Comments (25)

George Chell wrote on December 20, 2006 8:00 PM:

As Mr. Goode himself would say, if you commit crime you need to do the time and if you commit murder you deserve the death penalty. Like the criminal on death row who is afraid of his imminent death, Mr. Goode and perhaps his constituents are afraid of the consequences of his actions..voting for intervention in Iraq and the resulting civil war might destabilize the region leading to increasing number of moslem refugees into America. I would too if I were him!!

Adam Ricketson wrote on December 20, 2006 8:21 PM:

Mr. Goode's comments are thuroughly un-American. In America, we do not conflate religion and nationality. There are a number of countries that do consider religion to be part of nationality-- collectively, they care called "the old world"--look to Europe and the Middle East for examples.

Our ancestors came to America to create a new world. If Mr. Goode doesn't like it, and wants to live in a "Christian" nation, he can leave.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 20, 2006 9:58 PM:

"In America, we do not conflate religion and nationality."

Islam does conflate religion with politics.

"Mr. Goode's comments are thuroughly un-American."

Therefore, for you, Islam is un-American.

" There are a number of countries that do consider religion to be part of nationality-- collectively, they care called "the old world"--look to Europe and the Middle East for examples."

There is a poll from Jordan University that most Muslims in each Middle East country want Sharia as the sole or a source of law.

So you should object to immigration from them.

Robert Spencer wants a survey as part of immigration. You should support that.

"Our ancestors came to America to create a new world. If Mr. Goode doesn't like it, and wants to live in a "Christian" nation, he can leave."

Given your statements, and the above facts, that shows that for you, Muslims should leave. Thus your conclusion is not only that Muslims should not immigrate, but that they should leave.

Goode does not in fact advocate conflating religion and state, but Islam does. Read Jihadwatch.org.

George Chell wrote on December 20, 2006 10:53 PM:

If Mr. Goode is a true Christian he should be welcoming immigrants from Christian nations such as Mexico. He would call for unity of Christians in fighting the Islamic fundamentalist threat. Instead what does he do? He joins with Tancredo in demonizing illegal Mexicans who happen to be Christian just like him. Mr. Virgil is no Christian. He hides behind it. In fact he and many of his constituents belonging to the white evangelical community emphasize white skin over sin..they are white skin worshipping pagans. If they are truly interested in dealing with sin we would not be having 95% of Americans having pre-marital sex.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 20, 2006 11:17 PM:

Immigration causes genetic survival ratios to asymptote to zero. Search on "Unpleasant Immigration Arithemetic". It is irrational to support sustained immigration because it causes the genetic extinction not only of those here now, but of each year's cohort of immigrants.

At 300 million steady population, a 75 year lifetime gives 4 million deaths per year. 2 million immigrants then leaves 2 million births in the steady state. 2 million births over 4 million deaths gives a per generation genetic survival ratio of 1/2. Thus in 3 generations one is down to 1/8. If 25 years is the relevant birth to parent time span on average, then one gets extinction in 75 to 100 years. This applies to each annual cohort that comes here. Even if we went to 450 million and had 1 million immigrants per year, similar consequences apply, the deaths per year are 6 million and one gets 5/6 survival ratio per generation. That leads to to about 1/2 in 3 generations or 75 years. So in 150 years one is down to 1/4.

MarchDancer wrote on December 20, 2006 11:36 PM:

I...I...{{shaking my head in confusion and dismay). I have neither seen nor heard such racial rules, divisiness, and not-very-well disguised hatred in a very long time. The "math" of the old-school racists is back as if it made sense before. What is going on here? It's almost as if even the ones who are speaking out are not as outraged as I feel. That's very likely unfair and I admit it, but I never again want to watch children attempt to go to school, or to see two drinking fountains, two's of everything. Yes, I'm outraged! And this is even worse - we're discussing religious practices here tonight. Muslims! One of the largest faiths in our world.

wallis wrote on December 21, 2006 12:38 AM:

i am sick to death of these "christian" bigots (as is the rest of country if 11/7/06 is any indication). all they do is divide people into little categories that they can look down on.

instead of the ten comandments, i suggest that all these "christian" post the beatitudes on their walls and act a little more "christ-like."

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2006 12:41 AM:

"Immigration causes genetic survival ratios to asymptote to zero. Search on "Unpleasant Immigration Arithemetic". It is irrational to support sustained immigration because it causes the genetic extinction not only of those here now, but of each year's cohort of immigrants.

