Back when I had transferred from the quantum research group to the security research group when I was working at a large corporate research lab (it employed some 4,000 people) I had to learn a smidgeon about risk analysis. I never really did this in any systematic way - it was more a case of being decently aware of the general principles and techniques. I was more interested in the technical details of crypto at the time. The maths behind crypto is really lovely stuff.
I answer the “not all” argument with this anecdote:
My grandson got swarmed and stung by yellowjackets that had nested near the front porch. Not all the yellowjackets stung him, but I decided it was best to remove the nest due to the difficulty of distinguishing the stingy ones from the non-stingy ones. Observing which ones would sting and which not was too costly an exercise so they all had to go: They were incompatible with the household residents.
Here in the US there are very, very many gun owners. We hear all the time, from the same people who oppose removing illegal aliens with the “not all” argument that, because some people who possess guns use them to cause harm, nobody should have guns. Their “not all” argument disappears into thin air, their hypocrisy being ample demonstration of their insincerity.
I understand the sentiments. I think one of the problems has been the tendency of the Muslim 'community' to close ranks. Like many families they will fight bitterly amongst themselves, but should any outsider join in they will immediately form a shield wall and repel the outsider. How true that is is open to debate, but that's certainly the very strong impression we get.
I don't want to see Muslims tarred with the same brush - the worst Muslims, those of the like of Hamas, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban (and others) do not represent the thinking of the majority at all and yet Islam itself seems ineffective to be able combat the not-so-tiny minority of people within its fold who are nutjobs.
My, probably vain, hope is that continued focus and pressure will lead to moderate Muslims taking a more aggressive stance against the nutjobs and being seen to do something about them.
There are concerns I have with 'moderate' Islam too, but they're nothing like the sheer hell and horror that awaits mankind should the nutjobs take control.
Yes, if the non-stingy Muslims implement Sharia and start beheading the malingerers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, and murderers among them, then that would be a sign of good faith. See that on the horizon any time soon? Ever?
If they gain ascendancy, it’s clear who the beheadings would be for.
Why do Pakistanis need to go to Britain for “asylum” but no Brits go to Pakistan for the same reason? Is it because, collectively, Pakistanis have a certain very obvious and pronounced tendency? You don’t think it’s something in the water in Pakistan (or other such shitholes) that brings chaos and violence there, do you?
What’s the cost of hoping they see the error of their ways? How many little girls are worth sacrificing in the name of this hope? How many churches burned, how filthy and dangerous the cities, and how depleted the treasury before declaring the hope lost?
I would say that point has been passed. Your country is fast becoming just another conquered shithole while the populace sits in passive “hope”.
It should be apparent, from recent appearances at various gabfests and other events, that a certain sentiment is gaining currency on this side of the pond: In 80 years, Europe threw away most, if not everything, we sacrificed a generation to save for them. Let’s not make that mistake again.
For my part, in terms of risk evaluation, whether manufactured flu or rapey immigrants, I prefer not to have a government assume authority over me. If I want to catch flu and die that is my prerogative. When the British people have told the government over and over again that they object to mass immigration, they should damn well do as they are instructed by the people that pay their wages. They are out of control tyrants.
Our immigration policy over the last 25 years or so has been insane - it's quite something when the most cogent and coherent explanations for it are bordering on conspiracy theories. On any level we care to mention - economic, societal cohesion, crime - the results have been catastrophic. And yet the immigrants still keep pouring in. None of this has made Britain a better place - far, far, from it.
When the cost/benefit analysis is so skewed towards cost we have to wonder what on earth is going on here. What are the 'benefits' that those who have engineered this disaster perceive? I can't properly answer that question. I don't see any benefit at all to the country in mass, largely uncontrolled and improperly vetted, immigration.
Lots of benefits to (legal) immigration when it's done right - controlled, vetted, proportionate, bringing in skills that are needed - but this is far from what has happened.
What I find so bewildering is that the government (any government) says one thing and does the very polar opposite. It is so peculiar. We all say time and time again - no more mass immigration! Yes, yes they say. Then not only do they not get a grip, they accelerate it! It's impossible not to conclude that there is a very different agenda behind the scenes. People are being bought - no other explanation. Why they are being bought? Well, that's where we get the theories....
"...the culture that spawned them was not sufficient to moderate their behaviour in their new host country."
