North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › Islamic Fascism

Islamic Fascism

Dan
dbclawyer
Allen, TX
Post #: 69
One of my favorite commentators on foreign affairs is a fellow named Mark Steyn. I found this article interesting:

Pan-Islamism Challenges Idea of Nation-State

Dan
Old Toad
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 289
An interesting article.

But I don't see the connection to "fascism." Is a "fascist" government the same as a "caliphate"?

The article notes the problems not just in "failed states," but also in the UK. In this regard, what strategy would a rational government or society use to combat such an ideology? For example, how should we in the United States do so? In a free society, what would the role of government be, if any, in such a battle of ideologies? Where is the battle ground? What is each of us able to do about it or contribute to positive change?

-- Todd
A former member
Post #: 63
[Todd said]
In a free society, what would the role of government be, if any, in such a battle of ideologies? Where is the battle ground? What is each of us able to do about it or contribute to positive change?


The government of a free society per se cannot fight an ideology, it is their job to insure that ideologies are free to be spoken. However, the spokespersons for that society (government or otherwise) can come out more assuredly against Islamo-fascism; showing how it is irrational and how free societies are built on rationality, not religions. But we won't see that happening any time soon, sad to say. Other than that, they can fight the war more assuredly or let other free nations -- i.e. Israel -- fight the war as it needs to be fought.

Ideas can only be fought with better ideas, and those better ideas ought to be coming from our universities, but are not. Instead we hear a lot of huff about multi-culturalism and how the Islamo-fascists are merely being misunderstood, even though they want to enslave the whole world and state so openly. The vast majority of our professional intellectuals have not only given up the idea of a nation and its ideals worth fighting for, they say that the Islamo-fascists may know reality better than we do, so who are we to disagree.

So, the ideological fight must be taken to the streets, so to speak, meaning on these pro-rationality boards that do exist. This is definitely a case where speaking one's mind (provided one has something rational to say) really counts. Those who want to put us down need to know that we are not going to be put down like rabid dogs, but rather that we know what we are fighting for: Life on earth, and all of its splendor.

When it is appropriate, one can also speak out to one's representative, because that is what they are there for -- to hear from you, because they work for you (supposedly). But I don't know that there are many who would pass on the idea that it is secularity that we need to be fighting for, not religiosity; and that the danger of the Islamo-fascists is that they are so irrational (i.e. religious) as to be dangerous to anyone who disagrees with them. They come right out and say that, too, but our multi-culturalist intellectuals have taught most everyone to turn a blind eye to such discriminating observations.

I think the ending line of the article says it all:

"Absent a determination to throttle the ideology, we're about to witness the unraveling of the world." (Mark Steyn, 2006)

Though I might be misinterpreting what he means by throttle. If he means governments ought to crack down on Muslims speaking out (unless in cases of actual threats), then I'm against it.

The only way to throttle an ideology is to bash it with rationality; but better ideas, over and above throttling the bad ideas, is what is going to save us.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

http://www.appliedphi...­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

Santiago Valenzue...
sanjavalen
Dallas, TX
Post #: 108
Domestically, anyone is free to espouse any beliefs they wish. This is a basic right upon entering a free country. It crosses the line into "aiding and abetting" when material aid of some sort is given or solicited, but that is about all that can be on the homefront.

Anyone note how many communist guerilla movements there are now that the Soviet Union has collapsed? I am going to take a wild swing and say that it far, far less than while it was active, giving material and moral support to said groups.

The main responsibility of government is to seek out the nation-states that harbor/assist these groups as the main enemy, and destroy them. Minus this support most guerilla groups wither on the vine; Hamas, Hezb'allah, etc are all funded and armed by various charities/nation-states, without which they would quickly dissolve and cease to be coherent entities, let alone (quasi-)competant terrorist/guerilla groups.

The idea of sweeping philosophies that inculcate themselves in opposing societies and fight it from within is not new. It went on for years during the cold war. And, I predict, much like in the cold war, it will cease to be a major concern once the states that fund and support most of these organizations - from Islamic madrassas to outright terrorist organizations - are no longer able to do so.
Old Toad
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 291
This appears to be the thesis of the Mark Steyn's article:

Here's a clue, from a recent Pew poll that asked: What do you consider yourself first? A citizen of your country or a Muslim?

In the United Kingdom, 7 percent of Muslims consider themselves British first, 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first.

And that's where the really valid Lebanese comparison lies. . . .


But what does this mean? For example, how should we answer the question:

"Are you an Objectivist first, or an American first?"

-- Todd
Old Toad
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 292
Tom wrote:

The government of a free society per se cannot fight an ideology, it is their job to insure that ideologies are free to be spoken. ...


I am not sure what limits Tom meant by "per se." Implicit in the above statement, a government of a free society fights for and against ideologies, at least, for example, for insuring the ideology that "ideologies are free to be spoken."

What can be done? I don't know about you, but I am afraid of large groups of people in our midst (regardless of whether they are foreigners or natives) who speak and foment ideologies of using force against others, and who appear intent on inciting others to act with deadly force to bring on such idealogies. Should a muslim cleric (or any other kind of person), be free to set up shop in London or Dallas preaching violence against others who do not believe as he does, so long as he does not take any violent physical action himself?

