Rob Bradley

The suggestion that discrimitory immigration laws are immoral might hold some water in an Objectivist World. Otherwise it is the garden variety, vain piety that aquires virtue second hand, via the sacrifices of others; only the ethical frauduence could contrive to portray such restrictions as immoral. Nihistic moral inversion at its best. But it is not an Objectivist World. All were not admitted into Galt's Gulch and, while the US is no Objectivist Utopia, all should not be admitted into this country either. The idea that no judgement or standard be observed with regard to this is pure treason against the only hope this world has of any Objectivist values persisting, the United States. And on top of this we have the profoundly racist philosphy of the immigrants spear-heading this movement. Chants of "La Raza" reveal them to be racists and morally bankrupt. It is the exact same thing as chanting "White Power". Frankly, the IMAO satirical peice that any illegal alien waving their nation's flag is an invader breaching our sovreignity and should be shot on sight is not far from a rational response. They are proud of the socialist, canabistic, superstitious, sexist and hateful culture that impoverished them in the first place. We should be wary of those seeking entry into this nation. For instance, Chechen terrorist seeking to impose a Islamnic state should not be granted asylum, merely due to his refugee status. Mexican family should not be able to import their elderly and abandon them to the welfare system, even if the welfare system, like minimum wage, is immoral in the first place. An open door policy is the same as unilateral disarmament; treason comitted by those whos moral resolution is narcistic, intricist, and downright inverted. The bizzaro thing is that we really do not need any new legislative initiatives, just enforce what is already on the books. This knod and wink approach to immigration issues is the core problem here. We will make a law for political gain and not enforce it as a practical matter. The chickens of pragmatism have come home to roost. Tossing the rule of law out the window because evil minimium wage laws make it too expensive to have someone mow your lawn or clean your house is the same kind of pragmatism.

Aye, Captain, he did dismantle the democratic process once in power. (Although I find the distinction between his dismantling and a system where the party in power throws an election when ever the poll numbers are good to be a bit thin.) But I see in 20th centrury history that democracies have a disturbingly consistent track record of doing the very same thing. Academia would have us believe that Hitler is an exception when really, he was quite typical of how the "people" will make demands of their government that only be delivered by draconian action. This embrace of utilitarianism by the people is why Hitlers spring from democracies like Jacks in Boxes. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" chapter on why the worst ones always get into power shows very clearly the path from the people in democracies demanding bread and circuses to electing a totalitarian nightmare. One follows the other like night follows day. Rand, from what I have read, recognized the false dicotomy of a left/right distinction that resolved merely two extremes of collectivism. The only thing Hitler was ever "to the right of" was communism. For the most part, he was a garden variety socialist who allied himself with other socialists to fight the common enemy, capitalism. Depressingly, I believe that Tocville was right when he proclaimed that democracy could only be a temporary form of government that will collapse as soon as the people realize that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasure. (He was, of course, sugarcoating the truth which is "realize they can cannibalize their neighbors via the vote".) It was FDR that show the US people how the tap the veins of the nations most productive and valuable people. I am still proud of the US resistance to this inclination, but its progress down that slope is clear. All democracies are not just vunerable to this conversion to totalitarian state; they appear to be inclined to do it and constitutions seem incapable of preventing it. It took the Great Depression to spawn the monstrosity of Nazism out of an industrialized, seemingly rational nation that was Germany. In regions where the economy is in the toilet and the people are barely literate, the conversion will be instantaneous. When we let the people of the hook for these atrocities, these treasons against freedom and individual, that came directly from the philosophies they support, we miss the point. Further, we sanction it. Hitler was playing to the crowd and Miem Kaumph was his love letter to the German people. The Holocaust was the circus that the German people were demanding. The stars and tatoos were for the entertainment, amusement and catharsis of the German (and much of Europe) people was just the first act. The politics of Europe today is evidence that the soul of National Socialism is alive and well and merely operating under another names in benevolent conditions.

If a democratically elected, representative government positions Hitler (making him chancellor) to become prime minister then he did come into power via democratic processes. All parlementary democracies are vunerable to this. If a 40% party can create a coalition by aggreeing to things that there own constituents do not support but a 15% party wants, they will do it. Those opposed to the policies may very well amount to a majority. However, to say he was not elected almost denies the legitimacy all parlamentary actions. The big lie is the whitewashing of the Europeans historical role embracing all that National Socialism represents. I have always believed that Europe's opposition to the presence of Mien Kamph springs from the fact that it advocates all of the socialist philosphy that has become doctrine to the European moral values. They need to whitewash their current politics and having that particular historic piece advocating one's political views might be embarrassing. Replace the Jew's with capitalists, corporations or businessmen and you have the secular european's bible. Of course, nowadays, you do not even have to make the replacement. European policies toward Isreal amount to one thing: outsourcing the Final Solution to their Islamic friends in the middle east. The only difference between Socialists and National Socialists is the state of the economy.

An understanding of Islamic philosophy and history leads to the conclusion that draconian measures are needed. The only person in history to deal effectively with Moslems was Ghengis Khan. In every country where they are a majority, they oppress minorities. In most countries where they are a minority, they engage in terorism. In countries where they are a minority, it is a place where someone can nurture whatever hateful baggage that they bring to the table. While their total obliteration has problem, some understanding with respect to future terrorist activities must be reached with this international death cult that acts through these suicidal operatives. (And anyone who dances in the street or sits around the coffee house or dinner table romanticizing these terrorists is providing the funding or payoff: post mortem renown in the Moslem community. Concern over base of operations and funding tends to evade this issue.) This should be similar to the Mutually Assured Destruction (Unilaterally Assure Destruction) that effects the entire Islamic community. That, clearly, would be nuking Mecca if any of these freaks actually pull off a dirty bombing. One thing is certain, the effort to give these critters the gift of modern civilization is pointless; they are only fit live under brutal dictatorships and setting up a democracy is simply casting pearls at swine. It is our fault though, for pretending that this religion is the same as the other nuetered religions that clutter up this world. Of course, one would have to have a teeny tiny little mind to not realize all of this.