A Critique of Islam

This comes from the comments section of a conservative White racist publication, American Renaissance. The comment quotes several websites, apparently all rightwing. At least one is run by anti-Muslim Jews. Let us put aside for a moment that this critique is written by our enemies, Zionists and the Right.
The painful question is how much truth is there in this critique?
When it comes to identity among Muslims, nationality does not count at all in comparison with culture and religion. The consequence is a powerful and growing opposition to Western culture and values in Muslim ghettos throughout Copenhagen and other major European cities.
To a Muslim (as to the regional precursor peoples going back to Alexander) tribe is nation And failure to make that correct interpretation is a direct result of our legacy inheritance from a millenia of manorial feudalism because Nascere means by birth, not by land. We come from peasant serfs. Not them.
Myself before my brother, we brothers before our cousins, our cousins before the tribe, the tribe before state. And all before Islam.
Islam did not change these peoples exploited, exploitative, natures, it harnessed them by explicitly forbidding them any other lifestyle choice and rewarding them with breeding rights and loot for becoming part of a robber gang.
Said gang takes tribute from one area, denuding it of females on a 4:1 basis of reward to warrior males. Then it recruits on the basis of pillage as genetic persistence rights in the next area over and so on and so forth. Growing as it expands. Because if you want anything from Islam, you must convert.
Before the Renaissance, Islam was the most successful, expansive culture on the planet.
Finding those they cannot convert or kill outright, Islamically trained young toughs today are at a complete loss for how to interact on a cop:boss:landlord level of graduated hierarchies above them because respect and dominance is their whole (rote) acquired culture.
A system of warrior privilege that cannot live but that it grows through conquest.
And what’s most despicable about this is that the Muslims know it quite well themselves, choosing to conceal it behind a facade of ‘Taqqiya’ or tactical disinformation.
Indeed, back in 2005, shortly after the Beslan tragedy, the brother in law of the owner of Al Jazeera, himself the owner of a very influential newspaper in Kuwait, wrote a personal editorial that basically said: “Look you idiots, the whole world thinks Islam is a terrorist religion because 9 out of 10 terrorist acts in the last 10 years have been by or included Islamic indoctrinated youth. You had better get your young men under control or we will be the pariahs of the planet.”
And nobody listened to him. Because he wasn’t telling a shocking unknown.
What The West refuses to acknowledge is that Islam is a majority fundamentalist religion (which is to say natively extremist), of which the high-IQ, college bound, ‘Ivy League sweater wearers’ of the upper class moderates (that Islamic and particularly Iranian TV occasionally parades before the camera) are entirely non-representative. Anymore than the Kennedys are accurate reflections of our culture.
Jizya (legal extortion from non-believers) payments only reinvigorate the belief that strength deserves to dominate weakness as the system or ‘racket’ by which Islam functions as a warrior cult built upon conquest.
For two years I’ve been researching a book about Alexander the Great’s counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we’re fighting today – even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic.
The heart of every tribal male is that of a warrior. Even the most wretched youth in a Palestinian refugee camp sees himself as a knight of Islam. The Pathan code of nangwali prescribes three virtues: nang – pride; badal – revenge; melmastia – hospitality. These guys are Apaches.
What the warrior craves before all else is respect. Respect from his own people, and, even more, from his enemy. When we of the West understand this, as Alexander did, we’ll have taken the first step toward solving the unsolvable.
Islam is a revealed religion with a distinct set of unchanging rules and guidelines to follow. It is not a religion that is supposed to “come from within” like some new age religion. It seems quite incongruous to claim that one believes that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet and therefore profess to be a Muslim and then reject clear Islamic doctrine as established by Muhammad when the Qur’an demands that Muslims obey Muhammad and follow his “perfect” example.
The religion is named Islam, meaning submission, because its founder, Muhammad, claimed that is the word Allah said to him in several alleged revelations. Otherwise, the religion would surely have been known as Muhammadanism or something similar.

What Went Right Set The Stage For Decline

Understanding what went wrong in the Islamic world is, perhaps, best addressed by first recognizing what went right because the initial success of Islam and its early rise to economic, political, and military power is also a primary cause of what ultimately went wrong.
When Muhammad and his early followers arrived in Medina, it is clear that they were in a less than secure economic state. They had cut themselves off from the protection and support of their tribe – an act that was considered tantamount to a death sentence at the time. Moreover, this severance from their tribe’s support and protection occurred in a hostile environment.
The Arabian Peninsula consists mainly of desert that, under normal circumstances, can only support a low-density population. Whether Muhammad felt that he had no other alternatives or whether he felt he had other options is something we will probably never know with certainty, but there is no question that Muhammad chose to create a society that sustained itself and advanced its interests by preying upon non-Muslims.
Mohammed said: “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, his life and property will be saved by me…Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captives. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth…Clearly, Muhammad viewed non-Muslims’ land and property as fair game, and his conduct established that he practiced what he preached.
Instead, we see Ahmadiyya Muslims, many Sufi Muslims, and Bahai Muslims all believing they are “Muslims” when they have deviated so far from the religion Muhammad preached and practiced that Muhammad would hardly consider them Muslims. Muhammad once ordered a mosque, whose members were practicing a heretical form of Islam, burned, and his followers burned it to the ground with the heretical Muslims inside, thereby establishing in Islamic doctrine that schisms were not only not to be tolerated, but should be violently suppressed.
One important answer to the question lies in an ingenious social invention arising among the early Muslims. This was a breeding system that motivated successful warriors with a great incentive to spread their faith and their culture. Bloom puts this motivation in stark terms as “the restless effort of human males to find more wombs to carry their seed.”
Islam has the remarkable advantage of being highly patriarchal and polygamous with great sexual benefits for those warriors able to conquer in its name; Islam was and remains a great male racket. Furthermore, these advantages are not the temporary kind that have always been associated with warfare, but continue to exist within the peacetime new order.
Warriors were not the only Muslim males sexually rewarded for advancing Islam. As seen above, Islam was also spread by trade and mercantile activity. The wealth accumulated by a successful merchant could be considerable. Thus, those responsible for promoting Islam beyond the borders of the Dar-al-Islam could also obtain the means of purchasing concubines and of affording multiple wives.

Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say on the Internet

In the previous post, we noted that contrary to both the White Nationalists and the Abagond Sphere, Whites do not appear to discuss race very much, at least here in California. They are neither the PC Critical Race Theory bogeyman types of the White Nationalists, nor are they the all-encompassing racists that Black paranoia says they are.
Instead, California Whites regard race as a toxic subject to be generally avoided. If poked or provoked, which I love to do, you can sometimes get them to say a thing or two. Usually they do so in carefully chosen language designed to appear as non-inflammatory as possible.
However, on the Internet, it is another story altogether. See here for instance.
One wonders what exactly is going on. Is it possible that White society is so tightly policed in meatspace that they don’t dare breach the Race Barrier, yet on the Net these same repressed folks feel the freedom to let the racist dam burst so to speak, and say what they really feel? Perhaps this is what is going on.
One thing is quite clear in my observations on the Net over several years reading intensively about race, including comments on my site.
In US Whites, comments displaying negative feelings towards non-Whites in the US are almost always a marker of conservatism. If you Google “liberal racism,” you will see a great deal of nonsense about how liberals, presumably White liberals, are actually racist people. Coming from rightwingers, this is so ridiculous as to be patently nonsensical. It actually smacks of projection. US White liberals display very low levels of racism towards non-Whites, if they display any at all. In fact, refusal to criticize non-Whites is an excellent marker of liberalism/Leftism in US Whites.
I don’t believe that all conservatives are racists, at least on a personal level. I’ve seen too many who seem to lack any interpersonal racism. Yet it seems that almost all, if not all, racists are conservatives.
So not all White conservatives are racists, but all White racists are conservatives.
This seems to be a good golden rule.
Another thing we can note. Almost all White racists hate socialism and Communism. These same folks often say that Blacks and Hispanics are natural socialists or Communists.
White racism is also very closely associated with fiscal conservatism. Not many US Blacks or Hispanics are fiscal conservatives and small government enthusiasts.
These two things are well-connected. Socialism and Communism in the US means productive, hard-working Whites get taxed to pay welfare money to lazy, leeching, criminal Blacks and Hispanics. It’s not socialism, it’s racial wealth transfer.
We can see that the entire White Nationalist Sphere opposed Obama’s health care plan. White racist sites like Niggermania and Chimpout, which I read sometimes, were also dead set opposed to the health care plan. These racists often explicitly stated that it was a transfer of White money to Blacks and Browns. Never mind that a lot of Whites might need health care too.
The strong suggestion here is that many white conservatives are voting Republican at least partly on a racial or even racist basis. That’s so clear as to beyond all doubt.
This state of affairs is preposterous. Why would any White person vote rightwing just to “stick it to the niggers and the Mexicans.” What for? What possible benefit could construe for the White person.
I’m a socialist. When I go into the voting booth, I vote for what’s good for me and mine. Mostly what’s good for me! Why should I care about race in the voting booth. I vote for A, B or C. What do I care how A, B or C feels about Whites, Blacks or Hispanics? What possible relevance could those positions of theirs have to do with my life anyway? The traditional Marxist position is that economics is everything and race is not important. I could not agree more.

"If Not For Israel, We Would Never Have Invaded Iraq"

So says Bay Area Guy in the comments section. I don’t believe it. Angela on the other hand, disputes that the Israelis were involved at all.

Me: They pushed for this war from day one, and then after we blew the whistle on them, they said the war wasn’t good for Israel after all. Typical Jewish double-talk, lying, sophistry, sociopathic realpolitik crap.Angela: Who is the “we” that blew the whistle and when did they do it?

