New at Reason

Alan Vanneman | September 10, 2007, 2:21pm | #

The story about Switzerland producing only the cukoo clock is a bit lame. If the Swiss did not "give us" John Calvin, whether we wanted him or not, they certainly allowed him to flourish. And JJ Rousseau, probably the most influential thinker of the past 250 years, though scarcely one of my fave raves, is definitely Swiss, as is Leonard Euler, perhaps the greatest mathematician ever (and lots of Bernoullis).

Europe in general is reaping its willingness to fund Islamic fundamentalism and ignore its hate. "Money is the religion of the Swiss," James Bond memorably told M (I think in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," in which we learn that Bond's mater was Swiss). Dean Acheson, in his memoir "Present at the Creation," said that Switzerland traded with Nazi Germany up until 3 days before the German surrender (the Swedes had the grace to quit a whole 3 weeks before the surrender). There's plenty of scenery in the Alps, but not much compassion.

Episiarch | September 10, 2007, 2:28pm | #

The Europeans are willing to be nice and multicultural as long as it doesn't affect them too much. However, they are pretty damn proud of their ethnicity, and once multiculturalism starts to threaten that, they will react.

For instance, the French love to sneer at the US, and we like to rip them for being pussies, but they can be pretty fucking ruthless when they want to be.

MikeP | September 10, 2007, 2:53pm | #

I will for the life of me never understand why so many libertarians think it is a good idea to allow free societies to be flooded by immigrants from illiberal ones.

I will for the life of me never understand why so many think that individuals should suffer the presumed sins of their society even as they leave it.

prolefeed | September 10, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Dean Acheson, in his memoir "Present at the Creation," said that Switzerland traded with Nazi Germany up until 3 days before the German surrender (the Swedes had the grace to quit a whole 3 weeks before the surrender). There's plenty of scenery in the Alps, but not much compassion.

Ummm, isn't free trade and non-involvement in foreign conflicts two of the pillars of libertarianism? Seems that what Switzerland did in WWII was quite libertarian -- and turned out pretty well for them.

don'tforget | September 10, 2007, 4:44pm | #

It should be noted that some of the racist political groups mentioned in this article have had close ties with Hans Herman Hoppe, the racist "libertarian" and clown prince of the Mises Institute. He is a major reason that anti-immigrant bigotry has risen in libertarian circles as acceptable. And those people are mild compared to his friendly relations with Junge Freiheit and other such fringe, racial, nationalist groups.

from AZ | September 10, 2007, 5:04pm | #

What is the point of this article? Simple schadenfreude over Europe's immigration crisis? Or is it that, because of (bad) liberal social policies, Europe put itself in that position: doesn't geography, history and industrial policy also play a role? Does Moynihan want to warn Americans against social safety nets? Or is he simply telling us that some Europeans can be mean?

The truth is that if the USA had proportionally similar immigration and assimilation levels than those in Europe, heads would explode in the Tancredo crowd. Judging from the reaction of many Americans to the relatively tiny levels of immigration (legal and otherwise) we currently have, I would not feel too smug about our reaction to immigrants.

If 40% of Latino immigrants/illegals were to profess that they "reject western values and democracy", like the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands, our politicians would go ballistic.

Carter | September 11, 2007, 12:43am | #

Just think, if Switzerland had more immigrants Zurich might be almost as nice a city as LA.

Tony | September 11, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Ah and now, just as so much of the western world has had to learn, the Swiss are learning that their "homeland" is being given away to outsiders. Such is life in "Liberal" democracies.

MikeP | September 11, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Yes? Yes?

I've had a Muslim roommate. I have had Muslim teammates. I have had Muslim coworkers. My wife has had a Muslim boss.

Let me think... Sorry... Try as I might, I can't think of any Muslim who has ever tried to kill me.

What's your point? That it is almost a universal truth that Muslims we encounter in the US don't try to kill people?

MikeP | September 11, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Have you tried reformulating your diatribe by replacing 'muslim' with some other religious, ethnic, racial, or political group? Does it read pretty much the same? Of course it does, modulo the specific hysteria of the particular example.

The fact that there are minuscule subsets of groups who think know they can get people like you to turn your society into a fear-centered, liberty-averse fortress of feigned security in no way should be held against the group in toto or against individuals in that group.

MikeP | September 11, 2007, 5:08pm | #

dbust1,

I am not a moral relativist: I do not believe that all moral codes are equal.

In particular, I believe that individualist moralities are universally superior to collectivist moralities that hold an individual responsible for the moral failings of the most extreme people he can be associated with.

SuprKufr | September 12, 2007, 1:37pm | #

MikeP wrote:

"The fact that there are minuscule subsets of groups"

Behold: the "Tiny Minority of Extremists" meme. It's been giving succor to head-in-the-sand Westerners for years now. The "Jihad is caused by poverty and oppression" meme died an ugly death when Muslim physicians attempted a recent jihad attack in the UK. (They failed and died, tee hee!) One by one, all of these stupid memes will fall when faced with enough facts.

So, MikeP, answer us:

Question 1: What, precisely, makes a muslim an "extremist"?

Question 2: What percentage of Muslims are either A) extremists, or B) financiers of extremists?

SuprKufr | September 12, 2007, 2:09pm | #

MikeP wrote:

"an extremist is someone who uses force or threat of force outside the color of legitimacy offered by the society's government"

That's quite astounding.

1. If the government offers legitimacy to rocket attacks against schools and hospitals in a neighboring country, then the perpetrators of those attacks are not extremists according to your definition. Correct?

2. If the government restricts the right to self-defense, then defending yourself against a predator would brand you an extremist according to your definition. Correct?

3. Which of the 9,000+ Jihad attacks since 9/11 were outside the color of legitimacy offered by Shari'a? (Do you even know what Shari'a is?)

MikeP wrote:

"As for the percentages, I don't actually know the exact numbers."

Then how do you know that it's a "Tiny Minority"?

The purpose of this exercise is to get you to see how the "Tiny Minority of Extremists" is based solely on faith and deserves to die an ugly death.

SuprKufr | September 12, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Why do you think I qualified the statement by saying "the society's government"? A neighboring government is not the society's government.

So which society's government should be the deciding factor of who is an extremist and who is not?

You are not using force to move society. You are using force to defend yourself.

The two are not mutually-exclusive. One can "move society" toward a society where self-defense is appreciated, right?

I presume that you recognize that this is now a non sequitur.

It is not a non-sequitur. You defined an extremist as someone who uses force outside what their society's government authorizes. The mujahedin claim that they are governed by Shari'a (do you even know what that is?). Which of their attacks are outside the legitimacy offered by their government?

Or perhaps you think that the mujahedin are NOT governed by Shari'a? Please explain.

This debate is about Muslims being permitted to reside in western societies. In the west extremist Muslims are a minority of a minority and they are likely to remain a minority of a minority for some time to come.

You admitted that you don't know the percentages of the numbers of Mulsim extremists, so how do you know that they are a "minority of a minority"?

Why, pray tell, do you have so little trust in western ways of behaving?

Because our western ways of behaving are defined as sin in their evil religion. Do you know who Shaitan is and what he represents in Islam? (Probably not!)

SuprKufr | September 12, 2007, 3:34pm | #

MikeP,

Okay, I understand your definition of extremism now. Sorry for the confusion. Of course, your definition implies that the founding fathers of the USA are "just as bad" (assuming that "extremism" is bad in and of itself) as the mujahedin.

Now, the question that you dodged.

You admitted that you don't know the percentages of the numbers of Mulsim extremists, so how do you know that they are a "minority of a minority"?

MikeP | September 12, 2007, 3:36pm | #

To answer your other questions...

Yes, I know what Shari'a is. The mujahedin, to the extent they operate using force in societies that do not approve of the ways they are trying to move those societies, are extremists. Shocking.

