william.scherk

I'm very interested in all of that. But it's just not relevant to the specific issue at hand. My identifying it as not being relevant to the specific issue is not grounds for believing that I'm not interested in it. I found some DARPA material on "Narrative Networks" from a page under their "Biological Technologies Office (emphases added): I'm not sure about this: "Also, the people tested were not just asked survey questions. They were wired up with EEG outfits, had their saliva tested for dopamine and oxytocin traces, had fMRI scans run on them, etc. I think this was the first time this level of study was done on narrative." Michael, do you have anything further to that? I'd like to track down just what you are describing here (not sure if it is/was done under DARPA auspices).

Greg has missed Brant's point. A link to and an excerpt from any site anywhere is pretty much fine. Re-posting of an entire article first published off-site is clumsy at best, though not explicitly against the site rules here ... Rule of thumb -- only include a portion of copyrighted material and provide a link to the full thing. Think of linking and excerpting as basic courtesies, which both give credit and observe legal niceties about which party (author or reader) enjoys rights of use in the product. In some cases these courtesies are unnecessary -- where rights are explicitly granted to copy an article in full and send it wide. In other cases, sites have explicit policies about copying full articles (hint: they don't like it). In some extreme cases (not shown here) copying slurs into plagiary. In this particular case, note that the Wall Street Journal is generally behind a paywall. If you copy-paste one or more entire articles here, it means WSJ is dealt out of reads on their own site. It's not a 'fair comment' excerpting but a by-pass of their ability to get paid for their product. Which Brant succinctly pointed out. And which God has pointed out, plaguing Greg with popups for his sins. Click image to find out more.

The distinction that you were making about Methane emissions was just in reference to compacting? I am not sure I understand your question. Do you grok the difference between anaerobic and aerobic 'decay' of organic material? I tried to let Brant know that composting takes advantage of aerobic bacteria to break down organic material, and that the difference between the two processes is the presence of oxygen (simply, maybe simplistically put). Thus landfills 'grow' methane, composting does not. It can be argued (and is argued) that reducing methane emissions from decomposing landfill organics makes sense -- in a mitigation strategy. In my bailiwick, composting and recycling are also argued on economic grounds (it saves money by requiring less landfill operation costs, it generates money from the products of sophisticated refuse-processing). Now, one can also argue that the EPA should be dissolved, along with any other purported fascist control structure over human beings and their free activities. And one can argue that there is no problem (of Greenhouse Gases) to solve; there is no appreciable or worrying warming caused by GHGs, and so on. Those aren't my arguments, but there you go. We will always be dealing with our human shit and crap and refuse. A useful Objectivish argument can be made for the optimal conditions -- unfettered capitalism -- for properly valuing and exploiting garbage before we bury it. Even fettered capitalism can provide value-estimating and knock-on products from garbage. I note a very rich Chinese woman, Zhang Yin the "Cardboard Queen." She managed to out-capitalize Oprah, and become a billionaire. Her entrepreneurship was built of American paper waste -- she buys it from you guys, ships it home, and re-makes it. Ka-ching! ____________________________ Adam and Brant, have a gander at the EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy. Composting is a less-favored behavioral requirement of their firecracker-red food policy ...

The state of the art Garbage Fascism is practiced in the Japanese community Kamikatsu. Household waste must be separated into 34 categories, according to the Guardian. In my municipality, you are encouraged to separate out recyclables from garbage. You are also provided with a bin to collect all food scraps including meat and bones. These organic items are used in the production of top-soil via an advanced industrial process. We can also send bags of garden refuse along to the composting centres. You mention methane. Methane is a product of decaying organic refuse compacted so that most air is removed from the stack. In contrast to compost, only anaerobic bacteria can break down the compressed refuse stack. This results in methane production. On the other hand, compost is made via aerobic bacteria -- the business of composting depends on oxygen, simply put. So, no, composting does not produce methane as does a landfill or a modern-style dump. If your local dump is like the one up here, methane is extracted and burned for energy (or incineration) from the decaying matter compressed in the landfill. Composting organic crap actually makes something useful. I think this is a wisely conserved part of agricultural tradition, and a necessary part of present technology of garbage disposal/reuse/recyclage/follow-on products. Thar's gold in them hills of crap. -- of course, Seattlites might take your suggestion and some of them dump their household crap in the public road.

How did Kyrel arrive at this estimate ... that 'almost all Muslims' sympathize or support the murders in Paris? -- if Kyrel were to investigate further, asking himself "what have Muslims said in rejection of the murders," what would result? I think it's necessary to investigate further.** As for the notion that Salafism, fundamentalist Islam, Islamo-Nazism, Islam are distinctions that need not (or should not) be made, this is not a useful rational heuristic. It allows a faulty generalization and faulty conclusion. In addition, a make-no-distinctions-among Muslims heuristic allows a great amount of non-rational hatred and bigotry free play: I think Kyrel is a bigoted maniac on the subject of Islam, incapable of rational argument. I think the rhetoric above is nothing but hateful expostulations. I can imagine Kyrel meeting a Muslim of some stripe -- and letting loose the farrago of insult. What would follow, I have no idea. It seems a pointless exercise to direct a stream of ugly fighting words to a non-Muslim audience. Why not engage the perfidious freak monsters directly? Abusing OL's forum to pollute discourse with such key words of prejudice and reaction: it's doubly disgusting. (Google "site:objectivistliving.com goat-fucking towelhead monkey") ___________________________ ** one way of evaluating goat-fucking vermin towelhead monkey freak monsters is to divvy up the ground. Look for media reports (not only in English) of reaction to the Paris massacre in the following countries with a Muslim-majority: TunisiaEgyptAlgeriaMoroccoJordanTurkeyIndonesiaMalaysiaSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates (including Dubai)QatarKuwaitPakistanUzbekistanKazakhstanBosniaKosovo- one could also include the Muslim voices parlayed by media in Western countries: GermanyUKFranceNetherlandsUSACanadaWhat did/do "most Muslims" have to say about the French massacre, ISIS, violent jihad, religiously-invoked terror? I think he would be surprised. I invite Kyrel to do some work at finding out a more realistic state of affairs.

You know my secrets, Michael and Kat -- I thrive in thickets of contestation. It's a credit to OL policy and practice that such a long-time critic of Objectivish things feels free to roam. I am sometimes of practical use which is pleasing. I can help here and there in upending too-quick conclusions. And I can entertain myself puzzling over curiosities like Moralist. I shall eat cake.