Well, the Jew-wise folks had been saying this all along, but there was a lot of resistance to that kind of talk. I remember my father got furious when my brother and I tried to imply that Thomas Friedman was stirring up a war with Iraq on Israel’s behalf, which he was, and which so many Jews in the US and the media were also doing loudly and persuasively.
After the war, there started to be a lot of talk about PNAC, JINSA and the rest of the clowns, including this wonderful document.
Of course, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, the Wurmsers, and many others were involved in this conspiracy. Karen Kwiatkowski was there and laid out all the dirt. The Israeli defense officials coming to the Pentagon to meet with their Jewish buddies at the Pentagon, where they were whisked past all security, told not to sign, and in, and hustled off to secret rooms. Israel was behind the sausage factory cooking up a lot of the fake intel about Saddam’s WMD’s too.
It’s just that I think that the Israelis and their frankly Jewish agents in the US were not so slick as to push George Bush into attacking Iraq solely on the behest of the Israelis. Bush and US imperialism had their own reasons for wanting to get Saddam. It’s just that the interests of the Israelis and their US dual loyalists buddies in the US along with US imperialism tended to coincide in this case. The US and Israel both wanted Saddam gone. I suppose the Israeli push was an extra added factor, but Bush was going to war anyway.
The notion that if not for Israel, we would not have gone into Iraq, as BAG said, is ridiculous. US imperialism has a very serious project in the Middle East, mostly centered around control of the oil fields. All of those oil fields are supposed to be in the hands of US friendly regimes supplied by US arms  often housing US bases. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US in that region, bad news. We wanted him gone so we could plant bases all over the country like we’ve done in the rest of the region. That’s now a done deal. The US Embassy in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world. We didn’t build that embassy for the Israelis.

Did the US Go To War With Iraq For Israel?

A Jewish commenter recites the typical Jewish and especially Zionist apologia for Israel’s involvement in the Iraq War:

Anyone who believes that the US went to Iraq because of Israel has to explain how Israel has benefited from the Iraq War. Any takers?

Another comment is sure that were it not for Israel, there would have been no war in Iraq:

Well, a potential regional rival was eliminated. Also, logically speaking, whether or not Israel benefited is irrelevant.
Without Israel and the Israel lobby, there would have been no war. That is a fact.
Israeli leaders were pushing for the war, Israel provided us with much of that bogus WMD nonsense, etc.

Either view is too simple.
I don’t think we went to war “because of Israel,” but I do that the Israel Lobby wanted the war. That’s quite clear. The Lobby was one of the forces pushing the war. And the Lobby was working closely with the Israeli government in doing so. Still, to say that the US imperialist Bushies were the puppets of the Jews whispering in the King’s ear is ridiculous.
Israel has long wanted Saddam gone. A seminal paper issued about ten years ago by the JINSA and PNAC crowd, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, lays that out quite clearly.
Get rid of Saddam’s regime. Done. Saddam is gone. Saddam’s regime was one of Israel’s worst enemies.
Other goals:
Get rid of or disarm Gaddafi in Libya. Done.
Regime change in Syria. Not done, but I believe Syria is under sanctions.
Disarming or demobilization of Hezbollah. Not done, but the Lebanon War was part of this project. Incredibly, the UN has gotten in on this too with UN resolutions aimed at Hezbollah. Also Israel killed Imad Mughniyeh, military brain of Hezbollah.
Get rid of Yasser Arafat. Done. Israel probably killed him with poison.
Regime change in Iran or stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Not done, but there has been a low-level war against the nuclear program, UN sanctions, and constant threats of hot war.

Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say in Meatspace

After living in US society for a while, you get kind of an idea about race and politics among US Whites. But it’s only an idea, because contrary to the nuts in the Abagond Sphere, Whites, at least here in California, really don’t talk about race that much. Conservative Whites, liberal Whites, no Whites here have much to say about race. The topic is for all intents and purposes taboo. This suggests right away that two polar opposite views are seriously incorrect:
The Abagond Sphere holds that US White society is a horrifically racist place. US Whites have a severe level of racism towards Blacks and possibly other non-Whites. The result of this apparently is serious damage to the psyches of US Blacks, at the very least.
Further to the Left, the White Left in the US holds that all of the various discrepancies of US Blacks, overrepresentation of negatives, underrepresentation of positives, can only be due to White racism. White racism must be a pretty vicious tornado of an entity to cause such serious damage to Black society. This view is so strange that it almost seems a caricature, but White Left colleagues have told me this right to my face, so I know that they think like this.
Since viciously racist Whites talk about race all the time and US Whites don’t do that, we must reject the Abagond Sphere view of US Whites, at least in California.
The other view is that of the White Nationalist or White racist Right. This view holds that US Whites, especially the liberals, are a bunch of Tim Wise PC clones. That’s not really the case. I can almost count on my fingers the number of PC Whites who have lectured me on race. White people, outside of Tim Wise speeches, just don’t talk like this. At least the ones I meet don’t. This is a fantasy.
Since one almost never hears a White person sounding like a PC Tim Wise clone, we must reject this view of US Whites.
So if California Whites are neither PC nuts nor vicious bigots on the subject of race, what is their opinion on race? Around these parts, from the Left to the Right, race is simply not discussed. Whites either associate with other races or they do not. If they don’t, they don’t make many racist comments. If they do, you don’t hear them complaining a lot about their non-White associates.
There are a few overtly racist Whites here and there, mostly in White towns, but they are not common. If you get to know them well, some Whites will let loose some racist talk. One friend told me, “I think Blacks are savages.” I asked how much experience he had had with Blacks. Some, he had lived with a Black man back in the hippie days. “But he was kind of a savage too,” he allowed.
Whites, Left to Right, don’t discuss illegal immigration much either. Maybe if you pry, you might get a word or two, but once again, we are into the Taboo Zone. I told Abagond himself this once, but he almost did not believe it. It clashed with his view of White society as a viciously racist place, so he rejected my view out of hand.

Quote From Sarah Palin, Republiscum Hero

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?” –Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada’s single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010.

What an evil bitch. The health care in her own state was so crappy, and Canada’s health care was so much better, that she used to haul her own family over to Canada to get treatment in their socialist health care system. Then she demonizes and goes on jihad against Obama’s health care system on the basis that it is Communism, when it doesn’t even come near the socialism of Canada’s. The reason that Sarah “Whore” Palin opposed the Obama plan? Mostly party line. What an evil hypocrite bitch. Symbolizes her party perfectly.

Another View of US Muslims

An anti-US Muslim perspective from an American.
I can’t say I have had the same experience.
About the article: Muslims do this same crap in Paris. They take over entire public streets on their holy days, overflowing out of the mosques and onto the streets, stopping all traffic and forcing pedestrians out of the way. The French also claim that this more all about a “show of force” than mere prayer. Maybe it is.
It’s incredible that New York City has more Muslims than Paris or London. Compared to those two places, New York’s Muslims are incredibly well integrated. But what about the future? I wonder when a European-type situation will develop with US Muslims, if ever?
The debate about the Cordoba House is ridiculous. For the longest time, thanks to the Scum Media, I didn’t even understand the debate. I actually thought this was some uber-multicultural project dreamed up by the Left, including the Democratic Party and Obama, to build a damned mosque right smack in the middle of Ground Zero as a gesture of peace and understanding with Islam, interfaith dialogue, and all that crap. That’s a totally insane idea of course, but the fact that I actually thought that’s what was going on shows either how loony US liberalism has become or how evil the media is.
After a number of weeks, I finally figured out that the mosque is not at Ground Zero itself (thank God!) but is a couple of blocks away. It’s not being planned by the US Suicide Left, but instead some Muslims actually own the property and want to build a mosque there. Which, of course, is their First Amendment right, as correctly noted by Obama, who then stepped aside from the whole debate, once again properly as a law professor would do.
However, I must say it’s awfully arrogant of the Muslims to build that mosque right by Ground Zero.
But it’s typical Muslim supremacism.
Muslims get to proselytize in the Diaspora, but we can’t do the same in their country.
Muslims can build all the mosques they wish in the Diaspora, but we can’t do the same in their sandboxes.
We build a church in one of the desert oases, and they promptly build a mosque right next to it, always sure to make the mosque just a tiny bit higher. So a rigged game of cock-measuring with construction materials is part of the Muslim repertoire.
Building that mosque right next to Ground Zero is those bastards’ way of giving us the finger with an intimidating show of superiority. But it figures.
Nevertheless the people building the mosque are Sufis, about as reasonable as Muslims come these days, though I actually prefer the Alawi, Alevi and Ahmadiya.
The debate is ridiculous. If you support building the mosque as I do as a matter of rights, then you “support Sharia law.” A friend of mine is a Left-liberal too. He recently showed up at band practice, and the Dittohead asked him, “Did you just get back from your Sharia meeting?” This is the corner these rightwing rats have backed us into. Bastards.

