Below is a letter I wrote to Charles Krauthammer regarding his most recent article on Islam.
I appreciate your calling out of Obama, Holder & Co. on their disingenuousness (to put it politely) with regard to Islam. It is not only hugely destructive to fail to recognize our enemies, but also shows complicity when this administration poo poos the theo-political ideology of Islam.
While I laud your effort to shed light on this topic, I do take issue with some of your assertions regarding Islam, and wanted to get some clarification on it.
You say in your most recent article:
“Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism.
Instead, President Obama’s National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy — how else do you define those seeking your destruction? — “a loose network of violent extremists.” But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.”
What radical interpretation of Islam is it exactly to which you are referring?
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan was quite honest when he said said with regard to “moderate Islam” that ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Surely you know that Muslims have been partaking in violent jihad for 1400 years.
But I would imagine as well you are familiar with the Koranic concepts of taqiyya and abrogation — the former the Islamic principle that it is ok to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam and the latter that the violent verses revealed chronologically later by Allah supplant his earlier peaceful words.
Moreover, Islam itself means submission. Nonbelievers must either convert, be killed by the sword or live as dhimmis, second-class oppressed citizens forced to pay a tax and essentially banned from their cultural and spiritual practices.
If by so-called “fundamentalism,” you mean to say that portions of Muslims literally use the Koran as justification to commit violent acts of jihad in the cause of world Islamic supremacy, then I will grant that this term is proper. However, what about all of the peaceful Muslims that work to advance dhimmitude and the imposition of Sharia Law and ultimately Muslim domination more subtly, for example by chilling criticism of Islam through bodies like CAIR and ISNA, or by forcing Western society to create separate facilities and make other cultural accommodations specifically for Muslims? What about all of the peaceful Muslims that give money to mosques and Muslim foundations that produce terrorists and support terrorist states and leaders who work to deceive us when it comes to Islam through taqiyya? What about all of the peaceful Muslims who believe in everything the Koran says, including the parts about the imposition of worldwide Sharia Law and Muslim dominance, and work however they can to bring this about, but don’t kill people to carry out this cause?
Whether Muslims are peaceful or not is not the important thing however, nor does it matter how one interprets the Koran. What matters are the fundamental tenets of the religion, most importantly that its end is a world united under Islamic law and subservient to Allah, and that the means to this end can take peaceful and/or violent forms depending on their efficacy. Is there any other way to interpret what the Koran says? Certainly if you read the works of scholars far more knowledgeable about the topic than I such as Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Ibn Warraq and any other of a number of apostates, it would seem that there are not. There are certainly peaceful Muslims, but a religion that is not only intolerant of other religions but seeks to supplant other religions cannot be a peaceful one itself.
I submit that Islam is a theo-political ideology which directs its followers to work towards its end goal of world Islamic domination, and no matter how you interpret it, it is incompatible with Western Civilization. Failure to recognize the danger of the ideology itself, not various interpretations of it, is in my view suicidal.
Joyous commentary from the prodigious pessimist Mr. Derbyshire:
Immigration 101. Look: Here’s the immigration issue in a nutshell. Let X be the number of people we — we, the people, as expressed through our democratic procedures — are willing to accept for settlement in this and the next few years. That’s X: the number of people we are willing to give settlement visas to. Now let Y be the number of people, from among the seven billion currently alive on this planet, who wish to come and settle here. Y want to come settle; we’re willing to take in X.
Let’s assume that Y is greater than X — which, in the case of the U.S.A., it certainly is, by a couple of orders of magnitude. The two questions our immigration policy has to answer are, one, what is the value of X? and two, assuming X is greater than zero, how do we select the smaller number, X, from the larger number, Y? That’s it. That’s all there is to immigration policy in the large. The rest is details and fine-tuning. That’s legal immigration, of course. Illegal immigration is a law-enforcement issue. Illegal residents just have to be identified and deported. Fuel up those half million school buses!
There is actually a case for deciding that X, the number of people we should accept for settlement, is zero. Do you actually feel that the U.S.A. is under-populated right now? Maybe I’m swayed somewhat on this — I have to drive the Long Island Expressway. We don’t have to accept anyone for settlement if we don’t want to. The nation belongs to us, its citizens. And certainly when unemployment is at ten percent, the case for zero immigration looks pretty good. Why would we take in new people for settlement when our own citizens can’t find work?
If we collectively decide that we do want to take in immigrants, even in a recession, then discussion moves to the second of my two questions: How do we select the smaller number, X, from the larger number, Y? Say the number of people wishing to come settle in the U.S.A., worldwide, is a hundred million a year — one in seventy of the world’s population. I should think that is likely an under-estimate, but let’s suppose. And let’s further suppose that we have decided to let in a million a year for settlement. How do we pick the million from the hundred million? How do we decide who’s the lucky one, and who are the unlucky ninety-nine?