Thanks, Tony, for the brief remarks about Brainbow Hippocampus by Dunn. If I read you correctly, you find it sensually delightful, of positive value -- at once aesthetic, ingenious and artful. (you weren't quite so impressed with the earlier-posted image). You say that there is a 'first question' prompted in your mind by Brainbow -- "What is it?" (what does this image represent, what is the 'reality' depicted in the recreation?) As with the first posted image, if given no outside considerations like title, artist, or other information about the putative artwork, we are left to our own perceptions, pattern detection, searches of memory space ... we may try to 'recognize' elements conceptually ('that really looks like a neuron' ... 'this depicts neurons' ... 'this is a network of neurons'). We may draw a blank. If we are stymied in answering our first question, and the work offers no immediately intelligible answers to 'what is it' questions, what comes next? Do we return to our search and pattern-seeking, or do we turn away? Do we seek more information before moving on? Are we done? Tony, it looks like you next would inquire, stymied or not by incomprehensible forms, about the making, the construction, the how. You would get closer to the work, try to understand its technique. With no outside considerations, you might then remark 'it is hard metal, gold I think. With my magnifying glass, I see minute patterns of etching.' Now a viewer not instantly familiar with neurons, axons, dendrites -- or with cellular and network-level imagery of this necessary, vital element of life/existence -- this viewer's experience of Brainbow Hippocampus could end right there. Some stringy blobs, some interesting holographic light and depth effects, some borderline esthetics in the interplay of the entities inscribed. The viewer might not feel any pleasure at recognition, he might feel no particular emotion at all so far, and be ready to move on. Perhaps, though, one last attempt to decipher the unintelligible theme in the work. A final try at integrating the concepts rendered out of the image. Viewer says, 'Okay, neurons in a particular pattern of some unknown-to-me part of a brain. What else? A microscopic scale? Okay, so I am looking into a brain. When I move the light against the etching, I seem to see a movement, a dance in time and depth. Is this the play of thought in the brain? Is this an artistic attempt to suggest cognitive operations embedded in neuron networks?' That viewer might safely move on now. Back to the viewer at hand. Tony, you say you "feel it is a sort of 'second order' perception, necessitating cognition at an early stage (if that makes sense)." The It refers back to the operation of the questions What and How. I think you are in the neighborhood of something important. The 'second order' perception of forms may precede the first questions, and this is an individual perception -- Brant may see biological forms, I may have seen obvious recreations of nerve cells, you may see only trees. Integrating the conceptually-grasped icons into a personally-meaningful gestalt -- this is dependent on precedent cognitions. Finally, Tony, you add a few further glosses to your assessment. You say that the microetching** is 'artificial' in the best sense of the word. This means, I think, that it is the product of human ingenuity. No part of it would exist except for the will to achieve it in Dunn. In Kamhi's terms, this is the skill and care that an artwork must witness. We are then left to tussle over the last criteria. Is the work "emotionally meaningful within its cultural context"? Does it intelligibly represent something of Dunn's ideas and values, concepts of personal significance to him? Does it have the potential to interest and move others? My position is that yes, Dunn's work shown here fully conforms to Kamhi's criteria for art. . And I think, Tony, you agree. Which is a very nice birthday present. Here's Dunn's "What and Where" -- click the image for the video "Demonstration of Scratch Holography" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [ART]is made with special skill and care/not the product of mere whim or chance.is representational, consisting of two-dimensional images of actual or imagined places and objectsis intelligible and emotionally meaningful within its cultural context.has recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the artist who created them but also has the potential to interest and move others.** [MICROETCHINGS] Microetchings are handmade lithographs that manipulate light on a microscopic scale to control the reflectivity of metallic surfaces in precise ways. These techniques were invented by Dr. Greg Dunn and his colleague Dr. Brian Edwards in order to change the way in which the viewer experiences a painting. Please note that these microetchings are designed to evolve based on the moving perspective of the viewer and are impossible to capture in still images.

Thanks for highlighting this book. I have it on order now, after having read many reviews and hard-argued debates on its merits. It has attracted great praise as well as great criticism. Have you already read the book (or perhaps excerpts or articles on Evans' website)? I enjoyed reading your 'synapse' article at Objectivity ... and along the way, found a new hangout: The Language Log ... Appreciate the notice -- I was trying to figure out for myself how Peikoff could have so bizarrely misunderstood 'fight or flight' responses. The result was a long ramble, something I allow myself from time to time. You win some, you lose some. In re synapses, I'll lighten the mood and post again a bit of work from Greg Dunn, a micro-etching called Brainbow Hippocampus. Click the image for a brilliant video explanation of its design and properties ...

I outed the artist Greg Dunn on another thread, and so thought I should attach the name of the artist to the image below. I'm convinced Dunn creates works of art according to Kamhi's criteria. Those who doubt its ability to create "the potential to interest and move others" or who are unmoved by the static representation, see the video below of a different work, a 'micro-etching.' Tony will forgive me for waiting so long to drop the other shoe. I was trying of course to make a case for an abstraction-as-depiction, and trying to abide by Rand's rendition of art as 'recreation of reality.' Beyond that, I think I would find visually stunning and absorbing the actual work depicted in the video. Tony, if all is forgiven, care to give another opinion on Greg Dunn's work? Art, non-art, failed-art, crap ... ? Is the concept of 'intelligibility' unintelligible? Do you William, know exactly what you're seeing here -- in human-value terms? [ART] is indeed made with special skill and care/not the product of mere whim or chance.is indeed representational, consisting of two-dimensional images of actual or imagined places and objectsis quite intelligible and emotionally meaningful within its cultural context.has recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the artist who created them but also has the potential to interest and move others.

