The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims….
The idea is that there is a suite of behavioral traits that is more prevalent in many Muslim populations which makes them more likely to perpetrate acts of terrorism.
If there’s such a thing as a “terrorism quotient,” many Muslim populations score significantly higher than average. A big deal at extremes…
And let’s not forget Rotherham:
Report found 1,400 children abused between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham
The figure is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale
Victims terrorised with guns and doused in petrol and threatened with fire
More than a third of the cases were already know to agencies
Author of the report condemned ‘blatant’ failings by council’s leadership
Action blocked by political correctness as staff ‘feared appearing racist’
Majority of victims described the perpetrators as ‘Asian’ [overwhelmingly Pakistani] men
Leader of Rotherham Council has stepped down with immediate effect
No council employees will receive disciplinary action, leaders state
This illustrates that the typical WEIRDO response to these crimes – such as pointing out (correctly) that only a small fraction of all Muslims commit these crimes, as true as that is, misses the point.
What’s more there is no reason to have large populations of Muslims in Northwestern European countries. It’s one thing when a group has a historic presence in a place, like American Blacks or the long-term Mexican residents of El Norte in the U.S. do. The country is as much theirs as it is that of the Whites living there. But the Muslim populations in Europe are overwhelmingly recent immigrants.
At the very least, one would imagine that it would be prudent to stop admitting more Muslims into these countries…
In many respects, Muslim groups (especially Arab ones) are the polar opposites of Northwest Europeans. Northwestern European society is liberal, democratic, individualistic, secular, and high-trust. Arab society is illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust. Social bonds in Northwestern European societies are primarily among non-relatives (at least past the nuclear family). Social bonds in Arab society are structured around kin. Institutions in NW European societies are rule-bound. Institutions in Arab societies are corrupt…
So what to do, then? First and foremost, especially for Northwestern European countries, is to stop admitting Muslims en masse into Europe.
(It’s worth mentioning that the problem is much more acute for Europe than it is for NW European diaspora nations like the U.S. or Canada. Put simply, the Atlantic Ocean is a bigger barrier than the Mediterranean Sea. Europe gets a much more representative slice of the Muslim population. By contrast, immigrants to North America tend to be more select because of the demands of making the trip. Hence, here in the States we get higher IQ, less clannish Muslims. Of course, that’s not all that rosy – a smart terrorist is a much more dangerous thing than a stupid terrorist. But North American Muslims don’t have the incredibly high crime and poverty rates European Muslims do.)
COMMENTS TO JAYMAN:
* I think it’s interesting that despite the likely high clannishness of ISIS members, they’re still able to coordinate these attacks involving many people from diverse backgrounds and ancestries. The Charlie Hebdo attack involved Algerians, a Malian, and some Middle Eastern lady.
Islam’s success in becoming a threat to the West has been based on its universal appeal to many groups and cultures. I know clannishness doesn’t mean that individuals from different races/cultural groups can’t work together, but it seems given the tendency for clannishness people to only trust family members, such a high level of coordination between very different peoples would be difficult. In general, clannishness people, to the extent they trust those outside of their family, will only extend their trust to people who act/behave/look like themselves, in a sort of in-group bias. But the success of ISIS has been based on terrorists trusting a wide range of people who are very different themselves. Do you see what I’m saying?
I posit that Islam’s appeal is that like Western secularism and Communism, it’s a unifying force for very different people from very different backgrounds, which is a necessary trait for a ideology in an increasingly globalized world.
* Given the birth rate differentials in Western Europe, if extrapolations hold, ending immigration of incompatible peoples will merely condemn this region to a slow decline–with the possibility of a threshold point that accelerates the decline–at the extreme, something like the transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Permitting immigration means much more rapid decline in civilizational functionality. Since I fail to see the benefit for anyone of another part of the world descending from civilization into barbarism–I support deportation of alien, non-contributive elements of the European population. If these people are keen to live under European rule, it would be far more beneficial to all if we recurred to the arrangements of 60 years ago. Deportation is morally superior to any other likely outcome in Europe–the worst of which would be either tyranny justified by terroristic threats or civil war. Yes, it entails force–but the imposition of Muslims upon Europeans also entails force imposed upon those who disagree with a wholly insane immigration policy.
By the way, no one ever seems to mention a peculiar irrationality embedded in this issue: these Universalists are most keen on philanthropizing the unfortunates of the world, but importing them is surely the least efficient way to do this–especially in the long run as they sabotage the foundations of their new homes by transforming them into the old homes they sought to escape.
* You do realize that Algeria provides a very good precedent for mass deportations? If Muslims can expel us from their nations, then we can do so from ours. No qualms whatsoever.
* I would have thought the obvious solution would be to stop bombing these Muslim countries, to leave their secularist regimes in power, not to create a power vacuum to be filled by the terrorists that would result in a wave of refugees now flooding Europe. In short, the solution would be to not have implemented the Zionist agenda of remaking the ME by regime changing (I mean bringing democracy) to those regimes that were deemed the Zionist project’s enemies because they were aiding the Pals to resist the brutal occupation that has lasted some 50 yrs.
But, what do I know. Maybe you HBDers are onto something with your mathematical formulas, charts, and graphs to help explain Muslim behaviour. And the terrorism quotient sounds very impressive. Very impressive, indeed.
* A few possibilities:
1. All of the people I know personally who are deep into the notion of helping refugees and other such political causes, who are casting about desperately for some sort of “purpose” to their lives, and/or are desperately depressed have no children (and no plans for them.) Two of them have fertility issues, so that’s not exactly their faults, but they act a lot like all the others.
A person with five children is BUSY with the every day minutia of keeping their children alive. Breakfast on the table, clothes on the bodies, shoes on the feet, lunches in the backpacks, noses wiped, everyone out the door to school/the playground/piano what-have-you. These people do not have time to have existential breakdowns over how they’re not making the world an SJW paradise fast enough or “what is my purpose in life?” because they know their purpose in life is to feed five hungry humans as soon as they get home from school. The ennui that strikes my childless friends and acquaintances is a completely unfamiliar, unknown beast in my household, as I never run out of things to do.
2. A country that produces an excess of people must either ramp up its internal economic production, or send those excess people elsewhere. (Or let them all die, I guess.) The countries that are net exporters of people have high birth rates; the countries that are net importers have low birth rate.
As you say, the future belongs to those who show up.
