Dhimmis At Ground Zero?

Christianity, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism, The West

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:

“‘Call me jaded or unsentimental,’ wrote one of my readers, ‘but the World Trade Towers were ugly Rockefeller buildings built by the abuse of eminent domain (my friend’s dad lost his job at a private firm there) and taxpayer theft and operated at a great loss to the taxpayers. They were known mainly for a dreadful remake of King Kong. While I mourn the loss of 3,000 Americans, I am not about to elevate the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (The Temple in Jerusalem).'”

“My unorthodox patron was responding to news that the American Society for Muslim Advancement (quite literally) plans to erect a ‘Mega-Mosque’ at Ground Zero. The advancing Muslims say this is a peace offering – a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance. Most Americans, well-represented by the energetic crowds that pitched up to protest this affront, don’t believe them. (Taqiyya anyone?)”

Neither do I. To count as a peacemaking offering, the ‘Sulcha’ must be considered conciliatory by those it is intended to pacify. …

Less clear, however, is the course of action protesters intend to pursue. Defeat this act of domination, and the invasive species will take root elsewhere. Yet, restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. As far as I can tell, then, all anti-mega-mosque activists are requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.

How like dhimmis! …

The complete column is “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Bachmann On Stealing From BP

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Private Property, Socialism

That “Barack Obama is exceeding his legitimate constitutional authority” is not news. CNSNews.com: “The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: ‘No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'”

Michele Bachmann reminds us that BHO’s strong-arming British Petroleum to “set up an independent fund, not controlled by the company, for compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill”—this is in violation of the constitution’s “jurisdictional limits … on what the extent of executive power” should be. (I hope the congresswoman is not implying that if Congress, and not the president, decided to seize BP assets—why, that would be an entirely different matter.)

The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday–later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night–for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company.

“Bachmann acknowledged the problem began under President George W. Bush with the creation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).”

Socialism is not necessarily the ownership of the means of production. As usual, Bachmann is a beacon of light in pointing out that, “just because we don’t own an industry doesn’t mean that we don’t effectively control it, because we are in a lot of ways.”

Not that anyone is listening. CNN Republican analyst Bill Bennett seemed satisfied with the arrangement whereby BHO compelled BP to surrender “$20 billion into escrow to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”

UPDATE III: Then There Were Three (Sane Paleos)

Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Justice, Middle East, Paleoconservatism

Serbian historian Srdja Trifkovic is one of the finest writers on Islam. Because he tells the truth about Islam, he also tells the truth about Israel. The latter follows from the former. Sane Serbs, Nebojsa Malic is another, have clashed with Islam’s emissaries and view Israel has having been “serbed.” The rest of the paleos are in contradiction: They acknowledge Islam’s aims but refuse to see its workings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I highlighted their inconsistencies in “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too.” Trifkovic’s “Israel, the West, and the Rest” continues a tradition of three:

“… our primary interests in the Middle East … are not to defend human rights, or to promote democracy, or to build a Palestinian state, or to treat Israel as an existential American ally … Secondary and peripheral [interests] must remain subordinate to the primary interests when policy outcomes come into conflict. Should we promote ‘democracy’ even if its beneficiaries are Osama and Ahmadinejad? Should we seek ‘justice’ for the Palestinians — however defined — at the cost of risking the disappearance of the state of Israel? No, heck no!

Even if an evenhanded and generous agreement were to be offered to the Arabs — including the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an equitable sharing of natural resources, and a generous compensation package that would resolve the refugee problem — it would be unworkable in the long term — the notion of Israel’s legitimacy is simply unacceptable to traditional Islam…”

UPDATE I (June 16) : To Derek: “Israel” does not have to mimic paleos to deserve a defense against those intent on extinguishing it. However, it so happens that Israelis have “Sued NATO For 1999 Air Strikes On Serbia.” Read my post about this valiant, well-directed, self-interested effort.

We know that Israel was streaks ahead, as far as paleo political philosophy goes, in terms of its relationship not only with Serbia but with the old South Africa. Read about the latter comity.

Put it this way: Israel did not attempt to destroy these nations; the USA did.

Where does that leave paleo incongruity?!

UPDATE II (June 17): The idea, hinted at in the Comments Section, that this column privileges Israel over the US for “tribal” reasons is insulting—at least to those familiar with my positions. As I wrote to Myron the other day, when he asked that I apply the Israel test to an American issue: “I’m an American commentator, first.” I’m also the quintessential individualist. I’ve never belonged or worked for any group/tribe/church.

Why does this writer fight for the Afrikaner, Gringo Malo? Tribal affiliation? What bunk. If I knew what was good for me, I would indeed conform to Malo’s insulting caricature—the book deals would role in. I’d be rewarded for becoming what in Russel Kirk’s estimation the American mind craves: the banal and the mundane.

