The Suicide Bombers Among Us

Posted by stari_momak on November 01, 2005, 05:18 PM | #

This is barely tangential to the topic. But it seems our friends over at AIPAC have decided to hook up with all those H1-B Indian fellows.  Follow the link it has everything. Ethnopolitics, the Choosen, the Muj, the Hindoo. Be sure to read the comments.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000420.html

Posted by stari_momak on November 01, 2005, 05:19 PM | #

Okay, its way old , 2002 , didn’t look at the date. But still very interesting.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 01, 2005, 07:13 PM | #

”... the sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced, in a single day, by the nightmare of permanent conflict.”

Sporadic but insistent conflict, I think, might be nearer the case.  But from my point of view this is not a conclusion, Phil.  It is a condition necessary to a conclusion.

A true conclusion would proceed from the question, “Is conflict good enough for us and our children ... is it a state of being in which we are content to acquiesce, or do we perceive something better?  And if we do, are we prepared to make the necessary effort and sacrifice to achieve it?”

The questioners, of course, would exclusively be white.

Posted by john fitzgerald on November 01, 2005, 07:40 PM | #

For me dalrympal is a tiresome writer, his style, similar to The Pod, smells of talmudic herding.
His stuff circles around a contempt for my people, the same people who gave his family a safe haven, allowing them to prosper, and even now support him financialy.
Guessedworkers conclusion is one the quack would never come to.

Posted by stari_momak on November 01, 2005, 07:41 PM | #

But not, surely, in a single day. Over years, decades even. And that is how things will be turned around in the UK, the USA and elsewhere.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 01, 2005, 11:21 PM | #

This paper is liberal gibberish. Pakistani/Arab s/bombers do not act on a sense of disenfranchisement or because Britain is inimical to Islam. It’s ethnic nepotism and according to Rushton it’s genetically based.

From Sailer:

Rushton anchored the human preference for similarity in the evolutionary psychology of altruism, which suggests that favoritism toward kin and similar others evolved to help replicate shared genes. In-group loyalty is almost always seen as a virtue and extension of family loyalty. This explains why ethnic remarks are so easily taken as “fighting words.”

Dalrymple:

The French-Iranian researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar, who interviewed 15 French Muslim prisoners convicted of planning terrorist acts, relates in his book, Suicide Bombers: Allah’s New Martyrs, how some of his interviewees had been converted to the terrorist outlook by a single insulting remark—for example, when one of their sisters was called a “dirty Arab” when she explained how she couldn’t leave home on her own as other girls could

Dalrymple then immediately moves to the erroneous liberal conclusion that,

Such is the fragility of the modern ego—not of Muslims alone, but of countless people brought up in our modern culture of ineffable self-importance, in which an insult is understood not as an inevitable human annoyance, but as a wound that outweighs all the rest of one’s experience.

Rushton:

In The Descent, Darwin provided numerous examples of how animal
morality led to reproductive success. All animals fight by nature in some
circumstances but are altruistic in others. Acts of altruism include parental care, mutual defence, rescue behaviour, co-operative hunting, food sharing and self-sacrificial altruism. Darwin described how leaders of monkey troops act as sentinels and utter cries of danger or safety to their fellows; how even male chimpanzees might rush to the aid of infants that cried out under attack,even though the infants were not their own.

Posted by RoyB on November 03, 2005, 06:32 AM | #

Mr. Jones has now taken genetic reductivism to its logical conclusion, in so doing putting on full display its paltry absurdity.

The British and American underclasses are characterized by self-destructiveness and a feeling that they are worthless.  This is because their social environment does not produce the slightest hint that there might be intrinsic worth to anything, let alone themselves.  It reaches them soley by route of their hunger, sexual cravings, status-seeking, etc.  Muslim terrorism is a specific manifestation of this self loathing emerging from the British Muslim’s experiences.  Other groups manifest it in other ways.  Mr. Jones’ taste for a society functioning on purely biological basis will be more than satisfied if he would soujourn for a bit in underclass Britain; there indeed lies a society functioning on little else.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 03, 2005, 10:20 AM | #

Roy: Muslim terrorism is a specific manifestation of this self loathing emerging from the British Muslim’s experiences.

Muslim terrorism emerges, a la Qutb, from the identification of violence against Westerners as a means of unifying the Ummah.  That is seen as a necessary precondition for the purification of Islam and its lands.

Self-evidently, the cultural pollutants against which this fundamentalism rage are Western.  Hence it seems to me reasonable, and not overly reductionist, to deduce that race competition is a substantial component, perhaps the dominant component in anti-Western Islamic terrorism.

Now, this is a significantly different subject area from the condition of the black and brown underclass in the West.  Since high IQ Chinese and Indian immigrants have prospered and have not the slightest reason to point the finger at white racism for their economic outcome, we should view the status of Moslems and blacks as a consequence of their personal capacities.

It is not clear from your comment whether you think from the leftist perspective that everything is the fault of the evil white man.  I hope you don’t, but perhaps you will clarify that.

Posted by RoyB on November 04, 2005, 01:58 AM | #

I’ll gladly clarify.

