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

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.

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

13 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

In your previous post, you very clearly stated that you wish to go to war against countries that refuse to close their mosques and change their street names. I'm asking about the purpose of THOSE wars. Who would you like to kill in those wars, that you wish to fight over the existence of mosques?

13 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

Nazism wasn't a 1300 year old religion held by 1.6 billion people, it was a short-lived political ideology, and de-nazification was done by FREE western countries, by introducing FREEDOM to Germany and Austria. Exactly the opposite method to the one you're suggesting.

The notion that you can end a religion by temporarily closing down its churches through totalitarian tactics has been tested and proven false many times through the past 2000 years. So that plan definitely wouldn't work. Muslims would worship in secret, and Islam would come back stronger than ever as soon as your "temporary" dictatorship magically ends. Though I've never seen a dictatorship magically end before, they tend to end through violent uprising...if at all.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you propose to resolve the contradiction of individuals who have their own religions, such as the various lineages of Christianity, Judaism, and others. Holding religion as a value, as good, but here's one that isn't—would be akin to all men are mortal, here's one that isn't. Such reasoning doesn't work because it results in a contradiction, the latter more-so obvious than the former.

Sure, books and information such as Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not A Muslim makes a pretty compelling case for those who are seeking to understand Islam's history and implications. But such an estimation puts you in a minority point of view. A few lone voices crying out in a wilderness. Others look at you wandering in the wilderness and wonder why you've wandered so far off the beaten path. Islam is another religion, and religion, while it may be irrational in some ways, is essentially good. It gives you ethical moorings to respect life and do the right thing. Yet, you're calling out for what amounts to just shy of genocide, for the crime of belonging to a tribe, the tribe of Islam. What's wrong with belonging to a tribe though? Don't we all have our tribes: our families, our churches, our communities, our states, our countries?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
for crispness and clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Dreamweaver, was denazification genocide or "just shy of genocide", yes or no?

Denazification wasn't anything like what you're proposing. You're using a false analogy. Denazification wasn't "just shy of genocide". What you are proposing isn't just shy of genocide either, you're proposing actual genocide. You spelled it out very clearly, you wish to go to war with Muslims, until they stop being Muslims.

And it's pretty obvious that Muslims would only stop being Muslims if they're all murdered. It's obvious to everyone, including you. You're just too dishonest to actually admit what you really mean by "de-islamification".

11 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

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.

It's too bad that your only argument is a false analogy, in the face of overwhelming evidence that your suggestions are insane and contradictory.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dustin86, It's hard to resist a "psychologizing" response to your posts, because the underlying psychology virtually leaps off the page. But, I'm resisting for now.

Here's your epistemological error:

  1. Start with a concept (the philosophy and pratices of certain  people who say they practice Islam) by looking at certain things or people in the real world
  2. Investigate the etymological root of the term (Islam) and conclude that their concept is closest to the original concept
  3. Then find that other people use the same term for a different philosophy
  4. Insist that these other people do not actually follow the philosophy they do, because they use the term which you have concluded stands for a different concept of philosophy. In other words, you group multiple concepts into a single mis-integrated concept. By doing so, you ignore reality

Generically, when we look at the real world, we have to understand it by the use of concepts. We must analyse reality and then synthesize it into concepts. If we have too many concepts or too few, we will miss vital knowledge.

 

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

Denazification wasn't anything like what you're proposing. You're using a false analogy.

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.)

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

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.)

But what is deislamification and why is it necessary?  I don't think it's proper to essentially make a religion illegal.  

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

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.)

AGAIN: arguing by analogy is irrational. Denazification worked, therefor deislamisation will too is not a logical argument.

Why is that basic statement about logic so hard to understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2016 at 9:06 PM, Dustin86 said:

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.

I was saying fascist because what you're thinking of I don't think is different from how fascism operates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism_and_racism

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dustin86,

As of this post, there are 419 reads divided  across 37 posts. While not exact, it amounts to roughly 11 people following up on the topic when something new is observed. If you take it a level deeper, you can subtract the 5 people regularly responding to you in this thread.