Consider this recent news story from Australia: "A MELBOURNE Muslim girl condemned by Islamic leaders for entering a beauty pageant ... inciting riot, and calling for violence against the girl, her family, ..." See:
http://www.news.com.a...­

What about laws against "inciting riot" or "attempting to overthrow the government"? Are these applicable and justifiable?

Meanwhile, are we personally limited to posting a few messages on the internet message boards, which other people with different ideologies would shut down by force after they no longer serve their recruiting purpose? Is there nothing more that we can do? Are we taking our message "to the streets" (so to speak) like we mean it, or are we sitting passively while others rely upon and use the freedoms we value until they have sufficient numbers to take them from us?

-- Todd
A former member
Post #: 64
[Todd said]

But what does this mean? For example, how should we answer the question:

"Are you an Objectivist first, or an American first?"

One of the invalid premises of the original article is nationalism, and that nationalism is what is most important in this battle. Nationalism means that one stands by and fights for one's country whether or not one thinks that it is right (or is taking the right side) in the battle.

Nationalism is an aspect of tribalism, the idea that one should stand by one's tribe no matter what. It is an attempt to replace reason with conformity.

For a rational man, his personal understanding of existence and his personal understanding of morality takes precedence over and above his family group, his societal group, his state group, or even his national group. In other words, the proper attitude is not Objectivism versus America, but rather I am proud to be an American because I can be an Objectivist in this country without the threat of force from the government.

I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and if my country turns against this, then it's time to have a revolution to set things back to the proper relationship between oneself and one's country: That a government is there to protect oneself, not to hinder oneself.

This should answer your question about fomenting riots and the initiation of force by those who disagree with one's stance: They are evil and need to be stopped.

If Muslim clerics want to say that they disagree with beauty pageants and the like, then, fine, they have the right to say that; but they have no right whatsoever to enforce their edicts with the threat of force -- either to an individual within their ranks or to the population at large.

So, instead of saying that we live in an age of terrorism, we need to crack down on those who foment the use of force over disagreements; which means that we should be shutting down all those mosques that advocate the initiation of force. This is one way we could separate ourselves from the Theocracies of the world, theocracies that want to initiate force to all unbelievers.

Shut the bastards down or send them to Allah if they want to resist with deadly force.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Philosophic essays based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

http://www.appliedphi...­

Applied Philosophy Online .com

Where Ideas Are Brought Down to Earth!

tmiovas@appliedphilosophyonline.com

All rights reserved 2006 by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

Lathanar
Lathanar
Dallas, TX
Post #: 151
I am not sure what limits Tom meant by "per se." Implicit in the above statement, a government of a free society fights for and against ideologies, at least, for example, for insuring the ideology that "ideologies are free to be spoken."

.....

What about laws against "inciting riot" or "attempting to overthrow the government"? Are these applicable and justifiable?

Meanwhile, are we personally limited to posting a few messages on the internet message boards, which other people with different ideologies would shut down by force after they no longer serve their recruiting purpose? Is there nothing more that we can do? Are we taking our message "to the streets" (so to speak) like we mean it, or are we sitting passively while others rely upon and use the freedoms we value until they have sufficient numbers to take them from us?

I believe that a government should not fight for or against any ideology, it should simply be upholding the laws and protecting freedoms, one of which is thought. For a government to enforce an ideology is the use of force to restrict thought and when that happens its time to fight against the government for overstepping it's bounds, that's why we have the second amendment.

For that article you linked, I didn't notice the lines about inciting a riot or calling for violence, but that context would be far different then going against the government itself. Laws against riots are necessary because of protection of the citizens health and property. There is no right to riot just to have stupid thoughts.

The fight over ideology, morality, philosophy and such is the responsibility of the individual citizens, it's our battle to win or lose, not the government. I view the fight against the muslim fundamentalists to be no more difficult or dangerous to our freedoms than the fight against the christian fundamentalists or any other religious group. All of them want to control how we think, and the prevailing apathy in this country, the thought that we can not do anything to stop them, will be the end of us all.

- Travis
Old Toad
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 293
Hi Travis,



I believe that a government should not fight for or against any ideology, it should simply be upholding the laws and protecting freedoms, one of which is thought.


But is that not an ideology, or at least an aspect of an ideology? Some people do not share that ideology that others should have the freedom of speech. If the government protects the right to free speech (even within "inciting riot" and other limits), is it not fighting for that ideology?




For that article you linked, I didn't notice the lines about inciting a riot or calling for violence, but that context would be far different then going against the government itself.


Yes, I noticed that discrepancy, too. The threatening of the teen and her family with violence was part of the excerpted description of the article from a Google search (a rather unexpected result, I might add, even though I don't now remember what keywords I had used). I do not know much about how Google works, but I would expect that article had been revised and that statement retracted between the time Google last crawled the page to when I pulled up the link.

-- Todd
Lathanar
Lathanar
Dallas, TX
Post #: 153
But is that not an ideology, or at least an aspect of an ideology? Some people do not share that ideology that others should have the freedom of speech. If the government protects the right to free speech (even within "inciting riot" and other limits), is it not fighting for that ideology?


Yes, it is an ideology of itself, but a government's laws must be created from some starting ethics. After it's creation, the government is simply following a set of rules that has been decided for it by it's creators, it's not making decision based on an ideology, but from law.

- Travis
Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy