The Return of Fear

Peter Frost, UNZ Review, January 17, 2015

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack–or rather mass execution–the typical reaction seems to be that the killers were “madmen” and “extremists.” The brother of the slain policeman, himself Muslim, protested: “My brother was Muslim. He was shot down by false Muslims. . . . Islam is really a religion of peace, of love. We had nothing to do with that.”

{snip}

The facts speak for themselves. In France, Muslims make up 60% of all prison inmates, while being only 12% of the total population (Leclerc, 2014). Similarly, 7 out of 10 burglaries, assaults, and violent thefts are committed by first- or second-generation immigrants (Chevrier and Raufer, 2014). Most of these perps seem to be Muslim, although a third of them may be West Indians,Africans, and Roma of nominally Christian background. Muslims seem to be especially overrepresented in serious violent crimes that lead to prison sentences.

Similar trends are developing elsewhere. Muslims make up 70% all prison inmates in Spain and 45% in Belgium (WikiIslam, 2013 see Note 1; Sudinfo.be, 2013). In England and Wales, the figure is only 14%, versus 4.7% of the total population, apparently because certain other communities are likewise overrepresented (Morris, 2014, see Note 2).

A Danish researcher has studied the relationship between criminality and immigrant origin inDenmark, Norway, and Finland (Kirkegaard, 2014aKirkegaard, 2014bKirkegaard, 2014c;Kirkegaard and Fuerst, 2014). He found that the prevalence of Islam in the immigrants’ home country was the single best predictor of criminality both for “all crime” and for “violent crime,” being better than the home country’s mean IQ or GDP per capita and much better than its murder rate.

There are interesting exceptions. Crime rates are very low among East and Southeast Asians, even those from largely Muslim Indonesia:

What causes the low Asian crime rate? Of the bottom 5 countries of origin for crime rates, 4 of them are Asian. It must be a strong force. Consider Indonesia with a crime rate of 1.19. It has an IQ of 85.8 (similar to Algeria, crime rate 5.16), a GDP of 4923.00$ (similar to Morocco, crime rate 5.7), and an Islam% of 88.1% (similar to Egypt, crime rate 5.57) and still immigrants from Indonesia have about half the crime rate of Danishcitizens (2.45). Whatever cause it is, it is counteracting these other forces and overpowering them. (Kirkegaard, 2014b)

The effect of Islam: direct or indirect?

There are two ways of explaining why Muslim immigrants are more crime-prone. One is that Islam heightens the sense of difference between the in-group (fellow Muslims) and the out-group (the host society). Non-Muslims are outsiders and thus legitimate targets for acts that would be considered wrong if done against Muslims. This may explain why violent crime by Muslim immigrants correlates so weakly with the murder rate in their home countries. Murder is more serious when committed against a fellow Muslim.

The second explanation posits a less direct relationship with Islam. Most Muslim immigrants come from societies where the State has pacified social relations only in recent times and where men still see violence as a legitimate and even necessary means to advance personal interests, to defend themselves and their families, and to acquire land, goods, and even women. Violence is constrained not by the State but by a balance of terror–the threat of retaliation by the victim or his kinsmen.

Male combativeness is especially strong in highland pastoral societies beyond the reach of State control. It’s not for nothing that they have provided some of the best fighting men, like the Gurkhas in the British army, the Moroccans in the French army, and the Albanians in the Ottoman imperial army, their main drawback being a tendency to treat enemy civilians like enemy combatants. This was particularly so with the Moroccans during the Italian campaign: “Anyone who finds himself in their path is attacked by force of arms […] They seize everything […] and if in the group there are women, their clothing is taken off violently in cases of resistance. If, for example, they overrun some farms that are still inhabited, they go on a real rampage, following which, with firearms in their hands, they chase the men from the homes and rape the women without any respect for either the young or the elderly” (Tommaso, 2007)

If highland pastoral societies represent one end of this behavioral continuum, the other end seems to be the low-lying farming societies of east and southeast Asia, where State formation, rice farming, and sedentary life favored collectivism over individualism and a general pacification of social relations. Rice farming seems to have been a pivotal factor: water use and maintenance of irrigation networks requires peaceful and orderly cooperation among all community members. Even when neighboring districts are compared in China, individualism seems to be much weaker where rice is grown than where wheat is grown (Talhelm et al., 2014).

Kirkegaard and Fuerst (2014) consider this indirect causation but reject it because Islam still predicts criminality even among immigrants solely from Europe. Non-Muslim Europeans are much less crime-prone than Muslim Europeans. The latter, however, are largely Albanians and Bosniaks, who were subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire until the late 19th and early 20th century. Their cultural evolution was bound up with that of a Muslim state whose “government was unable to assure the basic conditions of civil peace in its lands. Not only were the local governors unrestrained, but bandits, groups of soldiers, and local warlords with armed retainers made life impossible for the peasant population, Christian and Muslim alike, in many areas” (Jelavich and Jelavich, 1977, pp. 326-327).

This seems to have been a general problem of Muslim states. Why have they been less able to pacify social relations? One reason is ideological. There has long been a tendency in Islam to romanticize the free-spirited Arab who answers to no one but himself. Advanced urban societies have indeed existed in the Muslim world, but they have been perceived as being less authentically Muslim, a perception facilitated by the presence of large Christian and Jewish minorities. Moreover, like the earlier Roman Empire, urban Muslim societies came to depend on barbarian soldiers who eventually realized they could do more than just serve under someone else’s command. This was notably the case with the Turkish mamluks in Egypt, the Banu Hilal in North Africa, and the Almoravids in Muslim Spain.

As a result, Islamic civilization has gone through cycles of de-barbarization and re-barbarization. {snip}

{snip}

Conclusion

Genes have co-evolved with culture along a trajectory that begins with clan societies, where every man can and does use violence to advance his interests, and ends with State societies, where the State monopolizes the legitimate use of violence, except for narrowly defined cases of self-defense. Western societies are among the ones that have moved very far along this trajectory. At a terrible price–high rates of capital punishment, stigmatization and social exclusion of violent males–we have won the right to live in a social environment where nonviolence is the norm and where violence usually occurs under exceptional conditions, like jealousy, intoxication, and extreme stress.

