Two days ago, at the Austrian Scholar Conference, we heard from Mustafa Akyol about the commercial heritage of Islam – a learned, eloquent, deeply informative, and inspiring lecture in every way. He has a new book that is coming out soon that covers the topic. If the book covers what his lecture covered, it will be a revelation.
Perhaps this lecture wouldn’t have been has shocking 30 years ago when Islam was “our” ally in fighting communism. Back then, we were told by spokesmen for the Reagan administration that these were “people of the book” who embrace family values and reject “godless communism” and so therefore we should fund the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and welcome Muslim immigration.
Fair enough. Of course that policy didn’t turn out so well, as the former freedom fighters mutated into terrorist cells that later became the target of the “war on terror,” which most everyone understands – despite various pieties in favor of religious liberty and tolerance – is essentially a war on Islam.
Islam is the new communism, that scary foreign thing we are supposed to fear above all else and hand over our liberties and property to the state so that they will protect us against it. The state is once again trying to play up cultural themes in order to tightened its control, and it is working once again.
This new culture of Islamophobia has emerged gradually over the last 15 or so years, but in recent times it has reached a fevered pitch, to the point that the man on the street can be counted on to quake in fear at the very mention of this great religious tradition. This is mainly due to a predictable historical myopia on the part of citizens (see Orwell) and incredible ignorance about the history and meaning of the Islamic religious tradition and its gigantic contributions to modernity as we understand that term in the West.
A great place to begin to understand, rather than fear, is Mustafa Akyol’s brilliant lecture at the Austrian Scholars Conference. What absolutely stunned me was the extent of the negative reaction, at the youtube page, at our facebook page, and more generally. The vituperation was palpable, and contradicted all my expectations. I had figured that most people like enlightenment but it appears that the people who prefer fear and hate prevailed in this case.
But what I found especially interesting was how few “likes” the video itself had elicited on facebook. I don’t believe that’s because few people like it. It’s probably because people feel intimidated into not publicly saying in front of friends and family that they like this video, for this would imply taking a small stand that contradicts regime priorities in a time of war. It would be the same for a speech on Spain during the Spanish-American war, or during World War I on the glories of German culture,or a speech on the high civilization of Japan during World War II, or a speech drawing attention to the aggressive U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.
Tragically, Islam now falls into that category of an officially approved bugaboo – exactly of the sort that Mencken said that Americans must constantly invent in order to have an outlet for their tendency to blame everything and anything but mainstream bourgeois society for all ills.
A note on the meaning of this particular lecture: every year the Austrian Scholars Conference has some 70 papers on economics, plus one lecture on economics and religion. This was that one lecture this year – and, in the past, this lecture has covered Judaism, Christianity, and it could conceivably cover Hinduism and more. This lecture on Islam was exactly the kind of speech we hope to have in this spot.
Mencken once said that in order for history to progress, it was essential that there are people who are willing to hurl dead cats into the temple of conventional wisdom. If so, history has taken a step forward.
{ 261 comments }
Prejudice Does The Same Thing As Interventionism.
Religious prejudice rears its ugly head most often in two ways among Austrian economists. First of all, I am not saying that there are not Austrian economists who do not have religious prejudices.
Wertfrei is a convenient curtain to hide behind. It has been mistakenly used to justify atheism. The methodology of atheism is passed off as ‘scientific.’ The individuals who approach economic science in this manner have one type of religious prejudice – contempt for all religions.
The other religious prejudice is not regarded as part of economic science even though some may even lean in that direction since religious history is intertwined with economic history. It is really just a specific type of ethnocentricity, passed off as a necessary part of a religious conviction. Not all adherents of religion are locked into an ethnocentric viewpoint but many are and those individuals who are exhibit religious prejudice.
Prejudice of all kinds interferes with the flow of information in society and in human civilization. In that regard it acts in much the same way as interventionism!
I’m piggybacking on Bruce’s comment so this is near the top and not down with the nonsense and bigotry below.
I love the Lou Church lecture. I thought Mustafa was fantastic, and this was a great moment. I applaud the courage of the Mises Institute for putting this on.
The comments on various social networking sites don’t represent Austrians at large, but rather the people who think that Austrianism is hip or cool, or some sort of economics of the right. Some appear to be persistent trolls (Wildberry) and others appear to have emotional issues related to extreme nationalism and anti-religious fanaticism. None of those things should or do characterize genuine Austro-Libertarianism.
It is not surprising that people keep negatively commenting on the fact Islam was discussed (these open minded freedom loving folks of course) but almost no one is talking about the content of the lecture. This is one of the highest forms of intellectual dishonesty. Ad hominem, red herrings and strawmen.
If there is one mistake made by LvMI, it might be falling too much in love with the populism of the Like button. Yes, most people are not enlightened and have little interest in being enlightened. The “friends” or people who “Like” LvMI aren’t all Austrians and some never will be.
I’m off to make a donation to LvMI for producing this lecture because that is how I “Like” LvMI.
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 0AN63391CK51xxxxx.
PS, if the LvMI community wasn’t running stone ages old software without Facebook integration, those Likes might have been found there. It’s an eager group of people who “get it” and are continually working on outreach and social marketing independent of, but promoting material from, LvMI.
From the mouths of gift horses.
Right, your view is the ‘genuine’ Austrian view. The rest are all thought criminals? And since you are wondering why the content of the lecture was not touched. It is because the context of the lecture was considered to be more important that the content itself.
Abhilash, your comments on this topic are mostly logical fallacies and dishonest debate, when they aren’t flat out nationalism and bigotry.
I’m employing methodological individualism in my analysis of the speech. But then, I actually listened to it. You just continue to troll on a topic of which you admit you are ignorant, and have the gall to attack Jeffrey and LvMI from that position of admitted ignorance.
The context of this talk is the ASC. It was a discussion about the history of Islam as it related to economics, and particularly commerce. No ideology, no conversion attempts. Mustafa also touched on Sharia law in a way that helped it make sense to a lot of people on the outside who might not understand why many Muslims support it, and how not all Muslims support it the same way.
But then, if you’re applying a collectivist analysis to Islam and Muslims living today, all of this will be lost on you. You have made your mind up. You’re not willing to entertain any new information, or to even hear Mustafa out. This is the pinnacle of ignorance, and certainly is not consistent with the approach of the Austrian school.
I will say again, kudos to JT and LvMI for sponsoring this lecture. It helps bring people together, not push them further apart, and it doesn’t bow down to reactionary bigotry and hatred, because frankly, that would be cowardly.
I’m wondering if (like many libertarians) you don’t understand the difference between methodological individualism and philosophical egoism.
You sir are being extremely dishonest. I have been extremely restrained in my criticism of Mr. Tucker. If you read the relevant posts you will know. It is not my analysis of Islam that is collectivist; it is through my analysis that I recognized the collectivist nature of Islam. Have you heard of the ummah? Your presumption on the credibility of what Mustafa claims has no basis. By presumption to view him with suspicion has its basis in the Islamic concept of taqiya.
In any case, Mustafa cannot provide any new information about Islam. Muslims believe the Koran presents complete and total knowledge, leaving nothing worthwhile to be learned. No wonder his words appear so hollow.
You are not just ignorant, but ignorant and proud. Bigotry and hatred is what you are expressing to me right now. It is by properly judging your reaction to me that I obtain confirmation about the merit of my stand.
Abhilash, you’re exposed because you already admitted you didn’t listen to the lecture, so you cannot comment on anything Mustafa has or has not said. He didn’t need to be a Muslim to deliver that lecture. Anyone could have delivered it, even an atheist.
To now make claims about his lecture just proves your lack of integrity.
To call me ignorant is funny because I haven’t made bigoted claims or appealed to boogeymen or nationalism. I don’t have an emotional agenda to promote, or an axe to grind. I’m interested in intellectual freedom and the exchange of ideas. You sir, seem to oppose intellectual freedom, and seem to think the Mises Institute should censor people based on their religion, and that is pretty ignorant in this day and age.
Really? Where did I admit it? Quote me. In fact I have listened to the entire lecture, so I recognized it as hollow. Rather than write pages and pages of rebuttal, putting it within context seemed the better thing to do.
I missed this golden nugget. No I do not. Again, I challenge you to quote. You are putting your words in my mouth. More evidence of your dishonesty.
Guess what there is no “concept of Taqqiya”. I never heard of such a thing until after 9/11 on all the hate propaganda websites that use themselves as a source. Theres no Quranic basis for lying to people, one of the main purposes of Islam is to remove falsehood and bring out the justice of truth only. I mean what am I as a muslim supposed to do when this claim of “Taqqiya” is levied at me? That I must be lying about it? That’s a clever way never to nudge from your seat of anger. I will guess that not one Muslim person has ever done you any wrong- and you just sit at home reading websites getting upset.
Well put, Mr. Tucker. I too was surprised at the backlash. Idiot comments like “economics and religion shouldn’t mix” as if this speech was religious. I didn’t feel like I was listening to a missionary, it felt like any other Austrian lecture — interesting, enlightening, and a joy to watch/listen.
A lot has changed in Islam over the past 30 years. Khomeini adopted socialism as Muslim economics, based on the work of a prominent Iranian intellectual at the time. Khomeini tried to remake Iran in the image of the USSR. Until Khomeini, Muslim scholars paid little attention to economics, except to address the ethical issues in much the same way as medieval Christian scholars did.
Sunni Muslims picked up on Khomeini’s economics and, much like the religious left in the US, have adopted socialism as Islamic economics.
I have typed up a comment that is extremely critical of Mr. Tucker. I tried to be polite but despite my best efforts, I am not sure I could help myself. Should I post it on this forum? Mr. Tucker would likely not respond to it directly. By the narrow-minded and the self-righteous will most likely be called a bigot or a troll or even worse. Is it worth it? What do you feel? We have disagreed over things in the past, but in this matter we may find we have more in common.
Post it, definitely.
Ok, I will. I am not sure what is going to happen next, but I feel I must. You will find it at the bottom. And the attack on my credibility, you will find all over the thread.
I would like to encourage you. You might find support or opposition, but diversity of views makes this site interesting. Go for it.
Actually I am amazed. Not only was there no opposition to my post, no one bothered to reply to it. Now I feel ignored.
If you want to read it, it starts with “Dear Mr. Tucker”. I hate picking on Jeffery. He gets so much right, but this is a big one, a major wrong that can undo all the good that he has done so far.
On a side note, there is a really good lecture where in the compatibility of all major religions with libertarianism is examined by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
To you I would highly recommend it, if you have not heard it already:
http://mises.org/media/1277/The-Wealth-of-Nations-Ideology-Religion-Biology-and-Environment
I’m largely in agreement with your post, but with qualifications. I reject both the notion that the West (or really Israel and its US lackey) should be supported in its wars against Islam, while also rejecting the notion that Islam is a misunderstood “religion of peace”. (I know Tucker doesn’t go so far in his sympathetic comments, but the implication seems clear.) Tucker, Rockwell, et al. can’t bring themselves to speak honestly about US foreign policy, so they concoct a fantasy in which the US crusades against a victimized Islam.
Support if any is for the cause for liberty. Not for any particular government. In so far as the actions of those governments facilitate the cause of liberty, it will be tolerated. When it does not, it will be opposed. The alternative is to use your existing political freedom to tie the hands of that government and have even your existing freedoms usurped by its enemies, which is worse. It is necessary to understand the trade off.
I’m not sure I follow your point here; can you clarify, please?
@The Fresh Prince of Darkness
Trade-off. When nation-states go to war which nation-state does that person support who considers the whole concept of nation-states itself to be illegitimate? Maybe he will remain neutral, but what if that is not the option?
The more liberal-nation state right? ie., the lesser of the two evils. The nation-state where it is more likely that the rulers will tolerate his dissenting opinion. To be sure it is truncated freedom, but in the other nation-state, it will be close to non-existent. Besides if the more liberal nation-state wins, more people can enjoy more freedoms.
It is not a situation you helped create, but you will take advantage of it to further the cause of liberty right?
Abhilash,
Nation-states are not illegitimate and certainly not in conflict with (classical) liberalism. Indeed, certain nation-states can strengthen liberalism, if not provide the necessary preconditions for its adoption/embrace. This obviously doesn’t say anything about current nation-states, and if you merely wish to say that, despite their failures to promote liberalism, that Western nation-states are still preferable to Islamic nation-states, then fine, I don’t disagree. But I would think failure to leave Islamic states alone (ie, not wage aggressive war against them) is a pretty serious failure in this regard.
@The Fresh Prince of Darkness I will address ‘the failure to leave Islamic states alone ‘
You can’t live in the same world with such irreconcilable differences and avoid conflict indefinitely. One group glorifies liberty, the other submission. Despite best efforts of well-intentioned people in both groups, fundamental incompatibility will remain the seed of all confrontation.
Agreed re. fundamental incompatibility. Which is why I advocate staying out of the affairs of the Islamic world; leave them to their affairs, I see no reason why they won’t leave us to ours (properly understood, eg multinationals doing business in the Middle East should foot the bill for their own security). This includes not just refraining from waging war against them (for essentially non-public interests, so to speak), but also not encouraging them to come to the West, where social conflict with non-Muslims is unavoidable as you note.
Which leads me to ask: why is it that the same people who advocate aggressive war against Muslims are also vocal in support of mass immigration to the West, including Islamic immigration to Europe? This should give some indication why Tucker et al. prefer fantasy worlds to serious analysis of the real threats to classical liberalism.
@ The Fresh Prince of Darkness
The policy of non-interference cannot help resolve the problem. It cannot even contain the problem given the expansionist nature of Islam. All you end up doing is passing it on to the next generation. You are just postponing the confrontation.
In fact it has happened. The first recorded confrontation between the US and Islamists where in 1797. It ended with the Treaty of Tripoli. It was supposed to be a “Treaty of perpetual peace and friendship”. And it even has a line favorite among atheists, an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.
And in case you where wondering, it is the same Tripoli that Gaddhafi runs today and it is still a problematic place. So much for perpetual peace and friendship. Does that give food for thought?
There is no doubting the expansionist and violent nature of Islam, the history is pretty clear here. However, I am really left puzzling over what military threat Islamic states currently pose to the West, or indeed what threat these essentially poor, backward countries could ever pose to the West. Now, as I’ve noted, this is a very different threat from the one large Muslim populations *within* the West pose, but the solution here is quite simple: quit encouraging and enabling Muslim immigration to the West.
All due respect, but you sound a little zealous here; what exactly are you proposing be done in this “confrontation” between Muslims and the West? I surely hope you are not advocating that the West conquer and suppress Islam? Apart from being impossible, that would essentially be totalitarian. Not very Western, I’d have to say.
You are right. The capacity of Islamic societies to launch a conventional military attack is currently absent (but it may re-emerge in the future, that is logically possible). These days war in their lingua has taken on a more metaphorical term rather that the literal one. Insurgency, terror attack, political gimmicks, threats and deception have gained prominence.
They understand that in the West, the military is always subordinate to civilian rule. So it is the perceptions of civilians that they try to manipulate. I am not advocating anything here. Because I have no good reason to think there is any single viable solution to this problem. I am just making sure that the problem is properly understood. The knowledge will properly guide action.
policies of mass immigration are top-down, not from popular sentiment.
http://is.gd/oOyAei
@Abhilash Nambiar March 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
I agree with you, but when you said your post was “extremely critical”, I was expecting fire and brimstone, but I do respect your courtesy.
TFPoD says it well: “Tucker, Rockwell, et al. can’t bring themselves to speak honestly about US foreign policy, so they concoct a fantasy in which the US crusades against a victimized Islam.”
As you so rightly point out, liberty is the common denominator between patriots and their common enemy, and it is not strictly a matter of national boundaries. To grant not the least of positive of attributes to the US and its people in the favor of an obvious and real threat to freedom, is irresponsible and hateful.
