Terrorism

Charlie Hebdo, Terrorism, and the Culture of 'You Can't Say That'

The strangling of free, open commentary on Islam in Europe has had an impact that is as predictable as it is dire.

|

P. Marioné/Flickr

"The mask has slipped." That's what Charlie Hebdo's haters said when the French magazine published a stinging, Islam-slamming editorial in the aftermath of the recent Brussels bombings. We now know, that Charlie Hebdo is not a heroic secularist publication sticking it to Big Religion, chirped the haters— it's just anti-Muslim. American-Nigerian writer Teju Cole accused Charlie Hebdo's editors of viewing Muslims the same way that Hitler viewed Jews. 

They're kind of right, these Charliephobes: a mask has slipped. Yet it's not Charlie's mask, but theirs. We now know that when the anti-Charlie Hebdo set feigns concern for ordinary Muslims, what it's really worried about is any criticism of Islam itself. Their mask of concern has slipped to reveal an illiberal hostility to perceived blasphemy against Islam. 

The Brussels issue of Charlie Hebdo had barely rolled off the presses before the mag's critics were going for the kill. Cole said Charlie's writers had "finally [stepped] away from the mask of 'it's satire and you don't get it' to state clearly that Muslims, all of them, no matter how integrated, are the enemy." Venturing into hyperbolic overdrive, he said we now know that the forces behind Charlie Hebdo are "frighteningly similar" to the Nazis, and clearly believe "there are no innocent Muslims."

Guardian writer said the Brussels editorial was "seminal," because it "states that the problem is not with some Muslims, but with all Muslims." According to to Salon, the editorial was "so extreme," blaming "peaceful Muslims" for the Brussels attacks. "This isn't effective satire, debate or dissent," it said.

In short, the editorial was not legitimate commentary. It crossed the line into something else, perhaps something not covered by the ideals of freedom of speech.

So what did this allegedly fascistic editorial actually say? For starters, none of the things its critics claim that it did. Far from blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks, the editorial explicitly criticizes "xenophobes [who] blame immigration" for terror. On the question of Europe's everyday Muslims, the editorial says the vast majority "do nothing wrong."

The editorial, titled "How Did We End Up Here?", is really about the culture of intellectual caution and suffocating non-judgmentalism sweeping 21st-century Europe (and much of the West.) If the mag blames anything for Brussels, it's this censorious culture. It suggests the most rotten thing in Europe right now is the PC cult of self-censorship, the widespread "aversion to causing controversy" and "fear of contraction or objection," especially around Islam. It says the Brussels attack was "the end of a philosophical line already begun," a line which tells us to "hold your tongues… give up discussing, debating, contradicting or contesting."

This "philosophical line," this culture of frowning upon and sometimes even punishing criticism of Islam, is deeply entrenched in Europe. In France, as Charlie Hebdo discovered in 2007 when it was taken to court under anti-racism laws for the crime of publishing Muhammad-mocking cartoons, you can actually be arrested for ripping the piss out of Islam. More informally, the idea of "Islamophobia"—which treats everything from opposition to the burqa to discomfort with the Koran as evidence of a swirling, hate-fuelled fear of Muslims—keeps criticism of Islam in check.

In Charlie Hebdo's view, this erection of a ridicule-deflecting force-field around Islam has a terrible impact on community life in Europe. It creates an atmosphere of "mute and general apprehension," the editorial says. The editorial describes the taxi-ride taken by the Brussels bombers as a "last step in a journey of rising anxiety." In short, terror springs, not so much from Islam itself as from the restriction of debate about Islam, which fosters communal angst and misunderstanding.

I think Charlie Hebdo is right. The strangling of free, open commentary on Islam—and on various other ideologies—has had an impact that is as predictable as it is dire. First, it has encouraged certain, usually hard-right sections of European society to harbour a deep, necessarily unspoken suspicion of Islam; to wonder why they may not openly mock it; and to develop, in some cases, a conspiracy theory which sees Islam as the single-handed despoiler of European civilization.

Secondly it nurtures a victim culture within some Islamist quarters and among young Muslims in particular, who now grow up in societies in which the law, politicians, and intellectuals all give the impression that criticism of Islam is wicked. The elevation of Islam above the realm of testy, frank discussion has the unwitting effect of making some Europeans feel more antsy about Islam while cultivating a sense of psychic vulnerability among some Muslims, who bristle and balk and sometimes respond violently to ridicule of their religious beliefs.

It is this moral sheepishness, not Muslims, which Charlie Hebdo blames for Brussels. Where its editorial talks about the "veiled woman" in our local town or the baker who refuses to serve ham, it isn't blaming these ordinary Muslims for terror; it's simply asking if we should be allowed to have open, critical debate about their cultural habits, about the veil and other things. Where the editorial says that something like Brussels cannot happen "without everyone's contribution," it is talking about Europe itself, not Muslims. It is talking about "the dread" of open debate, "the dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist," which, it says, makes public life in Europe less open, less honest, and more prickly. It's right.

And how have Charlie's critics responded to its critique of the culture of "You Can't Say That?" By saying to the mag: "You can't say that." Charlie's editorial is an "anti-religion rant," said Salon. To which the only reasonable response is: So what? Why shouldn't people be anti-religion? The anti-Charlie set isn't about protecting Muslims from harm; it's about protecting Islam from rebuke.

The real problem in Europe today is not so much Islamophobia, though anti-Muslim sentiment certainly exists; it's Charliephobia, if we take this term to mean the fear of letting a magazine, or anyone else for that matter, dissent from PC orthodoxy, reject relativism, and engage in robust discussion about any worldview they choose. It's this culture of worshipping self-censorship over freedom of thought and frankness of debate that is damaging public life and brewing communal tension and in some cases violence. Indeed, I would say that the campaign against Islamophobia has done more to foster awkwardness and bitterness in 21st-century Europe than Islamophobia has.

So yes, a mask has slipped. The Charliephobes' mask. Their claim to be against "punching down," to care about ordinary, vulnerable people, has been exposed as utter bunkum. In truth, they're all about protecting a global religion, an ideology, from ridicule, and in the process they're doing more damage to freedom and social solidarity in Europe than they could ever understand.

Advertisement

NEXT: Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes Challenged, Obama Promises Debt Forgiveness for the Disabled, Trump Trots Out His Kids: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We now know that when the anti-Charlie Hebdo set feigns concern for ordinary Muslims, what it’s really worried about is any criticism of Islam itself.

    Oh, bullshit.

    Islam, as written and often practiced, is a savage shithole.

    That doesn’t mean that everyone who calls himself a Muslim needs to be lumped in with the bombers and beheaders.

    1. Really? So if you join a group that has horrible practices, you can’t be associated with it as long as you are a nice guy? Would you say that about any other group? If it turned out some members of say the KKK or Storm Front or Scientology were nice people, you would claim their decision to be in those groups can’t be held against them?

      I wasn’t aware there was “but I am a nice guy” exception to the laying with dogs and getting fleas rule.

      1. “So if you join a group that has horrible practices, you can’t be associated with it as long as you are a nice guy?”

        I’m as anti-Islam as anyone, but a large number of Muslims would argue that those horrible practices *aren’t* intrinsic to Islam. I think they’re wrong, just like I think Confederacy apologists who claim the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery are wrong.

        No, you aren’t a bad person for being a Muslim and given the different sects within any religion, I don’t think you can compare Muslims to Stormfronters. Some secular, reasonable Muslims are getting murdered by their more exuberant co-religionists, and it’s cruel to lump them in with their killers.

        1. I’m as anti-Islam as anyone, but a large number of Muslims would argue that those horrible practices *aren’t* intrinsic to Islam.

          Maybe not blowing shit up. But how many if they are honest have a problem with Muslim law being supreme or with things like homosexuals being killed or imprisoned.

          More importantly, even if they do object to all of that, how many of them are willing to do anything about it? Yeah, they don’t like it but ultimately when the radicals show up they will stand aside and let them murder the rest of us. Which side are they on? I don’t think it is ours.

          1. John, don’t take this the wrong way. But, you seem to know an awful lot about what Muslims think. You must talk to a lot of Muslims on a really regular basis. Where do you get to meet so many Muslims so often? I mean, you must be holding deep philosophical conversations with Muslims about their religious and political views at least four or five times a week to have the kind of understanding of Muslims’ views you seem to. I’ve lived in neighborhoods with large Muslim populations and never seemed to get into that many long, protracted conversations with them.

            1. There’s anecdotal evidence, which is what you’re insinuating John’s claims rest on, and then there’s statistical evidence, which the claims actually do rest on.

              1. Statistical evidence of what people think? Wow, you must be Marvin the Mindreader. Most of the rest of us have to rely on what individual people do or say.

                1. Statistical evidence of what people think?

                  Yes, it’s called “opinion polling”.

                  Wow, you must be Marvin the Mindreader

                  I’m Steve the Statsreader actually.

                  Most of the rest of us have to rely on what individual people do or say.

                  That’s anecdotal evidence, which is about the most worthless standard to gauge the frequencies and tendencies of personal beliefs among groups.

                  I bet you could find an individual Muslim that will tell you that he is a strong supporter of gay rights and lending money for interest. He’d clearly be an outlier on the Bell Curve but if you took that as an indicator of what Muslims generally believe you’d be a fool.

                  1. Bill Dalasio, it’s undeniable that there are plenty of horrible practices “intrinsic to Islam,” because they are in the Koran, in the perfect and eternal words of Allah. The degree to which average, “moderate” Muslims do not act on those words is not an indication of moderation in Islam, but an indication of Muslims who aren’t fully practicing their religion.

                    1. but an indication of Muslims who aren’t fully practicing their religion.