That's not entirely correct. Their culture is what made them behave the way they did, do and will always do. This is because of two maor factors:
1) Infidel women, and women not displaying proper moslem modesty, and women who in some other way falll beyond the pale (not having a man accompanying them as chaperone f.e.) are whores, loose women, and free game. They lack value, worth and dignity and molesting such women is not a crime or a violation of islamic tenets; rather, it is the right of faithful to use such women as they see fit.
2) On their home turf, retaliation from authorities as well as the family of the victim is a real factor, even when the victim is (as is typical) of a lower social class/caste/order than the male perpetrator.
If factor two was in effect in Western nations, in the same it is in Arabic-other islamic nations, then the problem would still exist but to a lesser extent. To truly target this behaviour, you would need to put in place mandatory public execution of moslem sex offenders in front of mosques at Friday prayers and the also mandatory and permanent expulsion of all blood relatives and relatives-by-amrriage of the perpetrator.
Only then would the cost/risk-analysis balance even slightly.
But:
None of that really matters. Your two points are missing the third, more important point:
[Moslems are not us, or of us, or have any right to be here, or any place here.]
They are to be allowed here on our sufferance, which can be arbitrarily revoked for no other reason than 'Ego Sic Dico'. And that goes for any foreigner, and would fully support such a law and praxis in any nation. Englishmen in Tenreriffa looking like the St. George's cross flag after a day in the sunlight, spewing all over the bar and manhandling the staff and being poor guests in other ways? Send'em packing home - in crates if need be! And ban them for life, if that's the will of the Spanish Crown.
Indeed it is not. I deliberately avoided the pachyderms lurking just out of sight in the corner of the room.
You are entirely correct to point out the very prevalent attitude that non-Muslims, and particularly those of the female variety, are not at all well-respected.
I totally agree with your point about immigration. Any immigrant, regardless of nationality, skin colour, religion, etc who makes themselves unwelcome in their host country should be kicked out - and that process *should not* have to take months with endless court hearings. It applies to the English knobheads who cause trouble in Spain, too.
I really wanted to write "uhm äkkshully" but it's a bit flogging a dead horse, as expressions go, isn't it?
A huge psychological (and thus personality-related) issue of the migration-cult is that a lot of people invloved genuinely want to do good.
We have it better than most, here in the West, and the do-gooders don't understand why, and can't due their belief in anti-racism.
They think people leave the South and East because they want something etter, and that that must mean they want to be like us or at least be friends with us and fit in and make things better.
And they do not understand that recruiting the gifted from f.e. Ethiopia means severe braindrain that hurts the "donor" nation.
Thus they must ignore reality, ignore logic and pertinent to your post ignore probabilities and empiricism too, or admit that their urge and yearnings for Doing Good doesn't work.
Risk assessment is indeed not a strength for most.
Contextualizing the problems helps.
Crypto has the propensity to disappear. It seems to have been a test run for the CBDCs, and its creators (must be the same as those of the CBDCs) can access anything on their markets. Computers based on nano- and/or light technology are up to 15 thousand times faster than silicone, so that's a few orders of magnitude regarding breaking the polynomial code. Of course, those computers are also in the possession of the same parties. :)
In the case of the Ladies' bathrooms, the time of the day, the location, and the extent to which the place is frequented are pretty good indicators of the risk of a perv attacking a woman.
Islam has no "moderate" or "benign" forms: it's an expansionist ideology, so it's a 100% risk.
As ALL data on convid were fake (fraudulent tests for an invented illness), there isn't much point in analyzing them.
I don't fully agree that there are no 'benign' forms of Islam - a lot of Muslims are rather secular in approach and they don't want to live in some hideous Islamic state either. They tend to keep quiet though, which rather exacerbates the problem, unfortunately.
You and I don't have to agree. Most Muslims are Muslims only on the surface, because getting out means to be marked for death. Many Muslims don't have any idea of the details, because they don't speak 14th-century Arabic. They all comply with the Five Pillars of Islam, and converting everyone to Islam is one of them. Christians and Jews are considered half-persons legally, must pay up to 50% of jizya tax, as opposed to th 2% Muslims must pay. It's easy to see that Muslims form their own separate enclaves, where their law is mandated, according to which rape is legal. They are "kind" as long as they don't form a majority, but after that, their way or the highway. "Breeding them out" is a form of Jihad, aiming at conquest. Just like in Judaism, it's not just okay, but even encouraged to lie to the outsiders. In 1542k they occupied the Castle of Buda in Hungary as a "visiting force" by going sightseeing in the castle, and then kicking out the defenders by outnumbering them.
As long as those who hate it comply, they are just as dangerous as those who love it. No country occupied by Islam has ever liberated itself without external help.
RR: "Can we really afford to wait for some ‘Islamic Reformation’ when the immature spoiled child variant of Islam gets weeded out by the majority of other grown-up Muslims?"
I'd say "no", and rather loudly. Reminds me of reading -- many years ago -- a book by a Syrian woman, a doctor and sort of a secular/ex Muslim titled, "The God Who Hates" -- AKA Allah along with His Prophet Mohammed, Piss Be Upon His Name:
Although the Christian god, or at least Jehovah, is not a particularly pleasant fellow either.
But quite a number of results on doing a Google search of her name, several dozen in my own bookmarks, many going back some 10 years, many no longer active. She stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest.
One link I still have on a related issue is from the sadly misnamed Freethought Blogs on "Civilisation and Islam are two different things”:
The author of that post, Anjuli Pandavar, had been "brought up a Muslim" but, at that time (2017), she was an "anti-theist". Another of her posts features an interview of Wafa:
AP: I wanted to show how the slickness of Nawaz and the naïveté of [Sam] Harris are key obstacles in the way of our developing a realistic perspective on and appropriate response to Islam, while we are sleepwalking into a nightmare. I could not have expressed my frustration better than Wafa Sultan has.
That "sleepwalking into a nightmare" has always struck me as rather apt. And, as events have unfolded, kind of prescient.
I don't think we can wait for Islam to sort itself out either - the nutjobs are too embedded and too much of a minority. I can only hope that things change more quickly but I fear they won't.
"Too much of a majority", I think you meant. 🙂 Which I'd agree with.
But I just ran across the new Substack of Anjuli Pandavar -- "Murtadd [apostate] to Human". Only skimmed it so far, but seems to have a bunch of interesting articles on Islam, the latest one maybe being of particular interest:
It's a horrible mess and we're going to have to be really careful not to let this spill into hate resulting in terrible consequences. The problem is that when you push too far, as successive governments have done with immigration, you end up creating the conditions where a sizeable chunk of people have just 'had enough' - and that's when intolerance and inhumane 'solutions' (like mass deportations simply based on ethnic labelling) creep in.
I answer the “not all” argument with this anecdote:
My grandson got swarmed and stung by yellowjackets that had nested near the front porch. Not all the yellowjackets stung him, but I decided it was best to remove the nest due to the difficulty of distinguishing the stingy ones from the non-stingy ones. Observing which ones would sting and which not was too costly an exercise so they all had to go: They were incompatible with the household residents.
Here in the US there are very, very many gun owners. We hear all the time, from the same people who oppose removing illegal aliens with the “not all” argument that, because some people who possess guns use them to cause harm, nobody should have guns. Their “not all” argument disappears into thin air, their hypocrisy being ample demonstration of their insincerity.
I understand the sentiments. I think one of the problems has been the tendency of the Muslim 'community' to close ranks. Like many families they will fight bitterly amongst themselves, but should any outsider join in they will immediately form a shield wall and repel the outsider. How true that is is open to debate, but that's certainly the very strong impression we get.
I don't want to see Muslims tarred with the same brush - the worst Muslims, those of the like of Hamas, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban (and others) do not represent the thinking of the majority at all and yet Islam itself seems ineffective to be able combat the not-so-tiny minority of people within its fold who are nutjobs.
My, probably vain, hope is that continued focus and pressure will lead to moderate Muslims taking a more aggressive stance against the nutjobs and being seen to do something about them.
There are concerns I have with 'moderate' Islam too, but they're nothing like the sheer hell and horror that awaits mankind should the nutjobs take control.
Yes, if the non-stingy Muslims implement Sharia and start beheading the malingerers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, and murderers among them, then that would be a sign of good faith. See that on the horizon any time soon? Ever?
If they gain ascendancy, it’s clear who the beheadings would be for.
Why do Pakistanis need to go to Britain for “asylum” but no Brits go to Pakistan for the same reason? Is it because, collectively, Pakistanis have a certain very obvious and pronounced tendency? You don’t think it’s something in the water in Pakistan (or other such shitholes) that brings chaos and violence there, do you?
What’s the cost of hoping they see the error of their ways? How many little girls are worth sacrificing in the name of this hope? How many churches burned, how filthy and dangerous the cities, and how depleted the treasury before declaring the hope lost?
I would say that point has been passed. Your country is fast becoming just another conquered shithole while the populace sits in passive “hope”.
