Freedom quest of Zork (the) Hun

The cost of free is freedom

Muslims are not the problem. We are.


2015-06-10-1

For the first time ever, I listened to a podcast of Andrew Lawton on TheRebel.media.
The first two segments dealt with two related stories, both being Muslim encroachments on our rights.

The first story was about the US Supreme Court decision (8 to 1) finding against Abercrombie and Fitch for refusing to hire a woman who was insisting on her right to trump the company’s dress code with her own.  This is the Al Jazeera version of the news and this is the New Yorker’s take on it.

The second was a Canadian story about a Muslim high school soccer team which refused to play against a Christian team because there were two girls playing on the team.
Here are three versions of the story:  Pamela Geller’s –  CTV’s –  Jerry Coyne’s blog.

The show was excellent, nothing was said in it that I would disagree with, yet, I was missing the real answers, I was missing the points that should have been made on this matter.
Talking about the issues on their particular merits is pointless. The answer to the question ‘why’ is so obvious that asking it over and over again is puzzling. Pointing out that:

“…. but doing it this way they’ve shown a profound level of ignorance for the rights of other people as though theirs are the only rights that matter. They’re looking for a right to discriminate, not just a right to have their own religion but a right to violate other people’s rights.” (emphasis mine)

…. is a bit redundant. Is this still a question? Of course Muslims believe that theirs is the only right that matters. That is the essence of their faith. They are proclaiming it loudly in Canadian courtrooms. There is no God but God and its laws are the only ones a Muslim is truly supposed to obey. They also have a religious obligation to make them prevail (Jihad). We should not be surprised by this by now.

The Muslims, therefore, are NOT the problem here. WE ARE.

Muslims do what Muslims do. Yes, their faith is primitive, yes, they are obnoxious, yes, they abuse the system and our tolerance, but that’s what they are. That’s who they are. They want to conquer the world, they want to subjugate us, they want to rule us and they don’t even try to hide their intentions. Islam means submission and their ultimate goal is the subjugation of the whole world to the primitive tenets of their intolerant ideology. The answer to every single one of the puzzled questions about the motivation behind the actions of Muslims is the same: everything Muslims do have a single purpose: the advancement of the interest of their faith. Gaining footholds, expanding their sphere of influence, wearing down opposition to their ideas and practices, supressing criticism against their intolerance, changing our ways to accommodate their intolerance.

…..And they can do that because WE let them get away with it. WE are empowering them. WE are accommodating them.

We are on a mission of being nice and tolerant, they are on a mission to conquer the world.
They correctly see our mission as a sign of weakness and they are smart enough to use it against us at any and every opportunity they get.

The whole of western civilization is losing its way, losing its self-confidence, losing its will to survive.
Muslims, on the other hand, will increase their self-confidence with every little victory we are handing to them. The real question is NOT why the Muslims do what they do but why are we allowing them to get away with it.

The moment we ask that question we have to realize that the problems are much more serious than just the accommodation of Islam.

The problem goes far deeper than ethnic, gender or religion issues.

The problem lies in our constitutions, our supreme courts, our entire zeitgeist that is fundamentally opposed to individual freedom and property rights.

The problem isn’t just the fact that the Supreme Court is making decisions that fly in the face of everything that I would find just, fair and equitable; the problem is the set of documents and the ideals they represent that those decisions are based upon.

The problem is the idea that the state can simply trump any decision you make about your personal life, your personal space, how you live, how you take your shower and light your room, what you think, what you say, what you eat, what you drink and how much, how you do your business, who do you associate with, what sort of contracts you make and I could go on and on and on.

The problem is the confused and confusing language of human rights declarations, laws and manifestos, such as FDR’s second bill of rights and all the documents and movements they inspired. The problem is the blatant stupidity of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The problem is positive rights. The problem is group ‘rights.’ The problem is the lack of understanding of what public and private space is. The problem is that we allow group privileges to override personal rights.

The problem is that all of the above are inspired by a socialist ideology, the belief that the will of the collective (whatever that may be at any moment) should have primacy over the will of the individual.
The problem is that politics trumps individual rights.