                      And they’re better people for it. I’d prefer Muslims that cherry pick and selectively practice the teachings of the religion versus those that are the most consistent. Just like I’d prefer a property rights supporting communist over the more intellectually consistent variety of communists.

                    2. Well, of course. But if you look into Islamic theology, that’s not really a stable option to count on, because at any time, someone can decide to listen to the theologians and take everything seriously.

                    3. Well, of course. But if you look into Islamic theology, that’s not really a stable option to count on, because at any time, someone can decide to listen to the theologians and take everything seriously.

                      As is often seen with terrorists. Their family members and coworkers will mention in interviews how he/she has always been a regular person just living their life, or in some cases just an alcoholic or drug user that suddenly undergoes to complete behavior change in the weeks or months prior to their murder spree. Like a switch gets flipped and that person just becomes uber religious.

                    4. Exactly. And that’s one area where Islam stands alone, despite all the handwaving about “Christians and other religions do it, too!”: the more religious a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent or support violence.

                    5. Exactly. And that’s one area where Islam stands alone, despite all the handwaving about “Christians and other religions do it, too!”: the more religious a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent or support violence.

                      Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
                      http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

                    6. Those are called devout muslims.

                    7. Those damn christians, they need to stop strapping themselves with bombs and blowing up men women and children, they shouldn’t promote their ideology by killing all those who disagree with them, and especially they have to stop trying to kill anyone who blasphemes their religion and draws pictures of their deities.

              2. There are also fundamental moral considerations. In the U.S., while we have chosen to tolerate the foolish “satire for dummies” of late-night television (after all, such harmless antics are a nice little valve for venting some of the unhealthy popular frustration out there), people generally understand that certain lines must not be crossed. That is why our secretary of state (and future president) let it be known that a certain “satirist” would be arrested in California after his outrageous film provoked the rage of the Arab street in Libya; that is why the mayor of Peoria appropriately ordered a major police raid in response to certain offensive “parody tweets” mocking him; that is why inappropriately deadpan “Gmail confessions” damaging to the reputation of a distinguished member of the academic community have been criminalized in New York, despite the absurd “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, liberal judge. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

                http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. I, perhaps unfairly, lump Trotskyites in with Stalinists for holding and promoting views that I find morally reprehensible. Whatever their differences in approach between the two groups, they have more in common with each other, and more support for one another, than either one does with non-Communist ideologies.

          Some people only want to lay blame at the feet of Salafists or Wahabiists, when those two groups while perhaps more extreme than most strains of Islam, get more support from rank-and-file innocent Muslims than from any other ideological group. And indeed the support among “moderates” for the nastiest aspects of Islam is broad and far reaching.

          1. The silence of moderate Muslims about the actions of extremists is like the thin blue line wherein the good cops let pass the evil acts of the few bad eggs who ruin the reputation of the force. There’s something sinister going on when the good guys aren’t quite good enough to hold the bad guys accountable.

            1. I once heard a quote that a hardliner muslim was the one blowing up shit, while the moderate muslim was the one donating the money to the entities that would then finance the hardliner’s work, and while I would like to disagree there simply is way too much of this going on these days to deny it.

        3. Re: Irish Lauren Southern,

          just like I think Confederacy apologists who claim the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery are wrong.

          You’re confusing – yet again – the reasons for SECESSION with the reason for the war.

          The southern states seceded because of slavery, as you believe, among other things, like the imposition of the tariff. The federal government fought the war to preserve the union. That’s it. Those are totally different reasons that have nothing to do with each other. If as you say the reason for the war between the states was to abolish slavery, then it would be your burden to explain why is it that some states that stayed in the Union were allowed to keep their slaves. You can’t have a justification that is not congruent.

          1. Correct. The Confederacy would have been overjoyed at the prospect of not having to fight a war in order to secede. Regardless of the immoral reasons for their secession, I think the Union leadership was in the wrong for their waging of war to prevent secession. I can’t see how a country formed by secession could intellectually or morally not recognize the legitimacy of secession.

            1. There was a lot more going on for the south to secede than slavery and to lump it in as “state’s rights is overly simplistic. Lincoln acquiesced to the slavery issue if the south would not secede.

          2. It takes two sides to fight a war, and the Southern states started both the political process that led to it, and the actual fighting (unless you think Fort Sumter launched itself at those cannonballs), overwhelmingly due to slavery (and their secession documents and speeches make it clear that this, not the tariff or a general concept of “state’s rights” was by far the number one factor).

            FS, is secession to be respected even when that secession is not voluntarily chosen by many, if not most, of the population? If the people of South Carolina had voted on secession, it would have failed by a large margin. The reason it passed was because the majority of the populace had no control over the legislature or political process. Why should that be respected?

            1. and the actual fighting (unless you think Fort Sumter launched itself at those cannonballs),

              Ft Sumter was located on ostensibly sovereign Confederate soil. They offered the commander of the fort a bloodless surrender and passage for the garrison to march back the U.S. soil.

              overwhelmingly due to slavery

              The war was fought over secession, secession itself was mostly about slavery. The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over preserving the territorial integrity of the U.S. otherwise you’ll need to explain why federal troops didn’t invade the southern states years earlier in the absence of any secession.

              FS, is secession to be respected even when that secession is not voluntarily chosen by many, if not most, of the population?

              The same could be said of the American Revolution. The same could be said of every state law, regulation, and policy in existence. Since when is statism based on what is voluntarily chosen?

      2. The KKK claimed to get their inspiration from the Bible. Should all Christians be associated with the KKK?

        1. If Christians hadn’t done anything to stop them, sure. If Christians had just stood around and did nothing, then they deserved to be associated with it. The point is that it was incumbent on Christians to stand up and do something about the KKK to keep them from hijacking their religion.

          If Muslims don’t want to be associated with the radicals, then they have to do something to disassociate themselves from them.

          1. Guilt by association. Got it.

            1. Well, it is a voluntary association, so there’s that.

              1. Very important distinction too many people seem to be unwilling to grasp….

          2. If Muslims don’t want to be associated with the radicals, then they have to do something to disassociate themselves from them.

            Before I bother searching for some links, can you give me a number of instances which you would consider sufficient to demonstrate that “they” quite regularly do just that? 5? 10? 100?

            1. Before I bother searching for some links, can you give me a number of instances which you would consider sufficient to demonstrate that “they” quite regularly do just that? 5? 10? 100?

              I doubt you’d be able to reach those goalposts. John can move them pretty quick.

            2. I googled “muslims oppose terrorism” and got a ton of links. But I’m sure John will assure us that they’re all fake.

              1. “I googled “muslims oppose terrorism” and got a ton of links. But I’m sure John will assure us that they’re all fake.”

                Maajid Nawaz does not exist. Neither does Malala Yousafzai.

                1. Maajid Nawaz is certainly outspoken about how widespread the acceptance of Islamist doctrines is among Muslim populations worldwide, and how the political teachers of these people are central to understanding why there is a problem within Islam.

                  That’s far more than I can say for the many people who buy into the “violent extremism” and “islamophobia” narratives propped up by one of the largest islamic organizations in the world – an organization which is by it’s charter sworn to destroy western civilization “by their own miserable hands.”

                  1. Islam is not just a religion: it is a political and legal system that forms the fundamental principles of a ruling cast with global ambitions, that uses religion to spread itself, and has, whenever it was convenient and able to get away with it, used violence to do so. sure we can argue many other entities have done the same, but in this day and age, Islam isn’t at the forefront by accident. Thank the KGB for creating that hydra.

              2. I wonder if the Muslim guy who wished his customers Happy Easter and stuff and then got his throat cut should be lumped in with the guy who slit it. I’m thinking not.

        2. Maybe if the KKK was actively or passively supported by the wider Christian community in majorities and large minorities, I’d think it’d be fair to say there’s an association there.

          1. Except for the inconvenient fact that it was:

            http://www.kingsacademy.com/mh…..C_1925.jpg

            1. How does a random picture prove anything?

              1. How does a random picture prove anything?

                He’s really into anecdotal evidence.

        3. It’d be the other way around. ‘Should all KKK be associated with Christianity?’

          But the KKK is not part of Christianity. Nowhere in the bible does it call for hooded men to harass other Christians or engage in any KKK practices.

          Islam, on the other hand openly and repeatedly calls for jihad–for killing the infidel, for oppressing the infidel, for making the choice to not embrace Islam be a choice between submission, or torment, or death.

          1. If one wants to see the difference between the two, read Christ’s words in the sermon on the mount and read mohammed’s words in the koran. Before anyone starts quoting the OT which the christian also believes is God breathed, the punitive passages applied to the state, not the individual, which Christ in the SotM actually addresses.

      3. I’m saying that if I knew a guy who was a nice guy, respected those deserving of respect, treated people well, and generally went about his life not trying to be a douchebag, let alone violent, I wouldn’t shun him because he was a Muslim. Even if other people who believe in the same Sky Daddy that he does are murderous, sociopathic assholes.

        Republicans and Democrats conspire to imprison millions of people who’ve committed consensual acts. And, frankly, support and excuse the murder of citizens by law enforcement. Maybe when you say some Democrat or Republican you know is a nice guy who doesn’t deserve to be treated poorly, you’re really worried about defending the War on Drugs.

        1. So for you there is no point at which the group you voluntarily associate with can do such bad things that anyone should think less of you for associating with them?

          1. I’d say that if the raison d’?tre of the group was to intimidate or commit physical violence against others, I’d think less of someone who associated with such a group.

            1. Let’s through “illegitimately” before “to intimidate” to try to close that rabbit hole.

              1. Throw. Goddamit.

        2. “I’m saying that if I knew a guy who was a nice guy, respected those deserving of respect, treated people well, and generally went about his life not trying to be a douchebag, let alone violent, I wouldn’t shun him because he was a Muslim.”

          Funny, Christ addresses this in his sermon and makes your point. He would even eat and spend time with such a person.

      4. So everybody who was born between the fall of Athenian democracy and the Enlightenment was just as bad as Genghis Khan, right?

        1. That doesn’t even make sense. Seriously, that is completely stupid. We are talking about voluntarily associating yourself with a religious group not being born at a certain time.

          1. It’s not about the time, it’s about the attitudes. They were just voluntarily associating themselves with illiberal ideas, right?

            1. John’s argument is especially bad given how many Muslim countries will *kill you* if you leave the religion. God knows how many “Muslims” would leave the faith if it weren’t for the constant threat of murder. And plenty of Muslim states where they won’t kill you give you privileges for being a Muslim and take away rights (or increase your taxes) if you’re not a Muslim. As such, a lot of Muslims are Muslims because their society would punish them otherwise, not out of any religious belief.

              1. Example: It is illegal in Malaysia for anyone of Malay descent to not be a Muslim. If you leave Islam, you will be punished and will also no longer be considered a Malay citizen. You then basically become a second class citizen to the Malays.

                So should I think all Malay Muslims are terrible people even though they’re basically required to be Muslims by their governments, even if they barely even practice the faith?

                1. So should I think all Malay Muslims are terrible people even though they’re basically required to be Muslims by their governments, even if they barely even practice the faith?

                  Does that sort of political culture not arise from Islam?

                  God knows how many “Muslims” would leave the faith if it weren’t for the constant threat of murder.

                  It’s scarcely the case that the government will kill you, it’s your (Muslim) neighbors, friends, family and colleagues that will kill you for apostasy, the government’s role in this is to turn a blind eye, as a society comprised of people with those beliefs would demand of their government.

                  78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates
                  http://www.realcourage.org/200…..te-deaths/

                  76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.
                  http://www.pewforum.org/upload…..report.pdf

                  1 in 5 for Muslims living in Austria, and 1 in 3 for Muslims in Britain, places where the government couldn’t possibly be the reason Muslim apostates live under threat of murder. The proportion of people supporting those beliefs are comparatively lower in the west, but high enough to rule out government policy as the driver behind that belief.

                  1. I don’t disagree. I think the *average* Muslim is much more violent and radical than the average Christian.

                    There’s a difference between talking averages and numbers and claiming that every single individual Muslim is responsible for Islamic murder, though. The Ahmadiyya in particular are very moderate, to the extent that many Sunni Muslims spend an awful lot of time having them killed for apostasy.

                    It’s stupid to lump in that moderate sect with the people oppressing and killing them.

                    1. There’s is a difference… Not when Western countries are admitting millions of them.

                    2. There’s a difference between talking averages and numbers and claiming that every single individual Muslim is responsible for Islamic murder, though.

                      I’ve certainly never argued that. And I don’t recall reading any of John’s posts arguing that.

                      It’s stupid to lump in that moderate sect with the people oppressing and killing them.

                      There are moderates and there are moderates. Perhaps there’s a sect out there that are non-violent, peace loving and maybe they even eat bacon. Good for them. But most of the groups that pass for “moderate”, indicate high degrees of support for the actions and beliefs of those that almost anyone in the west would characterize as “extremist”.

                      There’s a lot of confusion about what these terms; moderate, extremist and terrorist, actually mean. For a great many people eager to defend Islam, a Muslim is only an extremist if he’s a terrorist and he’s moderate so long as he doesn’t build bombs or express support for ISIS. A huge proportion of “moderates” want to ban homosexuality and kill apostates, so I’m not so convinced that actual moderates are such a big or influential group.

                    3. I think the *average* Muslim is much more violent and radical than the average Christian.

                      Quibble: I live in something of a “Little Egypt” and it’s the safest neighborhood I’ve seen in Brooklyn.

                      The violence and radicalism may or may not be present – but if it is, it’s focused in a way that is not visible under ordinary circumstances.

                    4. Quibble: I live in something of a “Little Egypt” and it’s the safest neighborhood I’ve seen in Brooklyn.

                      1. “In Brooklyn” is a low bar.

                      2. You’re not going to see clitorectomies, honor killings, or murders of apostates on the street.

                      3. The smaller the group of Muslims in a non-Muslim society, the better they behavior tends to be. But the larger those enclaves get, the more likely you are to see religious violence, or at least religious oppression. And of course whenever Muslims are in control of a society, you get at least Sharia-flavored law, if not full Sharia, with death for homosexuals, etc.

                  2. And to this point:

                    “Does that sort of political culture not arise from Islam?”

                    I’d argue yes. However, that doesn’t change the fact that things like this happen very frequently.

                    “The BBC’s Jennifer Pak in Kuala Lumpur says Ms Kamariah’s case is one of a growing number of legal challenges brought by those caught between the Islamic authorities and the civil courts.

                    Ms Kamariah had asked the civil courts to declare her freedom to worship, as guaranteed by the constitution.

                    But the judging panel said she had to go through the Islamic courts system in order to renounce her faith ? something that is rarely granted, our correspondent says.”

                    This woman wanted to leave Islam and wasn’t legally allowed to, lest she be imprisoned for apostasy. These situations happen frequently in Malaysia.

                    1. I’d argue yes. However, that doesn’t change the fact that things like this happen very frequently.

                      If I read that correctly, that is a conflict of jurisdiction between Shariah and secular(?) law as defined that country’s backwards legal system. I don’t see how that exactly makes the case that Muslims are clamoring to leave the religion. But point taken, there are many Muslims legally forbidden from renouncing their faith. I would prefer that sort of refugee to the Muslim ones, as I’m sure Islamic apostates in the west would agree.

          2. I mean shit, it’s just a fucking coincidence that whole countries are majority Muslim, right? Everybody just up and decided one day to become Muslims, and neither history nor culture had any part of it.

            1. What I know about most of those countries is that you are risking your life if you try to proselytize some other religion, but that the inverse is never the case.

              Go to Saudi Arabia and tell them you want to build a church of scientology and see how well that plays out for you. And yet, we have no problem letting them put Wahhabi mosques in non-islamic countries that then have to deal with radicalized members of said mosque….

              Just pointing out that we can pretend there isn’t something really not right with this system (it is not just a religion), but that is on us…

        2. I’d say most people born between the fall of Athenian democracy and the Enlightenment were significantly worse than Genghis Khan.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo

      5. So if you join a group that has horrible practices

        Your fallacy is in treating Islam as One Thing. A religious Muslim isn’t a member of Al Queda any more than a religious Christian is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. There is so much more granularity here than you want to admit.

        And before you go off about how Muslims don’t criticize Islamic terrorism enough, let me respond by saying that I don’t hear many Christians condemning the Westboro Baptist Church, either. But I don’t assume that my narrow sample size is representative of how 1 billion people actually feel. Nor do I assign any responsibility to someone to answer for the crimes of someone else just because they both read from the same book, and then arrive at different conclusions about what it means.

        1. Actually, Christians do condemn Westboro Baptist. In media and in person. At almost every funeral those people protest there is an honor guard specifically there to make sure they don’t disrupt the ceremony and they make it known very clearly they don’t take too kindly to their presence.

          1. No doubt. I was trying to respond to John specifically, who has in the past claimed that because he couldn’t see anyone dressed in traditional Arab garb in pictures from some protest (I think after the Charlie Hebdo murders), that Muslims were somehow complicit in the murders. Well, *I* haven’t seen Christians protesting the Westboro Baptists, but does that mean Christians are complicit? Of course not.

        2. The Westboro Baptist Church is a couple dozen people related by blood or marriage that exercise their free speech rights in a secular society in such a way that makes them assholes, not an international network of murderers with billions of dollars in capitalization from Christian denominations and Christian heads of state. Trotting out the WBC as the Christian analogue to Al Qaeda makes you look really, really stupid and actually undermines your argument.

      6. So if you join a group that has horrible practices, you can’t be associated with it as long as you are a nice guy?

        A couple of things. First, Islam isn’t a specific group with a specific ideology like the KKK or Stormfront. It’s a big, diverse religion full of people constantly arguing and fighting about what the right way to do it is. Joining Islam doesn’t mean that you are signing up for everything that any Muslim believes, but that you are signing up for what the particular sect or group believes. People joining a mosque that preaches about killing infidels and taking over the world do deserve to be lumped in with the nasty people. People joining some mystical Sufi sect or something don’t. You might as well say that all conservative Christians need to answer for the stupid socialism of the Pope or Unitarians or whatever.
        Second, most Muslims don’t choose to join the religion. They are born into it and often face harsh criminal penalties for leaving the religion. In a free country, religion is a choice. In the places where a lot of Muslims come from, it isn’t so much. And even in free countries, there is tremendous social pressure in religious communities to stick with the ancestral religion.

        1. Even when there aren’t criminal or social penalties for leaving, it’s absurd to say that someone who says “There are aspects of Islam I find deep and meaningful and those are the ones I hold and live by” is morally responsible for someone else who says “I’m going to use Islam as an excuse to blow people up”. That’s true of religion in general.

          1. Yes, that is definitely true too. People get to decide what their own religion means.

            And it is quite unhelpful to go around telling more peaceful Muslims that they have their religion wrong. Islam isn’t going away. The problems associated with it aren’t going away either unless the religion can evolve to be more open and less hostile to non-believers. Of course, that is mostly up to Muslims themselves, but it can’t hurt to give the good ones a little outside encouragement.

        2. Here’s links to all the polls you could want.

          http://thereligionofpeace.com/…..polls.aspx

          1. Not sure how that is relevant. I made no claim that there aren’t significant numbers of Muslims who do support bad stuff to some extent. That still leaves lots of people who don’t believe those things. And my arguments still apply to all of those people.
            I am making no claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Historically and at the present time, it clearly isn’t. But those who are peaceful ought to be commended for their own positive beliefs and not condemned for the beliefs of their coreligionists.

