2006 August 20 Sunday
British Want Profiling Against Terrorists

The British government is considering using profiling based on ethnicity and religion in order to choose who to scrutinize more closely.

UK transport officials are said to be considering introducing passenger profiling on grounds including ethnic origin and religion.

Supporters say it could cut the delays caused by universal security checks after the uncovering of a possible plot to bring down planes - others say it will cause resentment and improving technology is more important.

A British Muslim high ranking police officer opposes profiling.

Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei said plans to profile air passengers would create an offence of "travelling while Asian".

Current policy hassles everyone and so we are all guilty of the offense of "travelling while human". The opponents of profiling want to make everyone suffer inconveniences that are necessary for only a small subset of the total population. They expect us to believe the little old Christian lady from Des Moines is just as likely to be a terrorist as a young Muslim from London. This is absurd.

European Union ministers are discussing the idea of using profiling throughout Europe. They ought to use profiling when deciding who to allow in as immigrants.

BRUSSELS, August 18, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Increasing interest in "ethnic profiling" at airports is one of the upshots of a high-level EU antiterror meeting that took place in London on August 15-16.

Although the issue was not formally discussed at the meeting featuring interior ministers from a number of EU countries, ministers and officials in their private comments acknowledged it is considered by some as a promising way to help prevent future terrorist attacks.

Yes, of course it is a promising way to prevent terrorist attacks. Young Muslim males are most likely to carry out terrorist attacks.

A British YouGov survey found that 55% of the British public wants profiling. The question they were asked was "Passenger profiling is a recent term used to describe the process of selecting passengers based on their background or appearance. Would you like to see 'passenger profiling' introduced?"

Profiling seems eminently sensible. A person is orders of magnitude more likely to be a terrorist if young, male, and with Middle Eastern or south Asian appearances. People who attend a mosque are orders of magnitude more likely to be terrorists. Why waste police resources on the vast majority who do not fit terrorist profiles? Those same resources could produce much better results if common sense is applied to sizing up potential threats.

Robert Spencer argues that profiling is necessary.

Profiling, of course, is imperfect. Islam is not a race. Adherents of the jihad ideology can be found among all races: as John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Ismail Royer, and Hasan Akbar can attest. All those men have in common is that they are converts to Islam -- a phenomenon that doesn't necessarily have any outward signs. Nonetheless, the fact remains that young Middle Eastern males have committed a disproportionate amount of violent terror attacks in recent years. Accordingly, it is simply a waste of resources to subject all airline passengers, from grandmothers to toddlers, to equal scrutiny, while refusing to spend more time investigating passengers who come from the group from which most terrorists spring nowadays.

Over at View From The Right Lawrence Auster points to an article which reports on US officials going so far to oppose profiling that they gave a behind-the-scenes tour of security operations at O'Hare airport in Chicago to members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol’s executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an “internal struggle against sin” and not holy warfare.

Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O’Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.

How disgusting.

A Sunday Times of London editorial entitled "The enemy within" shows how far along the debate about Muslim terrorism has moved in Britain.

Peter Clarke, deputy assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, says at least three other serious plots by home-grown terrorists have been disrupted since last year’s July 7 attacks on the London Underground. The danger seems ever present.

It is now self-evident that there is an enemy within Britain who wants to destroy our way of life. Most of this relatively small group of fanatics are British-born Muslims who have been educated here and brought up within our tolerant democracy.

But the Times editorialists come up short in their attempts to explain why so many British Muslims are hostile to the host society.

Why is Britain such a breeding ground for these young men, for that is what most of them are? Much can be ascribed to timidity on behalf of the authorities, wedded as they are to a multiculturalism that isolates many young men in ghettos and a reluctance to espouse British values through our schools and institutions. That appeasement was epitomised by the sanctuary offered to extremist Islamic groups in Britain — “Londonistan” — in the pathetic hope that it might offer some form of immunity from violence.

Appeasement is certainly part of the problem. Multiculturalism is part of the problem. But do the Brits get bombed by Hindus? Why aren't Hindus a threat as a result of multiculturalism? Or Buddhists? Or atheists? Easy answer: They all are not Muslims. Islam is the root problem. Islam and Western civilization are not compatible.

The rest of us should not have to deal with the consequences of Muslim desires to make us all submit to their backward religion.

Mark at Western Survival argues Muslims who come to the West behave as colonists, not immigrants.

An immigrant comes to a new country willing to become part of that country, to adopt its way of life, customs, language, even religion.

A colonist comes to a new land to pursue economic opportunities and/or to escape persecution in his homeland. A colonist is perfectly happy with his people's language, religion, culture, and way of life. He is not coming to become part of the native people, but to establish or expand an outpost for his people in new territory. This was exactly the situation of the pilgrims here in North America.

Steve Sailer argues we should disconnect Western and Muslim societies from each because because the rules that Westerners and Muslims want to live under are incompatible and we just create avoidable animosity by mixing as much as we do.

Perhaps the most quoted social philosopher of our time famously asked:

"Can we all get along?"

Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:

No, we can't.

So, deal with it. When we get in each other's faces, we get on each other's nerves. It's time to get out of each other's faces.

Westerners and Muslims don't agree on the basics of social order and don't want to live under the same rules. That shouldn't be a problem because that's what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.

Makes sense to me.

Steve also argues for a buyout of citizenship of Western Muslims where Muslims will get cash offers to return to Muslim countries. Good idea.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 August 20 11:39 PM  Terrorists Western Response


Comments
Rasfarengi said at August 21, 2006 6:26 AM:

I think there is a lot more to what is going on in the UK with (primarily Pakistanis) than just religion, that is the symptom not the cause.

NY Times posted a great article on this issue, and compared Pakistani Americans to their cousins in the UK.

http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/pakistanis-in-the-uk-vs-us-big-difference/

One thing I will say about Islam is...

I believe Islam is so susceptible to this because it is (like Judaism) a highly legalistic religion but still they have no head of the religion to interpret and make the “final legal opinion”. Islam is so strongly ingrained in Arab culture that it can not be removed; it is not like Christianity in the West. The other problem is the political oppression in the middle east, if people have no voice they turn to Islam because that is the only political voice they can have that the government is somewhat scared to squash, because doing that could be seen as anti-Muslim, which would not be good for any regime in the region. I think in this way democracy for the region is the answer, Bush is correct, at the macro level at least, however I think he is going about everything in a very reckless manner.


If you extrapolate this to at a macro level to other Muslim communities that experience different types of oppression, they will also likely become more religious and more easily brainwashed by radical mullahs who are actually preaching politics and economics according to their interpretation of Islam.

Pakistani Muslims I believe have much better lives, and are treated better historically by the greater society, so they are less likely (on average) to become very religious and fall prey to their radical terrorist groups.