It should be apparent, from recent appearances at various gabfests and other events, that a certain sentiment is gaining currency on this side of the pond: In 80 years, Europe threw away most, if not everything, we sacrificed a generation to save for them. Let’s not make that mistake again.
For my part, in terms of risk evaluation, whether manufactured flu or rapey immigrants, I prefer not to have a government assume authority over me. If I want to catch flu and die that is my prerogative. When the British people have told the government over and over again that they object to mass immigration, they should damn well do as they are instructed by the people that pay their wages. They are out of control tyrants.
Our immigration policy over the last 25 years or so has been insane - it's quite something when the most cogent and coherent explanations for it are bordering on conspiracy theories. On any level we care to mention - economic, societal cohesion, crime - the results have been catastrophic. And yet the immigrants still keep pouring in. None of this has made Britain a better place - far, far, from it.
When the cost/benefit analysis is so skewed towards cost we have to wonder what on earth is going on here. What are the 'benefits' that those who have engineered this disaster perceive? I can't properly answer that question. I don't see any benefit at all to the country in mass, largely uncontrolled and improperly vetted, immigration.
Lots of benefits to (legal) immigration when it's done right - controlled, vetted, proportionate, bringing in skills that are needed - but this is far from what has happened.
100%.
What I find so bewildering is that the government (any government) says one thing and does the very polar opposite. It is so peculiar. We all say time and time again - no more mass immigration! Yes, yes they say. Then not only do they not get a grip, they accelerate it! It's impossible not to conclude that there is a very different agenda behind the scenes. People are being bought - no other explanation. Why they are being bought? Well, that's where we get the theories....
"...the culture that spawned them was not sufficient to moderate their behaviour in their new host country."
That's not entirely correct. Their culture is what made them behave the way they did, do and will always do. This is because of two maor factors:
1) Infidel women, and women not displaying proper moslem modesty, and women who in some other way falll beyond the pale (not having a man accompanying them as chaperone f.e.) are whores, loose women, and free game. They lack value, worth and dignity and molesting such women is not a crime or a violation of islamic tenets; rather, it is the right of faithful to use such women as they see fit.
2) On their home turf, retaliation from authorities as well as the family of the victim is a real factor, even when the victim is (as is typical) of a lower social class/caste/order than the male perpetrator.
If factor two was in effect in Western nations, in the same it is in Arabic-other islamic nations, then the problem would still exist but to a lesser extent. To truly target this behaviour, you would need to put in place mandatory public execution of moslem sex offenders in front of mosques at Friday prayers and the also mandatory and permanent expulsion of all blood relatives and relatives-by-amrriage of the perpetrator.
Only then would the cost/risk-analysis balance even slightly.
But:
None of that really matters. Your two points are missing the third, more important point:
[Moslems are not us, or of us, or have any right to be here, or any place here.]
They are to be allowed here on our sufferance, which can be arbitrarily revoked for no other reason than 'Ego Sic Dico'. And that goes for any foreigner, and would fully support such a law and praxis in any nation. Englishmen in Tenreriffa looking like the St. George's cross flag after a day in the sunlight, spewing all over the bar and manhandling the staff and being poor guests in other ways? Send'em packing home - in crates if need be! And ban them for life, if that's the will of the Spanish Crown.
"That's not entirely correct."
Indeed it is not. I deliberately avoided the pachyderms lurking just out of sight in the corner of the room.
You are entirely correct to point out the very prevalent attitude that non-Muslims, and particularly those of the female variety, are not at all well-respected.
I totally agree with your point about immigration. Any immigrant, regardless of nationality, skin colour, religion, etc who makes themselves unwelcome in their host country should be kicked out - and that process *should not* have to take months with endless court hearings. It applies to the English knobheads who cause trouble in Spain, too.
I really wanted to write "uhm äkkshully" but it's a bit flogging a dead horse, as expressions go, isn't it?
A huge psychological (and thus personality-related) issue of the migration-cult is that a lot of people invloved genuinely want to do good.
We have it better than most, here in the West, and the do-gooders don't understand why, and can't due their belief in anti-racism.
They think people leave the South and East because they want something etter, and that that must mean they want to be like us or at least be friends with us and fit in and make things better.
And they do not understand that recruiting the gifted from f.e. Ethiopia means severe braindrain that hurts the "donor" nation.
Thus they must ignore reality, ignore logic and pertinent to your post ignore probabilities and empiricism too, or admit that their urge and yearnings for Doing Good doesn't work.
Risk assessment is indeed not a strength for most.
Contextualizing the problems helps.
Crypto has the propensity to disappear. It seems to have been a test run for the CBDCs, and its creators (must be the same as those of the CBDCs) can access anything on their markets. Computers based on nano- and/or light technology are up to 15 thousand times faster than silicone, so that's a few orders of magnitude regarding breaking the polynomial code. Of course, those computers are also in the possession of the same parties. :)
In the case of the Ladies' bathrooms, the time of the day, the location, and the extent to which the place is frequented are pretty good indicators of the risk of a perv attacking a woman.
Islam has no "moderate" or "benign" forms: it's an expansionist ideology, so it's a 100% risk.
As ALL data on convid were fake (fraudulent tests for an invented illness), there isn't much point in analyzing them.
I don't fully agree that there are no 'benign' forms of Islam - a lot of Muslims are rather secular in approach and they don't want to live in some hideous Islamic state either. They tend to keep quiet though, which rather exacerbates the problem, unfortunately.
You and I don't have to agree. Most Muslims are Muslims only on the surface, because getting out means to be marked for death. Many Muslims don't have any idea of the details, because they don't speak 14th-century Arabic. They all comply with the Five Pillars of Islam, and converting everyone to Islam is one of them. Christians and Jews are considered half-persons legally, must pay up to 50% of jizya tax, as opposed to th 2% Muslims must pay. It's easy to see that Muslims form their own separate enclaves, where their law is mandated, according to which rape is legal. They are "kind" as long as they don't form a majority, but after that, their way or the highway. "Breeding them out" is a form of Jihad, aiming at conquest. Just like in Judaism, it's not just okay, but even encouraged to lie to the outsiders. In 1542k they occupied the Castle of Buda in Hungary as a "visiting force" by going sightseeing in the castle, and then kicking out the defenders by outnumbering them.
As long as those who hate it comply, they are just as dangerous as those who love it. No country occupied by Islam has ever liberated itself without external help.
RR: "Can we really afford to wait for some ‘Islamic Reformation’ when the immature spoiled child variant of Islam gets weeded out by the majority of other grown-up Muslims?"
I'd say "no", and rather loudly. Reminds me of reading -- many years ago -- a book by a Syrian woman, a doctor and sort of a secular/ex Muslim titled, "The God Who Hates" -- AKA Allah along with His Prophet Mohammed, Piss Be Upon His Name:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Hates-Courageous-Inflamed/dp/0312538367
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan
Although the Christian god, or at least Jehovah, is not a particularly pleasant fellow either.
But quite a number of results on doing a Google search of her name, several dozen in my own bookmarks, many going back some 10 years, many no longer active. She stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest.
One link I still have on a related issue is from the sadly misnamed Freethought Blogs on "Civilisation and Islam are two different things”:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170308050519/http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016/05/07/civilisation-and-islam-are-two-different-things/
The author of that post, Anjuli Pandavar, had been "brought up a Muslim" but, at that time (2017), she was an "anti-theist". Another of her posts features an interview of Wafa:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170307111401/http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016/04/10/sleepwalking/
Of particular note therefrom:
AP: I wanted to show how the slickness of Nawaz and the naïveté of [Sam] Harris are key obstacles in the way of our developing a realistic perspective on and appropriate response to Islam, while we are sleepwalking into a nightmare. I could not have expressed my frustration better than Wafa Sultan has.
That "sleepwalking into a nightmare" has always struck me as rather apt. And, as events have unfolded, kind of prescient.
I don't think we can wait for Islam to sort itself out either - the nutjobs are too embedded and too much of a minority. I can only hope that things change more quickly but I fear they won't.
"Too much of a majority", I think you meant. 🙂 Which I'd agree with.
But I just ran across the new Substack of Anjuli Pandavar -- "Murtadd [apostate] to Human". Only skimmed it so far, but seems to have a bunch of interesting articles on Islam, the latest one maybe being of particular interest:
https://murtaddtohuman.substack.com/p/irans-other-nuclear-programme
We should be having these discussions all the time. Great, important article.
Thanks Pallavi - much appreciated
It's a horrible mess and we're going to have to be really careful not to let this spill into hate resulting in terrible consequences. The problem is that when you push too far, as successive governments have done with immigration, you end up creating the conditions where a sizeable chunk of people have just 'had enough' - and that's when intolerance and inhumane 'solutions' (like mass deportations simply based on ethnic labelling) creep in.
Couldn’t agree more. Day to day, in my own town, things seem fine but underneath the surface and online I can feel the unsettled environment.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity..." (Robert Heinlein)