Add to this the 5-6000 people that consider themselves to be Objectivists.

On top of that, you need to also keep in mind that Objectivism is primarily a philosophy for living life here and now, i.e., primarily for the individual qua individual. Your altruistic plea in your previous post is not likely to be very enrolling. Add to that a sprinkle of goading along the lines of: Not with Liberal and Objectivist namby-pamby waffling and atomized individualism., and you'll be sure to rank right up there with Casey Kasem counting down the top 40 compelling reasons to join you in beating the war drums.

Rand does extend her appeal to a class she identifies as 'The New Intellectuals, stating to the effect in The Romantic Manifesto: “Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.” However, she does not delineate to (or preclude from) such a fight as the elimination of Islam.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2016 at 4:25 PM, dream_weaver said:

The Ayn Rand Lexicon also has some entries on Fascism/Nazism.

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not meaning to cause anyone any "trouble" here, but this is as entertaining as it is enlightening; the exposing of the inner workings of the mind of Dustin86, in a word: fascinating.

On 5/12/2016 at 7:48 PM, Dustin86 said:

 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.

1) De-Nazification was never a complete success. Many people, both in Europe and North America, uphold some of the most radical beliefs of Nazism. For some, a less radical belief is preferred.

2) Dustin86, you are indeed advocating genocide.

 No one gives up their religious or ideological beliefs involuntarily. Draw your own conclusions.

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

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.

My link was only intended to clarify Miss Rand's use of the term Fascism. As you observed for yourself, and I would concur, does not apply as a proper categorization. I would disagree with you that I have called you a fascist, although I could have presented the link as a better contrast to the Wikipedia reference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

^This video is the real deal, guys. Now you have three choices. You can be part of our collective, or you can be part of their collective, or you can be trampled underfoot by their collective. Randian individualism is not going to be a choice in the future. I hope you make the right choice, guys. I really do.

Edited by Dustin86
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, just go after the actual people who say actually bad things, and supporters of those people. To just think "muslim" is a sufficient label would require tactics employed by actual fascists of history. The methodology you speak of is intuitive, feeling that your culture is threatened, resorting to a collective fascisti in a world of strife and perpetual conflict. So then I'd point to fascist Italy and ask "did that work?" Or I'd ask "what would be different". To be sure, strength of words are important, vocal condemnation, and elimination of people who literally call for your death. But it is irrational to attempt to go after and eliminate people for sharing a superficial name. You'd get bogged down by surveillance, going after people who aren't threats, and all sorts of goose chases. It's a distraction from -actual- threats.

But if you're only here to preach about this version of fascism, well, that's not what this forum is for.

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

^This video is the real deal, guys.

Anyone paying attention knows that fundamentalist Islamic groups dream of restoring the imperial Caliphate, or that mullahs established an Islamic dictatorial government in Iran after throwing out the Shah, or that the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban could well rule Afghanistan again one day. Or, that ISIS is managing to hold on to significant towns in Iraq and Syria. Sites like MEMRI are very useful in making the evil concrete.

But, your type of fear is actually debilitating. If you think about this clearly, instead of cowering in fear and screaming that we should over-react, you'll see that more intelligent and moral options are available.

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

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 missed this before.

I agree, you did not advocate that part about fascism. From what Rand wrote, and the cited definition, that's only one "pillar" of fascism - corporatism. But from my understanding, you are advocating a number of fascist policies and some of its philosophical beliefs (the perpetual strife part I got from comments you made in another thread). So it's different from Italian fascism specifically, albeit I'm saying collective defense of a culture is necessarily nationalistic, that is, you are unifying under a cultural identity first. A call for unification under a banner of Western values is nationalistic, where all those who identify as muslim are enemies, as opposed to an appeal to reason towards non rights violators and combating rights violators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Obama, an Unexpected Legacy of Two Full Terms at War

President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.

If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

President Obama counters one contradiction with another. First, of campaign promises contrasted against the realities of governing. Secondly, that war is sometimes necessary contrasted against war at some level is an expression of human folly.

Like it or not, American troops have been and still are involved and in ways that have "made the administration’s argument that the Americans were only advising and assisting Iraqi forces seem ever less plausible." Strikes have been approved "against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where [t]his administration has taken military action."

So while the OP deals with Why the P.C. Establishment is So Happy over London's New Mayor, there is also a level of embarrassment, on the P.C. Establishment's behalf, that current U.S. involvement has not been held to just the level of advising and assisting Iraqi forces.

From The Roots of War in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war.

Statism, as a form of collectivism or tribalism, is the antithesis to individualism. From the same source:

If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged "good" can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.

The conflict between Western Ideology and Islam is the conflict between rationality and irrationality. Rationality is a learned skill. Irrationality is the default which takes place in the vacuum produced by the absence of such learning. One way to ensure perpetual war is to refrain from identifying and implementing a rational education in favor of a seemingly endless supply of irrational enemies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2016 at 3:23 PM, Dustin86 said:

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!)

Dustin86,

In this, and other threads, you've claimed that Objectivism is a cause of, in this thread, the expansion of Islam, radical or moderate, and on another thread, a cause of violent revolution. You have failed to make a rational argument for either case. The others posting responses to your assertions have done a more than adequate job of rebuking your ideas.

Throughout this discussion, you've held to the notion that to restrain from forceful opposition against Islam is collaboration with Islam. (How am I doing so far?) For a fact, most Muslims living in the United States are more interested in providing a better future for their children, and less interested in changing the world to meet the ideals of Sharia/Islam. The mere fact that so many peoples of other religious faiths have over the generations integrated and assimilated into Western culture gives me enough evidence to believe that most Muslim children will be less devote Muslims one day. The few Muslims I've come to know have little ambition other than pursuing their professions, owning and  operating convenience stores, and raising their families in an environment of opportunity. The forces of Western influence are not by any means necessarily our military or missionary powers. Rather, it is the comfort provided through diverse industrial expansion and trade, i.e., capitalism. Objectivism is an extreme philosophy which advocates for capitalism. Objectivism may be interpreted in a variety of ways, as you can see from some of the arguments on this forum, but free-market solutions to complex problems are usually the approved method of the majority of Objectivists. Capitalism, not necessarily Objectivism, best describes the political process with which the West interacts best with predominately Muslim nations.

18 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

 Now you have three choices. You can be part of our collective, or you can be part of their collective, or you can be trampled underfoot by their collective. Randian individualism is not going to be a choice in the future. I hope you make the right choice, guys. I really do.

This is a false set of alternatives. Engaging in trade with allies, and improved policing practices and trade embargoes against terrorist threats, is the more likely alternative for the future.

On 5/14/2016 at 10:14 PM, Dustin86 said:

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.

The institutions of individualism and free-expression in the West is not always understood in the East. (I get the impression that many in the West, including you, have challenges with understanding individualism.) Yet, the ideas of Western freedom are gradually influencing Muslim societies, but not fast enough. To your claim that Muslim women seek liberation from Islam, the evidence does not support it. Muslim women adamantly reserve their right to wear Muslim clothing in public. And while I have no way of knowing what goes on in their minds, it is most likely they hold to the beliefs of their fathers, husbands, and sons of their own volition. I wish this wasn't so, but I have no control over such things. Neither do you. If reason is to have a place in the shaping of new values in the East, launching a campaign of anti-Islam across the vast expanses of the world would be nothing less than a disaster. 

I have a question regarding your plan for a collective global anti-Islamic coalition. Have you ever served in any branch of the military? Specifically, do you have any direct experience combating Jihadi militants? (In the spirit of fairness, I will state that I have never been in military service. But neither have I ever accused anyone of being a namby-pamby-Hanoi-Jane.)

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...