At 300 million steady population, a 75 year lifetime gives 4 million deaths per year. 2 million immigrants then leaves 2 million births in the steady state. 2 million births over 4 million deaths gives a per generation genetic survival ratio of 1/2. Thus in 3 generations one is down to 1/8. If 25 years is the relevant birth to parent time span on average, then one gets extinction in 75 to 100 years. This applies to each annual cohort that comes here. Even if we went to 450 million and had 1 million immigrants per year, similar consequences apply, the deaths per year are 6 million and one gets 5/6 survival ratio per generation. That leads to to about 1/2 in 3 generations or 75 years. So in 150 years one is down to 1/4."

Comment: Pseudo Science! All rubbish garbage!! racist drivel!!

Darren7160 wrote on December 21, 2006 8:07 AM:

Old Atlantic,
"Islam does conflate religion with politics."
Which might be a good argument as to why this misguided attempt to install secular demcracy into Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world is so insane?

"Therefore, for you, Islam is un-American."

No, he said that Mr. Goode's position was un-American

"There is a poll from Jordan University that most Muslims in each Middle East country want Sharia as the sole or a source of law."

And what? By God we will bomb them outta that wish? As long as America holds to its Constitution, no religion will be able to dictate to America... unless we weaken it by blurring the borders with 10 Commandments in courthouses.

"Given your statements, and the above facts, that shows that for you, Muslims should leave. Thus your conclusion is not only that Muslims should not immigrate, but that they should leave."

Your presumption is that all Muslim immigrants are part of that "most" you cited as wanting Sharia? Are they the most likely to be the ones immigrating to America?

"Goode does not in fact advocate conflating religion and state, but Islam does. Read Jihadwatch.org."

I looked at your site. I can understand where you are coming from because I was stationed in Greece, married a Greek woman and was also stationed in Turkey. Oh, and my roommate in Turkey was of Armenian descent.

Regardless of Tueky's past and whether or not they admit to it... Turkey is a secular democratic Muslim country that has looked towards Europe and found that Western Europe will never accept them until they "Become Western". This is a country that has fought with us in Korea, been a member of NATO for 50 years and helped us in the first Gulf war.

warren bacon wrote on December 21, 2006 8:20 AM:

reading the comments section concerning mr goode's remarks about islam i was surpried to see how many traitors reside in this country. personally i think anyone who supports the muslim living in america should take his sorry butt to an islamic country to live for a year then come back and see if he can still support such asinine conclusion. the level of outright stupidity in this country is scary. with no knowledge whatsoever of the true nature of islam, which is by the way to spread and conquer from within, these parrots have nothing better to do than squak out that they were taught in college and the liberal media. the day is coming when men like myself will have to deal with this situation by force. my advice to all you libs out there is to stay out of the way if you know what is good for you.

JS wrote on December 21, 2006 8:20 AM:

FYI: Story hits WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001318.html

Ed Callahan wrote on December 21, 2006 8:39 AM:

Um, anyone else bothered that Warren Bacon is posting physical threats on this forum? I realize people (myself included) like to hyperventilate on these threads. His comments, though, strike me as actionable. Hmm, actually this sounds like one of those situations covered by good ol' Bush's doctrine of prevention.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 21, 2006 9:03 AM:

Darren7160,

Thank you for parsing my argument. My reply is as follows.

"No, he said that Mr. Goode's position was un-American"

Adam Ricketson used an argument to reach the conclusion. He attributed to Goode the idea that religion and state should be conflated, and based on that Ricketson concluded that Goode was un-American. I then held Ricketson to his claim that conflating religion and state is un-American. Since that is done in Islam, Ricketson is bound by Ricketson's argument to conclude that Islam, for Ricketson, is un-American.

"Your presumption is that all Muslim immigrants are part of that "most" you cited as wanting Sharia? Are they the most likely to be the ones immigrating to America?"

The 19 on 9-11 clearly did. If we can't tell, they can't come. That is in our interest. They don't have a right to come here.

"And what? By God we will bomb them outta that wish?"

If they can't come here, they can't come here and kill us, as they did between WTC 93 and WTC and Pentagon 2001. All the 19 immigrants came in after the WTC 93 attack. Republicans were attacked as bigots for wanting to stop immigration then. Peter Jennings and the MSM realized that on 9-11, realized his guilt, and then pre-emptively attacked restrictionists as bigots to cover up his own guilt. Norman Mineta did the same the next day on profiling. We now know he had warnings before 9-11 that were specific. His reason not to put in profiling on 9-12 was part of the coverup of those warnings. See Complete 9-11 Timeline, which is trying to raise money for a matching grant.

" As long as America holds to its Constitution, no religion will be able to dictate to America..."

The question at issue is how to keep Islam in particular from so dictating. Goode proposes stopping Muslim immigration, which is a sufficient condition, assuming low conversion rates.

"unless we weaken it by blurring the borders with 10 Commandments in courthouses." The problem is blurring our physical borders by immigration.

I appreciate your personal history in Turkey and taking time to look at my site.

"Turkey is a secular democratic Muslim country that has looked towards Europe and found that Western Europe will never accept them until they "Become Western"."

They killed a priest after the Pope's remarks. They have restrictions on Churches. There is still violence against Christians.

"helped us in the first Gulf war." But not the second.

Also it was the secular Young Turks in control in 1914 who killed over 1 million Christians. That was the secular government. At the same time they helped us in Korea, they also had more violence and discrimination against Christians.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments,

Old Atlantic

Nelson T. wrote on December 21, 2006 9:06 AM:

Virgil Goode has expressed what the majority of Americans are thinking. We will not be bullied by the liberal fascist 'you will think like us or apologize or leave or be destroyed' fools. As Islam invades the country right before your eyes, you'll see no integration nor adoption of traditional American values, but a slow movement toward Islamic law. The melting pot sounds appealing to emotionalists but the time for naive openness is over - today we must first do whatever it takes to protect our family - the family of immigrants who have settled in America and adopted the borders, language, and cultural values of a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals - and only then, provided we are secure, can we permit immigrants, and only those who will also adopt our culture. This is not salad bowl of cultures here - that's a formular for our self destruction. If the deprived individuals on this board can't see this, I have no further obligation to explain it to them. I fully expect a large segment of American people to violently disagree, having been brainwashed since the sixties, and instead of truthfully examining our predicament, to disparage me and others who herald it, under the guise of moral superiority. Their time has passed. America now awakes from its decades of slumber to find the need critical, and even weathering attacks from the guilt-ridden within, its citizens will rise to protect even you from the eminent danger threatening our very survival. And when the dirty job is finished, the foolish guilt-ridden and brainwashed may resume debating amongst themselves over how evil our nation has been, how equal every person and culture is on earth, and the morally relative degree to which our society may embraces every deprived behavior.

rmrd0000 wrote on December 21, 2006 9:17 AM:

The newly elected Representative from MN, Ken Ellison, who is a Muslim, appears to be the genesis of Congressman Goode's tirade. The fact that Ellison is originally from Detroit does not factor in to whom Rep Goode considers an immmigrant.
The moderates in the GOP are becoming extinct.
Warren Bacon represents their constituency. Geographically and politically, the GOP is the new Confederacy. The new minority party. Take comfort in the fact that there of more of us than there are of them.
Warren Bacon's temperment is closer to that of the Taliban, Al-Queda and Hezbollah than of any democratic society. He sees the characteristics that he hates in Islamists in himself. It's an interesting psychological observation, familiarity breeds contempt.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 21, 2006 9:35 AM:

"Comment: Pseudo Science! All rubbish garbage!! racist drivel!!"
Posted by:
Date: December 21, 2006 12:41 AM

This is a numerical example. It does simplify some, but its easy to follow and complications wouldn't change the results. Numerical examples and theorems are not racist drivel.

Another way to see it is as follows. Suppose that genetic survival probabilities were bounded from below by .1. Suppose one had 10 billion people come in. Then .1 times 10 billion is 1 billion. Thus we would have 1 billion genes as the expected value. Suppose the population couldn't go above 500 million. Then this would show that the genetic survival probability would have to go below .1

There is a tradeoff between genetic survival probabilities, total immigrants entering (a function of time), and the upper bound on population.

There is a substitution effect caused by immigration. As people come in the direct effect is to increase population, but the substitution effect is to substitute for births. This is as old as history.

Immigrants displace natives or prior immigrant cohorts, and that leads to a partial substitution of immigrants for births. Once births fall below replacement, 2.1 births per woman is a standard figure, then the result is declining numbers of genes until either immigration stops or zero is reached. That's why Buchanan and others talk about the death of the West and low birth rates in Europe and America, the substitution effect in front of our eyes.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 21, 2006 9:44 AM:

Search on Fertility Rates Europe and look at one of the hits, which has a table and map. Or go to my link and see link there, down in section on this topic.

