Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

» Register
» Lost your Password?
Article Archives

Daniel Greenfield


Islamic Supremacist organizations like ISIS can be graded on “the Caliphate Curve.” The Caliphate Curve is based on how quickly an Islamic organization wants to achieve the Caliphate. What we describe as “extreme” or “moderate” is really the speed at which an Islamic group seeks to recreate the Caliphate. ISIS is at the extreme end of the scale, not because it tortures, kills and rapes, but because it implemented the Caliphate immediately. The atrocities for which ISIS has become known are typical of a functioning Caliphate. The execution of Moslems who do not submit to the Caliph, the ethnic cleansing and sexual slavery of non-Moslems are not aberrations. They are normal behavior for a Caliphate. This behavior is not a temporary aberration, but dates back to Mohammed’s men raping and enslaving non-Moslem women and young girls as a reward for fighting to spread Islam. The Moslem Brotherhood is on the moderate side of the Caliphate Curve not because it doesn’t want to bring back the Caliphate, it does, or because it doesn’t want to subjugate non-Moslems, it does, but because it wants to do so gradually over an extended period of time using modern political methods.

But whether you take the long road along the Caliphate Curve or the short one it still ends up in the same place. Everyone on the Caliphate Curve agrees that the world, including the United States, must be ruled by Moslems under Islamic law and that freedom and equal rights for all must come to an end. This is why ISIS is in some ways our least dangerous enemy.



No one wants to buy electric cars, Bloomberg reports (1/06):

“Americans bought just 102,600 such vehicles in 2015, a 17 percent decline from the previous year, according to researcher Autodata. Nissan Motor Co. sold 43 percent fewer of its all-electric Leaf and General Motors Co. reported an 18 percent drop for its Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in model that’s driven by an electric motor and has a gasoline engine to recharge its batteries.”

And who can blame them?

Apart from being poky and tinny and smug and expensive and utterly useless for long distances, electric cars are also terrible for health and the environment, as even environmentalist Bill Gates has recognized.

This is the glory of the untrammeled economic system: it is the collective product of million upon million voluntary decisions by free individuals. No economist, no government functionary could ever replicate this system through management or regulation because they could never hope to gain access to the complex and ever-changing data which informs all these consumer decisions.

But that’s never going to stop Obama from trying, is it? Last night (1/12) in his thankfully final SOTU, he blathered on about how “we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.” That was just after he took credit for “gas under two bucks a gallon.”



How will the country wake up from its coma in 2016 to reality in 2017?

In the next 12 months, the lame-duck, legacy-starved Obama administration will double down on its executive orders, bureaucratic fiats, and circumvention of the law. Obama will seek to fundamentally transform America, contrary to law, effecting change in ways he was not able to by adhering to the law.

The media, as it has the past seven years, will not only ignore the illegality, but also rationalize and commend it.

Then comes 2017.

If a Republican is elected president, what will the media and its liberal sympathizers do should the next chief executive decides to follow the Obama modus operandi?

When Obama issued executive-order amnesty and non-enforcement of immigration laws, the media kept silent, happy that the noble end of open borders justified any means necessary to achieve it. In 2017, we will have a precedent that any American president can simply build a wall, close the border, and deport whomever he finds in violation of federal law.

Or, also taking his cue from Obama, he might allow individual municipalities to nullify federal laws as they see fit: The Endangered Species Act null and avoid inside Salt Lake City? Gay marriage illegal within the city limits of Mobile? Gun control mandates too much of a hassle for those living in Laramie? Texas towns free to burn coal as they please?



The foundations of American Jewish life are under assault today in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago. Academia is ground zero of the onslaught. The protest movements on campuses are first and foremost anti-Jewish movements.

In the past month, for example, students channeling Hitler Youth at Hunter College in New York demanded that all supporters of Israel be kicked off campus. A member of the UC Santa Barbara student council was told he could not vote on an anti-Israel resolution because he was Jewish.

In a recent column, Dennis Prager noted that “the American university is now closer to fascism than to traditional liberty.” Prager is right, of course. But the fascist takeover of American academia will not affect all Americans equally.

Jews are the greatest victims of this state of affairs. That’s because there is an intrinsic link between Anti-Semitism and the Fascism of the Left.



The West doesn’t really want to defeat Islamic terrorism.

It responds to terrorism while ignoring the ideology. And then it roots around for “root causes” that coincidentally turn out to all involve progressive policy priorities like economic inequality and global warming.

The left sees Islamists as an anti-colonialist minority lobby rather than theocratic supremacists. Moslem Brotherhood front groups, like Communist front groups, are willing to use “useful idiots” on the left. But rather than forming a common front, Communists and Islamists hijack left-wing causes and make them their own.

So, for example, Moslems turn #BlackLivesMatter protests into anti-Israel campaigns

Can the Islamic State evolve into another Soviet Union? Yes, it could – and how often did we see American leftists take the side of Moscow or its proxies like Castro’s Cuba against the US?



“The fact of the matter is that there’s a reason why you have the largest gathering of world leaders probably in world history here in Paris. Everyone else is taking climate change seriously.” Barack Obama.

Like a lot of the president’s statements on climate change this isn’t true. In fact there are lots and lots of people in the world who know it’s a hoax. And among them happen to be the ruling elite of the most significant carbon emitting nation of them all: China.

We know this because of a devastating report, The Truth About China, released today (12/02) by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by one of the West’s leading experts on the Chinese environmental economy, Patricia Adams.

She reveals that the China has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. So it’s going to be fun to watch the Chicoms strangle the Paris COP-21 conference in its crib and Obama pretends he sees nothing.



After seven years of rule by decree by President Obama's Chicago crony Arne Duncan, why are Republicans about to reauthorize the federal government's authority over the nation's public schools?

And why is the new speaker, Paul Ryan, rushing a 1,059-page bill, dubbed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to a floor vote tomorrow (12/02) when the text was released just yesterday (11/30)?

The ESSA’s purpose is to replace Bush II’s "No Child Left Behind," which expired at the end of his second term. For seven years, Obama has governed the nation’s public schools without Congressional authority.

For some mysterious reason, Speaker Ryan wants to give that authority to Mr. Obama in the twilight of his presidency, and serve up a new law that will control public education long after Obama leaves office.



Many observers of American politics still do not quite grasp that Obama will end his presidency by seeking to get his opponents’ goat — and that his resentment will lead to some strange things said and done.

Insidiously and inadvertently, Barack Obama is alienating the people and moving the country to the right. But, counterintuitive as it seems, that is fine with Obama: Après moi le déluge.

By sheer force of his personality, Obama has managed to lose the Democrat Senate and House. State legislatures and governorships are now predominantly Republican. Obama’s own favorable ratings rarely top 45 percent.

In his mind, great men, whether Socrates or Jesus, were never appreciated in their time. So it is not surprising that he is not, as he presses full speed ahead.

Obama certainly has doubled down going into his last year, most recently insisting on letting in more refugees from the Middle East, at a time when the children of Middle Eastern immigrants and contemporary migrants are terrorizing Europe.

What remaining unpopular executive acts might anger his opponents the most?



The truth is, Obama has no plan for containing ISIS, much less defeating it. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. That’s because Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes, which means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer. Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.



"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

Islamic violence is a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Moslem, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Moslems so that violence against non-Moslems become the essence of religion.

Anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior becomes blasphemy. When Moslems explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a video, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy because it challenges its supremacy. Truth and power in Islam are identical. It is not a religion of the oppressed, but of the oppressors. Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning. It is the deepest expression of faith.



As the cleaning crews were mopping up the dried blood from the stage and the seats of the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, a depressing act appeared on stage in distant Iowa.

Saturday night (11/14) the three contenders for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination took to the stage in Iowa for a debate. The moderator asked them whether they would be willing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology motivating Islamic terrorists to massacre innocents. All refused.

Like her former boss, President Barack Obama, former secretary of state and Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton not only refused to accept the relevance of the term. Clinton refused to acknowledge what radical Islam stands for.

But of course, it is easy to understand what motivates Islamic terrorists. They tell us all the time. They want the world to be run by an Islamic empire. When they are in charge, they will kill, subjugate, convert or enslave all non-Muslims, except Jews. The Jews will be obliterated.

The operational consequences of America and the West’s refusal to acknowledge the nature of the forces waging war against it have been disastrous.



Munk Debate, Toronto, 6 November 2105

I took part in a Munk debate on 6 November, in which Steven Pinker and I argued that "humanity's best days lie ahead" while Malcolm Gladwell and Alain de Botton argued against us. It was entertaining.

Here's the text of my opening statement:

Woody Allen once said:

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

That’s the way pretty well everybody talks about the future.



Innovation is a mysteriously difficult thing to dictate. Technology seems to change by a sort of inexorable, evolutionary progress, which we probably cannot stop—or speed up much either. And it’s not much the product of science.

Most technological breakthroughs come from technologists tinkering, not from researchers chasing hypotheses. Heretical as it may sound, “basic science” isn’t nearly as productive of new inventions as we tend to think.

The linear dogma so prevalent in the world of science and politics—that science drives innovation, which drives commerce—is mostly wrong. It misunderstands where innovation comes from. Indeed, it generally gets it backward.

 For more than a half century, it has been an article of faith that science would not get funded if government did not do it, and economic growth would not happen if science did not get funded by the taxpayer. This is a myth. In fact, there is still no empirical demonstration of the need for public funding of research and that the historical record suggests the opposite.