Ayn Rand, Altruism, and Jihad

T. Belman. I really enjoyed this article. Helps explain a lot.

By Eileen F. Toplansky, AMERICAN THINKER

In fathoming the failure of Europeans to protect their own interests against the onslaught of Islamic jihadism, one is reminded of Ayn Rand’s quotation that “[r]eason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them[.]”

Bruce Bawer, an astute observer of the European scene, wonders how “Marine Le Pen lost in a landslide” given all the jihadist assaults against the French people and the very culture of France. Bawer offers three possibilities that include:

European guilt about past imperial histories and a “need to atone.”
– the postmodern belief that “no culture is better than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise.”
– the influence of the mainstream media, which routinely “soft pedals the Islamic roots of terror”
– the fact that “some people don’t want to learn the truth”

In the Autumn 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly, Christopher Clausen writes that “for many Europeans in the past 20 years, now-distant memories of both world wars have hardened into a self-righteous conviction that peace outweighs any value that might conflict with it, almost regardless of the threat or provocation.”

Consequently, there is an exquisite disregard in deliberately ignoring the “grim possibility that their children and grandchildren might end up by living under shariah law, if, in fact, they are allowed to live at all.” Consider that London presently has 100 sharia courts that are “based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.” Moreover, “a third of UK Muslims do not feel ‘part of British culture.'”

As further evidence of the ultimate intent of Islamists, Saudi religious scholars include the following in the nine-volume English translation of the Quran.

[D]iscard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) … to fight against all the Mushrikun as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the non-Muslims who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

As Nonie Darwish has pointed out, 64% of the Quran is devoted to denigrating commentary about kafirs, or non-Muslims.

And yet, while the above quoted words of the Quran should “forever silence any fantasies regarding Islam’s peaceful disposition toward the non-Muslim,” the West continues to avoid the obvious. But as Ayn Rand has noted, “[y]ou can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”

Hence, France continues to decompose in front of our eyes. Yves Mamou writes that “everything that represents state institutions … is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country[.]” Ultimately, France “and all of European society must assimilate Islamic social norms, not the other way around.”

Newly elected President Macron symbolizes the multicultural manifesto when he maintains that “French culture doesn’t exist in and of itself; there is no such thing as a single French culture. There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple.” Is it then inevitable that “France is going to have to live with terrorism,” as former prime minister Manuel Valls proclaimed?

Coupled with the ongoing Islamic push is the leftist destructive bent. Thus, “Belgium is unique” in that it is the “first nation blending appeasement to Islam and a suicidal form of nihilism[.]” It is not coincidental that in Belgium, “euthanasia is out of control.” With a record number of people killed by lethal injection, it is equally disturbing that “Belgium is the country with the highest per capita number of volunteers for the Caliphate.”

Judith Friedman Rosen reminds us that against the backdrop of Normandy, where tourists “pay tribute to those who died pursuing liberty,” there is a pervasive fear as the “French open door policy to Muslim immigrants, who reject Western values and liberty” has given way to “terror, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian murders.” The “clash of culture and civilization” continues, and “unlike the Asian and Indian immigrants … many of the Muslims are not willing to integrate into the society – and are trying to force their values such as Halal, [and] the prohibition of pork … onto the French populace.” What will be the future of France when “30% of French Muslims want Sharia law and less than 25% identify as French citizens”?

The Jihad Files by N.M. Guariglia document the results of jihad throughout the world so that Paris is now “one of the most dangerous capitals on Earth.” A “Toronto imam has sworn that all Muslims will eventually kill all Jews.” And in the name of religion, Pakistani three-year-olds are being married off while Nigerian three-year-olds are having heavy stones dropped on their heads. Not to be outdone, “[i]n Iraq, ISIS continues to commit unimaginable crimes. Approximately 200 Iraqis have been kidnapped to be used as human shields against U.S. air strikes. Homosexuals continue to get murdered in large quantities and for public display. Mentally handicapped Iraqis are being rounded up by ISIS and used against their will as suicide bombers. And mass executions against civilians accused of ‘blasphemy’ continue unabated.”

The incursions continue as the “Saudis plan on building 560 mosques across the South Asian nation of Bangladesh.” Is it not surprising, then, that “minority communities across Bangladesh are once again facing violence and persecution by the Sunni Muslim majority”? Mohshin Habib describes how “many Hindu areas experience attacks of … religious oppression. Muslim fundamentalists vandalized idols, set fire to Hindu temples and … looted valuables from temples.”

Bruce Thornton asks, “[H]ow much worse will the destruction and death have to be to wake us up?” These “indulgences of naive idealism,” dangerous delusions, and jihad denial still paralyze the West. Ayn Rand reminds us that “there are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

Until we can incorporate the idea that “nothing is creepier than Islam” and begin to “challenge Islamic racism, misogyny, genocide,” as Edward Cline exhorts, how can decent people not fall prey to Linda Sarsour’s “stealth jihad in a hijab”?

Amazingly, the more obvious the facts, “the more fiercely do people resist them.” Bawer explains that “as skilled propagandists [continue to] represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners [are] quick to buy into it all.” This is aided by the “media’s cheery ignorance about Islam’s hostile ideology,” as revealed by A.Z. Mohamed.

This is the most puzzling aspect of the media’s capitulation. After all, Islam brooks no dissent, and freedom of press and speech is eventually obliterated. But Ayn Rand explains that “to act rationally means to act in accordance with the acts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts[.]”

Even the Church, which is “the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith,” has abrogated its role. Instead of fighting to save the lives of Christians who are unwilling to renounce Christ, too many churches are deafeningly silent on terrorism. Denis MacEoin describes how the United Church of Christ (UCC) cultivates dealings with Islamic groups “despite the fact that Muslims across the Middle East have been killing, expelling, and humiliating Christians for a very long time, but especially in recent decades.” Why hasn’t the UCC noted the mass exodus of Christians precipitated by extremist Muslims and the Palestinian authorities?

But what might be a motivating factor for this ostensible ignorance and indifference? I turn again to Ayn Rand. For most people, the term “altruism” has a positive connotation. But Rand “rejects this perception of altruism[.] She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being.” Thus, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue because “it secures and protects one’s rational values – ultimately, one’s life and happiness. Since a concern with one’s own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one’s own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one’s own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.”

Rand maintains that “[t]he injunction ‘don’t judge’ is the ultimate climax of the altruist morality which, today, can be seen in its naked essence. When men plead for forgiveness, for the nameless, cosmic forgiveness of an unconfessed evil, when they react with instantaneous compassion to any guilt, to the perpetrators of any atrocity, while turning away indifferently from the bleeding bodies of the victims and the innocent—one may see the actual purpose, motive and psychological appeal of the altruist code. When these same compassionate men turn with snarling hatred upon anyone who pronounces moral judgments, when they scream that the only evil is the determination to fight against evil—one may see the kind of moral blank check that the altruist morality hands out.”

Edward Cline has asked if Europe is in the terminal state of a death wish. He asserts that Europe’s “foundational driver is altruism” – a kind of “moral blank check.” The West appears to have lost the desire “to value [itself] which means to fight for [its] happiness.”

Since “Allah demands that humans not love him, but submit to him, as slaves submit to their masters, and to sacrifice their lives for him,” we should absolutely refuse to accept this frame of reference and all that it entails. Instead, we need to realize that “if any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism [or self-destructive generosity] that men have to reject.”

May 14, 2017 | 12 Comments »

Leave a Reply

12 Comments / 12 Comments

  1. @ Philippe:
    They do the same thing with Indians here, mostly in Silicon valley. Trump has begun to take action on his promise to raise wages for and restrict unnecessary entry of HIB Visa holders.

    http://www.firstpost.com/world/donald-trump-administration-attacks-minimum-wage-dodge-on-l1-visas-3450308.html

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/333403-whats-missing-in-the-presidents-h1b-overhaul-order

    In Germany, the Syrian population is 2/3 illiterate and mostly unemployable. I already enclosed links. I try to corroborate assertions with articles backing up my position. Otherwise, it just becomes a contest of “he says, she says,” in which case there are no facts, just unsupported opinions. That doesn’t interest me. It’s why I mostly only follow the comments on Israelpundit. I rarely read any of the comments on other sites. I’m sure I’m far from alone. That’s why so many of us were confused, baffled, even at the accusations, even from some of the commenters on this site, that Breitbart was anti-semitic. Not all sites filter comments. I had never even looked at any of the comments on that site. Well, maybe the first couple. They weren’t anti-semitic but they weren’t exactly bright either. I seem to recall making a joke that telling people you read Breitbart became like grownup men telling people they read Playboy magazine in the 60’s and 70’s (when it really was a cultural and intellectual powerhouse, even had a television talk show that invited the most famous writers, actors, musicians, sports figures, and other glamorous intelligentsia). “I only read it for the articles.”

    Incidentally, my hat’s off to Brigitte Bardot for her gruelling fight against the islamization of France and Europe. They really stuck it to her. But, hey, I mean you would think that one of the 60’s biggest sex symbols would be opposed to the dark misogynist prison of Islam.

    Let’s face it, the Communist/Liberal/Socialist/Anarchist — now shmusshed together as “Progressives” — embrace of Islam is WEIRD. Marxists and other eschatologists, relgious or secular, are wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Just one of many possible variations. Ever see “Sliders?”

    “Sliders (TV Series 1995–2000) – IMDb
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112167/
    Sci-Fi · A boy genius and his comrades travel to different parallel universes, trying to find their way back home.”

    ===
    “Parallel Universes: Theories & Evidence”

    “Is our universe unique? From science fiction to science fact, there is a proposal out there that suggests that there could be other universes besides our own, where all the choices you made in this life played out in alternate realities. So, instead of turning down that job offer that took you from the United States to China, the alternate universe would show the outcome if you decided to venture to Asia instead.

    The idea is pervasive in comic books and movies. For example, in the 2009 “Star Trek” reboot, the premise is that the Kirk and Spock portrayed by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are in an alternate timeline apart from the William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy versions of the characters.

    The concept is known as a “parallel universe,” and is a facet of the astronomical theory of the multiverse. There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse. First, it is useful to understand how our universe is believed to have come to be…”

    http://w ww.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

    Note how in genuine science, scientific fact is presented as always-disprovable theory as opposed to “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” Hoax science where failure to adhere to the prevailing opinion can get you burned at the stake. The characters who persecute the doubters today would have been home burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for the Church which had embraced long-outdated Aristotle on the reasoning that if they were God’s representatives on earth, they would have to know everything, right? Wrong. Copernicus would have been toast.

  2. @Sebastian Zorn : Have a look at Germany workforce , on one side you have 4/5 of the employees with the higher wage scale in europe, and 1/5 of the rest on ” minijobs ” payed 450 €/month. With 450 € /month you can barely feed yourself let heat your tiny room . The influx of syrian will be directed at the minijobs sector. German are very ” realistic ” when it comes to practice near-slavery or distorted wages . They have imported 16,000 indians IT computer engineers from India but they pay them half of what cost an german engineer . For the indian engineer it is still a better deal to receive 2000 €/month in europe than to be payed a 1000 € in India. So overall , the new european model is a SUBPAR , SUBCONTRACT society , which aims at dismantling the social betterment of the post WW II epoch .I name it the Qatari Subcontract Reality . Like in Qatar a handful of princes and their kin reign over an army of foreign , mercenary workers .The elites of europe want to replicate this model . The more foreign workers it can use , the more the elite will force down on the locals , the degradation of their social protection.

  3. @ pacific_waters:

    “If the early Chinese people had any chivalry, it was manifested not toward women and children, but toward old people. That feeling of chivalry found clear expression in Mencius in some such saying as, “The people with gray hair should not be seen carrying burdens on the street,” which was expressed as the final goal of good government.”

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lin_Yutang

  4. @ pacific_waters:
    pacific_waters Said:

    the forces of islam will turn on them and overwhelm and what is left of their social justice state.@ Sebastien Zorn:

    @ pacific_waters:
    Just noticed your post was addressed to me as the @Sebastien Zorn was buried at the end. In what way do I join Macron in his idiocy? I’ve made it clear that I agree with your statement about the Left.

    Is it that I expressed admiration for Golda Meir in an earlier post and said that “if Socialists like her still existed, I’d be a socialist still?”

    I side with Conservatives because Conservatives side with Israel, for the most part. Socialists are our enemies.

    But, it wasn’t that way in every period. It didn’t have to turn out that way. There is no historical inevitability. Infinite variations are possible. I’ve made it clear that I agree with Jabotinsky:

    “I can vouch for there being a type of Zionist who doesn’t care what kind of society our “state” will have; I’m that person. If I were to know that the only way to a state was via socialism, or even that this would hasten it by a generation, I’d welcome it. More than that: give me a religiously Orthodox state in which I would be forced to eat gefilte fish all day long (but only if there were no other way) and I’ll take it.”

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/warrior-of-zion/

    Jabotinsky was answering Chaim Weitzmann, in a letter before independence, which Jabotinsky never lived to see. Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, most of Israel’s founding fathers and mothers were Socialists and the Kibbutz was the seed out of which the flower grew. The only country that helped Israel during the War of Independence was newly Communist Czechoslovakia with Stalin’s blessing — though he turned on us, shortly thereafter. Britain supported the Arabs, America placed an arms embargo on the entire region and prosecuted Americans caught trying to help Israel survive. Eisenhower threatened to criminalize individual contributions to Israel in ’56 and in fact, tried to get the UN to do that but was stopped by Senator Lyndon Johnson. France. Uh. I don’t even want to talk about France. I just ate.

    Now, there are many ways of dealing with poverty-Israel, aside- Socialist solutions — whether from above or from below — are some of them. Combinations are also possible. Some people just can’t take care of themselves from a variety of causes. Others will always be poor in a competitive system even if they work hard.

    If you are speaking from a strictly doctrinaire position about this or that approach inevitably leading to fascism — an approach espoused by all Liberals and many Conservatives, then all I can say to all of you is that I respect your religion — politics as religion — and wish you well in all your endeavors.

    or, alternatively, to quote Mark Twain, who famously opined,

    “There’s no percentage in arguing with fanatics.”

  5. pacific_waters Said:

    the forces of islam will turn on them and overwhelm and what is left of their social justice state.@ Sebastien Zorn:

    @ pacific_waters:
    Just noticed your post was addressed to me as the @Sebastien Zorn was buried at the end. In what way do I join Macron in his idiocy? I’ve made it clear that I agree with your statement about the Left.

    Is it that I expressed admiration for Golda Meir in an earlier post and said that “if Socialists like her still existed, I’d be a socialist still?”

    I side with Conservatives because Conservatives side with Israel, for the most part. Socialists are our enemies.

    But, it wasn’t that way in every period. It didn’t have to turn out that way. There is no historical inevitability. Infinite variations are possible. I’ve made it clear that I agree with Jabotinsky:

    “I can vouch for there being a type of Zionist who doesn’t care what kind of society our “state” will have; I’m that person. If I were to know that the only way to a state was via socialism, or even that this would hasten it by a generation, I’d welcome it. More than that: give me a religiously Orthodox state in which I would be forced to eat gefilte fish all day long (but only if there were no other way) and I’ll take it.”

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/warrior-of-zion/

    Now, there are many ways of dealing with poverty-Israel, aside- Socialist solutions — whether from above or from below — are some of them. Combinations are also possible. Some people just can’t take care of themselves from a variety of causes. Others will always be poor in a competitive system even if they work.

    If you are speaking from a strictly doctrinaire position about this or that approach inevitabley leading to fascism — an approach espoused by all Liberals and many Conservatives, then all I can say is that I respect your religion — politics as religion — and wish you well in all your endeavors.

    or, alternatively, to quote Mark Twain, who famously opined,

    “There’s no percentage in arguing with fanatics.”

  6. You join Macron in his idiocy. Let’s stipulate that your suppositions about the left’s enracemntof islam is true. If so, they have discounted the reality that in the end the forces of islam will turn on them and overwhelm and what is left of their social justice state.@ Sebastien Zorn:

  7. Philosopher Ayn Rand understood the sinister nature of collectivism and and wrote extensively about socialism/communism and how it persuades the individual to stop being an individual. “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

    Ayn Rand compared communism and socialism. “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

    The Islamization of Europe and the West demonstrates how mass social indoctrination toward collectivism leads to cultural suicide. “When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

    Macron’s socialist victory is a victory for collectivism, postmodern moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to destroy democracy and its incomparable individual rights and freedoms. The question is WHO benefits from Macron’s victory?? The globalist elite of course. Socialism (total government control) is the death of democracy and is the prerequisite for internationalizing nation states and the imposition of one-world government.

    One-world government is the big lie of the 21st century. It promises redistribution of wealth and social justice. What it will deliver is unapologetically described in chilling detail by globalist elite Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

    The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political democratic infrastructure of America and transform it into a dependent socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy the traditional American institutions of family, religion, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – the same qualities that made America great and support American sovereignty.

    The entire narrative of the Left is designed to promote collectivism and induce regression through educational indoctrination and the media – as Hillary Clinton famously remarked they need “an unaware compliant public.” Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. The pitch might sound good to a childish mind who is seduced by candy from a stranger but the adult mind understands the sinister end-game. Once the public is entirely dependent on the government they lose all individual rights and national sovereignty as the socialized state becomes part of the internationalized one-world government.

    The left-wing liberal lemmings are the useful idiots who are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction. They have been indoctrinated to believe they are altruistically fighting for “social justice” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and no individual freedoms. There is only the ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them.

    The left-wing liberal lemmings in Europe and in America should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves.

    The globalist elite’s New World Order was their self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth. Tavistock Institute was exported to America with the purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media – particularly television – the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order – they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed.

    The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters any more than Hitler with exterminating Jews, Islamists with exterminating infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist – there is no egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy Europe and America from within – but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist elite one-world government. For the globalist elite whether in Europe or in America, the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.

  8. @ Philippe:
    How do you explain the fact that many if not most of them are unemployable and living off the dole. Workers have to be employable to depress wages. The European Social Democrats aren’t abolishing the Welfare State, they’re just restricting it’s benefits to Muslim migrants!

    For example:

    “Majority Of Migrants ‘Unemployable’ And Just 54 Have Jobs With Top Firms”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/07/major-german-companies-employing/

    “UK: 53% of Muslim men don’t work, infidels support them”

    http://pamelageller.com/2013/07/uk-53-of-muslim-men-dont-work-infidels-support-them.html/

    “Joblessness runs at 20 percent, more than double the national average, and up to 40 percent among 15- to 24-year-olds. ”

    http://theweek.com/articles/535096/frances-alienated-muslims

    “Thanks to the massive invasion of Europe by aggressive, hostile, uneducated, unskilled, and unemployable Muslim males, the European Union is now a sinking ship”

    http://www.barenakedislam.com/2017/02/04/thanks-to-the-massive-invasion-of-europe-by-aggressive-hostile-uneducated-unskilled-and-unemployable-muslim-males-the-european-union-is-now-a-sinking-ship/

  9. Neither Ayin Rand , nor Bruce Bawer , nor Yves Mamou got the forest , they only see the tree , in that case : Islam . I already wrote some days ago , a comment to ” Macron Useful Idiot of islam ” . Sorry to disappoint the readers but Macron is NOT an Idiot and for him , and his gang , Islam is just a tool , to reach a much larger goal . What’s the aim ? I name it the ” Qatari Subcontractor Reality ” . The Q.S.R will erase ( slowly but surely ) the european social-democratic society , which was built after WW II . This european social-democratic society , offered high social protection ,good and free health care , free education and high taxation from1945 up to 1992. The whole european social-democratic took a bad hit in 1974 with the first energy crisis , that put on permanent dole near 10% of the working population .Then came the demise of the USSR and started the big mutation of globalization . China entered the WTO in 2001 and it casted a spell on europe easy going middle class comfort . How can europe cope with high social costs to maintain its ” peaceful ” and ” protective ” way of life while at the same time opening its borders to asian manufactured goods which costs a quarter of their european counterparts ? The answer is simple : slash the social protection network. But how to slash it without infuriating the locals ? Create an ethnic diversion into the european societies , apply the roman motto ” Divide et Impera ” , import a massive flux of foreign workers who are deprived of legal – historical background , and who bears an agressive identity : Islam invasion . Then you see the counter-reaction with Le Pen, Wilders , Brexit , etc… Slowly, gradually , the European Union elites grind the national narratives and the national borders . The middle class, is faced with an influx of concurrent workers who are ready to work for sub-par conditions . In 10 years from now the social network will be disaggregated and will be dispatched on ethnic-comunitarist background . The individualistic nature of the european social and national contract of solidarity will have evaporated . Then will come the Qatari Subcontract Society . The ” above-the-ground “, the imported workers will outnumber the locals . They will accept to be sub-contractants, not anymore entitled to a work contract but only to a temporary ” on job – off job ” subcontract status . So Islam is a convenient toll to offuscate the real nature of this game . The elites have decided that 7% of the world population , which produces 25% of the world output are not entitled anymore to enjoy 50% of the world social protection costs . It’s a matter of profit , nothing else .

  10. :
    When a political conservative comes over for dinner and starts quoting Ayn Rand, that’s when I know that I need to count the silverware.

  11. Excellent analysis of the so-called “Suicide of the West!” Sadly, however, such a reasonable and positive approach is totally lost on the apologetic leftists who seem to dominate society. Unfortunately, as well, the “commonsense” of taking a self-protecting and obvious approach to survival means little to those who are ruled by misguided and, indeed, false emotions. Worse yet, they might just take down ALL of us – including those who DO recognize the danger of Islam! – in their failed and submissive mission!