I am a big fan of genetically modified foods and I think this is just another perfect example of what is one of the greatest things that science has ever done, yet it is completely demonized as an evil by other groups. Genetically modified foods are foods that have their DNA changed to help them thrive better in harsher conditions. With this type of technology we can produce more food per acre of land and have crops that are resistant to things like drought, disease and insects.

I know the idea of playing with the DNA seems scary, but it really isn't that revolutionary of a concept. Selective breading has been a process that has been going on for a long time. Selective breeding is probably happening in your life now by the mate you choose the offspring you have. The DNA changes every generation and there is nothing wrong with that.

The real issue I have is with people waging a propaganda war spreading lies and slanders against genetically modified foods. Things about splicing the DNA of rice with the DNA of a fish seem to be common talking points. This sort of thing happens in a laboratory for scientific study only. The food that you get at the store is modified with other plants to make something better. Many of the people against this also have this view that business is malevolent by nature. I can't argue with people that think like that, but for the rest of you I'm going to show you genetically modified foods pros and cons that are real.

PRO: We Can Produce More Food Per Acre

This is the real pro of genetically modified foods. If a farmer simply changes their seeds to a GMO seed they'll produce 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times as much food on the same amount of land. This is huge and a very important thing. I don't know if you've realized, but there are a lot of people on this planet that don't have enough food to eat. We should be working hard to produce genetically modified foods, so we have more food for everyone.

But this is a tough battle to win when environmental groups lobby the governments of poor countries to deny the entry of GMO crops into their country, most of which comes free from the first world. They are able to convince the politicians in these countries that this food causes cancer, death, mutations, etc. All of that is a lie and no science to back it up. Why do they do this? Environmental groups are anti-science by nature because they view every human advance as a deficit to the environment. I have some more genetically modified foods pros and cons for you because this is a very big issue.

PRO: We Can Grow Food In The Harsh Climates

The reason why many people go hungry in Africa is due to the fact that the climate just isn't that great for farming. Not only do they not have the technology to properly produce regular crops, they're faced with the common problem of droughts. With genetically modified seeds they could produce food without all the technology and water they need. They would get much more food. More food means there is more production and that is more overall wealth.

We have seeds today that are so good at growing that if you plant a seed, the plant will actually produce more and more year after year without the farmer doing it. They'll grow another crop and still have the old crop grow. We're talking about powerful stuff here that could help us produce a ton of food. There are many genetically modified foods pros and cons, but you have to see that this is a big benefit and you should want to do this.

PRO: Less Pesticide Use

Pesticides are a very important part of making sure the crops that are planted will actually survive for the harvest. But when you have insects and other parasites in your region you have to use pesticides on specific crops. We all know that pesticides aren't good for people and those of you that live in close proximity to a farm are more likely to end up with cancer at an earlier age. This is something that can be easily solved with genetically modified foods. When you splice the DNA of corn with a plant that can defend itself from a specific parasite, you can plant corn and not have to worry about the parasite.

And the great thing about the modification process is that you can make different kinds of breeds that are designed for different regions and countries. This means that we can develop crops that will work in just about any place in the world and actively fight against specific parasites and disease that crops would normally be destroyed by. It is very important that people understand the genetically modified foods pros and cons because they're important. I never hear environmentalists talking about how we can eliminate the use of pesticides this way.

CON: Environmentalists Will Whine

The only con I could think of when it comes to genetically modified foods is that environmentalists will go nuts and go on propaganda campaigns. I'll have to listen to them blather out their anti-science agenda and over all anti-man agenda. Even though that is a pretty big con for me because it would absolutely drive me crazy, I think I can live with it. I can only hope the media would smarten up and not allow them to bring their propaganda and outright lies on television.

These are some of the genetically modified foods pros and cons, so I hope you're better educated on the subject. I'm going to make a post at a later date with more information on the subject because it is very important. Genetically modified foods are a good thing and we really need to stop the anti-science dogma from getting their way.

If you're someone that is sick of anti-science and other propaganda on issues, you should read my stem cell research pros and cons post. I decided to finally put the anti-science talk to rest. Marijuana legalization pros and cons might not be related to this post, but I know it's a topic that everyone seems to have position for.


Posted by Christopher | 5:07 PM | , , , , , | 13 comments »

There is something that has been really grinding my gears for quite some time. I hate calling this "Climate Change" because it fits into the marketing of something. They called it Global Warming, but they needed something a little more encompassing of every possible scenario that could possibly happen with the climate.

