Since 9/11, a lot of nonsense has been talked about
the root cause of Islamist terror.
The left has attempted to explain it as driven by
"poverty" or "oppression",
or American foreign policy,
or at least some sort of logical grievance.
But we are gradually coming to see that Islamist terror
is in fact driven by a vile, totalitarian, hallucinatory ideology
- that has its own dynamic,
and that is not based on any logical or rational grievances.
Many are now also realising that Islamist terror before 9/11
- such as in Israel
- was basically the same thing.
Arab terror against Israel
fundamentally based on Islamism,
not on logical or rational grievances.
Assuming there must be a reason that makes sense behind 9/11
is a basic logical error.
The cause of 9/11 may make no sense at all.
There was no logical or coherent reason behind most of history's mass killings.
There was no logical reason behind Hitler's genocide of harmless, rural, East European Jewish peasants.
There was no logical reason behind Stalin's democide of harmless lower-middle-class "kulaks".
The idea that 9/11 has to have a logical cause is an assertion that fails to understand human nature.
Kevin Myers, 9 Sept 2011, says followers of
think that evil deeds must stem from some logical cause or grievance.
While followers of
understand that evil men committing evil deeds is the oldest story in history.
"On the one hand, there were the Chomskyites, henceforth the chumps, who felt that there was an underlying "reason" for 9/11, which had been "created" by US policies. And there were the others, the Burkians, who felt that 9/11 represented yet another occasion when evil had captured the souls of men.
We'd seen it before - the French Revolution, the October Revolution in Russia, the Third Reich in Germany, Mao and Pol Pot. And now, here we go again."
He wasn't born evil: Bin Laden
(2nd from right) in Sweden in 1971.
He wasn't born evil. He chose evil.
Bin Laden's life illustrates clearly how Islamist terror is not caused by poverty or oppression.
He wasn't poor. In fact, he was obscenely wealthy.
His life's work was as a rich man killing people who were much poorer than he was.
He was never oppressed either.
Islamist terror is not caused by poverty or oppression.
It is caused by memes.
It is caused by ideas inside the killers' heads - and nothing more.
The idea that 9/11 must have had some logical cause:
by Thomas Sowell
- The idea that hatred has to have a good reason
and ignores history.
Why talk is useless
by Andrew Bolt
- The Islamofascists
"have no cause. They have nothing for us
Sometimes, it is true, there is a cause.
There is something to discuss.
But sometimes not.
And this is one of those cases where there is not.
The only proper response to Islamofascism is total war.
Victor Davis Hanson
rejects the Chomsky-Said idea that 9/11 must have had some logical cause.
- ".. this
post-Marxist idea that wars are the product of material grievance or clear-cut exploitation, unfortunately, is not true;
.. so many wars in antiquity and in the modern world start because of perceived grievances only. They deal with
irrational elements like fear and honour, and we don't necessarily have to believe they have any basis in fact."
Philip Bobbitt (paraphrased):
"for instance, if terrorism is rooted in Muslim grievances about western support for Israel or engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, why are so few of those apprehended in the West for terrorist crimes Palestinians, Afghans or Iraqis?"
The terrorists' complaints are fantastic
and are not based on reason:
Lo, the Poor Terrorist
by Theodore Dalrymple, January 20, 2004.
"The idea that if someone is prepared to do something truly
horrible, he must have a worthy cause remains attractive to
The 9/11 attackers
are motivated by fantasy that bears no relation to the real world,
and "it is absurd for us to look for the so-called
"root" causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc.
Such factors play absolutely no role in the creation of a fantasy ideology."
"Equally absurd, on this interpretation, is the notion that we must review our own policies
toward the Arab world - or the state of Israel - in order to find ways to make our enemies
hate us less.
... There is no political policy we could take that would change the attitude of our
enemies - short, perhaps, of a massive nationwide conversion to fundamentalist Islam."
Describing them as simply "evil" is not a bad response.
"There is one decisive advantage to the "evildoer" metaphor, and it is this:
evildoers is not Clausewitzian war. You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust
your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers' point
of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on
the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the
same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic - you try to wipe it out."
The terrorists have no clue what is happening in the world:
Of course the terrorists' complaints are not based on logic and evidence,
because the terrorists are usually completely ignorant of world history and politics.
They rarely have a clue what is happening in the world.
All they know is that they love Islam.
Poll, Nov 2010: 92 percent of Afghans have never heard of the 9/11 attacks.
92 percent of Afghans have no idea why America came to their country.
Ignorant, illiterate, and above all, incurious.