Build The Dang Mosque!—To End Muslim Immigration

By Matthew Richer

As an immigration patriot, I obviously sympathize with those who oppose the construction of the Cordoba House Mosque near the World Trade Center. Only the most recalcitrant globalist cannot see what an extraordinary insult this is to the victims of September 11th and their families.
Unlike many of those who support the mosque’s construction, I was actually in Manhattan on September 11th. And while I was not close enough to the Twin Towers to be in any danger, I was close enough to see them fall with my own eyes.
It’s hard to describe the collective sense of dread we all felt that day. You just had to be there.
Nevertheless, I am actually relieved that a mosque is being built near the World Trade Center. Let me tell you why:
Lost in the debate over the Cordoba House Mosque is the fact that New York City now has a larger Muslim population than London, Paris or any city in Western Europe. There are over 800,000 Muslims living in New York and over 100 mosques—some estimates are much higher.
There are also an incalculable number of Muslim prayer rooms or “musallas” in the city, located in the backrooms and basements of restaurants, warehouses, and offices buildings. There was even a musalla on the 17th floor of Tower One.
Since Muslims pray five times a day, and half the cab drivers in New York are Muslim, you will often find many cabs double-parked outside these mosques and musallas, clogging up already overcrowded streets. Sure, the meter maids write them tickets, but the imams provide the cabbies with letters to bring to traffic court claiming that double-parking one’s taxi is a constitutionally protected act of religious freedom.
The Masjid al-Farah Mosque, which is nothing more than a converted storage space, is just a fifteen minute walk from Ground Zero, and has been there since 1985. During the Muslim Sabbath on Fridays, the police cordon off the streets and sidewalks outside the mosque to accommodate the overflow of worshipers, who are either kneeling or fully prostrate on the ground.
The fact that their prayers stop traffic and force pedestrians to cross the street doesn’t seem to bother them; in fact, I think that‘s the whole point.
I’ve witnessed this bizarre ritual many times. Certainly, it does not resemble other forms of public prayer, such as pro-lifers praying in front of abortion clinics, or evangelicals holding hands and forming a circle around a flag pole. No, these Friday prayers are an act of cultural intimidation, an attempt to arrogate part of the city and declare it Muslim territory.
The first originally-constructed mosque built in New York, the Islamic Cultural Center, opened in 1991 on East 96th Street. The mosque was largely paid for by the Emir of Kuwait, and other Muslim governments. Its opening was delayed because the original Iranian-born architect was dismissed for having hired a Jewish consultant.
Only days after September 11th, I attended a Rosh Hashanah dinner with some Jewish friends on East 96th Street near the mosque. Afterward, as we walked home, we noticed that the mosque was surrounded by a number of policemen who were there to fend off the much-anticipated anti-Muslim backlash that, of course, never did happen.
As we drew closer, a helicopter flew low overhead and aimed its searchlight directly on us. One officer then approached and ordered us to cross the street.
It was a close brush with the brave new world of diversity, and not my last.
A few years later, St. Ignatius Church, my former Park Avenue parish, ran an “interfaith dialogue” trip to the Islamic Cultural Center. The event was hosted by Imam Omar Saleem Abu Namous, one of the most prominent Muslim leaders in New York.
The Islamic Cultural Center is an imposing facility that looks more like a fortress than a place of religious worship. It lacks any beauty or warmth and is surrounded by a thick iron fence and heavy gates.
Imam Namous was perfect for the job of ecumenical outreach—smiley, personable, and able to peddle off the whole “religion of peace” routine as well as anyone could possibly do it.
After a brief tour of the mosque, Imam Namous asked us if we had any questions. I asked him if we were welcome to come back to the mosque on our own time. He assured us that we were all welcome to visit any time we liked.
So, naturally, I decided to take him up on his offer. It was time, I figured, to put diversity to the test. Obviously, it helps that I’m a pretty big guy. Still, I decided I’d better bring along a friend, just in case.
Several days later, my friend and I chose to visit the mosque just after their midday prayers had ended, so as not to intrude on anything. We entered through the rear entrance of the mosque at 97th street, just as I had done with the parishioners from St. Ignatius.
During my previous visit with St. Ignatius, the members of the mosque kept a considerable distance from us. But not this time. As soon as we took off our shoes, in compliance with Muslim custom, we were met with several icy stares.
We then headed toward the main prayer hall while several men followed close behind, muttering angrily in Arabic. As soon as we entered the prayer hall, they confronted us.
“Are you Muslim?” one of them demanded to know.
“No,” I replied. “But we were invited to come here by Imam Namous.” This did not impress any of them, even though I could see Imam Namous on the other side of the room talking to a group of children.
The man then glowered at us behind a set of almost lifeless eyes. “You have to leave,” he shouted at us, “Now!” and he thrust a clenched fist into his palm.
This was the future of Muslim-Christian relations in America staring me right in the eye.
We grabbed our shoes and left.
Shelby Steele once wrote “Most people could empty half of any room simply by saying what they truly believe.” One of the positive, and sadly brief, outcomes of 9-11, was that many Americans actually had the courage to say what they really thought about the world around us.
Terrible as September 11th was, it awoke the instinct that has for so long been suppressed among the American people—and among all Western peoples—the instinct of self-preservation.
On the afternoon of September 11th, and in the days following, many people gathered on Central Park’s Great Lawn, where you could watch the Twin Towers smolder over the Manhattan skyline for days. They also met in bars, restaurants and coffee shops.
Scores of people began to honestly speak their minds about the world around them, even among strangers, and no one was afraid of censure.
“Stop all Muslim immigration.” “Deport all illegal aliens.” “Start racially profiling.”
This racial realpolitik only strengthened when it was reported that in many Muslim enclaves in New York and New Jersey, Muslims publicly cheered when the Twin Towers collapsed.
Unfortunately, ten days later President George W. Bush addressed the nation and said
“I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. ”
He also told the nation that America was attacked not because of our race or religion, but because of our democratic values.
The Mainstream Media and the Conservative Establishment immediately began to parrot these patently ludicrous assertions which tragically lacked any emphasis on self-preservation.
Our response to 9-11 suddenly became about defeating our enemies “over there” in the Middle East.
But our enemies are not over there. They are here—and in greater numbers than ever before because we still allow them to come.
In the meantime, sharia law continues to inch its icecap over New York City. Muslim activists have been lobbying Wall Street to practice sharia-compliant finance. They have been pushing the public schools to recognize their holy days. Whenever a mosque or musalla opens in the city, they try to muscle any liquor stores or bars out of the neighborhood. You get the picture.
The real insult to the victims of 9-11 is not that a mosque is being built near the spot where they died—it is that Muslim immigration continues to flow into the city and country most of them called home.
Moreover, even if opponents of the Cordoba House Mosque successfully prevented it from being built by Ground Zero, it will probably still be built a short distance away. What kind of victory is that?
If we really gave a damn about the victims of 9-11, we would immediately prohibit all Muslim immigration. But that isn’t going to happen unless people begin to demand it.
Given that most of our post-American leaders in New York and beyond support the Cordoba House Mosque, there appears to be nothing that can be done to stop it.
My hope, then, is that the mosque’s construction will help to reignite the instinct of self-preservation that is so essential if the country is to avoid having a Muslim problem on a scale like that of Western Europe.
While the instinct of self-preservation remains sadly dormant among our elites, it still burns within the rest of us. We have seen it in the number of people who already oppose the Cordoba House Mosque. We have all seen it in the thousands of outraged citizens who crashed the Senate switchboard to oppose another amnesty.
And, of course, we have seen it in the number of people who read and support VDARE.com.
The construction of the Cordoba House Mosque will hopefully awaken Americans to the reality that our enemies are not “over there”.
They are already here, and living among us; they are swelling in strength and size, and right now, they appear to be winning.
Matthew Richer is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.

Typical Mexican Parties

Party on down to the hospital.
A wedding, a birthday party, it doesn’t matter what the occasion is, it’s not a real Mexican party until they break out the knives, fisticuffs and even guns. Usually one or more folks end up in the hospital or on a slab. Want to turn a whooping group of happy and loving Mexicans into a human cockfight? Just add alcohol.
We native White Californians have known about this Mexican proclivity forever. It’s a hallowed tradition, probably from old Mexico. We’ve always avoided their “parties.” They have some pretty big Mexican parties around here, and they look like they could be a lot of fun, but no way am I going to one. I got invited to a New Years Party full of Mexicans aged  around 18 years old or so. That might have been OK. Too young to do much damage, and the crowd was OK.
I’ve also heard that Italian and Greek weddings sometimes end up like this too. Ouzo and knives anyone? Truth or what?
What is it with these Med types anyway? Passionate folks. I’m Northern European. I’ll pass on the “passion,” thank you very much. I may be cold, but I’m alive and out of the ICU, and that’s a nice place to be.

Blacks Support the Tea Party?

No way is this true. Forget it. I think it may have had to do with the wording. Sure, 1/3 of likely Black voters would possibly vote for a Tea Party-backed candidate. However, in the reality-based community (real world) Blacks vote about 90% Democratic, thank God. In the last election, they voted 94% Democratic. Juan McCain got only 4% of the vote.
How many Whites would possibly vote for a Tea Party candidate? Probably over 50%, no doubt.
But how many agree with the principles of the Tea Party Movement? 20% of Americans. How many call themselves Tea Party supporters? 14% of Americans.
Yet 1/3 of Blacks are Tea Party supporters. Yeah right.
The poll was done by Pajamas Media. Pajamas Media is a hard rightwing aggregation of blogs following basically the line of the US Republican Party. An entire channel of Pajamas Media TV is set aside for the Tea Party Channel. They’re the ones who conducted this poll. LOL.

What Is the Radical Feminist Line on Womanizers?

On the Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual post, BAG perceptively poses a couple of questions:

Are most womanizers gay or bisexual?
Short Answer: Hell No!
Slightly Longer Answer: This is simply more radical feminist BS.

Really? Is that the radfem line? Is this how the Fempire Strikes Back?
A pox on those shrews, dykes, bitches, misandrists, hags, maids and witches. I hate them so much. They’ve taken the feminine principle and ran nuts with it. They’re long past the goal line, so far away we can’t even see them anymore. They are truly producers of nothing, following Weininger.
Au contraire, this theory is just wrong. Many or most true womanizers are actually philogynists (which is what I am). There! I made up a new word. Someone give me a MacArthur Genius Grant, will ya? Or is gynophile better?

Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual?

A commenter, apparently a crazy woman, suggests:

Most womanizers are gay or bisexuals…don’t believe this B.S.

