Something worth seeing from TED

Sorry about not posting for a long time. Things have been good for me, and yet I’m not even remotely on course for  retirement at a decent age. Therefore, I’ve been spending almost all my time earning money. I’ll probably continue working seven days a week for a few more months. Then I’ll take it easy for a while. At least that’s the plan.

But I still have time for an occasional YouTube video, and I found one that inspired me. If you haven’t already watched it, I urge you to spend 15 minutes watching it here:

Mens’ rights are important, not only for their own sake, but because when a person is “red-pilled” to MRA (Mens’ Rights Advocacy), he’s more likely to be red-pilled to other subjects as well. The neural pathways have been invigorated so that they’re no longer ossified into the Left way of thinking.

Advertisements
Posted in feminism and men's issues | 1 Comment

More Portland protests

I was going to write about my recent cruise to Alaska/Canada, but I haven’t finished editing those photos yet, and we’ve had some nice protests, so I figured I’d post about the protests first.

Y’all may remember that we had a free-speech demonstration here not long ago, which I attended. The same man who organized that rally also organized the ones we had today. It was originally supposed to be in downtown Portland, but Joey Gibson moved it, at the last moment, to nearby Vancouver (Washington). A few of his staunch supporters showed up in downtown Portland anyway. Thus, there were two such rallies. This time, the rallies were dubbed “Patriot Prayer” rallies. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all about freedom of speech.

I showed up around one o’clock and joined them. They only numbered about a dozen at most – but there were many hundreds, if not thousands, of counter-protesters. The police were there in force, and they did their job fairly well, unlike in Charlottesville. Apparently, antifa behaved as they usually do, and some of them got arrested.

I marched with them for a couple of blocks, and then mingled with the crowd, engaging in a couple of debates.

As you can imagine, we had an interesting conversation, though her friend disapproved of her even talking to me.

One man had literature equating the Alt-Right with ISIS. When a couple of Christians asked him, “So you’re saying that the Alt-Right and Islam are similar?” The man became confused, claiming he didn’t know which religion ISIS is (!!!). The Christians pointed out that he’s judging the entire Alt-Right based on the actions of a few crazies, so why not do the same with Muslims? I chimed in that Muslims are more dangerous, because they actually have a book, which they consider holy, that encourages atrocities. His reply? The Alt-Right has Mein Kampf! Unbelievable.

Here are some photos from today:

The whole affair really drives home how irrational people are. It’s a case of mass hysteria based upon religious conviction. On the bright side, if only a dozen or so Alt-Lights can rile up a city so easily, as we saw today, then that means we have A LOT of power!

Posted in activism, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 9 Comments

Recent events

I’ve been a bit overwhelmed by recent events, and that’s why I haven’t been posting; I always ask myself: Where to start?

Firstly, I know that some of y’all are feeling discouraged by the events in Charlottesville and the aftermath. So I’ll give y’all my take on it:

Little has changed. We already knew that the Establishment Left has all the power. We knew that they control the media, the educational system and most of the government. We knew that they’ll do anything in their power to silence us. We already knew that the media would paint a biased picture of what transpired. We knew that Antifa would use violence to advance their agenda. We knew that some on the right would display Nazi symbols – and that the Left would take full advantage of it.

Don’t give up. Don’t curl up in the fetal position and say, “I’ll just keep a low profile and stay out of the fray. It’s not worth speaking my mind under such circumstances.”

On the contrary, we’re in a struggle and we must keep fighting. If not for that, we’d be a bunch of useless eaters – just like so many other Americans. What’s the point of living if you’re not willing to fight for what is right?

What is right? Are we “haters?” I’ll share a video by a precious lady I’ve had the privilege of meeting a few times:

The reason I bring this up is that, though PhilosophiCat is right, we’re not speaking of the raw emotion of hate when we refer to it in this context. I’ve railed against hate myself, but I have nothing against the actual emotion of hate. Rather, I oppose the sentiment expressed in one of the comments on the above video:

I hate all non-Whites with a perfect hatred. If you don’t hate non-Whites don’t even bother calling yourself a White Nationalist. You either hate your enemy or become subjugated by them. What kind of warrior can you be if you’re afraid to make your hatred known?

Some people, who associate with the Alt-Right, actually feel that way. That’s sad, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that white people exist, white people have the right to exist, and white people need to fight for their own survival.