Ned said at August 21, 2006 1:59 PM:

Interesting article from Strategy Page on the Arabs' love of absolutes and conspiracies and disdain for democracy and compromise (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200681122172.asp):

Most Westerner's have become aware, because of the war on terror, that people in the Middle East view the world according to different standards. Perhaps the most important difference between the Middle East, especially the Arab world, and the West, is the attitude towards compromise. While Westerners see compromise as a path to success, Arabs see it as an admission of defeat. This attitude is reflected in many ways. For example, Arabs are more willing to accept religious absolutes ("all non-Moslems are scum"). The Middle East attitudes towards women, especially Arab acceptance of "honor killings" (murdering a women if she is even suspected of misbehavior), are part of this lack of nuance.

The Arab love for absolutes has also produced a culture that more readily accepts conspiracy theories. Indeed, the conspiracy theories are often preferable to reality. In this way, we get the common Arab willingness to blame all their woes on "others" (other Arabs, or, better yet, Westerners.)

After decades of avoiding problems, and solutions, because of these conspiracy theories, it has become fashionable among many educated Arabs to admit that, perhaps, many Arab problems are caused by things Arabs do, or don't do. That's a start, but the Arab preference for absolutes makes it very difficult to change. And democracy doesn't work that well either, for one of the cornerstones for a functioning democracy is compromise.


All of these bad habits, and even many Arabs will admit that the paranoia, blame-shifting and absolutism are bad, can be seen in Arab media. While many Arab journalists know they are putting out misleading, often counter-productive, garbage, it's what the markets still wants, what too many Arabs still respond to most enthusiastically.

Ned said at August 21, 2006 2:01 PM:

Interesting article from Strategy Page on the Arabs' love of absolutes and conspiracies and disdain for democracy and compromise (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200681122172.asp):

Most Westerner's have become aware, because of the war on terror, that people in the Middle East view the world according to different standards. Perhaps the most important difference between the Middle East, especially the Arab world, and the West, is the attitude towards compromise. While Westerners see compromise as a path to success, Arabs see it as an admission of defeat. This attitude is reflected in many ways. For example, Arabs are more willing to accept religious absolutes ("all non-Moslems are scum"). The Middle East attitudes towards women, especially Arab acceptance of "honor killings" (murdering a women if she is even suspected of misbehavior), are part of this lack of nuance.

The Arab love for absolutes has also produced a culture that more readily accepts conspiracy theories. Indeed, the conspiracy theories are often preferable to reality. In this way, we get the common Arab willingness to blame all their woes on "others" (other Arabs, or, better yet, Westerners.)

After decades of avoiding problems, and solutions, because of these conspiracy theories, it has become fashionable among many educated Arabs to admit that, perhaps, many Arab problems are caused by things Arabs do, or don't do. That's a start, but the Arab preference for absolutes makes it very difficult to change. And democracy doesn't work that well either, for one of the cornerstones for a functioning democracy is compromise.


All of these bad habits, and even many Arabs will admit that the paranoia, blame-shifting and absolutism are bad, can be seen in Arab media. While many Arab journalists know they are putting out misleading, often counter-productive, garbage, it's what the markets still wants, what too many Arabs still respond to most enthusiastically.

john rackell said at August 21, 2006 2:50 PM:

Brits certainly were bombed by Hindus - though the Brits were in India at the time and the Hindus were trying to get rid of them. Sikhs have been loyal, valiant soldiers in the British army and were amongst other things the most oppressive guards of British prisoners after the Fall of Singapore, during 1942-45, worse than the Japanese. From reminiscences of Britons in India (see 'End of Empire' documentary), the relations between Britons and Muslims were much more cordial on an individual level than they were with Hindus. So what does it all mean? As pointed out by the BNP, Britain doesn't have enemies it only has interests, and Britons have ethnic and genetic interests. The same goes for all the other ethnic groups colonizing Britain right now. Today the troubles are with Moslems, tomorrow it may be Sikhs, Hindus, Somalis, Poles - none of them belong there, and they've only been made to fit in by tearing Britain's social fabric apart at the seams. A Hindu and a Moslem are both are pursuing their interests, just differently - it's still displacement of one ethnic group by another. At your feet one day, at your throat the next, the struggle is always on.

Rasfarengi said at August 21, 2006 3:22 PM:

Ned...

I know some redneck religious fanatics in Texas that will give the most pious Arab a run for his money in tunnel thinking and believing in absolute, black and white, etc.
You could be correct about Arab culture, I would not say this is "Muslim culture though, be careful"...Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all Muslims (over 250 million or so) and have stable democracies so I am guess they understand some form of compromise. In all truth the Afghanis don't seem to be doing so bad either, but they had a preIslamic tradition of compromise in their "Royal Jurga" tradition where all tribes sat down and collectively dealt with large issues.

Jack:

so I guess the Germanic (Anglo Saxons) do not live there either...or is it the Scots, no wait the Irish, or wait maybe the Welsh...well the last three are all pretty much Celtic (predominately) so should they fight it out with the Germanic Anglo-Saxons again for supremacy?..after all they were "there first" the English are colonizing them...

Why is it that for the most part American born muslims are not so radicalized as British born Muslims? What would cause that?

Randall Parker said at August 21, 2006 5:08 PM:

Rasfarengi,

You have an interesting definition of "stable democracies":

1) Turkey: The Generals have had to periodically come out of their barracks and overthrow elected governments and enforce some degree of separation between mosque and state. The populace is trending toward greater fundamenalism. The further you get away from Istanbul the more reactionary and fundamentalist the Turks become. The enthusiastically Muslim Prime Minister is only still in power because the military doesn't want to blow Turkey's chance at EU membership. Also, the younger officers are probably more Muslim than the older generation. So the military "guard rails" for maintaining secularism in Turkey are decaying.

2) Malaysia: Mahathir is a democrat? I thought he tossed his number 2 man into jail on trumped up charges because the number 2 guy (whose name escapes me) is too enthusiastically Muslim. The Chinese see which way the wind is blowing and there's a net Chinese out migration from Malaysia.

3) Indonesia: The Chinese who lost a few hundred billion dollars and got raped and burned out of their homes during the transition to "democracy" probably do not share your enthusiasm for Indonesian democracy. The successionist groups (notably some Christian groups) do not fancy living under an increasingly fundamentalist Muslim majority.

Islam is becoming more uniform as air travel, electronic communications, and Saudi money feed the spread of more orthodox versions of Islam into areas such as Indonesia where the Muslims were more mellow in part because they were less orthodox.

Radicalized Muslims in America versus Britain: In America they are further away from the Middle East. Also they are more dispersed and therefore can not as easily form in-grown isolated communities. But increase their numbers via immigration and that can and will change.

Stephen said at August 21, 2006 7:45 PM:

Randall, maybe add Pakistan to the list as well.

