According to Randall P. Harrison , "there are a handful of basic techniques which the cartoonist manipulates to create a symbolic world of make-believe." The first process, known as leveling, is when "the cartoonist radically 'levels' what we usually see in our perceptual field thus creating a cartoon which is 2-dimensional rather than 3-dimensional." Then there is "sharpening," where "some items drop out so that the remaining items gather in importance." Thus, "[a]s a cartoon body shrinks, the head expands. As wrinkles and minor features drop out, the expressive features of eyes, mouth and brows (features that move and are therefore the most informative in the human face) become more prominent." And, finally, "the cartoonist assimilates through exaggeration and interpolation so that the fantasy, while still make-believe, 'makes sense' for the reader."

In 1963, President Kennedy spoke to members of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. Kennedy asserted that "what makes editorial cartooning such a wonder" is the ability to "entertain and instruct us ... and ... place in one picture a story and a message and do it with impact and conviction and humor and passion – all that ... makes [editorial cartoonists] the most exceptional commentators on the American scene."

But the true art of the cartoon figure is centered on the "thought balloon and the speech balloon."

This is why Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, is a refreshing rebuke to those who cannot abide common sense and logic. James Delingpole explains how the latest Dilbert strip is "causing liberal heads to explode." Concerning global warming, Adams "invites a climate scientist to explain the risk of climate change to the company." The expert (in a white coat, of course) patiently explains how scientists "put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong[.]" And "then [the scientists] take that output and run it through long-term economic models of the sort that have never been right." Dilbert innocently asks, "What if I don't trust the economic models" and is instantly reproached with "[w]ho hired the science denier?"

At his own blog, Adams asks, "[I]f scientists can make climate prediction models that are reliable (or so they tell us), why can't they do the same with Muslim immigration predictions?" Thus:

Predicting the average temperature on Earth ten years from now is hard. There are too many variables. But predicting the outcome of immigration policies probably involves far fewer variables. All we need to do is look at other countries that experienced lots of Muslim immigration and subtract out the countries that reversed the trend with military force[.] A good immigration prediction model would find the 'tipping point' where the percentage of Islamic population nearly guarantees the entire country will become Muslim in the long run. Is that 10% or 65%? I have no idea. Suppose I said to you that 20% Islamic population will guarantee that eventually – perhaps in a hundred years or more – the country will have a dominant Islamic culture, with all that implies for women and the LGBTQ community. I don't know if having 20% Muslim citizens is anywhere near the tipping point. But consider that gays represent perhaps 10% of the country, and that was enough to change laws. Consider that the United States is strongly pro-Israel while the Jewish population of the United States is under 2%. The size of the minority seems less important than their level of motivation. Muslims appear to be motivated.

Concerning the tipping point, Jerome Corsi in 2013 described how "[t]he nightly rioting in Stockholm that establishment media ascribes merely to 'youths,' is being carried out by Muslim immigrants." Thus, four years ago, "Muslim immigrants in Sweden [totaled] slightly more than 6 percent of the population, providing additional support for the maxim that a Muslim population of 5 percent is a tipping point for political turmoil. In other countries, Muslim immigrants at that point have begun to seek concessions, including, typically, the right to govern themselves by Shariah, or Islamic law."

According to Barney Zwartz, who wrote about this issue in February of 2007, "life can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France[.]" In the Sydney Morning Herald, Professor Raphael Israeli asserts that "[w]hen the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia." An expert on Islamic history, Professor Israeli states that "Muslim immigrants [have] a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance." Moreover, he maintains that "in France, which has the highest proportion of Muslims in Europe at about 10 per cent, it was already too late. There were regions even the police were scared to enter, and militant Muslims were changing the country's political, economic and cultural fabric, and demanding anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies."

This was stated ten years ago. And the situation has worsened considerably. French columnist and author Eric Zemmour describes what he sees happening to France as "invasion, colonization, explosion." Zemmour defines the "arrival of millions of Muslims in France during the last five decades as an invasion, and the recent arrival of hordes of migrants as the continuation of that invasion. He depicts the creation of 'no-go zones' as the creation of Islamic territories on French soil and an integral part of a colonization process."

Others like Daniel Pipes take issue with the term "no-go zones" and prefer to use the term "semi-autonomous sectors," but the bottom line is that in these sections, "a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community." In fact, "[t]he world has never seen anything comparable to the contemporary West's blend of achievement, timidity, and guilt, of hugely superior power matched by a deep reluctance to use it." Pipes maintains that this is, "arguably, West Europe's most acute problem."

Professor Israeli "said his warning did not include immigrants, including Muslims, who simply wanted to improve their lot. As long as they respected the law and democracy, their numbers – Buddhist, Muslim or Jew – were immaterial. It became material when a group accepted violence."

Yves Mamou highlights that "France has Europe's largest Muslim community, largest Jewish community, largest Chinese community, and largest Armenian community. The French integration model worked for all those groups except one. A growing percentage of Muslims in France are not accepting the rules that everyone else has accepted."

This highlights Scott Adams's point about the motivation of an individual. Howard Bloom has explained that "Islam is the only superorganism with a meme team – a worldview and a 'total system of life' – built for global rule by its founder. Islam's ... advantage is the eagerness of its militants to solve political disputes with violence. Violence is a potent force multiplier, especially in a world peppered with democratic societies. The chant among young Muslim jihadists is, 'We love death more than you love life.' Why? Because those who die killing unbelievers have an express ticket to fame, sex and paradise. The result: suicide bombers."

Toward the end of his blog post, Scott Adams asserts that "[i]t is nonsense to argue about whether our Muslim immigration policies are good or bad without the benefit of knowing where the tipping point is, if such a thing even exists. My guess is that the pro-immigration people and the anti-immigration people would agree we shouldn't go past the tipping point. But if neither side knows where the tipping point is, you can't call the opinion on either side sensible." Thus, "[t]he so-called sensible people in the middle (including me) have opinions that are effectively nonsense because we don't know where the tipping point is."

If a destructive value system is permitted to metastasize without any counterbalancing, the question of a tipping point eventually becomes a moot point. The sensible inquiry is not how many Muslim immigrants should be permitted to enter a country; the real question is, what is their motivation, and what values do they want to impose on the host country?

Andrew C. McCarthy notes, "How do we embrace our Islamic friends while excluding our sharia-supremacist enemies? To fashion an immigration policy that serves our vital national-security interests without violating our commitment to religious liberty, we must be able to exclude sharia supremacists while admitting Muslims who reject sharia supremacism and would be loyal to the Constitution."

Cartoons or not, we need to "level what we see in our perceptual field" and use the empirical evidence so law-abiding Muslims and any other groups are protected against those who would bring harm, destruction, and irrevocable blight.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.