Ayn Rand's understanding of instinct limits Peikoff's interest in the question, I think. He is also limited by the format of his weekly podcast. It's casual, not scholarly, with no research literature on the table, no great cognitive demands made of Peikoff. Off the cuff, informed only by his vast knowledge of Objectivism. This is fine, it's Peikoff's job to promote the pure thought of Ayn Rand. I had to do the boring thing and transcribe the file: Ayn Rand denies instinct: what about the fight-or-flight response or evading your captor? Well, I don't regard those as instincts or even as universally true. You know, there's supposed to be, you judge whether you fight or you fly, flee according to the threat. There's all kinds of cases where human beings fight, in bars for instance, where they should flee or do nothing? where it's just foolhardy. Or they flee where they should just fight, as when they capitulate to evil. Or when they preach 'love thine enemy' ... if they had any instinct to fight or flee, how about prostrate yourself before your enemy? -- as the guidance of a civilization. That should wipe out the idea of fight or flight as an instinct. Now, what about completely passive people, who just sit in a bar and drink? -- evade everything and don't fight, they don't flight, they just fall off the chair. Now, animals judge perceptually and react automatically, but a conceptual being can't fight or flee until you can identify cognitively what is going on, and they be evaluated, and then see, decide whether you're going to act on your conclusions or not. On those issues there is no instinct. So, there we go. On those issues, Peikoff declaims there is no instinct. But, of course, he is not referring to a mere dictionary definition: 1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.4. natural intuitive power.Looking into the roots of the word is useful: 1375-1425; late Middle English < Latin instinctus prompting, instigation, enthusiasm, equivalent to *insting (uere) presumably, to prick; That makes sense: we have all felt such an 'IN-STING' -- a prompt from the subconscious, an instigation from the body, a rapid indwelling computation of threat, a stinging warning ... and it certainly captures the sense of heightened emotion, alarm, the intensity of the responsive organism, you, me, a child, a thug, Ayn Rand, a wash of adrenaline supercharging the body for its next move. Yup. The bar fight may be a decisive result of the body's emotional response to threat. The fight itself is not an instance of this response but what follows the alert: first comes the Yikes, then the Advance or Retreat. Reading the transcripted stuff for the fourth or fifth time doesn't clarify for me the reader/listener what 'flight or fight' responses comprise in the real world. What Peikoff crucially omits as factors are the stressors, and the responses as physical, subjectively tangible reaction -- a strongly felt form of organismal Alert. I don't think Peikoff is thinking of that which provokes this alert, nor of broader situations in which human beings suddenly are challenged emotionally. He doesn't seem to think that the fully-charged emotions undergirding the response are even interesting, since he does not mention this. But then again, he only gave himself a minute and three quarters to settle the question! -- it's amusing how constrained are his examples, drawn from the bar-room. If I had been on the programme with Peikoff, I would have used his example of bar-fights to explore the state, the emotional state, the stakes. I would try to get him to imagine himself in a situation of great bodily alarm, heightened vigilance, blood pumping, awareness narrowed to a threat. Maybe by immersing himself in an imagined situation, he could see how elemental is the heightened alert state itself, how it provides the foundation for decision. I figure he could then engage with developmental psychology and evolutionary developmental biology, and understand fight-or-flight to be something we share with other primates and other mammals. (as an aside, consider how Peikoff could explain those unfortunates who, due to brain lesion, are unable to process fear, either unable to perceive anger or fear in others, or in some way lacking important signalling of intent and motive in other people's actions, expressions, and words. Imagine someone who had no working danger detection and subsequent fight or flight response because of amygdala damage. She would not be able to ground responses to danger in felt bodily emotion -- the subconscious ranking and flavouring of mood, readiness and attention -- which would make decision-making vulnerable if not damaged. Lacking the emotive power and preparedness supplied by the state of fight or flight. she would not feel that urgent bodily whammy. She would neither flee nor fight an oncoming predator. Knowing these unfortunates, Peikoff could make the distinction between Detection, Provocation and ensuing Alert State and subsequent Decision, thus giving an informed and nuanced view of how so-called instinctive processes are ever accompanied by cognition or executive control. He might even square the circle and show how emotion is a foundational element of the human cognitive scheme while not a tool of cognition strictly speaking. ) That's the thing, isn't it? from the lexicon page is another quote: "[Man] is born naked and unarmed, without fangs, claws, horns or 'instinctual' knowledge" from “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” I never think of Man being born, but of individual babies being born. Rand is right that a baby is born naked and unarmed, without teeth, claws, horns ... and right to highlight that the defenseless infant has effectively zero adult "'instinctual' knowledge" to play with in its early days and months and years. The fangs are the fangs of a vigilant father, the claws a fierce protectiveness of mother, family, clan, using every tool to keep danger at bay from the otherwise defenseless infant. Now, as others have pointed out, also at issue are further entailments, concepts of automaticity, motivation, decision-making, emotion-detection, innate developmental milestones, a blooming buzzing confusion of the baby's mental world. I think that observations of infants and toddlers show them performing behaviours of increasing complexity in a more or less set sequence -- suckling behaviour, eye-fixation, mother-voice recognition, facial recognition, grasping, babbling, edge-detection and so on. I don't think the fight-flight behavioural response would be detectable in a little human being unable to crawl of walk. It comes later in development. What might be detected in the younger infants is the startle reflex and then fear. I would argue that stages of development are a mixture of inborn patterns of activities coming 'online' -- and the necessary inputs, correctives, reinforcements from the environment. (an example of an inborn capacity to bring forth complex behaviour is the metaphorical 'language instinct.'**) I think, then that 'inborn patterns of activities' revealed in development are real, interesting, and crucially important to normal human growth and intelligence. None of this necessarily contradicts strict Randian criteria of unerring knowledge. By defining instinct as knowledge rather than patterns of activity or behaviour, it does however mean that discussing infant psychology is somewhat uninteresting in Objectivist terms. There is no research project inspired by Objectivist thought on infants, no programme that is bearing fruit. Which takes me back to the baby and its emotions. And to the conditions or situations or events that instigate the flight or fight response. It's necessary to understand that the behavioural response is to fear. What elicits fear in a newborn? What elicits fear in an older infant, a toddler, and so on? I don't know that there is much Objectivist thought on the subject of fear, and I rather doubt that this thought engages with recent scientific work. I find these things absolutely fascinating in themselves -- and less interesting when constrained by Randian precepts and exclusions. When and how does a developing child express emotions -- is it a set sequence? How do fear, disgust, anger, anticipation, joy, sadness, acceptance come on-line in a little growing human? How does a child effortlessly learn to 'read' emotions in other individuals? How does a child leap from pidgin to creole, how does a deaf infant 'babble' ... ? This is the stuff I find interesting -- objective inquiry -- it gives me much to work with cognitively. In contrast, Peikoff trying to bat away a quibble with Rand just doesn't give me much mental product to work with. I do listen to the podcasts from time to time. They strike me as mostly bizarre. In the style of an open-mike radio show (but with no open lines), one of the worst speaking voices on Earth, trying to tackle the important philosophical issues of the day in brief capsules of wisdom. In other words, for me the capsules are curiosities, concerning mostly creepy and off-putting doctrinal issues of no great import to my quest for knowledge. How wonderful it would be for an Objectivish scholar/researcher to plunge headfirst into data about the developing human, from womb to speaking, goal-seeking, willful, fully-emotional little creature. Maybe Objectivists are not interested in Man as Baby, Infant, Toddler, Walker ... Pubertal Teen, only in man the Adult. I am happy enough to set the dictionary meanings aside from the Randian meanings. I can muse about the 'looking instinct' and the 'talking instinct' and the 'walking instinct' and the 'crying instinct,' and about many other human behavioural complexes emergent in Man the Baby. I can muse about the 'mating instinct' without reference to Randianisms. I would pay good money for a Peikoff podcast entitled "Fear, the Amygdala, and Provoking 'Fight or Flight': An Objectivist Understanding of Emotional Instigation." Or "What instigates 'Fight or Flight' Responses in Objectivsts?" Ultimately, I think Peikoff misunderstood what fight/flight response is, or he would have been able to say something like this: "Fight or Flight is a state of alert, not an 'instinctive' kind of knowledge. It is one of man's many intense 'stomach feelings.' This state of alert in Man is his response to a perceived threat. The response can be instigated rapidly by environmental cues or alarms, by cognitions, by sudden events and suddenly perceived danger. This intensely emotional state does not however provide Man his decision to flee nor his reason to fight -- only his rational mind can take that step." Peikoff in a bar with his wife. In walks McCaskey and David Harriman. Peikoff spots the pair, experiences a sudden thrill of alertness. His heart pounds. His muscles contract. His pupils dilate. His fists clench. His mouth is suddenly dry ... Does he run, or does he confront evil and vanquish it? ____________________ ** -- Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct. I recommend this 1994 book highly. It is surpassed only by his more recent The Stuff of Thought.

Here's a new article from Lauren Davis, "Here's What Would Happen If You Asked Ayn Rand To Loan You Money" -- credit should go to the editors at the wee website The Toast. They have more than several "Ayn Rand Rewrites," including such titles as Ayn Rand’s The Devil Wears Prada, and Ayn Rand’s Harry Potter and The Order of Psycho-epistemology

This is a pure opinion piece. Only three references. No unseemly nagging. In Canada and America the best informants on jihadi groups and dangerous and violence-prone individuals are fairly regular people: family, friends, mosque attendees, coworkers and clergy, people of the community who are eyes and ears on radicals. Each new jihadi militant horror tends to make the Muslim communities more vigilant and cooperative with law enforcement. I'd say it's a trend and maybe a feature -- human intelligence is best. I think we owe our Muslim citizens the basic courtesy of not assuming they are terrorist fanatics or sympathizers. When we approach each other only with suspicion or prejudice we gain no intelligence. We supplement that with other citizen-led actions and warnings -- folks like fellow Canucki CaliphateCop, those with a public face who have outed and/or testified about terror plans, or radical cells, and who continue to be vigilant, aware and informed. I never forget how many ordinary Muslims were perfect Canadians in word and deed, outraged at the assault on Parliament -- with perhaps extra resentment and outrage at being placed in a role of scapegoat for what they revile. They are alert far more than I am to the proto-radicals in their midst, I figure, and we should not let a phantom Muslim Menace prevent us from seeing these normal citizens or making use of their humint in Da Wa On Terrr. Few want a repeat of the Ottawa and Quebec events. I'd wager that the debates we have had in Canada since then about the process and purlieus of radicalizing jihadis have underlined the shared red lines across religious boundaries and educated everybody to some degree. The events kicked in a rebound pride and purpose in being all Canadian, all revolted, resentful and disgusted with extremism of the murderous jihadi kind. And being Canadian, revolted at the notion of collective guilt or suspicion. Remember what this video prank depicted? We can credit our various North American intelligence agencies for thwarting several plots, a couple in Canada. I think we can accept that there will be more arrests. In Canada legislation will soon be tabled that extends some surveillance powers and mandates inter-agency data-sharing. The rough shape of the new laws seem semi-OK. The ability to penetrate or unveil developing networks involves details of spying that might need new law, some will argue. Britain is tabling legislation that will compel companies like Twitter and Facebook and others to give up identities to law enforcement. I think of the UK as a haven, a place of asylum, where former imperial subjects who were being oppressed in home countries could make a break for safety and surety. It's thus had waves of migrants and exiles and emigres and immigrants through its history and has found means to integrate them relatively successfully (compared say to France). Racial, ethnic and communal animosities in Britain are much exaggerated, but where folks edge into incitement and promotion of violence or terrorist acts, they are charged, convicted and punished, and in some cases forced to observe bond conditions that prevent free association. "Hate preachers" are convicted on hate crimes, and thought they continue to peddle Islamist nonsense, they are forced to observe the limits of free speech and free association. I am not sure if Canada's home-grown haters and self-styled imams are half as wacked as the British (eg, Anjem Choudary). Beyond that, the UK seem to be slightly more sophisticated in using all means to upset terror plans within the kingdom. The media does a thorough job on all issues, inflaming passions on one hand, exposing abuses and social facts on the other, blowing hard and cold on every sensational story. So, in addition to informants, spies, analysts, border control, RCMP, CSIS, and integrated squads on heightened alert, I think Canada will probably do a middling job of containing and exposing to justice jihadi elements intent on terror, not as good as the UK but without too much 'emergency' law being promulgated. I also hope our abilities to infiltrate and observe and degrade recruiting networks becomes sharpened. Networks that are built to enable terror recruiting (for especially ISIS) or enable home-grown 'lone wolf' or 'cell' attacks in America and Canada will be more heavily watched over. We will figure out who are the Edmonton gangs, so to speak, and the same for the other major cities. We will subvert violence successfully in the majority of cases, failing only where a madmen erupts. I expect the various US agencies will take advantage of the crisis with ISIS to do their jobs as thoroughly as possible. It's hard to imagine the might of the USA in all its glory. Your abilities to infiltrate and observe real-time jihadi recruitment, financing, transport, all that will be key. If you have the backing of the Muslim communities (as we seem to have in Canada) to do their part on the home front, I just don't see any spectacular jihadi horror in America that isn't as horrible as regular school massacre atrocities. As long as the USA drops bombs on ISIS in Syria, some jihadi nitwit fanboy may decide to go all suicide in a blazing attack on the homeland. Knowing or accurately estimating which folks are more likely to turn violent fantasies into reality is the intelligence needed. Seeing a dark forest of would-be attackers when one wants to pick out diseased individual trees ... is not optimal. -- it seems to me that rather than being a stark staring Menace, Muslim Americans are the first and best informants on the bad seedlings in their gardens, where they are observable. One shouldn't doubt the power of the American Muslim en masse or individually, nor sheer him or her away from the shared project of safely and freedom. We should estimate 'The Menace' rationally and understand its particulars. Vive le Freedom. Vive la Justice. Vive le Reality As for Adam's notion of heavy-duty fencing as a Great Wall as a first start to protect America from I don't quite know which Jihadi Menace exactly, here's one that is in process elsewhere (I wonder how such a fence around America could help unveil The Enemy Within): Click image for source.

MSK did hit it on the head, I thought, especially by highlighting "the freak-villain persuasion technique." He also noted as he does: "If you identify something incorrectly, it doesn't matter how you judge it. Your judgment will not be based in reality." Now, on the subject of Japan and its Muslims, the separation between state and religion and the liberty to practice religion are much like Canada and the USA -- constitutionally protected. Your points then seem not rational or informed: "They (Japan) did the SMART thing seeing as it is hard to separate the good from the bad apples they said to hell with all of them.Japan did not and does not do what was claimed in the preposterous article you cited. By NOT allowing them to take root in the FIRST place they unlike us do not have to deal with it from a "oh shit how are we ever going to clean up THIS mess."Japan has Muslims. Their religious practice is constitutionally-protected, just like here in Canada They avoided the mess all together.Japan as a whole has a tiny Muslim minority, of native Japanese and of resident aliens. It has a robust free press and a very active, even militant brand of pressure groups. Do you SEE Islamic anyone crying and complaining about the Japanese valuing their OWN culture over anyone else's? No.The biggest beef of Japanese Muslims are things like vandalizing and destroying symbols of Islam and its Japanese mosques and madrasas. See this report on such events back in 2001. If I as a westerner want to go to Japan and want to be treated with respect I bloody well learn Japanese and at the very least if I do not practice their culture I respect it and do my best to make an attempt to fit in.You are, I expect, an atheist. In Japan you are free to choose your religion or lack of religion. I certainly do not go brandishing a Quran and try and shove Islam down the Japanese throats.That's nice. Here's a two parter video on Muslims in Japan, some twenty minutes in total. The report is happily free of viral baloney. Maybe you will reconsider your opinions. Maybe you would offer better information about Muslims -- how about an angry post about Canada and its Muslim communities? If you are working in the Patch, no doubt you have worked alongside Muslims. It would be interesting to have your point of view on something you have personally experienced. Maybe one day somebody 'brandished' a Bible at your doorstep, and wanted to harangue you about Jehovah ... maybe somebody tried to shove the Book of Mormon down your throat. On the subject of Islam in Japan, I think some more homework may be necessary. Here's a precis of Muslim Japan, with some excellent references: Here are the references: Islamic Center of Japan: History of Islam in Japan Islam: Beliefs and Observances; Caesar E. Farah, Ph.D. The Pew Forum: The Future of the Global Muslim Population Islamic Center of Japan: Life in Japan Japan Focus: Local Mosques and the Lives of Muslims in Japan The Constitution of Japan The Pew Forum: Mapping the Global Muslim Population Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center: The Everyday Life of Muslims in Japan Yes, perhaps we should say that the principle of freedom to distribute books cannot have been seriously violated if there is only one instance of it not being upheld. ... The logic is simple, elegant and relentless. 1. You cannot buy certain books in the U.S. without attracting the attention of the NSA. 2. The U.S. is a free country, right? 3. Therefore Quran-banning Japan must be a free country too! There is no ban on the Koran in Japan -- so, the logical entailments are tainted by irrational assumptions in the first place. Oddly, Jules seems not to see the internal illogic of his stance. On the one hand, Japan holds strongly to separation of religion and state (thus, there is no state religion, and no religious test for office, and no official statistics collected on religion of immigrants and guest-workers). Jules is strongly for this kind of deliberate constitutional protection of its citizens' human rights -- it is the same protection Canadians and Americans enjoy. On the other hand, Jules mistakenly believes that Japan as a state interferes with the free expression of religion -- by banning or controlling imports of Islamic 'holy' texts. And despite his errors, he thinks that a state interfering with free expression, conscience, association and so on is just fine, apparently. I might have it wrong, but. It doesn't make sense to me to hold these two notions as compatible. Why shouldn't Canada ban the Koran, inhibit mosque building, reject Muslim immigrants on the basis of religion? This is where Jules lives, and this is where the Muslim population is building. If the (falsely claimed) restrictions on religious behaviour are great for Japan, why not Canada and the USA (and the UK, and France, and etcetera)? I don't understand Ed Hudgins' fact-free borrowing from an anonymous Youtube video, nor his flouncing off from the scene refusing to discuss his sources. I do not understand Jules' fact-free assumptions regarding Japan. I don't understand how Objectivists and Rand-admirers or small-O objectivists fail to use rational means to check 'facts' against reality. Reality is what we want to discuss, right? And we are right to toss out bullshit and preposterous nonsense no matter from where it was spawned, no? Frankly, some of us are starting to ape the ugly prejudices proffered by Richard the Infidel, implacable in the face of contradiction, full of general malice toward the generic Muslim, and informed by the worst bigotry.