This shows its happening.

GL wrote on December 21, 2006 10:28 AM:

From the Brussels journal:

Tribes in Europe and the Disappearance of Trust
From the desk of Ernest Baert on Thu, 2006-10-12 21:18
2006 will go down in European history as the year when Muslims as a group became a dominant factor in elections. The demographics indicated this long ago, but it still came as a surprise to many multiculturalists that Muslims tend to vote primarily along ethnic lines: Muslims vote for Muslim candidates, even if the political parties give the latter almost unelectable places on the list of candidates. As a consequence the Muslim candidates got elected to the detriment of indigenous politicians. Party leaders, who used to be able to get those candidates elected which the leadership favoured, have been taken by surprise by Turks voting only for Turks and Moroccans voting exclusively for Moroccans. The parties that put Muslim candidates forward are being “cannibalized” from the inside. They risk being taken over by radical Muslims. This is what is happening to the Socialist parties in Belgium and the Netherlands.

In some ways, this casts Europe back to the days of tribal demographics. Over many centuries Western-Europe has replaced the tribe or clan by the nation state as the main unit for people to identify with beyond family and local friends. This process was promoted by the emerging strong, centralised states, which could take over the task of protecting citizens from their respective clans, but even more so by the Church. Western Europe in the Middle Ages was unique in having a religious authority which – contrary to Islam – strongly opposed consanguineous marriage (marriage of blood relatives) and supported marriage based solely on the consent of the partners. The Church, over the centuries, progressively forbade intermarriage between relatively distant blood relatives, i.e. much further than medical grounds would dictate. It is believed by some that the main target of the Church during the Middle Ages were the aristocratic and royal elites which tended to intermarry frequently, As part of the power struggle between the Church and secular rulers, the Church wanted to weaken the elites as a clan. Furthermore, the Church’s doctrine of consensual marriage further reduced extended family ties and boosted the idea of individualism. In the Middle Ages it was rare, for instance, for French aristocrats to intermarry with cousins closer than the 4th or 5th degree of kinship. (in contrast with Iraq or Saudi Arabia, where even today more than half of all marriages are between cousins). For centuries the Church was the main, if not exclusive, arbiter of morals in Europe, so these rules had enormous impact on the organisation of Western society.

The result has not only been the disappearance of clans and tribes, but the emergence of a trust profile whereby European citizens tend to have equal trust in all other citizens of the same nation state outside their immediate family and circle of friends. This was a necessary condition not only for the emergence of a meritocracy and the success of a capitalist society in Europe, but also for democracy. Such a society would typically be called a “high-trust society” (although this only refers to the level of trust in the outside world, since the trust in the inner circle is actually relatively lower).

Why does trust matter? The Western societies we know would grind to a halt if we did not trust authorities, such as courts, the police, tax inspectors, to uphold the rule of law rather than take a decision based on kinship. We would not invest in or work for companies which decide about the promotion of employees or product prices on the basis of kinship rather than merit or price. We would not send our children to school if we did not believe children would be treated equally, with no favored treatment for relatives of the teachers. We (grudgingly) pay our taxes in the expectation that social security benefits will be paid on a non-discriminatory basis. We stop after being involved in a car accident to draw up the necessary paperwork with the other party in a dispassionate manner. We try to be as objective as we can in our pronouncements, because we expect the same from others. In short, we accept to treat others as we expect them to treat us. Because there is trust in reciprocity, things on the whole are fairly civilized, fair and orderly.

All this is quite different in the Muslim world or in Africa, where traditionally no nation states have existed to protect individual citizens. In such societies individuals inevitably have to fall back on their clan for protection. In the case of Islam there is another trust layer apart from the clan: the Umma, which is the community of all Muslims. Islam teaches extreme (by current Western standards) allegiance of believers to the Umma, and hence the trust profile of Muslims is unique : the individual is relatively unimportant compared to the clan or the community of believers, there is very high trust in the family and clan, very low trust in fellow citizens of the same nation and relatively high trust in fellow Muslims, wherever they are in the world. The latter helps explain why Jihad, conquests by Islam, has been so successful throughout history, and why it is so difficult for democracy and the rule of law to take root in Muslim countries. Such fundamental cultural traits have taken centuries to shape and do not change easily.

