I’m hearing it all over again now. Obama has to “say Islam”. We have to admit we are “at war with Islam”. Trump sounding off on his immigration policies. Obama sounding off on gun laws.
I’m not into laws, as you all know, but one law that would be unjust but actually would stop all shootings in gay bars tomorrow would be to require every worker at every gay bar to be armed and trained in firing a gun. If potential shooters know that all gay bar workers must carry guns by law, there will be no shootings. I only emphasize gay bars here because they are specific targets unfortunately. As we saw this week.
I’m not saying a law should be passed requiring gay bar employees to all be armed. I’m just saying if we want to get in to the whole government laws discussion about what government could do to stop shootings, it could simply do that, and that would be the end of it. It would be the end of many gay bars as well that would close up for economic or ideological reasons (like “I don’t carry guns because it’s immoral blah blah”), but those gay bars that remain would never, ever be targeted again.
The difference between this kind of law and a law to “require background checks for all gun purchasers” and other such nonsense is that the former actually attempts to solve a problem where the latter is simply a thrill for power seekers who get to check into backgrounds and act all powerful and into people’s lives and telling their wives over dinner.
“Honey, listen to this. I just got back from work from the Federal Background Checking Bureau and I checked into 20 guys’ backgrounds and found they were all cross dressers. Ha ha! I get to check backgrounds.”
Besides, this guy’s background was checked and the guy was even screened and no government worker did anything about it. Backgound checks will accomplish nothing other than giving background checking power hungry government bureaucrats something else to massage their fantasies with.
But as for Islam. The shooter was a depressed loner who hated his life and had possible coming-out issues and hated himself for it. So he killed gay people. It wasn’t even an anti-gay rampage because the guy himself was probably gay. If kikes can call themselves kikes and it’s not “hate speech” then gays can kill gays and it’s not a “hate crime”. Same warped logic.
Note to new readers: I’m not saying that murdering 50 people is not a crime. It is absolutely a crime and if there’s a hell this guy is there. I’m saying that the term “hate crime” is stupid.
It’s just a regular crime. It happens all the time now. Mass shootings are not new. He happened to believe in Islamic tenets, whatever those are. But without those tenets he would have shot people anyway just like other unstable depressed self-hating murderers do. He was a violent man with a history of violence so he committed violence. Islam is irrelevant. Violent Muslims use Islam violently. Violent Christians use Christianity violently. Violent Jews use Judaism violently. Violent people are violent regardless of the excuses they make for it, be they religious or secular or based on Dr. Seuss books.
And don’t tell me Jews don’t commit mass shootings. They do. It’s just Israeli government-sanctioned mass shootings on a pretext of self defense when it’s really just politicians throwing 18 year olds at targets as cannon fodder to increase their vote count without solving any defense problem whatsoever. Christians commit many more mass shootings than Muslims, but they use much bigger bullets called bombs and drop them from much bigger guns called drones, on a sacred religious pretext of “self defense” and the tenet of American exceptionalism, rather than the sacred religious pretext of jihad and the tenet of Alahu Akbar.
It’s all the same evil and there is nothing unique about Islam that inspires violence any more than “American Exceptionalism” inspires violence, and that it certainly does.
Besides, let’s say I concede the it’s all “Islam’s fault” and we have to “fight Islam”. How exactly do you do that? Round up all muslims in the world and kill them? Bomb every Mosque? Spend another $3 trillion bombing more Muslim countries? As much as I hear people insisting that we are “at war with Islam” nobody ever tells me what should be done about it. Is there evil Muslim slime that you can play music to and then it becomes good slime and you can shoot that good slime at every Mosque and it becomes nonviolent? Or am I way too deep into Ghostbusters II metaphors?
Governments have already bankrupted themselves “fighting Islam”. It’s much cheaper just for private people or institutions or gay bars to simply arm themselves and stop this from happening.
23 thoughts on “The Orlando Massacre Had Nothing To Do With Islam”
Despite the Nazi past, I have more sympathy for the Germans than you do, who seems to condone the importation of millions of people who hate Germans, with no right of of response. My grandmother was Polish, and she hated the Poles (with good reason), but still, I have more sympathy for them too.
The elite and out of touch German leadership has stupidly brought in over a million migrants, with no real end in site. The Poles have responded much more wisely today.