It doesn’t negate the fact that the desecration of Southern monuments represents the lowest form of human depravity. Those men fought valiantly for their homeland. Nobody in Antifa can boast even a small fraction of the courage that Southerners displayed in their struggle, whether you agree with their cause or not. How dare those Antifa vermin desecrate the memory of men who gave their lives for their country? Past generations of Yankees at least had the decency to respect the memory of their vanquished foes, but this generation of so-called “leaders” and mobs have descended to the point where they’re not even worthy of the term “human.”

Here’s something that was recently posted on the Jewish Alt-Right group:

Posted in crime and violence, government/corporate discrimination against whites, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, the South | 6 Comments

Google’s “anti-diversity manifesto”

It’s telling that the first page of Google search results does not yield that actual text of the memo. However, it does appear on the second page, here. I’ll include it at the end of this post.

Also telling is that the manifesto is described as “anti-diversity” when the author emphasizes, repeatedly, that he’s in favor of diversity – and he even makes suggestions for how Google can increase diversity. Here are some of the headers from the Google results for “Google anti-diversity manifesto:”

Google ‘anti-diversity manifesto’ sparks backlash among employees

Google engineer’s anti-diversity manifesto sparks outrage

Google employee’s anti-diversity memo goes viral, prompts response

Google employee’s anti-diversity manifesto sparks outrage internally

A Google engineer’s anti diversity manifesto has caused an uproar

Google engineer’s anti-diversity ‘manifesto’ angers employees

A Googler’s Anti-Diversity Screed Reveals Tech’s Rotten Core

Having read the manifesto, I thought it was rather tame, and very polite and innocuous, even from a “Diversity” point of view. Here it is:

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Posted in examples of propaganda, feminism and men's issues, nurture vs. nature and I.Q., shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Leave a comment

Just got back from the 2017 Amren conference

… and you may be asking yourselves: What took me so long to write about it? The answer is that I took a detour to New Jersey on the way home.

As for the conference, I don’t think I can do better than this attendee in describing it. It was the first Amren conference where I felt out of place – for being too old. A majority of attendees were twenty-somethings.

It was also the first conference where antifa protesters were allowed to enter the actual hotel and harass us. I’m not sure what the law is in Tennessee, but infringing on another’s personal space, for the purpose of harassment, might be an offense.

That being said, here are some photos of the antifa protesters outside the hotel, and inside:

That last one was photographing me.

Somebody must have told those antifa that our conference was based on hate. Yes, we’re critical of some non-white groups – but no more so than the Establishment Left is critical of whites. Personally, I don’t think those antifa have any clue what they even mean by “hate.” I hope that their behavior doesn’t discourage people from attending future Amren conferences; on the contrary, it should serve as motivation to be even more active.

As for the speeches, the ones that stand out in my mind were delivered by Jared Taylor John Derbyshire. Derbyshire spoke of the history of race-realism and that of race-denialism. He made it clear that race-denialism has no future. Advancing science will see to that. Taylor’s first speech, which I particularly liked, consisted mainly of letters he has received from non-whites across the globe encouraging him to keep up his work. When this speech becomes available on YouTube, I encourage y’all to watch it. It’s a short one.

The first speech, delivered by Helmuth Nyborg, dealt with the correlation between colder climates and higher IQ’s. I wasn’t terribly impressed, partly because these concepts are old-hat for pretty much all of us, and partly because he avoided the obvious issue of the Inuit (if cold climates make for high IQ’s then the Inuit should be smartest of all). It fell to Mr. Taylor to pose that question, and even then, Mr. Nyborg didn’t answer it until prodded a second time. His answer lacked depth; he claimed that inbreeding depressed their average IQ. I think there’s more to it than that – and, in fact, the Inuit DO have a higher average IQ than other Native Americans.

One speaker was a no-show: Serge Trifkovic. I asked Mr. Taylor, at the very end of the conference, if he’d heard what happened to Mr. Trifkovic, and it was still a mystery. He was to speak about “Islam and the Third Invasion of Europe.” I hope the Muslims didn’t get to him.

You’ve probably already read about the incident where one of the attendees was attacked by antifa, and suffered injuries. I was hanging out by the lake at the time, heard shouting and caught the tail end of it. I saw two or three men ganging up on one man, striking him and pushing him down the hill into the lake. As security was treating him, one of the officers asked me to speak to the man in order to arrange something for his dog. In the end, the hotel staff found a solution.

If you want to help the victim, who also has legal troubles due to the incident, you can donate here. I’ve already done so.

Posted in activism, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 4 Comments

What is the true meaning of jihad?

If you look up “What is the true meaning of jihad?” on Google, you’ll have to do a lot of scrolling before you reach any source that offers a generally non-peaceful interpretation of this word. Did Google manipulate the results? You be the judge.

Typical is the interpretation of The Islamic Supreme Council of America:

WHAT JIHAD IS

  • The Arabic word “jihad” is often translated as “holy war,” but in a purely linguistic sense, the word ” jihad” means struggling or striving.
  • The arabic word for war is: “al-harb”.
  • In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), “jihad” has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
  • If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents – such as women, children, or invalids – must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
  • Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,” which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment…

I’m not an expert, but the second bullet point seems problematic to me; Arabic is full of synonyms and near- synonyms. To imply that jihad cannot mean “war” because “al-harb” means war is ridiculous. As for the other bullet points, I’ll let an ex-Muslim explain the problem:

A word can mean many things to different people, depending on the context, but I’d like to add a different angle to this, one that most people are probably not aware of.

If I’m not mistaken, Hebrew has an equivalent to the word “jihad.” It can be found in the Bible (Genesis 49:19). When Jacob blesses his son Gad, he says:

גָּ֖ד גְּד֣וּד יְגוּדֶ֑נּוּ וְה֖וּא יָגֻ֥ד עָקֵֽב׃

Transliterated: Gad gedud yegudennu, wehu yagud ‘aqeb

“Gad will be attacked by a band of raiders, but he will attack them at their heels.”

Typically, when Arabic and Hebrew share a word, Arabic has the more archaic form. The root for “jihad” is “jahd.” It’s easy to see how the “h” could have fallen away over time, leaving the two-letter root “gud.” Modern Arabic “j” is the same as the Hebrew (and older Arabic) hard “g.”* Like the Qur’an, the Torah is a violent book; few would interpret the word “attack,” in this verse, figuratively (except, perhaps, the Kabbalists, but that’s a different matter).

* Many Yemenite Jews pronounce the Hebrew “g” as “j” and many modern Arabs (such as the Egyptians) pronounce the Arabic “j” as a hard “g” to this day.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language, Muslims | Tagged , | 5 Comments

A White Man Deliberately Plowed a Van into Worshippers

When Muslims plow vans into crowds of people, we’re told that “a van plowed into pedestrians…”. The attackers are described as “assailants”:

At least six people died and three attackers were killed in multiple “terrorist incidents” Saturday in London after a van plowed into pedestrians on London Bridge and assailants went on a stabbing rampage at nearby Borough Market, police say.

In those, all too frequent incidents, we never find corporate-controlled news sources starting their articles with “A Muslim plowed a van into crowds…”.

But when a Native Brit does the same to Muslims, MSN begins its article thusly:

A white man deliberately plowed a van into worshippers near a north London mosque, the Muslim Council of Britain said on Monday, citing witnesses and video from the incident which left several people injured.

“It appears that a white man in a van intentionally plowed into a group of worshippers who were already tending to someone who had been taken ill,” the Muslim Council said in a statement.

Could you imagine an article, from MSN, Yahoo, ABC, CNN etc. starting with “a black man murdered/raped/assaulted…”? It would never happen.

The MSN article continues:

It said the incident was the most violent manifestation of islamophobia in Britain in recent months and called for extra security at places of worship as the end of the holy month of Ramadan nears.

Okay. Got it: When non-Muslims attack Muslims, it’s called “Islamophobia.” Here’s a follow-up question:

What do we call it when Muslims attack non-Muslims?

As pundits, from both the right and left, continue to condemn this recent attack on Muslims, I think it’s time to ponder the nature of equality.

Thanks to disastrous immigration policies, Western European countries have been transformed into “Diverse” societies, composed of many different ethnic groups. What will be the long-term consequences of a status-quo where only certain groups must live in fear, while others do not? If we were to allow Muslims to terrorize non-Muslims, but never the other way around, what would be the consequences over decades and centuries?

Nature has an answer to infection. It’s called leukocytes. Look it up.

 

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, Muslims, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 3 Comments