The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

​

 

​

 

​

 

Naming the Enemy — on The Glazov Gang

May 8, 2016 4:30 am By Jamie Glazov Leave a Comment


This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.
He came on the show to discuss Naming the Enemy, analyzing the question: “Do we say the word?”
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch the special edition of The Glazov Gang with Stephen in which he discusses How “Rules of Engagement” Get U.S. Soldiers Killed, unveiling the disgraceful and deadly cost America pays for obeying Islamic laws in Afghanistan: CLICK HERE.
Important Announcement: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program and its life extension is growing short. Please donate through our Pay Pal account to help us keep going. We so appreciate it.


Afghan film star gets death threats for being photographed without veil

​

 

Dayanand Saraswati, Indian sage, said in 1883, "Having thus given a cursory view of the Koran, I lay it before the sensible person with the purpose that they should know what kind of a book the Koran is. I have no hesitation to say that it cannot be the work of either God or of a learned man, nor can it be a book of knowledge. Here its very vital defect has been exposed with the object that people may not waste their life falling into its imposition. The Koran is the result of ignorance, the source of animalization of human beings, a fruitful cause of destroying peace, an incentive to war, and propagator of hostility among men and a promoter of suffering in society. As to defect of repetition, the Koran is its store."​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: The European Commission and the Latest “Rights Of Man”

May 8, 2016 5:06 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 33 Comments


“In its latest bid to tackle the biggest migration crisis since World War II, the European Commission proposed making countries pay a ‘solidarity contribution’ of 250,000 ($290,000) euros per refugee they decline to take.”—from a May 4 news report


This extraordinary news shows how far the European Union, the Party of Good, the Party of European Duty Toward Muslims — the “duty” being that of helping ameliorate the conditions of Muslims by taking into Europe ever-greater numbers of these “refugees” – is prepared to go, in squeezing economically those member states of the European Union that are not willing to accept as many Muslim migrants as the European Commission, in its wisdom, has determined they should take in.

It is not coincidental that those countries most reluctant to accept the European Commission’s diktat are in Eastern Europe. They received their political freedom comparatively recently, having been held captive as members of the Soviet bloc, and are grateful for what they thought would be freedom from the kind of bullying they endured from the Soviet Union. They assumed that they were rejoining Europe; instead they find they have joined quite a different thing, the European Union, an officious multinational meddler and bully. Given their own history, these Eastern Europeans are keenly sensitive to assaults on their freedom by E.U bureaucrats who, in their nonstop display of political correctness, seek to force Eastern Europe to take in ever more migrants, just as the “enlightened” states of Western Europe have had to do. The Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians, however, have not yet succumbed to these pressures; they do not think that Europe owes Muslim migrants anything.
In a recent interview in a German news weekly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban complained that “the language of the European elite [pressuring states to take in more Muslims] is ideological and dogmatic.” Orban dared to state the kind of home truths that were once so obvious, and now are so scandalous: he said that Islam is “the rulebook of another world” that “spiritually has never been part of Europe – it came to us.” Czech President Milos Zeman has addressed anti-Islam rallies and recently declared that it’s practically impossible to integrate Muslims into Western Europe.” He has also denounced the use of such scare-words as “Islamophobe” and “racist” to describe those opposed, like him, to more Muslim immigration.

As for Poland, last November, 170,000 Poles held an anti-Islam rally in Warsaw, described as the “largest demonstration in Polish history.” The participants were particularly incensed by the European Union’s demands “that Poland ‘absorb’ Muslims who have flooded into Germany over the past few months.”
While the European Commission has so far failed to convince the countries of eastern Europe that they have a “duty to Muslims” that can only be discharged by welcoming them as migrants, it has been more successful, invoking the “Rights-of-Man,” in Western Europe.
The original “Declaration of the Rights of Man” was articulated in the period of the French Revolution, and formally drawn up in August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly of Revolutionary France. Representative government was endorsed and the divine right of kings dismissed, the legal equality of all citizens was proclaimed, and the rights of all to “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression” declared. The freedom of speech and of the press were guaranteed. The “Rights of Man,” like the American Bill of Rights, was in the main an attempt to limit the power of the state against the individual. But in the last half-century, the “Rights of Man” has become a phrase, increasingly emptied of its original content, invoked for other purposes and now used as an instrument of oppression by the European Union against both states and their peoples, in a determined effort to transform Europe.

In French journalist Ivan Rioufol’s latest column, he quotes approvingly Professor Jean-Louis Harouel’s pithy description of how “the Rights of Man” have been re-interpreted:
“Les droits de l’homme, inventés par l’Occident pour protéger ses citoyens contre les risques d’arbitraire du pouvoir, sont devenus depuis un demi-siècle une religion séculière suicidaire pour les Occidentaux.”
“The Rights of Man, invented by the West to protect its citizens against the risks of arbitrary power, have become over the past half-century a secular and even suicidal religion for Western man.”

