‘Intelligence’ and ‘Multiculturalism’

What is intelligence?

This may not be the most pressing political question on everyone’s mind, but, if you would please indulge me, I hope to make a case for why it, perhaps, ought to be at least a consideration.


Because it is part of our human nature that we consider ‘intelligent things’ – or, ‘things that posses intelligence’, or at least, ‘things that appear as though they possess intelligence’ – with much greater respect than those ‘things’ that do not.

This is true from simple organisms to individual human beings to whole cultures.

Perhaps we have not been accustomed to thinking of it in these terms, but, if you take a moment to reflect, I suspect you will agree that. in general, ‘humans’ treat things that appear to ‘behave with intelligence’ with greater respect than those which do not.

This post is not meant to tackle the philosophical roots thereof, nor the merits of this:  rather, I would like to assert that for better or worse, this is the case – and then examine the implications of these assertions.

In order to do this, we need to try to define what ‘intelligence’ actually is.

This is not easy.

‘Intelligence’ is one of those elusive qualities:  everybody knows what it is, but it is difficult to put that ‘knowledge’ into objective, quantifiable terms against which it could be measured.

Oh, sure, there are IQ tests, ’emotional intelligence’ tests and all that – but these are very narrow and necessarily flawed models which focus on only very narrow aspects of what we generally regard as ‘intelligence’.

So, we need to ask ourselves:


Many of our best thinkers have devoted much of their time and work to trying to define it (and, perhaps, reproduce it artificially), but it is not an easy task.

Perhaps it would be easier to approach the problem from a diametrically opposite direction:  perhaps we should draw the circle around what ‘appears’ to be intelligence.  Anything outside this circle can safely be considered to behave ‘without intelligence’ while all the things inside the circle would either ‘be’ intelligent or ‘appear to be’ intelligent (whether they actually are or not).  Because, after all, in our limited human perceptions, ‘appearance of’ something is often treated as equivalent to ‘being’ something….

The beauty (or, intelligence) is in the eye (perception) of the beholder!

So, what are the ‘minimum requirements’ of an entity for us to regard it as ‘behaving with intelligence’?

Perhaps we could start with these:  an intelligent entity ‘behaving with intelligence’ will

  • recognize a problem when it encounters one (whether or not it has incountered this, or similar, problem before)
  • break the problem down into sub-sections or individual tasks which are within its means to ‘tackle’ (solve)
  • examine its memory for any potential ways to solve each ‘bit’ which it may have previously learned
  • if it has not learned any potential solutions, it must be able to improvize or develop new ways of solving the problem
  • accurately evaluate if/when the problem was successfully solved

Sure, this is not an exhaustive list, but it is a workable ‘minimum requirement’ for an entity to be considered to ‘behave with intelligence’.

In other words, we do not know if an entity that can do this IS intelligent, but we can conclude that an entity that cannot do this ‘does not behave with intelligence’.  It may not be a true and accurate marker of what IS intelligent, but it does identify and separate out entities which definitely ARE NOT intelligent as they do not posses these qualities/behave in this manner.

I hope that thus far, I have not said anything controversial – that I have merely been re-stating in specific terms something that is part of the definition of the term ‘intelligence’/’behaving with intelligence’.

And I have previously made the general observation that we, humans, tend to have higher respect for entities that ‘behave with intelligence’ than for those that do not.  Again, I hope that this is not a controversial assertion and that you are with me – so far.

Now, please, apply the ‘test’ (as presented in point form above) to the behaviour of various political/social/cultural entities/institutions.

From Muslim Brotherhood, to the EDL.

From ‘universal health care’ to ‘independent scientific research’.

To anything else you’d like to evaluate.

Now, please, apply it to Multiculturalism….

Take your time:  consider it from both ends of the spectrum.

Presume that ‘Multiculturalism”s actual problems/goals are congruent with its stated problems/goals:  is ‘multiculturalism’ (or, rather, the societal forces applying it) ‘behaving with intelligence’?

Is it therefore behaving in a way that ought to earn the respect of humans?

Now presume that ‘Multiculturalism’ (again, the government/societal forces applying it) IS ‘behaving intelligently’:  for the conditions above to be satisfied, what does the ‘problem’ which ‘Multiculturalism’ is trying to ‘solve’ BE – and what is considered to be the desired outcome (solution to the problem)?

Are THOSE the goals what we, as a society, want?

What do YOU conclude?

I have concluded that ‘Multiculturalism’ is either not ‘behaving intelligently’ and does not deserve our respect, or, if it IS ‘behaving intelligently’, it is an evil doctorine which we must fight every step of the way!!!

Now, please, ask yourself:   is it any wonder that people from other cultures have concluded that the ‘Multicultural West’ is not worthy of respect?

Pat Condell: “The Taste of Multiculturalism”




David Cameron: his Munich speech on Multiculturalism

This speech is worth listening to in its entirety:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Pat Condell: ‘The Criminal Truth’

The trouble with ‘circumcision’…

This is one of those ‘charged issues’:  moral and religious issues get muddled up with cultural prejudices and pseudo-scientific propaganda.  So, I’m really not sure where and how to begin…

The easy one first…

‘Female Circumcision’

So much has been written about this, I will not go into details of the various ‘levels’ of female genital mutilation (recently re-named ‘female genital cutting’ in order to escape the deservedly bad PR).   I’ll just note that it is a horrible thing which I condemn.

Rather, I would like to concentrate on the 3 reasons ‘why’ ‘female circumcision’ is practiced.

1.  Religious

Many Muslims believe that Islam mandates both female and male circumcision because in the Islamic texts, the sex act is, at times, referred to as ‘when the circumcised parts meet’.  This makes many Muslims believe that in order to emulate the prophet Muhammad, as their religion commands, both men and women ought to be circumcised – despite the fact that Muhmmad himself urged that ‘cutting less is better than cutting more’ because this ‘increases pleasure for both the man and the woman’ (I am paraphrasing).

2.  Cultural

Some cultures have such contempt for women that they believe that without removing the clitoris, a woman would not be able to control her sexual urges and would copulate with anyone, anytime.  Therefore, removing a source of sexual pleasure will help protect her honour and the honour of her family.

But contempt for women is not the only cultural reason for this practice.

In some  places, like Ethiopia, female circumcision is a cultural custom, practiced both  by Muslims and Christians.  It is part of the cultural fabric:  the mom was ‘circumcised’, the grandma was ‘circumcised’, so the possibility that the daughter might not be ‘circumcised’ does not even occur to anyone.  It’s just what is done!

I have commented on this phenomenon before:  people cannot possibly stop a harmful practice if it never actually occurs to them that there is something they could – and should – question….  It is only after people figure out that that something could be questioned that the actual battle for change can begin.

3.  Medical

As bizarre as it seems to us, there are people (women) who honestly believe that complete clitorectemy is medically necessary.  I saw a video (long ago) of an old woman who was renown as an expert practitioner of clitorectemy explaining (through an interpreter) that unless the clitoris is removed before puberty, it will grow and suffocate the child during childbirth.  She even cited ‘real evidence’, where women had ‘bad, partial’ ones and the baby suffocated in the womb…

Of course, most of us would recognize this as a symptom of the ‘operation’ itself:  the severe scaring which results in less flexible tissues which do not stretch properly, which causes the child to suffocate in the birth canal.  But, they ‘have their observations’ and truly and honestly believe that full clitorectemies are a medical necessity.

To recap:

‘Female circumcision’ is practiced for religious and cultural reasons as well as because trusted members of their society who preform the clitorectomies honestly believe that it is medically beneficial to do so and are believed by the members of their society.

Here, in The West, this vile and inhumane and – well, horrible, sadistic torture – is not tolerated.


Unfortunately, recent voices – from among the people who would be the ones who wish to perform (and benefit financially from doing so) this procedure – have began a propaganda to normalize this practice ‘for the good of the little girls’!  Their argument goes something like this:

The choice we are facing (they convincingly explain) is between horrible, painful, ‘back-shack-clitorectomies’ with no anaesthesia or even clean surgical instruments on one hand, and permitting a ‘ritual nick’ or ‘ritual pin-prick’ here, in the safety of a sanitary medical facility.

It’s the only safe option!

Don’t you care about these girls safety?

Please, consider, really consider, why is it that our political and cultural leaders are having such a hard time rejecting this flimsy excuse and ripping it to shreds for the ‘soft-racism’ and financial self-interest it so thinly veils?