            1. I was generally responding to the many people above arguing about how many Muslims believe this or that. Generally 20-25% in Europe passively support terrorism and a higher percentage want Sharia Law.

              1. And it is a fair thing to point out. I think those numbers are surprising to many people.

                But what do you do about it? A realistic view of the world is important. But it doesn’t solve the problems.

        3. First, Islam isn’t a specific group with a specific ideology like the KKK or Stormfront

          Yes, actually, it is–a religion IS a specific ideology.

          Joining Islam doesn’t mean that you are signing up for everything that any Muslim believes

          Yes, it does. They’ve got this book…. Yes, I know you stuck in ‘everything’ and ‘any’ as quiet caveats.

          Your notion that particular sects make great alterations is just nonsensical though.

          Shia, Sunni and Sufi all believe that the Dar al-Islam must and will defeat the Dar al-Harb. This is a fundamental precept of the faith–and in it is included all the killing that is the fount of Western complaints.

          You cannot be a Christian without believing Christ died to redeem your sins–that is the entire point of the faith. The socialism of the pope or Unitarians is irrelevant–as are odd beliefs in Islamic sects. There are things that are just insurmountable, things that are so basic to the belief system that without them there is no belief system.

          And the battle between the House of War and the House of Submission is one of those things–and it is there that the problem lies.

          Thus, the Muslim the West claims to like is either a ‘good’ Nazi–a nice guy with absolutely abhorrent beliefs, or he is abrogating the basic tenets of his faith and is a ‘muslim in name only’

    2. my co-worker’s sister makes $64 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her pay was $21908 just working on the computer for a few hours. go????????????? Click this link http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

    3. In the United States, while we have chosen to tolerate the foolish “satire for dummies” of late-night television (after all, such harmless antics are a nice little valve for venting some of the unhealthy popular frustration out there), people generally understand that certain lines must not be crossed. That is why our secretary of state (and future president) let it be known that a certain “satirist” would be arrested in California after his outrageous film provoked the rage of the Arab street in Libya; that is why the mayor of Peoria appropriately ordered a major police raid in response to certain offensive “parody tweets” mocking him; that is why inappropriately deadpan “Gmail confessions” damaging to the reputation of a distinguished member of the academic community have been criminalized in New York, despite the absurd “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, liberal judge. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    4. my best friend’s half-sister makes $87 an hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her pay was $20021 just working on the laptop for a few hours. navigate to this website
      I suggest this website ??????? http://tinyurl.com/grpdbrm

  2. That “Salon link” goes to the Charlie Hebdo editorial – NTTAWWT. I’m assuming you meant the “Charlie Hebdo Punches Down” editorial.

    TW – link goes to Salon.

    1. And what’s frustrating about the editorial is that it takes a healthy, democratic idea ? that criticism, dissent, discussion, and the like are crucial to a free society ? and turns it into a weird anti-religion rant. “How Did We End Up Here” looks at three nonviolent Muslims ? a scholar, a pious woman, and a baker ? and tries to make them liable for the bombings. After acknowledging that they are entirely peaceful, the editorial tries to connect them to the taxi ride the terrorists take with bombs in their backpacks:
      ……..

      And is targeting people who go to church or mosque or temple really the solution here? You can hate religious fundamentalism, religious violence, the Crusades, jihadists, and the rest, without blaming peaceful people who believe in a divine being.

      The editorial isn’t trying to connect them, it is connecting them. Not blaming them or making them liable, just connecting them. There are a discrete number of steps between “it’s okay to believe in God” and “it’s not okay to mock people who believe in God” and “it’s okay to kill people who don’t believe in God” but just because the steps are discrete doesn’t mean the steps aren’t there and they’re not connected.

      1. It seems obvious to me we’re seeing the same sort of thing develop on too many college campuses – leftist ideas should be tolerated to leftist ideas should be accepted to non-leftist ideas should not be accepted to non-leftist ideas should not be tolerated. If you truly believe your religion is Truth with a capital T, why would you not want to silence the deceivers and the misbegotten who are leading others from the path? If you see a toddler about to chase a ball out onto a busy highway are you just going to try to explain to him why you think that’s a bad idea or are you going to run over there and knock him on his ass if you have to in order to keep him from wandering out into traffic? The question isn’t “why do Muslims take their religion so seriously?”, it’s “why do you not take your religion so seriously?” Muslims are willing to kill and to die for their beliefs – are you willing to kill and to die for yours? So far it appears the secularists are certainly willing to die and they’re willing to let you die for their beliefs, but at what point do they think their beliefs are worth killing for – or at what point are they going to be honest enough to admit they don’t think their beliefs are in fact worth killing for?

  3. But,the Crusades,and witch trials and slavery and the K.K.K. and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! Have I forgot anything?

    1. Hey Muslims are very concerned about the potential backlash from tomorrow’s suicide bombings. Stop punching down and realize their plight.

      1. The followers of Islam have to clean up their house before they bitch about others.You can’t have civil law and government based on the words written by desert bandit in the 14 century or the old testament.

  4. Wow a sensible and truthful editorial on Islam in reason. Did I wake up in some kind of parallel universe this morning? Does Spock have a beard?

    1. Does Spock have a beard?

      In Abrams Trek, yes. Her name is Lt. Uhura.

  5. I think we all knew that after we became Charlie. But thanks for updating the viewers at home.

  6. It is this moral sheepishness, not Muslims, which Charlie Hebdo blames for Brussels.

    I’m sorry, but this is ludicrous. That exists but it’s not the fascist cultural sensitivity pushers or the overreaching anti-discrimination laws that keep people from openly debating Islam like we do other theologies/ideologies. It’s an inordinate risk of actual physical harm.

    1. “It’s an inordinate risk of actual physical harm.”

      And sometimes that actual, physical harm comes from state agents throwing you in a cage for doing things like quoting Winston Churchill.

      Plus, a lot of these leftists were blaming Pamela Geller for getting shot at when those two radicals tried to gun down the people in Garland. If it were just about worrying for your own safety, there’d be no reason for left-wingers to go out of their way to attack people for ‘offending’ Muslims.

    2. If you don’t believe in self defense, which many European countries don’t, it follows that you’re going to avoid pissing off psychopaths

  7. There are several retarded aspects of the Hebdo editorial (a Muslim not wanting to make you a bacon croissant is creeping Islamism? Really? And I thought freaking out about gay wedding cakes was bad). However, the people attacking Charlie Hebdo don’t seem to realize how seriously the French take secularism. Public displays of religion in France are frowned upon, so it’s not really anti-Muslim so much as it’s defending the ideas of French secularism. I don’t agree with that extreme interpretation of secularism, but Charlie Hebdo would be shit talking Catholics if they were refusing to serve certain dishes because of their religion too. I’m sure they’ve said far worse about Catholics, in fact. That’s just how the French left operates.

    Other than that, I didn’t find that much objectionable. Their basic argument is that Islamic fundamentalism is a deeper problem than just terrorism and that a lot of ideas held by average, everyday Muslims cause Islam to be a more radical religion, which is one of the reasons that terrorism is an issue in that religion. Given that a BBC poll was just released showing 52% of British Muslims want to ban homosexuality and 24% want Sharia law to have precedence over secular British law, it’s not hard to see their point.

    1. No kidding. Algeria is different than France because the people who live there are different and think different things. If you plan to import that population of Algiers into Paris, Paris won’t be like Paris anymore.

      The multiculturalism can’t account for or handle the existence of Muslims. All cultures are supposed to be of equal value. It shouldn’t matter if we import millions of people from an alien culture. Since all cultures are equal, things should remain the same and in fact get better because of DIVERSITY

      That is of course fantasy horse shit. Whether one culture is better than another is a subjective question. What is not subjective is that cultures are different and people don’t magically change when they cross a border.

      Open border Libertarians have the same problem. They can’t account for a group of people who don’t care about freedom and are not interested in respecting anyone else’ freedom and can’t be talked into or threatened into being any different.

      1. can’t be talked into or threatened into being any different

        If you are talking about large groups of people, there is no such thing. Islam spread by threats and violence, there’s nothing magical about it that makes it immune to threats and violence.

        The problem isn’t the “existence of Muslims”, the problem is the fecklessness of Westerners.

      2. “The multiculturalism can’t account for or handle the existence of Muslims.”

        France is a terrible example of multiculturalism. France is an example of forced integration, which is the opposite of multiculturalism.

        French is required by law in commercial and workplace communications. Muslim women are not allowed to cover in public buildings–including schools.

        How can this be an example of multiculturalism?

        In the United States, Muslims can speak or put up signs in any language they like. In the United States, Muslim women can cover if they wish. That is one of the reasons why Muslims have assimilated better in the United States than they have in France.

        Multiculturalism is free individuals making choices for themselves. France’s policy of forced integration is the government imposing itself on people.

        1. I think the problem people have with “multiculturalism” stems from two different models of multiculturalism.

          There’s the model more popular with progressives. The model where every culture is said to be equal no matter what, discussion of culture is prohibited, and “appropriation” is a sin. This mindset is what a lot of people have issue with. It’s a kind of “Segregation Multiculturalism” where we are told to accept that all cultures are equal, but we also force them to be wholly separate from one another (yet still expect everyone to live together).

          The other kind is the model popular with libertarians, and the kind that tends to be put in practice in America. A kind of “Free Market Multiculturalism”, where nobody is forced to accept anyone’s culture, discussion is welcomed, and people can adopt elements from whatever culture they think is best. Everyone gets the culture that works best for them, and competition and market forces drive everyone to the best culture.

