Forgive me for actually addressing the thread by suggesting that radical groups thrive in places where the strain of economic inequality is most heavily felt. Forgive me for complaining about talk of the situation in the UK as being too far removed from the topic ... steve is happy to let it play out though so I have nothing more to say about the matter in suggesting you drop whatever nonsense you are choosing to spit out next.
Ribbing aside you have now explained why you've brought it up more clearly. Thanks for that.
I would say that IF the Islamic world conforms to more liberal views it will create a coherent and sustainable future. If it doesn't then it will fracture further, and perhaps very violently. I cannot imagine, in the current global climate, that a mass dictatorship can be reasonably sustained across the whole Islamic world - because there is a great deal of infighting. They would have to be more liberal and more democratic to sustain a functional political institution on such a grand scale. The only way they could combat the "west" is by bringing the west to its knees, which they cannot do unless they unite against the "west"; which they cannot do because they are deeply fractured and the only means we know of through which stability can ensue is through greater liberalism and democratic structuring (like we have in some vague form in the western world.)
To argue this point I could perhaps look to China as a counter argument (a country where if you are in government you are not allowed to practice ANY religion.)
The rest of what you wrote is some strange impression of who you think I am and what I am saying. If you find facts "tiresome" then I am curious as to why you are here? Merely to ignore any relevant data are plough ahead with you myopic view of the world? Do you always assume Marxism if someone mentions economic inequality. I have noticed this a few times now. Someone makes a point and you blow it up into some radical claim so you don't have to actually respond to what is being posed. So tiresome? You mean you're fickle and lazy? Or simply pushing aside all counter arguments by marking them as "Marxist"? It may look like that to you, but I would not say I am a "cultural Marxist". I think cultural differences should be celebrated and that humans are naturally diverse and complex creatures that are capable of doing all kind of bizarre, and often crazy, things. Very different cultures clashing does often lead to violence due to opposing world views and general misunderstandings. I have repeatedly expressed concern in regards to mass global communications and I do think that much of the world, and its cultures, have been dragged into a modern era without a chance to catch its breath (so we'll have a few generations who'll have to take up the slack and I just hope for more education.) As an example at some places in the world people were riding around on push bikes in the early 90's and would stop and stare if they saw a car. That was in the 90's!!! Now they are carrying around devices in their pockets that can access practically any information they can think of. I haven't even mentioned the effect in the US, where the political sphere is deeply entrenched in sensationalism and has been for a long time compared to less "entertainment" based politicking like seen in Europe, Canada and Australia. The US is a very different beast compared to other English speaking countries.
I guess what you are generally saying is that the sympathy, shall we call it, for some "white supremacy" ideals is due to the perceived threat of the Islamic world? So, the "white supremacist" groups are using a convenient fear to feed people into their way of thinking about the "others". It makes sense from a political standing that they would try and bring Christianity into play in the US given the equally fanatical following of some Christians in the US (some not all.) In its current state I am willing to accept that most interpretations of the Koran in use today, rightly or wrongly, do allow for violent interpretation more so than the standard interpretations of Christian scripture - and I would further add that the more fanatical sects of Christianity are those that steer clear of the Old Testament (both good and bad depending on your view of Biblical interpretation as literal or metaphorical.)
Any coming war we not be over religion. It will be over resources as per usual. Violent clashes will come and many will no doubt die and suffer. Right now we're living in an incredibly safe period of human history with mass global equality. Because of this nations are becoming more competitive and a the scales have been tipping for some time away from US dominance. I would suggest that this too would be something that has not gone unnoticed by the more radical patriotic groups (such as "white supremacist" groups in the US) and has been used to fuel their influence and agendas. And I do not really take it to be a bad thing that many people in the US find some of the views they have as appealing; I would likely find some views from the most horrible political organisations to be reasonable too, that does not mean I would side with them and ignore some of the more idiotic and ill-founded ideologies they boast about.
You have gone off track. If you'd said I think this is happening due to the rise of Islam fair enough. I think we'd all agree that such hateful groups sustain themselves by such means.
That said too, there is a reasonable claim (although its flimsy) that Christianity led the western world to its current point of rational thought and scientific progress - but I would not say that these claims are held up very well by anyone espousing them and that there are plenty of counter arguments to rile against such things. I would also find these points to be worthy of discussion in their own right and not really worth levelling against the question posed in the OP in any precise way.
I don't assert it. I merely provided links which support what pretty much ALL social scientists know about. They talk about the correlation and how it can be measured over any population size and give the same results. The higher the rate of male homicides the greater the level of economic inequality (meaning the distribution of wealth between rich and poor is skewed - which I highlighted in the links I provided in previous post and asked people to look at the differences where they take the top and bottom 10% and 20% of the population into account.)
If you won't take my word (which I am happy you are questioning, as you bloody well should if you've never heard about this before!) have a looksee here (I think the first 3-4 mins covers it well enough) :