Feminist Discourse Analysis in Islamic Feminism - The Islamic/Religious ‘Duty to Certainty’ rather than ‘Duty to Doubt’ is manifest.
Arabs: Why is Obama Siding with Supporters of Terrorism? by Khaled Abu Toameh February 26, 2015 at 5:00 am
"In the first place, ideologies provide a perspective, or 'lens', through which the world is understood and explained. People do not see the world as it is, but only as they expect it to be: in other words, they see it through a veil of ingrained beliefs, opinions and assumptions. Whether consciously or subconsciously everyone subscribes to a set of political beliefs and values that guide their behaviour and influence their conduct. Political ideas and ideologies thus set goals that inspire political activism. .... a, unifying set of political ideas and values can develop naturally within society, or it can be enforced from above in an attempt to manufacture obedience and exercise control. The clearest examples of such 'official' ideas have been found in fascist, communist and religious fundamentalist regimes."
Source: Political Ideologies Andrew Heywood 2012
States based upon a multiculturalism paradigm having values diametrically opposed to liberty and equality being "enforced from above in an attempt to manufacture obedience and exercise control" can now be added to those ideological entities of oppression yet the perpetrators of such a value construct as multiculturalism as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and those following the WHO script of cultural derived terror and ideological political schism being a 'health' issue see themselves as anything other than 'evil' which is not surprising given neither did or do their colleagues "in fascist, communist and religious fundamentalist regimes." .
"Political ideas and ideologies thus set goals that inspire political activism." - the nature of the "political activism" is defined by the cultural codex and such cultural codex can and clearly does in some cultures justify and authorise terror, the culture is therefore responsible for the 'few' they will always in time and space produce and the methods utilised to realise their own cultural "goals" which is a political space which reflects their "political beliefs and values" not Others.
ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir ... are reflecting the actual Islamic codex desired cultural political space which are able to be analogised into reality, each have exactly the same core beliefs and values which they must for they are variants made possible only because such political constructs exist within the Islamic/Muslim codex and in fact have to exist there for these political variant constructs to exist.
To then label those opposed to such Islamic/Muslim beliefs and values to be analogised, even partially, being allowed into a space of Liberty and Equality as having a mental illness, unreasonable bigots against a culture of peace and harmony when it is clear "political activism" terror in fact 'fear' is the only way Other could in anyway be forced to accept such an Islamic/Muslim construct is from a Liberty and Equality rational model simply madness. Unless the definition of Liberty and Equality along with Feminism are altered which in fact they have been under multiculturalism to allow those who impose such a construct to determine they have not changed their belief system at all to include tyranny.
Why is Obama Siding with Supporters of Terrorism? Why are atheist and non-atheists being accused of 'provoking' not only Muslim terror but counter-terror rising to meet it? This is Why.
It is irrational under a cultural 'rational' model which you would expect to contain codex to protect your own culture but the Western Democracies are not operating under such a model the political elite have decided (note there is no master plan there is only ever belief, ethics values and these become analogised within the world.) to for political pragmatic reasons as they perceive them to operate under a belief system which they call Multiculturalism. In fact they are hiding behind the label of what appears on the surface to be a noble aim for all cultures to be able to be in the same space. The trouble is the Multiculturalism definition as defined by the elite enables diametrically opposed beliefs, ethics, values into the same space.
Lincoln was clear why this could not work as is history as well as mere human psychology yet the elite persist in enabling terror and major inter-cultural schism and blame everyone else for their failure as they must.
This is not a conspiracy theory it is simply how the world as it stands works – you are being sacrificed to political pragmatism so the political elite can wash their hands and be ‘seen’ to be doing something and can blame anyone for their failure to stem the major schism with the Islamic/Muslim culture.
What does such hand washing enabling the elite to publicly deny culpability of terrorists being increasingly derived from their own political space and the terror they inform within and without that space require under a Western Construct – it requires ‘experts’ to provide the bowl and the appropriate amount of water.
Anyone who has worked in a Western Government Public Service or simply observed behavior thereof within whatever nation will understand the political imperative of the ‘expert’-‘expert body’ to provide the necessary justification, authority and blame shifting methodology inherent in any public policy decision.
I want you to understand why you are being regarded and determined as racists, bigots, suffering from a mental illness/ irrational fear Islamophobia and worse are being accused of actually ‘provoking’ not only Islam/Muslim terror but the counter-terror rising to match it.
Why you are not and never have been as described above for coming out and determining Islam is a genocide and misogynistic construct and for humanities sake the Islamic cultural codex must be removed from the Public Square.
Why it is important for the elite to have you not them defined as having a mental illness so they can reduce the severe cognitive dissonance they must necessarily suffer derived from continuing to follow a clearly failing policy paradigm.
And importantly what you have to do to at least to start to force the elite to change their current policy paradigm driven by their pathological altruism (yes it is the elite not you suffering from a mental illness).
Let us begin by reflecting:
It could have been the killer of the three Muslims crossed the line by justifying, in part a reaction against Muslims as a culture because of the terror and challenge to Western values the Muslim culture informs, it may not have been the main reason but given the potential complexity of human ‘reason’ for human behavior and the statements at the time by the murderer of the Muslims it clearly cannot be ruled out as a contributory factor altogether.
It is from my perspective an action which based upon the value schism between the West and Muslim culture and the failure of current Western policy paradigm to confront the real cause of terror the Islamic/Muslim cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) template) which from generation to generation creates the ‘Few’ from the ranks of the ‘Many’ will increasingly inform counter-terror against Muslims and the State. The State will be subject to counter-terror because the State is the reason the terror exists, the State has not only clearly failed in its duty to protect its citizenry it is actually enabling terror and major schism to intensify.
Twiddling with matrices of data, weighting with the numerous variables from across different correlations, investing in increased institutions physical security systems, diminishing relative independence in a vain attempt to avoid 'provoking', changing food types preparation, increasing secret service and terror tactical units in the military and police 2 ,3 10, 100 fold will not stop what is going to happen only possibly slow it possibly because in fact it will more than likely have the reverse effect as it fits directly into the Islamic victim paradigm - it does not therefore matter what you do unless the Islamic codex which is the cause not a correlation, a cause is removed from the Public Square.As we ‘possibly’ saw in this murder of three Muslims as action against the Muslim culture, the actions of arson against Mosques, abuse of Muslims in the streets and importantly action as in Norway against the political constructs within the West supporting Muslims access to the Public Square, which are enabling terror and pressure on the Western politic to align to Islamic norms so as to avoid ‘provoking’ Islamic/Muslim cultural violence.
‘Fear works’ as social psychological studies have found and a Danish newspaper stated as a reason for refusing to publish Charlie Hebdo after the Muslim terrorist attack in Paris, although they had previously done so.
The blaming of Other be they atheists, or anyone along the counter-Islamic/Muslim culture codex behavioral variance is if you have not noticed a part of the ‘Official program’ ‘they’ have even determined you have a mental illness – a phobia irrational fear – Islamophobia – along with being determined ‘Hate preachers’ and vile bigots. You are determined the actual cause of not only ‘provoking’ the Muslim terror itself but the counter-terror as well.
How could such an insane paradigm exist which determines the very persons opposed to genocide misogynistic constructs and what they inform as well as opposed to the counter-terror rising in an attempt to fill the void of State inaction against such constructs, are now to be regarded as the ‘cause’ of all of it?
Simple but insane yes even Kafka may have difficulty with this one.
An ‘expert body’ had to be found and a policy paradigm able to shift political blame for continuing failed outcomes. Such a political construct was required because confronting the actual cause of major schism between the West and the Islamic/Muslim culture diametrically opposed values personal, family, gender, construct of Other, differing desired political constructs was/is seen as simply not a politically wise thing to do, something to do with energy, Muslims states with possible nuclear capability or the means to quickly develop it, in situ large populations of Muslims within Western nations if justifiably held to account would, initially at least, cause a destructive uprising.
All worthy issues to considered the trouble is avoiding the ‘truth’ of diametrically opposed values existing in the same space as Lincoln rightly observed one or the other would in time take the space you would either have slaves in every State of the Union or there would be none.
So humanity in this case Western political elite needed to have firstly an ideological basis for justifying and authorizing diametrically opposed values in the same space and be able to define it as a ‘good’.
Let view the political process of development of the logic utilizing two diametrically opposed values in the US in the past of Slave and Free - of arriving at Half-Slave-Half-Free being a ‘good’ in the Public Square and by necessity having to create a cultural concept IS-Slave-Not-Slave to explain the terrible iniquitous outcomes derived from allowing the whole of the culture of ‘Slave’ within the Public Square.
The culture of Slave therefore no longer informs terrible outcomes these outcomes are slavery adherents taking the codex of slavery out of context informing Not-Slave behaviors, and as we saw in the US as well at the time opponents of slavery Abolitionists were ‘provocateur extremists’ in fact terrorists with a mental illness. Is-Slave was simply unfairly targeted by vile bigots. And any way those exhibiting Not-Slave behavior were the ‘Few’ – the ‘Few’ utilizing terrorism to promote slavery in new and existing US States. And what happened counter-terror arose to match it.
What was the ideology the Western political elite sought to utilize – it was Multiculturalism. Who can argue against such a decent construct a space where all cultures are accepted for who and what they are, each according to their codex. It is the same from the Western perspective of going against Liberty and Equality (in some areas) the sting is in the definition.
The definition of what Multiculturalism means in reality for those who support such a construct and their view of those who do not is as follows, a definition kindly donated by DrPhil.
"It is possible to have values diametrically and philosophically against yours and still not be your enemy. The point about multiculturalism is the concept of acceptance and tolerance. Most people from all cultural backgrounds want a happy and prosperous society. That is a fundamental that unites us. The difference is how to get there. We don't need a society of people who think just like you to be a happy society." DrPhil
The above is the multicultural construct we must accept or be regarded as out-group ‘not needed’ to achieve the ‘happy society’ such a construct promises.
This Multiculturalism definition statement above was stated after the two Australians died in a café Sydney Australia, after Charlie Hebdo, after Denmark, after setting persons alight (not the first time since the seventh century, crucifixions, beheading, increasing calls for an Islamic politic to replace democracies from Muslim adherents residing in Democratic space, after we are told all matrix's on the Muslim terror situation are informing a worsening situation.
In fact all data is pointing to the failure of the current Western policy paradigm to deal with Islamic diametrically opposed values to those of the West within the same space. Yet those opposing such a policy which is clearly failing are determined as getting in the way of ‘Societal happiness’ are bigots 'not needed.
The only way for multiculturalism as defined above to work (to prevent the physical being and physical property from being subject to violence) is for tyranny greater than the tyranny informed by any culture within to pervade the space. 'work' in a multicultural sense only enables survival not a flourishing life.
Multiculturalism is where liberty is redefined to the align to the highest restrictive cultural definition, as not to do so informs terror as the 'restrictive' culture seeks to survive in a space were its relatively iniquitous constructs of women in particular and of Other come face to face with a diametrically opposed 'rational' model which offers relatively greater liberty and opportunity for a flourishing life.
The point about multiculturalism is not the concept of "acceptance and tolerance" it is an acceptance of cultural intolerance the complete opposite. The rules of such a society accepting multiculturalism as a value will as we see become more restrictive to align in time with the 'restrictive' culture so as not to 'provoke' cultural violence to force acceptance of iniquity as a norm.
The fundamental which unites a society having multiculturalism as a value is not the pursuit of 'happiness' for each culture has a different 'rational' 'happiness' model which inform differing constructs political, family, community, institutions which if Other cultures were subject to would make them extremely unhappy.
The fundamental which unites a society having multiculturalism as a value is a delusion 'happiness' is possible when diametrically opposed values, behaviors, political desired constructs exist in the same space. Humans are united by what they have in common - not by diametrically opposed ethics and politic.
Multiculturalism therefore leads to the enabling or diminishing of liberty relative to the level of cultural inequity allowed into its space. You have not noticed the cultural terror and laws diminishing liberty which rise to ameliorate the terror as well as behavioral change to diminish ‘criticism’ as a method of holding each other to account in democracies? Is multiculturalism informing liberty or tyranny?
My view is it really adds to a society when cultures meld together and clearly this is possible because most cultures have ethics, values beliefs that are compatible and more importantly do not contain a genocide construct of Other and misogyny as the Islamic codex does.
My view is any culture be it secular or religious have the propensity if gaining sufficient power to do quite nasty things so I believe we have to actually re-look at our constitution to make sure to the best we can, we set definitions of Liberty and Equality which become the benchmark by which we determine if a culture can enter the Public Square or can remain in it. Because currently we have a constitutions which has allowed a culture in which enables our fellow citizens to be shot in the back of the head something needs to be changed, in my view.
Well the political elite now have the ideology and the creation of the Is-Islam Not-Islam to deflect criticism but now they needed one last political ingredient an ‘expert body’ which could attempt to justify the Not-Islam and the logic of adherents to Not-Islam being inextricably delinked from Is-Islam even though these adherents determined as radical-extremists have been and continue to be consistently since the seventh century derived from the Is-Islam space (which is really a subjective individual undefined segment of the Muslim behavioral variance reflecting back diminishingly Others own ethics and beliefs). This ‘expert body’ is the World Health Organistation WHO.