Kevin Myers, November 10, 2009, on the "grievances" of Islamism:
"within, it seems, all "moderate" Muslim communities are some fundamentalists who hold the local franchise for the global grievance of Islam. And no one really knows what such Islamic fundamentalists want, because the demands change according to whatever market the local Islamic franchisee is operating in.
somewhere inside the greater Islamic mind is an absurd sense of victimhood: and where there is no local grievance, why then there is always "Palestine", as if those few disputed acres in the vast Islamic landmass of Afro-Asia merited the unanimous and indignant global furies of all Muslims, from Delhi to Dearborn."
Rachel Woodlock, 23 Mar 2011, expresses in almost pure form the absurd idea that Islamic terrorism is caused by ... fear of Islamic terrorism!
"we can cut the oxygen that fuels the flames of [Islamist] fanaticism by"
not "stopping Islamist hate speech",
not "deporting Islamist clerics",
not "fighting all support for sharia or jihad",
not "controlling Islamic immigration"
no, rather, by:
"actively countering anti-Muslim paranoia."
There you go. To stop Islamic terror you should clamp down on opponents of Islamic terror!
She says that to stop Islamic terror in Australia, we need:
"societies in which there is religious freedom and the state ensures social services are provided to all - this means facilitating the settlement and integration of Islam and Muslims in Australian society."
Roland Shirk, 23 Mar 2011, shreds her argument.
"All that Muslims need to be peaceful is multicultural laws and a generous welfare state. If only someone had tried that strategy before!
The problem with Islam in the West is that we don't yet have enough Muslims in our midst, we don't bend over backwards to accommodate their preferences, and we don't cut them enough government checks to make sure that they really feel welcome. Because of this, many Muslims have grown understandably sulky, and ignored the dictates of their own peaceful religion to become suicide bombers, honor killers, and preachers of totalitarian sharia. Isn't that what every group would do in that situation?
Remember how the Southeast Asian "boat people" in the 1970s formed terror cells throughout the West? How the Haitians who fled that country's political chaos in the 80s took to blowing up New York skycrapers?"
Cracking comment on Woodlock's article:
"So when Muslims bomb coptic Christians in Egypt is that due to western racism and discrimination as well?"
Matthew Modine, Mar 2010, illustrates the failure of so many well-meaning liberal westerners to understand jihadis.
He absurdly says:
"Imagine if somebody were to really sit down with Osama Bin Laden and say, 'listen man,what is it that you're so angry at me about that you're willing to have people strap bombs to themselves, or get inside of airplanes and fly them into buildings.' That would be the miracle if we can get, sit down and talk to our enemies and find a way for them to hear us."
As Greg Gutfeld says:
"Modine just turned 51, but his opinion reflects that of a six year old girl ... It's a perspective that suggests one has never contemplated evil beyond a character portrayed in a script. MM fails to realize that there are people out there who see your desire for "understanding" as one reason why you'll be killed first."
Absurd post by
Mark Zuckerberg, 27 Mar 2016,
after the jihad massacres in
He claims the solution to jihad is to create a world
"where every single person in every country feels connected and cared for and loved." Technology genius knows no more about politics than the average man on the bus.
'Love' will not stop the jihad.
US Department of State spokesperson
is the poster girl for dumb left-wing conventional wisdom.
she said about ISIS:
"we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war.
We need .. to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups."
Great, go after the root causes - Islamism, sharia, jihad.
Let's do it.
And then she shows that she has no clue
what the root causes are:
"Whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs ...
We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance.
We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.
... if we can help countries work at the root causes of this. What makes these 17 year old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business".
This is what passes for "wisdom" in Obama's America.
No wonder Obama has screwed up everything he ever touched to do with Islam and the jihad since 2009.
"Our Fight Against Violent Extremism". Obama speech, 18 Feb 2015, shows that Obama himself has no clue about the root cause of Islamic terror. He will never have a clue.
The words "Islamism" and "jihad" and "sharia" do not appear.
He has no interest in what inspires jihadis to fight.
It's probably best not to read what ideas he has instead.
It's too depressing.
I long for the day when this stuff is wiped off the whitehouse.gov website.
sums it up:
"jobs are indeed a root cause of the fix we are in. ...
we won’t win the war the jihadists are fighting against us until Barack Obama and his crowd lose their jobs."
Warner Todd Huston, 7 July 2013,
points out that the Middle East "peace plan"
proposed by the idiot President in the film
- withdraw all US forces from the Middle East,
and let dictators and terrorists do as they will -
would lead to a bloodbath in the region.
Possibly even a nuclear war.
This film would certainly support the idea that the left are the dumb ones
- the ones who do not think about the news too deeply.
