I had an exchange with a British colleague on the Brook/Binswanger/Biddle open borders issue, and one active reader on Capitalism Magazine, where Andrew Bernsteins column prompted a counter-post by me. The Brit was asking the reader for clarification of his own position on the issue: Lee: Ive now printed out and read your exchange with Writeby. His position on the matter is confusing, as he seems to want it both ways: a total ban on all Muslim immigration to Western countries, and a selective or discriminating ban on Muslims who advocate violence to impose Islam on others or a whole country (in conformance with the Brook/Binswanger/Biddle position). So he isnt clear on his own position at all, even though you twice asked him for clarification. He also contradicts himself when he says that Islam is both a criminal organization (a genuine criminal organization, such as the Mafia or a drug cartel, is not moved by an ideology of any kind, these organizations are merely opportunistic, taking advantage of irrational laws), and also that Islam is an ideology (a totalitarian one, even though it has little ideational content, and little in its jurisprudence, Sharia). The only thing hes right about is that the Koran is a prescription for conquest and committing criminal acts, criminal per Western concepts of individual and civil rights, which Islamic spokesman deny the validity of, because Islam doesnt recognize individual rights or the civil liberties of Western nations (although Muslims do avail themselves of them to advance Islam; they adopt the tactic of Lenin that capitalists will hang themselves with the rope they sold the Reds, its much the same thing). Frankly, I think the Brook/Binswanger/Biddle faction on this issue is guilty of a severe dropping of context. This is not the early 20th century when hundreds of thousands of Jews and Italians immigrated to this country. The overwhelming majority of them were not trying to impose Judaism or Catholicism or the Mafia on everyone else. Their personal religious convictions were not a threat to anyone else. True, some Jews and Italians who came here were gangsters, or became gangsters. In many instances, when they were identified they were either deported or imprisoned after a trial for their crimes. But Islam isnt the same thing. Jews and Italians did not pose a peril to everyone else, native-born or not. Whether or not your average Friday-go-to-prayers Muslim is active in propagating or proselytizing Islamic doctrine or engages in criminal actions based on Islamic scripture, such as terrorism, theyre still culpable and indirectly responsible for the actions of their more consistent brethren, who engage in violence per the diktats of the Koran. On that point, I agree with Peikoff 100%. My policy would be: Either repudiate Islam altogether, or leave and return to a country where your ideology is implemented, but youre not implementing it here. I discount those Muslims who claim that Islam can be reformed in the same way Catholicism and Protestantism were reformed, that is, the religion taken out of a countrys politics, because, as Ive written many times, Islam cant be reformed without killing it; Islam is based on the initiation of force and once that imperative is removed from the religion, theres not much left to it except perhaps a ritualistic, Masonic-like code or or something resembling a fraternity of the Knights of Pythias. All in all, you, Lee, are still left in puzzlement over Writebys and the Brook factions position on banning or removing Muslims from the U.S. (or Britain). And the context being dropped by them and Writeby is that we are both living in countries that are far more statist than they were in the early 20th century. I think its somewhat futile to be arguing over immigration rights when were losing or have lost rights wholesale in terms of personal income and consumer products and behavioral policies imposed by the government and other non-immigration issues. Others deny it, such as Bernstein, but our welfare state is a draw to Mexicans and Muslims (as is Britains). When the Jews and Italians and other European groups came here in the early 20th century, there was no welfare state. When Cubans risked their lives coming to this country, they werent drawn to the welfare state that actually existed, but by the chance to live their lives independently of the state (Communist or not). One cant say that now about Muslim or Mexican (or Central American) immigrants. As for the Mexicans and other Latinos, I think most of them come here for semi-ideological motives; our welfare state is more generous and more efficient than the ones they left behind. They will naturally vote Democratic out of gratitude or compulsion or manipulation, and, as I noted in my original column, help to perpetuate the death grip the Democrats and other statists have on this country.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:12:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015