This new version of the “Rights-of-Man” does not come from representatives of “the People” in a National Assembly in Paris, but from bureaucrats in Brussels; it is a top-down prescription based on a faith that is not to be questioned. It’s the “religion” of People-Are-The-Same-The-Whole-World-Over, of – in its extreme form — “all people have a right to move wherever they can” and “people should live wherever they want.” It’s connected to the contempt for oneself and for one’s own country from which Western elites now masochistically suffer (Prof. Harouel: “Le programme de la haine de soi et de son pays est aujourd’hui devenu la pensée officielle, imposée par le politiquement correct de la religion des droits de l’homme”; englished thus: “The program of hatred of oneself and of one’s own country has become the official line, imposed by the political correctness of the religion of the Rights-of-Man”). Of course, the Muslim migrants are convinced of just the opposite; they are, according to the Qur’an, the “best of people” (3:110). And they don’t need anyone to tell them that they have the right to move somewhere; the world, by rights, belongs to them, even if some parts – for now — are still controlled by non-Muslims.

This updated “Rights-of-Man,” undeclared by any legislative body but shared by so many in Europe’s political and media elites, does not guarantee the freedom of speech but only the freedom of speech so long as Muslims are not offended (see Charlie Hebdo, see Garland, Texas). This updated “Rights-of-Man” no longer guarantees freedom from arbitrary power, but justifies the exercise of arbitrary power by the European Union, in forcing its members to take in large numbers of immigrants from a world that is completely foreign and hostile, and who, by and large, refuse to assimilate.
The simple desire of people to preserve the laws and customs of their own country, to minimize the level of physical insecurity which they must daily endure, to decide for themselves whom they wish to admit and whom to keep out, the understandable need, that is, to remain masters in their own homes, all this, once taken for granted, is now stigmatized as “right-wing nationalism,” which then becomes “xenophobia,” which then becomes “far-right racism,” and with that, all possibility of discussion is shut down. A refusal to consider, much less publicly discuss, the future consequences of this huge migration prevails among those European leaders – see Merkel, see the Pope — most determined to put into effect these metamorphosing “Rights of Man.”

If a referendum were held today in Europe on Muslim immigration, we all know what the result would be at the ballot box, and we also know it would have no effect on the E.U.’s “Rights-Of-Man” juggernaut. These rights that originally limited the power of the European states against their own peoples are now invoked by a supra-national body, the European Commission, to deprive those same states, not when they oppose, but when they reflect the will of their own peoples, of the power to decide their own immigration policies.
The fine of nearly $300,000, imposed by the European Commission for each Muslim migrant who is rejected by a country after having been deemed suitable for entry by the E.C., constitutes the dizzy culmination of a policy conceived by European elites, with their twisted version of the “Rights of Man.” If that policy succeeds, it will lead inexorably to the Islamization, through demography, of large parts of Europe, sacrificed on the altar of this new “suicidal” (“suicidaire”) religion.

And with a larger and larger share of Europe’s population consisting of Muslims, and of non-Muslims willing — out of ignorance, out of fear, out of despair — to be their collaborators, the next iteration of the “Rights of Man” in Europe will be considerably older than the previous one, and represent even more of a change. And it already has a name. It’s called the Sharia.

Pakistan's ruling party hails Muslim London mayor's win over "millionaire Jew"
Muslim cleric urges female genital mutilation

 

Islam

Australia is a country built on Christian values. Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society. Secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government or religion or religious practices upon the people.
Australia has embraced migrants from all different races, making us one of the most multiracial nations on earth. Most have assimilated and are proud to call themselves Australian, accepting our culture, beliefs, laws and way of life. But unfortunately, there are some who have come to our country with the goal of changing our way of life, taking away our freedom and terrorising those who want to live in a peaceful society. Those migrants are the extremist Muslims who are devout to the teachings of Islam and its leaders. All may not follow the teachings of the Qur’an, but if Jihad is called (applying any methods, including threats, deceit and ISIS-style warfare, to establish Islam as the dominant power, completely endorsed by Allah and Mohammed) where do their loyalties lie?


What is Islam and how does it impact on Australia?