It may be difficult to objectively state whether so-called “low trust” cultures are in some way inferior to so-called “high trust” cultures – indeed, both have their own attractions or advantages and left to their own devices they constitute a relatively stable equilibrium. However, it is easy to see that it is problematic to mix them together. We all go through a Prisoner’s Dilemma many times a day, deciding on a course of action in function of the trust we have in the other party. This is usually a straightforward thing within a culture with homogenous trust expectations, but breaks down in a multicultural society which is the equivalent of putting a German driver in rush hour traffic in Naples (or vice versa): what to do when the light turns red? The best defense in such circumstances often is to take the low-trust approach, i.e. assume the worst. When communities do not fully integrate in a host community, they largely preserve their own low-trust patterns. If this were to happen in Western Europe in the coming decades, following a large scale importation in public life of Middle Eastern trust patterns or governance, it would probably mean that trust levels in European society would fall to a level somewhere between present day Europe and present day Turkey or North Africa.

To get an indication of the gap in trust between the Western world and the Muslim world, a good proxy is the corruption index of Transparency International. Corruption is putting your own or your clan’s interests before those of the state or your employer. The 20 least corrupt countries are all European or Anglo Saxon, with the exception of Singapore and Hong Kong, two former British colonies. Turkey ranks 65th, just behind Jamaica and just ahead of Burkina Faso, while Morocco ranks 78th and Algeria 97th.

As Prospect Magazine has argued in the long run a multicultural society is probably incompatible with one with generous social welfare, because tax payers will be far more reluctant to pay a share for welfare recipients they feel no bond with.

This week Robert Putnam, Harvard professor and author of Bowling Alone, a book on the disintegrating social fabric in the US, told The Financial Times (“Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity”) that “the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.” The FT adds that “when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.” Of course there is research which attempts to demonstrate – not very convincingly, though – the opposite. An example is the recent study by the Belgian professor Marc Hooghe, “Ethnic Diversity, Trust and Ethnocentrism and Europe,” [pdf] who claims to have found no correlation between trust levels and immigration in various countries in Europe, and states that other studies, which establish a negative correlation are premature (without claiming the opposite though). There are several criticisms one could level against this study, one of which is that it seems to compare a largely dynamic set of variables, i.e. changes in immigration, with the static one of existing trust levels, instead of far more relevant changes in trust levels over time.

There is little doubt that we live in the dying days of the multicultural fantasy. It will end in misery and may lead to the loss of Europe as a part of Western civilisation. Our children and grandchildren will look back to our days and wonder why so many so easily accepted what patently contradicted history and common sense. Then, however, the current thinking elites, just like Lenin’s useful idiots in the past, will have conveniently forgotten their part in the dismantling of 2000 years of European culture within a mere generation.

GL wrote on December 21, 2006 10:29 AM:

From the Brussels journal:

Tribes in Europe and the Disappearance of Trust
From the desk of Ernest Baert on Thu, 2006-10-12 21:18
2006 will go down in European history as the year when Muslims as a group became a dominant factor in elections. The demographics indicated this long ago, but it still came as a surprise to many multiculturalists that Muslims tend to vote primarily along ethnic lines: Muslims vote for Muslim candidates, even if the political parties give the latter almost unelectable places on the list of candidates. As a consequence the Muslim candidates got elected to the detriment of indigenous politicians. Party leaders, who used to be able to get those candidates elected which the leadership favoured, have been taken by surprise by Turks voting only for Turks and Moroccans voting exclusively for Moroccans. The parties that put Muslim candidates forward are being “cannibalized” from the inside. They risk being taken over by radical Muslims. This is what is happening to the Socialist parties in Belgium and the Netherlands.

In some ways, this casts Europe back to the days of tribal demographics. Over many centuries Western-Europe has replaced the tribe or clan by the nation state as the main unit for people to identify with beyond family and local friends. This process was promoted by the emerging strong, centralised states, which could take over the task of protecting citizens from their respective clans, but even more so by the Church. Western Europe in the Middle Ages was unique in having a religious authority which – contrary to Islam – strongly opposed consanguineous marriage (marriage of blood relatives) and supported marriage based solely on the consent of the partners. The Church, over the centuries, progressively forbade intermarriage between relatively distant blood relatives, i.e. much further than medical grounds would dictate. It is believed by some that the main target of the Church during the Middle Ages were the aristocratic and royal elites which tended to intermarry frequently, As part of the power struggle between the Church and secular rulers, the Church wanted to weaken the elites as a clan. Furthermore, the Church’s doctrine of consensual marriage further reduced extended family ties and boosted the idea of individualism. In the Middle Ages it was rare, for instance, for French aristocrats to intermarry with cousins closer than the 4th or 5th degree of kinship. (in contrast with Iraq or Saudi Arabia, where even today more than half of all marriages are between cousins). For centuries the Church was the main, if not exclusive, arbiter of morals in Europe, so these rules had enormous impact on the organisation of Western society.