On the topic of profiling, its a flawed concept because its easily circumvented and at the same time makes the investigators sloppy. Law enforcement staff become passive, adopting a 'tick a box' attitude, while terrorists are motivated to find ways around the procedure. It essentially hands the initiative to the criminals - while the law enforcement guy is giving all his attention (and daily search quota) to the passenger who fits the profile, the western looking chap with sweat on his forehead and an oddly fitting business suit breezes on past.

Why waste time implementing a system when its evasion is so easy?

Randall Parker said at August 21, 2006 8:53 PM:

Stephen,

First off, evasion is not so easy. The vast bulk of terrorists look different than white people. Currently so many people walk through airports every day that inspectors and police end up checking out a small percentage carefully. Some terrorists could get thru just on odds. Profiling uses the limited supply of security people on those at highest odds of being terrorists.

The fundamental error of those who think they make a practical case against profiling is that they ignore the shortage of security personnel. The security guy who is searching through the luggage of the little old lady from Fargo North Dakota isn't searching the young Middle Eastern-looking guy.

If security people pay more attention to people who fit profiles then a big chunk of the members of terrorist groups can't circumvent security checks as easily as they can now. Some small terrorist groups do not even have any white members. If they have to recruit whites they put themselves at higher risk of being infiltrated.

Dave said at August 21, 2006 8:58 PM:

Rasfarengi, The English, Scotish, Welsh and Irish did fight each other for supremacy lasting hundreds of years, what language are they all speaking now?

I don't get this idea that because the English colonised England that that means we shouldn't mind another ethnic group trying to do the same.. huh?


Pakistan is a pretty extreme country. The government doesn't have control in some border areas which are run by tribal councils.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4499028.stm
"Forced child marriage tests Pakistan law"
"Vani is a tribal custom in which blood feuds are settled with forced marriages.

The bride spends her life paying for the crime of her male relatives."

I read an artcle about the British Pakistani community (they call themselves pakis but whites are not allowed to say that) which claimed when parents thought their children were becoming too Westernised they sent them back to Pakistan to stay with relatives for 're-education' as the artcle provocatively put it.
I was also supprised that some of the boys/men were forced to marry girls from back home too, I had assumed it was mostly the girls.


Stephen, when Britain was facing a threat from the IRA we looked at Irish people or people with Irish connections, it should be the same now with Muslims.
Evasion is not so easy these people work in tight small trusted groups often with family connections too, once they have to start going outside the closed group it will be more likely that the secrets get out or someone makes a mistake.

Stephen said at August 21, 2006 10:36 PM:

Randall said: "The vast bulk of terrorists look different than white people"

In the recent footage of the Lebanon debacle, did anyone notice that many of the locals could pass for a person whose ancestors hailed from western European stock? dito many of the people in Syria, Jordan, Israel and the occupied territories etc. Out of the 30 million people living in those countries, do you really believe that it'll be that hard for Osama to find someone who in fact doesn't "look different from white people"?

Dave, I don't think the IRA example works - sure Special Branch were all over the Irish community, but the Irish individually weren't subject to greater scrutiny at the check-in desk at Heathrow. Its the latter I'm referring to.

The passenger screening system introduced during the 70s (except I think in the US) works well enough. The current procedures are just marginally more effective for massively more cost (or uncharitably, just scare tactics).

Big Bill said at August 22, 2006 12:05 AM:

Rasfarengi:

"Why is it that for the most part American born muslims are not so radicalized as British born Muslims? What would cause that?"

The same thing that always causes it, Ras: low numbers. Pakis come to the USA and they are as nice-n-sweet as can be. But they are here in very small numbers ... so far. They, like American Hindus (and American Jews and American Arabs) are looking to make nice to establish a toehold, but they are fundamentally different from Americans and American culture. If their numbers are low enough, we will devour them and their children until their kids have only the faintest recollections of their parent culture. But ONLY if we can keep their numbers down as low as dirt for fifty or 100 years. Of course assimilation is anathema to all of them. Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Hindus all call it "cultural genocide" when we do it in America. They call it "cultural survival" or "Zionism" or "Hindutva" or "Islam" when they do it in their homelands.

Stephen said at August 22, 2006 2:18 AM:

Bill, I agree (except for the snarky bit at the end!). I have a pet theory about calculating the 'ceiling' number of immigrants. My premis is that not all immigrant groups are equal when it comes to determining the numbers to allow in. This is because some cultures are culturally insular, while others are more inclined to mix (sorry, can't think of a good antonym to 'insular') with existing groups. It seems to me that the greater the acceptance of mixing (both from the perspective of the immigrant group and the already existing groups), the greater the ability of all the groups to integrate with each other and form a civil society.

How do you measure mixing? I think that the rate of mixing can be measured by looking at the inter-group marriage rate (my hypothesis being that people who marry from another group had to meet the other person while socialising outside the group, and both had to be receptive to the idea of marriage outside their ethnic group).

My idea is that we use the inter-marriage statistics to determine the quota - for instance if immigrant group X tends to easily marry outside their group, the number of that group allowed to immigrate is higher. Similarly, if group Y has a very low inter-marriage rate, then we don't allow many of them into the country.

The system has the beauty of being self-regulating, hard to fake and minimises any government bias in determining which groups come into the country.

Buckaroo said at August 22, 2006 5:25 AM:

Stephen and Bill,

Absolutely, numbers are of the essence, and the "integration ceiling" will differ by the type of people you're trying to absorb (word chosen judiciously !). The ceiling will be clearly lower for Muslims. Intermarriage rates are a pretty good measure but the problem is that for almost all new immigrant groups they are very low to start and then increase, albeit at different speed. It's this speed of the increase that we care about but it's hard to know it without actually performing the experiment of letting significant numbers of a minority into the country. On the other hand, the raw rates aren't especially meaningful in the immigrants' countries of origin. For example, you'd never admit any Finns because they are bound to have intra-Finn marriage rates of 99% but does that really mean they wouldn't integrate well ?
An alternative, inspired by Steve Sailer's observations, is to look at consanguineous marriage, i.e., marriage to close relatives, especially cousins, which you can know about even before anyone lands here. I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn that heavily Muslim countries (although not all and not exclusively !) tend to have off-the-charts cousin marriage rates.
But all this is just idle chit-chat. In the current political climate no such restrictions will be even quietly mentioned, much less implemented. I have come to believe that the only way we can stop the slide into civilizational oblivion is at the price of a cataclysmic attack (think: nukes in London and Washington simultaneously) which will finally concentrate the minds and shake people out of the liberal/multicultural/PC fog. I would have thought 9/11 was enough but the anger it caused was channeled into a stupid and futile imperial mission in Mesopotamia.

Rasfareng said at August 22, 2006 5:56 AM:

Randell said:

Rasfarengi,
You have an interesting definition of "stable democracies":
1) Turkey: The Generals have had to periodically come out of their barracks and overthrow elected governments and enforce some degree of separation between mosque and state. The populace is trending toward greater fundamenalism. The further you get away from Istanbul the more reactionary and fundamentalist the Turks become. The enthusiastically Muslim Prime Minister is only still in power because the military doesn't want to blow Turkey's chance at EU membership. Also, the younger officers are probably more Muslim than the older generation. So the military "guard rails" for maintaining secularism in Turkey are decaying.


Ras – Proof of this is? The current prime minister of Turkey belongs to a “Muslim” party but he is very pro-Europe. His party is roughly equivalent to all the Christian Democratic parties in Europe? Have you seen any evidence that he or any leader in his party are involved in terrorist activities or promoting Jihad campaigns inside or outside Turkey? As far as the military “guard rails” you said “probably” which means you do not know, you are basing this on what? Speculation? Actually the UN has been pressuring Turkey for years to decrease the role of the military in their politics, which they have been doing.

2) Malaysia: Mahathir is a democrat? I thought he tossed his number 2 man into jail on trumped up charges because the number 2 guy (whose name escapes me) is too enthusiastically Muslim. The Chinese see which way the wind is blowing and there's a net Chinese out migration from Malaysia.

Ras – Mahathir is not PM anymore. He did do what you said. However, many countries in Latin America are even more corrupt than Malaysia and we refer to them as Democracies? Bush constantly says…”Cuba is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy…” I am sure you have heard this before. Italy is also corrupt as hell, and there were many investigations of illegal dealings between their former PM and business (since he was a billionaire mogul) does that mean Italy is not democratic? France has had corruption scandals as well, so has South Korea.
As far as the Chinese net emigration…first you make it seems like it is Chinese vs Malaysians. That is not the case, it is much more complex than that. Read the link below. Now as far as figures for out-migration (emigration), I can find no evidence of a large amount of out-flow from Malaysia or that the Chinese population in Malaysia is shrinking. Where are you getting this data?

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=82001

3) Indonesia: The Chinese who lost a few hundred billion dollars and got raped and burned out of their homes during the transition to "democracy" probably do not share your enthusiasm for Indonesian democracy. The secessionist groups (notably some Christian groups) do not fancy living under an increasingly fundamentalist Muslim majority.


Ras – According to your logic, this would mean that America was not a democracy, or at least not a stable one until the mid 1960’s. Entire black towns and neighborhoods were burned to the ground from 1865-1965, (Rosewood, FL; Tulsa, OK), people could not vote in many areas under threat of violence or unfair pole taxes. People were raped, lynched, had their houses burned down. Are you judging this by the number of the population terrorized and disenfranchised? Okay well I know black Americans were more than the amount of Indonesian Chinese in the 1960’s in population…today they are only 3-4% (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Minority) there has been out migration though so…lets see what it was much earlier…
“In 1920, Indonesia experienced a rapid economic growth which resulted to a high demand in labor. At this time, the Chinese population experienced an annual increase of 4.3%. Most of whom were contract “coolie” labors and transients while others were short-term migrants.

In 1930, the growth rate of Chinese population started to slow down because of the Depression. It consistently dropped even though the Chinese continued to immigrate in 1940 because Indonesia stopped admitting them in 1950. By 1960, a hundred thousand Chinese left Indonesia for China, North America, Australia, New Zealand, or Europe.”

Recent history since 1990:
” The condition for Indonesian Chinese has improved, with new government regulations that allow the practice of Chinese cultures without prior limitations, and efforts to improve race relationships. The Chinese culture is starting to be embraced by even the popular media, widely covering Chinese New Year celebrations and even TV shows on Feng Shui. The formerly derogatory term referring to Chinese Indonesians -- Cina -- is slowly being replaced by the old term Tionghoa. A small number of Indonesian Chinese are now involved in Indonesian politics, one of whom (Kwik Kian Gie) was appointed minister in 1999.

The reversal of key discriminating laws which were intended to force assimilation into the local culture means that the Indonesian Chinese are now in an era of re-discovery. Mandarin language lessons are widely available and are popular not only among the Indonesian Chinese. Mandarin has become a popular foreign language option in Indonesian schools. Attending an extensive program in a language school in Beijing or other cities is also a popular option for many Indonesian Chinese who were barred from learning Chinese during their formative years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Chinese
Once again I can not fnid any evidence of significant out migration of Indonesia Chinese in recent years or that violence against them is increasing.


(http://www.tsinoy.com/article_item.php?articleid=662)
The secessionist groups? Are you talking about East Timor? Do you know their history? They have been agitating for independence for years and were never really part of Dutch Indonesia until independents…they are also ethnically different from the Malay-Indonesian majority and speak a different local and administrative language. This was not a recent historical event.
Islam is becoming more uniform as air travel, electronic communications, and Saudi money feed the spread of more orthodox versions of Islam into areas such as Indonesia where the Muslims were more mellow in part because they were less orthodox.

Ras: I will not argue with that, but I think your xenophobia is skewing your analysis of the situation.
Radicalized Muslims in America versus Britain: In America they are further away from the Middle East. Also they are more dispersed and therefore can not as easily form in-grown isolated communities. But increase their numbers via immigration and that can and will change.

What made them able to be more dispersed? What I believe you are doing is looking at a symptom and saying..”that is the problem”. The problem is not that Pakistani people live in the UK or America? The problem is what makes them live more concentrated historically in the UK? The problem is, what turns many UK born Pakistani youth (who were not very religious or religious at all into radical jihadists). They were not born and told by their parents, “one day Ali I you will grow up and kill 5,000 Englishman and make me proud…” many of their parents were actually quite secular…this is a reoccurring theme. Something made them susceptible to radicalized Islam.

This is the vector. Eliminate the sources and you eliminate the problem. You analysis is typically surface level, looking at numbers after the fact. Human situations are a little more complex than a one dimensional drill down based on pure analytics. These people’s parents were not doing this in the UK in the 1970’s and 1960’s but they had been coming since the end of WWII. Now you can argue greater communication with “Muslim countries” which I believe is part of it, but if you come to a secular person on the street and say…”you’re a Muslim like me, I just got here, but I want to tell you have to join with me and blow yourself up…” I do not think the average person will be “cool with that.” There is more to this picture. Ask yourself deeper questions.
According to the World Fact Book Pakistani’s make up: Pakistani 1.3% of the UK population.

According to this site Pakistanis are: 1,220,000 in total population, about 24.4% of the total Muslim population in the U.S. This is about .40% of the US population.
http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html
Just wanted to include that so we know that we are not looking at overwealming numbers of Pakistanis in either country.


Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 6:26 AM:

Dave:

You sound xenophobic to the point of absurdity.

