The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
Terrorism Quotient

(My reader poll results will have to wait, but rest assured, they’re coming.)

Yet another terrorist attack in Paris – this year:

I wish I could say I was even remotely surprised – perhaps only at the precise time, and that’s all. For this is just another example of what I and so many others have been saying, as recently as the Cherlie Hebdo attack just in January.

Well, in this post, I’m here to straighten these people out on these things, as Bill Maher did in his interview with Brian Levin after the Boston bombing – video does not allow embedding. Please visit the site:

https://youtu.be/e-iBD8Y1MAY

The problem, ultimately, is this:

Green Map of Europe

The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims.

I know that that is partly a matter of definition:

davaga5a

But I want people to think of something. See this from my earlier post Guns & Violence, Again

Violence Map

Now see this (from Wikipedia):

tumblr_nxqlot8TvC1rasnq9o1_1280

The maps are pretty similar. The places on Earth with much interpersonal violence are generally also the places that larger-scale prolonged conflicts.

One might note that Muslim nations have fairly low rates of interpersonal homicide (assuming that these statistics are reliable, which is hardly guaranteed). This is partly because of the system of clan retribution, as Peter Frost explains here (The return of fear – emphasis mine)

Most Muslim immigrants come from societies where the State has pacified social relations only in recent times and where men still see violence as a legitimate and even necessary means to advance personal interests, to defend themselves and their families, and to acquire land, goods, and even women. Violence is constrained not by the State but by a balance of terror—the threat of retaliation by the victim or his kinsmen.

Hence, violence is Islamic societies quickly moves from being one-on-one (or one-on-a few or few-on-few) affairs as it is in many other places in the world to being protracted struggles between rival clans and tribes (featured at what is the MATTER with you people? | hbd chick):

What Muslim groups putatively lack in interpersonal violence, they more than make up for in prolonged mass conflict.

Despite these key facts, in response to this latest rampage in Paris, we have the usual nonsense, as representated by these Tweets:

In this post, allow me to introduce a very simple concept, as I will demonstrate with this Twitter exchange:

Let’s not forget this smart fellow here:

Perhaps what’s needed here is the idea of a terrorism quotient:

This is modeled after the “Amish Quotient” of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending.

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.

(Of course, every ethnic group has a group-typical suite of behavioral traits – an “x quotient” – see Predictions on the Worldwide Distribution of Personality.

This is basic HBD.)

This is illustrated by the number of terrorist acts (defined here as instances of mass murder/assault/hostage taking) per capita for a given population. There is little question that this rate is incredibly high for many Muslim populations relative to other populations (and of course, there is a great deal of variation between Muslim populations) – even more so when you consider the sizes of the Muslim populations living in Western countries:

Edit, 11/15/15 [And indeed, Emil Kirkegaard has found just that – from The general religious factor among Muslims: a multi-level factor analysis | Clear Language, Clear Mind:

In the review of a paper submitted to ODP some time ago, the issue of a general extremism factor in religion came up.

...

Specifically, the topic was if and how one could rank order Christian denominations on a more/less extremist scale.

...

I was recently reminded of the above due to re-seeing Pew Research’s large-scale study of the beliefs of Muslims in their home countries. The dataset is publicly available and is fairly massive: 250 variables and a sample size of 32.6k. The questions cover socioeconomic variables as well as a large number of questions about stuff like Sharia

...

A general factor seems confirmed. I hereby dub it general religious factor (GRF), hopefully no one has used that term or letter combination yet

...

Mean level by country (reordered):

Emil noted this in a tweet:

All that’s left is to see how predictive this factor is of each country’s per capita rate of terrorist acts, and the “terrorism quotient” will be confirmed. ***End Edit***]

But the problem with Muslims in the West is hardly confined to terrorism, but plenty of regular old violence and other crime (especially in Europe – not so much in North America) – again from Peter Frost:

In France, Muslims make up 60% of all prison inmates, while being only 12% of the total population (Leclerc, 2014). Similarly, 7 out of 10 burglaries, assaults, and violent thefts are committed by first- or second-generation immigrants (Chevrier and Raufer, 2014). Most of these perps seem to be Muslim, although a third of them may be West Indians, Africans, and Roma of nominally Christian background. Muslims seem to be especially overrepresented in serious violent crimes that lead to prison sentences.

Similar trends are developing elsewhere. Muslims make up 70% all prison inmates in Spain and 45% in Belgium (WikiIslam, 2013 see Note 1; Sudinfo.be, 2013). In England and Wales, the figure is only 14%, versus 4.7% of the total population, apparently because certain other communities are likewise overrepresented (Morris, 2014, see Note 2).

A Danish researcher has studied the relationship between criminality and immigrant origin in Denmark, Norway, and Finland (Kirkegaard, 2014a; Kirkegaard, 2014b; Kirkegaard, 2014c; Kirkegaard and Fuerst, 2014). He found that the prevalence of Islam in the immigrants’ home country was the single best predictor of criminality both for “all crime” and for “violent crime,” being better than the home country’s mean IQ or GDP per capita and much better than its murder rate.

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. As much as I am loathe to quote Ann Coulter:

But there’s a good chance that that won’t happen. Much of what I say here – meant to jar Northwestern Europeans into prudent action to protect their societies – may end up falling on deaf ears. The reason why is explained by the very same HBD that explains why Muslims are so much more violent, on average – namely, Northwestern European universalism:

Nobel-Muslim Plot

As we saw previously in my posts Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain, there is a strong correlation between the size of the Muslim fraction in European countries and their scientific (and other intellectual) performance. A suite of behavioral traits found principally in Northwest Europeans – regard for all humanity, generosity, high-trust, the absence of kin-based social bonds – leads them to accept clannish migrants. See The Rise of Universalism:

childlabormap Womens-right-around-the-world

Worse still, NW Europeans accept immigrants from the most incompatible corner of the world, the Muslim/Arab world:

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.

Corruption 2014

This is genetic in origin, the product of evolution.

For more, see these two key posts by HBD Chick:

big summary post on the hajnal line | hbd chick

community vs. communism | hbd chick

Because the differences between these groups of people is inherited, the result of centuries of natural selection in their respective environments, these features can’t be expected to change much. Northwestern Europeans and Arabs (and many other Muslim groups) are, as groups, largely incompatible. Social strife emerges when they are brought together as they are in modern Northwestern European countries.

To illustrate that Northwestern European universalism is responsible for the settling of large numbers of Muslims in Europe, note what you don’t see:

Edit, 3/22/16: [See also M.G.'s excellent data-rich post further illustrating the differences between Muslims and NW Europeans:

Those Who Can See: Why We Culturally Profile

***End Edit***]

Unfortunately, the very HBD that leads to these differences also makes it hard for Northwestern Europeans to see the folly in their immigration policies. In reaction to events like the Paris attacks, we get this:

As discussed by M.G. over at Those Who Can See: Reacting to Spree Killings, Progressively

Oh, and for the New Atheists out there that like to blame Muslim violence on their religion, it’s worth noting that the behaviors we associate with religion – including the religion itself – are all heritable:

The Atheist Narrative

Religion comes to the religious because that’s how their brains are wired. A believer cannot think any different … Believers literally have God/Earth spirits/Buddha on the brain. To such a person, their deities are as real as the Sun in the sky (since, after all, the believer’s brain is the only brain he’s got). Religiosity is highly heritable (as are all behavioral traits)…

This indicates that religious belief – or lack there of – is largely intractable. It is a futile effort to get people to give up religion en masse (or, for that matter, to get non-believers to believe). You may have some individual “successes”, largely because of changing the environmental context of people who already had the genetic potentialfor whatever belief you want to instill, but you’re not going to achieve broad change in the population.

However, the “New Atheists” don’t seem to see it that way. Many of these speakers, including the likes of Richard Dawkins, or groups such as American Atheists proselytize atheism. Indeed, Dawkins, a self-described “militant atheist”, is very much an atheist evangelist.

The belief that these individuals’ actions appear to be based is that by spreading atheism and getting people to give up their religious beliefs, society can be improved.

As I have previous written, that is a foolhardy goal. The unsavory traits the New Atheists seek to change stem not from the religion, but from the people. Indeed, in the spirit of what HBD Chick would ask, where do religious beliefs come from? Sorry atheist zealots, you can’t get Muslims to behave like modern civilized (Northwestern European) people by getting them to give up Islam. You can’t turn the U.S. Deep South and Greater Appalachia into Yankeedom or the Midlands by getting the former two to give up fundamentalist Christianity.

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.)

At the very earnest, any attempts to address the problem should start with not making it worse. Even more troublesome, a loose, porous border allows radicalized Muslims to travel freely from terror hotspots in the Middle East to Western sites. France’s emergency reaction to close it’s border was the right step (but, on cue, there are calls for France to open its border once again –Why France Should Not Close Its Borders). Cutting the number of “refugees” granted asylum in Western nations would be next. (Most of whom are economic migrants anyway.)

That addressed new Muslims in the country, but what about the existing populations? I for one do not advocate mass deportations, nor do we need encourage Westerners to engage in mass persecution of their Muslim populations. That said, some steps can be taken to tackle the issue. For example:

  • Disallow entry for families of Muslim immigrants
  • Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime

Now, that said, for France – with it’s very high Muslim population and it’s much higher Muslim share of births in the country – there doesn’t seem to be an easy remedy. They’re in a hard position – and worst of all, they don’t even realize it, generally.

Unfortunately, I don’t see this matter headed to good places, neither for Europeans or for the Muslims and other foreigners that live in Europe. That last thing we need is to inspire backlash against the Muslim residents by the natives. One hopes that steps to address this issue in an orderly and humane way can be taken, but I have to admit, that’s just a hope.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
159 Comments to "Terrorism Quotient"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. […] (This is also published at the Unz Review.) […]

    Read More
  2. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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
     
    ISIS fighters aren't a representative cross section of Muslims.

    Islam’s success in becoming a threat to the West has been based on its universal appeal to many groups and cultures.
     
    Ha! No.

    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.
     
    Correct.
    , @guest
    Their only unifying force, I imagine, is their common enemies.
    , @PhD Warsaw
    religion is a meta-clan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jman/terrorism-quotient/#comment-1226907
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. You say you dont advocate mass deportations because of your demented half-socialist views, but that IS the only solution. The mere threat should be enough to send more than half packing.

    Read More
  4. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    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.

    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

    ISIS fighters aren’t a representative cross section of Muslims.

    Islam’s success in becoming a threat to the West has been based on its universal appeal to many groups and cultures.

    Ha! No.

    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.

    Correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    ISIS is an exception to the general clannish behavior of the larger societies in which they operate - which is exactly why they've been able to rise to power. If you're the only group able to coordinate across tribal lines and stick to a unifying agenda, you're at a huge advantage over the existing population of bickering clans.

    Which makes it sort of ironic that ISIS is the most recognizable problem of the Muslim world, when in fact it's the least of the problems that the Muslim immigrants have brought with them to Europe.
  5. I am so damn pissed about this I want to yell at someone. But that wouldn’t do any good. But seriously, I want to punch the wall or something. Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”
     
    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.
  6. 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.

    Read More
  7. All the “Islamist terrorism” is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    As for the high rate of violence in certain Muslim countries, these are countries in the middle of civil wars, conflicts that were fomented by western Deep State operations.

    Muslim countries that are not afflicted by war, such as Morocco or Turkey, say, have extremely low rates of violent crime.

    In any case, it’s pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    In any case, it’s pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.
     
    Aren't they always false flags? :\
    , @Mark Caplan
    Arab Muslim "countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts" since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other's throats.
    , @zaqan
    Go take your meds, or get back to your asylum, looney bin, shrinks couch, etc.
    , @map
    I don't think you understand what a false flag is. The requirements of a false flag demand the existence of a likely perpetrator, without which the false flag would not be possible. In other words, without the presence of Muslims in Western countries, these false flag operations could not credibly exist.

    A false flag is a "false, but accurate" event. The particular attack may not have been committed by the group, but it is sufficiently similar to the group's behavior to credibly associate the act with the group itself. For example, the Reichstag Bombing can be plausibly blamed on the Communists because they have already established a reputation for open violence, even if they had nothing to do with that particular act of violence.

    So, even if 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings and Paris are all false flag events, they can only be pulled off because of the large presence of Muslims in Western countries, Muslim with a history of violence against infidels.

    Consider how the Turkish soccer audience reacted when a moment of silence was asked for the Paris victims. They chanted Allahu Akbar. Does that sound like they believed that attack was a false flag? Could the government engineer a false flag with the Amish?
  8. 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.

    Read More
  9. I agree with Trump. You can’t have a country without borders. But borders can be a nuisance for international monopolists. Free trade means open borders. It would be more informative to say you can’t have borders without a country. Nation states are ceding their sovereignty to giant corporations. Until that is reversed you will have open borders.

    Muslim “terrorists” have to eat Jay Man. Their genetic imperative to be “terrorists” might not find expression if they were not paid and supplied by someone. Are the paymasters Muslim also? We know Turkey and the Gulf States support ISIS. But so also does the Anglo/Zio Empire. The Wahhabi are tools of Empire. What is the genetic imperative of Neocons and Zionists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Free trade means open borders."

    No it doesn't.

    Free trade means free trade, it does not mean open borders and open immigration, which is what you imply. Who told you such nonsense?

    , @ormondotvos
    Genetics aren't nearly as specific for traits of behavior as eye color might be specific. Many commenters, and the blog author, are over-attributing genetic inputs to behavior, and ignoring the very high input of social mores and cultures.
  10. HBD in & of itself is quite reasonable, but if it becomes an obsession & is used to explain (away) pretty much everything, it’s getting close to ridiculous.

    The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims

    Ah, the ignorance of youth.
    Yes, nowadays … maybe …
    But in the 70′s & 80′s terrorism was very much a European thing. Forgot the likes of IRA (UK), RAF & Revolutionäre Zellen (Germany), Action Directe (France), ETA (Spain) & Brigate Rosse (Italy)? Or their less active & less known contemporary right-wing counterparts like Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann (Ger) or Ordine Nuovo (Italy)?
    Arab terrorism of that time came largely from Palestinians & was nationalist or left-wing (though occasionally aided by European right-wing terrorists), not Islamist.

    Remember Arab countries in the 70′s? You had some quite modernist & open societies back then (mostly city life, though, IIRC). It all started to change with the Islamic Revolution in Persia & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Afterwards a wave of Islamic “conservatism” (wasn’t really conservative, since it actually changed a lot, but for lack of a better word now…) swept through the world. Even so, that would not have necessarily led to the current Islamist terror movements. But well, one thing (like supplying insurgents; invasions) led to another & here we are.

    Islamist terrorism is probably just another wave, similar to left-wing terrorism in the 70′s & 80′s. Sooner or later it will blow over. It may take another 10 or 20 years, but it’s only a matter of time.

    Disallow entry for families of Muslim immigrants

    That may actually make things worse, for it would create an additional number of frustrated young man. & frustration with life is one major factor in creating terrorists, just like a lack of prospects in a bright future or feelings of exclusion from society…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    HBD in & of itself is quite reasonable, but if it becomes an obsession & is used to explain (away) pretty much everything, it’s getting close to ridiculous.
     
    When it comes to explaining humanity, everything is an HBD matter. That's. The. Point.

    Remember Arab countries in the 70’s? You had some quite modernist & open societies back then (mostly city life, though, IIRC). It all started to change with the Islamic Revolution in Persia & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
     
    Really? How open were these societies, really?

    That may actually make things worse, for it would create an additional number of frustrated young man. & frustration with life is one major factor in creating terrorists, just like a lack of prospects in a bright future or feelings of exclusion from society…
     
    Maybe they can take they're frustration elsewhere. That's the point...
  11. Expelling the immigrants is one thing and hard enough. France is 7% Moslem citizens of African and Maghreb descent and their birth rates are by far the highest in France. The French French are in demographic decline as the Moslem French are growing in numbers.

    And you can’t just expel citizens the same way you can immigrants.

    If the French want to have a country, they should consider paying each one $250k to return to their ancestral homelands. Most are post-1960 arrivals and their descendants and still have some claim to citizenship in Algeria and francophone African colonies. Cut off welfare payments to them and the appeal of taking the money will get stronger. It’s probably not possible to deny them the free housing they already have but France could refuse to ever build any more. New York style racially biased humiliation-oriented policing could make the men’s lives in France unappealing. Criminal penalties for headscarf wearing would motivate some, too.

    Actually, even at $500k or $1000k each to leave it would be cheap compared to generations of welfare. Going deep into debt to protect the future of the nation would be the greatest public works investment in history.

    So it could be done. But it won’t. Instead we’ll see France just go away after almost 2000 years, that nexus of art, beauty, creativity, and sensation gone from the earth forever like wooly mammoths. If the mammoths had welcomed in the hunters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Do you have any thoughts on the partition of France into Muslim and non-Muslim zones? British India's partition into India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) was bloody, but is that a precedent? I agree that it might be geographically tricky, but it would probably be superior to civil war/French extinction.
  12. So, clannishness is determined genetically, to an extent.

    How did it disappear from NW Europe after the Church outlawed cousin marriage? Clans de-facto dissolved, and people who were clannish and thus more mistrustful of their fellow men, were at a disadvantage compared to those who were more ready to cooperate?

    Is this genetic heritage somewhat discernible in people descended from the Scottish highland clans, whose traditional way of life persisted into the 18th century?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    How did it disappear from NW Europe after the Church outlawed cousin marriage?
     
    I linked to HBD Chick's blog in the post. You should stop by and read up on it.

    Is this genetic heritage somewhat discernible in people descended from the Scottish highland clans, whose traditional way of life persisted into the 18th century?
     
    Yes.
  13. @EvolutionistX
    I am so damn pissed about this I want to yell at someone. But that wouldn't do any good. But seriously, I want to punch the wall or something. Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between "We hate everyone else" and "Let's let in everyone!"

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”

    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
    I suspect that's mostly circumstances of location and climate. Iceland, in particular, is cold, has a tiny population, and is an island with rather limited resources.
    , @Olorin
    > Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    Yeah, but they're full of Finns and Icelanders. And forty below in the winter.

    Muslims gonna Muzz like Finns gonna Finn.

    But seriously. High-trust high-altruism population pools have another thing going against them.

    It's not just the Muslims manipulating N Euros' genetic tendencies, in order to extend their territory, claim resources, and extend their breeding.

    N Euros have had their good-hearted compassion manipulated and colonized in the past century. They have been relentlessly threatened and punished by powerful people in increasingly powerful institutions for NOT espousing universalist propaganda.

    They now have to choose whether they value their own lives and societies more than they fear, say, losing their jobs/their ability to support/have a family for standing up and saying, "No, not all people are hot-swappable, and I care about my own more than I care about theirs."

    There are lots of people waking up to this, many because of efforts like yours, HBDChick's, and other HBD bloggers.

    Look at the messages being sent by the Boards of Directors (by whatever name) of Yale, U Missouri, Claremont-McKenna, and other places when they fire or pressure into resigning anyone who stands up in the least to the message that all animals are equal, and some are more equal than others.

    Having said, that, thanks for this post. Much in it that will save many of us from having to drag all this stuff out yet again.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.
     
    11,000 Icelanders offered to host refugees. That ~5% of its adult population!

    For Finland this might once have been true but tons of Somalis are now freely making their way there. It might be relatively based by Yurop standards to be sure but only in comparison with the likes of Sweden Yes! and Cuck Germany which are hardly the highest of bars to clear.
    , @dried peanuts
    In Ireland we are just blundering through and seeing what happens as usual. I doubt the Finns are that much more forward-looking. The ones I know are very SJW. In a way I think finnish weirdness (not WEIRDness) functions as a sort of shield to exclude outsiders, almost unbeknownst to the Finns.
  14. @Jonathan Revusky
    All the "Islamist terrorism" is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    As for the high rate of violence in certain Muslim countries, these are countries in the middle of civil wars, conflicts that were fomented by western Deep State operations.

    Muslim countries that are not afflicted by war, such as Morocco or Turkey, say, have extremely low rates of violent crime.

    In any case, it's pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    In any case, it’s pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    Aren’t they always false flags? :\

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Aren’t they always false flags? :\
     
    I don't know about always, but the ones I've studied have turned out to be false flags.

    Is your position then that these events are never false flags?

  15. @bossel
    HBD in & of itself is quite reasonable, but if it becomes an obsession & is used to explain (away) pretty much everything, it's getting close to ridiculous.

    The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims
     
    Ah, the ignorance of youth.
    Yes, nowadays ... maybe ...
    But in the 70's & 80's terrorism was very much a European thing. Forgot the likes of IRA (UK), RAF & Revolutionäre Zellen (Germany), Action Directe (France), ETA (Spain) & Brigate Rosse (Italy)? Or their less active & less known contemporary right-wing counterparts like Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann (Ger) or Ordine Nuovo (Italy)?
    Arab terrorism of that time came largely from Palestinians & was nationalist or left-wing (though occasionally aided by European right-wing terrorists), not Islamist.

    Remember Arab countries in the 70's? You had some quite modernist & open societies back then (mostly city life, though, IIRC). It all started to change with the Islamic Revolution in Persia & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Afterwards a wave of Islamic "conservatism" (wasn't really conservative, since it actually changed a lot, but for lack of a better word now...) swept through the world. Even so, that would not have necessarily led to the current Islamist terror movements. But well, one thing (like supplying insurgents; invasions) led to another & here we are.

    Islamist terrorism is probably just another wave, similar to left-wing terrorism in the 70's & 80's. Sooner or later it will blow over. It may take another 10 or 20 years, but it's only a matter of time.

    Disallow entry for families of Muslim immigrants
     
    That may actually make things worse, for it would create an additional number of frustrated young man. & frustration with life is one major factor in creating terrorists, just like a lack of prospects in a bright future or feelings of exclusion from society...

    HBD in & of itself is quite reasonable, but if it becomes an obsession & is used to explain (away) pretty much everything, it’s getting close to ridiculous.

    When it comes to explaining humanity, everything is an HBD matter. That’s. The. Point.

    Remember Arab countries in the 70’s? You had some quite modernist & open societies back then (mostly city life, though, IIRC). It all started to change with the Islamic Revolution in Persia & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

    Really? How open were these societies, really?

    That may actually make things worse, for it would create an additional number of frustrated young man. & frustration with life is one major factor in creating terrorists, just like a lack of prospects in a bright future or feelings of exclusion from society…

    Maybe they can take they’re frustration elsewhere. That’s the point…

    Read More
  16. @B.R.
    So, clannishness is determined genetically, to an extent.

    How did it disappear from NW Europe after the Church outlawed cousin marriage? Clans de-facto dissolved, and people who were clannish and thus more mistrustful of their fellow men, were at a disadvantage compared to those who were more ready to cooperate?

    Is this genetic heritage somewhat discernible in people descended from the Scottish highland clans, whose traditional way of life persisted into the 18th century?

    How did it disappear from NW Europe after the Church outlawed cousin marriage?

    I linked to HBD Chick’s blog in the post. You should stop by and read up on it.

    Is this genetic heritage somewhat discernible in people descended from the Scottish highland clans, whose traditional way of life persisted into the 18th century?

    Yes.

    Read More
  17. @JayMan

    In any case, it’s pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.
     
    Aren't they always false flags? :\

    Aren’t they always false flags? :\

    I don’t know about always, but the ones I’ve studied have turned out to be false flags.

    Is your position then that these events are never false flags?

    Read More
  18. @JayMan

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”
     
    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    I suspect that’s mostly circumstances of location and climate. Iceland, in particular, is cold, has a tiny population, and is an island with rather limited resources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I suspect that’s mostly circumstances of location and climate.
     
