The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Defeat Begins At Home

November 6th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 10 Comments · Uncategorized

If a gunman screamed “In the name of Jesus Christ, DIE” before he killed people, do you think any journalist in America would leave that fact out of his reporting?

But Patterico notices about the LA Times’ coverage of the shooting at Fort Hood,

…would you be surprised to learn that as of the time of this post, the L.A. Times story on the shooting has no mention of the shooter’s religion, his alleged rants against U.S. involvement in Iraq, his alleged approval of suicide bombings, or the allegations that he was shouting something in Arabic as he shot?

The difference in treatment of Islam and Christianity is due to multiculturalism, a manifestation of egalitarianism in America. Multiculturalism is held as an unquestioned moral ideal in our culture and is drummed into children’s brains throughout their time in government schools. It is a form of collectivism that makes tribalism important: the tribe you are born into defines who you are. Americans are taught not to think of themselves as self-responsible individuals, but as members of a group.

Islam must be treated deferentially because it is a minority — moreover, a minority whose totalitarian militants are at war with the rich, capitalist superpower America.

Egalitarianism makes it impossible for America to defend itself properly. How can we prosecute a war seriously the way we did in WWII when we can’t “discriminate” against the enemy, we can’t be mean to the enemy, we can’t call the enemy names, and we can’t even acknowledge who the enemy is? So long as we suffer beneath the cultural domination of the New Left, we are doomed to fight an unexamined, half-assed, pragmatic “military conflict” against an enemy whose existence is politically incorrect to mention.

10 Comments so far ↓

  • madmax

    This is all true. But would you say that the enemy is Islam itself? Or is it just “political Islam” or “Sharia Islam” as many Objectivists label it? I’m uncertain but I am leaning to the idea that in today’s context Islam is at war with the West and should be treated differently than Christianity which has been tamed for the most part.

  • Michael Labeit

    Like Brook and Epsten have written in “Just War” we can’t attack an ideology – its a belief. The politicalization of Islam can be attacked because it constitutes a government or organization of individuals and equipment. But Islam itself would have to be at war with the West or, if you prefer, would have to endorse such a war given it claims.

  • madmax

    But Islam is a warrior religion with a mandate from god to kill or subjugate all non-believers. To be faithful to Islam is to believe in Jihad against infidels. What “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” represents is that for whatever reason, when Western Muslims choose to become serious or pious with their religion – ie when the immerse themselves in the core Islamic doctrines – they become violent and either act out or support violence against non-believers. This latest act of Islamic Jihad was carried out by a doctor no less. But when he started to get serious about Islam, he forgot all his Western training and reverted to base Islamic aggression. This is why I wonder if Islam itself is the enemy and part of the solution is the exclusion of Muslims from Western lands and the banning of the religion itself on grounds that it is not just a religion but a hostile enemy movement at war with America. Conceptually difficult stuff I know.

  • Joseph Kellard

    Madmax wrote: “This is why I wonder if Islam itself is the enemy and part of the solution is the exclusion of Muslims from Western lands and the banning of the religion itself on grounds that it is not just a religion but a hostile enemy movement at war with America. Conceptually difficult stuff I know.”

    I think this advocates censorship and the violation of individual rights, namely, the right to hold a particular set of ideas. Simply being a Muslim does not make someone hostile toward America — that depends on the extent to which a believer holds to their Islamic ideas and, most importantly, whether they take political or criminal action based on those ideas.

    Islam per se is not at war with America, any more than communism is at war with America. A communist (notice the small “c”) is someone who holds a particular set of ideas. Acceptance of those ideas does not put one at war with America. But once a person joins the Communist Party, which puts those ideas – ideas of world domination, which by implication means the overthrow of the United States government – into political action, then that enters the world of treason. In decades past, Communist party members were, by extension, allies of the Soviet Union, a nation hostile and at war with the US. It would be proper to go after such people and prosecute them as subversives out to overthrow the US government. But it would be a violation of individual rights to prosecute or banish people from this nation simply because they believe in communism. They have every right to hold those ideas as you do to hold Objectivist ideas.

    Likewise for people who believe in Islam. But once they join a Muslim organization that is openly at war with America, whether that organization is a non-state such as Al Qaeda or a state such as Iran, then that person is ripe for prosecution and banishment.