Today, in this same social environment, Muslims are overrepresented among violent criminals. This is because their societies of origin have done less to pacify social relations and have thus maintained patterns of male behavior that are no longer common elsewhere. {snip}

Anyway, neither culture nor genetics gets much air time in commentary on the latest events. The general opinion seems to be that radical Islam is responsible. One reason is that the role of Muslims in violent crime is acknowledged only in high-profile cases that involve radical Islamists. Almost all other cases involve “youths.”

A second reason is that Europeans have a long history of viewing human conflicts in ideological terms, from the Crusades to the Cold War. To be sure, even those conflicts had other motives, and the developing one in Western Europe seems to be a classic struggle over territory, with one side gradually displacing the other. The real ideological conflict is between those who see what is happening and those who don’t.

Finally, people focus on radical Islam to explain the degradation of their social environment because discussion of cultural and genetic causes is taboo. They are afraid of seeming “racist”–a word that began as a synonym for “Nazi” and that still evokes memories of the last world war. Although they may be unhappy with Third World immigration, which will soon make them strangers in their own lands, they prefer to oppose it on ideological grounds, i.e., the threat of radical Islam. They may not actually believe this analysis of the situation, but it’s the only one that has some legitimacy and that might bring immigration to a halt.

{snip}

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Publius Pompilius Quietus

    Islam can be an indirect predictor of violence, because
    violent peoples adhere to Islam. That said, Islam is not the cause of violence.

    • NW

      There are no real Christians in Europe. Haven’t you heard, everyone there is “post-Christian”. And then people wonder why there are so many problems in their society these days…

      • Anglokraut

        Japan is a never-was-Christian nation, yet for all their problems, Muslim violence is not one of those problems…because Muslims are not allowed to establish a beach-head.

        • Jon Robbins

          Actually there was a large Christian population in southern Japan in the 16th century, but the feuding between Catholic and Protestant missionaries and nations made the Japanese leadership nervous that Christianity would destabilize Japan. Japan then essentially destroyed Japanese Christianity and restricted foreign trade to the Dutch who were allowed to occupy one island in Nagasaki harbor.

          • Anglokraut

            So Christianity had a very minor presence in Japanese history; it never caught on in a significant way.

          • Jon Robbins

            Did you read what I wrote? It had a major presence–just as it does now in South Korea–until the Catholics and Protestants screwed it up with their feuding.

          • Anglokraut

            No, if it had a “major presence” it probably would have caught on. Instead, Christianity is like the Macarena, and is only trotted out at weddings.

          • Jon Robbins

            It DID catch on. The difference, as I said, is that the Japanese government uprooted it and killed off many adherents and proslyizers. The South Korean government has permitted the growth of the religion and it now rivals Buddhism as the biggest faith in the country.

          • So, the Japanese felt that Christianity would destabilize their society and therefore didn’t allow it to gain a foothold? Uhhh, HELLO Europeans, get it? Ditto for us Americans. Do you think we should have adopted that same kind of reasoning with Muslims coming into our countries? (Obviously!)

    • RationaliseThis

      A reading of he new testament and the Koran lets us know immediately that Christianity, as taught by Christ is a passive religion while that of Islam is the opposite. Consider the rather different attitudes to stoning adulteresses put forth by Mohamed and Christ. Countless sura in the Koran exhort the Muslim faithful to kill the unbelievers, to reward Jihadist in heaven. There is nothing like this in the texts of the new testament.

      Furthermore the bulk of Islam is entirely based on revelation, Islam specifically has rejected reason since Al-Ghali’s treatis “the incoherence of the philosophers” (see the book “the closing of the muslim mind”. Christianity on the other hand excepted the reason developed by the Greeks. Christianity believes in progressive improvement of the understanding of Christs message and is so much more flexible than Islam. St Aquinas actually posthumously baptised Aristotle.

      Read the Koran, its not peaceful.

      • Maximus

        Neither is the Bible.

        • Jon Robbins

          Well, the New Testament is peaceful and the Old Testament is genocidal. The diametric opposition of the two is at the core of the bipolar nature of Christianity.

    • Jon Robbins

      “Islam can be an indirect predictor of violence, because violent peoples adhere to Islam.’

      Who killed more people in the 20th century–people from a Muslim background or people from a Christian background? Hint: Think World War I and II–tens of millions dead. Even with the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, the body count goes overwhelmingly in favor of the Christians. How do we explain that?

      • Publius Pompilius Quietus

        The European powers (i.e., “Christians”) killed more people in the World Wars because they had superior weaponry, larger economies, and hegemonic empires. If unstable Islamic states had any of those, one can be sure the bloodshed would be even greater.

        • Jon Robbins

          Oh, please! 70 years ago is just yesterday. Don’t act as though I’m wandering back into the mists of time.

          The point is that it is ridiculous to imagine that Muslims are uniquely violent when the West has this kind of recent history.

      • ElComadreja

        False equivalence. The vast majority of deaths caused by Christians were not the result of an imperative dictated by their religion. In fact, most were not based in religion at all. Let’s talk about deaths with religion as the motivating factor and the picture changes significantly.

        • Jon Robbins

          We can limit ourselves to talking about “deaths with religion [meaning scripture] as the motivating factor” but why should we limit ourselves that way?

      • Be careful. The world wars were unusual in European history. As for Muslims, you are falling into the liberal trap of equating them with Europeans because we know more European history than Third World history. We don’t know the exact number of Africans Asians and Europeans slaughtered in the name of Islam over the centuries, but given the modern behavior of such groups as ISIS it must have been considerable.

  • propagandaoftruth

    They are afraid of seeming “racist”–a word that began as a synonym for “Nazi” and that still evokes memories of the last world war. Although they may be unhappy with Third World immigration, which will soon make them strangers in their own lands, they prefer to oppose it on ideological grounds, i.e., the threat of radical Islam. They may not actually believe this analysis of the situation, but it’s the only one that has some legitimacy and that might bring immigration to a halt.
    ———————-
    Hitler and his boys really screwed the pooch.

    • The problem was Hitler was an aberration, not typical of West European behavior. The most anti-Semitic countries in Europe were Russia, Poland, and Romania, not Germany. The Nazi era was a huge overreaction to the treatment of Germany after World War One and the fear of Communism. It was followed by what we have today: Tolerance of every other people in the world save our own in overreaction against Nazism. When will we get it right?

      • propagandaoftruth

        That proto-libtard messianic democratic totalitarian, Woodrow Wilson, screwed the pooch in the 20th century. Conservative Germany should have won WW1.

        Then “die commies” and no Hitler! PR nightmare that incompetent.

        • WJaMrenfan

          Unintended consequences courtesy of Woodrow the world saver and his pals. Had he not steered us into war I can see Hitler retiring in 1956 as a draftsman from a Munich architecture firm.

          • Wilson’s declaration that “all peoples” had a right to “self-determination” was a loaded statement. Everybody? And does that mean a continent, an ethnic group? a village? A clan? Who exactly? The fact of the matter is the world was run better when it was run by Empires: The British, the French, even the Ottoman. The idea that all peoples should be free and independent has caused untold suffering. Even today we have not learned this lesson. ISIS is really an outgrowth of the “Arab Spring” and hence the weakening of the Assad regime. “The road to Hell…”

          • ElComadreja

            I’ll wager the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and others would disagree with you about the Ottoman Empire.

          • The Greeks, had an empire; the Assyrians had an empire. As I said, things were run better in the age of empire.

          • ElComadreja

            Yes, but some empires were more benevolent than others. The groups I mentioned suffered mistreatment at the hands of the OttomanTurks up to and including genocide and ethnic cleansing.

          • The main point is that Turkish rule over the Middle East was better than these so-called Arab “countries”. And the worst situation was Arabs, already having their own “countries’ actually being granted democracy via the “Arab Spring.” If you DO have to let Arabs govern an area, at least give them strong man rule. Never let Arabs to their own devices. Result: ISIS.

      • B.A_2014

        An overreaction?

        People were starving to death in Germany following the war. Large chunks of their territory were stolen, and Berlin was turned into a brothel. I’m not even going to go into every detail of the Versailles treaty but to say it was an overreaction tells me you’ve been watching too many of those look how evil Germans are documentaries.

        • At the risk of being called a “liberal” yes, I would call starting a world war where millions of mostly White people died and systematically slaughtering one third of the world’s Jewish population an overreaction. I am a White racialist, not a Nazi.

          • Henry Higgins

            So how on earth do you approve of a people who base their identity on semitic racialist supremacy?

          • You sound like a typical black person. I don’t give a damn if someone else thinks they are “superior” to me as long as they don’t physically attack me. I think I am superior to blacks; they would call me a racist for that. I don’t care. What I think is my own business.

          • Augustus3709

            Germany had land ambitions in rural east Europe, but other than that repeatedly tried to avoid war with other major powers.

            Also, I suggest you look up the International Red Cross’s findings on the death toll in German run war-time camps.

          • Maybe. I will admit that I am biased by more than sixty years of anti-German and pro-British propaganda on that war.

      • Småsnoppdemokraterna2018

        Thats a gross oversimplification. F.ex the phrase “der juden sind unseres ungluck” was coined in the 1830s, long before there even were an unified Germany. Antisemitism had a long history in Germany well before the nazis.

      • Alexandra1973

        Hitler was a Catholic and Catholicism is yet another violent religion (it is not Christianity). Islam was created by Augustinian monks–Muhammad was their useful idiot.

        • Catholicism is not Christianity? Hey, bud, we Catholics have been around since the very beginning. Sorry, but we are THE ORIGINAL Christians. I usually don’t get into religious arguments. I know, and respect, the fact that America is essentially a Protestant country. And I respect the Protestant ethic and how it built the best countries in the world: The US, Canada, Australia, for example. But please don’t get into insulting my faith. We Catholics are the first Christians. (We are like the “Coca Cola” of Christianity-the Real Thing!)

      • Jon Robbins

        Anti-semitism emerges wherever Jew have gone. Why would anyone expect that a group declaring itself a superior people chosen of God who manage to occupy key positions in the money-lending and tax-farming rackets would not be hated? Poland became anti-Semitic when large numbers of Jews moved there from Germany. Spain became increasingly anti-Semitic when many Jews move there under the protection of the Muslim conquerors. The Greeks of the ancient world became more and more anti-Jewish once they understood Jewish chosenist ideology.

        Hitler was more extreme and more politically coherent than most but in his reaction to the Jews was hardly an aberration.

    • Småsnoppdemokraterna2018

      Hitlers only crime was that he lost and he will be rehabilitated by the universal failure of liberal marxist social policies. I dont think that will happen in the anglosphere, since a rehabilitation of Hitler would mean that you were the “bad guys” in WW2 and that would be one step too far for your egos. In non-anglosphere Europe that problem does not exist.

      • Augustus3709

        Yes and no. It takes years but you can warm people up to an idea that they didn’t like before.

        Examples: Homosexual marriage, transgender-identity, a mulatto president. etc

        20 years ago these things were laughable.

        Plant the seeds.

        We need to “come to terms” with the tragedy of the World Wars, which people thought they were fighting for a good cause, but it turns out they weren’t.

        • We discussed this before, but that customer in the movie “The Best Years of Their Lives” who said we were “deceived into the war by a bunch of radicals in Washington” and we were “fighting the wrong people” was not entirely off the mark.

    • Julius Caesar

      I’ve never quite understood why the National Socialists are the ones to blame. You say they’re bad, but that’s because you’re told they’re bad. I don’t quite see it that way. The Germans had the right to do as they saw fit.

      • Henry Higgins

        All they did was attempt to separate from an alien, hostile nation’s exploitation of them.

  • MekongDelta69

    Wake me up when the American and European effete elites grow a spine…

    zzzzz

    • BloodofAlbion75

      Or a “pair”.

  • libertarian1234

    Every religion has some beliefs that are hard for an educated person to swallow, but none of them are as foolish overall as the tenants of Islam.
    It probably qualifies more as a sect or cult than a religion, because of the number of outlandish tenets and beliefs contained therein.
    For such a religion to catch on as Islam has requires a following of people who are not only gullible and naïve but a bit mentally challenged as well and who are prime candidates for mental programming and mind control.
    It also helps if the person is a nut case to begin with.

    • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

      I would have to disagree with you. Nothing could possibly be more absurd than a god having to sacrifice his innocent son as a means of protecting the imperfect objections of his own creation, from himself. All religions are about equal in their absurdity in my opinion.

      • SentryattheGate

        Well, apparently your opinion is not well-informed! A big ego is not a good substitute for wisdom.

      • NW

        Stupid little troll.

      • If that’s really what you think Christians believe when they speak of the penal, substitutionary death of Christ, boy do you need a crash course in basic New Testament doctrines!

        • Amen! Oops, he probably wouldn’t understand, that, either.

        • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

          I simply go by your own doctrine. God had Christ sacrificed as a way to protect us from himself. How many times have you heard “Jesus died for our sins”? Christianity = the killing of the innocent Jesus for the sake of the guilty. You worship injustice if you buy into that. If a god creates imperfect , morally challenged humans who sin, then god is the root cause of all sin not the imperfect objects he created. A god torturing in a place called hell, the imperfect objects he created is sadistic. So going by your own dogma, you worship a sadistic unjust and imperfect god. Like I said, all religions are equal in their absurdity.

          • TCA

            God created free beings, not imperfect ones. Sin implies freedom, not imperfection.
            I agree there is an apparent contradiction between God’s justice and His mercy, but Jesus volunteered, so to speak, IOW, justice was served in that the penalty was paid, mercy was served in that sinners need not pay it.
            Justice is served again by the Catholic dogma of Purgatory, where forgiven sinners pay for their crimes, i.e. make restitution after being forgiven.
            It all makes sense, actually.
            Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you dare.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            Sin implies freedom??? Is god free or a slave if he chooses not to sin?
            Sin, with few exceptions does indeed imply morally challenged behaviors like adultery, stealing, cheating lying and so forth. I call that imperfect. Was god unwilling or unable to make humans with good moral sense? Is god a failure when a sociopath is born? What was the original sin, the eating of the apple or the planting of the tree that bore the forbidden fruit? The whole idea of a god creating morally deficient humans then punishing them for the imperfections HE created them with is absurd. God would be the root of all sin, were he to exist.

          • Good Lord, you’re ignorant of basic Christian theology. God didn’t have His Son sacrificed in order to “protect us from Himself.” Rather, in order to redeem unworthy sinners and yet satisfy the holy demands of His Law, He sent His Son to bear His (God’s) wrath so that Christ’s righteousness might be imputed to all those who believe.

            There’s nothing sadistic in any of this because what Christ did was voluntary and not coerced. There is always a price to pay for sin, and since God requires a perfect, morally unblemished sacrifice that comports with His own holiness, only Christ was sufficient to meet those demands.

            In Christ alone, then, perfect righteousness required by the Divine Law is met. God poured out on His Son the wrath that unjust sinners deserve. All those who place their faith in Him alone, trusting only in His righteousness (not their own), will be saved from the wrath to come. God’s wrath is assuaged by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

            I know you don’t believe any of this, but it’s a far cry from the simplistic and misguided statement you provided in your comments.

            Moreover, God didn’t create “imperfect, morally challenged humans who son.” If you read what Genesis and Romans 1 actually said you’d know that God created man sinless, but with the freedom to choose against Him. Man became sinful and “imperfect” as a direct result of his own choice to disobey God.

            As I wrote before, you desperately need a crash-course in basic, historic Christian theology. Typical of people who are dangerous because they have a little knowledge, you are rejecting something you don’t fully understand and which you have little real comprehension of. So typical!

            Now get back to reading the nonsense of Richard Dawkins!

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            You use the reasoning of a well indoctrinated theist. Does god have free will? Does god sin? How does free will corrupt people? I have free will and I don’t steal or cheat. Sociopaths, do they choose to be born with no conscience, able to victimize people without remorse? Does god want sociopaths to exist or is he an eternal failure for continuing to create them? You obviously have not given your cherished dogma very much critical thought.

          • It’s also not true that “all religions are EQUAL in their absurdity.” This statement alone reveals how little you truly understand the world’s religions. Your comments are the words of a simpleton, someone who has an ax to grind after reading certain atheistic works and got easily duped by them. After all, as the old biblical maxim goes, ‘The simple believe every word they are told.’

            Even I were to grant that Christianity is false (which it isn’t), it would be wholly erroneous to say that it’s just as ‘equally’ absurd as the plethora of Hindu gods and ancient myths, Hellenistic pagan deities, African voodoo legends, and the like.

            Your statements are without merit and are easily exposed once someone takes the time to compare the beliefs.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            To admit a belief requires faith is an admission that the belief can not stand on its own merits. You are the simpleton who has traded your intellectual integrity for fairytales just because they make you feel good.

            Religion divides people. Each religion requires you to blindly believe the doctrine while offering nothing to show that the doctrine is correct or any more valid than that of any other religion. Religion will always divide Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Jews from one another. There is but one uniting force in the world and that is reason. Reason bases its decisions on evidence available to everyone, and allows people to disagree when evidence is lacking. Religion could never do that. Blind unquestioning faith is considered a virtue to the theist.

      • “Post Christian” alert. Speaking of stupid, apparently you haven’t grasped the basic ideas of Christianity. I will assume you went to a public school, and not, like me, a parochial school.

        • Anglokraut

          By that logic, can I assume that you have no grasp of basic scientific tenants, like question everything, demand proof, and the more outrageous the claim, the more compelling the evidence must be? You know, because you went to a parochial school–not exactly known for being friendly to evidence-based science.

          • TCA

            Blaise Pascal was a scientist. Aquinas, a logician. Have you never read Augustine, Newman, Chesterton, Belloc, Von Hildebrant?
            J.R. is correct when he says your failure to properly appreciate Christianity is apparent.
            Nietzsche at least understood it before rejecting it.
            He died of syphilis.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            People who have traded their intellectual integrity for a bunch of foolish feel good fairytales hate being reminded of it.

    • All religions have iffy aspects, but each practitioner has to be level-headed about their own sordid theologies.

    • Bossman

      That is so correct. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      • TCA

        Oh come now, John!
        You’re far too modest.
        Of course you could have said it better yourself.

      • Reynardine

        You couldn’t have said it better because your English is so terrible.

        • Bossman

          So why are you always repeating my words and making it your own?

          • Reynardine

            So why are you always saying dumb things and requiring me to correct you?

    • Luca

      You may have a point. I hear its catching on quite well in Africa.

    • Alucard_the_last

      “For such a religion to catch on as Islam has requires a following of people who are not only gullible and naïve but a bit mentally challenged as well and who are prime candidates for mental programming and mind control.”
      This must explain the Nation of Islam and other islamic negro orders.

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Religious fanatics have very poor coping skills. It’s why the need the crutch of superstition as an escape, to begin with. The more fanatical they are, the more insecure they are.

  • dd121

    It’s hard to tell since all arabs are muzzies. I’ll give credit to both.

  • This story rings true.
    We seldom see Indonesians chimping out.

    • Bossman

      Really? You don’t follow the news, do you?

      • NW

        We hear about you spics chimping out all the time.

      • Spaniard in LA

        Are you Latino?

    • Reynardine

      On one hand, yes, Indonesia is fairly Muslim and seemingly peaceful, but I must point out a few things about it:

      1. Muslims and non-muslims are fairly separated, often by wide bodies of water. This makes it difficult for ethnic conflicts to continue.
      2. The Aceh region is now under mandatory Sharia law, after a long guerilla war.
      3. Indonesia only recently became democratic. In the past, Indonesia was ruled by Sukarno and Suharto, who never failed to rule with an iron option, thereby keeping the more divisive forces at bay.
      4. Since 1999, there have been ~30 various attacks by Muslims against the government. Before this, there were only three back in the 80’s.

      Indonesia is merely growing more and more dangerous as more power is given locally.

      • sddasasd

        How can any of you believe Indonesia is peaceful? That third world cesspool of close to 300 million spread across thousands of islands, many of which were tribal until recently? Those crime stats are in no way accurate and extreme religious violence is hardly uncommon in Indonesia. You will indeed see Indonesians (and other southeast asians) chimping out if you bothered to look.

        • Reynardine

          I said seemingly peaceful, based on my own researches and my friendships with Indonesians.

          Who knows what the real story is, since most nations misrepresent their own crime stats.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    The author seems befuddled as to why Indonesian Muslims have a lower crime rate than Arab or African Muslims, so let me help him out — it’s genetic. Asians are less prone to violence than Arabs and Africans.

    • sddasasd

      I was about to chime in and remark how there’s no way Indonesia’s crime rate is that low, but the first comment I see is this.

      The author is clearly arguing that there’s a genetic component to the violence of muslims (IE non-european caucasoids), but for some reason swallows the crime data on Indonesia and acts like Indonesian immigrants (who could likely be heavily chinese) to Denmark are representative, and then argues this ties into some history of state pacification in southeast asia.

      The reality is that southeast asia is well known to be much less developed and backwards than east asia, and undoubtedly of lower IQ (though likely not quite as low as Richard Lynn posited going by Jason Malloy’s analyses at Humanvarities.) This is especially the case with Indonesia, a massive country of close to 300 million people covering countless islands, many of which were basically tribal until quite recently. There is simply no way those crime stats are accurate, and if we want to talk about violence committed by muslims in Indonesia, a simple google result will turn up countless stories of brutality and violence. So I’d bet Indonesia’s crime rate, in reality, is very high.

      You seem to think Indonesia’s “asian” ancestry explains their supposedly low crime rate, so let me help you out- Indonesians are not the same people, at all, as east asians. Your remark is even dumber than what the author did.

  • JohnEngelman

    Genes have co-evolved with culture along a trajectory that begins with clan societies, where every man can and does use violence to advance his interests, and ends with State societies, where the State monopolizes the legitimate use of violence, except for narrowly defined cases of self-defense. Western societies are among the ones that have moved very far along this trajectory. At a terrible price–high rates of capital punishment, stigmatization and social exclusion of violent males–we have won the right to live in a social environment where nonviolence is the norm.

    – Peter Frost, UNZ Review, January 17, 2015

    Iran and Arab countries currently have more draconian criminal justice systems than Europe, and the United States. It is not clear to me that at any time in the past Persia and Arab societies had more lenient criminal justice systems.

    In general I prefer biological to sociological explanations of human behavior. I am not convinced that Peter Frost’s explanation is adequate.

    • I forget who said it, but the quote goes: “Iran can be governed like Switzerland, when Iranians behave like Swiss.”

      • JohnEngelman

        Blacks can be governed like whites, when blacks behave like whites.

        Because they do not, racial profiling is a legitimate way of proactively reducing the crime rate.

  • Capn Dad

    They are also, as a whole, bad shots….thank God.

  • Brady

    Islam is, in essence, pan-Arabism, in the form of Abrahamic monotheism. So insofar as it propogates Arabic cultural memes, it promotes aggression.

  • Luca

    Arabic Muslims generally possess anywhere from 12% to 18% Sub-Saharan DNA.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

  • NoMosqueHere

    Communism, Nazism, and Islamicism make people sociopathic. It’s hard to deny that a “religion” founded by a mass murderer, pedophile, rapist, and thief won’t adversely impact the social lives of its disciples.

    • NW

      “Nazism”

      Did you learn that term from Hollywood movies?

      • NoMosqueHere

        No, it’s a quite well known term of great historical importance, is it not?

  • pcmustgo

    “Rice farming seems to have been a pivotal factor: water use and maintenance of irrigation networks requires peaceful and orderly cooperation among all community members. :

    Hmmm, I heard Black African slaves were brought to America to work on rice plantations, and that they had a lot of experience growing rice already in Africa… true? African rice farmers? Rice native to Africa?

    • 1G25

      Cotton and sugar cane were major crops during the period of slavery.

      Rice was not native to Africa, and was only a minor factor in the Carolina seacoast area.

  • Zimriel

    Today I’m having difficulty thinking that race accounts for the violence in Islam, when we consider the Chechen. Based on what I saw in the news today they’re more tribal and violent than Arabs; maybe even worse than Somalis and Pashtuns.

    It seems to me that we can go to the hills and the jungles anywhere, even to white hills and jungles as in Caucasia / Tabaristan, and find people who like to fight. Islam gives them the motivation to leave their hills and jungles and make a mess of OUR countries.

    • Ludwig

      The Vikings believed that dying in war granted them access to Valhalla. I am very well aware of the biological differences between the races. However, the tribal group mindset is a powerful motivator.

  • TL2014

    First of all, there is no “radical Islam”. There is Islam, period.

    Second, Islam is essentially a genocidal cult of Arab supremacy. It could rise to such prominence because it found fertile ground in the uniquely fierce Arab culture.

    I am skeptical of the claim to a genetic component, simply because we have such a wonderful, natural control group – Arab Christians. They are dramatically different in criminal indices.

    Also, look at Pakistan vs predominantly Hindu areas in northern India. Same genetics, essentially same language, same culture in so many ways – yet Hindus are generally much less criminal.

    It’s perhaps not the exclusive “fault” of Islam. But Islam is most definitely the crucial factor.

    • Awakened Saxon

      I agree, however sometimes that line of thinking is used to justify racial egalitarianism, i.e., that if the Arabs drop Islam then they are welcome to stay in Europe and assimilate.

  • Interesting. A lot to digest here. I would say-generally speaking-that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is true for both single individuals and for whole societies. Some peoples, like black Africans, Australian aborigines, and New Guineans, have never known civilized society. So, of course their peoples are unsuited to civilization. Others, like the Chinese and other North Asians, have known civilization longer than we have (Sorry, fellow Amreners!) and behave very passively as a group. Similar things can be said of people from India. As to the Arabs, they are another nomadic people who have never known an urban civilization, and hence they behave accordingly. This pattern is obvious. The real tragedy is that the West will do nothing about it because we are too wed to the idea that “all people are equal and are all basically alike” an idea completely unproven and contradicted by all empirical evidence.

    • Ludwig

      I agree. It comes down to races that evolved in cold environments vs. warm environments. Harsh environments are natures selective breeding mechanism. Civilization is humanity’s selective breeding method. Both have contributed to modern man’s behavioral differences.

    • Spaniard in LA

      Asians behave very passively because they have low testosterone.

      • Ludwig

        Genghis Khan may disagree.

  • Rhialto

    Is heredity, environment, or faith the cause of Muslim violence in Western countries? I don’t know or care. The important question is why are these Muslim hoards in Western countries. If they were kept out, It would matter very little to the West how they behaved.

    • Sisu

      Exactly. This should be an argument that concerns academics only. But instead, because of the poor decisions of western governments, european, north American and Australian culture, genetics and language are being debased.

  • Tight endogamy.

    • Ludwig

      This could also be said of another European subgroup.

      • Småsnoppdemokraterna2018

        Who would that be? Albanians?

  • The Dude

    It still doesn’t explain why the crime rate in the wealthy UAE is not only lower than their other Arab and Muslim counterparts in the region, but low even by industrialzed nations’ standards.

    http://www-rohan sdsu edu/faculty/rwinslow/asia_pacific/uae html

    While I don’t deny the genetic factors, I think their extent should be adjusted to other factors which seem to tame people into becoming less crime-prone; namely, a strong State involement through law enforcement, the education level of a given population (literacy rate, etc), and culture (one that glorifies thuggery for example like the American blacks’), and religious beliefs which may directly or indirectly incite against the host or the majority population.

    Keep in mind that the murder of 17th-century Norway was 10 times
    that of today. It only dropped when the State decided to intervene through policing and establishing a justice system.

    http://youtu be/pLNkIQ493CQ?t=13m45s

    • Sisu

      “The fact that many of these first- and second-generation immigrants are still poor enough to not be able to make it out of their ghettoized suburbs may have added to their resentment.”

      Immigrants in Europe are given cradle to grave care by their governments courtesy of the indigenous tax paying populations of Europe. New comers are given free cell phones, cars, luxury temporary living quarts, ect ect. It’s the Muslims refusal to asimulate and high crime rate which causes them to live in poverty and never make it out of their ghettos.
      As the article states, Muslims view themselves as outsiders and in my opinion they view non-Muslims as inferior non-humans deserving of acts of violence. This may explain the explosion of rapes in Europe, especially pre pubecesnt, committed by Muslim men. As reported by The Times of London, 95% of rapes are committed by Muslim men. Thanks to Muslims Sweden now ranks #2 in the world right behind S Africa in the number of rapes committed per person. It wasn’t long ago that a rape in Sweden was all but unheard of.
      Speaking of Norway, I traveled quite extensively there back in the 70s before the oil boom got underway. People lived quite modestly, dare I say poor compared to today, yet crime was almost nonexistent. Blaming crime on poverty as a cause of Europes newest immigrants’ poor behavior is disingenuous at best.

      • The Dude

        You took my last point where I said “may add to” and turned the whole thing as if I were “blaming crime on poverty”. I only mentioned this as a possible additional factor to their higher crime rate.

        I used Norway’s example simply to demonstrate the effect that a strong police force and a justice system can have on the crime rate of any population. Yes, poverty isn’t the main factor.

      • jaye ellis

        Muslim men also can’t seem to handle things like porn, or women going to the beach in swimsuits.

        Muslim women have to wear Black tents, covering everything or else many Muslim men will want to rape them, and under Islamic custom, the woman is at fault.

    • Småsnoppdemokraterna2018

      The murder rate in older days were much higher because a wound that would be considered trivial today was deadly back then due to sepsis and other things. They did not have ambulances, blood replacement, antibiotics and other modern technology that reduce the modern murder rate by turning what would be a murder into assault.

  • MG Huffman

    In the Italian campaign of WWII, when the German Army retreated after the battle of Monte Casino, Moroccan soldiers fighting for the Allies raped thousands of Italian women and children in the surrounding villages and shot any men who tried to protect them. This and similar events committed by the Soviets is the side of history you’re not going to hear from your teachers; or from Hollywood.

    • The Dude

      One of the things also usually obscured by history is that the millions of rapes by Soviet soldiers on German women which occured during and following WW2 resulted in an estimated one hundred thousand births*.

      I wonder how many Italian women were impergnated by these North Africans.

      ————————————————————–

      *International Law and Sexual Violence in Armed Conflicts, p. 91

      http://books google com/books?id=fVO1b9-KvdYC&pg=PA91&dq=Berlin+%22mass+rape%22+history+estimate+thousands&hl=en&sa=X&ei=szkhU5SRD46sqwHF7YHIAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • Chasmania

    If criminal proclivity of Arabs is largely genetic then Islam merely greases the rails of that train.

  • ZB01

    Even apart from its theological significance, the Bible is pretty clear that the sons of Ismael, todays’ Arab peoples, are a pretty tough, warlike lot. Also, consider that for over 5 centuries, Christian missionaries went among the Arab peoples with little success for their conversion. Then along comes Mohammed with his ferocious, uncompromising, aggressive creed, sword, and promises of sensual rewards in the afterlife. Whatever one may think of them, they are certainly a tough people.

  • Hammerheart

    Someone said it on this website before: islam is an iq test wrapped up in a suicide vest. I don’t mean to take credit for that individual’s words but after a few deployments to the middle east I believe the only logical approaches for a europen civilization are:

    Turn that area into a parking lot

    Build a large brick wall around that area (and africa) then forget about it.

  • De Doc

    Interesting article. A case where the religion mimics the society from which it arose?

    I wonder what percentage of Arab males carry the so-called warrior gene, MAO-A? It would be interesting to compare devout Muslim Arabs with less than pious ones and non-Muslims. I suspect we might even see this gene spike among the male converts who quickly attach themselves to terrorists.

  • C. Magnus

    And the mainstream news commentaries are still stuck in the ‘is Islam inherently violent’ neocon versus libtard arguments, over and over in a hamster wheel of cluelessness, whenever Islam rears its ugly head in the West. Culture and genetics never even getting a mention. Culture perhaps even more taboo to mention than religion, which is becoming an easy target, blame culture and you risk actually questioning multiculturalism (shock horror).

  • Samuel_Morton

    A simpler path to the same conclusion (that genes are more responsible for violence than a particular religious faith), is to look at the amount of Negroid admixture in the offending populations. The cultural norms of violent Middle Easterners could be more a result of the ~20% sub-saharan DNA than native Middle Eastern DNA. Probably not coincidentally, the non-violent southeast Asian Muslims do not have this level of African DNA admixture.

    Once Middle Easterners began meddling in Africa during the Middle Ages (slave expeditions), their civilizations collapsed. Coincidence?

    • sddasasd

      Middle easterners, ranging from Morocco to Pakistan, do not have 20% african ancestry. There are few distinct, visible african communities in the middle east- do you know why? Because black male slaves were usually castrated and the offspring of female slaves usually killed. Areas where african ancestry is high, like north africa and southern arabia (which was not one of the centers of muslim achievement) originates much more recently than the middle ages. Muslim/middle eastern barbarism has been a thing since the earliest days of islam, and muslim peoples who have virtually no african ancestry like Chechnyans are violent. Indonesian muslims are in no way docile either.

      So no, muslim civilization did not collapse due to african slavery, most middle easterners have little african ancestry, and you’re just parroting an absurd fairy tale and a figure you pulled out of your ass.

      • Samuel_Morton

        Perhaps genetic research is an ‘absurd fairy tale’ to you, but studies have shown that Yemenite Arabs have about 35% sub-Saharan DNA, and other Arab populations (Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Bedouins, have between 10-15% of lineages of sub-Saharan origin.

        And it was shown that the DNA came through the female line as a result of the Arab slave trade, as a result of miscegenation and manumission. So they may have castrated the males, but apparently not all halfbreed offspring were victims of infanticide.

        (See Richards et al. 2003, “Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations”, if you need a reference)

        • sddasasd

          None of what you said contradicts what I originally posted. I acknowledged african ancestry is high in some parts of the middle east, like Yemen, which is in southern arabia, but it is definitely not as high as you imply- the study in question examined only mtDNA, and since that makes up only a quarter of a person’s ancestry, those percentages are in reality only a quarter. Which goes in line with what I said, that most middle easterners have little african ancestry. So I maintain what you argue is an absurd fairy tale.

          • Samuel_Morton

            Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

            The amount of African ancestry in Arabs is not insignificant. In fact, the amount of sub-Saharan gene flow into Arab populations through the maternal line (which is half, not a quarter as you stated) is extensive.

            This is not my argument, it is the argument of geneticists. So if you want to argue further, please write a letter to the American Journal of Human Genetics.

            You might want to brush up on your knowledge of genetics first though, so you don’t make silly statements like above.

  • KenelmDigby

    Politicians by importing millions upon millions of Muslims into the west are the ones truly responsible for the violence.

    • libertarian1234

      Without a doubt.

    • Jeff Traube

      And the media/academia, disproportionately Radical Liberal Egalitarian and Marxist Jewish.

  • Alucard_the_last

    I wouldn’t say that Arab violence is due to genes as a lot of the world’s islamofacists are not Arab. Now when we come to the negro, that is a different story. No matter what the up bringing such as being adopted by a white family, they still grow up to be criminals, shiftless and lazy.

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    Of course their behavior is innate and not caused by their particular flavor of god nonsense. Arabs would behave just the same were they all Christians. Just look at blacks in America and how disproportionately violent they are. Most of them would identify as Christian. Every other cakewalking buffoon in the ghetto calls themselves reverend and there is a two bit church on almost every corner so to believe Islam causes Arabs to be violent would be like thinking Christianity causes blacks to be violent.

