a racist only led to his growth in popularity. BTW I am not a Trump fan.) I do believe that Islam must be stopped, that Islam, with the creation of organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and ISIS, with the endless list of terror attacks (9/11, 7/7, the recent attacks in France and Belgium, etc., etc., etc.), has declared total war against the rest of the world. Western nations must thus fight against Islam with a unified collective front waging total war. Not with Liberal and Objectivist namby-pamby waffling and atomized individualism.

I'm not afraid to get in trouble per se, I've gotten in much worse trouble many times for my beliefs than a ban from an online forum, but I'm not willing to have a conversation with somebody whose sole purpose in the conversation appears to be to get me in trouble. JFTR: No, I never said Objectivists called me a racist. I said: Those were my exact words. There is no "I" or "me" in there anywhere.

No, because I don't think you're so much interested in a serious conversation as in tricking me into saying something "bad" and getting me in trouble with the mods on this forum and perhaps other people as well. "Secret position" "Don't sugar coat it" "Sign your name under it" and the like.

Yes, it is with a heavy heart that I must say that some form of temporary militarization of society, under a temporary military government, will probably be necessary to deal with the Islamic threat. The alternative is a permanent Muslim takeover and permanent Sharia law.

Very well. My position is that Islam is savagery. It is the final, hysterical conclusion of Judeo-Christo-Islam, far more virulent than the preceding two. Even a cursory look at all the violent parts of their so-called "holy book" will confirm this. I am not a nationalist by any means, however I do realize that one person alone cannot face the Islamic threat. That is why people need togetherness and interconnectedness right now to face this threat. Specifically people in places like France and Britain where that threat is daily growing. I am not sure that's what you wanted, but that is my honest position.

Which posts?

Is this for real? Objectivists are always calling people "racists" if they have any measure of interconnectedness, peoplehood, and unity against a common threat such as Islam. The selfishness of the modern West has paved the way for the Islamic takeover.

Doctor, you are not understanding. Objectivism is a cause, not a cure, of what you are talking about. What the British people need now is interconnectedness, peoplehood, not individualism, not Objectivism. Individualism and Objectivism lead to the attitude of "who cares if the mayor is Muslim?" (Because everybody's just an atomized individual, anyway!)

Would it be just like informed consent for any other medical procedure, like a spinal tap for instance, or would it be something different?

Well Reidy I don't need legalese, just plain english. In plain English, could you detail basically what "informed consent" to a doctor assisted suicide like in the situation I describe would entail under an Objectivist system, and sketch briefly what the laws governing it would be.

I'm just curious, does Dr. Hurd read this forum and have an account on this forum, or does he not read this forum at all and his articles just get "reblogged" onto here.

Reidy, could you please expand upon exactly what you mean by "informed consent" and what the "laws spelling out just what this is" would actually be?

Doctor, my parents are just like you. I had great hopes for my life once, and I did have steady employment at a salaried grad student research job for 2 1/2 years. Then my health fell apart. I began feeling neurological, multiple sclerosis-like symptoms that eventually went away. No multiple sclerosis was ever found in my brain or spine or anywhere else, it was never found out by medical professionals exactly what went wrong with me, but I am still left with unpredictable, highly variable pain in my right wrist and forearm as well as my right foot which goes up and down unpredictably from being mild to being too excruciating to work. It is completely unpredictable, leaving me unable to hold a steady job that "pays my way" any longer. I ask you and every other Objectivist on this forum whether you would support a law enabling hurdle-free no-questions-asked doctor assisted suicide for people like me should the people with the money such as parents decide to "cut us off". Indeed also people without any medical issue but who just don't want to be in the rat race. Would you support that law, yes or no?

Okay doctor, I have a question for you. I take it you are an Objectivist: what if you are this son, and you simply don't want to participate in the rat race for one reason or another, and this parent takes your advice and is about to kick you out like you suggest, and you would rather commit suicide than participate in the rat race. Would you as an Objectivist support a law where this son could go to get medical-assisted suicide that is painless as possible. Sort of like the "Swiss option" but without any of the hurdles, open to anybody who just doesn't want to live anymore for one reason or another, regardless of whether they have major, minor, or no documented medical problems?

The reason why I bother is that "progressivist" ideologies such as the Founding Fathers' ideology, Objectivism (which is really just an expansion of the former), and Marxism lead to violent revolutions such as the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Soviet Revolution in which thousands or even millions of people are murdered, countless amounts of property is destroyed, and the human race receives nothing in return for the murders and destructions. Therefore, when people begin believing in these ideologies, I feel that it is the job of people like me to talk them down through reasoned arguments before the ideology spreads too far and it is too late and a violent revolution is the result.