          Nationalists like the snobbish French, don’t like the Free Market Multiculturalism because they think their culture is objectively best in every way, and don’t want a free and open market spoiling that. But I think there are also anti-multiculturalists who object to libertarian multiculturalism by confusing it with progressive multiculturalism.

          1. The progressive interpretation is anti-human despite what they think and plain, plump not rooted in reality in any way.

          2. Except the latter isn’t really multi-culturalism, is it? I mean, as you acknowledge “competition and market forces drive everyone to the best culture”. That sounds like more an assimilation model in the American tradition.

            1. “Except the latter isn’t really multi-culturalism, is it?

              Part of the issue is that the French consider their cultural superiority to the rest of the world as a given. They make American exceptionalism look like a walk in the part by comparison.

              There may not be another country in the world that is surer of its own cultural superiority than France. Their main gripe about American exceptionalism seems to be that it’s insufficiently French.

              The French are well known for hating the reality of France in the present tense and being absolutely chauvinistic about the superiority and grandeur of French culture.

              I’m sure this predates the French Revolution and Napoleon, but it’s part of what made it so easy for the French to support Napoleon in his revolutionary wars of liberation. Does the rest of Europe want to be just like post-revolutionary France? Of course they do!

              . . . just like the Iraqi people of 2003 wanted to be just like America.

              1. Personally, the chauvinism always struck me as more a sign of insecurity. They insist everything has to be French (even officially so) because they’re afraid of French culture competing in the marketplace of ideas.

                1. Just look at Quebec. It would be a lot less French without the cultural chauvinism imposed by decree.

                2. Regardless, it makes them highly resistant to multiculturalism.

                  It’s basically the white man’s burden without irony. We’ve blessed these barbarians with our high atheistic culture and language, and if they don’t appreciate the benefits, then we’ll shove it down the throats of their grandchildren whether they like it or not.

                  How many more times do we have to prohibit you from doing things like using your language in any commercial capacity (especially at work), or from outward expressions of your backward religion (like headscarves) before you people realize that our tolerance is superior to your barbarism?

        2. I actually think that the integration angle probably has to do with population sizes rather than the rules themselves Ken.

          1. I think there are a number of contributing factors. I think the lack of economic opportunities imposed by France’s highly regulated and socialistic labor markets probably have something to do with the assimilation problems, too.

            And Islam may not lend itself to assimilation as easy as some other religions do. But you know what other religion also used to be considered insular and hard to assimilate wherever they migrated around the world?

            Jews are now as American as Amy Schumer, Ian Kinsler, and pumpkin pie–despite antisemitism. There are a number of reasons for that. The economic opportunities our capitalism provided certainly helped. Our multiculturalism helped.

            If anyone ever told Jews they couldn’t wear yarmulkes in public schools, we libertarians would jump all over them for it. The French are still doing that–with pride. You’re still allowed to wear a small cross around your neck in school in France. But Muslims girls still aren’t allowed to cover their heads.

            I’ve met Muslim women who never wanted to cover until they went to France. If the government told them they couldn’t wear miniskirts with belly shirts tomorrow, some of them would suddenly want to do that, too. That’s the way women are. They generally don’t like to be told what to wear or do. Come to think of it, I don’t like to be told what to do either.

            1. There’s also the entirety of the Atlantic ocean that makes it rather difficult to get to the United States. All of Europe is simply easier to access and closer, so if you’re looking for a target why go all the way to the U.S.?

              As you say though, there are a lot of reasons. And clearly economics would be one of them. Frankly, I find the religion itself to be stuck in the middle ages. They need a reformation, and it needs to be acknowledged that Theocracy backed by violent expansion is never an ok thing; and this in a nutshell is codified within their religion. How you might get around that theologically is their business, but until they can ‘fix’ that they won’t graduate to the 20th century.

              Islam is one of the worst kinds of religion: it’s a government system masquerading as a belief system. Most of the religions that pulled that kind of nonsense in a big day went extinct a long time ago. Even Christians only have one city-state left, and they are more numerous than Muslims even today.

        3. “forced integration”…

          Lol! Want me to predict the next neighborhood where 1000 Citroens will burn in one night?

          There’s only 3 or 4…

      3. Open border Libertarians have the same problem. They can’t account for a group of people who don’t care about freedom and are not interested in respecting anyone else’ freedom and can’t be talked into or threatened into being any different.

        We can, and do. You just don’t like what we say because it shits all over your faith in nation states protecting you.

        1. I don’t understand how the right to self-defense is not “accounting for” a dangerous group of people. Buy a gun, form a militia, defend yourselves and your property.

          The real truth that nobody outside of anarchists and libertarians wants to admit is that our “own” government will be standing in the way.

          1. I don’t think anarchism can really deal with modern Muslim terrorist tactics. If 10 people can launch a suicide attack that kills 300 or more, and they can do this repeatedly, then they will eventually destroy the anarchist society. You can’t eliminate all soft targets without crippling your society, your militia is not always going to be available to deal with gunmen randomly popping up to hit soft targets, and even if it could, it can’t do jack against suicide bombings.

            An anarchist society can’t pull together the preventative measures that would be needed to dismantle the clandestine support networks that enable the suicide missions. Once people see that anarchism can’t solve an existential threat, they will abandon it posthaste in favor of either creating a state with intelligence and policing capabilities to dismantle those networks, or using those militias to enact an anti-Muslim pogrom.

            1. You presume too much about what anarchy means. Which is fair, I suppose, since anarchy of the type tarran adheres to has not been realized in practice.

              But the ultimate point remains the same. Handing off defense to another party may be a sensible division of labor. Up until that party turns against you.

            2. Why do you suppose private agencies can’t gather information to destroy those networks?

              1. Aside from the question of funding public goods, particularly for something that people can’t easily decentralize without compromising in certain respects, there’s the fact that such an agency would almost certainly need to trespass on the privacy of other persons to function effectively.

                1. there’s the fact that such an agency would almost certainly need to trespass on the privacy of other persons to function effectively.

                  No it wouldn’t. People could be made to permit some level of security intrusion vis a vis their insurance contracts. Free market insurers have an incentive keep claims low, just like they have incentive to not insure houses in a patch of forests that burns down at predictable intervals. There’s all sorts of ways that free market provided security would far outdo what a state monopoly of security could provide, with markedly fewer if any trespasses against the natural rights of their customers.

      4. Closed border people won’t address the problem they claim open borders has.

        If we really care about preserving cultural norms in immigration, we need to shut down immigrants from Europe. Europeans are anti-free speech socialists, and should not be allowed in this country.

        The problem I have with your argument is you guys seldom seem willing to go through with the implications of your criticism of open borders. I don’t see you guys calling for ideological tests in immigration, and I don’t see you guys calling for an end of immigrants from extremely left, anti-free speech Europe. Asian Americans are overwhelmingly Left, and Asians account for almost 40% of legal immigration into this country. I see no calls to stop them.

        The only real solution I see to your guys problem, is to completely and totally shut down ALL forms of legal immigration, as a lot of the world’s countries are more totalitarian in mindset. I don’t see advocacy for that. We also need to address culture creep through media. We consume much British media, and their anti-freedom cultures can leak into us that way. We’d need to censor that shit to address cultural creep.

        1. I’d say it’s less about ideological testing and more about the costs involved.

          In Libertopia, yeah, open borders. Absolutely.

          In this world of welfare and EITC and EBT and what all, not as much.

          The reason you see no calls to stop Asians from emigrating may be that that, by and large, they are perceived as being here to kick ass.

          1. In this world of welfare and EITC and EBT and what all, not as much.

            Then why not deport citizens on those programs? Or citizens that don’t pass some ideological test? That’s the fundamental contradiction for me.

            1. … where would you deport citizens to? Maybe somebody with two foreign parents could be deported to the country/countries of their parents’ origin, but a lot of people on welfare have no connection whatsoever to foreign countries.

              1. Call them refugees and send them to Europe? I’m mostly joking with that one, but you bring up a question of implementation, not of whether it would just, or even pragmatically a good idea, to do so.

            2. Because there’s a fundamental difference between revoking the citizenship of someone who has it and not granting it to someone who doesn’t. Firing someone is different from not hiring someone.

              It would be more straightforward just to get rid of the welfare state and probably even more feasible, however minuscule that chance is.

              It’s not about ideology, so an ideological test wouldn’t be useful.

              1. “Because there’s a fundamental difference between revoking the citizenship of someone who has it and not granting it to someone who doesn’t”

                There really shouldn’t be that difference. I have a Czech friend who is VERY libertarian. I have countless American friends who are VERY progressive and statist. Personally, I’d like my Czech friend to have a stronger say in how this country is governed than my American ones. Oh, but because my statist friends randomly chanced to be born in the “right” spot of dirt, they deserve citizenship more than my libertarian friend?? That doesn’t seem right.

                1. By what means, other than location, would one establish citizenship, in your view?

                  By what means should one be judged to have lost that citizenship, in your view? What protections, if any, would there be against having that loss foisted on a citizen?

                2. Because there’s a fundamental difference between revoking the citizenship of someone who has it and not granting it to someone who doesn’t

                  Indeed. Libertarians are generally very receptive to the idea that taking something away from somebody is fundamentally different than not giving it to them.

                  We say “Not giving is taking” as a rebuke, not as a statement of support.

              2. Citizenship isn’t equivalent to hiring someone. There isn’t an HR department that interviews people and decides to grant them citizenship. There is no contractual agreement associated with it. It’s just something you get by virtue of the fact that you were born in a certain place.

                I certainly don’t think borders are illegitimate. I think governments should have the power to police their borders. But from a libertarian perspective, I think the criteria that should be used to keep someone out should be similar in quality to the criteria used to keep someone who is already here out of the rest of society. Because while I think it’s fine for jurisdiction to end at a border, I don’t think human rights should. And so I look at it from that perspective and ask on what basis you can keep someone out who might go on welfare, but you can’t kick out or lock up someone who is already here and is on welfare?