".. consider the case of Russia. For over a century Russia and then the USSR dominated and oppressed Central Asian Muslims. The Soviets then brutalized Afghanistan
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the attempt by Muslims in Chechnya to gain their independence has been brutally suppressed at the cost of perhaps 50,000 dead
So is Russia, its hands red with Muslim blood, the "Great Satan" of the jihadists and their state sponsor, Iran? Of course not.
The United States is: a country that never colonized or ruled a Muslim nation, a country that helped Muslims in Afghanistan, a country that liberated Muslim Kuwait, a country that bombed and killed Christian Serbs to protect Balkan Muslims, a country that has spent its blood and treasure getting rid of Iran's most bitter enemy and the Shia Muslims' worst oppressor, Saddam Hussein,
a country that even now is fighting to empower Iran's fellow Shiites.
We are the Great Satan, while the Iranian mullocracy happily does business with the Russians and seldom says a word of condemnation against them.
Why is this so? Obviously, Russia serves Iran's interests by helping with their nuclear development and protecting its interests on the Security Council. But there's another important reason Russia's much more extensive crimes against Islam are given a pass:
the jihadists know the Russians are not susceptible to the therapeutic blackmail used against a self-loathing West.
Russia uses brutal force to promote and defend its interests
and doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks."
Bruce Thornton again:
"Historically the greatest slaughterer of Muslims has been Russia, most recently in Chechnya, where by some estimates a 100,000 people were killed, torture and collective punishment freely employed, and the capital Grozny shelled into rubble. That's how Russia solved its jihad problem. But that hasn't kept Iran's lunatic president Ahmadinejad from cheerily posing for the cameras alongside Vladimir Putin. But more important, you never hear criticism of Russia from most Muslim countries, for the simple reason that Russia doesn't care what anyone thinks about its pursuit of its interests. Only we Westerners, so sensitive and guilty, are vulnerable to that sort of emotional blackmail.".
Bernard Lewis, May 16, 2007, on how the Islamists gave a pass to the Soviet Union - because it was brutal and they feared it.
In the Cold War,
"While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism
and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune.
Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire
accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed,
as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.
Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979."
When the UN tried to weakly condemn it,
"Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states.
South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained;
Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets."
The superiority of the West
is casually demonstrated every day in the West's inventions and achievements.
Even people who hate it use the West's inventions all the time, and they know it.
For many proud cultures, the casual superiority of the West, and its casual indifference to the existence of their culture,
makes people angry and resentful.
Who is our enemy?
by Steven Den Beste, Sept 2002.
Argues that the hate of radical Islam is not based on reason.
It is not based on things we have done, or any rational grievance.
They hate us because they are failures
and we are successful.
"They are forced to compare their own accomplishments to ours
In most of the contests it's not just that our score is higher, it's that their score is zero.
They have nothing whatever they can point to that can save face and preserve their egos. In every practical objective way we are better than they are, and they know it.
And since this is a "face" culture, one driven by pride and shame, that is intolerable. Nor is it something we can easily redress."
In contrast to the mainstream left-wing view:
"The HSJP understands the Arab-Israeli conflict through the prism of honor-shame culture
and Islamic jihad. These elements of Arab culture are the main factors that have made it impossible to reach a solution to the conflict."
"The HSJP identifies Arab political culture as an example of "traditional" or "pre-civil society" culture.
According to HSJP, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fueled by wounded Arab honor
and frustrated religious imperialism.
Arab elites prefer losing wars to resolving the conflict by allowing Israel to exist. When they are weak they withdraw and cherish dreams of revenge. When they feel strong enough - no matter how delusional that feeling - they go to war with Israel (1948, 1967, 1973, 2000)."
"This paradigm's conclusions seem dark, with apparently no possibility for negotiations and war as the only apparent alternative.
Although this is not necessarily true, it seems deeply depressing. Those who begin to comprehend HSJP find it difficult to communicate with people strongly committed to PCP."
Interview with Nonie Darwish
(born an Egyptian Muslim), December 20, 2006:
"The Arab culture is famous for its concept of pride. Image is very important and pride and shame are great motivators. Protecting the image of Muslims in front of the non-Muslim West is vital. Thus elaborate behavior is done to saving face. Admitting to a mistake can bring terrible shame and is not regarded as a virtue; those who admit to mistakes are not rewarded for their honesty but ridiculed and shamed or even severely punished.
Fear of being accused of defaming one's tribe, nation or religion leads to a culture that tends to blame others rather than look within.
There is also a concept in Islam called "taqueya"
which allows lying to non-Muslims if it is in the best interest of Islam.
That concept is very deep in Muslim culture that we don't even think of the term
"taqueya" any more; it has simply penetrated every aspect of Muslim life.
Because of it there is very little self-criticism.