If anything, paleos work against their “tribe” when they agitate for the Palestinians. An Israeli did not assassinate an American senator; a Palestinian did. Muslim terrorists extolling the Palestinian cause killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Yet it is Israelis that paleos warn us against.

And don’t dare mention the vast sums of money that go to that nest of vipers known as the Palestinian Authority. We only speak of the Jewish ponces who take from the US.

Equating my mere recognition of the justness of Israel’s existence and its struggle and what it has accomplished with tribal affiliation—this is plain pathetic, all the more so considering I have not ever recommended a foreign policy that does anything other than stay out of Israel’s affairs.

UPDATE IV: THEN THERE WERE FOUR. Thanks, Daniel, for alerting us to Derb’s brilliant piece, “Taking Israel’s Side”:

“Each of us has a mental map of the world colored by partiality, some of it reasonable, some merely emotional. If we are patriotic, we will feel more warmly towards a nation that trades fairly with us, cooperates to some degree in international projects we undertake, and shares some commonality of history, culture, or values with us. Contrariwise, of course, if you believe, as a liberal once told me he actually did believe, that your country is the most evil that ever existed, you will feel affinity with foreign nations whose leaders share that view. …

It remains the case that any fair-minded person must be an Israel sympathizer. A hundred years ago there were Jews and Arabs living in that part of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman collapse both peoples had a right to set up their own ethnostates. It has been the furiously intransigent Arab denial of this fact, not anything Israelis have done, that has been the root cause of all subsequent troubles. It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.”

[SNIP]

The last very good point was one I made in LIAR, LIAR, ABAYA ON FIRE (2002), quoting Lorne Gunter:

“Cycle of violence” suggests a sequence of events that has no beginning or end. Do the media ever pause to pose the no-brainer the Edmonton Journal’s Lorne Gunter poses? “If Palestinians stopped their attacks today, tomorrow there would be no Israeli attacks. But if Israel stopped unilaterally, would you trust the Palestinians to follow?”

UPDATED: Viva Vuvuzela?

Africa, Race, Reason, South-Africa, Sport, The West

“The Vuvuzela And World Cup: A Symbol Of The End Of Civilization”: This is interesting comment by one of Larry Auster’s readers; I’ve been urged to comment about it by one of ours. Here’s my problem with sweeping, slightly hysterical deductions about the incessant horn blowing at the Soccer World Cup as a symbol of the destruction of western civilization: As a writer who reasons rather than emotes, I’m not mad about indulging in such deductions. For one, the leap from horn-blowing to civilizational demise omits some rather crucial in-between steps such as I have been covering in my South Africa essays.

The flight into symbolism also leaves unexamined the phenomenon of British and European soccer hooliganism.

(I sincerely hope that this is what draws you to this site over others: immutable fairness—reasoning from fact and first principles, and not from symbolism. You known how to show your love.)

In any event, read Patrick H’s comment, and have at it (or at me, for that matter):

“I am wondering if you are going to comment on the inadvertent (and thereby revealing) comedy of the destruction by liberalism of the World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa.

The agent of liberal destruction is a horn. Specifically, a long plastic device called the vuvuzela. The employment by South African spectators of the vuvuzela as incessant accompaniment to the soccer matches on the pitch has–and I must insist I am not exaggerating–destroyed the experience of viewing the games almost completely. The use–constant, unrelenting–of this, ah, instrument, by thousands of fans produces a tuneless monotonous drone or hum that operates at the level of a roar (a bit like a bunch of great big kazoos might do–but without any melody). And it simply never stops. The effect on television presentations is remarkable. It sounds like the games are being played in a hive full of thousands of gigantic bees. All other sound is effectively eliminated: crowd roars come through dimly–probably because the vuvuzela-ists drop their horns to join in the collective huzzah when an occasional ball wanders near the net–but chants are gone. Singing: gone.” ….

UPDATE (June 16): As a courtesy to one of my readers I commented in passing on this topic. Larry Auster and one of his readers have decided to die on a molehill over my criticisms off this tack, framing it, grandiosely, as an “objection.”

They’d like to commandeer my blog to indulge this pettiness. Sorry.

I care not a whit as to how conservatives argue—increasingly they sound to me as irrational and emotional as liberals.

Larry’s reader claims the missive was farce; fair enough. Yet Larry wishes to continue debating the thing (on my blog) as if it were not; as though horn blowing as emblematic of a liberal/atavistic society were a serious argument.

Both refuse to plug their logical lacuna—explain European soccer hooliganism. It’s not that hard. The idea, moreover, of proceeding from the particular to the general is surely predicated on galvanizing more than one fact in support of your case. In the case of South Africa, that too is easy.

As one wag put it, “South Africa has blown it,” but I’d argue—and I’d have facts, not feelings, on my side—that it’s not necessarily the noisy horns that signify the end of civilization there and the triumph of liberal egalitarianism; it’s the piling bodies, looting of land and property, radical affirmative action (BEE), etc.