I guess what annoys me is what is promoted as science. We're led to believe there is a consensus on all this, but we're not really seeing the whole picture. Those that are promoting global warming science (climate change science) are well funded, politically motivated and tap into the sentiment that mankind is at its root malevolent to the environment. What we end up with is journalists that are telling us about the solid science. We have musicians and actors telling us about the science.

Climategate opened up to the world some of the internal thinking of the so called "science" that goes on. Science is about free and open debate. It's the ability to express your view, throw ideas around and do the scientific work that needs to be done. There has been bullying and slandering of scientists that disagree. The concept of peer reviewing has been driven to a perverted popularity contest.

I think the most alarming information is the fact that the CRU (Climate Research Unit) will not release the climate data they have. They screen the people who get it. And they're not even responding to Freedom of Information (Act) requests. Is this what we think of when we think of free, open and peer reviewed science?

Professor Phil Jones in the News

I'm sure you've seen this sometime on the weekend. Climate Skeptics (and deniers) are chanting about this and saying that the debate is over. Let me quote what he said exactly:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Basically, he's saying there is no statistical change over the last 15 years or so. He does show a positive trend, but it's not statistically significant. And essentially that means that there is no evidence that this chance is nothing more than chance.

I want to point out that this is what is started to upset me about climate change science. We have Phil Jones talking about a specific time period and skeptics (and deniers) are rebuking him in the same specific time period.

"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." --William W. Watt

I hope that people understand that statistics are really something that can fall easily to manipulation. If you need to see the proof look at Washington think tanks on employment/unemployment. They both get the same data from the government, yet can come up with totally different unemployment rates, trends and employment projections.

The statistics are really only as good as your understanding of the definitions behind them and the assumptions made by the person creating them.

The Hockey Stick Graph

I know that there has already been a controversy with the hockey stick graph. I frankly don't care. It's about the little ice age and some warming period that are missing from the graph. You can read about it here.

Look at the graph very carefully. Read what it says in the box. Read it again. If you're not getting pissed off than you don't understand some basic rules of science. It doesn't matter if the little ice age is listed on it. The fact that I'm not hearing any scientists bring up this one simple point makes me question their integrity. Maybe engineers need to take them over.

There are 5 types of data points on this graph: Thermometers (red), tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records (blue). There are specific ethical things that need to be done when you stick various amounts of data derived from various sources on one graph. The first rule is that you can't look at actual values, just magnitudes. The reason for that is that the data isn't calibrated for each other. There are degrees of errors on data and the way you measure it. The second thing you have to do is measure it over a equal range.

Let's review: tree rings, corals, ice cores historical records will work for the 1000 year timeline on the graph. The thermometers are a relatively new item to the graph. They're more accurate, but you can't throw them on the graph like that. It's not calibrated for the data, which makes it a gross manipulation and this shouldn't ever happen in science.

I suspect the person(s) that created this graph already believed in Global Warming and were specifically looking for something to validate the conclusion. Something that definitely falls into the category of "Cargo Cult Science".

I could really go on and on about this graph and the issues that don't seem to be brought up. Things like degrees of error not being on the graph (I assume, since the gray is not labeled). I'm also curious to know how you objectively and scientifically measure the temperature of the Northern hemisphere with thermometers without having an even distribution of thermometers over that massive land (and water). But I thought I could stick with the statistical issues, rather than the science that never gets talked about.

Graph Ranges and Timelines

This is something that also pissed me off and when I see it, I see dishonesty. Let's take a look at the hockey stick graph again.

Let's look at the y-axis (vertical axis). The range is 2.1 degrees. This is completely appropriate if you're looking at this graph as a stand alone piece of data. I hope everyone would recognize that if the range was changed to 5 to 10 degrees the graph would look insignificant.

This really isn't that big of a deal because it's the x-axis (horizontal axis) that is the real issue. The range is 1000 years. Early I mentioned the no significant warming since 1995 (10 years). The issue with ranges is that you have to pick one that is long enough to show the true story. With a small enough range you can show just about anything that you want. The hockey stick graph is completely insignificant when you put it into perspective.