This commenter must be a woman. This is one of the ways that females get their revenge on the enigma of the womanizer: the only reason he is doing this is because there is some secret homosexual bugbear lurking somewhere in his psyche. The Don Juan is in desperate flight from his latent homosexuality.
I think this crap originally came from psychoanalysis, and the whole concept of latent homosexuality doesn’t make sense. As Otto Weininger would say, homosexuality is one of those A or not-A things. Something one either is or is not. It’s a pair of concepts. All humans, except the asexual, are either homosexual, heterosexual, or some combination of these these things (what we call bisexual). There is no third category. There is no such thing as latent homosexuality. One is either gay, straight, or some combination called bisexual.
What a nutty idea. I’ve never met a gay womanizer in my life. How ridiculous can you get? They idea of a gay man sleeping with half the women in town is preposterous. Why? Why would he waste his time?
Are they bisexual? Hard to say.
Most of the ones I’ve known were not, but two of them were, one a very dear friend of mine. He originally was a wild womanizer, one of the most insane I’ve ever known. But he did have a gay side. I know because he used to whistle at me when we were changing to go swim in the pool. Not really whistling as a joke either. Yikes.
Later on, he moved in with this queer in West Hollywood. Then he lost his job. The queer said either put out or get out. Disgusting, huh? I told everyone the fag was a scumbag, and my whole friend circle screamed at me. It’s perfectly acceptable to force a straight guy to screw a fag or else live on the streets!
He came and stayed with me for a while, but then he mysteriously went back. I was up in LA hanging out at nightclubs with him trying to pick up model/actress types and I went back to his place. I woke up in the middle of the night, and he and the fag were going at it in the next room. Don’t ask me how I knew. I said oh well and went back to sleep.
I woke up the next morning, and he was a bit defiant. I temporarily lost a contact lens, and the fag made a fake show of tying to “find it” by putting his hands all over me. Even my friend got in on it. I guess he had come to discover the pleasures of men. I ignored their crap and let them carry on and get their vicarious thrills. Later we found the damned lens.
We had breakfast, and the fag laid some bizarre and ugly psychological trip on me to try to seduce me. Didn’t work.
Later that morning I left, and I said a very warm goodbye to my friend. I decided, in my progressive and multicultural humanism, to love him whether he was fagging off or not. We had a long history together. But I never went back.
I saw him a few times later. A friend mine saw him too. He was living with the fag and hanging around with this crowd of queers. They would go on trips together, like down to Laguna Beach. No idea what they did down there. Yikes.
Once he passingly remarked that he has a fistula in his anus. He got it from “driving a truck.” Yeah right dude. He was drinking more, now in the mornings, but he’d always been a bit of a drunk. He had a cute girlfriend with him, a drunk herself. Later I heard he moved up to Santa Barbara to live in a house with her. He might have even married her.
Another guy was basically straight, but I’m sure he was known to do it with guys if times got desperate. I know this because he asked me once.

About the Ban Policy

A commenter comments on the ban policy:

How many people did you ban today?You should consider putting up a (dis)honor roll of all the banned commenters.

None.
I deal with the suggestion below.
The banning is good and bad.
Comment sections that don’t ban are quickly ruined. In particular, you have to ban attacks on the author because otherwise this section will be full of mostly guys attacking me and me slamming them back. Lame or what? It will be full of fights.
Also the fact that we ban makes the other commenters act good towards each other. We actually allow fights between nonauthor commenters on here, but we don’t encourage it. Because of the ban policy though, commenters don’t fight too much. That’s good because even huge blogs have comment sections that are full of trolls and idiots fighting each other. The comments are basically trashed.
It’s also good because it makes Alpha and me act good. I have to act good on here because I ban. Make sense? Here’s how. Since I ban, I have to be pretty nice. Mostly to regs, but in general. Suppose I tore into commenters on a regular basis. Ok, then commenters would logically start flailing back at me, right? I mean, who could blame them? Then I would be forced to ban them, but I basically provoked them into a ban, no? It wouldn’t be fair. I would also be a bully by fighting people and not allowing them to fight back. I don’t bully people. It’s immoral. I used to, but not anymore.
There’s a downside to that in that I have to be nice to some truly horrible commenters, like Nazis for instance!
It also makes me write better. Say I want to write a piece totally massacring Jews or Blacks verbally. Well, my co-author is Black. She would probably threaten to quit. The comments section is full of Jews. They would get so mad they would either flail at me and get banned, or else they would take off. So the ban policy makes it so my posts are not so much screeching, bigoted and irrational diatribes.
So it’s good because it’s necessary and it makes the comments a decent place, but it’s also bad.
It’s bad because it scares people off from commenting. Even regular commenters see the bans and get frightened and inhibited about commenting. They are afraid to comment for fear they may get banned, I think.
73 people have been banned so far.
All bans can be petitioned, but hardly anyone ever does. Only one guy has, and the idiot has been rebanned twice after petitioning twice to come back! I think it’s to humiliating to ask to be unbanned or something.
A dishonor roll would not work due to the way in which people are banned. I can’t really explain the method on which we ban, but I don’t even necessarily know the handles that got banned, OK? If I tell how we ban though, then people will start trying to circumvent the bans, which can get extremely annoying. Thank God we have not had to deal with that.
There are a couple of regular commenters who got quickly banned after they showed up. They really pissed me off! They went a got a new name (really more than that, but I won’t go into details) and they surreptitiously circumvented the ban and came back, but this time they were good. They in effect asked that the ban be pulled. I caught on after a while, but as long as they were being good, I let them stay. I won’t name them. At least one is a reg now. The other’s been gone for a bit.
We do warn people, especially regs, if they are heading for a ban. So regs hardly ever get banned. Most bans are newbies, which is kind of sad, but they can always petition, you know.
I do kind of get off on banning the idiots, it’s true. I get to pound the Hell out of them hilariously in front of a cheering audience and then I don’t even give them a chance to fight back. How often in life can you do that? Hehe.

Conservatives Promote Stupidity, How and Why

In the comments, Matt astutely notes about Republicans’ willful promotion of stupidity:

Rob, You may remember how conservatives at one time were writing all those books about how l “liberal” education policies were making American children stoopid (Closing of the American Mind, Don’t Know Much About…, Cultural Literacy). Whether their idea of the causation was correct or not, they were right; Americans are stoopid. But you’ll notice they’ve mostly shut up about it. They must have figured out that the poorly educated and the willfully ignorant were their base.

Good point Matt. Of course that’s their base.
Sure, a lot of people who vote Democrat aren’t very smart, but that’s just the way they are, and nothing can be done about it. Anyway, the Democratic Party in general is not hostile to science and does not promote complete and utter stupidity, except when they parrot GOP ideas and concepts.
What’s funny is that I’m sure the guys running the GOP are very smart people. No doubt they are often very intellectual guys. But they willfully peddle Stupid Juice by tankload to the masses, and they know full well what they are doing. It’s disgusting, but there’s a method to their madness. If they could get people to vote rightwing by peddling intelligence, I’m sure they would do that instead.
What’s disturbing is that conservatives have always promoted ignorance and stupidity everywhere they’ve been in power and at all times. The priests of the Middle Ages would not let the Bible be translated, because they didn’t want their flocks to learn to read. The Taliban burn down girls’ schools. The Nazis burned books.
When Fujimori seized power in Peru, he shut down most of the nation’s universities as hotbeds of subversion. The army raided the universities, ransakcked them, tore them to pieces, raided libraries and destroyed all the books, on and on. The universities were later reopened, and students shuffled back to campus, appalled at their trashed schools. Funding for the universities was gutted, and the books in the libraries were never replaced.
Curiously, Peruvian polls consistently show that a majority of Peruvians support Fujimori, so I guess Peruvians are even more retarded than Americans. At least we don’t send in the army to tear down UCLA and burn all the books in the library while the population cheers. Not yet anyway. I guess that’s in the future.
A similar thing happened in El Salvador under rightwing rule. The universities were shuttered as hotbeds of subversion.
Under Pinochet in Chile, funding for the public schools was gutted, and your average Chilean public school now is literally falling apart. The wealthy send their kids to public schools, so they don’t care. Not quite pro-stupidity, more like “we don’t want the masses educated.”
The same happened in Argentina, where funding for the public schools was incredibly transferred to private schools, leaving the public schools tottering and and decrepit. This is essentially what the Right in the US wants to do with their vouchers scheme.
The ruling elites have always feared that an educated population would figure out the rich people’s scam and cut off some of the loot or transfer some to themselves, so conservatives everywhere and at all times have attacked the education of the masses. The motto of conservatives is that the dumber the people are, the easier they will be for us to manipulate.
I am ashamed to admit that the worst Communists who ever lived, the Khmer Rogue, deliberately targeted any urban person with an education. They often signaled out those who worse glasses for execution. One wonders how much the national IQ went down during Khmer Rogue rule.
Mao executed intellectual dissidents during the 100 Flowers Campaign. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao shuttered universities and sent students to the work the fields with the peasants. The argument was that intellectual students were a privileged elite.
Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s disproportionately targeted the intellectual leadership of various ethnicities who he distrusted.
Otherwise, Communists have been some of the most pro-educational governments in the history of man, but we do have some shameful backsliding.
Any time your government is mass imprisoning and/or executing the intellectuals of society, it seems to me that the state is engaging in some pretty retarded behavior.
Here’s a plan! Let’s put all the smart people in prison! Better yet, let’s kill all the smart people! Duh. No better way to run your society into the ground.

Newsflash: Americans Are Idiots!

Even worse, religious fanatic idiots. Yikes. An idiot is one thing, but a dangerous idiot is something else all together. Religious fundamentalism throws gasoline of the smoldering embers of American retardation, igniting an angry conflagration of aggressive and menacing stupid so terrifying that the sane people feel they have 5 minutes to evacuate the idiots’ presence.

More than half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation.