                And to be clear, I don’t want to lock people up for being on welfare. Ideologically I’d like to do away with the welfare state. Pragmatically I’d like to see it drastically reduced and restructured. But I’m not going to blame someone for trying to get by as best they can according to rules that they didn’t really have any hand in crafting. But then how can I deny entry to an immigrant just because they might end up going on welfare, too?

                1. It’s not about ideology, so an ideological test wouldn’t be useful

                  In your case, no, but several people here have made arguments based on ideology.

            3. Yeah. Ultimately every single anti-immigration thing boils down to “immigrants could do [bad thing]”, so they should not be allowed in this country. But NO ONE ever calls for deporting nationals who do the same [bad thing]. Nationals get a free pass, which seems absurd. Just because the statist was lucky enough to be born in the right location, he gets to stay.

            4. Then why not deport citizens on those programs?

              To ask the question is to obliterate any distinction between citizens and migrants.

              Which you can do, absolutely. Whichever way you go, though (all migrants/citizens on welfare are deported, or all migrants/citizens have equal rights to welfare) is going to be anti-liberty.

              1. It would be a bit odd to maintain a welfare program only to deport anyone who takes advantage of it too.

                But I think it is worth noting that US citizens have no more right to money forcefully extracted from me than anyone else in the world. I’m not harmed any more by an immigrant collecting welfare than by a citizen doing the same.
                But I’m a bit of an idealist. And in a more ideal world, citizenship shouldn’t matter much.

                1. Are you willing, by whatever means necessary, to prevent citizens on welfare from having more kids?

                  1. Are you willing, by whatever means necessary, to prevent citizens on welfare from having more kids?

                    Reproduction is a natural right. I beleive it’s important that reproduction not be subsidized, but preventing anyone’s reproduction outright is a violation of natural law. Immigration is not a natural right unlike emigration.

                    1. So in your world, one has a right to… have enough food to eat to carry a pregnancy to term… but once the child is born, it’s “important” to not subsidize… “reproduction” … whatever that means?

                      As clear as mud to me right now, sorry.

                    2. So in your world, one has a right to… have enough food to eat to carry a pregnancy to term… but once the child is born, it’s “important” to not subsidize… “reproduction” … whatever that means?

                      What? Do you not know the difference between positive and negative liberty? I never said someone has a right to “have enough food” to carry a pregnancy. I said they have a right to not be hindered in reproduction, but they don’t have a right to force others to pay for their pregnancy.

                      Welfare payments to support one’s offspring amounts subsidized reproduction. In the same way that paying single moms for being single moms amounts to a subsidy for single motherhood, which necessarily causes an increase in single mothers. Pretty simple.

                    3. Immigration is not a natural right unlike emigration.

                      Aren’t immigration and emigration the same thing from a different point of view (i.e. if you are on the other side of a border, immigration becomes emigration)? You can’t emigrate without immigrating to somewhere (unless you go to the moon or just hang out in international waters or something).

                      I’d say both are natural rights, with the proviso that you have to have a place to go to where the property owner will allow you to be. Just as the right to free press doesn’t entitle anyone to a printing press, the right to migrate doesn’t entitle you to a place to migrate to.

                    4. Aren’t immigration and emigration the same thing from a different point of view (i.e. if you are on the other side of a border, immigration becomes emigration)? You can’t emigrate without immigrating to somewhere (unless you go to the moon or just hang out in international waters or something).

                      Ever hear a bartender yell at closing time “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here!” That’s basically it. Everyone has a right to leave the country in they’re in, but that doesn’t mean they have a right to move to any country they want. What if your backyard were allodial property, in effect a sovereign state. Would the sum total of the world’s population have a natural right to move into your backyard?

                      I’d say both are natural rights, with the proviso that you have to have a place to go to where the property owner will allow you to be.

                      You just described a contractual right, not a natural one.

                      Just as the right to free press doesn’t entitle anyone to a printing press, the right to migrate doesn’t entitle you to a place to migrate to.

                      That’s right, which means that emigration is a natural right, immigration can, at best, only be a contractual right.

                  2. This topic is taboo and must never be discussed. Even the suggestion that such people might voluntarily choose to reduce family size is anti-liberty and probably racist.

                2. I’m not harmed any more by an immigrant collecting welfare than by a citizen doing the same.

                  Maybe, maybe not. The important thing is the incentive structure the welfare states place on domestic people and migrants respectively. Just as it gives incentive and ability to the most undesirable subset of the population to reproduce more than would naturally be possible, so too does the welfare state induce the arrival migrants that are less suitable and in greater numbers than would naturally be possible. The main difference as I see it, a welfare baby can certainly follow in their parents worthless footsteps but they also receive a great deal of input from society more generally to the point that the welfare baby is more culturally integrated. Whereas the adult welfare dependent migrant, arriving en masse, is in the overwhelming majority of cases going to find difficulty and much reduced incentive to integrate culturally and economically than the welfare baby does. Not to mention cultural baggage that the adult migrant carries with him wherever he goes. Sometimes that baggage is irrelevant how their neighbors live their lives, but more often it is not.

                  For example the welfare state may breed a generation of entitled and indolent Swedes, but on it’s own it won’t turn those Swedes into blonde haired versions of North Africans with grossly disproportionate affinities rape, female genital mutilation, property crime and violence relative to their numbers.

                3. ” I’m not harmed any more by an immigrant collecting welfare than by a citizen doing the same.”

                  When there are supposedly 310 million citizens but close to 7 billion others, I think you are missing a point unless the 7 billion are all made to contribute to the funds where the free cheese comes from…

          2. Oh yeah, the cost argument is the valid argument, and is a great case for why we need to do away with the wellfare state (because if immigrants potentially exploiting it is a problem, then nationals exploiting it is also a problem).

            But I was addressing John’s argument against open borders, which was on the grounds of opening our borders to more statist cultures leading to a more statist society.

            Personally, I think as long as the nationalists don’t try to force their own culture, and the progressive multiculturalists don’t have their way and get to keep the cultures separate and suppress discussion of culture, then market forces will destroy any concern of cultural creep, and a free market of cultures will lead us to the best culture, made up of the best elements of every culture.

            1. As I posted above, killing the welfare state does away with that objection. That’s the path I favor.

              I’m going to take a pass on trying to defend John’s argument.

              1. Agreed. Killing the welfare state is the best thing we could do to resolve the problems of immigration.

                1. Killing the welfare state is the best thing we could do to resolve the problems of immigration.

                  Among some honest libertarians, maybe. I think the welfare state is often used as a convenient scapegoat by people who are generally against immigration. Those types of people would find a new crutch to lean on.

              2. I’ll whoop as loudly as anyone for open borders when the welfare state is permanently dead.

                1. At least we know the people coming then are doing so for some other reason than free shit…

      5. “Algeria is different than France because the people who live there are different and think different things. If you plan to import that population of Algiers into Paris”

        Algeria was part of France since the 1840s. Muslims in France were given the option to become French citizens at any time after World War I. After World War II, all Algerians were given French citizenship without having to sacrifice anything. Algeria became as much a part of France as Paris before Hawaii became part of the United States.

        They weren’t letting the people of Algiers immigrate into Paris. Algerians were French citizens just like Hawaiians are American citizens. . . . only Algiers is closer to Paris than Chicago is to Washington DC.

        1. This is a purely semantic distinction that a) doesn’t actually clarify anything and b) doesn’t reflect the history between France and Algeria.

          Yes, Algeria was on paper an integral part of metropolitan France for many years; Algeria ruled by Frenchmen and other Europeans for the interests of France and themselves. It was a colony. Without taking a position on the morality of colonialism, it is undeniable that at no point did the majority of the Algerian population culturally assimilate with the French population. The two were for the most part distinct populations with distinct cultures; the pieds-noirs and other cross-cultural groups notwithstanding.

          The war that ended the French-Algerian connection was very bloody and very bitter. After the split, Algeria became even more radicalized, with arabization and Islamicization (despite Arabs and Islam coming from Arabia, not North Africa).

          There remains a large body of poorly assimilated individuals in France who do not identify with the Republic, Europe, or liberalism and instead see themselves aligned with Algeria, the Maghreb, and Islam in general.

          1. They were citizens of France.

            That is not immigration.

            Many of them fled to France during and after the Algerian War. Many of them fought for France during the Algerian War (not to mention World War II). Many of them suffered greatly because they fought for France.

            If their grandchildren identify less as French than Muslims in America identify as American, then how can the problem be with Islam?

            1. You have first of all not responded to anything I said, and moreover put words in my mouth.

              I give your response 5/10 on the Ken Schultz scale of missing the point.

              1. “You have first of all not responded to anything I said”

                You said that Algeria being part of France was a semantic distinction that didn’t reflect history.

                I cited history in showing that it was more than a semantic distinction. Over the course of three wars, these people fought for France and became French citizens.

                I think you missed my point.

                “There remains a large body of poorly assimilated individuals in France who do not identify with the Republic, Europe, or liberalism and instead see themselves aligned with Algeria, the Maghreb, and Islam in general.”

                And there remains a large body of well assimilated individuals in the United States who do identify with America–despite also being Muslim.

                Is my point starting to sink in yet?

    2. I’m sure they’ve said far worse about Catholics,

      And I’m sure most of the people criticizing them for “Islamophobia” now were probably cheering them on then.

      The PC shitbirds really don’t care about Muslims or offending them, they care about their own sensibilities being offended. Accusations of Islamophobia are just the latest weapon in their arsenal for shutting up “those people.”