The result has not only been the disappearance of clans and tribes, but the emergence of a trust profile whereby European citizens tend to have equal trust in all other citizens of the same nation state outside their immediate family and circle of friends. This was a necessary condition not only for the emergence of a meritocracy and the success of a capitalist society in Europe, but also for democracy. Such a society would typically be called a “high-trust society” (although this only refers to the level of trust in the outside world, since the trust in the inner circle is actually relatively lower).

Why does trust matter? The Western societies we know would grind to a halt if we did not trust authorities, such as courts, the police, tax inspectors, to uphold the rule of law rather than take a decision based on kinship. We would not invest in or work for companies which decide about the promotion of employees or product prices on the basis of kinship rather than merit or price. We would not send our children to school if we did not believe children would be treated equally, with no favored treatment for relatives of the teachers. We (grudgingly) pay our taxes in the expectation that social security benefits will be paid on a non-discriminatory basis. We stop after being involved in a car accident to draw up the necessary paperwork with the other party in a dispassionate manner. We try to be as objective as we can in our pronouncements, because we expect the same from others. In short, we accept to treat others as we expect them to treat us. Because there is trust in reciprocity, things on the whole are fairly civilized, fair and orderly.

All this is quite different in the Muslim world or in Africa, where traditionally no nation states have existed to protect individual citizens. In such societies individuals inevitably have to fall back on their clan for protection. In the case of Islam there is another trust layer apart from the clan: the Umma, which is the community of all Muslims. Islam teaches extreme (by current Western standards) allegiance of believers to the Umma, and hence the trust profile of Muslims is unique : the individual is relatively unimportant compared to the clan or the community of believers, there is very high trust in the family and clan, very low trust in fellow citizens of the same nation and relatively high trust in fellow Muslims, wherever they are in the world. The latter helps explain why Jihad, conquests by Islam, has been so successful throughout history, and why it is so difficult for democracy and the rule of law to take root in Muslim countries. Such fundamental cultural traits have taken centuries to shape and do not change easily.

It may be difficult to objectively state whether so-called “low trust” cultures are in some way inferior to so-called “high trust” cultures – indeed, both have their own attractions or advantages and left to their own devices they constitute a relatively stable equilibrium. However, it is easy to see that it is problematic to mix them together. We all go through a Prisoner’s Dilemma many times a day, deciding on a course of action in function of the trust we have in the other party. This is usually a straightforward thing within a culture with homogenous trust expectations, but breaks down in a multicultural society which is the equivalent of putting a German driver in rush hour traffic in Naples (or vice versa): what to do when the light turns red? The best defense in such circumstances often is to take the low-trust approach, i.e. assume the worst. When communities do not fully integrate in a host community, they largely preserve their own low-trust patterns. If this were to happen in Western Europe in the coming decades, following a large scale importation in public life of Middle Eastern trust patterns or governance, it would probably mean that trust levels in European society would fall to a level somewhere between present day Europe and present day Turkey or North Africa.

To get an indication of the gap in trust between the Western world and the Muslim world, a good proxy is the corruption index of Transparency International. Corruption is putting your own or your clan’s interests before those of the state or your employer. The 20 least corrupt countries are all European or Anglo Saxon, with the exception of Singapore and Hong Kong, two former British colonies. Turkey ranks 65th, just behind Jamaica and just ahead of Burkina Faso, while Morocco ranks 78th and Algeria 97th.

As Prospect Magazine has argued in the long run a multicultural society is probably incompatible with one with generous social welfare, because tax payers will be far more reluctant to pay a share for welfare recipients they feel no bond with.

This week Robert Putnam, Harvard professor and author of Bowling Alone, a book on the disintegrating social fabric in the US, told The Financial Times (“Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity”) that “the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.” The FT adds that “when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.” Of course there is research which attempts to demonstrate – not very convincingly, though – the opposite. An example is the recent study by the Belgian professor Marc Hooghe, “Ethnic Diversity, Trust and Ethnocentrism and Europe,” [pdf] who claims to have found no correlation between trust levels and immigration in various countries in Europe, and states that other studies, which establish a negative correlation are premature (without claiming the opposite though). There are several criticisms one could level against this study, one of which is that it seems to compare a largely dynamic set of variables, i.e. changes in immigration, with the static one of existing trust levels, instead of far more relevant changes in trust levels over time.