Ow! That’s so stupid it hurts! If you’re that dumb, you really need to be tossed out of Protestantism.
As if we didn’t know that already, a study adds to the tonnage of evidence pressing down on our chests, making us catch our breath once again at the idiocy of our land. There is nothing new here. Alexis de Torqueville noted 180 years ago that we were a land of willful retards who spat on the notion of learning and culture as that of “Old Europe.”
This moronitude continues to this day – “freedom fries,” “surrender monkeys,” on and on, any insult at our cultural and intellectual betters to rid us of the nagging notion that we are a nation of idiots flopped onto sofas, swilling Budweiser while we stretch to gaze at the Hypnotube over the looming mount of groaning and overstretched bellies.
It’s one thing to be stupid and humble. You find a lot of folks like this in 3rd World countries, and you have to admire them in a way. They’re dumb, but they wish they weren’t, and they wonder at an educated fellow in that he had the opportunity to obtain that grail that they never grasped.
Americans are worse, they are so much worse. Americans are defiantly ignorant! They take pride in being stupid. The stupider the better, they scream as they head for the Colorado River or Vegas on the weekend. They actually look down sneeringly on their betters who stopped dragging their knuckles long enough to pick up a book and actually read the thing. “Books are for losers!” the Moronicans scream.
The Republican Party plays to the typical American idiot, swoons at his stupidity and feeds more raw retard meat by radio, TV and paper every hour of the day. The well-trained American imbecile laps up the stupid food like caviar and the Republican Party roars it’s approval. The Republican Party is all about stupid. That’s the very reason for its existence. It’s actively hostile to science, as fascists and even conservatives have typically been.
An atheist would look at it this way:
It’s stupid enough to believe religious fairy tales, but if you’re going to believe children’s fables, you may as well get it straight exactly what nonsense you guide your life by. Americans are so much worse. They swear by fairy tales to lead them through the day and the voting booth, but they can’t even tell you what tall tales they actually believe in. All they know is they believe in some fantastical nonsense, but they can’t even describe the nonsense that they believe in. But they believe in it anyway! How pitiful!

Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn’t know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Wince! Even Catholics are dunces. It’s called transubstantiation, morons. Granted, the concept is seriously stupid, but it is official Church doctrine, for what it’s worth.
Not surprisingly, White Southern Protestants were the dumbest Whites of all (LOL), but Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics were both considerably dumber – 65% – than even the dumbest Whites. So race realism shines again, even in the pews, or in the empty skulls of those who fill them at the end of the week.

Less than half of Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist.

LOL, idiots. How could anyone not know that?Amazingly, even American Jews are retarded! But Jews are smart. Indeed they are, IQ-wise, but thrown into the wrecking yard of US culture, even Jewish brains start to wilt in the sun of stupid.

And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish.

LOL, I thought Jews were smart or something. Guess I’ll have to go back and renew that theory. That Jewish quote is scary: it implies that merely living in America is bad for your brain. Ouch!

Barbara Lerner Spectre Video: Lots of Comments, Little Sense

An interview with Barbara Lerner Spectre, head of a Jewish society in Sweden, is getting a lot of airplay all over the Anti-Semitism Sphere on the Net. The anti-Semites are jumping up and down, barking at the moon, frothing at the mouth, doing somersaults and acting stupid like they always do.
Here is the video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_a-25MhRuk]
View the video yourself. There’s nothing new here. Same old European Jewish stuff as has been going on for a century or two.
Of all of the comments on the video, the increasingly anti-Semitic Kevin MacDonald’s is probably the most sensible. However, even he misses the point. He says that in the video, Spectre admits that European Jews are hated because they are at the forefront of multiculturalism.
In fact, she says no such thing, and there is no evidence for this anyway. There is little anti-Semitism in Europe. What anti-Semitism exists at all is almost entirely due to Muslims. White Supremacist anti-Semitism in Europe is not common. “The New Anti-Semitism” of the Left is probably even less common: it’s mostly Jewish hallucination and paranoid delusion, a peculiar psychotic psychopathology that Jews adopt everywhere they go.
The rest of the Anti-Semitism Sphere, mostly White Nationalist types, have jumped all over the video as evidence of their “Jews Hate the White Race” theory whereby evil Jews conspire to muddy up nice White societies and force kind and decent Whites to commit racial suicide againsnt their wills. Oh, those evil Jews! They force Whites to kill White people and White culture! Start up the ovens already!
This view of Jews as destroyer of Whites is marginal among sane White people everywhere on Earth.
Here instead is Spectre’s argument, which admittedly doesn’t make a lot of sense:
European anti-Semitism is a reflection of monocultural European societies. Monocultural European societies always take it out on the Jews. Therefore, the solution is to mix European societies to dilute their monocultural and monoreligious nature and thereby create societies that are safer for the Jews. The old Jewish game for a hundred years or so.
She says that Europe is transitioning from monocultural, monoethnic and monoreligious (and anti-Semitic) to multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious (and implicitly philosemitic). We are in the midst of such a transition right now, though it has not been completed (true). Jews will play a leading role in this transition, not because they want to exterminate the White race, but because they see this as the best way to have safe societies for Jews.
She does not say that Jews are hated due to their role in promoting multiculturalism. MacDonald has completely misread this video. As MacDonald gets deeper into anti-Semitism, he is starting to get more irrational, but that’s how anti-Semitism works.

Danish Psychologist: “Integration of Muslims in Western Societies Is Not Possible”

I am going to reprint this article in toto below. I agree with every single thing that this man says. Further, I agree with his conclusions. All immigration of Muslims to Europe must stop. We should help repatriate Muslims those Muslims who wish to return to their Islamic societies. We should only allow in Muslims who have essentially left their religion and are no longer Muslims.
We don’t have a similar problem yet with Muslims in the US and Canada as they do on the Continent, so I see no need yet to cut off Muslim immigration to the US or Canada.
Which European countries should halt all Muslim immigration? Those which are having serious problems with Muslims and crime and terrorism: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, the UK and Germany. I’m not aware of any other European countries that are having serious problems with Muslim immigrants and crime/terrorism and antisocial behaviors. If you can think of any other countries this applies to, let us know in the comments.
This is one area where the Left has gone stark raving insane. They support the mass immigration of unassimilable, antisocial, criminal Muslims in the West for no rational reason. Instead, who is protesting the invasion of this reactionary culture to the West. Our very own Western reactionaries! We dropped the ball in fighting Muslim reaction, so now it is up to our own reactionaries to fight their Muslim reactionary brethren. Ridiculous!