  8. When markets (all markets: ideas too, not just money) operate freely, the changes are gradual and dynamic and subject to competition, so bad entries (idea, products, businesses, employees) fail and must adjust. When governments interfere, they do so abruptly and without competition, and all the value signals are so corrupted as to be worthless and have even negative value. In short, customers in those corrupted markets have no market guidance, everyone is talks past each other, and the market goes to shit.

    That’s what is going on, and why government-mandated trigger warnings and censorship are so evil. I don’t care if students want to crowd-source their own trigger warnings, or if Salon or the Ministry of Truth want to propagate their preferred sets of moral guidance, as long is the government doesn’t get involved. Up til that point, the market will take care of them.

    Prices are the greatest invention of all time. They liberate product markets from banal barter. Conversely, government intervention in markets is the most evil invention of all time; which is to say, government, which is coercive by nature and definition, is the most evil invention of all time.

    1. That’s an incredibly na?ve economic philosophy. Even if it were plausible that such a nation could exist with totally free markets and thus market derived price controls, that nation’s system would fail when another nation aggresses upon it in an act of war. So no, your premises merit discussion but certainly not your conclusion.

      1. That’s an incredibly naive answer. You leap to conclusions faster than Evil Knievel leaps chasms.

      2. Or more to the point, your base assumption is that the only thing preventing any nation from invading other nations is the presence of coercive governments. While this may be a reasonable hindsight conclusion of, say, 17th century Europe, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion everywhere today.

        You may as well say that the only thing preventing people from invading neighbors’ houses is the presence of armed occupants. It may well discourage most wannabe home invaders, but most people wouldn’t invade under any circumstances other than a fire to wake up the occupants.

        It’s hard for me to imagine any circumstances where the absence of a US government or its army would tempt any other country to invade. As the urban legend says, invading the US involves fighting a rifleman behind every blade of grass. But even without that, even if the gun controllers had their way, I’d like to see you make any plausible scenario for invasion by any country.

        1. I’ve challenged anarcho-capitalists in the past to come up with a way to prevent a society from descending into chaos or from being overrun by outside forces. The best response I’ve heard is trade — when people mutually benefit from each other, they tend not to fight. I’m not 100% convinced that trade is strong enough to overcome tribalism, but it’s still a pretty good and compelling answer.

          1. Times change. Absolute monarchists no longer carry out God’s will, and controlling land is no longer a primary goal. One of Hitler’s mistakes was not seeing how the world had changed even since the previous war. One of my puzzles about the Holocaust and Hitler’s WW II strategy in general in how anyone could think it good policy to kill so many productive workers just because they are on land you don’t have an immediate need for, not even the worst despots thought that was good policy. The Nazi rationale was needing all that farmland occupied by Slavs — but they didn’t! Even by then, farmers were productive enough to have fed the nation for the foreseeable future.

            It’s our complex industrial society, division of labor, incredible productivity gains, that mean conquering foreign countries would destroy any useful benefit.

            A related side benefit to having no coercive government is that any conqueror would have to build all that infrastructure from scratch, both the government and civilian sides. The Nazis conquered France so easily because the Vichy government remained in force, with all the local councils, policeman, regulators, tax collectors, and everybody else still functioning. Without such infrastructure, the Nazis would have been hard-pressed to collect any benefits.

    2. When markets (all markets: ideas too, not just money) operate freely, the changes are gradual and dynamic and subject to competition, so bad entries (idea, products, businesses, employees) fail and must adjust

      This is veering off the original topic of conversation a bit, but I’m not sure that *all* markets operate efficiently enough that you can assume that bad entries fail. It’s not just enough to have competition, there has to be high enough costs for bad entries (and to a lesser extent, I think, high enough benefits for good entries), and there have to be strong enough feedback loops. Otherwise, bad entries can and do linger from inertia.

      One could argue that markets which inefficiency are probably not terribly consequential, which is to say that the costs (including opportunity costs) simply aren’t costly enough to motivate major structural changes. But I don’t think you can argue that all markets are necessarily efficient.

      A good example might be language. Language is emergent and develops via a type of market process, but language is also full of arcane rules that make it less efficient. But it seems to serve its purpose well enough, so there isn’t much incentive for language to evolve to be more efficient.

      ** A lot of these ideas came from a recent EconTalk episode.

      1. A “perfect” market which killed failures instantly can’t exist, because what’s the definition of failure? Instantaneous bankruptcy for even the slightest period with assets less then debts? There has to be a grace period for every failure to turn itself around, and the only one who can judge either instantaneous failure or expiration of the grace period is the market participants themselves.

  9. “It is this moral sheepishness, not Muslims, which Charlie Hebdo blames for Brussels. Where its editorial talks about the “veiled woman” in our local town or the baker who refuses to serve ham, it isn’t blaming these ordinary Muslims for terror; it’s simply asking if we should be allowed to have open, critical debate about their cultural habits, about the veil and other things.”

    “We should be allowed to have open critical debate about … [bakers] who refuse to serve ham”

    Yeah, fuck that kosher deli down the street!! Lol.

    Having open and critical debates is good and all, but really I don’t see the value in having any sort of “critical discussion” bitching about how some random guy chooses not to sell you bacon. Maybe just shopping somewhere else is a more sensible reaction to a guy who doesn’t want to sell ham than having a critical discussion about the guy’s culture in an attempt to get him to serve you ham.

    Also, I don’t know many BAKERS who sell ham. Bakeries in my area typically serve, you know, baked goods. It seems a bit like the “gay wedding pizza” controversy in “complaining that they discriminate in a service they don’t provide in the first place” to complain that a baker doesn’t stock your preferred meat products. Maybe try a butcher, or a deli.

    1. It’s a European thing, stemming, iirc, from places long settled and thus with limited wood reserves for private fires, or areas like Greece, where wood was not an abundant resource. The bakers already had large ovens going, so they would also roast meats after the bread was baked.

      By the time America was settling outlying regions with scarce wood supplies, we already had infrastructure and coal. Ergo, it seems weird that a baker would cook anything but bread.

  10. The whole debate seems off to me. Even if Charlie Hebdo’s editorial staff were exposed as racists, who says that racists don’t have freedom of speech? Racism is just a form of stupidity–since when does freedom of speech only extend to people saying smart things? Are people only allowed to believe in smart religions, too, or are they also allowed to believe in stupid religions? Why aren’t the stupid things Muslims say likewise condemned as hate speech?

    What’s being exposed, here, if anything is the mainstreaming of noble lie culture that runs deep on the left. Average people on the left want to control what other people believe and say about race, economics, free speech, global warming, gender, and religion because average people on the left think that if they can make other people buy in to certain things, then the left can implement their agenda and make the world a better place.

    This is why the left sticks up for Islam–ironically, it’s because they cannot countenance the right to be stupid. It goes against the left’s real prime directive–driving the agenda for positive change with noble lies, true or otherwise. The left will seemingly stand up for the rights of Muslims because the rest of us thinking and saying what we want–no matter how stupid–undermines their ability to effect positive change through controlling the commanding heights of acceptable discourse.

  11. So yes, a mask has slipped. The Charliephobes’ mask. Their claim to be against “punching down,” to care about ordinary, vulnerable people, has been exposed as utter bunkum.

    The PC douchebags have never really cared about “vulnerable people,” they only really care about having their own fragile sensibilities offended. That and demonizing people they don’t like as “racists/ misogynists/ islamaphobes/ homophobes/ whatevers”. To them these so-called “vulnerable people*” are just props that they use to feel smug and superior to all those non-PC yokels. They’re a bunch of fucking posers.

    And “punching down” has to be one of the dumber things to enter common usage in quite some time. When I hear it it makes me want to “punch down” on whatever mental defective just uttered it.

    *And is there a more insulting phrase than that? It’s basically saying that non-white cis-hetero shitlords are such emotionally fragile creatures that they simply can’t handle anyone saying anything even slightly mean about them. If were a member of one those protected classes I’d like to think I’d feel insulted.

    1. “And is there a more insulting phrase than that? It’s basically saying that non-white cis-hetero shitlords are such emotionally fragile creatures that they simply can’t handle anyone saying anything even slightly mean about them. If were a member of one those protected classes I’d like to think I’d feel insulted.”

      There are a bunch of videos on Youtube of Christopher Hitchens criticizing Islam and having Muslims stand up to say how ‘offended’ they are. It’s hilarious because Hitchens actually spent *more* time specifically criticizing Christianity, but Christians never tried to say “Oh, golly gee, Mr. Hitchens, my feelings are hurt! Stop being a big ol’ meany!”

      People talk about discrimination against Muslims, but in one way Muslims have an immense privilege not given to any other religion – they can behave like their religion is a *race,* rather than an ideology, so if you criticize it you’re being an evil bigot.

      I’m constantly getting “offended” by attacks on enlightenment and secular values, but when I’m offended I criticize the person’s position, I don’t just bitch about how I feel bad so you should stop hurting my feelings. Muslims have a religious privilege not afforded to any other group, and I’m supposed to pretend they’re nothing but put-upon, disenfranchised victims.

      1. There are a bunch of videos on Youtube of Christopher Hitchens criticizing Islam and having Muslims stand up to say how ‘offended’ they are. …

        People talk about discrimination against Muslims, but in one way Muslims have an immense privilege not given to any other religion – they can behave like their religion is a *race,* rather than an ideology, so if you criticize it you’re being an evil bigot.

        Sounds like they’ve learned the rules of the PC/ SJW rhetorical game well.

        when I’m offended I criticize the person’s position, I don’t just bitch about how I feel bad so you should stop hurting my feelings.

        IOW, you use logic and reason to debate the person’s position. But, when the person is a SJW type, logic and reason don’t work because they’re all about FEELZ, so maybe you should just bitch and moan about how they’ve hurt your feelings.

        Since you’re not going to change their mind with reason anyway, because 99.99999% of the time they didn’t come to their position through reason to begin with. You won’t solve anything, but it might be at least temporarily satisfying to throw their own horseshit back in their face.

  12. Progressive core beliefs:

    No israeli jew is innocent

    No muslim is guilty

  13. I’m curious how Islam got elevated to protected status? Growing up, it was barely on the radar of things, other than a different religion that was mentioned in world cultures class. Then 9-11 happened, but I hardly remember some huge, pervasive backlash against Islam or Muslims. Sure, there were groups who blamed Islam itself, or who viewed all Muslims with suspicion, but it was hardly mainstream or generally approved of. It seems like so much of the fear of Islamaphobia is based on how some people *thought* others would react, as opposed to how they did. I find it very odd.

    1. There was certainly some anti-islam sentiment in the wake of 9/11 and some pushback to it as well. but it was actually far more practical than ideological.. heck i seem to recall GWB saying “take it easy = just because someone’s wearing a turban don’t make them a terrorist” or something like that because Sikhs got attacked. His own statements are barely distinguishable from Obama’s

      You’re right that the left’s preoccupation with Islamophobia is something that has emerged fairly late in the day, and from what i can tell it simply seems like a means to provide progressives a new angle from which to loathe Christian Conservatives, who they see as their cultural nemesis. I think the same is true in reverse = with the emergence of ISIS, Christian Conservatives increasingly see the problem of terrorism/ME-strife through a lens of religious conflict with the west and fulminate that political leadership (like Bush’s quotes above) fail to identify it the same way.

      IOW, i just see it as new territory for culture-wars between progressives & socons. Its using “islam” as a punching bag/weapon; neither seem particularly concerned with the reality of Islam as much as their own caricature of it. Each side would probably reverse their views were they more intimate with *actual* devout muslims; conservatives would find much in common, and progs would be shocked by their lack of ‘tolerance’ …

      1. You’re right that the left’s preoccupation with Islamophobia is something that has emerged fairly late in the day, and from what i can tell it simply seems like a means to provide progressives a new angle from which to loathe Christian Conservatives, who they see as their cultural nemesis.

        If these dumbasses think Christian conservatives are their cultural nemesis, wait til they get a load of Islamists.

        1. They put tremendous efforts into dismissing the obvious. Feminists who firmly believe that every frat-boy is a serial rapist, ignored the rape wave in Sweden and the mass attacks on New Year’s Eve.

          1. I am told that was just a weird sex thing that happened one time.

          2. When ethnic people do it it’s quaint

            1. Is that the Twoflower version of it?

      2. The Global Socialist types allied themselves with Islam for lots of reasons. They love a new victim, they love to piss-off and ultimately destroy the native culture.

        Muslims also come in handy when building big-government. They tend to collect lots of welfare and occasionally blow shit up. When they blow shit up, it isn’t their fault. It’s the government’s fault for not having enough police and internal security agencies, and security cameras, and domestic surveillance, and allowing too much freedom.

    2. I’m curious how Islam got elevated to protected status?

      Easy. Islamists inflicted enough violence on people who “blasphemed” Islam or refused to bend the knee to its requirements that it was cheaper and easier for the ruling class to issue them privileges than to deal with their violence.

  14. That is true for anyone who attacks someone for being “islamophobic”, or any other use “_phobic” outside of an psychological condition. It is simply to shut down any criticism, not an honest argument.

  15. OT:

    The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
    His legal team argued there was no right “to stimulate one’s genitals.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..ices-texas

    Paging ENB…

  16. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

    1. ” best adult dating site”

      that means a lot, the competition being so stiff.

  17. It seems to me that what O’Neill describes perniciously as “Charliephobia” is the same thing in this country that the Trumpkins are gleefully revolting against. In fact, Reason’s writers tend to be (like Dalmia and Gillespie) are “Charliephobes” in general, if not in specifics.

    Charlie Hebdo has long been a magazine of anti-religious bigots, but they only catch hell for it when they criticize Islam, because the Left’s moral judgement is confined to arbitrary rankings of group identities rather than a coherent ethical principle.

    1. the Left’s moral judgement is confined to arbitrary rankings of group identities rather than a coherent ethical principle.

      Bingo. And this is why its a mistake to enter into alliances of convenience with the Left when they happen to be pushing for something you also want. When you win, you look around and realize that you have just strengthened your biggest enemy.

  18. CH is just the propaganda arm of the French Secular Caliphate (laicite) – “See? We have freedom of speech.” Of course, they don’t. It’s a joke. If you wondered why they are not funny, now you know. Their role is to justify killing Muslims by the thousands in Iraq and Syria because ‘muh feelz’. They are a far greater danger than militant Islam could hope to be.

    1. ^ This entire comment is magnificent in its stupidity. Especially hilarious given that France opposed the war in Iraq…

      And the people currently killing Muslims “by the thousands” in Iraq and Syria aren’t French, champ. They tend to be Middle Eastern dictators and those militant Islamists you claim aren’t much of a danger.

      1. LOL. Sorry this is not a game you can win. Of course, you can call me ‘stupid’ again, and see how well that works for you. Maybe try ‘insane’ next time, switch it up. And yes, the coalition is killing them by the thousands, because well, they are killing themselves by the thousands. It makes perfect sense in the Western Secular Caliphate. Thanks CH for explaining it. OK now call me ‘moron’, you can do it:

        1. Nobody here is willing to ingest the exact dosage of barbiturates and tranquilizers necessary to unpack the nonsensical mess of unsupported assumptions that underlies the gibberish that you spout.

          1. LOL good now call me a drug user or addict. Here’s a cheat sheet if you run out of ideas: ‘ignorant’ ‘insane’ ‘ in denial’ ‘lying’ ‘crazy’ and ‘stupid’. And of course, never never address a fact, such as that the Western Caliphate is killing them in far greater numbers than they kill us. And that CH is just their propaganda arm to deflect attention from their war atrocities. And it is not funny and if you think it’s funny then that’s your problem right there.

            1. Who is the caliph of the Western Caliphate?

              1. According to the Holy Principles of Western Shariah, you can kill people because they are killing each other and you can kill people if they are selling each other into sex slavery. If you agree with these principles then you should apply for position of Head Caliph. I’d vote for you. (Do we get votes?)

                1. Answer the question.

                  1. And then demand that the infidel answer all your questions to your complete satisfaction. You?

                    1. So you have no idea what a caliphate is. Don’t protest being called a moron when you have earned the title.

                    2. LOL you’d be a top candidate.

        2. Of course, you can call me ‘stupid’ again, and see how well that works for you

          It demonstrates his keen grasp of the obvious. Let me know if you need help understanding any of those words.

          -jcr

  19. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  20. “Wha…what?! You can’t say that about Isla…huh? You were talking about Christians and Jews? Oh, ok then. Yeah, fuck those guys!”

    -Basically every leftist I meet.

  21. “Charlie’s editorial is an “anti-religion rant,” said Salon. To which the only reasonable response is: So what? Why shouldn’t people be anti-religion?”

    The people who do the attacks in Brussels and elsewhere aren’t saying “yay to religion!” or “hurrah for the traditions of our three great Abrahamic faiths!” They’re invoking a specific religion, Islam.

    This brings up a slight problem I have with Charlie.

    Jihadist terrorists commit some atrocity in the name of Islam.

    Then Charlie bravely has a cover illustration mocking Muslims, Christians and Jews. Or showing the Pope consecrating a condom.

    And the editorial keeps invoking “secularism” as the cure to Muslim jihadism.

    Let me know when a minister a priest, a rabbi and an imam team up to destroy Ethical Culture temples in the name of a generic “religion.”

    Until then, we should be focused on the problems in one specific religious tradition.

  22. There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.
    There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.
    The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam. There is just the Quran.
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.co…..islam.html

  23. The Qur’an Proves There Is No Such Thing As Moderate Islam Or Moderate Muslims | Now The End Begins

    For many, this article will be eye-opening to say the least. We have all heard of Christians in name only. Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, and they are hated by those who are true to the Qur’an and to their prophet, Muhammad.

    Islam is a totalitarian ideology, cloaked in robes of religion to present itself as honorable to an unsuspecting world. We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance.

    The word Islam means submission. In this article I will take passages straight from the Qur’an which clearly show that Islam has nothing to do with peace. It has everything to do with beheading, raping, pillaging, and dominating the entire world. To those who practice Islam and are jihadists (the Qur’an commands this) their god Allah promises great rewards awaiting those who give their lives while fighting infidels.

    nowtheend

    1. Who are the infidels? This term means anyone who does not believe the words of their prophet, Muhammad. In fact, the Muslims in name only are hated by the Muslims who are obedient to the words in the Qur’an. Are you beginning to understand why the so-called moderate Muslims do not speak out against the terror? They are fearful for their own lives!

      Here is an example of a command from their false god:

      Quran (2:191-193) ? “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing?but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun [the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.].”

      nowtheendbegins

  24. Lol. So the first comment after the article kicks off a 200+ comment thread about how it actually is completely illegitimate to criticize Islam and defend the European model of class-based speech rights. This place really is a fuck hole.

  25. Good rant, but you misspelled “buncombe”.

    -jcr

  26. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  27. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.fox-88.com

  28. Kylie . although Martin `s stori is inconceivable… on tuesday I bought themselves a Jaguar E-type after bringing in $8921 this last 4 weeks and over ten k this past month . it’s certainly my favourite-job Ive ever had . I began this 10-months ago and right away began to earn minimum $71… per-hour .r…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.ny-reports.com

  29. Once you understand that hardcore leftists are nihilists then everything makes sense.

  30. um, I thought “anti-religion” was a compliment from salon

  31. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  32. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  33. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  34. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  35. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.