There is little doubt that we live in the dying days of the multicultural fantasy. It will end in misery and may lead to the loss of Europe as a part of Western civilisation. Our children and grandchildren will look back to our days and wonder why so many so easily accepted what patently contradicted history and common sense. Then, however, the current thinking elites, just like Lenin’s useful idiots in the past, will have conveniently forgotten their part in the dismantling of 2000 years of European culture within a mere generation.

Douglas Watts wrote on December 21, 2006 12:11 PM:

I wish Mr. Goode would visit Mr. Muhammad Ali and ask him his thoughts on this issue.

rmrd0000 wrote on December 21, 2006 2:56 PM:

The new Confederate party (GOP) and it's constituents continue to show their lack of focus. Are Islamists ready to kill Americans, lay waste to the Saudi Royal family and reclaim Europe as their rightful territory? Yes. Is the proper response to deport all Muslims. No.
How are Islamists funded? Via Oil, drugs, and possibly conflict diamonds. How do you best decrease their funding. Develop alternative fuels. This is a long term but internal security focused goal that 1) makes it harder for Islamists to pay for long range weaponry or portable nukes that could strike the US and 2) is an achievable goal (see Brazil).
Deportation to get the limited number of dedicated Islamists in the US is cost inefficient and will only result in the creation of angry young people willing to become terrorists to strike back at a US that has now turned against them because they "might" represent a threat. A self-defeating scenario.
Your Muslim round-up might be complicated by having some true Islamists claim that they are followers of the prophet Jesus, which would not be inconsistent with their deep Muslim faith. I'm sure there would be "churches" sprouting up all over to aid in the conversion of the faithful. Deportation would then have to include any Christians who came from suspect countries in the Middle East. I'm sure some US born Christians would object to the persecution of their brethren. Lawyers would jump into the breech to insure rights were not violated (that Constitution thing again). While our attention was deverted marshalling resources for deportation and fighting legal battles, an IRA bomb expert hired by Islamists in Europe could use the situation to deliver a dirty bomb into a major US city, accomplishing what never could have been done if law enforcement and border security didn't have attention diverted by tracking down innocent folks for deportation.
If the humanitarian aspect of including innocent Muslims in your national roundup and deportation don't sway you perhaps the ability to cut off funding will. Perhaps the fact that law enforcement which has actually tracked down people in the US who had stated intentions of doing harm (despite limited means).These terrorists wound up trying to get weponry from undercover officers/agents. Why have our fine men and women in telligence and border security involved in chasing someone who just happens to be a Muslim. A dangerous misuse of a precious and limited resource.

Old Atlantic wrote on December 21, 2006 6:24 PM:

Is it moral to instead of bombing people in Iraq to instead deny the same people immigration to the US? If we catch them there we can kill them, but if they make it here they can get in? Is that superior morality to not letting them in here but not bombing there?

Lest it be said this is an absurd question, Bush, our "Religion of Peace" President, has said that we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. So its a fair question, is it right to stop immigration here so as to reduce our need to kill them there? Or is it morally wrong to do anything that reduces the pressure on us to kill them there?

royalbengal wrote on December 22, 2006 3:08 PM:

Maybe I'm mistaken but didn't the first immigrants to this country, The Pilgrims, come over to escape Christian religious persecution in Europe? And speaking of "Christian values", does it include the slavery of blacks, pogroms against Jews and raping children in churches?
Morality and justice are a part of everyones values, not just christians.
If you want to put down Islam because of the acts of a rabid few terrorists, please remember, rabies is contagious.

Joe wrote on December 23, 2006 2:17 AM:

No any middle-east countries like to have a churches within their land , they kill their kid if the kid change from islam to christians - see . Why we can't set up a game rule for them within this country ? Ask nobodies , you can go into any churches - nomatter what religion you are . Did they also can do the same ? I love USA and I believe and hope - if they like to live as the way they like , let them free and back to the place which they belong . Beside ; stop to let them in for can't match to each the others here .

prescription drugs wrote on April 24, 2007 8:33 AM:

prescription drugs online store