WHO are responsible for enabling terror to remain and worsen in Western streets as a direct result of their ill-conceived ‘’Harm Minimisation Violence Program.” The very citizen body claiming to be the protector of our physical and mental health.
It is another ‘Gold Standard’ WHO product that never solves a problem simply perpetuates it and has the State become the sponsor to provide the ‘necessary’ funding, drugs and programs which are never enough as the situation worsens. It is run on correlation being falsely represented as cause and the perpetrator of violence simply took too much alcohol, drug addicts and their pushers marginalized victims not responsible really for their own actions, terrorists or the radicalize extremists of cultures simply have too much time on their hands isolated individuals due to Others prejudice and understandably lash out after having been subject to ‘Hate Preacher derived from the exact same cultural codex they have whispering in their ear ‘Society/Other is to blame’ go off and justifiably murder them.
WHO along with supplying the bowls and sufficient water for the political elite - justifies and authorizes 'management' of the terror allowing even those identified by 'authority' to present a high risk of perpetrating terror to roam the streets because they are 'victims' of radicalisation process by 'hate preachers' and just need a range of tailored services such as mentoring, counselling, education and employment services to counter the Other prejudice –Isamophobia which has caused them to feel ‘isolated’ and therefore ‘understandably’ lash out against Other by murdering them in cafes, burning them in cages, committing atrocities upon women, ….
The trouble is the WHO definitions of the ‘risky’ individuals has been utilized by security services for their matrix's (not lists so they tell us) of terror risk of individuals ignoring the fact any Muslim becomes a risk once they pick up the Quran as the mental schema for carrying out atrocities against Other is in the Quran apart form the exemplar behavior of previous Muslims inclusive of Mohammed. This is why none of the Muslims involved in Sydney, Boston, Denmark, France made it to the not very nice end of the matrix or were not there at all.
AS each political entity in the hierarchy are required to justify and authorize its behavior in all political constructs. What did WHO base its policy approach upon and utilize as an excuse for its behavior – it is the following.
"There Are Two Causes of Terrorism
All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice."
Source: The Causes of Terrorism Two Causes of Terrorism By Amy Zalman, Ph.D. Global Terrorism Expert
Let us analogize this WHO/Western political elite policy paradigm as at times situated within a social context you do not fully, even at all, realise how totally dangerous and insane such a policy paradigm in fact is.
John Brown and Lincoln need to be subject to therapy and given a job in high finance to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing with the culture of Is-Slavery and even accept its existence as a ‘good’.
US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf and the World Health Organisation (WHO) determine university educated and member of a billionaire family Bin Laden simply needed education, employment opportunities and therapy to lead him away from Islamic/Muslim cultural derived terror against Other.
'To fight extremism, Franklin D. Roosevelt calls on US to embrace its Nazis.'
The Nazi SS returning to Britain, Australia, the US, ... through WWII back from throwing gas canisters into concrete bunkers, or fully intending to participate in such atrocities at home and abroad, and doing so being regarded as only needing 'understanding' and a good therapy session.
“In fact, if the extremist’s elements had prevailed. I have not the least doubt that disruption would have been more drastic and that we should have real reason by now to fear German aggression from both a military as well as political point of view.” Norman Hillson “I speak of Germany”, London 1937
“This programme identifies radicalised and at risk people and delivers a range of tailored services such as mentoring, counselling, education and employment services, that will help them turn away from ideologies of violence and hate,” King Louis XVI said”. France 1785
Nazi returning to Britain, Australia, the US, ... before WWII and the throwing of canisters into concrete bunkers and only took part in Kristallnacht were really not as much of a problem as those other terrorists.
Father of Sydney terror suspect Omar Al-Kutobi says he was lonely in Australia February 12, 2015 - by SMH Rachel Olding and Paul Bibby
Now WHO/Western Political elite will have loneliness, boredom as a prerequisite correlated cause for terror given clearly education, employment are no longer supportable assumptions and never were.
Correlation does not mean cause. Maybe a game of Monopoly a true Western construct will change their Islamic/Muslim cultural ways and show what a ‘happy life’ they can lead in a Multiculturalist society if only they would agree to abide by Others ethics errr Is-Islam ethics.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? The World Health Organisation thats WHO.