Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Why the P.C. Establishment Is So Happy Over London’s New Muslim Mayor

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Anxious to visit London? Or maybe move there?

You should be excited. London has elected it first Muslim mayor. Hooray!

The politically correct are beside themselves with glee. New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio reportedly was the first to congratulate Sadiq Khan on his victory.

But what exactly is the victory?

Even if you assume it’s racist to question proponents of this violent political-religious ideology (it isn’t, because ideology is a choice), it’s still unclear how London benefits from having a Muslim mayor as opposed to, say, a Christian mayor, an agnostic mayor or a Jewish mayor.

It seems to me that the people celebrating the election of a Muslim mayor are happy over having satisfied a point. The problem is: They won’t admit exactly what that point is.

The types of people who celebrate this sort of thing are usually the same ones who want a weak foreign and defense policy, a weak economy (to make nasty, poor Islamic countries look better) and an acceleration in the decline of Western civilization, whose economic prosperity and diversity of lifestyles seems to be what throws so many Muslims into a rage in the first place.

I read that this new mayor bragged, in an interview, that he supports things like gay marriage and faced death threats for his courage. If this is true — if this new Muslim political figure is not only “moderate” but actually quite liberal, especially by Islamic standards — then what will his supporters say when the death threats start to escalate? What if militant Islamic terrorists go after him? What if they eventually kill him? Will apologists for Islam continue to claim, “Well, it’s not about religion, and it’s hate speech for you to even suggest otherwise”?

This will really be interesting.

If moderate and liberal Muslims are really so prevalent, then London’s new mayor has a fantastic opportunity to educate the narrow-minded as to what Islam is really about. And while he’s at it, he can use the bully pulpit of his new office to morally condemn those who threaten to kill millions of innocent people in his religion’s name, having already killed thousands in Jihad.

It will be interesting to see if Khan does this. And, if he does, it will be interesting to see what the politically correct apologists for Islam have to say about it. Will they consider him a self-hating Muslim? And if they applaud his criticism of people who practice brutality in his religion’s name, then why will they not applaud others who criticize that same brutality?

My hypothesis? It’s not really Islam that the politically correct are defending. And it’s not really bigotry they’re after. What they hate are countries who have managed to achieve greatness. Yes, progressives hate their own countries. Instead of simply moving to rotten, poor and nasty places like Iran or Cuba, they live in the comfort and relative freedom of America and spend all of their time complaining about how bad America is. They have to atone for their guilt or hostility to their own home country somehow, right?

Progressive leftism is all about chopping down the “tall poppies.” Those who excel make those who don’t excel look bad. America is the biggest “tall poppy” the world has ever known. Great Britain, including London, has been one of the great high points of civilization, too. This makes leftists really, really angry, because they cannot stand anything being unequal. Just like it makes most Muslims really, really angry to see people believe or practice things in opposition to their most narrow-minded, restrictive and repressive of primitive philosophies. Khan is the perfect saint of progressivism: He hates income  inequality, and he’s Muslim. A one-two punch!

Islam and p.c. leftism have a lot in common. They both hate America, and anything resembling America, such as Great Britain’s London. This is the reason, if you ask me, that leftists want Islam to flourish. And this is why they’re all so fired up that London has elected a Muslim mayor. Now watch what happens when advocates of Islam–always true to their faith–put London’s new mayor to the test.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd is now a Newsmax Insider! Check out his new column here.

The post Why the P.C. Establishment Is So Happy Over London’s New Muslim Mayor appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd like to request that everyone tone down their rhetoric, if possible. Stick to discussing the ideas (odious though they may be) and refrain from trying to diagnose one another or insult. Thank

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!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand's identification of the hatred for the good for being good, has been one of the more difficult elements, for me, to gain insights into.

While the inherent contradiction of egalitarianism might bring about an unraveling, without a proper method of integration to take its place, the result would be Balkinization.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Why would individualism, esp. individuals using an objective method of identification of the facts and factors that can influence individualism in positive or negative ways, lead to an attitude of "who cares if the mayor is Muslim"?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

You completely misunderstood the reason why Objectivists call you racist. It's not because you wish to fight a common threat:

Objectivism is 100% in favor of people uniting against threats...as long as those threats have been identified objectively, and the methods being used to fight them are in concordance with the basic principles that make western societies free (such as freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and individual rights).

If you are a nationalist, white supremacist or Christian supremacist (from your posts, I assume you're one of those), the reason why Objectivists call you names is because your methods for identifying threats are irrational (in fact your very definition of a threat is irrational), and your suggestions for fighting them involve discarding the basic principles western freedom is based in.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Which posts?

We're not going to have a debate about whether or not I guessed your secret position that you're not willing to state clearly. Instead, here's what's gonna happen: you will state your position, or the conversation is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

No, it's not what I wanted. When someone tells me they wanna be together and interconnected, my next question is usually "your place or mine?".

I assume that's not it, you're not looking to have sex, so I'm at a loss: what does that mean? What do you want to do, specifically? You wanna force me to join the military? You want me to murder my Muslim friends? What is it that you would like me to do, as one half of this "togetherness against Islam" squad?

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

Ok, so you're just really, really bad at math. That's unfortunate, but there's no way someone called you a racist just for that. There has to be more.

How would having a temporary military government solve this imaginary math problem of yours? Please name the specific method by which you wish to turn many Muslims into fewer Muslims. Don't sugar coat it. Be brave. Type out the word. And sign your name under it.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

It says a lot that you're afraid to be honest. And you're right to be afraid, people who advocate mass murder are not well regarded in these circles...or any circle, outside a neo-Nazi rally.

But you wouldn't get in trouble with the mods over it. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just trying to point out the logical consequences of your beliefs to you, I have no desire to get you banned.

54 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

No, because I don't think you're so much interested in a serious conversation as in tricking me into saying something "bad".

This conversation started with you claiming that the reason why Objectivists are calling you a racist is because you wish for people to work together to defeat common threats. Since you made that statement, I "tricked you" into admitting that you advocate for a military dictatorship, you view the millions of Muslims living among us as threats that need to be dealt with through totalitarian methods, and that there's something even worse behind those beliefs, that you're not willing to share with us.

I'd say my "trickery" (my attempt to extract the true reason why Objectivists are calling you a racist out of you with a damn nail puller) has been working fine. I'm pretty much entitled to a q.e.d. on my original statement: your desire to "work together" isn't the reason why you've been called a racist.

And yeah, obviously: this is more like a Monty Python sketch than a serious conversation. I can already see it: a guy walking up to the camera in full Nazi regalia, executing a brisk Heil Hitler, and starting to complain about how people no longer have the kind of spirit of cooperation they used to in the good old days. Enter an unsuspecting passerby, who asks him a couple of innocent questions about the specifics of the aforementioned "cooperation", and we're in full "tanks on the streets, drag the brown people out of their houses, execute them in front of their children" mode. So no, it's not a serious conversation. Not on my end, anyway...I'm hoping it's not serious on yours either.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

7 hours ago, Nicky said:

This conversation started with you claiming that the reason why Objectivists are calling you a racist

JFTR: No, I never said Objectivists called me a racist. I said:

On 5/8/2016 at 1:35 AM, Dustin86 said:

Objectivists are always calling people "racists" if they have any measure of interconnectedness, peoplehood, and unity against a common threat such as Islam.

Those were my exact words. There is no "I" or "me" in there anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

Hence my post requesting clarification on the follwoing point, unless you'd rather be chasing and focusing on the "racist/collectivist" angle.

On 5/8/2016 at 9:36 AM, dream_weaver said:

Yes it was.

Beyond that, you have quite a spin on Objectivists and selfishness. I asked, in essence, why individualism would not be concerned with the character of the folk desiring governmental appointments.

 

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the extent of your belief preclude you from the creation of an organization, such as the DustBin86, for the purpose of eradicating anyone that wants to read the Koran and pray 5 times a day on a prescribed schedule, or would it be just against the individuals aligned with organizations such as you cited, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc.?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

I do believe that Islam must be stopped.

Yeah, you said that. About ten times now. But we keep asking HOW?, and so far, all you said about that is that the answer would get you in trouble. So you're refusing to say how. But you're upset that we're not willing to get together with you on that.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

Hate to keep harping on it, but "problem is over" doesn't answer the question either.  What does that mean? When is the problem over? When there are no Muslims left in the world? How would you go from a billion Muslims to no Muslims? In concrete terms.

1 hour ago, Dustin86 said:

The result of failure to abide by this will be war.

War against who? Specifically, who would you like to kill in this war?

Also, what about all the mosques in India, Russia and China? (I've seen a couple of especially beautiful ones in Moscow.) Would this ultimatum extend to those too?

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2016 at 11:07 AM, Dustin86 said:

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.

Other posts in other threads pretty strongly show that your political philosophy is a form of fascism. Perpetual conflict, needing a national type of unification against an enemy, and some other positions you have stated elsewhere here not related to politics. But you aren't in trouble for that at all, if for no other reason it seems you are amenable to discussion, appear interested, and are stating your understanding of reality so far.

I don't disagree with the above posters, so all I'm adding is the implication of your thinking as fascism here. Not as "it's bad, therefore fascism", but the politics you imagine is how fascism literally works, e.g. Fascist Italy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...