I am ashamed at how willing prominent spokespersons like Tucker, Rockwell, and Kinsella are to cast all things associated with their “state” in the most negative of lights, and in so doing ignore the much greater evils brought in the name is Islam. We are not so ignorant as a people as to not be able to distinguish a radical Islamist from an otherwise peaceful and freedom-loving Muslim.
Tucker’s objective seems to be to paint the “American State” with the vilest of attributes, while ignoring the crimes and atrocities of those he wishes to stand up as the victimized “Islamic State”, whose barbarous acts are excusable or justified. It is not surprising that he cannot understand the negative reaction to his rhetoric.
An honest rendering of the facts is sufficient to make a case that is legitimate. A biased reading of history and playing loose with the facts is despicable, regardless of what side of a given argument one chooses to adopt.
@Wildberry
I had fire and brimstone. But I figured, I could communicate my point better if I smooth the rough edges. Take Mustafa Akyol, he dresses sharp, he talks smooth, he uses humor, people fall for it. Even Tucker is not immune. As for Kinsella, I had caught him once defending the British empire. Or strictly speaking Defending an English ‘Libertarian’ who defended the British Empire. Really? Yes Really. A libertarian defending Empire building. I can leave you a link to the threads. It gets really hilarious. I have never seen Stephan like that.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/where-is-my-troll-on-the-koh-i-noor-diamond/
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/sean-gabb-in-defence-of-the-british-empire/
Kinsella is brilliant when it comes to “intellectual property”. But outside that region of expertise….
“abhilash”:
Idon’t see what was wrong about my noting to you your error. It was minor, but so what.
haha. about WHAT? you still refuse to say. funny.
haha, as in “aid and abet”? haha. I defended him from Dimwit Serioso attacks. As for his defense, dunno, I let him speak for himself.
@Stephan
I did not see anything wrong with it either. But J. Murray had other fish to fry.
Stephan this is so out of your league that you do not even know what the right question to ask is. If you care to read what I have written here, there are enough hints that you can find it out yourself, if you are interested. But clearly you are not.
Nevertheless a conversation with Stephan Kinsella may be of interest to some people. So I will leave this link for them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adLgzV3PvF4
Now I have taken a peak into Stephan Kinsella’s brain. It is ok for a libertarian to defend the British Empire even if there is nothing libertarian about it. But criticizing him for doing so makes one a dimwit. I am so happy we had this conversation. It is very revealing.
Just slogging thru the comments, not sure what Abhilash’s criticism is yet, but I enjoyed Akyol’s lecture and agree with Dixie that it was courageous and great of Mises Institute to host this. Re Hoppe, Akyol gave a similar talk last year to Hoppe’s PFS annual meeting in Turkey, http://propertyandfreedom.org/pfs-media/ ; http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/pfsconf10.htm.
I was talking to my best friend today about this–he’s an Indian Muslim–and he was excited about the upcoming book by Akyol and hopeful it could make some dent in Islam’s approach to capitalism.
@Kinsella
I have more confidence in your Indian friend than in Mustafa Akyol himself. I may explain my reasons to you later. We shall see.
But that aside, my criticism starts in the comment starting with ‘Dear Mr. Tucker’. The more details you want, the less likely you are to find it at this forum. Those are subjects for books not discussion forums. But glad you could join.
I did make a slight segway into an earlier tiff that we had, but only to make the point that people we may admire also have limitations.
Abhilash:
I saw your post but confess I could not follow exactly what your complaint is. You seem to think Akyol is inaccurate or dishonest, and/or you despise Islam or something.
Ah, yes, when you accused me of holding views I do not. I recall now.
BTW it’s seque. Segway is a device.
I should start by thanking you for correcting my spelling. I can only get better with practice.
Akyol does ring hollow to myself and many others in this forum. There has been considerable time since 9/11 to get oneself properly educated about Islam. Myself and other people on this forum holding view similar to mine are not starting this conversation afresh. They too have had themselves informed. If you have not, I won’t be surprised. You have always come cross to me as a one trick pony. But you are extremely good at playing that one trick.
That summary of our interaction is incorrect. Anyone who has the time can look through our interaction and draw their own conclusion.
Correcting grammar on the Internet is the surest sign that your argument is entirely bankrupt on every level.
@J. Murray
Really?!! I have participated more actively in this forum than anyone else and that is the best you have got against me? A single spelling mistake? In that case you have very little.
Anyone that takes the time to correct spelling and grammar on a non-edited format comes off as someone who is trying to deflect the argument when it isn’t going in their favor. It’s wise to just ignore the mistakes and continue on.
I don’t care how active you are. You misunderstood my statement, that’s a bad move all by itself. I wasn’t mentioning the problem with your misspelling. I was mentioning that anyone who takes the time to correct grammar and spelling in a format that is basically one giant rough draft is weakening their own position.
“Abhilash”:
I have no idea what you are jabbering about, but you sound like a neocon or Eric Dondero. I’m a libertarian, not a neocon.
One trick? In addition to being an expert in IP law itself, having written works on international law with Oxford U. Press, as well as legal treatises on trademark and contract law and internet law, and no to mention that IP policy was always only a tangential interest of mine taking second fiddle to my other writing on rights, punishment, legislation, contract theory, constitutional issues, and causation, and in addition to being book review editor for the JLS and then starting Libertarian Papers, teaching Libertarian Legal Theory for Mises Academy, I guess you’re right, I’m just a one trick pony. I take it “one trick pony” to you is a convoluted way of saying “not obsessed 9/11 and ‘the Islamic Menace’”.
For some reason your comment calls to mind a favorite quote:
Your claim that I have ever defended “the British empire” is risible on its face to anyone who knows me. Might as well call me a socialist, nationalist, Democrat and Rotarian–all of which are obviously false.
@J. Murray
If one spelling mistake is what you are basing your whole criticism on, you really have nothing. I am not concerned. Only fools will find your deception convincing.
@Stephan
We live in the information age Stephan. You can keep yourself informed independent of your political affiliations, if you choose. I know you do not know what I am jabbering about. But I think you owe it to yourself to find out.
One trick in your case refers to law. There is nothing wrong with it. Except when you talk outside of your area of expertise you come out as a total novice. But in matters of libertarian legal theory I am more likely to refer to your work first. I don’t know what Hannibal Lecter has to do with any of this.
Your claim that I have ever defended “the British empire” is risible on its face to anyone who knows me.
“Abhilash”:
I think he was picking on me for correcting you. Which is bizarre.
haha. Informed ABOUT WHAT? you darkly hint there are Serious Matters that we need to konw about. what in the world are you going on about. the problem is statism.
What? Gabb is a good guy, I like him, and a good libertarian. Duh.
That’s correct. It’s a pet peeve of mine to see someone going out of their way to introduce an English Language course in the middle of something entirely unrelated to grammar and spelling. I usually see it as someone finding difficulty debating the subject matter and is attempting to discredit the message because of a typo, which I know isn’t something you are having a problem with. I would rather see you just ignore the mistakes as the meaning isn’t obscured (asking for clarification where grammar completely wipes out the intended meaning is different). A correction tells me you know what the person was trying to say and you went out of your way to correct them anyway. I see it no different than a situation in a political debate where one person brings up some totally unrelated mistake in the past against the opposition – it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
@J. Murray
I know it has nothing to do with the subject in hand. That is why I brushed it off when you brought it up.
@Stephan
More precisely he was picking up on you correcting a spelling error I made, rather than an factual error. That is his best argument against me so far!
How are you to know, if you do not take the time to understand? I cannot convince you against your will, so I won’t try. But since law is your favorite subject, here is a way for you to find out – take the time to know Shariah law. There is a legal code, case laws, legal history and legal precedent. Once you have learned it, you can consider yourself well informed. In fact you can give a much better lecture on Islam than Mustafa Akyol at the next Lou Church Memorial Lecture.
Ok, I will give you for now that Gabb is a good guy, but about the good libertarian part. Stephan, did this supposedly ‘good libertarian’ try to defend the British Empire or not? And did you or did you not support him? Two simple questions, you can answer both with yes/no.
Abhilash,
I’d take the correction on the spelling of Segway as a helpful comment and nothing more. There was no inherent criticism of your argument or intelligence in the comment.
You misunderstood that J. Murray was criticizing Stephan not you or your argument. I think he went overboard in claiming that “Correcting grammar on the Internet is the surest sign that your argument is entirely bankrupt on every level.” Only if done in a certain way does it discredit the person making it, and it certainly wouldn’t discredit an argument, or even an entire argument.
It is distracting however as he commented later, and I do find criticizing typos to be tiresome.
I think Stephan was trying to be helpful, and I don’t have a very high opinion of him based on his comments of the past, going way back, so I’m not cheer leading him. I will say however that he has improved his behavior immensely.
Wrong, many Islamic countries in the middle east adopted socialism long before the Khomeini. They had socialist parties coming out their ears. The Baath party in Iraq being just one example, aka the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. Not to mention the Arabs collusion with the Nazis.
The popularity of socialism in Islamic countries peaked back in the 1950s. So you claim about things changing in the past 30 years, an pointing out socialism is ahistorical baloney.
Jimmy Carter started funding the mujahideen not Reagan. At least get the facts straight.
Thanks for an excellent comment Jeffrey. I thought Mr Akyol’s lecture was marvelous, and definitely one of the more interesting in recent times, causing me to rethink a few things and get ideas I’d like to follow up on. It is an unfortunate irony how much attention bigots of all religious (or nonreligious) affiliations focus attention on each other. Just recently an Islamic physics lecturer was effectively silenced upon receiving death threats from “true believers” after claiming that Islam was perfectly compatible with the Theory of Evolution. This, coming from the descendants of a culture in which the great Alhazen first developed the scientific method is truly disheartening.
i am normally too lazy to do so, but you have motivated me to “like” this video on facebook (although I do have a slight quibble about his neglecting to mention that the numerals the west imported are Hindu-Arabic, not Arabic).
He didn’t “first develop the scientific method”. Muslims like to modernize their past. For example, they write all sorts of nonsense about the Qur’an having modern science which obviously was told to Mohammad by Allah. No the Qur’an doesn’t have plate tectonics in it, and what little science it does contain was known centuries prior. Alhazen’s experiments were in the tradition of Claudius Ptolemy from 90 AD. He did pioneer in many fields of science and mathematics.
Science tended to develop despite not because of religion. It has an uphill battle even today with both Islam and Christianity.
{i} Muslims like to modernize their past.{/i}
Who doesn’t? Rothbard tried to link libertarianism all the way back to Lao Tzu and taoism…
“Who doesn’t? ”
People who are intellectually honest on the subject don’t try to.
What is being done for Alhazen and Islam here seems different that what you accuse Rothbard of. Is Rothbard trying to steal credibility for his own ideology, from some other present day respected ideology, based on claims that a some point in ancient history a libertarian invented the other ideology?
Is Rothbard claiming that ancient libertarians invented science, philanthropy, or some other respected thing?
I don’t think so. I think he is arguing that there are ancient cultures that came to the same truths that libertarianism has, and that those are the roots of our thinking.
I would certainly credit the Greeks for some of my thinking. In fact, my beliefs have been influenced by peoples of various religions and nationalities around the globe in ways I know and don’t know. If I identify some of those are you going to accuse me of claiming they were fellow philosophical travelers?
Confucius taught the golden rule thousands of years ago. I agree with him on the one subject, and he with me (according to his writings). Does that mean I’m claiming he is a follower of my belief system? Hardly.
Part of the reason some philosophies don’t make these claims is that they aren’t revealed philosophies. It’s very important to a Muslim to claim that Allah gave unknown information. Not so much to a libertarian. It doesn’t matter the source of the truth to a guy like Rothbard, just so long as it is true. He’s not trying to establish authority, or argue from authority.
You aren’t accusing Rothbard of trying to modernize his philosophy. In fact, you are accusing him of the opposite, but I’m not exactly sure what you have problem with. How about some specifics. Like those quotes I made from the Qur’an. What exactly did he say, in what context, and why do you think it is wrong to do so.
A truly fascinating lecture, thanks so much. Shame about the verdict of the herd; as you say, it’s a difficult beast to convince (publicly at least).
I can’t believe Mencken was dragged into this crap. Let’s see what he actually says:
‘We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.’
‘I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind — that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.’
‘I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.’
‘Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill. Worse, he is incurable, for disappointment, being essentially an objective phenomenon, cannot permanently affect his subjective infirmity. His faith takes on the virulence of a chronic infection. What he usually says, in substance, is this: “Let us trust in God, who has always fooled us in the past.”‘
In short this is probably the most disgraceful blog post I’ve ever seen on mises.org. Claiming that people didn’t like the video because they are ignorant and gripped by hate and fear is a ridiculous smear. It is no different from the cry of “reactionary!”, “fascist!”, “Nazi!”, “exploiter!”, applied to libertarians and capitalists everywhere.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, as part of his Economy, Society & History seminar, discussed the ill effects that Islam has on freedom and the market. I suppose the Mises Institute believes that Hoppe is an ignoramus whose arguments are based only on hate and fear.
Your comparison with Communism is apt – and so are you saying that those who spoke against Communism were ignoramuses, thinking only from hate and fear? Well we can put Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt and many Austrians/libertarians in that camp. That you then attempt to blame society’s ill on the bourgeoisie is unsurprising.
Note I’m not attacking the lecture (since it only dealt with intellectual history), but rather the response within this blog post. I think a lot of people have lost a lot respect for the Mises Institute due to this unwarranted support for an ideology that is incompatible with the basic beliefs of Mises and Rothbard.
Are you speaking of “religion”, or specifically “Islam”? I’m with Mencken on the former (which is not with you; I think religion is silly, but I’m not going to go attacking people over it), but Islam is no worse than most religions, and better than some. It’s no more “incompatible with the basic beliefs of Mises and Rothbard” than Judaism or Christianity (and if you take the whole history of the latter, rather than just the modern interpretation, ISTM rather better), and there are quite a few Christians posting here whose faces you’re not getting in.
I am curious. You said “Islam is no worse than most religions, and better than some.” Which religion according to you is Islam better than and why?
Which religion according to you is Islam better than and why?
Statism. No explanation needed, but I’ll offer one if you insist.
I screwed up. Which religion according to you is less better than Islam and why?
Islam is statist. As has been pointed out by numerous Imams, and Muslim politicians. Hell, in Saudi Arabia one of their most respected clerics was talking about bringing back slavery. Can’t get much more statist than that.
Abhilash: Well, “Statism” isn’t actually a religion, but it’s easy to find worse religions if you allow those that are no longer commonly practised: any of the various religions that involved human sacrifice, for starters.
Aristippus: AFAIK, the only religious people who post here (who make it known that they’re religious) are Christians, which is why Christianity is singled out. If you were posting on a forum full of Zoroastrians, Zoroastrianism would be singled out. AFAIK, there isn’t a single Zoroastrian on this forum, so it would be silly to bring it up.
Well Peter fair enough. It’s easy to find worse religions if you allow those that are no longer commonly practiced. But Islam is still practiced.