They (the mass migration) has brought incredible crime and destruction to their host nations. That’s not even taking into account that Europeans resorted to crematoria to destroy millions of lives of those they considered undesirable just over 70 years ago. Are you okay with what your idealistic notions will bring in their wake? Are you that dogmatic? Are you saying that now that they’re there, it’s immoral to repatriate them? Forget about the state. Is it really immoral for a nation, which is, after all, really just a very extended form of family (all Jews are fifth cousins or closer, is what I recently learned, for example), to decide to expel unwanted visitors, as a family would, from one’s home? What about the Sudanese and Eritreans (and others) here in Israel?
I do not condone importing millions of immigrants at all. You’re reading too much into my opinion on borders. First of all, ending all subsidies would go a very long way to stopping the flow of refugees. No money, no free health care, no free government school, no free anything at all. I am absolutely against Germany paying refugees to come to their country, and I of course sympathize with Germans who want an end to that. I said that before.
As for actual borders to separate cultures, I imagine that in a private property society borders would be managed by a joint venture of companies protecting their clients, basically it would be managed by private insurance to prevent infiltration by people who other do not want simply crossing. That’s fine. In today’s world where states manage these things, the best we can strive for is an end to subsidizing immigrants, and certainly an end to instigating the wars that lead to them.
Fix both those issues, the subsidies and the wars, and the immigration problem solves itself mostly. As for Sudanese people already here, if they’re criminals, expel them. If they’re not, don’t. I don’t see how this would destroy Israel.
Interestingly, I suspect Murray Rothbard himself would support deporting them, as he came to reconsider his strictly individualist free market views.
He came to realize what most libertarians still don’t. Culture and nationality matter. Omar Mateen was a SECOND GENERATION US citizen, after all. Letting those who are not currently engaging in criminal activity stay doesn’t change that.
Otherwise, we are in a agreement on many of the solutions.
I think Rothbard was wrong in changing his mind as Walter Block points out. I don’t see how if culture matters that allows you to forcibly expel people of a culture from their property.
“I think Rothbard was wrong in changing his mind as Walter Block points out. I don’t see how if culture matters that allows you to forcibly expel people of a culture from their property.”
It matters because, as another very well-known alt-right commentator pithily wrote:
Diversity + Proximity = War
Do you deny the massively increased conflict that European and American open borders (de facto, even if not de jure) have both brought in its wake? Does Seddique Mateen get a pass because he hasn’t violated the NAP? The man has run, and is running now, for president of a foreign country! He was allowed in under false pretenses, and allowed to remain by those with a vested interest in destroying the nation and culture, whatever their proclaimed justification. He is no American, regardless of the decades he has lived there, or how much property he has acquired. He should be sent packing, along with many others.
My understanding of the Austrian School is that is seeks to understand reality as it is and not as we would like it. It attempts to crystalize this understanding in a set of basic axioms (eg the NAP). To put it another way, it can be argued that it is not axiomatically complete. Nations exist. Culture is. And it turns out, they do matter. Block is the smaller mind in this dispute. He succumbs to his prejudices and his considerable intellect is tainted by his affection for atheism. Rothbard probably didn’t like the idea that culture and nationality matter too, but he sought to understand reality as it is, just as other Austrians claim to want.
I’ll let you have the last word here. I don’t agree with you on this.
I understand what you care about.
Since we’re discussing an issue in America. What you, and the Jews in the US, and other minorities don’t get is that THEY do increasingly care, first about illegals, and second, about all immigrants. When a second generation born in the USA like Mateen, says “my country” and if referring not to the US, but Afghanistan, they care. A citizen via legal immigration. The vast majority consider entering the country illegally ipso facto criminal behavior.
But it won’t end there. Jews, and other immigrant descendants, even of longstanding, will eventually be asked if they’re loyal to America or to their perceived ancestral land. And they won’t be allowed to evade an answer.
Further, the border is arbitrary to you, but not to them. You agreed with the premise of nations. Nations have lands. France for the French, Germany for the Germans, Israel for the Jews, and all that. That’s how they see it. The increasingly nationalistic Europeans and Americans (the Trump phenomenon is 100% due to that).
All of this, THEY, our (their) hosts (and they indeed see themselves as hosts and we in particular Jews as guests), do not like the way we and other groups are indeed remaking, all with legal as well as NAP-imprimatur, their society in their non-American images, and often anti-American.
That’s the reality.
So, when you ask, rhetorically, assuming it can and will NEVER happen:
“How exactly do you do that? Round up all muslims in the world and kill them? Bomb every Mosque?”
Yes, they will round them all up, and preferably deport them, not kill them. And will possibly destroy every mosque. That will happen. Mass forced expulsions happened in Europe after WW2. Just the Volksdeutsch were many millions. That was only 70 years ago. Europeans have not changed that much since then.