Thus, saying sorry, admitting guilt or looking within for solutions is not a strong value;
it will surely get a person in deep trouble instead.
Such a person will bear the blunt of the blame for everything
- even for what he did not do;
thus you have Muslim denials and defensiveness over matters that many in the West cannot comprehend.
Shaming is prominent in the Arab child. To avoid the intense pain of shaming,
denying responsibility turns into a virtue to save face and protect one's pride.
The concept of "taqueya" is one of the reasons many Muslims were silent after 9/11.
Only a few were speaking out honestly and openly by admitting there is a problem in Muslim culture
that needs to be examined and corrected. The few Arab Americans who did that where not rewarded for their honesty by their Muslim community;
instead they were condemned, shunned and shamed by the majority of Muslims.
This charade of denials and games has done nothing but keep
the Muslim world in a permanent state of stagnation,
turmoil and poverty despite of the wealth from oil."
Only U.S. Strength Can Defeat Islamism
by David Gutmann, December 2003.
Argues that Arab culture is driven by
shame and avoidance of losing face.
He argues that, paradoxically,
western weakness and tolerance
western strength and aggressiveness
brings peace and respect.
A Real War
by Victor Davis Hanson, December 5, 2003.
Why Arabs love their oppressors and hate their liberators:
parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower
nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return.
The same is true of those on the
West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority,
their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes
and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies
- if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West.
Because these are irrational responses - people acting from their appetites and impulses
rather than their heads"
- because their philosophy, and their hatreds,
are built on fantasy
rather than reality.
"In the case of the Kingdom, I went there with a certain sympathy for Arab grievances,
a belief that America had earned a lot of hostility from "blowback"
from our ham-handed interventionist foreign policy and support for Israel etc."
His observations could be dismissed as "racist",
but in reality maybe they should be taken on board by Saudis (and others).
After all, culture is a human invention,
and we can all change our culture.
They don't think the same way we do.
When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.
Their values are fundamentally different from ours,
their self-esteem is derived from a different source
(not work, and not relationships).
Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can't maintain it either
(Saudi Arabian maintenance is like the old Soviet bloc).
They do not think of obligations as running both ways
(hypocrisy does not bother them).
In warfare, we think they are sneaky cowards, they think we are hypocrites.
In rhetoric, they don't mean to be taken seriously and they don't understand when we do.
They don't place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity.
They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.
We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids.
We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.
What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language.
If you can't explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all - they won't believe it.
Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism.
They are about which tribe gets to rule.
So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It's the South vs. the South.
The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation. The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel's mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can't understand how, if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful.
A Northern Irish student's impression of Syria:
"In a closed society such as Assad's Syria, language is not for transmitting or exchanging information. Its main purpose is to reinforce the values held by the community and by the regime. These values are outdated and dangerous: self-pity, purity through sacrifice, a leader who will redeem us, the Jews with their wicked plots foiling us, etc.
When I first arrived this was funny in a strange Borat
kind of way. Now it just scares me."
Why Muslim cultures lag behind, May 2011.
Asks why the Islamic world (unlike, say, the Far East)
has not been able to understand and adopt the western ideas that made the West so rich and powerful.
He says the Islamic world has failed because of:
Belief in magic.
Belief in conspiracies.
Lack of innovation.
Lack of devotion to non-family/non tribal/non-clan organizations.
What Makes a Terrorist?
by James Q. Wilson
- Terrorism is not caused by poverty:
Maleckova compared terrorist incidents in the Middle East with changes in
the GDP of the region and found that the number of
such incidents per year increased as economic conditions improved."
"More terrorists do come from poor countries than rich ones, but this
is because poor countries tend to lack civil liberties.
Once a country's degree of civil liberties is taken into account
income per capita bears no relation to involvement in terrorism.
Countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned
relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking
in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil
liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists."
"Apart from the size of a country and the extent of its civil liberties,
no factor that I could find ..
could predict whether people from that country were more or
less likely to take part in international terrorism."
Freedom squelches terrorist violence
- Alberto Abadie concludes that terrorism is not caused by poverty.
"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty,
but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there."
Osama Bin Laden
was a son of the wealthiest non-royal family in Saudi Arabia.
Many of the Palestinian terrorists are not poor. Oct 2015 article.
"I had occasion to visit the homes of some of the Palestinian men and women involved in the ongoing wave of terrorism against Israelis
none of these Palestinians had suffered harsh lives. Their living conditions were anything but miserable. In fact, these murderers had been leading comfortable lives
None of the young Palestinians involved in the recent terror attacks lived a mud house, a tent, or even a rented apartment. They all lived in houses owned by their families, and had unlimited access to the internet.
