"hate mongering priest burns koran" nine news

Funny, there was no criticism of the murderous psychopaths who killed the UN workers, and who riot and murder as retaliation for cartoon drawing or rumours of book burning.

More child abuse

Here's the info at Bolt's.

Are these the people we want to welcome?

I made the mistake tonight of watching a little of the seven news.

A report on the protesters at Phosphate Bay was the first thing I saw.

Protesters were apparently complaining, and not gently, about the people who drowned in the swell off the cliffs of Christmas Island. Some of them lost family members. They were blaming the Navy.

It is unfortunately the culture, nature, teaching, upbringing, psychology of these people to blame everyone else when things go wrong.

The blame issue, the lack of self responsibility, is explained in this article from Nikolai Sennels, from the section Locus of Control:

There is another strong difference between the people of Western and Muslim cultures; their locus of control. Locus of control is a psychological term describing whether people experience their life influenced mainly, by internal or external factors. It is clear from a psychological point of view that Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces – ourselves. This is reflected in our points of view, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivation, our surplus, and our way of communicating. These internal factors are what guide our lives and determine if we feel good and self confident or not. Every Western library has several meters of self help books. Every kiosk has dozens of magazines for both women and men that tell us how to create happier and more successful lives for ourselves. Our phone books have columns of addresses for psychologists, coaches and therapists. All these things are aimed at helping us to help ourselves create the life that we want. Some might argue that all this introspectiveness is too much and that just doing what is useful for oneself and others here-and-now would be more constructive, but this is how our culture is.

All these things do not exist in Muslim culture and countries. The very little psychiatry and psychology that is taught, in only a few universities in the Muslim world, is imported from the West. It is mostly taught by teachers educated at Western universities and does not have roots in the Muslim culture.

But Muslims have something else. They have strict external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have a God that decides their life's course. "Inshallah" follows every statement about future plans; if God wants it to happen. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community every Friday. These clerics dictate political views, child rearing behavior, and how or whether to integrate in Western societies.

In western society we are taught to keep a lid on our temper and not to show aggression or make threats. Tantrums are not rewarded, anger must be managed. By losing your temper you lose face, it is an embarrassment to lose your temper. In the muslim world it is a sign of weakness not to show agression.

In the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face.

When talking about "radicalisation", we could look at this observation by Sennels as an explanation of the sudden radicalisation of terrorists, the difference on how people in the west bring up their children and how muslims allow their children to grow up without much guidance:

This way of starting with a short leash is actually very normal in our Western way of raising children. We start with strict expectations concerning school, doing homework, and behaving properly. Then, as children get older and more mature they will receive more freedom from their parents. When they are 21 years old they are expected to have learned enough to be able to handle life and are free to choose whatever education, partner, religion, life style that they want.

In Muslim culture it is different - especially for the boys. They have lots of freedom in their early lives and as they get older more and more cultural/religious restrictions and expectations appear to support the family structure. By the time they are 20 years old, their parents often have already chosen their future wives or husbands. Other choices are also less free: the expectation, for instance, to either achieve high status in education or to work in the little family run shop, to support the family's reputation by attending Friday prayers in the local Mosque. The "education pyramid" is standing upside down in the West; less freedom in the beginning, more self responsibility as one gets older. In Muslim culture the pyramid stands with its wide end down; few expectations to follow civilized behavior as a boy, and less freedom as one grows more competent, to support one's own family and religion.

It is the nature of islam to keep people under control, to make them soldiers of islam who will defend to the death their 'religion', to protect their prophet from being mentioned in any bad light, and an insult to the prophet is an insult to islam. Anyone who insults islam is in danger of attracting the wrath of muslims who will seek out that person and "punish" them for their insult to islam. This punishment can range from destruction of property to murder. In fact the koran says that the punishment for anyone who shows disrespect* for islam is death. Defending the honour of islam by murder on this earthy plane to me shows a pretty weak god.

The concept of honour in muslim society is not the kind of honour westerners would recognise:

If you had ever spent time in a Muslim community you experience this very clearly. You would find yourself constantly trying not to offend anyone and you’d treat everybody like a rotten egg. Jokes, irony and, especially, self-irony is as good as non-existent. It creates a superficial social environment where unhealthy hierarchies appear everywhere because nobody dares to, for instance, point out the weaknesses of childish men and make fun of the powerful. There is an old Danish fairytale about a little boy that points out the nakedness of the King; "He has no clothes on!!” embarrassing the proud King wearing his non-existent magic clothes, which are only visible to "good people" (actually, the King was just naked - because the tailor had cheated him!). Such a story could never have been written in a Muslim culture.

Many young Muslims become assailants. This is not just because of the Muslim cultural acceptance of aggression, but also because the Muslim honor mentality makes them into fragile, insecure men. Instead of being flexible and humorous they become stiff and develop fragile, glass-like, narcissistic personalities.

Unfortunately, most journalists and media people use the term “honor” when describing cases of violence where the offender makes excuses for himself by stating that his honor was offended. Since the concept of honor is completely integrated in the social rules of Muslim culture, it is seen to be justifiable when honor is threatened. This extends to beating or killing women who want to claim such basic human rights as to choose, for themselves, their own sexual partners. By using this term, as used by the offender, the media automatically takes the perspective of a clearly psychopathic and narcissistic excuse for treating other people badly. Instead, we should take our own Western culture as a basis when describing such crimes. Terms like “family execution”, “childish jealousy,” “control maniac” or “insecure” would be much closer to our cultural understanding of such behavior.

*glossary note: disrespect is stating anything about islam which muslims consider to be disrespectful, this includes any criticism or discussion by non muslims - remember, muslims aren't allowed to question islam.

You can read more of Sennels' paper here.

Boo-fecken-hoo

Former terror suspect considered security risk...

Another bloke who just found himself in Pakistan looking for a school for his children.

"I can't go home". If Australia's not his home, why does he need an Australian passport?

Does he still have an Egyptian passport? Perhaps he should use that.

Hijab, for modesty

Now that makes sense!

More from Nicolai Sennels.

Worongary mosque proposal causes ructions

Of course it does.

All the callers on the radio who do not reside on the Gold Coast or anywhere near other mosques in other states say it's "just like having a church," there's no difference.

This was the only news item I could find about it.

There's been talk on ABC thismorning about the proposed Worongary mosque.

Quite apart from my view that this "religion" is incompatible with our society for many reasons, there is a good argument against the mosque as is it is in a residential area... however, seeing what happens in areas in Sydney where mosques are built eventually the residents won't mind the mosque as muslims will buy out the properties in the area and be happy to be near their mosque.

I might add more later... too busy at the moment.

Three things you should know

$70M tourist industry - is it worth it?

What about this, and this, and this?

Visit the Queensland Gold Coast which it is suggested will change for two months of the year (July & August, our peak season for southern Australian visitors). One of the locals with a ME background wants to change Cavil Avenue into a "Kasbah", but of course, he can't...

But the changes are happening already. Signs are appearing in arabic.

Why do you want to visit a foreign country on holiday which is changed to be just like where you came from?

Woot?

Out. That's the place for this. Out of Australia.

When he says it's a struggle and they must fight he means war. Make no bones about it. If I had time I would translate what's said into what it really means to someone in the west, ie. Australia.

General article about the attendees.

A psychologist speaks out on the bleeding obvious

Well, I've realised a lot of what he's saying and I'm just a layperson.

The first paragraph:

February 27th 2008. On a cold and windy Wednesday (for cyclists like myself), I took a deep breath, grabbed the microphone and did something that changed my life. In front of the Copenhagen Mayor’s Integration and Social Services Office there were gathered several journalists, a faithful Muslim musician from the famous MTV-band ‘Outlandish,’ dozens of Imams and Muslim spokesmen and a couple of hundred social workers with Muslim and Danish backgrounds. I began to say what everybody already knew, but, what nobody either wanted or dared to say: that those who are referred to as foreign criminals, religious extremists, or terrorists in the making and who are the cause of lawless parallel societies (what the conference "Diversity and Safety in the City" was about) are all Muslim. I argued that we should stop talking about "criminal foreigners" and start using the more precise term, "criminal Muslims." As a psychologist, having had more than a hundred Muslim clients, I told them that politicians and professional social workers need to understand the cultural and religious backgrounds of criminal foreigners. That is, if we want to come up with, at least, somewhat effective and targeted plans on how to reduce the social unrest, anti-democratic religious movements, the violent and anti-social forces among foreigners.

This is why I believe that integration of these people is impossible and immigration should be stopped. It is a totally different psychology to the west and it is completely incompatible with our way of life.

(thanks to boy)

Update:

Another paragraph:

Unfortunately, most journalists and media people use the term “honor” when describing cases of violence where the offender makes excuses for himself by stating that his honor was offended. Since the concept of honor is completely integrated in the social rules of Muslim culture, it is seen to be justifiable when honor is threatened. This extends to beating or killing women who want to claim such basic human rights as to choose, for themselves, their own sexual partners. By using this term, as used by the offender, the media automatically takes the perspective of a clearly psychopathic and narcissistic excuse for treating other people badly. Instead, we should take our own Western culture as a basis when describing such crimes. Terms like “family execution," “childish jealousy,” “control maniac” or “insecure” would be much closer to our cultural understanding of such behavior.

I will keep reading as I can...

Super Troll Smackdown

Read it here.

(disclaimer, if you are bored by dumb people defending the indefensible of the death cult, then don't go there)

South Park Link to Times Square Bomb

Who let these people in?

WTF and WHY?

Creeping sharia.

WTF?

(Defence lawyer) Mr Langslow said Mr Azizi admitted killing his wife, but the issue was whether he'd meant to.

The truth is out there.

Facts. Deal with them.



This is part 4 of 9.

Works for me!

Click picture for larger image.

Here's the linky so you can read the rest at Winds...

Child Abuse and the death cult

Found this while looking up "posed pictures of little soldiers" cooked up by the MSM... I know, it'd be pretty hard to find posed pictures of the little soldiers, they don't need to be posed, when taught to hate and kill from the womb.

Risk Assessment

Which threat is real?

a) This one...

or

b) This one?

Let me say I think that a) is an immediate threat. We should do everything in our power to stop any pandering to anyone who believes that they can control the climate.

Then let me say that the real threat is the pandering which appears to be occurring as far as b) is concerned. Note the victim statements from the professional victims...

"Sudden Jihad syndrome" not so sudden...

The Jihadist is Always the Victim, Phyllis Chesler

From Part 1:

Pamela K. Taylor:
“Until we know more about Maj. Nidal’s motives we should not jump to conclusions, and certainly we should not declare that he had religious/political motivations simply because he was Muslim.The shootings at Fort Hood raise many questions. Major Nidal complained of being treated poorly by fellow soldiers because he was Muslim. It got bad enough, according to a New York Times article, that he hired a lawyer to seek to end his military career early. This request was denied, and he remained in the military. How severely did Islamophobic treatment by the very people he was trying to serve impact Maj. Hasan? How did the army’s refusal to let him end his service early, even though he agreed to pay off the cost of his education, affect his feelings about the army? What kind of stresses are Muslim soldiers placed under when they are deployed to areas where they are killing fellow Muslims, and perhaps people of similar ethnic background? Is the army taking extra precautions to deal with the additional stresses these soldiers are under?”

Phyllis Chesler to Ms. Taylor: You know and I know that more Muslims are killed by other Muslims than by infidels. Who is kidding whom here? But forget about the media. What if, as has been alleged, Major Hasan was a “problem” physician-employee? What if he could not tolerate being criticized and rather than try to correct himself, he grew a great grudge and decided that his professional work was good, great—that he was being picked on because he is a Muslim. (Arabs and Muslims rarely take responsibility for the failures of their cultures and communities. They always blame it (illiteracy, poverty, corruption, despotism, barbaric cruelty towards women, etc.) on the infidel, the Zionist, the Crusader. What if that is the scenario we are looking at?

Part 1 here, read it all.

From Part 2:

I am a psychologist, a retired Professor of Psychology and a psycho-analytically oriented psychotherapist. But I have also been following current events, even studying them. Based on the evidence to date, Major Hasan’s bloody rampage seems to have been planned. The day before the murders, he gave away his furniture and copies of his Qu’ran. On that day, Major Hasan also had a mysterious, brief meeting with another man dressed in Islamic clothing. And he used his neighbor’s computer.

Thus, Hasan’s action was a planned execution. It was not the act of a man who suddenly “snapped.” Yes, as I wrote in my earlier piece, we may characerize Hasan’s action as a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome but that does not mean I am making an actual psychiatric diagnosis. The phrase is descriptive, perhaps even sarcastic. Yes, we may call this the act of a lone shooter–if it turns out that he acted alone–but still, this lone shooter was someone who was inspired by a radical Islamist ideology which views such murderous acts as religiously heroic not as “psychiatrically deranged.”

Part 2 here, read it, too.