Hypotheses to test

It’s not a scientific study by any means, but this article from the New York Times could be used to generate a good hypothesis worthy of being tested:

“Our cities are facing a huge problem, maybe the largest since World War II,” Mr. Goldstein said. “How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror? That is the real question we’re facing.”

Friends who teach the equivalent of high school seniors in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told him that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes,” he said.

Mr. Goldstein, 38, grew up in Schaerbeek, the child of Jewish refugees from Nazism. Now a councilman from Schaerbeek, he is also chief of staff for the minister-president of the Brussels Capital Region.

I could see the hypothesis worthy of test being something like:

  • Most Muslims in Europe are peaceful and tolerant
  • Those who commit terrorism and violence do not represent Islam in Europe

I could also see the politically correct crowd insisting that it is racist and Islamophobic to even test such a hypothesis while simultaneously insisting the quote above is proof Jews are racists.

My take on things is that there is a huge problem in Europe that to a greater or lesser degree extends over the entire globe and there are no good solutions. There are only painful remedies and pragmatic tradeoffs which will challenge our principles to their core.

19 thoughts on “Hypotheses to test

  1. Interesting hypotheses. The question is what you’d use as the threshold for “most”. If you pick 60%, they are probably true. If you pick 90%, they are most likely false.

    One issue Europe has that the USA does not (or at least, not even close to the same extent) is that many Muslims are marginalized members of the society, partly because integration is considered non-PC, and partly because economic opportunity has been shredded by European socialism. Consider not just the overall unemployment rate, but in particular the number for young people (much higher) and for minorities (much higher still). If I remember right, youth unemployment in Spain is over 50%. And in some countries, like Holland, official figures are forgery because by official policy, “disability” is used as a substitute for joblessness so that the unemployment statistics won’t look so bad.

    • “The question is what you’d use as the threshold for “most”. If you pick 60%, they are probably true. If you pick 90%, they are most likely false.”

      Yeah that brings up the next question; if ninety seven percent of Muslims are peace-loving and three percent of Muslims are intent on violent overthrow at all costs and would like nothing more than to die in their cause, how many Muslims can a society tolerate? The follow-up question is; if ninety seven percent of all Muslims are peace-loving, does that mean, ipso-facto, that it is therefore entirely up to non Muslims to stand up to the violent three percent of Islam?

      I would like to think that if some minority of Christians were to go rouge and start a suicide bombing terror campaign, that the majority of real Christians would be among the first to put them down as frauds and set out, on their own, to stop them. In fact I believe that such would happen.

      So what about the supposed majority of Muslims who are supposedly peaceful? Are they sniveling cowards or are they granting approval to the violence via their inaction? Who’s going after the Mullahs who incite the violence?

      OR; is it that jihad is called for in the Koran, and that all the violence and aggression is an integral part of their stupid “religion”? Do we not already know the answer to that? And so what difference could it possibly make how many or what percentage of Muslims are “peace-loving” and what percentage is violent? We already know that the oppression, the aggression and the violence, ultimately for the purpose of the world dominance of an Islamic Authoritarian System (war with the rest of the world until all are subjugated) are a built-in features.

      That being the case, who cares about percentages? It’s a bit like counting the hairs on the head of a serial killer or debating the number of skin cells he has verses the number of brain cells, as if the numbers were pertinent to the matter at hand. The pertinent, built-in feature of a serial killer is that he murders people.

      Islam is no different. It’s right there in the manual, whether any particular individual happens to carry it out this very day or not is rather beside the point– It’s still his obligation as a member of the stupid religion, and until he renounces the “religion” then we have to assume he will at some point pick up a gun or strap on a bomb, etc., or carry out support of some kind for those who do. For sure as fuck, he isn’t going to war to stop them. He may disagree with the or that tactic, but he’s still part of the overall program.

      • There was a lot of support for Timothy McVeigh on the far right back in the day. If Lon Horiuchi was murdered by a sniper there would probably be a lot of support for it on comments in this forum. Does that mean that the government should be treating all members of the patriot community and gun nuts as potential terrorists? Well, the FBI probably does, but should they? Replace “Muslim” in Lyle’s comments with “gun nut” and it sounds exactly like the crap coming out of Hillary’s mouth.

        • “There was a lot of support” — really? Not that I ever heard, and most of the news sources I get, certainly back then, are somewhere between centrist and (for lack of better) the typical leftist stuff. So I could believe a dozen or so, but not “a lot”. Certainly not the more than 10% support you see for Islamic terrorism.

        • Well, except for the fact that the 1% of the population of the US that are Muslim are committing 50% of the mass murders, and civilians with concealed carry licenses have a crime conviction rate lower than that of sworn law enforcement officers, yeah, they are exactly the same.

          /facepalm

      • I think there’s a good comparison to be made between Jews and Muslims in respect to what they’re commanded to do by their religion. If you really read through the old testament, Mosaic law commands jews to do some pretty terrible things. Stonings, enslavement, genocide, etc etc. The vast majority of modern day Jews have taken those commandments as being meant for another time and age though. Thus you don’t see Jews sacrificing goats in the town square and such.

        In the same vein, the Koran commands believers to do some pretty horrible things. The question is, how many Muslims take those commands as being meant for another time and how many take those commands as relevant in the present. I know there are both varieties of believer but I don’t know what the proportion is…..

    • Here’s an article I found on Muslims in Los Angeles: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/10/local/me-lapd10

      One thing I’ve always found interesting is that Beverly Hills has a large population of both Muslims and Jews, yet it has no terrorism AFAIK. This paragraph in the article backs up what you are saying: “American Muslims differ from their European co-religionists in several other respects. A Pew survey of 1,050 adult American Muslims nationwide found them to be “largely assimilated, happy with their lives and moderate.” Although two-thirds are immigrants, most respondents said Muslims should integrate into U.S. society rather than isolate themselves.”

  2. Europe, and soon N.America is in a guerilla war. The radical minority is being passively supported by the “peaceful” majority. As T.E. Lawrence said :

    Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in a striking force, and 98 percent passively sympathetic.

    • Precisely. “Peaceful and tolerant” could mean what the libs accuse gun owners of being – until we inevitably snap and go on a shooting spree.

      However, there appears to be ample evidence that support for terrorist acts does exist in among the Islamic community, even those claiming to be “peaceful.” There is, at least, very little widespread condemnation for those acts among the community.

      • There are two parts to this. One is that a substantial minority outright support terrorism. (That’s in the west; it’s a substantial majority in many third world countries.) The other is that, of those who do not support terrorism, only a tiny fraction actually speak against it.
        Robert Avrech has a great deal of material on all this, of course. One interesting recent item is a Prager University talk by an American Muslim speaking on the need of Muslims to be active against terrorism: http://www.seraphicpress.com/islamic-terror-what-american-muslims-can-do/

  3. I could also see the politically correct crowd insisting that it is racist and Islamophobic to even test such a hypothesis…

    You’re joking, right?

    The PC crowd will insist that it’s racist and Islamophobic to consider such a hypothesis — even more so to write it down, let alone *gasp* TEST it!

  4. What we are watching is an attempt at cultural suicide. The West (as in Western Civilization) has utterly lost confidence in itself, its principles, and its mission. Marxist “Critical Theory” has worked its dark magic and undercut our culture, mores, values, and intellectual freedom that was our greatest strength. We went to the moon, fought an overseas war, and staved off communism all at the same time because we had the brash confidence in ourselves. Europe had its sense of self-worth crushed in WW II, where it was pulverized and had its youth bled white. It was told, forcefully, that they were BAD, WRONG, and EVIL. They internalized it. We followed them.

    Multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal, but that means ours is no better than any others, and we’ve done bad things, so we must be bad people, and you don’t fight to defend bad people doing bad things, do you? Of course not. That would be cultural imperialism. So get what you can while the getting is good, and if it feels good do it, because, well, there isn’t anything bad but us, right? So it makes no difference who wins. And because not all [immigrants of type X] are bad, it would be bad to keep any of them out, right?

    Three possible paths:
    Europe elects nationalists now, closes a lot of borders, and starts mass deportation of people that are not doing their darnedest to assimilate (ugly, costly, difficult);
    After a few years of letting the situation fester and worsen they elect ultra nationalists in a few years and close the borders then ship anyone that doesn’t look European halfway across the Mediterranean, unload, and let them figure out how to get the rest of the way across (uglier, costlier, more difficult);
    Or Western European culture will effectively disappear under a wave of migrants, and in fifty or sixty years Sharia law will be common. That will cause a huge increase in demand for immigration from Europe to America, which will only make the European problem worse.

    There are no “good” solutions to the European problems where everyone wins. There are only solutions that limit the costs to different ethnic groups that have the most to lose.

    • It’s hard to speak meaningfully of “principles” in talking about Europe. And that makes historic sense. Consider that all of Europe (well, with the possible exception of Switzerland, which I don’t know well) was ruled by absolute dictators as far back as 800 AD if not earlier. What passes for democracy now is a slight tweak of that earlier setup. This is why you see “constitutions” that place no limits on government power. This is why you don’t’ see any real understanding of liberty, or where it comes from. This is why you don’t see actual freedom of speech — only freedom to say the things the authorities approve of. This is why you don’t see the right to bear arms.
      European subjects (not “citizens”) may try to make some changes, but there is very little reason to believe that anything of real substance, or real value, will happen.
      I’m glad I got out of there…

      • Which is why importing European “Subjects” in great gobs and job lots at the turn of the century and giving them the vote was a disaster for America. Instead of becoming self-reliant they called on the government to save them from gangsters in the 20s and from poverty in the 30s, ushering in the modern welfare/warfare/tax slave state.

        But I’m sure it’ll workout better with letting in the moslem horde. Because reasons.

        • Turn of which century? 19th into 20th? I don’t think you’re right. They weren’t coming for welfare, FDR hadn’t invented that yet. Nor for gun bans. Who invented welfare, immigrants? I don’t think so.

  5. the only solution w/ muslim extremism is to rid all of islam from our midst. period. the irish were bad enough, raising money for irish terror in american bars, and on lecture tours, and the like. but, at least the irish did not go nuts and foment terrorism here.

    islam and muslims know no such restraint. i would sooner bed w/ rattlesnakes than to have muslims in my community. at least the rattlesnakes taste like chicken.

    • Fomenting terror here would not have served any purpose. If I recall correctly the goals of the Irish were to kick the English out, establish an independent Irish government and/or implement socialism in Ireland, depending on which Irishman you talked to. The Irish were concerned with Ireland. World conquest and slaughter of the infidels is exclusively the purview of the koranimals.

    • john jay –

      Exterminate the vermin, right? Sieg Heil!

      Are you sounding like this on purpose, or is just a coincidence?

      • He didn’t say exterminate them. He said remove them from our midst. Islam is a system of law, courts, government and religion all in one ugly package, and utter anathema to the Constitution of the United States. Most of them WILL NOT assimilate. I’m not for killing them, but every single one should be sent home to their own countries. But by the same token, once they’re returned home, WE should mind our own business and leave them the hell alone. They have a right to worship their Allah. Unfortunately they are not compatible with a secular modern world. Right now the real terrorists in the middle east are predator drones! We have a pResident who actually claimed to be getting really good at killing people! How many of them children? ISIS is a creation of the CIA! What the hell?? OUR tax dollars (borrowed no less) are being used to destabilize a big chunk of the world! Why??? No wonder they call us the great Satan.

Comments are closed.