So, who has taken a critical, skeptical look at the claims made at The Muslim Issue blog?** So far, it looks like everyone posting -- except perhaps Mr Negativity -- accepts as more or less accurate the particular claims posted there. (for those who are on the fence and silent -- a site called Japanese Muslims provides some strong evidence of a Muslim community doing its Islamic thing freely and openly ...) The blog entry cited by Jules is said to be a reprint of an article by Mordechai Kedar called "A Country without Muslims." It appeared on another blog called Middle East and Terrorism. The page where the original ostensibly appeared now has this notice instead of the article: Editor's note: The veracity of the content of this article has been challenged. The article will be restored if and when its content can be verified. In other words, they pulled the article due to challenges in verification. For those who wonder if Scherk pulls stuff out of his ass, here is one site out of many that tackles items of bullshit in Kedar's article -- the linchpin claim that Muslim immigrants are officially barred from citizenship. But let's unpack the claims made in the article and see if they reflect reality: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. FALSE The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims. FALSE Japan forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. FALSE Few academic institutions teach the Arabic language. MISLEADING It is very difficult to import books of the Qur’an to Japan FALSE Muslims who come to Japan, are usually employees of foreign companies. MISLEADING In Japan there are very few mosques. MISLEADING The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims FALSE Japanese society expects Muslim men to pray at home. MISLEADING Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslim workers. FALSE Any Muslim who does manage to enter Japan will find it very difficult to rent an apartment. MISLEADING Anywhere a Muslim lives, the neighbors become uneasy. UNWARRANTED Japan forbids the establishment of Islamic organizations, so setting up Islamic institutions such as mosques and schools is almost impossible. In Tokyo there is only one imam. FALSE If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she will be considered an outcast by her social and familial environment. MISLEADING There is no application of Shari’a law in Japan. TRUE There is some food in Japan that is halal, kosher according to Islamic law, but it is not easy to find it in the supermarket. MISLEADING The Japanese approach to Muslims is also evidenced by the numbers: in Japan there are 127 million residents, but only ten thousand Muslims, less than one hundredth of a percent. MISLEADING The number of Japanese who have converted is thought to be few. UNWARRANTED In Japan there are a few tens of thousands of foreign workers who are Muslim, mainly from Pakistan, who have managed to enter Japan as workers with construction companies. FALSE However, because of the negative attitude towards Islam they keep a low profile. UNWARRANTED The Japanese tend to lump all Muslims together as fundamentalists who are unwilling to give up their traditional point of view and adopt modern ways of thinking and behavior. UNWARRANTED In Japan, Islam is perceived as a strange religion, that any intelligent person should avoid. UNWARRANTED Most Japanese have no religion, but behaviors connected with the Shinto religion along with elements of Buddhism are integrated into national customs. TRUE-ISH In Japan, religion is connected to the nationalist concept, and prejudices exist towards foreigners whether they are Chinese, Korean, Malaysian or Indonesian, and Westerners don’t escape this phenomenon either. MISLEADING CONFLATION Japanese dismiss the concept of monotheism and faith in an abstract god, because their world concept is apparently connected to the material, not to faith and emotions. UNWARRANTED It seems that they group Judaism together with Islam. UNWARRANTED Christianity exists in Japan and is not regarded negatively, apparently because the image of Jesus perceived in Japan is like the images of Buddha and Shinto. UNWARRANTED OPINION The Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam. They make a clear distinction between their economic interest in resources of oil and gas from Muslim countries, which behooves Japan to maintain good relations with these countries on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Japanese nationalist viewpoints, which see Islam as something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside. UNWARRANTED Because the Japanese have a gentle temperament, and project serenity and tranquility toward foreigners, foreigners tend to relate to the Japanese with politeness and respect. UNWARRANTED, MISLEADING A Japanese diplomat would never raise his voice or speak rudely in the presence of foreigners, therefore foreigners relate to the Japanese with respect, despite their racism and discrimination against Muslims in the matter of immigration. MISLEADING A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come. MISLEADING / CONFLATION Japan manages to remain a country almost without a Muslim presence because Japan’s negative attitude toward Islam and Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom. FALSE AND MISLEADING CONFLATION In Japan, contrary to the situation in other countries, there are no “human rights” organizations to offer support to Muslims’ claims against the government’s position. FALSE In Japan no one illegally smuggles Muslims into the country to earn a few yen, and almost no one gives them the legal support they would need in order to get permits for temporary or permanent residency or citizenship. MISLEADING Another thing that helps the Japanese keep Muslim immigration to their shores to a minimum is the Japanese attitude toward the employee and employment. MISLEADING Migrant workers are perceived negatively in Japan, because they take the place of Japanese workers. UNWARRANTED A Japanese employer feels obligated to employ Japanese workers even if it costs much more than it would to employ foreign workers. UNWARRANTED The traditional connection between an employee and employer in Japan is much stronger than in the West, and the employer and employee feel a mutual commitment to each other: an employer feels obligated to give his employee a livelihood, and the employee feels obligated to give the employer the fruit of his labor. MISLEADING This situation does not encourage the acceptance of foreign workers, whose commitment to the employers is low. UNWARRANTED The fact that the public and the officials are united in their attitude against Muslim immigration has created a sort of iron wall around Japan that Muslims lack both the permission and the capability to overcome. FALSE This iron wall silences the world’s criticism of Japan in this matter, because the world understands that there is no point in criticizing the Japanese, since criticism will not convince them to open the gates of Japan to Muslim immigration. FALSE The article by Kedar has absolutely no references. That's the first clue that the author is pulling things out of his ass. The most important falsities in the article concern 'official' Japan -- what is allowed by law, what is not, the limits of religious life. When these falsities