The Trouble with Islam

According to Robert Spencer, the problem with Islam is not “radical” Islam, for which an imagined “moderate” Islam is the solution, but Islam itself. While that may be true in the Islamic world, it is not what threatens us.

The problem with Islam for the West is the West. The dhimmytude that allows wahhabist countries to fund Islamic organisations in the West, that allows Muslims to impose religious demands on public places and that refuses to prosecute and punish Islamic violence.

I don’t know the English equivalent, but we have a saying ‘gentle doctors make stinking wounds‘ and true enough, the ‘gentle doctors’ appeasing Islam are creating increasingly serious infections.

Just a few days ago we had a Moroccan enter a police station, jump over the front desk and stab the policewoman on duty in the chest. She fled and got stabbed in the back, twice. A male collegue that came to her rescue got stabbed in the neck and shoulder. By that time, the policewoman had her gun out and shot the guy. Care to guess the newspaper headlines?

"Policewoman shoots and kills boy at police station"
"Victim stabs two police officers and dies in cuffs"

How’s that, eh? The victim is a ‘Policewoman’ while the perp is a 'boy' and the ‘victim’. They kept the perp’s identity hidden but sent Moroccan 'neighborhood fathers' out into the neighborhood, which told us something. The guy was a known offender, had already stabbed someone with a screwdriver earlier and was under ’successful treatment’ for mental problems (and yet his prints 'could not be identified'). A day earlier we had a Turkish schoolboy stab and kill a Moroccan classmate over a pen.

There are more and more signs Eurabia is on the verge of a civil war. Half the police is fed up with the soft approach, while the other half wants to continue the ‘dialogue’, and Islamic scum laugh their asses off at these softies. Why should we tolerate what their own Islamic homeland won’t even tolerate? How about the Ted Nugent approach?

Dutch (and French) citizens are being delivered to Eurabia without having a say in it, while having voted a clear NO only two years ago. But the flag and the song have been taken out of the constitution, which is enough to negate that NO, according to Dutch godfather Balkenende (I must be careful not to offend the mob here, as I truly think the mob have more of a moral code than the Dutch government).

While our MP pipes he’s so great for taken the flag and song out he issued a directive yesterday that the EU flag will from now on be part of flagging protocol. So while it’s not official anymore in the EU constitution, it’s now official by rule. If only they could be punished for their crimes. But they’re above the law, and even if they weren’t, you probably could not find a judge that would condemn them. The EU wants to impose another 20 million Muslims on Europe, cultural suicide and Caucasian genocide.

And it’s all ‘democratic’, like Hitler was ‘democratic’ and Chavez is ‘democratic’. Problem is we’re not allowed to have guns, so we don’t have them, and even if we obtain them, we’re untrained to use them properly and effectively. So as long as the violence threat to the dhimmycrats in power is not coming from Islam, they know to be pretty safe in continuing their evil ways. But none of these dhimmycrats live in Islamic neighborhoods themselves…

They still (purport to) see no danger, well, sleep on, except someday they will be woken up.

It Isn't Easy Being Green

It is no surprise to find environmentalists condemning consumers who "buy green"--because, at root, environmentalists are against buying anything.

By Keith Lockitch

It isn't news that environmentalism has gone mainstream in a big way--with organic food in every grocery store, hybrid cars on every freeway, and every mass-market magazine declaring green the "new black." More than ever before, consumers are buying into environmentalist ideology--and buying products that purport to impact nature less, in order to impact nature less.

One would think that serious environmentalists would be thrilled about this trend--thrilled that the public seems willing to take ecological marching orders and do its duty to the planet. But they aren't: A backlash against "buying green" has arisen in environmentalist circles, with critics disparaging the new eco-consumers as "light greens," and condemning the "Cosmo-izing of the green movement."

Surprising? Not really. Not if one grasps the deeper meaning of environmentalism.

Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices--like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins--but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of "society." People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the "greater good." And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not--on this view--be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Though environmentalists will often claim to be opposed to merely "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources, their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. The environmentalist goal of "preserving nature" unavoidably conflicts with the requirements of human life: Man's basic means of survival is to reshape nature to serve his ends, to take the raw materials of his environment and use them to produce values. But this requires "touching" nature, not leaving it untouched. Even organic crops require land and water and energy; even hybrid cars are built of metal and plastic and glass, and use up fuel. All human activity, on whatever scale, violates the environmentalist injunction to "leave nature alone."

This is why it is no surprise that environmentalist leaders would condemn "buying green" as a consumer trend. Says Michael Ableman, an organic farmer and environmental author: "The assumption that by buying anything, whether green or not, we're solving the problem is a misperception. Consuming is a significant part of the problem to begin with." In other words, the very act of consuming--i.e., pursuing material values in support of our lives--is a "problem."

Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.

Anyone who thinks that it's easy being "green"--that "eco-chic" is consistent with the principles of environmentalism--had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping bring into power. Environmentalists' call for minor sacrifices for the sake of some undefined "greater good" is the first stage in their call for sacrifice as such, for no human benefit whatsoever.

If environmentalists are now confident enough to start attacking "buying green" as superficial and hypocritical, we had better take them at their word and stop buying anything they have to sell, especially their poisonous ideology.

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Reproduced with permission from the Ayn Rand Institute - Dutch Concerns

More Pat Condell

No comments required here. Pat Condell has a way with words I could never equal. So I won't even try.

The Myth of Islamophobia


More Demands from Islam

Pat Condell on Islam

Pat Condell is an English standup comedian, who has a very clear and politically incorrect view on Islam and what happened in Brussels on 9/11 this year. I must say, I do like his choice of words...

The Trouble with Islam


Islam in Europe