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

Coup d'Etat #2

This week, Dutch Prime Minister JP Balkenende announced his intention to perform the left's second coup inside 5,5 years. Just under 5,5 years ago, on May 6th, 2002, established election-winner Pim Fortuyn was killed by an extreme-left killer. The next coup was planned to happen shortly. Of course, only the bloggers complain, the MSM sides with the coalition, and even parliament takes no corrective action, although it claims to be 'outraged'.

The issue at hand is of course the EU constitution. In 2005, Balkenende signed the constitution, without awaiting the result of a referendum that was to be held on the subject. A campaign was launched to influence Dutch opinion favorably, (with a "No", I look like a fool", JPB said) and sure enough, Balkenende was made to look like the fool he was. As the French also said "No", other referenda were cancelled, as unanimity was no longer possible.

Now the EU constitution has been renamed, but according to JPB, it's no longer a constitution, so a new referendum is not required. Well, he's correct on the latter; it's the same thing under another name, and we already said "No" to it. But that's not JPB's reasoning. Not only the treaty has another name, but the Foreign Minister for the EU also has, and of course JPB managed to get the song and flag out of it. Big deal. But To JPB, this makes all the required changes so it can now be forced down our throat.

The PvdA (yes, them again) have always claimed to want a new referendum if the old one was deemed no longer valid, it was part of their 2006 election programme, it has been repeated over the past year and even their newly elected chairwoman has stated as recent as last Monday evening that the was in favor of a referendum. By that time, JPB had already blatantly stated that if legislation was drafted that demanded a referendum, he would overrule parliament and not sign the legislation, thus blocking the referendum. This is unconstitutional, and never heard of before. The US president can veto legislation, but the Dutch MP cannot. This is a coup.

In the mean time, the Dutch State Council already had advised that a referendum was unnecessary, as there were "no constitutional elements" present in the 'new' treaty. Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, however, had already warned the European public they were being betrayed: the 'new' treaty was just a renamed, reworded version of the same thing. He should know, as he wrote the first one. He was still in favor of it, and warned to European 'leaders' not to hold referenda, but he did not approve of the claims that it was an entirely different treaty.

Now PvdA has agreed not to hold a referendum, in exchange for keeping the current tight rules on firing people in business. Whatever the relation is between handing over one's sovereignty to Eurabia and the hiring and firing of people by local businesses is beyond me, but both steps are bad for the Netherlands. It has to be made easier to hire & fire staff, or else unemployment will stay unnecessarily high. But no, in exchange for Eurabia, we keep to be stuck with rigid and very costly firing rules. The PvdA obviously avoided the coup as well, as now no legislation will be drafted.

Rumour has it that JPB has threatened the PvdA with handing in his resignation if it kept insisting on a referendum. That would have meant the much welcomed collapse of government, and the demise of Islamist party PvdA in new elections. But they want to stay in power very desperately. So they continue to sell out to Eurabia and everybody else, as they always have been doing. Dutch government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the state by definition has to be a criminal organisation; this government certainly is.

I wrote on Dutch 'Democracy' before; well, it's officially down the drain now. Welcome to the Dutch provence of totalitarian Dictatorship Eurabia.

Dutchmen Don't Exist

At long last it has finally become clear why the Dutch government keeps claiming there's nothing wrong with replacing the Dutch society of (rapidly shrinking) freedom wit the 'culture' of Islam: Dutchmen don't exist. It's official now, as imported queen-to-be and national cuddle-immigrant Máxima has proclaimed such in a personal speech.

She spoke at the presentation of a report by the WRR, the Wetenschappelijk Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (Scientific Council for Government Policy), that doesn't have not a single scientist among its members, but has no lack of dhimmies. "In a globalising world, possession of multiple passports is more and more a given. Not only for 'New Dutchmen', but also for emigrating Dutchmen".

This is a blatant lie. Fact is that Dutch law does not allow multiple passports. If I were to obtain US citizenship, my Dutch citizenship would be cancelled immediately. Nevertheless, we have Turkish and Moroccan secretaries of state, that reside under foreign as well as Dutch law. The Turkish secretary of state cannot acknowledge the Armenian genocide, as she's punishable by Turkish law, and as Turkish citizen could no longer travel to Turkey for the threat of being arrested.

Nevertheless, if an immigrant gets to stay here but refuses to give up his old passport "because his country does not allow it", he ceremonially receives a Dutch passport and is welcomed as a Dutchman. The logical thing would be to deny him Dutch nationality, but the political correct attitude is that the immigrant cannot help it. Well, that's the immigrant's problem, isn't it. Our earlier mentioned Turkish broad can give up her Turkish passport, but openly refuses to. Still, she got a Dutch passport as well as to be secretary of state. Her sister is also involved in immigration policy. Dangerous (to NL) positions for people with foreign loyalties.

If a Dutchmen offers criticism of Islam, and of the demands that Islamists and Muslims make (separate swimming hours, female gyneacologists, mosques-with-whining, no biology lessons on pigs, the list goes on and on) he's islamofobic, xenofobic, racist and what else. An ex-chief of police openly stated on television this week that Geert Wilders "should be 'done in', and all his voters should be deported if they can't cope with the reality of The Islamic Netherlands". Nobody raised a complaint about it, except of course the bloggers. Mr. Wilders has never made any statements that even come close to this, but he's the racist xenofobe.