  • Embedded I

    JK: you raise an interesting point. Yes, as Communist Party members that actively subvert America are treasonous, so should Muslims who attend anti-American mosques? I end with a question mark, because that is the conundrum. The armchair communist may only blog about communism, but if he starts attending meetings of communist organizations that explicitly oppose America and its values (and plan methods to undermine or take-over America) then he is treasonous.

    It is exactly that, that is occurring in mosques all over N. America and Europe. The imams (or whatever they call themselves) ARE advocating and organizing for taking over those regions. Some are smart enough to advocate procreation as the means to their end, because it is a very non-violent means, but the MOTIVATION IS TREASONOUS.

    Communist women were to procreate for the great cause of the people. Imagine if Nazis chose to procreate for the Fuhrer, and organized to do so?

    In all cases, the goal is to take over and eliminate Individual Rights, I dare say that THAT IS TREASONOUS. It is not about taking over a nation, such as America, so much as eliminating individual rights. Only in America are those two notions synonymous.

  • Joseph Kellard

    Embedded: My answer to your question is already answered in my post. If Muslims can be proven to be active members or significant supporters of radical Islamic groups (Al Qaeda) or nations (Iran) that are open enemies of America, calling for her death and the takeover of the nation, then they should be arrested and prosecuted and jailed. Otherwise, Muslims have a right to believe in Islam and hold their anti-American views.

    Further, I don’t regard procreation among radical Muslims as a form of treason. A child is not born believing in Islam. He has free will and can, when old enough, choose to think differently than his radical parents. Your broader point implies that greater numbers among our enemies equates to (a less overt) overthrow of our nation. I certainly doesn’t.

  • Steve D.

    It depends upon what you mean by ‘calling’ for the death or takeover of America. Is this a wish or a specific call to action? It can get a little fuzzy here. The line is determined by the metaphysical nature of force.

    People have the right to have any beliefs they want. If they want to run around and chant ‘Death to America” by rights we can’t do anything to stop them (although during a declared war the rules change somewhat). They have not violated anyone’s rights. As soon as they take any action, or plan to take action, conspire to take action or encourage others to take action which would lead to anyone’s rights being violated they have crossed the line and we deal with them appropriately.

    As far as the mosques are concerned it depends upon what they saying. If they are merely advising their followers to wish death upon us they have that right. If they are actively encouraging violence they need to be shut down.


  • madmax


    You make good points. Points that many O’ists have made before. But I still wonder if Islam warrants greater scrutiny. Conduct a thought experiment. You say this:

    “Your broader point implies that greater numbers among our enemies equates to (a less overt) overthrow of our nation. I certainly doesn’t.”

    Now imagine that instead of roughly 2 million muslims that there were 2o million muslims. How about 100 million muslims. When the number of muslims rises in a given society, the degree of muslim violence against non-muslims rises too. Now I know and agree with the anti-determinist argument that you have given. But in today’s egalitarian leftist culture where muslims are *not* being assimilated (look at Europe to see where this is heading) letting muslims in the country in large numbers and letting Islam flourish is dangerous. I would want a cultural climate where Sharia-loving muslims would feel very *uncomfortable* living in America. So uncomfortable that they would leave. I think that Mosques should be monitored as well as all muslim organizations. There is no peaceful Islam. If you believe in that thought system then you are a potential enemy. I see no way around that.

  • Andrew Dalton

    One thing that I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere (and which goes along with what madmax is saying) is that while there are individual “moderate” Muslims, there is no “moderate” Islam. That is, there is no form of Islam that has been tamed by the Enlightenment. Muslims can coexist peacefully in the West only to the extent that they are apathetic or very compartmentalizing about their faith. And there are strident voices pulling them in the other direction. This is an unstable situation, as I think the Turks are discovering in their own country.

  • Fareed

    Perhaps the US can stop sponsoring dictatorships in the middle east for a start. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are ones that come to mind. Also stop sending foreign aid. Its incredibly altruistic and only extends those dictatorships even further.

    Countries like Iran should have been identified as a target and their nuclear program stopped a long time ago. But I guess if you lack principles you can’t tell your friend or foe.

    I must say I am disappointed in Obama’s foreign policy. Just appeasement, more nation-building and silly talk. I noticed that he hasn’t said anything about the 9th of November.

    Regarding muslims in Europe I caught glimpse of a website called bmsd (careful not to mix the words there) which is british muslims for secular democracy. Be nice if the British government believed in them too.