You admitted that you don't know the percentages of the numbers of Mulsim extremists, so how do you know that they are a "minority of a minority"?

First, because the streets of the west are not running with blood. Second, because I have seen zero evidence that they are a majority of a minority. You got any?

And, finally, no... I don't know who Shaitan is.

MikeP | September 12, 2007, 3:42pm | #

I prefer "predator" or "mujahid" in the case of a Muslim predator.

What's the Gaelic word you use for predator?

MikeP | September 12, 2007, 4:07pm | #

SuprKufr,

You may fancy yourself an expert in Muslim theology, but how much do you know about Christian theology? Your description of the Muslim devil sounds exactly like the Christian devil as promulgated in many if not most denominations.

MikeP | September 12, 2007, 4:18pm | #

1. What about those Muslims who do NOT engage in force, but do knowingly choose to fund the mujahedin? Are they extremists as well?

It is fair to call them that. To the extent that their activities will rain wrath upon their resident societies, they should be prohibiting from engaging in them -- just as it was illegal for Americans to support the IRA.

As much as you want to imagine some sort of millennial war of civilizations, the problems you bring up simply aren't that novel.

2. Do you understand why the preceding question is relevant in light of Shari'a?

Probably not. Are you personally responsible for what the US does with your tax dollars?

Do you care about this kind of examination, or do you prefer to regard it as a "Tiny Minority of Extremists" and be done with it?

It is certainly important for those entrusted with the defense of society to follow and recognize trends and movements to look for and root out violent elements in them.

But in the end I do not believe one should be punished for something he did not do and likely does not believe. That is the point I am arguing here.

SuprKufr | September 12, 2007, 5:54pm | #

MikeP,

Thank you for engaging me.

The reason why I asked you about others who fund jihad is because jihad is obligatory on all Muslims (Sura 9:5 -- I asked you about the wrong verse, my bad!). Those Muslims who cannot participate in jihad can be excused from it but are mandated to fund it.

Sura 9:5 is called "The Verse of the Sword" and gives non-muslims three choices:

1. Convert to Islam
2. Live as a second-class "dhimmi" under Shari'a and pay the jizya (submission tax)
3. Fight

This is why Osama bin Laden invited Americans to Islam in his most recent message: he has to give us the invitation to Islam (da'wa) before he is permitted to attack. This is why invitations to Islam always precede jihad attacks.

As a muslim, you are obligated to invite the kafir to Islam and fight them if they refuse to convert or pay the jizyah. If you cannot fight, then you are obligated to support jihad monetarily. This is why so many "charities" keep getting busted for funding "terrorism" -- they are performing according to the rules of their wicked, disgusting religion.

It is not that I want to see this conflict as a "millennial war of civilizations", as you put it. I am merely seeing Islam for what it is. It is you who wants to see jihad as the phenomenon of a "Tiny Minority of Extremists(TM)" that will be quelled by Western culture. It takes but time reading about Islam and Islamic history to realize that offensive, imperialist jihad is core to the religion and that jihad attacks have never stopped throughout Islam's history. The reason why the problem seems new is because Islamic supremacy has been on the rise since the days of Sayd Qutb and the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which hundreds of other jihad groups have taken their cue and begun their peans for the return of Caliphate (which is the only way that offensive jihad can be declared and also why Osama bin Laden has framed his attacks as "defensive" actions in the past) as well as demographic invasion of the West.

This is a huge problem that is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Unfortunately, part of the problem is that there are so many Westerners who choose to accept comforting untruths about Islam and jihad as a means of avoiding the problem. You are part of that problem, not part of the solution, and you will continue to be in that state as long as you choose to be ignorant about jihad and Islam.

"I don't follow it all that closely", you say.

Yes. That much is obvious. It's much easier and less disturbing to close your eyes to the war that is happening all over the Earth and kills people very day in the name of jihad for the purpose of spreading Islam and subjugating the entire world to Shari'a. That is their stated goal, stated by many, over and over again. I take them at their word.