I do not feel that this psychologist is a reactionary or a conservative. On the contrary, he seems like a very liberal of even Leftist fellow, judging by his language. He’s simply doing what we no longer do on the Left: Tell it like it is. It is incomprehensible to me why we on the Left are supporting this reactionary culture.
Why would this immigration ban be such a hardship for the poor Muslims? Let them stay in their sandboxes. If their Muslim culture really is so fantastic and wonderful, surely their Muslim societies must be better places to live than the depraved and degenerate West, no? Eh? This is not so? Why is that, Muslims? Oh Muslims! Look in the mirror for the answer.
Danish integration problems with Muslims became public worldwide in 2006 when the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Exactly two years later riots broke out again because of the reprint of the Mohammed cartoons by all major Danish newspapers.
Currently 70% of the prison population in the Copenhagen youth prison consists of young man of Muslim heritage. Is this recent violence and general violent tendency among Muslims solely coincidental, or is there a direct connection?
In February 2009, Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist published a book entitled Among criminal Muslims. A psychologist’s experience from Copenhagen. In his book, Nicolai Sennels shares a psychological perspective of this Muslim Culture, its relationship to anger, handling emotions and its religion. He based his research on hundreds of hours of therapy with 150 young Muslims in the Copenhagen youth jail. EuropeNews interviewed the author about his book and its consequences on integration of Muslims in Europe.
EuropeNews: Nicolai Sennels, how did you get the idea to write a book about criminal Muslims in Denmark?
Nicolai Sennels: I got the idea in February 2008 during a conference on integration in Copenhagen, where I was invited as the first and only psychologist working in a Copenhagen youth prison. My speech at the conference was about the fact, that foreigners’ culture plays a significant role concerning integration, crime and religious extremism. I emphasized, that people from a Muslim culture find it difficult, if not impossible, to create a successful life in Denmark.
This statement was met with great resistance from Danish politicians and also my own boss from the youth prison. I was quite surprised since I thought that my point is obvious: some cultures fit better into Western societies than others. All of Europe is currently struggling to integrate Muslims but this endeavor seems to be impossible. According to the Danish police and the Danish Bureau of Statistics more than 70% of all crimes in the Danish capital are committed by Muslims. Our national bank recently published a report stating that a Muslim foreigner costs more than 2 million Danish kroner (300,000 euros) in federal social assistance on average, caused by the low participation in the work force. On top of this, we have to add many additional types of social welfare that unemployed people can receive in our country: expenses in connection with interpreters, special classes in school—64% of school children with Muslim parents cannot read and write Danish properly after 10 years in a Danish school—social work, extra police etc.
My statement resulted in a legal injunction, a kind of professional punishment, which stated, that if I ever repeat this, I could be fired. According to the Copenhagen authorities it is apparently permitted to state that the serious problems among Muslims are caused by poverty, the media, the police, the Danes, politicians, etc. But two things are definitely not allowed: 1) discussing the significance of culture and 2) our foreigners own responsibility for their integration in our societies. Unfortunately many very powerful politicians lack a clear understanding of the psychological aspect of culture and the influence it has on integration.
EuropeNews: What were the reactions in Denmark?
Sennels: The book was received with a great amount of attention, already before the book was officially published on February 24 2009. It was on the front page of one of the biggest national newspapers in Denmark, and I was on the radio and TV participating in debates with politicians and other experts on the subject. The first publication of the book was sold out after three weeks.
Since then, there have been some big changes in Danish integration policy, which seems to have been influenced by the book and the attention it got. From my personal point of view, the widespread attention shows that my statement is true: there is simply a great need for a deeper understanding of how Muslims’ culture influences their chances for integration.
The very famous politician, Naser Khader, who is Muslim and the author of the bestseller “Honor and Shame”, wrote a review of my book and stated that it should be “obligatory reading for students, social workers and teachers.” Jyllands-Posten, the brave newspaper that first published the Mohammed cartoons, calls the book “an original piece of pioneer work”.
EuropeNews: Let’s have a closer look at the book. You talk about four myths of integration. The first one concerns the difference between the cultures of immigrants.
Sennels: What I discovered during my work at the youth prison was that people of Muslim heritage have other needs for social work than Danes or people of non-Muslim cultures. These different needs require more attention, and psychologists need to do more research on these topics in order to be able to create effective social politics.
I completely agree with my critics that personal and social problems can lead to anti-social behavior among both Westerners and Muslims. However, there is still extremely disproportional anti-social and anti-democratic behavior among Muslims. The Danish Bureau of Statistics published a report (1 and 2) stating that Muslim countries take the first eight places on the top 10-list of criminals’ country of origin. Denmark is number nine on this list.
EuropeNews: So that means, we have to treat Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants in a different way?
Sennels: Seen from a psychological and also humanistic perspective, it is very clear that people from different cultures have different needs when they have or create problems. My own experience is that Muslims don’t understand our Western way of trying to handle conflicts through dialogue. They are raised in a culture with very clear outer authorities and consequences. Western tradition using compromise and inner reflection as primary means of handling outer and inner conflicts is seen as weak in the Muslim culture. To a great extent they simply don’t understand this softer and more humanistic way of handling social affairs. In the context of social work and politics this means that they need more borders and stronger consequences to be able to adjust their behavior.
EuropeNews: That leads us directly to the second myth: it is often said, that the criminality of immigrants is caused by social problems, not by their cultural background. In your book you disagree and point to the religion of the Muslims as a source of criminality.
Sennels: Well, I would rephrase it as “Muslim culture” instead of “religion” because there are a lot of Muslims who don’t know what is written in the Quran and who don’t visit the mosques. But they are strongly influenced on a cultural level. And there we see that especially anger is much more accepted in the Muslim culture.
One example: in Western culture and also in other non-Muslim cultures, like in Asia, you see aggression and a sudden explosion of anger as something you’ll regret afterwards, something you are ashamed of. It is completely opposite in the Muslim culture. If somebody steps on your honor—what I as a psychologist would call self confidence—you are simply expected to show aggression and often also verbal or physical revenge. So, aggression gives you a low status in our cultures, but a high status in the Muslim culture.
There is however another and much deeper reason for the wide spread anti-social behavior in Muslim communities and their strong aversion against integration—namely, the very strong identification that Muslims have with belonging to the Muslim culture.
My encounter with the Muslim culture has been a meeting with an exceedingly strong and very proud culture. This is certainly something that can ensure an ancient culture’s survival through changing times—Islam and the Muslim culture are excellent examples of this. A strong and proud culture unfortunately also makes the culture’s members almost unable to adapt to other values. In Germany, only 12% of their 3.5 million Muslims see themselves as more German than Muslim; in France and Denmark, only 14% of the Muslim populations respectively see themselves more as French or Danish than Muslim. Research among Muslims living in Denmark also shows that 50% of the 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrants are against free speech and 11% would like to see the Danish constitution exchanged with the sharia law (more numbers from this research can be found in the printed issue of the newspaper). These high percentages are of course frightening, but especially disturbing is the fact that there are no differences of opinion on this topic among Muslims who are born and raised in Muslim countries and the opinion of their children who are born and raised in Danish society. When it comes to identity among Muslims, nationality does not count at all in comparison with culture and religion. The consequence is a powerful and growing opposition to Western culture and values in Muslim ghettoes throughout Copenhagen and other major European cities.
EuropeNews: As you already pointed out, a lot of Muslims have a strong connection to their religious identity. The third myth you dismantle in your book is about the percentage of extremist’s and fundamentalists among Muslims. It’s often presumed that this percentage is relatively small. What is your experience?
Sennels: People hope that most Muslims are modern and accept Western values. My experience is different, and this has been proven by the statistics in Europe that I just quoted. In February 2008, we had some deadly serious riots by young Muslims in Denmark.
Those riots were partly a reaction to the great focus by the Danish police on the steeply rising crime rates in Muslim areas. The other reason was the reprinting of the Mohammed cartoons in all Danish newspapers. This reprinting was an act of solidarity with the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose life was, and still is, seriously threatened.
In these riots, we saw Muslims who don’t practice the Islamic religion in their daily lives standing up for their culture and religion in a very aggressive way. Copenhagen was smoking for an entire week due to several hundred of fires, and the police and firemen trying to calm the situation down were also attacked. A big part of the rioters ended up in the prison where I worked, and I therefore I had the chance to talk with them. Almost all of them were Muslims, and they all claimed that what they have done—starting fires, attacking the police etc.—was justified since Danish society, through its pressure on integration and through reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, has proven itself to be racist and against Islam and Muslim culture. The few Danish people among the rioters were completely different. Their explanation of their actions was predominately a search for adventure or excitement.
EuropeNews: The fourth myth is that poverty among immigrants leads to their bad social situation. In your book, you tell us that the opposite is true.
Sennels: You can formulate this important question like this: do people get social problems because they are poor, or do they become poor because they create social problems? My experience is that the very low focus on supporting one’s children in school and on one’s own education and the lack of motivation for creating a professional career is a crucial factor for the poverty, which many Muslims experience in both our societies and in Muslim countries. On top of it, one fourth of all young male Muslims in Denmark have a criminal record. Poor reading skills, a strong aversion against authorities and a criminal record simply make it very difficult for you to get a well paying job. It is anti-social behavior that makes you poor. Not the other way around.
Unfortunately many politicians see poverty as the main cause of integration problems. I think this is a horrible and one-dimensional view of poor people and of people in general. The idea that people’s behavior is decided by the amount of money they have on their bank accounts every month is an exceedingly limited view. I myself, as a psychologist who graduated from the humanities department of the University of Copenhagen, would say that people have many more and stronger factors in their lives than money, which influence their behavior and way of thinking.
EuropeNews: What is the conclusion on your research? Is the integration of people of Muslim heritage into Western societies possible?
Nicolai Sennels: I would say that the optimists, the people who say that integration is possible, carry a very great responsibility. There is a very great risk that they are selling us hope, a dream, that has no foundation in reality. This means that they will be the ones who are responsible for Europe looking away from and not addressing its problems until it is too late.
There is simply no research in Europe that supports the optimists’ view. On the contrary, all the research that we have on integration of Muslims in Western societies shows that we are continuing to head in the wrong direction. So I don’t know how these optimists come to their conclusion. Maybe it is a vain and childish hope that everything will turn out well, just like in the fairy tales. Or maybe it is a pseudo-Darwinistic idea that everything will develop in a positive direction. One thing is for sure: they don’t base their judgments on facts.
Of course there are exceptions but for the largest part integration to the necessary degree of Muslims is not possible. Clever and compassionate people are working all over Europe on the problem, and they have spent billions of Euros on the project, yet, the problems still continue to grow.
The psychological explanation is actually simple. The Muslim and the Western cultures are fundamentally very different. This means Muslims need to undergo very big changes in their identity and values to be able to accept the values of Western societies. Changing basic structures in one’s personality is a very demanding psychological and emotional process. Apparently very few Muslims feel motivated to do so. I only know a few who managed, but I also know that it was a long and exhausting struggle on an inner level for them and that they often pay a high personal price on the outer level because their Muslim friends and families despise and/or disown them for leaving their culture.
EuropeNews: But what we are going to do with the Muslims, who are already here?
Sennels: I see two possibilities. Firstly, we should immediately stop all immigration of people from Muslim countries to Europe until we have proven that integration of Muslims is possible.
Secondly, we should help Muslims who don’t want to or are not able to integrate in our Western societies to build a new and meaningful life in a society they understand and that understands them. This means to assist them in starting a new life in a Muslim country. We actually have the economic means to do this. As I mentioned previously, the Danish National Bank calculated, that every immigrant from Muslim countries costs 300,000 euros on average. With this money, we could help these people to live a happy life in a Muslim country without having to integrate in a society they don’t understand and therefore cannot accept. Having money enough to support one’s family and live in a country where one feels at home with the surrounding culture would be a great step forward in the quality of their lives. And we should help them achieve this. Not only the individual Muslim, but also European societies will benefit. Muslims immigrating from Europe to Muslim countries will function as ambassadors for more free and democratic societies: due to their experience from living in a democracy with real human rights and their knowledge of the social systems in Europe, they will take very important ideas and values with them. In this way they can do what hopefully most of them dream of, i.e. help their Muslim brothers and sisters in their home countries by changing the poor conditions and from which they moved away from initially.

Anti-Semitism Follows Jews Like Day Follows Night

A commenter was having a fit of drunken anti-Semitism in the comments section, and a Jewish commenter took him to task:

Was the bad day caused by Jews, or are they simply a convenient scapegoat/punching bag?

I don’t believe in the “scapegoat” theory of anti-Semitism. It’s ridiculous and self-serving for the Jews and lets them off the hook.
OTOH, sometimes it is true for sure – sometimes Jews are scapegoated.
Anti-Semitism is so complicated. It’s too complicated and important to be left to the Jews, from whom we will only get a Niagara of lies and self-serving crap.
The last person you should ask for an explication of anti-Semitism is a Jew. There’s too much at stake, and they are too emotionally wound up in the matter for them to be very honest about it.
I say do the Amish test.
Jews always say, “They hate us because we are different.” “They scapegoat us.” Bla bla bla bla bla [insert random Jewish silly argument].
Ok, let’s look at the Amish. The Amish are about as weird as an American group gets. They are different as can be. If anyone should be hated because they are different, it’s the Amish. So who hates the Amish? Basically zero people. Who hates the Jews? Lots of people. How come no one ever “scapegoats” the Amish?
Answer is that Amish people are very nice people.
Jews? Well, they are not so nice, to put it mildly. Jews simply do not have a reputation for being nice, friendly, decent type people. Kind of the opposite. And the New York Hasidic Jews that Randy was ranting about in the comments? They are about the most unpleasant Jews of them all.
I would agree though that a lot of anti-Semitism is sheer envy. Jews are markedly more successful than other groups in most places. Face it, Jews outcompete us Gentiles. AFAICT, judging from the anti-Semitism I see around me, this is what drives a lot of it. Sheer, flat out envy. Also, there is a notion that the Jews could not have outcompeted us fair and square (which I figure they did). They must have cheated! That makes people even more angry.
In all the retarded and endless Jewish tomes and pieces about anti-Semitism, (anti-Semitism being the favorite obsession of the Jews other than staring at the Jewish pool in the stream until they fall in) strangely enough, this is rarely commented on, yet it’s obviously driving most of it.
Hell, the Jews have even set up whole gigantic institutes for the mystification (Excuse, me, study!) of anti-Semitism like the Steven Roth (Onanistic) Institute for the Study of Antisemitism in (Where else?) Tel Aviv in which a tremendous amount of nonsense is written and many a Jew is ridiculously and worthlessly employed.