But can you distinguish between Islam per se and the way it’s interpreted by particular people? I think it was you who replied to the Indonesian poster about how Islam in Indonesia is better than Islam in, say, Saudi Arabia…but it’s still Islam, right? And modern Christianity is interpreted very differently than medieval Christianity, but it’s still “Christianity”. So if you’re saying that Islam is worse than Christianity, is it something /inherent/ in Islam you’re talking about, or just in the currently-most-accepted interpretation? I’m an atheist. I’ve never looked deeply into either Islamic or Christian beliefs or how they relate to their various holy books, but I’ve lived among both Muslims (yes, mostly Indonesian) and Christians, and I can’t say I’ve noticed that the former are any less desirous or accepting of liberty than the latter. [Admittedly, few of the "Christians" I've met are the bible-reading, praying, church-going, types; most self-professed "Christians" are, AFAICT, atheists whose parents told them they belonged to some religion and have never bothered to question it. I can only think of two actually-religious people I've ever known; one of those was a Mormon, and the other I'm pretty sure is actually clinically insane]
I have my doubts. I have deeply studied both versions of Islam – the version practiced in Indonesia and the version practiced in the Arab world. In India, there is a fierce debate going on amongst the Muslim community as to which Islam is the ‘real’ Islam. I have watched such debates. It is remarkably fascinating, but it is not in English
. The Indonesian version is more logical and concise, but the Arab version seems to be more in line with what the Prophet and his companions actually practiced. There is an overlap, but we might be actually dealing with two different ideologies both being called Islam.
There is a parallel to this in communism. Both mainland China and the Soviet Union where both supposed to be communist. Western powers grouped them together when in fact there where serious disagreements between the two powers and they where drifting apart. Later events did in fact prove that what the Chinese rulers called communism and what was called communism in Soviet Russia where different things despite there being an overlap. The same applies here.
Mencken is referring to all things under the classification religion. Islam falls under this classification. Mencken’s comments therefore reply to Islam. What does it matter if it isn’t as bad as other religions? This is the typical response: Islam is not as bad as Christianity therefore it should not be criticised. It is the same as “democracy is not as bad as total communism/fascism, therefore it shouldn’t be criticised.” Any criticism of Islam is derailed into a comparison to and criticism of Christianity. This is the same argumentation that keeps the cult of democracy alive. There are a lot of Zoroastrians and Manicheists whose faces I’m not getting in – so what?
Btw what do you mean you’re not with me? Do you think I support using aggression against people who believe in Islam? Anyone who does not believe in Islam is a neo-con?
“I think a lot of people have lost a lot respect for the Mises Institute due to this unwarranted support for an ideology that is incompatible with the basic beliefs of Mises and Rothbard.”
Count me in this camp.
Even while acknowledging that shortcoming I am reminded of all the good work that the Mises Institute has done and continues to do. It has already left its indelible mark on the book of liberty for posterity.
Just goes to show that despite our best efforts, human judgement is not flawless. That makes liberty all the more important. In a way, the flaws of those that run it also aid the cause for liberty.
I will continue to respect Mr. Tucker even when I criticize him.
test
Dear Mr. Tucker,
Since you are all about hurling cats into temples of conventional wisdom, would you consider it rude if I hurl one cat into your temple of conventional wisdom? Sorry for being so blunt but the situation demands nothing less. It hurts me to speak like this, because normally I hold you in such high regard. Perhaps that is why the disappointment is also felt more severely. After I have said what I have to, people can and will call me a troll, a bigot or even worse. Nevertheless I feel compelled to comment. I will try to be courteous.
Mr. Tucker, you claim to be stunned at the backlash. Did you forget about 9/11? Not a word about it in your blog entry. Events from 10 years back are too old to recall while events from 30 years back are not? The backlash makes perfect sense in the light of 9/11. There has been ample opportunity to get oneself educated about Islam. There is no need to depend on any single source. And believe it or not so many non-Muslims have. Mustafa Akyol’s speech would make all their Taqiyya warning systems go into red alert. No wonder.
Communism by the way is approved bugaboo for libertarians too, not just the US government. Is that not why Yuri Maltsev has a place of prominence at the Mises Institute? Could you hate the US government so much that you are blinded to the even greater vices of their enemies? It is certainly beginning to look that way.
On a related topic anyone wondered why Mustafa Akyol is a Muslim rather than a Christian? For that matter why are almost all Turks Muslims? I leave you all with the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ5CqT1Q
And in case you are wondering, there is absolutely nothing libertarian in the whole story. It is only tragedy, the greatest tragedy being that it is forgotten.
because the official version of 9-11 is just so credible, right?
http://is.gd/MoIfjy
I won’t indulge in conspiracy theories right now.
so you buy the government (conspiracy) theory, by inference.
some talking points:
http://is.gd/8oG85M
Good point. BTW, I didn’t know that Cockburn and Counterpunch qualified as conspiricy theorists these days.
perhaps one day abhilash nambiar will see fit to indulge us with his version of the event.
@newson
I am waiting for you to get older and wiser.
nice dodge.
Perhaps, Newson, you will indulge yourself to read some Osama.
Read some Osama, or the US government’s dispatches of what they’ve “intercepted” and attributed to Osama?
Shut up you stupid troll. I like Abhilash am not going to entertain a dope.
Oh pretty please, do entertain me, please!!!!
Newson,
I’m surprised at you. Are you an antisemite?
You know there is all sorts of evidence that 9/11 was Muslims not Jews. Like passenger lists, flight school enrollments, cell phone calls from the hijacked planes, Osama’s taking credit, prior Muslim attempts to bring down the towers, and thousands of other Islamic terrorist bombings of non-Muslims around the world. Not just Americans but even those nice Dutch people, one of the most tolerant cultures on the planet.
Wow, name-calling. What an utterly effective debate topic. I’m in awe of your intellectual prowess.
I didn’t name call. I asked a question. Which shows what an intellect you have. When someone is so out of touch with reality that they think the Joooooos were behind 9/11 the first thing that should enter the mind of anyone with the slightest bit of intellect should be “Is this guy an antisemite?”
Who are Joooooos?
i find the counterpunch article very intriguing and in need of rebuttal or clarification. organizing such a massive and complicated attack seems entirely beyond some loser radicals and a dialysised guy in a cave. crimes that are committed have individual perpetrators, they are not attributable to a whole ethnic group, so i deny your charge.
all the points you raise about passenger lists etc. have real credibility issues, as missing links highlights. i welcome further investigations, as the official report was deficient.
So you think Israel refers to an individual? The article doesn’t actually provide any evidence that Israel participated in the 9/11 attacks but it sure wants to raise that question in your mind. There is plenty of evidence in the article that we were warned by Israel about Islamic terrorist activities, yet every so often it’s worded in a sinister manner. For example, they warned us but didn’t tell us enough details. Actually the official version of 9/11 is that our government was incompetent. Why on earth would a government conspiracy desire to paint that picture? You’ve got to use some pretty twisted thinking there to conclude from the provided evidence that somehow that article shows that the official version is not credible and that the terrorists behind it were not Muslims but Jews (or Muslims manipulated by Jews).
the fact the “art students” and their expulsion was not even mentioned in the official report strikes me as extraordinary. do you believe everything the state tells you reflexively? i don’t.
tin-hats on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU
“Could you hate the US government so much that you are blinded to the even greater vices of their enemies?”
I caught onto that a long time ago when this site compared causality insurance for US soldiers with the bounties the Saudis give for any Muslim who blows himself up in a suicide attack against innocent civilians. Funny thing, your insurance doesn’t pay out in every circumstance. Especially if you were to take it upon yourself to target a bunch of civilians who have no military value. Doesn’t matter to the Saudis if it is a baby or someone who happens to be in a munitions factory making bombs. In fact, they don’t even bother taking any kind of responsibility with a command structure of any kind. At least when the US army commits an atrocity under orders we know who to hang or imprison, and we do.
I’m still pissed about that article. It made me realize that many put anarchism over liberty and any thought of justice.
While the reaction may have been shockingly negative, change for the better requires provident, level-headed, discerning and courageous minds like yourself and your colleagues at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
As in many other issues of vital importance, in a few years time, you will be looking at astounding advancements that you have made a significant contribution to.
In my blog, I introduced the lecture with these words:
“At a time, when Western public perception of the Islamic world is being massively influenced by one-sided, distorting, instigative, and inimical preconceptions, it is incumbent on the truly critical and open mind to seek out sound sources of information on Islam. The inestimable Ludwig von Mises Institute has made available on-line this instructive lecture (lasting 40 minutes) by the Turkish scholar and journalist Mustafa Akyol.”
I like it when there people have many opinions on the same issue and can voice it. It is a sign that we are living in a free society. You won’t find that in most Muslims countries. Even in tolerant societies like Indonesia and Malaysia you may feel it is prudent to keep contrarian opinions to yourself. Never-mind, we live in the US. It is free if you can keep it that way. And to keep it that way I will go beyond just tolerating people who voice ideas I disagree with, to actually encouraging them. Having said that just because people have many opinions on an issue does not mean they are all right. Maybe the mainstream media does portray a one-sided view of Islam. But if that one-side is the truthful side, it does not matter. But you are wrong. That is not the case. If you watch ABC and Fox News, you will realize that.
I can see why many people don’t like the presentation. Those of us who have spent years studying the history of Islam know that Akyol gets a lot of things wrong. But most offensive is his attitude that Muslims have always been victims of someone. They aren’t responsible for who they are. Someone else, especially the West, oppressed them in some way and forced them to be who they are.
I agree with that attitude. However, I think Akyol presents things in a way that will appeal to Muslims if not to Westerners. His interpretation of Islam and the Hadith is very much a minority opinion and he will have a difficult time selling it, even in more liberal Turkey. But we should support him as much as possible. If his interpretation of Islam can take hold it will mean peace for the world.
They are not responsible for who they are. Those that conquered them and Islamized their lands are. So who is responsible for the conquerers? Those that Islamized and conquered them of course. If you keep going back this way in both time and space, where do you finally end up? It is a finite regress and leaves its historical record in blood.
People are always responsible for who they are.
But not always responsible for what others do to them.
But people ARE always responsible for what they do to other people.
Tie the self-myth of oppression of Muslims by everyone else, with the Qur’anic edict that “Oppression [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter” and what do you get? Endless [ir]rationalized religious war.
Jeff, the problem with the Islamophobic crowd is that they have such bizarre einredinishes, and have imbibed such a lot of hasbara, and are consequently so “out there,” not only on the theology, but on the history, that they are a bit difficult to reason with. The munitions makers like it, therefore banksters like it, the Malthusians like it, not to mention Israel, security statists of all stripes, etc.; they all see a bunch of money for their pet projects.
Obviously Islam being a major world religion with one and a half billion adherents makes it the perfect bugaboo, from their perspective. Well, aside from space-aliens, but that might be their fallback bugaboo.
Evil Malthusians? Is this the Mises Institute’s Mises-bashing thread?
Nah, we’ve been talking shit for years, bro: http://mises.org/daily/1675
Funny how we only picked up on that bugaboo now. Meanwhile for the past thousand or more years those billion have been persecuting their co-citizens. Like murdering them for using a muslim’s only public drinking cup in Pakistan. How is that any different than having a whites only drinking fountain, except without any black facilities whatsoever?
Islamaphobia, i.e.”fear of islam”, is a realistic reaction to Islam’s history of murder and conquest against other peoples and faiths, and no lecture, however well done, can alter those facts. Christians are currently being murdered in substantial quantities in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. Nor does Islam have much of a free market orientation historically; rather, the Caliphate heavily taxed Jews and Christians for the privilege of doing business.
As I was saying, for a certain segment of the population, Muslims just scare the bejaysus out of them. You just wind them up and away they go.
Are you denying that Christians are not being murdered for their religion in Egypt, Pakistan or Nigeria? Is it because they are Christians? Does the teachings in Islam about Christianity have something to do with it?
All the more reason to support Muslims like Abyol.
Nah, it won’t help. He is trying to convice non-Muslims that Islam is something that it is not. The people who ought to be influenced by him, do not bother with him. In fact they prefer that he keeps the likes of you subdued and ill-informed. In a sense, they are using him against you.
I always find it amusing when one group discusses all the perceived negative things about another (particularly rival) group. Most of the time the first group is unwilling to ever turn their scrutiny on themselves. Who is it that has dropped nuclear bombs on other people? Who systematically interferes with other’s rights to be left alone in multiple foreign nations? Who has the largest and most deadly military force in the world (a tool of agressive power)? Who deprives their own population of upwards of 30% of their production, and at the same time shackles them with ruinous debt, and calls it Freedom? Who “abandons the free market to save it”? Oh yeah, it is us. I live in far greater fear of the armed criminals enshrined inside the Beltway and the relentless and remorseless cheerleaders that thoughtlessly egg them on throughout our own nation than in any collection of whomever elsewhere.
No one is glorifying Uncle Sam here, but since when does two wrongs make a right? As for discussing negatives of rival group. Everyone in every group does that. Libertarians speak negative of Liberals, Neo-Cons, statists, fascists, communists, democrats, etc., and vice versa. I never heard you complain then with these words
I, in particular, speak negatively about the inconsistent and hypocrits (not implying that you are either). “Libertarians” that believe they should be free to smoke pot but also believe that the state is necessary to supply “x” certainly draw my amused questioning. Socialists that believe a panacea is at the end of the statist rainbow draw a more scornful amusement. I generally have more respect for the honesty of a totalitarian dictator whose only cloak is power than most socialists who blindly defend the curtailment of negative rights to provide false positive ones.
And of course, I don’t have any negative qualities, ha ha.
Laughing is the only thing that keeps me from crying, sometimes.
Mises said something about “methodological individualism”. I guess it wasn’t that important.
Of course not. The ummah takes precedence over the individual.
“Most of the time the first group is unwilling to ever turn their scrutiny on themselves. ”
Really? Funny my “group” teaches that “we” dropped the bomb, exterminated the Indians, etc. Whereas, they still deny the Armenian massacre in Turkey.
They also have all sorts of excuses for Mohammad’s genocide against the Jewish tribes, and Idolators. You know that Jewish tribe where he cut the heads off every male because he suspected a few of them of maybe conspiring to stop his rampage? I doubt it but let me continue. Muslims claim that the Jews brought this on themselves because the Muslims were only exercising Jewish law. So no fault on Mohammad or Islam. I wonder how they’d take it if we applied the Qur’an to them and advocated slaughtering ever Muslim who didn’t convert just like Mohammad did to the Idolators.
“Who is it that has dropped nuclear bombs on other people?”
A people who invaded China and used innocent Chinese for sword practice, as in can I chop a human in half with one swift swing. A people who then when we opposed this attacked “us”.
The only problem with your “us” theory is that it is collectivist thinking. I didn’t drop the bomb. Nor did any of the other victims of Islam across the globe.
Yours is a tu toque fallacy, and a collectivist one at that.
“Who systematically interferes with other’s rights to be left alone in multiple foreign nations?”
There is no right to be left alone in ones ability to oppress others. Not every instance of intervention is unjustified. We don’t have to leave people alone to exterminate the Jews. We don’t have to leave the USSR alone in it’s attempts to covertly pull countries into its sphere with assassinations, etc. We don’t have to sit by while other countries nationalize investments made in their countries by foreigners.
Your brain is warped so far to one side you can’t cope with the realities of the world. Everything beyond the US border is not an anarcho-capitalist wet dream. Nor is the mere existence of the largest military a need for concern. Someone has to have the largest military. Just be thankful the US doesn’t actually use that military the way Turkey or many other Islamic countries have in the past. The US doesn’t truly run an empire, and nor is it imperialistic. In fact our tax money flows out to them, not vice versa.
“We don’t have to leave the USSR alone in it’s attempts to covertly pull countries into its sphere with assassinations, etc.”…
but other countries should leave the US alone while it attempts to covertly pull countries into its sphere with assassinations, etc.”? Or attempts to overtly pull countries into its sphere with cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions?
Perhaps there are some “realities of the world” you would prefer not to think about?
The Tea Party was invaded by the neocons, yet there still are true blue classical liberals like Ron Paul maintaining a foundation of philosophical purity. Now the neocons have infiltrated the Mises blog site and are using all their ploys to try to cause a disruption. Thankfully the Mises Institute does not cater to them, but instead strives for peaceful understanding between peoples and cultures worldwide (by exposing the lies and crimes of the State) amid the cries of the immature and narrow-minded neocons.