I’d guess that most Americans, if you asked them this question, would favor some kind of points system. So many points for education and work skills, so many for English fluency, so many for demonstrated talents in art, sport, or music; then negative points taken off for anything suggesting a burden on our public fisc — health problems, criminal record, old age, number of dependents, and so on.
There you are: I just worked out a rational immigration system. Do you think this is anything at all like what Barack Obama has in mind when he talks about “comprehensive immigration reform”? [Laughter]
Once you decide to let people settle in your country, everything else is a matter of human capital, which does matter. The president even said so in his speech — all those tributes to immigrant entrepreneurs and scientists. This is the hardest point for politicians to talk about honestly, though, since our current state ideology pretends that everyone is an Einstein — that people and nations don’t differ at all in their human capital. This is idiotic of course, and nobody really believes it. The Institute of Advanced Study isn’t going to hire me to do nuclear physics research. For some reason, though, we’ve all decided that we should pretend to believe it.
Consider the city of Maywood, California, which Radio Derb reported on last week. This is the city that laid off all its employees, disbanded its police and fire departments, and so on, because insurance companies wouldn’t write the city any policies. Why not? Because the city was hopelessly corrupt and mis-managed. Maywood is 96 percent Hispanic. This being southern California, that means Mexican. Do you think, does even Barack Obama think, that Maywood would be in the trouble it’s in if it was 96 percent Indian software engineers, 96 percent Scottish Presbyterians, 96 percent Jewish Russians, or 96 percent Chinese entrepreneurs? Human capital matters. It matters. If you pretend it doesn’t matter, you end up with … well, Maywood.
I also like how he dispels the whole “nation of immigrants” thing:
“Nation of immigrants”? No we’re not. The original settlers were just moving from one part of British or Dutch territory to another part. That’s not immigration. If there had been no further inflows whatsoever since the founding of the Republic, natural increase alone would have given the U.S.A. a population almost half what it actually was by 1992, the date that demographer Campbell Gibson carried out the computation. So “nation of immigrants” is at best a half truth — kind of an insulting one for the other half of America, the ones who would have been here anyway.
Furthermore, immigration has always been a stop and go affair. For the quarter-century of the Napoleonic Wars, immigration into America practically ceased. It didn’t really pick up until the 1840s. It peaked in the early 1850s, then dropped off during the Civil War. It picked up in the early 1880s, leading into the Great Wave that ended in the 1920s. Then there was a great lull until the late 1960s, a forty-year lull with very low levels.
If you pick out particular regions, the “nation of immigrants” cliché looks even sillier. New England had almost no incoming population for two hundred years, from the 1640s to the 1840s. “Nation of immigrants”? Pah! Lots of us are immigrants, and even more of us have parents or grandparents who are immigrants, but that doesn’t make us a nation of immigrants; it only makes us a nation with immigrants.
And Barack Obama’s assertion that, quote: “We’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants,” is just false. No we haven’t. The phrase “nation of immigrants” was thought up by John F. Kennedy in 1958. To my knowledge, nobody in the previous 180 years of the republic’s existence ever uttered that phrase. It certainly wasn’t commonplace. Funny use of the word “always” there, Mr. President.
He also skewers Obama and Holder as the whiney racists that they are. With liberty and justice for some.
Black Panther case. Well knock me down with a feather! It turns out that Eric Holder’s Justice Department doesn’t think that civil rights and voting rights laws should be enforced on behalf of white people. Civil rights and voting rights are only for black people. That’s according to J. Christian Adams, the former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the administration’s handling of the voter intimidation case in Philadephia, where Black Panthers in full dress uniform and carrying nightsticks stood at the entrance to a polling place snarling at white voters.
For goodness’ sake, is anyone surprised at this? Barack Obama and Eric Holder are leftist black Americans with enormous chips on their shoulders about race. Obama’s autobiography is full of racial whining. It’s even there in the title: “A story of race and inheritance.” Obama simply couldn’t forgive all those pleasant, middle-class white people he grew up amongst for giving him such a pleasant, middle-class upbringing and education. Same with Holder, who grew up in New York City of the 1950s and 1960s, a city run by white liberals like Robert Wagner and John Lindsay, determined to give smart black kids every possible break in life. Hence Eric Holder’s career: Stuyvesant High School, Columbia University, and easy access to plum lawyering jobs. These guys hate white America for being so damn nice to them.
Human nature’s a funny thing. When black Americans really were cruelly oppressed they produced moral giants like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. Once the cruelty ended and America at large started bending over backwards to make amends for it, we began turning out spiteful, whining creeps like Obama and Holder.
We’ll put up with them, of course. We feel we have to. It all comes under the heading of the Slavery Tax, which the U.S.A. will be paying for ever.