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!

religion is a meta-clan

Weak

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.

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.

[…] ADDED: “The problem, ultimately, is this …” […]

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’.

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).

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).

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).

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Democratic_State_v_Deep_State

Article by scholar Ola Tunander regarding Gladio, etc.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

“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.

{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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is actually at this site

http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/11/18/whos-making-a-killing-from-the-paris-terror-attacks/

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…

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

Why*

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.

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.

“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.

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?

“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…

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.

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

“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.

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 .

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

Try again.

“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.

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/tag/clannishness/

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.

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.

Ted Kaczynski.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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

“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 .

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.

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.

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.

OT: Noah Smith on Japan and Trust: http://hitcoffee.com/file/10165/

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?

“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.

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?

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?

{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!!!!!!!

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.