Hardly. Most people in this blog are regulars. Have you ever lived in an Islamic country? I have. The best you can hope for as a non-Muslim, is to be left alone, which thankfully I was. But the symbols of Islam are all over the place. There is a mosque with a loudspeaker at every street corner. You do not want to start a confrontation, so you remain discreet about your religion, unless you are explicitly given permission to do otherwise. You want to know why they behave the way they do and that brings you to what they believe. Which eventually brings you face to face with what you believe. Something that until then you did not seriously consider.
Many Americans ar going through that same thought process since 9/11. Trying to understand what defines their attackers. Is it a language? Is it a culture? Religion? And that brings them face to face with what defines them. Language? Culture? Religion? Skin color? Or is it something else that transcends all that? I think better than anyone else, people here knows the answer to both questions.
And if you really understand both sides, you will know that peace will not come from understanding. One side glorifies submission, the other liberty. Like oil and water, the two shall not mix, no matter who tries to mix them.
Abhilash Nambiar,
With all due respect….you need an intervention.
You seem to be more desperate and emotional every time this issue comes up. I can tell this issue consumes your mind and your psychology. Obviously, your experience in an Islamic country has left you bitter and hateful.
This reveals not an objective mind but a mind ravaged by irrationality. You seem desperate in your righteousness almost to the point of bigotry.
I’ve always said that when you become like your enemy…your enemy has won.
If I was to take your comments and replace the word Islam with American, imperialism, Christian or Jew, and replace 9/11 with Holy Land- I doubt we could tell the difference between you and them.
On top of that, you are a pawn for their cause.
Your rhetoric (and that of others) has elevated a small insignificant group of poor, uneducated, desert and mountain dwellers to that of the most feared organization the world has ever seen. I’m sure they sit around the camp fire and laugh at the gullibility of so many in the west.
Why you (and others) wish to include a whole religion and its people with these thugs I have no idea…again it speaks to a deeper psychological pathology.
Regardless, Abhilash, I appeal to your intelligence but more importantly to your humanity and ethics. If there is any libertarian left in you…you must find it. You must rise above the emotionalism that has captured you. You must embrace reason-respect for property rights, non-aggression, and tolerance.
You must stand tall against your fears emboldened with the knowledge that all people are individuals and carry within them self-vision and creativity that can potentially elevate every aspect of the human condition … It is through this understanding that peace will come.
One day, you will know what I know…and when that day comes..I will welcome you
@Dagnytg
I have seen people say some pretty stupid things on this forum. But this one takes the cake. I have never seen stupidity expressed with such eloquence. All I spoke about was how a non-muslim living in a Muslim country comes face to face with the those aspects that defines his/her identity while in a free or open society one hardly thinks about it.
You start from that point and stretch it into a form that is barely recognizable. You have let your imagination run wild and spun a whole web of lies. When people twist my words to this extent, I say, ‘Fools will believe them’. Or to put it differently “There are no statements worth arguing here… All you can do is underline them!”
Abhilash
Dagnytg described exactly your situation. As is usual, you fail to pay proper attention to material provided for your consideration and again you pretend the major points raised do not exist. Instead you produce yet another thoughtless knee-jerk reaction. Notice your utter failure to directly address the issues Dagnytg raises. It is doubtful you even thought about them – let alone went back to apply them to your previously posted missives. Instead you enagage in the denial of an automaton. In this regard it is you who is stupid- too stupid to see the bleeding obvious even when it is clearly indicated out to you. You undermine yourself.
Take home message for you is that when a contributor points out evidence of error in your position (or even if he merely challenges you for clarification) you need to directly consider and directly address exactly those points in an honest manner. Your denials, dissembling, topic substitutions (you engage in that deception often), hypocracy, position statements, provision of cheap furfies and the like are all intellectual masterbation on your part. No need to engage in any of that in public. Now, go back and reread Dagnytg’s post again. This time think on it, for he is accurate with his assessment.
Sione
I told Dagnytg that when people twist my words ‘Fools will believe them’ and as if on queue, you responded
. In fact, I had you in mind when I wrote that. Playing the self appointed role of my judge are you? What are you hoping to achieve? Convince me that I am wrong? If so you are achieving exactly the opposite and more. The only thing you are convincing me is that you are narrow-minded, self-righteous and dishonest. Are you proud of yourself now?
Sione,
“Notice your utter failure to directly address the issues Dagnytg raises.”
Since when is anyone required to address a long list of psychological ad hominem attacks?
Would you feel that your comment was in any way intellectually undermined if I posted a long comment on your psychological deficiencies. I could invent a whole bunch of psychological reasons why you fail to comprehend the truth here. Your fear of knowing the truth for example.
Abhilash responded quite correctly.
Brian,
I didn’t say he was psychologically deficient…I said he was emotional and irrational (i.e. a psychological response). Anger, hate, love, etc., are all expressions of human emotion that everyone encounters, but I don’t believe they should be the basis for an ethical argument.
Abhilash made it personal when he announced (at the beginning of this blog) that he was going to write an open letter to J. Tucker and then proceeded to do so. On top of that, at one point, he was at least 50% of the comments on this thread.
(Furthermore, Abhilash and I are not strangers here at mises.org and had a long discussion, awhile back, on a related issue.)
Needless to say, I would not have taken the time to write Abhilash if I did not believe he was an intelligent, thinking person with great potential. Imagine if he took that emotional fire and filtered it through objectivist reasoning and libertarian ethics…he could be a powerful speaker for our side…the side of reason.
Last, his calling my comment stupid did not offend me…I was actually amused (but not surprised) and he was very gracious in saying that it was “eloquent”…which I took as a compliment.
It should be noted, however, use of such words as “stupid” only denote that one has been confronted with an observation from which they have no retort and “psychologically” refuse to accept the forgone conclusion.
Perhaps I planted a seed…only time will tell.
@Dagnytg
Ah! So you where trying to speculate on the reasons for me saying what I did when you made your amateur attempt at psychiatric evaluation. You where going way over the top with that one. I shared a single fact about my life and then I saw you speculate your way into a fantasy world. There was nothing much to say there. A strong dose of self-criticism might set you straight.
“I didn’t say he was psychologically deficient…I said he was emotional and irrational (i.e. a psychological response). …. ”
Those are consider psychological deficiencies when reasoning. You played psychologist and decided that he was too emotional to come to a reasoned conclusion. Problem is that you have provided no evidence of faulting reasoning, and no evidence that any faulty reasoning are due to any emotions he might have, nor any evidence he is feeling these emotions.
So first, which conclusion is wrong and why? You need to establish that first before you can delve into why he made the mistake, if he did. You will find that once you have established that he is wrong there is no need to go further if you point is to verify for yourself (and others) that you have not made a mistake. If you further want to change his mind then it is best to ask him why he made the mistake, once you’ve proven it is one. He is the authority on what he is thinking, not you.
“Imagine if he took that emotional fire and filtered it through objectivist reasoning and libertarian ethics…he could be a powerful speaker for our side…the side of reason.’
Our side? I’m not an Objectivist. In fact I reject Objectivism as false. Some of the core beliefs of objectivists are based on faulty reasoning, so I don’t see them as on “the side of reason”. Ayn Rand had some good critiques of other philosophy, had some important points to make, but failed miserably at her goal of creating a foundationalist philosophy that works. Her direct line anointed successor has called for atom bombing Muslims into oblivion. Not exactly a moral position.
“It should be noted, however, use of such words as “stupid” only denote that one has been confronted with an observation from which they have no retort and “psychologically” refuse to accept the forgone conclusion. “
This is a false statement. I would have called the above quote about “use of such words as stupid” as stupid too for the total lack of thoughtfulness and reflection shown in writing it, however if I did so then you would take that as evidence it was true.
I wonder what your thought processes will be if he posts another comment full of information explicitly explaining to you why you were in error. Would you reconsider this ridiculous belief that if someone calls you stupid that what you are saying must be true? I wonder if it ever crossed you mind that there are many motives for calling your comment stupid. One of them being that an idea or comment is stupid.
I understand that just calling a comment stupid isn’t helpful to you but he did explain a bit further than that.
fortunately, the muslim extremists who attempted a 9-11 attack (one month later) on the mexican congress were thwarted in their attempt. one can’t be too vigilant these days, and that’s why it’s comforting to know the anti-terror agencies are working round the clock.
http://is.gd/5SfJxc
“You seem to be more desperate and emotional every time this issue comes up. I can tell this issue consumes your mind and your psychology.”
People get that way when your ideology persecutes them and calls for their oppression and murder.
I might as well say that capitalism calls for persecution and murder. Since according to majority opinion the United states, which invades more countries than anyone else, is the most capitalist country in the world. Of course you should know better than to think such sweeping generalizations make any sense in reality.
My argument doesn’t take the form of yours.
Mine is of the form, “Hilter said to exterminate the Jews, and formed the Nazi party to do so, then proceeded with his plan. I then provide, quotes and actions. Then point out that murdering people on this basis is evil. Therefore Nazism is evil.”
Yours takes the form of “The Amish call for persecution and murder (a false claim unsupported by any quote). Since Germany was the most Amish country, and it was a belligerent military power.”
I did not make any sweeping generalizations. Zero. I’m well aware of them and avoid them like the plague. Provide a specific quote where I have.
I am objecting to sweeping generalizations that plague Islam. For example the claim in the Qur’an that Jews are greedy. That’s wrong and is evil when married to the idea that therefore we must mistreat and subjugate the Jews, and not befriend them.
“If I was to take your comments and replace the word Islam with American, imperialism, Christian or Jew, and replace 9/11 with Holy Land- I doubt we could tell the difference between you and them. ”
Nonsense. How about you try i to see if it works. It doesn’t. It’s valid to criticize an intolerant ideology for what it is.
“Your rhetoric (and that of others) has elevated a small insignificant group of poor, uneducated, desert and mountain dwellers to that of the most feared organization the world has ever seen.”
This one sentence shows you to be completely separated from reality. Nearly a billion people does equate to a “small insignificant group”. You know the religion has expanded since that original small insignificant group practiced genocide across the entire Saudi peninsula exterminating every polytheistic tribe via force.
“Why you (and others) wish to include a whole religion and its people with these thugs I have no idea…again it speaks to a deeper psychological pathology.”
The thugs are only doing what the religion instructs, as fully documented in the Qur’an, Hadiths and the behavior of Mohammad. That’s purely and intellectual position.
We are well aware that not every Muslim listens to what the religion says. Do you think women enjoy living under the edicts of Islam, or people who are more free minded. I’m sure there are plenty of Muslims who play along because to not do so invites death. Heck, it was a problem even in Mohammad’s day and he rants about “hypocrites” throughout the Qur’an (while claiming it was Allah who had the problem). Those hypocrites were, many of them, forced to convert or die.
Meanwhile, Mohammad instructs that it is fine to lie about ones religion and beliefs under duress. That is, if you are a Muslim. A non-Muslim who does this to protect himself from Mohammad’s head chopping sword, doesn’t get that privilege. That’s a double standard and that makes Mohammad a hypocrite when he called them hypocrites.
Your problem is ignorance, and failure to grasp what we critics actually know and believe. I don’t believe every single Muslim wishes to follow or even knows about all the evil that Mohammad did and instructed other to do in the name of an infallible deity.
So you owe us and apology for your bigotry.
You say his problem is ignorance, but your own ignorance is amazing. How can you make a statement like “Do you think women enjoy living under the edicts of Islam?” Do you know how many women were out there protesting against the ban of the hijab in france.
You don’t know anything about the history of hadith and which ones are false and which ones were fabricated. Its a lot more complicated than how simple you want it to be. You’re on a high horse over nothing. Spending all your day reading answering-islam.org isn’t historical research.
That doesn’t mean they enjoy the edicts of Islam. They are often ignorant of and haven’t experienced the ramifications of those edicts. Like you husband deciding to bring in another wife, or your testimony being counted as half a males, or the requirement that four males witness your rape for it to count.
These women have no basis for comparison because they are locked in a bubble with no information coming in other that what has been filtered for them.
“You don’t know anything about the history of hadith and which ones are false and which ones were fabricated.”
I’m sure all the ones you don’t like. I know all about Muslim apologetics. I just don’t buy them. I have a better moral sense than that.
I can assure you that even with the Hadiths that you accept as true I will find the behavior of Muhammad to be the lowest form of evil. I don’t even have to go to the Hadiths to find things that show a complete lack of a moral compass. The infallible Qur’an is full of vile thinking.
I make arguments that Answering Islam hasn’t even thought of yet. I’m a free thinker.
How about you give an original argument that isn’t out an Islamic apologetics book that’s been made for a thousand years.
Even Aisha, Mohammad’s child bride, recognized the self serving and anti-woman nature of Mohammad’s dictates of the word of an Angel speaking for Allah. For some reason the rules seem to relate to his personal desires, like exceeding four wives.
One of his wives poisoned him.
Brian,
Have you read the Jewish bible/Christian old testament? It is full of the exact same type of “vile thinking” as the Qur’an, right from genocide on down. Why no objection there? Or are you a “Jewish apologetic”?
If Islam was a better religion than Christianity then why did the Christian West rise and the Islamic world end up where it is? I am not a Christian or a Christian apologist, but I think the argument given by the anti-Islam crowd has merit. Islam structurally and doctrinally is more anti-reason and anti-liberty than Christianity. Or put it this way, Christianity allowed for more loopholes through which liberty was able to grow.
Epistemologically, post Thomas Aquinas, Christianity is better than Islam. Thomism does not allow God to square circles. It forces God to conform more or less to logic and natural law. But Islam’s God does is not so limited. There is a very popular expression amongst Muslims that the definition of parallel lines is “two lines that never shall meet unless Allah wills it.” This I submit is the main epistemological difference between the two. Christianity had philosophical premises given to it by Hellenistic thinkers that allowed it to be restrained and pacified. Islam, post Ghazali, completely rejected any Hellenistic influence. It remained purely mystical and theistic. This prevented it from being reformed.
Also, Islam is the story of a conqueror who spent the majority of his adult life waging war against non-believers. His chief message is constant and undeniable: Infidels are subhuman and they must be punished for their non-belief. That is not the message of Christ. Christianity was the result of a splinter group of Jews that responded to the Roman conquest of the Levantine Coast with an ascetic philosophy of renunciation. It has been said that Christianity is the Jew’s psychological revenge on the Roman Empire. I think there is much truth to that. As a result, Christianity does not have the warlike zeal that Islam does. That is an important factor as well.
Von Miseans should not besmirch the good name of Von Mises by becoming Islamic apologists. Islam is a supremacist ideology of conquest and subjugation. It should not be celebrated. You don’t have to be a NeoCon to see that.
@ D. Blander
I am Indonesian, Muslim. My English no good. What I know about history Islam in Indonesia defer from any history of Islam in Western Country. I don’t agree if Islam is equally about “Supremacist ideology of Conquest and subjugation. I am Misean too…you may be product of bias of western media, and overvalue your faith to prejudice other faith
Giyanto,
What about your Muslim brothers elsewhere in the world? They are the peaceful, tolerant Muslim of Indonesia?
He doesn’t have to go outside Indonesia to find intolerance in Islam. I’m sure he’s well aware of it but is ignoring it. They not only oppress Christians they also oppress Ahmadi Muslims. Trying to build a church there on your own property has a good chance of getting you killed.
I believe you. Islam as practiced in Indonesia and Malaysia is very different from Islam as it is practiced elsewhere. Sometimes I wonder why it is even called Islam.
But then again, Islam was introduced there without violence and the clerics who introduced it had to peacefully navigate around the local tradition and social sensibilities integrating Islamic practices and making several compromises and concessions. Meaning Islam as traditionally practiced in these regions is very dilute.