The pendulum is likely swinging that far in the nationalist direction, after decades of ever-increasing (and increasingly insane) globalism.
OK, I get what you’re saying now. You’re making a prediction (and you’re probably right) and I was making a moral point. But I agree with what you’re saying here.
Morally, I do sympathize. Nations exist. Wanting to keep out the “other” is understandable, and even acceptable. There are even times when we have not accepted converts. Don’t be surprised if that time comes again. If the newcomers strive to remake their new home into an ersatz version of their old home, and even continue to have loyalties to the same, where does that leave the original inhabitants? Is it really wrong for them to do something about it? Are they supposed to leave for greener pastures when they become outnumbered? As I also said, principles which you value, like the NAP, are the offspring of Western Civilization and not its parent. There is no Magic Dirt. Non-Westerners do not mystically become Westerners by transporting themselves to Western lands. This hints of immorality to me for both parties by those who attempt to impose a borderless world on all the nations.
So you support forcibly expelling Muslims, or at least you morally sympathize with it, from territory that christians define as “christian” and Jews define as “Jewish”. Your view of one culture against another strikes me as somewhat cultural Marxism. Not to call you names or anything, but Marx believed that market transactions were destructive favoring one side over another, no? And you believe cultural competition is destructive rather than constructive and when it becomes too competitive one must be expelled over another. Am I wrong in my understanding of what you’re saying?
You have it exactly backward. Cultural Marxists seek to destroy nations and Western Civilization. I am interested in preserving both.
For a view of an earlier time when earlier immigrants agitated violently, this is insightful:
An elite (and extremely tiny) minority is willfully importing (through legal and illegal means) many millions of people who have no interest in becoming part of the nations they migrating to. Au contraire, they (both Muslims and Latinos) seek to remake those nations in their images. No, that’s not okay. Descending from immigrants to America as we do doesn’t change that.
Expelling them is the humane approach. Because, when push comes to shove, Europeans (and Americans eventually) will choose Nazis with crematoria over Sharia every time. You don’t think it’s that stark. It is. But you’re naive and caught up in the beautiful ideals of liberty and the NAP, which, as I pointed out, are the OFFSPRING of Western Civilization and not the other way around.
My advice to you is to get out more. Read Steve Sailer. Vox Day. Even Milo Yiannopoulos (the flamboyantly gay Jew with the fabulous hair). I can suggest others.
Well, if it’s not ok for people to live as they want to, whether you call that reshaping a nation or whatever, then I think you’re wrong. And I lost you on your אדרבא. Perhaps I’m destined to be naive and caught up in beautiful ideals.
I don’t favor forcibly expelling moslems from Christian/Jewish or even as seen in the forced deportation in Buddhist Myanmar of moslems which just ended up having the UN Refusegee Resettlement Agency place them on welfare/dole in the US/EU. Rich moslem nations are smart enough not to take any because they know how violent they are. I want moslems elevated over my people the way Vlad Tepes did it with pikes. Thomas Jefferson and General Blackjack Pershing understood how to deal with moslems. Islam has been at war with civilization for 1400 years.
Moslems believe that dying while killing infidels absolves all sin, and those infidels you kill become your slaves in the afterlife. That means when the afghani moslem let the blacks go, then he shot 102 gays he didn’t want any blacks being around him for eternity. Good/peaceful moslems are irrelevant, because even if they exist they want sharia law that would have the normal moslems carry out Islamic penalties.
When I was little I asked a Syrian Christian friend of the family, who legally immigrated to the US, about his thoughts on peace in the middle east. He explained that even moslems that use their hand as toilet paper while living in mud huts believe they are superior to the men who walked on the moon simply because they are moslems( I later learned this is dhimmitude). Moslems believe its ok to lie even under oath. Taqiyya comes from Moo ham mads greatest victory by breaking a peace treaty in the middle of the night, burning the homes of the cities defenders and when his troops ran into a fair fight claimed to not be attackers invoking the peace treaty. Moslems will never appreciate anything you do for them, as it’s in their book that infidels must pay a special tax & they consider welfare/dole/aid/food stamps to be due them, I later found out it was Jizya.
By the way, you are wrong about minorities reshaping things in host cultures. The pendulum always swings too far. The rise of nationalism means people will be asked if their loyalty is with their host country or their perceived home. In the case of Jews, that means Israel. And they won’t be able to weasel out of it by claiming it would never come up and claiming not fair. Many or most jews will be lying if they don’t answer Israel.