To be honest, I envied these terrorists because of the comfortable lives they had. The furniture in their homes is far better than my furniture."
University of Pennsylvania
found that of Al-Qa'eda members and associates:
18 per cent were upper class, 55 per cent were middle class.
90 percent came from caring, intact families.
29 per cent had some college education; 33 per cent had a college degree;
9 per cent had a postgraduate degree.
91 per cent had a secular education.
70 per cent joined the jihad while away from home.
They joined the jihad at the average age of 26
(mis-quoted as the average age of all of them being 26).
In short, they are educated, alienated middle-class twenty-something
young men, who as likely as not developed their hateful fascist ideas
in the middle of tolerant, democratic western society.
Just like Hitler, Marx, Lenin and a million other angry, hateful young men
who reject the decent tolerant society that surrounds them.
"Sageman describes them as the
"elite of their country" sent abroad to study because the schools in Germany, France, England
and the US are better.
Al-Qa'eda's "breeding ground", it seems, is as much in fragmented cities in the West
as in hotbeds of Islamism in the East."
Arthur Chrenkoff on Al-Qa'eda not being poor:
"The problem is hardly new. Poor people rarely become revolutionaries because
they are far too busy trying to survive to engage in political pursuits. Historically,
it has always been the relatively well-off and the well educated who constituted a vanguard of any revolutionary
and/or terrorist movement, from the French Revolution and 19th century revolutionary socialism to Bolshevism,
Red Brigades-style terrorism, and Palestinian terrorism.
Overthrowing existing order is and has always been an elite pursuit."
Poverty is not the cause of 9/11:
"It is indeed reassuring to view the terrorists who now threaten us
as an exogenous threat rooted in the Middle East's Hobbesian
environment of obscurantism, poverty, and repression
- but police and press investigations offer evidence of a far more complex, and
The key hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, were well-educated children of privilege.
None of them suffered first-hand economic
privation or political oppression."
So who are the 9/11 attackers, if not poor third worlders?
In fact, they are very much like the middle-class
anarchist, fascist and
communist revolutionaries of the past:
"To understand the September 11 terrorists, we should have in mind the profile
of the classic revolutionary: deracinated, middle class,
shaped in part by exile. In other words, the image of Lenin in Zurich or London;
or of Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh in Paris."
"many of the terrorists we are now confronting are a Western phenomenon,
existing inside the Islamic diaspora
that is an established fact of life in the U.S. and Europe.
Like the leaders of
America's Weather Underground, Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang,
Italy's Red Brigades, and Japan's Red Army
Faction, the Islamic terrorists [are] university-educated converts
to an all-encompassing neo-totalitarian ideology.
youthful members of a bored middle class who have grown contemptuous
of "soft" and corrupt elites and are drawn to the
romance of revolutionary guerrilla movements."
Theodore Dalrymple on the mind of the Islamist revolutionary:
The Suicide Bombers Among Us
- On the confused mind of the starry-eyed young Islamist man.
"According to Islamism
... Only a return to the principles and practices of seventh-century Arabia will resolve
all personal and political problems at the same time."
It is incredible that anyone would believe such a thing.
But, of course, we've seen this kind of insane utopianism before:
"This notion is fundamentally no more (and no less)
bizarre or stupid than the Marxist notion that captivated so many Western intellectuals throughout the 20th century:
that the abolition of private property would lead to final and lasting harmony among men."
The Terrorists Among Us:
"terrorism is not a simple, direct response to, or result of, social injustice, poverty, or any other objectively discernible human ill.
... People with unusually thin skins ascribe the small insults, humiliations, and setbacks consequent upon human existence to vast and malign political forces; and, projecting their own suffering onto the whole of mankind, conceive of schemes, usually involving violence, to remedy the situation that has so wounded them.
Conrad tells us that one of the sources of terrorism is laziness, or at least impatience, which is to say ambition unmatched by perseverance and tolerance of routine.
The mental laziness of Islamism, its desire that there should be to hand a ready-made solution to all the problems that mankind faces, one that is already known, and its unacknowledged fear that such a solution does not really exist, Updike captures well."
The Persistence of Ideology:
Starry-eyed rebels and terrorists are often not poor (or even oppressed):
"Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. The desire for transcendence does not occur to many people struggling for a livelihood. Avoiding material failure gives quite sufficient meaning to their lives. By contrast, ideologists have few fears about finding their daily bread. Their difficulty with life is less concrete."
Islamism is the new global communism:
"There are many other parallels between Leninism and Qutb's Islamism, among them the incompatibility of each with anything else, entailing a fight to the finish supposedly followed by permanent bliss for the whole of mankind; a tension between complete determinism (by history and by God, respectively) and the call to intense activism; and the view that only with the installation of their systems does Man become truly himself."