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. I'm not exactly sure when we got an atmosphere though. We also know that the peak of the last ice age was 18,000 years ago. Do I really need to say that a graph with a range of 1000 years or 15 years or 10 years or 5 years is so damn statistically insignificant that is absolutely brain dead to even consider it. The Earth is billions of years old and we're talking about grains of sand. The last ice age happened between 110,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago. That is a long time, which should provide the evidence for needing a longer time range for these graphs.

Let's look at the graph with a timeline 18,000 years.

The data is from the Greenland ice cores, if you're curious. Do you see the hockey stick? It is completely insignificant on a graph that is of a proper range to study variations in the climate over time of a planet that is billions of years old and a climate that changes over periods of 10,000 to a 100,000 years. The only way that you could use a 1000 year range is if you believed in the Bible (like an idiot) and thought the Earth was 6000 years old.

I'd also like to point out that this graph is in Fahrenheit, which would only serve to make the hockey stick stand out more than it would under Celsius.

I'm not denying global warming or climate change, though I'm very skeptical considering the "woo woo" that seems to be passing as science. The stuff I mentioned here isn't about the science or the data, it's about the way it is presented and it's done in unethical and unscientific manner. That's really my point and it's what pisses me off the most.

FYI: Not spelled checked, so definitely contains grammar and spelling errors. And my letter "R" sometimes sticks on my laptop, so you might find missing "R"s.


Posted by Christopher | 7:40 AM | , , , , | 0 comments »

Capitalism is by far the best economic system that we've come up with. And I like to hear quotes from people talking about it or glorifying it. You don't exactly hear the glorification that often today on television or even in conversations with people. Typically the usual whining about it. So I hope you enjoy them.

"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out."
-- Ludwig von Mises

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom."
-- Milton Friedman

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."
-- Ayn Rand

"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
-- Winston Churchill

"Capitalism is our only moral system. All other systems take advantage of man's rights and liberties."
-- Ayn Rand

"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."
-- Frederic Bastiat

There are plenty of more capitalism quotes that I like, but I only have so much room and so much time to present them to you. I thought I'd leave you with an interesting video. Keynes and Hayek rap about economics.


Posted by Christopher | 5:48 PM | , | 1 comments »

I thought it was important for me to discuss the globalization pros and cons with you because there is so much propaganda working against it. I often hear hyperbolic words to describe it like "exploitation" and rich countries using poor countries, but that's not really what it means. Globalization is the concept of opening up the markets of countries and allowing the world to participate. There are even people that think this is how a country loses wealth because it leaves the country.

I hope that anyone with a brain recognizes that in a market, you don't have the wealth of a nation looted by merely opening up the borders. There isn't a person on this planet that takes their hard earned money and allows someone else to take it. That's not how the market works. Everything is a mutual exchange of goods and services. If you buy a television, from an American retailer that had a Chinese person make, isn't a loss for society or for you. Though some would tell you that an American worker should have made the television.

I hope when I present the globalization pros and cons, you'll at least look at things from an objective point of view, instead of looking at things as exploitation or things of that nature.

PRO: Increased Competition

One of the biggest complaints that I hear about capitalism is the fact that big evil monopolies immerge. I've never seen any big evil monopolies that have occurred in a true free market economy, nor if there was one, why it is a bad thing. But I think everyone appreciates increased competition because it means more innovation and cheaper prices in the market place. With a nice open world market, which you get with globalization, there is no way that you can run into monopolies and things of similar nature.

Something I feel is far more important is that competition leads to the restructuring of a labor force. This is where you happen to find the most resistance to globalization because people fear change. If it is cheaper and better to manufacture in China then Americans will experience losses in manufacturing jobs. This has been happening for some time and we'll continue to see it in the future.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, but I know many people that hold these jobs will tell you. But think about this. Agriculture used to be the big labor market in the past. Most people worked in the fields doing horrible work, just to produce enough food for us to all eat. Someone invented the tractor and put a lot of people out of work. Could you imagine how the world would look today if the government forced the ban of the tractor to save jobs? We'd probably still be working on farms.

But instead, these people left their jobs and moved to the cities. The labor force adapted and moved into more manufacturing like markets. Today, we're facing the same type of change. The labor force is moving into the information market and some are calling this the next market revolution. There is no doubt that the Western world is producing the most brilliant minds on the planet. It's a waste of labor to have people here working on a manufacturing line when they could do something a hell of a lot better. This is one of the big globalization pros.

PRO: Everyone Gets Richer

The problem with the anti-Globalization movement is that they assume everything is zero-sum. If I go and buy groceries, I'm somehow poorer. That is not how it works. If I'm willing to pay $500 for a television, I'm not poorer. The business selling the television isn't poorer either. I'm more than willing to give up $500 for a television and the business is more than willing to give up a television for $500. I get something that provides the entertainment I want and the business turns a profit. We're both richer for the transaction.

When I can go into the market in Cambodia and do more profitable business then I'm better off to do that. A farmer in Cambodia can sell food to me and it's not exploitation even if I pay a cheap price. If they normally sold things for a $1/pound, there's no way that I can buy from him at $0.25/pound. If I'm picking up a huge volume, he would go out to get more land and a modern tractor. This helps this farmer produce more food and less cost, which increases their profit margins.

We're all richer when we are able to freely trade in all markets around the world. Globalization pros and cons are usually derived from this particular fact, but if you can get past the hyperbolic terms like exploited you should see we have people that want to do business.

A little evidence to prove my point… Asian countries have been the most open countries to globalization. The continent of Africa is the least open to globalization on the planet (aside from South Africa). If you go back half a century you'd know that Africa was actually a better place to live when compared to Asian countries. But with globalization Asian countries are pushing into the first world. China and South Korea are practically first world countries now. We have Malaysia, which is modern and also Singapore. Countries like Vietnam and Thailand are on their way to being first world too.

Africa has been stuck in a rut. Corrupt politicians that are more interested in tribal living and anti-West dogma. Their markets are closed for business and that is why the people in those countries have the lowest standards of living on the planet. And just consider the fact that Africa is the most resource rich continent on the planet and it's also dirt poor.

There are many more globalization pros and cons. This particular post has got a little too long right now, so I'm going to continue it in the future with more information for you to digest and put into your system.

Another subject that could have a big impact on medicine in the Twenty First century is discussed in my post on stem cell research pros and cons. If you want to know more about personal freedom and related topics you should read my marijuana legalization pros and cons post.


Posted by Christopher | 8:09 AM | , | 6 comments »

I wasn't expecting to post so soon, but some journalistic crap fell into my lap and it just proved my point. This is something related to my previous post on Islam and Cultural Relativism. You will need to read that post first before you'll ever understand what I'm talking about in this post.

I made the point in the last post of saying that these people will often excuse bad cultures and even elevate the bad (and put down the good) as a means of balancing out cultures. I just happened to read an article that made me sick. It's disgusting how something like this could ever be published. The fact that no one has fired this person for the article just makes you think.

I want you to take the time to read that article. The most alarming part that stands out is the following statement.
But can we in the West really claim the moral high ground when it comes to condemning these ‘honour’ killings’?
This is the beginning of the evasion of reality. For some reason it is this position that you have no right to criticize. You'll see the same reasoning of people that think Iran have the right to nuclear weapons. I'm going to break down that entire article for you, just in case you're too lazy to read it.

Basically, Liz Jones is looking at Emma Watson and Medine Memi. Emma Watson was in the Harry Potter movies and Medine Memi was 16 year old girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys on the telephone (honor killing).

The reason that Emma Watson was in this article is that she made a lot of money. She's in the top 20 of Hollywood earners this year. And Liz, the cultural relativist, decided to use her to put down a culture and also elevate one.

Her reasoning is that we're evil and bad because we like to see young girls. I'm not sure exactly what she's suggesting. If it is something perverted or something about child labor related stuff. I don't know. But the fact that she views a successful actress making money as something just as bad (or more so) as burying someone alive, paints the picture I was trying to illustrate in a previous post.

So What Did She Do?

Essentially what happened here is that Western culture was put down because a 19 year old girl earned a lot of money. A barbaric culture was elevated (by trivializing it) and disgustingly evading what was done.

There is more to this. What you'll learn about cultural relativists are that facts don't matter to them. Emma Watson made a lot of cash for a number reasons. The most obvious one is that she was part of one of the most successful movie series ever. She wasn't an exploited young girl or some perverted cultural thing, she was playing a character from a book. A 40 year old woman can't play Hermione Granger.

The bigger fact missed here is the list of top earners. Of the top 20 earners in Hollywood, someone else important on the list was there. Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter, was on the same list and made more money than Emma. It just proves that facts were purposely left out and I doubt Liz Jones even cares.

But that's the thing...
  • Western Culture is put down
  • Bad culture is elevated
  • And facts are irrelevant and ignored
I know that this example was rather extreme. I'm still surprised that someone actually wrote an article like this. Most of the comments on the website are people saying how horrible it is and how comparing Emma Watson to an honor killing is wrong and evil.

The Cultural Relativist and Anti-Americanism

This is something that is a little more common and you're going to see this much more. You'll see this just about everywhere outside of the United States. You'll even see it by Democrats and related cultural relativists in the United States. They have this default view that the US is sinister by nature and I hope you're starting to understand why they believe that. But here is a video you need to see from Canada with an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Just watch the way the journalist works. He's trying hard to balance cultures. He's doing it as best as he can and obviously he does it by putting down a free society. I don't know if I can continue to explain the same thing, but you can tell that the host of the show has the pissed off arrogant view of the United States. He's using hyperboles and things like that to describe things.

That video pisses me off, but that is what you're going to see from the average cultural relativist. Facts are evaded. Well facts aren't evaded. Reality is evaded and facts are ignored. Hyperboles are used and it literally destroys definitions of words. When you call Bush a "dictator", you're really destroying the word.

See how he says "stolen" elections when she brings democracy. We all know this guy doesn't think Obama stole the election and thinks Bush did. Reality and facts tell us that neither of them stole anything and the elections were fair, but not to the cultural relativist.

I don't think I can talk much more on this topic because it upsets me. It makes me mad. And I have trouble with people that try to evade reality. You guys can read through this post and get a better idea of how this is being done.


Posted by Christopher | 3:57 PM | , , , | 1 comments »

I've noticed over the years that my ideology on life has evolved and grown. For the longest time it was my political ideology that has evolved, but I've found it is my over all ideology, including politics, that has really grown. I try to live my life by reality and objective facts. I want my life to be as a scientist, not as a person that tries to evade reality (ie: religious people, dogmatic people, and even political ideology).

I had to challenge some of my beliefs with regards to multiculturalism and things of that nature. Cultural Relativism is something that his buried deep inside multiculturalism. You find it in left wing people. And you see it less likely in right wing. Yet, I've rarely ever heard a conservative talk about these things and hence why it took so long for me to even challenge myself. And someone that is also a cultural relativist is someone that is also a moral relativist.

Those of you that read this post who are cultural relativists (multiculturalists) will have one word pop into your head: "racist". I'll get into why people feel that way later in this post. I'm not racist. I'm talking about culture, values, ethics and the way people choose to live their life. Something as trivial as your skin pigmentation doesn't determine your culture and if you think it does then you're the racist.

All Cultures/Ideologies/Values Are Equal

This is the axiom hidden deep inside multiculturalism and it's something most people don't see. I never recognized what I was doing for most of my life with this. Are all cultures equal? The objective answer is no. The answer from reality is no. I used to think, who's to say that Western culture is any better than the culture of a tribe in New Guinea.

But is Western culture better than a culture that still sacrifices virgins to their God(s)? Yes. Hell Yes. A culture that sacrifices virgins is primitive, savage, sick, old fashion, stupid, retarded, etc. Is treating women as equals better than the Islamic ideology of treating women as nothing more than property? YES! Women are not property of men and that is the RIGHT ideology.

Are female genital mutilations right or wrong? (A question on moral relativism)

You see where I'm going with all these points. The reality is that there are BETTER ways to live your life. There are BETTER ideologies to follow. And the question really comes down to how much we tolerate variations of this.


I know some of you are thinking so what? What's the big deal if a person thinks all cultures are equal? The real issue is how people align themselves inevitably from their cultural relativism. Evan Sayet used the term "indiscriminant" to describe this concept. He's done a few speeches at the Heritage Foundation and I thought the second speech was the best, so here's a link. The video is an hour long, so I'll reiterate the points here that I took away from it.

The cultural relativist tries to evade reality, but it's hard to do. You can't evade the fact that the standard of living in the United States and Israel is far better than the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Being indiscriminant means that you morally think the act of discrimination based on culture and ideology is wrong (and racist). And that is the main reason why some people will find this post "racist".

This is where the twisted reasoning comes into play. Since the cultural relativist thinks all cultures are equal it must mean that there is some sort of injustice to explain why the United States and Israel are better than these other countries. How else could you explain it if their cultures are equal?

The danger of this way of thinking is that reality has to be explained. And inevitably it involves an act of balancing out the countries. It's the United States and Israel's fault that the Middle East is poor. It's their fault because they stole their oil and land. It's their fault for having bases on Muslim land. Just recently I read a news article that concluded suicide bombings in the Gaza strip were Israel's fault.

What generally happens is that the good or better is put down (slandered) and the bad or evil is elevated. And that's my real issue here.

If you go to vastly multicultural counties (most of Europe), you'll find a disdain hatred of the United States. Why? Because it has to be put down. It's why Bush was called Hitler. American soldiers called Nazis. Guantanamo Bay a death camp. This happens not because American soldiers are Nazis, but because they're fighting people that are actually quite close to being Nazis.

Ron Paul, who I don't think is a multiculturalist but definitely a cultural relativist, thinks that 9/11 was America's fault. He doesn't believe these people were motivated by religious hatred for infidels and thinks America just pushed them too hard. IE: America's fault.

The Promotion of Evil

It isn't enough to put down America. You have to build up the other side. And this is where the whole problem lies. There are very bad cultures moving into our societies and they're spreading. Something that has upset me lately is the Burka and airport security. We live in a country that allows people the right to worship freely, but that doesn't extend anywhere into the lives of others. We have people that think their religious freedom means that they don't have to take off their Burka for airport screening. I'm sorry. You have the right to believe in what you want, but you don't have the right to make us change our screening process because you want to be an oppressed Islamic woman.

But this is what happens. People are fighting for the rights of this "religious minority" and want to help them get the "rights" they deserve.

When the Danish cartoons were published there were riots just about everywhere. It's very easy to see where the cultural relativist would stand on this. They would blame the newspapers for publishing it. They'd blame them for stirring things up or being "racist". They'd blame the government for not helping out this religious minority.

The objective reality of the situation is that free speech was used and they rioted because they didn't like it.

I think the Canadian Human Rights Commissions explain exactly what I'm trying to illustrate with the balancing out of sides. A magazine in Canada published the Danish cartoons and was sued by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It was Ezra Levant with the Western Standard magazine. He has a great blog, so make sure you check it out. He fought for his right to free speech and eventually won after 3 years (and $100,000 in legal fees).

A Muslim man in Quebec wrote a book that stated that homosexuals should be beheaded. Complaints were made and the Human Rights Commission determined there was nothing wrong with it. Why? Because he was of a backward minority and he needed to be helped out. If you're white though, watch out.

Islamism and Western Culture

The thing that makes Western culture different from that of the rest of the world is freedom, democracy and respect. Muslims are immigrating into the Western world because we are prosperous and that leads to a better life. Most people that come here adapt to our culture. It's not a full adaption, but they adapt the idea of free speech, press, democracy, respect, peace, equality between sexes, religious freedom, etc. Most Muslims that immigrate will assimilate to these very important values. That doesn't mean they can't go eat at a Pakistani restaurant or cheer for their home country at the Olympics.

The key here is that you should pick up the important values that make your new country great and for the very reason that you choose to go there. Tolerance of new people is important too. I'm not advocating intolerance for perfectly rational immigrants.

But what many people don't realize is that people are immigrating to the Western world, not because they want to be Americans or Canadian, but because they want to change the culture of the country. The multiculturalist and the cultural relativist is completely blind to the concept of a cultural minority trying to assimilate the majority.

How do you deal with an influx of immigrants that want to change your country? And not change it to make it better, but to change it to something far more primitive?

That is what we're seeing today, especially with Islam. Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, almost introduced sharia law in the province. He almost did it until someone told him to wake up. Literally court rooms that are governed, not by Canadian laws, but by Sharia law.

If you're unfamiliar with Sharia law than you should really read up on it. It's completely incompatible with Western countries. The concept of individual rights, free speech, equality between sexes, privacy, etc don't work under this type of law. And when I say incompatible, I mean if you're gay you will be hanged in the streets. If you're a female that just happens to show your face or body, you're just asking to be raped. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of a country where Sharia law is in place. When a woman is raped, it's her fault. She gets lashed and goes to jail. Old men are marrying 8 year olds.

How tolerant can we be to these ideals? It's not racist or bigoted to oppose this.

Islam is a Totalitarian Ideology

Islam is an ideology and I'm sick of people using the word religion because that usually puts this ideology into an area where you can't criticize or say things that might offend. How come it is perfectly acceptable (and actually expected) to be intolerant of Nazism, yet being intolerant of Islamism and Sharia Law makes you some sort of racist bigot?

If you go deep into the religious books of any religion, you're going to find things that you find sick. The question comes down to the ideology and how it has evolved. Christianity today isn't quite as hard line as it used to be. Sure, they have extreme believers, but for the average person they don't even care that much. They're just trying to live their life as best as they can. And this is true for just about all religions today.

Islam at its root core is a totalitarian ideology, which makes it much different than other religions today. It has a goal to spread over the entire planet. But the other aspect is that Islam and politics are one. Or that is at least their goal.

I try to break up Islam into 4 groups of people.

  • The Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels and is willing to be a religious martyr)
  • The Passive-Aggressive Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels, but isn't going to blow themselves up or be violent. They will use democratic and completely legal means to achieve their objective and be the biggest spreaders of propaganda)
  • The Moderate (Believes in the mystic aspects of Islam. They're not in any Jihad or anything like that. They want to rebrand and change Islam to something that is more compatible with Western culture)
  • The Average Dude (This is just a person that is Muslim by label. They're not wrapped up in the religion. They probably don't even pray. They're more concerned about living their life)
All of these positions could be applied to just about every religion. And I put them in order of danger. Obviously, I'd like to see all people of any religion fall into the "Average Dude" category. They're the ones that live in reality. I consider most Christians in the United States to fall into the Average Dude category.

The fundamentalist is the extremist. They're the ones that fly planes into buildings and they're the ones that have suicide bombers. They believe in their book so much that they're willing to die for it. The scariest thing about Islam for me is the following statement made by a terrorist:

"We love death more than the infidels love life."

I think most people really have to let that quote marinate into your mind for a few minutes. That is the most dangerous type of ideology. How do you reason with people that love death more than you love life? You can't. And we're seeing this appeasement to terrorists. We're reaching out to them trying to reason with them. The Taliban is currently being negotiated with. Could you imagine how bad the Nazis would of been if they believed in the quote above?

The passive aggressive fundamentalist is the non-violent jihadist. They agree with the goals of the extremists (ie: Islamic totalitarianism and Sharia Law), but they're going to work in a non-violent way to achieve it. I personally think it is this type of group that happens to be much more dangerous than the extremists because they work so well together. I think the best way I've heard this described is that in a game of good cop bad cop, they're the good cops. The extremists are the bad cops. But they're working together for the same goal. You'll find that this group is much more politically active and they play the victim card all the time. Plus they spread most of the propaganda.

The moderate is the person that takes away the mystic side of the religion. Allah gives them meaning, so they're Muslims. They don't believe in all the details, just the "spiritual" side of the religion. I find this to be quite an annoying place for religion. The big issue is that the fundamentalist, passive aggressive fundamentalist and the moderate are all Muslims. And it's one word to describe three different types of people with three different types of goals. And it is the real reason why it is taboo to criticize Islam. These people are obviously better to have in society, but they're almost like a shield for the bad part of Islam.

Moderates are like the people that are trying to make Islam "cool and hip" in modern society. The problem with that is that they're not Muslims and they're not teaching Islam. They're just as big of infidels as I am. The reality is that you can't read the Qur'an and become a moderate. You can only become a fundamentalist (or passive aggressive fundamentalist).

How Many Fundamental (and Passive-Aggressive) Muslims?

The real question people have is how many people fit into the "bad" category for Islam. No one really has a straight answer for this because there is really no poll to take. And if there was a poll, why would anyone answer correctly? The number of violent fundamentalists is a small percentage. But that works out to 12-15 million people at 1%. The real question is how many passive aggressive fundamentalists are there? This number is much larger and scarier.

We have access to election polls in Islamic countries and we can look at how many votes terrorist groups have got.
  • Hamas: 42.9% (2006)
  • Hezbollah: 10.9% (2005 Nationally), 21% (2004 Municipal Governments)
  • Muslim Brotherhood: 20% of Seats ( 2005) *they ran as independents because their party is illegal.
The lowest percentage here is 10.9%. That could mean 120-150 million people. That's a lot. But there are some other polls on specific issues that might actually scare you. A poll done in Palestine found that 55% supported suicide bombings against Israel as a legitimate way to achieve political goals.

I think I'm going to have to do a second part to this post because it is getting way to long. This topic is quite complex and books could be written on it. It's hard to compress this all into a blog post. Make sure you check back for a second part on this.


Posted by Christopher | 12:40 PM | , , , , | 2 comments »