Dave said: The same thing that always causes it, Ras: low numbers. Pakis come to the USA and they are as nice-n-sweet as can be. But they are here in very small numbers ... so far. They, like American Hindus (and American Jews and American Arabs) are looking to make nice to establish a toehold, but they are fundamentally different from Americans and American culture. If their numbers are low enough, we will devour them and their children until their kids have only the faintest recollections of their parent culture. But ONLY if we can keep their numbers down as low as dirt for fifty or 100 years. Of course assimilation is anathema to all of them. Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Hindus all call it "cultural genocide" when we do it in America. They call it "cultural survival" or "Zionism" or "Hindutva" or "Islam" when they do it in their homelands.
.Ras: So it is all an elaborate conspiracy? Do you know any Jews or Pakistanis in America? I have known many Jewish people and but for religion they do not act like foreigners. Give examples of Jews who have been here for along time who act as if they are foreign?

Pakistani’s I confess I do not have great contact with, but for the ones who own the local gas station or drive taxis. I did work with a Pakistani woman, she was a lawyer at my company and I had to run things by her for legal approval before dealing with clients. We went out for drinks once. She dressed just like anyone else. Spoke English with no accent. Typically spoke English to her parents on the phone, although sometimes when she was upset she would speak Urdu. I never felt she was “foreign” in attitude, dress, or behavior. Her fiancée at the time was also Pakistani; he was born in Pakistan and had a slight accent. He came here when he was 10 or 11 I think. He did not act strangely either. Both of them were very secular in outlook.

I think you can not equate the average émigré or expat with the majority population in their country. They are usually different, that is why they wanted to immigrate in the first place.

The muslim population in the UK and the one in the America are different because for one…the former were lowly educated blue color workers when they came over. Their children carried on that tradition but also face discrimination on top of that…the blue color jobs are gone and now those kids want white color jobs, but that is threatening to a lot of nativist brits,plus their education level is low (that is not all IQ, some of it is a feeling or rejection and alienation) which can cause depression and lead to poor school performance. Hell I have seen that in otherwise bright kids in the U.S.

The Pakistanis in the U.S. often come here fairly educated, but can not always get a job due to language issues or the fact that their degree will not translate here (a Pakistani national with a law degree from there can not practice law in the U.S) but they do tend to open small business and send their kids to college. There is less overall discrimination against them here, so I do not feel they are alienated as much in society, they are definitely not isolated into urban ghettos for several generations as they are in the U.K.

Oh but wait…you can’t look at things like that…because although quite reasonable that puts some responsibility back on people that look like you and that is just simply unacceptable right? Oh that hurts your feelings and tears down your ethnic mythos…your “team” can’t be wrong in anything…always perfectly upright and moral to “the ‘T’” right? No…no…the problem is those damned foreigners…that’s it. Must be.
LOL…as usual, the problem is multifacetted, however some people can not see the beyond the tunnel vision that their ego provides them.

Bob Badour said at August 22, 2006 7:37 AM:
Actually the UN has been pressuring Turkey for years to decrease the role of the military in their politics, which they have been doing.

The guardrails in Turkey are the soldiers (probably more the generals actually.) When you challenge Randall on his observation that the guardrails are deteriorating, you end up agreeing with him, which strikes me as pointless.

Rasfarengi, I find what you write longwinded, boring, inane and predictable. You would greatly improve your effectiveness if your contributions were more empirical and brief. For instance, having brown skin does not make a person a good person any more than having white skin makes a person a bad person.

Rasfareng said at August 22, 2006 7:56 AM:

Bob:

Randells reasoning for this happening and the expected outcome of it are very different than mine. For instance a bridge could collaspes and we both could agree, however it could be due to many things...that we could disagree on. So in fact we do not agree on the underlying point.

Anyway...

What makes you think your opinion has any meaning to me? You write as if everyone else on this site writes highly empirical statements? Even on this post it is untrue. Hell...Randells post was not empirical whatsoever...he provided little if any support for what he said.

Get over yourself.

As usual you can critisize but can not say anything new or original...which is pathetic...reminds me of an old jaded woman.

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 8:00 AM:

Bob:

On second thought Bob, maybe you are on to something. Since reading was not fundamental in your household, obviously maybe I should give you some affirmative action and dumb down things. Should I create two posts? One for you and one for everyone else?

For you...
I will not include quotes from the original posts in my responses. I will use simple sentences and try to use basic numbers as much as possible, because we all know you have no abstract reasoning ability so if it is not clear in front of your face I should not include it in your post, that would require too much thinking on your part and is not fair. You will get fraustrated and bored.

I'm sorry I was not being fair to you. I will think better of it next time.

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 8:29 AM:

http://gameotter.com/about.html

Oh and this is the most uncreative pathetic excuse for a website I have ever seen. It does not surprise me being that you think so 1-D. I would think someone so adept in technical knowledge, with such a high IQ could do better than that...but then again...I guess you don't really have much humanity...kind of like Data from Star Trek..just prentending..or maybe you are an idiot savant? LOL...

Okay Bob...enough playtime you can go back to slobbering over your circuit board with your calculator in your shirt pocket while your wife is getting it on with a real man.


[Okay everyone back to the point at hand]

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 10:25 AM:

Bob: The last two post were bad, because I let myself become as pathetic as you. YOur problem is you lack people skills and personality. Brow beating people and insulting will not lead them to your way of thinking, not even close. You obviously do not have a club about human nature or that humans can not be quantified into your simple binary world. If they could sociology and psychology would be hard sciences, so would economics. MicroEcon 101 will teach you that market trends are so hard to predict because people often do not do what is rational or logical. Human beings have far more variables behind them than your 1-D brain can handle...so stick to what you do best...computers.

Randell:

I looked at that site you quoted.

http://westernsurvival.blogspot.com/2006/08/muslims-and-hispanics-are-colonists.html

So based on this:

"This reinforces my conviction that a people must keep their territory EXCLUSIVELY for themselves, allowing no immigration at all except perhaps for people of the same racial background who are willing to completely assimilate into the native culture, adopting their language, religion, and history and even names so that they BECOME one of the native people in a way indistinguishable from any other."

You believe I should be kicked out of the country?

What about Jewish Americans?

How about all the Asian university professors and researchers?

I guess Russians would be out too...being they do not have Anglo-Saxon names.

What about Lebanese Christians? Arabs yes, Muslims know...caucasion, but not European and "white". Guess Casey Kassem (the famous Radio Personality needs to be deported immediately).

So what is your final solution? Similar to Hitler?

FightHardOrGetOut said at August 22, 2006 11:48 AM:

Rasfarengi:
"So what is your final solution? Similar to Hitler?"

I guess any change in immigration law that results in reducing inflow of your tribesmen equals
Hitler final solution.

Obviously there is nothing in between.
Either all your tribe must be allowed to come in or it will be Hitler final solution.

Obviously Americans have no right whatsoever to decide who comes into their country. Obviously it is a basic Human Right to be able to move to the USA.
It is equally obvious that all non-white countries have an absolute right to decide who moves to their countries.

In fact whites are so evil, they probably have no right to exist at all and Final Solution should be applied to them.

Rasfarengi, obviously you will go far in this country. Perhaps congressman from Dearbornstan?

