Bill Warner - A Taste of Islam (VIDEO)

Dr Bill Warner (physicist) explains his books, which are a rational/statistical study of Islamic doctrine e.g.
  • The are 90 verses in the Koran which say that Muslims are to imitate the "prophet" Mohammed. He is the perfect role model, for all Muslims, for all time.
  • Mohammed committed an act of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.

  • The Islamic texts contain more Jew hatred (9%) than Mein Kampf (7%).
  • The majority of Islamic texts are not devoted to inner character development, but are about how to treat non-Muslims.
  • 80% of Mohammed's biography is devoted to war and harm to kafirs (non-Muslims) e.g.
  • "In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah."
  • 30% of Islamic texts are devoted to jihad (violence for the spread of Islam).
File under: Islam by the numbers.

A nation's attempt to survive isn't racism - Diana West

One year after the passing of Lawrence Auster, Diana West does a good job of echoing his sentiments that: "When it comes to immigration and national survival, race is the supreme issue, the issue on which all others hang", although West couches her argument more in cultural than racial terms.

Diana West, A Nation's Attempt to Survive Isn't Racism:
It may surprise some Americans to learn that almost one-quarter of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners. Even so, just over 50 percent voted last month to cap immigration, which, unchecked, could leave indigenous Swiss a minority in 50 years. Newsweek’s headline over the story was typical: “Switzerland’s Sudden Fear of Immigrants.”

... But was it really “fear of immigrants” – read: “racism” – that drove sufficient numbers of Swiss to the polls to check their own demographic extinction as a recognizable culture and nation-state? Or was it a nearly anachronistic instinct to survive as a recognizable culture and nation-state?

I see it as the instinct to survive – and applaud the Swiss for deciding to limit the influx of Europeans, Slavs, Muslims, Africans and others, whose demographic waves are otherwise sure to transform indigenous Swiss culture into a global multiculture. I also envy them for mustering this basic vital sign, this narrow-edged popular will to control their own borders. It is something that has all but flat-lined in America, where capping immigration – let alone halting it to attempt some measure of assimilation and economic resuscitation – is not even a part of the political debate.

Why isn’t it? In the U.S., the foreign-born population is now estimated to be around 13 percent, and it’s rising every year. This poses truly existential problems, particularly since the concept of “melting” into American culture was junked long ago – along with “American” culture. Meanwhile, that overall percentage, a little more than one in 10, masks the greater density and impact of foreign-born populations in the states and cities where immigrants and illegal aliens congregate.

Take California, a state where waves of mainly Mexican arrivals (legal and illegal) have turned the population 38 percent Hispanic/Latino. In Los Angeles County, the figure jumps to 48 percent. The next largest ethnic group is non-Hispanic white: 27 percent – almost down to one in four. In 1960, not long before I was born in L.A., non-Hispanic whites were 82 percent of the county. What we are looking at is population replacement – and it has taken place well inside the span of one lifetime.

Such population replacement is under way everywhere non-assimilable blocs become entrenched – with or without “amnesty.” But We, the People, have never voted for it. It just happens, forced or enabled from above. It could be that a majority of us want to disappear in a global multiculture – or, in the case of states like California, into an enclave-pocked Mexican monoculture. But that’s not why we have borders and immigration laws. Tragically, we also have a political class and presidents who lawlessly refuse to enforce these laws, making a mockery of our borders, not to mention the democratic process. This makes a mockery of our nationhood, too. It looks like a means to an end – the end of that nationhood...

What happened? If we consider the typical reaction to the recent Swiss vote – denigration of a nation’s survival instinct as a primitive expression of fear and racism – we will recognize the mechanism of our own demise: silence and retreat in the face of endless recrimination and grievance-mongering. What a way to lose a country.

And what a way to lose a world – the “Western” world, where this same pattern repeats almost everywhere. The demographics of The Hague, Netherlands, for example, are not too dissimilar from those in California...

Is it “fear” and “scaremongering” to point this out? Is it “racism” to oppose the demographic obliteration of a nation clearly under way? ... This past week has seen yet another public hate campaign by this establishment to smear, demonize and thus neutralize the one Dutch party that opposes the nation’s suicide – the Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders.

I’ve written more on these events at my blog, For now, it’s worth noting that the Dutch are lucky. With the steadfast and brilliant Wilders leading a popular movement, at least they have a chance to survive.
Geert Wilders is under attack for recently calling for "fewer Moroccans". Here he is defending those views that others "dare not mention":

File under: truly existential problems.

How to rebuild manufacturing - Ralph Gomory

Professor Ralph Gomory explains the basic problems with free trade:

  • The trade deficit is permanent under free trade.
  • Hence the US economy cannot recover under free trade.
  • It's a mercantilist world (strategic trade) not a free trade world.
  • Hence the USA should adopt a mercantilist approach and protect key industries by tariffs, or provide tax incentives to stop offshoring, or use import certificates to balance trade.
  • Global corporations are doing okay but not most of America.
  • We must refocus the economy on serving "we the people", not just corporations.

(It's not just incentives/mercantilism that cause offshoring, cheap wages is the biggest factor, but at least Gomory acknowledges the permanent nature of the trade deficit, and the need to think outside of free trade for solutions).

Ralph Gomory, On Manufacturing and Innovation
... many still proclaim that free trade benefits everyone and point as proof to lower prices for the imported Asian products. But lower prices are not low if you lose your job to get them, and the mutual gains predicted by free trade theory do not in fact materialize in a world where the well thought-out subsidies and controls of foreign governments create persistent trade deficits for our country.

We are allowing much of manufacturing, the great innovation engine that turns ideas into reality, to vanish quietly from our shores. Our global corporations may be benefitting from this; most Americans are not.

It is time for the steady wasting away of manufacturing, and the consequences of that wasting away, to become a matter for national debate, and to remain a matter for national debate, until the problem is resolved. Action is needed, and strong actions should be considered with a full understanding of the enormous importance of what is really happening.
Ralph Gomory, Jobs, Trade, and Mercantilism - Part I - Facing Reality
Our nation's continuing massive trade deficits are destroying important sectors of American industry and eliminating desperately needed jobs; yet balancing trade is not even on our government's agenda. This is happening because we are not facing reality, the reality that we are not living in a free trade world but that we are dealing with countries that practice mercantilism.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this reality, we will become a poor nation.
File under: facing reality.

Death By China - Greg Autry - C-SPAN Video

Greg Autry talks about his book Death by China. Important points are:

1 - The US economy cannot recover under free-trade with a permanent trade deficit.
2 - Our trade is financing the rise of an aggressive Chinese military.

In this second video Autry speaks (starting at 5:50) at a Cyber Warfare Hearing.

Here's a clip from the C-SPAN Video on the trade deficit.

File under: Chinese goods are not cheap.

In defence of natural society - David Hamilton

Firstly, while this is a great article, I'm not too familiar with the website this article comes from, so don't presume that I agree with everything written on there.

Secondly, I have a minor quibble with the terminology, which takes aim at "rationalists", "intellectualism", "theorising" and "the Enlightenment". See my comment below.

David Hamilton, The Loss of Reality:
There is a distinction between natural and artificial societies. Natural societies grow organically within a group of people with a shared ancestry. This is why patriotism is natural – it grows from emotional relationships and does not need a theory or ideological underpinning. There is more to human nature than reason and the act of bonding with your people and territory is a process of feeling, instinct, intuition and other human qualities.

I live in England so I will use England as my exemplar. England has been a nation since the time of Alfred the Great, and it is an emotional, organic growth, not an intellectual agreement. Intellectual nationalism came from the Enlightenment and, like other forms of thinking derived from the Enlightenment, is theory to be applied to men and women, that is, forced on people. It is a mistake for The New Right to adopt rationalist theorising in imitation of Marxist thinkers...

The Progressive way of thinking that stems from the Enlightenment marginalizes traditional systems in favour of a way of thinking that disdains the past and looks forward to a future perfection. Progressives think that we are ineluctably destined for the brotherhood of man – an obvious Utopia! This is no more than an irrational superstition, and any examination of the world around them would show that the opposite is happening. They think human nature is malleable and can be re-fashioned to fit into their ideology and future utopia.

A formal ideology is written down like a "How to" book, which tells people how to think and behave. Ideology grew out of the Enlightenment as a secular replacement for religion with a programme of correct thinking and behaving, and with intolerance for deviation. The rulers changed from an aristocratic class, based on blood and land, to a secular elite defined by their ability to think and say the right things – in other words an "Ideological Caste."

Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. Conservatism by contrast is a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home, and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse...


We are being dehumanised and made a non-people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert ourselves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good, and succeeding generations need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture....

Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations, and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives’ new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of community and association with their own kind, which we are duty bound to preserve for them...


How do we counter the dominant ideology? ... We ... need to consider what gives life meaning, and this leads to the idea that ... a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term "racist." ...

We have a responsibility for our kin and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children...

The attitude of those who control public life is to transfer power away from their own people and disinherit their descendants for the benefit of rival communities. We are morally obliged to put our people first, as we do with our families, even when foreigners are more in need of help. Supporting outsiders against our own people is morally wrong.

We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them ...

Simple people say, "So what? It doesn't matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless, like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman Conquest, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered.

The ideology of multi-racialism was a righteous reaction to the opening of the camps and the watchword was, "It must never happen again." This has come full circle and now the Jews are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by imported Muslims...

Unlike the rational ideologies that have been manifold since the Enlightenment, our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising an ideology to be learnt from a book because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion.

To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people is morally wrong. A nation’s manners, morals, religions, political institutions, and social structures, are inherited from its ancestors and our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. We belong to our kin, above strangers.

Look at data from the Office of National Statistics ... then look at your children and ask yourselves: "Am I betraying my children? Where will they live and work?"
While this is a great article, I don't think it's accurate to set up a dichotomy between reason and emotion. Yes, to some extent, liberal ideology takes more thought than the natural emotional bonds of kinship. So it's fair enough to be critical of liberal ideology. But primarily the conflict is between different moral foundations, not between reason and emotion.

Are we against rationality, intellectualism, enlightenment, and theorising? Of course not. To be against knowledge is to be irrational.

The conflict is between different moral foundations, or desires, as Jonathan Haidt explains. Liberals value care and fairness highly. Conservatives value loyalty and kinship. Or something like that.

But moral foundations are primarily matters of the heart, not concepts of the mind. So the dichotomy should be between the different emotional value sets of liberals and conservatives, or between ideology (with an implied emotional value set) and natural emotion, but not between reason and emotion.

But it's just a minor quibble. Great article.

File under: being dehumanised.