are blended with impressionist opinions about Japanese culture or social habits, the results are misleading at best, gross distortions at worst. So, does Japan ban or otherwise interfere with 'importation' of Korans or other religious texts? NO. Japan has constitutional protection for the free expression of religion. Japan has a profusion of old and new religions, cults, sects, apocalyptic crackpots, even terror-cults like the one that attacked with deadly Sarin in the Tokyo subway. We can credit the American occupation authorities with the spirit of religious freedom evident in Japan's basic law. So, if -- contrary to the author's certainty -- there is no official ban, limit, crimp, regulation and so on on the practice of Islam, then many of the subsidiary claims fall apart: The reason they fail is because of conflation. Consider that if Japan does not inquire and does not record a guest-worker or immigrant's religion, and does not prohibit the establishments of mosques, and does not prohibit imports of the Koran, then what about the claims of the author that Muslims face discrimination that prevents them from practicing their religion? Well, they fail. In each case where the author claims a limit to Islamic behaviour, he tends to conflate two things -- prejudices and discrimination (againsts foreigners) that well may be apparent in Japanese society, and official state acts and practices targeted at Muslims alone. Japan is a relatively homogenous population. To become a naturalized citizen is not easy (as in USA/Canada), and there is no automatic 'natural born' citizenship to be had -- except by those who have native Japanese parents. This means there are communities of Koreans (especially) and others who have residency but not full civil rights -- ie, the right to vote. Among the estimated ~ 200k Muslims in Japan, there is a mix of 'native' ethnic Japanese born to Muslim families, naturalized Muslims, and registered foreign workers. The point being that the misleading claims above use sleight-of-hand, replacing 'immigrant/worker' with Muslim. As if the difficulties in achieving Japanese residency or citizenship are not faced by other non-Muslim people. As a matter of fact, there is no racial/ethnic/religious bar faced by a Muslim would-be immigrant that is not faced by a non-Muslim.† -- if you mark out the false claims and the misleading claims that are derived from the false, it leaves us mostly with unwarranted claims. I don't know if any of the thread participants are wanting to do some due diligence and fact-checking on the remainder. I'll stand by in hopeful expectation. _______________________________________ ** From the blog's "About" page, these are the recommendations given for controlling and eliminating Islam: There are sensible ways to tackle Islamic terrorism and make the future safer for the world: Islam must be made illegal and defined as a foreign fascist ideology, not a religion. Ban and demolish all mosques. Believe us be: every single mosque in the West contribute to terror funding by ‘donations for Muslim causes’. Jihad is the core foundation of Islam and a duty. Each and every mosque goer is expected to contribute in some way or the other. Ban the Koran and burn them; block the content from being accessed online. Remove all practicing and religious Muslims from the West. Completely. Deport them by canceling residency, revoking passports and visas through a reversed ruling on basis of incompatibility and ineligibility. Countries that refuse or block to take Muslim immigrants back to their own countries need to be fined and sanctioned. Expelled Muslims to their home countries should be booked on a one-way flight to their homeland, disembarked and left at the airport for local officials to deal with. Ban all trade with and from the Muslim (majority and ruling) world. Ban all travels to and from the Muslim world. All sales of properties owned by Muslims in the West need to be revoked of all ownership. The properties should be resold at market value. Funds, minus government fees, should be allotted for poverty alleviation in the owner’s home country (medical, education, housing, jobs). Ban all banking and payments to and from the Muslim (majority and ruling) world to other non-Muslim countries. Ban all investments to and from the Muslim world. End the entire oil trade with the Muslims. The oil trade continues to be an endless source of Islamic terrorism. Until a total ban is put in place, sanction Muslim countries from trading in oil to non-Muslim nations. (We need a permanent replacement of oil for our energy needs). Muslims who are in prison in the West, before they are deported, must be separated from non-Muslims. Muslim charged with plotting, planning or committing terrorism should be executed. As an option, a bilateral agreement can be signed with Saudi Arabia to execute them sharia-style by beheading. Muslims must be permanently banned from any jobs within law enforcement, immigration, government. Borders must be protected with three levels of boundaries with clear warnings within each boundary. Illegals forcing entry into the third boundary gets shot at their own volition.† -- from "Becoming Legally Japanese: Citizenship by Naturalization": Can Muslims acquire Japanese citizenship/nationality or permanent residency? YES. I've seen a lot of misinformation regarding Japanese nationality over the years, and it has generally been getting better over time as non-Japanese get more access to information in languages other than Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. However, a viral post has been circulating around the net that was recently forwarded to me and thus caught my attention. The post has been used as propaganda by both pro-Islam and anti-Islam sides. Unfortunately, the point they're arguing about — whether the Japanese government and its laws and its Constitution, restrict immigration on the basis of religion (Islam) — is entirely false. Enumerated below are sample points from the post which are most related to the topics this site covers: "Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims." Absolutely false. In fact, there's a contributing author to this web site who was Muslim at the time of application. There is no place anywhere on the written application where one specifies their religion or creed. Nor have I read anywhere about anyone being asked about their religious beliefs in the verbal interviews. Because there is no place on the written online application for one's religion, the Ministry of Justice can't publish statistics showing the religions (or races) of naturalization candidates; they can only publish sex and former nationality statistics. However, looking at the nationality statistics, we can find hundreds of examples of people from Islamic states (ex. Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan) as well as people from nation-states where the official state religion is Islam (ex. Egypt) and greater than 90% of the population is Muslim. Doing a quick web search, I can find Japanese immigration lawyers who specialize in people from Indonesia and brag of a "100% success rate". Thus, it's very reasonable to conclude from this that while the bulk of those who naturalize are Chinese and Korean, a large percentage of the remaining naturalization candidates are followers of Islam.