The evil white man in the abstract is a bizzare creature of the left-wing imagination.  However, white Europeans always have, and by large measure still do, run Europe, and the demise of Europe is largely attributable to the corruption of certain evil white men like Jaques Chirac. 

Obviously, the Muslim communities themselves are responsible for their own disfunctionality and violence; and yes, I agree that they should not have been allowed to migrate in such numbers; and yes, there could very well exist among them a greater genetic predisposition to exhibit this sort of behavior than exists amongst whites.  However, these ailments are also largely the result of bad governance, and were once, in the words of Enoch Powell, imminently “preventable evils”.

Upon further consideration of your point, I do not deny that genetically-induced race-competition plays a substantial role in the current fiasco.  However, I doubt that this drive is in itself sufficient to produce this outcome, or that this outcome is the inevitable result of racial-evolutionary forces. 

My point is that the afforementioned evil white men removed from society any trace of value and goodness, ostensibly so that people would be “free” to devote themselves to self-indulgence and vice, and that weak, flaccid white men, lacking all conviction, allowed them to do this.  This led to aimlessness, frustration, and ultimately to self-loathing among the working classes, which in Britain have devolved into some hideous animal class.  It is in this environment where a large disoriented ethnic enclave can fester long enough to exhibit these degrees of violence and antisociality.  With a more frugal, more discerning immigration policy, combined with a confident culture promoted by the elite classes, the Muslims would have probably have been able to deal with their minority status in a more productive way.  It is a mistake to say they can’t assimilate, since they have even assimilated to the current British rot.  The question is what they assimilate to, and how.

Two flaws emerge with the Darwinian interpretation.  First, suicidal violence is, for obvious reasons, not a particularly effective Darwinian strategy.  Second, I attribute much of the current situation to the British working classes having their lives robbed of meaning, and for this perculiarity of humanity, the ability and desire to find meaning, there is at this point no Darwinian explanation, and to posit one with no hard evidence of its existence amounts to philosophical reductiveness.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 04, 2005, 03:14 AM | #

Yet Rushton asserts that suicidal violence (altruistic self-sacrifice) does have a genetic fitness benefit…

In The Origin, Darwin (1859) saw that altruism posed a major enigma for his theory of evolution. How could altruism evolve through ‘survival of the fittest’ if altruism means self-sacrifice? If the most altruistic members of a group sacrifice themselves for others, they will have fewer offspring to pass on the genes that made them altruistic. Altruism should not evolve, but selfishness should. Darwin was unable to resolve the paradox of altruism to his satisfaction because to do so required greater knowledge of how heredity worked than he had available (the word ‘genetics’ was not coined until 1905). Nonetheless, in The Descent, Darwin (1871) intuited the solution when he
wrote, ‘sympathy is directed solely towards members of the same community,
and therefore towards known, and more or less loved members, but not all the individuals of the same species’ (Vol. 1: 163). In 1964, evolutionary biologist William Hamilton finally provided a generally accepted solution to the problem of altruism based on the concept
of inclusive fitness, not just individual fitness. It is the genes that survive and are passed on. Some of the individual’s most distinctive genes will be found in siblings, nephews, cousins and grandchildren as well as in offspring. Siblings share fifty per cent, nephews and nieces twenty-five per cent, and cousins about twelve and a half per cent of their distinctive genes. So when an altruist sacrifices its life for its kin, it ensures the survival of these common genes. The vehicle has been sacrificed to preserve copies of its precious cargo. From an evolutionary point of view, an individual organism is only a vehicle, part of an elaborate device, which ensures the survival and reproduction of genes with the least possible biochemical alteration.

The point is they have not assimilated to the British ‘rot’ because even white derelict Britons do not commit mass murder against their genetic likeness despite sharing the alleged despair of their Muslim neighbours.

As to your second point, Brimelow writes - Herrnstein and Murray (so they wouldn’t be accused of racism)looked at poverty among non-Hispanic whites. Their finding: A white individual’s intelligence now predicts the likelihood of his being poor far better than whether or not he was born into poverty.

Among whites born into average socioeconomic conditions, but with IQs below 85, the probability of poverty in adulthood reached 26%—inner-city proportions. Conversely, among whites born into the very worst poverty, but with average intelligence, the probability of poverty in adulthood was only one in ten. About two-thirds of America’s poverty-level population is white. Of that group, nearly two-thirds have IQs below 96.

The point is that there always will be ‘rot’ in any society, it’s simply that Pakistani/Arab/African ‘rot’ will be diproportionately higher than other higher IQ groups.

Posted by RoyB on November 04, 2005, 05:59 PM | #

We are talking mostly about 2 different things.  You say that given any set of conditions, Arab proclivity towards violence and poverty exceeds white proclivities.  I am not challenging the point, nor am I really addressing it.

  What I am saying is that under a different cultural atmosphere, the British Arabs would not display nearly as much antisocial behavior.  Yes, there will always be rot in any society.  And perhaps Arab “rot” will always be disproportionate.  But there need not be as much rot as there is now amongst either group, and there would not if they were better governed.