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 12:00 PM:

FightHardOrGetOut:

I am going by what the quote said from the article which Randell linked to and supported.

His solution was no immigration from said groups. That is not my interpretation, that is what was said.

By the way, I am America and I am not Muslim. My decendants fought in every single war that this country has had, and I have documentation to prove it, which is probably more than yours...

I never said we did not have the right to reform immigration laws. Where did I say that...quote me or stroke me?

Do you read what is written or do you just pretend you are reading and make up words as you go along?

Ras said at August 22, 2006 12:14 PM:

FightHardOrGetOut:

I love how people like you make all kinds of crazy assumptions based on nothing and project instead of observe. If you came on a humble tip, instead of coming out of the gate like an arrogant ass maybe you would have asked questions that would lead you to greater understanding...

Ras said at August 22, 2006 12:14 PM:

FightHardOrGetOut:

I love how people like you make all kinds of crazy assumptions based on nothing and project instead of observe. If you came on a humble tip, instead of coming out of the gate like an arrogant ass maybe you would have asked questions that would lead you to greater understanding...

Matra said at August 22, 2006 2:06 PM:

Ras - "There is less overall discrimination against them here, so I do not feel they are alienated as much in society, they are definitely not isolated into urban ghettos for several generations as they are in the U.K.

Oh but wait…you can’t look at things like that…because although quite reasonable that puts some responsibility back on people that look like you and that is just simply unacceptable right?"

If Pakistanis don't like the way Britain is they should leave. If they don't like being isolated then they should try to integrate instead of marrying their cousins from the old country. Why should we in the West be held responsible for the plight of foreign colonists like you?

"You believe I should be kicked out of the country?

How about all the Asian university professors and researchers?

The West was doing quite all right before Asians arrived and we'll survive when you're gone.

rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 3:30 PM:

Matra:

FYI:

I am not foreign. My family has been here since the late 1700's, before there was a United States of America.

2nd..I do not respond to racist tantrums. If you have something intelligent to say...when you have learned to carry yourself a little better than a Neanderthal you can come back to me like your mother raised you with some commonsense and decency. I seriously doubt if we met on the street you would be so disrespectful as I would slap the taste out your mouth. So don't pull that crap on the net because your cowardly ass can hide behind a computer.


When you gained some sense...I have some questions.

1) What percentage of Pakistani's in the UK marry their cousins from Pakistan? I want a site to refer to or a book.
Then tell me what percentage of the current Pakistani population was born in the UK?
Then give me their unemployment rate, educational achievement rate, per capita income.

Compare that to the U.S.

I think we have some major discrepancies...that is a start to finding the root problem. Making idiot statements based on what you think you heard from your friends cousin's sister's brother is not helpful.

2) The United States is losing out on new copyrights as compared to Asia, and Europe is gaining on us. Many people (as I have read many times) blames tighter student visa restrictions after 9/11, that send foreign graduate researchers who used to do research here and then go on to industry stay at home or go to Europe or other Asian countries. How does this help us to alienate them? It seems to me that our math scores suck and it will take a lot of time to build up US math scores, even if people could agree on how to do it, importing researchers seems to have worked quite well in the past, in fact many of our greatest inventions in the last 100 years were from nationalized American citizens (foreign born). So what is your solution?


Are these the kind of low class morons that Randell attracts lately? I seem to remember better days on his blog. Sad.

Bob Badour said at August 22, 2006 4:01 PM:
So in fact we do not agree on the underlying point.

However you challenged him to produce evidence to support the parts you agree on. I find that pointless.

You write as if everyone else on this site writes highly empirical statements?

Some do and some don't. Those who don't could greatly improve their effectiveness by following the same advice I gave you. Keep it brief and empirical or don't bother because nobody will read it.

Rasfarengi/CASpears, you responded to my earlier suggestion with four posts in rapid succession. Each was an emotional outburst, two were posted 4 minutes apart, and all were posted within an hour or two. The word for that is a trantrum. I am sure everyone here found your tantrum as boring as I did.

I have noted before that much of what you post is sophistry. In particular, you seem insecure in your manhood and frequently resort to ad hominem arguments that question the manhood of better men than yourself to avoid facing the strength of their arguments. You do that here, you do that on your own site and you do that at sites you link to.

I see you responded to FightHard with another tantrum. I suppose, though, as far as fallacious arguments go a false dichotomy is a step up from an ad hominem. Yawn.

I don't read most of what you write because it is a complete waste of time.

Randall Parker said at August 22, 2006 4:19 PM:

Rasfarengi,

I linked to that article because he drew a great distinction between colonization and immigration. I link to huge numbers of articles written by people who I do not agree with on all points.

I agree with Bob that writing 4 posts in rapid succession is excessive. So is writing really long comments. You need to edit yourself down. News flash: Most readers do not read the full length of long comments. I know I do not. If you have points to make then make them as bullets that are each short. More of your points would actually get read that way.

British Pakistanis marrying their cousins: I've posted this information before. See Over Half Of Pakistanis In Britain Married To First Cousins. They are colonists, not immigrants.

To be clear: there are people in this country who are citizens who I would not let in if they were not citizens. I'd keep out the dummies and the Muslims for starters.

Ras said at August 22, 2006 4:36 PM:

Bob Bore:


That is not called a tantrum, which is called my boss walking by 3 times, while I was on a big conference call with Indonesia...yeah I actually work with Muslims (sometimes)and I multitask...See Bore..I actually work in international development. You are a computer tech. I have a little bit more training and knowledge of many of these issues that you. Stick to jerking off over your new technerd toys.

Why are you responding if I bore you? Why are you visiting my site and cyber stocking me freek? (snore)…
Who is making ad hominem attacks but to impotent to respond to an argument? Keep living in your glass house with your big ego coving up a low IQ. Have fun with your intellectual masturbation…(snore)…now go fix your website so you can get off welfare..and no Bobby, I’m not gay, sorry. Go do your brokeback cowpinkie come-ons somewhere else.

To Everyone Else:

As far as racial profiling...the major problem with that in the US is it is unconstitutional which would take an act of congress to change...which is doubtful in an election year. So let’s just say the possibility is very low to nonexistent.

One way to do it is what Israel does, racial profiling is not as effective because over 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and even among Jews there are some who look no different from Palestinians. They train their security to be highly vigilant of danger signs such as people sweating, leaving baggage unattended, not looking up at the schedule monitors, etc. It is not the most efficient way, however as another poster said, how hard would it be to for any Muslim terrorist group to recruit people who would not be noticed by racial profiling? White and Black Muslims, foreign and domestic? We know Al Qaeda has had ties with the Caucasus, we also know they have links to East Africa.

I have often wondered why Al Qaeda has not done a major terror act that is simple. Get a group of white and black Muslims, 2 teams of 2 for each area…so 4 teams, in 6 major cities at Christmas. Wait till Saturday before Christmas, go to a food court and blow them up. Talk about mass panic? If the object of terrorism is a political tool to cause a political outcome, this would definitely strike fear in the hearts of Americans countrywide and definitely cause political pressure, if it is seen that overtime American politicians are incapable of stopping such attacks, as the British were with the Irish in the 1980’s., America will seek to negotiate…eventually.

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 4:51 PM:

Randell:

All due respect, I have been to sites where people write even longer post than me and carry out very detailed conversations about a variety of subjects. Want the URL to some of them? I can think of 4 off the top of my head. The fact that you and Bob do not like to converse, but expect powerpoint style bullets to condense and argument strikes me as odd being that most of these topics are very complex and a sentence with a few numbers does not really do justice to the subject. People write books on these things. I think three or four paragraphs is not extreme for something as complex with as many variables to consider as what you wrote above.

Then again I have a strong belief that everything (especially involving human behavior) can not be quantified and measured. If that were so, as I said sociology, psychology, and economics would be "hard sciences".

If people on this site (and this is not a hit directly at you) are too lazy or are not interested in the topic, than they are free not to read it. Obviously there are posters on here who do, as I have seen. I think one thing is most people are not here to conversate, share ideas, etc. They are here to spread propoganda and have their own bias justified by others...which does not take great through or much in the way of reading. Usually people such as that do not want detail, they want someone else to say what they are thinking in some form.

Then again that is the issue of blogs in general. It is not a forum for conversation as much as affirmation, which in a way I find dangerous for society, but that is another issue.

Hope that was not too long. LOL

Rasfarengi said at August 22, 2006 5:15 PM:

This is a very long argument from Bob...nonsense though it is...that does not seem to be common anymore on this site. I think I'm starting to see the picture more clearly now...

"Martin,

Refusing to ignore the patently obvious is not the same as reducing facts to the manifest. Nevertheless, the facts I mentioned above are manifest. A majority of the world's population simply has no interest in freedom or western liberalism.

Mostly what you write above sounds like gibberish. First, I observe freedom is not a possession of a culture, a race, a creed or a people. Individuals are free or individuals are not free. One cannot enslave a culture; although, one can enslave all of the indivuals who comprise the culture. Likewise, one cannot free a culture; although, one can free individuals who want freedom.


"recognition by his environment, which is exactly what I would call freedom."

Freedom is self evident and requires no external recognition. Either one is free, or one is not free. It makes no difference whether the tyrant proclaims his subjects free when they remain subject to his will.

I realise that english is perhaps not your mother tongue, but I respectfully suggest if you must redefine the english word "freedom" to mean something other than freedom, you fail to value it yourself.

You misunderstand my point regarding Islam. Islam rejects freedom entirely. The religion specifically commands everyone to submit and to relinquish one's own will for the prescriptions of the religion's fractured and somewhat irrational texts. Religious texts that pretend to pre-ordain all matters large and small from the manner in which the dead shall disperse their wealth to the persons one may choose as friends. And the base texts command those who have submitted to make others submit. The religion specifically prohibits freedom. If you doubt me, you may read the base texts for yourself.

As an atheist, I really don't care what the christian religious texts, doctrine or dogma say regarding freedom provided the texts allow freedom. I only insist that Christians respect my rights and allow me the freedom to practice my religion as I see fit. In fact, Christians in many parts of the world no more value freedom than did Mohammed. Luckily, here in the west, a sufficient number of Christians as well as Jews, animists, atheists, buddhists etc. do value freedom and western liberalism sufficiently to respect my rights.

You accuse me of focusing on immigration, and I beg to differ. I focus on the widespread conceit and prejudice you reflected when you wrote: "talk ... of a clash of civilizations, while abandoning any reliable striving on their part for peace and reconciliation". Those who bury their head in the sand and deny the clash abandon any hope of--let alone striving for--peace and reconciliation. Without a clash, what need we reconcile? If we already have peace, why strive?

I find perverse and counter-productive the conceit that recognition of a clash abandons striving for peace and reconciliation.

From that starting point, I expanded to include immigration, deportation and the eventuality of violence if we fail to act. My interest extends even beyond those issues to the issue of any social policy potentially affected by the widespread conceit as well as similar conceits.

I cannot help it if you latched solely on immigration.

I have never read Huntington or Brzezinski so I have no idea what comprises their ideology. That a clash among civilizations exists is nevertheless a factual observation that needs to influence our thoughts on a variety of topics and policy matters regarding not only how we interact with Islam, but with China and with the Third World as well.

I presume the abovemention ideologues included some specific policy recommendations in their polemics. And I assume you disagree with those recommendations.

Now that we clearly agree a manifestly evident clash exists, perhaps you could specify which specific recommendations you disagree with and which policies you would favour to reconcile the clashes?

Are you saying that Islamism did not exist as an enemy before Huntington pointed it out? Didn't the attacks on the Marines in Lebanon happen more than a decade before Huntington published his book? Didn't that attack come several years after the islamist revolution in Iran? I could have sworn Reagan was in power when the Marines came under fire and I distinctly remember the hostages were freed before Reagan took office. Do I misremember?

In fact, I could have sworn Arafat was killing Americans back in the 60's. And didn't a Palestinian militia invade Germany back in 1972? I could have sworn there was a little scuffle that year surrounding the Olympics in Munich.

I am not sure what literature you find relevant. In any case, aren't the actual historical events more important than what was written about them?

And I don't know why you focus on Islam. Certainly, China and North Korea present immediate threats as well. And doesn't the Clash of Civilizations also inform us regarding unfolding events in formerly allied secular governments? I am thinking of South Korea and Turkey, in particular, but I assume similar trajectories exist for other states whose relationships with the west were shaped by the cold war conflict between the USSR and the USA.


"you may argue the clash would have come anyhow, but I just believe otherwise."

Ah, perhaps here is the explanation. I did not realise you were arguing from a position of faith. I assumed you were trying to reason.


"degree of fuzziness and inconsistency"

I respectfully suggest that similar conceits and prejudices to those expressed by yourself create the fuzziness and inconsistency. Political correctness prevents rational discussion of who the enemy is. In the "war on terror", the enemy is islamism -- a virulent fascist political ideology born out of islam's base texts. Of course, the "war on terror" is not the only civilizational clash we face.


"Isn't it too easy to say, despotic conditions prove despotic dispositions?"

Since I have never said anything so simplistic and absurd, I see no point to your question.


"Why should the Germans e.g. have suddenly become democracy-minded after generations of republican poets and philosophers have failed to bring it about"

Why indeed? I worked for a german company, and in my experience, few germans even today value freedom--or even comprehend it for that matter. I think the best illustration of this was a german boss, who I very much consider a friend first and a boss second, and who once expressed to several American employees regarding an arbitrary and heavy handed company regulation: "There must be a rule and that is the rule we have."

Needless to say, the Americans thought he was nuts. Those of us who value freedom anticipate an absence of rules except for those we absolutely need to have.


"Why is Turkey very well democratic"

I respectfully suggest that Turkey has only recently experienced real democracy. The military forcibly prevented the people of Turkey from electing the Islamist government that have preferred all along. Only recently have the people of Turkey been allowed to elect a government along those lines, and if allowed to continue without military intervention, I predict the complete end of elections in Turkey before long.


"your thesis that democracy requires only collective will"

Since when have I ever expressed such an absurd thesis?


"Yet, things are different, when you do already live together in one village."

I don't. And most Americans don't. I agree it sucks for europe. Sadly, europeans bought into this crap that everyone equally values freedom and western liberalism and that all cultures are created equal. Consequently, they stupidly invited the tiger to stay on the downstairs couch. Hence, my reference to deportation.


"Zapatistas ... who rebel against neo-liberal policies because they do see drawbacks in NAFTA"

I don't know much about the Zapatistas. What I have been able to find suggests it is a paradigm of the typical collectivist violence that the majority eventually perpetrates in places with a market dominant minority. The movement appears to be led by an irrational nut-job, and I note that it explicitly rejects liberalism. In fact, the movement uses the term liberalism derisively to describe the things they project their ineffectiveness onto to blame for their plight.

Ditto the "Bolivarian Revolution".


"Indonesians, whose economy was wrecked in the late 90s by the overbearing and ignorant policy IMF"

Yeah, it's all the IMF's fault. It had nothing to do with a series of dictators plundering the country for personal gain and promoting internal strife to distract the populace from their plunder. Nope, that had nothing to do with a single problem in Indonesia. Nada, zip, zilch. It was all the IMF's fault.


Speaking of market dominant minorities, that's what is going to result in Germany and France and other countries in Europe if the muslims remain and continue to out-reproduce the europeans. It's also what's going to happen in the US unless America secures its borders and reverts to a policy of assimilation."

Bob Badour said at August 22, 2006 6:01 PM:

You prove my point. Everything I wrote was accurate and cogent, and nobody will read it. It was a waste to write it in the first place.

Ras said at August 22, 2006 6:22 PM:

LOL

Randall Parker said at August 22, 2006 6:25 PM:

Stephen,

The best European Muslim terrorists could come up with to try to blow up an airplane with a shoe bomb was the dumb Richard Reid. Yes, they really do have a hard time recruiting white men who want to blow themselves up.

Lebanese look more European than Pakistanis. In Britain the big threat is from Pakistanis. Should the authorities ignore this fact and pay as much attention to red haired Scots and blond haired and blue eyed moms with babies in tow?

The recent plot in Britain used 5 Pakistanis in Pakistan, 21 Pakistani Brits, and 3 converts (and 5 others who were not caught initially and whose ethnicity I do not know). That they managed to get 3 converts in on their plot is impressive. But they also still had to use at least 26 Pakistani ethnics even though such people attract much more attention.

Rob-ot said at August 24, 2006 7:31 PM:

Can you ban Ras? I see 30-some posts, and I expect some interesting thoughts.

See: short, cogent points. Someone might read it.

Randall Parker said at August 24, 2006 7:55 PM:

Rob,

I've already made it clear to Ras that his comments are excessively long with a low signal to noise ratio. I'll cut out any really long one he makes after this point. Really, life is too short to read such long comments that are so light in facts.

ras said at August 24, 2006 8:05 PM:

Yeah better to read short comments with no facts from xenophobic racists. LOL Yeah that is much better:

"Brits certainly were bombed by Hindus - though the Brits were in India at the time and the Hindus were trying to get rid of them. Sikhs have been loyal, valiant soldiers in the British army and were amongst other things the most oppressive guards of British prisoners after the Fall of Singapore, during 1942-45, worse than the Japanese. From reminiscences of Britons in India (see 'End of Empire' documentary), the relations between Britons and Muslims were much more cordial on an individual level than they were with Hindus. So what does it all mean? As pointed out by the BNP, Britain doesn't have enemies it only has interests, and Britons have ethnic and genetic interests. The same goes for all the other ethnic groups colonizing Britain right now. Today the troubles are with Moslems, tomorrow it may be Sikhs, Hindus, Somalis, Poles - none of them belong there, and they've only been made to fit in by tearing Britain's social fabric apart at the seams. A Hindu and a Moslem are both are pursuing their interests, just differently - it's still displacement of one ethnic group by another. At your feet one day, at your throat the next, the struggle is always on."

OR

" guess any change in immigration law that results in reducing inflow of your tribesmen equals
Hitler final solution.

Obviously there is nothing in between.
Either all your tribe must be allowed to come in or it will be Hitler final solution.

Obviously Americans have no right whatsoever to decide who comes into their country. Obviously it is a basic Human Right to be able to move to the USA.
It is equally obvious that all non-white countries have an absolute right to decide who moves to their countries.

In fact whites are so evil, they probably have no right to exist at all and Final Solution should be applied to them.

Rasfarengi, obviously you will go far in this country. Perhaps congressman from Dearbornstan?"

Much better...actually these are the better ones, I have seen worse here...

Keep the discussion low and the propoganda going. Good luck with that. There is medicine for low attention spans...I believe it is called ritalin. No one makes anyone read anything. Nice clandestine censorship.

Bob Badour said at August 24, 2006 8:51 PM:

1) What's clandestine about it?

2) What makes you think you have a right to force Randall to pay for the bandwidth and storage for you to publish long boring rants devoid of anything but race-baiting sophistry?

Randall Parker said at August 24, 2006 10:17 PM:

Ras,

You posted half the comments in this thread. Your comments were much longer than those of others. So you wrote about two thirds or three quarters of the text in this read.

What is this text of yours? Stream of consciousness rapid typing and not enough thought and little facts. Plus, you quote back lots of text by others. Really, you are wasting space. You could have made your points much more succinctly. Though that would have required more effort on your part and so you burden us with the results of your laziness.

Then you defend your behavior by telling us how morally superior you are to the others here. I roll my eyes. Look, you are being intellectually lazy and writing lots of text. If you did that to make an argument that I kinda agreed with I'd still think you were being lazy and should stop it.

cugel said at August 26, 2006 9:56 AM:

Here in Holland there is a big ideological fight between the left who mostly support multiculturalism and people who are sick of muslim stupidity and now have to move toward the political right because that is the only side that supports their views.
As a certain Anja Meulenbelt who is in government for an extreme leftwing party has a big blog about islam and the palestinian people we try to make our views heard on her blog, but she removes any posting, however polite and reasonable it may be, if it is in any way critical of muslim culture. People get so outraged by this censorship that apart from her coterie hardly anybody bothers to read much of her blog, because however hard you work on a decent reaction she won't post it anyway.
It seems that multiculturalism and censorship go hand in hand and politically that means leftwing. Terrible if you reckon that i have voted leftwing nearly my whole life.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©