Auto Added by WPeMatico

A Christian Arab and an Levantine Jew were talking about Islam

Their insights into how a minority comes to dominate a majority are worth heeding. (The relevant portion starts about 20 minutes into the conversation).

Gad Saad and Nicholas Nassim Taleb in conversation.

In Arabic, “din” means ‘law’. In Hebrew “din” means ‘religion’.

Slow Islamization of the West is accomplished through two simple rules: 1. Once you get in you cannot get out. 2. If any of the parents are Muslim, all the children are Muslim.

A very slow conversion rate results in a society that, after a 1000 years, goes from 95% Christian to 95% Muslim.

Only the Wahhabist faction of Islam is truly dangerous, says Taleb. Wahhabism drives the tolerant majority of Muslims to intolerance. Shia and other forms of Islam are not a problem.

The same dynamic of intolerant minorities works on campuses. The social justice warriors drive universities because they are an intolerant minority.

Having heard this, I understand better why, in the Scottish Reformation, a Scottish earl chained a bunch of  extreme Calvinists to a rock and drowned them at high tide. He understood the power of intolerant minorities.

Taleb: “Anything that does not involve costly signalling is not a religion. Gods demand sacrifices. No sacrifices: no religion.”

One of the costly methods of signalling your Christianity – or freedom from Islam – is not eat the sacrificial meat of Islam, halal. Costly signalling is the basis of real religion, says Taleb.

Wizards versus Prophets: How to feed 10 billion people

The Atlantic carries a useful discussion of two schools of thought, one of which is broadly eco-doomist, and the other is ameliorist. The dispute takes place in the vital issue of agriculture, and the author situates the dispute as one between William Vogt (1902-1968) and Norman Borlaug, (1914-2009) father the Green Revolution. It will come as no surprise that they knew and despised each other.

Vogt published his views in 1948 in a book called the Road to Survival, which, according to Wikipedia set forth

…his strong belief that then-current trends in fertility and economic growth were rapidly destroying the environment and undermining the quality of life of future generations. Vogt’s most significant contribution was to link environmental and perceived overpopulation problems, warning in no uncertain terms that current trends would deliver future wars, hunger, disease and civilizational collapse.

Road to Survival was an influential best seller. It had a big impact on a Malthusian revival in the 1950s and 60s. After its publication he dedicated many activities to the cause of overpopulation. From 1951 to 1962, he served as a National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Borlaug, says Wikipedia:

…was often called “the father of the Green Revolution”,[5][6] and is credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[7][8][9][10] According to Jan Douglas, executive assistant to the president of the World Food Prize Foundation, the source of this number is Gregg Easterbrook‘s 1997 article “Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity”, the article states that the “form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths.”[11] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

As a Bengali-born professor of economics once told me, in relation to the Green Revolution, “when I first came to Bangladesh I could see the ribs of the rice farmers; now I can’t”.

The Atlantic article is entertaining and informative, but it fails to mention the vital point, which determines whether Vogt or Borlaug will win the argument. As soon as women can be guaranteed that they will have one or two surviving children, they cease to have more. Everywhere in the world, industrialized or not, population growth is crashing. This process is occurring with great suddenness in Islamic countries. The world population will be 10 billion by 2050; what the article fails to mention is that it will be 7 billion by 2100, according to David Goldman, who bases himself on UN population projections and the latest birth rates.

These issue are explored in David Goldman’s How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is dying too). The book overturns a number of beliefs that were drummed into us in the 1970s and beyond: overpopulation, ecological disaster, resources running out, doom, in short.

Goldman advances the view that throughout history, but especially now, population decline is mostly to be feared, because it throws economies into a tailspin. Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in nearly all wealthy countries, and are doing so in Islamic countries.

In the great ideological debate about human nutrition, one can only hope that Borlaug’s practical optimism will prevail. The eco-doomist vision has never failed to produce want, misery and failure. Stick with the optimists, it will be tough enough even if they are right.

Of the questions that need to be asked bout human society in the next decades, the relevant one is whether we will still breed in 2050 enough to avoid social and economic collapse. There will be enough food, enough water, and enough resources. The truly important question is whether there will be enough humans to enjoy them by 2100. Spengler maintains that birth rates are falling between the green line and the yellow line in the UN population projections, shown below. (I leave aside the important question whether the remaining humans will be slaves or masters of their robotic machinery).

World Population Estimates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#/media/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Goldman says the green line is the correct one.

 

Quebec’s Niqab Ban

I am in favour of it. It is appropriately targeted discrimination. It targets Muslim women who feel compelled to cover their faces in public. People do not cover their faces in public unless they have reasons to fear being looked at or identified. In the case of Muslim women, it is the fear of being subject to the lustful gaze of males who are not their husbands.

Quebec insists, rightly or wrongly, in the assertion of collective values over the choices of individuals. In Quebec and the rest of the western world, women are in general forced to cover themselves from above the breasts to above the knees. We do not think twice about it except when a woman wants to go topless somewhere else than the beach. Even toplessness at the beach is considered provocative in most places. Yet these rules exist and police enforce them. Men as well as women are frequently told by store signs: “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. This is plainly discriminatory, and society generally agrees with the discrimination.

The National Post today is filled with shrill defences of the right of Islamic women to be shamed into covering their faces. Who do you think enforces the shaming? Islamic men, of a particular and strictly Islamic disposition. Body shaming of this sort is the worst form of misogyny, and reinforces power of the Islamic shame culture. Quebec society has had the guts to say no, as in just say no to Islamic body shaming. Is this discriminatory? You betcha.Is it a just and reasonable discrimination? Yes, absolutely.

[The logic of this reasoning about the female face and the male gaze suggests that soon some women in universities will be covering their faces too, so as to escape the “male gaze”, one of the favoured tropes of feminist furies. Face coverings will be labelled progressive.]

In the Islamic idea of male-female relations, it is always the female who is responsible for inciting male lust. Males are not expected to show any control whatever; they are the passive victims of female provocations. The female is covered up to prevent public indecency, because women by their nature are indecent.

Quebec has shown much greater sense than the English-Canadian commentariat about the real reasons women wear the niqab, and much better sense that the collective has a right to insist of public standards of decorum, including not only what must be covered, but what must be uncovered.

 

 

The SPLC worries me

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a left wing organization doing its best to suppress opinions that it does not like. The equivalent of the Roman Church’s Index of prohibited books is the SPLC’s hate groups list. By the way, the SPLC is a multi-million dollar organization.

Quoting the SPLC itself on Islamic “hate” groups:

These groups also typically hold conspiratorial views regarding the inherent danger to America posed by its Muslim-American community. Muslims are viewed as a fifth column intent on undermining and eventually replacing American democracy and Western civilization with Islamic despotism, a conspiracy theory known as “civilization jihad.” Anti-Muslim hate groups allege that Muslims are trying to subvert the rule of law by imposing on Americans their own Islamic legal system, Shariah law. The threat of the Muslim Brotherhood is also cited, with anti-Muslim groups constantly attacking Muslim civil rights groups and American Muslim leaders for their supposed connections to the Brotherhood. Many of these groups have pushed for the Brotherhood to be designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Anti-Muslim hate groups also broadly defame Islam, which they tend to treat as a monolithic and evil religion. These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.

A great deal of the SPLC’s description of anti-Muslim thought is in fact true, not of all Muslims, but of those  Muslims waging holy war against us. Even if these amount to 1 or 2% of Muslims living among us, that constitutes a significant internal threat. Talking about it is rational. Discussing its extent and seriousness is rational. As with the left in general, discussion must be suppressed to keep their world view from being challenged by anyone, anywhere.

As the repression intensifies, more votes will move to Trump. People are tired of this nonsense, and they will be heard.

Specifically to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, this is the SPLC’s commentary on what Spencer has written. Notice that SPLC never asks whether what Spencer has written is actually true, factual, or correct.

About Robert Spencer

He insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates. His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013.

In His Own Words:
“Osama [bin Laden]’s use of these and other [Koranic] passages in his messages is consistent … with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.”
—   The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), 2005

“Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”
— Jihad Watch blog, Jan. 14, 2006

“Islam is not a religion of peace. It has an inherently political character that is being brought to the West by immigrants, and will cause more trouble in the future. The jihadists have not hijacked it. Peaceful Muslims should be encouraged but do not have a sufficiently influential voice in the Islamic world to allow them to be counted on. The jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war, and we need to be prepared for the fact that it will not end anytime soon – and prepared to defend ourselves militarily and ideologically.”
— Interview with the Liberal Institute, September 2007

I think that what Spencer wrote is a reasonable interpretation of what we have observed. You probably do too.

Welcome to the the Thought Criminals.

Wasserman Schultz and the DNC Imbroglio

 

Several relevant articles collectively enjoin the question: why is this not the subject of a special prosecutor?