The problem is that the majority of the people in our societies (pretty much including the whole developed world) do not want freedom, but some sort of fluid conformity with ideologies that can change their direction like the wind.

Socialists, environmentalists, Muslims, gender rights advocates and all other activists on the wide spectrum of statist ideologies are simply taking advantage of our collective weakness, our tolerance, our diminishing resolve to defend the freedoms that made the world we live in today possible.

Our problems will not be solved unless we find our resolve again. Our problems will not be solved until we stand up for individual freedom and against group privileges. Our problems will not be solved as long as we have discrimination enshrined in our constitutions and in our laws.

The problem is not that people are trying to destroy our freedoms. The problem is that we are letting them.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Muslims are not the problem. We are.

  1. EimaiSkorpios June 10, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    This time I’m in complete agreement, Zork. This is an excellent piece. I have been railing against this suicidal idiocy for years. Over my lifetime, I watched as my rights and freedoms were slowly legislated away in favour of special interests that contributed absolutely nothing to this society. I watched the non-elected judges issue de facto legislation from the benches while our elected representatives supported it through the kangaroo, human rights commissions. I watched as police emboldened and protected law-breakers and anti-Canadian militants while harassing and arresting law-abiding citizens. And I lost heart as I watched a once strong and indomitable people slowly lose their will and their way as successive generations passed through a Progressive, Leftist school system that manipulated their minds and their futures to weaken and diminish them as individuals. And now we see the results everywhere. Attempts at holding onto individual rights and freedoms are mercilessly beaten down by the zealots in universities, at town hall meetings, in our legislatures, on our streets and in our very homes. The Progressive plan was to cow the populace and remove them from the power equation—and it worked. The Islamic infiltration of western societies is simply an unintended consequence of that evil movement, and it has now become an uncontrollable demon.

    One very small but bright note: Today, as a result of a 3,000-signature petition, and the fact that the Pan Am games are on in Toronto, the Sergent-at-Arms of the Ontario Legislature denied militant Muslims a permit to hold their Al Quds rally at Queen’s Park. No doubt they will protest this decision—and no doubt they will hold this disgusting display somewhere that is still in our faces. In a Province with 12 million people, why only 3,000 signatures? What would he have done if there were no Pan Am games this year?

    Like

    • zorkthehun June 12, 2015 at 3:42 pm

      Thanks David,
      You should see some of the silly reactions I got on Facebook. You perfectly summed up the INTENT of my post saying:
      “The Islamic infiltration of western societies is simply an unintended consequence of that evil movement, and it has now become an uncontrollable demon.”

      Like

  2. AK June 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Hi Zork,
    I like your article very much. Bravo!
    Socialists, environmentalists, Muslims, gender rights advocates and all other activists on the wide spectrum of statist ideologies are simply taking advantage of our collective weakness, our tolerance, our diminishing resolve to defend the freedoms that made the world we live in today possible.

    I totally agree. These statist/collectivist ideologies are exactly the same as pathogens (virus, bacteria, fungus, maggots and other parasites) are to the human body. They simply take advantage of the weakened defense system of an already injured or sick organism.

    You write:
    “The problem is that all of the above are inspired by a socialist ideology, the belief that the will of the collective (whatever that may be at any moment) should have primacy over the will of the individual. The problem is that politics trumps individual rights.”

    I fully agree, but why does the collective trump the individual? You answer:
    “The problem is that the majority of the people in our societies (pretty much including the whole developed world) do not want freedom, but some sort of fluid conformity with ideologies that can change their direction like the wind.”

    I disagree. That doesn’t explain the essence of the issue. Yes, most people are “conformist”, they are not political or philosophical innovators. The majority always get their clues and values from family, school, friends, club, media. Take medicine for example, 99.999% of the people who work in clinics and hospitals obtain all their medical skills and knowledge from medical schools, medical book/journals and their peers/seniors. They do not want diagnostic or therapeutic “freedom”, they want to obey the natural laws of anatomy, physiology, pathology discovered and verified by others.
    The problem lies with the ideologies the majority is conforming with fluidly or otherwise. And, unfortunately, these ideologies do not change direction like the wind. In the West, for the past 200 years, they are consistently blowing from a subjectivitist, collectivist, statist direction. After the spectacular and total moral and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet Block, one should expect some honest soul searching by Western academic intellectuals. But no, they are still teaching that same old ideology with added hysterical demands for economic/race/gender/animal/ecology rights and equality.

    What we really need is to start identifying and teaching the natural laws of cognition, ethics, economics, politics and the effective methods of prevention and treatment of mental/moral/social disease. It is time to take the “Humanities” away from the mystics (theological and social) and apply to them the same scientific methods we use in chemistry, biology and medicine.

    Cheers,

    Like

    • zorkthehun June 12, 2015 at 11:01 pm

      Damn it András, you managed to find the weak spot in the post !

      I have to agree about the wind direction, but let me explain myself. What I was trying to indicate is that there is a number of issues that are constantly changing: think of the Obama flip-flop on gay marriage, the food guides and just about any health related guidelines, the banks are either evil or we absolutely must save them, same story for a bunch of business ideas, it is either global cooling or global warming, the only constant is that we need government to solve the problem and its opposite too.
      I agree with you, I should have left it out or should have developed it better.

      Like

  3. zorkthehun June 12, 2015 at 10:59 pm

    Comments from Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1582196452001657/permalink/1665590100328958/
    • Gerry Bourdeau Dude if you make a title that includes the words “the Muslims” as a group, you immediately set off the asshole detector.

    Are you a libertarian?

    Try thinking about people as individuals.
    June 10 at 1:35pm · Like

    Zork Gábor Hun What sets my detector of, Dude, is people posting seriously ignorant and insulting comments.
    Muslims are a group. So are libertarians, communists, Christians, cos-players, environmentalists, Blue Jays fans and people wearing purple socks as long as they identify themselves as the group of people wearing purple socks. Try to comment on the actual points made in the post instead of its title alone.
    … but only if you have the mental capacity to do so, of course.
    June 10 at 1:53pm · Edited · Like · 2

    Tim Moen There’s a thread on Canada Freedom right now calling for banning the burka. The irony seems lost on these imams of Canadian culture that they’re as socialist as the people they criticize.
    June 10 at 2:01pm · Like

    Gerry Bourdeau This is an actual point. Because a person is a Jays fan doesn’t mean anything else. Because a person is a Muslim doesn’t mean they’re a problem.

    If you wanted to make a point about religion or out laws there was no reason to paint Muslims as a problem.
    June 10 at 2:04pm · Like

    Zork Gábor Hun There is no point in having a conversation, Gerry, if you did not read or cannot understand the point of my post. I would also add to this listening to at least 30 minutes of the podcast I am commenting on.
    June 10 at 2:25pm · Like

    Zork Gábor Hun You are quite right, Tim, and I would not want to ban ANYTHING. I would on the other hand insist on my rights to decide whether I want to employ – or not – anybody, based on any criteria I chose. If I was to manage a Hooters restaurant, I should be able to reject an applicant in a Burka specifying the Burka as my sole reason. I should have the right to ‘ban’ it from my own business.
    This is what the US supreme court case I was commenting on is all about. A political activist group getting special privileges at the cost of the freedom of the rest of us. I do not think that as libertarians we should approve of that.
    Do YOU approve the decision??
    June 10 at 2:32pm · Like · 3

    Gerry Bourdeau Zork Gábor Hun I understand just fine.

    You don’t get it.

    WE aren’t the problem. Don’t include me with your crap.
    June 10 at 2:35pm · Like

    Shahira Afrin Zork, I disagree with a lot of what you said in your article. But I do agree with your right to ban a burqa-wearing/niqabi/hijabi from working at your restaurant because they don’t conform to your uniform. It’s your restaurant, your property. Go crazy. A hooters, or any chain business on the other hand is slightly different as you are not actually the CEO. This matter could be taken up with superiors, again, without government intervention.
    June 10 at 6:51pm · Like · 1

    Shahira Afrin But I imagine a large, international corporation like Wal-mart or McDonald’s wouldn’t stand by if the owner or manager of one of their branches discriminates against a demographic for whatever reason. They’d lose a lot of business if that happened.
    June 10 at 6:53pm · Like

    Shahira Afrin Also, I know I’m being a grammar nazi here but ‘Muslim’ is a pronoun, not a noun. So you really shouldn’t be adding the ‘The’ before it.
    June 10 at 6:57pm · Like · 1

    Zork Gábor Hun thx for the correction, much appreciated and changed
    as for your comments, I would like to know what you disagree with in particular
    as for your chain store example, it does not change the basic question. It is up to the business to decide (at whichever level of the corporate hierarchy) who they wish to hire. If they make the wrong decision, their punishment will be the loss of money you are talking about.
    June 10 at 7:07pm · Like · 1

    Shahira Afrin I’m Muslim, so know my answer is inherently biased. I will also elaborate later, I’m in the middle of a lecture right now so :S

    Like

  4. Miki Bacsi June 14, 2015 at 1:00 am

    Perhaps it’s a bad word, and I just borrowed it from others, who mocked the commies, but to me the word “bolshy” means every idiotic control maniac, who thinks he is the elite, he was born to lead, and everyone else must follow him while being totally awed at his “wisdom”.
    In this I classify the nazis, fascists, socialists, communists, anarchists and Muslims. (Perhaps there are others, too.)

    Unfortunately in the formerly free world the original liberals were slowly replaced by bolshies. I think this does not require from me sources, just look at Obama, or Trudeau if you don’t believe me.
    At the same time they were always able to destroy the economy where ever they got into power, at some places just by shear stupidity, at some other places on purpose. So, naturally, after a while the majority didn’t vote for them. In order to keep their electorate large enough they brought in immigrants, who were willing to vote for them. That’s how the latest Muslim invasion happened everywhere.

    And we can’t do anything about it. Even if Le Pen was elected in France, she couldn’t do anything about them, and at least she has the willingness to do something. What about those politicians, who are too afraid about being called racist, bigot, or one who plans a “holocaust”?
    What will we do? Deport all Muslims? Make Islam illegal and force them convert to any other religion (the exact thing they want to do to us, just the other way around)?

    So, get used to it. Get your Koran gentlemen and convert to Islam now, while they let you convert.
    .

    Like

  5. Lizzy Lass June 14, 2015 at 6:08 am

    100% with this article. no – 200%. wait, can i make it 1000% ?

    Like

  6. Jim McIntosh June 15, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    Good rant Zork. My only complaint is that you’re claiming that “we” (you and I) are the problem! I don’t believe anyone who understands your point is part of the problem. It’s all the people who don’t understand that the more responsibilities and decisions we turn over to the government the fewer freedoms we will have. People who have been taught in government-run schools that government is benevolent and omniscient are now teaching our children the same hidden agenda starting even earlier with all day kindergarten and day care.

    The Ontario Libertarian Party is trying to counter the brainwashing by spreading the message that government must be limited. Government’s only tool is force. It passes laws and unless there is a threat of force in a law, it is meaningless. Government should only use force to protect life, liberty and property. Any other use is immoral.

    Our education plank recommends as a first step that funding must follow students to the school of their (and their parent’s) choice, rather than pulling students to the government-approved school in their catchment area. Long term, government should not run our education system. If this could be accomplished, the brainwashing might be reduced and people may learn to think for themselves.

    Like

    • zorkthehun June 15, 2015 at 4:46 pm

      Thanks Jim, by saying “we” I tried imply the whole of Western civilization that is infected by the virus of relativism, multiculturalism and cultural self-doubt. I tried to imply the zeitgeist which is responsible for an 8 to 1 US supreme court decisions effectively eliminating the rights of private companies to create an image for themselves.
      As for education, we are in agreement. Education is one, if not THE most important area to focus our attention on.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: