At all costs, and still we disbelieve.

Sex Jihad and Western Disbelief

by Raymond Ibrahim on September 26, 2013 in From The Arab World, Islam

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/sex-jihad-and-western-disbelief/#disqus_thread

Human Events

The sex jihad is back in the news.  Last Thursday, September 19, during an address to the National Constituent Assembly, Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi Bin Jeddo announced that Tunisian girls who had traveled to Syria to perform “sex jihad” had returned after being sexually “swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts [from pregnancies to diseases] in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and standing idle.”

Sixteen-year-old Rahma: Her parents appeared in tears on TV bemoaning how she was “brainwashed” to join the sex jihad.

Several video interviews with Tunisian females who went to the sex jihad further testify to the veracity of this phenomenon.  For example, 19-year-old Lamia, upon returning, confessed how she was made to have sex with countless men—including Pakistanis, Afghanis, Libyans, Tunisians, Iraqis, Saudis, Somalis, and a Yemeni, all in the context of the “sex jihad, and that she and many other women were abused, beaten, and forced to do things “that contradict all sense of human worth.”  Now back in Tunisia, Lamia has been to a doctor finding that she is five months pregnant. Both she and her unborn are carrying the aids virus (read her whole story).

Other interviewed women have told of how they were “fooled,” or how their husbands (they being one of four wives) divorced and sent them to Syria for the sex jihad, with assurances that they would be guaranteed paradise in the afterlife.  One 16-year-old explained how her father ordered her to have sex with several jihadi “liberators.”

Due to the severity of this matter, since March, 6,000 Tunisians were banned from travelling to Syria; 86 individuals suspected of forming “cells” to send Tunisian youth to Syria have been arrested.

Back in April, Sheikh Othman Battikh, former Mufti of Tunisia, said before reporters that, “For Jihad in Syria, they are now pushing girls to go there. Thirteen young girls have been sent for sexual jihad. What is this? This is called prostitution. It is moral educational corruption.”

He was dismissed from his position as Mufti of Tunisia days later.

However, as I wrote back in June when reporting on the sex jihad phenomenon:

Muslim women prostituting themselves in this case is being considered a legitimate jihad because such women are making sacrifices—their chastity, their dignity—in order to help apparently sexually-frustrated jihadis better focus on the war to empower Islam in Syria.

And it is prostitution—for they are promised payment, albeit in the afterlife. The Koran declares that “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons [their bodies] and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111).

At any rate, while news that Muslim girls in hijabs are prostituting themselves in the name of Islam may be instinctively dismissed as a “hoax,” the fact is, Islamic clerics regularly issue fatwas permitting forbidden, if not bizarre, things.

The fundamental criterion is that they help the jihad to empower Islam.

For instance, not only did the original “underwear bomber” Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old Asiri “feigned repentance for his jihadi views”—but, according to Shi‘ite talk-show host Abdullah Al-Khallaf, he had fellow jihadis sodomize him to “widen” his anus to fit more explosives.

Al-Khallaf read the fatwa that purportedly justified such actions during a 2012 Fadak TV episode.  After praising Allah and declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam, the fatwa asserted:

However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.

Two important points emerge here: first, jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme; and second, the idea that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” Thus, because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority, anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one’s intention, or niyya (see Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s discussion along these lines).

Hence the many seeming contradictions in Islam: Muslim women must chastely be covered head-to-toe—yet, in the service of jihad, they are allowed to prostitute their bodies. Sodomy is forbidden—but permissible if rationalized as a way to kill infidels and/or apostates.  Lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam. Suicide is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad—when it is called “martyrdom.”  Intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible during an Islamic jihad raid, as happened last weekend in both Peshawar and Nairobi.

One may therefore expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how un-Islamic their actions may otherwise seem.

And yet, here in the West, many still refuse to believe the existence of such fatwas, habitually dismissing them as “hoaxes”—despite all the evidence otherwise: from a top Tunisian government official openly bemoaning the effects of the sex jihad on Tunisian girls, to several Arabic-language videos and reports of women discussing their experiences in the sex jihad.

Few things are more demonstrative of the arrogant mindset that proliferates amongst Western “progressives” than this inability to believe.

And it’s quite ironic:  for while supposedly “closed-minded” and “bigoted” conservatives tend to take the words, teachings, and deeds of Muslim clerics and jihadis at face value—and thus respect them as autonomous individuals—liberals, who always claim to “respect other cultures,” often reject as “hoaxes” any news that contradicts their culturally-induced worldviews—since apparently everyone in the world shares in their standards.

If that’s not an ethnocentric position—an especially dangerous one at that—what is?

Obama's missing pieces

• Redbaiter 11:33 on July 31, 2013 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: fake media, Mike Zullo, Obama birth certificate   

  Lieutenant Mike Zullo- Obama Was Never Born At Kapi’olani Hospital 

  The video below is interesting on two levels. The primary point is that the document that Barack Obama presented as his birth certificate is a fake, a fraudulent document. So we have a usurper and forger in the White House, yet this fact is not worth one second of the mainstream media’s time.

  The secondary issue is also interesting, in that the interview is conducted outside the mainstream media, and that you source it on Youtube. An excellent example of why trust in the mainstream media is falling,and why it is dying as an information source. The media is perceived by many as a front group for the Democrats and Obama, and its refusal to provide any news or discussion on this legitimate issue shows why.

  Broadcast media is dying, and a big part of this death is its political bias. Media on demand is where the industry is going. The video below is there, it can’t be stopped or controlled by some Democrat posing as a journalist and filtering information, and you can watch it any time you like. Roll on the death of the mainstream media. Pravda was nothing compared to what they are today.

  Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook1

  • Urban Redneck 12:24 on July 31, 2013Permalink

    I got sent this the other day by a relative. For the record I don’t think Obama’s a muslim. He’s a secular progressive who’ll side with anyone or anything that runs counter to Western culture.

    1. Back in 1961 people of colour were called “Negroes”.
    So why / how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American when the term wasn’t even coined or used at that time?

    2. The birth certificate that the White House released Lists Obama’s Birth as August 4, 1961, and Barack Hussein Obama as his father.
    No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya , East Africa .”
    This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a Country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_

    3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed Place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynaecological Hospital”.
    This cannot be possible, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynaecological Hospital until 1978, when these
    two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth Certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
    http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

    4. Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?
    Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II.
    Unfortunately, Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old (or 27 as the case might be above) in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father’s dateof birth approximately 1936. Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars?
    Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9? Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?

    5. Wedding ring is in for repair?
    Since when does a plain wedding band need repairs, along with your watch, for a whole month?
    Another piece falls into place. In a press conference last week Obama was not wearing his wedding ring nor was he wearing his watch. When noticed, his staff said his ring was out for repairs. No reason was given for the missing watch.
    So it’s just a coincidence that Muslims are forbidden from wearing jewellery during the month of Ramadan?
    Can’t possibly be that, because although he hasn’t gone to a Christian church service since entering the White House, we know he’s a committed Christian “cause he said so during his campaign!” ……… and we’ve got a bridge to nowhere to sell you also.

    This is the same president that spent the Christmas holidays in Hawaii to avoid religious obligations as PRESIDENT at the White House.
    His children do not receive Christmas presents.
    Let’s just face the facts and quit trying to distort the truth, America has a Muslim for president in the White House, and he has no knowledge of American history.

    15

    0

    
    

    Rate This

Why is he given so much benefit of doubt??

Iran's President brags about deceiving the West over nuclear program

"War is deceit," said Muhammad. But to take him at his word would be "Islamophobic."

"VIDEO: Iranian president brags about deceiving the West," by Reza Kahlili for theDaily Caller, September 22:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has gone on a charm offensive lately with multiple interviews with American media promising collaboration, but a recent video shows he takes pride in deceiving the West.

“Gone is the age of blood feuds,” Rouhani stated in an op-ed in the Washington Post. “World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities,” he wrote in the Post Friday.

In interviews with ABC and NBC, Rouhani said that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has the authority to make a deal with the West. “In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority,” Rouhani said. “Under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.”

Rouhani, who is one of the most trusted figures of the Islamic regime’s supreme leader, has served the Islamic Republic at the highest levels since the 1979 revolution. He has been the deputy speaker of Parliament, the head of the Executive Committee of the High Council for War Support during the Iran-Iraq War, the deputy to the second-in-command of Iran’s joint chiefs of staff, a member of the Expediency Council, a member of the Assembly of Experts (the body that chooses the supreme leader), a former nuclear negotiator, and, most importantly, the representative of the supreme leader to the Supreme National Security Council since 1989.

Despite the recent charm offensive in the American media, a recently revealed video of an interview prior to the June Iranian election shows him bragging how he, in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, deceived the West during negotiations on Iran’s illicit nuclear program even as Iran expanded its nuclear power. At the same time, Rouhani managed to relieve pressure by the West, especially in convincing the Europeans to avert possible military aggression by the Bush administration.

“The day that we invited the three European ministers [to the talks], only 10 centrifuges were spinning at [the Iranian nuclear facility of] Natanz,” Rouhani boasted on the tape. “We could not produce one gram of U4 or U6 [uranium hexafluoride]. … We did not have the heavy-water production. We could not produce yellow cake. Our total production of centrifuges inside the country was 150.”

But then Rowhani admitted in the video the purpose of prolonging negotiations: “We wanted to complete all of these — we needed time.”

He said the three European ministers promised to block U.S. efforts to transfer the Iran nuclear dossier to the United Nations, using veto power if necessary. He called Iran’s claim that it stopped its nuclear program in 2003 a statement for the uneducated and admitted that the program not only continued, but was significantly expanded under his tenure.

While President George W. Bush was increasing pressure on Iran in 2007, a report by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program had remained frozen since.

In the interview, Rouhani said that after he took over the country’s nuclear project, the country’s 150 centrifuges grew to over 1,700 by the time he left the project.

Then Rouhani made his boldest statement: “We did not stop; we completed the program.”

He said that Iran’s nuclear activity was under the supervision of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that he, as Khamenei’s representative, was to ensure this deceit....

Living wage effects

Injustice in Equality: churches promote inflation.

Posted on February 25, 2013

Guest post by Kevin O’Brien, retired Charted Accountant and former consultant to the Government of (then Western) Samoa. (Reposted from 18 Feb 2013 with tags.)

The living wage claim imbroglio has done us good in having to examine wages and living costs: I am not so sure it has done us right. It took a bit of looking to find the paper setting out the claims to a “living wage” of $18.40/hr; they were not on the Anglican Church Family Centre web site [1], in whose name they were, but on the Living Wage NZ site who commissioned them. [2]

The claim then is political – a creature of the unions and the ultra left greens with the churches donning social-justice robes and blessing all, other than those who ultimately have to pay. The politics of envy are writ large: bosses and others must be richer, so they can pay, to match our spending aspirations. If the boss class hasn’t got it, then the Government must have. Someone needs to pony up to satisfy our unrequited hunger for more.

I suspect there is sin somewhere in the midst of this. Is it right to heavy employers, a.k.a. bosses, to pay more when no more is going to come their way to meet the extra demand? Is it right to set demands for pay in excess of minimum reasonable needs? Is it right to pay a single 18 year old straight from year 13 at high school the same hourly rate as an experienced single worker, or one a few years further on who has a spouse, and the population replacement minimum 2 children, the same hourly rate also? If justice is about balance where is it here? Are ability and contribution of a worker to producing residual income to be ignored?

The Bible mentions that the “poor are always with you” [3]. Can we remove them without impoverishing others? Who are the poor anyway? Scripture refers to those “poor in spirit” [4] – they don’t necessarily come out of physical poverty by coming to know God, but they can have a greater gain which far exceeds material wealth. Is an increase in material wealth a release from poverty? – ask a large lottery winner that question after their family splits up and they return to their original or frequently even lesser state[5]. Does “throwing money” at a family defined as “poor” increase happiness, satisfaction of life, material wealth or just feed the gimmes? Can the gimmes ever be satisfied and what is the material level at which people are poor? Surely my ‘poor’ is different to your ‘poor’ and if I don’t feel poor, but you call me poor, who are you to define my state- particularly if you are going to pressure others to pay me more. I may gain no extra satisfaction at the expense of another losing some of theirs. The transactions while equal in monetary terms may be personally unequal materially and spiritually.

There is ignorance out there about elementary economics. In a closed economic system one unit’s gain is another’s loss; in an open system, if we have an excess of demand over what is internally available that is taken up in the nation’s accounts with the outside world. We look at our dollar and say it is high but the price of a Big Mac in NZ and the USA is presently within 1% of each other [6]. The high external spending by the USA shows in the price of their dollar: we are not high, they are low [7]. What a country does internally affects its external finances and hence its ability to pay for the everyday needs from overseas. It also affects those it trades with; our now high dollar makes it difficult for us to sell. To import we must export and if we create demand internally by Government spending more or workers being paid more we have to balance that ultimately by either exporting or overseas borrowing. See the problem: we have a high dollar imposed on us because of another country’s massive spending [8] [9] and we have to keep demand manageable as our exporters’ ability to provide for us has been impacted. Sorry greenies there is no free money: someone has to produce and sell for someone to be paid. If money is created by local bank lending that too increases demand, along with a multiplier affect as the newly created money is passed from bank to bank. Creating demand is easy, living with an excess of it is not. “Too much money chasing too few goods” is a recipe for an increase in local prices to balance it out. If the prices don’t go up those with more money can gain at the expense of those providing the goods and services, so the suppliers’ instincts will make sure they don’t lose. This inflation can cause massive unfairness. If house prices rise excessively because low interest rate loans fuel a buying spree, rents will rise too. Inflation erodes the stored buying power of savings, and cuts the relative buying power of pensioners and others on fixed incomes. It also fuels wage demands as wage rates based on previous price and productivity levels have a natural lag before employers effect long term changes in their price and cost structures.

Being a Government and having to manage demand is an awful job. Too much demand and the overseas accounts and reserves are in jeopardy, which can include food imports: too little, and workers are laid off as sales fall off! Now add the Christchurch $20-$30 billion dollars of rebuild [10] thrust upon the country to accommodate as well. I am amazed at how well the Government has managed the nation’s accounts in these circumstances. Over the last few years prices have been reasonably stable except for housing. I am buying as much for my dollar at the supermarket as I did a year or so ago. Prices are competitive but I could easily pay another $50 a week (20%) by choosing to shop at the sole local supermarket. The living wage claim if forced has the ability to promote inflation when we have had stable times. The present low interest rates must cease in time and we will then have to adjust our budgets accordingly. Nowhere in scripture does it say we are not to feel hard up, and substantial future increases in interest rates will be hard to accommodate, but I know that we will manage, and pay our bank loan as a standing priority. Real poverty must be the state of not being able to adjust, not that of being unable to satisfy aspirations as embedded in defined arbitrary household expenditure feel-good models.

Poverty is ultimately attitude to managing with what we have; defining it as 60% of the median household income level [11] is excessively generous. That also does not take into account the 9 elements which make up each individual’s capacity to earn; one size cannot fit all. In my view these are:

• Intelligence
• Nous
• Cultural environment
• Educational attainment
• Life experience
• Life events
• Age
• Motivation
• Opportunity

Not a sociologist’s set, but I believe they explain individual capacity and ultimate achievement well.

Intelligence is usually ignored or even denigrated, as we are not allowed to classify people by such differences, as they might feel bad. But people are self-classifying, – they do not enroll morons (those with an IQ 51-70) in PhD programmes, nor are they employed as nuclear physicists. I had my eyes opened as a junior school teacher trainee when I found that in the class of about 25 there were 6 with a measured IQ of 150 or more. That should not have been surprising as the school was the neighborhood one of the leading Wellington professionals. The children were only closely mirroring their parents. Innate intelligence has to be major component of earning capacity potential and is undeniably family transmitted. It may be the most important determinant, life events being neutral. If so it is only to be expected high income neighborhoods have compatible people socially and intellectually.

Nous must be a type of intelligence: it is exhibited by the non-intellectual high school drop-out who has the entrepreneurial flair to create a substantial scrap metal and industrial waste pickup and recycling business.

Cultural environment and background is supposed to be neutral, but it isn’t. My 7 years in Samoa showed me that. Children of higher ranking chiefs were expected to do well in school and other pupils subtly deferred, so it was not necessarily the most able pupils who were the apparent high achievers. The overall level of class attainment was reduced to allow higher status children to shine. I believe this is at work in NZ schools too, possibly in a more complex or disguised form and it may not be that the education system in NZ is failing Polynesian pupils but many do not have an implicit self permission to succeed, and therefore limit their ambition.

Educational attainment is measured in trade and professionally useful qualifications and is rewarded accordingly. Some intellectuals can’t make it past becoming a postman; a PhD in medieval monastic clericalism does not bode well for employment to repay the student loan or maintain a family.

Life experience adds to the complex riches an employee brings to any job which can translate into dollars.

Life events can both give and take away opportunities to prosper. These may be random such as health accidents which reduce earning ability or inheritances providing capital. An inheritance may be squandered as easily as it came. Random misfortune may simply present itself. However useful personal connections can enhance earning ability.

Age at all levels influences earning capacity. Most people are not born with assured capital or income and have to live and age to acquire skills to earn. Old age may prevent employment but may have given opportunity for the wise to acquire income producing capital.

Motivation is a leveler – without it, earning capacity can drop to zero. I have seen cannabis render primary school children vegetative drifters, and a high school potential dux rendered a drop-out. Many on sickness or invalids’ benefits are unemployable because of drug taking. From experience I know that drug damaged people are not, or barely, employable. We can tut tut but we have to accept these people need our love and support. They may have rendered themselves helpless but punishing them is wrong.

Opportunity deals with place and provision of work. High unemployment reduces that, career choices, voluntary or involuntary, create paths which can be hard to change from. I joined Inland Revenue as a young person because I was placed there then by the Government personnel machine which led directly in time to my 7 years in Samoa. I had to make a deliberate choice to return to NZ and not take up a certainly higher paying job at the Asian Development Bank or to decline another offer to reside and implement a national savings scheme in Kiribati. A great deal of our employment opportunities and hence earning potential result from random forces external to us.

The provision of a living wage as defined is not a right and the amounts that different people need are not the same either. The blanket amount of $18.40/hr being promoted seems overly generous. In a time of economic stringency, particularly with the Christchurch earthquake bill to be paid, the country cannot afford to lift minimum pay rates so. It is improper union pressure to seek to have local authorities pay the higher rate sought: certainly they could pay as they can tax to do so, but that will flow on through the community. The flow from there will be into higher rates – where else is the matching output coming from to provide this sought largesse? Do we want price inflation on top of the Christchurch event? Are we prepared to revisit a wage price spiral which we struggled through in the 70’s and 80’s of which I remember mortgage rates of 15% and term deposits of 18.75%?

The claims of poverty in NZ seem to be driven particularly by the Polynesian communities; certainly their faces [12] are used to promote the claims. The Focus Group survey, [13] shows $400/week for food and a total of $2503/week for the Porirua respondents. In Kingsland (Auckland) it is a lot less at $1504/week (which is still 1.67 times our weekly overall spend, for a household of seven in a suburb neighbouring Porirua.) There are cultural pressures at work in these communities that are absent in others and they will spend, borrowing at high interest if necessary, to meet their fa’alavelave calls or other commitments like unveilings. This does not mean they are poor but their lifestyle is not well provided for in NZ. Fa’alavelave spreads the burdens of their distress throughout the extended network but the calls to support those overseas are really hard. It may be another two generations before this problem is solved. It is not proper though to use the real hardship of this minority group to attempt to force up the national wage rates. People are needy for different reasons but all cannot be treated equally without someone paying. It is going to take some wise work at the community level to put in place a local help network. It may be that we Pakeha, Palangi or other ethnic groups are going to have to accept temporarily increased financial and social remedial support to these communities to meet their cultural dues while working with them to enable them to be more self reliant in NZ. In my view this group may be largest group in NZ whose needs have not been specially provided for. We accepted them over time as migrants so we have acquired a responsibility to see that their culture does not beggar them. I have spoken about the economic pressure extra spending will cause, but I would like this concern to go on our NZ to-do list.

We should be careful what we ask for and those who promote change based on ideology not knowledge may not do the justice they claim to be the face of. The Social Justice Commission of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa & Polynesia is out of its depth and like the Salvation Army has become a political tool of a union which has failed to account for tax deducted from its own employees’ pay [14]. The Gospel drives us to compassion for the poor: Christ restored the widow’s son to life so the son could do what was customary to care for her as a widow. There is no suggestion that the son was not to be himself to be reduced in means as he shared his support with his mother. We are all equal in the eyes of God but not all equal here in our natural fallen state in this sojourn on earth. Any ideology that tries to make us equal is based on the premise that something should be forcibly taken from one to give to another. The Kingdom of God would have it that we give to the other out of love.

References (all current as at 18 February 2013):

[1] http://www.familycentre.org.nz/

[2] http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/

[3] Matthew 26:11

[4] Matthew 5:3

[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/10-lottery-winners-who-lost-it-all-2010-5?op=1 This is just one example among many.

[6] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart-18

[7] Have a look at the five year historical cross rates of the UDS/EUR on:http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/

[8] http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[9] http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-dollar-collapse-where-is-germanys-gold/5321894

[10] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10854830

[11]http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/files/embargo%20file/Living%20Wage%20Investigation%20Report.pdf(Executive Summary page 1.)

[12] http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/

[13] Ibid Living Wage Investigation Report p.8.

[14] http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4994627/Unite-still-paying-off-tax-debt

Multi culture rights and wrongs

Radegunda
on September 19, 2013 at 2:43 am said:
Multiculturalism is the battering ram. It tells Westerners that we must not have any pride in our historic culture or any inclination to defend it. It says that our culture is defective and needs an infusion of large numbers of people who insist on keeping their native cultures.

Multiculturalism commands us to be accommodating when Muslims insist on having public footbaths, time off for prayers, a “right” to be veiled, a “right” to deny taxi service to blind people with guide dogs, a “right” to build huge mosques in residential neighborhoods, and/or to take over public sidewalks for collective prayer, and to broadcast the muezzin’s call, etc.

Multiculturalism tells us that “tolerance” requires us to censor our speech, lest Muslims be offended. It paves the way for aggressive da’wa and the gradual imposition of Islamic norms on everyone else.

Tony Blair said he wanted to “rub the right’s noses in diversity.” The result is that parts of London and other British cities (not to mention French) are turning into zones where infidels are commanded to adhere to sharia rules, and all of England is a place where Muslims are granted indulgence to be hateful and aggressive while the authorities crack down hard on critics of Islam.

Multiculturalists may not think they’re clearing the path for an Islamic cultural conquest, but they are.
------------------------------------------
Slavonian
on September 19, 2013 at 5:46 am said:
“Are you sure multiculturalism – the notion that all people of all backgrounds are equal under the one law of the land – is a problem?

You are describing a part of “Liberté – égalité – fraternité, the foundation of European political culture. It says that all people are “égal,” meaning equal, including women.
In contrast, multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal. No matter that some of the cultural differences impact destructively upon the equality of the better half of the human species – women, as is the case with the islamic culture steeped in its all pervasive religion/ideology. The Qur’an and its prophet proclaim in no uncertain terms that women are inferior to men. The same religion/ideology/culture holds all other religions, ideologies, and cultures as inferior to itself.
For that reason, cultures cannot be treated as equal under the law which bases on the three aforementioned principles, one of which is Equality. Islam recognizes neither of these principles. Multiculturalism clearly clashes with our duty, as free men, to promote the aforementioned principles. Therefore, multiculturalism is definitely wrong in its main postulate.
-----------------------------------------
Beach Bum
on September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm said:
If multiculturalism applied equally to all individuals, you might have a point. It does not. It is only applied towards white people.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all sexes (multiculturalism defines at least three), you might have a point. It does not, it mostly applies to white males.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all cultures, you might have a point. It does not, it is only critical of cultures built by majorities of white people.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all religions, you might have a point. It does not, it clearly favors Islam, and puts Christianity at the bottom of the list (guess why…).
If multiculturalism applied equally to all ideologies, you might have a point. It does not, it clearly favors socialistic corporatism.
-------------------------------------------
Dymphna
on September 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm said:
Bravo, Beach Bum.

A detailed explanation of why the multi-culti politically correct utopianism of the Left is in reality a morally bankrupt ideology that is designed to kill the west…and then the ‘victors’ will wage internecine warfare to their mutually assured destruction.

I am sick of these interesting times. Oh to return to boring times…
-------------------------------------------------
Marten Gantelius
on September 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm said:
Exactly, Beach Bum. The word “Multiculturalism” is a fairly new “academic” invention – some sources say that it was invented in Canada in the early 70ies. I didn’t hear it in Sweden before the early 90ies. Just as the term “Islamophobia”, it is used politically to manipulate people and distract them from what’s going on.

Immigrants with a will to assimilate have never been a big problem anywhere in the western world throughout centuries. Xenophobia is not the problem – Islam is! The muslims don’t WANT to assimilate – they are violent invaders and have been so for 1400 years. So far they are doing good – both in Norway and in Sweden.
-------------------------------------------------
Chiu ChunLing
on September 19, 2013 at 10:11 pm said:
More particularly, the harm of multiculturalism only applies to denigration of one particular culture, that of Western Civilization. It really doesn’t matter how you depart from the tenets of individual freedom and personal responsibility, as long as you do so vigorously enough you will be considered “multicultural”.
-------------------------------------------
Radegunda on September 19, 2013 at 5:36 pm said:
I’ve never seen multiculturalism defined as “the notion that all people of all backgrounds are equal under the one law of the land.”

Culture is not simply your “background”; it’s the way you conduct your life now. And not just you as an individual; the idea that an individual or a family can have its own “culture” surrounded by a dozen other “cultures” in a city block is nonsense. Culture involves the ways that large groups of people interact and maintain cohesiveness and identity. Culture sustains society.

Law is part of culture, or at least a product of culture. That’s why “multiculturalism” doesn’t put a high premium on “the one law of the land.” Instead, it demands that the law of the land be bent to accommodate the “cultural” demands of newcomers who dislike the law of the land; it even allows them to have their own law courts and develop parallel societies that want nothing to do with the larger society except to take the benefits it offers, or force it to be more like the parallel society.

Equality under the one law of the land has virtually nothing to do with multiculturalism.
-------------------------------------
from another thread but sort of fits here
Dalegor on September 18, 2013 at 5:58 pm said:
As ol’ good Stefan Kisielewski once said: socialism heroically overcomes difficulties unknown in any other system. Would there be any reason to put out the fire, if you didn’t set your home aflame?
---------------------
Arvid (pursvensk) on September 19, 2013 at 1:37 am said:
Sweden for all of us     a petition to sign

Take the debate for a Sweden where diversity is strength.
[Orwell could not have formulated this claim better.]

But what’s this – what happens? – number of signatories is today

September 19 19.579 persons and the tendency is decelerating.

There must be a lot more of functional idiots in New Sweden believing
in harmonious coexisting with from MENA imported Mussulmans.
Hallo, all quislings – step forward, pick up your pen and sign.
Sure you know what you engage in.
-------------------------------------------
Kalle i Bredäng on September 19, 2013 at 7:55 am said:
Who cares if Sweden in fifty years time is the country of immigrant people with different cultural backgrounds. We, who oppose the madness in the present will then all be dea. Let old Swedish ideals of discussing and reaching amicable settlements, of trying to understand the wiews of the counterparty, of compromising, of being responsible, of showing decency, honesty, helpfulness, neighborliness, become obliterated

Instead we have got a new country dominated by honor morality, oppression of women and corruption, where the cheekiest and the stronger wins. Then we will be a second Syria with all its conflicts between different communities.

Let’s bury old Sweden and all old red buildings with white trim can be painted green. Then the remaining old Swedes finally will understand the fate of the American Indians.

A wonderful future and the true wet dream of the ruling seven-party-alliance.
May they all rot in hell after having been hanged as traitors to the old country.
------------------------------------

self sacrifice for the collective

Reid (14,077) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 11:21 am

the problem is that the ideas lead to the real outcomes

Well said OT. Many people haven’t yet grasped the reality that thoughts are things. James Allen has written a brilliant treatise on this.

Man is made or unmade by himself; in the armory of thought he forges the weapons by which he destroys himself. He also fashions the tools with which he builds for himself heavenly mansions of joy and strength and peace. By the right choice and true application of thought, man ascends to the Divine Perfection; by the abuse and wrong application of thought, he descends below the level of the beast. Between these two extremes are all the grades of character, and man is their maker and master.

They don’t seem to have a concept of real human nature and what people really want.

Personally I’ve always believed communists have done what they have done purposefully and deliberately with full knowledge and aforethought in the total understanding that what they were doing was designed not to free but to enslave.

I don’t believe your average leftist thinks that but I do believe the people in highest echelons such as those who control organisations like the Fabians know exactly that and do exactly that and for exactly that reason. And the average leftist is simply a fool who gets dragged down into the mire of their poison because they haven’t yet learned how to separate reason from emotion and they get carried away with the duplicitous lie that humanity’s path is best served by collective sacrifice. Their mistake lies in the fact that this in fact is quite true, provided the collective sacrifice is led and conducted in the name of all that is good and humane, but it’s not, under socialism, because the lie is that its done in the name of whatever their leaders decide is best for them and their own close circle of followers and its then sold in the disguise of all that is good and humane. And anyone who knows the first thing about human nature is that you don’t look to mankind for wisdom, you look elsewhere, because mankind is always venal, cruel, vindictive and ruthless and you only have to look at history to establish the truth of that.

But those simple and apparent facts have never stopped fools from having their ears tickled before and I don’t expect it to stop anytime soon, but what appalls me is that at this time in history when we have more information available to us than ever before simply there for the taking, and yet still we have tremendous numbers of people lining themselves up for their own sacrifice by voting like turkeys, for their own thanksgiving.

Scott (1,457) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 1:20 pm

The problem in North Korea is communism and atheism. You cannot separate the two. It’s what happens when atheists run the show. They don’t believe they will be accountable in this life or the next. They do not accept any limits on their power. Given the rise of atheism in this country, and this blog is a good example, one can only shudder if atheism became our nations official religion.

Atheism or Islam? Not much of a choice is it?

Kea (7,669) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Scott, no the problem is ideological zealots like you. Who do you think you are demanding that your absurd cult be imposed on people by central government ? The only difference between the society you want and North Korea is in the ideology not in the methods used.

If we are to move forward and evolve, we need to be considerably less tolerant of people like yourself. Your belief in the supernatural is not harmless and not a personal issue. Religion has caused more suffering than socialism through out history.

mikenmild (7,115) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Beware of all zealotry – religious, political or social. I tend to mistrust greatly those who are most certain that their particularly ideology is best for others.

Kea (7,669) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 1:49 pm

mikenmild, There is a difference between being a passionate advocate for something and being a zealot. The difference is a zealot will maintain a position regardless of the evidence or logic. Being “mild” on important issues is nothing at all to be proud of. It has allowed some of the greatest tragedies in human history. No wrong can exist with those who allow it through indifference.

Scott (1,458) Says: 
September 21st, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Kea-you talk rubbish. Christianity begets a civilization that has lasted millenia. Atheism always begets hell on earth that lasts a few decades before the people vomit it out. The leaders of North Korea are atheists. That’s why they are so horrible to the people.
Atheism has caused more suffering than anything else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.”

– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe