Friday, November 30, 2007

How many times can Geert Wilders be killed, anyway?

A member of Holland's parliament brings the legal idea of protection from double jeopardy into the arena of life and death to be tested there. Geert Wilders is creating what is sure to bring (even more) calls for his murder a la Theo van Gogh:
Wilders plans to depict parts of the Quran he says are used as inspiration "by bad people to do bad things."

Less than 10 minutes long, the film is expected to air in late January. It will show "the intolerant and fascist character of the Quran," said Wilders, whose anti-Islam campaign helped his Freedom Party win nine seats in parliament in last year's election.

In the past, Wilders has said that half the Quran should be torn up and compared it with Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf." He has claimed the Netherlands is being swamped by a "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants [now comprising 6%-8% of the populous].
The Dutch politician has been under 24-hour police protection for over three years, ever since an Islamic duo armed with grenades attempted to kill him, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When receiving multiple death threats is part of the daily grind, what sort of deterrence does the recepiton of still more death threats actually effect?

Incidentally, Wilders' argument that half the Koran needs to be extricated for the book to be compatible with Western liberalism might be hyperbolic (the body of hadith are still less compatible), but references to violence, intolerance of infidels, the expansion of the Dar al Islam, and the submission of society to Islamic law is pervasive throughout its pages, especially in the Madinan suras (which are mostly presented towards the front of the Koran even though they were written after the Meccan suras that are presented later, owing to the use of sura length in determining the order in which they appear).

Islam's prophet was a military leader heavily involved in the secular affairs of government. Contemporary Islamic society reflects that.

Wilders is a duly elected political leader (the Party for Freedom, which he founded last year, holds nine of the Netherlands 150 seats, and is the fifth largest party in the parliament) in the world's most liberal country. Yet in a continent where religiosity has been dumped in favor of humanistic enlightenment, a Dutchman in his own country cannot even express criticism of the world's most aggressive and regressive major belief system without fearing for his life.

Unfortunately, the violent protests and rioting that will likely take place in response to Wilders' video illustrate how unfettered tolerance is impotent in the face of imperial intolerance. To retain liberalism, Europeans need a little illiberalism. Filching from Randall Parker, this is nature's way of telling us yet again that Islamic immigration into the liberal West is a bad idea.

This is hardly an isolated exposition on that lesson. RP reports on what is becoming an annual staple:
But will the natives of France learn from this lesson?

The Muslim kids have turned to rifles as weapons:

Officials in Paris last night warned that rioters in the suburb of Villiers-le-Bel were armed with hunting rifles and air rifles as clashes with police continued to escalate.

More than 70 police officers were injured on Monday night, three of them seriously, in clashes with rioters armed with molotov cocktails and firecrackers. One officer was shot in the shoulder with an air rifle.
In Great Britain, home now to honor killings and the 2005 London bombings, a staggering 94% of imams do not speak English as a primary language and an even higher percentage are foreign-born.

In 2005 (the year the Parisian riots made the international news cycle), less than 50 cars were burned per day on average in the nation's immigrant-heavy banlieues. Last year, the average climbed to over 110. In 2007, the number approaches 140.

In Switzerland, large mosques are being constructed in Christian villages that sent warriors to keep them from being built in Spain nine centuries ago.

The chickens hatched from welcoming cheap Turkish labor are coming home to roost in Germany.

In Scotland, eating in for lunch isn't an option during Ramadan.

In Ireland, an Islamic group houses a body that argues for a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law to be applied on the island nation.

The list goes on and on. Separationism needs to be the West's collective response.

European nations should halt all further Islamic immigration and target illegal migrants for deportation. Unlike the US, nowhere in Europe, excepting Romania, grants birthright citizenship to the children of unnaturalized migrants (France and Great Britain both have variants of jus soli, but both require at least one parent be a legal resident).

Legally-residing, first generation Muslims should be offered renumeration for voluntarily returning to their places of origin. Rather than offer cash directly to the immigrant, funds should be placed at a bank in the country of destination, with a hold to be lifted upon the migrant's return (France has already begun doing this).

Approaching it in this way helps ensure the home nation's support by essentially saying, "We took this guy in for you and took care of him for X years. He probably sent money home during that time as well, and hopefully acquired some skills in the process. Now you can have him back, and enjoy an additonal $X injection into your economy, paid for by the people of our country. Congratulations!" It also requires the migrant actually return home before collecting the reward.


al fin said...