  1. Media Blackout on class action suit against the Democratic National Committee and Wasserman Schultz

Lawyers in DNC Class-Action Suit ‘Perplexed’ by Media Blackout

2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Pakistani IT scammers

3. Imran Awan case needs special prosecutor 100x more than  Russiagate

For all of Trump’s faults, and they are many, we have to keep reminding ourselves what a plague the United States recently avoided.

 

 

And the BBC’s excuse for this is?

The apologist at BBC didn’t waste time finding excuses for dysfunctionality that is Pakistan.

In Pakistan, the army and its intelligence wing are by far the most powerful institutions – and the country has had repeated spells of military rule.

The abiding sense of a military threat from its much larger neighbour has – many feel – boosted the power of the armed forces and hindered the development of a mature democracy.

And the excuse for this is? How do the “many feel” about this?

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Pakistani police have arrested 25 members of an informal village council accused of ordering the rape of a 16-year-old girl as revenge for her brother’s alleged sexual assault of another girl.

The Supreme Court also requested a report on the case, which echoed a notorious case from 2002 in which another teenager was gang-raped on a local council’s order.

This is for Allah

 

Dawn brought news of the latest slaughters by Muslims of Christians on the streets of London today. As usual, our political leaders decry this as a perversion of Islam. No, my leaders, this is not the perversion of the religion of peace. Islam promises peace to those who have submitted, who are “muslim”, it promises war to those who have not, which is the rest of us. Dar el Harb, dar el Islam: house of war, house of peace.

Our leadership is trying to understand Islam as if the Koran had not been written. Fifteen centuries of Islamic aggression against themselves and everyone else, and a culture-wide stultification of thought are on record. One has only to open a book and read it. Imagine trying to understand Marxism without reading Marx, or decrying Leninism as a “perversion” of Marx. As the USSR was at one time the only state under the thrall of an officially Marxist regime, perhaps it would be appropriate to read Lenin as if he had some insights into Marx’s doctrines.

Heather MacDonald has written an insightful piece on the Left’s reaction to the Manchester bombing that will apply with equal force to today’s events.

The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: “It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain—and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West—to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.” This response is narcissistic. The attack was an effort to kill British girls and their parents, period. The terrorists win every time they pull off such massacres. They are not monitoring the legislative process and plotting how to move the needle on Western security protections in a way contrary to their own self-interest. If a society were exclusively Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim, it would be just as much the target of attack by ISIS or al-Qaida as a more “diverse” society.

You can read the rest of Heather MacDonald’s article to profit and pleasure, but before you do, I want to bring to your attention a most enlightening interview on the Mark Steyn show with a long time ex-Canadian script writer and Hollywood conservative, Lionel Chetwynd. Chetwynd is a man of considerable accomplishments. At one stage of his early life, he was reduced to joining the Black Watch regiment to get his life in order, and his time in the service affected his thinking thereafter.

Much later in his career, he was pitching a movie to be based on the unsuccessful raid of Dieppe, in 1942. The reaction of the potential financiers to his proposal lends insight into the entire liberal mind. After the pitch was made by Chetwynd, the sound of silence in the room, and then the finance person asks: “This is great, but who is the enemy?”. “The Nazis, of course” said Chetwynd. “No, I mean, who is the REAL enemy?” At which point Chetwynd overturned the table.

The poverty of the liberal imagination is such that the enemy: be it Nazi, Islamic, Mexican drug cartels, can never be the REAL enemy. It is always us. Or some corrupted portion of us: stupid generals, Haliburton executives, evil intelligence agencies.

As long as this solipsism persists – there is no real force in the world except ourselves alone (solo ipse) – we will never be able to envisage what evils beset our civilization. The real enemy is, as you might expect, those Americans and other bien-pensants who call themselves “liberals”, the mould in the jam so to speak, that systemically destroys our will to prevail. They are not liberals, they do not deserve that term. But whoever they are, they know who our enemies are, and they are never our real enemies. They are so unfailingly wrong, they are reliable in that sense.

See the anecdote Chetwynd relates at minute 49 of the interview.

We need more people like that Black Watch sergeant, and fewer like Theresa May.

 

Flashback – London’s Muslim Mayor Warns Trump: Let In Muslims Or They Will Attack America

From 2016 in Daily Caller

The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America….

“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

Notice how he doesn’t differentiate between Muslims and Islam; a differentiation that is made fondly by apologist of terrorist attacks. Who are you going to believe – a prominent practising Muslim or your local amateur Grand Mufti?