Thanks for lightening my load, Brant. Moving on ... I'm going to a Go-Go. The one thing the French haven't ruined for everyone.

Daniel Pipes misrepresents several pieces of information in his article -- though he is not alone in repeating preposterous nonsense on the subject of "No Go Zones" in France. Here's his opener -- and I underline the howliest of the howlers: I will leave it to a commenter at Pipes' blog to add some necessary skepticism: The claim implicit in the headline "The 751 No Go Zones of France" is basically nonsense. Yes there are 751 ZUS, but to claim, as Mr Pipes tries to, that these are all Muslim areas off limits to the French people and state is simply ignorant fantasy, unrelated to reality. Given that 20 of them are located in the French DOM/TOM(French Pacific and Caribbean islands and territories), where the number of Muslims is either tiny or zero, Mr Pipes' thesis fails. In reality, ... the various ZUS were set up under the French law No 96-1156 of November - December 1996. They define, and delineate, areas in France which are in need of regeneration. Such areas are generally characterised by a high proportion of social housing(HLM)/low home ownership, high unemployment, and low ratio of high school graduation. There are three types of ZUS, which are characterised by what tax reliefs are available., The most difficult are classed as ZFUs , or Urban Tax-Free Zones. I could expand at length on this, but shall not. The basic, willful error of Pipes is in conflating and distorting information. France is a developed country, has a national police, and does not allow state control of territory out of its hands. It is true that France's Zones Urbains Sensibles are a kind of version of the USA's 'poor ghettos' and it is true that France faces challenges in its blighted, segregated communities. It is not true that these zones given official attention are No Go. It should be clear that 'special development' or 'special attention' zones assembled by the French government for its bureaucratic attentions and leftist meddling -- are a whole other thing than the fantastic distortion peddled by Pipes and his ilk. I do not trust anything out of Pipes' pipe ... not since he so badly misrepresents this notion. I mean, how would we know? Who is the last of us to visit any of these Zones in France? Here is some more horseshit peddled straight up, this time by Robert Spencer: Here's a response at the skeptic link above: "Are there officially pronounced no-go Islamic zones in France?" On to another related claim ... -- this is Sweden. Where are the supposed No Go Zones, Jules? Where is the evidence of Sweden being worse than France, in terms of No Go Zones? Is there something other than what you say to give us a detailed picture of Sweden's area that the state does not control? I call question begging...¸ I know what it means: assuming as correct something essential to an argument's conclusion. Petitio principii or whatever. So, not having yet presented an argument about said tripe but promising a later tackle, I slither off the hook ... "Tripe" ? Tripe. It's the combination that Pipes and others have confected that is wrong: that the French government has identified seven hundred No-Go for the French State, given up to Muslim Control. Running a quick search is fine, but you can't just take the first thing you find and toss it in a discussion as a fact. At least search down a critical response to the article, and consider the claim and counter-argument. Now, "all the media" is a big mess, and "the French Government has admitted" to the canard -- this is another route to the swamp. Have I helped change your mind? You started out saying "Everyone, I would hope, is aware that there are "no go zones" in France." Now you have some information sources to explore ... Ask them about the exact claim as made by Pipes, if you can. And ask where they live. We can look up the ZUS in their areas. Well, that's the thing. As described by Pipes, they don't exist. The French state was obviously in the frigging 'no go' places to collect the statistics and demographics that led the French state to say: "these are areas that need special attention." So, dispute what I say, now, please. Hilarity will perhaps ensue. Here's a link the national map, and here a link to the list -- which itself offers map links for each Zone. The link was in the freaking Pipes article that you set out. Here's a screenshot of the map zoomed in to Paris. One of the 'no go zones' adjoins the site of the Jewish supermarket attack at the Porte de Vincennes. I take issue with your numbers. Where do they come from? What is the number of "violent rapes" in Sweden, and what makes you think Sweden collects 'religious' information of assailants from victims of violent rapes? It's hard to fact-check with no references. You say six thousand violent rapes a year are perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. But you have offered nothing to back it up. I feel chagrin that we whip round alarming statistics, and as with Ed's numbers, they are borrowed uncritically. I wish we all could be more hard-eyed on claims about The Muslim, especially when they are trotted out by unreliable authors (as with Pipes). More to the point, Jules, would you be willing to do some more research on your own, to double check with yourself that your claims are solid? Let me say that I did my usual sloppy Scherk look around for what might form the basis of your remarks -- the warrants. I'm hoping you are fair-minded enough to consider that the alarming menace of Muslim in Sweden may be exaggerated or distorted. It is true that 'immigrant' people are overrepresented in the criminal statistics in Norway and Sweden. It's true that Norwegian and Swedish integration has not been like Canada's. In both those countries, newly arrived immigrants or asylum seekers and families of immigrant background get steered to the same public housing that other immigrants have been housed in. The concentrations in some urban areas of immigrants or those 'non-Western' citizens is evident. But you said Sweden is worse than France in terms of No Go Zones. Do you have anything to back that up? If you want to talk about Sweden and how they deal with immigration, compared to Canada, say, we could have a good discussion. But I think alarming statements obscure more than they enlighten. They lead too often to prejudice, hate and fear. As Objectivists, objectivists, Rand-admirers, or just regular folks who use their noggins, we observe rational means of getting at the truth of this or that matter. We need to be aware that information-bites and memes can be corrosively wrong, and we need our best mental game when figuring out What is What. My chagrin is that I get such a struggle over the basics: fact-checking, drilling down to the source materials. Ed has flown the coop when challenged on his preposterous fact claims in another thread. What do we do when asked "how do you know?"? I am vigilant on things Muslim because it matters to me and because it is something I need to get right in my own mind. If we build our opinions or conclusions on preposterous nonsense, we fail out of the gate. Back it up with something, Jules! Sweden has hate-speech laws, much like Canada. I think you might be thinking of a case where a Swedish politician was fined for "Offending Islam." What can anybody say to that? Anyway, back to the tripe. This is what FoxNews is running today ... about those hundreds of no-go zones all over Europe. Steve Emerson later apologized for some of his remarks about Birmingham, UK.** From his The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Here is another bullshit report from FoxNews Insider blog, "Hundreds of 'No-Go Zones' Across France Are Off-Limits to Non-Muslims." There are an estimated 750 no-go zones across France, large, insular neighborhoods where the government has all but surrendered authority to the Muslim community. Many of these areas are governed by Islamic Sharia law, and the state is unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire and ambulance services. ** I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham. Steve Emerson PS. I am making donation to Birmingham Children's Hospital. -- Emerson was subsequently outed as 'clearly an idiot' by British PM David Cameron. The bottom line for me is that OLers are swallowing preposterous notions, and not doing essential critical analysis. If we are united in anything here, we are united in using the hard, sharp, tested tools of Reason. In this case, thìs meme of French No-Go Zones is being propagated without the necessary Objectivish work being done. Surely we want to be seized of accurate information. We do not want to peddle irrational and plainly wrong information.

I don't think I ever said this this way prior to this post of yours, William. I think I said they would take over. You don't need a majority to do that. Now, before you ask me for evidence on all points note I am only waxing poetic as I clean and sight my guns. I have felt chagrin at my inability to get you to look a bit more critically at doom-gloom alarmist notions of a Muslim demographic time-bomb. I took issue with your notions at least once, and you thanked me for updating your mental data-base, Remember this? -- silliness aside, the demographic threat of Them to France is mostly hoax and bad math. What is clear is that the general trend toward smaller families is also catching the Muslim population. So the inevitable incline of bad muslim births against good non-muslim births is, er, evitable. I would say the greater problem for France vis a vis Les Musulmans is integration. The system in France has allowed or encouraged or built racial segregation and social exclusion. This is the tinderbox, the menace to society, in my opinion. (Brant, near to half the Muslims in France are not Arab, just so you know) Below are a few quote/links to you waxing all French Muslim Menace. It's true you do not make the bold claim Ed did -- "In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim,"** but your estimations (and poetic fancies) rest on faulty assumptions about demographics. Your end point -- that France will probably expel Muslims citizens and go all fascist in the face of this menacing bulge of near-majority -- is not warranted. It is alarming nonsense, You wouldn't accept your kind of argument if it was transposed to Global Warming Alarmism, so I wonder why you employ it in re French Muslim Menace. My chagrin remains. Why haven't you drug up something solid by now to support your alarmism? Why don't you man up and say you could be wrong on this issue, at least? The Muslims merely had to wait until demographics let them take over and dominate France.the bigger problem of demographics will reveal itself in Western Europe when Muslims try state takeover and dominance with the aid of democratic processes, most likely in France. Essentially, France will be the obvious and major battlefield and I expect a countervailing de Gaulle will take over. France let Algeria go in the 1960s. Too bad for France they didn't do more to cut it off by not letting Algerians into France proper. Now all will suffer.When France realizes it's going to be literally taken over politically, it'll chuck democracy for authoritarianism.the only thing the Arabs have going for them is the demographic weapon of out-breeding host countries' native populations as in France, so France will go absolutely fascist in 10-20 years (sooner is possible) to keep them from taking over the country by democratic means_____________________________________________ ** Ed Hudgin's claim is still hanging there, waiting for some evidence to back it up. It is disturbing that Ed blows off pertinent questions about his sources of information. He didn't just pull the specific French, German and Dutch statistics out of his ass, so they must rest on someone else's authority. Who is that authority, where is the source? None of your beeswax, OLers. Ed has 'given us the numbers,' and where they came from is no concern, I think Ed may have cribbed his numbers from a few places, one of which is perhaps JihadWatch. It is interesting that every single one of Ed's six claims also appears in a viral video first uploaded in 2009, in exactly the same order: Some 90 percent of the population growth in Western Europe since 1990 has been the result of Islamic immigration. @ 2:38 In France, 30 percent of children under 20 years old are Muslim. @ 2:58 In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim. @ 3:19 In the Netherlands, about half of newborns are Muslim. @ 3:41 In 15 to 20 years the majority in the Netherlands could be Muslim. @ 3:50 In Germany, a government report from the Federal Statistics Office says that the Fatherland could be majority Muslim by 2050. @ 4:32Now, it's not plagiarism, but I suggest Ed add "according to the video 'Muslim Demographics'" to that very detailed paragraph in his 2011 article: Some 90 percent of the population growth in Western Europe since 1990 has been the result of Islamic immigration. In France, 30 percent of children under 20 years old are Muslim. In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim. In the Netherlands, about half of newborns are Muslim. In 15 to 20 years the majority in the Netherlands could be Muslim. In Germany, a government report from the Federal Statistics Office says that the Fatherland could be majority Muslim by 2050 (all numbers according to the video 'Muslim Demographics'). And I wonder to myself, why didn't Ed just tell us that all his 2011 numbers came from the danged viral video. Isn't that video a fine and credible source of Muslim Menace numbers?