To Die An Interesting Death…

In the comments section to the Poor Jews post, Randy* says

Immediately upon reading the headline, I recall this line from Steven Jesse Bernstein where he talks about being teased for being a Jew, and having his lunch money stolen, and one of the taunts was “Never heard of a poor Jew”.
Man…that guy was off the fucking hook. Died a suicide, stabbed himself in the throat. Who fuck does THAT?

If you’re going to be a suicide, might as well do it in a dramatic manner and make a little show for yourself as your last act. Why not? You will dead soon enough anyway.

“The purpose of life is to die an interesting death.”-Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

About Otto Weininger below, he certainly died one Hell of an interesting death. After producing a bizarre but seminal philosophical classic, Sex and Character, at age 21, two years later, at age 23, he rented a room in the home in Vienna where Beethoven died. He specifically requested and was rented the very room that Beethoven had died in. That night, he pulled out a pistol, but it to his chest, put a bullet through his aching heart, and it pained him no more.
About Otto Weininger, Hitler supposedly once said, “Otto Weininger was the only good Jew that ever lived, and he killed himself rather than continue living as a Jew.”
The implication was that Weininger realized that he was a member of a congenitally evil race, and even though he had converted out to Christianity and wrote one of the world’s greatest anti-Semitic masterpieces, Sex and Character .
*Randy is actually a genius. As Otto Weininger says, genius is probably present in everyone to some degree or another. This seems shocking, but if you read Randy’s comments, you realize that this may be true.

References

Pynchon, Thomas. 1973. Gravity’s Rainbow. New York: Viking Press.

No Black Geniuses?

If you hang around White nationalist fora a lot you will hear quite a lot of nonsense about Black people. Since one of the WN’s arguments in favor of White Supremacy which they all believe in is that “Niggers ain’t got no brains” = Whites are much smarter than Blacks, it is quite ironic that you find so many out and out retarded statements by Whites coming from the mouths of the most supremacist of Whites.
One common line, heard quite commonly on the more moderate fora like American Renaissance, is that Black geniuses are essentially rare to nonexistent. They then go down through the list of very smart Blacks, but someone not a one of these niggers is smart enough to be an actual out and out genius! There is some sort of genius bar to be pole-vaulted over, but the darn contraption is set up in such a way so that only Whites can make it over the bar.
Some of these articles descend into long, intellectual treatises, replete will all sorts of evidence and referencing, about how even the smartest of Blacks somehow to do not reach the ultimate genius of some of the greatest White geniuses, who are then listed. Beethoven, Milton, Shakespeare, even Emerson and Lincoln.
On a certain dumbass White Supremacist level on which a huge % of Whites can relate (sadly including me) this “argument” finds your average White person nodding his head. Sure! Where’s the Black Shakespeare anyway? Duh. It makes so much sense.
Except it doesn’t. As David alluded in the comments section the other day, arguments like this are unprovable. As he said, it’s not so much they aren’t right, it’s worse than that. They aren’t even wrong! In short, they are utterly untestable and therefore ridiculous. We argue over angels on pinheads.
First of all, when one wanders into the towering Easter Island statue heights of genius, one deals with the chewy question of who are the real super-genius, who are the more geniuses, who are the runner-ups and who deserve to be forgotten. There is almost no way to scientifically quantify this. Philosophy is as kick-ass as it gets. I’ve heard Cornel West speak, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s as good as Plato, Nietzsche and Sartre. Better, in fact, because he synthesizes all three masterfully. And even better yet because he sort of makes sense, and none of the above, especially the latter two, do much at all for me.
So on what basis do we say that Black philosophy has never produced a Plato, Nietzsche or Sartre? This is intellectual masturbation.
The same argument is made about music. Where is the Black Beethoven? Sure, the racist idiot in the White mind screams, where is he? He is nowhere and everywhere you look. Ornette Coleman, Charlie Parker, Robert Johnson, and I’m only getting started.
So when I saw this video of the savant, at first I thought no way is this guy Black. In my racist heart (yes I have a black place there) I had thought, “There can’t be any Black savants. Blacks are too stupid to be savants. Only Whites can be savants.”
Lo and behold, here is a Black savant, a Frenchman. And he’s quite Black all right, looks like he just stepped out of the Congo.
The contrarians will say that he’s not a genius, he’s just a savant. But here we get into the idiot argument of what is genius. Otto Weininger says genius is present to some degree or another in all humans. Surely this Black fellow has more than a touch, in fact quite a bit, of the gift, strange as it may be.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TibQ_1zH3U&fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&border=1]
Ok, so you want to talk IQ instead. My understanding is that there are Black students at MIT, typically majoring in mathematics or related fields, all African immigrants, who have IQ’s tested at 160-180. These are anecdotal reports, but they don’t surprise me. Exactly how high does your IQ need to be before you are a genius anyway?

Asperger's Versus Normals and Social Skills

A commenter with Asperger’s Syndrome talks about AS and social skills:

I have a hard time being social when I’m tired, sick, in a bad mood or if I’m really inspired to do something else.

Aren’t you making a bit much of this so called disorder here? I mean, that describes tons of basically normal people. I’m thinking especially of my Mom. She can be pretty unpleasant sometimes, and I think she’s pissed at me, but it turns out she’s just tired after working.
Yes, normal people who are tired act irritable and antisocial.
Yes, normal people who are in a bad mood reflect that bad mood off on innocent people.
Yes, normal people who are sick are antisocial at best.
Yes, normal people who have something going on are often quite irritable and want you to get out of their face.
Actually, I don’t think behavior is normal at all, because I am way too easy going. I think it’s horrifying. But it’s basically the way normal humans act.
So you’re basically saying you act like everyone else. Ok, and?

I also tend to talk too much about particular interests even if it bores the people I’m with.

Ok, this is not so good. But once again, tons of normal folks act this way, especially men. For instance, I do this myself. It’s one of my terrible habits.
One thing is important though. Do you realize that you are boring people or annoying them. I do realize it of course, but it pisses me off! How dare these idiots get bored or annoyed at me! I’m saying something important here! Plus I hate “normal” society because other than say the fuckin weather, 100 trillion other subjects are automatically “offensive” in a way, even if you talk about them non-offensively. So I deliberately talk about “offensive” shit, like race for instance, mostly just to piss these idiots off. I do it in a pretty cool way, more or less anti-racist, but in most places, even that’s banned.
Race may not be discussed at all, period. So when I’m doing this, I’m often rebelling.
There’s also some male egocentrism involved. When the person is acting bored or annoyed, I get pissed! It’s an insult, and I don’t like to be insulted. So I respond to that insult by talking about it even more, just to piss them off! On another level, I refuse to believe that the person is getting irked or snoring. I say, “This isn’t happening!” and I keep on talking because to believe it is an insult.
One thing is that in most places, if you talk about anything requiring over say a 100 IQ, almost everyone acts like you are irking or snoring them. That pisses me off too. My IQ already unfortunately makes it seem like I’m living in a world full of retards, but being banned from saying anything intelligent in public really gets on my fuckin nerves. I do have to go out sometimes, you know.

Why Are Religious Schools Allowed to Discriminate on the Basis of Religion But Not on Race?

In the comments section, BAG asks:

Okay, Uncle Milton, but what I don’t get is why it’s okay to discriminate based on religion, but not race?
The way I see it, either all discrimination is okay, or none of it is okay.

We’ve had a ton of problems in US schools with discrimination on the basis of race. On the other hand, we’ve had zero problems in US schools with discrimination on the basis of religion, or very few for that matter. Some universities used to discriminate against Jews, but those were not religious schools.
It’s a sociological phenomenon. If you allowed religious schools to discriminate on the basis of race, this could create a major social problem. In places like the South all these “Christian” schools would spring up overnight more or less with “No Niggers” signs hung out front. That would not be acceptable. We fought a great big conflict to get rid of de jure segregated schooling in this country.
It’s true that these laws leave Whites with no way to escape sending their kids to schools with Blacks other than moving away from them, but it’s really not much of a problem in terms of private or religious schools. Sure, private and religious schools have to accept Blacks if they meet the criteria, but if you screw up or screw off in private or religious schools, they boot you right on out of there. So I imagine that though private and religious schools in the US surely have Blacks in them, I’m quite certain that those Blacks are studious and well-behaved, else they are gone.
I mean, these are religious schools! You can’t very well force them to accept people of other religions! That’s insane. On what basis could you force Christian schools to accept Hindus, Muslims and Jews? On what basis could you accept Jewish schools to accept Hindus, Muslims and Christians? It’s nuts, and no one is being harmed by these restrictions anyway, so there’s no reasons to fix them up.

Can Private Schools Discriminate Based on Race?

There is a discussion in the comments about whether or not private schools may discriminate based on race. Co-author Alpha Unit writes:

I was curious about this, too, so I checked to see what federal law has to say about this. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in all public schools and in any school receiving federal funds. Title IV, which addresses education, wouldn’t apply to privately funded schools.But each state might have its own anti-discrimination laws.

Private schools are in fact covered by most federal anti-discrimination laws.
Private schools with 15 or more employees are covered by Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Title 7 forbids discrimination based on race.
However, religious schools are exempted from the requirements of Title 7. Nevertheless, if they are tax exempt religious schools, they can have their tax-exempt status revoked.
If they have 20+ employees, they are covered by the Age Discrimination Act. Almost all private schools are covered by the Equal Pay Act protecting women.
I would imagine that almost all private schools have 15+ employees, so nearly 100% of private schools may not discriminate based on race. It’s a violation of federal law.
As it ought to be.