You’ve lost me. I don’t remember saying anything about minorities reshaping things in host cultures. This is getting too complicated for me to follow.
EDIT – ah you’re referring to Williamsburg. OK. I still don’t see your point. You’re talking in a language I do not understand.
The reason most gay Jews fear Bibi Netanyahu more than moslem beheaders is they don’t get real news. They think that because religious Jews are the only ones that are breeding people like Bibi will be able to take away gay rights in Israel, which they would only escape to if things went badly in their host nation. Every gay pride film festival has at least one film of an Israeli guy falling in love with an arab moslem rent boy, & gay Jews think that’s how Israel is. Do you really want those gay Jews coming to Israel to undermine it like Graham Spanier undermined South Africa so he could have black boys before overseeing pedo coverups in Nebraska and PSU?
Unless they followed Pam Geller they wouldn’t know about the black moslem serial killer of gays in 3 states caught 2 weeks after the Ferguson liquor store robber was killed, it would have been as inconvenient for the narrative that the riots were justified, as the video of Mike Brown beating up the little Asian liquor store clerk. A moslem arson attacked a packed gay bar in Seattle on New Year’s Eve but ignored by most media. 3 gay Jews got beheaded on 9-11-2011 but PCucked cops didn’t profile, while their next door neighbors were the Boston Marathon Moslems.
Rafi, your a great guy and your heart is in the right place, and we’re allies in the great fight for liberty blah blah. But you simply ignore one key, even the, point. History. Of course there is something you can do with all the Muslims in Western lands. Send them back to the Dar al-Islam and remove them from what they call Dar al-Harb. There is no need to kill them or wage war against them in their own lands.
Europeans toiled for 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) years to expel them from Spain. Let that sink in. That was only the first wave they fought back. Killing them there and importing them here is only going to end badly for everyone.
This guy might have been a nut case, but he had complicit support that shows it is indeed very much about Islam. His second wife seems to have foreknowledge. While she tried to talk him out of it (so the current media story says), she did NOT notify the authorities.
Nations exist. Cultural differences exist. They also matter. We even know that Hashem split humanity into 70 of them. This is one thing that many people who you’ve read just don’t get (think of Rothbard’s intense hatred of the state of Israel). Lew Rockwell, hard core anarcho-capitalist, seems to be one of the few exceptions. Liberty and the NAP are the spawn of Western Civilization, not the other way around.
I hear what you’re saying and I have no problem with people who want to “fight Islam” by organizing a fund to pay them to go somewhere else. I myself support this idea as you know. But the phrase “War on Islam” will only be used to justify all kinds of government evil. I think you know this.
I know cultural differences exist, but I don’t see how that justifies going to war against a culture or how that war could be fought.
As I said, there is no need to wage war against them. It’s not about justifying war. It’s about undoing what has been done.
However, bringing Muslims to the West in large numbers made that inevitable. How much longer do you think Europeans will tolerate their presence? The tide is rapidly turning nationalist. They couldn’t tolerate highly assimilated and very Westernized Jews in their midst! The Muslims hate the West and they will likely not leave willingly.
Even Americans are waking up that there’s a problem (and it’s even bigger in percentage and absolute numbers) – Latinos also agitate for making America more like the countries they came from.
So there’s not much we disagree on here as I suspected. I also oppose government incentivized immigration, Europe promising to give immigrants other people’s money to come to Europe. Of course stop that. As for Latinos, they can make any private effort they want to make a country more like whatever country they came from as long as they do it privately and don’t seek new laws to force it. Jews try to make their neighborhoods more like shtetls, think Williamsburg and the Satmar. Every culture tries to make the place they live more like their culture. I don’t think you object to this as long as it is not government supported.
Well, there are millions (tens of millions?) of illegals. That’s certainly a step that is likely to be taken sooner or later. There are many people on the right who are even discussing the reversal of the Immigration Act of 1965, whose sole intent seems to have been to destroy America, once you get past the platitudes. There’s a word for 65 million “legal” immigrants (in 50 years). Invasion. Historically, that’s exactly what it is, no matter what legal imprimatur it is given. It’s the largest invasion in history.
I don’t see any mamashus in “illegals”. The criteria I care about is if they commit crimes or not, not whether they had permission to cross an arbitrary political border.
Islam has been at war with civilization for 1400 years, if you stop giving them benefits/welfare/dole that they consider Jizya they will act like moslems. The rich moslem nations wont take them in because they know how violent different strains of moslems are when put near each other but the west is expected to take in all strains even into nations with nudist beaches, beer, and bratwurst.