I'd write something like this: It's disappointing that respected OLers sometimes repeat as fact unproven or preposterous canards I will later tackle the BS about France's 700-odd Muslim-dominated, cop-free, state-abandoned sharia-enforced "No-Go" zones via the Daniel Pipes tripe on sale as linked above. Jules, what will some research tell us about No-Go Zones in Sweden worse than France?

Ed, I see that the quoted material comes from your article "9/11 A Decade Later." But you haven't given any supporting evidence beyond your opinion. Please let us know from where you got the statistics in your six claims: Some 90 percent of the population growth in Western Europe since 1990 has been the result of Islamic immigration. In France, 30 percent of children under 20 years old are Muslim. In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim. In the Netherlands, about half of newborns are Muslim. In 15 to 20 years the majority in the Netherlands could be Muslim.This one, I will try to hunt down on my own: "In Germany, a government report from the Federal Statistics Office says that the Fatherland could be majority Muslim by 2050." Why should any of us accept -- without evidence -- that what you have claimed is true? More importantly, what are the standards of evidence that you would accept countering your claims? If I can meet your exacting standards of evidence, would you be prepared to alter/update/add postscript to your claims? (wholly separate from these matters of fact/speculation, your article touches on important questions. It is too bad that it is marred by what is (in my opinion) unwarranted nonsense and demographic scaremongering). Cue Google. "Eurabia"!!!

No, Brant, I am 'objective-ish" ... to the limits of my ability. I could not make proper sense of the rest of your garble. If you had some backing for your repeated claims about France becoming majority Muslim, I am fairly confident you would have put it forward by now. You might even be in the midst of a larger inquiry to find confirmation or falsification. I don't know. I think there is a limit to what one can figure out from one's armchair without consulting 'pro' and 'anti' evidence, without consulting the larger work of folks dedicated to upturning truth on a given issue. I expect, perhaps foolishly, that those who make claims can follow up with evidence supporting those claims. I am sure that the object for both of us it to get as close to the truth as we can -- on particular and general matters. We might differ in reason for giving weight to this evidence or that argument. We are both, I would suggest, on the same general 'seeking objective facts' side, seeking truth, seeking reliable knowledge. If it turns out that your claims have no warrants, then I expect you will tend to put them aside as unfounded. If I said you were shit, that would be ad hominem, or at least an insult (George H Smith has explained the difference). But if I said that your argument is shitty ... you might want to pay attention not to the nasty word, but to the implication that you don't know what you are talking about (on this particular issue).

WMD is a kind of weasel word now. Weapons of Mass Destruction can mean many things to different people, but we generally understand it to mean nuclear, chemical and biological arms. It isn't "now we learn," it is rather "some have claimed ..." and the date stamp is best before, ie, stale, old, contested, debunked, unwarranted, specious -- or at the very least subject to doubt and re-analysis. Re 'WMDs under the Syrian shell," this could mean a few things: that Syria did not declare to the OPCW its entire holdings of chemical and biological weapons; that Syria did not transport them out of country, that the US and allies did not incinerate or otherwise destroy or render harmless the tonnes of chemicals shipped for destruction. It's disappointing that Objectivish folks sometimes swallow whole unproven canards -- without doing the diligent work of testing the claims, canards, bullshit, conspiracy tales ...

I highlight a couple of notions suggested by Ed. What is the evidence that Muslims will become a majority in any European country? Moreover, which European countries are held in mind by Ed? Brant has repeatedly cited France as the nation which will become Muslim-majority, but has not offered any supporting information.

As to "type," I would have check. Blister gas was mentioned. One of the reasons that I "believe" this is that it makes complete sense. Hmmm. Maybe you could expand on that, incorporating the existence of an independent CW programme in Syria, and fishing out the details from the UN/OPCW mission reports on Syria's weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq There is conjecture, sure enough.

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. Brant, are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his (or some of his) chemical weapons to Syria? If that is what you are saying, what year, and what kinds of weapons, and where did you get this information? Oh, it was one of many items I read about back then. Only it wasn't airplanes but semi-tractor trailers. Sorry, there are no eye witnesses that could ever be deemed credible. Fog of war, maybe, or at least fog of war reporting. Here's the thing: Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria fought with Arab forces (and the US coalition) in the first Gulf War -- against Iraq. It wasn't until 2006 that they exchanged ambassadors after earlier dustups. In addition, you know that Israel has no compunction about bombing missile convoys inside Syria (since the civil war happened, six times) on their way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. I would expect them to have tracked and attacked any movement of CW across the border to Syria, should the fogged reports be true. Syria of course had its own chemical and biological weapons programme (which chemicals and precursors have been taken out of country and destroyed under OPCW rules) and its own production facilities -- the Syrians hopped quickly to join the international convention and disarm after the atrocity in Damascus August 21 2013. In any case, if you have the time or interest, Wikipedia has a decent short article on Iraq's CW programme. See also their page on Syria's CW programme. If you don't have the time for dry compendiums, I can recommend an article from Kris Alexander at Wired, "No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons." Sample:

Yep, there were. I think Saddam got 'em to Syria. That it wasn't a lie as such doesn't mean it wasn't a phoney excuse. P Brant, are you saying that Saddam Hussein sent his (or some of his) chemical weapons to Syria? If that is what you are saying, what year, and what kinds of weapons, and where did you get this information? Yep, I believe that they were loaded into Russian cargo planes and flown to Syria and the Baaka Valley. And it was a really poor choice. Adam, are you saying you believe that Saddam's chemical weapons (or some of them) were transported to Lebanon and Syria? If so, what year, what type of weapons, and what forms the basis for your beliefs?