The radical loser,
Hans Magnus Enzensberger,
makes the obvious point that
the idea that Islamist terror could bring about a better future for the Arab/Muslim world
He notes that so far,
Islamist terror damages the Muslim world far more than the West.
Unless terrorists get WMD (*),
if attacks continue as they are now:
"it makes no difference to the actual power relations.
Even the spectacular attack on the World Trade Center was not able to shake
the supremacy of the United States. The New York Stock Exchange
reopened the Monday after the attacks,
and the long-term impact on the international financial system and world trade was minimal.
The consequences for Arab societies, on the other hand, are fatal.
For the most devastating long-term effects will be born not by the West, but by the religion
in whose name the Islamists act. Not just refugees, asylum seekers and migrants
will suffer as a result. Beyond any sense of justice,
entire peoples will have to pay a huge price for the actions of their self-appointed representatives.
The idea that their prospects, which are bad enough as it is, could be improved through terrorism is absurd.
History offers no example of a regressive society that stifled its own productive potential
being capable of survival in the long term.
The project of the radical loser, as currently seen in Iraq and Afghanistan,
consists of organizing the suicide of an entire civilisation."
(*) Even then, any Islamist WMD attack
will more likely lead to devastating conventional and nuclear war against the Muslim world.
Islamism has nothing to offer the Islamic world except repression, poverty, death, war,
and potentially even total destruction.
"Terrorists, he writes, (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don't compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved."
New York Times Square bomber
proves that poverty does not cause terror.
Rather, Islamism causes terror.
This young man was born in Pakistan
to a wealthy family,
the son of an
Air Vice Marshal
in the Pakistan Air Force.
He had the incredible luck to be accepted into the US to study and then work.
He received a B.A. in computer science and engineering
at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
He got an M.B.A at the University of Bridgeport.
He got a job as a financial analyst in Connecticut,
and lived in suburban America
in freedom and prosperity.
He responded in May 2010 by trying to kill random American men, women and children,
and now faces decades of misery in American jails.
can explain not just such ingratitude, but also such personal self-destruction.
The Daily Show, December 1, 2008 (after Mumbai), sums up these revolutionaries, fighting for a fantasy world that nobody wants.
Killing innocent people is meant to attract
the world to the virtues of a global Islamic tyranny:
"We hate and kill everything you stand for - Join us!"
Their solution to everything is violence.
World poverty - The solution is to suicide bomb a hotel. And so on.
And pure genius:
"One final question:
When will these motherfuckers go away?"
Image links to a search, since online copies have vanished
or are not visible from my location.
has a sharp comment on a story of
yet another third world Islamic mob getting angry about some crap
and attacking innocents and burning schools, and so on.
After a local says Muslims were "driven to a frenzy" by rumours and false reports,
"That ability to be so easily "driven into a frenzy" aggravates underdevelopment in the area: it's hard to develop anything stable, let alone an educational system, in a "frenzy"-prone area. Hence, here is another study in jihad and its accompanying attitudes and sense of entitlement causing poverty, rather than the other way around."
Robert Spencer on the "Islamic street" culture of anger and rioting:
"If one's priorities are so disordered" [as to be offended by everything and start rioting]
"that mentality will have far-reaching effects on the stability of one's culture, society, and economy. The resulting climate of fear stifles development and innovation: Why think outside the box if it will get you killed? And why develop anything if the next enraged mob will burn it down? In other words, the logical conclusion of this sort of behavior is jihad causing and perpetuating poverty through mental enslavement and physical terror.
It is a consequence of the absence of that mentality that explains why Danes and Norwegians aren't flocking to Islamic countries for a better life, but the other way around."
Terror causes poverty. Jihad Watch, 3 Apr 2011, on the crazed Afghan "Koran burning" riots.
"It also contributes to Afghanistan's prolonged poverty. People who are out indulging in an orgy of furious self-pity are not producing wealth. And in this case, they are destroying it, moving the country that much more backwards, save for more American aid to fix self-inflicted wounds."
on an attack on the British Council cultural and academic exchange program in Afghanistan, Aug 2011:
"once again, jihad causes material and intellectual poverty: no one will invest if they conclude they are only building new targets. And the obstacles to "academic and cultural exchange" in an atmosphere of random acts of jihadist terror are obvious."
Islamic economic failure is everywhere
- in the Middle East,
and among Muslims in the West.
Why is of course the question.
The answer must be certain attitudes encouraged by Islam
which act against prosperity.
Islamism and jihad kill tourism.
Who wants to go on holiday in a sharia hellhole,
where tourists get sexually harrassed,
or arrested for the "crime" of being raped?
Much nicer to go to a country that makes foreigners safe and happy.
And then there are direct jihad attacks on tourists.
Islamism and jihad are not caused by poverty.
They are a cause of poverty.
This lists the non-stop killing by Islamists
Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, animists, moderate Muslims
Algeria, Pakistan, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria
and other places in the third world.
This killing has been going on since the origin of Islam.
And it has nothing to do with America or Israel.
25 are Islamic (56 percent)
even though Islam is only 20 percent of the world's population.
7 are communist (16 percent).
11 are secular nationalist (24 percent).
None are Christian (0 percent),
even though Christianity is 33 percent of the world's population.
Our World-Historical Gamble,
by Lee Harris,
argues that much of the unhealthy mindset in the
Arab world comes from the fact that their wealth has
come by lottery
rather than by hard work (i.e. they happen to sit on oil).
Our liberal respect for sovereignty
recognises their ownership of resources
they did nothing to create.
So we pay them for doing nothing,
and as a result many have become decadent,
and have lost touch with reality
like spoilt adolescents.
"What Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have in common
is that they became rich because the West paid them for natural
resources that the West could simply have taken from them at will,
and without so much as a Thank You, if the West had been
inclined to do so. They were, by one of the bitter paradoxes
of history, the pre-eminent beneficiaries of the Western
liberalism that they have pledged themselves to destroy."
So "the quite unintended consequence of the West's conduct"
is: "the prodigious funding of fantasists".
Harris attacks the idea of
- "The principle of self-determination in a world of perpetual peace may not in fact be the panacea for mankind's ills, but rather a means for prolonging these ills"
Harris argues that if we do not abandon sovereignty
and adopt new policies of pre-emptive attack,
then nuclear attack on the west will come soon.
He argues for an uncompromising assault on "fantasy" Islamism
in order to force it to see reality. -
"it is .. critical that we are not misled into trying to win the hearts
and minds of the Islamic fantasists. We must not set about trying to convert
them in believing in our principles and accepting our values,
.. Nor must we be seduced into believing that we are in a popularity contest"
- Instead we must re-shape their entire world against their will.
Julien Mercille, 2 Apr 2016, says the root cause of 9/11 is
Israel, and sanctions on Iraq.
He is not interested in the actual root cause: the ideology of Islamism and jihad.
The mad theories lefties invent in order to avoid dealing with the jihad!
Julien Mercille, 22 Nov 2015,
says the root cause of the Paris jihad attack is
"western and Russian bombing of Syria and Iraq".
He is not interested in the actual root cause: the ideology of Islamism and jihad.
He wants Ireland to eliminate any assistance to forces fighting ISIS, to keep us "safe".
In particular, he wants Shannon Airport closed to the US military.
In short, he
says that when racist terrorists attack the West, the West should do what they want.
Wow, the left is so heroic.
Julien Mercille, 29 Mar 2016, says we should "counteract" ISIS plans:
"We can react in two ways to ISIS attacks and propaganda: either we support their Machiavellian plans, or we counteract them."
Yet he supports the ISIS plan of closing Shannon!
As various religious and secular Muslims commit mass rape, torture, carpet bombing, slavery and genocide across the Middle East,
Mercille attacks Israel:
"Israel and Saudi Arabia are two extremist forces spreading chaos in the Middle East".
Israel is spreading chaos??
Saying foreign policy is the cause of jihad violence
is like saying that spilling
is the cause of his violence.
Your score is knocked down by
possessing WMD, engaging in wars abroad,
and having high military expenditure.
So any country that defends the West (like the US and UK) scores badly.
So any country that is being attacked by aggressors (like Israel) scores badly.
Neutrals and appeasers do much better.
It's also full of arbitrary subjective scores
(see 2009 scores for the
But having said all that,
it is interesting to see what this index ranks as the
top most violent countries, because
it can immediately be seen
(though of course the index itself does not see)
is the cause of the violence in most of them:
Cause of the violence
No.1 most violent country
Islamism and Communism
2012 Global Terrorism Index.
Despite being a left-wing site, this confirms the stats of
(which says there were 22,000 Islamic terror attacks in 2001 to 2013).
The 2012 GTI report (see Chart 8)
shows over 3,000 Islamic terror attacks in 2011 alone,
though less in earlier years, probably adding up to around 20,000 Islamic terror attacks per decade.
World Watch List, by Open Doors,
shows the countries with the worst persecution of Christians.
It clearly shows the violence and intolerance of Islamism.
It is noteworthy that 8 and 10 years respectively after military victory,
both Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the 10 worst countries.
This does indicate that "nation building" in these deeply corrupt and screwed up societies
has ultimately been a failure.
The 2011 list:
countries with the worst persecution of Christians
The western left, knowing nothing about Islam or the jihad, tries to blame jihadi slaughter
on its favourite villains:
the Western countries
America, Britain and Israel.
Somehow, crimes by Western countries are the reason why
Boko Haram slaughters Christians
and ISIS rapes Yazidis
and AQI bombed Shia mosques
and Sudan killed Christians and animists
and the Taliban bombs girls' schools,
and so on,
These theories do not stand up to five minutes' study of what drives the jihadis,
but they comfort the left psychologically.
They are like believing in Holocaust denial theories.
The inability of the western left to understand the root cause of Islamic terror.
The idiocy of the left in one chart.
The maker of this chart thinks jihadis kill non-Muslims because they are "angry" about "being bombed".
The lie that jihadists kill women and children because they are responding to something.
The lie that jihadists don't want to kill women and children.
The lie that jihadists have ever acted according to any moral rules of warfare.
The lie that there are any circumstances under which jihadists will not kill women and children.
The lie that if the West changes behaviour, the jihadists will stop killing women and children.
The lie that the West targets women and children.
All of these statements are total lies.
So many lies, all in one sentence.
The left's idiocy is illustrated by this cartoon by
Matt Wuerker, Jan 2017.
The cartoon is
in response to Trump's
Jan 2017 Executive Order
restricting immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries.
I agree that Trump's order is cruel and idiotic.
However, this cartoon packs in almost every single logical error the left makes about Islam and jihad:
The idea that jihad is because of something the West did.
The idea that if the West changes its behaviour, then jihad will stop.
The idea that anything will cause jihad to stop.
The idea that if you anger normal peace-loving Muslims, they will become jihadi terrorists.
I thought the idea that all Muslims are potential terrorists
was a nasty right-wing idea.
But the cartoon promotes this idea.
"If you anger Muslims, they will join ISIS and start killing Christians and raping Yazidi children".
I don't believe that, but the left seems to.
The idea that jihadi terror is a reasonable response to suffering grievances
I think if you're raping Yazidi children because of something Trump said, then you weren't a very good person anyway.
Note also that Christians in those 7 Muslim-majority countries are banned from the US too.
How come they aren't queuing up for terrorism?
The idea that if someone will become a terrorist if not let in, then the US should let him in.
On the contrary, he is the last person who should be let in!
"Be nice to me or I will become a terrorist" is not a very strong argument for being nice to somebody.
The people queuing up here
are exactly the sort of people who should be banned from the US.
The cartoon makes Trump look as if he is dead right to ban them.
So many idiotic ideas, all in one cartoon.
"Once I interviewed a young Taleban fighter who was almost too angry to speak as he described how he joined the insurgency after American soldiers had dishonoured his mother by entering and searching their family home, casually looking at her as they did so."
by Tom Coghlan, The Times, 17 Aug 2009,
beautifully illustrates the "root cause" of Islamic violence.
Infidels looked at his mother.
Does he shrug and say so what?
Does he ... write a letter of complaint?
Does he ... join a political party and stand in the upcoming Afghan elections?
Does he organise a demo?
Does he write a witty article?
No. He turns immediately
and without trying any other solution
to barbaric violence.
The "root cause" of his violence
is crap inside his head,
not anything outside it.
idea of root causes
[is] a pseudo-intellectual exercise that prevents a real understanding of evil actions. Every culprit can tell a story, but by listening to that story, you insult each and every one of his victims."
Greg Gutfeld, 23 Nov 2009.
"They can't blame it on poverty or any of that stuff. They will have to realize that it's an ideology and it's a way of life that makes people change."
- American-born Islamic terrorist
(or "Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki")
himself denies that "poverty" is the root cause of Islamic terror.
"Our enmity towards Hindus is not due to the Kashmir issue; our enmity towards America is not due to Iraq and Afghanistan; the enmity between us and the Jews is not due to the Palestine; the real cause is that they do not accept our system and Islam.
Our enmity towards them (the non-believers) will continue even if they renounce all their crimes."
Al Qaeda, Sept 2013, explains the root cause of Islamic terror.
But the left isn't listening.
"First we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissable to spill
is not him fighting the Muslims,
rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing.
So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight Islam and Muslims)? the answer is a big YES."
ISIS statement, Mar 2016, makes clear that they kill us because we are not Muslim,
not because of what we do.
But the left isn't listening.
"although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
ISIS statement, Aug 2016, yet again explains why jihadis fight us. But the left isn't listening.
The top 3 reasons ISIS gives for its war crimes against western civilians are:
"1. Because you are disbelievers.
2. Because you are liberal.
3. Because some of you are atheist."
But the left isn't listening.
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.