Washington Post: Donald Trump is postponing his trip to Israel, originally planned for later this month, until “after I become President” of the United States.
That trip had been scheduled to include a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which Israeli officials said was originally arranged two weeks ago — before the billionaire developer called for banning all Muslims from entering the United States.
Netanyahu himself — who drew criticism earlier this year, on the eve of his own reelection, when he warned supporters that “the rule of the right is in danger” because “Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls” — distanced himself from the billionaire’s proposal Wednesday, tweeting that he “rejects Donald Trump’s latest comments about Muslims.” He attributed his earlier decision to meet with the GOP front-runner to a uniform policy of meeting with all U.S. presidential candidates who visit Israel and ask to speak with him.
Posted inIslam, Israel|Comments Off on Netanyahu criticizes Trump for advocating what Israel does
As you can see from this video, everyone’s education is enriched by Diversity. Intellectual discourse thrives when everybody is hyperaware of their racial grievances…
Obama 2012 HQ
And that explains why Obama was beaten so badly by Romney in 2012: just look at the nondiverse Obama 2012 Brain Trust.
COMMENTS:
* The fundamental premise of the article is that diversity creates a low trust society, which is hugely beneficial. Bold stuff here, NYT.
* Diversity brought cognitive friction that enhanced deliberation.
This bit sounds plausible. When I walk through diverse neighborhoods in NYC I am extra-alert for my safety and it takes me extra effort to communicate with non-English speakers. I definitely have cognitive friction that enhances deliberation.
* So, things that people value that don’t have a number or dollar sign (see, especially, the book Priceless) and that they may be doing quite well at (think high-social-capital neighborhoods, where Robert Putnam showed diversity destroyed them) are ignored in terms of “performance.” Meanwhile, excellence at an artificial game far removed from the real economy (either this one or the actual stock market) is paramount. Once you get your oligarch-message-secret-decoder ring, this stuff gets easy.
I wonder how diverse the crowd at Galton’s county fair was?
* The list of nations in the world who are having self-dissolution demanded from them contains only European peoples and ALL European peoples are on the list. (a handful resisting successfully atm) This is in-your-face open race hatred of European peoples. We are part of the diversity of the world. If we don’t wake the hell up pretty damn quick, we will HAVE BEEN part of the diversity of the world.
* In the referenced article, the unstated premise that is meant to be accepted unquestioningly – the dog-whistle that is calling to be being obeyed – is that without affirmative action as currently defined there will be zero diversity (i.e., no minorities) at, say, the U. of Texas.
But this obviously isn’t the case. The removal of current affirmative action policies would not remove anti-discrimination laws. Nor would it remove the cultural outlook of school administrators or society at large. It would merely redefine the qualifications for enrollment.
It would no doubt reduce at some schools the number of some minorities while increasing the number of other minorities.
The NYT is saying it’s an all-or-nothing offer when there are other options on the table. In other words, the NYT is running a confidence game.
* Looks to me like this study strongly confirms Putnam: diversity produces “cognitive friction” and reduces the “undue” trust that similar people have for each other.
It’s possible that this does have a positive effect in the context of specific tasks, ones that require disagreement and have a strong incentive for the group to come to the right answer (I assume there was an actual payout to the participants).
I don’t see any basis for extrapolating that result to society in general. Daily life is not a series of stock picking tasks. I want to have “undue” trust that the other person will stop at a red light. I want to have experiences of solidarity with those like me, free of “cognitive friction”. Everybody does.
* In other words, this study suggests that diversity produces low trust, high conflict societies in which the stock market does really well. I.e. the world we have now.
* This study (entitled “Downsides of Social Capital”) is one of an interesting new genre. A great deal of research has demonstrated that ethnic diversity decreases neighborliness, trust and other social capital. Advocates of diversity haven’t been able to come up with any contrary evidence. So they’ve been concocting studies that try to show that destroying neighborliness and trust is actually a good thing.
* These contrived studies are moronic. We have this vast data set called ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY in which to assess the outcomes of diversity. None of it supports the assertion that diversity brings anything more positive than instability and unhappiness. Mostly it brings war, rape, slavery, and massacre. Even the most stable, or at least enduring, diverse structures, the Roman Empire, maintained its pattern through institutionalized slavery and permanent war. It’s pattern of rule by a diverse aristocracy (headed by an Emperor) endured simply through mass application of state violence. This will be the fate of the world if the Paul Ryan-type globalists win. Recalcitrant peoples like our will suffer the same fate of those in the Roman era: extirpation.
I was taught there are three rules for doing analysis: 1) look at the data 2) look at the data and 3) look at the data. I was then warned that I would be surprised by how many people did not actually LOOK at the data. Of course, being young, ignorant, and naive I didn’t believe my mentor.
Apparently it is de rigueur to NOT look at the data in leftist circles today. They contrive artificial experiments to make proxy measurements to avoid looking at the real thing right in front of their faces.
* They examine the differences between diverse and homogenous groups, but the study conveniently leaves out any results on the differences between different homogenous groups. There’s no way to see whether a homogenous white group performs better than a black group or a diverse group. All the study really shows is that a diverse group (i.e. a group with some white people) performs better than an all hispanic or all black group.
* Surely the only thing that study proves, even taken at face value, is that diversity works because people don’t trust members of other races and so feel it necessary to test their answers more thoroughly before accepting them.
I’m actually a bit surprised by that. It has never occurred to me that there are not stupid fellow white people, so I have a very hard time imagining ever trusting a randomly assigned stranger’s answer on something that could cost me money, without testing it against whatever other information I might have. If any.
Then again I never lived in a Mayberry-like environment or other tv show from the ’50s. The idea of taking investment tips from Joe down the street, without regard to facts or even whether he has any professional qualifications or demonstrable personal wealth, strikes me as insane. And yet plot after plot in shows from the Honeymooners to the Flintstones [the animated honeymooners] and beyond seemed to feature some schlub losing all his money because he got a hot stock tip from some other schlub who neither showed any evidence of financial acumen nor provided any source or analysis for the tip. At least the modern financial advice wizards dress the part, put certificates on the walls, and baffle us with diagrams. I respect them for putting in the effort.
As for non-financial matters more strictly experienced on a campus, this thesis cannot be true. Or it would have been demonstrated somewhere in real life by now.
* One more thing, a poster here published the list of the Editorial Board of the NYT, not the least bit diverse (18 members, one black, one Asian).
* “Ethnic diversity is like fresh air: It benefits everybody who experiences it.”
If diversity is like fresh air, than poor Oprah Winfrey is living in extremely polluted air. She resides in Montecito, California where only 0.6 percent of the population is Black and a whopping 92 percent of the population is White. She is choking from all of that polluted air which is a result of being surrounded by way too many White neighbors.
* Multi-ethnic empires and countries have all crashed and burned. Everywhere there’s been Muslims there’s been conflict with everyone else and between themselves so even having different religions next to each other is a formula for trouble. There’s nothing secret about this. The people who write these things need not to even have ever picked up a history book; all they need to do is look at all the current conflicts taking place right now. Diversity is actually a curse, a formula for strife and chaos.
* New York Times claiming diversity makes you smarter? Next an Islamic magazine will be claiming Islam makes your life better.
* I wonder why Oprah Winfrey never wanted to reside in Baldwin Hills and be surrounded by other rich Black people. Maybe Baldwin Hills is too close to the high crime area known as The Jungle/Baldwin Village and that scares her.
Since the Black underclass in The Jungle lives in such close proximity to the Black upper middle class in Baldwin Hills, there must be a lot of home burglaries that take place in Baldwin Hills. Higher than it should be for a supposed “affluent” area.
* Michael Burry did the opposite of schmooze when he bet against mortgages in diverse communities across the country and made himself and his investors hundreds of millions.