A lot of less intelligent folks think that 5-10% unassimilated muslim population is not enough to be a huge problem. Politically that level is a huge problem--but wait!!! With differential birth rates being what they are, it will not be long at all before the proportion is 15-25%.

Those proportions are impossible--witness the evolution of Lebanon over the 20th century. Differential birthrate transformation is exponential.

Unless indigenous Europeans play the birthing game, Europe is finished.

MensaRefugee said...

In response to al fin...

No population will play the birthing game with the immodest polygamous creatures that the average western female has become.

If you want the 'indigenous european' population to survive, either
a) treat your women more like the muslims treat theirs or
b)at least institute merit rather than socialism that shields the female and her instincts from reality by having daddy government save her from her choices from cradle to grave. (Roger Devlin's monster 40+ page article on sexual utopia is a good read for this stuff)

Do not dismiss point a) out of hand, it just may be wisdom of the ages.

As for point b)Charles Murray said it best, on his BookTV interview, a caller said to him was "All the girls want these days is a cute face" to which he replied that it was true, but the moment assistance to single mothers were cut off, in millions of homes around the country - parents would sit their daughters down and have a serious chat. (Was a great interview, only partially on the Bell Curve, ill post a link if i find it).

For full disclosure, Im non-white, living in Canada.

MensaRefugee said...

Dont know if it still works, and you need (bleh) realplayer or Windows Media Player (classic!!)

Rob said...

I posted a few policies that I thought would have the effect of moderating the differential reproductive behavior of populations in the US at isteve. I really don't like the comments section there now that it's moderated. So you guys are more fun.

It seems pretty clear to me that despite Saletan, hbd is not going to be well-accepted any time soon. We need to lobby for eugenic policies under other rationales. Here are a few I could think of for how to encourage whites to have babies without encouraging NAMs.

Child tax deductions-Whites pay higher tax rates, so deductions reduce tax burdens more.

Deductions or credits for private schooling or home schooling- A higher percent of white children are outside public education(I think) If they could keep more of their money, it would marginally encourage people to leave the public schools, and benefit whites. The justifcation could be that they reduce strain on public education.

Reduce the birthrate of the felon class- Disproportionately NAM, and prison is a horrible place to raise babies. It also seems much more ethical to stop wifebeaters and rapists from having children than it is to reduce people's child production just because they are dumb.

Schools-let bright girls graduate faster. The sooner smart girls get out, the more kids they could have. Conversely, keep NAM and dimmer girls in school as long as possible.

Keep the estate and inheritance taxes down. Whites tend to have more assets, and the windfalls from dying boomers will allow them more wealth, which can be turned into brighter babies.

al fin said...

Holland, France, and Belgium are learning the birth rate lesson the hard way. I wish Geert Wilders all the luck in the world.

My allegiance is not to a particular race, but rather to western civilisation and culture. I also like the idea of a future that is more technologically developed, in a rational way. That will require a population with a reasonably high mean IQ.

I have observed the problem that mensarefugee refers to--and I have a term for it that applies to both males and females: "psychologically neotenous incompetence." It means that modern child-raising and educational methods have created a large population of lifelong superficial incompetents that are not only worthless for propagating a civilisation, they are worthless for almost anything.

Even born with high-IQs, these psychological neotenates are programmed for incompetent obsolescence before they even get started.

Audacious Epigone said...

Al Fin,

Right. Eight percent of even little Holland's population still comes to over one million. That can definitely be problematic.

Regarding the birthing game, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, it was one of the driving forces behind starting the blog up in the first place.

Al Fin frequently posts on the sorry state of Western childrens' mental development (or lack thereof) from adolescence to adulthood.


I'm not convinced that a) is necessary. In my area of the world, white women are having children at just about replenishment (Kansas TFR is 2.06 for non-Hispanic white women, Nebraska is 2.02, and Oklahoma at 2.01). With infant mortality so low among whites, and both sexes living longer, the 2.1 threshold seems to me as though it is becoming outdated (if memory serves, TFR stats are only computed for women who make it beyond the age of ~20, which is why they have to have more than exactly 2 children to keep the population afloat).