But now we know why: we do not exist. So Islam is not replacing western values, as you cannot replace what does not exist. Miss Zorreguieta quickly mentioned that the Argentinian does not exist either. Well, she should know: many Argentinians vanished without a trace during the reign of the Junta her father was part of, and she never openly condemned that. So also there we now know why: Argentinians don't exist.

Máxima claims to have spent seven years in trying to find the Dutch nationality, aided by many lovely and wise specialists, but alas, she hasn't found it. This dumb broad, possibly the most expensive marry-in into the fake monarchy that claims power in the Netherlands, is supposed to be the next fake queen of a country that by extension of her own admission does not exist. On the fake part: the Oranjes lost their color and their royalness a long time ago. The bloodline has been severed twice, both times at a William III. So the Oranjes do not exist either.

Possibly the most stupid thing about this high-cuddle-immigrant's speech was the fact that she has now openly sided with the Cultural Marxists, while the Oranjes have always avoided making political statements in public. But then again, it does not matter. A would-be queen from a non-existing royal family makes statements on a non-existing racist, xenofobic people. Glad this is reality, it would be too far-fetched for fiction. Herbert Marcuse can be a proud man.

The Argument for Libertarianism

Recently a discussion developed in the comments on an article on Gates of Vienna between one of the posters and me, as the poster threw libertarians in with multi-culturalists as the worst type of fanatics (while having previously stated that Islamists were, but that's a side note). The remark was triggered by an observation by Baron Bodissey that multi-culturists no longer need the nation-state, prompting the remark that libertarians also hate the state. Apart from the fact that this remark is unjust, it also ignores the vast difference between 'the state' and 'the nation-state'. Multiculturalists no longer need the nation-state, but they still very much need the state, as it enables them to extort the working people in order to waste the extorted money on their own immoral goals. As the comments section on GoV is hardly the place for a discussion like this, as it digresses off topic, I decided to devote an article to it and invite the reader to discuss it.

Libertarians don't hate the state, but they do object to it. They want to get rid of the state for precisely the same reasons the parasites support it: the massive fraud and corruption that is inherent to any state in general, and the welfare state in particular. A state has to be, by definition, a criminal organisation, having the monopoly on violence, and the ability to legalize its actions by creating laws that allow them. But that does not make those actions less criminal.

It's the state that allows Islam to colonise our countries, it's the state that criminalises free speech if that involves criticism that it does not want to allow, like Islam-criticism. It's the state that lies to their citizens about its true intentions. It's the state that takes taxpayers' money to hand it to the looters. It's the state that places the interest of groups above that of individuals. It's the state that goes to war. And because the state has the monopoly on violence, its citizens cannot defend themselves (try paying no or less taxes, you'll be lifted from your bed at gunpoint before you can say 'democracy').

Libertarianism is the closest thing to the original American Constitution, in that it guarantees (not: 'grants') people only three rights (negative, natural rights): life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself: you’ve got to put effort into it to achieve it. A fourth right, following from this, is the right to earned property: you get to keep the produce of your work. You don’t have the right to a house, a car, a boat or a million dollars in the bank; you’ve got the right to work for it, and once you earned it, by honest labour (physical or mental), then it’s yours to keep.

Basically libertarianism knows only one rule: you are free to pursue your own goals, as long as you do not impose on anybody else’s same freedom to do so. This is quite a bit different from ‘doing as you please’. The freedom to live your own life comes with the responsibility to bear the consequences of your voluntary choices. Ground rule is: no violence, except in self-defense. If you think about it, you do not need any other laws than this rule, based on negative rights. All positive 'rights' are assigned by people, and thus arbitrary.

When I read these angry, prejudiced reactions to libertarians it always makes me wonder where people get this hate. They are so far off the mark. Libertarians don't hate. Libertarians love individual freedom, free speech, free market, free enterprise. The state has to go because the state blocks these values, out of self-interest, by applying violence. It cannot be denied that states invariably end up killing their citizens, because when the breaking point is reached, the angry mob no longer can be controlled. Read F.A. von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. In the mean time, the state tries desperately to take away the citizen's right and ability to defend itself, in order to stay in power. In America, politicians call for gun control. In The Netherlands, where guns are already illegal, if you run across a burglar inside your house and hit him KO, you get charged with assault. The burglar, who does not honour the property rights of his victim, gets to claim all his own rights. The perp is made the victim. Rediculous: if you don't respect other people's rights, you forfait your own.

In the libertarian view, there are no illegal immigrants. Immigration has never destroyed a state. Colonisation has. Unless you hate everybody that looks different than you, has different beliefs than you and a different religion than you, there's nothing wrong with open borders. Immigrants, real immigrants, adapt, because it's in their best interest to do so. They move to a new venue because they feel it's better there, that they will have a better opportunity to pursue their happiness. Immigrants don't have a future if they don't adapt, as in a libertarian society there is no welfare state. They have to learn the language and work for their money, just like any local. If they are criminal, they will be punished, just like any local, and expelled.

Colonists, on the other hand, don't adapt, they want to submit their new society to their own values, rules and laws. As such, colonists are a threat and should be expelled. Most Islamic 'immigrants' to Western society are no immigrants at all, but colonists, which is why it's wrong to welcome them into our region. What rational logic is there in moving somewhere because the social and cultural values there offer more chances than the present ones, and then insist on taking these lesser values with you? It makes no sense, and thus betrays the real Islamic agenda.

I invite the reader to watch this short animation, read this article and read some publications by Ayn Rand, Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Walther Block, the list goes on... Think, think and think again. And then if you still feel that there's something fundamentally wrong with libertarianism or objectivism, put your arguments in the comments.