    Falling into Jared Diamond's trap? Remember, Guns, Germs, Steel, and Genes.
  19. @JayMan

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”
     
    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    > Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    Yeah, but they’re full of Finns and Icelanders. And forty below in the winter.

    Muslims gonna Muzz like Finns gonna Finn.

    But seriously. High-trust high-altruism population pools have another thing going against them.

    It’s not just the Muslims manipulating N Euros’ genetic tendencies, in order to extend their territory, claim resources, and extend their breeding.

    N Euros have had their good-hearted compassion manipulated and colonized in the past century. They have been relentlessly threatened and punished by powerful people in increasingly powerful institutions for NOT espousing universalist propaganda.

    They now have to choose whether they value their own lives and societies more than they fear, say, losing their jobs/their ability to support/have a family for standing up and saying, “No, not all people are hot-swappable, and I care about my own more than I care about theirs.”

    There are lots of people waking up to this, many because of efforts like yours, HBDChick’s, and other HBD bloggers.

    Look at the messages being sent by the Boards of Directors (by whatever name) of Yale, U Missouri, Claremont-McKenna, and other places when they fire or pressure into resigning anyone who stands up in the least to the message that all animals are equal, and some are more equal than others.

    Having said, that, thanks for this post. Much in it that will save many of us from having to drag all this stuff out yet again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Many europeans feel as they were a cultural and historical heirs of the past mistakes because jewish white guilty. But not because beings have limited life and they are directly guilty about your direct attitudes, as individuals and not as ''part of abstract body called culture''. And fool people are putting in evidence as they were Magic Pipers. Certain primitive ''tribes'' are using sincere feelings about very good people to advance their retard ''agenda''. Correct eugenics for all people, blacks, whites, mixed race ones, nonhuman domesticated animals, will be impossible with this IDIOTIC ones in the power.
  20. @(((Owen)))
    Expelling the immigrants is one thing and hard enough. France is 7% Moslem citizens of African and Maghreb descent and their birth rates are by far the highest in France. The French French are in demographic decline as the Moslem French are growing in numbers.

    And you can't just expel citizens the same way you can immigrants.

    If the French want to have a country, they should consider paying each one $250k to return to their ancestral homelands. Most are post-1960 arrivals and their descendants and still have some claim to citizenship in Algeria and francophone African colonies. Cut off welfare payments to them and the appeal of taking the money will get stronger. It's probably not possible to deny them the free housing they already have but France could refuse to ever build any more. New York style racially biased humiliation-oriented policing could make the men's lives in France unappealing. Criminal penalties for headscarf wearing would motivate some, too.

    Actually, even at $500k or $1000k each to leave it would be cheap compared to generations of welfare. Going deep into debt to protect the future of the nation would be the greatest public works investment in history.

    So it could be done. But it won't. Instead we'll see France just go away after almost 2000 years, that nexus of art, beauty, creativity, and sensation gone from the earth forever like wooly mammoths. If the mammoths had welcomed in the hunters.

    Do you have any thoughts on the partition of France into Muslim and non-Muslim zones? British India’s partition into India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) was bloody, but is that a precedent? I agree that it might be geographically tricky, but it would probably be superior to civil war/French extinction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    Forced migration is always a human rights crisis and economic disaster. Partition of France would be worse than India and horrible.

    Once the decision is taken that France should be French, why do it in a nasty way? Just deport the incompatible immigrants and pay the non-French citizens of France to go elsewhere.

    Partition would mean giving up the best part of France (the Riviera) forever and still more eventually as the natives won't be breeding at the same rate any time soon and the non-France nation will get expansionist.

    Remember how the French felt about Alsace and Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.
  21. A country of course needs to be selective in what type of Muslims they allow into their country, but a key thing many people don’t mention is the west needs to adopt an isolationist policy towards Muslim conflicts. Much of the refugee/migrant crisis was created by us, the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow was created by the west too. Western foreign policy is a failure.

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan? What it boils down to is them having not involved themselves with Islam’s conflicts. If you want to directly get involved in Islam’s conflicts then you shouldn’t be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?
     
    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.
    , @Kratoklastes

    If you want to directly get involved in Islam’s conflicts then you shouldn’t be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.
     
    You say 'want to get directly involved' where I think you mean 'are the root cause of'. Coz let's be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.

    There is an excerpt of a letter from Crewe (Viceroy of India) to Hardinge (Secretary of State fort India) in 1914:

    What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West." Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India (quoted in Busch, Britain, India and the Arabs p62

     

    Now think about life "BI" (before internet): how would you, a normal everyday person, become aware of that document? Not in school, that's for certain. If you were a history graduate student with specific interest in the Middle East, maybe. I am prepared to bet that more people - probably a thousand times as many - have read that quote since 2004, than read it between 1914 and 2004.

    It is not really Islam that has led to the problems in the Middle East: political Islam is a straw at which the desperate clutch, but the causa causans is a deliberate "divide et impero' plan hatched by the British - and made clear in the letter from 'Lord' Crewe to 'Lord' Hardinge in 1914, which contained the gem quoted above.

    The deliberate fomenting of political discord, violence and repression in the Arab world has been the Western plan since the turn of the 20th century, and it has worked a treat. The 'House' of Saud and other despotic regimes are going along with it for reasons of pure self-interest: that is also understandable - it would surprise me if there has been anybody in the history of the world who could resist the genuine prospect of becoming a billionaire by any means.

    The creation of the Zionist enclave in the middle of the Arab world, and the population of that enclave with Eastern Europeans (Belorussians, Poles, Lithuanians etc) with an alien culture overtly hostile to the indigenes, was likewise a deliberate ploy: give the Arabs something local on which to focus their collective hate... all the while each artificial country was riven with internal strife as Sunni, Shia, Kurd and others, failed to get along. ALL BY DESIGN.

    The West used exactly the same mechanisms in Africa. And the US took over the operational management of the entire scheme when the UK warred itself to financial oblivion with 2 unnecessary wars-for-banksters in the first half of the 20th century.
  22. @EvolutionistX
    I suspect that's mostly circumstances of location and climate. Iceland, in particular, is cold, has a tiny population, and is an island with rather limited resources.

    I suspect that’s mostly circumstances of location and climate.

    Falling into Jared Diamond’s trap? Remember, Guns, Germs, Steel, and Genes.

    Read More
  23. @Cyrus
    A country of course needs to be selective in what type of Muslims they allow into their country, but a key thing many people don't mention is the west needs to adopt an isolationist policy towards Muslim conflicts. Much of the refugee/migrant crisis was created by us, the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow was created by the west too. Western foreign policy is a failure.

    Why aren't Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan? What it boils down to is them having not involved themselves with Islam's conflicts. If you want to directly get involved in Islam's conflicts then you shouldn't be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.</blockquote

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you're starting to get it...
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.
     
    Right, and thus far fewer Muslims to frame for the false flags.

    Congratulations, I see you're starting to get it!
    , @Santoculto
    Italy**
    , @No Second Israel
    What is the background of JayMan? Why no description of a writer is presented here? Is this his bio?


    ayMan is a US-based racist, sexist, homophobe and self-hating person of color who runs a pseudo-scientific blog devoted to promoting the long-exploded notion of biological "race", alongside of other aspects of so-called Human Bio-Diversity (HBD). Despite hailing from the rainbow island of Jamaica and claiming to be of multiply-stranded Black / Chinese / "white" heritage,[1] JayMan has chosen to deploy his not-inconsiderable technical and rhetorical skill-set on behalf not of equality, justice and other progressive causes, but of the very worst hate-memes generated by the sleepless bigot-factories of white western prejudice. Like his geek-girl co-conspirator Hbdchick, JayMan is evidence of the horrendous pressures facing vulnerable oppressed communities of color, gender and sexuality under the hegemony of white racist and heterosexist patriarchy. He may be regarded as a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims come to identify with their oppressors and work for causes dear to the oppressors' hate-filled hearts.
    JayMan's self-hatred is so cartoonish in style that many assume that he's a white supremacist.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JayMan
  24. Depends critically on your definition of ‘terrrrrist’ and ‘terrrrist act’.

    If you consider members of the political class to be part of each race, and the victims of objectively terrrrrist acts that they perpetrate to be victims of terrrrism, the whites win by a margin of millions.

    A couple of examples – things that the US and NATO do as a matter of course in the first few dozen bombing sorties and missile launches.

    ① Bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants when a country is under embargo (preventing substitutes for water treatment – like chlorine – from being imported). It has the unstated, but obviously deliberate and foreseeable, aim of increasing the rate of water-borne diseases in infants and the elderly.

    ② Bombing of electricity generation plants and electricity distribution infrastructure (network choke-points).

    ③ Area bombing generally. And let’s be clear: a 2000lb bomb in an urban landscape is not ‘precision’ bombing; everyone within 300ft will die, mostly from lung liquefaction as a result of the pressure wave. Draw a line 100 yards from where you’re sitting and count the number of people who aren’t you (assuming you’re the target).

    ① and ② have the unstated, but foreseeable (and ergo deliberate), objective of causing an increase in water-borne disease among infants and the elderly: that’s a very specific set of targets; it’s deliberate; it’s meant to cause horror in the minds of the political class in the target country. babies dying of preventable illness, as a direct, predictable and deliberate consequence of SOP.

    That is the epitome of attempting to “further a political aim by violent means”.

    I note that the CIA wants to sticky-tape on a fig-leaf by pretending that if the violence is ‘authorised’ or ‘official’ it’s not terrrrrrism… but if ISIL is a ‘state’ and it ‘authorises’ its actions, how are they terrrrrrism?

    Par contre: if authorisation can not be sui generis, and the US genocide in Iraq was not ‘authorised’ by the UNSC (the US SecGen declared it was illegal, too), how is that not terrrrism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Pandatshang
    I think when most people talk about terrorism, what they mean are acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective. They don't accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target. For example, the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were not part of a serious plan to seize control of New York, and the recent Paris attacks are not part of a serious plan to seize control of Paris.

    My point is not to defend the morality of other acts of war, such as bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants as part of an invasion. Perhaps these acts are much worse than terrorism.

    This definition of terrorism implies that it will normally be practiced by the weak rather than the strong. If they were stronger, they'd have a better plan. Therefore, it requires a different kind of response from the rest of society than violence committed by, say, Obama or Putin would, and so it's usually a whole different conversation.
    , @JackOH
    Yeah, I can't disagree with you about definitional problems.

    Plus, what's the point? Where I live, it's common knowledge that a lot of hole-in-the-wall bars (e. g., Chuck's Place) will be patronized by folks of Scots-Irish/Northern UK ancestry. So what's a Fightin' and Whorin' Quotient do for me? Quantify what I already know from experience, or what?
    , @annamaria
    How it all had started fourteen years ago:
    "14 Years After 9/11: an Improbable World" by Tom Engelhardt http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/mantra_for_9_11_fourteen_years_later_improbable_world_20150909
    "Fourteen years later, isn’t it possible to think of 9/11 as a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled?"

    There were certain people that wanted to profit financially and politically from remaking the Middle East. These people made orders, redraw the laws, and they eventually did make profit from the mass slaughter in the Middle East. Meanwhile, these people have created, quite consciously, "a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled." They are war criminals on a level of those war criminals that were hanged on the conclusion of Nuremberg Process.
  25. @Cyrus
    A country of course needs to be selective in what type of Muslims they allow into their country, but a key thing many people don't mention is the west needs to adopt an isolationist policy towards Muslim conflicts. Much of the refugee/migrant crisis was created by us, the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow was created by the west too. Western foreign policy is a failure.

    Why aren't Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan? What it boils down to is them having not involved themselves with Islam's conflicts. If you want to directly get involved in Islam's conflicts then you shouldn't be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.

    If you want to directly get involved in Islam’s conflicts then you shouldn’t be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.

    You say ‘want to get directly involved’ where I think you mean ‘are the root cause of’. Coz let’s be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.

    There is an excerpt of a letter from Crewe (Viceroy of India) to Hardinge (Secretary of State fort India) in 1914:

    What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West.” Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India (quoted in Busch, Britain, India and the Arabs p62

    Now think about life “BI” (before internet): how would you, a normal everyday person, become aware of that document? Not in school, that’s for certain. If you were a history graduate student with specific interest in the Middle East, maybe. I am prepared to bet that more people – probably a thousand times as many – have read that quote since 2004, than read it between 1914 and 2004.

    It is not really Islam that has led to the problems in the Middle East: political Islam is a straw at which the desperate clutch, but the causa causans is a deliberate “divide et impero’ plan hatched by the British – and made clear in the letter from ‘Lord’ Crewe to ‘Lord’ Hardinge in 1914, which contained the gem quoted above.

    The deliberate fomenting of political discord, violence and repression in the Arab world has been the Western plan since the turn of the 20th century, and it has worked a treat. The ‘House’ of Saud and other despotic regimes are going along with it for reasons of pure self-interest: that is also understandable – it would surprise me if there has been anybody in the history of the world who could resist the genuine prospect of becoming a billionaire by any means.

    The creation of the Zionist enclave in the middle of the Arab world, and the population of that enclave with Eastern Europeans (Belorussians, Poles, Lithuanians etc) with an alien culture overtly hostile to the indigenes, was likewise a deliberate ploy: give the Arabs something local on which to focus their collective hate… all the while each artificial country was riven with internal strife as Sunni, Shia, Kurd and others, failed to get along. ALL BY DESIGN.

    The West used exactly the same mechanisms in Africa. And the US took over the operational management of the entire scheme when the UK warred itself to financial oblivion with 2 unnecessary wars-for-banksters in the first half of the 20th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    You say ‘want to get directly involved’ where I think you mean ‘are the root cause of’. Coz let’s be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.
     
    Look, you're wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.

    Europeans were not responsible for the extremely high rate of cousin marriage in Muslim lands.

    Europeans are not responsible for the endemic corruption nor the tribal nature of Arab and Muslim society.

    And I don't want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully.

  26. @Olorin
    > Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    Yeah, but they're full of Finns and Icelanders. And forty below in the winter.

    Muslims gonna Muzz like Finns gonna Finn.

    But seriously. High-trust high-altruism population pools have another thing going against them.

    It's not just the Muslims manipulating N Euros' genetic tendencies, in order to extend their territory, claim resources, and extend their breeding.

    N Euros have had their good-hearted compassion manipulated and colonized in the past century. They have been relentlessly threatened and punished by powerful people in increasingly powerful institutions for NOT espousing universalist propaganda.

    They now have to choose whether they value their own lives and societies more than they fear, say, losing their jobs/their ability to support/have a family for standing up and saying, "No, not all people are hot-swappable, and I care about my own more than I care about theirs."

    There are lots of people waking up to this, many because of efforts like yours, HBDChick's, and other HBD bloggers.

    Look at the messages being sent by the Boards of Directors (by whatever name) of Yale, U Missouri, Claremont-McKenna, and other places when they fire or pressure into resigning anyone who stands up in the least to the message that all animals are equal, and some are more equal than others.

    Having said, that, thanks for this post. Much in it that will save many of us from having to drag all this stuff out yet again.

    Many europeans feel as they were a cultural and historical heirs of the past mistakes because jewish white guilty. But not because beings have limited life and they are directly guilty about your direct attitudes, as individuals and not as ”part of abstract body called culture”. And fool people are putting in evidence as they were Magic Pipers. Certain primitive ”tribes” are using sincere feelings about very good people to advance their retard ”agenda”. Correct eugenics for all people, blacks, whites, mixed race ones, nonhuman domesticated animals, will be impossible with this IDIOTIC ones in the power.

    Read More
  27. Not to directly elated to the post, but: No quarrel with what JayMan says, but I wonder at the leaving out of national violence from discussions. Peter Frost says, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less personally violent. OK. But if you look at the number of international wars instigated by Europeans and their residue in the US since, say, 1900, and the magnitude of death and destruction caused, and do the same for the lands between the Rio Bravo and Tierra del Fuego, the difference is stark. This is curious in the offspring of such pacific peoples as Aztecs and sixteenth-century Spaniards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Not to directly elated to the post, but: No quarrel with what JayMan says, but I wonder at the leaving out of national violence from discussions. Peter Frost says, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less personally violent. OK. But if you look at the number of international wars instigated by Europeans and their residue in the US since, say, 1900, and the magnitude of death and destruction caused
     
    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pinker-war-deaths-per-100000-people-per-year-the-semai.jpg

    War is a relatively safe thing for NW Euros, even factoring in both World Wars.

  28. @JayMan

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?
     
    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.</blockquote

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you're starting to get it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you're starting to get it…
     

    Let me quote a friend:

    "these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from "the government is doing all these things" to "these things aren't really happening at all"."
     
    Seriously...
  29. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
     
    ISIS fighters aren't a representative cross section of Muslims.

    Islam’s success in becoming a threat to the West has been based on its universal appeal to many groups and cultures.
     
    Ha! No.

    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.
     
    Correct.

    ISIS is an exception to the general clannish behavior of the larger societies in which they operate – which is exactly why they’ve been able to rise to power. If you’re the only group able to coordinate across tribal lines and stick to a unifying agenda, you’re at a huge advantage over the existing population of bickering clans.

    Which makes it sort of ironic that ISIS is the most recognizable problem of the Muslim world, when in fact it’s the least of the problems that the Muslim immigrants have brought with them to Europe.

    Read More
  30. @Diversity Heretic
    Do you have any thoughts on the partition of France into Muslim and non-Muslim zones? British India's partition into India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) was bloody, but is that a precedent? I agree that it might be geographically tricky, but it would probably be superior to civil war/French extinction.

    Forced migration is always a human rights crisis and economic disaster. Partition of France would be worse than India and horrible.

    Once the decision is taken that France should be French, why do it in a nasty way? Just deport the incompatible immigrants and pay the non-French citizens of France to go elsewhere.

    Partition would mean giving up the best part of France (the Riviera) forever and still more eventually as the natives won’t be breeding at the same rate any time soon and the non-France nation will get expansionist.

    Remember how the French felt about Alsace and Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.

    Read More
  31. @Kratoklastes
    Depends critically on your definition of 'terrrrrist' and 'terrrrist act'.

    If you consider members of the political class to be part of each race, and the victims of objectively terrrrrist acts that they perpetrate to be victims of terrrrism, the whites win by a margin of millions.

    A couple of examples - things that the US and NATO do as a matter of course in the first few dozen bombing sorties and missile launches.

    ① Bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants when a country is under embargo (preventing substitutes for water treatment - like chlorine - from being imported). It has the unstated, but obviously deliberate and foreseeable, aim of increasing the rate of water-borne diseases in infants and the elderly.

    ② Bombing of electricity generation plants and electricity distribution infrastructure (network choke-points).

    ③ Area bombing generally. And let's be clear: a 2000lb bomb in an urban landscape is not 'precision' bombing; everyone within 300ft will die, mostly from lung liquefaction as a result of the pressure wave. Draw a line 100 yards from where you're sitting and count the number of people who aren't you (assuming you're the target).

    ① and ② have the unstated, but foreseeable (and ergo deliberate), objective of causing an increase in water-borne disease among infants and the elderly: that's a very specific set of targets; it's deliberate; it's meant to cause horror in the minds of the political class in the target country. babies dying of preventable illness, as a direct, predictable and deliberate consequence of SOP.

    That is the epitome of attempting to "further a political aim by violent means".

    I note that the CIA wants to sticky-tape on a fig-leaf by pretending that if the violence is 'authorised' or 'official' it's not terrrrrrism... but if ISIL is a 'state' and it 'authorises' its actions, how are they terrrrrrism?

    Par contre: if authorisation can not be sui generis, and the US genocide in Iraq was not 'authorised' by the UNSC (the US SecGen declared it was illegal, too), how is that not terrrrism?

    I think when most people talk about terrorism, what they mean are acts of war that don’t have a strategic military objective. They don’t accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target. For example, the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were not part of a serious plan to seize control of New York, and the recent Paris attacks are not part of a serious plan to seize control of Paris.

    My point is not to defend the morality of other acts of war, such as bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants as part of an invasion. Perhaps these acts are much worse than terrorism.

    This definition of terrorism implies that it will normally be practiced by the weak rather than the strong. If they were stronger, they’d have a better plan. Therefore, it requires a different kind of response from the rest of society than violence committed by, say, Obama or Putin would, and so it’s usually a whole different conversation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective"

    Of course terrorism has a strategic object: to terrorize. In fact, terrorism is more purely strategic than most other acts of war, because there's almost no short or medium term purpose to them.

    The way purportedly responsible states try to wriggle out of being called terrorists is by, firstly, falsely equating terrorism with irregular warfare. This is one reason you say terrorism is pacticed by the weak instead of the strong. Terrorism is practiced by both, I assure you. It's just that often the weak only practice terrorism, because they can't afford "conventional" warfare. Hence, secondly, big armies can claim they'd fight fair if only. If only the weak would stand out in an open field so they can blow them up.
    , @Kratoklastes

    They don’t accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target
     
    So not true. And not true at any level (i.e., any scale of action; any timeline; any line of reasoning except some cartoon version).

    First, 'big ticket' items...

    Let's stipulate, arguendo, that the accepted narrative of 911 is correct: 19 Saudis hijack 4 planes, evade the US' trillion-dollar air defences for an implausibly long time, and crash into some iconic buildings - one of which is among the most heavily-protected real estate on Earth.

    The goal accomplished is staggering: it shows that a Death Machine that self-refers as the mightiest military power since the Roman Empire, can be struck within its own borders by a ragtag group of individuals. It shows that billions of dollars' worth of damage can be imposed at a cost of a few hundred grand. (Leave aside that the billions ballooned into trillions as the career parasites of the Thanatocracy licked their lips at the prospect of a new Long War, with all the racketeering that entails - and that's ignoring further trillions of damage to the national balance sheet).

    Second - smallers scale...

    Say, a suicide bomber who drives a truck laden with explosives into the barracks of a foreign military - the effect is less staggering: that's just ordnance delivery when you don't have an air force.

    And lastly, direct, interpersonal violence...

    Say, a local who stabs a foreign invader (or the 'anchor baby' of a foreign invader) in Occupied Palestine. The Palestinians rightly consider all of Palestine to be occupied - not just the bits outside the 1967 or 1948 borders.

    The lowest-scale stuff - direct interpersonal violence - is just the Resistance at work: as anybody familiar with the French Resistance during Nazi Occupation will attest, civilian camp-followers were seen as valid targets. Resistance movements have to make camp-followers aware (be they imported, or local collaborators) that there are costs involved with being part of the occupation machinery - the better to make them consider buggering off back to Eastern Europe (or Brooklyn).
  32. The only thing I find troublesome with this clannishness-gene-culture-coevolution is the amount of variation within the populations. Within centuries there definitely can happen a lot of evolution but only if the variation is already there.

    This isn’t problem with IQ or aggressiveness since both of them vary within populations, but how it is with this clannishness?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The only thing I find troublesome with this clannishness-gene-culture-coevolution is the amount of variation within the populations. Within centuries there definitely can happen a lot of evolution but only if the variation is already there.
     
    There's lots of individual variation within any population. That's all natural selection needs.
  33. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Terrrorism has no religion”

    I’ll turn that around. Name me a terrorist group that didn’t have a religion? – Islamic fundamentalism, extreme anarchism, catholicism (think IRA) communism, Judaism – they’ll all religions baby.

    When someone starts a terrorist group to promote the benefits of organic chemistry or Keynesian economics I’ll consider changing my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "When someone starts a terrorist group to promote the benefits of organic chemistry or Keynesian economics I'll consider changing my opinion."