I enjoyed the Devlin article (you referred me to it in a previous post) and do generally agree with him.

Randall Parker argues that the inclination to have children is being selected for, and that it will eventually push the white TFR up. It seems plausible enough (see the woman who had her tubes tied for the sake of Captain Planet), but even if so, it becomes a question of whether or not it is too little, too late.


I agree. Making the child tax credit progressive (in the sense that it grows as income grows) instead of regressive, as it currently stands, would be helpful. Further, it can be rationalized as reducing the wealth gap, by spreading more of the fat cats' affluence across multiple children, thereby reducing its concentration.

No more conjugal visits for criminals. Say we're doing it for the sake of the woman, who is risking future domestic abuse by staying tied to a thug who obviously does not care about her (else he'd be clean, free, and providing for her).

Accelerated educational tracks would be beneficial beyond procreative effects. People in abstract fields tend to peak in their early twenties--why not do everything we can to ensure they're in the workforce or running their own businesses by then?

Mensarefugee said...

The problem with the POV that women who have many children are being selected for is the same that makes me bridle with anger when some people say something along the lines of "the liberals are not having babies" so conservatives will start winning in the future.

Nothing wrong with it intellectually. But what a moral catastrophe that these friggin insects are only overcome when they kill themselves off.

And that does tie in somewhat with my previous point a). Every system, even a rational one that leads to unprecedented quality of life etc, like modern thought and rationality has benefits *and* drawbacks. Perhaps a healthy dose of chauvanism/suppression etc epitomized by point a) has good benefits that have been overlooked for too long, while we have, partially due to rationality, partially due to PeeCee, concentrated on the drawbacks of its absence.

mensarefugee said...

typo, benefits of its absence.

Audacious Epigone said...


Even less 'controversially', how about a focus on the drawbacks of the feminist movement. Not so much that chauvinism as an ideal, but chivalry, informed by the biology of human evolution, as the ideal instead?

MensaRefugee said...

Maybe...maybe :)

I dont ask for point a)...just that it not be thrown out as obviously flawed. Chivalry informed by biology works...but I wonder if its like Sisyphus getting to the top of the mountain. AKA an impossibly difficult position to maintain over a long period of time.


:Drinks a beer:

al fin said...

The economic backwardness of most Islamic countries (Malaysia, Indonesia do not count because of Chinese market dominant minority) suggests that shackling women into subservient roles may not be good for a country's economic health.

You can't find the best social forms and customs from history, because we are not living in historical times. We are living in unprecedented times that are soon to become really scary!

Rob said...

My computer doesn't have speakers, so I can't listen to that video. How much "psychological neotony"/prolonged adolescence is choice vs. the fact that getting a reasonably middle-class job and house in a "good" school district can take until one is thirty? I think Sailer brought up that most jobs don't actually require endless education.

Audacious Epigone said...

Al Fin,

Good point. It takes a great deal of proper extrication to figure out the underlying causalities (are Ismlamic societies economically/technologically regressive because of the cultural hostility to naturalistic, not to mention biological, scientific methods, or do both of these stem from something else, like average IQ in the eighties, the natural resources 'curse', etc?

Of course, Mensa's response might be that occupied four-car garages don't mean much in the Darwinian struggle, in which his a) societies definitely have the upperhand.


If it's not a professional field requiring technical expertise, I fail to see the benefit of extended schooling, especially pre-Masters (doctoral students do serve several useful functions). Journalism, Sociology, Education, Philosophy, anything ending in -Studies, and parts of Business (accounting, finance, and marketing probably excepted)--all seem expendable to me, or at least reducable to associate-level two year programs.

Rob said...

There is no natural resource curse on income. Countries with more higher per capita natural resource wealth have higher per capita incomes. There may be a natural resource curse on politics, or culture.

Mensa, differential reproduction only matters when the populations are together. If other cultures were left to their own countries, and left westerners to ours, it wouldn't matter a bit how many babies they had. But given the choice between keeping western civilization, and keeping democracy, I'd throw away democracy. I would much prefer keeping unassimalibles out in the first place.

I wonder sometimes if the middle-east has such low IQ for what has historically been a civilized region because some feature has led to idiocracy. Maybe cities and towns were population sinks and pulled off the brightest rural people. Or maybe it is some feature of Islam that lead to the dumb outbreeding the smart.

I sometimes wonder what the eugenic effect of commercials showing how much more fun it is to be unencumbered with children and with an unruined figure would have on lower IQ girls, and if we could avoid brighter girls getting the message too. This is also where Murray's The Plan would help. No welfare payments for having children. We would do way better for nonfunctional Americans to be able to get welfare without having kids.

Mensarefugee said...

Mensa, differential reproduction only matters when the populations are together.

Only true if populations are above replacement level. Not the case with Western populations for at least 50 years now...

Just because it is impossible to outbreed indolent africans, does not mean europeans are without blame - they are below 2.1 per woman.

Audacious Epigone said...


The natural resource 'curse' refers to a relative lack of focus on other methods of wealth creation due to how lucrative the development of those resource fields is. But excess revenues are obviously not fully plunged back into the extraction business, especially with oil prices at $90+ barrel, so I'm not sure how much of true explanation that really offers.

Rob said...

AP, I can buy that, at least to an extent. But if the natural resource curse were true, Chad would have a higher per capita income than Kuwait. It does not. Perhaps there is a natural resource curse when controlling for IQ. How do I do that in Excel? I have IQ&tWN and per capita wealth for most of the countries on the list from the world bank.

But excess revenues are obviously not fully plunged back into the extraction business There was an article in the NYT a couple weeks back about how extraction is falling in Venezuela because they don't re-invest enough of the income in extraction. I was sure I'd see posts around the blogosphere about how their high time values were keeping them poor.

Mensarefugee, I guess I still don't get it. If there were no Africans in Europe, what would it matter if Europe's population dropped 15%? Unless you think that the trends would continue until Europe was empty. I'm pretty sure that eventually women who liked having babies would be an increasing fraction of the population.

mensarefugee said...

Yes you have a point. A dropping population is NOT a big problem. But you have to look at it from a cultural perspective. This isnt all going on in the mind of one person who will one day decide...
"oh lookie not enough babies....lets change that".

It signifies a massive change in womens thinking...and a massive change will be needed again to change it back. Women arent going to magically start wanting 2 kids once the population drops 15, or even 50%. The change will probably be as jarring as whatever will happen in China in the next few decades with 10s of millions of bachelors.

Imagine you were talking and thinking about another population or race, and tell me honestly its not troubling. Perhaps I have a different view as im not white.

Audacious Epigone said...


Run a regression using two+ independent variables (X range, they have to be next to one another for it to work in Excel, and you won't get individual correlations, just p-values that give you an idea of which variable is 'explanatory', but not really the magnitude, I think).

SPSS is much better for getting more out of multivariate regressions.


Right. The relative shrinking of people of European descent on a global scale would draw international alarm were it any other broad racial/ethnic group. Instead, it is indirectly celebrated (good for the planet, etc).

Rob said...


I'd be stoked if Africa's population declined 15% over a few decades if it were not from excess deaths, as they are beyond the carrying capacity that they can create.

I agree that in the real world, Europe's declining white population will be a huge problem, both for the whites and the minorities that live in and off their system.

I don't know what the heritability of family size in any particular environment is, but I would think it is higher than zero. We might see dysgenic reproduction among whites in Europe, and that would be far worse.

Audacious Epigone said...


This excerpt from a 2000 NG feature article on Libya demonstrates what I'm trying to get at with the "resource curse":

In the palmy days of the 70s and 80s almost the entire working population in Libya was on the government payroll. The flow of oil revenues had ensured that the vast bulk of the population lived comfortably, even if no one put in much effort at their nine-to-two jobs before going home to sleep. Housing was practically free, and the government threw up endless apartment blocks and modern houses for all who needed them. Water and electricity came without charge. This unbounded largesse was already being trimmed back in the late 80s, but the santions, while not savage enough to cause misery on the scale of conditions in Iraq, brought harder times. Soon there was a black market for the price for the Libyan dinar, which had long enjoyed rock-solid stability, and it started to slide.

Rob said...

AP, that might be a natural resource/welfare curse on both genes and culture. A generation or two of people who are good at gaming the system, either by violence or corruption, and people who are good at having kids have lots of children. It does seem that it would lead to selection for sloth and gluttony.