Islam sees itself as a theocracy, not a democracy. Islam does not believe in democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press or freedom or assembly. It does not separate religion and politics. Many believe that it is solely a religion, but the reality is that it is much more, for it has a political agenda that goes far outside the realm of religion. Islam regulates the Muslim’s social and domestic life, their legal system and politics - their total life.
Its religious aspect is fraud; it is rather a totalitarian political system, including legal, economic, social and military components, masquerading as a religion. Islam is a constitutionally protected religion, as stated in Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. This means that Mosques, Islamic Schools and other Islamic institutions are void from paying tax. Being defined as ‘a religion’ it is considered ‘discriminatory’ for Islam to be questioned and this is shutting down any debate that we, as Australians, would like to have.
Islam is proving to be seditious against every nation and government on earth. Islam demands that all Muslims work to overthrow all nations, governments and non-sharia laws. We recently saw this written within a linked website, that was provided in the Australian Defence Force publication “Guide to Religion and Belief in the ADF.” Since being exposed by journalist Michael Smith, it has been removed, but it stated:

“It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in the hope that he can become part of a system which rules according to something other than that which Allaah has revealed and operates according to something other than the sharee’ah of Islam. It is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for anyone else who will work in that government, unless the one who nominates himself or those who vote for him hope that by getting involved in that they will be able to change the system to one that operates according to the sharee’ah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government, provided that the one who nominates himself will not accept any position after being elected except one that does not go against Islamic sharee’ah.”
- The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas (Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood)

​

The same guide for Muslims in the ADF also stated:

"Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam (because) legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers. - Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid
​

Read the full article at:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...vernment-says-we-are-at-war-with-islam-a.html​

Islam is the fastest growing ideology in the world. Muslims represent a world population of 1.6 Billion now and expected to be 2.3 Billion by 2050. Pew Research believe Australia’s Muslim population is currently at 2.4% and growing.
It has been noted throughout the world that as long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part, regarded as ‘a peace-loving minority and not a threat to other citizens.’
Australia is now seeing big changes in the suburbs which are predominately Muslim. Some of these suburbs include Lakemba, Auburn, Bankstown, Punchbowl and Villawood in Western Sydney, Tolerance toward other Australians or non-Muslim migrants is no longer the case. Our law courts are disrespected and prisons have become breeding grounds for extremist Muslims to radicalise inmates.
Terrorism is not only seen around the world but now a part of our history with Muslim refugees involved in the Lindt Café siege, the murder of a police civilian employee Curtis Cheng and the stabbing of the two police officers in Victoria. We have more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIS than we have in our defence force and ASIO has over 450 known terror suspects under surveillance. Civil tension is on the rise across the country, led by Australians feeling the impact of Islam in their lives and distaste for its beliefs.

The Halal certification ‘tax’ has been forced upon us costing Australians approx. $10 million a year. Halal certification is not a religious requirement but a money making racket by those profiteering from the greater population including Muslims themselves who are being told that they must buy these items. Halal Certification only started in Australia in 1974. What were Muslim’s eating before that? Non-Halal food can be consumed providing that the word “bismillah” (’in the name of God’) is said over the food as a prayer.
Christmas carols can no longer be sung at some schools, bibles will not be found in most hospitals, some public swimming baths have time set aside for Muslim women only, and drivers licences obtained by Muslim women allow them to wear the Burqa or Niquab. Prayer rooms are now provided in Universities, hospitals, schools, airports and shopping centres to accommodate Muslims; this includes Islamic prayer rooms in Christian schools.
There are some Muslims who want to see Sharia Law introduced in Australia. This law is the totalitarian social code, which prescribes harsh feudal rules imposed on everything, firstly for Muslims, later for everyone. It has been reported that Sharia Law is already being practiced in Australia, within Family Law.

There are some Islamic terms that all Australians should be aware of. If Islam itself was a tolerant, non-discriminatory, non-deceptive and progressive culture, why do the following definitions exist?
Dhimmi is any non-Muslim (Christian or Jew) allowed to live and pay tax (jizya) under domination of Islam and treated as a second-class citizen in his or her own country.
Hijra is Muslim colonization of other lands (Australia) through migration.
Kaffir is any non-Muslim (us), the lowest rank of being, worthy of contempt, should be ruled over by Muslims.
Taqiyya is deliberate deception and lying to protect or advance Islam, by concealing its real agenda; One message to guide the Muslims, a separate one to fool the media and Kaffir.
Islam has no place in Australia if we are to live in a cohesive society. We have seen the destruction it is having around the world. If we do not make the necessary changes now to stop the advancement of Islam in Australia, there will be no hope in the future. Do you want your children and grandchildren to be living under Sharia Law and treated as a second-class citizen with no rights? We don’t!


Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Policy

We will enact the following:

• Call for an inquiry or Royal Commission to determine if Islam is a religion or political ideology
• Stop further Muslim Immigration and the intake of Muslim refugees​
• Ban the Burqa and Niquab in public places​
• Driver’s licence cannot be obtained without showing the full face and having photo ID on driver’s licence​
• Surveillance cameras to be installed in all Mosques and schools. Mosques to be open to the public during all opening hours​
• No more mosques to be built until the inquiry is held​
• Oppose the introduction of Sharia Law​
• Investigate welfare payments paid to Muslims who may be in multiple marriages, having multiple children​
• Ban Halal certification. Halal certified food not to be provided in prisons or the armed services. Companies may comply for export but no monies must be paid​
• Call for a referendum to change Section 116 of the Australian Constitution​
• Muslims will not be allowed to be sworn in to Parliament under the Qur’an​
• Female genital mutilation to carry lengthy jail term​

Go Back

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_SkhmsyYag


​

 

​

Anne Marie Waters |


Anne Marie Waters |
activist
Anne Marie Waters
|
activist


WOMEN’S EQUALITY PARTY HAS NO POSITION ON SHARIA LAW

May 2016 / 4 | No Comments

Here is a brief email exchange I had with a representative of the Women’s Equality Party. I had replied to a promotion email and asked their view on sharia councils.

---

Sent: 04 May 2016 09:36
To: amwaters@hotmail.com; info@womensequality.org.uk
Hi Anne Marie,
Thank you for your message. The Women’s Equality Party is a non-partisan political party and the issue of Sharia councils is a partisan one so we do not have a party line. That said, we are proposing specialist support services for those who have been forced into marriage or suffered FGM or honour-based violence. You can read more about this on page 22 of our policy document here:
Best wishes,
Eleanor, on behalf of the WE team

---

From: Anne Marie Waters
Sent: 04 May 2016 10:33
To: info@womensequality.org.uk
I’m sorry but that’s absurd. This is a matter of fundamental importance for women’s basic rights, much less equality. Its admirable that you want to support people forced in to marriage etc, but wouldn’t prevention be better? That involves some serious courage.
It is clear to me that you will focus on uncontroversial matters while ignoring unimaginable cruelty to women right under your nose.
Such a shame. Feminism has really become a joke.
Thank you though for replying. I appreciate that.

​

 

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE​

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Pope: Neither Holy, Nor Roman, Nor An Umpire

May 12, 2016 12:23 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 70 Comments

“Integration” And “Dialogue” Or, The Pope Accepts His Prize



The Charlemagne Prize, awarded by the city of Aachen for services furthering the unity of Europe, was given this year to Pope Francis. His address upon receiving the prize is one more example of his inability to recognize, or possibly of his feeling compelled not to acknowledge, the real effect of Muslim migrants on Europe today, and the insurmountable obstacles to “dialogue” with, and “integration” of, Muslims within Europe. Indeed, in his speech about the future of Europe, he never mentions the words that are in every thinking European’s mind — “Islam” and “Muslims.” Instead, he describes a Europe that is perceived as “weary, aging, no longer fertile and vital.” He paints a portrait of a Europe that needs, he says, an infusion of new blood, and where else could that infusion come from, if not from the Muslim immigrants knocking at every gate and flooding in, whether the Europeans like it or not – almost a million into Germany just in the last year? For the Pope, this will be a Good Thing, if the native Europeans – for this Vatican umpire, the ball is always in their court – handle things correctly.

Europe, the Pope said, should now emulate those who were its “founding fathers” after the war – Robert Schuman, Alcide De Gasperi, Konrad Adenauer – and honor their vision “to build bridges and tear down walls.” But those postwar statesmen wanted to “build bridges” to whom? And wanted to “tear down walls” between whom? The European Union’s founding fathers were building bridges from one European country to another (and especially, between those hereditary enemies France and Germany), and the “walls” they wanted torn down were those that had separated one European country from another. They could not have conceived that their work might someday be used to justify opening Europe to millions of Muslims. Now, nearly 60 years later, between European countries there are bridges galore, and among the signatories to the Schengen Agreement, the walls have been torn down, with even the need for visas for travel within Europe eliminated. The metaphoric “bridges” and “walls” of which Pope Francis spoke are quite different; he means “bridges” that connect Europe to the outside world; the “walls” he wants torn down are not those between countries, but those which once shielded Europe from the outside by strict enforcement of border controls.

The Pope deplores this “resignation and weariness” of Europe: “what has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy, and freedom?” Could it be that Europeans are weary from the battle against Jihad terrorism, that shows no signs – and why should it? – of ever coming to an end, and exhausted too with the social disruption and expense which has resulted from the Muslims in their midst? And to what group of Muslims, anywhere in the world, before or after the Arab Spring, have Europeans managed to transplant what the Pope insists they champion, that is “human rights, democracy, and freedom,” all so antipathetic to the letter and spirit of Islam?

Could it be that Europeans, whatever their outward views, regard with secret dread this ever-increasing population of Muslims, and that fear, not economic inequality (the other theme of the Pope’s Charlemagne speech), is what is now most demoralizing Europe? But neither the Pope nor anyone else among the “respectable” leaders will ever discuss this; that’s left to Le Pen, Wilders, and similar beyond-the-pale outcasts.
Meanwhile, what has been the palpable effect of these migrants? The Muslim immigrant population has taken a terrific financial toll on Europe, including the cost of providing medical care, education, housing (all of them heavily subsidized or free for those immigrants), unemployment benefits for these largely unskilled immigrants, and the expense for more security (at airports, train and metro stations, tourist sites at major sites), more police, more investigators, more state-paid judges and prosecutors, and more prison cells (the crime rate of Muslims is much higher than that of non-Muslims). This all takes money.

Another worry is the physical threat to non-Muslim women, from the lone-wolf attacker to the Muslim gangs of groomers and rapists of very young girls in the U.K. Some European authorities, especially in Germany and the U.K., have unfairly put the burden of security on the potential victims: it is the girls and women who are advised by the police to change what they wear, or told not to go out after dusk, or even advised to dye their hair a darker shade should they have the misfortune of being come-hither blondes, in order not to attract the feral attentions of Muslim men. Jews, too, from Sweden and Denmark to France and Italy, have been victims of anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims. And most frightening for everyone is the permanent threat of groups (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, name your poison), who have already brought murder and mayhem to many different cities in Europe: Paris, Brussels, London, Madrid, Amsterdam, and Moscow.

Imagine starting out in Europe today, with the Muslim population in the European Union already approaching 25 million (and that is not counting, next door, the 70 million in Turkey, or the 20 million in Russia). When a young European couple makes plans for their own future, in many places they now must consider whether they will be sending their children to schools with large numbers of Muslim children (schools with syllabi subject to drastic change, as in France, where the history of Western Christendom is no longer compulsory). Private schools might be a solution for that young couple, but also would be an extra expense which, in turn, might cause them to limit their own family’s size. Meanwhile, Muslims greatly outbreed non-Muslims all over Europe, and thus constitute an ever-larger percentage of the population. Nor is it only the young who must revise their expectations downward. When older Europeans consider what state assistance will be available to them, they must take into account a likely decrease in what they will receive, because of the amounts now going to Muslim immigrants (most of whom never paid into the social security system, but are still eligible for support). All this is a major contributor to the European “resignation” and “weariness” that the Pope deplores.

None of this grim reality was allowed into the Pope’s speech. What he called for was more “integration” of the kind that led to the European Union. But whatever the differences among nations that were by degrees overcome to form the European Union are as nothing compared to the gigantic differences between Muslims and non-Muslims. He spoke at great length about the need, in Europe, for “integration” of the “foreigner” and the “migrant.” We know whom he means, and we know why he offers not analysis but only pious hope. The same fact-defying obsession and desire to “integrate” Muslims in Europe has caused him to make other astonishing remarks, as he did two years ago when he claimed that the Qur’an is a “peaceful book” and Islam “a peaceful religion.”

In his Charlemagne speech, the Pope said that “the identity of Europe is, and always has been, a dynamic and multicultural identity.” This sounds good. What right-thinking person could possibly have anything against what is “dynamic and multicultural”? But what does the phrase mean? And if we manage to figure out what it means, then we must ask “but is it true”? What makes one “culture” sufficiently different from the majority culture for its presence to create a “multicultural” identity? What is the “multicultural identity” of Italy? Is it “multicultural” because the Greeks were in southern Italy three thousand years ago, or Muslims in Sicily eleven hundred years ago, or Austrians ruled what is now the Alto Adige a century ago? How long is our timeline? What is the mix-n’-match needed to create that elusive “multicultural identity” the Pope so ardently desires for Europe?
Surely there can be differences so great between cultures as to preclude the possibility of that “multicultural identity.” What allowed the European Union to come into being was that the differences among its member states were not nearly as large as between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Pope knows that European countries have a common heritage in Greece and Rome and, for the past 2000 years, the peoples of Europe have developed their civilization within a shared faith, Christianity — a word which Pope Francis, in his Charlemagne speech, never once uttered.

The Pope is not alone in minimizing the role of Christianity (at least in his public utterances) in creating the civilization of Europe. It’s become quite the thing. A few years ago, former French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac created a mild scandal when he spoke of a “Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian.” Such statements, alas, no longer scandalize. When, the other day, the European Minister for Financial and Economic Affairs Pierre Moscovici roundly declared that “Europe is not Christian. I don’t believe in the supposed ‘Christian roots’ of Europe. Europe is diverse,” practically no one protested. No words of correction or reproach came, not even from the Vatican.
In Pope Francis’ view, Europe is true to its own past only when it admits, and “integrates,” others who can satisfy that essential need for “multicultural identity.” But how do you create a “multicultural” identity when the faith of Islam rejects all compromises or “integration” with non-Muslims? No sleight of word from the Vatican – nor all the perfumes of Arabia – can make this happen.

“The capacity to integrate” should be based on real “solidarity” with the migrants, says the Pope: “Time is teaching us that it is not enough simply to settle individuals geographically: the challenge is that of a profound cultural integration.” Perhaps the Pope has not noticed, but Europeans have been going out of their way for years to promote that “profound cultural integration” with the new Muslim immigrants. There are state-funded language classes, required lessons in many countries in their history, customs, laws as part of “citizenship education” for immigrants (see, as one example, the requirements for the Dutch Certificaat Inburgering) – all provided to “acculturate” Muslims and to help them become part of the larger society. But this has not led to the desired result, because Muslims who remain true to Islam don’t want to be part of that larger society; they want that larger society to adjust to them. They will learn what they must to pass the tests, but only to ensure they can remain in the country. They are still intent on changing the culture of Europe rather than themselves. And they have had nothing to give them pause, but only triumphs so far: changes to the school curricula, censorship of material deemed anti-Islam, rules to prevent gender-mixing in municipal pools or gyms, halal food served in school cantines and prisons. Even those Muslims at the very pinnacle of worldly success have not “integrated” as the Pope might have assumed they would. Think of Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at Oxford, and whose knowledge of Western languages and culture has done nothing to dampen his enthusiasm for his role as Muslim apologist; he is not so much an example of “cultural integration” as of someone who has exploited his knowledge of Western culture and languages, the better to defend and promote Islam through the Jihad of “pen, speech.”

If proof of the openness of European societies to immigrants were needed, look only at the success with which so many “others” — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists – have been integrated. Compare their example with that of Muslim immigrants who, remaining true to their faith, instead of accepting those well-meaning attempts to integrate them, work to impose their own “culture” uncompromisingly on the “culture” of their European hosts. Such “profound cultural integration” as has taken place in Europe with many other kinds of immigrants has been uniquely unsuccessful with Muslims. The Pope dare not allude to the reasons for this; for him it’s “dialogue” all the way with everyone: “If there is one word that we should never tire of repeating, it is this: dialogue. We are called to promote a culture of dialogue by every possible means and thus to rebuild the fabric of society. The culture of dialogue entails a true apprenticeship and a discipline that enables us to view others as valid dialogue partners, to respect the foreigner, the immigrant, and people from different cultures as worthy of being listened to.” So it’s the “foreigner” and the “immigrant” and “people from different cultures” with whom Europeans must enter into this “culture of dialogue.” But, it needs constantly to be repeated, what if those “foreigners” and those “immigrants” have been taught not to enter into “dialogue” with others, in their case those “others” being non-Muslims, because there is nothing, in the Muslim view, about which the “best of peoples” (Muslims) can have a “dialogue” with the “vilest of creatures” (Non-Muslims).

Now just imagine if the Pope had turned things on their head, and dared to suggest in his Charlemagne Prize speech that “immigrants should exhibit real solidarity with those who have taken them in,” that the “foreigner and the immigrant” have a “duty to learn about, and take an intelligent interest in, the history of their new country, if they expect integration and dialogue”? All hell would have broken loose.
The Pope quotes approvingly Elie Wiesel, “a survivor of the Nazi death camps” who “has said that what we need today is a ‘memory transfusion.’ We need to ‘remember,’ to take a step back from the present to listen to the voice of our forebears.” Of course. But which memories does Europe need to have transfused from the past, and the voices of which forebears? How about the memories of more than a thousand years of Islam’s “encounter” with Europe, meaning the conquest of Christian lands, in North Africa, in Anatolia, in the Middle East, and the virtual extinguishing of Christianity in many of those lands and the screams of anguish – “the voice of our forebears” — that must have accompanied that conquest and subjugation? Isn’t that, at present, the “memory transfusion” most needed throughout Europe and, judging by the Pope’s good-hearted but soft-headed remarks, in the Vatican too? And while we are at it, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that someone in authority will declare — because it obviously needs to be restated — that Europe does indeed have “Christian roots”? Perhaps even this Pope?


Trump: Muslim ban 'just a suggestion'
Muslim "Sharia patrols" terrorize Copenhagen bars in "Sharia zone"


December 28, 2015
Why People Can't Face the Truth about Obama

By Deborah C. Tyler

The psychological processes which prevent people from facing facts when the unthinkable has become obvious can be explained by the models of social psychology called cognitive dissonance theory.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress and discomfort caused when important beliefs, attitudes or values, called cognitions, are inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory to each other. In the 1950s the psychologist Leon Festinger theorized that the mind spontaneously, continuously reduces cognitive dissonance to enable goal-directed functioning in a paradoxical, inconsistent, deceptive world. Festinger's discovery founded a rich tradition of research which has demonstrated how the mind resolves contradictions. It provides a powerful way to understand why people can't face what President Obama is doing to America.

Research has demonstrated countless times that cognitions do not have to be true to create dissonance, they just have to be believed. Barack Obama was elected to reduce the dissonance between the beliefs 'America is the land of the free', and the falsehoods 'America is still racist' and 'President Obama will go a long way to solving the problem of racism.' Because 'America is racist” is false, its corollaries are equally false. 'We must elect a black Democrat -- not black Republican -- because Republicans don't emphasize America is racist. Obama is fabulous, no need to know much about him, or whether he can lead the nation. He will make us feel better about ourselves'.
The antecedents of Barack Obama's hatred of America are now well understood. Obama was groomed from the womb to abhor this white majority, predominantly Christian free enterprise Republic. From his expatriate, capitalism-hating mother, from his alcoholic Communist father and his perv Communist mentor, detesting America was in his mother's milk and the blood in his veins. But it was the murderous Bill Ayers who recognized in Obama a destructive potential greater than a million bombs cooked up in basements. Ayers concocted the poison cocktail called Barack Obama that everybody wanted to drink, but nobody wanted to taste first.

America is Barack Obama's prey. He is tearing America apart and feeding the pieces of her life to his foreign and domestic fellow travelers. He is not transforming the nation but terminating it. Even the most transformational administrations haven't enabled the murder of Americans by declared enemies, weakened the national defense, mocked the concerns, and dimmed the hopes of average Americans as this president has. Even the highly transformational Franklin Roosevelt did not return Nazi generals to the enemy during the war as Obama did in the Bergdahl swap. Roosevelt did not entertain and enrich Nazi bigwigs as Obama has the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine Roosevelt facilitating German atom bomb research and enriching the Axis powers as Obama has in the Iran deal. No president has erased the nation's borders at land and sea as Obama in advertising inducements for an invasion from around the world. No president in American history has aided enemies, undermined the economy and derided the American people as the current commander-in-chief.

The immensity of Obama's disloyalty is key to why people cannot face the truth about him.
If the Obama election were going to reduce the dissonance he would have started his administration thusly: “As I have said, we are one nation, going forward together. Mine will be the first truly color-blind administration in American history. Every appointment I make will be based solely on qualifications and proven competence without reference to race.” Of course, this is the opposite of what Obama did. He fine-combed through America searching for scraps of racism. He strengthened the lie that America is a racist nation as cover for his destruction. Amongst innumerable examples: Attorney General Holder introduced the Obama administration by implying the white majority are all racists, built a DOJ whose foremost concern is racism, carried forward by Loretta Lynch, who just said a street strewn with American corpses murdered by Jihadi terrorists is a “wonderful” opportunity to fight racism.

America is racist, so illegals can enter unchecked. America is racist, destroy her free markets, send billions to nonwhite people as “warmist” reparations for her ill-gotten success. America is racist, empower and enrich her enemies like Iran. Barack Obama and his ilk experience zero cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictory beliefs 'America is about freedom' and 'America is racist'. They never believed that America or her Constitution are about freedom. They believe the incurably evil and racist America must be eliminated for the good of the world.

Before the mass denial of Obama's hatred is explained by dissonance theory, let's mention subdissonant Americans. Subdissonant Americans have no discomfort whether America is about freedom or racism because they are too intellectually limited, dumbed-down, or drugged out to care. If asked “Why does the sun shine?” a six-year-old will answer, “That is what the sun is 'post to do.” This is termed the moral explanation of concrete thinking. Based on IQ distribution, approximately 15% of the population do not think beyond the moral explanation, and do not recognize a president who isn't doing what he is supposed to do. Other subdissonant groups are those too ill educated or addicted to care about freedom or racism.

Festinger's induced-compliance paradigm of dissonance theory explains why black Americans may be the last group to face Obama's destructiveness -- because his policies have hurt them the most. In a famous experiment, people were instructed to lie to others and say a boring task was interesting. The induced-compliance paradigm found that people paid only $1 to lie convinced themselves they were telling the truth more than people paid $20 to tell the same lie! This counterintuitive effect has been replicated many times. People who received minimal external motivation for managing dissonance -- those paid the least -- produced stronger internal justifications to deny their actual experience. The underpaid believed their own lies better than those paid twenty times more. The overpaid say, “I'm in it for the money, period.” This is why many very wealthy people slug the colada in Obama's banana republic while the poorest blacks continue to justify the president, even as they get poorer.
Obama is destroying America overtly and covertly. By promoting policies which are normalizing harmful drugs, undermining the natural family, and generally promoting moral chaos he slyly increases the number of subdissonant Americans, people too ill or distracted to care. He has brainwashed or bought off virtually the entire government including the Republican establishment. A noble people who years ago would have resolved dissonance by believing in America's goodness and standing firm against tyranny no longer do.

The social psychologist Elliot Aronson advanced cognitive dissonance theory, further explaining why people can't face Obama's hatred and destruction. Aronson's self-concept model theorized the central purpose of dissonance reduction is to preserve positive self-image (I am a good person) and self-justification (I was right all along). Because so many Americans now have been convinced we are a racist nation, to maintain a positive self-image people cannot face the truth about Obama.
The loss of opportunities and the diminishing of hopes which Obama's policies have inflicted create a monumental need for self-justification among his supporters. “The president shows us America is still racist. We were right all along.” They have let go the truth that America is about freedom. No one knows how many still stand upon that truth, how many care, or if there are enough big lies left to elect Hillary.




Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_people_cant_face_the_truth_about_obama_.html#ixzz48X1f1el5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

jihad3tracker says
May 12, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Deborah Tyler’s item in the December 28 2015 online edition of American Thinker has been recommended by me several times here on JW.
She mentions cognitive dissonance as the prime cause of stupid thinking from otherwise intelligent people — even when faced with overwhelming evidence that their conclusions are wrong.
Go here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_people_cant_face_the_truth_about_obama_.html
Read it for some insight on the Pope, Merkel, Cameron, and oodles of additional stooges masquerading as capable heads of state.

• Jack Diamond says
  May 12, 2016 at 2:13 pm
  
  Cognitive dissonance helped along with heavy doses of conformity, fear disguised as respect, outright corruption and treason, short-term greed and ambition, pariah status for thinking any differently.
  This dream of recovering Europe’s importance and power (combined with fervent anti-Americanism) had led to ideas of an Arab-European symbiosis as far back as the 1960s (or at least Arab-French). It became real as a result of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (and after years of PLO terrorism on the continent). The OPEC oil-boycott, quadrupling of prices, political demands. Political demands the EU met 19 days later, siding against Israel, recognizing the PLO and Arafat and the “Palestinian cause” (whose charter delegitimized the existence of Israel; the later Hamas Charter actually calling for genocide, never denounced by the EU), the beginning of vast alliances with the Arab League, including policies for Muslim immigration into Europe.
  
  Oriana Fallaci on the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the Strasbourg Resolution (from “The Force of Reason”):
  “”It was then that Europe definitely sold itself to Islam…I went to Paris and got hold of the back numbers of “Eurabia” (the journal of the conferences). (Editor Lucian) Bitterlin underlines how the future of Europe is directly linked to the future of the Middle East and says that economic agreement has to depend on political agreements: to reflect ‘a complete identity of European views with the views of the Arab world.’ (In the second issue he enumerates the proposals of the Strasbourg Resolution for…) future immigrants. To be precise, the immigrants that Arab countries intend to send to Europe along with the oil. ‘A medium and long term policy must be formulated through the technology that from now on the European Community will provide Arab countries in exchange of crude oil and Arab manpower reserves (immigrants) (leading to) the complete economic integration between Europe and Arabia.’
  
  Carefully avoiding the words Islam, Islamic, Muslims, Koran, Mohammad, Allah, the Resolution goes on talking about the human needs arising when the ‘human trade goods’ get to Europe. ‘the need to enable immigrants and their families to observe the religious and cultural life of the Arabs.’ ‘The necessity to use the press and the various information outlets to create a climate favorable to the immigrants.’ ‘The urgency to exalt through the press and the academic world the immense contribution given by Arab culture to European development.’ The Cairo Convention added ‘the immigrants shall have the right to export their culture to Europe. That is, to propagate and disseminate Islamic religion and habits.’ (Also) it clarified that european cooperation had to expand into banking, financial, scientific, nuclear, industrial, and commercial fields. Worse, Arab countries would purchase ‘massive quantities of weapons.'”
  That was over 40 years ago.
  What The Economist calls “scaremongering” (‘Tales From Eurabia’ 6/22/06).
  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

COGNITIVE RESONANCE

​

 

​