"Biofuels and Big Business," by Alpha Unit

For years now people have been writing about the decline of the timber industry in this country. All kinds of factors have been blamed: bad policies out of Washington, D.C., recession, outsourcing, deforestation (due to insects and invasive plants), and so on.
Besides that, young people nowadays aren’t that interested in working in the timber business, insiders say. There is some concern over who will fill jobs in the future.
But there is a bright spot of potential in this picture: the push for wood-derived biofuels.
Woodlands in the U.S. produce about 370 million dry tons of woody biomass every year. This biomass includes:

  • diseased and infested trees
  • trees felled by extreme weather conditions like hurricanes
  • “slash” – branches, limbs, and stumps left after timber harvesting
  • understory – small-diameter trees, or “thinnings,” removed because they might serve as a “fire bridge” between forest floor and canopy
  • mill residues – sawdust, bark, and “black liquor” (what’s left after cellulose fibers are removed from the slurry that forms paper)
  • urban wood waste – discarded furniture, pallets, processed lumber, and yard and tree trimmings

Typically, a lot of this woody biomass is burned, left to rot, or put in landfills. But people in government and industry are seeing it as a great potential energy source.
A lot of liquid fuel can come from woody biomass – things like ethanol, methanol, and bio-oil. The production of bio-oil, or bio-crude, occurs through the process of pyrolysis.
What they do is heat the biomass in an oxygen-free environment. Because there’s no oxygen present, the material doesn’t burn; instead, it decomposes into bio-oil, char, and non-compressible gases.
Bio-oil multiplies the energy yield of biomass by 12 to 15 times. It’s clean-burning and bio-friendly (carbon-neutral). The problem, though, is that it’s generally unstable and corrosive. So they still have to formulate upgrades for it that would overcome some of the problems with its transportation and storage.
If you slow down the heating rate of pyrolysis, the major product is bio-char. Bio-char is also called torrefied wood (“TW”). TW eliminates some of the problems associated with bio-oil.
TW is a charcoal-like solid that’s water-resistant, non-perishable, and energy-dense. It can be stored for long periods, so its transportation costs are lower than those of green wood chips. And it definitely has a higher BTU value per ton than green wood chips. Its energy content is said to be comparable to coal.
When it’s used as a replacement for coal, it produces a lot less ash, and its sulfur emissions are low.
It’s still going to be a long time before bioenergy is truly competitive with petroleum-based fuels. A few years ago, Chevron announced that it was joining forces with Weyerhaeuser, whose name means “Big Timber,” to research ways to make biofuels commercially viable. Their emphasis was on ethanol, the production of which has been controversial.
Weyerhaeuser is also in partnership with Mitsubishi to explore bio-char production.
I don’t think anyone is surprised that these giant corporations are co-opting the biofuels industry. Only the big energy companies can offer the economies of large-scale operations that will get bioenergy off the ground, they say.

My Language Has More Words Than Yours!

In the comments section, James Schipper comments on the notion that English has more words than, say, Swedish:

Measuring the number of words in a language isn’t very scientific. What is a word? Is it anything that is separated by empty space? If so, then the more words are written as one, the more words there are in a language. Bookkeeper and steamship would be separate words but book publisher and passenger ship would not be.
I’m currently reading a book by your Swedish colleague Mikael Parkvall about language myths. One myth that he discusses is Engelska har fler ord än svenska = English has more words than Swedish.
He says that no evidence is ever provided for the claim, except to say that English has borrowed a lot. He mocks an English chauvinist who states that English has over 1 million words and French about 100,000 and who then says that English borrowed a lot from other languages, especially from French. In other words, English is rich and French poor because English borrowed a lot from French. As Parkvall sarcastically notes, the English must have borrowed a lot of words from the French without ever paying them back.
He says that if all the works of Shakespeare are run through a computer program designed to count words, the result is 29,066. However, if all the works of August Strindberg are run through the same program, the result is 119,288 words! I can easily see why the Swedish count is so high. In Swedish, all nominal compounds are written as one word and the definite article is a suffix. On top of that, the genitive is used more than in English.
We have for instance bil = car, bilen = the car, bilar = cars, bilarna, the cars, bils = of a car, bilens = of the car, bilars = of cars, bilarnas = of the cars, bilolycka = car accident, bilägare = car owner, bilmekaniker = car mechanic, bilparkering = car parking, bilbälte = seat belt, etc. How can a computer or anybody else decide how many of these are separate words or not?
When the French language had a lot of prestige, people were saying that it was exceptionally clear. Now that English is very prestigious, we keep hearing that it is exceptionally rich.
In any case, languages that have borrowed a lot are not uncommon. Moreover, the more a language borrows, the greater the probability that the borrowed words simply displace native words, in which case no enrichment takes place.

I read somewhere that someone said that Dutch has 4 million words!
On my other site, we do a lot of translations of posts to other languages. So far, we have done Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Serbo-Croatian, German, French, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish and Korean.
So far, I have had few complaints from translators along the lines of “we don’t have a word or  phrase in our language for that English word or phrase.” Cases of having to use an English word or phrase because no translation was available are few. However, Korean did some to stick out. I am told by Korean speakers that Korean has few to no synonyms. I knew a young Korean-American woman who was stunned by the number of synonyms in English. The Koreans think the plethora of US synonyms is somewhere  between ridiculous and idiotic. Why do you need more than one word with the same meaning?
Norwegian, a very small language in terms of speakers, struck me as being particularly word-rich for some reason.
An interesting question is how many words a typical primitive language had or has. A study was recently done on one of the Araucanian languages of South America, Yaghan. A recent dictionary of Yaghan listed around 30,000 words! The author made the supposition that your typical primitive language pre-contact had around 30,000 words. No one knows for sure.
I worked for 1½ years on a California Indian language called Chukchansi. It’s true that they lacked words for a lot of modern concepts, many more obscure body parts, and many fine gradations of meaning. The speakers were all elderly and spoke English well. The last near-monolingual speaker died around 1965. She spoke English, but it was broken English. These speakers are helpful for a language. I heard from people who knew this woman that she had coined many Chukchansi borrowings and calques for many words having to do with modern living.
When the last of the monolingual or near monolingual speakers die, your small language may get in bad shape. Calques and proper borrowings wedded to the phonology of the receptive language will simply disappear.
We have many speakers of a SE Asian language called Hmong around here. It has millions of native speakers, but I understand that it lacks many words for modern concepts, even though there large number of monolinguals to near monolinguals around here – older people, especially women. I don’t understand why they don’t borrow English words or engage is calques or word-formations.
The Hmong have an interesting cultural concept – if you are over 40, they say that you are too old to learn a foreign language. Hence, a lot of the older Hmong, especially the women, simply do not even try to learn English here in the US.

Poor Jews?

Angela in the comments is trying to disabuse us of the stereotype that all Jews make at least a middle class living. She links to this article, which doesn’t make a very good case.
Since when is $35K “near poverty?” That study is ridiculous. Those are just typical struggling middle class people, like so many Whites here in California.Welcome to the White Middle Class Quicksand Swamp, Jews! Have fun and don’t sink too low!
I would not call that near-poverty. They’re only considered poor because the cost of living is so high in New York. They’re not considered poor by the US government.
Yeah, for a Jew, $35K is “near-poverty.” LOL, I bet. Says a lot, huh?
Gimme $35K/yr so I can be “near-poor.” Sounds terrible LOL.
It *is* true that apparently 10% of all US Jews actually *do* live in poverty. There are some poor or low income Jews out there. I’ve been to Jewish sites and they talk about it.
As we might expect from stereotype of hyper-grasping US Jews, the poor or low-income Jews on the site I went to were furious at US Jewry for treating them like dirt for being “losers.” They go to family gatherings and everyone is “How come you’re not a doctor or a lawyer?” and “You’re a loser!”
There used to be a number of Jewish beats and hippies (my heroes) were lived more or less deliberately in poverty or on low incomes to purse and artistic or free-spirited life, but I don’t think there is much of that anymore. My friend the famous science fiction writer Avram Davidson never had any money. The guy was funny. He dressed like a bum on the streets. He even smoked hand-rolled cigarettes too, LOL. And Avram was really Jewish, I mean really Jewish, even though he left Judaism later in life.
Your average US Jew is so fucking into $ they make me sick. I thought US Whites were bad. US Jews are like US Whites X 10.
Come to think of it, I don’t want to be a Jew after all. They can take their grasping, hyper-achievement demanding culture and shove it right up you know where. Screw that.
You know, do you think it’s possible US Jews could maybe develop some other value to base how good of a person you are on how much money you make? Damn.
There’s a reason why I’m a dropout. I’ve had it up to here with this grasping society that judges your quality as a human being on how much damn money you make. I’m out. Bye. I’m through with all of that and everyone who thinks like that. Permanent divorce. I’m so much happier too. Whew!
Nevertheless, there are poor and low income Jews in the US, especially in New York City. Many of them are either Hasidic or are recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union. The 40,000 Uzbek Jew in New York are particularly poor.
Angela links to three other articles that make the case that poor and low income Jews do in fact exist in the US. The articles talk about the stigma of being a low-income Jew in the US, and blame Gentiles a lot for the anti-Semitic stereotype that all Jews are rich. What these articles leave out though is that these Jews are probably treated worse by their own ultra-grasping, hypermaterialistic culture than by anyone else.
I have a pretty low opinion of Chabad, but at least they are kinder to low income Jews, better than the rest of their uppity community. Let’s give credit where it’s due.
It’s definitely a fact that here in California, no matter what kind of community you live in, if you meet a Jew, young or old, they usually tend to have some money. Not necessarily rich, but they’re doing all right. They’re much more likely to be into some decent money than your average White Gentile. I have noticed this and so have my friends. Stereotypes exist for a reason. There is more than a lump of truth to them!