  • Jeff Traube

    One may compare the crime rate of Christian Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq to that of Moslems. I haven’t heard of too many Christian suicide bombers.

    • Mohamad

      There have been a few 🙂
      I’m actually of Lebanese origin( My grandfather immigrated here in 1909)
      I think many Lebanese assimilate well ( John Sananu, Ralph Nader)
      The newer generation however do not
      It is a contentious point. I live right near Dearborn Michigan.
      (I’ve lived in it as well)
      I see the new Arabs completely fail to assimilate often, and have very little loyalty to this country. I pointed that out and got a furious reaction
      If I was in power I would completely halt Arab immigration to this country unless they are Christian or otherwise show an exceptional ability to assimialte.
      When my Grandpa moved here 100+ years ago he joined the army, served in ww1 and called this country his own. It is distressing to see what the newer arrivals are like. they make me ashamed.

      • Jeff Traube

        Sounds about right. My cousin married a Catholic Lebanese girl who was fair-skinned and totally Western. Folks like Bashir Assed and Tariq Aziz – not considering their politics – seem like they could acclimate to Western Society. The hordes in the ghettoes, not so much. BTY, Miss Lebanon is hot and Christian – and I fully believe Miss Israel was pushy to be seen with her.

      • jaye ellis

        Also understand, assimilating to mainstream American cult now means something completely different from what it did up until 1960.

        Up to 1960, the dominant culture was White British Christian. Ok we didn’t own many/any Hollywood studios then, but the culture reflected us in manners, social norms.

        Now immigrant Arabs, Pakistani’s see Black hip hop culture everywhere, porn, White kids acting like Wiggers. So Arab and Pakistani immigrant “youths’ will assimilate in to some dreadful version Arab-Paki hip hop fashion, rap vulgarity.

      • RationaliseThis

        My understanding is that the pre Muslim immigration Lebanese are descended from Phonecians a people whose tin trading imperative probably carried the alphabet into Europe. We forget that the Middle East was not homogenous ethnically. There were Berbers, that Coptic was the pre Islamic pre Arabic language of Egypt, that Syriac and Aramaic were spoken, that Nestorian and Coptic Christians were the bearers of knowledge.. Islam carried a swath of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and technological destruction throught the Middle East. They tried to destroy the pyramids much as the Taliban blew up magnificent ancient Buddah. Middle Eastern Civilisation has not yet recovered form Islams it’s dead hand and probably never will. Prior to mechanised transport and radios Islamic/Arab hit and run tactics were difficult to deal with. They could appear in concentration and overwhelm any local defensive force. The destruction of Western fertillity by leftist, liberal ideas means they maintain a fertillity advantage.

        In Australia the informal White Australia policy regarded Lebanese Christians as White for purposes of immigration.

  • BulgAryan

    Not many muzzies in America, but quite a few serial killers

  • Maximus

    That is correct. It got noting to do with religion down the line, it is all about race and race only. You have Christian Arabs and other Semite tribe minority groups that has flooded in to Europe as immigrants and asylum seekers that rape and kill and create mayhem and riots. The Muslims are more in numbers and are more united but in the big picture it is all about race. The half moon or the cross has nothing to do with it. I can respect the EDL and contra Jihadist movement in a way, most of them are white nationalist anyway, but they are wrong. It is not a faith issue it is all race and genes.

  • Maaku

    How many of these Muslims are really low IQ Bantu’s ?. Your average hood rat is the same now matter where they are , or what they’re called

  • Maximus

    Are you for real?
    Pakis and Indians are one of the worst parasites in the UK! All the atrocities they have committed against white British people, and let´s not talk about the Sikhs. Have you ever been to the UK? Have you missed that India have a long gone massive gangrape tradition that is now targeting white tourists?

    In Northern part of Europe and Scandinavia we have a massive numbers of middle east Christians immigrants that behave and brutalize in exactly the same way as the Muslims.

    • Bantu_Education

      Actually we should talk about the Sikh’s. I’m not sure its true but I’ve read that (according to at least one survey) 95% of them are “proud to be British”. I’m not in favour of non-white immigration to the UK but it seems to me that the Sikh’s are very anti-islam and more on “our side” so to speak, so we should cautiously welcome them for that position at the very least. Your comments..?

  • Alexandra1973

    So basically people that are predisposed to violence are attracted to violent religions. Makes sense.

  • First, I can’t prove this, but I have a feeling that an ancient Assyrian or an ancient Babylonian, had more in common with us genetically than they did with the current population living in those areas. I suspect that the decline of Middle Eastern civilizations had at least something to do with mixing between the majority “Indo European” populations and various other races of people who were used as laborers. This was confounded when the nomadic Arabs conquered much of the land in the seventh century and afterword. Haven’t you noticed the blode hair among some of the Christian populations in Iraq? Even today, some elements of White racial traits survived there. Extrapoliate back to ancient times. Remember, a population can change dramatically in only a few generations. We should know that by just looking at American demographics. But, two hundred years from now, some idiot (Like you.) will probably say: “Well, mestizos have always been a majority of the American population. Mestizos wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg address. Those paintings of White skinned Americans were just forgeries…” (Sorry, moderator, but there is just too much for me to take.)

    • Ludwig

      Absolutely perfect.

  • Jon Robbins

    Interesting that this article talks about mountain and lowland societies and their relation to Islam when the single most significant geographical attribute that one could correlate with Islam is aridity: Most of North Africa, the Middle East and much of Muslim South and Central Asia are desert. Why did that get left out of the calculus?

  • Jon Robbins

    “I thought “The Lord’s Resistance Army” was a Muslim faction.”

    That’s what Wikipedia is for.

  • Dave6034

    Notice how most of the violence comes from second- and third-generation immigrants. This is partly because first-generation immigrants had their natural savagery suppressed by a very strict upbringing that would be considered child abuse if it happened in a Western country. Another reason is that only the least violent people are allowed to immigrate to Western countries, but in temperament as in IQ, offspring revert toward the racial mean.

  • ElComadreja

    This is a “chicken or the egg” if I ever saw one.