Bring Out the Apologists: Libertarians for Islam

So, mainstream libertarians (otherwise known as white democrats who aren’t as excited about taxes) are coming out in droves to bitch and moan about Trump’s new executive order concerning Islamic immigration. I’m writing this with a small caveat; I make little mention of Libertarians themselves, but this is designed for that particular audience. A group so enamored with reason and evidence either gets to acknowledge the facts discussed here or drop their principles. There is no moderate position; the chaff will be separated from the wheat.

The first and most vociferous objection is a legal question, arguing the president doesn’t have the authority to dictate immigration policies to any extent. Wrong! Anyone alive and thinking during the Carter years knows that’s a lie: whether they admit it or not. A total shutdown of visas issued to Iranians was enacted with humanitarian exceptions (I wonder if a certain religious minority in that region could be given such an exception?).

Second is this bullshit idea that Islam is not a threat in terms of political violence based on the raw numbers of deaths caused by Islamic operatives in the nation. This is a particular absurdity because Muslims consist of only 1-2% of the general population.
Of course, we wouldn’t want to do anything so rational as examining the global threat an ideology poses to evaluate whether it has a place in our society!

Oops.

It’s completely ridiculous to evaluate any of this without adjusting for population. If a dangerous ideology doesn’t have much of a presence within the country, of course the country doesn’t suffer as much from the ideology! There’s a rarity of tiger attacks occurring in daycare centers, and it’s not because tigers are harmless. You can’t argue against a barrier to a threat based on the effectiveness of the barrier.

A few more examples to drive this home:

“Why shouldn’t we pour gasoline all over the floor? Do you know how few house fires we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we let the bears out of the cage? Do you know how few people have been mauled in this zoo?”
“Why shouldn’t we blow a hole in the levy? Do you know how few floods we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we take the brakes out of the car? Do you know how few crashes we’ve been in?

You get the idea.

Why not actually look at the impact of countries having gone through a wave of Islamic immigration? If only we had such an example to study!

This gets more and more convenient by the second. The Muslim population in Europe is far more statistically significant, and here we examine migrants over represented in crime (shocking!).  Islam is a dangerous ideology and the fidelity of a person to its precepts is the primary factor in either their support or participation in violent and immoral activities. It’s not the magic dirt of the Middle East that makes these people violent, it’s ideology and genetics (a comparison of IQ by nation can be found here). We’re doing a pretty good job of killing off what would be decent handlers ready to put the boot on the neck of Islamic radicals in the countries they lead, but that’s a topic for another time.

Another objection is that the ban is somehow unethical. Without reiterating everything I’ve said above (which is more than enough to debunk any such moronic notion) I’ll bring to light a simple fact.
No one has the right to this country. Few people are preferable in terms of ethnic and ethical compatibility, both essential. Fewer still come from populations with a mean of IQ sufficient to prevent any issues stemming from the natural second and third generation regression to said mean ( as noted by Jason Richwine). Libertarians and self avowed “Classical Liberals” should be especially opposed to the flooding of the nation with the most historically authoritarian religion in the history of mankind. I wouldn’t expect much consistency on that front, given that they’re mostly controlled opposition anyways (and the ones that aren’t are contrarians circle jerking over how “not mainstream” they are).

The final objection is a minor but fundamentally annoying one. The assertion that Trump is bypassing Congress on a number of these issues is correct, and not at all unethical. Libertarians would be happy to get gang raped to death in a gay brothel so long as a majority vote said it was ok, but normal people have more reservations about results than method; as they should. Libertarians need to understand this fundamental point: moral results trump immoral methods.

The end justifies the memes.

 

Violence

There’s a certain unspoken rule in politics. Debate is the method of solving things. Even if it’s not particularly rigorous, logical, open minded, or providing a fair platform, debate is the way our free society works out the issues of our times.

Unless of course, you don’t pay taxes. Then men with guns come to your house and take your shit.

Unless of course, you don’t believe in class/race determinism. Then you’re fired from your job because you didn’t participate in indoctrination.

Unless of course, you happen to be white walking through a black neighborhood. Then you’re beaten (because you’re white) though it’s not technically racism (because you’re white).

Unless of course, you voted for someone the Left doesn’t like. Then bricks are thrown and pepper spray is discharged all over your face like the end of a Mia Khalifa scene.

Seriously, none of the events of the past few days should be surprising. Not in the least! The left has been engaging in violence to silence people for the past 3 years especially. Anyone who failed to keep up with the social justice agenda (much less surrender to it) was openly mocked, targeted, harassed, and even beaten. We’ve a tendency to think of Leftists as weak and irrational (and by no means am I going to contradict that), but we sometimes mistakenly view them as harmless. They’re not harmless; they’re cornered animals, though without the cunning animals typically display. Leftists are willing to beat you in front of a live camera all while calling YOU the Nazi, fascist, bigot. Keep packing heat wherever leftists tend to congregate, to the best of your ability.

It’s the time-tested means of putting down rabid animals.

Isolation and Controlled Opposition

I’m a big fan of Vox Day; he’s been a valuable source of information and inspiration, both needed in my search for a meaningful writing style. His book SJWs Always Lie is a must-read and well known to the right (which you can find here). One of the things he outlines in his book is the methods SJWs employ to attack their opponents.

The one that needs to be discussed in recent conflicts is isolation. The left is composed of weaklings and cowards. Divide and conquer is their only available method of success in their goals; that must be understood to fight them. If they didn’t pursue that means of attack they would lose and be crushed so thoroughly that they’d be pushed to the outer limits of political discourse.

The past election cycle has been one of leaders; from all around the Right, Anarchists, Libertarians, Paleocons, Nationalists, etc men and women stood up and placed themselves in the spotlight of public discourse. They spoke to each other and spent the whole cycle building alliances, putting their best cases forward, and finding common ground. The left crumbled before it.

Now they’ve set their sights on those same leaders; Mike Cernovich, Jared Taylor, Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopolous, Chuck Johnson, Ann Coulter, Roosh, etc. What are they going to do? Divide and conquer. Look at what they’ve been doing. Vox was being pressured to disavow Roosh. Milo was pressured to disavow Vox. Why didn’t they? They know the game. They’ve been fighting these people for decades and knowing waiting out the whining and slander is more profitable and productive than attacking their allies.

Anyone trying to single these people out and pressure their friends to attack or ignore them is an SJW, or total moron that doesn’t understand the game. Regard them as wolves in sheep’s clothing and punish foolish behavior. Have a disagreement with a pundit? Voice it, explain it, and move on. I took issue with Spencer’s performance at the recent NPI conference; I called it stupid, explained why I thought it was stupid, and calmly went back to enjoying Radix columns.

It’s easy and simple to do.