Arab violence in Palestine would be a good example of co-ethnic altruism.  We see that, at least among human societies, an every-man-for-himself mindset leads to the extinction of collective identity, either from genocide or cultural absorption.  If the Palestinians behaved selfishly and individualistically, they would have been dispersed long ago, and we would not be speaking of them.  Darwinism in action.

This is not the case with alienated British Muslims.  Their violence is not altruistic but nihlistic.  We do not see native Britons blowing themselves up, not because of their genetic makeup, but because there is no historical/cultural framework within British society wherein such an act would make any sense. Islam, however, provides a very explicit grounding for such activities amongst Muslims.  Larry Auster types make the mistake of positing Islam to be a sufficient condition, just as the Darwin-o-philes take genetics to be a sufficient condition for the current situation.
For the British underclass equivalent, one would have to investigate their rates of alcoholiam, drug-overdose, and conventional suicide.  Muslim violence is more in line with these phenomena; it is Columbine with an Islamic flavor; and no one would call the Columbine bombings an act of evolutionary altruism.

Posted by Phil on November 04, 2005, 07:08 PM | #

RoyB,

I am delighted to see that there are still some men with good sense emerging from America’s Universities. Are you currently at Columbia or an Alumni?

You may of course, for reasons of anonymity, refuse to answer my question.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 05, 2005, 02:52 AM | #

Equally, it can be asserted that better government, whatever that means, will have little of no effect on society’s disenfranchised elements. Economies are placing an increasing premium on skills. Herrnstein and Murray showed that individuals with superior IQ scores tend to earn significantly more even within the “high-IQ professions,” such as accountants, lawyers, and physicians. Increasingly, technologically advanced societies favour brain-power over back-power. Societies are forming intellectual castes.

Further, Brimelow writes, Despite reports to the contrary, love is not blind. Studies dating back to the 1940s show that the IQs of spouses correlate powerfully, almost as closely as that of siblings. More recent evidence suggests this “assortative mating” may be intensifying, as college graduates increasingly marry each other—rather than the boy or girl back home or someone met in church.

The results are startling. The children of a typical Harvard-Radcliffe Class of ‘30 marriage, Herrnstein and Murray estimate, would have a mean IQ of 114; a third would be below 110—not even college material, by some definitions. But the children of a Harvard-Radcliffe Class of ‘64 marriage, after the admissions revolution, would have an estimated mean IQ of 124. Only 6% would fall below 110. Lynn and Vanhanen’s study affirm this trend. LaGriffe du Lion’s Smart Fraction theory, provides even further evidence of an even greater correlation of verbal IQ >106 and economic success. Which means regardless of how well Morroco is governed it will never produce a society like Belgium.

The nihilism theory fails when the race of the victims is examined. The Columbine victims were 85% white. The London bombing victims were >70% white. The perps at Columbine did not care who they killed, even their co-ethnics. Nihilistic violence.

The London s/bombers targeted whites just as the Palestinians target Jews, and the Japanese targeted whites in WWII. Altruistic violence.

In addition, arguing that Islam provides ‘explicit grounding for such activities’ and then that such actions are nihilistic is illogical. Nihilism is a doctrine of negation. It maintains that religious and moral truths are entirely irrational. Yet there is no evidence that the s/bombers regarded the teachings of Islam as irrational.

Posted by RoyB on November 07, 2005, 10:03 AM | #

Christian theology provides a plausible grounding for:

a) National suicide in pursuit of Universal religion

b) Individual suicide in pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven

c) Accidental suicide from people who can’t swim, yet try to walk on water as a proclamation of faith.

d) Suicide via faith-healing dogma

All of these can be contrived from Christianity with some degree of plausibility.  It doesn’t mean that these actions are rational or well considered.  A nihlistic spirit could lead to several of them.

Islam, because of passages in the Koran that explicitly laud holy war and martyrdom, probably lends itself to antisociality far more plausibly than does Christianity, but comparative religion isn’t the topic of this thread.

If you contend that Arabs and/or blacks, or whomever cannot be integrated into modern society, regardless of how well selected they are or how well governed that society is, then we simply disagree on empirical grounds.  Although I will admit that they will probably always display greater proclivities towards violence or disfunctionality, as well as lower productivity on the margin, my experience leads me to believe that their natures afford them many compensations for these ills, and that in rational societies minority underachievement would be a pesky nuisance rather than a source of turmoil.

I thank Phil for his praise, in case he didn’t get my private message, and repeat that I am an alum.

Posted by RoyB on November 07, 2005, 10:17 AM | #

Furthermore:  I speak of a nihlistic spirit of meaninglessness and desparation, which leads to self-loathing and universal contempt, not of a coherent philosophy.  I contend that fanatical Muslims sometimes (not always) are drawn into their maddness by such a feeling.  The Columbine killers and suicide bombers do share the common feature of homicide-suicide.  An act of evolutionary altruism would have to come from an evolved altruistic in-group impulse.  You can say this for Kamakazes and Palestinians, but Osama-bombas seem driven by individual cultic frenzy, and homocidal despair.  Not every destructive act directed (principally) at a racial rival is Darwinistic group-preservation.