And it shows. For example, Indonesia’s national airlines is called Garuda. Garuda is a mythical Hindu bird. Another example ‘Eid ul-Fitr’ is called Hari Raya in your country. Hari is a Hindu word for God.
Unfortunately Indonesia and Malaysia are exceptions to the rule. I wish that was not the case. Then we would be having a very different conversation about Islam. In fact now that Malays and Indonesians have increased interactions with Muslims elsewhere, radicalization is taking place. The Bali bombings are an indication of this. In Malaysia too extremists elements are gaining influence. Although to be fair I must state there is resistance against radicalization in these countries too.
Had a Malaysian or an Indonesian scholar spoke at the Lou Church Memorial Lecture on Islam’s contribution to commerce, I might have been more receptive. In fact I am sure they would have something meaningful to say and could have said it sincerely. Rather there was this shallow piffle.
Here is one clip from Indonesia, I had found it last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs9_dZK_fnw
This is real monetary reform.
Indonesia is different but has the same intolerant stuff going on. Look up “Indonesia church christians” on you tube and you will find Christians being persecuted for trying to worship freely. Mix your searches up and scan down and there are plenty of other videos of violent Muslim oppression of non-Muslims in Indonesia.
Indonesia is only tolerant by Islamic standards, which means not much. The State will lock you up for the slightest accusation of criticism of Islam. Look up “Indonesia blasphemy” on you tube.
Muslims argue that the word Allah does not mean a different god from the Christian or Jewish god, yet in Malaysia there is a law that no one but a Muslim can refer to this supposed shared god as “Allah” except Muslims. Malaysia is one of those other supposed places where Islam spread peacefully and therefore should be more tolerant.
Actually it’s not hard to be “more tolerant” when you start from the position of “cut their heads off”.
There are Muslims in the united states who are persecuted for trying to worship freely. Am I going to say there is constant violent oppression of Muslims in the United States? Of course not. Don’t mix up governmental laws with Islam- that’s a mistake that Muslims themselves make.
@D. Bandler March 14, 2011 at 10:10 pm
“Von Miseans should not besmirch the good name of Von Mises by becoming Islamic apologists. Islam is a supremacist ideology of conquest and subjugation. It should not be celebrated. You don’t have to be a NeoCon to see that.”
Exactly. It is not necessary or honerable to become an appologist for anything or anyone that proceeds on the basis of a “supremacist ideology of conquest and subjugation”.
Beautifully expressed.
But I am a Muslim and I do not see Islam as a religion that proceeds on conquest or subjugation- especially since Quran instructs that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and even openly mocks forcing people to believe in Quran 10.99. But, again, you’re going to IGNORE THAT because then you’d have to let go of your stupid perspective. God forbid you do that.
to d. bandler:
nietzsche was apparently of the same mind on christianity.
http://is.gd/i7DA8A
This message by D. Bandler is certified by this non-Christian.
Fresh off LewRockwell.com: Is Libertarianism Compatible With Religion?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance234.html
Caleb
Interesting article. The author mentions that many religionists have difficulty accepting libertarianism because it violates certain tenants of their religious beliefs or faith (drug use and abortion being two examples). He attempts to develop a work around for the issue with choice biblical quotations, but in doing so he fails to carry his argument. Moreover he grants to those religious opponents of libertarianism that most valuable aspect of debate- the premise. By failing to successfully address what moral base libertarianism relies upon and how that is derived and (most important) how it is consistently applied, by stating libertarianism is restricted to being solely a political code and not a moral one, he leaves important fundamentals in the realm of faith- unexamined and unaddressed. That is fatal.
A result is that those example questions regarding abortion and drug taking remain to be properly and definatively answered. If abortion is not to be permitted, then coercion or force is applied to prevent people from enaging in it. Same goes for drug taking. The issue is that at some point the religionist is going to ask these very questions and expect answers of precision. There is no tip-toeing around them then. You can’t fool the religionist with a vague answer as he will not accept something deceptive. He’ll reject the contradiction right away. If the answers do not suit the moral code of the religonist, then, as Vance suggests, the religionist will reject libertarianism. So what, then? Does one try to fool the religionist by capturing him in a deception or does one abandon aspects of libertarianism (in effect abandoning the whole ideal) in order to avoid scaring the religious away?
Ayn Rand castigated the US based libertarian movement as being unprincipled and hence of limited value, worthless even, in promoting freedom and capitalism. Contemporary history of the US suggests she was correct. It is impossible to succeed unless principle is applied consistently. Hence it is necessary that religious questions are faced- up front and honest. Of these, one major issue that has to be dealt with is the nature of the source of human morality. On this, religious authority, including the claim that the religion is the source of human morality, has to be confronted- even if the libertarian answer irritates certain religious believers. No dancing around this one.
Sione
I do not see how any philosophy or religion that, at the core, treats women as inferior to men and reduces them to chattel property can be compatible with Libertarian principles.
I may not agree with Ann Coulter on many things, but I thing she got it spot on when she said “your right to impose Sharia Law ends where my clitoris begins”.
it’s a little bit too nuanced for ann coulter.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ehtoddch/politics/religion.html
Nuance in an islam-debate? Sir, how DARE you take the side of these swarthy savages?
whose side, the coptic christians or the muslims?
Either, both, I dunno.
Read the entire document not the first couple sentences. It establishes that the practice was condoned by Mohammad, the Hadiths, and has been practiced and actually encouraged from the start in Islam.
There is no mention of female gential mutliation in Quran. That is as far as you ever need to go when it comes to Islamic law. Period.
Mr. Tucker, please do not take this as a personal attack. But if you want to know more about Islam, the religion of “peace”, please read the following books, if you haven’t.
1) A political incorrect guide to Islam – Robert Spencer
2) The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion – Robert Spencer
3) The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran – Robert Spencer
4) Because they hate – Brigitte Gabriel
5) Son of Hamas
The reason why we are losing the war on terror is because we are not addressing the core problem, Islam. We need to stop being politically correct and call it for what it is (excuse my rudeness), a retarded 7th century ideology that cannot coexist with Western civilization.
If you eat meat then good chances are that meat is “halal”, by our standards, that is animal cruelty. The fees paid by butchers to get the meat certified as “halal” are funding terrorist organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Please wake up.
Robert Spencer is unashamedly a neo-con. On this forum, that puts him at a considerable disadvantage even when he has something reasonable to say.
Abhilash Nambiar,
That is what is known as a ad hominem attack, and is totally invalid. Spencer isn’t an economist but he knows a hell of a lot more about Islam than Tucker, who has shown himself to be a babe in the woods.
How about The Sword of the Prophet, by Trifkovic?
most are awake to halal. moreover, the practice is hardly unique.
http://is.gd/POZ8VP
Oh yes the core problem couldn’t possibly be invasion and bombing villages could it?
The reason why we are losing the war on terror is because we are not addressing the core problem, Islam.
Wrong. We are losing the war on terror because we are over there, and they are over here. On that latter point, the State strictly enforces a worldview that regards humans as completely fungible, and so imports people without any regard as to whether they are compatible with the host society.
And how do you propose to address this “core problem?” A Fifth Crusade? Dash their children’s heads against the rocks?
More fundamentally, the core problem is that Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, federalized immigration policy, and numerous other State actions have eviscerated property rights and freedom of association.
to that list, add fifth columnists.
I remember when all you neo-cons were sweating over the construction of the Park51 project (aka “Ground Zero mosque”). Now you all are out of the woodwork about some Turkish anarchist who tried to give an Austrian economic analysis of the Islamic Golden age.
This thread is making me laugh so loud I’m almost about to get in trouble. You conspiracy nuts are just as dazed and confused as those dumb kids who thought the Zeitgeist films were full of great ideas. What a bunch of morons. LOL.
Its so nice when you people don’t comment on these blog posts because then we actually get to talk about, you know, this thing called economics.
How do you distinguish between Austrian economic analysis of the Islam and Islamic analysis of Austrian economics?
This is really alarming. Since when have we condoned using newly-invented leftist labels like ‘Islamophobia’ to stifle debate? Mr. Tucker, I love the work you have done in establishing this great institution – Mises Institute. In the spirit that you must’ve absorbed knowledge of economics and society from the giants – Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, I beseech you to seek knowledge of Islam. You would rightly excoriate and make fun of idiotic leftists and laymen who conjure up grand opinions of society with no knowledge of economics. Then why do you feel it proper to confine critics of Islam to a bin named by a leftist hate term – Islamophobe ? Do you not think you need at least a brief study of opposing viewpoints before making such a judgment?
You can start with the Dead White Men of the earlier era when scholarship was more honest and disinterested.
William Muir – The Life of Mahomet
Or see Robert Spencer. I invite you to start a conversation with him. He is unfailingly polite and will, without ANY obfuscation answer all the queries you have and have a civil argument if you so desire.
The wrath of Islam has never been confined to post-80s West. This is a convenient public relations forgery. Ancient empires in India, Persia, all of the middle east and north africa, Byzantium and Spain have all fallen to the sword of Islam. Muslim biographers and historians themselves record acts of unspeakable cruelty. Now, is this analysis meant to “single out” Islam as especially heinous? Not necessarily, though I believe it to be so in my judgment. I would not fault anyone for disagreeing. However, the record at least parallels if not exceeds the atrocities of all other civilizations bar maybe the Communist and Nazi 20th century.
So, again I beseech you to seek knowledge before making a judgment.
Islam’s track record in recent centuries is crystal clear; brutal and often barbaric suppression of women’s rights, attacks on and enslavement of non-islamic minorities, no freedom of thought or conscience where Islamist factions are strong, and therefore a dismal lack of scientific and economic achievement. I defy any of the Islamist apologists on this page to refute a single word.
Trouble is some of them will actually take up your challenge and make fat claims. Then you will have to most likely accuse them of lying, which they most likely are. And then they would say you are presenting them a no win situation and call you unfair. But if they did that, they would be using the wrong definition of fairness. It is really not your business to help your opponents win.
This would be perfectly ok if it was a political ideology was being confronted, but religion is supposedly ‘sacred’. It needs to be treated special. Now I have recognized several political ideologies that is not religious, but all religious ideologies leak into politics one way or the other. In this matter, Islam takes the cake.
You guys can’t distinguish between old barbaric tribal practices that Islam came to remove(such as killing of female children when parents prefer a boy, honor killings, stoning to death), and Islam itself. The problem is definitely because some so called Muslims themselves put gods name towards their violence- but that is admission enough of how they’ve strayed from Islam and instead use its name to perpetuate their own violence. There’s a reason the Quran lambasts hypocrites so much- they’re the poison of the Earth and only serve to create division. That’s why someone like you would never want an actual understanding of how diverse Muslims are. You just want to focus on the perspective that suits you.
And the personal attacks on those who point out these obvious problems with the Religion of Peace are contrary to the basic principles of civil discourse and are a disgrace to the Mises site.
I totally agree. Name-calling and hysteria is part of neocon and leftist behavior. Since when did it become part of LvMI?
That’s because your idea of pointing out “obvious problems” has a lot to do with absolutely no research into the historical validity of hadith and other supposed practices like “lying to infidels all the time” that don’t exist.
hmmm if islam is the arch nemesis of liberty as some say here and Christians are so peaceful then w t f happened in Bosnia in the middle of the 90s?
The Christian Serbs and Croatians slaughtered and raped tens of thousands (!) of bosnians
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
Come on guys, its not religion itself that is evil (=opposed to liberty). Its collectivism in every form.
Collectivism in the form of statism or in the form of a collective religion that leaves no room for individuals and their freedom.
I could leave you a link to a very graphic documentary with extremely disturbing images that explains what happened there. Would you like me to?
Yes, please post it. I’m skeptical about the Western media’s claims re. Srebrenica; they strike me as propaganda to whip up support for intervention in the Balkans.
The documentary is Serbian with English subtitles. I will leave you the link to part 1, but I must warn you, if you continue to see it, you will come across several disturbing images.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tpx-zvHNM
Thanks, I’ll have a look. Does this concern the Muslim warlord who collected the heads of his Serbian victims? That, among other things, is part of the context of this unfortunate saga that runs counter to the Western media’s morality play of evil Serbs abusing innocent Muslims.
http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm
Collecting heads isn’t exactly an Islamic thing.
Did I say it was?
J. Murray did not say that since Dracula cut heads centuries back, Muslims can cut them today. That would be absurd. Besides the documentary I linked to talks about events in 90s, not today.
Speaking of which:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDLaRJEW9Y&feature=related
Actually, J. Murray, collecting heads is specifically an Islamic thing. Their founder advocated such behavior and practiced it. Their infallible Qur’an mandates it for certain innocent people, and advises it in other cases.
Jesus never.
I don’t think a Muslim would like it if someone else’s god mandated chopping off the heads of Muslims if they did not convert. I don’t think they would even like it if some else’s god said his followers were free to kill Muslims if they happened not to have signed a treaty under which they were protected from said believers.
Jesus did none of these things, and advocated pacifism. Sermon on the mount, and turn the other cheek, not kill them wherever you find them, nor chop their hand and foot off opposite sides of their body.
He may have consoled “render unto Caesar” but that is quite far from “force non-believers to pay Jizya”.
Before you accuse me of being a Christian, I’m an atheist.
Of course, I mean “collecting heads” in the loose meaning of chopping them off, not actually hoarding them in your attic.
Oh come on, dont be stupid: We even HOUSED muslim fugitives here in central europe. These fugitives were EYEWITNESSES of the cruelties of the serbs. Most serbs and croatins are so patriotic, that american patriotism is nothing compared to that.
So what are you talking about?
Watch the whole documentary please. It is Serbian, but it really does not have a victim vs oppressor narrative to it. It is just an attempt to set the record straight. Or don’t watch it if choose not to. The link is there for anyone interested. I leave it at that.
http://www.antiwar.com/srebrenica.html
What religion is innocent of such behavior? Christianity converted twice as many people by the sword than Islam pulled off. There are 1 billion estimated Muslims. There are 2 billion estimated Christians of varying sects. The planet certainly has much more to fear from the followers of Christ than the followers of Muhammed. The number of people, the death toll, and the land area conquered in the name of Christ dwarfs all the lands of Islam and is even larger than the lands conuquered by Borjigin Temüjin. Can Islam claim a total subjugation of four entire continents (Both Americas, Europe, and Australia), major tracts of a fifth (Africa), and large military incursions into a sixth (China and India in the Asian continent, not counting the fact that Russia owns a large chunk of that very continent)? Shouldn’t you be quaking in your boots by those fundamentalist Catholics or Eastern Orthodox followers?
It’s not Islam or Christianity causing any of this, but large scale governments and their behavior. The real reason behind the violence is that the people we’re repressing militarily, squeezing with armies, and covertly screwing with their selected form of governance to our own benefit are backed into a corner. Even small, weak animals will turn viscious when all escape has been cut off.
Also notice the pattern. The top four nations by Muslim population are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. These four nations account for over half of the Islamic population, yet none of the 9/11 hijackers were from those nations. And until recently with the violence being poured into Pakistan by our behavior in Afghanistan, Muslims from those four nations had nearly no problem with the US. Why aren’t those nations, that make up such a significant Muslim population, contributing to the directed attacks on the US? Becauase the US has positive relations with them, aren’t engaging in military occupation, or otherwise behaving in a way that disadvantages the local population.
Terrorism isn’t a religious thing. The only cause of fear is becuase of our own government’s actions. Terrorism is a result of desperation in the face of a commandingly more powerful enemy. No one with any reasonable brains would think flying a plane into a building would generate converts. They flew planes into buildings because they had no other way to fight back against an enemy that has armies and economic warfare on its side.
The world’s largest and most prolific terror organization in the world prior to it being defeated were the Tamil Tigers. They engaged in the most suicide bombing attacks, most terror attacks in general, in the world. Yet they are neither a religious organization nor did any of those attacks target the United States. Even the US Revolutionaries engaged in terrorism back in the day.