I think that most of us would arrive at ‘the other circumcision’….

We tolerate it.

Many of us practice it.

If we permit bits of male infants’ genetalia to be chopped off (without anaesthetics to boot), how can we effectively combat a similar practice on female infants?  Equality of the sexes and all….

Which brings me to:

Male Circumcision

Again, most of us are familiar with the ‘mechanics’ of what the term refers to.  And, many of us, in The West, accept it as unquestioningly as that Ethiopian clitorectemist accepts ‘female circumcision’!

Some of us have, however, began to question this extremely painful practice which can lead to permanent re-wiring of a newborn’s brain.  Many studies demonstrate that male infants who underwent circumcision display symptoms of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) months or even years later and that the neurological damage the infant suffers may cause life-long damage.  And, most doctors now know that perfectly well.

And, there is always the issue of where do the rights of the parent end and the rights of the child begin….

Let me quote from the policy manual on non-therapeutic male circumcision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

“Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be “unwarranted mutilating surgery”.

So, why are we still tolerating this practice?

There are 3 reasons:

1.  Religious

The first thing most of us (at least, those of us born in Europe) think of when we hear ‘male circumcision’ is the practice of Judaism.  So, for those of the Jewish faith, this has sort of been ‘grandfathered in’ and is never really questioned.  Even though it goes on and on about how Jews must also circumcise their slaves…

If nothing else, that ought to give us a moment of pause:  Jews are mandated by God to circumcise all their slaves?!?!?

Well, the Bible says so.

So, how did this practice enter the North American society?

Victorian ‘religious puritans’ (for lack of a better term) brought in the practice in order to decrease young men’s sexual pleasure so they would stop masturbating and spent more time thinking about God.


By removing the skin that protects the glans of the penis, the very sensitive nerve endings are constantly rubbed by ‘stuff’ – from undies on.  This ‘constant stimulation’ is too much – so the brain decreases the sensitivity of these nerves.  (Sort of like once you’ve been in cold water for a while, the nerve impulses screaming the  message ‘this water is cold’ become weakened and you are ‘used to the temperature’.)

That is the reasoning behind removing the foreskin.  By constant mild stimulation, the strength of the pleasure signals decreases and the mutilated man can better keep his mind on God!

To  sum it up:  just like ‘female circumcision’, the religious goal of ‘male circumcision’ is the reduction of sexual pleasure.

2.  Cultural

In North America, this practice became so deeply culturally entrenched that, for generations, nobody questioned the practice.  It was ‘simply done’.  Promoted on the grounds of hygiene, the religious origins of this practice became forgotten by much of the population and became ‘the norm’.

Now, some parents circumcise their male infants ‘so they would not feel different from dad and/or other boys’…  I know – I have seen it.

3.  Medical

Many medical practitioners who perform infant circumcisions claim all kinds of wonderful medical benefits as a result of the procedure.  Sort of like that Ethiopian clitorectomist does….

And there are tons of claims that circumcision reduces AIDS and other infections….  Yet, for each one of these studies, there are others that prove this is not so.  And if one reads these ‘circumcision reduces AIDS’ studies, you will find that ‘circumcision’ in these studies is accompanied by a comprehensive education on AIDS and other STDs….  Yet, the studies do not make any difference between reduction in AIDS through education or circumcision.  That is kind of like saying that learning the alphabet will make you good at math without mentioning that to learn the alphabet, you go to school where you are taught both the alphabet and the math….

So, what do the ‘Western’ MDs say about the medical benefits of male circumcision? Let’s see what the CPSCB has to say about the ‘Medical Perspecives’ (my emphasis):

Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.

In other words, any claims of medical benefits of male circumcision are about as well grounded in fact as the Ethopian woman’s belief that not cutting out the clitoris will cause it to grow so bit, it will suffocate the infant during childbirth!

Yet – we tolerate it….


Both male and female circumcision is done for the same reasons:  religious and cultural pressures to decrease the ability of the individual to experience sexual pleasure, medical misinformation and cultural momentum.

Until we recognize the parallels between the two and criminalize the practice of parents imposing this choice onto their children, we cannot pretend we are a civilized people who respect basic human rights!

Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

As opposed to ‘them’.

And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!