This story suggests that there are some truly spineless people out there. A blogger and author, Ed Cline, has been ejected by his landlord because he isn’t particularly nice about Islam:
Readers will note that there is a new feature on this site, a PayPal button at the top or bottom of a new post, which anyone may use if he wishes to donate to my PayPal account to defray the costs incurred from my being evicted from my apartment of seven years because the landlady deemed me a mortal risk to her other tenants. Not because I was a physical menace to my neighbors, but because of what I wrote about Islam and Muslims. None of it flattering and none of it disinterested.
The situation, inaugurated when the FBI/NCIS paid me a visit on May 18th to inform me that my Rule of Reason site was on the radar of ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations, but that I was in no imminent danger. Thousands of Americans have been ātargetedā by ISIS activists, or by wannabe terrorists. Their landlords or bankers have not told them to get lost. It is hard to ken the mentality of a person who would pretend that evicting me ā an unprecedented event in my life ā would somehow magically ward off any murderous Islamic mischief from her other tenants. I was instantly relegated to the status of a post WWII displaced person. I am currently āliving out of a suitcase.ā It has been a very stressful and costly experience for me. Not even several stories about the sheer irrationality of her actions have swayed the person I have not so fondly nicknamed, āThe Bitch of Buchenwald.ā As Daniel Greenfield noted in his article, the landlady acted, for all intents and purposes, as an agent of ISIS. There are scores, even thousands of her ilk in our federal, state, and local governments. Obsessed with not rocking the Islamic boat, though that boat has rocked with increasing frequency with hundreds of lives lost just in the West.
It is not my purpose here to say whether the landlord in question had a right to act in the way described (the landlord has not been quoted, so there may be other matters here, and it is only fair to make that point). It may well be that landlords in some cases state, in a rental agreement, that persons whose conduct might cause problems for neighbours etc can be evicted, although a lot depends on whether such “problems” are clearly defined, or not. For all I know, some rental agreements and rules in various places such as gated communities can be very tough. (I’d appreciate comments on that.) There may be a lot of expensive litigation and it sounds as if Mr Cline doesn’t have a lot of money. (People can help him out via Paypal.) A broader point, however, is that a man who hasn’t, as far as I know, committed a criminal offence is being turfed out of a rented flat because he is deemed a risk because of what he has written about Islam.
So in today’s West, and certainly Obama’s America, many authorities are determined to do what they can to play down the factor of Islamic totalitarianism as a key driver of violence and mayhem. But if a middle-aged man writes about this, or expresses bracing views on such matters, he can be thrown out of a home.
I can’t stand the man, but when you add up stories such as this, is there really any surprise that Donald Trump might be in the White House next January?
I’m not surprised Trump might win – for all his innumerable sins, he’s fighting the good fight against several forms of bullshit that pervade the modern left. I’m just really, really sad that it’s come to that.
“I canāt stand the man, but …” Ubiquitous in articles mentioning Mr. Trump, this particular locution is pure signalling, devoid of content. “Although I, myself, am still part of the elite and anointed just like you my readers, I can nonetheless see what the proles are on about.” It’s irritating and it adds nothing to the ultimate sentence in the article above.
Uncle Kenny,
I think that is a bit unfair – Johnathan is using the but construct in its proper rhetorical form to illustrate an understanding of something he does not feel, rather than to express any form of superiority. I can’t see any author on here with an attitude of superiority getting very far to be honest.
It’s worth noting as well this accusation of snobbery is as much as a trend amongst certain populist brands of thought as bending backwards not to offend ‘Islamic thought’ is in less populist brands, and equally unhelpful. It is silly to set out to deliberately offend Muslims (although obviously allowable – the silliness is in being deliberately offensive) and it is equally silly to assume that anyone employing a conditional understanding of a situation is elitist as opposed to simply able to use the language well.
The truly superior ones (in their own eyes) are the ones who do not attempt to understand, and decide that the use of labels like Facist is an easy way of dealing with the popularity of Mr Trump.
On a more upbeat note, the man has since been well-funded through the efforts of several other bloggers. So, no worries for his welfare.
So here’s a guy who pops up on Daesh’s kill list. He – out of concern for his neighbors – goes to his elderly landlady who owns a small private apartment-type building full of older residents – and tells her that Daesh has threatened to kill him. Daesh: they of the bombings and beheadings we read about daily.
She, out of fear, decides to not renew his lease. IIRC, she didn’t break the lease – she simply didn’t renew it.
Maybe at most a tale of small human fears and insecurities.
1. It happens that I am a Virginia lawyer. There’s no such thing as summary eviction in Virginia. Even a month-to-month, no written contract tenant usually takes a couple of months or so to actually remove even if he just stops paying his rent.
2. In just every sentence where it appears, “but” is the boundary between what the author doesn’t mean and what he does.
Ubiquitous in articles mentioning Mr. Trump, this particular locution is pure signalling, devoid of content
Oh give me a break. It is a genuinely-held opinion, not “signalling” (it is a very tedious habit to dismiss a person’s pov as “signalling” without actually judging those views on their merits). Trump isn’t for small, limited government; his attempted use of eminent domain does not impress me from a property rights perspective, and his views on issues such as free trade are terrible. And the idea that he can “build a wall” and persuade Mexico to fund it is laughable. It isn’t “signalling” to point out such things.
Here’s why Ed Cline is on the ISIS hit list:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-post-911-world-ten-year.html
Well I think Trump is a narcissistic thug who thinks the only people who should have secure property rights are Big Property Developers. And anyone voting for him on grounds he is a ‘conservative’ or will ‘make America Great Again’ is delusional. The only reason anyone who cares about property rights in particular or liberty in general should even consider voting for such a steaming turd is it is possible Hillary might be even worse. Unambiguous enough for you?
Or I could have just said “I loath Trump but…”
Very funny “but” not true; and i mean both sides of the boundary.
I have a completely different complaint about the “but” sentence in the OP: “I can’t stand the man” can be taken to mean (as i took it at first reading) “I can’t stand Ed Cline”. It would have been better to write “I can’t stand Trump but … is there really any surprise that he might be”. Sorry for being pedantic.
BTW Ayaan Hirsi Ali was also evicted, for much the same reason. IIRC she was living in a flat in the Netherlands (presumably government-owned) and the resident owner of another flat in the condominium sued to have her evicted because she constituted a security risk, thereby lowering the market value of his flat, which he subsequently sold.
That was how I read it.
That is how I read it, but one shouldn’t assume by this that there is not a concurrant loathing of Trump, as well.
I wonder how the news might react to a pervasive threat of retalliatory violence from insulted members of the Catholic or Protestant communities? Thoroughly, accurately, and in-depth would be my guess.
“Well I think Trump is a narcissistic thug who thinks the only people who should have secure property rights are Big Property Developers.”
Trump isn’t concerned with the rights of Big Property Developers, or of Lowly American Citizens, or of any other group.
He is concerned with the rights of Donald Trump.
He will use any legal ability, take advantage of any philosophical theory, and pursue any viable opportunity to further his own well-being. He uses liberal and conservative principles equally, depending on his needs at the moment.
But he generally only uses those tools which society has developed and enacted and sanctioned.
He declared bankruptcy because he could. He used eminent domain because he could. He took government subsidies because he could.
He’s sort of a libertarian’s revenge against the state and its supporting society.
Not sure I want to follow the convoluted thinking behind that notion.
Actually yes, I can see that. There’s been comparisons with the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man (choose your destroyer) but he could also be a sort of libertarian Tai Chi, using the force of statist’s attacks against them (and everyone else, but since society is almost 100% statist in one way or another that’s moot).
The landlady is not “the bitch of Buchenwald”. Rather, she is the Judenrat (the Nazi-approved Jewish councilors who administered the ghettos).
Like them, she is a prisoner of fear.
Actually, that is lifted almost in its entirety from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” where he said (in essence) make the enemy abide by their own rules. An example is, if there is welfare for unemployed, encourage everyone to become unemployed, claim benefit and bankrupt the state.
Trump is making rational decisions to survive (and thrive) in an irrational system.
“Heās sort of a libertarianās revenge against the state and its supporting society.”
I agree with the concept, and with PhilB’s citation of Alinsky. But I would push it farther: it is actually the Cloward-Piven strategy to expand the welfare rolls and thereby bankrupt the state.
I have a distinct recollection of a certain blog proprietor arguing four years ago that the US should re-elect Barack Obama, as it would hasten the demise of our government and (it was hoped) usher in a new era of rampant libertarianism (or some such notion; I was never quite clear on the end game). If that was true then, I can’t see why he wouldn’t support Trump today for the same reason. Unless, of course, he thinks that the Hillarypocalypse would come even faster.
Well, that makes Donald Trump an eminently rational economic actor, does it not? I fail to see the problem here, as long as everyone is clear on this point and acts accordingly. And I see I’m not the only person who thinks so.
” . . . that makes Donald Trump an eminently rational economic actor . . . ”
Back in the nineteen thirties, famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. He replied “that’s where the money is.”
Which showed him to be an eminently rational economic actor.
But he still wouldn’t have been my first choice for president. (Although I’d probably vote for Sutton before I’d vote for Hilary.)
Property rights and contract.
Provided that the landlady hasn’t breached her ciontract with Mr. Cline she is entitled to evict him.
That’s part of libertarianism, isn’t it?
@bobby b: As would I. At least Sutton was upfront and honest about his actions and motivations.
Actually, we’ve been voting crooks into power all over the world now for the better part of 40 years, as far as I can tell. If only they were honest about being crooks, it won’t be so bad. In the same way getting electrocuted won’t be so bad as getting drawn and quartered, but still.
James Strong (July 13, 2016 at 6:46 am) is correct on the point of logic – the eviction may well be legal, and on this blog we would defend the legality of many acts we might not admire.
It is therefore also consistent in us to despise acts of cowardice even while distinguishing legal cowardice from any such acts that would be criminal, self-serving cowardice from cowardice that serves the enemies of the landlady as well as of the rest of us, and genuine cowardice from cowardice falsely alleged by politicians against those who disagree with them, etc., etc.
I’d like to see many legal restraints on landlords removed. It merely encourages me in this to know that the landlady’s act is not illegal and will likely have no costs for her, whereas it is trivial to invent scenarios where she might have more reason to evict yet need more courage to face a legal and/or social backlash for doing so.
(Like the original poster, I note we’ve only heard one side of this story. I’m assuming things are as presented.)
Thanks for the chuckle, bobby b. š
Indeed, plus what Rich Rostrom said. Plus and FWIW, she did not evict him, she notified him that she will not renew his contract. I could also easily imagine her being afraid not so much of an Islamist attack on her property, but rather of other tenants complaining or even leaving, and of increased difficulty in finding new ones. None of which goes against the original point regarding cowardice in general, but I for one am not inclined to be too judgmental about that.
So what? Was anyone saying she is not ‘entitled’ to? Just because I think something should not be illegal does not mean I think it should therefore also be above criticism.
Her gaff, her rules.
Isn’t that what we say round here?
And didn’t the comment right above yours just explain why that is not the point, Andrew? Seriously, are libertarians automatically precluded from criticizing whatever it is they find worthy of criticism, while still maintaining that the object of criticism should nonetheless be completely legal?
It’s a sad story. Apparently Mr Cline was informed by the FBI he was on an ISIS list, but also told that he was in no immediate threat. Personally I would have let sleeping dogs lie and kept quiet about it, since the Feds did not seem that bothered. They certainly weren’t offering to protect him or anything. Why tell the landlady if she doesn’t need to know?
Many on Samizdata might object to David Wood, he of the Youtube talks on Islam, because he is an Christian.
However, overlook that “fault” and listen to what Mr Wood has to say – every word backed by specific (and in context) references to the Islamic sources. Refute it if you can – but do not throw a man out of his employment (or home) because he takes such a view of Islam.
If we are wed to the view of Mr Blair and Mr Bush that the problem is a few evil “extremists” who have “distorted” Islam then I fear the West is doomed.
Of course there are wonderful positive movements within Islam – such as the traditional Sufi, and modernisers also (sincere ones).
However, Mohammed did what he did – and taught what he taught.
And it is actually apologists for Islam (many of them Western) who do the “distorting” and “misinterpreting”. Perhaps even to themselves.
Of course Ed Cline was evicted not because what he said was false.
If it was false the landlady would have said “you horrible man – in reality Islam is the religion of peace”.
In fact what the lady has said, by her actions, is the following…….
“You are quite correct Mr Cline – this is a violent aggressive ideology. Which is why I have to kick you out, as otherwise the forces of Islam will come to this building and kill us all”.
If Mr Cline was wrong there would be nothing to be afraid of.
In short, screw Ed Cline.
He’s apprently a dumbass if he expects to be “brave” at other people’s expense. If he wants to put himself in the crosshairs, then let him live in a trailer on a plot of land in the hills. But for him to pretend that others owe him or are obligated to him, SOMEHOW, inexplicably, just shows that he’s a dumbass.
Others don’t owe Mr. Cline bravery, cowardice, or two plug nickels. They don’t even owe him the time of day. One is not entitled to anything one has not earned. Not only does he seem to think he’s entitled to other people’s tolerance and respect, he seems to think he’s entitled to some of their personal safety as well, and the landlord’s profits.
I assume Trump would agree with me, and the landlord. Let’s get something clear. Repo-men don’t confiscate “your car”, they repo THE BANK’S car. Banks don’t throw you out of your own home, they throw you out of THEIR home when you default on your loan. Mr. Cline is not being deprived of his property…BECAUSE IT’S NOT HIS PROPERTY. He has no right to “his home” because it’s not his home..he was RENTING someone else’s property. No one owes him a damn thing he hasn’t earned.
Paul Marks said,
“but do not throw a man out of his employment (or home) because he takes such a view of Islam.”
Opinions are free, but if a man wants to play spiderman, he needs to wear a mask as spiderman does, and for the same reasons.
Really? I doubt very many people on Samizdata would object to someone “because he is a Christian”. Hell I am so tolerant I am even willing to tolerate Objectivists, so putting up with Christians merely for being Christians is a doddle š
So. What. All of that is utterly irrelevant. The landlord has the right to boot him out. People have the right to do all manner of despicable things, but that does not make them any less despicable.
What Perry said.
The man publishes a blog using his, we can assume, real name and apparently his residence is no secret either, and yet he chooses to make himself an ungrounded lightning rod. Why are the actions of the landlord “dispicable” for placing that ungrounded lightning rod at a safe distance from other completely innocent men, women and children? Does this landlord also owe Mr. Cline the safety and welfare of the other residents by not acting in a responsible manner?
Consider, if Mr. Cline was indeed attacked after being warned, and his landlord let him stay after knowing all the facts involved and other innocent people were killed. How would their unjust deaths not be at least partially the landlord’s fault? To suggest that the actions of the landlord would be “dispicable” if she chose to renew the rental agreement AND if she DID NOT choose to renew the agreement is to say that it is impossible for the landlord to not be dispicable. That is not a just assessment.
I assumed by that comment that Paul meant that Mr. Wood, in all probability, argues ‘Islam is bad because Jesus said…’ instead of ‘Islam is bad because….saws off the heads of live journalists’.
Let us imagine a state, lets call that state “Germany” just for the hell of it, makes it clearly to landlords that from now on, if you fail to report there are Jews on your property, you will be punished as well as them. Now of course the responsible course of action is for a landlord to report the Jews who have been renting a room from them to the proper authorities. Who could possibly think poorly of a landlord doing that? After all they do not owe those Jews any duty to take risks on their behalf, right?
I am happy to sit in a cafĆ© with an Objectivist and debate ethics or whatever, but there is a reason if I ever found myself in a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific with said Objectivist, my first course of action would be to beat them to death with a copy of An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or failing that, hit them in the head with an oar first. After all, there is not much food and water and that Objectivist does not owe me any duty to increase the risk he runs if we share the food and water š
I tend to not care over much (which is to say I do care, but only a teeny tiny bit) about the purity of my Fellow Travellers. If Jesus told you capitalism and secure property rights are good, and sawing the heads off journalists is bad, then Hallelujah, welcome to my side, Bro! As long as you try not to trip over my atheism, I will just smile whilst you throw bibles at our mutual enemies.
Thailover, July 14, 2016 at 1:18 am, “I assumed by that comment that Paul meant that Mr. Wood, in all probability, argues āIslam is bad because Jesus saidā¦ā instead of āIslam is bad becauseā¦.saws off the heads of live journalistsā.”
That’s likely not a feasible distinction to draw. Jesus’ sayings (and the manner of his life and death) can be fairly epitomised as “Don’t saw the heads off people for disagreeing with you” whereas Mohammed, in words and deeds, said “Do saw the heads of people for disagreeing with you”. I assume Mr. Wood quotes JC’s more poetic/dramatic way of saying it, just as those who shout Alluh Akbar quote Mohammed’s more dramatic exposition of the theme..