* To wit, when you ask a group of people to collaborate on an intellectual task, it’s effectively just asking whomever is the most intelligent to do the task on their own. Or whomever is pushiest, if there’s more than one type-A personality in the group.
* OK, they are basically rediscovering Putnam’s Bowling Alone thesis: Diversity leads to Distrust.
It leads not only to distrust of persons of other ethnicities, but of everyone, even co-ethnics.
It leads to atomization, to Bowling Alone.
Other social science discoveries demonstrate that people will go along with wrong answers to get along with the group, especially if its a low stakes test problem and they have no social, financial, moral or other skin in the game.
So, come up with a task that is kinda abstract, and where accuracy could be improved by distrust and reduced social cohesion, and it is perfectly plausible that Diversity could have this effect. Unfortunately, in the real world of Universities, this doesn’t play out. The STEM fields have other institutional methods of dealing with group think and confirmation bias, and though these are nowhere near perfect, as criticisms of peer review have shown, it is hard to believe the presence of a few black or lesbian scientists or mathematicians make the fields more open to novel string theorems. The Humanities fields are palpably hurt by Diversity, because there is VERY MUCH skin in the game, the prize being control of culture. So here Diversity leads to crushing conformity, not helpful lack thereof. Actually, I can see diversity having originally had this effect in say 1950-1965, when it was a little spice added to the mix, before the power of the diverse to control things was established. Also, in places like the military, where the Diverse aren’t visibly lesser in intelligence and ability, and so the need to hide that uncomfortable fact is less, diversity might still play that role.
* Mixing certain ingredients makes for better flavors.
But just because tomato sauce and oregano go together doesn’t mean they do so in equal amounts.
Also, most combinations don’t work. Garlic powder and ice cream, anyone?
Diversity can make us brighter. But it can make us dimmer as well.
Depends on the combo, the quantities, and the rules.
Surely a top US college with best minds from all over will be a brighter place.
But I never heard the favelas of Brazil are genius factories.
* Summary: Diversity ruins communities, ‘complicates public policy decisions’, ‘Ethnic diversity facilitates friction. This friction can increase conflict in some group settings, whether a work team, a community, or a region.’, but would someone think of the children economy(!), ‘However, in modern markets, vigilant skepticism is beneficial; over-reliance on others’ decisions is risky.’
* Back when I used to listen to Howard Stern on AM radio he would talk about being beaten up by black students at Roosevelt High school on Long Island. How he resented that his father, who had the money, did not move to a better suburban school district. So much for diversity!
And if diversity is so good for their children then why do the libs move to suburban suburbs that have a minimum of black and Hispanic students? Asian students being OK, and perhaps being smarter than their own children, and hogging the college scholarships.
* Someone who grows up in a tight-knit homogeneous culture comes to take certain things for granted.
Like “it’s safe for me to walk to the bus station” or “the guys down the street aren’t planning a terrorist attack” or “Muslims aren’t allowing strangers to rape my little sister for money with tacit police approval”.
* It seems plausible that when people all share something in common, they are more easily swayed by groupthink. When they are in diverse company, they may simply speak in the common currency of ideas.
Explains why the Royal Society was able to accomplish so little in the seventeenth century. Not enough diverse people were challenging the traditional groupthinking mindset typified by men like Boyle and Newton.
* I suffered through a required diversity seminar while employed by one of the US auto companies in the 1990′s. The basic theme was “Diversity makes companies better!!”
My boss’s boss’s boss was also present in this seminar. He was not an American citizen, and he apparently felt that he could ask some questions of the presenter.
“So, what you’re saying is that a more diverse design team would make a better car? A more popular car with bigger sales? So, if we looked at the carmakers and examined pictures of their design teams, we would be able to find the maker of the most popular, biggest-selling, most profitable family sedan? Because it would be the most diverse team?”
The presenter basically agreed.
Then the guy said “Well, if you look at the biggest selling sedan in America, you’re looking at the Toyota Camry. The design team for the Camry is the most non-diverse team you can imagine: ethnic Japanese males between the ages of 30 and 60. So how do you explain that?”
The presenter moved on to other topics.
* Isn’t the gist of this essentially that when you add a white person to a group of NAMs, the results improve?
As anyone who ever suffered through “group work” in school knows, the smartest kids end up doing all the work while the dullards goof off and then take the credit. Since everyone in America who ever went to school is perfectly familiar with this dynamic, I’m pretty sure it happened just like that in these “studies.”
I suppose there is a similar dynamic between Chinese, Indian and Malay. But bottom line, all that’s needed is inserting one smart person into a group of dolts, and you’ll get 58% better results, because the smart person carries everyone else.
Diversity: one smart guy in a bunch of idiots.
* Reading the actual paper makes it clear that the NYT summary is a very dishonest spin job.
“Diversity improves the way people think. By disrupting conformity, racial and ethnic diversity prompts people to scrutinize facts, think more deeply and develop their own opinions.
To study the effects of ethnic and racial diversity, we conducted a series of experiments in which participants competed in groups to find accurate answers to problems.”
An honest statement of the study’s results would be “students in a diverse setting trust each other less and try to take advantage of each other more”. Saying that “participants competed in groups to find accurate answers to problems” is very misleading because it suggests some sort of cooperative group project where everyone benefited from cooperation. It was the exact opposite.
Students were put in a stock-trading simulation where they could either go along with the prices they saw other students posting, or you could try to take advantage of the other students by identifying their pricing mistakes and trading so as to make money at the expense of the other students. The experiment was zero sum … one student’s gain was another student’s loss.
The stakes were very low, a few dollars. So, in the diverse groups, students were more likely to try to grab a few dollars from their fellow students whom they had just met and been encouraged to interact with.
The paper’s discussion makes clear that the results are driven by the reduced trust in the diverse groups. The paper even cites Putnam’s study, E Pluribus Unum. Like Putnam, the authors had to work hard to put a positive spin on their finding that diversity encourages ruthless backstabbing.
* What happens when you bring people from low-trust, high-corruption societies into a high-trust, low corruption society. The interesting thing is that the scammers were only discovered when “a separate terrorist investigation found payments in a bank account used by someone who later travelled to Syria.”
“Four men have been convicted over a phone scam carried out across the south of England that defrauded 18 pensioners out of a total of £600,000. Mohamed Dahir, 23, Sakaria Aden, 22, and Yasser Abukar, 24, were found guilty of conspiring to commit fraud. Mohammed Sharif Abokar, 28, was convicted at the Old Bailey of converting criminal property.
The trial heard how the victims – aged in their 70s, 80s and 90s and from Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Bedfordshire, London and Kent – were phoned by men posing as police officers supposedly investigating a fraud at the person’s bank. They were advised to transfer money or hand it over for “safekeeping”. The scam had been carried out between May 2014 and May 2015.
Three other men had already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud before the trial started. Two others had admitted converting the proceeds of crime ahead of the trial.
Dahir’s defence barrister Patrick Harte told the court his client had a letter from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn “setting out his roots in the area” of Islington. The letter had been sent as part of Dahir’s earlier bail application, Mr Harte told the press.”
So a Muslim fraudster, arrested on charges of defrauding elderly Britons, is vouched for by the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (he actually did get bail, and turned up for the trial, or someone did). Be interesting to see if this gets used against him, and by whom.
* Mistakes spread as participants seemingly put undue trust in others’ answers.
Right from the horse’s mouth – homogeneous groups trust each other. Multiple by 10.784 bazillion across the whole economy and then measure the gains which result from business being conducted in a high trust society compared to doing business with people you distrust and how are likely to cheat you.
* First they came for the blank and I said nothing because I wasn’t blank.
Then they came for the blank and I said nothing because I wasn’t blank.
Then they came for the blank and I said nothing because I wasn’t blank…and then everyone else lived happily ever after.
* I read somewhere, I’m sure it was the New York Times, that just being around black people and Muslims cures tuberculosis, low back pain, post nasal drip, and syphilis.
* Given the moral hazard involved in letting such journalistic malpractice stand unchallenged, any action taken to challenge it stands as a clear case of unalloyed social good.
We have two names:
Sheen Levine and David Stark
And a publication.
Do we have an editor?
To whom should we present our case?
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on Does Diversity Make You Brighter?
How are Christians going to get excited about their religion unless they feel a mandate to convert the world? I suspect that Christians who feel a mandate to convert the world are more excited about their religion than Christians who don’t feel this.
REUTERS: Catholics should not try to convert Jews and should work with them to fight anti-Semitism, the Vatican said on Thursday in a major new document that drew the Church further away from the strained relations of the past.
Christianity and Judaism are intertwined and God never annulled his covenant with the Jewish people, said the document from the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews.
“The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views,” it said.
It also said Catholics should be particularly sensitive to the significance to Jews of the Shoah, the Hebrew word for the Holocaust, and pledged “to do all that is possible with our Jewish friends to repel anti-Semitic tendencies”.
“A Christian can never be an anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity,” it said.
Posted inChristianity, Conversion|Comments Off on Catholics should not try to convert Jews, Vatican says
* Glad to see someone on the Dissident Right acknowledge the elephant in the room–that anti-immigration and populist-economics are on the same side and have the same enemy: Big Money.
* In the last election Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney was practically begging Romney to go populist, and he has been predicting that the only way the Republicans can win is to attack Cronyism, to embrace Main Street over Wall St. etc. Of course that was during what Pat Buchanan just noted was the Republican Party’s “libertarian moment” which seems to have passed.
Nonetheless, Carney’s prescription seems to be validated by Trump’s success, as immigration is populist economics. So while Carney was attacking crony capitalism from a sort of libertarian theoretical view and suggesting that it be framed in an anti-elite rhetoric to attract those white voters Romney missed, Trump (and also Le Pen) bear out that such populist/nationalist messaging works and was being grossly neglected by people who claimed to want to win elections.
Peter Thiel says “monopolize a niche”. Trump has done just that.
* While iSteve was waiting until Sept. when the English translation was published, I had read it in Frog before the summer (grace a la biblio UT at Austin). No one in English has pointed to the sex scenes, first with Miriam who moves to Israel, later on with 2 Arab hookers. Miriam was/is a randy jewish girl. Guess which sex event was the transcendental over-the-top dislocation of self into the sublime land of fuck? H is great great fun to read in a sick sick way.
Marine Le Pen spoke for 8 minutes at the EU parlement with Merkel and Hollande both present. You should/will see Merkel’s expression as she listened. Le Pen’s French accent is the non-regional but (intentionally) not too Parisian of the educated class. (Segolene Royale OTOH spoke in an apparently self-invented French accent, different enough from high French to seem somewhat regional, but from no region (a Frenchwoman told me that). The YouTube available ~8 minute clip has English translation as subtitles. She speaks off-the-cuff at first and smoothly seques to reading her remarks. Then Hollande responds with the usual cliches – addressing the establishment of German French amity from DeGaulle and Adenauer on, after 2 world wars, as the justification for us to burying our heads in the sand. In effect, we are not to change in the face of a new challenge lest we betray our historically irrelevant pieties.
The kicker was in the applause. For Le Pen there was some energetic clapping. For Holland, the clapping was from most all the other elected members of the EU parliment from the EU countries. Not only did they continue to applaud, but they commenced standing-up and applauding. Check out the video.
* The rise of the Front National in France is entirely the fault of Europe’s liberal, “progressive” voices like The Guardian, Libération, Hollande and Corbyn. Their abject, total failure to live up to their own principles has needlessly handed the far-right a monopoly over one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Ever since 9/11, it’s been apparent that we are witnessing a growing global religious movement, which is implacably and murderously opposed to liberalism, democracy, free speech and secularism.
But the supposed guardians of these progressive values suffered a profound cognitive dissonance in the face of this threat – the Islamist revolution is anti-Western, and its adherents are primarily non-white people from the poorer regions of the world. As the world’s “oppressed”, they had to be defended, never challenged. To do so would be racism, or imperialism.
After each terrorist atrocity, it became more and more clear that these fanatics are driven by an apocalyptic religious idea, not geopolitics or anti-capitalism. But after each atrocity the morally bankrupt European “progressives” doubled down on their absurd interpretation of events, excoriating their own constituency for their “Islamophobia” if they dared to question the accepted narrative. It doesn’t matter that the Islamists themselves constantly tell us that they’re motivated by Islam. The Guardian knows better.
Theo Van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists gave their lives for the liberal, secular values that differentiate us from the religious fanatics. All the Guardian and the rest of the condescending, reactionary left could do is attack them for “offending” the religious sensibilities of the murderers.
When they felt they had to be seen displaying solidarity after the Hebdo attacks, they wheeled out some pathetic, safe platitudes about “free speech”, waving generic placards with a picture of a pencil, while running a mile from any discussion about what’s actually preventing free speech.
The 4th wave feminists that clutter up the Guardian will twitter-storm at the drop of a hat when someone wears a “sexist” shirt, or if someone is mis-gendered in their local Tesco, but they remain totally silent about the many millions of women and LGBT people world-wide who are systematically oppressed in the name of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under 24hr protection for daring to criticise Islam from a feminist perspective, but instead of supporting her, the Guardian run pieces attacking her.
After the 13/11 attacks in Paris, liberal secularists in Europe finally thought that our politicians and media will finally wake up to what’s going on. No such luck. Instead we got the now-familiar onslaught of condescending, absurd warnings about “Islamophobia”, and a faux-polite, mealy-mouthed silence about Islamist religious intolerance. That silence has become deafening.
Something had to give, and it was the duty of the Guardian and Libération to ensure that the inevitable questions were asked in the context of secular, tolerant, liberal values. Their inexcusable, shameful failure to do this means that the same questions will be asked in the context of old school, “blood-and-soil” race hate, like Trump and Le Pen are offering. What’s the Guardian offering?
* Attacking Trump’s proposal is a very dangerous game.
1. The attackers put themselves at the mercy of ISIS and every Farook in America. Another San Bernardino next October would completely Farook Hillary’s campaign.
2. The attacks bring Trump’s proposal to the fore, exposing masses of people to them, and make previously unthinkable thoughts thinkable. (The attacks themselves widen the Overton Window.)
3. Events in Europe have made it clear that the numbers are huge. The danger is tidal, not the blip from a single shooting incident. Attacking Trump looks like a naive denial of historical tides.
But what other option do they have? Even Hillary’s modest acknowledgement that we need to really, really carefully vet the “refugees” concedes most of the debate.
* When Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons):
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam”– the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.”
– Leon Uris, “The Haj”
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France , the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots
* Exchange on O’Reilly Factor 12/8/2015:
O’Reilly: Mr. Cohen, you heard Donald Trump say no more Muslims in here. What was your first gut reaction to that?
Aaron Cohen: …You cannot bar all Muslims from coming into this country [U.S.]. I’m speaking as a Jew right now. It’s absolutely ludicrous.
O’Reilly: Israel doesn’t ban Muslims coming into Israel, right?
Cohen: No, we certainly do not. In fact we have a million Arabs who live in Israel. We work with the Druze, they serve in our defense force. The commander of our Golani elite infantry brigade is a Druze, he is an Arab. So we cannot alienate the Muslims. Number two, we are just going to create a more vicious cycle of anti-Semitism in this country which is not going to help anyone.
The concern for what is good for the Jews is primary for Cohen. It is understandable that Trump’s proposal would elicit concern among Jews and Muslims of the potential for a generalized anti-Semitism. Less understandable is the reaction when others might have different priorities.
* The answer isn’t (by the way) that the Jews want to destroy western civilization as revenge for the holocaust. Nor is it explainable simply by the drive for cheap labor – considering the welfare costs and other social costs felt by all segments of society, including the elites.
The reason they’re taking in refugees is they’re afraid that if they don’t offer a safety valve, the whole Arab world will go up into ISIS-style chaos. The chaos is driven by class struggle beheaded of leadership more than by religious fanaticism (which is the available outlet because it’s subsidized by the Gulf States and got a head start when it was the chosen instrument of U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan and Syria). Class-based political organization has been suppressed in the Middle East, privileging the mosque.
One thing nationalists miss, in their myopic focus on their own country, is the dependence of our elites on the Middle East. Ironically, opposing globalism will require international solutions.
* Borders are like a parachute: they should be opened rarely and for a specific purpose; keeping them open all the time is a real drag.
Posted inFrance|Comments Off on Populism & The Dissident Right
Steve Sailer writes: In general, I didn’t expect this San Bernardino atrocity to turn out to be another Muslim massacre because Southern California doesn’t have particularly large, orthodox Islamic neighborhoods. SoCal has no shortage of Men with Gold Chains, but they usually turn out to belong to some kind of Middle Eastern mercantile minority group who are here for the hustle; not banlieue-style lumpenproles. Women who move to SoCal, especially, are usually not really into wearing tents.
But if random Muslim restaurant inspectors are somehow converting their Mexican security guard buddies to Islam, well, that could be a problem because there are vast numbers of Mexicans here.
Fortunately, most of them are more apathetic than aggrieved. But the Obama Administration and the national media are constantly trying to prod them into racist hostility against whites to boost their electoral turnout to win elections for Democrats. Add in Islam’s time-tested ability to put a chip on the shoulder, and that could be trouble.
COMMENTS:
* Latino’s sensual, pleasure loving culture goes headfront against Islamic puritanism, so I suppose you can relax about that possibility.
* This notion that “Latino’s” [sic] culture is more “sensual, pleasure loving” suggests this is a guy who’s never been to the barrio. Latino America is dominated by Mestizos from Mexico. He’s thinking of Caribbean and Brazilian culture. But even if it is so, such a culture can easily feed a growing sub-population of those who come to reject its decadence, especially in a place like America, where it can get out of hand. Witness black American fascination with Islam. If blacks had their shit together, the Nation of Islam might be a very real threat.
Mostly my own bigoted impression is that Mexicans aren’t going to cotton to the discipline and rigor of Islamic observance. Mexicans have a certain fatalism which produces, I think, a not unwelcome apathy.
* The Persians also once had a “sensual, pleasure loving culture”. Arguably they still do even today, but that hasn’t prevented a minority from imposing a rather unpleasant version of Islam on most of the Iranian population.
* The FBI is now saying that they were both radicalized before they met. If that’s true, the “fiance visa” was utilized specifically to bring in another terrorist. A sort of “two terrorists for the price of one” program.
* Re Hispanics converting to Islam, there was the case of Jose Padilla: From Taco Bell to Al Qaeda
Hispanics as potential converts for Islam calls to mind a line from Theodore Dalrymple’s essay in Taki’s: “Islam rushes in where Marxism can no longer tread.”
* I’ve always suspected that sexual frustration fuels a lot of the anger you see among Muslim males (and females). If Muslims got laid more, they’d be happier people and less likely to be radicalized.
One reason you seldomly hear about Persians getting radicalized is because they’re too busy with sensual pleasures. If Pakis and other Muslims were able to join in on the fun, there’d be fewer Tashfeens and Syeds.
In his speech two days ago, Trump speculated that Syed Farukh committed the shooting because he couldn’t get women. He even joked that maybe Tashfeen was the first woman that Syed ever had. I really think Trump was on to something.
By the way, Syed’s brother was married to a Russian immigrant. Not only was he not a jihadist, but he’s actually in the US armed forces.
* I recall a Hispanic convert in Baltimore area was convicted of terrorism charges a few years back.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Are Latinos converting to Islam in any numbers?
* Great furrowed-brows interview just now on state-run radio, World Reacts To Donald Trump’s Call To Ban Muslims Traveling To U.S. Joerg Lau, the foreign editor for Die Zeit in Berlin, explains a few things. Why, Germany is taking in almost a million migrants this year, and we expect America to do its fair share. Instead, Trump’s Islamophobic remarks could start these perfectly nice Muslims down the road to alienation. NPR’s reporter seems to understand the point — the recent troubles really are Trump’s fault.
Continuing the irony-free discussion, Mr. Lau wistfully points out that in Germany, Trump would have been arrested by now on a charge of Incitement. Obviously, the U.S. has much to learn from its ally about the free exchange of ideas.
And for completeness’ sake, listeners are treated to an interview of Bloomberg reporter Zainab Fattah in Dubai. She points out that Trump’s ideas are still far more liberal and tolerant than the policies of any Islamic nation Trump is a hateful Islamophobe.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on World Reacts To Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban
The two largest Jewish communities in the West found themselves responding to a far-right racist surge this week. The first, on Sunday night, were the Jews of France, faced with the resounding success of Marine Le Pen’s National Front in the first round of regional elections, in which the party received the largest number of votes and came first in half the country’s regions.
A day later, it was the turn of American Jews, shocked – like the majority of their fellow Americans – by a speech by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in which he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
In cases like these, silence is not an option. Le Pen has tried, with some success, to “detoxify” the National Front’s image from the proto-fascist party her anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying father, Jean Marie Le Pen, founded. However, the suspicion continues to linger. The front’s change of focus to France’s Muslim minority may have taken the heat off the Jews, but it has kept the party in its xenophobic corner. Trump himself has no history of anti-Semitism, he even has a daughter who converted to Judaism, but his racist proposal can’t be left without a response. Jews have too much historical memory of the price of not protesting such ideas.
And the responses were swift in coming. The morning after the election in France, French Jewry’s representative body, the CRIF, put out a press release calling on all French voters to “block the National Front” in the second round of voting next week, describing it as “a xenophobic and populist party” and exhorting France to “not let the Republic give way in the face of threats.” Le Pen hit back, calling CRIF a “tool of the establishment” in a radio interview. The French Jewish leadership did not back down. Chief Rabbi Chaim Korsia joined in, calling upon the French to keep “national cohesion” and vote against “obscurantists” and “proponents of exclusion.”
Twenty-four hours later, across the Atlantic, Jewish organizations were just as quick in denouncing Trump. The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying that his proposal “singles out Muslims” and is “deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.” Other groups, like the American Jewish Committee and Reform Judaism, joined in the condemnation.
But there was a contrast between the Jewish response in France and in the U.S.. While French Jewry’s denunciation was sweeping, coming from the organization and rabbi representing the community’s mainstream, the response in America was largely from groups identified with the more liberal and left-of-center sector of the community.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Opinion: U.S. Jews Responding to Donald Trump Should Learn From French Jews and Le Pen
From the Forward: Hours after news broke of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, a group of Muslim community leaders gathered at a press conference to deliver a harsh condemnation of the deadly attack carried out by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. The activists were members of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has emerged as the most prominent voice of American Muslim fighting Islamophobia and calling for multi-faith tolerance.
But for most in the organized Jewish committee, CAIR is out of bounds.
For Jewish groups that see building ties with the American Muslim community as a key communal interest, CAIR’s position at the center of Muslim life poses awkward problems. But a mix of decades-old judicial allegations that the group has had ties with Hamas and more recent anti-Israel rhetoric from CAIR officials has served to render the group unacceptable for most Jewish organizations.
Posted inIslam, Jews|Comments Off on Even After San Bernardino, Muslim Advocacy Group Gets Cold Shoulder From Jews
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