Terror, violence, and war isn’t a religious thing. It’s government thing.
“Christianity converted twice as many people by the sword than Islam pulled off. There are 1 billion estimated Muslims. There are 2 billion estimated Christians of varying sects. ”
You are a fool, truly.
And FPOD, you have contributed nothing to this thread except trolling and cheerleading other trolls.
It’s tiresome and I will miss you when you’re gone.
He is right. And you seem to be a blind and enraged person.
@ACitizenwithoutaCane Since it seems that way to you, I am relieved.
a citizen without a cane can’t be any blinder than some:
http://is.gd/mubLEV
Islam is a Statist philosophy unlike Christianity. I’m an atheist who has rejected Christianity on other grounds. Islam actually mandates Jizya, taxation on non-believers. How can you be so ignorant as to confuse the two? Every ideology is different.
Islam isn’t a statist philsophy. Jiyza isn’t a mandatory taxation in the way you believe. Its completely a contract. And not some idea of a “social” contract. Its a real agreement.
That is an Islamic rationalization for a crime, an apologia. Jizya is not a contract in any sense I use the word. It’s extortion with an added legal fiction. You are forced to sign and are forced to use an Islamic court to adjudicate it. A court that was established by conquest.
The choice for not signing is the same choice you get when a couple of thugs show up at your business and say “You have a nice store here, and a nice family, it would be a pity if something happened to it. Perhaps you should buy some insurance with us”. Except it is not so subtle, the actual communication being “Convert, pay tribute, or die”, and BTW, your family isn’t nice because they are all a bunch of Jews. Oh, we didn’t mention this but we’ll have to take away all your weapons, your right to speak freely, and will have lots of humiliating rules for you to follow. Like don’t let your dirty lips touch anything a Muslim’s lips might touch, you pig.
You act like this is some contract that people would naturally and freely desire. Then how come Muslims don’t sign these “contracts” with other Muslims? How come we don’t see Muslims paying Jizya to non-Muslims, for the “privilege” of not being able to arm themselves in self defense?
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me you are giving me a bath.
J Murray,
“What religion is innocent of such behavior? “
Maybe if you didn’t formulate your questions in such a way that they are full of ambiguity, and equivocation you’d have an easier time answering them. What do you mean by a innocence here? How does a religion exhibit behavior? Etc.
There are plenty of religions that are innocent of advocating genocide. There are pacifist religions and sects of religions. The Jainism teaches not to step on ants. If a Jain were to murder out of anger I hardly think that counts as the religion exhibiting a behavior.
You confuse categories. Religions are not people, nor groups of people. They are philosophies, and whether or not following the instructions of a religion results in a problem is a measure of a religion.
“It’s not Islam or Christianity causing any of this, but large scale governments and their behavior.”
Nonsense. Your ideology has clouded your judgement. There is plenty of evidence that falsifies this belief if you weren’t so ignorant. What “large scale government” told Mohammad to commit all his atrocities? None. In fact, he violated the taboos of his birth religion that were meant to lower the amount of conflict. Muslims have been at each others necks ever since. Many of those peaceful quotes were made by Mohammad not to instruct his own followers but to remind the polytheists he despised of their own rules, in order to get himself out of sticky situation, after he had broken some other rule, like not going into someone elses temple to defame their gods.
Religion does teach hate, and violence, and that does result in conflict.
“These four nations account for over half of the Islamic population, yet none of the 9/11 hijackers were from those nations.”
Are you really this ignorant? I could spend several hours teaching you things just about this one sentence. First off, we are not the only victims of terrorism. Second those nations have all contributed terrorists. Third this didn’t start on 9/11/2001. The terror has been going ever since the religion was invented.
For example the 2008 Mumbai attacks. All Pakistani. They can’t even hold a cricket match in Pakistan without some terror attack or danger of the same on foreign players.
You live in a fantasy world. There are thousands of attacks on hundreds of countries. Wake up.
The rest of your comment is similarly in error, but I’ve not the time to address every mistake. They are too numerous.
@J. Murray
Christians today almost without exception live in secular states with secular constitutions that they Christians themselves help uphold. Most Muslims do not. The constitution of Pakistan and Bangladesh have a shari’ah supremacy clause (I do not know of the Indonesian constitution). Which means they are supposedly inferior to shari’ah. This clip summarizes what shari’ah is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adLgzV3PvF4
But the threats today are not from Indonesia or India and Bangladesh seems to be too tangled up in its own problems to become much of a threat to anyone but India. It is primarily from the Arab world, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
To know whether Pakistan is a threat because American bombing is going on there or whether American bombing is going on there because Pakistan is a threat requires understanding. Which you seem to lack.
Unless of course Islamization is performed using fear, intimidation and war. That has historical precedent.
Tom Fleming on the aforementioned Robert Spencer:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/03/09/spencer-for-hire/
note in the comments section of the above fleming piece, srdja trifkovic, singled out for vilification by the neoconservatives. just about says it all.
The article was trash and the second sentence says it all: ” I don’t know much about Spencer. ” I think this was Thomas Fleming’s attempt to commit every possible logical fallacy he could in one article.
Jeff,
You couldn’t be more wrong. Read the Qur’an, read Islamic history, read the Hadith, read Mohammad’s biography. Islam is the State. Islam mandates taxation; look up Jizya. Islam mandates the Muslims rule over non-Muslims, that what submission means, and that is the proper translation of the word Islam.
Islam, submission, is NOT compatible with liberty.
The only thing Islam is compatible with is antisemitism, and totalitarianism.
How can you be so ignorant about Islam. I’ve read the Qur’an and do not like it on that basis, not some pervasive American fear of the unknown. You insult me and the vast majority of your readers. Drop this nonsense like a hot potato, and learn something about the true nature of Islam.
to brian macker:
so what is to made of this picture?
http://www.ejpress.org/article/49527
Also, Michael Bloomberg is Jewish, yet he still supported the “Ground Zero Mosque”.
There is nothing in Jewish belief system that requires them not to. So what is your point. Jews are fallible just like the rest of us.
to brian macker:
you’ve said that islam is only compatible with antisemitism. israel seems to recognize that and takes appropriate action:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4042799,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/focus-u-s-a-reminders-of-israel-in-the-arizona-immigration-debate-1.290000
on the other hand, multiculturalism and muslim influx is actively pushed in europe and elsewhere, and not just by bloomberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scRwcY0i_fA
that’s my confusion.
I don’t see what is so confusing to you still. Jewish lawyers at the ACLU protect the rights of Nazis to publicly protest. Does that confuse you? Do you now think that the national socialist ideology isn’t anti-semetic?
The purpose of the fence is to keep terrorists from freely crossing the border. It has significantly reduced the number of attacks.
BTW, stop dragging in all this other stuff. Bloomberg was wrong about the mosque in that it’s purpose was exactly triumphalism. The very guy who was erecting it stressed that it was in the debris field of 9/11 tower collapse when fund raising, there are also many quotes of him blaming the attacks on the victims. Is it any wonder that those victims would find it offensive. No one was arguing against property rights in this. The didn’t like the insult and were pissed over the privileged treatment Bloomberg was giving it, removing barriers that others would face. The Mosque was getting privileged treatment given the existing rules.
@mackster:
One should note the convenience that many of these “free speech” cases involve asserting supremacy of federal law (and absurdly broad readings of the 1st Amendment) over state law. I.e., they are directed at increasing the power of an entity where Jews enjoy great influence over an entity where they enjoy less influence. Are you still confused now?
No, I get it. You think the Jews have their tentacles in everything.
How many Jews share this Rabbi’s opinions on immigration? A very high percentage, I’d say. You disagree?
At what point do you say that the opinions of individuals do not reflect on the group as a whole? You seem to have different tolerance levels here for Muslims as compared to Jews.
the new faces of the european nationalist right (anti-muslim-immigration agendas) have been given the cold shoulder by tel aviv (settlers excepted).
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-unholy-alliance-between-israel-s-right-and-europe-s-anti-semites-1.330132
it’s a sad spectacle of unrequited love.
They don’t truly believe in what Mohammad taught. That’s what. Same as the people who ran the inquisition didn’t believe in the Sermon on the Mount.
For example the Qur’an in at least three places says not to befriend Christians and Jews.
It says those of Christians and jews who mock you and attack you. Otherwise you are free to be equitable with them and seek their friendship. Looks like you completely missed that part because it throws off all your nonsense.
That’s funny really. Do you have to be told not to make friends with specific people who mock and attack you? Do you really think I would have a problem with Islam (not Muslims) if that was all the Qur’an did?
The surahs I’m talking about (there are more than three and I will quote below) are not specific. They are general, and do not qualify to bad behavior, or even mention mocking or attacking. It would raise my suspicions that I was dealing with an instigator if he said, “Don’t befriend the French because they mock Americans”. Why should I, in general, not befriend the French because of what some of them did?
In fact, the surrounding text for these admonishments not to befriend have all sorts of slander about Jews, Christians, and non-believers. It’s don’t be friends with Jews because they are all evil, not don’t be friends with Jews who behave in evil ways.
Why even qualify it to a race, or religion? Why (as you claim) only qualify it to criminals that attack “you”. What about criminals that attack others? What about Muslim criminals that attack others? You’d think being Allah he’d understand ethics and get it right, and without the bigotry. You’d think that it wouldn’t include a double standard that allows you to associate with Muslim criminals. I never saw anything that said to do that.
A non-bigot would console “Don’t befriend criminals”. However, Muhammad was a bigot so he commanded in ten different places that apply to Christians and Jews not to befriend them (there are explicit places where he calls both unbelievers).
I think you should befriend Muslims who are good.
Mohammad goes much further than that and says that a Muslim would be a criminal to befriend even family members if they disbelieve.
This all goes with the entire thrust of the Qur’an which is one long diatribe against non-believers of various stripes. Perhaps it is the polytheists who get the worst treatment in that Mohammad calls for their worldwide extermination. Jews and Christians get to be loathed second class citizens who can’t carry arms, and are subjected to a special tax which is supposed to be collected in a humiliating way, along with day to day rules meant to demean us and show us the error of our ways.
Why? Why do these things? Well the Qur’an spends much of the time telling how Jews, Christians, and Idolators are evil, in the most bigoted terms. Jews are greedy to a one, they descendants of a people turned to pigs and apes, etc.
So it is hardly surprising that the Qur’an tells Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims in general along with Jews, and Christians specifically, and especially not Idolators.
The below quote in context are as bad as the sound. These are complete quotes of the Surahs as the writer chose to divide the text.
From the Qur’an:
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers.
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
4:144 O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you ?
5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
5:80 Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.
9:23 O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.
58:14 Hast thou not seen those who take for friends a folk with whom Allah is wroth ? They are neither of you nor of them, and they swear a false oath knowingly.
58:22 Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan. As for such, He hath written faith upon their hearts and hath strengthened them with a Spirit from Him, and He will bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him. They are Allah’s party. Lo! is it not Allah’s party who are the successful ?
to brian macker:
the inquistion was directed at marranos. (“old wine, new bottles”).
Your point?
Jews were seen as cooperating with the Muslims in their centuries long oppression of the Christians. Do you think that it is compatible with Christian teachings about “turning the other cheek” to take revenge on the Jews?
The “Sermon on the Mount” is applicable too, if you think about it.
Note that you are wrong if you think the Inquistion was only directed at the Marranos. BTW, how do you know which inquisition I was talking about? They weren’t singular even in Spain.
I think it clear that a guy who consoles “Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone” isn’t going to go in for torturing and killing people on the mere suspicion of disbelief. Especially after defending a convicted criminal.
You are going to have a very hard time arguing that Christ consoled to persecute Jews because they are Christ killers.
Looks like the neocons are mounting an assault here. Truly, “islamofascism” and “islamophobia” are two stupid concepts that go well with each other.
I hope you are aware that neocon is used by antisemites to mean Jews and those manipulated by them. It’s been noticed before, and usually is married to the idea that all those Jews in Bushes cabinet manipulated him into war, and for Jewish reasons like greed.
I’m so glad arbiters of right-think like yourself are here to clarify this for us.
to brian macker:
timothy noah from the nyt book review begs to differ.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2008/01/naming-neocons/
and yes, the inquisition i believed you were referring to, directed against new christians, was the spanish one.
to brian macker:
yours is a fallacy of composition. it’s perfectly legitimate to point out those agitating for gulf war II in the bush galaxy (staff, think-tanks, etc.) were jewish, with strong ties to the likud party. this in no ways reflects on the broader jewish community, evidenced by the disproportionately high numbers of jews in the anti-war movement. anti-semitism is slandering of an entire group, not a subset thereof.
as regards your imputation as greed as a motivation, i don’t think so. more likely to have been a desire to augment israel’s security.
It’s not valid to focus in on them being Jewish while making the claim that the control the government. As if there weren’t other reasons to go into Iraq, and Afghanistan. Like support for terrorism, failure to abide by a cease fire, oil, minerals, you name it. If this was purely about what the Jews want our country would operate quite differently.
You haven’t read the Quran. You’ve just read excerpts from various websites. If you had real understanding of Quran you’d be interested in an actual discussion rather than pretending you know everything.
I suppose the websites are full of lies. Only lies and nothing more but propaganda and lies. The quotes from the Koran are fabricated and they use fake Hadith. No one should believe anything they read on websites. Websites are an instrument of propaganda used by the CIA. The Taliban did it right by banning the internet. In Egypt and Libya too they share the concern about this propaganda tool. It is very very un islamic indeed. I mean how stupid. People just post anything on the internet and everyone automatically believes it. People are very stupid no? Good thing the Chinese government is waking up and implementing a truth wall to prevent their people from hearing lies.
On, what basis to you make the claim he hasn’t read it. What do you mean by “read it”. Has he even claimed to have read it in it’s entirety?
I think his mocking of you about “only the CIA” is appropriate.
I’ve found that many Muslims have not read the Qur’an. They make ridiculous claims such as “The Qur’an never says X” which are easy to refute by pointing out where it does say X, and examining all the context around X. There is no need to strip the context. I invite you to always pull in the full context if you want to discuss the Qur’an with me. I warn you though, I will do the same for the supposedly peaceful quotes from the Qur’an. Sometimes something that sounds peaceful out of context actually is bigoted and violent in context.
There are very few peaceful quotes that Muslims can quote, and many of those are not very peaceful given broader context. There are many issues that are problematic.
When you say something like “Kill all the X’s but do not exceed the limits” then don’t specify any limits there, while in other places the limit you set for the kill off X’s is “Don’t kill X’s if they convert”, then I don’t think that quoting the “don’t exceed the limits” counts for very much.
The stuff that is wrong in the Qur’an is quite specific. The Qur’an is like an instruction manual that essentially tells you to use the hair drier in the bathtub, and make sure you immerse it, but don’t exceed the specifications. Elsewhere it says the dryer can be used in the shower. Further on it mentions “waterproof”. Elsewhere “there are no contradictions in the manual, it is infallible”. Meanwhile the hair drier in question will kill you if you follow those instructions. Somewhere in fine print it says “don’t get wet on tuesdays”.
Is is surprising that people who believe in such an instruction manual and follow it strictly tend to get electrocuted more often than others? Luckily for us, and unlike the dangers of electrocution from hair driers, most people understand that what the Qur’an is instructing is evil and ignore the very worst those instructions. That doesn’t mean they don’t follow other bad advice in the Qur’an that isn’t so obviously evil, especially when they’ve been blinded by the outright bigotry of the book, the Hadiths, and the rest of the religion.
Islam mandates the Muslims rule over non-Muslims, that what submission means, and that is the proper translation of the word Islam.
I’m pretty sure it’s about submission of the Muslim to God, not submission of non-Muslims to Muslims
The only thing Islam is compatible with is antisemitism
And you know Arabs are every bit as Semitic as Jews, right? Weird stuff.
Peter,
You seem to take a pretty lax attitude to the truth here. You are “pretty sure”? You seem to think that submitting to Allah, and submitting to Muslim rule are two different things. Did it ever cross you mind that “Allah” (meaning whatever Mohammad wrote in the Quran, not what other religions believe about god or gods) might have commanded exactly what I just said? I can easily support the claim with all sorts of in context quotes from the Qur’an how Mohammad used those quotes. It’s no coincidence that Muhammad sent envoys out to the surrounding countries demanding that they convert, pay tribute, or die. To people who had never even heard of him.
The Muslim Student Association’s “Pledge of Allegence” ends with “and I will die to establish Islam”. This isn’t some coincidence. This is mainstream and fully in line with what is taught. Islam is not about pious non-interventionism like something from Star Trek. They don’t follow the Prime Directive or something. The Qur’an teaches submission for everyone.
The MSA has been used as an example of moderate Muslims. I’m not cherry picking here. Here’s a video of the pledge being used at UCLA.
Your lazy inattention isn’t a problem in my thinking. It’s a problem with yours, and your ability to spot your errors.
“And you know Arabs are every bit as Semitic as Jews, right?”
Of course, I know that. In fact, many Muslims are the descendants of Jews that were forced to convert. I’ve even seen genetic comparisons. Not surprising as the Jews predated the Muslims and have lived continuously in Israel for a millenia or more before Muslims.
But I have to say that it is laughable if not intellectually dishonest to equivocate in this manner. The word “antisemitism” doesn’t mean someone who hates Semites. You know this, right? Apparently not. The word means someone who hates Jews.
An equivocation is when you mix up two meanings of a word, or words that sound the same, in order to come to a false conclusion. Your ridiculous conclusion given the actual meaning of the word is that Arabs can’t hate Jews. Yet we have a majority of voting Palestinians who do (evidence provided by election results).
In your case you confused Semite, meaning someone who is genetically semetic, with antisemite meaning someone who hates Jews a particular religious and ethnic group.
You’ve got two other equivocation fallacies in your argument.
You’ve confused Arab with Muslim, and Muslim with Islam, either accidentally out of ignorance or for motivations that would be even less admirable.
I said Islam is antisemitic. I did not say that Muslims are antisemitic. Nor did I claim that all Muslims are Arabs.
Ironic that you accuse me of making a mistake which I didn’t but that you did in three separate places. You accused me of being ignorant, but it is you who are the ignorant one.
No intellectual crime being ignorant. What is an intellectual crime however is being ignorant and then accusing others of mistakes based on your own ignorance. Intellectual crime leads to error.
I know next to nothing about baseball and certainly wouldn’t chastise a baseball fan that “That batter was not struck out, as you claim, because the ball never hit him” ignorant of the very definition of the word “strike”.
“The word “antisemitism” doesn’t mean someone who hates Semites. You know this, right? Apparently not. The word means someone who hates Jews. ”
As the late, great, Joe Sobran noted, these days it means someone whom Jews hate.
Yeah, and Sobran also said things like, the New York Times “really ought to change its name to Holocaust Update.” Sobran also had a lot of praise for the holocaust denying magazine Instauration.
The guy said stuff so embarrassing that William F. Buckley had to disavow him in an article in the National Review. Buckley then severed his ties with Sobran over his views on the Jews.
Sobran associated himself with the Institute for Historical Review which defends Nazism and is holocaust denying. Some of the crazy theories that IHR floated were that Anne Franks diary was a forgery. They floated the theory that the “Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism”.
IHR claimed that had we just made peace with Hitler it would have resulted in a ““an Axis-dominated Pax Europa … [which] would have been prosperous, socially progressive, politically stable, and technologically advanced, with an extensive, continent-wide transportation and communications network, conscientious environmental policies, and a comprehensive healthcare system. At the same time, the continent would have remained ethnically and culturally European. Large scale immigration of non-Europeans would have been unthinkable.””
Why would Sobran associate with such organizations? Well let’s read some of his writings:
“In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. ” – Sobran
“Jews have generally supported Communism, socialism, liberalism, and secularism; the agenda of major Jewish groups is the de-Christianization of America, using a debased interpretation of the “living Constitution” as their instrument. ” – Sobran
“History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger.” – Sobran
Of course Sobran going to say what quoted he saying. He’s an antisemite.
lenni brenner wrote of the extensive links between the national socialists and the zionists here:
http://is.gd/HvU0u7
and you’ll find herzl’s diary quite enlightening, too. naturally, these are jewish sources, so bigotry can’t be a motivating factor.
http://is.gd/O5P41U
There were extensive links between the National Socialists and the Christians, and the national socialists and the Muslims, and the National Socialists and US citizens, and so forth.
It’s focusing in on this stuff that makes one an anti-semite. Plus you have to be a really obsessed with hatred of Jews to think that any common ground with Hitler was anything more than an aberration.
You are aware that there were African Americans in the south who supported a plan to relocate to Liberia. In fact, many American blacks did just that. Having them “move back to Africa” was fully supported by the southern racists.
Someone arguing that Slavery didn’t actually happen on the basis of the Liberian experiment would rightly be called a crackpot. Especially because you have to ignore all the other evidence and focus in on your hatred of blacks to even come to such a conclusion.
The Holocaust happened. Believe it.
no, it’s not focusing on the zionist link to the national socialist government, as opposed to nazism’s dialogue with the vatican or other entities, it’s merely correcting what you seem to think was an error of sobran, which you brought up in an effort to discredit. if sobran is wrong on this point, then herzl is wrong, too.
hitler did in fact support zionism as a way of expelling the jews. the british, however, only allowed a certain number of jews in, for fear of alienating the locals.
for “herzl”, substitute “brenner” (herzl died in 1904, but his views on jewish integration were similar to hitler’s).
re-reading your post, i realize you don’t accuse sobran of maintaining hitler supported zionism, but rather the ihr (presumably you believe this particular assertion ridiculous). my error.
but you’ll find plenty of jewish sources (whilst contextualizing and rationalizing it) acknowledging this connection. not on account of affinity, mind you, but of pragmatism. brenner goes into minute detail, but weber’s sources here seem irreproachable.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html
No f—ing kidding they were being pragmatic. It wasn’t rationalization either. Maybe you are not aware of it but the German’s didn’t start talking about exterminating the Jews with Hitler. Their was open discussion, published, of dealing with the “Jewish Problem” (their failure to integrate and take up German values like Christianity) and coming up with a “Final solution”.
No f—ing kidding there was a portion of the Jews who had caught on even prior to Hitlers rise and were planning on moving back to their historical homeland, a place Jews had never stopped living.
Their Zionist plans included raising money and purchasing land their, then emigrating. They followed through on those plans. You know what the “Palestinians” did? After a while they terrorize Jews who bought land and “Palestinians” who sold land to them. In fact they got laws passed saying that Jews weren’t allowed to buy land anymore.
That’s would be the same as if American’s didn’t like ethnic American Indians who had fled the US coming back to buy land here, terrorizing them, and killing American who sold them land, and passing a law saying that the natives couldn’t purchase land anymore.
Oh, and it has been shown that Jews from Europe are not merely Caucasian imports. They are genetically Semitic.
You are aware that the Jews were in that area thousands of years prior to the invention of Islam, and that the Muslims had taken over the area by force, right?
Objecting to Israel on the basis that they don’t allow those who had persecuted them to immigrate back in is ridiculous, on libertarian grounds, when you consider what the Palestinians want. Their agenda is far worse than putting up some wall to keep people from being suicidal murders.
BTW, the Israelis understand that it’s not just the Arab Muslims and Christians that stayed that were tolerant, but also that some of the ones that evacuated in order to allow the Jews to be “driven into the sea” did so out of fear. They therefore set up a fund to pay restitution to anyone who can show they owned land in Israel prior to voluntary evacuation (well at least from the Israeli viewpoint since they didn’t threaten them to get out, that was the Muslims threatening their own) that were not let back in. They don’t have any other criteria either. You can be a member of Hamas and can demand your money.
Meanwhile all the Arab states forced out Jews and won’t take in the Muslims they advised to flee the area so they could practice genocide with a free hand. They forced them out without letting them keep any of their possessions (they passed through emigration controls unlike the Muslims leaving Israel). Those millions were never offered any compensation.
BTW, forcing an ethnic group out of a country is called ethnic cleansing.
I could go on. Israel and Zionism isn’t the problem here. The fact that they chose to try socialism in Israel was their mistake (plus makes laughable the claim they run a theocracy along with other facts). The fact they make mistakes doesn’t make them uniquely evil either. Plenty of non-Jews have tried socialism.
It is the focusing in on Jews for the same or worse behavior that others commit that shows quite a bit of antisemitism.
… because there is zero evidence that Jews are being motivated by those passages to kill me. Be bigoted towards me maybe, but not kill me, oppress me, etc.
I could discuss how shibboleths like not eating pork, etc. are wrong, but that’s minor compared to Jihad, and Islamic oppression.
Funny thing is though some of the things people are most prejudice to the Jews about are the metrics upon which Jews actually do better than other groups. Jewish out marriage is quite high for example despite the bigoted Jewish parents in my link.
tim wise paints a much darker picture, and is toasted for it. maybe the future ain’t so rosy, after all.
http://is.gd/A7zbnO
Can’t tell what this is in reply to let alone what conclusion I’m supposed to draw.
try a thought experiment and imagine a wasp using such incendiary language towards an ethnic minority.
http://is.gd/6lJhHs
in russia, the ethnic tensions played out very seriously, and contributed to counter-reactions in western europe. everyone knows how badly that chapter turned out.
Other than bashing Jews, what is the purpose of the link? It doesn’t support the claim that Judaism motivated those particular Jews to work with Stalin. In fact, Marxism is an atheist philosophy. One even hated by atheists of other stripes. Did the Talmud instruct Jews to work with atheists?
Meanwhile there is a lot in Christian doctrine that has spawned all sorts of socialist and semi-socialist economic beliefs. Ever hear of the Hutterites? There were all sorts of Christian inspired socialist and communist experimental towns in NY. Serfdom of the middle ages was in a way based on Christian inspired economics.
Jews have some of the broadest spectrum of beliefs of any religion, because it’s been around so long. It runs the gamut from the secular Jews to the ultra-orthodox. The more extreme, the orthodox, are less likely to be communists and socialists. So the correlation runs the opposite direction from ones expectations.
Also Jews are a tiny minority of the population.
It would be surprising if the Jews gained power in Russia and then gave a little payback. They’d been persecuted for centuries. I don’t see what that has to do with religion. That’s happened over and over.
The Russian purges were about Marxism, not Judaism. To focus in on them shows some warped thinking.
i guess you mean to say “unsurprising”. jews were oppressed under the tsarist regime, and did their best to overthrow it (see jacob schiff’s financing of trotsky). but i think it’s not charitable to characterize the millions of holodomor victims as “a little payback”.
if you read the paper, you’ll see all the revolutionaries were atheists, nonetheless they strongly identified as racial jews. those in the upper echelons who weren’t jewish, often married jews. (stalin, for one). educate yourself about birobidzhan, and the most particular treatment of jews in the ussr. anti-semitism only occurred post wwII, with formation of israel. stalin realized that the us was the nation jews would look to for support, and then the purges began.
the point of the link is to point out that jews, like all other ethnic groups, can become the oppressor when the cards line up. this is the human condition.
Of course Jews can be oppressors. So what? They are human just like the rest of us. Any ethnic group can become oppressors. Especially when they turn the tables. Look at what happened in Haiti. I don’t think a flag depicting a white baby on a pike is a just response, but it is certainly understandable. Nor would I draw the conclusion that blacks are waiting to take over from it.
“i think it’s not charitable to characterize the millions of holodomor victims as “a little payback”. “
Well that’s because you are thinking that the Jews were responsible for every victim, whereas, I was thinking more along the lines that perhaps a few of the Jews used the opportunity to take revenge on their actual oppressors. I was assuming something that may not even of happened since I had no evidence for it. You know, like some of the Shiites in Iraq went out an killed some Sunni members of Saddam’s army (plus other random Sunni victims).
Again, you are focusing in on Jews in a strange way. Bizarre to be highlighting Stalin being married to a Jew. Do you think his wife was the actual person pulling the strings? The Jews were a minority in the movement. Sure they were overrepresented but they are often overrepresented in intellectual activities. Like being overrepresented in science.
Jews manipulating Christians into evil deeds is an ongoing theme in antisemitic writing. It’s not credible to believe that Stalin and the majority of Christian in the top ranks, along with the vast majority of Christians in the lower ranks can’t think for themselves. Do Jews have some genetic ability to hypnotize the non-Jew to violate his conscience?
Obama is doing the exact same stuff as Bush. Is he being manipulated by Jews also? When do Christians and Muslims (and Marxists) take responsibility for their own actions.
I give responsibility to an ideology when it actually incites violence against it’s victims. Clearly Marxism paints the bourgeois as a group that deserves to have all their property stolen and worse, and a longer argument can show why it ends in starvation and purges. Clearly Islam invokes violence against it’s victims. Clearly “though shall not suffer a witch to live” is going to result in murder where people actually believe in witches (it still happens in christian Africa).
Yes, there are despicable beliefs in Judaism but evidence is that it’s not a problem. [Advising not to intermarry is their problem. I noticed the same with Greek Orthodox though.] Just like the burning of witches isn’t a problem in western countries. That’s why I’m not out their protesting the quite dispicable idea that we need to burn witches here. Were I in Africa then it would be a different story.
That didn’t prevent me from rejecting Christianity however. I did reject it on the basis that such claims are not ethically sound. Also the entire epistemological theory of Christianity is fallacious. That’s why so many Christians rejected science in the past, and reject in now. It is only the overwhelming success of science that has turned minds. Kinda hard to reject that the earth goes round the sun when we can put a man on the moon.
Someone who takes a minority presence of Jews in an activity, against a majority of Christians is exactly the definition of an antisemite.
Again, these atrocities can be traced to the ideas of Marx. The same exact ideas migrated to China, North Korea, and Cambodia, with the same exact effect. That minus any Jews. This is how science is done, you eliminate variables until you zoom in on the common factor. The common factor with communist atrocities isn’t Jews, it’s Marx. Nor is it communism, it’s Marxist communism (involuntary communism). The voluntarist communist Hutterites are quite peaceful.
perhaps you didn’t read what slezkine (no anti-semite) actually wrote. jews were vastly over-represented in the cheka, ogpu, nkvd, and the gulag administration, as well as the politburo during the years of greatest terror and bloodshed. it’s natural that non-jews would also align themselves through marriage with this formidable power bloc as a form of protection, advancement, as well as affection.
of course, not all jews did well under communism, even at high point of jewish influence many suffered. and of course, only a small minority of jews actively participated in the oppression.
religious affiliations don’t enter the picture, the split was along ethnic lines.
Kevin MacDonald is an anti-semite.
i would have offered some of solzhenitsyn’s two hundred years together to bolster the macdonald review of slezkine, but there’s no english-language publisher prepared to touch it. only available in french and german. as steve sailer says, the “land of the free and home of the brave”.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/11/worlds-greatest-living-writer-cant-get.html
Kevin MacDonald’s thesis being that Hitler was right, quotes him approvingly at the beginning, the Jews are parasites, and Western society would be better off without them. Plus further reading of MacDonald makes one realize that he comes to the conclusion that it wasn’t the Nazis who were guilty of eugenics but the Jews, who were developing themselves as the master race before the Nazis ever thought of it. In his mind a master parasite race. MacDonald concludes that antisemitism itself is the fault of the Jews, and is in fact justified based on the behavior of Jews.
Steven Pinker has called MacDonald’s ideas “preposterous”. Pinker is not known for being politically correct to say the least. He’s the author of the Blank Slate and anyone can go on TED.com to see what I mean.
BTW, I see from that article that Pinker has read Thomas Sowell. Me too. I have all his published books and Sowell’s analysis destroys MacDonalds crazy antisemetic theories.
I agree with Pinker and do not think that MacDonald is using sound reasoning. Like Pinker I will not claim to have read everything MacDonald has ever written but it is clear from what I have read that he’s made some rather ridiculous leaps.
BTW, using MacDonald’s “results” Jewish Austrian economists like Mises should have been deported lest they pollute the culture.
“Toward the end of the third book, MacDonald lays out his solution for restoring what he calls “parity” between the Jews and other ethnic groups: systematic discrimination against Jews in college admission and employment and heavy taxation of Jews “to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.” – Judith Shulevitz
That doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. Forced emigration, college quotas, heavy taxation of wealth for the purpose of maintaining equality of results. MacDonald’s defense that he meant this as a “hypothetical” falls flat on it’s fact when you see the full quote in context. Furhtermore, even if taken in general it is anti-libertarian, and anti-Miseian. Of course he doesn’t purport to be either, but in fact, he’s not even a very good sociobiologist, and I know quite a bit about that.
Note that Pinker called his theories ad-homenim in that the very fact that Pinker is Jewish discredits him. Yet we find this very kind of thinking in MacDonald’s writing here, where he discredits Jews for being against affirmative action and quotas. You see, he wants to apply both to Jews, he needs to mention that jews are against such policies (presumably because it would go against their plans of taking over the world).
“Because ethnic groups have differing talents and abilities and differing par-enting styles, variable criteria for qualifying and retaining jobs would be required depending on ethnic group membership. Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to em-ployment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States. This would especially be the case if Jews were distinguished as a separate ethnic group from gentile European Americans. Indeed, the final evolution of many of the New York Intellectuals from Stalinism was to become neoconser-vatives who have been eloquent opponents of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing resources. (Sachar [1992, 818ff] mentions Daniel Bell, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, and Earl Raab as opposed to affirmative action.) Jewish organizations (including the ADL, the AJCommittee, and the AJCongress) have taken similar positions Sachar (1992, 818ff). ”
This is further an example of MacDonald’s tendencies to highlight some minority of Jews who believe or act in a way in order to discredit Jews in general. He totally ignores the vast majority of Jews who are for affirmative action and quotas, that vote Democrat. I pointed this out before when I was criticizing his conclusion that Jews were someone uniquely responsible for Stalin’s atrocities.
His “solutions” also have similar strange logic. If he wants to deport Jews that have certain beliefs then why not deport those Jews, plus any Christians who share those beliefs. Why only Jews, and why the Jews that do not disagree with his patently stupid ideas.
Lest you think I’m exaggerating, in your own article you linked he talks approvingly of how the British deported the Jews and how that was great for them.
The guy is an antisemite. I could write an entire book on the subject just on what little I’ve read. Look how well it worked out for the Nazis killing off all their Jewish scientists and making them flee to the west.
What little I picked up of Slezkine I don’t see how one would properly conclude that Judaism or Jews in particular, or even in part were UNIQUELY responsible for the communist purges. I’ve already mentioned that Christians were in the majority, and furthermore the vast majority of people murdered by communism were in the far east, China, Cambodia, North Korea. That falsifies the belief that Jews are uniquely a problem, and one can hardly argue that those other atrocities were perpetrated by some other group of foreign interloping culturally isolated internally operating parasites.
first, pinker has criticized macdonald without reading him, whilst seemingly conceding the point that ashkenazi jews have higher average i.q.’s than the general population. harvard is not known for its political incorrectness. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/blog-Pinker.htm
i’ve read the culture of critique and recall no mention of university quotas or jewish taxes. perhaps shulevitz didn’t read the book, either. your point on eugenics is interesting. the higher mean i.q.’s of ashkenazi jews presumably is the product of selective breeding over millenia, maintaining quite a unique gene pool.
macdonald does approach the argument from a socio-biological point of view, and does attribute to jewish intellectual leaders like freud, boas, and members of frankfurt school a desire to subvert traditional european culture as a way of defusing the potential threat that a homogeneous christian culture had traditionally presented over the centuries (exclusion, quotas, pogroms, etc.). he is, however, meticulous in sourcing this material from jews, to avoid the facile accusation of anti-semitism. he does spend considerable time on the immigration issue, and how jewish groups were, and continue to be, primary backers of relaxed immigration controls.
in his books, i recall no solutions proffered whatsoever. these are not political works, so i feel no need to bring in the bogeyman of hitler. he does, however, analyze jewish voting patterns in a way i feel superior to block (http://mises.org/etexts/Mishnah.pdf). in particular, the morphing of trotskyite jews into the neocons (an essentially jewish movement with wasp front-men) is dealt with at great length here.
http://is.gd/A67mrw
as for slezkine, he says nothing about jews being uniquely responsible, merely that statistically they were massively over-represented in the bureaucracies that presided over the terror. so as there’s no further confusion:
“Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations,
especially in supervisory roles, and agrees with Leonard Schapiro’s comment
that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood
a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a
Jewish investigator” (p. 177). During the 1930s the secret police, then known
as the NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions” (p. 254),
with 42 of its 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD
directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of state
security, police, labor camps, and resettlement (i.e., deportation). The Gulag
was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a
period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror. They were,
in Slezkine’s words, “Stalin’s willing executioners” (p. 103).”
from p. 84 of the paper i cited.
The Kevin MacDonald I read was antisemitic. That’s what Pinker was saying also. No, we don’t have to read everything he wrote in order to come to that conclusion.
To equivocate between the intentional involuntary genocide based eugenics of Hilter and an unintentional genetic selection cause by things like the fact your culture holds intelligent people in esteem is in fact quite evil when combined with “they did it first”.
McDonald strikes me as the kind of person who would excuse a robber who amassed wealth by stealing from Jews with the argument that they “did it first” by amassing wealth they earned through free trade.
It’s quite clear from MacDonald’s own writings that he sees the acheivements of the Jews as a problem that he approvingly sees solved by forced deportation.
“he is, however, meticulous in sourcing this material from jews, to avoid the facile accusation of anti-semitism.”
It didn’t work, now did it? Not only didn’t he avoid facile accusations but he’s getting credible accusations that he is an antisemite.
One can source materials completely from Jews that Hilter commited genocide on Jews in Germany, and also that after WWII Germany flourished economically. It takes an antisemite to approvingly suggest that the two are causally connected.
well, pinker doesn’t feel the need to read the material in order to reject it out of hand. and i think shulevitz is guilty of tendentiousness in her analysis. i believe she has twisted the sense of this passage on p. 308 of the culture of critique:
“Thus the ideal situation of absolute equality in resource control and
reproductive success would certainly require a great deal of monitoring and
undoubtedly be characterized by a great deal of mutual suspicion. In the real
world, however, even this rather grim ideal is highly unlikely.”
“ideal” is referring to the vision of horace kallen, an exponent of cultural pluralism where different ethnic groups would enjoy complete political equality and economic opportunity. it does not reflect macdonald’s personal preference, as should be self-evident (i’ve bolded it just in case).
macdonald doesn’t hold that the neocons’ attitude towards affirmative action is the dominant jewish one when it comes to political action:
“Because of their high intelligence and resource-acquisition ability, Jews do not benefit from affirmative action policies and other group-based entitlements commonly advocated by minority groups with low social status. Jews thus come into conflict with other ethnically identified minority groups who use multiculturalism for their own
purposes. (Nevertheless, because of their competitive advantage within the white,
European-derived group with which they are currently classified, Jews may
perceive themselves as benefiting from policies designed to dilute the power of
the European-derived group as a whole on the assumption that they would not
suffer any appreciable effect. Indeed, despite the official opposition to groupbased
preferences among Jewish organizations, Jews voted for an antiaffirmative
action ballot measure in California in markedly lower percentages
than did other European-derived groups.)”
the culture of critique, pp. 312-13.
I get MacDonald just fine. His position is to take the least charitable and most bigoted interpretation of their actions. In his mind those Jews that favor affirmative action only do so because they want to tear down WHITE society, and he wrote that in your quote. To him the Jews are some kind of single minded octopus intent on destroying the west. When he uses the phrase “official opposition” he means that the Jews are lying about their true, single minded intent. He’s not going to entertain the reality that different Jews are of different opinions on the subject, no, it’s some kind of conspiracy.
This kind of bias screams out of his writings. He ignores the most reasonable interpretations of behavior and focuses in on interpretations that are sinister and ridiculous.
Thus the Jewish tendency (of some Jews mind you) to raise fewer children, save, invest more in those children, respect intelligence, using study of the Talmud to select against those inferior in intelligence, etc. become in his mind an intentional program of eugenics that required a tit for tat by the Nazis.
He does this in an unbalanced way. A 30% participation rate by Jews at the top (not the bottom mind you) of Bolshevism is highlighted as evidence that all Jews are on a mission to destroy the west, while a 70% participation rate by Christians is proof of nothing. I keep point out how he ignores the forest and trees of Marxism to focus in on imaginary devious little Jewish wood elves. You don’t seem to get it though.
He repeats this pattern over and over. Ignore identical behavior in other groups holding Jews to a double standard, ignore falsifying evidence, equivocate between voluntarism on the part of Jews with force on the part of their oppressors, approvingly cite quotes and behavior oppressive of the Jews, etc.
Hell the very first paragraph of the very first link you provided for the guy has him approvingly quoting Hilter as he rationalized a genocide of the Jews in Germany (and the rest of Europe) because some communists happened to be Jewish in Russia. Completely ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as group guilt, and that other Jews, the Mises/Rothbard type, are not communists.
The guy is a collectivist himself and the evil kind. Ironic really.
“I get MacDonald just fine. His position is to take the least charitable and most bigoted interpretation of their actions.”
Of course you get him just fine, you do the same thing with Muslims.
Really, where? Be specific. Where did I criticize Muslims for doing well in college and advocate quotas to keep them out? Were did I approvingly quote a genocidal maniac in his justifications for slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately?
Amusing attempt at misdirection. This page is covered with your uncharitable interpretations and your habitual lumping together of over a billion people. Of course people who fear and scapegoat Muslims don’t say the exact same things as people who fear and scapegoat Jews.
All Westerners who buy into anti-Muslim stereotypes are little bricks in the wall for the support of D.C.’s slaughter of Muslims. Could never have been an Iraq war without all you muddleheads.
Not going to get into it much though, I think the best thing to try to do with your bigotry (and Newson’s, though I think maybe he’s just autistic or something. Sad to watch him Fred Leuchter himself. Whereas you mainly suffer from the common modern ignorant/arrogant hatred of religion) is ignore it. I just felt like expressing how darkly funny it is to see an unwitting German-Nazi apologist arguing with an unwitting American-Nazi apologist.
defamation (2009).
http://is.gd/uyGSro
it’s hard to believe we’re reading the same paper. hitler is quoted only to so as to understand the nature of the accusation. then it continues:
“This long tradition stands in sharp contradiction to the official view,
promulgated by Jewish organizations and almost all contemporary historians,
that Jews played no special role in Bolshevism and indeed were specifically
victimized by it. Yuri Slezkine’s book provides a much needed resolution
to these opposing perspectives. It is an intellectual tour de force, alternately
muddled and brilliant, courageous and apologetic.”
you’ve noted how jews were a tiny minority of the russian population, slezkine has listed the percentages jews represented in the key agencies of security and repression, and yet you want to deny the undeniable, viz. that for better or for worse, the regime had a distinct jewish flavour at the very top. this is no way blames all russian jews, anymore than americans are to blame for george w. bush or barack obama. it’s ridiculous to blind yourself that traveling abroad you may be hated for the actions of the american government, and that anti-american hate might cause you serious harm. we don’t live in some randian world where people have no ethnicity or belonging. and we all get credited or blamed to some extent for accidents of birth or ethnicity, unfair as that may be.
mises was a classic case of a jew on the wrong side of jewish politics in austria, and was denied a professorship by his fellow jews, dominant in all the social science faculties, not because of antisemitism.
anyway, here’s a jew who’s not afraid to confront the past.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
simon sebag montefiore has a great audiobook that covers the early part of the soviet regime (distinctly favourable to jews), and the period when their influence was cut back severely in the purges (post wwII and especially after golda meir’s visit).
http://is.gd/mgofGx
I never once denied that Jews were involved. Again, because you seem not to be getting it. To approvingly mention the expulsion of Jews from western society as some sort of cure, and to approvingly advocate quotas on Jews becoming doctors, while highlighting their over representation in one horrible episode of history, is antisemitic. So Jews wanting to heal people in one country must be prevented because some other Jews somewhere else happened to make up some higher percentage. He even feels the need to inflate his numbers by counting Stalin as a Jew because he had a Jewish wife. He’s flinging poo like a monkey and hoping something will stick.
Sorry, quotas based on race are racists, and especially if the goal is to suppress individual success, and the race in question.
It doesn’t matter if the percent is 30% or 90%. I’ve already falsified his thesis using the fact of the Asian communists. The common factor is Marxism not Judaism, or Semitic blood.
Here’s a video showing that the antisemitism in Islam is alive and well in the living religion. It’s not some long forgotten minor historical event chronicled in a dusty book.
in the slezkine review, macdonald doesn’t say the expulsion was moral, only that it proved to be a good (ie. effective) investment. campaign contributions today often have high pay-outs for promoters of different political ideas. morality is another question:
“As a result, when modernization occurred,
it was accomplished with an indigenous middle class. If, as in Eastern Europe,
Jews had won the economic competition in most of these professions, there
would not have been a non-Jewish middle class in England. Whatever one
imagines might have been the fortunes and character of England with predominantly
Jewish artisans, merchants, and manufacturers, it seems reasonable
to suppose that the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment
in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of
£116,346 in return for expelling two thousand Jews in 1290.”
I think any reasonable person knows what indigenous means when applied to Europe. Also it is not at all clear that deporting Jews makes the “indigenous population” better off. His case isn’t even remotely convincing.
Do you think it would have been a good investment for the non-indigenous whites in the US to pay to deport the slaves as Lincoln wanted? Hell, lets just get to the point. Would it be a good investment for the US taxpayers, well at least the non-Jews, to pay to deport the Jews now?
The quote mostly speaks for itself. At this point I think you are hearing it, want to advocate the position, but are too afraid to own it. Where should we deport them to so that our pseudo-indigenous don’t have to hypocritically embrace quotas for mentally inferior whites without embracing them for blacks? After all we can’t have Jews suppressing the ability of whites to develop rocketry, nuclear arms, and medicine, with their over-representativeness.
no, i don’t share it (wholly incompatible with the non-aggression axiom), nor do i think macdonald endorses expulsion in this piece. but i agree, his explanation for the lack of a middle-class developing in eastern europe vis-à-vis england is purely speculative, so his conclusion about the commercial pay-off for the expellers must be viewed similarly.
what about muslims, do you think they should be expelled or offered a bounty to leave the west?
Unfortunate terminology by MacDonald, who after all is not a libertarian. Having said that, it is interesting to speculate what direction early capitalism would have taken if the means of finance were in Jewish as opposed to European hands (it should be obvious that such speculation does not entail any kind of support for mass expulsions). And just as one can reasonably anticipate that mass Mexican immigration to the US (say) will result in the US becoming more Mexican, one can reasonably anticipate that capitalist development under this alternative history would bear striking resemblance to the finance capitalism of today that we all know and love.
taxpayers were to bear the burden of the king’s heavy debts, regardless. the edict of expulsion was a concession by the king to make the tax less unpopular. it was the king who must have decided the one-off windfall was worth the loss of the commercial acumen and access to finance that the jews delivered.
Comments on this entry are closed.