    Considering you call the atheistic and in all other ways non-traditionally religious communism a religion, I predict that should there ever be a Keynesian Liberation Front you'd simply label it religious.
    , @EvolutionistX
    Ted Kaczynski.
  34. The peaceful solution you didn’t touch on is for Europeans to increase their population in a way they appear to be loathe to do, by making more little Europeans than the immigrants as their patriotic duty. Vive la difference!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The peaceful solution you didn’t touch on is for Europeans to increase their population in a way they appear to be loathe to do, by making more little Europeans than the immigrants as their patriotic duty. Vive la difference!
     
    How is that, by itself, a solution?
  35. @JayMan

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”
     
    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    11,000 Icelanders offered to host refugees. That ~5% of its adult population!

    For Finland this might once have been true but tons of Somalis are now freely making their way there. It might be relatively based by Yurop standards to be sure but only in comparison with the likes of Sweden Yes! and Cuck Germany which are hardly the highest of bars to clear.

    Read More
  36. @WorkingClass
    I agree with Trump. You can't have a country without borders. But borders can be a nuisance for international monopolists. Free trade means open borders. It would be more informative to say you can't have borders without a country. Nation states are ceding their sovereignty to giant corporations. Until that is reversed you will have open borders.

    Muslim "terrorists" have to eat Jay Man. Their genetic imperative to be "terrorists" might not find expression if they were not paid and supplied by someone. Are the paymasters Muslim also? We know Turkey and the Gulf States support ISIS. But so also does the Anglo/Zio Empire. The Wahhabi are tools of Empire. What is the genetic imperative of Neocons and Zionists?

    “Free trade means open borders.”

    No it doesn’t.

    Free trade means free trade, it does not mean open borders and open immigration, which is what you imply. Who told you such nonsense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff77450
    Agreed. Germany & Japan selling large numbers of cars in the U.S. has never involved a mass-migration of Germans & Japanese. A few, yes.
  37. @JayMan

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?
     
    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    Right, and thus far fewer Muslims to frame for the false flags.

    Congratulations, I see you’re starting to get it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Markass
    And who is behind all the false flags of Islamic terror inside Islamic countries? Seems very elaborate, don't you think?

    A steady stream of stabbings, shootings, car attacks etc in all countries around the planet with a significant Muslim population, including totalitarian states like China and backwaters in Africa.

    A 700 year long false flag operation... now that is commitment!
  38. @JayMan

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?
     
    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    Italy**

    Read More
  39. So what to do, then? First and foremost, especially for Northwestern European countries, is to stop admitting Muslims en masse into Europe.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    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.
     
    Not screwing around in the Middle East would help, but that's hardly the source of the problem:

    https://twitter.com/edwest/status/665809309020876800

  40. @Kratoklastes

    If you want to directly get involved in Islam’s conflicts then you shouldn’t be surprised if those conflicts come right into your own soil and disrupt your society.
     
    You say 'want to get directly involved' where I think you mean 'are the root cause of'. Coz let's be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.

    There is an excerpt of a letter from Crewe (Viceroy of India) to Hardinge (Secretary of State fort India) in 1914:

    What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West." Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India (quoted in Busch, Britain, India and the Arabs p62

     

    Now think about life "BI" (before internet): how would you, a normal everyday person, become aware of that document? Not in school, that's for certain. If you were a history graduate student with specific interest in the Middle East, maybe. I am prepared to bet that more people - probably a thousand times as many - have read that quote since 2004, than read it between 1914 and 2004.

    It is not really Islam that has led to the problems in the Middle East: political Islam is a straw at which the desperate clutch, but the causa causans is a deliberate "divide et impero' plan hatched by the British - and made clear in the letter from 'Lord' Crewe to 'Lord' Hardinge in 1914, which contained the gem quoted above.

    The deliberate fomenting of political discord, violence and repression in the Arab world has been the Western plan since the turn of the 20th century, and it has worked a treat. The 'House' of Saud and other despotic regimes are going along with it for reasons of pure self-interest: that is also understandable - it would surprise me if there has been anybody in the history of the world who could resist the genuine prospect of becoming a billionaire by any means.

    The creation of the Zionist enclave in the middle of the Arab world, and the population of that enclave with Eastern Europeans (Belorussians, Poles, Lithuanians etc) with an alien culture overtly hostile to the indigenes, was likewise a deliberate ploy: give the Arabs something local on which to focus their collective hate... all the while each artificial country was riven with internal strife as Sunni, Shia, Kurd and others, failed to get along. ALL BY DESIGN.

    The West used exactly the same mechanisms in Africa. And the US took over the operational management of the entire scheme when the UK warred itself to financial oblivion with 2 unnecessary wars-for-banksters in the first half of the 20th century.

    You say ‘want to get directly involved’ where I think you mean ‘are the root cause of’. Coz let’s be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.

    Look, you’re wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.

    Europeans were not responsible for the extremely high rate of cousin marriage in Muslim lands.

    Europeans are not responsible for the endemic corruption nor the tribal nature of Arab and Muslim society.

    And I don’t want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gosh, you sound like a jerk today: "And I don’t want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully." Razib much?
  41. @Fred Reed
    Not to directly elated to the post, but: No quarrel with what JayMan says, but I wonder at the leaving out of national violence from discussions. Peter Frost says, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less personally violent. OK. But if you look at the number of international wars instigated by Europeans and their residue in the US since, say, 1900, and the magnitude of death and destruction caused, and do the same for the lands between the Rio Bravo and Tierra del Fuego, the difference is stark. This is curious in the offspring of such pacific peoples as Aztecs and sixteenth-century Spaniards.

    Not to directly elated to the post, but: No quarrel with what JayMan says, but I wonder at the leaving out of national violence from discussions. Peter Frost says, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less personally violent. OK. But if you look at the number of international wars instigated by Europeans and their residue in the US since, say, 1900, and the magnitude of death and destruction caused

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pinker-war-deaths-per-100000-people-per-year-the-semai.jpg

    War is a relatively safe thing for NW Euros, even factoring in both World Wars.

    Read More
  42. @Jonathan Revusky

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.</blockquote

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you're starting to get it...

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you’re starting to get it…

    Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”

    Seriously…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”
     
    Wow, what an original thinker this friend of yours is!

    (Not.)

    Look, until a few years ago, I broadly thought like that because I had not actually read any of the so-called "conspiracy theory" literature. At some point, I think, around 2008, I took an interest in the JFK assassination and I read some of the people who are characterised as "crazy conspiracy theorists".

    It did not take very long to realise that I had been had. The alleged crazies were actually simply independent researchers who were not crazy at all! In fact, some of them were clearly very talented, capable people. For example, one of the more important "conspiracy theorists" is a man by the name of Gary Lane, who was one of the best trial lawyers in the United States. The "conspiracy theorists" were simply being smeared as crazies because they were investigating things, such as the Kennedy assassination, that are a threat to the establishment.

    Also there was the growing realisation that, in any debate between so-called "conspiracy theorists" and defenders of the official story, the former were making arguments based on real research, facts and logical analysis, whereas the latter were engaging in pathetic hand-waving like the "friend" you quote above. (In fact, your "friend" above has obviously not even read any of the "conspiracy theory" literature that he is disparaging, just as HBD critics typically have not read any of the HBD literature either!)

    But, in general, you know, this whole idea that you just reject what people are saying on the assumption they are crazy or whatever -- isn't this exactly what HBD deniers do to you? It's a very dangerous thing intellectually, because you just end up in a kind of intellectual (or really, pseudo-intellectual) echo chamber -- refusing to listen to people who have a different view from yours.

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know... "a friend of mine says..." I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don't you just say "I think that...." instead of "a friend of mine says". It seems that you want to throw that out there, but you don't really want to have to defend it... a friend said X.... so you can just slither away if you're called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it's dodgy nonsense.

    It's also odd, since you use a nom de plume, so what you're really doing is a double-weasel thing. You, somebody hiding his identity, quoting somebody who is in turn unnamed. Why?

    It doesn't seem that you really have that much confidence in the argument (if it can even be called that) that your "friend" is making.

    And, by the way, when you go for a beer with this friend, can the other people in the bar see him? Or is it just you?
  43. @Juoni
    The only thing I find troublesome with this clannishness-gene-culture-coevolution is the amount of variation within the populations. Within centuries there definitely can happen a lot of evolution but only if the variation is already there.

    This isn't problem with IQ or aggressiveness since both of them vary within populations, but how it is with this clannishness?

    The only thing I find troublesome with this clannishness-gene-culture-coevolution is the amount of variation within the populations. Within centuries there definitely can happen a lot of evolution but only if the variation is already there.

    There’s lots of individual variation within any population. That’s all natural selection needs.

    Read More
  44. @Kratoklastes
    Depends critically on your definition of 'terrrrrist' and 'terrrrist act'.

    If you consider members of the political class to be part of each race, and the victims of objectively terrrrrist acts that they perpetrate to be victims of terrrrism, the whites win by a margin of millions.

    A couple of examples - things that the US and NATO do as a matter of course in the first few dozen bombing sorties and missile launches.

    ① Bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants when a country is under embargo (preventing substitutes for water treatment - like chlorine - from being imported). It has the unstated, but obviously deliberate and foreseeable, aim of increasing the rate of water-borne diseases in infants and the elderly.

    ② Bombing of electricity generation plants and electricity distribution infrastructure (network choke-points).

    ③ Area bombing generally. And let's be clear: a 2000lb bomb in an urban landscape is not 'precision' bombing; everyone within 300ft will die, mostly from lung liquefaction as a result of the pressure wave. Draw a line 100 yards from where you're sitting and count the number of people who aren't you (assuming you're the target).

    ① and ② have the unstated, but foreseeable (and ergo deliberate), objective of causing an increase in water-borne disease among infants and the elderly: that's a very specific set of targets; it's deliberate; it's meant to cause horror in the minds of the political class in the target country. babies dying of preventable illness, as a direct, predictable and deliberate consequence of SOP.

    That is the epitome of attempting to "further a political aim by violent means".

    I note that the CIA wants to sticky-tape on a fig-leaf by pretending that if the violence is 'authorised' or 'official' it's not terrrrrrism... but if ISIL is a 'state' and it 'authorises' its actions, how are they terrrrrrism?

    Par contre: if authorisation can not be sui generis, and the US genocide in Iraq was not 'authorised' by the UNSC (the US SecGen declared it was illegal, too), how is that not terrrrism?

    Yeah, I can’t disagree with you about definitional problems.

    Plus, what’s the point? Where I live, it’s common knowledge that a lot of hole-in-the-wall bars (e. g., Chuck’s Place) will be patronized by folks of Scots-Irish/Northern UK ancestry. So what’s a Fightin’ and Whorin’ Quotient do for me? Quantify what I already know from experience, or what?

    Read More
  45. @Giuseppe
    The peaceful solution you didn't touch on is for Europeans to increase their population in a way they appear to be loathe to do, by making more little Europeans than the immigrants as their patriotic duty. Vive la difference!

    The peaceful solution you didn’t touch on is for Europeans to increase their population in a way they appear to be loathe to do, by making more little Europeans than the immigrants as their patriotic duty. Vive la difference!

    How is that, by itself, a solution?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
    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.
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Aren’t they always false flags? :\
     
    I don't know about always, but the ones I've studied have turned out to be false flags.

    Is your position then that these events are never false flags?

    But, where do deep state sociopaths come from?

    Read More
  47. @geokat62

    So what to do, then? First and foremost, especially for Northwestern European countries, is to stop admitting Muslims en masse into Europe.
     
    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.

    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.

    Not screwing around in the Middle East would help, but that’s hardly the source of the problem:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    or, how about the fact that there is no Latino terrorism, in spite of the huge population of them in the US and our incessant meddling in their countries?
    , @ormondotvos
    Assumes facts not in evidence. Isis is new on the scene, and the plan is to jam up the West with antiterror trips.
  48. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    You say ‘want to get directly involved’ where I think you mean ‘are the root cause of’. Coz let’s be clear: the US (and before them, the British) policy towards the Middle East is the causa causans of Islamic radicalism, and that policy has continued with the same aim in an unbroken line since before WWI.
     
    Look, you're wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.

    Europeans were not responsible for the extremely high rate of cousin marriage in Muslim lands.

    Europeans are not responsible for the endemic corruption nor the tribal nature of Arab and Muslim society.

    And I don't want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully.

    Gosh, you sound like a jerk today: “And I don’t want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully.” Razib much?

    Read More
  49. @JayMan

    Why aren’t Muslims regularly massacring people in Italy, Singapore or Japan?
     
    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.

    What is the background of JayMan? Why no description of a writer is presented here? Is this his bio?

    ayMan is a US-based racist, sexist, homophobe and self-hating person of color who runs a pseudo-scientific blog devoted to promoting the long-exploded notion of biological “race”, alongside of other aspects of so-called Human Bio-Diversity (HBD). Despite hailing from the rainbow island of Jamaica and claiming to be of multiply-stranded Black / Chinese / “white” heritage,[1] JayMan has chosen to deploy his not-inconsiderable technical and rhetorical skill-set on behalf not of equality, justice and other progressive causes, but of the very worst hate-memes generated by the sleepless bigot-factories of white western prejudice. Like his geek-girl co-conspirator Hbdchick, JayMan is evidence of the horrendous pressures facing vulnerable oppressed communities of color, gender and sexuality under the hegemony of white racist and heterosexist patriarchy. He may be regarded as a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims come to identify with their oppressors and work for causes dear to the oppressors’ hate-filled hearts.
    JayMan’s self-hatred is so cartoonish in style that many assume that he’s a white supremacist.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JayMan

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    What is the background of JayMan? Why no description of a writer is presented here? Is this his bio?
     
    That RationalWiki page is basically self-parody.
  50. It is a treat to read data based reporting, thank you Jayman.

    It looks highly highly likely that a particular scenario will continue.

    1)The cycle of violence will continue, don’t even cloud the issue by saying who is to blame, it is going to escalate.

    2)The result of further terrorism attacks in northern Europe will have the end result of changing the public’s opinion on if more refugees should be allowed in. To put it another way 1 bomb is worth 10,000 blog posts imploring Europe to stop the flow of muslims into Europe.

    3)The borders will closed to massive immigrations like we have just witnesses.

    Being a big fan of Jayman’s style of reporting might I suggest a separate data/graph rich topic that is very pertinent to this story that naturally the mainstream press has neglected to report on. Compare how Mexico has got it’s shit together regarding out of control population growth and muslim countries have not. I am not going start quoting numbers or parading out graphs, that is better done by Jayman, it is simply remarkable. See http://www.gapminder.org/ for beautiful graphs that confirm this. The key number to look at is average children per women. In Mexico the women are using birth control now and the average children per women has dropped from 6!!! to a near replacement level of 2.2. In the muslim world and sub Saharan Africa birth control is still rejected. Which is simply retarded.

    Might I add that Hans Rosling, the creator of Gapminder, is a brilliant economist but in my blunt opinion he has his head up his ass regarding HBD matters. So do a whole lot of people in Europe right now. But guess what, more terrorism will change that. It is sad that people have to suffer to see the truth, but that is just how it is.

    Europe does not have to become an impoverished violent shithole like these Allahforsaken lands that these people are fleeing from. The muslim world has to control their population growth like Mexico has. period. end of sentence. period again.

    Read More
  51. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    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.
     
    Not screwing around in the Middle East would help, but that's hardly the source of the problem:

    https://twitter.com/edwest/status/665809309020876800

    or, how about the fact that there is no Latino terrorism, in spite of the huge population of them in the US and our incessant meddling in their countries?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    or, how about the fact that there is no Latino terrorism
     
    More or less.
  52. Keep it simple, don’t invade the world AND don’t invite the world, and you should have close to zero terrorist threat levels.

    Read More
  53. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Some in the White Right complain that Diversity is pushed on the West alone while non-white nations are encouraged to defend their ‘indigenous’ cultures’.

    This was sort of true for awhile during the post-colonial era, but it hasn’t been true for quite some time. Also, it’s been very selective.

    After all, the West fully supported white European Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, and they go on continuing the support Zionist imperialism-colonization of Palestine that is now Israel. Even the so-called ‘leftist’ is a full supporter of Zionism, and Liberals like Hillary can’t sing enough hosannas to Jewish power and Zionist oppression of Palestinians.

    Also, the Western Media have been very harsh on South African blacks for their violence against black migrants from other African nations. South African blacks are very poor, so they are understandably upset over waves of even poorer blacks swarming in from places like Zimbabwe, but that didn’t stop BBC and NYT from denouncing South African blacks as ‘xenophobes’.

    Also, we have to keep in mind that most Third World nations were Western creations. They are not homogeneous ethno-states but diverse entities created by imperialism that played fast and loose with populations and borders. Just look at Iraq, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and even Turkey. They all suffer from diversity. With the waning of Ottoman empire and Persian empire, other powers entered the scene, and when they left, ‘modern nation-states’ were carved without much regard to ethnic cohesion or geo-demographics.
    So, Kurds, instead of being given a nation of their own, were divided among populations in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
    In Iraq, minority Sunnis were put in positions of power. In Syria, the minority Alawites were put in power. Imperialists played fast and loose like this. And no African nation makes any sense. Some are made up of 100s, even 1000s, of tribes.

    It was less problematic in Asia, but still, ‘India’ is a British creation. India remains diverse and divided. Indonesia is an even crazier creation. The Dutch had possession of some islands, and when they left, all those islands with different ethnic groups were pulled together into one nation.
    Even as the post-WWII era was defined by anti-imperialism, the peoples that rose up were defined in identity by imperialism. In other words, had there been no Dutch imperialism, there would have been no Indonesian identity.

    In some cases, the native nationalism was sufficiently powerful, authentic, and organic to override imperialist impositions. Think of French Indochina composed of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Each group insisted on going separate ways, and the French accepted this.

    Also, during the Age of Empire, the imperialists implemented, encouraged, and even enforced massive migrations of peoples. So, the Brits used Asian-Indians in Africa. Brits used Sikhs in Hong Kong. Brits used Chinese to run business in Southeast Asian nations.
    In the USSR, Stalin forcibly moved entire populations from one area to another. Imperialists always look for collaborators, and there were plenty to be found, and these collaborators were often global in nature. So, Indian and Chinese merchants followed Brits all over the world.
    The French imperialists used African troops in Asia.

    And of course, the New World was created by massive invasions. Despite all the rhetoric, it makes no sense to speak of indigenous rights in the New World. Why? Look at Latin America. Your average person is of mixed race, the product of conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and interracism. And Latin American borders have been weak since the beginning. Despite the best effort of Mexicans, tons of Central Americans pour into Mexico and then pass onto the US. People move back and forth all the time among Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, etc. And between Colombia and Venezuela.

    This ‘indigenous’ talk in Latin America gets silly cuz it’s often made by people of Spanish descent. Given that Spanish itself is a European language, how is it preserving ‘indigenous culture’ by having immigrants from Latin America speak Spanish?

    Also, Western-led wars have led to massive migrations all over the Middle East. US meddling in Afghanistan led to massive Afghan migration into Pakistan, thereby destabilizing that nation. It also sent a lot of Afghanis into Iran, increasing tensions there as well.
    And I never heard of any ‘leftist’ complain about how such massive migrations are hurting ‘indigenous’ cultures.

    The West used to bitch about Han Chinese violation of rights in Tibet, but it’s become muted recently since Jews who run the media realized that what the Chinese to do Tibetans might remind the world of what Jews do to Palestinians.

    US-led war in Iraq led to massive refugee crisis all over the Middle East. Many fled to Iran, Syria, and Turkey, destabilizing conditions in those nations(and Syria is now paying a heavy price; but does anyone hear any criticism from the ‘left’?)
    Again, I never heard of anyone in the West crying out that all this mass movements of peoples are jeopardizing indigenous populations.
    French and UK-led war on Libya led to yet more massive migrations of peoples all over North Africa. Again, which ‘leftist’ complained about this? They were too busy celebrating homo parades to protest these decisions for war by Hollande and Obama.

    Due to Iraq War and Syrian War, Turkey ended up with millions of refugees. Did any Liberal or ‘leftist’ in the West decry that indigenous Turkish identity is being threatened? NO, they were all telling the Turks that they must do more to deal with the problem.

    So, Turkey finally had enough and decided to let loose all these refugees into Europe. And once all political controls were gone in Libya, Africans decided to migrate into and invade not only Libya but catch a boat to Europe.

    So, it’s not a simple case of PC being about ‘diversity for Europe alone’ and ‘indigenous rights for the non-West’.
    Globalism pushes the madness of diversity on every nation.
    Also, we need to keep in mind that many Third World nations were created at the very outset into Diversity States, thereby making them prone to civil wars and ethnic tension. And given loose border patrols in much of the Third World, populations and cultures are changing quite often.

    In a way, the Diversity Wave is crashing onto Europe because European imperialism and Globalist Liberalism have been promoting diversity all over the world. All these tensions and violence in Third World nations led to wars and poverty, and eventually, people seek to move from their own nations and come to more homogeneous West.

    Diversity Wars have a way of spreading.

    Diversity is also spreading because the West dominates intellectual discourse. So, all the non-white elites come to US and Europe to soak up Multi-Culti and homo nonsense. And they return to their nations and promote the same.

    Even Japan is catching this bug. They got themselves a mulatto Ms. Japan. They are now putting on homo parades. And 75% of Japanese corporations want more immigration.
    And Japanese cultural elites want to make Tokyo look like Paris, London, or NY. They are envious of all this ‘vibrant diversity’.

    And of course, Jews want to mix and match the entire world into one diverse hodge-podge since they can play divide-and-rule among all those moronic gentiles.

    PS. Paradoxically, most people on the ‘left’ are there for rightist reasons. If leftism is about universalism and equality under the law and if rightism is about particularism and group interest, then Jews, blacks, and others are merely using leftist rhetoric to serve what are essentially rightist passions. Jews care about Jewish power, blacks care about black power, and etc.

    Just as communism once gave cover to nationalism, ‘leftism’ gives cover to ethno-rightism. Jews use the cult of equality to accumulate more power and privilege for themselves. Blacks want special treatment cuz they want more power for themselves. None are ‘colorblind’.

    Read More
  54. Several points need to be explained

    Why clannish East Asian countries failed to produce significant terrorists?

    During WW 2, occupied France, Noway and other northwestern european countries produce quite a lot of terrorists according to NAZI force record. Certainly you can label them as `resistance’. But if NAZI won the war, the words would stay I can guarrantee you that.

    Why northwestern european countries want kicked out any ethnic different people out of their countires right after WW2 if they were not clannish? The way they kicked out ethnic German was way high in number comparable to Jew’s ethnic cleansing. You wonder why Poland or Czech were so ethnic pure. It was product of ethnic cleansing (most cleasing of German).

    By focusing on facts and less emotional attachment to the pet theroy, you can do better. Otherwise this clanish theory can be degenerated into a form of ieology with stubborn belief. Racism is form of clannish behavior. You can not change that by proselytizing them as most non-clannish. They still would lynch you since you are not member of their clan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    You wonder why Poland or Czech were so ethnic pure. It was product of ethnic cleansing (most cleasing of German).
     
    Poland or the Czech Republic isn't "Northwestern Europe". There are more than enough maps floating around these posts for you to see what I'm talking about.
  55. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I would just like to say, as a recent fan of Unz and even more recent fan of Jayman, that I am spreading this article all over the comments sections of apologist articles.

    Especially the ones that try to make historical-moral-relativism arguments based on the violent history of Christianity.

    Your writing (as well as Peter Frost’s) is fascinating, and it made me extremely uncomfortable when I first encountered it on this site. Some of this “anti-racist” kneejerk sentiment is really hardwired…

    Read More
  56. @JayMan

    So there are fewer such false flag attacks because there are far fewer Muslims to frame for the attacks, right?

    Congratulations. Maybe you're starting to get it…
     

    Let me quote a friend:

    "these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from "the government is doing all these things" to "these things aren't really happening at all"."
     
    Seriously...

    Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”

    Wow, what an original thinker this friend of yours is!

    (Not.)

    Look, until a few years ago, I broadly thought like that because I had not actually read any of the so-called “conspiracy theory” literature. At some point, I think, around 2008, I took an interest in the JFK assassination and I read some of the people who are characterised as “crazy conspiracy theorists”.

    It did not take very long to realise that I had been had. The alleged crazies were actually simply independent researchers who were not crazy at all! In fact, some of them were clearly very talented, capable people. For example, one of the more important “conspiracy theorists” is a man by the name of Gary Lane, who was one of the best trial lawyers in the United States. The “conspiracy theorists” were simply being smeared as crazies because they were investigating things, such as the Kennedy assassination, that are a threat to the establishment.

    Also there was the growing realisation that, in any debate between so-called “conspiracy theorists” and defenders of the official story, the former were making arguments based on real research, facts and logical analysis, whereas the latter were engaging in pathetic hand-waving like the “friend” you quote above. (In fact, your “friend” above has obviously not even read any of the “conspiracy theory” literature that he is disparaging, just as HBD critics typically have not read any of the HBD literature either!)

    But, in general, you know, this whole idea that you just reject what people are saying on the assumption they are crazy or whatever — isn’t this exactly what HBD deniers do to you? It’s a very dangerous thing intellectually, because you just end up in a kind of intellectual (or really, pseudo-intellectual) echo chamber — refusing to listen to people who have a different view from yours.

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know… “a friend of mine says…” I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don’t you just say “I think that….” instead of “a friend of mine says”. It seems that you want to throw that out there, but you don’t really want to have to defend it… a friend said X…. so you can just slither away if you’re called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it’s dodgy nonsense.

    It’s also odd, since you use a nom de plume, so what you’re really doing is a double-weasel thing. You, somebody hiding his identity, quoting somebody who is in turn unnamed. Why?

    It doesn’t seem that you really have that much confidence in the argument (if it can even be called that) that your “friend” is making.

    And, by the way, when you go for a beer with this friend, can the other people in the bar see him? Or is it just you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know… “a friend of mine says…” I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don’t you just say “I think that….” instead of “a friend of mine says”
     
    Because that's the truth. If it was my own idea I wouldn't hesitate to say such.

    so you can just slither away if you’re called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it’s dodgy nonsense.
     
    It should be obvious that I don't care much what the commenters think. And you are more than slightly annoying.
  57. @Kratoklastes
    Depends critically on your definition of 'terrrrrist' and 'terrrrist act'.

    If you consider members of the political class to be part of each race, and the victims of objectively terrrrrist acts that they perpetrate to be victims of terrrrism, the whites win by a margin of millions.

    A couple of examples - things that the US and NATO do as a matter of course in the first few dozen bombing sorties and missile launches.

    ① Bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants when a country is under embargo (preventing substitutes for water treatment - like chlorine - from being imported). It has the unstated, but obviously deliberate and foreseeable, aim of increasing the rate of water-borne diseases in infants and the elderly.

    ② Bombing of electricity generation plants and electricity distribution infrastructure (network choke-points).

    ③ Area bombing generally. And let's be clear: a 2000lb bomb in an urban landscape is not 'precision' bombing; everyone within 300ft will die, mostly from lung liquefaction as a result of the pressure wave. Draw a line 100 yards from where you're sitting and count the number of people who aren't you (assuming you're the target).

    ① and ② have the unstated, but foreseeable (and ergo deliberate), objective of causing an increase in water-borne disease among infants and the elderly: that's a very specific set of targets; it's deliberate; it's meant to cause horror in the minds of the political class in the target country. babies dying of preventable illness, as a direct, predictable and deliberate consequence of SOP.

    That is the epitome of attempting to "further a political aim by violent means".

    I note that the CIA wants to sticky-tape on a fig-leaf by pretending that if the violence is 'authorised' or 'official' it's not terrrrrrism... but if ISIL is a 'state' and it 'authorises' its actions, how are they terrrrrrism?

    Par contre: if authorisation can not be sui generis, and the US genocide in Iraq was not 'authorised' by the UNSC (the US SecGen declared it was illegal, too), how is that not terrrrism?

    How it all had started fourteen years ago:
    “14 Years After 9/11: an Improbable World” by Tom Engelhardt http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/mantra_for_9_11_fourteen_years_later_improbable_world_20150909
    “Fourteen years later, isn’t it possible to think of 9/11 as a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled?”

    There were certain people that wanted to profit financially and politically from remaking the Middle East. These people made orders, redraw the laws, and they eventually did make profit from the mass slaughter in the Middle East. Meanwhile, these people have created, quite consciously, “a mass grave into which significant aspects of American life as we knew it have been shoveled.” They are war criminals on a level of those war criminals that were hanged on the conclusion of Nuremberg Process.

    Read More
  58. @WorkingClass
    I agree with Trump. You can't have a country without borders. But borders can be a nuisance for international monopolists. Free trade means open borders. It would be more informative to say you can't have borders without a country. Nation states are ceding their sovereignty to giant corporations. Until that is reversed you will have open borders.

    Muslim "terrorists" have to eat Jay Man. Their genetic imperative to be "terrorists" might not find expression if they were not paid and supplied by someone. Are the paymasters Muslim also? We know Turkey and the Gulf States support ISIS. But so also does the Anglo/Zio Empire. The Wahhabi are tools of Empire. What is the genetic imperative of Neocons and Zionists?

    Genetics aren’t nearly as specific for traits of behavior as eye color might be specific. Many commenters, and the blog author, are over-attributing genetic inputs to behavior, and ignoring the very high input of social mores and cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Many commenters, and the blog author, are over-attributing genetic inputs to behavior, and ignoring the very high input of social mores and cultures.
     
    No, actually, I know about behavioral genetics, specially that All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable.

    Enlighten yourself and don't make more stupid comments.

  59. @JayMan

    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.
     
    Not screwing around in the Middle East would help, but that's hardly the source of the problem:

    https://twitter.com/edwest/status/665809309020876800

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Isis is new on the scene, and the plan is to jam up the West with antiterror trips.

    Read More
  60. @Anonymous
    Gosh, you sound like a jerk today: "And I don’t want to hear any more of that shit here, so please comment carefully." Razib much?

    Comment here and you get what you get.

    Read More
  61. @No Second Israel
    What is the background of JayMan? Why no description of a writer is presented here? Is this his bio?


    ayMan is a US-based racist, sexist, homophobe and self-hating person of color who runs a pseudo-scientific blog devoted to promoting the long-exploded notion of biological "race", alongside of other aspects of so-called Human Bio-Diversity (HBD). Despite hailing from the rainbow island of Jamaica and claiming to be of multiply-stranded Black / Chinese / "white" heritage,[1] JayMan has chosen to deploy his not-inconsiderable technical and rhetorical skill-set on behalf not of equality, justice and other progressive causes, but of the very worst hate-memes generated by the sleepless bigot-factories of white western prejudice. Like his geek-girl co-conspirator Hbdchick, JayMan is evidence of the horrendous pressures facing vulnerable oppressed communities of color, gender and sexuality under the hegemony of white racist and heterosexist patriarchy. He may be regarded as a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims come to identify with their oppressors and work for causes dear to the oppressors' hate-filled hearts.
    JayMan's self-hatred is so cartoonish in style that many assume that he's a white supremacist.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JayMan

    What is the background of JayMan? Why no description of a writer is presented here? Is this his bio?

    That RationalWiki page is basically self-parody.

    Read More
  62. @Anonymous
    or, how about the fact that there is no Latino terrorism, in spite of the huge population of them in the US and our incessant meddling in their countries?

    or, how about the fact that there is no Latino terrorism

    More or less.

    Read More
  63. @AG
    Several points need to be explained

    Why clannish East Asian countries failed to produce significant terrorists?

    During WW 2, occupied France, Noway and other northwestern european countries produce quite a lot of terrorists according to NAZI force record. Certainly you can label them as `resistance'. But if NAZI won the war, the words would stay I can guarrantee you that.

    Why northwestern european countries want kicked out any ethnic different people out of their countires right after WW2 if they were not clannish? The way they kicked out ethnic German was way high in number comparable to Jew's ethnic cleansing. You wonder why Poland or Czech were so ethnic pure. It was product of ethnic cleansing (most cleasing of German).

    By focusing on facts and less emotional attachment to the pet theroy, you can do better. Otherwise this clanish theory can be degenerated into a form of ieology with stubborn belief. Racism is form of clannish behavior. You can not change that by proselytizing them as most non-clannish. They still would lynch you since you are not member of their clan.

    You wonder why Poland or Czech were so ethnic pure. It was product of ethnic cleansing (most cleasing of German).

    Poland or the Czech Republic isn’t “Northwestern Europe”. There are more than enough maps floating around these posts for you to see what I’m talking about.

    Read More
  64. @ormondotvos
    Genetics aren't nearly as specific for traits of behavior as eye color might be specific. Many commenters, and the blog author, are over-attributing genetic inputs to behavior, and ignoring the very high input of social mores and cultures.

    Many commenters, and the blog author, are over-attributing genetic inputs to behavior, and ignoring the very high input of social mores and cultures.

    No, actually, I know about behavioral genetics, specially that All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable.

    Enlighten yourself and don’t make more stupid comments.

    Read More
  65. @Jonathan Revusky
    All the "Islamist terrorism" is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    As for the high rate of violence in certain Muslim countries, these are countries in the middle of civil wars, conflicts that were fomented by western Deep State operations.

    Muslim countries that are not afflicted by war, such as Morocco or Turkey, say, have extremely low rates of violent crime.

    In any case, it's pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.
     
    Exactly.
  66. @Jonathan Revusky

    Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”
     
    Wow, what an original thinker this friend of yours is!

    (Not.)

    Look, until a few years ago, I broadly thought like that because I had not actually read any of the so-called "conspiracy theory" literature. At some point, I think, around 2008, I took an interest in the JFK assassination and I read some of the people who are characterised as "crazy conspiracy theorists".

    It did not take very long to realise that I had been had. The alleged crazies were actually simply independent researchers who were not crazy at all! In fact, some of them were clearly very talented, capable people. For example, one of the more important "conspiracy theorists" is a man by the name of Gary Lane, who was one of the best trial lawyers in the United States. The "conspiracy theorists" were simply being smeared as crazies because they were investigating things, such as the Kennedy assassination, that are a threat to the establishment.

    Also there was the growing realisation that, in any debate between so-called "conspiracy theorists" and defenders of the official story, the former were making arguments based on real research, facts and logical analysis, whereas the latter were engaging in pathetic hand-waving like the "friend" you quote above. (In fact, your "friend" above has obviously not even read any of the "conspiracy theory" literature that he is disparaging, just as HBD critics typically have not read any of the HBD literature either!)

    But, in general, you know, this whole idea that you just reject what people are saying on the assumption they are crazy or whatever -- isn't this exactly what HBD deniers do to you? It's a very dangerous thing intellectually, because you just end up in a kind of intellectual (or really, pseudo-intellectual) echo chamber -- refusing to listen to people who have a different view from yours.

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know... "a friend of mine says..." I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don't you just say "I think that...." instead of "a friend of mine says". It seems that you want to throw that out there, but you don't really want to have to defend it... a friend said X.... so you can just slither away if you're called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it's dodgy nonsense.

    It's also odd, since you use a nom de plume, so what you're really doing is a double-weasel thing. You, somebody hiding his identity, quoting somebody who is in turn unnamed. Why?

    It doesn't seem that you really have that much confidence in the argument (if it can even be called that) that your "friend" is making.

    And, by the way, when you go for a beer with this friend, can the other people in the bar see him? Or is it just you?

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know… “a friend of mine says…” I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don’t you just say “I think that….” instead of “a friend of mine says”

    Because that’s the truth. If it was my own idea I wouldn’t hesitate to say such.

    so you can just slither away if you’re called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it’s dodgy nonsense.

    It should be obvious that I don’t care much what the commenters think. And you are more than slightly annoying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Because that’s the truth. If it was my own idea I wouldn’t hesitate to say such.
     
    Oh, so you think that this trite nonsense where your "friend" says "these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world blah blah" actually originate with that individual? You really don't realize that he himself was just repeating something he had heard elsewhere?

    It should be obvious that I don’t care much what the commenters think.
     
    Okay, I get that. I was young and arrogant once too, but I earlier posed a question:

    Is your position then that these events are never false flags?
     
    You never answered. I don't see why an intellectually honest person would refuse to answer that.
  67. @Mark Caplan
    Arab Muslim "countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts" since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other's throats.

    Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.

    Exactly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Marc Caplan: Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.

    JayMan: Exactly
     
    There's no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?
  68. {That RationalWiki page is basically self-parody.}

    So it is true, and this is YOU. Your ‘analysis’ shows it, that’s why I got curious to find out who is this crazy person. Your name was not known to me, but your view is disgusting and very close those illuminati at the ‘wheel’.

    I am shocked to see that this site is printing the nonsense of a black racist here and he dares to write the following:

    {Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”

    Seriously…}

    The wiki description tells you he is a racist person of color. Please read the description to understand his ‘analysis’ of Muslims.

    His bio reads:

    {JayMan is a US-based racist, sexist, homophobe and self-hating person of color who runs a pseudo-scientific blog devoted to promoting the long-exploded notion of biological “race”, alongside of other aspects of so-called Human Bio-Diversity (HBD)….He may be regarded as a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims come to identify with their oppressors and work for causes dear to the oppressors’ hate-filled hearts.
    JayMan’s self-hatred is so cartoonish in style that many assume that he’s a white supremacist.}

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JayMan

    It is unbelievable!!!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    So it is true, and this is YOU. Your ‘analysis’ shows it, that’s why I got curious to find out who is this crazy person. Your name was not known to me, but your view is disgusting and very close those illuminati at the ‘wheel’.
     
    I approve your comments because you're amusing to me. We'll see how long that lasts...
  69. @JayMan

    Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.
     
    Exactly.

    Marc Caplan: Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.

    JayMan: Exactly

    There’s no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    There’s no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?
     
    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pinker-war-deaths-per-100000-people-per-year-the-semai.jpg
  70. @No Second Israel
    {That RationalWiki page is basically self-parody.}

    So it is true, and this is YOU. Your 'analysis' shows it, that's why I got curious to find out who is this crazy person. Your name was not known to me, but your view is disgusting and very close those illuminati at the 'wheel'.

    I am shocked to see that this site is printing the nonsense of a black racist here and he dares to write the following:

    {Let me quote a friend:

    “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world. Better to think that the evil illuminati are running things than to accept that no one is at the wheel. So they move from “the government is doing all these things” to “these things aren’t really happening at all”.”

    Seriously…}

    The wiki description tells you he is a racist person of color. Please read the description to understand his 'analysis' of Muslims.

    His bio reads:

    {JayMan is a US-based racist, sexist, homophobe and self-hating person of color who runs a pseudo-scientific blog devoted to promoting the long-exploded notion of biological “race”, alongside of other aspects of so-called Human Bio-Diversity (HBD)....He may be regarded as a prime example of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims come to identify with their oppressors and work for causes dear to the oppressors’ hate-filled hearts.
    JayMan’s self-hatred is so cartoonish in style that many assume that he’s a white supremacist.}

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JayMan

    It is unbelievable!!!!!!!

    So it is true, and this is YOU. Your ‘analysis’ shows it, that’s why I got curious to find out who is this crazy person. Your name was not known to me, but your view is disgusting and very close those illuminati at the ‘wheel’.

    I approve your comments because you’re amusing to me. We’ll see how long that lasts…

    Read More
  71. @geokat62

    Marc Caplan: Arab Muslim “countries have been in the middle of civil wars, conflicts” since Mohammad packed his goat skins for Medina, except when an iron-fisted tyrant was briefly able to keep the barbarians from each other’s throats.

    JayMan: Exactly
     
    There's no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?

    There’s no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pinker-war-deaths-per-100000-people-per-year-the-semai.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Perhaps you wouldn't mind walking us through the graph you linked to. I didn't notice any Muslim countries in the state section above Germany, Russia, or France. Am I missing something?
  72. @JayMan

    There’s no denying that Muslim countries have had their share of conflicts, but how do those conflicts compare to all the wars Western countries have been involved in, including two world wars?
     
    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pinker-war-deaths-per-100000-people-per-year-the-semai.jpg

    Perhaps you wouldn’t mind walking us through the graph you linked to. I didn’t notice any Muslim countries in the state section above Germany, Russia, or France. Am I missing something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    The point is the share of men that die in violence is higher in Muslim countries than it is in NW Europe, even factoring in the World Wars.
  73. “The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims.”

    Corrected for accuracy—The bulk of terrorism comes from fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim.

    “Forced migration is always a human rights crisis and economic disaster.”

    There has not been any forced migration in France—laws were passed by French citizens to enable immigrants to come to France.

    “Look, you’re wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.”

    
The recent problems in the Middle East have everything to do with European colonial policies and American foreign affairs intervention—see the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    “The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims.”

    Corrected for accuracy—The bulk of terrorism comes from fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim.
     

    They happen to be Muslim a lot – which is the point.

    “Look, you’re wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.”

    
The recent problems in the Middle East have everything to do with European colonial policies and American foreign affairs intervention—see the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh.
     

    See a few comments up.
  74. @geokat62
    Perhaps you wouldn't mind walking us through the graph you linked to. I didn't notice any Muslim countries in the state section above Germany, Russia, or France. Am I missing something?

    The point is the share of men that die in violence is higher in Muslim countries than it is in NW Europe, even factoring in the World Wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    That may be your point, but the question I put to you was: does the graph you linked to support your point, or doesn't it?

    Simple question deserves a simple response, no?
  75. @Corvinus
    “The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims.”

    Corrected for accuracy—The bulk of terrorism comes from fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim.

    “Forced migration is always a human rights crisis and economic disaster.”

    There has not been any forced migration in France—laws were passed by French citizens to enable immigrants to come to France.

    “Look, you’re wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.”

    
The recent problems in the Middle East have everything to do with European colonial policies and American foreign affairs intervention—see the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh.

    “The bulk of “terrorism” comes from one broad group of people: Muslims.”

    Corrected for accuracy—The bulk of terrorism comes from fundamentalists who happen to be Muslim.

    They happen to be Muslim a lot – which is the point.

    “Look, you’re wrong. The problems in the Middle East pre-date European arrival and persist long after the Europeans were gone.”

    
The recent problems in the Middle East have everything to do with European colonial policies and American foreign affairs intervention—see the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh.

    See a few comments up.

    Read More
  76. @JayMan
    The point is the share of men that die in violence is higher in Muslim countries than it is in NW Europe, even factoring in the World Wars.

    That may be your point, but the question I put to you was: does the graph you linked to support your point, or doesn’t it?

    Simple question deserves a simple response, no?

    Read More
  77. @JayMan

    The other thing I wonder about is why you use this whole weasel mode of discourse. You know… “a friend of mine says…” I mean, if you agree with those views, then why don’t you just say “I think that….” instead of “a friend of mine says”
     
    Because that's the truth. If it was my own idea I wouldn't hesitate to say such.

    so you can just slither away if you’re called on your B.S. I mean to say, deep down, consciously or not, you must know it’s dodgy nonsense.
     
    It should be obvious that I don't care much what the commenters think. And you are more than slightly annoying.

    Because that’s the truth. If it was my own idea I wouldn’t hesitate to say such.

    Oh, so you think that this trite nonsense where your “friend” says “these grand conspiracy theories are based on a desire for order in the world blah blah” actually originate with that individual? You really don’t realize that he himself was just repeating something he had heard elsewhere?

    It should be obvious that I don’t care much what the commenters think.

    Okay, I get that. I was young and arrogant once too, but I earlier posed a question:

    Is your position then that these events are never false flags?

    You never answered. I don’t see why an intellectually honest person would refuse to answer that.

    Read More
  78. Look at the maps of the countries afflicted and ravaged by wars for last 50 yrs . One country that is not a neighbor happens to be sitting right there next to each country . Its name is America. That map can tell you something profound on destructive impulses and repulsive ideals drawn directly from religion, global humanism,right to protect,right to treat everyone else as uneducated,unwashed masses of evil or ignorance who needs lectures on changing their wsys of life with a stick over their head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Yeah. Because 1965 was Year Zero for Muslim terrorism and violence.

    Try again.
  79. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Jayman, there is something I dont understand in what you call clannishness.

    What it is going on in the head of a clannish individual ? Does he have empathy only for family members ?  For example, when a clannish person learn that someone he never met before is his brother would he feel automatically empathy for him while being like a psychopath toward him 2 minutes before he learn that ?

    Is clanishness based on knowledge (knowing that someone share copies of your genes) or on physical similarity (people who look like are more likely to be more genetically related than people who dont) ?

    Sorry for the english.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/tag/clannishness/
  80. “Maher tells Colbert: Republicans want to kill radical Muslims, but we need to kill their ideas
    “They talk about wiping them out,” Maher explained. Colbert added that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has talked about “turning the desert into glass” with attacks on the Islamic State group.

    “‘Right, they’d give up to him because he’s a chicken-hawk with a law degree,” Maher scoffed, adding, “That’s crazy — just the idea that you can ‘wipe them out.’ This is the old Vietnam model. Body counts. Remember Vietnam?”

    “You can’t wipe people off the map — that’s not gonna happen,” Maher continued. “What you have to do is wipe out the idea. It’d be one thing if the terrorists did not share ideas with lots of mainstream people who follow the Islamic religion. But they do.”

    Maher did not mention that the coordinated attacks against Paris last week have been roundly condemned by Muslims around the world.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/maher-tells-colbert-republicans-want-to-kill-radical-muslims-but-we-need-to-kill-their-ideas/&#8221;

    Maher who has not suffered a single member corrects Cruz (who also has not suffered a single loss ) in a pro active encouraging hands on manner they way teacher encourages a student to make some adjustment .
    Is it somekind of entitlement ? Does it come as given for pure simple fact of association with whiteness and Christianess or simply by not being associated with Arab or Islam ?
    Maher doesn’t want to be left out while analytical political intellectual hays could be made out of this sunshine of darkness. May be his motive is purely based on self preservation Hate and malevolent thought won’t disrupt the effort but in absolute terms ,be immensely helpful.

    Colbert should have retorted how this endeavor worked out in Nazi Germany,StalinsGulag, Pol Pot’s killing field ,and in Bush’s Haditha . It is very possible that Maher would have looked up for the Teleprompter to say- look at Israel, how it has done .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    “You can’t wipe people off the map — that’s not gonna happen,” Maher continued. “What you have to do is wipe out the idea."


    DNA is not an "idea."

    To wipe out the DNA that structures and transports "ideas" regarding religion or social structure or family structure from generation to generation/individual to individual--that works out to "wiping people off the map."

    Maher, as usual, is pretending to be a deeper thinker than everybody else...without having done any homework. The smartest-kid-in-the-class syndrome.

  81. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    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.

    Their only unifying force, I imagine, is their common enemies.

    Read More
  82. @JayMan

    Surely Western countries can imagine that there exists some middle ground between “We hate everyone else” and “Let’s let in everyone!”
     
    One would hope. Finland and Iceland manage to pull it off – sort of.

    In Ireland we are just blundering through and seeing what happens as usual. I doubt the Finns are that much more forward-looking. The ones I know are very SJW. In a way I think finnish weirdness (not WEIRDness) functions as a sort of shield to exclude outsiders, almost unbeknownst to the Finns.

    Read More
  83. @Greg Pandatshang
    I think when most people talk about terrorism, what they mean are acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective. They don't accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target. For example, the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were not part of a serious plan to seize control of New York, and the recent Paris attacks are not part of a serious plan to seize control of Paris.

    My point is not to defend the morality of other acts of war, such as bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants as part of an invasion. Perhaps these acts are much worse than terrorism.

    This definition of terrorism implies that it will normally be practiced by the weak rather than the strong. If they were stronger, they'd have a better plan. Therefore, it requires a different kind of response from the rest of society than violence committed by, say, Obama or Putin would, and so it's usually a whole different conversation.

    “acts of war that don’t have a strategic military objective”

    Of course terrorism has a strategic object: to terrorize. In fact, terrorism is more purely strategic than most other acts of war, because there’s almost no short or medium term purpose to them.

    The way purportedly responsible states try to wriggle out of being called terrorists is by, firstly, falsely equating terrorism with irregular warfare. This is one reason you say terrorism is pacticed by the weak instead of the strong. Terrorism is practiced by both, I assure you. It’s just that often the weak only practice terrorism, because they can’t afford “conventional” warfare. Hence, secondly, big armies can claim they’d fight fair if only. If only the weak would stand out in an open field so they can blow them up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Mostly agree with you, guest. WWII's Anglo-American bomber forces were sometimes referred to by the Germans as terror bombers for obvious reasons. Anglo-American and allied Soviet forces were relatively strong, too, with respect to Germany and its allies.

    My reading of so-called strategic (i. e., terror) bombing is that, indeed, it did something and does something of military value. Munitions factories are destroyed; civilians are frightened; civil defense measures drain resources from the front. But, as far as I know, civilians don't panic en masse, they're made to feel more in solidarity with troops at the front, and, they do not petition their government to sue for peace. I'm no expert here, so there may be some exceptions.
    , @Greg Pandatshang
    Terrorize and then what? When, for example, Timothy McVeigh blows up a federal building, it doesn't terrify the populace so that his troops can spring into action somewhere and do something. It just terrifies people and accomplishes nothing else. And so people call him a terrorist. If there's no plan to do something militarily to follow up then I don't see how it can be described as a military objective.
    , @Kratoklastes
    The primary strategic aim of 'weak side' terrrrism is not to terrrrrise (or terrrrize, if you prefer US spelling).

    The primary strategic aim of 'weak side' terrrrism is to impose costs on the enemy that cannot be imposed by direct action. 4th generation war is characterised by asymmetries in materiel, force size and technology, and 'Team Big' (which will always lose a 4th generation war) always calls 'Team 4G' terrrrrists. It has been that way since the Romans had trouble with the sicarii and zelotes - which the Romans referred to as 'lestai' (brigands) because doing so attempted to delegitimise their cause (which was the same as the Arab cause today: to get a bunch of Eurotrash off their land).

    An example of the exigencies of technological asymmetry:

    Let's say there's an iconic building in downtown Baghdad, and - like all big buildings - it's got a TV broadcast antenna on top of it.

    Well, the US would launch a Tomahawk from a guided missile frigate, and that tomahawk would pretty much destroy the building. After all - as the news reporters would be told - it was a communications hub, and thus part of 'command, control and communications (C3) infrastructure' (and ergo - according to the Pentagon's degenerate view of international law - a valid target).

    Job done - costs imposed.

    Now let's just change lat-long, and put the building in New York (and let's give it a name... the World Trade Centre).

    And let's say you're part of a group that has had a gutful of a hundred years of Western interference in your part of the world, and you want to impose battle-level costs on the US... but you don't have any guided missile frigates.

    What do?

    Find a fast-moving metal tube full of flammable liquid, and find a way to direct it towards the building...

    Job done - costs imposed (and how!).

    (Leave aside that such a plan depends critically on magically avoiding an air-defence network so good it had a fighter off the wing of Payne Stewart's ill-fated plane within a quarter-hour of the plane losing radio contact).


    You can sum it up in one sentence: A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force. (from p93 of William Blum's "Rogue State", published in 2000).
  84. @Anonymous
    "Terrrorism has no religion"

    I'll turn that around. Name me a terrorist group that didn't have a religion? - Islamic fundamentalism, extreme anarchism, catholicism (think IRA) communism, Judaism - they'll all religions baby.

    When someone starts a terrorist group to promote the benefits of organic chemistry or Keynesian economics I'll consider changing my opinion.

    “When someone starts a terrorist group to promote the benefits of organic chemistry or Keynesian economics I’ll consider changing my opinion.”

    Considering you call the atheistic and in all other ways non-traditionally religious communism a religion, I predict that should there ever be a Keynesian Liberation Front you’d simply label it religious.

    Read More
  85. @guest
    "acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective"

    Of course terrorism has a strategic object: to terrorize. In fact, terrorism is more purely strategic than most other acts of war, because there's almost no short or medium term purpose to them.

    The way purportedly responsible states try to wriggle out of being called terrorists is by, firstly, falsely equating terrorism with irregular warfare. This is one reason you say terrorism is pacticed by the weak instead of the strong. Terrorism is practiced by both, I assure you. It's just that often the weak only practice terrorism, because they can't afford "conventional" warfare. Hence, secondly, big armies can claim they'd fight fair if only. If only the weak would stand out in an open field so they can blow them up.

    Mostly agree with you, guest. WWII’s Anglo-American bomber forces were sometimes referred to by the Germans as terror bombers for obvious reasons. Anglo-American and allied Soviet forces were relatively strong, too, with respect to Germany and its allies.

    My reading of so-called strategic (i. e., terror) bombing is that, indeed, it did something and does something of military value. Munitions factories are destroyed; civilians are frightened; civil defense measures drain resources from the front. But, as far as I know, civilians don’t panic en masse, they’re made to feel more in solidarity with troops at the front, and, they do not petition their government to sue for peace. I’m no expert here, so there may be some exceptions.

    Read More
  86. @Anonymous
    "Terrrorism has no religion"

    I'll turn that around. Name me a terrorist group that didn't have a religion? - Islamic fundamentalism, extreme anarchism, catholicism (think IRA) communism, Judaism - they'll all religions baby.

    When someone starts a terrorist group to promote the benefits of organic chemistry or Keynesian economics I'll consider changing my opinion.

    Ted Kaczynski.

    Read More
  87. @JayMan

    The peaceful solution you didn’t touch on is for Europeans to increase their population in a way they appear to be loathe to do, by making more little Europeans than the immigrants as their patriotic duty. Vive la difference!
     
    How is that, by itself, a solution?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    A person with five children is BUSY with the every day minutia of keeping their children alive ... 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.
     
    To the extent that that is even true, you're assuming that having children is somehow completely exogenous to the person.
  88. The relative tranquility of these years is likely an antebellum period which will be followed by an astonishing rise in in-grouping and inter-group violence not seen outside of 3rd world countries for centuries.

    Today’s Westerners exhibit complacency to a self-destructive level that defies measurement (except in current and extrapolated body counts.) Do not think this condition is permanent, it’s not. According to the Socionomic Hypothesis (socionomics.net), the rise and fall in social mood is entirely endogenous, it does not respond to outside forces or events in the slightest.

    The social mood that will eventually follow this manic “we are the world” folly should provide future historians with material that only those with the strongest stomachs will sift. As others have noted, diversity + proximity = war. I only add that an historic decline in social mood will be like raising diversity to a large exponent in the above equation.

    What is coming is a return to “the calamitous fourteenth century,” with non-state warfare, famine and pandemic disease set to take center stage.

    Read More
  89. @Anonymous
    Jayman, there is something I dont understand in what you call clannishness.

    What it is going on in the head of a clannish individual ? Does he have empathy only for family members ?  For example, when a clannish person learn that someone he never met before is his brother would he feel automatically empathy for him while being like a psychopath toward him 2 minutes before he learn that ?

    Is clanishness based on knowledge (knowing that someone share copies of your genes) or on physical similarity (people who look like are more likely to be more genetically related than people who dont) ?

    Sorry for the english.
    Read More
  90. @KA
    "Maher tells Colbert: Republicans want to kill radical Muslims, but we need to kill their ideas
    “They talk about wiping them out,” Maher explained. Colbert added that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has talked about “turning the desert into glass” with attacks on the Islamic State group.

    “‘Right, they’d give up to him because he’s a chicken-hawk with a law degree,” Maher scoffed, adding, “That’s crazy — just the idea that you can ‘wipe them out.’ This is the old Vietnam model. Body counts. Remember Vietnam?”


    “You can’t wipe people off the map — that’s not gonna happen,” Maher continued. “What you have to do is wipe out the idea. It’d be one thing if the terrorists did not share ideas with lots of mainstream people who follow the Islamic religion. But they do.”

    Maher did not mention that the coordinated attacks against Paris last week have been roundly condemned by Muslims around the world.



    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/maher-tells-colbert-republicans-want-to-kill-radical-muslims-but-we-need-to-kill-their-ideas/"

    Maher who has not suffered a single member corrects Cruz (who also has not suffered a single loss ) in a pro active encouraging hands on manner they way teacher encourages a student to make some adjustment .
    Is it somekind of entitlement ? Does it come as given for pure simple fact of association with whiteness and Christianess or simply by not being associated with Arab or Islam ?
    Maher doesn't want to be left out while analytical political intellectual hays could be made out of this sunshine of darkness. May be his motive is purely based on self preservation Hate and malevolent thought won't disrupt the effort but in absolute terms ,be immensely helpful.

    Colbert should have retorted how this endeavor worked out in Nazi Germany,StalinsGulag, Pol Pot's killing field ,and in Bush's Haditha . It is very possible that Maher would have looked up for the Teleprompter to say- look at Israel, how it has done .

    “You can’t wipe people off the map — that’s not gonna happen,” Maher continued. “What you have to do is wipe out the idea.”

    DNA is not an “idea.”

    To wipe out the DNA that structures and transports “ideas” regarding religion or social structure or family structure from generation to generation/individual to individual–that works out to “wiping people off the map.”

    Maher, as usual, is pretending to be a deeper thinker than everybody else…without having done any homework. The smartest-kid-in-the-class syndrome.

    Read More
  91. @KA
    Look at the maps of the countries afflicted and ravaged by wars for last 50 yrs . One country that is not a neighbor happens to be sitting right there next to each country . Its name is America. That map can tell you something profound on destructive impulses and repulsive ideals drawn directly from religion, global humanism,right to protect,right to treat everyone else as uneducated,unwashed masses of evil or ignorance who needs lectures on changing their wsys of life with a stick over their head.

    Yeah. Because 1965 was Year Zero for Muslim terrorism and violence.

    Try again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    well... could you tell us about middle-eastern terrorism that is as destructive as the illegal Iraq war waged by the US & vassals? How come that the worst quasi-terrorist activities in the middle east were run either with the US blessing or by the US best allies, such as the middle eastern kingdoms financing religious fanatics? If you are not keen to talk about the distant 1965, there are the last 14 years of slaughter of civilian population in the ME by the US & best friends (plus sectarian strife unleashed by the illegal wars). If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.
    If you are so distraught with the incident of terrorism in the Middle East, then you should wonder, how come that the three functioning middle eastern states that used to successfully suppress the terrorism (and provided their citizens with decent lives, including decent education for girls and women) were destroyed by the US/EU/UK/Israel alliance.
  92. @EvolutionistX
    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.

    A person with five children is BUSY with the every day minutia of keeping their children alive … 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.

    To the extent that that is even true, you’re assuming that having children is somehow completely exogenous to the person.

    Read More
  93. In – The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

    by David Talbot , we get a peek into the torture meme of the US.

    One can see the emergence of the Deep State in USA during Eisenhower -Nixon administration. It was also one of the period where CIA engaged in worst violence against innocent unarmed people from Africa to Guatemala and from Vietnam to Iran . Use of Nuclear bomb would be casually mentioned by Dulles Brothers . But the torture including splaying of limbs before tearing them apart ,smashing chair against the head ,periodic bombings of the villages full of poor peasant and even public humiliation of the elected leader in front of TV by parading them half naked were all par for the course.

    IS violence is much rooted in religious belief ( including hatred of other faiths) and in End Time belief as it is in the tortured labyrinthine prison complex experiences by some of its leaders .

    Read More
  94. “See a few comments up.”

    Exactly why I properly responded to your claim.

    “They happen to be Muslim a lot – which is the point.”

    They happen to be radical Muslim, not Muslim, which is the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    They happen to be radical Muslim, not Muslim, which is the point.
     
    Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point.

    This is getting old.

  95. @Corvinus
    “See a few comments up.”

    Exactly why I properly responded to your claim.

    “They happen to be Muslim a lot – which is the point.”

    They happen to be radical Muslim, not Muslim, which is the point.

    They happen to be radical Muslim, not Muslim, which is the point.

    Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point.

    This is getting old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point."

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly? What about the great chess player Kissinger; had not his policies inflicted the terrible sufferings on the millions of people? What about Cheney, Bush, and PNAC? - these modern-day sadists live in the western country...
  96. @Jonathan Revusky
    All the "Islamist terrorism" is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    As for the high rate of violence in certain Muslim countries, these are countries in the middle of civil wars, conflicts that were fomented by western Deep State operations.

    Muslim countries that are not afflicted by war, such as Morocco or Turkey, say, have extremely low rates of violent crime.

    In any case, it's pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    Go take your meds, or get back to your asylum, looney bin, shrinks couch, etc.

    Read More
  97. @Olorin
    Yeah. Because 1965 was Year Zero for Muslim terrorism and violence.

    Try again.

    well… could you tell us about middle-eastern terrorism that is as destructive as the illegal Iraq war waged by the US & vassals? How come that the worst quasi-terrorist activities in the middle east were run either with the US blessing or by the US best allies, such as the middle eastern kingdoms financing religious fanatics? If you are not keen to talk about the distant 1965, there are the last 14 years of slaughter of civilian population in the ME by the US & best friends (plus sectarian strife unleashed by the illegal wars). If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.
    If you are so distraught with the incident of terrorism in the Middle East, then you should wonder, how come that the three functioning middle eastern states that used to successfully suppress the terrorism (and provided their citizens with decent lives, including decent education for girls and women) were destroyed by the US/EU/UK/Israel alliance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.
     
    Annamarina, in the words of the rock band, Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Along with the quote from M&W I previously provided, here's another one. This time it's excerpt from the most recent article by James Petras:

    Once again the least influential faction in Washington turned out to be the oil and gas industry, which lost lucrative contracts it had already signed with the Gaddafi regime. Thousands of highly trained foreign oil workers were withdrawn. After Iraq, it should have been obvious that these wars were not ‘for oil’!...

    It should be noted that at no point did the oil and business elite play any significant role in war policy.

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/wars-us-militarist-factions-in-command/
     
  98. @JayMan

    They happen to be radical Muslim, not Muslim, which is the point.
     
    Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point.

    This is getting old.

    “Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point.”

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly? What about the great chess player Kissinger; had not his policies inflicted the terrible sufferings on the millions of people? What about Cheney, Bush, and PNAC? – these modern-day sadists live in the western country…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly?
     
    Look a few comments up. Or see the maps in the post. This is really getting stupid.
  99. @annamaria
    "Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point."

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly? What about the great chess player Kissinger; had not his policies inflicted the terrible sufferings on the millions of people? What about Cheney, Bush, and PNAC? - these modern-day sadists live in the western country...

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly?

    Look a few comments up. Or see the maps in the post. This is really getting stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    JayMan: "This is really getting stupid."

    Could you look after your manners when entering the Unz Comment section? Particularly if you want to impress the readers with your scholarship?
    , @KA
    "I think, at this point, the possibility that the terrorists may have had state support has to be considered. The near simultaneous attacks on multiple targets, the timing and planning involved, and at least circumstantial evidence that Abaaoud has been shielded in some way – perhaps by supporting players – all point to a level of tradecraft a bit higher than what is achievable by former Ba’athist officers in Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service."

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/17/whos-behind-the-islamic-state/

    "
    The Pope, for example, might say that we need peace in the Middle East, but he would never say: the western powers should give up their ambitions and get out. He knows his place. This is what Islamists don’t do. They don’t subordinate themselves to the secular authorities. It may be that Islam is the last major religion to be depoliticized."
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/18/isis-and-the-west-with-god-on-their-side/



    How the West Created the Islamic State
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

    Though I like your idea of disallowing any Muslim immigrant to US or France or UK or Israel for a while ,at least .
    But why disallow Alwaites ,Shie,Kurd,Yedzis?
    May be Western Sahara or Central Asia couldbe asked to take some ( there millions in Jordan and Turkey already compared to thousands in US.
    Next time there were a similar war against" Soviet" in another " Afghanistsn ", I also hope Pakistan makes sure that those 15 millions displaced find a place in Americca)

    War is not cheap regime change is not cheap, killing someone for no reason isn't blowback free ,

    Years ago Marx articulated the unspoken truth to British Raj following 1957 rebellion against East India Company: This is not about Muslim eating pork or Hindus eating beef by the diktat It is about oppression famine starvation and torture carried by economic policy of Rast India Comany
    Yes back then even Charles Dickens called I Dian nothing but fanatic monster.
    , @Santoculto
    Why*
  100. @JayMan

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly?
     
    Look a few comments up. Or see the maps in the post. This is really getting stupid.

    JayMan: “This is really getting stupid.”

    Could you look after your manners when entering the Unz Comment section? Particularly if you want to impress the readers with your scholarship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Could you look after your manners when entering the Unz Comment section?
     
    Hans Gruber, the original Die Hard, about time point 1:14. I can't find a clip on YouTube, but hopefully you get to see what I mean.
  101. @JayMan

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly?
     
    Look a few comments up. Or see the maps in the post. This is really getting stupid.

    “I think, at this point, the possibility that the terrorists may have had state support has to be considered. The near simultaneous attacks on multiple targets, the timing and planning involved, and at least circumstantial evidence that Abaaoud has been shielded in some way – perhaps by supporting players – all point to a level of tradecraft a bit higher than what is achievable by former Ba’athist officers in Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service.”

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/17/whos-behind-the-islamic-state/


    The Pope, for example, might say that we need peace in the Middle East, but he would never say: the western powers should give up their ambitions and get out. He knows his place. This is what Islamists don’t do. They don’t subordinate themselves to the secular authorities. It may be that Islam is the last major religion to be depoliticized.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/18/isis-and-the-west-with-god-on-their-side/

    How the West Created the Islamic State

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

    Though I like your idea of disallowing any Muslim immigrant to US or France or UK or Israel for a while ,at least .
    But why disallow Alwaites ,Shie,Kurd,Yedzis?
    May be Western Sahara or Central Asia couldbe asked to take some ( there millions in Jordan and Turkey already compared to thousands in US.
    Next time there were a similar war against” Soviet” in another ” Afghanistsn “, I also hope Pakistan makes sure that those 15 millions displaced find a place in Americca)

    War is not cheap regime change is not cheap, killing someone for no reason isn’t blowback free ,

    Years ago Marx articulated the unspoken truth to British Raj following 1957 rebellion against East India Company: This is not about Muslim eating pork or Hindus eating beef by the diktat It is about oppression famine starvation and torture carried by economic policy of Rast India Comany
    Yes back then even Charles Dickens called I Dian nothing but fanatic monster.

    Read More
  102. My Finnish friend (a Colonel) in the Army stated that there was a presence of Muslims but they are carefully ‘vetted” and only if they are “fit” to be part of the social milieu. And it helps that it is freezing most of the year so those who would otherwise flock that far north are fewer than say, Italy or France. Additionally, Finland never had colonies in the first place where said brethren would be free to migrate.

    Read More
  103. Jayman,
    A question: how, in HBD terms, does one account for the clear sociopathy of the US/UK/Israeli elite? Regardless of whether you accept that there have been any false flags, you surely can see that our various invasions and regime overthrows, etc. are far from our far flung “democratic” values. Is there a sociopath gene?
    Comment: You so easily get irritated by comments that disagree with yours, or when people don’t read all of your various links. Is that useful? Perhaps it’s genetic, but I recommend trying to curb it until your arguments get stronger. What you see in your litany of links and statistics are subject to multiple interpretations, not to mention that even you have said that some behaviors happen too quickly to be genetic, like universalism.
    Also, bear in mind that Mr. Unz himself has said that he believes that false flags are certainly a possibility. Surely, you see him as someone that doesn’t merely accept everything at a glance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    A question: how, in HBD terms, does one account for the clear sociopathy of the US/UK/Israeli elite? Regardless of whether you accept that there have been any false flags, you surely can see that our various invasions and regime overthrows, etc. are far from our far flung “democratic” values. Is there a sociopath gene?
     
    all human behavioral traits are heritable, including psychopathy.

    That said, you give the elites far too much credit in how much foresight they actually have.


    Comment: You so easily get irritated by comments that disagree with yours, or when people don’t read all of your various links. Is that useful?
     
    I think so.

    It's fairly simple to understand:

    https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/660808215425363968

    Get it?

    If you don't know what you're talking about, and all the commenters I've called out on this don't, try not to be a pompous ass about it, and certainly don't do it here.

  104. @JayMan

    Have you had an access to the European history? For the starter, there was the Russian Socialist Revolution led by Jews. Deeper in time, there was British Empire that was not particularly gentle towards the population of Indian subcontinent. The French Revolution was cruel to too many people. The religious wars in Europe were plain ugly. The WWI and WWII were run by Europeans.; do you really want to convince the readers that the parties involved in these two wars behaved nobly?
     
    Look a few comments up. Or see the maps in the post. This is really getting stupid.

    Why*

    Read More
  105. Bill Neo Crystal is looking at the bonanza. He wont say that He wont admit he benefits from the fallout on terrorism like more speech ,more adulation, more appearances , even the possibility of another opportunity at aCabinet job like back good old days

    He is definitely looking at the graph of the TQ ( terrorism Quotient)

    from “Who’s Making A Killing From the Paris Terror Attacks?

    Daniel McAdams, November 18, 2015

    “Bill Kristol has blown a gasket, quoting Winston Churchill about “total victory.” On This Week Sunday, he smirked that while “Americans are a little war weary and they’re worried about another intervention in the Middle East… If ISIS is going to be destroyed, America has to be in the lead… you are going to need troops on the ground.” He’d like to see 50,000 Americans go to war in Syria.
    Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are demanding a US ground force of 80-100,000 US soldiers to invade Syria with the unenviably complex task of wiping out ISIS, clearing out Russia, and tossing out Syrian President Assad. That should leave…

    http://www.unz.com/jman/terrorism-quotient/

    Read More
    • Replies: @bunga
    It is actually at this site


    http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/11/18/whos-making-a-killing-from-the-paris-terror-attacks/
  106. @bunga
    Bill Neo Crystal is looking at the bonanza. He wont say that He wont admit he benefits from the fallout on terrorism like more speech ,more adulation, more appearances , even the possibility of another opportunity at aCabinet job like back good old days

    He is definitely looking at the graph of the TQ ( terrorism Quotient)

    from "Who’s Making A Killing From the Paris Terror Attacks?

    Daniel McAdams, November 18, 2015

    "Bill Kristol has blown a gasket, quoting Winston Churchill about “total victory.” On This Week Sunday, he smirked that while “Americans are a little war weary and they’re worried about another intervention in the Middle East… If ISIS is going to be destroyed, America has to be in the lead… you are going to need troops on the ground.” He’d like to see 50,000 Americans go to war in Syria.
    Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are demanding a US ground force of 80-100,000 US soldiers to invade Syria with the unenviably complex task of wiping out ISIS, clearing out Russia, and tossing out Syrian President Assad. That should leave…

    http://www.unz.com/jman/terrorism-quotient/
    Read More
  107. Backlash sounds like a good idea to me. You state that backlash is how Muslims keep one another in check. Proven tech.

    Deportation sounds like a good idea to me, too. They’ll be happier among their own kind.

    Read More
  108. Muslims seem to produce a high frequency of such radicals. Which, again, Is. The. Point.

    This is getting old.

    Get used to skipping his comments. Head full of bad wiring.

    You never answered. I don’t see why an intellectually honest person would refuse to answer that.

    You mean, the way you steadfastly refuse to answer questions put to you (e.g., were the Moon landings faked)?

    Thanks for announcing that you’re intellectually dishonest. We all knew it, but confessions are nice and neat.

    Read More
  109. All the “Islamist terrorism” is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    The “independent researchers” are liars, spinning false narratives. “False flag” research, if you will, engaged in a conspiracy to cover up for Muslim barbarians.

    Then there’s the so-called “oppression of the Palestinians,” a pack of lies concocted by Muslim propagandists.

    Read More
  110. How do we explain the Nazis then?

    I ask because if Europeans need to fight we need to know how the most demonized regime ever did it.

    Obviously I am not going to suggest genocide, but it’s the most recent racialist regime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    How do we explain the Nazis then?
     
    See a few comments up.
  111. @Wally
    "Free trade means open borders."

    No it doesn't.

    Free trade means free trade, it does not mean open borders and open immigration, which is what you imply. Who told you such nonsense?

    Agreed. Germany & Japan selling large numbers of cars in the U.S. has never involved a mass-migration of Germans & Japanese. A few, yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnAnon
    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US. Japan would have easily sent more people here, but back when we controlled trade, we also proscribed large scale immigration to the US. The free movement of capital is related to the free movement of people. Sovereignty is the act of preventing the "free" part of both. There is little justification to say that we have a right to ban one, but not the right to ban another.
  112. @Elitedeviance
    Jayman,
    A question: how, in HBD terms, does one account for the clear sociopathy of the US/UK/Israeli elite? Regardless of whether you accept that there have been any false flags, you surely can see that our various invasions and regime overthrows, etc. are far from our far flung "democratic" values. Is there a sociopath gene?
    Comment: You so easily get irritated by comments that disagree with yours, or when people don't read all of your various links. Is that useful? Perhaps it's genetic, but I recommend trying to curb it until your arguments get stronger. What you see in your litany of links and statistics are subject to multiple interpretations, not to mention that even you have said that some behaviors happen too quickly to be genetic, like universalism.
    Also, bear in mind that Mr. Unz himself has said that he believes that false flags are certainly a possibility. Surely, you see him as someone that doesn't merely accept everything at a glance.

    A question: how, in HBD terms, does one account for the clear sociopathy of the US/UK/Israeli elite? Regardless of whether you accept that there have been any false flags, you surely can see that our various invasions and regime overthrows, etc. are far from our far flung “democratic” values. Is there a sociopath gene?

    all human behavioral traits are heritable, including psychopathy.

    That said, you give the elites far too much credit in how much foresight they actually have.

    Comment: You so easily get irritated by comments that disagree with yours, or when people don’t read all of your various links. Is that useful?

    I think so.

    It’s fairly simple to understand:

    Get it?

    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, and all the commenters I’ve called out on this don’t, try not to be a pompous ass about it, and certainly don’t do it here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elitedeviance

    That said, you give the elites far too much credit in how much foresight they actually have.
     
    Possibly, but here are some elite accomplishments that seem incontrovertible:
    --Establishment of the OSS>CIA>Litany of intelligence networks--it's quite clear that these networks are founded, funded, and fostered by elite groups, and that they have managed to overthrow regimes in Iran, Latin America, Vietnam, and elsewhere--regardless of whether you believe they perpetrated other acts often attributed to them.
    --More specifically, let's look at the activities of the NSA. Certainly, their ubiquitous "eavesdropping" was unofficially "known", but with Snowden's whistle-blowing, it became a matter of official fact, as every revelation was answered with a lie, and then responded to with evidence. It was one of those few cases where a paper trail was able to be established to overcome their lies.
    --Operation Gladio in Europe. Again, it took an insider whistle-blower to reveal that covert false flag terrorism was being used by stay behind operatives of the OSS/CIA to attempt to overturn communist influence in Europe.
    --Compulsory public education. Matt Riddley ably documents that education was evolving quite naturally in Europe, when elites suddenly imposed top-down strategies to take control over it for their own purposes. This process began in the 1800's and continues to the present day.

    One could easily also make mention of the deep connections of the political class which allows them to remain in office and then maintain their positions in banking, lobbying, universities, think-tanks, etc. after retiring.

    Now, this isn't to suggest that they don't make heaps of blunders or that many of their so-called plans go array. Nonetheless, they do make plans, they do "conspire", and, from time to time, they do accomplish major victories for themselves.

    As to whether 9/11, for example, was perpetrated by elite sociopaths or Arab jihadis, well, we will never know for sure, since the "facts" can't be established without real subpoena power. What we do know about those events are remarkably little. Indeed, when you dig into the details, all that can honestly be established is that 2 planes flew into two buildings, and that 3 buildings fell unusually quickly and oddly straight down whilst creating enormous amounts of dust. Everything else is either propaganda (from government, media (operation paperclip), and the 9-11 commission report, or speculation--some of it insane or stupid, some of it honest and intelligent.

    Also, many thanks for your thorough research into things HBD. I truly appreciate it, and enjoy it immensely. I only question your comment response because I wish to see your work appreciated.
  113. @Daniel
    How do we explain the Nazis then?

    I ask because if Europeans need to fight we need to know how the most demonized regime ever did it.

    Obviously I am not going to suggest genocide, but it's the most recent racialist regime.

    How do we explain the Nazis then?

    See a few comments up.

    Read More
  114. Hey JayMan, do I have to suck up to you to get a comment through? Here goes; you’re not a coward at all.

    Anyhoo, if it’s “da genes,” what happened in America from 1776 (and before) through 1965? Or at least, 1924 through 1965?

    The elite turned hostile, is what happened. Not NW Euro genes.

    Read More
  115. “The rot can be traced, however, to the election of Nicolas Sarkozy whose first trip overseas was to visit George W. Bush. France, we were told, owed America an apology for the Chirac government’s decision to abandon its American ally and steer clear of the Iraqi misadventure. We should have smelled a giant rat when Sarkozy begged forgiveness for what could be described as France’s most intelligent foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War.”

    http://original.antiwar.com/steven_vujacic/2015/11/18/french-middle-east-policy-reaches-a-bloody-dead-end/

    It boils down to this simple truth- our Sarkozy did offer heart felt apology for not mass murdering Iraqis under the leadership of the neocon and for ignoring the opportunity of destroying each and every family of Iraq.

    Read More
  116. @Jeff77450
    Agreed. Germany & Japan selling large numbers of cars in the U.S. has never involved a mass-migration of Germans & Japanese. A few, yes.

    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US. Japan would have easily sent more people here, but back when we controlled trade, we also proscribed large scale immigration to the US. The free movement of capital is related to the free movement of people. Sovereignty is the act of preventing the “free” part of both. There is little justification to say that we have a right to ban one, but not the right to ban another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US.
     
    Germans-Americans aren't the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.
  117. “or the long-term Mexican residents of El Norte in the U.S. do” – those would be the ones that assimilated. The more recent arrivals however, account for the overwhelming majority. IE 100%, as our population was 0% Hispanic in 1960, if for no other reason than the assimilated group from the 1850s did not call themselves Hispanics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    “or the long-term Mexican residents of El Norte in the U.S. do” – those would be the ones that assimilated.
     
    That would be no.

    Assimilation doesn't exist.

  118. @annamaria
    well... could you tell us about middle-eastern terrorism that is as destructive as the illegal Iraq war waged by the US & vassals? How come that the worst quasi-terrorist activities in the middle east were run either with the US blessing or by the US best allies, such as the middle eastern kingdoms financing religious fanatics? If you are not keen to talk about the distant 1965, there are the last 14 years of slaughter of civilian population in the ME by the US & best friends (plus sectarian strife unleashed by the illegal wars). If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.
    If you are so distraught with the incident of terrorism in the Middle East, then you should wonder, how come that the three functioning middle eastern states that used to successfully suppress the terrorism (and provided their citizens with decent lives, including decent education for girls and women) were destroyed by the US/EU/UK/Israel alliance.

    If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.

    Annamarina, in the words of the rock band, Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. Along with the quote from M&W I previously provided, here’s another one. This time it’s excerpt from the most recent article by James Petras:

    Once again the least influential faction in Washington turned out to be the oil and gas industry, which lost lucrative contracts it had already signed with the Gaddafi regime. Thousands of highly trained foreign oil workers were withdrawn. After Iraq, it should have been obvious that these wars were not ‘for oil’!

    It should be noted that at no point did the oil and business elite play any significant role in war policy.

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/wars-us-militarist-factions-in-command/

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    So we are left with the interwoven 1. & 2. factors:
    1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars.
  119. @AnAnon
    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US. Japan would have easily sent more people here, but back when we controlled trade, we also proscribed large scale immigration to the US. The free movement of capital is related to the free movement of people. Sovereignty is the act of preventing the "free" part of both. There is little justification to say that we have a right to ban one, but not the right to ban another.

    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US.

    Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

    And there is no such thing as "British" ethnic group.
    Irish-American.
    English-American.
    Scottish-American.
    etc, etc.

    No such thing as British-American.

    , @AnAnon
    "That would be no.

    Assimilation doesn’t exist." - maybe, but they didn't demand to be seen as specifically and emphatically different from other Americans. Even if it was all just papering over differences(to a certain extent, obviously African Americans weren't included, and Asians were likewise excluded to the point of being initially put in the black camp) that do exist, they were willing to play ball.

    And on that note, Scots aren't Anglo-Saxons.
  120. @AnAnon
    "or the long-term Mexican residents of El Norte in the U.S. do" - those would be the ones that assimilated. The more recent arrivals however, account for the overwhelming majority. IE 100%, as our population was 0% Hispanic in 1960, if for no other reason than the assimilated group from the 1850s did not call themselves Hispanics.

    “or the long-term Mexican residents of El Norte in the U.S. do” – those would be the ones that assimilated.

    That would be no.

    Assimilation doesn’t exist.

    Read More
  121. @annamaria
    JayMan: "This is really getting stupid."

    Could you look after your manners when entering the Unz Comment section? Particularly if you want to impress the readers with your scholarship?

    Could you look after your manners when entering the Unz Comment section?

    Hans Gruber, the original Die Hard, about time point 1:14. I can’t find a clip on YouTube, but hopefully you get to see what I mean.

    Read More
  122. @geokat62

    If you wonder why the US have spent so much money in the distant lands, there are three main profiteering parties: 1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars; 3. oilmen.
     
    Annamarina, in the words of the rock band, Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Along with the quote from M&W I previously provided, here's another one. This time it's excerpt from the most recent article by James Petras:

    Once again the least influential faction in Washington turned out to be the oil and gas industry, which lost lucrative contracts it had already signed with the Gaddafi regime. Thousands of highly trained foreign oil workers were withdrawn. After Iraq, it should have been obvious that these wars were not ‘for oil’!...

    It should be noted that at no point did the oil and business elite play any significant role in war policy.

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/wars-us-militarist-factions-in-command/
     

    So we are left with the interwoven 1. & 2. factors:
    1. Israel that has been seeing the realization if its sweet dream of balkanization of the Middle East; 2. War manufacturers and contractors looking for geopolitical conveniences to sell more WMD and make more money on wars.

    Read More
  123. @JayMan

    A question: how, in HBD terms, does one account for the clear sociopathy of the US/UK/Israeli elite? Regardless of whether you accept that there have been any false flags, you surely can see that our various invasions and regime overthrows, etc. are far from our far flung “democratic” values. Is there a sociopath gene?
     
    all human behavioral traits are heritable, including psychopathy.

    That said, you give the elites far too much credit in how much foresight they actually have.


    Comment: You so easily get irritated by comments that disagree with yours, or when people don’t read all of your various links. Is that useful?
     
    I think so.

    It's fairly simple to understand:

    https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/660808215425363968

    Get it?

    If you don't know what you're talking about, and all the commenters I've called out on this don't, try not to be a pompous ass about it, and certainly don't do it here.

    That said, you give the elites far too much credit in how much foresight they actually have.

    Possibly, but here are some elite accomplishments that seem incontrovertible:
    –Establishment of the OSS>CIA>Litany of intelligence networks–it’s quite clear that these networks are founded, funded, and fostered by elite groups, and that they have managed to overthrow regimes in Iran, Latin America, Vietnam, and elsewhere–regardless of whether you believe they perpetrated other acts often attributed to them.
    –More specifically, let’s look at the activities of the NSA. Certainly, their ubiquitous “eavesdropping” was unofficially “known”, but with Snowden’s whistle-blowing, it became a matter of official fact, as every revelation was answered with a lie, and then responded to with evidence. It was one of those few cases where a paper trail was able to be established to overcome their lies.
    –Operation Gladio in Europe. Again, it took an insider whistle-blower to reveal that covert false flag terrorism was being used by stay behind operatives of the OSS/CIA to attempt to overturn communist influence in Europe.
    –Compulsory public education. Matt Riddley ably documents that education was evolving quite naturally in Europe, when elites suddenly imposed top-down strategies to take control over it for their own purposes. This process began in the 1800′s and continues to the present day.

    One could easily also make mention of the deep connections of the political class which allows them to remain in office and then maintain their positions in banking, lobbying, universities, think-tanks, etc. after retiring.

    Now, this isn’t to suggest that they don’t make heaps of blunders or that many of their so-called plans go array. Nonetheless, they do make plans, they do “conspire”, and, from time to time, they do accomplish major victories for themselves.

    As to whether 9/11, for example, was perpetrated by elite sociopaths or Arab jihadis, well, we will never know for sure, since the “facts” can’t be established without real subpoena power. What we do know about those events are remarkably little. Indeed, when you dig into the details, all that can honestly be established is that 2 planes flew into two buildings, and that 3 buildings fell unusually quickly and oddly straight down whilst creating enormous amounts of dust. Everything else is either propaganda (from government, media (operation paperclip), and the 9-11 commission report, or speculation–some of it insane or stupid, some of it honest and intelligent.

    Also, many thanks for your thorough research into things HBD. I truly appreciate it, and enjoy it immensely. I only question your comment response because I wish to see your work appreciated.

    Read More
  124. I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as ‘Laws’. ‘All traits are heritable’ is different from ‘all traits are ineluctably inherited’. ‘Heritable’ implies that the converse ‘not heritable’ is somewhat likely, if not equally so. There are mathematical processes where initial conditions restricting the set of outcomes does not necessarily imply determinism. Actually, the reverse can be true as well: apparent randomness can conceal deterministic processes.

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

    However the haste to crown as ‘Laws’ things that very well might turn out not to be the case, seems to have overtaken scientific caution.

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don’t respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious). However, annamarina’s observation was nothing of the sort, and moreover, the graph that you linked as response to geokat’s query showed nothing in the way of your claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as ‘Laws’.
     
    I think I've covered why in several posts...

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.
     
    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don’t respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious).
     
    I generally avoid insulting people, but happy to call a stupid comment such. In any case, you and everyone else see my newly published comment policy.
  125. @JayMan

    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US.
     
    Germans-Americans aren't the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.

    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

    And there is no such thing as “British” ethnic group.
    Irish-American.
    English-American.
    Scottish-American.
    etc, etc.

    No such thing as British-American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8
     

    You're wrong:

    Demography is Destiny, American Nations Edition

    , @JayMan
    I've deleted your most recent comment. It was clear that you didn't even read what I gave you. That is precisely the thing that will get your comment trashed – and get you banned if you keep it up.
  126. @JayMan

    Given that German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US.
     
    Germans-Americans aren't the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.

    “That would be no.

    Assimilation doesn’t exist.” – maybe, but they didn’t demand to be seen as specifically and emphatically different from other Americans. Even if it was all just papering over differences(to a certain extent, obviously African Americans weren’t included, and Asians were likewise excluded to the point of being initially put in the black camp) that do exist, they were willing to play ball.

    And on that note, Scots aren’t Anglo-Saxons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Scots aren’t Anglo-Saxons
     
    They are, partly.
  127. @Avery
    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

    And there is no such thing as "British" ethnic group.
    Irish-American.
    English-American.
    Scottish-American.
    etc, etc.

    No such thing as British-American.

    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

    You’re wrong:

    Demography is Destiny, American Nations Edition

    Read More
  128. @AnAnon
    "That would be no.

    Assimilation doesn’t exist." - maybe, but they didn't demand to be seen as specifically and emphatically different from other Americans. Even if it was all just papering over differences(to a certain extent, obviously African Americans weren't included, and Asians were likewise excluded to the point of being initially put in the black camp) that do exist, they were willing to play ball.

    And on that note, Scots aren't Anglo-Saxons.

    Scots aren’t Anglo-Saxons

    They are, partly.

    Read More
  129. @Sam Shama
    I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as 'Laws'. 'All traits are heritable' is different from 'all traits are ineluctably inherited'. 'Heritable' implies that the converse 'not heritable' is somewhat likely, if not equally so. There are mathematical processes where initial conditions restricting the set of outcomes does not necessarily imply determinism. Actually, the reverse can be true as well: apparent randomness can conceal deterministic processes.

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that 'conjectures' or at best ' strong conjectures' would better suit the case.

    However the haste to crown as 'Laws' things that very well might turn out not to be the case, seems to have overtaken scientific caution.

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don't respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious). However, annamarina's observation was nothing of the sort, and moreover, the graph that you linked as response to geokat's query showed nothing in the way of your claim.

    I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as ‘Laws’.

    I think I’ve covered why in several posts…

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don’t respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious).

    I generally avoid insulting people, but happy to call a stupid comment such. In any case, you and everyone else see my newly published comment policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Ok. I will read Barnes et al and see on what basis they call these observations 'Laws'.
    , @Sam Shama
    The below blockquoted section highlights your response to my observation that these behavioural traits and their genetic causes are obtained through correlation type analyses and should therefore not rise beyond the characterisation of 'conjectures', or equivalently statistical hypothesis.



    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

     

    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

     

    I read the papers.[I had a couple of hours to kill] As I suspected, they do draw conclusions from correlations. Using longitudinal data on identical and non-identical twins and some standard software package they estimate what is called an ACE model. These models aren't anything complicated and I am sure most Unz readers can handle them. Basically one estimates the parameters of a simple linear system using (optionally) statistical maximum likelihood methods. Using parameter estimates the researcher then makes certain probabilistic statements based on correlations and variance. So far I don't see any attempts [honest on their part] to even speak of specifying a model of causation, for that would be a great deal closer to an actual theory, but would require de-expressing and re-expressing identified genes or networks, and then observing behavioural outcomes over periods of time. A very tall order.

    In their own words, e.g., in the paper "Behavioral Genetic Test of Evolutionary Taxonomy", the authors note (main conclusions):


    [..] revealed that the best-fitting model was the AE model for both the LCP measure and sexual promiscuity. Heritability and the non-shared environment accounted for all of the variance in both variables. LCP offender classification was roughly 79 % heritable, and sexual promiscuity was approximately 50 % heritable.

    [......]

    Figure2 contains the results from this portion of the analysis, and the results support the prediction that shared genetic factors influence both LCP offending and sexual involvement. Not only did the genetic risk scales covary with one another, but they were also significantly predictive across traits.

    [...]

    The current study was intended to further unpack the nature and origins of LCP criminal behavior. Ellis (1988 ) was one of the first scholars to draw attention to the fact that a variety of important life history traits correlate with criminal outcomes.These associations may have emerged because of selection forces acting to locate humans along a spectrum ranging from either more, or less,K-selected (i.e., faster versus slower life histories;

    [....]

    With the above in mind, it would be hasty to conclude this study without recognizing the inherent limitations—both theoretical and methodological—that we faced. First, it is possible that sexual promiscuity and LCP offending correlate for reasons other than life history selection.

     

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of 'Laws', as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    So your quip 'Nope' above, means rather little to me.

    P.S. : I read your comment policy and it is a howler of an example in self-congratulatory twaddle with the perfunctory disclaimers such as ' I am not averse to criticism...' . etc.

    I won't be sampling any more of your columns - a mutually non-discernible absence I might add - because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.
  130. @Avery
    {Germans-Americans aren’t the largest ethnic group in America. British-Americans are.}

    Yes: Germans are.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-ethnic-groups-in-america-2013-8

    And there is no such thing as "British" ethnic group.
    Irish-American.
    English-American.
    Scottish-American.
    etc, etc.

    No such thing as British-American.

    I’ve deleted your most recent comment. It was clear that you didn’t even read what I gave you. That is precisely the thing that will get your comment trashed – and get you banned if you keep it up.

    Read More
  131. @JayMan

    I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as ‘Laws’.
     
    I think I've covered why in several posts...

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.
     
    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don’t respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious).
     
    I generally avoid insulting people, but happy to call a stupid comment such. In any case, you and everyone else see my newly published comment policy.

    Ok. I will read Barnes et al and see on what basis they call these observations ‘Laws’.

    Read More
  132. @Jonathan Revusky
    All the "Islamist terrorism" is false flag. The Muslims who are involved are patsies. Independent researchers have certainly established this for the major incidents such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

    As for the high rate of violence in certain Muslim countries, these are countries in the middle of civil wars, conflicts that were fomented by western Deep State operations.

    Muslim countries that are not afflicted by war, such as Morocco or Turkey, say, have extremely low rates of violent crime.

    In any case, it's pathetic to take obvious false flag operations as your proof of how violent Muslims are.

    I don’t think you understand what a false flag is. The requirements of a false flag demand the existence of a likely perpetrator, without which the false flag would not be possible. In other words, without the presence of Muslims in Western countries, these false flag operations could not credibly exist.

    A false flag is a “false, but accurate” event. The particular attack may not have been committed by the group, but it is sufficiently similar to the group’s behavior to credibly associate the act with the group itself. For example, the Reichstag Bombing can be plausibly blamed on the Communists because they have already established a reputation for open violence, even if they had nothing to do with that particular act of violence.

    So, even if 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings and Paris are all false flag events, they can only be pulled off because of the large presence of Muslims in Western countries, Muslim with a history of violence against infidels.

    Consider how the Turkish soccer audience reacted when a moment of silence was asked for the Paris victims. They chanted Allahu Akbar. Does that sound like they believed that attack was a false flag? Could the government engineer a false flag with the Amish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I don’t think you understand what a false flag is.
     
    I'm pretty sure I do.

    A false flag is a “false, but accurate” event.
     
    If a Jewish ethnic were framed for being a financial fraudster a la Bernie Madoff, would that be a good example then?

    The particular attack may not have been committed by the group, but it is sufficiently similar to the group’s behavior to credibly associate the act with the group itself.
     
    Well, when you say the "group's behavior" you really mean perceived behaviour. I mean, if people are exposed to 30 or 40 years worth of Hollywood movies in which Arabs and Muslims generally are portrayed as ultra-violent psychos, then when they are presented some narrative in which some Arabs or Muslims are ultra-violent psychos, it rings true to them, because of the prior conditioning.

    But, yes, you do have some sort of point, I guess. If you frame people for a crime, it is better if it is at least somewhat credible. If some very hyper-sexual promiscuous person is accused of some kind of sex crime, like sex with somebody underage, the accusation is more credible than if the person is some sort of very prim, proper, borderline asexual sort of person.

    But the issue isn't whether the accusations are prima facie credible. The issue is whether they are true!

    So, even if 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings and Paris are all false flag events, they can only be pulled off because of the large presence of Muslims in Western countries, Muslim with a history of violence against infidels.
     
    Well, first of all, they pretty clearly are false flag events. And the rest of your statement makes no sense. What you really mean to say is that the false flag psy-op is successful because the population has been led to believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that this is typical behaviour for that group.

    But regardless, however credible whatever accusations are, there is this very important matter of whether they are true!

    Consider how the Turkish soccer audience reacted when a moment of silence was asked for the Paris victims. They chanted Allahu Akbar. Does that sound like they believed that attack was a false flag?
     
    That's the first I heard about the Turkish soccer fans. I don't know how many of them see through the false flag. I reckon some do and some don't. I also reckon that the percentage among them who do see through it is higher than among the French or other European populations.

    Could the government engineer a false flag with the Amish?
     
    Of course they could. The public is so stupid they will believe anything. The reason there has been no false flag attack with Amish patsies is simply because such a narrative has not, so far, served any purpose.
  133. @JayMan

    I am curious as to why you and some others rush to label these observations on human behaviour as ‘Laws’.
     
    I think I've covered why in several posts...

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.
     
    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

    Also, if you think that a comment is repetitive, don’t respond. Calling the commenter or their observation stupid is in bad form (unless of course they say something entirely egregious).
     
    I generally avoid insulting people, but happy to call a stupid comment such. In any case, you and everyone else see my newly published comment policy.

    The below blockquoted section highlights your response to my observation that these behavioural traits and their genetic causes are obtained through correlation type analyses and should therefore not rise beyond the characterisation of ‘conjectures’, or equivalently statistical hypothesis.

    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

    I read the papers.[I had a couple of hours to kill] As I suspected, they do draw conclusions from correlations. Using longitudinal data on identical and non-identical twins and some standard software package they estimate what is called an ACE model. These models aren’t anything complicated and I am sure most Unz readers can handle them. Basically one estimates the parameters of a simple linear system using (optionally) statistical maximum likelihood methods. Using parameter estimates the researcher then makes certain probabilistic statements based on correlations and variance. So far I don’t see any attempts [honest on their part] to even speak of specifying a model of causation, for that would be a great deal closer to an actual theory, but would require de-expressing and re-expressing identified genes or networks, and then observing behavioural outcomes over periods of time. A very tall order.

    In their own words, e.g., in the paper “Behavioral Genetic Test of Evolutionary Taxonomy”, the authors note (main conclusions):

    [..] revealed that the best-fitting model was the AE model for both the LCP measure and sexual promiscuity. Heritability and the non-shared environment accounted for all of the variance in both variables. LCP offender classification was roughly 79 % heritable, and sexual promiscuity was approximately 50 % heritable.

    [......]

    Figure2 contains the results from this portion of the analysis, and the results support the prediction that shared genetic factors influence both LCP offending and sexual involvement. Not only did the genetic risk scales covary with one another, but they were also significantly predictive across traits.

    [...]

    The current study was intended to further unpack the nature and origins of LCP criminal behavior. Ellis (1988 ) was one of the first scholars to draw attention to the fact that a variety of important life history traits correlate with criminal outcomes.These associations may have emerged because of selection forces acting to locate humans along a spectrum ranging from either more, or less,K-selected (i.e., faster versus slower life histories;

    [....]

    With the above in mind, it would be hasty to conclude this study without recognizing the inherent limitations—both theoretical and methodological—that we faced. First, it is possible that sexual promiscuity and LCP offending correlate for reasons other than life history selection.

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of ‘Laws’, as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    So your quip ‘Nope’ above, means rather little to me.

    P.S. : I read your comment policy and it is a howler of an example in self-congratulatory twaddle with the perfunctory disclaimers such as ‘ I am not averse to criticism…’ . etc.

    I won’t be sampling any more of your columns – a mutually non-discernible absence I might add – because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of ‘Laws’, as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.
     
    Except that the same results are found from adoption, sibling/half-sibling, extended twin (when more distant family members are observed), reared-apart twin studies, and now genomic studies that look at unrelated individuals and examine phenotype similarity based on genetic similarity. They all come to the same results. See:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    There is no question about this.


    I won’t be sampling any more of your columns – a mutually non-discernible absence I might add – because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.
     
    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.
  134. @Sam Shama
    The below blockquoted section highlights your response to my observation that these behavioural traits and their genetic causes are obtained through correlation type analyses and should therefore not rise beyond the characterisation of 'conjectures', or equivalently statistical hypothesis.



    I happen to think that HBD is a field with some promise and intuitively appeals to the human experience. However given its relatively recent endeavour to link to genetic causation, with behavioural psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that ), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

     

    Nope. See Barnes et al (2014).

     

    I read the papers.[I had a couple of hours to kill] As I suspected, they do draw conclusions from correlations. Using longitudinal data on identical and non-identical twins and some standard software package they estimate what is called an ACE model. These models aren't anything complicated and I am sure most Unz readers can handle them. Basically one estimates the parameters of a simple linear system using (optionally) statistical maximum likelihood methods. Using parameter estimates the researcher then makes certain probabilistic statements based on correlations and variance. So far I don't see any attempts [honest on their part] to even speak of specifying a model of causation, for that would be a great deal closer to an actual theory, but would require de-expressing and re-expressing identified genes or networks, and then observing behavioural outcomes over periods of time. A very tall order.

    In their own words, e.g., in the paper "Behavioral Genetic Test of Evolutionary Taxonomy", the authors note (main conclusions):


    [..] revealed that the best-fitting model was the AE model for both the LCP measure and sexual promiscuity. Heritability and the non-shared environment accounted for all of the variance in both variables. LCP offender classification was roughly 79 % heritable, and sexual promiscuity was approximately 50 % heritable.

    [......]

    Figure2 contains the results from this portion of the analysis, and the results support the prediction that shared genetic factors influence both LCP offending and sexual involvement. Not only did the genetic risk scales covary with one another, but they were also significantly predictive across traits.

    [...]

    The current study was intended to further unpack the nature and origins of LCP criminal behavior. Ellis (1988 ) was one of the first scholars to draw attention to the fact that a variety of important life history traits correlate with criminal outcomes.These associations may have emerged because of selection forces acting to locate humans along a spectrum ranging from either more, or less,K-selected (i.e., faster versus slower life histories;

    [....]

    With the above in mind, it would be hasty to conclude this study without recognizing the inherent limitations—both theoretical and methodological—that we faced. First, it is possible that sexual promiscuity and LCP offending correlate for reasons other than life history selection.

     

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of 'Laws', as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    So your quip 'Nope' above, means rather little to me.

    P.S. : I read your comment policy and it is a howler of an example in self-congratulatory twaddle with the perfunctory disclaimers such as ' I am not averse to criticism...' . etc.

    I won't be sampling any more of your columns - a mutually non-discernible absence I might add - because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of ‘Laws’, as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Except that the same results are found from adoption, sibling/half-sibling, extended twin (when more distant family members are observed), reared-apart twin studies, and now genomic studies that look at unrelated individuals and examine phenotype similarity based on genetic similarity. They all come to the same results. See:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    There is no question about this.

    I won’t be sampling any more of your columns – a mutually non-discernible absence I might add – because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.

    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.
     
    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you're called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.
    , @Sam Shama
    Again, you don't seem to understand the distinction between laws as understood in physical sciences and statistical possibilities. Arguing in favour of heritability is a redundant exercise. Breeders' techniques and the general human experience (as I have noted previously) underpin its validity. To discover socio-genetic 'Laws' the threshold ought to be much higher.

    Reading carefully what I penned might help as well. When I noted '..mutually indiscernible absence', your not caring about a commenter's POV inter alia, is understood. The odd thing about your statement, is that you seem unaware of its self-contradictory nature: that you welcome valid criticism [and I am confident that mine is one such] while blurting out from the other side of your mouth 'Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.'.

    Enough said.
  135. @JayMan

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of ‘Laws’, as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.
     
    Except that the same results are found from adoption, sibling/half-sibling, extended twin (when more distant family members are observed), reared-apart twin studies, and now genomic studies that look at unrelated individuals and examine phenotype similarity based on genetic similarity. They all come to the same results. See:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    There is no question about this.


    I won’t be sampling any more of your columns – a mutually non-discernible absence I might add – because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.
     
    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.

    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.

    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you’re called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you’re called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.
     
    Because all the links I give people are not enough?
    , @Anonymous
    All science is provisional. There is a video out there is Henry Harpending saying so, and taking about "true believers", and how they should be avoided by scientists. He cites the example of global warming scientist/activists-that they often fail to bring real science to the table, but merely true belief. Run from them.
  136. @JayMan

    These studies are statistical estimations on conjectures of social behaviour, driven, possibly among other things, by shared genetic endowments. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be interesting and potentially useful. However they do not rise to the level of ‘Laws’, as in the Laws of Thermodynamics.
     
    Except that the same results are found from adoption, sibling/half-sibling, extended twin (when more distant family members are observed), reared-apart twin studies, and now genomic studies that look at unrelated individuals and examine phenotype similarity based on genetic similarity. They all come to the same results. See:

    The Son Becomes The Father

    More Behavioral Genetic Facts

    There is no question about this.


    I won’t be sampling any more of your columns – a mutually non-discernible absence I might add – because I am quite sure that whatever I wish to learn about genetics and molecular biology as they affects our lives, I have far more talented, and therefore typically, more modest sources.
     
    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.

    Again, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between laws as understood in physical sciences and statistical possibilities. Arguing in favour of heritability is a redundant exercise. Breeders’ techniques and the general human experience (as I have noted previously) underpin its validity. To discover socio-genetic ‘Laws’ the threshold ought to be much higher.

    Reading carefully what I penned might help as well. When I noted ‘..mutually indiscernible absence’, your not caring about a commenter’s POV inter alia, is understood. The odd thing about your statement, is that you seem unaware of its self-contradictory nature: that you welcome valid criticism [and I am confident that mine is one such] while blurting out from the other side of your mouth ‘Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.’.

    Enough said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Again, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between laws as understood in physical sciences and statistical possibilities. Arguing in favour of heritability is a redundant exercise. Breeders’ techniques and the general human experience (as I have noted previously) underpin its validity.
     
    OK, so what are we arguing about?

    The odd thing about your statement, is that you seem unaware of its self-contradictory nature: that you welcome valid criticism [and I am confident that mine is one such]
     
    Newsflash: it's not. It's actually rather silly, for the reasons given.
  137. @guest
    "acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective"

    Of course terrorism has a strategic object: to terrorize. In fact, terrorism is more purely strategic than most other acts of war, because there's almost no short or medium term purpose to them.

    The way purportedly responsible states try to wriggle out of being called terrorists is by, firstly, falsely equating terrorism with irregular warfare. This is one reason you say terrorism is pacticed by the weak instead of the strong. Terrorism is practiced by both, I assure you. It's just that often the weak only practice terrorism, because they can't afford "conventional" warfare. Hence, secondly, big armies can claim they'd fight fair if only. If only the weak would stand out in an open field so they can blow them up.

    Terrorize and then what? When, for example, Timothy McVeigh blows up a federal building, it doesn’t terrify the populace so that his troops can spring into action somewhere and do something. It just terrifies people and accomplishes nothing else. And so people call him a terrorist. If there’s no plan to do something militarily to follow up then I don’t see how it can be described as a military objective.

    Read More
  138. @geokat62

    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.
     
    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you're called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.

    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you’re called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.

    Because all the links I give people are not enough?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Because all the links I give people are not enough?
     
    I can't speak for others, but the one link you gave me was definitely not enough. I asked you how the graph supported your assertion that Muslim countries are more violent than Western countries and your response effectively was: "trust me, it's true."

    The question still stands: does the chart you linked to support in any way your initial assertion?
  139. @Sam Shama
    Again, you don't seem to understand the distinction between laws as understood in physical sciences and statistical possibilities. Arguing in favour of heritability is a redundant exercise. Breeders' techniques and the general human experience (as I have noted previously) underpin its validity. To discover socio-genetic 'Laws' the threshold ought to be much higher.

    Reading carefully what I penned might help as well. When I noted '..mutually indiscernible absence', your not caring about a commenter's POV inter alia, is understood. The odd thing about your statement, is that you seem unaware of its self-contradictory nature: that you welcome valid criticism [and I am confident that mine is one such] while blurting out from the other side of your mouth 'Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.'.

    Enough said.

    Again, you don’t seem to understand the distinction between laws as understood in physical sciences and statistical possibilities. Arguing in favour of heritability is a redundant exercise. Breeders’ techniques and the general human experience (as I have noted previously) underpin its validity.

    OK, so what are we arguing about?

    The odd thing about your statement, is that you seem unaware of its self-contradictory nature: that you welcome valid criticism [and I am confident that mine is one such]

    Newsflash: it’s not. It’s actually rather silly, for the reasons given.

    Read More
  140. @JayMan

    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you’re called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.
     
    Because all the links I give people are not enough?

    Because all the links I give people are not enough?

    I can’t speak for others, but the one link you gave me was definitely not enough. I asked you how the graph supported your assertion that Muslim countries are more violent than Western countries and your response effectively was: “trust me, it’s true.”

    The question still stands: does the chart you linked to support in any way your initial assertion?

    Read More
  141. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @geokat62

    Commenters are under the mistaken impression that I care about what they think, it seems.
     
    No, commenters are under the impression that you have sufficient intellectual integrity to support your assertions with solid facts (like that graph you cited) and if you're called out on it, to at least acknowledge your mistakes.

    All science is provisional. There is a video out there is Henry Harpending saying so, and taking about “true believers”, and how they should be avoided by scientists. He cites the example of global warming scientist/activists-that they often fail to bring real science to the table, but merely true belief. Run from them.

    Read More
  142. @map
    I don't think you understand what a false flag is. The requirements of a false flag demand the existence of a likely perpetrator, without which the false flag would not be possible. In other words, without the presence of Muslims in Western countries, these false flag operations could not credibly exist.

    A false flag is a "false, but accurate" event. The particular attack may not have been committed by the group, but it is sufficiently similar to the group's behavior to credibly associate the act with the group itself. For example, the Reichstag Bombing can be plausibly blamed on the Communists because they have already established a reputation for open violence, even if they had nothing to do with that particular act of violence.

    So, even if 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings and Paris are all false flag events, they can only be pulled off because of the large presence of Muslims in Western countries, Muslim with a history of violence against infidels.

    Consider how the Turkish soccer audience reacted when a moment of silence was asked for the Paris victims. They chanted Allahu Akbar. Does that sound like they believed that attack was a false flag? Could the government engineer a false flag with the Amish?

    I don’t think you understand what a false flag is.

    I’m pretty sure I do.

    A false flag is a “false, but accurate” event.

    If a Jewish ethnic were framed for being a financial fraudster a la Bernie Madoff, would that be a good example then?

    The particular attack may not have been committed by the group, but it is sufficiently similar to the group’s behavior to credibly associate the act with the group itself.

    Well, when you say the “group’s behavior” you really mean perceived behaviour. I mean, if people are exposed to 30 or 40 years worth of Hollywood movies in which Arabs and Muslims generally are portrayed as ultra-violent psychos, then when they are presented some narrative in which some Arabs or Muslims are ultra-violent psychos, it rings true to them, because of the prior conditioning.

    But, yes, you do have some sort of point, I guess. If you frame people for a crime, it is better if it is at least somewhat credible. If some very hyper-sexual promiscuous person is accused of some kind of sex crime, like sex with somebody underage, the accusation is more credible than if the person is some sort of very prim, proper, borderline asexual sort of person.

    But the issue isn’t whether the accusations are prima facie credible. The issue is whether they are true!

    So, even if 9/11 and 7/7 and the Boston Marathon bombings and Paris are all false flag events, they can only be pulled off because of the large presence of Muslims in Western countries, Muslim with a history of violence against infidels.

    Well, first of all, they pretty clearly are false flag events. And the rest of your statement makes no sense. What you really mean to say is that the false flag psy-op is successful because the population has been led to believe — rightly or wrongly — that this is typical behaviour for that group.

    But regardless, however credible whatever accusations are, there is this very important matter of whether they are true!

    Consider how the Turkish soccer audience reacted when a moment of silence was asked for the Paris victims. They chanted Allahu Akbar. Does that sound like they believed that attack was a false flag?

    That’s the first I heard about the Turkish soccer fans. I don’t know how many of them see through the false flag. I reckon some do and some don’t. I also reckon that the percentage among them who do see through it is higher than among the French or other European populations.

    Could the government engineer a false flag with the Amish?

    Of course they could. The public is so stupid they will believe anything. The reason there has been no false flag attack with Amish patsies is simply because such a narrative has not, so far, served any purpose.

    Read More
  143. Firstly JayMan, I highly appreciate your article and the rich sources of information that you displayed as a basis for your argumentation. In particular, the digression from the usual unsubstantiated and generalized xenophobia displayed by most anti-refugee writing is a breath of fresh air. You narrow this global terrorism and refugee crisis to a clash of cultures rather than targeting the religion as a whole, which helps allowing an actual rational discussion rather than a hysteric exchange of accusations.

    However, I disagree with some of your claims:
    A. People cannot adapt: Since your analysis pertains to NW Europe, a good example of a country that has proved these claims wrong is Germany. 70 or 80 years ago Germany was perceived as “illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust” society. However, all this changed obviously due to external forces.

    B. Owing to their biological inheritance: No doubt they have developed over the past few generations but they have also changed substantially. I do believe that people can be re-educated, re-wired and you focus your analysis on merely a snapshot.

    C. Lastly, your solution to tackle this issue, “Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime”. This solution has several moving parts to it. First, how do we define a crime? Who do you consider an immigrant? Sending a refugee back to Syria for a petty theft would equate to death sentence, so this is arguably disproportioned. Additionally, deporting immigrants for crimes feels like giving up and passing the buck, which I would claim is unworthy of a developed, liberal, secular civilization or advanced country. In a basic society the basic tenant to responding to a crime is punishment, while the more socially advanced a country or civilization gets they approach justice differently. They believe in re-education, integration, they believe that people can contribute to society which is why most progressive societies reject the death penalty sentence.

    D. A final criticism that I have concerns not just your piece, but any voiced or written opinion calling for limits for refugees and immediate stops etc. The analysis stops there. I have yet to see a founded explanation of what would happen with the masses of people stranded without a country. Other than passing the problem to other countries, possibly less able to handle the problem, or provoking humanitarian catastrophes or violent clashes, your solution does not appear to solve anything. Until you can provide a sound explanation for how you would execute these measures, it simply remains a red herring, a solution which is outside the realm of pragmatism and the illusion of choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    A. People cannot adapt: Since your analysis pertains to NW Europe, a good example of a country that has proved these claims wrong is Germany. 70 or 80 years ago Germany was perceived as “illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust” society. However, all this changed obviously due to external forces
     
    What was the trend in Germany, and indeed, all of NW Europe during that time?

    B. Owing to their biological inheritance: No doubt they have developed over the past few generations but they have also changed substantially. I do believe that people can be re-educated, re-wired and you focus your analysis on merely a snapshot.
     
    Really? Give me an example.

    Lastly, your solution to tackle this issue, “Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime”. This solution has several moving parts to it. First, how do we define a crime? Who do you consider an immigrant?
     
    Both of which seem pretty clearly defined, legally.

    Sending a refugee back to Syria for a petty theft would equate to death sentence, so this is arguably disproportioned.
     
    Well if you can't do the time...

    Additionally, deporting immigrants for crimes feels like giving up and passing the buck, which I would claim is unworthy of a developed, liberal, secular civilization or advanced country.
     
    They shouldn't be here in the first place.

    They believe in re-education, integration, they believe that people can contribute to society which is why most progressive societies reject the death penalty sentence.
     
    Reality has a funny way of smashing even the most well-intentioned beliefs.

    I have yet to see a founded explanation of what would happen with the masses of people stranded without a country. Other than passing the problem to other countries, possibly less able to handle the problem, or provoking humanitarian catastrophes or violent clashes, your solution does not appear to solve anything.
     
    Maybe, ultimately, it's not our problem to solve. You can't fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can't right every wrong in every corner of the world.
  144. @Microrhinoraptor
    Firstly JayMan, I highly appreciate your article and the rich sources of information that you displayed as a basis for your argumentation. In particular, the digression from the usual unsubstantiated and generalized xenophobia displayed by most anti-refugee writing is a breath of fresh air. You narrow this global terrorism and refugee crisis to a clash of cultures rather than targeting the religion as a whole, which helps allowing an actual rational discussion rather than a hysteric exchange of accusations.

    However, I disagree with some of your claims:
    A. People cannot adapt: Since your analysis pertains to NW Europe, a good example of a country that has proved these claims wrong is Germany. 70 or 80 years ago Germany was perceived as “illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust” society. However, all this changed obviously due to external forces.

    B. Owing to their biological inheritance: No doubt they have developed over the past few generations but they have also changed substantially. I do believe that people can be re-educated, re-wired and you focus your analysis on merely a snapshot.

    C. Lastly, your solution to tackle this issue, “Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime”. This solution has several moving parts to it. First, how do we define a crime? Who do you consider an immigrant? Sending a refugee back to Syria for a petty theft would equate to death sentence, so this is arguably disproportioned. Additionally, deporting immigrants for crimes feels like giving up and passing the buck, which I would claim is unworthy of a developed, liberal, secular civilization or advanced country. In a basic society the basic tenant to responding to a crime is punishment, while the more socially advanced a country or civilization gets they approach justice differently. They believe in re-education, integration, they believe that people can contribute to society which is why most progressive societies reject the death penalty sentence.

    D. A final criticism that I have concerns not just your piece, but any voiced or written opinion calling for limits for refugees and immediate stops etc. The analysis stops there. I have yet to see a founded explanation of what would happen with the masses of people stranded without a country. Other than passing the problem to other countries, possibly less able to handle the problem, or provoking humanitarian catastrophes or violent clashes, your solution does not appear to solve anything. Until you can provide a sound explanation for how you would execute these measures, it simply remains a red herring, a solution which is outside the realm of pragmatism and the illusion of choice.

    A. People cannot adapt: Since your analysis pertains to NW Europe, a good example of a country that has proved these claims wrong is Germany. 70 or 80 years ago Germany was perceived as “illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust” society. However, all this changed obviously due to external forces

    What was the trend in Germany, and indeed, all of NW Europe during that time?

    B. Owing to their biological inheritance: No doubt they have developed over the past few generations but they have also changed substantially. I do believe that people can be re-educated, re-wired and you focus your analysis on merely a snapshot.

    Really? Give me an example.

    Lastly, your solution to tackle this issue, “Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime”. This solution has several moving parts to it. First, how do we define a crime? Who do you consider an immigrant?

    Both of which seem pretty clearly defined, legally.

    Sending a refugee back to Syria for a petty theft would equate to death sentence, so this is arguably disproportioned.

    Well if you can’t do the time…

    Additionally, deporting immigrants for crimes feels like giving up and passing the buck, which I would claim is unworthy of a developed, liberal, secular civilization or advanced country.

    They shouldn’t be here in the first place.

    They believe in re-education, integration, they believe that people can contribute to society which is why most progressive societies reject the death penalty sentence.

    Reality has a funny way of smashing even the most well-intentioned beliefs.

    I have yet to see a founded explanation of what would happen with the masses of people stranded without a country. Other than passing the problem to other countries, possibly less able to handle the problem, or provoking humanitarian catastrophes or violent clashes, your solution does not appear to solve anything.

    Maybe, ultimately, it’s not our problem to solve. You can’t fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can’t right every wrong in every corner of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    You can’t fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can’t right every wrong in every corner of the world.
     
    When I read garbage like that, it reminds me of just how cognitively primitive some Americans are (you're American, amirite?)

    Here's the thing: but for Western interference in the region, there would be no refugees.

    So for from trying to 'right every wrong in every corner of the world', the US has wrought wrongs for fifty years (and before them, the British and French) in corners of the world that their political class arrogated to themselves the right to interfere, the views of the indigenes be damned.

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d'etat, it was an endogenous, 'local' coup, and his government was better in all respects than the 'monarchy' that preceded it, and better than the Ba'ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in 'the other 9/11'. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of 'desaparecidos'.

    Think of what Congo would have been like without US-led overthrow and assassination of Patrice Lumumba (again, a democratically-elected leader): no Mobutu, no billions of dollars of wealth stolen from a resource-rich nation. Fewer Concorde-flight shopping sprees in Paris, too.

    And lastly - and poignantly given what happened to those buildings in that US city** - imagine what life would be like if the US had not armed and trained the mujaheddin in order to score smart-alec points in its ludicrous 'grand chessboard' masturbatory fantasy with an already-declining Soviet Union.

    There are others, but that's enough of a list to give you the broad idea that you're an ignoramus if you think that people from 'every corner of the world' are just violent nincompoops who can't help but stir up their own hornets' nests - and are therefore inherently undeserving.


    (**I say "those two buildings in that US city" to give the impression that the building, the city and the date are not important: that's consistent with an American view of any death caused by their foreign policy.

    To use US Death Merchant-style language: "Some folks got killed" as "collateral damage" when "a C3 installation" was "hit in a precision strike"... something to do with some aggrieved people inflicting pinprick-level blowback for a half-century of their region being raped at the US' behest).
  145. @guest
    "acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective"

    Of course terrorism has a strategic object: to terrorize. In fact, terrorism is more purely strategic than most other acts of war, because there's almost no short or medium term purpose to them.

    The way purportedly responsible states try to wriggle out of being called terrorists is by, firstly, falsely equating terrorism with irregular warfare. This is one reason you say terrorism is pacticed by the weak instead of the strong. Terrorism is practiced by both, I assure you. It's just that often the weak only practice terrorism, because they can't afford "conventional" warfare. Hence, secondly, big armies can claim they'd fight fair if only. If only the weak would stand out in an open field so they can blow them up.

    The primary strategic aim of ‘weak side’ terrrrism is not to terrrrrise (or terrrrize, if you prefer US spelling).

    The primary strategic aim of ‘weak side’ terrrrism is to impose costs on the enemy that cannot be imposed by direct action. 4th generation war is characterised by asymmetries in materiel, force size and technology, and ‘Team Big’ (which will always lose a 4th generation war) always calls ‘Team 4G’ terrrrrists. It has been that way since the Romans had trouble with the sicarii and zelotes – which the Romans referred to as ‘lestai’ (brigands) because doing so attempted to delegitimise their cause (which was the same as the Arab cause today: to get a bunch of Eurotrash off their land).

    An example of the exigencies of technological asymmetry:

    Let’s say there’s an iconic building in downtown Baghdad, and – like all big buildings – it’s got a TV broadcast antenna on top of it.

    Well, the US would launch a Tomahawk from a guided missile frigate, and that tomahawk would pretty much destroy the building. After all – as the news reporters would be told – it was a communications hub, and thus part of ‘command, control and communications (C3) infrastructure’ (and ergo – according to the Pentagon’s degenerate view of international law – a valid target).

    Job done – costs imposed.

    Now let’s just change lat-long, and put the building in New York (and let’s give it a name… the World Trade Centre).

    And let’s say you’re part of a group that has had a gutful of a hundred years of Western interference in your part of the world, and you want to impose battle-level costs on the US… but you don’t have any guided missile frigates.

    What do?

    Find a fast-moving metal tube full of flammable liquid, and find a way to direct it towards the building…

    Job done – costs imposed (and how!).

    (Leave aside that such a plan depends critically on magically avoiding an air-defence network so good it had a fighter off the wing of Payne Stewart’s ill-fated plane within a quarter-hour of the plane losing radio contact).

    You can sum it up in one sentence: A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn’t have an air force. (from p93 of William Blum’s “Rogue State”, published in 2000).

    Read More
  146. @Greg Pandatshang
    I think when most people talk about terrorism, what they mean are acts of war that don't have a strategic military objective. They don't accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target. For example, the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were not part of a serious plan to seize control of New York, and the recent Paris attacks are not part of a serious plan to seize control of Paris.

    My point is not to defend the morality of other acts of war, such as bombing civilian water and sewage treatment plants as part of an invasion. Perhaps these acts are much worse than terrorism.

    This definition of terrorism implies that it will normally be practiced by the weak rather than the strong. If they were stronger, they'd have a better plan. Therefore, it requires a different kind of response from the rest of society than violence committed by, say, Obama or Putin would, and so it's usually a whole different conversation.

    They don’t accomplish any goals other than harming a soft target

    So not true. And not true at any level (i.e., any scale of action; any timeline; any line of reasoning except some cartoon version).

    First, ‘big ticket’ items…

    Let’s stipulate, arguendo, that the accepted narrative of 911 is correct: 19 Saudis hijack 4 planes, evade the US’ trillion-dollar air defences for an implausibly long time, and crash into some iconic buildings – one of which is among the most heavily-protected real estate on Earth.

    The goal accomplished is staggering: it shows that a Death Machine that self-refers as the mightiest military power since the Roman Empire, can be struck within its own borders by a ragtag group of individuals. It shows that billions of dollars’ worth of damage can be imposed at a cost of a few hundred grand. (Leave aside that the billions ballooned into trillions as the career parasites of the Thanatocracy licked their lips at the prospect of a new Long War, with all the racketeering that entails – and that’s ignoring further trillions of damage to the national balance sheet).

    Second – smallers scale…

    Say, a suicide bomber who drives a truck laden with explosives into the barracks of a foreign military – the effect is less staggering: that’s just ordnance delivery when you don’t have an air force.

    And lastly, direct, interpersonal violence…

    Say, a local who stabs a foreign invader (or the ‘anchor baby’ of a foreign invader) in Occupied Palestine. The Palestinians rightly consider all of Palestine to be occupied – not just the bits outside the 1967 or 1948 borders.

    The lowest-scale stuff – direct interpersonal violence – is just the Resistance at work: as anybody familiar with the French Resistance during Nazi Occupation will attest, civilian camp-followers were seen as valid targets. Resistance movements have to make camp-followers aware (be they imported, or local collaborators) that there are costs involved with being part of the occupation machinery – the better to make them consider buggering off back to Eastern Europe (or Brooklyn).

    Read More
  147. @JayMan

    A. People cannot adapt: Since your analysis pertains to NW Europe, a good example of a country that has proved these claims wrong is Germany. 70 or 80 years ago Germany was perceived as “illiberal, autocratic, collectivist, extremely religious, and low-trust” society. However, all this changed obviously due to external forces
     
    What was the trend in Germany, and indeed, all of NW Europe during that time?

    B. Owing to their biological inheritance: No doubt they have developed over the past few generations but they have also changed substantially. I do believe that people can be re-educated, re-wired and you focus your analysis on merely a snapshot.
     
    Really? Give me an example.

    Lastly, your solution to tackle this issue, “Deport any immigrant convicted of a crime”. This solution has several moving parts to it. First, how do we define a crime? Who do you consider an immigrant?
     
    Both of which seem pretty clearly defined, legally.

    Sending a refugee back to Syria for a petty theft would equate to death sentence, so this is arguably disproportioned.
     
    Well if you can't do the time...

    Additionally, deporting immigrants for crimes feels like giving up and passing the buck, which I would claim is unworthy of a developed, liberal, secular civilization or advanced country.
     
    They shouldn't be here in the first place.

    They believe in re-education, integration, they believe that people can contribute to society which is why most progressive societies reject the death penalty sentence.
     
    Reality has a funny way of smashing even the most well-intentioned beliefs.

    I have yet to see a founded explanation of what would happen with the masses of people stranded without a country. Other than passing the problem to other countries, possibly less able to handle the problem, or provoking humanitarian catastrophes or violent clashes, your solution does not appear to solve anything.
     
    Maybe, ultimately, it's not our problem to solve. You can't fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can't right every wrong in every corner of the world.

    You can’t fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can’t right every wrong in every corner of the world.

    When I read garbage like that, it reminds me of just how cognitively primitive some Americans are (you’re American, amirite?)

    Here’s the thing: but for Western interference in the region, there would be no refugees.

    So for from trying to ‘right every wrong in every corner of the world’, the US has wrought wrongs for fifty years (and before them, the British and French) in corners of the world that their political class arrogated to themselves the right to interfere, the views of the indigenes be damned.

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d’etat, it was an endogenous, ‘local’ coup, and his government was better in all respects than the ‘monarchy’ that preceded it, and better than the Ba’ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in ‘the other 9/11′. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of ‘desaparecidos’.

    Think of what Congo would have been like without US-led overthrow and assassination of Patrice Lumumba (again, a democratically-elected leader): no Mobutu, no billions of dollars of wealth stolen from a resource-rich nation. Fewer Concorde-flight shopping sprees in Paris, too.

    And lastly – and poignantly given what happened to those buildings in that US city** – imagine what life would be like if the US had not armed and trained the mujaheddin in order to score smart-alec points in its ludicrous ‘grand chessboard’ masturbatory fantasy with an already-declining Soviet Union.

    There are others, but that’s enough of a list to give you the broad idea that you’re an ignoramus if you think that people from ‘every corner of the world’ are just violent nincompoops who can’t help but stir up their own hornets’ nests – and are therefore inherently undeserving.

    (**I say “those two buildings in that US city” to give the impression that the building, the city and the date are not important: that’s consistent with an American view of any death caused by their foreign policy.

    To use US Death Merchant-style language: “Some folks got killed” as “collateral damage” when “a C3 installation” was “hit in a precision strike”… something to do with some aggrieved people inflicting pinprick-level blowback for a half-century of their region being raped at the US’ behest).

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62, SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d’etat, it was an endogenous, ‘local’ coup, and his government was better in all respects than the ‘monarchy’ that preceded it, and better than the Ba’ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in ‘the other 9/11′. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of ‘desaparecidos’.
     

    Not a whole lot different than they are today.
  148. @Kratoklastes

    You can’t fix human nature, and hence, sad as it is to say, you can’t right every wrong in every corner of the world.
     
    When I read garbage like that, it reminds me of just how cognitively primitive some Americans are (you're American, amirite?)

    Here's the thing: but for Western interference in the region, there would be no refugees.

    So for from trying to 'right every wrong in every corner of the world', the US has wrought wrongs for fifty years (and before them, the British and French) in corners of the world that their political class arrogated to themselves the right to interfere, the views of the indigenes be damned.

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d'etat, it was an endogenous, 'local' coup, and his government was better in all respects than the 'monarchy' that preceded it, and better than the Ba'ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in 'the other 9/11'. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of 'desaparecidos'.

    Think of what Congo would have been like without US-led overthrow and assassination of Patrice Lumumba (again, a democratically-elected leader): no Mobutu, no billions of dollars of wealth stolen from a resource-rich nation. Fewer Concorde-flight shopping sprees in Paris, too.

    And lastly - and poignantly given what happened to those buildings in that US city** - imagine what life would be like if the US had not armed and trained the mujaheddin in order to score smart-alec points in its ludicrous 'grand chessboard' masturbatory fantasy with an already-declining Soviet Union.

    There are others, but that's enough of a list to give you the broad idea that you're an ignoramus if you think that people from 'every corner of the world' are just violent nincompoops who can't help but stir up their own hornets' nests - and are therefore inherently undeserving.


    (**I say "those two buildings in that US city" to give the impression that the building, the city and the date are not important: that's consistent with an American view of any death caused by their foreign policy.

    To use US Death Merchant-style language: "Some folks got killed" as "collateral damage" when "a C3 installation" was "hit in a precision strike"... something to do with some aggrieved people inflicting pinprick-level blowback for a half-century of their region being raped at the US' behest).

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d’etat, it was an endogenous, ‘local’ coup, and his government was better in all respects than the ‘monarchy’ that preceded it, and better than the Ba’ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in ‘the other 9/11′. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of ‘desaparecidos’.

    Not a whole lot different than they are today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    With one sentence you mark yourself out as someone who has a journalistic (i.e., shallow, dilettante, ignorant) grasp of what life in the darker regions of the world was like prior to US interference. It actually takes a great deal of destabilisation to drive a secular democracy (like Iran in the 1950s) into the arms of religious nutjobs... it doesn't "just happen coz'n they'z Ay-rabs, hyuk hyuk."

    They say brevity is the soul of wit, and you've just shown that this is true even when the type of wit rhymes with 'truckwit'.


    Bear in mind: Arab/Muslim culture was what preserved the intellectual heritage of the pre-Christian West. It was cultural exchange with the Caliphate during the Crusades that led - directly and specifically - to revolutions in western mathematics and philosophy.

    While jeebus-freak monks were scratching out Archimede's "Method" (a precursor to calculus) in order to use the vellum to transcribe death-cult gibberish, Arab scholars were diligently preserving the works of people they considered infidels... but whose work they esteemed anyhow.

    A great deal of ancient Greek thought comes down to us solely because it as preserved by the Arab world while we were under the thrall of a theocratic order more vicious and murderous than Isis - who, like Isis, tortured and killed unbelievers in order to advacne a poisonous, intellectually bereft agenda.

    The key difference is that the Arab world did not foist those scumbags on us - they were our own invention. Western leadership did not become violent and cruel in response to Eastern pressure - they were just like that.

    While we in the West were having a Dark Ages, the Arab world was making advances in mathematics and engineering that we would take another 300 years to 'invent'.
  149. @JayMan

    Think of what Iran would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh. No overthrown of Mossadegh: no rise of the mullahs.

    Think of what Iraq would be like if the US had not organised the overthrow of the Qasim government (even though Qasim achieved power by coup d’etat, it was an endogenous, ‘local’ coup, and his government was better in all respects than the ‘monarchy’ that preceded it, and better than the Ba’ath Party government that succeeded it). No US overthrow of Qasim: no Saddam.

    Think of what Chile would be like if the US had not assassinated Salvador Allende (another democratically-elected leader) in ‘the other 9/11′. No Pinochet: no tens of thousands of ‘desaparecidos’.
     

    Not a whole lot different than they are today.

    With one sentence you mark yourself out as someone who has a journalistic (i.e., shallow, dilettante, ignorant) grasp of what life in the darker regions of the world was like prior to US interference. It actually takes a great deal of destabilisation to drive a secular democracy (like Iran in the 1950s) into the arms of religious nutjobs… it doesn’t “just happen coz’n they’z Ay-rabs, hyuk hyuk.”

    They say brevity is the soul of wit, and you’ve just shown that this is true even when the type of wit rhymes with ‘truckwit’.

    Bear in mind: Arab/Muslim culture was what preserved the intellectual heritage of the pre-Christian West. It was cultural exchange with the Caliphate during the Crusades that led – directly and specifically – to revolutions in western mathematics and philosophy.

    While jeebus-freak monks were scratching out Archimede’s “Method” (a precursor to calculus) in order to use the vellum to transcribe death-cult gibberish, Arab scholars were diligently preserving the works of people they considered infidels… but whose work they esteemed anyhow.

    A great deal of ancient Greek thought comes down to us solely because it as preserved by the Arab world while we were under the thrall of a theocratic order more vicious and murderous than Isis – who, like Isis, tortured and killed unbelievers in order to advacne a poisonous, intellectually bereft agenda.

    The key difference is that the Arab world did not foist those scumbags on us – they were our own invention. Western leadership did not become violent and cruel in response to Eastern pressure – they were just like that.

    While we in the West were having a Dark Ages, the Arab world was making advances in mathematics and engineering that we would take another 300 years to ‘invent’.

    Read More
  150. Howdy JayMan,

    I’ve been off the net for a while doing research, but wanted to thank you for this excellent piece, and to let you know that my latest is very much in line with it.

    I’ve in particular found a fair amount of data on Muslim immigrant crime in Europe, and am curious what you think about the genetics of the question? In particular countries like Algeria or Morocco, which are not so high-crime as countries, but whose immigrants wreak havoc all over France, Switzerland, Denmark?

    Or Pakistanis, who are quite socially dysfunctional in Europe, but Hindu Indians are not… is it a question of clannishness only, or…What is it about Islam that is linked to genetics, aside from just cousin marriage, which doesn’t expain it all? Would appreciate your comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thanks a lot for the compliments! Your latest piece was excellent, as always.

    I’ve been off the net for a while doing research, but wanted to thank you for this excellent piece, and to let you know that my latest is very much in line with it.

    I’ve in particular found a fair amount of data on Muslim immigrant crime in Europe, and am curious what you think about the genetics of the question? In particular countries like Algeria or Morocco, which are not so high-crime as countries, but whose immigrants wreak havoc all over France, Switzerland, Denmark?
     

    I think Steve Sailer put it best:

    In Arab countries, except sometimes during the Arab Spring, disorganized street crime is surprisingly rare. That’s because Arabs know how to police Arabs. It’s not a pleasant subject to look into, but they don’t achieve law and order purely through police brutality. Besides using torture, police forces in Arab countries target criminals’ elders. When the senior members of the clan stand to lose from their grandsons’ viciousness, they find ways to keep them in line.
     
    By contrast, under the comparatively lax NW European law enforcement, and lacking the threat of clan retribution by aggrieved relatives of victims, Muslim criminals run amok.

    Or Pakistanis, who are quite socially dysfunctional in Europe, but Hindu Indians are not… is it a question of clannishness only
     
    Pakistanis are much more clannish than Hindu Indians.

    What is it about Islam that is linked to genetics, aside from just cousin marriage, which doesn’t expain it all? Would appreciate your comments.
     
    Different selective pressures over the centuries.

    That said, if I'm not mistaken, the average IQ of Pakistanis in Britain is lower than the average IQ of British Indians. Will have to look that up.

  151. @M.G.
    Howdy JayMan,

    I've been off the net for a while doing research, but wanted to thank you for this excellent piece, and to let you know that my latest is very much in line with it.

    I've in particular found a fair amount of data on Muslim immigrant crime in Europe, and am curious what you think about the genetics of the question? In particular countries like Algeria or Morocco, which are not so high-crime as countries, but whose immigrants wreak havoc all over France, Switzerland, Denmark?

    Or Pakistanis, who are quite socially dysfunctional in Europe, but Hindu Indians are not... is it a question of clannishness only, or...What is it about Islam that is linked to genetics, aside from just cousin marriage, which doesn't expain it all? Would appreciate your comments.

    Thanks a lot for the compliments! Your latest piece was excellent, as always.

    I’ve been off the net for a while doing research, but wanted to thank you for this excellent piece, and to let you know that my latest is very much in line with it.

    I’ve in particular found a fair amount of data on Muslim immigrant crime in Europe, and am curious what you think about the genetics of the question? In particular countries like Algeria or Morocco, which are not so high-crime as countries, but whose immigrants wreak havoc all over France, Switzerland, Denmark?

    I think Steve Sailer put it best:

    In Arab countries, except sometimes during the Arab Spring, disorganized street crime is surprisingly rare. That’s because Arabs know how to police Arabs. It’s not a pleasant subject to look into, but they don’t achieve law and order purely through police brutality. Besides using torture, police forces in Arab countries target criminals’ elders. When the senior members of the clan stand to lose from their grandsons’ viciousness, they find ways to keep them in line.

    By contrast, under the comparatively lax NW European law enforcement, and lacking the threat of clan retribution by aggrieved relatives of victims, Muslim criminals run amok.

    Or Pakistanis, who are quite socially dysfunctional in Europe, but Hindu Indians are not… is it a question of clannishness only

    Pakistanis are much more clannish than Hindu Indians.

    What is it about Islam that is linked to genetics, aside from just cousin marriage, which doesn’t expain it all? Would appreciate your comments.

    Different selective pressures over the centuries.

    That said, if I’m not mistaken, the average IQ of Pakistanis in Britain is lower than the average IQ of British Indians. Will have to look that up.

    Read More
  152. Unlike most of what’s out there on this topic, you have an informed, logical argument, which I appreciate, despite the fact that I strongly disagree.

    Does it all depend on the cultural differences being genetic in nature? I read those two linked posts, and the argument seems to be based on observed correlations + a plausible theory to explain them. Is that right?

    If so, that’s nearly enough. Similar arguments have been made many times in history — claiming that some other group is fundamentally different, as a way of justifying actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. None of those worked out very well.

    If there is no genetic basis, then why single out Muslims? You could go through a similar analysis, comparing violence and crime vs race in the U.S., and you would see some strong correlations there too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    If so, that’s nearly enough. Similar arguments have been made many times in history — claiming that some other group is fundamentally different, as a way of justifying actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. None of those worked out very well.

    If there is no genetic basis, then why single out Muslims? You could go through a similar analysis, comparing violence and crime vs race in the U.S., and you would see some strong correlations there too.
     

    You might want to keep reading here.
  153. @MDG
    Unlike most of what's out there on this topic, you have an informed, logical argument, which I appreciate, despite the fact that I strongly disagree.

    Does it all depend on the cultural differences being genetic in nature? I read those two linked posts, and the argument seems to be based on observed correlations + a plausible theory to explain them. Is that right?

    If so, that's nearly enough. Similar arguments have been made many times in history -- claiming that some other group is fundamentally different, as a way of justifying actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. None of those worked out very well.

    If there is no genetic basis, then why single out Muslims? You could go through a similar analysis, comparing violence and crime vs race in the U.S., and you would see some strong correlations there too.

    If so, that’s nearly enough. Similar arguments have been made many times in history — claiming that some other group is fundamentally different, as a way of justifying actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. None of those worked out very well.

    If there is no genetic basis, then why single out Muslims? You could go through a similar analysis, comparing violence and crime vs race in the U.S., and you would see some strong correlations there too.

    You might want to keep reading here.

    Read More
  154. @JayMan

    If so, that’s nearly enough. Similar arguments have been made many times in history — claiming that some other group is fundamentally different, as a way of justifying actions that would otherwise not be acceptable. None of those worked out very well.

    If there is no genetic basis, then why single out Muslims? You could go through a similar analysis, comparing violence and crime vs race in the U.S., and you would see some strong correlations there too.
     

    You might want to keep reading here.

    Weak

    Read More
  155. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    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.

    religion is a meta-clan

    Read More
  156. @Jonathan Revusky

    Italy and Japan both have far fewer Muslims.
     
    Right, and thus far fewer Muslims to frame for the false flags.

    Congratulations, I see you're starting to get it!

    And who is behind all the false flags of Islamic terror inside Islamic countries? Seems very elaborate, don’t you think?

    A steady stream of stabbings, shootings, car attacks etc in all countries around the planet with a significant Muslim population, including totalitarian states like China and backwaters in Africa.

    A 700 year long false flag operation… now that is commitment!

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS